Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. sults. Compared to fine-scale, flow results of the single-phase
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean upscaling process indicated that the coarsest upscaled models
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15-18 April 2007. did not match the water breakthrough times, water cut values,
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review or well pressures from the reference model. The finer upsca-
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sub- led models reproduced the reference results more accurately
ject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect than the coarser models. The two-phase dynamic upscaling
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers pre-
sented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the technique implemented in this work resulted in the best match
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more with the flow simulation results of the fine grid model. Results
than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, show that the most accurate upscaling scheme should be de-
P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., Fax 1-214-952-9435. fined using the two-phase dynamic upscaling technique on the
model with the smallest upscaling ratio.
Abstract
Upscaling reservoir properties for reservoir simulation is one of
the most important steps in the workflow for building reservoir
Introduction
models. Upscaling allows taking high-resolution geostatistical
models (107 -108 grid blocks) to coarse scale models (104 -105 Reservoir models generated by geostatistical techniques, high-
grid blocks), manageable for reservoir simulation, while re- resolution fine scale models (107 -108 grid blocks), are capa-
taining the geological realism and thus effectively representing ble of with great precision reservoir characterization as for
fluid transport in the reservoir 1,2. This work presents a study of compartmentalization, heterogeneity, connectivity and struc-
the effectiveness of different available techniques for permea- ture. However, the main drawback of high-resolution models
bility upscaling and the implementation of a new technique for is the significant computational cost when performing reser-
upscaling of relative permeability curves based on the nume- voir simulation. Upscaling reservoir properties allows taking
rical solution of a two-phase system and the Kyte and Berry high-resolution models to coarse scale models (104 -105 grid
method3. blocks) reducing computational costs during flow simulation
for history matching and forecast. Permeability upscaling plays
The reference fine scale model considered in this study is a con- and important role in reservoir characterization5, as shown in
ceptual fluvial reservoir based on the Stanford V model4. The Figure 1. The importance of using an appropriate upscaling
reference fine scale isotropic and locally heterogeneous per- technique consists in preserving the geological realism of high-
meability distribution was upscaled to different upscaling ratios resolution, fine-scale models, thus preserving the flow response
by means of analytical (static) and numerical single-phase (pre- in reservoirs1,2. Permeability upscaling is an active research
ssure solver, dynamic) techniques. Two-phase flow simulations topic, numerous studies on upscaling have been conducted by
were performed on the reference fine grid and upscaled models university researchers6,7 and industry2,8.
using a comercial black-oil simulator. Arithmetic, harmonic,
and geometric averages were defined for static upscaling of In this work, the effectiveness of different permeability upsca-
the permeability distribution. The dynamic upscaling process ling techniques is evaluated using reservoir simulation. Ana-
considered one-phase and two-phase upscaling. One-phase lytical and numerical single-phase upscaling techniques were
upscaling considered upscaling of the permeability distribution used with different upscaling ratios for a conceptual fluvial
and two-phase upscaling considered upscaling of the permea- reservoir. Public available software was used for this purpose.
bility distribution and relative permeability curves. In addition, an alternative technique based on two-phase nume-
rical upscaling was developed and implemented. Using these
Flow simulation results for waterflooding in the coarse scale techniques, flow simulation results of upscaled models were
model indicated relevant discrepancies with the fine grid re- compared with the reference fine scale model in terms of flow
2 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679
production, well pressure and saturation distribution. In two-phase incompressible flow, Darcy’s velocity is written
as:
The sensitivity study of different permeability upscaling tech- kr
uj = − j k · ∇p (6)
niques is referred to a conceptual fluvial reservoir based on the µj
Stanford V model4. As much for the fine scale model as upsca-
led models the numerical simulation of an oil-water inmiscible where, krj is the relative permeability of phase j, and µj is the
displacement process was effected, specifically a waterflooding viscosity of phase j. The conservation equation is written as:
process. This work includes the evaluation of static upscaling
∇ · ut = 0 (7)
techniques (arithmetic, harmonic, and geometric) and dynamic
upscaling techniques (one-phase and two-phase). The fine scale
subsituting Equation 6 in Equation 7 yields:
reference model was upscaled to four different upscaling ratios.
This work allows to understand the impact of using different
∇ (λt (s) k · ∇p) = 0 (8)
upscaling techniques on the simulation results. Investigation on
gridding techniques was not considered in this study. where λt is the total mobility, defined as:
Theory krw kr
λt (s) = + o (9)
Darcy’s Law Darcy’s law express the relationship between µw µo
fluid velocity and pressure gradient in a porous media. The
Darcy velocity can be written in matrix notation for a Cartesian Classification of Techniques Upscaling techniques can be
system (neglecting gravity) as: classified in terms of the parameters to be upscaled. In
one-phase parameter upscaling technique, the fine-scale
1 permeability tensor (k) is upscaled to a coarse-scale effective
u = − k · ∇p (1) permeability tensor (k∗ ) while retaining the fine-scale rela-
µ
tive permeabilities. Analytic and numerical methods are used
In Equation 1, u is the velocity vector, k permeability tensor for this purpose. On the other hand, in two-phase parameter
and ∇p the pressure gradient. upscaling technique, fine-scale relative permeabilities (krj ) are
also upscaled to curves of different shapes (kr∗j ). These curves
are usually referred as effective or pseudo-r elative permeabi-
Permeability Tensor The permeability of the porous media is lity curves and their generation is accomplished by numerical
a property that can vary at any point and on any direction in the methods. Figure 2 illustrates these upscaling techniques.
three-dimensional space 5. It is mathematically represented by
the full permeability tensor k (Equation 2). Each component of Analytic methods Analytic methods for computing one-
the permeability tensor represents the directional permeability phase parameter upscaling involve the solution of Equation 5
at one point in space. The permeability tensor is usually taken with no-flow boundary conditions in the non-communicative
to be locally symmetric (kij = kji ). layered system shown in Figure 3, with n horizontal layers of
permeability ki and dimensionless thickness hi . Flow in x di-
kxx kxy kxz rection is referred as parallel flow and upscaled permeability
k = kyx kyy kyz (2) results in the arithmetic mean of permeability values in each
kzx kzy kzz layer:
n
If there is an orientation such that u and ∇p are parallel for
X
∗
kxx = ki hi (10)
a full tensor k, the principal orientation of permeability is ob- i=1
tained. This leads to the principal values and directions of the
permeability tensor (eigenvalues and eigenvectors):
∗ Flow in the z direction is referred as series flow and results in
kxx 0 0 the harmonic mean of permeability values in each layer:
∗
k∗ = 0 kyy 0 (3)
∗
0 0 kzz n
!−1
∗
X hi
The tensor k∗ is the diagonal permeability tensor. kzz = (11)
i=1
ki
∇ · (k∇p) = 0 (5)
SPE 106679 J. R. Villa, M. O. Salazar 3
∗ ∗
where kxx and kyy are the principal values of the permeability where, nx , ny , and nz are the number of fine grid blocks in
tensor. Although permeability values were locally isotropic, the x, y, and z direction respectively, pin is the pressure in the
effective permeability values in Equation 12 are constant and inlet of the coarse gridblock, pout is the pressure in the outlet of
anisotropic, meaning that when upscaling fine-scale permea- the coarse grid block, k1jk is the absolute permeability in each
bility values, coarse-scale permeabilities are anisotropic even fine grid block next to the inlet, and p1jk is the pressure in each
∗ ∗
with isotropic fine-scale permeability. fine grid block next to the inlet. The terms, kyy and kzz can be
obtained in a similar fashion.
An estimate for systems with spatially random permeability can
be obtained using the geometric average of permeability values In two-phase dynamic upscaling, it is recognized that it is not
where there is no particular assumption of flow direction: enough to upscale the absolute permeability to characterize
n transport in porous media under inmiscible displacement
1X processes2. Therefore, the fine-grid relative permeability curves
kg = exp log ki (13)
n i=1 ∗
(krj ) are upscaled to different curves (krj ) and thus the fluid-
rock interaction in the coarse-scale model is considered. This
In systems with constant hi , Equation 13 9 can be also ex- kind of upscaling performed by generating pseudo-relative per-
pressed as: meability curves allows to better represent fluid flow when the
! n1
Yn fine-grid relative permeability curves function are not able to
kg = ki (14) represent. The main methods for generating pseudo-relative
i=1 permeability functions 11 are Kyte and Berry method, Stone
A generalization of these averages techniques is known as the method, weighted porous volume method, weighted relative
Power Law10. This empirical relation is written as: permeabilities method, and the Kirchoff’s Law method. All
these methods use numerical flow simulation results on the
n
!1/ω high-resolution fine-scale model to generate the relative per-
1X ω meability curves of the coarse-scale model.
kω = k (15)
n i=1 i
Upscaling ratio The upscaling ratio is defined as:
The Power Law allows to determine the effective permeability
kω of a set of volume elements for different values of ω ranging
between -1 and 1. For values of ω = 1, 0, −1, Equation 15 n
r= (18)
results in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic averages, respec- N
tively. In general, arithmetic average provides an upper bound
to k∗ , and the harmonic average provides a lower bound. Fi- where, r is the upscaling ratio, n the number of fine grid blocks,
gure 4 shows the effective permeability computed for differents and N the number of coarse grid blocks. The upscaling ratio
values of ω in a heterogeneous system10. represents a measure of how coarse is the coarse model. The
larger upscaling ratio the coarser the upscaled model. Figure 6
Numerical methods Numerical methods involve the solu- shows two coarse models at different upscaling ratios.
tion of Equation 5 or Equation 8 for the pressure distribution
using finite-difference methods. In one-phase dynamic upsca-
ling, each component of the diagonal permeability tensor is cal-
culated separately depending of the flow direction. To solve Methodology
the pressure distribution, arbitrary boundary conditions are as-
signed in the target coarse grid block (Figure 5) and the pre- The methodology propossed for this work involves the use of
ssure of each fine grid block inside the target coarse grid block analytic and numerical methods to upscale a fine-grid model to
is computed by the solution of the single phase incompressible four different upscaling ratios. Figure 7 illustrates the metho-
flow steady state Equation 5. This equation can be expressed in dology followed in this work. Flow simulations are performed
finite difference form and written as a matrix equation as: on the reference model and on the coarse-scale models and
comparisons are made based on the calculated error. Analytic
Tp = b (16) upscaling and single-phase dynamic upscaling of the fine-
grid model was performed using the Fortran-based program
where, T is the transmissibility matrix, b a vector representing flowsim12. For two-phase dynamic upscaling, a new Fortran-
the source / sink term and p the unknown pressure vector. Once based program flowsim2p was coded for this porpuse, following
the pressure vector is calculated, the effective permeability of a similar structure to GSLIB suite of programs 12. Porosity ups-
∗
the target coarse grid block in the x direction (kxx ) is computed caling was performed using program upscaler12 and program
as follows: gsl2ecl 12 was used for output compatibility to the black-oil
reservoir simulator ECLIPSE13. An automated workflow and
n
z X ny post-processing of results were implemented using the applica-
∗ nx X
tion MATLAB14,15.
kxx = k1jk (p1jk − pin ) (17)
ny nz (pin − pout ) j=1
k=1
4 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679
flowsim2p The computational tool developed in this work and Cases Four cases were defined in this work. Each case co-
termed flowsim2p was coded in Fortran9016 and implements the rresponds to a different upscaling ratio. Different upscaling
Kyte and Berry method for generating pseudo-relative permea- techniques were used for all cases. Table 1 shows the diffe-
bility curves11,17. In the Kyte and Berry method, the fine-scale rent cases proposed in this study. Case 1 is the finest upscaled
properties are weighted to obtain coarse-scale properties and model with 50x65x10 (32,500 grid blocks), Case 2 has 50x26x5
later used in the Darcy’s law to obtain pseudo-relative permea- (6,500 grid blocks), Case 3 has 10x13x5 (650 grid blocks) and
bilities curves corresponding for each phase (j) and for each Case 4 is the coarsest upscaled model with 5x5x5 (125 grid
coarse-grid block: blocks). Upscaling ratios r are 4, 20, 200, and 1,040 respec-
tively.
µ∗j qj∗
kr∗j = − (19)
T ∗ ∆p∗j − ∆ρ∗j g∆D∗
Figures 18 to 22 show the bottomhole pressure and water cut at indicating that upscaling errors increment in blocks with partial
the four production wells for the differents techniques and ups- water and oil saturation. When two-phase dynamic upscaling
caling ratios. Each well have early breakthrough times respect method is used, errors are significantly reduced on the oil-
to the reference fine-scale model. Performance of the bottom- water interfase (Figure 31), indicating that upscaling errors are
hole pressure response is also. This difference less marked in reduced in those grid blocks.
the case of two-phase dynamic upscaling (Figure 22), which
is the technique that presents the best fit of the flow response Table 2 shows the total upscaling errors in each case for diffe-
by well respect to reference fine-scale model. On the contrary, rent techniques and upscaling ratios. When two-phase dynamic
the harmonic static upscaling (Figure 19) is the technique that upscaling method is used in Case 1, the smallest upscaling error
generates the flow response less representative. is obtained. The harmonic static upscaling in the Case 4 ge-
nerates larger errors. Figure 32 shows the upscaling errors for
Figures 23 and 24 show the responses of field water cut and cu- each case and method evaluated.
mulative oil production, corresponding to different techniques
and upscaling ratios. Once again, it can be observed how as In general, analytic and numerical upscaling techniques can be
it increases the upscaling ratio the flow responses become less evaluated in terms of a total error. Figure 33 shows that nume-
representative of what is happening in the reference fine-scale rical techniques generate smaller upscaling error that analytic
model. For instance, in the cumulative oil production graphics techniques. The difference in the upscaling error can reach
for the models of greater upscaling ratios the technique of har- up to 10%, for the studied model, when upscaling ratio is in-
monic upscaling begins to fail remarkably on representing the creased.
flow performance.
Figure 25 presents the CPU time required to perform the flow Conclusions
simulation on the studied models. Here, one motivation of per-
Based on the oil and water production, well pressures, and
forming upscaling is demonstrated by reducing the simulation
saturation results obtained from the simulation results using
time decreasing the number of grid blocks of the model. In fact,
dynamic and static upscaling, it can be see that by upscaling,
it can be observed that increasing on the magnitude order of the
earlier water breakthrough times result. According to the repro-
number of grid blocks generate increasings on the magnitude
duction of the reference water cut, the most accurate dynami-
order of the simulation time. However, it should be established
cally upscaled result came from 50 × 65 × 10 model.
a balance between the decreasing of the simulation time and
the representativity maintenance of the flow performance that
happens on the reference fine-scale model. Numerical upscaling techniques provides better prediction than
does analytic upscaling. Dynamic upscaling will provide more
accurate results relative to static for a given set of boundary
Upscaling errors This sections presents an evaluation of the conditions because different flow regimes can be accounted for
upscaling error computed for each technique used. Error is is in a single model. Lastly, reliable future predictions can only be
defined by Equations 20 and 21: obtained when geologic models depict the fine-scale case ac-
curately and precisely. Regardless of the upscaling method, the
averaging process will alter the original permeability field. The
P S̄wk,r
−
k
1 Swk,r
degree of difference between the resulting effective permeabi-
e= (20) lity and the true reference controls how different the grid block
nr
pressure and water saturation, well water cuts and bottom-hole
and, P pressures will be in the upscaled models relative to the fine
i swi scale. When analytic techniques were used, geometric static
s̄wk,r = , ∀i k (21)
nr upscaling generated the best flow representativity. Upscaling
where r is the upscaling ratio, swi the water saturation of a fine relative permeabilities showed an improvement in upscaling
grid block i inside a grid block k, swk,r the water saturation of results. Two-phase dynamic upscaling generated better flow
a coarse grid block k at upscaling ratio r, s̄wk,r the weighted response than the one-phase dynamic upscaling.
water saturation of fine grid blocks respect to a coarse grid
block k, nr the number of coarse grid blocks at upscaling ratio An important aspect is the upscaling ratio, which determines
r, and e the upscaling error. Equations 20 and 21 basically the accuracy of production predictability. With a high upsca-
establish the difference between the block saturation on the ling ratio, the accuracy of the production prediction decreases.
upscaled model and the average fine-grid block saturations in There is a limit on how coarse a model can be without intro-
the corresponding coarse-grid block. Figure 26 illustrates the ducing significant errors. This limit is important particularly
procedure for the calculation of the upscaling error. when extreme permeability features are present in the reser-
voir, which directly affect the fluid flow.
Figures 27 to 31 show the error maps in gray scale for each
one of the upscaling methods. Larger errors are located in grid Results show that there is no an optimal upscaling technique
blocks on the water-oil interfase of the waterflooding process, suitable for any fine-scale model. For each fine-scale model,
6 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679
a sensitivity study of different upscaling techniques with diffe- 7. Holden, L. and Nielsen, B. F. Global Upscaling of Per-
rent upscaling ratios should be performed to determine the least meability.
upscaling error technique. 8. Stern, D. “Practical Aspects of Scaleup of Simulation
Models”. Paper SPE 89032, 2005.
Acknowledgements 9. Ahmed, T. and McKinney, P. D. Reservoir Engineering
Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, TX,
The authors would like to thank Universidad Central de
USA, 2001.
Venezuela and PDVSA Intevep for the use of its computa-
tional facilities, and the Department of Petroleum Engineering 10. Journel, A., Deutsch, C., and Desbarats, A. “Power Ave-
at Stanford University for the use of its computational tools. raging for Block Effective Permeability”. Paper SPE
15128 presented at the 56 California Regional Meeting,
California, USA, September 1986.
Nomenclature 11. Cao, H. Evaluation of Pseudo Functions. Master’s the-
u = velocity vector sis, Stanford University, 1988.
p = pressure vector 12. Deutsch, C. and Journel, A. GSLIB - Geostatistical
s = saturation vector Software Lybrary and User’s Guide. Oxford University
k = permeability tensor Press, New York, USA, 1998.
k∗ = diagonal permeability tensor
T = transmissibility matrix 13. Schlumberger. ECLIPSE Reference Manual, 2003.
b = source/sink vector 14. The Mathworks, Inc. MATLAB, The Language of Tech-
∇p = pressure gradient nical Computing, 2005.
n = total number of fine grid blocks 15. Hanselmanz, D. and Littlefield, B. Mastering Matlab
N = total number of coarse grid blocks 6: A Comprenhensive Tutorial and Reference. Prentice
ip = identificator number of fine grid blocks Hall, New Jersey, USA, 2001.
k = absolute permeability of a fine grid block 16. Chapman, J. FORTRAN 90/95 for Scientists and
h = thickness of a fine grid block Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 2005.
λt = total mobility 17. Inanc, O. A Sensitivity Study on the Effectiveness of
ω = power parameter the Pseudo Relative Permeability Concept, PE224 Class
kω = effective permeability obtained by Power Law Project. Technical report, Stanford University, Califor-
kg = geometric average of permeability values nia, USA, 2000.
pin = pressure at the inlet of a coarse grid block
pout = pressure at the outlet of a coarse grid block 18. Pickup, G. and Stephen, K. An Assessment of Steady-
p1,j,k = pressure on fine grid blocks next to the inlet State Scale-Up for Small-Scale Geological Models.
k1,j,k = permeability on fine grid blocks next to the inlet Technical report, Heriot-Watt University, 2000.
vi,j,k = volume of a fine grid block 19. Barker, J. and Thibeau, S. “A Critical Review of the Use
∆t = timestep size of Pseudo Relative Permeabilities for Upscaling”. Paper
γ, m = Corey’s terms SPE 35491 presented at European 3-D Reservoir Mod-
A = cross-sectional area to the flow elling Conference, Stavanger, Norway, April 1996.
20. Deutsch, C. V. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. Ox-
ford University Press, New York, USA, 2002.
References
21. Stanford University. Geostatistical Earth Modeling Soft-
1. Durlofsky, L. Advanced Reservoir Engineering PE222. ware, 2004.
Stanford University, California, USA, 2002. 22. Kleppe, J. Reservoir Simulation. Technical report, Nor-
2. Christie, M. Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation. Jour- wegian University of Science and Tecnology, January
nal of Petroleum Technology, November 1996. 2006.
3. Westhead, A. Upscaling for Two-Phase Flow in Porous 23. Vaca, P. Simulación de Yacimientos. Universidad Central
Media. California Institute of Technology, 2005. de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela, 2003.
4. Mao, S. and Journel, A. Generation of a Reference 24. de la Garza, F. R. Simulación Numérica de Yacimientos.
Petrophysical-Seismic Data Set: The Stanford V Reser- Technical report, PEMEX, México, 2000.
voir. Technical report, Stanford University, California, 25. Mattax, C. and Dalton, R. Reservoir Simulation. SPE,
USA, 1999. Richardson, Texas, USA, 1990.
5. Villa, J. R. Simulación de Yacimientos. Universidad Cen- 26. Fanchi, J. Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation.
tral de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela, 2005. Butterworth-Heinemann, Texas, USA, 2001.
6. Durlofsky, L. “Upscaling of Geocellular Models for 27. Crotti, M. and Cobenas, R. “Scaling Up of Labo-
Reservoir Flow Simulations: A Review of Recent ratory Relative Permeability Curves. An Advantageous
Progress”. Paper presented at 7 International Forum on Approach Based on Realistic Average Water Satura-
Reservoir Simulation, Germany, June 2003. tions”. Paper SPE 69394 presented at the SPE Latin
SPE 106679 J. R. Villa, M. O. Salazar 7
This process is iteratively repeated for each time step. The num-
where, kr∗j are the phase pseudo-relative permeabilities, Dx∗ , ber of time steps dependes on the size of the coarse grid block.
Dy∗ , Dz∗ , the coarse dimensions at each main direction, k ∗ the Finally, an output file is generated (Figure A-3), containing the
effective permeability of the target coarse grid block, ∆p∗j the pseudo-relative permeability curves of a coarse-scale model for
phase pressure difference at the target coarse grid block, qj∗ the a defined upscaling ratio.
SPE 106679 J. R. Villa, M. O. Salazar 9
Table 1: Cases
Cases Number Upscaling fine/coarse
of blocks ratio ni /Ni
Fine: 100x130x10 130,000 1 [1 1 1]
Case 1: 50x65x10 32,500 4 [2 2 1]
Case 2: 50x26x5 6,500 20 [2 5 2]
Case 3: 10x13x5 650 200 [10 10 2]
Case 4: 5x5x5 125 1,040 [20 26 2]
Figure 6: Two reservoir models at different upscaling ratios Figure 9: Workflow for flowsim2p
Figure 12: Histogram of porosity distribution in the reference Figure 14: Permeability and water saturation distribution for
fine-scale model different upscaling ratios - harmonic static upscaling
12 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679
Figure 15: Permeability and water saturation distribution for Figure 17: Permeability and water saturation distribution for
different upscaling ratios - geometric static upscaling different upscaling ratios - two-phase dynamic upscaling
Figure 16: Permeability and water saturation distribution for Figure 18: Bottom-hole pressure and well water cut for
different upscaling ratios - single-phase dynamic upscaling different upscaling ratios using arithmetic upscaling
SPE 106679 J. R. Villa, M. O. Salazar 13
Figure 19: Bottom-hole pressure and well water cut for Figure 21: Bottom-hole pressure and well water cut for
different upscaling ratios using harmonic upscaling different upscaling ratios using single-phase upscaling
Figure 20: Bottom-hole pressure and well water cut for Figure 22: Bottom-hole pressure and well water cut for
different upscaling ratios using geometric upscaling different upscaling ratios using two-phase upscaling
14 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679
Figure 23: Field water cut for different upscaling ratios and
upscaling methods
Figure 27: Upscaling error distribution for different Figure 29: Upscaling error distribution for different
upscaling ratios using arithmetic upscaling upscaling ratios using geometric upscaling
Figure 28: Upscaling error distribution for different Figure 30: Upscaling error distribution for different
upscaling ratios using harmonic upscaling upscaling ratios using single-phase upscaling
16 Permeability Upscaling Techniques for Reservoir Simulation SPE 106679