Merlin software Tests - geminisi.com · Reservoir Simulation software Tests ... short synonyms will...

Merlin Reservoir Simulation software

Tests

Western Australia Department of Mines and Petroleum

July 2009

Nasser Amirabadi

2

Acknowledgements

In the process of executing these tests and comparing the results with other softwares, my colleague Behrooz Bizhany Gilan prepared the Petrel peer model and arranged to be run on Eclipse 100. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for his efforts and contribution.

3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

2. Description of Test cases ....................................................................................... 4

3. The detail of Test cases .......................................................................................... 5

Case-1(Test-1): Merlintest.mer (merlintest.mer is the input file name ..................... 5

Case-2(Test-2): Merlintest2.mer ................................................................................ 7

Case-3 (Test-3): Merlintest3.mer ............................................................................... 8

Case-4 (Test-4): Merlintest4.mer ............................................................................... 9

Case-5 (Test-5): Merlintest5.mer (Merlin 2006) ..................................................... 10



Case 8 (Test-7): Merlintest7.mer (Merlin 2008) ...................................................... 14

Case 9 (Test-7): E100 software results .................................................................... 15

Case-10 (Test-8): Merlintest8.mer (Merlin 2008) ................................................... 16



Case 13 (Test-9): E100 software results .................................................................. 20

Case-14 (Test 10): Merlintest10.mer (Merlin 2006) ................................................ 22

Case-15 (Test-10): Merlintest10.mer (Merlin 2008) ............................................... 24

Case-16 (Test 10A): Merlintest10A.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 25

Case-17 (Test 10B): Merlintest10B.mer (Merlin 2008 ............................................ 26

Case-18 (Test 10C): Merlintest10C.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 27

Case-19 (Test 10D): Merlintest10D.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 28

Case-20 (Test 10E): Merlintest10E.mer (Merlin 2008) ........................................... 29

Case- 21 (Test 10F): Merlintest10F.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 30

Case-22 (Test 10G): Merlintest10G.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 31

Case-23 (Test 10GR): Merlintest10GR.mer (Merlin 2009) .................................... 32

Case-24 (Test 10H): Merlintest10H.mer (Merlin 2008) .......................................... 33

Case-25 (Test 10D): E100 Software ........................................................................ 34

4. Simulation results ................................................................................................. 36

5. Conclusions and recommendations: .................................................................... 36

6. Production performance plots .............................................................................. 37

4

1. Introduction

Merlin is a reservoir simulation software prepared by Gimini Solutions, Inc.

Resource Branch had it before 2006 but it was never really tested and fully used as a handy tool for assessment of oil and gas resources evaluation. The software is not as complicated as professional famous simulation softwares such as Eclipse but it is a handy tool with some options. It is easy to use by reservoir engineers and likely experienced geoscientists.

The main objective of this study was to check the validity of this program’s

computations. In order to check the performance of the software, a hypotetical model of about 50,000 cells in 8 layers and 36 by 180 grids in X and Y direction was prepared. During this process 10 tests were conducted and 25 cases were designed and run around those tests and the results were analysed. With the simple model in hand, the following concepts and software options

were tested and analysed:

o Conventional vertical well completions, pressure depletion of reservoir with different platau rates by using simulation options and parameters as necessary (cases 1-6).

o The same model was run with one horizontal well (cases 7-9) o The same model was run with two horizontal wells with reduced

production rates (case 10). o The same model with two horizontal oil/gas producer and one

horizontal gas injection well (cases 11 -13). o The same model with two horizontal oil/gas producer and one

horizontal water injection well (cases 14 -16). o Parameters used in solution techniques tab of software were

analysed by rerun of case 10 with different parameters.(cases 17 - 25)

o To check the validity of this software, a similar model with exactly same grid size and orientation was prepared in Petrel and cases 9, 13 and 25 were arranged to be run on Eclipse 100.

2. Description of Test cases

After construction of the model, the first case was designed based on

preliminary runs. The production rate was assigned to the well based on OOIP of the model. Each case was run and the result analysed and based on the results analysis the new case was prepared considering the set goals.

Of course there were some mistakes and delays in designing the initial

cases due to lack of experience in using this software. After runing the first few cases, the required skill was gained and additional tests were designed with more comfort and precision.

5

During these tests three versions of Merlin were used. The first version was

version 2006 that DMP kept from the beginning. During the tests, the software owner, Gimini Solutions, Ltd, was contacted and version 2008 was downloaded and installed. As the tests proceed, a new version of 2009 was received and installed and a few cases were run on the 2009 version. Detail of input files and output results are stored on 3 sub-folders 2006, 2008 and 2009.

NOTE: After case 16 was run an importand issue was noticed by comparison of case 15 and 16. Comparing case 15 and case 16 showed that solution techniques selection has significant effect on simulation performance. For this run the solution technique was changed from IMPES to fully Implicit. The flactuation in gas and water production seen in case 15 was not observed. The gas volume production reduced significantly and the ultimate recovery reduced from 34.75 to 30.38%. These changes triggered a sensation that solution technique parameters may have significant effect on the result of simulation. To check these phenomena, a few other tests with different solution techniques parameters have been run which proved this fact. During these tests (10B to 10H) the production/Injection pattern was kept as case 15 (Test10) and only solution technique parameters were changed for each run. To simplify the repeatation of solution technique parameters, a short synonym was defined for each parameter according to the following table and these short synonyms will be used when comparing cases:

Paramer Synonym used in the following Table

OrthoMin Option P1

Max Outer Iteration P2

Max Mat Bal Err P3

No of Orthogonalization P4

Max Inner iteration P5

Max Pressure Change P6

For each case these parameters are listed.

3. The detail of Test cases

Case-1(Test-1): Merlintest.mer (merlintest.mer is the input file name)

6

This is the first test run. Model consists of 36X180X8 grids is x,y and z

directions. All DX and DYs is set to 300ft. Top layer depth is 10500 and gross thickness for all layers is 10ft. Table 1 shows the layer parameters:

Layer H-Gross,ft H- Net Por(frac) Kx, md Ky, md Kz, md

1 10 8 .12 200 200 20

2 10 8 .12 200 200 20

3 10 8 .12 200 200 20

4 10 9 .15 250 250 25

5 10 9 .15 250 250 25

6 10 9 .15 250 250 25

7 10 10 .20 300 300 30

8 10 10 .20 300 300 30

Table-1 Model parameters There is only one vertical well completed in x=19, y=85 and K=2-6, starting to produce 10000 B/D from beginning and flowing bottom hole pressure limit is set to 750psia. The test is run for 10 years.

Summary of results:

o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 284.863 MMB, 459.344 BCF and 589.912 MMB.

o The model produces for almost 800 days at 10,000B/D o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 22.643 MMB, 207.746

BCF and 33.814 MMB respectively. The recovery factor is 7.95 %

Production profile data was exported to Merlin6Test1.xls file on test1 sheet. Chart1 in the xls file shows the test results.

Case P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 UR %

1 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 7.95

7

Case 1 (chart-1): One vertical well – Merlin (2006)

Production Performance, One Vertical Well

Merlin(2006) Test 1

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D

pressure*10, psia Qg, Mscf/D

Cum gas prod= 207.746 Bscf

Cum Oil Prod = 22.643 MMBbls

Cum Water Prod = 33.814 MMBbls

Recovery factor = 7.95 %

OOIP=284.863 MMB

OGIP=459.344 BCF

OWIP=589.912 MMB

Case-2(Test-2): Merlintest2.mer This run is the same as test1 but the number of time steps changed from

1000 to 2000 to proceed simulation to 20 years. Summary of Results:


o The model produces for almost 800 days at 10,000B/D o Cum OIL, gas and water productions are 27.722 MMB, 295.991

BCF and 44.700 MMB respectively. o The recovery factor is 9.73 %



2 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 9.73

8

Case 2 (Chart2): One vertical well – Merlin (2006)


Merlin(2006) Test 2

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4800 5600 6400 7200 8000

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D






OOIP=284.863 MMB

OGIP=459.344 BCF

OWIP=589.912 MMB

Case-3 (Test-3): Merlintest3.mer Following modifications were applied to merlintest2.mer:

o First 34 DXs changed from 300 to 100ft and last 2 changed from 300 to 500 ft.

o First 178 DYs changed from 300 to 100 ft and last 2 changed from 300 to 500 ft.

o The platue production rate was reduced to 5000B/D o In X direction, depth of grid blocks 31 to 36 was increased by

10ft each for the top layer. Thicknesses, porosity and permeabilities were kept as they were.

o Well was completed at same X, Y coordination but in layears 3-6 to reduce gas production.

Summary results:

o Cpu time 1,650 sec o Number of time step 2000 o Active cells 50960 o Simulated run time(days) 1268.935 (3.477 yrs) o o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 29.568 MMB,

46.513 BCF and 103.509 MMB. o The model produces for almost 400 days at 5,000B/D o Cum OIL, gas and water productions are 3.375 MMB, 31.124

BCF and 7.623 MMB respectively. o The recovery factor is 11.41 % o Some oil is moving into aquifer below WOC and also some oil is

moving into gas cap. The swept oil region next to WOC, oil

9

saturation reaches less than residual oil saturation set in relative permeability tables. Next run is designed to see this malfunctioning more clearly.



3 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 11.41

Case 3 (chart3): One vertical well – Merlin (2006)


Merlin(2006) Test 3

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D






OOIP=29.568 MMB

OGIP=46.513 BCF

OWIP=103.509 MMB

Case-4 (Test-4): Merlintest4.mer Following modifications were applied to merlintest3:

1) Number of time steps changed from 2000 to 3000 2) Minimum rate constraint set to 200 B/D 3) Saturation report interval decreased to 3 months 4) Plateau oil rate changed from 5000 B/D to 4000B/D

Summary results:

o Number of time step 2708 o Active cells 50960 o Simulated run time(days) 7200 (20Yrs)

10



BCF and 9.272 MMB respectively. o The recovery factor is 12.56 % o Oil movement is almost the same as merlintest3. Some oil is

moving into aquifer below WOC and also some oil is moving into gas cap. The swept oil region next to WOC oil saturation reaches less than residual oil saturation set in relative permeability tables.



4 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 12.56



Merlin(2006) Test 4

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D






OOIP=29.568 MMB

OGIP=46.513 BCF

OWIP=103.509 MMB

Case-5 (Test-5): Merlintest5.mer (Merlin 2006) The modifications were:

11

1) Saturation report interval decreased to 3 months up to 2400 days Summary results:

o Cpu time 1826.05 sec o Number of time step 2171 o Active cells 50960 o Simulated run time(days) 2372.5(6Yrs) o The result is the same as case-4.



5 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 12.56



Merlin(2006) Test 5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D

pressure, psia Qg, Mscf/D





OOIP=29.568 MMB

OGIP=46.513 BCF

OWIP=103.509 MMB

Case-6 (Test-5): Merlintest5.mer (Merlin 2008) This is the first case run by Merlin 2008 version.The following modification has no significant effect on results:

1) Saturation report interval decreased to 3 months up to 2400 days Summary results:

o Number of time step 2026 o Active cells 50960

12

o Simulated run time(days) 2372.5(6Yrs) o o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 32.571 MMB,

50.144 BCF and 98.519 MMB. o The model produces for almost 659 days at 4,000B/D o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 4.001 MMB, 36.66 BCF

and 7.071 MMB respectively. o The recovery factor is 12.28 %

This case shows that two versions of Merlin use different logic for initialization and give different original fluid in places. Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test5.xls file on test5 sheet. Chart5 in the xls file shows the test results.


6 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 12.28



Merlin(2008) Test 5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D

pressure, psia Qg, Mscf/D





OOIP=32.571 MMB

OGIP=50.144 BCF

OWIP=98.519 MMB

Case-7 (Test-6): Merlintest6.mer (Merlin 2008)

This is the first case run by Merlin 2008 version with horizontal well.The well was completed in X, Y and Z cells as follows: X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 3-9 83 5

13

10-19 82 5 20-23 82 4 24-30 81 4 31 81 3 The oil production rate was set to 14000 B/D.

Summary results:

o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 32.571 MMB, 50.144

BCF and 98.519 MMB.


BCF and 8.265 MMB respectively. o The recovery factor is 12.55 %



7 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 12.55

NOTE: This run was the first horizontal well introduced in the model. The

production profile is not correct for the model because of a simple bug in the model that can not force user to recalculate the well PI after defining the well connection profile. The system sets all PI equal to 1.0 and selecting an option will calculate the correct connection PI based on the connection properties. If user fails to select that option the model is run with wrong PI for the connections as happened in test run 6.

14

Case 7 (Chart6): One Horizontal well with Wrong PI – Merlin (2008)

Production Performance, One Horizontal Well- Wrong PI

Merlin(2008) Test 6

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/dQo bbl/d Qw, B/D

pressure(*10), psia Qg, Mscf/D





Case 8 (Test-7): Merlintest7.mer (Merlin 2008) This run is a repeatition of Testrun 6 with correct connection PI. Summary results:


o The model produces for almost 166 days at 14,000B/D and then gradually declined to 200 B/D at 844 days.

o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 3.472 MMB, 35.905 BCF and 9.135 MMB respectively.

o The recovery factor is 10.86 % that shows sometimes lower PI may have higher recoveries by comparing test 6 with test 7.

15



8 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 10.86

Case 8 (Chart7): One Horizontal well with correct – Merlin (2008)

Production Performance, One Horizontal Well

Merlin(2008) Test 7

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D






OOIP=31.972 MMSTB

OGIP=48.912 BCF

OWIP=98.074 MMB

Case 9 (Test-7): E100 software results The same data was run on E100 professional simulation software that produced the following results:



o Cum OIL, gas and water productions are 3.336 MMB, 34.418 BCF and 9.75 MMB respectively.

o The recovery factor is 10.68 % that shows almost the same results as Merlin 2008 version.

16

Production profile data was exported to E100test7.xls file on test7 sheet. Chart7 in the xls file shows the test results.

Case 9 (Test-7): One Horizontal well Run in E100 software

Production Performance, Horizontal Well

Test 7 E100 Software

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D






OOIP=31.241 MMSTB

OGIP=47.355 BCF

OWIP=99.789 MMB

Case-10 (Test-8): Merlintest8.mer (Merlin 2008) For this test the number of Horizontal wells increased from one to two with the following coordination:

Well ONE

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 3-9 40 5 10-19 39 5 20-23 39 4 24-30 38 4 31 38 3

17

Well TWO

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 3-9 140 5 10-19 139 5 20-23 139 4 24-30 138 4 31 138 3

Both Wells were producing at 14000B/D each. The results are as follows:


o The model produces for almost 116 days at 128,000B/D and then gradually declined to 200 B/D at 312 days. Practically this is very fast depletion of a reservoir but for the purpose of testing a software map is appropriate.

o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 4.085 MMB, 36.457 BCF and 7.008 MMB respectively.

o The recovery factor is 12.78 % that shows sometimes depletion at high speed may have higher recoveries by comparing test 7 with test 8.



10 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 12.78

18

Case 10 (Chart8): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Production Performance, Two Horizontal Wells

Merlin(2008) Test 8

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D






OOIP=31.972 MMSTB

GOIP=48.912 BCF

WOIP=98.074 MMB

Case-11 (Test-9): Merlintest9.mer (Merlin 2006) This case is modified test8 with a gas injector and reduced the rate of production for each well. The injector location is: Injector Well

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 6-18 86 1

The production injection pattern is as follows: Time Well One Well Two Gas Injector Days B/D B/D MSCF/D

----------- ------------ ------------- --------------- 0 7000 7000 -50,000 91.25 -60,000 182.5 -80,000 270.75 -100,000 365.0 -120,000 600 4000 4000 -140,000 Production/Injection results are:


19


o Cum OIL, gas and water productions are 7.550 MMB, 107.99 BCF and 20.197 MMB respectively. During this time 82.583 BCF gas was injected into the reservoir.

o The recovery factor is 26.05 % that shows gas injection has significant effect on recovery.



11 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 26.05


Gas Injection

Production Performance, Gas Injection

Merlin(2006) Test 9

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo,B/D Qw, B/D


Qginj, Mscf/d


Cum gas Inj = 52.375 Bscf



Recovery factor = 23.71 %OOIP=28.98 MMSTB

GOIP=45.30 BCF

WOIP=103.16 MMB

Case-12 (Test-9): Merlintest9.mer (Merlin 2008) The input data for this case is exactly the same as case 11 explained above. The Merlin version 2008 was used for simulation to compare the results. Production/Injection results are:

20

o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 31.972 MMB,

48.912 BCF and 98.074 MMB. o The model produces for almost 590 days at 14,000B/D and then

gradually declined to 3438 B/D at 800 days. o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 9.301 MMB, 111.253

BCF and 16.762 MMB respectively. During this time 82.584 BCF gas was injected into the reservoir.

o The recovery factor is 29.09 % that shows Merlin Version 2008 is different from Version 2006.



12 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 29.09


Gas Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 9

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl;

Pre

ss

ure

*1

0,

ps

ia

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo bbl/d Qw, B/D


Qginj, Mscf/d





Recovery factor = 29.09 %OOIP= 31.972 MMSTB

GOIP=48.912 BCF

WOIP=98.074 MMB

Case 13 (Test-9): E100 software results The input data for this case is exactly the same as case 9 explained above. The E100 Software was used for simulation. Production/Injection results are:

21

o Original in places for Oil, gas and water are: 31.24 MMB, 47.35

BCF and 99.79 MMB. o The model produces for almost 588 days at 14,000B/D and then

gradually declined to 2972 B/D at 800 days. o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 9.185 MMB, 109.877

BCF and 17.233 MMB respectively. During this time 82.79 BCF gas was injected into the reservoir.

o The recovery factor is 29.40 % that shows Merlin Version 2008 is producing the same results as E100 Software for this case.

Production profile data was exported to E100test9.xls file on test9 sheet. Chart9 in the xls file shows the test results.

Case 13 (Chart9): Two Horizontal wells – E100 Software

Gas Injection


E100 software Test9

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl;

Pre

ssu

re *

10, P

sia

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D


Qginj, Mscf/d






OOIP=31.24 MMSTB

GOIP=47.35 BCF

WOIP=99.79 MMB

The following Table compares 3 software results with the same input data:

Merlin 2006

Merlin 2008

E100 Software

OOIP, MMSTB 28.980 31.972 31.240

22

GOIP, BCF 45.300 48.912 47.350

WOIP, MMB 103.160 98.074 99.790

Cum Oil Prod, MMSTB 7.550 9.301 9.185

Cum Gas Prod, BCF 107.990 111.253 109.877

Cum Water Prod, MMB 20.197 16.762 17.233

Cum Gas Inj, BCF 82.583 82.584 82.790

Recovery Factor % 26.050 29.090 29.400

This table shows that the results of Merlin (2008) computations are very close to E100.

Case-14 (Test 10): Merlintest10.mer (Merlin 2006)

This test consists of the same static model with two oil producers and one water injection well. The well coordinations are:

Producer ONE

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 6-10 40 4 11-24 39 4 25-31 38 4

Producer TWO

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 6-10 140 4 11-24 139 4 25-30 138 4 31 138 3

Injector Well

X Y Z ------- ----- ------ 35 58-118 8

The production injection pattern is as follows: Time, Days Well One Well Two Water Injector Days B/D B/D B/D

----------- ------------ ------------- --------------- 0 7000 7000 -40,000 90.25 -60,000 182.5 -70,000

23

600 4000 4000 -70,000 Production/Injection results are:


o The model produces for almost 579 days at 14,000B/D and then gradually declined to 1919 B/D at 700 days. It stopped due to Number of time steps limitation (7000).

o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 8.714 MMB, 37.635 BCF and 31.501 MMB respectively. During this time 45.961 MMB water was injected into the reservoir.

o The recovery factor is 30.07 % that shows Water injection has significant effect on recovery and seems to be more efficient than gas injection in this model.



14 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 30.07


Water Injection

Production Performance, Water Injection

Merlin(2006) Test 10

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, Days

Da

ily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D

Qginj, Mscf/d pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D


Cum Water Inj = 45.932 MMBbls




24

Case-15 (Test-10): Merlintest10.mer (Merlin 2008) The same input data with the following change in injection pattern was rerun on Merlin Version 2008:

The production injection pattern is as follows: Time, Days Well One Well Two Water Injector Days B/D B/D B/D

----------- ------------ ------------- --------------- 0 7000 7000 -15,000 182.5 -17,000 600 4000 4000 -10,000 The gas and water production rates had frequent flatuation. The production and recovery results were:


o The model produces for almost 600 days at 14,000B/D and then until 900 days produced 8000B/D and then production rate gradually declined to less than 500 B/D and then stopped.

o Cum OIL, gas and water productions are 11.110 MMB, 68.692 BCF and 11.618 MMB respectively. During this time 14.955 MMB water was injected into the reservoir.

o The recovery factor is 34.75 % that shows Water injection has significant effect on recovery and seems to be more efficient than gas injection in this model.



15 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 34.75


Water Injection

25


Merlin(2008) Test 10

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D






Case-16 (Test 10A): Merlintest10A.mer (Merlin 2008) The Production/Injection profile was changed as: Time, Days Well One Well Two Water Injector Days B/D B/D B/D

----------- ------------ ------------- --------------- 0 5000 5000 -11,000 182.5 -13,000 600 4000 4000 -10,000 Fully implicit option was used to supress flactuations. The production and recovery results were:




o The recovery factor is 30.38 %. Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10A.xls file on test10A sheet. Chart10A in the xls file shows the test results.


16 F Imp 1 2 7 30 0.01 30.38

26

Case 16 (Chart10A): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10A

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D


Qg, Mscf/D






Initial prod rate 10,000B/D

Initial Water Injection 11,000B/D

Solution method: Fully Implicit

Case-17 (Test 10B): Merlintest10B.mer (Merlin 2008)

Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:




o The recovery factor is 28.86 %.

Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10B.xls file on test10B sheet. Chart10B in the xls file shows the test results.


17 F Imp 1 2 10 30 0.01 28.86

27

Case 17 (Chart10B): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10B

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/DQWinj, MB/D pressure(*10), psiaQg, Mscf/D






Solution Technique:-

P1= F Imp

P2=1

P3=2

P4=10

P5=30

P6=0.01

Case-18 (Test 10C): Merlintest10C.mer (Merlin 2008) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:


o The model produces for almost 300 days at 14,000B/D and then production rate gradually declined to less than 500 B/D and then stopped.



Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10C.xls file on test10C sheet. Chart10C in the xls file shows the test results.


18 Impes 2 2 7 100 0.001 14.78

28

Case 18 (Chart10C): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10C

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D

Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D

pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D






Defaults Solution Technique:-

P1= Impes

P2=2

P3=2

P4=7

P5=100

P6=0.001

Case-19 (Test 10D): Merlintest10D.mer (Merlin 2008) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10D.xls file on test10D sheet. Chart10D in the xls file shows the test results.


19 F Imp 2 2 7 100 0.01 15.43

29

Case 19 (Chart10D): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10D

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D

Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D

pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D





Recovery factor = 1543 %


P1=F Imp

P2=2

P3=2

P4=7

P5=100

P6=0.001

Case-20 (Test 10E): Merlintest10E.mer (Merlin 2008) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10E.xls file on test10E sheet. Chart10E in the xls file shows the test results.


20 Impes 2 2 7 100 0.01 14.77

30

Case 20 (Chart10E): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10E

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D

Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D

pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D







P1=Impes

P2=2

P3=2

P4=7

P5=100

P6=0.01

Case- 21 (Test 10F): Merlintest10F.mer (Merlin 2008) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10F.xls file on test10F sheet. Chart10F in the xls file shows the test results.


21 Impes 2 2 7 30 0.01 14.77

31

Case 21 (Chart10F): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10F

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D

Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D

pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D







P1= IMPES

P2=2

P3 =2

P4=7

P5=30

P6= 0.01

Case-22 (Test 10G): Merlintest10G.mer (Merlin 2008) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The Gas and water production profile is flactuating. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10G.xls file on test10G sheet. Chart10G in the xls file shows the test results.


22 Impes 3 2 7 30 0.01 31.67

32

Case 22 (Chart10G): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2008)

Water Injection


Merlin(2008) Test 10G

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Daily r

ate

, B

bl

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Gas r

ate

, M

scf/

d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D


Qg, Mscf/D







P1= IMPES

P2=3

P3=2

P4=7

P5=30

P6= 0.01

Case-23 (Test 10GR): Merlintest10GR.mer (Merlin 2009) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The Gas and water production profile is flactuating. The production and recovery results were:



o Cum Oil, gas and water productions are 10.260 MMB, 69.194 BCF and 10.232 MMB respectively. During this time 13.835MMB water was injected into the reservoir.


Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10GR.xls file on test10GR sheet. Chart10GR in the xls file shows the test results.


23 Impes 3 2 7 30 0.01 32.09

33

Case 23 (Chart10GR): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2009)

Water Injection


Merlin(2009) Test 10GR

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Da

ily

ra

te,

Bb

l

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D


Qg, Mscf/D







P1= IMPES

P2=3

P3 =2

P4 =7

P5=30

P6= 0.01

Case-24 (Test 10H): Merlintest10H.mer (Merlin 2009) Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to Merlin8Test10H.xls file on test10H sheet. Chart10H in the xls file shows the test results.


24 Impes 4 2 7 30 0.01 14.79

34

Case 24 (Chart10H): Two Horizontal wells – Merlin (2009)

Water Injection


Merlin(2009) Test 10H

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, Days

Da

ily

ra

te,

Bb

l

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo, B/D

Qw, B/D

QWinj, MB/D

pressure(*10), psia

Qg, Mscf/D







P1 = IMPES

P2 =4

P3 =2

P4 = 7

P5 = 30

P6 = 0.01

Case-25 (Test 10D): E100 Software Input data same as case 15 but solution parameters changed. The production and recovery results were:





Production profile data was exported to E100Test10D.xls file on test10D sheet. Chart10D in the xls file shows the test results.

35

Case 25 (Chart10D): Two Horizontal wells – E100 software

Water Injection


E100 Software Test 10D

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00

Time, Days

Da

ily

ra

te,

Bb

l

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Ga

s r

ate

, M

sc

f/d

Qo, B/D Qw, B/D


Qg, Mscf/D






Following table contains the summay of results of different solution technique parameters.

Case Test P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 UR %

15 10 Impes 1 2 7 30 0.01 34.75

17 10B Fully Im 1 2 10 30 0.01 28.86

18 10C Impes 2 2 7 100 0.001 14.78

19 10D Fully Im 2 2 7 100 0.001 15.43

20 10E Impes 2 2 7 100 0.01 14.77

21 10F Impes 2 2 7 30 0.01 14.77

22 10G Impes 3 2 7 30 0.01 31.67

23 10GR Impes* 3 2 7 30 0.01 32.09

24 10H Impes* 4 2 7 30 0.01 14.79

25 10D** 14.82

*version 2009 received 17 July 2009 was used for tests 10GR and 10H ** E100 software was used The analysis of the above table consisting of 9 detail Merlin runs using version 2008 and 2009 demonstrates that parameter P2, Max Outer Iteration, is a crutial parameter and the system is only stable and perform comparable results with E100 software for P2 equal to Even Numbers, 2, 4, etc. The system will be unstable and produce erroneous results on numbers 1, 3, etc. This behaviour should be reported to the Merlin owner (Gemini Solutions). The E100 recovery factor is closer to case 24 but the trend of gas and water

36

production makes it similar to case 19 with higher recovery factor and fully implicit option with P2=2.

4. Simulation results The input data and simulation results and xls sheets demonstrating production profiles are saved on I: drive as: I:\Resources Branch\Software\Gemini_Merlin_Tests Each tests’ files are saved on a folder under 2006, 2008 and 2009 folder names. Production / Injection data exported in xls files are saved in folder “XLSGraphsV6V8V9”. All files except xls files are only accessable through Merlin simulation software.

5. Conclusions and recommendations:

We have designed and run 25 simulation cases on a conceptual model of about

50,000 grid cells in 8 layers with gas, oil and water present in the model. Three

versions of Merlin software (2006, 2008 and 2009 versions) were used for running

these tests. Out of these 25 cases, three were run on professional expensive

software for comparison. The comparison of the resultsof these 3 cases shows that

the difference between UR results is less than 5 per cent (1.6%, 1.05% and 4.1%).

Of course, the options availabe in expensive softwares are not comparable with

Merlin but the similar simple cases run on both softwares produce almost the same

results. The Merlin is simple to use and very user friendly and can be easily used

for simulation of new exploration fields and small to medium developed fields

with not too much complexity. It is very suitable for learning simulation processes

and concepts for unexprienced employed engineers.

It is recommended to maintain this software and provide incentives for young

engineers to use it for the purpose of acquiring necessary experience to be able to

use professional simulators.

37

6. Production performance plots

Merlin software Tests - geminisi.com · Reservoir Simulation software Tests ... short synonyms will...

Documents

Transcript of Merlin software Tests - geminisi.com · Reservoir Simulation software Tests ... short synonyms will...