4.6 Article

Reservoir characterization using dynamic capacitance-resistance model with application to shut-in and horizontal wells

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13202-019-0655-4

关键词

Capacitance-resistance model; Reservoir characterization; History matching; Waterflood; Shut-in well; Horizontal well

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Capacitance-resistance model (CRM) is a nonlinear signal processing approach that provides information about interwell communication and reservoir heterogeneity. Several forms of CRM have been introduced; however, they would deliver erroneous model parameters if production history involves shut-in period. To address this issue, this study presents a dynamic capacitance-resistance model (D-CRMP), a comprehensive formulation that is capable of handling multiple shut-in periods in different producers. CRM model parameters are representative of the geological information. Accordingly, two geologically identical synthetic examples are used to validate D-CRMP; one including shut-in periods in historical production data of some producers and the other one with all continuously operating wells. Obtaining the same model parameters and the high quality of fitting in both cases proved the reliability of D-CRMP, which allows the utilization of historical data to characterize the reservoir behavior in real cases. Investigation of uncertainty on the fitted model parameters was also performed to demonstrate that confidence intervals are affected mostly by two aspects; permeability distribution and interwell distance. It is shown that though the confidence intervals in the heterogeneous fields are relatively higher than the homogeneous examples, higher permeability and lower producer-injector distance reduce the uncertainty of model parameters in both cases. This study also applies the proposed model in reservoirs with horizontal wells and further examines the impact of well direction and length of the productive interval on the connectivities between wells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据