History Matching,

Forecasting and Updating

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 1

History Matching
The most practical method for testing a reservoir model’s validity and
accuracy, is a process of parameter adjustment.
Its goal is to procure a set of parameters that yields the best prediction of
the reservoir’s performance history.
Simulating the reservoir’s past performance is central to history
matching, and the process should ideally help to identify weaknesses in
and ways of improving reservoir and model description data.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 2

The main weakness of history matching is non-uniqueness.

Non-uniqueness arises because more than one combination of reservoir

parameters may yield the same predictions.

Of course, this is not physically possible, since the actual reservoir

parameters that the model is attempting to describe are unique.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 3

The data we build into a reservoir simulator, at best, only approximate the
actual reservoir parameters.

We therefore cannot expect these data to truly represent the reservoir.

To understand why this is true, we must consider the data sources.

Permeability and porosity data may have come from laboratory core analyses,
and scaling up such data to real reservoir conditions inevitably causes a problem

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 4

The reservoir’s geometrical configuration—its shape, internal
discontinuities and their descriptions (e.g., fracture and fracture geometry)
is inferred from a few discrete locations, and then extrapolated over vast
areas.

In light of these facts, we cannot expect these data to give more than an
approximation of real conditions.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 5

In essence, we can describe history matching as a feedback control procedure,
analogous to the classical control problem.

With the best estimates of the model parameters in hand, we run the
simulator to predict the reservoir history.

We then compare this predicted performance history, using some key history
matching parameters, to the actual recorded performance history.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 6

If we do not see an acceptable match, we adjust the model parameters and
attempt a new match.

We continue this iteration process until a “good” match results.

The set of model parameters that achieves this match is the best estimate,
and becomes part of the simulator for future predictions.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 7

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 8
The main parameters usually adjusted in history matching are:

Reservoir and fluid data.

Relative permeability function.
Capillary pressure function.
Well data.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 9

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 10
Permeability is the most often used reservoir variable for pressure history
matching.
This is partly because permeability is the least well-defined parameter, and at
the same time, the one that affects pressure distribution the most.
Porosity data are much better than permeability data and hence are not as
widely used as a tuning parameter.
While permeability information from well-test analysis may be better than
that obtained from other sources, its reliability depends on the representation
accuracy of the well-test model.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 11

Parameters determines good history Match:

- PRESSURE
- FLOW RATE
- GOR - WOR

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 12

Main Methods of History Matching:

- Linear Programming to minimize errors between calculated and observed

values
- Goal Programming
- Non-Linear Programming:
Search Methods
gradient Methods

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 13

 History Matching by Linear Programming

Problem
Data: Field data consists of I observations in time

0≤t≤tm : d1,d2,….,dI = di which could be , well pressure, WOR, GOR

Unknowns: Reservoir parameters : x1,x2,…,xJ = xj, which could be permeability, porosity, thickness
(i.e.J unknowns)

Restrictions: Upper and lower bounds on xi are specified, otherwise assume:

x1(lower) ≤ x1 ≤x1(upper)

x2(lower) ≤ x2 ≤x2(upper)

-----

xJ(lower) ≤ xJ ≤xJ(upper)

Use xj to calculate di = di(calculated)

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 14

Finally the problem is

To determine xi such that

Norm of the error Є = di(observed) - di (calculated)
is minimized

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 15

In order to do this, an objective function is defined based on the history
matching parameter.

This objective function is usually a function representing a measure of total

error between predicted and observed data.

The strategy is to minimize this error to yield the best match.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 16

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 17
 Forecasting

The ultimate goal of any modeling effort is forecasting.

Ensure that a model has the necessary predictive capability before using it as a forecasting tool.

We ensure predictive capability by formulating an accurate representation of the reservoir, properly

solving the resulting equations, and proving the validity of the model through history matching.

Once we have taken these steps, the simulator is ready for its primary purpose of forecasting.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 18

 Analysis of results

Must promptly analyze to obtain the information we need.

Although a simulation study could involve many runs planned in advance, we

should not think that we have to complete all the runs before beginning our
analysis.

It is not a sequential process—we should, in fact, conduct simulation runs and

analysis simultaneously.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 19

 Updating

Rarely do we have available all the information that we need at the beginning
of a simulation study.
Basic tenet of engineering is using the available information—as inadequate as
it may be—to come up with a “best” solution.
This solution is then improved as more information becomes available.
This process called updating. There are two methods of updating in reservoir
simulation: updating the reservoir model itself, and revising the simulation
approach.

01/17/23 DR.HELMY SAYYOUH 20

 Models Usually Grow in Complexity

Simple Complex

Study Study
Commences Concludes

REO - Fundamentals of Reservoir

Simulation