History Match

Reservoir
Simulation
History Match
IFP
ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Reservoir Simulation
Performance of a reservoir simulation
study
Geological model
Reservoir model
Field development
History Match
Forecast
IFP

Reservoir Simulation Study
Data review
IFP

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

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

Identify available data that have to be matched

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

Workflow
INITIAL MODEL NEW GEOMODEL
MODIFICATION OF
SIMULATION RUN PARAMETERS
YES
NO
GOOD NO MODIFICATION OF
MATCH GEOMODEL
YES
FORECAST RUN
IFP

Remind
Geologist and geophysics must work hard to help the reservoir

engineer to maintain the consistency of the geological model
It
is better to have rough, consistent matching than matching
which is accurate but destroys the model
IFP

Available data
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.
IFP

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

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?
These measurement categories translate into business rules for assessing the
data.
IFP

Key features
Field basis match:

Faults
Aquifer
Global permeability scaling
Vertical Transmissivities
Well by well match:

Local Transmissivities X, Y, Z
Relative permeabilities endpoint scaling (Swi, Sor)
Local PI and skin
IFP

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 well behaviour correspond to area close to the wells:
Concentrate on well data to match early production times local
parameters
Flow directions are not correct if pressure is not matched:
Do not try to match in saturation if you are not matched in pressure
Modification of matching parameters:
Try to anticipate model reactions by using simple calculations
Do not introduce new parameters without a look back to geologists &
geophysicians.
IFP

Key features
Field basis match
Global patterns of:

Production rates
Water cut
Cumulate production
Reservoir pressure
IFP

Key features
Well by well match
Oil production rate and cumulated oil

production
Water cut
IFP

Key features
Well by well match
Relative permeability Relative permeability Oil saturation

of water of oil
Time = 0 Time = 0 Time = 4000 days Time = 0 Time = 4000 days

Time = 4000 days
IFP
Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days Time = 8000 days Time = 12,000 days
Krw Kro So

0 0.225 0.45 0.675 0.9 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Matching parameters
Pressure match:
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:
Relative permeabilities end points
Transmissivities
IFP

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:
Qres Qo Bo Qg Bg Rs Qo Bg Qw Bw
IFP

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

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 c t
Main parameters:
hydraulic diffusivity, K/(..c)
permeability, K
fluid viscosity,
porosity,
total compressibility, c
IFP

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):
2 K h
CFwell
Drainage area properties:
ln(ro / rw ) S
Transmissivity distribution
Transfer functions: relative permeability and capillary pressure
IFP

Pressure match
Objective: Get a correct relationship between flow rate, reservoir pressure
and bottom hole flowing pressure.
IFP

Pressure match
Comparison between well cell pressure and BHP:
PRESSURE & FLOW RATE HISTORY INSTANTANEOUS PRESSURE PROFILE

IFP

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

Pressure match
Fault modelling
Fault modelling: Only faults with influence in the zone of interest are
modeled.
definition
transmissivity
IFP

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

Flow rates match
Main parameters:
Permeabilities Transmissivities.
Permeability barriers (i.e. faults)
Relative permeabilities: shape and endpoints.

IFP

Flow rates match
Relative phase permeabilities
Water cut (WCT): water oil ratio
Water breakthrough (WBT): water production starts associated
to Swi
Early water breakthrough

impacted by rock-type effects
kr curves
IFP

Flow rates match
Relative phase permeabilities
IFP

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.
It's a useful option in History Match simulations.
IFP

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
SWU: Maximum water saturation
IFP

Flow rates match
If the 3-points scaling is to be used, add in the PROPS section:
SCALECRS
YES /
IFP

Flow rates match
If the 2-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:
If the 3-points scaling is used, relative permeabilities are calculated as follows:

IFP

Flow rates match
Example 1
1,00
0,90
0,80
SWL= 0.24 0,70
SWCR= 0.35
0,60
Kr
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
IFP
0,00
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Sw
Flow rates match
Example 2 1,00
0,90
0,80
SWL= 0.20
0,70
SWCR= 0.25
0,60
Kr
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
0,10 kro 3-point scaling
0,00
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
IFP
Sw
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.
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.
IFP

Flow rates match
Water breakthrough
Cumulated Water (bubble diagram from OFM)

IFP

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.
LGR
IFP

Seismic 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

Uncertainty in predictions
IFP

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.
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?
IFP

History match
Importance
IFP

Well controls: history match
Main Controls
In
history Matching, observed average rates are known; controls
are simple.
VFP 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

History Match
ECLIPSE keywords
IFP

Eclipse keywords
Well definition & controls: SCHEDULE

Section
SCHEDULE
--restart results
RPTRST
--well specification and completion

WELSPECS
COMPDAT
--production constraints in history match

WCONHIST
--timestep management and tolerance criteria

TUNING
DATES
1 'AUG' 2008 /
/
END
IFP

Eclipse keywords
Well definitions
WELSPECS: General specification data for wells
WELSPECS
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6
--name group i j BHP_ref_dep phase
P1 'PROD' 20 7 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

Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT: Well completion specification data
COMPDAT
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7,8 9 10 11
--name i j k1 k2 status diameter skin
P1 20 7 3 8 'OPEN' 2* 0.15 1* 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:
for a vertical well
using kh values of the completed cells
IFP

Eclipse keywords
Well completions
COMPDAT
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
--name i j k1 k2 status CF diam kh skin direction
P1 20 7 3 3 'OPEN' 1* 23.47 0.15 /
P1 20 7 4 4 'OPEN' 1* 6.14 0.15 /
P1 20 6 4 4 'OPEN' 1* 8.25 0.15 /
P1 20 6 5 5 'OPEN' 1* 94.70 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
the well bore diameter must be given
kh, skin and direction of penetration may be given for information as in the last
line above
IFP

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 6 /
/
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

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: for injection wells
This keywords can be created with SCHEDULE application.

IFP

Eclipse keywords
Well control
WCONHIST
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
--name status control Qos Qws Qgs VFP Qgl THPobs
BHPobs
P1 'OPEN' 'RESV' 255 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.
IFP

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
WOPRH, WWCTH, WBHPH.... keywords represent the observed values to be
compared to the calculated values WOPR, WWCT, WBHP....
Not a default output
IFP

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 BHP action
ORAT 'NO' /
item
1: choice between 'ORAT 'WRAT' 'GRAT' 'LRAT' 'RESV' 'NONE'
2: action if the bottom hole limit pressure is reached:
'YES' : run stop
'NO' : wells controlled by bottom hole pressure (default)
IFP

Eclipse keywords
Well control for injectors
WCONINJH
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
--name phase status Qinj BHPobs THPobs VFP Rs/Rv

I1 'WATER' 'OPEN' 1000 1* 300 2 1* /
/
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
IFP

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 /
WSALT, WTRACER: Define salt or tracers concentration

(for injection wells)
IFP

Exercise
History Match
IFP

Introduction to Rhombo case
Geometry
Top reservoir at 1960 m TVDSS
Reservoir thickness of 50 m
Petrophysics
Porosity and permeability derived from cores
KH derived from well test
Fluid properties
PVT properties derived from fluid analysis
Initial state
Initial pressure = 250 bars at 2000 m TVDSS
Water-Oil contact assumed at 2160 m TVDSS
Saturation functions
Relative permeability and capillary derived from SCAL analysis
Aquifer activity
Unknown
Production data
Well P3 put into production during 4 years
IFP

Rhombo case
Top of the reservoir
IFP

Rhombo case: Geometry x-z cross
section
P3
IFP

Rhombo case: Reservoir layering
Layer Net thickness Net porosity Net permeability Phi x H KH

(m) (%) (mD) (m) (mD.m)
1 6,6 19,9 63,4 1,31 418
2 5,9 17,5 3,2 1,03 19
3 7,8 20,1 92,7 1,57 728
4 8,6 20,7 200,8 1,78 1687
5 8,8 21,5 473,0 1,89 4176
Well 37,7 20,1 62,1 7,59 7028
IFP

Rhombo case: Fluid properties
Oil 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
Gas properties
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
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
IFP

Rhombo case: oil PVT functions
IFP

Rhombo case: gas PVT functions
IFP

Rhombo case: W/O SCAL
IFP

Rhombo case: G/O SCAL
IFP

Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation
IFP

Rhombo case: Aquifer simulation
Internal radius: ri = 3710 m
Aperture: = 15,4
Compressibility: Caquifer = Cr + Cw = 10-4 bar-1
Petrophysics:
Laye Net Net Net Phi x KH
r thickness porosity permeability H (m) (mD.m
(m) (%) (mD) )
1 6,6 19,9 21,1 1,31 139
2 5,9 17,5 1,1 1,03 6
3 7,8 20,1 31,1 1,57 243
4 8,6 20,7 65,4 1,78 562
5 8,8 21,5 158,2 1,89 1392
Total 37,7 20,1 62,1 7,59 2343
IFP

Rhombo case: issues to investigate
Fluids
Calculate oil and gas compressibility in reservoir conditions
Saturation functions
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

Rhombo case: History Match
Historymatch will be attempted on the Rhombo case

Production data to match are:
Oil production
Cumulative oil production
Water production
Water breakthrough time & water cut rise after WBT
Gas production
Gas breakthrough time & GOR rise after GBT
Reservoir pressure
Average reservoir pressure & bottom hole flowing pressure
IFP

Possible matching parameters:

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

Rhombo case: Matching parameters
Aquifer volume
Adjusted with a PV multiplier in the outer cells
Adjusted with a TX multiplier
Adjusted with PERMZ/PERMX ratio
Adjusted with relative permeability curves
IFP

Uncertainty ranges for matching parameters are:

Aquifer volume
Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells
Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0
Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01
Use a krw max between 0,2 and 0,4
IFP

Run 0 will correspond to the following data:

Aquifer volume
PV multiplier set to 50 in the outer cells
TX multiplier set to 1,0
Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio set to 0,05
krw max set to 0,3
IFP

Rhombo case: Production data P3
Liquid WCT GOR WBHP Cumulative FPR (bar)

rate (%) (m3/m3) (bar) oil (Mm3)
(m3/d)
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

Work to do... first part
Simulate run 0 and perform the following sensitivity tests:

Aquifer volume
Use a PV multiplier between 1 and 100 in the outer cells
Use a TX multiplier between 0,2 and 2,0
Use a Kv/Kh anisotropy ratio between 0,1 and 0,01
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

Work to do... first part
Identify the two most influent parameters

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

Rhombo case: Sensitivity runs
Aquifer Layer 5 Cum. Final Final WBT Final Final

MULTPV MULTX Kv/Kh krw max Oil Lrate BHP years WCT GOR
Mm3 m3/d bar % m3/m3
0 run 0 50 1,0 0,05 0,30
1 low Aq 1 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 ? ? ? ?
IFP

Work to do... second part
Use first screening simulations

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

History Match

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

History Match

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reservoir

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Identify available data that have to be matched

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

INITIAL MODEL NEW GEOMODEL

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Geologist and geophysics must work hard to help the reservoir

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

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

The information technology industry has devised a systematic

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

The DQM methodology relies on six basic criteria, or measurement categories,

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Field basis match:

Well by well match:

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Global patterns of:

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Oil production rate and cumulated oil

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Relative permeability Relative permeability Oil saturation

Time = 0 Time = 0 Time = 4000 days Time = 0 Time = 4000 days

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Pressure match is an adjustment of the reservoir energy balance between:

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Reservoir pressure deducted from DST need to be compared with an average

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

PRESSURE & FLOW RATE HISTORY INSTANTANEOUS PRESSURE PROFILE

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

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

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

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

During the pressure match procedure, production rates are not

To honour the relationships between reservoir pressure, BHFP and

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Permeability barriers (i.e. faults)

Relative permeabilities: shape and endpoints.

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

Early water breakthrough

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

KRO: Maximum oil relative

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

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

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

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

ITB - Reservoir Simulation Course, Bandung

SWL= 0.24 0,70

0,40 krw un-scaled

0,30 Krw 2-point scaling

0,20 kro 2-point scaling

0,10 kro 3-point scaling