Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 243–266 | Cite as

Stochastic porous media modeling and high-resolution schemes for numerical simulation of subsurface immiscible fluid flow transport

  • Eric Thompson Brantson
  • Binshan Ju
  • Dan Wu
  • Patricia Semwaah Gyan
Research Article - Solid Earth Sciences
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes stochastic petroleum porous media modeling for immiscible fluid flow simulation using Dykstra–Parson coefficient (VDP) and autocorrelation lengths to generate 2D stochastic permeability values which were also used to generate porosity fields through a linear interpolation technique based on Carman–Kozeny equation. The proposed method of permeability field generation in this study was compared to turning bands method (TBM) and uniform sampling randomization method (USRM). On the other hand, many studies have also reported that, upstream mobility weighting schemes, commonly used in conventional numerical reservoir simulators do not accurately capture immiscible displacement shocks and discontinuities through stochastically generated porous media. This can be attributed to high level of numerical smearing in first-order schemes, oftentimes misinterpreted as subsurface geological features. Therefore, this work employs high-resolution schemes of SUPERBEE flux limiter, weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme (WENO), and monotone upstream-centered schemes for conservation laws (MUSCL) to accurately capture immiscible fluid flow transport in stochastic porous media. The high-order schemes results match well with Buckley Leverett (BL) analytical solution without any non-oscillatory solutions. The governing fluid flow equations were solved numerically using simultaneous solution (SS) technique, sequential solution (SEQ) technique and iterative implicit pressure and explicit saturation (IMPES) technique which produce acceptable numerical stability and convergence rate. A comparative and numerical examples study of flow transport through the proposed method, TBM and USRM permeability fields revealed detailed subsurface instabilities with their corresponding ultimate recovery factors. Also, the impact of autocorrelation lengths on immiscible fluid flow transport were analyzed and quantified. A finite number of lines used in the TBM resulted into visual artifact banding phenomenon unlike the proposed method and USRM. In all, the proposed permeability and porosity fields generation coupled with the numerical simulator developed will aid in developing efficient mobility control schemes to improve on poor volumetric sweep efficiency in porous media.

Keywords

Permeability and porosity fields Turning bands method Carman–Kozeny equation SUPERBEE flux limiter Monotone upstream-centered schemes for conservation laws Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for National Science and Technology Major Projects (2016ZX05011-002) and the Central Universities (2652015142). The kind effort from Dr. Y.Y Ziggah, Dr. A.A Eftekhari, Dr. K. Schüller, and Dr. X. Emery for their tireless assistance in carrying out this research. We also thank Mr. Bright Junior Addo for his kind assistance with fruitful and constructive criticism of this research paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that were helpful in improving the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Araktingi U, Orr F Jr (1993) Viscous fingering in heterogeneous porous media. SPE Adv Technol Ser 1(1):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babaei M, Joekar-Niasar V (2016) A transport phase diagram for pore-level correlated porous media. Adv Water Resour 92:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergamashi N, Putti M (1999) Mixed finite elements and Newton-type linearization for the solution of Richards’ equation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45:1025–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergström D (2012) MySimLabs. http://www.mysimlabs.com/about.html
  5. Bijeljic B, Raeini A, Mostaghimi P, Blunt MJ (2013) Predictions of non-Fickian solute transport in different classes of porous media using direct simulation on pore-scale images. Phys Rev E 87(1):013011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouquet S, Leray S, Douarche F, Roggero F (2017) Characterization of viscous unstable flow in porous media at pilot scale-application to heavy oil polymer flooding. In: IOR 2017-19th European symposium on improved oil recoveryGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantson ET, Ju B, Wu D (2018) Numerical simulation of viscous fingering and flow channeling phenomena in perturbed stochastic fields: finite volume approach with tracer injection tests. Arab J Sci Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3070-0
  8. Buckley SE, Leverett M (1942) Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands. Trans AIME 146(01):107–116Google Scholar
  9. Byer TJ (2000) Preconditioned newton methods for simulation of reservoirs with surface facilities. Department of Petroleum EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Z (2007) Reservoir simulation: mathematical techniques in oil recovery. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp 103–128.  https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898717075
  11. Chen Z, Huan G, Ma Y (2006) Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media. Soc Ind Appl MathGoogle Scholar
  12. Corey AT (1954) The interrelation between gas and oil relative permeabilities. Prod Mon 19(1):38–41Google Scholar
  13. Craig FG (1971) The reservoir engineering aspect of water of waterflooding. SPE Monograph series, Vol 3, Richardson, TX, pp 10–11Google Scholar
  14. Daripa P, Glimm J, Lindquist B, McBryan O (1988) Polymer floods: a case study of nonlinear wave analysis and of instability control in tertiary oil recovery. SIAM J Appl Math 48(2):353–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Lucia M, Lagneau V, De Fouquet C, Bruno R (2011) The influence of spatial variability on 2D reactive transport simulations. CR Geosci 343(6):406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delamaide E (2014) Polymer flooding of heavy oil-from screening to full-field extension. In: SPE heavy and extra heavy oil conference: Latin America. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  17. Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1992) GSLB: geostatistical software library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Doorwar S, Mohanty KK (2016) Viscous-Fingering Function for Unstable Immiscible Flows, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  19. Douglas JJ, Peaceman DW, Rachford H.H (1959) A method for calculating multi-dimensional immiscible displacement. Trans AIME 216:297–306Google Scholar
  20. Dubrule 0 (1988) A review of stochastic models for petroleum reservoirs. Paper presented at the 1988 British Soc. Reservoir geologists meeting on quantification of sediment body geometries and their internal heterogeneities, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dykstra H, Parsons RL (1950) The prediction of oil recovery by waterflood. Second Recover Oil USA 2:160–174Google Scholar
  22. Eftekhari AA, Schüller K (2015) FVTool: a finite volume toolbox for Matlab (Version v0.11). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.32745
  23. Emery X, Lantuéjoul C (2006) Tbsim: a computer program for conditional simulation of three-dimensional gaussian random fields via the turning bands method. Comput Geosci 32(10):1615–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erandi DI, Wijeratne N, Britt M, Halvorsen BM (2015) Computational study of fingering phenomenon in heavy oil reservoir with water drive. Fuel 158:306–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.05.052
  25. Farnstrom KL, Ertekin T (1987). A versatile, fully implicit, black oil simulator with variable bubble-point option. In: SPE California regional meeting. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  26. Freulon X, de Fouquet C (1991) Remarques sur la pratique des bandes tournantes a 3D. Cahiers de Gostatistique, Fascicule 1:101–117Google Scholar
  27. Garcia N, Stoll E (1984) Monte Carlo calculation for electromagnetic-wave scattering from random rough surfaces. Phys Rev Lett 52(20):1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gneiting T (1999) Correlation functions for atmospheric data analysis. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 125(559):2449–2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gotway CA, Rutherford BM (1994. Stochastic simulation for imaging spatial uncertainty: comparison and evaluation of available algorithms. In: Geostatistical simulations. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  30. Haddad RA, Akansu AN (1991) A class of fast Gaussian binomial filters for speech and image processing. IEEE Trans Signal Process 39(3):723–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haldorsen HH, Damsleth E (1990) Stochastic Modeling (includes associated papers 21255 and 21299). J Petrol Technol 42(04):404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harten A (1983) High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J Comput Phys 49:357–393.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1997.5713 (Bibcode:1997JCoPh. 135.260H) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henderson N, Brêttas JC, Sacco WF (2015) Applicability of the three-parameter Kozeny–Carman generalized equation to the description of viscous fingering in simulations of waterflood in heterogeneous porous media. Adv Eng Softw 85:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Islam MR, Moussavizadegan SH, Mustafiz S, Abou-Kassem JH (2010) Advanced petroleum reservoir simulation. Wiley, Hoboken, p 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson CE (1956) Production of oil recovery by water flood—a simplified graphical treatment of the Dykstra-Parsons method. J Petr Tech Trans AIME 207:345–346Google Scholar
  36. Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalia N, Balakotaiah V (2009) Effect of medium heterogeneities on reactive dissolution of carbonates. Chem Eng Sci 64:376–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knackstedt MA, Sheppard AP, Sahimi M (2001) Pore network modelling of two-phase flow in porous rock: the effect of correlated heterogeneity. Adv Water Resour 24(3):257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kou J, Sun S (2010) On iterative IMPES formulation for two-phase flow with capillarity in heterogeneous porous media. Int J Numer Anal Model Ser B 1(1):20–40Google Scholar
  40. Lacroix S, Vassilevski YV, Wheeler JA, Wheeler MF (2003) Iterative solution methods for modeling multiphase flow in porous media fully implicitly. SIAM J Sci Comput 25(3):905–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lake LW, Malik MA (1993) Modelling fluid flow through geologically realistic media. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 73(1):367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leng CC (2013) The effect of spatial correlation on viscous fingering in a dynamic pore-network model with Delaunay tessellated structure (Master’s thesis)Google Scholar
  43. Lie KA (2014) An introduction to reservoir simulation using MATLAB user guide for the MATLAB reservoir simulation toolbox (MRST). SINTEF ICT, Department of Applied MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  44. List F, Radu FA (2016) A study on iterative methods for solving Richards’ equation. Comput Geosci 20(2):341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liu XD, Osher S, Chan T (1994) Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J Comput Phys 115(1):200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luo H, Delshad M, Pope GA, Mohanty KK (2017) Interactions between viscous fingering and channeling for unstable water/polymer floods in heavy oil reservoirs. In: SPE Reservoir simulation conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  47. MacDonald RC (1970) Methods for numerical simulation of water and gas coning. Soc Petrol Eng J 10(04):425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mantoglou A, Wilson JW (1982) The turning bands methods for simulation of random fields using line generation by a spectral method. Water Res 18(5):1379–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marcu GI (2004) Application of TVD flux limiting schemes in simulation of multiphase flow through porous media. The 6th international conference on hydraulic machinery and hydrodynamics Timisoara, Romania. pp 643–648Google Scholar
  50. Matheron G (1973) The intrinsic random functions and their applications. Adv Appl Probab 5(3):439–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release R (2016) The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  52. Monteagudo JE, Firoozabadi A (2007a) Control-volume model for simulation of water injection in fractured media: incorporating matrix heterogeneity and reservoir wettability effects. SPE J 12(03):355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Monteagudo JEP, Firoozabadi A (2007b) Comparison of fully implicit and IMPES formulations for simulation of water injection in fractured and unfractured media. Int J Numer Meth Eng 69(4):698–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nixon MS, Aguado AS (2008) Feature extraction and image processing. Academic Press, Cambridge, p 88Google Scholar
  55. Pacheco TB, da Silva AFC, Maliska CR (2016) Comparison of IMPES, sequential, and fully implicit formulations for two-phase flow in porous media with the element-based finite volume methodGoogle Scholar
  56. Radu FA, Pop IS, Knabner P (2006) On the convergence of the Newton method for the mixed finite element discretization of a class of degenerate parabolic equation. Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications, pp 1194–1200Google Scholar
  57. Radu FA, Suciu N, Hoffmann J, Vogel A, Kolditz O, Park CH, Attinger S (2011) Accuracy of numerical simulations of contaminant transport in heterogeneous aquifers: a comparative study. Adv Water Resour 34(1):47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Radu FA, Nordbotten JM, Pop IS, Kumar K (2015) A robust linearization scheme for finite volume based discretizations for simulation of two-phase flow in porous media. J Comput Appl Math 289:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riaz A, Tchelepi HA (2006) Numerical simulation of immiscible two-phase flow in porous media. Phys Fluids 18(1):014104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roe PL (1985) Some contributions to the modeling of discontinuous flows, Lectures in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 22, Springer, Berlin, pp 163–193Google Scholar
  61. Rubin B, Blunt MJ (1991) Higher-order implicit flux limiting schemes for black oil simulation. Paper SPE 21222 presented at 11-th SPE symposium on reservoir simulation, Anaheim, pp. 219–228Google Scholar
  62. Sabelfeld KK (1991) Monte Carlo methods in boundary value problems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. Shinozuka M, Jan CM (1972) Digital simulation of random processes and its applications. J Sound Vib 25(1):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sweby PK (1984) High resolution schemes using flux limiters for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM J Numer Ana006C 21:995–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taggart IJ, Pinczewski WV (1985) The use of higher order differencing techniques in reservoir simulation. Paper resented at the sixth SPE symposium on reservoir simulation, Dallas, TexasGoogle Scholar
  66. Tompson AF, Ababou R, Gelhar LW (1989) Implementation of the three-dimensional turning bands random field generator. Water Resour Res 25(10):2227–2243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Leer B (1979) Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J Comput Phys 32(1):101–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite, vol method. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Watts JW, Shaw JS (2005) A new method for solving the implicit reservoir simulation matrix equation. In: SPE reservoir simulation symposium. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  70. Wendroff BLP (1960) Systems of conservation laws. Commun Pure Appl Math 13:217–237Google Scholar
  71. Willhite GP (1986) Waterflooding, SPE textbook series Vol. 3, Richardson, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  72. Zhang W, Al Kobaisi M (2017) A two-step finite volume method for the simulation of multiphase fluid flow in heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng 156:282–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang JH, Liu ZH (1998) Study of the relationship between fractal dimension and viscosity ratio for viscous fingering with a modified DLA model. J Petrol Sci Eng 21(1):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Energy ResourcesChina University of Geosciences (Beijing)BeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Marine Reservoir Evolution and Hydrocarbon Accumulation Mechanism, Ministry of educationChina University of Geosciences (Beijing)BeijingChina
  3. 3.Patent Examination Cooperation CentreSIPOBeijingChina
  4. 4.Faculty of Earth ResourcesChina University of GeosciencesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations