SPE 59453
Integrated Modelling and Uncertainty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a
Highly Fractured Carbonate Reservoir
T.J.Woodhead, E.J.M. Willemse and R.M. Mills: Shell International: The Hague.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management held in Yokohama, Japan, 25–26 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Multiple scenario modelling methodology has been used to
study gas injection in a fractured carbonate reservoir to
facilitate an increase in productivity and ultimate field
recovery as a result of reservoir repressurisation. The complex
physical processes involved in the production mechanism, and
a relatively sparse data set, highlighted the underlying problem
of making predictions based on reservoir models for which a
large degree of uncertainty exists. These uncertainties have a
significant impact, both in the understanding of the reservoir
fracture geology and in the data used for describing the fluid
flow processes. A novel approach was developed to represent
uncertainty ranges in model forecasts in which multiple
history-matched simulation models were constructed to
represent the impact of a range in each of the uncertainty
parameters on the forecast. The methodology builds on an
approach previously reported in Bentley and Woodhead
(Ref.1). The results were then combined statistically into
probability distributions of recovery profiles. The results show
clearly the large impact of data uncertainty on incremental
recovery arising from the gas injection scheme. The treatment
of uncertainty presented here is a step forward in the
modelling methodology for mature assets in which multiple
scenario modelling has to be constrained by the necessity to
history match all model realisations against production data.
1. Introduction
Predictive models for a sub-surface asset invariably suffer
from large sub-surface uncertainties. Such uncertainties can
remain significant throughout the asset life cycle and can
easily impact the economic viability of the underlying field
development scenarios. This paper builds on a methodology
presented by Bentley and Woodhead (Ref. 1), in which it was
shown how sub-surface uncertainty can be properly managed
through the use of carefully designed multiple realisations of
the sub-surface model.
The multiple scenario method is applied here to a mature
fractured carbonate field. The primary objective of this study
was to evaluate the feasibility of injecting gas to repressurise
the reservoir back to the initial saturation pressure, thereby
increasing the productivity and ultimate field recovery.
In view of the short time period allowed for the study (6
months) a simplified approach was taken to deriving 3D static
models for the reservoir in which the static modelling
procedure was streamlined. Within this approach the
correlation and model building procedure was considerably
shortened by carefully selecting a sub-set of the wells for use
as the basis of the model construction and adopting a
pragmatic approach to property modelling, concentrating on
the large scale reservoir features. Starting with a thorough
uncertainty analysis, simple reservoir simulation models were
then built and these were used to evaluate and quantify the
impact of uncertainty on model predictions. These predictions
were then further validated and tuned by building more
detailed models. Finally a statistical analysis of simulation
results was made to allow future recovery and production
profile predictions to be made for any combination of the
uncertainty parameters. Both the likely outcome of a gas
injection scheme and the associated risks could then be
assessed. Furthermore, the relative impact of each of the
uncertainty parameters on predicted recoveries gave an
indication of where future data gathering activities should be
directed to best narrow the range of uncertainty.
2. Field Description and Uncertainty Analysis
The field being considered consists of a densely fractured
carbonate reservoir. The structure is slightly asymmetric with
steeply-dipping flanks. Seismic coverage of the producing area
is poor and the top structure maps are based exclusively on
well control. Volumetric uncertainties are therefore large.
The crucial field characteristic is the presence of a pervasive
natural fracture system. This system has a profound effect on
well productivity and recovery mechanisms. Fracturing of the
inter-bedded shales is indicated by pressure communication
between different flow units in the formation
2 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS
The field contains light oil in an initially saturated oil column
and with an overlying primary gas cap. The primary
production mechanism is gas-oil gravity drainage (GOGD) in
which gas liberated from matrix oil fills the fractures allowing
oil to drain into the fractures via gravity forces and then to be
produced.
The field production was initially increased up to a plateau and
this plateau period was maintained for a period of 10 years.
The production rate was then significantly reduced due to the
rapidly thinning fracture oil column. The fracture oil column
then expanded allowing the production rate to be increased.
Production since then has slowly declined and there has been a
gradual further thinning of the fracture oil column (see Figure
1).
A secondary recovery scheme for based on gas injection is
now being considered. A detailed evaluation of the feasibility
of this scheme was the primary objective of the current study.
A base-case development plan has been constructed in which
gas is injected at various crestal locations to repressurise the
reservoir back to the initial saturation pressure.
The physical mechanism being employed in this recovery
process is the enhancement of the GOGD process due to the
effects of a reduction in the gas-oil interfacial tension (IFT) at
increased reservoir pressures. This process is enhanced by the
re-solution of liberated solution gas (oil swelling) at higher
saturation pressures.
The physical processes involved in the production mechanism
critically depend on the interaction between many different
reservoir and fluid parameters. Furthermore the available data
set was relatively sparse This emphasises the underlying
problem of making predictions based on reservoir models for
which a large degree of uncertainty exists, both in the
understanding of the reservoir geology and in the data used for
describing the fluid flow processes. It was recognised that any
predictive reservoir study would have to take full account of
the impact of static and dynamic uncertainties on model
forecasts. Following analysis of the full data set, the following
emerged as the key sub-surface uncertainties
Table 1 : Key Sub-Surface Uncertainties
1 matrix permeability levels and distribution
2 fracture permeability levels and distribution
3 aquifer influx
4 reservoir volumes in place (STOIIP)
5 matrix porosity and capillary pressures
6 fracture porosity
7 continuity of matrix blocks and matrix block heights
8 fluid PVT properties and compositional grading
9 hydrocarbon saturations and relative permeabilities
The multiple scenario modelling strategy was therefore based
on designing and constructing a set of history-matched sub-
surface models to represent the above uncertainties.
SPE 59453
3. Static Modelling
The main producing interval consists of limestones and
dolomites with some isolated sand layers and a few anhydrite
and shale layers. The shales are more common in the lower
part of the formation and anhydrite is found as beds, nodules
and secondary infilling, mainly in the upper part of the
reservoir.
Gamma ray, neutron and resistivity curves were used in
combination to define the shale layers while the neutron, sonic
and resistivity data were used to define the layers of dense
rock in the reservoir. Porosity was calculated from sonic logs,
calibrated with core data. Hydrocarbon saturations were
calculated from capillary pressure data measured on core
samples. These measurements were predominately performed
on air-mercury representing a strongly non-wetting system.
Typically, carbonate reservoirs exhibit mixed or oil wet
characteristics and hence the laboratory capillary pressure and
relative permeability data is not likely to be representative of
fluid flow in the reservoir. Wettability therefore, has to be
taken as a significant uncertainty parameter in the simulations.
Matrix permeability was calculated directly from the porosity-
permeability relationship derived from the core data. This
relationship showed a high degree of scatter in the data.
Matrix permeability was therefore treated as a major
uncertainty in the simulations.
A full 3D geological model was constructed of the field
consisting of the major reservoir intervals identified on logs.
The model building process was accelerated by selectively
picking the tops of the flow units in the key wells, and
interpreting the structure between them based on a kriging
algorithm. This kriging procedure was also constrained by the
top structure map. A spatial inter-well porosity distribution
was calculated by interpolating between well values. Figure 2
shows a view of the geological model. This model was further
used to calculate an expectation GRV and its associated range
due to structural uncertainty.
4. Fracture Modelling
High well productivities as well as substantial mud losses
during drilling indicate the existence of an extensive field-
wide network of conductive fractures. A conceptual model for
the fracture network was constructed, based on outcrop
observations and in which the presence of axial and cross-
axial fractures as well as stylolites is indicated. The fracture
model is illustrated in Figure 3.
The fracture system is a key factor influencing gas-oil-gravity-
drainage. In order to simulate GOGD dynamically, the
following geological fracture network parameters must be
investigated:
• block height
• fracture permeability
• fracture porosity (as a fraction of the gross rock volume)
• fracture surface area per matrix volume.
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir
Based on worldwide experience, a range of fracture porosity
was used between 0.01% and 0.3%, with a base case of 0.1%.
Fracture permeability was derived by first establishing
permeability thickness from a study of steady state flow
analysis in 70 wells. An absolute high value in the range of the
average effective permeability was computed by assuming the
thickness to be equal to the flowing interval, yielding an
average effective permeability of 9D. A low value was
obtained by assuming the thickness to be equal the entire
formation, yielding an average effective permeability of 0.7D.
A range of 1-5D was used in the simulations, with a base case
of 1D.
The block height represents the distance between barriers
across which there is no capillary continuity. Capillary
boundaries may be formed by shales and bed-parallel
stylolites. Well logs were used to measure the distance
between shales (both true vertical as well as corrected for layer
dip). Assuming negligible capillary hold-up, the proper block
dimension is the arithmetic average of these values, which is
just over 70ft after correction for layer dip. This would serve
as the most optimistic case. For comparison, the median value
would suggest a block height of about 27ft. A minimum block
height, based on the harmonic mean, would be in the order of
10ft.
Anhydrite and dense carbonate layers also occur in the
formation, and may also form capillary barriers depending on
relative time of diagenesis and fracturing. If the dense
carbonates formed after fracturing, the average block height is
reduced significantly to 35ft, with a median of about 10ft.
Smaller structures with less lateral extent such as thin shales
and stylolites may also affect capillary continuity. However,
this effect is likely to be more localised. Nonetheless, the thin
shales and stylolites are unlikely to be identified on wireline
logs and add uncertainty to the above estimates. The results of
the geological analyses and the values used for the 1D
simulation are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Calculated vertical shale and dense
rock separation
Shales Shales Dynamic Reservoir
& Simulation
Dense
Rock
High (arithmetic 73 35 70
mean)
Medium 27 10 30
Low (harmonic 11 4 10
mean)
For volumetric purposes, and to allow meaningful 2D or 3D
dynamic reservoir simulations, stratigraphic and areal
variations in fracture properties were also studied and
compared against well performance. The fracture spacing was
established to be of the same order of magnitude as the layer
thickness
3
Several alternative geological hypotheses have been tested to
investigate the aerial fracture distribution. Both bending and
flexural slip have been proposed as important deformation
mechanisms. In addition to these mechanisms, it is possible
that fracture development has been influenced by movement
over the underlying thrust. The areal strain distribution due to
these various mechanisms was calculated by applying several
alternative algorithms to the top structure map.
The best qualitative correlations between computed strain and
well inflow data were obtained from the curvature analysis
and the vertical shear reconstruction. Both models were
translated into fracture flow properties by subdividing
curvature or vertical shear magnitude into four classes. Within
each class, the cumulative frequency of permeability thickness
was established. These frequency distributions were then used
to convert the curvature and vertical shear maps into
permeability thickness maps
The permeability thickness maps were upscaled to the same
grid size and incorporated into the 3D geological model.
Finally, the permeability thickness maps were converted into
fracture porosity and intrinsic fracture permeability maps
using the standard relationships between permeability
thickness, effective permeability, intrinsic fracture
permeability, fracture aperture and fracture spacing. These
maps were also upscaled for use in the simulations.
5. Dynamic Modelling and Uncertainty Analysis
An uncertainty analysis based solely on a large full field
simulation model is prohibitively time consuming and
resource intensive. A combination of simple and more detailed
models was therefore constructed, the simpler models being
used for sensitivity and risk analysis. The models constructed
were as follows:
• a one-dimensional stack model of the entire reservoir, in
which the GOGD flow mechanism was taken into account
by detailed modelling of the vertical flow (including
block-to-block interaction and capillary continuity)
between matrix blocks
• a two-dimensional stack reservoir model in the field was
divided into areal reservoir sectors, each of which was
individually represented by a vertical flow stack. These
sectors were allowed to partially communicate with each
other in the two areal directions.
• a three dimensional model in which the flow within two
particular reservoir sectors was modelled in detail using a
fine scale three dimensional grid
Taking advantage of its relatively small size and simplicity,
the one-dimensional model was used extensively to perform a
full uncertainty analysis and to derive reservoir forecasts for
which the impact of various uncertainties was explicitly
evaluated. The 2D model was used to confirm the results of
4 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS
the 1D model and to evaluate cross flows between sectors and
their impact. The 2D model, in addition, allowed future
offtake rates from each of the sectors to be individually
optimised. Finally, the 3D model was used to look in detail at
the fluid displacement mechanism within the sectors. The
impact, for example, of areal or along-dip flow in addition to
GOGD was evaluated. Different well configurations and
geometries were also evaluated using the 3D model.
5.1 One Dimensional Reservoir Model
Figure 4 illustrates the one dimensional reservoir model,
showing a saturation plot for initial conditions as represented
the reservoir simulator in fracture mode. The presence of
fractures is indicated by a column of 'fracture' grid blocks on
both sides of the matrix blocks. The impact of uncertainty was
evaluated by performing multiple history matches and
forecasts using this model.
Of the uncertainty parameters listed in Table 1, volumes,
porosities and permeabilities can be explicitly represented in
the simulator as individual parameters. Capillary continuity
was modelled by choosing grid block layer thicknesses
corresponding to a given matrix block height i.e. the grid
block thickness represented the assumed vertical distance
between shale discontinuities in the reservoir. In the 1D
model, the reservoir volume distribution was represented by
taking equidistant horizontal slices through the 3D static
model and assigning the gross rock volumes and average
porosities of each of these slices to the appropriate layer in the
simulation model. Variations in STOIIP were then obtained by
using volume multipliers in the simulator.
Volumetric uncertainty was represented in the model using a
range of (0.8-1.15)*expectation STOIIP based on the likely
variation in GRV due to areal uncertainty in reservoir extent.
These variations were taken to be independent of porosity
variations, which were taken into account using a separate
uncertainty parameter.
The petrophysical analysis showed that considerable
variability existed in the porosity-permeability data derived
from matrix core analysis. For the 1D model history matching
exercise therefore, the matrix permeability was taken to be a
history matching parameter, i.e. allowed to vary for the
purposes of obtaining a history match. In all cases, the matrix
permeability used in the history matches fell in the range
0.2mDarcy < Kmatrix < 10mDarcy
From the fracture analysis, a range of matrix block height was
estimated. The impact of matrix block height (i.e. capillary
continuity) on the history match was modelled by history
matching the two extreme cases of matrix block height (10 ft
and 70 ft) in addition to the mean (30ft).
Aquifer support in the field is thought to be small, although
there has been an observed historic rise in the fracture water-
oil contact. An aquifer was therefore represented in the
simulation model analytically to represent this water influx.
SPE 59453
The strength of this aquifer was taken to be a further history
matching parameter. In all cases the aquifer strength used in
the history matches fell in the range 0.5-3, where the aquifer
strength is a parameter representing the aquifer volume as
multiple of the reservoir gross rock volume.
Compositional grading has been observed in the field oil
column. For the purposes of the current modelling exercise,
the impact of this variation on fluid GOR’s, viscosities and
densities was considered to be minor relative to the
uncertainties associated with understanding fluid flow in the
matrix-fracture system. An important parameter for
determining GOGD rates in a fractured reservoir however, is
the interfacial tension (IFT) between the gas and oil phases.
This parameter is strongly dependent both on reservoir
pressure and fluid compositions. It was essential therefore, to
estimate the likely variation in gas-oil IFT within the reservoir
due to pressure and composition variations with depth. An
analysis was carried out to quantify this variation. From this
analysis, a likely mid-column value of IFT was determined to
be 6dyn/cm with a range of 2dyn/cm < IFT < 10dyn/cm. This
range of values was carried forward to the uncertainty
analysis.
Another parameter having strong impact on capillary pressures
is matrix porosity. From the petrophysical analysis, capillary
pressures relationships were derived giving capillary pressures
as a function of porosity. These relationships were then used
to generate both water-oil and gas-oil capillary pressures for
use in the simulations. For a particular simulation, the porosity
was first assigned a value from which the corresponding
capillary curves were selected. A reference value of IFT was
then chosen to convert air-mercury capillary pressures into the
equivalent water-oil and gas-oil curves. For water-oil, a value
was chosen from the literature. For gas-oil however, this factor
was given a value in the range 2dyn/cm < IFT ref < 10dyn/cm
for each of the history matches performed, where IFT ref is the
reference value of IFT at initial reservoir pressure. The impact
of the uncertainty in gas-oil interfacial tension is thereby
modelled. The dependence of IFT on pressure was then
modelled by invoking the simulator option to allow the gas-oil
capillary pressures to re-scaled at each reservoir pressure
according to a table specifying IFT v pressure.
From SCAL data derived from experiment the porosity
dependence of drainage relative permeability curves is
uncertain. More significant in the field simulations however, is
the rock wetness and its likely impact on the imbibition of
water via the fracture system into the matrix as the FWOC
rises. This process will have a significant impact on the oil
saturations remaining in the matrix oil column after it has been
swept by rising water levels. Using an imbibition curve for
which oil wetness was assumed, a parameter α was introduced
with which the imbibition curve was re-scaled to give a family
of curves representing oil wetness. In this representation a
value α=0 represents water wet, whereas α=1 represents oil
wet. An intermediate value represents a mixed wetness. Given
the fact that the underlying geology in the field is carbonate, it
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir 5

is likely that the field will exhibit predominantly oil-wet permeability and aquifer strength were systematically varied
behaviour. A base case value of α=.75 was therefore chosen until the simulated fracture fluid contact levels were in
for the simulations. agreement with the historically observed values.

Matrix-fracture relative permeabilities were chosen to allow The impact of the various uncertainties was then established
block to block interaction (BTBI) i.e. re-imbibition of oil into by varying one of the uncertainty parameters in the table
matrix blocks after its has drained into fractures (see Ref. 2). above and repeating the history matching exercise. The key
This process can have a significant retarding effect on the assumption in this approach is that each of the uncertainty
GOGD process. parameters can be assessed independent of the other
parameters. In total, 13 different history matches were
Finally, the reservoir fracture analysis showed that fracture obtained i.e. representing the base case, together with a high
porosity (as fraction of bulk rock volume) could be assumed to and low variation in each of the six uncertainty parameters.
be in the range .0001-.003 with an expectation value of 0.001.
Figure 5 shows the history match for the base case, as
Of the uncertainty parameters identified in Table 1, the first indicated by the historical FGOC and FWOC contact levels,
three (matrix permeability, fracture permeability and aquifer together with the history matches obtained for each of the
influx) were treated as adjustable variables in the history model variations. The history match in each case is seen to be
exercise. From the discussion above, the uncertainty arising of very good quality. The fact that a history match could be
from the remaining six was concluded to be fully represented obtained with such a wide range of matching parameters
by the following: - emphasises the significant remaining uncertainty in the
predictive capability of the current dynamic model. The
• Volumes in Place (STOIIP) impact of these uncertainties was therefore represented in the
• Matrix Porosity model forecasts by performing forecast runs for all thirteen of
• Gas/Oil IFT the history-matched cases.
• Matrix Block Height
• Oil Wetness of Water-Oil Relative permeabilities 5.2 One Dimensional Model Forecasts.
Using the history matches described in the previous section,
• Fracture Volume
forecasts could then be performed by running the simulations
with assumed offtake levels.
Table 3 shows these uncertainty parameters together with their
associated uncertainty ranges as represented in the simulator.
As a preliminary forecast, the base case model was run
without any gas injection to represent the no further activity
(NFA) case. The results of this run are shown in Figure 6, in
Table 3: Ranges of Uncertainty Parameters
which oil offtake rate, cumulative oil production and contact
Parameter Low Median High
levels are illustrated respectively. From the current cumulative
STOIIP as multiple of 0.77 1 1.15 oil level the recovery factor is predicted to increase by 15% by
expectation value the year 2030.
Porosity 7% 9% 11%
IFT 10dyn/cm 6dyn/cm 2dyn/cm The thirteen history-matched models were then run until for
Matrix Block Height 10ft 30ft 70ft the length of the forecast period. Gas injection volumes were
Oil Wetness (α) 0. .75 1.0 set to limit injection volumes after the reservoir has returned to
Fracture Volume .0001 .001 .003 initial saturation pressure. After commencement of gas
injection offtake levels were assumed to gradually increase.
A base case simulation model was established by taking the
median value for each of the above parameters. The model For each simulation, the incremental offtake rate was
was then history matched by varying the matrix and/or optimised by successively increasing the increment and re-
fracture permeabilities and the strength of aquifer influx into running the forecast until the oil column reduced to below the
the reservoir. a cut-off at some stage during the forecast period. In addition
a maximum offtake rate was imposed on the production. This
Historical production was simulated by representing reservoir resulted in an optimal forecast for each of the thirteen models.
production with a single well in the model for which the
productivity was adjusted to ensure that the well could be The base case results are included in Figure 6, where the
constrained using historical oil production levels. Hence the incremental benefit of gas injection is clearly illustrated.
historical fluid offtake volumes were automatically honoured Figure 6 also shows the corresponding results for the
in the model. remaining twelve history matched models. For each forecast,
three plots are presented, oil production rate, cumulative oil
The average historical fracture contact levels FWOC and production and fluid contact levels as a function of time
FGOC were used as history matching criteria. The matrix throughout the forecast period.
6 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS
Table 4 summarises the results.
Table 4: Summary of Forecast Runs Performed
Forecast Incremental Recovery as
%fraction of STOIIP
NFA - p[RF(t)] = Π ( p[RFPi(t)] )
Base Case 5.7
Low STOIIP 2.3
High STOIIP 8.5
Low Porosity 2.5
High Porosity 7.9
Low IFT 3.5
High IFT 8.4
Low Block Ht 7.2
High Block Ht 6.2
Low Oil Wetness 4.6
High Oil Wetness 6.7
Low Frac. Vol. 3.0
High Frac. Vol. 9.6
* compared with NFA forecast with base case parameter
values
The large number of history matches possible within the
uncertainty ranges of the various key reservoir and fluid
parameters illustrated the need to take uncertainty into account
in any prediction made by the reservoir model. Table 4
illustrates the large range in incremental recovery predicted by
the different model variations. These forecasts were made
using models in which only one parameter had been varied
from its base case value. Clearly many more possible
interpretations are possible where more than one parameter is
allowed to vary at the same time. The six parameters used in
the uncertainty assessment, listed in Table 3, can be assumed
to be independent parameters. This allows a statistical analysis
to be made of the simulation results.
The full field forecasts were generated using a set of
parameters, which were taken to be fully representative of the
complete range of uncertainties associated with the field data.
Furthermore, these parameters were selected in such a way
that they could be assumed to be mutually independent. This
allows a rigorous statistical analysis to be made of the forecast
results.
As a first step in this analysis, it was necessary to establish
estimates of the probability associated with each of the various
parameter values. The results of these discussions are
illustrated in Figure 7. The probabilities are expressed as
triangular distributions from which the probabilities of the
low, median and high parameter values have been extracted as
discrete values. The distribution for porosity has been taken
directly from the porosity distribution of the 3D static model.
For the remaining parameters, STOIIIP, IFT, block height, oil
wettability and fracture volume, probabilities were estimated
by consideration of all the available analysis and by discussion
with the team members of the relevant disciplines for each
parameter concerned. Because of the assumption of
SPE 59453
independence, the probabilities can be formally combined by
multiplication
i=1,6
where
RF(t) = Π ( RFPi(t) )
i=1,6
Here p[RFPi(t)] is the probability of the recovery factor for
parameter i at time t during the forecast period and RF(t) is the
combined recovery factor at time t, resulting from a particular
value of each of the six parameter variables.
The recovery factors RFPi can be taken directly from the
simulation results at each timestep where the combined
probabilities are required. This allows a complete range of
recovery profiles to be generated using the formula above.
Since the number of uncertainty parameters is, in this case, six
and each has three discrete (low, median and high) outcomes,
the total number of permutations using the above formulae is
36 = 729. From these permutations, a cumulative probability
distribution can be generated for the recovery at 2030. Figure
8 shows this curve.
Reading-off the P85, P50 and P15 percentiles of this
distribution and then comparing with individual statistical
recoveries allows the construction of the P85, P50 and P15
recovery profiles. These are shown in Figure 9.
5.3 Two Dimensional Reservoir Model
Figure 10 illustrates the two-dimensional reservoir model
showing a saturation plot for initial conditions. Here again the
presence of fractures is indicated by a column of 'fracture' grid
blocks on either side of the matrix blocks. The model consists
of eight areal grid block stacks, each stack representing a
particular sector of the reservoir in which distinct contact
behaviour has been observed. A history match was performed
with the two dimensional model in which the parameters listed
in Table 3 were assigned their base case values.
Each sector was then history matched by varying the matrix
and/or fracture permeability values and aquifer strength
assigned to that sector. In addition, the history matching
procedure made use of a further set of parameters representing
the partial communication between sectors. These parameters
were multipliers on the transmissibility values that would
result if the sectors were in complete communication. This
procedure resulted in a history match for each sector as
illustrated in Figure 11. Here again, the history match in each
sector is seen to be very good. This confirms the applicability
of the base case parameters values used to the individual
sector level and therefore strengthens the conclusions made
from the one dimensional model.
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir
Figure 12 shows the full field forecast from the 2D model on a
sector by sector basis. In each sector the offtake rate has been
successively increased until the local fracture oil column width
reaches a critical value. For late production, the offtake rate in
each sector is reduced to maintain the fracture oil column
width. The figure illustrates the different offtakes from the
various sectors due to their varying volumes initially in place
and varying reservoir and fracture properties. The total field
production at 2030 is however, almost identical with the 1D
forecast. This confirms the validity of and increases the
confidence in the conclusions made from the simpler model.
5.4 Three Dimensional Reservoir Model
The 3D model was designed as a further check on the validity
of the simplifying assumptions made in the 1D and 2D
models. The intention was to look in detail at the fluid
displacement mechanism within one or two reservoir sectors.
In particular, the simple (1D and 2D) models assume that the
flow is dominated by vertical flow and that the areal
variability in reservoir geology does not impact the overall
fluid production behaviour. For the 3D-simulation model, the
full static reservoir model was used as a basis for deriving
geological and structural input data. Although the intention
was to study a small part of the reservoir in detail, it was
necessary to model the whole reservoir in the simulations
since fluxes across sector boundaries made the modelling of
an isolated sector invalid. Two sectors were chosen for
detailed analysis. These sectors were represented by a fine
grid, while the remaining sectors were represented by a coarse
grid only. This approach ensured that the overall reservoir
material balance remained valid.
Figure 13 shows a vertical cross section through the 3D
model, showing the permeability distribution. The plot shows
the grid in the transverse or cross-axial direction where detail
in the flow from the central crest in the direction of the flanks
has been resolved. Longitudinal or axial flow parallel to the
crest is anticipated to be much less significant given that the
longitudinal formation dip angles are relatively small. The grid
is therefore coarser in this direction. In total 32 wells were
represented in the two sector regions.
Figure 14 shows the development of the secondary gas cap
and the encroachment of water in a transverse cross section,
7
viewed at intervals during the historical production period.
The movement of the fracture GOC is clearly illustrated, the
swept oil region eventually reaching the bottom of the
formation in the crestal region. The influence of preferential
production from certain wells is also shown by the uneven
descent of the FGOC in the transverse cross section plots. The
average fracture contact levels however, are consistent with
the historical levels for the two sectors hence showing that the
impact of areal flow on the overall sector production
behaviour is relatively minor. This further confirms the
validity of the one- and two-dimensional model results.
6. Conclusions
Multiple scenario modelling is a powerful methodology for
representing sub-surface uncertainty in predictive field
models. The case studied here is a classic example where a
single deterministic model would give misleading and
inadequate forecasts of future production behaviour.
Application of the multiple scenario technique to mature field
poses a significant problem due to the need to honour (history
match) field production behaviour in all model realisations.
The approach taken here was to perform the uncertainty
analysis using simplified representations of the field and to
calibrate and tune these results using more detailed models.
The integrated approach to modelling has allowed the results
of detailed geological, petrophysical, fracture and fluid
uncertainty analysis to be represented in the reservoir models.
A novel technique has been developed to statistically combine
the results of multiple simulation forecasts into a single
cumulative probability distribution. This has resulted in a
properly quantified and risked forecast of the incremental
benefits of gas injection in a complex fractured reservoir
References
1. Bentley, M.R. and Woodhead, T.J: “Uncertainty Handling
Through Scenario-Based Reservoir Modelling” SPE Asia
Pacific Conference on Asset Management, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 21-24 March 1998.
2. Por, G.J.A., Boerrigter, P.M., Mass, J.G. de Vries, A.S.,
"A fractured reservoir simulator capable of modelling
block-block interaction", SPE 19807 (1989)
8 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS SPE 59453
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir 9
10 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS SPE 59453
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir 11
12 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS SPE 59453
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir 13
14 T.J.WOODHEAD, E.J.M.WILLEMSE & R.M.MILLS SPE 59453
SPE 59453 Integrated Modelling and Uncertanty Management of a Gas Injection Scheme in a Highly Fractured Reservoir 15