Integrated Static and Dynamic Modelling Workflow for Improved History Matching and Uncertainty Modelling
- E. E. Chong (Petrofac Malaysia Ltd) | W. N. Wan Mohamad (Petrofac Malaysia Ltd) | S. F. Rae (Petrofac Malaysia Ltd) | L. Lim (Petrofac Malaysia Ltd) | S. Flew (Petrofac Malaysia Ltd)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 October, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2015. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.6.9 Production Forecasting, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.4 Enhanced Recovery, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 5.5.8 History Matching, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.6 Formation Evaluation & Management, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 5.5.2 Construction of Static Models, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics
- modelling workflow, history matching, uncertainty modelling
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 247 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Traditionally, the history matching process is done only on the dynamic model, without any direct update to the geological (or static) model. As a result, geological uncertainties are not fully evaluated in the dynamic model. Non-integration of static and dynamic modelling results in either too much time being spent modelling detailed geological phenomena that have little impact on the dynamic behaviour of the reservoir, or, conversely, important geological and petrophysical parameters being misrepresented or missed out which may have significant impacts on the overall field development strategy.
Ideally, if any updates to static parameters are required as result of history matching in the dynamic model, these changes should be reflected directly in the static reservoir model, thereby ensuring consistency between the static and dynamic models.
In this paper, a workflow is presented where both the static and dynamic modelling software packages are integrated as part of the history matching process. This workflow involves input parameters being adjusted in the geological model directly. Uncertainty analysis tools are used to obtain multiple history-matched models, which results in an order of magnitude increase in speed compared to traditional history-matching processes.
Not only will this methodology result in improved history-matched models with a wider range of production forecasts being captured, but more importantly, it will result in better understanding of the static and dynamic uncertainties and their interdependencies, leading to a more informed decision-making process with regards to overall field development. In addition, this methodology offers a platform where the subsurface professionals involved in reservoir model construction and simulation processes can focus their efforts on improving reservoir characterization and identify areas that require further data acquisition or improvement.
This paper also describes how the workflow was successfully applied to a recently developed, producing and waterflooded oil field in South East Asia, and eventually delivering an optimized reservoir model for reservoir management and a probabilistic approach to production forecasting.
|File Size||4 MB||Number of Pages||16|