1887

Abstract

Summary

An increasing number of field development projects include rigorous uncertainty quantification workflows based on parameterized subsurface uncertainties. Reservoir model calibration workflows for reservoir simulation models including historical production data, also called history matching, deliver non-unique solutions and remain technically challenging. In addition, the validation process of the reservoir simulation model often introduces a break of the conceptual connection to the geological model. This raises questions on how to quantify the deviation between the calibrated simulation model and the original geological model.

Workflow designs for history matching require scalable and efficient optimization techniques to address project needs. Derivative-free techniques like Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) are used for optimization and uncertainty quantification. Adjoint techniques derive analytical sensitivities directly from the flow equations. For history matching those sensitivities are efficiently used for property updates on grid block level. Both techniques have different characteristics and support alternative history matching strategies like global vs. local, stochastic vs. deterministic.

In this work both techniques will be applied in an integrated workflow design to the Norne field. The Norne field is a North Sea oil-and-gas reservoir with approximately 30 wells, with one third being used for WAG injection for pressure support. Field data was previously released by Statoil and made available for a public benchmark study (NTNU Norway) testing history matching techniques including production and time-lapsed seismic data.

We focus on well production data for history matching. MCMC is used for global parameter updates and uncertainty quantification in a Bayesian context. An implementation of an adjoint technique is applied for analytical sensitivity calculations and local parameter adjustments of rock properties. History matching results are presented for field wide and well-by-well production data. Consistency checks between updated and original geological model are presented for rock property distribution maps. Geostatistical measures including spatial correlations are used to quantify deviations between updated and original geological model. In conclusion scalability and performance efficiency of the practical workflow implementation is discussed with a perspective of a consistent feedback loop from history matching to geological modeling.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600753
2016-05-31
2020-02-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Almuallim, H., Edwards, K. A., & Ganzer, L.
    (2010). History-Matching with Sensitivity-Based Parameter Modifications at Gridblock Level. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/131627‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/131627-MS [Google Scholar]
  2. Anterion, F., Eymard, R., & Karcher, B.
    (1989). Use of Parameter Gradients for Reservoir History Matching. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/18433‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/18433-MS [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhark, E. W., & Dehghani, K.
    (2014). Assisted History Matching Benchmarking: Design of Experiments-based Techniques. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/170690‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/170690-MS [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, W. G.
    (1974). A New Algorithm for Automatic History Matching. SPE Journal14, 593–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y.; Oliver, D. S.
    (2014). History Matching of the Norne Full-Field Model With an Iterative Ensemble Smoother. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/164902‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/164902-PA [Google Scholar]
  6. Chu, L., Reynolds, A. C., & Oliver, D. S.
    (1995). Reservoir Description From Static and Well-Test Data Using Efficient Gradient Methods. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/29999‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/29999-MS [Google Scholar]
  7. Demyanov, V., Backhouse, L., Christie, M.
    (2015). Geological feature selection in reservoir modelling and history matching with Multiple Kernal Learning. Computers & Geoscience, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.07.014.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  8. Doucet, A.; Freitas, N. D. & Gordon, N.
    (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evensen, G.
    (2007). Data Assimilation, the Ensemble Kalman Filter. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, G., Zafari, M., & Reynolds, A. C.
    (2006). Quantifying Uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 Problem in a Bayesian Setting With RML and EnKF. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/93324‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/93324-PA [Google Scholar]
  11. Hanea, R., Evensen, G., Hustoft, L., Ek, T., Chitu, A., & Wilschut, F.
    (2015). Reservoir Management Under Geological Uncertainty Using Fast Model Update. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/173305‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/173305-MS [Google Scholar]
  12. Hastings, W.
    (1970). Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications. Biometrika57, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Joosten, G. J. P., Altintas, A., & De Sousa, P.
    (2011). Practical And Operational Use Of Assisted History Matching And Model-Based Optimisation In The Salym Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/146697‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/146697-MS [Google Scholar]
  14. Lepine, O. J., Bissell, R. C., Aanonsen, S. I., Pallister, I., & Barker, J. W.
    (1998). Uncertainty Analysis in Predictive Reservoir Simulation Using Gradient Information. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/48997‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/48997-MS [Google Scholar]
  15. LiR., Reynolds, A. C. and Oliver, D. S.
    (2003). History Matching of Three-phase Flow Production Data. (p. 328). Soc. Petrol. Eng. J.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, R.
    (2001). Condtioning Geostatistical Models to Three Dimensional, Three Phase Production Data by Automatic History Matching. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tulsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mallows, C. L.
    (1973). Technometrics15, 661–675.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mohamed, L., Christie, M. A., & Demyanov, V.
    (2009). Comparison of Stochastic Sampling Algorithms for Uncertainty Quantification. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/119139‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/119139-MS [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010). Reservoir Model History Matching with Particle Swarms: Variants Study. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/129152‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/129152-MS [Google Scholar]
  20. Oliver, D. S.,Reynolds, A. C., Liu, N.
    (2008). Inverse Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Oliver, D. S.; Chen, Y.
    (2011). Recent Progress on Reservoir History Matching. Computational Geosciences15 (1), 185–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Romero, C. E., Carter, J. N., Zimmerman, R. W., & Gringarten, A. C.
    (2000). Improved Reservoir Characterization through Evolutionary Computation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/62942‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/62942-MS [Google Scholar]
  23. Rwechungura, R. W., Dadashpour, M., & Kleppe, J.J.
    (2011). Advanced History Matching Techniques Reviewed. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/142497‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/142497-MS [Google Scholar]
  24. Sarma, P., Chen, W. H., & Xie, J.
    (2013). Selecting Representative Models From a Large Set of Models. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/163671‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/163671-MS [Google Scholar]
  25. Schulze-Riegert, R., Axmann, J. K., Haase, O., Rian, D. T., You, Y. L.
    (2001). Evolutionary Algorithms Applied to History Matching of Complex Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/77301‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/77301-PA [Google Scholar]
  26. Schulze-Riegert, R., Chataigner, F., Kueck, N., Pajonk, O., Baffoe, J., Ajala, I., … Almuallim, H.
    (2013). Strategic Scope of Alternative Optimization Methods in History Matching and Prediction Workflows. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/164337‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/164337-MS [Google Scholar]
  27. Skjervheim, J.; Evensen, G.
    (2011). An Ensemble Smoother for Assisted History Matching. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/141929‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/141929-MS [Google Scholar]
  28. Slotte, P. A.; Smorgrav, E.
    (2008). Response Surface Methodology Approach for History Matching and Uncertainty Assessment of Reservoir Simulation Models. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/113390‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/113390-MS [Google Scholar]
  29. Tarantola, A.
    (1987). Inverse Problem Theory – Methods for Data Fitting and Model Parameter Estimation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Thompson, M. B.
    (2009). A Comparison of Methods for Computing Autocorrelation Time. University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Doren, J., Van Essen, G., Wilson, O. B., & Zijlstra, E. B.
    (2012). A Comprehensive Workflow for Assisted History Matching Applied to a Complex Mature Reservoir. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/154383‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/154383-MS [Google Scholar]
  32. Vink, J. C., Gao, G., & Chen, C.
    (2015). Bayesian Style History Matching: Another Way to Under-Estimate Forecast Uncertainty?Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/175121‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/175121-MS [Google Scholar]
  33. Wu, Z., Reynolds, A. C., Oliver, D. S.
    (1999). Conditioning Geostatistical Models to Two-Phase Production Data. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J., 3, 142.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600753
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600753
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error