2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES
is funded principally
through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION

The Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the program
by allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
2 of 51
Acknowledgements
SPE International for the opportunity to participate in the 2006-07 Distinguished
Lecturer Program
BP America, Inc. for permission, and the Professional Recognition Program which has
provided the time and resources to prepare and present this material
Colleagues whose work is represented
Mr. Escalante, the Shekou Section, and other local SPE chapters worldwide for their
efforts in hosting these presentations
Upgridding and Upscaling:
Current Trends and Future Directions
Dr. Michael J. King
Senior Advisor, Reservoir Modelling and Simulation
BP America, Inc.
SPE 2006-07 Distinguished Lecturer
4 of 51
Outline
Introduction: Change of Scale & Upscaling
Case Study: Magnus LKCF
Validation and Analysis: What Went Wrong?
Improved Upscaling: Understanding Permeability
Boundary Conditions and Permeability Upscaling
Transmissibility: Yes, Permeability: No
Maintain the Well Injectivity & Productivity
Magnus LKCF & Andrew Reservoir Case Studies
Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Well?
Future Trends:
A Priori Error Analyses & Designer Grids
Summary: Best Practice in Upscaling
5 of 51
Introduction: What is Upscaling?
What is Upscaling?
Assign effective properties to coarse scale cells from properties on
fine scale grid
Capture flow features of fine scale model

Why Upscale?
Reduce CPU time for uncertainty analysis and risk assessment
Make fine-scale simulation practical
geological models: ~10 -100 million cells
Resolution?
Image from Mike
Christie
DW GOM
6 of 51
Why Upscale?: CPU Time Reduction
Waterflood Field Example
C
P
U

R
a
t
i
o

(
C
o
a
r
s
e

S
c
a
l
e

/

F
i
n
e

S
c
a
l
e
)

Waterflood CPU Time
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Active Cell Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)
C
P
U

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
r
a
t
i
o

t
o

F
i
n
e

S
c
a
l
e

M
o
d
e
l
)
Uniform Layering Coarsen
Optimum Layering Coarsen
MCoarsen
Active Cell Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)
Optimal Layer Coarsening
Uniform Layer Coarsening
Flexible 3D Coarsening
SPE 95759, King et.al.
7 of 51
Upgridding and Upscaling: Context
Upgridding & Upscaling in the overall 3D Modelling
Workflow
(After Roxar RMS)
3D Detailed Geologic Static Model
Structure from well picks &/or
seismic horizons
Properties from well logs &/or seismic
attributes &/or field performance data
Geologic description from facies, analogues and field data
Upscaled flow simulation model
Performance prediction in the
absence of dynamic data
Starting point for a history match
when dynamic data is available
When done well, upscaling will
preserve the most important flow
characteristics of a geologic model
8 of 51
Why Upscale?: Length & Area
Lateral resolution of geologic
and simulation grids are set
by well spacing
30 mile length of ACG
reservoirs with the London
M25 loop used to set the
scale
Simulation Grid Cells: 200m x 200m or 100m x 100m
Geologic Grid Cells: 100m x 100m or 50m x 50m
9 of 51
Kanaalkop: Tanqua Karoo basin, South Africa
Deepwater channel w/splay at top of photo
~15ft windmill
~10ft exposure
~250ft, which is about the size of a single cell
in the areal direction of many simulation grids
10 of 51
10ft thick exposure of channel
With 5 Components of a Bouma sequence
~10ft
11 of 51
Why Upscale?: Thickness
600 ft section of the Polaris reservoir, with the
190 ft BP Anchorage office for scale
Upscaling is dominated by loss of vertical
resolution

Geologic grid will typically have
1 ft or 50 cm vertical resolution
Simulation grid may include only a single layer per
geologic unit
12 of 51
Reservoir Zones, Well Logs & Outcrop
No Vertical Exaggeration
13 of 51
14 of 51
15 of 51
15 meters
Geologist at Outcrop
30 geologic model layers
1-5 simulation model layers
16 of 51
Outline
Future Trends:
17 of 51
LKCF
Limit
OWC
MSM
Limit
Do We Have an Economic LKCF Waterflood Development?
1 2 A- 9 M5:C4 M16:A4
1 km
M12:A5
-2700
LKCF
-2800
UKCF
-2900
-3000
MSM C-G
-3100
MSM A
-3200
B Shale
-3300
-3400
Heather / Brent
-3500
-3600
-3700
1 2 A- 9 M5:C4 M16:A4
1 km
M12:A5
-2700
LKCF
-2800
UKCF
-2900
-3000
MSM C-G
-3100
MSM A
-3200
B Shale
-3300
-3400
Heather / Brent
-3500
-3600
-3700
1 2 A- 9 M5:C4 M16:A4
1 km
M12:A5
-2700
LKCF
-2800
UKCF
-2900
-3000
MSM C-G
-3100
MSM A
-3200
B Shale
-3300
-3400
Heather / Brent
-3500
-3600
-3700
Yellow = Channel
Red = Margins
Blue = Non-pay
64x64x450 = 1,843,200 cells 50mx50mx0.5m
resolution
18 of 51
Magnus LKCF
Waterflood Development Study
19 of 51
A laboratory coreflood

In three dimensions, we have three numerical corefloods
Coreflood follows the coarse cell shapes
No flow side boundary conditions are the most common
(others are possible)

Cell Permeability Upscaling:
Laboratory and Reservoir Model
Q
A
K P
L
=
A
Darcys Law:
1 2
3 4
k*
20 of 51

Time of Flight & Pressures after conventional
2x2x6 upscaling:
Loss of 95% of effective permeability
Loss of internal reservoir heterogeneity
Coarse Scale Time of Flight
Coarse
Pressure
Streamlines in the Upscaled LKCF Model
How Well Did 2x2x6 Upscaling Work?
3D Streamlines, Time of Flight & Pressures
calculated in the fine scale geologic model
2xInjectors & 2xProducers at a typical
waterflood well spacing
Fence diagram traced within the 3D geologic
model
Pressure constrained wells used to validate
permeability
Fine Scale Time of Flight
21 of 51
600
200
0
0
500
600
0
300
300
0
0
300
0 0 600 0
Cell Permeability Upscaling
What Went Wrong?
KX Permeability
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
Sealed Side coreflood boundary conditions systematically expand barriers and reduce the
continuity of pay
Example 12x12=>4x4 (3x3 Upscaling):

Continuous channel replaced by marginal sands
Highly productive well replaced by poor producer
22 of 51
Streamline Flow Visualization
Each cell in isolation
No cross-flow
Equilibrium at cell faces
Preserves & expands barriers
12x12 => 3x3
4x4 Upscaling
Example
KX Cell Permeability KY Cell Permeability
23 of 51
Errors & More Subtle Errors
Sealed Side Boundary Conditions do not adequately represent fluid flow in the fine
scale model
Reservoir quality is not preserved
This is the most significant error
However, there are more subtle errors
Needless loss of spatial resolution
Transmissibility Upscaling
Well Productivity (or Injectivity) is not preserved
Well PI Upscaling

24 of 51
Outline
Future Trends:
25 of 51
Boundary Conditions and
Upscaled Permeability - 1/2
Upscale a simple sand
/ shale reservoir
Sealed side BCs
expand barriers
Open linear pressure
BCs allow barriers to
leak
Pizza box (Wide
BCs) allow global flow
tortuosity
One Cell
26 of 51
Upscaled Permeability 2/2
Question: Which permeability is right?
Answer:
Wide Pizza Box (or tortuous) boundary conditions provide the best representation of fluid flow
capacity, but
Sealed side boundary conditions preserve barriers.
Barriers are often very important for modelling gas displacement, especially for vertical permeability
They are also important in preserving channel margins
Both answers are useful
Use your judgement as engineers
What is most important in your reservoir processes?
Use both choices of boundary conditions as a sensitivity
Mix and match horizontal and vertical treatments?
27 of 51
Transmissibility Upscaling 1/3
Preserves Spatial Resolution
Transmissibility can be calculated by direct upscaling instead of from the harmonic average
of cell permeabilities

Link Permeability is upscaled from cell center to cell center and has double the lateral
resolution compared to cell permeability upscaling
Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always zero
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+

=
i i
i i
i i
DX KX DX KX
DX KX DX KX
A TX
1
2 1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+
=
i i
i
i i
DX DX
KX
A TX
1 2 1
) ( ) (
+ +
= =
i i i
Minus KX KX Plus KX
i 1 + i
2 1 + i
28 of 51
KX
Sealed Cell
KXY
Wide No
Shift
KX Streamline Flow Comparisons
KX
Wide
Shifted
KX
Sealed
Shifted
29 of 51
Captures fine scale juxtaposition
0 MD 0 MD 38 MD 0 MD 50 MD 50 MD
30 of 51
Well Productivity Upscaling
Used to Preserve Reservoir Quality
Simulator well productivity calculated from sealed side
coreflood permeability?
Does not describe radial flow and
logarithmic pressure drop near a well
Instead, use three (hypothetical)
X, Y, and Z wells for each coarse cell

( )
( )
w
Z
Z
r r
H KY KX
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
( )
( )
w
Y
Y
r r
H KZ KX
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
( )
( )
w
X
X
r r
H KZ KY
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
31 of 51
Lack of pay continuity resolved through Well Index Upscaling
Preserves injectivity and productivity of horizontal and vertical wells
But, expands channels and removes barriers

Contrast and barriers reintroduced through Transmissibility Upscaling
Repeat in all three directions for 2x2x2=8-fold factor of improved flow resolution compared to cell permeabilities
Improved Upscaling:
Well Index + Transmissibility
KX Permeability
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
600
467
200
200
533
600
0
300
300
200
67
300
0 400 600 0
600
467
200
200
533
600
0
300
300
200
67
300
0 400 600 0
32 of 51
Coreflood Cell Permeability OR
Well Index + Transmissibility Upscaling
Coreflood Cell Permeability Upscaling

Well Index + Transmissibility Upscaling
KX Permeability
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
600
200
0
0
500
600
0
300
300
0
0
300
0 0 600 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
600
467
200
200
533
600
0
300
300
200
67
300
0 400 600 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
33 of 51
Outline
Future Trends:
34 of 51
LKCF Upscaling Validation
Well Index + Transmissibility
3D Streamlines & Time of Flight
Comparison of:
Fine Scale Model
Coreflood Cell Perm Upscaling
WI + Transmissibility Upscaling

Fine Scale Time of Flight
Coarse
Pressure
Coarse
Pressure
35 of 51
Transmissibility Multipliers:
Double the Spatial Resolution
A transmissibility multiplier can represent a barrier without using a cell

In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow both up AND down and
impacts flow in three layers
36 of 51
Andrew Reservoir:
Validation & Impact of Thin Barriers

Well Index +
Transmissibility upscaling
tracks fine scale prediction
& early field performance
37 of 51
Outline
Summary: What to Avoid & What Works Well?
Future Trends:
38 of 51
Summary:
What to Avoid
Flow based coreflood upscaling for cell permeabilities
Sealed side boundary conditions will not preserve flow tortuosity & will under-
estimate reservoir quality
Open linear pressure boundary conditions will not preserve reservoir barriers
A single upscaling calculation cannot be used to preserve:
Reservoir quality
Reservoir barriers
Tortuosity of reservoir fluid flow around barriers

Unfortunately, using coreflood permeability upscaling is the most common practice in
the industry
39 of 51
Summary:
What Works Well
Preserve connectivity and flow within the reservoir using flow based transmissibility
upscaling
Select boundary conditions to either preserve flow tortuosity or flow barriers
Preserve reservoir quality and flow between reservoir and wells using algebraic well
index upscaling
This combination of techniques has worked well within BP & similarly elsewhere in the
industry
Streamline calculations provide detailed validation based on pressures, sweep, and
time of flight
Validation after upscaling is always necessary
40 of 51
Outline
Transmissibility Yes, Permeability No
Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Best?
Future Trends:
41 of 51
Assumption Source of Error
(Missing Physics)
- Pressure equilibrium within
the coarse cell
- Disconnected pay within the coarse cell
will not be in equilibrium
- Fluid velocity is parallel to
the pressure drop
- Flow may depend upon the transverse
pressure drop on the coarse grid
- Single velocity within a
coarse cell
- Distribution of multiphase frontal
velocities replaced by a single value

Future Trends:
Wouldnt it be nice to know if an upscaling calculation would be a good
approximation before you performed the upscaling calculation?

Sources of Upscaling Error
42 of 51
Error in the velocity distribution is introduced while upscaling
Different fluid velocities are replaced by a single value
F(S) Kx/Phi is the frontal speed in each layer
This is the property whose heterogeneity we will analyze
Analysis applies to the net sands
Vertical equilibrium within each coarse cell

Error from Layer Coarsening:
Flood Front Progression

Fast
Slow
Medium
Fast
Slow
Medium
( ) ( ) |
X W
K S F
'
*
43 of 51
Designer Grids within the Flow Simulator
Static Boundary Conditions
Source of A Priori Error: Multiphase frontal velocities are replaced by a single value
Design simulation layering from 3D geologic model to minimize variation in local multiphase
frontal velocities
Tight Gas - Layer Coarsening and Heterogeneity
249, 80%
336, 86%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Model Layers
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

-

E
r
r
o
r
Li & Beckner % Heterogeneity
% Heterogeneity ; B-Variation
% Heterogeneity: Uniform Coarsen
Diagonal Guide
Solution Total RMS Regression
Solution Weighted RMS Regression
Total RMS Regression
Weighted RMS Regression
Number of Coarse Layers
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

E
r
r
o
r
Optimal Layering
Uniform Coarsening: Not Efficient
44 of 51
Upscale During Initialization (Static)
General trend shows that uniform coarsening does not perform well
Optimal (293 layers) is the best layering scheme
Flexible 3D grid (MCOARSE) provides even better results

Tight Gas Layer Coarsening
Fine Scale Model 22x23x1715 (Geological Scenario 5)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
C
u
m
.

G
a
s

P
r
o
d
.

(
B
C
F
)
Regular-Coarsen
NextVar-OneStep
NextVar-Sequential
Optimal-12L
Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
Fine Scale
Li and Beckner
Uniform MCOARSE
Optimal
Uniform
Coarsening
Optimal
Layering
45 of 51
Layer Coarsening:
Waterflood Example
Fine Scale
124 Layers
Optimal
22 Layers
7 Layers
Too Coarse
22 Uniform Layers
Too Coarse
46 of 51

Water Cut
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
W
C
U
T

%
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22U
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07
Waterflood Field Example:
Oil Recovery and Watercut
Optimal Simulation Model has 22 layers
7 layers and 22 uniform layers are each too coarse
Waterflood Oil Recovery
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

(
%
)
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
PVINJ
R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

(
%
)
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07

Pressure HCPV @ Datum
1760
1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
FineScale
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22U
Average
Reservoir
Pressure
Oil Production
Time
PVINJ
Water
Cut
Time
Oil Production
Time
7 Layers
7 Layers
22 Uniform Layers
7 Layers
47 of 51

Source of A Priori Error: Pressure equilibrium in the coarse cell is not present on the fine
grid
Design 3D simulation grid to prevent different sands from merging
48 of 51

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
C
u
m
.

G
a
s

P
r
o
d
.

(
B
C
F
)
Regular-Coarsen
NextVar-OneStep
NextVar-Sequential
Optimal-12L
Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
Fine Scale
Li and Beckner
Uniform MCOARSE
Optimal
Flexible
Coarsening
49 of 51
Outline
Transmissibility Yes, Permeability No
Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Best?
Future Trends:
50 of 51
Check transport properties in initial geologic model
By Facies: NTG, Porosity, Horizontal Permeability, Kv/Kh ratio
When upscaling permeability
Preserve reservoir quality
Preserve reservoir barriers
Preserve flow around reservoir barriers
Streamline-based flow validation after upscaling
Iteration: Is there a need to change resolution?
Future trends: A Priori Error analysis & Designer Grids
51 of 51
Summary: A Personal Literature Review
Individuals whose work and questions have shaped my understanding of
permeability & upscaling
Chris Farmer
Kirk Hird
Lars Holden
Peter King
Dave MacDonald
Colin McGill

John Barker
Karam Burns
Dominic Camilleri
Tianhong Chen
Mike Christie
Lou Durlofsky

Don Peaceman
Jens Rolfsnes
Kefei Wang
Chris White
John K Williams
Mike Zerzan

52 of 51
Backup
53 of 51
Upscaling within the Flow Simulator
Dynamic Boundary Conditions
Source of A Priori Error: Fluid flow may depend upon the transverse pressure drop on the coarse grid
Utilize actual well positions, flow rates and an iterative global solution on the coarse simulation grid to provide
local pressure boundary conditions for the upscaling calculation, including the transverse pressure drop
Cell Permeability Transmissibility + Well PI Global Flow Rates
100x100x50 => 20x20x10 upscaling for a variogram-based fine scale model
Material provided by Lou Durlofsky (Stanford) & Yuguang Chen (Chevron)
54 of 51
Future Trends:
Calculate your errors before upscaling
Designer simulation grids that minimize these errors
Best coarse layering
Best unstructured 3D grids
Upscaling in the Simulator (Static)
Transmissibility is calculated from the fine model by upscaling
Done at model initialization
Upscaling in the Simulator (Dynamic)
Utilize well locations and well rates on the coarse grid to define the fine scale boundary
conditions
Iterative calculation per time step
55 of 51
A Priori Error:
Lack of Pressure Equilibrium
Assumption Source of Error
(Missing Physics)
- Pressure equilibrium within
the coarse cell
- Disconnected pay within the coarse cell
will not be in equilibrium
- Fluid velocity is parallel to
the pressure drop
- Flow may depend upon the transverse
pressure drop on the coarse grid
- Single velocity within a
coarse cell
- Distribution of multiphase frontal
velocities replaced by a single value

56 of 51
Source of A Priori Error: Multiphase frontal velocities are replaced by a single value
Design simulation layering from 3D geologic model to minimize variation in local multiphase
frontal velocities
249, 80%
336, 86%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Model Layers
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

-

E
r
r
o
r
Diagonal Guide
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

E
r
r
o
r
Optimal Layering
57 of 51

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
C
u
m
.

G
a
s

P
r
o
d
.

(
B
C
F
)
Regular-Coarsen
NextVar-OneStep
NextVar-Sequential
Optimal-12L
Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
Fine Scale
Li and Beckner
Uniform MCOARSE
Optimal
58 of 51
Future Trends:
Upscale in the Simulator (Static)
3x3x3 coarsen used to reduce run-time
Resolution re-introduced to preserve
Fault block boundaries
Resolution near wells
Fluid contacts
Heterogeneity via statistical measures
More accurate flow simulation than
with uniform coarsening
Workflow Implications
Single Shared Earth Model
used for both static and
dynamic calculations
Negligible time spent building coarse grid
Extremely flexible grid design
Simulation speed improvement
comparable to model rebuild

59 of 51
Complex Flow in a Vertical Cross-Section
In many ways, the unconfined boundary conditions are more typical of flow in the full three
dimensional model. For example, look at the flow patterns calculated by Christie and Clifford (SPE
37986) as part of their work on Compositional Upscaling.

The detailed velocity field shows significant local variation, and only rarely aligns with the coarse grid
block boundaries.
60 of 51
KX
Sealed Cell
KXY
Open Wide
No Shift
KX Streamline Flow Comparisons
KX
Open Wide
Shifted
KX
Sealed
Shifted
61 of 51
KY Upscaling Comparisons
Streamline Flow Visualization
KY
Open
Wide
Shifted
KY
Sealed
Shifted
KY
Sealed
Cell
KYX
Open
Wide No
Shift
62 of 51
-15% -10% -5% 0% C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
L
in
e
a
rP
re
C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, v
l
C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, ln
C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, p
t P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, v
l
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, ln
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, p
t
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, v
l
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, ln
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, p
t
Error to Fine-Scale Model Flow Rate, Q
X
= 47.8
restricted
open
2-point Geostat Model, 100100 10x10
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
L
in
e
a
rP
re C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, v
l
C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, ln
C
o
n
s
ta
n
tP
r
e
, p
t P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, v
l
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, ln
P
e
rio
d
ic
B
C
, p
t
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, v
l
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, ln
L
in
e
a
rP
re
, p
t
Error to Fine-Scale Model Flow Rate, Q
y
= 7.02
restricted
open
x
= 1.0
y
= 0.1
o
logk
= 1.735
dx = 10.0 ft
dy = 10.0 ft
Observations
Trans upscaling is better than k*
T* (open) > T* (restricted)
Linear pressure B.C. not good
Line/ point average good
T*
K*
63 of 51
Layer Coarsening:
Waterflood Example
Fine Scale
124 Layers
Optimal
22 Layers
7 Layers
Too Coarse
22 Uniform Layers
Too Coarse
64 of 51

Water Cut
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
W
C
U
T

%
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22U
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07
Waterflood Field Example:
Oil Recovery and Watercut
Optimal Simulation Model has 22 layers
7 layers and 22 uniform layers are each too coarse
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

(
%
)
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
PVINJ
R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

(
%
)
FineScale
Coarsen_54
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
Coarsen_07

Pressure HCPV @ Datum
1760
1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
FineScale
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22U
Average
Reservoir
Pressure
Oil Production
Time
PVINJ
Water
Cut
Time
Oil Production
Time
7 Layers
7 Layers
22 Uniform Layers
7 Layers
65 of 51
Tight Gas Example: Cum. Recovery
Coarsening Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
C
u
m
.

G
a
s

P
r
o
d
.

(
B
C
F
)
Regular-Coarsen
NextVar-OneStep
NextVar-Sequential
Optimal-12L
Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
Fine Scale
Li and Beckner
Uniform MCOARSE
Optimal
Model Layers
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s

(
a
t

2
0
1
3
)

Fine Grid Result
Uniform Coarsening:
Too Low Tz
Too High Sweep
Optimal
Layering
Flexible Coarsening
66 of 51
Backup
67 of 51
Permeability Upscaling
Volume average of Darcys Law defines the effective permeability tensor for each
coarse cell
Flow calculation region can be >> than averaging region
Results depend upon the choice of boundary conditions
Coarse grid superimposed on fine grid and fine
cell properties
Darcys Law:
Volume Average
of Darcys Law:
p k u V =

p k u V = *
1
1 2
3 4
k*
68 of 51
Upscaled Permeability - 2/3
Vertical permeability, with a 4x4 coarse
grid overlay
Kz varies from 0 to 150 mD
Open boundaries over-estimate flow
capacity
Log10 of ratio of Sealed to Pizza Box Kz Log10 of ratio of Open to Pizza Box Kz
Calculations Courtesy of VoluMetrix FasTracker
150
0
4
0
-2
0
69 of 51
q
<p>
1
<p>
2
What Works Well?
Preserve flow from cell to cell within the reservoir
Upscale from coarse cell center to coarse cell center
Replaces harmonic average of permeability with link permeability
Captures fine scale juxtaposition of properties within the reservoir
2 1
p p
q
p
q
T
f
Effective
=
A
=

q
<p>
1
<p>
2
T*
70 of 51
Preserves Spatial Resolution
Transmissibility can be calculated by direct upscaling instead of from the harmonic average
of cell permeabilities

Link Permeability is upscaled from cell center to cell center and has double the lateral
resolution compared to cell permeability upscaling
Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always zero

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+

=
i i
i i
i i
DX KX DX KX
DX KX DX KX
A TX
1
2 1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+
=
i i
i
i i
DX DX
KX
A TX
71 of 51
Transmissibility Multipliers:
Double the Spatial Resolution
A transmissibility multiplier can represent a barrier without using a cell

In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow both up AND down
72 of 51
Permeability Upscaling
Determines Cell Properties
50 MD 50 MD 50 MD 50 MD 50 MD
73 of 51
Captures fine scale juxtaposition
0 MD 0 MD 38 MD 0 MD 50 MD 50 MD
74 of 51
Permeability Upscaling does not preserve fine scale
connectivity
1x5 Upscaling Example
Arithmetic average for horizontal permeability
Harmonic average for vertical permeability

Horizontal flow over-represented: too much sweep
Arithmetic average of the transmissibility is preferred
Vertical permeability reduced by lower perms
Harmonic average preserves local barriers
KZ KZ
100 0.01
100 0.01
1 1
0.01 100
0.01 1
Harmonic Average
0.024873 0.024751
KX KX TX
100 0.01 0.019998
100 0.01 0.019998
1 1 1
0.01 100 0.019998
0.01 1 0.019802
Average: 0.215959
Arithmetic Average
40.204 20.404 27.06977
75 of 51
More Subtle Errors
Simulator well productivity calculated from
sealed side coreflood permeability
Does not describe radial flow and
logarithmic pressure drop near a well

Transmissibility could have been calculated by direct
upscaling instead of from the harmonic average of cell
permeabilities

Link Permeability doubles the lateral resolution of
the calculation
Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always
zero

( )
( )
w
Z
Z
r r
H KY KX
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+

=
i i
i i
i i
DX KX DX KX
DX KX DX KX
A TX
1
2 1
2 1 2 1
2
+
+
+ +
+
=
i i
i
i i
DX DX
KX
A TX
( )
( )
w
Y
Y
r r
H KZ KX
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
( )
( )
w
X
X
r r
H KZ KY
WI
0
ln
2
=
t
76 of 51
What Works Well?
Well Index Upscaling
Preserve flow between wells and the reservoir
Three hypothetical directional wells (X, Y & Z) for each coarse cell
Algebraic upscaling preserves reservoir quality & continuity of pay

Use well index upscaling to define cell permeability in the simulator
Ensures that fluids correctly enter and leave the reservoir
( )
( ) ( )
( )

=
ijk
ijk
ijk
ijk ijk
Effective
DZ DY DX NTG
DY DX DZ NTG KY KX
KY KX
77 of 51
Backup
78 of 51
Upscaling Overview:
In Review
Understand, Validate and/or
Challenge the Reservoir Model
Gridding
Grid Alignment
Static Properties

Dynamic Properties: Permeability, Well
Indices, and Transmissibility
Upscaling: Quality Control
Multiphase Flow & Pseudoization
Iteration & Learning
79 of 51
Future Trends:
Upgridding and Upscaling
Design of the simulation grid at run-time
Fine scale model initialized in the simulator
Resolution chosen as required by calculation
Error estimates used to design grid
Regular grid
Layer grouping
Unstructured grid
Designed composite corner point grids in
3D
Bypass simulation gridding and property upscaling external
to the flow simulator
80 of 51
How to Combine Well Index & Transmissibility Upscaling
Well Index upscaling defines cell permeability
Algebraic average (close to arithmetic average)
Adjust transmissibility at cell faces according to flow-based upscaling calculations

Retain two flow calculations as sensitivities
Pizza Box boundary conditions will preserve tortuosity
Sealed side barriers will preserve local barriers

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
1
2 1 2 1 2 1
2 2
2 2
+
+
+ + +
+
=
i i
i i
i i i
DX KX DX KX
DX KX DX KX
A TMX TX
Face Property Cell Properties
81 of 51
Backup
82 of 51
Magnus LKCF
Waterflood Development Study
83 of 51
84 of 51
LKCF Upscaling Streamline Validation

Comparions of Geological and Upscaled Model Performance Using TOF
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
2x2x6 2x2x4 2x2x2 1x1x6 1x1x4 1x1x2
Upscale ( NX * NY * NZ)
E
r
r
o
r

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

m
o
d
e
l
Error on injection rate
Error on connected volume
CPU time scale =1
x1.8 x2.4 x3.7
x6.8 x15.6

Geological model has 1.78 million cells with 400,000 active cells. 1 Injector and 3 producers
42285 active cells
152734 active cells
85 of 51
Backup
86 of 51
Arithmetic Average
Think of all of the reservoir re-stacked and placed immediately adjacent to a well.
All the rock feels the same pressure gradient
K
1
K
N
AP

( )
L
P
A K Q
j j
A
=

87 of 51
A
Q
K
L
P
j
j
j

|
|
.
|
\
|
= A

Harmonic Average
Think of all of the reservoir sliced and stacked into one amazingly long core.
All the flow must run through each piece of rock.
K
1
K
N
AP

88 of 51
Upscaling Exercise: Flow Pictures
Geometric Average: Permeability follows a log normal distribution. In others words, the logarithm of
permeability follows a Gaussian distribution, and the average of the data provides an unbiased
estimate of the mean.

Important Exceptions:
What if we lose all of our unconsolidated core samples?
What if we never make permeability measurements of our muds?
Log Perm Perm
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Mode,
Median
& Mean
89 of 51
Arithmetic-Harmonic
Harmonic followed by Arithmetic: Turn off all cross-flow between layers. Now you
have the sum of many core floods!
AP

90 of 51
Harmonic-Arithmetic
Arithmetic followed by Harmonic: Think of perfect vertical pressure equilibrium. This
generates mixing at each column of the model, and a single average core flood
AP
1
AP
N
91 of 51
Coarsen in 3D:
Preserve Pay/Non-Pay in Each Column
Active cell ratio 48,790/153,151used
for equivalent # layers
Tight gas recovery is dominated by the fine
scale pay continuity
92 of 51
Tight Gas Field Example
Layer Coarsening Analysis
1715 Geologic Layers Coarsened to 1 Simulation Layer
249, 80%
336, 86%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Model Layers
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

-

E
r
r
o
r
Diagonal Guide
%
-
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y

R
M
S

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

E
r
r
o
r

Optimal Layering
Li & Beckner: Too Aggressive
93 of 51
Effective Vertical Permeability
Impact of Boundary Conditions
Upscale shales on a
sand background
Sealed sides capture
local flow barriers
Linear pressure allows
barriers to leak
Pizza box allows
global flow tortuosity
One Cell
94 of 51
Summary:
What to Avoid
Flow based upscaling for cell permeabilities
Sealed side boundary conditions used for flow based upscaling of permeability
Using the same upscaled flow based permeability to calculate both well indices and
intercell transmissibility
Linear pressure (open) boundary conditions used for flow based upscaling of
permeability

Unfortunately, these steps describe the most common upscaling approaches in the
industry

95 of 51
Summary:
What Works Well
Use different upscaling techniques to extract different flow characteristics from the
fine scale geologic model
Well Index Upscaling preserves continuity of pay and provides a measure of the reservoir
quality
Transmissibility Upscaling provides higher spatial resolution
Different boundary conditions preserve either flow tortuosity or flow barriers
This combination of techniques has worked well within BP & elsewhere in the industry
Streamline calculations provide detailed validation based on pressures, sweep, and
time of flight
Validation after upscaling is always necessary

2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

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

2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

Вам также может понравиться