Petroleum Engineering Bachelor Thesis - Reservoir Characterization and Performance Prediction in Waterflooded Reservoir using Capacitance-Resistance Model

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 0

Petroleum Engineering Bachelor Thesis - Reservoir Characterization and Performance Prediction in Waterflooded Reservoir using Capacitance-Resistance Model

© All Rights Reserved

- Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...
- Comparison of Blast Prediction Models of Vapor Cloud Explosions NRCnrcc44715
- RESERVOIR GEOMECHANICS COUPLING_EMI [Autoguardado].pptx
- Hydrologic Modelling Using Hec-hms For
- Nasa Ballistic Reserche
- Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis
- Flow Assurance by Mike
- Harrell Ghosh Bowden cap1
- H03706
- Well Test Results and Reservoir Performance for a Carbon Dioxide Injection Test Michigan Basin
- Lecture 1-hydrocarbon fluids
- 20151126 (Blasingame) Pres SPE Tech Skills Matrix MPI (WRpt) (PDF)
- Risking of Prospects and Segments
- 15 Taber.1997 EOR.screening.criteria.revisited Part.1
- Low Salinity Water Injection for EOR
- SPE-18323-PA
- AEP - C3 - Week 4 Slides
- Etd Tamu 2007A PETE AlOmair
- ndx_thom
- Beer game

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

BACHELOR THESIS

12215073

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

in Petroleum Engineering study program

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

2019

Reservoir Characterization and Performance Prediction in Waterflooded Reservoir using

Capacitance-Resistance Model

Made Ray Yuda Suyatna* and Amega Yasutra**

Abstract

Characterizing and predicting reservoir performance need to be done in order to improve reservoir management

decision. Time consuming and data uncertainty make the numerical simulators less preferable for a quick reservoir

evaluation. Capacitance-resistance model (CRM) proved to be a quick and reliable tool to evaluate waterflood

performance using just production and injection historical data to perform history matching. The CRM

characterize reservoir by quantifying the interwell connectivity and response delay that constitute the CRM

unknown parameters. In this study, the CRM was used to characterize and predict waterflooded reservoir

performance. The CRM was applied to four synthetic reservoir models with different complexities to investigate

the CRM responses toward the reservoir heterogeneity. The result showed that the CRM was able to infer the

reservoir heterogeneity and match the synthetic historical data within more than 0.9 R-squared. The calibrated

CRM model then coupled with fractional flow models to match the oil production performance. Once the oil

production matched, the model then used to predict the production performance and maximize the amount of oil

produced by reallocating water injection rates. To validate the CRM prediction, the results were tested against

numerical simulation results. The result showed that the CRM was able to perform performance prediction and

maximize the amount of oil produced by reallocating the injection rates.

Sari

Karakterisasi dan prediksi performa reservoir perlu dilakukan untuk meningkatkan keputusan dalam manajemen

reservoir. Lamanya waktu dan ketidakpastian data lapangan membuat simulasi reservoir kurang menarik

dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi kinerja reservoir secara cepat. Capacitance-resistance model terbukti menjadi

model yang cepat dan terpercaya untuk memprediksi karakteristik dan performa reservoir hanya dengan

menggunakan data historis injeki dan produksi untuk melakukan history matching. CRM mengkarakterisasi

reservoir dengan menghitung konektivitas dan respon delay antara pasangan sumur injeksi yang menjadi

parameter yang tidak diketahui. Pada studi kali ini CRM digunakan untuk mengkarakterisasi dan melakukan

prediksi performa reservoir injeksi air. Model CRM diterapkan pada empat model reservoir buatan dengan

kompleksitas yang berbeda untuk melihat respon dari CRM terhadap heterogenitas reservoir. Hasilnya

memperlihatkan bahwa CRM mampu memprediksi karakeristik dan mencocokkan data historis dengan lebih dari

0.9 R-squared. Model CRM yang telah terkalibrasi kemudian dikombinasikan dengan model fractional flow untuk

mencocokkan performa laju alir minyak. Setelah laju alir minyak cocok, model digunakan untuk memprediksi

performa dan memaksimalkan produksi minyak dengan melakukan realokasi laju sumur injeksi. Untuk

memvalidasi prediksi model CRM, hasilnya dicocokkan dengan simulator reservoir. Hasilnya menunjukkan

bahwa CRM mampu melakukan prediksi dan memaksimalkan produksi minyak dengan melakukan realokasi pada

laju alir sumur injeksi.

*) Student of Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2015 batch

**) Thesis Adviser in Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung

Some of the main assumptions in derivation of the

1. Introduction basic CRM differential equation and solutions are

(Sayarpour, 2008): 1) constant temperature, 2) slightly

Characterizing reservoir and predicting reservoir

compressible fluids, 3) negligible capillary pressure

performance have always been the most challenging

effects, 4) constant volume with instantaneous

tasks for petroleum engineers. The engineer must be

pressure equilibrium, 5) constant productivity index.

able to choose the right method, while considering the

In this work, CRM based on the producer (CRMP)

time, resources, and the availability of the data.

is used as the predictive model.

Numerical simulation is the standard approach for

modelling fluid flow in reservoir, providing insight 2.1 CRMP: One time constant for each producer

about reservoir behavior and characteristics, therefore

use to forecast the reservoir performance. But For a control volume around a producer. Liang et

numerical simulations are complex and time al. (2007) presented the governing differential

consuming. Therefore, there was a trigger for equation for this capacitance model by

petroleum engineers to develop a simple predictive

𝑑𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) 1 1 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗

model, which usually use material balance on a + 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) = ∑𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) −

𝑑𝑡 𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗

reservoir to evaluate its performance. These simple 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓,𝑗 (1)

models could be a preliminary estimation of reservoir 𝐽𝑗

𝑑𝑡

characteristics and performance with just a minimum

Where 𝜏𝑗 , is producer j’s time constant,

amount of data.

𝑐𝑡 𝑉𝑝

Capacitance resistance model (CRM) is a quick tool to 𝜏𝑗 = ( ) (2)

evaluate reservoir performance without complex and 𝐽 𝑗

time-consuming reservoir simulations and requires

only historical rate data that is collected during water And pore volume, 𝑉𝑝 , total compressibility, 𝑐𝑡 , and

flooding. productivity index, 𝐽, are producer 𝑗 parameters in its

effective area; the 𝑓𝑖𝑗 term, connectivity, represent the

steady-state fraction of the rate of injector 𝑖 flowing

2. Capacitance-Resistance Model

toward producer 𝑗.

Yousef et al. (2006) introduced capacitance-

resistance model (CRM), a nonlinear data-driven 𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡)

𝑓𝑖𝑗 = (3)

model that measures the communication between well 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡)

in waterflooded reservoir. This essential reservoir For a case of series of step variations of injection rate

information is obtained from the analysis of the well (𝑘)

(SVIR) during time interval 𝛥𝑡𝑘 , 𝑖𝑖 (𝛥𝑡𝑘 ) = 𝐼𝑖 , for

production and injection history without the need for all the injectors, and a constant productivity index, and

the detailed geological information. CRM considers series of linear variations of bottom hole pressure

the effect of capacitance (compressibility) and

(LVBHP) for producer 𝑗. One-time interval solution

resistance (transmissibility), which correspond to two

for a step change in injection rate

parameters, respectively: The degree of fluid storage

(time constant, 𝜏 ) and the degree of connectivity ∆𝑡

(− 𝑘 )

𝜏𝑗

(interwell connectivity, 𝑓 ) between wells. Interwell 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑘 ) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑘−1 )𝑒 + (1 −

connectivity ( 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ) also known as gain or allocation (4)

∆𝑡 (𝑘)

factor, is defined by the fraction of injected fluid from −( 𝑘 ) 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 (𝑘) ∆𝑝𝑤𝑓,𝑗

𝜏𝑗

𝑒 ) [∑𝑖=1 [𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖 ] − 𝐽𝑗 𝜏𝑗 ]

injector 𝑖 to the production 𝑗. On the other hand, time ∆𝑡𝑘

injection signal to propagate in the porous media and Assuming 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ’𝑠 and 𝜏𝑗 are constant in all time intervals

influence the production signal. of 𝛥𝑡𝑘 , and replacing 𝑞(𝑡𝑘 − 1) from previous the

Morteza Sayarpour (2008), develop the analytical previous time step solution and replacing this process

solutions for the CRM for three different control for all time intervals from 𝑡0 to 𝑡𝑛 we obtain the series

volumes: 1. Drainage volume of the entire field, or a of step variation of injection rate (SVIR) solution:

tank representation, CRMT; 2. Drainage volume of

each producer, or representation of each producer,

CRMP; 3. Drainage volume between each

injector/producer pair, or representation of the volume

between each injector and producer pair, CRMIP.

(𝑡 −𝑡 )

(− 𝑛 𝑜 ) The model in eq. 6 can be transformed to a linear form

𝜏𝑗

𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑛 ) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 )𝑒 + given by:

𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑘

−( )

𝑞𝑗𝑘

∑𝑛𝑘=1 {𝑒 𝜏𝑗

(1 − (5) log ( − 1) = log(𝑊𝑂𝑅𝑗𝑘 ) = log(𝛼𝑗 ) +

𝑞𝑜𝑗𝑘

(8)

∆𝑡 (𝑘)

∆𝑝𝑤𝑓,𝑗 𝛽𝑗 log(𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 )

−( 𝑘 ) 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 (𝑘)

𝑒 𝜏 ) [∑𝑖=1 [𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖 ] − 𝐽𝑗 𝜏𝑗 ]}

∆𝑡𝑘

Where 𝑞𝑤𝑗𝑘 is the water production rate of producer 𝑗

in period 𝑘.

The CRM only calculates the liquid production Koval (1963) developed a model to predict the

rate of each producer (𝑞𝑗 ). However, for optimization performance of unstable miscible displacements

purposes, the variable of interest is oil production rate caused by fingering of a miscible solvent into oil. In

rather than liquid production rate. Therefore, it is contrast to the semi-empirical power-law model that is

necessary to separate the liquid production rate into oil applicable for mature fields only (higher values of

and water production rates (𝑞𝑜𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑞𝑤𝑗 ) in order to water cut, e.g., 𝑓𝑤 ≥ 0.5), the formulation that couples

improve the reservoir management. Fractional flow CRM and the Koval fractional flow model is more

models are used for this purpose. suitable to span the whole life of a waterflooding

In this worked two type of fractional flow model, project, i.e., 0 ≤ 𝑓𝑤 ≤ 1 . The Koval model is

the empirical model, and the Koval model are used to analogous to the Buckley-Leverett theory (1941) by

predict the oil production performance. applying straight line permeability into fractional flow

equation. The Koval equation for the fractional flow

of water is:

3.1 Semi-Empirical Power-Law Fractional Flow 1

Model 𝑓𝑤 =

1 1−𝑆 (9)

1+ ( )

𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑆

Gentil (2005) introduced an empirical power-law

fractional-flow model to estimate the oil fractional- where S is the normalized average water saturation

flow as a function of cumulative water injection. Liang and 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 is the Koval factor.

et al. (2007) used this approach to predict the oil

production rate which considers a power-law 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝐻𝐸 (10)

relationship between the instantaneous water-oil ratio,

where 𝐻 is a heterogeneity factor ( 𝐻 = 1 for

𝐹𝑤𝑜 , and cumulative water injected, 𝐶𝑊𝐼; therefore,

homogeneous and 𝐻 > 1 for heterogeneous porous

the fractional flow model can be written as:

media) and 𝐸 is the effective oil-solvent viscosity ratio:

1 4

𝑞𝑜𝑗𝑘 = 𝛽𝑗

𝑞𝑗𝑘 for all 𝑗 and 𝑘 𝜇𝑜 0.25

1 + 𝛼𝑗 𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 (6) 𝐸 = (0.78 + 0.22 ( ) ) (11)

𝜇𝑠

where 𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 is the cumulative water injected from all Equation 9 set the basis of the Koval model. However,

injection wells in the reservoir until time periods 𝑘 and they are expressed in terms of saturation, which is not

reaching producer well 𝑗, given by: directly measured in the field, and 𝜇𝑜 , 𝜇𝑠 and 𝐻 may

𝑘 𝑛𝑡 be unavailable. Cao (2014) developed the following

formulation that is more straightforward for the field

𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 = ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖𝜅 for all 𝑗 and 𝑘 (7) application when combined with the CRM:

𝜅=1 𝑖=1

0 ; 𝑡𝐷 < 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙

each producer 𝑗 that is being solved by performing

𝐾

history matching. 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 − √ 𝑣𝑎𝑙 1

= 𝑡𝐷 (12)

; < 𝑡𝐷 < 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙

This model is valid for the section of data exhibiting a 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 − 1 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙

linear relationship when 𝑊𝑂𝑅 is plotted against { 1 ; 𝑡𝐷 > 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙

cumulative-water injection on log-log graph. This

condition is normally satisfied for mature waterfloods By definition, the dimensionless time 𝑡𝐷 is the

producing at high water-cuts. cumulative water injection in pore volumes.

∑𝑘 𝐼 𝑘 where 𝑞𝑜𝑏𝑠 and 𝑞𝑒𝑠𝑡 represent the observed and

𝑡𝐷 = (13) estimated flow rates and 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 is the number of rate

𝑉𝑝

data points.

Where 𝑉𝑝 is the pore volume of a producer, and 𝐼 𝑘 is

the injection contribution to the producer at time step The CRM production responses have an exponential

k. form; therefore, we used the nonlinear gradient base

solvers in Microsoft Excel (GRG solver) to minimize

these errors during history-matching.

4. Application method

The objective function for optimizing future reservoir

performances is maximizing cumulative field oil

production for a fixed time interval by reallocating

field injection while maintaining the same total

injection rate in the field.

applied to four synthetic reservoir models: 1) streak

case 2) complete sealing barrier 3) partially sealing

barrier and 4) heterogeneous case.

Figure 1. Workflow for the CRM application in history matching

and prediction The model consists of five injectors and four

producers. Fig. 2. shows the well locations and the two

The production historical data from different type high-permeability streaks. The model is square

of reservoir model was generated by using numerical reservoir with dimension 2480𝑥2480 ft, vertical

simulations. We provided different type of reservoir permeability is 5 md, horizontal permeability is 50 md

model with different complexities to investigate the everywhere except for the two high permeability

CRM responses toward the reservoir heterogeneity. channels, and porosity of 0.18 is assigned globally.

We described the reservoir characteristics and

performance by estimating the unknown parameters,

the interwell connectivity and time constant by

performing history matching. The calibrated CRM

model then coupled with fractional flow models to

match the oil production performance. Once the oil

production matched, the model then used to predict the

production performance and maximize the amount of

oil produced by reallocating water injection rates.

response and the simulated production rate is the

objective function during history-matching. History-

matching for both total and oil production rates are

performed by minimizing the mean square errors

(MSE) between historical numerical simulation data

and the CRM estimations. The MSE is defined by: Figure 2. Streak case model consist of two high permeability streaks

of 500 md and 1000 md.

𝑁

𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎

∑𝑛=1 (𝑞𝑜𝑏𝑠 − 𝑞𝑒𝑠𝑡 )2

𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (14) This reservoir was produced for 4000 days. The

𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎

bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant

at 2500 psia. Fig. 3. shows the injection rates for the

five injectors. Large fluctuations in the injection rates

are created by changing the injection rates every

month in order to mimic the field condition.

Figure 5. Schematic representation of well connectivity obtained

from CRM model

the connectivity between injector-producer pair,

while time constants, represent the delay response of

production that associated with the injection. Fig.5.

illustrate the connectivity map between each injector-

producer pair. As expected, the values of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 for well

pair 𝐼1 − 𝑃1 and 𝐼3 − 𝑃4 has the highest value due to

associated with the permeability streak. In contrast,

small time constant associated with producers P1 and

P4 represent the quick response of production rates of

these produces to injectors I1 and I3. The water

injected in injector I1 (or I3) dominantly flows along

Figure 4. Individual well production rates for streak case

the streak and instantly increases the production rate

The average total production rates for 𝑃1 and 𝑃4 are of producer P1 (or P4).

dominating the total production due to associated with

Fig. 6. shows the total production match and

the high permeability streaks as shown in Fig. 4.

validation of CRMP compared with the simulations

5.1.2 History-matching and validation production data. The results shown a good match

either during history matching or validation with R-

CRMP was used to match the total production for squared values of 0.994 and 0.995, respectively.

3500 days and the remaining 500 days are used for

validation. Table 1. shows the results of history

matching which yields the fitting parameters.

Table 1. Streak case CRMP parameters

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒

𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.946 0.031 0.017 0.005

𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.565 0.051 0.210 0.173

𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.185 0.061 0.046 0.708

𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.206 0.120 0.000 0.674

𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.184 0.043 0.147 0.626

𝝉𝒋 , days 0.836 3.495 4.588 3.086

After the CRM model validated, the model then Using the injection contribution estimated from the

coupled with oil fractional flow model to separate CRM model for each producer at each time step, we

between oil production and water production. Semi- also can history match the watercut data using Koval

empirical fractional flow model and Koval fractional method and obtain the Koval factor (𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 ) and pore

flow model are used for this purpose. For semi- volume (𝑉𝑝 ) as the model parameters. As an example,

empirical fractional flow model, we used the oil Fig. 9. shows the results of watercut matching for

production model to find parameters 𝛼𝑗 and 𝛽𝑗 for producer P4 using Koval method. Unlike semi-

each producer. These values are associated with the empirical fractional flow model, Koval model

linear relationship between WOR against cumulative parameters represent the physical quantity of the

water injection on a log-log plot for each producer. For reservoir. A large Koval factor usually implies with

instances, Fig. 7. shows the log-log plot of WOR and high reservoir local heterogeneity, and therefore

cumulative-water injected toward producer P4. The smaller volumetric sweep efficiency. In this case, as

linear section of this graph usually achieved when the expected the value of Koval factor for producer P1 and

𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑊𝑂𝑅) value is greater than 0, indicating the P4 yields the highest value due to associated with

value of more than 50% watercut. Table 2. shows the permeability streak which implies higher local

results of the semi-empirical fractional flow fitting heterogeneity. Table 3. shows the results of the Koval

parameters. fractional flow fitting parameters.

Table 2. Streak case semi-empirical fractional flow parameters Table 3. Streak case Koval fractional flow parameters

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒 𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒

𝜶𝒋 5.56E-03 1.25E-12 3.02E-12 4.32E-10 𝑲𝒗𝒂𝒍 43.845 2.543 2.561 6.899

𝜷𝒋 0.435 2.018 1.910 1.482 𝑽𝒑 (𝑹𝑩) 1.04E+ 9.88E+ 1.37E+ 4.02E+

07 05 06 06

Figure 9. Watercut match using Koval method for producer P4

Fig. 8. shows the oil-rate match for the entire field

using semi-empirical fractional flow model. The result Fig. 10. shows the oil-rate match for the entire

shown a good matching result either in history match field using Koval fractional flow model. The result

or validation with R-squares value of 0.967 and 0.973, shown a good matching result either in history

respectively. matching or validation with R-squares value of 0.977

and 0.950, respectively.

production rate Figure 10. Oil production match using Koval model

The different between the applicability of the semi-

empirical fractional flow model and the Koval model

lies in the maturity of the waterflooding. Comparing

between Fig. 8 and Fig. 10. results, we can see that the

fitness of the Koval to predict oil production rate in the

early time of waterflood is better than semi-empirical

model, since the validity of the semi-empirical model

is in the linear relationship between WOR against

cumulative water injection on a log-log plot, and it

achieved when the watercut is higher than 50%.

Overall, both method in this case accurately predict the

oil production rate.

Figure 12. Total injection rate for Complete sealing barrier case

5.2 Synfield-3: Complete Sealing Barrier

The model consists of four production wells and five

injection wells. Fig. 11. shows the well locations and

the presence of sealing barrier. The model is a squared

reservoir with dimension of 1240𝑥1240 ft,

homogeneous isotropic reservoir with permeability of

5 md, porosity of 0.2, and consists of three

compartments that do not communicate to each other

because of the presence of sealing barrier.

barrier case

CRMP was used to match the 7 years of

production, after matching, the model was validated

by 1 years afterwards. Table 5. shows the results of the

fitting parameters after performing history matching.

Table 4. CRMP parameters for Synfield-3

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒

𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.987 0.011 0.000 0.001

𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.000 0.002 0.814 0.184

𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.001 0.985 0.014 0.000

𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.000 0.999 0.000 0.001

Figure 11. Complete sealing barrier model 𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.014 0.000 0.444 0.542

This reservoir was produced for 8 years. The 𝝉𝒋 , days 7.308 29.384 10.019 13.239

bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant

at 2500 psia. Fig. 12. shows the individual well

injection rate, large perturbation in injection rate was

created in order to mimic the field conditions.

connectivity to both of producer 𝑃3 and 𝑃4 . From

these results we can draw conclusion that the reservoir

was compartmentalize by three regions and these

conclusions is corresponding to the actual reservoir

model.

The model consists of five injection wells and

four production wells. Fig. 16. shows the well

locations and the presence of the partially sealing

Figure 14. Complete sealing case CRMP match of the total barrier. The model is a squared reservoir with

production rate

dimension of 1240𝑥1240 ft, isotropic and

Fig. 14. shows the total production match and homogeneous reservoir with permeability of 5 md, and

validation of the entire filed using CRMP compared porosity of 0.2, with partially sealing barrier.

with the simulations production data. The results

shown a good match either during history matching or

validation with R-squares values of 0.994 and 0.991,

respectively.

bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant

at 2500 psia. Fig. 17. shows the individual well

Figure 15. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from

CRM model

injection rate, fluctuation of injection rates was created

in order to mimic the field conditions.

Fig. 15. illustrate the connectivity between injector

producer well pair, the arrow represents the

communication between well, the longer and thicker

the arrow represent the bigger value of the interwell

connectivity. The presence of no-flow boundaries

could be inferred by the zero value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ’s calculated

from the CRM model. From the results of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 we can

see that the injector 𝐼1 only have the value of

connectivity to producer 𝑃1. It can be considered that

the injector 𝐼1 is isolated from the rest of the producer.

It also happens for injector 𝐼3 and 𝐼4 , where both

injectors only communicate to the producer 𝑃2, it is a

strongly indications that the injector 𝐼3 and 𝐼4 are

isolated from the rest of the producer. While on the Figure 17. Individual well injection rate for partially sealing barrier

other hand, the injector 𝐼5 and 𝐼2 has a value of case

Figure 18. Individual well production rate for partially sealing

barrier case

CRMP was used to match the total production rate

based on 6 years production, the model then validated Figure 20. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from

by the next 2 years of production. Table 6. shows the CRM model

results of the fitting parameters after performing

history matching. Fig. 20. illustrate the connectivity between injector

producer pair based on the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 from history

Table 5. CRMP parameters for partially sealing barrier case

matching. From Table 6 it can be seen that the well

pair 𝐼1 − 𝑃1, 𝐼1 − 𝑃3, 𝐼2 − 𝑃2, 𝐼2 − 𝑃4, 𝐼3 −

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒

𝑃1, 𝐼4 − 𝑃1 has the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 close to zero, it can

𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.028 0.667 0.088 0.217

be an indication of the presence of transmissibility

𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.506 0.057 0.347 0.089

barrier along the injector producer pair. Since there is

𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.067 0.358 0.204 0.371

a connectivity between injector 𝐼5 and 𝑃4, we can

𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.018 0.400 0.162 0.420

conclude that the permeability barrier did not goes

𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.126 0.176 0.322 0.376 along the 𝐼5 − 𝑃4 well pair. From the results of 𝑓𝑖𝑗

𝝉𝒋 , days 14.708 13.548 14.873 17.840

we can strongly believe that there was a barrier that

restrict the flow between well pairs but did not

compartmentalize the reservoir. This conclusion is

Fig. 20. shows the total production match and

corresponding to the actual reservoir model.

validation of CRMP compared with the simulations

production data. The results shown a good match

either during history matching or validation with R- 5.4 Synfield-4: Heterogenous case

squared values of 0.991 and 0.994, respectively.

The model has nine production wells and four

Figure 19. Total production rate match and validation for partially injection wells with inverted five spot patterns with the

sealing barrier case total of four patterns. Fig. 21. shows the well locations

and the distribution of the horizontal permeability. The

reservoir heterogeneity is very high, the horizontal

permeability varies from 0.03 to 7720 md, the vertical

permeability varies from 0.0016 to 1083 md, and the respectively as shown in Fig. 24. The results of the

porosity varies from 0.0215 to 0.3265. fitting parameters after history match displayed in

Table 7.

5.4.2 History matching and validation

Table 6. CRMP parameters for heterogeneous case

𝑷𝟏 7.619 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.003

𝑷𝟐 0.000 0.197 0.164 0.280 0.101

𝑷𝟑 5.124 0.000 0.061 0.040 0.021

𝑷𝟒 3.506 0.010 0.043 0.072 0.080

𝑷𝟓 0.647 0.462 0.474 0.271 0.405

𝑷𝟔 0.593 0.091 0.114 0.071 0.102

𝑷𝟕 2.551 0.044 0.028 0.064 0.059

𝑷𝟖 0.649 0.099 0.041 0.084 0.110

Figure 22. Individual well injection rate for heterogeneous case 𝑷𝟗 0.000 0.097 0.022 0.117 0.119

Figure 25. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from

Fig. 22. Shows the injection rate history within 8 years CRM model

of injection for the four injectors. Fig. 23. shows the

Fig. 25. illustrates the well pair connectivity, thicker

production rate within 8 years of production for the

line representing a higher value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 .

nine producers. CRMP was used to match the total

production based on 6 years production and 2

afterwards are used to validate the model.

Figure 26. Schematic of connectivity map which has the value of fij

greater or equal than 0.1

Figure 24. Total production match and validation of CRMP for

heterogeneous case

Eliminating the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 which is lower than 0.1

The results shown a good fit both in history matching resulting the connectivity map shown in Fig. 26. We

and validation with R-squared is 0.999 and 0.998 can say that the region inside the pattern representing

a strong connectivity between well pairs, it is also Using Koval model, the fitting period shown a good fit

quite relatable with the high value of the horizontal with R-squares of 0.991, but on the validation period

permeability (red color). the Koval model did not accurately predict the oil

production rate as shown in Fig. 28, this is quite

relatable since the accuracy of the Koval model to

predict the oil production rates lies in the early stage

of the waterflood. Table 8. shows the results of the

Koval fractional flow fitting parameters.

Table 8. Koval model parameters for heterogeneous case

𝑲𝒗𝒂𝒍 𝑽𝑷 (𝑹𝑩)

𝑷𝟏 3.532 1.87E+05

𝑷𝟐 6.067 5.88E+05

𝑷𝟑 4.211 1.84E+05

𝑷𝟒 4.043 2.47E+05

𝑷𝟓 6.423 1.64E+06

Figure 27. Oil production match and validation using semi- 𝑷𝟔 5.039 4.74E+05

empirical fractional flow model

𝑷𝟕 4.460 2.37E+05

After matching the total production, the calibrated 𝑷𝟖 4.738 3.10E+05

CRM model then coupled with fractional flow model 𝑷𝟗 4.531 2.69E+05

to predict the oil production rate. Fig. 27. shows the

results of matching and validation using semi- Both the semi-empirical model and the Koval model

empirical fractional flow model. The result shown a complete each other, the semi-empirical model can

good fit between the predicted value and the simulated accurately predict the mature waterflood, on the other

value with R-squares value of 0.966 for the history hand the Koval model can accurately predict the early

matching and 0.982 for the validation. Table 7. shows stage of waterflooding.

the results of the semi-empirical fractional flow fitting

parameters. 5.4.3 Optimization

Table 7. Semi-empirical fractional flow model parameters for After obtaining the oil production performance from

heterogeneous case

the CRM and fractional flow model. We used the

calibrated model to perform an optimization by

𝜶𝒋 𝜷𝒋

reallocating the injection rates between injector. The

𝑷𝟏 3.6E-07 1.277 objective function for this optimization is to maximize

𝑷𝟐 2.0E-06 1.071

the amount of oil produced by constraining the same

𝑷𝟑 1.5E-05 0.995

amount of total field injection rates. The optimization

𝑷𝟒 2.6E-07 1.285

is based on 1 years of production from days 2904 until

𝑷𝟓 3.4E-06 0.958

𝑷𝟔 6.7E-07 1.157 3287. Table 9. Shows the injection rate for the five

𝑷𝟕 5.0E-07 1.238 injectors before the optimization, the total injection

𝑷𝟖 4.6E-06 1.054 rate was at 8000 STB/D.

𝑷𝟗 1.3E-06 1.165 Table 9. Well injection rate before optimization

Days I1 I2 I3 I4

2904 1923.9 3529.5 669.7 1716.1

2931 1923.9 3529.3 669.9 1716.1

2991 1924.0 3528.7 670.5 1716.1

3091 1924.1 3527.4 671.7 1716.0

3101 1924.4 3525.3 673.6 1715.8

3114 1924.4 3525.1 673.8 1715.8

3133 1924.5 3524.9 674.0 1715.8

3162 1924.5 3524.5 674.4 1715.8

3191 1924.6 3523.9 674.9 1715.7

Figure 28. Oil production match and validation using Koval method

3239 1924.7 3523.4 675.4 1715.7

3287 1924.8 3522.5 676.2 1715.6

production would occur if injectors 𝐼1 is shut-in and

injector 𝐼2, 𝐼3, and 𝐼4 remain open by injecting 3000,

2000, and 3000 STB/D, respectively.

Table 10. Well injection rate after optimization

Injection rate, STB/D Figure 30. Oil saturation map after 8 years of production

Time, Days

I1 I2 I3 I4 Fig. 30 shows the simulator results regarding to the

2904 0 3000 2000 3000 remaining oil saturation after 8 years of production.

2931 0 3000 2000 3000 Some areas (Red) still shows very high remaining oil

saturation meaning that there are still many unsweep

2991 0 3000 2000 3000

oil. Counterintuitive activation of injector 𝐼3 ,

3091 0 3000 2000 3000 associated with low value of connectivity, is explained

3101 0 3000 2000 3000 by existence of remaining oil around 𝐼3 after 8 years

3114 0 3000 2000 3000 of production.

3133 0 3000 2000 3000

3162 0 3000 2000 3000

3191 0 3000 2000 3000

3239 0 3000 2000 3000

3287 0 3000 2000 3000

optimization

injection rates

simulator and compared the optimized oil production

Figure 32. Oil saturation map after 9 years of production with

with the base case. Fig. 29 shows a 27.5% increase of optimization

oil production during the optimized period compared

to the base case. Comparing between Fig. 31 and Fig. 32. The

remaining oil around injector 𝐼3 have been swept and

reaching producer 𝑃5. The result gives an increase of

27.5% of oil rate.

6. Discussion 10. Nomenclature

In this study we have seen the CRM results regarding 𝑓 = Interwell connectivity

the four synthetic case studies. CRM was able to 𝑞(𝑡) = Total liquid production, STB/D

qualitatively characterizes reservoir from the 𝑞𝑜 (𝑡) = Oil production rate, STB/D

parameter of interwell connectivity and response delay. 𝐼(𝑡) = Total injection production, STB/D

From the streak case we have seen that CRM 𝑐𝑡 = Total reservoir compressibility, psi-1

accurately predict the presence of permeability streak 𝑉𝑝 = Pore volume, RB

in the reservoir given by the high value of connectivity 𝐽 = Productivity index, STB/psi

between I1 (or I3) and P1 (or P4) and a relatively 𝜏 = Time constant, days

small value of time constant indicating a quick 𝜇 = viscosity, cp

response between the injector signal to the producer 𝐸 = Effective oil-solvent viscosity ratio

𝐻 = Heterogeneity factor

production. For the complete sealing barrier case, the

𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 = Koval factor

reservoir compartment was inferred from the zero

𝑆 = Normalized average water saturation

value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 indicating no communication between the 𝑓𝑤 = Fractional flow of water

well pairs. Same results for the partially sealing barrier 𝑡𝐷 = Dimensionless water

case, the low transmissibility of the well pairs because 𝑥𝐷 = Dimensionless distance

of the presence of the partially sealing barrier could be obs = Observed data

inferred from the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 . Combining CRM with est = Estiated data

the fractional flow model gives us the oil production 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 = Number of data points

performance which is later can be used to perform MSE = Mean square error

prediction and optimization. The optimization 𝛼 = power-law coefficient for semi-

resulting in a better swept efficiency and increase in empirical fractional flow model

𝛽 = power-law coefficient for semi-

oil production by reallocating the injection rate.

empirical fractional flow model

CWI = Effective cumulative water injected in

7. Conclusion the control volume, bbl/D

WOR = Water-oil ratio

1. Different case studies showed that CRM are

capable of inferring reservoir heterogeneity.

2. CRM are capable to perform history

11. References

matching and predict reservoir performance.

3. CRM are capable to maximize the amount of

oil produced by reallocating the injection Cao, F., Luo, H., & Lake, L. W. (2015). Oil Rate

rates. Forecast by Inferring Fractional Flow Models

from Field Data, (February), 23–25.

https://doi.org/10.2118/173315-ms

8. Recommendation

Sayarpour, M., Zuluaga, E., Kabir, C. S., & Lake, L.

1. The applicability of CRM in this work is W. (2009). The use of capacitance-resistance

limited by synthetic case study, furthermore models for rapid estimation of waterflood

it can be tested on the real field data. performance and optimization. Journal of

2. Different optimization techniques may be Petroleum Science and Engineering, 69(3–4),

applied to improve the current solutions. 227–238.

3. Mapping the connectivity map using more https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.09.006

sophisticated method rather than manually

creating line and arrow as representative. De Holanda, R. W., Gildin, E., Jensen, J. L., Lake, L.

W., & Shah Kabir, C. (2018). A state-of-the-art

literature review on capacitance resistance

9. Acknowledgement models for reservoir characterization and

The author is extremely indebted to Dr. Amega performance forecasting. Energies, 11(12).

https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123368

Yasutra, one of the distinguished lecturers in the

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Bandung

Institute of Technology, for his patience and guidance Eshraghi, S. E., Rasaei, M. R., Pourafshary, P., &

Salar, A. (2016). Characterization of Reservoir

throughout the work of this project. Without his

Heterogeneity by Capacitance-resistance Model

valuable assistance, this work would not have been

in Water-flooding Projects, 5(2), 1–13.

completed.

Sayarpour, M. (2008). Development and Application

of Capacitance-Resistive Models to Water / CO

2 Floods. Dissertation, 237.

coupled, 242.

Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison

of Upscaling Techniques. SPE Reservoir

Evaluation & Engineering, 4(04), 308–317.

https://doi.org/10.2118/72469-pa

Capacitance/Resistance Model to Tracer Flow

for Determining Reservoir Properties. SPE

Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 22(01),

266–281. https://doi.org/10.2118/187410-pa

of Integrated Capacitance Resistive Model for

predicting waterflood performance: a study on

formation damage. Energy Sources, Part A:

Recovery, Utilization and Environmental

Effects, 40(15), 1814–1825.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.148692

2

Field Applications of Capacitance-Resistance

Models in Waterfloods. SPE Reservoir

Evaluation & Engineering, 12(06), 853–864.

https://doi.org/10.2118/114983-pa

List of Figures

Figure 33. Log (CWI) and Log (WOR) plot for streak case

Figure 34. Individual oil production match for streak case using semi-empirical fractional flow model

Figure 35. Watercut match for streak case using Koval model

Figure 36. Individual oil production match for streak case using Koval model

Figure 37. Log (CWI) and Log (WOR) plot for heterogeneous case

Figure 38. Oil production match for heterogeneous case using semi-empirical fractional flow model

Figure 39. Watercut match for heterogeneous case using Koval model

Figure 40. Oil production match for heterogeneous case using Koval model

- Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...Загружено:BAGHFAY16
- Comparison of Blast Prediction Models of Vapor Cloud Explosions NRCnrcc44715Загружено:Nabil Al-Khirdaji
- RESERVOIR GEOMECHANICS COUPLING_EMI [Autoguardado].pptxЗагружено:SebastianRomeroBeizaga
- Hydrologic Modelling Using Hec-hms ForЗагружено:Héctor Mayorga P
- Nasa Ballistic ResercheЗагружено:mofayad
- Multiphase Pressure Buildup AnalysisЗагружено:miguel_jose123
- Flow Assurance by MikeЗагружено:mukhzinrashid
- Harrell Ghosh Bowden cap1Загружено:Hanswen Julca Anaya
- H03706Загружено:Gilberto Garcia de la Paz
- Well Test Results and Reservoir Performance for a Carbon Dioxide Injection Test Michigan BasinЗагружено:Monica Urbieta
- Lecture 1-hydrocarbon fluidsЗагружено:Bright Moon
- 20151126 (Blasingame) Pres SPE Tech Skills Matrix MPI (WRpt) (PDF)Загружено:DD
- Risking of Prospects and SegmentsЗагружено:D'KobongKaosOblong
- 15 Taber.1997 EOR.screening.criteria.revisited Part.1Загружено:Mishell Ariana Guerra
- Low Salinity Water Injection for EORЗагружено:Rodríguez Angelo
- SPE-18323-PAЗагружено:Denis Gontarev
- AEP - C3 - Week 4 SlidesЗагружено:CUNY BPL
- Etd Tamu 2007A PETE AlOmairЗагружено:Julio Sanchez
- ndx_thomЗагружено:anishappyman2008
- Beer gameЗагружено:Salvador Peña Ugalde
- Simulations of Gear-based Systems Including BacklashЗагружено:pwmvsi
- Good Brochure lab summary mostly.pdfЗагружено:Azhan Che Dzul
- COB09-1378Загружено:Hamidreza Anjidani
- UASJournal Vol2 Issue1 Livermore Lindholm Neal Cobb ColombiЗагружено:keshavuvce
- 04275411Загружено:alessio8
- Multilaterals Wells1999Загружено:LuisErnestoGarciaZerpa
- Thesis DidanaliЗагружено:HemenMo
- Acoustic Logging in Fractured and Porous FormationsЗагружено:Jorge Zaldivar
- FibЗагружено:Sinan Abdulkhaleq Yaseen
- 92 96,Tesma204,IjeastЗагружено:Adhie

- Amoco - Drilling Fluid ManualЗагружено:betakorbo
- Lpg Supply Chain Essay_made Ray Yuda SuyatnaЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 01-Env Control Migas Introduction Day 1 New 2017Загружено:Ray Yuda
- 02 Formal Logic KRЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- Hydrocarbon TrapsЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 4. Coalseam as ReservoirЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- Expert System 101Загружено:Made Ray Yuda Suyatna
- Introduction of Well ProblemsЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 69783 LinearProgramming S1 25092016Загружено:Ray Yuda
- 67439_optimisasi Di Industri Migas Slides by Ss_sdr_01112017Загружено:Ray Yuda
- pertemuan7-gaslift-28022018Загружено:Ray Yuda
- Flow MeasurementsЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- Gas Injection AllocaationЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 7. Well CompletionЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 5. DrillingЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- MigrationЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 1. Referensi CBMЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 2_Sedimentary Rock ClassificationЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- Polyphase Ac CircuitsЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- Digital 3Загружено:PedroLemos
- King of Thieves - Evan CurrieЗагружено:Chaitanya Malhotra
- SPE-5055-AЗагружено:Ray Yuda
- 2. Fluids 2Загружено:Carina Anselmo de Lima
- Lecture 1 THERMOЗагружено:Duaa Raja
- 10 TK3081 Bubble-Dew-raoultflash 10_12Загружено:Ray Yuda
- Power (Refrigerator)Загружено:Ray Yuda
- Flow Process Ch7Загружено:Ray Yuda
- EntropyЗагружено:Ray Yuda

- academic success group lessonsЗагружено:api-341978441
- CEILCOTE 505 Coroline.Загружено:stuart3962
- Advantages of Prestressed ConcreteЗагружено:Edilberto Tibacan Villamil
- PEG 2013 Abstract VolumeЗагружено:manudem
- Chapter 2 Fluid MechanicsЗагружено:Eiyra Nadia
- A740GM-M_20A_manualЗагружено:Systel Ing
- 2009 Barska Catalog Rifle ScopesЗагружено:joernet
- Design of Rcc T-beam Bridge Considering OverloadingЗагружено:DeepakSingh
- IJPEM-1261129-1141Dec2011EnergyHarvesting.PDFЗагружено:Chimzy Iwumune
- Py Textile CheatsheetЗагружено:turkzilla
- BS EN ISO 13337-2009Загружено:alinor_tn
- Drew 2004 Biogeography and Speciation in DaciniЗагружено:oscarbuku
- jhstutorial1213-2739356Загружено:Shesh
- Circuit SymbolsЗагружено:Juan Francisco Garcia Arroyo
- Chap 6,7Загружено:Leo Inshongore
- (eBook)Object Oriented Programming in C++ - Basics of OOPЗагружено:Perez Wa Mugoha
- 50 Years of RadarЗагружено:knightatarms
- PTI - Arif rahman (1307114639).xlsxЗагружено:Koko Putra Ariadi
- FoundationsЗагружено:Trayo Ayangbayi
- 08 Ergonomics - 01Загружено:Cholan Pillai
- Tb-1033_1987-03 Fp Pipe Reducer Correction Factor for CvЗагружено:Carlos Gutierrez
- 1.-Ekiert-2003Загружено:Rusu Sadovei Adriana
- eigenv1Загружено:Mahir Mahmood
- Rotated SectionsЗагружено:lujiaksai
- All MTK ModelsЗагружено:petasplit
- Romeo's Love Letters - The Guide to Online and Text Game (Rebel)Загружено:bookreader1968
- Chapter 2Загружено:zetseat
- Magnetostrictive ActuatorsЗагружено:dellibabu509
- Installation of Over Head CraneЗагружено:mansih457
- Technical Note for Metal Bellows Expansion Joints.pdfЗагружено:kalaiselvan0707