0
Research Papers: Energy Systems Analysis

Correcting Inflow Performance Relationship Curves for Explicitly Coupling Reservoir Simulations and Production Systems Simulations

[+] Author and Article Information
João Carlos von Hohendorff Filho

Department of Energy,
Center for Petroleum Studies,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Campinas,
P.O. Box 6052,
São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil
e-mail: hohendorff@cepetro.unicamp.br

Denis José Schiozer

Department of Energy,
Center for Petroleum Studies,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Campinas,
P.O. Box 6052,
São Paulo13083-970, Brazil

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 10, 2017; final manuscript received September 18, 2017; published online October 24, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Daoyong (Tony) Yang.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 140(3), 032006 (Oct 24, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: JERT-17-1159; doi: 10.1115/1.4038045 History: Received April 10, 2017; Revised September 18, 2017

There are many ways to integrate reservoir and production system simulations to forecast production, in a single model (implicit) or in coupled models (explicit). Explicit coupling, a simple and flexible coupling method, has the advantage of using commonly available commercial software to integrate reservoir and production systems simulations. However, explicit coupling may produce large deviations as the inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve, which combines well pressure and production and injection rates, can only be evaluated or amended at the beginning of a time-step. As the IPR curve changes during a time-step, it may be necessary to correct unstable results for well pressure and rates. Using a previously proposed IPR correction method, numerical stability was improved, reducing deviations during advancing the time step. A formula was created to support the correction of IPR curve. The methodology was tested using cases with known responses for pressures and flow rates, for a predetermined production strategy from the benchmark case UNISIM-I-D. Deviations were reduced to near zero when compared with uncoupled and decoupled methodologies to integrate reservoir with production system simulations.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Camponogara, E. , and Nakashima, P. H. R. , 2006, “ Optimal Allocation of Lift-Gas Rates Under Multiple Facility Constraints: A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Approach,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 128(4), pp. 280–289. [CrossRef]
Romero, O. J. , and Hupp, A. , 2013, “ Subsea Electrical Submersible Pump Significance in Petroleum Offshore Production,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(1), p. 012902. [CrossRef]
Mamghaderi, A. , Bastami, A. , and Pourafshary, P. , 2012, “ Optimization of Waterflooding Performance in a Layered Reservoir Using a Combination of Capacitance-Resistive Model and Genetic Algorithm Method,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(1), p. 013102. [CrossRef]
Coats, B. K. , Fleming, G. C. , Watts, J. W. , Rame, M. , and Shiralkar, G. S. , 2004, “ A Generalized Wellbore and Surface Facility Model, Fully Coupled to a Reservoir Simulator,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 7(2), pp. 132–142. [CrossRef]
Zapata, V. J. , Brummett, W. M. , Osborne, M. E. , and Van Nispenl, D. J. , 2001, “ Advances in Tightly Coupled Reservoir/Wellbore/Surface-Network Simulation,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 4(2), pp. 114–120. [CrossRef]
Ghorayeb, K. , Holmes, J. , Torrens, R. , and Grewal, B. , 2003, “ A General Purpose Controller for Coupling Multiple Reservoir Simulations and Surface Facility Networks,” SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX, Feb. 3–5, SPE Paper No. 79702.
Bento, D. F. , 2010, “Influência De Restrições De Produção Na Definição Da Estratégia De Explotação De Campos De Petróleo,” M.Sc. dissertation, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Al-Mutairi, S. M. , Hayder, E. M. , Al-Shammari, A. T. , Al-Jama, N. A. , and Munoz, A. , 2010, “ A Study of Coupling Surface Network to Reservoir Simulation Model in a Large Middle East Field,” SPE North Africa Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, Feb. 14–17, SPE Paper No. 127976.
Hayder, M. E. , Putra, S. A. , and Shammari, A. T. , 2011, “ Coupled Facility and Reservoir Simulations to Optimize Strategies for a Mature Field,” SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Oct. 9–11, SPE Paper No. 147994.
Rotondi, M. , Cominelli, A. , Di Giorgio, C. , Rossi, R. , Vignati, E. , and Caraati, B. , 2008, “ The Benefits of Integrated Asset Modeling: Lesson Learned From Field Cases,” Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy, June 9–12, SPE Paper No. 113831.
Vera, R. A. R. , Solano, K. , Guevara, S. , Velezquez, M. , and Saputelli, L. A. , 2007, “ Integration of Subsurface, Surface, and Economics Under Uncertainty in Orocual Field,” SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Apr. 15–18, SPE Paper No. 107259.
Cao, H. , Samier, P. , Kalunga, H. M. , Detige, E. , and Obi, E. , 2015, “ A Fully Coupled Network Model, Practical Issues and Comprehensive Comparison With Other Integrated Models on Field Cases,” SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX, Feb. 23–25, SPE Paper No. 173251.
Schiozer, D. J. , 1994, “Simultaneous Simulation of Reservoir and Surface Facilities,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2861882
Güyagüler, B. , Zapata, V. J. , Cao, H. , Stamati, H. F. , and Holes, J. A. , 2011, “ Near-Well Subdomain Simulations for Accurate Inflow Performance Relationship Calculation to Improve Stability of Reservoir-Network Coupling,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 14(5), pp. 634–643. [CrossRef]
Liang, J. , and Rubin, B. , 2014, “ A Semi-Implicit Approach for Integrated Reservoir and Surface-Network Simulation,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 17(4), pp. 559–571.
Middya, U. , and Dogru, A. H. , 2008, “ Computation of Average Well Drainage Pressure for a Parallel Reservoir Simulator,” SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, May 10–12, SPE Paper No. 120816.
Hohendorff Filho, J. C. V. , and Schiozer, D. J. , 2014, “ Evaluation on Explicit Coupling Between Reservoir Simulators and Production System,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(4), p. 044501.
Cotrim, H. A. , Hohendorff Filho, J. C. V. , and Schiozer, D. J. , 2011, “ Production Optimization Considering Interaction Between Reservoirs and Constrained Surface Facilities,” SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Oct. 9–11, SPE Paper No. 148334.
Hohendorff Filho, J. C. V. , and Schiozer, D. J. , 2016, “ A Correction Methodology for Explicit Coupling Between Reservoir and Production System Simulators,” XXXVII Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering, Brasília, Brazil, Nov. 6–9, Paper No. CILAMCE2016-0781. http://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/ripe/article/viewFile/24347/17420
Ertekin, T. , Abou-Hassem, J. H. , and King, G. R. , 2009, Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, SPE, Richardson, TX.
Avansi, G. D. , and Schiozer, D. J. , 2015, “ UNISIM-I: Synthetic Model for Reservoir Development and Management Applications,” Int. J. Model. Simul. Pet. Ind., 9(1), pp. 21–30. http://www.ijmspi.org/ojs/index.php/ijmspi/article/download/152/85
Schiozer, D. J. , Santos, A. A. S. , and Drummond, P. S. , 2015, “Integrated Model Based Decision Analysis in Twelve Steps Applied to Petroleum Fields Development and Management,” EUROPEC, Madrid, Spain, June 1–4, SPE Paper No. 174370.
Gaspar, A. T. , Maschio, C. , Santos, A. A. , Avansi, G. D. , Hohendorff Filho, J. C. V. , and Schiozer, D. J. , 2013, “ UNISIM-I-D: Case Study for Selection of Production Strategy,” UNISIM, Campinas, SP/Brazil, accessed July 14, 2016, http://www.unisim.cepetro.unicamp.br/benchmarks/br/unisim-i/unisim-i-d
Flores, J. G. , Sarica, C. , Chen, T. X. , and Brill, J. P. , 1998, “ Investigation of Holdup and Pressure Drop Behavior for Oil-Water Flow in Vertical and Deviated Wells,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 120(1), pp. 8–14. [CrossRef]
Furukawa, H. , Shoham, O. , and Brill, J. P. , 1986, “ Predicting Compositional Two-Phase Flow Behavior in Pipelines,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 108(3), pp. 207–210. [CrossRef]
Sukarno, P. , Saepudin, D. , Dewi, S. , Soewono, E. , Sidarto, K. A. , and Gunawan, A. Y. , 2009, “ Optimization of Gas Injection Allocation in a Dual Gas Lift Well System,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 131(3), p. 033101. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Oscillatory behavior of grid block pressure and water rate in explicit coupling without correction, for the injector well in the five-spot evaluation test for model RJS19

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sequence of grid block pressure drop and water rate drop over consecutive time steps, for the injector well in the five-spot evaluation tests, indicating linear correlations between variables

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Oscillatory behavior of grid block pressure and water rate in explicit coupling with correction, for the injector well in the five-spot evaluation test for model RJS19

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Tridimensional porosity map—UNISIM-I-D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Liquid production for field (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Water production for field (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Water injection for field (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Oil production for PROD-026 (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Well bottom-hole pressure for PROD-026 (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Water injection for INJ-022 (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Well bottom-hole pressure for INJ-022 (case 1—BHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Liquid production for field (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Water production for field (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Water injection for field (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Oil production for PROD-026 (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Well bottom-hole pressure for PROD-026 (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Water injection for INJ-006 (case 2—WHP restriction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Well bottom-hole pressure for INJ-006 (case 2—WHP restriction)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In