Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

SPE 56681

Calibrate Flow Simulation Models with Well-Test Data to Improve History Matching

Nanqun He, SPE, K.T. Chambers, SPE, Chevron Petroleum Technology Company

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Introduction
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
History matching of reservoir performance is difficult due to
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of the large uncertainties associated with reservoir properties in
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to flow simulation models. Improvements in 3D seismic
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at resolution and well logging tools and interpretations have
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
reduced the uncertainty associated with reservoir stratigraphy
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is and porosity. However, in many cases, permeability estimates
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 are still far from the true values. Permeability fields in
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
simulation models are often generated by applying cloud
transform or collocated cokriging Sequential Gaussian
Simulation (SGS) algorithms to wireline log and core
measurements of porosity. The permeability probability
density function (PDF) used in the calculations is typically
In this paper we present a methodology to verify and update
based on core measurements and could be very different from
geostatistically based reservoir models using numerical
the in-situ distribution for two main reasons: (1) limited core
simulation and automatic history matching of well-test data. A
sampling in the reservoir and (2) differences in scale between
Bayesian estimation technique provides the framework for the
the size of core samples and typical simulation gridblocks.
inversion procedure used to update reservoir models. A
Well-test data is ideal for bridging the gap between core and
restricted-step Gauss-Newton method and an extension of
gridblock permeabilities because it samples the reservoir on
Carter's method for sensitivity coefficients make the
the scale of gridblock size. However, classical well-test
methodology efficient and practical. Reservoir models
analysis provides only average reservoir properties, which fail
(permeability, porosity and skin factor) can be updated based
to capture heterogeneity in the reservoir.
on individual simulation cells, geological feathers, or on
In previous work, Oliver, Reynolds and He1-5 presented
constant multipliers applied in the well-test radius of
procedures based on inverse problem theory6 to condition 3D
investigation. When short-term well-test data is available from
geostatistical model to multi-well pressure data. The initial
many wells, we found it useful to calculate property multipliers
geostatistical model is generated from core, logging and
around each well and then interpolate the multipliers to
perhaps seismic data. We developed a doubly stochastic
unsampled areas in the reservoir.
model2, 3 which allows both the local property and its mean
Field examples demonstrate the utility of conditioning
value to change during the conditioning process. This is
reservoir models with well-test data. In the examples, flowing
especially important when the mean value obtained from core
bottomhole pressure mismatches are as high as 2000 psi and
measurements is not representative of the in-situ values. The
core based permeabilities deviate by two orders of magnitude
objective of this work is to extend these techniques to a large
from the well-test results. After conditioning to well-test data,
full-field model with many wells and to use the conditioned
pressure mismatches are significantly reduced, permeabilities
model to improve production history matching.
are updated to the correct magnitude, and the skin factor
Conditioning reservoir models to well-test data is an active
closely matches the classic well-test analysis result.
area of research7-10. Many issues related to the numerical
We applied our updating methodology to a full-field
simulation of well-test data have been discussed, for example,
simulation study on a large carbonate reservoir. Comparisons
constraints on grid and time step size. In general, small grids
of historical pressure and production data to the updated full-
and time steps are required to obtain good matches to well-test
field model demonstrate good agreement.
data. Equally important are accurate flow rate data at each
simulation time step. An obvious limitation of using small time

steps is that it increases simulation and thereby conditioning sensitivity coefficient to an individual cell property. We apply
times. the same Gauss-Newton optimization algorithm used in our
In an effort to balance computational efficiency and previous work. The multipliers determined from individual
accuracy, we condition the upscaled geostatistical model wells are extrapolated to the entire region, layer, or reservoir
generated for full-field simulation. If we choose small grid using either Kriging or inverse distance weighting
spacing to improve the pressure match, we have to refine the interpolation. The new reservoir model is simply the product
full-field grid and upscale it again after conditioning, which is the initial model and the multiplier model.
tedious and impractical for a large model with many wells. Our
objective is to calibrate properties in the flow simulation
model to about the right level within a reasonable time. We Inverse Solution, General Forms
typically select 8 to 15 time steps for each drawdown or Assume m represents the initial model to be conditioned to
buildup when conditioning to well-test data. In most cases, we well-test data. Based on our assumption of a multinormal
are able to finish a well-test conditioning within twenty distribution, the initial model has a probability density function
minutes on a Unix workstation. Comparison of measured and satisfying the following proportionality relation:
simulated well-test data following conditioning typically
 1 
reveals good agreement except at very early time. ρ (m) ∝ exp − (m − mini )T CM−1 ( m − mIni )  ....................... (1)
As outlined in Refs. 1-5, our method updates gridblock  2 
properties to improve agreement between measured and where mini is the vector containing the initial model
simulated well-test data. The key to implementing this
approach is the ability to calculate sensitivity coefficients, the parameters and CM is the covariance matrix of the initial
derivative of pressure with respect to gridblock porosity and model. Both mini and CM will be discussed in more detail
permeability. We previously extended Carter's11 method to
later. Throughout this work, the superscript T on a vector or
permit efficient calculation of sensitivity coefficients4.
matrix denotes its transpose.
Pressures required by the conditioning algorithm are obtained
The vector dobs refers to the vector of observed or
with a finite-difference simulator, where wellbore pressure is
measured wellbore pressures and contains all Nd pressure
related to the well gridblock pressure by Peaceman's method12.
measurements that are used as conditioning data. The
We use an x-y-z Cartesian coordinate system. Reservoir
measurement errors within the data are modeled as
boundaries are assumed to be no-flow boundaries or constant
independent, identically distributed Gaussian random variables
pressure boundaries. The reservoir can contain any number of
complete-penetration or restricted-entry wells. Each well is with zero mean and variance σ 2d . The vector d contains the
produced at a specified rate or specified bottom-hole pressure. calculated wellbore pressure from reservoir simulation and is
Changing the rate to zero after producing for a specified time related to the model by
simulates pressure buildup tests. We assume a slightly d = g( m ) ........................................................................ (2)
compressible fluid of constant compressibility and viscosity.
The permeability and porosity fields are assumed to be The following relation gives the likelihood function for the
heterogeneous. Permeability may be either isotropic or model that is conditioned to the measured data:
anisotropic, but we assume a diagonal permeability tensor; i.e.,
 1 
the principal permeabilities are aligned with the coordinate L(m| dobs ) ∝ exp − ( g(m) − dobs )T CD−1( g(m) − dobs ) .............. (3)
axes. Skin factors vary from well to well.  2 
Well-test data recorded simultaneously over an extended where CD is a diagonal matrix with all diagonal elements equal
period of time in many wells completed in the same reservoir
to σ 2d .
represents an ideal input for conditioning interwell reservoir
properties. Unfortunately, this data configuration is rarely From Bayes’s theorm, it follows that the a posteriori
available due to the costs and logistical considerations probability density function for the conditioned model,
associated with collecting it. Typically, wells are tested denoted f M ( m| d obs ) , satisfies the following relation
individually and interference pressure data is not recorded in
f M (m | d obs ) ∝ L(d obs | m) ρ (m) ..................................... (4)
offset wells. Furthermore, short well tests and/or low reservoir
permeability limit the radius of investigation in many well tests
to on the order of a few gridblocks around the well. In order to Using Eqs. 1 and 3 in Eq. 4, we obtain
utilize this type of data, we present a new method to determine
property multipliers for each well individually. We uniformly  1
f M (m | d obs ) ∝ exp− (m − mini )T CM−1 (m − mini )
update properties around each well to the correct magnitude by  2

conditioning them to well-test data rather than determine
individual cell properties. The sensitivity coefficient to the + ( g (m) − d obs )T CD−1 ( g (m) − d obs ) .................... (5)
property multiplier can be obtained by chain rule from the

The most probable model (the maximum a posteriori The covariance matrix is obtained from the variogram
estimate) which honors the initial model and pressure data is model and is given by
obtained by maximizing f M ( m| d obs ) , or equivalently,
 Cφ Cφk O
CM = Ckφ O  ................................................... (9)
minimizing the objective function S ( m) where
 
S (m) =
( m − m ini ) T C M−1 ( m − m ini )
 O O CS 

where Cφ is the covariance matrix for gridblock porosities

T −1
D ]
+ ( g ( m) − d obs ) C ( g ( m ) − d obs ) ........................(6) derived from the porosity variogram, Ck is the covariance
matrix for gridblock ln(k)’s, Cs is the covariance matrix for
The objective function, S(m), is minimized by applying a well skin factors, C φ k is the cross covariance matrix between
restricted-step Gauss-Newton procedure. At the lth iteration of
the Gauss Newton method, one must compute the gradient of porosity and ln(k), C kφ is equal to the transpose of Cφk , and
S(m) and the Hessian matrix.1-5 The Hessian matrix involves the O’s denote null matrices, i.e. matrices with all entries equal
the Nd x Np matrix of sensitivity coefficients, Gl, where the ith to zero. The matrix Cs is diagonal since we assume no
row of Gl is given by correlation between skin factors of different wells. We avoid
specific modeling of the cross covariance matrices by using
 ∂g ( m l )
the “screening hypothesis” of Xu et al.13.
∂g ( m l ) 
g = i
,..., i  ......................................(7) The objective function for the stochastic cell based model
 ∂m1 ∂m N p 
has the same format as Eq. 6, in which mini represents
for i=1,2, ..., Nd where ml denotes the estimate of the model porosity and permeability from the initial model. Estimates of
obtained at the lth iterate of the Gauss-Newton procedure, mj initial skin factors can be obtained from classic well-test
denotes the jth model parameter and gi(ml) is the ith analysis or prior knoweledge of well flow behavior. Available
component of g(ml), i.e., gi(ml) represents the calculated core and log data used to construct reservoir models do not
pressure data corresponding to the ith pressure measurement, necessarily reflect the true distribution of reservoir properties
pwf,i. The entries of Gl are referred to as sensitivity coefficients because they represent only a small sampling of the reservoir.
and are computed with our three-dimensional extension of the One approach to capture this limitation is to allow for
Carter et al. Method4, 11. uncertainty in the mean values for reservoir properties in the
initial model. We previously introduced a doubly stochastic
model2, 3 to consider both local uncertainty (variance of
Stochastic Cell Based Model Updating property) and variance in the mean value. In this case, the
The stochastic cell based approach treats the properties of each objective function becomes:
cell as inversion parameters. Consequently, the number of
parameters far exceeds the number of independent
S (m ) =
( m − m ini ) T C M− 1 ( m − m ini )
conditioning data (pressure). The reservoir model in terms of + (θ − θ0 )T CΘ−1 (θ − θ0 )
gridblock properties is

 mφ 
+ ( g ( m ) − d obs ) T C D−1 ( g ( m ) − d obs ) . ......... (10)

m =  m k  ................................................................(8) The sensitivity coefficient can be calculated efficiently

using our extension of Carter's method.
 m S 

where mφ represents gridblock porosities, which are assumed Deterministic Object-Based Model Updating
to be normal with known mean and variance given by σ φ2 ; In an object-based approach, we define objects based on
region, layer or geological feature and then parameterize them.
m k represents gridblock permeabilities, which are assumed to When conditioning to well-test data from a single well, we
select the region around the well as one object and use a global
be log normal with known mean and variance given by σ ln(
k) ; property multiplier as a model parameter. In this case the
and m s represents the skin factor for each well. Each rock model becomes
property attribute is modeled as a stationary Gaussian random  mφˆ 
function. If the permeability tensor is isotropic, we use a three-  
dimensional variogram for log-permeability which can be m =  m kˆ  .................................................................... (11)
either isotropic or anisotropic. Both anisotropic log- m ˆ 
permeability fields and anisotropic variograms can be  S

where mφˆ is a porosity multiplier for the well region and is As mentioned previously, sensitivity coefficients to
∂pw (t ) ∂p (t)
assumed to be normal with mean of unity and variance given gridblock porosity, , and permeability, w , can be
by σ φ2ˆ ; m kˆ is a permeability multiplier for the well region and ∂φn ∂kn
calculated using the technique outlined in Refs 4 and 11. The
is assumed to be log normal with mean of unity and variance sensitivity coefficients to porosity and permeability multipliers
given by σ k̂2 ; and m sˆ is a multiplier for the well skin factor ∂pw (t ) ∂p (t)
can be obtained from and w by applying the chain
and is assumed to be normal with mean of unity and variance ∂φn ∂kn
given by σ ŝ2 . The actual property value equals the product of rule as shown below:
initial property and property multiplier ∂ p w (t ) N
∂ p w ( t ) ∂φ n
m p = m pˆ * m pini ...........................................................(12) ∂ φˆ
= ∑
n =1 ∂φ n ∂ φˆ
∂ p w ( t ) φ n (φˆ + ∆ φˆ ) − φ n (φˆ )

where p represent porosity, permeability or skin factor. Keep
in mind that the underlying reservoir heterogeneity remains n =1 ∂φ n ∆ φˆ
after applying a constant multiplier to it. The difference is that
the mean of property has changed if the multiplier is not equal N
∂ p w (t )
to one. Ideally, we should also allow the shape of the
probability density function (PDF) and parameters of the
= ∑φ
n =1
∂φ n
...................................... (15)

variogram to change along with the mean. However, it is

difficult to define the PDF and variogram as model parameters ∂ p w (t ) N
∂ p w (t ) ∂ k n N
∂ p w (t )
in terms of calculating sensitivity coefficients for them.
∂ kˆ
= ∑
n =1 ∂ k n ∂ kˆ
= ∑k
n =1
∂k n
....... (16)
The covariance matrix for the object-based approach is
C φˆ
where N is the total number of gridblocks within the same
0 0 
  object, p w (t ) is the wellbore pressure at time t. With the
CM = 0 C kˆ 0  ..............................................(13)
 0 0 C Sˆ  sensitivity coefficients, we can construct Hessiean matrix and
 use Gauss-Newton procedure to determine model parameters,
where C ˆ is the covariance for the porosity multiplier, C ˆ is i.e., property multipliers.
φ k

the covariance for the permeability multiplier, and Cs is the

covariance for the well skin factor multiplier. We assume no Field Example
correlation exists between property multipliers, even through The reservoir evaluated in the field example formed as a
correlation may exist between porosity and permeability. The carbonate bank along the edge of a basin during Carboniferous
range of uncertainty in property means should be captured in and Devonian time. Reservoir properties exhibit significant
the variance components of the covariance matrix. Only three variability as shown by the cross plot of core porosity versus
parameters, i.e., multipliers, need to be determined in the permeability in Fig. 1. Although the data exhibits an overall
simplest case. least-squares regression trend of increasing permeability with
The objective function now becomes increasing porosity, permeability typically varies over several
S (m ) =
( m − I ) T C M−1 ( m − I )
orders of magnitude for a given porosity. This behavior
reflects the significant differences in carbonate texture and
diagenetic overprint that exist in this reservoir. Variations in
+ ( ( g (m) − d obs ) T C D−1 ( g (m) − d obs ) . .............(14) depositional environment played a major role in the formation
of three distinct regions in terms of reservoir quality. A
where I = [1 1 1] represents the starting model. platform interior region exhibits average porosity and
For anistopic problems, we need permeability multipliers permeability values. A raised rim region exhibits better than
for each directional permeability. For multi-layer or multi-zone average porosity and significantly higher permeability (one to
problems, we need to have multipliers for each layer porosity two orders of magnitude). The flank region, on the other hand,
and permeability. In those cases, the dimension of m will be exhibits low porosity and extreme permeability variation. The
increased accordingly. However, in most case, the number of latter behavior is probably indicative of variable fracture
inversion parameters should be relatively small. Flow rate data intensity in a low permeability matrix. Current reservoir
along the wellbore is required to determine property pressure remains more than twice the bubblepoint pressure;
multipliers by individual layers. Otherwise, well-test data can consequently, oil flows as a single phase in the reservoir.
only determine thickness-averaged permeability, i.e., one Original Reservoir Model. Well spacing in the field
global permeability multiplier for a well. example reservoir is on the order of 1 km2. This large spacing

precludes determining definitive results for spatial correlation Cell- based Model Updating. We first tried the cell-based
structure in reservoir properties using well log data. updating method on the field well-test data. Mean and variance
Furthermore, the available seismic data lacks the resolution of porosity are 0.053 and 0.00032. Mean and variance of log
necessary to infer trends in reservoir properties. Although permeability are 0.336 and 0.225. Variogram ranges in X, Y
definitive variogram analysis of the spatial correlation and Z directions are 2000, 1500 and 50 meters. We applied the
structure of porosity is not possible, porosity logs in wells methodology described above to condition the full-field model
from the platform interior exhibit correlateable low porosity (< to each well successively. Neglecting interference effects is
3%) inflections and an absence of correlation in high porosity reasonable because the radius of investigation around each
(> 12%) intervals. We used Sequential Indicator Simulation well is small due to low permeability, despite the long test
(SIS) to capture this behavior by dividing the log porosity data times. Figure 4 shows the ratio of updated to initial
into bins and then applying a successively shorter correlation permeability for two wells. From the figure we can see that
range to each bin of increasing porosity. We applied permeability is modified only within the radius of investigation
regression algorithms to the core porosity, permeability, and of the well-test data, which corresponds in this case to five to
initial water saturation data to determine relationships between six gridblocks around the well. Note also the 3D character of
these properties. We calculated both permeability and initial the updating, which reflects anisotropy between the vertical
water saturation from porosity by applying equations and horizontal permeability. Permeability remains unchanged
determined from the regression analyses. Top views of the over most of the model as shown by the constant background
original porosity and permeability distributions in the reservoir shading in the figure. Our objective is to calibrate the entire
appear in Figs. 2 and 3. model with well-test data. Unfortunately, cell-based updating
Well-Test Data. Well-test data is available for 15 wells, does not allow us to accomplish this objective due to low
including 10 with long-term data (500 to 1000 hours) and 5 permeability in the reservoir.
with short-term data (less than 10 hours). Most of the long Object-based Model Updating. We extended the object-
tests include two drawdown periods followed by an extended based updating approach presented earlier to permit
buildup. The short tests, on the other hand, include a single calibration of the entire full-field simulation model. Rather
drawdown and buildup. We measured flow profiles during the than update individual cell properties, we determined property
short tests with production logs. multipliers at each well location and then interpolated them
throughout the reservoir using an inverse distance algorithm.
The reservoir in the field case includes three primary layers.
Condition Model to Well-Test Data Rigorously, we should calculate a multiplier for each layer
We conditioned the initial field model to well-test pressure property. However, most of wells are perforated only in first
data using both cell-based and object-based methods. Skin layer and limited production profile data is available for wells
factor is also determined during the conditioning. We used penetrating the deeper layers. Consequently, we decided to use
classical well-test analysis to get an initial estimate of well skin a single multiplier across the entire vertical section.
factors. We specified fixed values for the following Figure 5 shows results based on updating reservoir
parameters: ct = 1.6e-5 psi-1, µ = 0.2 cp, Bo=2.15 RB/STB and properties surrounding individual wells in the full-field model
rw = 0.4 ft at all wells. using the object-based approach. Each figure compares well-
Dynamic Gridding. In many field cases, well-test time is test data to pressures simulated from initial and updated
short and the radius of investigation is small. Consequently, it reservoir models. As shown in the figure, mismatches between
is not necessary to use the full-field model for conditioning. measured and simulation pressures based on the initial model
One way to reduce the computational time is to cut a block can be as high as 2,000 psi, indicating that the initial model is
from the full-field model and to do the conditioning based on far from the true case. After history matching using the object-
the small model. Disadvantages to do this technique are that it based approach, pressure mismatches are reduced to less than
may be (1) difficult to determine how large a block to cut; (2) one hundred psi in most cases. History matching to wells 117
tedious to apply in the case of many wells; (3) difficult to and 120 was not as successful because flow rates varied during
maintain consistency among blocks conditioned to different the drawdowns due to mechanical problems. In spite of the
wells. We developed dynamic girdding capability to address absence of accurate time-varying rate data, pressure
the above difficulties. With this technique, we use the original mismatches were significantly reduced for these wells.
grid spacing from the full-field model in the vicinity of the We obtained 10 permeability multipliers by conditioning
conditioning well and then progressively coarsen cells away the full-field model to 10 long-term tests. We augmented these
from the well. This coarsening scheme reflects the diminishing results with permeability multipliers obtained by dividing
pressure resolution provided by gridblocks away from the permeability-thickness (KH) estimates from classical well-test
well. Using increasingly larger cells away from the well analysis on data from 5 short-term tests by KH values in the
provides adequate simulation results. Girdding from the initial initial full-field model at the corresponding well locations. We
full-field model is restored upon completion of the used an inverse distance-weighting algorithm to interpolate the
conditioning calculations. We use simple volume averaging to 15 multiplier values. Figure 6 shows the map of permeability
upscale and later downscale the interim dynamic grid cells. multipliers obtained. In general, multipliers in the platform

interior are near and typically below unity (0.3 to 1.0), any manual history matching other than to introduce a
indicating reasonable agreement between the original and transmissibility barrier between the top and second reservoir
updated models. Multipliers trend further below unity in layers in the platform region based on material balance
moving south across the platform. In contrast to the platform considerations.
interior, permeability multipliers are high in the rim and flank
regions (from 3 to 15). Figure 7 shows the updated
permeability field after applying the multiplier results in Fig. 6 Conclusions
to the original permeability field in Fig. 3. Porosity multipliers In this work, we showed that calibration of flow simulation
remain close to unity because porosity is much less sensitive models with well-test data improves the accuracy of the
than permeability to well-test data. models. Skin factors can also be calibrated with this approach.
A skin factor multiplier is also a parameter during the The initial model obtained from static data may be sufficient
history matching process. The follow table compares the input for estimation of static information such as OOIP but may not
skin factor, which is obtained from classical well-test analysis, be adequate for predicting dynamic reservoir performance. We
to the updated skin factor after conditioning. Most of the wells presented two model-updating approaches: stochastic and
exhibit good agreement between the two skin factor results. deterministic. Both methods achieve adequate pressure
matches within tens of Gauss Newton iterations. When the test
Well Name Input Skin factor Inversion results duration is relatively short or reservoir permeability is low, the
(From PanSystem) cell-based approach may only provide updating in regions
Well 102 60.0 60.3 close to the wells. In this work, we extended the object-based
Well 105 -5.0 -4.6 approach to determine property multipliers away from the
Well 106 -4.0 -4.16 wells and outside the radius of investigation of the well-test
Well 117 -4.2 -2.03 data. Clearly, this approach is only valid if the multiplier
Well 120 3.6 9.3 trends uncovered within the radius of investigation are valid
Well 15 -3.2 -3.02 outside this region. We demonstrated that automatic history
Well 21 11.1 8.9 matching using on an object-based approach can provide good
Well 3k -3.8 -2.9 results in the absence of manual intervention. We do not
Well 5K -5.3 -3.7 expect to develop fully automatic history matching capability
but rather to expedite it while improving the link between
Well 8 3.0 8.6
static and dynamic reservoir models.

Production History Matching

The field example reservoir began producing in 1991.
ct = total system compressibility, psi-1.
Currently, 47 wells are on production. We specified total flow
rate for each well based on historical data and also set a
BO = oil formation factor.
minimum bottomhole pressure of 3000 psi for all full-field µ = oil viscosty, cp.
simulation runs. Figure 8a compares the field oil rate history CD = covariance matrix for pressure measurement
to simulation results based on both the initial and updated errors.
reservoir models. Figure 8b shows the same comparison in CM = covariance matrix for model parameters.
terms of cumulative oil production. The updated model dobs = vector of measured wellbore pressure data, psi.
includes the permeability results from Fig. 7 along with the Gl = sensitivity coefficient matrix.
updated skin factors from the above table. Porosity remains φ= porosity.
constant between the initial and updated models. Both models k= permeability, md.
honor the rate history before 1996, but the initial model cannot
match production after that time. The likely reason for this φn = porosity in cell index n.
behavior is that the rim and flank permeabilities are too low to kn = permeability in cell index n.
maintain some degree of pressure support in the platform S = well skin factors.
interior, where most of the production occurs. Well φˆ = porosity multiplier.
bottomhole pressure data supports this conclusion. For
example, Figs. 9a to 9d show that bottomhole pressures based k̂ = permeability multiplier.
on the initial model fall below measured data, which later Ŝ = skin factor multiplier.
causes oil production to drop below historical levels. Results m= vector of model parameters.
from these four wells are representative of behavior in all of
the wells in the field. The updated model represents a mini = vector of initial model parameters.
significant improvement in the oil production and bottomhole σ2 = variance.
pressure history match. Keep in mind that we did not apply

N= number of simulator gridblocks. Simulations of Well Tests,” 5th European Conf. on the
Nd = number of conditioning pressure data. Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Sept 3-6, 1996.
Np = number of model parameters. 9. Landa J. L., Kamal, M. M., Jenkins, C. D. and Horne, R. N.:
“Reservoir Characterization Constrained to Well Test Data: A
Nw = number of wells at which pressure is measured.
Field Example," 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
pw = wellbore pressure, psi. Exhibition, Denver, CO, 6-9 October 1996.
rw = wellbore radius, ft. 10. Wen, X., Deutch, C. V. and Cullick, A. S.: “High Resolution
t= time, days. Reservoir Models Integrating Multiple-Well Production Data,”
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997.
Acknowledgements 11. Carter, R. D, Kemp, L. F., Jr., Pierce, A. C. and Williams, D. L.:
We would like to thank the management of Chevron Petroleum “Performance Matching With Constraints,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
Technology Company for permission to publish this paper. (April 1974) 187-196.
12. Peaceman, D. W.: “Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in
Numerical Reservoir Simulation With Non-Square Grid
Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June
References 1983) Vol. 13, 531-543.
1. Oliver, D. S., He, N. and Reynolds, A. C.: “Conditioning 13. Xu, W., Tran, T. T., Srivastava, R. M., and Journel, A. G.:
Permeability Fields to Pressure Data,” 5th European Conf. on “Integrating Seismic Data in Reservoir Modeling: The
the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Sept 3-6, 1996. Collocated Cokriging Approach,” paper SPE 24742, presented
2. He, N., Oliver, D. S., and Reynolds, A. C.: “Conditioning at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Stochastic Reservoir Models to Well-Test Data,” 1997 SPE Washington D.C., Oct. 4-7.
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 5-8 October 1997.
3. Reynolds, A. C., He, N., Chu, L. and Oliver, D. S., “Reducing
Uncertainty in Geostatistical Characterization By Well-Testing
Pressure Data,” Forth International Reservoir Characterization
Technical Conference, March 2-4, 1997, Houston, Texas.
4. He, N., Reynolds, A. C. and Oliver, D. S.: “Three-Dimensional
Reservoir Description from Multiwell Pressure Data and Prior
Information,” SPEJ, September 1997, 312-327.
5. Reynolds, A. C., He, N., Chu, L. and Oliver, D. S.:
“Reparameterization Techniques for Generating Reservoir
Descriptions Conditioned to Variograms and Well-Test
Pressure Data,” SPEJ, December 1996, 413-426.
6. Tarantola, A.: Inverse Problem Theory, Methods for Data
Fitting and Model Parameter Estimation, Elsevier Science
Publishers (1987) Amsterdam.
7. Abdelmawla, A. and Heinemann, Z.: "Numerical Well Test
Modelling in A Full-Field Simulator Offers New Opportunities
for Reservoir Characterization," presented at the 6th European
Conf. on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Peebles, Scotland,
Sept 8-11 1998.
8. Blanc, G., Noetinger, B. and Placentino, L.: “Contribution of
Pressure Moments to the Interpretation of Numerical
8 N. HE, K. CHAMBERS SPE 56681


least squares fit of data


Core Permeability (md)





0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Core Porosity (%)

Fig. 1: Cross-plot of core porosity to permeability

Fig.2: Initial porosity model based on SIS using log porosity data Fig.3: Initial permeability model based on core derived φ to k transform

Fig. 4: Ratio of updated to initial permeability based on stochastic conditions


Well 106 Well 120

10600 12000

Pressure, psi
Pressure, psi

10000 8000
9800 Observed
Initial model 6000
Initial Model
History matched 4000 History matched
9200 2000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, hours Time, days

Well 102 Well 117

12000 12000

11000 11000
Pressure, psi

Pressure, psi

Initial Model
9000 History matched Observed
8000 Initial Model
7000 History matched
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, hours
Time, hours

Well 105 Well 15

11000 11000

10500 10500
Pressure, psi

Pressure, psi

10000 10000
Observed Observed
9500 Initial Model 9500 Initial model
History matched
History Matched
9000 9000

8500 8500
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours Time, hours
Continued on next page
10 N. HE, K. CHAMBERS SPE 56681

Well 8 Well 21

11500 12000

11000 10000

Pressure, psi
Pressure, psi

Observed 6000 Observed
10000 Initial model
4000 Initial model
History matched
9500 History matched

9000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Time, hours Time, hours

Fig. 5: Automatic history matching of well-test pressure data for 10 wells with extended tests

Well 3K Well 5K

11500 11500

11000 11000
Pressure, psi

Pressure, psi

10000 Observed
Initial model
Initial Model 9500
9000 History matched
History matched 9000
8000 8500
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time, hours Time, hours

Fig. 5: Automatic history matching of well-test pressure data for 10 wells with extended tests

Fig. 8a: Comparison of field oil rate history to simulation results

Fig. 8b: Comparison of field cumulate oil production history to simulation results.
Last saved by SPE Production Temporary in room 132

Fig. 9a: Bottomhole pressure and oil rate of Well 15. Fig. 9b: Bottomhole pressure and oil rate of Well 104.

Fig. 9c: Bottomhole pressure and oil rate of Well 113. Fig. 9d: Bottomhole pressure and oil rate of Well 114.