Sensitivity of Steamflood Model
Results to Grid and Timestep Sizes
Jamal Hussein Abou-Kassem, UPM Research Inst.
Khalid Aziz, * SPE, U. of Calgary and Computer Modelling Group
Abstract
Numerical simulation of complex processes in oil reser-
voirs has become a standard tool. The grid size and
timestep sensitivity of a simulator are of prime concern
in reaching the correct conclusions in any study. This
paper presents an analysis of the sensitivity to timestep
and grid size of a one-dimensional (I D) and two-
dimensional (2D) compositional muItiphase steam flood
model used to simulate a heavy-oil reservoir.
The behavior of primary variables before breakthrough
in the I D and 2D cases is presented for clearer
understanding of steamflooding heavy-oil reservoirs.
The peculiar features exhibited by primary variables of
the production and injection blocks for the I D reservoir
plus timestep and grid-size effects on primary variables
for 2D cases studied are discussed,
Sensitivity studies of grid and timestep size are mean-
ingful only if each is carried out while the other variable
has minimum truncation error. The recovery perfor-
mance parameters are less sensitive to timestep size than
to grid size. They are also less sensitive in the 2D runs
than in the I D runs. The time/pore-volume-injected
(PVI) relationship is very sensitive to grid size, and to a
lesser extent, to timestep size.
Introduction
Numerical dispersion IS particularly important in
simulating multi phase flow, I miscible displacement,
and compositional phenomena. 2 Settari 3 recommends
that detailed study be carried out on grid- and timestep-
size effects. A grid-size sensitivity study is recommend-
ed when a reservoir is simulated to define the necessary
grid size used, I Such a study requires a series of simula-
tion runs with increasing or decreasing grid definition.
When simulators with fully implicit formulation are
used, where large time steps are possible, the time trun-
cation error also can become important. 4 Therefore, a
timestep sensitivity study for these simulators is also
necessary.
"Sensitivity analysis" refers to the sensitivity of the
primary variables and recovery performances to grid and
timestep size. A review of recent literature 2 ,5·7 reveals
that grid and timestep effects have not been studied on all
primary variables for I D simulations and are lacking for
2- or 3D simulations.
Sensitivity analyses for both 1- and 2D simulation of a
heavy-oil reservoir along with a study of the behavior of
primary variables in steamflooding are presented.
'Now with Stanford U.
0197·752018410021·1080$00.25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroteum Engineers of AIME
FEBRUARY 1984
Simulator and Data Used
The simulator used in this study was developed by Abou-
Kassem. 8 A brief description of the simulator is given in
Ref. 9. It is a fully implicit, compositional, three-phase
steamflood model. The model employs a sophisticated
well model and a nine-point finite-difference scheme in
two dimensions only. It can be operated in 1- and 2D
modes with the choice of block-centered or point-
distributed grid. In this paper only results of a block-
centered grid with gas hysteresis and with no heat loss to
surrounding formations are presented,
The reservoir is represented by a one-fourth five-spot
flood pattern with dimensions of 137 X 137 x63 ft
[41.76x41.76x 19.2 m]. The permeability and porosity
are 4 darcies and 0.38, respectively. The reservoir is in-
itially saturated with 18 % water and 82 % heavy oil com-
posed of 70% nonvolatile oil component and 30%
methane. The nominal mobility mtio is 285,000, which
corresponds to an effective mobility ratio of about
10,000. The Appendix provides more detailed data.
Steam of 0,70 quality at an injection pressure of 1,000
psia [6.9 MPa] was injected into the reservoir having an
initial pressure and temperature of 554 psia [3.9 MPa]
and 60°F [288,7 KJ, respectively. The maximum steam
injection rate was 883 cu ft/D [25 m 3 Id] cold water
equivalent (eWE). The production well was put on
"deliverability" control with a bottomhole pressure
(BHP) of 400 psia [2.8 MPa]. The reservoir is simulated
with a uniform grid (with square block for 2D).
Results and Discussion
Results of the simulator used in this study were com-
pared with results obtained from a commercial steam
model in ID and 2D modes. Excellent agreement was
obtained when the simulator was run with the five-point
finite-difference formulation, 8 The 2D results presented
next are for a diagonal grid with the nine-point difference
scheme.
Behavior of Primary Variables in Steamflood
Simulation. Primary Variables of Injection Well
Block (l-D Simulation). The behavior of the primary
variables associated with the injection block as a func-
tion of PVI is shown in Fig. I.
As steam injection begins, the pressure increases first
moderately then very rapidly because the system has
been compressed and all fluids are almost immobile. The
pressure of the injection block is slightly less than the
maximum injection pressure. At 0.375 PVI, the steam
mobility has been established such that the reservoir can
accept a steam injection rate higher than the specified
65
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
So
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Pore Volume In J e etc d
Fig. 1-1 D case, injection block, N = 20, {,t max = 1 day.
maximum of 883 cu ft/D [25 m 3 /d] eWE. However, no
more than this specified rate is allowed to be injected.
The block pressure starts to drop because of insufficient
voidage replacement. It is followed by a steep pressure
drop until the injection block pressure is slightly higher
than the production block pressure. The pressure
stabilizes at that value as the steam injection rate is kept
constant.
Initially the temperature of the injection block in-
creases rapidly because of heating by the injected steam,
and then it stabilizes for a short period. This plateau ap-
pears to have no special significance. During this time
the internal energy of the injection block is nearly con-
stant as a result of the balance between injected steam,
which condenses to form water phase, and the oil and
water moving out of the block. Following this,
temperature starts to increase until it reaches a second
temperature plateau corresponding to the temperature of
the injected steam. At 0.375 PVI, as the pressure starts
to drop, so does the temperature since it is no longer an
independent variable because the gas phase is entirely
steam. The temperature then stabilizes such that it is
equal to the steam saturation temperature, which cor-
responds to the block pressure.
The oil mole fraction in the oil phase, X" stays near
initial conditions until the temperature of the injection
block is high enough to cause methane to evolve from
the oil phase. As the temperature increases, more
methane leaves the oil phase, leading to a continuous in-
crease in oil mole fraction. At 0.21 PVI, almost all
methane has evolved from the oil phase and has left the
injection block.
The oil saturation cOhtinues to decrease monotonically
as a result of movement of the oil to the next gridblock
until it ultimately reaches the residual oil saturation.
There is only a minute amount of gas present in the in-
jection block until the temperature is high enough to sus-
tain steam in the gas phase. The gas saturation increases
rapidly until it reaches about 0.50. It then increases
slowly, occupying the voidage cteated by the decrease in
oil saturation. This is followed by a rapid increase in gas
saturation resulting from partial evaporation of water
caused by the block pressure drop at 0.41 PVI. It con-
tinues to increase until the pressure stabilizes. The gas
66
700
1.0 550
600
500
0.8
500
450
0.6
400
400
300
0.4
350
200
0.2
100 300
O.IP (kP.J
0 0.0 250
1.0 0 2 3
Pore Volume Injected
Fig. 2-1D case, production block, N=20, Ot max = day.
saturation then decreases slightly to allow for
water/steam equilibrium. At PVI > 0.48, gas saturation
increases such that the gas expands to replace the small
amounts of oil leaving the block.
The steam mole fraction increases initially (from near
zero) as the temperature increases. When the gas satura-
tion starts to increase, most of the gas phase is steam. At
PVI > 0.21, steam forms the bulk of the gas phase.
The initial water saturation increases because of ex-
pansion as its temperature increases with steam conden-
sation. As the temperature continues to increase
(PVI > 0.16), the water starts to evaporate, forming the
gas phase. It continues to evaporate until steam/water
equilibrium is reached, at which time the water satura-
tion levels. As a result of a sharp pressure drop
(0.375 < PVI < 0.425), the water evaporates partially,
and this is followed by a water saturation increase
resulting from steam condensation until steam/water
equilibrium is reached again. Thereafter, the water
saturation stays nearly constant as steam injection
continues.
Primary Variables of Production Well Block (lD
Simulation). The behavior of the production block
primary variables is shown in Fig. 2.
As production starts, the block pressure drops almost
instantly to a level just slightly above the backpressure.
It then starts to increase in response to the injection
pressure. At 0.375 PVI, the block pressure drops sharp-
ly, again in response to the injection block pressure, until
it stabilizes just slightly above the backpressure.
The temperature of the production block increases
slightly at first and is then followed by a sharp increase
as steam breakthrough is approached. The block
temperature then stabilizes at the temperature of the
steam.
The oil mole fraction almost instantly increases as a
result of methane evolution from the oil phase. The oil
mole fraction stays constant until just before steam
breakthrough, when it increases sharply to reach 1.0.
The oil saturation remains constant until 0.10 PVI.
This is because oil lacks mobility at low temperatures. It
then increases suddenly and remains constant again. The
oil saturation increases to replace the water produced. As
temperature increases, viscosity decreases, and in tum
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Frectlonel Length
Fig. 3-10 case of 0.4 PVI, N = 20, bt ma , = 1 day.
oil mobility increases, allowing oil production. The oil
saturation then decreases continuously as a result of oil
production.
Minute amounts of gas are formed and produced right
after the steam injection starts. The gas saturation starts
to increase rapidly just slightly before steam
breakthrough. The gas saturation levels off for a while
before it starts to increase again, replacing most of the
spaces vacated by the oil.
Steam mole fraction in the gas phase remains very
small until just before breakthrough. After steam
breakthrough, steam forms the bulk of the gas phase.
Water saturation, though initially mobile, remains
constant because of instant depletion of the production-
block pressure. As the production-block pressure in-
creases in response to the injection pressure, most of the
mobile water in the block is produced in a short period,
leaving the \.vater saturation close to the irreducible water
saturation (0.13). Just slightly before steam break-
through, the water saturation increases to 0.23 as a result
of water-bank arrival and water expansion caused by the
pressure drop. The water saturation is decreased as a
result of water production. This is followed by a con-
tinuous and slight increase in the water saturation until
computations are stopped.
Variables' Profiles Before Steam
through. I D Simulation. The profiles of the various
primary variables are shown in Fig. 3 at a time before
steam' breakthrough.
The mole fraction of the oil component is near 1.0
behind the steam front. The light-oil bank can be seen in
the interval of 0.48 to 0.68 fractional length. It is preced-
ed by the heavy-oil bank, whose oil mole fraction is
slightly greater than that at initial eonditions beeause of
methane evolution and production at early times.
The temperature profile in the steamflooded region
dips very slightly toward the production block. The
temperature decreases at a decreasing rate as we move
farther from and ahead of the steam front.
A very characteristic feature of the water-saturation
profile is the water bank ahead of the steam front. This is
FEBRUARY 1984
700
600
500
400
300
Diagonal Grid
9x 9
200
1.0
Injector
Fig. 4-Effect of grid size on composition at 0.4 PVI.
formed by the condensation of the steam in the colder
part of the reservoir ahead of the steam front. The water
of the water bank displaces the oil of the light-oil bank
ahead of it.
The gas-saturation profile is smeared. The steam front
can be located with the aid of the temperature profile.
Note that the gas front is at approximately 0.42 fractional
length.
The pressure also dips slightly toward the production
block. It starts to decrease gradually. followed by a sharp
decrease in the few blocks close to the production end.
This nonlinear pressure profile is a result of a highly
compressible system.
The steam mole fraction in the gas phase, .\'4. is very
close to 1.0 in the steamtlooded region. It then decreases
sharply ahead of the steam front.
2D Simulation. The solid contours in Fig. 4 indicate
that oil is composed mainly of the oil component. X3. in
the zone surrounding the injection well. The methane is
redissolved in the oil surrounding this zone, thus forming
a light-oil bank-the bulk of which is concentrated along
the diagonal connecting the injection and production
wells. Away from both t he injector and the producer, the
oil composition is still near its value at initial eonditions.
The temperature surface depicted by the contours in
Break- Fig. 5 clearly indicates that the temperature front is
smeared. The protrusion along the diagonal is a result of
fluid withdrawal from the production well.
The water-saturation surface indicated by the contours
in Fig. 6 shows clearly the water bank fomling a ring
around the injector. The water bank extends farther
along the diagonal than along the sides. This results from
greater steam movement along the diagonal than along
the grid lines. as can be seen by the solid contours in Fig.
5. The steam then condenses, forming the water bank
when it encounters a cold-oil medium.
The contours in Fig. 7 show that the gas is coneen-
trating around the injector. The figure indicates that the
gas front is not sharp and tends to protrude slightly
toward the production well.
It is shown elsewhere 8 that the pressure away from the
67
 r-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oi agonal Grid
9'9
7,7
Injector ( ! l - - -_ _ _ _ _ _.lL-........u...'--..u.I_ _ _~
Fig. 5-Effect of grid size on temperature at 0.4 PVI.
r-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _producer
Diagonal Grid
9x9
7x7
------ 5xS
In j ectoT(!l-_ _ _ _--'-_4-''--L....L...LL.L..L.-'-_ _ _ _- - '
Injcctor(!l-_ _--....J~___'__'_'..............• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
Fig. 6-Effect of grid size on water saturation at 0.4 PVI.
production well is near the injection pressure though dip-
ping slightly toward the production well. The pressure
surface dips very steeply in a logarithmic fashion around
the production well, as evidenced from the dense con-
tours around the producer.
Sensitivity Analyses. Grid Size Sensitivity. JD
Simulation. To study grid size sensitivity, several runs
of the base case were made using small timesteps with a
maximum of 1 day for N=S, 10, 22, 30, and 40
gridblocks. Figs. 8 through 13 (bf max =l day)
demonstrate the effect of grid size on oil composition,
temperature, gas saturation, oil recovery, methane
recQvery, time/PVI relationship, and oil-production rate.
The primary conclusions are that as the grid size is re-
fined, the solutions' tend to converge to a limiting case
where N? 20, and that numerical dispersion is signifi-
cant. Therefore, 20 gridblocks will suffice to reduce
spatial truncation errors in 1D cases for the set of data
under investigation. Fig. 8 indicates that the light-oil
bank, represented by the depression in heavy-oil frac-
68
..-::-..-.froducer
.... -- .. ,
r -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-e"Toducer
Diagonal Grid
9x9
7x7
------ SxS
I
I
I
.,•
Fig. 7-Effect of grid size on gas saturation at 0.4 PVI.
tion, has disappeared for the choice of N=S. Figs. 9 and
10 indicate that the temperature and gas fronts tend to
smear out more as the number of gridblocks changes
from 10 to 5. Figs. II and 12 show that the recovery of
oil and methane components at any PYI is less for larger
spatial truncation errors.
The time/PYI relationship in steamt100d of heavy oils
is not necessarily linear, as can be seen from Fig. 13. For
PYI > 0.40, this relationship is linear-i .e., steam is in-
jected into the reservoir at the specified maximum injec-
tion rate. For PYI < 0.40, the relationship is not
linear-i.e., the specified steam injection rate cannot, in
reality, be achieved without fracturing the reservoir. At
0.40 PYI, for example, differences in time of more than
50% and 25% from the converged solution are incurred
for the reservoir with 5 and 10 gridblocks, respectively.
This relationship is important because time along with
PYI is used in economic feasibility studies.
2D Simulation. Three grid sizes, sxS, 7x7, and
9 X 9 diagonal, were used to study grid-size sensitivity
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
W1.0 6

f
5
o
0.8 99~~
o~++:o
v + 0

-
u
G
_ LIl.L t 1,1 __CO_'ll>. 2 ~ J J_'_o."

5 Gr I d 8 I 0 C k ~
u
0
3

r
9+0

5 Gr I d B 10 C k s

. 10 Gr I d B 10 c k s
L 0
LL 0.6 x L 2 10 Gr ! d B I "c k s
a..

l 20
20 Gr I d Bloc k :5 Gr I d BI 0 C k :5
30
. - Gr I d 8 I 0 C ks
0 0 30 Gr I d 810ch 1
1: 0 40 Gr I d BI 0 C k :5
40 Gr I d 810ch t~
a 0.4 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 2 3
Frectlona! Length Pore Volume In J e c ted

Fig. 8-1 D case, effect of grid size on oil composition at 0.4 Fig. 11-1D case, effect of grid size on oil recovery.
PVI.

600 I

r
l' ______

'" 500
c
2 L

!
5 Grid 8 I k :5
G
a.
E 400 10 Grid B I
0 C

0 c k, a..
L
"L 5
10
Gr
Gr
Id
Id
B Joe k:5
B I 0 C k :5
0-
w
20
30
Gr I d B I
Gr I d B I 0
0 ck,
C k:5 ~
. 20
30
Gr
Gr
Id
Id
81 0 C

8! 0 C k :5
ks

40 Gr Id 810ch
40 Gr I d B 10 C k:5 ;',
300 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 .0.6 0.8 1.0
Freet lonal Length Pore Volume In J e c ted

Fig. 9-1 D case, effect of grid size on temperature at 0.4 PVI. Fig. 12-1D case, effect of grid size on C , recovery.

'0..
0.6 3
G rid 8I 0 C k5
10 Cr I d 8 I 0 c k s 9

- G
0.4
" -"\Y8x 0
. 20 G rid 810 c k s
30 Gr ! d B I 0 C k 5
. l~ 2
9

40 Gr ! d B I 0 C k 5 ~
G
(j)
L

.
G
-" 0.2 - 1
~
~ ooO'99~~++
99
5
10
Gr I d B Joe k ,
Gr I d B 10 C k 5
a..
.
G
0
++
t+
,+++ ....
ell 0 0
0 000 20
30
Gr
Gr I d B I
I d BI 0 C

0
k5
c k,

'" \. t-.·ooo D
40 Gr I d B I 0 C k s

0.0
.....x
0 tr°,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 2 3
Fractlonel Length Pore Volume r n J e c ted

Fig. 10-1D case, effect of grid size on gas saturation at 0.4 Fig. 13-1 D case, injection time for various grids.
PVI.

FEBRUARY 1984 69
 for the 2D case. Small timesteps, with a maximum size
of 5 days, ~ere used. Figs. 4 through 7 and Figs. 14
through 16 (Or max =5 days) show the effect of grid size
on oil composition, X3; temperature; water saturation;
gas saturation; oil recovery; methane recovery; and
DIagonal GrId
u
time/PYI relationship. Fig. 4 shows that a solution dif-
~ 2 SXS ferent from that obtained in other cases has been ob-
o
L
<L
7X7 tained for the 5 x5 grid. Here again, as in the ID case,
919 the light-oil bank disappeared for the 5 x 5 grid. By com-
-
-
1 •
o parison, the solutions of 7 x 7 and 9 X 9 grids are close to
o each other. The grid-size effect on temperature, water
o 2 3 saturation, and gas saturation is much less than on oil
Pore Volume Injected composition. The differences between the contours of
7x7 and 9x9 grids could be attributed partially to inter-
Fig. 14-20 case, effect of grid size on recovery. polation errors in generating the surfaces. .
The effect of spatial truncation errors on oil and
methane recovery is much less in the 2D case than in the
ID case, as can be seen by comparing Figs. 14 and II
and Figs. 15 and 12. Fig. 16 shows the same behavior as

0
E
3

• • • • •
.. that for the ID reservoir (Fig. 13), namely that the
time/PYI relationship is sensitive to block size .
~

t Timestep Sensitivity. ID Simulation. Timestep

c
0 2 ~W
sensitivity analysis is carried out when the spatial trunca-
tion errors are minimum. In steamflood simulation it is
,
u
not possible to fix the time step; however, the maximum
." OJ agone I Gr I d
0
L 00 timestep can be specified. The effect of timestep trunca-
<L
SXS
7X7
tion error is studied using 20 gridblocks and maximum
c 9X9 timesteps of 1, 5, 10, and 20 days, which correspond
.
.c
~

>: ..wWWWW
II •
I I
respectively to average timesteps of 0.979, 4.234,
6.859, and 10.780 days.
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1 .4 1.6 Figs. 17 and 18 show the effect of timestep size on
Pore Volume InJecled pressure and time/PYI relationship. The primary conclu-
sion is that as the timestep gets smaller, the solutions
Fig. 15-20 case, effect of grid size on C 1 recovery. ten,j to converge to a limiting cilse where the average
tirnestep is less than 4.234 days (Or max =5 days). The ef-
fect of timestep on temperature and oil and methane
recovery performance is negligible and is not shown here
(refer to Ref. 8). Fig. 18 indicates that the time/PYI rela-
tionship is far less sensitive to timestep than it is to grid
size.

~
~

."
.
~
3
1 Figs. 19 and 20 show the effect of timestep truncation
error on temperature and pressure for 10 gridblocks,
where the spatial truncation errors are not minimum as
was the case earlier. Fig. 19 indicates that regardless of
2
~ Dragonel G, I d
timestep chosen, the temperature difference is within
25°F [15K]. Fig. 20 indicates that the timestep trunca-
SXS
7X7 tion error affects the pressure profile to a large extent.
9X9 I For example, the maximum pressure difference is 109
o ~~~~~~~~~~.J psi [750 kPa] for N= 10 while it is only 22 psi [150 kPa]
for N=20 (compare with Fig.J 7). Another observation
o 2 3
Pore Volume Injected
is that the pressure profile for Or av =5.274 days is closer
to the converged solution than that for Or av =4.195 days.
The timestep and spatial truncation errors were cOlll-
Fig. 16-10 case, effect of timestep on pressure at 0.4 PVI,
N=20. bined such that the local truncation error for the fonner
case is lower than that for the latter case.
2D Simulation. Timt;step sensitivity analysis for the
2D case was carried out on a 7 x 7 instead of a 9 x9
diagonal grid because of computer time limitations. The
specified maximum timesteps were 5, 20, and 50 days,
which correspond to bta,,=4.039, 9.099, and 18.730
days, respectively. The effect of timestep on oil com-
position, temperature, water saturation, gas saturation,
and oil and methane recovery are demonstrated by Abou~
Kassem 8 to be very small. Figs. 21 and 22 are shown
70 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 7000
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaA
6000 A

·
0..

=5000 r A,. b\ id, y)

0.979
o
: 4000 l 6.859
A,. b\ Id,y)

·
c
0..
10.780
Pre~sure
- 1 0.979
4.234
10.780
3000 Send feee

2000 o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 o 2 3
Frectlonel Length Pore Volume Injected

Fig. 17-10 case, effect of timestep on pressure at 0.4 PVI, Fig. 18-1 D case, injection time for various timesteps, N= 20.
N=20.

here as samples only. The small differences between the
contours of different timesteps shown in Figs. 21 and 22
could be attributed partially to the use of only 49 points
to generate the surfaces in each case.
In a 7 X 7 diagonal griQ, the spatial-truncation and
time-truncation errors for Ot(/\' = 18.730 days were com-
bined .!O produce smaller local truncation errors than
when Ot av =9.099 days is used, as shown in Fig. 23.
Note also that the time/PVI relationship is much less
sensitive to timestep than it is to grid size.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As a result of the foregoing sensitivity analyses, the
following conclusions can be made. While some of the
conclusions are new, others simply confirm previous
findings.
I. Sensitivity studies of only one variable may lead to
incorrect conclusions. We recommend that such studies
be carried out on as many primary variables as possible.
2. The recovery performance parameters are less sen-
sitive to timestep than to grid size. Also the sensitivity is
less in the 2D case than in the I D case.
3. The time/PVI relationship is very sensitive to grid
size and to a lesser extent to timestep.
4. A constant injection rate of steam, during heavy-oil
recovery, may not be physically attainable at all times
(especially high flow rates at early times). In such a case
it is PVI rather than time that must be used as a basis for
comparison in carrying out sensitivity studies.
5. The timestep sensitivity of the model was very
small for the case investigated.
6. Sensitivity studies of grid size and timestep are
meaningful only if each is carried out while the other
variable has minimum truncation error.
7. Numerical dispersion can be reduced by choosing
an optimal grid size for a given timestep or an optimal
timestep size for a given grid size (an optimal combina-
tion of grid and timestep sizes).
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Energy, Mines and
Resources Canada, Nat!. Sciences and Engineering
Research Council Canada, and the U. of Calgary. The
bulk of the work was done at the U. of Calgary and the
paper was composed at the UPM Research Inst. in
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Nomenclature
Co = oil compressibility, psi - I [kPa - I J
C To = thermal expansion coefficient, ° F - I
[OC - I]
N = number of gridblocks in I D reservoir
p = pressure, psi [kPa]

600 6000

~
~
550

500 ~. .
0..

= 4000
5000

-· 450
c
0

· 400
c
A,. b\ id,y) : 3000
0. 5.974
·
E
350 0.982 II c:: 9.031
~
>--
5.974 2000 11.019
300 11.019 t D Send Feee Pressure

250 1000 L[--,''--'---C'--,-1-.L'- ' - '--,'L......l1---c'--'-'_L-'--'--'--'--'--'---'--L......l

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fractional Length Fractlonel Length

Fig. 19-1D case, effect of timestep on temperature at 0.4 Fig. 20-1D case, effect of timestep on pressure at 0.4 PVI,
PVI, N= 10. N= 10.

FEBRUARY 1984 71
 .P roducer
r----------------------------------4 Producer

Av. 6t (day)
- - - 4.039
- - - 9.099
...... 18.730

~~ .~

:::~ ~
r--
-::;~ "'J lf
...... .
·...-,.,f.·&O
~

...~ ~
Av. 6t (day)
- - 4.039
- - - 9.099
······18.730

Injector \ Ir jector~------'''--..LI...JJ...u...l..I....---------...J

Fig. 21-1 D case, effect of timestep on water saturation at 0.4 Fig. 22-Effect of timestep on gas saturation at 0.4 PVI, 7 x 7
PVI, 7 x 7 diagonal grid. diagonal grid.

S = saturation
T = temperature, of [K]
X2 methane mole fraction in oil phase 3
X3 oil component mole fraction in oil phase
(x3 = l- x 2)
~ 2
Y4 steam mole fraction in gas phase . Av. b!
4.039
(doy)

ot (/\' average timestep size

E

9.099
Or max maximum timestep size 18.730
J-t viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
p oil density, Ibm/cu ft [kg/m 3] o ~
•
o 2 3
Subscripts Pore Volume Injected

c critical
g gas phase Fig. 23-2D case, injection time for various timesteps at 0.4
PVI, 7 x 7 diagonal grid.
irr irreducible
0 oil phase
r residual; relative
ref = reference
s steam phase 6. Grabowski. J.W. el a/.: "A Fully Implicit General Purpose
w water phase Finite-Difference Thermal Model for In Situ Combustion and
Steam," paper SPE 8396 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26.
References 7. Youngren, G.K.: "Development and Application of an In-Situ
Combustion Reservoir Simulator." Soc. Pel. Fng. 1. (Feb. 1980)
I. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Pelro/eum Reservoir Simulation. Ap- 39-51.
plied Science Publishers Ltd., London (1979). 8. Abou-Kassem, J.H.: "Investigation of Grid Orientation in a Two-
2. Coats, K.H.: "In-Situ Combustion Model." Soc. Pel. Fng. 1. Dimensional, Compositional. Three-Phase Steam Model." PhD
(Dec. 1980) 533-54. dissertation, U. of Calgary (1981) 123-38, 154-91.
3. Settari, A.: "Numerical Simulation of Three-Phase Coning in 9. Abou-Kassem, J.H. and Aziz, K.: "Grid Orientation During
Petroleum Reservoirs," PhD dissertation, U. of Calgary (1973). Steam Displacement." paper SPE 10497 presented at the 1982
4. Au. A.D.K. el a/.: "Techniques for Fully Implicit Reservoir SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans. Feb.
Simulation," paper SPE 9302 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual 1-3.
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24. 10. Abou-Kassem, J.H. and Aziz, K.: "Analytical Well Models for
5. Coats. K.H.: "An Equation of State Compositional Model," Soc. Reservoir Simulation," paper SPE 11719 presented at the 1983
Pet. Eng. 1. (Oct. 1980) 363-76. SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura. March 23-25.

72 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

APPENDIX
Simulation Data

DATA USED FOR SIMULATION VISCOSITY TABLE

Water compressibility, 10 - 6 psi - 1 3.4 Temperature iJ.o iJ.w iJ.s

Oil compressibility, 10 -6 psi -1 8.0 (OF) (cp) (cp) (cp)
Rock compressibility, 10 -6 psi -1 2.0
50.0 80340.0000 1.3750 0.0087
Oil thermal expansion coefficient, 10 -4 OF -1 3.0
Oil density at 60°F and 14.65 psia, Ibm/cu It 64.44 150.0 318.2900 0.4233 0.0109
Initial reservoir pressure, psia 544 250.0 32.9000 0.2430 0.0127
Initial reservoir temperature, of 60 350.0 7.7000 0.1630 0.0148
Initial water saturation 0.18 450.0 2.0000 0.1290 0.0170
Heat capacity of oil components, Btullbm-oF 0.5 550.0 0.9300 0.0976 0.0191
Formation dimensions, It 137 650.0 0.6300 0.0791 0.0213
Permeability, darcies 4
Porosity 0.38
Horizontal formation with no heat loss to
surroyndings
Reservoir rock heat capacity, Btullbm-oF 0.195 INITIAL CONDITIONS
Reservoir rock thermal conductivity, Btullbm-oF 38.4
PV, 10 5 cult 4.526
Oil in place, 10 7 Ibm 2.4
Gas in place, Ibm o
Water in place, 10 6 Ibm 5.09
PRODUCTION AND INJECTION BLOCK DATA Oil Component 1 o
FOR2DRUNS* Oil Component 2, 10 3 Ib-moles 6.089
Oil Component 3,10 4 Ib-moles 1.421
Skin factor o Oil Component 4, 10 5 Ib-moles 2.825
Geometric factor 0.611
Fraction of well associated with the well block* * 0.25
Radius of well, ft 0.5
BHP of productIon well, psia 400
Maximum BHP of injection well, psia 1,000 OIL DENSITY (Ibm/cu tt) AT REFERENCE RESERVOIR
Steam quality 0.7 CONDITIONS (T rel andPrel)
Temperature of injected water, OF 544.61
• Refer to Ref. 10 for catculation of well block factor. PO,el (x 3 )
**Well is located at corner of block.
0.04000 21.18600
0.08000 31.48700
0.12000 38.65400
0.14800 42.55800
0.21200 43.58000
HYDROCARBON COMPONENT PROPERTIES 0.40000 55.85200
0.60000 64.65200
Component (molwt)
0.70000 64.71800
2 16.00 0.80000 64.93900
3 1,684.00 1.00000 69.5840p
Note:
[cp (Btullbm-mol-OF)] Po ~Po", (x3)11 +co(P-Prel)
8.00 -c To (T - T rel )] whele Prel ~540
842.00 psia and T ref = 60°F.

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TABLES

Water Data Gas Data

~ ~ ~ ~ _S_l_ P cg k ro krg
0.13000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.20000 0.00000 0.00000 0.17000
0.19100 0.00000 0.00510 0.99900 0.39500 0.00000 0.02940 0.11200
0.25000 0.00000 0.01020 0.80000 0.43300 0.00000 0.04610 0.10220
0.29400 0.00000 0.01680 0.72410 0.51500 0.00000 0.08830 0.08550
0.35700 0.00000 0.02750 0.62060 0.56900 0.00000 0.11720 0.07610
0.41400 0.00000 0.04240 0.50400 0.61400 0.00000 0.14330 0.06540
0.49000 0.00000 0.06650 0.37140 0.66300 0.00000 0.17640 0.05000
0.55700 0.00000 0.09700 0.30290 0.71900 0.00000 0.21000 0.03720
0.63000 0.00000 0.11480 0.15550 0.75000 0.00000 0.22550 0.02850
0.67300 0.00000 0.12590 0.09560 0.80500 0.00000 0.29190 0.01950
0.71900 0.00000 0.13810 0.05760 0.85000 0.00000 0.33730 0.01210
0.78900 0.00000 0.16360 0.00000 0.89900 0.00000 0.51690 0.00260
1.00000 O.OOOpO 1.00000 0.00000

FEBRUARY 1984 73
 COMPONENT 2 K-VALUES TABLE

T(OF)
P (psia) 50 150 250 350 450 550 650
---
15.0 6.3250 7.5350 7.7770 8.0190 8.1730 8.2640 8.3830
315.0 4.3780 5.1700 504090 5.5880 5.6540 5.7170 5.7750
615.0 2.0770 2.5590 2.6180 2.6840 2.7370 2.8020 2.8660
915.0 104630 J.7930 1.9030 1.9580 2.0130 2.0680 2.1230
1215.0 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000
1515.0 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000
1815.0 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000

TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT ENDPOINT DATA'

T(OF) ~~ ~ ~ ~ k rwro krocw ~

60.0 0.1300 0.0000 0.2110 0.0700 0.2500 0.1636 1.0000 0.1700
650.0 0.1300 0.0000 0.2110 0.0700 0.2500 0.1636 1.0000 0.1700

,. k rwro = water phase relative permeability at residual oil saturation

k roew = oil phase relative permeability at critical water saturation
k rgro = gas phase relative permeability at residual oil saturation.

GAS VISCOSITY TABLE

Temperature (OF)
p(psia) 50 150 250 350 450 550 650
15.0 0.0107 0.0121 0.0137 0.0153 0.0169 0.0185 0.0201
315.0 0.0115 0.0128 0.0142 0.0156 0.0172 0.0188 0.0204
615.0 0.0123 0.0134 0.0146 0.0159 0.0175 0.0190 0.0206
915.0 0.0131 0.0140 0.0151 0.0161 0.0177 0.0193 0.0209
1215.0 0.0139 0.0147 0.0156 0.0164 0.0180 0.0196 0.0212
1515.0 0.0147 0.0154 0.0160 0.0167 0.0183 0.0199 0.0214
1815.0 0.0155 0.0160 0.0165 0.0171 0.0186 0.0202 0.0217

GASZTABLE

Temperature (OF)
p(psia) 50 150 250 350 450 550 650
15.0 0.9970 0.9990 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
315.0 0.9490 0.9740 0.9870 0.9920 0.9960 0.9Q90 1.0030
615.0 0.9010 0.9530 0.9760 0.9850 0.9930 0.9980 1.0050
915.0 0.8530 0.9240 0.9640 0.9770 0.9900 0.9970 1.0080
1215.0 0.8040 0.9000 0.9520 0.9700 0.9870 0.9970 1.0100
1515.0 0.7560 0.8750 0.9400 0.9620 0.9830 0.9960 1.0130
1815.0 0.7080 Q.8500 0.9280 0.9550 0.Q800 0.9950 1.0150

OIL VISCOSITY MULTIPLIERS SI Metric Conversion Factors

Btu x 1.055 056 E+OO kJ
0.04000 0.19000
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
0.08000 0.22400 cu ft x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
0.12000 0.236pO ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
0.14800 0.24400 Ibm X 4.535 924 E-Ol kg
0.21200 0.26400 psi x 6.894 757
0.32000
E+OO kPa
0040000
0.60000 0.60000
0.70000 1.00000
"Conversion factor is exact. SPEJ
0.80000 1.80000 Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Aug. 27, 1982.
Paper accepted for publication Jan. 15, 1983. Revised manuscript received Aug. 8,
1.00000 6.00000 1983. Paper (SPE 11080) first presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition held in New Orleans Sept. 26-29.

74 SOCIETY OF PETROl ElM ENGINEERS JOURNAL