History Matching and Forecasting
Production forecasting is one of the main tasks of engineers involved in reservoir management. To perform it, they resort to models, which vary from simple decline curves to complex numerical simulations. Regardless of the model’s level of complexity, uncertainty will always exist in the forecasts. Therefore, reservoir engineers devote significant efforts trying to incorporate data in these models (history matching), aiming to mitigate uncertainty and improve the reliability of the predictions.
The reservoir-history-matching literature is quite extensive. The first works on automatic history matching were published in the 1960s. Nowadays, there is a wealth of history-matching methods. As a result, we observe that it is becoming a common industrial practice to generate multiple history-matched models, even for fairly complex problems with thousands of uncertainty variables and a large amount of data. However, we are still far from a definitive solution. Actually, it seems that there will be no single best history-matching technique. Instead, what we may have is the best method for the specific problem. Moreover, there are many challenges that are not completely addressed. In particular, most of the approaches seem overly simplistic to handle complex geology and structural uncertainties. Also, the computational demand for uncertainty quantification remains an issue. Therefore, industry and academia still have much work to do.
Another point I want to mention is that, back in 2009, SPE promoted a forum meeting titled “Getting to Robust Production Forecasts.” This meeting became the startup of a Global Integrated Workshop Series on production forecasting. To date, there have been six meetings; the latest was held this year in Malaysia. These workshops have the ambitious goal of developing a production-forecasting guideline. I think we will hear more about this in the coming years.
The papers summarized in this feature and the ones indicated in the additional-reading list are good examples of recent developments and field applications of history matching and forecasting. I hope you enjoy them.
Recommended Additional Reading
SPE 163582 An Ensemble-Based Nonlinear Orthogonal Matching Pursuit Algorithm for Sparse History Matching of Reservoir Models by Ahmed H. Elsheikh, The University of Texas at Austin, et al.
SPE 170622 Integrated Subsurface Uncertainty Study and Application—A Case Study of a Chalk Reservoir, Greater Ekofisk Area, North Sea by H.J. Yu, ConocoPhillips, et al.
SPE 170945 Practical Considerations for Forecasting Production Data in Unconventional Reservoirs—Variable-Pressure Drop Case by P.W. Collins, Texas A&M University, et al.
History Matching and Forecasting
Alexandre Emerick, SPE, Reservoir Engineer, Petrobras Research Center
01 April 2015
BP and Startup Beyond Limits Try To Prove That Cognitive AI Is Ready for Oil and Gas
BP has invested more than $100 million into nine different startup companies in the past 2 years—but only one of them wants to turn your brain into a piece of its software.
Knudsen-Like Scaling May Be Inappropriate for Gas Shales
The author writes that the generally accepted Knudsen diffusion in shales is based on a mistranslation of the flow physics and may give theoretically unsound predictions of the increased permeability of shales to gas flow.
Equinor To Employ Permanent Reservoir Monitoring at Arctic, North Sea Fields
The technology will provide Equinor a continual feed of updated reservoir information from its Johan Castberg and Johan Sverdrup fields with the aim of improving well placement, production, injection, and—ultimately—recovery.
Don't miss out on the latest technology delivered to your email weekly. Sign up for the JPT newsletter. If you are not logged in, you will receive a confirmation email that you will need to click on to confirm you want to receive the newsletter.
13 November 2018
06 November 2018
07 November 2018
08 November 2018