Advertisement

History matching and uncertainty quantification for velocity dependent relative permeability parameters in a gas condensate reservoir

  • Zohreh Dermanaki Farahani
  • Mohammad AhmadiEmail author
  • Mohammad Sharifi
Original Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

In gas condensate reservoirs, gas flow at large velocities enhances the gas permeability due to gas-liquid positive coupling which results in near-miscible flow condition. On the other hand, augmented pressure drop due to non-Darcy flow, reduces the gas permeability. Models for the “Positive Coupling” or “non-Darcy flow” include several parameters, which are rarely known from reliable lab special core analysis. We offer a good alternative for tuning of these parameters in which the observed production history data are reproduced from the readjusted simulation model. In this study, history matching on observed production data was carried out using evolutionary optimization algorithms including genetic algorithms, neighborhood algorithm, differential evolution algorithm and particle swarm optimization algorithm, where a faster convergence and lower misfit value were obtained from a genetic algorithm. Then, the “Neighborhood Algorithm–Bayes” was used to perform Bayesian posterior inference on the history matched models and create the posterior cumulative probability distributions for all uncertain parameters. Finally, Bayesian credible intervals for production rate and wellhead pressure were computed in the long-range forecast. Our new approach enables to not only calibrate the gas effective permeability parameters to dynamic reservoir data, but allows to capture the uncertainty with parameter estimation and production forecast.

Keywords

History matching Uncertainty quantification Velocity dependent relative permeability Gas condensate reservoirs Optimization algorithm 

References

  1. Bush M, Carter J (1996) Application of A Modified Genetic Algorithm to Parameter Estimation in the Petroleum Industry. Intelligent Engineering Systems through Artificial Neural Networks (6), pp 397–402Google Scholar
  2. Chen HL, Monger TG et al (1995) Determination of relative permeability and recovery for North Sea gas reservoir. SPE 30769Google Scholar
  3. Christie M, Macbeth C, Subbey S (2002) Multiple history matched models for teal south, The Leading Edge, March, pp 286–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Danesh A, Henderson GD, Peden JM (1991) Experimental investigation of critical condensate saturation and its dependence on interstitial water saturation in water-wet rocks, SPE-19695-PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, New York, NY, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  6. ECLIPSE Simulation Software Manuals 2010.1 (2010) ECLIPSE Technical Description, SchlumbergerGoogle Scholar
  7. Erbas D (2007) Sampling Strategies for Uncertainty Quantification in Oil Recovery Prediction, PHD thesis, Heriot Watt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez J, Echeverria D, Mukerji T (2009) Application of particle swarm optimization to reservoir modeling and inversion, IAMG09 conference, Stanford University, pp 23–28Google Scholar
  9. Frooqnia A (2014) Numerical Simulation and Interpretation of Borehole Fluid-Production Measurements, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  10. Frooqnia A, A-Pour R, Torres-Verdín C, Sepehrnoori K (2011) “Numerical simulation and interpretation of production logging measurements using a new coupled wellbore-reservoir model”, paper VV presented at SPWLA 52nd international logging symposium. Colorado Springs, Colorado, pp 14–18Google Scholar
  11. Frooqnia A, Pishvaie MR, Aminshahidy B (2014) Real-time optimization of a natural gas lift system with a differential evaluation method. Energy Sources Journal, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 36(3):309–322.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2010.540631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (1995) Bayesian data analysis, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hajizadeh Y (2011) Population-Based Algorithms for Improved History Matching and Uncertainty Quantification of Petroleum Reservoirs, PHD thesis, Heriot Watt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Ham, J.D. and Eilerts, C.K.(1967) Effect of saturation on mobility of low liquid-vapor ratio fluids, SPEJ 11–19.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson GD, Danesh A et al (1998) Measurement and correlation of gas condensate relative permeability by the steady state method. SPE 30770Google Scholar
  16. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Kathrada M (2009) Uncertainty Evaluation of Reservoir Simulation Models Using Particle Swarm and Hierarchical Clustering, PhD Thesis, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohamed L, Christie M, Demyanov V (2009) Comparison of stochastic sampling algorithms for uncertainty quantification, SPE 119139, Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2–4 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  19. Mott R, Cable A et al (2000a) Measurements and simulation of inertial and high capillary number flow phenomena in gas-condensate relative permeability. SPE 62932Google Scholar
  20. Mott R, et al (2000b) Measurements of relative permeability for calculations gas condensate well deliverability, SPE–68050–PAGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicotra G, Godi A, Cominelli A, Christie M (2005) Production data and uncertainty quantification: A real case study”, SPE 93280, reservoir simulation symposium, Houston, USA, 31 January-2 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliver DS, Reynolds AC, Liu N (2008) Inverse theory for petroleum reservoir characterization and history matching, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rotondi M, Nicotra G, Godi A, Contento F, Blunt M, Christie M (2006) Hydrocarbon production forecast and uncertainty quantification: A field application, SPE 102135, Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, San Antonio, USA, 24–27 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  24. Sambridge M (1999a) Geophysical inversion with a Neighbourhood algorithm, part 1: searching parameter space. Geophys J Int 138:479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sambridge M (1999b) Geophysical inversion with a Neighbourhood algorithm - II appraising the ensemble. Geophys J Int 138:727–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Storn R, Price K (1995) Differential evolution – A simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, technical report for international computer science institute, Berkeley, TR-95-012Google Scholar
  27. Valjak M [2008] History Matching and Forecasting with Uncertainty, Challenges and Proposed Solutions for Real Life Field Application, PhD Thesis, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot Watt University, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  28. Watson AT et al (1986) A new algorithm for automatic history matching production data. SPE 15228Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations