Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We illustrate what is practical for history matching of a large and complex field like Judy Creek. Due to the size of the geomodel, the limited time available, the large amount of historical data, and the 300+ wells, manual history matching methods were ruled out. Instead, we applied a streamline-based method to update the model based on well rate mismatches and identification of streamline bundles in 3-D space that contributed to local mismatches. Knowing the bundles and the magnitude of the mismatches, we computed cell-level multipliers for any gridblock and timestep and automatically update the geomodel. This eliminated tedious manual updates as in the conventional "box multiplier" approach. However, due to the nonlinear nature of history matching, our method is not automatic but assisted, requiring engineering judgment to identify wells to focus on for matching and which timesteps to use. Approximately 60+ flow simulations and geomodel updates were required to improved the well-level match within the time-frame allowed. Results showed that while our focus was improving the history match for the waterflood period, the field-level hydrocarbon miscible flood match was also improved. Furthermore, starting with a good geologic model led to changes that were within geological realism, even though we did not include geological modeling within each model update. Lastly, conventional history matching changes such as adjustment to relative permeabilities, solvent PVT mixing parameters, and well perforations, were also required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Batycky et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: