Li Thesis 2012 PDF

Copyright
by
Xue Li
2012
The Thesis Committee for Xue Li
Certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis:
A Collection of Case Studies for Verification of Reservoir Simulators
APPROVED BY
SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:
Supervisor:
Kamy Sepehrnoori
M. Hosein Kalaei
by
Xue Li, B.S.
Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science in Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin

August 2012
Dedication
To
my parents
and my friends
Acknowledgements
It is my honor to be a student in the Petroleum Engineering and Geosystem
Department at The University of Texas at Austin. I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to my supervisor Professor Kamy Sepehrnoori for his guidance, care and
understanding. I am very grateful for joining his research group and for everything I
learned from him. I really appreciate Dr. Mohammad Hosein Kalaei for his continuous
and various guidance in my research. He was helpful in providing technical instructions
and insight on UTCOMP, CMG, and valuable suggestions to this thesis. I would also like
to thank Dr. Abdoljalil Varavei for his consistent assistance with GPAS and CMG.
In addition, I am thankful for Dr. Chowdhury Mamun for his time and great help
in revising my thesis. The members of our research group were very kind and helpful in
providing suggestions to my research. I wish to thank Dr. Francisco Marcondes and
Bruno Ramon Batista Fernandes for their help on UTCOMP_IMPSAT. Thanks also go to
Luiz Otavio Schmall dos Santos for his help on GPAS_COATS. I would like to thank
Hamid Reza Lashgari and Mohsen Taghavifar for providing data for my research. I want
to extend my thank-you to Mojtaba Ghasemi Doroh, Wei Yu, Ali Moinfar, Ali Goudarzi,
and Mahdi Haddad for sharing their knowledge with me.
Finally I would like to show a deep gratitude to my parents who brought me to
this world; I really appreciate their care, support, and understanding throughout my life. I
also want to thank my Chinese friends in this department.
v
Abstract
Xue Li, M.S.E.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2012
Supervisor: Kamy Sepehrnoori
A variety of oil recovery improvement techniques has been developed and applied
to the productive life of an oil reservoir. Reservoir simulators have a definitely
established role in helping to identify the opportunity and select the most suitable
techniques to optimum improvement in reservoir productivity. This is significantly
important for those reservoirs whose operating and development costs are relatively
expensive, because numerical modeling helps simulate the increased oil productivity
process and evaluates the performance without undertaking trials in field. Moreover,
rapid development in modeling provides engineers diverse choices. Hence the need for
complete and comprehensive case studies is increasing. This study will show the different
characteristics of in-house (UTCOMP and GPAS) and commercial simulators and also
can validate implementation and development of models in the future.
The purpose of this thesis is to present a series of case studies with analytical
solutions, in addition to a series of more complicated field cases studies with no exact
solution, to verify and test the functionality and efficiency of various simulators. These
vi
case studies are performed with three reservoir simulators, including UTCOMP, GPAS,
and CMG. UTCOMP and GPAS were both developed at the Center for Petroleum and
Geosystem Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and CMG is a commercial
reservoir simulator developed by Computer Modelling Group Ltd. These simulators are
first applied to twenty case studies with exact solutions. The simulation results are
compared with exact solutions to examine the mathematical formulations and ensure the
correctness of program coding. Then, ten more complicated field-scale case studies are
performed. These case studies vary in difficulty and complexity, often featuring
heterogeneity, larger number of components and wells, and very fine gridblocks.
vii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Description of the Reservoir Simulators ........................................................... 7
2.1 UTCOMP .................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 UTCOMP IMPSAT ................................................................................................ 11
2.3 GPAS....................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 GPAS COATS ........................................................................................................ 14
2.5 CMG-GEM.............................................................................................................. 16
2.6 CMG-STARS .......................................................................................................... 17
2.7 SENSOR.................................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 3: Simulation Case Studies .................................................................................. 21
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 22
3.2.1 Case Study 1: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Horizontal

Displacement ............................................................................................................. 22
3.2.2 Case Study 2: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Vertical

Displacement ............................................................................................................. 26
3.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow ....................................... 27
3.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow....................................... 30
3.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect .................................... 34
viii
3.2.6 Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation ................... 38
3.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion ................................. 43
3.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern................................... 47
3.2.9 Case Study 9: One-dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction without

Capillary Pressure ...................................................................................................... 52
3.2.10 Case Study 10: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction with

3.2.11 Case Study 11: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in Z Directions without

3.2.12 Case Study 12: Miscible WAG Displacement with Secondary Displacements
and Low-WAG injection ........................................................................................... 60
3.2.13 Case Study 13: Miscible WAG Displacement with secondary displacements
and high-WAG injection ........................................................................................... 67
3.2.14 Case Study 14: Miscible WAG Displacement with tertiary displacements and
low-WAG injection ................................................................................................... 67
high-WAG injection .................................................................................................. 68
water-free solvent injection ....................................................................................... 68
3.2.17 Case Study 17: Dietz Displacement with miscible displacement and low-
longitudinal dispersivity ............................................................................................ 69
3.2.18 Case Study 18: Dietz Displacement with miscible displacement and high-
3.2.19 Case Study 19: Dietz Displacement with immiscible displacement and no
ix
3.2.20 Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation .............. 75
3.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding ........................................ 80
3.2.22 Case Study 22: Three-Dimensional Gas and Solvent Injection with Three
Hydrocarbon Components in Reservoir .................................................................... 83
3.2.23 Case Study 23: Three-Dimensional Gas and Solvent Injection with Six
Hydrocarbon Components in Large Reservoir .......................................................... 88
3.2.25 Case Study 25: Two-Dimensional Gas and Solvent Injection with Twenty
Hydrocarbon Components in Reservoir with Twenty Oil Components in the
Reservoir .................................................................................................................... 89
3.2.26 Case Study 26: Three-Dimensional Gas and Solvent Injection with Twenty
3.2.27 Case Study 27: Scenario Two of SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project ... 92
3.2.28 Case Study 28: Gas Injection Involving second Hydrocarbon Phase
Generation ................................................................................................................. 98
3.2.29 Case Study 29: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Production Process in a
Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir............................................................................. 103
3.2.30 Case Study 30: Waterflooding in a Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir with

800,000 Gridblock and 16 Production/Injection Wells ........................................... 107
Chapter 4: Results ........................................................................................................... 113
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 113
4.2 Comparative Results of Case Studies.................................................................... 114

Displacement ........................................................................................................... 114
x
Displacement ........................................................................................................... 115
4.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow ..................................... 116
4.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow..................................... 118
4.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect .................................. 119
4.2.6 Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation ................. 120
4.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion ............................... 122
4.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern................................. 124

Capillary Pressure .................................................................................................... 126


and Low-WAG injection ......................................................................................... 128
and high-WAG injection ......................................................................................... 129
low-WAG injection ................................................................................................. 130
high-WAG injection ................................................................................................ 131
water-free solvent injection ..................................................................................... 132
xi
longitudinal dispersivity .......................................................................................... 133
4.2.20 Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation ............ 138
4.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding ...................................... 140
Hydrocarbon Components in Reservoir .................................................................. 144
Hydrocarbon Components in Large Reservoir ........................................................ 152
4.2.27 Case Study 27: Scenario Two of SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project . 162
Generation ............................................................................................................... 166
Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir............................................................................. 169

800,000 Gridblock and 16 Production/Injection Wells ........................................... 172
xii
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................ 174
5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 174
5.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 175
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 177
Appendix: MATLAB Program for Analytical Solutions of First Twenty Case Studies in
Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................... 178
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................. 220
References ....................................................................................................................... 224
xiii
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Reservoir d fluid property for Case Study 1. ............................................................... 25
Table 3.2: Well operation conditions for Case Study 1. ............................................................... 25
Table 3.3: Relative permeability parameters for Case Study 1. ................................................... 25
Table 3.4: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 3. ........................................................... 29
Table 3.6: Well operation conditions for Case Study 3. .............................................................. 30
Table 3.7: Component Properties for Case Study 3. ..................................................................... 30
Table 3.8: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 4. ........................................................... 33
Table 3.10: Well operation conditions for Case Study 4. ............................................................. 33
Table 3.11: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 5. ......................................................... 37
Table 3.12: Relative permeability parameters for......................................................................... 37
Table 3.13: Capillary pressure parameters for Case Study 5. ....................................................... 38
Table 3.16: Relative permeability parameters for Case Study 6. ................................................. 43
Table 3.27: Capillary pressure parameters for Case Study 10. ..................................................... 58
xiv
Table 3.28: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 12. ....................................................... 66
Table 3.29: Relative permeability parameters for Case Study 12. ............................................... 66
Table 3.30: Well operation conditions for Case Study 12. ........................................................... 67
Table 3.38: Input data for Case Study 18. .................................................................................... 72
Table 3.45: Component Properties for Case Study 20. ................................................................. 80
Table 3.54: Binary coefficients for Case Study 22. ...................................................................... 84
xv
Table 3.68: Relative permeability and capillary pressure data for Case Study 27. ...................... 95
Table 3.70: Reservoir data by layers for Case Study 27. .............................................................. 96
Table 3.73: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 28. ..................................................... 100
Table 3.74: Relative permeability parameters for Case Study 28. ............................................. 100
Table 3.75: Well operation conditions for Case Study 28. ......................................................... 101
Table 3.76: Component Properties for Case Study 28. ............................................................... 101
Table 3.77: Binary coefficients for Case Study 28. .................................................................... 101
xvi
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with incompressible fluid
displacement in the x-direction. ........................................................................................ 23
Figure 3.2: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with incompressible fluid
displacement in the z-direction. ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 3.3: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with compressible fluid displacement
in the x-direction. .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.4: Schematic of two-dimensional reservoir with compressible fluid displacement.
........................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.5: Schematic of one-dimensional convection and diffusion reservoir. .............. 34
Figure 3.6: The relative permeability curve for water and oil flow of Case Study 5. ...... 38
Figure 3.7: Schematic of one-dimensional for convection and diffusion problem........... 39
Figure 3.8: Schematic of reservoir geometry for two-dimensional transverse dispersion
test. .................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.9: Schematic of one quarter of Five-spot Well Pattern. ..................................... 47
Figure 3.10: Schematic of one-dimensional waterflooding reservoir. .............................. 52
Figure 3.11: Schematic of reservoir and the well locations for one-dimensional
waterflooding in the z-direction with no capillary pressure. ............................................ 59
Figure 3.12: Schematic of miscible WAG displacement reservoir and well locations. ... 60
Figure 3.13: Fractional flow curves for water/oil and water/solvent flow. ...................... 61
Figure 3.14: Schematic of Dietz Displacement reservoir and well locations. .................. 69
Figure 3.15: Schematic of Dietz Displacement reservoir and well locations. .................. 73
Figure 3.16: Schematic of Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion numerical model for
Case Study 20. .................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3.17: Schematic of Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion analytical solution for
Case Study 20. .................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 3.18: The relative permeability curve for water and oil flow of Case Study 21. .. 82
xviii
Figure 3.19: The relative permeability curve for oil and gas flow of Case Study 21. ...... 82
Figure 3.21: The relative permeability curve for oil and gas flow of Case Study 22. ...... 85
Figure 3.22: Schematic of Reservoir and well locations for Case Study 27..................... 93
Figure 3.24: The relative permeability curve for liquid and gas flow of Case Study 27. . 97
Figure 3.25: Permeability distribution of Case Study 28. ................................................. 99
Figure 3.26: Porosity distribution of Case Study 28. ........................................................ 99
Figure 3.27: The relative permeability curve for water and oil flow of Case Study 28. 102
Figure 3.28: The relative permeability curve for liquid and gas flow of Case Study 28. 102
Figure 3.29: Permeability distribution of Case Study 29. ............................................... 104
Figure 3.30: Porosity distribution of Case Study 29. ...................................................... 104
Figure 3.31: The relative permeability curve for water and oil flow of Case Study 29. 107
Figure 3.32: The relative permeability curve for liquid and gas flow of Case Study 29. 107
Figure 3.33: Two-dimensional well locations of Case Study 30. ................................... 108
Figure 3.34: Three-dimensional well locations of Case Study 30. ................................. 109
Figure 3.35: Permeability distribution of Case Study 30. ............................................... 109
Figure 3.36: Porosity distribution of Case Study 30. ...................................................... 110
Figure 3.37: Depth of cell top distribution of Case Study 30. ........................................ 110
Figure 4. 1: Comparison of the pressure drop profile of the analytical solution with that of
the simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 1.
......................................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 4. 2: Comparison of the pressure drop profile of analytical solution with that of
UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 2. ................................... 116
Figure 4. 3: Comparison of the pressure profile of the analytical solution with that of the
simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG at tD=0.157 for Case
Study 3. ........................................................................................................................... 117
xix
Figure 4. 4: Pressure profile of the analytical solution of dimensionless pressure versus
dimensionless distance at different dimensionless time (tD = 0.1, 0.16, 0.21, 0.27, 0.33,
0.39, 0.44, 0.5, 0.56, 0.61 and 0.67) for Case Study 3. ................................................... 117
Figure 4. 5: Pressure profile of the analytical solution of real pressure versus
dimensionless distance at different real time (t=3.18, 5, 6.82, 8.63, 10.45, 12.26, 14.08,
15.89, 17.71, 19.52, 21.34 Day) for Case Study 3. ......................................................... 118
Figure 4. 6: Comparison of the pressure profile of the analytical solution with that of the
simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG at y=840ft and
t=365days for Case Study 4. ........................................................................................... 119
Figure 4. 7: Comparison of the water saturation profiles of the analytical solution with
that of the simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 5. ....................... 120
Figure 4. 8: Comparison of the dimensionless concentration profile of the analytical
solution with that of the simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS_COATS, and CMG
when peclet number is 200 at 0.5 pore volume for Case Study 6. .................................. 121
Figure 4. 9: Comparison of UTCOMP simulation result of the dimensionless
concentration profile with peclet number varying at 0.5 pore volume using third-order
TVD method for Case Study 6........................................................................................ 121
Figure 4. 10: Comparison of UTCOMP simulation result of the dimensionless
concentration profile with different dispersion control method when Peclet number is
1000 at 0.5 pore volume for Case Study 6. ..................................................................... 122
Figure 4. 11: Comparison of the normalized concentration profile of the analytical
solution with that of the simulation results of UTCOM and CMG at xD=0.2125 for
transverse dispersivity of 0.002 and longitudinal dispersivity of 0.02 for Case Study 7.
......................................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 4. 12: Comparison of the normalized concentration profile of the analytical
solution with that of the simulation results of UTCOM and CMG at xD =0.2125 for
transverse dispersivity of 0.02 and longitudinal dispersivity of 0.02 for Case Study 7. 124
xx
Figure 4. 13: Comparison of the normalized effluent tracer concentration of the analytical
solution with that of the simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 8. . 125
Figure 4. 14: Comparison of the normalized effluent tracer concentration of the analytical
solution with that of the simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for variable order of
numerical dispersion control methods. ........................................................................... 125
Figure 4. 15: Comparison of the water saturation profiles of Buckley-Leverett solution
and the simulation result of UTCOMP, GPAS and CMG at 0.2 pore volume injected
using one-point upstream weighting for Case Study 9. .................................................. 126
Figure 4. 16: Comparison of the water saturation profile of the Buckley-Levereett
solution, the Terwilliger solution, and the simulation results of UTCMOP and CMG at
0.2 pore volume injected using the third-order TVD method with TVD for Case Study 10.
......................................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 4. 17: Comparison of the water saturation profile of the Buckley-Levereet solution
and the simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG at 0.2 pore volume injected
using one-point upstream weighting for Case Study 11. ................................................ 128
Figure 4. 18: Comparison of the analytical solution with the simulation results of
UTCOMP and CMG at 0.6 pore volume injected for Case Study 12............................. 129
UTCOMP and CMG at 0.25 pore volume injected for Case Study 14........................... 131
UTCOMP and CMG at 0.25 pore volume injected for Case Study 16........................... 133
Figure 4. 23: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of UTCOMP simulation for Case
Study 17 with a ............................................................................................................... 134
xxi
Figure 4. 24: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of CMG simulation for Case Study 17
with a longitudinal dispersivity of 1 ft. ........................................................................... 134
Figure 4. 25: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of UTCOMP simulation for Case
Study 18 with a longitudinal dispersivity of 2 ft............................................................. 135
Figure 4. 26: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of CMG simulation for Case Study 18
with a longitudinal dispersivity of 2 ft. ........................................................................... 136
Figure 4. 27: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of UTCOMP simulation for Case Study
19..................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 4. 28: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of CMG simulation for Case Study 19.
......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 4. 29: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of GPAS_COATS simulation for Case
Study 19. ......................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 4. 30:Three-dimensional view of normalized concentration of analytical solution
at 2, 20, 40, 80, 100, and 150 days for Case Study 20. ................................................... 139
UTCOMP and CMG at 2 days and z=0 for Case Study 20. .......................................... 140
Figure 4. 32: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS,
GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 21. ............................................................... 141
Figure 4. 33: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT,
GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 21. ................................................... 142
Figure 4. 34: Comparison of water production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT,
GPAS, GPAS_COATS, and CMG for Case Study 21. .................................................. 142
Figure 4. 35: Comparison of time-step of UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT for Case
Study 21. ......................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 4. 36: Water saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream
weighting at 1000 days for Case Study 21...................................................................... 143
Figure 4. 37: Oil saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting
at 1000 days for Case Study 21....................................................................................... 144
xxii
Figure 4. 38: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT,
GPAS_COATS, and CMG for Case Study 22. .............................................................. 145
Figure 4. 39: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT,
Figure 4. 40: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT,
Study 22. ......................................................................................................................... 147
at 11000 days for Case Study 22..................................................................................... 147
Figure 4. 43: Gas saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream
weighting at 11000 days for Case Study 22.................................................................... 148
Figure 4. 44: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
CMG for Case Study 23. ................................................................................................. 149
Figure 4. 45: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
CMG for Case Study23. .................................................................................................. 150
Figure 4. 46: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
Study 23. ......................................................................................................................... 151
Figure 4. 50: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 24.
......................................................................................................................................... 153
Figure 4. 51: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study
24..................................................................................................................................... 153
xxiii
Figure 4. 52: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study
24..................................................................................................................................... 154
at 10000 days for Case Study 24..................................................................................... 154
weighting at 10000 days for Case Study 24.................................................................... 155
......................................................................................................................................... 156
25..................................................................................................................................... 156
25..................................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 4. 60: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
Figure 4. 61: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
Figure 4. 62: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and
Study 26. ......................................................................................................................... 161
xxiv
Figure 4. 66: Comparison of cumulative oil production of UTCOMP, CMG, and
SENSOR for Case Study 27. .......................................................................................... 163
Figure 4. 67: Comparison of cumulative oil production vs. cumulative water injection of
UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for Case Study 27. ...................................................... 164
Figure 4. 68: Comparison of producing gas-oil ratio of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR
for Case Study 27. ........................................................................................................... 164
Figure 4. 69: Comparison of producing water cut of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for
Case Study 27. ................................................................................................................ 165
Figure 4. 70: Comparison of average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP, CMG, and
SENSOR for Case Study 27. .......................................................................................... 165
Figure 4. 71: UTCOMP simulation result of second hydrocarbon phase saturation using
one-point upstream weighting at 100, 1000, 2100, 2850, 3500, and 4550 days for Case
Study 28. ......................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 4. 72: Comparison of average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP and CMG for Case
Study 28. ......................................................................................................................... 168
28..................................................................................................................................... 168
28..................................................................................................................................... 169
......................................................................................................................................... 170
29..................................................................................................................................... 170
29..................................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 4. 78: Comparison of water production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case
Study 29. ......................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 4. 79: Average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP for Case Study 30. ................... 172
xxv
Figure 4. 80: Oil production rate of UTCOMP for Case Study 30. ................................ 173
Figure 4. 81: Gas production rate of UTCOMP for Case Study 30. ............................... 173
xxvi
Chapter 1: Introduction
The life of an oil reservoir will mainly go through three stages where all kinds of
production techniques are performed to maintain the oil production rate at the maximum
possible level. These three distinct stages consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary
recovery.
During the primary recovery stage, oil is produced by a number of natural
mechanisms. These natural mechanisms range from expansion of gas in the gas-cap or
initially dissolved in the crude oil, gravity force drainage in dip reservoirs, to water-
driven process in the natural aquifer. Primary recovery typically yields a small amount of
oil recovery from the total oil capacity.
Because of the large amount of oil remaining after primary production in oil
producing reservoirs, secondary recovery mechanisms are employed. After the primary
recovery stage, the reservoir pressure decreases and there is no sufficient initial energy to
drive oil to the surface. The external energy is applied to the reservoir in the form of
injecting fluids to increase the reservoir pressure. Common secondary recovery
techniques are water flooding and sometimes gas flooding. In these two methods,
aqueous or gaseous fluid is injected at one or several points of the reservoir toward the
producers. Hence, oil is displaced from pores and driven ahead of the water/oil or gas/oil
front. Because oil is generally immiscible in water, waterflooding is incapable of
displacing oil with very high viscosity or oil trapped in the small pores because of
capillary pressure between the interface of the water and hydrocarbons. The secondary
recovery method is able to improve the reservoir productivity up to 30% of the total oil
capacity.
1
The tertiary recovery, or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), introduces methods to
increase the mobility of the residual/trapped oil by decreasing the viscosity of oil or by
decreasing the interfacial tension. EOR is achieved by injecting fluids such as miscible
gas, steam, polymer solution, and surfactant solution. Compared to primary and
secondary recoveries, the tertiary recovery enables accessing up to more than half of the
original oil reserves. Some of the common EOR processes are discussed below.
Gas injection is the most commonly used technique in the EOR. It does not only
help maintain the reservoir pressure, but also reduces oil viscosity as gas mixes with oil.
The gas used usually contains carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrocarbon gases. T he gas
injection efficiency relies on phase behavior of the injected gas and oil displaced,
reservoir temperature, and pressure. In high pressure reservoirs with light oil, for
instance, CO2 can be miscible with crude oil and improve oil recovery by dissolving,
and/or swelling in oil and reducing the oil viscosity. A large amount of injected CO2 is
produced with oil; it thus can be re-injected in a cyclic injection mode. In the case of low
pressure, CO2 may not be miscible or only be partially miscible with the oil. Other gases
instead of CO2 can be used as well, such as compressed nitrogen and hydrocarbon gases.
Chemical EOR involves mixing of various chemical agents with the injected
water (polymer, surfactant, and alkaline solution). In polymer flooding, the viscosity of
injected water is increased by added polymer. Polymer flooding aims to decrease the
mobility ratio between displacing and displaced fluid, leading to a more efficient
displacement of viscous oil. In addition to the beneficial effect of water viscosity,
surfactant/polymer (SP) flooding aids recovery by significantly lowering the interfacial
tension between aqueous and oleic phases. The trapped residual oil can be displaced
because of low interfacial tension. In alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding,
2
alkaline solution reacts with acids in crude oil to generate surfactants or pseudo-
surfactant (soap). Alkaline solution also helps impede surfactant retention on the surface
of the rock.
Thermal EOR, on the other hand, heats the reservoir oil to lower the oil viscosity,
thus making the oil easier to flow. Thermal EOR includes steam injection, hot water
injection, and in-situ combustion. In steam flooding, oil is heated to expand and
evaporate in the steam zone, causing oil viscosity reduction. In order to achieve high
efficiency in this method, steam injection has to be cyclical or continuous. In-situ
combustion or fire-flooding involves injection of air or oxygen. In addition to oil
viscosity reduction, large hydrocarbon molecules will be cracked and vaporized; lighter
hydrocarbons play the role of miscible displacement.
The purpose of this thesis is to present a series of case studies with exact
solutions, as well as a range of more complicated field case studies with no exact
solution, to test the functionality and efficiency of various simulators. For this purpose,
we use three compositional simulators to simulate the cases. These compositional
reservoir simulators include UTCOMP (Chang, 1990), GPAS (Wang et al. 1997; Wang
et al. 1999) and CMG (CMG User’s Guide, 2010). UTCOMP and GPAS were both
developed at the Center for Petroleum and Geosystem Engineering at The University of
Texas at Austin and CMG is a commercial reservoir simulator developed by Computer
Modelling Group Ltd.
UTCOMP is an isothermal, three-dimensional, equation of state (EOS)
compositional reservoir simulator with IMPES (implicit pressure and explicit phase
saturations and compositions) formulation. It is capable of simulating a variety of
important enhanced oil recovery processes, such as immiscible and miscible gas flooding.
3
GPAS is a t hree-dimensional multicomponent, multiphase, fully implicit compositional
simulator. It includes a cubic equation-of-state model for the hydrocarbon phase
behavior. The hydrocarbon phase behavior is calculated by the Peng-Robinson Equation
of State (PRES). Most of the runs are performed using CMG’s advanced general EOS
compositional modules called GEM. GEM was developed to simulate compositional
effects of reservoir fluid for the treatment of primary, secondary, and enhanced oil
recovery processes. The rest of runs are made with CMG’s new generation advanced
processes reservoir modules called STARS. This was designed to simulate thermal flood
injection and combustion, as well as many types of chemical additive processes. Some of
the applications include chemical/polymer flooding, and steam injection.
This thesis presents a total of thirty case studies. These cases vary from small size
homogeneous reservoirs to highly heterogeneous large size reservoirs. In Chapter 2, we
introduce the simulators that are used in the case studies. These simulators, as mentioned
earlier, are UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG. Compositional simulation modules use Peng-
Robinson EOS for phase equilibrium calculations. Description of the problems is given in
Chapter 3. T he first twenty case studies provide the exact analytical solution and
numerical simulation solution. MATLAB codes for analytical solutions are available in
Appendix A. The exact solutions have attempted not only to highlight different aspects of
these simulators, but also provide a step to validate two reservoir simulators, UTCOMP
and GPAS. The remaining ten case studies include complicated field scenarios with
simulation results. All relevant variables for each case have been well defined. Tables of
input data and detailed mathematical equations for the analytical solution, as well as the
process of simulation, are provided. The simulation cases for testing include first-contact
miscible displacement, water flooding, and multi-contact miscible gas displacement in
4
one, two, and three dimensions. Chapter 4 s hows the simulations and some analytical
solutions for the case studies described in Chapter 3. Differences in these results are
discussed. Discussion of results for each case study involves comparison of simulation
results and comparison between analytical and simulation results. Comparison of
simulation results shows different characteristics, performances, and application
categories among various reservoir simulators. This comparison can also be helpful in the
development of new models and in optimizing the performance of exiting reservoir
simulators. A summary of results, conclusions, and some recommendations for the future
work is presented in Chapter 5.
Having introduced the research project, it is crucial to mention why this project is
important, so to speak. First, this project deals with two kinds of problems: one kind
whose analytical solution is known and thus given; the other kind whose analytical
solution, far from known, cannot perhaps ever be known, other than solution by
numerical simulation means. Hence, the first kind offers readers, researchers, and
practitioners embarked on de veloping new simulators or adding innovations and
improvements into existing ones the opportunity to test and verify new models whose
exact solutions are already provided or can be obtained via dimensionless analysis or
lumping of relevant parameters. (Analogy is that of solving mass and momentum
transport problems via exact forms and solutions of heat diffusion problems.) In this
framework, this research obviously is of immense help and potential.
The second kind of problems undoubtedly is more complex, elaborate, and thus
time-consuming. Such problems enable us to probe further the varied features (say, flash
computations), governing physics, numerical demands of size and numerical schemes,
and processes (say, different stages of enhanced oil recovery), otherwise not amenable to
5
or possible with other simulators. This at the same time opens the window to our in-house
simulators: UTCOMP and GPAS, particularly in regard to what capabilities and
innovations are already present or being pursued at the backdrop limitations of various
other simulators. In this regard, this thesis has both lofty objective and purpose.
Second, regardless of type of problems studied and whether analytical solutions
available or not, an essential ingredient of reservoir studies and enhanced oil recovery
processes is envisioning what can be studied with present or future resources. For
example, with all analytical solutions at hand, can we imagine new processes or features
fitting the analytical frameworks? In other words, can we visualize new processes where
a few parameters will change or be added and still maintain similar nature of governing
equations? We may essentially perturb solution or process and still employ similar
analytical solutions. Almost the same spirit imbues problems whose analytical solutions
are currently elusive but their numerical solutions are possible. Take for instance, in
certain enhanced oil recovery studies more than five hydrocarbon or non-hydrocarbon
phases may be envisioned; can we study such eventualities? Yes, all UTCOMP has to do
is enlarge its repertoire of flash calculations and calculation schemes (using a “reduced
set” of canonical variables, for example). Thus, both kinds of problems provide a
framework to envision future strides.
6
Chapter 2: Description of the Reservoir Simulators
In this chapter a bref description of the simulators used in this study is presented.
2.1 UTCOMP
UTCOMP, developed at the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering in
The University of Texas at Austin, is an isothermal, three-dimensional, equation-of-state,
implicit pressure and explicit phase saturations and compositions (IMPES),
compositional reservoir simulator capable of addressing a v ariety of enhanced oil
recovery processes, such as immiscible and miscible gas flooding.
The formulation is based on the volume-balanced approach (Acs et al. 1985) with
some modifications. A detailed description of the UTCOMP can be found in the work of
Chang (1990). The solution of UTCOMP is analogous to IMPES (the grid block pressure
is solved implicitly whereas the component mole rather than phase saturation is
calculated explicitly). UTCOMP can model up to four-phase flow behavior. They are
aqueous phase, an oleic phase, a gaseous phase, and a second nonaqeous liquid phase.
The aqueous phase is entirely water and hydrocarbon components can be soluble in the
aqueous phase. The hydrocarbon phase behavior is modeled using both the Peng-
Robinson (PR) EOS (Peng and Robinson 1976) and a modified version of the Redlich-
Kwong (RK) EOS (Turek et al. 1984). A volume-shift parameter option, based on t he
work of Jhaveri and Youngren (1988), is designed to adjust hydrocarbon-phase density
calculations. UTCOMP is capable of modeling tracers, surfactant, foam, and polymer
effects.
UTCOMP includes a number of advanced features as following:
7
• Rigorous and simplified flash calculations (including three-phase flash-
calculation capability)
• K-value option for phase-behavior calculations
• Higher-order total variation diminishing (TVD) finite-difference method
• Full physical-dispersion tensor including molecular diffusion
• Variable-width cross-section option (similar to radial coordinate)
• Vertical or horizontal well
• Tracer-flood capability
• Polymer-flood capability
• Dilute-surfactant option
• Gas-foam-flood capability
• Asphaltene precipitation model
• CO2 sequestration in aquifers
A third-order finite-difference method is employed by UTCOMP to reduce
numerical dispersion and for grid orientation control (Chang et al., 1990). Two versions
of this third-order method have been implemented so that cell Peclet numbers of at least
1000 can be used without oscillations. The stability and accuracy of this third-order
scheme have been dramatically improved by adding a flux limiter that constitutes the
method of total variation diminishing (TVD) and the changing the time integration from
first-order to a higher-order correct method (Liu et al., 1994). Physical dispersion is
simulated using the full dispersion tensor, and the elements of the dispersion tensor
emerge from molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion.
8
Relative permeability, interfacial tension, and capillary pressure are included. The
relative permeability and capillary pressure can be dependent on interfacial tension,
through the concept of capillary number. The interfacial tension between hydrocarbon
phases is computed using the MacLeod-Sugden correlation (Reid et al., 1977). Water
viscosity is constant and hydrocarbon viscosity is calculated using the Lohrenz, et al.
(1964) correlation.
Equation (2.1) describes component mole balance
∂N i   np  
Vb − Vb ∇ ⋅  ∑ ξ j λ j xij ( ∇Pj − γ j ∇D ) + φξ j S j K ij ∇xij =
 − qi 0=
for i 1, 2, , nc . (2.1)
∂t  j =1 
Phase-Equilibrium Relationship
After solving the conservation equations for component moles in a gridblock, the
phase-equilibrium calculations are required to calculate the number, amounts, and
composition of all equilibrium phases. The equilibrium solution must be checked with
three kinds of constraints, molar-balance constraint, chemical potentials, and Gibbs free
energy. The chemical potential for each component must be the same in all phases and
the total Gibbs free energy must be minimum at constant temperature and pressure.
Equation (2.2) defines equality of component fugacities among all phases, which come
from the derivative of the total Gibbs free energy with respect to the independent
variables.
fi j − fi=r 0 ( =i 1,2, , nc ; =j 1,2, , n p − 1) . (2.2)
The phase composition constraint is the following:
9
nc
∑ x=
−1
i =1
ij 0 =
( j 1, 2, , n p ) . (2.3)
Equation (2.4) is used to calculate the phase mole fractions of two hydrocarbon phases
and is implicitly used in the solution of the fugacity equation, Equation (2.2),
nc
zi ( K i − 1)
∑1+ v(K
i =1 − 1)
= 0, (2.4)
i
where v is the ratio of moles of gas to total moles.
Volume Constraint
The volume constraint states that the total fluid volumes fully occupy the pore
volume in each of the cells:

nc np
∑ Ni ∑ L j v j − Vp =
=i 1 =j 1
0, (2.5)
where L j is a ratio of moles in phase j to the total number of moles in the mixture, v j is
the molar volume of phase j , and v p is the pore volume of a grid block.
Pressure Equation
The grid block pressure equation is solved implicitly and it satisfies the condition
that the pore volume should be filled completely by the total fluid volume

Vt ( P, N ) = V p ( P) , (2.6)
where the fluid is assumed to be a function of pressure and total number of moles of each
component and the pore volume are related to pressure only.

10
We differentiate both volumes with respect to time and use the chain rule to expand both
terms with respect to their independent variables. After rearrangement and substitution of
Equation (2.2) into the resultant equations, it gives the following final expression for
pressure equation at a s pecified time t under the assumption of slightly compressible
formation:
 0 ∂Vt
  ∂P  nc +1  n p 
  ∂t  − Vb ∑ Vti ∇ • ∑ k λrj ξ j xij ∇P
 V p c f − ∂P
  =  i 1 =j 1
. (2.7)
nc +1  n p  nc +1  np  nc +1
= Vb ∑ Vti ∇ • ∑ k λrj ξ j xij ( ∇Pc 2 j − γ j ∇D ) + Vb ∑ Vti ∇ • ∑ φξ j S j K ∇xij + ∑ Vti qi
=i 1 =j 1 =i 1 =j 1 =i 1
2.2 UTCOMP IMPSAT
Watts’ (1986) formulation method was implemented into the UTCOMP simulator
as an alternative approach to the existing solution scheme based on Acs et al.’s (1985)
formulation. The purpose for this implementation was to improve the computational
efficiency of UTCOMP simulator by using a more stable formulation by allowing
UTCOMP to employ larger time steps in simulations. Unlike Acs et al. using an implicit
pressure/explicit concentration (IMPEC) approach (Acs et al. is formulated), Watts
constructed the formulation on the basis of an implicit pressure/implicit saturation
(IMSAT) scheme. The phase velocities and the mass balance equations for components
are determined from calculated pressure and saturations. A new saturation equation is
solved implicitly only for the IMPSAT formulation. The following equation is the final
saturation equation in terms of total velocity:
11
∂  ∂V  ∂P
∂t
( SV p ) =   
 ∂P  N ∂t
    . (2.8)
N c +1  Np   Np  qk 
+ Vb ∑ Vk  ∑ xkjξ j ∇ ⋅ f j (vt + ∑ λm K ( g ρ j ∇D − g ρ m∇D − ∇Pcmo + ∇Pcjo )) + 
 =m 1  V
=

k 1=j 1 b 
2.3 GPAS
General Purpose Adaptive Simulator (GPAS) is a fully implicit, three
dimensional, multiphase, and multicomponent compositional simulator developed at the
Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering in The University of Texas at Austin.
GPAS has an additional capability of parallel processing and is extended to model
chemical oil recovery processes, which allows much larger-scale simulation. More detail
can be obtained from the work of Wang et al. (1997, 1999)
EOS Compositional Model
Phase behavior of oleic phase is determined fully implicitly from the Peng-
Robinson EOS. Physical properties of hydrocarbons are calculated based on t heir
compositions; physical properties of water are dependent on chemical species present and
these properties are calculated separately. The mass balance equation can be expressed in
terms of moles per unit time for a hydrocarbon component i:
∂  n p kk  
Vb
∂t j =2 µ j
( )
(ϕ Ni ) − Vb ∇ ⋅ ∑ rj ξ j xij ∇Pj − γ j ∇D − qi = 0 , (2.9)
where Ni is the number of moles of component i per pore volume and is defined by
np
N i = ∑ ξ j S j xij . (2.10)
j =2
For the water phase, there is an additional material balance equation as following:
12
∂  kk  
Vb
∂t µw
( )
(ϕ N w ) − Vb ∇ ⋅ rw ξ w ∇ pw − γ w ∇D − qw = 0 . (2.11)
The equality of component fugacities constraint is as follows:
0 .
fi o − fi g = (2.12)
Mole fraction constraints:

nc
∑ xij 0=
=
i =1
for j 2...n p . (2.13)
Volume constraint is defined by
Nw No Ng
+ + − 1 =0 or So + S g + S w − 1 =0 . (2.14)
ξw ξo ξg
Number of hydrocarbon phases and their compositions can be determined from the EOS.
With one-point upstream weighting method for the transmissibility terms, the mass-
balance, Equation (2.9), is discretized in a fully implicit approximation. This results a
system of nonlinear equations that must be solved iteratively. Newton’s method is used to
solve the nonlinear equations using an approximated set of linear equations. The linear
equations underscore the Jacobian matrix generated. Elements of the Jacobia matrix are
the derivatives of the governing equations with respect to the independent variables.
Phase equilibrium is used to update the number, the amounts, and the compositions of the
phases in equilibrium. Newton’s method is used for above calculations that are repeated
until residual tolerances meet the convergence criteria.
Computational Framework
13
In order to handle the simulation task with parallel processing, GPAS runs under
the framework called Integrated Parallel Accurate Reservoir Simulator (IPARS)
(Parashar et al., 1997). The framework supports three-dimensional, multiphase,
multispecies plus an immobile solid rock phase with adsorbing components and separates
the physical model development from parallel processing, solvers, and other auxiliary
functions. The IPARS framework handles many tasks including input/output to solvers,
message passing between processors, memory allocation, and parallel computation. The
primary source of the solvers used in the framework comes from the software package
called PETSc (Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation).
Chemical Model
The chemical module has been successfully implemented in GPAS with chemical
species such as tracers, polymer, surfactant, and electrolytes, which occupy negligible
volume and do not affect the EOS model governing equations. The microemulsion phase
(the surfactant-rich aqueous phase) with the presence of oil is considered a pseudo-
component with the same composition as the oil phase in the EOS model. Volumetric
concentrations of surfactant, oil, and water are used as coordinates on a ternary diagram
and the phase behavior is based on W insor, 1954; Reed and Healy, 1977; Nelson and
Pope, 1978; Prouvost et al., 1985; and Camilleri et al., 1987. Although salinity, alcohol,
and divalent cations affect the microemulsion phase behavior significantly, GPAS models
the phase behavior as tough dependent on salinity only.
2.4 GPAS COATS
Coats’ (1980) formulation is an implicit, three-dimensional, three-phase flow
compositional simulation model under viscous, gravity, as well as capillary forces. The
14
purpose for the implementation of the coats’ formulation in GPAS is to enhance the
efficiency as well as the robustness of most numerical compositional modeling problems.
Coats approach is capable of providing consistent and smoother hydrocarbon
compositions and properties at near a critical point. Their applications range from
depletion or cycling of volatile oil and gas condensate to MCM process. Coats’ model
uses Soave-Redlich-Kwong (1972) and Peng-Robinson (1976) equation of state for phase
equilibrium and property calculations (hydrocarbon densities, fugacities, and K-values).
Hydrocarbon viscosities are determined from the Lohrenz et al. (1964) correlation;
relative permeability and capillary pressure are dependent on saturations.
Assumptions in Coats’ formulation are instantaneous equilibrium between gas
and oil phases in any grid block and mutual insolubility of water and hydrocarbon
components. While diffusion is neglected in the original publication, in the GPAS
implementation, it is added to guarantee reliability when miscible processes are modeled.
There are Nc+1 mass balances for Nc hydrocarbon components (Equation (2.9))
and water (Equation (2.11)) associated with the constraint equations (Equation (2.12)
through Equation (2.14)). Coats (1980) chose the following unknown quanlities as
primary variables, pressure (p), saturations of oil and gas (So and Sg), and Nc-2 mole
fractions of the gas phase (yi for i=3…Nc). The unknowns require a simultaneous solution
of Nc+1 material balance equations for each grid block in a fully implicit manner. Like
Fussell and Fussel (1979), Coats’ formulation checks the stability of each single-phase
grid block by comparing the calculated grid block pressure with the fluid saturation
pressure. If the grid block pressure is equal or smaller than the saturation pressure, the
grid block changes from one to two hydrocarbon phases. This method is proven to be not
robust for many situations, such as above the cricondentherm, or close to the critical
15
point. On account of this, in GPAS, we use Michelsen’s tangent plane procedure
(Michelsen, 1982).
2.5 CMG-GEM
GEM (GEM user’s Guide, 2010) is CMG's advanced general equation-of-state
compositional simulator. GEM is capable of compositional simulations of a variety of
large and difficult problems using state-of-the-art algorithms and computers for several
improved oil recovery processes. The main features of GEM include dual porosity, CO2,
miscible gases, volatile oil, gas condensate, horizontal wells, well management, and
complex phase behavior.
Some of the main features of GEM are listed in the following
• Formulations
• Three options are provided for time stepping: IMPES, fully implicit, and adaptive
modes.
• Properties
• Phase equilibrium compositions and densities of hydrocarbon phases are
evaluated using either the Peng-Robinson or the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation
of state.
• Complex reservoirs
• Many types of grids can be used to describe the reservoir, such as Cartesian,
Cylindrical, refined grids of both Cartesian and Hybrid type, variable
thickness/variable depth type, as well as corner point type, either with or without
user-controlled Faulting.
16
• Geomechanical model
• In some simulation process, the producing formation is sensitive and dynamical to
changes in applied stresses. This phenomenon will be considered in the
geomechanical model, such as plastic deformation, shear dilatancy, and
compaction drive in cyclic injection/production strategies, injection induced
fracturing, as well as near-well formation failure and sand co-production.
• Well
• A comprehensive well control facility and an extensive list of constraints are
available.
• Matrix solution method
• AIMSOL provides GEM a state-of-the art linear solution routine based on
incomplete Gaussian Elimination to generalized minimal residual (GMRES)
iteration and preconditioners such as adaptive implicit Jacobian matrices.
2.6 CMG-STARS
STARS (STARS user’s Guide, 2011) is CMG's new generation advanced process
equation-of-state compositional reservoir simulator which was developed to simulate
steam flood, steam cycling, steam-with-additives, dry and wet combustion, along with
many types of chemical additive processes, using a wide range of grid and porosity
models in both field and laboratory scales. The applications in STARS include
chemical/polymer flooding, thermal applications, steam injection, horizontal wells, dual
porosity/permeability, directional permeabilities, flexible grids and fireflood.
Some of the novel features of STARS are the following:
17
• Dispersed component including foam
• The concept of dispersed components provides a unifying point of view in
modeling of polymers, gels, fines, emulsions, and foam.
• Adaptive implicit formulation
• STARS can be run in either fully implicit or adaptive implicit formulations.
• Discretized wellbore
• STARS discretize wellbore flow and solve the resulting coupled
wellbore/reservoir flow to handle the problem from the horizontal well
technology.
• Fully implicit wells
• In order to avoid convergence problems for wells with multiple completions in
highly stratified reservoir, block variables are solved fully implicit for the blocks
where the well is completed.
• Aquifer models
• Geomechanical model
• Matrix solution method
• Local cartesian
• Flexible grid system
• Naturally fractured reservoirs
2.7 SENSOR
SENSOR (SENSOR manual, 2011) which stands for System for Efficient
Numerical Simulation of Oil Recovery, is a three-dimensional reservoir simulator
designed to optimize and predict oil and gas recovery processes via simulation of
compositional and black-oil fluid flow in single porosity, dual porosity, and dual
18
permeability petroleum reservoirs. SENSOR offers IMPES and IMPLICIT formulations.
Its three linear solvers are reduced bandwidth direct, Orthomin preconditioned by Nested
Factorization, and Orthomin preconditioned by ILU with red-black and residual
constraint options. Sensor utilizes Peng-Robinson and Soave-Redlich-Kwong EOS to
calculate fluid properties with optional shift actors.
The main applications available in SENSOR can be summarized as follows:
• Three kinds of grid type can be used: first is conventional, seven point orthogonal
Cartesian grid; second is cylindrical coordinate system; third is any grid (eg.
Corner-point, refined, unstructured, or hybrid).
• Black oil PVT
• Compositional PVT
• Multiple reservoirs and multiple PVT
• Relative permeability and capillary pressure treatment
• Compaction
• Initialization (Equilibration)
• Dual porosity systems for fractured reservoirs
• Coal bed methane
• Implicit well treatment
• Platforms (Gathering Centers)
• Tracers
• Regions
• Stable step logic
19
• Dynamic dimensioning
• Active-block storage and CPU
20
Chapter 3: Simulation Case Studies
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to offer verification of the mathematical
formulations, such as pressure equation, boundary conditions, volume derivatives in the
pressure equation, and physical property models in various reservoir simulators. In
addition, case studies stated in this chapter are necessary to test the characteristic and
capability of the simulators. This chapter presents the description of thirty case studies,
including problem statement, simulation process, equations used in analytical solution,
calculations for numerical simulation input data, input data for numerical simulation, and
the schematic of reservoir and well locations. There are twenty case studies with exact
analytical solutions. These case studies are one-dimensional incompressible and
compressible flows, capillary end-effects, one-dimensional and two-dimensional
convection-diffusion equations, transverse dispersion flow, five-spot well pattern tracer
injection, one-dimensional waterflooding with and without capillary pressure, miscible
WAG displacements, and Dietz displacement (miscible and immiscible). Some of these
validation problems are taken from Chang’s dissertation (1990), but they are run with
different methods, in terms of both analytical solution and simulation using different
simulators. Simulation results are of course compared with the exact solutions, which are
important for checking mathematical equations and codings in the simulators. When
single phase, we actually do not require relative permeability data; however, all
simulators -UTCOMP, CMG, and GPAS- need relative permeability information to
process the input files. Relative permeability curves (or functions) must be provided, in
order for the simulation to be carried out. The rest of case studies are more complicated
field studies, varying from homogeneous reservoir with coarse grid blocks to a highly
21
heterogeneous reservoir with 800,000 grid blocks. Field cases that we mentioned include
three dimensional waterfloding, three dimensional gas and solvent injection (three, six,
and twenty hydrocarbon components), SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project (Killough
and Kossack, 1987), gas injection involving second hydrocarbon phase generation,
complex recovery processes in a highly heterogeneous reservoir (primary, secondary, and
tertiary), waterflooing in a highly heterogeneous reservoir with 800,000 gridblocks and
16 production/injection wells. These case studies are important for testing the
compositional and three-dimensional capability, phase behavior calculations as in three-
phase flash calculation (gas, oil, second nonaqueous liquid) capability, EOR processes,
and heterogeneity properties. Simulation results from different simulators are compared,
to study different characteristics of varied numerical reservoir simulators. Result of
variable simulation solutions and analytical solutions are presented in Chapter 4.
Analytical solutions for the validation of case studies by MATLAB are available in
Appendix.
3.2 Case Studies
In the following sections, all case studies are described.

Displacement
This case study is made to establish the validity of one-dimensional,
incompressible single-phase flow with Darcy’s law for a one-dimensional reservoir with
a length of 2 ft and a cross-sectional area of 0.01 ft2. Absolute permeability is 500 md and
porosity is 0.2. Reservoir and fluid property data are shown in Table 3.1. Well operation
conditions are given in Table 3.2. The initial pressure of this reservoir is 2000 psi. The
schematic of reservoir and well locations are shown in Figure 3.1.

22
Figure 3.1: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with incompressible fluid displacement in the x-
direction.
There is a production well at the right edge of the reservoir. The production well
is produced at a constant bottom-hole pressure of 2000 psi. There is an injector at the left
edge of the reservoir where a single-phase fluid with a density of 44.7 lb/ft3 and a
viscosity of 0.249 cp is injected at a rate of 0.04 ft3/day. In order to reach the purpose of
fluid injection, the property of this fluid is imposed on w ater. Water viscosity, mass
density, and molar density are set for 0.249 cp, 44.7 lb/ft3, and 2.4833 lb-mole/ft3,
respectively. In this case study, we use Corey’s model (Corey, 1986) for generation of
water/oil relative permeability data as presented in the following:
water:
°
krw = krw ( S ) nw , (3.1)
oil:
kro kro° (1 − S ) no ,
= (3.2)
where,
S −S
S = w wr , (3.3)
1 − Sor − S wr
where k°rw and k°ro are water and oil end point relative permeability, respectively. S is
normalized water saturation. Also nw is water relative permeability exponent while no is
oil relative permeability exponent. Relative permeability parameters for Corey’s
correlation are given in Table 3.3. Water is the only fluid in the reservoir during the
simulation process (i.e. the initial water saturation is 100%); therefore, the effect of
23
relative permeability is negligible. Darcy’s law, which is Equation (3.4), is used to
calculate the pressure gradient for this case study. This case is a s teady-state process
(time independent).
Darcy’s law is given by

kA dP
Q = −1.1271 , (3.4)
µ dl
where,
Q: injection flow rate, bbl/D
l: distance in the direction of flow, ft
µ: viscosity, cp
k: absolute permeability, Darcy
A: cross sectional area of flow path, ft2

P: fluid pressure, psi
24
Table 3.1: Reservoir and fluid property for Case Study 1.
Grid blocks dimension in x, y, and z directions 100×1×1
Length (ft) 2
Width (ft) 0.1
Thickness (ft) 0.1
Porosity (fraction) 0.2
Rock compressibility (psi-1) 0.0
Reservoir temperature (◦F) 60
Permeability in x-direction (md) 500
Permeability in y-direction (md) 500
Permeability in z-direction (md) 500
Water viscosity (cp) 0.249
Water density (lb/ft )
3
44.7
Water compressibility (psi ) -1
0.0
Initial water saturation (fraction) 1.0
Initial reservoir pressure (psi) 2000
Table 3.2: Well operation conditions for Case Study 1.

Fluid injection rate (ft3/day) 0.04
Production well bottom-hole
2000
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (Day) 0.01
Table 3.3: Relative permeability parameters for Case Study 1.

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
1 0.9
relative permeability
Relative permeability
1 2
Exponent
Residual saturation 0.3 0.1
25
Displacement
This case study is used to test the gravity term in the flow equation. This case has
the same fluid and reservoir properties as case study 1. The only difference is that the
reservoir is built in a vertical mode. Hence, the grid block dimension is 1×1×100. The
fluid is injected from the top of the reservoir. The schematic of reservoir and well
locations are shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with incompressible fluid displacement in the z-
direction.
The analytical solution is computed for a vertical injector with the same reservoir
and fluid property as case study 1. Because the fluid is under the effect of gravity, a
gravity term is added to Equation (3.4), which consequently becomes Equation (3.5).
This is a steady-state case study.
Darcy’s law for inclined flow is as following

kA dP dz
Q= −1.1271 ( ± 0.433γ ) , (3.5)
µ dl dl
26
where,
z: distance in the vertical direction, ft
γ: specific gravity of the fluid, dimensionless
l: distance in the direction of flow, ft
0.433: pressure gradient of water, psi/ft
Since injection is performed from the top of the reservoir, we can simplify Equation (3.5)
to
kA dP
−1.1271 ( + 0.433γ ) .
Q= (3.6)
µ dl
3.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow
This case study is generated to validate the conservation equation for the linear
flow of a single-phase slightly compressible fluid in a homogeneous and isotropic porous
medium. For a one-dimensional compressible flow, reservoir and fluid property data are
listed in Table 3.4; relative permeability data are shown in Table 3.5; well operation
conditions are shown in Table 3.6; and component properties are given in Table 3.7. The
reservoir is divided into 100 grid blocks. There is one production well at the left edge of
reservoir, which is shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Schematic of one-dimensional reservoir with compressible fluid displacement in the x-
direction.
27
The well constraint is constant well bottom-hole pressure of 1900 psi. Corey’s
model for generation of water/oil relative permeability data is used. Relative permeability
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.5. There is one fluid flow in the
simulation process; so the effect of relative permeability is negligible. The pressure
profile of analytical and simulation solutions are compared at 0.157 dimensionless days
(5 days).
Conservation equation is used to calculate one-dimensional flow of a single-phase
slightly compressible fluid in a homogeneous and isotropic porous medium (Ahmed,
2006):
∂ 2 P φµ ct ∂P
∇ 2 P= 2 = , (3.7)
∂x k ∂t
where ct is total compressibility and x represents distance.
The analytical solution for Equation (3.7) is

∞
2
P= ( x , t ) ∑ exp ( −γ n2t D ) sin(γ n xD ) , (3.8)
D D D
γ
n =1 n
where,
P − Pe
PD = , (3.9)
Pi − Pe
x
x D = , (3.10)
L
kt
t D = , (3.11)
φµ ct L2
1
γn
= (2n − 1)π . (3.12)
2
for the boundary conditions of

P ( x, 0 ) =Pi → PD =1 (3.13)
28
P ( 0, t ) = Pe → PD =0 . (3.14)

Length (ft) 2000
Width (ft) 10
Thickness (ft) 10
Rock compressibility (psi-1) 5×10-4
Water density (lb/ft )
3
62.4
0.0
Fluid compressibility (psi-1) 1.04×10-5
Fluid viscosity (cp) 0.249
Residual water saturation 0.2
Reservoir fluid initial composition
n-C10H22 1.0
(mole fraction)

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.4 1.0
3.0 2.0
Exponent
29
1900
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (Day) 5
Table 3.7: Component Properties for Case Study 3.

Component Pci (psi) Tci ( ◦R) Vci (ft3 /lb-mole) ωi Wti (lb/lb-mole)
n-C10H22 306.0 1114.7 9.66 0.4890 142.276
3.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow
This case study is used to model the pressure distribution in a rectangular
compressible reservoir. The reservoir is assumed to be homogeneous with no-flow
boundaries. The schematic of reservoir and well location are shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Schematic of two-dimensional reservoir with compressible fluid displacement.
An injection well is located at the center of this rectangular porous medium with
25×25×1 grid dimension. The fluid properties of this case are the same as those in case
study 3. In UTCOMP simulation, an oil component, n-C10H22, is directly injected into the
reservoir. While in the simulation of GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG, in order to
accomplish the oil injection, the property of injected fluid (density, viscosity and fluid
compressibility) is imposed on water. Water mass density is the same as that of the oil
30
component (n-C10H22) in the reservoir condition, water viscosity is 0.249 cp, and water
compressibility is 1.04×10-5 psi-1. Water is the only movable fluid in the simulation
process, so the initial water saturation in the input file of GPAS, GPAS_COATS and
CMG is 100%. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table 3.8; relative
permeability parameters for Corey’s correlation in Table 3.9; and, well operation
conditions in Table 3.10. The pressure profile of analytical and simulation solutions are
plotted at 365 days (0.0038 pore volume) and yD equaling 0.42 (y=840 ft).
The linear partial differential equation represented the pressure distribution for
this case study is shown as Equation (3.15) (Hovanessian, 1961). There is a single source
or sink flow with a rate of Q. The relevant parameters are marked in Figure 3.4.
∂2 P ∂2 P ∂P
2
+ 2 =, α + β Q (l q ) , (3.15)
∂x ∂y ∂t
where,
φ ct µ
α = 157.952 ,
k
Bµ
β = 886.905 o ,
k
x, y: space coordinates, ft
1, q: location of source or sink, ft
P: pressure at (x, y), psi
ϕ: porosity, fraction
ct: total compressibility of fluids and rock structure, psi-1

µ: viscosity, cp
k: permeability, md
t: time, day
31
Bo: oil formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/STB
Q: specific production (+) or injection (-) rate, STB/D-ft of thickness
The solution of Equation (3.15) is applied to the no-flow boundary condition and
to an initial constant pressure distribution of Pi. Equation (3.16) can be used to determine
the pressure for any specified location at any given time except at the location of the line
source (where it diverges to infinity)

t ∞
1   π 2  m2    mπ l mπ x 
 + 2∑ 2 2 2 1 − exp  −  2  t   cos cos 
 α m=1 π ( m / a )   α  a    a a 
 
β Q ∞ 1   π 2  n2    nπ q nπ y  , (3.16)
P ( x, y, t ) =−
Pi  +2∑ 2 2 2 1 − exp  −  2  t   cos cos 
a b  n=1 π ( n / b )   α  b    b b 
 ∞ ∞ 
 +4 1   π 2  m2 n2    mπ l nπ q mπ x nπ y 
 ∑ ∑ 2 2 2 2 2 1 − exp − α  a2 + b2  t   cos a cos b cos a cos b 
 n=1 m=1 π ( m / a + n / b )       
where,
Pi: uniform initial pressure distribution, psi

m, n : summation indices, integers
a, b : dimensions of the rectangular section, ft
32
Length (ft) 2000
Width (ft) 2000
Thickness (ft) 1
Permeability in x-direction (md) 1.5
Permeability in y-direction (md) 1.5
Permeability in z-direction (md) 1.5
Initial water saturation 0.2
Residual water saturation 0.2
Water compressibility (psi-1) 0.0
Fluid compressibility (psi-1) 1.04×10-5
Reservoir fluid initial
composition n-C10H22 1.0
(mole fraction)

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.4 1.0
3.0 2.0
Exponent

Total injection rate (ft3/day) 8.3
2000
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (D) 365
33
3.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect
This case study is established to validate modeling of outflow boundary condition
in the simulators. Capillary-end effect is caused by the discontinuity of the phase pressure
across the boundary. Capillary pressure suddenly changes from a finite value in the core
to a value close to zero outside the core. The saturation of the wetting phase must
increase to the value corresponding to zero capillary pressure. This causes a w etting
saturation gradient near the end of the core (Willhite, 1986). In this case study, there is a
one-dimensional reservoir which is shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: Schematic of one-dimensional convection and diffusion reservoir.
We examine the saturation distribution caused by the capillary-end effect. The
finite-difference solution of the nonlinear partial differential equation induces the
truncation error which can smear an otherwise sharp saturation front as if additional
physical dispersion is present. The smearing of front, caused by truncating Taylor's
series, is called numerical dispersion. In order to minimize the numerical dispersion, a
third-order total variation diminishing (TVD) finite-difference method was introduced
(Liu et al., 1994). This method is used in UTCOMP while one-point upstream weighting
scheme is used in CMG_STARS. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table
3.11. Figure 3.6 depicts the relative permeability curve. Corey’s correlation is selected to
calculate relative permeability with parameters given in Table 3.12. Capillary pressure
parameters are given in Table 3.13. And Table 3.14 contains well operation conditions.
The analytical solution of the saturation profile along a one-dimensional, homogeneous
34
porous medium was introduced by Richardson et al. (1952). The following equations
listed below are used in the analytical solution. Equation (3.17) and Equation (3.18) are
Darcy’s law applied to the water and oil phase, respectively.

q µ dL
−dPw =w w , (3.17)
1.1271kkrw A
q µ dL
−dPo = o o . (3.18)
1.1271kkro A
Equation (3.19) expresses in differential form that the capillary pressure relating
pressures in the two phases:

=
dP c dPo − dPw . (3.19)
By substituting Equation (3.17) and (3.18) into Equation (3.19), the following differential
equation can be derived:

dS w 1 q µ q µ 1 dP
= ( w w − o o ) ( c ) −1 . (3.20)
dL 1.1271 kkrw kkro A dS w
Equation (3.21) is the capillary function between water and oil (UTCOMP Technical
Documentation, 2003)
φ
=Pc C pcσ wo (1 − S ) pc . (3.21)
E
ky
By differentiating Equation (3.21) with respect to water saturation, the following
equation can be resulted:

dPc φ
=−C pcσ wo E pc (1 − S ) Epc −1 (1 − S wr − Sor ) −1 . (3.22)
dS w ky
The following differential equation can be used to determine dSw/dL for water saturation
by substituting Equation (3.22) and Equation (3.3) into Equation (3.20),

35
−1
dS w 1 q µ qµ 1 φ S −S 
= ( w w − o o )  −C pcσ wo E pc (1 − w wr ) Epc −1 (1 − S wr − Sor ) −1  . (3.23)
dL 1.1271 kkrw kkro A  ky 1 − Sor − S wr 
Then (dSw/dL)-1 is plotted as a function of water saturation. By integrating this relation,
the saturation profile as a function of the distance from the outflow end is obtained.
where,
qw: water flow rate, bbl/D
µw: water viscosity, cp
Pw: pressure in water phase, psi

krw: water relative permeability, dimensionless

A: cross sectional area, ft 2
L: distance from outlet, ft
Po: pressure in oil phase, psi

qo: oil flow rate, bbl/day
µo: oil viscosity, cp
kro: oil relative permeability, dimensionless
ky: permeability in the y-direction, mili Darcy (md)
Pc: capillary pressure between water and oil, psi
S: normalized water saturation (Equation (3.3))
Sw: water saturation, fraction
Swr: residual water saturation, fraction
Sor: residual oil saturation, fraction

Cpc: constant of the capillary pressure function, psi md dyne cm
σwo: interfacial tension between water and oil, dynes/cm

36
Epc: exponent of capillary pressure function, dimensionless

Length (ft) 2
Width (ft) 0.1
Thickness (ft) 0.1
Oil viscosity (cp) 20
Water density (lb/ ft ) 3
62.4
0.0
(mole fraction)
Table 3.12: Relative permeability parameters for

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.2 1.0
2.0 2.0
Exponent
37
Table 3.13: Capillary pressure parameters for Case Study 5.
(
C pc psi md ( dyne / cm ) ) 6.78
Epc 2
σwo (dynes/cm) 42

Water injection rate (lb-mole/day) 0.035
Oil injection rate (lb-mole /day) 0.965
2000
pressure (psi)
Maximum dimensionless
1.2
time (pore volume)
water relative permeability Oil relative permeability

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation
Figure 3.6: The relative permeability curve for water and oil flow of Case Study 5.
3.2.6 Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
This case study is a o ne-dimensional miscible flow for testing the conservation
equations with longitudinal dispersion. The schematic of reservoir and well locations are
shown in Figure 3.7.

38
Figure 3.7: Schematic of one-dimensional for convection and diffusion problem.
The length of the reservoir is 40 ft and its cross sectional area is 0.01 ft2. The
absolute permeability is 500 md and the porosity is 0.2. The properties of the injected
fluid are identical to those of the fluid in the reservoir. The courant number, Equation
(3.32), are the same for all simulations with the constant Δt equaling 0.001 Day.
Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table 3.15. Relative permeability
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.16. Well operation conditions are
given in Table 3.17.
In CMG simulation, resident fluid initially contains 0.5 molality of NaCL salt.
The NaCL concentration of the injected fluid is 5 molality. In UTCOMP simulation,
tracer option is activated and the injected tracer concentration is 2500 ppm. Simulation
of convection diffusion equation with Peclet number (Npe: the ratio of the dispersive
transport to the convective transport of a particle) of 200 and 100 g rid blocks with
courant number of 0.05 are considered. UTCOMP uses third-order TVD finite-difference
method while CMG-GEM uses two-point fluxes under the control of a Total Variation
Limiting flux limiter (CMG modules do not have the third-order TVD).
In this case study, dispersion and convection are the two main transport
mechanisms in porous media. In order to analyze how the diffusion and convection affect
the salt concentration profile, three values of Peclet number are used in UTCOMP
simulations, which are 50, 200, and1000.
Physical dispersion comprises of molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion.
Molecular diffusion means particles moves from high concentration regions to low
39
concentration regions. Mechanical dispersion is caused by the convection, due to the
variations in magnitude and direction of local velocity. Numerical dispersion refers to the
smearing of front caused by the truncation error. Many techniques are developed to
reduce numerical dispersion, such as third-order TVD method. In this study, we
compensate the physical dispersion with varying numerical dispersion control in
UTCOMP simulations. Two dispersion controls are used: third-order TVD method and
the other is one-point upstream weighting. All results are compared at 0.5 pore volume.
The convection-diffusion equation (CDE) describes the conservation of the displacing
component with mass concentration of C (Lake, 1989) as

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C
φ +u − φ KL = 0 , (3.24)
∂t ∂x ∂x 2
where u is bulk fluid velocity and KL is longitudinal dispersion coefficient.
Equation (3.24) assumes incompressible fluid and rock, ideal mixing, and a single phase
at unit saturation.
Rewriting Equation (3.24) in the dimensionless form gives

∂CD ∂CD 1 ∂ 2CD
+ − = 0, (3.25)
∂t D ∂xD N Pe ∂xD 2
where dimensionless parameters are defined as

C − Co
CD = , (3.26)
CJ − Co
ut
tD = , (3.27)
φL
x
xD = , (3.28)
L
uL
N Pe = , (3.29)
φ KL
40
with
CD: dimensionless concentration
Co: initial concentration
CJ: injection concentration
tD: dimensionless distance
Npe: Peclet number
Analytical solution can be calculated for one-dimensional CDE with the following
boundary conditions and initial condition on CD (xD, tD):

CD ( xD=, 0) 0, xD ≥ 0

C D ( xD → ∞, t= D) 0, t D ≥ 0 (3.30)
C (0, t=
 D D) 1, t D ≥ 0
The exact analytical solution (Lake, 1989) for the above conditions is
1 N Pe xD − t D e xD N Pe N Pe xD + t D
=
C erfc ( × )+ erfc( × ) , (3.31)
2 2 2 2
D
tD tD
In this case study, the time-step size has been expressed in a d imensionless form of
Courant number (C) as

q∆t
C= , (3.32)
∆x∆y∆zφ
where q / φ∆x∆y∆z refers to its maximum value over all grid blocks.
For one-dimensional flow, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient KL is given by

KL v Dp β
= C1 + C2 ( ) , (3.33)
Do Do
where C1, C2, and β are properties of the permeable medium and the flow regime. Do is
the effective binary molecular diffusion coefficient between the miscible displacing and
displaced fluids and Dp is average particle diameter.
41
If the interstitial velocity is greater than about 3 cm/day, the local mixing term in equation
(3.34) dominates the first term then,

Do v Dp β
Kl = + C2 ( ) Do ≅ α l v , (3.34)
φF Do
where,
αL: the longitudinal dispersivity, ft
v: interstitial velocity, cm/day
Thus the Peclet number (Equation (3.29)) now becomes independent of velocity as
L
N pe = . (3.35)
αL

Length (ft) 40
Width (ft) 0.1
Thickness (ft) 0.1
Fluid density (lb/ ft )3
44.7
Initial fluid saturation 1.0
0.0
42
Water Oil
Endpoint phase
1.0 0.9
1.0 2.0
Exponent

Fluid injection rate (ft3/day) 0.04
2000
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (pore volume) 0.5
In order to make sure Equation (3.35) can be used to calculate the Peclet number in this
case study, the value of interstitial velocity should be checked. According to the data
given in Table 3.15 and Table 3.17, the interstitial velocity is

u q 0.04 scf / day
ν= = = = 20 ft / day= 609.6cm / day . (3.36)
φ Aφ 0.1 ft × 0.1 ft × 0.2
Since 609.6 cm/day>3 cm/day, Equation (3.35) can be applied in this simulation.
3.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion
This case study is a two-dimensional miscible flow to validate simulation of fluid

flow with longitudinal and transverse dispersion. There is an analytical solution
introduced by Giordano et al. (1985). The solution applies to a steady-state tracer
concentration profile for a unit-step input of tracer into the center of the inlet face of an
infinitely long, rectangular porous medium. The reservoir geometry is shown in Figure
3.8.
43
Figure 3.8: Schematic of reservoir geometry for two-dimensional transverse dispersion test.
The reservoir is 2 ft by 2 ft and tracer is injected at the interval of 0.3 ft. Fresh
water is injected at the interval of 0.7ft at the same time. The injection rate of tracer and
fresh water are proportional to the grid block width where the injector is located. Lower
part of the reservoir is simulated because of the symmetry of the reservoir. Two cases
with different transverse Peclet number (100 and 1000) are tested with a co nstant
longitudinal Peclet number of 100. There are forty grid blocks in the x-direction and ten
grid blocks in the y-direction.
The concentration profile for the analytical solution and the simulation solution
by UTCOMP and CMG are compared along xD = 0.2125, when the simulation is steady-
state. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table 3.18. Relative permeability
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in
Table 3.18 and Table 3.20 contains well operation conditions. Since this is a
single phase and steady state case, the relative permeability and the injection rate of
tracer and fresh water will not affect the concentration profile when the simulation
approaches steady state, as long as the injection rate of tracer and fresh water are in
proportion to the grid block width.
The following equation is used for the analytical solution (Giordano et al., 1985):
44
 (1 − A)η 
4sin(2π vξ o ) cos(2π vξ ) exp  
∞
 2 N a , l 

C 2ξ o + ∑
= , (3.37)
v =1 π v(1 + A)
where,
=
A 1 + 16 N a , l N a , t v 2π 2 ,
N a , l = aL / L ,
N a , t = at L / W 2 ,
η = x/L,
ξ = y /W ,
The tracer concentration is normalized by using Equation (3.26).
45
Length (ft) 2
Half width (ft) 1
Thickness (ft) 0.0417
Tracer injection interval (ft) 0.3
Fresh water injection interval (ft) 0.7
Water molar density (lb-mole/ft3) 3.467
n-C10H22 1.0
(mole fraction)
Longitudinal dispersivity (ft) 0.02
Transverse1 dispersivity (ft) 0.02
Transverse2 dispersivity (ft) 0.002

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
1.0 0.9
1.0 2.0
Exponent
46
UTCOMP CMG
Tracer injection rate 30 (lb-mole/day) 1.54 (STB/day)
Tracer concentration 2500 (ppm) 5 (molality)
2000 2000
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (pore volume) 0.5 0.5
3.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern
This case study is made to study modeling of two-dimensional miscible flow
with longitudinal and transverse dispersion for a five-spot well pattern. An equation is
derived by Abbaszadeh-Dehghani and Brigham which predicts effluent tracer
concentration from a homogeneous five-spot well pattern for a slug of tracer injected into
the patterns (Abbaszadeh-Dehghani and Brigham, 1984). Unit mobility ratio in the
development of this analytical solution is assumed. The schematic of reservoir and well
locations are shown in Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9: Schematic of one quarter of Five-spot Well Pattern.
parameters are used for Corey’s correlation presented in Table 3.22 and Table 3.23
contains well operation conditions. The five-spot well pattern is symmetric, so one-
quarter of this well pattern is numerically modeled with 30×30×1 grid block dimension.
47
A 0.02 pore volume of tracer is injected into the reservoir, followed by a chasing fluid
(water) to displace resident fluid through the formation. The tracer slug will be
distributed among the reservoir with longitudinal dispersivity of 0.66 f t and transverse
dispersivity of 0.066 ft. To control the numerical dispersion, third-order TVD method is
used in UTCOMP while two-point fluxes under the control of a Total Variation Limiting
flux limiter is used in CMG-GEM.
In order to evaluate how much the order of numerical dispersion will affect the
simulation result, a series of simulations is repeated with the variable order of numerical
dispersion control method in UTCOMP and CMG.
The concentration equation applied in the analytical solution for the homogeneous five-
spot well pattern is as

 K (m) K '2 (m) a 2
 − π 2Y (ψ ) α (V pDbt (ψ ) − V pD ) 
π
'
exp
4 K ( m) K ( m) 4
  dψ ,
CD = ∫ (3.38)
L
π π2
0 Y (ψ )
where,
η = tan 2 (ψ ) , (3.39)
m = 0.5 , (3.40)
( m ) K=
K= '
(m) 1.8540747 . (3.41)
The pore volume injected into the system at the time of breakthrough of streamline ψ is
π
=
V pDbt '
(1 + η ) K (1 − η 2 ) . (3.42)
4 K ( m) K ( m)
The mixing-line integral for five-spot pattern is defined as the following:

3∞
tdt
Y= (1 + η ) 2 ∫ . (3.43)
0 (t + 1)(t + η 2 )(t 2 + η )
2 2
48
Substituting the constant into Equation (3.44), effluent concentration for five-spot well
pattern is as
 0.645776 a 
π
exp  − (V pDbt (ψ ) − V pD ) 2 

4
Y (ψ ) α L  dψ .
CD = 0.577266 ∫ (3.44)
0 Y (ψ )
The dimensionless variable for this case are defined as

C
CD = (Dimensionless effluent tracer concentration) . (3.45)
a
Co Fr
αL
Tracer slug volume injected into the pattern in terms of fraction of pattern PV is
VTr
Fr = , (3.46)
Aφ hS w
where,
ψ: stream function or value of streamline, angle
K (m): complementary complete elliptic integrals of the first kind
K’ (m): incomplementary elliptic integrals of the first kind
m: parameter of elliptic integral
VpDbt: breakthrough pore volume or breakthrough areal sweep efficiency of a pattern,
dimensionless
VpDbt (ψ): pore volume of displacing fluid injected at breakthrough of streamline, ψ,
dimensionless
Y: mixing-line integral
C D : dimensionless effluent tracer concentration, dimensionless
a: distance between like wells, ft
αL: longitudinal dispersivity, ft
49
VpD: pore volume injected into the five-spot pattern, dimensionless
C : effluent tracer concentration from a homogeneous pattern at VpD, fraction
Co: initial tracer concentration, fraction
Fr: tracer slug volume injected into the pattern in terms of fraction of pattern PV, fraction
VTr: total volume of tracer slug injected into the pattern, ft3
A: cross sectional area of flow path, ft2
h: thickness, ft
Sw: water saturation, fraction
50
Length (ft) 165
Width (ft) 165
Thickness (ft) 1.0
Water molar density (lb-mole/ft3) 2.4833
(mole fraction)
Transverse dispersivity (ft) 0.066

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
Exponent
Table 3.22: Well operation conditions for Case Study 8

UTCOMP CMG
3883.5 103
Water injection rate
(lb-mole/day) (STB/day)
2000 2000
pressure (psi)
Tracer injected time (pore volume) 0.02 0.02
51
Capillary Pressure
This case study is a o ne-dimensional incompressible waterflooding simulation
problem in x-direction without capillary pressure. The analytical solution is the classical
Buckley-Leverett problem (Buckley and Leverett, 1942). The schematic of reservoir and
well locations are shown in Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.10: Schematic of one-dimensional waterflooding reservoir.
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.25. Well operation conditions are
given in Table 3.25. One-point upstream-weighting is used in UTCOMP, GPAS, and
CMG simulation. Water is injected at a rate of 0.1 ft3/day. There are 500 grid block in x-
direction. The following equations listed below are used in the analytical solution.
Equation (3.47) is the fractional flow expression for water

kk A ∂P
1 + ro ( c ± ∆ρ g sin α )
q µo ∂x
fw = , (3.47)
kro µ w
1+
krw µo
where,
fw: water fractional flow, dimensionless
k: absolute permeability, m2
kro : oil relative permeability, dimensionless
krw : water relative permeability, dimensionless
µo : oil viscosity, Pa·s
52
µ w : water viscosity, Pa·s
α : reservoir dip angle

A: cross sectional area of flow path, m2
Pc: capillary pressure between water and oil, atm
g: gravity constant, 9.81 m/s2

∆ρ : density difference between water and oil, kg/m3
By neglecting capillary pressure between oil and water (Pc) and for a reservoir with a dip
angle of zero, water fractional flow is as

1
fw = . (3.48)
kro µ w
1+
krw µo
And Equation (3.49) is the Buckley-Leverett theory for two-phase flow:

 dx  u df w
  = . (3.49)
 dt  Sw φ dS w
This is the velocity of a front of constant water saturation. Then integrate this equation
and impose the initial condition that at t=0 and x=0:

 u df w 
xSw =   t sw . (3.50)
 φ dS w 
Here are some dimensionless variables used in analytical solution:
Dimensional distance and time used in the analytical solution are

x
xD = , (3.51)
L
qt V
=
tD = , (3.52)
ALφ V p
where Vp is pore volume.
Hence the Beckley-Leverett equation can be written in dimensionless form of

53
df w
xD = tD . (3.53)
dS w
Equation (3.54) is the expression of velocity of shock front

∆x q f wf − f wI q ∆f w
= = . (3.54)
∆t Aφ S wf − S wI Aφ ∆S w
The dimensionless form of the above equation is

∆xD ∆f w
v=
∆S w = . (3.55)
∆tD ∆S w
The water front saturation can be solved, if the velocity of the shock and the velocity of
the continuous saturation front are equal

∆f w df w
= . (3.56)
∆S w dS w S = S
w wf
The water saturation profile at a certain pore volume can be calculated by using Equation
(3.53) and plugging the derivative of the water fractional flow curve at a corresponding
water saturation point.
54
Length (ft) 2
Width (ft) 0.1
Thickness (ft) 0.1
Water density (lb /ft3) 62.4
(mole fraction) n-C10H22 1.0

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.2 1.0
2.0 2.0
Exponent

Water injection rate (ft3/day) 0.1
2000
pressure (psi)
0.2
time (pore volume)
55
Capillary Pressure
problem in x-direction with capillary pressure. This case study is almost the same as case
study 9, the differences are that the capillary pressure is considered and numerical
solution uses one hundred and sixty grid blocks with third-order TVD method. The
capillary pressure parameters are shown in Table 3.26. The schematic of reservoir and
well locations are the same as case study 9, which are shown in Figure 3.10. Terwilliger
et al. (1951) provide an analytical solution of one-dimensional immiscible flow with
capillary pressure. In his theory, there are two zones for an immiscible flow with
capillary pressure. One is stabilized zone, which refers to a portion of the saturation
distribution curve maintaining the same shape from a point until the time of water
breakthrough. The remainder of the saturation profile is the non-stabilized zone.
The equations used in the analytical solution are divided into two parts, stabilized
zone and unstabilized zone. In the stabilized zone, all saturation points move forward at
the same rate, thus the saturation distribution curve keeps the same shape until water
breakthrough. Equation (3.47) is the fractional flow function describing fluid flow
behavior of water and oil.

Neglecting dip angle, water fractional equation becomes:
kk A  ∂P 
1 + ro  c 
q µo  ∂x 
fw = . (3.57)
kro µ w
1+
krw µo
where,
A: cross-sectional area of flow path, cm2
56
x: distance in x-direction, cm
μ: viscosity, cp
q: total flow rate, cm3/s
Pc: capillary pressure, atm
Because capillary pressure is a function of water saturation, chain rule of differentiation
can be used to replace dPc/dx:

∂Pc ∂Pc ∂S w
= ⋅ . (3.58)
∂x ∂S w ∂x
Then Equation (3.57) becomes

kk A  ∂P ∂S 
1 + ro  c ⋅ w 
q µo  ∂S w ∂x 
fw = . (3.59)
kro µ w
1+
krw µo
The water fractional curve of the stabilized zone is the straight line portion of a fw vs Sw
curve constructed by Equation (3.48). The straight line is a tangent line to this curve and
starts from the equilibrium water saturation at a point where fw=0.
Now we read Sw and fw values from straight line portion. Then we substitute Sw and fw
in fractional flow Equation (3.59) with these new Sw and fw values.

kk A  ∂P ∂S 
1 + ro  c ⋅ w 
q µo  ∂S w ∂x 
f w _ new = . (3.60)
kro µ w
1+
krw µo
Now we solve for 𝜕Sw/𝜕𝑥 in Equation (3.60) at corresponding water saturations. The
length and shape of this stabilized zone is given by
57
∂x
Sw
L= ∫
Swir
∂S w
dS w , (3.61)
where,
x : distance in x-direction, cm
L: distance in the x-direction (cm) from irreducible water saturation (Swir) to any water
saturation (Sw)
This method does not provide the lateral position of the stabilized zone. Hence, the lateral
location of stabilized zone is obtained by matching the analytical solution with UTCOMP
simulation.
The unstabilized zone can be calculated by setting Equation (3.58) to zero. Then, the
water fractional curve of the non-stabilized zone is Equation (3.48), which establishes fw
as a f unction of Sw. The values of 𝜕fw/𝜕Sw in Equation (3.49) can be determined by
differentiating Equation (3.48). Thus Equation (3.49) relates the velocity of each point of
saturation with 𝜕fw/𝜕Sw. The saturation profile in this zone can be calculated, if we use
Equation (3.53).
Table 3.26: Capillary pressure parameters for Case Study 10.

(
C pc psi md ( dyne / cm ) ) 3
Epc 2
σwo (dynes/cm) 42

Capillary Pressure
problem in z-direction without capillary pressure. This case study is almost the same as
case study 9, except that the reservoir is vertical and the water is injected from top of the
58
reservoir. Oil is drained downward by gravity and produced from the bottom. The grid
block dimension is 1×1×500. The schematic of reservoir and well locations are shown in
Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11: Schematic of reservoir and the well locations for one-dimensional waterflooding in the z-
direction with no capillary pressure.
The analytical solution is applied by Beckley-Leverett theory. The fractional flow
of water can be calculated using the Equation (3.47) by neglecting capillary pressure and
substituting a dip angle of 90◦. Because the water is injected from the top of the vertical
reservoir, positive sign in Equation (3.47) is taken. As we mentioned previously, Corey’s
model parameters for relative permeability are the same with case study 9, which are
given in Table 3.25.

kk A
(
1 + ro ∆ρ g sin 90
q µo
( ))
fw = . (3.62)
k µ
1 + ro w
krw µo
Equation (3.56) is used to solve for the water saturation of front as following:
59
∆f w df w
= .
∆S w dS w S w = S wf
Water saturation profile can be found by substituting the derivative of Equation (3.62)
into the dimensionless Beckley-Leverett Equation (3.53) as xD= (fw/dSw)tD. Δρ is chosen
as 0.315 g/cm3.
and Low-WAG injection
This case study is a one-dimensional fractional flow to displace oil by a miscible
solvent in the presence of an immiscible aqueous phase. Walsh and Lake (1989) derived
the analytical solution for this problem. In order to examine effects of simultaneous
water-solvent injection and the performance of various simulators, five case studies (12
through 16) are run with the following reservoir geometry and well locations (Figure
3.12).
Figure 3.12: Schematic of miscible WAG displacement reservoir and well locations.
The five case studies have almost the same simulation process, except for the
initial water saturation and injection conditions. Reservoir and fluid property data of case
study 12 are listed in Table 3.28. Relative permeability parameters for Corey’s
correlation are given in Table 3.28. Also Table 3.30 contains well operation conditions.
In the simulation process, water and solvent are injected at the same time with total
60
injection rate of 0.002 ft3/day. The solvent is totally dissolved in oleic phase with no
trapped oil. The viscosity of water and solvent mixture is calculated using linear mixing
rule. Third-order TVD method is used in UTCOMP and one-point upstream-weighting is
used in simulations by CMG_STARS (one-point upstream-weighting is the only method
in CMG_STARS). The comparison of analytical solution and simulation result of
UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG is carried out up to 0.6 pore volume fluid (water and
solvent) injected. Figure 3.13 shows the fractional flow curves for water/oil and
water/solvent.
Water/Oil Water/Solvent
1
0.9
Water Fractional Flow
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation
Figure 3.13: Fractional flow curves for water/oil and water/solvent flow.
The water-solvent fractional flow curves form the water-oil curve is constructed by
replacing the oil viscosity by the solvent viscosity in Equation (3.48).
61
Initial water saturation (Swi) is uniform and no solvent is present initially (tD = 0). The
injected condition (xD=0) is two-phase mixture of solvent and water specified by the
water fractional flow (fwJ) at the injection end.

WR
f wJ = . (3.63)
1 + WR
The water fractional flow is then related to the water-solvent ratio. Where, WR is the ratio
of water solvent injected simultaneously; both volumes are in reservoir volumes.
The velocity of a continuous variation in concentration is given by

 ∂f 
vCw =  w  , (3.64)
 ∂S w  x D
 ∂ ( Cso f o ) 
vCs =   . (3.65)
 ∂ ( Cso So )  xD
The velocity of an abrupt saturation change or a shock is given by

∆f
v∆Cw = w , (3.66)
∆S w
∆ ( Cso f o )
v∆ Cs = , (3.67)
∆ ( Cso So )
where, Cso is volume fraction of solvent in the oleic phase and Δ represents change
between the upstream and the downstream value. The solvent travels through the medium
with a miscible wave of constant velocity expressed by

f w − 1 (1 − Csw ) 
vc = , (3.68)
{ }
S w − 1 − SOM (1 − CsT )  (1 − Csw )
where,
62
Csw: volume fraction of solvent in the aqueous phase
SOM: miscible-flood residual hydrocarbon saturation
CsT: volume fraction of solvent in the residual phase
fw: water fractional flow
Sw: water saturation

This equation is slope of a straight line through the point of ( {[1-SOM(1-CST)]/(1-CSW)},
1/(1-CSW) ) to the point on the solvent-water fractional flow curve. This equation involves
the effects of solvent water solubility, trapped oil saturation, and solvent partitioning in
the trapped oil saturation. If the solvent is completely dissolved in oleic phase and no
trapped oil present, the previous equation can be simplified as following:

f −1
vc = w . (3.69)
Sw − 1
The followings are the calculations and equations used in numerical simulation process of
case study 12 through 16.
Simulation by UTCOMP
Because water compressibility is taken as zero in this case, the volume of water at
surface condition and reservoir condition is almost the same. Volume of CO2 changes a
lot; so CO2 volume factor should be known from

Vreservoir ρ s tan dard
= Bo = . (3.70)
Vs tan dard ρ reservoir
Density of CO2 at standard condition and reservoir condition can be determined from the
literature and output file of simulation.

ρ s tan dard 0.1167 lb cuft
=Bo = = 2.04 ×10−3 ft 3 scf . (3.71)
ρ reservoir 57.3097 lb cuft
63
Total injection rate is 0.002 ft 3 D at reservoir condition; f wJ also refers the water
injection ratio at reservoir condition. The surface injection rate of water and CO2 are
calculated as follows:
For f wJ = 0.3 ,
q=
w @ reservoir day × 0.3 0.0006 ft 3 day .
0.002 ft 3 =
Since Cw = 0 , qw @ s tan dard = 0.0006 scf day ,
qco=
2 @ reservoir
0.002 ft 3 day
= × 0.7 0.0014 ft 3 day .
Since,=
Bo 2.04 ×10−3 ft 3 scf ,
qco2 @ s tan dard = 0.0014 ft 3 day ÷ 2.04 ×10−3 ft 3 scf = 6.88 ×10−4 Mscf day ,
qw @ s tan dard = 0.0006 scf day and qco2 @ s tan =

dard 6.88 ×10−4 Mscf day ,
will be used as the surface injection rate for water and CO2 in UTCOMP (IQTYPE=4).
For f wj = 0.7 ,
q=
w @ reservoir 0.002 ft 3 day
= × 0.7 0.0014 ft 3 day .
Since Cw = 0 , qw @ s tan dard = 0.0014 scf day ,
qco=
2 @ reservoir
day × 0.3 0.0006 ft 3 day .
0.002 ft 3 =
Since,=
Bo 2.04 ×10−3 ft 3 scf ,
qco2 @ s tan dard = 0.0006 ft 3 day ÷ 2.04 ×10−3 ft 3 scf = 2.95 × 10−4 Mscf day ,
64
qw @ s tan dard = 0.0014 scf day and qco2 @ s tan =
dard 2.95 ×10−4 Mscf day ,
will be used as the surface injection rate for water and CO2 in UTCOMP (IQTYPE=4).
Simulation by CMG:
In the beginning, we can set up the compressibility of all components in CMG as
zero or very close to zero; so all the components are incompressible. By this way, the
injection rate of 0.002 ft 3 D ay is both under the reservoir condition and standard
condition. The flow rate of 0.002 ft 3 D ay can be directly used as the total surface
injection rate of water and solvent.

For f wJ = 0.3 ,
qw @ s tan dard = 0.0006 scf day ,
qsolvent=
@ s tan dard 0.002 ft 3 day
= × 0.7 0.0014 scf day .
For f wJ = 0.7 ,
qw @ s tan dard = 0.0014 scf day ,
qsolvent=
@ s tan dard day × 0.3 0.0006 scf day .
0.002 ft 3 =
The above values are water and solvent surface injection rate used in GMG
65
Length (ft) 10
Width (ft) 1
Thickness (ft) 1
Solvent viscosity (cp) 0.1
(mole fraction)
Transverse dispersivity (ft) 0

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.2 1.0
2.0 2.0
Exponent
66
Total injection rate (ft3/day) 0.002
Water fractional flow (fwJ) 0.3
2000
pressure (psi)
0.6
time (pore volume)
and high-WAG injection
This case is almost the same as case study 12, except that water fractional flow
injection increased to 0.7. Hence, well operation conditions are presented in Table 3.30.
The comparison of analytical solution and simulation results is compared at 0.4 pore
volume.

0.4
time (pore volume)
low-WAG injection
This case is almost the same as case study 12, except that initial water saturation
increased to 0.65. Table 3.31 shows well operation conditions. The comparison of
analytical solution and simulation results is made at 0.25 pore volume.

Initial Water Saturation (fraction) 0.65
67
high-WAG injection
This case is almost the same as case study 12, except that water fractional flow
injection increased to 0.7 and the initial water saturation is changed to 0.65. Well
operation conditions are given in Table 3.32. The comparison of analytical solution and
simulation results is made at 0.3 pore volume.

water-free solvent injection
This case is almost the same as case study 12, except that the initial water
saturation increases to 0.65 and the water fractional flow injection decreased to 0. Well
operation conditions are presented in Table 3.33. The comparison of the analytical
solution and simulation results is at 0.25 pore volume.

Water fractional flow (fwJ) 0
68
longitudinal dispersivity
This case study is a two-dimensional miscible displacement in a dipping reservoir
with low-longitudinal dispersivity, which can be used to validate the dipping reservoir
option and gravity term with the analytical solution of Dietz displacement (Dietz, 1953).
Dietz displacement refers to a stable displacement under segregated flow conditions, the
angle between the fluid interface and the direction of flow will reach steady state at a
constant value throughout the flooding. The displacement angle will be affected by
reservoir dip angle (Figure 3.14), viscous and gravity forces acting on the fluids.
α =30°
Figure 3.14: Schematic of Dietz Displacement reservoir and well locations.
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.36. And Table 3.37 contains well
operation conditions. Solvent is injected at the top and displaced oil moves downward at
rate of 10 ft3/day using 40×1×4 grid blocks. The concentration front is smeared by a
longitudinal dispersivity of 1ft, but the velocity of the 0.5 solvent concentration front is
not changed with the longitudinal dispersivity value. The position of 0.5 s olvent
concentration is determined for a series of pore volumes injected, which is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,
0.4, 0.5, and 0.6.
69
The following equations are used in case study 17 and case study 18. Dietz stability
equation for solvent displacement of oil downward becomes:

1− Me
=tan β + tan α , (3.72)
M e N ge cos α
where α is reservoir dip angle and β is interface angle.
End-point gravity number for oil-gas is defined as

k  Ak ( ρo − ρ s ) g
N ge = ro . (3.73)
µo Q
The end point mobility ratio is defined as

 krs   kro 
Me =     , (3.74)
 µ s   µo 
where,
kro : end point relative permeability, dimensionless
krs : end point solvent relative permeability, dimensionless

µo : oil viscosity, Pa·s
µ s : solvent viscosity, Pa·s
A: cross sectional area of flow path, m2

k: absolute permeability, m2
ρo : oil density, kg/m3
ρ s : solvent density, kg/m3
g : gravity, 9.81 m/s2

Q: injection rate, m3/day
Because the mobility ratio for this case is 1, Dietz stability Equation (3.72) can be
simplified to
tan
= β tan
= α 30 . (3.75)
70
Length (ft) 100
Width (ft) 10
Thickness (ft) 10
Dip Angle θ◦x (degree) 30
Dip Angle θ◦y (degree) 0
Solvent viscosity (cp) 1
Fluid specific density difference 0.46
(mole fraction) n-C10H22 1.0
Longitudinal dispersivity (ft) 1

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.2 1.0
2.0 2.0
Exponent
71
Total injection rate (ft3/day) 10
2000
pressure (psi)
0.6
time (pore volume)
In order to verify that longitudinal dispersivity will not affect the interface angle,
a run is made based on case study 17. This case study is a t wo-dimensional miscible
displacement in a dipping reservoir with high longitudinal dispersivity. Input data in
Table 3.35 through Table 3.37 are also applied in this case, except that grid block
dimension and longitudinal dispersivity are changed to the values given in Table 3.38.
The position of 0.5 solvent concentration is determined at the same pore volumes injected
in case study 17.
Table 3.37: Input data for Case Study 18.

Grid block dimension in x, y, and z 80×1×8
directions
This case study is a t wo-dimensional immiscible displacement in a dipping
reservoir without longitudinal dispersivity. In this case, Dietz theory is tested in
immiscible condition. As shown in Figure 3.15, the reservoir dip angle is -30◦.
72
α = -30°
Figure 3.15: Schematic of Dietz Displacement reservoir and well locations.
Water injected at the bottom of the tilted reservoir is at a rate of 4 ft3/day and oil is
displaced upward. The grid block dimension is 100×1×10. There is no longitudinal or
transverse dispersivities in this case. The position of 0.425 water saturation is found at
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 pore volume injected. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in
Table 3.38. Relative permeability parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table
3.40. Table 3.40 contains well operation conditions.
Dietz stability equation for immiscible displacement is the same as Equation (3.72), but
the definition of end-point gravity number and endpoint mobility ratio are different.
End-point gravity number for oil and water is defined as

k  Ak ( ρ w − ρo ) g
N ge = ro . (3.76)
µo Q
End-point mobility ratio for oil and water system is

 krw

  kro 
Me =     , (3.77)
 µ w   µo 
where μw is water viscosity in Pa·s and ρw is water density in kg/m3
73
Grid blocks dimension in x, y, and z 100×1×10
directions
Length (ft) 100
Width (ft) 10
Thickness (ft) 10
Dip Angle θ◦x (degree) -30
Dip Angle θ◦y (degree) 0
Solvent viscosity (cp) 1
Fluid specific density difference 0.35
(mole fraction)

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
0.2 1.0
2.0 2.0
Exponent
74
Total injection rate (ft3/day) 4
2000
pressure (psi)
0.4
time (pore volume)
3.2.20 Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
Convection-Diffusion mass-transfer is one of the most important EOR
mechanisms in solvent-based on EOR techniques. In this case study, in order to validate
the formulation of the conservation equations, numerical solution of two-dimensional
miscible flow with longitudinal and transverse dispersion is compared with the analytical
solution of the two-dimensional convection-diffusion equation. Figure 3.16 shows the
schematic of a two-dimensional first-contact miscible displacement process in its initial
stage.
Figure 3.16: Schematic of Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion numerical model for Case Study
20.
The homogenous reservoir considered is almost oil saturated, except for a small
amount of solvent present in the black rectangular area A in Figure 3.16 while oil
concentration is zero in this area. Oil is uniformly injected along the left edge into the
75
reservoir (vy=0). The solvent is diluted and drained forward by viscous forces and
produced along the right edge of the reservoir. The injection rate is the same as the
production rate. The injected oil has properties identical to those of the resident oil and
solvent, in terms of critical properties. The longitudinal and transverse dispersivities are
1.0 ft and 0.5 ft, respectively, in the simulation model. In order to achieve the purpose of
velocity in y-direction equaling to zero, in the simulations, oil is injected into the
reservoir at the x-z cross section (Figure 3.16) with a rate of 0.5 bbl/day at reservoir
condition in CMG and 1.112 MSCF/day at standard condition in UTCOMP. The oil
injected rate of UTCOMP is obtained from the output of CMG, for the purpose of result
comparison with the same input information. The block address for solvent source (SOL)
is (10, 1, 50) in x, y, and z directions, if we define the positive direction of z axis up.
parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.43. Table 3.44 contains well
operation conditions and Table 3.45 contains component properties.
Figure 3.17: Schematic of Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion analytical solution for Case Study
20.
76
Figure 3.17 presents the schematic of analytical solution. The point of initial
solvent source (SOL) is the origin, where x= 0 and z=0. The comparative results of
normalized concentration (C/Co) of the analytical solution and simulations by UTCOMP
and CMG are obtained at 2 da ys and z equaling to zero. Two-dimensional convection-
diffusion mass-transfer equation, under the assumption of incompressible fluid, constant
velocity and dispersion coefficients, and infinite medium, can be formulated in the
following form (Cleary and Ungs, 1978):

∂C ∂ 2C ∂ 2C ∂C ∂C
= K L 2 KT 2 − vx − vz , (3.78)
∂t ∂x ∂z ∂x ∂z
where KL and KT represent longitudinal and transverse dispersion coefficients,
respectively.
vx2
K L = α T v + (α L − α T ) , (3.79)
v
vz2
K T = α T v + (α L − α T ) , (3.80)
v
q
v= , (3.81)
Aφ
where v is average velocity (interstitial velocity) and αL and αT are longitudinal and
transverse dispersivity, respectively.
Initially, the solvent is only in the black rectangular area in Figure 3.16. Thus, the
boundary conditions (BC) and initial conditions (IC) can be expressed as

 C x ≤ x ≤ x2 ; z1 ≤ z ≤ z2
C ( x, z , 0 ) =  o 1 (3.82)
0 other x & z
∂C
=0 @x= ∞ (3.83)
∂x
77
∂C
= 0 @z = ∞ (3.84)
∂z
The solution of Equation (3.78) with above BC and IC is

Ci   x − x1 − vxt   x − x − v t    z − z v  t 0.5   z−z vz  t   
0.5
( x, z, t ) erf 
C=  − erf  2
0.5  
x
erf  1
+    − erf 
z 2
+     . (3.85)
4   ( 4 DLt )0.5  
 ( 4 D t )  
    ( 4 D t )
0.5
2  D    ( 4 D t )
0.5
2  DT   
 L T T   T 
With the assumption of uniform flow in the simulation model, Equation (3.85) can be
simplified as
Ci   x − x1 − vt   x − x − vt     z−z   z − z  
C ( x, z , t ) = erf   − erf  2
0.5   
erf  1
0.5 
− erf  2
0.5  
. (3.86)
4   ( 4 DLt )0.5   ( 4 DLt )     ( 4 DT t )   ( 4 DT t )  

Though we use third-order TVD method of numerical dispersion control, the numerical
longitudinal dispersivity could not be avoided and ignored in this case study. Equation
(3.87) and Equation (3.88) are used to determine numerical longitudinal and transverse
dispersivities from Fanchi (1983) and Lantz (1971) models. In order to match the
analytical solution, numerical dispersivity and input dispersivity are summed up as total
dispersivity in analytical solution (Equation (3.89) and Equation (3.90)).

∆x 1
α L _ num ≈ = =0.5 ft , (3.87)
2 2
αT _ num = 0 , (3.88)
α L _ AnalyticalSolution = α L _ input + α L _ num = 1.5 ft , (3.89)
αT _ AnalyticalSolution = αT _ input + αT _ num = 0.5 ft . (3.90)
78
Length (ft) 50
Width (ft) 0.5
Thickness (ft) 50
Solvent viscosity (cp) 1.0
Oil viscosity (cp) 1.0
Water compressibility (psi-1) 3.3×10-6
Block address in x, y, and z UTCOMP (10,1,51)
directions of solvent source
(SOL) CMG (10,1,50)
Transverse dispersivity (ft) 0.5

Water Oil
Endpoint phase
1 1
1 1
Exponent

UTCOMP CMG
Total injection rate 1.112 (MSCF/day) 0.5 (bbl/day)
Production well 4500 (psi) 0.5 (bbl/day)
Maximum time (Day) 2 2
79
OIL 1175.68 343.08 1.59 16.043 0.008
SOL 1175.68 343.08 1.59 16.043 0.008
3.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding
This case study is a t hree-dimensional incompressible waterflooding simulation
problem with a horizontal homogeneous reservoir. A reservoir with a size of
1600×1600×50 ft3 is used for a water-flooding case study with 8000 grid blocks. Water is
injected at a constant injection rate of 3500 STB/day. The production well is produced at
a constant bottom-hole pressure of 200 psi. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in
Table 3.46. In this case study, Corey’s model is employed in this case study to generate
water/oil and gas/oil relative permeability data. Relative permeability parameters for
Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.46. Table 3.47 contains well operation
conditions. Table 3.49 shows the component properties. The relative permeability curves
for water/oil and oil/gas are shown in Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19.
80
directions
Length (ft) 1600
Width (ft) 1600
Thickness (ft) 50
Water density (lb/ ft3) 62.4
C10 1.0
(mole fraction)

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
0.5 0.9 1
2 2 2
Exponent
Residual saturation 0.2 0.1 0

Water injection rate (STB/day) 3500
200
pressure (psi)

C10 304.0 1111.8 12.087 0.488 142.3
81
1
Relative permeability 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation
Oil relative permeability Gas relative permeability

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Gas saturation
Figure 3.19: The relative permeability curve for oil and gas flow of Case Study 21.
82
Hydrocarbon Components in Reservoir
This case study is a three-dimensional gas and solvent injection simulation
problem with three oil components in the reservoir. The reservoir with a size of
1600×1600×200 ft3 is used for a three-component reservoir fluid mixture over 8000 grid
blocks. CO2 and methane are injected at a constant injection rate of 20 MMSCF/day. The
production well is produced at a constant bottom-hole pressure of 3000 psi. Reservoir and
fluid property data are listed in Table 3.49. Corey’s model is chosen to evaluate relative
permeability with given parameters in Table 3.50. Table 3.52 contains well operation
conditions. Table 3.52 shows the component properties. All binary coefficients are zeros
except those given in Table 3.53. The relative permeability curves for water/oil and
oil/gas are also shown in Figure 3.20 and Figure 3.21.
directions
Length (ft) 1600
Width (ft) 1600
Thickness (ft) 200
Water compressibility (psi-1) 3×10-6
Reservoir fluid initial CO2 0.01
composition C1 0.19
(mole fraction) NC16 0.8
83
Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
1 1 1
1 1 1
Exponent
Residual saturation 0.25 0 0

Injected gas/solvent CO2 0.95
composition
(mole fraction) C1 0.05
Gas inject rate (MMSCF/day) 20
3000
pressure (psi)

CO2 1071.6 547.57 1.505 0.225 44.01
C1 667.1961 343.08 1.6 0.0225 16.043
NC16 252.105 1322.43 13.887 0.684 222.0
Table 3.53: Binary coefficients for Case Study 22.

CO2 and C1
0.12
CO2 and NC16
84
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Gas saturation
Figure 3.21: The relative permeability curve for oil and gas flow of Case Study 22.
85
This case study is a three-dimensional gas and solvent injection simulation
problem with six oil components in the reservoir. The reservoir with a size of
3000×3000×300 ft3 is used for a six component reservoir fluid mixture over 9,600 grid
blocks. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table 3.54. Relative permeability
operation conditions. Table 3.57 shows the component properties. All binary
coefficients are zeros except those given in Table 3.58. A mixture of methane and
propane is injected at the rate of 5 MMSCF/day at the same time. The production well is
produced at a constant bottom-hole pressure of 3100 psi.
86
Length (ft) 3000
Width (ft) 3000
Thickness (ft) 300
Water density (lb/ ft )
3
62.4
3×10-6
C1 0.5
C3 0.03
C6 0.07
composition
C10 0.2
(mole fraction)
C15 0.15
C20 0.05

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
1 1 1
1 1 1
Exponent
87
Injected gas/solvent C1 0.8
composition
C3 0.2
(mole fraction)
3100
pressure (psi)

C1 667.8 343.0 0.599 0.013 16.0
C3 616.3 665.7 1.211 0.152 44.1
C6 436.9 913.4 2.923 0.301 86.2
C10 304.0 1111.8 5.087 0.488 142.3
C15 200.0 1270.0 10.007 0.650 206.0
C20 162.0 1380.0 18.484 0.850 282.0

C1and C10
0.1
C1 and C15
C1 and C20 0.12
Hydrocarbon Components in Large Reservoir
This case is almost the same as case study 23, except that this is a larger reservoir
size with a higher number of grid blocks of 33,750 and is run for 10,000 days. The
different input data from case study 23 are listed Table 3.59. Input information from
Table 3.55 t o Table 3.59 are also used for this case, except those parameters in Table
3.60 are changed to new values.
88
Grid blocks dimension in x, y, and z
75×75×6
directions
Length (ft) 5625
Width (ft) 5625
Hydrocarbon Components in Reservoir with Twenty Oil Components in the
Reservoir
The reservoir with a size of 2000×2000×20 ft3 is used for a twenty component
reservoir fluid mixture over 1600 grid blocks. A mixture of methane and CO2 is injected
at a co nstant bottom-hole pressure of 2900 psi. The production well produces at the
constant bottom-hole pressure of 2400 psi. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in
Table 3.61. Since there is not enough information for the 20 components, component 7 to
20 have the same properties. In this case study, we use Corey’s model for generation of
water/oil and gas/oil relative permeability data. Relative permeability parameters for
Corey’s correlation are given in Table 3.61. Table 3.63 contains well operation
conditions. Table 3.64 shows the component properties. All binary coefficients are zeros
except those given in Table 3.65.
89
Length (ft) 2000
Width (ft) 2000
Thickness (ft) 20
3
62.4
3.3×10-6
CO2 0.0077
C1 0.2025
C2-3 0.1180
composition
C4-6 0.1484
(mole fraction)
C7-14 0.2863
C15-24 0.1490
Component 7-10 C25+ 0.0063
Component 11-20 C25+ 0.00629

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
1 1 1
1 1 1
Exponent
90
CO2 0.01
Injected gas/solvent
C1 0.65
composition
C2-3 0.30
(mole fraction)
C4-6 0.04
Constant bottom hole
2900
injection pressure (psi)
2400
pressure (psi)

CO2 1071.600 547.57 1.506 0.225 44.010
C1 667.196 343.08 1.586 0.008 16.043
C2-3 653.373 618.55 2.894 0.130 38.399
C4-6 485.939 839.54 5.020 0.244 72.824
C7-14 351.535 1085.53 8.884 0.600 135.819
C15-24 261.514 1320.82 16.180 0.903 257.750
C25+ 250.306 1661.76 19.970 1.229 479.955

CO2and C1
CO2 and C2-3 0.1318
CO2 and C4-6
CO2 and C7-14
CO2 and C15-24 0.09885
CO2 and C25+
91
This case study is almost the same as case study 25, except that this is a three-
dimensional reservoir with 33,750 grid blocks. The data given in Table 3.66 are used in
this case study and the rest data can be drawn from Table 3.61 through Table 3.65.

Length (ft) 3750
Width (ft) 3750
Height (ft) 120
3.2.27 Case Study 27: Scenario Two of SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project
The SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Projection (Killough and Kossack, 1987) is
designed to test the abilities of compositional simulators to model the water alternating
gas (WAG) injection process into a volatile oil reservoir. Three scenarios are generated
for this comparative project. In this case study, scenario two is chosen. The compositional
fluid description is a six component Peng-Robison (PR) characterization. A three-
dimensional reservoir with 7×7×3 is used for this simulation case. The injection well is
located at grid block (1, 1, 1) and the production well is located at grid block (7, 7, 3).
Both wells are located in the center of the grid. Figure 3.22 shows the schematic of
reservoir and well locations.
92
Figure 3.22: Schematic of Reservoir and well locations for Case Study 27.
The producer is constrained to produce at a maximum oil rate of 12,000 STB/day
with the minimum bottom-hole pressure of 3000 psi. The injection well is constrained to
injection at a co nstant rate of 20 MMSCF/day for gas and 45MSTB/day for water and
with a maximum bottom-hole pressure of 4500 psi. WAG injection starts initially on a
standard three month WAG cycle. A limiting GOR of 10 MCF/STB and a WOR limit of
5 STB/STB are used to shut-in the well. The simulation should be run for 20 years.
Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in Table 3.67. The relative permeability data
are shown in Table 3.67.
Table 3.68 contains well operation conditions. Reservoir data by layers are shown
in Table 3.69. Table 3.71 shows the component properties. All binary coefficients are
zeros except those given in Table 3.71. The relative permeability curves for water/oil and
oil/gas are shown in Figure 3.23 and Figure 3.24. In UTCOMP input file, there is an
option to use different formulations for calculating fluid’s relative permeability curve.
This option is controlled by an index called “IPERM”. In the current case study, IPERM
is chosen to be 8 to match the relative permeability data used in SPE fifth comparative
case study (Killough and Kossack, 1987). Also, by selecting this index to be 8, capillary
pressure curves for oil-water and oil-gas will be automatically calculated using Equation
93
(3.91) and Equation (3.92). The Fluids’ relative permeability formulation for this index is
from Equation (3.93) to Equation (3.97).
0.05 + 255.5328exp ( −8.689 S1 ) .

Pcow = (3.91)
Pcog 6.00524 × 10−4 exp (13.544618S3 ) .

= (3.92)
3
 S − 0.2 
krw = 0.4089  1  . (3.93)
 0.5 
3
 S − 0.05 
krg = 0.39  3  . (3.94)
 0.6 
2
 0.7 − S1 
krow =  . (3.95)
 0.5 
2.1952
 0.65 − S3 
krog = 0.83886   . (3.96)
 0.6 
=
kro ( krow + krw ) ( krog + krg ) ⋅⋅ ( krw + krg ) . (3.97)
94
Length (ft) 500
Width (ft) 500
3.3×10-6
C1 0.50
C3 0.03
C6 0.07
composition
C10 0.20
(mole fraction)
C15 0.15
C20 0.05
Table 3.67: Relative permeability and capillary pressure data for Case Study 27.
Sw Krw krow Pcow Sliq Krliq krg Pcgo
0.2000 0.0 1.0000 45.0 0.2000 0.0 1.0000 30.000
0.2899 0.0022 0.6769 19.03 0.2889 0.0 0.5600 8.000
0.3778 0.0180 0.4153 10.07 0.3500 0.0 0.3900 4.000
0.4667 0.0607 0.2178 4.90 0.3778 0.0110 0.3500 3.000
0.5556 0.1438 0.0835 1.80 0.4667 0.0370 0.2000 0.800
0.6444 0.2809 0.0123 0.50 0.5556 0.0878 0.1000 0.030
0.7000 0.4089 0.0 0.05 0.6444 0.1715 0.0500 0.010
0.7333 0.4855 0.0 0.01 0.7333 0.2963 0.0300 0.001
0.8222 0.7709 0.0 0.0 0.8222 0.4705 0.0100 0.0
0.9111 1.0000 0.0 0.0 0.9111 0.7023 0.0010 0.0
1.0000 1.0000 0.0 0.0 0.9500 0.8800 0.0 0.0
1.0000 1.0000 0.0 0.0
95
composition C3 0.2
Maximum injection
4500
bottom hole pressure (psi)
Oil production rate (STB/day)) 12000
Minimum bottom-hole
3000
pressure (psi)
Reference Depth (ft) 8400
Wellbore radius (ft) 0.25
Table 3.69: Reservoir data by layers for Case Study 27.

Horizontal Vertical Initial
Thickness Elevation
Layer permeability Permeability Pressure
(ft) (ft)
(md) (md) (psi)
1 500 50 20 8335 3984.3
2 50 50 30 8360 3990.3
3 200 25 50 8400 4000.0

Component Pci (psi) Tci ( ◦R) Critz ωi Wti (lb/lb-mole)
C1 667.8 343.0 0.290 0.0130 16.04
C3 616.3 665.7 0.277 0.1524 44.10
C6 436.9 913.4 0.264 0.3007 86.18
C10 304.0 1111.8 0.257 0.4885 142.29
C15 200.0 1270.0 0.245 0.6500 206.0
C20 162.0 1380.0 0.235 0.8500 282.0

C1and C15
0.05
C1 and C20
C3 and C15
0.005
C3 and C20
96
Water relative permeability Oil relative permeability
1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation
Liquid relative permeability Gas relative permeability

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Liquid saturation
Figure 3.24: The relative permeability curve for liquid and gas flow of Case Study 27.
97
Generation
This case study is a three-phase hydrocarbon flash calculation simulation problem
with a three-dimensional heterogeneous reservoir. A reservoir with a size of
2500×2500×200 ft3 is used to test the simulators for three-phase flash calculation over
100,000 grid blocks. The object of this case is to test three hydrocarbon phases simulation
by UTCOMP and CMG. However, CMG does not have the capacity to conduct three
hydrocarbon phases calculation; only have a model called WINPROP which can simply
detect three hydrocarbon phases. The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient (VDP) of permeability
is about 0.5. Figure 3.25 and Figure 3.26 give the 3D view of permeability and porosity
distribution throughout reservoir. A mixture of seven fluid components is injected at
constant bottom-hole pressure of 1250 psi. The production well is produced at the
constant bottom-hole pressure of 1100 psi. Reservoir and fluid property data are listed in
Table 3.73. Relative permeability parameters for Corey’s correlation are given in Table
3.73. Table 3.75 contains well operation conditions. Table 3.75 shows component
properties. All binary coefficients are zeros except those given in Table 3.76. The
relative permeability curves for water/oil and oil/gas are given in Figure 3.27 and Figure
3.28.
98
Figure 3.25: Permeability distribution of Case Study 28.
Figure 3.26: Porosity distribution of Case Study 28.
99
Length (ft) 2500
Width (ft) 2500
Thickness (ft) 200
Porosity (fraction) Data file
Permeability in x-direction (md) Data file
Permeability in y-direction (md) Data file
CO2 0.0337
C1 0.0861
Reservoir fluid initial C2-3 0.1503
composition C4-6 0.1671
(mole fraction) C7-15 0.3304
C16-27 0.1611
C28 0.0713

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
0.21 0.7 0.35
1.5 2.5 2.5
Exponent
Residual saturation 0.25 0.2 0.05
100
CO2 0.95
C1 4.999×10-2
Injected gas/solvent C2-3
composition C4-6
(mole fraction) C7-15 2×10-6
C16-27
C28
Constant bottom hole
1250
pressure injection (psi)
1100
pressure (psi)

CO2 1069.87 547.56 1.506 0.2250 44.01
C1 667.20 343.08 1.586 0.0080 16.04
C2-3 652.56 619.57 2.902 0.1305 37.20
C4-6 493.07 833.80 4.914 0.2404 69.50
C7-15 315.44 1090.35 9.602 0.6177 140.96
C16-27 239.90 1351.83 18.070 0.9566 280.99
C28 238.12 1696.46 33.514 1.2683 519.62

CO2 and C1
CO2 and C2-3 0.055
CO2 and C4-6
CO2 and C7-15
CO2 and C16-27 0.105
CO2 and C28
101
1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gas saturation
102
Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir
This case study is a series of oil recovery processes with a three-dimensional
highly heterogeneous reservoir. A reservoir with a size of 3500×3500×100 ft3 is used to

simulate the whole production process including primary production, water flooding, and
WAG. The reservoir is divided into 200,000 grid blocks. The VDP of permeability is 0.9.
Figure 3.29 and Figure 3.30 give the full view of permeability and porosity distribution
through reservoir. For the first 200 days, there is only one well producing at a constant
bottom-hole pressure of 3000 psi until the oil production rate is almost zero. From 200
days to 2010 days, water flooding is adopted as a secondary recovery method until WOR
exceeds 90%. Between 2010 days and 2410 da ys, water flooding is replaced by WAG
process. The WAG is performed on a 100-day cycle to improve recovery further. The
gas injection is first on for 100 days, and then alternates with water flooding. The WAG
process carries on for 2 cycles and stops at 2410 days. The well constraint of water or gas
injection is constant well bottom-hole pressure of 4500 psi. Reservoir and fluid property
data are listed in Table 3.78. The absolute permeability data and porosity data are
presented in various data files. Relative permeability parameters for Corey’s correlation
are given in Table 3.79. Table 3.80 contains well operation conditions. Table 3.81
shows the component properties. All binary coefficients are zeros except those given in
Table 3.82. The relative permeability curves for water/oil and oil/gas are presented in
Figure 3.31 and Figure 3.32.
103
104
Length (ft) 3500
Width (ft) 3500
Thickness (ft) 100
3
62.4
3.3×10-6
C1 0.50
C3 0.03
C6 0.07
composition
C10 0.20
(mole fraction)
C15 0.15
C20 0.05

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
0.21 0.7 0.35
1.5 2.5 2.5
Exponent
Residual saturation 0.25 0.2 0.05
105
composition C3 0.2
Injection well bottom-hole
4500
pressure (psi)
3000
pressure (psi)

C1 667.784 343.00 1.60 0.0130 16.04
C3 616.348 665.64 3.21 0.1524 44.10
C6 436.911 913.32 5.92 0.3007 86.18
C10 304.059 1111.86 10.08 0.4885 142.29
C15 200.012 1270.08 16.69 0.6500 206.00
C20 161.949 1380.06 21.49 0.8500 282.00

C1and C15
0.050
C1and C20
C3 and C15
0.005
C3and C20
106
1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gas saturation

800,000 Gridblock and 16 Production/Injection Wells
This case study is a three-dimensional highly heterogeneous reservoir. A reservoir
with a size of 8000×8000×50 ft3 is used to test the simulators for a six component
107
reservoir fluid mixture with 800,000 grid blocks and 16 injection/production wells. The
type of pattern employed in this case study is seven-spot well patterns as illustrated in
Figure 3.33 and Figure 3.34. The VDP of permeability and porosity is 0.95. Figure 3.35,
Figure 3.36 and Figure 3.37 depict the full view of permeability and porosity
distribution through reservoir and depth of cell top distribution. Reservoir and fluid
property data are listed in Table 3.83. In this case study, we use Corey’s model for
generation of water/oil and gas/oil relative permeability data. Relative permeability
operation conditions. Table 3.85 shows the component properties. All binary coefficients
are zeros except those given in Table 3.86. The reservoir is subjected to waterflooding.
Figure 3.33: Two-dimensional well locations of Case Study 30.
108
Figure 3.34: Three-dimensional well locations of Case Study 30.
109
Figure 3.37: Depth of cell top distribution of Case Study 30.
110
Length (ft) 8000
Width (ft) 8000
Thickness (ft) 50
3
62.40
3×10-6
C1 0.50
C3 0.03
C6 0.07
composition
C10 0.20
(mole fraction)
C15 0.15
C20 0.05

Water Oil Gas
Endpoint phase
1 1 1
1 1 1
Exponent

3100
pressure (psi)
Maximum time (Day) 157.7
111
C1 667.8 343.0 0.599 0.013 16.0
C3 616.3 665.7 1.211 0.152 44.1
C6 436.9 913.4 2.923 0.301 86.2
C10 304.0 1111.8 5.087 0.488 142.3
C15 200.0 1270.0 10.00696 0.650 206.0
C20 162.0 1380.0 18.484 0.850 282.0

C1and C10 0.1
C1 and C15 0.1
C1 and C20 0.12
112
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter aims at providing a benchmark data-base, which can be used to
reflect on the performance of in-house reservoir simulators (UTCOMP and GPAS) and
commercial simulator (CMG). Furthermore, it may also help validate simulation results
via comparisons with analytical solutions or the solution by commercial simulator CMG
with regard to both existing and any future model developments and implementations.
All the case studies that we conducted in this chapter have been elaborated and furnished
in Chapter 3. This chapter primarily gives comparison of results. These comparisons of
various case studies shed light on the reservoir simulators with regard to phase saturation
(its profile or its 3D distribution), reservoir pressure profile, concentration profile,
effluent concentration, full range of heterogeneity properties (depth of top cell,
permeability, and porosity distribution), average pressure and production rate histories,
gas-oil ratio (GOR), water-cut, and time-step selection during simulation process, among
other factors. To this end, analytical solutions and varied numerical solutions of twenty
validation cases are addressed. Moreover, comparative results obtained by different
simulators for more complex field studies are provided as well. Obviously not all
simulators could be used for this study: GPAS, because it is still under development and
many functions required for running some of these cases are still unavailable at present
(thus they could not be run with GPAS); CMG-GEM, because it does not possess three-
phase flash procedures. It is to be noted that the case study 28 is the second scenario of
SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project (Killough and Kossack, 1987). SPE
Comparative Solution Project is a series of comparative solution projects initiated by the
113
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). Case study 28 i s the only case having the
comparative solution with SENSOR issued by Coats Engineering website.
Materials presented in this chapter are important for various reasons. Comparison
with analytical solution provides the framework for determining accuracy of simulations
of both exact (that is identical) problems (here solutions by analytical and by simulation
ought to be almost identical) and perturbed problems (here analytical solution will only
offer and highlight the trend). As alluded to in Chapter 1, s tudying analytical solution
gives us the opportunity to envision new problems, whose solution can be by both
analytical and numerical simulation or simply by one of the two. For either case, we
would have reasonable solutions. Furthermore, these analytical and simulated solutions,
covered throughout the chapter, offer researchers the chance and ease to verify and justify
their own problems, not exactly ours and yet similar. This surely gives them ample
confidence since our solutions are always almost impeccably correct.
4.2 Comparative Results of Case Studies
The following section shows various comparisons of analytical solutions and
different simulators.

Displacement
Results are shown in Figure 4.1. In this figure, the simulation result from all
simulators matches the analytical result very well.
114
Analytical Solution UTCOMP
CMG GPAS
0.7
Pressure Drop (Psi), (P-Pinitial)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance in X-Direction, (l/L)
Figure 4. 1: Comparison of the pressure drop profile of the analytical solution with that of the
simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 1.

Displacement
Results are shown in Figure 4.2, the agreement between simulation results of
UTCOMP, GPAS, and GPAS_COATS with analytical solution is excellent. There is a

small discrepancy between the solution of CMG and the analytical solution. The results
of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG, have the same slope.
115
Analytical Solution CMG
UTCOMP GPAS
Pressure Drop (Psi), (P-Pinitial) 0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance in Z-Direction, (l/L)
Figure 4. 2: Comparison of the pressure drop profile of analytical solution with that of UTCOMP,
GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 2.
4.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow
Results of analytical solution and the simulators match very well, as shown in
Figure 4.3. The analytical solution is run for several other days both for dimensionless
and real pressure profiles. Results are shown in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5.
116
td=0.157
Analytical Solution CMG
GPAS UTCOMP
2000
1980
Pressure (Psi)
1960
1940
1920
1900
1880
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance
Figure 4. 3: Comparison of the pressure profile of the analytical solution with that of the simulation
results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG at tD=0.157 for Case Study 3.
td=0.1 td=0.16 td=0.21 td=0.27

td=0.33 rtd=0.39 td=0.44 td=0.5
td=0.56 td=0.61 td=0.67
1.0
Dimensionless Pressure
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 4. 4: Pressure profile of the analytical solution of dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless
distance at different dimensionless time (tD = 0.1, 0.16, 0.21, 0.27, 0.33, 0.39, 0.44, 0.5, 0.56, 0.61 and
0.67) for Case Study 3.
117
t=3.18Day t=5Day t=6.82Day
t=8.63Day t=10.45Day t=12.26Day
t=14.08Day t=15.89Day t=17.71Day
2000
1980
Pressure (Psi)
1960
1940
1920
1900
1880
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 4. 5: Pressure profile of the analytical solution of real pressure versus dimensionless distance
at different real time (t=3.18, 5, 6.82, 8.63, 10.45, 12.26, 14.08, 15.89, 17.71, 19.52, 21.34 Day) for Case
Study 3.
4.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow
The analytical and simulation results at 365 days (0.0038 pore volume) and yD
equaling 0.42 (y=840 ft) are shown in Figure 4.6. The agreement between the analytical
and the simulation results is very good.
118
Analytical Solution UTCOMP
CMG GPAS
2050
2040
Pressure (Psi)
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Distacne in X-Direction (ft)
Figure 4. 6: Comparison of the pressure profile of the analytical solution with that of the simulation
results of UTCOMP, GPAS, GPAS_COATS and CMG at y=840ft and t=365days for Case Study 4.
4.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect
Result is given in Figure 4.7. The agreement between the analytical solution and
the simulation result of UTCOMP is excellent. The curve shows that there is no capillary
end-effect in the simulation result of CMG_STARS.
119
Analytical Solution UTCOMP CMG
1.0
0.9 0.6
0.8 0.5
Water Saturation
0.7 0.4
0.6 0.3
0.5 0.2
0.4 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00
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 1
Figure 4. 7: Comparison of the water saturation profiles of the analytical solution with that of the
simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 5.
4.2.6 Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
The analytical solution and the numerical solutions are compared at 0.5 por e
volume and for a Peclet number of 200. T he comparison is shown in Figure 4.8. The
results of UTCOMP, GPAS_COATS, and CMG match the analytical solution very well.
Figure 4.9 shows concentration profiles of UTCOMP at 0.5 pore volume with the Peclet
number varying. As Peclet number increases the front diffuses less, which means that
convective transport dominates dispersive mixing. The diffusion effect is less important
than that of convection. Figure 4.10 shows how different numerical dispersion controls
influence the concentration profile when Peclet number is 1000 at 0.5 pore volume. In the
simulation result of UTCOMP, the result with third-order total variation diminishing
(TVD) finite-difference method matches better with analytical solution (Figure 4.10). The
solution using one-point upstream weighting displays a lot of numerical dispersion.
120
Analytical Solution GPAS_COATS
UTCOMP CMG
1.0
Dimensionless Concentration 0.9
0.8
0.7
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 1
Figure 4. 8: Comparison of the dimensionless concentration profile of the analytical solution with
that of the simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS_COATS, and CMG when peclet number is 200 at
0.5 pore volume for Case Study 6.
Npe=50 Npe=200 Npe=1000

1.0
Dimensionless Concentration
0.9
0.8
0.7
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 1
Figure 4. 9: Comparison of UTCOMP simulation result of the dimensionless concentration profile
with peclet number varying at 0.5 pore volume using third-order TVD method for Case Study 6.
121
Analytical Solution
One-point Upstream Weighting
Third-order TVD Method
1.0
Dimensionless Concentration
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 4. 10: Comparison of UTCOMP simulation result of the dimensionless concentration profile
with different dispersion control method when Peclet number is 1000 at 0.5 pore volume for Case
Study 6.
4.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion
Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 show the concentration profile comparison result of
analytical solution and simulation solution for UTCOMP and CMG at XD = 0.2125 with
different transverse dispersivity. In Figure 4.11, UTCOMP matches well with analytical
solution except for a small area at the front. There is a big difference between analytical
solution and the simulation result of CMG with both one-point and two-point upstream
weighting. There are two fluctuations in CMG results at around 0.5 to 0.6 dimensionless
distance, with two-point upstream weighting and the normalized tracer concentration is
even larger than 1 at those fluctuations. In Figure 4.12, the agreement between the
analytical and the numerical solutions of UTCOMP is excellent. There is still big
discrepancy between analytical and simulation result of CMG with both one-point
122
upstream and two-point upstream weighting. UTCOMP uses third-order TVD method
while CMG-GEM uses two-point upstream weighting under the control of a Total
Variation Limiting flux limiter (TVL) (CMG modules do not have the third-order TVD
method).
Analytical Solution (al=0.02 at=0.002)

UTCOMP Third-order TVD Method (al=0.02 at=0.002)
CMG One-point Upstream Weighting (al=0.02 at=0.002)
CMG Two-point Upstream Weighting with TVL (al=0.02 at=0.002)
Normalized Tracer Concentration
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless Distance in Y-Direction
Figure 4. 11: Comparison of the normalized concentration profile of the analytical solution with that
of the simulation results of UTCOM and CMG at xD=0.2125 for transverse dispersivity of 0.002 and
longitudinal dispersivity of 0.02 for Case Study 7.
123
Analytical Solution (al=0.02 at=0.02)
UTCOMP Third-order TVD Method (al=0.02 at=0.02)
CMG One-point Upstream Weighting (al=0.02 at=0.02)
CMG Two-point Upstream Weighting with TVL (al=0.02 at=0.02)
Normalized Tracer Concentration
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless Distance in Y-Direction
Figure 4. 12: Comparison of the normalized concentration profile of the analytical solution with that
of the simulation results of UTCOM and CMG at xD =0.2125 for transverse dispersivity of 0.02 and
longitudinal dispersivity of 0.02 for Case Study 7.
4.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern
Figure 4.13 shows comparison of effluent tracer concentrations obtained from the
analytical solution, UTCOMP, and CMG simulation results. The comparison indicates
that the simulation solution by UTCOMP matches well with the analytical solution, while
CMG gives much lower maximum tracer concentration and slightly later breakthrough
time than the analytical solution. The comparison in Figure 4.14 illustrates that
UTCOMP with two-point upstream weighting yields the best simulation result and the
accuracy decreases with the decreasing of order of numerical dispersion control. The
CMG with one-point upstream weighting gives better result than that by two-point
upstream weighting with TVD.

124
Analytical Solution UTCOMP CMG
Normalized Effluent Tracer 0.14
0.12
0.1
Concentration
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Pore Volumes Injected
Figure 4. 13: Comparison of the normalized effluent tracer concentration of the analytical solution
with that of the simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 8.
Analytical Solution
UTCOMP One-point Upstream Weighting
UTCOMP Two-point Upstream Weighting
CMG Two-point Upstream Weighting
CMG One-point Upstream Weighting
0.14
Normalized Effluent Tracer
0.12
Concentration
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Pore Volume Injected
Figure 4. 14: Comparison of the normalized effluent tracer concentration of the analytical solution
with that of the simulation results of UTCOMP and CMG for variable order of numerical dispersion
control methods.
125
Capillary Pressure
A comparison of analytical solution and the simulated result of UTCOMP, GPAS,
and CMG is made at 0.2 pore volume. Figure 4.15 shows comparison result at 0.2 pore
volume. Overall, the simulation results from UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG match well
with the analytical solution, except for the slightly smearing water front.
Analytical Solution UTCOMP CMG GPAS

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Water Saturation
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 1
Dimensionless Distance in X-Direciton
Figure 4. 15: Comparison of the water saturation profiles of Buckley-Leverett solution and the
simulation result of UTCOMP, GPAS and CMG at 0.2 pore volume injected using one-point
upstream weighting for Case Study 9.

Capillary Pressure
Figure 4.16 shows numerical solution at 0.2 pore volume injected using one-point
upstream weighting, along with the analytical solutions of Buckley-Leveret problem and
Terwilliger et al. (1951). The results of UTCOMP and CMG match well with the
126
analytical solution of Terwilliger et al. The water front of Terwilliger et al. is not sharp
anymore compared to the Buckley-Leveret solution.
Terwilliger Solution Buckley-Leverett Solution

CMG UTCOMP
1.0
0.9
0.8
Water Saturation
0.7
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 1
Dimensionless Distance in X-Direction
Figure 4. 16: Comparison of the water saturation profile of the Buckley-Levereett solution, the
Terwilliger solution, and the simulation results of UTCMOP and CMG at 0.2 pore volume injected
using the third-order TVD method with TVD for Case Study 10.

Capillary Pressure
A comparison of analytical solution and simulation result of UTCOMP, GPAS,
and CMG is made at 0.2 pore volume with five hundred grid blocks in z-direction, which
is shown in Figure 4.17. The simulation result matches well with the analytical solution,
except that the simulation front is little bit smeared compared to that of analytical
solution.
127
Analytical Solution CMG GPAS UTCOMP
1.0
0.9
0.8
Water Saturation
0.7
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 1
Dimensionless Distance in Z-Direction
Figure 4. 17: Comparison of the water saturation profile of the Buckley-Levereet solution and the
simulation results of UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG at 0.2 pore volume injected using one-point
upstream weighting for Case Study 11.
and Low-WAG injection
Figure 4.18 shows the comparison result. The comparison indicates a good match
between analytical solution and simulation results.
128
Analytical Solution CMG UTCOMP
1.0
0.9
0.8
Oil Saturation
0.7
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 1
Figure 4. 18: Comparison of the analytical solution with the simulation results of UTCOMP and
CMG at 0.6 pore volume injected for Case Study 12.
and high-WAG injection
The results of various simulators along with the analytical solution are shown in
Figure 4.19. As the water fractional flow fwJ is increased to 0.7, t here are two shock
fronts. The later shock front of numerical solution smears a lot, compared to the early
shock front.
129
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Oil Saturation
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 1
low-WAG injection
With increasing initial water saturation to 0.65, there are three shock fronts in this
case. As shown in Figure 4.20, the simulation result shows more smearing, and the
numerical shock front in the middle completely disappeared. UTCOMP offers more
accurate result at the front compared to CMG.
130
CMG Analytical Solution UTCOMP
1.0
0.9
0.8
Oil Saturation
0.7
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 1
high-WAG injection
As shown in Figure 4.21, the simulation result matches better with the analytical
solution compared to result of case study 14. There are two fronts in this case. The
numerical shock front on the left in Figure 4.21 smeared more than that of right one.
131
1.0
0.9
0.8
Oil Saturation
0.7
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 1
water-free solvent injection
There are two shock fronts in this case. As shown in Figure 4.22, the simulation
result smears more than that of case study 14. Only one shock front can be found in the
simulation results for UTCOMP and CMG, however UTCOMP gives better result
compared to CMG.
132
1.0
0.9
0.8
Oil Saturation
0.7
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 1
The simulation result of UTCOMP and CMG are shown in Figure 4.23 and
Figure 4.24. The stabilized interface angle is 30◦, which is the same as calculated from
the analytical solution.
133
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV 0.5PV 0.6PV
Distance in Z-Direction (ft) 1.25
2.5
3.75
6.25
7.5
8.75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance in X-Direction (ft)
Figure 4. 23: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of UTCOMP simulation for Case Study 17 with a
longitudinal dispersivity of 1 ft.
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV 0.5PV 0.6PV

1.25
Distance in Z-Direction (ft)
2.5
3.75
6.25
7.5
8.75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 24: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of CMG simulation for Case Study 17 with a
134
The simulation result of UTCOMP and CMG are given in Figure 4.25 and
Figure 4.26. The stabilized interface angle is still 30◦, these results show that the
longitudinal dispersivity will not alter the interface angle and the velocity profile of 0.5
concentration front.
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV 0.5PV 0.6PV

0.625
1.875
3.125
4.375
5.625
6.875
8.125
9.375
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 25: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of UTCOMP simulation for Case Study 18 with a
135
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV 0.5PV 0.6PV
0.625
1.875
3.125
4.375
5.625
6.875
8.125
9.375
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 26: Profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration of CMG simulation for Case Study 18 with a
The simulation result of UTCOMP, GPAS_COATS, and CMG are given in
Figure 4.27, Figure 4.28, and Figure 4.29.
136
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV
0.5
1.75
3
4.25
5.5
6.75
8
9.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 27: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of UTCOMP simulation for Case Study 19.
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV

0.5
1.75
3
4.25
5.5
6.75
8
9.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 28: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of CMG simulation for Case Study 19.
137
0.1PV 0.2PV 0.3PV 0.4PV
0.0
Distance in Z-Direction (ft) 1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4. 29: Profiles of 0.425 water saturation of GPAS_COATS simulation for Case Study 19.
4.2.20 Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
Figure 4.30 depicts the solvent-concentration movement with a range of time.
Initially the source point of solvent is at the origin. As time progresses, solvent is drained
along the x-axis by injected gas and dispersed in both x- and y- directions. At about 100
days, solvent begins to breakthrough and graduately disappear. Figure 4.31 shows the
comparative results of the analytical solution and simulations by UTCOMP and CMG.
Overall, there is a good agreement between analytical solution and numerical results, but
both UTCOMP and CMG predict slightly higher concentration around x equals to zero.
138
Figure 4. 30:Three-dimensional view of normalized concentration of analytical solution at 2, 20, 40,
80, 100, and 150 days for Case Study 20.
139
0.09
Normalized Concentration
0.08
0.07
0.06
(C/Co)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance in x-drection (ft)
CMG at 2 days and z=0 for Case Study 20.
4.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding
Figure 4.32 shows comparison of average reservoir pressure over time for
UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMSPAT, GPAS, GPAS_COATS, and CMG. Oil and water
production histories are shown in Figure 4.33 and Figure 4.34, respectively. As seen in
Figure 4.32, average pressure for all simulators behaved almost the same, except that the
average pressure predicted by GPAS_COATS is a little bit lower than that of other
simulators at the early time. As shown in Figure 4.33 and Figure 4.34, there is good
agreement between the results of the simulators. Figure 4.35 shows comparison of time-
step during the simulation time between UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT. The time-
step of UTCOMP_IMPSAT increases to the maximum time of 50 da y at around 3000
days and stays on the maximum time-step to the end of simulation. UTCOMP can reach
the maximum time-step of 10 days, but it will reduce the time-step immediately after it
140
gets to the maximum time and oscillates heavily between maximum and minimum time-
steps. By increasing the maximum time-step in UTCOMP, the run will fail or the
simulation result oscillates too much. Figure 4.36 and Figure 4.37 give the water and oil
distribution graphs of UTCOMP at 1000 days for one-point upstream weighting.
CMG UTCOMP GPAS

GPAS_COATS UTCOMP_IMPSAT
1100
1000
Average Pressure (Psi)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 32: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS,
GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 21.
141
CMG UTCOMP
GPAS GPAS_COATS
UTCOMP_IMPSAT
4000
Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 33: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS,
GPAS_COATS and CMG for Case Study 21.
CMG UTCOMP
GPAS GPAS_COATS
UTCOMP_IMPSAT
Water Production Rate (STB/Day)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 34: Comparison of water production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS,

GPAS_COATS, and CMG for Case Study 21.
142
IMPSAT UTCOMP
60
50
Time Step (Day)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 35: Comparison of time-step of UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT for Case Study 21.
Figure 4. 36: Water saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting at 1000
days for Case Study 21.
143
Figure 4. 37: Oil saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting at 1000
Figure 4.38 shows comparison of average reservoir pressure versus time for
UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS_COATS and CMG. Figure 4.38 indicates that
the average pressure predicted by GPAS_COATS is slightly higher than that of other
simulators around 1000 days (breaktrough time). It matches well with other simulators
from 1000 days to the end of simulation. CMG, UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT have
great agreement with each other. Figure 4.39 and Figure 4.40 give result of oil and gas
production rates, respectively. There is good agreement among UTCOMP,
UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG. Figure 4.41 shows comparison of time-step during the
simulation time of UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT. This figure illustrates that the
trend of the result for UTCOMP is almost the same as UTCOMP_IMPSAT, except that
144
UTCOMP_IMPSAT has bigger oscillations between about 1000 d ays and 4500 da ys.
Figure 4.42 and Figure 4.43 present oil and gas saturation distribution graphs of
UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting at 11000 days.
CMG UTCOMP
3080
Average Reservoir Pressure
3070
3060
3050
3040
(Psi)
3030
3020
3010
3000
2990
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 38: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS_COATS,
and CMG for Case Study 22.
145
CMG UTCOMP
Oil Production Rate (STB/Day) GPAS_COATS UTCOMP_IMPSAT

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 39: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS_COATS,
CMG UTCOMP
Gas Production Rate
20
18
(MMSCF/Day)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 40: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, GPAS_COATS,
146
IMPSAT UTCOMP
3.0
2.5
Time Step (Day)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (Day)
147
Figure 4. 43: Gas saturation distribution of UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting at 11000
UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG. Figure 4.44 indicates that there is good
agreement between UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT. Figure 4.45 displays oil
production rate. In this figure, the result of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG
match each other very well until about 5800 d ays. After about 5800 days, CMG gives
lower values than that by UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT, but they have the same
trend. Figure 4.46 shows gas production rate. The gas production rate starts to increase at
4500 days; it is because the injected gas begins to produce. After about 5700 days, the
148
front of gas flooding arrives at the producer; gas production rate almost does not increase.
Figure 4.47 gives the time-step history during simulation. The time-step of
UTCOMP_IMPSAT is almost the same with UTCOMP. But UTCOMP_IMPSAT has
less oscillations between 3000 t o 5000 da ys, when reaches the maximum time-step.
Figure 4.48 and Figure 4.49 show oil and gas saturation distribution graphs of
UTCOMP at 3000 days using one-point upstream weighting.
CMG UTCOMP_IMPSAT UTCOMP

3150
3145
3140
3135
3130
(Psi)
3125
3120
3115
3110
3105
3100
3095
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 44: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study 23.
149
3500
3000
Oil Production Rate
2500
(STB/Day)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 45: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study23.

4.0
3.5
Gas Production Rate
3.0
(MMSCF/day)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
TIME (Day)
Figure 4. 46: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study 23.
150
UTCOMP IMPSAT
6
5
Time Step (Day)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time (Day)
151
Hydrocarbon Components in Large Reservoir
UTCOMP and CMG. Figure 4.51 and Figure 4.52 show oil and gas production rates,
respectively. There is an excellent agreement between UTCOMP and CMG. Figure 4.53
and Figure 4.54 give oil and gas saturation distribution graphs of UTCOMP at 10000
days with one-point upstream weighting.
152
CMG UTCOMP
3150
Average Reservoir Pressure 3145
3140
3135
3130
3125
(Psi)
3120
3115
3110
3105
3100
3095
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (Day)
CMG UTCOMP
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 51: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 24.
153
CMG UTCOMP
1.8
1.6
Gas Production Rate
1.4
(MMSCF/Day)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 52: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 24.
154
UTCOMP and CMG. Results of UTCOMP and CMG match each other very well until
about 1900 days. After 1900 days, results of UTCOMP are higher than that of CMG, but
they have the same trend. Figure 4.56 shows oil production rate. There is a difference
between results of UTCOMP and CMG. Gas production history is shown in Figure 4.57.
Figure 4.58 and Figure 4.59 show oil and gas saturation distribution graphs of
UTCOMP using one-point upstream weighting at 3000 days.
155
CMG UTCOMP
2900
2850
2800
(Psi)
2750
2700
2650
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
CMG UTCOMP
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
156
CMG UTCOMP
9
Gas Production Rate 8
7
(MMSCF/Day)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
157
UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG. Figure 4.60 indicates that there is good
agreement between UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT. Results of CMG, UTCOMP and
UTCOMP_IMPSAT are comparable. Figure 4.61 displays oil production rate. In this
figure, there is a difference among the results of CMG and UTCOMP,
UTCOMP_IMPSAT. CMG gives higher estimates than by UTCOMP and
UTCOMP_IMPSAT, but they maintain the same trend to the end of simulation. It is
suspected that the difference between the results in case studies 25 and 26 is due to the
use of different flash calculation algorithms; however we did not investigate this issue
further. Figure 4.62 shows gas production rate. Gas production rate increases, after
158
yielding a stable rate for about 2600 da ys. This is because the injected gas reaches the
producer. Figure 4.63 gives the time-step during simulation by UTCOMP and
UTCOMP_IMPSAT. Results of UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT are almost the same,
and they keep oscillating from the beginning to the end. The time-step of
UTCOMP_IMPSAT doesn’t either exceed that of UTCOMP or stay at the maximum
time-step for a while, such as the results in case study 21. Figure 4.64 and Figure 4.65
present oil and gas saturation distribution graphs of UTCOMP at 3000 days for one-point
upstream weighting.

2870
2860
2850
2840
2830
(Psi)
2820
2810
2800
2790
2780
2770
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 60: Comparison of average pressure of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study 26.
159
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 61: Comparison of oil production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study 26.

16
14
Gas Production Rate
12
(MMSCF/Day)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 62: Comparison of gas production rate of UTCOMP, UTCOMP_IMPSAT, and CMG for
Case Study 26.
160
IMPSAT UTCOMP
2.5
2.0
Time Step (Day)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Day)
161
4.2.27 Case Study 27: Scenario Two of SPE Fifth Comparative Solution Project
Result of scenario two is shown in Figure 4.66 through Figure 4.70. In general,
UTCOMP results are comparable with CMG and SENSOR (COATS, 1992). In Figure
4.66, UTCOMP gives slightly higher cumulative oil production. Figure 4.67 shows
cumulative oil production versus cumulative water injection; UTCOMP shows slightly
lower result than by CMG and SENSOR. UTCOMP gives higher gas oil ratio after 12
years, but the total gas-oil ratio is comparable to CMG and SENSOR in Figure 4.68.
UTCOMP reaches the limiting GOR of 10 MCF/STB in about 15 years. In Figure 4.69,
UTCOMP and CMG have almost zero water cut before the well is shut in, while the
water cut of SENSOR suddenly increases at year 16. All simulation results do not get to
the limiting WOR of 5 STB/STB before the well is shut in. Figure 4.70 shows average
162
reservoir pressure. UTCOMP gives lower values than by CMG and SENOR before year
6, while the result graduately increases and exceeds CMG and SENSOR.
UTCOMP CMG SENSOR

35000
Cumulative Oil Production
30000
25000
(MSTB)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time(Years)
Figure 4. 66: Comparison of cumulative oil production of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for Case
Study 27.
163
UTCOMP CMG SENSOR
35000
Cumulative Oil Production
30000
25000
(MSTB)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 10000 20000 30000
Cumulative Water Injection (MSTB)
Figure 4. 67: Comparison of cumulative oil production vs. cumulative water injection of UTCOMP,
CMG, and SENSOR for Case Study 27.
UTCOMP CMG SENSOR

10
9
Gas Oil Ratio (MSCF/STB)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time(Years)
Figure 4. 68: Comparison of producing gas-oil ratio of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for Case
Study 27.
164
UTCOMP CMG SENSOR
100
90
80
Water Cut (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time(Years)
Figure 4. 69: Comparison of producing water cut of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for Case Study
27.
UTCOMP CMG SENSOR

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
(Psi)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Years)
Figure 4. 70: Comparison of average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP, CMG, and SENSOR for Case
Study 27.
165
Generation
This model has PVT data generating three hydrocarbon phases (gas, oil, and a
second liquid) around 1280 psi and below about 105 ◦F. CMG-GEM cannot simulate
three hydrocarbon phases; it runs poorly and eventually fails before 4560 days. However,
UTCOMP has the ability to simulate three hydrocarbon phases. Figure 4.71 gives
UTCOMP simulation of second liquid saturation as time progresses. Because of
heterogeneity in permeability and porosity, the front of second liquid saturation does not
move with the same velocity level. Second liquid saturation moves faster along higher
permeability and porosity paths. Figure 4.72 through Figure 4.74 present comparison of
UTCOMP and CMG results with one-point upstream weighting.
166
100 days 2850 days
1000 days 3500 days
2100 days 4550 days

Figure 4. 71: UTCOMP simulation result of second hydrocarbon phase saturation using one-point
upstream weighting at 100, 1000, 2100, 2850, 3500, and 4550 days for Case Study 28.
167
CMG UTCOMP
1280
Reservoir Average Pressure
1260
1240
1220
1200
(Psi)
1180
1160
1140
1120
1100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 72: Comparison of average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 28.
CMG UTCOMP
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Day)
168
CMG UTCOMP
6
5
Gas Production Rate
(MMSCF/Day)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Day)
Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir
UTCOMP and CMG. Figure 4.75 indicates that there is good agreement between
UTCOMP and CMG. Figure 4.76 and Figure 4.77 give results of oil and gas production
rates. Figure 4.78 gives the water production rate of UTCOMP and CMG. At around
1550, water breaks through, so the water production rate jumps up. The sharp changes in
Figure 4.75, Figure 4.76, and Figure 4.77 correspond to that of Figure 4.78.
169
CMG UTCOMP
Average Reservoir Pressure 4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
(Psi)
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (Day)
CMG UTCOMP
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
50 550 1050 1550 2050 2550
Time (Day)
170
CMG UTCOMP
10
9
Gas Production Rate
8
(MMSCF/Day)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
50 550 1050 1550 2050 2550
Time (Day)
CMG UTCOMP
16000
14000
Water Production Rate
12000
(STB/Day)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 78: Comparison of water production rate of UTCOMP and CMG for Case Study 29.
171
800,000 Gridblock and 16 Production/Injection Wells
Figure 4.79, Figure 4.80 and Figure 4.81 present the simulation results of
average reservoir pressure, oil and gas production history by UTCOMP. Oil starts
producing right after waterflooding. Oil rate increases rapidly and then reaches a plateau
at about 40 da ys. The corresponding trend can be detected in Figure 4.79 and Figure
4.81. These simulation results verify that UTCOMP is immensely capable of simulating
highly heterogeneous reservoir with very fine gridblocks (800,000) and variable top
depth and give stable and smooth curves without oscillation.
UTCOMP
3118
3116
3114
3112
3110
(Psi)
3108
3106
3104
3102
3100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 79: Average reservoir pressure of UTCOMP for Case Study 30.
172
UTCOMP
38500
33500
28500
23500
18500
13500
8500
3500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 80: Oil production rate of UTCOMP for Case Study 30.
UTCOMP
20
18
Gas Production Rate
16
(MMSCF/Day)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (Day)
Figure 4. 81: Gas production rate of UTCOMP for Case Study 30.
173
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
This thesis presents the simulation work on a total thirty case studies using
UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG simulators. The first twenty case studies offer one- and two-
dimensional simulation results, as well as analytical solutions. The rest are field-scale
problems varied in complexity and difficulty, often with more realistic statistically
generated permeability, porosity, and top depth.
Chapter 2 provides the introduction to the compositional reservoir simulators used
in this research. UTCOMP and GPAS were both developed at the Center for Petroleum
and Geosystem Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and CMG is a
commercial reservoir simulator developed by Computer Modelling Group Ltd.
Chapter 3 o ffers descriptions of the thirty case studies including problem
statement, simulation process, equations used in analytical solutions, calculations of
numerical simulation input data, input data for numerical simulation, and the schematic
of reservoir and well locations. The simulators have been verified using the following
problems: one-dimensional incompressible and compressible flows, capillary end-effects,
one- and two-dimensional convection-diffusion equations, transverse dispersion flow,
five-spot well pattern, one-dimensional waterflooding with and without capillary
pressure, miscible WAG displacements, and Dietz Displacement (miscible and
immiscible). The simulation results by in-house simulators (UTCOMP and GPAS) are
also compared with commercial simulator (CMG) based on more complicated field-scale
case studies.
Chapter 4 p resents diverse simulation results and exact solution of case studies
which are described in Chapter3. These comparisons of various case studies not only
174
verify the mathematical equations used in the simulators but also investigate different
aspects of functionality and characteristics of simulators. These comparisons are mostly
based on ph ase saturation profile or 3D distribution, reservoir pressure profile,
concentration profile, effluent concentration, full range of heterogeneity properties (depth
of top cell, permeability, and porosity distribution), average pressure and production rate
histories, gas-oil ratio (GOR), water-cut, and time-step selection during simulation
process, among other factors.
5.2 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this work.
1. Twenty cases, basically validation problems, are used to validate the simulators
(UTCOMP and GPAS). The simulation results are compared to both analytical
solutions and simulations by CMG. UTCOMP shows good match with all
validation problems. Because GPAS is under development, some of the functions
are not yet available. Not all test problems thus could be performed with GPAS.
GPAS gives correct results for the problems that could be run. Overall, UTCOMP
and GPAS are competitive with CMG in terms of functionality and capacity.
2. For the ten field case studies, though various difficulty and complexity have been
applied to input data, most of UTOCMP simulations match well with that of
CMG. It is worth noting that the SPE fifth comparative solution project is one of
test cases and SENSOR simulation result is included in this comparison.
3. In case study 5, 7, 8 and 28 UTCOMP shows the superiority of handling miscible
displacement with dispersion. Case study 5 illustrates that UTCOMP has the
capability to simulate capillary end effects, while no such effect is detected in
CMG simulation (Figure 4.7). In case study 7, which deals with two-dimensional
175
dispersion, there is good agreement between the simulations by UTCOMP and
exact solutions. The front of curves predicted by UTCOMP does not smear at all
compared to that by CMG (Figure 4.11 and 4.12). In case study 8, which is five-
spot well pattern tracer injection, the UTCOMP simulation matches well with the
analytical solution, especially at the summit (Figure 4.13). This is because third-
order finite difference total variation diminishing (TVD) method has been
successfully implemented in UTCOMP. This method gives more accurate and
stable solution through minimizing numerical dispersion, which refers to the
smearing of front cased by truncation errors. Peclet numbers of at least 1000 can
be used without having any oscillations (Figure 4.10). UTCOMP has the
advantage in modeling three hydrocarbon phases (gas, oil, and a second liquid) in
case study 28. Though CMG is able to detect three hydrocarbon phases in a
module called WINPROP, CMG could not simulate this problem and fails before
the maximum simulation time.
4. Watts’ formulation was implemented into UTCOMP recently as an alternative
approach to the existing method (Watts, 1986). Watt’s formulation is constructed
based on an implicit pressure/implicit saturation (IMSAT) scheme and it a llows
UTCOMP to apply larger time steps during simulation. This new algorithm has
been examined with three-dimensional waterflooding and solvent/gas injection;
we compare the time-step of UTCOMP and UTCOMP_IMPSAT during
simulation. These comparative results show that UTCOMP_IMPSAT is capable
of using relatively larger time steps in the three-dimensional waterflooding case,
but the time-step of UTCOMP_IMPSAT is close to UTCOMP in other cases like
gas flooding in case study 26.
176
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the case studies and results obtained, below are some recommendations
for future work.
1. One may compare computational efficiency of UTCOMP, GPAS, and CMG for
various case studies. In this thesis, we focused mainly on t he solution accuracy.
More investigation such as phase stability analysis and flash calculations can be
compared and contrasted based on computational time (CPU). In doing so, we
may be in a position to select specific methods that take shorter or the shortest
time among a choice of several equally accurate procedures.
2. The analytical and simulation results need to be compared with GPAS, when the
latter will have the corresponding modules implemented in the simulator.
3. The case studies in this thesis can be used as a d atabase to probe new
implementations and developments introduced into the simulators. For example,
some of the input data used here can be altered or used as base cases for other
simulation studies that would employ new or different mechanism.
177
Appendix: MATLAB Program for Analytical Solutions of First Twenty
Case Studies in Chapter 3
This Appendix presents the MATLAB for analytical solutions. These analytical
solutions are applied for the first twenty case studies which are elaborated and stated in
Chapter 3. This appendix consists of eighteen sub-appendices, each corresponding to one
of the twenty case studies, except for case study 17, 18, a nd 19 s haring one analytical
solution. The graphic results of the following analytical solutions are provided in Chapter
4, which are compared with numerical solutions.
Case Study 1: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Horizontal Displacement
% Case Study 1 (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 90)
% One-dimensional incompressible flow with horizontal displacement
% One hundred grid blocks are used in this reservoir
% The following code is used to determine pressure profile
Q=0.04*0.178107607; % inject rate, cu ft/D--->barrel/D

L=2; %length of the reservoir, ft
A=0.01;% area, sq ft
k=500/1000; %absolute permeability, md--->Darcy
Por=0.2; %porosity
Vis=0.249;%viscosity, cp
n=100;%the number of grid block
l=L/100; %the reservoir was divided into 100 grid blocks
P=zeros(n,1); %pressure matrix for reservoir
H=zeros(n,1); %height matrix for reservoir
P(1)=2000.626; %pressure at injector, psi
H(1)=0.01;%distance at injector, ft
for i=1:(n-1)
P(i+1)=P(i)-Q/1.1271*Vis*l/k/A;
H(i+1)=H(i)+L/100;
end
178
D=H/L;
plot(D,P)
set(gca,'xlim',[0.0 1.0]);
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance in X-Direction');
ylabel('Pressure (psi)');
grid on
%write data to excel

data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance in X-Direction','Pressure (psi)'};
for m=1:n
data(m+1,:)={D(m),P(m)};
end
xlswrite('1DHorizontalDisplacement.xls',data);
Case Study 2: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Vertical Displacement
% One-dimensional incompressible flow with vertical displacement
%One hundred grid blocks are used in this reservoir
% The following code is used to determine pressure profile
Q=0.04*0.178107607; % inject rate, cu ft/D--->barrel/D

L=2; %height of the reservoir, ft
roh=44.7;%lbs/cu ft
gamma=roh/62.4; %specific gravity
A=0.01; % area, sq ft
k=500/1000; %absolute permeability, md--->darcy
Por=0.2; %porosity
Vis=0.249; %viscosity, cp
n=100; %the number of grid block
l=L/100; %the reservoir was divided into 100 grid blocks
P=zeros(n,1); %pressure matrix for reservoir
H=zeros(n,1); %height matrix for reservoir
P(1)=2000.054; %pressure at injector, psi
H(1)=0.01;%distance at injector, ft
for i=1:(n-1)
P(i+1)=P(i)+(-Q*Vis/(1.1271*k*A)+0.433333333*gamma)*(l);
179
H(i+1)=H(i)+l;
end
D=H/L;
plot(D,P)
set(gca,'xlim',[0.0 1.0]);
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance in Z-Direction');
grid on

data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance in Z-Direction','Pressure (psi)'};
for m=1:n
data(m+1,:)={D(m),P(m)};
end
xlswrite('1DVerticalDisplacement.xls',data);
Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow
Case Study 3a
% Case Study 3a (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 90-92)
% One-Dimensional Compressible flow
% Only one well (producer) in this case
% The following code provide result of Dimensionless Distance vs Real Pressure at a
given %Dimensionless Time.
%The solution of Case Study 3a is compared with corresponding simulations
por=0.2; %reservoir porosity

k=500; %permeability, md
miu=0.249;%viscosity, cp
Pi=2000; %initial reservoir pressure, psi
Pe=1900; %boundary pressure, psi
Sw=0.2; %water saturation
So=1-0.2; %oil saturation
C=1.04e-5; %fluid compressibility
Cf=5e-4; %rock compressibility
180
Ct=C+Cf; %total compressibility
m=100; %reservoir was divided into 100 grid blocks
x=zeros(m,1);
xd=zeros(m,1);
Pd=zeros(m,1);
P=zeros(m,1);
data=zeros(m,2);
for td=0.157 %td=0.157,td=k*t/por/miu/Ct/L^2,t=5

for i=1:m
x(1)=0;
x(i+1)=x(i)+L/m;
xd(i)=x(i)/L;
b=0;
for n=1:100
lam=1/2*(2*n-1)*pi;
a=2/lam*exp(-lam^2*td)*(sin(lam*xd(i)));
b=b+a;
end
Pd(i)=b; %Pd=(P-Pe)/(Pi-Pe)
P(i)=Pd(i)*(Pi-Pe)+Pe;
end

data={'xd(dimensionless)','Pressure(psi)'};
for h=1:m
data(h+1,:)={xd(h),P(h)};
end
t=td/0.0314;
name=sprintf('t=%5.4f',t);
xlswrite('oneDcxRealTime',data,name);
lh=plot(xd,P);
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance');
titlename=strcat('td =',num2str(td),' Dimensionless Time');
title(titlename,'Fontsize',13);
grid on
hold on
end
181
Case Study 3b
% Case Study 3b (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 90-92)
% This code provide the result of Dimensionless Distance vs Real Pressure at a series of
%Dimensionless Time

m=100; %reservoir is divided into 100 grid blocks
x=zeros(m,1);
xd=zeros(m,1);
Pd=zeros(m,1);
for td=0.1:0.057:0.7 %td=k*t/por/miu/Ct/L^2,t=5

for i=1:m
x(1)=0;
x(i+1)=x(i)+L/m;
xd(i)=x(i)/L;
b=0;
for n=1:100
lam=1/2*(2*n-1)*pi;
b=b+a;
end
end
182
for h=1:m
data(h+1,:)={xd(h),Pd(h)};
end
name=sprintf('td=%5.4f',td);
xlswrite('oneDcxDTime.xls',data,name);
lh=plot(xd,Pd);
legh=legend('0.1td','0.157td','0.214td','0.2710td','0.3280td','0.3850td','0.4220td','0.4990td',
'0.5560td','0.6130td','0.6700td');
set(legh,'Location','NorthWest');
set(legh,'Position',[0.18 0.6 0.1 0.1]);
set(lh,'LineWidth',7.5*td);
set(gca,'xlim',[0,1]);
set(gca,'ylim',[0,1]);
ylabel('Dimensionless Pressure');
grid on
hold on
end
Case Study 3c
% Case Study 3c (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 90-92)
%One hundred grid blocks are used in this reservoir
% The following code offer result of Dimensionless Distance vs Real Pressure at a series
of Real
%Time

183
m=100; %reservoir is divided into 100 grid blocks
x=zeros(m,1);
xd=zeros(m,1);
Pd=zeros(m,1);
P=zeros(m,1);
data=zeros(m,2);
for td=0.1:0.057:0.7 %td=k*t/por/miu/Ct/L^2,t=5

for i=1:m
x(1)=0;
x(i+1)=x(i)+L/m;
xd(i)=x(i)/L;
b=0;
for n=1:100
lam=1/2*(2*n-1)*pi;
b=b+a;
end
P(i)=Pd(i)*(Pi-Pe)+Pe;
end
%Write data to excel

for h=1:m
data(h+1,:)={xd(h),P(h)};
end
t=td/0.0314;
name=sprintf('t=%5.4f',t);
xlswrite('oneDcxRealTime.xls',data,name);
lh=plot(xd,P);
legh=legend('3.1847D', '5D', '6.8153D', '8.6306D', '10.4459D', '12.2611D', '14.0764D',
'15.8917D', '17.7070D','19.5223D','21.3376D');
set(legh,'Location','NorthWest');
set(legh,'Position',[0.18 0.6 0.1 0.1]);
set(lh,'LineWidth',7.5*td);
set(gca,'xlim',[0,1]);
184
grid on
hold on
end
Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow
% Two-dimensional compressible flow
% The following code is used to determine pressure profile at a given position in y-
direction
a=2000; %length of the reservoir, ft

b=2000; %width of the reservoir, ft
l=1000; %location of source, ft
q=1000; %location of source, ft
h=1; %thickness, ft
Pi=2000; %initial pressure P(x, y, 0), psi

Bo=1.1178; %oil formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/STB
por=0.2; %porosity, fraction
k=1.5; %permeability, md
cf=1.04e-5; %fluid compressibility, psi-1
cr=5e-4; %rock compressibility, psi-1
c=cr+cf; %compressibility, psi-1
N=100; %there are 100 grid blocks in the x direction
Qj=8.3; %injection rate, cu ft/D

Q=-Bo*Qj/5.614/h; %specific injection rate, bbl/D-ft
alpha=157.952*(por*c*miu)/k;
beta=886.905*(Bo*miu)/k;
t=365; %injection time, days

x=linspace(0,2000,N); %x space, ft
y=840; %y space, ft
P=zeros(1,N); %pressure matrix
185
for i=1:N
d=0;
for m=1:100
s=1/(pi^2*(m^2/a^2))*(1-exp(-
pi^2/alpha*(m^2/a^2)*t))*cos(m*pi*l/a)*cos(m*pi*x(i)/a);
d=d+s;
end
f=0;
for n=1:100
j=1/(pi^2*(n^2/b^2))*(1-exp(-pi^2/alpha*(n^2/b^2)*t))*cos(n*pi*q/b)*cos(n*pi*y/b);
f=f+j;
end
g=0;
for n=1:100
for m=1:100
z=1/(pi^2*(m^2/a^2+n^2/b^2))*(1-exp(-
pi^2/alpha*(m^2/a^2+n^2/b^2)*t))*cos(m*pi*l/a)*cos(n*pi*q/b)*cos(m*pi*x(i)/a)*cos(
n*pi*y/b);
g=g+z;
end
end
P(i)=Pi-beta*Q/(a*b)*(t/alpha+2*d+2*f+4*g);
end

data(1,:)={'Distance in X-Direction(ft)','Pressure(psi)'};
for kk=1:length(x)
data(kk+1,:)={x(kk),P(kk)};
end
sheetname=sprintf('y=%5.3f,ft',y);
xlswrite('TwoDimensionalCompressibleFlow.xls',data,sheetname);
plot(x,P)
xlabel('Distance in X-Direction (ft)');
grid on
186
Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect
% One-dimensional capillary end effect
% The following code is used to obtain water saturation profile
L=2*0.3048; %length of the reservoir, ft-->m

w=0.1*0.3048; %Width of the reservoir, ft-->m
T=0.1*0.3048; %Thickness of the reservoir, ft-->m
A=T*w; %cross section area of the grid block, m^2
qw=.01*3.277413194e-7; %water injection rate, cu ft/D-->m^3/s
qo=.04*3.277413194e-7; %oil injection rate, cu ft/D-->m^3/s
miu_w=1*0.001; %water viscosity, cp-->Pa*s
miu_nw=20*0.001; %oil viscosity, cp-->Pa*s
K=0.5*9.869233e-13; %rock absolute permeability, Darcy-->m^2
kk=500;%rock absolute permeability, md
Kr1=0.2; %water phase permeability end point
Kr2=1; %oil phase permeability end point
e1=2; %water relative equation component
e2=2; %oil relative equation component
S1r=0.2; %irreducible water saturation
S2r=0.35; %residual oil saturation
Cpc=6.78; %capillary coefficient, psi*(md)^(1/2)/(dyne/cm)
Iwo=42; %interfacial tension, dynes/cm
Por=0.2; %porosity, dimensionless
Epc=2; %capillary constant
n=30; %n saturation incremental steps are chosen
dL=zeros(n,1);
d=zeros(n,1);
int=zeros(n,1);
Sw=linspace(S1r+.1,1-S2r,n);
for i=1:n
S=(Sw(i)-S1r)/(1-S1r-S2r);
krw=Kr1*(S^e1);
kro=Kr2*((1-S)^e2);
Slope_dPc_dSw=-Cpc*Iwo*((Por/kk)^(1/2))*Epc*(1-S)*(1/(1-S1r-S2r))*6894.757;
%Slop_dPc_dSw is dPc/dSw, psi-->Pa
d=(qw*miu_w)/(krw*K)-(qo*miu_nw)/(kro*K); %rock is water wet
Slope_dSw_dL=(d/A)/Slope_dPc_dSw; %Slope_dSw_dL is dSw/dL
187
dL(i)=1/Slope_dSw_dL*(Sw(2)-Sw(1));
end
%calculate the integration of DL/DSw vs Sw curve

for j=1:n
int(j)=sum(dL(j:n));
end
Sw1=linspace(S1r+0.1,S1r+0.1,3);
Sw2=Sw;
Dx1=linspace(0,(1-int(1)/L),3); %the dimensionless position of the rest part
Dx2=1-int/L; %the dimensionless position of the curvy part
S_w=[Sw1,Sw2];
Dx=[Dx1,Dx2'];
plot(Dx,S_w,'Linewidth',2.5)
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance')
ylabel('Water Saturation')
title('Water Saturation Profile')
set(gca,'xlim',[0 1])
set(gca,'ylim',[0 1])
grid on

data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance','Water Saturation'};
for m=1:(n+length(Sw1))
data(m+1,:)={Dx(m),S_w(m)};
end
xlswrite('oneDincCEE.xls',data,'oneDinCEE');
Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
% One-dimensional convection-diffusion equation
%This code provide the normalized concentration profile at a given time
n=100; %the reservoir is divided into n grid block

x=linspace(0,1,n);%dimensionless distance
Npe=200; %Peclet number
188
CD=zeros(1,n);
for tD=0.5 %dimensionless time

for k=1:n
xD=x(k);
N=(xD+tD)/(2*sqrt(tD/Npe));
sum=0;
for m=1:20
add=(-1)^m*IAST(2*m-1)/(2*N^2)^m; % use asymptotic expansion instead of the
complementary error function
sum=sum+add;
end
SecondTerm=-exp(xD*Npe-N^2)/(2*N*sqrt(pi))*sum;
%1/2*exp(xD*Npe)*erfc((xD+tD)/(2*sqrt(tD/Npe)))
CD(k)=1/2*erfc((xD-tD)/(2*sqrt(tD/Npe)))+SecondTerm;%Dimensionless Concentration

data={'Dimensionless distace(xD)','Dimensionless concentration(CD)'};
for h=1:length(x)
data(h+1,:)={x(h),CD(h)};
end
name=sprintf('tD=%5.4f Npe=%6.1f',tD,Npe);
xlswrite('Con-Diff-2.xls',data,name);
lh=plot(x,CD);
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance(xD)')
ylabel('Dimensionless concentration (CD)')
title('Concentration Profile')
grid on
end
end
Function IAST:
function s=IAST(n)
f=[];
189
for i=n
f=[f prod(1:2:i)];
s=f;
end
Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion
% Two-dimensional transverse dispersion
% Because of the symmetry of this problem, only the lower half-space (yd=0.5to 1.0) is
%calculated
% The following code offer normalized concentration profile when it reaching steady
state.
al=0.02; % longitudinal dispersivity, f t

at=0.002; %transverse dispersivity, ft
xi_o=.15;
L=2; %Length of the reservoir, ft
W=2; %Width of the reservoir, ft
Nal=al/L;
Nat=at*L/W^2;
xd=0.2125; %dimensionless distance on x direction
N=100; %number of grid block in y direction

x=xd*L;
y=linspace(0,W/2,N);
C=zeros(1,N); %matrix of Normalized Concentration
n=x/L;
for m=1:N
xi=y(m)/W;
sum=0;
for v=1:1000
A=sqrt(1+16*Nal*Nat*v^2*pi^2);
add=(4*sin(2*pi*v*xi_o)*cos(2*pi*v*xi)*exp((1-A)*n/(2*Nal)))/(pi*v*(1+A));
sum=sum+add;
end
C(m)=2*xi_o+sum;
end
190
data(1,:)={'YD','CD'};
for j=1:N
data(j+1,:)={y(j)/W+0.5,C(j)};
end
sheetname=sprintf('xd=%2.4f,al=%2.3f,at=%2.4f',xd,al,at);
xlswrite('2DTransverseDispersion.xls',data,sheetname);
plot(y/W+0.5,C)
xlabel('Dimensionless Distance in Y-Direction');
ylabel('Normalized Concentration');
set(gca,'xlim',[0.5 1])
grid on
Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern
%Case Study 8 (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 94)
%Homogeneous five-spot well pattern
% Tracer injection and one quarter is simulated
% The following code provide the result of normalized effluent tracer concentration vs
pro %volume injected
clc;clear;
format long;
m=0.5; %parameter of elliptic integral which is 0.5 for five-spot well pattern
a=165.*2; %the length of the reservoir, ft
alpha=0.66; %longitudinal dispersivity, ft
Psi=linspace(0,pi/4,80); %value of streamline, angle
eta=tan(Psi).^2;
V_pD=[linspace(0,0.5,3),linspace(0.5,0.65,10),linspace(0.65,0.8,25),linspace(0.8,1.6,20)]
;
%Dimensionless pore volume injected, fraction
CD_effluent=zeros(1,length(V_pD)); %Normalized effluent tracer concentration
add=zeros(1,length(Psi));
for n=1:length(V_pD)
for c=1:length(Psi)
191
mm=0.999999999999999-eta(c)^2;
if mm<0
mm=0;
end
V_pDbt_Psi=(pi/(4*(ellipke(m)^2)))*(1+eta(c))*ellipke(mm);
t=linspace(0.00001,30,1000); %thought the integration is from (0,inf),the result won't

change much after t=30
f=sqrt(t)./sqrt((t.^2+1).*(t.^2+eta(c)^2).*(t.^2+eta(c)));
fitobject1=fit(t',f','splineinterp'); %fit the curve by the fittype
inty1=integrate(fitobject1,t',0); %integrate the above fit result object
Y_Psi=(1+eta(c))^(3/2)*inty1(length(t));
add(c)=exp(-(ellipke(m)^3)/((pi^2)*Y_Psi)*(a/alpha)*(V_pDbt_Psi-
V_pD(n))^2)/sqrt(Y_Psi);
end
fitobject2=fit(Psi',add','splineinterp'); %fit the curve by the fittype

inty2=integrate(fitobject2,Psi',0); %integrate the above fit result object
CD=inty2(length(Psi));
CD_effluent(n)=(4*sqrt(ellipke(m))*ellipke(m))/((pi^2)*sqrt(pi))*CD; %normalized
effluent tracer concentration
end
plot(V_pD,CD_effluent,'LineWidth',3)
grid on
xlabel('Pore Volume Injected');
ylabel('Normalized Effluent Tracer Concentration');
%written data to excel

data(1,:)={'Pore Volume Injected','Normalized Effluent Tracer Concentration'};
for j=1:length(V_pD)
data(j+1,:)={V_pD(j),CD_effluent(j)};
end
xlswrite('Five-spotWellPatternTracerInjection.xls',data);
192
Case Study 9: One-dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction without Capillary
Pressure
% One-dimensional incompressible waterflooding in x-direction without capillary
pressure
% The following code determine water saturation profile at a given time
clc;clear;
krw_end=0.2;%end point of water relative permeability
kro_end=1; %end point of oil relative permeability
nw=2; %water exponent of Corey’s model
no=2; %oil exponent of Corey’s model
Swr=0.2;%irreducible water saturation
Sor=0.35; %residual oil saturation
miu_w=1; %water viscosity, cp
miu_o=20; %oil viscosity, cp
Sw=linspace(Swr,1-Sor,500);%water saturation
Sw1=zeros(1,1);
Sw3=zeros(1,1);
xD3=zeros(1,1);
td=0.2;%dimensionless time, pore volume

S=(Sw-Swr)/(1-Swr-Sor); %normalized water saturation
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw; %water relative permeability
kro=kro_end.*(1-S).^no; %oil relative permeability
fw=1./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o));%water fractional flow
p1=polyfit(Sw,fw,12); %fit the water fractional curve with polynomial expression

p2=polyder(p1); %differentiate the fractional curve
diff_fw=polyval(p2,Sw); %get the differential curve with respect to Sw
%--------------------------------------------------------------
%find the the water saturation of shock
for n=1:length(Sw)
if abs((fw(n)-0)/(Sw(n)-Swr)-diff_fw(n)) <0.009
Swf=Sw(n);
slope_Swf=(fw(n)-0)/(Sw(n)-Swr); %the slope of water saturation front
a=n;
end
end
%Water Saturation Profile of water front
193
Sw2=linspace(Swr,Swf,5);
xD2=linspace(slope_Swf*td,slope_Swf*td,5);
%------------------------------------------------------------
%Sw<Swf,Water Saturation Profile before water front
for i=1:(a-1)
Sw1(i)=Swr;
xD1=linspace(1,slope_Swf*td,(a-1));
end
%------------------------------------------------------------
%Sw>Swf, Water Saturation Profile behind water front
for j=a:length(Sw)
Sw3(j-(a-1))=Sw(j);
xD3(j-(a-1))=diff_fw(j)*td; %slope
end
xD=[xD1,xD2,xD3];
SW=[Sw1,Sw2,Sw3];
H=plot(xD,SW,'LineWidth',2);
grid on
%------------------------------------------------------------
data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance in X-direction','Water Saturation'};
for k=1:length(xD)
data(k+1,:)={xD(k),SW(k)};
end
sheetname=sprintf('td=%5.3f%',td);
xlswrite('Buckley-LeverettSolutionHorizontal.xls',data,sheetname);
194
Case Study 10: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction with Capillary
Pressure
% Case Study 10 (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 94 and
95)
% One-dimensional incompressible waterflooding in x-direction with capillary pressure
clc;clear;
%fluid property parameters
krw_end=0.2; %end point of water relative permeability, dimensionless
kro_end=1; %end point of oil relative permeability, dimensionless
nw=2; %Corey water exponent, dimensionless
no=2; %Corey oil exponent, dimensionless
Swr=0.2;%irreducible water saturation, fraction
Sor=0.35;%residual oil saturation, fraction
k=500/1000; %absolute permeability, Darcy
qw=0.1*0.32774128 ; %water injection rate, cu ft/D-->cu cm/s
q=qw; %total injection rate, cu ft/D-->cu cm/s
%capillary pressure parameters

Cpc=3;%constant of the capillary pressure function, psi sqrt(md)/dyne/cm
IFT=42;%interfacial tension between water and oil, dynes/cm
por=0.2;%porosity, fraction
ky=1000*k; %permeability in y direction, milidarcy
Epc=2;%exponent of capillary pressure function, dimensionless
%reservoir property parameters

W=0.1*30.48; %width, ft-->cm
T=0.1*30.48; %thickness, ft-->cm
L=2*30.48; %length, ft-->cm
A=W*T; %the area in the direction of flow, sq cm
b=50; %the number of points which are selected

d=200;%the number of points which are selected
Sw=linspace(Swr,1-Sor,d);%water saturation
Sw3=zeros(1,1);%zero matrix of water saturation
xD3=zeros(1,1);%zero matrix of distance
195
S_int=zeros(1,1);%zero matrix of water saturation
D_int=zeros(1,1);%zero matrix of distance
int=zeros(1,1);%zero matrix of integration
%determine the water fractional flow curve

S=(Sw-Swr)/(1-Swr-Sor); %normalized water saturation, fraction
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw; %relative water permeability, fraction
kro=kro_end.*(1-S).^no; %relative oil permeability, fraction
fw=1./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o)); %water fractional flow
%differentiate the water fractional flow curve

%-------------------------------------------------
Swf=0.39; %the water saturation of shock from UTCOMP simulation result

S_wf=(Swf-Swr)/(1-Swr-Sor);
krw_wf=krw_end*S_wf^nw;
kro_wf=kro_end*(1-S_wf)^no;
fw_wf=1/(1+(kro_wf*miu_w)/(krw_wf*miu_o));
slope_Swf=(fw_wf-0)/(Swf-Swr); %the slope of water saturation front
for n=1:length(Sw)
if abs(diff_fw(n)*td-slope_Swf*td)<0.004 && abs(Sw(n)-Swf)>0.001
a=n;
end
end
for e=1:length(Sw)
if abs((fw(e)-0)/(Sw(e)-Swr)-diff_fw(e))<0.01
c=e;
slope_straight=diff_fw(e); %the slope of the straight portion part of water fractional
flow curve
end
end
%Water Saturation Profile of water front, use the concept of stabilized zone.
Sw_straight=linspace(Swr+0.01,Swf-0.01,b);
196
fw_straight=slope_straight*(Sw_straight-Swr); %the tangent line for the fw vs Sw curve
from the residual water saturation
S_s=(Sw_straight-Swr)/(1-Swr-Sor); %normalized water saturation, fraction
krw_s=krw_end.*S_s.^nw; %relative water saturation, fraction
kro_s=kro_end.*(1-S_s).^no; %relative water saturation, fraction
%plug fw_straight vs Sw_straight to the fractional flow equation which has capillary item
and
%solving for the derivative of Sw vs x (ie DSw_Dx)
DPc_DSw=-Cpc*IFT*sqrt(por/ky)*Epc*(1-S_s).^(Epc-1)*(1-Swr-Sor)^(-
1)*0.06804596; %the unit of pressure is converted from psi to atm
DSw_Dx=(fw_straight.*(1+(kro_s*miu_w)./(krw_s*miu_o))-
1)./((k*kro_s*A/q/miu_o).*(DPc_DSw));
Dx_DSw=1./DSw_Dx;
%calculate the integration of Dx_DSw vs Sw_straight curve

for i=2:b %int(1)=0
for m=(b-i+1):b
D_int(b+1-m)=Dx_DSw(m);
S_int(b+1-m)=Sw_straight(m);
end
int(i)=abs(trapz(S_int,D_int));
end
Sw2=sort(Sw_straight,'descend');
xD2=slope_Swf*td+int/L;
%----------------------------------------------------------------
Sw1=linspace(Swr,Swr,20);
xD1=linspace(1,xD2(b),20);
%-----------------------------------------------------------------
for j=(a+2):length(Sw)
Sw3(j-a)=Sw(j);
xD3(j-a)=diff_fw(j)*td; %slope
end
xD=[xD1,xD2,xD3];
SW=[Sw1,Sw2,Sw3];
197
H=plot(xD,SW,'.');
grid on
%--------------------------------------------------------------
data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance in X direction','Water Saturation'};
for k=1:length(xD)
end
xlswrite('TerwilligerSolutionHorizontal(CapPress)',data,sheetname);
Case Study 11: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in Z Directions without Capillary

Pressure
% One-dimensional incompressible waterflooding in z-direction without capillary
pressure
clc;clear;
%fluid property parameters
Swr=0.2; %irreducible water saturation, fraction
Sor=0.35; %residual oil saturation, fraction
k=500/1000; %absolute permeability,md-->darcy
W=0.1*30.48; %width, ft-->cm
198
T=0.1*30.48; %thickness, ft-->cm
A=W*T; %cro sectional area of flow, sq cm
qw=0.1*0.32774128 ; %cu ft/D-->cu cm/s
q=qw; %total flow rate, cu cm/s
alpha=90; %reservoir dip angle (reservoir is vertical with fluid injected from the top)
delta_rho=0.315; %density difference between water and oil, g/cm^3
g=981; %gravity constant, cm/s^2
g_gradient=delta_rho*g/1013216; %gravity gradient due to oil and water density
difference, g/(sq cm*sq s)--> atm/cm
Sw=linspace(Swr,1-Sor,500);
Sw1=zeros(1,1);
Sw3=zeros(1,1);
xD3=zeros(1,1);

S=(Sw-Swr)/(1-Swr-Sor);
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;
kro=kro_end.*(1-S).^no;
fw=(1+(k*kro*A)*(g_gradient*sin(alpha))/(q*miu_o))./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o));

%-----------------------------------------------------------------
%find the the water saturation of shock
for n=1:length(Sw)
if abs((fw(n)-0)/(Sw(n)-Swr)-diff_fw(n)) <0.009
Swf=Sw(n);
slope_Swf=(fw(n)-0)/(Sw(n)-Swr); %the slope of water saturation front
a=n;
end
end
%Water Saturation Profile of water front
Sw2=linspace(Swr,Swf,5);
xD2=linspace(slope_Swf*td,slope_Swf*td,5);
%-----------------------------------------------------------------
for i=1:(a-1)
Sw1(i)=Swr;
199
xD1=linspace(1,slope_Swf*td,(a-1));
end
%------------------------------------------------------------------
for j=a:length(Sw)
Sw3(j-(a-1))=Sw(j);
xD3(j-(a-1))=diff_fw(j)*td; %slope
end
xD=[xD1,xD2,xD3];
SW=[Sw1,Sw2,Sw3];
H=plot(xD,SW,'LineWidth',2);
grid on
%------------------------------------------------------------------
data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance in Z direction','Water Saturation'};
for k=1:length(xD)
end
xlswrite('Buckley-LeverettSolutionVertical.xls',data,sheetname);
200
Case Study 12: Miscible WAG Displacement with Secondary Displacements and
Low-WAG injection
Case Study 12a
% Case Study 12a (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 95-96)
% Miscible WAG displacement with secondary displacements and low-WAG injection
% The following code determine the fractional curve between water/oil and water/solvent
clc;clear;
miu_w=0.5; %water viscosity, cp
miu_s=0.1; %viscosity of solvent, cp
Sw1=zeros(1,1);
Sw3=zeros(1,1);
xD3=zeros(1,1);

krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;%water relative permeability
kro=kro_end.*(1-S).^no;%oil relative permeability
fw=1./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o));%water/oil fractional flow curve
fw_s=(krw/miu_w)./(krw/miu_w+kro/miu_s);%water/solvent fractional flow curve
[Y,H1,H2]=plotyy(Sw,fw,Sw,fw_s,'plot');
grid on
set(H1,'LineWidth',2)
set(H2,'LineStyle','.')
xlabel('Water Saturation')
set(get(Y(1),'Ylabel'),'String','Water Fractional Flow (Water/Oil)')
set(get(Y(2),'Ylabel'),'String','Water Fractional Flow (Water/Solvent)')
title('Fractional flow curves for water/oil and water/solvent flow')
%write the convection & diffusion data to excel
201
data={'Water Saturation','Water Fractional Flow(Water/Oil)','Water Fractional
Flow(Water/Solvent)'};
for h=1:length(Sw)
data(h+1,:,:)={Sw(h),fw(h),fw_s(h),};
end
xlswrite('fwforWaterOilandWaterSolventFlow.xls',data);
Case Study 12b
% Case Study 12b (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 95-96)
% Miscible WAG displacement with secondary displacements and low-WAG injection
%(f_wJ=0.3)
%The following code is used to generate oil saturation profile at a given time
% The solution of Case Study 12b is compared with corresponding simulations
clc;clear;
Sw=linspace(Swr,1-Sor,100); %water saturation
%parameters for fractional flow

CsT=0; %volume fraction of solvent in the residual phase
Csw=0; %volume fraction of solvent in the aqueous phase
Som=0; %miscible-flood residual hydrocarbon saturation
a=(1-Som*(1-CsT))/(1-Csw);
b=1/(1-Csw);
c=1-Som*(1-CsT);
fw_J=0.3; %water injected fractional flow
%parameters for convection & diffusion equation

202
xD=linspace(0,1,n); %dimensionless distance
%parameters for relative permeability

krw=krw_end.*S.^nw; %water relative permeability
kro=kro_end.*(1-S).^no; %oil relative permeability
fw=1./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o));%fractional flow water/oil
fw_s=(krw/miu_w)./(krw/miu_w+kro/miu_s);%fractional flow water/solvent
Sw_J=fsolve(@fun1,0.44); %calculate the Sw_J when fw=fw_J
vs=(fw(1)-b)/(Swr-a); %the velocity of solvent, the slope between (Swi,fwi) & (a,b)
vsw=(fw(1)-fw_J)/(Swr-Sw_J); %the velocity of solvent water front, the slope between
(Swi,fwi)&(Sw_J,fw_J)
xDs=vsw*td; %the position of solvent water front
xd=[0 xDs xDs 1];
So=[1-Sw_J 1-Sw_J 1-Swr 1-Swr];
plot(xd,So,'LineWidth',2.5);
set(gca,'ylim',[0 1],'xlim',[0 1]);
title(['Seconday WAG
Displacement,fw_J=',num2str(fw_J),',td=',num2str(td),',Npe=',num2str(Npe)]);
ylabel('Oil Saturation or Solvent Concentration');
grid on
hold on
%write the oil saturation data to excel

data(1,:)={'Dimensionless Distance','Oil Saturation'};
for k=1:length(xd)
data(k+1,:)={xd(k),So(k)};
end
sheetname=sprintf('td=%5.3f,fw_J=%5.3f,Npe=%5.3f',td,fw_J,Npe);
xlswrite('secondary WAG displacement.xls',data,sheetname);
Function “fun1”
% “fun1” is separate from previous code
% “fun1” is a function applied in previous code, which can be used to calculate the Sw
with a
% given fw
function F=fun1(Sw)
203
fw_J=0.3;
krw_end=0.2;
kro_end=1;
nw=2;
no=2;
Swr=0.2;
Sor=0.35;
miu_w=0.5; %cp
miu_s=0.1; %cp
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;
F=(krw/miu_w)./(krw/miu_w+kro/miu_s)-fw_J;
Case Study 13: Miscible WAG Displacement with secondary displacements and
high-WAG injection
% Case Study 13 (problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page 95-96)
% Miscible WAG displacement with secondary displacements and high-WAG injection
%(f_wJ=0.7)
clc;clear;
Sw=linspace(Swr,1-Sor,100); %water saturation

204
a=(1-Som*(1-CsT))/(1-Csw);
b=1/(1-Csw);
c=1-Som*(1-CsT);


fw=1./(1+(kro*miu_w)./(krw*miu_o));%water/oil fractional curve
fw_s=(krw/miu_w)./(krw/miu_w+kro/miu_s);%water/solvent fractional curve
Sw_J=fsolve(@fun2,0.25 ); %calculate the Sw_J when fw=fw_J
vs=(fw_J-b)/(Sw_J-a); %the velocity of solvent, the slope between (Swi,fwi) & (a,b)
vc=(fw-b)./(Sw-a);
delta=abs((vc-vs)/vs);
[C,i]=min(delta);
vob=(fw(i)-fw(1))/(Sw(i)-Swr); %the velocity of oil front
xDs=vs*td; %the position of solvent front

xDo=vob*td; %the position of oil front
xd=[0,xDs,xDs,xDo,xDo,1];
So=[1-Sw_J,1-Sw_J,1-Sw(i),1-Sw(i),1-Swr,1-Swr];
title(['Seconday WAG
displacement,fw_J=',num2str(fw_J),',td=',num2str(td),',Npe=',num2str(Npe)]);
grid on
hold on

for k=1:length(xd)
205
end
xlswrite('secondary WAG displacement.xls',data,sheetname);
Function “fun2”
% “fun2” is a function employed in previous code, which will determine the Sw with a
given fw
function F=fun2(Sw)
fw_J=0.7;
krw_end=0.2;
kro_end=1;
nw=2;
no=2;
Swr=0.2;
Sor=0.35;
miu_w=0.5; %cp
miu_s=0.1; %cp
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;
Case Study 14: Miscible WAG Displacement with tertiary displacements and low-
WAG injection
% Miscible WAG displacement with tertiary displacements and low-WAG injection
%(f_wJ=0.3)
clc;clear;
206

a=(1-Som*(1-CsT))/(1-Csw);
b=1/(1-Csw);
c=1-Som*(1-CsT);


Sw_I=0.65; %initial water saturation
fw_I=fw(length(Sw)); %Sw_I=1-Sor=0.65, so fw_I=fw(1-Sor)

%--------------------------------------------------------------------
%calculate the water saturation at the first oil bank
delta1=abs(((b-fw)./(a-Sw)-diff_fw)./diff_fw);
[J,j]=min(delta1); %find the index of water saturation at the first oil bank
fw_ob=fw(j); %water fractional flow at the first oil bank

207
Sw_ob=Sw(j); %water saturation at the first oil bank
vs=(b-fw_ob)/(a-Sw_ob); %the velocity of solvent, the slope between (Sw_ob,fw_ob) &

(a,b)
xDob=vs*td; %the position of the first oil bank
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% find the water saturation at the solvent water bank
vc=(fw_s-fw_ob)./(Sw-Sw_ob);
delta2=abs((vc-vs)/vs);
[I,i]=min(delta2);
% since there are two points on the fw_s vs Sw curve which will satisfy the
% requirement, pick up the point which has smaller Sw
if Sw(i)>=Sw_J
[D,d]=sort(delta2);
i=d(2);
else
i=i;
end
fw_sw=fw_s(i); %water fractional flow at the solvent water bank

Sw_sw=Sw(i); %water saturation at the solvent water bank
vsw=(fw_J-fw_sw)/(Sw_J-Sw_sw); %velocity of the solvent water bank
xDsw=vsw*td; %position of the solvent water bank
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% find the water saturation at the second oil bank
delta3=abs(((fw_I-fw)./(Sw_I-Sw)-diff_fw)./diff_fw);
[M,m]=min(delta3); %find the index of water saturation at the second oil bank
fw_obb=fw(m); %water fractional flow at the second oil bank
Sw_obb=Sw(m); %water saturation at the second oil bank
vobb=(fw_I-fw_obb)/(Sw_I-Sw_obb); %velocity of the second oil bank
xDobb=vobb*td; %position of the second oil bank
%plot graph
xd=[0,xDsw,xDsw,xDob,xDob,xDobb,xDobb,1];
So=[1-Sw_J,1-Sw_J,1-Sw_sw,1-Sw_sw,1-Sw_ob,1-Sw_obb,1-Sw_I,1-Sw_I];
title(['tertiary WAG
208
grid on
hold on

for k=1:length(xd)
end
xlswrite('tertiary WAG displacement.xls',data,sheetname);
Function “fun3”
% “fun3” is a function used in previous code to obtain the Sw value with a given fw
function F=fun3(Sw)
fw_J=0.3;
krw_end=0.2;
kro_end=1;
nw=2;
no=2;
Swr=0.2;
Sor=0.35;
miu_w=0.5; %cp
miu_s=0.1; %cp
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;
209
Case Study 15: Miscible WAG Displacement with tertiary displacements and high-
WAG injection
% Miscible WAG displacement with tertiary displacements and high-WAG injection
%(f_wJ=0.7)
clc;clear;


a=(1-Som*(1-CsT))/(1-Csw);
b=1/(1-Csw);
c=1-Som*(1-CsT);


210
fw_I=fw(length(Sw)); %Since Sw_I=1-Sor, fw_I=fw(1-Sor)
vs=(fw_J-b)/(Sw_J-a); %the velocity of solvent, the slope between (Swi,fwi) & (a,b)
vc=(fw-b)./(Sw-a);
delta=abs((vc-vs)/vs);
[C,i]=min(delta);
vob=(fw(i)-fw_I)/(Sw(i)-Sw_I); %the velocity of oil front
xDs=vs*td; %the position of solvent front

xDo=vob*td; %the position of oil front
xd=[0,xDs,xDs,xDo,xDo,1];
So=[1-Sw_J,1-Sw_J,1-Sw(i),1-Sw(i),1-Sw_I,1-Sw_I];
title(['tertiary WAG
grid on
hold on

for k=1:length(xd)
end
xlswrite('tertiary WAG displacement.xls',data,sheetname);
Fuction “fun4”
% “fun4” is a function applied in previous code to calculate the Sw value with a given fw
function F=fun4(Sw)
fw_J=0.7;
211
krw_end=0.2;
kro_end=1;
nw=2;
no=2;
Swr=0.2;
Sor=0.35;
miu_w=0.5; %cp
miu_s=0.1; %cp
krw=krw_end.*S.^nw;
Case Study 16: Miscible WAG Displacement with tertiary displacements and water-
free solvent injection
% Miscible WAG displacement with tertiary displacements and water-free injection
(f_wJ=0)
clc;clear;

a=(1-Som*(1-CsT))/(1-Csw);
212
b=1/(1-Csw);
c=1-Som*(1-CsT);
fw_J=0; %water-free solvent with now water injection



Sw_J=Sw(1); %Since fw_J=0, Sw_J=Swr
fw_I=fw(length(Sw)); %Since Sw_I=1-Sor, fw_I=fw(1-Sor)
%--------------------------------------------------------------------
%calculate the water saturation at the first oil bank
delta1=abs(((b-fw)./(a-Sw)-diff_fw)./diff_fw);
[J,j]=min(delta1); %find the index of water saturation at the first oil bank
fw_ob=fw(j); %water fractional flow at the first oil bank

Sw_ob=Sw(j); %water saturation at the first oil bank
vs=(b-fw_ob)/(a-Sw_ob); %the velocity of solvent, the slope between (Sw_ob,fw_ob) &

(a,b)
xDob=vs*td; %the position of the first oil bank
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% find the water saturation at the solvent water bank
vc=(fw_s-fw_ob)./(Sw-Sw_ob);
delta2=abs((vc-vs)/vs);
[I,i]=min(delta2);
% since there are two points on the fw_s vs Sw curve which will satisfy the
213
% requirement, pick up the point which has smaller Sw
if Sw(i)>=Sw_J
[D,d]=sort(delta2);
i=d(2);
else
i=i;
end
fw_sw=fw_s(i); %water fractional flow at the solvent water bank

Sw_sw=Sw(i); %water saturation at the solvent water bank
vsw=(fw_J-fw(i))/(Sw_J-Sw(i)); %velocity of the solvent water bank
xDsw=vsw*td; %position of the solvent water bank
%pick up four points between Swr to Sw(i) on the fw vs Sw curve to draw a
%smooth line
xDsw1=(fw_J-fw(i-4*i/5))/(Sw_J-Sw(i-4*i/5))*td; Sw_sw1=Sw(i-4*i/5);
xDsw4=(fw_J-fw(i-i/5))/(Sw_J-Sw(i-i/5))*td; Sw_sw4=Sw(i-1*i/5);
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% find the water saturation at the second oil bank
delta3=abs(((fw_I-fw)./(Sw_I-Sw)-diff_fw)./diff_fw);
[M,m]=min(delta3); %find the index of water saturation at the second oil bank
fw_obb=fw(m); %water fractional flow at the second oil bank
Sw_obb=Sw(m); %water saturation at the second oil bank
vobb=(fw_I-fw_obb)/(Sw_I-Sw_obb); %velocity of the second oil bank
xDobb=vobb*td; %position of the second oil bank
%plot graph
xd=[0,xDsw1,xDsw2,xDsw3,xDsw4,xDsw,xDob,xDob,xDobb,xDobb,1];
So=[1-Sw_J,1-Sw_sw1,1-Sw_sw2,1-Sw_sw3,1-Sw_sw4,1-Sw_sw,1-Sw_sw,1-Sw_ob,1-
Sw_obb,1-Sw_I,1-Sw_I];
title(['water-free solvent WAG
grid on
hold on

214
for k=1:length(xd)
end
xlswrite('water-free solvent WAG displacement.xls',data,sheetname);
Case Study 17, 18, and 19: Dietz Displacement with miscible displacement (low-,
high-, and no longitudinal dispersivity)
% Case Study 17, 18, and 19(problem from Chang, Yih-Bor's dissertation at 1990 in page
96-97)
% Dietz Displacement with miscible displacement (low-, high-,and no longitudinal

dispersivity)
% This is a stable displacement under segregated flow conditions with dipping reservoir
%If it is miscible displacement, solvent injector is located at high spot
%and producer is located at low spot of the reservoir
%If it is immiscible displacement, water injector is located at low spot
%and producer is located at high spot
%The following code is used to generate profiles of 0.5 solvent concentration at a series
of given % time
clc;clear;
%relative permeability parameters
krw_end=0.2; %end point of water end relative permeability
kro_end=1; %end point of oil end relative permeability
miu_s=1; %solvent viscosity, cp
k=0.5; %absolute permeability, Darcy
W=10; %width of the reservoir, ft

T=10; %thickness of the reservoir, ft
A=W*T; %cross-section area, sq ft
g=981; %gravity constant, g/cu m
215
r=input('Is this displacement miscible or immiscible? (1-miscible 2-immiscible) ');
if r==1
alpha=pi/6; %the angle between the flow of direction and horizontal plane
Me=1;
delta_rho=0.46; %the density difference between oil and solvent, g/cu cm
q=10; %inject flow rate, cu ft/D
elseif r==2
alpha=-pi/6; %the angle between the flow of direction and horizontal plane
Me=(krw_end/miu_w)/(kro_end/miu_o);
delta_rho=0.35; %the density difference between water and oil, g/cu cm
q=4; %inject flow rate, cu ft/D
else
disp('something is wrong')
end
Nge=(kro_end/miu_o)*(A*k/q)*(delta_rho)*g*0.00279758;
tan=(1-Me)/(Me*Nge*cos(alpha))+tan(alpha);
beta=atand(tan);
sprintf('The angle between the fluid interface and the direction of flow is:%5.1f
degree',beta)
Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation
Case Study 20a
% Case Study 20a

% Two-dimensional convection-diffusion equation
% The point of initial solvent source (SOL) is the origin for this analytical solution,
where (x=0 and y=0)
% The following code plot the curve of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs distance in
% x-direction at given time and position in y-direction
% The solution of Case Study 20a is compared with corresponding simulations
clc;clear;
L=50; %Length of the reservoir in X direction, ft
w=50; %width of the reservoir in Y direction, ft
h=0.5; %thickness of the reservoir in Z direction, ft
A=w*h; %cross-section areal, sq ft
216
q=0.5*5.615; % bbl/day-->sq ft/day
v_x=q/(A*por); %velocity in x direction, ft/day
v_y=0; %velocity in y direction, ft/day
v=sqrt(v_x^2+v_y^2); %total velocity, ft/day
alpha_T=0.5; %Transverse dispersivity, ft
alpha_L=1.5; %longitudinal dispersivity, ft
D_L=alpha_T*v+(alpha_L-alpha_T)*(v_x^2/v); %Longitudinal dispersion coefficient,
sq ft/day
D_T=alpha_T*v+(alpha_L-alpha_T)*(v_y^2/v); %Transverse dispersion coefficient, sq
ft/day
x1=-0.5; %Limit of strip source when y equals to zero

x2=0.5; %Limit of strip source when y equals to zero
y1=-0.25; %Limit of strip source when x equals to zero
y2=0.25; %Limit of strip source when x equals to zero
n=150;
x=linspace(1,40,n);
y=0; %position in y-direction, ft
t=2; %time, day
%Normalized concentration (C/Co)

C=1/4*(erf((x-x1-v_x*t)./sqrt(4*D_L*t))-erf((x-x2-v_x*t)./sqrt(4*D_L*t))).*(erf((y-
y1)./sqrt(4*D_T*t)+(v_y/2)*sqrt(t/D_T))-erf((y-
y2)./sqrt(4*D_T*t)+(v_y/2)*sqrt(t/D_T)));
plot(x,C)
titlename=strcat('Time=',num2str(t),' day',';',' Y=',num2str(y),' ft ');
xlabel('Distance in x-drection (ft)','Fontsize',13)
ylabel('Normalized Concentration (C/Co)','Fontsize',13)
grid on

data(1,:)={'Distance in x-drection (ft)','Normalized Concentration (C/Co)'};
for j=1:length(x)
data(j+1,:)={x(j),C(j)};
end
name=sprintf('t=%5.2f; y=%5.2f',t,y);
217
xlswrite('2DConvection-DiffusionEquation_x.xls',data,name);
Case Study 20b
% Case Study 20b

% Two-dimensional convection-diffusion equation
% The point of initial solvent source (SOL) is the origin for this analytical solution,
where (x=0 and y=0)
% The following code plot 3D view of normalized concentration at a given time
clc;clear;
L=50; %Length of the reservoir in X direction, ft
w=50; %width of the reservoir in Y direction, ft
h=0.5; %thickness of the reservoir in Z direction, ft
A=w*h; %cross-section areal, sq ft
q=0.5*5.615; % bbl/day-->sq ft/day
v_x=q/(A*por); %velocity in x direction, ft/day
v_y=0; %velocity in y direction, ft/day
v=sqrt(v_x^2+v_y^2); %total velocity, ft/day
alpha_T=0.5; %Transverse dispersivity, ft
alpha_L=1.5; %longitudinal dispersivity, ft
D_L=alpha_T*v+(alpha_L-alpha_T)*(v_x^2/v); %Longitudinal dispersion coefficient,
sq ft/day
D_T=alpha_T*v+(alpha_L-alpha_T)*(v_y^2/v); %Transverse dispersion coefficient, sq
ft/day
x1=-0.5; %Limit of strip source when y equals to zero

x2=0.5; %Limit of strip source when y equals to zero
y1=-0.25; %Limit of strip source when x equals to zero
y2=0.25; %Limit of strip source when x equals to zero
n=100;
m=100;
x=linspace(0,L,n);
y=linspace(0,w,m);
C=zeros(m,n);
t=80; %time, day
%Normalized concentration (C/Co)

for j=1:length(x)
for i=1:length(y)
218
C(i,j)=1/4*(erf((x(j)-x1-v_x*t)./sqrt(4*D_L*t))-erf((x(j)-x2-
v_x*t)./sqrt(4*D_L*t))).*(erf((y(i)-y1)./sqrt(4*D_T*t)+(v_y/2)*sqrt(t/D_T))-erf((y(i)-
y2)./sqrt(4*D_T*t)+(v_y/2)*sqrt(t/D_T)));
end
end
axes('position',[.12 .1 .81 .75])
mesh(x,y,C)
colormap (jet)
axis([0 L 0 w -max(max(C))/2 max(max(C))])
xlabel('x (ft)','Fontsize',13)
ylabel('y (ft) ','Fontsize',13)
zlabel('Normalized Concentration (C/Co)','Fontsize',13)
titlename=strcat('Time=',num2str(t),' Day');
219
Nomenclature
a distance between like wells
A cross-sectional area of flow path
Bo oil formation volume factor
ct compressibility of fluids plus rock structure
C courant number
C effluent tracer concentration from a homogeneous pattern at VpD
CD dimensionless effluent tracer concentration

CD dimensionless concentration
CJ injection concentration
Co initial tracer concentration
Cpc constant of the capillary pressure function
Cso volume fraction of solvent in the olec phase
CsT volume fraction of solvent in the residual phase
Csw volume fraction of solvent in the aqueous phase
Do effective binary molecular diffusion coefficient between the miscible displacing
and displaced fluids
Dp average particle diameter
Epc exponent of capillary pressure function

Fr tracer slug volume injected into the pattern in terms of fraction of pattern PV
fw water fractional flow
g gravity constant
h thickness
k absolute permeability
KL longitudinal dispersion coefficient
KT Transverse dispersion coefficient
K (m) complementary complete elliptic integrals of the first kind
220
K’ (m) incomplementary elliptic integrals of the first kind
kro oil relative permeability
krw water relative permeability
ky permeability in the y-direction
kro end point relative permeability
krs end point solvent relative permeability

k°rw water end point relative permeability
l distance in the direction of flow
1, q location of source or sink
L distance from outlet
L distance in the x-direction (cm) from irreducible water saturation (Swir) to any
water saturation (Sw)
m parameter of elliptic integral
no oil relative permeability exponent
Npe Peclet number
nw water relative permeability exponent
P fluid pressure
PD dimensionless pressure
Pe boundary pressure
Pi initial pressure
Pc capillary pressure
Po pressure in oil phase
Pw pressure in water phase
Q injection or production rate
q total flow rate
qo oil flow rate
qw water flow rate
221
S normalized water saturation
Swi initial water saturation
Sir irreducible water saturation
SOM miscible-flood residual hydrocarbon saturation
Sor residual oil saturation
Sw water saturation
Swr residual water saturation
t time
tD dimensionless time
u bulk fluid velocity
v interstitial velocity
Vp pore volume
VDP Dykstra-Parsons coefficient
VpD Pore volume injected into the five-spot pattern
VpDbt (ψ) pore volume of displacing fluid injected at breakthrough of streamline ψ
VpDbt breakthrough pore volume or breakthrough areal sweep efficiency of a pattern
VTr total volume of tracer slug injected into the pattern
WR the ratio of water solvent injected simultaneously; both volumes are in
reservoir volumes
x, y space coordinates
x distance in x-direction
xD dimensionless distance
Y mixing-line integral
z distance in the vertical direction
222
Greek symbols
α reservoir dip angle

αL longitudinal dispersivity
αT transverse dispersivity
αL _num numerical longitudinal dispersivity
αT _num numerical transverse dispersivity

β interface angle
∆ change between the upstream and the downstream value
∆𝜌 density difference between water and oil
Δt time step size

γ specific gravity of the fluid
µ viscosity
µo oil viscosity
µs solvent viscosity
µw water viscosity
ϕ porosity
σwo interfacial tension between water and oil
𝜌𝑜 oil density
𝜌𝑠 solvent density
𝜌𝑤 water density
ψ stream function or value of streamline
223
References
Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M. and Brigham, W.E., "Analysis of Well-to well Tracer Flow to
Determine Reservoir Layering," Journal of Petroleum Technology (1984) 36, No.
11, 1753-1762.
Acs, G., Doleschall, S., and Farkas, E., "General Purpose Compositional Model," Society
of Petroleum Engineering Journal (1985) 25, No. 4, 543–553.
Ahmed, T. H., Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Gulf Professional Publication,
Burlington, MA, 2006.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C., "Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands,"
Transport in Porous Media (1942) 146, 107-116.
Camilleri, D., Engelsen, S., Lake, L.W., Lin, E.C., Ohno, T., Pope, G.A. and
Sepehrnoori, K., "Description of an Improved Compositional Micellar/Polymer
Simulator," SPE Reservoir Engineering (1987) 2, No. 4, 427-432.
Cao, H., Development of Techniques for General Purpose Simulators, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, 2002.
Chang, Y.B., Development of a Three-Dimensional Equation-of-State Compositional
Reservoir Simulator for Miscible Gas Flooding, Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1990.
Chang, Y.B., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K., "A Higher-Order Finite Difference
Compositional Simulator," Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (1990)
5, No. 1: 35-50, November 1990.
Cleary, R. W. and Ungs, M. J., "Analytical Models for Groundwater Pollution and
Hydrology," Report 78-WR-15, Water Resources Program, Princeton University,
New Jersey, 1978.
Coats Engineering, Inc., "System for Efficient Numerical Simulation of Oil Recovery
(SENSOR) Manual," April 1, 2011, http://www.coatsengineering.com/.
Coats, K.H., "An Equation of State Compositional Model," SPE 8284, Society of
Petroleum Engineering Journal (1980) 20, No. 5, 363-376.
Computer Modeling Group Ltd., "Advanced Compositional and GHG Reservoir
Simulator User’s Guide GEM," 2010, http://cmgl.ca/.
Computer Modeling Group Ltd., "Advanced Process and Thermal Reservoir Simulator
User’s Guide STARS," 2011, http://cmgl.ca/.
Corey, A.T., Mathematics of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media, Water Resources
Publication, Littleton, CO, 1986.
224
Dietz, D. N., "A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Encroaching and Bypassing
Edge Water," Proceedings Akadamie Van Wetenschappen, Amsterdan (1953) 56,
83-91.
Fanchi, J.R., "Multidimensional Numerical Dispersion," Society of Petroleum
Engineering Journal (1983) 23, No. 1, 143-151.
Fussell, L. T. and Fussell, D. D., "An Iterative Technique for Compositional Reservoir
Models," SPE 6892, Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal (1979) 19, No. 4,
211-220.
Giordano, R.M., Salter, S.J. and Mohanty, K.K., "The Effects of Permeability Variations
on Flow in Porous Media," SPE 14365, pr esented at the 60th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Las Vegas,
NV, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
Hovanessian, S.A., "Pressure Studies in Bounded Reservoirs," Society of Petroleum
Jhaveri, B.S. and Youngren, G.K., "Three Parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson
Equation of State to Improve Volumetric Predictions," SPE Reservoir
Killough, J.E. and Kossack, C.A., "Fifth Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of
Miscible Flood Simulators," SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX,
Feb. 1-4, 1987.
Lake, L.W., Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989,
142-148.
Lantz, R.B., "Quantitative Evaluation of Numerical Diffusion," Society of Petroleum
Liu, J., Delshad, M., Pope, G. A., and Sepehrnoori, K., "Application of Higher-Order
Flux-Limited Methods in Compositional Simulation," Transport in Porous
Media (1994) 16, 1-29.
Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R., "Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids
from Their Compositions," Transport in Porous Media (1964) 231, 1171-1176.
Michelsen, M. L., "The Isothermal Flash Problem. Part I: Stability," Fluid Phase
Equilibrium (1982) 9, 1-19.
Nelson, R. C. and Pope, G. A., "Phase Relationships in Chemical Flooding," Society of
Petroleum Engineering Journal (1978) 18, No. 5, 325-338.
225
Parashar M., Wheeler, J.A., Pope G.A., Wang, K., and Wang, P., "A New Generation
EOS Compositional Reservoir Simulator: Part II - Framework and
Multiprocessing," SPE 37977, June, 1997.
Peng, D.Y. and Robinson, D.B., "A New Two-Constant Equation of State,” Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals (1976) 15, No. 1, 59-64.
Prouvost, L., Pope, G. A., and Rouse, B., "Microemulsion Phase Behavior: A
Thermodynamic Modeling of the Phase Partitioning of Amphiphilic Species,"
Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal (1985) 25, No.5, 693-703.
Reed, R. L. and Healy, R. N., "Some Physico-Chemical Aspects of Microemulsion
Flooding: A Review," Improved Oil recovery by Surfactant and Polymer
Flooding, D. O. Shah and R. S. Schechter (eds.), Academic Press, New York.
1977.
Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Sherwood, T.K., The Properties of Gases and Liquids,
Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1977.
Richardson, J.G., Kerver, J.K., Hafford, J.A., and Osoba, J.S., "Laboratory Determination
of Relative Permeability," Transport in Porous Media (1952) 195, 187-196.
Soave, G., "Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State,"
Chemical Engineering Science (1972) 27, 1197-1203.
Technical Documentation for UTCOMP 3.8, May 2003.
Terwilliger, P.L., Wilsey, L.E., Hall, H.N., Bridges, P.M. and Morse, R.A., "An
Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Gravity Drainage Performance,"
Transport in Porous Media (1951) 192, 285-295.
Turek, E.A., Metcalfe, R.S., Yarborough, L. and Robinson, R.L., "Phase Equilibria in
CO2- Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Systems: Experimental Data and an
Improved Prediction Technique," Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal
(1984) 24, No. 3, 308-324.
Walsh, M.P. and Lake, L.W., "Applying Fractional Flow Theory to Solvent Flooding and
Chase Fluids," Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (1989) 2, No. 4,
281-303.
Wang, P., Balay, S., Sepehrnoori, K., Wheeler, J., Abate, J., Smith, B., and Pope, G. A.,
"A Fully Implicit Parallel EOS Compositional Simulator for Large Scale
Reservoir Simulation," SPE 51885 pr esented at the 1999 S PE 15th Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, February14-17, 1999.
Wang, P., Yotov, I., Wheeler, M. F., Arbogast, T., Dawson, C., Parashar, M., and
Sepehrnoori, K., "A new generation EOS compositional reservoir simulator: Part І
– formulation and discretization," SPE 37979 p resented at the SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA, June 8-11, 1997.
226
Watts, J. W., "A Compositional Formulation of the Pressure and Saturation Equations."
SPE Reservoir Engineering (1986) 1, No. 3, 243–252.
Willhite, G. P., Waterflooding: SPE Textbook Series Volume 3, R ichardson, Texas,
1986.
Winsor, P. A. Solvent Properties of Amphiphilic Compounds, Butterworths, London,
1954.
227

Li Thesis 2012 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Li Thesis 2012 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright

A Collection of Case Studies for Verification of Reservoir Simulators

Xue Li, B.S.

The University of Texas at Austin

for the Degree of

Master of Science in Engineering

The University of Texas at Austin

It is my honor to be a student in the Petroleum Engineering and Geosystem

Department at The University of Texas at Austin. I would like to express my sincere

and various guidance in my research. He was helpful in providing technical instructions

providing suggestions to my research. I wish to thank Dr. Francisco Marcondes and

and Mahdi Haddad for sharing their knowledge with me.

Finally I would like to show a deep gratitude to my parents who brought me to

also want to thank my Chinese friends in this department.

A Collection of Case Studies for Verification of Reservoir Simulators

Xue Li, M.S.E.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2012

Supervisor: Kamy Sepehrnoori

to the productive life of an oil reservoir. Reservoir simulators have a definitely

techniques to optimum improvement in reservoir productivity. This is significantly

can validate implementation and development of models in the future.

Geosystem Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and CMG is a commercial

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Description of the Reservoir Simulators ........................................................... 7

2.1 UTCOMP .................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 UTCOMP IMPSAT ................................................................................................ 11

2.4 GPAS COATS ........................................................................................................ 14

2.6 CMG-STARS .......................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 3: Simulation Case Studies .................................................................................. 21

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Case Study 1: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Horizontal

3.2.2 Case Study 2: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Vertical

3.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow ....................................... 27

3.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow....................................... 30

3.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect .................................... 34

3.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion ................................. 43

3.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern................................... 47

3.2.9 Case Study 9: One-dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction without

3.2.10 Case Study 10: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction with

3.2.11 Case Study 11: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in Z Directions without

3.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding ........................................ 80

3.2.30 Case Study 30: Waterflooding in a Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir with

Chapter 4: Results ........................................................................................................... 113

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 113

4.2 Comparative Results of Case Studies.................................................................... 114

4.2.1 Case Study 1: One-Dimensional Incompressible Flow with Horizontal

4.2.3 Case Study 3: One-Dimensional Compressible flow ..................................... 116

4.2.4 Case Study 4: Two-dimensional Compressible Flow..................................... 118

4.2.5 Case Study 5: One-Dimensional Capillary End Effect .................................. 119

4.2.6 Case Study 6: One-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation ................. 120

4.2.7 Case Study 7: Two-Dimensional Transverse Dispersion ............................... 122

4.2.8 Case Study 8: Tracer Flow in a Five-Spot Well Pattern................................. 124

4.2.9 Case Study 9: One-dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction without

4.2.10 Case Study 10: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in X Direction with

4.2.11 Case Study 11: One-Dimensional Waterflooding in Z Directions without

4.2.20 Case Study 20: Two-Dimensional Convection-Diffusion Equation ............ 138

4.2.21 Case Study 21: Three Dimensional Waterflooding ...................................... 140

4.2.30 Case Study 30: Waterflooding in a Highly Heterogeneous Reservoir with

5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 174

5.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 175