Abstract

We present a method to determine lower and upper bounds to the predicted production or any other economic objective from history-matched reservoir models. The method consists of two steps: 1) performing a traditional computer-assisted history match of a reservoir model with the objective to minimize the mismatch between predicted and observed production data through adjusting the grid block permeability values of the model. 2) performing two optimization exercises to minimize and maximize an economic objective over the remaining field life, for a fixed production strategy, by manipulating the same grid block permeabilities, however without significantly changing the mismatch obtained under step 1. This is accomplished through a hierarchical optimization procedure that limits the solution space of a secondary optimization problem to the (approximate) null space of the primary optimization problem. We applied this procedure to two different reservoir models. We performed a history match based on synthetic data, starting from a uniform prior and using a gradient-based minimization procedure. After history matching, minimization and maximization of the net present value (NPV), using a fixed control strategy, were executed as secondary optimization problems by changing the model parameters while staying close to the null space of the primary optimization problem. In other words, we optimized the secondary objective functions, while requiring that optimality of the primary objective (a good history match) was preserved. This method therefore provides a way to quantify the economic consequences of the well-known problem that history matching is a strongly ill-posed problem. We also investigated how this method can be used as a means to assess the cost-effectiveness of acquiring different data types to reduce the uncertainty in the expected NPV.

Highlights

  • It is well known that assimilation of production data into reservoir models is an ill-posed problem; see, e.g. [15, 20, 24]

  • We optimized the secondary objective functions, while requiring that optimality of the primary objective was preserved. This method provides a way to quantify the economic consequences of the wellknown problem that history matching is a strongly ill-posed problem. We investigated how this method can be used as a means to assess the cost-effectiveness of acquiring different data types to reduce the uncertainty in the expected net present value (NPV)

  • The method consists of two steps: (1) performing a traditional computer-assisted history match of a reservoir model with the objective to minimize the mismatch between predicted and observed production data through adjusting the permeability values of the model and (2) performing two optimization exercises to minimize and maximize an economic objective over the remaining field life, for a fixed production strategy, by manipulating the same grid block permeabilities, without significantly changing the mismatch obtained under step 1

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is well known that assimilation of production data into reservoir models is an ill-posed problem; see, e.g. [15, 20, 24]. The measurements are strongly correlated because they originate from a relatively small number of sources: the wells As a result, they contain less information about the true value of the model parameters than could be expected based solely on the number of data points. Properly answering the question stated above requires either some (heuristic) method to translate static geological properties to flow behaviour or economic performance, or requires many forward simulation runs to obtain a proper low- or high-case prior model. These methods may be either unreliable or impractical to provide a good measure of the economic consequences of the lack of knowledge about the true field. We make use of the fact that history matching through adjusting grid block parameters is an ill-posed problem such that many combinations of parameter values may result in (nearly) identical mismatch values

Problem definition
Methodology
Egg model example
Brugge model example
Results: history matching based on production data
Multi-objective optimization settings
Effect of data type
Effect of threshold value
Findings
Discussion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.