scholarly journals DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTIPURPOSE RESERVOIR SIMULATOR BASED ON A PLUGIN ARCHITECTURE

Author(s):  
THIAGO SOUSA BASTOS
2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Caillabet ◽  
P. Fabrie ◽  
P. Lemonnier ◽  
R. Masson ◽  
O. Ricois

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (04) ◽  
pp. 423-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.. Farajzadeh ◽  
T.. Matsuura ◽  
D.. van Batenburg ◽  
H.. Dijk

Summary Accurate modeling of an ASP flood requires detailed representation of geochemistry and, if natural acids are present, the saponification process. Geochemistry and saponification affect the propagation of the injected chemicals and the amount of generated natural soaps. These in turn determine the chemical phase behavior and, hence, the effectiveness of the ASP process. In this paper, it is shown that by coupling a multipurpose reservoir simulator (MPRS) with PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999; Charlton and Parkhurst 2008), a robust and flexible tool is developed to model ASP floods. PHREEQC is used as the chemical-reaction engine, which determines the equilibrium state of the chemical processes modeled. The MPRS models the impact of the chemicals on the flow properties, solves the flow equations, and transports the chemicals. The validity of the approach is confirmed by benchmarking the results with the ASP module of the UTCHEM simulator (Delshad et al. 2000). Moreover, ASP corefloods have been matched with the new tool. The functionality of the model also has been tested on a 2D sector model. The advantages of using PHREEQC as the chemical engine include its rich database of chemical species and its flexibility in changing the chemical processes to be modeled. Therefore, the coupling procedure presented in this paper can also be extended to other chemical enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) methods.


1989 ◽  
Vol 4 (04) ◽  
pp. 475-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Quandalle ◽  
J.C. Sabathier

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Cominelli ◽  
Claudio Casciano ◽  
Paola Panfili ◽  
Marco Rotondi ◽  
Paolo Del Bosco ◽  
...  

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 44-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Rosenwald ◽  
Don W. Green

Abstract This paper presents a mathematical modeling procedure for determining the optimum locations of procedure for determining the optimum locations of wells in an underground reservoir. It is assumed that there is a specified production-demand vs time relationship for the reservoir under study. Several possible sites for new wells are also designated. possible sites for new wells are also designated. The well optimization technique will then select, from among those wellsites available, the locations of a specified number of wells and determine the proper sequencing of flow rates from Those wells so proper sequencing of flow rates from Those wells so that the difference between the production-demand curve and the flow curve actually attained is minimized. The method uses a branch-and-bound mixed-integer program (BBMIP) in conjunction with a mathematical reservoir model. The calculation with the BBMIP is dependent upon the application of superposition to the results from the mathematical reservoir model.This technique is applied to two different types of reservoirs. In the first, it is used for locating wells in a hypothetical groundwater system, which is described by a linear mathematical model. The second application of the method is to a nonlinear problem, a gas storage reservoir. A single-phase problem, a gas storage reservoir. A single-phase gas reservoir mathematical model is used for this purpose. Because of the nonlinearity of gas flow, purpose. Because of the nonlinearity of gas flow, superposition is not strictly applicable and the technique is only approximate. Introduction For many years, members of the petroleum industry and those concerned with groundwater hydrology have been developing mathematical reservoir modeling techniques. Through multiple runs of a reservoir simulator, various production schemes or development possibilities may be evaluated and their relative merits may be considered; i.e., reservoir simulators can be used to "optimize" reservoir development and production. Formal optimization techniques offer potential savings in the time and costs of making reservoir calculations compared with the generally used trial-and-error approach and, under proper conditions, can assure that the calculations will lead to a true optimum.This work is an extension of the application of models to the optimization of reservoir development. Given a reservoir, a designated production demand for the reservoir, and a number of possible sites for wells, the problem is to determine which of those sites would be the best locations for a specified number of new wells so that the production-demand curve is met as closely as possible. Normally, fewer wells are to be drilled than there are sites available. Thus, the question is, given n possible locations, at which of those locations should n wells be drilled, where n is less than n? A second problem, that of determining the optimum relative problem, that of determining the optimum relative flow rates of present and future wells is also considered. The problem is attacked through the simultaneous use of a reservoir simulator and a mixed-integer programming technique.There have been several reported studies concerned with be use of mathematical models to select new wells in gas storage or producing fields. Generally, the approach has been to use a trial-and-error method in which different well locations are assumed. A mathematical model is applied to simulate reservoir behavior under the different postulated conditions, and then the alternatives are postulated conditions, and then the alternatives are compared. Methods that evaluate every potential site have also been considered.Henderson et al. used a trial-and-error procedure with a mathematical model to locate new wells in an existing gas storage reservoir. At the same time they searched for the operational stratagem that would yield the desired withdrawal rates. In the reservoir that they studied, they found that the best results were obtained by locating new wells in the low-deliverability parts of the reservoir, attempting to maximize the distance between wells, and turning the wells on in groups, with the low-delivery wells turned on first.Coats suggested a multiple trial method for determining well locations for a producing field. SPEJ P. 44


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (04) ◽  
pp. 60-61
Author(s):  
Chris Carpenter

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 199149, “Rate-Transient-Analysis-Assisted History Matching With a Combined Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Simulator,” by Garrett Fowler, SPE, and Mark McClure, SPE, ResFrac, and Jeff Allen, Recoil Resources, prepared for the 2020 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, originally scheduled to be held in Bogota, Colombia, 17–19 March. The paper has not been peer reviewed. This paper presents a step-by-step work flow to facilitate history matching numerical simulation models of hydraulically fractured shale wells. Sensitivity analysis simulations are performed with a coupled hydraulic fracturing, geomechanics, and reservoir simulator. The results are used to develop what the authors term “motifs” that inform the history-matching process. Using intuition from these simulations, history matching can be expedited by changing matrix permeability, fracture conductivity, matrix-pressure-dependent permeability, boundary effects, and relative permeability. Introduction This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 199149, “Rate-Transient-Analysis-Assisted History Matching With a Combined Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Simulator,” by Garrett Fowler, SPE, and Mark McClure, SPE, ResFrac, and Jeff Allen, Recoil Resources, prepared for the 2020 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, originally scheduled to be held in Bogota, Colombia, 17-19 March. The paper has not been peer reviewed. This paper presents a step-by-step work flow to facilitate history matching numerical simulation models of hydraulically fractured shale wells. Sensitivity analysis simulations are performed with a coupled hydraulic fracturing, geomechanics, and reservoir simulator. The results are used to develop what the authors term “motifs” that inform the history-matching process. Using intuition from these simulations, history matching can be expedited by changing matrix permeability, fracture conductivity, matrix-pressure-dependent permeability, boundary effects, and relative permeability. Introduction The concept of rate transient analysis (RTA) involves the use of rate and pressure trends of producing wells to estimate properties such as permeability and fracture surface area. While very useful, RTA is an analytical technique and has commensurate limitations. In the complete paper, different RTA motifs are generated using a simulator. Insights from these motif simulations are used to modify simulation parameters to expediate and inform the history- matching process. The simulation history-matching work flow presented includes the following steps: 1 - Set up a simulation model with geologic properties, wellbore and completion designs, and fracturing and production schedules 2 - Run an initial model 3 - Tune the fracture geometries (height and length) to heuristic data: microseismic, frac-hit data, distributed acoustic sensing, or other diagnostics 4 - Match instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and wellhead pressure (WHP) during injection 5 - Make RTA plots of the real and simulated production data 6 - Use the motifs presented in the paper to identify possible production mechanisms in the real data 7 - Adjust history-matching parameters in the simulation model based on the intuition gained from RTA of the real data 8 -Iterate Steps 5 through 7 to obtain a match in RTA trends 9 - Modify relative permeabilities as necessary to obtain correct oil, water, and gas proportions In this study, the authors used a commercial simulator that fully integrates hydraulic fracturing, wellbore, and reservoir simulation into a single modeling code. Matching Fracturing Data The complete paper focuses on matching production data, assisted by RTA, not specifically on the matching of fracturing data such as injection pressure and fracture geometry (Steps 3 and 4). Nevertheless, for completeness, these steps are very briefly summarized in this section. Effective fracture toughness is the most-important factor in determining fracture length. Field diagnostics suggest considerable variability in effective fracture toughness and fracture length. Typical half-lengths are between 500 and 2,000 ft. Laboratory-derived values of fracture toughness yield longer fractures (propagation of 2,000 ft or more from the wellbore). Significantly larger values of fracture toughness are needed to explain the shorter fracture length and higher net pressure values that are often observed. The authors use a scale- dependent fracture-toughness parameter to increase toughness as the fracture grows. This allows the simulator to match injection pressure data while simultaneously limiting fracture length. This scale-dependent toughness scaling parameter is the most-important parameter in determining fracture size.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document