Water moving at its connate saturation value

[06pg22]

I prepared this model for End point scaling purpose but before the application of EPS i have run it, Problem Occurring is: ECLIPSE takes water immobile at its connate water saturation. even the critical saturation of water in this model is around 45% and connate saturation is 15%, but here the water is producing at its connate saturation.
this Volumetric saturated reservoir

help in this regard, may be I am forgetting something

[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]

[vinomarky]

Short answer is that you don't

Simulating this deck, and you have about 6 months of water free production before the injection water comes through - are you sure you are not looking at the injection water rates?

Have uploaded two images - the first being the FWPR and FOPR for this model, the second being Sw at one of the timesteps just before water hits the producer

VM

[06pg22]

Same results I have got as you provided. but see the the SWOF Table, water become mobile at some 45% saturation, but if you see the grids block near the production well, they till have 15% water till end and water cut is 99%

[vinomarky]

No - your SWOF table has water starting to become mobile at 29.5% Sw, and the cells at the producer honor this, with production up until April 12th 2012 remaining water free and max Sw of 16.3%, then April 20th you get your first bit of water at 0.9%WC and a Sw in the lower blocks of 30.86%. By the time you reach 99% WC (Nov 2013) in your producer, the producer grid block cells are at 77% Sw

[06pg22]

But note the 3 grids the PROD well penetrating. they have Sw around 15% till last time step, how water is flowing at this saturation as the results (prod profiles) are indicating.
[ I have used ECLIPSE]
Also attached the fig for Sw

[vinomarky]

Either you've sent me a different deck, or you are looking at the wrong property/timestep - my comments from above post are correct based on the deck you sent. Attached is the deck as simulated, along with the restarts & vector results

[DAH7542]

Dear Vinomarky and 06pg22,

Taking a look at the provided data set (EPS.DATA) some questions and comments arised:

1. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: according to SWOF table, water is mobile at Sw = 0.295 (as vinomarky said), this means Swir = 0.24, at this point Kro = 0.784; howerver 06pg22 has one more Sw value below Swir (where Kro = 1), how can this be?, going back in time, if oil migrated into the reservoir it could only be able to displaced water at a minimum Sw = 0.24. Connate water sat could be greater than Irreducible water saturation, but could connate water sat be lower than Swir ?

2. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: following point #1 takes me to the second question, how can Kro be greater than Kro at Swir ?, in the provided SWOF table Kro at Swir = 0.784 but there is an additional value of Kro = 1.0.

3. To 06pg22: I'm not pretty sure by taking a look at your SWOF table of what your reference permeability is, I'm sure it's not Ko at Swir, so it should be Ko at Sw = 15% because you have Kro = 1 at Sw = 15%, but this takes me again to questions #1 and #2.

4. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: I use to adding an extra value of Krw = 1.0 at Sw = 100% (extra data point in SWOF table) to reproduce flow within water zone, which is 100% water saturated so effective perm equals absolute perm (using this one as a reference); the provided data set has Krw = 0.7 at Sw = 100%, which is not consistent with what I explained here, why is that?

Thanks in advanced for clarifying this doubts, it'll be interesting to discuss this topics....

[vinomarky]

1. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: according to SWOF table, water is mobile at Sw = 0.295 (as vinomarky said), this means Swir = 0.24, at this point Kro = 0.784; howerver 06pg22 has one more Sw value below Swir (where Kro = 1), how can this be?, going back in time, if oil migrated into the reservoir it could only be able to displaced water at a minimum Sw = 0.24. Connate water sat could be greater than Irreducible water saturation, but could connate water sat be lower than Swir ?

Not exactly - you can't take the rel perm table built to describe imbibition process under project execution timeframes and categorically state it is wrong because when extending it to geological timeframes and drainage scenarios it doesn't work. As constructed, it simply means that a given grid block at 0.15 Sw initially needs to increase to a Sw of 0.24 before any water will flow out of it (under reasonable timeframe), and that during the increase in water saturation oil is flowing out. This is the difference between the connate water (SWL) and the critical water saturation (SWCR) - have a read of the saturation scaling section of the Eclipse Technical manual

2. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: following point #1 takes me to the second question, how can Kro be greater than Kro at Swir ?, in the provided SWOF table Kro at Swir = 0.784 but there is an additional value of Kro = 1.0.

Per above, it's not - SWL = 0.15, Kromax = 1.0

4. To 06pg22 and vinomarky: I use to adding an extra value of Krw = 1.0 at Sw = 100% (extra data point in SWOF table) to reproduce flow within water zone, which is 100% water saturated so effective perm equals absolute perm (using this one as a reference); the provided data set has Krw = 0.7 at Sw = 100%, which is not consistent with what I explained here, why is that?

Here I would agree - generally the Krw at Sw=1.0 (ie in Aquifer) should be unity, and the Kro at SWL should be at or (more normally) something less than unity. If you take a look at the sheet I put togeather at

[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]