Tech Ref

VIP-EXECUTIVE
Technical Reference
2001, 2002 Landmark Graphics Corporation
Part No. 159679 R2003.4

This publication has been provided pursuant to an agreement containing restrictions on its use. The publication is also
protected by Federal copyright law. No part of this publication may be copied or distributed, transmitted, transcribed,
stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or computer language, in any form or by any means,
electronic, magnetic, manual, or otherwise, or disclosed to third parties without the express written permission of:
Landmark Graphics Corporation

Building 1, Suite 200, 2101 CityWest, Houston, Texas 77042, USA
P.O. Box 42806, Houston, Texas 77242, USA
Phone: 713-839-2000
FAX: 713-839-2401
Web: www.lgc.com
Trademark Notice
Landmark, the Landmark logo, 3D Drill View, 3D Drill View KM, 3DVIEW, Active Field Surveillance, Active
Reservoir Surveillance, ARIES, Automate, BLITZ, BLITZPAK, CasingSeat, COMPASS, Contouring Assistant,
DataStar, DBPlot, Decision Suite, Decisionarium, DecisionDesktop, DecisionSpace, DepthTeam, DepthTeam
Explorer, DepthTeam Express, DepthTeam Extreme, DepthTeam Interpreter, DESKTOP-PVT, DESKTOP-VIP,
DEX, DFW, DIMS, Discovery, Drillability Suite, DrillModel, DrillVision, DSS, Dynamic Surveillance System,
EarthCube, EdgeCa$h, eLandmark, EPM, e-workspace, FastTrack, FZAP!, GeoDataLoad, GeoGraphix, GeoGraphix
Exploration System, GeoLink, GES, GESXplorer, GMAplus, GrandBasin, GRIDGENR, I2 Enterprise, iDims,
IsoMap, LandScape, LeaseMap, LMK Resources, LogEdit, LogM, LogPrep, Make Great Decisions, MathPack,
Model Builder, MyLandmark, MyWorkspace, OpenBooks, OpenExplorer, OpenJournal, OpenSGM, OpenTutor,
OpenVision, OpenWorks, OpenWorks Well File, PAL, Parallel-VIP, PetroBank, PetroWorks, PlotView, Point
Gridding Plus, Pointing Dispatcher, PostStack, PostStack ESP, PRIZM, PROFILE, ProMAX, ProMAX 2D, ProMAX
3D, ProMAX 3DPSDM, ProMAX MVA, ProMAX VSP, pStaX, QUICKDIF, RAVE, Real Freedom, Reservoir
Framework Builder, RESev, ResMap, RMS, SafeStart, SCAN, SeisCube, SeisMap, SeisModel, SeisSpace,
SeisVision, SeisWell, SeisWorks, SeisXchange, SigmaView, SpecDecomp, StrataMap, Stratamodel, StratAmp,
StrataSim, StratWorks, StressCheck, STRUCT, SynTool, SystemStart, T2B, TDQ, TERAS, Total Drilling
Performance, TOW/cs, TOW/cs The Oilfield Workstation, Trend Form Gridding, Turbo Synthetics, VIP, VIP-COMP,
VIP-CORE, VIP-DUAL, VIP-ENCORE, VIP-EXECUTIVE, VIP-Local Grid Refinement, VIP-POLYMER, VIP-
THERM, WavX, Web OpenWorks, Well Editor, Wellbase, Wellbore Planner, WELLCAT, WELLPLAN,
WellXchange, wOW, Xsection, ZAP!, Z-MAP Plus are trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of
Landmark Graphics Corporation.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Note
The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a
commitment by Landmark Graphics Corporation. Landmark Graphics Corporation assumes no responsibility for any
error that may appear in this manual. Some states or jurisdictions do not allow disclaimer of expressed or implied
warranties in certain transactions; therefore, this statement may not apply to you.

Table of Contents
Preface
About This Manual
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi
Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi
Related Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Chapter 1
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1.4 Numerical Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Chapter 2
Boundary Flux Option
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.2 Flux Model Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.2.1 Determining Program Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.2.2 Coarse Model Run (Flux OUTPUT Mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.2.3 Fine Model Run (Flux INPUT Mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.3 Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.3.1 Flux Rates Based on Cumulative Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.3.2 Vertical Distribution of Influx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.3.3 Efflux Partitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.3.4 Output Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
Chapter 3
Corner-Point Geometry Option
3.1 Corner-Point Position Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
R2003.4 - Landmark iii

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
3.2 Fault Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

3.3 Block Bulk Volume Computations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
3.4 Calculations of Block Center and Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.5 Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.5.1 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.5.2 NEWTRAN Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Chapter 4
Dual Porosity Models
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25
4.2 Matrix-Fracture Flow Exchange Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26
4.3 Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27
4.4 Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4.4.1 Pseudo Capillary-Pressure Treatment of
Exchange Between Matrix and Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
4.4.2 Coats Method for Treatment of Gas-Oil
Exchange Between Matrix and Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
4.4.3 The Case of lz Greater than Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34
4.5 Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
4.6 Partially Fractured Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37
4.7 Dual Porosity Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39
4.8 Simulator Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
4.8.1 Fracture Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
4.8.2 Effective Fracture Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.8.3 Pore Compressibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51
4.8.4 Matrix Block Size and Matrix-Fracture Transmissibility . . . . . . . 4-52
4.8.5 Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
4.8.6 Pressure Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
4.8.7 Well Permeability-Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
4.9 Example of Dual Porosity Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55
Chapter 5
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61
5.2 Normalized Saturation End Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62
5.2.1 Two-Point Scaling Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-63
5.2.2 Three-Point Scaling Option (Default Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64
5.2.3 Comparisons of Two- and Three-Point Scaling Options . . . . . . . 5-65
5.2.4 End-Point Consistency Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67
iv Landmark - R2003.4
5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68

5.3.1 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68
5.3.2 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Water and Gas . . . . 5-68
5.3.3 Using End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling Option . . . . . . . . 5-69
5.4 Directional Relative Permeability with End-Point Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-71
5.5 Leverett J-Function (JFUNC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72
Chapter 6
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-73
6.2 Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-74
6.3 Saturation Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-77
6.3.1 GBC Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-77
6.3.2 INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-77
6.3.3 VAITS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-79
6.4 Capillary Pressure Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81
6.5 Supercritical Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-82
Chapter 7
Faults
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-85
7.2 Assumptions and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87
7.3 Input Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
7.4 Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-90
7.5 Fault Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-92
7.6 Noncontiguous Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-93
7.6.1 Connectivity Search Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-93
7.7 Input Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
7.8 Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-98
7.8.1 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-98
7.8.2 Input Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-101
Chapter 8
Gas-Water, Water-Oil,
and Black-Oil Options
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-103
8.2 Simplified Gas-Water Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-103
8.2.1 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-104
R2003.4 - Landmark v
8.2.2 Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-104

8.3 Simplified Water-Oil Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-105
8.4 Simplified Black-Oil Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-106
Chapter 9
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-107
9.2 IMPES Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-107
9.2.1 Hydrocarbon Species Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-107
9.2.2 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-108
9.2.3 Water Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-108
9.2.4 Fugacity Equality Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-108
9.2.5 Overall Component Mole Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-108
9.2.6 Mole Fraction Constraint Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-109
9.2.7 Saturation Constraint Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-109
9.2.8 Reduction of Simultaneous Equations and Selection of
Primary Unknowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-109
9.3 Fully Implicit Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-111
9.3.1 Relaxed Volume Balance Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-111
Chapter 10
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-113
10.2 Coarse Block Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-113
Chapter 11
Horizontal and Inclined Well Model
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-117
11.2 Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-119
11.3 Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index . . 11-123
11.4 Required Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-127
11.5 Conventions That Users Must Follow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-129
11.6 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-133
11.7 Available Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-137
vi Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter 12
Hydraulically Fractured Well Option
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-139
12.2 Modelling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-140
12.3 Fracture Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-142
12.4 Non-Darcy Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-143
12.5 Iterative Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-144
12.6 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-144
Chapter 13
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-145
13.2 Relative Permeability Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-146
13.2.1 Description of the Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-147
13.2.2 Input Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-150
13.3 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-151
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-157
14.2 Three-Phase Immiscible Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-157
14.2.1 Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-157
14.2.2 IMPES Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-158
14.2.3 Total Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-158
14.2.4 Difference Equations in Terms of Fractional Mobility . . . . . . 14-159
14.2.5 Stability Analysis for Two-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-159
14.2.6 Stability Analysis for Three-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-162
14.3 Two-Phase Compositional Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-166
14.3.1 Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-166
14.3.2 Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-167
14.3.3 Stability Analysis of Total Flow Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-170
14.3.4 Stability Analysis for Other Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 14-171
14.3.5 Final Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-176
Chapter 15
Local Grid Refinement
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-177
15.2 Major Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-178
R2003.4 - Landmark vii

15.3 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR . . . . . . . . . . 15-179

15.4 Types of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-180
15.4.1 Cartesian Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-180
15.4.2 Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-181
15.5 Application of LGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-186
15.5.1 GRIDGENR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-186
15.5.2 Keyword Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-187
15.5.3 Propagation of Reservoir Properties to Refined Gridblocks . 15-188
15.6 Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-190
15.7 LGR Features in the Simulation Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-194
15.7.1 DEACTIVATION and ACTIVATION of Grid Refinements . 15-194
15.7.2 CBLITZ Solver Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-195
15.8 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-196
15.8.1 VIP-CORE Initialization Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-196
15.8.2 VIP-CORE Array Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-196
15.8.3 Other VIP-CORE Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-197
15.8.4 Simulator Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-198
15.9 LGR Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-200
15.10 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-206
15.10.1 Base Case - No LGR/Implicit Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-206
15.10.2 Implicit Cells Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-208
15.10.3 Cartesian Refinement Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-211
15.10.4 Radial Refinement Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-214
15.10.5 Multi-grid Well Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-216
15.10.6 Horizontal Well Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-219
15.10.7 Non-Uniform Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-222
15.10.8 Nested Grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-225
Chapter 16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-227
16.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-228
16.3 Effective Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-229
16.4 Miscible-Immiscible Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-231
16.5 Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . 16-233
16.6 PVT and VLE Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
16.6.1 Three-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
16.6.2 Four-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
viii Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter 17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-237
17.2 Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-238
17.2.1 Input Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-239
17.2.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-239
17.3 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-240
17.3.1 Allocation of Rate-Dependent Skin Factors to
Each Perforation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-241
Chapter 18
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-245
18.2 Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-245
18.2.1 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-247
18.2.2 Water Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-248
18.3 Linearization of the Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-250
18.4 Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-253
18.5 Solution of Linear System of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-256
18.5.1 Gauss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-256
18.5.2 BLITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-256
18.5.3 EXCEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-259
Chapter 19
Optimal Material Balance Option
19.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-261
19.2 Unknown Update and Convergence Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-262
19.3 Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-268
19.4 Partial Jacobian Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-270
19.5 Criteria For Single-phase Stability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-272
19.6 Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash . . . . . . . . . 19-273
19.7 Input Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-275
Chapter 20
Parallel Computing
20.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-277
20.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-277
R2003.4 - Landmark ix
20.2.1 Local Grid Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-278

20.2.2 Parallelization Via Local Grid Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-278
20.2.3 Automatic Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-280
20.2.4 Well Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-282
20.2.5 The Parallel Linear Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-283
20.2.6 Parallel Computers Used for Verification of PARALLEL-VIP 20-288
20.2.7 Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-289
20.2.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-293
20.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-306
20.4 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-307
Chapter 21
Phase Equilibrium Calculations
21.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-309
21.2 The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-311
21.2.1 Determining Number of Phases in a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-311
21.3 Gibbs Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-313
21.3.1 Phase Stability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-314
21.3.2 Gibbs Energy Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-315
21.3.3 Implementation of the Gibbs Option in VIP-EXECUTIVE . . . 21-315
Chapter 22
Polymer Modeling Option
22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-317
22.2 Description of Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-318
22.3 Material Conservation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-319
22.3.1 Polymer Solution Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-320
22.3.2 Polymer Adsorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-322
22.3.3 Permeability Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-323
22.3.4 Polymer Inaccessible Pore Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-324
22.3.5 Cation Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-324
22.3.6 Effective Polymer Viscosity Used in the Well Calculations . . 22-325
22.4 Instantaneous Gel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-327
Chapter 23
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.2 Rock Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.3 Water Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.4 Hydrocarbon Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-330
x Landmark - R2003.4
23.4.1 Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-330

23.4.2 Black Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-338
23.4.3 Gas Condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-343
23.4.4 Miscible Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-343
23.5 Equation of State Interpolation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-344
23.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-344
23.5.2 General Description of EOS Interpolation Option . . . . . . . . . . 23-344
23.5.3 Definition of Temperature, Composition, and
Pressure Entries of EOS Interpolation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-347
23.5.4 Construction of EOS Interpolation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-352
23.5.5 Phase-Equilibrium Calculations in EOS Interpolation Option 23-353
23.5.6 Example: Input of the EOS Interpolation Option in the
Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-360
23.5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-362
Chapter 24
Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
24.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-369
Chapter 25
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-371
25.2 Water Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-372
25.3 Gas Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-374
25.4 Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-375
25.4.1 Stones Model I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-375
25.4.2 Stones Model II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-376
25.4.3 Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-376
25.4.4 Guidelines for Selecting the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-377
25.5 Consistency Checks For Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-379
25.6 Directional Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-380
25.7 Gas Remobilization Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-382
25.7.1 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-382
Chapter 26
Separators
26.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-387
R2003.4 - Landmark xi
26.2 Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-388

26.3 Definition of Separator Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-389
26.4 Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-390
26.5 Phase Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-391
26.5.1 Compositional Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-391
26.5.2 Black-Oil Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-392
26.6 Solution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-392
26.7 Simplified Separator Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-392
26.8 Gas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-393
Chapter 27
Simulator Performance
27.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-395
27.2 Timestep Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-395
27.2.1 Primary Timestep Controls (DT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-396
27.2.2 Control Convergence Failures And Timestep Cuts (TCUT) . 27-396
27.2.3 IMPES Stability Controls (IMPSTAB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-397
27.2.4 Optimal Material Balance Option (OPTMBL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-397
27.3 Non-Linear Iteration Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-398
27.3.1 Outer Iteration Controls (ITNLIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-399
27.3.2 Convergence Tolerance (TOLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-399
27.3.3 Convergence Tolerance (TOLR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-400
27.3.4 Maximum Allowable Material Balance Error (ABORT) . . . . . 27-400
27.3.5 Minimum BHP Damping Factor (CBHPMN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-400
27.3.6 Gas Percolation Control (GASPERC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-400
27.4 Simulator Performance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-401
27.4.1 Timestep Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-401
27.4.2 Simulation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-403
27.4.3 Non-Linear Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-404
27.4.4 Linear Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-405
27.5 Run Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-406
27.5.1 Timestep and Iteration Control Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-406
27.5.2 Selection of Formulation and Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-407
27.5.3 Auto-adjustable Linear Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-407
27.5.4 Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-408
27.5.5 Analyzing a Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-409
27.6 Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-411
27.6.1 Simulator Run Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-411
27.6.2 Performance of the Simulator on Various CPUs . . . . . . . . . . . 27-413
27.6.3 Memory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-413
xii Landmark - R2003.4

27.6.4 Using the Simulator to Determine Memory Requirements

(STORAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-415
Chapter 28
Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation
28.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-417
28.2 Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore
Flow Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-418
28.3 Modifications for Liquid Slippage or Holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-420
28.4 Application of Minimum Lift Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-421
28.5 Data Structure and Definition Changes for VIP-CORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-422
28.6 Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation Module . . 28-423
Chapter 29
Surface Pipeline Network Options
29.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-425
29.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-426
29.1.2 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-427
29.2 Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-428
29.2.1 General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-428
29.2.2 Flow Modeling in Horizontal, Vertical, or Inclined Pipes . . . 29-429
29.2.3 Application of Hydraulic Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-434
29.2.4 Application of Look-Up Tables for Pressure Gradient
Determination In Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-435
29.2.5 Valve Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-436
29.3 Surface Pipeline Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-438
29.3.1 Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-438
29.3.2 Pressure and Rate Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-443
29.3.3 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-444
29.3.4 Solution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-445
29.3.5 Simultaneous Modeling of Multiphase Fluid Flow in
Reservoir and Surface Pipeline Network System . . . . . . . . . . . 29-446
Chapter 30
Total Compressibility Checks
30.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-449
30.2 Reasonableness Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-450
30.3 Saturated Oil Compressibility Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-451
30.4 Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-452
R2003.4 - Landmark xiii

Chapter 31
Tracking Calculations In VIP-EXECUTIVE
31.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-453
31.2 Tracking Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-454
31.3 Tracking in a Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-455
31.3.1 Variables to Describe Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-455
31.3.2 Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-456
31.3.3 Mass Transfer Split Between Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-457
31.3.4 Solution of Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids . . . 31-459
Chapter 32
Tracer Analysis Option
32.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-461
32.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-462
32.3 Tracer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-463
32.4 Simulation of Tracer Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-464
32.4.1 Particle Tracking Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-465
32.5 Implementation in VIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-466
32.5.1 Particle Unit Cube Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-467
32.5.2 Particle Velocity Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-467
32.5.3 Particle Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-470
32.6 Validation of Tracer Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-472
32.6.1 One-Dimensional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-472
32.6.2 Two-Dimensional Areal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-474
32.7 Interpretation of Tracer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-478
Chapter 33
Transmissibility Calculations
33.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-479
33.2 Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-479
33.2.1 Standard Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-479
33.2.2 Fault Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-481
33.2.3 Nine Point Transmissibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-482
33.3 Radial System Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-486
33.3.1 Standard Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-486
33.3.2 Fault Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-487
33.4 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-487
xiv Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-491
34.2 Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-493
Chapter 35
Velocity Dependent Relative Permeabilties
35.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-495
35.2 Capillary Number Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-496
35.3 Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-499
35.4 Velocity Effects around the Production Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-502
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-507
Chapter 36
Vertical Equilibrium
36.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-511
36.2 VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-511
36.2.1 Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-511
36.2.2 Two-Phase Gas-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-515
36.2.3 Two-Phase Water-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-516
36.2.4 VE Directional Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-517
36.3 VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-518
36.3.1 Features of the Corner Point VE Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-518
36.3.2 Enhanced VE Procedure with Segregated Fluids
(VEWO,VEGO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-519
36.3.3 The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Simulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-522
36.3.4 The Capillary-Gravity Equilibrium Option (VEITS) . . . . . . . . 36-524
36.3.5 The VEITS Simulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-524
Chapter 37
Water Tracking Option
37.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-527
Chapter 38
Well Inflow Performance
38.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-531
38.2 Wellbore Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-532
38.3 Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-534
38.4 Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-537
R2003.4 - Landmark xv
38.5 Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-538

38.6 Tubing Performance Curve Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-540
Chapter 39
Well Management Features
39.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-541
39.2 Well Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-541
39.2.1 Minimum Data Requirements for Production Well . . . . . . . . 39-541
39.2.2 Minimum Data Requirements for Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . 39-542
39.2.3 Vertical and Deviated Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-543
39.3 Well Completion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-544
39.3.1 FPERF Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-544
39.4 Production Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-547
39.4.1 Type of Producers and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-547
39.4.2 Production Well Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-547
39.4.3 ONTIME Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-549
39.4.4 Pressure Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-549
39.4.5 Well Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-550
39.4.6 Testing Shutin Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-551
39.4.7 Special Features for Gas Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-552
39.5 Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-553
39.5.1 Type of Injectors and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-553
39.5.2 Injection Well Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-554
39.5.3 Water Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-554
39.5.4 Gas Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-554
39.5.5 WAG Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-555
39.5.6 ONTIME Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-555
39.5.7 Well Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-556
39.5.8 Testing Shutin Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-556
39.6 Wellbore Gradient Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-557
39.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-557
39.6.2 Mobility Weighted Averaging Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-557
39.6.3 Volume Balancing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-558
39.6.4 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-561
39.7 Wellbore Crossflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-562
39.7.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-562
39.7.2 Crossflow Implementation in BLITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-564
39.8 Well Management Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-565
39.8.1 Production Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-565
39.8.2 Minimum Production Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-566
39.8.3 Injection Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-567
39.8.4 Minimum Injection Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-567
xvi Landmark - R2003.4

39.9 Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568

39.9.1 Shrinkage, Fuel, and Sales Gas Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568
39.9.2 Makeup Gas Specification and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568
39.9.3 Makeup Gas-Lift Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568
39.9.4 Gas Available for Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568
39.9.5 Composition of the Gas Available for Reinjection . . . . . . . . . . 39-569
39.9.6 Effective Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-570
39.9.7 Uniform Reinjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-570
39.10 Major Gas Sales Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-571
39.10.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-571
39.10.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-571
39.10.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-575
39.11 Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-577
39.11.1 Injectors in Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-577
39.11.2 Producers in Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-578
39.11.3 Voidage Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-578
39.11.4 Pressure Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-578
39.11.5 Distribution of Total Reservoir Injection Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-578
39.11.6 Target Injection Rates and Additional Source . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-579
39.12 Injection Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-580
39.12.1 Prioritization of Gas Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-580
39.13 Special Voidage Balance Injection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-581
39.13.1 Net Voidage Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-581
39.13.2 Injection Targets and Guide Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-581
39.13.3 Calculation of Maximum Well Injection Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-582
39.13.4 Calculation of Voidage and Net Voidage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-582
39.13.5 Using Net Voidage Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-582
39.14 Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-584
39.14.1 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Optimal
Table Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-584
39.14.2 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Performance
Curve Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-585
39.14.3 Well Status of Wells on Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-589
39.15 Water Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-590
39.16 Surface Facility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-591
39.16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-591
39.16.2 Oil Stabilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-591
39.16.3 Gas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-592
39.16.4 Reported Volumes and Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-592
39.17 Automatic Workovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-593
39.17.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-593
39.17.2 Types of Workovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-593
39.17.3 Automatic Workover Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-594
R2003.4 - Landmark xvii

39.17.4 Frequency of Workover Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-596

39.17.5 Data Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-596
39.18 Predictive Well Management (PWM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-597
39.18.1 What is Predictive Well Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-597
39.18.2 Basic Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-598
39.18.3 Algorithm for NEW Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-601
39.18.4 Algorithm for MGOR Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-604
39.18.5 Frequency of PWM Calculations (Both NEW and MGOR) . 39-609
39.18.6 Data Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-610
Appendix A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-611
A.2 Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-612
A.2.1 Alternative Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-612
A.2.2 Comparison with Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3 One-Dimensional Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3.1 Linear Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3.2 Radial Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-614
A.4 Two-Dimensional Areal Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-616
A.4.1 Well in Center of Square Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-616
A.4.2 General Definition of rb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-618
A.4.3 An Approximate Derivation of rb for Square Well Block . . . . A-618
A.4.4 Well in Center of Rectangular Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-620
A.4.5 Well in Center of Block in Anisotropic Rectangular Grid . . . . A-621
A.4.6 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Isolated Well Block . . . . . . A-623
A.4.7 Multiple Wells in Same Isolated Well Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-624
A.4.8 Two Wells With Same Rate in Adjacent Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . A-626
A.4.9 Single Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-627
A.4.10 Single Well Exactly on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-628
A.4.11 Single Well Exactly at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-629
A.4.12 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . . A-630
A.5 Incorporating Skin into Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-631
A.5.1 Derivation of Skin Due to Altered Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . A-631
A.5.2 Including Mechanical Skin In Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-632
A.5.3 Skin Due to Restricted Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-633
A.5.4 Effects of Restricted Entry on Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-635
A.6 Well Index from Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-637
A.7 Non-Darcy Gas Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-640
A.7.1 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties on Well Model A-640
A.7.2 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor in Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-641
A.8 Horizontal Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-642
xviii Landmark - R2003.4

A.9 Inclined Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-644
Appendix B
Corner-Point Geometry
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
B.1.1 Two-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
B.1.2 Three-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-647
B.2 Volumetric Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-649
B.3 Integration by Gaussian Quadrature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-652
B.4 Transmissibility Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-653
B.4.1 Calculation of Transmissibility in 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-653
B.4.2 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D (HARINT) . . . . . . . . . . . . B-660
B.4.3 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D by the
NEWTRAN Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-665
B.4.4 Calculation of Full Transmissibility Between Gridblocks . . . . . B-666
B.4.5 Choice Between HARINT and NEWTRAN Options . . . . . . . . . B-667
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
R2003.4 - Landmark xix

xx Landmark - R2003.4

List of Figures
About This Manual
Chapter 1
Aquifer Modeling
Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Figure 1-2: Natural Extension of Reservoir Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Figure 1-3: Aquifer with Arbitrary Connected Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Chapter 2
Figure 2-1: Schematic Representation of Boundary Flux Feature . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Chapter 3
Figure 3-1: Fault Block Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Figure 3-2: Rectangle Used In Computing A() . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Chapter 4
Figure 4-1: Idealization of Naturally Fractured Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25
Figure 4-2: Fluid Exchange Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
Figure 4-3: Matrix Blocks and Fractures in a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
Figure 4-4: Two Dual Porosity Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
Figure 4-5: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
Figure 4-6: Representation of a Partially Fractured Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Figure 4-7: Gas/Oil Drainage Recovery for a 10x10x10 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39
(Coats Figure 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40
R2003.4 - Landmark xxi

(Coats Figure 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

Figure 4-10: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 4 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41
Figure 4-11: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 1 ft Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41
Figure 4-12: Sixth SPE Comparative Solution Project
Single Block - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
Depletion - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
Reinjection - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Figure 4-19: Fracture and Matrix Continuum Porosities in VIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
Figure 4-20: Keltons Permeameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48
Figure 4-21: Simplified Layered Fracture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48
Figure 4-22: Pore Compressibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51
Figure 4-23: Matrix Block Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
Figure 4-24: Fracture Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Figure 4-25: Permeability Dependence on Confining Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Figure 4-26: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
Chapter 5
End-Point Scaling
Chapter 6
Equilibration
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-74
Figure 6-2: Multiple Water-Oil Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-75
Figure 6-3: Block Representation in the INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-78
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-80
xxii Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 6-5: Capillary Pressure Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81
Chapter 7
Faults
Figure 7-1: Part of a Structure Map of a Petroleum Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-85
Figure 7-2: Different Ways of Modeling Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-86
Figure 7-3: Fault Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87
Figure 7-4: Input Structure of Typical Fault Data Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
Figure 7-5: Specifying a Single Fault Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-90
Figure 7-6: Arbitrary Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-91
Figure 7-7: Transmissibility for Standard Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-92
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Governing Equations
Chapter 10
Grid Coarsening
Chapter 11
Figure 11-1: Vertical and Horizontal Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-117
Figure 11-2: A Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-119
Figure 11-3: Pipe Flow Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-121
Figure 11-4: Inclined Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-124
Figure 11-5: Ellipsoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-126
Figure 11-6: A Production Well Example Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-127
Figure 11-7: Inclined Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-129
Figure 11-8: ANGLV, q, in various situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-130
Figure 11-9: Example of Multiple Well Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-131
Figure 11-10: Well With Noncontiguous Perforations and Sample
VIP Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-133
Figure 11-11: Areal and Cross Sections of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-134
R2003.4 - Landmark xxiii

Figure 11-12: Block Number and Well Section Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-135
Chapter 12
Figure 12-1: Areal View of Vertically Fractured Well Centered in a
Rectangular Drainage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-139
Figure 12-2: Areal Finite-difference Grid of One Quadrant of the
Drainage Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-141
Figure 12-3: Vertical Cross-section of the Hydraulic Fracture (at Y=1). . . . 12-141
Chapter 13
Hysteresis
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves
for Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-146
Figure 13-2: User-Defined Nonwetting Phase Imbibition-
Drainage Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-149
Figure 13-3: Water-Oil Capillary Pressure Bounding and
Scanning Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-151
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage . . . . . 13-152
Figure 13-5: Water Saturation Reversal During a Primary Drainage . . . . . . 13-153
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-155
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
Chapter 15
Local Grid Refinement
Figure 15-1: Example of Cartesian Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-180
Figure 15-2: Example of Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-181
Figure 15-3: Radial Grids - RADZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-182
Figure 15-4: Radial Grids - RADX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-182
Figure 15-5: Radial Grids - RADY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-183
Figure 15-6: Typical GRIDGENR Display with Radial Refinement . . . . . . . 15-186
Figure 15-7: Cartesian Refinement with Imbedded Radial Refinement . . . 15-187
Figure 15-8: Levels of Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-190
Figure 15-9: Termination of Grid Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-191
Figure 15-10: Grid Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-191
xxiv Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-192

Figure 15-12: Isolation of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-193
Figure 15-13: Case 1 - No Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-200
Figure 15-14: Case 2 - 3x3 Cartesian Refinements Around Each Well . . . . . 15-201
Figure 15-15: Case 3 - 4x4 Radial Refinements Around Each Well . . . . . . . 15-202
Figure 15-16: Comparison of Gas-Oil Ratio Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-204
Figure 15-17: Comparison of Water-cut Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-205
Chapter 16
Miscible Options
Figure 16-1: Damping Function for Miscible-Immiscible Switch . . . . . . . . . 16-231
Chapter 17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
Chapter 18
Numerical Solution
Chapter 19
Optimal Material Balance Option
Figure 19-1: GridblockReordering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-269
Chapter 20
Parallel Computing
Figure 20-1: Communication Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-279
Figure 20-2: LGR Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-280
Figure 20-3: Example Grid For Automatic Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-281
Figure 20-4: Automatically Decomposed Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . 20-282
Figure 20-5: Strip Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-284
Figure 20-6: LGR Multilevel Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-285
Figure 20-7: Strip Decomposition Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-286
Figure 20-8: Composite Grid Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-286
Figure 20-9: Effect of Decomposition on Strip and Composite
Grid Linear Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-287
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous
Example Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-290
Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R2003.4 - Landmark xxv

Heterogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-291

Figure 20-12: Grid and Structure for Sloping Fault
Heterogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-292
Figure 20-13: Grid and Structure for Compositional Load-Balancing
Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-293
Figure 20-14: Performance of T3D on Small Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . 20-294
Figure 20-15: Performance of SGI Power Challenge on Small
Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-295
Figure 20-16: Performance of SP2 on Small Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . 20-295
Figure 20-17: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-296
Figure 20-18: Results for Origin 2000 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-297
Figure 20-19: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Implicit
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-297
Figure 20-20: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 IMPES
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-298
Figure 20-21: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-299
Figure 20-22: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-299
Figure 20-23: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 127x50x24 Implicit
Black-Oil Model - Cache Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-300
Figure 20-24: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES
Black-Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-301
Figure 20-25: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES
Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-302
Figure 20-26: Results for 3D Salt Dome 05x105x15 Implicit
Figure 20-28: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 27x50x24 IMPES
Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-304
Figure 20-29: Grid and Structure for Composition Static Load Balancing
Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-305
Figure 20-30: Performance of Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model on
Workstation Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-306
xxvi Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter 21
Phase Equilibrium Calculations
Chapter 22
Polymer Modeling Option
Chapter 23
PVT Representation
Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results -
Fifth SPE Comparative Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-362
Cupiagua Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-363
Cusiana Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-364
PBU History Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-365
Ursa Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-366
D13 PBU Pattern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-367
EWE PBU Pattern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-368
Chapter 24
Critical Point
Chapter 25
Saturation Function
Figure 25-1: Typical Saturation and Relative Permeability Path
of a Gridblock Subject to Gas Injection followed
by Water Injection and Pressure Blowdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-384
Chapter 26
Separators
Figure 26-1: Sample Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-388
Chapter 27
Figure 27-1: Convergence Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-398
R2003.4 - Landmark xxvii

Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Surface Pipeline Network Options
Figure 29-1: Pressure Gradient in Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-431
Figure 29-2: An Example of a Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-440
Figure 29-3: An Example of a Surface Pipeline Network System . . . . . . . . . 29-440
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Tracer Analysis Option
Figure 32-1: Comparison With Analytical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-473
Figure 32-2: Effect of the Number of Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-473
Figure 32-3: Zero Dispersion Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-474
Figure 32-4: Effect of the Grid System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-475
Figure 32-5: Effect of the Number of Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-476
Figure 32-6: Effect of Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-477
Chapter 33
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-480
Figure 33-2: Shared Thickness Calculation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-482
Figure 33-3: Nine-Point Transmissibilities Deriavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-483
Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Figure 36-1: Block Span THVE Versus Block Thickness TH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-512
xxviii Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method . . . . . . 36-513
Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method . . . . . 36-514
Figure 36-4: Gridblock Saturation Distributions in the
VEWO, VEGO Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-520
Figure 36-5: The VE Initialization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-521
Chapter 37
Figure 37-1: Variation of Fractional Flow of Extraneous Water Types
with Exponent tkexp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-529
Chapter 38
Figure 38-1: Inflow and Outflow Curve for a Production
Well Showing Intersection Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-531
Chapter 39
Figure 39-1: Schematic Representation of Well Management Levels . . . . . . 39-565
Figure 39-2: Schematic Diagram of a Gas Handling Loop with the Major
Gas Sales Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-572
Figure 39-3: Intersection of the Inflow Performance Curve (-PI)
and the Lift Curves for the Various Gaslift Gas Rates. . . . . . . . 39-586
Figure 39-4: Calculated Gaslift Performance Curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-587
Appendix A
Well Models
Figure A-1: Fine Grid Around A Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-611
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
Figure A-3: One-Dimensional, Radial, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-615
Figure A-4: Well in Square Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-616
Figure A-5: Numerical Solutions for Pressure Plotted vs Radius . . . . . . . . . A-617
Figure A-6: Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-627
Figure A-7: Well on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-628
Figure A-8: Well at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-629
Figure A-9: Well in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-630
Figure A-10: Radial Flow With Zone of Altered Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . A-631
R2003.4 - Landmark xxix

Figure A-11: Pseudo Skin Factor, after Brons and Marting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-633
Figure A-12: Examples of Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-634
Figure A-13: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-635
Figure A-14: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-636
Figure A-15: Typical Plot of g/g vs Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-641
Figure A-16: Effect of e and z/z on rbe for Centered Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-643
Appendix B
Figure B-1: Mapping of Quadrilateral to Unit Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
Figure B-2: The Eight Corners of a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-647
Figure B-3: Elemental Tube for Determining Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-649
Figure B-4: Elemental Tube for Determining DX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-650
Figure B-5: Orthogonal Gridblocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-653
Figure B-6: Nonorthogonal Gridblocks with Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-654
Figure B-7: Gridblockwith Non-Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-655
Figure B-8: Slice Parametrized by u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-656
Figure B-9: Collection of Tubes and Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-656
Figure B-10: Tube, Slice, and Chunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-657
Figure B-11: Gridblockwith Nonparallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-658
Figure B-12: Lines a and b Defining Plane Tangent to Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-663
Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes . . B-665
Figure B-14: Fault Block Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-667
Figure B-15: Radial problem, with = 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-668
Figure B-16: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for
Angular Transmissibility Between Blocks 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . B-670
Angular Transmissibility Between Blocks 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . B-671
Radial Tranmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-672
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
xxx Landmark - R2003.4

Preface
About This Manual
Purpose
This document provides detailed technical and application information on
the VIP-EXECUTIVE simulation software package; i.e., the initialization
module VIP-CORE and the simulation modules VIP-ENCORE, VIP-
COMP, VIP-DUAL, and VIP-POLYMER. It is written for VIP-EXECU-
TIVE users who wish to know more about the underlying calculations
performed by the simulator and want to understand better how data are
being processed.
The Technical Reference provides detailed information on the formulation,

governing equations, implementation, and proper use of all major features
and options in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The Technical Reference is complemented
by the VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manuals, which contain
full descriptions of the input keywords for the VIP-EXECUTIVE features
and options.
The VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference is updated regularly to reflect

changes in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
This information is confidential, describing proprietary features of the

VIP-EXECUTIVE software. Accordingly, each copy of this manual is num-
bered and distributed directly to a specific individual. That individual
must neither lend nor give this document to another individual under any
circumstances. When the document is no longer needed by the individual,
the document must be returned to Landmark. In addition, this document
should be stored in a secured location within the work environment.
Audience
This manual is intended to be used by reservoir simulation engineers who
require a more detailed discussion of the features of VIP-EXECUTIVE
than provided in the Keyword Reference and Getting Started manuals.
Organization
The information in this manual is arranged in a logical manner for maxi-
mum ease of use. The main technical topics have their own chapter which
are arranged in alphabetical order. The following chapters are included:
R2003.4 - Landmark xxxi

Organization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Aquifer Modeling.
Boundary Flux Option.
Corner-Point Geometry Option.
Dual Porosity Models.
End-Point Scaling.
Equilibration.
Faults.
Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options
Governing Equations.
Grid Goarsening
Horizontal and Inclined Well Model.
Hysteresis.
IMPES Stability.
Local Grid Refinement.
Miscible Options.
Non-Darcy Gas Flow.
Numerical Solution.
Optimal Material Balance Option.
Parallel Computing
Phase Equilibrium Calculation.
Polymer Modeling Option.
PVT Representation.

Critical Point.
Saturation Function.
Separators.
xxxii Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Related Documentation
Surface Pipeline Network Options.
Total Compressibility Checks.
Tracking Calculations in VIP-EXECUTIVE
Tracer Analysis Option.
Transmissibility Calculations.
Unit Conventions.
Velocity Dependent Relative Permeabilities
Vertical Equilibrium.
Water Tracking Option.
Well Inflow Performance.
Well Management Features.
Appendix A - Well Models.
Appendix B - Corner-Point Geometry
Appendix C - References.
Related Documentation
The following manuals provide more information related to the material
in this manual. For more information, please consult the appropriate man-
ual listed below.
VIP-CORE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for VIP-

CORE.
VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for

VIP-EXECUTIVE.
R2003.4 - Landmark xxxiii

Related Documentation VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
xxxiv Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
1
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction
When modeling aquifers, VIP-EXECUTIVE always treats outer
boundaries of a reservoir model as sealing barriers to flow. The influx/
efflux of fluids from outside the grid is treated by source/sink terms.
There are two methods available in VIP-EXECUTIVE to model aquifer

influx/efflux resulting from changes in reservoir conditions. The first
method is based on an analytic solution of an idealized aquifer response
model. The second approach is to extend a grid system to cover the
aquifer with the reservoir. In the latter case, interaction between the
reservoir and the aquifer automatically is taken into account. Each of these
methods has positive and negative aspects. The analytical method is easy
to use. It is computationally efficient and does not require a significant
amount of additional computer memory. However, the analytic model
may be too restrictive because of assumptions and simplifications. The
second method may require significantly more memory and
computations.
R2003.4 - Landmark 1-1

Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
1.2 Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer

The Carter-Tracy aquifer analytic model assumes a radial aquifer
geometry as shown in Figure 1-1. The aquifer and the reservoir
communicate through the boundary AB.
ra
A Aquifer
re
Reservoir
Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry
The water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir is the response to
pressure changes at this boundary. Water flow in the aquifer is described
by Equation 1-1 with the initial and boundary conditions:
w c t p 1 p
-------------- ------ = --- ----- r ------ (1-1)
k t r r r
p t=0 = pi (1-2)
p r = re
= pe ( t ) (1-3)
p
------ = 0 (1-4)
r r = ra
Here, is aquifer porosity, w is water viscosity, ct is aquifer total

compressibility, and k is aquifer permeability.
Van Everdingen and Hurst1 derived the following superposition form of

the solution of the above problem:
td
dp e ( t d1 )
W ( t ) = B -------------------- Q ( t d t d1 )dt d1 (1-5)
dt d1
0
1-2 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer
where
t
t d = ---- (1-6)
t0
2
w ct re
t 0 = ----------------------- (1-7)
k
2
B = r e h c t (1-8)
In Equation 1-5, W(t) is the cumulative water influx from the aquifer and
Q(td) is the standard function derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst,
which gives the cumulative influx in the case of the unit pressure change
at the boundary r = re. Parameter t0, which is given by Equation 1-7, is the
aquifer time constant. It is used to define the dimensionless time td
according to Equation 1-6. Parameter B, as defined by Equation 1-8, is the
aquifer capacity parameter. Equation 1-8 contains two constants: h is the
aquifer thickness and is the angle (in radians) subtended by the aquifer
(Figure 1-1).
Carter and Tracy2 derived an approximation of the solution (Equation 1-

5). This approximate solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4)
is given by:
B [ p i p ( t + t ) ] W ( t )P' d ( t d + t d )
W ( t + t ) = W ( t ) + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t d (1-9)
P d ( t d + t d ) t d P' d ( t d + t d )
Here, t is the timestep, td is the dimensionless timestep, and Pd(td) is a

function derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst. Pd(td) is the dimensionless
pressure solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4) for the case
when the condition at the boundary r = re is specified as the unit flow rate,
instead of the condition (Equation 1-3).
The Carter and Tracy solution does not require integration and therefore is
more efficient. In the VIP-EXECUTIVE implementation of the Carter and
Tracy solution, the user may provide the dimensionless pressure function
Pd(td) in a tabular form through input data. One can find tabulated
pressure functions Pd(td) for finite aquifers in the published literature.1,3
The dimensionless pressure function for infinite radial aquifer1 is given in
Table 1-1. This is the default table that will be used if the user does not
provide an input table.

Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Table 1-1: Dimensionless Pressure Function for Infinite Radial Aquifer1

tD pD tD pD
.01 0.112 10 1.651
.05 0.229 15 1.829
.1 0.315 20 1.960
.15 0.376 25 2.067
.2 0.424 30 2.147
.25 0.469 40 2.282
.3 0.503 50 2.388
.4 0.564 60 2.476
.5 0.616 70 2.550
.6 0.659 80 2.615
.7 0.702 90 2.672
.8 0.735 100 2.723
.9 0.772 150 2.921
1.0 0.802 200 3.064
1.5 0.927 250 3.173
2.0 1.020 300 3.262
2.5 1.101 400 3.406
3.0 1.169 500 3.516
4.0 1.275 600 3.608
5.0 1.362 700 3.684
6.0 1.436 800 3.750
7.0 1.500 900 3.809
8.0 1.556 1000 3.860
9.0 1.604

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer
1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer

The Fetkovich aquifer model (Reference 87) is a more direct computional
method of perfoming water influx calculations. In this approach the flow
of aquifer water into a hydrocarbon reservoir is modeled in precisely the
same way as the flow of oil from a reservoir into a well. An inflow
equition of the form
dW e
----------- = J ( p a p ) (1-10)
dt
is used where,
J = aquifer productivity index,
p = pressure at the oil or gas water contact,
p a = average pressure in the aquifer.
The water influx is evaluated using the simple aquifer material balance
W e = ct W i ( pi pa ) (1-11)
in which,
p i = the initial pressure in the aquifer and reservoir,
c t = the total compressibility,
W i = initial aquifer water in place.
This balance can be alternatively expressed as
W
p a = p i 1 --------e- (1-12)
W ei
where
W ei = c t W i p i (1-13)
is defined as the initial amount of encroachable water and represents the

maixmum possible expansion of the aquifer. Substituting the average
aquifer pressure expression into the inflow equition results
dW e We
----------- = J p i 1 --------- p (1-14)
dt W ei
Integrating the equation for the time interval ( t, t + t ) yields the

Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
following expression for the cumulative water influx
Jp Jp i
--------i- t --------- t
p
+ W ei 1 ---- 1 e ei
W ei W
W ( t + t ) = W ( t )e (1-15)
p i
or
Jp i
--------- t
p W
W ( t ) = 1 ---- W ei W ( t ) 1 e ei (1-16)
pi
where p is the p average over the time interval.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Numerical Aquifer
1.4 Numerical Aquifer

In the numerical aquifer treatment, the grid system is extended to cover
the aquifer with the reservoir. This can be done in several ways. One way
is to extend the reservoir grid system as shown in Figure 1-2 to cover both
the reservoir and aquifer.
Aquifer
Reservoir
Figure 1-2: Natural Extension of Reservoir Grid
A model with the naturally extended grid system may require a

significant number of additional gridblocks in the model. This
significantly increases memory and CPU requirements. On the other hand,
this grid system results in a matrix with an orderly banded structure,
which is an efficient solution to the problem.
Another method is to represent the aquifer by several blocks with large

pore volumes which are connected to reservoir blocks around the edges of
the grid as shown in Figure 1-3. This is done by defining nonstandard
connections between gridblocks. However, VIP-EXECUTIVE does not
provide a specific input structure that is convenient for this purpose.
Therefore, it currently is a tedious manual task to describe all connections
required for complete description of the aquifer.
Aquifer
Reservoir
Figure 1-3: Aquifer with Arbitrary Connected Blocks

Numerical Aquifer VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The aquifer model that uses nonstandard connections results in a matrix

with many off-band terms. It is more computer intensive to solve such a
matrix as compared to the case of an orderly banded matrix.

Chapter
2
00000Boundary Flux Option
2.1 Introduction
With VIP-EXECUTIVE, users can define rectangular regions of the
reservoir grid for which boundary flux calculations will be performed in
the simulation module. The program may be run in output mode so that
the calculated boundary flux is reported in the output listing and recorded
in a disk file. Subsequently, the program may be run in input mode where
the boundary flux file from an output mode run is used as input data to
the program. In input mode, the boundary flux data are used in the same
manner as sink or source information. That is, the equivalent of a
production/injection well is defined internal to the program for each
boundary block.
The combination of these two modes allows great flexibility in developing

a reservoir study. An initial program run in output mode for a large,
coarsely gridded reservoir can provide boundary flux information for a
subset of the reservoir that is to be studied in greater detail. The
subsequent run of the finely gridded portion of the reservoir uses the
boundary flux information to include the effects of gridblocks in the
reservoir that are outside the area of detailed interest. The program also
may be used effectively in output mode to determine the direction and
type of fluid flow across any gridblock boundary in the reservoir.
Figure 2-1 is a schematic representation of a coarse and fine model. The

figure shows a 681 coarse grid with an imbedded 1091 fine grid
model. Note that the fine gridblocks are not allowed to overlap more than
one coarse block.

Flux Model Setup VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
2.2 Flux Model Setup
2.2.1 Determining Program Dimensions
1 2 3 4 5 6
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
3
2
3
4 4
5
6
7
5 8
9
Fine Grid
6
Coarse Grid
Figure 2-1: Schematic Representation of Boundary Flux Feature
To make coarse and fine grid runs using the boundary flux option, set the
program dimensions properly in VIP-CORE. For the coarse model, set the
required dimension to the number of coarse blocks. If you use the
boundary flux option to write flux information for more than one
rectangular region in a single run, define the number of flux regions and
the total number of coarse blocks. For the fine model, define both the fine
and coarse block numbers correctly. The dimensions of the boundary flux
model can be calculated using the following equations:
2-10 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Flux Model Setup
The following parameters should be used on the DIM card in VIP-CORE

to specify the dimensions of the boundary flux model:
NFXREG Number of distinct flux regions.
NCBLKS Total number of coarse gridblock faces for all flux

regions.
NFBLKS Total number of fine gridblock faces for all flux

regions.
where
Number of coarse block faces = 2 NXC NZC + 2 NYC NZC

+ 2 NXC NYC
Number of fine block faces = 2 NXF NZF + 2 NYF NZF

2 NXF NYF
+ Number of coarse blocks containing
fine blocks
and
NXC number of coarse blocks in x-direction
NYC number of coarse blocks in y-direction
NZC number of coarse blocks in z-direction
NXF number of fine blocks in x-direction
NYF number of fine blocks in y-direction
NZF number of fine blocks in z-direction.
In the example given in Figure 2-1,
NXC = 4 NXF = 10
NYC = 3 NYF = 9
NZC = 1 NZF = 1
Number of coarse blocks = 12

Number of coarse block faces = 2 NXC + 2 NYC = 14
Number of fine block faces = 2 NXF + 2 NYF
+ Number of coarse blocks = 50.
The equations for the number of block faces given above assume that the
coarse grid model has NX, NY, NZ > 2 and that the fine grid model does
not touch any of the 6 outer boundaries of the coarse model. The equations
change in the obvious manner if any of these assumptions is false. For
example, if the coarse and fine grid models are areal (NZ = 1) and the fine
R2003.4 - Landmark 2-11

Flux Model Setup VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
grid model touches the i = 1 boundary of the coarse model, the equations
become:
Number of coarse block faces = 2 NXC + NYC
Number of fine block faces = 2 NXF + NYF

+ Number of coarse blocks
containing fine blocks.
2.2.2 Coarse Model Run (Flux OUTPUT Mode)

Initialize the coarse model with the boundary flux options (for output
mode) as described in the Reference Manual. Run the coarse model with
the desired value for the WFLUX card to write the flux file (to unit 16).
Define each flux region as a separate region (or x-region). This enables the
comparison of influx and in-place volumes with the future fine grid model
runs using this flux information. For the coarse grid in Figure 2-1 the flux
keywords you need are:
DIM NFXREG NCBLKS

1 12
.
.
.
FLUX 1
OUTPUT
COMFLUX
VEDIST
2 5 3 5 1 1
2.2.3 Fine Model Run (Flux INPUT Mode)

Initialize the fine model with the boundary flux options (for input mode)
as described in the Reference Manual. Compare the initial volumes and
pressure with appropriate values in the region summaries from the coarse
model. The reservoir description for the fine model may need to be tuned
to resolve differences. Make a base case run using the flux information.
Assign the flux file to unit 16 in the flux input mode.
After completion of the base case run, compare region summaries with
those from the coarse model. Compare the production, injection, pressure,
and boundary flux information. The fine model may need further tuning
to resolve any differences. This ensures that the fine grid model has been
properly set up and can be used for further history matching or sensitivity
analysis. For the example shown in Figure 2-1 the fine grid model
keywords required are:
2-12 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Flux Model Setup
DIM NFXREG NCBLKS NFBLKS

1 20 60
.
.
.
FLUX 1
INPUT
MOBWT
ADJUST FINE
COARSE
NX NY NZ
6 8 1
l1 l2 J1 J2 K1 K2
2 5 3 5 1 1
NOVEAD O
2 5 3 5 1 1
VEAREA G
2 4 4 4 1 1
2 2 5 5 1 1
VEONLY W
3 5 5 5 1 1
SEGAREA O
3 5 5 5 1 1
FINE
I1 1 4 6 9
I2 3 5 8 10
J1 1 3 6
J2 2 5 9
K1 1
K2 1 00
R2003.4 - Landmark 2-13

Special Features VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
2.3 Special Features

The following special features have been implemented in the boundary
flux feature in VIP-EXECUTIVE. These features make the boundary flux
option more flexible and applicable for fine grid model studies that use
flux data from coarse-grid full-field models.
Flux rates based on cumulative fluxes
Vertical distribution of influx
Efflux partitioning
Additional output options.
The mobility weighting option has been modified so that it is used only
for efflux terms.
2.3.1 Flux Rates Based on Cumulative Fluxes

The flux rates in the input mode are determined by linear interpolation
between records in the flux file immediately before and after the current
time. Therefore, the input flux rates depend on the frequency with which
fluxes are written originally. Extremely large data files are created if flux
rates are written at every timestep. In addition, instantaneous rates are
significantly influenced by changes in operating conditions such as the
opening or closing of a well near the boundary.
A better treatment is to base flux rates on the cumulative volumes

between reporting times. This eliminates the potential errors resulting
from rate fluctuations. The cumulative values are updated at every
timestep in the coarse grid model, but the frequency of writing these
cumulative fluxes to the flux file is determined by the user. The flux rates
are calculated using linear interpolation as before.
2.3.2 Vertical Distribution of Influx

There are numerous ways to determine the allocation of flux from one
coarse gridblock to the corresponding fine gridblocks. Two of the methods
available to calculate fine gridblock flux in VIP-EXECUTIVE:
Weighting proportional to cross-sectional area and permeability
Weighting proportional to phase mobility, cross-sectional area, and

permeability
In these methods, the model assumes that the proportions of oil, gas, and
water present in the coarse grid cell are maintained in each fine grid cell.
Each phase is proportionately allocated to each fine gridblock. While these
methods may be adequate for water-oil problems, neither of these
2-14 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Special Features
methods is good for handling segregation of fluid phases in the vertical

direction. Consequently, they may not be realistic for gas-oil problems.
Other methods subsequently implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE enable

users to distribute influx from a coarse gridblock into corresponding fine
gridblocks. Information about fluid contact heights is written to the flux
file in the output mode. If the vertical equilibrium (VE) option is not being
used, it is assumed that there is instantaneous equilibrium at the end of
the timestep and fluids are completely segregated only for the purpose of
calculating the fluid contact heights. The contact height information then
is used in the input mode to determine the fraction of the total flux of each
phase to be allocated to each of the corresponding fine gridblocks. The
following options are, therefore, available for allocation of influx:
1. If the VEONLY or VEAREA options are selected, all gas influx is

allocated to fine gridblocks above the gas-oil contact; similarly, all
water influx is allocated to fine gridblocks below the oil-water contact.
Oil influx is distributed between the gas-oil contact and the water-oil
contact. In the VEONLY option, the flux allocation is based on the fluid
contact height only. In the VEAREA option, flux is allocated in
proportion to the product of contact height and cross-sectional area.
2. If the SEGAREA option is used for the oil or water phase, the influx for
that phase is distributed below the gas-oil contact. The influx
allocation is based on the product of contact height and cross-sectional
area.
3. The NOVEAD keyword turns off the allocation of influx on the basis
of vertical segregation for the coarse gridblocks and the phase under
consideration.
The user may choose which technique (segregated or dispersed) to use in

the model for each coarse gridblock by phase. Therefore, it is possible to
use the dispersed option for water-oil blocks and the segregated option for
gas-oil blocks in the model.
The mobility weighting option is not applicable for the distribution of

influx in the fine grid model. If the VE options are not used, influx is
allocated on the basis of the product of cross-sectional area and
permeability for each fine gridblock.
R2003.4 - Landmark 2-15

Special Features VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
2.3.3 Efflux Partitioning

If VIP-EXECUTIVE tried to remove the specified number of moles of oil,
gas, and water from the boundary grid cells of the fine grid model, a
problem could arise when the efflux volumes required by the coarse grid
model are not consistent with the volumes available in the fine grid model
because of better reservoir description and/or less dispersion in the fine
grid. This results in a material balance error and ultimately may cause
pressures at the boundary to deviate between the coarse and fine grid
models.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, an attempt is made to correct the problem if the

efflux volume for a phase is greater than the mobile volume in a fine
gridblock. The hydrocarbon molar rates (moles/day) are converted into
reservoir rates (rbbl/day) for oil and gas. The program removes the
reservoir volume for each phase. If the efflux volume is greater than the
mobile volume, the difference between the two is determined. This
deficiency is made up by removing an equivalent reservoir volume of
another phase. That reservoir volume is added to the total flux for that
phase for the appropriate coarse gridblock. This calculation is repeated for
all fine gridblock faces corresponding to each coarse gridblock face. The
order for changing phase allocation follows:
1. Gas phase deficiency: convert to oil phase.
2. Oil phase deficiency: convert to water phase.
This technique ensures that the pressure boundary condition is satisfied.
2.3.4 Output Options

In the flux output mode, The user can print the flux rate and cumulative
flux for each block (defined as a part of the flux output data) in each
direction using the FLUX parameter on the PRINT card. The user can
control the frequency of output using TIME, TNEXT, or freq parameters on
the PRINT card.
In the flux input mode, the user can print the flux rate and cumulative flux
for each boundary block in the fine grid model using the FLUX parameter
on the PRINT card. The user can control the frequency of output using
TIME, TNEXT, or freq parameters on the PRINT card.
2-16 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
3
The VIP-EXECUTIVE corner-point geometry option is a powerful tool for
the construction of three-dimensional, finite-difference grids. It provides
the capability to independently specify the coordinates of eight corners of
every gridblock. This feature is useful for representing irregular reservoir
boundaries, faults, and pinchouts. It provides a tool for local grid
refinement and a flexible representation of flow geometry.
In general, the resulting finite-difference grid is irregular. For this reason,

additional efforts are spent in calculating block volumes, thickness, center
depths, and inter-block transmissibilities. In addition, grids are not
orthogonal, which creates problems. Non-orthogonal grids introduce
additional mixed derivative terms. VIP-EXECUTIVE, and indeed all
reservoir simulators, neglect discretization of these terms. For this reason,
finite-difference solutions may not converge to the solution of the flow
equations upon refinement of the grid. To overcome this problem, you
should construct the grid as close to orthogonal as possible.
3.1 Corner-Point Position Specification

Positions of corner points can be specified in three ways:
X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates of corner points in all layers are specified
using the array input XCORN, YCORN, and ZCORN.
X- and Y-coordinates of corner points in all layers are specified using

the array input XCORN and YCORN. Z-coordinates of the gridblocks
in the first layer should be defined by the ZCORN array input with the
LAYER or DIP option. Layer thickness should be specified using the
DZCORN, DZBCOR, or DZVCOR array input. If the DZBCOR or
DZVCOR array input is used, then X- and Y-coordinates are adjusted
so that the line from a corner point in one layer to the corresponding
point in the next layer is perpendicular to the bedding plane. The
DZCORN array input is similar to DZVCORN, but the X- and Y-
coordinates are not adjusted.
Users can specify the corner points along depth lines. These lines may
have an arbitrary orientation. Include the keyword LINE in the
CORNER card to invoke the LINE option. Specify each depth line by
two triplets of X-,Y-, and Z-coordinates. Define X-, Y-, and Z-
coordinates of two points in depth lines using the XCORN, YCORN,
and ZLNCOR array input with the LNVAL option (or with the
R2003.4 - Landmark 3-17

Fault Specification VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
LNXVAR, LNYVAR, LNZVAR options). Define Z-coordinates of all

corner points by means of the ZCORN array input.
The program automatically checks to ensure that the projections of each

block face on the coordinate planes are convex quadrilaterals.
3.2 Fault Specification

The fault modeling option can be invoked by the FAULTS card. Faults are
specified and their depths defined at the top corners of each gridblock, by
using the following array input: ZCORNW (northwest), ZCORNE
(northeast), and ZCORSW (southwest). The depths of southeast top
corners are specified by the ZCORN array input. To model non-permeable
shale layers, depths are defined at the bottom of each gridblock, by using
the following array input: ZBOTNW (northwest), ZBOTNE (northeast),
ZBOTSW (southwest) and ZBOT (southeast). When corner points at the
bottom of a gridblock do not coincide with corner points at the top of the
block below it, the transmissibility between these two blocks is set to zero.
For vertical faults specifications, use the FXCORN and FYCORN cards.
If any of the following cards or arrays are included in initialization data,

the program identifies positions of faults and pinchouts and calculates
resulting transmissibilities: FAULTS, PINCHOUT, ZCORNW, ZCORNE,
ZCORSW, ZBOTNW, ZBOTNE, ZBOTSW, and ZBOT. A pinchout is
defined as a block with a thickness less than the tolerance specified in the
PINCHOUT card. The pore volume of this block is set to zero. A
connection is created between two blocks with non-zero pore volumes -
one above the pinchout and one below. The fault and pinchout
connections are called non-standard connections.
Users can change internally-calculated transmissibilities only for standard

connections between blocks with the OVER and VOVER cards. Change
the transmissibilities of non-standard connections (and/or standard
connections) using the MULT card. Use the FTRAN card to specify
transmissibility for non-standard connections.
3-18 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Block Bulk Volume Computations
3.3 Block Bulk Volume Computations

The bulk volume of a block Vb is defined as follows:
Vb = dV (3-1)
V
One of two numerical integration techniques, briefly described below can

be chosen for calculating gridblock bulk volume:
Each gridblock is mapped into a unit cube using a local coordinate

transformation function. A quadrature formula with one, two, or three
quadrature points is used to approximate the three-dimensional
integral in the unit cube. The CORNER card is used to specify the
numbers of the quadrature points. This is the default method of
calculating bulk volume.
When the VAITS keyword is specified, the block is divided into several
sub-layers and the block bulk volume is estimated as
N
Vb = ARE Ai Di (3-2)
i=1
where N is a number of the sub-layers, AREAi is the area of a cross

section of the ith sub-layer, and Di is the thickness of the ith sub-
layer. The number of the sub-layers and their thicknesses are defined
internally to ensure that a relative approximation error is less than
some tolerance specified by the user in the VAITS card. This method is
more accurate because an advanced integration technique is used for
bulk volume computations.
R2003.4 - Landmark 3-19

Calculations of Block Center and Thickness VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
3.4 Calculations of Block Center and Thickness

VIP-EXECUTIVE makes the assumption that the block center depth (Dc)
and thickness (TH) are defined as follows:
1
D c = ------ z dV (3-3)
Vb
V
1
TH = ------ DZ dV (3-4)
Vb
V
where z is the Z-coordinate and DZ is a block thickness transformed to the

unit cube. Three-dimensional integrals over a block volume V in the above
expressions are numerically estimated in VIP-EXECUTIVE using local
gridblock mapping in the unit cube and a quadrature formula with one,
two, or three quadrature points.
Appendix B (Section B-2) gives a more complete description of volumetric

calculations.
3-20 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations
3.5 Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations

Two methods of calculating inter-block transmissibilities are available in
VIP-EXECUTIVE - the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE option, which uses
harmonic integration, and the NEWTRAN option. More complete
details of both options are given in Appendix B.
3.5.1 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option

The following expression is used for calculations of inter-block
transmissibilities in the X-direction in the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE
option (see Figure 3-1):
C DARCY TMLT X i
T ij = ------------------------------------------------------
right left
- (3-5)
Ai Aj
------------------------
right
- + ---------------------
left
-
A ij T X i A ij T X j
Ai right
I Aij
Aj left
J
Figure 3-1: Fault Block Connection
where
Aij area of mutual intersection of Blocks I and J

right left
Ai , Aj areas of the right face of the ith block and the left
face of the jth block (see Figure 3-1)
right left
TX i , TX j right and left transmissibilities of Blocks I and J in
the X-direction, which are defined in VIP-
EXECUTIVE as follows:
R2003.4 - Landmark 3-21

Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
right PERM X i RNT G i left PERM X j RNT G j

TX i = ----------------------------------------------- , TX j = ------------------------------------------------
- (3-6)
1
ds u ds
------ ci ------
d d
---------------------------------
A ( ) cos ( )
- d ---------------------------------- d
A ( ) cos ( )
u ci 0
uci X-direction coordinate of mapping of the ith block

center into a unit cube
a variable representing the fractional distance from

the left face to the right face. It takes on values from
the interval [0,1]
A() area of a rectangular (possibly nonplanar)

quadrilateral with corner points PN 1 ( ) ,
PN 2 ( ) , PN 3 ( ) and PN 4 ( ) which are defined
as follows (see Figure 3-2):
s() distance along path from the center of the block to

the right or left face
() angle between the path of s() and the normal to the

quadrilateral of A()
Figure 3-2: Rectangle Used In Computing A()
The same technique is used to calculate inter-block transmissibilities of

faulted and standard gridblock connections.
More complete details of both the standard and NEWTRAN options for
corner-point geometry are provided in Appendix B.
3-22 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations
3.5.2 NEWTRAN Option

The NEWTRAN method, which is similar to the corresponding ECLIPSE
technique, has been incorporated in VIP-EXECUTIVE as an option to
improve the compatibility of both simulators. This option can be invoked
using the NEWTRAN keyword in the CORNER card. The following
expression is used to calculate the inter-block transmissibility in this
option:
C DARCY TMLT X i
T ij = ------------------------------------------------ (3-7)
1 1
--------- + ----------
T Xi T X j
where
CDARCY Darcys constant in the appropriate units (0.008527

in metric units and 0.001127 in field units)
TMLTXi transmissibility multiplier in the X-direction for the

ith block
A x DI x + A y DI y + A z DI z
TXi = PERM X i RNT G i -----------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2
- (3-8)
DI x + DI y + DI z
RNTGi net-to-gross ratio, which appears in the X- and Y-

transmissibility, but not in the Z-transmissibility
PERMXi permeability in the X-direction in the ith block
Ax, Ay, Az X-, Y-, and Z-projections of a mutual intersection of

Blocks i and j; i.e., projection on the y-z, x-z, and x-y
planes, respectively.
DIx, DIy, DIz X-, Y-, and Z-components of the distance between
the center of the ith gridblock and the center of
relevant face of Block i.
The expressions for transmissibilities in the Y- and Z-directions are similar,

but the net-to-gross ratio is not included in the expression for the Z-
transmissibility.
R2003.4 - Landmark 3-23

Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
3-24 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
4
4.1 Introduction
Naturally fractured rocks often are observed near faults and folds. The
fracture channels are highly permeable compared to the rock matrix itself;
they make the reservoir productive even though the matrix has poor
permeability. Oil in rock matrix is drawn into the fracture by imbibition,
gravity drainage, diffusion, or expansion, then is carried away in the
fracture network to production wells.
One approach to modeling fractured rocks is to approximate the fractured

rock with a single porosity representation by giving it an effective
permeability. This approach is simplistic and tends to give the wrong
recovery rate. Another approach is to model each fracture by assigning
gridblocks to the respective fracture channels. However, this approach is
limited in scope because of the large number of fractures normally found
in reservoirs. Another approach, which VIP-EXECUTIVE takes, is to
model the processes by using two continua representing the rock matrix
and fractures. This two-continua system is called the dual porosity model
and is illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Matrix Fracture
Dual porosity
representation Km
Kf
Fractured Single porosity

rock representation
Keffective
Figure 4-1: Idealization of Naturally Fractured Reservoir
These continua are superposed, and the model assumes the two continua
exchange fluids. In this approach, two finite-difference grid systems
represent both continua. Consequently, users must supply the fracture
properties (fracture porosity, etc.), flow exchange terms, and pseudo-
capillary pressures, as well as data for the rock matrix.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-25

Matrix-Fracture Flow Exchange Term VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
4.2 Matrix-Fracture Flow Exchange Term

The flow equations for oil, gas, and water are introduced to both the rock
matrix and fracture continua; each equation has an exchange term
between matrix and fracture. The flux exchange (qmf) between the matrix
and fracture is assumed to follow Darcys law as
k r
q m f , a = T mf ----------------- [ P f P m ( D f D m ) ] (4-1)
B m
where subscript indicates the phases (liquid, vapor, and water);

subscripts f and m indicate the fracture and rock matrix, respectively; kr,
, and Bm are the relative permeability, viscosity, and formation volume
factor for each phase ; P is pressure; D is depth; and Tmf is matrix-fracture
transmissibility. The matrix-fracture transmissibility is defined by
T mf = 0.001127k mf XYZ ( net gross ) fracture (4-2)
where X, Y, and Z are the finite-difference gridblock dimensions, and

effective permeability kmf is defined by
1 k mx k fx k my k fy k mz k fz
k mf = --- ---------------------
- + ---------------------
- + --------------------
- (4-3)
3 k mx + k fx k my + k fy k mz + k fz
where km represents the permeabilities of matrix in the x, y, and z

directions and kf represents the fracture permeabilities. When the fracture
permeability is much larger than the matrix, kmf reduces to
1
k mf = --- ( k mx + k my + k mz ) (4-4)
3
which is an arithmetic average of matrix permeabilities.
Shape factor is expressed as
1 1 1
= 4 ------
- + ------
- + -
------ (4-5)
l 2mx l 2my l 2mz
where lm represents the rock matrix dimensions in the x, y, and z
directions.
Coats53 defines k mf as
k mx k my k mz
k mf = 8 -------
- + -------- + -------- ( 1 f ) (4-6)
l 2mx l 2my l mz
4-26 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term
The user may specify the following:
The matrix dimensions, matrix, and fracture permeabilities (LX, KX,

KXFEFF, etc.)
The and matrix and fracture permeabilities (SIGMA, KX, KXFEFF,

etc.)
The matrix-fracture transmissibility (TEX)
4.3 Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term

Oil and gas component diffusions between matrices and fractures take
place because of the concentration gradients, and the diffusive fluxes (qdo,
qdg) are expressed in VIP as functions of saturations (S), densities (), mass
transfer coefficients (k) and mole fractions (x, y) for each component.
*
q do = S mo k do mo ( x f x m ) (4-7)
*
q dg = S mg k dg mg ( y f y m ) (4-8)
* iv y i
x fi = ------------ (4-9)
iL f
* iv x i
y fi = ------------ (4-10)
iL f
where Smo and Smg are matrix oil and gas saturations; mo and mg are oil
and gas densities in a matrix; xm and ym are molar fractions of oil and
gas, and iL and iv the liquid and vapor phase fugacities. Tdo and Tdg are
mass transfer coefficients of oil and gas defined by:
k do = D o d XYZ (4-11)
k dg = D g d XYZ (4-12)
where Do and Dg are diffusion coefficients; d is a diffusion shape factor

which may be different from the shape factor defined previously.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-27

Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
VIP input for Do, Dg, and d are TDIFFO, TDIFFG, and SIGMAD
respectively.
Coats2 has shown that the approximate diffusion time for the
concentration to decay 90% of its initial value is:
0.85 or l 2
t = ------------------ --- (4-13)
D 2
where or, l and D are a tortuosity, length of a matrix cube, and diffusion
coefficient respectively. For example, consider a gas-gas high pressure
(4500 psi) diffusion with tortuosity of 3.5, l =1, and D=0.001 cm2/sec.
Then, t =8 days. If this is an insignificant time compared to the production
period, then the diffusion effect may be ignored in the model. Thus, the
above equation can be used to decide if a model should include the
diffusion effects.
From Equation 4-7 and Equation 4-8, we observe that the diffusion flux
would be significant if the compositions in a fracture and a matrix are
markedly different. Such is the case when an injection gas composition
differs greatly from that of the resident gas.
4-28 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage
4.4 Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage

Figure 4-2 illustrates production mechanisms in fractured reservoirs:
gravity drainage, imbibition, fluid expansion and diffusion where the
arrows indicate the directions of fluid movements.
Fracture Matrix block

Gravity drainage
gas
oil
Gas-cap expansion
Matrix fluid expansion
gas
oil
Oil imbibition
gas
oil
Diffusion
gas
oil
Water imbibition (water wet)

Water flood
Water
oil
Figure 4-2: Fluid Exchange Mechanisms
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses pseudo capillary pressures to estimate the drainage

and imbibition characteristics; the diffusion effects are computed using
saturations, molar fractions, and mass transfer coefficients; the amount of
fluid exchanges due to the expansion depends on the pressure and
compressibilities of fluids. In the following, detailed processes of
estimating these effects are described.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-29

Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
4.4.1 Pseudo Capillary-Pressure Treatment of Exchange Between Matrix

and Fractures
The pseudo capillary pressures are computed in VIP-EXECUTIVE
automatically to include the effects of the gravity drainage and imbibition.
A utility keyword PSEUDO in the VIP-EXECUTIVE input file is used to
activate the option
For imbibition and gravity drainage, the calculation assumes an

equilibrium distribution of saturations in each of the matrix blocks and
then calculates for each gridblock a table of average gridblock saturation
versus pseudo capillary pressure at the block center by varying the fluid
contact between the top and bottom of the gridblock. A smooth curve of
pseudo capillary pressure is produced by integrating the saturations over
a number of columns of matrix blocks displayed relative to each other.
VIP-CORE initially and internally computes the pseudo-capillary
pressures as follows:
Step 1. Create a user-specified number of columns of matrices stacked

vertically in a gridblock. Shift the starting point of each column so that the
gridblock has matrix interfaces with nearly uniform distribution (see
Figure 4-3).
Each matrix has the dimensions of lx, ly, and lz as shown before.
Step 2. Set the location of the water-oil contact within the fracture
system, beginning at the top of the gridblock. Numerically integrate the
equilibrium distribution of water saturation in all matrices using the
specified water-oil contact as a boundary condition. The average water
saturation of the matrices is the resulting integral divided by the number
of matrices. The average water saturation strongly depends on the height
of a matrix since the water column in the matrix is snapped off at each
4-30 Landmark - R2003.4

matrix block interface. The imbibition capillary pressure curve should be

used for integration.
Z/2
lz
owc
Z/2
Figure 4-3: Matrix Blocks and Fractures in a Gridblock
Step 3. Calculate a capillary pressure corresponding to the average

matrix water saturation by
Z lz
P c = ( w o ) ------- h ------- (4-14)
2 Z
where h is the height of the water-oil contact (Figure 4-3) and o and w are
gradients of oil and water, respectively. When defined this way for the
matrix, the matrix capillary pressure will cover the same range of values
that is covered by the vertical equilibrium capillary pressure used in the
fractures. However, the corresponding values of saturation will be quite
different from the fracture values.
Step 4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for many different water-oil contact levels,
evenly spaced over the height of the gridblock. By doing so, the capillary
pressure is tabulated as a function of the average water saturation. This
table has the property that is equivalent to the one determined by rigorous
integration of the rock capillary pressure curve subjected to the boundary
condition. This table is used for the simulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-31

Step 5. A similar procedure is used to generate the pseudo gas-oil

capillary pressures, if selected (see next section). In this case the drainage
curve should be used for integration.
4.4.2 Coats Method for Treatment of Gas-Oil Exchange Between Matrix

and Fractures
Coats method53 for describing the gas-oil exchange between matrix and
fracture is implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE. This method is available in
addition to the pseudo-capillary pressure model for gas-oil gravity
drainage used in previous versions of VIP-EXECUTIVE and described for
in the section above. The Coats method is the default method for gas-oil
gravity drainage. The pseudo-capillary pressure method is selected using
the NOCOATS parameter on the PSEUDO card.
The matrix-fracture phase flux exchange in surface volume units is given

by:
gm
q g = --------- ( P o + P cgo ) (4-15)
Bg
om
q o = --------- P o (4-16)
Bo
where
matrix-fracture transmissibility defined by:
= 0.001127 k mf X YZ (4-17)
kmf effective permeability
shape factor
X, Y, Z gridblock dimensions
Bo , Bg oil and gas formation volume factors
Po oil phase pressure difference between matrix and

fracture
gm gas phase mobility in the matrix
om oil phase mobility in the matrix defined by:
4-32 Landmark - R2003.4

k rocwm (4-18)
om = ---------------
-
om
krocwm oil relative permeability at connate water in the

matrix
om oil viscosity in the matrix.
z k rgf S gm
P cgo = ---- g gf --------
- + om ( l z P ce ) --------------- 1 (4-19)
gf S* S
ge gf
Equation 4-19 above is Coats equation (43) with Sgf = Krgf.
1 f
z = 0.001127k zm -------------- X YZ (4-20)
l 2z
where
kzm matrix permeability in the z-direction
f fracture porosity
lz matrix block height
g parameter that controls the exchange transients
krgf gas relative permeability of the fracture
gf viscosity of the fracture gas
o - g, gas-oil density difference
Pce threshold gas-oil capillary pressure
Sgm matrix gas saturation
Sgf fracture gas saturation
Sge integrated average gas saturation at equilibrium,

(Coats equation (28)):
1 l z r
S ge = --------------------
l z r o S g ( P c )dP c (4-21)
The terms, , Pce and Sge in Equation 4-19 are functions of pressure. The
pressure dependence of Pce and Sge is modeled through the dependence of
gas-oil interfacial tension on pressure. The gas-oil capillary pressure is
assumed to be a linear function of gas-oil interfacial tension as follows:
P cgo ( p ) = P cgo ( P o ) r ( p ) (4-22)
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-33

The function
( p)
r ( p ) = -------------- (4-23)
( Po )
is supplied to VIP-EXECUTIVE by the SIGT table as described in Section

4-12 of the VIP-CORE Reference Manual.
VIP-CORE uses the SIGT table to construct tables for each gridblock.
These tables consist of three columns. The first column contains pressures
read from the SIGT tables, the second column contains Sge values at the
corresponding pressure computed using Equation 4-21, and the third
column contains the quantity lz - Pce. These tables are output to file with
extension .pseudo and also to the restart file. VIP-EXECUTIVE
interpolates these tables to determine Pcgo from Equation 4-19 and then
computes the flux terms from Equation 4-15 and 4-16.
4.4.3 The Case of lz Greater than Z

The pseudo capillary pressure and Coats method matrix-fracture
exchange do not apply to blocks with lz greater than Z. The matrix-
fracture exchange for these blocks is calculated using the input capillary
pressures with no vertical equilibrium in either matrix or fracture. Unless
TEX or SIGMA are supplied, the exchange transmissibility is calculated
using lx, ly, and lz. In this case lz = Z for the calculation of exchange
transmissibility. The user is reminded that when lz is greater than Z,
matrix to matrix flow may be significant and that the use of the dual
permeability model should be considered.
4-34 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability
4.5 Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability

The two continua representing rock and fracture have flow fields in them,
so generally, permeability must be assigned to both continua. However, if
the rock matrices do not exchange fluids directly with other rock matrices
(i.e., matrices exchange fluids with fractures only), the flow field in the
rock continuum can be ignored. Thus the dual porosity option can be
used in two ways: with or without communication among rock matrices.
The model without the direct flow exchange among matrices is often
called the dual porosity option with single permeability, while the case
with direct flow exchange between rock matrices is referred to as the dual
porosity option with dual permeabilities. The single permeability option
requires less computation memory and less CPU time to run than the dual
permeabilities option.
The dual porosity option is activated using DUAL in one of the utility
inputs. If it is followed by POR, then the program uses the dual porosity
option with single permeability. Without the POR card, the program uses
dual permeability. Figure 4-4 shows the schematics of these two options.
The single permeability option on the right does not have the flow
exchanges among rock matrices, but the flow exchanges between fracture
and matrix take place.
Rock
Continuum
Fluid
Exchange
Fracture
Continuum
Dual Permeability Option Single Permeability Option
Figure 4-4: Two Dual Porosity Options
Wells that are specified will perforate both rock and fracture continua and
therefore, there will be two sets of permeability thicknesses in the dual
permeability option as illustrated in Figure 4-5. In highly fractured
reservoirs, the flow out of fractures dominates production. In such cases,
ignore the flow from matrices; this can be achieved by setting FM = 0 in
the FPERF data.
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses the input FM as follows:
(K*H)effective = FM*(Km*Hm) +(1-FM)*(Kf*Mf).
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-35

Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
If, however, the single permeability option is used, wells commmunicate

only with the fractures and FM is automatically set equal to zero.
Km*Hm

Matrix

Well

Kf*Hf
Fracture
Figure 4-5: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture
4-36 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Partially Fractured Reservoirs
4.6 Partially Fractured Reservoirs

The dual porosity option in VIP-EXECUTIVE applies to an entire
reservoir, so reservoirs that are fractured in some regions but not in others
potentially present a problem to the simulator.
Any type of fractured reservoir can be solved using the dual porosity/
dual permeability option because there are two distinct flow paths - one in
the fracture and one in the matrix. So if the fractures are absent in an area
the flow occurs entirely in the matrix. However, this option can be
expensive to run. The more efficient dual porosity/single permeability
option only allows flow from gridblock to gridblock through the fractures.
Fluids in the matrix can only exchange with fluids in the fracture of a
common gridblock. With this option, regions of a partially fractured
reservoir that are not fractured (regions with zero fracture porosity) end
up disconnected from the flow network.
However, using the SWAPMF keyword, partially fractured reservoirs as

shown in Figure 4-6 can be solved efficiently without having to use the
dual porosity/dual permeability model. Matrix to matrix flow is modeled
in unfractured regions and fracture to fracture flow modeled along with
matrix-fracture exchange in the fractured regions. The simulator handles
this automatically by copying the matrix properties of unfractured regions
into the fracture storage locations. The result is an efficient single
permeability model.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-37

Partially Fractured Reservoirs VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Unfractured region Unfractured region
fault Fractured region
Flow medium
Matrix
medium
Gridblock for continuous rock

Non-communicating gridblocks for matrix
Gridblocks for fracture
Figure 4-6: Representation of a Partially Fractured Reservoir
In order to make this more understandable, let the grid system through
which fluids flow be called a flow medium, and let the medium which
supplies fluids be called a matrix medium as shown in Figure 4-6. Grid
blocks in the matrix medium do not communicate with each other in the
method under consideration here (an assumption of the dual porosity
with a single permeability).
Only grid blocks of the flow medium communicate each other. The
model in this example runs four times faster than the dual porosity/dual
permeability model.
4-38 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Dual Porosity Benchmarks
4.7 Dual Porosity Benchmarks

Results from single block gas-oil drainage cases presented by Coats53 were
used to check the implementation of the method in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
Figures 4-5 to 4-9 show results from the pseudo capillary pressure method
(VIP 22R), the Coats method (VIP 23D) and those presented by Coats
(SPM, DPMT, DPM). These figures show that VIP-EXECUTIVE is able to
reproduce Coats results which agree accurately with the results for fine
grid simulations.
Results from VIP-EXECUTIVE were also compared with those presented

in the Sixth SPE Comparative Solution Project54. Shown on Figure 4-10 are
results for the single block gas-oil drainage problem of SPE 6. These
results demonstrate that the dual porosity model of VIP-EXECUTIVE
matches gas-oil drainage from a single block as accurately as a fine grid
model. Results for the depletion and gas injection problems of SPE 6 are
presented on Figures 4-11 to 4-16. Since no analytical results are available
for these cases nothing can be said about the accuracy of the results. The
different results reported by VIP-EXECUTIVE (exec22r, exec23d) are due
to the use of the different gas-oil matrix fracture exchange models
available in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
Sgf = 1.0
(Coats Figure 15)
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-39

Dual Porosity Benchmarks VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
krog/3
(Coats Figure 16)
(Coats Figure 17)
4-40 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 4-10: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 4 ft. Matrix Block

(Coats Figure 19)
Figure 4-11: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 1 ft Matrix Block

(Coats Figure 20)
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-41


Single Block - Zero PCF

Depletion - Zero PCF
4-42 Landmark - R2003.4



R2003.4 - Landmark 4-43


Reinjection - Zero PCF

4-44 Landmark - R2003.4


R2003.4 - Landmark 4-45

Simulator Input Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
4.8 Simulator Input Data

A user must decide first if the system can be represented by the dual
porosity/single permeability or dual porosity/dual permeability model
by considering how fluids flow in the reservoir under consideration: the
keywords in VIP are DUAL POR or DUAL PERM (utility cards)
respectively. The latter is, in general, much more expensive in CPU time.
Other simulator input are the fracture porosity, effective fracture
permeabilities, compressibilities, matrix sizes, diffusion coefficients,
relative permeabilities, and pressure dependence of properties. They are
discussed in the following sections.
4.8.1 Fracture Porosity

Porosities can be estimated by various methods such as the core analysis,
logging, geological origin, and tri-axial core testing. The lab-measured
rock porosity is slightly different from the matrix porosity input to VIP
under the dual porosity option, so a caution is advised.
Consider a bulk volume of a fractured medium as shown in Figure 4-19.

The dual porosity option in VIP replaces the bulk volume with two
continua: matrix and fracture. Porosities associated with these continua
are defined so that the porosities times a grid block volume give the
respective pore-volumes for matrix and fracture systems.
DY
= = +
Vrock
DX DX DX
Vf V m in VIP
Vt f Vf / Vt
Vm,pore = Vpore in matrix/ Vt
Figure 4-19: Fracture and Matrix Continuum Porosities in VIP
In Figure 4-19, matrix volume Vm contains matrix pore-volume Vm,pore.

Therefore, the lab test porosity determined from the matrix is defined as
usual by
m in lab = V m, pore V m (4-24)
VIPs matrix continuum porosity is defined by
m in VIP = V m, pore V t (4-25)
4-46 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Simulator Input Data
where Vt is the bulk or grid block volume. By using the above equations
we can derive the matrix porosity input data for VIP as
m in VIP = V m, pore V t
= m in lab * V m V t
(4-26)
= m in lab * ( V t V f ) V t
= m in lab * ( 1 f )
Therefore, matrix porosities from lab tests must be modified according to

Equation 4-26 for VIP input data, POR. The fracture porosity in VIP is
PORF which is defined by Vf/Vt.
A fracture porosity varies depending on the origin and size, but

Teodorovich has proposed a rough guideline6:
f < 0.1*total porosity (f+ m in VIP) if total porosity < 10%

f <0.04*total porosity (f+ m in VIP) if total porosity > 10%
Typically, long fractures that span many layers have a porosity ranging
from 0.01 to 0.5%, and networked small fractures within a layer have 0.01
~ 2%.
4.8.2 Effective Fracture Permeability

The correct estimate of fracture permeabilities is much more important
than that of porosity, because fracture permeabilities significantly
influence the flow characteristics and thus, the production capability,
although the fracture porosity is usually much smaller than the matrix
porosity.
As mentioned in the previous section, the permeability tensor may be

determined by using the statistical analysis or network modeling, and the
permeability must have the scale-independence and the symmetric tensor.
The effective permeability can be directly determined by core tests, but it

is likely to be limited to finding a single fracture channel permeability, Kff,
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-47

since cores are too small to contain fractures with a typical fracture
spacing.

Fractured core
Impermeable
jacket
Figure 4-20: Keltons Permeameter
One can derive an equivalent permeability using a mechanistic model: for

example, a multi-fracture layered model as shown in Figure 4-21.
e h
Flow direction
b
e .... fracture spacing
b .... fracture width
a a ... width of sample
AL AL ... length of sample
Figure 4-21: Simplified Layered Fracture Model
If this structure is repeated in an entire reservoir, it is a representative

elementary volume which has a symmetric permeability tensor.
Suppose a single fracture channel has permeability Kff, then the

equivalent continuum permeability, Kf, of this model can be expressed
by7:
K f = K ff ---
b
(4-27)
e
The equivalent (or effective) permeability can be expressed as a function

of the fracture porosity by:
2
b
K f = f ------ (4-28)
12
4-48 Landmark - R2003.4

Another alternative for estimating the fracture permeability is an

empirical method, i.e., by observations of micro-sections: fracture
morphology such as rock type, shape of fracture, porosity and pore
shape1,6. One of the empirical methods computes the fracture
permeability by1,6:
K f ( md ) = A B C D (4-29)
where A, B, C and D are functions of rock type, porosity, pore size and
pore shape respectively, and they are defined in the following:
Table 4-1: Rock Types1,6 - A
Pore Space
Description Value of A Characteristics for sub types
Type
I Pore space 2 Very narrow conveying canals (Ave. d 0.01 mm)

with convey- 4 Rare wider canals (Avg. d = 0.02 mm)
ing canals 8 Few wider canals
16 Wider canals (Ave. d > 0.04 mm)
32 Many wider canals
II Pore space 8 Poor porosity, same grain size

with or with- 16-32 Good porosity, different pore sizes
out pore 32-64 Good porosity, vuggy and irregular pores
structure
III Intergranu- 6 Very poor porosity in cannals

lar pores 12 Poor porosity in cannals
24 Finely porous cannals
IV Pore space 10 Connected pores between rhombohedral grains

with various 20 Connected pores between angular grains
shape 30 Connected pores between rounded grains
where d is the diameter.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-49

Table 4-2: Porosity1,6 - B
Effective porosity
Description range of porosity (%) Value of B
Very porous > 25 20 - 30

Porous 15 - 25 17
Moderate porosity 10 - 15 10
Pores abundant 5 - 10 2- 5
Pores present 2-5 0.5 - 1.0
Some pores present <2 0
Table 4-3: Pore Size - C
Description Maximum pore size (mm) Value of C
Large vuggs >2 16

Medium to large 0.50 - 2.00 4
Medium 0.25 - 1.00 2
Fine to medium 0.10 - 0.50 1
Very fine to fine 0.05 - 0.25 0.5
Very fine 0.01 - 0.10 0.25
Pinpoint to very fine < 0.10 and in part < 0.01 0.125
Mostly pinpoint < 0.03 and in part < 0.01 0.0625
Table 4-4: Pore Shape - D
Description Value of D
Nearly isometric 1.0

Elongated 2.0
Very elongated or banded pores with emanating
conveying canals 4.0
VIP keywords for effective fracture permeabilities are KXFEFF, KYFEFF,

and KZFEFF. If corresponding transmissibilities are known, then one may
use TXF, TRF, TYF and TZF.
4-50 Landmark - R2003.4

4.8.3 Pore Compressibilities

VIP uses the pore compressibility (Cr) defined by
1 V pore
C r = -------------
V pore ----------------- dv
p
(4-30)
where the integration is performed over the pore volume enclosed by a

control volume subjected to a constant confining pressure. In case of a
fractured rock, there are two types of pore volumes: fracture pore and
matrix pore, and they would have different pore compressibilities as
illustrated in Figure 4-22:
1 V pore 1 V pore
-------------
V pore matrix - dv + ------------- fracture
----------------
pore p V pore
----------------- dv C m + C f
pore p
(4-31)
Fracture pore
Matrix pore
Figure 4-22: Pore Compressibilities
where Cm and Cf represent the matrix pore and fracture pore

compressibilities respectively. Jones8 gave an example of carbonate rock
compressibilities:
Cm = 2x10-6 /psi
Cf = 72x10-6 /psi.
VIP input for Cm and Cf are CR and CRF arrays respectively. There is
another input, Cr , in the DWB card, and this is overridden by the above
array input. This Cr in the DWB card can be used without the presence of
CR and CRF arrays only if the compressibilities of fracture and matrix
pores are identical.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-51

4.8.4 Matrix Block Size and Matrix-Fracture Transmissibility

A matrix size and its shape vary considerably depending on rocks, and it
is difficult to characterize them. Therefore, a mechanistic model is
introduced to determine a phenomenological property, the matrix-fracture
transmissibility, between the matrix and fracture continua. The mechanistic
model consists of blocks as shown in Figure 4-23, and the blocks are
assumed to have the same dimension, and act identically.
Real configuration Equivalent block representation

LZ LZ
LX LY
Figure 4-23: Matrix Block Representation
Real rocks do not have such a simple fracture morphology. However, this
idealization gives a theoretical estimate of shape factors, or
transmissibilities. The dimensions of an equivalent block are specified in
VIP by arrays LX, LY and LZ as shown in Figure 4-23.
These are used to compute the transmissibilities from Equations 4-2 to 4-5.
X, Y, and Z are dimensions of a finite difference grid block; kmx, kfx,

etc. are the matrix and fracture permeabilities of an element in the x-
direction in Figure 4-23. The input LX, LY and LZ correspond to lx, ly and
lz in the above equation.
Optionally the shape factor, , may be directly specified in stead of lx, ly

and lz. and the corresponding VIP input keyword is SIGMA.
Furthermore, Tmf may also be specified directly using VIP keyword TEX.
Both SIGMA and TEX are array input data.
4.8.5 Relative Permeabilities

The surface tension between phases affects relative permeabilities in a
fracture network less than that of a matrix since a typical fracture width is
much larger than a pore throat. Consequently, they are often assumed as a
straight line as shown by the left figure in Figure 4-24. However, it is not
always the case: for example, consider a vuggy fracture rock. At a slow
rate where the capillary pressure becomes significant, water clings to the
fracture wall until the water saturation reaches a higher saturation. This is
illustrated by the right figure in Figure 4-24. Thus, the fracture relative
4-52 Landmark - R2003.4

permeabilities are significantly rate-dependent, so that experiment should

be performed with a representative flow rate during the production.
kro kro
krw krw
Sw Sw
Figure 4-24: Fracture Relative Permeabilities
The fracture saturation tables in VIP are specified by headings SWTF and
SGTF.
4.8.6 Pressure Dependence

A fracture width, porosity and permeability are strongly affected by the
confining pressure as shown in Figure 4-25 since the fracture
compressibility is much larger.
Operational
Permeability
range
Confining pressure
Figure 4-25: Permeability Dependence on Confining Pressure
If the operational pressure varies significantly during the life of a

reservoir, the simulation model must reflect the pressure dependence
appropriately. If the pressure dependence is significant, it can be modeled
by using the compaction option in VIP: a table of multiplication factors to
porosity and permeabilities. The table heading is ICMT, and ICMTF array
is the corresponding pointer. In using the compaction option a utility card,
COMPACT, must be included.
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-53

4.8.7 Well Permeability-Thickness

Wells specified by users will perforate both rock and fracture continua and
therefore, there will be two sets of the permeability thickness in the dual
porosity/dual permeability option as illustrated in Figure 4-26. In highly
fractured reservoirs the flow out of fractures dominates the production. In
such case we can ignore the flow from matrices, and this can be achieved
by setting FM to zero on the FPERF card.
Km*Hm
matrix

Well

Kf*Hf
fracture
Figure 4-26: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture
In dual porosity single permeability model wells can only communicate

with the fractures and FM is automatically set to zero.
4-54 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Example of Dual Porosity Model Input
4.9 Example of Dual Porosity Model Input

INIT
TITLE1
(SPE 18741) SIXTH SPE COMPARATIVE SOLUTION PROJECT:
TITLE2
CROSS-SECTION STUDY ---- ZERO FRACTURE Pcgo
TITLE3
(SPE6_GI_1) WESTERN ATLAS SOFTWARE: MAR,1992
C
DATE 31 12 1991
DUAL POR
PSEUDO COATS 10 PRINT 10
CROSS
VEGO
VEWO
C
PRINT ALL
C PRINT TABLES SIGT
C
NX NY NZ NCOMP
10 1 5 2
C
DWB BWI VW CW CR TRES TS PS
1.0412 1.07 .35 3.5E-6 3.5E-6 266 60 14.7
C
TABLES
C
IEQUIL PINIT DEPTH PCWOC WOC PCGOC GOC PSAT
1 6014.7 10000. 0. 11000. 0. 0.0 5559.7
C
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C MATRIX WATER-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
.2 0. 1.000 1.0
.25 0.005 0.860 0.5
.30 0.010 0.723 0.3
.35 0.020 0.600 0.15
.40 0.030 0.492 0.0
.45 0.045 0.392 -0.2
.50 0.060 0.304 -1.2
.60 0.110 0.154 -4.0
.70 0.180 0.042 -10.0
.75 0.230 0. -40.0
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C MATRIX GAS-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SGT 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
0. 0. 1. .075
.1 .015 .70 .085
.2 .050 .45 .095
.3 .103 .25 .115
.4 .190 .11 .145
.5 .310 .028 .255
.55 .420 .0000 .386
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-55

Example of Dual Porosity Model Input VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
.8 1. .00 2.
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C FRACTURE WATER-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SWTF 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
.0 0. 1. 0.
.50 .50 .50 0.
.999 .999 0.001 0.
1. 1. 0. 0.
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C FRACTURE GAS-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SGTF 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
.0 .0 1. .0
.1 .1 .9 .0
.2 .2 .8 .0
.3 .3 .7 .0
.4 .4 .6 .0
.5 .5 .5 .0
.7 .7 .3 .0
.999 .999 .0 .0
1. 1. 0. .0
BETAG 1.14
SIGT
P SIGR
14.7 100.0
1688.7 66.6667
2044.7 52.2222
2544.7 36.6607
3005.7 24.4444
3567.7 14.2222
4124.7 8.0
4558.7 4.9333
4949.7 2.8333
5269.7 1.7222
5559.7 1.0
7014.7 0.5556
C P SIGR DGOG
C 14.7 100.0 .7795
C 1688.7 66.6667 .5934
C 2044.7 52.2222 .5666
C 2544.7 36.6607 .5299
C 3005.7 24.4444 .4972
C 3567.7 14.2222 .4597
C 4124.7 8.0 .4247
C 4558.7 4.9333 .3986
C 4949.7 2.8333 .3760
C 5269.7 1.7222 .3570
C 5559.7 1.0 .3411
C 7014.7 0.5556 .2676
BOTAB 1
DOB WTRO
0.81918 200.
PSAT RS BO BG GR VO VG
7014.7 2259 2.1978 .600 .762 .109 .0330
5559.7 1530 1.8540 .696 .762 .210 .0274
5269.7 1413 1.7953 .720 .762 .229 .0265
4-56 Landmark - R2003.4

4949.7 1285 1.7315 .751 .762 .248 .0255

4558.7 1143 1.6630 .795 .762 .278 .0244
4124.7 1000 1.5938 .855 .762 .310 .0230
3567.7 832 1.5141 .959 .762 .351 .0213
3005.7 679 1.4425 1.11 .762 .397 .0197
2544.7 564 1.3891 1.30 .762 .436 .0184
2044.7 447 1.3359 1.62 .762 .487 .0171
1688.7 367 1.3001 1.98 .762 .529 .0162
14.7 0 1.050 225. .762 3.93 .0105
PSAT 5559.7
DP BOFAC VOFAC
1000 .9935275 1.081905
C
ARRAYS
DX CON
200.
DY CON
1000.
DZ CON
50.
LX ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LY ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LZ ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
MDEPTH LAYER
10*10000.
POR CON
.29
PORF CON
.01
KX CON
1.
KY MULT
1. KX
KZ MULT
1. KX
KXFEFF ZVAR
10. 10. 90. 20. 20.
KYFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
KZFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
ISAT CON
1
IREGION CON
1
C
SW CON
0.2
SG CON
0.0
FVEWO CON
0.0
FVEWOF CON
1.0
FVEGO CON
0.0
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-57

FVEGOF CON
1.0
ISATEM CON
1
ISATEF CON
1
OVER TZF
1 10 1 1 1 5 *.1
C
END
RUN
DIM NWMAX NGCMAX NPRFTO NPRFMX NBATMX NSTGMX NFSMAX
2 1 10 10 1 1 1
C
IMPLICIT
C
RESTART 0 3
PLOT FORM
START
OUTPUT P SO SG
PRINT WELLS TIME
PRINT REGIONS ARRAYS TIME
WPLOT TIME 3
C ABORT 1. 1.
BLITZ
C TOLR .001 .01 RELTOL
C
WELL N NAME I J IGC
0 PROD45 10 1 1
0 INJ123 1 1 1
FPERF
WELL L WIL
INJ123 1 1.613294
X 2 1.613294
X 3 1.755122
PROD45 4 1.690117
X 5 1.690117
INJ G FSTD INJ123
PROD O STD PROD45
QMAX INJ123
.9
QMAX PROD45
1000.
ECOLIM O PROD45
QMIN 1
100.
DPBHMX PROD45
102.
ITNLIM 1 10 500 .1 .1 .1
DT -1. 1. 91. 500. .1 .1 .1
DATE 30 6 1992
DATE 31 12 1992
DATE 30 6 1993
DATE 31 12 1993
DATE 30 6 1994
DATE 31 12 1994
DATE 30 6 1995
4-58 Landmark - R2003.4

DATE 31 12 1995
DATE 30 6 1996
DATE 31 12 1996
DATE 30 6 1997
DATE 31 12 1997
DATE 30 6 1998
DATE 31 12 1998
DATE 30 6 1999
DATE 31 12 1999
DATE 30 6 2000
DATE 31 12 2000
DATE 30 6 2001
DATE 31 12 2001
STOP
END
R2003.4 - Landmark 4-59

4-60 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
5
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to model spatial differences in relative
permeability and capillary pressure end points with a single set of generic
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves. Both the saturation
and relative permeability end points for any gridblock can be different
from those of the generic rock type to which the gridblock is assigned.
The relative permeabilities and capillary pressures at a given saturation

are determined from the generic curves based on the assumption that the
normalized relative permeability and capillary pressure curves of the
generic rock type and the gridblock are identical.
The calculation of the relative permeabilities is divided into two steps:

saturation end-point scaling, then end-point relative permeability scaling.
Two- and three-point saturation scaling options are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE.
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-61

Normalized Saturation End Points VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
5.2 Normalized Saturation End Points

Eight saturation end points can be defined for each gridblock, grouped by
water-oil and gas-oil normalized functions. They are:
Water-Oil Normalized Functions
1. SWL - Connate water saturation (the smallest water saturation

entry in a water saturation table).
2. SWR - Residual water saturation (the highest water saturation for

which the water is immobile).
3. SWRO - Water saturation at residual oil (one minus residual oil

saturation where the residual oil saturation is the highest oil saturation
for which the oil is immobile in the water-oil system).
4. SWU - Maximum water saturation (the highest water saturation

entry in a water saturation table).
Gas-Oil Normalized Functions
5. SGL - Connate gas saturation (the smallest gas saturation entry in a

gas saturation table).
6. SGR - Residual gas saturation (the highest gas saturation for which
the gas is immobile).
7. SGRO - Gas saturation at residual oil (one minus the residual oil
saturation minus the connate water saturation where the residual oil
saturation is the highest oil saturation for which the oil is immobile in
the gas-oil-connate water system).
8. SGU - Maximum gas saturation (the highest gas saturation entry in

a gas saturation table).
If any of the saturation end points are not specified, rock data will be used
for that gridblock. Both connate and residual water saturations are set to
the specified value if the following exceptions exist: if the connate and
residual water saturations are the same in the rock table and if you specify
either the connate or residual water saturation (but not both) for the
gridblock.
Linear transformation is used to correlate gridblock saturation to the

equivalent saturation in the generic rock table. This equivalent saturation
is then used to compute relative permeability or capillary pressure. For
example, if the saturation end points for the gridblock are SL and SR and
for the rock are SL and SR, then the equivalent rock saturation, S,
corresponding to the gridblock saturation, S, is calculated as:
5-62 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Normalized Saturation End Points

( S SL )( SR SL )
S = ------------------------------------------ + SL (5-1)
( SR SL )
S is then used in the table look-up for the relative permeability or

capillary pressure.
Two- and three-point scaling options are available to calculate relative

permeability and capillary pressure. The default option is the three-point
scaling option. It uses three-point scaling for relative permeabilities and
four-point scaling for capillary pressures.
5.2.1 Two-Point Scaling Option

The keyword END2P is used to invoke the two-point scaling option. It
uses two-point scaling for both capillary pressures and relative
permeabilities.
Two-Point Scaling of Capillary Pressure Functions
Two-point scaling uses the connate and maximum saturations as two

saturation end points in the calculation of capillary pressures:
Pcwo SWL and SWU
Pcgo SGL and SGU
Two-Point Scaling of Relative Permeability Functions
Two-point scaling uses the residual and maximum saturations as two

saturation end points in the calculation of relative permeabilities:
krw SWR and SWU
krg SGR and SGU
krow SWL and SWRO
krog SGL and SGRO
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-63

5.2.2 Three-Point Scaling Option (Default Option)

The three-point scaling option uses four-point scaling for capillary
pressures and three-point scaling for the relative permeabilities. When the
three-point option is used, the saturation end points divide saturation into
different regions. The end points used depend on the region to which the
grid-point saturation belongs.
Four-Point Scaling of Capillary Pressure Functions
Four-point scaling uses connate saturation, residual saturation, water/gas

saturation at residual oil, and maximum saturation as four saturation end
points to calculate capillary pressure. The following end points are used
in the water-oil and gas-oil capillary pressure calculation:
Pcwo SWL, SWR, SWRO, and SWU
Pcgo SGL, SGR, SGRO, and SGU
Three-Point Scaling of Relative Permeability Functions
In addition to honoring the end points used in the two-point scaling

option, the three-point scaling algorithm honors the relative permeability
of the mobile phase at the residual saturation of the other phase. The
following end points are used in the relative permeability calculation:
krw SWR, SWRO, and SWU
krg SGR, SGRO, and SGU
krow SWL, SWR, and SWRO
krog SGL, SGR, and SGRO
5-64 Landmark - R2003.4

5.2.3 Comparisons of Two- and Three-Point Scaling Options

The following example is used to compare the two- and three-point
options for both capillary pressure and relative permeability curves:
Example:
C-----------------------------------------------------------
C SATURATION DEPENDENT TABLES
C-----------------------------------------------------------
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
0.2 0.0 0.6 10.
0.3 0.0 0.45 8.
0.7 0.4 0.0 3.
0.9 1.0 0.0 0.
SWT 2
....
....
....
ARRAY
C------------------------------------------------------------
C SATURATION END POINTS
C------------------------------------------------------------
SWL CON
0.05
SWR CON
0.15
SWRO CON
0.85
SWU CON
1.0
The specified rock table shows that connate water saturation, SWL, is 0.2.
The residual water saturation, SWR, is 0.3. Water saturation at residual
oil, SWRO, is 0.7. Maximum water saturation, SWU, is 0.9. The specified
grid end points are SWL = 0.05, SWR = 0.15, SWRO = 0.85, and SWU = 1.0.
The water-oil capillary pressure curves for the rock and gridblock with the
two- and three-point options are compared below. The capillary pressures
at SWL and SWU are honored for the two-point option and those at SWL,
SWR, SWRO, and SWU are honored for the three-point option. Rock
saturations 0.3 and 0.7 are equivalent to grid saturations 0.1857 and 0.7286,
respectively, for the two-point option.
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-65

The water relative permeability curves for the rock and gridblock with the
two- and three-point options are compared below. The water relative
permeabilities at SWR and SWU are honored for two-point scaling, while
those at SWR, SWRO, and SWU are honored for three-point scaling. The
rock saturation 0.7 (SWRO) is equivalent to the gridblock saturation
0.7167 for two-point scaling and 0.85 (SWRO) for three-point scaling. The
relative permeability at SWRO = 0.85 is 0.6823 for two-point scaling, and
0.4 for three-point scaling.
5-66 Landmark - R2003.4

5.2.4 End-Point Consistency Checks

The following end-point consistency requirements are checked for each
gridblock:
Maximum gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the connate
water saturation.
The connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum
water saturation.
The connate gas/water saturations should not exceed the residual

gas/water saturations.
The water/gas saturations at residual oil should not exceed the water/
gas maximum saturations.
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-67

Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to specify the rock end-point relative
permeabilities for each gridblock. For a given gridblock saturation, VIP-
EXECUTIVE calculates a transformed saturation for use in the rock table.
Three end-point relative permeabilities can be defined for each gridblock:
1. KROLW - The oil relative permeability at the connate water

saturation and minimum gas saturation.
2. KRWRO - The water relative permeability at the residual oil

saturation. This input option is available for the three-point option
only.
3. KRGRO - The gas relative permeability at the residual oil saturation.

This input option is available for the three-point option only.
Note that for the two-point option, the relative permeabilities at SWRO,
and SGRO are not honored and KRWRO and KRGRO are neglected.
5.3.1 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Oil

The two-phase oil relative permeabilities for a gridblock, krow and krog, are
calculated from the rock curves and the gridblock to rock end-point
relative permeability ratios according to the following equations:
KROLW
k row = k row ----------------------- (5-2)
KROLW
and
KROLW
k rog = k rog ---------------------- (5-3)
KROLG
KROLW is the oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation for
the generic rock curve, and KROLG is the oil relative permeability at the
connate gas saturation for the generic rock curve. krow and krog are the
rock oil relative permeabilities at the saturations calculated from the
saturation end-point scaling.
5.3.2 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Water and Gas

The water and gas relative permeabilities are computed according to the
following equations:
KRWRO
k rw = k rw ----------------------- if S w SWRO (5-4)
KRWRO
5-68 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability

( KRWU k rw )
k rw = KRWU ----------------------------------------------------- ( KRWU KRWRO )
( KRWU KRWRO )

if S w > SWRO (5-5)
and
KRGRO
k rg = k rg ----------------------- if S g SGRO (5-6)
KRGRO

( KRGU k rg )
k rg = KRGU --------------------------------------------------- ( KRGU KRGRO )
( KRGU KRGRO )

if S g > SGRO (5-7)
KRWRO and KRGRO are the water and gas relative permeabilities at the
residual oil saturation for the generic rock curves. KRWU and KRGU are
the water and gas relative permeabilities at the maximum saturations,
respectively. krw and krg are the water and gas relative permeabilities at
the saturations calculated from the end-point scaling.
5.3.3 Using End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling Option

Keywords KROLW, KRWRO, and KRGRO are used to specify end-point
relative permeabilities. The previous example shows that KROLW= 0.6
and KRWRO= 0.4 for the rock table. The following input data specify
the grid end-point relative permeabilities: KROLW = 0.8 and KRWRO =
0.25.
Example:
C------------------------------------------------------------
C END-POINT RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
C------------------------------------------------------------
KROLW CON
0.8
KRWRO CON
0.25
The comparisons of the rock and grid-point relative permeability curves

with end-point relative permeability scaling are shown in the following
figures.
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-69

Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
KROLW
KROLW
5-70 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Directional Relative Permeability with End-Point Scaling
5.4 Directional Relative Permeability with End-Point Scaling

End-point scaling can be used with the directional relative permeability
option. Keywords SWL, SWR, SWRO, SWU, SGL, SGR, SGRO, SGU,
KROLW, KRWRO, and KRGRO can be specified with the following
directional options:
X+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I+1,J,k)
X- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I-1,J,k)
Y+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J+1,k)
Y- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J-1,k)
Z+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J,k+1)
Z- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J,k-1)
A Flow for all four areal directions
V Flow for both vertical directions.
Example:
SWL X+ ZVAR
0.2 0.1 0.25 0.15
SWR X+ ZVAR
0.25 0.2 0.35 0.2
SWRO X+ ZVAR
0.6 0.7 0.65 0.75
SWU X+ ZVAR
0.9 0.95 0.98 1.0
R2003.4 - Landmark 5-71

Leverett J-Function (JFUNC) VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
5.5 Leverett J-Function (JFUNC)

The JFUNC card invokes the option to use the Leverett J-function for the
calculation of capillary pressures. The J-function is input in place of
capillary pressure in the SWT table as a function of water saturation. For
each gridblock, the program calculates the square root of permeability
divided by porosity, in order to scale the J-function to a unique capillary
pressure curve. The J-function is defined as follows:
Pc K
J ( Sw ) = ------------------ ---
cos c
00
The capillary pressure table input should be
Pc wo ( Sw ) = J ( Sw ) cos c 00
such that the program can calculate capillary pressure as
Pc wo ( Sw )
Pc = ------------------------
- 00
Kx
------

where Kx is the x-direction permeability and the porosity.
5-72 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
6
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE offers four reservoir initialization options:
Automatic determination of reservoir pressures and saturations at

gravity-capillary equilibrium.
Gravity-capillary equilibrium for user-specified saturations.
Non-equilibrium initialization to user-specified saturations,

compositions, and pressures.
Vertical equilibrium.
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-73

Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
6.2 Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium

When three fluid phases are present, the equilibrium distribution of gas,
oil, and water is illustrated in Figure 6-1:
DEPTH
GAS
GAS-OIL
GAS-OIL CONTACT TRANSITION ZONE
(GOC)
OIL
WATER-OIL
TRANSITION ZONE
WATER-OIL CONTACT
(WOC)
WATER
SATURATION
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
The fluid contacts, datum liquid phase pressure and depth, and capillary
pressures at the contacts are entered in the equilibrium constant table:
IEQUIL PINIT DEPTH PCWOC WOC PCGOC GOC PSAT

iequil pinit depth pcwoc woc pcgoc goc psat
(one data card for each equilibrium region)
6-74 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
Definitions:
iequil region number
pinit datum liquid phase pressure
depth reservoir datum depth
pcwoc capillary pressure at WOC
woc water-oil contact depth
pcgoc capillary pressure at GOC
goc gas-oil contact depth
psat saturation pressure
The label IEQUIL refers to the region of the field to which the initialization
applies. VIP-EXECUTIVE permits a variable number of contacts within a
field; this is illustrated in Figure 6-2:
Figure 6-2: Multiple Water-Oil Contacts
To define an equilibrium region with constant composition, the OILMF

and GASMF cards must be used. To specify the composition as a function
of depth, the COMPOSITION table input should be used instead of the
OILMF and GASMF data. The program assumes that compositions
entered for depths above the gas-oil contact are gas phase compositions.
Compositions entered for depths at or below the gas-oil contacts are
assumed to be oil phase compositions.
For each IEQUIL region, the automatic initialization of reservoir phase

pressures, saturations, and compositions proceeds as follows:
1. Calculates a table of all phase pressures vs depth.
2. Assigns average phase pressures to each gridblock.
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-75

Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
3. Calculates capillary pressure vs depth.
4. Performs an inverse table lookup on capillary pressures to determine

gas and water saturations for each gridblock.
5. Processes saturation and composition overreads, if any.
6. Calculates capillary pressure adjustments if the INTSAT option or

saturation pressure overread is used and if the NONEQ card is not
included in the initialization data set.
The phase pressure vs depth tables are generated by the following

relationships:
dP o
--------- = o ( P o, PSAT ieq )g (6-1)
dD
P o ( DEPT H ieq ) = PINI T ieq (6-2)
dP
---------w- = w ( P o )g (6-3)
dD
P w ( WOC ieq ) = P o ( WOC ieq ) PCWOC ieq (6-4)
dP g
--------- = g ( P o, PSAT ieq )g (6-5)
dD
P g ( GOC ieq ) = P o ( GOC ieq ) + PCGOC ieq (6-6)
For reservoirs which have an initial oil column, the datum depth, DEPTH,
must satisfy
WOC DEPTH GOC (6-7)
When the reservoir has a primary gas cap and an oil column,
DEPTH = GOC (6-8)
For gas/gas condensate reseroirs with no initial oil column (GOC =

WOC), the datum depth, DEPTH, may be at any depth at or above the
contact.
When the reservoir does not have a gas cap, GOC may be assigned a
depth above the top of the reservoir. In any case, the saturation pressure
entered in the equilibrium constants table is the saturation pressure at
DEPTH.
6-76 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Saturation Initialization
6.3 Saturation Initialization

Three options are available to calculate the initial distribution of fluid
saturations:
GBC (gridblock center)
INTSAT (integrated saturation)
VAITS (volume-averaged integrated saturation)
6.3.1 GBC Option

The GBC (gridblock center) option is the default. This method assigns a
saturation for each gridblock according to the capillary pressure at the
gridblock center. It is valid for models with thin gridblocks in the
transition zone. The calculation proceeds as follows:
1. Calculates average phase pressures Po, Pg, and Pw for each block.
2. Calculates Pcwo = Po - Pw and Pcgo = Pg - Po.
3. Performs inverse table lookup to obtain saturation
1
S = Pc ( Pc ) (6-9)
For tables with Pc = 0, the saturations are given by
S wc DEPTH < WOC

Sw = (6-10)
S wmax DEPTH WOC
S gc DEPTH > WOC

Sg = (6-11)
S gmax DEPTH WOC
6.3.2 INTSAT Option

The INTSAT (integrated saturation) method is based on integration of the
inverse capillary pressure function versus depth for each block.
DMAX
1

1
S wb = ---------------------------------------- P c ( D )dD (6-12)
DMIN DMAX
DMIN
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-77

Saturation Initialization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
When Pc = 0, the following equation is used:
DMAX
1
S wb = ----------------------------------------
DMIN DMAX S w ( D )dD (6-13)
DMIN
where SW(D) is given by Equation 6-10.
DMIN
DTOP
MDEPTH
DMAX DBOT
Figure 6-3: Block Representation in the INTSAT Option
A very accurate numerical integration technique is used in VIP-

EXECUTIVE to estimate the one-dimensional integrals in the above
expressions (Equation 6-12). The number of integration points and their
positions are defined internally to satisfy a hard-coded approximation
error tolerance. This method is more accurate than the GBC option.
However, it has one disadvantage. The initial saturation distribution vs
depth is averaged over block thickness (see Figure 6-3). However, for
greater accuracy, it should be averaged over block volume.
Therefore, the INTSAT method may not represent gridblock geometry

accurately. For example, the calculated average saturations for the two
blocks shown in Figure 6-3 would be the same. This method is accurate
only for non-dipping rectangular grid systems.
An accurate treatment of the gridblock geometry is implemented in the

VAITS option described below. This method reduces the errors described
above for the INTSAT option.
6.3.3 VAITS Option

A volume-averaged integrated saturation procedure (VAITS) computes
the initial saturation distributions in models with non-standard block
geometry. This is the most accurate method for calculating gridblock
6-78 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Saturation Initialization
saturations and bulk volumes. Average block saturations (Sbw, Sbg) and
bulk volume (Vb) are defined as
DMAX
1

1
S bw = ------ P cw ( D ) AREA ( D )dD (6-14)
Vb
DMIN
DMAX
1

1
S bg = ------ P cg ( D ) AREA ( D )dD (6-15)
Vb
DMIN
DMAX
Vb = AREA ( D )dD (6-16)
DMIN
where AREA(D) is the cross-sectional area of the gridblock when

intersected by a horizontal plane at depth D (see Figure 6-4). The
following procedure is used to numerically estimate the one-dimensional
integrals in the above expressions:
1. The depth interval [DMIN,DMAX] is divided into N subintervals

(sublayers): [DMIN,D1], [D1,D2], . . . , [DN-1,DMAX]. The average
water saturation is calculated as:
i=N D i + 1
1
= ------
1
S bw P cw ( D ) AREA ( D )dD (6-17)
Vb
i = 0 Di
Similar expressions are used for the average gas saturation and block
bulk volume.
2. Simpsons quadrature formula is used to estimate numerically the

integrals in each sublayer.
3. The sublayers are not equally spaced; therefore, they may have
different thickness. The number of sublayers N and their thickness are
internally calculated to ensure that relative approximation errors are
less than tolerances, which are specified on the VAITS card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-79

Saturation Initialization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
DMIN
D1
D2
D3
.
. AREA(D)
Dn-1
DMAX
D
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization
The VAITS Option offers the following advantages:
Accurate modeling of the gridblock geometry and capillary-gravity

equilibrium conditions.
Application of an advanced numerical integration technique. The

number of integration points (sub-layers) and their positions are
defined internally. More sub-layers are used in large blocks than in
small blocks. The number of sub-layers is increased in blocks with
non-standard geometry in comparison with rectangular blocks.
Sublayer thickness is decreased in areas with significant saturation
changes; e.g., near oil-water and gas-oil contacts.
Accurate calculation of block bulk volumes, saturations, and volumes

of the fluids-in-place with user-specified approximation error
tolerances.
6-80 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Capillary Pressure Adjustment
6.4 Capillary Pressure Adjustment

The user-specified saturations and saturations calculated by the INTSAT
option are not necessarily at equilibrium, that is, not necessarily equal to
the gridblock center value. It is usually necessary to adjust Pc , especially
near contacts, to maintain equilibrium. VIP-CORE offers two options:
1. NONEQ = .True. (non-equilibrium conditions). No capillary pressure

adjustment is calculated.
2. NONEQ = .False. Program adjusts capillary pressures to maintain

equilibrium for the user-specified saturations or saturations calculated
by the INTSAT option (Default option).
This is illustrated for Pcwo in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-5: Capillary Pressure Adjustment
In Figure 6-5, SW(Di) refers to saturation at the gridblock center and SWi
refers to the block average saturation for block i. The capillary pressure
adjustment is given by
PCADJWi = POi - PWi - PCWO(SWi).
A new capillary pressure function that ensures equilibrium for saturation

SWi is defined by
PCWO(SWi) = PCWO(SWi) + PCADJWi.
A similar treatment is applied to the gas-oil capillary pressure.
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-81

Supercritical Initialization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
6.5 Supercritical Initialization

Deeper drilling and the production of light hydrocarbons at high
temperature increases the occurrence of gas condensate and volatile oil
systems that exist together at initial conditions. These systems do not have
a two-phase region. This is because the original compositions are always
at temperatures and pressures that do not cross the equilibrium two-phase
envelope. In the top part of the reservoir, the compositions are such that
the fluid is classified as a gas condensate. The heavy component
composition increases as a function of depth so that the fluid would be
classified as a volatile oil at the bottom of the reservoir. At some depth in
the reservoir, the fluid would change classification from gas to oil, but
there is no classical gas-oil contact (i.e., no two-phase region). Instead,
there is a depth at which the the local critical temperature is equal to the
reservoir temperature. The fluid density increases with depth, but does
not show the usual density difference associated with phase change.
The card used to trigger the supercritical initialization is the CRINIT card
in the Utility Data section of VIP-CORE. The initial pressure, PINIT,
should be entered at DEPTH, which should be the same as the input gas-
oil contact depth, GOC. The GOC depth specification can affect the speed
and stability of supercritical initialization since dew-point calculations are
performed first for gridblock depths above DEPTH and bubble-point
calculations are tried first for gridblock depths below DEPTH. The
program checks on the heavy component k-value and switches to the
appropriate routine if necessary; however, this takes time. The density of
the original compositions is then used to initialize the function of pressure
versus depth from PINIT at DEPTH input on the IEQUIL card. The
composition at each depth is interpolated from those given on the
COMPOSITION cards and the equilibrium composition is computed in
the bubble- and dew-point routines.
For each equilibrium region, the program uses the input gas-oil contact
depth (GOC in IEQUIL card) as the estimated depth of the change from
gas to oil and will perform bubble- and dew-point calculations using the
input composition as a function of depth. The fluids are sorted using the
computed equilibrium compositions of the heaviest component to
determine whether the reservoir fluid is oil or gas. The criterion that the
heavy component must have a k-value less than one is used to determine
whether the results of the bubble- or dew-point calculation should be used
at that depth in the reservoir. The point at which the switch occurs is the
true gas-oil contact for the super-critical fluid. The input PINIT value from
the IEQUIL card is used to compute the original pressure surface from
DEPTH and the computed oil and gas densities. At all times, bubble- or
dew-point routines are used to compute the equilibrium phase
compositions and the original saturation pressure values as a function of
depth. A switch occurs from bubble- to dew-point fluids based on the
heavy component k-value.
6-82 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Supercritical Initialization
The bubble- and dew-point routines include a successive substitution

process which is used before the Newton-Raphson procedure. The
Newton-Raphson iteration process is unstable when the original guess is
not in the radius of convergence. A degenerate solution can be found (the
values of liquid mole fraction and vapor phase mole fraction equal for all
components). Using successive substitution avoids degenerate solutions
and usually gives an estimate that is in the radius of convergence for
Newton-Raphson.
The successive substitution process starts with an estimate of the

equilibrium phase composition. Using that composition and an assumed
saturation pressure, the k-values are computed from the fugacity of each
component. The sum of the equilibrium phase mole fractions must be one.
The actual sum is used to normalize the equilibrium phase mole fractions
to one. These iterations are performed until the saturation pressure
converges. The new estimates are used to perform Newton-Raphson
iterations to final convergence.
R2003.4 - Landmark 6-83

Supercritical Initialization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
6-84 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
7
Faults
7.1 Introduction
Figure 7-1 shows a structural map in a portion of a petroleum reservoir.
The contour discontinuities indicate faults. A fault is one of the structures
that traps hydrocarbons; it may influence fluid flow significantly.
Therefore, reservoir models frequently include the faults. The fault
handling option in VIP-EXECUTIVE allows simple ways of realizing such
noncontiguous layer connections resulting from the faults.
Figure 7-1: Part of a Structure Map of a Petroleum Reservoir
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-85

Introduction VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Simple faults can be modeled without using VIP-EXECUTIVEs fault

option, but such a model requires more gridblocks. Figure 7-2 illustrates a
model with and without the fault option.
Without
Using
Two-Layer Model Fault
Option

Using
Fault Option
Figure 7-2: Different Ways of Modeling Faults
Consider the two-layer model on the left in Figure 7-2. Without the fault,
option one must use five layers to model the displacement due to the fault.
However, the fault option allows users to create the grid system shown in
the lower right where the grids may not be contiguous. VIP-EXECUTIVE
determines the connections among blocks across the fault plane based on
user input, then computes the transmissibilities. Solvers take into account
the flows associated with the fault connections. In this manual,
assumptions, guidelines, and the method of computing the
transmissibilities are presented.
7-86 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Assumptions and Guidelines
7.2 Assumptions and Guidelines

To assist a visualization of assumptions, consider a simple model shown
in Figure 7-3. There are two faults in the figure, denoted by FX and FY.
Fault FX is an X-plane fault since the fault surface lies in the plane
perpendicular to the X-axis. Fault FY is a Y-plane fault. The assumptions
and guidelines described here focus on the standard fault models. Some of
the limitations in the standard fault model can be overcome by using the
nonstandard (i.e., corner-point geometry) option; they are explained when
appropriate. The corner-point geometry option is described in Chapter 3.
1 2 3 4
5
6 x(i)
1
FY
3
FX
y(j)
Figure 7-3: Fault Model
The fault plane is located vertically at the grid boundary; the throw (or
shift) is constant in the Z-direction. In other words, throws between
(3,3,k) and (4,3,k) are the same for all k in the fault plane FX.
Fault throws may vary areally. For example, the throws of fault FY at i
= 4, 5, 6 may be different.
When the fault option is used without corner-point geometry, VIP-

EXECUTIVE assumes that the layer is horizontal at the fault plane; i.e.,
DX = DXB and DY = DYB. Thus, to avoid confusion, use the LAYER
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-87

Assumptions and Guidelines VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
option as much as possible to specify depth. If the layers are no longer

horizontal, for example, because of significant layer-thickness changes,
then use the corner-point geometry option.
VIP-EXECUTIVE handles only logically vertical faults: a fault plane

cuts through all the layers smoothly without having a stair-step-like
surface. More precisely, a fault plane can be defined uniquely by areal
coordinates (i and j) only. When a fault has a sloping logically vertical
plane, the standard fault model does not describe the geometry
accurately, so the corner-point geometry option should be used. Note
that the corner-point geometry option does not require the constant
throw assumption and generates the fault connections automatically
when the FAULT utility card is present.
The depths of gridblocks should be consistent to the fault throws (i.e.,

fshift in Section 2.5 in the VIP-CORE Reference Manual) specified in
user input.
The fault throws have positive or negative signs depending on the

relative depths of grids across fault. If one walks in an increasing X-
direction and encounters a drop-off, the drop-off, or throw, is positive
since the drop is in the positive Z-direction. If one encounters a wall of
rock, it has a negative throw.
7-88 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Input Structure
7.3 Input Structure

The standard input for the fault option requires the fault location, the
throws, and the multiplier for the transmissibilities. The fault plane is
specified by the location of the plane and the extent of the plane. For
example, fault FX is located at i = 4 and the extent is from j = 3 to j = 4.
Fault FY is located at y = 3 and the extent is from i = 4 to i = 6:
FX 4 3 -4 20.00 *1.5
FY 3 4 -6 21.00 22.00 23.00 *1.0
Fault FY has three throws listed, i.e., 21 ft (m), 22 ft (m), and 23 ft (m) for
the three-grid-long fault, while the first input line has only a single throw,
20 ft (m). If only a single shift is specified, then the shift is constant along
the fault.
There are variations of the input formats depending on the options, but
the most frequently used format has the structure shown in Figure 7-4:
FX 4 3 -4 20.00 *1.5
Transmissibility Multiplier
Throw
Areal Extent of Fault Plane (range of j location)
Fault Plane Location (i location)
Heading for Fault Input
Figure 7-4: Input Structure of Typical Fault Data Input
FX should be replaced with FY, FR, or FTHETA, depending on the

direction, coordinate system, and corner- or no-corner-point geometry.
Options FXCORN and FYCORN are similar, but throws and multipliers
are given in separate lines. The transmissibility multiplier is introduced to
modify the transmissibility computed by VIP-EXECUTIVE and can be
used for the history match, for instance. Detailed requirements for the
input are listed in the VIP-CORE Reference Manual.4
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-89

Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
7.4 Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections

As described in the previous section, the input data specifies the plane
location, fault length, and throw. VIP-CORE then determines the
connections and corresponding transmissibilities automatically. These
connections are applied to both the first (usually matrix) and second
porosity medium (fracture) if the dual porosity model is in effect.
Another set of input formats can be used for arbitrary gridblock

connections. However, users must explicitly specify the gridblocks that
are connected as well as the transmissibilities. As a result, this input
method can become tedious. Furthermore, the connections for matrix and
fractures are specified separately in the dual porosity model.
In describing the arbitrary connections, there are two kinds of input

formats. The first method assumes that the connections are between two
neighboring columns and that each line of input specifies a single
connection as shown in Figure 7-5. Users must specify the connecting
gridblocks and transmissibility for each connection.
FLTXC
i j kr kl tx
Transmissibility
Vertical Location of Grids
Areal Location of Faults x
i
Heading for Fault Input
kr
i-1
z kl
Figure 7-5: Specifying a Single Fault Connection
FLTXC should be replaced with FLTYC for Y-direction faults, FLTRC for
R-direction faults in radial coordinate systems, or FLTTC for theta-
direction faults in radial coordinate systems. To specify the fault
connection similarly for fracture porosity, the corresponding headings are
FLTXCF, FLTYCF, FLTRCF, or FLTTCF. For example, the connection
between (3,4,2) and (4,4,1) in Figure 8-5 can be expressed as:
FLTXC 4 4 1 2 192.23,
7-90 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections
where 192.23 is a transmissibility value. This type of input method is

useful to override the transmissibilities computed by FX and other input
described in the previous section.
The second type of fault input data for arbitrary connections also is used
for the same purpose, but can be used to connect any gridblocks within
the model; i.e., the gridblocks need not be neighbors. One of the
applications is to use ordinarily inactive grids as an aquifer. This input
format requires the block coordinates and transmissibility shown in
Figure 7-6.
FTRANS
i1 j1 k1 i2 j2 k2 trans
Transmissibility
Coordinates of the Second Grid
Coordinates of the First Grid
Heading
(i1,j1,k1) (i2,j2,k2)
trans
Figure 7-6: Arbitrary Connection
For the fracture porosity, the heading is FTRANSF. FTRANS or FTRANSF

may be used to override fault transmissibilities, but can do so only for
faults. To override transmissibilities of the regular connections, use OVER
or VOVER option. An example of FTRANS usage is shown later.
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-91

Fault Transmissibility VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
7.5 Fault Transmissibility

The transmissibility of the fault connection uses the area shared by the two
gridblocks as shown in Figure 7-7. The corner-point and non-corner-point
geometry options compute the fault transmissibility differently. In the
standard (or non-corner-point geometry), the X-direction transmissibility
in the Cartesian coordinate system, for instance, is computed as using the
area shared by the connecting blocks (see Figure 7-7). Equations for the
transmissibilities are in Chapter 33.
Left Right
DZ
DZ
DZ
DX DX
Figure 7-7: Transmissibility for Standard Connection
In Figure 7-7, DZ is the shared thickness, DZ is the layer thickness. The

calculation of fault transmissibility for corner point geometry is discussed
in Chapter 3.
7-92 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Noncontiguous Layers
7.6 Noncontiguous Layers

When there are gaps between layers (as described by DEPTH or MDEPTH
and DZ arrays), VIP-COREs fault connections can account for the gaps.
VIP-CORE uses a fault shift input and layer thicknesses to determine the
connectivities, which could result in wrong connectivities if there are gaps
between layers. In the figure below a two layer model, (a), has a gap
between layers and a fault shift. If depth information is ignored, the layers
are assumed to be contiguous, resulting in connectivities as shown in
model (b).
7.6.1 Connectivity Search Scheme

The connectivity search scheme accounts for the gaps between layers: tops
and bottoms of layers are computed by
top(k) = mdepth(k) - dz(k)/2

bottom(k) = mdepth(k) + dz/2
The layer tops and bottoms of the neighbor column are displaced by the
shift amount.
VIP-CORE has 2 options: (a) the method that uses depth information to
calculate layer connectivity, and (b) the method that assumes the layers
are contiguous. Method (a) is the default. Method (b) would be used if
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-93

Noncontiguous Layers VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
answers from a previous run must be replicated. Method (b) can be

activated by adding a keyword NODEPTH at the end of FX, FR, FY or
FTHETA. For example:
FX 2 1 2 -25 NODEPTH
FX 2 2 -25 NODEPTH
Without the keyword NODEPTH, method (a) is used.
An example of the default method is given below:
The input for the model is listed in the figure, and the resulting output by
the method (a) is:
GRID CONNECTS TO SHARED

TRANSMISSIBILITY
BLOCK GRIDBLOCK THICKNESS
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
(I, J, K) (I, J, K) FT
1 123 111 5.000 .5635E+00
2 123 112 5.000 .5635E+00
3 124 112 5.000 .5635E+00
4 125 113 5.000 .5635E+00
5 125 114 5.000 .5635E+00
6 126 114 5.000 .5635E+00
7 127 115 5.000 .5635E+00
8 127 116 5.000 .5635E+00
9 223 211 5.000 .5635E+00
10 223 212 5.000 .5635E+00
11 224 212 5.000 .5635E+00
12 225 213 5.000 .5635E+00
7-94 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Noncontiguous Layers
GRID CONNECTS TO SHARED

TRANSMISSIBILITY
BLOCK GRIDBLOCK THICKNESS
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
(I, J, K) (I, J, K) FT
13 225 214 5.000 .5635E+00
14 226 214 5.000 .5635E+00
15 227 215 5.000 .5635E+00
16 227 216 5.000 .5635E+00
If method (b) is used there would be 18 connections, and they are probably
incorrect.
If the top layers of the neighbor and fault columns are not horizontal, but
have the same depths, the above scheme still computes the connections
based on the shift amount as shown in the next figure.
Fault and neighbor top

layers have the same
depth, but the fault shift
is non-zero. Even in this
case formulation (a)
handles the connections
correctly.
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-95

Input Example VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
7.7 Input Example

Consider a model of 11 x 11 x 5 grids in Figure 7-8. Active gridblocks are
shown in the gray area. The real faults are indicated by solid lines and the
model faults are shown by the dashed lines as approximation since the
fault must be defined at grid faces. The following input specifies the
location of faults and multipliers using the FX and FY options. In addition,
consider an aquifer shown in Figure 7-8 by the hatched area that is
connected to a grid (10,1,1). This is accomplished using the FTRANS
option.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x
2 #1
3 #2
6
7
8
9 #3
10
11
y
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults
7-96 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Input Example
Examples:
FAULTS
C fault #1
FY 2 3 -4 220.5
FX 5 2 -2 200.1
FY 3 5 -6 190.2 180.1
FX 7 3 -4 80.0 10.0 *0.8
C fault #2
FX 10 2 -6 30.5
C fault #3
FY 10 5 -9 -59.8
C override two connection of fault #2
FLTXC
10 2 1 3 121.55
10 3 1 4 22.9
C Connect aquifer to (10,1,1)
FTRANS
10 1 1 1 8 1 211.9
10 1 2 1 8 2 331.2
10 1 3 1 8 3 249.1
10 1 4 1 8 4 10.2
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-97

Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
7.8 Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options

In VIP, a fault may be defined as conductive in which the fault plane is
assumed to have an infinite conductivity and negligible storage. With
these assumptions, fluid flows among faulted gridblocks may be
approximated by explicitly including the faults in a simulation model. The
flow among faulted gridblocks is calculated through the addition of a
constraint (mass balance) equation and additional information
(assumption) on the fluid distribution inside the faults.
The options are currently implemented for single-grid models only and
are not compatible with the dual porosity option, the tracer option, and
the implicit version of VIP.
7.8.1 Model Development

For an infinitely conductive fault in the I-direction, the pressure in the
fault can be calculated from the constraint that the sum of the total flow
rate across the fault plane is zero;
nf
Qk = 0, (7-1)
k=1
where
Q k T Ik kt ( P k P f fk ) (7-2)
is the total volumetric flow rate for faulted gridblock k, TIk is the
transmissibility between faulted gridblock k and the fault which is simply
the I-direction half-transmissibility of the faulted gridblock, and kt is the
total mobility of gridblock k;
k rw k rg k ro
kt -------
- + ------- + ------- . (7-3)
w g o k
Here krj and j are relative permeability and viscosity of phase j.

Parameters Pk, Pf, and fk are pressure in gridblock k, fault pressure at a
reference depth, and the gravity term in the fault (relative to the reference
depth), respectively.
For outflow gridblocks in which the pressure difference term in

Equation 7-2 is positive, the water surface rates and the hydrocarbon
component molar rates can be readily calculated:
+ T Ik k rwk
q wk = ------------------B w ( P k P f fk ), (7-4)
wk
7-98 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options
k rok k rgk
q ik = T Ik --------- o x i + --------- g y i ( P k P f fk ),
+
i = 1, N c . (7-5)
ok gk
Here Bw is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water, o and g are

molar densities of oil and gas phases, xi is the molar fraction of component
i in the oil phase, yi is the molar fraction of component i in the gas phase,
and Nc is the total number of hydrocarbon components.
For inflow gridblocks, the calculation of individual phase and component

rates requires detailed saturation distribution in the fault. This can be
rigorously obtained only through simulation with fault blocks explicitly
represented in the model. Otherwise, approximations based on
assumptions of fluid distributions in the fault will be needed. Two user-
controlled options are currently available: a fully-mixed option and a
fully- segregated option.
7.8.1.1 Fully-Mixed Option
In the fully-mixed option, the inflow gridblocks phase rates are calculated
using the assumption of a fully-mixed wellbore, i.e., all inflow gridblocks
have the same inflow stream which has the composition of the combined
outflow streams. With this assumption, the water surface rates and the
hydrocarbon component molar rates for the inflow gridblocks are
+
- qw
q wk = T Ik kt ------+- ( P k P f fk ), (7-6)
Q
+
- qi
q ik = T Ik kt ------+- ( P k P f fk ), i = 1, N c , (7-7)
Q
where
+
q w q wk ,
+ +
(7-8)
k
+
q i q ik ,
+ +
(7-9)
k
and
+
Q Qk .
+ +
(7-10)
k
Summations in Equations 7-8 through 7-10 are taken over all gridblocks
with positive total volumetric rates (i.e., Qk > 0.). It can be shown that
Equations 7-4 to 7-10 satisfy the material balance automatically.
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-99

7.8.1.2 Fully-Segregated Option
The second option assumes fully segregated flow in the fault, i.e., the
water produced from all outflow gridblocks will preferentially flow into
the bottom inflow gridblocks and the gas produced from all outflow
gridblocks will preferentially flow into the top inflow gridblocks.
Numerically, the segregated flow option can be represented by the
- + -
Q wk = min ( Q w, avl , Q k ), (7-11)
+
- - qw
q wk = Q wk ------+- , (7-12)
Qw
- + - -
Q ok = min ( Q o, avl , Q k Q wk ), (7-13)
qok xik
+
- -
k
q iok = Q ok ---------------------,
+
i = 1, N c , (7-14)
Qo
qgk yik
+
- - - -
q igk = ( Q k Q wk Q ok ) ---------------------,
k
+
i = 1, N c , (7-15)
Qg
- -
where q wk is the water surface inflow rate for gridblock k, q imk (m = o, g)
is the component molar inflow rate for gridblock k, and
T Ik mk ( Pk P f fk ) ,
+
Qm = m = o, g, w, (7-16)
k
+ k rmk
q mk = T Ik ---------- m ( P k P f fk ), m = o, g. (7-17)
mk
-
Symbol Q k is the total volumetric flow rate for inflow gridblock k in
+
Equation 7-2, and Q m, avl is the available volumetric outflow rate for
phase m (m = w, o, g) that has yet to be distributed to inflow gridblocks.
For each conductive fault, the inflow gridblocks are sorted based on the
descending order in depth. Starting from the inflow gridblock that has the
highest depth, Equations 7-1 and 7-5 are then used to calculate the
individual phase rates gridblock-by-gridblock. It can be readily shown
that this model also guarantees that the material balance for each
component is automatically satisfied.
7-100 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options
It should be noted that the segregated flow option presented here neglects
any mass transfer effects inside the fault. As in the fully-mixed option, the
fault pressure is calculated by Equation 7-1, and the phase and/or
component rates for outflow gridblocks are calculated from Equations 7-4
and 7-5. For the inflow gridblocks, the phase and/or component rates are
calculated from Equations 7-12, 7-14, and 7-15.
7.8.1.3 Model Implementation
The options implemented in VIP allow the user to specify any input faults
as being conductive. For each conductive fault, an additional constraint
equation (similar to an implicit well constraint equation), Equation 7-1, is
added to the simulator and fully coupled with the reservoir equations to
calculate the fault pressure. For outflow faulted gridblocks (positive Qk),
Equations 7-4 and 7-5 are added to the water and hydrocarbon mass
balance equations and their derivatives with respect to the gridblock
pressure and the fault pressure are added to the corresponding Jacobian
terms.
For inflow faulted gridblocks, the situation is more complex because

Equations 7-9 and 7-10 (applicable to the fully-mixed option), or
Equations 7-15, 7-17, and 18 (applicable to the fully-segregated option) for
each inflow gridblock depend not only on the gridblock and fault
pressures, but also pressures of all outflow gridblocks. The conductive
fault options implemented here have a user-controlled feature to either
lagging the calculations of Equations 7-8 to 7-10 (for fully-mixed option),
and Equations 7-8, 7-16, 7-17 (for fully-segregated option) for inflow
gridblocks by one iteration or fully implicitly evaluating these terms. By
2
implicitly calculating these terms, a maximum of n f 4 additional non-
neighboring pressure derivative terms will be added.
The gravity term in the fault plane, fk, is evaluated using a simple
mobility weighted averaging method. Results of two test runs using this
method and a more complex volume averaging method for a conductive
fault problem indicate that the model performance is insensitive to the
gravity term.
7.8.2 Input Requirement

The conductive (leaky) fault options require the addition of two
parameters on the DIM card and a new data card in the Standard Fault
Data section of the VIP initialization module (VIP-CORE), and two
optional data cards in the utility data of the VIP simulation module (VIP-
EXECUTIVE).
R2003.4 - Landmark 7-101

7-102 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
8
8.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE has the ability to simulate two-phase gas-water or
water-oil systems using simplified gas-water and water-oil options. When
these special options are used, only one hydrocarbon equation is solved in
the IMPLICIT formulation; thus speeding up the simulation. The
coefficient generation is unaffected. These options also enable reduced
data input for saturation and PVT tables, since only oil phase (for water-
oil) or gas phase (for gas-water) properties are required.
The simulator also has the ability to simulate a true non-volatile black-oil
system where the K-value of the oil component is near zero.
8.2 Simplified Gas-Water Option

The simplified gas-water option relaxes the input requirements for the oil
property data for a gas-water system. When the simplified gas-water
option is selected, the oil property data (relative permeability curves and
PVT tables) are generated in VIP-CORE automatically.
This option has the following special features:
1. Modified input formats and defaults for oil property data,
2. Printout of the pressure divided by the gas compressibility factor (P/

Zg) in the gas property tables,
3. Ability of equilibrium initialization for a non-flat gas-water capillary

pressure curve for the gas/water system, and
4. Ensures that the oil relative permeability is zero.
5. Simplified end-point specifications.
R2003.4 - Landmark 8-103

Simplified Gas-Water Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
8.2.1 Data Requirements

The GASWATER keyword is used to invoke the simplified gas-water
option. The special input data for a two-phase gas-water model is as
follows:
The BGTAB table is used instead of the BOTAB table to specify the
PVT properties.
The SGT and SWT tables originally used to specify the relative
permeability and capillary pressure curves for the gas/oil and water/
oil systems are combined into the SGT table. The new SGT table is
used to specify gas and water relative permeability and gas/water
capillary pressure curves. The SWT table should not be specified if the
simplified gas/water option is chosen.
The IEQUIL card is changed to specify the depth of the gas/water

contact and gas/water capillary pressure at the contact instead of the
depths of the gas/oil and water /oil contacts and the gas/oil and
water/oil capillary pressures at the contacts as the original program.
The program sets the depths of the gas/oil and water/oil contacts to
the depth of the gas/water contact.
8.2.2 Special Features

The following special features are available when gas-water option is
used:
The value of pressure divided by gas compressibility factor is added to

the printout of the gas property tables when the PVT or RPVT option
is selected in the PRINT TABLES card.
Equilibrium initialization is allowed for a specified non-flat capillary

pressure curve for the gas/water system. The water and gas densities
are used with the specified capillary pressure curves for the
equilibrium initialization.
For end-point scaling, only gas saturation related end points are
necessary. These are SGL, SGU, SGR, and SGRW.
8-104 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Simplified Water-Oil Option
8.3 Simplified Water-Oil Option

The simplified water-oil option relaxes the input requirements for the gas
property data for a water-oil system. When the simplified water-oil option
is selected, the gas property data (relative permeability curves and PVT
tables) which are required internally by the simulation modules, are
generated in VIP-CORE automatically.

The WATEROIL card is used to invoke the simplified water-oil option. The
special input data for two-phase water-oil model is as follows:
The BOTAB card used to specify the PVT properties but gas
parameters are omitted.
Gas saturation table data (SGT card) is not required.
The IEQUIL card is changed to specify the depth of the water/oil

contact and water/oil capillary pressure at the contact. The gas-oil
contact and capillary pressure at gas-oil contact are not required.
R2003.4 - Landmark 8-105

Simplified Black-Oil Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
8.4 Simplified Black-Oil Option

In the previous versions of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the black-oil model is
treated as a two-component compositional model in which the K-values of
the heavy component are non-zero even if a non-volatile oil system is
specified through the input of a constant gas gravity (GR, relative to air) in
the BOTAB tables. The non-zero K-values result from arbitrarily adding
2.0 to the maximum residual oil molecular weight (maximum of all input
WTRO values) to form the heavy component molecular weight and
subtracting 1.0 from the minimum gas molecular weight (29. x minimum
of all input GR values) to form the light component molecular weight. The
resulting K-values for the heavy component in general range from
10-3 to 10-2 in non-volatile oil systems. Numerically, this treatment will
result in residual (or relict) oil in reservoir (or gas cap) being completely
vaporized during the gas injection or cycling. The only remedy to prevent
the residual oil from vaporization is to specify an injected gas composition
that is identical to the in-situ gas composition.
The black-oil option now implemented aims at eliminating the oil

vaporization problem stated above. This option is a simplistic approach to
the true conventional black-oil model where the oil component is non-
volatile. An exact black-oil approach would be to set the heavy component
K-values to zero (i.e., the heavy component molecular weight equals the
input residual oil molecular weight, WTRO). This exact approach requires
further modifications to VIP-CORE and the simulation modules because
of zero K-values. The option actually implemented calculates the heavy
component molecular weight by adding 2 x 10-8 (as opposed to 2.0
without this option) to WTRO and calculates the light component
molecular weight by subtracting 10-8 (as opposed to 1.0 without this
option) from the constant gas molecular weight (29. x GR). The resulting
heavy component K-values are in the order of 10-10. This will eliminate
any significant vaporization of the oil component.

The black-oil option is invoked by a BLACKOIL card in the Initialization
Data Section of VIP-CORE. Other input requirements are:
All input GR values in the BOTAB table must be the same.
If multiple PVT tables are specified, the WTRO (molecular weight of

residual oil) values in all BOTAB tables must be the same, and the GR
values in all BOTAB tables must also be the same.
Default separators must be used and no additional separator data may

be specified.
8-106 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
9
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction
For a general compositional model of Nc hydrocarbon components and
water, the basic differential equations are the species mass balance
equations of the first Nc - 1 hydrocarbon components, the overall
hydrocarbon mass balance equation, and the water mass balance
equation. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, water is treated as an inert phase and the
formulation of the hydrocarbon mass balance equations follows that of
Young and Stephenson.5 The black oil option is treated as a special case of
the general compositional model.
9.2 IMPES Formulation
9.2.1 Hydrocarbon Species Mass Balance Equations
( Fz i ) k k ro o M o g
------------------- = ------------ o x i P o ------------------------------------- D
t o 5.6146 144g c
k k rg g M g g
+ ------------ g y i P o + P cg ------------------------------------
- D + q o x i + q g y i
g 5.6146 144g c
i = 1, ..., Nc - 1 (9-1)
where is porosity, F is total hydrocarbon moles per pore volume, zi is

overall mole fraction of component i, k is absolute permeability, krj is
relative permeability to phase j (j = o, g), j is hydrocarbon phase molar
density (in lb-mol/bbl), xi is mole fraction of component i in the oil phase,
yi is mole fraction of component i in the gas phase, Mj is molecular weight
of phase j, D is vertical depth, Po is oil phase pressure, Pcg is gas-oil
capillary pressure, j is viscosity of phase j, and qj is source term. Equation
9-1 has units of lb-mol/bbl-day.
R2003.4 - Landmark 9-107

IMPES Formulation VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
9.2.2 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation
( F ) k k ro o M o g
--------------- = ------------ o P o ------------------------------------- D
t o 5.6146 144g c
k k rg g M g g
+ ------------ g P o + P cg ------------------------------------- D + q o + q g (9-2)
g 5.6146 144g c
9.2.3 Water Mass Balance Equations
o
( B w S w ) kk rw w Bw M w g
- = ----------- B w P o P cw ------------------------------------- D + q w
------------------------
t w 5.6146 144g c
(9-3)
Here, Bw is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water (in STB/RB),

Sw is water saturation, Pcw is water-oil capillary pressure, Mw is water
molecular weight, qw is the source term including injection rate,
o
production rate, and water influx rate, and w is water density at the
standard conditions (in lb-mol/STB). Equation 9-3 is in units of STB/bbl-
day.
9.2.4 Fugacity Equality Equations

In the compositional model, phase equilibria between oil and gas phases
are expressed in terms of the equality of fugacities:
f oi ( P o, x i, , x N c ) = f gi ( P o, y i, , y N c ) (9-4)
The fugacities of component i in phase j (j = o, g), foi, and fgi are calculated
from an equation of state that is discussed next. For the black oil option,
the phase equilibrium is described by equilibrium K-values (Ki):
yi
K i ( P o ) = ----, i = 1, 2 (9-5)
xi
9.2.5 Overall Component Mole Fraction

The overall component mole fraction is defined as
z i = ( 1 L )y i + Lx i, i = 1, ... , N c (9-6)
9-108 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE IMPES Formulation
Here, L is the mole fraction of oil phase in the total hydrocarbon mixture
(i.e., one mole of hydrocarbon mixture separates into L moles of oil phase
and 1 - L moles of gas phase).
9.2.6 Mole Fraction Constraint Equations

The two independent mole fraction constraints are:
Nc
xi = 1 (9-7)
i=1
Nc
zi = 1 (9-8)
i=1
Note that Equations 9-6, 9-7, and 9-8 suggest that the summation of the
mole fractions of all hydrocarbon components in the gas phase also equals
one.
9.2.7 Saturation Constraint Equation

The saturation constraint can be expressed as
1 L L
1 F -------------- + ----- S w = 0 (9-9)
g o
The product of the first term inside the parentheses and F represents gas
phase saturation, while the product of the second term inside the
parentheses and F is oil phase saturation.
9.2.8 Reduction of Simultaneous Equations and Selection of Primary

Unknowns
Equations 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3, Equation 9-4 (or 9-5), and Equations 9-6
through 9-9 represent 3Nc + 4 independent equations with 3Nc + 4
unknowns: xi, yi, zi, L, F, Sw, and Po. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, Equations 9-6, 9-
7, and 9-8 are used to eliminate unknowns yi, x N , and z N :
c c
z i Lx i
y i = -----------------, i = 1, ... , N c (9-10)
1L
Nc 1
xN c = 1 xi (9-11)
i=1
and
R2003.4 - Landmark 9-109

IMPES Formulation VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Nc 1
zN c = 1 zi (9-12)
i=1
Equations 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12 are then substituted into Equations 9-1, 9-2,
and 9-3, 9-4 (or 9-5), and 9-9 to form 2Nc + 2 independent equations with
the same number of unknowns: xi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), L, zi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), F, Sw,
and Po.
Note that the above choice of primary unknowns results in the L-x
iteration. In the VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator, these primary unknowns are
chosen for a gridblock whenever the mole fraction of the liquid phase in
the gridblock, L, is less than 0.5. Otherwise, the first Nc primary unknowns
(xi and L) are replaced by yi (i = 1, Nc - 1) and V (which equals 1 - L) to
avoid ill-conditioning in the resulting Jacobian matrix. Numerically, this
can be accomplished easily by swapping xi and yi, as well as L and V in
Equations 9-6, 9-7, 9-10, and 9-11. This alternate set of primary unknowns
results in the so-called V-y iteration.
9-110 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Fully Implicit Formulation
9.3 Fully Implicit Formulation

The fully implicit formulation is based on Reference 6 found in
Appendix C. The governing hydrocarbon mass balance equations are
similar to Equations 9-1 and 9-2, except that the total hydrocarbon molar
densities (F) and the overall hydrocarbon component molar fractions (zi)
on the left side of the equations are replaced by the hydrocarbon phase
molar densities (o and g), phase saturations (So and Sg), and phase mole
fractions (xi and yi):
Fz i = ( S o o x i + S g g y i ), i = 1, ... , N c 1 (9-13)
F = ( S o o + S g g ) (9-14)
The water mass balance equation and fugacity equality equations are the
same as Equations 9-3 and 9-4 or 9-5, and zi in Equation 9-8 is replaced by
yi. With this formulation, Equation 9-6 is not needed. Finally, the
saturation constraint equation, Equation 9-9, is replaced by
1 - So - Sg - Sw = 0 (9-15)
Unknowns xNc, yNc, and So are eliminated using the two mole fraction
constraint equations and the saturation constraint equation. The
remaining primary unknowns for the simultaneous (Nc) fugacity
equations and (Nc + 1) hydrocarbon and water mass balance equations are
xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Sg, Sw, and P. Before each Newton
iteration is performed, the fugacity equality equations are used to
eliminate unknowns xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and y1, or yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and x1.
The choice of the unknowns to be eliminated depends on the relative
amounts of oil and gas phases within each gridblock. Unknowns xi and y1
are eliminated if o So < g Sg. Otherwise, yi and x1 are eliminated. See
Chapter 18 for a discussion of the numerical solution of the differential
equations and of the iteration procedures.
9.3.1 Relaxed Volume Balance Option

In the standard version of the fully implicit formulation, the unknowns
are updated using the conventional Newton back substitution procedure,
and the saturation constraint, Equation 9-9, is satisfied in every iteration.
As a result of the updating procedure, the material balances for
hydrocarbons and water are not satisfied exactly during each iteration,
and several iterations may be needed to reduce the residuals to an
acceptable level.
R2003.4 - Landmark 9-111

Fully Implicit Formulation VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The relaxed volume balance concept proposed by Coats, et al. [Reference

73], on the contrary, always keeps material balances exactly while the
saturation constraint is not satisfied. In effect, this concept amounts to
iterating out saturation constraint error (or volume balance error) rather
than mass balances. Coats, et al.'s results show that iterations and CPU
time are significantly less as compared with the standard version of the
fully implicit formulation.
Since the saturation constraint is not satisfied for the relaxed volume
balance option, the saturation error, 1-(Sw+So+Sg), must be taken into
account when the unknown variable So is eliminated during setting up
the Jacobian. This modified Jacobian and residuals are then solved by the
linear solver. To keep the material balances exactly, the unknown updating
procedure is modified. The solution vector for the primary unknowns
from the solver is used to calculate interblock flow terms and well rates
using the linearized equations. The mass of each component in the grid
block is then calculated as the mass at the previous time step plus the net
interblock flow minus the production. The composition and density of
each phase and pore volume are then calculated using the updated
pressure. Water saturation is then calculated as the mass of water present
divided by water density and pore volume. For a three-phase grid block,
the total hydrocarbon moles are flashed to obtain oil and gas
compositions, moles and densities. The oil and gas saturations are
calculated as their phase moles divided by density and pore volume. The
three saturations do not add to one and thus there is a saturation
constraint error. However, the material balance is exact for all
components.
For the relaxed volume balance option, convergence of the Newton

iteration is controlled by either the errors in saturation constraint
(TOLSCN) and well rate calculation (TOLWCN ), or the maximum change
of primary unknows over one iteration (TOLD). The TOLD criteria for
convergence are the same as the standard version of the fully implicit
formulation. The TOLSCN criterion is used to check the maximum
saturation error of all grid blocks. The saturation error is computed as 1-
(Sw+So+Sg). To ensure a good material balance, the well rate calculated
from the well model must agree with the updated well rate using the
solution from linear solver. To converge, the ratio of the difference
between these two rates to the sum of the two rates must be less than
TOLWCN.
9-112 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
10
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction
The Grid Coarsening option is a feature which enables the user to combine
adjacent grid blocks into coarser grid blocks, thereby reducing the number
of blocks used for simulation and reduce run time.
Grid coarsening data is entered with the COARSEN keyword. Detailed

information on the COARSEN Keyword can be found in the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual.
10.2 Coarse Block Properties

The properties of coarse blocks are calculated from the properties of the
constituent fine blocks using a pore volume weighed average:
( A i PV i )
i
A = --------------------------------
-
PV i
i
The following properties are exceptions:
For DX,DY,DZ,HNET a bulk volume weighted average is used, and

the result multiplied by the number of fine blocks in the appropriate
direction.
( DX i BV i )
i
DX = nx ------------------------------------
-

BV i
i
( DY i BV i )
i
DY = ny ------------------------------------
-

BV i
i
R2003.4 - Landmark 10-113

Coarse Block Properties VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
( DZ i BV i )
i
DZ = nz ------------------------------------
-
BV i
i
( HNET i BV i )
i
HNET = nz --------------------------------------------
-

BV i
i
Porosity is calculated from PV,BV,DZ and HNET as follows:
PV DZ
POR = -------- ----------------
BV HNET
When table indices ISAT,ISATI,ICMT,OILTRF ,GASTRF are different

for fine blocks within a coarse block, a WARNING message is printed on
the standard output file, and they are assigned to the indices of the fine
blocks that represent the largest pore volume within the coarse block.
Indices IEQUIL,IREGION,IPVT are not allowed to vary for fine blocks

within a coarse block. If they do, an ERROR message is printed on the
standard output file and the run will not initialize.
The half transmissibilities of the coarse block are calculated from those
of the constituent fine blocks using the tubes in series method.
---------------------------------------------
+ - 2
TX = TX =
j, k ------------- + ------------
1 1
+ -
iTX i TX i
----------------------------------------------
+ - 2
TY = TY =
i, k ------------- + ------------
1 1
+ -
j TY j TY j
----------------------------------------------
+ - 2
TZ = TZ = -
i, j -------------- + ------------
1 1
+ -
k TZ k TZ k
10-114 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Coarse Block Properties
The fine block transmissibility values will include changes applied with
the TOVER cards, but will not include changes applied with the OVER,
VOVER cards. Transmissibility values at coarse block boundaries may be
modified through the non-standard transmissibility multipliers.
Average coarse block permeabilities KX, KY and KZ that are used for
calculating well, influx and polymer properties, and for other uses by
VIP-EXEC are calculated from the average coarse block properties as
follows:
-
TX DX
KX = ------------------------ --------
2 HNET DY
-
TY DY
KY = ------------------------ --------
2 HNET DX
-
TZ DZ
KZ = ---------------- --------
2 DX DY
The face areas of the coarse block are calculated from the sum of the
face areas of the fine blocks that make a coarse block face.
R2003.4 - Landmark 10-115

Coarse Block Properties VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
10-116 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
11
11.1 Introduction
VIP can model horizontal or inclined wells which intersect the grid mesh
at oblique angles areally or in cross section.
Figure 11-1: Vertical and Horizontal Wells
This chapter provides input examples and suggestions in using the

horizontal or inclined well option and a technical description of how VIP
handles them.
A horizontal or inclined well has a larger contact area with the reservoir than
a vertical well, as illustrated in Figure 11-1. Therefore, production or
injection rate per unit well length is less than that of a vertical well for the
same specified total rate. This implies the following immediate
advantages in practice:
It can facilitate higher total flow rates with smaller draw-down.
It can reduce coning or cusping growth because of the lower fluid

velocity in the reservoir.
It can reduce sand control problems.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-117

Other consequences of a large contact area with the reservoir are:
It has a greater possibility of intersecting with more vertical fractures.
It can improve the efficiency of a steam-assisted gravity drainage.
Sweep efficiency may improve.
Added benefits of horizontal wells are:
More reservoir characterization data can be collected.
They allow drilling into many parts of a reservoir from an off-shore

platform.
They can have longer projected economic life.
Because of these potential advantages, horizontal and inclined wells have

been drilled around the world for many different types of reservoirs:
Bakken Shale (thin reservoir), Austin Chalk, Bakken Shale (naturally
fractured reservoir), Prudhoe Bay, Bima Field, Helder Field (formation
with cusping and coning), Zuidwald Field (gas reservoirs), Cold Lake, and
Mid-Continental (EOR application). However, not all reservoirs show
improved performances with horizontal wells.
11-118 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss
11.2 Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss

Horizontal or inclined wells are, in general, much longer than vertical
wells; therefore, the pressure loss in a pipe can play a more significant role.
Pressure loss Ploss, is caused by the friction force, kinetic energy change,
and hydrostatic gradients, as illustrated in Figure 11-2.
V2
pk
pf
ph
V1
Flow Direction
Figure 11-2: A Well Segment
P loss = P f + P k + P h (11-1)
where
2
1 fLv
p f = --------- --------------- (11-2)
144 2g c D
1 1 2
p k = --------- --- ( v ) (11-3)
144 2
1
P h = --------- g c Z (11-4)
144
where f is the Moody friction factor, is fluid mass density in lb/ft3, v is
fluid velocity in ft/s, gc is gravity acceleration in ft/s2; Z is perforation
depth difference in ft, and L is well perforation length in ft.
The Fanning friction factor depends on Reynolds number, Re:
vD
R e = ----------- (11-5)

R2003.4 - Landmark 11-119

Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where is the viscosity of fluid in lb-s/ft2. The friction factor for a single-
phase flow, i.e., in gas or water injectors, is computed by using a pipe flow
equation for a single phase. For flow with Re < 2000, it is expressed by:
64
f = ------ (11-6)
Re
Beyond Re = 4000, Haalands correlation is used:
( 10 9 )
1 6.9 e
------- = 1.8 log ------- + ------------ (11-7)
f R e 3.7D
where e is the absolute roughness of the wellbore in feet and can represent
the effect of turbulence created by inflow through perforations. Flow is in
the critical zone from Re = 2000 to 4000. In this zone, the weighted average
friction factor from Equations 11-6 and 11-7 is used.
In general, producing wells have multiphase flow, but Equations 11-6 and
11-7 also may be used where a uniform mixture and no slipping among
phases are assumed. Beattie and Whalley7 examined experimental data of
multiphase flow friction loss and concluded that Equation 11-7 gave better
matches in all of the ranges of Reynolds number by defining the effective
density and viscosity as
S S
1 = ----g- + -----L- (11-8)
g L
= L ( 1 ) ( 1 + 2.5 ) + g (11-9)
where
L Sg
= -----------------------------
- (11-10)
L Sg + g S L
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses Equation 11-7 with Equations 11-8, 11-9, and 11-10
for producers as a default, while injectors use Equations 11-6 and 11-7.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has another option in computing the friction factor for

producers; i.e., the Beggs and Brill correlation.8 This correlation includes
the effect of flow-type changes because of the slope of the pipe. These are
changes such as stratified flow, slug flow, misty flow, etc., as shown in
Figure 11-3. The Beggs and Brill correlation applies only to producers.
It can be activated by a card BEGGS ON s, where s is the value of liquid

surface tension. A description of this correlation is available in Reference 8
in Appendix D. The above pipe flow equations do not account for the
turbulence caused by flow through perforations. Therefore, pipe
11-120 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss
roughness may need to be adjusted to get a proper friction loss if field data
or sound experimental data are available.
SEGREGATED FLOW
(Stratified or Wavy)
INTERMITTENT FLOW
(Plug or Slug)
DISTRIBUTED FLOW
(Bubble or Mist)
Figure 11-3: Pipe Flow Types
The kinetic energy loss, Pk, is due to the velocity change along the well.
The flow velocity changes because of pipe diameter changes and influx
through perforations. The flux through perforations is assumed to enter a
pipe with zero longitudinal velocity, then be pushed to the pipe flow
velocity in a pipe segment. However, in most cases the kinetic energy loss
is much smaller than the friction pressure loss in well pipe flow.
On the other hand, pressure loss due to gravity can be significant if a well
is inclined. Therefore, the perforation depth should be computed
accurately and specified in VIP-EXECUTIVE input data.
The total pressure loss in a pipe segment is computed using Equations 11-
2, 11-3, and 11-4 for each perforation segment, then is added to the well
pressure in cases of producers.
P w ( i ) = P w ( i 1 ) + P loss ( i ) (11-11)
where Pw(i) is the well pressure of the ith perforation of a well. For
injectors, pressure loss is subtracted from well pressure.
VIP-EXECUTIVE treats these pressure loss terms explicitly, and the

wellbore fluid gradient is computed using material balance equations.
Furthermore, the gradients computation is done only at the first inner
iteration. (Refer to Section 39.6 for information on wellbore gradient
calculations.)
Total well production can be computed from Equation 11-12 for an oil
producer, for example:
L
k ro, i
Q o = 0.001127 W I i K i H i ------------------- [ P grid, i P w, i ] (11-12)
B o, i o, i
i=1
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-121

Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where the summation is performed over perforations and subscript i

indicates the perforation number. Here, WI is the well index; KH is the
permeability-thickness of the gridblock; kro and o are oil relative
permeability and viscosity, respectively; Bo is the oil formation volume
factor; and Pgrid is gridblock pressure. In the next section, we discuss how
VIP-EXECUTIVE computes permeability-thickness KH and well index WI
for horizontal or inclined wells.
11-122 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index
11.3 Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and

Well Index
The permeability-thickness for an inclined well is computed by
transforming an original anisotropic diffusion equation into an equivalent
isotropic equation. The equivalent isotropic equation is not discussed
here, however, details are available in Muskat.10 The equivalent isotropic
permeability ke is defined by
1
---
3
ke = (k xk ykz) (11-13)
where kx, ky, and kz are rock permeabilities in x, y, and z directions,

respectively. VIP-EXECUTIVE extends the theory to computation of a
perforation length inclined arbitrarily in space. Projected perforation
lengths Lx, Ly, and Lz onto each coordinate axis are transformed, then
perforation length Lp in the transformed plane is represented by the
following:
2 2 2
Lp = L x + L y + Lz (11-14)
where Lx, Ly , and Lz are x, y, and z components, respectively. These, in

turn, are transformed into the isotropic medium:
k
L x = l ----e- sin cos (11-15)
kx
k
L y = l ----e- sin sin (11-16)
ky
k
L z = l ----e cos (11-17)
kz
where l is the physical well perforation length, is the angle of the well
segment with respect to vertical direction, and is the angle with respect
to the x-axis as shown in Figure 11-4.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-123

Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Lx
Ly
Lz
x

l
Figure 11-4: Inclined Well Segment
Thus, the permeability-thickness for a well segment is expressed by keLp

using Equations 11-13 and 11-14. Note that keLp = l(kxkz)0.5 if a well is
parallel to the y-axis.
Well index WI is defined by
2
WI = ------------------------- (11-18)
rb
ln ----- + s
r w
where rb is the equivalent radius, rw is the well radius, and s is the skin
factor. In computing rb, an analogy to Peacemans equation9 for a vertical
well is adopted. However, the equivalent radius and well radius are
obtained in the transformed plane similarly to the permeability-thickness.
Peacemans equivalent radius for a well parallel to the y-axis is expressed
as
12 2 12 2
( k z k x ) x + ( k x k z ) z
R by = 0.14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 14
- (11-19)
0.5 [ ( k z k x ) + (k x kz) ]
where notation Rby indicates a well parallel to the y-axis. The numerator
can be simplified using properties in the transformed isotropic medium.
Transferring the denominator of Equation 11-19 to Rwy , the following can
be concluded.
k ey k ey
R ey = 0.14 ------- x + ------- z
2 2
(11-20)
kx kz
11-124 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index
1
where: --- (11-21)
2
k ey = ( k x k z )
where (key/kx)0.5 x and (key/kz)0.5 z are gridblock lengths in the

transformed plane and the equivalent isotropic permeabilities are equal
(kx = kz= key). If a well is parallel to x, or z direction, the same principle
can be applied to get the following:
k ex k ex
R ex = 0.14 ------- y + ------- z
2 2
(11-22)
ky kz
1
where, --- (11-23)
2
k ex = ( k y k z )
k ez k ez
R ez = 0.14 ------- x + ------- y
2 2
(11-24)
kx ky
1
where, --- (11-25)
2
k ez = ( k x k y )
For an arbitrarily inclined well, i.e., for any (,) in Figure 11-4, VIP-
EXECUTIVE approximates the equivalent radius as follows.
2 2 2
R be = r ex + r ey + r ez (11-26)
where
rex = Rex sin cos

rey = Rey sin sin
rez = Rez cos (11-27)
Note that Equation 11-26 yields Equations 11-20, 11-22, and 11-24 as
special cases and any equivalent radii in Equation 11-26 stay in an
ellipsoid created by them.
The wellbore radius in the transformed plane is expressed in a similar

manner. For example, a horizontal well that is parallel to the y-axis is
approximated by
Rw
R wy = ------ ( k ey k x + k ey k z ) (11-28)
2
where Rw is the true pipe radius and Rw(key/kx)0.5 and Rw(key/kz)0.5 are the
well radii in major and minor axes. Similarly,
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-125

Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Rw
R wx = ------ ( k ex k y + k ex k z ) (11-29)
2
Rw
R wz = ------ ( k ez k x + k ez k y )
2
For arbitrary values of (,), the transformed well bore radius is
approximated by
2 2 2
R we = r wx + r wy + r wz (11-30)
where
rwx = Rwx sin cos

rwy = Rwy sin sin
rwz = Rwz cos (11-31)
Combining Equations 11-23 and 11-27 we obtain the generalized

Peacemans equivalent block radius for an inclined well from
R be
R b = --------- R w (11-32)
R we
The permeability-thickness and the well index computed using Equations

11-13 through 11-32 are implemented in VIP; but users can override them
if correct values are known. Radius Rwe also forms an ellipsoid for
arbitrary angles (,), as shown in Figure 11-5..
y
Rwy
x
Rwx
Rwz
z
Figure 11-5: Ellipsoid
The equivalent radius as computed above may not always be accurate

because of the assumptions on which Peacemans equation is based.
Therefore, calibrate the perforation WIs in proportion to the computed
values in such a way that WI from a well test or production data is
honored.
11-126 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Required Input
11.4 Required Input

Figure 11-6 shows an example of a well in a cross-sectional model and the
corresponding input data. This well is a producer, and the well bends
from nearly vertical to horizontal position. Required input to compute the
friction, kinetic and gravity pressure losses are the geometry of the well
(LENGTH, DIAM or RADW, PWDEP, ANGLV, ANGLA), and pipe
roughness (ROUGH) under the FPERF card.
FPERF
WELL L IW JW LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
2 1 3 1 118 4450 0.25 0.00001 10 0.

X 2 3 1 120 4490 0.25 0.00001 10 0.
X 3 3 1 50 4560 0.25 0.00001 12 0.
X 4 3 1 45 4577 0.15 0.00001 45 0.
X 4 4 1 90 4600 0.15 0.00001 45 0.
X 4 5 1 70 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 6 1 150 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 7 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 8 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
Figure 11-6: A Production Well Example Input
Definitions of the keywords are as follows:
LENGTH Length of well segment in a segment in a well grid

block in ft.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-127

Required Input VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
PWDEP Depth at the center of the well segment in ft. This is

an optional input. If it is not entered, depth will be
computed using LENGTH and ANGLV.
DIAM Well diameter of the segment in ft. Alternatively

radius RADW may be used.
ROUGH Absolute roughness of the well pipe in ft.
ANGLV Angle of the well with respect to the vertical

direction in degrees ( in Figure 11-4).
ANGLA Angle of the well in areal plane with respect to the

x-axis in degrees ( in Figure 11-4).
11-128 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Conventions That Users Must Follow
11.5 Conventions That Users Must Follow

There are important conventions that users must follow:
The perforations must be ordered on the FPERF card starting with the
perforation closest to the well head and ending with the farthest
perforation.
ANGLV() and ANGLA() are illustrated in Figure 11-7 where a

segment of a well in a grid block is shown.
Figure 11-7: Inclined Well Segment
Furthermore ANGLV values must follow the convention shown in

Figure 11-8. This is necessary for proper computation of friction
coefficients by Beggs and Brill. The angle is measured by drawing an
arc from the tail of the segment to the +z axis as shown in Figure 11-
8.
Horizontal or inclined wells require at least LENGTH, DIAM (or

RADW), ROUGH, ANGLV and ANGLA under the FPERF card.
Otherwise VIP will abort the simulation.
When there are other vertical wells, users should repeat the FPERF
card as shown in Figure 11-9.
In general, the friction and kinetic pressure losses are small, but the
hydrostatic pressure loss can be significant in an inclined well. If the
well block depth changes significantly, users should input accurate
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-129

Conventions That Users Must Follow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
values of pipe segment depths in PWDEP rather than letting the

simulator compute them. VIP computes, as a default, the pipe segment
depth using LENGTH and ANGLV starting from the grid block center
of the first perforated grid block in FPERF card. If the first perforated
well segment does not start at the center, VIP would be using depths of
well segments.
Figure 11-8: ANGLV, , in various situations
11-130 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Conventions That Users Must Follow
FPERF ! vertical well

WELL L IW JW
1 2 4 1
X 3 4 1
FPERF
WELL L IW JW LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA SKIN
2 1 3 1 118 4450 0.25 0.00001 5 40. 5

X 2 3 1 120 4490 0.25 0.00001 7 40. 5
X 3 3 1 50 4560 0.25 0.00001 10 40. 2
X 4 3 1 45 4577 0.15 0.00001 20 40. 3
X 4 4 1 90 4600 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 4
X 4 5 1 70 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 2
X 4 6 1 150 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 5
X 4 7 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 6
X 4 8 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 10
FPERF
WELL L IW JW K LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
3 1 3 1 0.128 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0

X 2 3 1 0.119 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 3 3 1 0.671 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 4 3 1 0.510 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
4 5 1 1 0.412 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 5 2 1 0.266 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
BEGGS ON 0.0012
Figure 11-9: Example of Multiple Well Input
Friction pressure loss is computed by two methods. Injectors use the

Haalands correlation. Producers use the same Haalands correlation
as a default, but can be computed using the Beggs and Brill
correlation. An example of required input for this correlation is shown
in Figure 11-9 and uses the format:
BEGGS ON
where is the value of liquid surface tension in dyne/cm. The Beggs

and Brill method takes into account various flow regimes depending
on the angle (ANGLV) and it is often considered more accurate than
other correlations for multiphase flow in an inclined pipe. However,
be aware that all correlations have a range of applicable conditions
which are only rough estimates.
The Beggs and Brill correlation can be turned off by deleting the
keywords or using the keyword entry:
BEGGS OFF
where is the value of liquid surface tension in dyne/cm.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-131

Conventions That Users Must Follow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
If you want to disregard the friction and kinetic pressure losses from
the computation,add the keyword:
NOFRICTION
Do not use DTOP or DBOT, the top and bottom perforation depths,
since they are meaningless in horizontal/inclined wells.
Do not use the RFLOW card since horizontal/inclined wells require

perforation-dependent values.
Friction loss is computed only for the perforated intervals that appear
in the FPERF card. Therefore any pressure loss between the wellhead
and the first perforation must be modeled using hydraulic tables.
The well index and permeability-thickness for an inclined well are

computed by transforming an original anisotropic diffusion equation
into an equivalent isotropic equation as discussed in Section 11.5. If
users know these values through field data such as well tests or other
production data, it is suggested you distribute the field values in
proportion to the simulator-computed KH or WI. In the case of vertical
wells, the areal permeabilities KX and KY are multiplied by DZNET/
DZ. It is less clear what should be done for inclined or horizontal
wells, but the same multiplication is performed on KX and KY.
11-132 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Examples
11.6 Examples
Consider an inclined well that is perforated in two layers which are
separated by a layer of grid blocks as shown in Figure 11-10. The portion
of the well which is not perforated still has the friction of gravity pressure
loss. Therefore users are required to provide input for the entire portion of
the well and set STAT to OFF as shown in Figure 11-10.
FPERF
WELL L IW JW STAT LENGTH DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
1 1 1 1 ON 50 0.25 1.E-4 35 0.
X 2 1 1 OFF 25 0.25 1.E-4 50 0.
X 2 2 1 OFF 60 0.25 1.E-4 70 0.
X 3 3 1 OFF 52 0.25 1.E-4 85 0.
X 3 4 1 ON 70 0.25 1.E-4 60 0.
Figure 11-10: Well With Noncontiguous Perforations and Sample VIP Input
Consider another example consisting of 35x33x18 grids. The reservoir is

dipping in the x direction by 2 degrees. There are two wells inclined in the
y direction, and they penetrate layers 15, 16, 17, and 18. The dipping
angles of the two wells are approximately 2.02 degrees. Plane and cross-
sectional views of this reservoir are shown in Figure 11-11.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-133

Examples VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Figure 11-11: Areal and Cross Sections of the Model
The inclined wells are assumed to be straight in this example and both
ends of the wells are also assumed to be located at the center of the grids.
The well section lengths are computed based on these assumptions. The
portion of the reservoir that has a well is shown in Figure 11-12 with the
section length in each grid. Since both wells run in parallel, only one cross
section is shown.
11-134 Landmark - R2003.4

Block index Well length Block index Well length

j(y) k(z) L(ft) j(y) k(z) L(ft)
9 15 25.02 18 17 50.03
10 15 50.03 19 17 50.03
11 15 50.03 20 17 50.03
12 15 16.66 21 17 50.03
12 16 33.81 22 17 50.03
13 16 50.03 23 17 33.81
14 16 50.03 23 18 16.67
15 16 50.03 24 18 50.03
16 16 50.03 25 18 50.03
17 16 50.03 26 18 25.02
Figure 11-12: Block Number and Well Section Length
FPERF
WELL IW JW L LENGTH DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
C FT FT FT DEG DEG
7 14 9 15 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 10 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 11 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 12 15 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
7 14 12 16 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 13 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90
7 14 14 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 15 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 16 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 17 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
7 14 18 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 19 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 20 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 21 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 22 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-135

7 14 23 17 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.

C
7 14 23 18 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 24 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 25 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 26 18 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 9 15 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 10 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 11 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 12 15 6.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 12 16 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 13 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 14 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 15 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 16 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 17 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 18 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 19 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 20 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 21 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 22 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 23 17 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 23 18 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 24 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 25 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 26 18 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
11-136 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Available Output
11.7 Available Output

The first output related to this option is an echo report containing the
FPERF input data with the computed well indices and perforation depths.
Also available is the well layer summary that lists production rate in each
layer, well grid block pressures, and perforation pressures. This is
activated by the keyword:
PRINT WLLYR
This is useful as it indicates how much production each well segment

produces.
The PLOT files also have arrays for this option:
PLOS friction and kinematic pressure loss in each

perforation segment
PWDP perforation depths (PWDEP)
PLEN perforation segment length (LENGTH)
PANV angle with respect to the vertical axis (=ANFLV)
PANA angle with respect to the x-axis (+ANGLA)
All these arrays have dimensions of (number of well) * (number of

perforations).
R2003.4 - Landmark 11-137

Available Output VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
11-138 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
12
12.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides special features for the simulation of the
detailed performance of a single hydraulically fractured well. The fracture
is assumed to be a vertical fracture, and the simulation involves modelling
only one-fourth of the fracture and one-fourth of the drainage area of the
well, as shown in Figure 12-1. Flow within the packed fracture is
controlled by two major components: fracture closure and non-Darcy flow.
The type and concentration of proppant may be varied for each fracture
gridblock.
Figure 12-1: Areal View of Vertically Fractured Well Centered in a Rectangular

Drainage Area
R2003.4 - Landmark 12-139

Modelling Considerations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
12.2 Modelling Considerations

By symmetry, only one fourth of the drainage area of the well is modelled.
Figure 12-2 shows the areal plane of the finite difference grid used in
simulating the one-fourth symmetric element. The fracture is modelled as
the first X-Z cross-section of the grid at Y = 1, as shown in Figure 11-3.
Normally a finer grid definition is used near the fracture in the Y-direction
and near the well in the X-direction for better flow regime description.
12-140 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Modelling Considerations
Figure 12-2: Areal Finite-difference Grid of One Quadrant of the Drainage

Area.
Figure 12-3: Vertical Cross-section of the Hydraulic Fracture (at Y=1).
R2003.4 - Landmark 12-141

Fracture Closure VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
12.3 Fracture Closure

The effects of fracture closure can be simulated with the compaction table
options described in Section 4.1 of the VIP-CORE Reference Manual.
Several tables can be used to account for variations due to proppant type
and concentration. Each fracture gridblock may have its own table, if
necessary. The half-fracture widths and permeabilities are assumed to be
input consistent with the pressure in the compaction table at which the
pore volume and transmissibility multipliers are equal to 1. For example,
if the table describes the variation from the treating pressure, then the
input values for half-fracture width and permeability at the gridblock
should also be at the treating pressure.
Cooke70 presented experimental results on the effects of closure stress,

fluids, and temperature on the permeability of several different proppants.
The following example is Cookes figure 3 for 10-20 mesh sand.
12-142 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Non-Darcy Flow
12.4 Non-Darcy Flow

The generalized equation for flow through a porous media can be
represented by the following equation suggested by Forchheimer71.
P 2
------- = ------ + (12-1)
L kD
If the constant or the velocity approaches zero, then the second term
goes to zero and the remaining expression is equal to Darcys law. Cornell
and Katz72 reformulated the above equation as follows:
P 2
------- = ------ + (12-2)
L kD
where the constant is replaced by the product of the fluid density and
the turbulence factor, which is a function of the porous media. This can
be rewritten as follows:
P k D
------- = ------ 1 + ----------------
- (12-3)
L kD
Rearranging the terms to a more familiar flow equation form yields
kD P
= ----------------------------------- -------
k D L
1 + ---------------- -
(12-4)
kD P
= ------ F ND -------
L
where FND is a non-Darcy factor defined as:
1
F ND = --------------------------
k D (12-5)
1 + ---------------- -

Expressed in normal U.S. oilfield units,
1
F ND = -------------------------------------------------------------- (12-6)
9 k D
1 + 5.6555 10 -----------------

Based on his experimental results, Cooke70 proposed the following

equation:
R2003.4 - Landmark 12-143

Iterative Procedure VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
b
= -----a- (12-7)
kD
where kD is the effective permeability at a particular level of stress and a

and b are constants which are a function of the proppant type. These are
shown graphically in Cookes figure 13 and in tabular form in his table 2,
which is shown in Table 12-1 below.
Table 12-1: Constants for Turbulence Factor Calculations ( = b/ka)
Sand Size a b
8-12 1.24 3.32
10-20 1.34 2.63
20-40 1.54 2.65
40-60 1.60 1.10
12.5 Iterative Procedure

Since the non-Darcy factor, FND, for each fracture gridblock interface is
also a function of flow velocity, it must be iteratively computed at each
outer iteration of each timestep. The following procedure is used:
1. Calculate the flow velocities using the last iterate values, including the
effects of fracture closure stress.
2. Recalculate the FNDs using the new velocities.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each flow face along the fracture until a
minimum relative FND change is achieved.
12.6 Other Considerations

The non-Darcy flow option in the well calculations should be used in
order to get the correct pressure drop from the first fracture block into the
wellbore.
The initial timesteps will most likely take a few more outer iterations to
achieve convergence, due to the possibly large changes in the initial flow
velocities. The initial timestep size should be quite small, similar to that
which would be used for a single-well radial grid simulation.
12-144 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
13
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction
The hysteresis options allow the use of relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures that are a function of both phase saturation and the
history of the phase saturation. The option is useful for the rigorous
simulation of fluid flow in reservoirs where the saturation of a fluid phase
within a gridblock does not change monotonically.
Gas-phase relative permeability hysteresis is limited to the gas-phase

relative permeability function (krg). Oil-phase relative permeability
hysteresis is limited to the oil relative permeability function in a water-oil
system (krow). Four options are available to specify gas and oil phase
hysteresis: Carlsons method,11 linear interpolation, scaling of the
drainage function, and user-entered imbibition-drainage functions.
The capillary pressure hysteresis option follows the model proposed by

Killough,12 allowing an additional level of scanning curves as each
saturation reversal occurs in the reservoir model. The user must enter both
bounding drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves, along with a
secondary drainage capillary pressure curve.
Water-oil and gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis may be specified

independently and do not depend on selection of the relative permeability
hysteresis option.
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-145

Relative Permeability Hysteresis VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
13.2 Relative Permeability Hysteresis

Relative permeability hysteresis is the effect caused by a situation in which
the nonwetting phase fluid saturation increases, followed by an increase
in the wetting phase fluid saturation. In such a situation in modelling
reservoir fluid flow, the imbibition-drainage relative permeability is a
function of the historical maximum nonwetting phase saturation.
Figure 13-1 is a set of drainage and imbibition-drainage curves, where krnD

is the user-specified drainage curve, krnID is the bounding imbibition-
drainage curve, and krnID is a generated intermediate imbibition-drainage
curve. The end points of the bounding imbibition-drainage curve are Snu
and Sntr.
As nonwetting phase saturation increases initially, the drainage relative

permeability curve, krnD, is used. If nonwetting phase saturation
monotonically increases, the drainage curve is followed to the end point at
Snu. If nonwetting phase saturation then decreases, the bounding
imbibition-drainage curve, krnID, is used for gas relative permeability.
However, if while following the drainage curve, gas saturation decreases
before Snu is reached, then an intermediate imbibition-drainage curve,
krnID, is followed.
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
kID
rn
Snr XSNR Snhmx Sntr Snu
Sn
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves for Hysteresis
The end points of a typical intermediate imbibition-drainage curve are the

historical maximum nonwetting phase saturation, Snhmx, and the
corresponding trapped nonwetting phase saturation, XSNR.
13-146 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Relative Permeability Hysteresis
13.2.1 Description of the Options

Four options are available to specify gas and oil phase hysteresis:
Carlsons method,11 linear interpolation, scaling of the drainage function,
and user-entered imbibition functions.
Carlsons Method
Carlsons method allows all intermediate imbibition-drainage curves to be

parallel to the bounding imbibition-drainage curve.
The historical maximum nonwetting saturation, Snhmx, is tracked for each

gridblock. If the nonwetting phase saturation equals or exceeds Snhmx, the
drainage curve applies and no special hysteresis calculation is needed. On
the other hand, intermediate drainage-imbibition curves are employed if
the nonwetting saturation in a gridblock falls below Snhmx. The trapped
nonwetting phase saturation for each gridblock is calculated from Snhmx
by using Lands formula.13 There are two options; one using the original
Land formula and one using a modified formula.
Using the original Lands formula:
S nhmx
XSNR = --------------------------
- (13-1)
1 + CS nhmx
where Lands constant, C, is given by
S nu S ntr
C = ----------------------
- (13-2)
S nu S ntr
Using the modified Lands formula:
S nhmx S nr
XSNR = S nr + ---------------------------------------------
- (13-3)
1 + C ( S nhmx S nr )
where Lands constant, C, is given by:
S nu S ntr
C = -----------------------------------------------------
- (13-4)
( S nu S nr ) ( S ntr S nr )
Snu is the maximum possible nonwetting saturation for the gridblock. For
oil relative permeability hysteresis, Snu = 1 - connate water saturation. Snr
is the critical nonwetting phase saturation for the drainage curve.
Carlsons approach assumes that the imbibition-drainage relative

permeability is equal to the primary drainage non-wetting phase relative
permeability evaluated at the free nonwetting phase saturation:
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-147

ID D
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S npd ) (13-5)
where the free non-wetting phase saturation is defined as
2 4X sn
S npd = S nr + 0.5 X sn + X sn + ----------- (13-6)
C
and
X sn S n XSNR (13-7)
Carlsons method may result in large derivatives of relative permeability

with respect to saturation change near end-point krn(XSNR) = 0. These
derivatives may cause convergence problems when using the implicit
formulation.
Linear Interpolation
An alternate method is included to linearize the imbibition-drainage

relative permeability curve between krnD(Snhmx) and krnID(XSNR) = 0.
Instead of using Equations 13-5, 13-6, and 13-7, krnID is calculated as
follows:
D
ID ( S n XSNR )k rn ( S nhmx )
k rn ( S n ) = ---------------------------------------------------------
- (13-8)
( S nhmx XSNR )
Scaling of Drainage Curve
An additional option is included to allow the imbibition-drainage curve to

be determined by the shape of the drainage curve. The drainage curve can
be scaled appropriately from the range (Snr , Snhmx) to the range (XSNR,
Snhmx) as follows:
ID D *
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n ) (13-9)
where
* S n XSNR
S n = S nr + ----------------------------------- ( S nhmx S nr ) (13-10)
S nhmx XSNR
13-148 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Relative Permeability Hysteresis
User-Entered Bounding Imbibition-Drainage Curve
An additional option is included to allow the user to directly enter the

bounding imbibition-drainage curve, krnID, along with the bounding
drainage curve, krnD.
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
Sn
kID
rn l
Snr XSNR Snhmx Sntr SnID Snu
Sn
Figure 13-2: User-Defined Nonwetting Phase Imbibition-Drainage Curve
Following Carlson, the intermediate imbibition-drainage curve, krnID,

corresponding to Snhmx should be parallel to the bounding imbibition-
drainage curve. Given this reversal saturation, the distance between the
curves can be expressed as:
ID
S n = S n S nhmx (13-11)
where
ID ID D
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S nhmx ) (13-12)
The value of SnID is determined by reverse table look-up from the user-
specified bounding imbibition-drainage curve. SnID is the saturation
where the bounding imbibition-drainage curve has relative permeability
equal to the drainage relative permeability at the reversal saturation,
Snhmx. Therefore, the relative permeability for any saturation on the
scanning curve can be found from the bounding curve by:
ID ID
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n + S n ) (13-13)
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-149

13.2.2 Input Data Requirements

The following input data may be used for the oil and gas phase relative
permeability hysteresis option in VIP-CORE:
Utility Data
RPHYSO Card oil phase relative permeability hysteresis method

option
RPHYSG Card gas phase relative permeability hysteresis method

option
Tabular Data
SWT Card (modified)
SGT Card (modified)
Grid Array Data
ISAT Card modified the definition of ISAT
ISATI Card saturation tables for hysteresis option only
The RPHYSO and RPHYSG data cards define the specific method of
hysteresis to be used for the oil or gas phase, respectively. If either card is
entered without a method specified, the default method is LINEAR. If
either the RPHYSO or RPHYSG data card is entered, then the user must
also supply additional saturation function data, depending upon which
method is being used. For user-specified imbibition curves, the ISAT
array continues to refer to the drainage saturation functions. An
additional required array, ISATI, refers to the saturation functions to be
used for the imbibition functions. Otherwise, for either CARLSON,
LINEAR, or DRAINAGE, the SGTR keyword for gas phase hysteresis
and the SOTR keyword for oil phase hysteresis must be included in the
drainage table referred to by ISAT.
13-150 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Capillary Pressure Hysteresis
13.3 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis

The capillary pressure hysteresis of a water-oil system is shown in
Figure 13-3 with the following three bounding curves:
the primary drainage curve
the pendular imbibition curve
the secondary drainage curve.
These three curves are obtained when displacement is carried out

completely to connate saturation during either the drainage or imbibition
process.
Killough12 provides a method of interpolation between the secondary

bounding drainage curve, c, and the bounding imbibition curve, b, using
scanning curves. The end points of the scanning curves are the phase
saturation at the point of reversal and the appropriate residual saturation.
Figure 13-3 also illustrates intermediate scanning curves corresponding to
saturation reversal during a secondary drainage process.
Pc Scanning Curves
b c
Snc
Swl Sw
Figure 13-3: Water-Oil Capillary Pressure Bounding and Scanning Curves
If the drainage process is reversed before the wetting phase saturation

reaches the end point, Swl, the capillary pressure follows a curve of type(d)
as shown in Figure 13-4. Similarly, if the imbibition process is reversed
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-151

Capillary Pressure Hysteresis VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
before the nonwetting phase saturation reaches the end point, Snc, then the
capillary pressure follows a curve of type(e) as shown in Figure 13-4. The
behavior described here is valid only when the system previously
experienced a complete drainage displacement. In such a case, all
subsequent drainage cycles follow the secondary drainage curve, type(c),
as shown in Figures 13-3 and 13-4.
Killough provides the following equations for scanning capillary pressure

curves as shown in Figure 13-4.
Pc A

e
b c
d

B
Snc
Swl SwA SwB Swmax

Sw
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage
For curve type(d):
d c c b
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-14)
where
1 1
--------------------------
- ---
Sw Sw +
A
F ( S w ) = ------------------------------------------ (13-15)
1 1
-------------------------------- ---
S +
max A
S w w
13-152 Landmark - R2003.4

Similarly, for curve type(e):

e b c b
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-16)
where
1 1
--------------------------
- ---
Sw Sw +
B
F ( S w ) = -------------------------------------- (13-17)
1 1
- ---
----------------------------
S S +
B
w wl
In the above equations, is a parameter affecting the shape of the scanning

curves, with a recommended value between 0.05 and 0.1.
The problem of saturation reversal during the primary drainage process

requires a different treatment. In this case, rather than follow a scanning
curve back to the residual nonwetting phase saturation, Snc, a new value
*
of residual nonwetting phase saturation, S nc , is determined. The value of
*
S nc depends on the maximum nonwetting phase saturation, S nA . Figure 13-
5 demonstrates this process, as described by Aziz and Settari.14
Pc A
Snc
Snc*
Swl 1- SnA 1-Snc 1-Snc*

Sw
Figure 13-5: Water Saturation Reversal During a Primary Drainage
*
The value of S nc is given by the following equation:
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-153

A
* Sn
S nc = ---------------------------------------------------
- (13-18)
1 1 A
1 + ------- ---------------- S n
S nc 1 S wl
The equations given above for curves (d) and (e) are used for this case too;
however, the bounding curves are normalized so that they cover the
interval (Swl, 1-Snc*) rather than (Swl , 1-Snc).
Another situation occurs if a scanning imbibition process that begins at S wA

(Figure 11-6) experiences a second reversal. In such a situation, a new
drainage scanning curve (f) is created that intersects the first scanning
curve at reversal saturation S *w and reaches the bounding drainage curve
at starting point S wA . The new imbibition-to-drainage scanning curve at the
second reversal saturation, S *w , has the equation:
* b * * * c * b *
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-19)
where
1 1
--------------------------- ---
Sw Sw +
c *
* *
F ( S w ) = ------------------------------------- (13-20)
1 1
--------------------------- ---
S S +
c A
w w
13-154 Landmark - R2003.4

Pc A

d f
b c

C
Snc
Swl SwA Sw* Swc

Sw
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal
Quantity S cw is the unknown and can be determined by setting the

equations for the two scanning curves, Equations 13-14 and 13-19, equal to
one another at reversal point S *w .
Once S cw is known, Equation 13-19 is used to calculate the capillary

pressure at any saturation value along the new scanning curve, as long as
water saturation continues to decrease. A similar technique is used to
determine capillary pressure when the original capillary pressure lies on
the bounding imbibition curve. This procedure is followed to generate the
scanning curves corresponding to subsequent saturation reversals.
Analysis of the gas-oil system is analogous to the water-oil system and is

not presented here.
R2003.4 - Landmark 13-155


The following additional input data are required for the capillary pressure
hysteresis option in VIP-CORE:
Utility Data
PCHYSW Card water-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option
PCHYSG Card gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option
Tabular Data
SWT Card (modified to include water-oil capillary pressure for a

secondary drainage process).
SGT Card (modified to include gas-oil capillary pressure for a

secondary drainage process)
Grid Array Data
ISAT Card modified the definition of ISAT
ISATI Card saturation tables for hysteresis option only.
The capillary pressure hysteresis option requires additional data only in

VIP-CORE. The user must enter the PCHYSW data card to activate the
water-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option. The PCHYSG data card is
entered to activate the gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option. These
two data cards contain control parameters for the scanning curve shape
parameter, the maximum allowed level of scanning curves, the tolerance
for defining saturation reversals, the maximum or minimum saturation
value for which hysteresis will be allowed, and the selection of initializing
on imbibition curves.
If either the PCHYSW or the PCHYSG data card is entered, the user must
also supply additional saturation function data. The ISAT array continues
to refer to the drainage saturation functions. The table indicated by ISAT
must be modified to include the secondary capillary pressure drainage
curve, curve (c) in Figure 13-3, in addition to the primary drainage curve.
An additional required array, ISATI, refers to the saturation functions for
use for imbibition.
13-156 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction
When the IMPES option is chosen, the size of the timestep is limited by
stability considerations. In this chapter, we derive the maximum stable
timestep, first for the cases of two- and three-phase immiscible flow, and
then for the case of two-phase compositional flow.
In order to perform a stability analysis, various simplifying assumptions

must be made. Experience has shown that the stability limits so derived
are still useful, even when the simplifying assumptions do not hold.
The methodology for analyzing stability of the nonlinear partial difference

equations here is that used by Peaceman61.
14.2 Three-Phase Immiscible Flow
14.2.1 Differential Equations

For immiscible flow, if we ignore gravity, Equations 8-1 and 8-3 become
( o S o ) kk ro o
---------------------- = ---------------- P o + q o (14-1)
t o
( g S g ) kk rg g
---------------------- = ---------------- P g + q g (14-2)
t g
( B w S w ) kk rw B w
------------------------ = ------------------ P w + q w (14-3)
t w
Assume one-dimensional flow and focus on a region not containing any

wells. Also, assume constant density and zero capillary pressure. Define
the phase mobilities as
k ro k rg k rw
M o = ------
- , M g = ------
- , M w = -------
- (14-4)
o g w
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-157

Three-Phase Immiscible Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Then Equations 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3 become
( S o ) P
---------------- = kM o ------ (14-5)
t x x
( S g ) P
---------------- = kM g ------ (14-6)
t x x
( S w ) P
----------------- = kM w ------ (14-7)
t x x
14.2.2 IMPES Difference Equations

Assume flow from left to right. Then the IMPES difference analogues of
Equations , 14-6, and 14-7 with upstream weighting of mobilities are
PV j ( SO nj + 1 SO nj )
------------------------------------------------- = T X j 1 2 MO nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MO nj ( P j P j + 1 ) (14-8)
t
PV j ( SG nj + 1 SG nj )
------------------------------------------------- = T X j 1 2 MG nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MG nj ( P j P j + 1 ) (14-9)
t
PV j ( SW nj + 1 SW nj )
---------------------------------------------------- = T X j 1 2 MW nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MW nj ( P j P j + 1 ) (14-10)
t
The subscript j is the block index, while the superscript refers to the
timestep. The acronym IMPES means implicit pressure and explicit
saturation. That means that the mobilities are evaluated from saturations
at the old timestep level, and the saturations at the new time level,
n + 1, can then be calculated explicitly.
14.2.3 Total Throughput

Upon adding the three equations, 14-8, 14-9, and 14-10, and noting that
SO + SG + SW = 1, we obtain
T X j 1 2 MT nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MT nj ( P j P j + 1 ) = 0 (14-11)
where MT is the total mobility defined by
MT nj = MO nj + MG nj + MW nj
From Equation 14-11 it follows that VT, defined by
VT = T X j + 1 2 MT nj ( P j P j + 1 ) (14-12)
14-158 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Three-Phase Immiscible Flow
is a constant independent of j (a consequence of the assumption of 1D

flow). This VT is the total volumetric flow through every block.
14.2.4 Difference Equations in Terms of Fractional Mobility

Define fractional mobilities by
MG nj MW nj
FG nj = ------------n , FW nj = ------------- (14-13)
MT j MT nj
Then Equations 14-10 and 14-9 become
PV j ( SW nj + 1 SW nj )
--------------------------------------------------- = VT ( FW nj 1 FW nj ) (14-14)
t
PV j ( SG nj + 1 SG nj )
------------------------------------------------- = VT ( FG nj 1 FG nj ) (14-15)
t
Equation 14-8 is omitted, since it is not independent of the other two.
14.2.5 Stability Analysis for Two-Phase Flow

Before analyzing the stability of the two simultaneous equations 14-14 and
14-15 that describe three-phase flow, let us consider the stability of the
difference equation for two phase flow, which is easier to analyze. In that
case, only the single difference equation, Equation 14-14, needs to be
solved by the simulator (assuming water is one of the two mobile phases).
There are various definitions for the stability of a difference equation.

Angel and Bellman62 give the following useful definition: We will take
stability to mean that the effect of an error made in one stage of the
computation is not propagated into larger errors in later stages of
computation. In other words, local errors are not magnified by further
computation.
To be more precise, let EW nj be the error in SW nj . Thus, if we perturb the

saturations at the old time level by errors EW nj , then application of the
difference equation causes the saturations at the new time level to be
perturbed by EW nj + 1 . Recognizing that FW is a function of saturation,
fw(Sw), Equation 14-14 can be written for the unperturbed saturations as
PV
-------- [ SW nj + 1 SW nj ] = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj ) ] (14-16)
t
But this equation is also satisfied by the perturbed saturations:
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-159

PV
-------- [ ( SW nj + 1 + EW nj + 1 ) ( SW nj + EW nj ) ] = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj + EW nj ) ] (14-17)
t
Subtraction of Equation 14-16 from Equation 14-17 yields the error

equation
PV
-------- ( EW nj + 1 EW nj ) = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj + EW nj ) + f w ( SW nj(14-18)
)]
t
But, by Taylors theorem,
fw EW 2 f w
2
f w ( SW + EW ) = f w ( SW ) + EW --------- ( SW ) + ------------ -----------
- ( SW ) +
S w 2! S w2
For the purpose of stability analysis, errors are assumed sufficiently small
that higher powers of EW can be ignored. Then Equation 14-18 can be
written
PV
-------- ( EW nj + 1 EW nj ) = VT ( f ' w, j 1 EW nj 1 f ' w, j EW nj ) (14-19)
t
where
fw
f ' w, j = --------- ( SW nj )
S w
At this point, we need another assumption in order to proceed, that f ' w is

locally constant, i.e., that it doesnt change much from block to block.
Then
EW nj + 1 EW nj = ( EW nj 1 EW nj ) (14-20)
where
V T f ' w t
= -------------------------
- (14-21)
PV
In this manner, we have linearized the error equation.
A von Neumann stability analysis consists of expanding the error in a

Fourier series,
NX

n n
EW j = A p exp ( i p x j ) (14-22)
p=1
14-160 Landmark - R2003.4

where p is a component index, A np is component magnitude, p is

component frequency, and i is 1 . Error growth of each component is
given by the magnitude of the ratio of A np + 1 to A np ; this ratio is called an
amplification factor. The modulus of the amplification factors of all the
components must be less than or equal to one for stability.
Substitution of Equation 14-22 into Equation 14-20 gives, for each

component,
( A np + 1 A np ) exp (i p x j ) = A np [ exp (i p x j 1 ) exp (i p x j ) ] (14-23)
Note that xj - 1 = xj - x. Then division of Equation 14-23 by

A np exp (i p x j ) yields
A np + 1
- 1 = [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
------------
A np
or
A np + 1
------------- = 1 + [ cos ( p x ) i sin ( p x ) 1 ]
A np
The square of the modulus of the amplification factor is then
A np + 1 2
------------- = { 1 + [ cos ( p x ) 1 ] } 2 + 2 sin 2 ( p x )
A np
or
A np + 1 2
------------- = 1 + 2 [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] ( 1 )
A np
Since [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] 0 , for the modulus of the amplification factor

to be less than or equal to one for all components p, it is necessary that -
1 0, or
V T f ' w t
---------------------------- 1 (14-24)
PV
Equation 14-24 is known as the Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for

two-phase flow.
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-161

14.2.6 Stability Analysis for Three-Phase Flow

A similar approach can be used to analyze the stability of the two
simultaneous difference equations for three-phase flow, Equations 14-14
and 14-15. Let EW nj be the error in SW nj and EG nj be the error in SG nj .
Both FW and FG are functions of both saturations. Equations 14-14 and 14-
15 can be written for the unperturbed saturations as
PV
-------- [ SW nj + 1 SW nj ] = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 , SG nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj , SG nj ) ] (14-25)
t
PV
-------- [ SG nj + 1 SG nj ] = VT [ f g ( SW nj 1 , SG nj 1 ) f g ( SW nj , SG nj ) ] (14-26)
t
But these equations are also satisfied by the perturbed saturations:
PV
-------- [ ( SW nj + 1 + EW nj + 1 ) ( SW nj + EW nj ) ] = VT
t
[ f w ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 , SG nj 1 + EG nj 1 )
(14-27)
f w ( SW nj + EW nj , SG nj + EG nj ) ]
PV
-------- [ ( SG nj + 1 + EG nj + 1 ) ( SG nj + EG nj ) ] = VT
t
[ f g ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 , SG nj 1 + EG nj 1 )
(14-28)
f g ( SW nj + EW nj , SG nj + EG nj ) ]
Note that a truncated Taylor series for a function of two variables yields
f w ( SW + EW , SG + EG ) = f w ( SW , SG ) + f ' ww EW + f ' wg EG (14-29)
f g ( SW + EW , SG + EG ) = f g ( SW , SG ) + f ' gw EW + f ' gg EG (14-30)
where
fw fw
f ' ww = --------- f ' wg = ---------
S w S g
f f
f ' gw = --------g- f ' ww = --------g-
S w S g
Thus, if we subtract Equation 14-25 from Equation 14-27, and Equation 14-
26 from Equation 14-28, and substitute Equations 14-29 and 14-30, we get
the simultaneous error equations
PV
-------- ( EW nj + 1 EW nj ) = VT ( f ' ww, j 1 EW nj 1 + f ' wg, j 1 EG nj 1 f ' ww, j EW nj f ' wg EG nj ) (14-31)
t
PV
-------- ( EG nj + 1 EG nj ) = VT ( f ' gw, j 1 EW nj 1 + f ' gg, j 1 EG nj 1 f ' gw, j EW nj f ' gg EG nj ) (14-32)
t
14-162 Landmark - R2003.4

Again, we assume that the f ' are locally constant so that they dont change
much from block to block. Also, we expand the errors in the Fourier series
NX
EW nj = A np exp (i p x j ) (14-33)
p=1
NX
EG nj = B np exp (i p x j ) (14-34)
p=1
Substitution of Equations 14-33 and 14-34 into Equations 14-31 and 14-32
gives, for each component, after division by exp (i p x j ) ,
PV n + 1
-------- ( A p A np ) = VT ( f ' ww A np + f ' wg B np ) [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
t
PV n + 1
-------- ( B p B np ) = VT ( f ' gw A np + f ' gg B np ) [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
t
This may be expressed as a matrix-vector equation as
v np + 1 v np = [ exp ( ix) 1 ]F'v np (14-35)
where
A np V T t f ' ww f ' wg
v np = = ------------------ F' =
B np PV f ' gw f ' gg
For stability, we need to show that v np + 1 is, in some sense, not larger than
v np . We choose as the measure of a vector the 2-norm, also called the
Eucledian norm, defined by
v np 2 = ( A np ) 2 + (B np ) 2
Since the norm of a product is less than or equal to the product of the
norms, then from Equation 14-35,
v np + 1 2 v np 2 [ exp ( ix) 1 ] F' 2 v np 2 (14-36)
The 2-norm of the matrix F' is its maximum absolute eigenvalue, which is
defined below.
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-163

Now, we define an amplification factor as
v np + 1 2
A p = -------------------
v np 2
and try to show that it is less than one, in magnitude, for all components p.
From Equation 14-36,
A p 1 F' 2 [ cos ( p x ) i sin ( p x ) 1 ]

or
A 2p 1 + 2 F' 2 [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] ( F' 2 1)

Thus, for stability, it is sufficient that
F' 2 10
or
V T t
------------------ F' 2 1 (14-37)
PV
This is the Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for three-phase flow.
It remains now to evaluate the norm of F' .
Eigenvalues of F'
As stated above, the 2-norm of a matrix is the maximum absolute value of

its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues of F' are the values of that satisfy
f ' ww f ' wg
det = 0 (14-38)
f ' gw f ' gg
which is equivalent to the quadratic equation
2 ( f ' ww + f ' gg ) + ( f ' ww f ' gg f ' wg f ' gw ) = 0 (14-39)
The eigenvalues of F' are the roots of Equation 14-39, and the maximum
absolute value of those roots is the 2-norm of that matrix.
The values of the f ' are obtained from the derivatives of mobility (see
Equation 14-4), which are substituted into the following.
14-164 Landmark - R2003.4

M w M t
M t ----------- M w ----------
S w S w
f ' ww = --------------------------------------------
M t2
M w M t
M t ----------- M w ----------
S g S g
f ' wg = --------------------------------------------
2
Mt
M g M t
M t ----------- M g ----------
S w S w
f ' gw = ------------------------------------------
-
M t2
M g M t
M t ----------- M g ----------
S g S g
f ' gg = ------------------------------------------
2
-
Mt
where
Mt = Mw + Mo + Mg
and
M M w M o M g
----------t- = ----------- + ----------- + ----------- , ph = w or g
S ph S ph S ph S ph
Two-Phase Flow in a Three-Phase Simulator
It can be shown that the three-phase Buckley-Leverett throughput

condition (Equation 14-37) reduces to the two-phase condition (Equation
14-24) when one of the three phases is immobile. Thus, it is not necessary
to treat two-phase flow as a special case.
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-165

Two-Phase Compositional Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
14.3 Two-Phase Compositional Flow
14.3.1 Differential Equations
Flow of Each Component, c = 1,2,...,NC
If we ignore gravity and capillary pressure, Equation 8-1 becomes, for one-
dimensional flow,
( H z c ) kk ro o x c kk rg g y c P
---------------------
--------------------- = + --------------------- ------ + q c (14-40)
t x o g x
where H is the total hydrocarbon moles per unit pore volume, xc is mole
fraction of component c in the liquid (oil) phase, yc is mole fraction in the
vapor (gas) phase, and zc is overall mole fraction. (Note that we use H
instead of the F in Equation 8-1 to avoid confusion with fractional
mobilities used below.
Equilibrium Constraint
Phase equilibrium may be expressed in terms of equilibrium constants:
y
K c = ----c- (14-41)
xc
For the purpose of stability analysis, we assume the equilibrium constants

to be constant. As the mole fractions in each phase must sum to one, we
can express the equilibrium constraint as follows:
NC
( yc xc ) = 0 (14-42)
c=1
Saturation Constraint
From Equation 8-9, we have
H ( 1 L ) HL
---------------------- + -------- = 1 (14-43)
g o
where L is the volumetric fraction of the hydrocarbon which is liquid (oil).

Note that
14-166 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Two-Phase Compositional Flow
H (1 L) HL
S g = ---------------------- , S o = -------- (14-44)
g o
Total Flow Equation
Upon summing Equation 14-40 over all c, noting that

x c = y c = z c = 1 , we have
( H ) kk ro o kk rg g P
---------------- = - + ---------------- ------ + q c
--------------- (14-45)
t x o g x c
Restatement of Total Flow Equation
Let
kk ro kk rg
o = ---------- g = ---------- t = o + g
o g

f o = ----o- f g = ----g-
t t
P P P
v o = o ------ v g = g ------ v t = t ------
x x x
Then Equation 14-45 can be written
( H )
---------------- = [ ( o f o + g f g )v t ] + q c (14-46)
t x c
14.3.2 Difference Equations

Assume constant densities. Then the IMPES difference analogue of
Equation 14-46 (for interior regions where there are no wells) is
PV j
---------- ( H nj + 1 H nj ) = o ( VT j 1 2 FO nj 1 VT j + 1 2 FO nj )
t (14-47)
+ g ( VT j 1 2 FG nj 1 VT j + 1 2 FG nj )
The difference analogues of the constraint equations 14-42 and 14-43 are
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-167

NC
( Y cn, j X cn, j ) = 0 (14-48)
c=1
H nj ( 1 L nj ) H nj L nj
--------------------------- + ------------- = 1 (14-49)
g o
Perturbed Difference Equations
Equations 14-47, 14-48, and 14-49 must also be satisfied by perturbed

values of the basic dependent variables, P, H, L, and z1, z2, ..., zNC-1, as well
as by perturbed values of any derived dependent variables, such as So =
HL/o. Let EH be the perturbation in H, EFO be the perturbation in FO,
etc. Then the perturbation of difference equation 14-47 is
PV j
---------- ( H nj + 1 + EH nj + 1 H nj EH nj ) = o ( V T j 1 2 + EV T j 1 2 ) ( FO nj 1 + EFO nj 1 )
t
o ( V T j + 1 2 + EV T j + 1 2 ) ( FO nj + EFO nj ) + g ( V T j 1 2 + EV T j 1 2 ) ( FG nj 1 + EFG nj 1 )
(14-50)
g ( V T j + 1 2 + EV T j + 1 2 ) ( FG nj + EFG nj )
Note that V T j + 1 2 = ( t ) j + 1 2 ( P nj + 1 P nj ++ 11 ) . Since P is computed

implicitly, and since t has less of a variation than FO or FG, it seems
reasonable to ignore the error (perturbation) in VT. Then, subtracting
Equation 14-47 from Equation 14-50 yields the total flow error equation:
PV j
---------- ( EH nj + 1 EH nj ) = o ( V T j 1 2 EFO nj 1 V T j + 1 2 EFO nj ) + g ( V T j 1 2 EFG nj 1 V T j + 1 2 EFG nj ) (14-51)
t
But, by neglecting higher powers of the error terms, we have the following
truncated Taylor series:
EFO nj = f o ( SG nj + ESG nj ) f o ( SG nj ) = f ' o, j ESG nj
where
fo fg
f ' o, j = --------- ( SG nj ) = f ' g, j = --------- ( SG nj )
S g S g
Similarly,
EFG nj = f ' g, j ESG nj
Then, the total flow error equation 14-51 may be written
14-168 Landmark - R2003.4

PV j
---------- ( EH nj + 1 EH nj ) = ( g o ) ( V T j 1 2 f ' g, j 1 ESG nj 1 V T j + 1 2 f ' g, j ESG nj ) (14-52)
t
Saturation Constraint Error Equation
Consider now the saturation constraint equation 14-49. Perturb it, to yield
( H nj + EH nj ) ( 1 L nj EL nj ) ( H nj + EH nj ) ( L nj + EL nj )
------------------------------------------------------------------- + ---------------------------------------------------------- = 1 (14-53)
g o
Subtract Equation 14-49 from Equation 14-53, and ignore higher powers of
the errors, to yield the saturation constraint error equation:
EH nj ( 1 L nj ) H nj EL nj H nj EL nj + L nj EH nj
-------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------ = 0
g o
or
o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj
EL nj = -------------------------------------------- EH nj (14-54)
( o g )H nj
Next, consider the difference analogue of Equation 14-44:
H nj ( 1 L nj )
SG nj = --------------------------- (14-55)
g
Perturbing Equation 14-55 yields
( H nj + EH nj ) ( 1 L nj EL nj )
SG nj + ESG nj = ------------------------------------------------------------------
- (14-56)
g
Subtracting Equation 14-55 from Equation 14-56, ignoring higher powers

of the error terms, yields
( 1 L nj )EH nj H nj EL nj
ESG nj = --------------------------------------------------------
g
Substitution of Equation 14-54 then gives
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-169

o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj EH nj
ESG nj = ( 1 L nj ) -------------------------------------------- -----------
( o g ) g
or
EH nj = ( g o )ESG nj (14-57)
14.3.3 Stability Analysis of Total Flow Equation

Finally, substitution of Equation 14-57 into Equation 14-52 yields
PV j
---------- ( ESG nj + 1 ESG nj ) = V T j 1 2 f ' g, j 1 ESG nj 1 V T j + 1 2 f ' g, j ESG nj (14-58)
t
This is similar to Equation 14-19 in Section 14.2.5. As we did there, we

linearize Equation 14-58 by assuming that V T f ' g is locally constant.
Then Equation 14-58 may be written
PV j
---------- ( ESG nj + 1 ESG nj ) = V T f ' g ( ESG nj 1 ESG nj ) (14-59)
t
As we did in Section 14.2.5, we expand the error in a Fourier series:
NX
ESG nj = A np exp (i p x j ) (14-60)
p=1
and obtain a similar result for the amplification factor:
A np + 1 2 2 V T f ' g t V T f ' g t
= 1 + ------------------------------- [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] ------------------------- 1 (14-61)
------------
A np
- PV PV
leading to the same Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for stability,

that
V T f ' g t
------------------------- 1 (14-62)
PV
For simplicity, the water equation was omitted from the preceding
analysis. It seems reasonable that if it had been included, then the three-
phase Buckley-Leverett throughput condition of Equation 14-37 would be
the appropriate condition for stability.
14-170 Landmark - R2003.4

14.3.4 Stability Analysis for Other Dependent Variables

However, we need to see if the error in H, L, and Zc can increase if
Equation 14-62 is satisfied. From Equations 14-57 and 14-60, we have
NX
EH nj = ( g o ) A np exp (i p x j )
p=1
If we assume that
NX
EH nj = B np exp (i p x j )
p=1
it must follow, for each component, that
B np = ( g o ) A np
and
p = p
so the amplification factor for EH must also satisfy
Bn + 1 = An + 1 1 (14-63)
------------
- ------------
-
Bn An
when Equation 14-62 is satisfied.
From Equations 14-54, 14-57, and 14-60, we have
o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj NX
EL nj = --------------------------------------------
H nj A np exp (i p x j )
p=1
Again, we assume a locally constant coefficient; that is, we assume that

the term multiplying the summation does not change much from block to
block or from one time level to the next time level. If we assume that
NX
EL nj = C np exp (i p x j ) (14-64)
p=1
it must follow, for each component, that
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-171

o ( 1 L ) + g L
C np = --------------------------------------- A np (14-65)
H
and
p = p (14-66)
so the amplification factor for EL must also satisfy
C n + 1 = An + 1 1 (14-67)
------------
- ------------
-
Cn An
when Equation 14-62 is satisfied.
Stability Analysis of Equilibrium Constraint Equation
The situation for the error growth of the Zc is considerably more

complicated. Consider the equilibrium constraint equation 14-48. Its
perturbed form is
NC
( Y cn, j + EY cn, j X cn, j E X cn, j ) = 0 (14-68)
c=1
Subtraction of Equation 14-48 from Equation 14-68 yields the equilibrium

constraint error equation
NC
( EY cn, j E X cn, j ) = 0
c=1
But, by Equation 14-41,
Y cn, j = K c X cn, j
EY cn, j = K c E X cn, j
so
NC
( K c 1 )E X cn, j = 0 (14-69)
c=1
14-172 Landmark - R2003.4

Since
z c = Lx c + ( 1 L ) y c = Lx c + ( 1 L )K c x c
Then
Z cn, j
X cn, j = --------------------------------------
- (14-70)
L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c
The perturbed form of Equation 14-70 is
Z cn, j + EZ cn, j
X cn, j + E X cn, j = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (14-71)
L nj + EL nj + ( 1 L nj EL nj )K c
Subtracting Equation 14-70 from Equation 14-71 yields
[ L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c ] [ Z cn, j + EZ cn, j ] [ L nj + EL nj + ( 1 L nj EL nj )K c ]Z cn, j

E X cn, j = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (14-72)
[ L nj + EL nj + ( 1 L nj EL nj )K c ] [ L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c ]
Ignoring higher powers of the errors yields
[ L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c ]EZ cn, j + ( K c 1 )Z cn, j EL nj

E X cn, j = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[ L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c ] 2
Substitution into Equation 14-69 then yields
NC Kc 1 NC ( K c 1 ) 2 Z cn, j
-------------------------------------------
- EZ c, j = EL j ----------------------------------------------
n n (14-73)
c = 1 [ L j + ( 1 L j )K c ] c = 1 [ L j + ( 1 L j )K c ]
n n n n 2
We now have an error equation involving only errors in Zc and L.]
Since the Zc sum to one, the EZc sum to zero, so they are not all
independent. Thus Equation 14-73 should be written
NC 1 Kc 1 K NC 1 NC ( K c 1 ) 2 Z cn, j
--------------------------------------
- -------------------------------------------
L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c L nj + ( 1 L nj )K NC
- EZ n
c, j = EL j ----------------------------------------------
n (14-74)
c = 1 [ L j + ( 1 L j )K c ]
n n 2
c=1
If we again consider the coefficients of the errors constant for the purpose
of the stability analysis, then we can write Equation 14-74 in the form
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-173

NC 1
G c EZ cn, j = EL nj (14-75)
c=1
where
Kc 1 K NC 1
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -
L + ( 1 L )K c L + ( 1 L )K NC
G c = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC ( K c 1 ) 2 Z
----------------------------------------
-
c = 1 [ L + ( 1 L )K c ]
2
If we assume
NX
EZ cn, j = Dcn, p exp (ic, p x j ) (14-76)
p=1
it must follow from Equations 14-64, 14-66, and 14-75 that
c, p = p = p
and
NC 1
G c D cn, p = C np (14-77)
c=1
But Equation 14-77 holds also for the next timestep,
NC 1
G c D cn, +p 1 = C np + 1 (14-78)
c=1
and for the succeeding timestep,
NC 1
G c D cn, +p 2 = C np + 2 (14-79)
c=1
on up to the n + NC - 1 timestep:
14-174 Landmark - R2003.4

NC 1
G c D cn, +p NC 1 = C np + NC 1 (14-80)
c=1
Let
C np + 1 C np + 2
p = ------------- = ------------- = (14-81)
C np C np + 1
D cn, +p 1 D cn, +p 2
c, p = -------------
- = - =
------------- (14-82)
D cn, p D cn, +p 1
and
c, p = G c D cn, p (14-83)
Then Equations 14-77 through 14-80 become
NC 1
c, p = C np (14-84)
c=1
NC 1
c, p cr, p = C np rp , r = 1, 2, , NC 1 (14-85)
c=1
Note that the superscript n refers to timestep level, while the superscript r
is an exponent. Equations 14-84 and 14-85 can be rearranged to
NC 1
c, p ( cr, p rp ) = 0 , r = 1, 2, , NC 1 (14-86)
c=1
Equation 14-86 is a set of simultaneous polynomials. Obviously one

solution is
c, p = p
It can be shown63 (albeit, with some difficulty) that this is a multiple root,
and that Equation 14-86 is equivalent to
NC 1
( c, p p ) = 0
R2003.4 - Landmark 14-175

Since, by Equations 14-67 and 14-81, p 1 , then it follows that the

amplification factor for Zc must satisfy
D cn, +p 1
- = c, p 1
------------- (14-87)
D cn, p
Thus, we have shown that the errors in Zc do not grow if Equation 14-62 is
satisfied. Thus, if Equation 14-62 is satisfied, the system of difference
equations 14-47, 14-48, and 14-49 is stable.
14.3.5 Final Note

Interestingly enough, the stability analysis did not involve the difference
analogue of the component flow equations (Equation 14-40), even though
that difference equation plays a major role in the actual simulator solution.
This is indeed fortunate, since including it would probably have rendered
a stability analysis well-nigh impossible. But apparently only the total
hydrocarbon flow equation plus the saturation and equilibrium constraint
equations are sufficient for demonstrating stability.
As pointed out repeatedly, the analysis presented here involves many

assumptions that are not strictly satisfied. It can be shown64 that if
capillary pressure is taken into account, the stable timestep is reduced
somewhat; some 1D experiments show a reduction of only a few percent.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the user monitor the solution
carefully when the IMPES option is chosen.
To provide a margin of safety, the parameter STSLIM on the IMPSTAB

card can be set to something less than 1.0. That parameter is the largest
fraction of the maximum stable timestep (as computed by Equation 14-37)
at which the simulator is permitted to run.
Another parameter, STSTAR on the IMPSTAB card, is the fraction of the

maximum stable timestep used as a target for setting the timestep size. Its
default is 0.9; it should be set to the desired fraction times STSLIM.
14-176 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
15
Local Grid Refinement1
15.1 Introduction
The Local Grid Refinement (LGR) option is a special feature which enables
the user to improve the resolution and detail in a particular area of a
reservoir study, without increasing the resolution everywhere. The LGR
option minimizes the number of gridblocks, and therefore the CPU time
required by allowing the grid to be selectively refined in areas where more
grid definition is required. It has applications in the modeling of:
Coning effects in fieldwide models
Horizontal wells
Interference between multiple reservoirs in a common basin
Unconfined pattern elements
Delineation of faults
This chapter explains some of the general concepts with regard to LGR,
along with technical details on different LGR techniques and examples of
how to set up LGR models.
1. Available as a separately licensed option.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-177

Major Features VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.2 Major Features

The major features of the LGR option include:
Unlimited number of Cartesian refinements, including unlimited

levels of refinements within refinements.
Radial refinements in the X, Y, or Z direction; i.e., vertical or

horizontal.
Grid refinements (and base grid) can use either the IMPES or fully
implicit formulation.
Mixed IMPES and fully implicit grids
Grid refinements can be activated or deactivated at any time.
Central to the LGR option is a new linear solver, CBLITZ68, that

enables the efficient linear solution of the composite grid system. This
implementation allows composite grids, whether IMPES, implicit or
mixed IMPES/implicit grids, to be solved in one, two, three or four
(dual permeability) dimensions.
15-178 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR
15.3 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR

The LGR option can be used in conjunction with most of the standard
features of VIP-EXECUTIVE, including:
Black Oil
Compositional EOS
Dual Porosity/Permeability
Polymer
CO2 Solubility in Aqueous Phase
IMPES Grids or Implicit Grids
Two-Point Upstream Weighting
Crossflow
Hydrocarbon/Water Tracking
Predictive Well Management
Numerical Aquifers (Connected to the Coarse Grid, Only)
Injection Regions
The following feature is available with single grid systems only:
Except as noted below, datasets that were valid with previous versions of
VIP-EXECUTIVE should still be accepted as is. The following features,
available in previous versions, are no longer available either with LGR or
single grid systems:
Implicit Well Option (IMPWEL)
The implicit well option, previously available with IMPES, was removed
because it can be duplicated with the LGR option by declaring the well as
being contained in a line of one-for-one refined gridblocks, designated as
an implicit grid (see example in Section 15.10.2).
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-179

Types of Refinements VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.4 Types of Refinements

The LGR feature provides two distinct types of local grid refinement, as
described below:
15.4.1 Cartesian Refinement

A Cartesian grid refinement consists of any rectangular area comprising
one or more gridblocks that have been refined into a finer grid structure.
Any gridblocks within the rectangular area may subsequently be omitted
from the refinement. The following illustration shows a refined area REF2
within a refined area REF1,within a coarse base grid.
Figure 15-1: Example of Cartesian Refinement
When creating a Cartesian refinement, the following properties must be

defined:
Grid name
Range of coarse gridblocks to be refined.
Number of x,y,z fine grid divisions per parent grid division.
Optionally, the range of gridblocks to be included or omitted within the

specified area may also be defined.
15-180 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Types of Refinements
15.4.2 Radial Refinement

A radial refinement is a series of fine gridblocks drawn radially around a
well. The radial refinement occurs only within the line of gridblocks in
which the well resides. The following illustration shows a radial
refinement at a well. A radial refinement may occur within an area that
already has Cartesian refinements applied to it.
Figure 15-2: Example of Radial Refinement
Radial refinements are normally oriented in the Z direction for vertical or

near-vertical wells, but may also be oriented in the X or Y direction for
horizontal wells. The Z-axis for the radial refinement is always oriented
along the wellbore. When creating a radial refinement, the following
properties must be defined:
Grid name
Portion of coarse grid to be refined (if more than one coarse gridblock
along the well, the same radial refinement is implemented through
each gridblock).
Number of refined gridblocks in the radial (r) and angular (theta)

directions.
Number of gridblocks to be refined in the Z or X or Y direction.
Inner radius (wellbore) for refined area.
Intersections of the well at the boundaries of the coarse gridblocks.
Optionally, the outer radius of the first annulus may be specified.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-181

Radial Grid Numbering Convention
Figure 15-3 shows the gridblock numbering convention for a radial

refinement in the z-direction.
z(k)
x(i)
y(j)
3
2
1
12 11 10 7 4 5 6
8
9
Figure 15-3: Radial Grids - RADZ

refinement in the x-direction. Note that the z-direction of the radial grid is
along the x-direction of its parent grid.
x(i)
y(j)
z(k)
2
1
8 7 3 4
5
6
Figure 15-4: Radial Grids - RADX
15-182 Landmark - R2003.4


refinement in the y-direction. Note that the z-direction of the radial grid is
along the y-direction of its parent grid.
y(j)
x(i)
z(k)
2
1
8 7 3 4
5
6
Figure 15-5: Radial Grids - RADY
Transmissibility Calculations of Radial Grids
Transmissiblities of radial grids are calculated by first constructing a fine

skeleton grid using 32 spokes. The six half transmissibilities of each
skeleton block are then calculated using either the HARINT or modified
NEWTRAN methods. The modified NEWTRAN method takes into
account a varying cross sectional area along the flow direction.
S

C
A1 A2
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-183

In the above sketch:
C is the volumetric centroid
S is a point on the block face
CS is a vector representing an average path between

planes through C and S.
A1 is the vector area of the plane through C
A2 is the vector area of the plane through S
The half transmissibility between C and S is given by:
( A 2 A 1 ) CS 1
T = ----------------------------------
2
- ----------------------------
-
CS A 2 CS
ln ------------------
A 1 CS
The gridblock transmissibilities in the (j) direction are calculated from a
harmonic average of the elemental skeleton block values. The gridblock
transmissibilities in the r(i) and z(k) directions are calculated by summing
the elemental skeleton block values.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
32 9
31 10
30 11
29 12
28 13
27 14
26 15
25 16
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17
skeleton blocks
gridblocks
15-184 Landmark - R2003.4

The following expressions are for the shaded block above.
1
T - = --------------------------------------------
t------- - + ---------
1 1
t
j = 1, 4 j- j+
1
T + = --------------------------------------------
------- - + ---------
1 1
j = 5, 8
t j- t j+
Tr = t jr
j = 1, 8
T rz = t jz
j = 1, 8
t = skeleton block transmissiblity
T = gridblock transmissiblity
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-185

Application of LGR VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.5 Application of LGR

LGR can be implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE reservoir simulation
models through two separate mechanisms, which are designed for the two
general situations which may be encountered when applying LGR to a
model. These are described below.
New Models. When building a new simulation model from scratch, in

most cases it will be easier to use GRIDGENR to specify the grid
structure and all local grid refinements. The necessary keyword
parameters and data will be produced in files ready to be included in
the VIP-CORE data set.
Existing Models. To apply refinements after the fact to an existing

model, GRIDGENR can be used only if the original model was
constructed using GRIDGENR and the .gtf or .gdb files have been
retained. Otherwise, the keyword parameters must be manually
added to the VIP-CORE data set to specify the refinements.
15.5.1 GRIDGENR
The GRIDGENR program is a graphical interface used to design the grid
structure for a reservoir simulation model and calculate the initial
properties to be assigned to each gridblock, such as depth, thickness,
porosity, etc. GRIDGENR provides three basic alternatives for defining the
grid structure. These are (1) interactively draw the reservoir grid, (2)
digitize the grid from various sources, or (3) import data that can be used
to specify the grid structure. Following any of these three options, the
drawing features can be used to define local grid refinements, with the
resulting shape and size of the refinements shown on the surface of the
grid (see illustration below).
Figure 15-6: Typical GRIDGENR Display with Radial Refinement
15-186 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Application of LGR
The Array Calculate and Output steps in GRIDGENR produce the

appropriate keyword parameters for input to the VIP-CORE initialization,
as explained below. Using GRIDGENR alone does not provide access to all
the refinement features available with the keyword parameters. However,
it does provide access to a large majority of them. For more information
about the grid refinement features in GRIDGENR, see the GRIDGENR
Users Guide.
15.5.2 Keyword Parameters

All local grid refinements are defined through a nested set of keyword
parameters and data, describing the type, characteristics, and location of
the refinement relative to its parent grid. The nesting of the data sets
defines the levels of refinements within refinements. This represents the
minimum amount of data required for the LGR option. For example, the
following diagram shows the conceptual drawing of a Cartesian
refinement imposed on a coarse grid, with a radial refinement super-
imposed on the Cartesian refinement.
Figure 15-7: Cartesian Refinement with Imbedded Radial Refinement
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-187

Application of LGR VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The keyword parameters below are used to describe this structure for a
VIP-CORE initialization (i.e., for calculating the initial model state).
NX NY NZ NCOMP
5 5 1 2
LGR BASEGRID
CARTREF REF1
2 4 2 4 1 1
2 3 2
2 2 2
1
OMIT 4 4 4 4 1 1
RADZREF RAD
3 3 1 1
3 4 .25
1
2*0.5
2*0.5
ENDREF
ENDREF
ENDLGR
In this sequence of keywords and parameters, each keyword pertains to a

specific group of parameters, which are entered to the side or below the
keyword. For instance, the NX/NY/NZ keywords are used to describe the
number of gridblocks in the coarse grid area. The CARTREF and
RADZREF keywords and following data specify the names and
corresponding structure of the Cartesian and radial refinement grids,
including the i,j,k range of the refinements, the frequency of refinements in
the refined area, and any parts of the refined area to be omitted.
For more information about LGR keyword parameters, refer to the VIP-
CORE Reference Manual.
15.5.3 Propagation of Reservoir Properties to Refined Gridblocks

When GRIDGENR is used to define and calculate the LGR structure, each
coarse and refined gridblock will have a unique set of properties
calculated for it which depends on its relative position in the model
structure. The Array Calculate module in GRIDGENR is the mechanism
that provides the calculation of unique gridblock properties throughout
the coarse and refined areas.
If VIP-CORE keywords are used to apply LGR, the user has the option to
specify all of the properties for the coarse and refined gridblocks or only to
specify properties for the coarse gridblocks. Where properties are
specified only for the coarse gridblocks, the simulator will calculate
unique depths for each refined gridblock, based on variations in reservoir
dip and model layer thickness, but it will not calculate unique initial rock
properties for each refined gridblock. Instead, each refined gridblock will
have the same properties as its parent coarse gridblock. This is not always
a disadvantage, as explained in the following discussion.
For a quick investigation of detailed flow behavior around a well, it may

not be necessary to use GRIDGENR to define the slight variation in rock
properties for the radial refinement around the well. In this case, only the
15-188 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Application of LGR
keywords to define the radial refinement need to be added to the VIP-

CORE input file, and the rock properties of the parent gridblocks will be
propagated down to the refined gridblocks.
Conversely, for a detailed study of infill drilling in a particular area, it

would most likely be better to use GRIDGENR to define the LGR area, in
order to get a better definition of the variation of rock properties within
the entire refined area.
For the situation where the initialization data has already been prepared
and it is not feasible or desirable to go back to GRIDGENR (i.e., a reservoir
model that has already been history matched), the grid refinements can be
specified manually through the keyword parameters. The properties from
the coarse grid would be propagated down to any refinements, and a few
additional history match runs may be required to fine tune the match
based on a better definition of fluid fingering and/or coning. See Section
15.8.2 for the rules and explanations of the propagation process.
Once the grid definition and properties are defined appropriately in the
VIP-CORE data deck, the initialization process is not significantly
different from normal.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-189

Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.6 Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid

There are some rules and restrictions associated with the construction of a
locally refined grid system in order to ensure that the linear system
associated with the composite grid is well conditioned.
A refined grid system is constructed as follows:

Level 3
Grid
Level 4
Grid
Level 2
Grid Level 1
Grid
Level 2
Grid
Level 4
Grid
Level 3
Grid
Figure 15-8: Levels of Refinement
A coarse grid (or level 1 or root grid) is imposed on the region of interest.
This is further refined in areas where greater resolution is required (a
refinement of a level N grid is called a level N+1 grid). The number of
15-190 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid
levels of refinement is arbitrary. Cartesian refinements may be further

refined but radial refinements may not.
The restrictions on allowable refinements are as follows:
Grid lines for refined cells terminate only on coarse cell boundaries.
Valid: Invalid:
Figure 15-9: Termination of Grid Lines
Refinements must fill at least an entire coarse cell and the refined grid
lines must be continuous across the entire coarse cell.
Refinement must conform across coarse cell boundaries.
Compatible Refinement:
Incompatible Refinement:
Figure 15-10: Grid Conformance
Refinements that span more than one coarse cell must have refined grid
lines that conform across the coarse cells.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-191

Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Grid neighbors of a level N grid must be either of level N-1 or N+1.
Legal Refinement
Illegal Refinement
Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements
Refinements must be completely contained within a grid of the previous

level. A grid cannot touch a grid whose level is not consecutive with its
own level.
15-192 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid
All grids of the same level must be independent, i.e., not touching.
Legal Refinement
Illegal Refinements
Figure 15-12: Isolation of Refinements
Independent refinements of the same level must be isolated from each

other.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-193

LGR Features in the Simulation Module VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.7 LGR Features in the Simulation Module

After the initialization process has been completed for the reservoir
model, there are a number of additional options available in the simulator.
Each grid can be specified to utilize either the IMPES or fully IMPLICIT
formulation. The standard formulation specification options will set all of
the grids to use either one or the other, and then the formulation can be re-
specified for individual grids. Much of the trade-off in formulation
methods is between the timestep stability of the calculations and the
relative speed of the calculations per timestep. Depending on the number
of components, IMPES may be up to 10 times faster than IMPLICIT per
timestep, but depending on the gridblock sizes and relative throughput,
the IMPLICIT formulation may enable several orders of magnitude larger
timesteps, yielding a considerable savings in total computer time
required.
While it is generally time-prohibitive to use an IMPLICIT formulation

over an entire model, it might be feasible to use this method for the refined
areas only. For example, for a full field reservoir model with a Cartesian-
refined area for detailed infill performance analysis and radial refinements
at the wells within the refined area, the IMPES formulation could be used
for the base grid, and the IMPLICIT formulation could be used on the
refined areas.
Separate sets of iteration parameters, convergence parameters, and time

stepping constraints can be specified for the IMPES and fully IMPLICIT
formulations, with performance being controlled by the most restrictive of
the two sets.
In the specifications of well and/or perforation locations, it may be

necessary to specify the grid in which it resides. All well i,j,k references are
relative to a particular grid.
15.7.1 DEACTIVATION and ACTIVATION of Grid Refinements

At initial conditions, all grid refinements are assumed to be active.
However, any refinement may be deactivated and/or reactivated at any
time during the simulator run. This feature may be used to achieve
significant CPU time savings by activating refined grids only during the
simulation time at which there is significant activity occurring within the
grid. If a grid refinement is deactivated, then all sub-refinements
[children] of the grid are also deactivated. When a grid refinement is
activated, then all grid refinements which contain it [parents] are also
activated.
Only the pore volumes and transmissibilities at initial conditions are

preserved and reinstated as necessary, as grid refinements are deactivated
and reactivated. When a grid refinement that has been active for one or
more timesteps is deactivated, new values for the unknowns (pressure,
composition, saturations, etc.) are calculated for each of the gridblocks
15-194 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE LGR Features in the Simulation Module
that had been refined in the parent grid, such that precise material balance
is maintained. For each parent gridblock, the total moles of each
component and the total water volume is computed from the sum of its
refined gridblocks, respectively. An iterative procedure is then employed
to compute the new values for the unknowns which will exactly preserve
the material balance of each of the components and water.
When a grid is activated after having been inactive for one or more
timesteps, the unknowns of the parent gridblocks are propagated directly
to the refined gridblocks, again preserving material balance, but with the
possible instability resulting from each of the fine gridblocks having the
same pressures, saturations, compositions, etc. as their parent gridblock.
Considerable care should be taken to ensure that the area around the
refinement is approaching steady-state conditions before deactivating or
activating the refinement, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for any
timestep cuts. The activation/deactivation procedure is performed after
all input for the time interval has been read.
15.7.2 CBLITZ Solver Options

CBLITZ employs the sequential preconditioning method described by
Wallis68 to solve the composite grid linear system. This method is
attractive, since it uses a standard subgrid approximate factorization in
constructing the composite grid preconditioning. The solution step
incorporates approximate solutions performed on a grid-by-grid basis,
which has advantages for efficiency and parallelization. In particular,
multiple subgrid iterations can be performed which can be beneficial in
reducing the CPU time to obtain a solution. This can be set for all grid
systems using the NITG parameter on the CBLITZ keyword or on a grid-
by-grid basis using NITG on the CBLGRID keyword. NITG is defaulted to
1 for all grid systems. Convergence tolerance and equation ordering can
also be changed on a grid-by-grid basis using the CBLGRID keyword.
CBLITZ has a robust treatment of 3D radial grids, always allowing for

complete circular flow. CBLITZ allows grids to be active or inactive, and
can handle wellbore crossflow and faults within a grid or between grids.
More information on CBLITZ solver controls can be found in the VIP-

EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-195

Input Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.8 Input Data
15.8.1 VIP-CORE Initialization Data
LGR ... ENDLGR
The LGR keyword generally indicates that the grid is to be refined. This
line is followed by the data defining the refinements. Once all the
refinements have been defined, a line with the keyword ENDLGR ends
the grid refinement data mode.
The entering of the LGR keyword has several other effects, even for a
single-grid model in which the LGR line is immediately followed by the
ENDLGR line:
1. It causes the ROOT grid (or single grid) that is defined with DX, DY,
DZ or DR, DTHETA, DZ arrays to be converted to corner-point grids
internally for the calculation of pore volumes and transmissibilities.
2. It causes the default map type to be the new map file (Fortran Unit 27).
RMIN
The RMIN keyword allows the user to specify, for radial refinements, the
minimum outer radius allowed for the innermost ring of blocks. This is
applied globally to all radial refinements, but can be set on a grid-by-grid
basis within the LGR data.
RIGHTHANDED, HARTRAN, BLOCKTR, PINCHGRID, TOLPV
See VIP-CORE Reference Manual.
15.8.2 VIP-CORE Array Data
Cascading of Array Data
Array data is introduced grid-by-grid. All array data must be grouped

together by grid and grid order is important. The following are rules and
explanations of the cascading process:
1. Array data for the ROOT grid is required.
2. Array data should be input for a parent grid before inputing the data
for a child.
3. When array data is read in, it is immediately propagated to its lower

level grids.
15-196 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Input Data
4. Transmissibility modifier arrays (e.g., TMX, TMZ) are only propagated

to equivalent gridblock faces.
5. Permeability arrays at gridblock faces are not allowed with the LGR
option.
6. Any array data for a child grid can be input separately to replace any
cascaded values.
7. Except for the endpoint scaling arrays, an array must be input for the
ROOT grid before it can be input for a lower level grid.
8. At any level, including ROOT, any endpoint data not entered is set to
that of the appropriate rock type.
New Array Input Option NONE
Array data of children grids (that has been assigned through propagation)
can be modified using the MOD or VMOD options. The NONE option for
a child array indicates that no data will be input and any MOD or VMOD
options will apply to the inherited data. The modified data is then
propagated to the grids children. 00
Example: 00
ARRAYS
POR CON
0.3
.
.
.
ARRAYS CHILD1
POR NONE
VMOD
2 4 2 3 1 1 EQ
0.25 0.26 2*0.27 0.29 0.3
Corner-Point Data CORP
The CORP array consists of eight (x, y, z) coordinate values for each
gridblock.
15.8.3 Other VIP-CORE Data

The following data may be specified on a grid-by-grid basis: FTRANS,
OVER, VOVER. These data are not cascaded to lower level grids.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-197

Input Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.8.4 Simulator Input Data
Formulation Options
In a multi-grid run all grids may use the IMPES formulation, all grids may
use the implicit formulation, or some grids may use IMPES and the
remaining grids may use implicit. By default all grids are assigned the
formulation specified in, or implied by, the Utility Data. The IMPGRID ...
ENDIMPGRID data is used to set the formulation for individual grids. If
entered, this data must immediately follow the RESTART card and
precede any TITLE cards.
Timestep Controls
For multi-grid systems which may involve mixed levels of implicitness, it

may be necessary to have separate sets of maximum change parameters
for both the iteration and the timestep. To accomplish this, two new
optional keywords have been implemented: DTMPL and ITNMPL. When
a DT keyword is read, the maximum change parameters for both the
IMPES grids and the IMPLICIT grids are set to the values specified on the
DT card. Also when an ITNLIM keyword is read, the maximum change
parameters for both the IMPES grids and the IMPLICIT grids are set to the
values specified on the ITNLIM card. If different values are desired for the
IMPLICIT grids, the DTMPL and ITNMPL keywords must be used to
specify the maximum change parameters for the IMPLICIT grids only.
Matrix Solution Option CBLITZ
The new matrix solver CBLITZ is an iterative solver, using the

Preconditioned Generalized Minimum Residual (GMRES) method. It
must be used for all multi-grid systems and for three-dimensional radial
single-grid systems using the FLOW360 option. CBLITZ, as well as BLITZ,
EXCEL, or GAUSS, may also be used for other single-grid systems.
The block of data CBLGRID ... ENDCBLGRID may be used to specify

some of the CBLITZ parameters on a grid-by-grid basis. If entered, this
data must immediately follow the CBLITZ data.
Well Data
For multi-grid systems, it may be necessary to specify in which grid(s) that

the well resides, in addition to the standard IW and JW well location. If no
additional data is entered, the well is assumed to be in the ROOT grid, and
the IW and JW are relative to that grid. However, if the well perforations
are in one or more of the grid refinements, then the grid name must be
specified on either the WELL card or the FPERF card. If the well
perforations are all within the same grid, then the grid may be specified on
15-198 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Input Data
the WELL card. If the well perforations are in two or more grids, then the
grid must be specified for each of the perforations, along with the proper
IW and JW relative to the grid.
If the well is in a radial grid and (IW, JW) have not been specified in the
FPERF data or in any previous WELL name and location data, then
perforations will be automatically generated in IW=1, for
JW=1,2,...,NTHETA for the radial grid.
Other Data
FTRANS, OVER, and VOVER may be specified on a grid-by-grid basis.
For more detailed information regarding LGR-related data, see the VIP-
CORE Reference Manual and the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-199

LGR Benchmarks VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
15.9 LGR Benchmarks

The following three comparison cases illustrate the application of LGR
and the potential benefit that can be derived from using LGR.
A reservoir study was conducted without grid refinement (Figure 15-13),

with two levels of refinement with a Cartesian 3x3 grid around the wells
(Figure 15-14) and with two levels of refinements and 4x4 radial
(Figure 15-15) refinements around each well. The grid without local
refinements (Case 1) was carefully constructed so that the level of
resolution around the wells is the same as in Case 2 with Cartesian
refinements around the well.
Figure 15-13: Case 1 - No Refinements
15-200 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE LGR Benchmarks
Figure 15-14: Case 2 - 3x3 Cartesian Refinements Around Each Well
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-201

Figure 15-15: Case 3 - 4x4 Radial Refinements Around Each Well
The cases and results are summarized in Table 15-1. Case 1 was run with
both IMPES and implicit. Both Case 2 and Case 3 were run with IMPES in
the coarse and level 2 refined grids, and implicit around the wells. The
results show that Case 2 ran more than 4 times faster than implicit Case 1.
Case 3 was almost three times faster than implicit Case 1 even though the
resolution around the wells in Case 3 was much better.
15-202 Landmark - R2003.4

Table 15-1: Summary of Results - Shorthorn Reservoir: History & Prediction

Base Grid Refinements Gridblocks
Case NX NY NZ NX NY NZ Total Active
1 62 45 2 5580 5558
2 19 14 2 36 26 2 (Cart.)
10@ 3 3 2 (Cart.) 2584 1967
3 19 14 2 36 26 2 (Cart.)
10@ 4 4 2 (Rad.) 2724 2107
Precond. Time Outer Inner T.S. CPU Seconds*

Case Formulation Solver
Method Steps Itns Itns Cuts Solver Total
1 IMPES BLITZ NF 2905 3338 12013 0 456 3111
1 Implicit BLITZ NF 87 235 1674 0 551 743
2 Mixed CBLITZ SEQ 87 274 1143 0 61 179
3 Mixed CBLITZ SEQ 94 368 1473 7 112 260
6515 days total; maximum 93 day timesteps

* IBM RS/6000-580
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-203

The results of production plots show almost identical results in the three
cases for most of the wells, but increased gas and water coning for some of
the wells in case 3 as shown in Figures 15-16 and 15-17.
Figure 15-16: Comparison of Gas-Oil Ratio Performance
15-204 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 15-17: Comparison of Water-cut Performance
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-205

15.10 Examples
The following examples, in increasing complexity, illustrate the additional
data needed to set up models using local grid refinement. The basic
assumption is that the user is creating the data; GRIDGENR/ARRAY is
not needed to create the locally refined grid(s). The figures accompanying
the examples depict only a portion of the grid; e.g. the area around well
G3.
15.10.1 Base Case - No LGR/Implicit Formulation

VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ! No LGRs defined
ENDLGR ! But uses new Transmissibility calculations
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
BLITZ
C
C DT1 DTmin DTmax DP DS DV DZ
DT -1. 1. 100. 500. .15 .9 .9
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .01 .10 .14
WELL N NAME IW JW
1 G3 18 3
2 H2 20 13
3 A1 14 16
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
2 2
X 3
3 7
X 8
X 9
.
.
.
15-206 Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark 15-207

15.10.2 Implicit Cells Around Wells

The gridblocks containing the wells are not refined but are set up as a grid
to allow the use of the implicit formulation.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Separate Grid for G3
18 18 3 3 1 2
1
1
2*1
ENDREF
CARTREF H2 ! Separate Grid for H2
20 20 13 13 2 3
1
1
2*1
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
15-208 Landmark - R2003.4

Simulator:
IMPLICIT ! Default Formulation

RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
DT -1. 1. 100. 200. .05 .9 .9 ! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL .10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL N NAME IW JW GRID
1 G3 1 1 G3
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
2 2
X 3
3 7
X 8
X 9
.
.
.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-209

15-210 Landmark - R2003.4

15.10.3 Cartesian Refinement Around Wells

The gridblocks around the wells are refined 3x3x3. Note that since well G3
is entirely contained within grid G3, no grid information is needed in the
FPERF data. Also note that the well now has 6 layers.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Cartesian refinement around Well G3
17 19 2 4 1 4
3*3
3*3
4*3
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-211

Simulator:
IMPES ! Default Formulation

RESTART
G3 IMPLICIT
H2 IMPLICIT
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C
1 G3 5 5 G3 ! Center of Grid G3
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
X 3
X 4
X 5
X 6
.
.
.
15-212 Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark 15-213

15.10.4 Radial Refinement Around Wells

The well column is given a radial refinement. Note that since no IW/JW
values were given for well G3, then perforations will be automatically
generated for all values of theta in the first annulus. The users must insure
that NPRFMX and NPRFTOT on the DIM card are large enough to
account for the generated perforations.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement around Well G3
18 3 1 4 ! IW JW K1 K2
5 4 .6 RMIN 20. ! Nrad NTheta Rinner R1
4*3 ! Z splits
5*.5 ! X locations of center (relative to DX)
5*.5 ! Y locations of center (relative to DY)
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
Simulator:
DIM NPRFMX NPRFTOT
24 100
IMPLICIT ! Default Formulation
RESTART
ROOT IMPES ! Over-ride IMPLICIT for ROOT grid
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT Grids
C
1 G3 X X G3
2 H2 X X H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1 ! For wells in Radial LGRs
X 2 ! if no IW or JW values given,
X 3 ! then all theta in the first annulus are
X 4 ! perforated.
X 5 !
X 6 !
.
.
.
15-214 Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark 15-215

15.10.5 Multi-grid Well Refinement

The first perforations in well G3 are in the ROOT grid while the remaining
perforations are in the radial grid refinement G3. Since IW/JW were
specified, the perforations in each theta block must be explicitly defined.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement around Well G3
18 3 4 9 ! IW JW K1 K2
6*3 ! Z splits
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
15-216 Landmark - R2003.4

Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C

1 G3 X X ROOT
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL GRID IW JW L
1 ROOT 18 3 1 ! Gas Cap Perfs
X ROOT 18 3 2 !
X ROOT 18 3 3 !
X G3 X X 13 !
X G3 X X 14
X G3 X X 15
X G3 X X 16
.
.
.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-217

15-218 Landmark - R2003.4

15.10.6 Horizontal Well Refinement

Note that in a horizontal radial refinement, the IW and JW refer to the
radial and theta direction blocks, respectively. The L on the FPERF refers
to the z direction relative to the grid, which is the x or y direction
relative to the parent grid.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADXREF G3 ! Refinement for Horizontal Well G3
17 19 4 6 ! i1 i2 JW KW
2 3 4 ! X splits
4*.5 ! Z locations of center (relative to DZ)
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-219

Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C

1 G3 X X G3
.
.
.
FPERF
WELL L
1 2 ! For wells in radial LGRs
X 3 ! if no IW or JW values given,
X 4 ! then all theta in the first annulus are perforated.
X 5 !
X 6 ! For horizontal wells, the FPERF parameter L
X 7 ! refers to the Z direction in the LGR grid,
X 8 ! which is the X or Y direction in the parent.
.
.
.
15-220 Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark 15-221

15.10.7 Non-Uniform Refinement

This example illustrates how to cause the refinement within a coarse block
to be non-uniform. Initially the LGR/ENDLGR data causes a uniform
refinement, as illustrated in the first set of figures. The refinement is made
non-uniform by specifying the DX, DY, and/or DZ arrays for the grid.
These values are relative values; that is, the specific value does not matter.
The relative values for the block within a coarse block are used to divide
the coarse block. The non-uniform data is illustrated in the second set of
figures.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Cartesian refinement around Well G3
17 19 2 4 2 4
2 3 2 ! I splits
2 3 2 ! J splits
1 2 3 ! K splits
ENDREF
CARTREF
... etc.
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
ARRAYS
.
.
.
ARRAYS G3
DX XVAR
.5 .5 .4 .2 .4 .5 .5 ! I = 17, 18, 19
DY YVAR
.5 .5 .4 .2 .4 .5 .5 ! J = 2, 3, 4
DZ ZVAR
1. .5 .5 .5 .3 .2 ! K = 2, 3, 4
.
.
.
15-222 Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark 15-223

15-224 Landmark - R2003.4

15.10.8 Nested Grids

This example shows the format of the data for a nested grid situation.
Note the positioning of the ENDREF keywords.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
5 1 1 2
C
LGR ROOT ! The Whole World
CARTREF Area1
1 1 1 1 1 1
25 ! I splits
25 ! J splits
9 ! K splits
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement round Well G3 in Area1
18 3 4 9 ! IW JW K1 K2 in Area1 indices
6*3 ! Z splits
ENDREF
ENDREF
CARTREF Area2
5 5 1 1 1 1
35 ! I splits
25 ! J splits
12 ! K splits
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
R2003.4 - Landmark 15-225

15-226 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction
The VIP-EXECUTIVE miscible option can be used in a three- or four-
component mode. The three-component mode, which consists of reservoir
oil, injected solvent, and water, is an extended version of the Todd-
Longstaff15 model. The four-component mode consists of a heavy-oil
component, a light-oil component (solution gas), injected solvent, and
water. The option has been a widely adopted alternative to fully
compositional models for the simulation of miscible or near miscible
processes. It introduces a mixing parameter to account for viscous
fingering and incomplete mixing in numerical gridblocks.
The miscible option accounts for the transformation between miscible and
immiscible conditions. The development and loss of miscibility are
controlled by a miscibility pressure that can be treated as a constant or as
composition-dependent. A damping function also is introduced for a
smooth transition between miscible and immiscible conditions.
R2003.4 - Landmark 16-227

Governing Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
16.2 Governing Equations

For a three-component system, the black-oil version of VIP-EXECUTIVE
was adapted in which the injected solvent is the first hydrocarbon
component and the reservoir oil is the second (heavy) hydrocarbon
component. For a four-component system, the solution gas and stock tank
oil are identified as the first and second hydrocarbon components,
respectively, and a third hydrocarbon component (solvent) was added to
the black-oil version of VIP-EXECUTIVE. The mass balance equations for
the hydrocarbon components are the same as in the original VIP-
EXECUTIVE, except that effective relative permeabilities, gas-oil capillary
pressure, viscosities, and densities (in the gravity terms) are used. Using
the VIP-EXECUTIVE formulation, the mass balance equations for the
hydrocarbon components are
( Fz i ) kk roe o oe g
------------------- = ------------ ------- x i P o ------------------------------------- D (16-1)
t oe M o 5.6146 144g c
kk rge g ge g
+ ------------ ------- y i P o + P cgoe ------------------------------------- D + q o x i + q q y i
ge M g 5.6146 144g c
Here, is porosity, F is total hydrocarbon molar density, zi is overall mole

fraction of component i, k is absolute permeability, krge and kroe are
effective relative permeabilities to gas and oil, g and o are gas and oil
mass densities, Mj (j = g, o) is molecular weight of phase j, je is effective
mass density, D is vertical depth, Po is pressure, je is effective viscosity,
and qj is source term. Note that effective densities are used only in the
gravity contribution to the flow potential terms. For simplicity, the phase
equilibrium between the oil and the gas phases is represented by pressure-
dependent K-value tables:
yi = K i ( P ) xi (16-2)
where Ki denotes the equilibrium K-values.
16-228 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Effective Relative Permeabilities
16.3 Effective Relative Permeabilities

The effective relative permeabilities are expressed as
S o S orm S twb
k roe = k rh -------------------------------------- + ( 1 )k ro (16-3)
1 S w S twb
Sg
- + ( 1 )k rg
k rge = k rh ------------------------------ (16-4)
1 S w S twb
where is a parameter describing the transition between miscible and

immiscible (discussed below), krh denotes the relative permeability to
miscible hydrocarbons, Sorm is the residual oil saturation to miscible flood
(a constant), and Stwb is the water-blocking saturation that represents the
amount of oil inaccessible to the solvent as a function of water saturation.
This can be seen in the following:
S orw
S twb = ----------------------- (16-5)
k row
1 + ----------
k rw
Parameter Sorw is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil system, and
is a parameter that controls the severity of water blocking. A small value
of (e.g., = 1) represents a strong water blocking behavior. The first
terms in Equations 16-3 and 16-4 represent the relative permeabilities to
the oil and gas phases when the hydrocarbons are miscible, while the
second terms represent the respective relative permeabilities when the
hydrocarbons are immiscible.
Two options are available for representation of the relative permeability to

miscible hydrocarbons, krh. The first option, which is the default option in
VIP-EXECUTIVE, assumes that krh is independent of the composition of
the miscible hydrocarbons. Consequently, the input relative permeability
to oil in the water-oil system (krow) is used:
k rh = k row (16-6)
For cases in which the relative permeability to solvent is significantly

different from that to oil, another option is needed that considers this
difference and provides a numerically consistent interpolation scheme for
the expression of krh. In this other interpolation scheme, the volume
fraction of the unblocked oil in the oil-gas mixture is first defined as
Sg
f o 1 ------------------------------
- (16-7)
1 S w S twb
R2003.4 - Landmark 16-229

Effective Relative Permeabilities VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The residual hydrocarbon saturation, Shr , then is linearly interpolated as
S hr = f o S orw + ( 1 f o ) ( S gr + S orm + S twb ) (16-8)
Here, Sorw and Sgr denote the residual oil saturation in the water-oil
system and the residual gas saturation, respectively. Next, the normalized
hydrocarbon saturation for the krh curve is defined as
* 1 S w S hr
S h = ------------------------------
- (16-9)
1 S wc S hr
where Swc is the irreducible water saturation. Finally, the relative

permeability to miscible hydrocarbon is interpolated as
k rh = f o k row ( S we ) + ( 1 f o )k rg ( S ge ) (16-10)
where the effective water and gas saturations, Swe and Sge, are
*
S we S wc + ( 1 S h ) ( 1 S wc S orw ) (16-11)
*
S ge S gr + S h ( 1 S wc S gr ) (16-12)
The above interpolation scheme provides a smooth transition for krh from
the krow curve to the krg curve as the hydrocarbon mixture moves from
pure oil to pure solvent during miscible displacement. Note that
Equations 16-7 to 16-12 are purely empirical. They imply that the relative
permeability to a fluid phase is strongly composition-dependent. The
validity of this scheme has yet to be determined.
The relative permeabilities krow and krg in Equation 16-10 ignore relative
permeability hysteresis; i.e., the drainage krg and imbibition krow curves are
used for the calculation. Relative permeability hysteresis, if invoked by the
user, is applied only to the immiscible portion; i.e., the second terms on the
right sides of Equations 16-3 and 16-4 of the effective relative permeability
calculations.
The interpolation scheme described above by Equations 16-7 to 16-12 is

invoked by a CDPKRH keyword in the last (seventh) entry of the MIS
card. Without this keyword, krh defaults to krow; i.e., Equation 16-6.
16-230 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Miscible-Immiscible Transition
16.4 Miscible-Immiscible Transition

Two options for modeling the transition between miscible and immiscible
conditions are available. The first option assumes that the miscibility
pressure is a constant. The hydrocarbons in a gridblock are assumed to be
miscible if the gridblock pressure is above the miscibility pressure and if
solvent concentration is above a threshold value. Parameter in
Equations 16-3 and 16-4 is a damping function that provides a smooth
transition between miscible and immiscible conditions. If the
hydrocarbons are completely miscible (the gridblock pressure is above a
user-input upper-bound miscibility pressure), is assigned a value of one.
On the other hand, has a value of zero if the fluid system is immiscible
(gridblock pressure is below a user-input lower-bound miscibility
pressure). Between the lower- and upper-bound miscibility pressures, the
value of increases linearly from zero to one as shown in Figure 16-1. In
addition, to account for the loss of miscibility when the solvent
concentration drops below a critical value, parameter is assigned a value
of zero (immiscible condition) whenever the solvent pseudo-saturation
falls below a user-specified critical value (a value of 0.01 was suggested by
Todd and Longstaff15).
1.0

Sg Y3 ssmin
Sg Y3 < ssmin
0.0
pmis1 pmis2
PRESSURE
Figure 16-1: Damping Function for Miscible-Immiscible Switch
The second option employs a composition-dependent miscibility pressure

function. For the four-component miscible model, the miscibility pressure
may be specified as a function of the total hydrocarbon composition or the
R2003.4 - Landmark 16-231

Miscible-Immiscible Transition VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
gas molar fraction in the gas pseudo-phase. In the former case, the
miscibility pressure is represented as a function of the total molar fractions
of the gas (z1) and the solvent (z3). In the latter case, the miscibility
pressure is assumed to be a function of the gas molar fraction in the gas-
solvent mixture (y1). This is especially useful for simulation of the loss of
miscibility that is caused by gas injection following solvent injection. For
the three-component miscible model, miscibility pressure is a function of
the solvent total molar fraction. To invoke the miscibility-pressure table
option, the user must enter the miscibility pressure function in a tabular
form. Damping function is also available with this option. Here, the
damping function is represented only by the solid line in Figure 16-1, and
parameter pmis2 (which is a variable in this option) in Figure 16-1 is the
miscibility pressure calculated from the user-input table. In addition to the
miscibility pressure table, the user must enter the size of the transition
zone (i. e., the value of pmis2 - pmis1).
16-232 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures
16.5 Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures

The effective viscosities are described as
1
oe = o m (16-13)
1
ge = g m (16-14)
where the mixture viscosity, m, is calculated from the 1/4-power mixing

rule,
14 14 14
1 * 1 * 1
------ = (1 S o ) ----- + S o ----- (16-15)
m g o
The normalized mobile oil saturation, So*, is defined as
* S o S twb S orm
S o -------------------------------------- (16-16)
1 S w S twb
The mixing parameter, , is used to control the degree of fluid mixing. A

value of zero corresponds to the case of a negligible dispersion rate
(piston-like displacement). On the other hand, a value of one corresponds
to complete mixing.
Chase and Todd16 suggest that the effective mass densities used in the
gravity terms be approximated by
S o S o
oe = o ----- + g 1 ----- + ( 1 ) o (16-17)
S n oe S n oe
S o S o
ge = o ----- + g 1 ----- + ( 1 ) g (16-18)
S n ge S n ge
where
14 14
S o M ( o ge )
----- = -----------------------------------------------
14
- (16-19)
S n ge M 1
14 14
S o M ( o oe )
----- = -----------------------------------------------
14
- (16-20)
S n oe M 1
R2003.4 - Landmark 16-233

Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
and

M = ----o- (16-21)
g
Note that Equations 16-19 and 16-20 are indeterminate when the mobility
ratio (M) is equal to one. For this case, the following alternate mixing
model is used:
oe = [ ( 1 ) o + m ] + ( 1 ) o (16-22)
ge = [ ( 1 ) g + m ] + ( 1 ) g (16-23)
where
S o S g
m = o ----- + g ----- (16-24)
S n S n
In VIP-EXECUTIVEs miscible model, two options were implemented to

calculate effective mass densities. The first option uses Equations 16-17
through 16-24, while the second option uses Equations 16-22, 16-23, and
16-24, regardless of the mobility ratio. Both options allow the user to input
different values for and .
The viscosity mixing parameter, , and the density mixing parameter, ,

are generally treated as constants throughout the entire reservoir. The
recent advance in simulation technology suggests that characterization of
the mixing parameters for each model region or gridblock may become
possible. To broaden the capability of the miscible option, a new feature to
specify either one or both mixing parameters for each model gridblock has
been added to the simulator. This feature is invoked by entering array
data for the mixing parameters in the ARRAYS section of the VIP-
EXECUTIVE initialization module. The keywords (array names) for the
viscosity and density mixing parameters are OMGV and OMGD,
respectively.
Finally, the effective capillary pressure in the gas-oil system is
P cgoe = ( 1 )P cgo (16-25)
16-234 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE PVT and VLE Calculations
16.6 PVT and VLE Calculations
16.6.1 Three-Component Option

The three-component miscible option was implemented as a subset of the
VIP-EXECUTIVE black oil model. All PVT input formats are identical to
those of the black oil model. Numerically, it is possible to simulate a
miscible flood by specifying a typical black-oil Rs (solution gas-oil ratio)
table or by specifying a zero Rs value for all saturation pressures. The
latter case is consistent with Todd and Longstaffs original model. The
former case is applicable to the general miscible option that allows a
transition between miscible and immiscible conditions. The input of non-
zero Rs values allows the solubility of the solvent in oil to be included in
immiscible regions.
The structure of VIP-EXECUTIVE code requires non-zero Rs values. As a

result, small Rs values (e.g., 0.00001) should be specified in the saturation
table if the user assumes first contact miscibility. Also, without any free
gas in the oil phase, the oil formation volume factor (Bo) and the oil
viscosity in the input saturation pressure table should be those of the dead
oil. For this reason, the consistency check for the input saturation pressure
table (keyword BOTAB) is bypassed when the miscible option is
invoked. Furthermore, the two-dimensional (pressure- and x1-dependent)
oil phase viscosity and density tables constructed internally in VIP-CORE
are converted to one-dimensional pressure-dependent tables to coincide
with the physical system being simulated.
16.6.2 Four-Component Option

The PVT and VLE data input for the light oil (solution gas) component
and the heavy oil component is identical to the black oil model input
format. VIP-EXECUTIVE internally converts the formation volume factor
tables into compressibility factor [(Zg(P) and Zo*(P, x1*)] tables. Similarly,
viscosity tables [g(P) and o*(P, x1*)] and K-value tables [K1(P) and K2(P)]
are constructed. For the solvent, two property input options are available.
In the first option, the pseudo solvent-phase is treated numerically as
insoluble in the pseudo-oil phase. This corresponds to a K3 value of
infinity. This option is equivalent to most four-component options in the
industry. This option requires the user to input either the formation
volume factor [Bs(P)] or the solvent compressibility factor [Zs(P)] and the
solvent viscosity [s(P)] as a function of pressure in the solvent property
input table. In the second option, the solvent is treated numerically as
partially soluble in the pseudo-oil phase. Inclusion of the solvent
solubility in oil is particularly useful in situations where the reservoir
pressure drops below the miscibility pressure. Under this condition, the
effects of oil swelling and viscosity reduction of the oil phase by the
R2003.4 - Landmark 16-235

PVT and VLE Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
dissolved solvent can be explained. For this option, the user must enter
the solvent K-value [K3(P)], the compressibility factor of solvent in the oil
phase [Zso(P)], the viscosity of solvent in the oil phase [so(P)] as a
function of pressure, and the two properties [Bs(P) or Zs(P), and s(P)]
specified in the first option. The oil and gas phase viscosities, o and g in
Equations 16-13 and 16-14, then are calculated as:
* * ( 1 x3 ) x3
o = [ o ( P, x 1 ) ] [ so ( P ) ] (16-26)
( 1 y3 ) y3
g = [ g ( P ) ] [ s ( P ) ]
*
(16-27)
where
x1
x 1 -------------
*
(16-28)
1 x3
The oil and gas phase compressibility factors, Zo and Zg, are calculated by
Z o = Z o ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 x 3 ) + Z so ( P ) x 3
* *
(16-29)
Z g = Z g ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 y 3 ) + Z s ( P ) y 3
* *
(16-30)
Note that when the first option is invoked, the mole fraction of the solvent
in the oil phase, x3, in Equations 16-26, 16-28, and 16-29 is zero.
16-236 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
17.1 Introduction
Two features modelling non-Darcy gas flow near well are included in the
well model:
Gas density and viscosity dependence on both wellbore pressure and

gridblock pressure.
Well skin dependence on flow rate.
For the first option (pressure-dependent gas density and viscosity), the
Russell Goodrich17 and pseudo-pressure18 equations are implemented.
For the second option (rate-dependent skin factor), the user can specify a
rate-dependent skin factor for each well or for each perforation. If the rate-
dependent skin factor for a well is specified, then the user can choose
either the invert thickness, invert permeability-thickness, or constant
option to allocate the rate-dependent skin to its perforations. The
pressure-dependent gas property option and rate-dependent skin option
can be invoked separately.
R2003.4 - Landmark 17-237

Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
17.2 Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties

The user can choose either the Russell Goodrich equation or pseudo-
pressure equation to model gas properties in the well model. Both
methods account for the variation of gas viscosity and density over the
pressure difference between the gridblock and wellbore pressures. The
Russell Goodrich method uses an average of the gridblock pressure and
the wellbore pressure adjusted to the gridblock depth, 0.5[Pl + Pbh + (Dl -
Dref)], to calculate the density and viscosity of the injection and production
gas. The pseudo-pressure method uses an integrated average between
these two pressures.
P bh + ( D l D ref )
g
gl
-----dp
g
Pl
------- = --------------------------------------------------------- (17-1)
gl P bh + ( D l D ref ) P l
where:
gl gas density
gl gas viscosity
Pl gridblock pressure
Pbh flowing bottom-hole pressure at datum depth, Dref
pressure gradient
Dl subsea depth
Dref datum depth,
and subscript l represents the lth perforation.
Without the non-Darcy gas flow option, gridblock pressure is used to

calculate wellbore viscosity and density. The bottom-hole pressure is not
included in the calculation.
The pseudo-pressure method requires an integration between the

gridblock and wellbore pressures. The trapezoidal rule with Rombergs
extrapolation method19 is used for integration. This integration method
allows a user to specify a maximum relative error for integration. For a
black oil model, density and viscosity is a function of pressure only.
Integration of the density-to-viscosity ratio is calculated for each
saturation pressure in the reconstructed PVT tables. However, for a
compositional model, viscosity and density are also functions of
compositions. The integration is needed each time the well density-to-
viscosity ratio is calculated.
17-238 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties
17.2.1 Input Requirements

The keyword WNDGDV is used to select the pressure-dependent gas
density and viscosity for the well model. The RG option invokes the
Russell Goodrich method, the PP option is for the pseudo pressure
method, and the STD option is for the standard method (i.e., gridblock
pressure is used to calculate wellbore viscosity and density). When the
pseudo-pressure method is selected, the user can specify the maximum
relative error and the maximum number of intervals to be used in the
integration. The default maximum relative error is 0.001, and the default
maximum number of intervals used in the trapezoidal rule is 64.
17.2.2 Recommendations
The Russell Goodrich method and the pseudo-pressure method usually
give the same results except in the region where the density-to-viscosity
ratio is not a linear function of pressure and the pressure difference
between the gridblock and bottom-hole pressures is large. In low- and
high-pressure regions, the density-to-viscosity curve is usually a straight
line. Both methods yield the same results in those regions. In the middle
transition region, the results could be different. However, if the pressure
difference between the gridblock pressure and bottom-hole pressure is
small, then both methods give approximately the same answers.
The pseudo-pressure method is recommended for use for calculation of

gas density and viscosity. Test runs showed that the CPU times for both
methods are about the same.
R2003.4 - Landmark 17-239

Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
17.3 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model

The following well model is used to calculate the flow rate for each
perforation:
2 k rgl
Q gl = ------------------------------------------------- k l h l --------------- [ P l P bh ( D l D ref ) ]
r bl gl B gl
ln ------- + S l + D sl Q gl
r wl
(17-2)
where
Qgl gas surface rate
Pl gridblock pressure
pressure gradient
Dl subsea depth of the lth perforation
Dref datum depth
krgl relative permeability for the gas phase
gl gas viscosity
klhl product of permeability and thickness
rbl equivalent radius of the well block
rwl wellbore radius
Sl skin factor
Dsl rate-dependent skin factor
Bgl formation volume factor
Without rate-dependent skin, the flow rate, Qgl*, is expressed as:
* 2 k rgl
Q gl = ----------------------- k l h l --------------- [ P l P bh ( D l D ref ) ] (17-3)
r bl gl B gl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
The flow rate with rate-dependent skin is expressed as a fraction of the

flow rate without rate-dependent skin as shown in the following equation:
17-240 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model
*
Q gl = f l Q gl (17-4)
where
r bl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
f l = ------------------------------------------------------
- (17-5)
r bl *
ln ------- + S l + f l D sl Q gl
r wl
Therefore, fl is a function of Qgl*:
2
a + a + 4a
f l = ------------------------------------ (17-6)
2
where
r bl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
a = -----------------------
*
(17-7)
D sl Q gl
17.3.1 Allocation of Rate-Dependent Skin Factors to Each Perforation

The well model employs rate-dependent skin factors for each perforation.
The user is allowed to specify the rate-dependent skin factor for each
perforation or for a well. When the rate-dependent skin factor for a well,
Ds, is specified, three options are available to allocate the well skin factor
to its perforations:
inverse thickness option
constant option
inverse thickness-permeability option.
The inverse thickness option is recommended and is the default option.
Inverse Thickness Option
The inverse thickness option is based on theory20 and laboratory

observations.21 The following equation is used to calculate the skin factor
for each perforation:
R2003.4 - Landmark 17-241

nperf
Ds hi
i=1
D sl = ---------------------------- (17-8)
hl
where
Ds rate-dependent skin factor for a well
Dsl rate-dependent skin factor of lth perforation
hl perforation thickness
Constant Option
If the user does not want to scale the rate-dependent skin factor for each
perforation, then the constant option can be chosen. The program assigns
each perforation the same rate-dependant skin factor as the input data
D sl = D s (17-9)
Inverse Thickness-Permeability Option
The basic assumption for inverse thickness-permeability option is that

each perforation initially has the same non-Darcy skin as the well. It also
assumes that the flow rate is proportional to permeability times thickness.
nperf
Ds k i hi
i=1
D sl = --------------------------------
- (17-10)
k l hl

The user can specify a rate-dependent skin factor for a well using a
WDNDG card or for each perforation using an FPERF card. Three options
can be chosen in the WDNDG card to allocate the well skin factor to each
perforation. They are inverse thickness, constant, and inverse
permeability-thickness options as represented by the keywords INVK,
CON, and INVKH, respectively. The WDL option in the FPERF card is
used to specify the rate-dependent skin for each perforation.
To use this option, the user needs to pay attention to the following two
conditions:
When the rate-dependent skin factor option is specified, the well index
cannot be zero. Well index set to zero is a special case in VIP-
EXECUTIVE that means the well index is adjusted to honor both the
17-242 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model
rate and bottom-hole pressure constraints. In such a case, the rate-

dependent skin factor does not have any meaning. Thus, an error
message prints in the output and the simulation run terminates.
If the perforation skin factors are calculated from the input well skin
factor, each time new perforation information is specified in the FPERF
card, the program recalculates the skin factor for each perforation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 17-243

17-244 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
18
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction
VIP contains options for both the fully implicit and IMPES formulation.
For the same timestep size, the IMPES method is much faster than the
fully implicit method. The IMPES method solves the component
conservation equations explicitly; the timestep size is therefore
constrained by the stability limit. The fully implicit method is
unconditionally stable and allows large timesteps to be taken. For
problems with small gridblocks, such as coning problems, the fully
implicit method is overall much faster. The procedure of numerical
solutions for the IMPES method is discussed in the following sections.
18.2 Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations

Equation 9-1 is discretized to form
Kn
VM
[ T oik
n+1 n n+1 n+1
- [ ( Fz i )
------- ( Fz i ) ] + P ok + T gik P gk ]
t
k=1
Kf

n+1 n+1
+ [ T oik f P ok f + T gik f P gk f ]
kf = 1
Kw
+ [ T oik w P ok w + T gik w P gk w ] = 0, i = 1, ..., N c 1 (18-1)
kw = 1
where Vm is the gridblock volume and superscripts n and n+1 denote the
timestep level. The second, third, and fourth terms in Equation 18-1
represent the regular (non-fault) inter-grid flow term (Kn being the total
number of regular neighbors), the inter-grid flow term for fault
connections (Kf being the total number of neighbors through fault
connection), and the injection/production term (Kw being the total
number of wells existed in the gridblock), respectively. Equation 18-1 is in
units of lb-mol/day. For gridblock M, the inter-grid transmissibility terms
are:
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-245

Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
n+1 n+1 n+1 K ro o x i n

T oik 0.5 [ TM ( M , I ) + TM ( MM , I ) ]T k -------------------
o up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-2)
n+1 n+1 n+1 K rg g y i n

T gik 0.5 [ TM ( M , I ) + TM ( MM , I ) ]T k -------------------
g up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-3)
n
n+1 n+1
0.5 [ ( o M o ) M + ( o M o ) MM ] g
P ok = P o ( M ) P o ( MM ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M D MM )
5.16146 144g c
k = k or kf (18-4)
n
n+1 n+1
0.5 [ ( g M g ) M + ( g M g ) MM ] g
P gk = P o ( M ) P o ( MM ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M D MM )
5.16146 144g c
n
+ [ P cg ( M ) P cg ( MM ) ] , k = k or k f (18-5)
Here, MM denotes the number representing the neighboring gridblocks

and Tk (k = k or kf) is the inter-grid transmissibility for regular or fault
connections. TM(M,I) is the transmissibility multiplier, which is pressure
dependent, in the compaction option for gridblock M in the horizontal (I =
1) or the vertical (I = 2) direction. The arithmetical average is used for the
inter-grid transmissibility multiplier, which is updated in every iteration
based on the new gridblock pressure (reversible option) or the minimum
historical gridblock pressure (irreversible option). When the compaction
option is invoked, the user must enter the areal and vertical
transmissibility multipliers as a function of pressure. The phase mobility
terms are evaluated explicitly and are based on upstream weighting.
Explicit, arithmetical average densities also are used for the gravity force
calculation.
The injection and production rates are modeled by
n
K ro o x i
T k w oi WI K h ------------------- (18-6)
o k w
n
K rg g y i
T k w gi WI K h ------------------- (18-7)
g k w
P k w j P o ( M ) P W ( D M D ref ), j = o, g (18-8)
18-246 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations
Here, WIk is the well index, h is gridblock thickness, Pw is bottom-hole

pressure at reference depth, Dref, and is the wellbore pressure gradient.
For gas injectors, the wellbore pressure gradients are calculated based on
properties of the gridblock containing the top perforation (gridblock M1):
g ( M1 )M g g
= ----------------------------------
- (18-9)
5.6146 144g c
For producers, the wellbore pressure gradient is estimated as
Kp
K rw w K ro o K rg g n
---------------
w - + -------------
Kh
o
- + --------------
g
= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
k=1
Kp
k
- (18-10)
K rw K ro K rg n
Kh -------- w
- + -------- + --------
o g k
k=1
where
jM jg
j = -----------------------------------, j = o, g (18-11)
5.6146 144g c
o
w Bw M w g
w = ----------------------------------
- (18-12)
5.6146 144g c
In Equation 18-10, the summations are taken over all (Kp) perforated
layers. Variables j in Equations 18-11 and 18-12 are in units of psi/ft.
18.2.1 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation

Equation 9-2 is discretized to form
Kn
VM
[ T ok
n+1 n n+1 n+1
- [ ( F )
------- ( F ) ] + P ok + T gk P gk ]
t
k=1
Kf

n+1 n+1
+ [ T ok f P ok f + T gk f P gk f ]
kf = 1
Kw
+ [ T ok w P ok w + T gk w P gk w ] = 0 (18-13)
kw = 1
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-247

Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where Tmko, Tmkg (k = k of kf ), Tko, and Tk are summations of Equations 18-

2, 18-3, 18-6, and 18-7, respectively, over all hydrocarbon components.
18.2.2 Water Balance Equation

The water balance equation, Equation 9-3, is discretized to form
Kn Kf
VM

n+1 n n+1 n+1
- [ ( B w S w )
------- ( B w S w ) ] + [ T wk P wk ] + [ T wk f P wk f ]
t
k=1 kf = 1
Kw

n+1
+ [ T wk w P wk w ] Q Na = 0 (18-14)
kw = 1
where
K rw B w n
n+1 n+1 n+1
T wk .5 [ TM ( M , I ) + TM ( MM , I ) ]T k ----------------
w up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-15)
n
K rw B w
T wk w WI K h ---------------- (18-16)
w k w
o
n+1 n+1 w M w g n
P wk = P o ( M ) P o ( MM ) ----------------------------------- [ B w ( MN ) ] ( D M D MM )
5.6146 144g c
n
[ P cw ( M ) P cw ( MM ) ] , k = k or k f ; MN = Max ( M , MM ) (18-17)
where
P k w j P o ( M ) P W ( D M D ref ) (18-18)
Equation 18-14 is in units of STB/day. As shown in Equation 18-17, the

inter-grid gravity term is calculated based on the reciprocal water
formation volume factor, Bw, of the gridblock with higher grid number.
This is in contrast with the arithmetical average used for the hydrocarbon
equations. For producers, the wellbore pressure gradient is calculated by
Equation 18-10. For water injectors, it is calculated on the basis of the
properties of the gridblock containing the first perforation of the well
(gridblock M1):
18-248 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations
o
w M w B w ( M1 )g
w = ---------------------------------------
- (18-19)
5.6146 144g c
The water influx is calculated by the Carter-Tracy Method 2:
Bw n
] } ------
n+1 n+1 n+1 n n+1
Q Na = { A Na + B Na [ P o ( M ) P o ( M ) (18-20)
w
Here, QNa denotes the amount (in STB/day) of water influx into the
gridblock. ANa and BNa are parameters defined in the Carter-Tracy
Method.
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-249

Linearization of the Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
18.3 Linearization of the Equations

By application of the Newton-Raphson method, the (2Nc + 2) equations
are linearized in terms of changes in the (2Nc + 2) primary unknowns: xi
(i = 1, ..., Nc - 1), L, zi (i = 1, ..., Nc - 1), F, Sw, and Po. The resulting system of
equations for Nc = 3 is given by:
g x11 g x12 g L1 g z11 g z12 g p1 x1 RM 1

g x21 g x22 g L2 g z21 g z22 g p2 x 2 RM 2
g x31 g x32 g L3 g z31 g z32 g p3 L RM 3
Bf1 B1 T 1 G1 z 1 RM 4
z 2
B f 2 B2 T 2 G2 = RM 5 (18-21)
B T f Gf F RM 6
Bs T w Gw S W RM 7
C x1 C x2 C L C z1 C z2 C f C s C p P o RM 8
H D W P W RW
The first Nc equations are the fugacity equality equations followed by (Nc
+ 1) mass conservation equations. The penultimate equation is the
saturation constraint equation, while the last equation is the implicit
bottom-hole pressure constraint equation.
Each element of the Jacobian matrix is an NB x NB diagonal submatrix,

where NB is the number of gridblocks, except for Ti (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Tf, Tw,
G, H, and Dw . Here, Ti, Tf, and Tw are NB x NB tridiagonal,
pentadiagonal, and seven-diagonal submatrices for one-, two-, and three-
dimensional problems, respectively. For problems with nonstandard
connections, the T matrices are general sparse matrices. The G matrices are
NB x NIMPWL sparse matrices arising from the bottom-hole pressure
derivatives in the conservation equations, where NIMPWL is the number
of wells with implicit bottom-hole pressure calculation. H is an NIMPWL
x NB sparse matrix consisting of the gridblock pressure derivatives in the
well equations, and Dw is an NIMPWL x NIMPWL diagonal matrix
consisting of the bottom-hole pressure derivatives in the well equations.
The submatrices in Equation 18-21 are given by:
R Mi ( x i oi y i gi ) i = 1, ...,N c (18-22)
R Mi
g xim -----------
- m = 1, ...,N c 1 (18-23)
x m
R Mi
g Li -----------
- (18-24)
L
18-250 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Linearization of the Equations
R Mi
g zim -----------
- (18-25)
z m
R Mi
g Pi -----------
- (18-26)
P O
R M ( N c + i ) [ left side of Equation 18 1 ] (18-27)
R M ( N c + i )
B fi -------------------------
- (18-28)
z i
R M N c + i
- i = 1, ...,N c 1
B i --------------------- (18-29)
F
R M N c + i
T i ---------------------
- i = 1, ...,N c 1 (18-30)
P o
R M N c + i
G i ---------------------
- i = 1, ...,N c 1 (18-31)
P W
R M ( 2N c ) [ left side of Equation 18-13 ] (18-32)
R M ( 2N )
B ---------------------c- (18-33)
F
R M ( 2N )
T f ---------------------c- (18-34)
P o
R M ( 2N )
G f ---------------------c- (18-35)
P W
R M ( 2N c + 1 ) [ left side of Equation ( 18 14 ) ] (18-36)
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
B s ----------------------------
- (18-37)
F
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
T w ----------------------------
- (18-38)
P o
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-251

Linearization of the Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
G w ----------------------------
- (18-39)
P W
RT
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) 1 F [ ( 1 L )Z g + LZ o ] ---------- S w (18-40)
Po
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C xm ----------------------------
- ----------------------------- m = 1, ..., N c 1 (18-41)
x m x Nc
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C L ----------------------------
- (18-42)
L
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C zm ----------------------------
- ----------------------------- m = 1, ..., N c 1 (18-43)
z m z Nc
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C f ----------------------------
- (18-44)
F
C s 1 (18-45)
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C p ----------------------------
- (18-46)
P o
R W
H ----------- (18-47)
P o
R W
D W ----------- (18-48)
P W
18-252 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations
18.4 Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations

The solution of the simultaneous equations over one timestep for the
IMPES formulation is outlined below. The procedure for the implicit
formulation is similiar.
1. For gridblocks adjacent to aquifers, parameters ANa and BNa are

calculated. In addition, explicit properties such as inter-grid mobilities,
inter-grid gravity gradients, capillary pressures, and well-block
mobilities are calculated.
2. The Jacobian coefficient matrix in Equation 18-21 is calculated.
3. The first (2Nc + 2) x NB equations of Equation 18-21 are reduced to

upper triangular form in a forward elimination step. The resulting
matrix is given by
*
* * * * * R M1
I g x12 g L1 g z11 g z12 g p1 x 1
*
I
* *
g L2 g z21 g z22
* *
g p2 x 2 R M2
*
*
I g z31 g z32
* *
g p3 L R M3
Bf1 B1 T 1 G1 z 1 *
R M4
B f 2 B2 T 2 G2 z 2 = R* (18-49)
M5
I
*
T f Gf
* F *
R M6
I
*
T w Gw
*
S w *
R M7
* * P o *
C p GT R M8
H D W P W RW
The Po and PW equations in Equation 18-49 can be written as
*
C p GT
* P o *
R M8
AX = = = b (18-50)
H DW P W RW
4. Residuals in the hydrocarbon balance and the water balance equations

(RM6 and RM7 in Equation 18-21) are compared with the material
balance error tolerances (TOLHC in lb-mole/day for hydrocarbons
and TOLRW in STB/day for water). If the residuals do not exceed
TOLHC and TOLRW, then the Newton iteration is assumed to have
converged. In this case, the computation jumps to Step 15. If the
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-253

Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
maximum number of iterations have been performed, the

computation jumps to Step 13.
5. Equation 18-50 is solved by a linear equation solver. After the pressure

solution is obtained, direct back substitution is performed to
determine the new F and Sw using the Jacobian matrix given by
Equation 18-49. The total mole fractions of components i, zi (i =
1, ..., Nc-1), are not calculated from the direct back substitution. They
are calculated to satisfy the hydrocarbon species material balance
exactly. This is accomplished by solving for F n+1 in Equation 18-1. This
procedure guarantees zero material balance error for components 1 to
Nc-1 if no implicit wells are involved. After zi are determined, back
substitution is performed to obtain L and xi (i=1, ..., Nc-1).
6. For the first iteration, the IMPES stability is tested. If the ratio of the
total phase outflow to the current phase amount in any gridblock for
any phase, FACIMP, exceeds a pre-specified limit (STSLIM; default
value 1.0), the timestep size factor is set equal to the user-specified
IMPES stability target throughput (STSTAR; default value 0.9) divided
by FACIMP and the timestep is repeated by moving to Step 14.
7. The maximum changes in Po, Sw , L, and zi over the iteration are

calculated. If none of the maximum changes exceeds the user-supplied
maximum allowable change (DPLIM, DSWLIM, DVLIM, and
DZLIM), then the weighting factor U1 is assigned a value of one.
Otherwise, U1 is set equal to the minimum value among the ratios of
the maximum allowable change for each unknown to its predicted
maximum change over the iteration.
8. If none of the maximum changes over the iteration exceeds the user-
specified convergence tolerance (TOLP, TOLS, TOLV, and TOLZ), then
the Newton iteration is considered to have converged.
9. All primary unknowns are updated. The new values (at iteration level
m+1) are set equal to the most recent values (level m) plus U1
multiplied by the calculated changes over the iteration. If either the
new L or V in any two-phase gridblock becomes negative, the variable
is assigned a new value of zero and the gridblock is redesignated as a
single-phase block.
10. If the Newton iteration has converged and residuals need to be

recomputed for iteration summary output, the computation is
returned to Step 2. If the Newton iterations have converged and
residuals are not needed, the computation jumps to Step 15.
11. If the black oil option is used, simple analytical expressions are used to
detect the appearance of the second phase and the phase
compositions. For the compositional model, saturation pressures for
those single-phase gridblocks showing a noticeable change in the total
mole fraction of any component over the timestep (i.e., |zi| greater
than 10-6 for any component i) are calculated to detect the appearance
18-254 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations
of the second hydrocarbon phase. If the calculated saturation pressure

is larger than the gridblock pressure, the second phase is assumed to
have formed during the iteration and a flash calculation is performed
to determine xi, yi, and L. However, if the saturation pressure
calculation in the previous or current Newton iteration fails to
converge, the flash calculation also is performed to detect the
appearance of the second hydrocarbon phase. For fluids that have
shown some difficulty in phase behavior convergence (e.g., near the
critical point), the user may elect to provide a more robust flash
treatment, where flash calculations are performed for all known two-
phase gridblocks to precondition the mass balance calculation. This
flash calculation is performed in this step, and the predicted xi, yi, and
L are updated. This option can be invoked by entering a positive
number for the variable KMAX2 in the input KMAX card. This option
also can be combined with the option of bypassing the first Nc
equations (the fugacity equality equations) in the Newton method by
entering the keyword SS in the KMAX card.
12. A new iteration is performed by returning to Step 2.
13. If the Newton iteration failed to converge, the timestep size is cut by
one-half (smaller factors for subsequent failures) and the timestep is
repeated by returning to Step 1.
14. If the IMPES stability check failed, then the new timestep size is set
equal to the old timestep size multiplied by the timestep size factor
determined in Step 6 and the timestep is repeated by returning to
Step 1.
15. If the Newton iteration converged, the maximum changes in Po, Sw ,

Sg, zi, and V and their ratios to the maximum allowable change over a
timestep (DPMAX, DSMAX, DZMAX, DVMAX) are calculated. If any
of the ratios exceeds the value MAXOVR (default 1.5), the new
timestep size is set equal to the old timestep size divided by the
maximum ratio, and the timestep is repeated by returning to Step 1.
16. The converged solution is accepted. The material balance errors for the
total hydrocarbon and water over the timestep are calculated. A new
timestep size is selected, and a new timestep is started by returning to
Step 1. The material balance error for water or total hydrocarbon is
defined as
F ip F iip + C pd C in
Err = ----------------------------------------------------
- (18-51)
C pd + C in
where Fip, Fiip, Cpd, and Cin (in STB for water or lb-mole for total
hydrocarbon) are fluid in place, initial fluid in place, cumulative
production, and cumulative injection of water or total hydrocarbon,
respectively.
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-255

Solution of Linear System of Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
18.5 Solution of Linear System of Equations

Equation 18-50 is solved by a linear equation solver. The solvers available
in VIP-EXECUTIVE are GAUSS, BLITZ,22 and EXCEL.23 Except for
GAUSS, which is a direct solver, the solvers are semi-iterative solvers
based on variants of the preconditioned, generalized conjugate residual
method (PGCR). The preconditioning step utilizes incomplete Gaussian
elimination to form an approximate factorization of the Jacobian matrix. In
terms of execution speed and storage, GAUSS is not competitive in
comparison to the PGCR-based solvers, except for relatively small 2-D
problems.
18.5.1 Gauss
This is a direct solver that uses Gaussian elimination with the gridblocks
ordered by D4 ordering (alternate diagonal). It can solve a system of
equations arising from the 5-point (2-D) and 7-point (3-D) finite-difference
approximations. The implicit well constraint equations, fully implicit, and
IMPES formulations can all be handled by GAUSS. However, it is not
applicable to problems with faults.
18.5.2 BLITZ
BLITZ is based on the preconditioned, generalized minimal residual
method (GMRES).49 It can handle the following problems:
Single or multiple unknowns per gridblock (IMPES or fully implicit

formulation).
Five- and nine-point finite-difference equations.
Implicit well constraint equations.
Non-neighbor connections resulting from logically vertical faults.
Dual permeability and porosity formulations.
There are many parameters that the user can adjust to improve the
convergence rate of the solver. Some of the more important parameters are
described below.
18-256 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Solution of Linear System of Equations
Appropriate Problem Type Preconditioning/Ranking
Parameter 5-pt. 9-pt. fault crossflow power vector storage
JLU1 - Preconditioning option for

IMPES or Constrained Pressure
Residual (CPR) method
-1 D4 Gauss yes no no no 1 9 9
0 Reduced system/MNF3 yes no no no 9 1 1
1 Reduced system/MILU(0) yes no no no 2 5 2
2 Line Gauss-Seidel yes yes yes no 8 4 5
3 Modified nested factorization 1, yes yes yes yes 3 8 6
MNF1 (nested factorization at
the 2-D level)
4 Modified nested factorization 2, yes yes yes yes 7 7 7

MNF2 (MILU(0) at the 2-D
level)
5 Modified nested factorization 3, yes yes no yes 6 6 8
MNF3 (RB/MILU(0) at the 2-D
level)
6 MVP1 yes no yes no 4 2 3
Appropriate Problem Type Preconditioning/Ranking
Parameter 5-pt. 9-pt. fault crossflow power vector storage
JLUN - Preconditioning option for fully

implicit formulation
0 Reduced system/diagonal scal- yes no no no 6 2 1
ing
1 Reduced system/ILU(0) yes no no no 1 5 7
2 Line Gauss-Seidel yes yes yes no 5 6 3
3 Modified Nested Factorization yes yes yes yes 2 7 4
1
4 Diagonal Scaling yes yes yes yes 7 1 2
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-257

Parameter
JCOR - Constraint option associated with the pressure solution (applicable to

JLU1=0 or 1)
0 No constraints
1 Use line residual constraints
JOPT - Grid ordering option for the preconditioner
0 Automatic
1 xyz
2 yxz
3 xzy
4 zxy
5 yzx
6 zyx
JCPR - Constrained pressure residual method option (fully implicit formula-
tion only)
0 No pressure predictor step
1 Use pressure predictor step
In the preceding tables, the preconditionings are ranked in decreasing

order of power, vectorization, and storage requirements (e.g., the most
powerful preconditioning for the fully implicit formulation is REDUCED
SYSTEM/ILU(0)). The more powerful the preconditioning the fewer
iterations are required for convergence. The power rankings are to be
taken as rule of thumb observations only. Also the implicit MVP
preconditioning options are currently not implemented to be used in
conjunction with the CPR method. However, the pressure MVP
preconditionings (JLU1 = 6 or JLU1 = 7) may be used with the CPR
method for other implicit preconditionings.
RS/MILU(0) is the default preconditioner for problems with no fault

connections. Typically, it is the fastest option for such systems. Nested
factorization (MNF1) is the default preconditioner for systems with
logically vertical faults. Since the convergence rate of nested factorization
is sensitive to grid ordering, the JOPT parameter must be chosen carefully.
For MNF1, the best convergence rate is obtained by ordering the direction
with the largest transmissibility first. This is usually the z-direction for
typical reservoir models. For MNF2 and MNF3, the condition is more
relaxed. It is sufficient to have the direction with the largest
transmissibility ordered among the first two directions of grid ordering.
The direction with the largest dimension usually is chosen as the first
direction to improve vectorization.
18-258 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Solution of Linear System of Equations
18.5.3 EXCEL
EXCEL also is based on preconditioned ORTHOMIN. The preconditioners
are based on incomplete LU factorization with natural ordering and any
level of infills may be specified. EXCEL can handle both IMPES and fully
implicit formulations. In addition, it can handle problems with arbitrary
nonstandard connections that are not logically vertical. The data structure
of EXCEL is based on sparse matrix storage; therefore, it is not very
efficient on a vector computer. For some problems, it is an order of
magnitude slower than BLITZ. The parameters for controlling the EXCEL
solver are described in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual, Chapter 7.
R2003.4 - Landmark 18-259

18-260 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
19
00000Optimal Material Balance Option
19.1 Introduction
The Optimal Material Balance Option is the combination of three special
features implemented in the IMPES version of VIP-EXECUTIVE to
improve computational efficiency through code restructuring. These
features are
A new procedure for convergence control and updating unknowns,
Partial Jacobian update,
Criteria for single-phase stability test.
The first feature is applicable to both the equation-of-state compositional

and black-oil models of VIP-EXECUTIVE, while the other two features are
applicable to the equation-of-state compositional model only.
Two techniques originally developed for the Optimal Material Balance

Option are now available also with the Standard Iterated IMPES
formulation:
Reordering of gridblocks based on fluid types,
Vectorization of saturation pressure and flash calculations.
Results of test runs indicate that when using the Optimal Material Balance
Option, VIP-EXECUTIVE runs 3.4 to 4.7 times faster (with approximately
the same number of timesteps) than the standard iterated IMPES
formulation for the SPE 5th Comparative Solution Problems24 (Scenarios 1
to 3). Similar speedups also are obtained for pattern or partial-field-type
systems with a limited number of wells and no iterative well management
calculations. For full-field black-oil and compositional models with
extensive well management calculations, CPU time improvements of 43 to
55% were observed.
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-261

Unknown Update and Convergence Control VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
19.2 Unknown Update and Convergence Control

In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the finite-difference
representation of the total hydrocarbon mass balance equation and the
water mass balance equation, Equations 9-2 and 9-3, are nonlinear because
of the terms F and Bw Sw; unknowns F and Sw are updated using the
conventional Newton back substitution procedure. Consequently, the
material balances for hydrocarbons and water are not satisfied identically
during each Newton step and several iterations may be required before
the residuals reduce to an acceptable level. This procedure is different
from that of Young and Stephenson5 and Young25 in which unknowns F
and Sw were updated to satisfy the material balances exactly. For the
hydrocarbon species mass balance equations, Equation 9-1, the VIP-
EXECUTIVE procedure to update unknowns zi, is similar to that of
References 5 and 25, where the original finite-difference equation without
linearization (rather than the direct back substitution) is applied to ensure
a good material balance.
Because of the difference in the unknown update procedure described

above, the convergence criteria in VIP-EXECUTIVE are also different from
those in References 5 and 25. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, the Newton iteration is
considered converged if the residuals in Equations 9-2 and 9-3 or the
changes in all primary unknowns during a Newton iteration drop below
the user-specified tolerances. On the other hand, with preservation of the
material balance for each component, the simulators presented in
References 5 and 25 determine the convergence of the Newton iteration
through the residual in saturation constraint Equation 9-9. With this
procedure, most timesteps converge after only one outer (Newton)
iteration, as compared with the two or more iterations required for VIP-
EXECUTIVE.
To reduce the number of Newton iterations in VIP-EXECUTIVE, several

modifications were made. First, the unknown updating procedure for
Equations 9-2 and 9-3 was modified to satisfy the material balance
identically. Second, the convergence criterion used in Reference 25 (the
maximum allowable residual in the saturation constraint equation) was
adopted. Finally, the bottom-hole pressure and well rate calculation
procedures in VIP-EXECUTIVE were modified to ensure a good material
balance.
As discussed earlier, with the general formulation in VIP-EXECUTIVE, the

finite-difference representations of Equations 9-2 and 9-3 are nonlinear.
Consequently, using the conventional back substitution procedure for
unknowns F and Sw , the Newton method requires several iterations
before the hydrocarbon and water residuals reduce to an acceptable level.
To satisfy the material balance exactly during each iteration, unknowns F
and Sw must be updated directly from the non-linearized finite-difference
representations of Equations 9-2 and 9-3:
19-262 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Unknown Update and Convergence Control
Kn
VM n + 1 n + 1
[ T Mko Pko + T Mkg Pkg ]
n
--------- [ F ( F ) ] +
t
k=1
Kv
+ [ T kwo P kwo + T kwg P kwg ] = 0 (19-1)
kv = 1
Kn Kw
VM n + 1 n + 1 n + 1

n
-------- [ B w S w ( B w S w ) ] + [ T Mkw P kw ] + [ T kkw P kww ] = 0 (19-2)
t
k=1 kw = 1
Here, VM is the gridblock volume, superscripts n+1 and n denote new and
old timestep levels, and the second and third terms in both equations are
the inter-grid (including faults) flow and source terms, respectively. Using
the IMPES formulation, the flow coefficients (TMkj and Tkwj, j = o, g, w) are
evaluated explicitly.
After solving the simultaneous pressure and well constraint equations, the
new pressure of each gridblock and the new wellbore pressures are
determined. Since the porosity and water formation volume factor are
only a function of gridblock pressure, n+1 and Bwn+1 can be updated
readily from the new pressures. Unknowns Fn+1 and Swn+1 then can be
calculated directly from Equations 19-1 and 19-2. With this new
procedure, the total hydrocarbon and water material balances are satisfied
exactly.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, implementation of this procedure alone does not

always guarantee a good material balance for gridblocks containing wells.
A potential problem results from the procedures used in updating the new
well rates during each Newton iteration. As mentioned, the reservoir mass
balance and well constraint equations are fully coupled; the changes in
reservoir and wellbore pressures over one iteration are calculated
simultaneously by a linear solver from which the new reservoir and
wellbore pressures are determined. The primary unknowns, Sw , F, and zi,
are then updated using the new reservoir and wellbore pressures. At the
end of each iteration, the new well rates in each perforation are not
directly calculated from the new wellbore pressure determined by the
linear solver. Instead, the wellbore pressure and well rate for each
perforation are updated to satisfy the following well constraint equation
exactly:
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-263

Kp g
K rj j
q = WI I o BSEP Kh ------------- [ P l P w ( D l D ref ) ]
j
l=1 j=0
Kp
K rw w
+ WI I w Kh ---------------- [ P l P w ( D l D ref ) ] (19-3)
w
l=1
Here, q is the user-specified well rate; Wl is well index; Io and Iw are either
0 or 1, depending on well specifications; Pl and PW are gridblock and
wellbore pressures at the reference depth; is the wellbore pressure
gradient; and Dl and Dref are gridblock and reference depths, respectively.
The variable BSEP is 1.0, except for surface production rate specifications
where BSEP is the ratio of the specified surface rate (in STB/day or
MSCF/day) to the total hydrocarbon molar rate (in lb-mol/day).
Using the IMPES formulation, the mobility terms in Equation 19-3 are
treated explicitly. The equation is linear with respect to both Pl and PW if
BSEP is equal to one. Under this condition, the new wellbore pressure
calculated from the linear solver and from the solution of the well
constraint equation will be identical, provided there is no change in the
injecting or producing perforations over the iteration because of crossflow.
In this case, the material balance will be satisfied exactly. This situation
applies to all injection and production wells with reservoir rate
specifications.
For production wells with an oil or gas surface rate specification, the
variable BSEP is a function of the total hydrocarbon composition that
depends on both the gridblock and bottom-hole pressures. In this case,
Equation 19-3 is no longer linear. The new wellbore pressure, which is
calculated from the linear solver (used to update zi, F, and Sw) and the well
constraint equation (used to update well rates and calculate the material
balance), are not identical. Thus, the material balance will not be satisfied
exactly for gridblocks containing producing perforations. Another
potential problem with the VIP-EXECUTIVE IMPES well formulation is
that when Equation 19-3 is linearized, the derivatives of BSEP with respect
to Pl and PW are neglected, resulting in a non-rigorous coupling of the
reservoir and well constraint equations. This also affects the material
balance for hydrocarbons and, possibly, the number of Newton iterations
required for convergence.
To eliminate the above problems, two modifications to the solution of well

constraint equations were made. First, the initial guesses for the new
wellbore pressures in Equation 19-3 were modified. After saturation
constraint Equation 9-9 is satisfied, a new bottom-hole pressure is
calculated from solutions of the linear solver:
19-264 Landmark - R2003.4

m+1 m
PW = P W + P w (19-4)
where Pw is the change in bottom-hole pressure calculated from the

solver. The new bottom-hole pressure then is used to calculate the
reservoir rates and the new BSEP from which the total well reservoir rate
is converted to the surface rate. This surface rate is then compared with
the user-specified rate, q. If the difference between the two rates is within
the convergence tolerance (0.01% of the specified rate), then no further
iterations for PW and BSEP will be performed, and the timestep is
considered converged. Here, the material balance is satisfied exactly
because the same bottom-hole pressure, Equation 19-4, is used for zi, F, Sw,
and the production rate calculations. Second, well constraint Equation 19-
3 is rigorously linearized. Without this rigorous treatment, the Newton
iteration will not converge within one iteration for most problems. The
total hydrocarbon molar production rate for component i, Qi, and the total
hydrocarbon molar production rate, Qt, are defined as
Kp
K ro o K rg g
Q i WI Kh -------------- x i + --------------y i [ P l P W ( D l D ref ) ] (19-5)
l=1 o g
Kp
K ro o K rg g
Q t WI Kh -------------
- + -------------- [ P l P W ( D l D ref ) ] (19-6)
l=1 o g
The produced total hydrocarbon molar fraction for component i, Zi, is
Qi
Z i ------ (19-7)
Qt
For the hydrocarbons, the well constraint equation is
BSEP Q t q = 0 (19-8)
This equation then is linearized to form
Kp
[ H l Pl ] + Dw Pw = Rw (19-9)
l=1
where
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-265

K ro o K rg g
H l = WI BSEP Kh l -------------
- + --------------
o g l
Nc
BSEP K ro o K rg g
+ WI Kh l ------------------ -------------- ( x i Z i ) + -------------- ( y i Z i ) (19-10)
Z i o g
i = 1
and
Kp
Dw = H l (19-11)
l=1
In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the second term on the right

side of Equation 19-10 is neglected. In the current implementation of the
optimal material balance option, both terms on the right side of Equation
19-10 are used to build the Jacobian coefficients Hl and Dw. Note that the
partial derivatives of BSEP with respect to Zi are provided by a new
wellbore flash routine.26
Using the above procedure, the Newton iteration of the simultaneous

reservoir and well constraint equations usually converges in one iteration
because BSEP varies only slightly from one iteration to another. The well
rate calculation will not converge if the BSEP value changes significantly
over one iteration, or if the active injecting/producing perforations change
over one iteration because of cross flow. Under the latter condition, the
functional form of the well constraint equation is changed between two
Newton iterations and an additional iteration must be performed.
Finally, the convergence criterion proposed in Reference 25 is adopted,

which compares the residual of saturation constraint Equation 9-9 with a
preset tolerance (0.005). Modifications to the Newton iteration procedure
are outlined as follows:
1. If the optimal material balance option is invoked, the unknown update

procedure for F and Sw and the rigorous linearization of well
constraint Equation 19-3 are employed throughout the simulation.
2. After each Newton iteration, the new phase saturations are calculated
and the residuals of the saturation constraint equation are then
compared with the maximum tolerance. If the convergence criterion is
not satisfied, another Newton iteration must be performed, and the
standard VIP-EXECUTIVE procedure for calculating the new well
rates and bottom-hole pressure is followed. Otherwise, Equation 19-4
is used first in the well routines to check for convergence of the well
constraint equations for producers. If the well constraint equations fail
to converge, the standard procedure in the wellbore flash routine
19-266 Landmark - R2003.4

(WFLSHP) is adopted to determine the new wellbore pressure and

new well rates. If the well constraint equation is converged, no further
iterations for PW and BSEP are performed.
3. After the new well rates and bottom-hole pressure are determined, the
total hydrocarbon and water material balances for gridblocks
containing wells are calculated to check for convergence of the well
rate calculation. To ensure a good material balance, these well rates
must agree with the rates obtained from the linear solver and used for
calculation of zi, F, and Sw. The material balance is considered
converged when the ratio of the difference between the new well rate
(as obtained from the linear solver) and the new well rate (as
calculated from the well constraint equation) to the sum of the two
rates is less than TOLWCN (default 10-5). Otherwise, a new iteration
will be performed.
4. In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, convergence of the

Newton iteration is controlled by the maximum residuals of
hydrocarbons and water (TOLR) or the maximum change of primary
unknowns over one iteration (TOLD). In the optimal material balance
option implemented here, convergence is controlled by either of the
residuals described in Steps 2 and 3, or the TOLD constraint. The
TOLD constraint was necessary for Newton iterations dominated by
iterative well management procedures in which the convergence
criterion described in Step 3 might be too restrictive.
The unknown update and convergence control procedure generally

reduces the average number of Newton iterations per timestep. For
problems in which the iterative well management calculations do not
apply and the active producing/injecting perforations do not change
between two iterations, the Newton iterations normally converge after
only one iteration, as compared with the three or four iterations required
for the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE procedure. This improvement could
account for a more than 50% reduction in CPU time. For simulation
models that involve intensive well management calculations (e.g., full-
field simulation models), a significant reduction in the average number of
iterations per timestep also is possible, although the new procedure
normally requires more than one iteration per timestep for these
problems.
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-267

Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
19.3 Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type

In a compositional simulator such as VIP-EXECUTIVE, a majority of the
CPU time often is spent on the phase behavior and fluid property
calculations; i.e., compressibility factor, Jacobian generation for fugacity
equality equations, and stability test and flash calculations. The gridblock
reordering scheme implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE primarily is
designed to improve this part of the simulation by regrouping gridblocks
that perform the same computations together for an efficient vectorization
in vector machines. The following fluid types are defined:
Two-phase gridblocks using a partial Jacobian update
Two-phase gridblocks using a full Jacobian update
One-phase gridblocks requiring stability test and flash
One-phase gridblocks without stability test
Gridblocks with no hydrocarbons
The terms one-phase and two-phase refer to the number of hydrocarbon

phases. Water is treated as an independent phase with no interactions
(except for the flow calculation) with the hydrocarbons. In the fluid-type
reordering scheme, all Type 1 gridblocks are grouped together, followed
by all Type 2 gridblocks, and so on.
For simplicity, most major arrays are stored permanently in the original,
natural order, and one additional NB (the total number of gridblocks)
array is created to relate fluid-type order to natural order. Rearrangement
of the fluid-type order is performed whenever any part of the simulation
causes a fluid-type change for any number of gridblocks. The
rearrangement can be accomplished efficiently by swapping a small
number of array elements at a few gridblocks. This scheme is illustrated
by considering the simple case in Figure 19-1. In Figure 19-1A, 15 two-
phase gridblocks (N2PHS = 15) and 5 single-phase gridblocks are at the
beginning of a Newton iteration. After the iteration, five of the two-phase
gridblocks become single phase (Figure 19-1B). Thus, the number of two-
phase gridblocks, N2PHS, reduces to 10. Rearrangement of the grid order
can be done easily by moving only those gridblocks that changed from
two to single phase and originally were located to the left side of new
pointer N2PHS (10). In this case, reordering is required only for three
(Grid Numbers 6, 8, and 9 in Figure 19-1B) of the five blocks switching
from two to single phase. These three gridblocks will be swapped with
the three two-phase gridblocks that are to the right side of new pointer
N2PHS (Figure 19-1B). The gridblocks to be swapped are identified by the
arrow signs between Figures 19-1B and 19-1C; the new grid-type order is
shown in Figure 19-1C. After the gridblocks to be swapped are identified,
rearrangement of fluid properties for subsequent phase behavior
calculations can be accomplished efficiently in vector mode. This
19-268 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type
reordering procedure is adopted throughout the simulator for all

reordering operations.
A |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|OOOOO|
B |XXXXXOXOOXOXOXX|OOOOO|

C |XXXXXXXXXX|OOOOOOOOOO|
X = Two-phase grids
O = Single-phase grids
A Initial reordered gridblock distribution
B Distribution after unknown updating
C Distribution after grid reordering.
Figure 19-1: GridblockReordering Procedure
The major advantages of using fluid-type ordering are a more efficient

vectorization and elimination of redundant computations. Results for
several test problems indicated that this procedure reduces the coefficient
generation portion of the computation time by at least 50%, producing a
total speedup of up to 25%.
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-269

Partial Jacobian Update VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
19.4 Partial Jacobian Update

In the partial Jacobian implementation, the following are recalculated and
factored: only the Jacobian coefficients of the fugacity equality equations
(partial derivatives of the equations with respect to the primary
unknowns) for the two-phase gridblocks that do not satisfy certain preset
criteria. The residuals of the fugacity equations and the full Jacobian
coefficients (and residuals) for the mass balance and saturation constraint
equations still need to be calculated. For any given gridblock,
recalculation of the Jacobian for the fugacity equations may be skipped for
several timesteps, as long as the preset criteria are satisfied. This approach
significantly reduces computation time.5
Theoretically, the partial Jacobian approach is applicable to situations in

which a gridblock has experienced little or no changes in pressure and
phase compositions or the fugacity constraint equations are almost linear;
i.e., the Jacobian coefficients are nearly constant. The most straightforward
criterion to determine whether a two-phase gridblock can bypass this part
of the calculation is to compare the pressure and phase compositions (xi
and yi) with values used in the previous full Jacobian calculation step.
This procedure was implemented and tested in VIP-EXECUTIVE. It was
found that although this criterion is in general acceptable, tolerances for
the pressure and composition changes are problem-dependent and cannot
be predetermined. From further analysis of the results for several test
problems, it was found that whenever a full Jacobian update is performed,
the residuals in the fugacity equations are small (normally <10-6). For
subsequent iterations or timesteps in which the Jacobians are not
recalculated, the residuals increase gradually until the next full Jacobian
calculation is needed. This phenomenon suggests that the residuals in the
fugacity equations can be used as criterion for the partial Jacobian update.
This residual criterion was found to be less case-dependent than the
tolerance (in pressure and phase compositions) criterion described above.
In this implementation, the Jacobian recalculation will not be performed if
the maximum residual in the fugacity equations is <10-5.
Before calling the coefficient generation routine (ACCR), all two-phase

gridblocks are assigned to Type 1 or Type 2 according to the above
residual criterion, and a grid reordering operation is performed to group
Types 1 and 2 gridblocks. This procedure requires separation of the
residual calculation from the Jacobian coefficient (partial derivatives)
calculation because the residual calculation must be done before grouping
Type 1 and Type 2 gridblocks, while the Jacobian coefficients are
recalculated and factored for only Type 2 gridblocks after the Type 1 and
Type 2 gridblocks are determined.
In the coefficient generation routine, calculations for the Type 1 and Type 2
gridblocks are done separately. For the Type 2 (full Jacobian) gridblocks,
the normal full Jacobian calculation is performed. In addition, the lower
19-270 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Partial Jacobian Update
triangular portion of the Jacobian must be stored for subsequent timestep

use (or iteration) because the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE stores
only the factored and normalized upper triangular portion of the Jacobian
(Array C). The lower triangular portion is needed to factor the residual
arrays during the subsequent partial Jacobian calculations. This procedure
requires an extra storage of Nc(Nc+1)NB/2 words. For the Type 1 (partial
Jacobian) gridblocks, no derivative calculations (for Array C) are
performed for the fugacity equations. The lower triangular portion of the
Jacobian that is stored in the most recent full Jacobian calculation is used
to factor the residual array, Array C, which was stored previously, is used
to eliminate unknowns xi and L (or yi and V) in the saturation constraint
equation.
The benefit achievable through the partial Jacobian update is case-

dependent. CPU time reduces as the number of two-phase gridblocks and
components increases. This feature reduces the coefficient generation
portion of the CPU time by 20 to 50%, yielding a total savings of 10 to 20%.
This option appears to work well for immiscible displacement processes
and for reservoirs with a large portion of two-phase gridblocks. For
difficult miscible problems, the application of this option may slightly
increase the number of iterations and/or timesteps, thereby reducing the
efficiency improvement.
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-271

Criteria For Single-phase Stability Test VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
19.5 Criteria For Single-phase Stability Test

A procedure that selects for the stability test only the single-phase
gridblocks containing well perforations or having two-phase neighboring
gridblocks is implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE as a user option. The main
argument for this procedure is that most phase changes are initiated from
these single-phase gridblocks and, by eliminating the rest of the single-
phase gridblocks from the stability test, the computational efficiency can
be improved greatly with no degradation to the simulation results. Our
test results generally indicate that this option has no detrimental effects on
the accuracy of the simulation, while computational efficiency may be
improved dramatically. However, it could delay the phase change for
some gridblocks by a few timesteps for situations in which a large number
of single-phase gridblocks flashes into two phases at the same time. With
this option, this simultaneous phase change could be spread into several
timesteps. Fortunately, this problem normally has no significant effect on
the overall simulation results.
This option applies only to those systems without fault connections, since
the selection procedure is based solely on regular connections. Note that
this option should be applied only to those cases in which the phase
change is initiated from gridblocks containing well perforations. One
illustration of this limitation is a simulation model that invokes the
boundary flux option in which an influx of gas phase or depletion caused
by an outflux of fluids could result in a single oil-phase boundary
gridblock to flash into two phases first. This possibility is not accounted
for in the current implementation. For this reason, this option should not
be used with the boundary flux option.
This procedure reduces the number of gridblocks that need the stability
test by up to a factor of 4 for the problems tested. This translates into a
four-fold reduction in the stability test and flash calculation portion of the
CPU time.
19-272 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash
19.6 Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash

In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the stability of a
hydrocarbon-phase is determined by calculating its saturation pressure.
The phase is stable if the gridblock pressure is greater than its saturation
pressure. Otherwise, the phase is unstable and a subsequent flash
calculation is called to determine the phase split. A single-phase gridblock
may bypass the saturation pressure calculation and perform the flash
calculation directly if the preceding saturation pressure calculation failed
to converge. This series of computations is performed for only a portion of
the single-phase gridblocks; different steps may be taken for different
gridblocks. Furthermore, individual saturation pressure and flash
calculations involve iterative procedures in which different gridblocks
converge after different numbers of iterations. This complicated procedure
makes vectorization of the computation impractical for a simulator solely
using a natural ordering scheme. For that reason, the standard version of
VIP-EXECUTIVE does not vectorize these calculations; i.e., the
computations are performed gridblock by gridblock.
With the grid reordering procedure in place, efficient vectorizations of the

above calculations become practical. In the current vectorization effort,
only the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE saturation pressure and flash
calculation routines are vectorized. To simplify the procedure and ensure
a high efficiency, the bubble-point pressure calculation (BUBPT) and dew-
point pressure calculation (DEWPT) routines are combined first to a
saturation pressure calculation routine. This can be done easily without
any loss of the vectorization efficiency because the two routines perform
identical calculations (except for the selection of the correct real root for
the compressibility factor of the second phase after the solution of the
cubic equation). By combining the two routines and vectorizing the
resulting saturation pressure routine, the vector length will be equal to the
total number of single-phase gridblocks requiring either the bubble- or
dew-point pressure calculation. The combined saturation pressure
calculation routine (SATPRS) is called up to two times. In the first call, the
saturation pressures are calculated for all single-phase gridblocks that
require such calculations. In the second call, saturation pressures are
calculated for only those single-phase gridblocks that fail the first
saturation pressure calculation. This is done by switching from the
bubble-point calculation to the dew-point calculation, and vice-versa.
Note that without the combined saturation pressure routine, the
vectorized BUBPT and DEWPT routines would have to be called twice
each.
Before calling each saturation pressure calculation, a grid reordering

procedure is performed to group together all gridblocks that require the
saturation pressure calculation. After the saturation pressure calculations
are completed, the single-phase gridblocks identified as unstable or which
fail the saturation pressure calculation will require a flash calculation
using one of the two solution methods (routines FLASH or FLSHSS) that
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-273

Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
are available in the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE. These two flash

calculation routines are also vectorized, and a grid reordering is
performed before calling these routines. In practical reservoir simulation
problems, vector lengths in the flash calculation often are short because
few gridblocks change phases during a given timestep. In this situation,
the vectorized flash routines (FLASHV or FLSHSV) may not be as efficient
as the original routines (FLASH or FLSHSS) because the original flash
routines have a large number of vectorized loops with a small vector
length of Nc. To ensure that no efficiency is lost, a vectorized flash routine
is called only if the number of gridblocks requiring the flash calculation is
greater than Nc/2. Results of several test runs indicate that the vectorized
flash routines are slower than the original routines if their vector length is
shorter than Nc/2.
The vectorized saturation pressure (SATPRS) and flash calculation

routines (FLASHV and FLSHSV) involve iterative procedures using a
successive substitution and/or the Newton-Raphson method. These
procedures further complicate vectorization implementation because
different gridblocks may converge after different numbers of iterations.
To remove converged gridblocks from subsequent iterations, a grid
reordering operation is performed after the end of each iteration to group
all non-converged gridblocks together. By doing so, vector length can
vary from iteration to iteration, and the high vector efficiency is
maintained.
For a typical miscible displacement process with a large number of

gridblocks (more than several hundreds), an average of 3.7-fold reduction
in CPU time has been observed when vectorized saturation pressure and
flash calculation routines are used. This could represent a total CPU time
reduction of up to 40%.
19-274 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Input Requirements
19.7 Input Requirements

Grid reordering based on fluid type and vectorization of stability test and
flash replace the original VIP-EXECUTIVE code as part of the standard
VIP-EXECUTIVE implementation. The new, unknown update procedure,
the partial Jacobian update, and the new procedure to select single-phase
grids for stability test are implemented as user-controlled options with the
keywords OPTMBL, PJACO, and STBCHK, respectively. The PJACO and
STBCHK options, which apply only to the compositional module, are
invoked only when the OPTMBL option is invoked. The detailed input
requirement is available in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark 19-275

Input Requirements VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
19-276 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
20
00000Parallel Computing
20.1 Summary
The following section discusses the details of the implementation of
PARALLEL-VIP. The primary development goals of this feature were to
allow the faster simulation of existing models and/or the simulation of
larger models ranging to millions of grid blocks. Parallelization is
achieved through the use of local grid refinement to subdivide a model
into different domains for each of the parallel CPUs. Test problems
described below for the simulator range from large IMPES, black-oil cases
with severe faulting to a fully-implicit seven-component compositional
simulation. Model sizes range to more than one million finite difference
cells for both black-oil and compositional cases. The following section
describes the implementation of message passing interface - a standard for
parallelization which has been implemented on almost all parallel
computer hardware as well as clusters of workstations. Results are shown
for the IBM SP2, the Silicon Graphics Origin 2000 and Power Challenge,
and a cluster of IBM workstations. Excellent parallel efficiencies were
observed for all cases.
20.2 Introduction
The attraction of parallel computing to achieve high computing
efficiencies has existed for decades. What was generally lacking was the
ability to easily port software to the parallel environment. Because of the
diverse nature of reservoir simulation, simple parallelization schemes
have not been viable for a usable, general-purpose, approach to reservoir
modeling. Profiles of computing work load for a typical model often
show tens, if not hundreds, of subroutines which are involved in a
substantial portion of the calculations. Because of this, major
reprogramming of reservoir simulation models is required to achieve high
parallel efficiencies. Several papers in the literature74-79 discuss techniques
which have been used to bring about efficient parallel reservoir
simulations. The unique feature of the simulator of this work is its
reliance on local grid refinement for parallelization. With local grid
refinement the same simulation program can be used to perform
simulations either serially on a single processor or in parallel on multiple
processors simply through data manipulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-277

The following section discusses the use of local grid refinement for
parallelization. Basically, each grid is assigned to a processor. Examples
are given in which variation of the processor assignment and the grid
refinement can dramatically effect parallel performance. Different
preconditioners for the parallel linear equation solvers are also tested.
Finally, a load-balancing example utilizes the flexibility of local grid
refinement and processor assignment to achieve improved parallel
efficiency.
20.2.1 Local Grid Refinement

The vehicle for implementation of parallelism in VIP was the existing code
for simulation on locally refined grids. The methodology for local grid
refinement became the basis for domain decomposition, both for models
built with locally refined grids and for single grid models. Further details
can be found in Reference 74.
For grid to grid connections between two cells, contributions to the

residuals and to the Jacobian terms arising from intercellular flow are
computed separately for each cell. This results in a minor inefficiency
since certain terms are computed twice. However, as demonstrated later
in the examples, the resultant overhead does not appear to be significant
when the number of boundary cells is small relative to the total number of
cells in a given grid.
When flow is computed between a cell in any given grid (i.e., Grid 1) and a
cell in a neighboring grid (i.e., Grid 2), the data for Grid 2 is referenced to
a buffer in which all pertinent quantities have been placed. The use of the
buffer instead of the actual grid allows parallel message-passing to be
easily implemented as described below. In addition, since data in the
buffer is more compact than grid data, fewer cache misses and greater
computational efficiency may result even in serial calculations.
20.2.2 Parallelization Via Local Grid Refinement

Parallelization requires that all grids be subdivided in some fashion
among all of the processors, a technique known as domain decomposition.
To achieve a given decomposition the grid is refined using the local grid
refinement capability of the original serial model as described above. For
problems which originally had a single grid, virtual refinements are used
to subdivide the grid using a one to one correlation between the original
grid and the refined grids. For problems originally involving locally
refined grids each grid may be further decomposed using virtual
refinement to achieve better load balance among the processors. For load
balancing, it is better, within reason, to create more grids than processors
so that many grids can be given to a single processor. As the available
number of processors changes due to system loading or job priorities, the
availability of more grids than processors allows a simulation to be
performed on as many or as few processors as required. For the red-black
20-278 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Introduction
linear equation solver discussed below at least two grids per processor are
required for greatest efficiency.
To communicate data between connecting grids a buffering scheme is

used as shown in Figure 20-1. For each grid to grid connection two buffers
are allocated to send or receive data. If the two grids for a given
connection lie on different processors (i.e., Processors A and B in
Figure 20-1), data required for intergrid flow calculations are first packed
into the send buffer on Processor A and then sent as a single message to
the corresponding receive buffer on Processor B. If the two connecting
grids lie on the same processor, the send and receive buffers are given the
same address and no message passing is required. The process is reversed
for the calculations required on Processor A, that is, Processor B
simultaneously packs and sends its data to Processor A in the same
fashion. After the required data is received by each processor, all flow
calculations are performed on each processor simultaneously.
Figure 20-1: Communication Scheme
To reduce overhead of message passing asynchronous communications

are utilized. Before all intragrid calculations are performed, each
processor packs and sends all information required for intergrid
calculations. Then as intragrid flow calculations are being performed,
interprocessor communication is carried out simultaneously for all grids
and all processors. Since the number of grid to grid connections is small
relative the number of intragrid connections, all overhead for message
passing is almost completely eliminated. The examples below
demonstrate the validity of this conclusion.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-279

For parallel domain decomposition the base grid may be totally refined
into subgrids so that all gridblocks in the base grid become inactive. Each
grid is assigned to a processor so that only a portion of the model resides
on a given processor. In this manner the simulator memory requirements
become scaleable. That is, as the number of processors is increased, the
grid assigned to a given processor becomes smaller. Alternatively, only a
portion of the base or root grid may be refined; the remaining unrefined
cells in the root grid are then assigned to a processor.
For example, consider the simple case shown in Figure 20-2 in which the
base grid consists of four blocks. Each of these blocks is then refined to the
level desired for a given simulation. Grid 1 corresponds to the refinement
of the upper left block in the base grid and is assigned to processor A.
Similarly, each refinement of the base grid is assigned to a different (or the
same) processor. At the end of the decomposition the complete base grid
is refined and all refined blocks have been assigned to a processor.
Multiple levels of grid refinements can be accommodated as well. If
further refinement of a cell is required to a radial or Cartesian grid, the
further refinement is assigned to a processor in the same manner as the
level 1 refinements.
Figure 20-2: LGR Grid Decomposition
20.2.3 Automatic Grid Decomposition

Decomposition of model grids for parallelization may often present a
formidable task for the user. This is especially the case for situations in
which the original grid for the serial runs was based on a complex
refinement. What is required is a simple, yet efficient, manner in which to
decompose grids. Figure 20-3 shows an example of a typical grid in which
local grid refinement has been used to refine the root grid on the lower
right and lower left into two additional grids arbitrarily named SQUARE
20-280 Landmark - R2003.4

and TALL. The problem then is to decompose these refined grids

SQUARE and TALL to achieve load balance for a nine processor parallel
simulation. The decomposition shown in Figure 20-4 represents the
solution to this problem. The lower left grid is subdivided into six grids
and the lower right grid is refined into two grids. The decomposition
requires only four lines of input and six pieces of information which
describe the number of grids in each direction, aerially or vertically, into
which the grid is to be divided:
DECOMPOSE
SQUARE 3 2 1
TALL 1 2 1
ENDDECOMPOSE
Figure 20-3: Example Grid For Automatic Grid
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-281

Figure 20-4: Automatically Decomposed Grid Decomposition
The simulator initialization routine then performs the decomposition

automatically. Input data can alternatively be supplied to augment the
automatic grid decomposition such that better load balance is achieved as
more information on parallel performance becomes available.
20.2.4 Well Management

The existence of horizontal wells in most modern simulations requires
that no restriction be placed on the placement of wells relative to grid
and/or processor boundaries.
Since highly deviated and horizontal wells are so prevalent in modern oil
field operations, it would be excessively restrictive to require that each
individual well be contained entirely within a single parallel computing
domain. Therefore, it must be assumed that messages will have to be
passed between domains in order to gather all of the information
necessary to allocate production and injection rates amoung multiple
perforated intervals. Furthermore, use of production or injection
constraints that involve groups of wells will, in general, lead to
interdomain coupling of well rates.
Allocation of well flow rates requires such grid cell dependent data as
pressures, saturations, and fluid composition. (This list is not all
inclusive.) The base simulator was originally developed for high
efficiency on vector processing computers. In order to allow unit strides in
addressing data in the well management code, all grid cell dependent data
required for well calculations has always been moved into arrays
20-282 Landmark - R2003.4

dimensioned by the total number of perforated intervals at the beginning

of each timestep or each nonlinear iteration, as appropriate. Thus, the well
management code has never addressed data stored by grid cells.
At the beginning of each nonlinear iteration of a parallel simulation, each

processor fills its perforation arrays to the extent possible with the grid
cell data contained in its local memory. This data is then compressed into
a send buffer and broadcast to all other processors in a single send per
receiving processor. Upon receipt, the data is moved from the receive
buffer to the perforation arrays by the receiving processor.
Upon conclusion of these operations each processor contains an identical

copy of the fully loaded perforation arrays. This allows all of the wells
subject to a group rate constraint to be allocated on the same processor,
greatly simplifying the parallelization process. Shifting wells from one
processor to another in order to achieve dynamic load balance also
becomes easier when the data is available everywhere.
At the time of this writing no parallelization of the well management code

has been attempted, so all processors simultaneously compute rates for all
wells. The run time reported reflect this sequential step in the simulation
process. Parallelization using the data flow described above is still
possible; however, additional efficiency can be achieved by replacing the
broadcast operations with more selective (but more complex) message
passing.
Other techniques relying on scattering well information among all

processors and gathering resulting rates could lead to high overhead and
thus negate any improved parallel performance at least for simulations
involving historical production. On the other hand, tubing hydraulics
calculations for predictive well management may be computationally
intensive enough to support gather/scatter type operations. This latter
technique will be investigated in the future.
20.2.5 The Parallel Linear Equation

The composite grid solver CBLITZ forms the basis for the linear equation
solvers for the parallel reservoir simulator. The parallelization of the
solver is based on domain decomposition strategies using nested
factorization rowsum constraints. The parallel solver provides
capabilities for complexities such as faults, implicit bottomhole pressures,
and horizontal wells.
Parallel CBLITZ involves domain decomposition and is based on the work

of Wallis and Nolen68,81. The decomposition involves large domains and
boundary planes which divide the grid along a single direction as shown
in Figure 20-5. The approximate LU factorization approach used for
preconditioning involves an L factor as follows:
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-283

A1
A2
A3
L = A4
Q1 R2 B1
Q2 R3 B2
Q3 R4 B3
Figure 20-5: Strip Decomposition
The diagonals of the B submatrices are modified from the original

coefficients to maintain rowsum constraints. This approximate
factorization leads to independent solutions on each processor for the
large Ai domains and the boundary plane matrices, Bi. The back
substitution portion of the preconditioning simply involves the updating
of residuals from boundary solutions, and a second solve on the large Ai
domains.
The linear solver is based on a composite grid solution technique

developed by Wallis and Nolen68. Reference 82 provides detail of a similar
parallel solver developed independently, but almost simultaneously, by
Burrows, Ponting, and Wood. As described above, each grid is assigned to
a processor. These may be the same or different processors. If all active
grids lie on the same level, the composite grid solver performs all
preconditioning solutions independently, i. e., block Jacobi. If grids are
assigned to different levels, each grid of the same level is solved
simultaneously with communication being performed after the entire
solution of all grids on a level is completed. Factorization is performed so
that rowsum constraints are also imposed. Figure 20-6 shows an example
20-284 Landmark - R2003.4

of a possible decomposition which can be solved with the composite grid

technique (See Reference 83 for additional details.) First, the larger
domains of level 3 are solved. Information from these solutions is then
communicated across boundaries where necessary. Next the equations are
solved for level 2, and finally, level 1 is solved. Each of the lower level
solutions involve the use of rowsum constraints. Back substitutions are
then performed in the reverse order. The flexibility of this solver allows
the easy implementation of block red-black algorithms, or as a special
case, the linear decomposition of the strip decomposition solver described
above.
Figure 20-6: LGR Multilevel Decomposition
Figures 20-7 and 20-8 show results for the composite grid and a solution
method based on a linear (or strip) decomposition method for a 95x95x35
(315,875 cells) hypothetical IMPES case. The efficiency of the solvers was
compared to both a serial version of the same technique and to the
proprietary serial solver of the original reservoir simulator used in this
work. The serial solver utilized a single-grid, nested factorization
preconditioning. As shown in Figure 20-7, performance of the strip
decomposition solver is superlinear for almost all cases ranging from 3-16
processors. Compared to the serial solver, superlinear performance is also
observed. Superlinear performance was also observed for the composite
grid solver compared to the serial version of the same algorithm (See
Figure 20-8). Compared to the serial solver, the composite grid
technique achieved about 75% of ideal speedup, i. e., a factor of twelve on
sixteen processors. The speed advantage for the strip method results from
the two-way ordering discussed above. Other studies have shown similar
superlinear speedups on up to 71 processors and 4 million cells for the
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-285

strip decomposition technique.
Figure 20-7: Strip Decomposition Linear Solver Results
Figure 20-8: Composite Grid Linear Solver Results
A comparison of various solver options was generated using a prototype

simulation model. The model, based on SPE Comparative Solution
Number 1, originally contained 27,075 cells in a 95x95x3 grid. To test
solver performance, the original grid was decomposed into both one-
20-286 Landmark - R2003.4

dimensional strips as well as 2-dimensional checker-board grids. The

number of grids was varied from 4 to 64 with the number of processors
varying from 4 to 32. For the initial tests, the strip parallel solver was
applied to the one-dimensional decompositions. For the one-dimensional,
4 processor case, each grid contained 24 yz-planes except the last which
had only 23 yz-planes. As the number of domains was increased, the
number of planes per domain diminished from 12/11 xy-planes for the 8
domain case continuing to 3/2 yz-planes per domain for the 32 domain
case. For the composite-grid solver, the checker-board decomposition
consisted of 2-dimensional areal decompositions varying from 4 by 2
domains for the 4 processor case up to 8 by 8 domains for the 32 processor
case. The number of areal cells in each grid varied from about 24 by 48
cells for 8 domains down to 12 by 12 for the 64 domain case. The number
of cells was variable since the 95x95x3 grid did not divide evenly. Since a
red-black scheme is used for the composite solver, the number of domains
must be twice the number of processors.
Figure 20-9 shows a comparison of results for the strip and composite grid
cases for 4 through 32 processors. Two conclusions can be drawn from
this test case. First, the strip decomposition solver shows a significant
degradation as the number of domains/processors is increased. The
number of iterations per Newton iteration jumps from about 4 to 6.7 in
going from four processors to thirty-two for a seventy percent decrease in
efficiency. The other conclusion is that the composite grid solver, at least
for this example, showed little variation in the number of iterations over
the range of processors. Maximum variation was from 4.5 to almost 5
iterations per Newton iteration or about 10%.
Figure 20-9: Effect of Decomposition on Strip and Composite Grid Linear

Solvers
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-287

Several other orderings/preconditioners were also tried for the

composite-grid solver. The first ordering attempted to reproduce the strip
solver results using a one-dimensional decomposition and the composite-
grid solver. For example, to reproduce the 4 processor case a one-
dimensional decomposition into seven grids was performed. All of the
odd grids contained 23 yz-planes with the even grids containing only a
single yz-plane. With a red-black ordering, the composite-grid solver
should obtain nearly the same results as the strip solver. For the 4-
processor, 7-domain, case the total number of iterations for the simulation
was actually 15% less for the composite-grid solver (222 versus 255 for the
strip solver). These results seem reasonable when one considers that the
composite-grid solver is performing two full solutions on the large
domains as opposed to a single solution for the parallel strip solver.
As a final variation on the preconditioning/ordering with the composite-

grid solver, the decomposition shown in Figure 20-6 was applied to the
95x95x3 simulation example. Unfortunately, for the four processor, nine
domain, case the total number of iterations was approximately the same as
the original 8 domain, 4 processor, red-black decomposition. The actual
number of total iterations for the 9 domain case was 313 compared to 297
for the red-black case.
Because the flexibility of the composite grid solution technique, it was

chose for use in PARALLEL-VIP for all applications.
20.2.6 Parallel Computers Used for Verification of PARALLEL-VIP

Studies were conducted on the IBM SP2 and the Silicon Graphics (SGI)
Origin 2000. Previous results on the Cray T3D and Silicon Graphics
Power Challenge have also been used to a limited extent as disussed
below. Details on the latter two machines can be found in Reference 74.
The IBM SP2 is a parallel computer built with the MIMD (multiple
instruction, multiple data) architecture and distributed memory. The
number of processors for the SP2 can range to 512. For the SP2 with
Thin-3 nodes used in this study, memory can be expanded up to 1024
Mbytes. The SGI Origin 2000 machine is a shared-memory device with
maximum memory of 256 billion bytes and up to 128 processors. Peak
single-processor performance for the two machines is in the range of 400
double precision MFLOPS (Million Floating point Operations Per Second).
Actual performance varies considerably for the individual processors.
Typically for reservoir simulation, the SP2 processor delivers about 40-80
MFLOPS compared to about 20-60 MFLOPS for the SGI Origin 2000. That
is, for the problems tested the SP2 was an average of about 1.5 times faster.
These results are preliminary for the Origin 2000; further optimization
should improve performance.
The primary consideration for performance is strongly tied to memory

access and cache misses. Because of communication bandwidth, access to
memory may be relatively slow for all processors relative to peak
20-288 Landmark - R2003.4

performance, the ability of the compiler/system to anticipate memory

references and provide data to the cache can uniquely determine
processor performance, regardless of the raw speed of the processor itself.
That is, the data must be available for the processor to use. Since the SP2
has a delivered performance of about 1.5 times that of the SGI Origin
2000, the overhead of message-passing also becomes dramatically more
important on the IBM machine.
Message-passing Interface (MPI) was utilized for parallelization on both

machines. Although the SGI computer is shared memory, message-
passing is provided which takes advantage of the shared-memory
hardware. Due the wide availability and portability of MPI, the parallel
reservoir simulator relies solely on MPI for all message-passing. Previous
results for the Cray T3D and SGI Power Challenge were produced using
PVM.
There are generally three forms of message passing for a distributed

memory system: synchronous, asynchronous, and global operations.
Synchronous message passing requires that all messages be completed
before computations can proceed. Asynchronous, on the other hand,
allows some overlap of processing and communications. Global message
passing operations distribute data from single processors to one processor
or visa versa. Often some form of arithmetic function such as summation
is performed as part of the global concatenation operation. These
functions are particularly useful for evaluation of reduction functions such
as dot products or for distribution of data from a single node to all nodes
in the parallel partition. Often the global communications have been
optimized for a particular architecture and are much more efficient than a
simple set of send-receive operations for achieving the same results.
Because of the greater raw processor speed and lower communications
performance, efficiency of message-passing is of great importance on the
SP2 to achieve good parallel performance. This implies that utilization of
asynchronous message-passing must be emphasized to overlap compute
work with communication overhead. Asynchronous communications
were utilized wherever feasible in the reservoir simulator. For example, in
the coefficient setup portion of the model, intragrid calculations were
overlapped with communications of quantities required to compute
residuals and Jacobian terms for intergrid flow. Synchronous and global
operations were also used for this study in cases where efficiency was not
a major concern because of the length and number of messages involved.
20.2.7 Test Cases

Several test cases are presented in the following sections. These
demonstrate the application of the parallel simulator in a combination of
black-oil and compositional studies utilizing both the IMPES and fully-
implicit model formulations. Model sizes range to more than a million
cells. Two of the cases emphasize real-world heterogeneities including
faults. The composite grid solver was used in all cases, except for the
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-289

small black-oil, because of its greater flexibility for domain decomposition.

In some cases for small numbers of processors, as discussed above, it may
have been more efficient to use the strip decomposition solver.
Small, Homogeneous, Black-Oil
The first test problem is based on the data from the SPE First Comparative
solution problem. Instead of the original dimensions; however, the
problem size was increased to 95x27x3 - 7695 cells. Fourteen wells were
used instead of two. Figure 20-10 depicts the structure of the model and
the well locations. This problem was used to test the simulator for three
parallel machines used in this study (T3D, SP2, and SGI Power Challenge).
The model was decomposed along the x-direction.
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous Example Problem
The flexibility of local grid refinement allowed decomposition of Test

Problem 1 into 4-32 domains with relative ease. First, 4, 8, 16, or 32 large
domains were defined with given physical gridblock sizes for grid level 0.
These domains were then refined in all directions. Refinements in the y-
and z-directions were held constant at 27 fold and 3 fold respectively for
all cases. For four domains, each large block in grid level 0 was refined by
a factor of 24 with the last block having a factor of 23. For 8, 16, and 32
domains the refinements were 12, 6 and 3, respectively. Factors of 11, 5,
and 2 were used for the last domain in these cases, respectively. In this
fashion, a decomposition was achieved which provided an almost
perfectly load-balanced case for the strip decomposition parallel solver,
i.e., one boundary yz-plane existed between equal large domains.
20-290 Landmark - R2003.4

Three-Dimensional Salt Dome
The second test problem was based on real data from a reservoir
associated with a salt dome. Three-dimensional seismic data were used to
condition a geostatictical model to generate porosity fields. These data
were then placed in a geological model to generate descriptions which
were consistent with known geological horizons and fault data. Finally,
permeability fields were generated as functions of the porosity data
yielding variations of several orders of magnitude throughout the model.
A reservoir model was generated with dimensions of 35x35x15 for the
base grid. Two refined cases were then generated from these data
resulting in models of 105x105x15 (3x3 areal refinement) and 245x280x15
(7x8 areal refinement) for 165,375 and 1,029,000 cells respectively. Black-
oil, compositional, IMPES, and fully-implicit cases were tested in parallel.
Two decompositions were used which resulted in areal decompositions of

7x7 grids (49 total grids) and 8x8 grids (64 total grids). Since the original
grid divided evenly into the 7x7 decomposition (i.e. 5 cells by 5 cells
aerially from the original unrefined grid), it was anticipated that load
balance and hence parallel performance would be better for the 7x7 case.
Figure 20-11 shows the model decomposed for the 7x7 grid case. As
shown in the figure, 30 wells were located near the crest of the structure
and 8 wells provided peripheral water injection. Since many of these
wells cut across grid and processor boundaries, the model provided a test
case for the well parallelization discussed above.
Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome Heterogeneous Model
Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model. The third test problem upon which
the examples were based also utilized input from seismic, geological, and
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-291

geostatistical data. The model was developed by first utilizing a two-

dimensional geostatistical mapping package for defining heterogeneities
in forty geological horizons. An initial grid of 2.4 million cells formed the
description. Although it would be desirable to simulate this entire
dataset, upscaling and layer combining were used to reduce the eventual
model to a 64x25x12 - 19200 cells. These cells were then refined by two in
each dimension to increase the overall problem size to 128x50x24 or
153,600 cells (a moderately large model - at least by todays standards).
In addition to the heterogeneities in permeabilities and porosities

provided through geostatistics, the model contained three large scissors
faults with some sloping character as shown in Figure 20-12. Eighty-eight
wells were spaced throughout the structure as shown in the figure with an
equal number of injectors and producers. Completions were in all
twenty-four layers for all wells for a total of 2112 completions. Because of
the heterogeneities, the use of completions in all layers of the model tests
the implicit well bottomhole pressure option for rate specified wells - an
integral part of the linear equation solver.
Figure 20-12: Grid and Structure for Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model
Typical PVT and relative permeability data, black-oil and compositional,

for a middle eastern reservoir were chosen for this problem as well as the
Salt Dome Example.
20-292 Landmark - R2003.4

Real Compositional Example
The compositional simulation previously presented by Killough, et

al.77,_was used to examine the problem of load balancing for a simulation
of a real gas condensate field example. The original model was 22x29x5 or
3192 cells and 6 components. Sixteen wells were placed throughout the
structure as shown in Figure 20-13. All wells were completed in all layers
of the model. Since the largest dimension was in the y-direction,
decomposition was performed linearly in y. That is, four domains were
created as shown with initially 8, 7, 7, and 7 xz-planes each, respectively.
Modifications were performed to this decomposition to achieve load
balance.
Figure 20-13: Grid and Structure for Compositional Load-Balancing Example
20.2.8 Results
The following figures show first the results for the total model speedup
compared to the serial case. Next is the speedup of the parallel solver
compared to the serial solver. Finally, the last bar in each series of the
graphs represents the ideal situation, a speedup of n on n processors. The
serial model used for comparison was the current release version of the
base serial VIP simulator. The linear solver used was the best available for
the particular situation, generally nested factorization for a single grid.
All comparisons were based on elapsed times, and not CPU times, to
account for any overhead due to message passing.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-293

Homogeneous Black-Oil
Simulations for the homogeneous black-oil case were run on three parallel
platforms: the Cray T3D, the SGI Power Challenge, and the IBM SP2.
Results for the Cray T3D are shown in Figure 20-14 for the cases of 4 to 32
processors. The speedups used for these comparisons were based on the
original serial model using an unrefined grid. That is, a regular 95x27x3
grid with the same properties and well data was used for the comparison.
These speedups then represent actual improvement in performance over
current serial simulator capabilities. As shown in Figure 20-14 simulator
performance for the T3D was superlinear for four and eight processors.
As the number of processors increased to 16 and 32, the speedups showed
some degradation due to an increase by a factor of three in the number of
linear equation solution iterations. These encouraging results were not
duplicated on the SGI computer as shown in Figure 20-15. Above four
processors there appears to be a significant falloff in performance. Some
of this can be attributed to linear solver degradation similar to the T3D
results; however, the decline in performance for the case of 16 processors
indicated that a significant bottleneck existed due to limited bandwidth to
memory. This lack of performance of the Power Challenge is well known.
Fortunately, based on results presented later in this study, the SGI Origin
2000 appears to have overcome this difficulty. Results in Figure 20-16 for
the SP2 show good speedups with a factor of twelve for the 16 processor
case. Considering that the individual node on the SP2 is substantially
faster than that of the T3D, these results again indicate excellent
performance even for a small problem.
Figure 20-14: Performance of T3D on Small Homogeneous Model
20-294 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 20-15: Performance of SGI Power Challenge on Small Homogeneous

Model
Figure 20-16: Performance of SP2 on Small Homogeneous Model
3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Model
The 3D Salt Dome case represents a much more realistic example than the
homogeneous black-oil model. Two test cases were performed with this
model which demonstrated parallel performance for both IMPES and
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-295

Fully-Implicit model formulations. Figure 20-17 presents results for the

IMPES simulations of a twenty year case for the IBM SP2. Parallel speeds
were superlinear for many of the cases shown up to 13 processors. The
best IMPES result shown in the figure is a factor of 21 on 25 processors or
about 84% parallel efficiency. This represents about 2.5 microseconds per
block step for the total simulation. The imbalance of the static
decomposition for the cases of 8,16, and 32 processors make these results
somewhat less than ideal as anticipated. Figure 20-18 presents the IMPES
results for the SGI Origin 2000 computer for 5-25 processors. Excellent
results were obtained up through 13 processors. The falloff at 25
processors for the Origin 2000 results is not due to message-passing
overhead but a unique feature of the machine architecture. In an attempt
to understand these results, two test cases using four processors were
performed on an eight processor Origin 2000. In the first case each of the
parallel tasks was assigned to a different node board so that one processor
of the two on each node remained idle. In the second case processor
affinity was made such that all four processors on two node boards were
allocated to the simulation. The difference in CPU times was about 30%
between the two cases. Elapsed times were virtually identical to CPU
times for both cases. These results indicate that at least for these cases the
bandwidth to memory can become saturated when more that one task is
assigned to a given node board. For all subsequent cases, similar results
are observed as the number of processors exceeds one-half of the total
number of processors available (The total available for this study was 32
processors.)
Figure 20-17: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil Model
20-296 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 20-18: Results for Origin 2000 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-
Oil Model
The final example for the 105x105x15 3D Salt Dome model used the Fully-
Implicit formulation. As shown in Figure 20-19 speedups were excellent
on the SP2 exceeding ideal for all cases up through 25 processors. For the
implicit case on 25 processors, performance was about 30 microseconds
per block step for the SP2.
Figure 20-19: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Implicit Black-Oil
Model
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-297

Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model
Results for the Sloping Fault 128x50x24 model were also obtained for both
IMPES and Fully-Implicit simulations. Figure 20-20 shows results for the
IBM SP2 for the IMPES case. Performance was excellent on 5 and 10
processors with some degradation for the 16 and 20 processor cases. The
best result was a factor of 15 on 20 processors for a 75% parallel efficiency.
The increase to 32 processors shows a significant reduction in performance
primarily due to message-passing overhead for the solver as indicated on
the right of the figure. Results for the Fully-Implicit cases were
substantially better as shown in Figure 20-21. Superlinear speedups were
observed for all cases up to 32 processors with overall speedups
approaching 70 on 32 processors. This somewhat anomalous behavior
was also observed on the Origin 2000 as shown in Figure 20-22. Here the
speedups were near 40 on 20 processors. This extreme parallel
performance appeared to be due to poor performance of the serial
simulator as opposed to high parallel efficiency. The poor serial
performance was related to the fact that the first dimension in the problem
was a power of two. References to memory which stride by a power of
two can cause significant cache thrashing. In natural ordering the first
dimension, a power of two, is often referenced as an offset to a given cell.
This results in significant performance degradation for both computers
which were investigated. To alleviate the problem a slightly modified
simulation was performed with dimensions of 127x50x24. As shown in
Figure 20-22, the serial performance relative to the parallel performance
improved substantially so that for 20 processors the speedup was about a
factor of 18 - a much more realistic figure. Speedups for the Origin 2000
on 32 processors show the degradation in performance due to memory
bandwidth as discussed above.
Figure 20-20: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 IMPES Black-Oil Model
20-298 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 20-21: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model
Figure 20-22: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-
Oil Model
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-299

Figure 20-23: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 127x50x24 Implicit Black-
Oil Model - Cache Effect
3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 Model
The overall dimensions of the previous 3D Salt Dome model were

increased by about a factor of 5 to 245x280x15 or 1,02,900 cells. Figure 20-
24 presents results for 5, 10, and 25 processors. As expected, the larger
model size improves parallel performance such that a factor of 23 on 25
processors was observed. This corresponded to about 3 microseconds per
block step for the IBM SP2.
20-300 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 20-24: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES Black-Oil
Model
3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Compositional
Simulations of the 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 model using a seven

component characterization are shown in Figure 20-25. A factor of about
23 on 25 processors was also observed for this case. Since the linear
equation solver does not dominate the CPU time of the model, the parallel
results indicate the efficiency of the equation setup portion of the model.
Since these simulations were performed in history-match mode without
gas injection, flash calculations were not a significant factor. Problems
associated with load-balancing and flash calculations are discussed in a
later example.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-301

Figure20-25:ResultsforSP23DSaltDome105x105x15IMPESCompositionalModel
In implicit mode the compositional results are even more dramatic with
superlinear speedups for all cases except 32 processors as shown in
Figure 20-26. The load-imbalance due to static decomposition of the grid
again affects the performance of the 32 processor case.
Figure 20-26: Results for 3D Salt Dome 05x105x15 Implicit Compositional

Model
20-302 Landmark - R2003.4

3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 Compositional
The compositional case discussed in the previous section was increased in

size to 1,02,900 cells. Since the serial simulation could not be performed
an estimated speedup of 4 on 4 processors was used as a conservative
estimate upon which to compare the other results. The actual speedups
will likely far exceed this estimate since the smaller compositional case
showed a speedup of 5.5 on 4 processors. Nonetheless, as shown in
Figure 20-27 results were again excellent with estimated speedups of 23 on
25 processors.
Compositional Model
Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Compositional
The sloping fault model was also run in compositional mode. Speedups
for the IMPES case were much better than the corresponding black-oil
IMPES model since the solver did not dominate the performance. As
shown in Figure 20-28 speedups were better than ideal for all cases up
through 32 processors with a factor of 35 on 32 processors. Clearly, the
effect of cache thrashing is also observed in this case but to a lesser extent
than in the fully-implicit IMPES example discussed earlier.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-303

Figure 20-28: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 27x50x24 IMPES Compositional
Model
Compositional Static Load Balancing
The realistic compositional case has been shown in previous studies77 to

exhibit significant load imbalance for the PVT calculations. The original
grid was subdivided in the y-direction into four domains with similar
numbers of xz-planes: 8,7,7,7. This resulted in a 200% variation in elapsed
times for the PVT calculations between processors 1-3, and 4. Overall
elapsed times varied by a factor of at least two. (See Figure 20-29 -
TOTAL1.) With the linear decomposition used for this problem static load
balancing can be easily accomplished. Three load balancing steps were
taken in which the number of planes respectively for CPUs 1-4 were
changed to 7,7,7,8 (TOTAL2); to 7,7,5,10 (TOTAL3) ; and finally to 7,7,6,9
(TOTAL4). This balancing resulted in a reduction in the elapsed times for
the PVT calculations from 91 to 71 seconds or about 22%. Overall elapsed
times decreased by only about 18% since other calculations in the
simulation were now unequal among processors. Speedups were
improved from 2.91 for the original case to 3.44 for the final balanced
simulation.
20-304 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 20-29: Grid and Structure for Composition Static Load Balancing
Example
This example demonstrates that linear decomposition can lead to a

straight-forward approach to static load balancing. For other cases it is
likely that dynamic techniques may be required. In particular, both
receiver initiated techniques and Dantzigs transportation model
approach appear to offer promise in the area of dynamically partitioning
the load among processors84,85.
Performance on Workstation Clusters
The IBM SP2 used for most of the results provided a unique feature to test
performance of the model on a cluster of workstations. Simply by
changing a UNIX environmental variable, the communications of the SP2
are transformed from the highspeed switch to ethernet speed. This results
in an increase in latency to about 250 microseconds and a decrease in
bandwidth to about 1 million bytes per second. These are comparable to
an idealized cluster of workstations communicating over ethernet.
Figure 20-30 shows results for the Sloping Fault example. (SP2-IP refers to
internet protocol or ethernet mode while SP2-US refers to user space
or highspeed switch mode on the SP2.) For four processors, the results are
excellent with speedups approaching ideal. As the number of processors
are increased to eight and eleven, the performance degrades significantly
probably due to saturation of the network and the significant latency with
increased numbers of messages. Performance for these latter cases was
actually worse than that for four processors. As shown in Figure 20-30,
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-305

Conclusions VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
message-passing overhead significantly affects solver performance for

greater than four processors.
These encouraging results will be further investigated on larger numbers

of processors and different models. Preliminary results for compositional
simulations show even better performance than observed above since
message passing overhead for the linear solver is small compared to
computation times for this situation.
Figure 20-30: Performance of Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model on Workstation

Cluster
20.3 Conclusions
This work has presented a general-purpose parallel reservoir simulator
which utilizes local grid refinement as a natural and flexible framework.
The parallel model is based on the use of the portable MPI
communications package. The message-passing scheme in the model
utilizes send-receive buffers and asynchronous communication for
minimization of overhead. Two parallel linear equation solvers were
developed using strip and composite grid decompositions. Standalone
results for the solvers showed excellent parallel speedups on an idealized
basis and compared to an efficient serial solver for greater than four
million nodes and up to seventy-one processors. The use of local grid
refinement allows for a variety of preconditioners to be utilized in the
parallel linear equation solution. Results for the overall simulator were
good to excellent for a variety of realistic simulations based on
geophysical and geological data. A variety of test problems were
simulated in parallel ranging from black-oil to large compositional cases
20-306 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Future Work
with more than one million cells using both IMPES and fully-implicit
formulations. A static load balancing scheme for a compositional
simulation was demonstrated. Finally, prototype simulations for clusters
of workstations produced excellent results for a limited number of nodes.
20.4 Future Work

The results of this study along with numerous other simulations involving
real data form the basis for future work on the parallel model. In general
parallel results have been excellent. However, it is clear that a continued
effort to improve the parallel linear equation solvers is required, especially
for the fully-implicit formulations, since parallel computing times are
dominated by the linear solutions. A promising technique utilizing a
three-dimensional coarse grid predictor solution shows promise in this
area. (See Reference 86.) The ultimate goal of the project, to directly
simulate geological grids with tens of millions of cells, will soon be
achieved through further improvements in memory scalability. Further
work is required to include tubing hydraulics, surface facilities, and
pipeline networks into the overall parallelization. Finally, static and
dynamic load balancing for not only the phase behavior, but also well and
local grid refinement calculations remains an issue to be addressed. The
load-balancing techniques addressed in References 84 and 85 will be
further investigated.
R2003.4 - Landmark 20-307

Future Work VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
20-308 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
21
00000Phase Equilibrium Calculations
21.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is based on an assumption of local phase equilibrium. It
is a two-hydrocarbon phase simulator and allows no more than two
hydrocarbon phases to be present in a gridblock. Phase equilibrium
between oil and gas is described by the following system of equations:
x i oi = y i gi , i = 1, 2, , n c (21-1)
z i = Lx i + ( 1 L )y i , i = 1, 2, , n c (21-2)
nc
xi = 1 (21-3)
i=1
nc
yi = 1 (21-4)
i=1
Here, oi, gi are fugacity coefficients of oil and gas, respectively. The
fugacity coefficients are functions of pressure, temperature, and
composition of the corresponding phase. For an expression of the fugacity
coefficients, refer to Chapter 23, PVT Representation.
For a given composition of a hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock, zi,

pressure, p, and temperature, T, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 determine
the compositions of oil and gas, xi, yi, and liquid fraction, L. By default,
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved with other governing equations of
the simulator in one iterative loop, the outer iterations. On each outer
iteration, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are linearized together with the rest
of the governing equations according to the Newton-Raphson method.
(This procedure is described in Chapter 18, Numerical Solution.) A user can
override this default and exclude Equations 21-1 through 21-4 from the
outer iteration loop. Then, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved
separately on each outer iteration after the primary unknowns have been
updated. Although it is not normally recommended to override the
default, the user may specify the SS parameter on the KMAX card in the
recurrent data set should a more robust method be required. It is always
R2003.4 - Landmark 21-309

more efficient to solve Equations 21-1 through 21-4 in one iteration loop
with the other simulator equations.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 become a part of the simulator governing

equations only if the hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock splits into two
phases. If the mixture exists as one phase, there are no phase equilibrium
constraints for this block, and Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are not part of
the governing equations. Therefore, it is important to know whether the
mixture in a gridblock is a one- or two-phase system. Determination of the
number of phases in a block must be performed on each outer iteration
because it affects the governing equations and the form of the Jacobian
matrix.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. For
some hydrocarbon mixtures, especially near the mixture critical point, the
radius of convergence of the Newton-Raphson iterative procedure for
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 may be small. In that case, for the iterative
procedure to converge, one must provide an initial guess, which should be
close to the solution. This may not be feasible, and the simulator will have
a problem with convergence in the outer iteration loop. In this case, even
when Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved with the other governing
equations in one iteration loop, convergence of the outer iterations may be
improved if at the end of an outer iteration after block pressure p and
block mixture composition zi are updated the system of Equations 21-1
through 21-4 is solved separately and the new oil and gas compositions, xi,
yi, and the liquid fraction, L, are determined.
Thus, in the solution algorithm implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE, each

outer iteration involves a step of so-called phase equilibrium calculations.
These calculations are performed at the end of every outer iteration after
the primary unknowns have been updated. These calculations determine
the number of hydrocarbon phases present in each gridblock of a model
and, if necessary, perform phase equilibrium calculations for two-phase
blocks.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two options. The first option can be used for
simple compositional problems that do not develop conditions close to the
mixture critical point. The second option, the Gibbs option, is designed for
more difficult problems with near-critical point phase behavior. This is
recommended for miscible displacement problems. The second option is
based on a combination of a phase stability test and Gibbs energy
minimization. The Gibbs option is computationally intensive.
Benchmarking shows that for simple compositional problems when both
options perform well, the second option results in a penalty of about 30%
in CPU time as compared to the first option. For miscible displacement
problems, however, the Gibbs option is more robust and could be faster if
it reduces the number of iterations.
21-310 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option
21.2 The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option

The standard VIP-EXECUTIVE option is based on the conventional
formulation of phase equilibrium given by Equations 21-1 through 21-4.
For every gridblock of a model, at the end of an outer iteration after an
update of primary unknowns, VIP-EXECUTIVE determines whether a
block is flagged as a single-phase block. If it is, then the simulator
performs the calculations described below. By default, VIP-EXECUTIVE
does not perform flash calculations for two-phase blocks. Flash
calculations are performed for two-phase blocks if the user has specified a
non-zero value of KMAX2 on the KMAX card.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two ways to solve Equations 21-1 through 21-4

(flash calculations). The two methods are:
Accelerated successive substitution (default)
Newton-Raphson with successive substitution preconditioning
Despite the fact that the accelerated successive substitution method is the
default, we recommend use of the Newton-Raphson method because it is
faster.
21.2.1 Determining Number of Phases in a Gridblock

For a gridblock that has been flagged as single phase, VIP-EXECUTIVE
performs a saturation pressure test to determine whether the block may
have become two-phase. For this test, the saturation pressure of the block
hydrocarbon mixture Psat is calculated, then block pressure P is compared
with Psat. If P is less than Psat, the mixture is assumed to be a two-phase
fluid. Here, a flash routine is called to determine the compositions of oil
and gas phases and the liquid fraction, L, in the block.
Saturation pressure is calculated by calling a bubble-point pressure

routine if the fluid in the single-phase block is recognized as oil.
Otherwise, a dew-point routine is called. The bubble-point routine solves
the following system of equations:
z i oi ( p, z ) = y i gi ( p, y ), i = 1, 2, , n c (21-5)
nc
yi = 1 (21-6)
i=1
for the gas composition yi, i = 1, ... , nc, and the bubble pressure, p. A
similar system of equations is solved in the dew-point routine:
z i gi ( p, z ) = x i oi ( p, x ), i = 1, 2, , n (21-7)
R2003.4 - Landmark 21-311

The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
nc
xi = 1 (21-8)
i=1
Each of these problems is solved iteratively by the Newton-Raphson

method.
In some situations, a bubble- or dew-point routine may not converge to

solution. In this case, if VIP-EXECUTIVE fails in the bubble-point
calculations, it makes another attempt to calculate the saturation pressure
by calling the dew-point routine. In the opposite case, if VIP-EXECUTIVE
fails in the dew-point routine, it calls the bubble-point routine. If the
simulator fails in both of these routines, it calls the flash routine for this
block. If the flash routine also fails, the VIP-EXECUTIVE then assumes
that the mixture in the block is single-phase fluid and that it is gas. This
sequence of failures happens most often near the critical point of the
mixture. As a consequence of these failures, VIP-EXECUTIVE may assume
a result that is not the true solution of the phase equilibrium problem. This
contributes random errors into the reservoir simulation, which may
significantly degrade overall performance of the simulator. Convergence
problems in phase equilibrium calculations in a small number of
gridblocks may force the simulator to perform additional outer iterations
or even cut timesteps. In such cases, use the Gibbs option of the simulator
for phase equilibrium calculations.
21-312 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gibbs Option
21.3 Gibbs Option

The Gibbs option of VIP-EXECUTIVE is based on a more general
approach to phase equilibrium than the formulation given by Equations
21-1 through 21-4. The state of equilibrium of a multicomponent system
that is constrained by constant temperature, pressure, and total number of
moles of components is characterized by a minimum of the systems Gibbs
energy. Since the phase equilibrium condition in a gridblock at the end of
an outer iteration is investigated at specified pressure, temperature, and
global composition, minimization of the Gibbs energy can be used to
determine the phase equilibrium. The formulation of the phase
equilibrium problem given by Equations 21-1 through 21-4 also is derived
from the principle of the Gibbs energy minimum. Equations 21-1 through
21-4 represent the necessary condition for minimum Gibbs energy.
The Gibbs energy of a homogeneous (single-phase) multicomponent

mixture of composition z is given by:
nc
G1 = N i i ( p, T , z ) (21-9)
i=1
where Ni and i are the number of moles and chemical potential of
component i in the mixture, respectively. The chemical potential and
fugacity coefficient are related as follows:
i = RT ln ( z i i ) + ( P, T ) (21-10)
where (P,T) is some function of pressure and temperature.
Similarly, the Gibbs energy of a two-phase system is given by the

expression
nc nc
G2 = N oi oi ( p, T , x ) + N gi gi ( p, T , y ) (21-11)
i=1 i=1
That distribution of molecules between oil and gas phases which results in
the lowest value of the Gibbs energy (G2) gives the equilibrium state of the
two-phase system. To find the equilibrium state, the program minimizes
the expression (Equation 21-11) with respect to Noi and Ngi. However, to
do that it must know that the mixture exists as a two-phase system.
R2003.4 - Landmark 21-313

Gibbs Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
21.3.1 Phase Stability Test

A multicomponent system splits into two phases because the value of
Gibbs energy in the two-phase state is smaller than the Gibbs energy of the
single-phase state. The Gibbs energy of the single-phase state is given by
Equation 21-9. If splitting off some small amount of material from a single-
phase system to form another phase results in a decrease of the system
Gibbs energy, that means the single-phase state is unstable and that the
mixture exists as a two-phase system.
The Gibbs energy of the system formed by splitting off some small
amount of material from the original single-phase system to form the
second phase can be approximated as follows:
nc
G 2 G 1 + N x i [ i ( P, T , x ) i ( P, T , z ) ] (21-12)
i=1
Here, N is the number of moles and x is the composition vector of the
split-off phase, while z is the composition vector of the original mixture.
If the function
nc
F( x) = xi [ i ( P, T , x ) i ( P, T , z ) ] (21-13)
i=1
is positive for any composition vector x, then according to Equation 21-12,
the original mixture is stable and exists as a single-phase fluid. However, if
there is a composition vector x, for which F < 0 , then the original phase is
unstable, and a second phase is formed. Hence, the problem of phase
stability also is formulated as a minimization problem for the function
defined by Equation 21-13. This function is called the phase stability
function.
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses More and Sorensens27 highly robust minimization

algorithm for minimization of F(x). This algorithm guarantees
convergence to a local minimum of the stability function. In addition, the
minimization strategy implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE uses multiple
initial points for the minimization procedure to ensure that the solution
converges to a non-trivial solution. This makes it highly probable that the
local minimum is, in effect, the global minimum of the stability function.
21-314 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gibbs Option
21.3.2 Gibbs Energy Minimization

Gibbs energy minimization is performed only after it has been determined
that a hydrocarbon mixture exists as a two-phase system. In this case, the
phase stability test described above provides an initial guess for the
composition of the second phase, which ensures reduction of the Gibbs
energy in comparison to the Gibbs energy of the single-phase state. More
and Sorensens minimization algorithm, which is also used for Gibbs
energy minimization, reduces the value of Gibbs energy with every step of
the minimization process. This guarantees that the process will never
converge back to the single-phase state.
Minimization of Gibbs energy may become a numerically difficult

problem if the Hessian matrix (the matrix of second derivatives of the
Gibbs energy function with respect to component moles in a phase)
becomes nearly singular. The Hessian matrix becomes nearly singular or
ill-conditioned in the following physical situations:
The mixture is near a critical, bubble, or dew point.
The mixture has trace components.
The mixture has nondistributing components.
The algorithm for Gibbs energy minimization implemented in VIP-

EXECUTIVE is designed to identify these situations and applies special
techniques to resolve these numerical problems.
21.3.3 Implementation of the Gibbs Option in VIP-EXECUTIVE

Phase equilibrium calculations can consume a significant fraction (around
50% or more) of the total CPU time spent on a simulation. Therefore, we
want to avoid phase equilibrium calculations when those calculations are
not necessary. For example, it is not necessary to perform the calculations
for a majority of the two-phase blocks. However, phase equilibrium
calculations for two-phase near-critical blocks are beneficial because they
improve the convergence of the outer iterations. The two-phase near-
critical blocks have compositions of oil and gas phases that are close to
each other. To sort out these blocks, VIP-EXECUTIVE uses the following
norm as a measure of proximity to the critical point:
nc
( xi yi )xi
i=1
M = -----------------------------------
n
- (21-14)
c
xi
2
i=1
If the value of M satisfies
R2003.4 - Landmark 21-315

Gibbs Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
M < t skip (21-15)
then the block is considered near-critical and is sent through the phase
equilibrium calculations. If not, the calculations for this block are
bypassed. The value of tskip for the test is defined by the user on the GIBBS
card. The larger the value of tskip that is specified by the user, the more
two-phase blocks are sent through phase equilibrium calculations.
For blocks flagged as single-phase, VIP-EXECUTIVE avoids the stability

test if the physical conditions in a block change so that the appearance of a
second phase in the block is unlikely. For example, VIP-EXECUTIVE does
not perform the stability test if the mixture composition in a block changes
insignificantly (the change in all mole fractions is <10-6) and if block
pressure increases during the last outer iteration.
Also, if the mixture in a single-phase block is far from the mixture two-
phase region, then the block most likely remains single phase even if block
pressure decreases slightly or if the mixture composition changes even
more than is allowed in the previous check. To identify these blocks, the
simulator relies on the values of tolerances provided by the user on the
GIBBS card in the recurrent data set.
21-316 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
22
Polymer Modeling Option1
22.1 Introduction
The Polymer option extends VIP-EXECUTIVE to simulate the injection of
polymer thickened aqueous solutions into reservoirs. VIP-POLYMER
models all the important physical properties attributed to the flow of
polymer solutions through porous media. A list of the physical properties
included in the model follows:
Non-Newtonian aqueous phase viscosity which varies with polymer

concentration and salinity.
Polymer adsorption which varies with polymer concentration and

salinity.
Permeability reduction to the aqueous phase which varies with

permeability, porosity, salinity, and polymer concentration.
Polymer inaccessible pore volume phenomenon.
Cation exchange between the clay (rock) and the aqueous phase.
Non-Newtonian flow effects for the well calculations.
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-317

Description of Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
22.2 Description of Option

The polymer option models the transport of polymer and electrolytes
through porous media. The electrolytes are categorized by three
components; a monovalent cation, a divalent cation and a monovalent
anion. Hence the polymer and electrolytes are represented by four
components which are present in the aqueous phase and adsorbed on the
rock and occupies no volume. The model solves the material conservation
equations for the polymer, the divalent cation and the monovalent anion,
while the monovalent cation is calculated from electrostatic equilibrium.
22-318 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Material Conservation Equations
22.3 Material Conservation Equations

The transport of polymer and electrolytes is considered to be dominated
by viscous and gravity forces. Dispersion (diffusion) effects are not
considered.
The conservation equation representing polymer transport is:
Q
( C p ) + ------ ( C pw U w ) = ------p- (22-1)
t p Vb
U w = k rw ( P w w D ) (22-2)
C p = C pw S w + C p (22-3)
The conservation equations representing electrolyte transport are:
Q
( C e ) + ( C ew U w ) = -----e- (22-4)
t Vb
C e = C ew S w + C e (22-5)
subscript e stands for either the divalent cations or the monovalent anions
where
C p = Total polymer concentration (mobile + stationary).

6
total mass of polymer 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ppm )
pore volume density of polymer sol.

Ce = Total electrolyte concentration (mobile +
stationary).
quantity
--------------------------------- ( meq ml )
pore volume
Cpw = Polymer concentration in the aqueous phase.
6
mass of polymer in phase phase 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ppm )
Vol. of aqueous phase dens. of polymer sol.
Cew = Electrolyte concentration in the aqueous phase.
quantity
------------------------------------------------------------ ( meq ml )
Vol. of aqueous phase

Cp = Concentration of adsorbed polymer.
6
mass of polymer adsorbed 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ppm )
pore volume density of polymer sol.

Ce = Concentration of electrolyte associated with the
clays.
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-319

Material Conservation Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
quantity
--------------------------------- ( meq ml )
pore volume
Qp = Qw Cpw (ppm bbl/D)
Qe = Qw Cew (meq/ml bbl/D)
Vb = Bulk volume (bbl).
Uw = Aqueous phase flux.
rw = Relative mobility of aqueous phase = krw/w(cp-1).
Pw = Aqueous phase pressure (psi).
D = Elevation with respect to some datum (ft).
w = Aqueous phase density (psi/ft).
= Gradient operator
= Porosity
p = Effective porosity to polymer.
22.3.1 Polymer Solution Viscosity

The Non-Newtonian (shear-rate dependent) aqueous phase viscosity is
modeled by Meters65 equation:
o
p = + ------------------------------------
- (22-6)
P 1
1 + ----------
1 2
where:
o Is the viscosity at zero shear rate ( = 0 ) and is a

function of polymer concentration and solution
salinity o = o(Cpw, CSEP).
Is the viscosity at infinite shear rate ( ) and is

approximated by = w.
w Is the viscosity of the aqueous phase with no

polymer.
Is an equivalent shear rate for multiphase flow in

porous media.
22-320 Landmark - R2003.4

1 2 Is the shear rate at which the viscosity attains a

value halfway between that at zero shear rate and
that of water.
P Is a parameter.
The equivalent shear rate, , is approximated by Hong66 as follows:
5 c U w
= ------------------------- (22-7)
kk rw S w
where:
= Shear rate (sec-1)
Uw = Darcy velocity (ft/day)
k = Absolute permeability in the direction of flow

(Darcy).
n
------------
1 + 3n n 1
c = ------------------ where n is the power law index. c
4n
is bounded between 0.779 and 1 as n varies between
1 and 0.
The polymer viscosity at zero shear rate, o, is a function of polymer and

electrolyte concentrations. VIP-POLYMER has two options for calculating
o. One option involves interpolation of o vs. Cpw tables at various
salinities. The other option uses the following function:
2 3 S
o = w 1 + ( A p1 C pw + A p2 C pw + A p3 C pw )C SEP
p
(22-8)
where:
Ap1 = Parameter (ppm-1) (meq/ml)-Sp
Sp = Constant and is approximated by the slope of o vs.

CSEP on a log-log plot.
CSEP = Effective salinity for polymer properties and is

defined as:
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-321

+ ++
C + pC
C SEP = ----------------------------
- (22-9)
Sw
where:
C+ = Free monovalent ion concentration (meq/ml of

P.V.).
C++ = Free divalention concentration (meq/ml of P.V.).
p = Parameter for effective divalent salinity

(dimensionless)
At low salinities, polymer viscosity is considered independent of salinity.

An input value, CSE1, indicates the salinity cut off.
22.3.2 Polymer Adsorption

Polymer adsorption, C p , is modeled as instantaneous, irreversible, and as
a function of polymer and electrolyte concentrations in the aqueous phase.
VIP-POLYMER has two options for calculating C p . One option involves
p in
interpolation of C p vs. Cpw tables at various salinities. The units for C
the input table are lb/ac-ft of bulk reservoir volume. Unit conversion to
ppm (pore volume basis) is done internally by the model using the
following:
C p ( lb ac ft )st
C p ( ppm ) = ---------------------------------------------
- (22-10)
res 2.7194
p uses the following functions:

The other option for calculating C
a p C pw
C p = ------------------------
- (22-11)
1 + b p C pw
a p = a p1 + a p2 C SEP (22-12)
where:
lb ac ft
ap1 = Parameter -------------------------
ppm
lb ac f t
ap2 = Parameter --------------------------------------
ppm meq ml
bp = Parameter (1/ppm)
22-322 Landmark - R2003.4

22.3.3 Permeability Reduction

Permeability reduction factor, Rk, is defined as:
Effective permeability to brine

R k = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective permeability to polymer solution
Permeability reduction is modeled as a function of polymer and
electrolyte concentrations, permeability and porosity. Rk is applied only to
the aqueous phase and considered irreversible.
VIP-POLYMER has two options for calculating Rk. One option uses the
following functions:
( R kmax 1 )b rk C pw
R k = 1 + ---------------------------------------------
- (22-13)
1 + b rk C pw
13 4
C rk [ ]
R kmax = 1 -----------------------------------------
12
- (22-14)
12
(k) ( S w )
where:
brk = Parameter (ppm-1).
Crk = Parameter (darcy1/2 ppm1/3).
k = Absolute permeability ( k x k y ) (darcy).
[] = Intrinsic viscosity of the polymer solution (ppm-1).
The intrinsic viscosity, [], is defined by:
[] =
lim o w
-----------------
- (22-15)
C pw 0 w C pw
The method used by VIP-POLYMER to calculate [] depends on the

option used for calculating o. If o is calculated using Equation 22-8, then
S
[ ] = A p1 C SEP
p
(22-16)
If o is calculated from table interpolations, then [] is approximated

numerically from the slope of o vs. Cpw at Cpw = 0.
( o C pw )
[ ] = --------------------------------
- C pw = 0 (22-17)
w
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-323

The second option for calculating Rk uses a combination of table

interpolations and Equations 22-13 to 22-17. The method first interpolates
for Rk between values of Cpw for each salinity table. Equations 22-13 to 22-
17 are then used to include the permeability and porosity dependence,
followed by interpolation between salinity values.
22.3.4 Polymer Inaccessible Pore Volume

The polymer inaccessible pore volume phenomenon is modeled by
multiplying the flux term in the polymer conservation equation
(Equation 22-1) by the ratio p . This has the effect of speeding up the
polymer accordingly. p is the effective porosity to polymer often
considered less than the true porosity, , due to the experimental
phenomenon where polymer molecules are observed to flow faster than
the solvent.
In the model, the increased polymer velocity results in a diluted polymer

concentration relative to the total pore volume. For this reason the
polymer concentration used to calculate the polymer dependent
properties is multiplied by p .
22.3.5 Cation Exchange

The exchange of the monovalent and divalent cations with the clays is
assumed to result entirely from electrostatic association.67 The equilibrium
relationship is
+2 + 2
(C ) C Qv ( C )
- = ------ -------------
------------- ++
- (22-18)
C
++ S w C
where
C+, C++= Free monovalent and divalent ion concentrations

(meq/ml of P.V.).
C+, C++= Concentrations of monovalent and divalent ions

associated with the clays (meq/ml of P.V.).
Qv = Cation exchange capacity of clays (meq/ml of P.V.).
c = Cation exchange constant (meq/ml)-1.
In addition we have the electroneutrality conditions:
+ ++ -
C +C = C (22-19)
+ ++
C +C = Qv (22-20)
22-324 Landmark - R2003.4

where C- = free anion concentration (meq/ml of P.V.).
22.3.6 Effective Polymer Viscosity Used in the Well Calculations

The equivalent shear rate for flow in porous media, Equation 22-7, can be
written as:
5 c qw
= --------------------------- ------ (22-21)
K k rw S w A
substituting the above equation in Equation 22-6 we can write:
M
p = w + --------------------x- (22-22)
1 + ---
S
A
where:
5 c qw
S = --------------------------- ---------- (22-23)
K k rw S w 1 2
x = p 1
M = o w
Darcys law in radial geometry can be written as:
K k rw A dp
q w = ----------------- ------ (22-24)
dr
Substituting for in Equation 22-24 from Equation 22-22 we can write:
qw M
dp = ------------------------- w + -----------------------------x- dr (22-25)
2rhK k rw
S
1 + ------------
2hr
x
qw M S x
p = ------------------------- u w ln ( r ) + ----- ln ---------- + r (22-26)
2rhK k rw x 2h
Define:
Pw = Pressure at rw where rw is well radius.
Pe = Pressure at re where re is some radius > rw .
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-325

For a fluid with Newtonian viscosity , we can write:
qw re
P e P w = ----------------------- ln ----- (22-27)
2hK k rw r w
For a fluid with non-Newtonian viscosity, we can write:
x
S x
---------- + r e
qw re 2h
= ----------------------- w ln ----- + ----- ln -----------------------------
M
Pe pw - (22-28)
2hK k rw r w x x
S x
---------- + r w
2h
For these two fluids to give the same pressure drop, Pe - Pw , then
x
S x
---------- + r e
2h
ln -----------------------------
x
-
S x
---------- + r w
M 2h
= w + ----- ----------------------------------------- (22-29)
x re
ln -----
r w
Thus all well bore calculations for a non-Newtonian viscosity fluid can be
made equivalent to a Newtonian fluid by use of an equivalent viscosity
as defined by Equation 22-29.
22-326 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Instantaneous Gel Model
22.4 Instantaneous Gel Model

The idea behind a gel treatment is to inject a special polymer solution into
a well producing at high water cuts. The polymer then reacts with
accompanying chemical agents and forms a gel, plugging the water
conducting channels. The well should then have a lower water cut when
put back on production. The polymer injection duration is relatively short
(few days).
The instantaneous gel model uses the polymer model to inject and place
the polymer in the formation. The GEL keyword at the desired date in the
recurrent data will compute a gel saturation assuming an instantaneous
reaction as follows:
Sw ( if cpw cpgel )
Sgel = ----------------------------------------------------------
0.0 ( if ( cpw < cpgel ) )
where
cpw is the aqueous phase polymer concentration
cpgel is the user specified concentration cutoff.
The gel phase has the same compressibility as the aqueous phase. The
water relative permeability is calculated as follows:
Krw ( Sw ) = Krw ( Sw + Sgel ) Krw ( Sgel )

The instantaneous gel model is very general and independent of the
polymer gelation mechanism.
R2003.4 - Landmark 22-327

Instantaneous Gel Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
22-328 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
23
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the behavior of the fluid-rock system when pressure and
temperature are varied is discussed. Attention is mainly focused on the
behavior of the hydrocarbon properties in both the compositional
formulation and black oil formulation. Reference is made to the miscible
formulation.
23.2 Rock Porosity

Rock porosity is calculated by the following equation:
= M V o [ 1 + C r ( P o P ref ) ] (23-1)
where Cr is rock compressibility, Pref is reference pressure, and o is

porosity at the reference pressure. If the compaction option is invoked, MV
is the pore volume multiplier that is a function of gridblock pressure
(reversible option) or the historical minimum gridblock pressure
(irreversible option; default). If the compaction option is invoked, the user
must enter MV at different pressure levels. MV equals one if the
compaction option is not used.
23.3 Water Properties

Water viscosity is assumed to be a constant (user input). The reciprocal
formation volume factor of water, Bw, is defined as
B w = B wo [ 1 + C w ( P o P ref ) ] (23-2)
where Bwo is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water (in STB/RB)
at reference pressure Pref, and Cw is water phase compressibility.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-329

Hydrocarbon Properties VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
23.4 Hydrocarbon Properties

The VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator can be operated as a general
compositional model, a conventional black oil model, or a Todd-Longstaff
miscible model. In the following sections, the hydrocarbon properties of
the three models are discussed separately.
23.4.1 Compositional Model
Density and Fugacity
For the general compositional model, an equation of state is used to

determine the oil densities and fugacities. The user may select one of four
equations-of-state: Peng-Robinson (PR), Redlich-Kwong (RK), Soave-
Redlich-Kwong (SRK), or Zudkevitch-Joffe-Redlich-Kwong (ZJRK).
All four equations of state obtain molar densities by solving the following
cubic equation:
3 2 2 2
Z j + ( E f 1 B 1 ) Z j + ( A E f 2 B + E f 3 B )Z j [ AB + E f 4 B ( B + 1 ) ] = 0
(23-3)
where
Po
Z j = ------------
- (23-4)
j RT
is the compressibility factor for the RK, ZJRK, SRK, and unshifted PR
equations, and
N
Po 1 c

Z j = ---------- ----- + x i b i s i (23-5)
RT j i = 1
is the shifted compressibility factor for the PR equation. Additionally,
c N Nc
Po
2 2 [ xi xk ( 1 d ik )
A = ------------ ai ak ] (23-6)
R T i=1 k=1
Nc
Po
B = -------
RT xi bi (23-7)
i=1
2 2
R T ci
a i = ai i -------------- (23-8)
P ci
23-330 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Hydrocarbon Properties
RT ci
b i = bi ----------- (23-9)
P ci
Here, R is the gas constant; si is the volume shifting parameter of

component i; and Tci and Pci are the critical temperature and critical
pressure of component i, respectively. Parameters ai and bi are treated
as universal constants in the original equations-of-state. However, as an
additional flexibility for fitting data, VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to
enter different values for each component.
The symbol dik denotes the binary interaction coefficients between

components i and k. Definitions for those parameters not mentioned here
are given later in this section.
The cubic equation (Equation 23-3) may yield three real roots. The largest
root is always taken as the compressibility factor for the gas phase, while
the smallest positive root is the compressibility factor for the oil phase.
The molar densities of the hydrocarbon phases, j, then are calculated
from Equation 23-4 or Equation 23-5.
The fugacity coefficient of component i in phase j, ji, is defined as
f ji
ji = ---------- (23-10)
xi Po
where fji is fugacity of component i in phase j. This represents the

tendency of the component to escape from the phase. In an ideal solution
it is equal to the vapor pressure.
With this definition, the fugacity coefficient can be calculated by
bi Po Z j + E m2 B A
ln ji = ln ( Z j B ) + ----------- ( Z j 1 ) + ln ------------------------- -------------
BRT Z j + E m1 B E f 5 B
c N
2P o bi Po
2 2
----------------
- ( x k ( 1 d ik ) a a
i k ) ----------- (23-11)
AR T k = 1 BRT
The universal constants Ef1 to Ef5, Em1, Em2, and the default values of ai
and bi are summarized in the following:
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-331

Ef1 Ef2 Ef3 Ef4 Ef5 Em1 Em2 ai bi
PR 1 2 -3 -1 2 2 1 + 2 1 2 0.457235529 0.077796074
SRK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
RK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
ZJRK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
In the following, the definitions of i in Equation 23-8 are presented

separately for individual equations-of-state.
Peng-Robinson Equation-of-State
2
i = [ 1 + i ( 1 T ri ) ] (23-12)
where, for the default option (PR),
i = i ( 0.26992 i + 1.54226 ) + 0.37464, if i 0.49 (23-13)
or
i = 0.379642 + i [ 1.48503 + i ( 0.164423 + 0.016666 i ) ]
if i > 0.49 (23-14)
and for the original Peng-Robinson (PRORIG)
i = i ( 0.26992 i + 1.54226 ) + 0.37464, for all i (23-15)
The symbol i is the user-input acentric factor of component i, and Tri is

the reduced temperature (T/Tci) of component i.
Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
T ci
i = ------- (23-16)
T
Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
The parameter i is defined in Equation 23-12 (the same as PR) and i is

calculated by
i = i ( 0.176 i + 1.574 ) + 0.48 (23-17)
23-332 Landmark - R2003.4

Zudkevitch-Joffee-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
i = 1 (23-18)
The ai and bi in the table above are initial guesses. The actual values of
ai and bi for a given component i at a given temperature T below critical
are determined so that component vapor pressure and saturated liquid
density at T are exactly matched.
Hydrocarbon Phase Viscosities
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark Correlation
The viscosities of the oil and gas phases are calculated using the Lohrenz-
Bray-Clark (LBC) correlation.28
3 4 0.16667
M j P cj
j = 0.18383 --------------- [ ( 0.1023 + r {0.023364 + r [ 0.058533
T cj
4 4 U3
+ r ( 0.040758 + 0.0093324 r ) ] } ) 10 ] + -----------------------------
N
-
c
( xi Mi)
i=1
(23-19)
where
r = j V cj (23-20)
Nc
Aj = xi Ai , A = M , P c, T c, V c (23-21)
i=1
10.736 Z ci T ci
V ci = ---------------------------------
- (23-22)
5.6146 P ci
Nc 3 4 0.16667
M i P ci
U 3 = 0.18383 x i M i --------------- U 5i (23-23)
i=1 T ci
and
4 0.94
U 5i = 3.4 10 T ri if T ri < 1.5 (23-24)
or
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-333

4 0.625
U 5i = 1.778 10 ( 4.58T ri 1.67 ) if T ri 1.5 (23-25)
The symbol Mi denotes the molecular weight of component i. In Equations

23-19 through 23-25, j, Vci, Pci, Tci, and j are in units of lbmol/bbl, bbls/
lbmol, psi, R, and cp, respectively.
Pedersen Correlation
The Pedersen correlation29,37 is useful for heavy oils where the LBC
correlation fails to give a proper viscosity prediction for some cases.
To invoke the Pedersen viscosity option, enter keyword VISPE between

the PVT data and the surface separation data input. You may specify
binary interacting coefficients Xij in Equation 23-27 to calculate the
mixture critical temperature and k1 to k7 in Equation 23-39 to calculate the
viscosity of the reference component (methane).
In the input data, VISK (kj) and VISKJ (Xij) cards are optional. Default
values are used if they are not entered. The default values are zero for all
of the interacting coefficients Xij and are given after Equation 23-39 for
coefficients kj. Only those data overwriting the default values need to be
entered. Sample input data are shown below:
Sample:
VISPE
VISK
1 42.5
2 0.0002279
3 11770
4 600.3
5 16.49
6 1614
7 0.05552
VISKJ
3 5 -0.36409
3 6 -0.38517
3 7 -0.8
3 8 -0.62763
ENDVIS
The Pedersen correction is based on the corresponding states principle. A

group of substances obeys the corresponding states principle if these
substances have the same reduced viscosity at the same reduced density
and reduced temperature. In such a case, only comprehensive viscosity
data for one component (the reference component) in the group are
needed. Other data can be calculated from the reduced viscosity. The
Pedersen correlation uses methane as a reference substance.
23-334 Landmark - R2003.4

The viscosity of a hydrocarbon phase is calculated as
16 23 12
T co P cm MW m m P P co o T T co o
( p, T ) = --------- --------- -------------- ------- o ----------------------
-, -----------------------
T cm P co MW o o P cm m T cm m
(23-26)
where Tcm is the mixture critical temperature and Pcm is the mixture
critical pressure. The subscripts o and m refer to the reference substance
and mixture, respectively. They are calculated from the mixing rules:
n n 13 13 3
T ci T cj 12
i j x x ------- + -------
P cj
( 1 X ij ) ( T ci T cj )
i=1 j=1 P ci
T cm = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 13 3
- (23-27)
n n
T ci T cj
xi x j ------- + -------
i=1 j=1 P ci P cj
n n 13 13 3
T ci T cj 12
8 x i x j ------- + ------- ( T ci T cj )
i=1 j=1 P ci P cj
P cm = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 13 3 2
- (23-28)
n n
T ci T cj
x i x j ------- + -------
i = 1 j = 1 P ci P cj
The coefficients Xij are introduced in Equation 23-27 to account for the
binary component interaction.
Here, MWm is the mixture molecular weight and is calculated by the

following equation:
4 2.303 2.303
MW m = 1.304 10 ( MW w MW n ) (23-29)
where MW w and MW n are the weighted average and the molar average
molecular weights:
n
xi MW i
2
MW w = i---------------------------
=1
n
(23-30)
xi MW i
1=1
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-335

n
MW n = xi MW i (23-31)
i=1
Parameters m and o in Equation 23-26 account for the density and

molecular weight effects:
3 1.847 0.5173
m = 1 + 7.378 10 r MW m (23-32)
3 1.847 0.5173
o = 1 + 7.378 10 r MW o (23-33)
The symbol r denotes the reduced density for the reference component:
P P co T T co
o ----------------, ----------------
P cm T cm
r = -----------------------------------------------
- (23-34)
co
The density of the reference component (methane) o is calculated from

the three-parameter Peng-Robinson equation of state.
The viscosity of the reference component is based on the model of Hanley

et al.30
( o, T ) = o ( T ) + 1 ( T ) o + F 1 ( o, T ) + F 2 ( o, T ) (23-35)
where
1 2 3 1 3 13 23
o ( T ) = b1 T + b2 T + b3 T + b4 + b5 T + b6 T
43 53
+ b7 T + b8 T + b9 T (23-36)
and
b1 = -0.2090975x105
b2 = 2.647269x105
b3 = -1.472818x105
b4 = 4.716740x104
b5 = -9.491872x103
b6 = 1.219979x103
b7 = -9.627993x10
b8 = 4.274152
b9 = -8.14153x10-2
T 2
1 ( T ) = 1.6969859 0.13337235 1.4 log e --------- (23-37)
168
23-336 Landmark - R2003.4

j
( o, T ) = exp j 1 + ----4
T

0.1 j3 0.5 j 6 j 7
exp o j 2 ----------
32
- + o j 5 + ---- + ---- 1.0 (23-38)
T T T

j1 = 1.035060586x10
j2 = 1.7571599671x10
j3 = 3.0193918656x103
j4 = 1.8873011594x102
j5 = 4.2903609488x10-2
j6 = 1.4529023444x102
j7 = 6.1276818706x103
k
( o, T ) = exp k 1 + ----4-
T
0.1 k3 0.5 k6 k7
exp o k 2 ----------
32
- + o j 5 + ----- + -----2- 1.0 (23-39)
T T T
k1 = 9.74602
k2 = 18.0834
k3 = 4126.66
k4 = 44.6055
k5 = 0.976544
k6 = 81.8134
k7 = 15649.9
o co
= ------------------- (23-40)
co
Coefficients j1 to j7 in Equation 23-38 are obtained from a least-squares fit

to the methane viscosity data at temperatures above the freezing
temperature of methane (set = 0), while k1 to k7 in Equation 23-39 are
determined from temperature below the freezing point (set = 0). To
ensure continuity between viscosities above and below the freezing point,
two weighting factors F1 and F2 were introduced:
1 + HTAN
F 1 = -------------------------- (23-41)
2
1 HTAN
F 2 = ------------------------- (23-42)
2
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-337

exp ( T ) exp ( T )
HTAN = ----------------------------------------------------- (23-43)
exp ( T ) + exp ( T )
T = T T F (23-44)
where TF is the freezing point of methane. The units in Equations 23-35

through 23-43 are gm/cc for density, K for temperature, and micropoise
for viscosity.
23.4.2 Black Oil Model

In the black oil model, all hydrocarbon fluid properties are entered in
tabular forms. The user must provide the differential liberation data.
These include the solution gas-oil ratio (Rs, in SCF/STB of residual oil), the
formation volume factor (Bo, in RB/STB of residual oil), gas
compressibility factor (Zg), gas formation volume factor (Bg, in RB/
MSCF), gas density relative to air at standard conditions (Gr), and oil and
gas viscosities (o and g) as functions of the saturation pressure. (Note
that both the solution gas-oil ratio and the oil formation volume factor are
based on the standard state of the residual oil, rather than on the stock
tank oil.) In this form, the formation volume factor is more frequently
referred to as the relative oil volume in typical laboratory reports. Such
form allows the user to enter the laboratory data directly, without first
converting them to stock tank oil conditions. The values of Bo and o at
pressures above the saturation pressure also are required for
undersaturated conditions.
Since the simulator uses a compositional formulation internally, these

black oil data are converted into compositional parameters (e.g., fugacity
coefficients, Zo, and o are as functions of pressure and gas component
mole fraction in the oil phase). The compositional parameters then are
reconstructed into equal-spaced tables. For pressures beyond the range of
the tabular data, VIP-EXECUTIVE uses constant slope extrapolation to
derive values at those conditions. The conversion procedure is described
in the following sections.
Gas Properties
The gas phase viscosity and compressibility factor are assumed to be a

function of pressure only (no compositional dependency). An equal-space
viscosity versus pressure table is constructed from the input viscosity
versus saturation pressure table. A Zg versus pressure table is likewise
constructed. If Bg instead of Zg is entered as a function of pressure, then
the following equation is used to convert Bg to Zg:
23-338 Landmark - R2003.4

0.0056146 B g P o T s
Z g = -------------------------------------------------
- (23-45)
Ps T
In deriving this equation, gas compressibility at the surface temperature

(Ts) and surface pressure (Ps) is assumed to be one.
Phase Equilibrium and Oil Properties
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to input more than one set of PVT data
for different equilibrium regions. These data are converted to equal-space
tables of K-values (needed for fugacity equality equations), Zo, and o.
Data conversion requires oil and gas component molecular weights,

which are set internally by the simulator. To ensure non-zero component
K-values, the simulator assumes that the oil component molecular weight,
M2, equals the maximum among all residual oil and stock tank oil
molecular weights plus two (2.0). Additionally, the gas component
molecular weight, M1, is assumed to equal the minimum among all gas
phase molecular weights (29Gr) minus one (1.0). Consequently, the gas
phase has at least a trace of the oil component at any pressure level
(including the surface pressure) and vice versa.
VIP-EXECUTIVE also provides options for multiple API fluid regions and
gas solubilities. These options are not documented here.
Residual Oil Molecular Weight
The residual oil molecular weight is either directly entered by the user or
derived by the simulator. Normally the user is required to enter either the
density and molecular weight of residual oil (or , Mwor) or those of
bubble-point oil (os, Mwos) following the BOTAB card. These properties
can be derived from each other based on the differential liberation data.
The procedure to derive or and Mwor from os and Mwos is explained
below.
The differential liberation data are entered in monotonically decreasing

pressure steps. The last pressure must be the surface pressure; i.e., P(i) >
P(i+1) and P(Np) = Ps, where Np is the entry number of the last stage.
Based on 1 cc of the residual oil (equivalent to Bos cc or os x Bos gm of
residual oil plus gas at the bubble-point condition or bubble-point oil), the
overall gas liberated in gm for the differential liberation is
Np 1
29. Ps
G g = --------------------------------------- ---------
5.6146 62.428 RT s ( R s ( i ) R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 ) (23-46)
i = Ns
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-339

Thus, the density of the residual oil is given by
or = os B os G g (23-47)
where or and os are given in gm/cc, Ns is the entry number of the

saturation pressure of the bubble-point oil, and Bos is the Bo (RB/STB of
residual oil) for the bubble-point oil. Again, based on 1 cc of the residual
oil, the overall gas liberated in gmole at the end of the differential
liberation for the bubble-point oil is
1 Ps
G m = ------------------------------------------ --------- [ R s ( N s ) R s ( N p ) ] (23-48)
5.6146 652.428 RT s
The amounts of bubble-point oil in gmole given 1 cc of residual oil is
B os os
z o = ---------------------
- (23-49)
M wos
The molecular weight of the residual oil then is
or
M wor = -----------------
-
zo Gm
Stock Tank Oil Molecular Weight
Following a similar procedure, the density and molecular weight of the

stock tank oil can be derived from os and Mwos if the Rs, Bo (RB/STB of
stock tank oil), and Gr were known from the separator flash test. This is
the case when the SEPTEST card is entered in the VIP-EXECUTIVE input
deck.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two additional separator options that warrant

special attention since they may create an overly defined fluid system. The
first option is use of the BOSEP card. This option requires that the user
enter the API or density of the stock tank oil. Since the same quantity also
can be derived from os and Mwos, we have an overly defined fluid system.
In this case, VIP-EXECUTIVE honors the stock tank oil density entered by
the user and disregards the Gr in deriving all the relevant stock tank oil
properties.
The second option is the use of the SEPARATOR card, where K-values for
the separator are entered. The stock tank oil molecular weight can be
defined from the separator K-values. However, the user may enter the
stock tank oil molecular weight (MWL) which, if entered, produces an
overly defined fluid system. In this case, VIP-EXECUTIVE honors the
user-entered MWL and disregards the molecular weight derived from the
separator K-values in deriving the stock tank oil compressibility (ZLSEP).
23-340 Landmark - R2003.4

K-Value and Oil Compressibility
The K-value and oil compressibility tables can be derived from the user-
entered differential liberation data. First, the molecular weight of the
liberated gas, Mwg, at each liberation stage (pressure entry No. I-1 to I) is
M wg ( I ) = 29 G r ( I ) (23-50)
The gas component mole fraction in the liberated gas phase is then
M 2 M wg ( I )
y 1 ( I ) = -------------------------------
- (23-51)
M2 M1
Based on 1 cc of residual oil, the amounts of the overall gas liberated from
stage I to the standard conditions in gm is
Np 1
29. Ps
G g ( I ) = --------------------------------------- ---------
5.6146 62.428 RT s ( R s ( i ) R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 )
i=1
(23-52)
which is similar to Equation 23-46. Thus, the density of the oil at stage I is
or + G g ( I )
o ( I ) = ---------------------------
- (23-53)
Bo ( I )
Since the amounts of total gas liberated from stage I to the standard
conditions are given by
1 Ps
G m ( I ) = --------------------------------------- --------- [ R s ( I ) R s ( N p ) ] (23-54)
5.6146 62.428 RT s
the molecular weight of the oil at stage I can be calculated as
o ( I ) Bo ( I )
M wo ( I ) = ---------------------------------------------- (23-55)
or M wor + G m ( I )
The gas component mole fraction in the oil at stage I is
M 2 M wo ( I )
x 1 ( I ) = -------------------------------
- (23-56)
M2 M1
The equilibrium K-values of the gas component and the oil component at
stage I are calculated according to
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-341

y1 ( I )
K 1 ( I ) = ------------ (23-57)
x1 ( I )
and
1 y1 ( I )
K 2 ( I ) = --------------------- (23-58)
1 x1 ( I )
respectively. Oil compressibility then is calculated according to
P ( I ) M wo ( I )
Z o ( I ) = ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (23-59)
5.6146 62.428 o ( I ) RT
The above procedure establishes K-values as a function of pressure, and

Zo as a function of x1 (or the saturation pressure). The relationship
between x1 and saturation pressure, which is needed in constructing the
full Zo(Po, x1) and o(Po, x1) tables for undersaturated conditions, also is
established.
For the undersaturated oil phase, the user must enter ratios of the oil
formation volume factor at pressures above the saturation pressure to the
oil formation volume factor at the saturation pressure. Ratios of oil
viscosity at pressures above the saturation pressure to viscosity at the
saturation pressure also are required. To convert the undersaturated Bo
values to undersaturated Zo values, the following relationship is
recognized from Equation 23-59:
Z o
------
P o Bo ( Po )
-----------
s
= ----------------
s
- (23-60)
Z o Bo ( Po )
-----s-
P o
where the superscripts denote saturated conditions. Note that the right
side of Equation 23-60 represents the input ratios of formation volume
factors. This equation suggests that the same ratios can be used directly if
the undersaturated Zo/Po table is constructed. The independent variables
in the two-dimensional table are x1 and Po. For a given x1, the saturation
pressure is given by the x1-pressure relationship established earlier in this
section. For any Po which is greater than the saturation pressure, the right
side of Equation 23-60 is determined from the input undersaturated table
s s
through interpolation. The resulting value is then multiplied by Z o P o to
yield Zo/Po for x1 and Po. The two-dimensional oil viscosity table o(x1, Po)
is constructed likewise.
23-342 Landmark - R2003.4

Finally, the K-values are used to establish the following fugactiy equality
equations:
oi = K i ( P o ), i = 1, 2 (23-61)
gi = 1, i = 1, 2 (23-62)
After the k-values have been calculated for each of the data entries in the
differential liberation data, an equal-spaced table is constructed through a
linear interpolation process involving ln(KijPi) versus ln(Pi).
23.4.3 Gas Condensates

An expanded gas properties treatment is available for gas condensate
fluid systems, allowing a compositional dependency as well as pressure
dependency for undersaturated gas viscosity and compressibility factor.
The new table is analogous to the undersaturated oil phase table. For each
saturation (dewpoint) pressure, a set of data may be introduced, defining
the ratios of gas formation volume factor at pressures above the saturation
pressure to the gas formation volume factor at the saturation pressure.
Ratios of the gas viscosity at pressures above the saturation pressure to gas
viscosity at the saturation pressure are also required.
23.4.4 Miscible Model

This miscible model is treated internally as a four-component
compositional model by VIP-EXECUTIVE. These four components are
solvent, gas, oil and water. The data requirement and conversion
procedure to compositional formulation for the gas and oil components
are identical to the black oil model described above. For the solvent, two
property input options are available. In the first option, the solvent
component is treated numerically as insoluble in the oil phase. This
corresponds to an infinite solvent K-value. This option requires that the
user enter the formation volume factor or solvent compressibility and
solvent viscosity as a function of pressure. The conversion procedure of
the solvent table into compositional formulation is the same as that for the
gas component.
In the second option, the solvent is treated numerically as partially soluble

in the oil phase. The user must enter the solvent K-value, the
compressibility factor of the solvent in the oil phase, the viscosity of
solvent in the oil phase as a function of pressure, and the two properties
specified in the first option. The oil phase and gas properties are then
calculated through mixing rules discussed in Chapter 16.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-343

Equation of State Interpolation Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
23.5 Equation of State Interpolation Option
23.5.1 Introduction
The equation of state interpolation option is developed in VIP for a
reduction of CPU time required for compositional reservoir simulations.
The new option reduces the CPU time by factors of 1.7-8 and it matches
results of fully compositional simulations in tested compositional models.
The effectiveness of the new option has been confirmed in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Model and several full field compositional models.
In the equation of state interpolation option, recovery factors of

hydrocarbon components, liquid and vapor compressibility factors are
determined as tabular functions of pressure, temperature, and fluid
compositions. The equation of state (EOS) is applied for the automatic
generation of these functions in an initialization step of a reservoir
simulation (in VIP-CORE). They are stored in a restart file. Then, the
tabular functions of the recovery and compressibility factors are used for
phase-equilibrium calculations in different time steps of the reservoir
simulation (in VIP-EXECUTIVE) instead of the equation of state. These
functions are applied for the determination of compositions and densities
of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
The EOS interpolation option can be used for the phase-equilibrium

calculations in
reservoir grid blocks,
separators, and
well tubing strings (surface pipeline network system).
It also can be applied in any combination of these three parts of the

reservoir simulation. For example, it can be used for the phase equilibrium
calculations only in separators and well tubing strings.
The new EOSINT option significantly reduces the CPU time required for
the phase-equilibrium calculations and linearization of the equation of
state. It is implemented only in the IMPES finite-difference formulation.
23.5.2 General Description of EOS Interpolation Option

The EOS interpolation option is designed for the reduction of the CPU
time required for the phase-equilibrium calculations which are briefly
described below.
23-344 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Equation of State Interpolation Option
Phase-Equilibrium Calculations
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied in VIP for the determination

of
number of existing hydrocarbon phases,
their compositions, and
densities of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
assuming that
pressure,
temperature, and
total fluid composition
are known.
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied for the PVT calculations in
reservoir grid cells,
different stages of separator batteries,
well tubing strings, and
surface pipeline network system.
The VIP compositional phase-equilibrium procedure is based on the

solution of the equation of state (EOS) or Gibbs free energy minimization.
It is described in Chapter 21 of this manual and in an SPE paper52.
The nonlinear phase-equilibrium equations are solved in VIP

simultaneously with reservoir flow equations using the Newton-Raphson
procedure. The linearization of the phase-equilibrium equations is
required in the Newton-Raphson procedure.
The linearization and solution of the phase-equilibrium equations

consume a significant portion of the CPU time required for a reservoir
simulation. The reduction of that time is the primary objective of the EOS
interpolation procedure.
General Description
The equation of state interpolation procedure determines
saturation pressure (bubble point or dew point pressure),
K-values at the saturation pressure,
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-345

recovery factors of hydrocarbon components, and
compressibility factors of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases
as tabular functions (EOS interpolation tables) of
pressure,
temperature, and
fluid compositions.
The equation of state is applied for the generation of these tables in VIP-
CORE. The user should define pressure, temperature, composition entries
of the EOS interpolation tables. The recovery and compressibility factors
are calculated for all combinations of pressure, temperature, and
composition entries.
The generated lookup tables are used instead of EOS for the phase-
equilibrium calculation in VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE. A
multidimensional interpolation is applied for the determination of the
recovery and compressibility factors between the table entries.
The EOS interpolation procedure can be used for the phase-equilibrium

calculations in reservoir grid blocks, separators, well tubing strings and
surface pipeline network system, or any combination.
The EOS interpolation procedure consists of the following parts:
definition of pressure, temperature, and composition entries of the

EOS interpolation tables using input data,
generation of the EOS interpolation tables in VIP-CORE using the

equation of state,
application of the EOS interpolation tables in VIP-CORE and VIP-

EXECUTIVE for the phase-equilibrium calculations.
Details of these parts are described in the following sections.
Construction of VIP-CORE Compositional Model
Parameters of the equation of state must be formulated because the EOS is

applied for the generation of the EOS interpolation tables.
The EOSINT card should be included in VIP-CORE input deck to invoke

the EOS interpolation option. The NORESERVOIR, NOSEPARATOR, or/
and NONETWORK keywords can be input on the EOSINT card to
exclude the application of the EOS interpolation procedure for reservoir
grid cells, separators, or/and surface pipeline network system,
respectively.
23-346 Landmark - R2003.4

23.5.3 Definition of Temperature, Composition, and Pressure Entries of

EOS Interpolation Tables
Input of Temperature Entries
Temperature entries (T1, T2, ..., Tnt) in the EOS interpolation tables can be
input on the TEMPERATURE card, where nt is the number of the
temperature entries.
A temperature range in the EOS interpolation tables must include values

of temperature in reservoir grid blocks, well tubing strings, and the
surface pipeline network system. If this condition is violated, the
simulator outputs a warning message or stops the run (if it is requested by
the user using the STOP keyword on the EOSINT card).
Definition of Composition Entries
Composition entries of the EOS interpolation tables are defined from three
sources:
user input,
initial fluid composition in a reservoir, and
simulations of PVT tests.
Composition entries (Z1, Z2,..., Znz) of the EOS interpolation tables can be
input after the CMP card, where Zj=(z1j,z2j,...zncj), j= 1, 2,...,nz are the
composition vectors; zij is the molar fraction of the i-th component in the j-
th composition vector; nz is the number of the composition entries; nc is
the number of the hydrocarbon components.
Initial compositions of the reservoir fluids defined after the OILMF,

GASMF, or COMPOSITION cards are automatically included in a list of
the composition entries.
Simulations of PVT tests (differential expansion, swelling, and/or

multiple contact tests) can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic
generation of the composition entries ( See Automatic Generation of
Composition Entries on page 349.). The fluid compositions calculated in
different stages of simulated PVT tests are automatically included in a list
of the composition entries.
The user can divide the composition entries into different paths. The
simulator interpolates the recovery and compressibility factors between
paths. The paths can be defined in the CMP, SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST,
and MULCONTEST cards.
Compositional entries are defined separately for each equilibrium region.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-347

Input of Minimum and Maximum Pressure Values
Minimum and maximum values of pressure in the EOS interpolation

tables (PMIN and PMAX) can be input after the PMIN and PMAX
keywords, respectively.
A pressure range in the EOS interpolation tables must include calculated

values of pressure in reservoir grid blocks, well tubing strings, and the
surface pipeline network system. If this condition is violated, the
simulator outputs a warning message or stops the run (if it is requested by
the user using the STOP keyword on the EOSINT card).
Definition of Pressure Entries
The simulator internally determines pressure entries of the EOS

interpolation tables. The pressure entries are calculated for each
combination of temperature and composition entries (Tk, Zj), k = 1, 2,..., nt,
j = 1,2,...,nz. The following procedure is applied:
1. A saturation pressure PSATjk is determined.
2. A pressure increment in the undersaturated region with one

hydrocarbon liquid or vapor phase is selected as follows:
The pressure interval from the saturation pressure PSATjk to the

maximum pressure PMAX is divided into NPMAX-1 equal
subintervals. End points of these subintervals are considered as the
pressure entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
The number of the pressure entries NPMAX can be defined by the user
in the DIM card.
3. A much smaller pressure increment is used in the saturated region

near the saturation pressure than the pressure increment in a saturated
region far below the saturation pressure. The pressure increments in
these two saturated regions with liquid and vapor hydrocarbon
phases are selected as follows:
The pressure interval from the minimum pressure PMIN to PSATjk is

divided into two intervals. The length of the first interval (near the
saturation pressure) is selected as 0.02 * (PMIN - PSATjk). Both
intervals are divided into NPMAX / 2 subintervals. End points of
these subintervals are considered as the pressure entries of the EOS
interpolation tables.
Therefore, the simulator determines the 2 * NPMAX pressure entries for

each combination of the temperature and composition entries. Different
sets of the pressure entries are selected for the different composition and
temperature entries.
23-348 Landmark - R2003.4

Automatic Generation of Composition Entries
Simulations of
swelling,
differential expansion,
forward multiple contact, and/or
backward multiple contact
PVT tests can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic generation of the
composition entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
The PVT test simulations can be invoked using the SWELLTEST,

DIFEXPTEST, and/or MULCONTEST cards.
Swelling Test
For the simulation of a swelling PVT test, the user must specify
oil composition X on the OILCM card,
gas composition Y on the GASCM card, and
gas fractionsf 1, f 2, , f nfon the GASFRAC card.
The number of gas fractions ns can be specified on the NGASFR card. In

this case, the nf gas fractions are automatically calculated by dividing the
interval 0 to 1 into (nf+1) equal subintervals.
The ns composition entries are calculated as
Z j = ( 1 f j ) X + f j Y , j = 1, 2, , nf . (23-63)
These compositions are included in the list of the composition entries and
are output to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
Differential Expansion Test
For the simulation of a differential expansion test, the user must specify
fluid composition on the COMP card,
temperature on the TEMP card,
pressure values P 1 > P 2 > > P np on different stages of the

differential expansion test on the PRES card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-349

The number of stages np in the differential expansion test can be specified

on the NPRES card. In this case, the np pressure values in these stages are
automatically calculated by dividing the interval from PMIN to PSAT into
np equal subintervals, where PSAT is the saturation pressure (bubble
point or dew point pressure), calculated by the simulator for the specified
composition and temperature.
In each stage of the differential expansion test, the following procedure is

executed:
1. Determine fluid composition.
In the first stage, the composition is defined on the COMP card. In

subsequent stages, the fluid composition is set to the liquid phase
composition in the previous stage if the OIL or BOTH keyword is
included on the DIFEXPTEST card. The fluid composition is set to the
vapor phase composition in the previous stage if the GAS keyword is
included on the DIFEXPTEST card.
2. Calculate the saturation pressure.
3. Go to the next stage if the stage pressure is not smaller than the
saturation pressure.
4. Determine compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
5. Include the fluid composition in the stage in a list of the composition

entries of the EOS interpolation tables (if the stage number is larger
than two).
6. Output the fluid composition to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
7. Calculate densities and viscosities of oil and gas and output them to a
file (Fortran Unit 77) .
8. Go to the next stage.
The simulations of the differential expansion test can be repeated several

times for different temperature values specified on the TEMP card.
Forward and Backward Multiple Contact Tests
For the simulation of multiple contact tests, the user must specify
oil composition on the OILCM card,
injected gas composition on the GASCM card,
gas fraction on the GASFRAC card,
temperature on the TEMP card,
23-350 Landmark - R2003.4

number of stages (flash calculations) on the NFLASH card,
pressure on the PRES card.
Simulations of the forward, backward, or both multiple contact tests can

be requested by including the FORWARD, BACKWARD, or BOTH
keyword on the MULCONTEST card.
In each stage of the multiple contact test, the following procedure is

executed:
1. Determine the fluid composition as
Z j = (1 f ) X j + f Y j, (23-64)
where f is the specified gas fraction and j is the stage number.
In the first stage, the liquid and vapor phase compositions X1 and Y1
are defined on the OILCM and GASCM cards. In subsequent stages of
the backward multiple contact test, the liquid phase composition Xj is
set to the liquid phase composition in the previous stage and the vapor
phase composition Yj is not changed. In subsequent stages of the
forward multiple contact test, the vapor phase composition Yj is set to
the vapor phase composition in the previous stage and the liquid
phase composition Xj is not changed.
2. Calculate the saturation pressure.
3. Stop the test simulation if the specified pressure is not smaller than the
saturation pressure.
4. Determine compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
5. Include the fluid composition in the stage in a list of the composition

entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
6. Output the fluid composition to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
7. Calculate densities and viscosities of oil and gas and output them to a
file (Fortran Unit 77) .
8. Go to the next stage.
The simulations of the multiple contact test can be repeated several times
for different pressure, gas fraction, and temperature values specified on
the PRES, GASFRAC, and TEMP cards.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-351

23.5.4 Construction of EOS Interpolation Tables

The following procedure is executed in VIP-CORE for the generation of
the EOS interpolation tables:
Determination of Saturation Pressure and K-values
The simulator calculates and stores saturation pressure values PSATjk

(bubble point or dew point pressure) for each combination of temperature
and composition entries (Tk, Zj), k = 1, 2,..., nt, j = 1,2,...,nz. The equation of
state is applied for the saturation pressure determination52.
At the same time, the simulator determines and stores the K-values at the
pressure equal to the saturation pressure:
jk jk jk
K i = y i x i , i = 1, 2, , nc, (23-65)
jk jk
where x i , y i are molar fractions of the i-th hydrocarbon component in
liquid and vapor phases at the temperature Tk, composition Zj, and
pressure PSATjk.
Determination of Recovery Factors and their Derivatives
The simulator calculates and stores the recovery factors

jkm jkm
jkm L xi
ri J
-, i = 1, 2, , nc
= --------------------------- (23-66)
zi
and their derivatives with respect to pressure for all combinations of
temperature, composition, and pressure entries which are below the
jkm
saturation pressure. In Equation 23-66, L is the molar fraction of the
jkm
liquid phase; x i is the molar fraction of the i-th component in the liquid
phase.
jkm
The recovery factors r are determined from the solution of the equation
52
of state with the temperature Tk, composition Zj, and pressure Pm which
is below the saturation pressure PSATjk. Therefore, two hydrocarbon
phases exist at these conditions.
The derivatives of the recovery factors with respect to pressure are also
calculated, because the cubic spline interpolation is applied.
23-352 Landmark - R2003.4

Determination of Compressibility Factors and their Derivatives
The simulator calculates and stores the liquid and vapor compressibility
factors and their derivatives with respect to pressure for all combinations
of temperature, composition, and pressure entries of the EOS interpolation
tables.
The liquid and vapor compressibility factors are determined as maximum

and minimum roots of the third order equation of state52.
The derivatives of the compressibility factors with respect to pressure are

also calculated, because the cubic spline interpolation is applied.
Determination of Recovery and Compressibility Factors in Separator

Batteries
The simulator calculates and stores recovery factors and liquid

compressibility factors for all stages of separator batteries. The equation of
state is applied. The calculations are repeated for all composition entries of
the EOS interpolation tables. Values of pressure and temperature specified
by the user for different stages of separator batteries are used in the
calculations.
23.5.5 Phase-Equilibrium Calculations in EOS Interpolation Option

As described in Section 23.5.2, the phase equilibrium calculations are
applied for the determination of the number of existing hydrocarbon
phases, their composition, and densities assuming that current pressure P,
temperature T, and total fluid composition Z = (z1, z2,...,znc) are known.
The phase equilibrium procedure in the EOS interpolation option consists

of the following steps:
1. selection of the closest temperature, composition, and pressure entries

of the EOS interpolation table;
2. definition of the saturation pressure (bubble-point or dew-point

pressure) as a maximum saturation pressure in all selected entries;
3. determination of the number of existing hydrocarbon phases from the

comparison of the current pressure and the saturation pressure;
4. definition of the recovery and compressibility factors using a spline

multidimensional interpolation between values of these parameters in
the closest entries of the EOS interpolation table;
5. calculation of the liquid and vapor phase compositions using the

recovery factors;
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-353

6. calculation of densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases

using the compressibility factors.
These steps are described below.
Entry Point Selection
Selection of Closest Temperature Entries of EOS Interpolation Table
All temperature entries of the EOS interpolation table are sorted in

increasing order.
T 1 < T 2 < < T nt . (23-67)
If temperature T is not larger than the first temperature entry, only the first
temperature entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If the
temperature T is not smaller than the last temperature entry, only the last
temperature entry is used in the interpolation procedure. In these cases,
the simulator issues a warning message or stops the run if it is requested
by the user. Otherwise, two closest temperature entries Tk and Tk+1 are
selected as
T k T < T k + 1. (23-68)
Selection of Closest Composition Entries of EOS Interpolation

Table
Two procedures are implemented for the selection of the closest

composition entries and multidimensional interpolation between the
selected entries:
Interpolation procedure based on a distance.
This method is applied if the MDI keyword is included on the EOSINT

card. The distance between two composition vectors Zk and Z is
determined as
nc
( zi zi )
j 2
D ( Z j, Z ) = ci . (23-69)
i=1
The non-negative coefficients c 1, c 2, , c nc can be input by the user on

the COEFFICIENT card. As default, they are set to one.
Two composition entries Z j and Z j + 1 with the smallest distance from the
composition vector Z are selected.
23-354 Landmark - R2003.4

Interpolation procedure based on an interpolation function.
The interpolation function is defined as

nc
F(Z ) = ( ci zi ) . (23-70)
i=1
The coefficients c 1, c 2, , c nc can be input by the user on the

COEFFICIENT card. As default, they are set to molecular weights of
hydrocarbon components; therefore, the molecular weight of the fluid is
used as the interpolation function.
All compositional entries of the EOS interpolation table are sorted in

increasing order of the interpolation function.
F ( Z 1 ) < F ( Z 2 ) < < F ( Z nz ). (23-71)
If the value of the interpolation function in the current composition F ( Z )

is not larger than the value of the interpolation function in the first
composition entry, only the first composition entry is used in the
interpolation procedure. If the value of the interpolation function F ( Z ) is
not smaller than the value of the interpolation function in the last
composition entry, only the last composition entry is used in the
interpolation procedure. Otherwise, two closest composition entries Zj
and Zj+1 are selected as
F ( Z j ) F ( Z ) < F ( Z j + 1 ). (23-72)
Selection of Closest Pressure Entries of EOS Interpolation Table
One or two pressure entries are selected for each combination of the
selected temperature and composition entries.
If pressure P is not larger than the minimum pressure PMIN, only the first
pressure entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If pressure P is not
smaller than the maximum pressure PMAX, only the last pressure entry is
used in the interpolation procedure. In these cases, the simulator issues a
warning message or stops the run if it is requested by the user. Otherwise,
jk jk
two closest pressure entries P m and P m + 1 are selected as
jk jk
Pm P < Pm + 1 . (23-73)
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-355

Determination of Saturation Pressure and Number of Existing Hydrocar-

bon Phases
As described in Definition of Temperature, Composition, and Pressure

Entries of EOS Interpolation Tables, the simulator calculates and stores
the saturation pressure (bubble point or dew point pressure) for each
combination of temperature and pressure entries of the EOS interpolation
table. In accordance with the definition, only liquid phase is present if
pressure is higher than the bubble point pressure and only vapor phase is
present if pressure is higher than the dew point pressure.
If all saturation pressures in the selected temperature and composition

entries are the bubble point pressures, the bubble point pressure at current
temperature T and composition Z is approximately defined as the
maximum value of these saturation pressures. In this case, two
hydrocarbon phases are present if pressure P is less than the bubble point
pressure. Otherwise, only liquid phase is present.
If all saturation pressures in the selected temperature and composition

entries are the dew point pressures, the dew point pressure at temperature
T and composition Z is approximately defined as the maximum value of
these saturation pressures. In this case, two hydrocarbon phases are
present if pressure P is less than the dew point pressure. Otherwise, only
vapor phase is present.
If one saturation pressure in the selected temperature and composition

entries is a bubble point pressure and another saturation pressure is a dew
point pressure, it is assumed that two hydrocarbon phases are present at
the current conditions. These conditions are near a critical point.
Determination of Recovery Factors
The recovery factors R = ( r 1, r 2, , r nc ) are calculated in the EOS

interpolation option using the following three steps:
cubic spline interpolation in pressure,
linear spline interpolation in composition, and
linear spline interpolation in temperature.
The cubic spline interpolation in pressure is applied to assure the

continuity of derivatives of the interpolated functions with respect to
pressure.
Consider, for example, this interpolation procedure for the recovery factor
ri of the i-th hydrocarbon component. A similar procedure is applied for
the other recovery factors.
23-356 Landmark - R2003.4

The objective of the interpolation procedure is the determination of the

recovery factor at current pressure P, temperature T, and composition Z
from the known values of the recovery factor at the selected entries
jk
( P m , T k, Z j ).
Cubic Spline Interpolation in Pressure
The following interpolation procedure is repeated for each combination of

selected temperature and composition entries (Tj, Zk):
1. If the current pressure P is larger than the saturation pressure PSATjk,

the recovery factor is defined as:
1, ifPSAT jk is a bubblepoint
ri =
jk
(23-74)
0, ifPSAT jk is a dewpoint.
2. If the current pressure is smaller than the saturation pressure PSATjk
and two pressure entries are selected, the recovery factor is calculated
as:
jk 2 3
r i = a0 + a1 P + a2 P + a3 P , (23-75)
where the four coefficients ( a 0, a 1, a 3, a 4 ) are determined from the

conditions that the values of the recovery factor and its derivatives
with respect to pressure are known at the two selected pressure entries
jk jk
P m and P m + 1 (see See Determination of Recovery Factors and their
Derivatives on page 352.).
If only one pressure entry is selected the recovery factor is set to

known value of the recovery factor in this pressure entry
jk jkm
ri = ri . (23-76)
Linear Spline Interpolation in Composition and Temperature
The following linear interpolation procedure is used for the interpolation

between the selected composition and temperature entries:
Interpolation in composition:
jk j + 1, k
b j ri + (1 b j) ri
ri =
k if two composition entries are selected (23-77)
jk
ri
if one composition entry is selected.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-357

If the interpolation procedure is based on the distance (see Selection of

Closest Composition Entries of EOS Interpolation Table), the coefficient
bj is calculated as:
D ( Z j + 1, Z )
b j = --------------------------------------------------------- . (23-78)
D ( Z j + 1, Z ) + D ( Z , Z J )
If the interpolation procedure is based on the value of the interpolation

function (see Selection of Closest Composition Entries of EOS
Interpolation Table), the coefficient bj is calculated as:
F (Z j + 1) F (Z )
b j = ------------------------------------------. (23-79)
F (Z j + 1) F (Z j)
Interpolation in temperature.
Finally, the recovery factor is determined as follows:
k k+1
dk ri + (1 dk ) ri
ri = if two temperature entries are selected (23-80)

k
ri
if one temperature entry is selected.
The coefficient dk is calculated as
Tk + 1 T
d k = ------------------------- . (23-81)
Tk + 1 Tk
Determination of Compressibility Factors
The compressibility factors of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases at

current pressure, temperature, and composition are calculated from the
known values of the compressibility factors at the selected entries using
the multidimensional interpolation (see Determination of Recovery
Factors).
Note 1: Compositional entries of the EOS interpolation table can be

divided into paths. A path number is assigned to each composition
entry on the CMP, SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST, or/and MULCONTEST
cards.
In this case, the described interpolation procedure is repeated one or

two times for closest paths. These paths are selected based on values of
the following path function:
23-358 Landmark - R2003.4

nc
F p( Z ) = ( c pi zi ) . (23-82)
i=1
The coefficients c p1, c p2, , c pnc can be input by the user on the
COEFFICIENT PATH card.
The recovery and compressibility factors are calculated using the

linear interpolation between selected paths.
Determination of Liquid and Vapor Phase Compositions in Two-Phase

Region
Compositions of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases in the

saturated region are determined using recovery factors. (In the saturated
region, the current pressure is lower than the saturation pressure.) The
following procedure is applied:
Define a molar fraction of the liquid phase (see Equation 23-66) as

follows:
nc
L = r i zi . (23-83)
i=1
Calculate molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the liquid
phase as follows:
r i zi
x i = --------------, i = 1, 2, , nc. (23-84)
L
Determine molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the vapor

phase as follows:
( 1 r i ) zi
y i = ---------------------------, i = 1, 2, , nc. (23-85)
1L
Determination of Phase Composition in One-Phase Region
Composition of the existing hydrocarbon phase in the undersaturated

region is the same as the total fluid composition. The composition of the
second pseudo phase is determined using K-values at the saturation
pressure. The following procedure is applied:
Define K-values at the saturation pressure using the linear spline

interpolation in composition and temperature (see Determination of
Saturation Pressure and K-values and Linear Spline Interpolation in
Composition and Temperature).
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-359

Calculate molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the liquid

phase as follows:
z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
xi = ,i = 1, 2, , nc. (23-86)
z i K i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
Determine molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the vapor

phase as follows:
K i z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
yi = ,i = 1, 2, , nc. (23-87)
z i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
Determination of Densities
Molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases are calculated
using the compressibility factors and the equation of state as follows:
P
n = ---------------------------, n = l, v, (23-88)
R T a zn
where l, v are the molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon
phases; z l, z are the liquid and vapor compressibility factors; R is the
universal constant; T a is the absolute temperature.
23.5.6 Example: Input of the EOS Interpolation Option in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Solution Model
As an example, input cards required for the application of the EOS
interpolation option in the Fifth SPE Comparative Model (scenario two)24
are described in this section. Simulation results of the EOS interpolation
and EOS model are compared.
A reservoir model with 7 x 7 x 3 = 147 grid blocks, six hydrocarbon

components, one production and one injection wells is considered.
Primary depletion for two years and subsequent WAG injection for eight
years are simulated24.
The following cards need to be added to a VIP-CORE input deck in the

TABLES section to apply the EOS interpolation option (comment lines are
started with C):
C
C The EOSINT card must be included to invoke the EOS interpolation option
C
EOSINT
C
C Temperature entry of the EOS interpolation table.
C
23-360 Landmark - R2003.4

TEMPERATURE 160
C
C Maximum and minimum pressure entries.
C The simulator internally selects pressure entries for each composition entries.
C
PMAX 4600
PMIN 940
C
C Path function coefficients.
C
COEFFICIENT PATH
0 10 0 0 0 0
C
C Composition entries of the EOS interpolation table is divided into three paths:
C Path 1 - reservoir oil;
C Path 2 - mixture of 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas,
C Path 3 - mixture of 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas.
C
C Composition entries in each path are automatically generated by means of
C simulations of the differential expansion PVT tests.
C
C Composition entries in Path 1.
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 1
C Number of stages. Pressure in each stage is calculated automatically.
NPRES 20
C Composition of the reservoir oil.
COMP .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Number of gas fractions in the swelling test.
NGASFR 5
C
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 2
NPRES 20
C Composition of mixture: 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas
COMP .6350000 .1150000 .0500000 .1000000 .0750000 .0250000
NGASFR 5
C
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 3
NPRES 20
C Composition of the mixture: 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas
COMP .7565000 .1915000 .0320000 .0100000 .0075000 .0025000
NGASFR 5
C
C The simulation of the swelling test can be used to define compositions
C in the above COMP cards of the differential expansion tests.
C
C SWELLTEST 1
C Composition of the reservoir oil.
C OILCM .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Composition of the injected gas.
C GASCM .77 .20 .03 0 0 0
C Gas fractions.
C GASFRAC 0.50 0.95
Simulation results of the EOS interpolation and EOS models in the Fifth
SPE Comparative Project are presented in Figure 23-1. Oil, water, gas
production profiles, gas-oil ratio, and average reservoir pressure are
compared. This comparison demonstrates that the results of the EOS
interpolation model match those of the fully compositional simulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-361

Besides, the new option reduces the CPU time in 30%. Significantly larger
reductions of the CPU time have been achieved in full field reservoir
simulations and pattern models with large numbers of grid cells and
hydrocarbon components.
23.5.7 Conclusions
A new equation of state interpolation option is developed in VIP for
the CPU time reduction in compositional models
Speed up by 1.7 - 8 times is achieved in tested models.
Simulation results of the new option match those of compositional

simulations.
Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Fifth SPE
Comparative Reservoir Model
23-362 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 23-2: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cupiagua Full
Field Reservoir Model
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-363

Figure 23-3: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cusiana Full
Field Reservoir Model
23-364 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 23-4: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - PBU History
Full Field Reservoir Model
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-365

Figure 23-5: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Ursa Full Field
Reservoir Model
23-366 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 23-6: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - D13 PBU Pattern
Model
R2003.4 - Landmark 23-367

Figure 23-7: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - EWE PBU
Pattern Model
23-368 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
24
00000Relative Permeability and Capillary
Pressure Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
24.1 Introduction
In a miscible displacement simulation, some gridblocks of a model may go
through a compositional path that leads to the critical point of the
hydrocarbon mixture. In a gridblock near the critical point, when a
hydrocarbon mixture splits into two phases, the compositions of the
phases are similar. For this reason, interfacial tension and capillary
pressure between the phases become small and approach zero, the oil and
gas residual saturations decrease, and the gas and oil relative permeability
curves approach straight lines near the critical point.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has a special option that automatically adjusts relative

permeabilities and gas-oil capillary pressure in near-critical blocks. The
adjustment correlates these rock properties to gas-oil interfacial tension as
follows:
r S o S org f ( )
k ro = f ( )k ro + [ 1 f ( ) ]k m ( S w ) --------------------------------------------- (24-1)
1 S w S org f ( )
r S g S gc f ( )
k rg = f ( )k rg + [ 1 f ( ) ]k m ( S w ) ------------------------------------------ (24-2)
1 S w S gc f ( )
r
P cgo = P cgo --------- (24-3)
ref
where kro, krg, Pcgo are the adjusted relative permeabilities to oil, gas, and
r r r
gas-oil capillary pressure, respectively; k ro , k rg , P cgo are the nonadjusted
respective values as calculated by VIP-EXECUTIVE from the rock curves;
and km(Sw) is the relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbon fluid near
the critical point. This value is a function of water saturation only. Also,
Sorg is the residual oil saturation to gas, is the gas-oil interfacial tension,
ref is the reference interfacial tension of the gas-oil system on which the
R2003.4 - Landmark 24-369

r
capillary pressure rock curve P cgo has been measured, and f() is a
function of the interfacial tension defined as:
e

f ( ) = ----*- . (24-4)

Here, * is the threshold interfacial tension below which the above relative
permeability adjustment is used. For interfacial tensions greater than the
threshold value, f() is assigned a value of one. Exponent e is a positive
number generally in the range from 0.1 to 0.25.
The relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbon fluid, km(Sw), is defined

as the following arithmetical average:
1 r r
k m ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S 0 =1 S w, S g =0 ) + k rg ( S g =1 S w, S o =0 ) ] (24-5)
2
The gas-oil interfacial tension depends on the oil and gas compositions
and is calculated from the correlation:
i=n c
14
= Pchi ( o xi g yi ) (24-6)
i=1
where Pchi is the parachor of component i, and o, g are molar densities in

gram-moles per cubic centimeter.
24-370 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
25
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction
Here, SWT and SGT define saturation-dependent relative permeabilities
and capillary pressures:
SWT The relative permeability of water, the relative

permeability of oil in the presence of water, and the
water-oil capillary pressure (Pcw) are expressed as
functions of the water-phase saturation using SWT
tables.
SGT The relative permeabilities of gas, the relative

permeability of oil in the presence of gas and
connate water, and the gas-oil capillary pressure
(Pcg) are functions of gas-phase saturation using the
SGT tables.
The SWT and SGT tables must follow the equilibrium data. All SWT tables
must precede SGT tables.
The gas and water relative permeabilities (for both two and three phases)
are directly interpolated from the tables. The two-phase oil relative
permeabilities are also from the tables. The three-phase oil relative
permeabilities are computed from the two sets of two-phase values
according to Stones Model I, Stones Model II, and the Saturation
Weighted Interpolation Model.
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-371

Water Saturation Tables VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
25.2 Water Saturation Tables

The water saturation tables define the rock properties that depend on
water saturation: relative permeability of water, relative permeability of
oil in the presence of water, and water-oil capillary pressure.
Example:
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
0.2 0.0 0.9 10.

0.3 0.0 0.65
0.4 0.02 0.4
0.5 0.06 0.2
0.6 0.1 0.01
0.7 0.15 0.005
0.8 0.19 0.0
0.9 0.35 0.0
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
The title card SW, KRW, KROW, PCWO must appear in the order shown.
SW Water saturation. Values must increase

consecutively.
KRW Water relative permeability. Values must increase

with an increasing water saturation.
KROW Oil relative permeability in a water-oil system.

Values must decrease with an increasing water
saturation.
PCWO Water-oil capillary pressure. Values must decrease

with an increasing water saturation unless all
values are equal; PCWO = Po - Pw . If only the
capillary pressures at the first and last saturations
are read and if the capillary pressure entries
between these two values are left blank, then the
program linearly interpolates between these two
values to complete the table entries.
25-372 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Water Saturation Tables
Four saturation values in the table are of special interest:
Swl Connate water saturation. This is the first water

saturation in the table.
Swr Residual water saturation. This is the largest water

saturation where the water is immobile; usually, Swl
= Swr.
Swro Water saturation at residual oil. This is the smallest

water saturation where the oil is immobile.
Swu Maximum water saturation. This is the last water

saturation in the table; usually, Swu = 1.0.
The above example shows that connate water saturation (Swl) is 0.2,
residual water saturation (Swr) is 0.3, water saturation at residual oil (Swro)
is 0.8, and maximum water saturation (Swu) is 1.0.
For equilibrium initialization, water saturation above the water-oil

transition zone is the connate water saturation and that below the
transition zone is maximum water saturation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-373

Gas Saturation Tables VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
25.3 Gas Saturation Tables

Gas saturation tables define the rock properties that depend on gas
saturation: relative permeability of gas, relative permeability of oil in the
presence of gas and connate water, and gas-oil capillary pressure.
Example:
SGT 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.7
0.16 0.0 0.55
0.2 0.02 0.45
0.4 0.07 0.1
0.5 0.12 0.05
0.7 0.23 0.0
0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
The title card SG, KRG, KROG, PCGO must appear in the order shown.
SG Gas saturation. Values must increase consecutively.
KRG Gas relative permeability. Values must increase with

an increasing gas saturation.
KROG Oil relative permeability in a gas-oil-connate water

system. Values must decrease with an increasing
gas saturation.
PCGO Gas-oil capillary pressure. Values must increase

with an increasing gas saturation unless all values
are equal; PCGO = Pg - Po.
Four saturation values in the table are of special interest:
Sgl Connate gas saturation. This is the first gas

saturation in the table; usually, Sgl = 0.
Sgr Residual gas saturation. This is the largest gas

saturation where the gas is immobile.
Sgro Gas saturation at residual oil. This is the smallest

gas saturation where the oil is immobile.
Sgu Maximum gas saturation. This is the last gas

saturation in the table; usually, Sgu= 1 - Swl.
The above example shows that the connate gas saturation (Sgl) is 0, the
residual gas saturation (Sgr) is 0.16, the gas saturation at residual oil (Sgro)
is 0.7, and the maximum gas saturation (Sgu) is 0.8.
25-374 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models
For equilibrium initialization, the gas saturation above the gas-oil

transition zone is the maximum gas saturation and that below the
transition zone is the connate gas saturation.
25.4 Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models

When describing three-phase flow through porous media, the relative
permeability to the intermediate-wetting phase (generally assumed to be
the oil phase) normally is calculated from two sets of two-phase relative
permeability data (krow and krog). Stones Model I, Stones Model II, and the
Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE to predict three-phase oil relative permeabilities.
25.4.1 Stones Model I

Stones Model I is invoked by entering the keyword STONE1 in the VIP-
EXECUTIVE initialization input data set.
*
k rog k row So
k ro = -------------------- ---------------------------------------
k rocw ( 1 S * ) ( 1 S * )
w g
where
* S o S or
S o ------------------------------
1 S or S wl
* Sg
S g ------------------------------
1 S or S wl
* S w S wl
S w ------------------------------
1 S or S wl
S orw S org
S or S orw -------------------------------- S g
1 S org S wl
Here, krocw is the relative permeability to oil at connate water (Swl), krow is
the relative permeability to oil in the two-phase water-oil system (without
gas present), krog is the relative permeability to oil in a gas-oil system with
connate water, and Sorj is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil (j = w)
or gas-oil (j = g) system.
An extension of the Sorm term is available:
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-375

Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Sg A Sg A
S or = S org ---------- + S orw 1 ---------
2 2 3
- ( S gro S g S g ) + ( S gro S g S g )
S gro S gro
where S gro = 1 S wl S org .
This collapses to the first definition of Sor when A=1, = = 0. The values
A, , are input on the STONE1 card.
25.4.2 Stones Model II

Stones Model II is invoked by entering the keyword STONE2 in the
VIP-EXECUTIVE initialization input data set. This is the default option.
k row k rog
k ro = k rocw ------------ + k rw ------------ + k rg k rg k rw
k rocw k rocw
25.4.3 Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model

The Saturation Weighted Interpolation three-phase model is invoked by
entering the keyword KROINT in the VIP-EXECUTIVE initialization
input data set.
It assumes that the oil phase is uniformly distributed in the gridblock,

while the gas and water phases are completely segregated. Water
saturation in the gas zone is assumed to be connate water saturation (Swl),
while gas saturation in the water zone is zero. For average oil, gas, and
water saturations of So, Sg, and Sw , the full breakdown of the saturation
distribution is as follows.
In the gas zone, which occupies a fraction, Fg, of the pore volume:
Oil saturation = So
Gas saturation = Sg + Sw - Swl
Water saturation = Swl.
In the water zone, which occupies a fraction, 1 - Fg, of the pore volume:
Oil saturation = So
Gas saturation = 0
Water saturation = Sg + Sw.
The material balance requires that the fraction of the pore volume
occupied by the gas zone, Fg, be
Sg
F g = -------------------------------
-
S g + S w S wl
25-376 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models
The relative permeability to oil in the gas zone is krog (evaluated at Sg = 1 -

So - Swl), while the relative permeability to oil in the water zone is krow
(evaluated at Sw = 1 - So). The average relative permeability to oil in the
gridblock, kro, is the volume average of the oil relative permeabilities in the
two zones:
* *
S g k rog ( S g ) + ( S w S wl )k row ( S w )
k ro = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
S g + S w S wl
where Sg* is gas saturation in the gas zone and Sw* is water saturation in
the water zone:
*
S g S g + S w S wl
*
Sw Sg + Sw
25.4.4 Guidelines for Selecting the Models

The optimal choice of a three-phase relative permeability model for any
simulation study depends on the reservoir system. If laboratory three-
phase relative permeability data are available, the best three-phase model
can readily be determined by comparing the isoperms predicted by all
three models in VIP-EXECUTIVE with the data. Otherwise, a good
engineering judgment may be made by comparing the isoperms predicted
by all three models.
Stones Model II generally is regarded as too pessimistic at low oil

saturations. It predicts much lower oil relative permeabilities and
much higher residual oil saturations than the other models. However,
use of this model should not be ruled out completely because the
model has been shown to be superior to other models in one of eight
systems tested by Baker.31
Stones Model I as modified by Fayers and Matthews32 predicts much

more favorable oil permeabilities with isoperms concave toward the
100% oil saturation apex and has been suggested to predict a value of
Kro that is too high at low oil saturations for some systems.
Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model31 may predict oil

permeabilities that are between those predicted by Stones Model I
and Model II. The model gives apparently erroneous results in the
region of low oil isoperms if the krog and krow curves are dissimilar. The
relative permeability to oil in the three-phase region is dominated by
the two-phase curve with higher relative permeability to oil. The
predicted residual oil saturation (corresponding to zero oil isoperm)
equals the minimum of Sorg and Sorw everywhere, except for one two-
phase limit at which a step jump in the residual oil saturation occurs
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-377

Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
(from Sorg to Sorw at the water-oil two-phase limit if Sorg < Sorw, or from
Sorw to Sorg at the gas-oil two-phase limit if Sorw < Sorg). The impact of
this behavior in the low oil isoperm region on simulation results
should be investigated first for any simulation study if the Saturation
Weighted Interpolation Model is to be employed.
25-378 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Consistency Checks For Saturation Tables
25.5 Consistency Checks For Saturation Tables

The following consistency checks are performed in the saturation tables:
1. Maximum gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the connate
water saturation:
S gu 1 S wl
2. Connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum
water saturation:
S gl 1 S wu
3. The oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation and
connate gas saturation must be the same.
4. At the connate water/gas saturations, the water/gas relative

permeabilities must be 0.0.
5. At the maximum water/gas saturations, the oil relative permeability

must be zero.
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-379

Directional Relative Permeability VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
25.6 Directional Relative Permeability

The directional relative permeability option in VIP-EXECUTIVE allows
each gridblock to have different relative permeability values in each flow
direction, rather than simply one computation per gridblock. For vertical
equilibrium problems (when VE option is invoked), the program
internally generates the relative permeability functions. Use of the
directional relative permeability option results in a different set of
functions generated for the areal and vertical directions. For non-VE
(vertical equilibrium) problems, the user may assign multiple saturation
function tables to each gridblock.

The directional relative permeability option requires additional data only
in VIP-CORE. For a non-VE case, the user may enter a set of ISAT array
data, with direction specified, for each of the six flow directions (X+, X-,
Y+, Y-, Z+, Z-). In the VE case, the DRELPM data card is required to
invoke the directional relative permeability option in the absence of any
other directionally dependent data.
Example:
ISAT CON
1
ISAT X+ CON
2
ISAT X- CON
2
ISAT Y+ CON
3
ISAT Y- CON
3
ISAT Z+ CON
4
ISAT Z- CON
5
In the above data, well relative permeability calculations use saturation

Table 1 and interblock flow calculations in the X- direction use saturation
Table 2, in the Y- direction use saturation Table 3, in the Z+ direction use
Table 4, and in the Z- direction use Table 5.
The following guidelines for use of the directional relative permeability

option should be helpful:
Different saturation function table assignments may be made for each

flow direction for both the VE and non-VE options. Even though the
program internally generates the VE curves, the user-specified end
points from tables, or arrays, are honored.
25-380 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Directional Relative Permeability
Separate saturation function end-point arrays may be input for each

flow direction. The rules for entering directionally dependent end-
point arrays follow the standard rules. For example, if the SWRO array
is entered for the X+ direction, the SWR array for the X+ direction also
must be entered.
The program computes separate mobility arrays for each phase only
for each flow direction with data that are directionally dependent.
Because of this, large amounts of storage are required as the number of
mobility arrays increases. The user should avoid entering default
values for arrays for a flow direction that otherwise would not need a
separate mobility array.
Well mobilities are not directionally dependent. The ISAT array,

without direction specification, controls assignment of the saturation
function table for well calculations. Other end-point arrays, without
direction specification, also are used in the well mobility calculations.
The gas hysteresis option is not directionally dependent. A single

value of trapped gas and trapped hydrocarbon is maintained for each
gridblock. This value is based on data entered for SGTR in the table
assigned with the ISAT array, without directional dependence.
Capillary pressure is considered a gridblock property that is not

directionally dependent. The value of capillary pressure is determined
from the saturation function table assigned by the ISAT array, without
directional dependence.
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-381

Gas Remobilization Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
25.7 Gas Remobilization Option

The gas remobilization option addresses the remobilization of trapped gas
during pressure blowdown. The remobilization of gas occurs when
trapped gas expands and regains mobility as a result of the
depressurization. Experimental evidence indicates that unlike a
displacement process where the scanning relative permeability curves are
reversible, the secondary drainage curve does not retrace the imbibition
curve if the increase in gas saturation is caused by gas expansion.
Moreover, the trapped gas does not become mobile until its saturation
reaches a threshold value which can be as much as 14 saturation units
above the original trapped gas saturation.
25.7.1 Implementation
The gas remobilization option can be invoked by the user any time during
the simulation (usually after the waterflood of a gas reservoir or a gas cap
region and at the onset of the pressure blowdown period). When this
option is invoked, all reservoir gridblocks are internally divided into two
types. Type 1 gridblocks are those previously invaded by water and which
have reached the trapped gas saturation. The remobilization of gas in
these gridblocks is considered to be controlled by gas expansion and
hence is subject to the gas remobilization calculation. Gridblocks not
considered as Type 1 are classified as Type 2 and their relative
permeabilities to gas will be calculated using the standard gas hysteresis
options. The secondary drainage curve for Type 1 gridblocks is assumed
to be reversible, i.e., the subsequent secondary imbibition curve retraces
the secondary drainage curve. The gas remobilization option is available
only if the gas relative permeability hysteresis option is also invoked.
Numerically, the Type 1 gridblocks are those that satisfy all of the
following conditions at the time the gas remobilization option is turned
on:
1. The water saturation must be greater than the historical minimum

water saturation (Swmin) plus a user-controlled incremental saturation
(grmdsw), i.e., Sw > Swmin + grmdsw. The default value for grmdsw is
0.02.
2. The gas saturation must be less than or equal to the trapped gas
saturation (Sgtr) corresponding to the gridblock historical maximum
gas saturation (Sgmax), i.e., Sg Sgtr(Sgmax).
3. The gridblock historical maximum gas saturation must be greater than

its critical gas saturation, i.e., Sgmax > Sgc.
The threshold gas saturation at which the trapped gas becomes mobile,
Sgrm, and the secondary drainage relative permeability to gas at the
maximum gas saturation, Krgmax, are assumed to be functions of the
25-382 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gas Remobilization Option
trapped gas saturation. These functions are rock-type-dependent and

must be specified by the user in a tabular form.
The secondary drainage relative permeability curve for each rock type
must be supplied by the user using a tabular format (i.e., Krg2d,r(Sg)) or a
prescribed analytic function. If the tabular format is chosen, the saturation
endpoints are identified as Sgrm,r and Sgma,r and their corresponding
relative permeability endpoints are 0.0 and Krgmax,r . Here subscript r
denotes the rock type value. For consistency, it is stipulated that Sgma,r be
the same as the maximum gas saturation specified in the gas saturation
table (SGT). During the pressure blowdown period, the gridblock trapped
gas saturation, Sgtr,m, is first used to determine the gridblock Sgrm and
Krgmax (identified as Sgrm,m and Krgmax,m, respectively) values using the
user-input Sgrm(Sgtr) and Krgmax(Sgtr) table, where subscripts m denote the
gridblock variables. The gridblock secondary drainage relative
permeability is then determined using the standard two-point endpoint
scaling method:
K rgmax, m o
K rg ( S g ) = ----------------------K rg2d, r ( S g ) (25-1)
K rgmax, r
where
o ( S gma, r S grm, r )
S g = S grm, r + ( S g S grm, m ) -------------------------------------------- (25-2)
( S gma, m S grm, m )
Here variable Sgma,m is the input gridblock maximum gas saturation.
If the analytic function approach is chosen, the secondary drainage

relative permeability is directly calculated by
C
( 1 + C 2 )S g13
K rg ( S g ) = K rgmax, m ----------------------------
C3
- (25-3)
1 + C 2 S g1
where
S g S grm, m
S g1 --------------------------------------- (25-4)
S gma, m S grm, m
The gas remobilization option is compatible with the standard VIP-

EXECUTIVE relative permeability treatment (i.e., input SWT and SGT
tables). Gas relative permeability hysteresis must also be invoked by
entering an SGTR card following each SGT card. The option is compatible
with all existing formulations/options except for the dual porosity option.
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-383

Printout of the input and reconstructed gas remobilization tables may be

requested through the SGT and RSGT keywords in the PRINT TABLES
card in VIP-CORE. Finally, at the time the gas remobilization option is
invoked, the number of Type 1 gridblocks (i.e., gridblocks subject to gas
remobilization calculation) will be printed. Figure 25-1 shows the typical
gas saturation and relative permeability path of a Type 1 gridblock.
Figure 25-1: Typical Saturation and Relative Permeability Path of a Gridblock

Subject to Gas Injection followed by Water Injection and Pressure Blowdown
The option was tested using a small test model in which a primary
depletion process was followed by water injection into the gas cap area
and pressure blowdown.

The gas remobilization option requires the input of an Sgrm(Sgtr) and
Krgmax(Sgtr) table and a secondary drainage curve using a tabular input
format or a prescribed analytic function in VIP-CORE. In the simulation
module, a GASRMON card may be specified following any TIME/DATE
card to invoke the gas remobilization option. See the VIP-CORE Reference
Manual and the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual for detailed
descriptions of the new input data.
Example Data - VIP-CORE:
C
C Gas Remobilization Option Input
25-384 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gas Remobilization Option
C
GASRM 1
SGTR SGRM KRGMAX
0.05 0.10 0.9
0.10 0.15 0.85
0.17 0.23 0.81
0.24 0.30 0.75
0.33 0.40 0.7
0.4 0.48 0.6
0.5 0.6 0.5
GASRMT
SG KRG
0.21 0.0
0.30 0.02
0.43 0.10
0.55 0.20
0.66 0.33
0.77 0.5
0.985 0.65
C
GASRM 2
SGTR SGRM KRGMAX
0.05 0.10 0.9
0.10 0.15 0.85
0.17 0.23 0.81
0.25 0.31 0.74
0.33 0.40 0.7
0.4 0.48 0.6
0.5 0.6 0.5
GASRMT
SG KRG
0.21 0.0
0.30 0.02
0.43 0.10
0.55 0.20
0.66 0.33
0.78 0.51
0.9 0.65
Example Data - VIP-EXECUTIVE:
TIME 3650.
C
C Turn on Gas Remobilization Option
C
GASRMON 0.05
R2003.4 - Landmark 25-385

25-386 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
26
Separators
26.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is a compositional simulator. The governing equations
of the simulator are molar conservation equations; they describe
movement of hydrocarbon fluids in terms of moles at reservoir conditions.
However, well production rates are customarily reported in volumetric
units at standard conditions. In a compositional simulator, conversion of
well rates from reservoir conditions to volumetric units at standard
conditions requires a separator model. The separator model describes
separation of reservoir fluids in surface facilities. Besides calculating well
production rates at standard conditions, the separator model also
calculates in-place volumes of reservoir oil and gas at standard conditions.
These calculations are performed when a region report is requested.
R2003.4 - Landmark 26-387

Separator Battery Configuration VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
26.2 Separator Battery Configuration

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows a rather simple configuration of a separator
battery consisting of several separator stages connected in sequence. A
sample configuration is shown in Figure 26-1. Each stage has one feed
stream and two output streams, one vapor and one liquid. Specified
fractions of the vapor and liquid streams from a separator stage are sent to
the battery gas and oil sales lines. The remaining fractions of the vapor
and liquid streams are sent to downstream separator stages. In addition, a
fraction of the stage vapor stream can be sent to a vent. Note that the vent
fraction is included in the well gas production rate, but is not included in
the gas production rates for the upper levels of the well management
structure.
Gas Sales Line
Vapor
Stream
Feed
Stage Stage Stage Stage
1 2 3 Ns
Liquid
Stream
Oil Sales Line
Figure 26-1: Sample Separator Battery Configuration
The VIP-EXECUTIVE configuration of a separator battery does not allow

recycling of streams.
26-388 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Definition of Separator Batteries
26.3 Definition of Separator Batteries

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows two types of separators: default and user-
defined.
A default separator is created automatically in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The

default separator has a single stage at standard temperature and pressure.
All the vapor from the stage is sent to the gas sales line and all the oil is
sent to the oil sales line.
In addition to a default separator, VIP-EXECUTIVE allows several user-

defined separators. In a user-defined separator, the number of separator
stages, the operating pressure and temperature of each stage, and the
destinations and fractions of the oil and vapor streams from the stage,
which are sent to the sales lines and separator stages downstream, are
defined by the user. This is done by the SEPARATOR card. Separator
batteries can be defined in VIP-CORE and/or VIP-EXECUTIVE. In
addition to the batteries defined in VIP-CORE, new batteries can be
defined or redefined in VIP-EXECUTIVE. To obtain the stock tank liquid
volume, the last stage of the separator battery must operate at stock tank
conditions.
The assignment of a well to a separator battery is done in VIP-

EXECUTIVE with the WELL card. The assignment of an output region to a
separator battery is done in VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE by the
REGSEP card. Definition of multiple PVT property tables, or multiple
separators, requires specification of a REGSEP card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 26-389

Mass Balance Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
26.4 Mass Balance Equations

The feed stream (moles of hydrocarbon component i) to the first separator
stage (Q1i) is known and is equal to the battery feed. Here, the first
subscript is used as the notation for the stage number, while the second
subscript is used for the hydrocarbon component number. The feed stream
to stage n is the sum of the vapor and liquid streams sent to this stage from
all preceding stages:
n1

l l v v
Q ni = ( F mn Q mi + F mn Q mi ), i = 1, 2, , n c n = 2, 3, , n s (26-1)
m=1
Here, Flmn and Fvmn are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams that are
sent to stage n from stage m. These fractions are defined by a user on the
SEPARATOR card. The sum of the vapor and liquid streams in moles for
component i, Qvmi, Qlmi, respectively, which leaves stage m, is equal to the
feed stream to this stage:
v l
Q mi = Q mi + Q mi, i = 1, 2, , n c, n = 1, 2, , n s (26-2)
Moles that are sent to the oil and gas sales lines, Qo and Qg, are equal to the
sum of all streams sent to these lines from all the separator stages:
nc ns nc ns
F ng Qni
l l v v
Qo = F no Q ni, Qg = (26-3)
i = 1n = 1 i = 1n = 1
Here, Flno and Fvng are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams, which are
sent to the sales lines. They are defined by a user on the SEPARATOR card.
26-390 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Phase Equilibrium Conditions
26.5 Phase Equilibrium Conditions

Each separator stage is maintained at a specified pressure and
temperature and is assumed to achieve an instantaneous phase
equilibrium. For each separator stage, feed stream Qni is flashed at the
stage pressure and temperature to calculate the vapor and liquid streams.
The volume rates of oil and gas, Vos and Vgs, at stock tank conditions
which leave the separator battery are calculated as follows:
Ts
V os = 1.9122 Z os ----- Q o (26-4)
Ps
Ts
V gs = 0.010736 ----- Q g (26-5)
Ps
Here, Zos, Ts, and Ps are the liquid compressibility factor, temperature, and
pressure at the stock tank conditions.
26.5.1 Compositional Formulation

The equation-of-state that is used for phase equilibrium calculations in the
reservoir can be used for flash calculations in separators. This is the
default. However, the OMEGA and OMEGB factors, the binary interaction
coefficients and the volume shift factors used for phase equilibrium
calculations at reservoir conditions may not be adequate to describe fluid
behavior at the conditions in the separators. VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the
user to modify these parameters for each user-defined separator battery.
This is done with the SEPARATOR card.
In addition, VIP-EXECUTIVE permits an equation-of-state different from

the one used for the reservoir to be used in separator calculations. For
example, the SRK equation-of-state can be used in separators, while the
PR equation-of-state is used in the reservoir. In this case, the user must
define the choice of separator equation-of-state on the EOSSEP card in
VIP-CORE. Again, the equation-of-state parameters can be adjusted
individually for any of the user-defined separator batteries with the
SEPARATOR card.
The Standing-Katz density correlation can be used to calculate oil

volumetric rate at standard conditions instead of Equation 26-4.
R2003.4 - Landmark 26-391

Solution Algorithm VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
26.5.2 Black-Oil Formulation

In the black-oil formulation, flash calculations at each stage of separation
are performed with predefined equilibrium K-values. There are several
options to define these K-values, as well as the compressibility factor of
the residual oil at standard conditions. These data are derived by the
simulator from PVT property data provided for phase equilibrium
calculations at reservoir conditions, or they are derived from the explicitly
defined separator data.
In the first case, the simulator generates a set of K-values for each of the
PVT tables defined in a reservoir model. Each of the sets of K-values with
the default separator configuration defines a default separator battery.
In the second case, a user defines separator configuration as well as K-

values with the SEPARATOR card. The SEPTEST option provides the most
accurate method for defining a separator. Here the input is the actual data
from the separator test; the simulator calculates the corresponding K-
values.
26.6 Solution Algorithm

The iterative procedure that is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to define the
number of hydrocarbon phases, the simultaneous solution of the mass
balance Equations 26-1, 26-2, and 26-3, and the phase equilibrium
equations, is described in Reference 26. The user can control the
convergence tolerance of this procedure using the FLASH card.
26.7 Simplified Separator Calculations

The simplified separator calculations can be used in compositional models
to reduce CPU time.
The K-values for each stage of the separator battery are functions of the
fluid composition in the input stream of the separator. If fluid composition
is not significantly changed, the K-values do not need to be recalculated.
This approach has been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
The separator flash procedure is applied in each outer iteration of a

timestep for each well. In the first outer iteration, the K-values are
calculated for each stage of the separator battery for each well. The fluid
composition, K-values, and liquid compressibility factor are saved. If the
maximum change in the composition in the next outer iteration is less than
the specified tolerance, then the K-values and liquid compressibility factor
are not updated.
26-392 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gas Plant
The user can control the tolerance of the composition changes with the
BHPITN card. If this tolerance is set to zero, the K-values are recalculated
in each outer iteration of each timestep.
26.8 Gas Plant

Another method of defining surface separators for well streams is
designed to simulate the presence of a gas plant at the surface. This
method can be used whenever the standard option of using a set of
surface flashes at a fixed temperature and pressure is not satisfactory. This
method uses liquid molar recovery fractions for each component, input as
a function of a key component plus composition in the well stream. The key
component plus composition is defined as the sum of the over-all mole
fractions for the key component plus higher numbered components in the
production stream. The interpolated values of the liquid recovery
fractions multiplied by the overall composition for each component are
used to obtain the produced liquid composition. EOS parameters are then
used to compute liquid densities. Liquid density plus surface total molar
production rate for the liquid provides the standard surface rate. Gas
composition and, thus, the densities are determined by the difference of
the overall composition and liquid composition. Again, the total molar
production rate of gas and the density provide the standard surface
production rate.
R2003.4 - Landmark 26-393

Gas Plant VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
26-394 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
27
27.1 Introduction
In the simulator, we advance the solution in time while honoring the
timing of changes to data input and obtaining output at selected points.
As long as the correct answer is produced, the scheme employed should
minimize work performed (as measured by the CPU time consumed).
There are tradeoffs between speed and solution quality and, while the
default settings will give good performance for most problems, it may be
necessary for the user to adjust them in some cases. Three levels of control
exist; timestep control, non-linear iteration parameters and iterative solver
parameters (if appropriate). The monitoring and adjustment of
performance at each of these levels is described in this chapter.
27.2 Timestep Control

The simulator moves the reservoir model through a succession of time
points. The interval of time between points is called the timestep. Within
each timestep, the simulator performs outer iterations, that is, Newton
iterations resolve the non-linearities in the pressure and saturation
dependent properties in determining the change in pressures and
saturations which occur over the timestep. For each outer iteration, an
approximate linear system of equations constructed, which can be solved
by either direct or iterative matrix solvers. Due to their high efficiency,
iterative solvers are used almost exclusively. The iterations within the
iterative solution of the linearized system of equations are commonly
referred to as inner iterations.
The simulator can select its own timesteps. They are constrained only by
the maximum changes in reservoir variables specified on the DT card, or
by gridblock throughput limitations when the IMPES formulation is used
(see IMPSTAB card). Timestep size is altered automatically to hit exactly
the times or dates on TIME or DATE cards. Under automatic timestep
control, maximum pressure, saturations, vapor fraction, and total
composition changes may be exceeded slightly to save the work required
to repeat the timestep.
Timesteps are controlled by three VIP cards; DT, TCUT, and IMPSTAB,
which are described in detail in the user manual and are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-395

Timestep Control VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
27.2.1 Primary Timestep Controls (DT)

The DT card sets up primary controls for timestep size limits, maximum
changes in solution variables and flags which control which variables will
be used to set timestep size. The maximum timestep size is calculated by
linear interpolation, or extrapolation, so that none of the maximum
changes will be exceeded, based on the changes and size of the last
timestep. The timestep can increase by a maximum factor of five from one
timestep to another.
Timestep size is altered automatically to coincide exactly to the times or

dates specified on TIME and DATE cards, even when fixed timesteps are
used.
Under automatic timestep control, the maximum pressure, saturation,

[vapor fraction or gas saturation] and composition changes specified on
the DT card are sometimes exceeded by a small amount to save the work
required to repeat the timestep. If they are exceeded by a large amount
(MAXOVR card), the timestep will be repeated. The maximum number of
timestep cuts is three by default, but it may be respecified using the TCUT
card.
Each of the solution variables (pressure, water saturation, [vapor fraction

or gas saturation] and mole fraction) can be used to control timestep size
and/or limit maximum change - the option are; BOTH, DTONLY,
MAXONLY and NONE. The default is BOTH for the IMPES formulation
and DTONLY for the fully implicit formulation.
27.2.2 Control Convergence Failures And Timestep Cuts (TCUT)

The TCUT card is used to control simulator treatment of convergence
failure and timestep cuts. It sets the maximum number of timestep cuts
which can be taken and has a default value of three. In general, the final
timestep cut in a sequence results in the minimum timestep size possible
(DTMIN) being set. A convergence failure on this last timestep causes
an attempt to save the run by using one tenth of this size (0.1*DTMIN). If
the timestep is still not acceptable, the run is terminated and a restart
record is written at the end of the last successful timestep.
Two distinct conditions can trigger a timestep cut; convergence failure of

the non-linear iterations and violation of a maximum allowable change
(see above). After each convergence failure the timestep size is cut by a
factor of two and the timestep is retried. A maximum change violation
causes a new timestep size to be calculated by interpolation, subject to the
most restrictive of the variables flagged for timestep control.
The keyword OFF causes the simulator to ignore convergence failures in

determining the acceptability of a timestep. The result of the timestep will
be accepted (subject to the tolerances on the DT card) without regard to
27-396 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Timestep Control
the inadequate closure of the material balance equation. This will

frequently lead to poor material balances in the model.
If it was not already printed, an iteration summary will be printed by

default for a timestep that has a convergence failure unless the
CNVFLOFF keyword is specified on the OUTPUT card.
27.2.3 IMPES Stability Controls (IMPSTAB)

The IMPSTAB card is used to control simulator treatment of IMPES
stability restrictions. By default, the simulator calculates the theoretical
maximum timestep size for which IMPES is stable (based on a Buckley-
Leverett-type analysis of volumetric and molar throughput and the
possible composition changes for each phase in each gridblock) and forces
the timestep to be no longer than this value. Inactive blocks are ignored.
When controlled by the user, the timestep size will be set equal to a target
factor times the maximum stable IMPES timestep, provided that this
timestep would satisfy the constraints imposed by the DT and TCUT
cards and not exceed the IMPSTAB card limit.
27.2.4 Optimal Material Balance Option (OPTMBL)

The optimal material balance option is the combination of special features
implemented in the IMPES version of VIP-EXECUTIVE to improve the
computational efficiency through code restructuring. These features are
new unknown update and convergence control procedure, reordering of
gridblocks based on fluid type, partial Jacobian update and criteria for
single-phase stability test. The first feature is applicable to both the
equation-of-state compositional and black-oil models of VIP-EXECUTIVE,
while the other features are applicable to the equation-of-state
compositional model only.
This option is derived from an updating procedure for solution unknowns

that satisfies the material balance for hydrocarbons and water during each
outer iteration. Also, the convergence of the outer iteration is controlled by
the residual in the saturation constraint equation. The convergence
tolerance may be specified through the TOLSCN card. The use of this
option will reduce the number of outer iterations and hence the CPU time.
This option is only applicable to the IMPES formulation. OPTMBL only
functions for the run in which it is specified, i.e., it is not passed on restarts
and must be reentered. For example:
OPTMBL STBCHK PJACO
STBCHK and PJACO are optional keywords that control stability tests and
partial Jacobian updates. STBCHK indicates that an OPTMBL stability test
will only be performed for single-phase gridblocks either with two-phase
neighbors or that contain wells. Otherwise, a stability test is performed for
all single-phase gridblocks. For certain compositional problems, this
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-397

Non-Linear Iteration Control VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
feature could significantly reduce the CPU time. It is only used for
compositional problems.
PJACO indicates that a partial Jacobian update of the fugacity equations

will be performed, in conjunction with the OPTMBL option. Jacobian
coefficients are not recalculated for gridblocks that satisfy a preset
convergence criteria. For certain compositional problems, this feature
could result in up to a 20% reduction in CPU time. It is only used for
compositional problems.
27.3 Non-Linear Iteration Control

The number of outer iteration (Newton steps) performed during a
timestep is governed by the ITNLIM, TOLD, and TOLR cards. The
ITNLIM card establishes the criteria for convergence of a fully converged
timestep. Should any of these tolerances be exceeded the simulator will
truncate the change, setting it equal to the value specified on the ITNLIM
card, and perform another outer iteration. For this reason, an excessively
small value for any of the iteration limits can slow or even prevent
convergence.
Failure to converge the outer iterations of a timestep within the maximum

number of outer iterations will normally cause the timestep to be
repeated. Convergence of the outer iteration over a timestep is achieved
when none of the changes in solution variables which occurred during the
previous iteration are larger in absolute value than the corresponding
tolerances established on the TOLD card. Additional tests for convergence
of residuals are defined by the TOLR cards. When the material balance
error for each phase in each gridblock is less than the tolerances specified
on the TOLR card, the conservation equations are assumed to have been
solved and the timestep is concluded. The TOLD tests are independent of
the TOLR tests. Either set of convergence tests can signal the end of the
timestep even if the other has not yet been satisfied.
In the following example, the TOLD is satisfied after two iterations,

whereas the TOLR would be satisfied after three. The net result is that the
convergence criteria would be satisfied after two iterations.
Maximum Pressure
Maximum Residual
TOLD
Change
TOLR
0 1 2 3
Iterations
Figure 27-1: Convergence Criteria
27-398 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Non-Linear Iteration Control
27.3.1 Outer Iteration Controls (ITNLIM)

Each Newton (outer or non-liner) iteration consists of linearizing the flow
equations, solving the resulting coefficient matrix for changes in solution
variables and updating the problem. The solution variables are pressure,
water saturation, vapor fraction or gas saturation (depending on whether
a block is undersaturated or saturated) and component mole fractions.
The solution vector will normally be applied in full at the end of each
iteration, but relaxation of the solution (where only a portion of the vector
is applied) will be invoked if an iteration maximum change value is
exceeded or if an endpoint (saturation table or BHP limit) is violated. In
these cases, only a fraction of the calculated changes are applied. In
general, the full solution vector should be applied in IMPES cases, while
relaxation may be necessary in IMPLICIT cases, because of the magnitude
of the changes for very large timesteps. In the latter case, iteration
maximum change parameters should be set to 40% of the corresponding
timestep (DT) values.
For most problems, timesteps should converge in less than seven

iterations, which is the preferred upper limit. Individual limits can be
turned off by setting them to 0.99, but this should only be done in extreme
cases - material balances may be adversely affected. In any event, active
iteration maximum change values should always be less than or equal to
their timestep counterparts.
27.3.2 Convergence Tolerance (TOLD)

Convergence is achieved when none of the pressure, saturation [water and
vapor fraction or gas saturation] or composition changes occurring over
the previous iteration are larger in absolute value than the corresponding
tolerances.
The TOLD tests are independent of the TOLR tests (discussed below). If
either set of convergence tests is satisfied, no further outer iterations are
performed and the timestep is concluded.
A negative value for a tolerance causes that variable to be ignored in the

convergence check.
A zero value for any of the tolerances forces non-convergence based on

maximum changes.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-399

Non-Linear Iteration Control VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
27.3.3 Convergence Tolerance (TOLR)

When the residual error in each material balance equation in each
gridblock satisfies the appropriate tolerance, the equations are assumed to
have been solved and the timestep is concluded.
The TOLR tests are independent of the TOLD tests. If either set of
convergence test is satisfied, no further outer iterations are performed and
the timestep is concluded.
The recommended setup for TOLR is:
TOLR .0005 .0005 RELTOL
i.e. when the solution residuals have been reduced by four orders of
magnitude, the timestep is assumed to have converged, regardless of
absolute values.
27.3.4 Maximum Allowable Material Balance Error (ABORT)

The ABORT card defines the maximum allowable hydrocarbon and water
material balance errors. When one of these is reached, the program
automatically terminates. This automatic termination control is activated
only by data entry.
27.3.5 Minimum BHP Damping Factor (CBHPMN)

If a well becomes constrained by BHP during an iteration, the solution will
be relaxed by a factor which will just place the well at the limit. This can be
overly restrictive in some situations, and provision is made to input a
minimum damping factor for use in these cases. This condition will be
reported on the iteration summary, where a (BHP) will be shown for the
cutback factor variable. As a general rule, a value of one should be used
for IMPES cases.
27.3.6 Gas Percolation Control (GASPERC)

GASPERC is an option to control the vertical migration of evolved or
injected gas in cases where the vertical flux would result in more gas
leaving a block than existed at the start of a timestep. Hence:
if (upward gas flux) x (timestep size) > (moles of gas in block)
then (upward gas flux) = (mole of gas in block) / (timestep size)
The adjustment is made to the gas transmissibilities. This option, or a

variant, is required when running problems with high gas mobilities in
IMPES mode, because the stability of the IMPES formulation is
theoretically limited by throughput during a timestep. Answers should be
relatively insensitive to this option, except that runs will be more stable.
27-400 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Simulator Performance Monitoring
27.4 Simulator Performance Monitoring

The simulator provides several tools for monitoring simulator
performance. The first level consists of the Timestep Summary lines and
the Simulation Statistics report, which are output in all runs and are not
under user control. The second level is an optional Non-linear Iteration
report, which the user can output for selected timesteps. The third and
final level is a Linear Iteration report, which is available when using an
iterative solver (e.g. BLITZ) and can only be output on timesteps for which
the Non-linear Iteration report has also been activated.
A brief discussion of run optimization is included at the end of this section

and provides the checklist for possible problem areas.
27.4.1 Timestep Summary

After completion of each timestep, a line is written to the output file
containing the following information; timestep number, time, phase rates,
field average pressure, material balances, maximum changes, number of
cuts and number of iterations. This same information will be printed at the
end of the run output, when TSSUM is specified on the OUTPUT card.
Timestep lines are selected for this report with the frequency specified by
the TSSUM entry on the PRINT card. An example of a timestep summary
shown below.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-401

Simulator Performance Monitoring VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
**************************************************************************************
* *
* VIP-EXEC TIMESTEP SUMMARY *
* *
* OFFSHORE EUROPE DEMONSTRATION MODEL *
* FINE GRID MODEL *
* *
* VIP-EXEC *
**************************************************************************************
TIMESTEP DAILY PRODUCTION CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION DAILY INJECTION CUM. INJECTION AVG TIME ITN
------------ -------------------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- PRES STEP ---
OIL GAS WATER GOR WATER OIL GAS WATER GAS WATER GAS WATER CUTS
SCF/ CUT
NO. DAYS MSTB/D MMSCF/D STB/D STB FRAC. MMSTB BSCF MSTB MMSCF/D STB/D BSCF MSTB PSIA
---- ------- -------- -------- -------- ----- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------ ---- ---
1 1.0000 1.90000 3.07223 0. 1616 0. .00190 .00307 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5308. 0 2
2 6.0000 1.90000 3.07223 .01834 1616 0. .01140 .01843 .00009 0. 0. 0. 0. 5307. 0 2
3 31.000 1.90000 3.07223 .02910 1616 0. .05890 .09524 .00082 0. 0. 0. 0. 5306. 0 3
4 91.000 1.90000 3.07223 .04225 1616 0. .17290 .27957 .00335 0. 0. 0. 0. 5303. 0 3
5 181.00 1.90000 3.07223 .05870 1616 0. .34390 .55607 .00864 0. 0. 0. 0. 5299. 0 3
6 183.64 57.00 92.17 1.72174 1616 0. .49455 .79967 .01319 55.30 31500. .14615 83.25250 5295. 1 5
7 186.26 57.00 92.17 8.66352 1616 0. .64389 1.04114 .03589 55.30 31500. .29104 165.78 5292. 0 3
8 189.09 57.00 92.17 11.49 1616 0. .80489 1.30147 .06835 55.30 31500. .44724 254.76 5289. 0 3
9 192.25 57.00 92.17 13.53 1616 0. .98514 1.59294 .11114 55.30 31500. .62212 354.37 5286. 0 3
10 196.01 57.00 92.17 15.18 1616 0. 1.19958 1.93967 .16825 55.30 31500. .83016 472.87 5284. 0 2
11 200.76 57.00 92.17 16.64 1616 0. 1.47030 2.37742 .24730 55.30 31500. 1.09280 622.48 5281. 0 3
12 204.91 57.00 92.17 18.04 1616 0. 1.70684 2.75990 .32215 55.30 31500. 1.32229 753.20 5278. 0 3
13 209.38 57.00 92.17 19.03 1616 0. 1.96147 3.17163 .40716 55.30 31500. 1.56933 893.92 5275. 0 3
14 214.42 57.00 92.17 19.93 1616 0. 2.24880 3.63622 .50761 55.30 31500. 1.84809 1052.71 5273. 0 3
15 218.70 57.00 92.17 20.79 1616 0. 2.49288 4.03090 .59665 55.30 31500. 2.08490 1187.60 5271. 0 3
16 222.57 57.00 92.17 21.45 1616 0. 2.71363 4.38784 .67971 55.30 31500. 2.29906 1309.59 5269. 0 3
17 226.21 57.00 92.17 21.99 1616 0. 2.92099 4.72314 .75969 55.30 31500. 2.50024 1424.18 5267. 0 3
18 229.71 57.00 92.17 22.45 1616 0. 3.12063 5.04595 .83833 55.30 31500. 2.69392 1534.51 5265. 0 3
19 233.18 57.00 92.17 22.87 1616 0. 3.31801 5.36510 .91753 55.30 31500. 2.88542 1643.59 5263. 0 2
20 236.62 57.00 92.17 23.26 1616 0. 3.51452 5.68285 .99771 55.30 31500. 3.07607 1752.19 5262. 0 2
21 240.59 57.00 92.17 23.62 1616 0. 3.74070 6.04858 1.09146 55.30 31500. 3.29550 1877.18 5260. 0 3
22 250.41 57.00 92.17 24.02 1616 0. 4.30000 6.95295 1.32716 55.30 31500. 3.83813 2186.27 5255. 0 3
23 262.40 57.00 92.17 24.89 1616 0. 4.98378 8.05859 1.62570 55.30 31500. 4.50151 2564.14 5250. 0 3
24 273.00 57.00 92.17 25.84 1616 0. 5.58790 9.03543 1.89953 55.30 31500. 5.08762 2898.00 5245. 0 3
25 278.00 90.25 145.93 36.97 1616 0. 6.03915 9.76509 2.08436 87.56 58500. 5.52541 3190.50 5239. 0 4
26 288.93 90.25 145.93 42.23 1616 0. 7.02549 11.35996 2.54586 87.56 58500. 6.48233 3829.84 5230. 0 4
27 298.70 90.25 145.93 46.30 1616 .001 7.90770 12.78647 2.99848 87.56 58500. 7.33824 4401.69 5222. 0 6
28 308.64 90.25 145.93 48.83 1616 .001 8.80466 14.23681 3.48377 87.56 58500. 8.20844 4983.10 5215. 0 2
29 319.21 90.25 145.93 50.91 1616 .001 9.75869 15.77945 4.02190 87.56 58500. 9.13403 5601.50 5209. 0 3
30 322.60 90.25 145.93 52.85 1616 .001 10.06444 16.27383 4.20094 87.56 58500. 9.43066 5799.69 5206. 1 2
31 325.94 90.25 145.93 53.45 1616 .001 10.36567 16.76092 4.37936 87.56 58500. 9.72291 5994.95 5204. 0 2
32 329.94 90.25 145.93 54.02 1616 .001 10.72643 17.34426 4.59529 87.56 58500. 10.07291 6228.79 5202. 0 2
33 335.16 90.25 145.93 54.66 1616 .001 11.19801 18.10677 4.88092 87.56 58500. 10.53042 6534.47 5198. 0 2
34 342.64 90.25 145.92 55.46 1616 .001 11.87320 19.19845 5.29583 87.55 58500. 11.18543 6972.13 5194. 0 2
35 353.17 90.25 145.91 56.53 1616 .001 12.82288 20.73384 5.89063 87.55 58500. 12.10666 7587.71 5188. 0 2
36 359.67 90.25 145.87 58.00 1616 .001 13.41029 21.68328 6.26813 87.52 58500. 12.67632 7968.47 5184. 0 2
37 365.00 90.25 145.84 58.90 1615 .001 13.89090 22.45990 6.58177 87.50 58500. 13.14230 8280.00 5181. 0 3
Also, if TSSUM is specified on the OUTPUT card, a timestep size

summary report is printed at the end of the run. This contains information
about the timestep taken, including the reason for the size selected.
27-402 Landmark - R2003.4

27.4.2 Simulation Statistics

A summary of the run statistics is printed at the end of the output file and
lists the main characteristics of the model (formulation, solver, grid size,
components, wells, fault connections and coning zones), along with a
timestep/iteration report and CPU usage by program section. An example
is shown below.
**************************************************************************************
* *
* SIMULATION STATISTICS *
* *
* OFFSHORE EUROPE DEMONSTRATION MODEL *
* FINE GRID MODEL *
* *
* VIP-EXEC *
**************************************************************************************
SIMULATOR VIP-ENCORE
VERSION v32r0
INITIALIZATION LAST UPDATE 95/02/17
LAST CHANGE SET NAME base_cse
REVISION NUMBER 0
SIMULATION LAST UPDATE 95/02/17
LAST CHANGE SET NAME bpfix01
REVISION NUMBER 0
FORMULATION IMPES
EQUATION SOLUTION METHOD BLITZ
NX: 32 NY: 27 NZ: 7
TOTAL GRIDS : 1 COMPONENTS : 2

TOTAL GRIDBLOCKS : 6048 GRID CONNECTIONS : 0 WELLS : 30
ACTIVE GRIDBLOCKS : 4924 FAULT CONNECTIONS : 1076 PERFORATIONS : 78
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS
----------------------
CURRENT RUN CUMULATIVE
----------- ----------
TIME SIMULATED (DAYS) 365.000 365.000
NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL TIMESTEPS 37 37
NUMBER OF OUTER ITERATIONS 114 114
NUMBER OF INNER ITERATIONS 503 503
NUMBER OF UNACCEPTED TIMESTEPS 2 2
NUMBER OF CONVERGENCE FAILURES 0 0
CPU SECONDS / ACTIVE GRIDBLOCK TIMESTEP .0002968 .0002968
CPU SECONDS / TOTAL GRIDBLOCK TIMESTEP .0002416 .0002416
CPU TIME SUMMARY BY PROGRAM SECTION

-----------------------------------
CURRENT RUN CUMULATIVE

CPU TIME % OF TOTAL CPU TIME % OF TOTAL
----------- ---------- ----------- ----------
INPUT PROCESSING 0: 0: 2.78 5.14 0: 0: 2.78 5.14
SIMULATION
PVT PROPERTIES 0: 0: 1.91 3.53 0: 0: 1.91 3.53
ROCK PROPERTIES 0: 0: 3.03 5.60 0: 0: 3.03 5.60
WELL MANAGEMENT 0: 0: 0.42 .78 0: 0: 0.42 .78
EQUATION SETUP 0: 0:22.37 41.37 0: 0:22.37 41.37
LINEAR SOLVER 0: 0:11.57 21.40 0: 0:11.57 21.40
VARIABLE UPDATE 0: 0: 7.75 14.33 0: 0: 7.75 14.33
OUTPUT PROCESSING 0: 0: 3.94 7.29 0: 0: 3.94 7.29
OVERHEAD 0: 0: 0.30 .55 0: 0: 0.30 .55
----------- ---------- ----------- ----------
TOTAL 0: 0:54.07 100.00 0: 0:54.07 100.00
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-403

Simulator Performance Monitoring VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
27.4.3 Non-Linear Iterations

The ITER option on the simulation PRINT card causes a non-linear
iteration summary to be output for the specified timesteps. It contains
information on all of the solution variables (water residual, hydrocarbon
residual, pressure, saturation, vapor fraction and mole fraction changes),
linear iterations and the solution relaxation factor (and variable). The
gridblocks experiencing these maximum changes are also reported.
The following iteration summary shows slow convergence for a run with
an iterative solver. The linear convergence is good, as evidenced by the
small number of inner iterations, but the timestep does not converge in the
permitted five outer (non-linear) iterations. The timestep size is cut by a
factor of two and it is repeated. Cuts can also occur for a converged
timestep, if a timestep maximum change value is exceeded by more than
the allowed limit. A new timestep size is calculated by linear
interpolation, to honor the most restrictive change limit which has been
violated. Following the first convergence after a timestep cut, the new
timestep is limited to an increase of no more than 25%.
********************************************************************************************************************************
* DETAILED ITERATION SUMMARY, TIMESTEP 31 SIZE 11.7 FROM 320.909 DAYS REASON: MAX VAPOR/SG CHANGE *
********************************************************************************************************************************
OUTER RWMAX RHCMAX DPMAX DSWMAX DVMAX DZMAX RWSUM RHCSUM INNER DAMPING
ITN (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) ITN FACTOR
1 1846. .1819E+05 13.25 .2008E-01 .2181 .5224E-01 .5845E+05 -.2783E+06 5 .22929 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
2 1423. .1402E+05 10.19 .1547E-01 .1681 .4026E-01 .4505E+05 -.2145E+06 5 .29750 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
3 999.4 9850. 7.165 .1086E-01 .1180 .2828E-01 .3164E+05 -.1507E+06 5 .42368 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
4 575.9 5677. 4.135 .6260E-02 .6801E-01 .1629E-01 .1824E+05 -.8683E+05 5 .73519 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
5 152.5 1503. 1.099 .1656E-02 .1800E-01 .4313E-02 4830. -.2299E+05 5 1.00000
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
6 .6186 1.655 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .2104E-01 -.5707E-01 0 1.00000
( 14 17 3) ( 29 19 7) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1)
*** TIMESTEP CUT DUE TO CONVERGENCE FAILURE:
CURRENT SIZE = 11.6728 DTMIN = 1.00000 CUT FACTOR = 2.00000
*** TIMESTEP CUT DUE TO EXCEEDING MAXIMUM CHANGES:
CURRENT SIZE = 5.83639 DVMAX = .111261 ( 27, 11, 2) CUT FACTOR = 2.22522
The following good iteration summary shows rapid convergence. The

next timestep size will be calculated from the current timestep changes by
linear interpolation, or extrapolation, to honor the most restrictive change
limit which has been imposed, subject to a maximum increase of a factor
of 5.
********************************************************************************************************************************
* DETAILED ITERATION SUMMARY, TIMESTEP 24 SIZE 10.6 FROM 262.401 DAYS REASON: TIME/DATE CARD *
********************************************************************************************************************************
OUTER RWMAX RHCMAX DPMAX DSWMAX DVMAX DZMAX RWSUM RHCSUM INNER DAMPING
ITN (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) ITN FACTOR
1 1337. .3001E+05 -7.843 .1787E-01 .3638E-01 .8650E-02 .3147E+05 -.1758E+06 4 1.00000

( 12 18 2) ( 25 7 3) ( 1 1 7) ( 11 16 3) ( 24 8 2) ( 24 8 2)
2 1636. -81.93 1.124 .1089E-02 -.8657E-03 -.1636E-03 1.636 -4.118 4 1.00000
( 6 9 2) ( 15 19 2) ( 26 7 7) ( 6 9 2) ( 26 7 7) ( 26 7 7)
3 -28.38 -1.419 -.6427E-01 .7079E-04 .7424E-04 .1718E-04 -.2209E-03 .2807E-02 6 1.00000
( 6 12 2) ( 29 23 2) ( 29 9 3) ( 6 11 2) ( 28 9 3) ( 28 9 3)
27-404 Landmark - R2003.4

27.4.4 Linear Iterations

When using an iterative solver, internal iterations are performed to solve
the linearized set of equations, hence the term linear iterations. A linear
iteration summary can be printed for timesteps where both the linear (e.g.
BLITZ card) and non-linear (PRINT card) iteration summaries are
requested. The BLITZ solver, which is recommended for all problems, will
generally perform well with default settings. However, linear convergence
failure, or slow convergence, can be caused by data which invalidate the
automatically selected solver parameters - for example, very difficult
problems may require a more robust (and more cpu, and memory
intensive) preconditioning treatment than the default. The linear iteration
summary can illustrate a problem, but will rarely suggest a solution. One
exception is the effect on convergence of exceeding the number of
orthogonal vectors which are stored. In some difficult problems, this
truncation can prevent the solution from converging.
Examples of good and bad linear iteration summaries follow.
BLITZ ITERATION SUMMARIES
GOOD CONVERGENCE
A. Small number of BLITZ iterations
B. Rapid reduction in 2-norm of residual from initial value
C. Small number of constraint iterations
A B C
1 2-NORM(ABS)= 3.8536E+01 2-NORM(REL)= 6.5890E-02 CITNS= 4
2 2-NORM(ABS)= 2.9722E-01 2-NORM(REL)= 5.0819E-03 CITNS= 4
POOR CONVERGENCE
A. Large number of BLITZ iterations
B. Slow reduction in 2-norm of the residual from its initial value
C. Large (Max) number of constraint iterations
A B C
1 2-NORM(ABS)= 3.4026E+01 2-NORM(REL)= 9.10673-01 CITNS= 10
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-405

Run Optimization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
27.5 Run Optimization

Optimization of program performance is not an exact science, since every
problem is different. The information which follows is designed to
provide guidelines to resolve the more obvious problems which can occur
in a run.
Although the section is mainly for IMPES runs, many of the notes may be
applied to IMPLICIT cases. Generally, IMPES is more susceptible to errors
and anomalies in data than is IMPLICIT, and will require more tuning
to achieve maximum computational efficiency. However, the work per
timestep is far less with IMPES, although timestep size may be limited. In
a run where timestep size is limited by data, such as in a history match
with monthly production rate changes, IMPES is likely to be much more
efficient than IMPLICIT.
27.5.1 Timestep and Iteration Control Parameters

You should not use the same control parameters from one model to the
next. This can set you off on the wrong path and may make it impossible
to optimize your runs. Instead, start off with the default settings where
possible. The most powerful tool you have in run optimization is case
sensitivity analysis - comparison of several short runs made from a
suitable restart with different control parameters. Suggested timestep and
iteration control parameters for IMPES and IMPLICIT runs are as follows:
C IMPES
DT -.1 .01 30 500 .05 .05 .05
ITNLIM 1 6 500 .05 .05 .05
C IMPLICIT
DT -1 .1 92 500 .1 .1 .1
ITNLIM 1 6 500 .1 .1 .1
Notice that the timestep size for IMPLICIT (.1 to 92 days) is much larger
than for IMPES (.01 to 30 days) and that both sets have the same change
values specified for timesteps and iterations.
27-406 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Run Optimization
27.5.2 Selection of Formulation and Solver

Generally, the IMPLICIT formulation should be used on radial problems
and the IMPES formulation with all cartesian grids. This usually
minimizes CPU time and memory requirements. IMPLICIT can be used
for cartesian cases if:
The problem cannot be made to converge using IMPES
Memory requirements are not excessive, or
Large enough timesteps can be taken with IMPLICIT to reduce the

CPU time required for a run. A rule of thumb is that if it is possible to
average timesteps three times that of IMPES, then IMPLICIT may be a
good option.
Bear in mind that numerical dispersion will be higher for IMPLICIT.
The choice of solver hinges on two items, speed and memory. Very small
problems, i.e. less than 100 gridblocks, may run faster with direct solution
(GAUSS with D4 ordering) than with an iterative scheme (BLITZ). In
general all problems should always be run using BLITZ. The EXCEL
solver should only be used on problems where BLITZ has trouble
converging, perhaps because of an excessive number of arbitrary non-
neighbor grid block connections. The point at which one solver will be
preferred over the other depends on the problem and formulation
selected, and will be different for speed and storage requirements. Make
short runs with the various combinations to determine which is best for
your problem.
27.5.3 Auto-adjustable Linear Tolerance

An algorithm for automatic linear tolerance selection has been
implemented for all options of the BLITZ family of solvers, which is
designed to prevent oversolving in the initial steps of the Newton
iteration. The user can request the automatic linear tolerance selection by
adding the ADJTOL keyword in the solver card. This keyword, if
specified by itself, selects default parameters for the adjustable tolerance
algorithm. Alternatively, the user may specify any number among four
parameters for this option, i.e., the coarsest tolerance TOLMX, the starting
tolerance to be used in the first Newton step of each time step TOLST, the
smallest value to which the solver tolerance may be reduced in any of the
Newton steps TOLMN, and the tolerance reduction parameter TOLEX.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-407

The tolerance selection is done according to the following criterion.
(k) (k) (k 1)
= min max, max [ , ( ) ] (27-1)

where:
(k) (k) (k 1) (k 1)

(k) F F +J
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------
(27-2)
(k 1)
-
F
The internally computed parameter (k) represents a measure of how

closely the linearization approximates the nonlinear function, in each
Newton iteration.
Two of the above keywords are used to modify the parameters in equation
(1). TOLMN specifies the value of min, and TOLEX specifies the value of
the exponent .
The values of the controlling parameters of the adjustable tolerance

algorithm can be defaulted by specifying the ADJTOL to the solver card.
The default values are TOLMNdefault= RTOL so that, e.g., if RTOL if
defaulted too, then TOLMN defaults to 5.E-03; TOLMXdefault= 0.5;
TOLSTdefault= max(TOLMX,5*RTOL) and TOLEXdefault= 3.0.
This method is adapted from published work on inexact Newton methods

for constrained optimization problems(94). Our choice of TOLEX=3.0
differs from the preferred value in optimization problems and was found
by empirical tuning of a test set of simulation models.
NOTE: The default mode for all solvers, i.e., when no solver card is specified,
is to run with the same fixed linear tolerance for all Newton
iterations. The adjustable tolerance algorithm must be explicitly
requested by specifying either the ADJTOL option or any number of
the four controlling parameter options described above.
27.5.4 Getting Started

We are assuming that some evidence exists to indicate a problem with run
performance, and not simply a case uses too much CPU time. A bad run
will exhibit one or more of the following conditions; small timestep size,
convergence failures and/or exceeding maximum changes (timestep
cuts), material balance errors, and spikes or oscillations in well
performance.
27-408 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Run Optimization
Some behavior can be attributed to the type of model being run, but more
commonly we must use the information provided by the simulation
program to locate the cause.
The first step in analyzing your run performance is to obtain an iteration

summary, using PRINT ITER 1.
Get a feel for your run - examine the run statistics (timesteps, iteration,
unaccepted timesteps, convergence failures), check material balance on
the timestep summary line, and look at layer allocation in your wells.
Find out what your timesteps are being limited by. It will either be a
timestep size limitation or a maximum change value. Can this constraint
be relaxed?
If the same block (or blocks) are flagged repeatedly in iteration and/or
error messages, check these blocks for small PV, very high transmissibility
or the like.
27.5.5 Analyzing a Run

The following structured list is designed to lead you through the process
of analyzing a run. It should provide enough information to identify the
most common run problems which are encountered with VIP-
EXECUTIVE. If the answer to the next question in the list is no, proceed
to the next item at the same level of indentation. An asterisk (*) indicates
that a particular option is only available in IMPES mode.
When constructing a new model, you should perform an equilibration run

(with all well rates zero) for thirty days from time zero and check run
performance. Subsequently, examine the run performance at intervals
throughout the history match and/or prediction runs - changing controls
and fluid flow conditions can induce problems which are not evident
initially. You will start out by looking at the run statistics, which will often
indicate whether there is a problem to begin with. These indications can
be such things as; too many non-linear iterations/timestep, consumption
of an excessive amount of cpu time and a high incidence of unaccepted
timesteps due to cuts and convergence failures.
Check List
timestep problems
size limited on good run

* flux limited
turn IMPSTAB OFF
size or maximum change limiting
increase size or change value
material balance okay (< 1.E-4)
try turning off offending limits
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-409

material balance bad

non-linear convergence failure
check solver performance
slack iteration tolerances (TOLD an TOLR)
tighten
maximum changes exceeded
large DPMAX in well block
check for perforation turning on or off
check for well turning on or off
* large DSMAX for gas - possible gas percolation
try GASPERC ON
make sure ITNLIM change limits off or DT values
try smaller timesteps
convergence failures or large numbers of non-linear iterations
examine non-linear iteration summary
reduce timestep size
non-linear iteration problems

convergence behavior bad
general - is there a pattern to the maximum changes
check data for gridblocks identified
oscillation - large DPMAX
check for small gridblock PV
oscillation - well block, check allocation
oscillation - large DVMAX in compositional run
check for near critical behavior
turn off DSMAX and DVMAX
oscillation - large DZMAX in compositional run
tighten tolerances (FLASH and KMAX)
freeze - DPMAX and DVMAX limit
check for table limit, e.g. PVT, BHPTAB
slow - converging, but tolerances exceeded
tolerances too tight
increase number of iterations allowed
table data turning points or inflections
damping factor < 1 (IMPES must not damp)
* variable BHP - use CBHPMN 1
variable KR - saturation table endpoints
ITNLIM maximum changes set too small
remove asymptotic regions of capillary pressure
curves
* if all else fails - run IMPLICIT
maximum changes too large
check gridblock data
if it is a well block
check layer allocation
check drawdown is at least 2 psi
reduce timestep size
27-410 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements
linear iterations limiting

check solver parameters (try defaults)
examine linear iteration summary
linear iteration (BLITZ) problems

almost converged
relax solver tolerance (s) (RTOL and/or PTOL)
set NORTH = NIT
constraint iterations limiting
use more robust preconditioner
rate of convergence slow
2-D cross section with barrier to vertical flow
use z-direction line corrections
(JOPT1 or JOPTN = 1 or 2)
27.6 Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements

For many projects, the time required to make a simulation run and the
associated costs are very important. Thus, in this section, guidelines for
estimating run time and memory requirements will be discussed. Please
keep in mind that the numbers presented in this section are only rough
estimates. Due to the number and complexity of the options in VIP, it is
very difficult to provide general guidelines.
It is easy to understand the increase in CPU time with an increase in the

number of spatial dimensions (1D, 2D, or 3D), total grid blocks, or number
of wells. But it is difficult to estimate absolute CPU time when there are so
many other factors to consider, such as solution technique (IMPLICIT or
IMPES), solver selection (GAUSS, EXCEL, BLITZ), and special features
(e.g., predictive well management, fluid tracking, dual porosity).
Although, estimates will be provided for CPU times, wall clock times will
not be discussed. The wall clock time associated with a particular
simulation is highly dependent upon the configuration of the computer
and the workload which exists on the computer when the job is executing.
Since it is impossible to predict the workload which will exist when your
job is submitted, we will not provide estimates for these numbers.
27.6.1 Simulator Run Durations

What one can generally say is that run times are roughly proportional to
number of gridblocks and number of timesteps. As well one can say that
for the same number of gridblock and timesteps, the IMPLICIT
formulation will take roughly three times as long as the IMPES
formulation. If the average timestep one can take using the IMPLICIT
formulation is over three times that of the IMPES formulation then the
IMPLICIT formulation will generally solve the problem faster.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-411

Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
For an Equation of State compositional model one can also say that the
CPU time is roughly proportional to the number of components to the 3/2
power.
27-412 Landmark - R2003.4

27.6.2 Performance of the Simulator on Various CPUs

The performance of the simulator scales fairly well with reported double
precision floating point LINPACK or SPECMARK ratings. However, due
to the highly vectorized nature of the simulator, sometimes this scaling is
not exact. The following performance figures are estimated from our
experience with VIP and data provided by the hardware manufacturers.
27.6.3 Memory Requirements

The simulator is dynamically dimensioned and every model will have its
own unique storage requirements based on its dimensions and choice of
features. The actual memory requirements are difficult to generalize due
to the number of options available. Memory requirements can be best
separated into two parts: program space and data space. The program
space is fixed and is approximately 4 megabytes. The data space is
generally proportional to the number of gridblocks plus number of wells
plus number of perforations. For the IMPLICIT formultion, the data space
required is approximately twice as much per gridblock as in the IMPES
formulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-413

For compositional problems utilizing the IMPES formulation, the data

space required increases roughly linearly with the number of components.
For the IMPLICIT formulation, the data space required increases with the
square of the number of components.
27-414 Landmark - R2003.4

27.6.4 Using the Simulator to Determine Memory Requirements

(STORAGE)
The simulator writes the storage requirements for a particular model to
the Print File (<casename>r.out file) when the model is executed.
However, what if you need to know an estimate of the storage
requirements for a model which is still in the design phase? You can not
execute the model to determine the memory requirements because the
model does not yet exist. However, there is a STORAGE keyword in the
simulator specifically for this purpose. The STORAGE option may be used
in either of two ways.
First, the user may specify relevent information about his model and run
the simulator to obtain an estimate of the storage required.
The following example data requests the storage for a 3-dimensional,

black-oil, faulted problem using the BLITZ solver in the IMPES
formulation.
STORAGE NOCORERST
DIM NWMAX NPRFMX NPRFTOT BLITZ
50 5 250
IMPES
RESTART 0
NX NY NZ NC
44 80 23 2
FAULT 3000
BLITZ NORTH
15
STOP
END
Second, if the initialization data for the model has already been prepared
and run through VIP-CORE, but the production strategy has not yet been
determined, the simulator will pick up the restart file from VIP-CORE and
use any dimensions specified (or defaulted), such as the number of wells
and perforations, to estimate the storage required.
Example:
STORAGE
DIM NWMAX NPRFMX NPRFTOT BLITZ
50 5 250
IMPES
RESTART 0
BLITZ NORTH
15
STOP
END
Note that when using the STORAGE option in either case, the BLITZ
keyword needs to be the last keyword specified on the DIM card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 27-415

27-416 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
28
28.1 Introduction
This option was designed primarily to simulate single-well commingled
production performance from multiple reservoirs with hundreds of feet of
separation between them. The wellbore is modelled as the innermost ring
of gridblocks, which allows for counter-current phase wellbore flow and
wellbore storage. Collins, et al92 presented a technique for modelling of
horizontal wells wherein the wellbore was treated as a second porosity in
the dual-porosity approach. The well "permeability" and "relative
permeabilities" were adjusted to yield the pressure drop and phase slip
predicted from multiphase flow correlations. This option makes use of
parts of their technique; however, instead of using the dual porosity to
model the wellbore, the innermost ring of the radial grid system is used to
model the vertical wellbore. The equations for wellbore flow are
transformed into a form similar to Darcy's flow, and then applied to the
vertical flow within the first ring of the grid system (wellbore).
Six two-phase flow correlations are available in the current simulator for
vertical or inclined pipe flow, including Hagedorn and Brown, Dunns and
Ross, Beggs and Brill, Aziz and Govier, Orkiszewski, and Griffith, Lau,
Hon, and Pearson. In these correlations, flow conditions are divided into
patterns or flow regimes. Using the user-specified flow correlation and the
computed flow regime at each interval, the simulator transforms the
wellbore flow equations into Darcy-type vertical flow coefficients for each
interval at the start of each time step.
R2003.4 - Landmark 28-417

Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore Flow Equations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
28.2 Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore

Flow Equations
The pressure loss, Ploss, in the wellbore can be shown as the sum of the
pressure drops due to friction, gravity, and kinetic energy change.
P loss = P f + P h + P k (28-1)
where
2
fLv
p f = ------------------- (28-2)
2g c D
P h = g c Z (28-3)
28-418 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore Flow Equations
1 2
p k = --- ( v ) (28-4)
2
where f is the Moody friction factor, is the total fluid mass density, D is
the wellbore diameter, v is fluid velocity, gc is gravity acceleration, Z is
mid-perforation depth difference, L is mid-perforation length difference,
and
= j Sj (28-5)
j = o, g, w
The kinetic energy effect is usually considered to be negligible for

wellbore flow conditions, and will therefore be neglected here. The
resulting pressure drop for wellbore pipe flow is then:
2
fLv
P loss = ------------------- g c Z (28-6)
2g c D
Rearranging and dividing by Z yields
2
P L f v
------- + g c = -------- = ------- ------------- (28-7)
Z Z Z 2g c D
For Darcy flow in a porous media, we have

q k
v = --- = ----- -------- (28-8)
A Z
The Moody friction factor depends on Reynolds number, Re:
vD
R e = ----------- (28-9)

where is the average viscosity of the fluid expressed as
= jS j (28-10)
j = o, g, w
For laminar flow (Re < 2000), the friction factor is expressed by:
64
f = ------ (28-11)
Re
Substituting Equation 28-11 and Equation 28-9 into Equation 28-7 gives
L 64 v
-------- = ---------- ----------------2 (28-12)
Z Z 2g D
c
Substituting this into the Darcy type equation yields
R2003.4 - Landmark 28-419

Modifications for Liquid Slippage or Holdup VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
2
2g c D
k = ----------------------- (28-13)
L
64 -------
Z
Evaluating this in standard oilfield units results in
12 Z 2
k = 2.94165 10 ------- D (28-14)
L
where k is permeability in millidarcies, Z, L, and D are in feet, and v is
velocity in ft/day.
For turbulant flow, the friction factor, pressure drop, and also liquid
holdup factor are calculated via one of the six two-phase flow correlations.
Following these calculations, the equivalent Darcy permeability can be
calculated as
1
2g D --2-
k = --------------------------
c
(28-15)
dp
f -------
L
Evaluating this in standard oilfield units results in

1
--2-
k = 1.314376 10 --------------------------
9 D
(28-16)
dP
f -------
L
28.3 Modifications for Liquid Slippage or Holdup
Following the development of Collins, et. al92, the individual phase
velocities without liquid slippage or holdup are
k k rj
v j = ---------------- -------- (28-17)
Z
where
k rj = S j, j = o, g, w (28-18)
A different representation for liquid holdup is used here than was used in
Collins, et. al.92 The following form is assumed for kro and krw:
k ro = S o
k rw = S w
where
28-420 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Application of Minimum Lift Velocity
g
----- 1 (28-19)
l
Since the pressure drop calculated from the two-phase flow correlations
included the effects of liquid holdup, the "effective" permeability must
also be adjusted as
k
k = ---------------------------------------- (28-20)
( Sg + ( 1 Sg ) )
Following an analogous derivation as in Collins, et al92, a time-dependent

variation for can be derived as
n+1 ( 1 Sg ) n 1
= ------------------- , with = 1.0 (28-21)
hl
where n denotes the timestep level.
28.4 Application of Minimum Lift Velocity

Turner, et al2 proposed the following equation to calculate the minimum
gas flow velocity necessary to remove liquid drops:
1 1
--- ---
4 4
( ) ( L g )
v c = 1.85 ------------------------------------
1
(28-22)
---
2
( g )
when is the interfacial tension in dynes/cm, L is the liquid phase
density in lbs/cu. ft, g is the gas phase density in lbs/cu. ft, and vc is the
minimum gas flow velocity in ft/sec. A different constant was derived
than was presented in Turner, et al2s equation 6, based on their earlier
equations. An optional scale factor may be specified to further adjust the
calculated critical lift velocity.
For flow velocities less than the critical lift velocity, simple equations are
used to enable a smooth migration from the mixture density gradient to
the respective phase density gradients, in order to allow counter-current
flow in the wellbore. The migration equations are
vc v
ml = m + ( l m ) ------------------------------------------------- (28-23)
v c + ( rdamp 1 ) v
vc v
mg = m + ( g m ) ------------------------------------------------- (28-24)
v c + ( rdamp 1 ) v
R2003.4 - Landmark 28-421

Data Structure and Definition Changes for VIP-CORE VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where v is the calculated flow velocity, m is the mixture density gradient,

l is the liquid density gradient, g is the gas density gradient, rdamp is a
user-supplied damping factor, and ml and mg are the migration liquid
and vapor phase gradients to be used in the respective phase potential
calculations.
28.5 Data Structure and Definition Changes for VIP-CORE

A new key word, WBSIM, has been added to the VIP-CORE data to define
this as a special initialization for gridded wellbore simulation. The first
column of gridblocks is initialized to a porosity of 1.0 and the connate
water saturation is set to 0.0, and it is sealed off from the reservoir. All
other input data for this first column (wellbore) except for depth and gross
thickness will not be used. One exception to this is that if a zero vertical
permeability is specified for any gridblock in the first column, the
wellbore will be sealed at that point.
The RI input variable, which is normally the wellbore radius, should be set
to 0.0 for the case of simulating the wellbore as the first column of
gridblocks. If the first column of gridblocks is to be used for the annulus,
then RI should be the outside diameter of the tubing, and the first radius
should be the inside diameter of the casing.
The first radius specified will be the radius of the wellbore, followed by
the normal progression of radii to define the areal extent of the drainage
area for the well.
The non-productive zones between producing horizons must be defined

as several additional layers with zero porosities in order to define a
continuous wellbore. At least one additional layer abover the top
producing horizon should be specified in order to generate a velocity
calculation including the flow from the top horizon. It is recommended at
this time to grid the wellbore all the way to the surface [define additional
zero porosity layers all the way up to the surface] in order to avoid
problems encountered with the use of BHPTAB tables when the required
bottomhole pressure increases as rate declines. [The normal concept of
finding the intersection of the inflow performance curve and the
interpolated BHPTAB curve is no longer valid, since the inflow
performance curve starts at BHP rather than gridblock reservoir pressure.]
A separate equilibrium region should be defined for the wellbore [first

column of gridblocks] using the PVT data from the initially producing
horizon with the highest common datum pressure, but lowering the water
level to below the deepest productive horizon. This ensures that the
wellbore is in pressure equilibrium with and contains the fluid from the
initial producing horizon.
28-422 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation Module
28.6 Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation

Module
Horizontal flow into the wellbore is calculated through normal Darcy
radial flow equations, with the addition of an optional skin factor to adjust
the transmissivity from gridblock 2 to gridblock 1. A new keyword,
COMPERF, is used to define the "perforations", which will then actually
replace the reservoir transport terms for flow between gridblock 2
(reservoir) and gridblock 1 (wellbore) for the specified layers. The initial
setup is to have no perforations at time zero. Perforations can be changed
at any time in the simulator through the use of this new keyword input. It
is important to note that each set of COMPERF data are modifications to
the perforations, and are not complete replacements. They may be entered
any number of times throughout the simulator time.
correl Name of the two-phase wellbore flow correlation to

be used. This must always be specified. The options
are;
NOSLIP No phase slippage considered.
HAGEDO Hagedorn and Brown
DUNROS Dunns and Ross
BEGGS Beggs and Brill
AZIZ Aziz, Govier, Fogarasi
ORKISZ Orkiszewski
GRIFFI Griffith, Lau, Hon, Pearson
rdamp Optional damping factor for phase migration at

velocities below the minimum lift velocity. Default
is 1.0. At upward flow velocities less than the
minimum lift velocity, the mixture density gradient
is replaced by the following damped liquid and
vapor phase gradients in the respective phase
potentials.
All vertical flow transport parameters for the first column of gridblocks
(wellbore) are calculated dynamically for each time step, with special
treatment for the phase mobilities. These changes are as follows :
Phase mobilities for flow in the wellbore are based on the mixture
viscosity, instead of the phase viscosity.
R2003.4 - Landmark 28-423

Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation Module VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
If the gas flow velocity is greater than the minimum gas lift velocity,
the gravity gradients in the wellbore are based on the mixture density,
instead of the individual phase densities. If the gas flow velocity is less
than the minimum gas lift velocity, the damped phase gradients are
used instead of the individual phase gradients.
The pressure drop in the wellbore can be described as the sum of the
pressure drops due to friction, gravity, and kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy pressure loss is usually quite small and is neglected. At the
start of each time step, the gas and liquid superficial velocities are
calculated based on the converged conditions at the end of the
previous timestep. From this, the Reynolds number and friction factor
are calculated for each segment from the specified correlation, after
which the average mixture velocity and then the equivalent Darcy
velocity are calculated. The effective wellbore vertical permeability
(Kwe) is then calculated, and held constant over the timestep.
Phase "relative permeabilities" in the wellbore are set equal to the

phase saturations, with the exception that krl = * Sl, where is the
liquid holdup factor less than or equal to 1.0, which allows the gas
phase to flow at an equal or greater velocity than the liquid phase. The
liquid holdup is obtained from the available correlations.
Actual well production is from a standard well with a single specified

perforation, normally at (1,1,1), using the derived phase mobilities for the
wellbore segment. The production from each reservoir is determined by
the implicit solution of the Darcy flow from the reservoir into the
wellbore.
Three additional output reports may be printed when using the WBSIM
option. These are all printed at the same frequency as the PRINT WELLS
report. These include; [1] an output table at the start of the timestep
containing the effective wellbore permeability for the step, Moody friction
factor, mixture density, delta-P friction, phase velocities, critical velocities
[minimum gas flow velocities to lift insitu liquids], Reynolds numbers,
and alpha and beta parameters for all of the wellbore segments, [2] an
output table at the end of the timestep for the wellbore perforations,
showing the production/injection rates and gas-oil ratios and watercuts,
production and injection cumulatives, and reservoir and wellbore
pressures, and [3] an output table presenting a profile of all of the wellbore
segments, containing the insitu saturations, average densities and
viscosities, alpha and beta flow parameters, effective wellbore
permeabilities, and wellbore pressures.
28-424 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
29
Surface Pipeline Network Options1
29.1 Introduction
The implementation of a surface pipeline network option in VIP-
EXECUTIVE is described in this chapter (also see Reference 69). Major
features of this option and areas of its applications are summarized below:
This option is designed for accurate modeling of interactions between

reservoir, production wells, and surface pipeline network system. It
extends the well management features discussed in Chapter 39 by
including the modeling of pressure drop in areas other than the
wellbore.
Bottomhole pressures and rates of production wells are determined

from the simultaneous simulation of the multi-phase fluid flow in
reservoir, well tubing, and surface pipeline network system.
Variable tubinghead pressures in the wells are calculated, analyzing

well inflow performance, flow of multiphase fluids in tubing,
throughput capacity and maximum deliverability of the gathering
system.
Production limits and targets at nodes of the gathering system may be

simulated.
Models of a multiphase fluid flow in surface network devices

(pipelines, valves, etc.) are included for simulating physical processes
in different elements of the surface pipeline network system.
The capabilities have been implemented for modeling the fluid flow in
well tubing. Hydraulic tables, analytical correlations, look-up tables
for pressure gradient definition, or any combinations of these tools can
be used to determine pressure drop from the wellbore to wellhead.
This part of the option can be used independently from the surface
pipeline network model.
The surface pipeline network model can have a general tree-like

structure with any number of node levels but no loops. The structure
of the surface pipeline network system can be dynamically changed at
any time during the simulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-425

Compositional or black-oil steady-state models of fluid flows in the

surface pipeline network system are implemented.
The number of the hydrocarbon phases and their compositions are

determined internally using phase-equilibrium computations. A
procedure has been developed for the phase-equilibrium
computations in compositional models. This procedure is robust even
near the critical point and is computationally efficient. These features
are especially important for the phase-equilibrium computations with
wide ranges of pressure and temperature values in the well tubing
models.
29.1.1 Background
The new option is designed for accurate modeling of interactions between
reservoir, production wells, and surface pipeline network system. It
calculates bottomhole pressure and rates of production wells from the
simultaneous simulation of the multiphase fluid flow in the reservoir, well
tubing, and surface pipeline network system. Any changes in a gathering
network will affect individual rates of production wells. Therefore, the
production rate of any well can be accurately defined only from an
intersection of an inflow performance curve (which is determined by the
reservoir model) and an outflow performance curve (which is defined by
the surface pipeline network model). These intersections are determined
in the new option.
The surface pipeline network option determines variable tubinghead

pressures in production wells, analyzing well inflow performance, flow of
multi-phase fluids in tubing, throughput capacity and maximum
deliverability of the gathering system.
Production limits and targets in nodes of the gathering system may be

specified. For example, the user can specify the minimum pressure and/or
maximum rates in any node (such as gathering center, flow station, etc.) of
the surface pipeline network system and then, the simulator automatically
determines rates of all production wells connected to the node according
to pipeline pressure loss relationships.
The new option also models physical processes in different elements of the
gathering system using hydraulic models of a multiphase fluid flow in
surface network devices (such as pipelines, valves, etc.).
New capabilities are implemented for modeling the fluid flow in well
tubing. Besides hydraulic tables (which are currently available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE), analytical correlations, look-up tables for pressure gradient
definition, or any combination of these tools can be used to determine
pressure drop from the wellbore to the wellhead. This part of the new
option can be used independently from the more general surface pipeline
network modeling.
29-426 Landmark - R2003.4

In addition, enhanced capabilities for gas-lift modeling have been

implemented. The user may specify:
vertical depth from a wellhead to the lift gas injection valve,
composition of the lift gas,
percent of the lift gas which dissolves in the well fluid.
The surface pipeline network model can have a general tree-like

structure with any number of node levels. However, loops can not be
included in the model. The structure of the surface pipeline network
system may be dynamically changed at any time during the simulation.
The following steady-state models of the multi-phase fluid flow in the

surface pipeline network system are implemented:
single-phase (gas or liquid) model;
two-phase (oil-water or gas-water) black-oil or compositional model;
three-phase black-oil or compositional model.
The number of the hydrocarbon phases and their compositions are

determined internally using phase-equilibrium computations. A new
procedure is developed for the phase-equilibrium computations in
compositional models. The procedure is robust even near critical point
and computationally efficient. These features are especially important for
the phase-equilibrium computations with wide ranges of pressure and
temperature values in well tubing models.
29.1.2 Applications
The new surface pipeline network option has a wide range of applications
in oil and gas field models. Several important applications are listed
below:
Determination of Well Production Rates from Reservoir and Surface

Pipeline Network Conditions;
Calculation of Variable Tubinghead Pressure in Production Wells;
Determination of Pressure Profiles in Well Tubings and Surface

Network Pipelines;
Studying Flow/Pressure Responses in Transmission and Gathering

Systems;
Production Predictions by Taking into Account Constraints and

Targets of a Gathering System;
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-427

Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Evaluation of Facility Modifications and Expansions. The surface

network option simultaneously models physical processes in the
reservoir, wellbores, and surface network facilities. For this reason, it
can be used for predictions of well production rates after the facility
modifications and expansions;
Estimation of Benefits of Workover, Artificial Lift, and Additional

Drilling Operations. A sophisticated workover option is available in
VIP-EXECUTIVE. In the surface network option, the benefits of
workover, artificial lift, and drilling operations can be estimated by
taking into account the surface facility limitations.
29.2 Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices
29.2.1 General Description

Hydraulic models of a multi-phase fluid flow in different surface network
devices (tubings, pipelines, separators, valves, etc.) are basic elements of
the surface pipeline network system. They are building blocks from
which the surface pipeline network system is constructed.
The hydraulic model of the flow device determines relationships between

a pressure at an inlet of the device, a pressure at its outlet, and flow rates
of multi-phase fluids in the device. It is assumed that each device has one
inlet and one outlet.
Molar rates of hydrocarbon components are assumed to be known in the

models of the flow devices. However, volumetric rates and PVT properties
of hydrocarbon phases are required for the determination of a pressure
drop in the flow device. For this reason, phase-equilibrium computations
are applied for the calculations of the number of the hydrocarbon phases,
their compositions, volumetric rates, and PVT properties.
The following models are included in the current release of the surface
pipeline network option:
1. Hydraulic Models of the Fluid Flow in Horizontal, Vertical or

Inclined Pipes. Main analytical models50,51 that are widely used in the
petroleum industry for the simulation of the multi-phase fluid flow in
well tubing and pipelines have been implemented in VIP-
EXECUTIVE.
2. Hydraulic Tables For Pressure Drop Determination in Flow Devices.

The hydraulic table defines a pressure at the inlet of any surface
network device (or at the wellbore of a production well) as a tabular
function of a pressure at its outlet (or at a wellhead) and flow rates. A
similar option is applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE (see Chapter 38) for
modeling of the multi-phase fluid flow in well tubing (casing).
29-428 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices
3. Look-up Tables For Pressure Gradient Determination in Pipes. The

look-up table determines a pressure gradient (pressure drop per foot
of a pipe length) in well tubing or pipelines.
4. Valve Model
Significantly less CPU time is required if the hydraulic tables are applied
instead of the analytical models. However, the applications of the
hydraulic tables have the following disadvantages:
1. A preprocessor package is required for the generation of the hydraulic

tables.
2. A hydraulic table should be generated for each surface network device

and each production well. Therefore, a lot of CPU memory must be
allocated for the storage of the large number of five-dimensional
hydraulic tables.
3. In compositional models, the pressure drop in any surface network

device depends on the fluid composition (mole fractions of
hydrocarbon components). This dependency is ignored in the
hydraulic table. Therefore, the hydraulic table is accurate only in black
oil models.
4. A linear interpolation technique is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE in table

look-ups, which can lead to significant interpolation errors.
The analytical correlations which have been implemented accurately

simulate compositional dependency and significantly reduce the amount
of the CPU memory required for the simulation.
The models of the flow devices implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE are

described below.
29.2.2 Flow Modeling in Horizontal, Vertical, or Inclined Pipes
Model Description
The pipe models predict a pressure distribution along a pipe. Analytical

correlations are applied for the prediction of pressure gradient, liquid
holdup, and flow patterns in pipes. The flow may be vertical, inclined, or
horizontal and a temperature distribution along the pipe may be specified.
These pipe hydraulic models determine the pressure distribution (p(L))

along the pipe assuming that the following parameters are known:
pressure pout at the pipe outlet L = LENGTH (where LENGTH is the

total pipe length)
p(LENGTH) = pout , (29-1)
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-429

molar rates of hydrocarbon components,
water rate at the stock tank conditions,
temperature profile along the pipe,
temperature gradient profile along the pipe,
inclination angle profile along the pipe, and
pipe parameters such as diameter, thickness, length, roughness,

Youngs modulus, etc..
In steady-state conditions, the following energy conservation equation51 is

applied in the models for the determination of the pressure gradient at
different pipe locations:
2
dp g v dv f v
------ ( L ) = ----- sin ------ ------ ---------------- (29-2)
dL gc g c dL 2g c d
where:
L variable pipe length from the inlet to the

current location;
dp
------ ( L ) total pressure gradient at the current pipe
dL location;
-----
dp
-
g
= ----- sin component of the pressure gradient due to a
dL elev gc potential energy or elevation change,
g gravitational constant
gc unit conversion factor
fluid density
inclination angle of the pipe which

can change along the pipe (see
Figure 29-1).
-----
dp v dv
- = -------- ------ component of the pressure gradient due to
dL acc g c dL kinetic energy change or convective
acceleration,
v fluid velocity
dv
------ fluid velocity gradient.
dL
29-430 Landmark - R2003.4

2
-----
dp f v
- = ---------------- component of the pressure gradient due to
dL frict 2g c d
friction losses,
f Moody friction factor
d pipe diameter (see Figure 29-1).
d Flow P(L)
dL
dP
P ( L dL ) P ( L ) ------- dL
dL
Figure 29-1: Pressure Gradient in Pipes
Solution Algorithm
A second order Runge-Kutta procedure with an automatic selection of

integration intervals is applied for the numerical solution of the nonlinear
ordinary differential equation (Equation 29-2) with the boundary
condition equation (Equation 29-1). This procedure is summarized as
follows:
1. Start with known pressure p(L) = pout at the pipe outlet L = LENGTH.
2. Determine a number of hydrocarbon phases, their compositions, and

compressibility factors using phase-equilibrium computations. A
different phase-equilibrium procedure52 is applied in compositional
models. Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE techniques (see Chapter 23),
which are currently used in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the reservoir flash
calculations, are used in black-oil models.
3. Define densities and volumetric rates of the oil, gas, and water phases
at the current pressure, p(L), from the equation-of-state (see Chapter
23).
4. Determine viscosities of the oil, gas, and water phases using Lohrenz-
Bray-Clark28 or Pedersen37 correlations. The techniques are similar to
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-431

those applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the viscosity definitions at

reservoir conditions (see Chapter 23).
5. Calculate gas-oil and gas-water surface tensions. Techniques described

in Reference 51 have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the
surface tension determination.
6. Determine velocities of the oil, gas, and water phases as respective

volumetric rates divided by a cross-sectional area of a pipe.
dp
7. Calculate a pressure gradient, ------ ( L ) , at the current pipe location, L
dL
, from Equation 29-2. The major problem in this part of the calculation
is the determination of the following properties of the fluid mixture
which consists of the oil, gas, and water:
friction factor f,
density ,
viscosity,
velocity v
These parameters are included in the right-hand side of Equation 29-2.

The following correlations are implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the
determination of the specified properties of the fluid mixture:
Horizontal or Inclined Pipe Correlations:
without slip effect,
Dukler II with Flanigan correction for elevation,
Dukler II with Eaton holdup and Flanigan correction for elevation,
Beggs and Brill,
Mukherjee and Brill,
Vertical or Inclined Pipe Correlations:
without slip effect,
Hagedorn and Brown,
Duns and Ross,
Beggs and Brill,
Aziz and Govier,
29-432 Landmark - R2003.4

Orkiszewski,
Griffith, Lau, Hon, and Pearson,
In these correlations, flow conditions are divided into patterns or flow

regimes. Separate correlations are applied for the determination of the
mixture properties in each flow regime. Full descriptions of these
correlations and recommendations for their applications are provided,
for example, in References 50 and 51.
1. Select an integration interval to assure that the pressure drop in this

interval is not larger than the user specified value PRESIN and that L1
= L - L is not smaller than zero:
dp
------ ( L )L PRESIN , L L 0
dL
2. Calculate pressure, p(L0.5), at the middle of the interval L as
dP
p ( L 0.5 ) = p ( L ) 0.5 ------- ( L )L where L0.5 = L - 0.5 L.
dL
dp
3. Repeat Steps 2 - 7 to calculate pressure gradient ------ ( L 0.5 ) at the
location L0.5. dL
4. Calculate pressure, p(L1), at the location L1 as

dP
p ( L 1 ) = p ( L ) ------- ( L 0.5 )L
dL
5. Set the current pipe location L to L1 and repeat Steps 2 - 12 if the
current location is not smaller than zero.
As shown above, the phase-equilibrium and pressure gradient

computations are repeated twice for each integration interval of the pipe.
If the number of the integration intervals is large, these computations
require a significant amount of CPU time (especially in compositional
models).
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-433

29.2.3 Application of Hydraulic Tables
Model Description
Hydraulic tables (BHPTAB or BHITAB) are used in VIP-EXECUTIVE

Version 2.4 for modeling the fluid flow in well tubing (casing). These
techniques have been extended for modeling the fluid flow in flow devices
of the surface pipeline network system. VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4
input format of the hydraulic tables (BHPTAB or BHITAB) has not been
changed. For this reason, existing keywords are used below.
The hydraulic model described by the hydraulic table determines pressure

at the inlet of the flow device assuming that the following parameters are
known:
pressure at the outlet of the flow device,
pressure and temperature used for the determination of volumetric

rates in the hydraulic table,
artificial lift quantity.
The five-dimensional hydraulic table (BHPTAB) defines pressure at the

inlet of the flow device (BHP) as a tabular function of pressure at the outlet
of this device (THP), liquid rate (QLIQ), gas-oil ratio (GOR), water cut
(WCUT), and artificial lift quantity value (ALQ). Alternatively, oil or gas
rate (QO or QG) may be used instead of the liquid rate, and gas-liquid or
oil-gas ratios (GLR or OGR) may be used instead of the gas-oil ratio, and
water-gas ratio (WGR) may be used instead of the water cut. The artificial
lift quantity is an optional additional input dimension in the table which
may be, for example, pipe inclination angle, gas-lift rate, pump efficiency
or power, etc. A well variable, ALQ, may then be input to use in the
bottomhole pressure table lookup.
The two-dimensional hydraulic table (BHITAB) defines pressure at the

inlet of the flow device (BHP) as a tabular function of pressure at the outlet
of this device (THP) and liquid or gas rate (QI).
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a flow

device, described by a hydraulic table, is as follows:
1. Specify values of pressure and temperature at the outlet of the flow

device.
29-434 Landmark - R2003.4

2. Determine the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions,

and compressibility factors using the phase-equilibrium
computations. A new phase-equilibrium procedure52 is applied in
compositional models. Standard techniques, which are currently used
in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the reservoir flash calculations (refer to
Chapter 23, PVT Representation), are used in black-oil models.
3. Define volumetric rates of oil, gas, and water phases from the
equation-of-state (refer to Chapter 23, PVT Representation).
4. Calculate gas-oil ratio and water cut. (Note: this step is required only if
the five-dimensional table is used.)
5. Determine pressure at the inlet of the flow device from the hydraulic
table.
The phase-equilibrium computations and table look-up are done only

once in this procedure. Therefore, the hydraulic table option requires
significantly less CPU time than the analytical models described in
Section 29.2.1.
29.2.4 Application of Look-Up Tables for Pressure Gradient Determination

In Pipes
This option is designed to:
reduce the CPU time required by the analytical models in determining

the pressure distribution in pipes,
reduce the number of the five-dimensional hydraulic tables required

for a reservoir simulation, and
simulate dependency of the pressure drop in pipes on the fluid

composition.
The procedure for the determination of the pressure distribution in a pipe

is similar to the procedure described in See Solution Algorithm on
page 431.. However, the pressure gradient at different pipe locations (see
Step 7 in See Solution Algorithm on page 431.) is defined using a five-
dimensional hydraulic table (BHPTAB) instead of an analytical
correlation. The application of the table look-up instead of the analytical
correlation significantly reduces the CPU time. Furthermore, one table
can be used for different pipes, if they have the same diameter, thickness,
and roughness coefficient. Therefore, the number of the hydraulic tables
and the CPU memory could be significantly reduced.
In this case, the hydraulic table (BHPTAB) defines pressure (BHP) at the
beginning of a pipe interval with the specified length (dzw) as a tabular
function of pressure (THP) at the end of this interval, liquid rate (QLIQ),
gas-oil ratio (GOR), water cut (WCUT), and inclination angle (ALQ).
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-435

Alternatively, oil or gas rate (QO or QG) may be used instead of the liquid
rate, and gas-liquid or oil-gas ratios (GLR or OGR) may be used instead of
the gas-oil ratio, and water-gas ratio (WGR) may be used instead of the
water cut.
The pressure gradient at the current pipe location L is calculated as a

difference of the pressures at the end and the beginning of a pipe interval
divided by the interval length:
dp THP BHP
------ ( L ) = ------------------------------
dL dzw
29.2.5 Valve Model
Model Description
The valve model determines pressure at the inlet of a valve assuming that
the following parameters are known:
pressure at the outlet of the valve,
temperature at the outlet of the valve,
valve control,
valve coefficient profile.
The model predicts subcritical pressure drop across the valve using the
following equation50,51:
Q tot Q tot
p out p in = CVX ( X ) ----------------------- (29-3)

where:
pout pressure at the outlet of the valve in psi,
pin pressure at the inlet of the valve in psi,
Qtot total mass rate of the fluid in lb. per sec., which is
calculated as a sum of the mass rates of the oil, gas,
and water phases,
density of the mixture in lb. per cu.ft.
29-436 Landmark - R2003.4

CVX(X) valve coefficient which depends on a valve setting

X. The determination of the valve coefficients for
different types of valves is described in References
50 and 51. The user must input the valve coefficients
in VIP-EXECUTIVE using a valve coefficient
profile.
A pressure control valve or a flow control valve is simulated as follows:
The pressure control valve model automatically selects the valve

coefficient CVX from a specified range. This coefficient minimizes the
absolute value of the difference between valve upstream pressure and
target pressure. The valve coefficient range is defined by the valve
coefficient profile and valve status. If the valve status is OPEN, the
whole range of the valve coefficient profile is used in the calculations.
Otherwise, if the valve status is CLOSE, the valve coefficient range only
consists of the last entry in the valve coefficient profile.
In the rate control valve model, the valve coefficient is defined as one of
the end points of the valve coefficient profile. If the valve status is
OPEN, the valve coefficient is determined as the first entry in the valve
coefficient profile. Otherwise, if the valve status is CLOSE, the valve
coefficient is selected as the last entry in the valve coefficient profile.
The oil, gas, or liquid mass rate can be used (instead of the total mass rate)
for the definition of the pressure drop in a valve.
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a valve is as

follows:
1. Specify values for pressure and temperature at the outlet of the valve.
2. Determine the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions,

and compressibility factors using the phase-equilibrium
computations.
3. Determine mass rates and densities of oil, gas, and water phases from
the equation-of-state.
4. Calculate mass rate and density of the fluid mixture.
5. Determine a valve coefficient as described in the previous section.
6. Determine pressure at the inlet of the valve from Equation 29-3.
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-437

Surface Pipeline Network Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
29.3 Surface Pipeline Network Model
29.3.1 Model Description

The surface pipeline network model determines bottomhole pressure and
rates of production wells from the simultaneous simulation of the multi-
phase fluid flow in the reservoir, well tubing, and surface pipeline
network system. Therefore, the model includes the following three major
elements:
Wellbore Model, which describes the multi-phase fluid flow from a

reservoir to wellbores of production wells;
Well Tubing Model, which simulates the flow of multi-phase fluids

from wellbores to wellheads;
Surface Facility Model, which describes the multi-phase fluid flow in a

surface pipeline network system.
The wellbore model defines an inflow performance curve of each

production well. The well tubing and surface facility models determine
an outflow performance curve of a well. The bottomhole pressure and
rates of each production well are calculated as an intersection of the inflow
and outflow performance curves.
The wellbore, well tubing, and surface facility models are considered
below.
Wellbore Model
A standard VIP-EXECUTIVE wellbore model described in Chapter 38 is

applied in the surface pipeline network option for the determination of
the well inflow performance. This model simulates molar rates of
hydrocarbon components and water rate at the stock tank conditions of
each production well as functions of the following variables:
bottomhole pressure,
reservoir pressures in gridblocks in which a well is perforated,
oil, gas, and water mobilities of each well perforation,
oil, gas, and water densities and viscosities,
compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases in well

perforations,
pressure gradient between well perforations.
29-438 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Surface Pipeline Network Model
In the surface pipeline network option, the conditions that exist in

reservoir blocks at the beginning of a timestep are used for the
determination of the well inflow performance. Therefore, the molar rates
of the hydrocarbon components and the water rate at the stock tank
conditions of each production well are considered as functions of the
bottomhole pressure only:
QCwi = QCwi(PBHw), i = 1,2,...,nc, w = 1,2,...,nwmax. (29-4)
QWw = QWw(PBHw),
where:
QCwi molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the

w-th well
QWw water rate of the w-th well at stock tank conditions
PBHw bottomhole pressure of the w-th well
nc number of the hydrocarbon components
nwmax number of wells connected to the surface pipeline

system.
Well Tubing and Surface Facility Models
Models of flow devices, links, and nodes are used for the simulation of the
multi-phase fluid flow in production well tubing and surface pipeline
network system.
The models of the flow devices are described in Section 29.2.
A link simulates the multi-phase fluid flow in
well tubing and casing,
connections between wellheads and nodes of the surface pipeline

network system, and
connections between nodes.
Each link has only one inlet and one outlet. A link can be constructed
from several flow device models sequentially connected with each other.
For example, the link shown in Figure 29-2 consists of the four following
flow device models: tubing, valve, pipe, and hydraulic table (BHPTAB).
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-439

Tubing Valve Pipe

Model Model Model BHPTAB
Link Link
Inlet Outlet
Figure 29-2: An Example of a Link
A node is the junction of several links. Each node can have any number of
input links but only one output link. The production wells can be
connected to any node.
An example of a surface pipeline network is shown below in Figure 29-3.

In this example, a gathering system of seven production wells is
simulated. Five nodes are present in the system. Links are used for the
simulation of the flow in well tubing and in connections between nodes.
For example, the multi-phase fluid flow from a wellbore to a wellhead of
Well 5 is simulated by Link 3. Link 5 represents the flow between the
wellhead of Well 5 and Node 4. The flow between Node 4 and Node 5 is
simulated by Link 6.
Link 6 Node 5
Node 4
Link 5
Node 2 Node 3
Node 1
Wellhead Wellhead
Link 3
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7
Figure 29-3: An Example of a Surface Pipeline Network System
Mass conservation and pressure equations describe the fluid flow in the
surface pipeline network system. These equations are described below.
The mass conservation equations for the hydrocarbon components and water
phase are formulated for each node of the surface pipeline network
system.
29-440 Landmark - R2003.4

The mass conservation equation for a hydrocarbon component states that

the molar rate of this component in an output link of a node is equal to the
sum of molar rates of the component in the input links of the node:
QC ni = QC ji + QC wi, i = 1, 2, , nc, n = 1, 2, , nnodes (29-5)

j Nn w Wn
where:
QCni molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the

output link of the n-th node
QCwi molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the

w-th well (see Equation 29-4)
Nn set of nodes connected to the n-th node
Wn set of production wells connected to the n-th node
nc number of the hydrocarbon components
nnodes number of nodes in the surface pipeline network

system.
The mass conservation equations of the water phase can be formulated as

follows:
QW n = QW j + QW w, n = 1, 2, , nnodes (29-6)
j Nn w Wn
where:
QWn water rate at stock tank conditions in the output

link of the n-th node
QWw water rate at stock tank conditions in the w-th well

(see Equation 29-4).
The pressure equations are formulated for each link. They determine the
pressure at the inlet of the link as a function of the pressure at the outlet of
the link, molar rates of hydrocarbon components and water rate in the
link.
For a link connecting the j-th and n-th nodes, the pressure equation can be
formulated as follows:
P j = F jn ( P n, QC j, QW j ) (29-7)
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-441

where:
Pj pressure at the j-th node (actually, Pj is the pressure

at the inlet of the link )
Pn pressure at the n-th node (or the pressure at the

outlet of this link)
QC j = ( QC j1, QC j2, , QC jnc ) vector of the molar rates of the

hydrocarbon components in
the link.
For a link connecting a wellbore and a wellhead of a production well, the

pressure equation is as follows:
PBH w = F w ( TH P w, QC w, QW w ) (29-8)
For a link connecting a wellhead of a production well and a node, the

pressure equation is as follows:
T HP w = F wn ( P n, QC w, QW w ) (29-9)
where:
PBHw bottomhole pressure of the w-th well
THPw tubinghead pressure of the w-th well
QC w = ( QC w1, QC w2, , QC wnc ) vector of the molar rates of the

hydrocarbon components in
the well.
The models of the flow devices from which the link is constructed are used
for the derivations of the pressure Equations 29-7, 29-8, and 29-9. These
models are described in Section 2.
29-442 Landmark - R2003.4

29.3.2 Pressure and Rate Constraints

An important feature of the surface pipeline network option is modeling
pressure and rate constraints at different nodes of the surface pipeline
network system. Users can specify a minimum pressure as well as
maximum oil, gas, water, and/or liquid rates in any node of the gathering
system. These constraints can be formulated as follows:
Pressure Constraints:
P n PMI N n, n = 1, 2, , nnodes (29-10)
Rate Constraints:
Q pn QMAX pn , p = o, g, w, l, n = 1, 2, , nnodes (29-11)
where:
PMINn minimum pressure (specified by the user) at the n-

th node
Qon, Qgn, Qwn, Qln oil, gas, water, and liquid volumetric rates at the n-
th node
QMAXon, QMAXgn, QMAXwn, QMAXln maximum oil, gas, water,

and liquid rates (specified
by the user) at the n-th
node.
The user assigns each node of the surface pipeline network system to a
separator battery. The volumetric rates of oil, gas, and water at any node
are calculated by flashing the feedstream through the separator battery
attached to the node.
In addition to Constraints Equations 29-10 and 29-11, the surface pipeline

network model honors all well constraints (on bottomhole pressure,
tubinghead pressure, maximum rate, water limit, gas limit, economic
limit, etc.) and well management constraints that are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE Version 2.4.
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-443

29.3.3 Problem Statement

The surface pipeline network model determines
bottomhole pressure,
pressure distribution in well tubing,
tubinghead pressure,
molar rates of the hydrocarbon components, and
oil, water, and gas production rates at the stock tank conditions
in all production wells connected to the surface pipeline network system.
In addition, the model calculates:
pressure distribution,
molar rates of the hydrocarbon components, and
oil, gas, and water volumetric rates
in all links and nodes of the surface pipeline network system.
These variables are determined from the simultaneous solution of
wellbore flow Equations 29-4,
mass conservation Equations 29-5, 29-6 at all nodes, and
pressure Equations 29-7, 29-8, 29-9 at all links
subject to pressure and rate constraints (Equation 29-10) and (Equation 29-
11).
The procedure developed for the solution of this problem is described in

the next section.
29-444 Landmark - R2003.4

29.3.4 Solution Algorithm

All nodes of the surface pipeline network system are internally divided
into levels. A node belongs to the first level if it has input links only with
production wells. A node belongs to the NL-th level (NL > 1), if it has
input links with nodes of the lower level or with production wells. For
example, the surface pipeline network system represented in Figure 29-3
has three node levels. Nodes 1, 2, and 3 belong to the first level, Node 4
belongs to the second level, and Node 5 belongs to the third level.
At the first stage, the procedure honors pressure and rate constraints
Equations 29-10 and 29-11 at nodes of the highest level of the surface
pipeline network system. The pressure and rate constraints Equations 29-
10 and 29-11 at nodes of the lower levels are disregarded at this stage.
Then, the node level is reduced by one and the procedure is repeated.
The following steps are executed in the surface pipeline network option
for the determination of the bottomhole pressure and rates of the
production wells as well as the pressure distribution in the surface
pipeline network system:
1. Set node level (NL) to the highest node level in the surface pipeline
network system.
2. Calculate initial estimates of bottomhole pressure and rates of the

production wells from well constraints (on bottomhole pressure,
tubinghead pressure, maximum rate, water limit, gas limit, economic
limit, etc.) and well management constraints specified by the user. The
standard VIP-EXECUTIVE techniques described in Chapter 38 are
applied in this step. The calculated bottomhole pressure of each
production well is considered as the limiting bottomhole pressure in
the following surface pipeline network calculations.
3. Determine molar rates of the hydrocarbon components and water rate

at the stock tank conditions of each production well from the wellbore
flow (Equation 29-4).
4. Calculate molar rates of the hydrocarbon components and water rates

at the stock tank conditions from the material balance Equations 29-6
and 29-7 at nodes of all levels smaller than or equal to NL.
5. Determine volumetric rates of the oil, gas, and water phases at all
nodes of the NL-th level using flash calculations in separator batteries
attached to the nodes.
6. If rate constraints (Equation 29-11) are not honored at some nodes of

the NL-th level, calculate bottomhole pressures of the production wells
and pressures at the nodes from the solution of Equations 29-4 through
29-9 and the following constraints:
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-445

Q np = QMAX np, n N Q NL (29-12)
where NQNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Rate
constraints (Equation 29-11) with some index p are violated at these
nodes.
An effective procedure has been developed for the solution of a system

of nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-12. This procedure is
based on the convergent structure of the surface pipeline network
system without loops.
7. If pressure constraints (Equation 29-10) are not honored at some nodes

of the NL-th level, calculate bottomhole pressures of the production
wells and pressures at the nodes from the solution of Equations 29-4
through 29-9 and the following constraints:
P n = PMAX n, n N P NL (29-13)
where NPNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Pressure
constraints (Equation 29-10) are violated at these nodes.
A similar procedure as in Step 6 is applied for the solution of a system

of nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-13.
8. Reduce the node level NL by one and repeat Steps 3-7 if NL is not
smaller than one.
29.3.5 Simultaneous Modeling of Multiphase Fluid Flow in Reservoir and

Surface Pipeline Network System
When invoked, the surface pipeline network option operates as an
integral part of the compositional reservoir simulator. It determines rates
of production wells from well constraints and surface pipeline network
constraints. These rates are used as boundary conditions for the
production wells in the solution of the reservoir flow equations.
Assume that pressure, saturations, and hydrocarbon phase compositions

have already been calculated in all gridblocks of a reservoir model at some
timestep. Then, the following procedure is applied in the next timestep:
1. Calculate mobilities, densities, viscosities, hydrocarbon phase

compositions, and pressure gradient in all perforations of production
wells.
2. Determine rates of production wells connected to the surface pipeline

network system as described in the previous section.
3. Apply these rates as the well maximum production rates in the other
outer iterations of the timestep.
29-446 Landmark - R2003.4

The frequency of the surface pipeline network calculations can be

controlled. The user can specify a time increment between two sequential
recalculations of the production rates that use the surface pipeline
network calculations. However, the production rates are redefined after
each TIME or DATE card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 29-447

29-448 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
30
30.1 Introduction
VIP-CORE performs several checks on black-oil input data. Each BOTAB
table is checked after it is read. Compositional input data are not checked.
Validation of the BOTAB data is divided into three parts:
1. Reasonableness of saturated data.
2. Positive hydrocarbon compressibility of saturated oil.
3. Reasonableness of undersaturated oil data.
An example of a typical BOTAB table follows.
BOTAB 1
API WTRO
27.5 200.
PSAT RS BO ZG GR VO VG
5000 930 1.48 .88 .80 .72 .028
4000 720 1.37 .85 .80 .90 .025
3000 541 1.30 .80 .80 1.07 .022
2000 378 1.24 .81 .80 1.32 .018
Saturated 1000 212 1.17 .86 .80 1.81 .014
oil data 14.65 0 1.05 .96 .80 3.34 .012
PSAT 3000. 4000. . .
DP BOFAC VOFAC BOFAC VOFAC . .
100. .990 1.01 .995 1.02 . .
200. .980 1.02 .994 1.04 . .
300. .970 1.03 .993 1.06 . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Under-saturated . . . . . . .
oil data
R2003.4 - Landmark 30-449

Reasonableness Check VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
30.2 Reasonableness Check

The reasonableness check ensures that the saturated oil and gas data are
entered in the correct order. Although not required to ensure positive
hydrocarbon compressibility, oil and gas viscosities are checked for
reasonableness. Specifically, the following conditions are checked when a
BOTAB is read:
1. The BOTAB table entries must be entered with decreasing pressure.

That is, the first entry is at the maximum pressure in the table and the
last entry is at standard pressure.
2. Solution gas-oil ratio must decrease with decreasing pressure.
3. The oil formation volume factor must decrease with decreasing

pressure.
4. Oil viscosity must increase with decreasing pressure.
5. Gas viscosity must decrease with decreasing pressure.
6. Bg is checked to ensure that it increases with decreasing pressure.

However, if a gas deviation factor (Z) is entered instead of Bg, then this
check is not made.
30-450 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Saturated Oil Compressibility Check
30.3 Saturated Oil Compressibility Check

Under pressure depletion, a saturated oil shrinks as gas is liberated. The
volume of the liberated gas must be greater than the reduction of the
volume of the saturated oil. Specifically, the following inequality (in
appropriate units) must be satisfied:
( B g R s B o ) > 0 (30-1)
where Rs and Bo are the differences between two consecutive entries in

the BOTAB table. Bg is evaluated at the lower pressure of the two and is
multiplied by 0.001 to yield compatible units. If the user entered a gas
deviation factor (Z) instead of Bg, then (for field units) the Z-factors are
converted to Bg using the following equation:
1000 Z P std T res

B g ( RB mscf ) = -----------------------------------------------------
- (30-2)
5.6146 P res T std
This check is suppressed if the user includes a NOCHK card in the

UTILITY section of the input file. This is not a good idea because the
simulator may have trouble running with data that failed the check which
implies that the total hydocarbon system expands with increasing
pressure.
R2003.4 - Landmark 30-451

Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Check VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
30.4 Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Check

Undersaturated oil data for each BOTAB table are entered after the
saturated oil data. For various values of saturation pressure (PSAT), arrays
of BOFAC and VOFAC are entered as a function of DP (excess pressure
above saturation pressure), BOFAC and VOFAC are defined as follows:
B o ( P sat + DP ) o ( P sat + DP )
BOFAC ( DP ) = -----------------------------------
- VOFAC ( DP ) = ------------------------------------ (30-3)
B o ( P sat ) o ( P sat )
The following conditions are checked on the undersaturated oil data:
1. All PSAT values must be greater than standard pressure and

increasing.
2. All DP values must be greater than zero and increasing.
3. For each PSAT value, BOFAC values must be less than one and must
decrease with increasing DP.
4. For each PSAT value, VOFAC values must be greater than one and
must increase with increasing DP.
30-452 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
31
31.1 Introduction
There are several possible methods to perform fluid tracking in
compositional simulation. The method that is implemented in VIP-
EXECUTIVE is designed to track so-called equity fluids. Equity fluid is a
legal concept associated with ownership. The fluid tracking algorithm in
VIP-EXECUTIVE is, therefore, designed to determine oil, gas, and
condensate reserves of a reservoir if the reservoir is owned by several
companies.
An equity fluid usually is defined according to original location within a

reservoir. These may be gas-cap gas, oil-zone oil, relict oil (liquid
hydrocarbon phase that originally exists in a gas cap), etc. One may have
to track injected fluids or retrograde condensate. Tracking of the
retrograde is different from tracking other fluids. Initially, the retrograde
fluid is not present in a reservoir. It is formed from the gas cap gas via
condensation in the reservoir as a result of reservoir pressure decline.
However, the retrograde cannot be viewed as the renamed liquid phase of
the gas cap gas. If the retrograde is revaporized, it does not convert back to
gas-cap gas, but remains as retrograde.
Reservoir fluids undergo significant compositional transformation during

the productive life of a reservoir. These transformations include such
phenomena as retrograde condensation of the gas-cap gas in the reservoir,
evolution of solution gas from oil-zone oil, mixing of different reservoir
fluids in the reservoir and in separator facilities, revaporization of
retrograde condensate and vaporization of reservoir oil caused by lean gas
injection. In addition, fluids move within the reservoir; gas cap expands
into the oil zone and in turn is displaced by injected lean gas. All this tends
to mix fluids. Therefore, the purpose of fluid tracking is to keep account of
different equity fluids despite all compositional interaction and mixing in
the reservoir and separator facilities.
R2003.4 - Landmark 31-453

Tracking Philosophy VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
31.2 Tracking Philosophy

Consider for instance a gas cap of a reservoir before any production from
the field. The reservoir probably is in equilibrium and there is no
macroscopic flow in the system. The user assumes that there is some small
saturation of oil in the gas cap. This oil, called relict oil, is at or below the
residual oil saturation and is not mobile. The requirement is to track oil
and gas in the gas cap as two separate fluids: "relict oil" and "gas cap gas".
Note that in reality both the oil and the gas consist of the same types of
hydrocarbon components and represent two equilibrium phases of the
same fluid. The requirement to distinguish (to track) the oil and the gas as
two different fluids is dictated only by equity ownership considerations.
The equilibrium state of a gas cap, before start of production, presents a

good test example of a system to help identify a set of requirements for a
tracking algorithm that is consistent with equity ownership
considerations. Note the following requirements:
1. For compositional simulation, equity fluids should be tracked on an

individual hydrocarbon component basis.
2. At any time and at any location in the reservoir, an equity (tracked)

fluid may be present in one of the two phases (oil, gas) or in both of
them.
3. The sum of moles of all tracked fluids should equal total moles as
calculated by the simulator for each of the gas and oil phases. This
should be satisfied locally in any point of the reservoir and for each
hydrocarbon component.
4. For macroscopic flow of oil or gas in a reservoir, an equity fluid is

transported with the phase in which the fluid is present.
5. Transfer of moles of an equity fluid from one phase to another occurs

only in the case of a non-zero net mass transfer of moles between
phases.
6. Molar material balance should be enforced for each component of

every tracked fluid.
These six requirements are the basis for formulation of the tracking
algorithm. The first three of these assumptions clarify how an equity fluid
is characterized within the tracking procedure. The equity fluid is
described by the number of moles of each hydrocarbon component
associated with this fluid in both the oil and gas phases at any location in a
reservoir.
Assumption 3 requires that oil and gas phases be comprised of all tracked
fluids. In other words, a list of tracked fluids must be complete to include
all hydrocarbon material in a reservoir.
31-454 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Tracking in a Reservoir
Assumptions 4 and 5 describe a movement of equity fluids within a

reservoir and between phases. An equity fluid moves across a reservoir
with the phase in which it is present. An equity fluid also may move from
one phase to another. By definition (Assumption 5) such transfer occurs
only in the case of a non-zero net mass transfer of hydrocarbon
components between phases.
31.3 Tracking in a Reservoir

Tracking of equity fluids is essentially a material balance problem. In
discussing the algorithm for tracking of equity fluids in a reservoir, we
first define variables for characterizing equity fluids, then formulate
material balance equations for these fluids.
31.3.1 Variables to Describe Equity Fluids

In general, several equity fluids may be present in oil and gas phases. To
describe these fluids, the variables are defined as follows: xijT is the
number of moles of component i of equity fluid j per one mole of oil, and
yijT is the number of moles of component i of fluid j per one mole of gas.
Fluid number j may be any number from 1 to nf l.
Do not confuse these variables with the mole fractions of component i of

fluid j. These are not mole fractions. For a given fluid j, the sum of xijT over
all components i is not equal to one. It is equal to the total moles of fluid j
in one mole of oil.
Using these variables, requirement 3 from Section 31.2 may be written as

follows:
n fl n fl
yij
T T
xi = x ij, yi =
j=1 j=1 (31-1)
Let uo be molar flux; i.e., uo is equal to the number of oil moles that flows
through a unit area per unit time. Each of these moles contains xi moles of
component i. Therefore, the oil molar flux of component i, uoi, is defined as
uoi = uo xi. Similar considerations can be applied to define molar fluxes of
tracked substances. The oil molar flux of component i of fluid j, uoij, is
defined as uoij = uo xijT, and the gas molar flux of component i of fluid j,
ugij, is defined as ugij = ug yijT. It is easy to show that the following is valid:
n fl n fl
uij
o o g g
ui = u ij, ui = (31-2)
j=1 j=1
R2003.4 - Landmark 31-455

Tracking in a Reservoir VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
31.3.2 Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids

In formulating material balance equations for equity (tracked) fluids, it is
important that these equations be consistent with the material balance
equations used in the compositional simulator itself. The VIP-
EXECUTIVE simulator uses the following form of the material balance
equation for hydrocarbon component i:
o g
----- { F [ V y i + ( 1 V )x i ] } + ( u x i ) + ( u y i )
t
p p I I I I
qo xi qg yi + qo xi + qg yi = 0 (31-3)
This equation can be written as two equations:
o p I I
----- [ F ( 1 V )x i ] + ( u x i ) q o x i + q o x i = T i (31-4)
t
g p I I
----- [ FV y i ] + ( u y i ) q g x i + q g y i = T i (31-5)
t
The first of these equations describes material balance of component i in

the oil phase, while the second describes the gas phase. Here, Ti is the
mass transfer term. It is defined by Equations 31-4 and 31-5. Ti has the
physical meaning of the number of moles of component i that are
condensed from gas into oil in a unit volume per unit time.
Material balance equations for equity fluids are written in the form similar
to Equations 31-4 and 31-5:
T o T p T I TI
----- [ F ( 1 V )x ij ] + ( u x ij ) q o x ij + q o x ij = T ij (31-6)
t
T g T p T I TI
----- [ FV y ij ] + ( u x ij ) q g y ij + q g y ij = T ij (31-7)
t
Here, xijTI and yijTI are values similar to xijT and yijT, but are for the
injected streams. Composition and makeup of injected fluids in terms of
tracked substances are assumed to be known. Tij is a mass transfer term
for tracked fluid j, and defines the number of moles of component i of
tracked fluid j that condenses from gas into oil in a unit volume per unit
time.
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 must be consistent with the mass transfer
Equations 31-4 and 31-5, which are used in the simulator. This means that
the equations that result from summation of Equations 31-6 and 31-7 over
31-456 Landmark - R2003.4

all tracked fluids must be identical to Equations 31-4 and 31-5. By using
these relationships, it can be verified that this is satisfied if
n fl
T ij = Ti (31-8)
j=1
Equation 31-8 is the only condition imposed on mass transfer terms Tij.
This condition does not uniquely define the mass transfer terms. Some
additional assumptions must be made to define Tij and close Equations 31-
6 and 31-7.
31.3.3 Mass Transfer Split Between Equity Fluids

Assume that in a process of mass transfer between gas and oil, some
number of moles of the component i condenses from vapor into oil. This is
characterized by the mass transfer term Ti, where Ti is equal to the net
number of moles of component i that move from gas into oil in a unit
volume per unit time. For condensation, Ti is positive, while for
vaporization, Ti is negative.
Both oil and gas consist of several tracked substances. For condensation, Ti
moles of component i move from the gas into the oil. When deciding what
part of these moles comes from fluid j, one may look at the relative
presence of fluid j in the gas phase. One mole of gas has yi moles of
component i and yijT moles of component i are associated with fluid j. The
relative amount of fluid j moles of component i in the gas then is given by
the ratio yijT/yi. It is reasonable to assume the following expression for the
mass transfer term of component i of fluid j:
T
y ij
T ij = T i ----- for condensation. (31-9)
yi
In the opposite case of vaporization of component i (Tij is negative), the

number of vaporized moles of component i that come from tracked
substance j should be decided based on the relative amount of tracked
substance j in the oil phase. Here,
T
x ij
T ij = T i ----- for vaporization. (31-10)
xi
This definition of the mass transfer term is based on the assumption of

equal opportunity for tracked substances to participate in a mass transfer
process. It satisfies the consistency condition of Equation 31-8.
R2003.4 - Landmark 31-457

Note that there is no unique way to define mass transfer terms, Tij.
Equations 31-9 and 31-10 provide one of many possible assumptions. For
example, the following definition of the mass transfer terms also satisfies
the consistency condition:
g T
w j y ij
T ij = T i -----------------------
n
, if T i > 0 (31-11)
fl

g T
w k y ik
k=1
o T
w j x ij
T ij = T i -----------------------
n
, if T i < 0 (31-12)
fl
wk xik
o T
k=1
Here, wjo and wjg are weighting factors that must be provided by the user.
For equal weighting factors, this definition of the mass transfer terms is
reduced to the previous one. Therefore, Equations 31-11 and 31-12 may be
viewed as a generalization of Equations 31-9 and 31-10. By assigning
unequal weighting factors, we have preferential evaporation or
condensation of certain fluids relative to other fluids.
One may question the consistency of allowing preferential vaporization or

condensation of certain tracked fluids with the assumptions
o o T g g T
u ij = u x ij, u ij = u y ij
for the tracked fluid molar flow rates used in Equations 31-6 and 31-7.
Those expressions may be interpreted as an assumption of the uniform
distribution of equity fluids within the oil and gas phases. And if that is
the case, then the preferential vaporization or condensation contradicts
this uniform distribution of the tracked fluids. In this regard, note that
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 and expressions 31-11 and 31-12 are used on the
scale of gridblocks that is many orders of magnitude larger than the pore
scale. The processes of mass transfer between the phases and of fluid flow
actually occur on the pore scale. What looks like uniform tracked fluid
distribution within the phases on the macroscopic scale of gridblocks may
not be true on the subgrid scale of individual pores. Therefore, the
possibility of preferential vaporization or condensation of tracked fluids
and Equations 31-6 and 31-7 are not necessarily inconsistent.
The definition Equations 31-11 and 31-12 of the mass transfer terms
actually are implemented in the tracking algorithm of the VIP-
EXECUTIVE simulator. This definition provides an option to account for
possible preferential evaporation or condensation of some equity fluids.
However, it is the users responsibility to justify any specific set of
weighting factors used in a simulation.
31-458 Landmark - R2003.4

31.3.4 Solution of Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids

Equations 31-6 and 31-7 along with the definition of the mass transfer
terms given by Equations 31-11 and 31-12 constitute a set of governing
equations for tracking calculations within a reservoir. Tracking Equations
31-6 and 31-7 are not stand-alone equations. They are coupled with the
simulator equations through the mass transfer term Ti. Whether the
tracking equations are solved or not has no effect on the simulator
equations. The opposite, however, is not true. To solve the tracking
equations one needs a mass transfer term Ti , which comes from the
solution of the simulator Equations 31-4 and 31-5.
Incorporation of tracking equations into a system of simulator equations

can be done relatively easy in the case of IMPES formulation. Therefore,
the fluid tracking algorithm has been implemented only in the IMPES
version of VIP-EXECUTIVE. In this implementation, tracking Equations
31-6 and 31-7 are solved explicitly. This explicit solution method, as well
as the IMPES simulator itself, places restrictions on timestep size.
Violation of this restriction causes numerical instability and error growth.
Therefore, it is important to avoid violation of the timestep size restriction
during the simulation run by restricting the size of DTMAX or through
use of the IMPES stability option (IMPSTAB). If the tracking algorithm
detects an instability, the timestep is repeated with a smaller timestep size.
R2003.4 - Landmark 31-459

31-460 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
32
Tracer Analysis Option1
32.1 Summary
This is a description of an option which has been developed to improve
and expand the simulation capabilities in the analysis and interpretation
of tracer tests and in the design and performance analysis of waterflood
and gas injection projects. The option is built around the particle tracking
method which allows accurate simulation of tracer flow associated with
convection and physical dispersion. The method is nearly numerical
dispersion free and allows accurate simulation of tracer flow in field scale
simulation. The algorithm, implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE, allows
simulation of tracer flow within the framework of three-dimensional,
multi-phase, non steady state reservoir simulation. In addition to accurate
simulation of tracer flow the software allows:
Tracking of water fronts in waterflood operations.
Construction of three-dimensional flow trajectories and streamlines of

velocity field.
Calculation of the areal sweep.
Visualization and animation of tracer flow.
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-461

Background VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
32.2 Background
Waterflooding is the most widely used method of secondary oil
production. A waterflood project usually involves a number of water
injectors and producers arranged in some pattern. Optimal recovery of oil
in such an operation requires coordinated operation of water injectors and
producers. This insures that oil is displaced by water uniformly
throughout the reservoir and there is no early water breakthrough in some
wells while large portions of the reservoir are not swept by water. Such
operation of a waterflood project requires an extensive reservoir
surveillance program as well as some specialized reservoir simulation
tools which help reservoir engineers understand the performance of the
waterflood.
Design of a waterflood project requires detailed knowledge of the

reservoir (reservoir geometry, distribution of oil within the reservoir, rock
properties, major reservoir heterogeneities, faults) and the capability to
predict the project performance under different operational scenarios. This
is usually done on the basis of simplified reservoir models which assume
that well patterns are balanced and that it is possible to reduce the
problem to the analysis of oil displacement within an element of
symmetry (for example, a five-spot pattern). A reservoir is often
considered as two-dimensional or as a combination of several
homogeneous layers. Displacement of oil by water is often approximated
as a unit mobility ratio displacement. The fluid flow is viewed in terms of
stream lines and stream tubes and effectiveness of oil displacement is
characterized in terms of areal sweep.
Surprisingly, the state of the art reservoir simulation technology is very

rarely used in this area of reservoir engineering. There are no real technical
reasons for this. With existing commercial reservoir simulators and with
the hardware capabilities available, it is possible to accurately simulate oil
displacement by water and predict performance of a waterflood project by
taking into account actual reservoir geometry, fluid and rock properties
and large scale heterogeneities as well as actual operational conditions.
Reservoir simulation performed with a commercial reservoir simulator on
a fine enough grid system provides more accurate results than the
estimates made by using simplified models. Displacement of oil by water
may be adequately simulated in most cases on a grid with ten blocks
between wells and such models will be able to represent the most
important large scale heterogeneities. There is, however, a process often
associated with waterflood surveillance programs which commercial
reservoir simulators are not able to simulate adequately. This process is a
tracer test.
32-462 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Tracer Tests
32.3 Tracer Tests

Historically, tracer tests have been used as a tool for qualitative evaluation
of flow patterns in reservoirs (well to well communication, detection of
high permeability streaks, drift flow, faults, and so on). In this capacity,
tracer tests play an important role in reservoir surveillance and reservoir
management activities. However, tracer tests (in combination with well
logging, seismic tests, pressure transient tests) have a potential for
providing quantitative information on reservoir stratification and
heterogeneity, information which is very important in the design and
operation of IOR projects. In the future, tracer tests will have an important
place among the tools for integrated reservoir characterization.
In a field tracer test, a small slug of tracer dissolved in water or gas is

injected into a reservoir. It is followed by water or gas, respectively.
Production of tracer is monitored in surrounding production wells.
Tracer concentration in the produced water or gas as a function of time is

recorded for all monitored wells. The set of these curves constitutes the
tracer response data. These data reflect movement of tracer between the
injector and the surrounding producers during the test. The tracer
movement is related to the injected phase flow, and the phase flow itself
depends on reservoir properties (distribution of porosity, permeability,
reservoir stratification, faults, shales) as well as on reservoir geometry and
boundary conditions. Tracer tests results are therefore related in some
complicated way to reservoir properties, and we need some special tools
and techniques in order to derive the reservoir properties from tracer
response data. Derivation of reservoir properties from the tracer response
data is an inverse problem similar to a problem of history matching of a
reservoir model. In the history matching problem, we adjust reservoir
properties and relative permeability data to reproduce observed reservoir
performance. With the tracer test, we have additional observed data that
the reservoir model has to reproduce. In order to do this, the reservoir
model must have a capability to simulate tracer movement in the
reservoir.
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-463

Simulation of Tracer Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
32.4 Simulation of Tracer Flow

Tracer transport in a reservoir is associated with two physical
mechanisms: convective transport with the specified phase and
dispersion. It is described by the following equation
S p p c
---------------------- + ( q p p c ) = ( Dc ) + R p p c (32-1)
t
where c is the tracer concentration in the specified phase, D is the

dispersion coefficient, f is porosity, Sp is phase saturation, p is phase
density, qp is the vector of the phase flux, and Rp is the phase production/
injection rate. This equation requires knowledge of the phase flux, qp , and
has to be solved simultaneously with the reservoir simulator governing
equations which describe the flow of oil, gas and water in a reservoir. The
governing equations in a reservoir simulator are usually solved by a finite
difference method. In this method the governing equations are
approximated in a finite difference grid by a system of algebraic
equations. The finite difference grid is selected to resolve all important
features of the solution.
However, the same solution method can not be used for the tracer flow
equation. A slug of tracer may have a scale of a few feet (if not inches). If
we solve the tracer transport equation by a finite difference method, we
have to use a grid with grid blocks which are small compared to the scale
of the tracer slug. It is not feasible to use finite difference grids with foot-
size grid blocks or even less for field scale applications. Using a grid
system with larger grid blocks will result in large truncation errors
associated with the finite difference approximation of the tracer transport
equation. This will manifest itself in a numerical phenomenon called
numerical dispersion.
Commercial reservoir simulators which claim to have the capability to

simulate tracer flow in a reservoir, often use a first order or a second order
finite difference techniques to solve the tracer transport equations. These,
however, suffer from excessive numerical dispersion and are unable to
resolve the subgrid scale phenomenon. For the same reason, the water
tracking option in VIP-EXECUTIVE can not be used for tracer flow
simulation.
The tracer option presented here is based on a different method of solving

the tracer transport equation. This is not a finite difference type method.
We simulate tracer flow by a method of particles. Particle methods are best
suited for purely convective problems. These methods have been used to
solve convective problems in fluid mechanics, kinetic theory, and plasma
physics. It has been demonstrated that the particle methods can produce
accurate solutions with a very small amount of numerical dispersion. This
approach was later extended to problems with dispersion. For example, it
was used to solve the Navier-Stokes equations at high Reynolds number.88
32-464 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Simulation of Tracer Flow
This problem combines both convection and dispersion. Recently, a

particle method has been used in oil industry for simulation of viscous
fingering.89 We use a similar approach to simulate tracer flow. We call this
method the particle tracking method. This method, however, should not
be confused with the particle in cell method.90
32.4.1 Particle Tracking Method

The particle tracking method is a grid free Lagrangian type method.
Instead of discretizing space as it is done in finite difference or finite
element methods, in the particle tracking method we discretize the slug of
tracer itself. We describe the slug of tracer not in terms of a distribution of
tracer concentration but as a cloud of particles. Each particle is defined by
its x, y, z coordinates in some system of coordinates. The particles
coordinates are recalculated periodically to reflect movement of tracer
according to convective and dispersive mechanisms, the same
mechanisms which are incorporated in the tracer transport equation.
Collectively, this movement of individual particles represents flow of the
tracer.
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-465

Implementation in VIP VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
32.5 Implementation in VIP

The algorithm for simulation of tracer flow by the particle tracking
method has been implemented in the reservoir simulator VIP-
EXECUTIVE as an additional simulator option. The tracer option is
available both in the IMPES and in the IMPLICIT versions of the
simulator. The user activates the tracer option through input data. The
tracer option allows simulation of several slugs of the same tracer, or of
different tracers at the same time. The time for tracer injection, the tracer,
the injection well, and the number of particles for representation of the
tracer slug are defined by the user through input data. Simulation of tracer
flow can be performed in a purely convective mode or with dispersion.
Dispersion may be defined as isotropic or non-isotropic. Values of
dispersivity coefficients have to be provided by the user.
During simulation, results from the tracer option of VIP are written into a
separate output file. The frequency and amount of information sent to this
file are controlled by the user. The simulator writes two types of records:
map records and tracer production records. A map record contains
information on the locations of individual tracer particles at specific
moments in time. This information can be used for displaying the
distribution of the tracer within the reservoir. A production record
contains information on tracer production rates for individual wells. The
simulator reports production rates for a well and for individual
perforations of the well as a function of time.
This option has a wider area of application. For example, in addition to its
main application, accurate simulation of tracer flow, it can be used to track
water fronts in waterflood operations. To do this we place particles at a
water front when a well starts water injection and move the particles with
the velocity of the front movement. The water front moves according to
the Buckley-Leverett theory. This front tracking capability is also
implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE. Tracking of water front allows one to
calculate areal sweep.
32-466 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Implementation in VIP
32.5.1 Particle Unit Cube Mapping
1
u
v
4 2
w
3
5
6
8
In corner-point option, each cell is defined by the coordinates of its eight

corners
r ( x, y, z ) i (i =1,...,8)
and can be mapped to a unit cube by the following equation
r = r 1 + ur 21 + vr 41 + wr 51 + uv ( r 32 r 41 ) + vw ( r 84 r 51 ) + uw ( r 62 r 51 )
+ uvw [ ( r 21 r 34 ) ( r 65 r 78 ) ]
where
r ij = r i r j
and u, v, and w are coordinates in unit cube space
32.5.2 Particle Velocity Calculations
Particles in non-well cells
In non-well cells, particle movement calculations are based on fluids flow

from each cell face
V p = V x n x + V y n y + V z n z.
Velocity quantities are linear interpolations of phase velocities across the
cell face
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-467

V x = ( 1 u )v x- + uv x+
V y = ( 1 v )v y- + vv y+
V z = ( 1 w )v z- + wv z+
and velocity directions are results of bilinear interpolations
4 4 4
nx = n xi w xi , n y = n yi w yi , and nz = nzi wzi
i=1 i=1 i=1
where cell edge directions
n x1 = n 21 n y1 = n 41 n z1 = n 51

n x2 = n 65 n y2 = n 85 n z2 = n 84
, , and
n x3 = n 78 n y3 = n 76 n z3 = n 73

n x4 = n 34 n y4 = n 32 n z4 = n 62
are weighted by particle relative locations in unit cube
w x1 = (1 v)(1 w) w y1 = (1 u)(1 w) w z1 = (1 u)(1 v)

w x2 = ( 1 v )w w y2 = ( 1 u )w w z2 = ( 1 u )v
, , and .
w x3 = vw w y3 = uw w z3 = uv

w x4 = v(1 w) w y4 = u(1 w) w z4 = u(1 v)
Particles in well cells
In well cells, particle movements are decided by fluids flow from both
wells and cell faces. For each cell, a reference circle is first defined, which
is the largest circle without crossing cell boundaries or corner nodes on the
plane perpendicular to the well perforation. The radius and the location of
this circle is then used as a reference to calculate the particle radial
velocities.
For a cell with a vertical well at ( x w, y w ) and a particle at ( x p, y p ) , we

first find its reference point ( x r, y r ) from
2
xr = xw Rr 1 + k

y = y R k 1 + k2
r w r
where
32-468 Landmark - R2003.4

k = ( y p yw ) ( x p xw )
is the slope and R r is the reference radius.
The velocities contributed from cell faces at the reference points V b are
calculated in the same way as for particles in non-well cells with the r
components V br and theta components V b .
The velocities contributed from the wells are
2
q log ( 1 + 2qt H r )
V wr = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .
2 2
2H ( r + 2qt H r r )
where q is the flow rate, is angle open to the well, r is the particle
distance to the well center, H is the cell average height, and t is the
timestep size for particle movement.
A radial distance r c is defined as
r c = q ( H V br )
to measure the relative impact from the well and from cell boundaries.
When particles move close to well, well impact becomes significant while
boundary effect is diminishing, the radial velocities are calculated by

V V br R r r rc > 1

V r = wV b R r + ( 1 w )V wr r r c ( , 1 ]

V wr r rc

where
w = (r rc ) (1 )
is a weighting factor and is a constant of 0.2.
The theta components of the velocities are linearly distributed along the r
direction and zero when particles are in the vicinity of the wells.

V (r rc ) ( R rc ) r rc >
V = b
0 r rc

R2003.4 - Landmark 32-469

Particle reflections
Particles reflect while they hit the non-flow cell faces. The transformation
function from physical space to unit cube space can be written in general
as
r = x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w ) j + z ( u, v, w )k
where i , j , and k are the unit vectors of x, y, and z coordinates in physical
space. Each cell face can be expressed as
r x - = x ( 0, v, w )i + y ( 0, v, w ) j + z ( 0, v, w )k , r x + = x ( 1, v, w )i + y ( 1, v, w ) j + z ( 1, v, w )k
r y- = x ( u, 0, w )i + y ( u, 0, w ) j + z ( u, 0, w )k , r y+ = x ( u, 1, w )i + y ( u, 1, w ) j + z ( u, 1, w )k
r z- = x ( u, v, 0 )i + y ( u, v, 0 ) j + z ( u, v, 0 )k , r z+ = x ( u, v, 1 )i + y ( u, v, 1 ) j + z ( u, v, 1 )k .
The unit normal vector for each face are then calculated by
r x - r x - r x - r x - r x + r x + r x + r x +
n x - = --------- --------- - ----------
--------- --------- , n x + = --------- ---------- ---------- ,
w v w v v w v w
r y- r y- r y- r y- r y+ r y+ r y+ r y+
n y- = --------- --------- --------- --------- , n y+ = --------- --------- --------- --------- ,
u w u w w u w u
r z- r z- r z- r z- r + r + r + r +
n z- = -------- -------- -------- -------- , n z+ = --------z- --------z- --------z- --------z- .
v u v u u v u v
The reflection velocity v' is calculated by
v' = v 2 ( n v )n
for a particle that has a velocity v and hits a point where the face normal is
n.
32.5.3 Particle Tracking

At the start of each timestep, a particle location is first calculated by
r = r 0 + tv
where v is the particle velocity, t is the current timestep, and r 0 is the
particle start point. This calculated position is accepted as the particle new
location if r and r 0 are in the same cells.
32-470 Landmark - R2003.4

If the particle moves outside the current cell, a set of nonlinear equations is
solved for u, v, w , and t 0 for each face
x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w ) j + z ( u, v, w )k vt 0 = r 0
The solution is unique and under the constraints
-
x : u = 0, v [ 0, 1 ], w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
+
x : u = 1, v [ 0, 1 ], w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
-
y : u [ 0, 1 ], v = 0, w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
+
y : u [ 0, 1 ], v = 1, w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
-
z : u [ 0, 1 ], v [ 0, 1 ], w = 0, t 0 > 0 ,
+
z : u [ 0, 1 ], v [ 0, 1 ], w = 1, t 0 > 0 .
The results tell the location on cell face that particle has crossed or
reflected, travel time for particle reaching the face, and the new cell that
particle will move into. The tracking calculation continues based on the
new cell and the remaining time left from the current timestep.
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-471

Validation of Tracer Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
32.6 Validation of Tracer Option

The tracer option has been validated on several models which have exact
analytical solutions. These are one-dimensional and two-dimensional
models with single-phase, steady-state flow and simple geometries.
32.6.1 One-Dimensional Model

In a one-dimensional model in the limit of instantaneous injection, the
tracer is represented as a sharp spike of concentration. In the case of zero
dispersion the spike does not change its shape while it moves through the
model. In arrival at the producer, the tracer is produced instantaneously.
When we simulate this process by the particle method, all tracer particles
are introduced at the same time and at the same location near the injector.
As a result, they move through the model as one entity and are all
produced at the same time. The particle method completely reproduces
the exact solution in this case.
In the case of a non-zero dispersion, the original tracer spike disperses in

space while it moves through the model. This causes the tracer to be
produced over some period of time. Figure 32-1 shows a comparison of
the tracer production rate as calculated by the particle method using
10,000 particles with the analytical solution which exists in this case. The
particle solution reproduces the analytical result reasonably well.
Oscillations, which are present in the particle solution, are the result of a
discrete representation of the tracer slug by particles. An increase of the
number of particles reduces the level of noise in the tracer production
curve. This is illustrated by Figure 32-2 which shows the tracer response
32-472 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Validation of Tracer Option
for two slugs of tracer represented by 10,000 and 500 particles. The level of
noise is much higher for 500 particles.
Figure 32-1: Comparison With Analytical Solution
Figure 32-2: Effect of the Number of Particles
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-473

32.6.2 Two-Dimensional Areal Model

Another model which has an analytical solution is a steady-state, single-
phase flow in a 5-spot pattern. For a zero dispersion case, the distribution
of tracer particles in a quarter of the 5-spot pattern at different moments of
time is shown in Figure 32-3. The tracer slug is represented by 2,000
particles, and the fluid flow is simulated on a 10 x 10 grid system. The
figure illustrates some small grid orientation effects which are visible in
the distribution of particles, especially at an early time. Table 32-1
compares the breakthrough time and the breakthrough sweep calculated
by the particle method with that given by an analytical solution.91 The
table also shows sensitivity to grid system. An increase in the number of
grid blocks from the 10 x 10 to 40 x 40 grid system improves the accuracy
of simulation. However, for the 10 x 10 grid system the results are already
reasonably accurate.
Table 32-1: Two Dimensional, Single Phase, 5-Spot Model. Comparison With
Analytical Solution
Analytical Particle-Tracking Method

Solution Grid 40x40 Grid 10x10
Breakthrough Time, 0.7178 0.7213 07249

PV Injected
Breakthrough Sweep, 0.7178 0.7200 0.7404
Fraction
Figure 32-3: Zero Dispersion Case
32-474 Landmark - R2003.4

The tracer production rate as a function of time for a 5-spot pattern is

shown in Figure 32-4. The tracer production curve has a characteristic
shape of a sharp spike followed by a long tail. This shape is the result of
the 5-spot geometry. Figure 32-4 also illustrates the effect of grid system on
tracer production. It shows that refinement of the grid slightly affects the
breakthrough time.
Figure 32-4: Effect of the Grid System
Figure 32-5 shows the effect of the number of particles representing a

tracer slug on tracer production. The figure gives the tracer production
curves from three slugs of tracers which are injected with an interval of 30
days. The tracers arrive at a producer with the same interval of 30 days.
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-475

The slugs are represented by 500, 1,000, and 2,000 particles. Figure 32-5
shows that an increase in the number of particles reduces the level of noise
in tracer production, especially in the tail part of the curve.
Figure 32-5: Effect of the Number of Particles
32-476 Landmark - R2003.4

A tracer production curve for the same model with dispersion

(dispersivity is 0.5 ft.) is given in Figure 32-6. Physical dispersion causes
earlier tracer breakthrough. Instead of the sharp spike of Figure 32-4 the
tracer production curve in Figure 32-6 shows a significantly lower and
wider peak.
Figure 32-6: Effect of Dispersion
R2003.4 - Landmark 32-477

Interpretation of Tracer Tests VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
32.7 Interpretation of Tracer Tests

Tracer test data reflect properties of porous medium through which the
tracer moves during the test. The general assumption is that tracer tests
are sensitive to reservoir heterogeneities. The purpose of a tracer test
interpretation exercise is to decipher the rock properties from tracer tests.
Brigham and Abbaszadeh-Dehghani5,6 developed a method which allows
interpretation of the tracer tests in terms of a layer-cake model. In this
model a porous medium is assumed to consist of many distinct
noncommunicating layers. Tracer production in such a model is a
superposition of responses from individual layers. The amount of tracer
injected into each layer depends on the kh and the tracer velocity depends
on the k/ of that layer. Assuming the permeabilities of individual layers, it
is possible to construct a theoretical tracer production curve for the model.
By adjusting permeabilities and thicknesses of the layers, one can match
the theoretical tracer production with field tracer production data.
The above method of tracer test interpretation is based on the assumption

of noncommunicating layers. This assumption is not generally valid.
Layers do communicate and the tracer can move from one layer to
another. An interpretation based on a model which ignores this fact may
lead to wrong conclusions. Another problem with this approach is that the
interpretation may be non-unique. Tracer tests alone cannot provide
unique reservoir description. It is important that information provided by
geology, geophysics, coring, well logging and well testing be incorporated
into a unified picture of a reservoir - the reservoir model. The ultimate test
of the reservoir model is to reproduce observed reservoir performance.
This includes the historically observed evolution of pressure, oil
production rates, gas-oil ratio, water cut, and tracer test data. In other
words, the interpretation of field tracer tests should be part of the
reservoir model calibration which is usually called history matching.
32-478 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
33
33.1 Introduction
Several methods of calculating transmissibilities are used in VIP-
EXECUTIVE. The method is chosen based on the grid system defined by
the user. This section describes the techniques used to calculate the inter-
block transmissibilities when the grid system is either Cartesian or radial.
Corner-point geometry transmissibility calculations are described in
Chapter 3 and Appendix B in this manual.
33.2 Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility

Inter-block transmissibility is calculated first between adjacent cells with
the assumption that no faults exist. These connections are referred to as
standard connections and are described in the next section. Fault data are
read using the FX and FY cards that define the fault throws between the
(i,j) column and the (i-1,j) and (i,j-1) columns, respectively. The fault
transmissibilities are computed as described in Section 33.2.2.
33.2.1 Standard Connections

A standard connection connects the arbitrary cell (i,j,k) and one of the
following: (i-1,j,k), (i,j-1,k), or (i,j,k-1). The transmissibilities for these
connections are calculated by the following equations:
2.0 C Darcy T M i, j, k
T x = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DX B i 1, j, k DX B i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K X i 1, j, k DYB i 1, j, k DZBN i 1, j, k K X i, j, k DYB i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
T y = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DY B i, j 1, k DY B i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K Y i, j 1, k DXB i, j 1, k DZBN i, j 1, k K Y i, j, k DXB i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
T z = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DZ B i j, k 1 DZ B i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K Z i, j, k 1 DXB i, j, k 1 DY B i, j, k 1 K Z i, j, k DXB i, j, k DY B i, j, k
See Section 33.4 for the nomenclature.
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-479

Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
If the permeability input data are specified by gridblock-face

permeabilities KXF, KYF, and KZF, instead of cell center permeabilities
KX, KY, and KZ, then the above equations are replaced by the following
equations:
2.0 KX F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T x = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DX B i 1, j, k DX B i, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------------
DYB i 1, j, k DZBN i 1, j, k DYB i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
2.0 KY F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T y = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DY B i, j 1, k DY B i, j, k
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- + ------------------------------------------------------- -
DXB i, j 1, k DZBN i, j 1, k DXB i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
2.0 KZ F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T z = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DZ B i j, k 1 DZ B i, j, k
----------------------------------------------------------------- + ---------------------------------------------------
DXB i, j, k 1 DY B i, j, k 1 DXB i, j, k DY B i, j, k
Note that all of the above equations use bedding plane lengths; namely,
DXB, DYB, DZB, and DZBN. If the input data were not entered in bedding
plane lengths, then the bedding plane lengths are calculated from the
horizontal and vertical lengths (see Figure 33-1).
DXB
DZB x
DZ
DX
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths
DXB DX / COS(x),
DYB DY / COS(y),
DZB DZ COS(x) COS(y),
DZBN DZN COS(x) COS(y),
where:
x = TAN-1( .5 ( DXi + DXi+1 ) / ( DEPTHi - DEPTHi+1) ), and

y = TAN-1( .5 ( DYj + DYj+1 ) / ( DEPTHj - DEPTHj+1) ).
33-480 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility
If cell center depths, MDEPTH, are entered instead of gridblock top

depths, DEPTH, then the MDEPTH values are used in the above
calculations.
33.2.2 Fault Connections

The FX and FY cards are used to define fault locations in the X- and Y-
direction, respectively. The FX option defines a fault between the (i,j) and
(i-1,j) columns and the FY cards define faults between the (i,j) and (i,j-1)
columns. Each FX and FY card contains I- and J-indices of a fault, the
value of the fault displacement, and, optionally, a transmissibility
multiplier (TM). The following method describes how to calculate fault
transmissibilities from column (i,j) to the (i-1,j) and (i,j-1) columns.
The simulator removes the existing standard connections that apply

across the fault.
An average gross thickness for each layer is calculated for the two
columns separated by the fault. Thus, it is assumed that DZ is constant at
the gridblock face.
The shared gross thickness is calculated for each pair of cells connected
across the fault. This is based on the average gross thickness calculated in
Step 2 above and the fault throw (or shift) entered on the FX or FY card.
Figure 33-3 describes this process.
The X- or Y-transmissibility then is calculated:
2 H shared C Darcy T M i, j, k
T x = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DX B i, j, k DX B i 1, j, k
1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K X i, j, k DYB i, j, k NT G i, j, k K X i 1, j, k DYB i 1, j, k NTG i 1, j, k
1 1 1 2 2 2
2 H shared C Darcy T M i, j, k
T y = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DY B i, j, k DY B i, j 1, k
1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K Y i, j, k DXB i, j, k NT G i, j, k K Y i 1, j, k DXB i, j 1, k NTG i, j 1, k
1 1 1 2 2 2
The fault option does not allow permeabilities to be specified at the

gridblock faces; i.e., KXF, KYF, and KZF. A general description of faults,
including input requirements, is found in Chapter 7.
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-481

Average
Block Thickness,
4-ft
1 Pairs ft
Fault
Shift
1 and 4 3
2 and 5 3
2
3 and 6 5
4
Shared
3 5 Block Thickness,
Pairs ft
2 and 4 2
6 3 and 4 1
3 and 5 3
3 and 6 1
Figure 33-2: Shared Thickness Calculation Example
33.2.3 Nine Point Transmissibilities

Nine point transmissibilities are calculated by the method of Coats and
Modine33. The method rigorously accounts for non-heterogeneity and
non-uniform grids and insures that all computed transmissibilities are
non-negative. The method is applied in the x-y plane only. The option is
invoked by the NINEPT card in the VIP-CORE utility data, and may be
used only for non-corner point cartesian grids. Nine point differencing is
not used across faults. Fault connection transmissibilities are calculated as
described in Section 33.2.2.
A detailed derivation of the equations presented in this section is given in

the reference. The equations are derived for the four quarter block system
shown inside the dashed lines in Figure 33-3. The numbering system
shown is used to simplify notation. Points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are centers of the
four gridblocks.
33-482 Landmark - R2003.4

3 7 4
5 6 9
8
1 2
Figure 33-3: Nine-Point Transmissibilities Deriavation
For each four quarter block system in the x-y plane in the reservoir, the
transmissibilities T12, T13, T34, T24, T14, and T23 are calculated. The
diagonal transmissibilities T14 and T23 are the full values between the
respective gridblocks. The total axial direction transmissibilities are given
by the sum of the values for neighboring four quarter-block systems. For
example, the total x-direction transmissibility between blocks 1 and 2
(denoted Tx2 in the simulator) is given by the sum of the values
represented by the two arrows in Figure 33-3. If blocks 1 and 2 are on the
reservoir boundary, then the transmissibility represented by the lower
arrow is equal to one half of the conventional value computed as in
Section 33.2.1. The transmissibilities for each four quarter block system are
given by
t 16 t 26 t 36 + t 46
T 12 = 12 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 16 t 36 t 26 + t 46
T 13 = 13 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 36 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 36 t 46 t 16 + t 26
T 34 = 34 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 36 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 26 t 46 t 16 + t 36
T 24 = 24 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 26 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 16 t 46
T 14 = w ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-483

t 26 t 36
T 23 = w ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
where:
w = MIN ( 4 3, w 1, w 2, w 3, w 4 )
2
--- 12
3
w 1 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t t
------------------
16 26 t 36 + t 46
- -------------------------------------------- -
t 16 + t 26 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 13
3
w 2 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t t
------------------
16 36 t 26 + t 46
- -------------------------------------------- -
t 16 + t 36 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 34
3
w 3 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t t
------------------
36 46 t 16 + t 26
- -------------------------------------------- -
t 36 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 24
3
w 4 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 26 t 46
------------------ t 16 + t 36
- -------------------------------------------- -
t 26 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
T 18 T 28
12 = ----------------------
-
T 18 + T 28
T 37 T 47
34 = ----------------------
-
T 37 + T 47
T 15 T 35
13 = ----------------------
-
T 15 + T 35
T 29 T 49
24 = ----------------------
-
T 29 + T 49
y 1
T 18 = k 1x --------- z 1
x 1
33-484 Landmark - R2003.4

y 2
T 28 = k 2x --------- z 2
x 2
y 3
T 37 = k 3x --------- z 3
x 3
y 4
T 47 = k 4x --------- z 4
x 4
x 1
T 15 = k 1y --------- z 1
y 1
x 3
T 35 = k 3y --------- z 3
y 3
x 2
T 29 = k 2y --------- z 2
y 2
x 4
T 49 = k 4y --------- z 4
y 4
x 1 y 1
t 16 = k xy1 ------------------------
-
x 21 + y 21
x 2 y 2
t 26 = k xy2 ------------------------
-
x 22 + y 22
x 3 y 3
t 36 = k xy3 ------------------------
-
x 23 + y 23
x 4 y 4
t 46 = k xy4 ------------------------
-
x 24 + y 24
( x i + y i )k xi k yi
k xyi = ---------------------------------------------- z 1
k xi y i + k yi x i
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-485

Radial System Transmissibility VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
33.3 Radial System Transmissibility

As in the Cartesian system, inter-block transmissibility for a radial system
first is calculated between adjacent cells with the assumption that no faults
exist. These standard connections are described in Section 33.3.1. Note that
in a radial system, indices i, j, and k refer to the radial (R), azimuthal
(theta), and vertical (Z) directions, respectively. Fault data are read using
the FR and FTHETA cards, which define the fault throws and
transmissibility multipliers in the R- and theta-directions. Connections
that cross the faults are computed as described in Section 33.3.2.
33.3.1 Standard Connections

In the absence of faults, inter-block transmissibilities in a radial system
from gridblock (i,j,k) to gridblocks (i-1,j,k), (i,j-1,k), and (i,j,k-1) are
calculated by the following equations:
C Darcy T M i, j, k
T r = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
LOG ( R i 1, j, k RM i 1, j, k ) LOG ( RM i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K R i 1, j, k DT H i 1, j, k DZBN i 1, j, k K R i, j, k DT H i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
T th = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
RM i, j 1, k DT H i, j 1, k RM i, j, k DT H i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KT H i, j 1, k DR i, j 1, k DZBN i, j 1, k KT H i, j, k DR i, j, k DZBN i, j, k
C Darcy T M i, j, k
T z = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DZ B i, j, k 1 DZ B i, j, k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2 2
K Z i, j, k 1 DT H i, j, k 1 ( R i, j, k 1 R i 1, j, k 1 ) K Z i, j, k DT H i, j, k ( R i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
If input data contain gridblock face permeabilities KRF, KTF, and KZF,
then the above equations are modified to:
KRF i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T r = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
LOG ( R i 1, j, k RM i 1, j, k ) LOG ( RM i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
--------------------------------------------------------------------- + --------------------------------------------------------------
DT H i 1, j, k DZ N i 1, j, k DT H i, j, k DZ N i, j, k
2.0 KT F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T th = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
RM i, j 1, k DT H i, j 1, k RM i, j, k DT H i, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------
DR i, j 1, k DZ N i, j 1, k DR i, j, k DZ N i, j, k
KZ F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T z = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DZ i, j, k 1 DZ i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2 2
DT H i, j, k 1 ( R i, j, k 1 R i 1, j, k 1 ) DT H i, j, k ( R i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
No dip adjustments are allowed to the inter-block transmissibilities in a

radial system.
33-486 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Nomenclature
33.3.2 Fault Connections

The FR and FTHETA cards are used to specify fault locations within a
radial grid system. The FR and FTHETA cards are similar to the FX and FY
cards in a Cartesian coordinate system. The R- or theta-transmissibilities
from column (i,j) to the (i-1,j) and (i,j-1) columns are calculated by the
H shared C Darcy T M i, j, k
T r = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
LOG ( RM i, j, k R i 1, j, k ) LOG ( R i 1, j, k RM i 1, j, k )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K R i, j, k DT H i, j, k NT G i, j, k K R i 1, j, k DT H i 1, j, k NT G i 1, j, k
2.0 H shared C Darcy T M i, j, k

T th = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
RM i, j, k DTH i, j, k RM i, j 1, k DT H i, j 1, k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
K TH i, j, k DR i, j, k NT G i, j, k K TH i, j 1, k DR i, j 1, k NT G i, j 1, k
33.4 Nomenclature
CDarcy Darcys constant:
1.127 x 10-3 in field units
8.52605 x 10-5 in metric units, where pressure is in
kPa
8.36106143 x 10-3 in metric units, where pressure is
in kg/cm2.
DEPTH depth of gridblock top, in feet (m).
DR incremental radial length measured horizontally, in

feet (m).
DTHETA incremental angular distance measured

horizontally, in radians.
DX X-direction horizontal length, in feet (m).
DXB X-direction bedding plane length, in feet (m).
DY Y-direction horizontal length, in feet (m).
DYB Y-direction bedding plane length, in feet (m).
DZ Z-direction vertical gross thickness, in feet (m).
DZB Z-direction bedding plane gross thickness, in feet

(m).
DZN Z-direction vertical net thickness, in feet (m).
DZBN Z-direction bedding plane net thickness, in feet (m).
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-487

Nomenclature VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Hshared shared thickness between adjoining cells connected

through a fault, in feet (m).
i X- and R-direction array index.
j Y- and theta-direction array index.
k Z- direction array index.
KR R-direction absolute permeability, md.
KRF R-direction absolute permeability measured at the

grid face, md.
KTHETA theta-direction absolute permeability, md.
KTF theta-direction absolute permeability measured at

the grid face, md.
KX X-direction absolute permeability, md.
KXF X-direction absolute permeability measured at the

grid face, md.
KY Y-direction absolute permeability, md.
KYF Y-direction absolute permeability measured at the

grid face, md.
KZ Z-direction absolute permeability, md.
KZF Z-direction absolute permeability measured at the

grid face, md.
LOG natural logarithm function.
MDEPTH depth of gridblock center, in feet (m).
NTG net-to-gross thickness ratio, fraction.
R radius to outer edge of gridblock, measured

horizontally, in feet (m).
RM gridblock mean radial center, in feet (m).
Ri Ri 1
RM i = ------------------------------
Ri
LOG -----------
R i 1
Tr radial transmissibility in the i-1 direction, in RB-cp/

day/psi [m3-cp/day/kPa].
33-488 Landmark - R2003.4

Tth azimuthal transmissibility in the j-1 direction, in

RB-cp/day/psi [m3-cp/day/kPa].
Tx X-directional transmissibility in the i-1 direction, in

Ty Y-directional transmissibility in the j-1 direction, in

Tz Z-directional transmissibility in the k-1 direction, in

TM transmissibility multiplier.
R2003.4 - Landmark 33-489

33-490 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction
Three unit conventions are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The default unit
system is FIELD (also known as customary, or English units). The others
are METRIC and LAB, which can be selected by placing a METRIC or LAB
card in the UTILITY section of the VIP-CORE input file. The METRIC
option also can specify pressure as kPa (default), kg/cm2, or bar units.
All references to kPa in the METRIC column of the table below can be
replaced by kg/cm2 or bar depending on the pressure option selected.
Data Type Field Metric Lab
Angle degrees degrees degrees
Area acres m2 cm2
Compressibility 1/psi 1/kPa 1/psi
Density (water) gm/cc gm/cc gm/cc
Density (oil) gm/cc or gm/cc or gm/cc or

degree API degree API degree API
Formation volume rb/STB m3/STM3 cc/stcc

factor (oil)
Formation volume rb/MSCF m3/SM3 cc/scc or

factor (gas) or Z-factor or Z-factor z-factor
Gas gravity relative to air at relative to air at relative to air

std. cond. std. cond. at std. cond.
Gas-liquid ratio SCF/STB SM3/STM3 scc/stcc
Length feet meters cm
Moles lb-moles lb-moles gm-moles
Permeability md md md
Pressure psia kPa psia
Rates 1/day 1/day 1/day
R2003.4 - Landmark 34-491

Data Type Field Metric Lab
Saturation fraction fraction fraction
Standard pressure 14.65 psia 101.325 kPa or 14.65 psia

(default) 1.03353 kg/cm2
Standard tempera- 60 F 15 C 15 C
ture (default)
Solution gas-oil ratio SCF/STB SM3/STM3 scc/stcc
Temperature degrees F degrees C degrees C
Time days days hours
Transmissibility rb-cp/day/psi m3-cp/day/kPa cc-cp/day/

psi
Viscosity cp cp cp
Volume (surface liq- STB STM3 stcc

uid)
Volume (reservoir) rb m3 cc
Volume (surface gas) MSCF SM3 scc
Water-cut fraction fraction fraction
34-492 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Conversion Factors
34.2 Conversion Factors

Length 1 ft = 0.3048 m
Pressure 1 psi = 6.89476 kPa = 0.07030814 kg/cm2

= 0.06804 atm = 0.06894153 bar
Area 1 acre = 43,560 ft2 = 4,046.9 m2
Volume 1 bbl = 0.1589873 m3= 5.6146 ft3

1 MSCF = 28.31685 m3
Mass 1 lb (equivalent)= 0.4536 kg
Density 1 gm/cc = 62.43 lb/ft3 (equivalent)

gm/cc = 141.5/(131.5 + API)
Molecular weight of dry air = 28.97 lb/mole
Density of dry air (at 60F,14.65 psia)
= 0.07610 lb/ft3
= 1.21897x10-3 gm/cc
Temperature C = (F - 32.)/1.8
0K = -459.67F = -273.15C
Transmissibility 1 cp-STB/day / psi = 0.0230592 cp-STM3/day / kPa

= 2.261298 cp-STM3/day / kg/cm2
The following equations can be used to convert gas deviation factors (Z) to
gas formation volume factors.
1000 Z res T res P std

B g ( rb MSCF ) = -----------------------------------------------------------
-
5.6146 T std P res (34-1)
3 3 Z res T res P std

B g ( m ST M ) = -----------------------------------------
- (34-2)
T std P res
R2003.4 - Landmark 34-493

Conversion Factors VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
34-494 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
35
35.1 Introduction
The VIP reservoir simulator can simultaneously model two effects of
velocity on fluid mobility:
1. The improvement in the mobility of both the oil and gas phases as
capillary number increases, due to what is known as the coupling
effect. Capillary number increases with increasing velocity and
decreasing interfacial tension. It is believed that the coupled flow of
gas and condensate causes the improvement in relative permeability
at high velocities.
2. The reduction in the mobility of the gas phase due to the Forchheimer
effect as velocity increases.
The formulation of the velocity dependent models have been developed in

the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt University
under the directorship of Professor A. Danesh and Professor D. H. Tehrani
in a research project sponsored by the UK Department of Trade and
Industry and 11 oil and gas companies.
By default, the velocity dependency is not activated. Velocity dependency

is activated through the use of the VELCTY keyword in the initialization
data section of a VIP-CORE input file. Either capillary number
dependency or Forchheimer flow can be modeled acting alone or in
conjunction.
When activated, the velocity dependency can be used to modify mobilities

around production wells. The velocity dependency can also be applied to
inter-block flow calculations. It can also be applied to both production
wells and inter-block flow.
Default parameters are built in that determine the magnitude of the

capillary number and non-Darcy flow effects. However, the user may
selectively alter some or all of these parameters.
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-495

Capillary Number Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
35.2 Capillary Number Calculations

The capillary number is a dimensionless number that reflects the ratio of
viscous to capillary forces in a pore system.
Capillary number is defined as:
g V g
N c = ------------
(35-1)
where:
qg
V g = ---------------------------------
- (35-2)
g A ( 1 S w )
The magnitude of the capillary number affects the oil and gas relative
permeabilities as follows:
S o S oc f 2o ( N c )
k ro = f 1o ( N c )k rob + ( 1 f 1o ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) ------------------------------------------------- (35-3)
1 S w S oc f 2o ( N c )
S g S gr f 2g ( N c )
k rg = f 1g ( N c )k rgb + ( 1 f 1g ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) -------------------------------------------------
1 S w S gr f 2g ( N c ) (35-4)
where:
1
k rm ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S o = 1 S w ,S g = 0 ) + k rg ( S g = 1 S w ,S o = 0 ) ] (35-5)
2
N cbo no (35-6)
f 1o ( N c ) = -----------
Nc
N cbg ng
f 1g ( N c ) = ----------- (35-7)
Nc
N cbo
f 2o ( N c ) = 1 exp m o ----------- (35-8)
Nc
35-496 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Capillary Number Calculations
N cbg
f 2g ( N c ) = 1 exp m g ----------- (35-9)
Nc
For interblock flow, the capillary number in each direction is calculated at

the beginning of each timestep. The capillary number will be calculated
at each block interface from:
5 g qg
N c = 1.9807 10 ------------------------------------- (35-10)
g A ( 1 S w )
where:
g = gas viscosity in cp
= k rg, ij g, j + g, i in lbmoles/day
g T ij ------------ p j p i + P c, j P c, i ------------------------ ( d j d i )
q g, ij
g, ij 2
g = Molar density, lbmoles/bbl
krg,ij = Upstream relative permeability at the end of previous timestep (unless it is time 0)
= Average interfacial tension in dynes/cm
A = Area in ft2
= Average porosity, fraction
Sw = Average water saturation, fraction
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-497

Capillary Number Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The conversion factor is calculated from the following units:
2 3
dyne sec cm 5.6146 f t day
cp 0.01 ------------------------------------------- bbl day ------------------------ --------------------------------
cp bbl 3600 24sec 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30.48cm ft = 1.9807 10
2
f t dyne cm
The oil and gas relative permeabilities are modified using the above
correlations based on these values of capillary number, which is assumed
to be constant during the timestep.
Relative permeabilities are only modified if the threshold values of

capillary number are exceeded. The program allows the user to input the
threshold values of capillary number for the oil phase, Ncbo, and the gas
phase, Ncbg. Alternatively, the user can specify a superficial gas velocity
that is used in estimating the threshold capillary number. The threshold
value is calculated using the lowest initially calculated value of gas
viscosity, and the highest initially calculated value of IFT. If no threshold
value of gas velocity is input, a default value of 10 ft/day is used.
Default values of parameters are assumed, unless the user re-defines

them.
By default, no and ng will be set to 0.35 for sandstones and 1.16 for
carbonates.
By default, mg will be set to 35 for sandstones and 4 for carbonates. By,

default, mo will be set to 0 for both sandstones and carbonates, which
corresponds to an Sorg of 0.
Sandstone is the default rock type.
Relative permeability adjustment at production wells will be discussed

later.
35-498 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow
35.3 Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow

Flow due to the standard Darcy Law is calculated by:
d g g qg
---------- = ---------- ----------
dx kk rg g A (35-11)
This is discretised to:
g
g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij
T k rg g ij (35-12)
Darcy's law is modified by Forchheimer to account for additional pressure

drops due to inertial flow:
d g g qg qg 2
---------- = ---------------- ----- + ----- -----
dx kk rg g A g A (35-13)
This can be discretised as:
g g kk rg q g
g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij + C ------------- q g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij 1 + C -------------------
k 2
T k rg g ij g TA ij T k rg g ij g A ij
(35-14)
where C is a constant for unit conversion, and T is the transmissibility.
Thus, the modified flow equation can be written as:
FT k rg g
q g, ij = --------------------- g, ij
g ij (35-15)
where:
1
F = ----------------------------------
kk rg q g (35-16)
1 + C -------------------
g A
Substituting the definition of qg,

1 1
F = ----------------------------------------------------
2
- = -----------------
kk rg g FT g 1 + BF
1 + C --------------------------------------
2
- (35-17)
g A
where:
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-499

Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
2
k rg g T g
B = C -------------------------------
2
- (35-18)
g A
If B is evaluated using values of variables at the beginning of the timestep,

F can be solved as:
2 (35-19)
BF + F 1 = 0
and:
1 + 1 + 4B (35-20)
F = ----------------------------------
2B
B can be split into a constant part and a part that changes with each
timestep. The coefficient can also be split into a constant part and a non-
constant part. is defined as:
5
= 0 k 1 2 k rg3 S g 4 (35-21)
where k is in units of m2, is in units of mN/m, and has units of ft-1.
By default, 0 = 0.001524, 1 = -0.5, 2 = -5.5, 3 = -0.5, 4 = -2.99, and 5 =

4.422.
The values of , 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 can be reset with the NDARCY

keyword.
Thus,
(35-22)
B = B const B var
where:
1 + 1 2
0 k T
B const = C -------------------------------- (35-23)
A
The constant C needs to be set so that the following term is dimensionless:
35-500 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow
kk rg g q g
C --------------------------
g A (35-24)
Given the following units:
k md,
g ft-1
g lb/bbl,
qg bbl/day
g cp
A ft2
12 2 2
9.86923 10 cm ft 1 1day
md ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ - f t lb bbl bbl day ---------------------------------
md ( 30.48 ) cm
2 2 3600 24 sec 16
C = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = 1.829744 10
4
6.719689 10 lb ft sec 2
c p ------------------------------------------------------------------- f t
cp
The variable part of B is defined as:
2+
k rg 3 S g 4 5 g g
B var = --------------------------------------------------
-
2 (35-25)
g
For interblock flow, the constant part of B is evaluated at the beginning of

the simulation, while the variable part is recalculated at the beginning of
every timestep. Then F is evaluated, and kept constant during the entire
timestep.
The calculation of Forchheimer effects at production wells is discussed

below.
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-501

Velocity Effects around the Production Well VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
35.4 Velocity Effects around the Production Well

VIP provides special treatment of velocity terms around production wells.
It performs velocity calculations in conjunction with condensate banking,
which accounts for production impairment caused by liquid dropout in
the wellbore. The condensate banking calculation (Fevang and Whitson
1995) is a multiphase generalization of the pseudo-pressure originated
concept.
Consider the differential form of the radial well flow equation for each
component i:
kk ro A o kk rg A g dP
q i = x i -------------------- + y i -------------------- ------- (35-26)
o g dr
Normally, the relative permeabilities, densities, and viscosities are

considered constants for the grid block containing the well completion, so
that the above equation can be integrated to yield:
2kh k ro o k rg g
q i = -------------------- x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b p wf )
ln r e r w o g (35-27)
where pb is the well block pressure and pwf is the well flowing pressure,
both at the beginning of the timestep.
However, if we assume that compositions, relative permeabilities,

compositions, and densities are functions of pressure, then
pb
ro o
x k------------ k rg g
- dp
2kh
q i = ------------------------
ln ( r e r w ) i o
- + y i ------------
g (35-28)
p wf
If there is no accumulation of components in the completion cell,
k ro o k rg g k ro o k rg g
z i ------------- + ------------- = x i ------------- + y i -------------
o g o g (35-29)
and Equation 35-28 can be written as:

pb
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- dp
2kh
q i = ------------------------z i
ln ( r e r w ) o g (35-30)
p wf
35-502 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Velocity Effects around the Production Well
In VIP, to apply the effect of this integral expression, Equation 35-30 is

multiplied by a factor, FCB so that:
F CB 2kh k ro o k rg g
q i = ------------------------ x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b p wf ) (35-31)
ln ( r e r w ) o g
By combining Equation 35-29, Equation 35-30, and Equation 35-31, the

multiplication factor is:
pb
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- d p
o g
p wf
F CB = -----------------------------------------------------------------
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- ( p b p wf ) (35-32)
o g
Two bits of information are required to determine Equation 35-32. The

first is the overall composition, since densities and viscosities are
compositionally dependent as well as pressure dependent. We must also
assume that the composition in the completion block is constant. The
second thing is how relative permeabilities depend on pressure.
The compositions are determined from the produced well stream

composition:
k ro o k rg g
w i = x i ------------- + y i -------------
o g (35-33)
and
wi
z i = -------------
n
-
c
wj (35-34)
i1
ODell and Miller (1967) introduced the concept that the gas volume
fraction calculated from the flash calculation is equivalent to the flowing
gas volume fraction, Vrg:
qg k rg g
V rg = ----------------
- = ----------------------------------------
qg + qo k rg g + k ro o (35-35)
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-503

Rearranging:
k rg V rg g V rg g (35-36)
------- = ----------------- ----- = -------- -----
k ro 1 V rg o V ro o
To determine the actual relative permeabilities, Equation 35-36 is solved

iteratively for gas saturation by Newtons method.
To handle velocity dependency, two features are added: (1) the gas and oil
relative permeabilities are calculated with capillary number dependency
(2) a Forchheimer multiplication factor is applied to the gas relative
permeability.
Consider Darcys law in radial form for the gas phase:
dp g
------ = ----------------------------- q g (35-37)
dr 2rkhk rg g
The Forchheimer equation adds an additional term to this equation so

that:
dp g C g 2
------ = ----------------------------- q g + -------------------------
- qg
dr 2rkhk rg g ( 2rh )
2 (35-38)
g
g is known as the coefficient of inertial resistance. C is a constant used for

units conversions.
Without assumptions of constant properties,
k rg dp
q g = 2khr g g ------- ------ (35-39)
g dr
where:
1
g = ------------------------------------------
kk rg g u g
1 + C g ---------------------- (35-40)
g
The integral form of the well equation is modified so that

pb
2kh k ro o k rg g g
q i = ------------------------z i ------------
- + ------------------- d p
ln ( r e r w ) o g (35-41)
pw
35-504 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Velocity Effects around the Production Well
For each grid block with a production well completion in which

condensate banking is active, the following calculations are performed at
the beginning of a timestep:
1. The overall flowing composition is estimated by Equation 35-33 and

Equation 35-34.
2. The dewpoint, phdp, of this composition at the grid block temperature

is calculated. If the flowing bottomhole pressure is greater than the
dewpoint, the block contains only single phase gas. If a dewpoint is
found, a second lower pressure dewpoint, pldp, is also searched for.
The initial gas velocity corresponding to a pressure of is calculated by:
qg
u g = --------------------
-
2r e h g
The initial capillary number corresponding to a pressure of p = p b is

calculated by using these values of velocities.
3. For the range of pressures from pb to p1 = phdp or p1 = pwf, the following

equation is integrated by the trapezoidal rule.
pb
g g
m1 ( p ) = ----------- d p
g
p1
a. At each pressure for which the integrand is calculated, the density

and viscosity are calculated from the pressure and composition.
b. The value of g is calculated. For the first pass, the value of ug

from the previous evaluation point is used.
c. For pressures less than pb, a steady state solution is assumed and a
new radius, r2, is calculated from:
p1
r 2khk rg g g
ln ----1 = -------------------- ----------- d p
r2 qg g
p2
where p2 is the current evaluation pressure, and p1 is the pressure

at the last evaluation point.
d. The velocity, g, is recalculated using the new radius:
qg
u g = --------------------
-
2r 2 h g
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-505

e. Steps b, c, and d are repeated until the successive velocities are

within a certain tolerance.
4. If a two phase region exists, for the range of pressures from phdp to p2 =
pldp or p2 = pwf, the following equation is integrated by the trapezoidal
rule.
ph d p
k ro o k rg g g
m2 ( p ) = ------------
o
- + ------------------- d p
g
p2
a. At each pressure for which the integrand is calculated, the density and
viscosity are calculated from the pressure and composition.
b. The relative permeability is calculated iteratively so that it fulfills the

relationship
k rg V rg g V rg g o
------- = ----------------- ----------- = -------- -----------
k ro 1 V rg o g V ro o g
c. The values of g and o are recalculated. For the first pass, the
values of ug and uo from the previous evaluation point are used.
d. For pressures less than pb, a steady state solution is assumed and a
new radius, r2, is calculated from
p1
r 2kh k ro o k rg g g
ln ----1 = ---------------------- ------------
- + ------------------- d p
r2 ( qo + qg ) o g
p2
where p2 is the current evaluation pressure, and p1 is the pressure

at the last evaluation point.
e. The velocity, ug, is recalculated using the new radius

qg
u g = --------------------
-
2r 2 h g
The velocity, u0, is recalculated using the new radius
qo
u o = --------------------
-
2r 2 h o
f. The capillary numbers are recalculated.
35-506 Landmark - R2003.4

g. Steps b through f are repeated until the successive velocities are

within a certain tolerance.
6. If a lower dewpoint pressure region exists, for the range of pressures

from pldp to pwf, the following equation is integrated by the trapezoidal
rule.
pl dp
g g
m3 ( p ) = ----------- d p
g
p wf
7. A multiplication factor is calculated as follows:
k rg ( S w )m 1 ( p ) + m 2 ( p ) + k rg ( S w )m 3 ( p )
F CB = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- ( p b p wf )
o g
8. The multiplication factor is used to multiply both oil and gas

mobilities, and derivatives of gas and oil mobilities. The
multiplication factor is assumed constant for the time step.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area, ft2
C = constant for unit conversion,
d = depth, ft,
F = non-Darcy flow mobility modification factor, dimensionless,
f 1g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent weighting factor between miscible and immiscible
gas relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 1o ( N c ) =capillary number dependent reduction factor between miscible and immiscible
condensate relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 2g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting residual gas saturation, dimensionless
f 2o ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting critical condensate saturation,
dimensionless,
h = thickness, feet,
k = permeability,md,
k rg = gas phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rgb = gas phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
k rm = miscible relative permeability, fraction,
k ro = condensate phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rob = condensate phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-507

N c = capillary number, dimensionless,

N cbg = threshold capillary number for condensate relative permeability, dimensionless,
N cbo = threshold capillary number for oil relative permeability, dimensionless,
m g = parameter affecting gas phase residual saturation, dimensionless,
m o = parameter affecting condensate phase residual saturation, dimensionless,
m ( p ) = integral of mobility with respect to pressure,
n g = exponent of gas phase capillary number ratio, dimensionless
n o = exponent of condensate phase capillary number ratio, dimensionless
p = pressure, psia,
p b = gridblock pressure, psia,
p wf = wellbore flowing pressure, psia,
P c = gas/condensate capillary pressure, psia,
q g = gas phase molar flow rate, lbmoles/day,
q o = condensate phase molar flow rate, lbmoles/day
q i = molar flow rate of component i, lbmoles/day
r = radial distance, feet,
r e = external drainage radius, feet,
r w = wellbore radius, feet,
S g = gas phase saturation, fraction,
S gr = resdiual gas phase saturation, fraction,
S o = condensate phase saturation, fraction,
S oc = critical condensate phase saturation, fraction,
S w = water phase saturation, fraction,
T = transmissibility
V g = gas phase velocity, ft/day,
V rg = flowing gas volume fraction,
x = distance, feet,
w i = produced well stream component mole fraction, ,
x i = condensate phase component mole fraction,
y i = gas phase component mole fraction,
z i = overall component mole fraction,
35-508 Landmark - R2003.4

Greek
= non-Darcy flow coefficient, 1/ft
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = parameters of the non-Darcy flow coefficient,
g = non-Darcy mobility multiplication factor for radial systems,
g = gas phase gradient, psia/ft,
g = gas phase potential, psia,
= porosity, fraction
g = gas phase viscosity, centipose,
o = condensate phase viscosity, centipose,
g = gas phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
o = condensate phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
= gas/oil interfacial tension, dynes/cm,
Subscripts
g = gas phase,
i = component number,
o = condensate phase,
w = water phase, or well
R2003.4 - Landmark 35-509

35-510 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
36
36.1 Introduction
Two separate vertical equilibrium (VE) options are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE. These are:
VE option in rectangular or radial grid systems.
VE option in corner-point grid system.
36.2 VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems

Segregated flow is assumed in the VIP-EXECUTIVE VE option, applied
with rectangular or radial grid systems. This option can be used for any
grid system in which the assumption of vertical equilibrium is justified. In
segregated flow, the relative permeability functions depend only on the
end points of the rock curves and the initial fluid distribution. At each
timestep, pseudo-relative permeabilities and pseudo-capillary pressures
are calculated from the history of movement in the fluid level (i.e., the gas-
oil and water-oil contacts).
At a new timestep, new fluid levels are calculated from fluid saturations.
The VIP-EXECUTIVE VE option accounts for saturation hysteresis during
fluid level movement. As a result, the model tracks the historical
minimum water levels (Hwmin) and the historical maximum and minimum
gas levels (Hgmax and Hgmin). These fluid levels and current fluid levels
determine the saturation distribution in each gridblock from which two-
phase pseudo-functions are calculated. The oil phase relative permeability
then is calculated from the two-phase pseudo-relative permeabilities
using Stones Model I or Model II.
36.2.1 Initialization
At the beginning of each simulation run, the fluid levels are initialized
from the user input gas-oil and water-oil contact depths. Above the gas-
oil contact, the water saturation is equal to the connate water saturation
(SWL) and the gas saturation takes the maximum values (SGU), which is
the highest gas saturation entry in the gas saturation table. In the oil zone,
the gas and water saturations have the connate values (SGL and SWL).
Below the water-oil contact, the water saturation takes the maximum
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-511

VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
values (SWU) and the gas saturation has the connate value. Two VE
variables for each gridblock also are initialized: the water level (Hw)
defined as the water zone thickness divided by gridblock thickness, and
the gas level (Hg) defined as the gas zone thickness divided by gridblock
thickness (z). Finally, the average water and gas saturations in each
gridblock are calculated.
The thickness array TH for rectangular geometries, is the bedding plane

thickness, see Figure 36-1. During initialization, the thickness array is used
to calculate the average grid block properties about grid block centers.
Blocks that are split by phase boundaries are particularly sensitive to the
actual values of block thickness. Simulations with vertical equilibrium use
the thickness array to calculate the pseudo capillary pressures. Grid blocks
with a large dip angle represent a larger vertical span of reservoir than
that implied by the bedding plane thickness, see Figure 36-1. For this
reason, THVE, is used by default in calculations of average grid block
properties and vertical equilibrium pseudo capillary pressures in VIP-
CORE version 2.4R. In previous versions of VIP-CORE the bedding plane
thickness TH was used.
The key word THCNTR in VIP-CORE allows the use of TH in place of

THVE thus allowing reproduction of old results.
TH
THVE
Figure 36-1: Block Span THVE Versus Block Thickness TH
Additionally, the method of calculating dip angles in VIP-CORE 2.4R has

been changed.
The old method of calculating dip angles for block (i,j) used the slope
between blocks (i-1,j) and (i,j) in the x-direction, and the slope between
blocks (i, j-1) and (i,j) in the y-direction. Figure 36-2 shows a cross section
of the resulting grid block geometry generated by the old method. Notice
the poor representation of the structure in those regions with changes in
36-512 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems
the sign of the dip angle.
Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method
The new method of calculating dip angles for block (i,j) uses the slope
between blocks (i-1,j) and (i+1,j) in the x-direction, and the slope between
blocks (i,j-1) and (i,j+1) in the y-direction. Figure 36-3 shows the new
representation of the same cross-section modeled in Figure 36-2. Notice
the improved representation of the reservoir structure.
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-513

Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method
36-514 Landmark - R2003.4

36.2.2 Two-Phase Gas-Oil Pseudo Functions

Three gas levels (Hg, Hgmin, and Hgmax) are used to track the history of the
gas-oil contact movement. The gas zone between gas levels Hgmin and Hg
previously was an oil zone. Consequently, gas saturation in this new gas
zone is equal to gas saturation at a residual oil (SGRO). Conversely, the oil
zone between gas levels Hg and Hgmax previously was a gas zone. This
new oil zone has a trapped gas saturation (from the primary imbibition
process) of SGTR. For a gas-oil two-phase system with a connate water
saturation of SWL, the gas and oil saturations and their corresponding
relative permeabilities in each zone are shown in the following table:
Gas Level Gas Saturation Gas Rel. Perm. Oil Rel. Perm.
0.0
SGU KRGU 0
Hgmin
Hg SGRO KRGRO 0
SGTR 0 KROGR
Hgmax
1.0 SGL 0 KRORG
For a given average gas saturation, Sg, the new gas level is calculated by
S g H gmin ( SGU SGRO ) H gmax ( SGTR SGL ) SGL

H g = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (36-1)
SGRO SGTR
The volume-averaged relative permeabilities then are calculated to yield

the pseudo-relative permeability to gas, krg, and the pseudo-relative
permeability to oil in the gas-oil system, krog:
k rg = KRGRO ( H g H gmin ) + KRGU H gmin (36-2)
K rog = KROGR ( H gmax H g ) + KRORG ( 1 H gmax ) (36-3)
Note that these pseudo-relative permeabilities are valid only for flow in
areal directions. Thus, the VE option should be used exclusively in one- or
two-dimensional areal systems, unless the directional relative
permeability option, DRELPM, is also used.
The gas-oil pseudo-capillary pressure is determined from the projected

difference between the gas and oil pressures at the gridblock midpoint. If
the pressure at gas level (Hg) is P* (i.e., zero capillary pressure), then the
projected gas and oil phase pressures at the grid midpoint are:
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-515

gMg g
P g = P* ------------------------------------- ( H g 0.5 )z (36-4)
5.6146 144g c
o Mo g
P o = P* ------------------------------------- ( H g 0.5 )z (36-5)
5.6146 144g c
Thus, the pseudo-capillary pressure, Pcg, is
( o M o g M g )g
P cg = P g P o = ------------------------------------------- ( H g 0.5 )z (36-6)
5.6146 144g c
When the gas level is monotonically decreasing (or increasing), the current
gas level, Hg, is the same as Hgmin (or Hgmax). Under this condition, the
symbols Hgmin (or Hgmax) in Equations 36-1, 36-2, and 36-3 should be
replaced by Hg.
36.2.3 Two-Phase Water-Oil Pseudo Functions

Procedures for calculation of the water-oil pseudo-functions are the same
as those of the gas-oil pseudo-functions. Oil saturation in the water zone
between water levels Hwmin and Hw is equal to trapped oil saturation
SOTR. The oil zone between water level Hw and the historical maximum
water level (Hwmax) has an irreducible water saturation of SWR. For a
water-oil two-phase system, the water and oil saturations and their
corresponding relative permeabilities in each zone are given in the
following table:
Water Level Water Saturation Water Rel. Perm. Oil Rel. Perm.
1.0
SWL 0 KRORW
Hwmax
SWR 0 KROWR
Hw
1-SOTR KRWRO 0
Hwmin
SWU KRWU 0
0.0
36-516 Landmark - R2003.4

For a given average water saturation, Sw, the new water level is calculated
by
S w H wmin ( SWU SWRO ) H wmax ( SWR SWL ) SWL

H w = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (36-7)
SWRO SWL
The pseudo-relative permeability to water, krw , and the pseudo-relative

permeability to oil in the water-oil system, krow , are
k rw = KRWU H wmin + KRWRO ( H w H wmin ) (36-8)
k row = KRORW ( 1 H w ) + KROWR ( H wmax H w ) (36-9)
Following the same procedure described in the gas-oil system, the water-
oil pseudo-capillary pressure, Pcw , is
o
( o M o w B w M w )g
P cw = ----------------------------------------------------- ( H w 0.5 ) z (36-10)
5.6146 144 g c
When the water level monotonically decreases, the current water level,
Hw , is the same as Hwmin. Under this condition, symbols Hwmin in
Equations 36-7 to 36-8 should be replaced by Hw .
36.2.4 VE Directional Relative Permeability

The usage of Vertical Equilibrium concepts can be extended to vertical
cross-sections and three-dimensional grid systems if the directional
relative permeability option is also used. This feature enables separate
relative permeabilities to be computed with regard to vertical flow up or
down. For each gridblock, three sets of relative permeabilities are
computed, based on the calculated fluid levels and segregated fluid
saturations. The previously described procedures are used for the
pseudo-relative permeabilities in the areal directions. A user-specified
fraction of the gridblock is considered when computing the effective
saturations for flow in the vertical directions. The saturations in the top
fraction of the gridblock will be used in calculating the pseudo relative
permeabilties for flow upwards, and the saturations in the bottom fraction
of the gridblock will be used in calculating the pseudo relative
permeabilities for flow downwards.
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-517

VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
36.3 VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System

The VE option described in the previous section is applicable only for
reservoir models with rectangular gridblock geometry. It is incompatible
with the corner-point geometry definition of dipping and sloping grid
cells. This option is based on the assumption of complete fluid segregation
in a gridblock. That implies that capillary pressure effects are disregarded
and that there is no transition zone between fluid phases.
Two new VE options have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE: an

enhanced vertical equilibrium option with complete fluid segregation
(VEWO,VEGO) and a gravity-capillary equilibrium option (VEITS). The
new VE options include accurate treatment of the gridblock geometry and
the ability to calculate different pseudo-relative permeabilities in six flow
directions. The first option is based on the complete fluid segregation
assumption. The second option does not use this assumption; it accurately
treats capillary pressure effects in both the initial and dynamic parts of
simulations.
36.3.1 Features of the Corner Point VE Options

The VE option is designed to calculate pressure and saturation
distributions versus depth in each gridblock from vertical equilibrium
conditions during the initial and dynamic parts of a simulation. The
saturation distributions are used to calculate pseudo-relative
permeabilities and capillary pressure. This option can be applied in three-
dimensional reservoir models in which vertical equilibrium assumptions
are justified.
The following two VE options have been implemented in VIP-

EXECUTIVE to accurately model gridblock geometries in multilayer
systems and treat capillary pressure effects:
Enhanced Vertical Equilibrium Option with Completely Segregated

Fluids (VEWO, VEGO).
Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium Option (VEITS).
The following VE assumption is used in both VE options:
Vertical equilibrium is established in each gridblock in a short time as

compared to horizontal flows. This implies that the flow rates of oil,
gas, and water phases in the vertical direction are assumed to be equal
to zero within each gridblock.
36-518 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System
The following additional assumption is used in the VEWO (VEGO)

option:
Fluids within a cell are completely segregated. This implies that

capillary pressure effects are disregarded and there are no transition
zones between reservoir fluid phases.
The new VIP-EXECUTIVE VE options have the following features.
1. Accurate treatment of the block geometry.
2. Calculation of the VE pseudo-directional relative permeabilities for six

gridblock faces.
3. Numerical dispersion control.
4. Accurate treatment of capillary pressure under initial conditions to

produce correct volumes for initial fluid in place (VEITS option only).
5. Accurate treatment of capillary pressure effects in the initial state and

dynamic parts of the calculations. It accurately defines the position of
the oil-water contact and the oil-water transition zone when varying
ratios of capillary, viscous, and gravity forces are present at different
times during simulation (VEITS option only).
6. Calculation of VE pseudo-capillary pressure (VEWO (VEGO)) option

only.
7. Mixed rock and the VE pseudo-relative permeabilities and capillary

pressure can be used with weighting coefficients, as defined by the
FVEWO, FVEGO arrays. In calculating the mixed relative
permeabilities, the end-point scaling option can be applied to the rock
part of the relative permeabilities.
8. The VEWO (VEGO) and VEITS options are completely vectorized.

The VEITS option is slower than the VEWO (VEGO) option.
36.3.2 Enhanced VE Procedure with Segregated Fluids (VEWO,VEGO)

The keyword VEWO (and/or VEGO) should be included in the
initialization data set to invoke this option. The water (and/or gas) VE
pseudo-relative permeabilities and capillary pressures are calculated, if
the keyword VEWO (and/or VEGO) is used. The mixed VE and rock
relative permeabilities and capillary pressures are used if the array
FVEWO (and/or FVEGO) is applied.
At each timestep, pseudo-relative permeabilities for six gridblock faces are

calculated from a history of the movement of the gas-oil and water-oil
contacts. The saturation distribution in a three-phase gridblock (shown in
Figure 25-1) is based on the above-stated VE assumptions. Seven depth
intervals are divided by the highest oil-gas contact (GOCh), current gas-oil
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-519

contact (GOC), lowest gas-oil contact (GOCl), highest water-oil contact

(WOCh), current water-oil contact (WOC), and lowest water-oil contact
(WOCl). Water saturation above the highest oil-water contact takes a
connate value (SWL). Gas saturation below the lowest gas-oil contact has
a connate value (SGL). Gas saturation above the highest gas-oil contact is
equal to gas saturation at connate oil (SGU). Gas has displaced oil in the
region below the highest gas-oil contact and above the current gas-oil
contact. Consequently, gas saturation is equal to gas saturation at residual
oil (SGRO) in this region. Oil has displaced gas in the region below the
current gas-oil contact and above the lowest gas-oil contact. Therefore,
gas saturation takes a trapped value (SGTR) from the primary imbibition
process in this region. Oil has displaced water in the region below the
highest water-oil contact and above the current water-oil contact.
Consequently, water saturation has residual value (SWR) in this region.
Water has displaced oil in the region below the current water-oil contact
and above the lowest water-oil contact. Therefore, oil saturation is equal to
trapped oil saturation (SOTR) in this region. Water saturation below the
lowest water-oil contact is equal to water saturation at connate oil (SWU).
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGU
GOCh
Gas Sw = SWL, Sg = SGRO
GOC
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGTR
GOCl
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGL
WOCh
Oil Sw = SWR, Sg = SGL
WOC
WOCl Sw = 1 - SOTR, Sg = SGL
Water Sw = SWU, Sg = SGL
Figure 36-4: Gridblock Saturation Distributions in the VEWO, VEGO Option
The procedures described below are used in the initialization module

(VIP-CORE) and the simulation module (VIP-EXECUTIVE) to compute
saturation distributions, directional relative permeabilities, and capillary
pressures in each gridblock.
The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Initialization Procedure
The three depth regions (gas, oil, and water) can exist at the initial
moment of time in a gridblock (Figure 25-2). The oil-water and gas-oil
contacts WOC, GOC are set to the initial values, as specified by the user on
the IEQUIL card. The highest and lowest contacts are selected as:
GOCl = GOCh = GOC, WOCl = WOCh = WOC.
36-520 Landmark - R2003.4

The fractional volumes of the gas, oil, and water regions (FVg, FVo,FVw)
are calculated as FVp = Vp / Vb, p = g, o, w; where Vg, Vo, Vw are volumes of
the gas, oil, and water regions and Vb is a gridblock bulk volume. An
accurate numerical technique is used in VIP-CORE to calculate volumes
Vg, Vo, Vw , and Vb. These volumes are defined with an approximation
tolerance, as specified by the user on the VAITS card.
o o
The initial average block saturations S wb and S gb are calculated using the
saturation distributions in the block (Figure 36-5):
o
S wb = SWL*FV g + SWL*FV o + SWU*FV w (36-11)
o
S gb = SGU*FV g + SGL*FV o + SGL*FV w (36-12)
where SWL, SGL are connate water and gas saturations, SWU is water
saturation at connate oil saturation in an oil-water system, and SGU is gas
saturation at connate oil saturation in an oil-gas system.
Each block is divided into N sublayers (Figure 36-5). The number of

sublayers is specified by the user on the VEWO or VEGO card. The
accuracy of the calculations and the CPU memory requirements are
increased by increasing the number of sub-layers. The default number of
sub-layers is equal to ten.
Vg
Vb Vj GOCh = GOC
Aj1
Vo A1
WOCl = WOC
Vw
Figure 36-5: The VE Initialization Procedure
For each sublayer, the fractional volume FVj and the fractional areas FAji
for each gridblock face are calculated from:
Vj
FV j = ------- , j = 1, 2, ...,N (36-13)
Vb
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-521

A ji
FA ji = -------- , j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ..., 6 (36-14)
Ai
where Vj is the volume of the jth sublayer (j = 1,2,...,N), Aji is the area of
the intersection of the jth sub-layer and the ith gridblock face, and Ai is
the area of the ith face (i = 1,2,...,6).
36.3.3 The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Simulation Procedure

t t
Assume that the block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) are known
from the outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations are
executed for calculation of the current positions of gas-oil and water-oil
contacts (GOC, WOC), gas and water saturations in each sublayer (Sgj,
Swj), VE pseudo-relative permeabilities, VE pseudo-capillary pressure,
mixed relative permeabilities, and mixed capillary pressure.
Water saturations in the sub-layers depend on the current position of the

oil-water contact (Figure 25-1). Therefore, the current position of the
water-oil contact (WOC) is calculated from a condition in which the
t
average block water saturation should be equal to S wb :
j=N
Swj ( WOC ) FV j
t
= S wb (36-15)
j=1
where Swj is a function of the location of the WOC. If the WOC falls inside
a sub-layer, the sub-layer is further divided in order to accurately calculate
Swj.
Similarly, the current position of gas-oil contact GOC is calculated from a

t
condition in which average block gas saturation should be equal to S gb :
j=N
S gj ( GOC ) FV j
t
= S gb
(36-16)
j=1
The lowest and highest contacts are recalculated. The water and gas
saturations in each sub-layer are defined as shown in Figure 25-1.
The relative permeabilities for an intersection of each block face with each
sub-layer are calculated by:
K wij = K wi ( S wj ), j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-17)
K gij = K gi ( S gj ), j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-18)
36-522 Landmark - R2003.4

where Kwi, Kgi are values of rock water and gas relative permeabilities for
the ith face.
The VE pseudo-relative permeabilities are defined for each gridblock face
j=N
K pi ( Spj ) FAij ,
ve
K pi = p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-19)
j=1
The VE pseudo-capillary pressures are calculated as follows:
ve
P cw = g ( w o ) ( WOC D center ) (36-20)
ve
P cg = g ( o g ) ( GOC D center ) (36-21)
where g, o, and w are densities of the gas, oil, and water phases, and
D center is the depth of the block center.
Rock relative permeabilities and rock capillary pressures are determined

from user input tables:
rock t
K pi = K pi ( S pb ), p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-22)
rock t
P cp = P cp ( S pb ), p = w, g (36-23)
The directional relative permeabilities or end-point scaling option can be

applied for these calculations.
The mixed relative permeabilities for each gridblock face and the mixed
capillary pressure are calculated as follows. Parameters FVEWO and
FVEGO are specified by the user for each gridblock using the FVEWO and
FVEGO arrays. If the VEWO (or VEGO) option is not used, only rock
water (or gas) relative permeabilities are applied in a simulation.
mixed ve rock
K wi = FVEWO K wi + ( 1 FVEWO )K wi , i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-24)
mixed ve rock
K gi = FVEGO K wi + ( 1 FVEGO )K gi , i = 1, 2, ..., 6 (36-25)
mixed ve rock
P cw = FVEWO P cw + ( 1 FVEWO )P cw , (36-26)
mixed ve rock
P cg = FVEGO P cg + ( 1 FVEGO )P cg (36-27)
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-523

36.3.4 The Capillary-Gravity Equilibrium Option (VEITS)

This option is based on the assumption that phase hydrostatic potentials
are independent of depth within a cell. The assumption of complete
segregation of reservoir fluids is not used. This implies that oil-water and
gas-oil transition zones exist. The distributions of the pressure and
saturations versus depth in each cell are calculated from the capillary-
gravity equilibrium conditions.
The keyword VEITS should be included in an initialization data set to

invoke this option. The capillary pressure curves should not be flat to use
the VEITS option. The program internally checks the capillary pressure
curves. If they are flat, then the VEWO, VEGO option is used instead of
the VEITS option.
The procedures described below are applied in the initialization (VIP-

CORE) and simulation (VIP-EXECUTIVE) modules to calculate pressure
and saturation distributions, directional relative permeabilities, and
capillary pressures in each gridblock.
The VEITS Initialization Procedure (VIP-CORE)
The block is divided into N sub-layers, where N is specified by the user on

the VEITS card. For each sub-layer, fractional volumes FVj and fractional
areas FAji (for each block face) are calculated and stored. The initial
pressures and saturations in each sub-layer are calculated using the
capillary gravity initialization procedure (VAITS).
36.3.5 The VEITS Simulation Procedure

t t
Assume that average block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) and
t t t
average block pressures in the oil, gas, and water phases ( P ob, P gb, P wb )
are known from the outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations
are executed to calculate oil, gas, and water pressures (Poj, Pgj, Pwj), gas
and water saturations (Sgj,Swj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N), and the VE
pseudo-relative permeabilities and mixed relative permeabilities for each
face of the block.
Water pressures Pwj, oil pressures Poj, and water saturations Swj in each
sub-layer are calculated from the solution of the capillary-gravity
equilibrium equations:
dP o
--------- = o ( P o )g (36-28)
dD
36-524 Landmark - R2003.4

dP w
---------- = w ( P w )g (36-29)
dD
P o P w = P cw ( S w ) (36-30)
with the following conditions:
Water pressure at a block center should be equal to the average block

t
water pressure, P wb :
t
P w ( D center ) = P wb (36-31)
The oil pressure at some depth, Do, should be equal to the average
t
block oil pressure, P ob :
t
P o ( D o ) = P ob (36-32)
Depth Do is considered an additional variable, which is recalculated in

each outer iteration.
The volume-averaged water saturation should be equal to the average

t
block saturation, S wb :
j=N
Swj FV j
t
= S wb (36-33)
j=1
Gas pressure (Pgj) and saturation (Sgj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N) are
calculated from solution of the capillary-gravity equilibrium equations:
dP g
--------- = g ( P g )g (36-34)
dD
P g P o = P cg ( S g ) (36-35)
with the following conditions:
Gas pressure at some depth Dg should be equal to the average block

t
gas pressure, P gb :
t
P g ( D g ) = P gb (36-36)
Depth Dg is considered an additional variable, which is recalculated in

each outer iteration.
The volume-averaged gas saturation should be equal to average block

t
saturation, S gb :
R2003.4 - Landmark 36-525

j=N
S gj FV j
t
= S gb (36-37)
j=1
After calculating the water and gas saturations in different sub-layers, the
relative permeabilities are calculated using the same procedure as in the
VEWO (VEGO) option.
36-526 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
37
37.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE can track flow, accumulation, and production of up to
six different water types. Note that the actual reservoir performance is
completely unaffected by this option. The water movement is exactly the
same; only the splitting and tracking of the water phase into different
water types is performed. Water types may be specified for the in situ
water, for each water injection well, and for each numerical aquifer. The
major assumption is that the water properties (density, viscosity) are
independent of the water type.
This option is implemented with the IMPES formulation only. Separate

volumetric balance equations are solved at the end of each time step. For
each grid block in the grid system, Equation 37-1 is solved for the new
water saturation for each water type j.
n n+1 n n P n I
[ ( T w F T w j ) ( Po P cwo w D ) ] Q w ( F T w j ) + Q w j
V S w j S w j n
n+1
= ----- ----------- -----------
(37-1)
t B w Bw
where
FTwj fractional flow term for water type j
Swj fractional water saturation for water type j
and
FT w j
= 1.0 for each grid block (37-2)
j
Sw j
= Sw for each grid block (37-3)
j
The fractional flow terms for the water types can be adjusted by two user-
specified parameters, if performance other than complete mixing of the
water types is desired. The single parameter, ftwmix, determines the
relative amount of mixing with the connate water. A value of 1.0 (default)
R2003.4 - Landmark 37-527

specifies complete mixing with the connate water, while a value of 0.0
specifies complete bypass of the connate water. Any value between these
two specifies partial mixing between the connate water and all of the other
water types.
First, Equation 37-4 is used to calculate the normalized fractional

saturations for each water type.
dSw j Sw j
S wn = ( 1 ftwmix ) ----------------------- + ftwmix --------- (37-4)
j Sw Sw R Sw
where
dSw j = Sw j Sw R for j = in situ (37-5)
= Sw j for j in situ
and
Sw nj
= 1.0 (37-6)
where Swnj is the normalized saturation of mobile water type j. Thus, the
Swnj are the fractions of the mobile water phase for each of the water types.
The grid array parameter, tkexp, determines preferential flow between the
in situ water and all of the other water types. These grid-block values are
used as exponents in the fractional flow (Equations 37-7, 37-8, and 37-9),
such that a value of 1.0 (default) yields no preference between the in situ
water and all of the other water types. As shown in Figure 37-1, a value
less than 1.0 gives a higher preference to flow to the extraneous water
types (i.e., all water types except in situ), while a value greater than 1.0
gives a higher preference to flow to the in situ water.
The fractional flow terms are split between the mobile in situ water and
the mobile extraneous water types using Equations 37-7 and 37-8.
tkexp
FW EXT = ( 1 S wnin situ ) (37-7)
= fractional flow for all water types except the in situ water
F T win situ = ( 1 FW EXT ) (37-8)
37-528 Landmark - R2003.4

1.0
tkexp < 1
tkexp = 1
FWEXT
tkexp > 1
0.0 Sw ninsitu 1.0
Figure 37-1: Variation of Fractional Flow of Extraneous Water Types

with Exponent tkexp
The fractional flow terms for each of the extraneous water types then are
calculated using Equation 37-9, based on the relative amount of mobile
fluid for each type.
Sw n j (37-9)
- FW EXT , j in situ
F Tw j = ----------------------------
1 Sw nin situ
R2003.4 - Landmark 37-529

37-530 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
38
38.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the relationships that VIP-EXECUTIVE uses to
describe well inflow performance. The Inflow Performance Relationship
(IPR) describes reservoir performance and is the relationship between the
reservoir pressure at the wellbore and the surface flow rate. IPR takes into
account pressure losses that are attributable to both the formation
(reservoir) and completion resistances at the wellbore, which are included
in the total drawdown. The natural flowing point occurs at the point of
intersection between the IPR and the Tubing Performance Curve (TPC),
also known as the lift curve or outflow curve. At this point, reservoir
pressure at the wellbore becomes equal to the bottom-hole flowing
pressure required by the producing string so that the well naturally flows
to the surface. This is illustrated in Figure 38-1.
Figure 38-1: Inflow and Outflow Curve for a Production Well Showing
Intersection Point
R2003.4 - Landmark 38-531

Wellbore Flow Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
38.2 Wellbore Flow Model

The wellbore flow model is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to calculate the
molar production rates of different fluid phases from each production well
with a specified bottomhole pressure. Slightly different expressions are
used to calcualte molal production rates for oil, gas, and the water phases.
The expressions follow.
Oil mole rate qlo and gas mole rate qlg in the lth perforation are calculated
in VIP-EXECUTIVE using the following expression:

kr j
q lj = W I l k h -------------
j
- l [ P l P bh l ( D l D ref ) ] , l = 1, 2 ...,NPER, j = o, g (38-1)
l l
j

where
Pl gridblock pressure of the cell containing the lth

perforation
WIl well index in the lth perforation, which is defined

in Section 38.3
klhl a product of permeability and gridblock thickness

in the lth perforation
krj relative permeability for the oil phase (j=o), gas

phase (j=g), or water phase (j=w), which depends
on the gridblock saturations
j viscosity of phase j (j=o, g, w) at pressure pl.
l a back flow indicator that indicates whether back

flow is taking place in the model and is equal to 1
when Pl - Pbh - l (Dl - Dref ) 0 and is set to 0 for all
other conditions, if the cross flow model is not
active. (See Section 39.7 for more details of the
crossflow model).
j mole density of the phase j (j = o,g) at pressure pl
l pressure gradient in the lth perforation (see Section

39.6)
Dl depth of the lth perforation
Dref datum depth
NPER the number of perforations
38-532 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Wellbore Flow Model
o,g oil or gas phase.
Water rate qlw in standard conditions in the lth perforation is simulated as

follows:
o
k rw w
q lj = WI l k l h l -------------- l [ P l P bh l ( D l D ref ) ] , l = 1, 2, , NPER
w
(38-2)
where
o
w water density at standard conditions.
After summing Equations 38-1 or 38-2 through all open perforations, the
oil mole rate Qo, gas mole rate Qq, and water rate in standard conditions
Qsw can be written:
NPER NPER
k rj j
Qj = q lj = W I l k l h l ------------ l [ UW 4 l P bh ] , j = o, g (38-3)
l=1 l=1 j
o
NPER NPER
k rw w
Q sw = q lw = W I l k l h l -------------- l [ UW 4 l P bh ] (38-4)
l=1 l=1 w
where
UW4l = Pl - l (Dl - Dref), pressure in a gridblock containing the lth

perforation, recalculated at datum depth.
The mole rates of the fluid components can be expressed in the following
form:
NPER
Qi = ( q ol xw il + q gl yw il )
l=1
k ro o k rg g
NPER

= W I l k l h l l ------------- xw il + ------------- yw il ( UW 4 l P bh ), i = 1, 2, , N c
o g
l=1
(38-5)
R2003.4 - Landmark 38-533

Well Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
38.3 Well Index

Well index, or WI, as used in the wellbore flow model in VIP-EXECUTIVE,
is discussed in detail in Appendix A. It can be defined for the entire well
using the WI, RFLOW, or PI card, or for each perforation using the FPERF
card. It can be defined using any of the following options:
Direct specification of well index in WI card.
Specification of an equivalent radius of the well gridblock (rb),

wellbore radius (rw), and skin factor (skin) in the RFLOW card.
Specification of productivity index (PI) in the PI card.
Specification of well index or equivalent radius for each perforation

using FPERF card.
Options 1, 2, and 3 are mutually exclusive and result in setting the same
WI value for each perforation. In the fourth option, the well index is
allowed to vary for each perforation. The values of well index for each
perforation (WIL) can be entered or computed internally using the data
specified on the FPERF card.
If the RFLOW card is used, as in the second option, the well index is
calculated in VIP-EXECUTIVE as:
2
WI = ---------------------------------- (38-6)
r
ln ----- + skin
b
r w
where
rb equivalent radius of the gridblock containing the

well
rW wellbore radius
skin total skin factor including the skin from the partial
penetration effect.
Here, rb is defined as the distance from the well at which the local pressure
is equal to the pressure of the block. Note that rb may be calculated by
applying Peacemans34 formula, a general expression that is given below
for wells located in the center of rectangular gridblocks.9
38-534 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Index
k y 12 kx 12
----- x + ----- y
2 2
k x k y
- p
r b = 0.28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ (38-7)
k y 1 4 k x 1 4
----- + -----
k x k y
where
kx permeability of the gridblock in the x-direction
ky permeability of the gridblock in y-direction
x dimension of the gridblock in x-direction
y dimension of the gridblock in y-direction.
For isotropic properties, the above equation transforms to the following

simple form:
2 2 12
r b = 0.14 ( x + y ) (38-8)
If rb is set to zero on the RFLOW card rb defaults to the value given by

Equation 38-8.
The well index in Equation 38-6 also can be calculated in VIP-EXECUTIVE

from the productivity/injectivity index. A steady-state productivity index
is defined as the production rate of a chosen phase divided by the pressure
drawdown incurred during production of the fluid into the wellbore.
Drawdown is the difference between reservoir pressure at the drainage
radius and the bottom-hole flowing pressure of the well. Therefore, the
productivity index is defined as:
qo
PI = -------------------- (38-9)
P d P bh
where
Pd = pressure at the drainage radius.
Equation 38-9 also is used for the injectivity index when the injection rates
are treated as negative. Well index WI for an oil producer can be converted
from PI by the following expression:
( PI ) ( gf )
WI = ----------------------------------------------- (38-10)
k h k ro
0.001127 -----------------
o Bo
R2003.4 - Landmark 38-535

Well Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where
gf = dimensionless geometry factor that converts the productivity/

injectivity index from a drainage radius basis to a gridblock basis
and may be defined by:
rd
ln -----
r w
gf = ---------------- (38-11)
rb
ln -----
r w
Note that Equation 38-11 is not always applicable. See Appendex A,

Section A.6.
Several new optional variables are included in the FPERF card that allow
the well index to vary with each perforation and allow optional
calculation of the reduced entry skin factor. The reduced entry skin factor
is added to the optionally specified skin (damage) factor to determine the
total skin factor used to calculate the well index for each perforation.
When using the FPERF card, VIP-EXECUTIVE will calculate a default rb
value for each layer if the RADB keyword is not specified. The default rb
value is calculated from Equation 38-7.
38-536 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation
38.4 Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation

The following equation is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the bottom-hole
pressure calculation when production rate is specified, in contrast to
Section 38.2 which calculates the rate given a bottom-hole pressure.
NPER
Q s = BSEP W I l FMOB l ( UW 4 l P bh )
l=1
NPER
+ w W I l FMOB lw ( UW 4 l P bh ) (38-12)
l=1
where
BSEP the separator coefficient, defined as a ratio of the

hydrocarbon rate in standard conditions to the
corresponding mole rate and given by
o Q so + g Q sg
BSEP = ----------------------------------
- (38-13)
Qo + Qg
Qso, Qsg oil and gas production rates in standard conditions
Qs production rate in standard conditions as specified

by the user in the QMAX card
o, g, and w parameters for each phase, oil, gas, and water,

(equal to 1 if the rate for that phase is specified and
equal to 0 in all other cases)
FMOBl = MOBlo + MOBlg mobility of the hydrocarbon phase in the

lth perforation where mobility of each
phase is defined by
o
k rj j k rw w
MOB lj = k l h l -----------, j = o, g, MOB lw = k l h l --------------, l = 1, 2, , NPER
j w
(38-14)
The right side of Equation 38-12 is a non-linear function of the bottom-

hole pressure, because the separator coefficient BSEP depends on fluid
compositions zil, i = 1,2,...,NC, which are functions of the bottom-hole
pressure. The separator coefficient, BSEP, can be found from solution of
the surface separator equations26. BSEP does not depend on bottom-hole
pressure when there is only one perforation in the production well. Hence,
there is no need for iterations in this case.
R2003.4 - Landmark 38-537

Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
38.5 Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves

The following example demonstrates the use of inflow and outflow curves
in VIP-EXECUTIVE to determine the natural flowing point of the well.
The tubinghead or wellhead flowing conditions are specified. The well
hydraulics model, the wellbore flow model, and the surface separator
model are applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE to calculate bottom-hole pressure,
if the wellhead pressure is specified by the user.
The well hydraulics model is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to define the

bottom-hole pressure Pbh of the production well as a function of the
specified tubinghead pressure, Pth , oil flow rate (or liquid flow rate) in
sw Q
standard conditions Qso , water cut WCUT = --------- , and gas-oil ratio
Q so
Q sg
GOR = --------
- (or gas-liquid ratio), and artificial lift quantity ALQ:
Q so
P bh = H T bh ( P th, Q so, WCU T , GOR, ALQ ) (38-15)
For three-phase producers, functions HTbh are defined in VIP-

EXECUTIVE in a tabular form as hydraulics tables. The physical
significance of ALQ entries is defined by the user and they have no fixed
units. By specifying ALQ, the user can model gas lift, pumping, or
compression power and ALQ values can be assigned to any production
well yielding an additional level of interpolation between the appropriate
BHPTAB table entries.
The average pressure and temperature method as described by Beggs35

is used to define functions HTbh for gas producers. The independent
variables used in the option for the two- or three-phase gas producers in
the BHPTAB are tubinghead pressure Pth, gas phase rate Qg, oil-gas ratio
OGR, and water-gas ratio WGR. These parameters can be used with ALQ
for further interpolation of the BHPTAB. A newly implemented algorithm
in VIP-EXECUTIVE based on the Beggs method35 allows the user to
specify the wellbore hydraulics tables for injectors. In the new feature, the
BHITAB tables are used to relate bottom-hole injection pressure as a
function of injection rate and tubinghead pressure. Each table can be
defined independently and more than one well can refer to the same
BHITAB table. This option is selected for each well by specifying the
BHITAB table number on the ITUBE card.
The wellbore flow model and surface separator model26 define the oil, gas,
and water rates of a three-phase producer in standard conditions as
functions of the bottom-hole pressure:
Q so = Q so ( P bh ) (38-16)
38-538 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves
Q sw ( P bh )
- = WCUT ( P bh )
WCUT = ---------------------- (38-17)
Q so ( P bh )
Q sg ( P bh )
- = GOR ( P bh )
GOR = --------------------- (38-18)
Q so ( P bh )
The oil and gas production rates in reservoir conditions can be defined
from the wellbore flow (Equation 38-3). The oil and gas production rates
in standard conditions can be found using the multistage separator
model.26 The water rate in standard conditions can be calculated from
Equation 38-4.
If the tubinghead pressure, Pth is specified by the user, then the problem
consists of determining the bottom-hole pressure, Pbh, which honors both
the outflow (Equation 38-15) and the inflow (Equations 38-16, 38-17, and
38-18).
The required bottom-hole pressure is determined by the pressure at the

intersection of the outflow curve and the inflow curve. The natural flow
rate is the rate corresponding to the bottom-hole pressure (Figure 38-1).
For any oil production rate Qso in standard conditions, the corresponding
bottom-hole pressure on the inflow curve can be calculated from solution
of the wellbore flash problem26 with the specified surface rate. The gas
and water production rates in surface conditions also are obtained from
solution of this problem. The bottom-hole pressure on the outflow curve is
determined using the well hydraulics model, Equation 38-15.
R2003.4 - Landmark 38-539

Tubing Performance Curve Calculation VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
38.6 Tubing Performance Curve Calculation

Remember that the point of intersection between the inflow curve and the
outflow curve, also known as the lift curve or Tubing Performance Curve
(TPC), determines the natural flowing point of the producing well. TPC
defines bottom-hole pressure, BHP, as a function of the geometry of the
producing string, flow conditions (e.g., GOR or GLR, water cut, liquid
flow rates), and tubing head conditions (i.e., THP). Multiple sets of TPC
may need to be input that depend on well geometry. TPC is input to VIP-
EXECUTIVE with the BHPTAB card, which relates tubinghead to bottom-
hole pressures under the various flow conditions used to generate TPC.
A number of multiphase flow programs is available to generate lift curves

for VIP-EXECUTIVE. These programs offer various industry-standard
empirical correlations for vertical and horizontal flow to predict pressure
losses in the flow strings.
38-540 Landmark - R2003.4

Chapter
39
39.1 Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the technical details of the VIP-
EXECUTIVE well management features.
39.2 Well Data

The well data include all the data that describe wells, such as the
definition of all well and well management parameters. The maximum
number of wells permitted in a model run is set by variable NWMAX on
the DIM card. The default value of NWMAX is 10. The minimum required
data for production and injection wells follows.
39.2.1 Minimum Data Requirements for Production Well

The data requirement for a producer depends on the type of constraint
specified for the well:
Rate constraint only:
Well data, such as name, location, and gathering center (WELL

card)
Well type, such as oil, gas, or water (PROD card)
Perforation data, such as number and location (FPERF card)
Maximum flow rate (QMAX card).
Bottom-hole pressure constraint:

card)
Maximum flow rate (QMAX card)
Productivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-541

Well Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and datum depth data (BHP card).
Tubinghead pressure constraint:

card)
Perforation data such as number and location (FPERF card)
Productivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
Tubinghead pressure (THP card)
Tabular data relating THP to BHP (ITUBE and BHPTAB cards).
Note that if no productivity index is defined by a WI, PI, or RFLOW card,

well productivity automatically is adjusted to cause the well to flow at the
rate specified on the QMAX card (i.e., the well defaults to rate constraint).
39.2.2 Minimum Data Requirements for Injection Wells

The data requirement for an injector depends on the type of constraint
specified for the well:
Rate constraint only:

card)
Well type, such as gas or water (INJ card)
Maximum flow rate (QMAX card).
Bottom-hole pressure constraint:

card)
Injectivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
39-542 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Data
Bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and datum depth data (BHP card).
Tubinghead pressure constraint:

card)
Injectivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
Tubinghead pressure (THP card)
Tubing data required to calculate BHP from THP (TUBE and

DIAM cards).
Note that if no injectivity index is defined by a WI, PI, or RFLOW card, the
injectivity automatically is adjusted to cause the well to flow at the rate
specified on the QMAX card (i.e., the well defaults to rate constraint).
39.2.3 Vertical and Deviated Wells

Wells may be vertical or deviated in VIP-EXECUTIVE. A well is referred to
as vertical if all of its perforations have the same areal coordinates; if
not, it is deviated. The deviated well option can be used to model any
non-vertical well, including horizontal wells. More than one well may
coexist in a given gridblock.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-543

Well Completion Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.3 Well Completion Data

A well can be completed in multiple layers of the reservoir. Each
completion between the reservoir and wellbore is defined as a perforation.
A well can have any number of perforations. The following restrictions
apply to perforation data:
The maximum number of perforations per well cannot exceed

NPRFMX, specified on the DIM card. The default value for NPRFMX
is 5.
The total number of perforations for all wells cannot exceed

NPRFTOT, as specified on the DIM card. The default value for
NPRFTOT is 25.
39.3.1 FPERF Card

Completion data for each well are specified using the FPERF card.
Completion data in VIP-EXECUTIVE have the following characteristics.
Basic Perforation Data
There are many ways to specify perforation data. Some of the commonly
used formats and their implications follow:
The user can specify the layers that are open to flow. In addition, the
user can specify permeability (K), thickness (H), or permeability-
thickness product (KH) for each perforation. The permeability-
thickness product for the perforation depends on the data specified.
The following options are available:
If none of K, H or KH is specified, then the KH used in the model is

the product of block net thickness and permeability.
If both K and H are specified, the KH used in the model is the

product of the user-specified K and the user-specified H.
If K is specified and H is not specified, then the KH used in the

model is the product of block net thickness and user-specified K.
If H is specified and K is not specified, then the KH used in the

model is the product of average block permeability, block net-to-
gross ratio, and the user-specified H. The average block
permeability is the square root of the product of Kx and Ky (Kr and
K) in an areal model or the appropriate permeability in a cross-
section model.
If specified, the KH product is used without modification.
39-544 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Completion Data
The user can specify the top and bottom depth of each perforation. The
model then automatically determines the layers that are open to flow.
In this case, perforation thickness H is determined from the top and
bottom depth of each layer. Within the simulator a perforation will be
defined for each layer open to flow.
The user can specify a unit number for each perforation. All
perforations within a well with the same unit number are considered
to represent a single completion. Perforation production constraints
and all workover options affecting perforations then are applied to
completion, or perforation unit, rather than to individual
perforations. Production rates in the perforation units are obtained by
summing the rates of the individual perforations. Perforation unit
numbers may be specified for injection wells, but are not used.
Perforation Data for Vertical Equilibrium (VE) Option
The following special features are available for perforation data with the
VE option:
The position of the top (HTOP) and bottom (HBOT) of each

perforation in a gridblock can be specified. Therefore, a well may have
more than one perforation in a given reservoir layer when the VE
option is being used.
The weighting factors used to interpolate between rock and VE

relative permeabilities for gas-oil (FVEG) and water-oil (FVEW)
systems can be specified for each perforation. The default is to use the
gridblock value.
End-Point Modifications for Perforations
By default, the relative permeabilities for a gridblock containing a well

perforation are calculated using the saturation table assigned to the
gridblock. However, the saturation table number can be changed by
specifying an ISAT value for each perforation.
In addition, the saturation tables can be scaled to different end-point

values. The following end-point saturations can be specified for each
perforation:
Connate water saturation (Swl)
Critical water saturation (Swmn)
Water saturation at residual oil to water (Swro)
Maximum water saturation (Swmx)
Connate gas saturation (Sgl)
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-545

Well Completion Data VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Critical gas saturation (Sgmn)
Gas saturation at residual oil to gas (Sgro)
Maximum gas saturation (Sgmx).
The end-point saturation value used for the perforation calculation

depends on data specified by the user. The following options are available:
If end-point saturations and the ISAT value for the perforation are not
specified, then the end-point saturations for the gridblock are used.
The end-point saturations for each gridblock are initialized to the table
values for the gridblock. However, the user can specify (overread)
end-point saturations for each gridblock.
If the ISAT value for the perforation is specified, but the end-point
saturations are not specified, then end points from the ISAT table are
used.
If specified, the end-point saturations for the perforation are used and
the table values (from ISAT or gridblock table) are not used.
To specify the end-point saturations for perforation Swmn, Swro, Sgmn,

and Sgro must be specified together. Swl, Swmx, Sgl, and Sgmx are
optional. The default values are Swl = Swmn, Sgl = 0, and Sgmx = 1-Swl.
Refer to Chapter 5 for information on the different scaling methods.
39-546 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Production Wells
39.4 Production Wells
39.4.1 Type of Producers and Controls

In VIP-EXECUTIVE, a well must be identified as a producer or an injector.
The PROD card is used to define the type of production well and the units
being used for the flow rate. A production well can operate at a target
value of any of the following:
Oil production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
Gas production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
Water production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
Liquid production rate (oil and water at reservoir or standard

conditions)
Total production rate for all fluids (at reservoir conditions or in moles)
Production rates for oil, gas, and water at surface conditions
Bottom-hole pressure
Tubinghead pressure
Maximum drawdown.
The production rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well
produces at this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other
constraints defined by the user. In this event, the constraint is observed,
which causes a rate reduction.
39.4.2 Production Well Constraints

The user can specify a number of constraints for production wells. These
constraints can be visualized as the economic limits for operating a well. If
one or more of these constraints is violated, the engineer can select from
the following options:
The user can define a maximum water cut, water rate, or liquid-gas
ratio for a production well (WLIMIT card). If the user-specified
maximum for a well is exceeded, one of the following actions takes
place:
The perforation with the highest water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) is
plugged. A different limiting water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) value
can be specified for the last open perforation. Once a perforation
has been plugged, it never produces again, unless the well is
reperforated by an FPERF card.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-547

Production Wells VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The well is shut in. It then can be tested periodically according to

the data on the TEST card. If water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) is found
to be less than the maximum during the test, then the well is
returned to production.
The water production rate is not allowed to exceed the user-

specified maximum. This may cause a reduction in the specified
production rate (on QMAX card).
The user can define a maximum gas rate or gas-liquid ratio (GOR) for
a production well (GLIMIT card). If the user-specified maximum for a
well is exceeded, one of the following actions takes place:
The perforation with the highest GOR is plugged. A different

limiting GOR value can be specified for the last open perforation.
Once a perforation has been plugged, it never produces again,
unless the well is reperforated using an FPERF card.
The well is shut in. It then can be tested periodically according to

the data on the TEST card. If the GOR is found to be less than the
maximum during the test, then the well is returned to production.
The gas production rate is not allowed to exceed the user-specified

maximum. This may cause a reduction in the specified production
rate (on QMAX card).
The user can specify a maximum water cut and GOR applicable to
each perforation in a well. When the water cut and/or GOR for any
perforation in a well exceeds this maximum, then the perforation is
shut in. The test to determine whether a violation has occurred is
performed only if the time interval between tests is specified using the
TSTPRF card. Therefore, it is possible that the perforation value may
exceed the maximum between test intervals. In addition, note that
flashes to surface conditions are required for each perforation during
these tests. This could cause a significant increase in computer time if
frequently performed (especially in compositional simulations). Once
a perforation has been shut in, it never produces again, unless the well
is reperforated using an FPERF card.
The user can specify a minimum rate for each production well (QMIN
card). The phase to which this minimum rate applies is specified by
the ECOLIM card. When the well rate falls below the minimum, the
well is shut in. The well can be tested periodically to determine
whether the rate is above minimum, if the appropriate data on the
TEST card are specified.
39-548 Landmark - R2003.4

39.4.3 ONTIME Factors

The ONTIME card is used to specify the fraction of time that a well
actually produces. The fraction is applied to the well rate after the rate has
been determined by QMAX or pressure constraints and after the well
minimum rate (QMIN), water cut (WLIMIT), and GOR (GLIMIT) checks.
39.4.4 Pressure Constraints

VIP-EXECUTIVE calculates a flowing bottom-hole pressure consistent
with the well index and well rate. This bottom-hole pressure is checked
against any user-defined pressure constraints. If the flow rate is in
violation of a pressure constraint, it is altered accordingly and a new
corresponding well rate is calculated. This bottom-hole pressure then is
used to allocate production/injection to individual layers.
Bottom-hole pressure constraints are defined by BHP cards. Alternatively,

tubinghead pressure constraints can be imposed to control well flow.
These are established by entering both THP cards and BHPTAB data.
Hydraulics tables (BHPTAB data) are used for three-phase producers to
relate tubinghead pressure to bottom-hole pressure, flow rate, water cut,
and gas-liquid ratio. VIP-EXECUTIVE searches for the largest intersection
of the inflow and outflow performance curves. The bottom-hole pressure
corresponding to this intersection is used to calculate well phase rates.
Tubinghead pressure constraints also can be imposed on gas producers

and on gas and water injectors. For these cases, the algorithm is based on
the average pressure and temperature method as described by Beggs.35
The ITNTHP card can be used to set the number of outer iterations for
each timestep during which the tubinghead pressure algorithm is
performed. During the rest of the timestep, the well is treated as a bottom-
hole pressure-constrained well, with BHP equalling the calculated value
from the tubinghead pressure algorithm. The default for ITNTHP is 2.
Bottom-hole pressure also can be constrained by the DPBHMX card,

which defines a maximum drawdown (for producers) or buildup (for
injectors) in each well. This option is applicable whether a well is on a
BHP or THP constraint. If necessary, the bottom-hole pressure of the well
is reset so that the drawdown, or buildup, does not exceed DPBHMX. A
new corresponding well rate then is calculated. To help alleviate
convergence problems, after ITNSTP iterations (producers) or ITNSTQ
iterations (injectors) the bottom-hole pressure of DPBHMX constrained
wells is fixed for the remainder of the timestep.
Pressure constraints and the productivity index are described in detail in

Chapter 38.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-549

39.4.5 Well Status Report

The production and injection well report can be printed in VIP-
EXECUTIVE using the WELLS parameter on the PRINT card. In addition,
the layer summary can be printed using the WLLYR parameter on the
PRINT card. It is possible that the well rate (at surface conditions) in the
layer summary is not identical to that from the well report. This is because
the surface rate in the well summary is determined by summing up the
molar rate for all layers and flashing it to the surface conditions. The
surface rate in the perforation summary is obtained by flashing each
individual layer molar rate to surface conditions.
The status of the well is indicated by a four-character word in the well

report. The possible production well status messages and their meanings
follow:
QMAX well is producing at the maximum specified rate.
GORP well is producing at the maximum rate calculated

by the GOR penalty option.
PLIM well is pressure limited (BHP or THP).
TARG well is constrained by a target.
GMAX well is constrained by the LIMIT option on the

GLIMIT card.
WMAX well is constrained by the LIMIT option on the

WLIMIT card.
DPMX well is limited by the DPBHMX constraint.
STTO all perforations are defined with status OFF.
NPRF no perforations are defined for this well.
WMGT well has no production due to the predictive well

management (PWM) algorithm.
OTAR well is constrained by an oil target (PWM).
GTAR well is constrained by a gas target (PWM).
WTAR well is constrained by a water target (PWM).
SI P well is shut in due to inability to flow at pressure

constraint.
SI M well is shut in due to no mobility of producing

phase.
39-550 Landmark - R2003.4

SI Q well is shut in due to minimum rate constraint

violation.
SI T well is shut in due to failure in THP algorithm

calculations.
SI L well is shut in due to excessive liquid-gas ratio for

gas producer on THP.
SI G well is shut in due to GLIMIT or PRFWRK

constraint violation.
SI W well is shut in due to WLIMIT or PRFWRK

constraint violation.
SI O well is shut in due to gas-lift performance curve

problems.
SI R well is shut in by the recompletion unit option.
GINJ well currently is a gas injector.
WINJ well currently is a water injector.
39.4.6 Testing Shutin Wells

All wells that were automatically shut in (pressure limit violation, lack of
mobility, rate limit violation) are tested periodically to determine whether
they can be returned to production/injection. The TEST card is used to
specify the time interval between tests for each type of shutin well. A zero
value for a time increment causes testing every timestep.
Two methods are available to determine the time at which wells are tested.
1. All wells of the appropriate shut-in type tested at the same time
(default).
2. Each well is tested at the time interval after it was shut-in. This is
invoked by specifying a negative value on the TEST card.
For the first method, well tests are scheduled for the time at which the
TEST card is read, plus the appropriate increment. Until the simulation
reaches that time, shutin wells remain shut in. Timesteps are not adjusted
to hit the test time exactly. Once the wells are tested, new tests are
scheduled for a time that is the appropriate increment farther into the
simulation.
For the second method, each shut-in well is tested after the appropriate
time interval (absolute value) has elapsed since it was shut-in. Timesteps
are not adjusted to hit any test time exactly. If a well does not return to
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-551

production/injection when tested, it will be retested at a time that is the

appropriate increment further into the simulation.
39.4.7 Special Features for Gas Producers

The algorithm implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for handling tubinghead
pressure constraints for gas producers is based on the average pressure
and temperature method. (Note that the algorithm for tubinghead
pressure constraints for gas and water injectors also is based on this
method.) Generally speaking, the rate and corresponding bottom-hole
pressure of a constrained well occurs at the intersection of the inflow and
outflow performance curves for the well. The following procedure is used
to calculate the flowing bottom-hole pressure for the outflow performance
curve:
1. The wellbore is divided into equal-length intervals (default is 5).
2. Starting at the wellhead, the bottom-hole pressure of the first interval

is calculated using the input tubinghead pressure constraint and other
properties.
3. The bottom-hole pressure of the first interval is used as the tubinghead

pressure of the second interval to calculate the bottom-hole pressure of
the second interval.
4. This process is continued until the bottom-hole pressure of the last

interval is calculated; this is the flowing bottom-hole pressure of the
well for the outflow curve.
39-552 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Injection Wells
39.5 Injection Wells

Injection rates can be fixed by the user or internally calculated by the
model. Many options are available to determine injection rates and
targets.
A special option is available for net voidage injection where the volume of
the second injected phase is determined to maintain voidage balance (or a
fraction of voidage balance) at the user-specified well management entity.
This feature is described in Section 39.13.
In addition, an option is available to maintain pressure (or voidage) in any

rectangular three-dimensional area (or areas) of the model. This feature is
called injection regions and is described in Section 39.11.
39.5.1 Type of Injectors and Controls

The INJ card is used to define the type of injection well and the units being
used for the injection rate. An injector can operate at a target value of any
of the following:
Water injection rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
Gas injection rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
Bottom-hole pressure
Tubinghead pressure
Maximum buildup.
The injection rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well
injects at this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other
constraints defined by the user. In this event, the constraint is observed,
which causes a rate reduction.
Injection wells also can be used to reinject the produced fluids. If used for
reinjection, the injectors could:
Reinject a fraction of the total surface production rate of the injected

phase within a specified level of well management hierarchy (called
FSTD reinjection), or
Reinject a fraction of the total fluid withdrawal (at reservoir

conditions) within a specified level of well management hierarchy
(called FRES reinjection).
When either the FRES or FSTD reinjection option is used, values on the
QMAX card for the corresponding injectors are fractions of total reservoir
volume production rate and the fraction of the total surface production
rate, respectively.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-553

Injection Wells VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.5.2 Injection Well Constraints

The user can specify a minimum rate for each injection well (QMIN card).
When the well injection rate falls below the minimum, the well is shut in.
The well can be tested periodically to determine whether the rate is above
minimum, if the appropriate data on the TEST card is specified.
The BHP for injectors on THP control is calculated by using either the
average temperature and pressure method or by using hydraulics tables
(BHITAB data).
39.5.3 Water Injectors

Several special features are available for water injectors. These are
summarized as follows:
The outer iteration number after which water injection rates are not
recomputed can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for
water injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is
possible to use total gridblock mobilities (WINJMOB card).
The water density and viscosity values used in the THP calculation
can be specified using the WTRTHP card. The default is to use the
values specified in the initialization data.
39.5.4 Gas Injectors

Some of the special characteristics of gas injectors are listed below:
The outer iteration number after which gas injection rates are not
recomputed can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for gas
injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is
possible to use total gridblock mobilities (GINJMOB card).
The composition of injected gas for gas injectors must be specified

using the YINJ card with the STD or RES option.
The RECFAC card can be used to specify the fraction of each

component in the gas stream that can be recovered as liquid at the gas
plant for use with gas injectors on the FSTD reinjection option.
39-554 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Injection Wells
39.5.5 WAG Injectors

The WAG injection-by-volume option enables the automatic switching
between water and gas injection based on user-specified cumulative water
and gas injection volumes.
The WAG card is used to specify which wells are WAG injectors. Three
items must be input on this card: cumulative water injection volume per
cycle, cumulative gas injection volume per cycle, and the total number of
WAG cycles to be performed. Two other items may also be input: whether
WAG cycling starts with gas or water injection (default is water injection),
and what happens to the well when WAG cycling ends (water injector, gas
injector, shut-in).
The QMAXWG card is used to specify the maximum water and gas rates
for each WAG well. The BHPWAG card may be used to specify a different
value of bottomhole pressure limit for water injection versus gas injection.
In most fine-grid simulation models, it is necessary to limit the size of the

first timestep following each changeover to avoid potential convergence
failures. This can be controlled by entering a DTWAG card which contains
two values: maximum size of the first timestep following the changeover
from gas injection to water injection and the maximum size of the first
timestep following the changeover from water injection to gas injection.
The changeover will automatically take place whenever the cumulative

injection volume exceeds the user-specified injection volume. At the
changeover, the size of the previous step is not reduced and the step is not
repeated so as to exactly match the prescribed injection volume. Instead,
the excess injection volume will be subtracted from the prescribed
injection volume for the next cycle to compensate for the over-injection.
This is done to avoid excessive timestep cuts in models with a large
number of WAG wells.
39.5.6 ONTIME Factors

The ONTIME factors for injectors are applied in a manner similar to the
producers. The ONTIME card is used to specify the fraction of the time
that a well actually is injecting. The fraction is applied to the well rate after
the rate has been determined by QMAX or pressure constraints and after
the well minimum rate (QMIN) check. ONTIME factors do not apply to
injection wells using either the FSTD or FRES reinjection options.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-555

Injection Wells VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.5.7 Well Status Report

The following list shows various possible injection well status messages
and their meaning:
QMAX well is injecting at the maximum specified rate.
PLIM well is pressure limited (BHP or THP).
GTAR well is scaled back due to a gas target.
WTAR well is scaled back due to a water target.
DPMX well is limited by the DPBHMX constraint.
UNFM well is cut back uniformly due to a target.
STTO all perforations are defined with status OFF.
NPRF no perforations are defined for this well.
PROP well is cut back using the PROPTN option within

the injection region option.
PATN well is constrained by the pattern balance option.
SI P well is shut in due to inability to flow at pressure

constraint.
SI M well is shut in due to no mobility of injection phase.
SI Q well is shut in due to minimum rate constraint

violation.
SI T well is shut in due to non-convergence in THP

algorithm calculations.
PROD well is currently a producer.
39.5.8 Testing Shutin Wells

Testing of shutin injectors is similar to that of producers. See Section 39.4.6
for details.
39-556 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Wellbore Gradient Calculations
39.6 Wellbore Gradient Calculations
39.6.1 Introduction
By default, the pressure gradient in the wellbore due to the effect of
gravity is treated as a constant with respect to depth for each well. If the
MBAWG = OFF option is invoked or if crossflow (XFON) is specified for
one or more wells, then the simulator computes variations in wellbore
gravity gradient as fluids enter or leave the wellbore at each perforated
interval for all wells. In this case, the wellbore gradient is calculated on the
first iteration of each timestep, but is held constant for the remainder of
the timestep to avoid slowing the convergence rate of the outer iterations.
In the event that a well is shut in, plugged, or reperforated during a
timestep, the gradient calculation is repeated to reflect the change in
conditions. Two methods for calculating wellbore gradient are described
below.
39.6.2 Mobility Weighted Averaging Method

This section discusses the method to calculate an average pressure
gradient l used in all the different perforations l = 1,2,...,NPER of a
production well. The average pressure gradient 1 = 2 = ... = NPER = , is
applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE in the wellbore flow Equations 38-1 through
38-5. It is calculated in the following form:
NPER
[ MOB lo M o + MOB lg M g + MOB lw M w ]

g
= ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
l=1
NPER
- (39-1)
5.6146*144g c MOB lo MOB lg MOB lw
-----------------o
+ ----------------- + ------------------
g w
l=1
where
Mo, Mg molecular weights of the oil and gas phases
Bw formation volume factor of the water phase
g gravitational acceleration
gc conversion constant, which is equal to 32.2 lbm/lbf

ft/s2
MOBlj mobility of the jth phase (j = o,g,w)
j density of the jth phase (j = o,g,w).
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-557

Wellbore Gradient Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.6.3 Volume Balancing Method

Note that the calculations described below for variable pressure gradient
assume that the perforated intervals in each well are ordered from the top
to the bottom of the wellbore. Erroneous results are obtained if this
condition is not satisfied.
Mathematical Formulation
The wellbore pressure gradient opposite any perforated interval j is

computed as the volumetric average of the densities of the individual
phases. The densities are measured within the reservoir layer containing
the perforated interval. The weight factors used to compute the average
gradient are the volume fractions of each of the three phases within the
wellbore and opposite the perforated interval:
n n n
j = E wj wj + E oj oj + E gj gj (39-2)
It would be more correct to compute the densities of the three phases at

wellbore conditions instead of using densities computed within the
reservoir, but this would introduce troublesome nonlinearities into
Equation 39-2, since the densities of oil and gas depend on both pressure
and composition. For the gradient calculation, the densities of the
reservoir fluids are evaluated at the old time level, so they can be treated
as known quantities.
To compute the volume fractions of the wellbore fluids, we divide the

wellbore into grid cells, one cell opposite each perforated interval. A total
volume balance for wellbore grid cell j can be written as follows:
q Tj + 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j Tj ( p j p wj ) (39-3)
Equation 39-3 is equivalent to a total molar balance, if there is no

interphase mass transfer and if the phase densities are assumed to be
constant in the wellbore.
Assuming that no-slip conditions exist in the wellbore, the volume

fractions of water and gas are related to the total volumetric flow as
follows:
E wj + 1 2 q Tj + 1 2 E wj 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j wj ( p j p wj ) (39-4)
E gj + 1 2 q Tj + 1 2 E gj 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j gj ( p j p wj ) (39-5)
No-slip means that all phases travel at the same velocity. The volume
fractions of water and gas that apply at the interface between the wellbore
grid cells are evaluated at the upstream cell. Similarly, mobilities (Tj , wj ,
39-558 Landmark - R2003.4

and gj ) are evaluated in the reservoir or the wellbore, depending on

whether production or injection is occurring in the perforated interval.
If the perforated interval is producing, then the mobilities are defined as

follows:
k rw k ro k rg
Tj = -------
- + ------- + ------- (39-6)
w o g j
k rw
wj = -------- (39-7)
w j
k rg
gj = ------- (39-8)
g j
If the perforated interval is injecting, then total mobility (Tj) is still

defined by Equation 39-6, but the mobilities of water and gas are defined
as:
wj = E wj Tj (39-9)
gj = E gj Tj (39-10)
The wellbore pressure, pwj, is computed from the pressure in the adjacent
wellbore grid cell:
p wj = p wj 1 + 0.5 ( j 1 + j ) ( D j D j 1 ), for j > j D (39-11)
p wj = p wj + 1 0.5 ( j + 1 + j ) ( D j + 1 D j ), for j < j D (39-12)
If the datum is contained within wellbore grid cell j, then j = jD, and pwj
is related to the wellbore pressure at datum by the following expression:
o o
pw jD = pw + jD ( D jD D ) (39-13)
If the datum lies above the top perforated interval, then the top perforated
interval is treated as the datum-containing perforated interval and
Equation 39-13 applies. Similarly, if the datum lies below the bottom
perforated interval, then the bottom perforation is treated as the datum-
containing perforation and Equation 39-13 applies.
One of the wellbore grid cells is designated as the one from which fluid is
withdrawn to the surface in the case of a producer, or the point at which
fluid first reaches a perforated interval in the case of an injector. This
might correspond to the bottom of the tubing string in a well that
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-559

Wellbore Gradient Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
produces through tubing. Although the algorithm allows this cell to be

anywhere in the well, the current implementation assumes that the cell is
the top-most perforated interval. The volumetric rate of fluid withdrawal,
or injection, may be written as the following expression:
Q = ( a + b E g + c E w )q T (39-14)
where Q is the maximum flow rate allowed in whatever units are used to
constrain the well, and qT is the volumetric flow rate at wellbore
conditions.
Once the pressure of each wellbore grid cell has been determined, the
difference in wellbore pressure between each wellbore cell and the
wellbore datum is computed and saved for the remainder of the timestep
for use in allocating layer production and injection rates.
o
DPW B j = p wj p w (39-15)
Calculation Procedure
Equations 39-2 through 39-14 define the relationship between wellbore

pressures and reservoir pressure and saturation distributions. All of these
equations are linear, except for Equations 39-3, 39-4, and 39-5. The system
of equations is solved by two different procedures.
Initially, the system of equations is linearized by iteration lagging the

volume fractions in Equation 39-2. This allows computation of the
pressure profile with Equations 39-11 and 39-12, followed by sequential
solution of Equations 39-3, 39-4, and 39-5. This sequence of calculations is
repeated one time, using the new estimates of Ew and Eg in Equation 39-2.
Further iteration has been found by extensive testing to be less efficient
than proceeding to the second method.
In the second method, the full system of equations is solved

simultaneously using the Newton-Raphson iteration. This involves
solving four equations simultaneously for each wellbore grid cell. These
are Equations 39-3, 39-4, 39-5, and either 39-11 or 39-12, as appropriate.
Convergence normally is rapid. In the rare event of convergence failure,
the results of the first method are accepted. Timestep cutting is not
performed to force convergence of this iteration.
39-560 Landmark - R2003.4

39.6.4 Nomenclature
Eg volume fraction of the gas phase in the wellbore.
Eo volume fraction of the oil phase in the wellbore.
Ew volume fraction of the water phase in the wellbore.
kh permeability thickness of a perforated interval, in

md-feet.
kr relative permeability.
p pressure in the reservoir, in psia.
pw pressure in the wellbore, in psia.
q volumetric flow rate, in bbl/day.
WI well index.
D subsea depth, in feet.
Do datum depth, in feet.
Q maximum rate specified for a well, various units.
gravity pressure gradient, in psi/foot.
fluid mobility.
viscosity, in cp.
With subscripts:
g gas.
j perforated interval index.
o oil.
T total.
w water or well.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-561

Wellbore Crossflow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.7 Wellbore Crossflow

When the wellbore crossflow option is invoked by the XFON card,
wellbore crossflow is modeled based on the method of Coats, Modine, and
Wells.36 This method is based on the superposition of interlayer
"crossflow" flow terms that sum to zero and the no crossflow flow terms
that are obtained in the conventional manner by shutting in the
backflowing layers.
39.7.1 Theory
Consider a production well producing at a rate of q RB/D, with layer
productivity indices Jk, layer mobilities k (total), and layer pressures at
datum, Pk. The total layer flow rates are given by:
q k = J k k ( P k P bh ) (39-16)
where Pbh is the flowing bottom-hole pressure at datum. The total well
rate is:
q = qk (39-17)
k
Solving Equations 39-16 and 39-17 for Pbh gives:
J k k Pk q
k
P bh = --------------------------------
- (39-18)
k k J
k
If Pbh > Pk, then layer k is backflowing. The individual phase layer rates are
given by:
q mk = J k mk ( P k P bh ), m = o, w, g (39-19)
where
wellblock
if P k > P bh
mk = mk (39-20)
wellblock S wellbore if P k < P bh
mk mk
where Smkwellbore are the layer phase saturations in the wellbore. These
wellbore saturations and wellbore phase compositions could be obtained
by solving material balances and equilibrium constraints on a gridded
wellbore, but the equations are highly nonlinear due to rapidly changing
39-562 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Wellbore Crossflow
conditions in the wellbore and would require very small timesteps to

converge.
Using the superposition method, we first allocate production without

crossflow:
*
* J ( P P * ) if P k > P bh
qk = k k k bh (39-21)
0 *
if P k < P bh

+
* ( J k k Pk ) q
P bh = -------------------------------------
+
- (39-22)
J k k
where + denotes summation over inflowing layers. Incremental layer

rates are defined as:
*
q = q k q k (39-23)
It can be shown that:
q k qk qk
*
= = 0 (39-24)
k k k
and that:
q k = J k k ( P k P bh ) (39-25)
where
*
P k = MIN ( P k, P bh ) (39-26)
From Equations 39-24, 39-25, and 39-26, we obtain:
J k k P k-
P bh = ----------------------- (39-27)
J k k
Substituting this into Equation 39-25 gives:
J k k J j j ( P k P j )-
q k = --------------------------------------------------- (39-28)
J i i
j
The interlayer rate from layer k to layer j then may be written as:
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-563

Wellbore Crossflow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
q kj = kj k ( P k P j ) (39-29)
where
J k J j
kj = ----------------j (39-30)
J i i
j
The incremental interlayer rates by phase are given by:
mk
q mkj = --------- q kj (39-31)
k
In the simulator, the transmissibilities given by Equation 39-30 are treated

explicitly. The mobility terms appearing in Equations 39-29 and 39-31 are
treated implicitly (in the Implicit formulation). Each interlayer flow term
in Equation 39-29 is represented by a fault connection.
39.7.2 Crossflow Implementation in BLITZ

The only BLITZ preconditioning option that can be invoked with
crossflow is Modified Nested Factorization (Option 1). This is in part due
to the fact that crossflow coupling terms are treated as time-dependent
nonvertical fault connections.
Modified Nested Factorization forces the row-sums of the pressure

coefficients of the preconditioning and the coefficient matrix to be equal.
The current BLITZ crossflow implementation constructs a modified
coefficient matrix that is then approximately factored. This
preconditioning matrix is the same as the original coefficient matrix except
that each off-diagonal crossflow pressure coefficient is added to its rows
main diagonal pressure coefficient, thereby preserving row-sums of
pressure coefficients. All crossflow terms in the preconditioning matrix
then are set to zero. This matrix is approximately factored using Modified
Nested Factorization.
39-564 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Management Levels
39.8 Well Management Levels

In VIP-EXECUTIVE, the fluid production (or injection) may be
constrained at five levels: the individual well level, the gathering center
level, the flow station level, the area level, and the field level. Multiple
constraints may be imposed at each level. Reporting of production/
injection results and various production/injection constraints may be
given at the gathering center, flow station, area, and/or field levels. Only
one field exists in the model. All areas are attached to the field. The
GATHER, AREA, and FLOSTA cards are used to set up hierarchy among
the levels. Figure 39-1 is a schematic representation of various well
management levels in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
Parameters on the PRINT card control the output at well management

levels. The FIELD parameter can be used to print production and injection
summaries at all well management levels.
FIELD
AREA 1 AREA 2
FS 3
FS 1 FS 2
GC 5 GC 6 GC 7
GC 1 GC 2 GC 3 GC 4
Wells Wells Wells
Wells Wells Wells Wells
Figure 39-1: Schematic Representation of Well Management Levels
39.8.1 Production Targets

Maximum production rates can be specified at one or more well
management levels for one or more phases. If the production at any well
management level entity exceeds the user-specified target, several options
are available to reduce the rate to meet the target. These options are:
Scale Scale the rates of all wells to exactly meet the target.
Average Reset the rates of appropriate wells to an average rate.
GOR sort Reduce the production rate of the highest GOR wells to
user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
Water-cut sort Reduce the production rate of the highest water-cut

wells to user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
Gas rate sort Reduce the production rate of the highest gas rate
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-565

Well Management Levels VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Water rate sort Reduce the production rate of the highest water rate
Average GOR Reduce the production rate of wells whose GOR

exceeds a "target" GOR (only applicable for gas targets).
For the targeting options involving sorting to produce an ordered list of

wells (GOR, WCUT, etc), a frequency can be specified to control how often
the lists are recomputed (PTGFRQ card).
By default, the rates for the perforations for each well are recalculated
based on the reduced rate of the targetted phase. The user can specify the
LSCALE ON option so that the cut-back factor calculated for the targetted
phase is applied to all other phases for each well. Also, the perforation
rates are cut back by the same factor.
In addition, the user can specify the order in which phase targets should
be checked. The order in which the phase targets are checked can
influence the final distribution of producing wells.
The minimum rate used in these algorithms can be specified separately

(using the TRGQMN card) from the minimum economic rate for the well
(specified using the ECOLIM and QMIN cards).
A tolerance can be specified for each phase using the TRGTOL card. For
any remedial action to take place, the target must be exceeded by a
fraction greater than the tolerance (default value is 0.05 for all phases at all
well management levels).
A special feature called predictive well management can be used in the

prediction phase of a study to determine individual well rates and well
assignment. This feature is described in detail in Section 39.18.
39.8.2 Minimum Production Rates

Minimum production rates can be specified at one or more well
management levels for one or more phases. When the production rate for
the specified phase at the specified well management entity falls below the
minimum, that member is shut in. The user can specify whether all
wells or all producers should be shut in. If a minimum rate criteria at the
field level is violated, a restart record is written and the run is terminated.
This restart record contains the data from the beginning of this timestep.
Note that when starting from such a restart record, the specified minima
still would be in effect, causing the field to shut in immediately. Hence,
either the minima should be decreased or more wells should be brought
on line to continue the run.
39-566 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Management Levels
39.8.3 Injection Targets

Maximum water and gas injection rates can be specified at one or more
well management levels. If the injection rate at any well management level
entity exceeds the user-specified target, then all wells are cut back by the
same factor, unless gas reinjection is being done using the UNIFORM
option (refer to Section 39.9.7). The maximum rate criteria are satisfied
first at the gathering center level, then the flow station level, then the area
level, and finally at the field level.
39.8.4 Minimum Injection Rates

Minimum injection rates can be specified at one or more well management
levels using the INJMIN card. When this value is reached in a member of
one of these levels, that member is shut in. The user can specify whether
all injectors or all wells attached to that member of the well management
hierarchy should be shut in.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-567

Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.9 Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features

The shrinkage, fuel, sales, makeup gas, and makeup gas-lift gas can be
specified as a fixed gas rate plus a fraction of produced gas rate. If the
produced gas rate is less than the fuel gas requirements, then the makeup
fuel gas rate is automatically calculated in the program. The amount can
be found in the printout of the field gas handling summary.
39.9.1 Shrinkage, Fuel, and Sales Gas Specification

The shrinkage, fuel, and sales gas rates can be specified as a fixed gas rate
plus a fraction of produced gas rate at any well management level. Rates
specified at the lower well management levels are added to those specified
at the higher levels to determine gas consumption rates.
Additionally, the sales gas rate can be specified as a fraction of the oil
surface production rate.
39.9.2 Makeup Gas Specification and Composition

Makeup gas for gas injection can be specified as a fixed rate plus a fraction
of the produced gas rate at any well management level. Two options exist
for specifying the makeup gas composition for use with gas injectors on
the FSTD reinjection option using the YINJMK card: the mole fraction of
each component and the same composition as the produced gas.
39.9.3 Makeup Gas-Lift Gas

The user can only specify makeup gas-lift gas when gas-lift is included in
the gas handling loop. The makeup gas-lift gas is designed to simulate the
situation in which produced gas is insufficient for gas-lift requirements,
which increase with time.
39.9.4 Gas Available for Injection

The gas available for reinjection at each level of well management is
calculated as the produced formation gas plus the gas-lift gas (from the
previous timestep), makeup gas and makeup gas-lift gas, minus the
shrinkage gas, fuel gas, gas-lift gas (at current timestep), and sales gas. If
gas-lift gas is not part of the gas handling loop (closed loop), then the gas-
lift gas and makeup gas-lift gas are not included in the calculation.
The priorities for gas consumption follow:
1. Shrinkage gas
2. Fuel gas
3. Gas-lift gas
39-568 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features
4. Sales gas.
Shrinkage gas is the gas lost because of the change of temperature and
pressure in the separator. It is not controllable once the temperature and
pressure are fixed; therefore, it is assigned the first priority. Fuel gas is
required for field operations and is assigned to the second priority.
If the produced gas is less than the specified shrinkage gas, then the
shrinkage gas volume is set to the produced gas volume. The produced
gas is the produced formation gas plus the gas-lift gas (at previous
timestep) if the gas-lift gas is included in the gas handling loop. The gas
left after shrinkage (produced formation + gas-lift at previous timestep +
makeup + makeup gas-lift - shrinkage) then is computed and compared to
the specified fuel gas. If it is smaller than the specified fuel gas, the
makeup fuel gas (fuel gas - gas left) is added. The gas-lift gas, sales gas,
and gas available for reinjection are set to zero. Otherwise, the fuel gas is
subtracted from the gas left and is compared to gas-lift gas. If it is smaller
than the gas-lift gas, the gas-lift gas is reduced to the gas available. The
sales gas and gas available for injection are set to zero. Similar procedures
are repeated for calculation of sales gas. The remaining gas volume after
sales gas is the gas available for reinjection.
39.9.5 Composition of the Gas Available for Reinjection

If the calculated gas available for reinjection is smaller than the specified
makeup gas, all the gas available for reinjection is assumed to be the
makeup gas. Then the composition of the gas available for injection is the
same as that of the makeup gas. If gas available is more than the specified
makeup gas, the gas available for injection is the specified makeup gas
plus the produced gas (the volume of gas available for injection minus the
volume of the specified makeup gas). A volumetric weighted average then
is used to calculate composition:
For each component,
( available makeup ) ( produced composition ) + ( makeup ) ( makeup composition )

Composition = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total available
Optionally, the user may specify the composition of the gas available for
reinjection through the YREINJ card. The composition can either be set to
the produced gas composition or a user-specified mole fraction for each
component. The composition input on a YREINJ card applies only to the
well management entity designated on the card. It does not apply to any
lower levels.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-569

Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.9.6 Effective Target

The user has three options for checking the injection target specified in the
ITARG card and the calculated gas available for reinjection using the
ETRGOP card:
The NONE option neglects the calculated gas available for

reinjection and checks the specified target for each level of well
management.
The FIELD option checks the specified injection target for each
gathering center, flow station, and area, but checks the effective target
at the field level. The effective target is defined as the minimum of the
specified target and the calculated gas available for reinjection.
The ALL option checks the effective target for each level of well
management.
39.9.7 Uniform Reinjection

When gas reinjection is done with the UNIFORM option on the GINJOP
card, maximum rates are specified for the wells. If any gas injection target
is violated, the rates are decreased by resetting the gas injection rates of
appropriate wells to an average rate. That is, if a wells rate is designated
as WIGi, then the reset rate will be:
WIGi* = min (WIGi, AVG),
where AVG has been computed to satisfy:
Gas Target = WIGi*.
When using the UNIFORM option, note that
Gas injection wells must be specified as either FSTD or FRES (INJ

card), then assigned to the appropriate level of well management.
The definition of the QMAX cards is the maximum gas injection rate,
even though the well type is FSTD or FRES.
39-570 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Major Gas Sales Option
39.10 Major Gas Sales Option
39.10.1 Summary
The major gas sales option modifies the current gas handling loop
computation and processes the gas from the separators through an NGL
plant to remove natural gas liquids, an LPG plant to remove liquified
petroleum gas, and an MI plant to remove miscible injectants. In the NGL,
LPG, and MI plants, the liquid recovery factor for each component is
specified as a function of a key component mole fraction or the mole
fraction of a key component plus fraction. Also, the fuel gas rates specified
by the user may exclude any component that has no BTU content (e.g.,
CO2). For each gas handling loop calculation, up to two fuel gas streams
can be removed: one from the produced stock tank gas stream and the
other from the outlet gas stream of the MI plant. A portion of the outlet
gas stream from the MI plant may then be directed to a gas conditioning
plant to remove the CO2 component; the outlet gas stream from the gas
conditioning plant is the sales gas. The remaining gas from the MI plant is
then recombined with the available makeup gas (if any) to form the
reinjected lean gas. The CO2 component removed from the gas
conditioning plant may be either merged with the reinjected lean gas,
vented, or directly injected into a number of user-specified gas injectors.
The reinjected lean gas is distributed among the lean gas injectors
specified as FSTD gas injectors. Finally, the composition of the miscible
injectant is used as the injection composition for MI injectors (STD or RES
gas injectors without injection compositions specified). The major gas
sales option may be selectively invoked for any member of any well
management level.
In addition, up to four maximum gas or liquid stream rates may be

specified by the user: the maximum feed rate to the NGL plant, the
maximum feed rate to the LPG plant, the maximum NGL rate, and the
maximum LPG rate. These constraints are needed to account for potential
capacity limitations to the NGL and/or the LPG plants.
39.10.2 Description
In the surface facility at a certain field, the gas from the separators is sent
to the Central Gas Facility (CGF) where the field fuel gas is first extracted
from the inlet stream and the remaining gas is processed in the CGF to
remove natural gas liquids (NGL), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and
miscible injectants (MI). The sales gas is removed from the outlet lean gas
stream and is passed through a Gas Conditioning Plant to remove CO2.
The CO2 stream is then recombined with the excess lean gas to produce a
new lean gas injectant, or is vented, or is directly injected into user-
specified injectors. The methodology implemented here represents a
simplified approach to this complex process. It was determined that in
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-571

Major Gas Sales Option VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
order to effectively simulate the CGF and the gas conditioning plant, CO2
should be treated as a separate component in the equation of state
representation. Also, the removal of NGL, LPG, and MI from the separator
gas is handled through a simple table lookup.
The major gas sales option is implemented as a part of the gas handling
loop computation in which the separator gas for each member of a well
management level (gathering center, flow station, area, or field) is
processed to determine the reinjection lean gas rates and compositions.
The entire process is schematically shown in Figure 39-2 and described in
detail in the following sections.
Figure 39-2: Schematic Diagram of a Gas Handling Loop with the Major Gas
Sales Option
39-572 Landmark - R2003.4

Gas Available for NGL Plant
For each member of a well management level (e.g., Gather Center 1), the
component rates of the separator gas for all wells attached to the level are
first summed up to form the total component rates from which the total
gas surface rate and its composition for the member of the well
management level are calculated (see Box 1 in Figure 39-2). If the gas-lift
gas is part of the gas handling loop, the gas-lift gas rate from the previous
timestep (GLGSV) is merged with the produced gas stream (Box 2). Next,
the shrinkage gas rate (GASSKG) is extracted from the resulting gas
stream (Box 3) with the constraint that the shrinkage gas rate should not
be greater than the available produced gas rate. In Box 4, the makeup gas-
lift gas rate (GASGLM), if specified, is added to the remaining gas stream,
and the user-specified first fuel gas (GASFUL) is removed. If the fuel gas
rate is less than the available gas, the current steps gas lift gas (GASGLG)
is removed from the remaining gas stream and the resulting gas stream
will be the gas available for the NGL plant. In this case, the user-specified
makeup gas (GASMKP) is not used in this step and is the same as the
available makeup gas (AVLMKP1) exiting from Box 4. On the other hand,
if the fuel gas rate is larger than the available gas, a portion of the makeup
gas will be used for fuel. In this case, the available gas for the NGL plant is
zero and the gas-lift gas for the current timestep is removed from the
remaining makeup gas to form the available makeup gas (AVLMKP1).
However, if the makeup gas (GASMKP) is not sufficient to satisfy the fuel
gas requirement, an extra makeup gas rate (GSMPFL) is calculated and the
gas-lift gas rate for the current timestep (GASGLG) and the amount of gas
available for the NGL plant are set to zero.
NGL Plant, LPG Plant, and MI Plant
For a member of a well management level, if the major gas sales

calculation is specified by the user and the available gas for the NGL plant
is greater than zero, the gas stream will be processed first in an NGL plant
to remove the natural gas liquid. The composition of the inlet gas stream,
y1(i), is the same as the produced separator gas composition. For the NGL
plant, the liquid recovery factor for each component is tabulated as a
function of either a key component mole fraction or the mole fraction of a
key component plus fraction. The mole fraction of a key component plus
fraction is defined as the sum of the mole fractions for the key component
plus higher numbered components in the inlet stream. The rates and the
compositions of the NGL and the outlet gas stream are then calculated.
The outlet gas stream from the NGL plant is then sent through an LPG
plant in which the LPG and the outlet gas streams composition and rates
are calculated. The outlet gas stream from this plant is then sent through
an MI plant in which the MI and the outlet gas streams composition and
rates are calculated. The LPG and MI plants are modeled the same way as
the NGL plant with component liquid recovery factors expressed as a
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-573

function of a key component or a key component plus fraction mole

fraction.
The user may specify the capacity of the NGL plant and/or the LPG plant
by entering the maximum feed rate and/or the maximum liquid rate (in
surface gas units) of each plant. If these constraints are in effect, a portion
(Stream G1 in Figure 39-2) of the inlet gas stream will bypass the NGL
plant. The rate of stream G1 is determined by satisfying both the
maximum NGL rate (Stream QNGLOT in Figure 39-2) and the maximum
NGL feed rate (Stream QNGLIN) constraints. Similarly, Stream G2
bypasses the LPG plant and the G2 rate is determined by honoring both
the maximum LPG rate (Stream QLPGOT) and the maximum LPG feed
rate (Stream QLPGIN) constraints. The G1 and G2 streams are then
combined with the outlet gas stream of the MI plant for further processing
(see Figure 39-2).
Fuel Gas #2
The major gas sales option allows some fuel gas (Fuel Gas #2) to be
removed from the outlet gas stream of the MI plant. If this outlet gas
stream is larger than Fuel Gas #2, the remaining lean gas amount (Lean
Gas1, see Box 5) is calculated and the available makeup gas is unchanged
(i.e., AVLMKP1 = AVLMKP2). Otherwise, Lean Gas1 is set to zero and a
portion of the available makeup gas (AVLMKP1) is used for fuel. In this
case, a new available makeup gas rate (AVLMKP2) is calculated.
Sales Gas and Gas Conditioning Plant
In Box 6 of Figure 39-2, a sales gas stream is removed from the Lean Gas1,
and from the AVLMKP2 if the Lean Gas1 rate (excluding the CO2 content,
if applicable) is less than the specified sales gas rate (GASSLS). If a gas
conditioning plant is present, this sales gas stream is processed in the gas
conditioning plant to remove the CO2 component. The CO2 stream is then
either vented, distributed to a number of user-specified gas injectors, or
combined with the remaining lean gas and the available makeup gas (i.e.,
Lean Gas2 and AVLMKP3 from Box 6) to form the reinjected lean gas
stream (see Box 7).
Lean Gas and MI Injectors
The reinjected lean gas rate and its composition (yreinj(i)) determined from
any member of a well management level is applied to all lean gas injectors
(with an FSTD specification) attached to the member of the well
management level. Similarly, for MI injectors (with an STD or RES
specification and no injection compositions specified) attached to the
member of the well management level, the MI composition determined
from the MI plant calculation (xmi(i)) will be used as the injection
39-574 Landmark - R2003.4

composition. The MI rate from the MI plant, however, is not used to

determine the injection rates of the MI injectors. The MI injection rates
must be specified by the user through a QMAX card.
39.10.3 Implementation
The major gas sales option calculation may be declared for any members
of a well management level using a PLANT card. Without the PLANT
card, the standard VIP gas handling loop calculation will be performed.
The major gas sales option may be invoked for some well management
levels and not invoked for other levels. The detailed description for the
PLANT card is given in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
The major gas sales option involves four main items: an NGL plant, an
LPG plant, an MI plant, and gas conditioning. The user has the control of
invoking any or all of the four main items. The NGL plant calculation can
be invoked by an NGLPLANT card followed by an NGL plant table.
Similarly, the LPG plant calculation is invoked by an LPGPLANT card
followed by an LPG plant table and the MI plant calculation is invoked by
an MIPLANT card followed by an MI plant table. The gas conditioning
calculation can be declared by a GASCOND card which also contains a
user-specified component number. This component (e.g., CO2) will be
excluded from the input and the output fuel gas rates. It will also be
removed in the gas conditioning plant during the sales gas calculation and
handled according to the data on the GASCOND card, if the gas
conditioning plant calculation is specified by the user through keyword
PLANT on the GASSLS (sales gas) card. In addition, up to two fuel gas
streams may be removed during the gas handling calculation: one from
the produced separator gas stream and the other from the outlet gas
stream of the MI plant. This enhancement requires modification of the
GASFUL (fuel gas) card. The detailed descriptions for all of the new and
modified data are given in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
As in the standard gas handling loop calculation, the reinjected lean gas
composition calculated for a member of a well management level will be
used for FSTD reinjection wells attached to the member. However, if an
injection composition for any well is entered through a YREINJ card, the
composition specified on the YREINJ card will be used as the injection
composition. For an MI injector, the user may specify the well
management level for which the calculated MI composition is to be based
by entering keyword GATHER, FLOSTA, AREA, or FIELD on the INJ
card. In this case, a YINJ card for the MI injector must not be entered.
Otherwise, the composition specified on the YINJ card will be used and
the calculated MI composition will be ignored. As mentioned, a QMAX
card for all MI injectors must be entered to specify the MI injection rate for
each well. The MI rates calculated from the gas handling loop are not
used. This modification to the INJ card is also described in the VIP-
EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-575

The format for the Field Gas Handling Summary output (which will be
printed if keyword FIELD is entered on a PRINT card) is unchanged. If
two fuel gas streams are specified, the fuel gas shown in the summary will
be the sum of the two rates. Also, the reported fuel gas rate excludes the
component identified on the GASCOND card.
The NGL plant, LPG plant, and MI plant feed, liquid, and vapor rates and
compositions are reported as a subset of the separator report (invoked by
keyword SEP on the PRINT card). In addition, the calculated reinjected
lean gas composition is shown in the last column of the MI plant report.
Notice that this information is printed only for the members of the well
management levels where the calculated MI compositions are to be used
as the injection compositions of the MI injectors.
It should be noted that the feed composition for the NGL plant may be
different from the stock tank vapor composition shown in the separator
battery report. This is the case for multiple producer cases with non-
uniform production compositions because the feed composition for the
NGL plant is based on the sum of individual producers stock tank gas
rates, whereas the stock tank vapor composition in the separator report is
determined by flashing the total molar production rates (i.e., sum of all
well molar rates) for the separator battery. These two compositions will be
identical only if all producers have the same overall production
compositions.
The major gas sales option is allowed only for compositional models and
is available for both IMPES and implicit modes.
39-576 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Injection Regions
39.11 Injection Regions

An injection region is any three-dimensional volume in the model. The
maximum number of non-overlapping injection regions is set by the
NIRMX parameter on the DIM card. Some of the special features of
injection regions are:
Allow pressure maintenance in each injection region.
Enable both gas and water injection with net voidage control.
Enable gas project prioritization.
39.11.1 Injectors in Injection Regions

Some of the requirements for injectors in the injection regions are:
An injector can be assigned to one region only. If an injector is

completed in more than one region, it must be separated into several
injectors.
If the user assigns gridblocks to injection regions, but does not

explicitly assign injection wells to injection regions, the program
assigns the injection region for each injector according to the location
of the top perforation. If any injection wells are explicitly assigned to
injection regions, then all injection wells should be.
An injector that does not physically exist within a region can still be
assigned to it.
Injectors in an injection region may inject water or gas. They can be

specified as an STD, FSTD, RES, or FRES well using the INJ card.
An injection well under net voidage control must be specified as an

FRES well. When it is not under voidage control, it may be specified as
an STD, FSTD, or RES injector. An exception to this rule is the forced
gas injection scheme. Forced gas injectors are identified by FRES, but
are not voidage wells.
For the FRES injector, the qmax value on the QMAX card is the
maximum injection rate at reservoir conditions.
For the FRES gas injector, the injection gas composition used is the
same as that used in the gas reinjection option at the specified well
management level.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-577

Injection Regions VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.11.2 Producers in Injection Regions

A producer may be completed in more than one region. The program
automatically matches the completion zones for a producer to the
corresponding regions. A producer needs to physically exist in the
injection region.
39.11.3 Voidage Replacement

It is possible to do net voidage injection in injection regions. Net
voidage is defined as total reservoir production rate minus total reservoir
injection rate that is not under voidage control. The total reservoir
injection rate not under voidage control is the total injection rate at
reservoir conditions for all the STD, FSTD, and RES gas and water
injection wells. Two options, ALL and LIQUID on the IRDIST card, may
be used to determine the reservoir production rate.
39.11.4 Pressure Maintenance

It is possible to specify a target pressure for each injection region. The
model attempts to maintain the average region pressure at or near the
target, subject to any injection targets/constraints.
A pressure term, PTERM, defined in the following equation, is used for

pressure maintenance.
exp
P ref P avg
PTERM = ---------------------------- (39-32)
P ref P targ
where Pref, Ptarg, and exp are user-specified reference pressure, target
pressure, and exponent, respectively. The reference pressure, Pref, must be
greater than the target pressure, Ptarg, and the average pressure, Pavg. The
average pressure can be either the pore volume weighted average or the
hydrocarbon pore volume weighted average pressure.
39.11.5 Distribution of Total Reservoir Injection Rate

The total reservoir injection rate in the region is the product of the user-
specified net voidage factor, the net voidage, and PTERM. Therefore, no
injection is done if the net voidage term is zero or negative. If the average
pressure is smaller than the target pressure, PTERM is greater than one. In
such a case, more fluid is injected with pressure maintenance control than
without pressure maintenance control, causing the pressure to approach
the target pressure.
Two options, PROPTN and UNIFORM, are available for distribution of

the total reservoir injection rate to the voidage controlled wells. In the
39-578 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Injection Regions
UNIFORM option (which is the default option), the injection fluid is

distributed equally to the voidage controlled wells that are not
constrained by injectivity. For wells constrained by injectivity, the
maximum well injectivities are honored. The remaining rate then is
distributed equally to the rest of the wells. For the PROPTN option, the
injection fluid is distributed proportionally to each net voidage controlled
well according to injectivity. Injectivity is subjected to the maximum
injection rate and pressure constraints.
39.11.6 Target Injection Rates and Additional Source

The injection targets for the field and each injection region may be
specified on the ITARG card. When the injection region option is used,
VIP-EXECUTIVE ignores the ITARG values for the well management
levels (gathering center, flow station, and area).
Source water to the field may be specified using the IRSRCW card. The
maximum water injection to the field is the minimum of the field injection
target and the sum of the field production and specified water source. The
procedure to determine the gas available for injection to the field is
discussed in Section 39.9.4. The maximum gas injection to the field is the
minimum of the specified field injection target and the field available gas.
The maximum injection to a region is the minimum of the injection target
for the region and the sum of the well injectivities. The injection target for
each region can be specified as a percent of the total field target.
The injection region targets are checked first, followed by the field target.
If the total injection rate exceeds the maximum injection, all injection rates
in the region or in the field are decreased proportionally. However, if the
calculated well rate is smaller than the specified well minimum, then the
minimum rate is honored. The remaining well rates are decreased
proportionally according to the remaining target.
A special option, REDIST, is available in the general injection region.

When this option is selected, the extra injection fluid for a region will be
redistributed to other regions if the available amount cannot be fully
injected into that injection region. The injection fluid available for each
region is calculated as the maximum injection rate for the field multiplied
by the percentage specified on the IRPCTA card. The actual fluid injected
into the region can be equal to or smaller than the available amount. The
cut back is due to voidage replacement, pressure maintenance, maximum
injection rate for wells in the region, or regional injection target
limitations. In the REDIST option, the difference between the available
amount and the actual amount will be redistributed to the other regions.
The amount distributed into each region is proportional to its injectivity.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-579

Injection Prioritization VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.12 Injection Prioritization

The prioritization of gas injectors is implemented in the general injection
region option (Section 39.11). The user can specify any number of gas
injection projects along with their respective priorities in each injection
region or at field level. Gas is injected according to specified priorities.
Water can be injected according to voidage control specified using the
general injection region option.
39.12.1 Prioritization of Gas Injection

Gas injection can be prioritized so that gas requirements for a high priority
project (such as miscible injection) are satisfied before allocation of
injection gas to a low priority project (such as immiscible injection).
The total injection rate for the wells in priority 1 projects is calculated first.
This rate is then compared to the field effective target that was calculated
earlier (Section 39.9.6). If it is larger than the effective target, the injection
rate for priority 1 wells is cut back proportionally and no further
calculation is done for the lower priority wells. Otherwise, the effective
target is reduced by the total rate allocated to priority 1 wells. If the new
effective target is not zero, then the process is repeated for the next lower
priority.
To properly simulate gas storage, it is suggested that gas storage be

assigned as the lowest priority project. Large QMAX values should be
assigned to the gas storage wells. Therefore, all the gas left can be injected
to the storage wells.
The user cannot specify FRES gas injection wells in the prioritization
option. In the general injection region option, the FRES well type is
defined as a net voidage injector. To add the capability of injecting gas
according to specified priorities and injecting water according to net
voidage, water injection is calculated after gas injection when the
prioritization option is chosen.
The UNIFORM gas injection option is not available when the general
injection region option is used. This restriction also applies to the
prioritization option.
39-580 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Special Voidage Balance Injection Options
39.13 Special Voidage Balance Injection Options
39.13.1 Net Voidage Injection

The voidage replacement option controls the amount of produced fluid
replaced by injected fluid. The standard VIP-EXECUTIVE voidage
replacement option allows the user to specify the well injection rate as a
fraction of the production rate from any well management level. The well
injection rate can be either a fraction of the phase production rate at
surface conditions (FSTD) or a fraction of the total fluid production rate at
reservoir conditions (FRES). Some of the shortcomings of this option are:
The user must determine the fractional value injected at each injection
well.
Voidage replacement is based on total voidage; therefore it is not

possible to do voidage balance injection if more than one phase is
being injected at a well management level.
If both water and gas injection are taking place at a well management
level, net voidage injection may be more applicable. Net voidage is
defined as the difference between the total reservoir production rate and
the total reservoir injection rate for the phase not under net voidage
control. For example, if a fixed quantity of water is being injected, the gas
injection required to maintain voidage balance is the difference between
total production and water injection.
39.13.2 Injection Targets and Guide Rates

Injection targets can be specified for different well management levels
(INJTAR card). The model calculates the injection rates for the injectors
under voidage or net voidage control. The injection target for the higher
well management level is allocated to the lower level according to its
guide rate (INJGR card). The fraction of the lower level injection rate to the
upper level injection rate is the guide rate for that lower well management
level divided by the total guide rate under the higher well management
level. The input injection rate can be either a reservoir rate, a surface rate, a
fraction of surface phase production rate, a fraction of voidage, or a
fraction of net voidage. The guide rate can be either a rate, voidage, or net
voidage. If the well guide rate is not specified, the well injectivity is used;
however, it is constrained by the maximum well rate, bottom-hole
pressure, and tubinghead pressure.
The user can specify the injection target for an area as a fraction of its
voidage. The program calculates the area injection rate from area voidage
and input fraction. The calculated area injection rate can be allocated to
each flow station and the fluids from the flow station can be allocated to
the gathering center according to the respective voidage. The injection rate
at the gathering center then can be allocated to the injectors according to
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-581

Special Voidage Balance Injection Options VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
the well injectivities. If both water and gas are injected at the same well
management level, then the net voidage option is better for balancing
fluid injection.
39.13.3 Calculation of Maximum Well Injection Rates

The well injection target is calculated from the upper (FIELD) to the lower
(AREA) well management levels. First, the injection target at the highest
level is distributed to the lower level groups under it. When the injection
target specified at the lower level is more than at the higher level, the
injection rates for the lower levels are cut back proportionally if injection
targets are specified. If the injection targets are not specified, the targets
are set to zero. When the total injection target at the lower level is less than
the injection target at the upper level, the difference between these two
will be distributed to the lower level groups where targets are not
specified. The distribution is proportional to its guide rate. If the guide
rate for a lower level group is not specified, then the total guide rates and
the total injection targets under that level will be used. If the well guide
rate is not specified, the well injectivity will be used; however, it will be
constrained by the input maximum injection rate, bottom-hole pressure,
and tubinghead pressure.
39.13.4 Calculation of Voidage and Net Voidage

The injection rate or guide rate is based on the total or net voidage for
voidage replacement. The program only allows for one phase (water or
gas) under net voidage control. The rates and pressures for the producers
are calculated first, followed by the injectors. The water or gas injection
rates are calculated, depending on which injection phase is not under net
voidage control. If the net voidage option is used for the gas injectors, then
the program calculates the water injection rates before the gas injection
rates. The difference in total production rate and total water injection rate
is the net voidage for that well management level. If the water injectors are
under net voidage control, then the program calculates the rates for gas
injectors before the rates for water injectors.
39.13.5 Using Net Voidage Injection

When the net voidage replacement option is used, several criteria should
be followed:
Only one phase (water or gas) can be in net voidage control, not both.
An error message is printed and the simulation run stops if both
phases are under net voidage control.
When using the INJTAR cards, do not mix injection targets at reservoir
conditions with those at surface conditions for different well
management levels.
39-582 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Special Voidage Balance Injection Options
The injection target for the upper well levels is allocated to the lower
levels. If the user specifies the injection targets for several levels, then
they must be specified at the same conditions (reservoir or surface).
The RSTD and FSTD options in the INJTAR cards are for surface
conditions. The RRES, FRES, and FRESN options are for reservoir
conditions.
For different injection fluids, the user is allowed to use different

conditions in the INJTAR card. For example, the gas injection targets
can be specified at surface conditions and the water injection targets
can be specified at reservoir conditions.
The units for guide rate are the same as those for injection target.
For the default well guide rate, well injectivity at surface conditions is
used if the well defined in the INJ card is at surface conditions. If the
well is defined at reservoir conditions, the well injectivity at reservoir
conditions is used. The GURT option in the INJGR card has the same
units as the injection target. For the VOID and VOIN options, the
calculated total and net voidage are used directly in allocation of
injection targets.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-583

Gas-Lift VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.14 Gas-Lift
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, gas-lift is used with the tubinghead pressure (THP)
option for three-phase producers. The gas-lift gas allocated to a well is
added to that wells produced gas to derive the effective gas-liquid or gas-
oil ratio for the well. This ratio, along with the wells liquid or oil rate,
water cut, and THP constraint, is used to look up the flowing bottom-hole
pressure in the wellbore hydraulics table (BHPTAB data). Gas-lift is
otherwise transparent to the user; i.e., the gas-lift rate is not included in
daily gas production. The gas-lift option can be utilized only for wells for
which THP data have been entered.
A wells gas-lift gas rate can be entered with one of two options on the
QLIFT card. A positive gas-lift gas rate causes a constant allocation of that
rate to the well. A negative value (any negative value is sufficient) causes
invocation of an automatic allocation procedure for the well. In predictive
well management, all wells in a gathering center with gas-lift are
automatically eligible for gas-lift. Here, a negative value of gas-lift gas rate
has no significance. To prevent a well from becoming eligible for gas-lift, a
zero gas-lift gas rate must be specified.
Note that the gas-lift gas rate is calculated only during the first iteration of
each timestep. This calculated rate then is used for subsequent iterations.
39.14.1 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Optimal Table Method

The automatic allocation option and related data are entered with the
QLIFTA card. There are two basic allocation options with several
variations of each one. The first is referred to as OPTTAB, or optimal table.
The user provides the simulator with a table of gas-liquid or gas-oil ratio
as a function of water cut, liquid, or oil rate, and possibly pressure
(GLRTAB card). A table lookup, based on the wells inflow performance
characteristics, is performed to obtain the wells gas-liquid or gas-oil ratio.
This ratio then is used in the table lookup for the flowing bottom-hole
pressure.
Variations on the OPTTAB option relate to handling of the gas-lift gas

shortage. The user specifies on the QLIFTA card the amount of gas-lift gas
available for automatic allocation. If the amount allocated for all the wells
on gas-lift exceeds the available gas, some mechanism must be employed
to cut back the gas-lift gas rates. If no special option is specified, the
program simply stops allocating gas-lift gas to subsequent wells. The
TABGLE option indicates that gas-lift is to be removed from wells based
on gas-lift efficiency (oil rate/lift rate). The TABWC option indicates that
gas-lift is to be removed from wells based on water cut. The TABSCL
option indicates that gas-lift is to be scaled back from all wells.
39-584 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Gas-Lift
39.14.2 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Performance Curve Method

The second basic allocation option is referred to as PFMCRV, or
performance curve. The gas-liquid/gas-oil ratio table is not entered with
this option. Instead, an internal table is generated and user-supplied data
(PFMCRV card) determine the point at which the gas-lift gas rate is found.
Options also are available to handle over-allocation of gas-lift gas.
The PFMCRV option enables the user to calculate gaslift gas rates based
on the lift efficiencies of the wells, where lift efficiency is defined as the
incremental oil produced per increment of gaslift gas. Usage of this option
requires that the BHPTAB wellbore hydraulics tables have been input with
sufficient range to cover all of the oil, water, and total gas (produced
reservoir gas plus gaslift gas) rates that may be encountered with the
gaslift calculations. A word of caution should be noted here that the
wellbore hydraulics algorithm will extrapolate outside of the table range,
if necessary.
In order to evaluate lift efficiency, a set of operating points are first

calculated for the well. These operating points are for gaslift gas rates
approximately log-linearly spaced between .2 MMSCF/D and 15.0
MMSCF/D, possibly adjusted by the maximum GOR/GLR value in the
specified BHPTAB table. A maximum of 9 operating points will be
attempted. These operating points are the intersections between the PI line
(oil rate versus bottomhole pressure) and the lift curves (oil rate versus
bottomhole pressure for the various gaslift gas rates). See Figures 39-3 and
39-4.
These operating points define the performance curve for the well, for this
point in time, and the derivative of the curve is the lift efficiency. In order
to facilitate the interpolation between points and the evaluation of the
derivative there, a logarithmic function is fit through a subset of the
pointcs. The function is:
2
Q o = A + B [ ln ( GL ) ] + C [ ln ( GL ) ]
The procedure starts by fitting a curve through the first 3 operating points.
(Special cases of less than 3 operating points will be described later). If the
efficiency at the third operating point is higher than the desired efficiency
and if there are additional operating points at higher gaslift gas rates, the
curve fit will be repeated for points 2, 3, and 4, and the efficiency
calculated at point 4 and tested against the desired efficiency. This process
will be repeated (points 3, 4, 5; then 4, 5, 6; etc.) until an efficiency less than
the desired efficiency is found or until there are no additional operating
points. At this time the equation can be solved for the gaslift gas rate
which yields the desired efficiency. If necessary, this curve will be
extrapolated outside the range of the last set of points used.
Three special cases that are accounted for are as follows:
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-585

1. If a well can make its QMAX at one of the gaslift gas rates, that point
and all higher lift rate points are discarded. If the desired lift efficiency
exists within any of the remaining points, the required lift rate is
calculated. Otherwise, its lift rate is set to the lowest lift rate point at
which it could make QMAX.
Figure 39-3: Intersection of the Inflow Performance Curve (-PI) and the Lift
Curves for the Various Gaslift Gas Rates.
39-586 Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 39-4: Calculated Gaslift Performance Curve.
2. If only two operating points are found, the following logarithmic

function is fit through them:
Q o = A + B ln ( GL )
If the desired efficiency exists between these two points, the required
lift gas rate is calculated. However, this curve will not be extrapolated.
If the desired efficiency is at a lift rate less than the lower operating
point, the lift rate at the lower operating point will be used. Also, if the
desired efficiency is at a lift rate higher than the higher operating
point, the lift rate at the higher operating point will be used.
3. If only one operating point is found, the "total" efficiency at the point
(total oil rate divided by the lift gas rate) is compared to the desired
efficiency. If the total efficiency is greater, the lift gas rate at that point
is used of the next timestep. If the total efficiency is less, then the lift
gas rate is set to zero.
This process is repeated for each well, resulting in the total lift gas which is
required in order that each well will operate at the desired efficiency. If
this total lift gas requirement is less than the maximum available, these
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-587

gaslift gas rates will be used for the next timestep. However, if the
required gas exceeds what is available, then there are several options as to
how to reduce the required gas to less than or equal to what is available.
There are two basic paths for reducing the total gaslift gas volume
requirements. These paths are; 1) efficiency scaling, and 2) the combined
sequence of "hit-list" - uniform scale-back and shut-in of low "total"
efficiency wells.
1. Efficiency scaling (keyword EFFSCL). Using the previously computed

operating points and curve-fits for the wells, a new, higher efficiency
can be iterated for such that all capable wells are operating at the new
efficiency and the total lift gas requirement is less than or equal to the
lift gas available.
2. User-specified "Hit-List"
The user can specify an ordered list of wells which will have their lift
gas turned off, one by one, until either the gas availability is reached or
the list of wells is exhausted. When a well has its lift gas turned off, the
model will decide whether the well can flow or not (based on the
solution GOR and the lift curve data).
3. Uniform Scale-Back
After exhausting the hit list wells, if there is still a gas shortage then all
of the wells will have their lift gas scaled back by whatever percentage
it takes to reach the gas availability (subject to a user-input maximum
allowable scaleback). The model also honors an additional set of user-
input minimum and maximum allowable GLRs for the scaleback step.
4. Shut-in Low "Total" Efficiency Wells
If too large a scaleback is required (i.e., the required scaleback

calculated in Step 3 exceeds the user-input maximum allowable
scaleback), the model will only scale by the user-input value and then
start shutting in wells after that. The wells will be shut in on the basis
of total oil rate divided by total lift gas rate (the "old" method).
Additional information is packed into the Production Well Summary for

wells that are using the PFMCRV option for automatic gaslift gas rate
allocation. Since the print line is completely full, the single column
between CUM LIFT GAS and LIFT STATUS is used for an additional
status code. (The lift status will be PFMCRV). The codes are as follows:
0 - no potential operating points were found.
1 - only one potential operating point was found.
2 - only two potential operating points were found.
39-588 Landmark - R2003.4

E - three or more points were found, but it was

necessary to extrapolate outside their range for the
required lift efficiency.
(blank) - three or more points were found, and the required

efficiency was found within their range.
Wells for which at least two potential operating points were found an for
which a non-zero gaslift gas rate was determined, a second line is printed
containing the incremental gaslift efficiency for the well.
39.14.3 Well Status of Wells on Gas-Lift

If a well is on gas-lift, one of the following indicators appears in the LIFT
STATUS column of the production well summary:
SPEC specified, a positive qlift value has been supplied.
GLRTAB optimal GLR table used to allocate lift gas rate; a

negative qlift value has been supplied.
*GLE gas-lift removed from the well due to violation of

minimum gas-lift efficiency constraint. The rate
originally is calculated using optimal GLR table.
*DEC gas-lift decreased from the well because of not

enough available gas-lift gas. The rate originally
was calculated using the optimal GLR table.
The gas-lift rate is used by the program only to determine the flowing
bottom-hole pressure that corresponds to the user-specified tubinghead
pressure limit. Gas-lift is otherwise transparent to the user; that is, the gas-
lift rate is not included in daily gas production. Gas-lift can be used only
on wells for which a THP card is entered.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-589

Water Pumps VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.15 Water Pumps

Groups of water injectors commonly are controlled by the same pump
system, especially in offshore situations, in which a large number of
injectors often are driven from one pump system on an offshore platform.
The discharge pressures of these pump systems vary (usually decreasing)
with flow rate delivered. Therefore, it is inappropriate to assume that
water injectors coupled to such a pump system operate at a constant
tubinghead pressure independent of the total flow rate delivered by the
pump system.
Water injectors connected to a common injection pump system can be

modeled accurately in VIP-EXECUTIVE by using the water injector pump
system option. Injectors connected to a common pump system must be
defined within the same gathering center. This gathering center then is
assigned to a table of pump discharge pressure (THP) versus flow rate
using the IPUMP card. Finally, pump characteristics may be defined using
the PMPTAB card. The user may define multiple pump tables and assign
more than one gathering center to the same pump table in much the same
way the bottom-hole pressure tables are used.
The maximum number of pump flow rates and pump discharge pressure
values is specified using the NPMPV parameter on the DIM card. In
addition, the maximum number of pump tables is specified using the
NPMPMX parameter on the DIM card.
39-590 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Surface Facility Model
39.16 Surface Facility Model
39.16.1 Introduction
The Surface Facility Model (TSFM) extends the calculation of hydrocarbon
recovery volumes beyond the standard multi-stage surface separator
conditions. The liquid from the last stage of the separator is further
processed through an oil stabilizer, and any additional liberated gas from
the stabilizer is added to the gas from the surface separators for input into
a gas processing plant. Recovery factors are input for each component in
order to calculate liquid recovery volumes, and subsequently the dry gas
volume out of the plant.
gas
gas rate
gas
plant
gas
separator
battery gas
oil
oil
stabilizer
H/C/well stream
oil
stock
oil rate tank
39.16.2 Oil Stabilizer

Hydrocarbon liquid recovery factors are input for each component for the
oil stabilizer calculations. The liberated gas from the stabilizer is added to
the gas input stream to the gas plant. A new liquid Z-factor is computed
for the stabilized liquid, and the resulting well oil rate is then calculated.
Optionally, the liquids recovered from the gas plant can be added to the oil
rate from the stabilizer, resulting in a total composite liquid rate for the
well.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-591

Surface Facility Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.16.3 Gas Plant

Another set of liquid recovery factors are input for each component for the
gas plant calculations, along with the molar densities for each component.
The molar densities are used to calculate the recovered liquid volume of
each component. These recovered liquid volumes are reported in the
TSFM Surface Facility Model Report, along with the various stream rates,
cumulatives, and compositions. Output for this report is controlled by the
PRINT WELLS card.
39.16.4 Reported Volumes and Ratios

The well gas rate is defined as the total gas inlet to the gas plant. The
default well oil rate is defined as the oil volume from the oil stabilizer.
Optionally, the oil rate can be redefined as the sum of the oil from the
stabilizer plus the recovered liquids from the gas plant, resulting in the
composite liquid volume. All well and group constraints apply at these
points. Gas rate targeting can optionally be based on either the inlet gas
rate to the plant (default) or the outlet dry gas rate from the plant.
39-592 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Automatic Workovers
39.17 Automatic Workovers
39.17.1 Objectives
The automatic workover feature in VIP-EXECUTIVE has the following
objectives:
All field workovers that are meaningful in the simulator are identified
and performed.
The scheduling of workovers reflects prioritization and facility

availability similar to those in the field.
All appropriate work in a well is done at the same time.
39.17.2 Types of Workovers

Implementation of this feature accommodates the following types of
workovers:
Oil perf opening of perforation(s) to increase oil production.
Gas perf opening of perforation(s) to increase gas production.
Water perf opening of perforation(s) to increase water production.
Gas shutoff closing of perforation(s) to decrease gas production.
Water shutoff closing of perforation(s) to decrease water

production.
All workover types will be performed on a well subject to the following

restrictions:
Only one oil perf, gas perf, or water perf can be performed.
Gas perf and gas shutoff cannot be performed simultaneously.
Water perf and water shutoff cannot be performed simultaneously.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-593

Automatic Workovers VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
39.17.3 Automatic Workover Algorithm
Workover Rigs
Workovers are performed by rigs. Rigs may be assigned to any member in

a well management level: gathering center (GC), flow station (FS), area, or
field. A rig may be used at any gathering center within that well
management member. For example, a rig assigned to the field may
perform a workover at any gathering center, while a rig assigned to a
gathering center may perform workovers in that gathering center only.
Defining rigs involves specifying the number of available rigs, the time
required to complete a workover, and the time required to move a rig from
one gathering center to another (when necessary). Additional input allows
any number of rigs to be removed from a member in a well management
level or for a new set of rigs to totally replace a previously specified set.
At a time when workovers are to be performed, the availability of a rig

depends on when the rig completed its most recent workover, the time
required to complete a workover, and, possibly, the time required to move
the rig to another gathering center. The rig must be able to complete the
workover before the current time to be selected to do the workover. That
is, the following condition must be satisfied:
CURTIM AVLTIM + WRKTIM ( + MVTIM ),
where CURTIM is current time, AVLTIM is time at which the rig is

available, WRKTIM is time required to complete a workover, and MVTIM
is time needed to move a rig, if necessary. The only exception to this rule is
that a rig is immediately available to perform its first workover.
Wells for Workovers
Only wells defined as producers are considered for automatic workovers.

The initial criteria for a well to be eligible for any workover are that:
A rig is available at the wells gathering center, flow station, area, or

field.
Enough time has elapsed since the last workover was performed on
the well.
This elapsed time between workovers is user-specified data.
A well is eligible for a perforation-opening workover if it has at least one

openable perforation. A perforation is considered openable if it currently
is inactive (status OFF on the FPERF card or previously closed off) and if it
satisfies limits discussed in the next section.
39-594 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Automatic Workovers
A well is eligible for a perforation-shutoff workover if it has at least one

shutable perforation. A perforation is considered shutable if it currently is
active (status ON) and satisfies limits discussed in the next section.
Additionally, the user may specify a gas-oil ratio minimum (water-cut
minimum) that the well must satisfy to be eligible for a gas-shutoff
workover (water-shutoff workover).
Note that a shut-in well is eligible for opening and shutoff workovers. The
well must have produced at some point before being shut in.
The concept of having all perforation operations occur during the

workover process requires certain data restrictions to the existing well and
perforation limit options. The PRFLIM option of checking individual
perforations for GOR and water cut is not allowed. The PLUG option
within the GLIMIT and WLIMIT data is not allowed, since PLUG closes
the worst-offending perforations. The only GLIMIT/WLIMIT options
allowed are SHUTIN and LIMIT.
Doing the Workover
The number of workovers performed during a timestep depends on rig

and well availability. As long as a candidate well exists and a rig is
available to the gathering center to which the well belongs, the workover
will be performed. The type of workover performed is a direct function of
user input: user-supplied data define the relative number of each type of
workover to perform. For example, let values A, B, and C define the
number of openings, gas shutoffs, and water shutoffs, respectively.
Example: A=5 , B=2 , C=3
The first 5 openings will be performed, then 2 gas shutoffs, then 3 water
shutoffs, then 5 openings, etc.
The first 4 gas shutoffs will be performed, then 1 water shutoff, then 4 gas
shutoffs, etc.
Only gas shutoffs are performed.
The count for each workover type is not reset each time workovers are
performed. From the first example, if only three opening workovers are to
be performed during the first set of workovers, then the next time
workovers are performed, two opening workovers will be performed,
followed by two gas shutoffs.
The choice of wells on which the workovers are performed is based on the
benefit functions. Each of the three lists of candidate wells is sorted based
on the appropriate benefit function values. (Note that a well may be in
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-595

Automatic Workovers VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
more than one list.) The top well in the appropriate list then is selected. If a
rig is available, all workover types for which the well is a candidate are
performed. All workovers are assumed to be successful unless a user-
supplied failure rate is in effect. In this case, every nth workover fails. The
rig is still considered unavailable for the designated period of time, but the
well remains a candidate. The failure also does not count against the
relative number of workovers to perform.
39.17.4 Frequency of Workover Calculations

When the workover feature is used with the PWM option, workovers are
performed at the beginning of each timestep in which the PWM
calculation of rates will be done. In addition, the user may request that
workovers be performed more frequently. At the end of this non-PWM
timestep, rates will be checked against user-specified tolerances to
determine whether the timestep should be repeated with PWM.
When the PWM option is not in use, workovers will be performed at user-
specified intervals.
39.17.5 Data Modifications

Special data input is required to use the automatic workover feature.
Users should consult the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual for details.
39-596 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Predictive Well Management (PWM)
39.18 Predictive Well Management (PWM)

During the prediction phase of a simulation study, the reservoir engineer
generally does not have the individual well rates and the related
production and development plans for the field. However, the engineer
may have an estimate of the total field production rate for one or more
phases (oil and gas). In addition, the facility size and capacity constraints
for some of the facilities (such as the water treatment plant) may be
known. The engineer may not be able to specify individual well
production (or injection) rates, but may want to specify certain guidelines
to determine the production profile for the future. These guidelines may
be:
Always produce from a certain area of the field or from a specified set
of wells.
Produce from the lowest to the highest gas-oil ratio (GOR) well in the
gas cap.
Produce from the lowest to the highest water-cut well in the area near
the oil-water contact.
The PWM modules in VIP-EXECUTIVE use the following information to

determine production rates for individual wells in the field for the
prediction period:
The fluid rate targets/constraints at various levels of well

management (gathering center, flow station, area, field).
The THP constraint for wells.
The availability of artificial lift methods, such as pumps and gas-lift.
The governing conditions for the prediction phase of the simulation

study, such as minimum well rate, maximum GOR, etc.
There are two PWM options in VIP-EXECUTIVE: NEW and MGOR.
39.18.1 What is Predictive Well Management?

During the prediction phase of a simulation study, individual well
production rates generally are unknown. In such a case, the engineer has
the following options:
Specify future production rate for each well in the field, or
Allow the simulator to calculate well production rates on the basis of

well and facility data.
In general, it is difficult to determine future well production rates from the

historical data. PWM is a method for determining the THP and
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-597

Predictive Well Management (PWM) VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
production rates for a group of wells under certain objectives/constraints

specified by the user. Some examples of these objectives could be:
Maximize oil production
Maximize (or minimize) gas production
Minimize water production and water-cut
Maximize (or minimize) the number of producers.
The PWM algorithm allows the engineer to simulate a variety of

development strategies, then compare them.
39.18.2 Basic Definitions
Pressure Systems
Well production rates are generally unknown for the production phase of
a simulation study. However, the probable range of tubinghead pressures
for a well can usually be estimated. A "pressure system" corresponds to
the tubinghead pressure for a well. In the NEW option, the user can
specify any number of pressure systems for each well. In the MGOR
option, only two pressure systems exist: the low pressure system (default
name is SYS1) and the high pressure system (default name is SYS2). The
program determines to which pressure system each well flows and at
what rates.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE each well is connected to a gathering center in the

well management hierarchy. The pressure systems are therefore defined at
the gathering center level. Each gathering center may have one or more of
the pressure systems. Targets can be specified for each phase (oil, gas and
water) at each well management level (gathering center, flow station, area
and field), as well as for each pressure system.
Artificial Lift Methods
In many fields, artificial lift techniques are used to enable low productivity
wells to flow. During the history match period the engineer has a priori
knowledge of wells on artificial lift. During the prediction phase of a
study, however, the following questions must be answered:
Should this well be produced using artificial lift?
If so, what type of lift should be used?
Which pressure system should be used for connecting artificial lift?
What is the best distribution of wells to utilize available resources

(such as gaslift)?
39-598 Landmark - R2003.4

How does artificial lift impact facility size at various well management
levels?
Some of the commonly used artificial lift methods in the field are gaslift,
sucker rod pumps and downhole submersible pumps. VIP-EXECUTIVE
can simulate only gaslift at present. In the NEW option, gaslift may be
available at one or more pressure systems in a gathering center and it is
not necessary that gaslift be available at all gathering centers. The MGOR
option restricts gaslift to the low pressure system only. Wells on gaslift are
automatically connected to the low pressure system.
Benefit Functions (NEW Option)
When the total production rate at any well management level exceeds the
user-specified target, there are two options available to reduce the
production rate:
Shut some of the wells to meet the target, or
Cut production from some or all wells to meet the target.
In the first case, the model requires a set of rules to determine which wells
could be shut-in. Benefit functions are a convenient way to determine the
order in which wells could be shut-in. Similarly, benefit functions can be
used to determine the order in which wells are first opened to flow.
A benefit function is an equation with the following characteristics:
It is used for creating a sorted list of wells,
It is based on some combination of well parameters such as phase

rates, GOR and water cut,
It can be used to exclude (or include) wells with specific characteristics

such as:
Wells in a specific area of the field (such as the gas cap),
Wells with high GOR or high water-cut.
The user will have the option of choosing one of the following equations
to calculate the benefit function:
BF = PM P A ( A Q o + B GOR + C WCUT + D GLGOR ) ,
BF = PM P A ( A + B Q g + C Q o + D Q w + E Q glg )
( F + G Q g + H Q o + I Q w + J Q glg ) , or
B D F
BF = PM P A ( Q o + A ) ( GOR + C ) ( WCUT + E )
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-599

H
( GLGOR + G )
where:
PM Producing mechanism weighting factor for the well,
PA Producing area weighting factor for the well,
Qo Oil production rate for the well, STB/D (STCM/D),
Qg Gas production rate for the well, MSCF/D (SCM/

D),
Qw Water production rate for the well, STB/D (STCM/

D),
Qglg Gaslift gas production rate for the well, MSCF/D

(SCM/D),
GOR Gas-oil ratio for the well, SCF/STB (SCM/STCM),
WCUT Water cut for the well, fraction,
GLGOR Gaslift gas-oil ratio for the well, SCF/STB (SCM/

STCM),
A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H,
I, and J User defined coefficients.
Total Incremental Gas-Oil Ratio (MGOR Option)
The total incremental gas-oil ratio (TIGOR) for a well at point i on its
generated production curve is defined as:
( Q g + Q glg ) ( Q g + Q glg )
i i1
TIGOR i = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (39-33)
Qo Qo
i i1
where:
Q gi Formation gas produced at point i,
Q glgi Gaslift gas used at point i,
Q oi Oil produced at point i,
39-600 Landmark - R2003.4

Qgi 1 Formation gas produced at point i-1,
Q glgi 1 gaslift gas used at point i-1,
Qoi 1 oil produced at point i-1.
Marginal Gas-Oil Ratio (MGOR Option)
The marginal gas-oil ratio (MGOR) is the TIGOR value above which no
production is added. The MGOR is computed for each entity in each well
management level (gathering center, flow station, area and field). In
addition, values are computed for the high pressure system, the low
pressure system (all wells) and the low pressure system (gaslifted wells
only).
39.18.3 Algorithm for NEW Option

The following is the stepwise description of the NEW option.
Step 0 - Determination of Flow Capacity
The production rate of a well depends on its THP. The possible flow rates
for a well depend on the number of THPs (or pressure systems) to which it
can flow. In addition, a well may be able to use artificial lift methods.
Therefore, a well may have more than one set of possible flow rates under
appropriate conditions. The first step in the NEW option consists of
determining all such possible flow rates for a well.
The user-specified data are used to determine the eligible THP values and
artificial lift methods for each well. The inflow performance curve for the
well is determined using the perforation data. The outflow performance is
determined using the user-supplied tabular data relating bottomhole
pressure (BHP) and THP. The flow rate at a given set of conditions is
determined from the intersection of inflow and outflow performance
curves. This calculation is repeated for each eligible pressure system and
artificial lift method for the well.
Step 1 - Hydraulic Categorization
At the end of the above step, a well could flow to more than one pressure
system and may have rates using one or more lift methods. A set of rules
is used to select the most appropriate pressure system for each well. This
process is termed "hydraulic categorization". The categories represent
"bins" into which wells would be sorted based on
a wells ability to produce at the minimum level of the "bin",
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-601

the inability to produce at the minimum level of the next higher "bin"
and
the available of necessary facilities such as artificial lift.
The following rules are used to determine the hydraulic category of each
well:
The category depends on the ability of a well to flow above a certain

(user-specified) minimum rate. This minimum rate could be either oil
rate or gas rate.
The category is equal to the highest pressure system to which a well

(without lift) can flow above the minimum rate.
If a well cannot be categorized without lift, it is assigned to category

"mustlift".
The category for a well can be fixed by the user, but the well
production rate must be above the minimum rate.
It is expected that an artificial lift method would increase the production

rate for a well (at a fixed THP). Therefore, a well is considered ineligible
for artificial lift if the incremental oil production rate "(lifted - non-lifted)/
non-lifted" is less than a user-specified threshold. The default value of this
threshold is five percent.
At the end of this step, each well is assigned a category number. It should
be noted that a well can flow into any pressure system at or below its
category, i.e., a well categorized to flow to a high pressure system is still
eligible to flow to a low pressure system. The actual pressure system to
which a well would flow is determined in the next step.
Step 2 - Well Assignment
In this step, wells are assigned to a specific pressure system and lift
method (if eligible). The well assignment is based on the category of the
well and the user-specified data. Multiple passes can be made in this step
to selectively assign wells to a specific pressure system at a specific well
management level. The following data must be specified by the user for
each pass:
Benefit function type and the appropriate coefficients.
Pressure system to be filled.
Eligible well categories.
Highest well management level to check targets.
During each pass, the following sequence of events takes place:
39-602 Landmark - R2003.4

1. A list of eligible wells is made. A well is eligible for assignment if
It is currently not assigned,
It is in an eligible category for this pass, and
If its water-cut, gas-cut ratio and gas-liquid ratio are below the
user-specified values for this pass. These cutoff values are optional.
2. The benefit function for each eligible well is then calculated. The user
can specify a different benefit function for each pass.
3. The well list is sorted on the basis of the benefit function.
4. Wells are brought on production until the well list is exhausted or any
appropriate target is met at the specified well management level. If a
target is met, one of the three available options specified by the user is
used to reduce the rate to be equal to the target. The three options are:
Scale back all rates by the same factor to exactly meet the target.
Shut-in wells (and scale the last well) to exactly meet the target.
Use an averaging technique such that the rates of the highest rate
wells are reset to an average rate to meet the target.
In the "shut-in" and "average" options, the well is not truly shut-in (such as
shut-in due to minimum rate, maximum GOR constraints). It will be
eligible for assignment in all subsequent passes and timesteps.
At the end of this step, either the production targets at the specified well
management levels are exactly met or all eligible wells are assigned. Since
targets are not checked at any higher well management level, one or more
of them may have been violated. In addition, it is possible that some
targets at the lower levels are not met and eligible wells have not been
assigned.
Step 3 - Shut-in/Scale-back of Wells
This step is used to reduce production at those well management levels

where the targets have been violated. Multiple passes can be made during
this step to select a specific phase at a desired well management level. The
user must specify the following data for each pass:
Benefit function type and the appropriate coefficients.
Shut-in or scale-back option.
The pressure system entity (or the entire well management level) to be
checked.
Well management level.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-603

Phase to be checked.
During each pass, the following sequence of events takes place:
1. It is determined if the target has been exceeded for the specified phase
for each member at the specified well management level.
2. If the shut-in option is used, wells are shut-in in the benefit function
order until the rate is equal to the target.
3. If the scale-back option is used, all eligible wells are scaled back
proportionally to meet the target.
The target must be exceeded by a fraction greater than the tolerance

(default value is 0.05 for all phases at all well management levels) for any
remedial action to take place.
At the end of this step, all user specified targets are compared with the
actual production rates. If any target is being violated, a warning message
is printed. The user can specify the action if such an event occurs. The
possible choices are to stop the run (after writing a restart) or continue the
run after printing the warning message.
39.18.4 Algorithm for MGOR Option

The production rate of a well depends on its limiting tubinghead pressure
(THP), as well as whether any artificial lift methods are available. In the
MGOR option two THP limits may be assigned to each well: a low
pressure (LP) limit and a high pressure (HP) limit. A well is considered to
be flowing to the LP pressure system if its rate was determined using the
LP THP limit. Similarly, a well flows to the HP pressure system if its rate
was determined using the HP THP limit. Gaslift is the only artificial lift
method available in this option. Wells on gaslift flow to the LP pressure
system only; gaslift is not available in the HP pressure system.
The inflow performance curve for each well is determined using the
perforation data. The outflow performance is determined using the user-
supplied tabular data relating bottomhole pressure (BHP) and THP. The
flow rate at a given set of conditions is calculated from the intersection of
the inflow and outflow performance curves.
Generation of Well Performance Curve Points
For each production well:
1. Calculate the flow rates at its HP THP limit if the well is eligible to
flow to the HP pressure system. Calculate the flow rates at four
additional points (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of HP THP limit oil rate). If
the gas-oil ratio (GOR) of the 20% point is within ten percent of the
GOR of the HP THP limit point (i.e., the well is not rate sensitive),
39-604 Landmark - R2003.4

discard these points: they are not needed in the subsequent

calculations. The well is considered incapable of flowing to the HP
system if its water-cut at the HP THP limit exceeds the user-specified
water-cut limit.
2. Calculate the flow rates at its LP THP limit if the well is eligible to flow
to the LP pressure system. If the well is rate sensitive (rate sensitive in
the HP pressure system or the GOR at the LP THP limit point is not
within ten percent of the GOR at the HP THP limit point), calculate the
flow rates at four additional points between the oil rates
corresponding to the HP THP limit and the LP THP limit. The well is
considered incapable of flowing to the LP system if its water-cut at the
LP THP limit exceeds the user-specified water-cut limit.
3. If the well is eligible for gaslift, calculate the flow rates at its LP THP
limit with gaslift. The amount of gaslift gas injected is computed using
the performance curve algorithm with the lift efficiency being either
user-supplied or table-derived. If the fixed gaslift gas rate option is
used, no other point is generated. The well is either on gaslift at this
corresponding rate or not on gaslift. If the variable gaslift gas rate
option is used four additional points are generated. These points
correspond to successively smaller amounts of gaslift gas.
Note that a well will be placed on gaslift only if its lifted oil rate
satisfies the user-specified minimum incremental benefit due to gaslift
and the water-cut does not exceed the user-specified water-cut limit. If
these requirements are not satisfied, the offending point will not be
included in the well performance curve.
4. The lift efficiency used in the gaslift gas calculations under the
performance curve option is determined in one of two ways:
User-specified value, or
User-specified table of water-cut versus efficiency. The water-cut

for the well is the value determined at the LP THP limit point.
Generation of the TIGOR Versus QO Curve for Each Well
As defined previously, the total incremental gas-oil ratio (TIGOR) is the

slope of each segment of total gas rate (QG + QGLG) versus oil rate (QO)
from the well performance curve. The MGOR option utilizes the TIGOR
versus QO curve for each well to determine the wells rates at increasing
values of TIGOR. The TIGOR versus QO curve is generated as follows:
Define the TIGOR value at the first point as the GOR of the first point
on the well performance curve.
Compute the TIGOR value at each subsequent point as the slope of

(QG + QGLG) versus QO between this point and the previous point on
the well performance curve.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-605

Do not allow the TIGOR values to decrease. That is, the following
equation is enforced for each point j on the curve after the first:
TIGORj = max (TIGORj, TIGORj-1) .
Well Assignment
The well assignment process may be generally described as follows:
1. Start at a user-specified initial value of field total incremental gas-oil

ratio (FIGOR).
2. Determine the flow rates for each well at the current FIGOR value.
3. Decrease appropriate well flow rates to satisfy any production or

gaslift targets that may have been violated by increasing FIGOR to its
current value.
4. Determine if any excess capacity remains and if there exist any wells
whose rates can be increased.
5. If so, increase the current FIGOR value by the user-specified increment

and return to Step 2.
6. Determine if any well management level minimum rate constraints are

violated.
7. If so, perform appropriate well shut-ins and return to Step 1.
8. When the flow rate calculations are completed compute the marginal
gas-oil ratio (MGOR) for each entity in each well management level.
Determination of Flow Rates as the Current FIGOR Value
In general, wells will flow at the oil, gas and water rates corresponding to
the current value of FIGOR. Complications arise, though, in getting to this
point or in discovering that the well cannot flow at this FIGOR value. The
following steps are used in attempting to flow a well at FIGOR:
1. The rates may not be increased from the rates at the previous value of
FIGOR if any of these conditions hold:
a. The well has already reached its maximum rate.
b. The current value of FIGOR is less than the TIGOR value of the
first point in this wells TIGOR versus QO curve.
c. A low pressure system target applicable to this well has been

reached and the well has already reached its maximum high
pressure system rate.
39-606 Landmark - R2003.4

d. A gaslift gas target applicable to this well has been reached and the
well has already reached its maximum non-lifted rate.
2. Determine the point in the TIGOR versus QO curve in which the

current FIGOR value lies.
a. If the gaslift gas rate cannot be increased and the current FIGOR
value lies in the gaslift region of the curve, set the point to the
maximum non-lifted point.
b. If the low pressure system rate cannot be increased and the current
FIGOR value lies in the LP system region of the curve, set the point
to the maximum high pressure system point.
3. If appropriate, compute the gaslift gas rates corresponding to the point

on the TIGOR versus QO curve.
4. Compute the oil, gas and water rates corresponding to the point on the
TIGOR versus QO curve.
Decreasing of Flow Rates Due to Targeting
Once the well flow rates have been computed for the current FIGOR
value, the user-specified targets must be checked. Any gathering center
targets are checked first, then any flow station targets, then any area
targets and then any field targets. For each entity in each well
management level, the various targets are checked and satisfied in the
following order:
1. Gaslift gas: If the gaslift gas rate violates the available gas decrease the
current FIGOR value by ten percent (10%) of the difference between
the current and the previous FIGOR values. Continue this process
until the violation is eliminated. A wells production rates will not be
decreased below those corresponding to its maximum non-lifted
point.
2. Low pressure system: If any of the low pressure system targets are still
violated by more than the user specified tolerance:
a. Set FIGH = current FIGOR value, and

FIGL = previous FIGOR value
b. Compute a new current FIGOR value to be the midpoint between

FIGH and FIGL.
c. For those wells pointing to the low pressure system, compute the
rates based on the new FIGOR value. A wells production rates
will not be decreased below those corresponding to its maximum
high pressure system point.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-607

d. If any low pressure system target remains violated by more than

the tolerance, reset FIGH to this FIGOR and return to Step b.
e. Once the targets are satisfied, check that the cuts were not too
deep. That is, at least one of the violating rates should be between
the target rate and the target tolerance rate. If not, increase the
current FIGOR to accomplish this; i.e., reset FIGL to the current
FIGOR and return to Step b. Note that by increasing FIGOR a
target can again be violated. Thus FIGOR can be decreased,
increased, decreased, etc., to satisfy the targeting criteria.
f. The final FIGOR value becomes the current FIGOR for subsequent
targeting checks.
3. High pressure system with no excess capacity in the low pressure

system: If any of the high pressure system targets are still violated by
more than the user-specified tolerance but no wells can be moved to
the low pressure system because it is already full, perform the same
algorithm as in Step 2. Obviously in this case the wells under
consideration are the ones pointing to the high pressure system.
4. Total: If any of the total targets (the entity as a whole) are still violated
by more than the user-specified tolerance, perform the same algorithm
as in Step 2 on wells pointing to either pressure system.
5. High pressure system with capacity in the low pressure system: If any
of the high pressure system targets are still violated by more than the
user-specified tolerance and there is excess capacity in the low
pressure system, try moving wells from the high pressure system to
the low pressure system in the following manner:
a. Wells eligible to be switched to the low pressure system must

satisfy the criteria:
Currently assigned to the high pressure system
Can flow to the low pressure system
TIGOR value at the HP THP limit point (TIGOR*) is larger than the
current value of FIGOR.
b. Sort the eligible wells by increasing value of TIGOR*.
c. Starting at the beginning of the list, reassign wells to the low

pressure system until the high pressure system targets are no
longer violated. Do not switch a well if its rates would cause a low
pressure system target to be violated by more than the tolerance.
d. If any high pressure system target remains violated (due to low

pressure system violations and/or not enough eligible wells),
39-608 Landmark - R2003.4

undo the switches performed in this step. Go back to Step 3 to

perform the other algorithm for high pressure system violations.
Calculation of the Marginal Gas-Oil Ratio
As defined previously, the marginal gas-oil ratio (MGOR) is the TIGOR

value above which no production is added. The MGOR is computed for
each entity in each well management level. In addition, values are
computed for the high pressure system; the low pressure system (all
wells); and the low pressure system (gaslifted welsl only). Each of these
values is computed as the maximum TIGOR value over the set of
appropriate wells. An MGOR report is available to view these results.
39.18.5 Frequency of PWM Calculations (Both NEW and MGOR)

The PWM calculations undoubtedly will increase the execution time for
the well management component of the program. This results from the
multiple sets of flow rates that need to be calculated each time PWM
calculations are performed. To control run time without sacrificing the
integrity of the results, the user can control the frequency of the PWM
calculations.
Once one of the PWM options is initiated, PWM calculations are

performed automatically at every DATE/TIME card. The user can also
control the frequency of additional PWM calculations in any of three
ways:
Every nth timestep.
After every n days.
After every n months (to the beginning of the nearest month).
Timesteps with PWM Calculations
During the timesteps when PWM calculations are performed, the user can
control the number of outer iterations with PWM calculations. The
keyword controlling this number is WMITN and the number of iterations
generally is set to 1. (During history matching the value of WMITN is
zero, causing no PWM calculations to be performed.) After the first
WMITN iterations of the timestep, the following procedure is used:
1. The well rates are saved (after iteration number WMITN) for wells cut
back to meet well management targets. These rates are considered to
be the maximum flow rates (QMAX) for the wells. In addition, those
wells that are not cut back due to targets are considered to be
bottomhole pressure constrained at the flowing bottomhole pressure
calculated in iteration number WMITN.
R2003.4 - Landmark 39-609

2. The rates for cut-back wells are fixed at the temporary QMAX for the
remaining iterations of the PWM timestep. However, the rates for
bottomhole pressure constrained wells can float due to pressure
changes during subsequent iterations.
Timesteps without PWM Calculations
During the timesteps when PWM calculations are not performed, well
rates are determined using the same procedure as that used after WMITN
iterations in timesteps with PWM calculations. However, rates calculated
using this procedure may deviate significantly from the user-specified
targets. To prevent the total rates from deviating substantially from the
specified targets, the user can specify tolerances for production targets at
any level(s) of the well management hierarchy. Two types of rate
comparisons are done:
Comparison of rates from the non-PWM timesteps to the PWM

timesteps. In this case, a violation occurs if:
RATE ( PWM ) RATE ( NON PWM )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > tolerance 1 (39-34)
RATE ( PWM )
Comparison of rates from non-PWM timesteps to the user-specified

targets. In this case, a violation occurs if:
RATE ( NON PWM ) TARGET

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > tolerance 2 (39-35)
TARGET
In case of a violation, the user has one of the following three options:
Write a restart and stop the run.
Print a warning message and continue the run.
Repeat the timestep and perform PWM calculations.
Note that the default option is not to perform rate comparisons during the
non-PWM timesteps. Invoking the rate comparison enables the users to
closely monitor run performance and avoid PWM calculations at every
timestep.
39.18.6 Data Required

Special data input is required to use this feature. Users should consult the
predictive well management section in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference
Manual for details.
39-610 Landmark - R2003.4

Appendix
A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction
In reservoir simulation, the important boundary conditions that drive the
flow occur at the wells. In the exact solution of the differential equations,
each well would be represented by an interior circular boundary of radius
rw. One of two types of boundary conditions could be specified for each
well, namely the flowing well pressure, pwf, or the flow rate, q. It would
not be possible, of course, to specify both.
To represent such interior boundary conditions at the well radius by

conventional finite-difference methods would require a very fine grid
definition in the neighborhood of the well, as exemplified in Figure A-1.
rw
Figure A-1: Fine Grid Around A Well
While such a fine grid might be suitable for single-well models, it is not
practical for 2D areal or 3D models. Instead, each well is embedded in a
block whose horizontal dimensions are much larger than the diameter of
the well. As a result, the pressure calculated for a block containing a well
is greatly different from the flowing well pressure, pwf. To account for this
difference, a well index, WI, must be used. Most of this chapter is devoted
to the subject of how to calculate WI for various 2D and 3D geometries.
R2003.4 - Landmark A-611

Definition of Well Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
A.2 Definition of Well Index

The well index may be defined by its use in the following oil production
equation:
k ro o
q o = 0.001127 WI k l hl ------------- ( p b p wf ) l
o l
(A-1)
l
where
qo oil mole rate
pbl gridblock pressure
summation over blocks open to flow to the well
kl hl product of permeability and gridblock thickness
kro relative permeability to oil phase
o mole density of oil phase
o viscosity of oil phase
A similar equation holds for each component. Note that WI is

dimensionless, and is the same for the entire well.
The flowing well pressure is related to the bottomhole pressure at the

datum depth, Dref, by
o
p wf = p bh + ( D D ref ) (A-2)
Equation A-1 can be used two ways. The rate qo can be set in the finite-
difference equation for the block. After the simulator calculates the block
pressure, pbl, Equation A-1 can be used to calculate pwf and then Equation
o o
A-2 used to calculate the bottomhole pressure, p bh . Alternatively, p bh can
be set and then pwf calculated. Equation A-1 can be combined with the
finite-difference equation by eliminating qo. Then, after the simulator
calculates the block pressure, the flow rate can be obtained.
A.2.1 Alternative Definition of Well Index

Other definitions of the well index may be found in the literature. For
example, the Seventh SPE Comparative Solution Project38 defines it by the
production equation
k ro o
q ol = 0.001127 W I l ------------- ( p b p wf ) l (A-3)
o l
A-612 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE One-Dimensional Flow
This WI has units of md-ft. It may be different for each vertical block.
A.2.2 Comparison with Productivity Index

The quantity WI is closely associated with well productivity index, PI. The
latter is defined either by
q o = PI [ p e p wf ] (A-4)
or
q o = PI [ p av p wf ] (A-5)
where pe is pressure at the exterior of the wells drainage area, and pav is
the average pressure within the drainage area. Thus, the PI is determined
not only by the geometry, but also by the reservoir permeability, the
relative permeability, and the fluid viscosity. Well index, as defined by
Equation A-1, has the advantage of being dependent only on the
geometry.
A.3 One-Dimensional Flow
A.3.1 Linear Case
1 5 z
x
2
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model

One-Dimensional Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The first, and simplest, example of the calculation of WI is one-

dimensional, linear (i.e., rectilinear) flow, where the grid is as shown in
Figure A-2. The boundary condition, pwf, is to be imposed at the left end of
the model, which is at a distance x/2 from the nearest node (also called
the pressure center), located at x1. Assuming single-phase flow (and
ignoring the dimensional constant 0.0001127), from Darcys law we have
kyz
q = ---------------------- ( p 1 p wf ) (A-6)
( x 2 )
so the correction that adjusts p1 to the correct value at the boundary is
q ( x 2 )
( p 1 p wf ) = ------------------------- (A-7)
kyz
The single-phase analogy of Equation A-1, which defines the well index, is
kz
q = WI ------------- ( p 1 p wf ) (A-8)

Comparison of Equations A-6 and A-8 yields
y
WI = ------------------ (A-9)
( x 2 )
Note again that this WI is dimensionless.
A.3.2 Radial Case

Figure A1-3 shows a radial counterpart to the linear model just discussed.
The first block has boundaries at r1/2 and r3/2. The node of this block is at
r1.
The inner radius of the first block, r1/2, may be the same as the wellbore
radius, rw . However, in some cases that may not be convenient, and r1/2
may be considerably larger, as shown in the figure. In any case, the
pressure calculated for the first block will not coincide with pwf, and it will
be necessary to make a correction for it, through the well index.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE One-Dimensional Flow
Figure A-3: One-Dimensional, Radial, Model
The radial equivalent of Darcys law for single-phase flow is
k z
q = ------------------------------ ( p 1 p wf ) (A-10)
ln ( r 1 r w )
Comparison with Equation A1-8 yields

WI = ------------------------- (A-11)
ln ( r 1 r w )
Note: In VIP, if one has a radial grid and uses an RFLOW card, rw and rb
can be entered, where rb is set equal to r1. But VIP computes
2
WI = ------------------------- (A-12)
ln ( r b r w )
which is not appropriate if is not equal to 2 (360 degrees). However, if

is not equal to 2 the correct WI can be calculated by using the FPERF
card instead of the RFLOW card to calculate the WI for each perforation.

Two-Dimensional Areal Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
A.4 Two-Dimensional Areal Flow
A.4.1 Well in Center of Square Gridblock
Figure A-4: Well in Square Grid
The simplest two-dimensional situation is shown in Figure A-4, which

depicts an areal model with uniform square gridblocks, and with one well
at the center of one of the blocks, arbitrarily designated by (i,j) = (0,0). To
determine the well index for the well, one may carry out a simple finite-
difference calculation for a situation where the exact solution satisfies the
steady-state single-phase radial flow equation:
q r
p = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-13)
2kz r w
As discussed above, we dont expect p0,0 to be equal to pwf, but how well
do the pressures at the other nodes satisfy Equation A-13? If we plot the
difference between pi,j and p0,0 vs the log of the radial distance from node
(i,j) to node (0,0), then a straight line with the expected slope of q/2kz
is obtained34. By plotting the dimensionless pressure drop:
(pij - p0,0)/(q/kz)
against the log of the dimensionless radius ( r x ) = i 2 + j 2 , the straight

line has a slope of 1/(2), as shown in Figure A-5. The pressure at node
(1,0) is slightly off from the straight line, but all the other pressures lie
extremely well on the line. This figure may be considered to be a universal
plot, applicable to any square grid with a single well located far from any
boundaries.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Two-Dimensional Areal Flow
The extrapolation of the straight line to the horizontal axis is extremely

significant. This is the point where the exact radial solution is equal to the
wellblock pressure, p0,0, and occurs when the radius equals 0.2x. Thus
the straight line of Figure A-5 has the equation:
q r ij
p ij = p 0, 0 + --------------------- ln -------------- (A-14)
2kZ 0.2x
Figure A-5: Numerical Solutions for Pressure Plotted vs Radius
Comparison with Equation A-13 shows that the well block looks like a
well with a wellbore radius of 0.2x. We call this radius the equivalent
radius of the well block, rb.
To obtain the well index, we proceed as follows. From Equation A-13 we

can write:
q r ij
p ij = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-15)
2kz r w
Subtracting Equation A-15 from Equation A-14, and rearranging, yields:

2kz
q = ---------------------------------------- ( p 0, 0 p wf ) (A-16)
ln ( 0.2x r w )
Comparison of Equation A-16 (in which the wellblock pressure is p0,0)

with Equation A-8 (in which the wellblock pressure is p1) gives:
2
WI = ---------------------------------- (A-17)
ln ( 0.2x r w )
A.4.2 General Definition of rb

The following values applly for the square grid of the preceding section:
0.2x = rb, and p0,0 = pb (the wellblock pressure)
Therefore, Equation A-16 can be written:
q rb
p b p wf = -------------------- ln ----- (A-18)
2kz r w
We shall take this as a general definition of rb, for any geometry of the well
block.
Similarly, Equation A-17 can be written:
2
WI = ------------------------- (A-19)
ln ( r b r w )
We express the well index in this form, since rb in many cases is easy to
compute. Note that Equation A-19 does not take skin into account. We
shall show how to incorporate skin in Section A.5.
A.4.3 An Approximate Derivation of rb for Square Well Block

One can take advantage of the fact that the pressure at (i,j) = (1,0) almost
satisfies the radial flow equation, to derive an approximate formula for rb.
The difference equation satisfied by the gridblock pressures (for steady
state) is:
kz y
------------- ------ ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x
kz x
+ ------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0 (A-20)
y
For the case shown in Figure A-4, the pressures are symmetric about (0,0),
so that p0,1 = p-1,0 = p0,-1 = p1,0. Also x = y. Then:

q
4 ( p 1, 0 p 0, 0 ) ------------- = 0 (A-21)
kz
Assuming that p1,0 satisfies the radial flow Equation A-13 exactly gives:
q x
p 1, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln ------ (A-22)
2kz r w
since r1,0 = x. From the definition for rb, Equation A-18 yields:
q rb
p 0, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-23)
2kz r w
Subtracting Equation A-23 from Equation A-22 yields:
q x
p 1, 0 p 0, 0 = -------------------- ln ------
2kz r b
and combining with Equation A-21, yields
x 2
ln ------ = ---
rb
or
r 2
-----b- = e = 0.208 (A-24)
x
We shall show later that an exact value for rb for a well far from the
boundaries or from any other well (i.e., an isolated well) in a uniform
square grid is 0.1985 x. Thus, a good rule of thumb to use for a square
well block is rb = 0.2 x.
The approximate method described in this section can be extended to

nonsquare grids, where x y . It gives adequate results when the
aspect ratio y/x lies between 0.5 and 2.0. Outside that range, it gives
poor results39, because it is based on the assumption that the pressures in
all the blocks adjacent to the well block satisfy the radial flow equation
exactly, and that assumption breaks down badly for long skinny
gridblocks.

A.4.4 Well in Center of Rectangular Gridblock

Numerical experiments similar to that described in Section A.4.1 for a
square grid can also be carried out for uniform rectangular grids, where
y is not equal to x. When the gridblocks are not square, then rb is no
longer a simple function of x but depends also on the grid aspect ratio,
= y/x. In the following table are values of rb/x and rb/y for a single
well at the center of a large rectangular grid for various aspect ratios9.
Table A-1:
2 2
= y/x rb/x rb/y r b x + y
1/16 0.1406 2.2502 0.140365
1/8 0.1415 1.1317 0.140365
1/4 0.1447 0.5787 0.140365
1/2 0.1569 0.3139 0.140365
1 0.1985 0.1985 0.140365
2 0.3139 0.1569 0.140365
4 0.5787 0.1447 0.140365
8 1.1317 0.1415 0.140365
16 2.2502 0.1406 0.140365
Neither rb/x nor rb/y are particularly constant with , but it can be seen
that rb/x converges to a limit for small y, and rb/y converges to the
same limit for small x. This leads to the possibility that a better quantity
to divide rb by is the length of the diagonal of each gridblock, because:
rb
----------------------------
-
2 2
x + y
looks like rb/x as y goes to zero, and looks like rb/y as x goes to zero.
As can be seen from the last column of this table, that ratio is very constant
with . So now we have the more general rule of thumb, that:
2 2
r b = 0.14 x + y (A-25)
In fact, Equation A-25 can be derived mathematically. It is shown in

Reference 9 that:

rb
e
lim ----------------------------
- = ------- (A-26)
NX 2 2 4
NY x + y
where is Eulers constant, one definition of which is the limit of the
difference between the finite harmonic series and the natural log, i.e.,
n
1
= lim --- ln n = 0.5772157...
n k
1
That gives, for the ratio of Equation A-26, the value 0.1403649.
Note that, for a square grid with x = y, rb/x is 2 times this constant, or
0.198506, so that gives us the complete mathematical derivation of the first
rule of thumb, that rb = 0.2x for a square grid.
A.4.5 Well in Center of Block in Anisotropic Rectangular Grid

In an anisotropic medium, where kx ky , the finite-difference equation
satisfied by the gridblock pressures is:
k x z y
--------------- ------ ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x
k y z x
+ --------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0 (A-27)
y
There is an equivalent isotropic problem that is satisfied by the same

gridblock pressures, namely:
k e z y e
--------------- --------- ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x e
k e z x e
+ --------------- --------- ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0 (A-28)
y e
where
12
ke = (k xk y) (A-29)
14
x e = ( k y k x ) x (A-30)
14
y e = ( k x k y ) y (A-31)
Corresponding to Equation A-25, we have:

2 2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e (A-32)
or
12 2 12 2
r be = 0.14 ( k y k x ) x + ( k x k y ) y (A-33)
In this case rbe is the radius of the (almost) circular isobar in the
transformed problem (i.e., in the xe-ye plane) that has the same pressure as
the well block.
However, in the transformed problem, the well bore is elliptical, not

circular. It is shown in Reference 9 that the pressure solution to the exact
differential problem in the xe-ye plane essentially satisfies the equation:
q re
p p wf = ---------------------- ln ------- (A-34)
2k e z r we
where
2 2
re = xe + ye (A-35)
and
1 14 14
r we = --- r w [ ( k y k x ) + (kx ky) ] (A-36)
2
We see that Equation A-36 is a correction to the wellbore radius that

accounts for the fact that the well bore is elliptical in the xe-ye plane.
Now, from Equation A-34, we can write:
q r be
p b p wf = ---------------------- ln ------- (A-37)
2k e z r we
Corresponding to Equation A-18, which defines rb, we have:
q rb
p b p wf = ---------------------- ln ----- (A-38)
2k e z r w
Comparing Equations A-38 and A-37 yields:
r b = r be ( r w r we ) (A-39)
Combining Equations A-39, A-33 and A-36 then yields the final result for
rb, that is:

12 2 12 2
( k y k x ) x + ( k x k y ) y
r b = 0.28 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 14
- (A-40)
(ky kx) + (kx ky)
which can be used in Equation A-19 for the well index.
A.4.5.1 General Extension of Isotropic Results to Anisotropic Grids
In the following sections, we shall be presenting formulas for equivalent

wellblock radius for various well geometries. These will be derived for
isotropic grids, presenting rbe in terms of xe and ye, which may be
obtained from Equations A-30 and A-31. To obtain rb, this rbe can be
substituted into:
r be
r b = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 14
- (A-41)
0.5 [ ( k y k x ) + (kx ky) ]
This equation is obtained by combining Equations A-36 and A-39.
A.4.6 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Isolated Well Block

By an isolated well block, we mean one that is not near another well block
nor near the boundary of the grid. A conservative requirement for an
isolated well is that it be no closer than 10x or 10y from any other well
and no closer than 5x or 5y from any grid boundary.
In Reference 39, it is shown that rbe is independent of the location of the

well within such an isolated well block, as in the above figure. Then
Equation A-32 still holds:
2 2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e (A-42)
This result, i.e., independence of position, is somewhat surprising, but it

does depend on the assumption that the well block is isolated.

A.4.7 Multiple Wells in Same Isolated Well Block
A.4.7.1 Two Wells with Same Rate
In Reference 39, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed
in the same well block (which is otherwise isolated from any other well
block), then:
2 2 2
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e )
r be = -----------------------------------------------
- (A-43)
r eAB
where reAB is the distance in the xe-ye plane between the two wells. In
terms of the actual coordinates of the two wells, this distance is given by:
12 2 12 2
r eAB = (ky kx) ( x A xB ) + ( k x k y ) ( y A yB ) (A-44)
Note that rbe is independent of the actual location of the two wells; the
only thing that matters is the scaled distance between them (provided they
are isolated from other wells).
A.4.7.2 Two Wells with Different Rates
If the two wells in the same block have different rates, qA and qB, then
Equation A-43 must be modified as follows:
q A + qB
2 2
q [ 0.14 x e + y e ]
( r be ) AA = ---------------------------------------------------------
qB
- (A-45)
( r eAB )
Note that qA and qB do not have to be absolute rates; relative rates will do.
Also note that if qA qB, then the two wells will have different values of
rbe.

A.4.7.3 Three Wells with Same Rate
Similarly, it can be shown for three wells with the same rate (A, B, and C),
that the following equation applies:
3 2 2 32
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e )
( r be ) A = ------------------------------------------------------- (A-46)
r eAB r eAC
Note that when there are two wells and they have the same rate, they have
the same rbe. But when there are three wells, even with equal rates, in
general they do not have the same rbe (unless reAB = reBC = reAC).
A.4.7.4 Multiple Wells with Different Rates
The above results can be generalized to take into account any number of
wells, A, B, C, D, ... through the following equation:
qt
( r eAk )
q qk 2 2
( r be ) AA = [ 0.14 x e + y e ] (A-47)
k
where k = B, C, D, ..., is the product over all k, and qt = qA + q k .

k k

A.4.8 Two Wells With Same Rate in Adjacent Blocks
In Reference 40, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed
in adjacent blocks in the same row, as in the above figure, then:
x e 1 y e
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp 2 --------- tan ---------
2 2 2
(A-48)
y e x e
On the other hand, if the two adjacent blocks are in the same column, then
x and y should be interchanged, to give:
y e 1 x e
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp 2 --------- tan ---------
2 2 2
x e y e
Note again the isolation requirement: the pair of wells should be

sufficiently far from any other wells or from the grid boundaries. Also
note again that the scaled distance between the two wells is the important
quantity, rather than the actual location of the two wells.
c
If r be is the value of rbe when the two wells are at the centers of their
respective blocks, and r ceAB is the distance between the block centers (in the
xe-ye plane), then, if the wells are not centered, we can write:
c c
r be = r be ( r eAB r eAB ) (A-49)
Note that r ceAB is equal to either xe or ye.
A.4.8.1 Wells at Centers of Adjacent Blocks in Isotropic Square Grid
If the medium is isotropic, the gridblocks are square and the wells are at
the centers of two adjacent blocks, then Equation A1-48 reduces to:


r b x = ( 0.14 ) ( 2x ) exp ---
2 2
2
or
r b = 0.190x
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 x for a single isolated well in
a square grid. If the two wells are at the centers of two blocks that are not
adjacent, then this rule of thumb is even better. If the wells are not at the
centers of two blocks that are not adjacent, then Equation A-49 can be used
to find the correct rb. But we still require that the pair of wells be isolated
from other wells or from the grid boundary.
A.4.9 Single Well in Edge Block

In Figure A-6, we show a single well in a block at the left edge of the grid.
Because of the reflection boundary condition, the well and its block have
images. Thus, this situation is equivalent to two wells in adjacent blocks,
and Equation A-48 is applicable, provided we take:
14
r eAB = 2 ( k y k x ) d
Figure A-6: Well in Edge Block
Note that rb will be independent of the vertical location of the well.
If the edge block is at the top or bottom boundary, then we should take:
14
r eAB = 2 ( k x k y ) d
where d is the vertical distance to the boundary.

Again we note that if the medium is isotropic, the grid is square, and the
well is at the center of the edge block, then:
r b = 0.190x
A.4.10 Single Well Exactly on Edge of Grid
Figure A-7: Well on Edge of Grid
We have already looked at cases of a single well near the edge of the grid.
It is perhaps less likely that the well will be exactly on the edge of the grid,
as shown in Figure A-7. Equation A-48 is not applicable here. Instead, as
Reference 40 shows, the applicable equation is:
x e 1 y e
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp --------- tan ---------
2 2
(A-50)
y e x e
Note that rbe is independent of the vertical location of the well on the edge.
If the well is exactly on the top or bottom edge of the grid, then xe and ye
should be interchanged, to give:
y e 1 x e
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp --------- tan ---------
2 2
x e y e
A.4.10.1 Well Exactly on Edge of Isotropic, Square Grid
If the medium is isotropic, and the grid is square, then:

r b = 0.14 2 x exp --- = 0.43x
4
This is quite different from the value of 0.2 x that one might expect.

A.4.11 Single Well Exactly at Corner of Grid
Figure A-8: Well at Corner of Grid
Figure A-8 shows the situation where a well is located exactly at the
corner of the grid. This is an important case, as it occurs frequently in five-
spot calculations. In Reference 40, it is shown that:
2 2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp ( E ) (A-51)
where
y 1 x y 1 y e
E = --- --------e- + --- 1 + ---------e --------e- tan --------- (A-52)
4 x e 2 y e x e x e
Since Equations A-51 and A-52 are rather unwieldy, it may be preferable
to use an empirical equation that fits them quite well:
2 2 0.2520
r be = x e + y e 0.3816 + ------------------------------------------------------------
- (A-53)
x e
--------
0.9401
y e 0.9401
- + ---------
y e x e
A.4.11.1 Well Exactly at Corner of Isotropic, Square Grid
For the special case of isotropic medium and square grid, then Equations
A-51 and A-52 become:
1
r b = 0.14 2 x exp --- + --- = 0.72x
4 2
This value of rb, combined with Equation A-19, should be used for the well
index in five-spot calculations, if kx = ky and x = y.

A.4.12 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Corner Block
Figure A-9: Well in Corner Block
Figure A-9 shows a single well A located somewhere in the interior of a

corner block. This situation is perhaps not too likely, but is included here
for completeness. Images of the well and the corner block are shown. In
Reference 40 it is derived that:
4 2 2 2
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp ( 4 E )
r be = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (A-54)
r eAB r eAC r eAD
where E is given by Equation A-52.
A.4.12.1 Well at Center of Corner Block in Isotropic, Square Grid
For the special case where kx = ky , x = y, and the well is at the center of
the corner block, then Equation A-54 reduces to
4 2
( 0.14 ) ( 2x ) exp ( + 2 )
r b = ---------------------------------------------------------------
x ( 2x )x
or
r b = 0.188x
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 x. But it does require that the
well be exactly at the center of the corner block, which is not too likely.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Incorporating Skin into Well Model
A.5 Incorporating Skin into Well Model

Equation A-19 presented the well index in terms of rb and rw as shown
below:
2
WI = -------------------------
ln ( r b r w )
This equation was derived without considering the effect of skin. In this
section, we show how skin may be taken into account.
A.5.1 Derivation of Skin Due to Altered Permeability
Figure A-10: Radial Flow With Zone of Altered Permeability
Figure A-10 depicts radial flow from an outer radius, rd, into the wellbore,
which has radius rw . Let the pressure at rd be pd. The reservoir has
permeability k, but an inner zone of radius ra has an altered
permeability, ka. Assuming steady state:
q ra
p a p wf = ---------------------- ln -----
2k a z r w
q rd
p d p a = -------------------- ln -----
2kz r a
Adding and rearranging the above equations yields the following

equation:
r
p d p wf = -------------------- ln ----d- + s a
q
(A-55)
2kz r w

Incorporating Skin into Well Model VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where
k ka ra
s a = -------------- ln -----
ka rw
In this context, skin may be interpreted as causing additional pressure

drop due to decreased permeability in the altered zone. However, it may
be either positive or negative, depending on whether ka is less than or
greater than k. The skin due to altered permeability is also referred to as
mechanical skin.
A.5.2 Including Mechanical Skin In Well Index

Now suppose we consider solving the same steady-state radial problem
with a simulator on a uniform square grid, with x being much smaller
than rd. As mentioned above, the well block with pressure pb acts like a
well with radius rb. This results in:
q rd
p d p b = -------------------- ln ----- (A-56)
2kz r b
But the equation for the well model in terms of the well index, WI, is:
kz
q = WI ------------- ( p b p wf ) (A-57)

Combining Equations A1-56 and A1-57 gives:
q rd q
p d p wf = -------------------- ln ----- + -------------------------
2kz r b kz ( WI )
and comparison with Equation A1-55 yields:
rd 2 rd
ln ----- + ------- = ln ----- + s a
rb WI rw
or
2
WI = ---------------------- (A-58)
rb
ln ----- + s a
rw

A.5.3 Skin Due to Restricted Entry

So far, we have assumed that the well fully penetrates the reservoir. When
the well is not fully penetrating, there can be an additional pressure drop
caused by restricted entry. This additional pressure drop can be
interpreted in terms of an extra skin term, sr (also called pseudo skin).
Before considering how this skin should be included in the well index, let
us discuss two methods for calculating sr. .
Figure A-11: Pseudo Skin Factor, after Brons and Marting
The first method uses the graph of Figure A-11, due to Brons and
Marting41, which shows sr as a function of two parameters, hp/ht and hte/
rw , where hp is the length of the interval open to flow, ht is the total
thickness of the producing zone, h te = h t k H k V , and kH/kV is the ratio of
horizontal to vertical permeability. Figure A-12 shows three ways in which

hp and ht can be interpreted. The first is simple partial penetration; the

second is a centered open interval; the third is with multiple entries. In the
latter two cases, hp and ht apply to a symmetry element.
Figure A-12: Examples of Partial Well Completion
The second method for calculating sr , due to Odeh42, allows for a single
open interval anywhere in the producing zone. It is an empirical equation
derived from some numerical studies:
h 0.825
s r = 1.35 -----t 1 { ln ( h te + 7 ) [ 0.49 + 0.1 ln ( h te ) ] ln ( r wc ) 1.95 } (A-59)
h p
where
h te = h t k H k V
0.2126 ( 2.753 + z m h t )
r wc = r w e
and zm is the distance from the top of the sand to the middle of the open
interval. (See Figure A-13.)
The two methods are obviously not the same. However, where they can be
compared (e.g., for zm = hp/2), they give comparable values for sr .

zm
hp
ht
Figure A-13: Partial Well Completion
A.5.4 Effects of Restricted Entry on Well Index

We need to distinguish two different effects of restricted entry on the well
index. First, there is the overall restricted entry that is included in the
total skin, st, determined in a well test. The skin due to this overall
restricted entry, sor , must be subtracted from the total skin to get the
mechanical skin:
s a = s t s or (A-60)
Secondly, there is what we might call local restricted entry due to partial
completion of the well within a layer of thickness zl. The skin due to this
local restricted entry must be added to the mechanical skin. Thus, layer by
layer, we have:
2
W I l = ---------------------------------- (A-61)
rb
ln ----- + s a + s lr
rw
For example, consider the 3D situation shown in Figure A-14. The well
completely penetrates the top two layers and partially penetrates the third
layer. The overall skin, st, is determined from a well test. The skin due to
overall restricted entry is determined from hp1 and ht1 and subtracted from

st to get sa. Because total penetration through each of the top two layers is
assumed, slr = 0 there. In the third layer, slr is determined from ht2, hp2, and
zm2, and added to sa, as in Equation A-61.
Figure A-14: Partial Well Completion

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Index from Productivity Index
A.6 Well Index from Productivity Index

There are three main options for the well index in VIP. These are the WI
card, the RFLOW card (where the user enters rw , rb , and skin), and the PI
card (where the user enters PI and a geometric factor, GF). Note that all
of these three options produce a single WI for the entire well. In addition,
on the FPERF card, for each layer the user may enter WIl, or have WIl
computed from rb, rw , sa by Equation A-61 (with slr calculated by Equation
A-59).
NOTE: On the FPERF card, the variable DHTOP is the distance

between the top of the block and the top of the perforated
interval. Thus the interval calculation for zm is DHTOP + hp/
2. Also note that hp is called H, and ht is called HTOT.
In the PI option, the productivity index is used by VIP to calculate the well
index when the well is first put on production or injection. For an oil
producer, for example:
PI GF
WI = ----------------------------------------------------------------- (A-62)
0.001127 [ kh o k ro o ] l
l
GF is a geometric factor that converts the PI from a drainage radius basis

to a gridblock basis. The VIP manual suggests that:
ln ( r e r w )
GF = ------------------------
- (A-63)
ln ( r b r w )
where re is the drainage radius. However, normally, the situation is

sufficiently complicated that Equation A-63 should not be used without
modification.
In general, PI is defined by:
q q 0.00708 [ kh ] eff
PI = -------------------- or ----------------------- = ----------------------------------------------
- (A-64)
p e p wf p av p wf ln ( r e r w ) + s t t

Well Index from Productivity Index VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where
st = total skin factor
pe = pressure at drainage radius, re
pav = average pressure within drainage area
[...]eff = effective value
t = 0, 1/2, or 3/4, depending on how PI was measured
There are four possibilities, which are discussed by Dake43:
Use t Page43
A. Steady-state pe 0 118 (Eq.4.29)
B. Steady-state pav 1/2 145 (Table)
C. Pseudosteady-state pe 1/2 142 (Eq. 6.8)
D. Pseudosteady-state pav 3/4 144 (Eq. 6.12)
Case C is not a likely possibility, but is included for completeness.
Now, we want
2
WI = ------------------------------------ (A-65)
ln ( r b r w ) + s a
Equating A-62 and A-65 yields:
2 ( 0.001127 ) [ kh o k ro o ] l
l
PI = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (A-66)
[ ln ( r b r w ) + s a ]GF
Equating A-66 and A-64, and solving for GF gives:
[ kho k ro o ]l [ ln ( r b r w ) + st t ]
l
GF = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[ kh ] eff [ ln ( r b r w ) + s a ]
If we assume:
[ kh ] eff = [ kho k ro o ]l
l

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Well Index from Productivity Index
then:
ln ( r e r w ) + s t t
GF = ------------------------------------------ (A-67)
ln ( r b r w ) + s a
Thus, Equation A-63 is appropriate only if the PI is based on steady-state

and pe - pwf (Case A), and if the well is fully penetrating so that st = sa.
Otherwise, the more complex Equation A-67 should be used.

Non-Darcy Gas Flow VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
A.7 Non-Darcy Gas Flow
A.7.1 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties on Well Model

Up to now, the well model has assumed constant fluid properties in the
radial zone from rb to rw . This assumption is generally not valid in the
case of a gas well. Here we show how the well model needs to be modified
to take into account the variation of gas properties with pressure over the
range of pressure from pb to pwf. Skin is ignored for the moment to
simplify the presentation.
Assuming steady state, we have from Equation A-13:
qg g r
p = p wf + -------------------------- ln -----
2kk rg h g r w
Differentiation yields
qg g
dp = --------------------------d ( ln r )
2kk rg h g
Recognizing that g and g are functions of pressure, we rearrange this:
qg g
-d ( ln r ) = -----dp
-------------------
2kk rg h g
and integrate, to get:
pb
qg r g
- ln ----b- =
-------------------
2kk rg h r w -----dp
g
p wf
So, for each layer, we can write:

2k l k rgl h l
q gl = ------------------------- ( g g ) l ( p b p wf ) l (A-68)
ln ( r b r w )
where
( pb )l
g
-----dp
g
( p wf ) l
( g g ) l = --------------------------- (A-69)
( p b p wf ) l

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Non-Darcy Gas Flow
VIP provides three options on the WNDGDV card. In the STD option (or if
no WNDGDV card is used), no attempt is made to adjust the gas
properties in the well model of Equation A-68, and (g/g)l is evaluated at
(pb)l. In the PP option, the integration indicated by Equation A-69 is
carried out, using the trapezoidal rule. PP stands for pseudo pressure,
referring to the definition of pseudo pressure m(p) given by Al-Hussainy,
Ramey and Crawford44:
p
g
m( p) = 2 -----dp
g
p ref
Finally, the RG option invokes the Russell-Goodrich17 method, which also

adjusts the gas properties in the well model but avoids the integration, by
evaluating (g/g)l at the average of (pb)l and (pwf)l . This option assumes
that g/g is a linear function of pressure. A typical plot of g/g versus p
is shown in Figure A-15, and it can be seen that in both low- and high-
pressure regions, the curve is a straight line. Both PP and RG yield the
same results in both regions. In the middle transition region, however, the
RG method will be incorrect, unless the difference between the gridblock
and wellbore pressures is small. The PP method is always the most
accurate, but does involve some modest amount of additional computing
time.
Figure A-15: Typical Plot of g/g vs Pressure
A.7.2 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor in Well Model

Taking skin into account, Equation A-68 becomes:
2k l k rgl h l
q gl = --------------------------------------------------------------------- ( g g ) l ( p b p wf ) l (A-70)
ln ( r b r w ) + s a + s rl + D q gl
The term D q gl is a rate-dependent skin that accounts for the quadratic

term in Forchheimers equation, which is:

Horizontal Well VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
p g 2
------ = ---------- v r + g v r (A-71)
r kk rg
gl q
where vr is the fluid velocity ---------------------
-.
2rh l gl
In Equation A-71, the first term on the right-hand side is the Darcy or
viscous component, while the second term is the non-Darcy or inertial
component. is the coefficient of inertial resistance, and has dimension
(length)-1.
The constant D is calculated from by:
15 kk rg g
D = 2.223 10 -------------------------
2
hl r w ( g )w
where (g)w is evaluated at pwf, and g is gas gravity at standard

conditions, relative to air. The quantity is determined from core samples,
and has units of ft-1. A correlation presented by Dake43 is:
10
2.73 10
= ------------------------
kk rg
where k is in md.
A.8 Horizontal Well

Equation A-40, which shows rb as a function of x, y, kx, and ky, was
derived for an isolated vertical well. For a horizontal well, it appears to be
sufficient to replace y by z and ky by kz, to yield:
12 2 12 2
( k z k x ) x + ( k x k z ) z
r b = 0.28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 14
- (A-72)
(kz k x ) + (k x kz)
The assumption that the well is not near any grid boundary may be hard
to satisfy in the simulation of a horizontal well. The question arises: how
far does the well have to be from the top or bottom boundary in order to
use Equation A-72?
Reference 45 shows that Equation A-72 is satisfied to within 10 percent if:
x k 1 2 zw
------ -----z 0.9 ------ (A-73)
z k x z

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Horizontal Well
where zw is the distance from the well to the nearer of the top or bottom
boundary. Since kz is usually much smaller than kx, this inequality should
be easy to satisfy, if x is not too much bigger than z.
However, if the inequality of Equation A-73 is not satisfied, it is necessary

to use the much more complicated general formula for rb that was derived
by Babu et al46, and which is repeated in Reference 45. Figure A-16
displays the result of using this formula for the special case where the well
is centered in a reservoir that is infinitely wide. As a first approximation,
this figure can be used even when the well is not centered and the
reservoir is of finite width, provided zw is interpreted as the distance from
the well to the nearer of the top or bottom boundary.
Figure A-16: Effect of e and z/z on rbe for Centered Well

Inclined Well VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
A.9 Inclined Well

Suppose we have an inclined well, at angle with respect to the vertical,
and at angle with respect to the x-axis. Let the length of the perforation
be lp. And suppose we have three-dimensional anisotropy, with
permeability components kx, ky , and kz. Then the effective permeability-
thickness of the formation penetrated by the perforation is:
2 2 2 2 2
l p ( k y k z ) sin cos + ( k x k z ) sin sin + ( k x k y ) cos
It can be shown (see Chapter 11) that:
2 2 2 2 2 2
y z 2 2 x z 2 2 x y 2
k ex --------- + -------- sin cos + k ey --------- + -------- sin sin + k ez --------- + --------- cos
ky kz kx kz kx ky
r b = 0.28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
k ex --------- + --------- sin cos + k ey --------- + --------- sin sin + k ez --------- + --------- cos
ky kz kx kz kx ky
(A-74)
where:
1
--- (A-75)
2
k ex = ( k y k z )
1
--- (A-76)
2
k ey = ( k x k z )
1
--- (A-77)
2
k ez = ( k x k y )
For a vertical well, = 0 and Equation A-74 reduces to Equation A-40. For
a horizontal well parallel to the y-axis, = 90 and Equation A-74 reduces
to Equation A-72.

Appendix
B
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube

When the user chooses the corner-point geometry option, the location of
the eight corner points of each gridblock is quite arbitrary. In order to
calculate bulk volumes, block centers, and transmissibilities, VIP maps
each gridblock into a unit cube. That mapping is described here.
B.1.1 Two-Dimensional Mapping

To introduce the mapping, let us first consider the simpler two-
dimensional problem of mapping an arbitrary quadrilateral in the x-y
plane into a unit square in the u-v plane, as shown in Figure B-1.
Figure B-1: Mapping of Quadrilateral to Unit Square
Let
x = x 1 + ( x 2 x 1 )u + ( x 4 x 1 )v + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )uv (B-1)
y = y 1 + ( y 2 y 1 )u + ( y 4 y 1 )v + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )uv (B-2)
It is easy to see that u = 0 corresponds to side 1-4, u = 1 to side 2-3, v = 0 to

side 1-2, and v = 1 to side 4-3.
The differential area dx dy is given by:
dx dy = J(u,v)du dv
R2003.4 - Landmark B-645

Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
where J(u,v) is the so-called Jacobian of the mapping of the unit square
back onto the quadrilateral. It may be considered to be a scaling, or
stretching, factor of the mapping. It is given by the determinant of a
certain matrix of partial derivatives, as follows:
x x
------ ------
( x, y ) u v
J ( u, v ) = ---------------- = (B-3)
( u, v ) y y
------ -----
u v
where, from Equations B-1 and B-2,
x
------ = ( x 2 x 1 ) + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )v
u
x
------ = ( x 4 x 1 ) + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )u
v
y
------ = ( y 2 y 1 ) + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )v
u
y
----- = ( y 4 y 1 ) + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )u
v
Thus, the area of the quadrilateral may be obtained by integrating the

Jacobian over the unit square:
1 1
A = J ( u, v )du dv (B-4)
u=0 v=0
The centroid, or center of gravity, may be obtained by the integrals:
1 1
1
x c = ---
A x ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv (B-5)
u=0 v=0
1 1
1
y c = ---
A y ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv (B-6)
u=0 v=0
where x(u,v), and y(u,v), correspond, respectively, to Equations B-1 and

B-2.
B-646 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube
B.1.2 Three-Dimensional Mapping
Figure B-2: The Eight Corners of a Gridblock
In VIPs corner-point option, each gridblock is a solid defined by the

location of its eight corners, as shown in Figure B-2. Analogously to
Equations B-1 and B-2, the block can be mapped to a unit cube by the
x = p 1, x u + p 2, x v + p 3, x w + p 4, x uv + p 5, x vw + p 6, x uw + p 7, x uvw + p 8, x
(B-7)
y = p 1, y u + p 2, y v + p 3, y w + p 4, y uv + p 5, y vw + p 6, y uw + p 7, y uvw + p 8, y
(B-8)
z = p 1, z u + p 2, z v + p 3, z w + p 4, z uv + p 5, z vw + p 6, z uw + p 7, z uvw + p 8, z
(B-9)
where
p 1, x = x 2 x 1 p 2, x = x 4 x 1 p 3, x = x 5 x 1
p 4, x = x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 p 5, x = x 1 + x 8 x 4 x 5 p 6, x = x 1 + x 6 x 2 x 5
p 7, x = x 2 + x 4 + x 5 + x 7 x 1 x 3 x 6 x 8 p 8, x = x 1
This works similarly for p1,y , ..., p8,y in terms of the ys, and p1,z , ..., p8,z in
terms of the zs. It can be seen that u = 0 corresponds to face 1-4-8-5, u = 1
to face 2-3-7-6, v = 0 to face 1-2-6-5, v = 1 to face 4-3-7-8, etc.
The differential volume dx dy dz in real space is given by:

Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
dx dy dz = J(u,v,w) du dv dw
where the Jacobian J(u,v,w) is given by
x x x
------ ------ -------
u v w
( x, y, z ) y y y
J ( u, v, w ) = ----------------------- = ------ ----- ------- (B-10)
( u, v, w ) u v w
z z z
------ ----- -------
u v w
The partial derivatives are given by:
x
------ = p 1, x + p 4, x v + p 6, x w + p 7, x vw (B-11)
u
x
------ = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw (B-12)
v
x
------- = p 3, x + p 5, x v + p 6, x u + p 7, x uv (B-13)
w
Similarly for y/u, z/u, and so forth.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Volumetric Calculations
B.2 Volumetric Calculations

The bulk volume of the gridblock is obtained by integrating the Jacobian
of Equation B-10 over the unit cube:
1 1 1
V = J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-14)
u=0 v=0 w=0
The centroid, or block center, is obtained by:
1 1 1
1
x c = ----
V x ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-15)
u=0 v=0 w=0
1 1 1
1
y c = ----
V y ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-16)
u=0 v=0 w=0
1 1 1
1
z c = ----
V z ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-17)
u=0 v=0 w=0
Finally, let us consider how we might obtain the average thickness of

the block in the vertical direction.
Figure B-3: Elemental Tube for Determining Thickness
In Figure B-3, consider the elemental tube (shown by dashed lines)

bounded by u, u+du, v, and v+dv. The thickness of the tube, i.e., its vertical
extent, is z(u,v,1) - z(u,v,0).

Volumetric Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
The volume of the tube is:
J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
w=0
Thus the volume-averaged thickness of the entire block is
1 1 1
1
DZ = ----
V [ z ( u, v, 1 ) z ( u, v, 0 ) ] J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
u=0 v=0 w=0
which may be rearranged to the final form:
1 1 1
1
DZ = ----
V [ z ( u, v, 1 ) z ( u, v, 0 ) ] J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
u=0 v=0 w=0
(B-18)
Figure B-4: Elemental Tube for Determining DX

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Volumetric Calculations
Now we consider how we might obtain the average distance from the left
face to the right face of the block. In Figure B-4, consider the element tube
bounded by v, v+dv, w, and w+dw. The length of that tube from the left face
to the right face is
2 2 2
{ [ x ( 1, v, w ) x ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ y ( 1, v, w ) y ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ z ( 1, v, w ) z ( 0, v, 2 ) ] } (B-19)
Define the distance between two points by

2
D [ ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ), ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] = { [ x ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) x ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ]
12
2 2
+ [ y ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) y ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] + [ z ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) z ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ]

Then the expression in Equation B-19 for the length of the tube can be
written
D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]
Thus the volume averaged distance from the left face to the right face is
1 1 1
1
DX = ----
V D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ] J ( u, v, w )dw dudv
v=0 w=0 w=0
which may be rearranged to the final form
1 1 1
1
DX = ----
V D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-20)
u=0 v=0 w=0
Similarly,
1 1 1
1
DX = ----
V D [ ( u, 1, w ), ( u, 0, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-21)
u=0 v=0 w=0

Integration by Gaussian Quadrature VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
B.3 Integration by Gaussian Quadrature

A single integral may be evaluated quite accurately by the N-point
summation:
1 N
f ( x )dx wk f ( xk ) (B-22)
x=0 k=1
for properly chosen values of wk and xk. The wk are weights and the xk are
Gauss points, or quadrature points, at which the function f(x) is evaluated.
For N=1, 2, or 3, the weights and Gauss points are given by:
1
N = 1: w 1 = 1 x 1 = ---
2
x 1 = --- 1 ------- , x 2 = --- 1 + -------

1 1 1 1 1
N = 2: w 1 = w 2 = ---
2 2 3 2 3
x 1 = --- 1 --- , x 2 = ---, x 3 = --- 1 + ---

5 4 1 3 1 1 3
N = 3: w 1 = w 3 = ------, w 2 = ---
18 9 2 5 2 2 5
If f(x) is a polynomial of degree d, then Gaussian quadrature is exact if d

2N-1. Thus 2-point quadrature is exact for a cubic, and 3-point quadrature
is exact for a fifth-degree polynomial.
The triple integrals of the previous section may be approximated by the

triple summations:
1 1 1 Ni Nj Nk
f ( u, v, w )du dv dw wi w j wk f ( u i, v j, w k ) (B-23)
u=0 v=0 w=0 i=1 j=1 k=1
where Ni, Nj, and Nk are, respectively, the number of quadrature points in
the x-, y-, and z-directions. These numbers are entered on the CORNER
card as iquads, jquads, and kquads.
It turns out that the integrands within all the triple integrals of the
preceding section for volumetric calculations are composite polynomials
of low enough degree that iquads = jquads = kquads = 2 provides exact
integration. This is true no matter how arbitrarily the corner points are
located.
Of course, if the gridblocks are simple rectangular parallelepipeds, iquads

= jquads = kquads = 1 would be sufficient, but then there would be little
point in using the corner-point option.

VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE Transmissibility Calculations
However, the story is different for evaluating transmissibilities. We shall

see later that if the harmonic integration option is chosen, the integrands
are no longer polynomials. In that case, the user should specify iquads =
jquads = kquads = 3 to get the most accurate integration.
B.4 Transmissibility Calculations

For corner-point geometry, VIP provides two options for calculating the
transmissibilities between adjacent gridblocks: the standard VIP option
that uses harmonic integration (HARINT), and the NEWTRAN option,
which is similar to the corresponding ECLIPSE technique. Both of these
are described below, first for the simpler 2-D case and then for the full 3-D
case.
B.4.1 Calculation of Transmissibility in 2D
Simplest Case: Orthogonal Grid
Figure B-5: Orthogonal Gridblocks
Consider the two rectangular blocks in Figure B-5, where the points A and
B are the centroids of their respective blocks. Each block has its own
permeability, kA or kB. As this may be considered to be flow through two
resistances in series, the transmissibility from A to B is given by:
1
T AB = -------------------- (B-24)
1 1
------- + ------
TA TB
where
T A = k A z W L A

Transmissibility Calculations VIP-EXECUTIVE TECHNICAL REFERENCE
and
T B = k B z W L B
In this simple 2D case, z, which is perpendicular to the plane of Figure B-

5, is considered constant. Note that TA may be considered to be the half-
block transmissibility from the point A to the right face of block A.
Non-Orthogonal Grid with Parallel Sides
LAB
Figure B-6: Nonorthogonal Gridblocks with Parallel Sides
In Figure B-6, we consider the somewhat more general case where the
gridblocks are not orthogonal, but the layer boundaries are parallel.
Equation B-24 still holds, with TA again being given by:
T A = k A z W L A
We note that LA is now specifically the distance from the centroid A to the
point C, where C is the center of the interface between blocks A and B. If
LAB is the length of that interface, and if is the angle between the
interface and the parallel sides, then clearly:
W = L AB sin
Alternatively, let n be the unit vector normal to the interface at point C,

and let be the angle between line AC and the normal n. As and are
complementary angles, then:
W = L AB cos
and
T A = k A z L AB cos L A (B-25)

We shall see that it will be also useful to express this as the following
resistance from the point A to the right face:
1 LA
------- = -------------------------------------
- (B-26)
TA k A z L AB cos
Non-Orthogonal Grid with Non-Parallel Sides
Figure B-7: Gridblockwith Non-Parallel Sides
In Figure B-7, we show the more general case of a single gridblock in

which none of the sides are parallel. Point A is still the centroid, and again
we wish to calculate the half-block transmissibility from point A to the
right face. For this purpose, recognize that, in mapping the gridblock to a
unit square, the variable u represents a fractional distance from the left
face to the right face. Let point 5 be a point moving along the upper edge,
such that
x 5 ( u ) = x 1 + u ( x 2 x 1 ), y5 ( u ) = y1 + u ( y2 y1 )
and let point 6 be a similar point moving along the lower edge, such that:
x 6 ( u ) = x 3 + u ( x 4 x 3 ), y6 ( u ) = y3 + u ( y4 y3 )

Then the line L56(u), connecting points 5 and 6, is a moving line that slices
the block as shown in Figure B-8.
Figure B-8: Slice Parametrized by u
In particular, u = 0 corresponds to the left edge, u = 1 corresponds to the

right edge, and uc is the value of u corresponding to the line L56 that
passes through the centroid. (Note that uc is not necessarily equal to 0.5!)
We may conceptualize the half-block transmissibility from the slice going

through the centroid to the right face as being the sum of transmissibilities
of a collection of tubes formed by lines of constant v, as shown in Figure B-
9.
Figure B-9: Collection of Tubes and Slices

In Figure B-9, we also show a sequence of slices formed by lines of

constant u. Let us call the intersection of a tube and a slice a chunk. A
typical chunk is shown in Figure B-10.
Figure B-10: Tube, Slice, and Chunk
By analogy with Equation B-26, the resistance of that typical chunk is

given by:
s
---------------------------------------------------
k A z L cos ( u, v )
where s is the distance along the tube lying within the slice, L is the
distance along the slice within the chunk, n(u,v) is the normal to the slice,
and (u,v) is the angle between the tube and that normal. But the area of
the chunk is given by A = z L, so the resistance of the typical chunk can
be expressed somewhat more succinctly as:
s
-------------------------------------------
k A A cos ( u, v )
In the limit, then, the resistance of the tube from the slice going through
the centroid to the right face is given by the integral:
ds
u=1 ------ ( u, v )
1 du
------- =
TA ------------------------------------------- du
k A A cos ( u, v )
u=u c

Because of the appearance of the area A in the denominator, this integral

is referred to as a harmonic integral, by analogy to the harmonic series
--n- , where the term n appears in the denominator.
1
Finally, the transmissibility of all the tubes in parallel is given, in the limit,
by:
1
1
TA = --------------------------------------------------------------- dv
ds
(B-27)
v=0
u=1 ------ ( u, v )
du
------------------------------------------du
dA
u = u c k A ------- cos ( u, v )
dv
Alternate Approach for Gridblock with Non-Parallel Sides
Figure B-11: Gridblockwith Nonparallel Sides
Consider the gridblock with nonparallel sides that is shown in Figure B-

11. We wish to calculate the half-block transmissibility between the
centroid and the right face of that block. Again, point A is the centroid;
point C is the center of the right face. The right face is the interface
between block A and block B (which is not shown). Let AC be the vector
from A to C. Let CD be a vector normal to the right edge, whose length is
equal to the length of the right edge, that is:

CD = L AB
Again, let be the angle between AC and CD .
Now, while Equation B-25 was derived for a gridblock with parallel sides,
as in Figure B-6, it can also be applied to this more general situation. Thus
we can write
L AB cos L A L AB cos
T A = k A z ----------------------- = k A z -----------------------------
2
-
LA (L ) A
where L A = AC . Then we can write the half-block transmissibility as:
AC CD cos
T A = k A z ------------------------------------
2
AC
Now, the scalar (also known as inner or dot) product of two vectors a and
b having angle between them can be expressed in the following two
ways:
a b = a b cos
a b = axbx + ayby
where ax and ay are the x- and y-components of the vector a, and bx and by
are the x- and y-components of the vector b, respectively. Thus we see that
the half-block transmissibility can also be expressed as:
( xC x A ) ( xC xD ) + ( yC y A ) ( yC yD )
T A = k A z ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A )
But, since vectors EF and CD are perpendicular,
( xC xD ) = ( yE yF ) = L x
( yC yD ) = ( xF xE ) = L y
Then
L x ( xC x A ) + L y ( yC y A )
T A = k A z ---------------------------------------------------------------
2 2
- (B-28)
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A )
This is the 2-D version of NEWTRAN.

The quantity Lx is to be interpreted as the x-projection of the interface

between blocks A and B on the y-axis. The quantity Ly can be interpreted
as the y-projection of that interface on the x-axis. It is important that the
correct signs of Lx and Ly be used. Thus, in Figure B-11, Lx is positive while
Ly is negative.
B.4.2 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D (HARINT)

Equation B-27, which was derived as the 2D version of HARINT, may be
extended to the general 3D case, where the eight corners of the gridblock
are completely arbitrary. However, considerable care must be taken in
interpreting and calculating the various terms in it. In doing so, we will be
making use of the mapping of the gridblock into the unit cube, as
described in Section B.1.2.
That extended equation is, then:
1 1
1
TA = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- dv dw
ds
(B-29)
v=0 w=0
u=1 ------ ( u, v, w )
du
-------------------------------------------------------
dA
- du
u = u c k A --------------- cos ( u, v, w )
dv dw
Tubes and Slices in 3D
In Figure B-2 on page B-647, let Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9 be the
functions that map the coordinates of real space (x,y,z) into the coordinates
of the unit cube (u,v,w). Tubes are formed by surfaces of constant v
intersecting surfaces of constant w. On the other hand, any surface of
constant u over the range
0v1 , 0w1
defines a slice of the gridblock (in real space) that corresponds to the slice
shown in Figure B-8. In general, the slice will not be a planar surface but,
rather, a bilinear surface.
Differential Area of the Slice
The differential area of this nonplanar slice is computed by47:
dA = D ( u, v, w )dv dw (B-30)
where
2 2 2
D ( u, v, w ) = J xy + J yz + J zx (B-31)

with
x y y z z x
------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------
J xy =
v v ; J yz =
v v ; J zx =
v v (B-32)
x y y z z x
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
w w w w w w
The partial derivatives are obtained from Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9 by:
x
------ = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw
v
x
------- = p 3, x + p 5, x v + p 6, x u + p 7, x uv
w
Similarly for y /v, z / v, and so forth.
Location of Centroid, in Real Space, and in the Unit Cube
The coordinates of the centroid in real space, xc , yc , zc , are found by

application of Equations B-15, B-16, and B-17. Finding the coordinates of
that centroid in the unit cube, uc, vc, wc, involves inverting the mapping
functions in Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9. This nontrivial task is
accomplished by a Newtonian iteration, which converges very rapidly.
Prior to the first iteration, the first guess is uc = vc = wc = 0.5. After
convergence, the following is satisfied:
x c = x ( u c, v c, w c )
y c = y ( u c, v c, w c )
z c = z ( u c, v c, w c )
where x(u,v,w), y(u,v,w), and z(u,v,w) are the polynomials defined in

Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9.
Evaluation of Arc Length Derivative,
Along each tube of constant v and w, the derivative of arc length is given
by:
2 2 2
ds dx dy dz
------ ( u, v, w ) = -------- + -------- + -------- (B-33)
du du du du
The partial derivatives in Equation B-33 are given above in Equation B-11.

Evaluation of cos (u,v,w)
The only quantity in the integrand of Equation B-29 now left to be

evaluated is the cosine of , the angle between the tube and the normal to
the slice. Let p be a vector along the tube, and n be a vector normal to the
slice. Then, from the two ways of expressing the scalar (or dot) product of
the two vectors in 3D:
p n = p n cos
p n = p x n x + p y n y + pz nz
we have
p x n x + p y n y + pz nz
cos = ---------------------------------------------
-
p n
or
p x n x + p y n y + pz nz
cos = -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (B-34)
2 2 2 2 2 2
( p x + p y + pz ) ( n x + n y + nz )
The components of p are clearly equal to the derivatives of x, y, and z with

respect to u. That is:
x y z
p x = ------ ; p y = ------ ; p z = ------
u u u
The normal to the slice is obtained by first finding the equation for the
plane in real space tangent to the slice where the tube intersects it. To get
this equation, we find two lines (or vectors) in the slice through the point
u, v, w (in the unit cube) that correspond to the intersection point x, y, z (in
real space). See Figure B-12.

u=constant
Figure B-12: Lines a and b Defining Plane Tangent to Slice
Let line a be at constant u and v; let line b be at constant u and w. Then the
components of a and b are:
x y z
a x = ------- ; a y = ------- ; a z = -------
w w w
x y z
b x = ------ ; b y = ----- ; b z = -----
v v v
The equation of a plane through the arbitrary point x1, y1, z1, parallel to a
and b is48:
x x1 y y1 z z1
ax ay az = 0
bx by bz
If the equation for that plane is expressed as:
Ax + By + Cz = D
then A is the cofactor of (x-x1), B is the cofactor of (y-y1), and C is the

cofactor of (z-z1). Thus:

a y az y z z y
A = = ------- ----- ------- -----
b y bz w v w v
a x az z x x z
B = = ------- ------ ------- -----
b x bz w v w v
ax ay x y y x
C = = ------- ----- ------- ------
bx by w v w v
Note that A, B, and C are equal, respectively, to -Jyz, -Jzx, and -Jxy of
Equation B-32. But the quantities A, B, and C are also equal to the
components of the normal:
nx = A ; ny = B ; nz = C
Now we have all the quantities necessary to compute cos (u,v,w) by

Equation B-34. We also have all the quantities necessary to compute the
integrals of Equation B-29:
1 1
1
TA = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------dv dw
ds
(B-35)
v=0 w=0
u=1 ------ ( u, v, w )
du
-----------------------------------------------------------------
k A D ( u, v, w ) cos ( u, v, w )
- du
u = uc
Half-Block Transmissibility to Other Faces
All the above discussion of HARINT has dealt with the calculation of half-
block transmissibility from the slice through the centroid to the right face.
To get the half-block transmissibility from the slice through the centroid to
the left face, it suffices to change the limits of integration In Equation B-35
as follows:
1 1
1
TA = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------dv dw
ds
(B-36)
v=0 w=0
u = uc ------ ( u, v, w )
du
k-----------------------------------------------------------------
A D ( u , v, w ) cos ( u, v, w )
- du
u=0
To get half-block transmissibilities from the slice through the centroid to

the front and back faces, it suffices to rotate the gridblock about the z-axis,
and use the program that calculates the integrals of Equations B-35 and B-
36. Finally, to get half-block transmissibilities from the slice through the
centroid to the top and bottom faces, it suffices to rotate the gridblock
about the y-axis, and again use that same program.

B.4.3 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D by the NEWTRAN Option

Equation B-19 for the half-block transmissibility is easily generalized to
the 3D case as follows:
A x ( xC x A ) + A y ( yC y A ) + Az ( zC z A )
2 2 2
-
T A = k A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (B-37)
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A ) + ( zC z A )
Point A is again the centroid of the gridblock, while point C is to be

interpreted now as the center of the right face. The four corners of the
right face are projected onto each of the three coordinate planes, as shown
in Figure B-13. Ax is the area of the projection onto the y-z plane, Ay is the
area of the projection onto the x-z plane, while Az is the area of the
projection onto the x-y plane. It is even more important in this 3-D case
that considerable care be taken to get the correct sign of these area terms.
Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes

Half-Block Transmissibility to All Six Faces
While Equation B-37 was described as the equation for the half-block
transmissibility from the centroid to the right face, actually it applies to all
six faces. Point C is now interpreted as the center of the relevant face,
while Ax, Ay , and Az are the areas of the projections of that face. The sign
of TA may turn out to be negative, so its absolute value is used.
B.4.4 Calculation of Full Transmissibility Between Gridblocks
Unfaulted Case
As pointed out in the previous sections, the half-block transmissibility

from the centroid to all six faces is computed for each gridblock. These
must be combined to yield the full transmissibility between adjacent
gridblocks. For example, if gridblock B is to the right of gridblock A, then
the transmissibility between their centroids is:
1
T X AB = -------------------- (B-38)
1 1
------- + ------
TA TB
where TA is the half-block transmissibility from the centroid of block A to

the right face of block A, and TB is the half-block transmissibility from the
centroid of block B to the left face of block B. Equation B-38 is, of course,
the same as Equation B-24. Similar combinations are made to calculate TY
between two adjacent blocks in the same y-row, and to calculate TZ
between two adjacent blocks in the same vertical column.

Faulted Case
Figure B-14: Fault Block Connection
In the case of the FAULT option, the adjacent blocks may share only part
of the common face, as illustrated in Figure B-14. In this figure, AA is the
total area of the right face of block A, and is used in the calculation of TA.
Similarly, AB is the total area of the left face of block B, and is used in the
calculation of TB. The area of their mutual intersection is AAB. Then
Equation B-38 is modified as follows:
A AB
T X AB = --------------------
- (B-39)
A A AB
------- + ------
TA TB
B.4.5 Choice Between HARINT and NEWTRAN Options

The following 2D radial problem provides a test for comparing the
accuracy of the above two options for transmissibility. It involves a four-
block (2 x 2) model in which the corner points are given by
x ij = i cos [ ( j 1 ) ]
y ij = 3 + i sin [ ( j 1 ) ]

Figure B-15 shows this model for the particular case of = 45.
Figure B-15: Radial problem, with = 45
It can be shown that if the grid were truly radial, rather than
approximated by this corner-point geometry, then the angular
transmissibility between Blocks 1 and 3 in Figure B-15 would be:
z ln ( 2 1 )
T 1 3 = ----------------------------

while that between Blocks 2 and 4 would be:
z ln ( 3 2 )
T 2 4 = ----------------------------

In addition, the radial transmissibility, between Blocks 1 and 2, as well as

between Blocks 3 and 4, would be:

z z
TR = -------------------------------------------------------------- = ------------------------
33 23 23 13 19 5
ln ----------------- ln ----------------- ln -------------
33 22 22 12 73
NOTE: in these equations is in radians.
These equations should hold in the limit as is reduced to zero.
Results for the two options are shown in Figures B-16, B-17, and B-18. In
Figure B-16, the angular transmissibility between Blocks 1 and 3,
multiplied by /z, is plotted against ,and we see that HARINT
converges to the correct value for small , and is only a few percent low
for as large as 20-30 degrees. NEWTRAN is considerably poorer, and
converges to an incorrect value. Similar results are shown in Figure B-17
for the angular transmissibility between Blocks 3 and 4.
In Figure B-18, the radial transmissibility, divided by x z, is plotted

against , and here we see that HARINT gives the correct answer for all
, while NEWTRAN does not.
It may be concluded that HARINT is clearly superior to NEWTRAN and

is therefore the option of choice. NEWTRAN is offered only as an
alternative option, to provide compatibility with the corresponding
technique in the ECLIPSE simulator. When that compatibility is not
required, HARINT is the recommended, and hence the default, option.

Figure B-16: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular

Transmissibility Between Blocks 1 and 2

Figure B-17: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular

Transmissibility Between Blocks 3 and 4

Figure B-18: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Radial

Tranmissibility

Appendix
C
References
1. Van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W., The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans. AIME, 186,
305.
2. Carter, R. D. and Tracy, G. W., An Improved Method for Calculating

Water Influx, Trans. AIME, 219, 415-417.
3. Frick, T. C. and Taylor, R. W.: Petroleum Production Handbook. Vol. 2,

Chap. 35, Society of Petroleum Engineering (AIME), 1962.
4. VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4R VIP-CORE Reference Manual, Chapter 6
5. Young, L. C. and Stephenson, R. E., A Generalized Compositional

Approach for Reservoir Simulation, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1983, 727-
742.
6. Coats, K.H., An Equation of State Compositional Model, SPE 8284

presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference of the SPE of
AIME, Las Vegas, NV, Sep. 1979; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1980, 363-
376.
7. Beattie, D.R.H. and Whalley, P.B., A Simple Two-Phase Frictional

Pressure Drop Calculation Method, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 8, 1, 83-87,
1982.
8. Beggs,J.P. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined

Pipes, J. Pet. Tech., 25, 607-617, May 1973.
9. Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation with Non Square Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
Permeability, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June 1983, 531-543.
10. Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937.
11. Carlson, F. E., Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the

Nonwetting Phase, SPE Paper 10157 presented at the SPE-AIME 56th
Ann. Fall Mtg., San Antonio, TX, Oct.1981.
12. Killough, J. E., Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent

Saturation Functions, SPE Paper 5106 presented at the SPE-AIME
49th Ann. Fall Mtg., Houston, TX, Oct. 1974; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Feb.
1976, 37-48.
R2003.4 - Landmark C-673

13. Land, C. S., Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two-

and Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Trans.
AIME, 243,149-156, June 1968.
14. Aziz, A. and Settari, A., Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier

Applied Science Publishers (1979).
15. Todd, M. R. and Longstaff, W. J., The Development, Testing, and

Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood
Performance, J. Pet. Tech., 874, July 1972.
16. Chase, C. A., Jr., and Todd, M. R., Numerical Simulation of CO2
Flood Performance, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 597, Dec. 1984.
17. Russell, D.G., Goodrich, J.H., Perry, G.E., and Bruskotter, J.F.,
Methods of Predicting Gas Well Performance, J. Pet. Tech., 99-108,
Jan. 1966.
18. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr., Application of Real Gas Flow
Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting, J. Pet. Tech.,
624-636, May 1966.
19. Conte, S.D. and Boor, C., Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic
Approach, Second Edition, 315-318, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York
City (1972).
20. Swift, G.W. and Kiel, O.G., The Prediction of Gas Well Performance
Including the Effect of Non-Darcy Flow, J. Pet. Tech., 791-798, July
1962.
21. Katz, D.L., et al., Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, p. 50, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York City (1959).
22. Wallis, J.R., Kendall, R.P., and Little, T.E., Constrained Residual
Acceleration of Conjugate Residual Methods, SPE Paper 13536
presented at the Eighth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Dallas, TX (1985).
23. Wallis, J.R., Incomplete Gaussian Elimination as a Reconditioning for

Generalized Conjugate Gradient Acceleration, SPE Paper 12265
presented at the Seventh SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation,
San Francisco, CA (1983).
24. Killough, J. E. and Kossack, C. A., Fifth Comparative Solution Project:

Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators, Paper SPE 16000 presented
at the Ninth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio,
TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987.
25. Young, L. C., Full-Field Compositional Modeling on Vector

Processors, SPE Res. Eng. (Feb. 1991), pp. 107-114.
C-674 Landmark - R2003.4

26. Litvak, M., New Procedure for Wellbore Flash Calculations, SPE
Paper 21216 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 1991.
27. More, J.J. and Sorensen, D.C., On the Use of Directions of Negative
Curvature in a Modified Newton Method, Mathematical Programming,
16, pp. 1-20 (1979).
28. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G., and Clark, C.R., Calculating Viscosities of
Reservoir Fluids from their Compositions, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 1171-1176
(Oct. 1964).
29. Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Christensen, P.L., Viscosity of

Crude Oils, Chem. Eng. Sci., 39, pp. 1011-1016 (1984).
30. Hanley, H.J.M., McCarty, R.D., and Haynes, W.M., Cryogenics, 15, p.
413 (1975).
31. Baker, L.E., Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations, paper

SPE/DOE 17369 presented at the 1988 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 17-20.
32. Fayers, F.J. and Matthews, J.D., Evaluation of Normalized Stones

Methods for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities, Soc. Pet.
Eng. J., pp. 225- 232 (Apr. 1984)
33. Coats, K.H and Modine, A.D., A Consistent Method for Calculating
Transmissibilities in Nine-Point Difference Equations, paper SPE
12248 presented at the 1983 Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San
Francisco, CA, Nov. 15-18, 1983.
34. Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation, Soc. Pet. Engr. J., pp. 183-194 (June 1978).
35. Beggs, H.D., Gas Production Operations, OGCI Publications (1984).
36. Modine, A.D., Coats, K.H., and Wells, M.W., A Superposition Method
for Representing Wellbore Crossflow in Reservoir Simulation, SPE
paper 20746 presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA,
Sep. 23-26, 1990.
37. Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, A., An Improved Corresponding

States Model for the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal
Conductivities, Chem. Eng. Sci., 42, pp. 182-187 (1987).
38. Nghiem, L., Collins, D.A., and Sharma, R., Seventh SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Modelling of Horizontal Wells in Reservoir
Simulation, Paper SPE 21221 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation held in Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20, 1991.

39. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation: Part 3 - Off-Center and Multiple Wells Within a
Wellblock, SPE Res. Eng., pp. 227-232 (May 1990).
40. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation-Part 3: Some Additional Well Geometries,
Paper SPE 16976 presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.
41. Brons, F. and Marting, V.E., The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry on
Well Productivity, J. Petr. Tech., pp. 172-174 (Feb. 1961); Trans. AIME,
vol. 222
42. Odeh, A.S., An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to

Restricted Entry, J. Petr. Tech., pp. 964-965 (June 1980).
43. Dake, L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1978).
44. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B., The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media J. Petr. Tech., pp. 624-636 (May 1966);
Trans. AIME, vol. 237.
45. Peaceman, D.W., Representation of a Horizontal Well in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation, Paper SPE 21217 presented at the 11th SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held in Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20,
1991; also SPE Adv. Tech. Ser. 1, 7-16 (1993).
46. Babu, D.K., Odeh, A.S., Al-Khalifa, A.J., and McCann, R.C., The
Relation Between Wellblock and Wellbore Pressures in Numerical
Simulation of Horizontal Wells, SPE Res. Eng., pp. 324-328 (Aug.
1991).
47. Franklin, P., A Treatise on Advanced Calculus, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1940, Page 375, Equation 110.
48. Recktorys, K., Survey of Applicable Mathematics, M.I.T. Press,

Cambridge, Mass., 1969, Page 240, Theorem 11.
49. Saad, Y. and Schultz, M., GMRES: A Generalized Minimal Residual

Algorithm for Solving Non-Symmetric Linear Systems. SIAM J. Sci.
Stat. Comput., 7(3):856-869, July 1986.
50. Beggs, H.D., Production Optimization Using NODAL Analysis, OGCI

Publications, 1991.
51. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D., Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa,
Sixth Edition, January, 1991.

52. Litvak, M.L., New Procedure for the Phase-Equilibrium

Computations in the Computational Reservoir Simulator, SPE Paper
25252, Twelfth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New
Orleans, Louisiana, February 28 - March 3, 1993.
53. K. H. Coats, Implicit Compositional Simulation of Single-Porosity

and Dual-Porosity Reservoirs: SPE 18427, Presented at the SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation in Houston, Texas, Feb. 1989.
54. Firoozabaid, A. and Thomas, L.K.: Sixth SPE Comparative Solution

Project: A Comparison of Dual-Porosity Simulators, Paper SPE 18741
presented at the 1989 Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston,
Texas, Feb. 6-8.
55. Chorin, A.J.: Numerical Study of Slightly Viscous Flow, Fluid Mech.
(1973), v. 57 part 4 785-796.
56. Araktingi, U.G., Orr, F.M. Jr.: Viscous Fingering Gravity Segregation,
and Reservoir Heterogeneity in Miscible Dieplacement in Vertical
Cross Sections, SPE 20176 Presented at the Seventh Symposium in
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-25, 1990.
57. Garder, A.O. Jr., Peaceman, D.W., Pozzi, A.L.: Numerical Calculation
of Multidimensional Miscible Displacement by the Method of
Characteristics, SPEJ (March 1964) 26-36.
58. Morel-Seytoux, H.J.: Analytical-Numerical Method in Waterflooding

Predictions, SPEJ (September 1965) 247-258.
59. Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M., Brigham, W.E.: Analysis of Well-to-Well

Tracer Flow to Determine Reservoir Layering, J. Pet Tech (October
1984) 36 No. 4 1753-1762.
60. Brigham, W.E., Abbaszaheh-Dehghani, M.: Tracer Testing for

Reservoir Description, SPE 14102, Presented at the 1986 International
Meeting of Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17-20.
61. Peaceman, D.W.: A Nonlinear Stability Analysis for Difference

Equations Using Semi-Implicit Mobility, SPE Journal (Feb. 1977), pp.
79-91.
62. Angel, E. and Bellman, R.: Dynamic Programming and Partial Differential
Equations, Academic Press, New York (1972), p. 44.
63. Peaceman, D.W.: Final Progress Report on IMPES Stability, Memo to

J.S. Nolen and Associates, Aug. 17, 1988.
64. Peaceman, D.W.: Incorporate Effect of Explicit Capillary Pressure into

Buckley-Leverett Criterion for Stable Time Step of IMPES, Memo to
J.S. Nolen and Associates, 1987.

65. Meter, D.M. and Bird, R.B.: Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer
Solutions: Part I Laminar Flow and Rheological Models, AICHE
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 6, Nov. 1964, p. 1143-1150.
66. Hong, C.: Development of a 2-D Micellar/Polymer Simulator, PhD.

Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1982.
67. Hirasaki, G.J.: Ion Exchange with Clays in the Presence of

Surfactant, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., April 1982, p. 181-192.
68. Wallis, J.R. and Nolen, J.S.: Efficient Iterative Linear Solution of
Locally Refined Grids using Algebraic Multilevel Approximate
Factorizations, SPE 25239, presented at the 12th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, February 1993.
69. Litvak, M.L. and Darlow, B.L.: Surface Network and Well Tubinghead
Pressure Constraints in Compositional Simulator, SPE 29125,
presented at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San
Antonio, Texas, February 1995.
70. Cooke, C.E., Jr.: Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple

Layers, J.Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1973) 1101-1107; Trans., AIME, 255.
71. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.: Handbook of Naturaal Gas Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1959).
72. Cornell, D. and Katz, D.L.: Flow of Gases Through Porous Media,
Ind. Eng. Chem. (1953) 45, 2145.
73. Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K., and Pierson, R.G., "Compositional and
Black Oil Reservoir Simulation," SPE 29111, paper presented at the
13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held at San Antonio,
TX, Feb. 12-15, 1996.
74. Killough, John E., Foster, John A., Nolen, James S., Wallis, John R., and
Xiao, Jason, A General-Purpose Parallel Reservoir Simulator,
presented at the 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery, Leoben, Austria, 3-6 Sept., 1996.
75. van Daalen, D. T., Hoogerbrugge, P. J., Meijerink, J. A., and Zeestraten,
P. J. A., "The Parallelization of BOSIM, Shell's Black/ Volatile Oil
Reservoir Simulator", Proceedings of the First IMA/SPE European
Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Oxford University Press,
1990.
76. Wheeler, J. A., and Smith, R. A., "Reservoir Simulation on a

Hypercube", SPE 19804 presented at the 64th SPE Annual Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, October, 1989.

77. Killough, J. E., and Bhogeswara Rao, "Simulation of Compositional

Reservoir Phenomena on a Distributed Memory Parallel Computer",
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November, 1991.
78. Rutledge, J.M., Jones, D. R., Chen, W. H., Chung, E. Y.,"The Use of a
Massively Parallel SIMD Computer for Reservoir Simulation", SPE
21213 presented at the eleventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, 1991.
79. Gautam S. Shiralkar, R. Volz, R. Stephenson, M. Valle, and K. Hird,

Parallel Computing Alters Approaches, Raises Integration
Challenges in Reservoir Modeling, Oil and Gas Journal, May 20, 1996,
48-56.
80. Nolen, J. S., and Stanat, P. L., "Reservoir Simulation on Vector

Processing Computers", SPE 9644 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March, 1981.
81. Wallis, J. R., Foster, J. A., and Kendall, R.P., A New Parallel Iterative
Linear Solution Method for Large-Scale Reservoir Simulation, SPE
21209 presented at the Eleventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, California, February 17-20, 1991.
82. Burrows, Richard, Ponting, Dave, and Wood, Lindsay, Parallel

Simulation with Nested Factorisation, presented at the 5th European
Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria, 3-6
Sept., 1996.
83. Killough, J. E., and Wheeler, M. F., "Parallel Iterative Linear Equation
Solvers: An Investigation of Domain Decomposition Algorithms for
Reservoir Simulation", SPE 16021 presented at the 9th SPE Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, Feb. 1-4, 1987.
84. Jobalia, Mihir, A Receiver-Initiated Load Balancing Technique for

Reservoir Simulation, Masters Degree Thesis presented to the
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston,
December, 1994, John E. Killough, advisor.
85. Song, T., A Load-Balancing Technique for Reservoir Simulation Based

on Dantzigs Transportation Model, Masters Degree Thesis
presented to the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of
Houston, December, 1996, John E. Killough, advisor.
86. Kohav, Gil, and Killough, John E., An Asynchronous Parallel Linear
Equation Solution Technique, SPE 29142 presented at the Thirteenth
SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, 12-15
February, 1995.
87. Fetkovitch, M.J., A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations-

Finite Aquifer Systems, J.Pet. Tech., July,1971, 814-828

88. Levitan, M.M., Li, K. - M.G.: Tracer Flow Simulation and

Interpretation of Tracer Tests, JETEC Paper. (1991).
89. Levitan, M.M.: Application of VIP Tracer Option for Interpretation of

Endicott Tracer Test, Report HO92.0045 (April 1992).
90. Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M., Brigham W.E.: Analysis of Unit Mobility

Ratio Well-to-Well Tracer Flow to Determine Reservoir Heterogeneity,
SUPRI TR-36, US Department of Energy (February 1983).
91. Konikow, L.F., Bredehoeft, J.D.: Computer Model of Two-

Dimensional Solute Transport and Dispersion in Ground Water,
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological
Survey. (1978), Book 7, Chap. C2.
92. Collins, D., Nghiem, L., Sharma, R. Li, Yau-kun, and Jha, Kamal:
Field-scale Simulation of Horizontal Wells, The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, January 1992, Volume 31, No. 1.
93. Killough J.E.: Fifth Comparative Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood

Simulators, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation held in San Antonio, TX, February 1-4, 1987.
94. Eisenstat, S. and Walker, H: Chooasing the Forcing Terms in an

Inexact Newton Method, SIAM J. Sci. Comp., 17 (1996), pp. 16 - 32.

000000Subject Index
compressibility checks 30-449
A conductive fault options 7-98
conversion factors 34-493
aquifer modeling 1-1 corner-point geometry 3-17, 3-21, B-645
arbitrary connections 7-90 block center 3-20
Aziz and Settari 13-153 bulk volume 3-19
fault modeling 3-18
gaussian quadrature B-652
B inter-block transmissibilities 3-21
positions 3-17
black-oil option 8-106 thickness 3-20
BLITZ 18-256 transmissibility calculations 3-21, B-653
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-537 volumetric calculations B-649
boundary flux 2-9
efflux partitioning 2-16
flux model setup 2-10
flux output mode 2-16
D
flux rates 2-14 directional relative permeability 5-71, 25-380,
program dimensions 2-10 36-517
special features 2-14 dual permeability versus single permeability 4-
bulk volume 3-19 35
dual porosity 4-25
benchmarks 4-39
C Coats method 4-32
dual permeability 4-35
capillary pressure 5-61 effective fracture permeability 4-47
adjustment 6-81 fracture porosity 4-46
adjustment near critical 24-369 imbibition and gravity drainage 4-29
hysteresis 13-151 input data 4-46, 4-55
saturation function 25-371 matrix-fracture diffusion 4-27
Carlsons method 13-147 matrix-fracture flow exchange 4-26
Carter-Tracy aquifer 1-2 matrix-fracture transmissibility 4-52
cartesian refinement 15-180 partially fractured reservoir 4-37
cation exchange 22-324 pore compressibilities 4-51
Chase and Todd 16-233 pressure dependence 4-53
Coats method 4-32 pseudo capillary pressures 4-30
compositional flow 14-166 relative permeabilities 4-52
compositional model 23-330 well permeability-thickness 4-54
R2003.4 - Landmark Index-681

Index VIP-EXECUTIVE REFERENCE MANUAL
numerical solution 18-245

E optimal material balance 19-261
phase equilibrium calculation 21-311
efflux partitioning 2-16 fracture
end-point scaling 5-61, 8-104 drainage and imbibition characteristics 4-
consistency checks 5-67 29
directional relative permeability 5-71 permeability 4-47
hysteresis 13-148 porosity 4-46
J-function 5-72 transmissibility 4-52
permeability scaling option 5-69 fractured reservoirs 4-25
relative permeabilities 5-68 fully implicit formuation 9-111
saturation end points 5-62
scaling for oil 5-68
scaling for water and gas 5-68
three-point scaling 5-64 G
two-point scaling 5-63 gas condensates 23-343
equation of state interpolation option 23-344 gas plant 26-393
equilibration 6-73 gas reinjection and gas handling 39-568
capillary pressure adjustment 6-81 gas remobilization option 25-382
gravity-capillary 6-74 gas saturation tables 25-374
gridblock center option 6-77 gas-water option 8-103
integrated saturation option 6-77 GBC option 6-77
saturation initialization 6-77 general injection region 39-580
supercritical initialization 6-82 Gibbs energy minimization 21-315
volume-averaged integration 6-79 Gibbs option 21-313
governing equations 9-107
fully implicit formulation 9-111
F IMPES Formulation 9-107
miscible option 16-228
fault modeling 3-18 relaxed volume balance option 9-111
fault transmissibility 7-92 grid coarsening 10-113
faults 3-18, 7-85 coarse block properties 10-113
arbitrary connections 7-90
corner-point geometry B-645
guidelines 7-87
input example 7-96 H
input structure 7-89 horizontal and inclined wells 11-117
leaky option 7-98 conventions 11-129
noncontiguous layers 7-93 examples 11-133
transmissibility 7-92 permeability-thickness and well index 11-
transmissibility calculation 33-481 123
flux modeling 2-9 pressure loss 11-119
flux output mode 2-16 required input 11-127
formulation hydraulically fractured wells 12-139
governing equation 9-107 fracture closure 12-142
IMPES stability 14-157 non-Darcy flow 12-143
Index-682 Landmark - R2003.4

VIP-EXECUTIVE REFERENCE MANUAL Index
hydrocarbon tracking 31-453

hysteresis 13-145 J
capillary pressure 13-151
input data 13-150 J-function 5-72
relative permeability 13-146
L
I Leverett J-function 5-72
imbibition and gravity drainage 4-29 linear solvers 18-256
immiscible flow 14-157 local grid refinement 15-177
IMPES 9-107 application within GRIDGENR 15-186
governing equations 9-107 benchmarks 15-200
IMPES stability 14-157 constructing a composite grid 15-190
numerical solution 18-245 examples 15-206
optimal material balance 19-261 features in simulation module 15-194
IMPES Formulation input data 15-196
fugacity equality 9-108 types of refinement 15-180
hydrocarbon species mass balance 9-107
mole fraction constraint 9-109
overall component mole fraction 9-108 M
overall hydrocarbon mass balance 9-108
reduction of simultaneous equations 9-109 major gas sales option 39-571
saturation constraint 9-109 minimum lift velocity 28-421
selection of primary unknowns 9-109 miscible and immiscible conditions 16-231
water mass balance 9-108 miscible compositional option 16-227
IMPES option miscible option 16-227
compositional flow 14-166 effective capillary pressures 16-233
fractional mobility 14-159 effective relative permeabilities 16-229
immiscible flow 14-157 effective viscosities 16-233
IMPES difference 14-158 governing equations 16-228
optimal material balance option 19-261 mass densities 16-233
stability analysis 14-159 miscible-immiscible transition 16-231
total throughput 14-158 phase equilibrium calculations 21-309
IMPLICIT pvt and vle calculations 16-235
governing equations 9-111 relative permeability 24-369
relaxed volume balance option 9-111
inclined wells 11-117
initial conditions 6-82 N
injection region 39-577
interfacial tension 24-369 net voidage 39-578
INTSAT option 6-77 Newton-Raphson method 18-250
NEWTRAN method 3-23
nine point transmissibilities 33-482
non-contiguous layers 7-93
non-Darcy flow 12-143, 17-237

well models A-640 gas-water, water-oil and black-oil 8-103

non-Darcy gas flow hydrocarbon properties 23-330
pressure-dependent gas properties 17-238 miscible model 23-343
rate-dependent skin factor 17-240 miscible options 16-235
numerical aquifer 1-7 phase equilibrium calculation 21-309
numerical solution 18-245 rock porosity 23-329
discretization of mass balance equations separators 26-389
18-245 water properties 23-329
discretization of water balance equation 18-
248
linear solvers 18-256 R
linearization 18-250
non-linear systems 18-253 radial refinement 15-181
rate-dependent skin factor 17-240
rectangular or radial grid systems 36-511
O relative permeabilities 5-61
adjustment near critical 24-369
optimal material balance option 19-261 saturation function 25-371
partial Jacobian update 19-270 relative permeability hysteresis 13-146
reordering gridblocks 19-268
saturation pressure and flash vectorization
19-273 S
single-phase stability test 19-272
update unknown 19-262 saturation end points 5-62
optimization 27-406 saturation function 25-371
consistency checks 25-379
directional relative permeability 25-380
P gas remobilizaton 25-382
gas saturation tables 25-374
parallel computing 20-277 hysteresis 13-145
partial Jacobian update 19-270 oil relative permeability models 25-375
phase equilibrium 21-309 two-phase options 8-103
Gibbs options 21-313 vertical equilibrium 36-511
PVT representation 23-339 water saturation tables 25-372
phase stability test 21-314 saturation initialization 6-77
polymer inaccessible pore volume 22-324 saturation weighted interpolation 25-376
polymer modeling 22-317 separators 26-387
description 22-318 battery configuration 26-388
gel treatment 22-327 gas plant 26-393
material conservation equations 22-319 mass balance 26-390
PVT representation 23-329 phase equilibrium conditions 26-391
black oil model 23-338 PVT representation 23-344
compositional model 23-330 simulator performance 27-395
EOS interpolation 23-344 IMPES stability constraints 14-157
gas condensates 23-343 LGR options 15-198
gas properties treatment 23-343 memory requirements 27-411

VIP-EXECUTIVE REFERENCE MANUAL Index
monitoring 27-401 tracer analysis 32-461

non-linear iteration control 27-398 implementation 32-466
optimal material balance 27-397 particle tracking method 32-465
optimization 27-406 test interpretation 32-478
run durations 27-411 tracer flow 32-464
timestep control 27-395 tracer tests 32-463
single-well gridded wellbore 28-417 validation 32-472
data structure for the simulation module 28- tracking calculations 31-453
423 philosophy 31-454
data structure for VIP-CORE 28-422 tracking in a reservoir 31-455
liquid slippage 28-420 transmissibility calculations 33-479
minimum lift velocity 28-421 cartesian coordinate system 33-479
vertical flow coefficients 28-418 corner-point geometry B-653
solution dual porosity 4-26
numerical solution 18-245 fault 7-92, 33-481, 33-487
optimal material balance 19-261 nine point transmissibilities 33-482
simulator performance 27-395 nomenclature 33-487
stability analysis radial system 33-486
other dependent variables 14-171 tubing performance curve 38-540
three-phase flow 14-162 two-phase modeling 8-103
total flow equation 14-170 two-point scaling option 5-63
two-phase flow 14-159 types of refinement
Stones Model 25-375 cartesian refinement 15-180
supercritical initialization 6-82 radial refinement 15-181
Surface Facility Model 39-591
surface pipeline network option 29-425
hydraulic models 29-428 U
hydraulic tables 29-434
model description 29-438 units 34-491
multiphase fluid flow 29-446
solution algorithm 29-445
V
T VAITS option 6-79
VEITS simulation procedure 36-524
three-phase relative permeability models 25- vertical equilibrium 36-511
375 corner-point grid system 36-518
timesteps directional relative permeability 36-517
convergence tolerance 27-399 psuedo functions 36-515
iteration control 27-398 rectangular or radial grid systems 36-511
primary control 27-395 saturation function 25-380
total compressibility checks 30-449 well management features 39-545
reasonableness check 30-450 vertical flow coefficients 28-418
saturated oil compressibility 30-451 VIP-DUAL
undersaturated oil compressibility check example model input 4-55
30-452 VIP-EXEC

estimated run times 27-411 horizontal and inclined wells 11-117

viscosity hydraulically fractured 12-139
hydrocarbon compositional 23-333 LGR 15-199, 15-208
voidage replacement 39-581 non-Darcy gas flow 17-237
single-well gridded wellbore 28-417
surface pipeline network 29-438
W well infow performance 38-531
well management features 39-541
water saturation tables 25-372 well models A-611
water tracking 37-527
water-oil option 8-105
well inflow performance 38-531
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-537
inflow and outflow curves 38-538
tubing performance curve 38-540
well index 38-534
wellbore flow model 38-532
well management features 39-541
automatic workover 39-593
gas reinjection 39-568
gas-lift 39-584
injection 39-553
injection prioritization 39-580
injection region 39-577
major gas sales option 39-571
management levels 39-565
predictive well management 39-597
production well 39-547
status report 39-556
surface facility model 39-591
voidage replacement option 39-581
water pumps 39-590
well completion data 39-544
well data 39-541
wellbore crossflow 39-562
wellbore gradient calculations 39-557
well model A-611
horizontal well A-642
inclined well A-644
incorporating skin A-631
non-darcy gas flow A-640
one-dimensional flow A-613
productivity index A-613, A-637
two-dimensional areal flow A-616
well index A-612, A-637
wells

Tech Ref

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tech Ref

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

VIP-EXECUTIVE

Part No. 159679 R2003.4

Landmark Graphics Corporation

R2003.4 - Landmark iii

3.2 Fault Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68

8.2.2 Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-104

R2003.4 - Landmark vii

15.3 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR . . . . . . . . . . 15-179

viii Landmark - R2003.4

20.2.1 Local Grid Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-278

23.4.1 Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-330

26.2 Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-388

xii Landmark - R2003.4

27.6.4 Using the Simulator to Determine Memory Requirements

R2003.4 - Landmark xiii

xiv Landmark - R2003.4

38.5 Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-538

xvi Landmark - R2003.4

39.9 Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-568

R2003.4 - Landmark xvii

39.17.4 Frequency of Workover Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-596

xviii Landmark - R2003.4

A.9 Inclined Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-644

R2003.4 - Landmark xix

About This Manual

R2003.4 - Landmark xxi

(Coats Figure 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

xxii Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 6-5: Capillary Pressure Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81

R2003.4 - Landmark xxiii

Figure 11-12: Block Number and Well Section Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-135

xxiv Landmark - R2003.4

Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-192

R2003.4 - Landmark xxv

Heterogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-291

xxvi Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark xxvii

xxviii Landmark - R2003.4

R2003.4 - Landmark xxix

xxx Landmark - R2003.4

About This Manual

The Technical Reference provides detailed information on the formulation,

The VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference is updated regularly to reflect

This information is confidential, describing proprietary features of the

R2003.4 - Landmark xxxi

Boundary Flux Option.

Corner-Point Geometry Option.

Dual Porosity Models.

Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options

Horizontal and Inclined Well Model.

Hydraulically Fractured Well Option

Local Grid Refinement.

Non-Darcy Gas Flow.

Optimal Material Balance Option.

Phase Equilibrium Calculation.

Polymer Modeling Option.

Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the

xxxii Landmark - R2003.4

Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation

Surface Pipeline Network Options.

Total Compressibility Checks.

Tracking Calculations in VIP-EXECUTIVE

Tracer Analysis Option.