History Matching/Prediction

History Matching
Objectives
Improve and validate the reservoir
simulation model
Better understanding of reservoir
processes
Improve the reservoir description and data
acquisition program
Identify unusual operating conditions
History Matching
methods
Manual
Run simulation for
historical period
Compare results to
actual field data
Adjust simulation input
to improve match
Selection of input data
based on knowledge
and experience
Automatic
Minimizes the
objective function; i.e.,
difference between
observed reservoir
performance and
simulation results
Excludes human
knowledge/experience
factor; thus results
could be in error.
History Matching
General procedure for history matching
Ertekin, et al.
History Matching
Selection of production data to specify
Depends on stage of history match and
type of hydrocarbons
Data quality issues:
allocations
Measurement
usage
History Matching
General strategy
for history matching
Ertekin, et al.
History Matching
Selection of production data to match
Depends on availability and quality of data
Pressure match
Shutin buildup (Static) pressures
Saturation match
WOR and/or GOR
Breakthrough times
Log-derived fluid saturations
History Matching
Selection of reservoir data to adjust
Common parameters to adjust are:
Aquifer size and strength
Vertical permeability barriers
Flow capacity, k
H
h
k
V
/k
H
ratio
Pore volume
Relative permeability
History Matching
Selection of reservoir data to adjust
Consequences
S
w
oil
water
0 1
kr
1
Initial Kr curves
Adjusted kr curves
History Prediction
??
History Matching
Adjusting reservoir data to match production
To match average reservoir pressure,
adjust:
Aquifer size
Pore volume
Total system compressibility
Aids: Material balance and aquifer influx
studies
History Matching
Adjusting reservoir data to match production
To match pressure gradients, adjust:
Aquifer connectivity
Reservoir k
H
h
Regional pore volume
Transmissibilities across faults
Aids: Coarse gridded 3D models
History Matching
Adjusting reservoir data to match production
To match saturation variables, adjust:
Coning
k
V
or vertical permeability barriers
Lateral water encroachment
k
H
h, relative permeability or pore volume
History Matching
Quality of match
Relevant to objectives of study
Size additional water handling facilites
Acceptable: level of watercut
and trend are approximately correct
Future infill well locations
Poor: model underpredicting
watercut performance
Time, years
w
a
t
e
r
c
u
t
actual
match
History Matching -
Example

Specified
Match
History Matching
Example (welltest)
Match:
Flowing
Bottomhole
pressure
Hazlett, et al
History Matching-
Example
1
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25
time, years
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
s
c
f
/
m
o
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
S
I
B
H
P
,

p
s
i
simulated
measured
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
time
P
w
simulated
actual
Specified P
wf
Match SIBHP and rate
Prediction-
Example
Medford