Coupled Static/Dynamic Modeling For Improved Uncertainty Handling

Abstract

In the petroleum industry, history-matched reservoir models are used to aid the field development decision-making process. Traditionally, models have been history-matched by reservoir engineers in the dynamic domain only. Ideally, if any changes are required to static parameters as result of history matching the dynamic model, then these should be reflected directly in the static reservoir model, ensuring consistency between the static and dynamic domain. In addition, static model uncertainties are often not evaluated in the dynamic domain, which can result in the detailed modeling of geological features that have little impact on the dynamic behavior of the reservoir or the resulting development decision. This paper demonstrates a workflow where the reservoir simulator and static modeling package are closely linked to promote a more integrated approach to reservoir model construction, facilitating the interaction between subsurface disciplines. Using either the reservoir simulator or the static modeling package as the platform, the output of the workflow is a sensitivity analysis of the uncertainties related to structure, rock properties, fluids and rock-fluid interactions. Computer-assisted history matching methods (i.e. adjoint-based and Design of Experiments) are used to find the parameter values that result in a history match model. The workflow is described for both a synthetic model and also a reservoir model from a real field case. This methodology results in improved history-matched models and a better understanding of the static and dynamic subsurface uncertainties and their importance, leading to more informed decision-making. Furthermore, it is anticipated that it will result in faster accomplishment of the history matching studies. The method presented here can significantly enhance the understanding of the impact of both static and dynamic subsurface uncertainties on development decisions. In addition, it offers a platform where all subsurface professionals involved in reservoir model construction and simulation can more optimally focus their efforts on improving the integrated understanding of their reservoirs.

Challenges of a mature Russian field's redevelopment – Advantages and disadvantages of quick-look geologic modeling

“…The workflow followed a common suite of procedures, beginning with fault and horizon modeling, structural modeling, building a 3D grid, populating the 3D grid with facies and petrophysical properties and calculating hydrocarbon in place volumes (Fig. 6) (Adelu et al, 2019;Kaleta et al, 2012;Shirazi et al, 2010;Spagnuolo et al, 2018).…”

“…6. This is a general workflow applied in numerous modeling exercises in simple (Adelu et al, 2019) or in more complex forms (Galindo et al, 2012;Kaleta et al, 2012;Shirazi et al, 2010;Spagnuolo et al, 2018).…”

Adjoint-Based History Matching of Structural Models Using Production and Time-Lapse Seismic Data

“…However, in order to use gradient information for structural parameter updating we need to integrate static and dynamic modeling. To this end we use a Big Loop workflow in which the in-house dynamic simulator is coupled to commercial geological modeling software (Kaleta et al, 2012). In this workflow all the uncertain parameters are defined in the static domain.…”

“…Moreover, systematic criteria can be derived that help to determine which level of geologic model detail is flowrelevant or business-decision-relevant. Several authors have proposed such an integrated workflow, (Chierici, 1992;Caers, 2003;Hamman et al, 2003;Gross et al, 2004;Hoffman et al, 2005;Suzuki and Caers, 2006;Elrafie et al, 2009;Seiler et al, 2009;Kaleta et al, 2012). In this paper we do not employ a full Big Loop workflow, but, instead, we focus on updating some of the structural aspects of the static model.…”