S?
E3304
Reservoir Simulation Models–
An Engineering Overview
H. M. Staggs, SPE-AIME,Atlantic RichfieldCo.
E. F. Herbeck, SPE-AIME,Atlantic RichfieldCo.
Introduction
The multicell reservoir simulation models have
reached that stage of development at which they are
being passed from the hands of the scientists and
mathematicians who originated them into the hands
of the reservoir engineer for his everyday use. Whereas
numerous papers have been published describing the
theoretical aspects and mathematical approaches de-
veloped for these models, this paper is intended as a
look at multicell models from the engineer’s rather
than the scientist’s point of view.
Engineers are quickly realizing that these models
are the best tool developed in recent years for under-
standing oil and gas reservoirs and predicting their
~~,.”,,,.-,,-.
m..f,w.ln .Tlf.r=
Mn~~l;mg
1.. ”..1.1.. a reservoir hy dividing it
into cells provides a flexibility to the engineer that
he never had before. High-speed computers permit
multiple runs of a reservoir model to test different
methods of field operations or to check the sensitivity
of reservoir behavior to unknown rock or fluid
properties.
The multicell models have many valid applications,
but they can also be misused because the model is
only providing answers that the input data are forcing
it to provide. Therefore, a careful analysis and selec-
tion of input data is imperative. The engineer can
usually obtain representative data on reservoir rock
and fluid properties. The greater difficulty lies in
properly selecting such items as relative permeability,
vertical permeability, and cell size.
For the engineer with limited experience in using models, these case histories can be
helpful. They show that difficulties can arise with cross-section models and with improper
relative permeability data and that it’s easy to get carried away with your own jaked-in
input data. But they also show that, properly used, models can be a godsend.
lA?$l
‘@
Basic Model Considerations
Defining a Model
Stated simply, a multicell model simulates fluid flow
in an oil or gas reservoir. Models cannot describe
flow exactly as it occurs, but they do give valid ap-
proximations. The mathematics of these models
requires that the reservoir be treated as if it were
composed of many individual segments. These seg-
ments are usually called cells, but are also referred
to as grids, nodes, mesh points, or a network. Models
are made to represent reservoir fluid flow from cell
to cell in one, two, or three dimensions and accord-
ingly are termed one-dimensional, two-dimensional,
or three-dimensional models. These are illustrated in
Figs. 1 through 3.
Each cell is assigned its specific reservoir properties
of size, porosity, permeability, elevation, pressure,
and fluid saturations. In addition to cell properties,
well data must also be provided. These include loca-
.:--
UUII,
-..-.4..,.+:.;+.,
pl uuu&L1 Vlcy
;nAmv rlaci .c.A
AIIUS,A , “w..’ w=
nrnrl~~&f
~. “...
Qr j~je~-
tion rates, and limiting conditions such as economic
limit, maximum water cut and GOR, and minimum
bottom-hole flowing pressure. General fluid and rock
data must also be provided for the entire field or sec-
tion of field being studied. These usually include PVT
data for the oil, gas, and water; rock compressiiiility;
and relative permeability for each flowing phase.
Models using PVT data for oil, gas, and water are
frequently referred to as “black-oil models.” Special
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
“gasmodels” have been developed for the study of
gas reservoirs. In some models the hydrocarbons are
divided into components, in which case the term
“compositional model” is used. The reservoir engineer
will rarely use a compositional model because it is
more complex than is generally necessary.
A system of mathematical equations is used to cal-
culate the flow between cells and the fluid saturation
and volumes in each cell. The equations used are
derived from: (1) the continuity equation or mass
balance, (2) Darcy’s law of flow through porous
media, and (3) equation of state.
Finite-difference methods are used to solve the
model equations. The methods do not give exact an-
swers and are recognized as having some inherent
error.l’ z The reservoir engineer sbouici be aware of
these potential errors, even though for the most part
he will not be too concerned with them because the
mathematical approaches in modeling are still gen-
erally more accurate than the engineer’s ability to
refine the. input data,
How Models Work
A simplfied calculation procedure used by a model
would be as follows:
1. Start with the cells’ having certain initial satura-
tions and conditions given.
2. Select a time step over which the model is to
calculate. (Initial time steps are usually short periods
of about a day, but with successive steps the time
periods can gradually be extended until they cover
some months.)
3. Calculate or use an assigned production or in-
jection volume for each well for the time period.
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
Fig. l-One-dimensional
AREAL
Fig. 2—Two-dimensional models.
DECEMBER, 1971
4. Calculate the flow between cells during the time
step and the new saturation for each cell.
5. Set a new time step and repeat the process until
the model has calculated performance for the desired
total time. High-speed computers are required for
solving problems involved in a multicell model be-
cause of the extremely large number of calculations
made in a typical study.
The Need for Engineering Judgment
Certain judgment decisions must be made by the engi-
neer before and during modei runs. Tine engineer
must match the solution that is required with the most
economical model that will do the job. The more
complex the model, the longer the time required to
Ccmpiete t}le SLUUy. T+,.
.-4.. -I..
ILGmIS
“ .3. -L
3W11
““ .x-L.* fif A“mian -
am nuliluw. “1 “L.w.l
sions and cells strongly influence running time. It is
quite often necessary to make preliminary model runs
to determine what dimensions and cell count will
ultimately be required.
In multicell modeling, representative basic data are
indispensable. If little basic data are available, the
engineer must decide whether more should be gath-
ered — whether, for example, wells should be drilled
to take fresh cores for analysis or to obtain such basic
data as a PVT analysis, The engineer working on a
field study must be careful to avoid the overkill that
results from using expensive, time-consuming simu-
lator methods on va~e, hastily prepared basic data.
Engineering judgment is also required in selecting
the proper relative permeability data because it repre-
sents the flow mechanism that occurs in the reservoir.
This often requires the formulation of pseudo relative
permeability data that represents not only displace-
6!!!!!3
TILTED RADIAL
models.
CROSS SECTION RADIAL
1429
mem efficiency, but also stratification and fingering,
Deciding on the Number of Dimensions
The number of dimensions and cells in the reservoir
simulation model will depend upon (1) the desired
detail and accuracy of reservoir performance to be
determined, (2) reservoir forces that need to be ap-
proximated by the model, (3) time and money to be
expended in the study. As the number of dimensions,
cells, and withdrawal points increases so do the prob-
lems encountered, with the ultimate in difficulty and
sophistication being represented by the multicelled
three-dimensional model of an entire reservoir.
The simplest model that can be run is the no-
ndimension one-cell model. the well known material
balance. A material balance is normally used to esti-
mate initiaI oil in place, water influx, or reservoir
pressure, given any two of them, This model assumes
th~t all reservoir conditions exist at one average pres-
sure and that the entire system is at equilibrium
conditions.
If more detail is needed. the one-cell model can
be extended to a one-dimensional mt.dticell model. A
reservoir can be modeled by stacking the cells verti-
cally or tilted as well as laying them horizontally.
These models will give a good representation of gross
fluid movement and pressure distribution in a reser-
voir. Relative permeability data can be used to imitate
the effects that oil and gas coning have on a well’s
producibility. Wellbore pressure drawdown effects on
over-all reservoir fluid flow cannot be modeled di-
. . .. ,, 1. -_ . ..-
rectiy wm tnese moaeis uecause tlk - >uJauc3L
.-..11 -”+ .,”;
Ulll.
+ nf
“L
the reservoir (one cell) is normally very large com-
pared with the volume of reservoir that is actually
affected bv wellbore messures. Wellbore effects can.
however, be modeled ‘with the one-dimensional radial
model.
One-dimensional multicell models are useful in
tion-dnve reservoirs.
To model sweep effects of water and gas it is neces-
sarv. to use a two-dimensional model. This can be
either a radial or a cross-sectional model to simulate
coning of gas or water and gravity effects, or an areal
model to simulate sweep effects. The two-dimensional -
radial model is useful in determining the critical pro-
ducing rates at which coning will occur, and in eval-
uating the effects of shale barriers, low vertical per-
meability, and gravity overriding or underriding of
injected gas or water. Probably the most extensively
used model is the two-dimensional areal version for
determining optimum waterflood or gas injection
patterns. These models are+useful in achieving maxim-
um recovery by determining locations of ‘wells in
reservoirs with varying rock properties. The two-
dimensional areal models have also been valuable in
determining aquifer influx for reservoir configurations
that have no analytical solution.
Another use f& two-dimensional radial models is
m bottotti-iiOie pi~SSLif3 03H.D) a.lw,j..
-hQis . RV
-J .mafch-
ing a well’s BHP response with a model, the BHP
pe-tiormance can be interpreted more accurately.
Threedimensional models are the present ultimate
in the engineer’s reservoir simulation library. This
1430
model can account for most of the forces that are
present in the reservoir. It accounts not only for the
areal sweep effects, but also for the gravity-controlled
vertical sweep effects. When modeling in three dimen-
sions, it is generally preferable to model a segment of
the reservoir as if the boundaries of the segment were
no-flow boundaries in the true reservoir. The approxi-
mate location of the no-flow boundaries can be deter-
mined from an areal two-dimensional model. The
advantage that modeling a segment of the reservoir
has over modeling the entire reservoir, assuming each
is composed of the same number of cells, is that the
segment will have fewer wells and is inherently more
accurate in terms of reservoir flow mechanics since
it is composed of smaller cells. If a field has complex
geology that could result in uneven water or gas move-
ment in vertical layers as well as areally, the three-
dimensional model of the total field will be needed.
A small-cell three-dimensional-segment model will
not properly describe the gross fluid movements of
the total field.
In modeling in three dimensions it has been found
necessa~ to have at least three vertical layers of cells
for each continuous sand body in which vertical flow
may occur. For example, in modeling a reservoir with
two major sand units separated by a discontinuous
shale or semipermeable barrier, at least six layers are
needed. This means that in the areal view, dimen-
sions are limited to a grid network of about 20 X 20
or fewer grids. If there are many wells in the field
this simply is not enough cells for a total-field model.
1~ ~.~..-------- ---n rIMrt of running models that are
~ tim.-rnnct]min~
designed to forecast reservoir performance in addition
to well behavior is handling the individual well fore-
casting. In models in which many wells are being
simulated it is very difficult to examine the perform-
ance of each well and determine when and how a
workover should be performed or a completion
in~emai ~h~uid be moved; therefore a subroutine that
accomplishes this on a consistent pattern as a func-
tion of GOR, water cut, oil rate, saturations, etc., is
vital. Two other necessary features are a wellbore
hydraulics subroutine, and a subroutine that can
select when and where new wells should be drilled
after cell saturations and pressures are appropriately
checked.
Cell Size and Number
The cell size selected will depend largely on the type
,,+ ~. . — y–..--—___ .
Zzz!2e’”
/
,/’
/ /
T I 1 1 I’–c-’it’
*I
~/ /
I
I I I I
Fig. 3—Three-dimensional model.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
of reservoir performance that is to be simulated. If
in a two-dimensional model the reservoir is to be
depleted under primary producing conditions of
solution-gas or oil-expansion drive, a coarse grid
system is satisfactory. Grids equivalent to the well
spacing have been used and have given good history
matches and reasonable performance predictions. In
some of these cases grid sizes of 160 acres have been
used.
A finer grid pattern is needed if an injection pro-
gram is to be simulated so that the interfaces between
the injected fluid and the oil can be traced. This also
applies to a water-drive reservoir, although the
aquifer can be represented by very large grids.
To demonstrate the effect of grid size on oil-
recovery forecasts, a series of runs was made using a
two-dimensional black-oil model. For this, a five-spot
~]ern.ent of ~ a~~e~(Qne-fQurth of a 20-acre five-spot)
6X6
4X4
was used. The five-spot element was gridded first with
a 3 X 3 grid system giving grids of 1% acre each
(Fig. 4). A model run was’ made simulating a water-
flood. Using the same five-spot element without any
change in element reservoir volume or input data,
except those necessary to accommodate changes in
number of cells, model runs were repeated for 4 X 4,
5 X 5, and 6 X 6 grids. Fig. 5 compares oil recovery
for the various systems. As can be seen, grid size
does affect performance, with the finest grid system
resulting in the highest producing rate. The model
also showed about 15 percent more cumulative oil
recovery from the 6 X 6 grid run than from the run
with the 3 X 3 grid at either a fixed low oil-producing
rate or fixed cumulative injection. The oil-saturation
profile from injection well to producer is a function
of relative permeability and cell dimensions. Using
large cells results in a wider apparent two-phase flow
region, thus increasing the resistance to flow and
lowering over-all throughput rate. In the larger cells
the injected water smears out over a larger volume
of reservoir faster than in the smaller cells; as a result
the relative permeability to oil in the producing-well
cell is lowered sooner.
Another model — one that was not a multicell
model — was used for comparison. It was a stratified
model with piston-like displacement in each reservoir
layer. The input data for it was sweepout efficiency
as a function of mobility ratio based on the work of
Caudle and Witte.3 The comparison indicated that
the finer grid system provided the more nearly cor-
rect projection. However, too fine a grid system in
multicell models becomes impractical. The reasons

m
are that (1) a larger number of cells will be used to
t- ,- 90 cover the area; and (2) smaller cells may dictate
1
1 shorter time steps because large saturation and pres-
: I sure changes in a time step will cause some models
+- k-fi~m- .,”.+ hb omcl CAW- llnr~alictic an~w~-~o -A.
‘4
‘A
I
i LV UGWW LUID .a”Aw LU.U &. w u... -..u..- -..

combination of these reasons results in a large in-

1

I
■
I crease in the number of calculations that must be
A. --m md -J made and in excessive requirements of computer time.
Eli Our experience has been that 1,000 to 1,500 cells are
5X5
:~~ a reasonable number to use, but that a system of
2,000 to 2,500 is approaching the practicai iimit.
-- ACTUAL 5-SPOT ELEMENT OF 5 ACRES This limit will, of course, be relaxed as higher-speed
PRODUCING WELL computers are developed.
: INJECTION WELL
To simulate ~e sweepout of a reservoir undergoing
Fig. 4—Grid systems used to study influence of
grid size on model calculations.
an injection program, one should use a grid system
that has at least two cells between offsetting produc-
tion and injection wells.
Relative Permeability
The key to good results from a multicell model study
is good data. Perhaps the most critical are the relative
permeability relationships. It should be realized that
in many cases the choice of a certain relative permea-
bility relationship will essentially fix the answers the
model determines. Generally, the concept associated
with relative permeabili~ curves is that they repre-
sent fluid movement and displacement in a uniform
3 -o I 2 3 4 5 6 7
section of reservoir rock. However, in model work,
TIME-YEARS
relative permeability must represent this displacement
Fig. 5—Comparison of calculated producing rates for in a reservoir volume of cell size. It therefore has to
a five-spot element using varying grid systems. account for fingering, stratification, and inbomo-

DECEMBER, 1971 1431

geneities within the cell, in addition to normal fluid
displacement. If in the course of a model study, the
reservoir changes from one recovery mechanism to
another, the reservoir engineer must determine if this
change will affect fluid displacement or recovery
within a cell, and if it does, whether the relative
permeability data must be changed to reflect this.
In many reservoirs, the recovery mechanism can
change under primary recovery alone without the
introduction of secondary recovery. An example of
this would be an undersaturated oil reservoir that
initially produces under an oil-expansion drive but
later changes to a solution-gas drive. A match of
history during the oil-expansion penod is useful in
confirming the basic reservoir characteristics that de-
termined reservoir size. It should be borne in mind
that the relative permeability curves used for that
. . .
matcn nave not been ccmfimned for a m ~rvj.w...,..
nisrtinn . . ..
nln
into the solution-gas-drive period of depletion. Ob-
viously, with only the oil phase flowing, only one
point on the relative permeability curve is used: k,. at
connate water saturation. This does not mean that the
relative permeability relationships are wrong for the
second period, but rather that they have not been
tested.
The same reasoning can also be extended to cover
secondary recovery. If a reservoir had been producing
by primary recovery under a solution gas drive, the
gas-oil relative permeability relationships would pre-
dominate in the performance. A satisfactory history
match of this period on a model would attest to the
reasonableness of the gas-oil relative permeability
curves. However, in simulating a waterflood, it is the
water-oil curves that would have the predominant
effect on calculated performance. As before, a good
match of the solution-gas-drive period does not assure
that the relative permeability curves will hold for a
waterflood projection.
A multicell model can be used to determine sweep
and interaction between cells, but the displacement
within a cell is controlled by the relative permeability
relationship put into a’ model. Matching reservoir
performance can serve as a means of obtaining a
relative permeability relationship for use in making
projection runs. If, however, the reservoir recovery
mechanism changes, the relative permeability rela-
tionship may no longer hold. Laborato~ displace-
ment tests on cores might be a better way to compare
recovery mechanisms than multicell models.
Case Histories
Case History 1
In this study an entire field was modeled in thres
dimensions using four overlying layers. The pay zone
was composed of two thick sand units separated by
a continuous shale. Vertical and horizontal permea-
“.U..-. w~~e hQh
hilitie. in both sands and the oil was
saturated at initial conditions. It was thought that
the model run would show vertical migration of the
solution gas and the formation of a secondary gas
cap on top of structure. In the first simulation run
each sand unit was composed of two layers of the
same thickness. A reservoir depletion test was run
in such a way that a gas saturation in excess of
1432
critical was formed. On examination of the gas
saturation maps, it was found that a unifom] gas
saturation higher than critical had formed over the
entire field. However, there had been no significant
movement of gas to the top of the structure.
It became obvious that in order for the model to
allow gas to migrate upstructure, a substantial
amount of free gas would have to be liberated. This
was true because a high gas saturation in a volume
equivalent to one-half the reservoir would have to
be formed to have gas sufficiently mobile to flow up-
structure. The two-layer-per-sand-unit model implies
that any gas tongue or finger is at least half as thick
as the formation. Obviously, this is not true. It be-
came apparent that a minimum of three layers would
be needed for each sand unit in this particular simu-
lation. Fig, 6 shows a cross-section comparison of
the two rn.odels. The thickness of the top layer in
each sand unit would need to be 5 to 10 percent of
the total thickness. If gas segregation were to occur,
the thin top layer would quickly develop a flowable
gas saturation as a result of vertical gas migration
and would conduct the gas to the top of the struc-
ture. Re-forming the model to have three layers in
each sand unit did result in different gas saturation
conditions.
Case Hmfory 2
A study was conducted on an oil reservoir with an
overlying gas cap. The reservoir rock was a sand-
stone having two major units separated by a discon-
tinuous shale. Vertical permeability in the lower sand
unit was 0.25 to 1.0 times horizontal permeability, and
vertical permeability in the upper unit was 0.05 to
0.1 times horizontal. The nature of the field and our
output needs required that we model the field in
three dimensions. A major problem was how to
model gas coning when using large cells. It was
obvious that the actual vertical flow conditions could
not be simulated in the field model because too many
cells would result. Computer limitations restricted
the total field model to about 2,000 total cells, which
was equivalent to five layers in the vertical direc-
tion. To determine “true” gas coning response, an
11 X 11 X 13 model of one field model stack of
cells was run (see Fig. 7). In this simulation, the
vertical flow conditions reflected the depositional
analysis, and represented the actual response. The
next model runs were one stack of field model cells
having five layers. Vertical permeabilities were ad-
justed to match the performance of the 11 X 11 X 13
f f
w
RY
Y
Fig. 6-Case History l—layering needed
for updip gas migration.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
model. The best fit was then used in the 20X20X 5 jection program of water only would be adequate. A
field model. It was not possible to match exactly the two-dimensional model representing an areal view
breakthrough and after-breakthrough performance of was used for the study. Relative permeability curves
the 11 X 1I X 13 model with the five-layer model, were developed as shown in Fig. 8. The water-oil
but reasonable performance was obtained. relationship was based on laboratory work but was
developed mainly to match a stratified formation
~me H&6tQry3 .:ti..+:~ti ~“ +h= .~.-mrair The uac-nil relatinnchin was
DILUCt LIUll 1.. LL1* Lwe”s v “., . A ..- a-- --- --.-- . ..-...- ..= ___

Reservoir A, one of the first fields we studied with a based to some degree on laboratory work. The water-
multicell model, brought to our attention the im- oil relationship is plotted against fraction of total
portance of relative permeability data. pore volume, whereas the gas-oil relationship is
Reservoir A produces from a 7,500-ft lime. The plotted against fraction of hydrocarbon pore volume.
crude is of good quality — 35 ‘API gravity. Original Model runs were made, first to match history.
reservoir pressure was 3,500 psi, and the bubble- These were followed by projection runs to simuiate
point pressure was about 50 percent of original. The continued alternate gas-water injection and then to
pressure had been permitted to drop to near the simulate water injection only. Under primary per-
bubble point before a secondary recovery project was formance the history matched; but we had consider-
begun. The secondary program was one of alternating .1.1.
aolt?
J.mm
u~m~ul[y
1. . . .— .:--
Lrylllg
.-
LU
—..4-I.
lJJIJIW
k: -.,....,
lJISLUIY
4+-..
&LC1
:..:n,.+:n*
lll~cuJull

gas and water injection. One of the purposes of the started, and the relative permeability curves had to
multicell model study was to determine if the gas- be revised. The two projection runs were made using
water injection program should continue or if an in- the set of curves that then gave the closest match.
Results revealed that slightly higher recovery could
be expected for alternate gas-water injection than for
water alone.
tii
In analyzing the results of this study several things
came to light. In this reservoir study three different
/ - // + recovery mechanisms were involved: primary recov-
.’<”
I I I I I I I
ery by Oii expansion, secondary recovery by alterna-
ting gas-water injection, and seconda~ recovery by
water injection only. During the primary recovery
period only one phase — oil — was flowing over most
of the model area during most of the time period. A
history match of this period was easy to obtain.
Actually it would have been difficult not to obtain a
match with any reasonable relative permeability curve
as long as the k,o at the comate water saturation was
approximately correct. The fact that the same relative
permeability curves did not hold for the gas-water
/ :-: --.: - -.4..L ..L.-...l.-l..-+ L..,o ha=m+,-,
UIJCU UOJJIIMWII MKJ LUU lW L ua VG UW,U LUO ,I”av?met,d
WIUAFUWWM.
II The match of reservoir performance that was obtained
for one producing mechanism did not validate the
relative permeability curves for another producing
I?K!c!mlisrn.
An examination of the output data from the pro-
jection runs showed that under alternate gas-water
:-:--.:-..
lIIJGU
● L.- an- ..,-.
LIU1l,
“A;”- ;“+~ al,.+”,-,” ~n the nil
UIG &J3 W c13 &J1ll& 111 LU aUlu LIULL I*I u,- WM,

and the increased recovery was reflecting that the

residual oil was at a higher formation volume factor
under gas-water injection than under water injection
alone. Except for this factor, the sweep between cells
Fig. 7—Case History 2—fine grid model used and the displacement within each cell were essentially
to obtain performance of coarse grid.
the same.
In retrospect, we realize that because the same
1,0
K- A relative permeability relationship was being used for
both projection runs, the model had no choice but
to come up with the results it did and that to compare
reservoir recovery mechanisms in this manner is a
misuse of multicell models.
i 04 t In the case of alternate gas-water injection, we

a
wATER 5ATURb.TION
% TOTAL PORE VOLUME
GkS SATURATION
% HYDROCARBONPORE VOLUME
could expect not only gas swelling effects, but also the
effect that the presence of gas would have on the
residual oil saturation to water injection. The presence
of free gas could possibly reduce the residual oil satu-
rations.4 The extent to which this would take place
Fig. 8-Relative permeability curves developed for
model study of Reservoir A. would have to be determined in the laboratory by

DECEN:EER, 1971 1433

simulating the pro~ss on cores. The laboratory re-
sults could then be used to develop proper relative Case Hktory 5
permeability curves to duplicate the displacement The model study of Reservoir C is an example of
efficiency in the model. the increased understanding that can be achieved with
a model study.
Case History 4 Reservoir C is a 10,000-ft-deep sandstone reser-
Reservoir B illustrates the problems that can arise in voir that contains a good quality of undersaturated
trying to match history by “faking-in” data (that is, oil. For several years gas has been injected into six
approximating an apparent reservoir condition by crestal wells.
altering semirelated input data). Three faults were known to exist in the field. The
Reservoir B is a 5,000-ft deep sandstone reservoir question arose whether these were sealing faults acting
situated on an anticlinal structure. It contains a good as barriers to flow. If they were, it would be neces-
quality, though highly undersaturated, oil and has a sary to determine the effectiveness of the sweep in
strong water drive. The field was developed on 40- the faulted area and to find out what improvements
acre spacing..- I-L.
~Ilc ..,-11.
Wul,aa,v .- ,,v..
nfiw p~Uc@ with high could be made by adding injection wells or drilling
water cuts, and the field is approaching depletion. producing wells. For this study a two-dimensional
Because this is a large field, a model study was black-oil model was used. An areal grid system of
considered necessary to obtain a better understand- 440 X 440-ft grids was laid out over the field, except
ing of it and to determine if any changes in operation, in the area of the faults where the grid size was re-
or if any injection program would improve ultimate duced to 440 X 220 ft (Fig. 9). To simulate the fault
recovery. A three-dimensional oil model was used for barriers, the permeability in the fault cells was set at
this studY. ~~- -..-..., v-J.
1 lIClU>=, u,, W.Crlividpd
..-= =,. .. . . into
..... ]@aCre cells
zero.
with nine overlying layers, each 100 ft thick. To In the history-matching runs, producing and injec-
obtain a history match, it was decided to fake-in tion rates were entered into the model. The history
water coning by increasing the effective permeability match was made by comparing GOR and pressure
to water in the cells that had wells. This could be performance from the model with that from the field.
done by shifting the relative permeability curves for The performance from the model showed reservoir
these cells. pressures, after a few years of history, that were sev-
The model results showed that if the operation of eral hundred psi less than actually existed in the
the field were to continue as it had been, the top northwest part of the field. This indicated that the
layer of cells would still have high oil saturation be- faults were not barriers but that reservoir fluids were
tween wells at the time of abandonment. The imnledi- moving across them. BY trial and error, the cells
O*Gfill-ct;nn
-.* y“w.,..v.. was “what can be done to recover this representing the faults were assigned permeability
oil?” . .
values untd a matcn or pressure history was obtained.
In the course of answering the question it becaine projection pJH~ ~.ade with the model showed that
obvious that unrecovered oil existed in the field only sweep would be sufficiently effective that no changes
if coning actually exi$ted. The model was showing the were needed.
conditions it did because the input data forced it to,
The existence of coning should first have been deter-
mined by using a coning model or, better yet, by
actually checking on performance in the field. Ob-
taining a reasonable history match with faked-in
water coning did not necessarily prove that coning
existed. Changing other reservoir factors could also
have given a history match.
A similar situation existed in another field model
study in which directional permeability was faked-in
to give a history match. Model results showed un-
swept areas of high oil saturation, and again the
question was raised as to what could be done to
recover this oil. In reality the directional permeability
was not a certainty, but rather one of the reservoir
conditions that happened to give a history match in
the model. Actual field information — directional
permeability obtained from oriented cores or from I
interference tests between wells, or data obtained with
a borehole televiewer — should first have been ex-
amined to substantiate that directional permeability
or oriented fracturing existed. 1
1

Although this caution about faked-in data may

seem obvious, it has been observed on numerous
occasions that the engineer gets so carried away with @ GAS INJECTION WELL
a study that he forgets there w-aslittle basis for some Fig. %l?CX5~iWGir
. . #= ..,; h
b w,t,,
hlamkad.n~~
Ujuj.r.uu .
g~~~~

of the original assumptions. to simulate sealing faults.

1d’14 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 The study of Reservoir C is a good example of
the use of a multicell model. I I I I 1 I
1

Case History 6
1 1 1 11 [111
1 1 II I
1

The study of Reservoir D is an excellent example of

using a model to determine early in the iife of a fieid
the degree of water ini3ux and whether the field should
be watertlooded. I

The field produces from a sand reservoir about

9,000 ft deep. It contains an undersaturated 37 ‘API
crude. Initial reservoir pressure was about 4,300 psi
and bubble-point pressure was near 1,800 psi.
It appeared from the initial, very steep decline in
reservoir pressure that no water drive existed. (Curve
A, Fig. 10, projects this decline.) The operators,
noting this steep pressure decline, quickly took action
to explore unitization and waterihociiiig. Shortly
thereafter, however, the pressure started leveling off,
making -it obvious that a water drive did exist.
Opnnons differed over whether the waterflood
.. .. . 2 -I UI-. :C .Lo :m~,,v xwac
would stlh De neeaeu II LUG LU,,~fi . . . . -_=
for effective pressure maintenance. A leveling off of
the pressure would have been expected with a good
water drive (Curve B, Fig. i V).
A two-dimensional black-oil model was used for
the study. The grid system superimposed over the oil
pay isopachous map is Fig. 11.
. i. “ria. tinn had
in moaeung die reservoir, cons:ue.a.l.,..
given to the sands along the flank of the reservoir as
they dipped below the oil-water contact. An average
thickness of 230 ft was given to these sands and the.
surrounding aquifer. To model those cells having an
oil column overlying water, the oil and water volumes
are each evenly dispersed over the entire cell volume.
This presents a problem in those cells where the oil
column is thin relative to total cell thickness because
it can mean that the dispersed oil will be at or below
the residual oil saturation and, therefore, immobile.
To reflect a proper fluid distribution in which the oil
would remain mobile, it was necessary first to add a
residual oil saturation to the water column under-
lying the oii zone.
111111111111
Fig. 1l—lsopachous map with grid system used for
two-dimensional model study, Reservoir D.
In Fig. 11, the small interior grids are 330 X 330
ft in QzeeThe outer grids, although 330 ft wide, were
varied in length duri~g the study to represent different
aquifer volumes. As it turned out, history matching
~ha~ed ~kat an aquifer of 1 billion bbl of water gave
ndeflu~te
the best pressure match. This is shown as Curve C
on Fig. 10.
The largest aquifer tried was 36 billion bbl of
~ater. It is of interest that the reservoir primary per-
formance using the maximum-sized aquifer did not
vary greatly from that using 1 billion bbl of water
(see Fig. 12). One of the reasons for this is that the
... . to he field was being produced in a competitive, nonpro-
rated situation. The economic limit wouici be reached
before the aquifer, even a large one, could be very
elfective.
Further studies were made in which watertlooding
was simulated. These studies showed that water in-
jection would produce a substantial quantity of addi-
tional oil.
This is an excellent example of the understanding
of a reservoir that can be obtained with a multicell
model. Production from the field has more than
doubled since the model work was done. Although
the history until the time of the study was brief, per-
formance since shows that the model results are still
essentially correct.

HISTORY PREDICTED
H, SJOIW I PRED:TED
I
5000 16

0= NO WATER INFLUX I PERFORMANCE WITH

L
14
A @ = SMALL AQUIFER
4000 @ = STRONG INFLUX
@) = LARGE AQUIFER
b @ = MODEL PREDICTION @) = WATERFLOOD
3000
\ .-
-g d -“m
~A \ Yb
2000
~~ \
P
$ ti’ -
1000
)

2
I
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
I
0
RECOVERY- % OF ORIGINAL-OIL- IN- PLACE 12345676 9101112

Fig. It)-Comparison of pressure performance for TIME- YEARS

varying degrees of water influx for Reservoir D, Fig. 12—Predicted oil producing rates for Reservoir D.
m“nm. ,”r, , <071
1435
 in field development. Reservoir engineers must dem-
Overview onstrate to management that these new tools are
Experience has shown that multicell reservoir simu- worth their enormous costs.
lators are a vital tool for the reservoir engineer. This brings to mind another side of modeling,
Models supply and solve a set of equations descri- which has been described as field-study overkill, or
bingfluid flow, but it is up to the engineer to enter the application of too much engineering time and
into the model the data that satisfactorily describe the computer time to field problems that do not justify
system being studied. No statement so well describes the expense. The engineer should apply the simplest
reservom model computer runs as .~- LUG
<+-rail .U- orn term available solution to his problem. For example, for a
“Garbage in — Garbage out.” The reservoir engineer simple waterflood caicuiation, a tllree-dhnensiomd
must examine all the output and apply his judgment model is seldom necessary. There are many good
to the results. If a model run gives answers that are techniques besides multicell models for waterflood
inconsistent with experience in similar cases, there is forecasting that are faster and give excellent results.
a good chance something is wrong. It is not a satis- The engineer should ask himself:
factory response to management to say “I don’t 1. What is the problem I need to solve?
understand it, but this is what the model calculated.” 2. Will the model answer the question or will it
I@gineers -k “ld spend the maiority of their time
~lloul only tell me what I am forcing it to tell me by the
analyzing results of runs, making ;ure the calculations input data?
done by the computer are consistent with flow theory. 3. Even if the multicell model can give me the
The sophisticated simulator can never replace a answer, is there a simpler way of getting it?
sound geological study of the reservoir and rock
propefi;es or-a laboratory study of the relative per- References
meability characteristics of the rock. I$4ul$icel!models !. Cmts K. H.: “Use and Misuse of Reservoir Simulation
enable the engineer to test the effect of variance in Models,” J. Pet. Tech. (Nov., i%9j i39i-i39t3.
the input data and inform management of the risks 2. van Poollen, H. K., Bixel~ H. C. and Jargon, J. R.: “Res-
ervoir Modeling — 3: Finite Differences,” Oil and Gas
and ranges of producing conditions to be encountered J. (Sept. 15, 1969) 120-121.
3. Caudle, B. H. and Witte, M. D.: “Production Potential
OriRinal manuscript received in Societv of Petroleum Encineere
office-March 24, 197”1. Revised manuscript received Aug. 19; 1971.
Changes During Sweepout in a Five-Spot System,” J. Pet.
Paper (SPE 3304) waa presented at SPE Permian Basin 011 Re- Tech. (Dec., 1959 ) 63-65.
covery Conference, held in Midland, Tex,, May 6-7, 1971. @) COPY 4. Schneider, F. N. and Owens, W. W,: “Sandstone and
right 1971 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Carbonate Three-Phase Relative Permeability Charac-
Petroleum Enginears, Inc.
teristics,” Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (March, 1970) 75-84. JPT

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY