1 / 25

History matching by joint perturbation of facies distribution and net-to-gross

History matching by joint perturbation of facies distribution and net-to-gross. Junrae Kim and Jef Caers. Objectives. Constraining geological models to production data, adjusting aspects of geological model. Assessing value of information of production data on N/G.

eliza
Download Presentation

History matching by joint perturbation of facies distribution and net-to-gross

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. History matching by joint perturbation of facies distribution and net-to-gross Junrae Kim and Jef Caers

  2. Objectives • Constraining geological models to production data, adjusting aspects of geological model. • Assessing value of information of production data on N/G. • Application to a realistic 3D reservoir and well test.

  3. P 50 Reference 50 I Motivation :N/G should not be fixed in history matching Flow response of 20 realizations N/G=0.05 N/G=0.6 • Elliptical bodies of high permeability • (1000 mD) in a lower permeability • matrix (15 mD) • Constant injection rate of 700 STB/day • No boundary conditions assumed • N/G (Reference) = 0.32

  4. Jef Caers P(A|B) P(A|D) Model for P(A|B,D) Generate i(k+1)(u) rD = 1Full perturbation rD = 0No perturbation Probability perturbation method Perturb the conditional probabilities P(A|B) using another conditional probability that depends on the production data Define: P(A|D) = (1-rD) i(k)(u) + rD P(A) rD is found by solving a simple 1D optimization problem.

  5. Couple perturbation of N/G with perturbation of rD. Perturbing N/G • Problem =>More difficult joint optimization of rD and N/G. • Solution =>Making proportional to rD : Back to 1D optimization • Why? =>High rD, : Big change in model

  6. Couple perturbation of N/G with perturbation of rD. Increase Make linearly proportional to Decrease

  7. Generate an initial guess realization Inner Loop Choose value for rD Choose value for rD Generate a new realization Outer Loop Calculate Calculate Define P(A|D) Generate a new realization & flow simulation Generate a new realization & flow simulation Change random seed No History match? Calculate O(-) Yes Calculate O(+) Run flow simulation Choose best rD and Obest from O(-) and O(+) Done Yes No Converged to best rD? The proposed method: basic algorithm Probability perturbation method: basic algorithm

  8. P 50 Reference Conditioning data (facies) 50 I Training image 2-D reservoir model • Reference: 50 x 50 • Elliptical bodies of high permeability • (1000 mD) in a lower permeability • matrix (15 mD) • Constant injection rate of 700 STB/day • No boundary conditions assumed • N/G (Reference) = 0.32 • Training image: 150 x 150

  9. Inner iteration Initial model Optimal value

  10. Outer Iterations Reference Model

  11. 20 realizations 20 initial realizations 0.12 0.32 0.52 Initial N/G : Selected randomly from [0.12, 0.52] 20 history matched realizations Ref=0.32 Mean(H.M.)= 0.33 IQR=[0.28, 0.38]

  12. 20 realizations Initial N/G : Always 0.5 20 initial realizations 20 history matched realizations Ref=0.32 Mean(H.M.)= 0.33 IQR=[0.19, 0.45] Unbiased!!

  13. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G from single well test • Investigate the value of information provided by a well test in a realistic 3D reservoir (Stanford V). • First: Spatial re-sampling to model the uncertainty on N/G without well test data: Journel (1993). • Second: Apply the proposed method. • 1. Use re-sampled N/G as initial guess • 2. History match • 3. Check final N/G from history matched realization

  14. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G 3-D reservoir model • Dimensions 100x130x30 cells, three layers. • Fluvial channels (1500mD) in (50mD) permeability matrix. • Reference True N/G = 0.39. • A single vertical well (N/G = 0.5) available at x=52, y=65.

  15. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G (First: without well test) What is the uncertainty without well test? => Spatial bootstrapping • Generate a geostatistical model conditioned to the single vertical well log data only; N/G realization = 0.5 • Randomly sample 20 vertical wells from the single geostatistical model. • Calculate N/G from 20 resampled wells. => N/G histogram

  16. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G (Bootstrap) A spatial resampling of 20 wells N/G realization = 0.5 True Reference Training image True N/G = 0.4 Mean = 0.46 IQR = [0.33, 0.58] Wide confidence intervalUpward bias Resampled N/G

  17. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G(Conditioning to well test data) What is the uncertainty with well test? • Each of the 20 re-sampled N/G is used as an initial guess. • 20 final history match generated • - perturbing facies and N/G. • Calculate N/G from final HM models. • => N/G Histogram

  18. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G(Conditioning to well test data) Late Transient PSS/ Closed boundary Radial flow Well test model • A drawdown test for 100 days. • The rate of production is fixed to 1000 STB/day. • Boundary effect starts at 10 days.

  19. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G(Conditioning to well test data) WBHP (initial guesses) WBHP (history matched)

  20. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G(Conditioning to well test data) True N/G = 0.4 Original well log N/G = 0.5 Initial guesses (N/G) without well-test Mean = 0.46 IQR = [0.33, 0.58] History matched (N/G) with well-test Mean = 0.44 IQR = [0.40, 0.46] Reduction of uncertainty on N/G is significant.

  21. Quantification of uncertainty on N/G(Conditioning to well test data) Pseudo steady state versus transient state 100 days 10 days 3 days • Variance in all cases are smaller than the case, where no well test is available. • The uncertainty is largest in the 3-day case. • Assumption: Averaging volume known (PSS)

  22. Conclusions • N/G should not be fixed in a history matching process. • The proposed method jointly parameterizes perturbation of • N/G and of facies => simple & robust. • The method quantifies uncertainty of N/G based on • production data. • Well test: N/G can be quantified if averaging volume • is well known.

  23. History matching by joint perturbation of P 50 50 I Facies anisotropy and facies distribution -90° 90° Case 2: Always starts from 0° Case 3 : Select randomly from [-90°, 90°] Case 1: Always starts from -45° Reference Mean: 47.6 [36, 58] Mean: 39.7 [30, 52] Mean: 44.0 [35, 52] IQR:

  24. But still with large effort 45° 75° -15° -45° A history match was achieved in all cases…

  25. 3 days Reservoir N/G PSS The global N/G corresponding to the volume ratio Volume ratio corresponding to the number of days for which well test is run.

More Related