Understanding Time 1.1 The Present and its Problems

One more sleepless night and one more blog post, this time a little introspective, a bit off the track. Almost like all the others that I write, but this time, a little more interesting. This time, lets not keep it about me or the things around me. Lets not even keep it about things that matter to you or the rest of the world. Lets not drop opinions. Lets not pose ourselves and the forefathers of a future. Let us just be beings. Cause what philosophy from Mahabharata says is that in any dimension, there are three "Kaals" or times. The bhoot kaal or the past, the vartaman kaal or the present and the bhavishya kaal or the future. Togather, they are called the "Trikaal" or the three times. The lord says in the scripture that the one who has knowledge of all the three of them at the same time shall become a "Trikaal Gyaani" or the one who know of all three times, and hence shall become as powerful as Himself. In short, he gave humans a task to accomplish. To get to something. Now, we clearly aren't even close, and will probably never really get there. The reason why? Well, most of us fail upon:
#1 accepting the past
#2 Apprehending the present
#3 "Thinking" we know the future
Clearly, going this way, we aren't really going to get anywhere. The key is starting from the middle and moving sideways. That way we do get a little amount of control or at least the illusion of control over our life. So, start with the apprehension of the present. Start with the perfect understanding of the present. Now that again has a problem. Logically speaking, we cant live the present, just like we cant live the past or the future. We can only live their idea. Time is a tricky bitch, you see. If now is 2:30:58  then the iota of time before this time is past, an iota more is the future and the duration for which this will last is only how spread our resolution of time is. So in the time you take to understand the present, it has already turned into the past. And you cant even start with the future cause it wont really work you see. It hasn't all these years of exsistance really. So what do we do? How do we come to an understanding of the science behind the present? Clearly, if there is a solution, we can all agree to the fact that the solution is a bulk and quantum general explanation that can be hence applied to every moment so that when it comes, instead of spending time in processing it, we directly get down to execution.
Now, if there is a bulk explanation, it has to be applicable to every moment in time, whenever, wherever it happens and in whichever order it does. Now such an explanation and understanding would need a lot of thinking to do. First of all, we must find properties of time that are uniform all across, right from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch. I am not advocating any theory here. This is simply to express the extent. You might as well use your own reference. What property of time now, remains consistent all through?
Here we encounter hurdle number two for understanding the present. You cannot possibly gauge the parameters for a certain quantity and see what affects it by using it in the pretense of judgement in the first place. Our scope for understanding time, cannot be time. Just like you cannot ask a person questions about himself and judge his persona considering all of that to be perfectly true. You have to use an independent unbiased method. You have to maybe install cameras without their knowledge or some kinda crap to get away with.
So lets get this straight. I am asking you to understand time, from the very beginning of time, without taking time into consideration at all so that the observation is precise, or probably derive some kind of a correction we can apply on our observations so that they maybe converted to the real thing.
This here friends is the research part. The method of the experiment. Here is where the bounds of a theoretical philosopher lie. Here is where you need an experimental philosopher. Someone who can design an experiment around the theory to make it true. And I as a matter of fact am searching for that one person. Someone who can help me understand the present. A way to explain it, universally with perceptible variables and proper logic. Where observation is not a limitation and where the tools for explanation are beyond the reach of a common mind.
I am searching for that one method friends. Find it and you'll be 33% god. Find it and you'll probably become, the most  powerful being. The being who, by the power of truth, while living, can conquer the universe.
V Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

The Sign Painter

Performance Prediction Part 1.1 Understanding the Instantaneous GOR

Deep into the night and I have nothing really to look forward to. It is turning out to be sleepless. Boring you tube videos cannot help me and I on the other hand am supposed to study and so will jump on to show you guys this post. Something reservoir engineering, is what I thought i would keep it as. Dont mind the grammatical errors in here. This isnt exactly an ideal time when you expect attentiveness.
So, drive mechanisms are the words for the day!
And as and when the formation of a secondary gas cap comes into picture, the material balance equation starts to dawdle. This mainly happens because of the term 'm'. There isnt much the equation can do about it you see. It has been pre-decided as the gas in place to the oil in place ratio. put straight into the equation. One reason why the MBE is so simple for most volumetric reservoirs is that the term 'm', takes with itself any of the pain that might try poke its nose into your estimation. But when your reservoir starts to roll, there aint gonna be much concerning for the simplicity of calculations. There the constancy of 'm' is put to test and as the more perceptive of you might have judged by now, it sort of collapses.
So, what do we do?!
Do away with the 'm'?
Hell no.!
That'll be a nightmare! that little thing has saved us pains all through when the reservoir was static and wasn't churning out black gold. We cant just let it go cause some bloke in a shirt says it wont work !
So we resorted to what was closest to 'm' all the time. Just round the corner, we have the good old GOR (gas oil ratio for the more dumb among you) more aptly represented by 'R'. But this isn't the solution really
R only provides a means to meaning. Now, our approach has become more dynamic. Now, the formation of a secondary gas cap seems more appreciable. But we cant even move until we don't have something dynamic in hand.
So, point #1 : we need a dynamic gas oil ratio.
Hold on. The problem dosent really end there. Even after we have a dynamically adjusted GOR, we are still not sure about the now constantly and rapidly changing saturation within the reservoir. And without a proper knowledge of the saturation, even a dynamic GOR wont be of much use. All that we have at hand though is the cumulative oil and gas production.
No wait, actually, its just the cumulative oil production. Bah! save yourself the pain of a cumulative gas production, you already have that little magical kitty named the dynamic (instantaneous) GOR.
So now, just before we step into reservoir performance, we need one more small tiny weeny thing.
An equation that gives a relationship between the saturation and the cumulative oil production
and we'll be all set to go.
So, point #2 : an equation that relates the saturation to cumulative oil production.

Let's start by trying to understand the Instantaneous GOR. Clearly as the name goes, it'll be the ratio between the rate of the total gas being produced at any time (SCF/day) to the rate of total oil being produced at the same point of time (STB/day). The units arent really that big a deal, you just need to keep the consistency right. You might just use the formation factors from the lab data and write the above in terms of RB/day. Dosent really matter.
Coming down to the equation. We are well aware of the instantaneous solution GOR which we very proudly every time jot down as Rs. What will differentiate this from the instantaneous GOR though will be the free gas flow rate and the free oil flow rate once the reservoir fluid gets to the surface.

So we can have GOR = Rs + (Qg/Qo)

where GOR = 'instantaneous GOR' SCF/STB
          Rs is the gas solubility or the solution gas oil ratio or whatever you like to call it.
          Qg is the free gas flow rate. Mind it, thats a rate as we needed a dynamic value and so the units are SCF/day.
          Qo is the oil flow rate again naturally in STB/day.
So while the units to the inst. GOR essentially remain the same as before, we need to understand the fact very carefully that what it represents has completely changed.

Now, the total gas production rate can be given by

Qg = qg/bg + Qo*Rs

pretty simple to understand i suppose.
oh and qg is the gas production rate in RB/day.
The oil production rate with hence be
Qo = qo/Bo

So, our inst. GOR or simply R = [(qg/Bg) + QoRs]/qo/Bo

or R = qgBo/QoBg + Rs

You might as well go ahead and proclaim me to be stupid enough for using the extended form of Qo= qo/Bo when i was anyways going to write them togather in the final equation. But since Mr Ahmad did give a very reasonable explanation for that.
We can now comfortably use the Darcy's Law and write

qo = 2*pi*Ko*H*deltaP/ Vo*ln(Re/Rw)
The terms here have their usual meaning except for Vo which is supposed to look like the oil viscosity. Pardon me i am too lazy to import the symbols into the post as it is already 3:10 and i am starting to have a craving for icecream and pizza.
Nevermind, using a similar equation for the gas flow rate well, we can have the more comprehensive form of the inst. GOR as
R = KgVoBo/KoVgBg + Rs
 (the V again for viscosity, i skipped the complicated multiplication. its too tedious to type, and its just baby terms cancelling out each other. Something you can very well understand just by looking at it. )

but woah!
we did the stupid thing once again. For the reservoir that we are trying to get a solution to, the presence of a gas cap seriousy affects the value of H, the height term as the permeability becomes relative to the wetting phase and so there are huge changes in values with the change of the non wetting fluid viscosity.

So you can jolly well go ahead and add the term of Hg and Ho as two different terms, as if it makes the thing look any prettier.
So that ends the discussion to the solution of the first hurdle towards performance prediction of reservoirs.
I will get back to you soon enough with the second point of the equations to saturation.
PS: thats when i get it.
Till then have a nice time.!

The Sign Painter