CHAPTER 8

History Matching

Introduction

Comparing simulator pressure to pressure build-up data

Matching pressure history

Forcasting performance

History Matching
Introduction
One of the most common uses of reservoir simulation for field problems is for history
matching. This is a process of estimating reservoir data by finding simulator data which gives
reservoir performance similar to performance data in the field. This is sometimes called the inverse
problem. In other words, we start with the answer (field performance data) and try to define the
problem (the reservoir description). The field performance data are usually production/injection
rates and well build-up pressures.
The field performance data may be in error, of course. Sometimes this becomes a major
problem in obtaining an acceptable history match. For this discussion, however, we will assume
that the field performance data is accurate.
One principle of history matching is that a history match is not unique. That is, more than
one set of reservoir data may fit the field performance measurements with equal accuracy. This is a
mathematical conclusion which is also complicated by sparse and erroneous field performance
measurements. It becomes the responsibility of the engineer to make a judgment between the
different sets of data. In making this judgment, other sources of data should be analyzed, such as
well logs, production tests, core analysis, geological interpretation, etc.
Much work has been done on techniques for automatically matching pressure, but most
history matching is done by a trial and error approach with the engineer using analysis and
judgment to modify the reservoir data and then re-run the simulator. During this process, the
engineer is trying to match field measured pressures with simulator pressures. For single phase gas
reservoirs, the additional problem of matching water-oil ratios and gas-oil ratios is not present.

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Comparing simulator pressure to pressure build-up data

It is possible to match bottom-hole flowing pressure, pwf. However, that data is usually not
available and is also not very reliable because of possible inaccuracies in rate data. It is more
common and much more reliable to match pressure build-up data when it is available. The problem
is how to match the pressure build-up data. The time scale of the pressure build-up test is usually
too short to model accurately with a field scale grid because the gridblocks are too large.
Peaceman2 has provided a method for comparing simulator gridblock pressures to pressure
build-up pressure. Fig. 1 shows a profile of pressure in a gridblock containing a producing well.
The pressure profile is assumed to be at pseudo-steady state. It is seen that the gridblock pressure
(the material balance average pressure inside the gridblock) is somewhere between pwf and the
average reservoir pressure. Fig. 2 shows the corresponding pressure build-up curve from field data.
The gridblock pressure corresponding to the proper field build-up pressure lies on the semi-log
straight line at time of to which is calculated by the following equation:
67.5 ct x 2
k

t o (hrs) =

(1)

The "match pressure", po corresponds to the steady state pressure at 0.2 x which was used
in the expression of "transmissibility". If po is the same as the gridblock pressure, pi,j, then the
simulator is properly matching field behavior.

wellbore
p

wellbore
gridblock

po
p - p wf

p wf

p o p wf

Fig. 1 - Pressure profile in a gridblock containing a producing well

Chapter 8 - History Matching

2940

2920

2900
ps (psi)

po = 2872 psi
2880

2860

to = 0.8746 hrs

2840
0.1

10

100

1000

Log t (hrs)

Fig. 2 - Pressure build-up curve for example problem 4

Example 1. Calculation of "Match Pressure" from a Pressure

Build-up Test.

Problem.

Find the "match pressure" from the following field pressure build-up test.
q
k

ct

= 23,000 scf/D
= 0.15 md
= 0.18
= 5 x 10-6 psi-1

Shut-in time Build-up pressure

t
ps
(hrs)
(psia)
___________
__________
0.10
2854.5
0.23
2861.5
0.39
2865.5
0.84
2871.5
1.56
2875.6
3.50
2881.0
7.38
2886.2
4

Chapter 8 - History Matching

15.11
30.53
61.31
122.72
245.24
489.71
840.00
Model data:

2891.0
2895.5
2900.0
2904.1
2907.1
2909.3
2910.4

= 100 ft

Solution. The solution follows these simple steps: (1) plot the build-up data on a log t plot, (2)
draw a "semi-log straight line", (3) calculate to, and (4) find po at to on the "semi-log straight
line". This is the "match pressure" which will be compared to the simulator gridblock pressure at
the time of the pressure build-up test.
Fig. 2 shows the field build-up data plotted on a semi-log plot. The match pressure is found
by calculating to as follows:
to =

(67.5)(0.18)(0.0216)(5x 10 -6 )( 100 2 )
= 0.8746 hrs
(0.15)

(2)

and finding the corresponding pressure on the semi-log straight line:

po = 2872 psig.
This pressure is then compared to the simulator gridblock pressure when evaluating a history match
run.

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Matching pressure history

Now that the proper pressure has been found to match, we will now discuss how the
simulator data is modified to match the field pressures. Most of the history matching is done in a
trial and error fashion by engineers. An experienced engineer relies on knowledge of pressure
behavior fundamentals to guide data modifications.
The first consideration is to match the size of the reservoir, or the original gas in place. (No
water influx is being considered in this discussion.) This is often determined with a simulator but
uses the principles of material balance. During pseudo-steady state, it is known that at every point
in the reservoir depletes at a rate given by:
- qg Bg
dp
=
dt
V p ct

(3)

The pore volume, Vp, can be represented as a integration of a h contour map and the effects of
and h cannot be separated. The total compressibility, ct, is equal to cf + cgSg + cwSw. This value is
usually dominated by cg, but this may not be true at pressures over about 6,000 psig, above which cg
begins to be relatively small. In this higher pressure case, attention should be given to obtaining
good estimates of cf. The cwSw term will usually be less important (smaller) than cf.
Once the gas in place has been matched by pseudo-steady state behavior, the transient
behavior should be matched. The magnitude of the pressure drop is inversely proportional to the
"transmissibility", kh, and the timing of pressure drop is inversely proportional to the diffusivity,
k/ct. These relationships can be seen in the dimensionless pressure drop and dimensionless time
used in transient well test analysis.
Another method of adjusting kh is from an analysis of pressure gradient profiles (plots of
pressure vs. distance) at a particular time. If there is migration of fluid from one side of the
reservoir to the other, the magnitude of the pressure gradient is inversely proportional to kh.
In actual field cases history matching analysis may be much more complicated, of course.
We seem to always think the reservoir is more homogeneous than it is. Lack of homogeneity is
often demonstrated when we drill new wells and are surprised by their properties. Lack of
homogeneity is also demonstrated when we inject fluids into a reservoir and find lack of continuity.
Many reservoirs are complicated by systems of sealing and partially sealing faults which are hard to
detect. History matching for these cases often involves well by well analysis and trial and error.
The principles mentioned are often found to be useful even if they do not comprise a
complete analysis. An example will now be shown which illustrates these principles.

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Example 2. History Matching Reservoir Pressures

Problem.

Perform the synthetic history matching for three years,and plot wellbore pressure vs.
time for well No. 1 and pressure profiles at the end of each year. (see Fig. 3).
k
h

g
T
pinitial
cf
x
y
IMAX
JMAX

= 1.0 md
= 30 ft
= 0.10
= 0.70
= 150 0F
= 6000 psia
= 3.0x10-6 psi-1
= 100 ft
= 100 ft
= 20
=5

Production schedule (scf/D)

Year

Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
(I=4,J=3) (I=10,J=3) (I=17,J=3)

1
40,000
0
0
2
60,000
40,000
0
3 100,000
60,000
60,000
Actual history data:
The "actual history" for this problem was generated by a simulation run. This is called
"synthetic history matching". The process of matching the synthetic history is the same as matching
real field data - trying to deduce what data resulted in the observed behavior. For Example 2, the
observed pressure data is below. The pressures are reported as po which means they should match
the gridblock pressure. This represents pressures taken from pressure build-up tests as previously
discussed.
Pressure build-up data
Time
po (psi)
(years) Well 1 Well 2 Well 3
-----------------------------------------------0.000
6000
0.202
5907
7

Chapter 8 - History Matching

0.466
1.000
1.466
2.000
2.308
3.000

1
1
2
3

5856
5779
5605
5446
5233
4857

10

4972

11

12

5036

13

14 15

16

17

18

19 20

4
5
Well No. 1 at (4,3), Well No. 2 at (10,3), Well No. 3 at (17,3)

Fig. 3 - Gridblocks of Example 2 (synthetic history matching)

Solution.

We have complete pressure history on Well 1 through eight pressure build-up tests.
On Wells 2 and 3 we only have a final pressure build-up at the end of three years. Figs. 4, 6 and 8
shows po vs. time plots for Well 1 with simulation Runs 1,2, and 3, respectively. Figs. 5, 7 and 9
show pressure profile across the entire reservoir with simulation Runs 1,2 and 3, respectively. The
actual history is shown on each plot.
Imagine that you are comparing simulation Run 1 with the actual history in Figs. 4 and 5.
Notice that the rate of pressure decline is too fast in Run 1. It is apparent that pseudo-steady state
has been reached from the shape of the Run 1 curve in Fig. 4. Since we have complete data for Run
1 we might be able to estimate the time required to reach pseudo-steady state from well test analysis
theory (radius of investigation). Note that we always have this complete information for analyzing
the behavior of our computer run while the actual reservoir data is unknown. From our depletion
rate discrepancy, we decide to increase Vp by increasing porosity from 0.10 to 0.15. We use Eq. 2 to
make the analysis on depletion rate.
Now Run 2, with = 0.15, shows that the depletion rate is about right in Fig. 6 but the
transient behavior does not produce enough pressure drop before pseudo-steady state begins. The
level of pressure is about right in Fig. 7 but the pressure gradient is too flat. Both of these plots
indicate that the kh/ is too high. We do not want to change h (without some compelling reason)
because that would change Vp. We will assume that is okey. So we change permeability from 1.0

Chapter 8 - History Matching

md to 0.2 md. We find that Run 3 is a perfect match of actual history.

6500
Run No. 1 ( = 0.1, k= 1.0 md)

6000

5500
Actual History

(psi)
wf
p 5000

4500

4000
0

365

730

1095

Time (days)

Fig. 4 - Wellbore prerssure of well No.1 vs. time for run No.1 (synthetic history matching)

5200

Actual History

5100
5000

p (p si)

4900
4800

Run No. 1 ( = 0.1, k = 1.0 md)

4700
4600
4500
4400
1

11

13

15

17

19

Gridblock

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Fig. 5 - Pressure profile at three years for run No.1 (synthetic history matching)

6500

Run No. 2 ( =0.15, k=1.0 md)

6000

p (psi)

5500

Actual history

5000

4500

4000
0

365

730

1095

Time (days)

Fig. 6 - Wellbore pressure of well No. 1 vs. time for run No. 2 (synthetic history matching)

10

Chapter 8 - History Matching

5200

Run No. 2 ( = 0.15, k = 1.0 md)

5100
5000

p (psi)

4900
4800
4700

Actual History

4600
4500
4400
1

11

13

15

17

19

Gridblock

Fig. 7 - Pressure profile at three years for run No. 2 (synthetic history matching)
The actual history data was generated for this problem with the data of Run 3, of course. In
observing the actual history and deciding the data changes to be made, we have worked in a similar
manner to an actual reservoir study. Our case is much simpler, of course, and our reservoir
happened to be homogeneous. History matching in actual practice is much more complicated
because of data errors, heterogeneities, more wells, and more complicated (often 3-D) geological
description. The engineer is never completely sure of the accuracy of the reservoir description.

11

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Fig. 8 - Wellbore pressure of well No. 1 vs. time for run No. 3 (synthetic history matching)
5200
5100
5000
4900

Actual History

4800
p (psi)
4700

Run No. 3 ( = 0.15, k = 1.0 md)

4600
4500
4400
1

11

13

15

17

19

Gridblock

Fig. 9 - Pressure profile at three years for run No. 3 (synthetic history matching)

12

Chapter 8 - History Matching

Forecasting performance
The main objective of a simulation project is to forecast performance. During the history
matching, rates are specified for each well throughout the history period. The rates are usually
unknown for the forecasting period, so other conditions are usually specified. The most common
condition is to specify the bottom-hole flowing pressure, pwf, and let the simulator calculate the rates
for each timestep.
The objective of field simulation projects is usually to compare alternative forecasts for the
purpose of aiding in decision making. A base case is usually run which represents continuing
current operations. Then other cases are run which represent alternative operations, such as drilling
new wells, adding field compressors, stimulating wells, injecting fluids (not common in this
discussion of dry gas reservoirs except for gas storage reservoirs), etc. Operating decisions are
made on the basis of forecasted performance and economics.

13

Chapter 8 - History Matching

NOMENCLATURE
Bg
cf
cg
cw
ct
h
IMAX
JMAX
k
ps
p
pinitial
po
pwf
q
Sg
Sw
t
T
Vp
x
y
t
to
g

= gas formation volume factor, rcf/scf

= compressibility of formation, psi-1
= compressibility of gas, psi-1
= compressibility of water, psi-1
= total compressibility, psi-1
= formation thickness, ft
= number of gridblocks in the x-direction
= number of gridblocks in the y-direction
= permeability, md
= build-up pressure, psia
= pressure, psia
= initial pressure, psia
= "match pressure", psia
= wellbore flowing pressure, psia
= production rate, scf/D
= gas saturation, fraction
= water saturation, fraction
= time, Days
= temperature, R
= pore volume of grid block, ft3
= grid block spacing in the x-direction, ft
= grid block spacing in the y-direction, ft
= shut in time, hours
= shut-in time corresponding to gridblock pressure, hours
= gravity of gas
= porosity, fraction
= viscosity, cp

Subscripts and Superscripts

i
j

= gridblock index in the x-direction

= gridblock index in the y-direction

14

Chapter 8 - History Matching

REFERENCES
1. Mattax,C.C. and Dalton,R.L.: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph
Volume 13, Richardson, TX (1990).
2. Peaceman,D.W.: "Interpretation of Well Block Pressure in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation," SPEJ (June, 1978) 183-94, Trans., AIME, 265.

15

Chapter 8 - History Matching