DETERMINING PETROPHYSICAL PROPERTIES

OF FACIES USING A HIERACHICAL HISTORY

MATCHING METHOD

A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPERTMENT

OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

By
Satomi Suzuki
August 2003
Abstract

This report outlines the master’s degree research carried out to develop a history
matching method which perturbs a geostatistically modeled permeability field. The goal
of the research is to propose a methodology that can preserve geological information
about permeability heterogeneity, which is strongly controlled by facies in many cases.
The work is an extension of probability-perturbation-based history matching methods
proposed by Caers1 and Kim and Caers2. In their work, the novel methodology was
developed to perturb facies realization with facies having known permeability in order to
obtain history match preserving underlying geological concepts. We extend their history-
matching scheme to the cases where the within-facies permeability is not known.
The methods investigated in this work are one-dimensional and multi-dimensional
optimization techniques which perturb the histogram of permeability within each facies.
The strength of this approach lies in a preservation of facies shape, while determining the
petorphysical properties of each facies through a history matching. The applicability of
the methodology was investigated using 2D and 3D synthetic reservoir models, which
comprise sand and mud.

ii
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser, Prof. Jef Caers, for his
advice and encouragement. This research was carried out under his precise and valuable
instruction and he provided me a great guidance to complete the research. I also would
like to show appreciation to my senior students in SCRF, Junrai Kim and Todd Hoffman.
Junrai Kim provided me his source code and the facies perturbation part of my computer
program was coded based on it. Todd Hoffman provided me the reference reservoir
models used in Chapter 5.
The financial support for my study was provided by Japan Oil Engineering, Co., Ltd.
and Japan National Oil Corporation.

iii
Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iii
Contents ............................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
2. Review of Previous Works ............................................................................................. 3
2.1. Multiple-point Geostatistics ..................................................................................... 3
2.2. History Matching under Training-image-based Geological Constraints.................. 4
2.3. Inclusion of Uncertainty in Facies Related Parameters............................................ 7
3. Method for Perturbing Permeability ............................................................................... 8
4. Synthetic Reservoir Application Using One-dimensional Optimization...................... 10
4.1. Model Description .................................................................................................. 10
4.2. Selection of Production Data.................................................................................. 11
4.3. Hierarchical Perturbations ...................................................................................... 12
4.4 Results ..................................................................................................................... 13
4.5. Order of Parameter Perturbation............................................................................. 15
4.6. Discussion............................................................................................................... 15
5. Synthetic Reservoir Application Using Multi-dimensional Optimization ................... 16
5.1. Model Description .................................................................................................. 16
5.2. Sensitivity of Objective Function to Parameters .................................................... 19
5.3. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 21
6. Conclusions................................................................................................................... 23
References......................................................................................................................... 25

iv
List of Figures

Fig. 1 Permeability maps of reference and initial models

Fig. 2 Histogram of permeability, reference model vs. initial model
Fig. 3 Comparison of simulated water cut
Fig. 4 Comparison of simulated BHSP
Fig. 5 Permeability maps of additional models
Fig. 6 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, additional models
Fig. 7 Result of water cut matching, perturbing facies only
Fig. 8 Perturbation of facies realization during water cut matching, perturbing facies
only
Fig. 9 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies
only
Fig. 10 Result of water cut & BHSP matching, perturbing facies only
Fig. 11 Perturbation of facies realization during water cut & BHSP matching, perturbing
facies only
Fig. 12 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies
only
Fig. 13 Comparison of pressure distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies only
Fig. 14 Result of history matching, Case1
Fig. 15 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching,
Case1
Fig. 16 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case1
Fig. 17 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case1
Fig. 18 Histogram of permeability, history matched model vs. reference model, Case1
Fig. 19 Result of history matching, Case2
Fig. 20 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching,
Case2
Fig. 21 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case2
Fig. 22 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case2

v
Fig. 23 Histogram of permeability, history matched model vs. reference model, Case2
Fig. 24 Result of history matching, Case3
Fig. 25 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching,
Case3
Fig. 26 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case3
Fig. 27 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case3
Fig. 28 Histogram of permeability, history matched model vs. reference model, Case3
Fig. 29 Result of history matching, Case4
Fig. 30 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching,
Case4
Fig. 31 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case4
Fig. 32 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case4
Fig. 33 Histogram of permeability, history matched model vs. reference model, Case4
Fig. 34 Comparison of history matched permeability realizations, original vs. reversed
order, Case2
Fig. 35 Comparison of history matched permeability realizations, original vs. reversed
order, Case3
Fig. 36 Horizontal slice of training image used for facies simulation, Reference model A
Fig. 37 3D view of facies realization, Reference model A
Fig. 38 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Reference model A
Fig. 39 Well location, Reference models A & B
Fig. 40 Horizontal slice of facies realization, Reference model B
Fig. 41 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Reference model B
Fig. 42 Horizontal slice of porosity realization, Reference model B
Fig. 43 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Initial model
Fig. 44 Histogram of permeability, Initial model vs. Reference models A & B
Fig. 45 Comparison of simulated water cut, Reference model A vs. initial model
Fig. 46 Comparison of simulated BHSP, Reference model A vs. initial model
Fig. 47 Comparison of simulated water cut, Reference model B vs. initial model
Fig. 48 Comparison of simulated BHSP, Reference model B vs. initial model
Fig. 49 Sensitivity of objective function to matching parameters

vi
Fig. 50 Result of history matching, Case A
Fig. 51 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, History matched model, Case A
Fig. 52 Histogram of permeability, Reference model vs. history matched model, Case A
Fig. 53 Optimization performance during history matching process, Case A
Fig. 54 Result of history matching, Case B
Fig. 55 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, History matched model, Case B
Fig. 56 Histogram of permeability, Reference model vs. history matched model, Case B
Fig. 57 Optimization performance during history matching process, Case B

vii
Chapter 1

1. Introduction

Geostatistical reservoir modeling has been widely used for reservoir characterization
for its ability to describe detailed petrophysical heterogeneity, its suitability for
integrating various types of data from different sources, and its capability to produce
multiple reservoir description related to reservoir uncertainty. Recently, multiple-point
geostatistics3 has been successfully applied to capture complicated geological features,
introducing the concept of a “geological training image”. The inclusion of dynamic data
into geostatistical reservoir modeling has also been extensively pursued since the
reproduction of past production behavior is crucial for reservoir models to be predictive.
However, little attention has been paid to the preservation of geological features in
history matching process despite the increased capability of geostatistical techniques for
integrating geologic and seismic information. The limitation of traditional approaches
that rely on the perturbation of individual gridblock permeability is the lack of geological
control on the history matching process. Without constraints, a history matched
permeability field can easily lose consistency with geology and hence lose predictive
power.
Caers1 proposed a probability perturbation method as a novel approach for history
matching, focusing on imposing geological constraints on dynamic data integration. The
key to his approach is the perturbation of the probability model that generates facies
realizations, rather than the direct perturbation of gridblock properties, to obtain a history
match. The history matched facies realization keeps consistency with geological models
since the probability perturbation is constrained by geology through a variogram or a
training image. Later, his work was extended by Kim and Caers2 to cover the geological
uncertainty in net-to-gross ratio or facies anisotropy directions.
All of the examples presented in Caers1 rely on the assumption that the petrophysical
properties of each facies (i.e. porosity and permeability) are known and constant for each
facies. This paper presents a methodology for perturbing the petrophysical properties per

1
facies in addition to the facies perturbation. The proposed approach perturbs a facies
realization and the within-facies permeability in a hierarchical manner. A facies
realization is perturbed using the probability perturbation method1. The within-facies
permeability is optimized to a obtain history match by perturbing the histogram of
permeability. The advantage of this approach is that facies control on permeability
heterogeneity is easily preserved without losing geological plausibility.
This paper consists of six chapters. Chapter 2 outlines the review of previous works,
i.e. multiple-point geostatistics and probability perturbation method. Chapter 3 presents
the proposed method used for perturbing within-facies permeability field. The results of
two-dimensional and three-dimensional synthetic reservoir applications are discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusions derived from the
application results.

2
Chapter 2

2. Review of Previous Works

2.1. Multiple-point Geostatistics

The limitation of geostatistical techniques based on the variogram, essentially a two-

point statistic, is that it cannot capture complicated geological patterns such as
meandering channels. Variograms only account for correlation between any two data
locations to characterize spatial continuity, despite the fact that the feature of local spatial
continuity is strongly related to the pattern of data events especially in complex geology.
Multiple-point geostatistics3 advocates the use of a “training image”, a reservoir
analog of sorts, that depicts the desired geological pattern or heterogeneity without the
need of being constrained to any specific reservoir data. Since the role of a training image
is only to provide the information about spatial continuity, or the information about
pattern of geological feature, it can be a purely conceptual image inferred through
geological interpretation. The multiple-point geostatistics approach accounts for the
multiple-point pattern when deriving conditional probability distributions in sequential
simulation. Unlike kriging-based simulation techniques such as sequential Gaussian
simulation, the local conditional probability is directly borrowed from a “geological
training image” which depicts geological patterns, such as meandering channels, as a
conceptual realization. Using a training image with sufficient volume in space, the
conditional probabilities are scanned from the training image and stored in a training
image database, termed “search tree”5. In the sequential simulation scheme, the
conditional probability can be retrieved at any unsampled location in accordance with the
configuration of the available conditioning data and is used to draw a simulated value.
The local conditional probability can be conditioned to soft information, such as
seismic data, as well as hard data events. The following relation is applied for conditional
probabilities based on the assumption of conditional independence6:

3
 x c
= (1)
b a

1 − P ( A) 1 − P( A | B ) 1 − P( A | C ) 1 − P ( A | B, C )
where, a = b= c= x=
P( A) P( A | B ) P( A | C ) P ( A | B, C )

P(A) is global probability of facies A, P(A|B) is probability of facies A at any

location conditioned to hard data events B, and P(A|C) is probability of facies A
conditioned to secondary data C and obtained through some form of well-to-seismic
calibration. P(A|B,C) is probability of facies A jointly conditioned to hard data events (B)
and secondary data (C). Accordingly, P(A|B,C) is obtained from Eq. (1) as:

1 a
P ( A | B, C ) = = (2)
1 + x a + bc

2.2. History Matching under Training-image-based Geological

Constraints

Consider some binary geological realization i(0)(u). The notation i(l)(u) denotes the
simulated facies indicator at location u obtained in the lth iteration of the history
matching process . Recall that the indicator random function I (u) is defined as;

 1, if facies A occurs at location u

I( u) =  (3)
 0, other wise

The probability perturbation method1 history matches a facies realization by

perturbing the local facies probability P(A|B) using a training image as geological
constraints. By perturbing probabilities rather than grid properties, geological consistency
can be maintained. The probability P(A|B) is perturbed using another probability P(A|D)
which is defined as follows.

4
 This probability P(A|D) depends on the production data through a free parameter rD
as follows:

P(A|D) = (1 - rD) i(0)(u) + rD P(A) (4)

i(0)(u) is facies indicator at location u in the initial realization, P(A) is net-to gross
ratio, and rD is a perturbation parameter between [0,1]. In order to create a perturbation of
P(A|B), the probability P(A|B) and P(A|D) are combined to form P(A|B,D), using Eq. (2).
The probability P(A|B,D) can be considered as a perturbation of P(A|B) and is used in
sequential simulation or draw a new i(l)(u). Note that P(A|B,D) depends on rD. If rD=0,
P(A|D) remains the same as i(0)(u), thus a realization generated using P(A|B,D) is the
same as the current realization i(0)(u). When rD=1, P(A|D) is equal to P(A), which means
the realization generated with P(A|B,D) is equi-probable with the current realization.
Accordingly, the facies realization i(0)(u) is perturbed between the current realization
i(0)(u) and another equi-probable realization through the parameter rD. The magnitude of
perturbation is determined by finding the value of rD that provides the best history match.
The flowchart of the algorithm is presented below.

5
 Generate geological training image

Outer iteration: Generate initial facies realization, i(0)(u)

Inner iteration: Using one-parameter optimization technique, find rD

that obtain the best history match as follows:

Define P(A|D) using rD: Eq. (4)

Perturb P(A|B,D) using P(A|D): Eq. (2)

Generate facies realization, irD(l)(u) using P(A|B,D)

Perform flow simulation

YES
Objective function
minimized ?

NO
Set new rD to reduce objective function

Update facies realization, i(l)(u) = irD_opt (l)(u)

YES
History Matched ?

NO

Change random number seed

END

6
2.3. Inclusion of Uncertainty in Facies Related Parameters

The strength of the probability perturbation method is the sure-fire preservation of

underlying geological concepts during a history matching process. However, since the
geological concept imposed as constraints itself has uncertainty, history matching might
be difficult if the geological training image is used without accounting for its uncertainty.
In order to overcome this problem, the probability perturbation method can be extended
to account for the uncertainty in facies direction or net-to-gross of the training image. The
fundamental idea is to rotate the training image or change its net-to-gross as well as
perturbing the facies distribution to obtain history matching of dynamic data2.
In Kim and Caers2, the perturbation of facies anisotropy direction, ∆θ, is taken to be
linearly related to the facies perturbation parameter, rD, in Eq. (4) as:

rD − rD min
∆θ = ∆θ max (5)
1 − rD min

where the minimum / maximum limits of rD and ∆θ are defined based on geological
plausibility. Using this relation, the problem of jointly perturbing the parameters rD and
∆θ is reduced to a one-dimensional optimization problem. This direct link of facies
anisotropy direction to the perturbation parameter rD enables to apply a simple one-
parameter optimization technique for jointly finding the optimum perturbation of the
parameter rD and the facies related parameters, reducing computational burden of history
matching process.
Similarly, in order to perturb the net-to-gross ratio of facies, net-to-gross, p, is related
to the facies perturbation parameter, rD, as:

rD − rD min
p= ( pmax − pmin ) + pmin (6)
1 − rD min

where the minimum / maximum limits of rD and p are defined by an engineer.

7
Chapter 3

3. Method for Perturbing Permeability

The method used by Caers1 relies on the fact that the permeability is constant and
known for each facies. To match both petrophysical properties and facies, we propose the
following hierarchical approach. First, we generate a facies realization and, for each
facies, a within-facies permeability realization. Using a simple cookie cut technique, we
can paste the permeability realizations into the facies model. History matching now
proceeds as follows:

1) Keeping the permeability per facies fixed, perform one outer iteration of Caers’
method for history matching facies.
2) Keeping the facies realization from step 1 fixed, change the permeability
realization for each facies using the method described below.
3) Iterate steps 1 and 2 while a history matching is achieved.

To modify the permeability realization, we simply modify the permeability

histogram. This can be motivated by the fact that the contrast between mud and channel
permeability is more important than the heterogeneity of within channel permeability.
The permeability heterogeneity is modeled assuming a log-normal distribution:

log k(u) = σ log k y( u) + µ log k

k(u) = 10log k( u ) (7)

where k(u) is grid permeability, µlogk,i and σlogk,i are mean and standard deviation of
logarithm of permeability within facies i, and y(u) is the outcome of spatially correlated
Gaussian random function Y(u), u = (x, y, z) ∈ D.

8
 In step 2, we perturb the mean and standard deviation of the logarithm of
permeability, µlogk,i and σlogk,i, to obtain a history match of the production data. The
advantage of this method is that history matched permeability field preserves geological
consistency since we optimize the within facies permeability histogram under the
constrains of a facies geometry rather than perturbing individual grid block permeability.
One way to perturb mean and standard deviation of permeability in individual facies
is a sequential perturbation of the parameters (mean and variance of each facies) using a
one-dimensional optimization technique, i.e. Brent method4. The other way is to apply a
multi-dimensional optimization method, i.e. Levenberg-Marquardt method4, and perturb
the parameters jointly. In this work, both approaches are evaluated through synthetic
reservoir applications. The problems are restricted to two facies, sand and shale.
Each optimization process, step 1 and 2, includes an inner iteration to find the optimal
distribution parameter. The objective function to be minimized is defined as the weighted
summation of deviation between historical and simulated production data. This objective
function is examined at the end of each inner iteration to see whether it is reduced from
the previous parameter optimization. The optimized parameter is retained only when the
objective function is reduced. The spatially correlated Gaussian random function for
generating within-facies permeability field is updated in each outer iteration by changing
the random number seed. The variogram of Gaussian random number field is fixed
throughout the history matching. In order to preserve the plausibility of permeability
distribution for each facies, the perturbation of µlogk,i and σlogk,i are limited between
minimum and maximum values.

9
Chapter 4

4. Synthetic Reservoir Application Using One-dimensional

Optimization

4.1. Model Description

The proposed method is evaluated using a synthetic reservoir. The sequential

perturbation of the parameters using a one-dimensional optimization technique is applied
to obtain the history match of production data in this section. As a sample problem, a
five-spot-pattern water injection was simulated within a 2D horizontal reservoir model
which comprises sand and shale bodies. Fig.1 shows the permeability maps of the
reference and initial models. The reference model is supposed to be a “true reservoir
description” which provides a production history. The initial model is supposed to be a
“wrong initial guess”. The average and standard deviation of permeability in each model
is specified as below.

Reference Model Initial Model

Average Standard Average Standard
permeability deviation permeability deviation
3600 mD 2930 mD 490 mD 266 mD
Sand (µlogk = 3.4) (σlogk = 0.4) (µlogk = 2.6) (σlogk = 0.3)
5 mD 1.2 mD 1 mD 0.3 mD
Shale (µlogk = 0.7) (σlogk = 0.1) (µlogk = 0.0) (σlogk = 0.15)

The histograms of permeability in sand and shale are compared between the reference
model and the initial model in Fig. 2. Both sand and shale permeability is higher in the
reference model than in the initial model. Also, the larger variation of permeability is
modeled in the reference model compared to the initial model (Fig. 2). The variogram of
the reference and initial model is the same and not changed during history matching.

10
 Figs. 3~4 compare the simulated water cut and bottom-hole pressure (BHSP) of the
producer obtained from the reference model and the initial model. Simulation runs were
also made for two alternative initial models to study the impact of a wrong initial model.

1. An initial model is created with the same facies geometry as the reference but
with a “wrong” within-facies permeability as depicted in Fig. 5.
2. An initial model is created with the same permeability histogram per facies as
the reference but with a “wrong” facies geometry as depicted in Fig. 5.

The results are also included in Figs. 3~4. The comparison of water saturation
distribution at the end of the simulation is illustrated in Fig.6. As shown in Figs. 3~4, the
simulation result of the initial model exhibits lower water cut and lower BHSP compared
to the reference model due to “wrong” facies direction and lower permeability. The lower
water cut is mainly due to the “wrong” facies as shown by the result of the initial facies +
reference permeability case (i.e. “wrong facies” case, Fig. 3). The simulated water cut of
the initial permeability + reference facies case (i.e. “wrong permeability” case) is higher
than the reference model since low permeability partly blocks the flow path of water (Fig.
6). However, the cases with lower permeability result in the lower simulated BHSP
compared to the reference model (Fig. 4).

4.2. Selection of Production Data

Before applying the proposed hierarchical history matching method, an attempt was
made to match historical production behavior by perturbing only facies (the method of
Caers), hence freezing the permeability within each facies to a “wrong” histogram. Fig.7
depicts the result of water cut matching obtained by perturbing facies only. First, only the
water cut was used as data to be matched. Fig. 8 shows the permeability realizations
obtained during the optimization process in comparison with the reference permeability
model. Fig. 9 compares the water saturation distribution at the end of simulation among
the initial model, the optimized model, and the reference model. As shown in the figure, a
good match of water cut was obtained by facies perturbation although permeability

11
remained the same as that in the initial model. This can be explained by the fact that
water cut provides information about the preferential flow path of water, which is mostly
dependent on facies connectivity (Fig. 9).
Next, bottom-hole pressure (BHSP) was included in the matching process to assess
whether it provides additional information for within-facies permeability. Fig. 10 depicts
the water cut and BHSP matching result obtained by optimizing facies only. The
permeability realizations generated during the optimizing process are presented in Fig.
11. The water saturation and pressure distribution at the end of the simulation are
illustrated in Figs. 12~13. As shown in Fig. 10, BHSP is not sufficiently matched by
perturbing facies only since the pressure difference between producer and injector is
ultimately controlled by permeability (Fig.13).

4.3. Hierarchical Perturbations

The following four cases were considered to evaluate the applicability of the method
and to investigate appropriate choice of optimizing parameter;

Case 1: Optimize µlogk and σlogk of sand and shale

Case 2: Optimize µlogk of sand only
Case 3: Optimize µlogk of sand and shale
Case 4: Optimize µk and σk of sand and shale

where µlogk and σlogk are the mean and standard deviation of logarithm of permeability,
while µk and σk are the mean and standard deviation of permeability. In all cases, facies is
perturbed first, then for a fixed facies geometry the histograms of permeability within
each facies is perturbed by perturbing either/or mean and variance. To perturb the
histograms, the mean is perturbed first, then the variance. Cases 1~3 assume a log-normal
distribution for permeability whereas Case 4 assumes a normal distribution for
permeability. The facies realizations are also perturbed in all cases. The effect of the

12
order of parameter perturbation (i.e. which is the first to optimize – facies or
permeability?) was also investigated as described later in this section.

4.4 Results

Case 1

The histograms of permeability were optimized by perturbing µlogk and σlogk of

individual facies in this case. Fig. 14 depicts the history matching result obtained by
optimizing µlogk and σlogk of sand and shale. Fig. 15 shows the order of each parameter
perturbation during the optimizing process. Fig. 16~17 illustrates the water saturation and
pressure distribution at the simulation end corresponding to the realizations depicted in
Fig. 15. Fig. 18 compares the histograms of permeability in sand and shale between the
history matched model and the reference model. As shown in Fig. 14, a sufficient history
match was obtained both for water saturation and BHSP. Most of the history matching
was completed by perturbing facies, µlogk and σlogk of sand in the first outer iteration. The
perturbation of shale permeability showed little effect on the history match. As exhibited
in Fig. 15, change in σlogk generated significant fluctuation in the sand permeability
realizations. The resulting history matched model is quite different from the reference
model. It appears that modifying σlogk generated strong heterogeneity into the model,
hence enabling a history match (Fig. 16). The probability distribution of the history
matched sand permeability exhibits a much higher variance compared to that of the
reference model (Fig. 18).

Case 2

This case is designed to eliminate the effect associated with the change in σlogk of
sand. Only the facies and µlogk of sand are perturbed in this case. The result of history
matching, the optimized permeability realizations, the water saturation and pressure
distribution at the end of simulation, and the comparison of histograms of permeability
are depicted in Figs. 19~23. A good history match was obtained as shown in Fig. 19.

13
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 20, the history matched facies realization seems to be more
accurately representing the nature of facies distribution of the reference model. The
probability distribution of sand permeability in the reference model was also reasonably
reproduced in the history matched realization as depicted in Fig. 23. Note that increasing
µlogk increases the variance of permeability as well as mean since it has the same effect as
multiplying permeability.

Case 3

This case is designed to examine the effect of perturbing µlogk of shale in addition to
the perturbation of µlogk of sand in Case 2. Facies and µlogk of sand and shale were
optimized. The result of history matching, the optimized permeability realizations, the
water saturation and pressure distribution at the end of simulation, and the comparison of
histograms of permeability are depicted in Figs. 24~28. As shown in Fig. 24, the effect of
perturbing µlogk of shale on the history match is quite marginal.

Case 4

In this case, a normal distribution was assumed for the probability density function of
within facies permeability. The mean and standard deviation of permeability were used as
optimization parameters. The result of history matching, the optimized permeability
realizations, the water saturation and pressure distribution at the end of simulation, and
the comparison of histograms of permeability are illustrated in Figs. 29~33. As depicted
in Fig. 29, a good match of water cut and BHSP was obtained only by changing facies
and µk of sand. The σk of sand permeability and the parameters of shale permeability did
not reduce the objective function. The optimized facies distribution successfully
predicted the feature of facies in the reference model (Fig. 30). However, the history
matched sand permeability was too homogeneous compared to the reference model (Figs.
30 and 33), due to the use of a normal distribution. Nevertheless, the distribution
assumption (normal vs. lognormal) does not seem to affect the history match. The within-
facies mean permeability is most consequential.

14
4.5. Order of Parameter Perturbation

The effect of the order of parameter perturbation was examined based on Case 2 (i.e.
perturb µlogk of sand only) and Case3 (i.e. perturb µlogk of sand and shale), which are the
most successful cases in Section 4.4. In Case2, facies and µlogk of sand were perturbed in
the reversed order, i.e. optimize µlogk of sand first and optimize the facies realization next.
The history matched permeability realization is compared to the result of the original
perturbation order in Fig. 34. In Case3, µlogk of sand and µlogk of shale were perturbed in
the reversed order, executing facies perturbation first as in the original order. The result is
compared to the original perturbation order as shown in Fig. 35.
In this particular case, Case2 obtained better reproduction of faces geometry and sand
permeability of the reference when facies was perturbed first. In Case3, although the
history matched sand permeability is not sensitive to the order of the perturbation of µlogk
of sand and µlogk of shale, the facies geometry is better reproduced when perturbing µlogk
of shale first.

4.6. Discussion

The synthetic case study showed that the optimized facies and permeability
realization is strongly affected by the parameter choice. The optimization by perturbing
facies and µlogk, with an assumption of log normal distribution for permeability, provided
the best result among the cases. Perturbation of σlogk generated excessive fluctuation of
the permeability realization and obscured the impact of facies distribution on production
performance behavior. The normal distribution assumption for permeability distribution
produced extremely homogeneous permeability realization yet an adequate match to the
production data is achieved. It therefore appears that production data is not much
sensitive to the within-facies small-scale heterogeneity.
The result of the sequential optimization of facies and permeability using a single-
parameter optimization algorithm is sensitive to the order of the parameter perturbation.
The perturbation of various µlogk associated with each facies can be coupled using a
multi-dimensional optimization algorithm to reduce the concern about perturbation order.

15
Chapter 5

5. Synthetic Reservoir Application Using Multi-dimensional

Optimization

5.1. Model Description

The multi-dimensional optimization method was applied to perturb the histogram of

permeability using synthetic reservoir models. The two types of three-dimensional fluvial
type reservoir models, comprising mud and channel sand, are built as reference reservoirs
based on a sample problem presented in the paper of Hoffman and Caers7.

Reference Model A

The Reference Model A is a 3D horizontal reservoir with the top depth of 5000 ft.
The model consists of 50*65*15 grid blocks. The size of grid blocks is 200 ft in
horizontal and 30 ft in vertical. The facies realization comprising mud and meandering
channel sand is generated using the training image depicted in Fig.36. Fig.37 illustrates
the 3D view of the facies distribution. The permeability field within mud and channel
was simulated using Gaussian simulation and cookie-cut technique as shown in Fig.38.
The mean and standard deviation of permeability were specified as below:

Reference Model A
Average Standard
permeability deviation
8.8 mD 8.0 mD
Mud (µlogk = 0.8) (σlogk = 0.3)
485 mD 213 mD
Channel Sand (µlogk = 2.7) (σlogk = 0.2)

The constant porosity of 0.07 and 0.29 were set for sand and channel, respectively.

16
 Six producers and three injectors were placed as depicted in Fig.39. Water-flooding
performance was simulated for 3000 days under the surface production/injection rate
control. Production and injection rates are 5000 STB/D/WELL and 12000
BBL/D/WELL, respectively. The reservoir was modeled as an undersaturated oil
reservoir with the initial pressure of 2500 psia. The formation volume factor and viscosity
of oil are 1.0 STB/RB and 1.0 cp, while those of water are 1.05 STB/RB and 0.325 cp.
The fluid compressibility / viscosibility are assumed negligible. Relative permeability
curve is specified with the irreducible water saturation of 0.15 and the residual oil
saturation of 0.30.

Reference Model B

The Reference Model B was directly borrowed from the sample problem of Hoffman
and Caers7. The model was constructed based on the Stanford V reservoir8 and consists
of three sets of layers which have channel sands with different shape and meandering
direction from layer to layer. Fig.40 shows the typical horizontal slices of facies
realization in individual layers. Permeability and porosity within mud and channel sand
are populated using Gaussian simulation and cookie-cut technique as depicted in
Figs.41~42. The mean and standard deviation of permeability are as below:

Reference Model B
Average Standard
permeability deviation
0.07 mD 0.12 mD
Mud (µlogk = -1.6) (σlogk = 0.5)
448 mD 214 mD
Channel Sand (µlogk = 2.6) (σlogk = 0.3)

Model B has a uniform the top depth of 2000 ft and the same reservoir size as Model
A. The model consists of 100*130*30 grid blocks with the grid block size of 100 ft in
horizontal and 15 ft in vertical.

17
 Six producers and three injectors were placed as in Model A. Water-flooding
performance was simulated for 3600 days. Producers were controlled by the total liquid
production rate of 6400 STB/D/WELL. Minimum BHFP of 100 psia was specified as a
constraint for producers. Water was injected with 12000 BBL/D/WELL using surface
rate control. The reservoir is an undersaturated oil reservoir with the initial pressure of
1000 psia. The same fluid properties and relative permeability curves as in Model A were
specified.

The facies and permeability realizations of the initial model for history matching was
generated based on the Reference Model A by changing the random number seed for
simulating facies, the mean and standard deviation of permeability, and the Gaussian
random function of permeability field. The training image for facies simulation and the
variogram for permeability modeling were fixed to those used for the Reference Model
A. The grid coordinate was specified to the same as Model A. Fig.43 shows the
horizontal slices of permeability realization of the initial model. The mean and standard
deviation of permeability in each facies were specified as below:

Initial Model
Average Standard
permeability deviation
1.5 mD 1.0 mD
Mud (µlogk = 0.1) (σlogk = 0.3)
34 mD 14 mD
Channel Sand (µlogk = 1.5) (σlogk = 0.2)

Fig.44 compares the histograms of permeability within the individual facies among the
Reference Models A, B, and the initial model. The mean permeability of the initial model
was specified as lower than that of the reference models as shown in the figure.

The two cases of history matching were performed starting from the same initial
geological model but using the different reference production data as follows:

18
 Case A: Match pressure and water cut to the reference production data of the
Reference Model A
Case B: Match pressure and water cut to the reference production data of the
Reference Model B

Case A is designed assuming that the facies distribution and the permeability
heterogeneity are unknown, however, the geological pattern of the facies represented by a
training image and the variogram of permeability are known. On the other hand, Case B
is performed under the condition that the whole information about facies and
permeability heterogeneity, including the variation of channel shape/direction with
layers, are unknown. The operational condition of the wells and the reservoir parameters
other than facies, permeability and porosity were specified to be consistent between the
initial and reference models.
Both of the history matches were executed by perturbing facies distribution and
permeability histograms. Based on the conclusion derived in the one-dimensional
optimization case, only the mean of logarithm of permeability (µlogk) was perturbed in
this application with the fixed standard deviation of logarithm of permeability (σlogk)
when modifying the histograms of permeability. Figs.45~48 compare the simulated water
cut and bottom-hole shut-in pressure between the initial model and the Reference Models
A and B.

5.2. Sensitivity of Objective Function to Parameters

The Levenberg-Marquardt method4 was applied for perturbing the histograms of

permeability to obtain a history match. The parameters to be optimized are µlogk of mud
and µlogk of channel sand, hence a 2D optimization needs to be performed. The objective
function, O, to be minimized was defined as follows:

O = w1O1 + w2O2 (8)

where,

19
 2
N1 d − d1,obs ,i 
O1 = ∑  1,sim,i 

i =1  σ 1,i 
2
N2 d − d 2,obs ,i 
O2 = ∑  2,sim,i 

i =1  σ 2,i 

Subscripts 1 and 2 denote water cut and bottom-hole shut-in pressure, respectively. N
is the number of observed data point, dobs is observed the value (or simulated value of the
reference model), dsim is the simulated value of the current model, and σi is the
measurement error of data point i. The weighting factors w1 and w2 were determined so
that the term w1O1 equals w2O2 when evaluated on the initial model, in order to avoid
over-emphasizing one of the dynamic data, unless this is the explicit objective.

The derivatives of the objective function with regard to µlogk of mud and µlogk of
channel sand are calculated numerically. The same objective function was used for both
of facies perturbation and permeability perturbation.

Before making any actual history matches, the sensitivity of the objective function to
µlogk of mud and µlogk of channel was investigated using the Reference Model A as a
reference model. 100 cases of sensitivity simulation runs were made by changing µlogk of
mud and channel sand individually, and the error functions (O1 and O2 in Eq.8) were
calculated for each case. Fig.49 shows the contours of the error function of water cut (O1)
and that of bottom-hole shut-in pressure (O2) on the µlogk of mud vs. µlogk of channel
plane. The “true” minimum (i.e. µlogk of mud and µlogk of channel of the Reference Model
A) is also shown in the figure. As depicted in the figure, the minimum of the error
function of water cut extends along the straight line on the µlogk of mud vs. µlogk of
channel plane. This observation indicates that fractional flow behavior is controlled by
the degree of the contrast of permeability between facies rather than the magnitude of
permeability itself. The error function of bottom-hole pressure, on the contrary, shows the
favorable configuration for solving a minimization problem with the single minimum at
the “true” minimum location. This result of the sensitivity analysis coincides with the

20
observation in Chapter 4, that is, during the history matching process, water cut mainly
provides the information about facies distribution whereas bottom-hole pressure informs
on the magnitude of permeability within facies.

5.3. Results and Discussion

Case A

Fig. 50 shows the history matched production performance with comparison to the
reference data of the Reference Model A. The horizontal slices of the history matched
permeability field are depicted in Fig. 51. Fig. 52 compares the histogram of permeability
between the history matched model and the reference model. Change in the objective
function and the matching parameters during the inner iterations are plotted against the
iteration count and presented in Fig. 53. The figure also plots the contribution of water
cut and that of bottom-hole pressure to the objective function to observe the optimization
behavior.
As depicted in Fig. 50, the satisfactory matching of water cut and bottom-hole
pressure was obtained by the proposed method. Production history was matched with one
outer iteration in this case (Fig. 53). The histogram of history matched permeability
exhibited good agreement with the permeability histogram of the reference model
especially in channel sand (Fig. 52). The feature of permeability and facies of the
reference model was reasonably captured by the history matched model as illustrated in
Fig. 51. As depicted in Fig. 53, the perturbation of facies almost exclusively reduced the
error function due to water cut and showed negligible effect on pressure matching. The
perturbation of permeability mainly decreased the error function due to bottom-hole
pressure and provided little contribution to the matching of water cut.

Case B

Fig. 54 shows the history matched production performance obtained using the
production data from the Reference Model B. The horizontal slices of the history

21
matched permeability field are depicted in Fig. 55. The comparison of the histogram of
permeability between the history matched model and the reference model is presented in
Fig.56. Change in the objective function and the matching parameters during the inner
iterations are plotted against iteration count and shown in Fig. 57.
As expected, matching production data was more difficult in Case B than in Case A
due to the condition that the training image of facies is unknown. The optimization
process required eight outer iterations to obtain sufficient history match shown in Fig.54.
As shown in Fig.57, the water cut was matched in the first two outer iterations by mainly
perturbing facies, then the pressure was matched by perturbing the permeability
histograms in the subsequent outer iterations. As depicted in Fig.55, the history matched
geological model exhibited meandering channel sands mostly in the upper part of the
reservoir (i.e. Layer 3) where the channel direction of the reference model (Fig.40) shows
good agreement with that of the training image used for facies simulation (Fig.36). It
appears that the optimization process avoided to generate extended channels in the layers
where the “wrong” training image was used (i.e. Layers 1&2). The histogram of channel
sand permeability was well reproduced by the history matching as depicted in Fig.56.
The change in the mud permeability due to the history matching was marginal because of
the small impact of mud permeability on simulated production performance.

22
Chapter 6

6. Conclusions

1. A history matching method to determine the petrophysical properties of facies was

investigated as an extension of probability perturbation method1. The hierarchical
perturbation of facies and permeability was implemented. Along with the facies
perturbation, the histogram of permeability specific to individual facies is perturbed
to obtain a history match by optimizing the mean and standard deviation of the
logarithm of permeability under a log-normal distribution assumption. The advantage
of this approach is the sure-fire preservation of facies shape yet determining within
facies permeability.

2. In order to perturb the permeability histogram, two methods were tested, 1) the
sequential perturbation of parameters using an one-dimensional optimization
technique, and 2) the joint perturbation of parameters using a multi-dimensional
optimization technique. The parameter choice for optimization was also investigated.
The quality of the prediction of facies and permeability field is extremely deteriorated
if we include the perturbation of σlogk in the history matching scheme. Since
production data provides little information about the magnitude of small-scale
heterogeneity, the resulting perturbations of σlogk appeared unconstrained and
arbitrary, generating unrealistic fluctuations in the permeability field. The one-
dimensional optimization case worked well when only facies and µlogk are perturbed.
However, the result was sensitive to the order of the perturbation of parameters. A
multi-dimensional optimization method appeared to be the most efficient since no
hierarchical order is needed and since the production data is most sensitive to the
relative difference between mud and channel permeability.

3. During history matching, water cut data mainly provided the information about facies
distribution, while pressure data provided the information about µlogk of each facies.

23
This observation was clearly confirmed through the behavior of objective function
during iteration.

24
References

1. Caers, J., 2003. History matching under training-image based geological model
constraints. paper SPE74716, SPE Journal, in press.
2. Kim, J., and Caers, J., 2002. Training image-based history matching under unknown
facies anisotropy distribution. SCRF report.
3. Caers, J. and Zhang, T., 2002. Multiple-point geostatistics: a quantitative vehicle for
integrating geologic analogs into multiple reservoir models. SCRF report.
4. Press, W. et al., 1988. Numerical recipes in C. Cambrige university press.
5. Guardian, F. and Srivastava, S., 1993. Multivariate Geostatistics: beyond Bivariate
moments. Geostatistics-Troia, p 133-144, Kluwer Academic Publications.
6. Strebelle, S., 2000. Sequential simulation drawing structure from training images.
Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
7. Hoffman, T.B and Caers, J., 2003. History matching using the regional probability
perturbation method. SCRF report 16.
8. Mao, S. and Journel A.G, Generation of a reference petrophysical/seismic data set:
the Stanford V reservoir. SCRF report.

25
 REFERENCE INITIAL

LOG(K) AVE. STD. LOG(K) AVE. STD.

SAND 3.4 0.4 SAND 2.6 0.3
SHALE 0.7 0.1 SHALE 0.0 0.15

K AVE. STD. K AVE. STD.

SAND 3600 2930 SAND 490 266
SHALE 5 1.2 SHALE 1 0.3

Fig.1 Permeability maps of reference and initial models

26
Fig.2 Histogram of permeability, Reference model vs. initial model

27
 IMPACT OF FACIES & PERM ON SIMULATED WATER CUT (M=1.5)
PROD: 1500 BOPD
PROD: 2000 BOPD, INJ: 3000 BPD INJ: 3000 BPD
1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

0.60

REF
0.50
INIT PERM + REF FACIES
0.40
REF PERM + INIT FACIES

0.30 INIT

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.3 Comparison of simulated water cut

IMPACT OF FACIES & PERM ON SIMULATED BHSP

PROD: 1500 BOPD
PROD: 2000 BOPD, INJ: 3000 BPD INJ: 3000 BPD
3500

3000

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000

REF
1500
INIT PERM + REF FACIES

REF PERM + INIT FACIES

INIT
1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.4 Comparison of simulated BHSP

28
 REFERENCE INITIAL

REF FACIES + INIT PERM INIT FACIES + REF PERM

Fig.5 Permeability maps of additional models

29
 REFERENCE INITIAL

REF FACIES + INIT PERM INIT FACIES + REF PERM

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.6 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, Additional models

30
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. Matching by Optimizing Facies)
1.00

0.90 HISTORY INITIAL

0.80
ITR 1 ITR 3

ITR 4
0.70
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.7 Result of water cut matching, perturbing facies only

31
 Iteration #1

Iteration #2 Iteration #3

Fig.8 Perturbation of facies realization during water cut matching, perturbing facies only

32
 INITIAL MODEL

ITERATION #4
(FACIES OPTIMIZED)

REFERENCE MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.9 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies only
33
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies Only)
1.00

HISTORY INITIAL Surface Oil Rate Control

0.90
ITR 1 ITR 2

0.80
ITR 3 ITR 4
ITR 5 ITR 6
0.70 ITR 7
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

SIMULATED BHSP
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies Only)
3500
HISTORY INITIAL Surface Oil Rate Control
ITR 1 ITR 2
ITR 3 ITR 4
ITR 5 ITR 6
3000
ITR 7

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000

1500

1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.10 Result of water cut & BHSP matching, perturbing facies only

34
 Iteration #1

Iteration #2 Iteration #3

Iteration #4 Iteration #5

Fig.11 Perturbation of facies realization during water cut & BHSP matching, perturbing facies only (1/2)

35
 Iteration #6 Iteration #7

Fig.11 Perturbation of facies realization during water cut & BHSP matching, perturbing facies only (2/2)

36
 INITIAL MODEL

REALIZATION #7
(FACIES OPTIMIZED)

REFERENCE MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.12 Comparison of water saturation distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies only

37
 INITIAL MODEL

REALIZATION #7
(FACIES OPTIMIZED)

REFERENCE MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.13 Comparison of pressure distribution at simulation end, perturbing facies only

38
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies & Perm.)
1.00
HISTORY
Surface Oil Rate Control
INITIAL
0.90
ITR 1 (Facies)

ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)

0.80
ITR 1 (sand std. logK)

ITR 1 (shale ave. logK)

0.70
ITR 1 (shale std. logK)
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

ITR 2(sand ave. logK)

0.60 ITR 2 (shale ave. logK)

ITR 4 (Facies)
0.50 ITR 5 (shale ave. logK)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)
SIMULATED BHSP
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing & Perm.)
3500
Surface Oil Rate Control

3000

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000
HISTORY
INITIAL
ITR 1 (Facies)
ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)
ITR 1 (sand std. logK)
1500 ITR 1 (shale ave. logK)
ITR 1 (shale std. logK)
ITR 2(sand ave. logK)
ITR 2 (shale ave. logK)
ITR 4 (Facies)
ITR 5 (shale ave. logK)
1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.14 Result of history matching, Case 1

39
Fig.15 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 1 (1/2)

40
Fig.15 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 1 (2/2)

41
 INITIAL MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.16 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 1 (1/2)

42
 REFERENCE MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.16 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 1 (2/2)

43
 INITIAL MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.17 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 1 (1/2)

44
 REFERENCE MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.17 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 1 (2/2)

45
Fig.18 Histogram of permeability, History matched model vs. Reference model, Case1

46
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies & Perm.)
1.00

HISTORY Surface Oil Rate Control

0.90
INITIAL

0.80
ITR 1 (Facies)

0.70
ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

0.60 ITR 2 (Facies)

ITR 2 (sand ave. logK)

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

SIMULATED BHSP
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing & Perm.)
3500
Surface Oil Rate Control

3000

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000

HISTORY

INITIAL
1500
ITR 1 (Facies)

ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)

ITR 2 (Facies)

ITR 2 (sand ave. logK)

1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.19 Result of history matching, Case 2

47
Fig.20 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 2

48
 INITIAL MODEL

REFERENCE MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.21 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 2

49
 INITIAL MODEL

REFERENCE MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.22 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 2

50
Fig.23 Histogram of permeability, History matched model vs. Reference model, Case2

51
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies & Perm.)
1.00
HISTORY
Surface Oil Rate Control
0.90 INITIAL

ITR 1 (Facies)
0.80
ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)

ITR 1 (shale ave. logK)

0.70
ITR 2 (Facies)
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

ITR 2 (shale ave. logK)

0.60
ITR 3 (Facies)

0.50 ITR 3 (shale ave. logK)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

SIMULATED BHSP
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing & Perm.)
3500
Surface Oil Rate Control

3000

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000

HISTORY
INITIAL
ITR 1 (Facies)
ITR 1 (sand ave. logK)
1500 ITR 1 (shale ave. logK)
ITR 2 (Facies)
ITR 2 (shale ave. logK)
ITR 3 (Facies)
ITR 3 (shale ave. logK)
1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.24 Result of history matching, Case 3

52
Fig.25 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 3 (1/2)

53
Fig.25 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 3 (2/2)

54
 INITIAL MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.26 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 3 (1/2)

55
 REFERENCE MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.26 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 3 (2/2)

56
 INITIAL MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.27 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 3 (1/2)

57
 REFERENCE MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.27 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 3 (2/2)

58
Fig.28 Histogram of permeability, History matched model vs. Reference model, Case3

59
 HISTORY MATCHING RESULT
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing Facies & Perm.)
1.00
HISTORY Surface Oil Rate Control
0.90
INITIAL

0.80 ITR 1 (Facies)

ITR 1 (sand ave. K)

0.70
WATER CUT (FRAC.)

ITR 2 (Facies)

0.60
ITR 2 (sand ave. K)

0.50 ITR 2 (shale ave. K)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

SIMULATED BHSP
(W.C. & BHSP Matching by Optimizing & Perm.)
3500
Surface Oil Rate Control

3000

2500
BHSP (PSIA)

2000

HISTORY

INITIAL

ITR 1 (Facies)
1500 ITR 1 (sand ave. K)

ITR 2 (Facies)

ITR 2 (sand ave. K)

ITR 2 (shale ave. K)

1000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

TIME (DAYS)

Fig.29 Result of history matching, Case 4

60
Fig.30 Perturbation of facies and permeability realization during history matching, Case 4

61
 INITIAL MODEL

15% 70%
Sw @ 360 DAYS

Fig.31 Water saturation distribution at simulation end, Case 4

62
 INITIAL MODEL

1500 psia 3500 psia

Pressure @ 360 DAYS

Fig.32 Pressure distribution at simulation end, Case 4

63
Fig.33 Histogram of permeability, History matched model vs. Reference model, Case4

64
1. Perturb facies 1. Perturb µlogk of sand
2. Perturb µlogk of sand 2. Perturb facies
3. Iterate 1 & 2 3. Iterate 1 & 2

Case 2 : Original Order Case 2 : Reversed Order

Fig.34 Comparison of history matched permeability realizations, Original vs. reversed order, Case 2

65
1. Perturb facies 1. Perturb facies
2. Perturb µlogk of sand 2. Perturb µlogk of shale
3. Perturb µlogk of shale 3. Perturb µlogk of sand
4. Iterate 1 - 3 4. Iterate 1 - 3

Case 3 : Original Order Case 3 : Reversed Order

Fig.35 Comparison of history matched permeability realizations, Original vs. reversed order, Case 3
66
 Y

Fig.36 Horizontal slice of training image used for facies simulation, Reference model A

Y X

* The labels of X, Y
& Z coordinates show
the number of grid
blocks.

Mud Channel

Fig.37 3D view of facies realization, Reference model A

67
Y

X * The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

Fig.38 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Reference model A

68
 Producers (6 wells):
P9
P1 P1, P3, P4, P5, P8, P9
I6
P8
I2 P5
P3 Injectors (3 wells):

Y I2, I6, I7
P4 I7

Fig.39 Well location, Reference models A & B

69
Layer 3

Mud

Layer 2
Channel
Sand

* The labels of X, Y
& Z coordinates
show the number of
Layer 1 grid blocks.

70 realization, Reference model B

Fig.40 Horizontal slice of facies
Y

* The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

X

Fig.41 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Reference model B

71
Y

X * The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

Fig.42 Horizontal slice of porosity realization, Reference model B

72
Y

X
* The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

Fig.43 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, Initial model

73
 Mud Channel

Reference
Model A

AVE. STD. AVE. STD.

LOG(K) 0.8 0.3 LOG(K) 2.7 0.2
K 8.8 8.0 K 485 213

Mud Channel

Reference
Model B

AVE. STD. AVE. STD.

LOG(K) -1.6 0.5 LOG(K) 2.6 0.3
K 0.07 0.1 K 448 214

Mud Channel

Initial
Model

AVE. STD. AVE. STD.

LOG(K) 0.1 0.3 LOG(K) 1.5 0.2
K 1.5 1.0 K 34 14

Fig.44 Histogram of permeability,74Initial model vs. Reference models A & B

 1
Well
0.9
Reference P1
0.8 P3
Initial P4
0.7
P5
Water Cut (frac.)

0.6 P8
P9
0.5
P1
0.4 P3
P4
0.3
P5
0.2 P8
P9
0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Days)

Fig.45 Comparison of simulated water cut, Reference model A vs. initial model

4500
Well
4000
P1
P3
3500
P4
3000 P5
P8
BHSP (psia)

2500 P9
P1
2000
P3
1500 P4
P5
1000 Reference P8
P9
500 Initial

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Days)

Fig.46 Comparison of simulated BHSP, Reference model A vs. initial model

75
 1 Well
0.9
Reference P1
0.8 P3
Initial
0.7
P4
P5
Water Cut (frac.)

0.6 P8
P9
0.5
P1
0.4 P3
P4
0.3
P5
0.2 P8
P9
0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (Days)

Fig.47 Comparison of simulated water cut, Reference model B vs. initial model

6000
Well
P1
5000
Reference P3
P4
Initial
4000 P5
P8
BHSP (psia)

P9
3000
P1
P3
2000 P4
P5
P8
1000 P9

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (Days)

Fig.48 Comparison of simulated BHSP, Reference model B vs. initial model

76
 Objective Function Contour : Fractional Flow

1.8

1.4

Mean Log(K)
Mud 1.0
Reference Model

0.6

0.2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2

Mean Log(K) : Channel

Objective Function Contour : BHSP

1.8

1.4

Mean Log(K)
Mud 1.0

Reference Model
0.6

0.2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2

Mean Log(K) : Channel

Fig.49 Sensitivity of objective function to matching parameters

77
 1

0.9
Well
P1
0.8 Reference
P3
0.7 History Matched P4
P5
Water Cut (frac.)

0.6 P8
P9
0.5
P1
0.4 P3
P4
0.3
P5
0.2 P8
P9
0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Days)

4500
Well
4000
P1
P3
3500
P4
3000 P5
P8
BHSP (psia)

2500 P9
P1
2000
P3
1500 P4
P5
1000 Reference P8
History Matched P9
500

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Days)

Fig.50 Result of history matching, Case A

78
Y

X * The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

Fig.51 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, History matched model, Case A

79
Reference Model A

Mud Channel

AVE. STD.
AVE. STD.
LOG(K) 2.7 0.2
LOG(K) 0.8 0.3
K 485 213
K 8.8 8.0

History Matched Model

Mud Channel

AVE. STD. AVE. STD.

LOG(K) 0.6 0.3 LOG(K) 2.7 0.2
K 4.6 3.1 K 537 212

Fig.52 Histogram of permeability, Reference model vs. history matched model, Case A

80
 Iteration #1: Facies Perturbation
Iteration #1: Facies Perturbation
100000 1.0
Objective Function

0.8
10000

Paramter
0.6

0.4
1000
0.2

0.0
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 # of iteration
# of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C.

rD
contribution of BHSP

Iteration #1: Perm Perturbation Iteration #1: Perm Perturbation

100000 3.0

2.5
Objective Function

10000 2.0
Parameter

1.5

1000 1.0

0.5

100 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# of iteration # of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C. logk1_ave logk0_ave

contribution of BHSP

Fig.53 Optimization performance during history matching process, Case A

81
 1
Well
0.9
Reference
P1
0.8 P3
History Matched
0.7
P4
P5
Water Cut (frac.)

0.6 P8
P9
0.5
P1
0.4 P3
P4
0.3
P5
0.2 P8
P9
0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (Days)

1200 Well

P1
1000
P3
P4
800 P5
P8
BHSP (psia)

P9
600
P1
P3
400 P4
P5
Reference
P8
200 P9
History Matched

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (Days)

Fig.54 Result of history matching, Case B

82
Y

X * The labels of X, Y & Z coordinates show the number of grid blocks.

Fig.55 Horizontal slice of permeability realization, History matched model, Case B

83
Reference Model B

Mud Channel

AVE. STD.
AVE. STD.
LOG(K) 2.6 0.3
LOG(K) -1.6 0.5
K 448 214
K 0.07 0.1

History Matched Model

Mud Channel

AVE. STD. AVE. STD.

LOG(K) 0.5 0.3 LOG(K) 2.5 0.2
K 4.7 3.2 K 411 221

Fig.56 Histogram of permeability, Reference model vs. history matched model, Case B
84
 Iteration #1: Facies Perturbation Iteration #1: Facies Perturbation
1000000 1.0

0.8
Objective Function

Paramter
0.6
100000
0.4

0.2

10000 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# of iteration # of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C.

contribution of BHSP rD

Iteration #2: Facies Perturbation

Iteration #2: Facies Perturbation
1000000
1.0
Objective Function

Paramter 0.8

0.6
100000
0.4

0.2

10000 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
# of iteration # of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C.

contribution of BHSP
rD

Iteration #2: Perm Perturbation

Iteration #2: Perm Perturbation
3.0
100000
2.5
Objective Function

2.0
10000
Parameter

1.5
1.0

1000 0.5
0.0
-0.5
100
-1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
# of iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
# of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C.

logk1_ave logk0_ave
contribution of BHSP

Fig.57 Optimization performance during history matching process, Case B (1/2)

85
 Iteration #6: Perm Perturbation Iteration #6: Perm Perturbation
100000 3.0
2.5
Objective Function

2.0
10000

Parameter
1.5
1.0
1000 0.5
0.0

100 -0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -1.0
# of iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
# of iteration
objective function contribution of W.C.
contribution of BHSP logk1_ave logk0_ave

Iteration #8: Perm Perturbation

Iteration #8: Perm Perturbation
3.0
10000
2.5
Objective Function

2.0
1000
Parameter

1.5
1.0

100 0.5
0.0
-0.5
10
-1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
# of iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
# of iteration

objective function contribution of W.C.

logk1_ave logk0_ave
contribution of BHSP

Fig.57 Optimization performance during history matching process, Case B (2/2)

86