Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
 The Value and the Danger of Complex
Reservoir Simulations
Daniel Yang

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
2
 Contents

• Introduction
• Complexity
• Simplicity
• Matching Field Data
• Examples
• Discussion
• Simulation Workflow
• Slide Rule Criterion
• Tips for Decision Makers
• Summary
• Conclusions
National Geographic, 1952
3
INTRODUCTION

4
 By Definition ...
sim·u·late \’sim-yə-,lāt\ transitive verb
to pretend, often with the intention to deceive

SAGD: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

pretend: deceive:
all required input is available this is going to happen
5
 Complexity
s
P

T properties
depend
P geo-mechanics on each other

T
heat multi-porosity
solvents systems
fracking
P
gas
conventional
chemicals
properties depend
on pressure
6
 Simplicity
grid blocks

hot plate
• one property value only T
• size matters:
simulation results depend on grid size
1m

PVT
• phase behavior of
components depends on
pressure and temperature
• compositional dependency

Well Model
• well is a sink/source in a
grid block
• well bore hydraulics

'Error' made by simplification is

compensated by using non-realistic 'pseudo' values for input.
7
MATCHING FIELD DATA

8
 History Match
common approach ideal approach
field data
constraint match constraint match
rate rate rate
WHP WHP
injection BHP (BHP) BHP
BHT BHT
rates
- liquid liquid
-- oil oil oil
production -- water forecast water
- gas assumption? gas
BHP (BHP) BHP
BHT BHT
BHP BHP
BHT BHT
observation 4D seismic
m - seismic
surface heave

WHP - well head pressure

BHP - bottom hole pressure
BHT - bottom hole temperature 9
History Match and Forecast

history match forecast

with fluid rate with BHP
constraint constraint

History Match: constrained by production rates Forecast: constrained by BHP

reservoir can have a large potential unrealistic rates 10
 History Match Summary
• ONE REALIZATION
A history match is one (!) combination of input parameters that reproduces a data set.

• NON UNIQUE
This solution is far from unique;
there are many other combinations that result in similar agreement to the data

• INCOMPLETE
If any of the field data is ignored (e.g., gas production, observation well temperature)
the match is incomplete, and can not be used to forecast.

• Matches were achieved, despite:

• the field data turned out to be incorrect
• input data was incorrect
• numerical calculations were incorrect

A history match is only relevant

for the process that was matched. 11
EXAMPLES

12
 Example: Misleading

gas

water-oil gas-liquid
oil user input

transformation by simulator

water

• gas-condensate field with bottom aquifer

• produce gas and move the condensate rim
through the reservoir
• how much condensate gets 'stuck'?
• user: 20%
• simulator: 0%
• simulation results unrealistic
Field Development Plan had to be changed 13
Example: Understanding
In-Situ Upgrading IUP:
• reservoir to > 300 ºC with heaters
• 6-10 API bitumen  30-50 API oil; in-situ
• > 400 temperature and 15 pressure points
• Simulation of
• bitumen  H2S, H2, light & coke
• dolomite  CO2
• evaporation of saline connate water
• 18 components
• 11 chemical reactions
• History Match and Forecast
• constraint: heat injection
• O/W/G rates
• P&T
• oil composition, API
• gas composition, incl. CO2, H2S, H2
• The pilot was executed in a sandstone for
practical reasons.
• Learnings from modelling were transferred to
application in oil shales.
With appropriate input,
complex processes can be simulated
14
DISCUSSION

15
 Ideal Workflow
KPIs? fixed input?
single all data
parameters non-unique

sensitivity history
analysis match

objective?
static build
dynamic start simple;
add complexity
THINK analogue
only if necessary forecast process
(Occam's Razor) constraints

uncertainty
optimization
analysis

deterministic wells
probabilistic operation
16
development
 Separating Boys from Men
Nintendo Engineer
• no ownership of input
• as complex as possible
• worried about run time
• pride high number of runs
• pretty pictures
• miss unphysical results
• lack of reality check
• fast and colourful
thinking is steered by
simulations
Reservoir Engineer
• full ownership of input
• as simple as possible
• accept long run times
• pride low number of runs
• B&W X-Y plots
• catch unphysical results
• frequent reality check
• slow and boring
thinking steers the
simulations
17
 For Decision Makers
A few questions for the Decision Maker that will impress the Model Maker, and
help to determine the value of the simulation results for business decisions:
• Did you use 5-point or 9-point spatial discretization?
• Were your convergence criteria equation residuals or variable changes?
• What was your maximum material balance error?
• Is the critical gas saturation temperature dependent?
• What mixing rule for viscosity did you use?
• Did you use STONE I for 3-phase rel perms?

if the answer to any of these questions is then

'I don't know' or Nintendo Alarm!
'It doesn't matter' The simulations are not reliable.
'Good points - I have to check' Give them another 2-3 months ...
Short and to the point Forecast can be basis for decision.

18
 For Decision Makers
• Check for ownership of input:
Every single value of input is relevant!

• Challenge the history match:

Pressure should be used as constraint!
All available data needs to be considered!

• Reality check with analogs:

Non-reservoir impacts on projects are not modelled!

19
 For Decision Makers
Are simulations really required for a successful development?

bitumen, 8-12 API

Cyclic Steam with hor wells
avg. 11 m pay

first
model

1stfirst
CSS
avg. 25 m pay model
model

No, but do they make us miss opportunities? 20

 Summary
Value of reservoir simulations
• capture complex interactions of physical,
chemical and mechanical processes in the
reservoir
• enable development optimization by
identifying critical parameters through
isolation and improving the conceptual model

Danger of reservoir simulations

• create a false confidence in predictions,
forming the basis for business decisions
• lack of control over input
• underestimation of uncertainty and sensitivity
• inappropriate interpretation of history match
• incomplete assumptions for forecast

21
Here it comes ...

22
 Conclusions
1. Usually, the available information is not sufficient as
input for realistic reservoir simulations.
Complex models are not suitable
for absolute forecasts

2. Only in reservoir simulations, one parameter can be

changed at a time.
Complex models are ideal for
uncertainty determination

23
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation
Visit SPE.org/dl

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 24