4D seismic history matching
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Published version
Date
2021Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Original version
10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109119Abstract
Reservoir simulation models are used to forecast future reservoir behavior and to optimally manage reservoir production. These models require specification of hundreds of thousands of parameters, some of which may be determined from measurements along well paths, but the distance between wells can be large and the formations in which oil and gas are found are almost always heterogeneous with many geological complexities so many of the reservoir parameters are poorly constrained by well data. Additional constraints on the values of the parameters are provided by general geologic knowledge, and other constraints are provided by historical measurements of production and injection behavior. This type of information is often not sufficient to identify locations of either currently remaining oil, or to provide accurate forecasts where oil will remain at the end of project life. The repeated use of surface seismic surveys offers the promise of providing observations of locations of changes in physical properties between wells, thus reducing uncertainty in predictions of future reservoir behavior. Unfortunately, while methodologies for assimilation of 4D seismic data have demonstrated substantial value in synthetic model studies, the application to real fields has not been as successful. In this paper, we review the literature on 4D seismic history matching (SHM), focusing discussions on the aspects of the problem that make it more difficult than the more traditional production history matching. In particular, we discuss the possible choices for seismic attributes that can be used for comparison between observed or modeled attribute to determine the properties of the reservoir and the difficulty of estimating the magnitude of the noise or bias in the data. Depending on the level of matching, the bias may result from errors in the forward modeling, or errors in the inversion. Much of the practical literature has focused on methodologies for reducing the effect of bias or modeling error either through choice of attribute, or by appropriate weighting of data. Applications to field cases appear to have been at least partially successful, although quantitative assessment of the history matches and the improvements in forecast is difficult.