1887

Abstract

Summary

Hydrocarbon reservoir models have a high degree of uncertainty regarding their reservoir geometry and structure. A range of conceptual models should therefore be generated to explore how first-order uncertainties impact fluids-in-place, reservoir dynamics, and development decisions. However, it is very time consuming to generate and explore a large number of conceptual models using conventional reservoir modelling and simulation workflows. Key reservoir concepts are therefore often locked in early and are difficult to change later.

To overcome this challenge, the Rapid Reservoir Modelling (RRM) software has been developed to prototype reservoir models across scales and test their dynamic behaviour. RRM complements existing workflows in that conceptual models can be prototyped, explored, compared, and ranked rapidly prior to detailed reservoir modelling. Reservoir geology is sketched in 2D with geological operators and translated in real-time into geologically correct 3D models.

Flow diagnostics provide quantitative information for these reservoir model prototypes about their static and dynamic behaviours.

Numerical well testing (NWT) is implemented to further interrogate the reservoir model.

The combination of surface-based reservoir modelling with geological operators, flow diagnostics and NWT on unstructured grids enable, for the first time, rapid prototyping of reservoir geologies with real-time feedback on fluid flow behaviour.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802241
2018-09-03
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, D., Demyanov, V., Christie, M., Bakay, A. and Gopa, K.
    [2016] Optimisation of decision making under uncertainty throughout field l ifetime: A fractured reservoir e xample.Computers & Geosciences, 95, 123–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baliga, B. and Patankar, S.
    [1980] A new finite-element formulation for convection-diffusion problems.Numerical Heat Transfer, 3(4), 393–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bank, R., Falgout, R., Jones, T., Manteuffel, T.A., McCormick, S.F. and Ruge, J.W.
    [2015] Algebraic multigrid domain and range decomposition (AMG-DD/AMG-RD).SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37(5), S113–S136.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Batycky, R.P., Thiele, M.R., Baker, R.O. and Chung, S.
    [2005] Revisiting reservoir flood-surveillance methods using streamlines.SPE Paper 95402.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentley, M.
    [2016] Modelling for comfort?Petroleum Geoscience, 22(1), 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bond, C., Gibbs, A., Shipton, Z. and Jones, S.
    [2007] What do you think this is? “Conceptual uncer-tainty” in geoscience interpretation.GSA today, 17(11), 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourdet, D.
    [2002] Well test analysis: the use of advanced interpretation models, 3. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cavero, J., Orellana, N.H., Yemez, I., Singh, V. and Izaguirre, E.
    [2016] Importance of conceptual geological models in 3D reservoir modelling.first break, 34(7), 39–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Choudhuri, B., Thakuria, C., Belushi, A.A., Nurzaman, Z., Al Hashmi, K. and Batycky, R.
    [2015] Optimization of a Large Polymer Flood With Full-Field Streamline Simulation.SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 18(2), 318–328.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Corbett, P., Geiger, S., Borges, L., Garayev, M. and Valdez, C.
    [2012] The third porosity systemu-nderstanding the role of hidden pore systems in well-test interpretation in carbonates.Petroleum Geoscience, 18(1), 73–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Corbett, P.W., Geiger-Boschung, S., Borges, L.P., Garayev, M., Gonzalez, J.G., Valdez, C. et al.
    [2010] Limitations in numerical well test modelling of fractured carbonate rocks. In: SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Corbett, P.W., Mesmari, A., Stewart, G. et al.
    [1996] A method for using the naturally-occurring negative geoskin in the description of fluvial reservoirs. In: European Petroleum Conference.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Datta-Gupta, A., Xie, J., Gupta, N., King, M.J., Lee, W.J. et al.
    [2011] Radius of investigation and its generalization to unconventional reservoirs.Journal of Petroleum Technology, 63(07), 52–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Egya, D., Geiger, S., Corbett, P., March, R., Bisdom, K., Bertotti, G. and Bezerra, F.
    [2018] Analysing the limitations of the dual-porosity response during well tests in naturally fractured reservoirs.Petroleum Geoscience, petgeo2017–053.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gries, S.
    [2017] On the convergence of System-AMG in reservoir simulation.SPE Paper 182630.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hægland, H.
    [2009] Streamline methods with application to flow and transport in fractured media. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bergen.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffman, K.S. and Neave, J.W.
    [1999] Horizon modeling using a three-dimensional fault restoration technique.SPE paper 56445.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, M., Hampson, G., Rood, D., Geiger, S., Zhang, Z., Sousa, M., Amorim, R., Brazil, E., Samavati, F. and Guimaraes, L.
    [2015a] Rapid Reservoir Modeling: Prototyping of Reservoir Models, Well Trajectories and Development Options using an Intuitive, Sketch-Based Interface.SPE Paper 173237.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson, M., Hampson, G., Saunders, J., El-Sheikh, A., Graham, G. and Massart, B.
    [2014] Surface-based reservoir modelling for flow simulation.Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 387(1), 271–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackson, M., Percival, J., Mostaghimi, P., Tollit, B., Pavlidis, D., Pain, C., Gomes, J., Elsheikh, A.H., Salinas, P., Muggeridge, A. and Blunt, M.
    [2015b] Reservoir modeling for flow simulation by use of surfaces, adaptive unstructured meshes, and an overlapping-control-volume finite-element method.SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 18(02), 115–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Krogstad, S., Lie, K.A., Nilsen, H.M., Berg, C.F. and Kippe, V.
    [2017] Efficient flow diagnostics proxies for polymer flooding.Computational Geosciences, 21(5–6), 1203–1218.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Massonnat, G., Bandiziol, D. etal.
    [1991] Interdependence between geology and well test interpretation. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Matringe, S.F., Juanes, R. and Tchelepi, H.A.
    [2008] Tracing streamlines on unstructured grids from finite volume discretizations.SPE Journal, 13(4), 423–431.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mello, U.T., Rodrigues, J.R.P. and Rossa, A.L.
    [2009] A control-volume finite-element method for three-dimensional multiphase basin modeling.Marine and Petroleum Geology, 26(4), 504–518.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Milliotte, C. and Matthäi, S.
    [2014] From seismic interpretation to reservoir model: an integrated study accounting for the structural complexity of the Vienna Basin using an unstructured reservoir grid.First Break, 32(5), 95–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Møyner, O., Krogstad, S. and Lie, K.A.
    [2014] The application of flow diagnostics for reservoir management.SPE Journal, 20(02), 306–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Natvig, J.R., Lie, K.A., Eikemo, B. and Berre, I.
    [2007] An efficient discontinuous Galerkin method for advective transport in porous media.Advances in water resources, 30(12), 2424–2438.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Olsen, L., Samavati, F.F., Sousa, M.C. and Jorge, J.A.
    [2009] Sketch-based modeling: A survey.Computers & Graphics, 33(1), 85–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rankey, E.C. and Mitchell, J.C.
    [2003] That’s why it’s called interpretation: Impact of horizon uncertainty on seismic attribute analysis.The LeadingEdge, 22(9), 820–828.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rasmussen, A.F.
    [2010] Streamline tracing on irregular geometries.EC- MOR XII-12th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rood, M., Jackson, M., Hampson, G., Brazil, E., de Carvalho, F., Coda, C., Sousa, M., Zhang, Z. and Geiger, S.
    [2015] Sketch-based geologic modeling. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sethian, J.A.
    [1996] A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(4), 1591–1595.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sethian, J.A. and Vladimirsky, A.
    [2000] Fast methods for the Eikonal and related Hamilton-Jacobi equations on unstructured meshes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(11), 5699–5703.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Shahvali, M., Mallison, B., Wei, K. and Gross, H.
    [2012] An alternative to streamlines for flow diagnostics on structured and unstructured grids.SPE Journal, 17(03), 768–778.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sharifi, M., Kelkar, M., Bahar, A., Slettebo, T. et al.
    [2014] Dynamic ranking of multiple realizations by use of the fast-marching method.SPE Journal, 19(06), 1–069.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Shook, G.M. and Mitchell, K.M.
    [2009] A robust measure of heterogeneity for ranking earth models: The F PHI curve and dynamic Lorenz coefficient.SPE Paper 124625.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Si, H.
    [2015] TetGen, a Delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 41(2), 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stüben, K., Clees, T., Klie, H., Lu, B. and Wheeler, M.
    [2007] Algebraic multigrid methods (AMG) for the efficient solution of fully implicit formulations in reservoir simulation.SPE Paper 105832.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Thiele, M.R. and Batycky, R.
    [2003] Water injection optimization using a streamline-based workflow.SPE Paper 84080.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vasco, D., Keers, H. and Karasaki, K.
    [2000] Estimation of reservoir properties using transient pressure data: An asymptotic approach.Water Resources Research, 36(12), 3447–3465.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Velho, L. and Zorin, D.
    [2001] 4–8 Subdivision.Computer Aided Geometric Design, 18(5), 397–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Xie, J., Yang, C., Gupta, N., King, M.J., Datta-Gupta, A. et al.
    [2015a] Depth of investigation and depletion in unconventional reservoirs with fast-marching methods.SPE Journal, 20(04), 831–841.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. [2015b] Integration of shale-gas-production data and microseismic for fracture and reservoir properties with the fast marching method.SPE Journal, 20(02), 347–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, Y., Bansal, N., Fujita, Y., Datta-Gupta, A., King, M.J., Sankaran, S. et al.
    [2016] From Streamlines to Fast Marching: Rapid Simulation and Performance Assessment of Shale-Gas Reservoirs by Use of Diffusive Time of Flight as a Spatial Coordinate.SPE Journal, 21(05), 1883–1898.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, Y., Yang, C., King, M.J., Datta-Gupta, A. et al.
    [2013] Fast-marching methods for complex grids and anisotropic permeabilities: Application to unconventional reservoirs.SPE Paper 163637.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang, Z., Geiger, S., Rood, M., Jacquemyn, C., Jackson, M., Hampson, G., De Carvalho, F.M., Silva, C.C.M.M., Silva, J.D.M., Sousa, M.C. et al.
    [2017] A Tracing Algorithm for Flow Diagnostics on Fully Unstructured Grids With Multipoint Flux Approximation.SPE Journal, 22(6), 1946–1962.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. [Under Review] An Edge-Based Fast Marching Method with Path Correction for Solving the Eikonal Equation and Diffusive Time-of-Flight on Unstructured Tetrahedral Meshes and Applications to Porous Media Flows. Journal of Computational Physics.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802241
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802241
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