image
Emeraude v2.60 – Doc v2.60.01 - © KAPPA 1988-2010
Guided Interpretation #5 • B05 - 29/32
Overall, there is a fair agreement between measured and simulated data, even though the
problem is over-specified and the slippage velocities are estimated using correlations. We
could in fact let Emeraude infer slippage velocities from the measurements.
On the top zone, there are 3 unknowns, and 4 measurements including a direct velocity, so we
can change the Liquid-Gas slippage. One the middle 3 zones, we can switch to a Water-
Hydrocarbon model and change the Water-Oil slippage. This can be achieved in the following
manner:
Go to ‘Zone Rates’:
For the top zone set the correlation L-G to ‘Cte slippage’.
For the next three zones, set the Model to ‘Water-Hydrocarbons (L)’ and the correlation to
‘Cte slippage’.
Run Improve All.
On zones where the slippage is inferred from measurements you will see a checked box in
front of ‘Slip hc-w’. On zones using the Water-Hydrocarbons model, the value of Fg is
displayed in the results table in red. This is to indicate that this residual is based on the PVT,
not on the measurements. Validate to update the schematic logs. A slightly better agreement
can be seen, in particular at the top of the log, see B05.35.
B05.6.5 • Complete Rate
Generate the complete rate log with a 2 ft depth increment, Fig. B05.35.
Fig. B05.35 • Complete logs generated