You are on page 1of 9

IADC/SPE 81634

Reservoir Characterization during UBD: Methodology and Active Tests
Erlend H. Vefring, RF-Rogaland Research, Gerhard Nygaard, Telemark University College, Rolf Johan Lorentzen, Geir
Nævdal and Kjell Kåre Fjelde, RF- Rogaland Research
Copyright 2003, IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25–26 March 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC, SPE, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract 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.

Abstract
In this paper methodologies for reservoir characterization during underbalanced drilling is presented. In these methodologies we are using a transient wellflow model coupled to a transient reservoir model, and use estimation techniques to estimate reservoir properties. Our focus is to estimate the permeability and reservoir pressure along the well, using measured
data usually available while drilling. The measured data are
outlet rates, pump pressure and downhole pressure. The liquid
injection and gas injection rates are used as input to the model.
The methodologies are applied to synthetic cases.
Introduction
Underbalanced drilling is becoming increasingly popular.
During an underbalanced drilling operation the well pressure
should be kept below the formation pressure at all times. Since
the well is producing while drilling, the well may be tested
real time. Estimation of near wellbore characteristics of the
formation gives important information when using smart completions since highly productive zones can be located.
Several recent papers1-4 have addressed well-testing during
underbalanced drilling. Methodologies have been presented in
these papers where the permeability profile in the near wellbore region is estimated based on the assumption that the total
flow rate from the reservoir is known and that the reservoir
pressure is assumed to be constant and known. An alternative
technique1 has been presented where the assumption of known
and constant reservoir pressure is not needed, but known total
flow rate from the reservoir is still needed. The total flow rate
from the reservoir is however not usually measured during an
underbalanced drilling operation. As it is pointed out in Ref. 1
it is not straightforward to determine the total flow rate from
the reservoir on the basis of the surface flow measurements.
Compressibility of the fluids in the system may lead to loading
and unloading in the wellbore, and mass flow rate at the sur-

face is therefore affected by production, injection, and the
change in mass stored in the wellbore as a function of time. It
is therefore a need to develop methodology for reservoir characterization during underbalanced drilling that applies only
data measured during the operations.
Some recent papers5,6 have addressed the challenge of
calibrating a well flow model real time according to measured
data. The advantage of having such a calibrated well flow
model is that reliable predictions for the well conditions (like
bottomhole pressure) can be given at all times. A limitation of
these papers is that no reservoir models have been included.
In a previous paper7 a least square methodology to estimate
near-well reservoir properties was presented. The present paper is an extension of this work. In the present paper the ensemble Kalman filter is introduced as an alternative method to
estimate reservoir properties during underbalanced drilling.
The importance of active tests during the drilling operation is
also investigated.
The outline of the paper is as follows. The well flow model
and the reservoir model are first described. Then two methodology for interpreting the reservoir properties from the measured data are described. The described methodologies are then
applied to synthetic cases.
The description of the well flow model, reservoir model as
well as the estimation methodologies, closely follows the
presentations in Refs. 5-7, but are included here for the convenience of the reader.
Dynamic Well Flow Model
A dynamic model for describing the transient behavior of the
two-phase flow conditions in LHD and UBD operations can
be expressed with basis in the drift-flux formulation of the
two-phase flow conservation laws8. Due to the complexity of
the model, a numerical solution strategy is required.
The numerical scheme solves a set of three conservation
equations, one for the mass of each phase and one for the mixture momentum. The mixture energy equation is not taken into
account. Instead a fixed temperature profile in the well is used,
which can be calculated in advance or provided by the data
acquisition system.
Conservation Equations. The drift-flux formulation of the
conservation equations is given by

(ρ Gα G ) + ∂ (ρ Gα G v G ) = m ,…………...........……. (1)
∂t
∂z

constitute a model for the downward two-phase flow in the drillstring. obs is the i’th measm f i (c ) is the simulated value for the corresponding measurement with inflow given by the parameter vector c and σ i is the standard deviation of the measurement i .obs − f i (c)    …………………………………. j ) = IADC/SPE 81634 4π K i ∆s(p res. NYGAARD...…... ……… ………. we make the simplifying assumption that these properties are constant in n specified zones of the well. The reservoir consists of several zones. j (t i. G.. FJELDE ∂ (ρ Lα L ) + ∂ (ρ Lα L v L ) = −m .. In addition. densities.. downhole pressure and outlet rates.…….………….……. In the linearized covariance analysis we assume that the errors are Gaussian and uses a linearization of F (c ) around the estimated point cest in the computations. NÆVDAL AND K..….…. In the standard drift-flux approach.. ρ L .... urement. This means that the inflow profile can be expressed by a vector c containing 2n parameters.…. In the expression above. H.. ……….14. Hence... Mechanistic models have become quite popular for describing steady-state twophase flow in producing wells. The estimation of the reservoir properties is done by finding the vector c = cest such that 2  yi . the simulated values are functions of the same parameters. it is possible to integrate mechanistic steady-state procedures into fully dynamic twophase flow models to provide the necessary information regarding phase velocities and pressure loss terms 11. ρ G . 16 and the handling of constraints upon methods described in Ref. Error analysis. (4) where C1 = 1 and C2 = 0 is adopted in the present work. R. When drilling. v G .…. c .. or by assuming knowledge of the reservoir pressure for each zone n parameters..…………(5)   =  dz  F (d 2 − d 1 ) M M M The Equations (1)-(3) together with (4) and (5). (3)  dz  F The transient drift-flux model is a system of non-linear partial differential equations. To avoid unphysical solutions.…. j µ(2S + log( γ )) e ϕ µcr w2 Several consecutively segments where the permeability and reservoir pressure are equal are referred to as a zone..19 of the vector valued func- [ tion F (c ) = f i (c ) ]im=1 around the estimated point c = cest (linearized covariance analysis). This uncertainty can be estimated by linearization18. (6) Mechanistic models have also been developed for twophase flow in annuli10.. Furthermore. We model the influx from the reservoir to each segment number j in zone i through the equation q i. 1. The model describes the fully transient behavior of both pressure pulse propagation and mass transport. which is essential as backflow can occur in UBD and LHD operations when gravitational forces exceed pressure drop in the annulus.……. . v Ls .(8) ∑ σi i =1   is minimized. which minimizes the least squares expression (8) given the constraints.……. v L .. µ G .. yi . LORENTZEN . Dynamic reservoir model The dynamic reservoir model is based on the transient constant terminal rate reservoir model15 and is similar to the reservoir model used in Ref. interfacial tension and well geometry. …... Closure relations for flow in drillstring. pressure drop ) . To estimate the unknown reservoir properties (permeability and pressure). The mechanistic models provide information about flow patterns... The estimation of the inflow profile is done by searching for reservoir properties that reconcile the measured data... ………….J. are kept constant over the whole reservoir. the reservoir inflow is calculated in small segments of 1 meter length.. The measurement errors will give rise to an uncertainty in the estimated inflow profile.. i − p w ) . Using the simulator we compute values of the observables for a given set of reservoir properties. µ L .2 E... v Gs )   → (α G . 17. Closure relations for flow in annulus. . VEFRING. A least square methodology to estimate near-well reservoir properties The unknown reservoir properties may be estimated using the well flow simulator and measurements of pump pressure. 1.(7) 4K i t i. The Levenberg-Marquardt method is applied to compute the unknown parameters represented by c . Recently these models have been extended to include counter-current flow13. it is necessary to provide an appropriate model for the frictional pressure loss term in the momentum equation.. The implementation of the Levenberg-Marquardt method is based upon the description given in Ref. (2) ∂t ∂z ( ∂ (ρ Lα L v L + ρ Gα G v G ) + ∂ ρ Lα L v 2L + ρ Gα G v G2 + p ∂t ∂z )  dp  = −  − ( ρ Lα L + ρ G α G ) g sin θ . viscosities. etc.12..……. The reservoir zones are connected to the well as shown in Fig. Generally the slip relation can be presented in the following form: v G = C1 (α G v G + α L v L ) + C 2 . pressure drops. the closure of the system is achieved by specifying density models for each phase and a slip relation between the phases.. certain limitations must be put on the parameters.. gas volumetric fractions and phase velocities based on knowledge of the superficial velocities.. K. This relationship can be expressed as calculate M(d1 . These limitations are implemented using linear inequality constraints on the parameter vector. d 2 . and we assume that the permeability and reservoir pressure varies in different zones. A frequently used expression for this term is: 2f  dp  ρ v v . The other quantities such as porosity.. τ . which is hyperbolic in an ample region of physical multiphase parameters9.….. G..

K res.1 .. Denote the state vector for the j’th member of the ensemble after inclusion of the measurement by taken into account. Concerning the model .…………….. To combine the information from the measurements with the model in a proper way. The size of this model is small compared to the models used in the oceanographic science... The model parameters are defined as ω = (p res.... as the parameter estimates are updated each time new measurements become available. −1 m.(10) a vector of length two times the number of penetrated reservoir zones. The ensemble Kalman filter was first introduced in geophysical sciences22 as an alternative to the extended Kalman filter for large non-linear models.. and discuss some details on the actual implementation for this study. The covariance matrix. The observation vector d is related to the state vector s through the equation d = Hs .. We assume that the errors in the measurements are statistically independent..... More details on the specification of Ψ will be given below. for an appropriate matrix H. the parameters have to be estimated after all the data are collected. depends both on the accuracy of the measurements and the sensitivity of the simulated values to a change in the reservoir properties... The state vectors in the ensemble are updated using the gain matrix G = RHT (HRHT + Σ) −1 . The j’th state vector prior to the inclusion of the next measurements is s jf = f(s ja ) + ψ j . Q G... and ψ j is a stochastic contribution representing the model error.. This means that 100 forward simulations are needed. ). As the state vector we use the unknown model parameters..e. we evaluate the use of ensemble Kalman filter with an augmented state vector. The Kalman filter is more suitable for online estimations. For proper use of the filter an ensemble of observations is needed23.(16) through the equation s ja = s jf + G(d j − Hs jf ) ………………………………(17) A major issue with the ensemble Kalman filter is the size of the ensemble. Experience in the oceanographic science24 has indicated that the filter may function using a size of the ensemble in the range 100 – 500... Q L. ……………………………. i .. after the drilling is completed. we need both to know the uncertainty in the current estimate of the state and the uncertainty in the measurements. i. It is our experience that proper specification of the covariance matrix for the modeling error is crucial to get good performance of the filter. P . j =1 is the sensitivity matrix of the simulated values with respect to a change in the reservoir properties. i... The model noise added for the time dependent variables is very small ( ≈ 10 −16 ) in all the cases... The ensemble Kalman filter technique has been used for estimating model parameters in a well-flow simulator for underbalanced drilling6 and to estimate the permeability in a near-well reservoir model20.(9) J= i  ∂c j  i =1. We have chosen to use 100 members in the ensemble.2 . n ∂f  ……………………. and Σ is the covariance matrix of the measurement errors. Using the Kalman filter it is possible to combine the information obtained from the measurements with the model to get an improved estimate of the state vector of the system.. The covariance matrix for the model noise.. is diagonal. In the least square approach presented previously. and we have investigated different forms of model noise.21. the noise added to one state is independent of the noise added to any other state.………………………………………...... The model error we use is normally distributed with zero mean and covariance matrix Ψ. This presentation follows closely the presentation given in (Ref. therefore it should be investigated if a reasonable performance of the filter can be achieved with smaller ensemble size than 100. This gives a covariance matrix Σ for the measurement errors. …………………………(11) where i runs through a spatial grid defined by the numerical method.(14) ∑ i =1 ∑ j =1 n -1 where n is the number of members in the ensemble.. which are the reservoir pressure and permeability for each of the reservoir zones the well is penetrating.. and discretized values for pressure.(15) R= where d is the actual observation and εj is drawn from a normal distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix Σ. To take into account the measurements we use the covariance matrix of the ensemble around the ensemble mean.………………………………………(12) where f( s ja ) denotes the updating of the state vector done by Here where the i’th diagonal entry is equal to 3 sja . This is defined by d j = d + ε j . and with known variances.1 ..(13) n and the ensemble covariance matrix is 1 n n ( s jf − sˆ ) ( sif − sˆ ) T . K res..…………………………………………. therefore Σ is a diagonal matrix σ i2 ... water mass flow rate and oil mass flow rate in the well.IADC/SPE 81634 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION DURING UBD: METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVE TESTS The uncertainty in the estimated parameters is expressed by the covariance matrix of the estimated parameters cest which is P = (JT Σ −1J ) . i … ω ) . We are assuming uncorrelated measurement errors.. 6). Ψ. The mean value of the ensemble is given by n 1 sˆ = ∑ j =1 s jf . This gives a state vector on the form s = (… p i .………………………... p res.. For the convenience of the reader we will recall basic facts about the ensemble Kalman filter.e. The optimal size of the ensemble for our application is a subject for further research.2 . Each state vector is used as initial value to the simulator for a forward simulation that is run to the time when the next measurements are running forward the simulator to the time were new measurements becomes available. The ensemble Kalman filter to estimate near-well reservoir properties As an alternative to the least-square methodology for estimating near-well reservoir properties.

0·10-9 Pa-1 1. Examples We consider a total of four examples. From Fig. 220. These variations to the choke pressure gives similar fluctuations in the bottom hole pressure. Since the flow into the well depends on the bottom hole pressure.04 Pa. giving sinus variations to the choke pressure. downhole pressure. the reservoir pressure is under estimated and vice versa. 2 and 3 we observe that we are able to match the bottom hole pressure and liquid flow rate at outlet. In selecting the model noise of the reservoir parameters (pressure and permeability) of the zones. This means that if the system is oscillated with one frequency sinus oscillations with certain amplitude. 220. the synthetic measurements representing pump pressure. Since most information about the permeability and the reservoir pressure can be extracted from the measurements during the first time period after opening (30-90 minutes). In a field implementation. 300. G.067 m 0.J. Therefore we use the covariance matrix for the modeling error.s 0. 4.05 Pa. Table 1: Parameters used in Example 1 and Example 2 Compressibility of liquid Viscosity of liquid Wellbore radius Penetration rate in the formation Uncertainty in pump pressure Uncertainty in bottom hole pressure Uncertainty in flow rate 2. 230. where the input signal to a plant is referred to as “sufficiently rich” of order n. Σ. the covariance matrix for the measurement errors Σ should take into account the uncertainty in the measurement devices. Since we are able to reproduce the measured data with some discrepancy between estimated parameters and true parameters.s 0. and the same liquid is produced from the reservoir. Within each zone the permeability and the reservoir pressure are constant. 50. and inaccuracies due to the applied numerical method25. additional information is needed to obtain reliable estimates. the Levenberg-Marquardt methodology and the Ensemble Kalman filter. with a mean of 204 bar. then two parameters can be identified simultaneously. K. 800. and adding noise to the obtained values to generate measurements. In Ex. With reference to the equation describing the transient inflow from the reservoir (7). the estimation of the parameters is nearly turned off after the zone is passed. We observe that if the permeability of a zone is over estimated.4 E. 100. but this is a topic for further research. it should be possible to identify the reservoir permeability if the pressure difference is varied. we observe that the permeability and reservoir pressure not are well estimated for the different zones. This corresponds with the estimation theory within the field of adaptive control26. 600. FJELDE noise added to the model parameters we have tried different scenarios. as presented in Fig. H. 400. pump pressure or bottom-hole pressure the dots IADC/SPE 81634 Table 2: Parameters used in Example 3 and Example 4 Compressibility of injection liquid Compressibility of production liquid Viscosity of injection liquid Viscosity of production liquid Wellbore radius Penetration rate in the formation Uncertainty in pressures Uncertainty in flow rates 1.5 mHz and the amplitude is 8 bar peak-to-peak. Each zone is again divided into 1m long segments and the flow from each segment is given by (7). all measurements are generated synthetically by running the model with a given permeability and pressure. In the first two examples the inflow of liquid occurs in 10 zones.001 Pa. for the measurement error we have used the same covariance matrix as used when generating the measurements. However.005 m/s 0.0083 m/s 0. 400] mD. There is no gas injection into the drillstring. the influx from the reservoir also shows these fluctuations. NÆVDAL AND K.s 0. 4 the downhole pressure is fluctuated. in an effort to oscillate the inflow from the reservoir into the well. liquid return rate and gas return rates are generated by adding normal distributed noise to the simulation results. The frequency applied to the downhole pressure is 0. liquid is circulated in the well. The choke opening is varied. NYGAARD.01 m 0. 230. Ψ. 3. gas mass flow rate. the one described below is found as the most promising.17·10-9 Pa-1 0.5 % (standard deviation) 1 % (standard deviation) In the last two examples. In the examples we present. we take into account that there is no information in the measurements about the reservoir zones that is not penetrated. G. From Figs. 1. . both applied to a single-phase case with a reservoir consisting of 10 different zones. each of length 30 m. A true state is generated synthetically by using “true” reservoir pressure pres.15 % (standard deviation) 1 % (standard deviation) represents synthetic measurements and the solid line represents the results from simulations with the estimated parameters. Ex. Example 1: Permeability and pressure estimation.15 % (standard deviation) 0. large reservoir pressure variations. if it consists of at least n/2 distinct frequencies. VEFRING. R. 5. In this simple example.i = [230. each of length 100 m. The “true” permeability values are Ki =[300. 2 we can observe the fluctuations in bottom hole pressure. and actual and estimated pressures are presented in Fig. 200. In all the figures presenting liquid mass flow rate. For all the examples. The actual and estimated permeabilities are presented in Fig. As covariance matrix. The first two examples are presented to show the performance of two estimation techniques. 250. The fluctuations peak-to-peak is about 8 bar. 100. 240. LORENTZEN . 220] bar . but also include uncertainty in the positioning of the measurement gauges. water and gas is injected into the drillstring and oil is produced from a reservoir which consists of 3 different zones. 280.18·10-9 Pa-1 0. 2 and Ex. 260. to activate the estimation of the parameters in the actual zone.

f = Fanning friction factor. d2 = Inner diameter of the annulus. and the initial estimates of the reservoir permeabilities are 250 mD. From Fig. The initial estimates of the reservoir pressures for all three zones are 215 bar. ti. 220. This example is equivalent to Ex. but the estimate drifts away after zone 2 is passed. obs = Measured value at the i’th sensor. There is no gas injection into the drillstring. γ = 0. g = Gravity acceleration. with oscillations in downhole pressure. The ensemble Kalman filter produces ”on-line” estimates during the drilling process. 8 we observe that the permeability is approaching the “true” permeability value. 100.j = Flow from segment j in zone i R = Ensemble error covariance matrix. p = Pressure. 220. J = Sensitivity matrix of simulated values with respect to changes in the parameters. 100. This example is equivalent to Ex. and the initial estimates of the reservoir permeabilities are 500 mD. 11. 220. liquid is circulated in the well. 221. Example 3: Permeability and pressure estimation. The advantage of the ensemble Kalman filter is however that the results can be obtained during drilling. 3 with no oscillations. F(c ) = [f i (c)]i =1 = Simulated values as function of the m parameters. 100. q i. 9. ε = Measurement noise vector. M = Mechanistic model. 700] mD. α = Volumetric fraction. In this example we also observe that the estimates of reservoir permeability and reservoir pressure compares fairly well with the true values. d1 = Outer diameter of the annulus. Oil is produced from the reservoir. 220. f i (c) = Simulated value at the i’th sensor. An important aspect of the methodology presented here is that only the data usually measured during an underbalanced drilling is used as available data. The “true” permeability values have not been changed. as a function of the inflow profile. 700] mD. The reservoir pressure estimates for zone 1 is presented in Fig. 6. The results from Example 1 and 2 did not show any significant differences between the results obtained with least squares estimation and with ensemble Kalman filter. using initial state s ja . 300. causing fluctuations in the downhole pressure. m = Mass transfer between phases.j= Time since opening segment j in zone i v = Velocity.IADC/SPE 81634 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION DURING UBD: METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVE TESTS 5 Example 2: Permeability and pressure estimation. and the reservoir permeability estimates during drilling for zone 1 is presented in Fig. c = Compressibility.i = [212. 100. no oscillations in downhole pressure. d = Measurement vector. 3. The actual and estimated permeabilities are presented in Fig. yi . Again. 400] mD. In this example. The “true” reservoir permeability values are Ki =[400. small reservoir pressure variations. The methodologies are based on a transient well flow model coupled to a transient reservoir model and estimation techniques are applied to estimate permeability and reservoir pressure. than for the results in Ex. 7. The ensemble Kalman filter produces ”on-line” estimates during the drilling process. and actual and estimated pressures are presented in Fig. Conclusions Novel methodology for reservoir characterization during underbalanced drilling has been presented. 230] bar . From Fig. z = Spatial coordinate. but the variations in reservoir pressure are smaller. This causes the fluctuations of the liquid mass rate at the outlet. The examples presented in this paper illustrate that active tests may improve the reservoir characterization during underbalanced drilling. 219. water and gas is injected into the drillstring. 50. 12 and 13. 1. A true state is generated synthetically by using “true” reservoir pressure pres. As in Ex.5772. The reservoir permeability estimates for zone 1 while drilling is presented in Fig. 8. The “true” reservoir permeability values are Ki =[400. a = Forecasted value by simulator after next time step f(s j ) Example 4: Permeability and pressure estimation. 800.i = [215. and Ki =[300. C2= Gas holdup. The final estimates after all the zones have been drilled are shown in Figs. 1. A true state is generated synthetically by using “true” reservoir pressure pres. 1. 9 we see that that the estimate does not approach the true value at all. 222. 216] bar . 200. 216] bar . From Fig. S = Skin factor s = Member of ensemble. P = Covariance matrix of error in estimated parameters. 11 we see that that the estimate converges to the true value. 400. The reservoir pressure estimates for zone 1 is presented in Fig. K = Permeability. The fluctuations of the bottom hole pressure are generated in the same way as in Ex. 4 fit better to the true values. G = Kalman gain matrix. 218. 225. The choke pressure is kept constant at 6 bar. we observed that we were able to match the bottom hole pressure and the liquid flow rate at outlet. c = Parameter vector. 222. t = Time. n = Number of members in ensemble. Nomenclature C1= Gas factor. H = Measurement matrix. A true state is generated synthetically by using “true” reservoir pressure pres. The choke pressure is varied. and liquid is produced from the reservoir. . The initial estimates of the reservoir pressures for all three zones are 215 bar. but here the choke pressure is oscillated.i = [212. 600. We observe that the estimates in Ex. 10.

H.M.: “The Levenberg-Marquard algorithm: implementation and theory” in Numerical Analysis (Lecture Notes in Mathematics vol. No. References 17.6 E.H. Malaysia. and Fjelde.C.: “Near-Well Reservoir Monitoring through Ensemble Kalman Filter.M. Fjelde. paper SPE 59743 presented at the 2000 SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary.: “Grunnkurs i reservoar mekanikk”. W. Texas..W.. E. 10 11. 29 September – 2 October 2002. C. Ls = Liquid superficial. Watson. Norway (2000). 1. G. LORENTZEN . Lage.R. J. H. 1. M. paper SPE 38754 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio.: “Underbalanced and Low-head Drilling Operations: Real Time Interpretation of Measured Data and Operational Support”. Murray. U. 13 – 17 April (2002). C. 7. J.: Practical Optimization. R. Lage. 637-647. i = Counting variable (zone/measurement). J. Mannseth. 8.” Technometrics (Feb. C. G. C.V.... Multiphase Flow (1983) 9. A.V. J.S. Vefring. θ = Angle of inclination. J. paper presented at the Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held in San Antonio. Kneissl. Nævdal.” Paper SPE 75235 presented at the SPE/DOE Thirteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa.. CA (1981) 167. The Netherlands. F. and Rester. Frøyen. w = Well. FJELDE Σ = Measurement noise covariance matrix. France (1991). E. 5. 2567-2574. J. Nævdal. 27 February-1 March 2001. Science (1994) 49. M = Mixture. 11-13 September..: “Computational Experience with Confidence Regions and Confidence Intervals for Nonlinear Least Squares. J. Y. τ = Interfacial tension. P.. paper SPE 54717 presented at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague. G. paper SPE/IADC 67690 in the proceedings for the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam.R. Taitel. Bard. : “Formation Testing While Underbalanced Drilling”. 3-5 April 2000 Kruijsdijk. E.. 27 February-1 March 2001. and Vefring. K.. K. Sævareid.. Norway. Nævdal.V.: “Underbalanced Drilling Dynamics: Two-Phase Flow Modeling.. Ishii. R. P.A. T. 13. and Necessary Data”. 630) ed. Chemical Eng. S. A.: Nonlinear Parameter Estimation. Thèse ENS Lyon.C. Ph. C. Benzoni-Gavage. B. ϕ = Porosity. Superscripts a = Analyzed. Academic Press.. Fjelde. 6. J. “Reservoir Characterization During Underbalanced Drilling: A New Model”. and Vefring. j = Counting variable (segment/ensemble member). O. O = Oil. Springer Verlag. R. G. J. J. Oklahoma. Lorentzen. Mannseth. 1987) 29. K.. Int.. NYGAARD.J. G. J. Fjelde. and Srinivasan.: “Contercurrent Bubble and Slug Flows in a Vertical System”. Nævdal. and Kruijsdijk. Florida (1974) 189. Nævdal. G. 5 – 8 October 1997. Stavanger University College.. Orlando. R. G. The Netherlands. VEFRING. P. Germany. G = Gas. 1990. ρ = Density. F. Lousiana. dissertation. 14. IADC/SPE 81634 Time Data Interpretation and Decision Support” paper SPE/IADC 67693 in the proceedings for the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam. R. H. Evensen. Gs = Gas superficial. and Vefring. NÆVDAL AND K. H. G.M. Lorentzen. W. 30 September – 3 October 2001.H. 9..S. 19. res = Reservoir. Model for Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop”. and Barnea. R. ψ = Model noise vector. ω = Model parameters. µ = Viscosity.D.. Lage. Texas. M. Alberta Canada. E. 3. Kabir. and Cox.: “Thermo-Fluid Dynamic Theory of Two-Phase Flow”. W. A.. Lecture notes. : “Reservoir Characterization Whilst Underbalanced Drilling”. of Math.: “Counter Current Gas-Liquid Vertical Flow. A. 12. and Merlo. Brazil.: ”Underbalanced Drilling: Real 18. A. 67. Paper IBP 41400 presented at the Rio Oil & Gas Conference held in Rio de Janerio.: “Instrumented Wells and Near-Well Reservoir Monitoring through Ensemble Kalman Filter”. Eyrolles. K. Subscripts est = Estimated. Kardolus. Acknowledgements This work has been supported financially by the Norwegian Research Council. Experiments and Numerical Solution Techniques”.. L = Liquid. Lage. Lage. Academic Press. A. Σ = Covariance matrix of the measurement error.: “Underbalanced Drilling Dynamics: Two-Phase Flow Modeling and Experiments” Paper IADC/SPE 62743 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in Kuala Lumpur. H.J. Univ. L. Proceedings of 8th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (ECMOR VIII) held in Freiberg. Nygaard. G. San Diego. A. σi = Standard deviation of the measurement error of the i’th sensor. ∆s = Inflow segment length.C.: ”Reservoir Characterization during Underbalanced Drilling: Methodology. E.V. 4. Y. J. (1975). 16-19 October 2000. of Bergen.C. Fjelde. Dept. and Wright. F = Friction. The Netherlands.: “Sequential Data Assimilation with Nonlinear Quasi-geostrophic Model using Monte Carlo Methods to fore- .. M. Gill. and Schnabel. K. Lorentzen. 3 – 6 September (2002). Frøyen. : “Testing While Underbalanced Drilling: Horizontal Well Permeability Profiles”.. 20.M. G. paper SPE 71384 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans. B. W.: “Analyse Numérique des Modèles Hydrodynamiques D`écoulements Diphasiques Instationnaires dans le Réseaux de Production Pétrolière”.: “Two-phase Flow Models and Experiments for Low-Head and Underbalanced Drilling”. D. 2. ”. and Vefring. and Time. K. 31 May – 1 June 1999.K. 22. S. 15. Donaldson. V.. f = Forecast. E. T. 21. Accuracy. 16. Moré. Hasan. Berlin (1977) 105. Ø. S. Pettersen.. Frøyen. A. Hunt. R. Ψ = Model error covariance matrix.K. W = Water.K. W.

and Sun.: “Application of Ensemble Integrations for Predictability Studies and Data Assimilation. RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION DURING UBD: METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVE TESTS cast Error Statistics. G.” Published in: Monte Carlo Simulations in Oceanography. large reservoir pressure variations. Vol. Res. Cohn. pp. G. Proceedings 'Aha Huliko'a Hawaiian Winter Workshop. New Jersey (1996) 255.: “An Introduction to Estimation Theory. 10 143 – 10 162.: “Analysis Scheme in the Ensemble Kalman Filter. 7 Liquid mass rate at outlet 700 Measured Estimated 600 500 400 l/min IADC/SPE 81634 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 Minutes 800 1000 1200 Figure 3: Liquid mass flow rate at outlet.. 99 (C5). G. 24. P. . large pressure variations.. bar 190 0 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Zone Figure 5: True and estimated reservoir pressures. Ki 700 600 mD 500 400 Figure 1: Reservoir inflow. Geophys. 1719 – 1724. Example 1: Permeability and pressure estimation. Burgers.23. Example 1: Permeability and pressure estimation. University of Hawaii at Manoa. van Leeuvwen. 300 Bottom hole pressure 200 220 Measured Estimated 100 215 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Zone Figure 4: True and estimated reservoir permeabilities. S. (1997). pp.. large reservoir pressure variations.E. 26. Upper Saddle River. 257 . (1997). J. 25. Example 1: Permeability and pressure estimation.A.” Monthly Weather Review.288. Vol.” Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. PrenticeHall. bar 210 205 Pressure 350 True LM Estimate EnKF Estimate 200 300 195 250 200 400 600 Minutes 800 1000 200 1200 Figure 2: Bottom hole pressure. pp. J.. (1994).: Robust Adaptive Control. 126.” J. Evensen. 75. Vol. (1998). Permeability 900 True LM Estimate EnKF Estimate 800 K1 K2 . Ioannou. January 14--17. large reservoir pressure variations. and Evensen. P. Example 1: Permeability and pressure estimation.

8 E. . Figure 10: Reservoir permeability estimates in zone 1. VEFRING.J. Example 2: Permeability and pressure estimation. 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minutes Figure 11: Reservoir pressure estimates in zone 1. large pressure variations. Example 3: No oscillations in downhole pressure. H. NÆVDAL AND K. Pressure 350 Reservoir Permeability. Figure 9: Reservoir pressure estimates in zone 1. Example 4: With oscillations in downhole pressure. FJELDE Permeability IADC/SPE 81634 Reservoir Pressure. K. Zone 1 True LM Estimate EnKF Estimate 550 300 True Estimate 500 450 250 400 350 mD bar 200 150 300 250 200 100 150 100 50 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 10 Zone 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minutes Figure 7: True and estimated reservoir pressures. Example 4: With oscillations in downhole pressure. LORENTZEN . Zone 1 900 230 True LM Estimate EnKF Estimate 800 True Estimate 225 700 220 600 mD bar 500 215 400 210 300 200 205 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 200 0 10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minutes Zone Figure 6: True and estimated reservoir permeabilities. NYGAARD. R. G. Zone 1 Reservoir Pressure. Reservoir Permeability. G. Zone 1 550 230 True Estimate 500 True Estimate 450 225 400 220 300 bar mD 350 250 215 200 210 150 100 205 50 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minutes Figure 8: Reservoir permeability estimates in zone 1. Example 3: No oscillations in downhole pressure. Example 2: Permeability and pressure estimation. large pressure variations.

4. 3. 800 True Ex. . Comparisons between Ex. 3. 4. 3. Ex. with osc. with choke oscillations. 3. no osc. with choke oscillations. no osc. Ex. 4. 225 700 600 220 bar mD 500 215 400 300 210 200 205 100 0 1 2 Zone 3 Figure 12: True and estimated reservoir permeabilities. 200 1 2 Zone 3 Figure 13: True and estimated reservoir pressures.IADC/SPE 81634 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION DURING UBD: METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVE TESTS 9 Pressure Permeability 900 230 True Ex. no choke oscillations and Ex. no choke oscillations and Ex. Comparisons between Ex. with osc. 4.