Optimizing CO2-injection by

Compositional Simulation

Tor Arild Melby

Petroleum Geoscience and Engineering (2 year)

Submission date: June 2014
Supervisor:
Odd Steve Hustad, IPT

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics

Norwegian University of Science and

Technology
Masters Thesis
TPG 4915

Optimizing CO2-Injection by Compositional

Simulation

Supervisor:

Author:
Tor Arild Melby

Prof. Odd Steve Hustad

June 6, 2014

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied

Geophysics

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Odd Steve Hustad, who has during this semester helped and guided me in making my thesis
complete. I would also like to give my thanks to Olav R. Hansen, Bamshad
Nazarian and Statoil for helping and supplying me with the necessary equipment and data. I would also like to give my thanks to Lastly, I would like to
give my thanks to family and friends for supporting me through my studies,
especially Joakim Leboulvais Brkja and Gunnar Sie Dahle who took their
time reading and correcting my thesis.

Tor Arild Melby, June6, 2014

Abstract
Reservoir simulation is used to predict flow of fluids through porous media.
The purpose is to get an insight into how the reservoir performs by for example employing certain injection methods and/or modelling options in order to
optimize investment decisions. In this thesis reservoir simulation is used as
a tool to aid in the process of simulating hysteresis in one of Statoils field
models. Hysteresis affects the pattern of fluid flow in the reservoir. In order
to optimize oil prediction this phenomena is studied. Hysteresis is seldom
employed in field models due to its complexity and requirement of computational resources. However, it is an important phenomena which causes change
in saturation direction and trapping of fluid phases. Water-alternating-gas injection (WAG) is a method causing rapid changes in saturation direction, but
in this thesis CO2 -injection has been the main focus.
In order to employ hysteresis to the field model, new relative permeabilityand capillary pressure curves were made based on experimental data. Corey
correlation was used to make gas-oil and water-oil relative permeability curves
for the 5 different rock types in the model. Only kr hysteresis was studied
due to the fact that enabling capillary pressure caused too many problems for
the simulator. Eclipse300 was the selected simulation tool used to simulate
the different two-phase hysteresis models available; Carlsons-, Killoughs- and
Jargons methods. Carlsons method gave the most optimistic oil predictions
while Killoughs method gave the least. Jargons method proved to be the
least computational heavy method. However, what all the methods had in
common was that a bigger saturation of gas was left in the reservoir compared
with the case of no hysteresis selected. A comparison between the different
injection methods are also given, where simultaneous water and gas injection
proved to be the most cost efficient in terms of oil volumes produced versus the amount of CO2 injected. Injecting at different BHPs was tested to
simulate immiscible- and miscible CO2 behavior. An increase in numerical
instabilities was observed when BHP was set to miscible conditions, causing
severe inconsistencies in calculated relative permeability curves, ultimately
resulting in non-physical behavior of the fluid flow.

ii

Lastly, a sensitivity analysis of the three-phase models was done, including ODD3P. The ODD3P model predicts less ultimate oil recovery compared
to the traditional models, even though it extends the three-phase saturation
range. However, an increase in oil prediction was observed pre-injection. This
is due to a different table input and a different way of handling saturation
changes, compared to the traditional models. Based on earlier published results done on WAG simulations comparing experimental data with numerical
(hysteresis- and non-hysteresis) models[23], the IKU3P model, which ODD3P
is an extension of, gave the closest match to the experimental data. Based
on this the ODD3P model possibly estimates a more realistic oil prediction
compared to the traditional models.

iii

Sammendrag
Reservoarsimulering blir brukt til
a prediktere strmning av fluider gjennom porse media. Hovedformlet er
a f
a en innsikt i hvordan reservoaret
oppfrer seg ved eksempelvis forskjellige injeksjonsmetoder, slik at en kan
optimalisere investeringsbeslutninger. Hovedfokuset for denne avhandlingen
har vrt
a implementere hysterese p
a en av Statoils feltmodeller, og studere
hvordan dette har p
avirket strmningsmnsteret i reservoaret. Hysterese er
sjeldent anvendt i feltmodeller p
a grunn av dets kompleksitet og krav n
ar det
kommer til dataressurser. Likevel er det et viktig fenomen som forekommer
i prosesser som frer til endring i metningsretningen. Alternerende vann-og
gassinjeksjon for
arsaker store endringer i metningsretning, men i denne avhandlingen har CO2 -injeksjon vrt hovedfokuset.
For
a kunne bruke hysterese i feltmodellen ble nye relative permeabilitet og kapillrtrykkskurver generert basert p
a eksperimentelle data . Corey korrelasjon ble brukt til
a lage gass-olje- og vann-olje relative permeabilitetskurver for de 5 forskjellige steintypene i modellen. Eclipse300 var det valgte
simuleringsverktyet som ble brukt til
a simulere de ulike to-fase hysteresemodellene; Carlsons- , Killoughs- og Jargons metoder . Carlsons metode gav
de mest optimistiske oljeprediksjonene mens Killoughs metode gav de laveste.
Jargons metode viste seg
a vre den minst beregningstunge metoden. En
sammenligning mellom de forskjellige injeksjonsmetodene er ogs
a gitt, simultaneous gas-and water injeksjon viste seg
a vre den mest kostnadseffektive
i forhold til oljevolum produsert mlt mot mengder CO2 injisert . Injisering
p
a ulike bunnhullstrykk ble testet for
a simulere ikke-blandbar og blandbar
CO2 forhold. En kning av numeriske ustabiliteter ble observert n
ar BHP
ble satt til blandbare forhold, som frte til at relativ permeabilitietskurver og
skannekurver kalkulert ikke stemmer overens med virkeligheten.

iv

Til slutt ble det utfrt en sensitivitetsanalyse av tre-fase modeller, inkludert ODD3P. ODD3P modellen predikterer mindre oljeutvinning i forhold til
de tradisjonelle modellene, selv om den har et strre tre-fase metningsomr
ade.
Men en kning i olje utvunnet ble observert fr injeksjon. Dette er p
a grunn av
en annen tabellinnputt, sammenlignet med de tradisjonelle modellene. Basert
p
a tidligere publiserte resultater gjort p
a WAG- simuleringer med IKU3P
modellen[23], som ODD3P er basert p
a, vil ODD3P mest sannsynlig gi en
mer realistisk olje prediksjon i forhold til de tradisjonelle modellene.

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Description of Employed Softwares
1.3.1 Eclipse300 . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.2 PVTsim . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2 CO2 -Injection: In Retrospect

1
1
1
2
2
2
3

3 Fundamentals and Concepts

3.1 Forces in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Interfacial tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Wettability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3 Effect of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4 Viscous Forces in Porous Medium . . . . . .
3.2 Fluid Flow in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Darcys Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Relative Permeability Models . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Two-Phase Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1.1 Corey Correlation . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Three-Phase Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.1 ECLIPSE Default Model . . . . . .
3.3.2.2 Stones First Model . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.3 Stone Exponent Model . . . . . . .
3.3.2.4 Stones Second Model . . . . . . .
3.3.2.5 ODD3P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Relative Permeability Hysteresis . . . . . . .
3.4.1.1 Hysteresis in the non-wetting phase
3.4.1.2 Hysteresis in the wetting phase . .
3.4.1.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
5
5
7
8
10
11
11
12
15
15
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
25
25
26
27
28

3.4.2

3.5

PVT
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6

Capillary Pressure Hysteresis . . . . . . . . .

3.4.2.1 Water Capillary Pressure Modelling
3.4.2.2 Gas Capillary Pressure Modelling . .
Properties and Phase-Behavior . . . . . . . . .
P-T Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure-molar-volume Dependency . . . . . .
Mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vaporizing Gas Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Condensing Gas Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism . . . . . .

4 Simulation Study
4.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Reservoir Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Permeability and Porosity . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Fluid Description . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.1 Crude Properties . . . . . . .
4.2.2.2 CO2 Properties . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.3 CO2 -Oil Properties . . . . . .
4.2.2.4 Water Properties . . . . . . .
4.2.2.5 Equation of State . . . . . . .
4.3 Traditional Saturation Functions . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Gas-Oil Relative permeability Curves .
4.3.2 Water-Oil Relative permeability Curves
4.3.3 Capillary Pressure Curves . . . . . . .
4.4 ODD3P Saturation Functions . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Workflow and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
5 Results and Observations
5.1 No Hysteresis Select . . . . . . .
5.1.1 CO2 -Injection . . . . . . .
5.2 Hysteresis Select . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Hysteresis vs No hysteresis

vii

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

31
31
33
34
35
35
36
38
38
40

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

42
42
43
43
46
46
47
48
48
49
53
54
57
59
60
64

.
.
.
.

66
66
67
68
68

5.3

5.4
5.5

5.2.2 Immiscible vs Miscible CO2 -Injection

5.2.3 Non-wetting Hysteresis Methods . . .
Flow Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Immiscible CO2 -Injection . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Miscible CO2 -Injection . . . . . . . .
Other Methods of Injection . . . . . . . . .
Three-phase Models Comparison . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6 Discussion
6.1 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 No Hysteresis Select . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Hysteresis Method Evaluation . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2.1 Immiscible CO2 -Injection . . . . . . .
6.1.2.2 Miscible CO2 -Injection . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2.3 ODD3P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Flow Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4 Importance of Hysteretic Effects . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4.1 ODD3P versus the Traditional Models
6.2 Model Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 No Hysteresis Select . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Hysteresis Select . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2.1 Diluted CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2.2 Convergence near critical conditions .
6.2.2.3 History-matched data Comparison . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

70
73
74
74
75
76
82

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

85
85
85
87
87
89
91
94
96
99
103
103
105
106
107
109

7 Conclusion

112

8 Future Recommendations

114

A Appendix
A.1 Old Curves . . . . . . .
A.2 New Curves . . . . . . .
A.3 Immiscible CO2 -Injection
A.4 Miscible CO2 -Injection .

121
. 121
. 127
. 134
. 140

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

viii

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

A.5 ODD3P Immiscible Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

B Appendix
152
B.1 Data File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B.2 ODD3P tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
B.3 Prediction File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

ix

List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Illustration of mechanical forces influencing a droplet of water on a

solid surface[30]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
a. water-wet, b. oil-wet, c. neutral-wet.[30] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Effect of Gas/Oil capillary pressure on gravity drainage in dipping
layer. X axis is CG-number[37]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Capillary number[10][16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a.Effective and b. Corresponding relative permeabilities.[7] . . . . . . 13
Oil-Water Drainage process.[15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Oil-Water Imbibition process.[15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3-Phase relative permeability graph.[31] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The ECLIPSE default three-phase oil relative permeability model.[26] 19
Ternary representation of saturation values with two-phase data.[11] . 22
Demonstration of hysteresis.[11] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Demonstration of hysteresis.[4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
non-wetting phase hysteresis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
wetting phase hysteresis.[26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
non-wetting phase hysteresis by different methods.[8]. . . . . . . . . . 28
Water Capillary Pressure.[26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Water Capillary Pressure.[26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CO2 Phase Diagram[34]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Schematic P-
v diagram.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Conditions for different types of oil displacements by solvents[18]. . . 37
Multi-contact Vaporizing Drive[16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Multi-contact Condensing Drive[16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
EOS-calculated slimtube-profiles for condensing/vaporizing gas drive.[34]. 41
SATNUM allocations,top layer is layer 1. Color ranging from left to
right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. . . . . . . . 44
SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 18. Color ranging from left
to right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively . . . . . . 44
SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 30. Color ranging from left
to right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively . . . . . . 45
x

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

47
48

SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 42. Color ranging from left
to right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively . . . . .
SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 50. Color ranging from left
to right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively . . . . .
Surface Volumes initially in-place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Old Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock type 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gas-oil relative permeability, Rocktype 1B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oil-water relative permeability, Rocktype 1B . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oil-water capillary pressure, Rocktype 1B. Solid line represents primary drainage, while dashed line represents imbibition. . . . . . . .
Ternary representation of traditional data conversion. Swir = 0.2 and
Sorg = 0.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transformed data, along gas-lines (top), along oil-lines (bottom). . .
Transformed data, along gas-lines (green and yellow), along oil-lines
(red and blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rock type 1 data set for ODD3P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New (black line) and old (red line) depletion case, FOPR vs time .
New curves (top) and old curves (bottom). FOPR vs time for 150,190
and 310 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis (red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 150 bar. . . .
Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis (red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 190 bar. . . .
Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis (red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 310 bar. . . .
FOPR vs time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FOPT vs time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CO2 Injected vs time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Killoughs (black), Carlsons (green) and Jargons (red) method for
handling hysteresis giving an additional RF of 4.20, 4.96 and 6.91 %,
respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi

. 45
.
.
.
.
.

46
46
53
56
58

. 59
. 60
. 61
. 62
. 63
. 66
. 67
. 68
. 69
.
.
.
.

69
70
71
72

. 73
. 74
. 75

49

50

51

52
53
54
55

56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

Effect of hysteresis on water injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method
(green). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of hysteresis on WAG-injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method
(green). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of hysteresis on SWAG-injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method
(green). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CO2 injected relative to FOPT for GI (black), SWAG (red), WAG
(green) and WI (blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ECLIPSE default model (black) compared with Stones 1st model
(red) and Stones 2nd model (blue) and ODD3P option (green). . . .
ODD3P model transformations, method 1 (along gas-lines) and method
2 (along oil-lines). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Top layer of the reservoir. Upper picture represents default model,
while the lower one represents ODD3P. Note that ODD3P gives better
sweep in high permeable layers. Upper picture shows more blue spots,
which is water saturation. Additional pictures are given in Appendix.
Implementing new relative permeability curves (red line) . . . . . . .
Illustrational example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block 42 68 22 Data, High gas saturation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block Data, Low gas saturation, layer 50 of the reservoir . . . . . . .
Block 35 67 22 data, red line representing gas and black represents oil.
Block 35 67 22 data, Carlsons Method, red line representing gas and
black represents oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block 35 67 22 data, Jargons Method, red line representing gas and
black represents oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block 42 68 22 data, immiscible conditions, ODD3P model, no hysteresis engaged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii

76

77

78
79
82
84

84
85
86
87
88
89
90
90
91

64

65
66

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

to the left; Capillary pressure and relative permeability mode switching in ODD3P[11], to the right; Block 52 67 1 showing how ODD3P
handles hysteresis for immiscible CO2 conditions. (increasing to decreasing to increasing saturation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Block 35 67 22 data, miscible conditions, ODD3P model. . . . . . . . 93
Block 49 68 22 data, no hysteresis, black line represents gas data, red
represents water data and green represents oil data. Upper picture
shows change in relative permeabilities, while the lower shows change
in saturations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Block 49 68 22 data, hysteresis enabled, black line represents gas data,
red represents water data and green represents oil data. . . . . . . . . 95
Block 49 68 22 data, ODD3P model, black line represents gas data,
red represents water data and green represents oil data. . . . . . . . . 95
Case 1, system without hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case 2, system with hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Gas-oil relative permeability, Rocktype 1B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Flow areas of transformation through method 1, Rock type 1. . . . . 99
Flow areas of transformation through method 2, Rock type 1. . . . . 100
Illustration of typical Stone-type isoperms, Rock type 1.[12] . . . . . 101
Illustration of typical Stone-type isoperms, Rock type 1, including
ODD3P transformation method 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Overview of NEWBASE0 and NEWBASE2 which are Pc enabled and
Pc frozen, respectively. x-axis represents time lapsed in years. . . . . 104
An extract from the printfile of immiscible CO2 -injection. . . . . . . . 105
Effect of CVCRIT on FOPR vs time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Restartstep initially . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Restartstep post shift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Historymatching hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Historymatching hysteresis, zoomed view on BHPH vs BHP predicted 110
Capillary pressure curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 1B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Gas-Oil Drainage Curve,Rock 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Gas-Oil Drainage Curve,Rock 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
xiii

87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 3.

Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 4.
Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock
Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock
Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock
Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock
Rocktype 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocktype 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiv

. . .
. . .
1B.
1. .
3. .
4. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

123
124
124
125
126
126
127
128
128
129
130
130
131
131
132
132
133
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148

120 Layer 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

121 Layer 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
122 Layer 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

xv

List of Equations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36

Gibbs Free Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Capillary Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mechanical Force Balance . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dimensionless Capillary/Gravity Number . . . .
Capillary Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Darcys Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corey: normalized oil saturation . . . . . . . . .
Corey: normalized water saturation . . . . . . .
Corey: relative oil permeability . . . . . . . . .
Corey: relative water permeability . . . . . . .
Corey: normalized gas saturation . . . . . . . .
Corey: normalized gas saturation . . . . . . . .
Corey: relative oil permeability . . . . . . . . .
Corey: relative gas permeability . . . . . . . . .
Eclipse Default Oil Rel-Perm Definition . . . . .
Stones Oil Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stones Water Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stones Gas Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stones Disproportion Factor,water . . . . . . .
Stones Disproportion Factor,gas . . . . . . . .
Relative Permeability of Oil . . . . . . . . . . .
Stones Second Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ODD3P noramlized Saturations . . . . . . . . .
Minimum phase saturation, ODD3P . . . . . .
Maximum phase saturation, ODD3P . . . . . .
Killoughs trapped critical saturation . . . . . .
Lands trapping constant . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Killoughs relative permeability equation . . . .
Jargons method for critical trapped saturation
Ratio function in Jargons method . . . . . . .
xvi

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
6
7
9
10
11
13
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
23
23
23
29
29
29
29
30

37
38
39
41
46
47
48
49
62

Value X in Jargons Method . . .

Scanning Curve equation, Jargon
Capillary Pressure Equation . . .
Capillary Pressure Equation . . .
General EOS Equation . . . . . .
SRK Equation . . . . . . . . . .
Cubic Form of EOS . . . . . . . .
Mixing Rule related to SRK . . .
Conversion factor . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

xvii

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

30
30
31
32
50
50
51
51
81

1
1.1

Introduction
Background

There are many factors to take into account before CO2 -injection can be executed
in a field. Simulating different scenarios by compositional simulation is one of the
factors that needs to be taken into consideration. In order to minimize errors related to reservoir simulation, and approximate the model as much as possible to the
reality, it is important that the input data in the model is correct and that the fundamental reservoir mechanics are included. Hysteresis, or phase trapping, is a well
known phenomena occurring in the reservoir. However, many reservoir engineers
neglect this effect when simulating full-scale field models, due to its complexity (e.g.
swelling into oil and water which causes changes in IFT and Pc ) and requirement of
computational resources. In order to simulate hysteresis, drainage and imbibition
relative permeability curves, and capillary pressure curves need to be made. SCAL
data are used for this purpose. Corey type relative permeability correlation is a way
of correlating laboratory data. Corey correlation is a simple power-law function with
only one empirical parameter, the power itself. The correlation generates smooth
relative permeability curves. There has also been suggested improvements to the
correlation by Chierici[6] and Sigmund and McCaffery[27] due to shortcomings in
the original Corey correlation. However, in this thesis the general Corey correlation
will be used in order to make the two-phase relative permeability curves based on
experimental data in order to simulate hysteresis.

1.2

Study Objectives

The main objective of this study is to analyse the effect of implementing hysteresis
into a full-scale reservoir model through CO2 -injection. Different hysteresis methods
will be considered in order to optimize reservoir simulation. In order to employ
hysteresis, correct relative permeabilities of the different rock types need to be made.
PVT and phase behavior analysis need to be done in PVTsim to study the behavior
of CO2 in contact with the reservoir crude, in order to describe what happens when
the reservoir crude comes in contact with the CO2 at different pressures.

1.3
1.3.1

Description of Employed Softwares

Eclipse300

Eclipse is a simulation software owned by Schlumberger. It is used in relation

to black oil, compositional, thermal, and streamline reservoir problems. It offers a
robust set of numerical solutions for fast and accurate prediction of dynamic behavior
for all types of reservoirs and development schemes. The ECLIPSE simulator suite
consists of two simulators: ECLIPSE100 and ECLIPSE300, where E100 is the black
oil simulation software, while E300 is the compositional simulation software. Eclipse
300 allows to model multicomponent hydrocarbon flow. In order to get a detailed
description of phase behavior- and compositional changes, E300 uses cubic equation
of state, pressure dependent K-values and black oil fluid treatments. E300 was used
in this thesis to investigate the effect of implementing hysteresis in one of Statoils
fields in the North Sea.
1.3.2

PVTsim

PVTsim is a simulation program developed for reservoir engineers, flow assurance

specialists, PVT lab engineers and process engineers. It is utilized as a tool to
combine fluid characterization procedures with efficient regression algorithms to
match fluid properties and experimental data with a given EOS. In the database,
25 years of data material is collected to give accurate approximations. PVTsim can
simulate slim-tube-displacement process to calculate MMP, including finding MMP
by a given EOS. PVTsim is used in this thesis to get detailed description of the
phase behavior of the reservoir crude and the CO2 .

CO2-Injection: In Retrospect

CO2 -injection is a fairly young method for extracting remaining oil in place of mature reservoirs. During the 1950s the earliest results of CO2 combined with flue gas
were seen as a potential of enhanced oil recovery (EOR)[25]. The research continued
through the 60s and included early field pilots as well as laboratory experiments.
Results were of varying outcome, some showed great potential, others did not. In
the 1970s there was a major development of CO2 pipelines in the Permian basin,
due to positive results from the earlier years.
CO2 -injection has been a method used to recover oil for over 40 years. There are
classic texts related to EOR potential of CO2 , where Fred Stalkup (1983) describes
Miscible Displacement in SPE Monograph 8. The studies conducted, describes
various processes behind EOR due to CO2 , and the influence of various parameters
such as composition, temperature, pressure, salinity and capillary number. The
studies also describe immiscible/miscible displacement in relation with minimum
miscible pressure (MMP). In addition, CO2 behavior is also mentioned, where CO2
rich phase sometimes gets heavier than the oil, which in turn forces the oil to switch
place with the CO2 rich phase.
It is of utter importance to understand the reservoir characterization of the field
where CO2 injection is going to be implemented. This includes an understanding of
how the fluids flow in the reservoir, and an understanding of the reservoirs internal
structure. It was due to lack of this knowledge that many EOR projects encountered
problems related to EOR floods in the past.
When injecting carbon dioxide into sandstone- or carbonate reservoirs, the pressure in the formation will increase. At the same time, when the oil gets in contact
with the CO2 , it swells and the viscosity is being reduced. For light oil reservoirs,
multiple-contact miscibility can be developed. Parts that are being swept above the
MMP results in a remaining oil in place of 0 5 %, depending on sweep efficiency.
With large amounts of natural gas available, growing networks of CO2 pipelines,
low residual oil after CO2 flooding, and effective separation of CO2 for recycling,
3

IOR-technology by CO2 flooding has been proven to be more profitable during recent years. [9]
CO2 has a great potential enhancing and increasing oil recovery. However, it does
not recover all the oil, regardless of whether the reservoir has been previously flooded
with water. Typically, primary recoveries constitutes 5 % - 15 % of OOIP. Secondary recovery gives additional 20 - 40 %. As described earlier, CO2 is capable of
displacing nearly all oil in the reservoir, but a typical recovery addition with CO2
displacement is around 10 - 20 %, if it is under miscible conditions by injecting
an equivalent of 80 % HCPV with CO2 . Immiscible displacements give much less
recovered oil, only 5 - 10 % at most. The fundamentals causing these low oil recoveries can be traced back to the mechanisms behind CO2 flooding. If the injection
process is stable in vertical direction, the displacement will be very effective. If the
process is miscible, heterogeneities will have a less effect. However, barriers will
have a negative impact for these processes.

Fundamentals and Concepts

In order to understand what is happening in the reservoir, it is important to have

a perceptive view of the fundamental reservoir mechanics. The interplay of forces
existing and occurring during an injection process, and the related basic concepts,
are important to understand. As this study mainly focuses on CO2 -injection, it is a
necessity to include the phase behavior of CO2 as well.

3.1
3.1.1

Forces in Porous Media

Interfacial tension

An interface is known as a boundary between two bulk phases. The equilibrium bulk
phases can be: liquid-vapor, liquid-solid, liquid-liquid or vapor-solid. Gases are generally miscible, however, N2 , CO2 and HC-gases may be immiscible depending on
pressure, temperature and composition. When oil is poured into a cylindrical tube
containing water, the pressure will increase to negate the effect of interfacial tension
between the two fluids. This will make a curved shape in the contact surface. The
physical phenomenon occurring is also related to the energy required to establish
the surface area. The molecules near the interface have less kinetic energy than
the bulk phase, and will therefore move less freely. Additionally, the composition
at the interface is different from the bulk composition. Since the total energy is
dependent on temperature, the potential energy of the molecules is greater in the
interface section than in the rest of the volume. The potential energy is proportional to the surface area of the system, and since equilibrium is attained at lowest
potential energy state, the surface area of the system is always minimized. Keeping
temperature, pressure and the amount of material present in the system constant,
the interfacial tension, , may be expressed as a function of Gibbs free energy[19]:
=

G
A

(1)

Where G is Gibbs free energy, and A is the contact area. The unit of surface
tension is therefore energy per area, J/m2 , or more commonly used mN/m.

 is also related to pressure, temperature and composition. The pressure difference that the interfacial tension creates is called capillary pressure, and is given by
the Laplace equation (1806):
Pc = Pnonwetting Pwetting
For a waterwet system the expression becomes:
Pc = Po Pw = (

1
1
+
)
R1 R2

where = oil-water interfacial tension, Pc = capillary pressure, Po = pressure in

the oil phase, Pw = pressure in the water phase, R1, R2 = radii of curvature of the
oil-water interface measured perpendicular to one another.
By convention, capillary pressure is defined by the pressure in the reference phase
minus the non-reference phase. This means that there are two possible solutions
depending on which one is the reference phase. Thus, if a negative pressure is a
solution, the pressure will point in the opposite direction of the pressure chosen
as a reference. For two immiscible displacement fluids, the surface tension will be
positive, due to the reduction of surface area. In the case of two miscible fluids,
the surface tension will be zero. This means that the fluids will be mixed together,
and/or even react with each other. For an ideal homogeneous water-wet cylindrical
tube R1 and R2 can be expressed as R which then again can be written as: R =
radius of the tube/ cosine of the contact angle. This results in the equation above
being simplified to[19]:
Pc =

2cos
r

(2)

3.1.2

Wettability

From thermodynamics the definition of wettability is:The tendency of one fluid

to spread or adhere on a solid surface in the presence of other immiscible fluids.[3]
The wettability of a reservoir can be evaluated through measurements of interfacial
tensions, tensions between fluid-fluid and rock-fluid interfaces, and the contact angle.
The theoretical foundation of the contact angle was first described by Young[36] in
1805. The mathematical equation was, however, formally derived by Laplace[17],
and can be regarded as a mechanical force balance illustrated in Fig.1.
os = ws + ow cos

(3)

Where os = oil-solid, ws = water-solid, ow = oil-water

Figure 1: Illustration of mechanical forces influencing a droplet of water on a solid

surface[30].
When measuring which phase is the wetting phase, is being evaluated. Water
is most commonly used as the reference phase. This means that if is between 0-90
degrees, the solid is water wet. It prefers water in contrast to the other phase. If
is 90 degrees, the solid has neutral wetting properties. For bigger than 90 degrees,
the solid is oil wet. This is illustrated in Fig.2. It is important to note that when
the contact angle increases or decreases, the preferability of the solid does as well.
This means that if the wetting preferability for water decreases the contact angle
7

increases, for this particular system. Wettability is an important parameter when

it comes to enhancing oil recovery, because it affects the distribution, location and
flow of oil and water in the reservoir. Due to varying wetting conditions throughout
the reservoir the flow of injection fluid may pass pores, and oil will be left as residual
saturation. [3]

Figure 2: a. water-wet, b. oil-wet, c. neutral-wet.[30]

When CO2 is injected, it reduces the pH of the formation brine. There exist experimental evidence that wettability changes to less water-wet conditions as pH
decreases.[5] Different methods of injection have been recommended depending on
wetting conditions. If the reservoir is water-wet, continuous gas injection is optimal,
while oil-wet conditions suggest that WAG is the optimal choice of injection.[25]
3.1.3

Effect of Gravity

When two immiscible fluids are in contact with each other, there will be a pressure
difference between them. If the fluid with the lowest density is underneath the other
one, it will experience an upward pointing pressure, due to the buoyancy effect. This
can be observed by pouring water into a burette with oil. The oil will flow upwards,
due to pressure/density differences. This is all due to Archimedes principle. In the
reservoir, density difference, height of the liquid column, permeability and capillary
pressure are some of the most important factors influencing gravity forces during
fluid movements.[32]

However, Ypma (1985) states that under certain conditions, capillary forces are
of minor importance. Ypma has defined a dimensionless capillarity/gravity number
which incorporates gas/oil interfacial tension to describe this statement:

Ncg =

(J/k)
gH

(4)

= porosity, k = absolute permeability, J = average Leverett J-function, H =

is layer thickness in stratified reservoirs or total reservoir thickness. Ncg is related
to the dimensionless recovery expression:
(E Emin )
(Emax ) Emin )
For Ncg less than 0.1, capillary forces start to affect the recovery process. For high

Figure 3: Effect of Gas/Oil capillary pressure on gravity drainage in dipping layer.

X axis is CG-number[37].
permeable reservoirs with low interfacial tension, capillary forces will not have a
major impact on oil recovery. However, it is not certain how low the interfacial
tension can be to make this statement valid.[37]

3.1.4

Viscous Forces in Porous Medium

It is not unusual to express viscous forces in relation to capillary forces. The term
used to do this is called capillary number, Nca . In fluid dynamics, the capillary
number represents the relative effect of viscous forces versus surface tension acting
across an interface between two immiscible fluids.
Nca =

(5)

is the viscosity of the displacing phase, while is the IFT between the displaced
and the displacing phases, and v is the interstitial velocity. What the capillary
number does is correlating data, which it does pretty well. However, there is a
significant scatter in the data. When the capillary number is relatively low, 106
and less, the residual oil is no longer a function of Nca . Although values on the
order of 107 are most common. This indicates that waterflood recoveries should
be independent of injection rate over the range of values that can be accomplished
in practice. It has also been shown by Moore and Slobod that waterflood recoveries
from laboratory cores were just as good as when water was injected at typical rates
used in the field [21]. The capillary number also shows that for values above 105
the residual oil saturation decreases. For values at 102 the residual oil saturation
becomes virtually zero.[10]

10

Figure 4: Capillary number[10][16].

3.2

Fluid Flow in Porous Media

When forces are either supplied or taken from the reservoir, in terms of injection
and production, it causes a net force imbalance. The result is that the fluid within
the pore space of the rock will begin to move. The simplest way of describing fluid
movement in porous media is through Darcys law.
3.2.1

Darcys Law

Darcys law relates fluid velocity and viscosity to fluid potential through a porous
medium by:
k d
(6)
u=
dl
where u is fluid velocity, dl is length of the porous media, is fluid viscosity,
is fluid density and k represents absolute permeability, and d is fluid potential

11

between the ends of the media

d =

dp
+ gdz

where the second term represents the hydrostatic head.

Under normal conditions the absolute permeability is independent of the nature
of the fluid, however, when encountering real gas flow, at very low pressures there
is a slippage between the gas molecules and the walls of the porous media, resulting
in an apparent increased permeability. This phenomenon is called the Klinkenberg
effect.[7] Hence, it is important to make corrections when doing laboratory experiments calculating permeabilities through air flow rates in core plugs.
3.2.2

Relative Permeability

Permeability is the mediums ability to conduct fluid flow. In systems where two or
more fluids are flowing simultaneously, each fluid will have its own effective permeability. These permeabilities are dependent on the saturations of each fluid. The
sum of the effective permeabilities are always less than the absolute permeability.
Consider two points on the effective permeability curve for water. Initially the water
saturation is 1. At this point the rock is entirely saturated with water, and Kw =
k, the absolute permeability. When Sw has been decreased to Swc (drainage) there
will be no flow of water, since the residual water is immovable. At this point Kw
= 0. Between the end-points, the effective permeabilities are assumed the shapes
as shown in Fig.5. The main factors influencing the shapes of the curves are pore
size, pore size distribution, wettability, saturation and saturation history (drainage
or imbibition).[29] Important to point out is that relative permeability is special for
flow through porous media. For a two-phase system Krj + Kri 1, which is also
a specific attribute of flow behavior due to relative permeability. This is a result of
the phases competing to flow through pore throats. From Fig.5, the effective permeability curves and relative permeability curves have exactly the same shapes. The
only difference is that the relative permeabilities scales from 0 to 1. Relative permeabilities are used due to mathematical convenience since in many displacement

12

Figure 5: a.Effective and b. Corresponding relative permeabilities.[7]

calculations, the ratio of effective permeabilities can be simplified to:
K Kro (Sw )
Kro (Sw )
Ko (Sw)
=
=
Kw (Sw)
K Krw (Sw )
Krw (Sw )

(7)

For two-phase flow, one usually presents relative permeability in plots, where
non-wetting phase and wetting phase are plotted versus increasing non-wetting saturation. Considering an oil-water drainage and imbibition in a completely water-wet
system, the drainage curves are represented by Fig.6. Initial water saturation is 1,
decreasing to Swir .

Figure 6: Oil-Water Drainage process.[15]

During imbibition the porous media is filled with both oil and water at initial
13

conditions, where Sw = Swir . In this case the wetting phase is increasing in saturation.

Figure 7: Oil-Water Imbibition process.[15]

For systems which are less water-wet the capillary pressure curves will have
a negative part at high water saturations. Drainage and imbibition are common
processes occurring in the reservoir where injection takes place. During initial stages
of pressure depletion, imbibition is the main process direction. This is however
dependent of how active the water aquifer is. In the case of water injection the
saturation process will revers, causing drainage to occur. When wetting fluid is
increasing and decreasing in saturation, this causes hysteresis, and ultimately results
in pore-trapping of fluid.

14

3.3

Relative Permeability Models

Relative permeability can be modelled depending on how many phases there are
in the system. There are certain models related to two-phase systems and others
related to three-phase systems. In this section, a short outline will be given for the
most used models for both two-phase- and three-phase systems.
3.3.1

Two-Phase Systems

A couple of correlations for modelling two-phase relative permeability curves have

been proposed in earlier studies, such as Wyllie and Gardners correlation[35], Torcaso and Wyllie correlation[33], Pirsons correlation and Coreys power-law correlation. Since the latter one is employed, only this model will be studied in depth.
3.3.1.1 Corey Correlation
A commonly used approach to generate the relative permeability and capillary pressure curves, is the Corey-correlation. It has its base in normalized saturation. For
water/oil system:
1 Sw Sor
= 1 Swn
(8)
Son =
1 Swir Sor

Swn =

Sw Sor
1 Swir Sor

(9)

No,p
Kro = Son

(10)

No,p
Krw = Swn

(11)

Important to note is that the Corey exponents are different for each process, p,
representing either imbibition or drainage.

15

Since laboratory experiments are carried out with an irreducible water saturation, The oil/gas equations becomes:
1 Sg Sor
1 Swir Sor

(12)

Sg Sgc
1 Swir Sorg Sgc

(13)

Son =

Sgn =

No,p
Kro = Son

(14)

Ng,p
Krg = Sgn

(15)

Variations of these equations have been used when generating the relative permeability curves used in this study. The equations have been modified according
to the end-point values, and are somewhat simplified in some cases. This will be
explained in further detail in the Simulation Study chapter.
3.3.2

Three-Phase Systems

Phases considered in a three-phase system are: water, oil and gas. Definitions of the
relative permeabilities and capillary pressures of oil, water and gas are functions of
saturations considered in a completely water wet system with no contact between
gas and water phases. The parameters are thus functions of the following: Krw (Sw ),
Krg (Sg ), Kro (Sw , Sg ), Pcow (Sw ), Pcog (Sg ).
To estimate three-phase relative permeability, two sets of two-phase data are needed
water-oil and gas-oil data. From water-oil data Krw and Krow are obtained as functions of water saturation. Similarly, Krg and Krog are obtained from oil-gas data as
functions of gas-saturation. Hysteresis effects are also taken into consideration. Consider a water-wet system in which oil saturation is decreasing, imbibition data should

16

be used for water-oil data, and drainage data for oil-gas data. For decreasing water
saturations, drainage data should be used for water-oil system. Generally it is not
feasible to treat complicated hysteresis effects caused by oscillating saturations.[31]

Figure 8: 3-Phase relative permeability graph.[31]

In a three-phase flow situation, the oil relative permeability would be a function
of both water and gas saturation. Plotting the data in a triangular diagram, so
that each saturation is represented by one of the sides, oil isoperms can be defined
by the systems maxima and minima saturations. By following one of the isoperms,
saturation changes occurring within a pore can maintain a certain relative oil permeability. The simplest method to generate three-phase permeability curves is simply
to multiply oil-water and gas-oil relative permeabilities:
Kro = Krow Krog
This model, however, is very flawed due to different factors affecting the limiting
saturations in three phase flow compared to two-phase flow. For example, Sor is
process dependent in three-phase flow and very difficult to estimate.

17

3.3.2.1 ECLIPSE Default Model

The default model implemented in eclipse is rather simple, but effective. It assumes
complete segregation of gas and water within each cell. However, water in the gas
zone is equal to Swco . The oil saturation is assumed to be constant and equal to
the block average value, So , throughout the cell. In total So + Sg + Sw = 1, and
assuming the block average saturations are So , Sg and Sw . The saturation equations
for the gas zone cells and water zone cells are as follows: Gas zone cell (in a fraction
of the cell)
Sg
(16)
(Sg + Sw Swco )
Where So is the oil saturation, Swco is water saturation (since Sw = Swco here).
Sg +Sw -Swco is the gas saturation.
In the water zone, the fraction of the cell becomes:
Sw Swco
Sg + Sw Swco

(17)

Where So is the oil saturation. The gas saturation is 0, and the water saturation is
given by Sg + Sw .
The oil relative permeability is then given by:
Kro =

Sg Krog + (Sw Swco )Krow

Sg + Sw Swco

(18)

Where Krog is the oil relative permeability for a system with oil, gas and connate
water. Krow is the oil relative permeability for a two-phase system with oil and water.

18

Figure 9: The ECLIPSE default three-phase oil relative permeability model.[26]

3.3.2.2

Stones First Model

The most commonly used correlations are the so-called Stone-models. They are
fairly simple and are defined as follows:
SoD =

So Sor
1 Swir Sor

(19)

SwD =

Sw Swir
1 Swir Sor

(20)

Sg Sgr
1 Swir Sor

(21)

This is valid for So Sor

Which is valid for Sw Swir

SgD =

Where Sgr 6= 0.

19

These equations represent normalized fluid saturations, and treats connate water
and irreducible residual oil as immobile fluids. The sum of the normalized saturations are equal to 1. When the saturation of normalized oil is 100 %, Kro is also
100 %. A decrease in SoD causes a decrease in relative oil permeability, and as a
result gas and/or water saturation will increase. The reduction in Kro is not proportional with the reduction in the normalized saturation, and therefore needs to
be multiplied by a factor, w and g , to correct this disproportion.
w =

Krow
1 SwD

(22)

g =

Krog
1 SgD

(23)

The relative permeability of oil can be written as:

Kro =

SoD g w
Krocw

(24)

The water/gas saturation dependent factors above are calculated from two-phase
data. By putting g or w equal to zero, it is possible to calculate the corresponding
factor. Due to shortcomings in Stones first model, modifications were made by
Hustad and Holt[12] in their improved Stone Exponent model.

3.3.2.3

Stone Exponent Model

The Stone Exponent model is a modified Stones First Model, where an exponent
term, n, is introduced to the normalized saturations.
Kro =

Krow Krog n

(Kro )Swc

20

(25)

Where
=

So
(1 Sw )(1 Sg )

So =

So Som
1 Swc Som Sgc

Sg =

Sg Sgc
1 Swc Som Sgc

Sw =

Sw Swc
1 Swc Som Sgc

The term may be interpreted as a variable that varies between one and zero for
high-oil and low-oil saturations, respectively. If the exponent equals to one, the
correlation reduces to Stones first model. Increasing the exponent beyond unity,
causes the oil isoperms at low oil saturations to spread from another. Decreasing the
exponent below unity, causes the opposite effect. High values produces a Stone 2
type oil isoperms.
3.3.2.4

Stones Second Model

Stones second model tries to estimate Sor implicitly by the following expression:
Kro = (Krog + Krg )(Krow + Krw ) (Krw + Krg )

(26)

When Kro approaches negative values, the residual oil saturation is found. These
two methods give different relative permeabilities, so one should be careful when
selecting which model to use in each situation. For numerical simulation of WAG
injection, Stones second model severely underestimates the relative oil permeability
in the regions with low oil saturations.[28] Experimental results have also shown
that for water-oil-gas system where Sw and So are decreasing and Sg is increasing,
Stones method 2 predicted three-phase permeabilities better than method 1 at low
gas saturations, but both failed to predict correctly at high gas saturations. In
the case of increasing Sw and So and decreasing Sg , method 2 predictions were not
correct, while method 1 approximated to experimental data.[24]

21

3.3.2.5

ODD3P

The ODD3P method provides a coupled hysteretic model for three-phase relative
permeability and capillary pressures. Three-Phase properties are obtained through
a weighting scheme of two-phase data.[11] The hysteresis formulation is based upon
two limiting scanning curves for increasing and decreasing saturations. When a
saturation process changes direction, capillary pressure is made continuous at the
turning-point saturation by renormalizing the saturation range relative to end-point
and turning-point saturations. The same method is applied for making the relative
permeabilities continuous.
A typical ternary diagram of the ODD3P model is shown below with its respective two-phase end point values.

Figure 10: Ternary representation of saturation values with two-phase data.[11]

As input data the model employs gas-oil, gas-water and oil-water two-phase
capillary pressure and relative permeability data as functions of one of the phase
pairs saturations. The capillary pressure must possess a non-zero gradient. The
gas-oil data differ from the traditional data in that the gas-oil data are at zero water
saturation. If conventional data are used as a basis of input, a transformation of
22

these is needed. There are a couple of ways of transforming the conventional data.
The first method is to transform the data along the constant gas lines. The second
method is to transform the data along the constant oil lines. Arguably the latter
is more correct, this will however be discussed in section 6. Gas-water data are
represented by the oil-water data. The data are then assigned on regional or block
to block basis, represented by the keywords PSTNUM, ISTNUM and DSTNUM.
These keywords contain primary saturation data, increasing saturation data and
decreasing saturation data. It is possible to set ISTNUM = DSTNUM, however,
no hysteretic effects will be accounted for after the increasing saturation process.
This will impact WAG injection, as this method alternates between both increasing
and decreasing saturation processes. During the calculation procedure, the input
saturations are normalized with respect to their end-point saturations by:
Si =

Si Sirj
, i, j = g, o, w
1 Sirj Sjri

(27)

The three-phase saturations are formulated based on the three gridblock saturations and the six gridblock end-point saturations, the minimum and maximum
saturations are calculated as follows:

and

Sj Sirj + Sk Sirk + Sirj Sirk (Si 1)

Simn =
Sj (1 Sirk ) + Sk (1 Sirj )

(28)

Sj Skri + Sk Sjri + Sjri Skri (Si 1)

Simx =
Sj (1 Skri ) + Sk (1 Sjri )

(29)

where, i,j and k represents either the gas,oil or water phase, and i 6= j 6= k. The
gridblock saturations are then normalized by:
Si Simn
Si =
Simx Simn

(30)

Generally, the equation above does not sum to 1 when three phases are present.
However, at the two-phase boundaries the two normalized saturations sum to 1.
23

The gridblock saturations may then be used to obtain representative two-phase

relative permeabilities from the normalized two-phase relative permeabilities. In
total there are two relative permeabilities for each phase, one from each of the twophase system. These are used in calculating three-phase relative permeabilities by
a weighting scheme:
Sk
Sj
k
+
krik
(31)
kri =
rij
Sj + Sk
Sj + Sk
As shown in the equation above, the relative permeability for a particular phase is
a function of its own saturation only without the presence of a third phase. This is
different compared to the traditional models where gas and water are functions of
their respective saturations, while oil is a function of both water and gas saturations.
When it comes to capillary pressure in ODD3P, six choices of saturation dependencies are possible. This is illustrated in Fig.11

Figure 11: Demonstration of hysteresis.[11]

By specifying IPCFN = 0, 0 is put in the pressure equation in ECLIPSE.

24

3.4

Hysteresis

In order to get the relative permeability models correct, hysteresis needs to be employed in the models. Hysteresis refers to the changes in saturation. Hysteresis is
distinguished between relative permeability hysteresis and capillary pressure hysteresis.
3.4.1

Relative Permeability Hysteresis

Relative permeability values for many porous medias are not a unique function of
saturation. It is common to use different relative permeability values for different
increasing/decreasing saturations. Consider a 100 % water-wet system being oilflooded reducing water saturation from a point A to B. From point B, a water-flood
is being initialized, going from path B to C. Subsequently a new oil-flood is being
done, going from C to B. Due to capillary trapping, the water-flooding will not drain
out all of the oil, preventing getting 100 % water in the system. This is referred to
as hysteresis phenomena.

Figure 12: Demonstration of hysteresis.[4]

25

In reservoir engineering relative permeability hysteresis can be modelled in a

couple of ways. It is possible to either employ hysteresis to the non-wetting phase,
or the wetting phase.
3.4.1.1 Hysteresis in the non-wetting phase
Typical non-wetting relative permeability curves are given in Fig.13. Curve 1-2 and
2-3 are user supplied drainage and imbibition curves, respectively. If the drainage or
the imbibition process are reversed at some point, it will not simply reverse following
the same curve, but rather along a scanning curve. Consider a full drainage process
starting at point 1, (critical non-wetting residual saturation for drainage, Sncrd ), the
end-point will be at 2 (Snmax ), from this point the imbibition will start and end at
point 3, (critical non-wetting residual saturation for imbibition). If the imbibition
process started somewhere in between 1 and 2, it would need to follow a scanning
curve, 4-5. The saturation remaining at point 5 is the trapped critical saturation,
which is a function of maximum non-wetting saturation (Shy ).

Figure 13: non-wetting phase hysteresis.

26

3.4.1.2 Hysteresis in the wetting phase

For hysteresis in the wetting phase, curve 1-2 and curve 2-3 are the user specified
drainage- and imbibition curves, respectively. To ensure consistency, the two curves
must meet at the connate saturation. A primary process would follow the path from
1 to 2 during a full drainage. At point 2 the imbibition will start and end up at
point 3 at 1-Sncri (maximum wetting phase saturation that can be reached starting
from Swco ). Assume that an imbibition process is initiated at an arbitrary point on
the primary drainage curve, 4. The process will follow a scanning curve from 4 to 5,
where the saturation equals 1-Shy , and Shy is the maximum saturation that can be
reached on the scanning curve. If a secondary drainage process is initiated, it will
retrace the same scanning curve from 5 to 4.

Figure 14: wetting phase hysteresis.[26]

27

3.4.1.3 Methods
There are three choices of modelling hysteresis in ECLIPSE. Those three are: Carlsons method, Killoughs method and Jargons method.

Figure 15: non-wetting phase hysteresis by different methods.[8].

Carlsons Method
Carlsons method creates a scanning curve parallel to the imbibition curve. It can
easiest be visualized by a horizontal shift of the imbibition curve from Fig.14 where
curve 2-3 is shifted to 4-5. A criteria for this method is that the imbibition curve
needs to be steeper than the drainage curve. If this is not the case, it may produce
negative values of Sncrt .
Killoughs Method
Killoughs hysteresis method can be employed both on the wetting phase and the
non-wetting phase. By using an interpolation formula between input bounding
curves, Killough developed a method to calculate scanning curves from intermediate values.[14] For a given value of Shy , the trapped critical saturation can be
28

calculated as:
Sncrt = Sncrd +

Shy Sncrd
1 + C(Shy Sncrd )

(32)

Where the constant C is a formulation of Lands trapping formula:

C=

1
1

Sncri Sncrd Sn,max Sncrd

(33)

The relative permeability for a particular saturation phase can be calculated as

follows:
Krni (Snorm )Krnd (Shy )
(34)
Krn (Sn ) =
Krnd (Sn,max )
In this equation Krnd and Krni represent relative permeability on the bounding
drainage and imbibition curve, respectively, and
Snorm = Sncri +

(Sn Sncrt )(Sn,max Sncri )

Shy Sncrt

The trapped critical saturation calculated with Killoughs method will always lie
between Sncrd and Sncri , unless drainage and imbibition curves are made to coincide.
The scanning curve will then not necessarily follow this combined curve, except at
its end point values.
Jargons Method
In Jargons hysteresis method the trapped saturation, Sncrt , is constructed by moving the drainage critical saturation towards the imbibition critical saturation by
the same fraction that the hysteresis saturation has moved towards the maximum
non-wetting saturation:
Sncrt = Sncrd +

(Sncri Sncrd )(Shy Sncrd )

Sn,max Sncrd

(35)

A function, R(X), is now constructed, representing the ratio of imbibition and

29

drainage curves as a function of the saturation value scaled between the drainage
curve end point and the maximum saturation:
R(X) =

Kri (Sn )
Krd (Sn )

(36)

X in the equation is defined from the non-wetting saturation Sn by:

X=

Sn Sncrd
Sn,max Sncrd

(37)

Obviously, the interval in which X lies in must be between 0 and 1, where R

goes from 0 at X = 0 to 1 at X = 1, where the two curves meet. A consequence
of the drainage curve being above the imbibition curve, is that R must be between
0 and 1. R is now evaluated at a value of X and then multiplied by the drainage
curve value in order to create scanning relative permeability values. X reflects the
fractional distance of the current saturation between drainage and imbibition curve
end point and the hysteresis saturation.
Krn = R(Xs )Krnd (Sn )

Where
Xs =

(38)

Sn Sncrd
Shy Sncrd

The function R(X) was defined above and can be substituted into the equation for
the scanning curve, resulting in:
Krn =
where

Kri (S)
Krnd (Sn )
Krd (S)

(Sn,max Sncrd )
S = Sncrd + (Sn Sncrd )
Shy Sncrd

30

3.4.2

Capillary Pressure Hysteresis

In this section capillary pressure hysteresis will be considered, where primary drainage
and imbibition curves are available. Capillary pressure hysteresis occurs in threephase- and gas-water cases, and is therefore important to note.
3.4.2.1

Water Capillary Pressure Modelling

Figure 16: Water Capillary Pressure.[26]

From Fig.16 consider that the drainage process, starting at point 1, is reversed
at an arbitrary value between 1 and 2 (point 4 in this case). The capillary pressure
will then move along a scanning curve from point 4 to the trapped critical nonwetting phase saturation at point 5. This curve is formed as a weighted average of
the drainage and imbibition curves, starting with 100 % of the drainage curve at
point 4. Killough has suggested the form:
Pc = Pcd + F (Pci Pcd )

(39)

Where F represents:
F =(

1
1
1
1
)/(
)
Sw Swhy + E E
Swma Swhy + E E
31

(40)

E is a curvature parameter of the order of 0.1

Swhy is the water saturation at the hysteresis reversal point 4. (minimum historical
water saturation in the cell)
Swma is the maximum water saturation attainable for the trapped non-wetting phase
saturation. In ECLIPSE the curvature parameter, E, is specified in item 1 in the
EHYSTR keyword.
Assume that instead of following the scanning curve all the way to point 5, the
imbibition process is reversed at point 6, and a secondary drainage process is initiated. The values will not follow the already generated scanning curve, but may
follow a new drainage-imbibition-drainage curve that returns to point 4 through t
from Fig.16. The t curve is represented by
Pc = Pcd + G(Pci Pcd )

(41)

Where G represents:
G=(

1
1
1
1
)/(
)
Sdep Sw + E E
Sdep Swhy + E E

(42)

Where Swhy is the water saturation at the hysteresis reversal point 4, and Sdep is the
departure saturation, where G = 0.

32

3.4.2.2 Gas Capillary Pressure Modelling

The principle of gas capillary pressure hysteresis is similar to water capillary pressure
hysteresis.

Figure 17: Water Capillary Pressure.[26]

Consider the same analogue for Pcg as it was for Pcw :
Pc = Pcd + F (Pci Pcd )
F =(

1
1
1
1
)/(
)
Sghy Sg + E E
Sghy Sgcr + E E

(43)
(44)

Where the only difference is that Sghy represents the gas saturation hysteresis reversal at point 4. Sgcr represents the maximum water saturation attainable for the
trapped non-wetting phase saturation.

33

3.5

PVT Properties and Phase-Behavior

CO2 is a stable, non-toxic compound found in gaseous state at standard conditions.

For petroleum related applications, CO2 exist as a liquid-like supercritical fluid or as
a gas. When mixed with water it forms carbonic acid, which is a problem regarding
injectivity in carbonate reservoir. The acid will react with the carbonate, eroding
the formation. Corrosion of steel is also significant, so WAG projects require utter
supervision when doing such operations with CO2 .

Figure 18: CO2 Phase Diagram[34].

34

3.5.1

P-T Dependency

Fig.18 represents the phase diagram of CO2 , where phase transitions are shown for
CO2 at different pressures and temperatures. The line separating solid phase and
liquid represents melting. The line separating solid and gas phase represents sublimation. The line separating liquid and vapor is also a boiling/condensing boundary.
Phase transitions in this graph represents CO2 in thermodynamic equilibrium. This
means that it is possible for CO2 to exist at a P-T coordinate corresponding to
another phase. However, this is only temporarily. At stable conditions, CO2 will
eventually revert to the appropriate phase represented by the given pressure and
temperature. At the critical point each phase boundary may or may not be eliminated, however, gas and liquid properties at this point are identical. The region
above is commonly referred to as supercritical due to the fact that the fluid is neither a gas nor a liquid. Related to EOR, critical phenomena play an important
part. Assume a laboratory pressure cell that contains a pure component on its vapor pressure curve. In these conditions it exists both as a gas and a liquid, and the
cell will contain two fluid regions with different properties. One phase will separate
to the top and another to the bottom of the cell. From the original point to the
critical point, little change occur in the cell. However, when the conditions close in
to the critical conditions, the sharp interface between the two phases (that occurred
through segregation) becomes more and more blurred. Extending the conditions
beyond the critical curve will turn the fluid more into a single phase fluid with gradual change in properties. A way to distinguish the phase transitions at the critical
point is through a pressure-molar-volume diagram.
3.5.2

Pressure-molar-volume Dependency

A pressure-temperature diagram contains no information about the molar volume,

just phase boundaries. A pressure-molar-volume plot gives information about liquid/vapor fractions in the fluid for a given isotherm. By keeping the temperature
constant, and altering the pressure, the molar-volume will change and so will the
fraction of vapor/liquid. The left side of the critical point represents 100 % liquid, while the right side represents 100 % vapor. This information is critical to
understand when calculating the roots of the cubic EOS.
35

Figure 19: Schematic P-

v diagram..
Important to point out is the difference between molar volume and volume of a
fluid. molar volume is defined as:
M
(45)
v =

For a single component fluid. It is basically the volume occupied by one mole of a
substance at a given temperature and pressure.
3.5.3

Mixtures

The main purposes of CO2 -injection is either to recover remaining oil in place, or to
store it in the formation. In order to do this, a method to describe the behavior of
the fluids when they come in contact with CO2 is needed. Phase behavior of pure
components is used as an aid to understand complex mixtures. A common way to
describe such mixtures is to use pressure-composition and ternary diagrams as a
result by comparing phase behavior of pure components to the mixture.

36

A compositional ternary plot contains little information about temperature.

However, in return, compositional data is obtainable. The diagram can only show
the composition of one fluid at a time. The information this gives is therefore insufficient compared to what is needed, due to a multitude of components that can form
during an EOR displacement process. Ternary diagrams are usually used to describe
the behavior of mixtures at a constant pressure and temperature. At each corner
of the diagram 100 % of a component is presented, usually a pseudo-component
containing several pure components.

Figure 20: Conditions for different types of oil displacements by solvents[18].

Since composition of the crude changes with depth, the diagram is also representing a specific height in the reservoir. For naturally fractured reservoirs this is
not the case due to the fact that these reservoirs generally have constant composition relations with regards to depth. By looking at the ternary diagram there is
a couple of lines describing contact paths with increasing heavy, intermediate and
light components. If the flooding process is represented by the pathway I1 - J1 ,
the whole process is happening through the two phase envelope, which means that
immiscible displacement is occurring.

37

I2 - J3 : First contact miscible, due to the fact that the two-phase area is not
involved in the pathway. When the initial and injected compositions are on the
opposite side of the critical tie line, vaporizing drive or condensing drive occurs.
I2 - J1 : Vaporizing gas drive
I1 - J2 : Condensing gas drive
I1 - J1 : Immiscible gas drive
3.5.4

Vaporizing Gas Drive

This is a process based on vaporization of intermediate components, ranging from

C5 to C12 , from the oil. These components will then trade place by, e.g. CO2 gas.
It is a viable method for light oil reservoirs. Vaporizing Gas miscible process can
displace almost all the oil being contacted by the displacing gas. However, due to
reservoir heterogeneities and relative permeabilities, the fraction of the reservoir oil
being in contact with the gas may be low. Injection rates are typically higher for
other gases than CO2 , because CO2 has the ability to extract heavier components
compared to hydrocarbon gas. At high pressure, lean gas can develop an in-situ gas
that is sufficiently rich in C2 through C4 to develop miscibility with the reservoir
oil. Another condition for developing miscibility by this process is that the reservoir
should not have an initial free gas saturation. Which means that in order for the
vaporizing-miscible drive mechanism to take place, the gas saturation in front of the
displacement bank must always be zero.[34]
From Fig.21. Consider a pure light component solvent, and a light oil. Since the
dilution path goes through the two-phase region it will not be first contact miscible.
Since the gas-phase from the first cell is higher than the fluid, it will move on to
the second cell, liquid 1 will continue to mix with fresh solvent. At a certain point
the gas mixing with the reservoir crude will no longer develop two-phases and will
instead be first contact miscible.
3.5.5

Condensing Gas Drive

When a gas is injected, and the gas and the oil are initially immiscible, this will
result in multiple contacts condensing drive. If a hydrocarbon rich gas is injected, a
miscible bank will form through condensation of intermediate components from gas
38

Figure 21: Multi-contact Vaporizing Drive[16].

into oil. Further out from the pressure source, the oil will become heavier, due to a
pressure drop, which makes less and less gas condense into the oil.
The process is shown in the ternary diagram below. First mixing cell splits into
G1 and L1 , representing gas and liquid, respectively. L1 will mix with pure solvent
going to L2 containing less liquid, and continue until it results in a single-phase fluid.

Figure 22: Multi-contact Condensing Drive[16].

39

3.5.6

Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism

Zick[1] proposes a mechanism considering both condensing and vaporizing drive.

The easiest way to understand it is to use an oil/gas system composed of four
groups of components as an example. The first group consists of light components,
such as methane, nitrogen and CO2 . The second group consists of light intermediate
components; ethane, propane, butane. The third group contains middle intermediates which can be found in the oil, but not significantly in the gas, usually ranging
from butane to decane. The fourth group consists of everything else. When the
enriched gas comes in contact with the oil, a supply of light intermediate components condenses from gas into the reservoir oil, making the oil lighter. Since the gas
injected is more mobile than the oil, a continuous stream of fresh gas constitutes
with more intermediate components to the oil. If this continued, a the oil will at
a certain point become miscible with the gas injected. This drive makes the condensing gas drive. For a real reservoir oil this is not the only drive occurring. As
this drive takes place, middle intermediates vaporizes from the oil to the gas. After
a few contacts the oil will be saturated with light intermediates but stripped from
middle intermediate components. Since light intermediates cannot substitute loss of
middle intermediates a net effect results in the oil becoming heavier than it initially
was. Five zones can be interpreted from Fig.23:
1. Original oil zone.
2. Condensing zone.
3. Transition from condensing to vaporizing.
4. Vaporizing zone.
5. Tail end where oil residue and injected gas are in equilibrium. [34]
In conventional reservoirs composition is a function of depth. Light components
tend to be on top of the reservoir formation, while heavier fractions are gradually
increasing as the depth increases. If a rich solvent is injected, vaporizing drive can
occur on top, and gradually transition to condensing drive in the bottom of the oil
zone. Minimum miscible pressure (MMP) will therefore vary with depth.[22]

40

Figure 23:
drive.[34].

EOS-calculated slimtube-profiles for condensing/vaporizing gas

41

4
4.1

Simulation Study
Objectives

The main goal of this thesis is to implement hysteresis in the existing Statoil1 field
model. In order to do that new relative permeability- and capillary pressure curves
need to be made. Corey-correlation will be used to make drainage and imbibition
curves based on given experimental data. In order to get a structural overview, the
chapter is divided into three parts; Reservoir Description, Saturation Functions, and
Workflow and Assumptions. In the Reservoir Description part, general information
about the model is given, such as fluid description, permeability and porosity of
the model, SATNUM regions, and so on. The second part consists of the newly
generated saturation functions. The third part consists of assumptions made for the
simulation study, and an overview of the working process.

42

4.2

Reservoir Description

The grid model dimensions are 89x104x207, totalling in 1915992 grid blocks. The
model consists of 9 components, and Soave-Redlich-Kwong EOS is used. Oil, gas
and water are present. Datum depth is at 2597 meters, at the OWC. The gas
existing in the reservoir has been liberated from the oil. The pressure initially at
the datum depth was 290 bar, however, at present it is around 80 bar. The allocation
of the different permeabilities and porosities are randomly distributed throughout
the model, which makes the model very heterogeneous. The reservoir model used
in this study, Statoil1, is a replication of a field located in the North Sea.
4.2.1

Permeability and Porosity

The Statoil1 field model consists of 5 different rock types, assigned with 5 different relative permeability- and capillary pressure tables. Typically, the tables are
assigned to different porosity- and permeability ranges, on either regions or facies
level, or both. In ECLIPSE this is specified in the SATNUM/IMBNUM keyword,
in the REGION section. SATNUM represents drainage tables while IMBNUM represents imbibition tables.
Table 1: Region Data

IMBNUM

SATNUM

Rock Type

Permeability [mD]

Porosity [%]

0,0-2000

0,177-0,272

1B

5,09-1962,8

0,138-0,372

5,0-50

0,12-0,34

2,0-5,0

0,125-0,316

10

0,01-2,0

0,0116-0,32

In the table above the different SATNUMs are given for the corresponding rock
types. It is important to note that the permeability ranges in rock type 2, 3 and 4
are quite low, especially for 3 and 4. When implementing new relative permeabilityand capillary pressure curves for these rocks, little change is expected for grid blocks
given these SATNUMs, due to the flows ability to be conducted through high
43

permeable layers. The implementation of hysteresis will most likely have most effect
in the top layers (1-50) where most of the blocks consists of rock type 1 and 1B.
From Fig.24,25,26,27 and 28 the distribution of the different rock types with regards
to depth is shown. Layer 1-12 is mainly consisting of rock 1. Layer 18 to 50 consist
of rock type 1B through 4, where the concentration of the latter ones, 2, 3 and 4,
are increasing more and more with depth.

Figure 24: SATNUM allocations,top layer is layer 1. Color ranging from left to right
represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively.

Figure 25: SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 18. Color ranging from left to
right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively
44

Figure 26: SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 30. Color ranging from left to
right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively

Figure 27: SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 42. Color ranging from left to
right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively

45

Figure 28: SATNUM allocations, top layer is layer 50. Color ranging from left to
right represents SATNUM 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively

4.2.2

Fluid Description

In order to describe how and why the fluids flow and act as they do in the reservoir,
they need to be characterized. The following chapter gives an outline of the fluids
that are dealt with in the simulation study, and the selected equation of state for
handling the different state variables.
4.2.2.1

Crude Properties

Initial surface volumes of the crude with respect to separator conditions (1 atm,
15 o C) are given below:

Figure 29: Surface Volumes initially in-place

In reservoir conditions, initially, the oil volume is 27.56 M Rm3 . This correlates
to a shrinkage factor of 1.63. The surface volume will be further used in calculating recovery factors. In reservoir simulation, having too many components would
46

mean requiring more computer resources without having a noticeable effect on the
outcome. How many components should be used depends on the process being simulated. Normally, between 5-8 components should suffice in any reservoir process.[34]
Excess components are therefore lumped together into so-called pseudo components.
This simulation study is using 9 components, and are given in the table below.
Table 2: Composition of the Reservoir Crude

4.2.2.2

Component

Zi [Mole-frac.]

CO2

0.002398

N2

0.015589

C1

0.352157

C2

0.151296

C3

0.181475

C4 C5

0.142502

C6

0.061383

C7 C12

0.06533

C13 +

0.02787

Total

1.00

CO2 Properties

Isothermal CO2 data based on Span-Wagner EOS for different reservoir pressures
are given in table 3[13]. The CO2 is supercritical at all table conditions. The table
is used for illustrational purposes giving an idea of how CO2 will behave in the
reservoir. At 200-250 bar injection pressure, the CO2 will be denser than the oil in
place, while at pressures below 200 bar, the CO2 will be lighter than the crude, at
the time of injection with a reservoir pressure of 80 bar and a crude density of 500
kg/m3 .

47

Table 3: CO2 Properties

Temperature (o C)

Pressure (Bar)

Density (kg/m3 )

Viscosity (cP)

100

150

332.35

0.027785

100

200

480.53

0.03719

100

250

588.45

0.046365

100

300

661.87

0.054

4.2.2.3 CO2 -Oil Properties

From the input data of the reservoir crude at initial conditions, MMP was found
from PVTsim to be 184.56 bara @ 100o C reservoir temperature. Other reservoir
parameters calculated are shown in the table below:
Table 4: CO2 -Oil Properties
Parameter

Units

Initial reservoir pressure

bara

292

Saturation pressure

bara

177.14 (Pb)

Reservoir temperature

100

First Contact MMP

bara

304.93

Critical pressure

bara

246.43

Multi Contact MMP

bara

184.56

Vaporizing Drive

95.36

Condensing Drive

4.64

4.2.2.4 Water Properties

The formation water has the following properties:
w = 1000

Kg
,
m3

Bw = 1.0, Cw = 4.0E-5 and w = 0.4 cP.

48

4.2.2.5 Equation of State

An equation of state, is an equation that relates pressure, volume, temperature and
the amount of moles of fluids. EOS are differentiated into two main groups; phase
specific EOS and cubic EOS. Phase specific EOS are equations related to single
phase only, for example ideal gas law, which is a gas specific equation. Cubic EOS,
however, applies to gases, liquids, fluids(combination of gas and liquid) and supercritical fluids. The main cubic EOSs used in the industry today are:
Soave-Redlich Kwong, SRK.
Peng-Robinson, PR.
Other alternatives that can be selected in ECLIPSE are Redlich-Kwong and ZudkevitchJoffe. The best suited model is chosen based on experimental data for the actual
reservoir. In E300 when one model is selected, this is used to obtain Z-factors
and phase fugacities, to be used to find fluid densities and inter-phase equilibrium,
instead of the traditional ideal gas law, PV = NRT. In this study the Soave-RedlichKwong, or SRK for short, is used. It is a modification of the RK EOS, and represents
an attempt to take molecular geometry and polarity into account. Soave expanded
the traditional RK EOS, which was only temperature dependent, to include the
acentric factor as well in the functional dependency of a. Acentric factor is a
correction term to the constant a in the cubic equation of SRK. The term cubic
is used due to the fact that the equation is a polynomial function of the 3rd order
in the compressibility factor. (see equation 42)

49

In 1973 Abbott gave form to the general cubic EOS. By putting constants for
, , and , one can derive the Redlich-Kwong, Peng-Robinson, Van der Waals,
Berthelot, Clausius, Wilson and Lee-Erbar-Edmister equations.[16]
P =

(e
v )
RT

ve b (e
v b)(e
v 2 + e
v + )

To derive RK:
=

a
1

T2
=b

(46)

,
= b,
 = o,

Which then results in the Redlich-Kwong equation:

P =

RT
a

ve b
T ve(e
v + b)

Soave modified this expression by replacing the temperature term with a more complex temperature-dependent expression, resulting in:
(P +

a
)(e
v b) = RT
ve(e
v + b)

(47)

where a = a(T, ) = T 1.5

and
= (1 + (0.48508 + 1.55171 0.15613 2 )(1

50

p
Tr )2

The constants a and b are,

a = 0.427480

R2 (Tc )2
Pc

b = 0.086640

R2 (Tc )2
Pc

The cubic form of the equation is introduced in the compressibility factor by

defining A and B:
aP
A= 2 2
R T
bP
B=
RT
P ve
Z=
RT
Which results in the cubic equation[2]:
Z 3 Z 2 + (A B B 2 )Z AB = 0

(48)

Soave added a small modification for mixtures by introducing the binary interaction parameters, kij .
(a)m =

XX

yi yj (a)ij ; (a)ij =

bm =

X
i

51

yi bi

q
(a)i (a)j (1 kij ),

(49)

The binary interaction parameter (BIP) is an additional term that takes into
account the interaction between molecules, and is used to accurately obtain the
partitions of the compositions in the different phases. The BIP parameters are
different for different EOS. SRK and PR EOS calculates the vapor densities with
very good accuracy, however, the liquid density calculated from these two deviates.
In order to correct this deviation, Peneloux introduced volume translation, which
shifts the whole curve slightly towards the liquid pressure. Consider a case where
experimental data, at given pressure and temperature, gives a molecular volume
equal to 0.8 at the liquid pressure and 50 at the vapor pressure. However, the EOS
calculates the liquid and vapor pressure, and results in ve to be 1 and 50, for their
respective phase pressures. By subtracting 0.2, this would pretty much equal the
experimental data. This is the so-called volume translation, and is represented as
a constant, Ci . The volume-shift has very little influence on the vapor pressure,
due to the fact that at the vapor pressure the ve is much higher than it is for liquid
pressure. Subtracting 0.2 from e.g. 50 (in this case) is only a 0.4 % deviation from
the actual value, and can be neglected. However, a subtraction of 0.2 from 1 is quite
significant. The result of the volume translation and BIPs is that for a given set of
data it is possible to get an equally good approximation with either SRK or the PR
equation of state.[34]
SRK((Ci )SRK ),(kij )SRK ) ' PR((Ci )P R ),(kij )P R )

52

4.3

Traditional Saturation Functions

The old model consisted of only gas-oil drainage curves and water-oil imbibition
curves. The curves are only accurate if the simulation study is based on depletion
only, where the saturation generally changes through one direction. Gas-oil drainage
will occur at the top of the reservoir and water-oil imbibition at the OWC as the
pressure drops. However, in addition to this there seems to be faults in the curves
resulting from scaling. (Fig.30). In order to simulate different injection processes
with a realistic outcome, new relative permeability- and capillary pressure curves
need to be employed. Corey correlation was used to develop new two-phase relative
permeability curves. The following section contains how the different relative permeability curves were derived, and a graphical overview of one of 5 rock types. The
rest are given in appendix A.

Oil-Water Relative Permeability - Rock 2

1

Krw
0,9

Krow

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 30: Old Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock type 2.

53

4.3.1

Gas-Oil Relative permeability Curves

From this point on the saturation processes related to the gas-oil functions will
be referred to as increasing gas saturation, indicated by subscript i, and decreasing gas saturation, indicated by subscript d. Given data to generate G-O relative
permeability curves are tabulated below.
Table 5: Gas-Oil Relative permeability data

Rock Type

Swir

Sgt

Sgc

Sorg

Krog (Sgt )

Nod

Noi

Ngd

Ngi

0,2

0,3

0,035

0,2

0,069

3,8

3,2

1,7

1,6

1B

0,285

0,3

0,035

0,18

0,069

3,2

3,5

1,3

1,4

0,35

0,3

0,035

0,15

0,069

2,8

3,5

1,3

1,3

0,5

0,28

0,035

0,06

0,069

2,6

3,5

1,1

1,3

0,654

0,22

0,035

0,05

0,069

1,9

1,3

1,5

For the gas-oil curves, 4 equations were used. Since the experiments were conducted with an irreducible water saturation present, this needs to be accounted for
in the calculations.
1 Sg Sor
Son =
1 Swir Sor
Sgn =

Sg Sgc
1 Swir Sorg Sgc

No,p
Kro = Son
= (1 Sgn )No,p
Ng,p
Krg = Sgn

Where the subscript p represents the process direction, increasing or decreasing saturation of gas. In ECLIPSE the relative permeability inputs are not supposed to be
in normalized saturations, so the equations need to be modified with regards to gas
saturation and the end-points for the given process. The gas drainage curves have
end-points at critical gas saturation, Sgc when Krg = 0, which is used for increasing
gas saturation. For decreasing saturation the process goes from irreducible water
saturation to trapped gas saturation, Sgt . The equations for the respective processes
54

are:
Sg,i = Sgn (1 Swir Sgc ) + Sgc

(50)

where the normalized saturation ranges from 0 to 1. For the decreasing process, the
gas curve end-points will be Krg = 0 at Sg = Sgt , trapped gas saturation, and Krg
= 1 at Sg = 1 - Swir .
Sg Sgt
Sgn =
1 Swir Sgt
Sg,d = Sgn (1 Swir Sgt ) + Sgt

(51)

The gas saturations are then plotted against their corresponding Krg values calculated from equation 50 and 51.
For the oil curves, the saturations are the same regardless of the process, and do
not need to be transformed here. The relative permeability values changes due to
different exponents.
Son =

1 Sg Sor Swir
= 1 Sgn
1 Swir Sorg

Sg,i/d = (1 Sgn )(1 Swir Sorg ) + Sorg 1 + Swir

Which reduces to
Sg,i/d = Sgn (1 Sorg Swir )

(52)

The values are then plotted against the corresponding Kro values. It is important
to note that when the curves are implemented into ECLIPSE, the curves need to be
enclosed into smooth loops in order to avoid errors when generating scanning curves.
Even though the Kro imbibition curves break off and becomes constant at trapped
gas saturation, when inputting in ECLIPSE they will need to follow a smooth trend
all the way to Sg = 0.

55

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1B, Swir = 0,285

1

0,9
Kro,i
Kro,d

0,8

krg,i
Krg,d

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 31: Gas-oil relative permeability, Rocktype 1B

56

4.3.2

Water-Oil Relative permeability Curves

The experimental data are given below.

Table 6: Water-Oil Relative permeability data
Rock Type

Swir

Sorw

Krw (Sorw )

Noimb

Nodr

Nwimb

Nwdr

0,2

0,2

0,7

4,5

1,85

3,8

1B

0,285

0,2

0,7

4,5

1,5

3,8

3,5

0,35

0,2

0,7

4,5

1,5

3,8

3,5

0,5

0,2

0,7

4,5

1,5

3,8

3,5

0,654

0,2

0,7

4,5

1,5

3,8

3,5

The same principle used for the gas-oil curves is applied for the water-oil relative
permeability curves. However, other equations have been used. With the basis in
normalized saturation, and considering that normalized saturations cannot be used
as input data in ECLIPSE, the equations are therefore modified. The process is
either drainage with subscript dr, or imbibition with subscript imb, for decreasing
and increasing water saturation, respectively.
End-point data for drainage are: Krw = 1 at Sw = 1, and Krw = 0 at Sw = at
Swir Saturations are calculated as follows:
Swn =

Sw,dr Swir
1 Swir

Sw,dr = Swn (1 Swir ) + Swir

(53)

where the normalized saturation ranges from 0 to 1. The imbibition end-points are:
Krw = Krw (Sorw ) at Sw = 1-Sorw , and Krw = 0 at Sw = Swir , the equation becomes:
Swn =

Sw,imb Swir
1 Swir Sorw

57

Modified with regards to Sw,imb it becomes:

Sw,imb = Swn (1 Swir Sorw ) + Swir

(54)

The corresponding relative permeabilities are calculated through:

No,p
= (1 Swn )No,p
Kro,p = Son

(55)

Nw,p
Krw,p = Swn

(56)

The end-point data need to be connected to a closed loop to avoid errors in ECLIPSE
here as well. For instance, the imbibition end-point needs to be connected to the
drainage start-point at Sw = 1.
W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 1B, Swi = 0,285
1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr

0,9

Krw,imb
Krw,dr

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0
1

0,1

Classification: Internal

0,2
2014-05-19

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 32: Oil-water relative permeability, Rocktype 1B

58

4.3.3

Capillary Pressure Curves

The capillary pressure curves for the gas-oil data can be calculated based on:
og
Pcow
ow

Pcog =

(57)

However, since the interfacial tension of oil-gas is just a small fraction compared
to oil-water, Pcog is approximated to 0. The oil-water capillary pressure curves are
given in Fig.33 where pp and sp are drainage and imbibition process, respectively.

Capillary Pressure - Rock 1B

1

SP

0,8

PP
0,6

0,4

Pc [Bar]

0,2

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

-0,2

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

Sw

Figure 33: Oil-water capillary pressure, Rocktype 1B. Solid line represents primary
drainage, while dashed line represents imbibition.

59

4.4

ODD3P Saturation Functions

The ODD3P model option in ECLIPSE requires a different type of saturation function input compared to the traditional models. This is due to the fact that each
phase is a function of its own saturation without a third phase present. Only a
slight modification is needed to transform the traditional data into ODD3P data.
Water-oil data is the same, however, gas-oil data need to be converted from an initial Swir = Constant, to 0. In order to do that one can either convert the data with
regards to the constant gas lines or the constant oil lines.

Figure 34: Ternary representation of traditional data conversion. Swir = 0.2 and
Sorg = 0.2.
From Fig.34 this particular example considers Swir = 0.2 and Sorg = 0.2, representing rock type 1. The blue line represents conditions where on every point along
the axis the water saturation is constant. That is, representing Stones models and
default model data input. The green line represents constant oil saturation values,
while the red represents gas. The intersection of all the lines is the Sorg of the sys60

tem at irreducible water saturation. There are a couple of ways of transforming the
traditional data. As illustrated above, one can either follow the green line (A to B)
or the red line (A to C), this is done to ensure end-point consistency. By converting
the data along the constant gas-lines this results in a new system with a relatively
high residual oil saturation. In this case the transformation of Sorg becomes 0.4.
As the irreducible water saturation increases the transformation of the residual oil
saturation in the gas-oil system becomes more and more pessimistic. Experimental
data has shown that Sg,max is much higher than 1-Swir -Sorg [12]. A transformation
along the constant oil-lines will therefore represent a more realistic behavior than a
transformation along the constant gas-lines. In this study both transformations will
be done to illustrate the difference between the two.
G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1

1
0,9

Kro,dr
Kro,imb
krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,8
0,7

Kr

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2

0,1
0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

Sg

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

0,9

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1

1
0,9

Kro,dr
Kro,imb
krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,8
0,7

Kr

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
1

Classification:
Internal
0
0,1

2014-05-09
0,2

0,3

0,4

Sg

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

Figure 35: Transformed data, along gas-lines (top), along oil-lines (bottom).

61

From Fig.35 the differences between the two methods of transforming the data
can be observed. Note that at Sgt the relative oil permeability has been modified as
well. This is due to the fact that the saturation of mobile oil is much larger at the
trapped gas saturation compared to the other method. From Fig.36 the two ways of
transforming traditional data have been plotted in a single diagram. It is important
to note the hysteresis end-points from the two transformations. The differences will
have a significant impact on two-phase relative permeability calculations at high gas
saturations.

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1

1

0,9
Kro,dr,2

0,8

Kro,imb,2
krg,dr,2

0,7

Krg,imb,2
Kro,dr,1

0,6

Kro,imb,1

Kr

Krg,dr,1
0,5

Krg,imb,1

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 36: Transformed data, along gas-lines (green and yellow), along oil-lines (red
and blue).

62

Gas-oil capillary pressure curves were calculated through:

Pcog =

og
Pcow
ow

(58)

Fig.37 represents one of five data sets of relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves used in the field model (transformed along the oil-lines). For the simulation
setup of ODD3P IPCFN was set to 0 with no Kr scaling in order to get a valid
comparison between the other three-phase models. Note that from Fig.37 the tertiary data is equal to the secondary data. Since gas injection mainly influences one
direction, ISTNUM = DSTNUM (no hysteresis after primary displacement process)
is a reasonable approximation.
G-O Relative Permeability, Rock
Type 1

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1

1

Log-Plot Pcog
1,E+00

1,E+00
1,E-01

0,8

1,E-01
1,E-02

Kr

Pcog [Bar]

1,E-02

0,6

1,E-03
Kr

Kro,dr

0,4

0,2

Kro,dr

1,E-04

Kro,imb
krg,dr

1,E-05

Krg,imb

1,E-06

Pcog,s

krg,dr

1,E-05
Pcog,t

Krg,imb

0
0,5

Pcog,p

1,E-04

Kro,imb

0
0

1,E-03

0,5

1,E-06

Sg

O-W Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1

Log-plot Pcwo

O-W Relative Permeability, Rock

Type 1

0,5
Gas Saturation [Fraction]

Sg

1,E+00

1,E+00
1,E-01

0,8

1,E-01

Kr

0,6

1,E-02

1,E-03
1,E-04

Krow,p

0,4

0,2

1,E-06

krwo

1,E-07

Krwo,s

Krow,p

1,E-05

Krow,s

0
1

Classification: Internal

0,5
2014-05-09
Sw

1,E-03

Krow,s

Pcwo,p

krwo

Pcwo,s

1,E-04

Krwo,s

Pcow,t

1,E-08
0

Pcwo [Bar]

Kr

1,E-02

0,5
Sw

1,E-05
0

Figure 37: Rock type 1 data set for ODD3P.

63

0,5
Water saturation [Fraction]

4.5

Workflow and Assumptions

The new curves have been implemented into the field model, and are ready to be run
in ECLIPSE. A list is shown below of the different variables which can be changed
in in the simulation study.
1. Relative permeabilities
2. Injection Processes
3. Hysteresis methods
4. Pressure steps
5. Results
Within each option exist several possibilities. In the relative permeability case
there are old relative permeabilities (no hysteresis select) and new relative permeabilities (hysteresis select). Injection processes are divided into gas-injection, WAG,
simultaneous-water-and-gas (SWAG) and water-injection. Hysteresis methods are
divided into: Carlsons method, Killoughs method and Jargons method for nonwetting phase, and drainage, imbibition and Killough for wetting phase. For each
option the simulation scenarios multiply by the amount of options available. It is
therefore important to make a reference case. Since this study revolves around CO2 injection, this will be the chosen reference process. Choice of reference hysteresis
model is based on following assumptions:
The relative permeability curves represent a typical water-wet system which is
being translated into this system.
During injection of gas, saturation of non-wetting phase will increase. Therefore
drainage curves will be used for modelling hysteresis in the wetting phase.

64

 Choice of hysteresis method for the non-wetting phase is Killoughs method,

due to the fact that this model is based on approaching real, physical data[14]. Calsons method is based on moving the imbibition curve, and Jargons method is based
on a scaling method. It is important to note that the latter method is unpublished
so one should be careful when employing such a method in the model. The reason
is that there are little scientific proof of the models validity.
The pressure interval chosen for the gas-injection cases are such that immiscible injection and miscible injection are taken into account. Based on data from
PVTsim the BHP control node for the injection well will be set to 150 bar, 190 bar
and 310 for immiscible, multi-contact and first contact drive, respectively.
The injection well location is fixed and assumed to be the most optimal choice.
It is a horizontal dog-leg well located right above the OWC. The limitations put on
the producer are: 15 bar tubing head pressure and 300 Sm3 /D water production
rate.

65

Results and Observations

Results and observations done through the simulation study are given in this section.
It is important to note that all simulation runs are done with Pc turned off. The
effect of the simulation study considers Kr hysteresis only, due to the fact that by
enabling capillary pressure required an excessive amount of computational resources.

5.1

No Hysteresis Select

For the No Hysteresis Select a new basecase was made. Fig.38 is a comparison
of the implemented curves (black) and already employed curves (red line). Since
these cases are depletion only, gas-oil drainage curves and water-oil imbibition curves
were used. The differences are due to different relative permeability curves, causing
mobility changes of the fluids in the reservoir.
FOPR

FOPR NEWBASE

FOPR NEWUTENCO2

4000

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

3000

2000

1000

0
12/02
1

12/05

Classification: Internal

12/08

01/12

01/15

01/18

01/21

01/24

02/27

2014-03-24

Figure 38: New (black line) and old (red line) depletion case, FOPR vs time
66

5.1.1

CO2 -Injection
FOPR

FOPR NOHYSTGI150

FOPR NOHYSTGI190

FOPR NOHYSTGI310

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDGI150

FOPR OLDGI190

FOPR OLDGI310

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
01/13

Classification: Internal

01/16

2014-03-24

01/19

01/22

01/25

Figure 39: New curves (top) and old curves (bottom). FOPR vs time for 150,190
and 310 bar.
From Fig.39 it can be seen that by implementing the new curves give an upward
shift in FOPR. The difference between the two cases is that drainage gas-oil and
water-oil curves are used for the curves shown in the top graph. For the lower graph,
the old gas-oil drainage and water-oil imbibition curves are used. The effect of this
is further discussed in section 6.1.1

67

5.2

Hysteresis Select

5.2.1

Hysteresis vs No hysteresis

In order to get a valid comparison of no hysteresis versus hysteresis, the saturation

point of origin in the relative permeability curves should be approximately the same.
The old relative permeabilities will therefore be compared with the hysteresis select
cases, where the point of origin is at the imbibition curve and not the drainage curve.
Fig.40,41 and 42 show the difference between CO2 -injection at 150,190 and 310 bar,
respectively. The trend appearing from all the figures is that water production is at
a constant lower level in the case of hysteresis, which in turn results in higher oil
production.
WWPR
WWPR A-3 OLDGI150 OLDGI150

WWPR A-3 NY150K2DCO24

Water production rate (SM3/DAY)

200

150

100

50

0
12/12

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDGI150

FOPR NY150K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

2000

1000

0
12/12

Classification: Internal

12/15

2014-03-24

01/19

Figure 40: Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis
(red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 150 bar.

68

WWPR
WWPR A-3 OLDGI190

WWPR A-3 NY190K2DCO24

Water production rate (SM3/DAY)

200

150

100

50

0
12/12

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDGI190

FOPR NY190K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

2000

1000

0
12/12

Classification: Internal

12/15

2014-03-24

01/19

Figure 41: Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis
(red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 190 bar.
WWPR
WWPR A-3 OLDGI310

WWPR A-3 NY310K2DCO24

Water production rate (SM3/DAY)

250

200

150

100

50

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDGI310 OLDGI310

FOPR NY310K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

3000

2000

1000

0
01/13

Classification: Internal

01/16

2014-03-24

01/19

Figure 42: Upper graph (WWPR) and lower graph (FOPR) showing GI hysteresis
(red line) and GI without hysteresis (black line) at 310 bar.

69

5.2.2

Immiscible vs Miscible CO2 -Injection

Fig.43 and 44 show the FOPR and FOPT, respectively, by different BHP control
modes. The black line is the basecase without hysteresis, but with implemented
corey curves. Red, green and blue lines represent a BHP injection control of 150,
190 and 310 bars. It is important to note the multi-contact miscible case (green
line) where oscillations can be observed within the predicted data. This is due to
convergence problems, and will be commented in the discussion section.
FOPR

FOPR NEWBASE

FOPR NY150K2DCO24

FOPR NY190K2DCO24

FOPR NY310K2DCO24

4000

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

3000

2000

1000

0
12/02
1

12/05

Classification: Internal

12/08

01/12

01/15

01/18

2014-03-24

Figure 43: FOPR vs time

70

01/21

01/24

02/27

The main observation from the different graphs in Fig.43 is that maximum FOPT
is obtained at 190 bar. By increasing the CO2 injected, an increase in FOPR at
an earlier stage is achieved, however, ultimate FOPT stays approximately the same
at the end of the predicted period. The CO2 amount required (Fig.45) to maintain
the injection BHP target is 2.250.000 Sm3 for 190 bar vs 10.000.000 Sm3 for 310
bar, initially. After a certain period of time the required amount of CO2 needed to
maintain BHP drops due to development of a gas channel between the injector and
producer. When this happens, less volume of CO2 is needed to maintain the BHP.
FOPT

FOPT NEWBASE

FOPT NY150K2DCO24

FOPT NY190K2DCO24

FOPT NY310K2DCO24

12000000

10000000

Oil production total (SM3)

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

12/02
1

12/05

Classification: Internal

12/08

01/12

01/15

01/18

2014-03-24

Figure 44: FOPT vs time

71

01/21

01/24

02/27

WGIR

WGIR INJ NY150K2DCO24

WGIR INJ NY190K2DCO24

WGIR INJ NY310K2DCO24

10000000

Gas injection rate (SM3/DAY)

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0
01/15
1

Classification: Internal

01/18

01/21

2014-03-18

Figure 45: CO2 Injected vs time

72

01/24

01/27

5.2.3

Non-wetting Hysteresis Methods

Injecting at 190 and 310 bar caused alot of instability and convergence problems for
the simulator. These cases are omitted for comparison due to the fact that severe
instability issues causes inconsistent relative permeabilities, and will therefore not
give a representative picture of how it is in reality. (Further discussed in section
6.1.3) Immiscible cases were on this basis chosen for further comparison.
Killough, Jargon and Carlsons methods for handling hysteresis are different, and
have been studied earlier in what ways they differ. In the field related simulation
study it can be seen from the FOPR the differences in the hysteresis methods. From
Fig.46 Carlsons method is the most optimistic model in handling hysteresis, while
Killoughs method is the least optimistic.
FOPT

FOPT NY150K2DCO24 NY150K2DCO24

FOPT NY150J8DCO24

FOPT NY150C0DCO24

10000000

Oil production total (SM3)

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000
01/13
1

Classification: Internal

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

2014-03-18

Figure 46: Killoughs (black), Carlsons (green) and Jargons (red) method for handling hysteresis giving an additional RF of 4.20, 4.96 and 6.91 %, respectively.
From Fig.46, it can be seen that the outcome of the different hysteresis methods is
noticeably big with regards to FOPT. FOIP represents field produced total initially
without hysteresis.(GI basecase)
73

5.3

Flow Pattern

5.3.1

Immiscible CO2 -Injection

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 47: Layer 10.

Fig.47 is used for illustrational purposes to point out differences in the flow
pattern of the injection fluid without hysteresis(upper) and with hysteresis selected(lower). The figure represents layer 10 in the reservoir model containing a
SATNUM of mainly 6 and 7 at the end of predicted period. With the same well
conditions it can be seen from Fig.47 that fluid saturations are different throughout
the reservoir, where red is gas saturation, green is oil saturation and blue is water saturation. The sweep efficiency is somewhat different, however, the same high
permeable blocks are mainly contributing to transporting the injection fluid. It is
important to note that with hysteresis enabled the saturation of gas in the reservoir becomes higher compared to the model without hysteresis enabled. Ultimately
increasing oil prediction.
74

5.3.2

Miscible CO2 -Injection

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 48: Layer 10.

For the miscible injection cases Fig.48 has been chosen to illustrate saturationand flow pattern changes. As can be seen from the figure, the saturation changes
become less and less prominent as the injection pressure increases. (Further details
are discussed in section 6.1.3)

75

5.4

Other Methods of Injection

Hysteresis influence the pressure gradient, saturation history and trapped saturation. An interesting aspect to study is what effect hysteresis has on water injection,
WAG and SWAG. Since hysteretic effects are more prominent at low injection pressure, and to avoid stability issues, a BHP control mode of 150 bar at the injector
will be used for all cases.
Water Injection
FOPT
FOPT OLDWI150 OLDWI150

FOPT WINY150C0DCO24 WINY150C0DCO24

FOPT WINY150J8DCO24

FOPT WINY150K2DCO24

Oil production total (SM3)

10000000

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDWI150 OLDWI150

FOPR WINY150C0DCO24 WINY150C0DCO24

FOPR WINY150J8DCO24

FOPR WINY150K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

2000

1000

0
01/13

Classification: Open

01/16

2014-03-18

01/19

01/22

01/25

Figure 49: Effect of hysteresis on water injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons

method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method (green).
By implementing hysteresis, an increase in oil production is observed from Fig.49
Again, Carlsons method giving the most optimistic results, and Killough the least.
A net change in FOPT was observed to be 5.0E5 Sm3 for the most pessimistic
case. This gives an addition to the recovery factor of 2.9 %.
76

WAG Injection
FOPT
FOPT OLDWAG OLDWAG

FOPT WAGNY150C0DCO24

FOPT WAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPT WAGNY150K2DCO24

Oil production total (SM3)

10000000

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDWAG OLDWAG

FOPR WAGNY150C0DCO24

FOPR WAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPR WAGNY150K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
01/13

Classification: Open

01/16

2014-03-18

01/19

01/22

01/25

Figure 50: Effect of hysteresis on WAG-injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons

method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method (green).
An increase in oil production was also observed in the WAG simulations. (Fig.50)
Net change in FOPT was observed to be 7.5E5 Sm3 for the most pessimistic case.
The cycling options were set to 3 months by each fluid, CO2 and water.

77

SWAG Injection
FOPT
FOPT OLDSWAG

FOPT SWAGNY150C0DCO24

FOPT SWAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPT SWAGNY150K2DCO24

Oil production total (SM3)

10000000

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDSWAG

FOPR SWAGNY150C0DCO24

FOPR SWAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPR SWAGNY150K2DCO24

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

2000

1000

0
01/13

Classification: Open

01/16

2014-03-18

01/19

01/22

01/25

Figure 51: Effect of hysteresis on SWAG-injection. No hysteresis (black), Carlsons

method (red), Killoughs method (blue) and Jargons method (green).
An increase in oil production was also observed in the SWAG simulations.
(Fig.51)

78

Comparison
In the comparison section Jargons method was chosen on the basis that Killoughs
method experienced too many stability issues. A reasonable approximation to this
was then to use Jargons method, since this was the closest match on the simulation
results. Relevant information to obtain in the comparison between the methods of
injection is; 1. How many pore volumes does the injected fluid displace and 2. how
much more oil is it possible to produce for a given unit of CO2 injected. Fig.52 is a
representation of this.
WGIT
WGIT INJ NY150J8DCO24

WGIT INJ SWAGNY150J8DCO24

WGIT INJ WAGNY150J8DCO24

WGIT INJ WINY150J8DCO24

3000000000

Gas injection total (SM3)

2500000000

2000000000

1500000000

1000000000

500000000

01/15

01/18

01/21

01/24

01/27

FOPT
FOPT NY150J8DCO24

FOPT SWAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPT WAGNY150J8DCO24

FOPT WINY150J8DCO24

Oil production total (SM3)

10000000

9000000

8000000

7000000

6000000
01/13
1

Classification: Internal

01/16

2014-03-18

01/19

01/22

01/25

Figure 52: CO2 injected relative to FOPT for GI (black), SWAG (red), WAG
(green) and WI (blue).

79

In terms of reservoir volumes at injection conditions of 150 bar and 100 o C the
CO2 has a density of 332 kg/m3 (from table 3). Assuming that CO2 has a density
at standard conditions of 1,87 kg/m3 , the volume shrinkage of CO2 at the given
reservoir conditions becomes:
Xshrinkage,CO2 =

CO2
= 177Sm3 /m3
CO2,sc

(59)

Considering the case of GI; In 2025 the estimated gas injected total is 3E9 Sm3 ,
which at reservoir conditions is 1.695E7 m3 . Total pore volume (PV) is equal to
375.78E6 m3 and HCPV = 20.39E6 m3 at the start of injection. Total PV displaced
is therefore:
VCO2
= 0.045
(60)
P Vdiplaced =
Vpore
Assuming that all the volumes of CO2 injected travels through high permeable layers,
containing mostly hydrocarbons, the estimated hydrocarbon pore volume displaced
becomes:
P Vdiplaced
HCP Vdisplaced =
= 0.827
(61)
HCP V /Vpore
Since the HCPV displaced is much bigger than the recovery factor, the following
statements can be assumed;
The CO2 cycles through the same high-permeable zones (SATNUM 6 and 7),
which leaves low-permeable areas with oil unswept (mainly with SATNUM of 8,9
and 10).
The injected CO2 is not displacing HCPV only, resulting in an increase in HCPV
displaced, while RF remains constant.

80

In the case of how much more oil it is possible to produce one needs a conversion
factor to convert data to appropriate units. From Fig.52 after 3650 days of injection
the multiplication factor converting Sm3 to ton/d becomes:
X=

ton/d
1.87
1
kg/Sm3 1

= 5.123 107
kg/ton D
1000 3650
Sm3

(62)

The last column represents how much the additional oil requires in terms of
volumes of CO2 . For instance the GI case; In order to produce the additional
542468 Sm3 of oil, the required amount of CO2 would be 1430 tons per day. The
Sm3
. The most
amount of oil produced per volume of CO2 injected would be 378.15 ton/d
amount of oil produced per unit gas injected would be from the SWAG process. In
a case where supply of CO2 is unlimited, regular gas injection of CO2 would be the
optimal choice due to the higher RF. However, since CO2 comes with a price, SWAG
is more economically viable.
Table 7: Injection Method Comparison Data
Process

FGIT [Sm3 ]

FGIR [ton/d]

FOPT [Sm3 ]

FOPT [Sm3 ]

F OP T
CO2
Sm3
[ ton/d
]

WI

8548908

GI

2.8E9

1430

9091376

542468

378.15

SWAG

4.56E8

234

8815398

266490
1140.69

WAG

1.33E9

681

8963956

81

415048

609.11

5.5

Three-phase Models Comparison

Up until this point the simulation study has only considered the default model
when handling three-phase situations. A sensitivity needs to be done with regards
to the other models available. CO2 -injection has been chosen as base method in this
comparison, with Jargons method as hysteresis model for the default- and Stones
models. To minimize convergence problems the BHP was set to be 150 bar on the
injection well. Fig.53 represents FOPT for the selected three-phase models. Time
of injection is 800 days after the file restart (01.01.2015), marked with a dotted line.

FOPT
9,5E+06

Oil Production Total [Sm3]

9,0E+06

8,5E+06

8,0E+06

Default (J8)

Stone 1 (J8)
Stone 2 (J8)

7,5E+06

ODD3P
Injection Start

7,0E+06

6,5E+06

6,0E+06

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Time [Days]

Figure 53: ECLIPSE default model (black) compared with Stones 1st model (red)
and Stones 2nd model (blue) and ODD3P option (green).

82

From Fig.53 there is a minor difference between the three-phase models where
Jargons hysteresis method has been applied. Difference in recoveries are due to
different oil isoperms. Comparing with the ODD3P model, there is a major difference in handling hysteresis. Even though ODD3P contains an extension of the three
phase saturation range compared to the stones models and the default model, a less
recovery factor was observed. However, the effect of the saturation extension can be
observed the first 1500 days elapsed, where the oil is much more mobile initially. A
recent study done on WAG simulations in water-wet and mixed-wet systems[23] has
shown that coupling relative permeability hysteresis models generally overestimate
oil recovery prediction, with the exception of the IKU model. The IKU model gives
better performance in correlating experimental data in the initial stages of injection (first gas injection, then cycling with water injection). ODD3P is an extension
of the IKU model, and therefore gives a reason to believe that the ODD3P model
simulates oil prediction more accurately than the other hysteresis models.
Table 8: Three-phase Model RFs
Model

FOPT [Sm3 ]

RF[%]

No-hyst.

8268736

49.20

ODD3P

8619224

51.27

Stone 2

9042447

53.79

Default

9091376

54.08

Stone 1

9251713

55.03

From Fig.54 the differences in field oil production total can be observed for the
different ODD3P transformation methods. Method 2 gives an increase in FOPT due
to the fact that the gas-oil relative permeabilities are mobile beyond the irreducible
saturation range of method 1.
The difference in change in flow pattern can also be observed from Fig.55, which
shows saturation distribution of the top layer of the reservoir. Layer 10,20,30,40 and
50 are given in the appendix. The main difference between ODD3P and the default
model is that for the ODD3P model, the gas saturation is much higher in the top
83

layers of the reservoir, which mainly consists of rock type 1 and 1B.

ODD3P Injection Conditions - FOPT

9,0E+06

Oil Production Total [Sm3]

8,5E+06

8,0E+06
Method1
Method2

7,5E+06

7,0E+06

6,5E+06

6,0E+06

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Time [Days]

Figure 54: ODD3P model transformations, method 1 (along gas-lines) and method
2 (along oil-lines).

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 55: Top layer of the reservoir. Upper picture represents default model, while
the lower one represents ODD3P. Note that ODD3P gives better sweep in high
permeable layers. Upper picture shows more blue spots, which is water saturation.
Additional pictures are given in Appendix.
84

Discussion

This chapter is divided into two parts; discussion of the simulation results and model
validity.

6.1

Simulation Results

6.1.1

No Hysteresis Select

During gas injection, the non-wetting saturation in the grid blocks will increase.
Therefore drainage curves should be used for both gas-oil and oil-water for proper
modelling. However, by employing these curves a spike in oil prediction is observed
as well as a sharp decrease in water production. (Fig.56)
WWPR
WWPR A-3 OLDGI150

WWPR A-3 NOHYSTGI190

Water production rate (SM3/DAY)

200

150

100

50

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

01/22

01/25

FOPR
FOPR OLDGI150

FOPR NOHYSTGI150

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
01/13

Classification: Internal

01/16

2014-03-24

01/19

Figure 56: Implementing new relative permeability curves (red line)

85

The only difference between the two graphs in Fig.56 is the implementation of
water-oil drainage curves instead of using water-oil imbibition curves. Fig.57 is used
to illustrate what is happening.
W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 1, Swi = 0,20
1
Kro,imb
0,9
Kro,dr
Krw,imb

0,8

Krw,dr
0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0
1

0,1

Classification: Internal

0,2
2014-03-18

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 57: Illustrational example

The effect of using drainage curves instead of imbibition curves is that for a given
saturation of wetting phase (assuming Sw = 0.7 in Fig.57 ), the relative permeability of water will be less compared to what it originally was. Kro will drastically
increase, making the oil phase more mobile. Ultimately, this gives an increase in
oil production and a lower water production, as seen from Fig.56. These cases have
been neglected for comparison due to not representing physical behavior.
This problem does not occur when hysteresis is selected since water-oil imbibition
curves are included, and all changes related to saturations and relative permeabilities
are done through scanning curves.

86

6.1.2

Hysteresis Method Evaluation

6.1.2.1 Immiscible CO2 -Injection

Two blocks were chosen in order to evaluate the different hysteresis methods during
immiscible gas injection. The criteria of what blocks to pick was based upon high or
low gas saturation, and that reservoir fluids are mobile within the block, generally
blocks from the top layer of the reservoir with SATNUM 6 and 7.
BSOIL

BSWAT
BSOIL 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

BSWAT 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BSWAT 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

BGSAT 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BGSAT 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4
0.3

Gas saturation

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

BWKR
BOKR 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

BWKR 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BWKR 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

0.8

BGKR
BWKR 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

BGKR 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BGKR 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

0.10

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.6

0.08

Gas relative permeability

Water relative permeability

0.6

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.02
0.1

0.01

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

BGKR 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

0.7

0.09

0.7

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

BOKR
BOKR 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BOKR 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

BGSAT 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

0.4

0.2

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

Oil relative permeability

BGSAT
BSWAT 42 68 22 NY150J8DCO24

0.7

Water saturation

Oil saturation

BSOIL 42 68 22 NY150K2DCO24
BSOIL 42 68 22 NY150C0DCO24

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gas saturation

Figure 58: Block 42 68 22 Data, High gas saturation.

Fig.58 shows different parameters. From top left to bottom right, the So , Sw , Sg ,
Kro , Krw with respect to time lapsed and Krg versus Sg are given. The black line
represents Killoughs model, green represents Carlsons model and red represents
Jargons model.

87

From the bottom left graph it can be seen that Carlsons model calculates the
highest oil permeabilities, which causes the highest oil production curves.
BOSAT
BOSAT 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BOSAT 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

BWSAT
BOSAT 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

BWSAT 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BWSAT 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

0.20

BGSAT
BWSAT 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

BGSAT 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BGSAT 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

0.8

BGSAT 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

0.10
0.09

0.7

0.08
0.6

0.10

0.05

0.07
Gas saturation

Water saturation

Oil saturation

0.15

0.5
0.4
0.3

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

0.2
0.02
0.1

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

0.01

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

BOKR
BOKR 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BOKR 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

BWKR
BOKR 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

BWKR 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BWKR 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

0.5

0.005

0.4

0.004

BGKR
BWKR 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

BGKR 42 68 50 NY150K2DCO24
BGKR 42 68 50 NY150C0DCO24

BGKR 42 68 50 NY150J8DCO24

0.08

0.3

0.2

0.1

Gas relative permeability

Water relative permeability

Oil relative permeability

0.07

0.003

0.002

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02

0.001
0.01

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

0.09
Gas saturation

Figure 59: Block Data, Low gas saturation, layer 50 of the reservoir
In the high gas saturated block, the relative permeabilities are smooth lines. The
black line represents Killoughs hysteresis method, while the red and green line represent Jargons method and Carlsons method, respectively. However, in the block
with low gas saturation, small changes in the saturation occur, and inconsistencies
are observed in Jargons- and Carlsons method. Important to note is that all the
selected hysteresis methods models reversible processes through intermediate values
through a single generated scanning curve. This is arguably not the case in reality.

88

6.1.2.2 Miscible CO2 -Injection

In order to analyze what happens within a block exceeding minimum miscible pressure, an arbitrary block from one of the top layers was chosen. From top left corner
of the graph outlay to the bottom right is the density, saturation, pressure and Krg
vs Sg shown.
Fig.60 represents block data relating change in gas and oil densities/saturations and
relative permeabilities as pressure increases from immiscible conditions to miscible
conditions. Killoughs hysteresis method is selected in this case.
BDENO BDENG NY310K2DCO24
BDENO 35 67 22

BGSAT BOSAT NY310K2DCO24

BDENG 35 67 22

BGSAT 35 67 22

600

0.7

500

0.6

BOSAT 35 67 22

0.5
Saturation

(KG/M3)

400

300

0.4
0.3

200
0.2
100

0.1

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

0
01/13

01/25

01/16

01/19

BPR NY310K2DCO24

01/22

01/25

BGKR NY310K2DCO24

BPR 35 67 22

BGKR 35 67 22

250

1.0
0.9
Gas relative permeability

Pressure (BARSA)

200

150

100

50

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
01/13

01/16

Classification: Internal

01/19

2014-03-24

01/22

01/25

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gas saturation

Figure 60: Block 35 67 22 data, red line representing gas and black represents oil.
As the reservoir conditions becomes higher than the MMP, the density of gas
approaches the density of oil. This causes problems in ECLIPSE. From Fig.60
phase labelling changes which in turn gives inconsistent relative permeability curves.
The same inconsistencies in the relative permeabilities can be seen in Carlsons and
Jargons method as well. This results in improper scanning curves, which ultimately
affects the flow pattern of the fluids.
89

Additionally, it causes numerical problems for the simulator. Important to note

is that the fluid injected has a higher density than the oil in place. Flow pattern
will change due to density differences as well.
BDENO BDENG NY310C0DCO24
BDENO 35 67 22

BGSAT BOSAT NY310C0DCO24

BDENG 35 67 22

BGSAT 35 67 22

600

0.7

500

0.6

BOSAT 35 67 22

0.5
Saturation

(KG/M3)

400

300

0.4
0.3

200
0.2
100

0.1

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

0
01/13

01/22

01/16

BPR NY310C0DCO24

01/19

01/22

BGKR NY310C0DCO24

BPR 35 67 22

BGKR 35 67 22

250

1.0
0.9
Gas relative permeability

Pressure (BARSA)

200

150

100

50

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
01/13

Classification: Internal

01/16

01/19

2014-03-24

01/22

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gas saturation

Figure 61: Block 35 67 22 data, Carlsons Method, red line representing gas and
black represents oil.

BDENO BDENG NY310J8DCO24

BDENO 35 67 22

BOSAT BGSAT NY310J8DCO24

BDENG 35 67 22

BOSAT 35 67 22

600

0.7

500

0.6

BGSAT 35 67 22

0.5
Saturation

(KG/M3)

400

300

0.4
0.3

200
0.2
100

0.1

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

0
01/13

01/25

01/16

01/19

BPR NY310J8DCO24

01/22

01/25

BGKR NY310J8DCO24

BPR 35 67 22

BGKR 35 67 22

250

1.0
0.9
Gas relative permeability

Pressure (BARSA)

200

150

100

50

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
01/13

01/16

Classification: Internal

01/19

2014-03-24

01/22

01/25

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gas saturation

Figure 62: Block 35 67 22 data, Jargons Method, red line representing gas and
black represents oil.

90

6.1.2.3

ODD3P

The way ODD3P treats hysteresis and miscibility problems is different compared
to the other hysteretic models. Consider the immiscible cases done for high gas
satuation from Fig.58. The differences caused are due to different ways of handling
three-phase situations including Kr hysteresis. It can be seen from the ODD3P
model, Fig.63, that by observing the gas saturation as a function of time, and the
developed gas relative permeability curves, the model promotes no hysteresis in this
case. This is due to the fact that ODD3P does not engage hysteresis unless the gas
saturation is bigger than Sgt . However, at gas saturations higher than Sgt it developes new curves through intermediate values by scaling and compressing shown in
Fig.64.
BSOIL ICO2

BSWAT ICO2

BSOIL 42 68 22

BSGAS ICO2

BSWAT 42 68 22

0.7

BSGAS 42 68 22

0.9

0.3

0.8

0.6

0.7
0.5

0.3

0.2
Gas saturation

Water saturation

Oil saturation

0.6
0.4

0.5
0.4
0.3

0.1

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.1

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

0
01/13

01/25

01/16

BOKR ICO2

01/19

01/22

0
01/13

01/25

01/16

01/19

BWKR ICO2

BOKR 42 68 22

01/25

BGKR ICO2

BWKR 42 68 22

0.7

01/22

BGKR 42 68 22

0.3

0.20

0.6

Water relative permeability

Oil relative permeability

0.4
0.3
0.2

Gas relative permeability

0.15

0.5

0.10

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.1
0
01/13

01/16

01/19

Classification: Internal

01/22

2014-05-27

01/25

01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

0.1

0.2

0.3

Gas saturation

Figure 63: Block 42 68 22 data, immiscible conditions, ODD3P model, no hysteresis

engaged.
91

Gas Saturation
1
0,8
Saturation

2
0,6
Block 52 67 1
0,4

3
0,2

0
0

1000

2000
3000
Time [days]

4000

5000

Gas Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability

1
0,8

0,6
0,4

Block 52 67 1

0,2

Sgt

0
0,2
1

Classification: Internal

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6
0,7
Gas Saturation

0,8

0,9

2014-05-27

Figure 64: to the left; Capillary pressure and relative permeability mode switching
in ODD3P[11], to the right; Block 52 67 1 showing how ODD3P handles hysteresis
for immiscible CO2 conditions. (increasing to decreasing to increasing saturation)
From Fig.64 to the top left and and bottom left; the two thin arrows indicate
the switch from decreasing to increasing saturation mode. The thick arrows in the
lower left diagram show the transformation of increasing Kr curve to (St ,Sm ), and
how it is added to the turning point saturation, St . Important to note is that when
saturation is in increasing mode the Kr might trace out a flat value due to the
saturation scale transformation, resulting from the use of the increasing saturation
mode curve for the scanning curve(From Fig.65). Also note that from Fig.64, that
the gas relative permeability does not trace back to the same curve. In the case
of Jargons, Killoughs and Carlsons methods, where saturation changes through
intermediate values, the relative permeabilities follow the same scanning or bounding
curve.

92

In the case of miscible conditions ECLIPSE experienced numerical instabilities

illustrated with the arrows represented in Fig.65. The flattening part is also shown
at Sg = 0.25, Krg = 0.3.
BDENO BDENG MCO2

BOSAT BGSAT MCO2

BDENG 35 67 22

BOSAT 35 67 22

700

0.7

600

0.6

500

0.5
Saturation

(KG/M3)

BDENO 35 67 22

400
300

0.4
0.3

200

0.2

100

0.1

0
01/13

01/16

01/19

01/22

0
01/13

01/25

BGSAT 35 67 22

01/16

BPR MCO2

01/19

01/22

01/25

BGKR MCO2

BPR 35 67 22

BGKR 35 67 22

300

0.4

Gas relative permeability

Pressure (BARSA)

250

200

150

0.3

0.2

0.1
100

50
01/13

01/16

Classification: Internal

01/19

2014-05-27

01/22

01/25

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Gas saturation

Figure 65: Block 35 67 22 data, miscible conditions, ODD3P model.

93

0.5

6.1.3

Flow Pattern

To demonstrate the change in flow pattern due to hysteresis, one can simply analyze
the relative permeabilities and saturations on block level for the different models.
Fig.66,67 and 68 represent immiscible conditions for block 49 68 22 with no hysteresis, hysteresis enabled (default), and ODD3P, respectively.
BGKR BWKR BOKR OLDGI150
BGKR 49 68 22

BWKR 49 68 22

BOKR 49 68 22

Relative permeability

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
12/12

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

Time [mnth/yr]
BGSAT BWSAT BOSAT OLDGI150
BGSAT 49 68 22

BWSAT 49 68 22

BOSAT 49 68 22

0.8
0.7

Saturation

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
12/12

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

Time [mnth/yr]

Figure 66: Block 49 68 22 data, no hysteresis, black line represents gas data, red
represents water data and green represents oil data. Upper picture shows change in
relative permeabilities, while the lower shows change in saturations.
The observations made based on Fig.66,67 and 68 are that the saturations and
relative permeabilities are all completely different. The flow pattern is therefore
different for the different models.

94

BGKR BWKR BOKR NY150J8DCO24

BGKR 49 68 22

BWKR 49 68 22

BOKR 49 68 22

0.8

Relative permeability

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
12/12

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

Time [mnth/yr]
BGSAT BWSAT BOSAT NY150J8DCO24
BGSAT 49 68 22

BWSAT 49 68 22

BOSAT 49 68 22

0.6
0.5

Saturation

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
12/12

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

12/15

01/19

01/22

01/25

Time [mnth/yr]

Figure 67: Block 49 68 22 data, hysteresis enabled, black line represents gas data,
red represents water data and green represents oil data.
BGKR BWKR BOKR ICO2
BGKR 49 68 22

BWKR 49 68 22

BOKR 49 68 22

0.6

Relative permeability

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
12/12

12/15

12/18

12/21

12/24

Time [mnth/yr]
BGSAT BWSAT BOSAT ICO2
BGSAT 49 68 22

BWSAT 49 68 22

BOSAT 49 68 22

1.0
0.9
0.8

Saturation

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
12/12

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

12/15

12/18

12/21

12/24

Time [mnth/yr]

Figure 68: Block 49 68 22 data, ODD3P model, black line represents gas data, red
represents water data and green represents oil data.

95

6.1.4

Importance of Hysteretic Effects

In this section a comparison of the curves used in the model before implementing
hysteresis and the new curves will be done. For illustrational purposes a very simple
example will be given. Consider a 100 % water wet system with a given permeability
and porosity. At initial conditions the rock is 100 % saturated with water. Injection
of non-wetting phase (oil) will be performed. Two cases are evaluated;
1. No hysteresis selected, with similar curves used in the field model.
2. Hysteresis selected.

1
Kro,imb

0,9
0,8

Krw,imb

0,7

Kr

0,6
0,5

0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1

0
0

0,2

0,4

Sw

0,6

0,8

injection

production

Figure 69: Case 1, system without hysteresis

W-O Case 1 As oil is injected into the system, the water and oil relative
permeabilities will follow their respective imbibition curves. This is wrong due to
the fact that imbibition curves are used related to the secondary process. A full
drainage run is then done, and reversed at Swir, initiating a water injection. The
secondary process ends at 1-Sor. For all values between 1-Sor and Swir The relative
96

permeabilities have the exact same values independent of the saturation process. A
consequence of this is that during the primary process, water is much more mobile
than it is supposed to be, which in turn makes the oil less mobile.

1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0

Kr

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr
Krw,imb
Krw,dr

Sw
injection

production

Figure 70: Case 2, system with hysteresis

W-O Case 2
Consider the same example as was given for case 1, the only difference being the
use of w-o drainage and imbibition curves. For a given saturation between 1 and
Swir during primary process, the water relative permeability will be less compared
to case 1 and the oil relative permeability will be higher. As a result more oil will
be displaced. The crude is more mobile compared to the water phase, ultimately
changing the fluids flow pattern in the reservoir.
This is just for illustrational purposes, however, it is due to this that oil production will be larger by employing hysteresis in this model.

97

In the case of CO2 -injection it is important to note the input of gas-oil data as
well. In ECLIPSE when employing hysteresis, it is important that all the curves
are enclosed loops to ensure consistency with the respective hysteresis models. The
red solid line from Fig.71 should in reality be constant, instead the input data is
such that it is steadily increasing until zero gas saturation. This means that the
oil relative permeability calculated during decreasing saturation process is being
overestimated for values less than Sgt . However, this is not the case for the ODD3P
model, where this is accounted for.

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1B, Swir = 0,285

1

0,9
Kro,i
Kro,d

0,8

krg,i
Krg,d

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 71: Gas-oil relative permeability, Rocktype 1B

98

6.1.4.1

ODD3P versus the Traditional Models

As shown in the result section, there is a major difference between transforming

traditional data into ODD3P format. This is all due to the effect of the hysteresis end-points. Alteration of the end-points causes change in single, two-phase and
three-phase saturation areas. This is represented in Fig.72 and Fig.73.

Figure 72: Flow areas of transformation through method 1, Rock type 1.

The small triangle in the middle of the figure represents the saturation area
where all three phases are mobile. The other triangles colored with red,blue and
green represent saturation areas where gas, water and oil are the only mobile phases,
respectively. The white areas in between represent only two phases being mobile,
while the solid lines connecting the residual end-points represent single-phase sat99

uration maximas for oil, water and gas. This is due to the fact that the saturations cannot exceed the line limited by the combined residual end-point saturations.
Fig.72 represents transformed data along the constant gas lines. By transforming
along the constant oil lines, represented by Fig.73, an extension of the three-phase
area is observed, and the two-phase area of gas-oil has increased. This results in
more mobile oil at higher gas saturations, thus, giving an increase in oil prediction.
The dashed line represents the limiting Sorw - Sorg from method 1.

Figure 73: Flow areas of transformation through method 2, Rock type 1.

100

By observing Fig.74, the different ways of calculating oil isoperms by Stones firstand second model are shown (ECLIPSE default model is between these two lines).
The red dots on the figure show the same relative permeability value calculated from
the two models. It can be seen that the first model estimates typically a mobile oil at
low oil saturations, where Stones second model calculates the same value at higher
oil saturations.

Figure 74: Illustration of typical Stone-type isoperms, Rock type 1.[12]

For simplicity reasons ODD3P model transformed along the gas lines is used in
Fig.75. The line separating Sorw and Sorg represents the boundary in which the oil
is not mobile (upper part) and mobile (lower part). The oil predictions made from
the different three-phase models are based on how the oil isoperms are calculated,
where the Stones models calculate mobile oil in saturation areas where ODD3P
calculates immobile oil.

101

Figure 75: Illustration of typical Stone-type isoperms, Rock type 1, including

ODD3P transformation method 1.

102

6.2

Model Validity

An increase in simulation time and increasing convergence problems have been a big
issue. In order to fix these problems some limitations have been set to the reservoir
model. Necessary model simplifications will be further explained in the following
chapter.
6.2.1

No Hysteresis Select

The problems occurred already at the initial stages when hysteresis was turned off
(changing the already implemented g-o drainage curves and w-o imbibition curves
with the new ones). A typical message output would look like this:
MnNC; 4600.2 2.00E-02 388.30 .01669 652.92 11.079 2.5E05 132.04 0.0 0.0 7.2E05
20 0.01
@Message at 4600.18997 Days 26 Jul 2015
@ Accepting time step at iteration 20 as unable to reduce.
Basically, ECLIPSE accepts the actual time-step calculated based on the limiting amounts of iterations given by the simulation-mode or the TUNING keyword.
Too many Minimum Not Converged timesteps are a bad sign. Usually it is not
so easy to tell where the MnNC error lies. However, since the simulations went well
before implementing the capillary pressure- and relative permeability curves, an
error might have occurred in these data. The problem lies within the capillary pressure data, since no errors were observed within the relative permeability data. The
transition from the old Pc curves to the new curves causes serious instabilities for
ECLIPSE. In the no-hysteresis an increase in CPU-usage and time-requirement
per simulation-run were observed. An estimated time of 604.800 seconds to finish a
run without hysteresis is too large relative to the size of the field model, especially
1
of the time needed. There
when a depletion run with the old curves required only 20
are two options available in order to fix this; either increase the amount of iterations
by decreasing the stability criterias, or freeze the capillary pressure (no change in
103

capillary pressure). The latter one will be the more optimal one, due to the fact
that by increasing the iteration limit, ECLIPSE will only use more computer resources to try to solve the problem, thus increasing the time required. FREEZEPC
can be used in ECLIPSE to prevent stability problems in runs which involves large
capillary pressures (which is the case here). The results of applying this keyword is
given in Fig.76 below:
WZMF_1

WBHP WTHP WTHP

WTHP A-3
WTHP A-3 NEWBASE2

WZMF_1 A-3 NEWBASE0

20

200

10

150

100
5

9000000

0.9

8000000

0.8

7000000

0.7
Total mole fraction

15

Tubing head pressure (BARSA)

Bottom hole pressure (BARSA)

250

FOPT

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

5000000
4000000
3000000

12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

FOPR
FOPR

6000000

1000000

0.1

0
0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

WGOR
FOPR NEWBASE2

WGOR A-3

WWPR
WGOR A-3 NEWBASE2

WWPR A-3

1000

4000

FOPT NEWBASE2

2000000

0.2

50

FOPT NEWBASE0

WZMF_1 A-3 NEWBASE2

1.0

Oil production total (SM3)

WBHP A-3 NEWBASE0

WBHP A-3 NEWBASE2

300

WWPR A-3 NEWBASE2

100

80

2000

Water production rate (SM3/DAY)

Gas-oil ratio (SM3/SM3)

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

90
800
3000
600

400

1000
200

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

Classification: Open

2014-03-18

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

0
12/02 12/05 12/08 01/12 01/15 01/18 01/21 01/24 02/27

Figure 76: Overview of NEWBASE0 and NEWBASE2 which are Pc enabled and
Pc frozen, respectively. x-axis represents time lapsed in years.
From Fig.76 top left to bottom right represents BHP, WZMF (which is 0.3
%), FOPT, FOPR, GOR and WPR. By observing these graphs there are certain
differences in oil production rate, gas production and water production. However,
since these changes are minor compared to the estimated time it takes to make a full
run (with Pc enabled), FREEZEPC will be enabled in the Hysteresis select cases.
There is of course a fundamental difference between enabling capillary pressure and
freezing it, and the impact depends on how active the water is in the reservoir.

104

6.2.2

Hysteresis Select

Three main cases were studied in the hysteresis select; immiscible CO2 -injection,
multi-contact miscible CO2 -injection, and first contact miscible CO2 -injection. The
BHP at the injector are 150 bar, 190 bar and 310 bar, respectively. See Fig.77 below:

Figure 77: An extract from the printfile of immiscible CO2 -injection.

It can be seen from the summary of the printfile that there are 765 unconverged stability checks. This means that there are 765 blocks that do not satisfy
the converging criterias set by the simulation mode. The problem might lie in the
VLE calculations. In order to check this, the injection fluid can be diluted and/or
CVCRIT can be implemented in order to give ECLIPSE a less intensive run. (changing converging criterias)

105

6.2.2.1 Diluted CO2

When simulating CO2 -injection with 100 % pure CO2 , problems near-critical conditions will occur, unless the injection fluid is diluted to a certain degree. If pure
CO2 is injected no phase envelope will be formed, instead it will be a straight line.
However, if there is a very small fraction of C1 and N2, the mixture will form a
phase-envelope and ECLIPSE will have a bigger margin of calculating phase properties. The phase properties should be approximately equal to that of pure CO2
if the fractions of the impurities are very small. The injection gas composition is
shown in the table below.
Table 9: Composition of the injected gas
Component

Zi [Mole-frac]

CO2

0.998

N2

0.001

C1

0.001

Total

1.00

It is important to note that in reality the CO2 injected will always contain some
impurities. Additionally, by injecting pure CO2 it may cause the grid blocks to only
contain CO2 . This causes problems for ECLIPSE, since two or more components
are needed to perform a flash calculation.

106

6.2.2.2 Convergence near critical conditions

During CO2 -injection it is important to not have convergence problems near the
critical state. In order to determine proper phase behavior and ease the simulators
computational processing, certain keywords were included.
CVCRIT
This keyword modifies the convergence criteria used to control the simulator in the
SCHEDULE subsection. In this case this keyword is used to give the simulator a
more relaxed run.
Table 10: CVCRIT cases
Case

DPM

CompDV

USC

Time[s]

DCO2

760

282211.33

DCO23

1.5

5*

0.1

137

31307.07

DCO24

5*

0.2

115

26070.33

DCO25

1.5

5*

0.5

91

32589.65

The table above represents the CVCRIT sensitivity cases. DPM represents the
first position of the keyword and CompDV represents the seventh position. DPM is
the maximum pressure change over an iteration. CompDV is maximum component
specific volume change over an iteration. This is effectively the contribution to the
saturation change due to any component. If the value is less than this the solution is
accepted. USC represents unconverged stability checks, and Time is time lapsed
for the respective simulation run. The impact of the CVCRIT cases is shown in
Fig.78:

107

FOPR

FOPR NY150K2DCO2

FOPR NY150K2DCO23

FOPR NY150K2DCO24

FOPR NY150K2DCO25

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

1000

500

0
01/13
1

Classification: Internal

01/16

01/19

01/22

01/25

2014-03-18

Figure 78: Effect of CVCRIT on FOPR vs time

From Fig.78 typical oscillations can be observed due to convergence problems.
The graphs almost coincide with each other, which means that the effect of easing
the convergence criteria has little effect on the overall simulation results, but have
a major impact on the time required to make a full run.
NOHCSCAL
If the HCSCAL option is enabled in ECLIPSE, an extra scaling of hydrocarbon relative permeabilities is performed. In compositional simulation oil can change to gas
without passing through the two-phase state. At very low Krg and Kro discontinuity
can occur as the system goes to or from two-phase. In order to avoid discontinuity
near two-phase conditions, NOHCSCAL is enabled.

108

6.2.2.3 History-matched data Comparison

Consider Fig.79 and 80, where there is a timeline divided into two parts; the past
history data, and the future predicted data. If the boundary, dividing history and
prediction, is shifted to the left, the predicted data will be correlated against history
observed data. The result of this is shown in Fig.82

History

Prediction

End at
22 Oct 2012
1

Classification: Internal

2014-03-19

Figure 79: Restartstep initially

History

Prediction

Prediction
start
1 Jan 2012
1

Classification: Internal

2014-03-19

Figure 80: Restartstep post shift.

109

FOPR NY150K2DCO2
FOPR

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
12/02

09/05

06/08

03/11

12/13

08/16

05/19

02/22

11/24

08/27

FOPR FOPRH NY150K2DCO2

FOPR

WTHP WBHP NY150K2DCO2

FOPRH

WTHP A-3

4000

WBHP A-3

300

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

250

Pressure (BARSA)

3000

2000

200

150

100

1000
50

0
12/02

12/05

12/08

01/12

Classification: Internal

01/15

01/18

01/21

01/24

0
12/02

02/27

12/05

12/08

01/12

01/15

01/18

01/21

01/24

02/27

2014-03-19

Figure 81: Historymatching hysteresis

WBHP NY150K2DCO2
WBHP A-3
300

Bottom hole pressure (BARSA)

250

200

150

100

50

0
12/02

12/05

12/08

01/12

01/15

01/18

01/21

01/24

02/27

FOPR FOPRH NY150K2DCO2

FOPR

WTHP NY150K2DCO2

FOPRH

WTHP A-3

1763

Tubing head pressure (BARSA)

Oil production rate (SM3/DAY)

15

1263

763

263

-237
07/08

07/09

Classification: Internal

07/10

07/11

07/12

07/13

10

-0.
01/08

07/14

12/08

12/09

12/10

12/11

12/12

12/13

12/14

12/15

2014-03-18

Figure 82: Historymatching hysteresis, zoomed view on BHPH vs BHP predicted

110

From the graphs a very peculiar observation was made. The BHP of the production well is 1 bar, which is a physical impossibility. In order to understand what
is happening one needs to find out what control mode the production well is put
under during the history and during the prediction phases. Last reported step from
the history data:
WCONHIST
A-3 OPEN RESV 1134.2 99.45 488503.95 3* 100.0 / /
Well control at the beginning of the prediction data:
WCONPROD
A-3 OPEN ORAT 2000. 300 1420000 1* 1* 20 15 1 /
The control mode during prediction is the oil rate with a limiting water production of 300 Sm3 and tubing head pressure of 15 bar and BHP of 20 bar. From the
WCONHIST, it can be seen that the control mode is based on observed reservoir
volumes, with certain values for oil-,water-, and gas-rates, respectively. The last
position in the keyword WCONHIST is the observed bottomhole pressure, which
is 100 bar. However, since the control mode is based on reservoir volumes, and it
can be seen from the data (the oil rate for instance), that the implemented model
cannot obtain the historically observed rates. What ECLIPSE basically does during
this period is that it neglects the hydrostatic pressure to get maximum drawdown,
in order to reach the observed rates. In reality it is fundamentally wrong to neglect the hydrostatic pressure, due to its omnipresence in the reservoir. Based on
this information one can conclude that the model implemented is either pessimistic
or that the VFP table employed for predictions does not apply for the hysteresis
models. When concluding the results one should take this into consideration.

111

Conclusion

Hysteresis should be employed to field models due to its impact on the simulation results. Hysteresis affects the fluid flow in the reservoir and cannot be neglected.
Carlsons hysteresis method proved to be very optimistic, while Killoughs method
was the least optimistic. This is due to the fact that the oil relative permeabilities
calculated were bigger in the case of Carlsons method compared to the other methods.
Choice of hysteresis end-points have a big impact on the single-, two-phase- and
three-phase saturation ranges.
The ODD3P model extends the range of mobile saturations of the traditional
Stones models. However, the results show that ODD3P estimate a lower oil prediction compared to the other three-phase models. This is due to the fact that
compared to the traditional models, the saturation area, in which the oil is mobile,
is smaller for ODD3P. Additionally, the input gas-oil data for the traditional models is such that to ensure consistency, closed loops between input bounding curves
need to be ensured. A consequence of this is that the relative permeability of oil
during decreasing gas saturation is being overestimated for saturations less than Sgt .
Lastly, based on a recent study[23] done on hysteresis models and WAG, the traditional hysteresis models tend to overestimate oil prediction. It is therefore plausible
to assume that the ODD3P model represents a more realistic outcome than the
default and Stones models.

112

 As the reservoir pressure exceeds MMP, the oil oscillates between oil and gas
phases, while the gas oscillates between gas and oil. This causes extreme changes in
the saturations, which in turn give improper relative permeabilities. Hysteresis is
therefore not modelled correctly in miscible cases where the process path goes from
immiscible to miscible conditions. ODD3P, however, treats miscible cases better.
The simulator still experienced numerical difficulties.
Uncertainties play a major role when it comes to reservoir simulation. Different models can give very different results. One method might seem very promising
while others might not give good oil predictions at all. Even though there are a
lot of uncertainties coupled with the different hysteresis models, they can give us a
better understanding of what is happening in the reservoir, especially through complex EOR methods, such as CO2 -injection. It is therefore important to understand
the theory and the fundamentals behind the methods employed, in order to fully
understand the predicted data.

113

Future Recommendations

Choose a hysteresis method that corresponds to a good history matching of

the model. Alter the relative permeability curves until the model fits the history
matched data.
Find out the effect of capillary pressure hysteresis versus relative permeability
hysteresis with regards to different values of kkhv .
CO2 -injection has been the main focus in this thesis. An interesting aspect would
be to study the effect of WAG injections with the ODD3P model applied with
DSTNUM 6= ISTNUM.

114

References
[1] Zick A.A. A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases. SPE 15493, 1986.
[2] M Adewumi. Phase Relations in Reservoir Engineering. https://www.
e-education.psu.edu/png520/, 2014. Cubic EOS and Their Behavior - Part
I, II and III,accessed June6, 2014.
[3] W.G. Anderson. Wettability Literature Survey Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brine interactions and the effect of core handling on wettability.. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pages 112511441262, October 1986.
[4] D.B. Bennion, F.B. Thomas, and R.F. Bietz. Hysteretic Relative Permeability
Effects and Reservoir Conformance - An Overview, 1996.
[5] J.S. Buckley, C. Bousseau, and L. Yu. Wetting Alteration by Brine and Crude
Oil: From Contact Angles to Cores. SPEJ 30765, pages 341350, 1996.
[6] G.L. Chierici. Novel Relations for Drainage and Imbibition Relative Permeabilities. SPEJ, pages 275276, June 1984.
[7] L.P. Dake. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier, 1977.
[8] Distaso E. Effect of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Hysteresis in a Wag Process.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21952723/
Effect-of-Relative-Permeability-and-Capillary-Pressure-Hysteresis-in,
last accessed: June6, 2014, October 2007. Master Igegneria del Petrolio.
[9] R.M. Enick and D.K. Olsen. Mobility and Conformance Control for Carbon
Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery via Thickeners, Foams, and Gels - A Detailed
Literature Review of 40 years Research. Technical report, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, 2012.
[10] D.W. Green and G.P. Willhite. Enhanced Oil Recovery, volume 6. SPE
textbook series, 1998.

115

[11] O.S. Hustad and Browning D.J. A Fully Coupled Three-Phase Model for Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability for Impliecit Compositional Reservoir
Simulation. SPE 125429, October 2009.
[12] O.S. Hustad and T. Holt. Gravity Stable Displacement of Oil by Hydrocarbon
Gas After Waterflooding. SPE/DOE 24116, October 1992.
[13] National Institute if Standards and Technology. Isothermal Properties for
Carbon Dioxide. webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/, url last checked:
June6, 2014, 2014.
[14] J.E. Killough. Reservoir Simulation with History-dependent Saturation Functions. SPEJ, February 1976.
[15] J. Kleppe. Handout Note Nr 3: Capillary Pressures and Relative Permeabilities., August 2012.
[16] L.W. Lake. Enhanced Oil Recovery. University of Texas, 1989.
[17] P.S. Laplace. Supplment au dixime livre du Trait de Mcanique Cleste. Trait
de Mcanique Cleste, 4:179, 1808.
[18] O.M. Mathiassen. CO2 as Injection Gas for Enhanced Oil Recovery and Estimation of the Potential on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, May 2003.
[19] T.A. Melby. The Effect of Different Flooding Rates and Ionic Composition
with Low Salinity Water in Carbonates. Technical report, University of Stavanger, May 2012.
[20] T.A. Melby. Compositional Simulation-Model Analysis: An In-depth EOR
Study With Focus on CO2 Injection. Technical report, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, December 2013.
[21] T.F. Moore and R.C. Slobord. The effect of viscosity and capillarity on the
displacement of oil by water. Producers Monthly, pages 2030, August 1956.
[22] Cheng N. Special Topics On Developed Miscibility. PhD thesis, NTNU,
October 2005.
116

[23] Shahrokhi O., Fatemi M., Ireland S., and Ahmed K. Assessment of Three
Phase Relative Permeability and Hysteresis Models for Simulation of WaterAlternating-Gas (WAG) Injection in Water-wet and Mixed-wet systems. SPE
169170, 2014.
[24] M.J. Oak, L.E. Baker, and D.C. Thomas. Three-Phase Relative Permeability
of Berea Sanstone. SPE 17370, 1988.
[25] J.D. Rogers and R.B. Grigg. A literature Analysis of the WAG injectivity
Abnormalities in the CO2 Process. SPE 59329, 2000.
[26] Schlumberger. ECLIPSE Technical Description, 2012.
[27] P. M. Sigmund and F. G. McCaffery. An improved Unsteady-state Procedure
for Determining the Relative Permeability Characteristics of Heterogeneous
Porous Media. SPEJ, pages 1528, February 1979.
[28] J.E. Spirteri and R. Juanes. Impact of Relative Permeability Hysteresis on
the Numerical Simulation of WAG injection. SPE 89921, 2004.
[29] M.B. Standing. Notes on Relative Permeability Relationships. PhD thesis,
The University of Trondheim, August 1974.
[30] D.C. Standnes and T. Austad. Enhanced Oil Recovery from Oil-wet Carbonate
Rock by Spontaneous Imbibition of Aquaous Surfactant Solutions. PhD thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2001.
[31] H.L. Stone. Probability Model for Estimating Three-phase Relative Permeability. Esso production Research CO, pages 214218, 1970.
[32] S. Strand. Wettability Alteration in Chalk: A Study of Surface Chemistry,.
PhD thesis, University of Stavanger, 2006.
[33] M.A. Torcaso and M.R.J. Wyllie. A Comparison of Calculated Krg/Kro Ratios
with a Correlation of Field Data. SPE 1180-G, December 1958.
[34] C.H. Whitson and M.R. Brule. Phase Behavior, volume 20. SPE Henry l.
Doherty series, 2000.
117

[35] M.R.J. Wyllie and G.H.F Gardner.

The Generalized Kozeny-Carman
Equation-Part 2: A Novel Approach to Problems of Fluid Flow. World Oil,
5:21028, April 1958.
[36] T. Young. An Essay on the Cohesion of Fluids. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, 95:6589, 1805.
[37] J.G.J. Ypma. Analytical and Numerical Modeling of Immiscible GravityStable Gas Injection Into Stratified Reservoirs,. SPEJ, pages 554564, August
1985.

118

Nomenclature
Symbol

Description

i,j,k
Pc
Pcog
Pcow
Krij
Krij
Sirj
T

g
w
os
ow
ws

subscripts of fluid phases, oil, water and gas

Capillary pressure
Gas-oil capillary pressure
Oil-water capillary pressure
Relative permeability of phase i in i-j system
End-point relative permeability of phase i in i-j system
Saturation of phase i in i-j system
Temperature
Contact angle between fluid-fluid interface
Acentric factor
sphericity of the molecules
Beta function for gas in Stones first model
Beta function for water in Stones first model
Interfacial tension between oil-solid
Interfacial tension between oil-water
Interfacial tension between water-oil

119

Abbreviation

Description

EOR
EOS
MMP
HCPV
Pi
WAG
Nca
Si
Kri
Sin
OWC
GOC
FOPR
FOPT
WGOR
WWPR
BHP
THP
GIR
SWAG
IOR
PR
SRK
BIP
RF
WZMF
J

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Equation Of State
Minimum Miscible Pressure
Hydrocarbon Pore Volume
Phase pressure where i = oil, gas or water
Water-Alternating-Gas
Capillary Number
Saturation of phase i, i = o,w or g
Relative permeability of phase i, i = o,w or g
Normalized saturation of phase i
Oil-Water contact
Gas-Oil contact
Field Oil Production Rate
Field Oil Production Total
Well Gas Oil Ratio
Well Water Production Rate
Bottom Hole Pressure
Tubing Head Pressure
Gas Injection Rate
Simulataneous Water and Gas injection
Increased Oil Recovery
Peng-Robinsson
Soave-Redlich-Kwong
Binary Interaction Parameter
Recovery Factor
Component Molar Fraction
Leverett J-function

120

Old Curves

Capillary Pressure
9
Table 1
8

Table 2
Table 3

Table 4

Table 5
6

Pc

A.1

Appendix

0
0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Sw

Figure 83: Capillary pressure curves.

Oil-Gas Relative Permeability - Rock 1B

1

0,9

Krg
Krog

0,8

0,7

0,6

Kr

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 84: Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 1B.

121

Oil-Gas Relative Permeability - Rock 1

1

0,9

Krg
0,8

Krog
0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 85: Gas-Oil Drainage Curve,Rock 1.

122

Oil-Gas Relative Permeability - Rock 2

1

0,9

Krg
Krog

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 86: Gas-Oil Drainage Curve,Rock 2.

Oil-Gas Relative Permeability - Rock 3

1

0,9

Krg
0,8

Krog

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 87: Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 3.

123

Oil-Gas Relative Permeability - Rock 4

1

0,9

Krg

0,8

Krog

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 88: Gas-Oil Drainage Curve, Rock 4.

Oil-Water Relative Permeability - Rock 1B

1

Krw

0,9

Krow

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 89: Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock 1B.

124

Oil-Water Relative Permeability - Rock 1

1

Krw

0,9

Krow
0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Sw

Figure 90: Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock 1.

125

Oil-Water Relative Permeability - Rock 3

1

Krw
Krow

0,9

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 91: Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock 3.

Oil-Water Relative Permeability - Rock 4

1

Krw
0,9

Krow

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 92: Oil-Water Imbibition Curve, Rock 4.

126

New Curves

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 1, Swir = 0,20

1

0,9
Kro,dr
Kro,imb

0,8

krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,7

0,6

Kr

A.2

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Sg

Figure 93: Rocktype 1

127

0,8

0,9

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 2, Swir = 0,35

1

0,9
Kro,dr
Kro,imb

0,8

krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sg

Figure 94: Rocktype 2

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 3, Swir = 0,5

1

0,9
Kro,dr
Kro,imb

0,8

krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Sg

Figure 95: Rocktype 3

128

0,8

0,9

G-O Relative Permeability, Rock Type 4, Swir = 0,654

1

0,9
Kro,dr
Kro,imb

0,8

krg,dr
Krg,imb

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Sg

Figure 96: Rocktype 4

129

0,8

0,9

W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 1, Swi = 0,20

1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr

0,9

Krw,imb
Krw,dr

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 97: Rocktype 1

W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 2, Swi = 0,35

1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr

0,9

Krw,imb

Krw,dr

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Sw

Figure 98: Rocktype 2

130

0,8

0,9

W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 3, Swi = 0,5

1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr

0,9

Krw,imb

Krw,dr

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

Sw

Figure 99: Rocktype 3

W-O Relative Permeability, Rock type 4, Swi = 0,654

1
Kro,imb
Kro,dr

0,9

Krw,imb

Krw,dr

0,8

0,7

Kr

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Sw

Figure 100: Rocktype 4

131

0,8

0,9

Capillary Pressure - Rock 1

1

SP

0,8

PP

0,6

0,4

Pc [Bar]

0,2

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

-0,2

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

Sw

Figure 101: Rocktype 1

Capillary Pressure - Rock 2

1

SP

0,8

PP

0,6

0,4

Pc [Bar]

0,2

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

-0,2

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

Sw

Figure 102: Rocktype 2

132

0,8

0,9

Capillary Pressure - Rock 3

1

SP
0,8

PP

0,6

0,4

Pc [Bar]

0,2

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

-0,2

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

Sw

Figure 103: Rocktype 3

Capillary Pressure - Rock 4

10

SP

PP

Pc [Bar]

0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

Sw

Figure 104: Rocktype 4

133

0,8

0,9

A.3

Immiscible CO2 -Injection

Illustration of change in flow pattern with regards to layers at the end of prediction,
with an injection pressure of 150 bar. Upper picture showing a reservoir model with
no hysteresis. Bottom picture showing reservoir model with hysteresis.

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 105: Layer 1.

134

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 106: Layer 10.

135

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 107: Layer 20.

136

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 108: Layer 30.

137

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 109: Layer 40.

138

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 110: Layer 50.

139

A.4

Miscible CO2 -Injection

Illustration of change in flow pattern with regards to layers at the end of prediction,
with an injection pressure of 310 bar. Upper picture showing a reservoir model with
no hysteresis. Bottom picture showing reservoir model with hysteresis.

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 111: Layer 1.

140

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 112: Layer 10.

141

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 113: Layer 20.

142

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 114: Layer 30.

143

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 115: Layer 40.

144

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 116: Layer 50.

145

A.5

ODD3P Immiscible Conditions

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 117: Layer 1.

146

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 118: Layer 10.

147

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 119: Layer 20.

148

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 120: Layer 30.

149

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 121: Layer 40.

150

Classification: Internal

2014-03-24

Figure 122: Layer 50.

151

Appendix

B.1

Data File

-- *****************************************************
RUNSPEC
-- *****************************************************
-- Simulation run title
TITLE
Statoil1
NOECHO
PARALLEL
4 /
VECTABLE
8000 /
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Simulation grid dimension (Imax, Jmax, Kmax)
DIMENS
89 104 207 /
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Simulation run start
START
21 DEC 2002 /
-- -----------------------------------------------------Activate "Data Check Only" option
--NOSIM
COMPS
9 /
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Fluid phases present
OIL
GAS
WATER
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Measurement unit used
METRIC
-- -----------------------------------------------------Use saturation table end-point scaling
ENDSCALE
/
--Table dimensions
TABDIMS
-- NTSFUN NTPVT NSSFUN NPPVT NTFIP NRPVT
10
/
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Dimensions for equilibration tables
EQLDIMS
152

/
-- -----------------------------------------------------Regions dimension data
REGDIMS
-- NTFIP NMFIPR NRFREG NTFREG
1
/
-- -----------------------------------------------------Dimension for well data
WELLDIMS
3 8* 23 /
-- -----------------------------------------------------Production well VFP table dimension
VFPPDIMS
--MXMFLO MXMTHP MXMWFR MXMGFR MXMALQ NMMVFT
15
10
10
10
1
8 /
/
- -----------------------------------------------------Summary file dimensions
SMRYDIMS
/
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Input and output files format
UNIFIN
UNIFOUT
-- Numerical solution method
AIM
-- Allow horizontal completions
HWELLS
--Allow Hysteresis Option
SATOPTS
HYSTER /
FORMOPTS
NOHCSCAL /
/
FREEZEPC
/
RUNSUM
-- *************************************************************************
-- In this section simulation grid and static reservoir parameters are given
-- *************************************************************************
GRID
-- ****************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------Disable echoing of the input file
NOECHO

153

---Requests output of an INIT file

--INIT
---Control output of the Grid geometry file
GRIDFILE
0 1 /
--Message print and stop limits
MESSAGES
10000000 /
---Generates connections across pinched-out layers
PINCH
0.01 GAP 1 ALL TOP /
MINPV
10 /
MINNNCT
0 /
NOECHO
-- -----------------------------------------------------Include simulation grid
INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_grid.grdecl /
NOECHO
-- -----------------------------------------------------Include ACTNUM data, if any
INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_actnum.grdecl /
NOECHO
-- Set lower (water filled) part of model inactive:
EQUALS
ACTNUM 0 1 89 1 104 132 207 /
/
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Include faults
-- Make sure that faults name have 8 characters max.
INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_all_faults.inc /
NOECHO
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Porosity and permeabiliy:
154

INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_porperm.grdecl /
NOECHO
COPY
PERMX PERMY /
/
-- Fault seal
INCLUDE
fault_seal_grid.inc /
-- ***************************************************
-- In this section simulation grid parameters are edited
-- ***************************************************
EDIT
-- ***************************************************
-- Fault seal
MESSAGES
0 0 1 /
INCLUDE
fault_seal_edit.inc /
-- ---------------------------------------------------- The pore volume of a row of blocks is increased
-- to model the effect of the aquifer:
INCLUDE
aquifer.inc /
-----

***************************************************
In this section fluid-rock properties and
relative permabilities are given
***************************************************

PROPS
MESSAGES
1000000 1000000 10000 /
-- ***************************************************
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Relative permeability endpints
NOECHO
-- The following endpoints are set as fields:
--- SWL, SGU, SWCR, SWATINIT
155

-- Read endpoints (SWL + SWATINIT + Original SWCR = SWATINIT)

INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_endpoints_swl_swatinit.grdecl /
-- Reread SWCR (scaled, created by a script)
INCLUDE
swcr.inc /
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Next 2 keywords are used to make maximum gas saturation consistent: SGU=1-SWL
-COPY
SWL
SGU
/
/
MULTIPLY
SGU
-1 /
/
ADD
SGU
1 /
/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gas-Oil Rel-perm data:
SGOF
-- Table 1, Rock 1
-- Gas-Oil Imbibition
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.897192 0
0.04 0 0.801895 0
0.06 0 0.713799 0
0.08 0 0.632596 0
0.1 0 0.557982 0
0.12 0 0.489652 0
0.14 0 0.427308 0
0.16 0 0.37065 0
0.18 0 0.319384 0
0.2 0 0.273217 0
0.22 0 0.231859 0
0.24 0 0.195022 0
0.26 0 0.162423 0
0.28 0 0.133781 0
0.3 0 0.108819 0
0.32 0.005798 0.087261 0
0.34 0.017577 0.068838 0
0.36 0.033627 0.053283 0
0.38 0.053283 0.040334 0
0.4 0.076146 0.029731 0
0.42 0.101938 0.021222 0
0.44 0.130453 0.014558 0
0.46 0.161525 0.009496 0
0.48 0.195022 0.005798 0
0.5 0.230832 0.003235 0
156

0.52 0.268859 0.001584 0

0.54 0.30902 0.000631 0
0.56 0.351241 0.000172 0
0.58 0.395458 0.000019 0
0.6 0.441613 0 0
0.62 0.489652 0 0
0.64 0.539528 0 0
0.66 0.591197 0 0
0.68 0.644617 0 0
0.7 0.699752 0 0
0.72 0.756566 0 0
0.74 0.815028 0 0
0.76 0.875106 0 0
0.78 0.936772 0 0
0.8 1 0 0
-- Table 2. Rock 1B
-- Gas-Oil Imbibition
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.88522 0
0.04 0 0.779838 0
0.06 0 0.68342 0
0.08 0 0.595531 0
0.1 0 0.515743 0
0.12 0 0.443631 0
0.14 0 0.378773 0
0.16 0 0.320751 0
0.18 0 0.269153 0
0.2 0 0.223569 0
0.22 0 0.183595 0
0.24 0 0.148833 0
0.26 0 0.118886 0
0.28 0 0.093368 0
0.3 0 0.071893 0
0.32 0.019403 0.054084 0
0.34 0.047777 0.039571 0
0.36 0.080935 0.027989 0
0.38 0.11764 0.018981 0
0.4 0.157231 0.012199 0
0.42 0.199284 0.007303 0
0.44 0.243503 0.003963 0
0.46 0.289663 0.00186 0
0.48 0.337592 0.000689 0
0.5 0.387148 0.000162 0
0.52 0.438215 0 0
0.54 0.490696 0 0
0.56 0.544506 0 0
0.58 0.599574 0 0
0.6 0.655836 0 0
0.62 0.713235 0 0
0.64 0.771721 0 0
0.66 0.831248 0 0
0.68 0.891777 0 0
157

0.7 0.953269 0 0
0.715 1 0 0
/
-- Table 3. Rock 2
-- Gas-Oil Imbibition
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.891989 0
0.04 0 0.791783 0
0.06 0 0.69912 0
0.08 0 0.613737 0
0.1 0 0.535367 0
0.12 0 0.463744 0
0.14 0 0.398594 0
0.16 0 0.339645 0
0.18 0 0.286618 0
0.2 0 0.239234 0
0.22 0 0.197209 0
0.24 0 0.160254 0
0.26 0 0.128078 0
0.28 0 0.100385 0
0.3 0 0.076872 0
0.32 0.024213 0.057233 0
0.34 0.05962 0.041155 0
0.36 0.100997 0.028317 0
0.38 0.146801 0.01839 0
0.4 0.196206 0.011038 0
0.42 0.248684 0.005909 0
0.44 0.303863 0.002641 0
0.46 0.361466 0.000849 0
0.48 0.421275 0.000122 0
0.5 0.483115 0 0
0.52 0.546841 0 0
0.54 0.612331 0 0
0.56 0.67948 0 0
0.58 0.748199 0 0
0.6 0.818407 0 0
0.62 0.890034 0 0
0.64 0.963017 0 0
0.65 1 0 0
/
-- Table 4. Rock 3
-- Gas-Oil Imbibition
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.886076 0
0.04 0 0.780511 0
0.06 0 0.683062 0
0.08 0 0.593485 0
0.1 0 0.511527 0
0.12 0 0.436931 0
0.14 0 0.369435 0
158

0.16 0 0.308769 0
0.18 0 0.254656 0
0.2 0 0.20681 0
0.22 0 0.164938 0
0.24 0 0.128736 0
0.26 0 0.097888 0
0.28 0 0.072067 0
0.3 0.071527 0.050928 0
0.32 0.153321 0.034111 0
0.34 0.239498 0.021234 0
0.36 0.32865 0.011887 0
0.38 0.420083 0.005626 0
0.4 0.513375 0.001961 0
0.42 0.608241 0.000323 0
0.44 0.704477 0 0
0.46 0.801927 0 0
0.48 0.900468 0 0
0.5 1 0 0
/
-- Table 5. Rock 4
-- Gas-Oil Imbibition
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.875534 0
0.04 0 0.75893 0
0.06 0 0.650247 0
0.08 0 0.549551 0
0.1 0 0.456912 0
0.12 0 0.372409 0
0.14 0 0.29613 0
0.16 0 0.228176 0
0.18 0 0.168661 0
0.2 0 0.117723 0
0.22 0 0.075525 0
0.24 0.091381 0.042277 0
0.26 0.225007 0.018261 0
0.28 0.381167 0.003912 0
0.3 0.554033 0 0
0.32 0.740488 0 0
0.34 0.938542 0 0
0.346 1 0 0
/
-- Table 6. Rock 1. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Gas-Oil Drainage
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.897192383678114 0
0.04 0.000319516809311217 0.801895331681297 0
0.06 0.00419609891815144 0.713799156161152 0
0.08 0.0107468633273278 0.632596374238461 0
0.1 0.0193554411570216 0.557981773149669 0
159

0.12 0.0297311689540826 0.489652479892499 0

0.14 0.0416912179168901 0.427308035873609 0
0.16 0.0551058523927666 0.370650477140692 0
0.18 0.0698763976018332 0.319384420877529 0
0.2 0.0859243023231702 0.273217158957549 0
0.22 0.103184976405608 0.231858759495187 0
0.24 0.121604005806986 0.195022177512646 0
0.26 0.141134676696768 0.162423376062915 0
0.28 0.161736275827918 0.133781459432747 0
0.3 0.183372878358846 0.108818820412016 0
0.32 0.206012456063559 0.0872613040874607 0
0.34 0.229626204132833 0.0688383912415472 0
0.36 0.254188021827091 0.0532834052737199 0
0.38 0.279674104307808 0.0403337477076009 0
0.4 0.306062616649357 0.0297311689540826 0
0.42 0.33333342980205 0.0212220833111088 0
0.44 0.361467904068133 0.0145579406084694 0
0.46 0.39044870957662 0.00949567217841166 0
0.48 0.420259675962913 0.00579823730942158 0
0.5 0.450885665382982 0.00323531073505361 0
0.52 0.482312464377283 0.00158417792464182 0
0.54 0.514526691113569 0.000630957344480195 0
0.56 0.547515715290842 0.000172388373082279 0
0.58 0.581267588553579 0.0000187590994115603 0
0.6 0.615770983697209 0 0
0.62 0.651015141278653 0 0
0.64 0.686989822504734 0 0
0.66 0.723685267474857 0 0
0.68 0.761092158015779 0 0
0.7 0.799201584475273 0 0
0.72 0.838005015945429 0 0
0.74 0.877494273470611 0 0
0.76 0.917661505863938 0 0
0.78 0.958499167812714 0 0
0.8 1 0 0
/
-- Table 7. Rock 1B. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Gas-Oil Drainage
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.875159203941741 0
0.04 0.00103049414430682 0.761868397315868 0
0.06 0.00980852118316669 0.65946142486939 0
0.08 0.0223349529272121 0.567285458495794 0
0.1 0.037373710872033 0.484701275152947 0
0.12 0.0544094102060077 0.411083552937324 0
0.14 0.0731395932727521 0.3458211873831 0
0.16 0.0933601499165669 0.288317630400664 0
0.18 0.114921880890535 0.237991254693263 0
0.2 0.137709862326659 0.194275747015726 0
0.22 0.161632221495462 0.156620534296422 0
0.24 0.186613443880572 0.124491247475947 0
0.26 0.212590105554605 0.0973702289841736 0
160

0.28 0.239508008883515 0.0747570911684094 0

0.3 0.267320180516383 0.0561693348279201 0
0.32 0.295985425199246 0.0411430394971388 0
0.34 0.325467252163372 0.02923364055124 0
0.36 0.35573305952987 0.020016813063508 0
0.38 0.386753502398585 0.0130894894232723 0
0.4 0.41850199483936 0.00807104841838403 0
0.42 0.450954311524296 0.00460473035940363 0
0.44 0.48408826485505 0.00235936091927493 0
0.46 0.517883440209373 0.00103151651310008 0
0.48 0.552320976569814 0.000348362321589335 0
0.5 0.587383383042483 0.0000716143275246563 0
0.52 0.623054384086515 3.69046566912859E-06 0
0.54 0.659318787950921 0 0
0.56 0.69616237404876 0 0
0.58 0.733571795918505 0 0
0.6 0.771534497117462 0 0
0.62 0.810038637923158 0 0
0.64 0.849073031128811 0 0
0.66 0.888627085538887 0 0
0.68 0.928690756022567 0 0
0.7 0.969254499182757 0 0
0.715 1 0 0
/
-- Table 8. Rock 2. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Gas-Oil Drainage
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.866860702828407 0
0.04 0.00191921378845489 0.746891291445067 0
0.06 0.0155519324336156 0.639277401735678 0
0.08 0.0333917067260381 0.543222188940621 0
0.1 0.0538579368952957 0.457946721791957 0
0.12 0.0763320547137597 0.382690404527942 0
0.14 0.100463531001657 0.31671143023718 0
0.16 0.126021709449296 0.259287269614842 0
0.18 0.152841310364335 0.2097152 0
0.2 0.180797107032644 0.16731288055616 0
0.22 0.209790392947863 0.131418980727139 0
0.24 0.239741031108288 0.101393870748088 0
0.26 0.270582448901919 0.0766203851642629 0
0.28 0.302258316537342 0.0565046732283268 0
0.3 0.334720248757051 0.0404771540501553 0
0.32 0.367926159750264 0.0279936 0
0.34 0.401839052053128 0.0185363800047366 0
0.36 0.436426103568117 0.011615906556098 0
0.38 0.471657965235185 0.00677234924084693 0
0.4 0.507508211200719 0.00357770876399966 0
0.42 0.543952901731149 0.0016384 0
0.44 0.580970231031637 0.000598596759095804 0
0.46 0.618540240054838 0.000144815468787005 0
0.48 0.656644579782829 0.0000128 0
0.5 0.695266314220943 0 0
161

0.52 0.734389755005004 0 0
0.54 0.774000321443741 0 0
0.56 0.814084421224417 0 0
0.58 0.854629348054132 0 0
0.6 0.895623193294768 0 0
0.62 0.937054769247481 0 0
0.64 0.97891354220251 0 0
0.65 1 0 0
/
-- Table 9. Rock 3. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Gas-Oil Drainage
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.849744082092905 0
0.04 0.00276040094162393 0.716350555406155 0
0.06 0.0223683099777987 0.598629645735816 0
0.08 0.048027217834441 0.495420969640548 0
0.1 0.0774637513621588 0.40559429898642 0
0.12 0.109788225249041 0.328050388502096 0
0.14 0.144496474152107 0.261721875514284 0
0.16 0.18125674561194 0.205574263019978 0
0.18 0.219831318213073 0.158606999829491 0
0.2 0.260040078649906 0.119854674913009 0
0.22 0.301741057572934 0.0883883476483184 0
0.24 0.34481899411008 0.0633170419293052 0
0.26 0.389178137020936 0.0437894408968557 0
0.28 0.43473746729126 0.0289958317850892 0
0.3 0.481427392512336 0.0181703694273566 0
0.32 0.529187380755719 0.0105937566734872 0
0.34 0.577964218651087 0.00559648871411057 0
0.36 0.627710698248253 0.00256289366017262 0
0.38 0.678384606859151 0.000936364647757882 0
0.4 0.729947936237052 0.000226529935821008 0
0.42 0.78236625391618 0.0000200226067200986 0
0.44 0.835608196670111 0 0
0.46 0.88964505744525 0 0
0.48 0.944450444889754 0 0
0.5 1 0 0
/
-- Table 10. Rock 4. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Gas-Oil Drainage
-- Sg Krg Krog Pc
0 0 1 0
0.02 0 0.810684954494304 0
0.04 0.00203851740088816 0.646911337926677 0
0.06 0.0227913174085106 0.506828322113202 0
0.08 0.0550399698239803 0.388585078869958 0
0.1 0.0955497271927619 0.29033078001303 0
0.12 0.142885383579865 0.210214597358498 0
0.14 0.196174866196147 0.146385702722445 0
0.16 0.25481467511102 0.0969932679209523 0
0.18 0.318354812813832 0.0601864647701024 0
0.2 0.386442900210177 0.0341144650859771 0
0.22 0.458793238748886 0.0169264406846583 0
162

0.24 0.535168087300279 0.00677156338222808 0

0.26 0.615365570029785 0.00179900499476831 0
0.28 0.699211468504639 0.000157937338361002 0
0.3 0.786553426552844 0 0
0.32 0.877256725597071 0 0
0.34 0.971201122046626 0 0
0.346 1 0 0
/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Water-Oil rel-perm data:
SWOF
-- Table 1. Rock 1. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Imbibition
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.2 0 1 25
0.21 1.22496389559122E-07 0.927157307625789 11.900001
0.215 5.71834130323352E-07 0.892320294832918 3.000759
0.2166666667 8.53391940631343E-07 0.880937192837913 2.82131661442006
0.26666667 0.000165568038674098 0.588591043182462 0.626959247648903
0.3125 0.00120921318464198 0.392830467142208 0.156739811912226
0.345833 0.00324174715655702 0.285619612955599 0.132634099616858
0.3625 0.00489064429241307 0.241390754058714 0.123936781609195
0.41666667 0.0145926200846313 0.133172333171724 0.0956704980842912
0.46666667 0.0321221400451793 0.0710025141460839 0.0695785440613026
0.5 0.0502555530311202 0.0441941738241593 0.052183908045977
0.5166667 0.061718053520622 0.0341710947578904 0.0434865900383141
0.5625 0.103155818651862 0.0154456303198374 0.0195689655172413
0.59166667 0.138422412386357 0.00856512696456721 0.004348659
0.616 0.174051569930666 0.00489778342120372 0
0.6687 0.273857167493504 0.00107277993176174 -0.627586206896552
0.712 0.383132629505268 0.000177211294462869 -2.03448275862069
0.764 0.553329575234575 3.17453870664701E-06 -6.11034482758621
0.8 0.7 0 -12.0689655172414
1 1 0 -25
/
-- Table 2. Rock 1B. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Imbibition
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.285 0 1 25
0.28501 0 1 11.7816091954023
0.3 1.02182695316821E-06 0.87545230158109 4.82758620689655
0.31 7.11873133316102E-06 0.79937365196171 4.13793103448276
0.3208333 0.0000279590213599839 0.722864943094814 3.30459770114942
0.3458333 0.000208914557387776 0.567984026750238 1.72413793103448
0.379166 0.00109910686359138 0.40305384045283 0.862068965517241
0.4 0.00234899646387627 0.320728409275427 0.646551724137931
0.45 0.00926124893120257 0.175862672603424 0.413793103448276
0.5 0.0253219249535091 0.0878846678202316 0.275862068965517
0.55 0.056048615680221 0.0386898911908349 0.172413793103448
163

0.6 0.108096261470842 0.0141743270698643 0.103448275862069

0.65 0.189209725038526 0.00388399028612581 0.0689655172413793
0.7 0.308186305903191 0.000626422674366072 0
0.720833 0.371234433826461 0.000218931415953589 -0.21551724137931
0.73125 0.406095185138647 0.000116036502628495 -0.431034482758621
0.7479167 0.46681120837347 0.0000332668699298137 -0.827586206896552
0.7604167 0.51655111097463 0.0000096754930522223 -1.72413793103448
0.7708333 0.560895999855938 2.44826295736872E-06 -3.44827586206897
0.78 0.60218554390159 4.48231578409523E-07 -5.45977011494253
0.79 0.649737310666232 1.98092242897075E-08 -8.33333333333333
0.8 0.7 0 -12.0689655172414
1 1 0 -25
/
-- Table 3. Rock 2. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Imbibition
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.35 0 1 25
0.3501 0 1 11.6941529235382
0.376 0.0000137971444108738 0.765050393173434 6.89655172413793
0.4 0.000165568038674098 0.588591043182462 4.64767616191904
0.45 0.00230616558930512 0.322737839651785 2.09895052473763
0.5 0.0107655760213687 0.161283275244983 1.19940029985008
0.55 0.0321221400451794 0.0710025141460837 0.749625187406297
0.6 0.0750002171162424 0.0260122948737489 0.599700149925038
0.65 0.149951652313756 0.00712778110110648 0.457974137931035
0.68 0.215398889134774 0.0026113151911219 0.366379310344828
0.7 0.269369894508031 0.00114959188121575 0.305316091954023
0.71667 0.321456286466526 0.000506090378461502 0.137931034482759
0.73 0.368186749485358 0.000230932399479302 0
0.75 0.447423153769726 0.0000508052634252907 -0.749625187406297
0.7604 0.493338995331713 0.0000177561712159449 -1.69415292353823
0.7708 0.542636483340806 4.49297787906632E-06 -3.22338830584708
0.78125 0.595471661696715 6.15246869068078E-07 -5.09745127436282
0.793 0.659514954037216 7.3027236788245E-09 -8.39580209895052
0.8 0.70 0 -12.2938530734633
1 1 0 -25
/
-- Table 4. Rock 3. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Imbibition
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.5 0 1 25
0.501 0 1 11.833855799373
0.512174 3.60306431440648E-06 0.829927287505331 10.2664576802508
0.54783 0.000652775278631737 0.45772545253219 6.81818181818182
0.6 0.0107655760213687 0.161283275244983 3.91849529780564
0.62174 0.0227337989180926 0.0960962514511705 2.97805642633229
0.652174 0.0530798960572313 0.0413841670413069 2.06896551724138
0.678261 0.0968389675923585 0.0172738933027146 1.56739811912226
0.7 0.149951652313756 0.0071277811011065 1.25391849529781
0.708696 0.176273974685113 0.00473332056334154 1.09717868338558
0.730435 0.25687379367195 0.0013922557289616 0.940438871473354
0.747826 0.338684987631803 0.000381500137568198 0.627586206896552
0.76087 0.411572403169028 0.000104537084629636 0
164

0.76522 0.438252970306876 0.0000615295916934113 -0.626959247648903

0.7826087 0.557881873189426 2.71924947062819E-06 -5.40752351097179
0.8 0.70000 0 -12.0689655172414
1 1 0 -25
/
-- Table 5. Rock 4. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Imbibition
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.654 0 1 25
0.65401 0 1 12.0689655172414
0.664583 0.000032668003442752 0.712749113263367 10.0383141762452
0.66875 0.000115336525773087 0.619240073222137 9.50191570881226
0.679167 0.000878405075066145 0.426827656335349 8.27586206896552
0.7 0.00869034360881069 0.182142858910339 6.4367816091954
0.7174 0.0293947656618609 0.0770953334508995 5.05747126436782
0.73182 0.0640715588167939 0.0325027981674188 4.21455938697318
0.75 0.142294421242653 0.00804965316751283 3.44827586206897
0.76087 0.213895944154634 0.00267133392377022 3.14176245210728
0.768696 0.279792209425297 0.000978662890561774 2.83524904214559
0.78261 0.432299223925448 0.0000694875257313604 1.30268199233716
0.786956 0.490516746776864 0.0000190406834565938 0
0.79130 0.554316094829945 3.07094379078244E-06 -4.06130268199234
0.8 0.7000 0 -12.1072796934866
1 1 0 -25
/
-- Table 6. Rock 1. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Drainage
-- Sw Krw
Krow Pc
0.2 0 1 25
0.21 2.44140624999998E-08 0.950929711914063 12.0031
0.215 1.2359619140625E-07 0.927083131408692 3.000759
0.26 0.000031640625 0.732094140625 0.793241
0.31 0.0003574462890625 0.553396508789063 0.421172
0.35 0.0012359619140625 0.435806274414062 0.299793
0.36 0.0016 0.4096 0.278828
0.41 0.0047480712890625 0.295834008789063 0.203655
0.46 0.011156640625 0.207594140625 0.157103
0.5 0.019775390625 0.152587890625 0.131034
0.55 0.0366363525390625 0.100112915039062 0.10669
0.6 0.0625 0.0625 0.088483
0.65 0.100112915039062 0.0366363525390625 0.074276
0.7 0.152587890625 0.019775390625 0.062897
0.75 0.223403930664062 0.0095367431640625 0.053586
0.8 0.31640625 0.00390624999999999 0.045793
0.81 0.338033227539063 0.0031816650390625 0.044414
0.85 0.435806274414062 0.0012359619140625 0.039172
0.97 0.858228540039063 0.0000019775390625 0.026897
1 1 0 0
/
-- Table 7. Rock 1B. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Drainage
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
165

0.285 0 1 25
0.28501 0 1 12.0031
0.3 1.33735978733403E-06 0.968697094944636 6.364345
0.32 0.0000259517715148018 0.927479472532604 3.478483
0.35 0.00022652993582101 0.866784172041448 1.812828
0.37 0.000579288749030844 0.827088079359627 1.291034
0.42 0.00292480585489951 0.730605483824283 0.663586
0.47 0.0088110953923026 0.638196975523907 0.397241
0.5 0.0149095131848666 0.584784622382581 0.305172
0.52 0.0203547780727358 0.550050790757171 0.259448
0.55 0.0309948409759424 0.499297863790018 0.206552
0.6 0.0567565243028713 0.418437813710079 0.146
0.65 0.095050384778139 0.342486142375531 0.106138
0.7 0.148969442401723 0.271783332432712 0.078621
0.75 0.221826889155692 0.206752586010169 0.058897
0.79 0.296107001932638 0.15917317508727 0.046828
0.81 0.339223878724749 0.136984471567572 0.041724
0.84 0.412054152024712 0.105857324037207 0.034966
0.89 0.557278983546373 0.0603434261963644 0.025655
0.93 0.697248927512291 0.0306328918281344 0.01931
0.97 0.860688210053326 0.0085945436055808 0.013517
1 1 0 0
/
-- Table 8. Rock 2. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Drainage
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.35 0 1 25
0.3501 0 1 12.0031
0.37 5.10985100005918E-06 0.954203025433276 8.826345
0.42 0.000409870245419509 0.842892045552196 3.454345
0.47 0.00270356996414778 0.736281298285394 1.858966
0.5 0.00590367795093858 0.674660014851561 1.380345
0.52 0.00914901788491054 0.63458794991802 1.154897
0.55 0.0161587676642761 0.576034819156969 0.904069
0.6 0.0352852567675263 0.482747409570915 0.628276
0.65 0.0667924914088028 0.395122746149031 0.453172
0.7 0.114562216339068 0.313553640224657 0.334483
0.75 0.182815587056441 0.238528335748478 0.249931
0.79 0.255204083638615 0.183636457865152 0.198345
0.81 0.298164313478598 0.15803757842618 0.176414
0.84 0.371954255540466 0.122126507903221 0.147448
0.89 0.522614447077346 0.0696175912560143 0.106966
0.93 0.671121619227832 0.035340852793825 0.079241
0.97 0.847567245648844 0.00991543671746909 0.052759
1 1 0 0
/
-- Table 9. Rock 3. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Drainage
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.5 0 1 25
0.501 0 1 12.0031
0.51 1.13137084989848E-06 0.970150503787943 10.54855
0.55 0.000316227766016838 0.853814968245462 6.781724
0.58 0.0016384 0.769872716752581 4.996
166

0.6 0.00357770876399966 0.715541752799933 4.114966

0.65 0.0147885090526395 0.585662018573853 2.602345
0.7 0.0404771540501552 0.46475800154489 1.693655
0.75 0.0883883476483184 0.353553390593274 1.123862
0.79 0.148592872223132 0.27219110933313 0.816828
0.82 0.2097152 0.216 0.644828
0.84 0.259287269614842 0.181019335983756 0.551172
0.89 0.419112978263761 0.103189146716115 0.371793
0.92 0.543222188940621 0.0639999999999999 0.292276
0.95 0.691590124278824 0.0316227766016838 0.227724
0.97 0.805281065338457 0.0146969384566991 0.190552
1 1 0 0
/
-- Table 10. Rock 4. Corey correlated relative permeability curves.
-- Water-Oil Drainage
-- Sw Krw Krow Pc
0.654 0 1 25
0.65401 0 1 12.0031
0.67 0.000021264422543919 0.931444026025444 9.705931
0.685 0.00021527796659132 0.868663718084582 7.961862
0.7 0.000856813035317722 0.807360938901418 6.568966
0.75 0.0112507887400279 0.614180275395634 3.575862
0.79 0.0380732397411112 0.472840637194685 2.256897
0.81 0.0615417367915925 0.406926762541963 1.803793
0.84 0.113901372938734 0.314460301002565 1.295586
0.89 0.262075042333267 0.179256486386953 0.753172
0.91 0.348396298959568 0.132662939485457 0.60731
0.93 0.453331024162638 0.0909982230560485 0.489862
0.97 0.728011841480483 0.0255309946078053 0.31731
0.98 0.811886377402651 0.0138973132033048 0.283379
1 1 0 0
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
--Hysteresis Option
EHYSTR
1* 8 /
/
------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Include PVT data
NCOMPS
9 /
-- Equation of state
EOS
SRK /
-- Reservoir temperature (C)
RTEMP
100.00 /
-- Standard Conditions (C and bara)
167

STCOND
14.99999
1.01325
-- Component names
CNAMES
CO2
N2
C1
C2
C3
C4C5
C6
C7C12
C13P /
-- Tc (K)
TCRIT
304.200
126.200
190.600
305.400
369.800
435.439
552.063
574.782
722.281 /
-- Pc (Bar)
PCRIT
73.7646
33.9439
46.0015
48.8387
42.4552
36.1095
34.5976
26.4128
16.5345 /
-- Omega
ACF
0.22500
0.04000
0.00800
0.09800
0.15200
0.20545
0.27079
0.65111
0.84844 /
-- OmegaA
OMEGAA
0.42748
0.42748
0.42748
0.42748
0.42748
0.42748

168

0.42748
0.42748
0.42748 /
-- OmegaB
OMEGAB
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664
0.08664 /
-- Molecular weights
MW
44.0098
28.0135
16.0429
30.0698
44.0968
62.5206
91.0980
119.9064
231.6094 /
-- Boiling points (K)
TBOIL
194.650
77.400
111.600
184.600
231.100
281.665
364.522
423.789
573.044 /
-- Critical volumes (m3/kg-mole)
VCRIT
0.09400
0.08980
0.09900
0.14800
0.20300
0.27502
0.35476
0.58169
1.03573 /
-- Critical Z-factors
ZCRIT
0.27414
0.29049
0.28737
0.28465
0.28029
169

0.27429
0.26739
0.32148
0.28516 /
-- Volume translation/co-volume
SSHIFT
0.101924
0.034350
0.021107
0.058382
0.080639
0.102064
0.126500
0.067049
0.099923 /
-- Parachors (dyn/cm)
PARACHOR
78.000
41.000
77.300
108.900
151.900
202.863
273.747
340.660
623.609 /
-- Overall composition
ZI
0.002398
0.015589
0.352157
0.151296
0.181475
0.142502
0.061383
0.065330
0.027870 /
-- Binary interaction coefficients for SRK
BIC
-0.0315
0.1200 0.0278
0.1200 0.0407 0.0000
0.1200 0.0763 0.0000 0.0000
0.1200 0.0817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0472 0.0340 0.0005 0.0007 0.0005 0.0001
0.1000 0.0800 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1000 0.0800 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
/
BICS
-0.0315
0.1200 0.0278
0.1200 0.0407 0.0000
0.1200 0.0763 0.0000 0.0000
0.1200 0.0817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
170

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000

0.0472
0.1000
0.1000

0.0340
0.0800
0.0800

0.0005
0.0000
0.0000

/
-- LBC coefficients
LBCCOEF
0.1023000
0.0233640

0.0007
0.0000
0.0000

0.0005
0.0000
0.0000

0.0585330

0.0001
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

-0.0407580

0.0000

0.0093324 /

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/kvalues9.inc /
-- Rock compressibility:
INCLUDE
compress.inc /
-- Water properties
DENSITY
1* 1000.0 1* /
PVTW
300.0 1.0 4.0E-5

0.4 /

-- ***********************************************************
-- In this section simulation grid region parameters are given
-- ***********************************************************
REGIONS
-- Region parameters, SATNUM, PVTNUM, etc.
-- In this example:
-- only 1 PVTNUM, 1 SATNUM, 2 FIPNUM for entire grid
-- PVTNUM & SATNUM are defined in this file
-- FIPNUM & FLUXNUM are imported from files
-- Normally these parameters are established using RMS
--Include SATNUM regions
--Include IMBNUM regions
INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/east_imbnum.grdecl /
--Include SATNUM regions
INCLUDE
NEWsatnum.grdecl /
NOECHO
EQUALS
PVTNUM
1
/
/
-- ***************************************************
-- In this section the initialization parameters aand
-- dynamic parameters are defined
171

-- ***************************************************
SOLUTION
RESTART
--START 22 OCT 2012
../../../sim/NEWBASE2RE3/NEWBASE2RE3 119 /
-- ***************************************************
---Simulation model initialisation data
--DATUM DATUM
OWC
OWC
GOC
GOC
RSVD
-Depth Pres.
Depth
Pcow
Depth Pcog
Table
EQUIL
2597
290
2597 0.0
500
0.0 /

RVVD
Table

SOLN
Method

-- Controls on output from SOLUTION section

--RPTSOL
-- /
--Controls on output to the RESTART file
RPTRST
BASIC=4 CONV=1000 SGAS SOIL SWAT XMF YMF ZMF RPORV DENG DENO
DENW VGAS VOIL XMF YMF ZMF PART /

-- Separator (use k-values):

FIELDSEP
1 15.0 1.013250 0 0 1 /
/
-- ********************************************************************************
-- In this section simulation output data to be written to summary file are defined
-- ********************************************************************************
SUMMARY
-- Summary data to be written to summary file
INCLUDE
summary2.inc
/
------

********************************************************************************
In this section data required to describe history and prediction is given
- well completions, well production/injection, well constraints
- platform/production unit constraints, etc.
********************************************************************************

SCHEDULE
CVCRIT
-- DPM
2
5*
/
MESSOPTS
ACCPTIME 1 /
/
SKIPREST

CompDV
0.2
/

172

-- ***************************************************
NOECHO
--TSCRIT
-- 0.1 0.01 14.0 1.5 0.5 2* 0.5 1* 0.1 1* 0.5 /
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Well definitions:
INCLUDE
../../../newinclude/wells.sch /
-- Well productivity:
INCLUDE
wpi.inc /
-- Schedule with allocated rates:
INCLUDE
../../../include/hist.sch /
-- ---------------------------------------------------- Production well VFP table (used for predictions)
INCLUDE
A-3H.ecl /
INCLUDE
prediction.inc /
END

173

B.2

ODD3P tables

PCODD3P
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
/ --ISTNUM = 6
/ --ISTNUM = 7
/ --ISTNUM = 8
/ --ISTNUM = 9
/ --ISTNUM = 10
/ --DSTNUM = 11
/ --DSTNUM = 12
/ --DSTNUM = 13
/ --DSTNUM = 14
/ --DSTNUM = 15

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

/
/
/
/
/

------

PSTNUM
PSTNUM
PSTNUM
PSTNUM
PSTNUM

=
=
=
=
=

1
2
3
4
5

--PCODD3PG
--0.0 0.0
--0.57 0.0
--0.6 1.0
--/
--PCPDD3PW
--0.0 0.0
--0.8 0.0
--1.0 1.0
--/
EPSODD3P
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
/ --ISTNUM
/ --ISTNUM
/ --ISTNUM
/ --ISTNUM
/ --ISTNUM
/ --DSTNUM
/ --DSTNUM
/ --DSTNUM
/ --DSTNUM
/ --DSTNUM

0
0
0
0
0
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7

27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0

27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

OPTODD3P
4
/
SOF3
--primary table
--So Krow Krog
174

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0 0 0
0.03 0.002301 0
0.15 0.045191 0
0.19 0.069981 0
0.2 0.076947 0
0.24 1* 0.000069
0.25 0.116271 1*
0.28 1* 0.000631
0.3 0.162914 1*
0.32 1* 0.002309
0.35 0.216675 1*
0.36 1* 0.005798
0.4 0.277392 0.011842
0.44 1* 0.021222
0.45 0.344927 1*
0.48 1* 0.034755
0.5 0.419158 1*
0.52 1* 0.053283
0.54 0.483295 1*
0.56 1* 0.077675
0.59 0.569324 1*
0.6 1* 0.108819
0.64 0.661784 0.147625
0.65 0.681041 1*
0.68 1* 0.195022
0.69 0.760597 1*
0.72 1* 0.251955
0.74 0.86569 1*
0.76 1* 0.319384
0.785 0.965589 1*
0.79 0.976998 1*
0.8 1 0.398287
0.84 1 0.489652
0.88 1 0.594485
0.92 1 0.713799
0.96 1 0.848624
1 1 1
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.03 0.008595 0
0.07 0.030633 0
0.11 0.060343 0
0.16 0.105857 0
0.18 1* 0
0.19 0.136984 1*
0.21 0.159173 1*
0.221 1* 0.000028
0.25 0.206753 1*
0.262 1* 0.000316
0.3 0.271783 1*
0.303 1* 0.001307
0.344 1* 0.003578
0.35 0.342486 1*
175

0.385 1* 0.007813
0.4 0.418438 1*
0.426 1* 0.014789
0.45 0.499298 1*
0.467 1* 0.025365
0.48 0.550051 1*
0.5 0.584785 1*
0.508 1* 0.040477
0.53 0.638197 1*
0.549 1* 0.061129
0.58 0.730605 1*
0.59 1* 0.088388
0.63 0.827088 1*
0.631 1* 0.123387
0.65 0.866784 1*
0.672 1* 0.167313
0.68 0.927479 1*
0.7 0.968697 1*
0.713 1* 0.22141
0.715 1 1*
0.754 1 0.286974
0.795 1 0.365354
0.836 1 0.457947
0.877 1 0.566195
0.918 1 0.69159
0.959 1 0.835666
1 1 1
/--primary table
--So.w Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.03 0.00992 0
0.07 0.03534 0
0.11 0.06962 0
0.15 1* 0
0.16 0.12213 1*
0.1925 1* 0.00003
0.2 0.17068 1*
0.21 0.18364 1*
0.235 1* 0.00032
0.25 0.23853 1*
0.2775 1* 0.00131
0.3 0.31355 1*
0.32 1* 0.00358
0.35 0.39512 1*
0.3625 1* 0.00781
0.4 0.48275 1*
0.405 1* 0.01479
0.4475 1* 0.02537
0.45 0.57603 1*
0.48 0.63459 1*
0.49 1* 0.04048
0.5 0.67466 1*
0.53 0.73628 1*
0.5325 1* 0.06113
176

0.575 1* 0.08839
0.58 0.84289 1*
0.6175 1* 0.12339
0.63 0.9542 1*
0.65 1 1*
0.66 1 0.16731
0.7 1 0.21
0.7025 1 0.22141
0.745 1 0.28697
0.7875 1 0.36535
0.83 1 0.45795
0.8725 1 0.5662
0.915 1 0.69159
0.9575 1 0.83567
1 1 1
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.03 0.0147 0
0.05 0.03162 0
0.06 1* 0
0.08 0.064 1*
0.107 1* 0.00003
0.11 0.10319 1*
0.154 1* 0.00032
0.16 0.18102 1*
0.18 0.216 1*
0.201 1* 0.00131
0.21 0.27219 1*
0.248 1* 0.00358
0.25 0.35355 1*
0.295 1* 0.00781
0.3 0.46476 1*
0.342 1* 0.01479
0.35 0.58566 1*
0.389 1* 0.02537
0.4 0.71554 1*
0.42 0.76987 1*
0.436 1* 0.04048
0.45 0.85381 1*
0.483 1* 0.06113
0.49 0.97015 1*
0.5 1 1*
0.53 1 0.08839
0.577 1 0.12339
0.624 1 0.16731
0.671 1 0.21
0.718 1 0.22141
0.72 1 0.28697
0.765 1 0.36535
0.812 1 0.45795
0.859 1 0.5662
0.906 1 0.69159
0.953 1 0.83567
177

1 1 1
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.02 0.0139 0
0.03 0.02553 0
0.05 1* 0
0.07 0.091 1*
0.09 0.13266 1*
0.0975 1* 0.00013
0.11 0.17926 1*
0.145 1* 0.001
0.16 0.31446 1*
0.19 0.40693 1*
0.1925 1* 0.00338
0.21 0.47284 1*
0.24 1* 0.008
0.25 0.61418 1*
0.2875 1* 0.01563
0.3 0.80736 1*
0.315 0.86866 1*
0.33 0.93144 1*
0.335 1* 0.027
0.3459 0.99957 1*
0.346 1 1*
0.3825 1 0.04288
0.43 1 0.064
0.4775 1 0.09113
0.525 1 0.125
0.5725 1 0.16638
0.62 1 0.216
0.6675 1 0.27463
0.715 1 0.343
0.7625 1 0.42188
0.81 1 0.512
0.8575 1 0.61413
0.905 1 0.729
0.9525 1 0.85738
1 1 1
/
---------------Secondary tables------------------So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.2 0 0
0.2225 0 1*
0.24 1* 0.000011
0.28 1* 0.000158
0.3125 0.000535 1*
0.32 1* 0.00074
0.3425 0.001551 1*
0.35 0.001953 1*
0.36 1* 0.002208
0.3875 0.005331 1*
0.4 1* 0.005154
178

0.425 0.01211 1*
0.44 1* 0.010305
0.4625 0.024233 1*
0.48 1* 0.018512
0.5 0.044194 1*
0.52 1* 0.030749
0.5375 0.075085 1*
0.56 1* 0.048107
0.575 0.120631 1*
0.6 1* 0.071794
0.605 0.170556 1*
0.64 1* 0.103128
0.6425 0.254056 1*
0.68 0.366357 0.143541
0.6875 0.39283 1*
0.7 1* 0.16
0.7175 0.513944 0.16
0.72 1* 0.16
0.755 0.704106 0.16
0.78875 0.918351 0.16
0.7925 0.944968 0.16
0.8 1 0.16
1 1 0.16
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.18 0 0
0.2 0 1*
0.221 1* 0.000069
0.22161 0.000001 1*
0.25042 0.000029 1*
0.262 1* 0.000631
0.27923 0.00022 1*
0.303 1* 0.002309
0.31524 0.001186 1*
0.33685 0.00257 1*
0.344 1* 0.005798
0.35126 0.004033 1*
0.38007 0.008838 1*
0.385 1* 0.011842
0.41608 0.020074 1*
0.426 1* 0.021222
0.4521 0.040174 1*
0.467 1* 0.034755
0.48811 0.073262 1*
0.508 1* 0.053283
0.52413 0.124481 1*
0.54573 0.166412 1*
0.549 1* 0.077675
0.56014 0.199981 1*
0.58175 0.25994 1*
0.59 1* 0.108819
0.61776 0.389976 1*
0.631 1* 0.147625
179

0.65378 0.565811 1*
0.66818 0.651216 1*
0.672 1* 0.195022
0.68979 0.797833 1*
0.7 1* 0.22
0.7042 0.909034 0.22
0.71428 0.993724 0.22
0.715 1 0.22
1 1 0.22
/
--So.w Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.15 0 0
0.1925 0 0.00023
0.2 0 1*
0.22077 0.00000001 1*
0.235 1* 0.00158
0.24846 0.00004 1*
0.27615 0.00034 1*
0.2775 1* 0.00493
0.31077 0.00182 1*
0.32 1* 0.01104
0.33846 0.00497 1*
0.34538 0.00619 1*
0.3625 1* 0.02062
0.37308 0.01357 1*
0.405 1* 0.03435
0.40769 0.03083 1*
0.44231 0.06169 1*
0.4475 1* 0.05289
0.47692 0.1125 1*
0.49 1* 0.07687
0.51154 0.19114 1*
0.53231 0.25555 1*
0.5325 1* 0.1069
0.54615 0.30708 1*
0.56692 0.39915 1*
0.575 1* 0.14359
0.60154 0.59885 1*
0.6175 1* 0.18751
0.63615 0.86881 1*
0.65 1 1*
0.66 1 0.23923
0.7 1 0.3
1 1 0.3
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.06 0 0
0.107 0 0
0.154 0 0.0004
0.2 0 1*
0.201 1* 0.0025
0.218 0 1*
180

0.23 0 1*
0.248 0.0003 0.0072
0.266 0.0011 1*
0.295 1* 0.0152
0.296 0.0059 1*
0.308 0.0101 1*
0.326 0.0202 1*
0.342 1* 0.0272
0.35 0.0442 1*
0.38 0.1004 1*
0.389 1* 0.0437
0.41 0.2009 1*
0.436 1* 0.0652
0.44 0.3664 1*
0.452 0.4563 1*
0.47 0.6224 1*
0.483 1* 0.0923
0.494 0.9131 1*
0.5 1 1*
0.53 1 0.1254
0.577 1 0.1649
0.624 1 0.2113
0.671 1 0.265
0.718 1 0.3263
0.72 1 0.33
1 1 0.33
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.0975 0 0.00337
0.145 0 0.01259
0.1925 0 0.0272
0.2 0 1*
0.20844 0 1*
0.21266 0.00002 1*
0.22954 0.00075 1*
0.23798 0.00233 1*
0.24 1* 0.04698
0.24642 0.00576 1*
0.26751 0.0311 1*
0.28017 0.06738 1*
0.2875 1* 0.07179
0.28861 0.10572 1*
0.30549 0.23168 1*
0.32659 0.52626 1*
0.33292 0.65547 1*
0.335 1* 0.10152
0.33925 0.80811 1*
0.34596 0.9987 1*
0.346 1 1*
0.3825 1 0.13606
0.43 1 0.17535
0.4775 1 0.21933
0.525 1 0.26794
181

0.5725 1 0.32114
0.62 1 0.37887
0.6675 1 0.4411
0.715 1 0.50779
0.7625 1 0.57892
0.78 1 0.65
1 1 0.65
/
---------------tertiary = Secondary tables------------------So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.2 0 0
0.2225 0 1*
0.24 1* 0.000011
0.28 1* 0.000158
0.3125 0.000535 1*
0.32 1* 0.00074
0.3425 0.001551 1*
0.35 0.001953 1*
0.36 1* 0.002208
0.3875 0.005331 1*
0.4 1* 0.005154
0.425 0.01211 1*
0.44 1* 0.010305
0.4625 0.024233 1*
0.48 1* 0.018512
0.5 0.044194 1*
0.52 1* 0.030749
0.5375 0.075085 1*
0.56 1* 0.048107
0.575 0.120631 1*
0.6 1* 0.071794
0.605 0.170556 1*
0.64 1* 0.103128
0.6425 0.254056 1*
0.68 0.366357 0.143541
0.6875 0.39283 1*
0.7 1* 0.16
0.7175 0.513944 0.16
0.72 1* 0.16
0.755 0.704106 0.16
0.78875 0.918351 0.16
0.7925 0.944968 0.16
0.8 1 0.16
1 1 0.16
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.18 0 0
0.2 0 1*
0.221 1* 0.000069
0.22161 0.000001 1*
0.25042 0.000029 1*
0.262 1* 0.000631
182

0.27923 0.00022 1*
0.303 1* 0.002309
0.31524 0.001186 1*
0.33685 0.00257 1*
0.344 1* 0.005798
0.35126 0.004033 1*
0.38007 0.008838 1*
0.385 1* 0.011842
0.41608 0.020074 1*
0.426 1* 0.021222
0.4521 0.040174 1*
0.467 1* 0.034755
0.48811 0.073262 1*
0.508 1* 0.053283
0.52413 0.124481 1*
0.54573 0.166412 1*
0.549 1* 0.077675
0.56014 0.199981 1*
0.58175 0.25994 1*
0.59 1* 0.108819
0.61776 0.389976 1*
0.631 1* 0.147625
0.65378 0.565811 1*
0.66818 0.651216 1*
0.672 1* 0.195022
0.68979 0.797833 1*
0.7 1* 0.22
0.7042 0.909034 0.22
0.71428 0.993724 0.22
0.715 1 0.22
1 1 0.22
/
--So.w Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.15 0 0
0.1925 0 0.00023
0.2 0 1*
0.22077 0.00000001 1*
0.235 1* 0.00158
0.24846 0.00004 1*
0.27615 0.00034 1*
0.2775 1* 0.00493
0.31077 0.00182 1*
0.32 1* 0.01104
0.33846 0.00497 1*
0.34538 0.00619 1*
0.3625 1* 0.02062
0.37308 0.01357 1*
0.405 1* 0.03435
0.40769 0.03083 1*
0.44231 0.06169 1*
0.4475 1* 0.05289
0.47692 0.1125 1*
0.49 1* 0.07687
183

0.51154 0.19114 1*
0.53231 0.25555 1*
0.5325 1* 0.1069
0.54615 0.30708 1*
0.56692 0.39915 1*
0.575 1* 0.14359
0.60154 0.59885 1*
0.6175 1* 0.18751
0.63615 0.86881 1*
0.65 1 1*
0.66 1 0.23923
0.7 1 0.3
1 1 0.3
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.06 0 0
0.107 0 0
0.154 0 0.0004
0.2 0 1*
0.201 1* 0.0025
0.218 0 1*
0.23 0 1*
0.248 0.0003 0.0072
0.266 0.0011 1*
0.295 1* 0.0152
0.296 0.0059 1*
0.308 0.0101 1*
0.326 0.0202 1*
0.342 1* 0.0272
0.35 0.0442 1*
0.38 0.1004 1*
0.389 1* 0.0437
0.41 0.2009 1*
0.436 1* 0.0652
0.44 0.3664 1*
0.452 0.4563 1*
0.47 0.6224 1*
0.483 1* 0.0923
0.494 0.9131 1*
0.5 1 1*
0.53 1 0.1254
0.577 1 0.1649
0.624 1 0.2113
0.671 1 0.265
0.718 1 0.3263
0.72 1 0.33
1 1 0.33
/
--So Krow Krog
0 0 0
0.0975 0 0.00337
0.145 0 0.01259
0.1925 0 0.0272
184

0.2 0 1*
0.20844 0 1*
0.21266 0.00002 1*
0.22954 0.00075 1*
0.23798 0.00233 1*
0.24 1* 0.04698
0.24642 0.00576 1*
0.26751 0.0311 1*
0.28017 0.06738 1*
0.2875 1* 0.07179
0.28861 0.10572 1*
0.30549 0.23168 1*
0.32659 0.52626 1*
0.33292 0.65547 1*
0.335 1* 0.10152
0.33925 0.80811 1*
0.34596 0.9987 1*
0.346 1 1*
0.3825 1 0.13606
0.43 1 0.17535
0.4775 1 0.21933
0.525 1 0.26794
0.5725 1 0.32114
0.62 1 0.37887
0.6675 1 0.4411
0.715 1 0.50779
0.7625 1 0.57892
0.78 1 0.65
1 1 0.65
/
SGF3
--Sg Krgo(Sg) Krgw(Sg) Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.035 0 0 0
0.0351 0.0005 0.0005 1.00E-06
0.07325 0.008286135 0.008286135 1.00E-04
0.1115 0.025118864 0.025118864 0.001345
0.14975 0.048055822 0.048055822 0.0019585
0.188 0.076146158 0.076146158 0.0022205
0.22625 0.10881882 0.10881882 0.0022895
0.2645 0.145678012 0.145678012 0.0026795
0.30275 0.186427026 0.186427026 0.003145
0.341 0.230831985 0.230831985 0.003714
0.37925 0.278701959 0.278701959 0.004424
0.4175 0.329876978 0.329876978 0.0053345
0.45575 0.384220297 0.384220297 0.0065515
0.494 0.441613154 0.441613154 0.007855
0.53225 0.501951054 0.501951054 0.010183
0.5705 0.565141063 0.565141063 0.0139415
0.60875 0.631099769 0.631099769 0.0149895
0.647 0.699751727 0.699751727 0.0210585
0.68525 0.771028233 0.771028233 0.039662
0.7235 0.844866354 0.844866354 0.150038
0.76175 0.921208143 0.921208143 0.600155
185

0.8 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.035 0 0 0.000676
0.07425 0.015085441 0.015085441 0.0009655
0.1135 0.039810717 0.039810717 0.001283
0.15275 0.070230824 0.070230824 0.0017485
0.192 0.105061112 0.105061112 0.002086
0.23125 0.143587294 0.143587294 0.0023415
0.2705 0.185340255 0.185340255 0.002945
0.30975 0.22998275 0.22998275 0.003931
0.349 0.277257937 0.277257937 0.005307
0.38825 0.326962179 0.326962179 0.0073
0.4275 0.378929142 0.378929142 0.0103275
0.46675 0.43301981 0.43301981 0.0129725
0.506 0.489115866 0.489115866 0.0152585
0.54525 0.547115098 0.547115098 0.019862
0.5845 0.606928115 0.606928115 0.0331795
0.62375 0.668475922 0.668475922 0.0645515
0.663 0.731688083 0.731688083 0.0906415
0.70225 0.796501313 0.796501313 0.173924
0.7415 0.862858364 0.862858364 0.3182175
0.78075 0.930707144 0.930707144 0.6
0.82 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.0001 0 0 1.00E-10
0.035 0 0 1*
0.0758 0.0204 0.0204 1*
0.1165 0.0501 0.0501 1*
0.1573 0.0849 0.0849 0.0026
0.198 0.1234 0.1234 0.004
0.2388 0.1649 0.1649 0.0054
0.2795 0.2091 0.2091 0.0074
0.3203 0.2554 0.2554 0.0088
0.361 0.3039 0.3039 0.0099
0.4018 0.3541 0.3541 0.0125
0.4425 0.4061 0.4061 0.0167
0.4833 0.4597 0.4597 0.0227
0.524 0.5148 0.5148 0.0314
0.5648 0.5712 0.5712 0.0452
0.6055 0.629 0.629 0.0577
0.6463 0.688 0.688 0.069
0.687 0.7482 0.7482 0.093
0.7278 0.8096 0.8096 0.1727
0.7685 0.872 0.872 0.4413
0.8093 0.9355 0.9355 0.6002
0.85 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.035 0 0 0
186

0.08025 0.02035 0.02035 1.00E-10

0.1255 0.05012 0.05012 1*
0.17075 0.0849 0.0849 1*
0.216 0.12341 0.12341 1*
0.26125 0.16494 0.16494 0.00953
0.3065 0.20905 0.20905 0.01139
0.35175 0.25544 0.25544 0.01462
0.397 0.30386 0.30386 0.01859
0.44225 0.35414 0.35414 0.02756
0.4875 0.40613 0.40613 0.03224
0.53275 0.4597 0.4597 0.04084
0.578 0.51475 0.51475 0.0562
0.62325 0.5712 0.5712 0.08469
0.6685 0.62897 0.62897 0.13012
0.71375 0.68799 0.68799 0.20575
0.759 0.7482 0.7482 0.2498
0.80425 0.80955 0.80955 0.33909
0.8495 0.872 0.872 0.52743
0.907 0.94514 0.94514 0.60016
0.94 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.035 0 0 0
0.08075 0.01118 0.01118 0
0.1265 0.03162 0.03162 0
0.17225 0.05809 0.05809 0
0.218 0.08944 0.08944 0
0.26375 0.125 0.125 0
0.3095 0.16432 0.16432 0
0.35525 0.20706 0.20706 0.01417
0.401 0.25298 0.25298 0.01587
0.44675 0.30187 0.30187 0.02449
0.4925 0.35355 0.35355 0.03037
0.53825 0.40789 0.40789 0.03766
0.584 0.46476 0.46476 0.06478
0.62975 0.52405 0.52405 0.09019
0.6755 0.58566 0.58566 0.11285
0.72125 0.64952 0.64952 0.17879
0.767 0.71554 0.71554 0.32845
0.81275 0.78366 0.78366 0.39809
0.8585 0.85381 0.85381 0.4853
0.90425 0.92595 0.92595 0.60016
0.95 1 1 1.25
/
------------------------secondary tables------------------Sg Krgo(Sg) Krgw(Sg) Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 0.0005 0.0005 1.00E-06
0.325 0.00614114 0.00614114 0.0001
0.35 0.019952623 0.019952623 0.001345
0.375 0.039751648 0.039751648 0.0019585
0.4 0.064826264 0.064826264 0.0022205
187

0.425 0.094732285 0.094732285 0.0022895

0.45 0.129153486 0.129153486 0.0026795
0.475 0.167847809 0.167847809 0.003145
0.5 0.210621153 0.210621153 0.003714
0.525 0.257312731 0.257312731 0.004424
0.55 0.307786103 0.307786103 0.0053345
0.575 0.361923324 0.361923324 0.0065515
0.6 0.419620914 0.419620914 0.007855
0.625 0.480786989 0.480786989 0.010183
0.65 0.545339139 0.545339139 0.0139415
0.675 0.613202826 0.613202826 0.0149895
0.7 0.684310144 0.684310144 0.0210585
0.725 0.758598839 0.758598839 0.039662
0.75 0.836011528 0.836011528 0.150038
0.775 0.916495061 0.916495061 0.600155
0.8 1 1 1.25
/--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 1* 1* 1.00E-10
0.326 0.020354527 0.020354527 0.0009655
0.352 0.050118723 0.050118723 0.001283
0.378 0.08490214 0.08490214 0.0017485
0.404 0.123406773 0.123406773 0.002086
0.43 0.164938489 0.164938489 0.0023415
0.456 0.209053591 0.209053591 0.002945
0.482 0.255439737 0.255439737 0.003931
0.508 0.303863117 0.303863117 0.005307
0.534 0.354141048 0.354141048 0.0073
0.56 0.406126198 0.406126198 0.0103275
0.586 0.459696817 0.459696817 0.0129725
0.612 0.51475032 0.51475032 0.0152585
0.638 0.571198902 0.571198902 0.019862
0.664 0.628966409 0.628966409 0.0331795
0.69 0.687986066 0.687986066 0.0645515
0.716 0.748198758 0.748198758 0.0906415
0.742 0.809551727 0.809551727 0.173924
0.768 0.871997545 0.871997545 0.3182175
0.794 0.935493312 0.935493312 0.6
0.82 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 0 0 1.00E-10
0.3275 0.0204 0.0204 1*
0.355 0.0501 0.0501 1*
0.3825 0.0849 0.0849 1*
0.41 0.1234 0.1234 1*
0.4375 0.1649 0.1649 1*
0.465 0.2091 0.2091 1*
0.4925 0.2554 0.2554 1*
0.52 0.3039 0.3039 0.0075
0.5475 0.3541 0.3541 0.0125
188

0.575 0.4061 0.4061 0.0167

0.6025 0.4597 0.4597 0.0227
0.63 0.5148 0.5148 0.0314
0.6575 0.5712 0.5712 0.0452
0.685 0.629 0.629 0.0577
0.7125 0.688 0.688 0.069
0.74 0.7482 0.7482 0.093
0.7675 0.8096 0.8096 0.1727
0.795 0.872 0.872 0.4413
0.8225 0.9355 0.9355 0.6002
0.85 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.28 0 0 0
0.313 0.03706 0.03706 1.00E-10
0.346 0.07943 0.07943 1*
0.379 0.12408 0.12408 1*
0.412 0.17027 0.17027 1*
0.445 0.21764 0.21764 1*
0.478 0.26597 0.26597 1*
0.511 0.31512 0.31512 1*
0.544 0.36498 0.36498 0.03138
0.577 0.41546 0.41546 0.04702
0.61 0.46652 0.46652 0.05486
0.643 0.51808 0.51808 0.0627
0.676 0.57012 0.57012 0.07837
0.709 0.62259 0.62259 0.10345
0.742 0.67547 0.67547 0.14891
0.775 0.72873 0.72873 0.19593
0.808 0.78235 0.78235 0.34091
0.841 0.8363 0.8363 0.45
0.874 0.89057 0.89057 0.52
0.893 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.22 0 0 0
0.2565 0.02035 0.02035 0
0.293 0.05012 0.05012 0
0.3295 0.0849 0.0849 0
0.366 0.12341 0.12341 0
0.4025 0.16494 0.16494 0
0.439 0.20905 0.20905 0
0.4755 0.25544 0.25544 0
0.512 0.30386 0.30386 0
0.5485 0.35414 0.35414 0
0.585 0.40613 0.40613 0
0.6215 0.4597 0.4597 0
0.658 0.51475 0.51475 0.05
0.6945 0.5712 0.5712 0.09019
0.731 0.62897 0.62897 0.11285
0.7675 0.68799 0.68799 0.17879
0.804 0.7482 0.7482 0.32845
189

0.8405 0.80955 0.80955 0.39809

0.877 0.872 0.872 0.4853
0.9135 0.93549 0.93549 0.60016
0.95 1 1 1.25
/
-----------------------tertiary tables--------------------Sg Krgo(Sg) Krgw(Sg) Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 0.0005 0.0005 1.00E-06
0.325 0.006 0.006 0.0001
0.35 0.02 0.02 0.00195
0.375 0.04 0.04 0.003
0.4 0.065 0.065 0.0033
0.425 0.095 0.095 0.00345
0.45 0.129 0.129 0.00405
0.475 0.168 0.168 0.00465
0.5 0.211 0.211 0.00555
0.525 0.257 0.257 0.0066
0.55 0.308 0.308 0.00795
0.575 0.362 0.362 0.0099
0.6 0.42 0.42 0.01185
0.625 0.481 0.481 0.0153
0.65 0.545 0.545 0.02
0.675 0.613 0.613 0.024
0.7 0.684 0.684 0.03165
0.725 0.759 0.759 0.05955
0.75 0.836 0.836 0.225
0.775 0.916 0.916 0.9003
0.8 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 1* 1* 1.00E-10
0.326 0.020354527 0.020354527 0.0009655
0.352 0.050118723 0.050118723 0.001283
0.378 0.08490214 0.08490214 0.0017485
0.404 0.123406773 0.123406773 0.002086
0.43 0.164938489 0.164938489 0.0023415
0.456 0.209053591 0.209053591 0.002945
0.482 0.255439737 0.255439737 0.003931
0.508 0.303863117 0.303863117 0.005307
0.534 0.354141048 0.354141048 0.0073
0.56 0.406126198 0.406126198 0.0103275
0.586 0.459696817 0.459696817 0.0129725
0.612 0.51475032 0.51475032 0.0152585
0.638 0.571198902 0.571198902 0.019862
0.664 0.628966409 0.628966409 0.0331795
0.69 0.687986066 0.687986066 0.0645515
0.716 0.748198758 0.748198758 0.0906415
0.742 0.809551727 0.809551727 0.173924
0.768 0.871997545 0.871997545 0.3182175
0.794 0.935493312 0.935493312 0.6
190

0.82 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.3 0 0 0
0.3001 0 0 1.00E-10
0.3275 0.0204 0.0204 1*
0.355 0.0501 0.0501 1*
0.3825 0.0849 0.0849 1*
0.41 0.1234 0.1234 1*
0.4375 0.1649 0.1649 1*
0.465 0.2091 0.2091 1*
0.4925 0.2554 0.2554 1*
0.52 0.3039 0.3039 0.0075
0.5475 0.3541 0.3541 0.0125
0.575 0.4061 0.4061 0.0167
0.6025 0.4597 0.4597 0.0227
0.63 0.5148 0.5148 0.0314
0.6575 0.5712 0.5712 0.0452
0.685 0.629 0.629 0.0577
0.7125 0.688 0.688 0.069
0.74 0.7482 0.7482 0.093
0.7675 0.8096 0.8096 0.1727
0.795 0.872 0.872 0.4413
0.8225 0.9355 0.9355 0.6002
0.85 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.28 0 0 0
0.313 0.03706 0.03706 1.00E-10
0.346 0.07943 0.07943 1*
0.379 0.12408 0.12408 1*
0.412 0.17027 0.17027 1*
0.445 0.21764 0.21764 1*
0.478 0.26597 0.26597 1*
0.511 0.31512 0.31512 1*
0.544 0.36498 0.36498 0.03138
0.577 0.41546 0.41546 0.04702
0.61 0.46652 0.46652 0.05486
0.643 0.51808 0.51808 0.0627
0.676 0.57012 0.57012 0.07837
0.709 0.62259 0.62259 0.10345
0.742 0.67547 0.67547 0.14891
0.775 0.72873 0.72873 0.19593
0.808 0.78235 0.78235 0.34091
0.841 0.8363 0.8363 0.45
0.874 0.89057 0.89057 0.52
0.893 1 1 1.25
/
--Sg Krgo Krgw Pcog
0 0 0 0
0.22 0 0 0
0.2565 0.02035 0.02035 0
191

0.293 0.05012 0.05012 0

0.3295 0.0849 0.0849 0
0.366 0.12341 0.12341 0
0.4025 0.16494 0.16494 0
0.439 0.20905 0.20905 0
0.4755 0.25544 0.25544 0
0.512 0.30386 0.30386 0
0.5485 0.35414 0.35414 0
0.585 0.40613 0.40613 0
0.6215 0.4597 0.4597 0
0.658 0.51475 0.51475 0.05
0.6945 0.5712 0.5712 0.09019
0.731 0.62897 0.62897 0.11285
0.7675 0.68799 0.68799 0.17879
0.804 0.7482 0.7482 0.32845
0.8405 0.80955 0.80955 0.39809
0.877 0.872 0.872 0.4853
0.9135 0.93549 0.93549 0.60016
0.95 1 1 1.25
/
SWF3
--Rock1
--primary
--Sw Krwo(Sw)Krwg(Sw)Pcwo
0.0 0.0 0.0 2000
0.2 0.0 0.0 200
0.2001 1E-20 1E-20 25
0.21 1* 1* 12.0031
0.215 1* 1* 3.00076
0.26 0.00003 0.00003 0.79324
0.31 0.00036 0.00036 0.42117
0.35 0.00124 0.00124 0.29979
0.36 0.0016 0.0016 0.27883
0.41 0.00475 0.00475 0.20366
0.46 0.01116 0.01116 0.1571
0.5 0.01978 0.01978 0.13103
0.55 0.03664 0.03664 0.10669
0.6 0.0625 0.0625 0.08848
0.65 0.10011 0.10011 0.07428
0.7 0.15259 0.15259 0.0629
0.75 0.2234 0.2234 0.05359
0.8 0.31641 0.31641 0.04579
0.81 0.33803 0.33803 0.04441
0.85 0.43581 0.43581 0.03917
0.97 0.85823 0.85823 0.0269
1 1 1 0
/
----------------------------------rock1B
--primary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
192

0.285 1E-12 1E-12 200

0.28501 1* 1* 25
0.28502 1* 1* 12
0.3 1* 1* 6.36435
0.32 0.00003 0.00003 3.47848
0.35 0.00023 0.00023 1.81283
0.37 0.00058 0.00058 1.29103
0.42 0.00292 0.00292 0.66359
0.47 0.00881 0.00881 0.39724
0.5 0.01491 0.01491 0.30517
0.52 0.02035 0.02035 0.25945
0.55 0.03099 0.03099 0.20655
0.6 0.05676 0.05676 0.146
0.65 0.09505 0.09505 0.10614
0.7 0.14897 0.14897 0.07862
0.75 0.22183 0.22183 0.0589
0.79 0.29611 0.29611 0.04683
0.81 0.33922 0.33922 0.04172
0.84 0.41205 0.41205 0.03497
0.89 0.55728 0.55728 0.02566
0.93 0.69725 0.69725 0.01931
0.97 0.86069 0.86069 0.01352
1 1 1 0
/
-------------------------------------rock2
--primary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
0 0 0 2000
0.35 0 0 25
0.3501 1.00E-10 1.00E-10 12.0031
0.37 1* 1* 8.8263
0.42 0.0004 0.0004 3.4543
0.47 0.0027 0.0027 1.859
0.5 0.0059 0.0059 1.3803
0.52 0.0091 0.0091 1.1549
0.55 0.0162 0.0162 0.9041
0.6 0.0353 0.0353 0.6283
0.65 0.0668 0.0668 0.4532
0.7 0.1146 0.1146 0.3345
0.75 0.1828 0.1828 0.2499
0.79 0.2552 0.2552 0.1983
0.8 0.2761 0.2761 0.1764
0.84 0.372 0.372 0.1474
0.89 0.5226 0.5226 0.107
0.93 0.6711 0.6711 0.0792
0.97 0.8476 0.8476 0.0528
1 1 1 0
/
--------------------------------rock3
--primary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
193

0 0 0 2000
0.5 0 0 25
0.5001 1E-10 1E-10 12.0031
0.51 1* 1* 10.5486
0.55 0.0003 0.0003 6.7817
0.58 0.0016 0.0016 4.996
0.6 0.0036 0.0036 4.115
0.65 0.0148 0.0148 2.6023
0.7 0.0405 0.0405 1.6937
0.75 0.0884 0.0884 1.1239
0.79 0.1486 0.1486 0.8168
0.82 0.2097 0.2097 0.6448
0.84 0.2593 0.2593 0.5512
0.89 0.4191 0.4191 0.3718
0.92 0.5432 0.5432 0.2923
0.95 0.6916 0.6916 0.2277
0.97 0.8053 0.8053 0.1906
1 1 1 0
/
---------------------rock4
--primary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
0.654 0 0 25
0.6541 1E-10 1E-10 12.0031
0.67 0.00002 0.00002 9.70593
0.685 0.00022 0.00022 7.96186
0.7 0.00086 0.00086 6.56897
0.75 0.01125 0.01125 3.57586
0.79 0.03807 0.03807 2.2569
0.81 0.06154 0.06154 1.80379
0.84 0.1139 0.1139 1.29559
0.89 0.26208 0.26208 0.75317
0.91 0.3484 0.3484 0.60731
0.93 0.45333 0.45333 0.48986
0.97 0.72801 0.72801 0.31731
0.98 0.81189 0.81189 0.28338
1 1 1 0
/
---------------------------------------------------ISTNUM6-10--------------------increasing table
--Sw Krwo(Sw)Krwg(Sw)Pcwo
0.0 0.0 0.0 2000
0.2 0.0 0.0 200
0.2001 1E-20 1E-20 25
0.2075 1* 1* 12.0031
0.21125 1* 1* 3.00076
0.245 0.00004 0.00004 0.79324
0.2825 0.00037 0.00037 0.42117
0.3125 0.00121 0.00121 0.29979
0.32 0.00155 0.00155 0.25
0.3575 0.00434 0.00434 0.15
194

0.395 0.00978 0.00978 0.09567

0.425 0.01684 0.01684 0.06958
0.4625 0.03026 0.03026 0.05218
0.5 0.05026 0.05026 0.04349
0.5375 0.07863 0.07863 0.02
0.575 0.11734 0.11734 0.004
0.6125 0.16855 0.16855 0
0.65 0.2346 0.2346 -1
0.6575 0.24981 0.24981 -1.5
0.6875 0.318 0.318 -3
0.7775 0.60537 0.60537 -10
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--secondary table. increasing sat.
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
0.285 1E-12 1E-12 200
0.28501 1* 1* 25
0.28502 1* 1* 12
0.2958 1* 1* 6.36435
0.31021 0.00001 0.00001 3.47848
0.33182 0.00008 0.00008 1.81283
0.34622 0.00021 0.00021 0.64552
0.38224 0.00124 0.00124 0.33179
0.41825 0.00411 0.00411 0.19862
0.43986 0.00728 0.00728 0.15259
0.45427 0.0102 0.0102 0.12972
0.47587 0.01611 0.01611 0.10328
0.51189 0.03107 0.03107 0.073
0.5479 0.05438 0.05438 0.05307
0.58392 0.08858 0.08858 0
0.61993 0.13648 0.13648 -0.21552
0.64874 0.18674 0.18674 -0.43103
0.66315 0.21644 0.21644 -0.82759
0.68476 0.26733 0.26733 -1.72414
0.72077 0.37103 0.37103 -3.44828
0.74958 0.47322 0.47322 -5.45977
0.77839 0.59478 0.59478 -8.33333
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--secondary table. increasing sat
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
0 0 0 2000
0.35 0 0 25
0.3501 1.00E-10 1.00E-10 12.0031
0.37 1* 1* 8.8263
0.3985 0.0001 0.0001 3.4543
0.4331 0.0011 0.0011 1.859
0.4538 0.0027 0.0027 1.3803
0.4677 0.0043 0.0043 1.1549
0.4885 0.0079 0.0079 0.9041
0.5231 0.0185 0.0185 0.6283
195

0.5577 0.0371 0.0371 0.4532

0.5923 0.0666 0.0666 0.3345
0.6269 0.1106 0.1106 0.2499
0.6546 0.1589 0.1589 0.15
0.6615 0.1731 0.1731 0
0.6892 0.2392 0.2392 -1.6942
0.7238 0.346 0.346 -3.2234
0.7515 0.454 0.454 -5.0975
0.7792 0.5849 0.5849 -8.3958
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--secondary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
0 0 0 2000
0.5 0 0 25
0.5001 1E-10 1E-10 11.8339
0.506 1* 1* 10.2665
0.53 0.0001 0.0001 6.8182
0.548 0.0007 0.0007 3.9185
0.56 0.0015 0.0015 2.9781
0.59 0.0072 0.0072 2.069
0.62 0.0215 0.0215 1.5674
0.65 0.0503 0.0503 1.2539
0.674 0.0883 0.0883 1.0972
0.692 0.1284 0.1284 0.9404
0.704 0.1617 0.1617 0.6276
0.734 0.2723 0.2723 0
0.752 0.3609 0.3609 -0.627
0.77 0.4691 0.4691 -5.4075
0.782 0.5533 0.5533 -8
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--secondary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
0.654 0 0 25
0.6541 1E-10 1E-10 12.0031
0.66075 0.00001 0.00001 9.70593
0.66708 0.00007 0.00007 7.96186
0.67341 0.00033 0.00033 6.56897
0.69451 0.00536 0.00536 3.57586
0.71139 0.02014 0.02014 2.2569
0.71983 0.03392 0.03392 1.80379
0.73249 0.06618 0.06618 1
0.75358 0.16356 0.16356 0
0.76202 0.2228 0.2228 -0.01
0.77046 0.29653 0.29653 -0.1
0.78734 0.49593 0.49593 -1
0.79156 0.55826 0.55826 -5
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--------------------------------------------------------DSTNUM11-15-----------------decreasing table
--Sw Krwo(Sw)Krwg(Sw)Pcwo
196

0.0 0.0 0.0 2000

0.2 0.0 0.0 200
0.2001 1E-20 1E-20 25
0.2075 1* 1* 12.0031
0.21125 1* 1* 3.00076
0.245 0.00004 0.00004 0.79324
0.2825 0.00037 0.00037 0.42117
0.3125 0.00121 0.00121 0.29979
0.32 0.00155 0.00155 0.25
0.3575 0.00434 0.00434 0.15
0.395 0.00978 0.00978 0.09567
0.425 0.01684 0.01684 0.06958
0.4625 0.03026 0.03026 0.05218
0.5 0.05026 0.05026 0.04349
0.5375 0.07863 0.07863 0.02
0.575 0.11734 0.11734 0.004
0.6125 0.16855 0.16855 0
0.65 0.2346 0.2346 -1
0.6575 0.24981 0.24981 -1.5
0.6875 0.318 0.318 -3
0.7775 0.60537 0.60537 -10
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--tertiary table. decreasing sat.
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
0.285 1E-12 1E-12 200
0.28501 1* 1* 25
0.28502 1* 1* 12
0.2958 1* 1* 11.45583
0.31021 0.00001 0.00001 6.261264
0.33182 0.00008 0.00008 3.263094
0.34622 0.00021 0.00021 1.161936
0.38224 0.00124 0.00124 0.597222
0.41825 0.00411 0.00411 0.357516
0.43986 0.00728 0.00728 0.274662
0.45427 0.0102 0.0102 0.233496
0.47587 0.01611 0.01611 0.185904
0.51189 0.03107 0.03107 0.1314
0.5479 0.05438 0.05438 0.095526
0.58392 0.08858 0.08858 0
0.61993 0.13648 0.13648 -0.10776
0.64874 0.18674 0.18674 -0.215515
0.66315 0.21644 0.21644 -0.413795
0.68476 0.26733 0.26733 -0.86207
0.72077 0.37103 0.37103 -1.72414
0.74958 0.47322 0.47322 -5.45977
0.77839 0.59478 0.59478 -8.33333
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--tertiary table. decreasing sat
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
0 0 0 2000
0.35 0 0 25
197

0.3501 1.00E-10 1.00E-10 12.0031

0.37 1* 1* 8.8263
0.3985 0.0001 0.0001 5.1815
0.4331 0.0011 0.0011 2.7884
0.4538 0.0027 0.0027 2.0705
0.4677 0.0043 0.0043 1.7323
0.4885 0.0079 0.0079 1.3561
0.5231 0.0185 0.0185 0.9424
0.5577 0.0371 0.0371 0.6798
0.5923 0.0666 0.0666 0.5017
0.6269 0.1106 0.1106 0.3749
0.6546 0.1589 0.1589 0.15
0.6615 0.1731 0.1731 0
0.6892 0.2392 0.2392 -1.1859
0.7238 0.346 0.346 -2.2564
0.7515 0.454 0.454 -3.5682
0.7792 0.5849 0.5849 -5.8771
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--tertiary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcow
0 0 0 2000
0.5 0 0 25
0.5001 1E-10 1E-10 11.8339
0.506 1* 1* 10.2665
0.53 0.0001 0.0001 6.8182
0.548 0.0007 0.0007 3.9185
0.56 0.0015 0.0015 2.9781
0.59 0.0072 0.0072 2.069
0.62 0.0215 0.0215 1.5674
0.65 0.0503 0.0503 1.2539
0.674 0.0883 0.0883 1.0972
0.692 0.1284 0.1284 0.9404
0.704 0.1617 0.1617 0.6276
0.734 0.2723 0.2723 0
0.752 0.3609 0.3609 -0.627
0.77 0.4691 0.4691 -5.4075
0.782 0.5533 0.5533 -8
0.8 0.7 0.7 -12
/
--tertiary table
--Sw Krwo Krwg Pcwo
0 0 0 2000
0.654 0 0 25
0.6541 1E-10 1E-10 12.0031
0.66075 0.00001 0.00001 9.70593
0.66708 0.00007 0.00007 7.96186
0.67341 0.00033 0.00033 6.56897
0.69451 0.00536 0.00536 3.57586
0.71139 0.02014 0.02014 2.2569
0.71983 0.03392 0.03392 1.80379
0.73249 0.06618 0.06618 1
198

0.75358
0.76202
0.77046
0.78734
0.79156
0.8 0.7
/

0.16356 0.16356 0
0.2228 0.2228 -0.01
0.29653 0.29653 -0.1
0.49593 0.49593 -1
0.55826 0.55826 -5
0.7 -12

199

B.3

Prediction File

-------------Well producer control-------------WCONPROD

--NAME STATUS C-RATE O-TARG W-TARG G-TARG L-TARG
A-3
OPEN ORAT
2000.
300 1420000
1*
/
-------------------------------------------------------------------Dates----------------------NEXTSTEP
0.1 /
DATES
1 NOV 2012 /
1 JAN 2013 /
1 MAR 2013 /
1 AUG 2013 /
1 NOV 2013 /
1 JAN 2014 /
1 AUG 2014 /
1 JAN 2015 /
/
------------------------------------------------------------Injection well completion data for 2015-------WELSPECS
INJ EAST 64 66 1* GAS /
/
COMPDAT
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 64
INJ 63
INJ 62
INJ 61

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
86
86
86

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN

2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*

.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25

1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*

.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
200

1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
X
X
X

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

RES-TARG
1*

BHP
20

THP VFP
15
1 /

INJ
INJ
INJ
INJ
INJ
INJ
/

60
59
58
57
56
55

86
86
86
86
86
86

30
30
30
30
30
30

30
30
30
30
30
30

OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN

2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*

.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25

1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*

.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*

X
X
X
X
X
X

/
/
/
/
/
/

---------------------------------------------------------------------Well conditions and production terms---WEFAC

A-3 0.95 /
INJ 0.95 /
/
WCONPROD
A-3 OPEN ORAT 10000 300 500000000 2* 40 15 1 /
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------Gas-Injection data----------------------WELLSTRE
DILCO2 0.998 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 /
/
WINJGAS
INJ STREAM DILCO2 2* /
/
WCONINJE
INJ GAS OPEN BHP 2* 150 /
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------WAG-Injection data----------------------WELLWAG
INJ T G 30.0 W 30.0 2* BHP BHP 150 150 /
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------Water-Injection data----------------------Additionally the injection well was set to water in WELSPECS
WCONINJE
INJ WATER OPEN BHP 2* 150 /
/

-----------------------------------------------------------------SWAG-Injection data----------------------For SWAG, 2 identical wells were made, one with water control and the other
with gas control. INJ2 had same WELSPECS and COMPDAT as INJ, the only difference be
control instead of gas.
WCONINJE
INJ GAS OPEN BHP 2* 150 /
INJ2 WATER OPEN BHP 2* 150 /
/
-------------------------------------------------------------201

DATES
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
1 JAN
/

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

202