ADVERTISEMENT

4D Seismic With Reservoir Simulation Improves Reservoir Forecasting

Standard history-matching work flows use qualitative 4D seismic observations in reservoir modeling and simulation. However, such work flows lack a robust framework for quantitatively integrating 4D seismic interpretations. Four-dimensional, or time-lapse, seismic interpretations provide valuable interwell saturation and pressure information. Quantitatively integrating these data can help constrain simulation parameters and improve the reliability of production modeling. This paper outlines the value of 4D for reducing uncertainty in the range of history-matched models and improving the production forecast.

Introduction

Reservoir-simulation models play an essential role in generating optimal field-development strategies, but they need to be history-matched before they can be used for reliable forecasting. Traditional history matching of a reservoir involves matching observed production and pressure data at well locations by changing the uncertain parameters in the reservoir model within the acceptable range. The parameters can be classified broadly as static and dynamic. Static parameters include permeability, porosity, and net to gross, among many others. Dynamic parameters may include oil/water contacts, fault transmissibilities, relative permeability curves, and flow pathways.  

Deterministic modeling focuses on a single scenario of the reservoir model, ignoring the effect of uncertainty in the parameters considered. Probabilistic history matching is the process of selecting non­unique and multiple history-matched reservoir models by altering the uncertain static and dynamic parameters to obtain a range of possible forecasts. Typically, in probabilistic work flows, objective functions composed of a combination of differences in measured and simulated bottomhole pressure data and individual fluid-phase flow rates are used to identify significant factors or uncertainties. The functions are typically based on surveillance data obtained at well locations and therefore may not be sensitive to key reservoir uncertainty away from wells. A good match with production data for a given reservoir model does not ensure robustness in making performance forecasts.

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Judy Feder, contains highlights of paper SPE 191521, “Quantitative Integration of 4D Seismic with Reservoir Simulation,” by Sarath Pavan Ketineni, SPE, Subhash Kalla, SPE, Shauna Oppert, SPE, and Travis Billiter, SPE, Chevron, prepared for the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 24–26 September. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
...
This article is reserved for SPE members and JPT subscribers.
If you would like to continue reading,
please Sign In, JOIN SPE or Subscribe to JPT

4D Seismic With Reservoir Simulation Improves Reservoir Forecasting

01 March 2019

Volume: 71 | Issue: 3

No editorial available

ADVERTISEMENT


STAY CONNECTED

Don't miss out on the latest technology delivered to your email weekly.  Sign up for the JPT newsletter.  If you are not logged in, you will receive a confirmation email that you will need to click on to confirm you want to receive the newsletter.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

No editorial available

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT