Comparison of Solutions to a Three-Dimensional Black-Oil Reservoir Simulation Problem (includes associated paper 9741 )
- Aziz S. Odeh (Mobil Research and Development Corp.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- January 1981
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 13 - 25
- 1981. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 7.1.8 Asset Integrity, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 4.6 Natural Gas, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 1.10.1 Drill string components and drilling tools (tubulars, jars, subs, stabilisers, reamers, etc), 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods
- 4 in the last 30 days
- 2,345 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
A comparison of solutions to a three-dimensional black-oil reservoir simulation problem is presented. The test of the problem and a brief description of the seven simulators used in the study are given.
Seven companies participated in a reservoir simulation project to compare the results obtained by different black-oil simulators. The companies were chosen to give a good cross section of the solution methods used in the industry. The participants were Amoco Production Co., Computer Modelling Group of Calgary (CMG), Exxon Production Research Co., Intercomp Resource Development and Engineering Inc., Mobil Research and Development Corp., Shell Development Co., and Scientific Software Corp. (SSC). The paper presents the text of the problem, a comparison of results in graphical form, and a brief description of each model. The descriptions were supplied by the participants.
A variety of computers was used. Amoco used IBM 3033, IBM 370/168, and Amdahl V/6. CMG used Honeywell 6000 DPS, and Exxon used Amdahl 470/V5 and IBM 370/168. Intercomp used Cray-1 and Harris/7. Mobil and SSC used CDC Cyber 175, and Shell used Univac 1110/2C Level 36. The number of time steps and the central processor times varied considerably. Those interested in the actual values should contact the individual companies.
Except for Shell, all the participants used single-point upstream mobility weighting. Shell used two points upstream. Constraints and data are given in the text.
Statement of the Problem
Areal and cross-section views of the reservoir are given in Figs. 1 and 2. The grid system is given in Fig. 1. Stratification and reservoir properties are given in Fig. 2. The reservoir is initially undersaturated. A gas injection well is located at Grid Point (1, 1), and a producing well is located at Grid Point (10, 10). Pertinent data and constraints are given in Table 1. PVT properties and relative permeabilities are given in Tables 2 and 3. The participants were asked to make the runs and report the results described below.
Runs To Be Made
Let the bubble-point (saturation) pressure be constant with a value equal to the original value.
Let the saturation pressure vary with gas saturation - i.e., this is a variable saturation-pressure case. The PVT lines at pressures above the calculated saturation pressures are parallel to the original line.
Results To Be Reported
The following results are to be reported. 1. Plots of: a. Oil rate vs. time. b. GOR vs. time. 2. Report annually and at abandonment: a. The pressures of the cell where the injector and producer are located.* b. Gas saturation at Grid Points (1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 2), (1, 1, 3),(10, 1, 1), (10, 1, 2), (10, 1, 3), (10, 10, 1), (10, 10, 2), and (10, 10, 3). 3. Report at the end of 8 years: a. Tables of gas saturation. b. Tables of cell pressures. * c. Tables of saturation pressures for the variable saturations-pressure case. *
|File Size||5 MB||Number of Pages||14|