P. 1
spe3

spe3

|Views: 44|Likes:
spe3
spe3

More info:

Published by: Jherson Marchan Trinidad on Dec 04, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/28/2013

pdf

text

original

SPE 95498 History Matching of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Elastic Stress Simulation and Probability Perturbation Method

S. Suzuki, SPE, Stanford U.; C. Daly, SPE, Roxar Ltd.; J. Caers, SPE, Stanford U.; and D. Mueller, Roxar Ltd.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

trend model is calibrated to both production data and geological structure map (faults and horizons) by finding the optimum remote stress condition for elastic stress-field simulation. The latter is achieved by matching the actually observed structural deformation trend with the simulated one. The smaller-scale fluctuation of fracture density is simultaneously history matched through the probability perturbation method of Caers (2003)1,2. The result of synthetic reservoir application is presented. Introduction The modeling of the density and pattern of fracture distributions can take different approaches depending on the origin and the type of fracture sets. In this paper, we focus on the modeling of shear fractures which are generated by structural deformation accompanied with fault slip. Recently, an application of the elastic stress simulation has been proposed for predicting the pattern of shear/tensile fractures or the pattern of secondary faults and shown some promising results3~5. The elastic simulation numerically simulates the structural deformation of reservoir by solving linear elasticity equations under the given boundary conditions, and simultaneously calculates corresponding stress/strain tensor fields3~7. The boundary conditions consist of 1) location/geometry of fault surface, 2) stress conditions or displacement conditions on fault surfaces, and 3) the remote loads applied to the structure at the time of structural deformation accompanied with fault slippage. First, satisfying boundary conditions and by minimizing strain energy, the linear elastic equations are solved to obtain a structural deformation field which is expressed by the displacement vector. Then, strain field is successively computed from the displacement gradient based on the definition of strain. Finally, under the assumption of elasticity, stress is calculated from strain by means of Hook’s law. During the structural deformation process, the applied remote load stress is released by the slippage of faults in such a way that the strain energy is reduced as much as possible under the given fault geometry7. Accordingly, the spatial variation of the stress field is controlled by the fault geometry and the direction of the applied remote load, leading to a concentration of stress at tips and kinks of the faults. This concentration of stress generates shear fractures in the reservoir. The use of the simulated elastic stress field allows us to account for geomechanical information in fracture modeling, providing the way to yield the improved

Abstract The application of elastic stress simulation for fracture modeling provides a more realistic description of fracture distribution than conventional statistical and geostatistical techniques, allowing the integration of geomechanical data and models into reservoir characterization. The geomechanical prediction of the fracture distribution accounts for the propagation of fracture caused by stress perturbation associated with faults. However, the challenge lies in estimating the past remote stress conditions which induced structural deformation and fracturing, the limited applicability of the elasticity assumption, and the latent uncertainty in the structural geometry of faults. The integration of historical production data and welltest permeability into geomechanical fracture modeling is a practical way to reduce such uncertainty. We propose to combine geostatistical algorithms for history matching with geomechanical elastic simulation model for developing an integrated yet efficient fracture modeling tool. This paper presents an integrated approach to history matching of naturally fractured reservoirs which includes 1) fracture trend prediction through elastic stress simulation, 2) geostatistical population of fracture density based on fracture trend map, 3) fracture permeability modeling integrating fracture density, matrix permeability and welltest permeability, and 4) numerical flow simulation and history matching. All of these implementations are incorporated into a single forward modeling process and iterated in the automatic history matching scheme. To obtain a history match on a reservoir model, we jointly perturb the large-scale fracture trend and local-scale geostatistical fluctuations of fracture densities rather than perturbing permeability calibrated from fractures. This strategy enables us to preserve the geological/geomechanical consistency throughout the history matching process. The geomechanically simulated fracture

2

SPE 95498

characterization of fracture distribution compared to conventional geostatistical modeling which merely relies on statistical methods. However, on the other hand, there are several foreseeable limitations in accuracy and reliability of elastic simulation result. Firstly, the assumption of elasticity is, in all rigor, not applicable for simulating structural deformations since in reality structural deformation is an inelastic process. Also, the assumption of frictionless fault surfaces, which is usually applied in elastic simulation as a boundary condition, does not strictly represent actual fault slippage. Moreover, the remote load applied to structure at the time of faulting is usually unknown or uncertain. The fault geometry, which is interpreted from seismic, also suffers from uncertainty in many applications. Even granted that the elastic simulation holds validity at least in predicting the trend of fracture distribution, it does not necessarily provide a fully accurate model for the actual fracture distribution. The practical idea to enhance the accuracy of fracture prediction from elastic stress model is to integrate other reservoir data such as fracture density/orientation observation at wells, geological structural models obtained from seismic interpretation, core permeability data, welltest data, and historical production data into the modeling. This paper proposes a history matching method that fully integrates both of geological and reservoir engineering data with the geomechanical elastic simulation utilizing geostatistical techniques. Our approach to fracture modeling/history matching consists of three key issues, that is: 1) how to characterize fracture distribution reflecting geological/geomechanical plausibility, 2) how to convert fracture distribution model to effective permeability model honoring welltest permeability, and 3) how to calibrate fracture distribution model to historical production data without losing geological/geomechanical constraints. The first issue, fracture distribution modeling, was achieved by combining elastic simulation and geostatistical simulation. The occurrence of shear fracturing and its orientation is predicted from Coulomb’s failure theory using the simulated elastic stress model3~5. This prediction gives us a fracture trend model which will be utilized for the geostatistical simulation of a fracture density model, through which fracture density is calibrated to well observation as well as honoring the trend model. Although the geometry and location of faults used for elastic simulation are known from a geological structural model based on seismic interpretation, the remote load which caused structural deformation is rarely known. In our approach, we invert the remote stress condition (= remote load) by matching the trend of the simulated structural deformation to the structural model which is actually observed from seismic/geological interpretation. At the same time, we constrain the inversion to match production history. To be able to match production history, we need to know what effect the fracturing induced by the structural deformation has on reservoir flow performance. In other words, the fracture density model should be converted to the effective permeability model for flow simulation. This conversion is implemented by modeling the effective permeability of fractured rock using the simulated fracture

density model and the matrix permeability model from core data, accounting for welltest permeability at the same time7. The reservoir permeability model generated based on the above fracture model does not necessarily fit all of the production data. Hence, the model needs to be further adjusted. However, this adjustment should not be performed independently on the above procedure, since one should wish the final history matched model to account for the geomechanical constraints imposed by the elastic modeling. Therefore, history matching is performed by applying the probability perturbation method (Caers, 2003)1,2. The key idea of applying the probability perturbation method is to perturb the probability model of the fracture density model instead of perturbing the fracture density model directly. The probability perturbation method allows for any perturbed fracture density model to be constrained to the underlying geological / geomechanical information since the probability model of fracture density is conditioned to the fracture trend model which is itself obtained from the elastic stress simulation. The probability perturbation method calibrates the local-scale fluctuation of the fracture density distribution to production data. The large-scale fracture trend is perturbed simultaneously by optimizing the remote stress condition for elastic stress simulation. In the latter optimization, one minimizes the difference between the actually observed structural deformation trend and simulated one, also by minimizing the mismatch in production data. This paper first discusses the proposed fracture modeling/history matching methods in detail by giving a synthetic reservoir application example. Then, using the same synthetic data, history matching and future performance prediction are demonstrated. Methods Inversion of Remote Stress Condition by Matching Structural Deformation. The elastic stress modeling, which provides a mechanism for calculating stress around faults, is applied in the context suggested in Daly and Mueller(2004)6,7. The method is based on a simplified displacement discontinuity method (Crouch and Starfield, 1983)8, which is regularly used for modeling earthquake phenomena (King and Cocco, 2001)9 and also has been used in reservoir modeling and tested against outcrop (Bourne et al., 2000, 2001)3,5. The displacement discontinuity method works by assuming that the faults are discontinuities in an otherwise homogeneous and isotropic elastic space. The implementation assumes that a regional stress is applied to the model. The boundary condition used assumes that movement takes place along the fault until the stress at the fault is relieved. The consequent displacement of rock around the faults ensures that the regional stresses are disrupted locally. The principle output of the modeling is the disturbed stress field. One of the challenges in the elastic stress modeling is to estimate the input regional remote stress which describes the remote load applied during structural deformation. Since tectonics can change with time, the stress condition at the time of structural deformation can be different from the present-day stress status. The proposed method finds the best estimate of the remote stress condition by matching the trend of a simulated structural deformation to that actually observed from the

SPE 95498

3

structural model. This ‘best guess’ of stress model provides an initial fracture trend model for history matching. The remote stress tensor σ is expressed using remote principal stresses and their direction vectors as;
θ θ ⎡0⎤⎡0⎤ ⎡ cos SHmax ⎤⎡ cos SHmax ⎤ ⎡sinθSHmax⎤⎡sinθSHmax⎤ σ = SHmax⎢cos SHmax⎥⎢cos SHmax⎥ + SHmin⎢− sinθSHmax⎥⎢− sinθSHmax⎥ + SV ⎢0⎥⎢0⎥ θ θ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎢ 0 0 ⎥ ⎢1⎥⎢1⎥ ⎥⎢ ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎥⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎣
T T T

············· (1) where SHmax is the maximum horizontal principal stress, SHmin is the minimum horizontal principal stress, Sv is the vertical principal stress (= overburden pressure), and θSHmax is the azimuth of the SHmax-direction measured clockwise from north (i.e., Y-axis). The ‘best guess’ of remote stress tensor σ is found by minimizing the mismatch between the actually observed structural deformation and the simulated one. The actually observed structural deformation in the vertical direction, Uz,obs(x), x = (x,y), is calculated as;

U z ,obs ( x ) = D ref − D( x )

·································· ·(2)

where D(x) is top structure depth from structural model (obtained from seismic interpretation) and Dref is some reference depth (arbitrary depth value). The simulated structural deformation in the vertical direction, Uz,sim(x), is simply the z component of simulated displacement vector U(x) = (Ux(x), Uy(x), Uz(x)) obtained from elastic simulation. Since the actual structural deformation is not caused by a single fault slippage event but created by an accumulation of several inelastic deformations repeated during the tectonic history, the scale of the observed deformation Uz,obs(x) and simulated deformation Uz,sim(x) may be different from each other (e.g. Uz,obs(x) is the order of hundred meters while Uz,sim(x) is the order of from millimeters to centimeters). However, we are not interested in matching Uz,sim(x) to Uz,obs(x) but only interested in matching the ‘trend’ of these two deformation models. Therefore, both of these deformation attributes, Uz,sim(x) and Uz,obs(x), are converted to the dimensionless variables, U*z,sim(x) and U*z,obs(x), by means of standardization;
U * (x) = Z U z ( x ) − µ Uz s Uz

O(θSHmax) in Eq.(4)) thus can be solved using a simple onedimensional optimization technique such as Brent method10. Fig. 1 shows an example of the structural deformation matching. The reservoir structural model used for this example includes 6 normal faults which are N-S to NW-SE striking, and 1 strike-slip fault which is N-S striking. This synthetic structural model is built based on a real reservoir case. All faults are specified as vertical fault surfaces with the boundary conditions of zero shear stress and zero normal displacement. The dimensionless z-displacement is calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) from the top structure depth model and shown in Fig. 1a. Given this actually observed displacement field, the purpose is now to determine the corresponding θSHmax parameter. The remote principal stresses are specified assuming normal faulting regime (i.e. Sv > SHmax > SHmin). The initial deformation model (Fig. 1b) is simulated using an initial guess of θSHmax = 0 deg. (north direction). The optimal deformation model (Fig. 1c) which matches best to the actually observed displacement field was obtained at θSHmax = 50 degree (N50E). This remote stress condition corresponds to the situation where SHmax is applied almost perpendicular to the direction of the major fault strikes. Prediction of Fracture Density Trend and Fracture Orientation. Once we obtain the ‘best guess’ of θSHmax, and the corresponding structural deformation field from the elastic simulation, the corresponding stress tensor field is also computed. A practical way to analyze stress field is to work on principal stresses rather than directly deal with tensors. Fig. 2 depicts the simulated principal stress fields that correspond to the optimized deformation model shown in Fig. 1c (i.e. θSHmax = 50 deg.). The direction of each principal stress is also known from the corresponding eigenvector of stress tensor. As shown in the figure, stress is concentrated especially at tips and kinks of the faults as a result of structural deformation. This concentration of stress is known as the physical factor which causes shear fracturing. Based on the principal stress model from the elastic simulation, the relative density of shear fracture and presumable fracture orientation are evaluated by applying Coulomb’s failure theory3~5. Considering the potential failure plane (Fig. 3) in an intact rock, which is parallel to the intermediate principal stress (σ2) direction and its normal lies at angle θ from maximum principal stress (σ1) direction, the normal stress σn and the shear stress τ acting on this plane are calculated as;

·······································

(3)

where µUz and sUz are mean and standard deviation of Uz(x). We denote this quantity, U*z(x), as dimensionless zdisplacement. The objective function to be minimized is defined as:
O(σ ) = ∑ ( U
∀x * z ,sim

(x ) − U

* z ,obs

( x ))

2

························

(4)

σn =
τ =−

σ1 + σ 3
2

+

σ1 − σ 3
2

cos 2θ

·························· (5)

From Eq.(1), the remote stress tensor σ is defined by the parameters of SHmax, SHmin, Sv and θSHmax. However, a sensitivity study showed that the simulated dimensionless structural deformation U*z(x) is mostly sensitive to θSHmax(= azimuth of SHmax), and almost insensitive to the magnitude of SHmax, SHmin, Sv, as well as Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio which is used for elastic simulation. This simplicity is attained by the use of dimensionless variable U*z(x) instead of using the absolute values of Uz(x). Consequently, our problem is reduced to finding the best estimate of θSHmax(i.e. O(σ) =

σ1 − σ 3
2

sin 2θ

·········································· (6)

where σ3 denotes the minimum principal stress. Accordingly, the normal stress σn and the shear stress τ are graphically expressed as a Mohr circle as shown in Fig. 4. The Coulomb’s failure criterion is given by;

τ = S 0 + µσ n ····················································· (7)

4

SPE 95498

where S0 is the shear strength of rock and µ is internal friction coefficient as illustrated in Fig. 4. If the Mohr circle does not contact the line defined by the Coulomb’s failure criterion (Eq. (7)), failure does not occur. If the Mohr circle touches or crosses the failure criterion line, failure occurs at the angle θ which corresponds to (σn, τ) located above the failure criterion line. The shear strength S0 is usually difficult to estimate since the strength of a rock before fracturing is different from the current (fractured) rock strength. This fact implies that it is impossible to evaluate whether or not shear fracturing actually occurs in the reservoir even though maximum and minimum principal stresses (σ1 and σ3) are obtainable from elastic simulation. However, since our goal at this stage is to predict the ‘trend’ of fracture density instead of predicting fracture density itself, we are only interested in evaluating the spatial distribution of relative likeliness of shear fracturing, rather than any absolute values. As shown in Fig. 4, the possibility of failure increases with an increase in σ1/σ3 ratio since it expands the Mohr circle. Therefore, the σ1/σ3 ratio can be used as a measure of relative fracture density which provides the trend model for geostatistical simulation of fracture density. Fig. 5 depicts the σ1/σ3 ratio model computed from the principal stress model shown in Fig. 2 (θSHmax = 50 deg.). Since our purpose is to provide a trend model, rather than absolute values itself, the σ1/σ3 ratio shown in Fig. 5 is converted to dimensionless variable by standardizing to zero mean and unit variance similarly to Eq. (3). Again, due to the use of the dimensionless σ1/σ3 ratio instead of the absolute value, this fracture density trend model is insensitive to the magnitude of SHmax, SHmin, Sv, and Young’s modulus according to the result of a sensitivity study. Also, the sensitivity to Poisson’s ratio is almost negligible. The azimuth of SHmax (θSHmax) is the only crucial parameter that controls the predicted fracture trend. The fracture orientation is also predicted from the principal stress model3~5. The angle between the σ1 direction and the normal direction to the optimum failure plane, θopt, is obtained from Mohr diagram (Fig. 4) as;

simulated dimensionless z-displacement and the corresponding fracture trend models generated using SHmaxazimuth perturbed between θSHmax = 35 ~ 80 deg., i.e. the slight perturbation of the best θSHmax. As illustrated in the figures, all of the simulated dimensionless z-displacement fields (a, b, c, d) reasonably reproduce the actually observed structural deformation (Fig. 1a), at least visually. However, the corresponding fracture trend model shows considerable variation by changing SHmax-azimuth. This observation suggests that the estimation of θSHmax is subject to uncertainty (error) in fracture trend prediction, which can be even larger if the uncertainty in structural model itself is taken into account. The history matching strategy described in the later section is designed to reduce such uncertainty by incorporating production data. Geostatistical Population of Fracture Density. In order to generate a fracture density model from the fracture trend model, we applied direct sequential simulation (DSSIM)11 with locally varying mean (LVM) as a geostatistical algorithm. The fracture trend model serves as a LVM. The major advantage of direct sequential simulation is its ability to ensure the reproduction of covariance model between simulated values. This is achieved by drawing simulated values directly from local conditional distribution (ccdf) whose mean and variance are identified by kriging estimate Z*SK(u) and kriging variance σ2SK(u). Also, unlike the sequential Gaussian simulation technique, direct sequential simulation does not require a normal score transformation since the local ccdf can be of any type. In the context of continuous variable simulation, the simulated value Z(u) of DSSIM is written as;
Z( u ) = Z * ( u ) + R( u ) SK

········································ (9)

where R(u) is a random component with zero mean and variance σ2SK(u). The simple kriging estimate Z*SK(u) in Eq.(9) is obtained from;
Z* ( u) = m( u) + ∑ λ α ( u){Z( u α ) - m( u)} ··············· SK
α

(10)

··································· (8) 2 by taking the point tangent to the Mohr circle lying on a line with slope µ as depicted in Fig. 4. Accordingly, the two conjugate optimal failure planes given by Eq. (8) are parallel to the σ2 direction and deviated from the σ1 direction by the angles of plus and minus (π/2 – θopt) radian, respectively. In practice, the internal friction coefficient µ of 0.6 is generally used. The fracture trend model depicted in Fig. 5 is built from the ‘best guess’ of stress model using the remote stress condition inverted from actually observed structural deformation. However, an example depicted in Fig. 6 shows that this ‘best guess’ is still uncertain. Shown in Fig. 6a (θSHmax = 50 deg.) is the simulated dimensionless z-displacement that matches best to the actually observed displacement field (= reference structural model, Fig. 1a). The corresponding fracture trend model (dimensionless σ1/σ3 ratio model) is also depicted in the figure. Listed below (Figs. 6b, 6c, 6d) are the

θ opt =

(tan −1 µ +

π
2

)

where Z(uα) are hard data and λα(u) are kriging weights. In sequential simulation, the previously simulated values are also included in Eq.(10) as Z(uα). The mean m = E{Z(u)} can be either a stationary mean (i.e. m(u)=m for ∀ u) or an explicitly specified locally varying mean (LVM), i.e. m(u). The geostatistical simulation of a fracture density model using DSSIM with LVM takes the following steps: 1) Convert the fracture trend model to a locally varying mean (LVM) model. The fracture trend model m*(u) is the dimensionless σ1/σ3 ratio model which is standardized to zero mean and unit variance. The conversion into the locally varying mean (LVM) model, m(u), is written as;

m( u) = s fd m * ( u) + µ fd

······································· (11)

where µfd and sfd are the mean and the standard deviation of fracture density that obtained from well data (i.e. fracture count per unit length along wellbore).

SPE 95498

5

2) Execute DSSIM to simulate a fracture density realization using the LVM model from step 1. The fracture density observations (fracture count per unit length) at wells are also honored by using them as conditioning hard data, if that data is deemed reliable. Fig. 7 depicts an example of a simulated fracture density realization using the fracture trend model from Fig. 5. The well data used for the simulation is tabulated in Table 1 (well locations are shown in Fig. 15). The simulated fracture density realization will be utilized to build an effective permeability model which accounts for both fracture permeability and matrix permeability. Effective Permeability Modeling. The effective permeability model depends on a matrix permeability model, a fracture density model, and welltest-derived permeability. The matrix permeability model can be generated using any geostatistical method and is potentially constrained to core data obtained from wells. Fig. 8 illustrates an example matrix permeability realization which is simulated using the synthetic core permeability data in Table 1. The goal of fracture permeability modeling is to convert matrix permeability model and fracture density model into directional effective permeability models (kx, ky) which is then calibrated to welltest permeability. The directional effective permeability in fracture direction should reflect the effect of fracture. The directional effective permeability in the perpendicular direction is the same as matrix permeability. The fracture direction is identified as the optimal failure orientation predicted from elastic stress model. Fig. 9 shows a scatter plot comparing core permeability against the welltest permeability at the same well locations. As shown in the figure, welltest data shows higher permeability than matrix (core) at most of the wells. The basic assumption of the method used in this paper is that this deviation of permeability is mainly attributed to the effect of fractures. The power law model used in this paper for calibration was proposed by Heffer et al. (1999)12 based on some percolation results of Bernabe (1995)13. The model is a somewhat simplified version of the one used in the current version of fracture modeling tool discussed in Ref. 7, and written as:
⎛ ej ⎞ j k eff = k matrix ⎜ ⎟ ⎜e ⎟ ⎝ 0⎠
a

density is high enough to generate fracture network that allows percolation. Once the fracture density exceeds a threshold fracture density (e0), the effective permeability increases with the fracture density in a power-law fashion in accordance with the calibration power exponent a. The threshold fracture density (e0) and the calibration power exponent a are determined by matching the effective permeability to the welltest permeability; i.e., by minimizing the mismatch of
2 k1 k eff to welltest permeability at all wells. eff

Fig. 10 shows the result of a calibration of the effective permeability to the welltest permeability using the optimized parameters of e0 and a. Once the threshold fracture density (e0) and the calibration power exponent a are determined, the directional effective permeability models (k1eff & k2eff) are directly calculated from the fracture density model and matrix permeability model using Eq. (12) with the optimized parameters of e0 and a. In order to increase the accuracy of calibration to welltest permeability at all well locations, the effective permeability models are fine-tuned to welltest permeability through the kriging of error residuals. Fig. 11 depicts the effective permeability models computed from Figs. 7 ~ 8. The actual flow simulation input (kx & ky) is determined based on the fracture orientation and the directional effective permeability model (Fig. 11). Strictly speaking, the directional effective permeability models (k1eff & k2eff) should be converted into a permeability tensor model unless fracture orientation is parallel to the grid coordinate axis. However, in this paper, the directional effective permeability are simply allocated to diagonal permeability model by setting kx = k1eff , ky = k2eff if major direction (j = 1) is closer to x-direction, and otherwise vise versa, avoiding the use of permeability tensor simulator. History Matching. The history matching strategy proposed in this paper is to calibrate a fracture density model with historical production data rather than directly perturbing permeability, kx and ky. The underlying philosophy is that the modeling consistency in reservoir characterization is best preserved during history matching process by perturbing the reservoir parameters which are at the core of the modeling process, in this case, fracture properties. The conventional history matching approach based on direct perturbation of effective permeability tends to loose consistency with other data if the perturbation is executed directly on permeability kx and ky, hence, independent of fracture distribution model. We propose a method to perturb the fracture density model, which allows imposing geological/geomechanical constraints in the history matching process. The primary source of large-scale variability in our fracture density realization is attributed to the fracture trend model from elastic stress model, which is specifically controlled by the azimuth of SHmax for elastic simulation. The local-scale variability in fracture density is generated geostatistically by means of stochastic sequential simulation with the fracture trend model as LVM. In our approach, the global-scale fracture trend is history matched by finding the optimum SHmax-direction by jointly matching historical production data and the actually observed structural

if ej > e0

j k eff = k matrix otherwise

·····························

(12)

keff is (directional) effective permeability, kmatrix is matrix permeability, e is fracture density, e0 is threshold fracture density, and a is calibration power exponent. The superscript j (j = 1,2) denotes the principal direction of the directional permeability field, i.e. j = 1: the direction of fracture orientation (major direction), j = 2: the perpendicular direction (minor direction), thus e1 is taken from fracture density model and e2 is set to 0. As shown in Eq. (12), this model changes the effective permeability (keff) from the background matrix permeability (kmatrix), only when the fracture density exceeds the threshold fracture density (e0). The underlying assumption is that fractures contribute to flow only when the fracture

6

SPE 95498

deformation. The local-scale fluctuation of fracture density model is history matched by means of the probability perturbation method (Caers, 2003)1,2. This section first discusses the probability perturbation method. The workflow to achieve our history matching approach is presented next. Probability perturbation method for a continuous variable. The central idea of the probability perturbation method1,2 is to history match geostatistical realizations constrained to an underlying geological continuity model, for example a variogram of petrophysical properties or a training image for facies. The perturbation of a simulated realization is achieved through the perturbation of the probability model instead of properties such as porosity or permeability. The method is applicable for both categorical and continuous variable simulations with large variety of the geostatistical techniques (i.e., Gaussian simulation, direct sequential simulation, indicator simulation, and multiple-point geostatistics simulation etc.), and also can be implemented with additional constraints such as locally varying mean (LVM). The implementation of the method for direct sequential simulation (DSSIM) with locally varying mean (LVM) is described in Appendix A. The methodology perturbs a fracture density model Z(u) from some initial realization z(0)(u), which is constrained to a fracture trend model (LVM), by perturbing the probability model for Z(u) using the perturbation parameter rD (0 ≤ rD ≤ 1). If rD is set to 0, the realization is identical to z(0)(u). The magnitude of the perturbation from z(0)(u) increases with the value of rD, and when rD is 1, the method creates a completely new realization which is equi-probable to z(0)(u). The trend model (LVM), the covariance model and the hard data for the realization are exactly preserved during the perturbation (See Appendix A). The history matching is performed through the optimization of the perturbation parameter rD, by minimizing the mismatch of production data. This optimization is performed in an inner iteration loop. The optimum realization obtained from the inner iteration is successively updated through the outer iteration, by selecting a new random number seed for simulation, until history match is obtained. This outer iteration process is schematically shown in Fig.12. Automatic history matching. The automatic history matching is designed as an integrated iteration process which includes: 1) Elastic simulation for modeling structural deformation field and stress field 2) Fracture trend prediction based on a stress model 3) Geostatistical simulation of fracture density based on a fracture trend model using DSSIM with LVM 4) Effective permeability modeling from a fracture density model, a matrix permeability model and welltest permeability. 5) Numerical flow simulation 6) Evaluation of the objective function (i.e. misfit between simulated production performance vs. historical production data, misfit of trend between simulated structural deformation model vs. geological structure model)

The steps 1~6 are repeated until we obtain the history match of production data and also reproduce actually observed structural deformation trend. History matching is achieved by perturbing the fracture density model. The large-scale fracture density trend (trend model) is perturbed by optimizing the azimuth of SHmax (θSHmax) used in elastic simulation (step 1). The local-scale geostatistical fluctuation of the fracture density model is history matched using the probability perturbation method by finding optimum perturbation parameter rD incorporated in DSSIM algorithm (step 3, See Appendix A). The history matching procedure starts from an initial model constructed based on the ‘best guess’ of SHmaxdirection (θSHmax) obtained by matching the observed structural deformation. To incorporate the production data, we propose a two-stage approach: First, we try to obtain an ‘overall match’ to the production data in the 1st-stage, then starting from this 1st-stage history matched model, we try to ‘fine-tune’ the match of production data on the well-by-well basis in the 2ndstage. This technique is in spirit similar to a traditional history matching workflow and is particularly effective with a large number of wells. 1st -stage history matching. The goal of 1st-stage history matching is to calibrate SHmax-direction (θSHmax) to both of geological structural model and historical production data by obtaining ‘overall’ history match of production data. In other words, the emphasis of history matching at this stage is more on the characterization of large-scale fracture density trend rather than local-scale fracture density distribution. Fig. 13 shows the flowchart of 1st-stage history matching. At this stage, the azimuth of SHmax (θSHmax) and the perturbation parameter rD are jointly optimized in the inner iteration loop using the conjugate gradient method10. The perturbation of the local scale fracture density is achieved using a single perturbation parameter rD, which is constant over the entire domain. The optimum reservoir model obtained from the inner iteration is successively updated through the outer iterations, by changing a random number seed for DSSIM, until history match is obtained. The workflow shown in Fig. 13 ensures the preservation of geological / geomechanical modeling consistency by iterating entire modeling process starting from elastic simulation. The honoring of well data such as fracture density, core permeability and welltest permeability is also guaranteed. The optimization of θSHmax and rD is achieved through the minimization of the misfit function of production data and geological constraints O(θSHmax, rD), which is defined as;

O(θ SH max, rD ) = [ w1O1 + w 2 O 2 ]* + [O 3 ]* ·············· (13)
where, O1 is misfit of bottom-hole shut-in pressure (BHSP), O2 is misfit of water cut, and O3 is misfit of structural deformation defined in Eq. (4) which serves as a penalty term that constrains the fracture density model to geological structural model. O1 and O2 are defined by;
O1 = ∑ (d1,sim ,i − d1,obs,i )
i =1
N2

N1

2

O 2 = ∑ (d 2,sim,i − d 2,obs,i )
i =1

2

····································· (14)

SPE 95498

7

where subscripts 1 and 2 denote water cut and bottom-hole shut-in pressure (BHSP), respectively. N is the number of observed data point, dobs is observed data value, and dsim is simulated data value. The weights w1 and w2 in Eq. (13) are specified such that the terms w1O1 and w2O 2 equally contribute to the total mismatch in the initial simulation run (initial reservoir model). If one wishes to constrain the fracture orientation at well locations to the well observations, it can be also included in Eq.(13) as an additional penalty term. The superscript * in Eq. (13) denotes dimensionless variable of each misfit term. The production misfit term [w1O1+ w2O2] and the geological misfit term O3 are made dimensionless by;
[ w1O1 + w 2 O 2 ]* =
[O 3 ]* = O 3 − [O 3 ]0 [O 3 ]0

[ w1O1 + w 2 O 2 ] [ w1O1 + w 2 O 2 ]0

through the inner iteration loop by minimizing the objective functions Ok(rkD) separately. Since all of the objective functions Ok(rkD) can be simultaneously evaluated by the single forward simulation, this optimization is performed using one-dimensional optimization technique such as Brent method10 in parallel fashion. Thus the computation cost of optimization procedure is almost the same as that required for optimizing a single parameter rD, providing great feasibility and flexibility for history matching. The flowchart of 2nd-stage history matching is depicted in Fig.14. As in the 1st-stage history matching, the optimum reservoir model obtained from the inner iteration is successively updated through the outer iterations, by drawing a new random number seed for DSSIM, until history match is obtained. Synthetic Reservoir Application History Matching Examples. The proposed approach was tested using a two-dimensional synthetic reservoir model. The same geological settings and well data (Table 1) as in the examples shown in the previous section are used for the synthetic history matching runs. Fig.15 depicts the top depth structural model and well locations of the reservoir. The model consists of 70*100*1 grid blocks with the horizontal grid size of 100m*100m. Water flooding performance is simulated placing 6 producers and 6 injectors as depicted in Fig.15. The producers are operated under the constraints of liquid production rate control. The injectors are controlled by constant injection rate. The bottom-hole shut-in pressure (BHSP) and water cut are history matched. Fig.16 shows the regions for rD parameters defined for 2nd-stage history matching. The reference reservoir model is constructed using the azimuth of SHmax (θSHmax) of 80 deg. As shown in Fig. 6d, this geomechanical setting still reproduces the actually observed structural deformation. However, the corresponding fracture trend model is considerably deviated from the trend model obtained from the automatic structural deformation matching (θSHmax = 50 deg., Fig. 6a). The initial reservoir model is created based on the ‘best guess’ of SHmax-direction from the automatic structural deformation matching (θSHmax = 50 deg.). The different random number seeds are used for simulating the reference and initial fracture density model to create distinct local-scale heterogeneity in fracture density from each other. The variogram used for fracture density simulation is fixed. The matrix permeability model is also frozen during history matching. The synthetic history matching runs are designed to see if the fracture density model and effective permeability model are reasonably reproduced by the incorporation of production data. The following 3 cases are considered: Case 1: Base case. The reservoir model is created using the same geological / geostatistical settings as in the examples in the previous section. Case 2: The range and sill of the variogram for simulating fracture density is reduced from Case 1 to boost the impact of fracture trend model on the simulated fracture density realization. The range of the variogram is decreased to the

························

(15)

where subscript 0 denotes misfit term from the initial reservoir model. Therefore, the dimensionless geological misfit term [O3]* takes zero for the initial reservoir model. It is usually difficult to obtain complete history match at every wells at the end of 1st-stage history matching, especially when the number of wells to history match is large, since at this stage a single perturbation parameter rD is used for entire reservoir domain. Therefore, in the subsequent 2nd-stage history matching, we ‘fine-tune’ the history match of production data on the well-by-well basis. 2nd -stage history matching. The 2nd-stage history matching starts from the 1st-stage history matched reservoir model. At this stage, the fracture trend model used as a locally varying mean (LVM) for DSSIM is fixed to the 1st-stage history matched model. Only the local-scale geostatistical fluctuation of fracture density model is perturbed using the regional probability perturbation method (Hoffman and Caers, 2003)2. The regional probability perturbation method2 achieves history matching by dividing reservoir domain into several reservoir regions and assigns separate perturbation parameters rkD to the individual reservoir region k. The division of reservoir region is defined based on either of 1) flow region identified by streamline simulation, or 2) ad-hoc reservoir region such as fault blocks. The objective function (i.e. misfit function of production data) is also separately defined for each reservoir region k as;
k k k k k O k ( rD ) = w1 O1 + w 2 O 2

···································

(16)

with,
k k k O1 = ∑ (d1,sim,i − d1,obs,i ) N1 i =1 2

k k k O 2 = ∑ (d 2,sim ,i − d 2 ,obs,i ) N2 i =1

2

···································

(17)

where subscripts 1 and 2 denote water cut and bottom-hole shut-in pressure (BHSP), respectively, and superscript k denotes reservoir region k. Thus the objective function Ok(rkD) accounts only for the production data from wells placed in region k. The set of perturbation parameters rkD are optimized

8

SPE 95498

half of that used in Case 1. The sill is reduced to 1/6 of that used in Case 1. Case 3: The matrix permeability is reduced to 1/10 from Case 2, generating stronger contrast of permeability between the regions of high and low fracture density. Figs. 17, 21, 25 show the result of history match of production performance at the selected wells. Figs. 18, 22, 26 compare the fracture trend models with the reference model, the initial model and the history matched model. Figs. 19, 23, 27 depict the comparison of fracture density models with the reference model, the initial model and the history matched model. Figs.20, 24, 28 show comparisons of effective permeability models in fracture direction. As shown in Figs. 17, 21, 25, a good history match of production data is obtained in all cases. The reproduction of the fracture trend model, the fracture density model, and the effective permeability model are quite encouraging in all cases (Figs. 18~20, 22~24, 26~28). Also, the reproduction of the fracture trend model is improved in Case 2 compared to Case 1. This is because the constraint of facture trend model on the fracture density model is stronger in Case 2 due to the variogram with smaller range and sill, reducing the effect of geostatistical fluctuation of fracture density on fluid flow. Similarly, the reproduction of the fracture trend model and fracture density model is better in Case 3 than Case 2 due to the increased permeability contrast between matrix and fracture, presumably because the stronger permeability contrast enhances the effect of fracture density on fluid flow. Future Performance Predictions. In order to evaluate the quality of the history matched reservoir models in terms of the accuracy of future performance prediction, the production forecast simulation runs are executed using the reference models, the initial models, and the history matched models of Cases 1~3. The performance prediction from the reference models is regarded as the ‘true’ future production behavior (i.e. the reference production behavior). The prediction runs using the initial models correspond to the production forecast from a model constrained only to geological/geomechanical information and welltest data (i.e., the initial fracture model is calibrated to the well tests and the stress model which honors the observed reservoir structure). However, it does not account for the production data. On the other hand, the production forecast using the history matched models corresponds to the future performance prediction which fully utilizes the information from welltest data, geological/geomechanical data and historical production data. The prediction runs are made using liquid rate control for the producers and injection rate control for the injectors. Oil production is predicted for 6 existing producers for a time-span of 10 years in Cases 1~2 and 40 years in Case 3, and also for 2 additional infill-drilling producers. Water is injected from 6 existing injectors. Fig. 29 depicts the well location of the additional producers together with the existing wells. Figs. 30~32 compare the simulated future performance of the new producers with the reference model, the initial model and the history matched models for Cases 1~3, respectively. As depicted in Figs. 31~32, the prediction results for the new

producers using the history matched models (i.e. the models accounting for both of geology and production data) exhibit a good match to the ‘true’ future production behavior in Cases 2 and 3, showing considerable improvement in prediction accuracy compared to the results from the initial models (i.e. the models accounting only for geology). However, in Case 1 (Fig. 30), the history matched model failed to predict the water cut behavior at one of the new producers (New Well 1), although the performance prediction at the other new producer (New Well 2) is almost perfect showing significant improvement from the initial model. The poorer prediction accuracy in Case 1 compared to Cases 2 and 3 can be attributed to the weaker constraint of the fracture trend model on the simulated fracture density realization, due to the particular variogram used. Since the simulated fracture density realization in Case 1 has larger geostatistical fluctuation compared to the other cases, history matching of this reservoir model is achieved because of the larger local scale perturbation of fracture density. Thus, matching of geological/geomechanical information may have traded off for matching production data. Conclusions The proposed fracture modeling / history matching method showed some promising results in the synthetic reservoir application, resulting in good history match of the production data, reasonable reproduction of fracture density distribution of ‘true’ reservoir, and the improved accuracy of future performance prediction. Part of the reason for these encouraging results is attributed to the fact that both the reference model and initial model are created using the same algorithm. However, the result shows the validity of the proposed approach for this simple application. The major focus of our history matching approach is the preservation of geomechanical consistency and geological structural information during the incorporation of production data, in addition to the full integration of reservoir data ranging from geological/geomechanical data, well data (i.e. observation of fractures, core and welltest data) to historical production data. This attempt maximizes the amount of information utilized for fracture modeling in anticipation of the reduction of uncertainty. Although the proposed workflow requires iterative optimization process, our parameterization of fracture density model effectively simplified the optimization problem to two-parameter problem (i.e. θSHmax and rD), making the application feasible. The further extension of the proposed approach could be listed as follows:

The proposed method currently only deals with shear fracture. The inclusion of several fracture sets (such as both of shear fracture and tensile fracture as proposed by Bourne et al.3) into the modeling would provide more realistic characterization of fractured reservoirs. It is known that fractures are only conductive when they are critically stressed14. Considering that tectonics can change with time, it is not realistic to assume all existing fractures are conductive. Zoback et al. (2001) has proposed a method to identify

SPE 95498

9

conductive fractures by evaluating the current stress status on fracture surfaces based on the field stress information which can be obtained by analyzing borehole failure while drilling14. The application of the method of Zoback would improve the reliability of the flow simulation model.

σ 2COK = σ 2SK = σn = τ=
1. 2. 3.

collocated co-kriging variance simple kriging variance normal stress shear stress

References
Caers, J.: “History Matching Under Training-Image Based Geological Constraints,” SPE74716 (2003) Hoffman, T. and Caers, J.: “Regional Probability Perturbation Method Applied to a Real Reservoir,” SCRF Report, Stanford University (2004) Bourne, S. J. and Willemse, E.J.M.: “Elastic Stress Control on the Pattern of Tensile Fracturing Around a Small Fault Network at Nash Point, UK,” Journal of Structural Geology (2001) 23 1753-1770 Maerten, L., Gillespie, P., Pollard, D.: “Effects of Local Stress Perturbation on Secondary Fault Development,” Journal of Structural Geology (2002) Bourne S.J. et al.: “Predictive Modeling of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Geomechanics and Flow Simulation,” GeoArabia (2001) vol 6, No 1, pp27-42 Daly, C. and Mueller D.: “Characterization and Modeling of Fractured Reservoirs: Static Model,” Proceedings ECMOR 2004 (2004) Roxar: FracPerm Reference Manual (2005) Crouch S.L. and Starfield A.M.: Boundary Element Methods in Solid Mechanics, Allen and Unwin. London (1983) King G. and Cocco M.: “Fault Interaction by Elastic Stress Changes; New Clues from Earthquake Sequences,” Advances in Geophysics (2001) vol 44, pp1-46 Press, W. H. et. al.: Numerical Recipes in C, Second Edition, Cambridge (1992) Journel, A.G.: “Modeling Uncertainty: Some Conceptual Thoughts,” in Dimitrakoponlos R et. al., Geostatistics for the Next Century, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Holland (1994) p30-43 Heffer, K., King, P., Jones, A.: “Fracture Modeling as Part of Integrated Reservoir Description," SPE53347 (1999) Bernabe, Y.: “The Transport Properties of Networks of Cracks and Pores,” J. Geophysical Research (1995), vol. 100 Zoback, M. D. and Townend, J.: “Implications of Hydrostatic Pore Pressures and High Crustal Strength for the Deformation of Intraplate Lithosphere,” Tectonophysics (2001)

The proposed method is currently based on single porosity model, neglecting the effect of capillary imbibition of fractured rock. The extension of the method to dual porosity model is desired for wider application.

Acknowledgements This research is conducted as a joint research project between Roxar Limited and SCRF (Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford University). The authors would like to thank Roxar Limited for the permission to publish this paper, also for providing the software used in this research that include elastic simulator, fracture permeability (= effective permeability) modeling software, numerical flow simulator, and geological modeling/visualization software. Nomenclature C = covariance model Dref = reference depth D(x) = top structural depth at x =(x,y) O = objective function R = random residual S0 = shear strength of rock SHmax = maximum (remote) horizontal principal stress SHmin = minimum (remote) horizontal principal stress Sv = vertical (remote) principal stress Uz(x) = z-displacement at x =(x,y) U*z(x) = dimensionless z-displacement at x =(x,y) Z(u) = continuous variable at u =(x,y,z) Z*COK = collocated co-kriging estimate Z*SK = simple kriging estimate d = production data e = fracture density keff = effective permeability kmatrix = matrix permeability kx = directional permeability in x-direction ky = directional permeability in y-direction m(u) = locally varying mean (LVM) at u =(x,y,z) rD = perturbation parameter sUz = standard deviation of Uz(x) s fd = standard deviation of fracture density w = weight θ= θSHmax = λ= µ= µfd = µUz = σ= σ1 = σ2 = σ3 = angle azimuth of SHmax kriging weight internal friction coefficient mean of fracture density mean of Uz(x) stress tensor maximum principal stress intermediate principal stress minimum principal stress

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Appendix A: Probability Perturbation Method for Direct Sequential Simulation (DSSIM) with Locally Varying Mean (LVM) When applied to continuous variable simulation, the probability perturbation method is implemented using a collocated co-kriging algorithm. Consider the perturbation of a continuous variable Z(u) from some initial realization z(0)(u) through the perturbation of the probability model for Z(u). This is achieved by perturbing kriging estimate Z*COK(u) and kriging variance σ2COK(u), which determine the local ccdf of Z(u), using the perturbation parameter rD (0 ≤ rD ≤ 1). In the context of direct sequential simulation (DSSIM) with locally varying mean (LVM), this perturbation is described as;
′ ′ Z* (u) = ∑ λα Z(uα ) + λ0 z ( 0 ) (u) + (1 −∑ λα − λ0 )m(u) COK
α α

····················· (A1)

10

SPE 95498

∑ λβ Cαβ + λ ′ (1 − r β
0

D

)C 0α = C 0α

·········· ··········

(A2) (A3)
Table 1 Hard data at wells
Matrix Permeability (mD) Well_A Well_B Well_C Well_D Well_E Well_F Well_G Well_H Well_I Well_J Well_K Well_L 81.1 76.8 55.0 78.4 67.5 70.1 100.2 72.7 31.4 78.7 76.2 51.3 Well Test Permeability (mD) 100 150 200 50 60 80 120 1500 100 400 800 200 Fracture Density (count/m) 2 6 8 1 3 2 1 15 7 9 12 8

∑ λβ (1 − r β

D

′ )C 0 β + λ0 C 00 = (1 − rD )C 00

2 σ COK ( u) = C 00 − ∑ λβ C 0 β − λ0′ (1 − rD )C 00 ····· (A4)

β

where m(u) is the LVM, C is covariance model, and λ, λ’ are kriging weights. The perturbation of realization Z(u) increases as the perturbation parameter rD increases. The realization Z(u) is identical to the realization z(0)(u) when rD = 0. Oppositely, if rD = 1, the algorithm produces a completely new realization which is equi-probable to z(0)(u). This implementation of the probability perturbation method is executed using collocated co-simulation (with Markov Model 1, MM1). In order to perturb a model from some realization z(0)(u), one specifies the realization z(0)(u) as an input secondary data and the value of (1- rD) as a correlation coefficient, then, simulates a realization Z(l)(u) using a new random number seed which is different from that used for simulating the realization z(0)(u). The other input parameters, such as a variogram or a LVM model, are kept the same as used for simulating z(0)(u). The simulated realization Z(l)(u) is the perturbation from z(0)(u). The magnitude of the perturbation is controlled by the specified value of rD.

Mean fracture density = 6.1 (count/m) Standard deviation = 4.5 (count/m)

* Matrix permeability is reduced to 1/10 in Case 3

Reference Structural Model

Initial Model SHmax Azimuth= 0 deg (N)

Optimized Model SHmax Azimuth= 50 deg (N50E)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 1: Result of structural deformation matching (Dimensionless z-displacement simulated with SHmax = 20 MPa, SHmin= 10 MPa, Sv = 38.25 MPa, Young’s modulus = 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio = 0.25)

SPE 95498

11

σ1

σ2

σ3

Unit: MPa

Fig. 2: Simulated principal stress field with SHmax Azimuth =N50E (SHmax = 20 MPa, SHmin= 10 MPa, Sv = 38.25 MPa, Young’s modulus = 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio = 0.25)

σ1

τ
|τ| = S0+µσn

σn θ

τ

σ3

Slope = µ

S0 2θopt

σ3
Fig. 3: Potential failure plane. σ2 direction is orthogonal to both of σ1 & σ3 directions (comes out of the figure).

σ1

σn

Fig. 4: Mohr diagram

Fig. 5: Fracture trend model (dimensionless σ1/σ3 ratio) simulated with SHmax Azimuth =N50E (SHmax = 20 MPa, SHmin= 10 MPa, Sv = 38.25 MPa, Young’s modulus = 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio = 0.25)

12

SPE 95498

Fracture trend model

Z-displacement

(a)

SHmax N50E

(b)

SHmax N35E

(c)

SHmax N65E

(d)

SHmax N80E

Fig.6 Simulated fracture trend model (dimensionless σ1/ σ3 ratio) and vertical structural deformation field (dimensionless zdisplacement) with different SHmax orientation (SHmax = 20 MPa, SHmin= 10 MPa, Sv = 38.25 MPa, Young’s modulus = 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio = 0.25)

Unit: count/m

Unit: mD

Fig. 7: Fracture density model simulated using the trend model in Fig. 5

Fig. 8: Matrix permeability model

SPE 95498
10000

13
10000

Well Test Permeability (mD)

Well Test Permeability (mD)

e0=4.85
1000

1000

a=5.35

100

100

10 10 100 1000 10000

10 10 100 1000 10000

Matrix Permeability (mD)

Total Permeability (mD)

Fig. 9: Matrix permeability vs. welltest permeability

Fig. 10: The result of calibration to welltest permeability, total permeability denotes √k1eff k2eff
seed 0

Major direction (fracture orientation)
Outer Iteration 1

Z1

(0)

seed 1
Optimize rD1

Z1

(opt)

(rD1) → Z2

(0)

seed 2

Outer Iteration 2

Optimize rD2

Unit: mD
Minor direction

Z2

(opt)

(rD2) → Z3

(0)

seed 3

Outer Iteration 3 Z( )

Optimize rD3

Z3

(opt)

(rD3)

Fig. 11: Effective permeability model

Fig. 12: Outer iteration of the probability perturbation method

Structural model Stress model Frac. trend model

Well data (frac. count)

Elastic Simulation

Frac. Trend Prediction

DSSIM w/ LVM Frac. density map

Structural deformation

Set Zk(0) = Zk-1(opt) (k: outer iteration count)

Set new θSHmax & rD

Calculate Objective Function

Flow Simulation

Kx, Ky

Fracture Perm Modeling

Well test perm

New Random Number Seed

NO

Minimum? YES

Production data Structural model

Matrix perm map

Inner iteration loop NO History matched? YES END Outer iteration loop

Fig. 13: Flowchart of 1st-stage history matching

14

SPE 95498

Frac. trend model (fixed)

Well data (frac. count)

DSSIM w/ LVM

Frac. density map Calculate Objective Function

Fracture Perm Modeling Kx, Ky

Well test perm Matrix perm map

Set Zk(0) = Zk-1(opt) (k: outer iteration count)

Set new rDk ’s

Flow Simulation

Production data

New Random Number Seed

NO

Minimum? YES Inner iteration loop History matched? END Outer iteration loop

NO

YES

Fig. 14: Flowchart of 2nd-stage history matching

WELL J WELL I WELL K WELL E WELL F WELL G WELL A WELL C WELL H WELL D WELL B

WELL L

Fig. 15: Well location indicated on top depth map, producers: red, injectors: black

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5

Fig. 16: Regions for rD parameters in the 2nd-stage history matching

SPE 95498

15

300

200

Well A
250
150

Well E
BHSP (bar)

BHSP (bar)

BHSP

200

100

150

50

100
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

0 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

Time (days)

WellC

Time (days)

WellK

0.80 0.70 0.60

0.80

Well C
Water Cut (frac.)

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

Well K

Water Cut (frac.)

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

W.C.

0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Fig. 17: History matching result (selected wells), Case1

Initial model

1st stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 18: Comparison of fracture trend (LVM) models, Case1

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 19: Comparison of fracture density models, Case1

16

SPE 95498

Initial Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: mD

Fig. 20: Comparison of effective permeability models (fracture direction), Case1

400

300

Well F
350

Well H
250

BHSP (bar)

BHSP

300

BHSP (bar)
0
600

200

250

150

200

100
1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

3600

Time (days)

Time (days)

WellC
0.80 0.70 0.60

WellK

0.80

Well C
Water Cut (frac.)

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Well K

Water Cut (frac.)

W.C.

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

3600

0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

3600

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Fig. 21: History matching result (selected wells), Case2

Initial model

1st stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 22: Comparison of fracture trend (LVM) models, Case2

SPE 95498

17

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 23: Comparison of fracture density models, Case2

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: mD

Fig. 24: Comparison of effective permeability models (fracture direction), Case2

350

350

300

Well A
BHSP (bar)

300

Well E

BHSP (bar)

250

250

BHSP

200

200

150

150

100 0 2400 4800 7200 9600 12000 14400

100

0

2400

4800

7200

9600

12000

14400

Time (days)

WellD

Time (days)

WellK

0.90 0.80 0.70

0.90

Well D
Water Cut (frac.)

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Well K

Water Cut (frac.)

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 2400 4800 7200 9600 12000 14400

W.C.

0

2400

4800

7200

9600

12000

14400

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Fig. 25: History matching result (selected wells), Case3

18

SPE 95498

Initial model

1st stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 26: Comparison of fracture trend (LVM) models, Case3

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: count/m

Fig. 27: Comparison of fracture density models, Case3

Initial model

1st stage HM model

2nd stage HM model

Reference model

Unit: mD

Fig. 28: Comparison of effective permeability models (fracture direction), Case3

WELL J WELL I WELL K WELL E WELL F NEW WELL 2 WELL G

WELL L

WELL A WELL C NEW WELL 1 WELL D WELL B WELL H

Fig. 29: Location of new wells, producers: red, injectors: black

SPE 95498
800 800 700

19

Oil Production Rate (m3)

Oil Production Rate (m3)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0 3600

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 3600 1.00 0.90

OIL RATE

New Well 1

New Well 2
4800

4800

New Well 1
Time (days)

6000

7200

New Well 2
Time (days)

6000

7200

0.50

0.40

New Well 1
Water Cut (frac.)

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

New Well 2

Water Cut (frac.)

0.30

W.C.

0.20

0.10

0.00 3600

4800

6000

7200

0.00 3600

4800

6000

7200

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model (‘true’ future performance) Initial model (prediction accounting only for geology) 2nd stage HM model (prediction accounting for both geology & production data)
Fig. 30: Comparison of future performance prediction (new wells), Case1
800 700

800 700

Oil Production Rate (m3)

600 500 400 300 200 100
0 3600

Oil Production Rate (m3)

600 500 400 300 200 100

OIL RATE

New Well 1
4800 6000 7200

New Well 2
4800

New Well 1
Time (days)

0 3600

New Well 2
Time (days)

6000

7200

1.00 0.90 0.80

1.00

New Well 1
Water Cut (frac.)

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

New Well 2

Water Cut (frac.)

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 3600 4800 6000 7200

W.C.

0.00 3600

4800

6000

7200

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model (‘true’ future performance) Initial model (prediction accounting only for geology) 2nd stage HM model (prediction accounting for both geology & production data)
Fig. 31: Comparison of future performance prediction (new wells), Case2

20

SPE 95498

300

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 14400

Oil Production Rate (m3)

200 150 100 50 0 14400 0.80 0.70 0.60

OIL RATE

New Well 1

Oil Production Rate (m3)

250

New Well 2

18000

New Well 1
Time (days)

21600

25200

28800

18000

New Well 2 Time (days)

21600

25200

28800

1.00

New Well 1
Water Cut (frac.)

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

New Well 2

Water Cut (frac.)

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 14400

W.C.

18000

21600

25200

28800

0.00 14400

18000

21600

25200

28800

Time (days)

Time (days)

Reference model (‘true’ future performance) Initial model (prediction accounting only for geology) 2nd stage HM model (prediction accounting for both geology & production data)
Fig. 32: Comparison of future performance prediction (new wells), Case3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->