Investigation of the Correlation Between the Quality of History Matching and that of Forecasting
- Afifa Tabassum Tinni (Imperial College London) | Peter King (Imperial College London)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, 10-11 April, Galveston, Texas, USA
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2019. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics, 5.5.8 History Matching
- History Matching, Forecasting, Reservoir Simulation
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 108 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
The aim of this study is to determine to what extent the quality of a history matched model is a good predictor of future production. The background is the common assumption that the better a model matches the production data is the better it is for forecasting, or, at the very least, it leads to an improved estimate of the uncertainty in future production. We demonstrate that the validity of this assumption depends on the length of the history match period and that of the forecasting period. It also depends on how heterogeneous the reservoir is.
The correlation between the quality of history match and quality of forecast depends on various factors. For the same level of heterogeneity one of the strongest factors is the water breakthrough time for the base and compared cases.
Broadly if both the base and compared case have water breakthrough before the end of the history match period then the forecasts are reasonable. However, there appears to be a very rapid transition from a reasonably good history match leading to a good forecast to a moderately good history match leading to a very poor forecast. If water breakthrough has not occurred there is a very poor correlation between the quality of the history match and the quality of the forecast. So, the traditional belief that a good history matched model will also produce a good forecast is not always true.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||10|
Kabir, C.S. and N.J. Young. 2004, April 1. Handling Production-Data Uncertainty in History Matching: The Meren Reservoir Case Study. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 7(02): p.123-131. SPE-87823-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87823-PA.
Carter, J.N. and D.A. White. 2013. History Matching on the Imperial College Fault Model Using Parallel Tempering. Computational Geosciences. 17(1): p. 43-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10596-012-9313-3
Emil C. Santhosh, Jitendra S. Sangwai. 2016. A hybrid differential evolution algorithm approach towards assisted history matching and Uncertainty Quantification for Reservoir Models, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. Volume 142: p.21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.038.
Tavassoli, Z., J.N. Carter, and P.R. King. 2005. An Analysis of History Matching Errors. Computational Geosciences. 9(2): p. 99-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10596-005-9001-7.
Carter, J.N.. 2006. Our Calibrated Model has Poor Predictive Value: An Example from the Petroleum Industry. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 91(10-11): p. 1373-1381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.033
Barker, J.W., Cuypers, M. and Holden, L. 2001. Quantifying Uncertainty in Production Forecasts: Another Look at the PUNQ-S3 Problem. SPE J.6(04): SPE-74707-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74707-PA
DeVolder, B.. 2001. Uncertainty Quantification for Multiscale Simulations. Journal of Fluids Engineering.124(1): p. 29-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1445139
Liu, C. and McVay, D.A. 2010. Continuous Reservoir-Simulation-Model Updating and Forecasting Improves Uncertainty Quantification. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Vol 13(04).SPE-119197-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119197-PA.
Description of the IC Fault Model, http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/39239.PDF (accessed 1 December 2018)