1887

Abstract

Summary

Iterative geostatistical history matching is based on the perturbation of reservoir petrophysical properties (i.e. the model parameter space) using stochastic sequential simulation and co-simulation. The convergence of such procedures is ensured by a global optimization, based on the misfit between observed and simulated production data. In these frameworks, the best petrophysical model from the previous iteration is used as secondary variable on the co-simulation of new sets of models, during the next iteration. Normally, this best model corresponds to the model producing the lowest production mismatch from the ensemble generated during the previous iteration. While this procedure ensures convergence along iterations, it also reduces exploration on the model parameter space, which can allow solutions to be trapped in local minima, far from the real solution, thus underestimating existing uncertainties. This work shows how an intelligent selection of models can be used as conditioning data during subsequent iterations in order to overcome these limitations. The selection is based on sampling the model parameter space using linear prediction weighting, derived from the similarity of production curves obtained from multiple realizations on a given iteration. This procedure was implemented in a semi-synthetic reservoir (IPE-I) and the results were compared against a conventional approach.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800838
2018-06-11
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, D., Demyanov, V., Tatum, D., Christie, M., Rojas, T., Geiger, S., & Corbett, P.
    [2013]. Hierarchical benchmark case study for history matching, uncertainty quantification and reservoir characterisation. Computers & Geoscience., 50, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.09.011
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrela, E., Azevedo, L., & Demyanov, V.
    [2017]. Geostatistical History Matching-A Zonation-based Approach Using Direct Sequential Simulation. In 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2017. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700970
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Caeiro, M. H., Demyanov, V., & Soares, A.
    [2015]. Optimized History Matching with Direct Sequential Image Transforming for Non-Stationary Reservoirs. Mathematical Geosciences, 47(8), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-015-9591-0
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Mata-Lima, H.
    [2008]. Reducing uncertainty in reservoir modelling through efficient history matching. Oil Gas European Magazine., 3, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Nunes, R., Soares, A., Azevedo, L., & Pereira, P.
    [2017]. Geostatistical Seismic Inversion with Direct Sequential Simulation and Co-simulation with Multi-local Distribution Functions. Mathematical Geoscience., 49 (5), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-016-9651-0
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Oliveira, G. S., Soares, A. O., Schiozer, D. J., & Maschio, C.
    [2017]. Reducing uncertainty in reservoir parameters combining history matching and conditioned geostatistical realizations. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering., 156, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.05.003
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Scheidt, C., & Caers, J.
    [2009a]. Representing Spatial Uncertainty Using Distances and Kernels. Mathematical Geoscience., 41 (4), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-008-9186-0
    [Google Scholar]
  8. [2009b]. Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Performance Using Distances and Kernel Methods—Application to a West Africa Deepwater Turbidite Reservoir. SPE Journal., 14 (04), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.2118/118740-PA
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800838
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800838
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