HISTORY MATCHING

&
ROCK MECHANICS

ystein Pettersen
Reservoir Mechanics 20 years anniversary 30.08.02

A Simulation Model in Virtual Reality

Real History Matching

Original photography

Official photography after

Trotskij had fallen into disgrace

Now you see him -- now you don't

What is History Matching?

Standard procedure:
From a system of equations L(u(x), a, x) = 0 with I.C. and B.C.
find the solution u(x), with known parameters a.
History matching:
From a system of equations L(u(x), a, x) = 0 with I.C. and the
solution u(x) known, determine the boundary conditions and
parameter set a.
Normally some of the B.C.'s and (part of) a will be known.

History Matching in Practice

u(x) will not be known as a continuous function of a

continuous space/time variable, but only at a few points in
space at a few times. Mathematically, the solution is
unknown almost everywhere.
The achieved B.C. "solution" cannot be unique.
In addition the known (sparse) solution ui(xi) is not always
reliable.
(standard uncertainty, allocation errors, coarse errors).
The observed quantity may reflect a realisation of the
solution which is not possible to model, and therefore
would be wrong to honour.
Our task is to critically utilize the provided historical data in
the best possible manner, such that the parameters we
determine by the H.M. process are the most likely ones from
a physical point of view. (Difficult, difficult,....)

Heterogeneity: Sandstone Outcrop

Idealised Heterogeneous X-Section

After Upscaling to a Simulation Grid

Heterogeneity Modelling (generic example Field A)

Cum. oil produced

Deterministic
case

Different heterogeneity
cases

Field A History Matching:

Region Pressure -- Best result after > 200 runs
Simulated Region Pressure (bar)

300

275

RFT-pressures ("certain")
Less certain pressure
measurements

250
1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Example rock compaction curves

(ROCK constant and Irreversible ROCKTAB)
1

Pore Volume Multiplier

cf = 3E-05
0,99

0,98

0,97

0,96
310 300 295 290 285 280 275 270 260 250 240 230 220 210
Pressure (bars)

Classification of Compaction

Normalized Pore Volume

Pc (Conf. press.)

Reversible elastic

Compaction by
Overburden
With hysteresis

Irreversible elastic

Pp (Pore pressure)

Decline period

Changing pressure trends

Time-dependent compaction (creep) -1 cm reservoir compaction pr. year

Simulated Region Pressure (bar)

300

275
Pure pressure-dependant compaction
Time- & pressure-dep. compaction
RFT-pressures ("certain")
Less certain pressure
measurements

250
1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

The Influence of Rock Mechanics

By tweaking compaction curves on a per-region basis,

pore volume change can be modelled to honour history
A better approach would be to compute the changes from
the stress-strain relations
We should expect that compaction also influences permeability,
including permeability isotropy
What if the soil doesn't behave like a stable soil / rock at all?
Are Darcy's law and the flow equations still valid?

Elastic moduli
Field B -- Weak Sandstone

Field A -- Weak Sandstone

0,5

0,4

1000

0,4

0,3

0,2

400

0,1

200
0
0

100

200
p' (bars)

300

0
400

0,3

600
0,2

400

0,1

0
p' (bars)

200

0
250

E (MPa)

500

E (MPa)

0,4

150

100

150

200

0
250

Field B -- Unconsolidated Sand

1000

100

50

p' (bars)

600

50

0,1

200

0,5

0,2

400

1200

200

0,3

600

Field C -- Unconsolidated Sand

800

800

0,2
0,15

400
300

0,1

200
0,05

100
0
0

50

100

150
p' (bars)

200

250

0
300

600

E (MPa)

800

1200

1000

0,5

E (MPa)

1200

Elasticity with permanent deformation ("Irreversible")

"Ideal"
irrev.

Loading

Unloading

Permeability vs stress
Unconsolidated Sand Field A
Initial permeability (100%): 4138 mD

Normalised permeability (%)

100

80

1. load
1. unload

60

2. load
40
2. unload
20

69

138 207 276 345 414 483 552

Mean effective stress [bars]

621

Permeability vs stress
Unconsolidated Sand Field B
Initial permeability (100%): ~1.5 D

Normalised permeability (%)

100
80

1. load
1. unload

60

2. load
40
2. unload
20
0

69

138 207 276 345 414 483 552

Mean effective stress [bars]

621

Permeability vs stress
Unconsolidated Sand Field C

Normalised permeability (%)

Initial permeability (100%): ~3 D

100
1. load
80
1. unload
60
2. load
40

2. unload

20
0

69

138 207 276 345 414 483 552

Mean effective stress [bars]

621

Permeabilities from transient test analysis

Field A
Permeability, mD

6 000
5 500
5 000
4 500
4 000
3 500
3 000
300

295
290
285
280
275
270
Reservoir pressure (perm. press. gauge)
Production tests during 2 years

Soil strength

C0

B
D

0
Elastic

Ductile

Brittle

OA: Increasing -- slightly convex

AB: Increasing -- linear
OAB: Elastic (appr. linear)
BC: Increasing -- concave
Ductile: Can endure permanent
deformation without losing
ability to withstand load.
CD: Decreasing
Brittle: Ability to withstand
loading decreases with
increasing deformation.
"Brittleness": Largest slope
angle on CD.

(In theory a continuous process

through CD. In practice sudden
0: Yield point (transition elastic Kductile) failure occurs at some point on
CD: Total loss of cohesion across
(typically B z2/3 C)
a plane.)

C0: Uniaxial compressive strength

Soil strength:
Hysteresis and deformation
OB: Perfect elasticity
(No irreversible behaviour)
BC: Irreversible changes occur
Successive loading / unloading
by different curves. E.g. PQ
gives a permanently set
deformation 0.
QR NPQ, but R still on BC.
CD: Unloading curve ST often
results in large permanent
deformation. The following load
sequence TU meets CD on a
lower stress level than S.

C
P

R
S

U D

Characteristic for brittle matr's,

but normally hidden by failure
near point C.

Elasto-plasticity and failure

-space
current yield surface
initial yield surface

e la

la s
p
sto

tic

elastic
Non-achievable
states

failure surface
(envelope of reachable yield surfaces)

Yield criterion: Specified surface in -space where failure occurs.

In elasto-plasticity the yield surface can change with time, as the
material hardens.
Ideal plasticity: Initial yield surface = failure surface.

Sand / soil strength (Creep)

Elasticity -> Plasticity -> Failure
Field A, 4343m, Pp = 1bar

Field B, 4494m, Pp = 138bar

Static strain rate *E-8 (1/s)

Static strain rate *E-8 (1/s)

400
200

800
1 200
1 600
600
1 000
1 400
Differential stress (bar)

Pc = 138bar
Pc = 207bar

Pc = 276bar

Pc = 345bar

Pc = 276bar
Pc = 414bar

1
0
1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500
Differential stress (bar)

Field C, 1919m, Pp = 138bar

Field C, 1919m, Pp = 1bar

Static strain rate *E-8 (1/s)
20

Static strain rate *E-8 (1/s)

8

16

6
Pc = 138bar
Pc = 276bar
Pc = 414bar

12
8
4
80

4
2
0
0

120
160
200
Differential stress (bar)

240

50

100
150
200
250
Differential stress (bar)

Pc = 207bar

Pc = 276bar

300

Pc = 414bar

350

Fluid flow in microfractures (joints)

generated by impurities
F

Shear stress can imply

Crushing of the smallest asperities
Opening of the joint
Macroscopic enhanced perm.
in the major stress direction.
Rotation of flow direction

Field A, Vertical elastic displacement

vs. time at top reservoir level

-0,05
DEZ01
DEZ02
DEZ03
DEZ04
DEZ05
DEZ06
DEZ07

-0,1

-0,15

10000

15000

20000

25000

Field A, Vertical Elastic Displacement

N-S section, Time 1517 days (4 yrs 2 mnths)

PARAMETER:
DEZ07
TYPE
REAL
0.127115

0.042764

-0.041586

-0.125937

-0.210288

-0.294638

-0.378989

Conclusion

Although Newton's laws of motion are perfectly

adequate for everyday physics,
no-one would even consider using them at the
Planck scale, or at galaxy scale