1887

Abstract

Summary

Geostatistical methods for reservoir characterization aims at obtaining petrophysical models conditioned to different direct and indirect data. For example geophysical data, such as seismic and electromagnetic data, through geostatistical inversion algorithms, well log data using stochastic simulations and production data by geostatistical history matching processes. The objective of the proposed methodology of this study, is to generate numerical models of a reservoir petrophysical properties, conditioned to a production strategy obtained with a closed loop optimization technique. In a first step of the proposed methodology a best production strategy, L0, is obtained by closed loop optimization using Particle Swarm Optimization. In a second step, one intends characterizing the spatial dispersion of parameters Z(x), conditioned to L0, by using an iterative procedure based on stochastic simulations of Z(x). In this way one succeed to obtain a geological consistent solution of petrophysical properties Z(x), which are conditioned to the chosen production strategy L0, while optimizing the spatial patterns characteristics of Z(x) like connectivity of sand bodies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902247
2019-09-02
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, D., Demyanov, V., TatumD., Christie, M., Rojas, T., Geiger, S., and Corbett, P. (2013) Hierarchical benchmark case study for history matching, uncertainty quantification and reservoir characterization, Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Azevedo, L. & Soares, A. (2017) Geostatistical methods for reservoir geophysics. Springer International Publishing AG.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gilman, J., and Ozgen, C., (2013) Reservoir Simulation: History Matching and Forecasting, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HortaA., SoaresA. (2010). Direct Sequential Co-simulation with Joint Probability Distributions. Mathematical Geosciences, 42: 269–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. C., (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks. Piscataway.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mohamed, L., Christie, M., and Demayanov, V. (2011) History matching and Uncertainty Quantification: Multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimisation approach, Paper SPE 143067, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Nœvdal, G., Brower, D., and Jansen, J. D. (2006) Waterflooding Using Closed-Loop Control. Computational Geosci. 10 (1): 37–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schaaf, T., Coureaud, B. and Labat, N. (2008) Using experimental designs, assisted history matching tools and Bayesian framework to get probabilistic production forecasts. Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. SoaresA., 2001. Direct Sequential Simulation and Cosimulation. 2001. Mathematical Geosciences. Volume 33, Issue 8, pp 911-926
    [Google Scholar]
  10. SoaresA., NunesR., AzevedoL., 2017. Integration of uncertain data in geostatistical modelling. Mathematical Geosciences. Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 253-273
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, C., Li, G. and Reynolds, A.C. (2007) Production Optimization in Closed Loop Reservoir Management, SPE 109805, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, United States of America.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902247
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902247
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