Determination of lower and upper bounds of predicted production from history-matched models

Journal Article (2016)
Author(s)

G. M. van Essen (Shell Global Solutions International B.V.)

S. Kahrobaei (TU Delft - Reservoir Engineering)

H. van Oeveren

P. M J van Den Hof (Eindhoven University of Technology)

J. D. Jansen (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences, TU Delft - Geoscience and Engineering)

Research Group
Reservoir Engineering
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-016-9576-1
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2016
Language
English
Research Group
Reservoir Engineering
Issue number
5
Volume number
20
Pages (from-to)
1061-1073
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

We present a method to determine lower and upper bounds to the predicted production or any other economic objective from history-matched reservoir models. The method consists of two steps: 1) performing a traditional computer-assisted history match of a reservoir model with the objective to minimize the mismatch between predicted and observed production data through adjusting the grid block permeability values of the model. 2) performing two optimization exercises to minimize and maximize an economic objective over the remaining field life, for a fixed production strategy, by manipulating the same grid block permeabilities, however without significantly changing the mismatch obtained under step 1. This is accomplished through a hierarchical optimization procedure that limits the solution space of a secondary optimization problem to the (approximate) null space of the primary optimization problem. We applied this procedure to two different reservoir models. We performed a history match based on synthetic data, starting from a uniform prior and using a gradient-based minimization procedure. After history matching, minimization and maximization of the net present value (NPV), using a fixed control strategy, were executed as secondary optimization problems by changing the model parameters while staying close to the null space of the primary optimization problem. In other words, we optimized the secondary objective functions, while requiring that optimality of the primary objective (a good history match) was preserved. This method therefore provides a way to quantify the economic consequences of the well-known problem that history matching is a strongly ill-posed problem. We also investigated how this method can be used as a means to assess the cost-effectiveness of acquiring different data types to reduce the uncertainty in the expected NPV.