History Match

Reservoir Simulation
IFP
History Match
ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung
Reservoir Simulation
Performance of a reservoir simulation study

model
Reservoir model
Field development
History Match
Forecast
IFP
Geological
Frebruary, 2009
Reservoir Simulation Study
IFP
Data review
History Match
Content
issues
Methodology overview
Key features
Matching parameters
Pressure Match
Flow rates Match
Uncertainty contributions
Well controls
Eclipse keywords
Exercise
IFP
Main
Frebruary, 2009
Main Issues
Observed flow rates are imposed on wells during the history period
One expect to reproduce:
pressure evolution
WCT and GOR
gas or water breakthrough
production rates
Inconvenients:
Many data are unknown (no information available far from wells)
It is not obvious to detect the most influent data (all data act together)
Some artefacts must be corrected
IFP
Frebruary, 2009
Identify
Adapt data to grid size
Data
analysis Quality
Identify main uncertainties in the geomodel
Select
matching parameters
Identify probable range for each matching parameter
Modify
matching parameters
Trial and error process
IFP
available data that have to be matched
Frebruary, 2009
Workflow
INITIAL MODEL
NEW GEOMODEL
MODIFICATION OF
PARAMETERS
SIMULATION RUN
YES
NO
GOOD
MATCH
NO
MODIFICATION OF
GEOMODEL
YES
IFP
FORECAST RUN
Frebruary, 2009
Remind
Geologist
and geophysics must work hard to help the reservoir

engineer to maintain the consistency of the geological model
is better to have rough, consistent matching than matching

which is accurate but destroys the model
IFP
It
Frebruary, 2009
Available data
IFP
General well information: All the wells penetrating the reservoirs

with their associated general parameters: XY coordinates, KB,
and surveys
Well markers
Structural depths maps: 3D seismic interpretation loaded with the
associated fault network.
Interpreted well logs: from the petrophysical evaluation (Volume
of Shale, Effective Porosity, Water Saturation, Lithology).
Rock types
Petrophysical properties: Net-to-gross, porosity, permeabilities
Rock types: kr-Pc, water saturation, volumes in place
Production data: static pressure, flowing pressure, production
rates, WCT, GOR, WBT, GBT.
Frebruary, 2009
Data analysis: Quality
Like all physical assets, data require maintenance over time. Raw data will
degrade when errors are introducedtypically through human
intervention, as when data are manually entered into spreadsheets or
various processing routines used for decision making.
Data errors are easily generated; a misplaced decimal, typographical error

or erroneous map datum can relegate well data to a new geographical
province, redraw the boundary of a field, change the structure of a
productive horizon or alter a completion strategy.
The information technology industry has devised a systematic

methodology to address oilfield data quality and validation issues.
IFP
10
Frebruary, 2009
Data Quality Management

The DQM methodology relies on six basic criteria, or measurement
categories, to evaluate data quality:
Validity: do the data make sense, honour science and corporate standards?
Completeness: does the client have all of the required data?
Uniqueness: are there duplicate items in the same data store?
Consistency: do the attributes of each item agree between data sources?
Audit: has an item been modified, added or deleted?
Data changes: have any attributes of an item been modified?
IFP
These measurement categories translate into business rules for

assessing the data.
11
Frebruary, 2009
Key features
Field basis match:
Faults
Aquifer
Global permeability scaling
Vertical Transmissivities
Well by well match:

Local Transmissivities X, Y, Z
IFP
Relative permeabilities endpoint scaling (Swi, Sor)

Local PI and skin
12
Frebruary, 2009
Key features
Late
well behaviour correspond to area far from the wells
Do not limit your analysis close to the wells to match late production
time reservoir parameters
Early
Concentrate on well data to match early production times local

parameters
Flow
well behaviour correspond to area close to the wells:
directions are not correct if pressure is not matched:
Do not try to match in saturation if you are not matched in pressure
Modification
Try to anticipate model reactions by using simple calculations

Do not introduce new parameters without a look back to geologists &
geophysicians.
IFP
of matching parameters:
13
Frebruary, 2009
Key features
Field basis match

Global
patterns of:
Production rates
Water cut
Cumulate production
Reservoir pressure
IFP
14
Frebruary, 2009
Key features
Well by well match

Oil production rate and cumulated oil
production
IFP
Water cut
15
Frebruary, 2009
Key features
Well by well match
Relative permeability
Relative permeability
of water
of oil
IFP
Time = 0
16
Time = 0
Time = 4000 days
Time = 8000 days
Time = 0
Time = 4000 days
Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days
Time = 12,000 days
0.25
0.5
Time = 4000 days
Time = 8000 daysTime = 12,000 days
Kro
Krw
ITB
-0.225
Reservoir0.45
Simulation
0
0.675Course,
0.9 Bandung
Oil saturation
So
0.75
1.0
0.2
0.4Frebruary,
0.6 0.8 2009
1.0
Matching parameters
17
Volumes originally in place, Pc
Aquifer dimensioning
Faults modelling
Pore and fluid compressibility
Flow rates match:
Relative permeabilities
Transmissivities
Skin
PI
WCT and GOR:
Relative permeabilities
Transmissivities
Water and gas breakthrough:
IFP
Pressure match:
Relative permeabilities end points
Transmissivities
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Material balance
Objective: Get a correct evolution with time of the average reservoir pressure.
Pressure match is an adjustment of the reservoir energy balance between:
Volumes originally in place
Aquifer activity
Pore and fluid compressibility
The material balance should address the whole reservoir voidage (no material
balance per fluid at surface conditions). The total fluid withdrawal at reservoir
conditions (reservoir voidage) is:
IFP
Qres Qo Bo Qg Bg Rs Qo Bg Qw Bw
18
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Material balance
The data origin is mainly from build-up tests and or from RFT surveys run in
new wells.
Reservoir pressure deducted from DST need to be compared with an

average pressure calculated from the well surrounding cells and the well
block.
It is usual to calculate an average pressure from 5 grid cells (areal model)

weighed by the respective pore volumes (BP5 in summary section).
IFP
19
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Diffusivity equation
Objective: Get a correct evolution of reservoir pressure versus time and
space.
Diffusivity equation:
2 P 2 P 2 (P g z)
K P
x 2 y 2
z 2
f c t
Main parameters:
hydraulic diffusivity, K/(f..c)
permeability, K
fluid viscosity,
porosity, f
total compressibility, c
IFP
20
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Well's representation
Objective: Get a correct relationship between flow rate, reservoir pressure
and bottom hole flowing pressure.
Main parameters:
Numerical productivity index or connection factor (CF):
CFwell
Drainage area properties:
Transmissivity distribution
Transfer functions: relative permeability and capillary pressure
IFP
2 K h
ln( ro / rw ) S
21
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
IFP
Objective: Get a correct relationship between flow rate, reservoir pressure

and bottom hole flowing pressure.
22
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Comparison between well cell pressure and BHP:
INSTANTANEOUS PRESSURE PROFILE
IFP
PRESSURE & FLOW RATE HISTORY
23
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Aquifer activity
A preliminary study with a MB software is necessary to run the aquifer

match. The expected result is the aquifer volume plus its permeability.
The aquifer volume is to be reproduced in the reservoir model with aquifer

cells or analytical functions.
Aquifer activity needs to be adjusted in order to reproduce the field observed

reservoir pressure history.
The reservoir model production history is run with all the producing wells
governed by the "reservoir voidage" option.
IFP
24
Frebruary, 2009
Pressure match
Fault modelling
Fault modelling: Only faults with influence in the zone of interest

are modeled.
definition
transmissivity
IFP
25
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

During the pressure match procedure, production rates are not
honoured.
Simulation is now run by setting the oil rate for producers so bottom hole
flowing pressure, gas and water rates are calculated by the simulator.
The phase rate matching consists of adjusting the calculated GOR and
WCT to the field measured values.
To honour the relationships between reservoir pressure, BHFP and

phase rates, PI need to be adjusted. This is accomplished by applying
multiplication factors to the well perforation connection values: MULTPI.
IFP
26
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

Main parameters:
Permeabilities Transmissivities.
Permeability barriers (i.e. faults)
Relative permeabilities: shape and endpoints.
IFP
27
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match
Relative phase permeabilities

Water
cut (WCT): water oil ratio
Water
breakthrough (WBT): water production starts associated
to Swi
IFP
Early water breakthrough

impacted by rock-type effects
kr curves
28
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match
IFP
Relative phase permeabilities
29
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

Endscale option
Objectives
Modify relative permeabilty tables in an easy way, kr tables are normalized and
remain always the same, only the end-points are changed and kr curves are then
recalculated.
IFP
It's a useful option in History Match simulations.
30
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

keywords
KRO: Maximum oil relative

permeability
KRORW: Oil relative permeability at
critical water saturation Swcr
KRWR: Water relative permeability
at residual oil saturation (1-Sowcr)
KRW: Maximum water relative
permeability
SWL: Connate water saturation
SWCR: Critical water saturation
SOWCR: Residual oil saturation
IFP
SWU: Maximum water saturation
31
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match
If the 3-points scaling is to be used, add in the PROPS section:
SCALECRS
IFP
YES /
32
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

If the 2-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:
IFP
If the 3-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:
33
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match

Example 1
1,00
0,90
0,80
SWL= 0.24
0,70
SWCR= 0.35
Kr
0,60
0,50
krw un-scaled
0,40
kro un-scaled
Krw 2-point scaling
0,30
krw 3-point scaling

kro 2-point scaling
0,20
kro 3-point scaling
IFP
0,10
34
0,00
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Sw
0,6
0,7
0,8
Frebruary, 2009
0,9
Flow rates match

Example 2
1,00
0,90
0,80
SWL= 0.20
0,70
SWCR= 0.25
Kr
0,60
0,50
0,40
krw un-scaled
kro un-scaled
0,30
Krw 2-point scaling

krw 3-point scaling
0,20
kro 2-point scaling

kro 3-point scaling
0,10
0,00
IFP
35
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Sw
0,6
0,7
0,8
Frebruary, 2009
0,9
Flow rates match
Water breakthrough
Matching breakthrough times is a difficult task.

Breakthrough times are sensitive to truncation errors (numerical dispersion)
and the accurate matching requires finer grid than normally necessary.
Using a LGR is a possibility to the use of pseudo-relative permeabilities can
help.
IFP
An unsuccessful attempt for a match indicates that some of the basic

assumptions of the model (geology, structure, volumes, extensions, PVT
behaviour, energy balance between initial hydrocarbon in place and aquifer
activity) may have to be revised.
36
Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match
IFP
Water breakthrough
37
Cumulated Water (bubble diagram from OFM)

Frebruary, 2009
Flow rates match
Water breakthrough
The gridding techniques include local gridding (LGRs) for the creation of small cells
around wells for improved resolution, useful to match the water breakthrough and
water cut when conning effects are present.
IFP
LGR
38
Frebruary, 2009
interpretation
Geological interpretation
Well production allocation
Observed data (bottom hole pressures, well logs, etc.)
Fluid models
Simulation grid accuracy (e.g. fault juxtapositions), orientation, etc.
General poor control outside the main reservoir structure (aquifer
support etc.)
IFP
Seismic
39
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Uncertainty in predictions
40
Frebruary, 2009
Uncertainty in predictions
Take a look at the figure below looking at the range of possible production from the same
development plan but using differently history matched models.
IFP
The range of possible outcomes is wide.

Are you drilling in areas that have a much higher risk than is apparent today?
Or are you perhaps missing out on developments that have potential?
41
Frebruary, 2009
History match
IFP
Importance
42
Frebruary, 2009
Well controls: history match

Main Controls
In
history Matching, observed average rates are known; controls

are simple.
tables are introduced at the end of history matching process
to ensure the continuity between matching runs (set measured Q)
and prediction runs (limit THP).
IFP
VFP
43
Frebruary, 2009
History Match
IFP
ECLIPSE keywords
44
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well definition & controls: SCHEDULE Section
SCHEDULE
--restart results
RPTRST
--well specification and completion
WELSPECS
COMPDAT
--production constraints in history match
WCONHIST
IFP
--timestep management and tolerance criteria

TUNING
45
DATES
1 'AUG' 2008 /
/
END
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well definitions
WELSPECS: General specification data for wells
WELSPECS
-- 1
2
--name group
P1 'PROD'
/
3
i
20
4
j
7
5
6
BHP_ref_dep phase
2500
'OIL'
Well P1 belongs to group PROD

Well head is at i=20, j=7
BHP reference depth of 2500. Defaults to depth of top-most connection
OIL is the preferred phase (used only for PI output)
Other items can usually be defaulted
IFP
46
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT: Well completion specification data
COMPDAT
-- 1
2 3
--name i j
P1 20 7
/
4
k1
3
5
k2
8
6
7,8
9
10
status
diameter
'OPEN' 2*
0.15
1*
11
skin
2 /
Well P1 is completed in layers 3 to 8 of colum i=20, j=7

The well bore diameter is 0.15 m and the skin is +2
Eclipse will compute the connection factor using the Peaceman formula:
IFP
for a vertical well

using kh values of the completed cells
47
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT
-- 1
2
--name i
P1 20
P1 20
P1 20
P1 20
/
3
j
7
7
6
6
4
k1
3
4
4
5
5
k2
3
4
4
5
6
status
'OPEN'
'OPEN'
'OPEN'
'OPEN'
7
1*
1*
1*
1*
8
CF
23.47
6.14
8.25
94.70
9
10 11 12
13
diam kh skin
direction
0.15
/
0.15
/
0.15
/
0.15 520.3 2 1*
Z /
P1 is a deviated well crossing columns (20,7) and (20,6) completed in layers

3 to 5
The CF have been calculated in SCHEDULE application and input in item 8
IFP
48
the well bore diameter must be given

kh, skin and direction of penetration may be given for information as in the last
line above
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Modify Connection Factors
WPIMULT: Multiplies well connection factors by a given value within
local grids
WPIMULT
--name factor
P1
2.0
/
'P2'
0.5
4
/
25
Multiplies all the connection factors of well P1 by 2.0

Multiplies the connection factor of the completion of well P2 in cell (4,25,6)
by 0.5
IFP
49
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control
WCONHIST:
Specific to production wells in history matching

Sets the observed rates, per phase, in surface conditions
Calculates the production rate depending on the chosen control mode
WHISTCTL:
Allows to change only the control mode; for example, to pass from a
reservoir rate control to a surface oil rate control
WCONINJH:
keywords can be created with SCHEDULE application.
IFP
This
for injection wells
50
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control
IFP
WCONHIST
-- 1
2
3
--name status control
P1 'OPEN' 'RESV'
/
51
4
Qos
255
5
6
7
8
9
10
Qws Qgs VFP Qgl THPobs BHPobs
15 1000 0
1*
1*
150 /
items:
2: choice between 'OPEN' (default), 'SHUT' & 'STOP' (allows cross flow)
3: choice between 'ORAT' 'WRAT' 'GRAT' 'LRAT' 'RESV'
4,5,6: observed surface rates used in the calculation of the constraint with respect to the
control mode stated in 3 and/or to be compared to simulated rates (i.e. WWCT versus
WWCTH)
7: VFP table number used in the calculation of tubing head pressure, otherwise 0
9: observed value of THP copied in the file .UNSMRY (WTHPH) to be compared to the
calculated value
10: observes value of pressure (flowing, static, build-up...) copied in the file .UNSMRY
(WBHPH) to be compared to the calculated value.
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control: remarks
Avoid using 'OPEN' with nil rates when wells are shut
'RESV' control is recommended for pressure matching
the equivalent reservoir rate is calculated from the surface flow rates at the
average pressure of the region stated in WELSPECS
QT , fond Qws Bw Qos Bo Qgs Bg Rs Qos Bg
Bottom hole pressure limit
default = 1 bar
it may be changed using WELTARG after the first WCONHIST for the well
In item 10, a reservoir pressure can be given (static, build-up) to be

compared to the calculated pressure WBP or WBP9
SUMMARY section
IFP
WOPRH, WWCTH, WBHPH.... keywords represent the observed values to be

compared to the calculated values WOPR, WWCT, WBHP....
Not a default output
52
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control
WHISTCTL: Influences the control of all HM wells. During history

matching, it allows to override the control mode set in subsequent
WCONHIST keywords
WHISTCTL
-- 1
2
--new status
ORAT
BHP action
'NO'
/
item
1: choice between 'ORAT 'WRAT' 'GRAT' 'LRAT' 'RESV' 'NONE'
2: action if the bottom hole limit pressure is reached:
IFP
'YES' : run stop

'NO' : wells controlled by bottom hole pressure (default)
53
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control for injectors
WCONINJH
-- 1
2
3
4
--name phase
status Qinj
I1 'WATER' 'OPEN' 1000
/
5
6
7
8
BHPobs THPobs VFP Rs/Rv
1*
300
2
1* /
IFP
items:
2: choice between 'WATER' 'GAS' 'OIL'
3: choice between 'OPEN' (default), 'SHUT', 'STOP' (allows cross flow)
4: observed injection rate
5,6: observed BHP and THP
7: VFP table number
8: gas concentration in the injected oil or condensate concentration in the injected gas
54
Frebruary, 2009
Eclipse keywords
Well control (optional)
WELTARG: Resets a target or limit value defined in WCONHIST or

WCONINJH
For production wells: BHP, VFP table or gas lift quantity:
WELTARG
P1 'BHP'
100
For injection wells: injection rate value or BHP:
WELTARG
I1 'WRAT'
1000
IFP
WSALT, WTRACER: Define salt or tracers concentration (for injection

wells)
55
Frebruary, 2009
Exercise
IFP
History Match
Introduction to Rhombo case
Geometry
Petrophysics
IFP
57
Relative permeability and capillary derived from SCAL analysis
Aquifer activity
Initial pressure = 250 bars at 2000 m TVDSS

Water-Oil contact assumed at 2160 m TVDSS
Saturation functions
PVT properties derived from fluid analysis
Initial state
Porosity and permeability derived from cores

KH derived from well test
Fluid properties
Top reservoir at 1960 m TVDSS

Reservoir thickness of 50 m
Unknown
Production data
Well P3 put into production during 4 years
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case
IFP
Top of the reservoir
58
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Geometry x-z cross section
IFP
P3
59
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Reservoir layering
Net thickness
(m)
Net porosity
(%)
Net permeability
(mD)
Phi x H
(m)
KH
(mD.m)
6,6
19,9
63,4
1,31
418
5,9
17,5
3,2
1,03
19
7,8
20,1
92,7
1,57
728
8,6
20,7
200,8
1,78
1687
8,8
21,5
473,0
1,89
4176
Well
37,7
20,1
62,1
7,59
7028
IFP
Layer
60
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Fluid properties
Oil properties
Gas properties
Stock tank oil density = 849,7 kg/m3

Gas solution factor = 124,1 m3/m3 @ Psat
Saturation pressure = 220 bara
Oil volume factor = 1,153 vol/vol @ Psat
Compressibility = 0,5 x 10-4 bar-1 (under saturated)
Viscosity = 1,20 cP @ Psat
Stock tank oil density = 0,9 kg/m3
Gas volume factor = 0,0059 rm3/m3 @ 220 bara
Viscosity = 0,026 cP @ 220 bara
Water properties
IFP
Water density = 1000,5 kg/m3

Formation volume factor = 1,01 vol/vol @ 250 bara
Compressibility = 0,44 x 10-4 bar-1
Viscosity = 0,481 cP
61
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Rhombo case: oil PVT functions
62
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Rhombo case: gas PVT functions
63
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Rhombo case: W/O SCAL
64
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Rhombo case: G/O SCAL
65
Frebruary, 2009
IFP
Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation
66
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation
Internal radius: ri = 3710 m
Aperture: q = 15,4
Compressibility: Caquifer = Cr + Cw = 10-4 bar-1
Petrophysics:
Net thickness
(m)
Net porosity
(%)
Net permeability
(mD)
Phi x H
(m)
KH
(mD.m)
6,6
19,9
21,1
1,31
139
5,9
17,5
1,1
1,03
7,8
20,1
31,1
1,57
243
8,6
20,7
65,4
1,78
562
8,8
21,5
158,2
1,89
1392
Total
37,7
20,1
62,1
7,59
2343
IFP
Layer
67
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: issues to investigate

Fluids
Calculate oil and gas compressibility in reservoir conditions
Saturation
Calculate w/o & g/o mobility ratio in reservoir conditions
Initial
state
Calculate water oil transition height
Natural
depletion
Calculate the contribution of rock compaction & fluid expansion to

reservoir voidage
Look
at ECLIPSE results
Calculate the OOIP, oil recovery, oil production, GOR, WCT vs time
with no aquifer, infinite aquifer, numerical aquifer.
IFP
functions
68
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: History Match

History
match will be attempted on the Rhombo case

Production data to match are:
Oil production
Water production
Water breakthrough time & water cut rise after WBT
Gas production
Cumulative oil production
Gas breakthrough time & GOR rise after GBT
Reservoir pressure
Average reservoir pressure & bottom hole flowing pressure
IFP
69
Frebruary, 2009
Possible
Aquifer volume
Permeability in the lowest layer
Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio
Maximum water relative permeability
IFP
matching parameters:
70
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Matching parameters

Aquifer
volume
Adjusted with a PV multiplier in the outer cells
Permeability
Adjusted with a TX multiplier
Kv/Kh
anisotropy ratio
Adjusted with PERMZ/PERMX ratio
Maximum
water relative permeability
Adjusted with relative permeability curves
IFP
in the lowest layer
71
Frebruary, 2009
Uncertainty ranges for matching parameters are:
Aquifer volume
Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0
Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells
Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01

Use a krw max between 0,2 and 0,4
IFP
72
Frebruary, 2009
Run 0 will correspond to the following data:
Aquifer volume
TX multiplier set to 1,0
PV multiplier set to 50 in the outer cells
Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio set to 0,05

krw max set to 0,3
IFP
73
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Production data P3

WCT
(%)
GOR
(m3/m3)
WBHP
(bar)
Cumulative oil
(Mm3)
FPR (bar)
01/01/03
750
0,0
124
230,0
0,001
253,4
01/07/03
750
0,0
125
193,1
0,114
233,1
01/01/04
750
0,0
127
187,1
0,274
226,0
01/07/04
750
0,0
131
182,6
0,388
223,2
01/01/05
750
0,0
139
177,7
0,542
219,4
01/07/05
750
0,0
150
171,2
0,648
216,5
01/01/06
750
1,3
170
154,5
0,794
212,3
01/07/06
750
10,1
188
120,6
0,895
208,9
01/01/07
750
19,9
214
96,7
1,007
204,1
IFP
Liquid rate
(m3/d)
74
Frebruary, 2009

Work to do... first part
Simulate run 0 and perform the following sensitivity tests:
Aquifer volume
Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01
Use a krw max between 0,2 and 0,4
For each simulation
Identify main production mechanisms during production history
Look at the main parameters linked to these mechanisms
Draw some conclusions
IFP
Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0
Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells
75
Frebruary, 2009

Work to do... first part
By looking at the sensitivity runs
By relating these parameters to production mechanisms
Give new ranges for these two parameters
To take into account the results of this first screening
To prepare a second screening
IFP
Identify the two most influent parameters
76
Frebruary, 2009
Rhombo case: Sensitivity runs

Layer 5
MULTX
Kv/Kh
krw max
0 run 0
50
1,0
0,05
0,30
1 low Aq
1,0
0,05
0,30
2 high Aq
100
1,0
0,05
0,30
3 low TX
50
0,2
0,05
0,30
4 high TX
50
2,0
0,05
0,30
5 low kv/kh
50
1,0
0,01
0,30
6 high kv/kh
50
1,0
0,10
0,30
7 low krw
50
1,0
0,05
0,20
8 high krw
50
1,0
0,05
0,40
MATCH
Cum.
Oil
Mm3
Final
Lrate
m3/d
Final
BHP
bar
WBT
years
Final
WCT
%
Final
GOR
m3/m3
IFP
Aquifer
MULTPV
77
Frebruary, 2009

Work to do... second part
To define a new run 0 and basic sensitivity tests
Update the ECLIPSE data file
Simulate the new run 0 and launch new sensitivity tests to

complete the second screening
Try to explore as much as possible all the possible cases
Try to anticipate model reactions before launching a new

simulation
Give values of the 4 parameters corresponding to your best match
IFP
Use first screening simulations
78
Frebruary, 2009

History Match

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History Match

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reservoir Simulation

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Performance of a reservoir simulation study

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Reservoir Simulation Study

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

One expect to reproduce:

WCT and GOR

gas or water breakthrough

Some artefacts must be corrected

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Adapt data to grid size

Identify main uncertainties in the geomodel

Identify probable range for each matching parameter

Trial and error process

available data that have to be matched

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

and geophysics must work hard to help the reservoir

is better to have rough, consistent matching than matching

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

General well information: All the wells penetrating the reservoirs

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Data errors are easily generated; a misplaced decimal, typographical error

The information technology industry has devised a systematic

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Data Quality Management

These measurement categories translate into business rules for

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Well by well match:

Relative permeabilities endpoint scaling (Swi, Sor)

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

well behaviour correspond to area far from the wells

Concentrate on well data to match early production times local

well behaviour correspond to area close to the wells:

directions are not correct if pressure is not matched:

Do not try to match in saturation if you are not matched in pressure

Try to anticipate model reactions by using simple calculations

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Field basis match

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Well by well match

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Well by well match

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 days

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days

Time = 12,000 days

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 daysTime = 12,000 days

Volumes originally in place, Pc

Pore and fluid compressibility

Flow rates match:

WCT and GOR:

Water and gas breakthrough:

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Relative permeabilities end points

Pore and fluid compressibility

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Reservoir pressure deducted from DST need to be compared with an

It is usual to calculate an average pressure from 5 grid cells (areal model)

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung