SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Volume 8, Number 1, February 2005, pp. 22-32

SPE-81497-PA

Ranking and Upscaling of Geostatistical Reservoir Models Using Streamline Simulation: A Field Case Study

View full textPDF ( 3,137 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/81497-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/81497-PA

Citation

  • Ates, H., Bahar, A., El-Abd, S., Charfeddine, M., Kelkar, M., and Datta-Gupta, A. 2005. Ranking and Upscaling of Geostatistical Reservoir Models Using Streamline Simulation: A Field Case Study. SPE Res Eval & Eng8 (1): 22-32. SPE-81497-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 1.4.1 Drilling and Well Control Equipment
  • 1.4.1 Drilling and Well Control Equipment
  • 1.4.1 Drilling and Well Control Equipment

Summary

In this paper, we present a field example in which multiple reservoir descriptions were generated to capture uncertainties in reservoir performance; a streamline simulator was used to rank these multimillion-cell geostatistical realizations and to determine the optimum level of vertical upscaling.

During geostatistical reservoir characterization, it is a common practice to generate a large number of realizations of the reservoir model to assess the uncertainty in reservoir descriptions and performance predictions. However, only a small fraction of these models can be considered for comprehensive flow simulations because of the high computational costs. A viable alternative is to rank these multiple “plausible” reservoir models on the basis of an appropriate performance criterion that adequately reflects the interaction between heterogeneity and the reservoir flow mechanisms. One can generate thousands of geostatistical realizations with a minimal cost; however, the cost of ranking such realizations can be prohibitively expensive, even if fast streamline simulators are used. The objective is to generate a manageable number of realizations and represent the possible range of uncertainty in reservoir descriptions. Here, we propose a “hierarchical methodology” in designing uncertainties to be represented in reservoir descriptions.

In this paper, we also show how a streamline simulator can be used to design vertical upscaling of fine-scale reservoir descriptions. The biggest challenge of upscaling is to reduce model size without losing the heterogeneity level of the original geological model.

We use streamline time-of-flight connectivity derived from a streamline simulator. The time of flight reflects fluid-front propagation at various times, and its connectivity at a given time provides us with a direct measure of volumetric sweep efficiency for arbitrary heterogeneity and well configuration. The volumetric sweep efficiency is the simplest measure that reflects the interaction between heterogeneity and the flow field. It is a dynamic measure that can be updated easily to account for changing injection/production conditions.

Our field study involves a Middle Eastern carbonate reservoir under a moderate-to-strong aquifer influx. The reservoir is on primary depletion and has no injectors. In our streamline-simulation exercise, the aquifer pressure support is modeled by pseudoinjectors, and pressure updates are used to reflect changing field conditions.

Background

With the widespread use of geostatistics, it has now become a common practice to generate a large number of realizations of the reservoir model to assess the uncertainty in reservoir descriptions and performance predictions. Most commonly, these multiple realizations account for spatial variations in petrophysical properties within the reservoir as well as the random order in which unsampled locations are visited and, thus, represent a very limited aspect of uncertainty. For reliable risk assessment, we need to generate realizations that capture a much wider domain of uncertainty, such as structural, stratigraphic, and petrophysical variations. From a practical point of view, we want to quantify the uncertainty while keeping the number of realizations manageable. In this study, we will adopt an approach that is based on hierarchical principles. Thus, the uncertainty having the greatest potential impact is identified first. For example, with limited well control, the structural uncertainty derived from the seismic interpretations can have the most impact on the flow performance, or (for faulted reservoirs) the uncertainty with respect to fault locations can have the most impact. Then, the next level of uncertainty is identified, and so on. The last level of uncertainty is the multiple geostatistical realizations of reservoir properties for a given set of input parameters. The petrophysical uncertainties generally tend to have a much lower impact on the reservoir performance compared to factors affecting large-scale fluid movements.

There is, of course, a variety of other sources of uncertainties. Uncertainties may exist related to fault representation or log- vs. core-porosity representation or inclusion of seismic data to modify porosities. For practical applications, we must keep the number of realizations to a manageable level. One way to accomplish this objective is to use, for each level of uncertainty, discrete distributions that can bound the uncertainties. For example, to represent structural uncertainties, we can define low, most-likely, and high surfaces as a discrete way to capture the uncertainties.

One criticism often leveled at geostatistically generated realizations is that only a select few are ultimately used in the history-matching process. The question is often raised about the purpose of multiple realizations if ultimately only one or very few will be used for history-matching purposes. The second criticism is the upscaling of geostatistical realizations. Geocellular models tend to have millions of gridblocks. It is practically infeasible to use these models directly in the conventional flow simulators. We need to upscale these realizations before we can include them in a simulator. A relevant question here is, what is the appropriate level of upscaling so that critical heterogeneity details are still captured?

Streamline simulation, which has developed rapidly over the past 10 years,1–4 helps to address these criticisms effectively. To address the first criticism, we need to conduct history matching of more than one realization so that we can capture the uncertainties represented by these realizations. A crucial issue here is to select representative realizations that will adequately represent the uncertainties in the reservoir performance predictions. We will resort to a streamline-based ranking criterion for this purpose.5–7 Currently, several ways exist to rank multiple realizations. Realizations can be ranked on the basis of the highest pore volume, highest average permeability, closest reproduction of input statistics, and so on. Some type of permeability threshold connectivity can be used to calculate connected pore volume and rank the realizations based on such connectivity.8 The drawback of these simple techniques is that they do not account for dynamic flow behavior.

View full textPDF ( 3,137 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 13 November 2003
  • Revised manuscript received: 24 November 2004
  • Manuscript approved: 9 December 2004
  • Version of record: 15 February 2005