case study : history matching of well by predictive material balance
DESCRIPTION
Case Study : History Matching of Well by Predictive Material Balance. Term Project : Advanced Reservoir Engineering. Presented By, Namit J Jaiswal B.E (Chemical). December 18, 2003 Fairbanks, Alaska. OUTLINE. What is history matching ? Methods used for history matching Case description - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Case Study :
History Matching of Well by Predictive Material Balance
Term Project : Advanced Reservoir Engineering
Presented By,
Namit J Jaiswal
B.E (Chemical)
December 18, 2003
Fairbanks, Alaska
OUTLINE
What is history matching ?
Methods used for history matching
Case description
Solution Scheme
Results
Conclusion and Recommendation
What is history matching ?
History Matching is the procedure for determining parameters in a reservoir model from observed production data.
History Matching
Process in reservoir
Levels of aquifer support
Bypassed zone
identification
Paths of fluid migration
TYPES
Manual
Automatic
Case Description
Reservoir type: Volumetric under saturated reservoirConnate water: 37 %Porosity: 21.5 %Drained Area by each well: 40 acresThickness of pay zone was given by isopach maps of both zones.
Well K, Zone 1 K, Zone 25-6 5.1 4.08-16 8.3 6.89-13 11.1 6.014-12 8.1 7.6
Laboratory core permeability measurements
Solution Scheme
1. Model Development
2. Initialization
3. History Matching
1. Model Development
Oil In place Material Balance
Tracy’s Model
Flow equation
Oil In-Place
oi
wi
B
SAhN
)1(7759
Material Balance
giggi
oigsosoioio
gsoon
BBB
mBBRRBB
BRB
giggi
oigsosoioio
gg
BBB
mBBRRBB
B
giggi
oigsosoioio
w
BBB
mBBRRBB
1
Calculation of these
avegn
gjpnjpp R
GNNN
)1()1(
pjppj NNN )1(
oi
pwwL B
B
N
NSSS 01)1(
Equation cont.
ggo
oogsoj Bk
BkRR
Equation cont.
Compare and iterate
Flow Equation
75.0ln
00708.0
w
e
wf
oo
oo
r
r
pp
B
hkq
o
p
q
Nt
2. Model Initialization
Permeability ratios
PVT data
Isopach Plots
Production History
Permeability data for cores
Given DATA
History Matching
Modified Parameter
kg/ko
kro
H
Absolute permeability
Results (5-16 Well )
WELL Zone (1) Zone (2) Zone (1) Zone (2) Zone (1) Zone (2)
5-6 5.3 4.1 8.2 13.3 43.46 54.53
DATAAverage Absolute Permeability to Air
(md)
Average Thickness of Pay zone (ft)
Capacity (ft)
5-16 Well Production History Matching
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Time,years
Oil
prod
uctio
n,st
b/da
y
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
GO
R, s
cf/s
tb
Actual Production Modeled Production Actual GOR Modeled GOR
WELL Zone (1)Zone (2)
Zone (1)
Zone (2)
Zone (1)
Zone (2)
8-16 8.3 6.6 10.5 11.0 87.15 72.6
DATA
Average Absolute
Permeability to Air (md)
Average Thickness of Pay zone (ft)
Capacity (ft
Result Well (8-16)
8-16 Well Production History Matching
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time,years
Oil,
stb/
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
GO
R. s
cf/s
tb
Actual Oil Production Modeled Production Actual GOR Modeled GOR
WELLZone (1)
Zone (2)Zone (1)
Zone (2)
Zone (1)
Zone (2)
9-13 11.1 6 15 11166.
566
DATAAverage Absolute Permeability to Air
(md)
Average Thickness of Pay zone (ft)
Capacity (ft)
Result Well (9-13)9-13 Well Production History Matching
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time,years
Oil
prod
uctio
n,St
b/da
y
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Actual Oil Production Modeled Production Actual GOR Modeled GOR
WELLZone (1)
Zone (2)
Zone (1)
Zone (2)
Zone (1)
Zone (2)
14-12 8 7.5 6 11 48 82.5
DATA
Average Absolute
Permeability to Air (md)
Average Thickness of Pay zone (ft)
Capacity (ft)
Results Well (14-12)
14-12 Production History Matching
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time, years
Oil
prod
uctio
n st
b/da
y
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
GO
R, S
CF/
STB
Actual Oil Production Modeled Production Actual GOR Modeled GOR
c
Conclusion
Reasonable and Defendable Model
Tarner Tracy is fine for this problem