Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

A Numerical Coning Model

APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT c1
J. P. LETKEMAN ENGINEERING OF CANADA, LTD.
CALGARY, ALTA.
APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 8
R. L. RIDINGS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
MEMBERS AIME TULSA, OKLA.

. . -/ -......
- (;”ire-difference model to evaluate
ABSTRACT 1 ne desigfi “. -
coning behavior of gas or water in a singIe well
The numerical simulation o~ coning bebavior bas usually results in a model which uses radial
been one of tbe most difficult applications of coordinates. A two-dimensional single-well model
numerical analysis techniques. Coning simulations is illustrated in Fig. I. This type of model will
have generally exhibited severe saturation often produce finite-difference blocks with pore
instabilities in tbe vicinity o{ tbe well unless volumes less than 1 bbl near rhe wellbore while
time-step sizes were severely restricted. The producing large blocks with pore volumes greater
instabilities were a result of using nobilities based than 1 million bbl near the external radius. If one
on saturations existing at tbe beginning of the time chooses to use a reasonable time-step size of, say,
step. The time-step size limitation, usually tbe 1 ro 10 days, then normal well rates would result
order o~ a /ew minutes, resulted in an excessive in a flow of several hundred pore volumes per time
amount o{ computer time required to simulate step through the blocks near the wellbore. Therefore
coning behavior. the assumption that saturations remain constant,
This paper presents a numerical coning model for the purpose of coefficient evaluation, is not
that exhibits stable saturation and production valid.
behavior during cone formation and after break- Welge and Weberl presented a paper on water
through. Time-step sizes a factor of 100 to 1,000 coning which recognized the limitation of using
times as large as those previously possible may be explicir coefficients and applied an arbitrary
used in tbe simulation. To ensure stability, botb limitation on the maximum saturation change over a
production rates and nobilities are extrapolated time step. While this method is workable for a
implicitly to tbe new time level. The finite- dij{erence certain class of problems, it is not rigorous and is
equations used in tbe model are presented together not generally applicable. In 1968, Coats2 proposed
with the technique {or incorporating the updated a method to solve the gas percolation problem
nobilities and rates, Example calculations wbicb which is similar in that it also results from explicit
indicate tbe magnitude of the time-truncation errors nobilities. This proposal involved adjusting the
are included. Various factors which CZliect coning ~e]ative permeability to gas at the beginning of the
behavior are discussed. time step so that an individual biock wouid not be
over-depleted of gas during a time step. This
INTRODUCTION method is not conveniently extended to two
dimensions nor to coning problems where a block
The usual formulation of numerical simulation
is voided many times during a time step.
models for multiphase flow involves the evaluation
,,. . Blair and Weinaug3 explored the problems
of flow coerrlclefrt . ... beeinning
terms ..*. the “ of a time
re~oiting from explicitly determined coefficients
step and assumes that these terms do not change
and formulated a coning modei with irnpikit
over the time step. These assumptions are valid
nobilities and a solution technique urilizing
only if the values of pressure and saturation in the
Newtonian iteration. While this method is rigorous,
system do not change significantly over the time
achieving convergence on certain problems is
step.
difficult and, in many cases, time-step size is still
severely restricted.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Jan. 27, 1970. Revised manuscript received July 30, 1970. In addirion to the problems resulting from explicit
Paper (SpE 2812) was presented at Second Symposium on flow-equation coefficients in coning models, the
Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Performance, held in Dallas,
Tex., Feb. 5-6, 1970 @ Copyright 1970 American Institute of specification of rates requires attention to ensure
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
that the saturations remain stable in the vicinity of
lRefere”ce9 given at end of paper
the producing block. In reservoir modelling, it is
This paper will be printed in Tr.an.sacfions volume 249, which
-ill !-Over 1970. usual to specify, and hold constant over a rime
.-
. . ...... . . 0,.my,,
APPENDIX E RELATIVE PERMEABILITY AND
CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA
CALCULATION DATA El
A
k. Pc
This appendix contains data used in the Sw kw Ow Ow

calculations discussed and indicates values for 0.0 1.0 4.111


0.1
two different systems. Three-phase relative-
0.2 0.0016 0.875 0.095
permeability and capillary-pressure relationships
0.3 0.0081 0.735 0.072
described in Appendix A of Ref. 4 were used in
0.4 0.0259 0.590 0.061
conjunction with the data for relative permeabilities
and capillary pressures presented below. 0.5 0.0672 0.420 0.051
E.1 represents a laboratory model of one-eighth of 0.6 0.1000 0.210 0.041
a 10-acre five-spot (applicable to Figs. 3 through 0.7 n I Am
“. .=”” 0.070 0.031
7). Prototype dimensions are in parentheses; other 0.8 0.2000 0.016 0.021
prototype properties are the same as laboratory 0.86 0.2500 0.0 0.011
properties. E.2 represents one-eighth of lx-acre k P
s k;
five spot (applicable to Fig.8). 02 0042 Co&?

0.1 0.520 0.0 4.517


E.1 E.2 0.410 0.009 0.067
0.2
---- ~ ~~~
k(darcies)(kxky) 132 (1.1) 5 0.3 0.310 V.ujl
+ 0.375 (0.375) 0.33 0.4 0.220 0.062 0.020
L (ft) 3.9 (467) 160 0.5 0.140 0.110 – 0.001
Sand thickness (ft) 0.5, 0.83 (60,100) 26 0.6 0.080 0.190 -0.022
KhR(Btu/ft/DOF) 24 35 0.7 0.030 0.335 -0.043
0.8 0.005 0.570 — 0.064
Kh JBtu/ft/D°F) 12 34
0.89 0.0 1.000 -0.085
(pc~R(Btu/cuft°F) 36 40
(pc)ob(Btu/cuftOF) 30 36 E2
-J_
Ti (°F) 80 55 k Pc
Sw kw 00w Ow
Swi (bottom block) 0.1 0.4
0.24 0.0 0.916 1.6
Sgi (top biotic) 0 0,.4
0.3 n nnkk 0.’495 0.27
U.u””” -----
Tinj (OF) 400 555 0.14
0.4 0.0190 0.197
Pinj (psi) 260 1,100 0.5 0.0420 0.072 0.084
~prod (psi) ~ 190t 100 0.6 0.1060 0.007 0.06
Steam quality 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.2300 0.0 0.04
p (cp) T (°F) s k;
02
50 5,000 500,000
--- ] ~~ ~~g 0,3 0.19 0.0 0.38
1>(J
0.4 0.i2 0.01 o.~8
250 20 41
0.5 0.055 0.04 0.21
350 7.1 8.8
0.6 0.015 0.125 0.16
450 4.0 3.6 0.12
0.7 0.001 0.38
550 2.0 0.76 0.0 0.70 0.11

~
qprod = 1 B/D ( 120 B/D) = constani during expefkefit. * s~
Sg = i—S 02.
‘i r
***
step, rates of oil, gas and water based on conditions
at the beginning of the time step. This explicit
spec~fication of rates in a coning modeI is
unsatisfactory — particularly after breakthrough.
Coning mode is dispiay Fapiri p:es sure arrd
saturation changes in the vicinity of the wellbore—
particularly over the first few time steps after a
rate change. These models aiso are ~kta~teihd
by fiOw coeffieisn.= .- +; - ..c ~. .~W
.. . . V=y by a factor of
l@ from the wellbore to the outer radius. These 1
characteristics of coning models demand that
● P::;, - P:;l ‘~og (Di-Di+l) ‘qoi
special attention be given in the selection and
application of numerical solution techniques. [ I
so
THE

For simplicity
NUMERICAL

in development,
MODEL

the equations will


=VPi At
()—
00
. . . . . . . . (1)

be derived for a one-dimensional oil-water system. and the water equation may be written as:
Further, it will be assumed that the functions of
pressure (viscosity and formation volume factor) do
not vary significantly over the time step and can be
considered explicitly. This latter assumption is
reasonable since a change in formation volume
factor of 1 percent over a time step would be rare.
However, the saturation change, and the resulting
change in relative permeability, is significant and
will be assumed to be the controlling factor in the
changing mobility.
The difference equation for oil flow, with all
terms included, may be written as:
SW
=Vpi At
()~w
—.........(2)

I
J
1
PRODUCING -2
INTERvAL
{ -3
4

6
7
l] 1 I
8 OIL ZONE
9

13
! 1
7// //// A 77///l/////l//// /7,4’///////
14
/ ////x.L’’//zhM,///M/////J///////
15 / ////zK//// WATER
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ZONE /
‘ ‘ “)+’’/’///./’’////’’/’/”
lb

17
18
19

20
J

~laoo’-+
rw r. FEETe re

FIG. 1 — Two-DIMENSIONAL SINGLE WELL MODEL.


Since

factors
the relative
which are functions
in the changing
~pproximated
permeabilities,
of saturation,
nobilities,
at the new time level,
k,. and k,w,
are the controlling
they will be
n + 1. There are
[
p~i-1-p~i
-flog1[ 1 (Di-Di-]) S~+l-s~
i-‘/2

two formulations that may be used to determine the


updated relative permeabilities. The one selected
will depend upon the independent variables which
are selected in the formulation of the difference
equations. If the independent variables for these
equations are ~api]]ary pressure and one of the
phase pressures, the approximations maY be
written as:

and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- (5)

for oil, and


,rW (S~+’ )

[-L,2[’’’’1-P’:1

If rhe independent
the phase pressures
variables are selected
and saturation,
as one of
the followlng
+fw9(Di-Di-1)
1[ + kA
BWUWAX

[1
d kro n
)=kro (S~)+ ~ ‘+’ -s:)
(sO “(*~,/~li-, ‘p~i ‘~wg(Di-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(4a)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4b)

Direct substitution of Eqs, 3 or 4 into the flow


equations, Eqs. 1 and 2, will produce terms
inv~!vin ~Q both independent variables and, thus, ‘Di+1)]+[hfiwAX(%#+1,2[p~i+1
loss of linearity. To our know Iedge, the resulting
equations cannot be solved using current techniques.
However, modified equations which eliminate this
‘PJi
problem have been successfully used. Those
equations take the form:
‘pwg(Di-Di+’)l [sl+’-sLli+Y2+
Sw (6)
qWI.=vpi At
() ~........

for water.
An imporpant point ~Q remember is that mobility
terms should be evaluated at the upstream block.
Accordingly, the slopes of relative permeabili:ies
//(k+&)~~“ “ “ “(8a)
must be evaluated at that point as well as the
appropriate independent variable (either saturation
--- . . d
or capillary
variables
pressure).
indicated
For exampie, the Siop=
in Eqs. 5 and 6 at (i –’%) me
aJJ
“ w

are either evaluated at (i) or (i - 1) depending on


which is the upstream block. While this is not a for oil, and
difficult concept, it becomes a significant compli-
~atien when programming the solution.
Successful solution of these modified equations
depends to a large degree on the proper selection
of the slopes of the relative permeability curves.
From experience, we have found that the best ,[!@+b). . . . ..(*b)
results for coning simulations are obtained using
an average slope for the relative permeability
~~r-{e~ in the ]QW saturation ranges. In applications
for water. The ~~~~cJ SQ ~aiculated prevent the
such as gas percolation, where saturation changes
saturation around the wellbore from becoming
are less severe, slopes based on the saturation exhibiting reversals. The rate
negative or
existing at the beginning of the time-step may be Eqs. 8a and 8b, are included in
approximations,
used successfully.
the flow equations, Eqs. 5 and 6, for the producing
Experience with these modified equations
can be solved blocks and, thus, add to the coefficients determining
indicates that most problems
the saturation in those blocks.
successfully without iterating on the coefficients.
Where distribution of total well production among
An exception to this would be where the assumption
several producing blocks is desired, this is normally
that the relative-permeability slopes remain constant
done based on potential. This rype of distribution
over the time step is not valid. However, reduction
o f rates has been done explicitly with no unusual
in size of time step would probably be more
problems.
satisfactory than iteration in these cases.
Extension of the modei to applications other —..—.. .-
SOLUTION OF EQUA-I-lONS
than coning problems is readily seen. For example,
cross-section models, particularly those in which More than any other type of reservoir simulation
gas percolation is a problem, can be easily solved model, the coning model requires close attention to
with this method. the proper
selection of a numerical solution
technique as well as a good understanding of the
UPDATED RATES selected technique. This understanding extends to
stable saturation solutions the ability to detect problems as they arise and to
In coning problems,
modify the technique to handle those problems.
in blocks near the wellbore require specification of
This kind of expertise is gained only after a great
production rates that are based on the saturation at
deal of experience in both numericai methods arid
the new time level. A common specification is that
in coning problems.
of a total reservoir voidage rate at an individual
Most coning problems appear to be solvable
production block. In this case, the totai production
using variations of line SOR. While SOR converges
is distributed to the individual phases on the basis some other methods, under
For example, ro distribute less rapidly than
of the updated nobilities.
a total rate, qt, between oil and water: o$ptlmum conditions it is easier to use and is less
hkely ro diverge on the class of problems which----it
will handle. ADIP has been found to soive a iarge~
k ~+ krw class of coning problems than SOR. Further, it
— . . .. (7a)
qo’%~ /( U() Uw ) appears that the strongly implicit procedure 4 (SIP)
will converge better than ADIP for many problems.
However, as one Progresses from ‘OR ‘0 ‘DIP ‘0
and s1p, the techniques and convergence problems
become more difficult and more experience is
k kro + krw required to cope with those problems.
—.. . . (7b)
qw=c?t~ /( ~ Uw ) The large gradients and the large variation in
flow coefficients in coning problems make the
selection of a set of convergent iteration parameters
As before, an approximation for the relative
for ADIP or SIP difficult. Generally, the selection
permeabilities at the new time level is made. This of iteration parameters must be done by trial and
is accomplished as follows.
error, since iteration parameter selection techniques
presented in the literature often result in divergence.
n +1 kro .—I d kro (s:+’-s~)
qo =qt =+UO d so A CONING EXAMPLE
[ 1 the practical application of a
TO illustrate
numerical coning model utilizing updated nobilities of line SOR was used for solving the example
and rates, as described in the preceding sections, problem.
a two-dimensional water coning problem was Table 2 shows the calculated performance for
selected. The model data used was selected from the example case using a 5day time step. Fig. z

a coning example of Blair and Weinaug.3 This 9 x 20 shows the movement of the 20-percent water
,, saturation contour with time, and Fig. 3 shows that
DJock mode! hid horizontal permeability of I to 5
darcies and vertical permeability of 100 md. Tiie of the 50-percent contour- The Calculated ‘ariat{on
bottom-water drive system produced 6,OOO bbl of in water saturation at the bottom of the p~edl~clng
reservoir fluid per day. The original oil in place interval using time steps up to 100 days is shown
was about 34 million bbl. A description of the as Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the calculated variation in
model is given in Fig. 1 and Table 1. water-oil ratio with the different time-step sizes.
Calculations were made for the example case Estimates of the time truncation errors obtained
which predicted model performance for 2,000 days from Figs. 4 and 5 indicate that the errors introduced
using time steps of 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 days. All by the larger time steps have the effect of a time
calculations were performed on the CDC 6600 delay on calculated performance. The precision
computer and solution times varied from 1 to 10 required from the model will depend on the individual
minutes. The solution times varied, based on the application and the relative accuracy of data
time steps used and the number of iterations estimates. Usually, a Uial-and-error approach must
required to converge for each time step. A variant be used to select the optimum time-step for a
particular coning application. Although the larger
time-steps cause a relatively larger error in the
TABLE 1 — PROPERTIES OF CONING MODEL the results are usually
calculated performance,
Oil density 0.826 gmlcc
adequate for engineering purposes. In this case,
Water density 1,0 gmlcc
Oii compressibility 1. x 10-5 vOl\vOl/psi
Water compressibility 3. x 10-6 vOifvOi~psi
Oil viscosity 0.31 Cp
Water viscosity 0.34 Cp
Production rate 6,000 RB/D

Water-oil Relative F’ermeabil ities

Sw K K ro Pc
~
G 0.0000 0.95 1.23
0.2 0.004 0.75 0.66
0.25 0.0102 0.5876 0.54
0.3 0.0166 0.4462 0.48
0.35 0.0232 0.3325 0.42 620
100 OATS
0.4 0.0305 0.2450 0.38
0.45 0.0392 0.1770 0.34

I
0.5 0.0497 0.1200 0,30
0,27 lW
0.55 0.0630 0.0724
0.6 0.0798 0.0374 0.24
180
0.65 0.1000 0.0163 0.21
0.7 0.1244 0.0020 0.17
0.12
200 .,&, .&. &’ 400 500 Soo 700 we ●OO 1000 1100 ‘
0.75 0.1525 0.0001
RADIUS
- FT.
0.8 0.1870 0.0000 -0.22

Porosity = 0.207 FIG. 2 — 20 PERCENT H20 SATURATION CONTOUR.


Radii at block boundaries (ft)
2.5, 3.9, 9.0, 18.5, 38.1, 78.3, 332.0, 663.9, 1,131.5, 1,300
a.
Properties by LGye~
kh (darcy) Depth so
‘h
Layer Thickness (ft)
T 3.75 1,000 = ‘2000 SAYS
2 8.75 1,000 8.1
3 7.50 1,000 16.2
60
4 6.25 1,000 23.1
5 8.75 1,000 30.6
:W
6 10.0 1,000 40.0
7 11.25 1,000 50.6
8 15.0 1,000 63.7
9 18.75 1,000 80.6
10 20.0 1,000 100.0
11 20.0 1,000 120.0
140
12 20.0 1,000 140.0
13 20.0 1,000 160.0
14 21.25 5,000 180.0
15 23.75 5,000 203.1
16 25.0 5,000 227.5
17 25.0 ~,~(?J 252.5 200
100 *OO *OO 400 MO aoo 700 600 ●OO !400 Ilw.
{6 37.5 5,000 284.2 RADIUS
- FT.
19 37.5 5,(X30 321.7
20 25.0 5,000 353.5 FIG 3 — 50 PERCENT H ~0 SATURATION CONTOUR.

. . ..... . . ..- T., n.,.,-.. ~,-~ryTrwc IOl,R\-tT


60

55 5 DAY STEP

10 DAY STEP

so

.?0 DAY sTCP

\\
4 5
50 DAY STEP >
~.\
\ 50 MY STEP
40 100 D~~S7ZF\ 100OATSTEP
\\
\

35

30.

.?5
I000 140 Iwo 1s00 2300
TIME - DAYS

20 FIG. 5 — CALCULATED WATER-OIL RATIO.

fluid per day, those inner blocks were voided from


Isp==
800 I000 >200 14 00 1600 18C0 1,750 to 35,000 times per time step.
600 .-. n.vs
r,uc. .
A number of well history cases have been
FIG. 4 — CALCULATED WATER SATURATION AT studied, using the methods in this paper, in which
BOTTOM PRODUCING BLOCK. actual coning performance was successfully
duplicated~16 These cases, along with the
the engineering value of the results calculated theoretical verification of the methods, tends to
using 20-day time steps is as good as those using uphold the validity of the models.
smaller time steps for any normal application.
A significant point that is brought out by this CONCLUSIONS
example is that the approach to numerical modelling
of coning behavior presented in this paper produces The following conclusions are offered.
stabie soiutions a: large rime steps. It should be 1. The numericaI techniques presented exhibit
noted that the blocks open to production at the stabie saturatiori sricf production behavior during
wellbore contain a total pore volume of 17.5 bbl. cone formation and after breakthrough.
At the production rate of 6,ooO bbl of reservoir 2. Time-step sizes much larger than previously

TABLE 2 — CONING MODEL PERFORMANCE


Producing Water Saturation at
Time Oil Rate Water Rate Water-Oil Ratio Oil Recovery Bottom Producing Block
(days) (STB/D) (B/D) (percent) (percent) (percent)

o o 0 0,00 0.0 15.0


100 6,107 0 0.00 1,8 15,0
200 6,107 0 0.00 3.6 15.0
300 6,106 0 0.00 5.4 15.0
400 6,106 0 0.00 7.2 15.0
500 6,106 0 0,00 9.0 15.0
600 6,106 0 0.00 10,8 15.1
700 6,105 1 0.02 12.6 15.4
SOQ 6:102 4 0.07 14.4 16,5
900 6,093 13 0.21 16.2 19.0
1,000 6,077 29 0.47 18.0 22. i
1,100 6,055 50 0.82 19.8 25.0
1,200 6,025 79 1.31 21.6 28,3
1,300 5,977 127 2.12 23.4 ~~,A
1,400 5,900 202 3,43 25.1 37.3
1,500 5,782 318 S.50 26.8 42.6
1,600 5,606 492 8.77 28.5 48.1
1,700 5,380 715 13.29 30.1 52.4
1;800 5,154 939 18.21 31.7 55.0
1,900 4,915 i,i75 23,91 33.2 56.9
~g.~
2,000 4,687 1,401 29.89 34,6
possible can now be used in coning simulation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
3. Coning simulation is practical and economical
using the modified equations. The authors wish to express their appreciation
to Mike Blair of Esso Production Research Co. for
NOMENCLATURE furnishing the example data. The assistance of the
ADE staff, especially that of Henry W. Lampe, in
A= cross-sectional area open to flow the preparation of the paper is gratefully
B= formation volume factor, reservoir volumei acknowledged.
standard volume
D= depth, below datum REFERENCES
g= gravitational constant 1. Welge, Henry J. and Weber, A. G.: “Use of TWO-
k= absolute permeability Dimensional Methods for Calculating Well Coning
Behavior”, Sot. Pet. Eng. j. (Dec., 1964) 345-355.
k, = relative permeability
2. Coats, K. H.: I(A Treatment of the Gas Percolation
p= phase pressure Problem in Simulation of Three-Dimensionsl, Three-
Vp = pore volume Phase Fiow- Lf Reservoirs”, SOc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec.,
1968) 41>419.
Pc = capiliary pressure
3. Blair, P. M. and Weinaug, C. F.: “Solution of TWO-
q= rate of production or injection Phase Flow’ P~~biema Using Implicit Difference
s . saturation Equations”, Sot. pet. Eng. -I. (Dec., 1~~~) d~~-d~~.

x. spatial finite-difference increment 4. Stone, H. L.: “Iterative Solution of Implicit Approxi-


mations of Multidimensional Partial Differential
t= time difference operator Equations”, ]. SIAM Numer. Anal. (1968) Vol. 5, No.
p. viscosity 3, 530.
p= density 5. , tPrimarY Reserve Submission, Sylvan Lake Pekisko
B Pool, Hudson’s Bay Oil and Gas Ltd.”, Proc., No.
SUBSCRIPTS AND SUPERSCRIPTS 4865, Oil and Gas Conservation Board (1970).
6. Fi,ghei, W, G:, Tetreau, E. M. and Letkeman, J. P.:
i = spatial index
“Application of Numerical Conirig Modei~ TO

n = time-level index optimize Completion and Production Methods TO


Increase Oil Productivity in the Bellshill Lake
O = Oii
Blairmore Pool”, paper CIM 7038 presented at 21st
w = water Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alta. (May 6-8,
1970).
***

.. . . . .. . .