Matching of Pressure

SDR TRAINING COURSE 2013
History Matching Pressure match

Sophie Verdiere, Lisette Quettier
© Laurent Pascal/Total
AGENDA
Workflow reminder
Different kind of pressure observations

• Depth corrections
• Use of pressures measured during build-up
Strategy and rules for matching the pressures
SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -2-

2
HM: BASIC SCHEMATIC WORKFLOW - SUMMARY
FIRST GEOLOGICAL Model DYNAMIC SYNTHESIS
POSSIBLY DST MATCH PRIOR GEOLOGICAL MODEL UPDATE

INITIAL RUN(S) TO QC OR
NEW REALISATION
SIMULATION RUNS MODIFICATION OF

PRESSURE then SATURATION PARAMETERS
YES
NO
NO
Sufficient match in
“static” pressure?
YES Geological
modifications?
Sufficient match in
saturation? YES
NO
YES
Sufficient match in
FORECAST RUNS
well productivity?

3 HM is an integrated process
THE STEPS OF CLASSICAL HISTORY MATCHING
WORKFLOW
I - Gathering and checking • Rates, P, salinity, DSTs ….
Before Simulation
production data • QC, consistency
• Identifying the production mechanisms
II - Dynamic synthesis
• Flow units and regions
// Geological model building • Initial guess at volumes, aquifer parameters
III - Defining criteria and • Match quality

possible workflows • List of uncertain parameter
IV - DST match • First real Quality Control
• RFT data, static (shut-in) BHP

IV - “Reservoir Pressure
matching” Energy • The model acts as a material balance problem
V - “Saturation matching” • Act on the parameters of the transport equation.

Transport • Water cut and GOR, contact levels, PLT data
VI - Productivity matching • BHP, THP and network pressures

Reminder - Field Review
• Importance to test the different systems of energy per dynamical sector
• « quick » history match on dynamic data with material balance

• On the full field, for each sector
+1
• Use Experimental design to screen parameters quickly
-1 -1 +1
• Identify and classify the influential parameters for history matching +1
• Consider the potential alternative scenarii -1
Tank Pressure • 16 uncertain parameters screened Pareto on Region 7

Region 7 • Aquifer is the most important parameter Pressure
Region 7
Test the different systems of energy as soon as possible

to reduce / confirm the range of uncertainty (in place, dynamic parameters)
AGENDA
Workflow reminder


DIFFERENT KIND OF PRESSURE
OBSERVATIONS
RFT, MDT pressure

Compared to simulated
static pressure reservoir pressure
pressure during shut-in (BU)
flowing pressure compared to WBHP
Tubing head pressure, networks pressure compared to WTHP

• may be for producers or injectors
• WBHPH and WTHPH are used at a later stage once reservoir pressure is matched,
unless they are the only P obs. available

SIMULATED VERSUS OBSERVED RESERVOIR
PRESSURE
Make the measured
pressures
comparable to the
pressures
calculated by simulator
To which simulated
Depth correction pressure
(flowing, static) compare the observed
reservoir pressure
WBP, WBP9,WPAVE
RPPO, DATUMR
AGENDA
Workflow reminder


DEPTH CORRECTION - EXERCICE
Pressure extrapolation from gauge
depth to reference depth
 Gauge Depth = 1000 mv/MSL Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120
 Reference Depth = 1200 mv/MSL 950
 Pres @ Gauge_depth = 100 bars Gauge Depth

1000
Calculate reservoir pressure at the 1050
True Vertical Depth (mV)

reference depth for :
 Gas bearing case: 1100
 Gas density = 0.3 g/cm3

1150
 Oil bearing case:
 Oil density = 0.85 g/cm3 1200
Reference Depth
 Water bearing case

 Water density = 1.1 g/cm3 1250
 Mixed case
 Water Oil Contact @ 1075 mv/MSL
Comment the pressure differences @ reference Depth
Which reservoir pressure should I use for reservoir simulation ?
SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 10 -

DEPTH CORRECTION - GAS BEARING RESERVOIR
Pressure vs Depth - Gas Bearing Reservoir
Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
950
100 bars Gauge Depth

1000
True Vertical Depth (mV/MSL)
1050
1100
1150
Reference Depth
1200
105.9 bars
1250
Gas case

DEPTH CORRECTION - OIL BEARING RESERVOIR
Pressure vs Depth - Oil Bearing Reservoir
Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
950

1000
1050
1100
1150
Reference Depth
1200
116.7 bars
1250
Oil case

DEPTH CORRECTION - WATER BEARING RESERVOIR
Pressure vs Depth - Water Bearing reservoir
Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
950

1000
1050
1100
1150
Reference Depth
1200
121.6 bars
1250
Water case

DEPTH CORRECTION - WATER/OIL RESERVOIR
Pressure vs Depth - Mixed case
Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
950

1000
1050
1100
1150
Reference Depth
1200
119.7 bars
1250
Mixed case

DEPTH CORRECTION - SYNTHESIS
Pressure vs Depth - Synthesis
Pressure (bars)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
950

1000
Pressure (bars) @ 1200 mv/MSL

Gas case 105,9
1050
Oil case 116,7
Mixed case 119,7
Water case 121,6
1100
1150
Reference Depth 121.6 bars

1200
105.9 bars 116.7 bars 119.7 bars
1250
Gas case Oil case Mixed case Water case

MESSAGES
● Gauge depth is rarely at the same depth compare to your reservoir

reference depth
- Check the height difference between gauge depth & reference depth
● Questions to be asked:
- Do I know the fluid at gauge depth ?
- Do I know the fluid between gauge and top perforations ?
- Do I know the reservoir fluid in well area ?
- What is the Water Cut of the well when flowing ?
- How many bars difference whether I use oil or water gradient in the
extrapolation?
● Depending on height difference between gauge & reference depth,
difference of fluid contents in the well and in the reservoir may lead to
several bars difference during pressure extrapolation step.
Try to give a pressure estimate with uncertainties

WBHP DEFINITION IN ECLIPSE
BEST PRACTICE: to minimise WBHP correction

 need to have the well datum (welspecs item 5) at the top-most connected cell level (Default Eclipse)
 friction is taken into account in the well bore head term only when using WFRIC or MSW options

DEPTH CORRECTIONS – WBHP
What is done by the monitoring team?
• often, the measured pressure is transformed from the gauge depth to a

common datum for a set of wells
• using an estimated fluid density which is probably different from the one
computed by Eclipse
• if this Zdatum - given in item 5 WELSPECS – is quite different from the
perforations depths of the well, you may get a significant difference in
pressure at datum even if the pressures at perforation level are similar
Recommendation*: transform the P at “subsidiary datum” into a

pressure at well datum (default = top-most connection) using the
“subsidiary density”
* But can be different according the context

DATUM
Mean gradient
Mean gradient Used by Eclipse
Used by monitoring team
Gauge depth
perfs

DEPTH CORRECTIONS – WBP, WBP9
What does Eclipse with the simulated reservoir pressures?

• by default, the average pressures are corrected to the well’s reference
depth (item 5 of WELSPECS) by applying a hydrostatic head using the well
bore density
• this correction may be different from the one applied at the observed
pressure r = 0 when the well is shut  some discontinuity in the reported
WBP
What can you modify?

• WPAVEDEP provides a specific datum for WBP, WBP9 which may be
different from the one given in WELSPECS for WBHP.
• use a representative density for the fluid in the reservoir with “RES” in
item 3 of WPAVE

Wells : Pressures in Eclipse
It is very important to keep in mind the definitions of Pressures in Eclipse

RECOMMENDATIONS
For accurate calculation of bottom-hole pressure in a shut-in well:
The datum depth of the well should be closed to the top-most

connection (it is recommended to set it explicitly in WELSPECS
item 5).
If this is not possible, the Multi-Segmented Well option should be

used with the drift-flux model or, better, with pre-computed VFP
(including negative rates)
Using WBP with the RES option may give a reasonable estimate
of the bottom-hole (gauge) pressure but can be erroneous in
certain circumstances

AGENDA
Workflow reminder


STATIC PRESSURES FROM THE MONITORING TEAM CAN BE
Measured pressure from MDT in new wells

• used to match communication between layers or panels
Interpreted from a well test

• Computed from material balance with some assumption on the
drainage area  use them as “qualitative” data
• If the actual data of the test are available, it ‘s better to use
them and handle them as explained in following slides

USE OF BU MEASURED PRESSURES
The aim, here, is not to interpret well tests by numerical simulations; but to match the
history of observed pressures, including those monitored during Build-Up
It is recommended to compare the simulated pressures to the observed pressure at the

end of the shut-in period
Shall we simulate the shut-in or may we compare those BU pressures to WBP9?
If we have to simulate the BU

• Need for LGR?
• Which time step?
Is WBP9 representative of the “static pressure” in any case?
WPAVE parameters

WORKFLOW
Simulate the PBU and plot WBP and WBHP

• In low permeability cases or short BU, it may be useful to use LGRs and small time
steps after the shut-in (eg: 1st Dt = 0.05 day; Dtmax = 0.5 day)
• Compare the DP resulting from the PBU to the observed one
Run the simulation without shutting the well (in that case use averaged flow
rate or WEFAC). Plot WBP9/RPPO
Compare WBP9 (without shutting the well) to WBHP (shutting the well)
• Possibly change the parameters of WPAVE to improve the match of WBP9 or use
RPPO/G of region deduced from streamline analysis – see Wednesday).
If the comparison is good (a few bars difference is acceptable), for the

following runs, you may avoid simulating the BU and compare directly
WBP9 to the observed “static pressure”
Make sure rates with and without PBU simulation are correct !

COMPARISON OF THE CASES WITH AND WITHOUT SHUT-
IN OF THE WELL
K = 1000 md
Reference solution
Obs. Would be
here
We can compare WBP9 simulated without shutting the well to the pressure
observed at the end of the BU
We see that WBP9 will be 2 - 3 bars lower than the measure
To be checked on key wells and at different key date. – Be aware that conclusion
can be changed if connectivities drastically are modified
Comparison of the cases with and without shut-in of the well
K = 10 md
“Obs” after
* 4 days of shut-in
* 15 days of shut-in
If the BU is long enough, we may compare WBP9 simulated without shut-in

to the observed pressure at the end of BU (3 bars difference ).
If the BU is too short  it must be simulated

EXAMPLE OF WELL TEST SIMULATED – YADANA HM – 2012
•Pressure measured data

•Gas flow rate measured / simulated
•WBHP
•WBP9
8 psi

AGENDA
Workflow reminder

• use of voidage rate
• match energy and communication between flow units
• influent parameters

STEP IV - USE OF VOIDAGE RATE - RESV CONTROL
● Performed controlling wells with reservoir voidage rate (RESV) to

ensure that the actual material is accurately balanced even if the
Wcut, GOR are not correct
The model acts as a material balance problem:

Qvoidage = Qws Bw(P) + Qos Bo(P) + [ Qgs - Rs(P) Qos] Bg(P) ]
calculated by Eclipse from input surface rates & the average

(WCONHIST
WCONHIST; RESV) pressure of one region
(stated in WELSPECS)
P = FPR by default (can be changed by item 13 of WELSPECS*

WELSPECS*)

STEP IV - WCONHIST
WCONHIST
-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-- name status control Qos Qws Qgs VFP Qgl THPobs BHPobs
‘P1’ ‘OPEN’ ‘RESV’ 255 15 1000 0 1* 1* 150 /
2: choice between ‘OPEN’ (default), ‘SHUT’ and ‘STOP’ (which allows cross-flow)
3: choice between ‘ORAT’ ‘WRAT’ ‘GRAT’ LRAT’ ‘RESV’
4,5,6: surface observed rates used to calculate the control defined in item 3 or to be compared to
calculated rates in Office (ex: WWCT versus WWCTH)
7: n° of VFP table if the calculation of the well head pressure is required; 0 if not
9: observed value copied in the .UNSMRY file (WTHPH) to be compared to the calculated value
10: observed value copied in the .UNSMRY file (WBHPH) to be compared to the calculated value

STEP IV - RESV VS ORAT CONTROL MODE
Light dotted = RESV

Dark plain = ORAT

ITEM 13 OF WELSPECS MUST BE SPECIFIED WHEN THE
PRESSURE BEHAVIOR IS HETEROGENEOUS AT FIELD LEVEL
Only Reservoir 1 is developped;

Pdatum reservoir 2 is being varied
If we use the default in item 13 of
WELSPECS, Pressure of Reservoir 2
impacts WOPR produced by Res 1

RESV CALCULATION – EXAMPLE NKOSSA
● History-match control mode: RESV

● By default, RESV calculated from surface volumes using FPR.
Implementation of regions around each well => RESV calculated using the regions
pressures (Item 13 of WELSPECS).
See Streamline on
Wednesday Morning
RESV CALCULATION - EXAMPLE NKOSSA – HM 2011
Centre: produced reservoir volumes (Rm3/d) NKF2-01 pressure (WBP9)
RESV calculated from FPR

RESV calculated from wells regions
South: produced reservoir volumes (Rm3/d) NKF2-19 pressure (WBP9)

STEP IV - GUIDELINES
Use the information from

Dynamic synthesis • Regions, flow units, communications
Recreate the global pressure • (shift constant between measurements and

evolution simulation) on the whole field or by flow unit
Check that flowing BHP are

consistent with the well rates • If not  problems with injectivity/productivity or
both for producers and even overall K
injectors.
“Pressure” matching and • Look also at Wcut/GOR as an indicator of inter-

“saturation” matching are not
completely disconnected wells connectivity
Check also PLTs

• The repartition of rates between flow units must
be correct both for producers and injectors

LACK OF INJECTIVITY
 production data
COB-107U (injector, Pac/Buf)
initial model
Cumulated injected water Pressure
BHP
Too small II,
Limited BHP
Injected water rate

PRELIMINARY QUANTIFICATION OF GAS INJECTION SPLIT
The Problem: liners in gas injectors

are not cimented => where is the gas
flowing to? Main objective is determine the split of gas injection by
sequence but also:
- Discriminate the contribution of any producer
- Evaluate the impact of rock compressibility
Stage 1: MBAL model - Evaluate the impact of vertical transmissibility
- MBAL run in HM mode

- One single Gas injector
- Split is imposed
Stage 2: Discriminate S0
106 116 117 105 injectors using PLT and S1
S0 MAYBE PARTLY PARTLY
tracers data to draw a first
starting picture
S1 MAYBE ONLY ONLY MAINLY Estimated
2-11 S2
S2 MAYBE MAYBE R4B Cumulative
X-flow: 0.6
S3/S4 MAINLY MAYBE Gsm3
S3-4
Gas injection rate allocation input data
Current model 31/07/2003
FU1 C b&c
0
FU1 C d&e
0.02
FU2
0.8
FU3C
0.02
FU3 W
0.01
FU4
0.15
01/01/2004 0 0.02 0.8 0.02 0.01 0.15
30/04/2004 0 0.02 0.65 0.12 0.02 0.19
01/01/2005 0 0.08 0.6 0.13 0 0.19
01/01/2006 0 0.1 0.54 0.13 0 0.23
01/01/2007 0 0.1 0.54 0.13 0 0.23

GAS INJECTION CONTROL IN ECLIPSE
Split of gas injection rate per sequence (best run)
Gas injectors are perforated all along their trajectory
Perforated layers in a given injector and belonging to the

same sub sequence are lumped S1
WPIMULT coefficients (constant in time) are applied to
lumped completion to control the split by subsequence S34
of a given gas injection rate in a given gas injector
S2
Cross-flows are important S0
Eclipse connection factors by injector by subsequence

X-flow in 1-6 modelized in Eclipse (best run)
from to Stacked Layers Layers '1-5' '1-16' '1-17' '1-6' '1-38'
H4 R4a 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R4a R4a1 4 2-5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R4a1 R4a2 2 6-7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R4a2 S0 1 8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S0 S0a fua 3 9-11 0.000 0.005 1.835 7.045 1.454
S0a S0b fub 4 12-15 6.327 0.000 3.323 0.108 0.122
S0 S0b
S0c
S0c
S0d
fuc
fud
4
3
16-19
20-22
0.543
0.000
0.018
0.057
0.067
0.131
0.004
0.034
0.000
0.006
S0d S1 fue 4 23-26 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S1 S1a 4 27-30 1.001 0.982 21.567 15.913 18.008 1-38 gas injected in
S1
S1a S1b 4 31-34 120.125 202.502 85.964 40.726 48.901
S1b S1c 4 35-38 234.321 104.677 268.279 30.502 44.099 S1 & S2 through 1-6
S1c S1d 2 39-40 18.117 17.315 57.777 15.281 24.039
S1d S2 2 41-42 0.703 0.291 0.227 0.014 0.002
S2 S2a 3 43-45 18.218 1.803 10.374 0.032 0.019
S2a S2b 3 46-48 46.236 90.806 105.726 35.886 40.958
S2 S2b
S2c
S2c
S2d
3
3
49-51
52-54
96.596
119.284
127.832
59.435
3.211
60.544
0.072
21.374
24.465
59.551
S2d S3 3 55-57 0.000 0.227 0.000 89.607 90.601
S3 S3a 3 58-60 0.000 0.000 0.000 480.527 235.094
S3a S3b 3 61-63 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.183 468.566
S34
S3b S3c 3 64-66 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S3c S4 3 67-69 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S4 S4a 5 70-74 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S4a S5 5 75-79 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 S1 gas flowing
SOMME 661.471 605.950 619.025 813.308 1055.885
through 1-6
Layers '1-5' '1-16' '1-17' '1-6' '1-38'
S0 9-11 0.000 0.005 1.835 7.045 1.454
S0ab 12-19 6.870 0.018 3.390 0.112 0.122
S0cd 20-26 0.000 0.057 0.131 0.034 0.006
S1 27-42 374.267 325.767 433.814 102.436 135.049
S2 43-57 280.334 280.103 179.855 146.971 215.594
S34 58-79 0.000 0.000 0.000 556.710 703.660

Présentation de l’étude VDG Amenam à la 1/2 journée Réservoir du 19 mars 2010
MATCHING PARAMETERS
type of pore compressibility aquifer injection mobility permeability
parameter volume
model F, Hu Cp Re/Ri fracturing Kr Kx, Ky, Kz
parameter geometrical Co, Cw, Cg HF Qinj m Tx, Ty, Tz
volumes dRs/dP KH
main dP/dt dP/dt dP/dt dP/dt dP/dX dP/dX, dP/dZ
effect
remarks changes if PVT main uncertain little main
accumulations unreliable parameter Qinj used parameter

AQUIFER MODELLING
Objective: match the observed depletion dP/dt by adjusting

the aquifer inflow
Parameters to tune
• aquifer size & capacity (Re/Ri; Hf)
• aquifer power (Kh)
• aquifer compressibility
• As a first guess use parameters determined by a MBAL study
Without any clue, for the first run use Re/Ri =  (= table # 1 of
Ecl)
• If pressure is too low use a constant pressure limit (TRANSA)
• If pressure is too large  decrease Re/Ri

RE/RI INFLUENCE
K=300mD & φ=0.25
300
TRANSA
250
1,5
3
200 6
8
Inf 10
Table 1
BARSA 150 8
100 TRANSF
• if no information about the

50
extension, start by infinite re/ri 3
1,5
• if pressures are not stabilised No Aquifer
0
enough 0compared 500 to the
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
CLOSED
observations, shift to constant TEMPS (JOUR)
pressure limit (TRANSA)
• in TRANSA-type, the lower the Re/Ri,
the shorter the transient effect & the
faster2013
SDR advanced the pressure
- History matchingstabilisation - 44 -
MATCH PRESSURE GRADIENTS AT A GIVEN TIME
Use Darcy’s law

• Q = K* kr/m*DP
sensitive parameters
• permeabilities (region) or transmissivities (interface)

• mobility kr/m
• PI per layer (because impact on splitting of Q between layers)

CHANGING K OR T ?
Beware! K of layer k is used to compute k  k+1 Transmissivity, but

also k  k-1 one
Multiplication factors MULTX, Y, Z, MULTFLT applied to the T values

allow to lower or increase flows between the layers, or between panels
• use them to match intra reservoir communication
MULTIPLY applied to the K arrays allow to decrease or increase the

productivity of a well, the communication between a source (aquifer,
injector) and a sink. They are used in regions defined by boxes,
FLUXNUM/MULTNUM

RFT AMKP2-39 22/06/2008 RFT AMKP1-37 11/01/2008
Initial gradient
Initial gradient
Measured data
Measured data
Ecl model S0 Ecl model
S0
S1
S1
S2 S2
S34
S34
Pressure trends and vertical disconnections well reproduced, sequence by sequence
Pressure mismatch is low (max. 3 bars on last drilled wells)

EXAMPLE OF PLOT TO ANALYSE PRESSURE GRADIENTS
PRESSURE OBSERVATIONS OF JAFRA
210 b
194 b
190 b 188 b
210 b 192 b 190 b
190 b 184 b
204 b
# constant pressure gradient at the East of the fault 62

homogeneous pressure at the West of this fault
pressure drop # 15 bar through this fault
pressure higher on JAF 507 - effect of the fault 35
RFT homogeneous  no horizontal barrier

DON’T FORGET CORRELATION BETWEEN PARAMETERS
beware of K changing
• update wells COMPDAT if necessary (CF = column 8 given explicitly)

• update F if laws F-K
beware of petrophysical parameters changing
• update Swi if K, F function

• update RT n° if RT defined by K, F ranges

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RESERVOIR PRESSURE MATCH
« Static pressures »
• Check what does represent the observed Ps
• Is WBP9 representative of these Ps?
Ensure the
• If not, use consistency
RPPO of wells
(specifying a DATUMR) datum between observations and
simulation
Control wells history rates in RESV
Optimize the data to get CPU less than a working day
Matching reservoir pressures = matching the energy
RFT data and PLTs are key observations to match
Match first on a region/flow units basis and then on a well basis
Spend enough time for the results analysis : plots and 3D-Viewer
Try keeping the geological consistency (correlation, modification on
geological bodies instead “boxes”)

BACK-UP
© Laurent Pascal/Total
REMINDERS: DEFINITION OF WBP, WBHP
r0=0.1982* DX
analytic solution
(if isotropic
WBP Numerical square block)
solution
WBHP
well half-block

PARAMETERS OF WPAVE
For quite homogeneous case, with well datum at the connections

 low impact
In more general cases, to compute the averaged pressure, use:

• WPAVE
• ‘F1’ ‘F2’ RES ALL /
Choice of F1 and F2 are case dependent; make some tests

• F1: weighting factor for WBP9, inner/outer cells
• F2: Weighting factor between CF (1) and PV (0) average

Matching of Pressure

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Matching of Pressure

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SDR TRAINING COURSE 2013

History Matching Pressure match

Different kind of pressure observations

Strategy and rules for matching the pressures

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -2-

POSSIBLY DST MATCH PRIOR GEOLOGICAL MODEL UPDATE

SIMULATION RUNS MODIFICATION OF

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -3-

III - Defining criteria and • Match quality

IV - DST match • First real Quality Control

• RFT data, static (shut-in) BHP

V - “Saturation matching” • Act on the parameters of the transport equation.

VI - Productivity matching • BHP, THP and network pressures

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -4-

• Importance to test the different systems of energy per dynamical sector

• « quick » history match on dynamic data with material balance

Tank Pressure • 16 uncertain parameters screened Pareto on Region 7

Test the different systems of energy as soon as possible

Different kind of pressure observations

Strategy and rules for matching the pressures

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -6-

RFT, MDT pressure

pressure during shut-in (BU)

flowing pressure compared to WBHP

Tubing head pressure, networks pressure compared to WTHP

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -7-

Different kind of pressure observations

Strategy and rules for matching the pressures

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching -9-

 Pres @ Gauge_depth = 100 bars Gauge Depth

Calculate reservoir pressure at the 1050

True Vertical Depth (mV)

 Gas density = 0.3 g/cm3

 Water bearing case

Comment the pressure differences @ reference Depth

Which reservoir pressure should I use for reservoir simulation ?

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 10 -

100 bars Gauge Depth

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 11 -

100 bars Gauge Depth

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 12 -

100 bars Gauge Depth

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 13 -

100 bars Gauge Depth

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 14 -

100 bars Gauge Depth

Pressure (bars) @ 1200 mv/MSL

Reference Depth 121.6 bars

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 15 -

● Gauge depth is rarely at the same depth compare to your reservoir

Try to give a pressure estimate with uncertainties

BEST PRACTICE: to minimise WBHP correction

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 17 -

What is done by the monitoring team?

• often, the measured pressure is transformed from the gauge depth to a

Recommendation*: transform the P at “subsidiary datum” into a

* But can be different according the context

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 19 -

What does Eclipse with the simulated reservoir pressures?

What can you modify?

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 20 -

It is very important to keep in mind the definitions of Pressures in Eclipse

SDR advanced 2013 - History matching - 21 -

For accurate calculation of bottom-hole pressure in a shut-in well: