Advertisement

Introduction to Model Upscaling, Validation and History Match

  • Y. Z. Ma
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents model upscaling, validation and history match. Upscaling is necessary when a reservoir model is made at a very fine scale, and its cell count is excessively large for dynamic simulators. Many geocellular models range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of cells and cannot be simulated numerically in a reasonable time with the current mathematical algorithms and computing technology. The main principle of upscaling is the accurate representation of the fine-scaled model by the upscaled model, including the preservation of volumetrics and the equivalencies in flow and production profile between the fine and coarse models.

The ultimate utility for a reservoir model is its usability for performance prediction. Matching the past production data by the reservoir model is the most critical step for the model to face the reality. This is termed history match and it is an ill-posed inverse problem with no unique solution. Therefore, emphasis should be put on multidisciplinary integration in building the model and scientific methods of validation instead of large modifications of the model for the sake of matching historical data.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Xu Zhang is with Schlumberger based in Houston, Texas. Y. Zee Ma is with Schlumberger based in Denver, Colorado. Renyi Cao is with China University of Petroleum (Beijing).

References

  1. Alpak, F. O., van Kats, F., & Hohl, D. (2009). Stochastic history matching of a deepwater turbidite reservoir. Paper SPE119030 presented at the SPE reservoir simulation symposium, 2–4 February, The Woodlands, TX.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. J., & Corey, A. T. (1964). Hydraulic properties of porous media: Hydrol (Paper 3). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  3. Cancelliere, M., Verga, F., & Viberti, D. (2011). Benefits and limitations of assisted history matching. Paper SPE 146278, proceedings of SPE offshore Europe oil and gas conference and exhibition, 6–8 September, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, H., Dehghani, K., & Billiter, T. C. (2008). A structured approach for probabilistic-assisted history matching using evolutionary algorithms: Tengiz field applications. Paper SPE 116212, proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 21–24 September, Denver, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Devegowda, D., & Gao, C. (2011). Reservoir characterization and uncertainty assessment using the ensemble Kalman filter: Application to reservoir development. In Y. Z. Ma & P. LaPointe (Eds.), Uncertainty analysis and reservoir modeling (Vol. 96, pp. 235–248). Tulsa: AAPG Memoir.Google Scholar
  6. Ertekin, T., Abou-Kassem, J. H., & King, G. R. (2001). Basic applied reservoir simulation (Vol. 7). Richardson: Textbook Series, SPE.Google Scholar
  7. Fanjul, J. P., & Vicente, M. G. (2013). Reservoir connectivity evaluation and upscaled model screening using streamline simulation. Paper SPE 164312, proceedings of SPE middle east oil and gas show and conference, 10–13 March, Manama, Bahrain.Google Scholar
  8. Gilman, J. R., & Ozgen, C. (2013). Reservoir simulation: History matching and forecasting. Richardson: SPE.Google Scholar
  9. King, M. J., Burn, K. S., Wang, P., Muralidharan, V., Alvarado, F., Ma, X., & Data-Gupta, A. (2005). Optimal coarsening of 3D reservoir models for flow simulation (SPE paper 95759).Google Scholar
  10. Lake, L. W., & Srinivasan, S. (2004). Statistical scale-up of reservoir properties: concepts and applications. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ma, Y. Z., Gomez, E., Young, T. L., Cox, D. L., Luneau, B., & Iwere, F. (2011). Integrated reservoir modeling of a Pinedale tight-gas reservoir in the Greater Green River Basin, Wyoming. In Y. Z. Ma & P. La Pointe (Eds.), Uncertainty analysis and reservoir modeling. Tulsa: AAPG Memoir 96.Google Scholar
  12. Mattax, C. C., & Dalton, R. L. (1990). Reservoir simulation (Vol. 13). Richardson: Monograph Series, SPE.Google Scholar
  13. Oliver, D. S., & Chen, Y. (2011). Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review. Computational Geosciences, 15, 185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-010-9194-2.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Saleri, N. G., & Toronyi, R. M. (1988). Engineering control in reservoir simulation: Part I (Paper SPE 18305). In Proceedings of the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 2–5 October, Houston, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Samantray, A. K., Dashti, Q. M., Ma, E. D. C., & Kumar, P. S. (2003). Upscaling and 3D streamline screening of several multi-million cell earth models for flow simulation (Paper SPE 81496). In Proceedings of the 2003 SPE 13th middle east oil show & conference. Bahrain.Google Scholar
  16. Schulze-Riegert, R. W., Axmann, J. K., Haase, O., Rian, D. T., & You, Y.-L. (2001). Optimization methods for history matching of complex reservoirs. (Paper SPE 66393). In Proceedings of SPE reservoir simulation symposium, 11–14 February, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  17. Tarek, A. (2006). Reservoir engineering handbook (3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 1376p.Google Scholar
  18. Williams, M. A., Keating, J. F., & Barghouty, M. F. (1998). The stratigraphic method: A structured approach to history matching complex simulation models. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1(02), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Z. Ma
    • 1
  1. 1.SchlumbergerDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations