Summary. Three related steam injection problems are presented along with simulation results for them obtained from six
organizations. The problems selected for comparison were intended to exercise many of the features of thermal models that are of
practical and theoretical interest. The first problem deals with three cycles of cyclic steam injection and the other two problems
deal with steam displacement in an inverted ninespot pattern. The first two problems are of "blackoil" type and the third of
compositional type. Complete data are presented for these problems. The comparison of solutions indicates good agreement for
most of the results of importance in field operations.
Introduction
Validation of reservoir simulators for complex recovery processes those who have built or acquired suitable models. This is different
is a particularly difficult problem because analytical solutions are from a study where the person doing the comparison develops new
available under only a few limiting conditions. While good agree software using published descriptions of several models. It is
ment between the results from different simulators for the same possiblealthough we have tried to minimize thisthat some of
problem does not ensure validity of any of the results, a lack of the differences in the results compared here could be a result of
agreement does give cause for some concern. Such comparisons different interpretations of the problem, while differences in a com
can also be useful in the development of new models and in op parison of the type discussed in Ref. 4 may be caused by differ
timizing the performance of existing reservoir simulators. ences in the interpretation of the published procedures. Furthermore,
This is the fourth in a series of simulation problems for which the models used in our comparison are all commercial in nature.
results from a number of commercial simulators have been obtained Some of these models have been in existence for several years and
and reported in the SPE literature. The first such study was or others are new.
ganized and conducted by Odeh 1 on the simulation of a three
dimensional (3D), twophase, blackoil case. Seven companies par
Problem Statement
ticipated in that project. This was followed by a comparative solu
tion project developed by the program committee for the 1982 SPE We have selected three related but independent problems for the
Reservoir Simulation Symposium in New Orleans. The problem comparison of steam injection models: (1) cyclic steam injection
selected was a threephase, singlewell radial crosssection coning in a nondistillable oil reservoir with a twodimensional (2D) radial
problem. Eleven companies participated in this study. Chappelear crosssectional grid, (2) nondistillable oil displacement by steam
and Nolen 2 were responsible for organizing this study and for in an inverted ninespot pattern by considering oneeighth of the
reporting the results at the symposium. A similar approach was full pattern (see Fig. 1), and (3) displacement of an oil consisting
adopted by the program committee for the 1983 SPE Reservoir of two volatile components and one nonvolatile component in the
Simulation Symposium in San Francisco. In this case, the problem same pattern as Problem 2. The oil properties were the same in
selected was to study gas cycling in a richgas retrograde conden the first two problems. The participants had the option to submit
sate reservoir. In the first part of the study, the participants matched results for one, two, or all three problems. In addition we invited
their phasebehavior packages to the data supplied, and in the sec optional runs. A complete statement of the problems as offered to
ond part they considered two options for the depletion of the reser the participants is contained in Appendix A. (We have deleted the
voir. This study required a 3D, threephase, multicomponent section on reporting requirements to save space.)
compositional model. Nine companies participated in this study. The problems were selected to exercise features of the models
Kenyon and Behie 3 organized the project and reported the results that are important in practical applications; they do not necessarily
at the symposium. represent real field situations. In particular, we wanted to see the
The enthusiastic response of industry and the academic commu influence of grid orientation on the results of the steam displace
nity to the three problems encouraged the program committee for ment problems. The inverted ninespot appeared to us to be ideal
the 1985 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium to continue the tra for this purpose.
dition and to develop a set of problems suitable for the comparison Six companies (see Appendix B) participated in the project with
of steam injection models. We were given the task of organizing only three submitting results for the compositional case (Problem
this project. 3). Four of the other companies contacted indicated an interest in
The objective of this paper is to present selected results submit the project during the early stages but were unable to provide re
ted by the participants in this project with a minimum of commen sults for the comparison for a variety of reasons. In addition to
tary. It is worth emphasizing that the type of comparison presented providing numerical results, the participants were also asked to
here and in previous reports 13 is different from other kinds of describe their model briefly and to answer a number of questions
comparisons discussed in the literature (e.g., Refs. 4 and 5). In about the model. These descriptions with only minor editorial
the SPE comparisons, the problems are designed by one or more changes are given in the next section.
knowledgeable people, and model results are provided directly by'
Description of Models Used
'Now with Standard Oil Production Co.
"Now with Technology Development Group Arco Oil and Gas Co. Arco used Scientific SoftwareIntercomp's
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers (SSI's) THERM model described later.
1576 Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
Chevron Oil Field Research Co. Chevron's steam flood simula
tor is a fully implicit, fully compositional, finitedifference model.
n~~n ___ Far producer
T
nents. The hydrocarbon components may partition into the oleic
and the vapor phases. The water component may partition into the ".$1.~>
aqueous and the vapor phases.
The mathematical model consists of (2n" + 6) constitutive equa
tions for every block. These equations are consolidated into (nc + I) 330 ft.
":("
Injector _.,L,",'""""'''<I ___ Near producer
massbalance equations and one energybalance equation. The .......'Y
1
primary variables are water saturation, oil saturation or pressure, 'b'o
'0
temperature, and (n"  I) liquid mole fractions. Oil saturation is ...
~.
2Sj '"CO
30~ CHEVRON
1 C>4G
j
j

.,
ARCO
M1lBlL
CHEVRON
SNA
20 j ~ C'G 551
1
25
"",,'L
1 SNH
 .,
,
5
j
15]
1'
J
5Sl
.
5
T
2O,
j
j
B IS"';
T 1
8 101 ;
1
10~
1
5~
~
0U~ ~.~'. '~r~~"'''''''''''''~~~~~~l r."...,. 'r~~T""""""''''''''O'TO'~~ ,, 10"'" 'r,' , r'.., .... r'r ~T' T'" '''~I r.,.,.., ........... .,~
200 '00 000 10il3 1200 1200
200 '00 000
Ttlot[ (doya) \
TIME (do),")
Fig. 2Problem 1: cumulative oil production. Fig. 3Problem 1: cumulative water production.
The productivity/injectivity index for Phase I and Layer k may be re = radius to the center of first block for Problem 1,
defined by r e = .Jtu!1yl7r for Problems 2 and 3 (this yields a
J=5.053 for the far producer, top layer),
krl krlllli = actual mobility of the phase for a production well,
ql,k=h(PI,kPw.k), ... , ...... ,' ........ ,"' ... " (I) krl = 1 for the injection well,
III
III = average viscosity of the injected fluid for injection
where well,
qu = the injection or production rate, tu=!1y = 29.17 ft [8.89 m], and
krtilll = the effective mobility, o
= well fraction.
Pw,k = the well pressure, and
CMG. Same as Chevron except for the differences indicated:
PI,k = the pressure of Phase I in the adjacent reservoir
block, CI = In(relrw),
The expression for the PI for Layer k is re = 0.249v'r(tu;2:+!1y""C2OOc)cf7r for Problems 2 and 3, and
krlllli = total block mobility for injection well,
211'
h =0.0011270(hkh; ", .. ', .. , .. , ........... , ... (2) Mobil. Same as CMG except for the differences indicated: re
CI was calculated by Peaceman's23 method for Problem 2, krl = 1 for
2.01
.. '
Dl00:j
,
. .. iIi
+
t
,. , I,. ... ... ... 
i
*
Fig. 7Problem 2: oil rate for far p~oducer (fullwell basis).
......
It
it
+
 MUJ
C>EVIDi
....,.ail
*1" _ I t
srA
  SSI
 AID)
0VRa<
++ or;
t l' aIL.
srA
  9$!
the injection welI, and PI = actual phase viscosity for the injection
well. .. I,. ... ... ... 
ELF. Same as CMG except for the differences indicated:
re = radius to the outer pOllndary of the first block for Problem I Fig. 8Problem 2: water rate for near producer (fullwell
and r,=0.2 AX (Peaceman's method) for Problem 2. basis).
SS! and Areo. WaS the same as CMG for Problem I, but IX
was calculateq numerically as explained by Coats and Ramesh 19
for Problems 2 and 3. (This yields a 1=6.41 for the far producer,
top layer.) krl/p/=krgro/ps for injection well (ps=steam vapor vis  MUJ
 aEYIIIN
cosity). ...... or;
++ a l l
The participants calculated the center of the first block for Prob 6IEA
  SSt
lem I in several ways. This caused a variation in r, of 0.94 to 2.13
ft [0.29 to 0.65 m].
&1 ., .
al2l0~
&,
... RCO
61210~ t;
CHEVRON
"G
MOBIL
&
SIIE'"
551 ARCO
4121121: . H
OVAON
CIG
.... IL
$lEA
551
~ :.
01;::,..,. ....  , 1' ., .... TT'T,.,.rr,., ,r1""""""'' T'TTT''''T
TIME (daye)
Fig. 10Problen, 2: BHP for near producer. Fig. 12Problem 2: cumulative OSR for the full pattern.
21211::11
,
1511
... RCO
S 1121121, CHEVRON
T T+ CMG
IotOB!L
SNEA
551
so.
,....
130121 150121 212101::1 251211::1 30121121 351210 40121121 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1M! lS01!
Problem 2. Five of the six participants used the grid shown in Fig.
TABLE 2TIME FOR 10 STBID OF I (Problem 2A); Mobil used a square area equal to onehalf the
STEAM RATE FOR PROBLEM 3A
full pattern area with two injectors (onequarter each) and three
Near Producer Far Producer producers (one full, two onequarter). There are three full producers
(days) (days) per injector in this pattern. There was little difference in the calcu
lated materials in place for the problem. The maximum historical
Chevron 556' 965'
CMG 580 998 and cumulative materialbalance error reported for oil was 129 STB
SSI 604' 966' [21 stocktank m 3 ].
Table I shows computed time for each of the producers to reach
* Estimated from adjacent timesteps.
\0 STBID [1.59 stocktank m 3 /dl of steam production. Figs. 6
".~
J
CHEV~ CHEVRON
4+ CMe
551 ,
T2 C'G
551
Fig. 14Problem 3: oil rate for near producer (fullwell basis). Fig. 15Problem 3: oil rate for far producer (fullwell basis).
Fig. 16Problem 3: water rate for near producer (fullwell Fig. 17Problem 3: water rate for far producer (fullwell
basis). basis).
,
CHEVRON
..... eMe
551
CHEVRON
eHG
4001 551
1
200j
1 _
~""'''l""""""''''''''''''''''''~.,.......r'''"rT''''''''rr .................. r'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''r~''' .... r~
500 1000 1S00 ~0 2500 3000 3500 4000 ,.0 151321 252113 3131'113 35013 413210
Fig. 18Problem 3: BHP near producer. Fig. 19Problem 3: cumulative oil production for full pattern.
CHEVRON
eMe
551 CHEVRON
.... eHe
  55!
02
5 ,
R ,
J
J. ~, . . . ,,~.~~~~.,.". . ".::..~~:.:,~.,
... 1000 ... 1500 2132121 252121 , 3500 , 1000 1500
""'. 252121 '000 '500 '000
Fig. 20Problem 3: cumulative OSR for full pattern. Fig. 21Problem 3: cumulative heat loss for full pattern.
through 9 show oil and water production rates. Fig. 10 shows BHP Table 2 shows the computed time for each of the producers to
for the near producer. Figs. II through 13 show cumulative oil reach 10 STBID [1.59 stocktank m 3 /d] of steam production. Figs.
production, oil/steam ratio (OSR), and heat loss for the pattern. 14 through 17 show oil and water production rates. Fig. 18 shows
All well data presented are on a fullwell basis, and pattern results the BHP for the near producer. Figs. 19 through 21 show cumula
are for the full pattern consisting of four onequarter (far) producers tive oil production, OSR, and heat loss for the pattern.
and four onehalf (near) producers. The well and pattern results are presented on the same basis as
for Problem 2.
Problem 3. Only three participated in this problem. There is very Computer Work. The final CPU times, number of steps, and to
little variation in the computed oil and water initially in place. tal number of iterations reported by the participants are shown in
Table 3. Some of the participants indicated that considerable reduc fI = fraction of well in the element of reservoir being
tion in computer time, timesteps, and iterations is possible through simulated
finetuning. However, not all the participants considered this III = viscosity of Phase I, cp [mPa's]
worthwhile.
Subseripts
Discussion of Results
1,2 = Components I and 2
Differences between the results submitted for the same problem
k = layer index
by different companies may result from a variety of reasons: (I)
1 = Phase 1
handling of interblock terms in the model, (2) handling of wells,
(3) tolerance on the convergence of iterations, (4) timestep selec Acknowledgments
tion procedure, (5) heatloss calculation procedure, (6) ninepoint
scheme used, (7) selection of program control parameters, (8) pos We express our appreciation to all the participants for their interest
sible bugs in the program, and (9) errors in data entry. Because and cooperation and to Chevron and SSI for supporting our efforts
the basic flow equations used by all the companies are the same in this project. The work at Stanford U. was supported by SUPRI
and the fluid properties were fixed in the problem statement, they A and SUPRIB Industrial Affiliates programs.
should not cause any significant differences in results. The biggest
differences in the results shown are probably caused by the treat References
ment of wells and numerical instabilities resulting in lack of con I. Odeh, A.S.: "Comparison of Solutions to a ThreeDimensional Black
vergence of iterations. Differences in Arco and SSI results are Oil Reservoir Simulation Problem," JPT(Jan. 1981) 1325.
probably caused by differences in the specification of control pa 2. Chappelear, J.E. and Nolen, J.S.: "Second Comparative Solution Proj
rameters by the two users of the same model. ect: A ThreePhase Coning Study," JPT (March 1986) 34553.
3. Kenyon, D.E. and Behie, A.: "Third SPE Comparative Solution Proj
ect: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs," JPT (Aug.
Concluding Remark 1987) 98197.
While the results that are of importance from a practical standpoint 4. Thele, KJ., Lake, L.W., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "A Comparison of Three
are in good agreement, there are some significant differences. We Equation of State Compositional Simulators, ., paper 12245 presented
at the 1983 SPE.Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, Nov.
believe that the problem and results presented here will be of value
1518.
in enhancing the state of thermal reservoir simulation technology. 5. Settari, A. and Aziz, K.: .. A Computer Model for TwoPhase Coning
Simulation," SPEJ (June 1974) 22129.
Nomenclature 6. Yanosik, J.L. and McCracken, T.A.: "A NinePoint, FiniteDifference
h = thickness, ft [m] Reservoir Simulator for Realistic Prediction of Adverse Mobility Ra
tio Displacements," SPEJ (Aug. 1979) 25362.
J = productivity index, RBcp/Dpsi fm 3 'mPa's/d'kPa] 7. Jensen, O.K.: '''An Automatic Timestep Selection Scheme for Reser
k = permeability, md voir Simulation," paper SPE 9373 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual
k rgro = gas relative permeability at residual oil saturation in Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 2124.
gas/oil system 8. Rubin, B, and Buchanan, W.L.: "A General Purpose Thermal Model,"
SPEJ (April 1985) 20214.
kr/ = relative permeability of Phase 1
9. Behie, A. and Forsythe, P.A.: "Practical Considerations for Incom
krog = oil relative permeability in gas/oil system plete Factorization Methods in Reservoir Simulation," paper SPE 12263
k roiw = oil relative permeability at interstitial water presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Fran
saturation cisco, Nov, 1518.
10. Behie, A. and Vinsome, P.K,W.: "Block Iterative Methods for Fully
kroH' = oil relative permeability in oil/water system
Implicit Reservoir Simulation," SPEJ (Oct. 1982) 65868.
k rwro = water relative permeability at residual oil saturation II. Trimble, R.H, and McDonald, A.E.: "A Strongly Coupled, Fully Im
in water/oil system plicit, ThreeDimensional, ThreePhase Well Coning Model," SPEJ
K = equilibrium ratio or K values (Aug. 1981) 45458.
PI,k = pressure of Phase 1 in wellblock of Layer k, psia 12. Sammon, P.H. and Rubin, B.: "Practical Control of Timestep Selec
tion in Thermal Simulation" SPERE (March 1986) 16370.
[kPa]
13. Hwang, M.K., Jines, W.R., and Odeh, A.S.: "An InSitu Combus
Pw,k = pressure of well in Layer k, psia lkPa] tion Process Simulator With a MovingFront Representation," SPEJ
Te = effective external radius in well flow term, ft fm] (April 1982) 27179.
T w = well radius, ft [m] 14. Shah, R.C.: "A NinePoint FiniteDifference Operator for Reduction
Sgc = critical gas saturation
of the Grid Orientation Effect, " paper SPE 12251 presented at the 1983
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, Nov. 1518.
SI = saturation of Phase 1 IS. Corre, B., Eymard, R., and Quettier, L.: "Application of a Thermal
Sor!? = residual oil saturation in oil/gas system Simulator to Field Cases," paper SPE 13221 presented at the 1984 SPE
Som' = residual oil saturation in oil/water system Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 1619.
Swir = irreducible water saturation 16. Coats, K.H.: "InSitu Combustion Model," SPEJ (Dec. 1980) 53354.
17. Coats, K.H. and Modine, A.D.: "A Consistent Method of Calculat
T = temperature, OR [K]
ing Transmissibilities in NinePoint Difference Equations," paper SPE
.1x,.1y = block size, ft [m] 12248 presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
ex = constant in Eq, 2 San Francisco, Nov. 1518.
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.