Geophysics

Data
analysis
Depth
conversion
Simulation

Well
correlation

Well
design Facies
modelling
Property modelling
And Upscaling

CALIBRATING THE DYNAMIC

MODEL
TM4112 Karakterisasi &
Pemodelan Reservoir
Objectives
 Following completion of this
section, you should:
 Be able to plan and conduct a history
match;
 Be able to use classical reservoir
engineering tools to assist in the
history matching process;
 Be able to decide when to use
automatic history matching;
Overview
 Plan history match
 Prepare preliminary model
 Perform history match
 Monitor reservoir performance
 Automatic history matching
History Matching
 The process of adjusting the reservoir
description until the production and
pressures predicted by the dynamic
model match the historical production
and pressures.
History Matching
Importance of History
Matching
 Why do we history match, or calibrate
reservoir models?
 A model must be able to reproduce past
production and pressure performance
before we can use it to predict future
performance with accuracy.
 Limitations: Calibrated models may not
reliably predict future performance under
operating conditions that are substantially
different from those used in the calibration.
Plan History Match
 Review objectives of simulation study
 Define objectives of history match
 Determine quality of history match
necessary to meet objectives
Quality of History Match
Needed
 For low pressure gas reservoirs, match
may need to be within 1-5 psi
 For high pressure gas reservoirs, match
within 50 psi may be adequate
 In general, the tolerances for the match
should be at least as tight as the
accuracy desired for projections.
Prepare Preliminary Model
 Prepare reservoir data
 Prepare production data
 Make preliminary runs
Reservoir Data
 Collect reservoir data
 Review data for consistency and
accuracy
 Rank available reservoir data according
to uncertainty
 Estimate most likely value, expected
range of values
Production Data
 Collect production data
 Review data for consistency and
accuracy
 Convert measured field data to basis
that can be compared with simulation
results
Preliminary Simulation Runs
 Grid sensitivity - Is the grid fine enough
to meet the study objectives?
 Time step sensitivity - Are the time steps
small enough to capture the reservoir
response of interest?
 Parameter sensitivity - What parameters
have the most effect on the answers?
Perform History Match
 General guidelines
 Wherever possible, use conventional
reservoir engineering methods to get initial
estimates for parameters
 Look for parameters which have effects
that are independent of any other unknown
parameters, and match those first
 Proceed with the match from gross overall
behavior to detailed behavior of individual
wells
Select Response to be
Matched
 Fieldwide average reservoir pressure
 Fieldwide production rates
 Fieldwide GOR, WOR
 Well pressures
 Well rates
 Well GOR, WOR
 Arrival times
Response Must be
Consistent with Model
 Matching breakthrough times for flood
front will require finer grid breakup than
matching pressures alone
 Cannot match short-term pressure
transients for individual wells with a
coarse grid model
Response Must be
Consistent with Model
 Use radius of investigation concept to
determine range of data which can be
matched

 For the model to accurately predict pressure

changes in response to a change in rate from
a single well, the radius of investigation for
the time in question must be large enough to
span at least three to five grid blocks.
Example 1
 You are conducting a reservoir study for a
reservoir which has been producing for one
year. The average reservoir pressure is still
above the bubble point. The porosity is 12%,
and the permeability is 7.5 md. The oil
viscosity is 0.32 cp and the total
compressibility is 12´10-6 psi-1. The grid is
uniform, with 200 foot by 200 foot grid blocks.
 How long does it take for the radius of
investigation to "see" three grid blocks into the
reservoir?
Example 1: Solution

 This indicates that the simulated

pressure for a particular well cannot be
expected to match the observed
pressure for at least 21 hours following a
rate change for that well.
Effect of Grid Block Size on
Minimum Valid Time
Select Data Presentation
 Select data presentation to highlight
differences in response due to variations
in the selected matching parameters.
 Often, this will mean plotting both
observed and simulated response as you
would when using conventional analysis
methods.
Select Parameters to Vary
to
Obtain Match
 History matching can only provide
estimates of reservoir parameters which
have an effect on the reservoir response.
 Identify important parameters - those
which are uncertain and which affect the
reservoir response to be matched.
 Review results of parameter sensitivity
study to determine which of the uncertain
data items have the most influence on the
behavior being matched.
Apply Classical Reservoir
Engineering Methods
 To get initial estimates for parameters
 Analyze all available pressure transient test
data using semilog and type curve methods
 Apply advanced decline curve analysis
 Apply conventional material balance (or use
1-cell, 0-D simulation model)
Apply Classical Reservoir
Engineering Methods
 To guide parameter changes while
history matching: kA p
qB 
 
 Use Darcy's law to estimate
0.234qB changes
permeability
Vp 
pwf
 Use ct
t
to estimate reservoir pore
volume

 Use pressure transient theory

Effect of Doubling
Permeability on
Pressure Response
 Increasing permeability (or decreasing
viscosity) will "speed up“ transient
response, and increase the pressure
level.
Effect of Doubling Net Pay
Thickness on Pressure
Response
 Increasing net pay thickness will
increase the pressure level without
affecting timing.
Example 2: Use of Classical
Reservoir Engineering
Methods
 The following rock, fluid, and reservoir properties
for a newly discovered oil reservoir are given. The
initial reservoir pressure, 4280 psia, is above the
2795 psia bubble point pressure. There is
believed to be some skin damage to the
formation near the wellbore. A 91 day flow test
has been conducted on the new well. Total
compressibility is estimated to be 2210-6 psi-1.
Example 2
 Estimate the drainage area, the
formation permeability, and the altered
zone permeability by classical reservoir
engineering methods.
Example 2: Solution
 We use a Cartesian plot of pressure vs
time to estimate the reservoir pore
volume, from which we may calculate
drainage area.
 We then use a semilog pressure vs time
plot to estimate formation permeability
and skin factor.
 Finally, we calculate the altered zone
permeability from the skin factor and the
dimensions of the altered zone.
 Estimation of Reservoir Pore
Volume
 This figure shows the Cartesian graph of pressure vs time. We
draw a straight line through the pseudosteady state flow period
data, characterized by a constant slope on the Cartesian graph.
0.234qB
Vp 
 Calculating the slope from two points on the graph, we havepwf
ct
t

 Estimating pore volume, we have

Estimation of Permeability
and
Skin Factor
 This figure shows the semilog graph of pressure vs. time.
We draw a straight line through the middle time region
data, characterized by a constant slope on the semilog
graph.
Initial Estimates - Semilog
Graph for Matching
Transient Behavior
Graph
for Matching Reservoir Pore
Volume
Example 3: Use of Classical
Reservoir Engineering
Methods
 Given the following estimates of drainage area,
formation permeability, and altered zone permeability,
perform a history match using classical reservoir
engineering calculations to guide the match.

 (Even though we have already estimated these

properties directly using pressure transient analysis
methods, we start with the following initial guesses to
illustrate the use of simple calculations to guide the
engineer during the manual history matching process)
Example 3: Solution
 Manual History Match - Semilog Graph
for Matching Transient Behavior
Cartesian
Graph for Matching Pore
Volume
Example 3: Solution
 Since varying permeability affects only the linear
portion of the semilog plot, while varying
drainage area affects only the linear portion of
the Cartesian plot, we can change permeability
and drainage area simultaneously.
 The slope of a semilog plot of wellbore pressure
vs time should be inversely proportional to the
permeability. To get a new permeability estimate,
we calculate the semilog slopes of the observed
and simulated response:
 We can then obtain a new estimate of
permeability:
 To obtain a new drainage area estimate,
we calculate the slopes of the observed
and simulated response on a Cartesian
graph:
 This slope should be inversely
proportional to pore volume (or drainage
area). Thus, we can calculate a new
drainage area estimate:
Manual History Match -
Matching
Transient Behavior, Trial 2
Matching
Reservoir Pore Volume, Trial
2
Manual History Match -
Matching
Transient Behavior, Trial 3
 At this point, we have excellent matches for
permeability and reservoir volume, as shown by
the slopes of the relevant graphs.
 Changing the altered zone permeability should
cause a uniform shift in the pressure response.
 To estimate the change necessary in altered zone
permeability, we must make another simulation run
to determine its effect on the pressure response.
 We choose to make the next run with the altered
zone permeability the same as that of the
formation, ka = 121.4 md.
Manual History Match -
Matching
Transient Behavior, Trial 3
Matching
Reservoir Pore Volume, Trial
3
 The total pressure drop across the altered zone
is inversely proportional to them permeability in
the zone. It can be shown that the additional
pressure drop due to a lower permeability in the
altered zone is proportional to

 This additional pressure drop can be read from

the last figure as approximately 49.1 psi for the
observed pressures, and about 62.3 psi for the
second trial run.
 Thus, we have
 Therefore,
Manual History Match - Final
Match, Semilog Graph
 These figures show the final match,
which took a total of 4 simulation runs to
establish.
Manual History Match - Final
Match, Cartesian Graph
Five-Step Approach to
History
Matching
 Understand the reservoir
 Equilibrate (initialize) the simulation
model
 Match pressure
 Match fluid fractions (WOR and GOR)
 Match flowing pressures
Understand Your Reservoir
 Geology and petrophysics
 Geometry of reservoir
 Variation of reservoir quality
 Isolation and compartmentalization
 Commingling and reservoir coupling
 Wellbore problems
 Coning
 Isolation and
Compartmentalization

 Plotting static reservoir pressure for all wells in the reservoir (or groups of
neighboring wells) helps identify isolation.
 Large differences in fluid compositions (from PVT studies) is sometimes another
evidence of isolation.
Identify Local Problems
Equilibration
Pressure Match
Fluid Fractions Match
Flowing Pressure Match
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
History Matching
Adjustments
Continue to Monitor Reservoir
Performance
 Compare predictions with new field
performance
 Changes in operating conditions
 Discrepancies between projections and
field performance
Continue to Monitor Reservoir
Performance
 Update history match as new data
becomes available
 Additional production data
 Additional pressure transient test data
 Log and core data from newly drilled wells
Automatic History Matching
 Automatic history matching is the process
of automating the matching process.
 The engineer specifies the parameters to
vary to obtain a match, and the response
to be matched.
 A computer program is then given the
task of finding the values of the match
parameters which give the best history
match.
When to Use Automatic
History
Matching
 To refine match obtained by manual history
matching
 After identifying the most important
unknown parameters
 Automatic history matching methods work
better (and run faster) when given a
smaller number of parameters to match
 Do not include parameters which have little
or no effect on the desired response. Some
methods may fail entirely for
underdetermined problems
When to Use Automatic
History
Matching
 Always monitor the progress of
automatic history matching methods
 Terminate the match if:
 The sum of squared errors is not decreasing
 The parameter estimates are not changing
significantly
Example History Match
 Objectives
 Describe Current Reservoir Conditions
 Predict Complex Water Encroachment
Pattern
 Locate Bypassed and Untapped Oil
Criteria for History Matching
 Production Data
 Water Production by Layer
 Gas-Oil Ratio Versus Depth
 Pressure Data
 Static Pressure, RFT’s and PBU Tests
 Water Invasion Profiles
 Distinguish Between Original and
Encroached Water
RFT Data
for Well
VLE-995
Drilled
4/12/91
Water
Invasion
Profile for
Well
VLE-96ST
Drilled
8/1/96 (OWC
= 12,480 ft
Subsea)
Problems Encountered in
History Matching
 Very complex water encroachment
pattern
 many places where water sweeps an upper
layer while lower layer remains unswept
 many places where water is produced in an
updip well before downdip well
 Pressure differences between the C-4
and C-5
Possible Contributing
Factors
 Layered reservoir behavior, with barrier
layers
 Complex faulting
 Communication with other reservoirs
 Production allocation errors due to
complex perforation and production
practices
Method of Solution
 Model calibration problems could not be
solved by simulation engineer alone
 Required combined efforts of
geophysicist, geologist, petrophysicist,
production and reservoir engineers
 Team reviewed problem fault blocks one
by one
Team Effort
 Geophysicist - reviewed structure, fault
displacements
 Petrophysicist - reviewed invasion profiles, O/W
contacts, saturations across faults, pore volumes
 Geologist - reviewed extent of sands, communication
with offsetting reservoirs
 Production engineer - reviewed perforating and
production practices, e.g., commingling and
allocation
 Reservoir engineer - reviewed fluid and rock
properties (e.g., permeabilities, pseudo relative
permeabilities)
Solution
 Most problems explained by communication
across faults, both internally and with adjacent
reservoirs
 Was necessary to modify one or more of:
 structure
 displacement across faults
 fault transmissibilities
 description of adjacent reservoirs
 production allocation
 rock properties
 Modifications made within ranges of uncertainty
and on block-by-block basis
Pseudo Oil-Water Relative Permeability
(Krow) and Water Relative
Permeability (Krw)
History Match (Hist33k) of
Field Production Rates
History Match (Hist33k) of Field
Water-Oil Ratio (WOR) and Gas-Oil
Ratio (GOR)
History Match Well Graphs for Well
196
Understanding Performance
 The C-4/C-5 sandstones communicate
with other reservoirs
 Other intervals
 Across faults with areas outside study area
 Several examples of upstructure wells
producing water before downstructure
wells
 Communication affects reservoir
performance
Understanding Performance
 Communication also complicates history
match
 Modified fault transmissibilities for
internal faults
 Included artificial reservoirs
communicating across the reservoir
boundaries
 Despite problems, model adequately
represents reservoir performance
Movable Oil Volume Map
Indicates Bypassed Oil