SPE 94735
Reservoir Representation for Flow Simulation
R.K. Romeu, P.L.B. Paraizo, M.A.S. Moraes, C.C. Lima, M.R.F. Lopes, A.T. Silva, J.R.P. Rodrigues, F.P.T. Silva,
M.A. Cardoso, Petrobras, and M.C. Damiani, ESSS
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 – 23 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Reservoir flow modeling involves two aspects: a functional
model (flow equations and numerical methods) and a
representation model (related to the reservoir description) –
and this last aspect is usually the critical one. Reservoir
representation is different from reservoir characterization. It is
not a question of describing the reservoir in a more or less
exhaustive or realistic way, but a question of incorporating
relevant information into the flow simulation model,
considering the syntax of the flow simulators and the relative
impact of information on the simulation results. Reservoir
representation makes the bridge between reservoir
characterization and flow simulation.
This paper presents selected results from a cluster of
applied research projects in reservoir representation for flow
simulation. It includes: (1) gridding issues in the context of
integrated reservoir studies (discussion of terminology, grid
specification, generic format reading, etc.); (2) identification
and representation of critical heterogeneities of turbidite
reservoirs; (3) assigning transmissibility multipliers across
partially sealing faults in a field case; (4) incorporation of
production data in reservoir flow models with an example of
application; (5) hyperdocumention for reservoir simulation
files (making use of HTML tags to get a much richer
documentation of the flow simulation model).
Introduction
Reservoir flow modeling involves two complementary
components: a functional model and a representation model
(Fig. 1). The functional model consists of a set of differential
equations and of numerical methods for solving these
equations. The representation model mathematically describes
a particular reservoir (rock and fluid) by spatial variable
coefficients, external boundary conditions and initial
conditions that complete the formulation.
Functional M odel
Re presentation Mode l
Input Output
(Exploitation Flow Model (Production
Strate gy) Fore cast)
Fig. 1 — The reservoir flow model contains two components: the
functional model and the representation model.
From this perspective, the geometry of the reservoir, its
porosities, permeabilities, etc. are not input data for the model;
the representation of this knowledge is part of the flow model
itself. This way of thinking highlights the intimate connection
between the reservoir representation and the formulation of the
flow problem of interest. Such a connection was evident in the
old days of physical modeling: in fact, the functional and
representation models were almost indistinguishable in this
approach; there is an analogy with the classical relationship
between form and content. However, in the context of
numerical simulators and discipline specialization it became
easy to forget how customized the reservoir representation
should be in relation with the functional model and with the
objectives of the study.
The critical component of a reservoir simulation study is
the representation model: generally, if the study fails in quality
or in timing, the reason is that the reservoir was not properly
represented. Reservoir representation is different from
reservoir characterization. It is not a question of describing the
reservoir in a more or less exhaustive or realistic way, but a
question of incorporating relevant information into the flow
simulation model, considering the syntax of the flow
simulators and the relative impact of information on the
simulation results. Reservoir representation makes the bridge
between reservoir characterization and flow simulation.
This paper presents selected results from a cluster of
projects designed to improve aspects of reservoir
representation for flow simulation in a practical industrial
context. It includes various considerations about (1) gridding;
(2) critical hetererogeneities in turbidite reservoirs; (3)
transmissibility multipliers across partially sealing faults; (4)
incorporation of production data into the flow model; (5)
documentation. The selected information if of many kinds:
2 SPE 94735
general review, author's points of view, new ideas, examples
of field study practices and results.
Grids
A very concrete component of the reservoir representation is
the grid, the topological/morphological support that carries
this representation. Grids have evolved very much in time and
this has brought new opportunities but also new issues.
The maximum number of gridcells has exponentially
increased with time, more or less doubling at every 3 years
during the last decades1 (Fig. 2). This appears to merely
reflect the Moore's law (in a loose version: "computer power
doubles at every 1,5 years"), since the simulation run time is
almost proportional to the square of the number of gridcells,
with parallell computing and more efficient solvers tending to
somewhat speed up this growth.
10,000,000
1,000,000
number of gridcells
100,000
10,000
Watts , 19 97
1,000
extrapolation
100
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
years
Fig. 2 — Evolution of maximum practical model size in reservoir
1
simulation grids: data from Watts and a possible extrapolation.
The relevant point in Fig. 2 is that the area below the curve
— the room for choice — is now very large. For many studies,
it may be advantageous to work far below the maximum
practical limit in order to benefit from simpler and faster
simulations: more complex models do not mean better studies2
and the possibility of running much more cases during the
same time is of great value to access uncertainties, to improve
the history match and to optimize production strategies.
A smart answer to the question "a big or a small model?"
may be "both!” One can use different grid sizes for different
goals and phases of the same study. We have successfully
employed this strategy in two recent studies. In the first phase
of these studies, we worked with coarse grids, 4 (in one study)
and 9 (in the other study) times coarser in area than the basic
grid of the second phase of the same studies (approximately
100,000 100m x 100m gridcells with variable thickness for
each study). Simulation run times were respectively 12 and 60
times shorter, but simulation results were practically the same
for the pressure in any part of the reservoirs. Note that, in the
second case, the run time was reduced from hours to minutes.
This was very useful not only for the initial activities of
quality control but especially for a significant effort of history
matching static pressures in a well-by-well basis in these two
large reservoirs where some uncertainties about internal
connectivities were an issue. Unfortunately, saturation maps,
water-cut and GOR simulated by the coarse grids did not
reproduce well the more precise results of the basic grids, and
so we had to abandon them in the second phase of the study.
Later, in fact, we had to still refine our basic grid around some
wells to properly simulate water coning. The coarser and the
finer grids lived together during some time and our evaluation
is that this strategy largely payed off the additional pre-
processing work to build more than one grid for the same
study.
Simulation grids are evolving not only in quantity of
gridcells but also in kind, from traditional cell-centered (first
generation) grids to corner-point (second generation) grids and
to hybrid/unstructured (the starting third generation) grids.
We found that the usual terminology about reservoir grids
is incomplete and confused, and this may be an issue in
integrated multi-disciplinary multi-software reservoir studies.
For instance, there are several kinds of corner-point grids
important to be distinguished and we can sometimes hear
ambiguous expressions like "regular irregular" grids or vice
versa.
Regularity — as opposed to generality or flexibility — is
indeed the best criterion to classify grids. Regularity is any
special structure that allows a more compact representation of
the grid3. There is a trade-off: more regular grids accept a
simpler and cheaper representation, but cannot satisfactory
treat all cases.
The key point to control ambiguity in grid specification is
to be explicit and precise about the aspects and kinds of
regularity that are being considered. Structured grids have a
2010
strong regularity in their internal topology (all cells arranged
in lines and rows) and therefore accept a much more compact
description than unstructed grids (where gridcell connectivities
require being explicited). Most reservoir simulation grids are
almost-structured grids where non-neighbor connections and
local grid refinement are treated as local exceptions.
Structured grids for reservoir representation use to be
Cartesian (voxets) or conformed (stratigraphic grids),
depending on a more or less regular mapping between
topology and morphology. In the first case this mapping
simply follows Euclidian distances; in the second case it
follows stratigraphy (or flow geometry, etc). In both cases, the
structured connectivities among the gridcells are defined in the
IJK topologic space, but only in the first case there is a trivial
correspondence with the XYZ geometric space, what allows a
more compact representation. For each discipline and purpose
it is convenient to use connectivity rules associated to the
aspect of interest: seismic data processing, stratigraphy,
geostatistical main directions, flow geometry, etc. Stronger
kinds of regularity are related to gridcell spacing and shape.
Besides the more formal criteria, we found useful to
shortname 7 common types of structured grids traditionally
used in reservoir studies for seismics, geology or flow
simulation:
type 1: cell-centered, Cartesian, uniform spacing;
type 2: cell-centered, Cartesian, non-uniform spacing;
type 3: cell-centered, conformed in the K direction
(variable depths and thicknesses);
type 4: corner-point, vertical coordlines, orthogonal in IJ
plane;
SPE 94735
type 5: corner-point, vertical coordlines, non-orthogonal
in IJ plane;
type 6: corner-point, tilted coordlines;
type 7: generic corner-point (curved coordlines).
We designed a piece of software to read, visualize and
write these types of grids in practically any kind of format.
Available commercial software usually provides some options
for importing and exporting grids, but these options have not
covered all our needs. We found that converting grid data
formats was a pervasive task that deserved an independent
piece of software, to act like a multi-adapter plug. Its main
feature is a module for generic format reading that allows the
user to interactively define how the grid data is structured in
the file (keywords, data blocks, repetition conventions, loop
order, etc.). These instructions can be saved in templates for
further use. Later, this software was expanded to include
special binary formats, conversion between types of grids,
unstructured grids and some special post-processing features.
Critical heterogeneities
The first question following this title is "in what sense is
the word critical being used?". Critical here means contextual
relevance: critical heterogeneities are the geological features
that really matter to a particular flow problem. To be
objective, only these heterogeneities must be incorporated to
the representation model.
This approach may look too pragmatic from a geological
perspective, but it does not mean that we should slow down
reservoir characterization activities; on the contrary, we need
more research because it is not obvious to recognize a priori
which heterogeneities are critical. The process of reservoir
representation involves simplification and one obvious risk is
too much simplification. Simplification has to be judiciously
conducted as part of a rigorous and complex work of reservoir
description.
One good practice in reservoir characterization is outcrop
studies4,5. In these studies, we are able to couple stratigraphy,
sedimentology and facies analysis, as well as structural
influences on reservoir characteristics, from very direct
observation in a relatively wide range of scales. Besides that,
geostastical and other modeling techniques have evolved to
better represent geological geometries and complexities,
collaborating to the effort of building more realistic digital
geological models.
Being able to generate such models, we can go back to our
pragmatic question about which heterogeneities are critical.
One way to answer these questions is to perform sensibility
studies in synthetic but representative models. The strategy is
to build fine-scale geological digital models, based on
conceptual models and supported by extensive database and
fieldwork on outcrops. For these kinds of synthetic studies we
combine, from one side, rich reservoir description and
characterization information in different scales, and, on the
other, different representation techniques that allow us to build
geologically consistent models in different levels of detail.
Finally these models can be submitted to flow simulation to
investigate the impact of the different heterogeneities for a
given production context. The relative effect of various
heterogeneities can then be accessed from sensibility analysis.
3
This approach is not new and we can found descriptions of
extensive work in refs. 6 and 7, for example. Here we briefly
describe a contribution related to the evaluation of the
influence of different depositional styles of turdidite systems
on a reservoir submitted to water-flood.
Based on former research projects5, we have defined three
distinct depositional styles, named discrete channel
complexes, amalgamated channel complexes and distributary
channel and lobe complexes. For these three styles, we have
documented some important quantified data, like geometric
parameters of sand bodies, and extension of permeability
barriers.
Using these quantitative data, seven synthetic fine models
were built: three for discrete channels, two for amalgamated
channels and two for lobes, with varying net-to-gross ratios
(Table 1). A homogeneous model served as a reference, as
shown in the same table. All models have 2km x 2km x 30m,
with 80 x 80 x 60 (=384,000) 25m x 25m x 0.5m gridcells. We
used a non-conditional Boolean method to generate the
models, with an in-house software8. The input parameters
were the geometries of sand bodies and a vertical proportion
curve. The output checking were not only visual inspections,
but also the ability to reproduce the input parameters and the
barriers extensions for each style, this last one not included as
input. Examples of the models can be seen in Fig. 3
Table 1. Average value of NTG for the eight synthetic models.
Model NTG
0. "Homogeneous" 1.00
1. "Amalgamated High" 0.92
2. "Amalgamated Low" 0.86
3. "Discrete High" 0.71
4. "Discrete Medium" 0.58
5. "Discrete Low" 0.31
6. "Lobes Low" 0.48
7. "Lobes High" 0.91
(a)
(b)
c)
Fig. 3 — Examples of synthetic models: (a) amalgamated
channels with high NTG, (b) lobes with low NTG, and (c) discrete
channels with low NTG (that is, models 1, 6 and 5 of Table 1).
4 SPE 94735
Later, the eight synthetic models were submitted to flow
simulation to study the influence of the heterogeneities in a
typical waterflood pattern for Brazilian offshore fields. Two
600m-long horizontal wells were simulated: one injecting
water (3000 m3/d) and the other producing oil and water. The
following rock and fluid properties were considered:
permeability = 2000mD; porosity = 0.30; initial water
saturation = 0.20; oil viscosity 4 cP; water viscosity = 0.35
cP; initial pressure = 300 kgf/cm2; bubble pressure = 200
kgf/cm2.
Instead of extensively describing flow simulation results
for each case, what would involve very case-dependent
aspects, we prefer here to pick out one of our more
transportable results. This relates to the influence of the net-
to-gross ration (NTG) on flow results and to a practical idea
about how to represent this in a coarser flow model. In fact,
NTG revealed to be the single most important factor in the
analysis (but, for the same level of NTG, the depositional style
is a very important control), requiring previous normalization
of volumes, etc. Besides affecting pore volumes, NTG has also
a direct impact in the horizontal and vertical transmissibility
across the reservoir.
Reservoir simulators automatically include NTG as a
multiplicative factor of the interblock horizontal
transmissibility. In coarse models, this can be understood as
the application of an arithmetic average for upscaling of the
horizontal permeability of a mixed system of permeable and
impermeable rocks. This reasonable approximation implicitly
assumes that the impermeable rock (that corresponds to a (1-
NTG) fraction of the volume of the gridcell) is distributed as
horizontal parallel layers and therefore the "in-parallel beds"
formula for upscaling permeability apply.
But reservoir simulators make no corresponding
hypothesis to automatically account for the impact of 1-NTG
on the vertical transmissibility, even if this impact is normally
recognized as much bigger than that on the horizontal
transmissibility. In fact, by analogy, the corresponding
hypothesis would be to consider vertical flow across "in-series
beds", the case where harmonic average apply, conducting to a
zero vertical transmissibility for any case where NTG < 1.
However this would be too radical and unrealistic. Standard
reservoir simulators prefer to let this aspect of modeling
totally on user's hands.
A usual approach to model the vertical permeability of
coarse gridcells is to take it as a constant fraction (ex.: 0.10 or
0.30) of the horizontal permeability. We propose here another
approach: to model it as a variable fraction of the horizontal
permeability dependent of both the NTG and the depositional
style, for a given gridcell size. For distal lobes, for example,
shales tend to occur in more continuous and thin layers, and
small quantities of (1-NTG) are enough to radically drop the
vertical permeability of 100m x 100m gridcells. In contrast,
for discrete channels, the distribution of shales is more
isotropic and the impact of (1-NTG) on the vertical
permeability is moderate. These functions can be estimated
from upscaling exercises and some results are shown in Fig. 4.
Later in this paper, we will show an example where a
parameter of this kind of function is calibrated by history
matching.
0
1
8
kv / kh
6
4
2
0 0
0 NTG 1 0 NTG 1 0 NTG 1
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4 — Results of the ratio between vertical and horizontal
permeability computed numerical upscaling exercises (coarse
gridcells extracted from fine synthetic models) as a function of
NTG and depositional style in turbidite systems: (a) discrete
channels; (b) amalgamated channels; (c) lobes.
Later, the rock flow properties related to each depositional
style can be incorporated in the reservoir representation model
if we can recognize by seismic and geological interpretation
the domains of occurrence of each style in the field (Fig. 5).
This methodology provides a practical and consistent way to
represent depositional styles dependent variables in the
reservoir representation model.
p
m
s d
cr
c
~ 5 km
Fig. 5 — Domains of occurrence of different depositional styles
interpreted from seismics in a particular field: "c": channels; "s":
spill deposits; "cr": crevasse splay; "p", "m" and "d": proximal,
median and distal lobes.
Representation of faults
In some cases, the effect of geologic sealing or partially
sealing faults in the reservoir flow behavior can be of first
order and therefore it is very important to proper represent this
effect into the flow model. This is the case of oilfields
submitted to waterflood where some faults can cut or
drastically reduce the hydraulic communication between
injection and production wells. The problem is to predict how
much a fault is sealing and then to incorporate this information
in the reservoir representation model.
We briefly review techniques of representing partially
sealing faults in reservoir simulation and later discuss a case of
application of different geological approaches to access fault
sealing behavior in a big offshore Brazilian field.
The general effect of faulting in reservoir flow simulation,
considering the usual case of subhorizontal layers and
SPE 94735
subvertical faults, is to decrease the horizontal connectivity
(inside the same simulation layer) and to increase the vertical
connectivity (among different simulation layers). This comes
from two complimentary aspects:
geometric effect: on one hand, the fault displacement
reduces or annuls the interface area between pairs of
gridcells from the same layer; on the other hand, it creates
new interfaces between pairs of gridcells from different
layers, non-neighbors in the topology of structured grids.
Reservoir simulators automatically make the
corresponding corrections in corner-point grids;
rock effect: faulting may cause strong rock alteration and
this is usually represented by transmissibility multipliers
(between 0 and 1) between pairs of gridcells separated by
the fault. The problem is to assign these transmissibility
multipliers, especially when there is no or few significant
production or welltest data and we have to be predictive
based mainly in geologic data.
Representation of these effects can be more or less
sophisticated. The level of representation of the geometry of
the faults depends on the grid flexibility (type 4: only zigzaged
vertical faults; type 5: actual traces but vertical faults; type 6:
inclined but plane faults; etc.). Fault transmissibility
multipliers are usually assigned as a constant along the same
fault. However Manzocchi et al.9 show that this is not a
consistent practice and propose a method of computing
variable multipliers based on correlations with local values of
permeability, shale content, fault displacement, etc. In another
work, Manzocchi10 discusses more advanced considerations
including two-phase effects.
We describe some studies related to the difficult case of a
big offshore Brazilian oilfield to be submitted to waterflood.
In the studied field, faults cutting poorly consolidated
siliciclastic reservoirs show quite different behavior with
respect to transmissibility: some faults separate blocks where
oil-water contacts are found at different depths (~ 50 m)
whereas other faults separate blocks where there is no
difference between oil-water contacts (Fig. 6). The vertical
throw in both sets of faults are about the same, roughly 20m.
Moreover, faults in both sets juxtapose sandstones against
sandstones, at least in part.
Three different approaches from three different research
groups were used to investigate how such a different behavior
was produced, seeking to better represent faults in the flow
model. The first approach11 is based on the petrography and
petrophysics of both faulted and unfaulted rock and on the
potential fault juxtaposition of reservoir/shale beds as well.
The second approach12 is based solely on geomechanics: the
sealing or leaking behavior of a given piece of a fault would
be controlled by its orientation with respect to the present-day
stress field and the pore pressure. The third approach13 uses
the petrophysical and petrological information, the stress field
information (present-day and paleo stresses) and pore pressure
to model the deformation produced along fault planes,
accumulated during its history; that is, the fault
transmissibility will be a function of the history of
deformation accumulated along the fault plane. We will
describe the contributions of each approach.
5
Fig. 6 — Map showing faults, wells and water-oil contacts
observed in the wells. NS-trending faults are sealing and define
compartments with different water-oil contacts.
According to the studies related to the first approach11, the
fault rocks in the studied field are phyllosilicate-framework
rocks and could not be able to sustain oil columns greater than
roughly 20 m. This is far lower than the ~ 200 m columns of
oil observed associated with the sealing faults. Two
possibilities were evoked to explain the discrepancy between
theory and observation: (i) the different oil-water contacts
found in blocks separated by faults would be related to a
transient phenomenon – under this hypothesis, the oil would
be currently entering into the reservoir; (ii) the observed
difference in oil-water contacts could be related to
hydrodynamics, i.e., such difference actually would represent
an inclined oil-water contact.
Following the second approach12, faults and natural
fractures are supposed to be always sealing, unless they are
favorable oriented to be reactivated by the present-day stress
field, under the appropriated pore pressure. In the studied area,
the stress field and the pore pressure values are such that NS-
trending faults tend to be sealing, whereas EW-, NE- and NW-
trending faults tend to be leaking. Accordingly, roughly NS-
trending faults separate wells with different oil/water contacts
faults whereas roughly EW-trending faults separate wells with
the same oil/water contact (Fig. 6). Modeling also indicates
that NS-trending faults could start to leak if the reservoir were
depleted more than 10% of the original pressure, a prediction
that is consistent with the ongoing history of production.
The third approach13 put into evidence how sensitive fault
transmissibility could be to the role of the tectonic stress
regime When faults were modeled assuming a normal fault
stress regime all the faults were leaking. On the other hand,
taking into account the tectonic EW-trending compression —
which is the regime prevailing in the basement of the
basin14— modeling was able to qualitatively reproduce the
faults sealing or leaking behavior (Fig. 7). More than that, this
methodology provided numerical values for the
transmissibility multipliers along all faults. These values were
6 SPE 94735

used as a initial guess for history matching some available One practical strategy to overcome this problem is to find
pressure data. some simple and consistent way to parameterize (part of) the
reservoir representation problem with very few parameters.
(a) An interesting example, from Silva et al.19, involves the
automatic history matching of bottom-hole pressure (PDG)
and water-cut data of one single 1100m-long horizontal well
producing from a new oilfield. The reservoir simulation model
involved a corner-point grid with 140 x 188 x 17 gridcells.
(b) The main geologic heterogeneities are thin layers of silty
shale, with NTG varying from 0.50 to 0.85. The impact of
these impermeable rocks on the vertical permeability of
gridcells was modeled using the technique explained just
above Fig. 4. The following equation was used to relate the
vertical permeability (Kz), in mD, to the net-to-gross ratio
Fig. 7 —NS-trending fault represented in the flow model. Reddish (NTG) of each gridcell, as a function of two adjustable
hues indicate leaking (high fault permeability values); bluish hues parameters (Kzbase and NTGcutoff):
indicate sealing (low fault permeability values) (a) Fault modeled
under and assumed a normal stress regime. (b) Fault modeled
taking into account an EW-trending tectonics compression. ( NTG (i, j,k ) NTGcutoff )
Kz (i, j, k ) max 0.001, Kz base
(1 NTGcutoff )
Incorporation of dynamic data
Past observed production and pressure data are of particular
Three parameters were considered in the optimization
interest to build consistent reservoir representation models for
procedure: Kzbase, NTGcutoff and the horizontal permeability of
flow simulation. This kind of information is obviously in
the sandstone (Kxy). A very good match was attained for both
perfect line with the objectives of a reservoir study and has to
bottom-hole pressure and water-cut (Figs. 8 and 9). This
be privileged in the flow model. Incorporating dynamic data
procedure was repeated for several geostatistical images of
into the model is another name of the history matching
NTG with similar results. A more complete description of this
process.
application can be found in ref. 19.
History matching is recognized as a critical phase of the
reservoir studies, the most critical one in many cases, since it
generally requires very much computer time, experienced
knowledge and team integration. The quality of its results is
often perceived — even when this is not fully justified — as
the most important index of success of the whole study. The
two important functions of the history matching are the
calibration of the model and its initialization for the forecast
period.
Traditional methods of performing history match, based on
experienced trial and error, can be very frustrating, especially
if the proposed goal includes matching water and gas monthly
rates of many individual wells, during many years, in
relatively complex models. More effective methods
19
necessarily involve some kind of automatic minimization of an Fig. 8 — History match for bottom-hole pressures .
error function that quantifies the disagreement between
simulated and observed data. These automatic or assisted
history-matching methods have been progressed very much in
the last years15-19.
However it appears we are still far from the day when
super-smart software will be able to solve completely by itself
complicated history matching real problems. One major
difficulty is the potentially big number of parameters (any
rock property in any gridcell, etc.) that can be involved in this
inverse problem, i.e. the big number of degrees of freedom
used to define the reservoir representation model. Two
implications of this are the enormous computational work
demanded by the size of the numerical problem and, more
important, the inherently ill posedness nature of the inverse
19
problem, in the sense that many different reservoir models can Fig. 9 — History match for water-cut .
be find that reasonably match production data.
SPE 94735
In practice, especially for more complex cases involving
many wells, we found that automatic optimization is just one
of the tools needed for effective history matching. It works
fine for controlled conditions, after having a good analysis of
the problem: identification of the most significant
discrepancies between simulated and observed data, good
insights about the reasons of these discrepancies, etc. Practical
tools for qualitative and quantitative analysis of simulation
results are of special value. For example, a cross-plot of
simulated versus observed data worked as a simple and helpful
idea (Fig. 10). For the future, we aim to extend this kind of
idea towards more powerful techniques of data mining and
smart post-processing of simulation results.
100%
Sim. Water-Cut
Sim. Water-Cut
2x10%
0% 00 %
% related included files), with simple clicks;
Obs. Water-Cut
Obs. Water-Cut
(a)
Fig.10 — Cross-plots to evaluate the quality of a history match of
monthly data of water-cut from 80 wells during 13 years: (a) old
model; (b) new model, better calibrated.
Hyperdocumentation
The input data files for reservoir simulation are more than a
system for human-computer communication. They are also
very important for human-human communication, since they
usually constitute the most reliable and complete
documentation of the flow model during and after the
reservoir study. However, their traditional form is not
adequate for this function: they are huge, multiple, difficult to
handle, with no illustrations, barely incomprensible even for
the specialists. This is usually perceived as a problem and
their authors make some effort to organize the information in
an intelligible way, conforming to the limited possibilities of
inserting spaces and comment lines in an otherwise rigid
keyword language. One solution, more oriented for the model
building than for the model documentation, is provided by
commercial software by means of graphical interfaces for
editing and visualizing the input data in a kind of form. We
propose here another alternative.
Our idea is based on the insertion of a few HTML
(HyperText Markup Language) tags in the comment lines of
the reservoir simulation input data file. So this file — that
continues to normally function as an ordinary simulation input
data file, since the insertions are made only inside the
comment lines — can be also interpreted as a hypertext to be
explored by a browser with typical resources and style of
internet sites. It is transformed in a hyperdocumented file.
Hypertext is a non-linear form of presentation of text;
hypermedia extends this concept to include images, etc.; and a
hyperdocument is a file that presents hypermedia features.
These systems were proposed in analogy with the way the
human brain allegedly handles information and they became
7
very popular after the Internet and the World Wide Web
development. A very basic way to build hyperdocuments
involves the HTML: it is enough to introduce few commands
that appear involved by brackets like.
The following example of input data file for reservoir
simulation, where "--" introduces a comment line, shows the
use of some HTML tags:
-- <b> PVT DATA </b>
INCLUDE
"pvto.inc" /
-- <a ref="pvt.inc"> open file pvt.inc </a>
-- <a ref="pvt_report.pdf"> see PVT report </a>
-- <img src="pvt.gif">
100% The first line exhibits a label in bold characters; the second
command line creates a link to another input file; the third
command line allows opening a technical report; and the
2x10%
fourth command line exhibits a figure. All of this work when
the file is opened with a standard browser.
Some advantages of reservoir simulation hyperdocumented
input data files are:
to fast navigate by all data structure (direct access to
to cross-link different parts of the file;
to insert images (graphs, maps, etc.) in the document;
(b)
to link and open various documents related to the
reservoir study (technical reports, laboratory results,
spread sheets, manuals, intranet links, other simulation
studies, etc.) creating an integrated documentation for the
whole reservoir study;
Compatibility with other information systems; simplicity
and flexibility.
Conclusion
Reservoir flow modeling is not only a multidisciplinary task; it
is also an interdisciplinary task because of the need to fill gaps
between disciplines in the practical applications. A good
reservoir representation model is critical to the process. It can
not miss relevant aspects of the geology, but, at the same time,
it has to be well adapted to the syntax of reservoir simulators,
especially considering the practical aspects of handling and
updating information in big engineering models. This paper
emphasized the need of a close connection between the
representation model and the functional model. It gathered
various discussions and examples related to the reservoir
representation into the flow models. Much more work is
needed to improve the quality and the productivity of these
models.
References
1. Watts, J.W.: "Reservoir simulation: past, present, and future",
paper SPE38441 presented at the 1997 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Dallas, 8-11 June.
2. Saleri, N.G.: "Reengineering simulation: a bottom-line approach
to managing complexity and complexification", paper SPE36696
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October.
3. Haber, R.B., Lucas, B., and Collins, N.: "A data model for
scientific visualisation with provisions for regular and irregular
grids", Proceedings of IEEE 91 (San Diego, CA, USA), Oct.
1991.
8 SPE 94735

4. Eschard, R. and Doligez, B. (eds.), Subsurface reservoir

characterization from outcrop observations. Collection Colloques
et Séminaires. Institut Français du Pétrole, 51, 1993.
5. Moraes, M.A.S.; Blaskovski, P.R.. and Joseph, P.: The Grès
d’Annot as an analogue for Brazilian Cretaceous sandstone
reservoirs: comparing convergent to passive-margin confined
turbidites, in Joseph, P. and Lomas, S. A. (eds.), 2004, Deep-
Water Sedimentation in the Alpine Basin of SE France: New
perspectives on the Grès d’Annot and related systems. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 221, 419-436.
6. Kjonsvik, D.; Doyle, J.; Jacobsen, T. and Jones, A.: "The effect
of sedimentary heterogeneities on production from a shallow
marine reservoir - what really matters?", paper SPE28445
presented at the 1994 SPE Europec, 25-27 October.
7. Ciammeti, G. et al.: "Waterflood recovery and fluid flow
upscaling in a shallow mariene and fluvial sandstone sequence",
paper SPE30783 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 Oct.
8. Poletto, C.A.; Lanzarini, W.L. and Tavares, G.: "Object based
modeling and stochastic simulation of fluvial reservoirs
geometry, vol. 82, 1998.
9. Manzocchi, T.; Walsh, J.J.; Nell, P., and Yelding, G.: "Fault
transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation models",
Petroleum Geoscience, 5, p. 53-63, 1999.
10. Manzocchi, T.: "Towards an improved fault representation in
two-phase reservoir simulation", 61st EAGE Conf. (Helsinki, 7-
11 June), paper 5-03, 1999.
11. Fisher, Q.J. and Knipe, R.J.: "The permeability of faults within
the siliclastic petroleum resevoirs of the North Sea and
Norwegian continental Shelf". Marine and Petroleum Geology,
2001.
12. Grollimund, B.; Zoback, M.D.; Wiprut, D. and Arnesen,
L.:"Stress orientation, pore pressure, and least principal stress in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea", Petroleum Geoscience,
v.7, 173-180, 2001.
13. Salvini, F.: "Frac Overview", Rio de Janeiro, Petrobras internal
report, 2002.
14. Lima, C.C.: "Ongoing compression across intraplate South
America: observations and some implications for petroleum
exploitation and exploration", Revista Brasileira de Geociencias,
v. 30, n. 1, p. 203-207, mar. 2000.
15. Chen, W.H. et al., A New Algorithm for Automatic History
Matching, SPEJ (December 1974), 593.
16. Li, R.; Reynolds, A.C.; and Oliver, D.S.: “Sensitivity coefficients
for three-phase flow history matching”, Jorunal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 42(4): 70-77, 2003.
17. Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N. and King, P.R.: "Errors in history
matching", SPE Journal, Sept. 2004.
18. Rodrigues, J.R.P.: "Calculating Derivatives for History Matching
in Reservoir Simulators", paper SPE 93445 presented at 2005
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 31 Jan-2 Feb.
19. Silva, F.P.T. et al.: "Novel ways of parameterizing the history
matching problem", paper SPE94875 presented at the 2005 SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 20–23 June.