Fig 1.
Domain geometry, initial, and boundary conditions used to conduct the numerical study.
Table 1.
Physical properties obtained from field measurements and used in the CFD reservoir-scale model.
Table 2.
Summary of numerical experiments considered for the sensitivity analysis.
The base parameters for each numerical experiment were kept constant to those presented later in Table 3.
Table 3.
Physical properties obtained from field measurements and used in the CFD reservoir-scale model.
Fig 2.
Heterogeneity profiles of a) porosity, b) permeability, and c) initial water saturation in the studied heavy oil reservoir.
Fig 3.
Relative permeability curve measured from the core analysis of the studied reservoir.
Fig 4.
Schematic of the small section of the completion liner used to calculate the viscous and inertial resistance to simulate this liner as a porous region.
Table 4.
Results for the calculation of the inertial and viscous porous resistances for the slotted liner.
Fig 5.
Representation of the mesh used in this study, a) general view, b) focus on the well and liner regions.
Table 5.
Element count per region obtained for the meshing of the domain using unstructured polyhedral elements.
Table 6.
Calculated breakthrough times for the porosity and permeability sensitivity analysis.
Fig 6.
Dynamics of the water movement near the wellbore for the permeability sensitivity analysis, a) at k = 0.01d, b) at k = 100d. 3D renders taken at the breakthrough time.
Fig 7.
Production profile obtained for the a) porosity and b) permeability sensitivity analysis.
Table 7.
Calculated breakthrough times for the oil viscosity and density sensitivity analysis.
Fig 8.
Dynamics of the water movement near the wellbore for the viscosity sensitivity analysis, a) at μoil = 0.001 Pa∙s, b) at μoil = 100 Pa∙s. 3D renders taken at the breakthrough time.
Fig 9.
Production profile obtained for the a) viscosity and b) density sensitivity analysis.
Table 8.
Calculated breakthrough times for the oil viscosity and density sensitivity analysis.
Fig 10.
Dynamics of the water movement near the wellbore for the Swi sensitivity analysis, a) at Swi = 0%, b) at Swi = 40%. 3D renders taken at the breakthrough time.
Fig 11.
Production profile obtained for the Swi sensitivity analysis.
Fig 12.
Aquifer movement profile obtained or the homogeneous model.
Fig 13.
Aquifer movement profile obtained or the heterogeneous model.
General view at the top, lateral view at the bottom.
Fig 14.
Results of the history match for the homogeneous and heterogeneous case, a) comparison against the reported oil and water production, b) comparison against the reported water-cut.
Table 9.
Mean absolute error between the numerical results and the field data.