Development and Testing of a New 3-D Field Scale Fully Implicit Multi-Phase Compositional Steam Injection Simulator

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Cicek ◽  
T. Ertekin
Keyword(s):  
Steam Injection ◽  
Field Scale ◽  
Fully Implicit ◽  
Multi Phase

scholarly journals Field-scale multi-phase LNAPL remediation: Validating a new computational framework against sequential field pilot trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 345 ◽  
pp. 87-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaveh Sookhak Lari ◽  
Colin D. Johnston ◽  
John L. Rayner ◽  
Greg B. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Field Scale ◽  
Computational Framework ◽  
Pilot Trials ◽  
Multi Phase

Pore- to Field Scale Multi-Phase Upscaling for IOR

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Rage Lerdahl ◽  
Alf Birger Rustad ◽  
Thomas Gorm Theting ◽  
Jan Age Stensen ◽  
P. Eric Oren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Scale ◽  
Multi Phase

Sensitivity of Steamflood Model Results to Grid and Timestep Sizes

1984 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 65-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamal Hussein Abou-Kassem ◽  
Khalid Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Size Effects ◽  
Truncation Error ◽  
Injection Pressure ◽  
Steam Injection ◽  
Sensitivity Study ◽  
Grid Size ◽  
Oil Reservoir ◽  
Fully Implicit ◽  
Heavy Oil Reservoir

Abstract Numerical simulation of complex processes in oil reservoirs has become a standard tool. The grid size and timestep sensitivity of a simulator are of prime concern in reaching the correct conclusions in any study. This paper presents an analysis of the sensitivity to timestep and grid size of a one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) compositional multiphase steamflood model used to simulate a heavy-oil reservoir. The behavior of primary variables before breakthrough in the 1D and 2D cases is presented for clearer understanding of steamflooding heavy-oil reservoirs. The peculiar features exhibited by primary variables of the production and injection blocks for the 1D reservoir plus timestep and grid-size effects on primary variables for 2D cases studied are discussed. Sensitivity studies of grid and timestep size are meaningful only if each is carried out while the other variable has minimum truncation error. The recovery performance parameters are less sensitive to timestep size than to grid size. They are also less sensitive in the 2D runs than in the 1D runs. The time/pore-volume-injected (PVI) relationship is very sensitive to grid size, and to a lesser extent, to timestep size. Introduction Numerical dispersion is particularly important in simulating multiphase flow, miscible displacement, and compositional phenomena. Settari recommends that detailed study be carried out on grid- and timestep-size effects. A grid-size sensitivity study is recommended when a reservoir is simulated to define the necessary grid size used. Such a study requires a series of simulation runs with increasing or decreasing grid definition. When simulators with fully implicit formulation are used, where large time steps are possible, the time truncation error also can become important. Therefore, a timestep sensitivity study for these simulators is also necessary."Sensitivity analysis" refers to the sensitivity of the primary variables and recovery performances to grid and timestep size. A review of recent literature reveals that grid and timestep effects have not been studied on all primary variables for 1D simulations and are lacking for 2- or 3D simulations. Sensitivity analyses for both 1- and 2D simulation of a heavy-oil reservoir along with a study of the behavior of primary variables in steamflooding are presented. Simulator and Data Used The simulator used in this study was developed by Abou-Kassem. A brief description of the simulator is given in Ref. 9. It is a fully implicit, compositional, three-phase steamflood model. The model employs a sophisticated well model and a nine-point finite-difference scheme in two dimensions only. It can be operated in 1- and 2D modes with the choice of block-centered or point-distributed grid. In this paper only results of a block-centered grid with gas hysteresis and with no heat loss to surrounding formations are presented. The reservoir is represented by a one-fourth five-spot flood pattern with dimensions of 137 × 137 × 63 ft [41.76 × 41.76 × 19.2 m]. The permeability and porosity are 4 darcies and 0.38, respectively. The reservoir is initially saturated with 18 % water and 82 % heavy oil composed of 70 % nonvolatile oil component and 30 % methane. The nominal mobility ratio is 285,000, which corresponds to an effective mobility ratio of about 10,000. The Appendix provides more detailed data. Steam of 0.70 quality at an injection pressure of 1,000 psia [6.9 MPa] was injected into the reservoir having an initial pressure and temperature of 554 psia [3.9 MPa] and 60F [288.7K], respectively. The maximum steam injection rate was 883 cu ft/D [25 m3/d] cold water equivalent (CWE). The production well was put on "deliverability" control with a bottomhole pressure (BHP) of 400 psk [2.8 MPa]. The reservoir is simulated with a uniform grid (with square block for 2D). Results and Discussion Results of the simulator used in this study were compared with results obtained from a commercial steam model in 1D and 2D modes. Excellent agreement was obtained when the simulator was run with the five-point finite-difference formulation. The 2D results presented next are for a diagonal grid with the nine-point difference scheme. Behavior of Primary Variables in Steamflood Simulation. Primary Variables of Injection Well Block (1-D Simulation). The behavior of the primary variables associated with the injection block as a function of PVI is shown in Fig. 1. As steam injection begins, the pressure increases first moderately then very rapidly because the system has been compressed and all fluids are almost immobile. The pressure of the injection block is slightly less than the maximum injection pressure. SPEJ P. 65^

Development of a Thermal Wellbore Simulator With Focus on Improving Heat-Loss Calculations for Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage Steam Injection

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 305-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanqiang Xiong ◽  
Mehdi Bahonar ◽  
Zhangxin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Heat Loss ◽  
Steam Injection ◽  
Loss Estimation ◽  
Gravity Drainage ◽  
Thermal Processes ◽  
Injection Wells ◽  
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage ◽  
Cfd Models ◽  
Fully Implicit ◽  
Loss Modeling

Summary Typical thermal processes involve sophisticated wellbore configurations, complex fluid flow, and heat transfer in tubing, annulus, wellbore completion, and surrounding formation. Despite notable advancements made in wellbore modeling, accurate heat-loss modeling is still a challenge by use of the existing wellbore simulators. This challenge becomes even greater when complex but common wellbore configurations, such as multiparallel or multiconcentric tubings, are used in thermal processes such as steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). To improve heat-loss estimation, a standalone fully implicit thermal wellbore simulator is developed that can handle several different wellbore configurations and completions. This simulator uses a fully implicit method to model heat loss from tubing walls to the surrounding formation. Instead of implementing the common Ramey (1962) method for heat-loss calculations, which has been shown to be a source of large errors, a series of computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) models are run for the buoyancy-driven flow for different annulus sizes and lengths and numbers of tubings. On the basis of these CFD models, correlations are derived that can conveniently be used for the more-accurate heat-loss estimation from the wellbore to the surrounding formation for SAGD injection wells with single or multiple tubing strings. These correlations are embedded in the developed wellbore simulator, and results are compared with other heat-loss-modeling methods to demonstrate its improvements. A series of validations against commercial simulators and field data are presented in this paper.

Steam-injection monitoring in South Oman—from single-pattern to field-scale surveillance

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 1246-1256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Kiyashchenko ◽  
Jorge Lopez ◽  
Wilfred Berlang ◽  
Bill Birch ◽  
Marcel Zwaan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Steam Injection ◽  
Field Scale ◽  
Single Pattern

The Role of CO2 in Carbonate Acidizing at the Field Scale – A Multi-Phase Perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harish Kumar ◽  
Sajjaat Muhemmed ◽  
Hisham Nasr-El-Din
Keyword(s):  
Numerical Model ◽  
Water Saturation ◽  
Damage Zone ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Field Scale ◽  
Compositional Simulation ◽  
Scale Level ◽  
Pore Pressures ◽  
Carbonate Acidizing ◽  
Multi Phase

Abstract Most lab-scale acidizing experiments are performed in core samples with 100% water saturation conditions and at pore pressures around 1100 psi. However, this is seldom the case on the field, where different saturation conditions exist with high temperature and pressure conditions. Carbon-di-Oxide (CO2), a by-product evolved during the acidizing process, is long thought to behave inertly during the acidizing process. Recent investigations reveal that the presence of CO2 dynamically changes the behavior of wormhole patterns and acid efficiency. A compositional simulation technique was adopted to understand the process thoroughly. A validated compositional numerical model capable of replicating acidizing experiments at the core-scale level, in fully aqueous environments described in published literature was utilized in this study. The numerical model was extended to a three-phase environment and applied at the field scale level to monitor and evaluate the impacts of evolved CO2 during the carbonate acidizing processes. Lessons learned from the lab-scale were tested at the field-scale scenario via a numerical model with radial coordinates. Contrary to popular belief, high pore pressures of 1,000 psi and above are not sufficient to keep all the evolved CO2 in solution. The presence of CO2 as a separate phase hinders acid efficiency. The reach or extent of the evolved CO2 is shown to exist only near the damage zone and seldom penetrates the reservoir matrix. Based on the field scale model's predictions, this study warrants conducting acidizing experiments at the laboratory level, at precisely similar pressure, temperature, and salinity conditions faced in the near-wellbore region, and urges the application of compositional modeling techniques to account for CO2 evolution, while studying and predicting matrix acidizing jobs.

A General Purpose Thermal Model

1985 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 202-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Rubin ◽  
W. Lloyd Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Physical Models ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Field Scale ◽  
Relative Permeabilities ◽  
Iterative Techniques ◽  
Fully Implicit ◽  
Curvilinear Grids ◽  
Well Model ◽  
Oil Water ◽  
Water Gas

Abstract This paper describes a fully implicit four-phase (oil, water, gas, solid fuel) numerical reservoir model for simulating hot water injection, steam injection, dry combustion, and wet combustion in one, two, or three dimensions and in either a Cartesian, radial, or curvilinear geometry. The simulator rigorously models fluid flow, heat transfer (convective and conductive), heat loss to formation, fluid vaporization/condensation, and chemical reactions. Any number of oil or gas phase components may be specified, along with any number of solid phase components (fuel and catalysts). The simulator employs either D4 Gaussian elimination or powerful incomplete factorization methods to solve the often poorly conditioned matrix problems. An implicit well model is coupled to the simulator, where reservoir unknowns and well block pressures are primary variables. This paper includescomparisons of the numerical model's results with previously reported laboratory physical models' results for steam and combustion and physical models' results for steam and combustion andanalytical solutions to a hot waterflood problem. In addition, an actual field-scale history match is presented for a single-well steam stimulation problem. Introduction Recent papers by Crookston et al., Youngren Rubin and Vinsome, and Coats have outlined the current trend in thermal process simulation. The trend has been the development of more implicit, more comprehensive finite-difference simulators. Youngren describes a model based on a highly implicit steam model. The components representing air and combustion gases are treated explicitly. Burning reactions are handled not through rates but through the assumption of 100% oxygen utilization at the combustion front. Crookston et al. describe a linearized implicit combustion model that can describe the reaction of a predetermined set of gases and oils. Both of these models are predetermined set of gases and oils. Both of these models are multidimensional and do not handle wellbore-reservoir coupling fully implicitly. Rubin and Vinsome describe a fully implicit one-dimensional (ID) combustion tube simulator. Coats 4 describes a fully implicit four-phase multicomponent multidimensional combustion simulator. This model is general in nature except for the wellbore-reservoir coupling. This work describes a general, fully implicit, four-phase, multicomponent, multidimensional steam and combustion simulator that includes a fully implicit well model and a suite of powerful iterative techniques that can be used for the solution of large-scale thermal problems. The following sections of this paper describe the model's fluid and energy flow equations, property package, powerful iterative techniques capable of reliable package, powerful iterative techniques capable of reliable use with steam and combustion problems, fully implicit well model, and equation substitution formulation. Further, a section considering the applications of the model is presented. Mathematical Model The simulator ISCOM rigorously models fluid flow, vaporization/condensation phenomena, and heat transfer and is efficient enough to allow the simulation of realistically large reservoir problems. The formulation allows for any number of chemical components and reactions. The components can exist in any of four phases: oil, water, gas, or solid. A reaction also can occur in any of the above phases. Furthermore, water and any of the oil components can vaporize. The simulator development is based on the following assumptions.The model can operate in one, two, or three dimensions (1D, 2D, or 3D) with variable grid spacing.Cartesian, radial, non-Cartesian (variable-thickness grids), and specific curvilinear grids corresponding to the commonly used well patterns can be used. patterns can be used.The number of components existing in each phase is variable, and the components can be distributed among four phases.The number and type of chemical reactions can be varied.Each layer, well, or block in the reservoir can exhibit different properties (e.g., viscosities, relative permeabilities, and properties (e.g., viscosities, relative permeabilities, and compressibilities) at different times.Wells can operate under specified fluid rates or flowing pressures and are subject to a hierarchy of user-specified constraints.The simulator must be reasonably efficient to handle field-scale simulation economically, without sacrificing accuracy. Grid Generation The model defines a block-centered grid system in 1-, 2-, or 3D, normally based on Cartesian xyz coordinates. Radial geometries are accommodated by internal modification of the gridblock volumes and interblock transmissibilities. For rectangular grids with variable thickness layers, the interblock transmissibilities and gravity head terms are derived from gridblock dimensions and depth from reference. Curvilinear grids are generated by the method of conformal transformation, which yields analytical formulae for potential and stream functions. Two simple patterns are considered: one-eighth of a five-spot and one-eighth of a nine-spot. SPEJ P. 202

Pore- to Field-Scale Multi-Phase Upscaling for IOR (SPE94191)

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.R. Lerdahl ◽  
A.B. Rustad ◽  
T.G. Theting ◽  
J.Å. Stensen ◽  
P.E. Øren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Scale ◽  
Multi Phase
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document