Anda di halaman 1dari 78

Reservoir Simulation

IFP

History Match

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Reservoir Simulation

Performance of a reservoir simulation study


model
Reservoir model
Field development
History Match
Forecast

IFP

Geological

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Reservoir Simulation Study

IFP

Data review

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

History Match
Content

issues
Methodology overview
Key features
Matching parameters
Pressure Match
Flow rates Match
Uncertainty contributions
Well controls
Eclipse keywords
Exercise
IFP

Main

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Main Issues

Observed flow rates are imposed on wells during the history period

One expect to reproduce:

pressure evolution

WCT and GOR

gas or water breakthrough

production rates

Inconvenients:
Many data are unknown (no information available far from wells)
It is not obvious to detect the most influent data (all data act together)

Some artefacts must be corrected

IFP

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview

Identify

Adapt data to grid size

Data

analysis Quality

Identify main uncertainties in the geomodel

Select

matching parameters

Identify probable range for each matching parameter

Modify

matching parameters

Trial and error process

IFP

available data that have to be matched

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview
Workflow

INITIAL MODEL

NEW GEOMODEL
MODIFICATION OF
PARAMETERS

SIMULATION RUN

YES
NO

GOOD
MATCH

NO

MODIFICATION OF
GEOMODEL

YES

IFP

FORECAST RUN

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview

Remind
Geologist

and geophysics must work hard to help the reservoir


engineer to maintain the consistency of the geological model

is better to have rough, consistent matching than matching


which is accurate but destroys the model

IFP

It

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview
Available data

IFP

General well information: All the wells penetrating the reservoirs


with their associated general parameters: XY coordinates, KB,
and surveys
Well markers
Structural depths maps: 3D seismic interpretation loaded with the
associated fault network.
Interpreted well logs: from the petrophysical evaluation (Volume
of Shale, Effective Porosity, Water Saturation, Lithology).
Rock types
Petrophysical properties: Net-to-gross, porosity, permeabilities
Rock types: kr-Pc, water saturation, volumes in place
Production data: static pressure, flowing pressure, production
rates, WCT, GOR, WBT, GBT.

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview
Data analysis: Quality

Like all physical assets, data require maintenance over time. Raw data will
degrade when errors are introducedtypically through human
intervention, as when data are manually entered into spreadsheets or
various processing routines used for decision making.

Data errors are easily generated; a misplaced decimal, typographical error


or erroneous map datum can relegate well data to a new geographical
province, redraw the boundary of a field, change the structure of a
productive horizon or alter a completion strategy.

The information technology industry has devised a systematic


methodology to address oilfield data quality and validation issues.

IFP

10

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Methodology overview

Data Quality Management


The DQM methodology relies on six basic criteria, or measurement
categories, to evaluate data quality:
Validity: do the data make sense, honour science and corporate standards?
Completeness: does the client have all of the required data?
Uniqueness: are there duplicate items in the same data store?
Consistency: do the attributes of each item agree between data sources?
Audit: has an item been modified, added or deleted?
Data changes: have any attributes of an item been modified?

IFP

These measurement categories translate into business rules for


assessing the data.

11

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Key features
Field basis match:

Faults
Aquifer
Global permeability scaling
Vertical Transmissivities

Well by well match:


Local Transmissivities X, Y, Z

IFP

Relative permeabilities endpoint scaling (Swi, Sor)


Local PI and skin

12

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Key features
Late

well behaviour correspond to area far from the wells

Do not limit your analysis close to the wells to match late production
time reservoir parameters

Early

Concentrate on well data to match early production times local


parameters

Flow

well behaviour correspond to area close to the wells:

directions are not correct if pressure is not matched:

Do not try to match in saturation if you are not matched in pressure

Modification

Try to anticipate model reactions by using simple calculations


Do not introduce new parameters without a look back to geologists &
geophysicians.

IFP

of matching parameters:

13

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Key features

Field basis match


Global

patterns of:

Production rates
Water cut

Cumulate production
Reservoir pressure

IFP

14

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Key features

Well by well match


Oil production rate and cumulated oil
production

IFP

Water cut

15

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Key features

Well by well match

Relative permeability

Relative permeability

of water

of oil

IFP

Time = 0

16

Time = 0

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 days

Time = 0

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days

Time = 12,000 days

0.25

0.5

Time = 4000 days

Time = 8000 daysTime = 12,000 days

Kro

Krw

ITB
-0.225
Reservoir0.45
Simulation
0
0.675Course,
0.9 Bandung

Oil saturation

So
0.75

1.0

0.2

0.4Frebruary,
0.6 0.8 2009
1.0

Matching parameters

17

Volumes originally in place, Pc

Aquifer dimensioning

Faults modelling

Pore and fluid compressibility

Flow rates match:

Relative permeabilities

Transmissivities

Skin

PI

WCT and GOR:

Relative permeabilities

Transmissivities

Water and gas breakthrough:

IFP

Pressure match:

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Relative permeabilities end points

Transmissivities
Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match

Material balance

Objective: Get a correct evolution with time of the average reservoir pressure.
Pressure match is an adjustment of the reservoir energy balance between:
Volumes originally in place
Aquifer activity

Pore and fluid compressibility

The material balance should address the whole reservoir voidage (no material
balance per fluid at surface conditions). The total fluid withdrawal at reservoir
conditions (reservoir voidage) is:

IFP

Qres Qo Bo Qg Bg Rs Qo Bg Qw Bw

18

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match
Material balance

The data origin is mainly from build-up tests and or from RFT surveys run in
new wells.

Reservoir pressure deducted from DST need to be compared with an


average pressure calculated from the well surrounding cells and the well
block.

It is usual to calculate an average pressure from 5 grid cells (areal model)


weighed by the respective pore volumes (BP5 in summary section).

IFP

19

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match

Diffusivity equation
Objective: Get a correct evolution of reservoir pressure versus time and
space.
Diffusivity equation:

2 P 2 P 2 (P g z)
K P

x 2 y 2
z 2
f c t

Main parameters:
hydraulic diffusivity, K/(f..c)
permeability, K

fluid viscosity,
porosity, f
total compressibility, c
IFP

20

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match

Well's representation
Objective: Get a correct relationship between flow rate, reservoir pressure
and bottom hole flowing pressure.
Main parameters:

Numerical productivity index or connection factor (CF):

CFwell

Drainage area properties:

Transmissivity distribution

Transfer functions: relative permeability and capillary pressure

IFP

2 K h
ln( ro / rw ) S

21

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match

Well's representation

IFP

Objective: Get a correct relationship between flow rate, reservoir pressure


and bottom hole flowing pressure.

22

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match

Well's representation
Comparison between well cell pressure and BHP:

INSTANTANEOUS PRESSURE PROFILE

IFP

PRESSURE & FLOW RATE HISTORY

23

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match
Aquifer activity

A preliminary study with a MB software is necessary to run the aquifer


match. The expected result is the aquifer volume plus its permeability.

The aquifer volume is to be reproduced in the reservoir model with aquifer


cells or analytical functions.

Aquifer activity needs to be adjusted in order to reproduce the field observed


reservoir pressure history.

The reservoir model production history is run with all the producing wells
governed by the "reservoir voidage" option.

IFP

24

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Pressure match
Fault modelling

Fault modelling: Only faults with influence in the zone of interest


are modeled.
definition
transmissivity

IFP

25

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


During the pressure match procedure, production rates are not
honoured.

Simulation is now run by setting the oil rate for producers so bottom hole
flowing pressure, gas and water rates are calculated by the simulator.

The phase rate matching consists of adjusting the calculated GOR and
WCT to the field measured values.

To honour the relationships between reservoir pressure, BHFP and


phase rates, PI need to be adjusted. This is accomplished by applying
multiplication factors to the well perforation connection values: MULTPI.

IFP

26

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


Main parameters:
Permeabilities Transmissivities.

Permeability barriers (i.e. faults)

Relative permeabilities: shape and endpoints.

IFP

27

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match

Relative phase permeabilities


Water

cut (WCT): water oil ratio

Water

breakthrough (WBT): water production starts associated

to Swi

IFP

Early water breakthrough


impacted by rock-type effects
kr curves

28

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match

IFP

Relative phase permeabilities

29

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


Endscale option

Objectives
Modify relative permeabilty tables in an easy way, kr tables are normalized and
remain always the same, only the end-points are changed and kr curves are then
recalculated.

IFP

It's a useful option in History Match simulations.

30

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


keywords

KRO: Maximum oil relative


permeability
KRORW: Oil relative permeability at
critical water saturation Swcr
KRWR: Water relative permeability
at residual oil saturation (1-Sowcr)
KRW: Maximum water relative
permeability
SWL: Connate water saturation
SWCR: Critical water saturation
SOWCR: Residual oil saturation

IFP

SWU: Maximum water saturation

31

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match

If the 3-points scaling is to be used, add in the PROPS section:

SCALECRS

IFP

YES /

32

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


If the 2-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:

IFP

If the 3-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:

33

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match


Example 1

1,00

0,90

0,80

SWL= 0.24

0,70

SWCR= 0.35
Kr

0,60

0,50

krw un-scaled

0,40

kro un-scaled
Krw 2-point scaling

0,30

krw 3-point scaling


kro 2-point scaling

0,20

kro 3-point scaling

IFP

0,10

34

0,00
0
ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Sw

0,6

0,7
0,8
Frebruary, 2009

0,9

Flow rates match


Example 2

1,00

0,90

0,80

SWL= 0.20
0,70

SWCR= 0.25
Kr

0,60

0,50

0,40

krw un-scaled
kro un-scaled

0,30

Krw 2-point scaling


krw 3-point scaling

0,20

kro 2-point scaling


kro 3-point scaling

0,10

0,00
IFP

35

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Sw

0,6

0,7

0,8

Frebruary, 2009

0,9

Flow rates match

Water breakthrough

Matching breakthrough times is a difficult task.


Breakthrough times are sensitive to truncation errors (numerical dispersion)
and the accurate matching requires finer grid than normally necessary.
Using a LGR is a possibility to the use of pseudo-relative permeabilities can
help.

IFP

An unsuccessful attempt for a match indicates that some of the basic


assumptions of the model (geology, structure, volumes, extensions, PVT
behaviour, energy balance between initial hydrocarbon in place and aquifer
activity) may have to be revised.

36

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match

IFP

Water breakthrough

37

Cumulated Water (bubble diagram from OFM)


ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Flow rates match

Water breakthrough

The gridding techniques include local gridding (LGRs) for the creation of small cells
around wells for improved resolution, useful to match the water breakthrough and
water cut when conning effects are present.

IFP

LGR

38

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Uncertainty contributions
interpretation
Geological interpretation
Well production allocation
Observed data (bottom hole pressures, well logs, etc.)
Fluid models
Simulation grid accuracy (e.g. fault juxtapositions), orientation, etc.
General poor control outside the main reservoir structure (aquifer
support etc.)

IFP

Seismic

39

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Uncertainty contributions

IFP

Uncertainty in predictions

40

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Uncertainty contributions
Uncertainty in predictions

Take a look at the figure below looking at the range of possible production from the same
development plan but using differently history matched models.

IFP

The range of possible outcomes is wide.


Are you drilling in areas that have a much higher risk than is apparent today?
Or are you perhaps missing out on developments that have potential?

41

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

History match

IFP

Importance

42

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Well controls: history match


Main Controls
In

history Matching, observed average rates are known; controls


are simple.
tables are introduced at the end of history matching process
to ensure the continuity between matching runs (set measured Q)
and prediction runs (limit THP).

IFP

VFP

43

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

History Match

IFP

ECLIPSE keywords

44

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well definition & controls: SCHEDULE Section
SCHEDULE
--restart results
RPTRST
--well specification and completion
WELSPECS
COMPDAT
--production constraints in history match
WCONHIST

IFP

--timestep management and tolerance criteria


TUNING

45

DATES
1 'AUG' 2008 /
/
END
ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well definitions
WELSPECS: General specification data for wells
WELSPECS
-- 1
2
--name group
P1 'PROD'
/

3
i
20

4
j
7

5
6
BHP_ref_dep phase
2500
'OIL'

Well P1 belongs to group PROD


Well head is at i=20, j=7
BHP reference depth of 2500. Defaults to depth of top-most connection
OIL is the preferred phase (used only for PI output)
Other items can usually be defaulted
IFP

46

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT: Well completion specification data
COMPDAT
-- 1
2 3
--name i j
P1 20 7
/

4
k1
3

5
k2
8

6
7,8
9
10
status
diameter
'OPEN' 2*
0.15
1*

11
skin
2 /

Well P1 is completed in layers 3 to 8 of colum i=20, j=7


The well bore diameter is 0.15 m and the skin is +2
Eclipse will compute the connection factor using the Peaceman formula:

IFP

for a vertical well


using kh values of the completed cells

47

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT
-- 1
2
--name i
P1 20
P1 20
P1 20
P1 20
/

3
j
7
7
6
6

4
k1
3
4
4
5

5
k2
3
4
4
5

6
status
'OPEN'
'OPEN'
'OPEN'
'OPEN'

7
1*
1*
1*
1*

8
CF
23.47
6.14
8.25
94.70

9
10 11 12
13
diam kh skin
direction
0.15
/
0.15
/
0.15
/
0.15 520.3 2 1*
Z /

P1 is a deviated well crossing columns (20,7) and (20,6) completed in layers


3 to 5
The CF have been calculated in SCHEDULE application and input in item 8

IFP

48

the well bore diameter must be given


kh, skin and direction of penetration may be given for information as in the last
line above

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Modify Connection Factors
WPIMULT: Multiplies well connection factors by a given value within
local grids
WPIMULT
--name factor
P1
2.0
/
'P2'
0.5
4
/

25

Multiplies all the connection factors of well P1 by 2.0


Multiplies the connection factor of the completion of well P2 in cell (4,25,6)
by 0.5

IFP

49

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well control
WCONHIST:

Specific to production wells in history matching


Sets the observed rates, per phase, in surface conditions
Calculates the production rate depending on the chosen control mode

WHISTCTL:

Allows to change only the control mode; for example, to pass from a
reservoir rate control to a surface oil rate control

WCONINJH:

keywords can be created with SCHEDULE application.

IFP

This

for injection wells

50

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well control

IFP

WCONHIST
-- 1
2
3
--name status control
P1 'OPEN' 'RESV'
/

51

4
Qos
255

5
6
7
8
9
10
Qws Qgs VFP Qgl THPobs BHPobs
15 1000 0
1*
1*
150 /

items:
2: choice between 'OPEN' (default), 'SHUT' & 'STOP' (allows cross flow)
3: choice between 'ORAT' 'WRAT' 'GRAT' 'LRAT' 'RESV'
4,5,6: observed surface rates used in the calculation of the constraint with respect to the
control mode stated in 3 and/or to be compared to simulated rates (i.e. WWCT versus
WWCTH)
7: VFP table number used in the calculation of tubing head pressure, otherwise 0
9: observed value of THP copied in the file .UNSMRY (WTHPH) to be compared to the
calculated value
10: observes value of pressure (flowing, static, build-up...) copied in the file .UNSMRY
(WBHPH) to be compared to the calculated value.
ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well control: remarks
Avoid using 'OPEN' with nil rates when wells are shut
'RESV' control is recommended for pressure matching

the equivalent reservoir rate is calculated from the surface flow rates at the
average pressure of the region stated in WELSPECS

QT , fond Qws Bw Qos Bo Qgs Bg Rs Qos Bg

Bottom hole pressure limit

default = 1 bar
it may be changed using WELTARG after the first WCONHIST for the well

In item 10, a reservoir pressure can be given (static, build-up) to be


compared to the calculated pressure WBP or WBP9
SUMMARY section

IFP

WOPRH, WWCTH, WBHPH.... keywords represent the observed values to be


compared to the calculated values WOPR, WWCT, WBHP....
Not a default output

52

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well control

WHISTCTL: Influences the control of all HM wells. During history


matching, it allows to override the control mode set in subsequent
WCONHIST keywords
WHISTCTL
-- 1
2
--new status
ORAT

BHP action
'NO'
/

item
1: choice between 'ORAT 'WRAT' 'GRAT' 'LRAT' 'RESV' 'NONE'
2: action if the bottom hole limit pressure is reached:

IFP

'YES' : run stop


'NO' : wells controlled by bottom hole pressure (default)

53

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords
Well control for injectors
WCONINJH
-- 1
2
3
4
--name phase
status Qinj
I1 'WATER' 'OPEN' 1000
/

5
6
7
8
BHPobs THPobs VFP Rs/Rv
1*
300
2
1* /

IFP

items:
2: choice between 'WATER' 'GAS' 'OIL'
3: choice between 'OPEN' (default), 'SHUT', 'STOP' (allows cross flow)
4: observed injection rate
5,6: observed BHP and THP
7: VFP table number
8: gas concentration in the injected oil or condensate concentration in the injected gas

54

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Eclipse keywords

Well control (optional)

WELTARG: Resets a target or limit value defined in WCONHIST or


WCONINJH

For production wells: BHP, VFP table or gas lift quantity:

WELTARG
P1 'BHP'

100

For injection wells: injection rate value or BHP:

WELTARG
I1 'WRAT'

1000

IFP

WSALT, WTRACER: Define salt or tracers concentration (for injection


wells)

55

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Exercise

IFP

History Match

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Introduction to Rhombo case

Geometry

Petrophysics

IFP

57

Relative permeability and capillary derived from SCAL analysis

Aquifer activity

Initial pressure = 250 bars at 2000 m TVDSS


Water-Oil contact assumed at 2160 m TVDSS

Saturation functions

PVT properties derived from fluid analysis

Initial state

Porosity and permeability derived from cores


KH derived from well test

Fluid properties

Top reservoir at 1960 m TVDSS


Reservoir thickness of 50 m

Unknown

Production data

Well P3 put into production during 4 years

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case

IFP

Top of the reservoir

58

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Geometry x-z cross section

IFP

P3

59

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Reservoir layering

Net thickness
(m)

Net porosity
(%)

Net permeability
(mD)

Phi x H
(m)

KH
(mD.m)

6,6

19,9

63,4

1,31

418

5,9

17,5

3,2

1,03

19

7,8

20,1

92,7

1,57

728

8,6

20,7

200,8

1,78

1687

8,8

21,5

473,0

1,89

4176

Well

37,7

20,1

62,1

7,59

7028

IFP

Layer

60

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Fluid properties

Oil properties

Gas properties

Stock tank oil density = 849,7 kg/m3


Gas solution factor = 124,1 m3/m3 @ Psat
Saturation pressure = 220 bara
Oil volume factor = 1,153 vol/vol @ Psat
Compressibility = 0,5 x 10-4 bar-1 (under saturated)
Viscosity = 1,20 cP @ Psat
Stock tank oil density = 0,9 kg/m3
Gas volume factor = 0,0059 rm3/m3 @ 220 bara
Viscosity = 0,026 cP @ 220 bara

Water properties

IFP

Water density = 1000,5 kg/m3


Formation volume factor = 1,01 vol/vol @ 250 bara
Compressibility = 0,44 x 10-4 bar-1
Viscosity = 0,481 cP

61

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

IFP

Rhombo case: oil PVT functions

62

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

IFP

Rhombo case: gas PVT functions

63

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

IFP

Rhombo case: W/O SCAL

64

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

IFP

Rhombo case: G/O SCAL

65

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

IFP

Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation

66

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation

Internal radius: ri = 3710 m

Aperture: q = 15,4

Compressibility: Caquifer = Cr + Cw = 10-4 bar-1

Petrophysics:
Net thickness
(m)

Net porosity
(%)

Net permeability
(mD)

Phi x H
(m)

KH
(mD.m)

6,6

19,9

21,1

1,31

139

5,9

17,5

1,1

1,03

7,8

20,1

31,1

1,57

243

8,6

20,7

65,4

1,78

562

8,8

21,5

158,2

1,89

1392

Total

37,7

20,1

62,1

7,59

2343

IFP

Layer

67

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: issues to investigate


Fluids

Calculate oil and gas compressibility in reservoir conditions

Saturation

Calculate w/o & g/o mobility ratio in reservoir conditions

Initial

state

Calculate water oil transition height

Natural

depletion

Calculate the contribution of rock compaction & fluid expansion to


reservoir voidage

Look

at ECLIPSE results

Calculate the OOIP, oil recovery, oil production, GOR, WCT vs time
with no aquifer, infinite aquifer, numerical aquifer.

IFP

functions

68

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: History Match


History

match will be attempted on the Rhombo case


Production data to match are:

Oil production

Water production

Water breakthrough time & water cut rise after WBT

Gas production

Cumulative oil production

Gas breakthrough time & GOR rise after GBT

Reservoir pressure
Average reservoir pressure & bottom hole flowing pressure

IFP

69

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: History Match

Possible

Aquifer volume
Permeability in the lowest layer
Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio
Maximum water relative permeability

IFP

matching parameters:

70

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Matching parameters


Aquifer

volume

Adjusted with a PV multiplier in the outer cells

Permeability

Adjusted with a TX multiplier

Kv/Kh

anisotropy ratio

Adjusted with PERMZ/PERMX ratio

Maximum

water relative permeability

Adjusted with relative permeability curves

IFP

in the lowest layer

71

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Matching parameters

Uncertainty ranges for matching parameters are:

Aquifer volume

Permeability in the lowest layer

Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0

Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio

Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells

Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01

Maximum water relative permeability


Use a krw max between 0,2 and 0,4

IFP

72

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Matching parameters

Run 0 will correspond to the following data:

Aquifer volume

Permeability in the lowest layer

TX multiplier set to 1,0

Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio

PV multiplier set to 50 in the outer cells

Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio set to 0,05

Maximum water relative permeability


krw max set to 0,3

IFP

73

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Production data P3


WCT
(%)

GOR
(m3/m3)

WBHP
(bar)

Cumulative oil
(Mm3)

FPR (bar)

01/01/03

750

0,0

124

230,0

0,001

253,4

01/07/03

750

0,0

125

193,1

0,114

233,1

01/01/04

750

0,0

127

187,1

0,274

226,0

01/07/04

750

0,0

131

182,6

0,388

223,2

01/01/05

750

0,0

139

177,7

0,542

219,4

01/07/05

750

0,0

150

171,2

0,648

216,5

01/01/06

750

1,3

170

154,5

0,794

212,3

01/07/06

750

10,1

188

120,6

0,895

208,9

01/01/07

750

19,9

214

96,7

1,007

204,1

IFP

Liquid rate
(m3/d)

74

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: History Match


Work to do... first part

Simulate run 0 and perform the following sensitivity tests:

Aquifer volume

Permeability in the lowest layer

Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01

Maximum water relative permeability

Use a krw max between 0,2 and 0,4

For each simulation

Identify main production mechanisms during production history

Look at the main parameters linked to these mechanisms

Draw some conclusions

IFP

Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0

Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio

Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells

75

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: History Match


Work to do... first part

By looking at the sensitivity runs

By relating these parameters to production mechanisms

Give new ranges for these two parameters

To take into account the results of this first screening

To prepare a second screening

IFP

Identify the two most influent parameters

76

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: Sensitivity runs


Layer 5
MULTX

Kv/Kh

krw max

0 run 0

50

1,0

0,05

0,30

1 low Aq

1,0

0,05

0,30

2 high Aq

100

1,0

0,05

0,30

3 low TX

50

0,2

0,05

0,30

4 high TX

50

2,0

0,05

0,30

5 low kv/kh

50

1,0

0,01

0,30

6 high kv/kh

50

1,0

0,10

0,30

7 low krw

50

1,0

0,05

0,20

8 high krw

50

1,0

0,05

0,40

MATCH

Cum.
Oil
Mm3

Final
Lrate
m3/d

Final
BHP
bar

WBT
years

Final
WCT
%

Final
GOR
m3/m3

IFP

Aquifer
MULTPV

77

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009

Rhombo case: History Match


Work to do... second part

To define a new run 0 and basic sensitivity tests

Update the ECLIPSE data file

Simulate the new run 0 and launch new sensitivity tests to


complete the second screening

Try to explore as much as possible all the possible cases

Try to anticipate model reactions before launching a new


simulation

Give values of the 4 parameters corresponding to your best match

IFP

Use first screening simulations

78

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Frebruary, 2009