PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2006-129

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
History Matching Standards; Quality Control
and Risk Analysis for Simulation
R. O. BAKER, S. CHUGH, C. MCBURNEY, R. MCKISHNIE
Epic Consulting Services Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (57th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 – 15, 2006. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract the confidence level of a reserves determination and decrease

Despite forty years of simulation, the petroleum industry
has been reluctant to discuss history match quality standards.
This lack of standard is often justified by statements such as
“the reservoir is unique” and the data type and quality vary
from field to field. While those statements are true to a degree,
they leave the non-simulation personnel confused as to whether
a model is good or bad. This paper discusses quality control
and history matching from experience of over 200 field
simulation studies.
the range of uncertainty. The reverse is also true some
simulations with poor data are only applicable in a semi-
quantitative sense. This paper has important implications for
using simulation as a reserves determination tool. It is
important that simulation studies be graded in terms of history
match quality, number of variables matched, percentage of
wells matched, data quality, what parameters were adjusted
and by how much so that assignments of proved P90, probable
P50, and possible reserves can be estimated.

History match parameter tolerance depends upon: Introduction

q Drive mechanisms and related key parameters
q Reservoir architecture Although new technology and techniques hold great
q Study objective promise, workflow and quality control of data are still central
q Data quality issues in insuring reliable simulation forecasts as well.

There is often a big trade off between the quality of history
match, size of model and time requirements. This paper
discusses key parameters and how they apply to field simulation
cases.
It must be noted that flow simulation tools are aimed at the
most likely or P50 case. Higher quality studies with matching
multiple parameters and good data can significantly increase
In order to evaluate success and failure, as well as the need
for simulation, we must clearly understand why
simulation/reservoir forecasts are successful and why they fail.
There are three general categories that control a simulation
study:
1. Timing versus accuracy

1
 2. Initial diagnostics
3. Coupling history match parameters versus history match
objectives
The following is a more detailed list of why sometimes
reservoir forecasts have sometimes been unsuccessful:
Timing
1. The simulation study is taking too long relative to the
business objective/decision
2. Paralysis by analysis; reservoir engineers being
paralyzed by the analysis of data.
3. The engineer assuming every variable in a simulation
model is critical.
4. Confusing complexity with accuracy. Assuming bigger
and more complex simulation is always better or more
accurate.
Characterization
5. Failure to adequately represent reservoir heterogeneity.
6. Improper initial well diagnostic and reservoir diagnostic
and failure to recognize reservoir mechanisms.
7. Failure to calibrate the geological model's overall
average permeability.
Modelling
8. Failure of coupling history match parameters to physical
parameters that strongly control simulation forecast
results.
9. The lack of understanding of how history match
parameters are controlled by physical parameters, such
as relative permeability, permeability distribution and
porosity and translating those parameters to predict
future performance.
10. Mechanisms and operational limitations should be
recognized up front.
11. Selecting a small simulation study area is not trivial.
Outer boundary effects significantly control recovery
factor within an area
12. An assumption that increased computer/simulation speed
directly translates to simulation time/turn around.
13. Poor understanding of how gridding effects affect
simulation results.
Most of the above factors are easily controlled by better
quality control, as well as better reservoir characterization,
resulting in less error in simulation forecasts and better business
coherence. "Error bars" are ±10 to 40%, as estimated by
Saleri1, on field wide simulation studies and greater error bars
are estimated for individual wells. In our opinion the quality of
history matching and the number of parameters matched often
control the range of uncertainty of an answer.
Tables 1 to 3 give some guidelines to standards for
simulation. Table 1 gives typical history match parameters and
some acceptable ranges. Table 2 shows typical adjustment
parameters and some guidelines for their ranges. Table 3 gives
key history match parameters sorted by drive mechanism. The
purpose of this paper is not set absolute standards but rather to
stimulate discussion of guidelines.
Length of Time of Simulation Study
Note that point one to four (re: study time) can directly
conflict with points five to eight (including reservoir
heterogeneity, the need for areal large models) respectively.
The key to a successful execution of a simulation study,
limiting study time and manpower requirements is to focus on
key parameters only, as shown in Table 1. An understanding of
the reservoir mechanisms is critical, to identify those key
parameters.
2
Simulation studies directly integrate geological parameters
with engineering data, such as production signatures and
pressure data, but that integration of data requires time and an
understanding of reservoir mechanisms. In comparison,
techniques such as conventional decline analysis are much
quicker but there is not necessarily a direct link with geological
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
or physical parameters. As a result, simulation studies will
require more time. The input of geological data and processing
of information has greatly improved in recent years1. This
additional effort in integration in simulation however does come
with benefits. Studies on revisions of reserves by a major oil
company have shown that analytical/decline type forecasts
show larger revision in recovery factors and production profiles
than fields with simulation studies. In other words, with more
data and information incorporated via simulation the accuracy
of the prediction improved. This is especially true during early
development of fields.
Initial Quality Control and Reservoir
Characterization Are Necessary to Pre-
Condition the Model
Reservoir Permeability Heterogeneity
Understanding how reservoir properties vary within a
reservoir is critical to correctly predicting future performance
for some reservoirs. This is especially true in the fluid injection
processes. Reservoir characterization and scale up are the
primary obstacles to improving simulation forecasts. We
should be clear on our definition of reservoir heterogeneity.
Reservoir heterogeneity is the condition of physical and textural
variation that actually interferes with the flow of fluids.
Reservoir heterogeneity often is used as convenient “catch-all”
phrase of uncertain meaning. The confidence level of a
simulation relies heavily on the accuracy and uncertainty in the
input geological model. Permeability homogenization is very
common to see in the initial mapping/geological model and is a
result of averaging in the vertical scale due to log reading,
averaging in an areal scale by contour mapping, averaging due
to porosity-permeability transforms and limited data sampling.
History matching of the dynamic data can narrow the error
bars significantly. Our experience and the experience of others
is that matching watercut in waterflood/water drive cases or
GOR behavior in gas cap or gas injection case usually
introduces more permeability heterogeneity into the model and
improves performance forecasts. Thus history matching
GOR/watercut profiles is an important step and often results in
local changes in permeability/porosity distribution. For
example, history matching of water breakthrough time for
individual wells, very often results in a reexamination of
reservoir hot streaks to explain early breakthrough. Similarly
lack of water breakthrough in waterflooding, high GORs / low
pressures in waterfloods may result in a search for lack of
continuity in some sands2. Issues such as reservoir
compartmentalization and permeability "hot streaks" often
totally dominate the forecast. Matching overall field behavior
but not individual wells is a common mistake and throws away
the ability of the model to suggest permeability heterogeneity.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of geological model, an old
averaged simulation model and a more current model. The old
model had great difficulty achieving a history match of oil,
water and gas production rates despite numerous history match
attempts. Yet a refined simulation model achieved a marked
improvement in the first few runs. Figure 1 shows with less
vertical averaging the permeability highs and lows were
preserved which allowed a better history match.
Permeability heterogeneity does not always dominate
reservoir performance. Therefore, when determining the level
of detail the reservoir description needs in a simulation model,
drive mechanism and reservoir architecture must also be
carefully considered. More complex geological models are not
always the answer and can substantially slow down the progress
without adding additional value. Some drive mechanisms such
as expansion drive or solution gas drive are relatively
insensitive to permeability heterogeneity. Other drive
mechanisms such as gas injection (horizontal gas floods) and
waterflooding viscous oil projects are extremely sensitive to
permeability heterogeneity.
Gravity can mitigate permeability effects. For example,
many high permeability reefs in Canada have high structural
relief and very efficient water drive or gas cap drive resulted
because of gravity stabilization. These systems were simulated
with 1D flow models or simple material balance methods were
used2. Forecasts of these systems were very satisfactory
without detailed permeability description. This was a result of
excellent gravity stabilization of interface movements. Failure
to recognize drive mechanisms and doing "brain simulation"
first can result in overkill when describing the permeability field
for some systems.
Calibration of Average Permeability
In our experience, average effective permeability is the most
likely parameter to be incorrect in simulation studies. Yet
permeability is very often a controlling parameter in production
forecasts because of its effect on injectivity, productivity, and
aquifer influx, coning and induced hydraulic fracturing. It is
important to understand how initial permeability estimates were
derived in the model, (i.e., were they derived from build up test,
core air test or productivity testing). What makes permeability
a difficult parameter to consider is that it is a tensor property
and scale dependent. In-situ stress, shale baffling, fracturing
and relative permeability effects need to be considered.
Because of the various factors above, simulation models often
need to calibrate permeability. Pressure transient analysis
and/or simple productivity index calculations should set the
initial guess on reservoir permeability.
We often see (~80% of the time) where the sum of the
capacity (kh) from core is not equal to larger scale data such as
AOF, pressure buildups or productivity index. Figure 3 shows
the results from thousands of fields comparing (kh)core versus
(kh)AOF tests. (not all data is shown) The plot shows averaged
(kair h) vs. pressure AOF tests. Clearly cored the air
permeability for stress, initial water saturations and Klinkenberg
effects would shift the points to the right but not totally reduce
the scatter in the plot. Accounting for baffling in the reservoir
and convoluted flow paths again will shift the core calculated
permeability downwards where as fracturing will increase
permeability. The key point here is that we must examine large
and small scale permeability and reconcile them. Just looking at
core data alone may be naïve but not examining the core leaves
important insight on the table.
Often, in the interests of saving time and costs, the
simulation objectives are only to match watercut in water drive
or waterflood cases. In physical terms this means that some
combination of relative permeability and permeability
3
distribution are adjusted to history match watercut. This type
on history match doesn't tell us anything about the average
permeability. If average permeability in a drainage area is not
matched, it is not possible to accurately forecast infill wells.
This focus on matching watercut trends and neglecting well
drawdown is very common in the hundreds of field waterflood
simulation studies we have seen.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
From the history matching process, it is also critical to match
inflow performance. Inflow performance will often be most
sensitive to the average permeability in a well's drainage radius
whereas, GOR/watercut production profile will be most
sensitive to permeability distribution as well as relative
permeability. Current research and practical field experience
show that constraining the well inflow models (average
permeability in a drainage area) makes simulation models more
unique in their solutions. "Using watercut data alone does not
result in a very unique solution even in a homogenous
permeability field with permeability heterogeneity the problem
becomes less defined. However, using flowing pressure
constraints the history match runs substantially so that a more
unique solution is possible ". (D. GUPTA)
Often companies do not record an entire flowing bottomhole
pressure history for all wells in a field. However, most North
American fields or mature onshore fields are in the pumped off
condition late in the life of the field. This condition allows for a
"snap shot" history match of bottomhole flowing pressure.
A commonly taken short cut, in the interest of a quick look
approach is to not match inflow and thus average permeability
but regulate withdrawal in the forecast by limiting wells to
historic fluid and injection rates. This is an acceptable method
as long as fluid and injection rates are calibrated by
performance. When wells are not calibrated by performance
often artificial peak oil or gas rates occur in the forecast.
Having said that we need to examine inflow performance
and pressure, it is important that in coarse grid models (grid size
>50m) that there are some “acceptable or reasonable” error bars
on producing pressures. Small scale effects such as gas break
out or turbulence in gas wells will limit well productivity in the
field very near wellbore but be transparent to coarse gridded
models. Again it depends upon the objectives of the model, but
generally fine tuning producing well pressures with finely
gridded models may add very little accuracy to the forecast but
considerably lengthen the time line.
A common problem in some fields (as shown in Figure 2) is
that we see historical peak oil or fluid rates which require large
pressure drawdown and high levels of permeability. But at later
stages wells are not in the pumped off condition (Pwf<500-1000
KPa). In these cases, there is often a trade off between
matching peak oil rates and cumulative oil values vs. inflow
performance. To reconcile this problem we can calculate with
IPR analysis what the maximum operating bottomhole pressure
should be.
Reservoir and Well Diagnostics; the Key to Good
Reservoir Characterization
One of the most difficult situations occurs when a field is
new and has limited well data as well as limited dynamic data,
as noted by Saleri (1993). Whenever possible, an extensive
reservoir and well diagnosis should be done first. In the cases
where we have dynamic data (production/pressure data), the
data is extremely helpful in building good simulation models
and selecting key variables. Response to fluid injection, peak
oil rates, decline rate behavior, pressure vs. withdrawals profiles
and GOR/watercut profiles should be carefully analyzed for
parameters such as hot permeability streaks or lack of
continuity. Rapid watercut or gas-oil ratio break throughs can
indicate hot streaks in fluid injection studies3. We often see
cases where reservoir/well diagnostics have been completely
bypassed to “get on with the simulation” and the history
matching exercise. An example of the importance of reservoir
diagnostics is in a naturally fractured field where an anisotropic
ratio (kx/ky) was determined first, then input in the simulation
resulting in a 70% history match of water cut in the first run.
4
Reservoir simulation will yield a result that is very dependent
upon the initial geological model and initial guess of reservoir
mechanisms or in other words the initial interpretation. Well
and reservoir diagnostics are key to getting good initial guesses.
Well behavior should be analyzed to de-convolve operational
vs. reservoir effects. Reservoir simulation is strong at picking
out reservoir fluid flow phenomena that control well behavior,
but often operational effects can strongly control well behavior
as well. High water cut could be due reservoir effects such as
coning or channeling but it could also be due to poor cement
bond. Out of nine possible causes of rising watercut, only three
are reservoir fluid flow controlled. Failure to recognize
operational or near wellbore effects vs. reservoir-controlled
variables can waste valuable time and results in poor study
focus and in long time-lines.
Diagnostics also help to build pre-conditioned geological and
reservoir flow models. In the diagnosis of well and reservoir
behavior, focus is in the two general areas of
compartmentalization and hot streaks. Typically, initial
geological modeling sometimes may overestimate reservoir
continuity. Therefore, reservoir and well diagnostics are critical
in low continuity / permeability situations. Simulation is a
quantification of one’s own bias; therefore, production and
pressure data analysis are absolutely critical to establishing a
good initial guess in the model if the data exists. Geostatistical
models built with static data only tend to give very wide ranges
of production profiles but dynamic data such as production and
reservoir pressure data often narrow the range down
significantly. This helps identify reservoir mechanism, the
initial geological model and operational aspects.
Calibration of Volumes in Place
Material balance calculations should be done before model
construction. Material balance calculations have an advantage
over simulation studies in that the calculations use what is
relatively well-known, like production volumes and pressure,
and calculate what is unknown, like original oil in place.
Simulation studies on the other hand use volumetric/geological
analysis as the known and then calculate pressures and
production volumes. Therefore, material balance calculations
can give considerable insight to what the volumes in place
should be. Similarly material balance calculations can be used
to gain a sense of the magnitude of aquifer influx.
Confusing Complexity with Accuracy
Many times the layman assumes the most complex
simulation model and largest number of grid blocks are the
most accurate. Field models now have 100 to 1000 times more
grid blocks than typical models 20 years ago. This decrease in
grid block size has allowed much better flood front resolution
and allowed better reservoir description in simulation models.
There is no doubt in our mind that this has resulted in better
4
simulation forecasts. However, further grid refinement and
adding complicated process is also problematic. There are two
problems associated with a never-ending search for more grids
and more features. Gringarten5 describes the problem for
pressure transient analysis but it is fitting for simulation as well.
The first is that we can get caught up in simulation paralysis and
the second is that the ability to resolve petrophysical properties
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
for each cell becomes poorer and poorer with smaller and
smaller grids. This has several consequences 1) a study is never
complete because there is always a new method or better
refinement that has not been implemented, 2) there is never
consensus on the results and 3) the general opinion is that the
simulation was useless because of points one and two4.
Grid resolution is dictated by 1) the size of geological
heterogeneity 2) areal model grid resolution; needed for
evaluating infill wells 3) vertical grid resolution; need for
modeling gravity and capillary forces in a vertical sense 4)
numerical dispersion. The grid resolution requirements from
points two, three and four are largely met in today’s models or
at least we are very close to that level. The grid resolution
needed to model gigascopic or megascopic (large scale)
geological details is largely already incorporated in developed
fields with < 40 acre spacing. The weakness of today’s model
is the modeling of features that are smaller than interwell
distance < 400 m but still large enough where averaging is not
appropriate. Yet some of these features are not second order
effects. However, populating the geological models with these
features and the prior identification of these features remain the
main bottle neck.
Simulation Objectives, History Match
Variables and Physical Parameters
In developing a forecast it is important that the engineer
understands which parameters control future production and
focus on narrowing the range of these parameters. Table 1
shows major drive mechanisms controlling parameters. For
example, a common objective of most simulation studies is to
identify future infill drilling locations and optimize field
development. In order for a successful infill well to be
evaluated, two risk factors have be to be evaluated. The first is
geological/petrophysical risk; i.e. are there favorable conditions
of permeability, porosity and top of structure to develop a good
well? The second risk is reservoir depletion; in other words, is
the oil or gas saturation too low, or is reservoir pressure
depleted so low that the infill well is uneconomic? Because of
these two risk factors, simulation studies need to match well
drawdown pressure to come up with reasonable average
permeability and match GOR/watercut trends to address
saturation risk. Matching reservoir pressure is also necessary to
address depletion risk.
As pointed out by Saleri 1993, many models are not that
sensitive to OOIP6,7. This especially true in relatively immature
fields. It is our experience however that in fields that are
mature (>20-30 years of production), that movable OOIP often
controls late stage oil rate decline. Figure 4 illustrates the case
of a forecast in 1996 based on an Sorw of 20% established from
multiple lab and field tests. A consistently high prediction led
to the revision of Sorw to 30% in 2000.
A critical component of history matching is that we need to
examine not just the XY plots but also the bubble maps of the
spatial or areal variation between the model and the field as
these maps identify areas of uncertainty in the model. Figure 5
shows an areal saturation map (using green for oil and blue for
water) on which the error between actual and simulated
performance is plotted as bubbles. The plot quickly illustrates
areas of high and low confidence in the saturations.
Therefore, if infill drilling is a key objective of simulation,
it is important that the history match have clear targets for all
three parts in the history match, these are:
1. Material balance / matching average and local reservoir
pressure trends (pressure/depletion risk).
2. Transport/saturation; history matching of watercut/GOR
trends, more specifically match water breakthrough
trends as well as watercuts and water rates (depletion
risk).
3. Inflow performance - matching average permeability /
(drawdown pressures (geological/petrophysical risk).
Increasing Confidence in the Model: The
Importance of History Matching
Importance of History Matching Exercise
Building the "correct" reservoir model from static data alone
is a very formidable task, because log and core data only sample
approximately one ten billionth of the reservoir. Therefore, a
reservoir model built from geological (static) data alone will
very often not match the observed field production and pressure
data. Due to a of lack of resolution of porosity/permeability
fields, even with 3D seismic data, the static model requires
history matching to tune the spatial area of porosity and
permeability. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that
construction of the model using only dynamic data often results
in a poor model. Good geological reservoir characterization
and geostatistical approaches definitely improve the speed of
the history match but they do not replace the history match
process. It is critical that the reservoir model be history
matched or calibrated to reproduce past history because during
the history match, more spatial heterogeneity is often introduced
to match production profiles.
Matching the dynamic data can probably yield more than one
model that can fit the history match trend. Therefore, although
history matching the dynamic data can not guarantee that the
correct model is found, one thing that can be said is that lack of
history matching guarantees that the model is not correct.
However, realize that although history matching is sometimes a
slow and time consuming step it also is a necessary one.
A key question to ask during the history match is whether
the modifications can be supported by physical phenomenon –
for instance, could the pore volume multiplier of 30% be
reasonable in a tight carbonate or is it applied in a homogeneous
high permeability sandstone with little areal variation to justify
the modification – and does the modification result in a net to
gross which exceeds one?
Importance of History Matching Multiple Parameters
Two examples of where history matching is critical are the
case of waterflood and infill drilling have already been
illustrated. Another example of history match tuning is in gas
wells in reservoirs with low permeability. Often in these
reservoirs, core permeability data is much higher than pressure
transient (buildup test) data. The differences in permeability are
due to internal (shale) baffles within the zones, which result in
tortuous flow paths. If the shales are small, very often they will
5
not be mapped and the initial geological description will result
in unrealistically high well capacity (kh). With history
matching, long term well deliverability will be substantially
lowered
Matching multiple parameters such as reservoir pressure,
watercut and flowing bottomhole pressures is the key to
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
insuring a "good history match" by narrowing down the range
of uncertainty. In the interest of speed and cost, history match
target parameters are usually limited as shown in Table 1. We
believe this is a big mistake because it allows a large
uncertainty in the model to be carried forward into forecasts. In
other words, it is relatively easy to history match one parameter,
such as watercut in which many solutions/models could
successfully match the trends. However, each of those models
may give very different production forecasts. Whereas when
multiple parameters, such as water cuts, average reservoir
pressure and bottom-hole flowing pressure, are all matched the
resulting models are more unique and the resulting forecasts
have a narrower range.
Failure to Couple History Match Variables with
Physical Parameters that Control Forecasts
Using the previous infill well example to adequately
forecast future performance, we need to understand:
Reservoir pressure vs. time/withdrawal profile
Average permeability within a drainage area
How oil/gas saturations will change with
time/depletion
Bottomhole flowing pressures vs.
time/withdrawal
In multiphase oil and gas reservoirs, an understanding how
saturations and pressure change with depletion, permeability
distribution and relative permeability is needed. Therefore,
history matching those variables is key to understanding future
performance.
In our opinion the key task for flow simulation is to directly
integrate the geological (static) data with the dynamic
(production, pressure) data.
Importance of History Matching Spatial Trends
A fair question to ask after the history matching is done, is
what confidence level are we at and where spatially are we most
confident? Generally parameters "near the well" have the
highest confidence level because these variables control well
performance the most.
However with time and depletion our confidence in far field
parameters grows. For example in a tight gas field the initial
production data (<1 year) is very sensitive to completion and
near well bore variables; with time and depletion the connected
gas in place number and well interference then control the
production data. This is analogous to the radius of investigation
formula for pressure transient tests, with time and depletion the
far field parameter becomes more and more defined.
Unfortunately/fortunately, for fluid injection or gas
cap/water drive cases, rather than radius of investigation the
region of investigation is dictated by streamlines. The shortest
travel time streamlines between injectors and producer will
affect the early production profile whereas medium travel time
streamlines will affect late time response. Therefore in
immature waterfloods, we usually understand what is between
injectors and producers but insensitive to edge oil or even
OOIP, especially if voidage has been balanced.
It is critical that we check not only time trends but also
spatial history match trends by looking at bubble maps of
differences between field data and model output as shown in
figure 5.. It is hard to say that we have a good history match if
large regions are not matched.
Outer boundary effects
Various references cover how to handle pool or edge
boundaries8,9. Often simulation studies may have large edge
areas which have no well control in this area. Engineers would
do well to consult those references on how to handle edge areas.
Having said that, in some cases where there is a high level of
pressure depletion or high sweep efficiency, the simulation can
considerably give insight to edge hydrocarbons. In other cases
the model, where there is small pressure depletion and low
volumetric sweep, the model may be relatively insensitive to
hydrocarbon volumes
History Matching Infill Production
There are three general components of a history match:
Historical matching rates and cumulative volumes
History match recent data
History matching infill well results
Often there may be tradeoffs between those components.
Matching historical rates and cumulative oil, gas and water is
critical to honoring volume and material balance.
Often the simulation engineer puts a lot of effort in the first
component because one of the main functions of the model is
volume balance and material balance. If you ignore cumulative
trends, the volume and material balance calculations are
meaningless. On the other hand, the decline reserves method of
examining fields often puts a lot of effort on the latest history
match of oil and gas rates in the last few years of production in
oil and gas fields respectively. In our experience, often in
mature field, the moveable oil and its permeability control late
stage oil rates. So matching these latest trends are important as
well. However, matching your rates to a decline trend alone can
be a mistake if there are changing drive mechanisms or
changing conditions in the reservoir. So we either match these
trends or explain why theses trends may change.
Finally, as a check on history match quality, we recommend
that we check infill results. Often large producers are well
matched in most models but infill wells with low cumulative
production are often neglected. This is very problematic
because often the objective of the study is to test for infill well
feasibility. Yet matching the infill wells often weaves insight
into “dead spot” areas and edges of the pool. Figure 6 shows a
case where we have history matched a large segment of a pool.
The corresponding check on how well the 15 infill wells
matched showed that 80% of the infills were correctly predicted
and indicated uneconomic wells which could have been
avoided, whereas actual infill drilling without the benefit of
simulation resulted in only a 50% success rate.
Proposed Standards
Our experience in observing hundreds of simulations is that
there is a lack of standards as to what constitutes an acceptable
simulation model. There are no hard and fast rules which are
universally agreed upon and can be found in the literature. This
6
is probably due to both the complexity of the issue and because
the requirements/standards of the study vary depending on the
objectives, desired accuracy and time/budget of the particular
reservoir.
Consider for example the case of an onshore field where an
economic well might require a recovery of 50,000 barrels to pay
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
out (neglecting time effects). In the early stages when an
average well might recover 250,000 barrels, the error acceptable
in a forecast might be quite high – a recovery estimate of
250,000 barrels/well could have an error of 200,000 barrels/well
without impacting the project’s economics. In later years when
the average well recovers only 75,000 barrels, the acceptable
margin of error is only 25,000 barrels. This illustrates that
standards may change over time. Often the risk tolerance
tightens as the field matures. Yet, for offshore fields where the
capital expenditure is highest at the outset, the accuracy
required (and hence the standards) is the highest early in the life
of the field.
The above discussion also raises an important point – that
technical purity notwithstanding, any discussion of standards
should consider the economics of the particular problem.
Simply put, if the objective of the study is to generate a
forecast, then a forecast accurate to within ±20% of the desired
project economics may be required. This in turn requires one to
consider what accuracy for pressure (which impacts
hydrocarbon in place and rate), saturation or any other variable
is required to generate a forecast with the required precision.
However, none but the largest studies can justify the
additional expense of the above approach. In the interests of
stimulating discussion on standards and based on our practical
experience in many studies, we propose the following simple
measures as possible standards which may be used to determine
if a suitable history matched model has been developed:
Material Balance Risk
1. Field and pod pressures within ±10% to address the
pressure / material balance uncertainty
2. Bottomhole flowing pressure within ± 20% - this is
important for ultimate recovery projections but subject to
greater uncertainty due to changing wellbore skin in the
field, lack of historical data. This criteria also requires
consideration of whether reservoir or wellbore
permeability is limiting factor.
Saturation Risk
3. Match field withdrawals for oil, water and gas rates and
cumulative volumes within ±10%
4. 80% of the wells (when you have more than 20 wells), or
wells comprising of 80% of the production, be matched
for oil, water and gas rates and cumulative volumes
within ±20% on a well level to address the saturation risk
on a spatial plane.
5. Alternatively, match 80 % of the infills rates/cumulative
to within 10-20%
6. Final rates of oil, water & gas match within 10%
The above criteria can be used provided the correct drive
mechanisms have been identified and reasonable adjustments
were made during the history match,
It is very important to understand that when it is stated that
an acceptable field match is within 10% of cumulative volume,
it is assumed that the trend has been matched. In other words,
its not just the cumulative fluid volume produced that matter,
but how you get there. A final cumulative volume can be
obtained in a number of ways, so the simulation model must
replicate the proper physics of how the fluid was produced from
the reservoir. Figure 7 provides an example of an unacceptable
history match of total field gas production that went unnoticed
originally as the cumulative history match target was deemed
acceptable. The model produces at too low of a GOR and then
in late stage production, the pressure dropped enough for
solution gas breakout and a huge amount of gas was produced,
resulting in a cumulative total reflective of actual historical
values. However, in actuality the GOR was consistently higher
and the late stage gas production was not nearly as significant
resulting in a more gradual ‘path’ to the current cumulative gas
total. The gas production in the model was later matched
through a change in solution gas ratio and gas relative
permeability, as both were considered history match variable
due to lack of any lab measurements.
Golden Rules for Simulation Engineers
10
Aziz in 1989 presented ten golden rules. To repeat
those very valid rules;
1. Understand Your Problem and Define Your Objectives.
2. Keep It Simple.
3. Understand Interaction Between Different Parts.
4. Don’t Assume Bigger Is Always Better.
5. Know Your Limitations and Trust Your Judgment.
6. Be Reasonable in Your Expectations.
7. Question Data Adjustments for History Matching.
8. Don’t Smooth Extremes.
9. Pay Attention to the Measurement and Use Scales.
10. Don’t Skimp on Necessary Laboratory Work.
We would include two additions. (1) to judge the quality of a
simulation you can not just examine the history match
parameters, you must also examine the history match
adjustment parameters, are they “reasonable”. (2) We cannot
merely look at a field wide plot of history match parameters
vs. time, we need to look at spatial trends and individual wells
to judge quality.
Accuracy of Forecast
Analogous to flow simulation, hydraulic fracturing
simulation has had similar difficulties as stated below:
Today’s fracture models are not reliable predictors of
hydraulic fracture growth. They are not likely to ever
match the performance of today’s electronic circuit
simulators or even flight simulators. Fracture models
will always face the challenge of predicting (modeling)
a complex process that is taking place thousands of
feet below the earth’s surface with only poor
characterization of the rock/reservoir/geology on the
relevant scale (10’s to 100’s of feet) for hydraulic
fracture growth. Relevant reservoir heterogeneity is
too large of a scale to detect with cores and logs but
too small of a scale to be mapped as part of field
characterization.
Do these inherent difficulties mean that fracture
modeling is a futile endeavor? No……
7
Yes, the modeling will be only approximate and , yes,
there will always remain a significant empirical
component to the process. But there has been a
demonstrably huge economic benefit from the
enhanced understanding of fracture growth achieved in
the last ten years11.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
We would again add that flow simulation will never be
perfect but the exercise of tying physical parameters to
production profile has tremendous value.
Conclusions / Lessons Learned
A very real problem in the petroleum industry is an
unwillingness to set a target for history match quality. So often
it is inexperienced engineers that define what is acceptable
history match quality. Therefore, not setting standards, in our
opinion, is a major mistake. Project objectives, data quality and
data quantity should dictate an acceptable history match,
because these parameters vary from field to field and study to
study; some engineers are reluctant to set standards.
1. Establish objectives and clearly demonstrate how history
match variables correspond to objectives.
2. Well and reservoir diagnostics should be done before
model construction. Diagnostics should identify
reservoir vs. operational effects on production signature.
Identification of volumes in place, hot streaks and poor
reservoir continuity are also a key objectives.
3. History matching is a classical mathematical problem
where the closer the initial guess is to the correct answer;
the faster the convergence is to the correct answer.
Therefore, a history match algorithm or simulation
engineer’s skill will not compensate for a poor initial
reservoir description. Getting the large geological
features down first and preconditioning the geological
model with dynamic data is critical.
4. Calibrate model average permeability by history-
matching drawdown.
5. Realize that complexity doesn't always translate to
accuracy .
6. History match individual well data to check for local
variation in reservoir permeability and porosity. We
often need additional data from analog fields, outcrops,
seismic data and/or geostatistics. This type of data is
critical to conditioning a complex geological model.
When there is no such data the model may appear to be
more complex but we have introduced more uncertainty.
7. History-match multiple variables to reduce the non-
uniqueness of the model.
8. There are three general components of a history match:
Historical matching rates and cumulative volumes
History match recent data
History matching infill well results
Often there may be tradeoffs between those
components. Matching historical trends is critical to
honoring volume and material balance.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank all the people at Epic who
helped provide the key examples from which these lessons were
learned from.
NOMENCLATURE
Sorw = residual oil saturation to water displacement
(fraction)
AOF = absolute flow potential
GOR = gas to oil ratio (m³/m³)
Pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
REFERENCES

1. Saleri, N.G.: “Reservoir Performance Forecasting:

Limits, Field Examples and Acceleration by Parallel
Planning,” SPE May 1992, pp. 652-657.
2. Baker, Richard: “Reservoir Management for
Waterfloods – Part II,” JCPT 13-17, 1998.
3. Baker, Richard: “Reservoir Management for
Waterfloods – Part II,” JCPT 13-17, 1998.
4. Elsayed, S. A., Baker, Richard, Churcher, P. L., and
Edmunds, A. C.: “Multidisciplinary Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Study of the Weyburn
Unit,” JPT October 1993.
5. Gringarten, Alain C.: “Evolution of Reservoir
Management Techniques: From Independent Methods to
an Integrated Methodology. Impart on Petroleum
Engineering Curriculum, Graduate Teaching and
Competitive Advantage of Oil Companies,” SPE39713,
1998.
6. Saleri, N.G., and Toronyi, R.M.: “Engineering Control
in Reservoir Simulation: Part 1,” SPE 18305, 1998.
7. Saleri, Nansen G.: “Reengineering Simulation: A
Bottom-Line Approach to Managing Complexity and
Complexification,” SPE 36696, October 1996.
8. “Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves, Petroleum
Society Monograph Number 1,” by Petroleum Society -
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum,
1994.
9. Harrell, D. Ronald, Hodgin, and John E., Wagenhofer,
Thomas: “Oil and Gas Reserves Estimates: Recurring
Mistakes and Errors,” SPE 91069, September 2004.
10. Aziz, Khalid, SPE Stanford U., JPT, Industry &
Profession (Dialog), pp. 1157, November 1989.
11. Wright, C. A., Weijers, L., Davis, E. J., and Mayerhofer,
M.: “Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth: Tricky
but Not Hopeless,” SPE 56724, October 1999.
12. “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum
Reserves and Resources,” Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc., 2001, Ch. 5, pp. 44.

8
Table 1 – History Parameter

PARAMETER COMMENT METHOD

Generally accept runs within 10%
Cumulative volumes of the final cumulative runs for oil
Oil, gas, water (Np) and gas (Np) assuming gas
was well measured
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
Map view, bubble maps, cumulative vs.
date

History match peak and decline

Oil, water, gas rates XY plots, bubble maps vs. date
period try to match trends

Final decline rate (last 2 years)

should be matched in simulator
(check using well’s pressure
Decline Rates Semi log, XY plots
control to see if they match decline
rate if wells are at low bottom hole
flowing pressure.

History match pressures with 20%

of measured pressure, but beware
Static Reservoir Map view, bubble plots, XY plots
of not fully built up pressure in
some wells.

9
Table 2 – History Match Adjustment Parameter12

HISTORY MATCH
ADJUSTMENT RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE VALUES QUALITY CONTROL
PARAMETER

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
o For non fractured matrix rock pools, make sure
final history match values data are within log(k) vs.
porosity lot relationship envelope.
- Porosity vs. log
o If final values of adjustment parameters are less
permeability plot
Permeability than core values, see if baffles and tortuous flow
- Map of permeability
paths could be the reason.
original vs. final
o For naturally fractured reservoir, because of
fractures, use pressure transient data or
productivity index test as “ground truth” values.
Generally driven by:
o Variation of geological flow units (modeling small - Porosity +/- of the
Gridding geological features require more grid blocks). measured value
o Infill drilling objective. - Visual Inspection
o Numerical dispersion.
o For non thermal injection with Mobility ratio < 10
3-4 grid blocks between wells.
o For non thermal injection Mobility ratio >10 8-10
Grid Resolution grid blocks between wells. - Visual Inspection
o For dispersed drive mechanisms Solution Gas
Drive (SGD) and volumetric gas expansion 2 grid
block between wells.
Driven by:
o Ability and resolution contacts of GWC, GOC,
WOC and their movement.
Vertical Resolution o Generally 1-2m thickness preferred. - Visual Inspection
o Number of Vertical Grid >10 grid block per
geological layer for gravity over/under ride flow
geometry situations or coning problems.
Gross Rock Source: 3D Seismic, 2D
Range: +/- 30%
Volume(GRV) Seismic

Net-to-Gross Range: +/- 20% Source: Well Logs

Porosity Range: +/- 15% of the measurement, +/- 10% Source: Logs, Cores

Hydrocarbon Saturation Range: +/- 20% Source: Well Logs

Dip Range: +/- 10%, +/- 30% Source: Dipmeter, Seismic

Formation Volume
Range: +/- 5% Source: PVT Test
Factor (Bo)

12
“Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves and Resources,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., 2001, Ch. 5, pp. 44.

10
Table 3 - Major Drive Mechanisms / Parameters and Impact on Model

Fluid Type Drive Mechanisms Key Adjustment, Parameters History Match Parameters

Oil Compressible drive OOIP, rock, water and oil Pressure vs. (time withdrawals)
(reservoir pressure > compressibility, permeability Spatial pressure distribution

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
bubble point) Oil rate decline characteristics
Flowing bottom hole pressure
Gas Volumetric gas OGIP, gas compressibility vs. Pressure vs. (time withdrawals)
expansion pressure, permeability Spatial pressure distribution
Oil rate decline characteristics
Flowing bottom hole pressure
Oil Solution gas drive OOIP, critical gas saturation (Sgc), Pressure vs. (time withdrawals)
vertical permeability and top of Spatial pressure distribution
structure, gas relative Oil rate decline characteristics
permeability near Sgc Gas-oil ratio vs. time, cumulative gas
vs. time
Flowing bottom hole pressure
Tight Gas Volumetric gas OGIP, pay cut offs, permeability, Spatial pressure distribution
expansion reservoir continuity, hydraulic Gas rate/tubinghead pressures
facture extents, hydraulic fracture Decline characteristics
permeability Flowing bottom hole pressure
Vertical Movable oil saturation, vertical Pressure vs. (time/withdrawals)
water drive flow barriers, permeability, eater- Spatial pressure distribution
oil density difference Oil rate decline characteristics
Watercut vs. (time /withdrawals) for
individual wells
Flowing bottom hole pressure
Coning Water oil or gas oil density Watercut/GOR vs. Time
difference, stand off distance, Pressure vs. time trends.
permeability, permeability Flowing bottom hole pressure
distribution Spatial pressure distribution
Waterflood/ Pressure Maintenance OOIP, Sorw, aquifer strength, flow Flowing bottom hole pressure
Miscible with displacement barriers, compartmentalization, Spatial pressure distribution
Flood /miscibility Sorm, miscibility, pressure Watercut/GOR vs. Time
permeability, permeability Pressure vs. time trends.
distribution

11
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
Figure 1 - Comparison of Permeability Fields in Geological Model, Old Simulation Model and Current Refined Model; Less
vertically averaged 2006 model preserves the high permeability regions and thus history matches the data better

Figure 2 - Modifying Permeability to Match Peak Rates; In order to match historical peak oil rates permeability has to be
higher, but this leaves well with higher back pressure during late stage time

12
 Permeability Derived From Core Analysis vs. Permeability
Derived From AOF Tests
Permeability Derived From Core 10000

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
1000

100
(mD)

10

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Permeability Derived From AOF
(mD)
Figure 3 - Comparison of (kh)core to (kh)AOF

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000
Actual Oil Rate
800 1996 Forecast
2000 Forecast
600 1996

400

200 2000

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 4 - Late Stage Decline Used to Tune Residual Oil Saturation

13
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
Figure 5 - Saturation Risk Identified Via Bubble Plot of Error in Cumulative Volumes on Saturation

14
 1200 6 .0 E + 0 6

1000 5 .0 E + 0 6

Cumulative Oil (sm³)

800 4 .0 E + 0 6
Oil Rate (sm³/d)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
600 3 .0 E + 0 6

400 2 .0 E + 0 6

200 1 .0 E + 0 6

0 0 .0 E + 0 0
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

H is t O il R a t e S im O il R a te H is t C u m O il S im C um O il

E n e r p lu s W e lls W a t e r M a t c h

100 8 .0 E + 0 6

90 7 .2 E + 0 6

80 6 .4 E + 0 6

Cumulative Water (sm³)

70 5 .6 E + 0 6
Watercut (%)

60 4 .8 E + 0 6

50 4 .0 E + 0 6

40 3 .2 E + 0 6

30 2 .4 E + 0 6

20 1 .6 E + 0 6

10 8 .0 E + 0 5

0 0 .0 E + 0 0
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

H is t O il R a te S im O il R a te H is t C u m O il S im C um O il

Figure 6A - Overall Field Match

120 1 .8 E + 0 5

100 1 .5 E + 0 5

Cumulative Oil (sm³)

80 1 .2 E + 0 5
Oil Rate (sm³/d)

60 9 .0 E + 0 4

40 6 .0 E + 0 4

20 3 .0 E + 0 4

0 0 .0 E + 0 0
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

H is t O il R a te S im O il R a t e H is t C u m O il S im C u m O i l

E n e r p lu s In f ill W e lls W a te r M a t c h

100 1 .0 E + 0 6

90 9 .0 E + 0 5

80 8 .0 E + 0 5
Cumulative Water (sm³)

70 7 .0 E + 0 5
Watercut (%)

60 6 .0 E + 0 5

50 5 .0 E + 0 5

40 4 .0 E + 0 5

30 3 .0 E + 0 5

20 2 .0 E + 0 5

10 1 .0 E + 0 5

0 0 .0 E + 0 0
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

H is t O il R a te S im O il R a t e H is t C u m O il S im C u m O i l

Figure 6B - Performance of 15 infills 1

15
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/06CIPC/All-06CIPC/PETSOC-2006-129/1829166/petsoc-2006-129.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 15 March 2021
Figure 7 - Rate Trends to Match (As Well as Cumulative) In History Match

16