SPE 148279

Best Practice for Static & Dynamic Modeling and Simulation

"History Match Case - Model QA/QC Criteria for Reliable Predictive Mode"
Faisal Al-Jenaibi, SPE, Lutfi A. Salameh, SPE, Reda Recham, Said Meziani, Bader Saif Al Badi, SPE &
Mostapha Adli Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–11 October 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

This paper addresses proven best practice in modeling workflow including procedure and Qa/Qc criteria, which
have to be applied during simulation models construction. The main issues discussed in this paper are as follows:

- Static model with acceptable petrophysical parameters distribution including and honoring log and model Swi
derived data per well as the basis for reliable dynamic model with realistic predictive mode.
- Dynamic model as management tool with reasonable history match quality as assurance for reliable predictive
mode of wells, areas and reservoir performance.
- Define and quantify the volume of fluids-in-place, movable oil, residual oil and volumetric sweep efficiency to
assess the reservoir potential, rate sustainability and economic ultimate recovery.
- Assess the associated risks to development plans under selected development schemes with water/gas flood,
WAG, artificial lift (ESP or Gas lift) and other EOR methods.
- Model prediction mode quality and impact on strategic development decisions.

As the oil industry has long experience in simulation techniques supported by availability of super computers and
advanced software, it is observed that there are still major gaps that are not bridged yet. This paper will highlight
some of those gaps and propose effective and practical solution based on best practice and lessons learnt in
modeling studies to ensure reliable reservoir simulation predictive mode capabilities.

This paper also includes the main criteria and assurance elements which were used to define modeling procedures
that would participate in enhancing model reliability, and how they could impact development optimization process
of selected production scheme towards achieving maximum recovery. Summary of these elements is as follows:

I. Static to Dynamic Models Transition Phase

- Well-per-well Swi match of log and model derived data. Acceptable level and trend match by using
representative Pc’s based on rock types & petrophysical data, MICP’s, Height functions or combination.
- Stability test to ensure good equilibrium condition with fluids distribution.
- Well-per-well RFT/MDT field data and model derived data match.
II. Dynamic Model History Match
- Well-per-well acceptable trend match of observed data can be reached through a cycle of iterative process
between geology, static and dynamic models to improve match.
- Matching parameters and Qa/Qc criteria will be discussed later in details including; oil, gas and water rates
and cumulative production, BHCIP, BHFP, WHFP, WCT and GOR.
2 SPE 148279

III. Prediction Mode of Development Plan

- Well-per-well acceptable trend match (Rate, Pressures, WCT & GOR).
- In case of abnormal predictive trend, consider the following remedial action:
1. Review field measured data for accuracy, screen data as justified.
2. Review imposed model constraints at well, group and field levels.
3. Investigate solution with iterative process including static and dynamic models based on geology.

Introduction

Based on assessment of several methodologies applied to conclude simulation model history match, two
approaches could be investigated with an objective to present simulation models with reliable predictive mode
suitable for fields' development optimization:
- Option-1 based on global model initialization and history match (low resolution of history match quality that
could be achieved in shorter time period).
- Option-2 based on well-per-well history match while implementing Qa/Qc criteria to ensure quality of dynamic
model initialization with less gaps compared to the observed field data (high resolution history match model
that could be achieved in longer time period).

References to the evidence shown from many completed studies, the following findings are highlighted:
- Global approach is associated with high risk and lacking minimum accuracy that could be ± 50% error in fluids-
in-place estimated by geology and static models, and more severe error in matching WCT trend up to ± 70% &
pressure error of ± 500 to 2000 psi.
- Well-per-well history match approach can reduce error in fluids-in-place up to less than ± 5%, and achieve
WCT trend match with error less than ± 10%, the pressure trend match is around ± 200 psi.

Accordingly, it is recommended to adopt well-per-well approach illustrated in Figure-1 as best practice for the
following merits:
- Assurance to build static and dynamic models with quality history match of all producers and injectors that
ensures reasonable and acceptable trend in predicted mode of wells and then for the reservoir as a byproduct.
- Assurance to provide trustworthy model as a representative reservoir management tool to assess and monitor
the volumetric fluid sweep efficiency by identifying bypassed oil, tracking water/gas front, pressure
enhancement effectiveness per well instead globally for the whole reservoir.
- Lower risk uncertainties of WCT evolution and pressure enhancement can be defined per well and per area.
- Assurance to optimize the LTDP in terms of production rate, sustainability, no. of new drilling, and development
schemes (Water flood, Gas flood, Artificial Lift (Gas lift or ESP), WAG, EOR timing and expenditure).

Summary of key issues that impact performance of fields' development plans under different production schemes
and the associated risk is presented in Table -1.

Static to Dynamic Models Transition Phase

Building representative simulation model is carried out in an iterative process for quality assurance based on many
studies including; geology, geophysics, petrophysics, fracture, SCAL, PVT, reservoir and production.

The workflow showed in Figure -1 includes sub-studies and presents the main components of full field simulation
model workflow where the integration of sub-studies results is essential for quality assurance.

Pc curves play a major role in defining the original oil in-place and vertical distribution of fluids in a reservoir i.e. (oil
and gas in place), and they can have significant influence on fluids movement. For displacement process that is
dominated by gravity, Pc curves will control the vertical saturation distribution.

Due to several quality concerns related to the laboratories measurement of the mercury injection capillary pressure
(MICP’s) curves, it has been found that the MICP’s curves participate in fluids distribution uncertainties and low
quality simulation model initialization. In many cases, the MICP’s curves which were used to classify the geological
model rock types have failed to match the initial water saturation (Swi) at well location as presented in the
geological model. This yield poor Swi quality match and incorrect fluids in place distribution and estimation as
observed in many studies based on MICPs curves with error up to 50% in many available simulation models.

Consequently, in order to assure proper fluids in place volume estimation from simulation models initializations, it is
necessary to obtain acceptable level and trend of matching between Swi_log profiles as presented in the
SPE 148279 3

geological models with simulation models Swi_Pc profiles in order to reduce gaps between geological and
simulation models.

Thus, based on several studies, using Pc-derived from MICP’s and based on rock types are found not suitable to
provide acceptable Swi match per well which causes major errors in oil in-place volume and more important the
lateral/vertical hydrocarbon distribution in the reservoir. Therefore, to fulfill the key Qa/Qc criteria for static model
initialization, a combination of Pc’s curves are used including Pc-derived Height function. The essential Qa/Qc
criteria for representative static model initialization should be applied based on Swi match with reasonable level
and trend match per well. Furthermore, proper definition of the transition zone is needed to be taken into account
during designing Pc curves, which should reflect dry oil production from many producers that perforated above
OWC’s depths by few feet and across intervals that showed high Swi_log saturation values as discussed in SPE-
117894 paper.

Process and matching parameters

The following parameters have to be validated by ensuring:
- Lateral and vertical oil distribution per well by comparing Swi match of log and the static model.
- Volume of fluids-in-place per sub-layer by comparing with corresponding values obtained from geological
model.
- Pressure gradient with the initial RFT/MDT, logs and production test data.
- Comparable model Pc curves with corresponding rock types.
- Comparable movable and residual OIP’s per sub-layer with SCAL data.
- Perform model stability to ensure no fluid & pressure changes.

Actions to improve Swi match

- Define the non matched wells per area.
- Asses the cause of mismatch by reviewing the following:
o Geology attributes & layering scheme
o Log data depth reference
o Observed field data quality to eliminate anomalous data
o Pc curves mainly considered as the root cause of mismatch
o Use improved Pc’s curves from MICP’s and Height functions to ensure appropriate lateral & vertical Swi
match.

Qa/Qc assurance & impact of Swi match

Assurance of achieving Swi_log match is critical and will adversely impact management decisions on field’s
development in case of miss-match the following:
- Volume of asset fluids-in-place.
- Lateral and vertical hydrocarbon distribution
- Volume of movable and immovable hydrocarbon which represents the prime target on initial development
plans, and directly impacts the production potential and suitability.
- Volumetric Sweep Efficiency, production sustainability & recovery.
- More important, the expenditure of primary, secondary and tertiary development scheme (WF/GF/Artificial Lift
/WAG & EOR)

Figures 2 and 3 show the importance of achieving acceptable Swi_log match per well to ensure acceptable model
initialization and representative vertical and lateral fluid distribution per sub-zone.

Dynamic Model History Match

Once the dynamic model has been initialized and accepted with minimum gaps in fluids-in-place volumes and
distribution in the static model, the following main elements need to be obtained to achieve reasonable dynamic
model history match:

Oil Producers:
- Production rate & cumulative volumes (Oil, Gas & Water).
- Bottom hole closed-in Pressure (BHCIP’s), trend & level (+/-200 psi)
- Bottom hole flowing pressure trend and level (+/- 200 psi)
- WCT’s and GOR’s trends and levels (+/- 10%).
4 SPE 148279

- Breakthrough timing less than 2 years.

- Productivity Index (+/- Factor of 0.5 to 2).
- Production Contribution (PLT), Trend and +/- 20% error.
- Water front movement (PDK/TDT), only Trend match
- RFT/MDT profiles, trend and +/- 50 psi.
- Core and Test permeability per layer, Trend and factor of 0.5 to 2.0

Water and Gas Injectors

- Injection rate & Cumulative (Water & Gas).
- Bottom hole closed-in Pressure (BHCIP’s), trend & level (+/-200 psi)
- Bottom hole flowing pressure trend and level (+/- 200 psi)
- Injectivity Index (+/- Factor of 0.5 to 2)
- Water injection front's movement (OGL/PDK/TDT, only trend match).

It is important to highlight that better resolution and accuracy have been achieved based on best practice applied
to carry out several simulation studies on oil and gas fields using the workflow described in this paper.

History matches assurance for reasonable predictive mode

- Blind test to cross check the model capabilities to predict last few years of actual field history, and the transition
of performance from history to prediction.

Actions to improve history match through iterative process

- Define the non matched wells per area.
- Asses the cause of mismatch by reviewing the following:
o Geology attributes & layering scheme.
o Observed field data quality to eliminate anomalous data.
o Krow curves mainly considered as the root cause of WCT mismatch.
o Use improved Krow curves from SCAL or analog data from other fields to get appropriate match or
Pseudo-Kr curves.
o Avoid local Kx, Kv and Transmissibility multiplication while considering up/down scaling on certain regions
based on geological justifications.
o Avoid local Kx, and apply multiplication factors across layers where high K-streaks exist.
o Use level of communication between layers as matching parameters to re-allocate rates for producers
and injectors.
o Consider fracture cementation as a matching parameter.
o Consider faults sealing level and frequency as matching parameters.
o Consider different grid size or upscaling techniques.
o Use sector models to assess simulation model input data and to perform sensitivities runs.

Qa/Qc assurance & impact of dynamic data

Assurance of achieving acceptable match to dynamic measured data is critical and adversely impact management
decisions on field’s development as a result of the following uncertainties:
- Production target rate and sustainability
- No. of new development wells.
- Development of regions (acceptable or tight)
- Pressure enhancement efficiency per area
- Volume of movable and immovable hydrocarbon which represents the prime target on initial development
plans, and directly impacts the production potential and suitability.
o Volumetric Sweep Efficiency, production sustainability and ultimate recovery.
o More important, the expenditure of primary, secondary the tertiary development scheme (Water & Gas
Flood/Artificial Lift (ESP or Gas Lift), WAG & other EOR methods).
o Reservoir recovery.

Prediction Mode of Development Plan

The constraints applied at well, group and reservoir levels, imposed on simulation model predictions runs need to
be carefully selected, as they have a significant impact on simulation results. To ensure reasonable model results,
it is necessary to focus on the following areas:
SPE 148279 5

- Identify problematic wells and areas in the static model, where match of Swi and MDT/RFT are not
satisfactory, including uncertainties and considering different realizations.
- Identify problematic wells and areas where the dynamic matches of Rate, WCT, Pressure, and other key
parameters, are not satisfactory, including uncertainties and considering different realizations.
- Review the target production rate and the feasibility of sustainability for long period.
- Consider balanced production/injection constraints relevant to regions and well potential.
- Consider field operations efficiency factor.
- Review WCT and GOR predictive mode on well-per-well basis to be consistent with history profiles and trends.
- Review hydrocarbon fronts movements; to ensure undesirable trends are not developing that may cause
irreversible reservoir damage.
- Review pressure performance and behavior to avoid abnormal trends (hike or sink).
- Review well activity (shutting in, drilling, recompleting, etc).

Figures 4 to 9 show the importance of achieving well-per-well match (level and trend), and the adverse impact of
WCT and pressure match on the model predictive mode capabilities to assess production sustainability, EOR
requirements and recovery.

Keys elements for investigation related to the development plan

As the static and dynamic simulation models are considered the main management tool for decision to approve
development plans and to monitor the reservoir performance for production assessment and sustainability,
accuracy of these models become highly important to be built with best practice including Qa/Qc criteria to ensure
predictive capabilities at different development phases starting from water flood through EOR methods.

The aim of this paper is to show the importance of having reliable model required to advice management on the
actual asset hydrocarbon volumes (OIP & GIP), and the forecasted production performance of development plans
under Water/Gas flood, Artificial Lift (ESP or Gas Lift), WAG or other EOR methods. Accuracy of simulation models
has critical impact on the following:
- Accuracy of the expected movable oil and gas with respect to Water flooding (current Development plan) and
future Gas/WAG flooding (Long term Development plan).
- Oil and Gas production performance in terms of target rate and plateau period.
- Production potential risks of under/over estimating the water/gas influx fronts in the reservoir.
- Anomalous estimate of the transition zone thickness that effectively controls the displacement of oil production,
and define the limits of dry oil in the reservoir.
- Production potential high risks of non-matching logs data which support the initial hydrocarbon in plan
(distribution of fluids vertically and laterally).
- High risk of assessment of modeling the actual gas/water breakthrough timing, recovery factor, Sweep
efficiency and the measured fields matching parameters.
- QA/QC for constructing efficient simulation models with acceptable reliability & deliverables, better
understanding to reservoir management issues and risks assessments.
- Direct impact on the number of development wells which can be substantially reduced by having QA/QCed
simulation models.
- Acceptable Sweep efficiency for sustainable rate and maximum recovery could be damaged with poor WCT
management.
- Economic evaluation for top management decisions will be strongly justified.

Business Drive, Uncertainties and Risk Assessment

Summary of the key issues that impact field development expenditure and production performance under
Water/Gas flood, Artificial left, WAG and other EOR methods are illustrated in Table-1 and Figure-10.

As most of the current producing fields are matured, it is worth mentioning that, accurate prediction of future oil
production performance is crucial as it requires huge investments. Therefore, realistic model could provide
justification for re-development of the matured fields in most effective techno-economic basis. Timing of applying
EOR method is critical to ensure added value and cost effective plan.

Figure-10 depicts the predicted timing for different EOR methods that are required for field re-development, and
shows the huge volume of cumulative oil production that could be gained or lost pending on model accuracy.
6 SPE 148279

Conclusion and Recommendations

Two approaches were discussed in this paper with an objective to build static and dynamic simulation models for
offshore reservoirs, with acceptable predictive mode suitable for development optimization. The two proposals are
based on:
A. Global reservoir acceptable match for static and dynamic model initialization and history.
B. Well-per-well with Qa/Qc criteria to ensure quality of the static and dynamic model initialization and history
match.

Merits and demerits of the two proposals have been discussed in details aimed to recommend one option based
on best practice with Qa/Qc assurance. The main findings are as follows:
- Global approach is associated with high risk and lacks accuracy (error ± 50%) for OIP estimated by static
model, and severe error in matching WCT trend (error ± 70%) & Pressure trend (error ± 500 to 2000 psi).
- Well-per-well history match approach reduces the OIP error to less than 5%, and achieve WCT trend match
with error less than ± 10%. The pressure trend match accuracy could be less than 200 psi.

Accordingly, it is highly recommended to adopt well-per-well matching approach as best modeling practice to get
the following merits:
- Assurance to build coherent static and dynamic model with quality history match of producers and injectors
that ensures reasonable trend of prediction mode of all wells and then for the reservoir as a byproduct.
- Assurance to provide trustworthy model as a acceptable reservoir management tool to assess and monitor
the volumetric fluid sweep efficiency by identifying and tracking water front and pressure enhancement
effectiveness per well, and not globally for the whole reservoir
- Lower risk as uncertainties of WCT evolution and pressure enhancement can be defined per well and per
area, and not globally for the whole reservoir.
- Assurance to optimize long term development plans in terms of production rate, sustainability, new drilling,
and development schemes (Water/Gas flood, Artificial Lift (Gas lift or ESP), WAG, EOR and expenditure.
- Provide supportive techno-economic information for management to endorse the optimum development
scheme.
- Define risk parameters and uncertainties to consider for development plan.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank the management of Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (ADNOC) for permission to present
and publish this paper.

References

SPE 68075
Improved Oil Recovery by New Horizontalization Strategy in Giant Carbonate Reservoir
Lutfi A. Salameh, SPE, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)

SPE 117894
Why Do we need to Introduce Dynamic Rock Typing?
"Case Study for Simulation Model Improved Accuracy and Reliability"
Faisal Al-Jenaibi, SPE, & Lutfi A. Salameh, SPE, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)

SPE 111117
Applied QA/QC Procedure for Models Accuracy and Decision Reliability
"Full Field Compositional Simulation Study – Case History”
Lutfi A. Salameh, SPE, and Faisal Al Junaibi SPE, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)

SPE 53373
A Review of Different Methods in Initializing and History Matching a Reservoir Model with Tilted
Oil-Water-Contact
P. T. Hsueh, T. R. Pham, E. H. Bu-Hulaigah, SPE, Saudi Aramco

SPE 53373
A Review of Different Methods in Initializing and History Matching a Reservoir Model with Tilted
Oil-Water-Contact
P. T. Hsueh, T. R. Pham, E. H. Bu-Hulaigah, SPE, Saudi Aramco
SPE 148279 7

SPE 59429
Tilted Oil Water Contact in the Cretaceous Caballos Formation, Puerto Colon Field, Putumayo Basin, Colombia
Estradan Carlo; Mantilla Cesar/ECOPETROL

SPE 71339
Assessing the Oil Water Contact in Haradh Arab-D
B. A Stenger, SPE Saudi Aranco, and T. R. Pham, SPE, Saudi Aramco, A. A. Al-Sahhaf, SPE, Saudi Aramco, A. S. Al-Muhaish,
Saudi Aramco

PETSOC PAPER 2006-129

History matching Standards; Quality Control and Risk Analysis for Simulation
R O. BAKER, S. CHUNGH, C. MCBURNEY, R. MCKISHNIE Epic Consulting Services Ltd.
8 SPE 148279

TABLE - 1
Summary of key issues that impact field development plan under water flood, Gas flood, artificial lift, WAG and EOR

MAJOR
RELEVANCE RISKS
ITEM
• Classify geometrical, layers & zones
thickness. VERY HIGH
• High permeability streaks intervals. • Unreliable OIP’s & GIP’s estimations and
Petrophysical
• Fluids contacts depths (WOC&GOC) incorrect fluids in place distribution.
characteristic • Incorrect oil flow paths.
• Faults, barriers & channels, all geological
features. • Zonal continuities & communication problems.
• Porosity, RT’s & Sw distributions. • Improper well location which reduces well value.
• OIP’s & GIP’s estimations and distributions.
VERY HIGH
• Match Sw_log data.
Model • Unreliable OIP’s & GIP’s estimations and
• Volumetric gap between geological &
initialization, incorrect fluids in place distribution.
simulation models.
PC’s Curves • Poor match between Sw_log & Sw_pc.
• Thickness of transition zone.
• High uncertainties level.
• Inactive cells (min. pore volume).

• Oil & Gas movable & residual volumes.
Sor’s, Sgr’s & • Wettability impacts.
Kr’s values • History matches parameters.
• Integrate lab. Measured data into model.
• Fluids in mobile conditions at time zero.
Model • Input data inconsistent/unreliable.
stability • Model reliability.
• Model validation & reliability.
• Rates allocations quality check and quality
control.
Model • Standardized matching criteria.
quality, • Match GOR’s, WCT’s and pressures
history match profiles.
• Reasonable times breakthroughs.
• Monitor fluids movements.
• Coning problems & matching.
VERY HIGH
• Over estimate recovery factor.
• Poor sweep efficacy management.
• Early WCT and/or HGOR production.
• Introduce incorrect EOR method (water inj., gas
inj, WAG ...etc).
• Unsuitable long term development plan option.
• Low oil production plateau rate & timing, shorten
recovery could be unrealistic for future planning.
• Unnecessary drilling.
MEDIUM
• Unstable model and running slow.
• A lot of conversion problems.
• More CPU’s and resources usage.
VERY HIGH
• High permeability multipliers.
• Mismatch observation data & poor history match
• Unjustified parameters adjustment.
• Consume long time period and man-hour to
finish history match process.
• Impose tuning option (reduce resolution).
• Unable to match dynamic fluids flow behaviors

VERY HIGH
• Sustainable oil plateau rate and time • Incorrect and unfit long term development plan
estimation. option select.
Model
• Setting wells control (producers & injectors • Unnecessary drilling and upgrade surface
prediction
rates & shut-in conditions) facilities capacities.
runs
• Infill wells planning and time schedule. • Massive cost expansions and spend.
• Shorten oil sustainable rate and curtail plateau
time with low recovery factor.
Pilot tests • Pre-field development plan implementation HIGH
prediction and assessment. • Short history data and/or limited.
runs • Sector model boundaries and influx impacts. • Integrate the results into full field model.
SPE 148279 9

Figure – 1: Static and Dynamic History Match Process

Figure – 2: Static Model and Initialization Risk

10 SPE 148279

Figure – 3: Static Model and Initialization (Swi Match) Risk

Figure – 4: Dynamic Model (Sw Match) and Prediction Risk

SPE 148279 11

Figure – 5: Dynamic Model (Sw Match) and Prediction Risk

Figure – 6: Dynamic Model (Sw Match) and Prediction Risk

12 SPE 148279

Figure – 7: Dynamic Model (Pressure Match) and Prediction Risk

Figure – 8: Dynamic Model (WCT Match) and Prediction Risk

SPE 148279 13

Figure – 9: Well Optimization Process & Prediction Risk

Figure –10: Field Optimization Process & Prediction Risk