What Is History Matching? How Is It Done? Can It Be Automated?

History matching is the process by which the input data to a reservoir simulation model

(geological description, fluid properties, relative permeability, etc.) are altered in such

a way to match recorded data (fluid rates, pressures, tracers, temperatures, etc.). In

essence, history matching is a model calibration exercise with the assumption that if a

Introduction to Simulation and History Matching 9

model is able to reproduce the past, it might be useful to predict the future under various

development scenarios. This is the basic premise of building simulation models and history

matching them, and it is the only way engineers have to reduce the risk (of failure

or significantly suboptimal performance) associated with decisions that are made under

the inevitable backdrop of data uncertainty. The purpose of history matching has been

succinctly stated by Caers (2005): “The purpose of history matching is not just to match

history, but rather to produce models that can be used to forecast reservoir performance

within some accepted tolerance.”

The advent of detailed geologic models, the desire to address reservoir uncertainty

as it might impact development scenarios, and the advent of lower-cost and faster computers

have led to renewed interest in trying to automate the history-matching process.

However, the process of history matching is never likely to be fully automated because

it is not an isolated task that is easily put into a loop. Production data—an integrated

response—can never fully constrain a reservoir model and can never be uniquely deconvolved

into gridblock properties, for example. Also, dynamic data are only one part of

the picture that must be integrated with the static data to give a reliable model for forecasting.

Some of the issues that make history matching difficult are

• If considered strictly as an inverse problem, history matching is an ill-conditioned

mathematical problem that is nonunique and thus has a large (infinite?) set of

solutions.

• The physics of most models is nonlinear—in many cases strongly nonlinear—

meaning it is not easy or even possible to clearly isolate changes in the output data

to changes in the input data.

• The key input parameters that affect the output in such a way to improve the history

match are not always apparent.

• Extensive sensitivity studies are generally required to gain a good understanding

of the reservoir model, and these are rarely done.

• Some input parameters are stochastic in nature, particularly data describing the

geological scenario. In such cases, the parameters describing the statistics should

be changed rather than the outcomes. Again, this is rarely done.

• Production data are inherently biased—particularly old data—and often associated

with large errors. These are rarely, if ever, considered in history matching.

The remaining chapters of this book will discuss the history-matching process and

associated simulation issues in more detail. The emphasis will be to highlight some of

the methods being currently employed to assist in the history-matching process and

to explain why they work and, possibly even more importantly, the limitations of the

methods.