How to optimize numbers of variables for Assisting History Match Project

When do we have to deal with large and complex reservoir, the employment of assisting history match technology” AHM” become very essential to boost dynamic model quality and representation without local adjustment, however most the AHM tools are preferring to use limited numbers of variables to reduce total numbers of the require runs before achieved acceptable results.

So, in case of existing dynamic model with multi millions grid cells; how can we define the optimum variables to accelerate tweaking the model to improve history match!! Therefore; in order to overcome the problem in practical matter to reduce numbers of the variables that needs to regulate them, I would recommend the following steps:

(A)   To create “Well_Region_Body” as integer parameter value per each well based on well spacing distance between the wells and RRT’s, and then to expert this parameter to dynamic models as “MULTNUM”.

(B)   To create “Layer_Interval” as integer parameter value per each dynamic layer and to expert this parameter to dynamic models as “OPERNUM”

Those two elements shall assist you basically to modify all the grid cells that are located in each of them in different way laterally and vertically in very simple perception with large effects on objective function “OF”. In additional to those 3D integer parameters, you can add minimum permeability value to create cells connectivity’s, global permeability multiplier adjustment, and maximum overall permeability cap value.

The below script can be used with Eclipse, Intersect and tNavigator simulators


Dr. Tawfic Obeida

Independent consultant Oil and Gas Industry (Freelancer)

6 年

you need to link these software modifications to geology and dynamic data otherwise the predictions are questionable??

回复
Ahmed Hussein

Asset Consulting Services SDL | Field Development Planning | Reservoir Engineering | Digital | Consulting | MSc. Finance | Georgetown University

6 年

Local modifications around wells might help matching wells however the predictive power of the model is definitely questionable. I guess we all agree on that. AHM is a very helpful tool to reservoir engineers and yet if not probably designed and given the right parameters and ranges would not reach a solution no matter what algorithm is used. Filtering out parameters for the use of HM is critical, a quick way is to run a couple of sensitivity runs to determine key parameters for HM. Further running quick uncertainty runs should enclose the observed data and provide a close starting point for AHM. Complex system with multiple porous systems whether its fractures, vugs or micro-porosity can be tricky while history matching and therefore this workflow comes in handy as it links well performance with nearby RRT. it helps to address geological features miss-characterized in the static model. Drastic modifications from AHM indicates how far static model is from reality and thus outcomes of this workflow can be provided back to the G&G team to justify and further enhance their reservoir characterization At the end of the day we have to address uncertainty due limited data are the main reasons for such workflows to evolve.

回复
Iftikhar Khattak

Lead Sr. Reservoir Engineer - Global Due-Diligence, Asset Screening/Evaluation Hub at Schlumberger Oilfield Limited

6 年

Thank you very much for the knowledge and the practical experience sharing.

回复
Wassem M. Alward

Domain Solutions Lead (Subsurface + Artificial Intelligence) @ SLB

6 年

Good information, thanks for sharing

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Faisal Al-Jenaibi的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了