1887

Abstract

Summary

Traditional reservoir models use geostatistical techniques but often oversimplify geological features. Stratigraphic Forward Modeling (SFM) offers a physics-based alternative but is challenging to calibrate with field data. We propose a multi-objective calibration workflow integrating static geological and dynamic production data for better calibration.

The methodology balances static geological fidelity with dynamic behavior of the field using a multi-objective optimization framework. Static calibration employs a novel facies comparison function inspired by well-log correlation techniques. Dynamic calibration involves converting SFM outputs into petrophysical properties and refining these transformations using regional-scale pressure and connectivity data.

To overcome computational challenges, we use surrogate modeling via dimensionality reduction and Gaussian Process Regression, reducing the number of required simulations and improving optimization efficiency. The result is a set of optimal solutions, representing multiple best-fit models that vary based on the relative weight given to static versus dynamic data. The workflow was tested on a Brazilian Aptian carbonate reservoir of the Campos Basin.

By integrating static and dynamic data within SFM, this approach enhances reservoir modeling accuracy while maintaining geological integrity. It bridges the gap between geologists and engineers, enabling more reliable predictions and improved decision-making in reservoir development.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025101540
2025-06-02
2026-02-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ducros, M., Steffens, L. M., Brugognolle, J.de S., Boing, J. V. L., Soares, A. P., & Bettu, D. F. (2023). A new objective function designed for the calibration of stratigraphic forward models. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 153, 105912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2023.105912
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gervais, V., Granjeon, D., & Bouquet, S. (2023). An automatic workflow for risk analysis on spatial output properties using kriging-based surrogate models—Application to stratigraphic forward modelling. Basin Research, 35, 1933–1960. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12786
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Lucia, F. J. (2007). Carbonate reservoir characterization: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Marrel, A., Perot, N. and Mottet, C. [2014]. Development of a surrogate model and sensitivity analysis for spatio-temporal numerical simulators. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2015)29:959–974. DOI 10.1007/s00477‑014‑0927‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0927-y [Google Scholar]
  5. Otoo, D., & Hodgetts, D. (2021). Porosity and permeability prediction through forward stratigraphic simulations using GPM™ and Petrel™: application in shallow marine depositional settings. Geoscientific Model Development, 14(4), 2075–2095. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2075-2021
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Tetzlaff, D. (2023). Stratigraphic forward modeling software package for research and education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05272.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, X., Jin, Y., Schmitt, S., & Olhofer, M. (2023). Recent advances in Bayesian optimization. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(13s), 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025101540
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025101540
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