Reservoir Modelling of Complex Geological Systems--A Multiple-Point Perspective
- Kiomars Eskandari (University of Texas at Austin) | Sanjay Srinivasan (University of Texas at Austin)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- August 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 59 - 69
- 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 6.1.5 Human Resources, Competence and Training, 5.5.8 History Matching, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling
- production history, geological descriptions
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 790 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Accurate characterization of sub-surface oil reservoirs is an essential prerequisite to the design and implementation of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) scenarios. Specifically, in reservoir characterization, integrating static and dynamic data into reservoir models to construct accurate and realistic models has received considerable attention. Unlike most of the conventional geostatistical approaches of integrating data into reservoir models that are based on semi-variograms (two-point statistics) as a measure of spatial connectivity, a complete multiple-point (MP) statistic framework is presented in this paper. In contrast to two-point statistic methods, MP statistics-based methods are capable of reproducing curvilinear geological structures. The algorithm starts with extracting MP statistics from training images (TI) using an optimal spatial template. After collecting different patterns and building the MP histogram, the pattern reproduction process commences. This process begins from data locations and then grows to fill the whole reservoir domain. The algorithm accounts for three main practical issues: uncertainty in geological scenarios, scanning template and non-stationarity. The MP statistics algorithm (growthsim) is capable of integrating data from multiple data sources. Among these data types is dynamic data or flow history.
The conventional approach to integrate production information into reservoir models is by iterative perturbation of the reservoir model until the production history of the reservoir is matched. Iterative methods have been applied till date to random fields that are completely characterized by a two-point co-variance function. In contrast, this paper presents a forward modelling approach that investigates history matching within a MP modelling framework. A novel technique implemented in this research is based on the merging of MPs inferred from history matched and geological models. Pattern growth is performed subsequently by sampling from the merged MP histograms. History matched models using the presented approach show an excellent agreement with underlying geological descriptions and match production history.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||10|
1. Matheron. G. 1973. TheIntrinsic Random Functions and their Applications. Advances in AppliedProbability 5 (3): 439. doi: 10.2307/1425829.
2. Journel, A.G. 1974. Geostatistics forConditional Simulation of Ore bodies. Economic Geology 69(5): 673-687. doi: gsecongeo.69.5.673.
3. Journel, A.G. 1983. Nonparametric estimation of spatialdistributions. Mathematical Geology 15 (3): 445-468. doi:BF01031292.
4. Isaaks, E. 1990. The Application of Monte Carlo Methods to the Analysisof Spatially Correlated Data. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford,California.
5. Srivastava, R.M. 1992. Reservoir Characterization WithProbability Field Simulation. Paper SPE 24753 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October. doi:10.2118/24753-MS.
6. Goovaerts, P. 1997. Geostatistics for Natural ResourcesEvaluation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Chilès, J.-P. and Delfiner, P. 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling SpatialUncertainty. New York: Wylie Series in Probability and Statistics, JohnWiley & Sons.
8. Journel, A.G. and Huijbregts, C.J. 1978. Mining Geostatistics.London: Academic Press Limited.
9. Deutsch, C.V and Lewis, R.W. 1992. Advances in the PracticalImplementation of Indicator Geostatistics. Proc., 23rd APCOM Symposium,Tucson, Arizona, USA, 7-11 April, 169-179.
10. Deutsch, C.V. and Gringarten, E. 2000. Accounting for multiplepointcontinuity in geostatistical modeling. Presented at the 6th InternationalGeostatistical Congress (GEOSTATS 2000), Cape Town, South Africa, 10-14April.
11. Caers, J. 1998. Stochastic simulation using neural networks.Proc., Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Annual Meeting,Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA, 7-8 May, Vol. 11.
12. Strebelle, S. 2000. Sequential simulation drawing structures fromtraining images. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
13. Stoyan, D., Kendal, W.S., and Mecke, J. 1987. Stochastic Geometry andits Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Haldorsen, H.H. and Damsleth, E. 1990. Stochastic Modeling. J PetTechnol 42 (4): 404-412. SPE-20321-PA. doi: 10.2118/20321-PA.
15. Journel, A. 2005. Multiple point statistics. In Proceedings of IAMG05: GIS and Spatial Analysis, ed. Q. Cheng and G. Bonham-Carter. Toronto,Canada: IAMG.
16. Nelson, R.W. 1960. In-Place Measurement ofPermeability in Heterogeneous Media: 1. Theory of a Proposed Method.Journal of Geophysical Research 65 (6): 1753-1758. doi:10.1029/JZ065i006p01753.
17. Kashib, T. and Srinivasan, S. 2003. Iterative Integration of Dynamic Datain Reservoir Models. Paper SPE 84592 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8 October. doi: 10.2118/84592-MS.
18. Kim, Y. 2007. Probabilistic framework-based history matching algorithmutilizing sub-domain delineation and software 'Pro-HMS'. MSc thesis, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (December 2007).
19. Hu, L.Y. 2000.Gradual Deformation andIterative Calibration of Gaussian-Related Stochastic Models.Mathematical Geology 32 (1): 87-108. doi: A:1007506918588.
20. Hu, L.Y. and Le Ravalec-Dupin, M. 2004. An Improved GradualDeformation Method for Reconciling Random and Gradient Searches in StochasticOptimizations. Mathematical Geology 36 (6): 703-719. doi:B:MATG.0000039542.73994.a2.
21. Barrera, A.E. 2006. Improved Geological Modeling and Dynamic DataIntegration Using the Probability Perturbation Approach. MSc thesis, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (May 2006).
22. Eskandari, K. and Srinivasan, S. 2007. Growthsim--A multiple pointframework for pattern simulation. Presented at Petroleum Geostatistics2007,Cascais, Portugal, 10-14 September.
23. Journel, A.G. 2002. Combining Knowledge fromDiverse Sources:An Alternative to Traditional Data Independence Hypotheses.Mathematical Geology 34 (5): 573-596. doi: A:1016047012594.