SPE

SPE 22357

Defining Data Requirements for a Simulation Study

A.K. Dandona, A.B. Alston, and A.W. Braun, Texaco Inc.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, China, 24-27 March 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(sl. Contents of t~e paper,
as presented. have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correclio~ by the author(sl. The matenal, as presen!ed: does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetIngs are sUb)ec.t to publIcatIon revIew by Edl~onal CommIttees of the SocIety
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustratIons may not be COPIed. The abstract should contaIn conspIcuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836. Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT (3 ) After the model is calibrated by proper trans-

lation of reservoir geologic data and historic
This paper addresses the importance of timely data production performance data, sensitivity
collection for proper reservoir management using studies can be initiated to optimize recovery
simulation as a tool. Data requirements for b1ack- and economi cs. Moreover, operat i ona1 con-
oil, compositional and steam simulation have been siderations' such as the timing for water
documented. The interplay between various geo- handling facilities or gas compression
sciences and the proper translation of data ensure requirements, can be forecast.
the success of such an effort.
This paper addresses the type of data that is
INTRODUCTION required for black-oil, compositional and enhanced
oil recovery (EOR) simulations.
Reservoir simulation is being used increasingly as a
reservoir management tool. In real life a given IMPORTANCE OF GOOD RESERVOIR DATA
reservoir can only be produced once. A model with a
proper geological description followed by a history There is a saying: "If you think knowledge is
match validation can provide the opportunity to expensive, just imagine how expensive ignorance can
hypothesize production under different scenarios. be."
Sens it i vi ty studi es can 1ead to product ior of the
reservoir in the most optimum way. Coats defines The temptation will always be to short-cut data
simulation as the use of calculations to predict acqUisition to reduce costs. It must be remembered
reservoir performance, forecast recovery, or compar~ that certa in types of data, such as core deri ved
economi cs of a1ternat i ve recovery methods. Odeh information, initial fluid properties, fluid
describes simulation as a basic extension of we11- contacts, and initial reservoir pressures, can only
known reservoir engineering theories and concepts, be obtained at an early development stage. The data
such as Buckley Leverett, or material-balance equa- obtained plays a vital role in evaluating the
tions that were developed prior to 1960. Simulation development options of a given reservoir.
is a powerful tool for the folloWing reasons:
An equally vital component of reservoir simulation is
(1) It provides the ability to simultaneously translation of this data in the proper form. Some of
incorporate the effects of a number of the examples of this type of knowledge are transla-
variables such as gravity, mobility, rock tion of two-phase (gas-oil and oil-water) relative
heterogeneity, re1at i ve permeabil ity, capi 11 ary permeability data to simulate three-phase flow condi-
pressure, and fluid properties. tions. An additional need is understanding the
difference between flash (separator) and differential
(2) The process itself forces an engineer to liberation (reservoir) and the proper representation
closely examine all pieces of a reservoir and of this data into the simulator. Translation of
all geological information. Insight is gained geological models into reservoir flow units or
regarding regional performance variations that boundaries with proper size and number of grid cells
can be incorporated into simulation. This in will have an impact on simulation generated results.
turn provi des momentum for better reservoi r Two of the most interesting paper) on model4
management. mi sapp1 i cat i on have been written by Coats and Staggs
et a1.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
255
2 DEFINING DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR A SIMULATION STUDY
TYPES OF SIMULATION PREDOMINANT IN THE OIL INDUSTRY
The reservoirs most frequently simulated contain
black-oil. The term black-oil means that oil is
treated as a single component with no interaction
with the gas or water phase. These models are
capabl e of simul at i ng performance under depl et ion,
gas or water injection, water influx and oil
di spl acement by movement of gas/oil or oil/water
contacts.
Compositional models account for interaction between
various hydrocarbon phases. Such is the case for a
rich gas condensate or a volatile oil reservoir. EOR
processes can be described as:
• Miscible - CO and hydrocarbon injection
• Chemical - po~ymer and surfactant injection
• Thermal - steam, hot water and insitu combustion
Miscible simulations usually require use of composi-
tional simulation, whereas chemical processes such as
polymer and surfactant can be simulated by a modified
black-oil simulator. Thermal simulators are quite
complex since in addition to fluid flow, they contain
heat flow equations. This paper will describe the
data requirements for steam injection only.
DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL CONSTRUCTION
The information reqUired to determine initial
distribution of rock properties and fluid quantities
is common to all types of simulations. Types of data
reqUired are described under following~ategories:
1) Reservoir data
2) Fluid properties
3) Field performance data
4) Enhanced oil recovery considerations
RESERVOIR DATA
Information Sources
The amount of data available to describe a reservoir
is dependent on the development stage of the reser-
voir. At an early stage of reservoir development the
information is available from only a few wells. The
following information sources are utilized:
1) Seismic data
2) Core analysis
3) Well logs
4) Well test data
Tables 1 through 4 illustrate the type of information
that can be obtained from these sources.
The core analyses, well log and well test data are
acqUired for individual wells. An integration of all
the information has to be made in order to describe
distribution of properties in areal and vertical
dimensions. This task is called reservoir
description.
Reservoir Description
The task is best accomplished by an interdisciplinary
team consisting of geologists, geophysicists, well
log analysts, production and reservoir engineers. An
examp1e of how th i s i nterplay can occur between
256
SPE 22357
geologic and reservoir engineering data is shown as
Figure 1 from Harris.
Reservoirs can be broadly classified as clastic
(sandstone) or carbonate. It is relatively simple to
describe a sandstone reservoir since modern day
analogs prOVide essential models to do so. Figure 2
from Harris and Hewitt 7 presents the types of
depositional sites a sand reservoir can provide.
They further cl assi fy these reservoirs into three
types of geometries. Figure 3 describes these
layouts graphically.
Carbonate reservoirs 8 are generally difficult to
descri be. Jardi ne et a1. in thei r paper
"Distribution and ContinUity of Carbonate Reservoirs"
document such an effort. Their experience is that
these rocks are heterogeneous both in terms of
porosity and permeability. The depositional process
itself is complex. Diagenetic changes are very
random and can mod i fy rock texture cons iderab1y .
Generally dolomitization has a positive effect on
modification of porosity. Figure 4 from Jardine8 et
al. shows how porosity in carbonates is altered by
various processes.
Duri ng the exp1orat i on stage exami nat i on of core
cuttings and analysis of core rock samples are key to
formulating a depositional model.
Reservoi r descri pt ion is a continuous process. As
the field is developed the models should De reviewed
and modified as necessary. As reservoir performance
data becomes available, the knowledge of reservoir
discontinuities such as faults, barriers, boundaries
and stratification becomes more refined.
Another powerful tool that has become available for
reservoir description is 3-D 9seismic data. Recent
papers by Pl et A Rui jtenberg et a1. descri be how
using 3-D seismic data results in a more complete
description of reservoir boundaries and structure.
Figure 5 origi n,\~ ly presented in thei r paper is
shown. Robertson documents how 3-D seismic can add
reserves and facilitate cost-effective reservoir
management. The number and location of development
wells can be optimized for maximum recovery.
In many cases older, two-dimensional seismic data can
be reprocessed to obtain more detailed information.
Three-dimensional seismic data is also being used in
moni tori ng saturation fronts and 1ocat i ng oil
previously bypassed.
Matrix Requirements
The integration of depositional model construction
along with information listed in Tables 1 through 4
should provide the necessary information to describe
the variation in reservoir rock properties along with
discontinuities and stratification. This variation
is prepared as contour maps. Table 5 provides a list
of maps that can be prepared to describe the
reservoir.
Alternate methods are available to describe water
saturation and permeability distribution. These will
be described later on. Other reservoir related data
items are:
SPE 22357 A. K. DANDONA. R. B. ALSTON. R. S. JOHNSON, R. W. BRAUN
1) Relative permeability
2) Capillary pressure for Oil-water and gas-oil
system
3) Rock compressibility
4) Vertical permeability
5) Absolute permeability distribution
6) Initial water saturation distribution
7) Pay thickness cut-offs
Relative Permeability
Two-phase relative permeability such as that of oil-
gas or oil-water can be measured in the laboratory."
Both steady-state and unsteady-state methods are
available. Hassler, Hafford, and dispersed feed
methods measure relative permeabilities under steady-
state flow. Unsteady-state rel ative permeabil ity
methods take less time. The Buckley Leverett theory
as extended by Welge can be used to compute relative
permeability ratio from the following relationship:
(1)
JBT method, capillary pressure and centrifuge methods
are used to determi ne re1at i ve permeabil i ty us i ng
unsteady state methods. Gas-oil relative
permeabil ity can sometimes be estimated from field
data, as follows:
kg Bo I1 g
- (Rp - R s > ....J.
ko Bo 11 0
(2)
In the absence of measured data, two-phase relative
permeabil ities can be approximateq from publ i shed
correlations such as those of Corey 2.
The methodology to estimate two-phase relative
permeability is well established. Measured data for
three-phase relative permeability is seldom
available. Typically simulators are programmed to
compute 3-phase rel ative permeabil ity from 2-phase
gas-oil and oil-water relative permeabilities. The
end points for each of the~I furves are honored in
the calculations. Stone's" probabilistic model
described as a set of equations is commonly used.
The following precautions should be considered when
processing three-phase relative permeability data.
• Examine the end oil saturation to the type of
displacement simulated. The mathematical model
will not permit oil saturation to go below that
number. Many times re1at i ve permeabil i ty to
oil at low oil saturation is critical in
predicting reservoir behavior towards the later
part of the reservoir life.
• Much of the published literat~fe is based on
water-wet rock systems. Stone describes why
his method is applicable to both water-wet and
oil-wet systems. In a water-wet system, water
and gas relative permeabil ity is a dependent
funct i on of water and gas saturat i on only.
Similarly, in an oil-wet system, oil and gas
257
3
relative permeabilities are a function of their
respective saturations. If three-phase rela-
tive permeabilities are generated from measured
gas-oil and oil-water data, it is best to
ensure measurements are made with proper
consideration of wettability.
• Ensure that relative permeabilities honor the
direction of change of wetting phase satura-
tion. Drainage refers to a decreasing wetting-
phase saturation while imbibition refers to an
increasing wetting phase saturation. Injection
of dry gas into an oil reservoir is an example
of drainage, while injection of water into an
oil reservoir is imbibition.
• The dependence of waterflood residual oil on
trapped gas saturation can be handled by i
method suggested by Dandona and Morse. '
Stone's'4 probability method also accounts for
such effects.
Proper analysis of 3-phase relative permeability data
is quite critical. The engineer should take the time
to ensure that the end points of relative permea-
bil ity data as well as the rest of the saturation
range are properly handled with regard to rock wetta-
bility and gas entrapment.
Capillary Pressure
Capill ary pressure is the difference in pressure
across the interface between wetting and non-wetting
fluids. For a gas-oil-water study, capillary
pressure curves will be required for gas-oil and oil-
water systems. The data can be acquired in the
laboratory by measurements on core plugs. The
mercury injection method is rapid but destroys the
core. Other 1aboratory methods are di sp1acement
through a porous diaphragm and centrifugal methods.
Another good source of such information is well log
data where a well has penetrated through gas-oil and
oil-water contacts. Water saturation vs. distance
from gas-oil or oil-water contact can be plotted.
The distance from the oil-water contact is then
translatable to capillary pressure.
Rock Compressi~ility
For normally pressured sands, rock compressibility
can be either measured in the laboratory or derive~
from published correlations such as that of Hall.'
However, for abnormal pressure sands such as those
present in U.S. Gulf Coast, good correlations are
unavailable and it is best to carry out laboratory
measurements.
Vertical Permeability
Vertical permeability can playa significant role in
some flow situations, such as coning, gravity
override, and cross-flow between sand 1ayers.
Geological discontinuities or thin, tight beds such
as shales that separate various hydrocarbon zones are
a1so important to vert ica1 flow. Experi ence
indicates that there are significant performance
differences between non-permeable and low
permeability barriers. A value of zero for vertical
permeabil i ty can i so1ate a hori zonta1 1ayer from
communication. On the other hand, a low permeability
(e.g., one md.) can permit significant cross-flow
4 DEFINING DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR A SIMULATION STUDY
because of the large cross-sectional area
perpendicular to horizontal flow.
Vertical permeability values can be measured on core
plugs and adjusted downward to account for shale
1enses. We11 test data such as interference and
pulse tests can also be used to estimate these
values.
Absolute Permeability Distribution
Conventional core analysis typically measures
porosity and absolute air permeability. Permeability
is one of the most difficult parameters to predict in
terms of variation and distribution. Well flow test
analysis from bUild-up and falloff tests can provide
permeability x thickness (koh) for the interval
tested. The advantage of til is method is that it
measures permeabil it i es and total flow capaci ty of
the system in-situ. It must be emphasized that kh by
th is method is in effect kQh or kgh as the case may
be. A transform of several values of koh from test
data should be compared with core analysis computed
kh. Asignificantly high ratio of kph/kcoreh indicates
presence of vugs and fractures in ~he system.
Since the number of cored wells is typically limited,
the areal distribution must be estimated from
porosity-permeability transforms. Core porosity
sample data is plotted on a linear scale vs.
permeability data on a log scale. Regression
ana1ys is is performed to fi t a curve through such
data. Since porosity for most wells is also
available from well logs, this transform can then be
used to calculate permeability distribution.
Figure'7 6 shows such a transform. It is our
experience that scatter of data is considerable and
as such it is difficult to predict values of
permeability. At times some consideration of
depositional model, rock types and facies reduces
degree of scatter. It is recommended that a
transform be developed for each major rock unit or
facies to reduce scatter.
Initial Water Saturation Distribution
Initial water saturation by layer can either be
mapped by averaging water saturation values over each
interval (Table 5) or computed using the 'J'
function. Actual saturation values are computed from
the electric logs based on resistivity values. The
"J" function approach is essentially a correlation
that fits initial water saturation values t~
permeabil i ty and porosity values. Rose and Bruce 1
describe the method in detail and express the "J"
function as follows:
J(S) = Pc ~ (3)
w 0owcos 6 c ~ Cji
Porosity and permeability distribution is obtained
from the map of each layer. u~ is the interfacial
tension between oil and water and e is the contact
angle between the interface separating the two fluids
and the surface of rock. The advantage of this
method is the abil i ty to compute water saturation
distribution for each model cell or node based on
porosity and permeability.
258
SPE 22357
Pay Thickness Cut-off
To determine the amount of oil available for deple-
t ion, net thi ckness has to be determi ned. It is
quite easy to rationalize that non-porous, non-
permeable rock volume such as shale mixed with sand
should not be part of the pay. However, many times
a geologist also applies criteria which are based on
porosity-permeabil ity cutoffs as well as on water
saturation cutoffs. The rationale behind this type
of criteria is that rock below certain porosity or
permeability values will not contribute to the
reserves. However, it stands to reason that unless
this rock volume is in non-connecte~ porosity, given
enough time it should produce. In addition it also
provides additional pressure support to the reser-
voir. Gas as a fluid can produce through much
tighter rock as compared to oil. During the deple-
tion phase almost all of the reservoir in continuous
pore space should contribute to the recovery. How-
ever, during waterflood or other recovery processes,
part of the rock volume in the tight pore space may
not contribute to recovery. In other words, cut-offs
are process dependent.
Enhanced oil recovery processes requi re addi tiona1
data. Table 6 provides a 1ist of the special
reservoir data needed for miscible, chemical and
steam simulation.
FLU ID PROPERTY ES
We have provided guidelines for translation of
geological and rock data for a simulation study.
Fluid property data acquisition and analysis are also
vital components of a data collection program. One
of the most compl ete papers on thi s subject is by
Moses. 19 He stresses the importance of accurate fl uid
samples: "Fluid samples must be taken early in the
life of the reservoir to obtain samples truly repre-
sentative of the reservoir fluid. They should be
taken only after a carefully planned well condi-
tioning and testing program. When the PVT data
obtained from these samples are used, care should be
taken to adjust FVF's and gas-oil ratios (GOR's) for
surface separator condition."
The proper understanding of the fluid behavior system
as a function of pressure and temperature is
essential. Figure 7 is a pressure temperature
diagram illustrating that the initial fluid system
can be broadly categorized as:
1) black-oils or low shrinkage oils,
2) volatile oils or high shrinkage oils,
3) gas-condensate systems, and
4) gas systems, both wet and dry gas.
It is noted that a given fluid system goes through
several changes as pressure on the system changes
during the depletion phase of reservoir.
The reservoir fluid sample for study is obtained from
bottomhole sampling or from recombination of surface
separator samples of gas and liquid. Analyses of
these separator samples are performed in the
laboratory and the fluids are then recombined to the
desired reservoir fluid composition, producing gas-
oil ratio (Rs ' SCF/STB). From this point both the
bottomhole sample and recombined samPle are examined
utilizing the identical procedure. The following
SPE 22357 A. K. DANDONA, R. B. ALSTON, R. S. JOHNSON, R. W. BRAUN 5

information will be obtainable from the series of The final type of reservoir system is the wet-
tests on the black-oil samp1es. z1 gas/dry-gas. As indicated by their designation, both
of these fl uids exi st in the gaseous state under
1) Compositional analysis reservoir conditions. PVT data would give only the
fluid density and gas compressibility factor (Z).
2) Constant mass study The only difference would occur at the surface where
a) saturation pressure the wet-gas system would produce some very 1ight
b) pressure-volume relations liquid, usually less than 10 STB/MMSCF of produced
c) oil compressibility at various pressures gas.
d) fluid relative volume factors
e) volume percent 1iquid as a function of The increased interest in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
the pressure confronts the simulationist with new problems in his
attempts to successfully predict actual reservoir
3) Differential vaporization study performance. Most CO or hydrocarbon miscible
a) solution gas as a function of pressure flooding operations would require the following tests
b) formation volume factor as a function of to be performed.
pressure
c) liquid density as a function of pressure 1) Slimtube displacement studies
d) gas gravity as a function of pressure a) determine the mlnlmum miscibility
pressure at the reservoir temperature
4) Equilibrium liquid phase viscosity b) estimate the average residual oil
determination saturation after COz flooding.
5) Separator flash optimization study 2) Single contact miscibility studies -- pressure-
a) producing gas-oil ratio as a function of volume relations for a series of COz-reservoir
separator pressure at room temperature fluid mixtures
b) oil formation volume factor based on room a) bubble point or dew point pressure
temperature flashed oil b) single phase formation volume factor
c) produced gas composition (swelling factor)
c) single phase fluid density
Table 6 is the list of fluid data for a black-oil d) liquid volumes as a function of pressure
simulation. As the reservoir fluid properties
approach those of a high shrinkage oil/volatile oil 3) Liquid phase viscosity determination
system, it becomes more advantageous to obtain addi- preferably on two COz/reservoir fluid mixtures
tional laboratory information in order to predict the from the bubblepoint region
fluid behavior during normal reservoir depletion/-
production. In addition to the analyses performed 4) Vaporization studies
for the bl ack-oil system, Z,23,Z4 the fo11 owi ng test a) determine the optimum vaporization
should be performed for the volatile oil samples. pressure (OVP) at the reservoir
temperature
1) Constant volume depletion study b) determine the maximum recovery from
a) equilibrium vapor-phase composition vaporization only
b) fraction of well stream produced c) determine hydrocarbon distribution
c) equilibrium gas deviation factors through C + on
d) liquid-volume shrinkage below saturation 1. stotk tank oil
pressure to abandonment pressure. 2. produced liquid condensate
3. residual liquid
The gas-condensate systemZ5 requi res data that is very 4. produced vapor (including liquid
similar to that of the volatile oil system. Unlike content as STB/MMSCF)
the black-oil or volatile oil systems, bottomhole
samples should not be u~[d for obtaining gas- The aforementioned wish list basically summarizes
condensate fluid samples. Also because this data required for various types of fluid systems.
reservoir fluid is gaseous at reservoir conditions, Proper interpretation of this data for a simulation
no liquid-phase viscosity or separator flash study requires additional skills. Moses 19 in his
optimization tests are performed. After successful paper descri bes di fferences between fl ash and
separator fluid analyses, the following tests are different i a1 li berat ion. It is commonly bel i eved
performed: that a gi ven reservoi r resemb1 es the di fferent i a1
1i berat i on process in the reservoi r and a flash
1) Modified constant mass study (visual cell only) separation occurs in the production lines and
for a series of recombined gas-oil ratios separator. However, the reported product ion is
a) pressure-volume relations always stock tank bb1s. Thus, it is essential to
b) dew point pressures combine both flash and differential liberations for
c) liquid volumes as a function of pressure FVF a~d GOR fun.ct io.ns fo~ proper reRresentat i on of
d) mixture densities data ln black-oll slmulatlon. Moses 9 describes the
e) gas phase compressibility factors procedure to do that in his paper.
f) gas formation volume factors
Compositional simulations for rich condensate or
2) Constant volume depletion study volatile oil systems require representation of fluid
a) hydrocarbon composition of the liberated behavior using an equation 91 state such as Peng-
gas Robi nson Z6 or Redl i ch-Kwong. In order to reduce
b) retrograde liquid-volume measurements computational time, hydrocarbon components are lumped
into subgroups such as C1 through C3 ' C3 through C6

259
6 DEFINING DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR A SIMULATION STUDY
and C7+. For increased detail, the C7+ group is
frequently broken into two or three subgroups.
Laboratory measured data such as retrograde 1i qu id
drop-out (Figure 8) is matched using component
grouping. The computational times are three to five
times more compared to the black-oil systems. Models
are generally unstable near the critical locus of the
P-T diagram.
Additional data requirements for EOR are given in
Tables 7, 8, and 9.
FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA
Acquisition and Performance Prediction
The simulator calculates the fluids in-place and
their distribution after geological, rock and fluid
data are properly input into the model.
For the purpose of this discussion we can consider
the field to be in various stages of development.
These can be: . matured. Movements for various fronts such as gas
1. Early development -- under production for less
than a year.
2. Intermediate -- producing under depletion or
pressure maintenance for less than five years.
3. Fully developed reservoir under production for
10+ years.
4. Field under EOR.
The performance data can be categorized as:
(1) well completion data
(2) production/injection data
Well data relates to tubing and casing size,
perforation intervals, timing of any workover or
recompletion, productivity or injectivity index of
each well.
The oil rate, GOR, WOR and pressure vs. time data on
a well-by-well basis are needed to conduct a history
match.
For a field in the early development stage, usually
it is possible to derive the following benefits from
simulation:
(1 ) close match of fluids in place from geological
analysis and model description.
(2) establishment of recovery under depletion and
range of recoveries for immiscible fluid
injection.
(3) optimum timing at which injection should begin.
(4) rate-time forecast to help determine present
economics of the field.
At an intermediate stage of development the
geological, rock, and fluid description as well as
initial fluids in place can be verified more
accurately. Geological description is a continuous
process. In this stage if the geological and fluid
descriptions do not provide a match with performance
data, it is necessary to review and change the
260
SPE 22357
description. The early breakthrough of injected
fluids may indicate high permeability streaks. If
breakthrough t imi ng does not match, re1at i ve
permeability should also be re-examined.
Continuous flow meter logs or spinner surveys carried
out on injection and production wells can help
determi ne the entry and exit poi nt of fl ui ds. For
open hole completions, electric logs can help monitor
gas/oil and water/oil contacts or changes in water
saturation. For cased hole completions TOT logs can
be useful in providing details of fluid movement. A
model capable of duplicating the measured field data
provides a high level of confidence in predicting
future behavi or of the reservoi r. Vari ous future
operating strategies such as recompletion programs,
timing of gas lift installations, etc., can now be
examined.
Simulation for a fully developed reservoir is
basically an extension of the intermediate stage.
However, by this time reservoir description has fully
and water have also been matched. It is equally
important to determine where remaining oil is present
in the reservoir and what is ultimately recoverable.
A point of caution here is to examine the relative
permeability to oil at low oil saturations.
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Simulation predictions become more complex for EOR
methods. In most cases historical performance data
is not available. Additional work has to be done to
closely determine remaining oil saturation and its
distribution in the reservoir.
Miscible (C0 2/Hydrocarbon) Flooding
Compositional simulation of enhanced oil recovery
processes such as CO 2 requi res characteri zati 29 of
fluid behavior using an equation of state.' A
step-wise procedure to simulation is as follows:
1. Match 1aboratory work us i ng an equation of
state program.
2. Use one-dimensional, small grid cells to
duplicate lab test data such as slimtube
results.
3. Optimize slug size using a one-dimensional
model.
4. Conduct simulation on a pattern or smallest
symmetrical element to optimize operating
schemes.
5. Scale results on field-wide basis based on
pattern results. Verify those results by con-
ducting limited field scale model simulation.
The ability to predict the performance of a reservoir
under enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is more difficult
than for black-oil. EOR models are highly process
dependent. In addition to having reservoir and EOS
knowledge, one has to confront translation of multi-
contact miscibility data into the simulator. Slim-
tube data is one-dimensional while the reservoir can
have 3-dimensional flow. Part of the reservoir can
be immiscible, part partially miscible and part
completely miscible. The possible changes in rock
wettability or interfacial tension and corresponding
changes in residual oil saturation are difficult to
precisely define and fine-tune.
SPE 22357 A. K. DANDONA, R. B. ALSTON, R. S. JOHNSON, R. W. BRAUN
Since a significant portion of EOR simulation study
is for planning purposes, the results are useful in
terms of relative comparison of cases. If the
objective is to establish ultimate recovery, field
performance data from similar reservoirs flooded with
similar fluids should be reviewed as an analog. If
field pilot test data is available, such data should
be carefully matched before scaling the results on a
fieldwide basis.
Chemical (Polymer/Surfactant) Flooding
Polymers and surfactant chemicals are added to
injection water. Polymers are used to provide
mobil i ty control duri ng di spl acement by increas i ng
water viscosity and reducing rock permeability.
Selective injection profile control in which high
permeabil ity zones are blocked to alter inject i on
profile is another application. A black- oil model
can be modified to simulate performance. Stability
of polymer at reservoir temperature and its inter-
action with formation water should be evaluated in
the laboratory.
Surfactants decrease residual oil saturation by
reducing interfacial tension. Considerable
1aboratory work is requi red to fi nd an effective
surfactant system and to perform core floods. A
black-oil model capable of tracking injected fluid
concentration and its effect on relative permeability
can provide incremental forecasts of oil recovery.
As is the case with miscible flood simulations,
chemical flooding should first be simulated on small
one-dimens i onal model s to dup1i cate 1aboratory
results. Pattern simulations can then be followed
with reservoir scale studies.
Thermal (Steam) Flooding
The advantages of steam as a medium for moving heat
to a displacement front are its relatively high heat-
carrying capacity plus the large amount of heat which
may be transferred to a formation as heat of
condensation.
The simulation model should account for heat loss in
surface facilities, injection well bore a~g vertical
loss to the surrounding strata. Figure 9 is an
illustration of heat losses which occur. Model
mathematics in addition to fluid flow and heat
transfer should also account for:
1. Thermal expansion of oil -- this results in
reduced SQr when reservoir temperature
approaches lnitial temperature.
2. Viscosity reduction permitting more efficient
immiscible displacement.
3. Steam distillation if reservoir oil contains
distillable light components.
If field production data is available, a match
between measured and computed oil, water and steam
rates is obtained. It is important to match steam
breakthrough times as well as API gravity and
viscosity of produced oil. Steamflood simulation is
complex and does require significantly more
engineering and computer time. It is more convenient
to simulate a portion (or pattern) of the reservoir
and then scale the results.
261
7
CONCLUSIONS
We have described the data requirements for
conducting a simulation study for black-oil,
compos it i ona1 and enhanced oil recovery processes.
The following conclusions are made:
1. Data requirements should be considered early in
the life of reservoir.
2. Interdisciplinary teams should be used for
reservoir description and data analysis.
3. Sens i t i vi ty runs shoul d be made to determi ne
whi ch data parameters have key i nfl uence on
results. Every effort should be made to obtain
that data.
4. If model-computed performance does not match
field data, do not force fit the history match
but review each data parameter and its impact
on results.
5. Compositional and EOR simulation should be
first conducted with one-dimensional and
pattern models. Pattern simulations can then
be followed with field scale studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the management of Texaco
EPTD for providing encouragement and funding for the
support of this effort.
REFERENCES
1. Coats, K. H.: "Reservoir Simulation: State of
the Art", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1982) 1633-1642.
2. Odeh, A. S.: "Reservoir Simulation -- What is
it?", J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1969) 1383-1388.
3. Coats, K. H.: "Use and Misuse of Reservoir
Simulation Models", J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1969)
1391-1398.
4. Staggs, H. M. and Herbeck, E. F.: "Reservoir
Simulation Models--An Engineering Overview", J.
Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1428-1436.
5. Keelan, D.: "Coring", World Oil (March 1985)
83-90.
6. Harris, D. G.: "The Role of Geology in
Reservoir Simulation Studies", J. Pet. Tech.
(May 1975) 625-632.
7. Harris, D. G. and Hewitt, C. H.: "Synergism in
Reservoi r Management The Geo1ogi c
Perspective", J. Pet. Tech. (July 1977) 761-
770.
8. Jardine, D., Andrews, D. P., Wishart, J. W.,
and Young, J. W.: "Distribution and Continuity
of Carbonate Reservoirs", J. Pet. Tech. (July
1977) 873-885.
9. Ruijtenberg, P. A., Buchanan, R., and Marke,
P.: "Three-Dimensional Data Improve Reservoir
Mapping", J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1990) 22-25, 59-
61.
8 DEFINING DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR A SIMULATION STUDY SPE 22357

10. Robertson, J. D.: "Reservoir Management Using 27. Redlich, O. and Kwong, J. N. S.: "On the
3D Seismic Data", J. Pet. Tech. (July 1989) Thermodynamics of Solutions V. An Equation of
663-667. State Fugacities of Gaseous Solutions", Chern.
Reviews (Feb. 1949) 44, 233-244.
11. Honarpour, M., Koedertiz, L. and Harvey, A. H.:
"Relative Permeability of Petroleum 28. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Fundamentals of Thermal
Reservoirs", CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Oil Recovery", p. 165, Dallas, The Petroleum
Florida (1986) 1-13. Publishing Co., 1965.
12. Corey, A. T.: "The Interre1at i on Between Gas
and Oil Relative Permeabil ities", Prod. Mon.
19, 38, 1954.
13. Stone, H. L.: "Estimation of Three-Phase
Relative Permeability", J. Pet. Tech. 2, 214,
1970.
14. Stone, H. L.: "Estimation of Three-Phase
Rel ative Permeabil ity and Residual Oil Data",
J. of Can. Pet. Tech. 12, 53, 1973.
15. Dandona, A. K. and Morse, R. A.: "How Flooding
Rate and Gas Saturation Affect Waterflood
Performance", Oil and Gas Journal, July 2 and
9, 1973.
16. Hall, A. C.: "Effective Formation
Compressibility", Trans. AIME (1953) 198, 309.
L7. Levorsen, A.!.: "Geology of Petroleum, Second
Edition", W. H. Freeman Publ ishing Co., San
Francisco, (1967) 128-129.
18. Rose, W. and Bruce, W. A.: "Evaluation of
Capillary Character in Petroleum Reservoir
Rock", Trans. AIME (1949) 186, 127-142.
19. Moses, P. L.: "Engineering Applications of
Phase Behavi or of Crude Oi 1 and Condensate
Systems", J. Pet. Tech. (July 1986) 715-723.
20. Reservoir Fluids Laboratory, Inc.: "Produce
Description and Price Schedule, North America",
Houston, TX, Jan. 1991.
21. Whitson, C. H. and Torp, S. B.: "Evaluating
Constant-Volume Depletion Data", J. of Pet.
Tech. (March 1983) 610-620.
22. Jacoby, R. H. and Berry, V. J., Jr.: "A Method
for Predicting Depletion Performance of a
Reservoir Producing Volatile Crude Oil", Trans.
AIME, 210, 27-33, 1957.
23. Cook, A. B., Spencer, G. B. and Bobrowski, F.
P.: "Special Considerations in Predicting
Reservoir Performance of Highly Volatile Type
Oil Reservoirs", Trans. AIME, 192, 37-46, 1951.
24. Reudelhuber, F. O. and Hinds, R. F.: "A
Compositional Material Balance Method for
Prediction of Recovery from Volatile Oil
Depletion Drive Reservoirs", Trans. AIME, 210,
19-26, 1957 (?).
25. Coats, K. H.: "Simulation of Gas-Condensate
Reservoir Performance", SPEJ (Oct. 1985) 1870-
1886.
26. Peng, D. Y. and Robinson, D. B.: "A New Two-
Constant Equation of State", Ind. Eng. Chern.
Fund (1976) 15, 59-64.

262
 TABLE 1
SPE 2235 7
Information from Seismic Data

1. Structure - size, shape, orientation and continuity

2. Gross thickness of reservoir
3. Presence of faults or discontinuities such as unconformity truncation
4. Fracture intensity and orientation
5. Type of fluid -- gas or liquid
6. Cross-well tomography techniques can provide distribution of bypassed oil
-- useful for EOR

TABLE 2
Information From Core Analysis 5
GEOLOGICAL
1. Formation lithology (sandstone, limestone, dolomite, etc.)
2. Sedimentary structures (laminations, cross-bedding, root casts, worm
burrows)
3. Porosity type (storage capacity)
intergranular vugular-moldic
intragranular fracture
intercrystalline microporosity
4. Permeability (flow capacity)
5. Presence or absence of oil (fluorescence)
6. Formation presence and thickness (tops and bottoms)
7. Format i on sequence
8. Formation age, facies and correlation (biostratigraphy)
9. Depositional environment
10. Fracture definition
depth and occurrence
length
depth angle
width
11. Diagenesis (chemical, physical and biologic changes after deposition)
ENGINEERING
1. Porosity
2. Permeability
3. Permeability heterogeneity (Lorenze coefficient, variance factor)
4. Porosity vs. permeability relationships
5. Reservoir water saturations (oil-base cores)
6. Reservoir residual oil saturations and distribution (pressure and sponge
core)
7. Data for calibration and refinement of downhole log calculations
Grain density
Calcimetry (limestone/dolomite ratio)
Acoustic velocity
Gamma ray characteristics (core gamma and core spectral)
Electrical properties ("m" and On")
Mineralogy and clay type, distribution and quantity
8. Special core analysis
Relative permeability
Formation wettability
Capillary pressure (water-retention properties)
Pore volume compressibility
Rock-injected fluid compatibility
Residual gas (trapped by water)

263
 TABLE 3
Information From Well Logs

1. Structural tops
2. Gross/net pay thickness
3. Porosity vs. depth
4. Initial water saturation vs. depth
5. Presence or absence of shales
6. Depth of gas/oil or oil/water contacts
7. Well to well correlations
• continuity of sand
• vertical stratification definition
8. Gas-oil and oil-water capillary pressure drainage curves
9. Lithology definition

TABLE 4
Well Test Data

1. Reservoir pressure
2. Effective permeability thickness product (koh, kgh)
3. Productivity, injectivity index, completion efficiency (wellbore damage)
4. Distance of well from the fault or discontinuity
5. The size of reservoir (continuity of sand)
6. Single or double porosity systems
7. Continuity of permeability between the wells -- interference testing
8. Presence of fractures or high permeability streaks

TABLE 5
Reservoir Information ReqUired for a Simulation Study

1. Structure map of each reservoir

2. Isopach maps (net and gross thickness) with location of gas/oil and
oilwater contacts for each layer
3. I/O porosity distribution for each layer
4. Rock region maps for each layer
5. Maps of flow barriers such as faults for each layer
6. Water saturation maps for each layer
7. Permeability distribution maps for each layer

Note: Layer is a continuous flow unit. It mayor may not communicate with
layers above and below. Their primary function is to define stratification in
the reservoir.

264
 SPE 2235 7
TABLE 6
Fluid-Data for Black-Oil From Laboratory Measurements

1. Oil FVF vs. reservoir pressure

2. Gas FVF vs. reservoir pressure
3. Water FVF vs. reservoir pressure
4. Oil viscosity vs. pressure
5. Gas viscosity vs. pressure
6. Gas in solution vs. reservoir pressure
7. Water viscosity
8. Oil compressibility
9. Water compressibility
10. Oil FVF at separator conditions
11. Gas in solution at separator conditions

TABLE 7
Additional Reservoir Rock Data for Enhanced Oil Recovery·

Miscible (C0 2 , Hydrocarbon)

• Changes in rock wettabi1ity
• Effect on relative permeability (Sor)
Chemical (polymer, surfactant)
• Polymer/surfactant absorption on the reservoir rock
• Polymer residual resistance factor (effect of adsorption on rock
permeabil ity)
• Polymer inaccessible pore volume
• Rock ion exchange capacity with injected fluid
• Effect on relative permeability (Sor) for surfactant
Thermal (steam)
• Temperature dependent relative permeability curves
• Residual oil saturation to steam vapor (Sorg)
• Pore volume compressibility
• Rock thermal conductivity
• Rock heat capacity

• In some cases these data cannot be measured directly and must be

determined by history matching laboratory core flood recoveries.

265
 TABLE 8
22351
Additional Fluid Property Data
for Chemical Flooding (PolymerjSurfactants)

Polymers
1. Stability of polymer at reservoir temperature
2. Polymer viscosity vs. concentration and shear rate
3. Core flood recoveries
Surfactant
1. Solution stability
2. Phase equilibrium (oil-water distribution of surfactant)
3. Change in interfacial tension

TABLE 9
Additional Fluid Property Data
for Thermal Flooding

1. Temperature and pressure dependent equilibrium constant (k-values)

2. Viscosity as a function of temperature
3. Thermal expansion and heat capacity of oil

TYPE OF EXAMPLES OF
GEOLOGIC ACTIVITY INTERPLAY OF EFFORT
ROCK STUDIES
LITHOLOGY
DEPOSITIONAL ORIGIN
RESERVOIR ROCK TYPES
CORE
ANALYSIS

FRAMEWORK STUDIES
STRUCTURE
CONTINUITY
GROSS THICKNESS TRENDS
WELL
TESTING

RESERVOIR QUALITY STUDIES

QUALITY PROFILES
RESERVOIR ZONATION
NET THICKNESS TRENDS
PRESSURE
PRODUCTION
HISTORY MATCH
INTEGRATION STUDIES
PORE VOLUME
• TRANSMISSIBILITY

Fig. 1 Integration of geologic & reservoir engineering data •

266
 SPE 223 C; 7

CD STREAM MOUTH BAR @ BARRIER ISLAND

® DISTRIBUTARY CHANNEL ® OFFSHORE BAR
@)POINTBAR ® BAY
o ALLUVIAL FAN @ DUNE FIELD
® BRAIDED STREAM @ TIDALFLAT
@BEACH @ TURBIDITE FAN AND CHANNEL
o LAGOON

Fig. 2 Depositional sites of sand and names of sand-body types 7

MAPS
CONTINUOUS SHEET

VERTICAL STACKING ISOLATED STACKING

Fig. 3 Principal types of sand stone reservoir geometries 7

267
 SPE 2235-7

PRIMARY POROSITY SECONDARY POROSITY

DEPOSITIONAL GRAIN POROSITY FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE
TYPES CONFIGURATION PROCESS
SIZE TYPE EFFECTS EFFECTS

_...I.L\,--_",-_It~~C1tM.IF".VU.G'C.EL.L~I.:G'+C:IW.U('I~
FRACTURING INCREASEk INCREASE
BIOHERM REEF JOINTS CHANNELING
BRECCIA

BIOSTROME REEF LEACHING INCREASE k & •

~I--+_.""""".I-~
INCREASE k CAN ALSO
DOLOMITIZATION DECREASE. & k
BANK (SHELF)
\
1-- + +-+r-r"-+_+--1_-+_-+_-lRECRYSTAWZATION MAY INCREASE DECREASE. & k
PORE SIZE AND k

SHOAL ~~_+-......-1IIj
•
CEMENTATION
BY CALCITE
1------+------+-+-+~-+--1--+--+--l DOLOMITE

NEAR·SHORE ==-=- II!!!£i

I~
........
n
ANHYDRITE
PYROBmJMEN
QUARTZ

Fig. 4 Porosity of carbonates 8

a 1974 - 1975
b
(20 SEISMIC)

o 2km

LEGEND:

...~~­
-+-=.:-)
• OJ"""",,",
A-.....
0_"'-
L . _ .....

Fig. 5 Comparison of 20 and 3D structural maps at block IV,

Cormorant Field, U.K. North Sea 9

268
 SPE 22357

100.0
50.0
~~~~~~E~E3~§~§2~
E
1---+---+---+---If--+---f---4--......j
... .. -. .

.'. ·....I·:·:·~ .
.. ... .- ....
0.1
0.05
~~~~§~~S§~~§~§~§
E
I---=-~.,+........oh-.........
ro.' •
-+--+---+--+----+---l

0.01
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
CORE POROSITY (%)

Fig. 6 Permeability/porosity correlation lor cores from the Bradford sandstone 17

SEPARATOR
•

TEMPERATURE

Rg. 7 A generalized phase diagram

269
 SPE. 22~57. .
10
I I
- LAB MEASURED DATA

8 A.. . A EOS CHARACTERIZATION -

A--- BASED ON 3 PSEUDO
A 'A COMPONENTS(C1-C3
UJ A/
A/ v ----
~A C4 - C7
C7 +)
~ 6

\
::)
.-l
o
>
()
I 4 1\
'#
'\A

2
-\
\
I\A
o
PRESSURE (PSIA)
Fig. 8 Retrograde condensation during depletion

WATER

--
.- ::!: FUEL

I
- - - "HEAT LOSS FROM WELLBORE TO EARTH

I "VERTICAL" HEAT LOSS FROM HEATED FORMATION

~..---------i I I I
~~-
I\~ <{I I
I

~~~~~~~S~T:zEA~M~~~-.¥~~ "~S~T?EA~M~~~~~~~~~;:=
OIL SAND

Fig. 9 Illustration of heat losses which occur in a heat injection system (after Ramey H)

270