Best Practices of Assisted History Matching Using Design of Experiments
- Boxiao Li (Chevron Energy Technology Company) | Eric W. Bhark (Chevron Asia Pacific E&P Company) | Stephen J. Gross (Chevron Energy Technology Company) | Travis C. Billiter (Chevron Energy Technology Company) | Kaveh Dehghani (Chevron Energy Technology Company)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-26 September, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.6.9 Production Forecasting, 7.2.3 Decision-making Processes, 5.6 Formation Evaluation & Management, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics, 5.5.8 History Matching
- Design of experiments, Reservoir Simulation, Probabilistic forecasting, Best practices, Assisted history matching
- 8 in the last 30 days
- 438 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Assisted history matching (AHM) using Design of Experiments (DoE) is one of the most commonly applied history matching techniques in the oil and gas industry. When applied properly, this stochastic method finds a representative ensemble of history-matched reservoir models for probabilistic uncertainty analysis of production forecast. Although DoE-based AHM is straightforward in concept, it can be misused in practice because the workflow involves many statistical and modeling principles that should be followed rigorously.
In this paper, the entire DoE-based AHM workflow is demonstrated in a coherent and comprehensive case study that is divided in seven key stages: problem framing, sensitivity analysis, proxy building, Monte-Carlo simulation, history-match filtering, production forecast, and representative model selection. Best practices of each stage are summarized to help reservoir management (RM) engineers understand and apply this powerful workflow for reliable history matching and probabilistic production forecasting.
One major difficulty in any history matching method is to define the history-match tolerance, which reflects the engineer's comfort level of calling a reservoir model "history-matched" even though the difference between simulated and observed production data is not zero. It is a compromise to the intrinsic and unavoidable imperfectness of reservoir model construction, data measurement, and proxy creation. A practical procedure is provided to help engineers define the history-match tolerance considering the model, data-measurement, and proxy errors.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||23|
Burkardt, J. 2005. http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/cpp_src/ihs/ihs.html.
Joosten, G. J., Altintas, A., Van Essen, G., Van Doren, J., Gelderblom, P., van den Hoek, P., Foreste, K. 2014. Reservoir model maturation and assisted history matching based on production and 4D seismic data. Paper SPE 170604 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27-29 October.
King, G. R., Lee, S., Alexandre, P., Miguel, M., Blevens, M., Pillow, M., Christie, G. 2005. Probabilistic forecasting for mature fields with significant production history: a Nemba field case study. Paper SPE 95869 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October.