1887

Abstract

Summary

Simultaneous integration of production data under geological consistency, as part of the reservoir modelling workflow, still remains a challenge. A geologically consistent approach aims to avoid solutions that are unrealistic under the reservoir’s general geological characteristics. Unrealistic history matching solutions would result in poor reservoir response forecasting. It is also essential to include only geologically realistic models for uncertainty assessment based on multiple models that are consistent with the geological data and also in order to match observed production history. Geostatistical history matching can iteratively update static reservoir model properties through conditional assimilation constrained to the production data, using geologically consistent perturbation. Multiple stochastic realizations are assimilated following a zonation approach to account for the local match quality, thus providing a way to integrate a regionalized discretization of parameters with production data and engineering knowledge. The present project proposes a new history matching technique applied in uncertain reservoir conditions, represented by geologically consistent reservoir zonation, based on fault presence and dynamic consistent patterning, by considering fluid production streamlines as auxiliary criteria for the zonation. The proposed methodology is tested in a semi-synthetic case study based on a braided-river depositional environment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700970
2017-06-12
2024-04-24
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 and Geosciences, 50, 4–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hoffman, B. T., & Caers, J.
    (2007). History matching by jointly perturbing local facies proportions and their spatial distribution: Application to a North Sea reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 57(3), 257–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Le Ravalec-Dupin, M., & Da Veiga, S.
    (2011). Cosimulation as a perturbation method for calibrating porosity and permeability fields to dynamic data. Computers & geosciences, 37(9), 1400–1412.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Mata-Lima, H.
    (2008). Reservoir characterization with iterative direct sequential co-simulation: integrating fluid dynamic data into stochastic model. 62(3), 59–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Nunes, R., Soares, A., Azevedo, L., & Pereira, P.
    (2016). Geostatistical Seismic Inversion with Direct Sequential Simulation and Co-simulation with Multi-local Distribution Functions. Mathematical Geosciences, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Soares, A.
    (2001). Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Mathematical Geology, 33 (8), 911–926.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700970
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700970
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