Use of brown-field experimental design methods for post-processing conventional history match results

Gregory R. King, Matthew Jones, Terrell Tankersley, Eric Flodin, Steve Jenkins, Akmaral Zhumagulova, Wanda Eaton, Phil Bateman, Chris Laidlaw, Robert Fitzmorris, Xialin Ma, Kymbat Dagistanova

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Brown-field Experimental Design (ED) was successfully applied to a super-giant oilfield to generate probabilistic (P10, P50, and P90) models to define the range of field performance and to mitigate the non-uniqueness in reservoir simulation. A recent trend in reservoir simulation has been to apply probabilistic modeling, such as, brown-field ED to develop multiple (P10, P50, and P90) models. Unfortunately, these probabilistic models are also non-unique because multiple input combinations can be used to generate the probabilistic responses observed during ED. The non-uniqueness of the probabilistic models may impact their usefulness in certain circumstances. For example, if these models are used to develop short-term signposts for long-term reservoir behavior, then the models may be influenced by the selection of reservoir data (e.g., a P10 model with one combination of input may have a different short-term "signature" than an alternate P10 model despite giving comparable P10 recovery). Also, the degree of success of a downside-mitigation (or upside-capture) strategy, and its ranking with other such strategies may be influenced by the input chosen to develop the models. For the super-giant Tengiz oilfield, brown-field ED was applied to a conventional history match with the primary objective of creating probabilistic models. Additionally, we developed tools to design multiple deterministic models with specific physical interpretations. With these deterministic models we can identify the signatures for specific reservoir phenomenon, such as, minimum/maximum OOIP, minimum/maximum compartmentalization, minimum/maximum reservoir energy, etc. All models built with these tools yield acceptable visual and quantitative history matches. In this paper we discuss how brown-field ED was used to post-process a conventional history match. We present a case study for the use of brown-field ED methods and illustrate the proposed approach to mitigate the non-unique nature of reservoir simulation. While the impact non-uniqueness can be mitigated, we also recognized that it can never be completely eliminated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationSociety of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2012, ATCE 2012
Subtitle of host publicationUnconventional Wisdom
Pages2022-2033
Number of pages12
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2012
EventSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2012: Unconventional Wisdom, ATCE 2012 - San Antonio, TX, United States
Duration: Oct 8 2012Oct 10 2012

Publication series

NameProceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
Volume3

Other

OtherSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2012: Unconventional Wisdom, ATCE 2012
CountryUnited States
CitySan Antonio, TX
Period10/8/1210/10/12

    Fingerprint

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Fuel Technology
  • Energy Engineering and Power Technology

Cite this

King, G. R., Jones, M., Tankersley, T., Flodin, E., Jenkins, S., Zhumagulova, A., ... Dagistanova, K. (2012). Use of brown-field experimental design methods for post-processing conventional history match results. In Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2012, ATCE 2012: Unconventional Wisdom (pp. 2022-2033). (Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Vol. 3).