SPE 164903

Produced Water Chemistry History Matching in the Janice Field

O. Vazquez1, C. Young2, V. Demyanov1, D. Arnold1, A. Fisher2, A. MacMillan2, Mike Christie1; 1Heriot-Watt

University, 2Maersk Oil

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 1013 June 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Produced Water Chemistry data (PWC) is the main source of information to monitor scale precipitation in oil field
operations. Chloride concentration is used in order to evaluate the seawater fraction of the total produced water per producing
well and is included as an extra history matching constraint to revaluate a good conventionally history matched reservoir
model for the Janice field. Generally PWC is not included in conventional history matching and this approach shows the
value of considering the nature of the seawater injection front and the associated brine mixing between the distinctive
formation water and injected seawater.
Adding the extra constraint resulted in the re-conceptualization of the reservoir geology between a key injector and two
producers. The transmissibility of a shale layer is locally modified within a range of geologically consistent values. Also, a
major lineament is identified which is interpreted as a NW-SE trending fault, whereby the zero transmissibility of a
secondary shale in the Middle Fulmar is locally adjusted to allow cross-flow. Both uncertainties are consistent with the
complex faulting known to exist in the region of the targeted wells. Other uncertainties that were carried forward to the
assisted history matching phase included: water allocation to the major seawater injectors; thermal fracture orientation of
injectors and the vertical and horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh) of the Fulmar formation.
Finally, a Stochastic Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm is used to generate an ensemble of history matched
(HM) models using seawater fraction as an extra constraint in the misfit definition. Use of addition data in history matching
has improved the original good history matched solution. Field Oil Production Rate is interpreted as improved over a key
period and although no obvious improvement was observed in Field Water Production Rate, Seawater fraction in a number of
wells was improved.
Introduction
Scale precipitation is a major flow assurance problem where minerals precipitate and further nucleate on surfaces such as
production tubing, reservoir pore or pore throats, perforation intervals and surface facilities. These deposits can inhibit well
inflow and outflow performance which may result in costly well interventions, downtime or ultimately abandonment. The
sampling of produced water chemistry and wellbore monitoring surveys can however aid oilfield scale detection and its
management (Carbone et al., 1999).
One of the most common occurring oilfield scales is sulphate minerals, which form due to the mixing of formation water
(rich in cations such as Ba, Sr, Mg, Ca) and injected seawater rich in sulphate ions. Predicting the location of the front and
hence sulphate mineral deposition is an intricate process; its prediction requires accurate modelling of the seawater and
formation water mixing front and associated breakthrough time. The use of produced water chemistry, due to their clear
distinctive chemistries, has been used for seawater fraction determination in a number of techniques, such as reacting ions
method (Ishkov et al., 2009) and Multivariate Analysis (Scheck and Ross, 2008). In this particular study, Chloride ion
concentration is considered as it is one of the most common methods used in the oil industry.
Barium sulphate (barite) is relatively acid insoluble and is considered as one of the most challenging and expensive scales
to remove, where its precipitation is the result of fluid-fluid incompatibility. Pressure maintenance and secondary oil recovery
by the injection of seawater in to the reservoir is common in field development strategies and the interaction of equilibrated,
Barium (Ba2+) rich formation water, with the injected seawater rich in sulphate (SO42-), can form barium sulphate scale
(Puntervold and Austad, 2007). It is therefore favourable to predict and prevent sulphate scale by sulphate reduction prior to
injection or regular scale inhibition to prevent its occurrence rather than costly removal by well intervention or at worst,

SPE 164903

abandonment. The same is also true for the Janice field, where the formation water is rich in Calcium (Ca2+), forming an
insoluble scale with the sulphate in the injected seawater.
Conventional history matching is a standard industry practice, whereby the adjustment of physical parameters, such as the
permeability and porosity of the geological model, is made in order to replicate the production field observations. A
reasonably well matched model is a necessity for proficient reservoir management, as it is intuitive to draw confidence from
the ability of the model to replicate the past, and, therefore, use it as an aid for decisions regarding the reservoir future
performance, where associated facilities can be optimised. Bypassed or stranded oil can be targeted, and also water and gas
breakthrough time can be anticipated. This procedure of adjusting the model is generally carried out through the lifetime of a
reservoir as further data is gathered and a model continually updated to retain a match.
It is well understood that due to the limited and spatially restricted confidence in data pertaining to geologically complex
reservoirs, significant uncertainty exists in any reservoir model. It is also well understood that there is no unique solution, due
to the fact that a number of different configurations of geological parameters can yield multiple well matched models, each
with different forecasts of reservoir performance. It is therefore essential to quantify the uncertainty related to multiple well
history matched realisations (multiple local minima) of relatively geologically consistent models (Hajizadeh et al., 2010).
For the purpose of this study, particle swarm optimization (PSO) is utilised where it has been successfully shown to find
well history matched models of synthetic and real-life case-studies quickly (Mohamed et al., 2010a; Mohamed et al., 2010b),
while retaining model diversity for the purpose of uncertainty quantification of forecasts. PSO is a stochastic sampling
algorithm which is not limited to integers and therefore has the advantage over classical genetic algorithms where it samples
the complete range of variability (Arnold et al., 2012). A set of N particles, initially randomly generated and described by
laws of motion, solve the optimization problem by convergence towards the best solution an individual particle (pbest) has
seen from a population, and also the best solution from the best generation of particles (gbest). This avoids trapping in local
minima such as in conventional gradient based algorithms (Kelley, 1999).
PWC is not conventionally included in history matching, although the amount of data used is crucial to improve
conditioning of an ill-posed inverse problem. Therefore, integration of PWC data is seen as a unique opportunity to increase
the justification and confidence of the predictions based on HM models on a synthetic modified PUNQ-S3 case study. A pilot
study in (Arnold et al., 2012) showed improvement in HM with PWC. The present paper extends further the methodology
applied to a real field case.
Produced Water Chemistry (PWC)
To include the PWC in the reservoir history matching exercise, the seawater fraction was calculated as a function of the
Chloride concentration. This is a common technique, where considering Cl- is a non-reacting ion, it is expected that the
concentration of Chloride follows a linear behaviour with respect to seawater fraction (Braden et al., 1993). The linear
relationship for the mixture of seawater and formation water was determined for Chloride concentrations between the
116,950 mg/l and 19,700 mg/l endpoints, Janice formation water and seawater concentration, respectively. A schematic of
the relationship between chloride concentration and therefore historical and simulated PWC is shown below in Figure 1.
History Match Assessment of the Original Reservoir Model
Generally, conventional reservoir history matching considers parameters such as well gas rate, oil rate and bottom-hole
pressure. Other authors have proposed the inclusion of other observed data as extra constraints, such as time lapse seismic
data (Kazemi et al., 2011; Stephen et al., 2009) and PWC (Arnold et al., 2012; Huseby et al., 2005). Water is present in
sedimentary deposits where oil is found, which may dissolve minerals present in the formation, so formation waters have
distinguishable chemistry (Ishkov et al., 2009), which may be traceable. In this study, two main types of water are
considered, formation (including connate and aquifer water, as normally aquifer and formation water is assumed to have the
same chemistry) and injection water (present in water-flooding as a secondary recovery mechanism).
PWC is the main source of information for the detection of scale precipitation in oil field operations, where it is common
practice to analyse the composition of formation waters present in the reservoir and injected waters. One of the most common
scales occurring and one of the most difficult to treat is BaSO4, which is formed when seawater rich is SO4 ions mixes with
formation water, rich in Ba2+ ions. Below, an assessment of the history match exercise will be carried out. First, considering
solely observed produced water, oil and gas. Then the history matched model will be assessed using PWC, which is used to
calculate seawater fraction.
Assessment without Produced Water Chemistry - Conventional
The base case reservoir model is considered to conventionally history match against observed oil, water and gas production
rates. The resulting history matched model shows a field wide good match with respect to observed field oil production rate
(Figure 2), field water production rate (Figure 3) and field gas production rate (Figure 4. A detailed assessment of this history
matched reservoir model was reviewed by the Operator.
Assessment with Produced Water Chemistry - Seawater Fraction
To assess the value of adding PWC as an extra constraint, the observed and calculated seawater fraction is compared using
the original reservoir model, which was conventionally history matched. Three producers in particular, Wells A, B and C,

SPE 164903

showed good matches to the total water cut, however they provided poor matches to the observed seawater fraction, shown in
Figure 5, 6 and 7, respectively. The poor seawater fraction match in Well A has important implications, as the simulated
results suggest that Well A is producing ~50% seawater, but based on the observed PWC it should mainly be formation
water. Although well B showed a reasonable match to the water cut, producing solely formation water, the observed seawater
fraction is above 80% (Figure 6). Finally, Well C did not capture the seawater breakthrough time. In conclusion, the original
reservoir model did not represent adequately the water (injected and formation water) flow paths to these producers.
Therefore, a re-evaluation was required that formed the basis of geological uncertainty identification and subsequent new
parameterisation.
Reservoir Uncertainty Identification, Quantification and Parameterisation
After further investigation, two different kinds of uncertainties were identified, namely geological and water allocation.
Geological uncertainties consist of the sealing potential of two shale layers in the Middle Fulmar, thermal fracture orientation
in some of the injectors and finally the vertical and horizontal permeability ratio. Water allocation uncertainty is largely
related to the water split between injectors. A uniform distribution was chosen between the ranges of possible values for each
uncertain parameter, since each value was interpreted as equally likely and finally, to allow model diversity. The ranges were
constrained by geological or engineering evidence when available.
Geological Uncertainties
Middle Fulmar Shale Layer 1
There is uncertainty with regards to the sealing potential of a shale layer in the eastern regions of the field (Figure 8).
Considering Well B is completed above the sealing shale and the closest injector is structurally and stratigraphically lower,
there exists no significant pressure differential to encourage vertical movement of injected seawater. In order to initiate
communication the transmissibility of this sealing layer had to be adjusted. Although it did not significantly improve the
contribution of injected seawater to Well B, it had a positive effect on Well C, where an increased contribution from injected
sea water was observed during initial sensitivity runs.
Middle Fulmar Shale Layer 2
This second shale layer is located close to Well B, and prevented vertical communication with its closest injector. Adjusting
the transmissibility provided a good communication between the surrounding injectors of Well B and C. After this
adjustment, there was no significant effect on the water and oil production rates. In addition, the pressure field also remained
relatively unaltered away from this region, which was a necessity to retain good well matches at field scale.
Thermal Fracture Orientation, Length and Permeability
Due to the fact that injection is above fracture pressure, and the temperature contrast between the reservoir rock and injected
seawater, it is interpreted that induced fracture wings are present. Fracture length has been limited to data from analogue
literature and pressure fall-off data provided by the Operator. Fracture morphology may have a significant impact on the
injected water flow paths and associated well water production rates; therefore it is reasonable to consider the uncertainty in
the fracture orientation where the present day maximum stress direction is known to be variable in the region. Fractures are
assumed to only propagate in the X and Y directions to retain consistency with the original reservoir grid.
Absolute Vertical permeability, Kv/Kh
Based on the facies dependent Kv/Kh values obtained from the Reservoir Field Development Review, Kv/Kh ranges were
applied to the Upper Fulmar, Upper-Middle Fulmar, Lower-Middle Fulmar and Lower Fulmar, in order to keep a reasonable
number of parameters.
Water Allocation Uncertainties and Parameterisation
Injector A/B water split
Injected water is pumped to the seabed via a riser to a manifold. Water distribution after the manifold to individual wells
however is uncertain, which is largely due to a lack of direct injection well testing. Recent information gathered by the
Operator suggested that Injector A may take a larger fraction of the total Injector A/B water split than is currently assumed.
First considering that Injectors A and B are a significant distance apart, and second, that they provide the majority of pressure
support through the fields history and finally that these injectors are completed through the majority of the geological
formations, Injector A/B water split uncertainty could have a significant impact on the history matching results.

Injection Well Uptime and Downtime

For completeness, the injection wells uptime, downtime and plug failure records were cross-checked with the original
reservoir model schedule, which was updated accordingly.

SPE 164903

PWC History Matching and Uncertainty Quantification

Misfit definition
Choice of the misfit definition is one of the crucial tasks in history matching. A conventional misfit definition commonly
used is the least squared norm:
,,

=
,,

( )

Where W is the number of wells, V is the number of production variables and T is the number of time steps for each. This
misfit definition is then used in the likelihood model for the posterior inference, see below,
L=exp(-M)
Use of such a likelihood model implies that the model errors are independently normally distributed. However, this may
not be the case and the choice of ijk in the denominator becomes vital. Generally speaking the corresponds to the level of
confidence attached to every observation, in other words it describes how close the match is expected to approach the
observation. In this case the ijk does not correspond just to the measurement device error, but reflects the overall uncertainty
associated with the observation (e.g. due to averaging over a period of time, accumulation, allocation, calibration, etc.). A
common practice is to choose a constant ijk throughout assuming they are independent and identically distributed. This is a
statistically sound assumption. However, this is not always practical as it does not reflect larger uncertainty of higher
observed values. Another common approach is to set the value of ijk to be a fraction of the observed value (or in some
proportion to it), which inevitably leads to propagation of the correlation from the reservoir response into the match errors.
Therefore, a sensible guidance is to assess the value of ijk with the desirable match error, which can be obtained based on
engineering judgment.
Also, it is important to take into account the correlation between the errors, which is generally done through a full
covariance matrix. Autocorrelation or the error through the time steps occurs due to the imposed influence of the numerical
simulation and the periods of stationary model behaviour. Thus, correlation between the errors from one time step to another
means that the ijk are no longer independent and the impact of each single error should be mitigated by a weighting factor.
The weighting factor mitigates the impact of the mismatch from multiple history observations with correlated errors.
Statistical correlation analysis with an autocorrelations or variogram function provides a way to measure the correlation in
the errors. Figure 9 shows an absence of correlation in the errors for observations from one of the wells with the
corresponding variogram nugget behaviour. The errors for the observations from another well (see Figure 10) demonstrate
periodic correlations and its period can be measured on the variogram. Based on this information the weight for this series of
data is chosen inversely proportionate to the number of points within the correlation range.
This procedure of computing the weights is performed for all matched variables across all the production wells. It
appeared that water production error is highly correlated in all the wells, while the tracer (i.e. seawater fraction) error is
correlated only in some of the wells, leaving the error of the sparse pressure data uncorrelated. Factoring this information into
the misfit definition leads to mitigation of the influence of relatively large amounts of water production data in favour of the
tracer water production, so the value of the latter becomes more important in history matching. This technique also allows
decreasing the range of the operating misfit values from tens of thousands (for thousands of observed history data) to
hundreds.
PWC History matching
With the new updated parameterisation based on the information provided by the PWC and the misfit definition described
above, a new history matching exercise was performed including the PWC as a constraint. The same three producers, Wells
A, B and C which showed a good match to the total water cut, provided poor matches to the observed seawater fraction. The
overall match for Well A (Figure 11), is significantly improved as the observed seawater fraction and watercut is extremely
well matched. Well B is slightly better matched (Figure 12 and finally, Well C is slightly better matched, where the seawater
breakthrough time is accurately captured (Figure 13).
Uncertainty Quantification
In this section the uncertainty in oil and water production, including seawater, was predicted for the following three
producers, Wells B, D and E. These three producers would be potentially actively producing in future years in the Janice
field. The uncertainty quantification is based on multiple model realizations, which provides an ensemble of good history
matched models, which then determine the uncertainty of the well fluid production. These calculations provide a Bayesian
confidence interval (P10-P50-P90) in time for oil production, which can be used to evaluate the value of the well. Then, this
information is combined with the water production and the seawater fraction predictions to evaluate the scale risk associated

SPE 164903

with potentially valuable wells. This information could in turn be used to design the best strategy for the field development in
future years of production, where the appropriate logistics for scale management could be put in place, before scale might be
deposited in these wells. This idea builds on the approach adopted in (Mackay et al., 2005), where an integrated risk analysis
for scale management was proposed during the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) stage.
Well B is predicted to be producing oil and water at a similar rate, which is around 500 bbl/day (Figure 14). The seawater
fraction uncertainty prediction is estimated to be around 15% and increasing, although this prediction seems to be a bit low
based on the limited number of PWC history data points (Figure 15). However, based on these observations, it seems
reasonable to consider this well as a potential candidate for scale deposition, due to the likely increase in water production
and rising seawater fraction.
Well D is predicted to be the biggest oil producer of the three with an oil rate of 500 bbl/day (Figure 16); but it is
predicted to produce around 4,000 bbls/day of water, with a predicted seawater fraction of above 40% (Figure 17). This well
is possibly the well of the three where most attention should be given, as it is the biggest oil producer, but also as it produces
more water, with a considerable predicted seawater fraction around 40%. The high volume of water and the high mixing
predicted (40-60 seawater-formation water) makes this well significantly prone for scale deposition, with the highest
saturation ratio (Vazquez et al., 2013).
Finally, Well E is predicted to produce around 200 bbls/day of oil with a very low water cut (Figure 18). This makes the
well valuable, but based on these observations, it seems that in terms of scale management this well should not be of any
major concerns considering that the predicted produced water remains entirely sourced from the formation (Figure 19).
Conclusions
PWC (Produced Water Chemistry) has been integrated into the history matching process for the Janice filed, which yields
new information regarding the nature of fluid flow and brine mixing that may otherwise remain unrepresented in the reservoir
model. A well matched reservoir model provided by the Operator was assessed using the seawater fraction, which was
calculated using the observed produced water composition. Based on the results of the assessment, a re-evaluation was
required that formed the basis of geological uncertainty identification and subsequent new parameterisation. Two different
kinds of uncertainties were identified, namely geological, including the sealing potential of two shale layers in the Middle
Fulmar, thermal fracture orientation, and water allocation between injectors. This new reservoir parameterisation provided a
slightly better overall history match based on these parameters, but also provided a methodology to generate information
about the nature of fluid flow and seawater and formation brine mixing.
Finally, the uncertainty in oil and water production, including seawater fraction was estimated. The uncertainty was
calculated using an ensemble of good HM reservoir models using the updated reservoir parameterisation, which provides a
Bayesian confidence interval (P10-P50-P90) for the production predictions. The estimated oil production was combined with
the water production and associated seawater fraction to identify valuable wells (high oil producers) which might be under
scale deposition risk should untreated seawater breakthrough. Scale risk is calculated using the water production and the
corresponding seawater fraction, where the worst scaling conditions generally occur when the seawater fraction is above
30%. This information provides very valuable information to design the best strategy for the field development, where a good
scale management strategy can be adopted.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of Maersk Oil for permission to publish this paper. We would also like to
thank Epistemy Ltd for supplying the RAVEN software for history matching and uncertainty quantification.
References
Arnold, D., Vazquez, O., Demyanov, V., and Christie, M.A., 2012. Use of Water Chemistry Data in History Matching of a Reservoir
Model. SPE 154471, presented at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition in Copenhagen, 4-7 June Denmark.
Braden, J.C., and McLelland, W.G., 1993. Produced Water Chemistry Points to Damage Mechanisms Associated With Seawater Injection.
SPE 26045.
Carbone, L.C., Fleming, N., Spark, S., and Patey, I.,1999. Scale Management Through Laboratory Analysis and Wellbore Monitoring
Surveys. SPE 54733.
Hajizadeh, Y., Christie., M., Demyanov, V., 2010. Comparative Study of Novel Poulation-Based Optimization Algorithms for History
Matching and Uncertainty Quantification: PUNQ-S3 Revisited. Prepared for the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, 1-4 November.
Huseby, O. Chatzichristos, C., Sagen, J., Muller, J., Kleven, R., Bennett, B., Larter, S., Stubos, A.K., Adler, P.M., 2005. Use of natural
geochemical tracers to improve reservoir simulation models, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 48, Issues 34,
Pages 241-253.
Ishkov, O., Mackay, E., Sorbie, K., 2009. Reacting Ions Method to Identify Injected Water Fraction in Produced Brine. SPE 121701.
Kazemi, A., Stephen, K. D., Shams, A., 2011. Seismic History Matching of Nelson Using Time-Lapse Seismic Data: An Investigation of
4D Signature Normalization. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering Vol 14, Num 5, pp. 621-633.
Kelley, C.T., 1999. Iterative methods for Optimization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Mackay, E.J., Jordan, M.M., Feasey, N.D., Shah, D., Kumar, P., Ali, S.A., 2005. Integrated Risk Analysis for Scale Management in
Deepwater Developments. SPE 94052.

SPE 164903

Mohamed, L., Christie, M., Demyanov, V., 2010a. Comparison of Stochastic Sampling Algorithms for Uncertainty Quantification.
SPE119139.
Mohamed, L., Christie, M., Demyanov, V., 2010b. Reservoir Model History Matching with Particle Swarms: Variants Study. SPE129152.
Puntervold, T., and Austad, T., 2007. Injection of Seawater and Mixtures with Produced Water Into North Sea Chalk Formation: Impact on
Wettability, Scale Formation, and Rock Mechanics Caused By Fluid-Rock Interaction. SPE 111237.
Scheck, M., Ross, G., 2008, Improvement of Scale Management Using Analytical and Statistical Tools, SPE 114103, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc.
Stephen, K. D., Shams, A., MacBeth, C., 2009. Faster Seismic History Matching in a United Kingdom Continental Shelf Reservoir. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol 12, Num. 4, pp. 586-594.
Vazquez, O., Young, C., Demyanov, V., Arnold, D., Fisher, A., MacMillan, A., Christie, M., 2013. Estimating Scale Deposition through
Reservoir History Matching in the Janice Field. SPE 164112

Figure 1: Schematic of the relationship between chloride concentration, simulated and historical tracer concentration

1
0.9

Normalised FOPR

0.8
0.7
0.6

FOPR (History)
0.5

FOPR (Original)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

12

Years
Figure 2: Field Oil Production Rate vs. Time for the Original Model and the History observed data.

SPE 164903

1
0.9

Normalised FWPR

0.8
0.7
0.6

FWPR (History)
0.5

FWPR (Original)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

12

Years
Figure 3: Field Water Production Rate vs. Time for the Original Model and the History Observed data.

1
0.9

Normalised FGPR

0.8
0.7
0.6

FGPR (History)
0.5

FGPR (Original)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

12

Years
Figure 4: Field Gas Production Rate vs. Time for the Original Model and the History observed data.

SPE 164903

Original
1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Seawater Fraction

Water Cut

WWCT Well A
WWCTH Well A
Calc %Sw Well A
Field %Sw Well A

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 5: Well A match using the Base Case reservoir model. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water
Cut History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

Original
1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Seawater Fraction

Water Cut

WWCT Well B
WWCTH Well B
Calc %Sw Well B
Field %Sw Well B

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 6: Well B match using the Base Case reservoir model. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water
Cut History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

SPE 164903

Original
1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Seawater Fraction

Water Cut

WWCT Well C
WWCTH Well C
Calc %Sw Well C
Field %Sw Well C

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 7: Well C match using the Base Case reservoir model. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water
Cut History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

Figure 8: Looking north, the position of Well A and Well B is shown relative to the Middle Fulmar sealing shale 1. The nearest
injector is located down dip to the south east, structurally lower than the shale.

a)

b)

Figure 9: (a) Error based on the initial HM and the production observations from a Janice well, (b) variogram of the errors shows
absence of temporal correlation.

10

SPE 164903

a)

b)

Figure 10: (a) Error based on the initial HM and the production observations from a Janice well, (b) variogram of the errors shows a
periodic temporal correlation with a period 350-450 lag units.

PWC History Matching

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Ion Concentration, ppm

Water Cut

WWCT Well A
WWCTH Well A
Calc %Sw Well A
Field %Sw Well A

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 11: Well A best match PWC History Matching. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water Cut
History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

SPE 164903

11

PWC History Matching

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Ion Concentration, ppm

Water Cut

WWCT WellB
WWCTH Well B
Calc %Sw Well B
Field %Sw Well B

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 12: Well B best match PWC History Matching. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water Cut
History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

PWC History Matching

Water Cut

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Ion Concentration, ppm

WWCT Well C
WWCTH Well C
Calc %Sw Well C
Field %Sw Well C

0
0

10

12

14

Years
Figure 13: Well C best match PWC History Matching. WWCT: Simulated Well Water Cut, vs. WWCTH; Observed Well Water Cut
History, Calculated Seawater Fraction vs. Observed Seawater fraction.

12

Figure 14: Well B Uncertainty Prediction: Left Oil Production Rate; Right, Water Production Rate.

Figure 15: Well B Seawater Fraction Uncertainty Prediction.

SPE 164903

SPE 164903

Figure 16: Well D uncertainty prediction: Left Oil Production Rate; Right, Water Production Rate.

Figure 17: Well D Seawater Fraction Uncertainty Prediction.

13

14

Figure 18: Well E uncertainty prediction: Left Oil Production Rate; Right, Water Production Rate.

Figure 19: Well E Seawater Fraction Uncertainty Prediction.

SPE 164903