!!

13P
Scxie
of Petroleum EngrnseTs

A Reservoir/VVellbore Model for Multi

phase Injection and
Pressure Transient Analysis
by R,A. Almehaicfeb, U.A.E, University, and K. Aziz and O.A. Pedrosa Jr., Stanford U.
SPE Members

Copyright1989, Societyof PetroleumEnghreers,Inc.

Thispaperwas preparedfor presentationat the SPE Mi&HeEaat011Techn;calConferencesnd ExhibitionheldIn Mansma,Bahrain,11-14 March, 1989.
Thispaperwasselectedfor preaentafionby an SPE ProgramCommitteefollowingreviewof Informationcontslnedin an abstractsubmittedby the author(s).Contentsof the paper
es presented,havenotbeenreviewedby the Societyof PetroleumEngineersand are subjectto correctionby the author(s).The material,as presented,doesnotrrsceeaerily
reflec
anypositionoftheSocietyof PetroleumEngineers,itsofficers.or members.Paperspresentedat SPE meetingsaresubjectto publication
reviewbyEdKolislCommitteesoftheBoclet
ofPetroleumEngineers.Permissiontocopyisrestricted
toansbatractofnolmorefhanS00words.Illusfratlons
maynotbecopied.Theebstrsctshouldcontainconsplcuoua acknowledgme
of whereand fIy whomthepsperispresented. WritePutrllcatims Manager,SPE,P.Cr.BOXfHWJW Richardson, TX 7W333533. Telex,73LJ989SpEDAL.

—.

Abstract Multiphase flow in the wellbore and in the surrounding

formation may also occur during well tests. Anomalous
Phase injectivities for multiphase injection
processes pressure buildup behavior, as a result of wellbore phase
are studied using an isotlwwmal black–oil numerical model segregation, has been observed in high GOR wells3.
that properly tTeats wel~bore/Teservoir interaction. A A general review of well test analysis with multirhase
fully implicit technique for the coupling of wellbore and flow was presented by Raghavan4. However, the effect
Teuertroir flow equationa is de~cribed. The effect of ~rav- of wellbore phase segregation was not taken into account.
ity segregation in the wellbore is taken into account to An attempt to account for this effect in presstre buildup
sirnu{ate cocurremt water and gas injection. It ig shown analysis was made by Fair5. In his work, an empirical rela-
that the current techniques used in reservoir simulation tionship for pressure change was introduced in the wellbore
for assigning phuse injectivitie~ yield inconsistcnf Tc$ulta storage equation in order to describe phase redistribution
when Welibore phase redistribution takes place. in the well.
The eflect of imdtiphase flow in the WC!l and in the Recently, Winterfeld6 presented a model that treats
resemok during well testing is also investigated. The rigorously multiphase flow in the wellbore during pressure
fully coupled wel!bore/TeservoiT model is employed to buildup. The model solves simultaneously for transient
study the effect of wellbore phase segregation on buildup multiphase flow in the wellbore and in the reservoir. Counter-
pressure response. current two-phase flow in the wellbore during shut-in is al-
lowed by the use of semi-empirical expressions to account
Introduction for phase to phase viscous forces.
To allow for phase segregation in the simulation of mul-
Multiphase injection of fluids in reservoirs may oc- tiphase injection processes and multiphase well tests, a
cur in a variety of oil field operations such as steam and wellbore flow model must be coupled with the reservoir
cocurrent water and gas injection processes. In enhanced model.
recovery processes, special tecfmiques are usually required Several papers dealing with the simulation of transient
to control and modify injection profiles. “multiphase flow in pi~es have been published in the tech-
Laboratory experiments reported by Elsonl have showed nical literature. Liles and Reed7 developed a semi-implicit
the effect of phase separation in the wellbore. Uneven in- drift-flux model for simulating unsteady state two-phase
jection profiles in the perforated intervals have been clearly flow in ~ipes, Later, Miller8 presented” a similar motiel to
observed. Field observations have also shown this behavicrr2 study wellbore storage effects during geothermal well test-
with the lighter and less viscous phase being preferentially ing.
injected into the top of the formation while the heavier Sharma et al? simulated transient gas-oil flow in pipe-
phase goes into the lower part. lines using a black-oil type model. A thermal compo-
In’ reservoir simulation, phase injectivity is commonly sitional model for simulating transient gas-liquid flow in
handled by means of simplified approaches which usually natural gas pipelines was reported by Kohda et al.lO. Both
ignores the gravity segregation in the wellbore. of these models used a semi-implicit technique to solve the
..-
123
 , . . _ __.

resultant system of equations. Siu et al.ll simulated tran- R,

sient wellbore flow for a two-phase steam injection process ;[;(1 – HI) + ~~1(1 – ~f.?l
using a fully-implicit one-component thermal model that
also accounted for heat flow to the surrounding formation. + ;[(~ + ~)~m] + # + @#’ = O (3)
The numerical simulation of coning phenomena12!13
has contributed greatly to the description of mrrltiphase where the phase flow concentrations and the mixture ve-
flow in the vicinity of wells, Moreover, some coning mod- Iocity are defined as
els have attempted to accurately model the well bound-
ary conditions in reservoir simulators. Settari and Aziz14 Cp =%, P,q=f-%w, g (4)
presented a numerical coning model that properly treats G Q,
wellbore/reservoir interaction. In their model, the equa-
Um = H((I – Ufw)rco + Hlvjwth + (1 - Hl)ug (5)
tion for wellbore pressure drop includes gravitational and
frictional effects and different flow regimes may be consid- and u., uW,ug are oil, water, and gas phase velocities in
ered. WNiamson and Chappelear15 presented a thorough the wellbore respectively.
discussion of the representation of wells in numerical :eser- A “two-fluid” model can be formulated to express the
voir simulation. conservation of momentum for each phase, Assuming that
Considerable work has been done to model the reservoir there is no slip between oil and water phases, the momen-
and well flow separately. Full treatment of the modelling turn conservation equations for liquid and gas phases are
of well/reservoir interaction is still not available. given respectively as
This paper describes a fully implicit numerical model
d
that properly accounts for multiphase transient wellbore/ @Hlyl) + ~
~z(Pl~tU~) -1-Hfptgsind
reservoir interaction. The effect of phase segregation in
the wellbore during cocurrent water and gas injection is +H12+ (g)fl+(g)fg = o (6)
investigated. It is also shown that the new model is a
useful tool for the interpretation of multiphase well test
data. g[h(l – ~1)%] + :[P,(l - Hf)uj]
@J ~

themtttical Model DescriDt~ + (1 –H/)p9gsir16+(l –HI)z

Ma

ap
+ (@ -(g)/g=o (7)
The mathematical description of multiphase injec-
tion processes involves the coupling of wellbore flow equa- The term (@/tlz)fl in eqn. (6) represents the pressure
tions and a reservoir model. A rigorous treatment of well- gradient due to friction between the fluid and the pipe wall,
bore/reservoir interaction is also required for the analysis while (dp/tlz)i9 accounts for frictional pressure drop at the
of multiphase drawdown and buildup tests. liquid-gas interfaces. Similar terms show up in eqn. (7).
For the sake of simplicity, all development will be pre-
The transient momentum interaction between phases
sented for isothermal flow. However, the new approach for
have not been accurately mode! led yet16. In this work,
treating wellbore/reservoir interaction can be extended to
the semi-empirical approach presented by WinterfeldE is
thermal and compositional models without requiring new
applied to handle phase to phase and phase to wall viscous
concepts.
terms.
The equations describing the flow in the wellbore and
Information on the interaction between liquid and gas
in the surrounding formation are shown below. ,.+
phases is not needed if a mixture momentum equation is
used instead of separate gas and liquid momentum equa-
Wellbore Model tions. The mixture momentum equation can be expressed
as
.
Isothermal multiphase flow in the wellbore is gov-
;[POH,O - V,UJ)UO+ (JWH,V,WUW
wned by conservation laws of mass and momentum. A
three phase black–oil model in which oil and water are
immiscible and gas is soluble only in oil is used. The “sep-
+ Pg(l – 0%1 + :[AJW – WM
arated flow” model is used in order to properly account for + /),(,lzf?JJ,,,?L:-t pg(l – Hl)u;]
gas phase slippage. ap ap
+~+pmgsin6+(~)f=0 (8)
Based on these assumptions, the continuity equations
for oil , water, and gas may be expressed respectively as where the in-situ mixture density is defined as follows

pm = H,(I - Vfw)po + H/v{wPw + (1 – M)l?g (9)

;J;o—HI(1 – Vfw)] + :[:U.] + g; == o (1)
The “mixture flow” model requires the use of em-
pirical correlations for evaluating liquid holdup and two-
;[~~i%l + g[~”ml + 9: = o (2)
phase friction factor. Steady state empirical correlations

124
or steady state mechanistic models can also be used to
Numerical Solution&chnictue
evaluate the in-situ liquid volume fraction under transient
conditions, as discussed by Yadigaroglu and Lahey17. Fur- A finite difference techniq~e is employed to discretize
the set of differential equations shown previously for the
thermore, it is assumed that oil and water can be lumped
wellbore and reservoir models. For the grid system depicted
into only one liquid phase for the purpose of holdup cal-
culation. in Fig. 1, the discretized wellbore coritinuity equations for
The liquid holdup correlations for different flow pat- oil, water, and gas components are given as

terns are usually expressed in terms of liquid concentration,

mixture velocity, pressure, and deviation anglc$8-1g120121 *22:

HI = Hl(cr,%, p, 4) (lo)

TO avoid numerical instabilities, we have only used the

correlations that are continuous across flow pattern lines.
Tt,e two-phase friction factor can be obtained from a
number of correlatiorrs18’1g*20’21 based on the holdup and
the usual friction factor for single Phase flew.

Reservoir Model

Multiphase flow in porous media is described by mass

conservation equation and Darcy’s law. For a black-oil The finite difference form for the liquid and gas mo.
“model with two immiscible components and gas being only mentum equations (6) and (7) becomes
soluble in the oil phase, the reservoir flow equations are
AIHIAP + p~H~AZ9sk d + (AP)Jt + (Aphg

v . [Ao(vpo – ~ovl))] = g(g) -t-go (11)

+ Az(p,H,u;)] =
~w

&At(ptHful) (21)

V . [L(Vpw – y.VD)] = :(g) + q. (12)

v . [I&&(vpo - ‘yOvq + Ag(vpg - TJVD)] =

(13)
The finite difference approximation for the mixture mo-
where the phase mobility is given as mentum equation is

(14) A{Ap + p~Azgsin8 + AP~

+ Az[PoH/(1 – v\w)u; + PwHIvjwu: + Pg(l – HJu:]}
In addition to these equations, capillary pressure rela-
tions and a saturation contraint are needed: = ~&[POM(l – VjW)UI + L%u~IrJjwtq

Pcow(sw) = p. – p“ (15) + 0-(1 – H,)ug] (23)

~cgo(q) = Pg -p. (16) For practical purposes, the usually small contribution of
So+sw+sg=l (17) kinetic energy change relative to the total press~re gradient
can be neglected.
Three-phase relative permeabilities are obtained from
two-phase data by a normalized version of Stone’s method
The finite difference form of the reservoir equations is
as recommended by Fayers and Mathews23.
expressed as
Irr simulating multiphase injection processes, the rates
of the injected fluids need to be specified. A.T,.A,(P. – @) + &TzoAz(Po – %D)
For production wells, either surface oil rate or total ~k 4S. (24)
surface liq~~id production rate can be specified. The other = ~At( ~)+ C)oik
o
rates are calculated according to the ratio of phase flow
concentrations. - Pcow
At the outer boundar~ of the reservcir, either constant ArTrtuAr(po – Pcow – -@) + AzTzwAz(Po

pressure or no-flow condition can be used. The former is (25)

.— Y.D) =
~A,(
At
~)+
~
Qwik

particularly useful for getting steady state injection profiles,

while the latter is used for the purpose of buildup analysis,
in order to get the proper pressure response of a closed Ar(R,Tro)(APo – 7.D) + ArTrgAr(~o + Pcgo – ~~~)

system. – ~gD)
+ Az(ll,Tzo)(Ap. – ToD) + AzTzA(Po + ‘Cg”

1Z5
 ,, - -,

fully implicit treatment, these equations are coupled with

(26) the reservoir flow equations (24) to (26). In the reservoir
= ~&[~(R@~Q + ~)1 + Qgik
+ (~sQo)i~ model, the primary variables are oil phase presssure, gas
saturation (or saturation pressure for undersaturated oil)
Multiphase flow in the wellbore section intersected by
and water saturation.
the reservoir may be seen as a splitting stream process.
The model equations may be expressed in vector form
The wellbore fluid splits into a’ vertical (downward or up-
as
ward) stream and a horizontal stream that enters the per-
forated channels.
q(’’sf, “w, P’”! ~~! f~,u) ‘+’= ~
In studying two-phase flow in branching conduits, a (30)
[ F’(p., Sg,Sw) 1
common approach is to assume equal stream quality in
each branch. Recently, some effort has been made to where the elements of these vectors are given by the well-
model two phase flow split in pipe junctions for different bore and reservoir equations written in residual form.
flow patterns24’25’26, However, no technique is currently Other sets of primary variables for the wellbore and
available to model phase splitting streams in a set of per- the reservoir are also possible. For the flow of three com-
forted channels. ponents, only three primary variables are needed to fully
For this reason, it is assumed that flow concentrations describe the flow conditions in the well. In this case,
in the wellbore section and in the perforations are the same. F-W(pw, Z9, frW) is defined by the residual form of the three
In addition, phase slip in the perforated channels is ignored.
continuity equations. For a fully implicit treatment, the
Therefore, the effective sandface saturations are equal to mixture momentum equation and the holdup correlation
the flowing concentrations in the perforations. need to be solved separately several times at each itera-
The compatibility condition between the wellbore and tion in &Lr to evaluate gas flow concentration, mixture
the reservoir models is expressed in the vvellbore equations velocity, a:ld their derivatives witk respect to the three pri-
as a source term, which represents the sandface flow rate mary variables. It is clear that this approach requires much
as shown in Figure 2. In the reservoir model, this flow rate more computer time than solving all the five equations si-
can be interpreted as an inner boundary condition. multaneously.
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the sandface A variable bubble-point scheme similar to the one pre-
flow rate is given by Darcy’s law as follows sented by Stright et al.27 can be used. In this case, when
i~ll .dZ krp thewellbore pressure or reservoir pressure in any block are
(pP,& - P:) (27)
“k= (ln ~ + 9) () ~ ~,,1 above the bubble point prsssure, it is necessary to per-
form variable switching from wellbore gas mass fraction or
where subscript p=o, w,g. The reservoir sandface pressure reservoir gas saturation to the saturation pressure.
is equal to the wellbore pressure. The non-linear set of equations expressed by eqn (30)
In addition, for a point-distributed grid the outlet effect can be solved by Newton’s method applied simultaneously
at the sandface due to capillary forces can be handled as to the set of wellbore and reservoir equations. The follow-
followsla ing matrix equation is solved at each iteration (v)

Qw~ = ~gn(27) !; ?,: 2.

{ w : ,_:!_ ;_](”) [:]=_[?J (,,,

if Sgk < Sgo

Qgk = :q,,(2i) if Sgk = Sgo
{ where J’” and Jr are respectively the Jacobian matrices
for the wellbore and reservoir models. Matrices JW’ and
Implicit Treatment of Flow Eauations
“W represent the coupling between the two models. The
.J
unknown vectors are
Small grid spacing around the well is usually required $
to properly account for saturation changes in the vicinity &T’J = (au,, 6(1,, ($p, 6X,, 15.fr,u)T

of the wellbore. In order to maintain the stability of the

finite difference equations, an implicit treatment of the c5A7’= (6po,ci!& mw)~
non-linear terms in the wellbore and reservoir equations is
used. where fi indicates change over iteration.
For the two-fluid model, the wellbore continuity equa- The incidence matrix for the grid system depicted in
tions (18) to (20), and the momentum equations (21) and Fig. 1 is shown in Fig. 3, where the coupling between the
(22) form a set of consistent equations whose ptimary vari- equations for the wellbore (upper and lower sections) and
abies are liquid and gas superficial velocities, wellbore pres- the reservoir can be readily viwalized. Matrix Jr’” has two
sure, free gas mass fractiwr, and mass fraction of water in block diagonals because a staggered grid is used for the
the liquid phase. Similarly, the mixture model has the same wellbore, with the sllperficial velocities calculated at the
primary variables, but the liquid and gas momentum ~<c!a- block boundaries.
tions are substituted by the mixture momentum equation Equation (31) may be solved by a Gaussian elimination
(23) and the holdup correlation, eqn. (10). Because of the algorithm or by some iterative methods.
—
126
 gation cannot be ignored to properly simulate multiphase
Results injection processes.
To validate the proposed model, a comparison with
The reservoir and wellbore models were tested sepa- laboratwy data presented by Elsorrl was performed. In
rartely. The former was validated by comparing its results the lab test, an air-w~ter mixture of 59% air quality was
with a commercial reservoir simulator, while the latter was injected into a 12 ft casing-tubing system containing three
applied to match field data from a wet gas pipeline. After perforated sand beds. The schematic representation of the
getting satisfactory results, the fully coupled model was experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 7. Air and water
used to investigate the effect of wellbore phase segrega- flow rates were measured coming out of the sand beds
tiorr on injection profiles and on the pressure response of positioned at the perforations,
multiphase buildup tests. Due to the simple configuration of the porous medium,
a reservoir model is not needed. The resistance to flow
Multi~hase Iniection in the sandbeds can be obtained by using a geometrical
injectivity factor. Table 2 lists the basic data for this test
Different approaches have been used in reservoir sim- case, in which the tubing was above the top perforation.
ulation to calculate effective nobilities of the phases being The change with time in gas quality flowing out of the
injected in the wellbore. The relative permeability and the three perforated intervals is shown in Fig. 8. The proposed
viscosity of the injected fluid in eqn. (27) are commonly model was also run for the case of no phase slippage in -
approximated as foIlows28 the wellbore. It can be seen that the model results match
reasonably well the experimental data.
1. krp= 1 and pP is the average viscosity of the injected
fluid;
Multit)hase Buildu~
2. k,P is the relative permeability of the injected phase
(gas or water) at residual oil saturation and pP is the
To study the effect of multiphase flow in the well-
actual viscosity of the injected fluid;
bore and. in the surrounding formation during well testing,
the new computer model was used to generate pressure
3. the mobility, krP/pP, of the injected fluid is taken as
drawdown and buildup data. The cases studied are for
the overall well block mobility.
a well producing from a cylindrical reservoir with c!osed
in addition, a mobi!ity allocation scheme is usually sp- outer boundary. An initial flow period with a constant oil
plied to distribute injection rates in the reservoir blocks production rate is followed by a fairly long shut-in period.
containing the well. For the simulation of multiphase in- Initially, undersaturated oil is present in the reservoir.
jection processes, it is frequently assumed that a homo- First the influence of gas volubility on wellbore storage
geneous mixture is flowing in the wellbore section facing was investigated. The input data for this test case are
the reservoir. This assumption and the use of the current shown in Table 4. Different initial gas-oil ratios were con-
approaches outlined above imply continuous injection of sidered. The Horner plot cf pressure buildup is depicted in
the phase mixture in all the reservoir layers without regard Fig, 10. This simulated test indicates how gas volubility
to wellbore phase segregation. affects the time for wellbore storage effect to die out.
To perform a comparative study of the various methods If phase redistribution in the wellbore is taking place
for assigning phase injectivities, cocurrent gas and water during the shut-in period, the buildup pressure curve may
injection in a three-layer reservoir volume with constant show a characteristic hump. Pressure builds up quickly
pressure outer boundary was investigated. The thres layers due to the rise of the gas phase through the oil and then
have equal thickness and the same rock properties. The falls off due to liquid backflow into the resertoir. This
basic data for the test case are presented in Table 1. anomalous behavior cannot bs simulated by the mixture
Running only the reservoir model with phase injectivi- model because the mixture momentum equation cannot be
ties assigned according to the mobility allocation method used for counter-current two–phase flow. For this reason,
yields almost equal injection rates for the three layers, as a two–fluid model was implemented.
shown in Figures 4 and 5. No appreciable differences were The pressure buildup responses for the two models are
observed for the current approaches used, shown in Fig. 11 and the reservoir and grid data are given
The results of the model develcped here are also shown in Table 4. It is clear that the mixture model is unable to
in Figures 4 and 5 for gas and water injection rates. In ~epresent the anomalous behavior.
contrast with the current approaches, unequal injection The anomalous response showing a hump, however,
profiles are clearly observed. Fig. 6 shows the in–situ gas occurs only if the liquid column in the well flows back into
mass fraction in the wellbore for the proposed model, the reservoir. In the absence of appreciable backflow, both
The analysis of this test case indicates that the current I models give basically the same results, which are shown in
approaches for allocating phase injectivities yield inccinsis- Fig. 12 for the iry-mt data of table 3.
tent results. On the other hand, the model developed in
this work shows that thte effect of wellbore gravity segre-

.-
Ii?l
 , x ..”’

Conclusions f = frictional
fg = gas friction at wall
A numerical model that properly simulates wellbore/ fl = liquid friction at wall
reservoir interactions is presented. The transient multi- ~ = gas
phase flow equations for the wellbore are solved simulta~ i = grid point index in radial dir~ctimr
neously with the reservoir model. A fully implicit technique k = grid point index in vertical direction
is applied. I = liquid
To simulate multiphase injection processes, phase seg- Ig = friction at gas liquid interface
regation in the wellbore must be taken into account. This o = oil
can only be accomplished if a fully coupleci wellbore/reservoir P,q = phase
model is used. The model developed can also be used in r = radial dimension
multiphase well test analysis. Sg = superficial gas
Further research on two-phase splitting in the wellbore SI = superficial liquid
section facing the reservoir can lead to an improved de- t = time
scription of wellbore/reservoir interaction, In addition, ap- W = water
propriate correlations for multiphase flow in perforated in- 2 = vertical (downward) dimension
tervals are still not available. Superscripts.
n= time level
Nomenclature
w = well
iteration level
A = wellbore cross-sectional area +
-1 = ~.~1 _ ~n
2P = flow concentration of phase p
D = depth Azu = uk~l[~ - ul+liz
rw = mass fraction of water in liquid (oil-t-water) phase &TA,p z Ti-1{zk(pi-1 k - ~ik) + T’i+l/2k(pi+l k – Pik)

= gravitional acceleration A2TAzp = Ti~_l/z(pik-l – pik) + Tik+l/z(p~k+l – pik)

; = liquid holdup (fraction)
Acknowledgments
K = absolute permeability
‘b = relative permeability of phase p
= oil-water capillary pressure This work was funded in part by Chevron Oil Co,
Dw

= gas-oil capillary pressure Mr. Reyadh A. Almehaideb was on scholarship from UAE
:go
university, UAE.
P = pressure of phase P in the reservoir
~w =
wellbore pressure
2P
= volumetric flow rate of phase p References
# = volumetric flow rate of phase p per wellbore unit volum e
= volumetric flow rate of phase p per reservoir unit VOIUme 1. Elson, T. D.: “Phase Separation of Two-Phase Fluid
qP
in an injection Wellbore,” paper SPE 9916 presented
R, = solution gas oil ratic
r = radius at the 1981 California Regional Meeting in Bakers-
field, California, March 25-26., 1981.
Sp = saturatiorr of phase p
Wo = saturation of water corresponding to Pcow = O
2. Prats, M. Thermal Recovery, Monograph Series,
790 = saturation of gas corresponding to PCgo= o
SPE, Dallas (1982) 7.
s = skin factor
r, = transmissibility of phase p in radial direction
7P 3. Stegmeier, G. L. and Mathews, C. S.: “A Study of
V = transmissibility of phase p in vertical direction
2P Anomalous Pressure Build-Up Behavior,” 3’ctrofewn
t = time Trans. AIME (1958), 213, 44.
u = velocity
V = volume 4. Raghavan, R.:’’Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow,”
{W = volume fraction of water in liquid (oil-i-water) phase paper SPE 14098 presented at the SPE 1986 lnter-

Zu
= free gas mass fraction national Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in
= vertical dimension (positive downwa:d) Beijing, China, Mar. 17-20, 1986.
~ = formation volume factor ‘
5. Fair, W. B. Jr.: “Pressure Buildup Analysis with
6 = change over an iteration
Wellbore Phase Redistribution,” paper SPE 8206 pre-
“Y = specific gravity, ~ = pg
sented at the 54th Annual Technical Conference ani$
/A = viscosity
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sep. 23-25, 1!J79.
P = density
@ = porosity 6. Winterfeld, P. H.: “Simulation of Pressure Buildup
O = well deviation angle in a Multiphase Wellbore-Reservoir System,” paper
SPE 15534 presented at the 61st annual Technical
5L!k@
---
lzrr
 -r ---

(conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, La., Mar. 21. Yamazaki, Y. and Yamaguchi, K.: “Characteristics
t~5.26, 1986.
d of Cocurrent Two-Phase Downflow in Tubes - Flow
pattern, Void Fraction, and Pressure Drop,” J. N?lcl,
7. I-iles, D. R. and Reed, W. H.: “A Semi-implicit
$ci. Tech. (Apr. 1979) 245-255,
IMethud for Two-Phase Fluid Dynamics,” JOIL7. CovLp.
,?’Iqm (1978) 390-407.
22. Mukherjee, H. and Brili, J. P.: “Liquid Holdup Cor-
8, IMiller, C. W,: “Wellbore Storage Effects in Geother- relations for inclined Two-Phase Flow,” Jour. Pet.
fmal Wells,” Sot, Pet. En.g. J, (Dee 1980) 555-566. Tech. (May 1983) 1003-1008.

9. ;harma, Y., Scoggins, M. W. Jr., Shoham, O., and 23. Fayers, F. J. and Mathews, J, D.: “Evaluation of
3ri11. J. P. : “Simulation of Transient Two-Phase Normalized Stone’s Methods for Estimating Three-
‘low in Pipelines,” Jour. Energy Rcwmr. Tech. Phase Relative Permeabilities,” SOC. Pct. Eng.

Sep 1986) 202-206. Jour. (Apr. 1984) 224-232.

10. <ohda, K., Suzukawa, Y. and Furukawa, H.: “Analy- 24. Azzopardi, B. J. and Baker, S. R.:’’Two-Phase F;ow
iis of Transient Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Fiow in Natu- in a T junction: The Effect of Flow Pattern in Verti-
al Gas Pipelines,” Nippon Kokan Technical Report cal Up flow,” tJKAEA Report AERE-R 10174, 1981.
:1987) 43-50.
25. Azzopardi, B. J. and Whally, P, B.: “The Effect of
11. ;iu, A., Rozen, B. and Nghiem, L.:”A Fully Implicit Flow Pattern on Two-Phase Flow in a T Junction,”
Olellbore Model for Steam-Injection Processes,’r Re- ht. J. Multiphase Flow (Sep-Ott 1982) 491-507.
I>ort 87.02.W, May 1987, Computer Modelling Group.
26. Saba, N. and Lahey, R.:”’The Analysis of Phase Sep-
1
12. Spivak, A. and Coats, K. H.: “Numerical Simulation aration Phenomena in Branching Conduits,” Id. J.
>f Coning Using Implicit
( Production Terms,” Sot. Multiphase Flow (Jan-Feb 1984) 1-20.
Pet. .Ehg. Jour. (Sep 1970) 257-267. ‘
27. Stright, D. H., Aziz, K., Settari, A. and Starratt, F.:
13. MacDonald, R. C. and Coats, K. H.: “Methods for “Carbon Dioxide Injection into Bottom-Water, Un-
Numerical Simulation of Water and Gas Coning,” dersaturated Viscous Oil Reservoirs,” J. Pet. Tech.
Sot. pet. Eng. Jour. (Dee 1970) 425-436. (Oct. 1977) 1248-1258.

28. Aziz, K., Ramesh, Band Woo, P. T.: “ Fourth

14. Settari, A. and Aziz, K.: “A Computer Model for
SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison
Two-Phase Coning Simulation,” Sot. pet. Eng.
of Steam Injection Simulators,” paper SF-E 1351O
Jour. (June 1974) 221-236.
presented at the 1985 Reservoir Simulation Sympo-
15. Williamson A. S. and Chappelear, J. E.: ‘{Represent- sium in Dallas, Texas, Feb 10-13, 1985.
ing Wells in Numerical Reservoir Simulation : Part
1- Theory,” Sot. Pet. Eng JOUT. (June 1981)
323-338.

16. Ishii, M. and Kocamustafaougullari, G. : “Two-Phase

Models and Their Limitations,” NATO Adv. St~Ldy
Inst. (1983) Ser. E. Vol. 63, 1-14.

17. Yadigaroglu, G. and Lahey, R. T.: “On The Various

Forms of the Conservation Equations in Two-Phase
Flow,” Int. Jour. J4ultiphase Flew (1976) 477-
494.

18. @rkiszewski, J.: “Predicting two-Phase Pressure D raps

in Vertical Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-
838.

19, Aziz, K., Govier, L. W., and Fogarasi, M.: “Pressure

Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,” .lour. Can.
Pet. Tech. (July-Sep, 1972) 38-48.

20, Beggs, H. D. and 13rill, J. P.: “A Study ot Two-

Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” Jour. Pet. l’ech.

(thy 197.3) 607-617.

129
.

no. grid blocks in r-direction= 20 no. grid blocks in z-direction= 3

no. well grid blocks above reservoir= 3
depth to top of reservoir= 6,000. ft well raduis= 0.16667 ft
depth to bottom of reservoir= 6,050. ft outer raduis= 10,000. ft
absolutepermeability= 100. md porosity= 0.25
init. bottomhole pressure =3100. psi
init. well water mass fract. of liquid=l.O init. well gas mass fract,=O.10
init. water saturation= 1.0
gas injection rate= 1000. MSCFD water inj. rate= 1. MSCFD

Table 1: Input data for the phase injectivity study

i model input data

no. grid blocks in z-direction= 3
well raduis= 0.20833 ft
depth to top of pipe = O. ft depth to bottom of pipe = 12. ft
init. bottomhole pressure= 15. psia outside pressure= 15. psia
init. well gas mass fract.=0.O
init. well water mass fract zf liquid= 1.0
geometrical injectivity factor= 1. MCF/(psi.md)
water inj. rate= 1.4964 MSCFD gas injection rate= 1,816.7 MSCFD
experimental data
flowing qualities into top, middle, and bottom perforations= 0.87,0.86, 0.24

Table 2 Data for lab cam

[ no. grid blocks in r-direction= 20 no. grid blocks in z-direction= 3

no. ;eli grid blocks above reservoir= 5
well raduis= 0.16667 ft outer raduis= 10,000. ft
depth to top of reservoir= 6,000. ft
depth to bottom of reservoir-. 6,050. ft
absolute permeability= 100. md porosity= 0.25
skin factor= 5
init. bottomhole pressure =3,100. psia
init. oil aattiration= 0.78 init. water saturation= 0.22
init. well water mass fract. of liquid= 0.0 init. well gas mass fract.=0.00
oil i)rcxiuction rate= 1.000 BPD
prr&ing period= 20,’ days buildup period= 3. days

Table 3: Input data for multiphaae buildup analysis

-—-.
no. grid blocks in r-direction= 20 “ no. grid blocks in z-direc%on= 3
no. well grid blocks above reservoir= 5
well raduis= 0.16667 ft outer raduis= 1,000. ft
depth to top of formation= 8,000. ft depth to bot of formation= 8,020. ft
absolute permeability= 100. md porosity= 0.25
skin factor= o
init. bottomhole pressure =3,4oo. psia
init. oil saturation= 0.78 init. water saturation= 0.22
init. well water mass fract. of liquid= 0.0 init. well gas mass fract,=O.00
oil production rate= 100. BPD
producing period= 300, days buildup period= 5. days

Table 4 Input datri for multiphase buildup with anomalous behavior

 SURFACE LEVEL
* I
ok
, ,2 at J
1‘3
WELLBORE SIOE RESERVOIR S1 3E
UPPER wELLBORE SECT ION
,‘4 I
I k.1 2 k+!
1 ,
‘5
Q:k-t /2

C19~., ,2 -+- --––-

+- +-+--

la:k+l /’2
lk

Qwk t
I
2k

---b-
24
- Q’t - -----
21 QGk+! n ,k,
2 ~91z 15’” 2 k-1
t
,.
25
19 22
‘L” r
LOWER
7 1013 ‘$ 26
-_+- . ..––– -+–-J-
WELLBORE 20 25 I t 1
II ~ 17
SECTION [ B

Fig. Igridblockmcdel Fig. 2 point distributed @dsystem forweUbre/-rvok intmatio”

. .

I
,..

**+
● ✎ ✎

.*.
.. ++
✎ ✎ ✎
✎☛✎
●

00 xxx
00 xxx%
0 xx x
x xxx
x ,,, %
x xx x
x xxx
x XXxx
x xxx
x xxx
x xxx%
x xx x
x xx
x xxx
x xx,

200
tp..
. -... . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. ... .
1
._ —— l---l -.-.-! I
5x5 submttica u.heelements wethederimtiv~of FU
o~-J-
with respect Iotbe wellbore primnrymriabks. (1 2 4 6 8 10 12
x- 3x3submatrices wbmeeIcments arethedetivalivs oIF’
with respect to the reservoir primary variables.
TIME (DAYS)
+ - 5x3 submatricea whmed=mts wthed<rivativmof F-
with respect to the resersoirprinta-y wmiek% Fig. 4gminjection profile
o- 3x5subwtric= wbmeelements nretbcdmi,~ti\.~ of P
with mspc t totbe welltore primary wwkbles.

‘$r——————n
t
— Top hyer ~ 0.1s

h
... middle layer .s Toplayer
— ImOnrlayer $
\
--- -——— ___ ~ 0.1
‘,. . . ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g
= CurmnIappmach3k E?
q 0,0$
3 ,. layer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . middle
.........
bonomlayer
——_ ___ ———— —
o
* 1~, I I I I I I ,

O 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 iO 12

TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)

Fig. o Imsitu
p mw ftactiona in the Uwlikre
Fig. s wa:m injedon pmfik
 O.0001 0.001 0.01 0,1 1 1(I
?lMS(DAYS)
Fig. 8 gaI quatity tbm.agb FwIomtiom in lab .aM
FW. 7 Aefnatic repraentation d expaimmtd Ipptratu#

Iw
t -1
-1
E ‘.
‘.
E? 32a) ‘
‘,
‘.
@ 3100
‘,
2
‘.
.~ 30(M) ‘!
u) _TwcMkddmodel ‘...
... Mixnucmodel ,.
2200 ---
.....
29(N)

2of)o~
[

1 10 100 1000 10000

28.~ 1 10 100 1000 10000 let05
HORNER
TIME,(t+dt)/dt HORNERTIME!.(WdtMdt
Iw. u dleet C4gti mlubihty on Iwild”p p-we rcspow
Fig. 10 compuimn bet- mixture model and twdhid
modrt
—
-AIM pumrebuitdup &bAViW

32fM

3000 ..
F
28(M) ...
!! ‘.

i! 2600- ““.,
- .. . ---
; —. ---,-
&!4al ‘,
VI
_ T&wo&i~~d
2200 [~ ...

2000
1 10 100 1000 1000O
HORNERTIME,(t+dt)/dt
% tI CQUWU&XI
brlmenmisluremcd.d and ;wfltd mcdel.
no UIOmatrnu prcsmm
~W=

1S2