Well performance calibration after history matching a reservoir simulation model ensures that the wells give realistic rates during the prediction phase. The calibration involves adjusting well model parameters to match observed production rates at specified backpressure(s). This process is usually very time consuming such that the traditional approaches using one reservoir model with hundreds of high productivity wells would take months to calibrate. The application of uncertainty-centric workflows for reservoir modeling and history matching results in many acceptable matches for phase rates and flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP). This makes well calibration even more challenging for an ensemble of large number of simulation models, as the existing approaches are not scalable.
It is known that Productivity Index (PI) integrates reservoir and well performance where most of the pressure drop happens in one to two grid blocks around well depending upon the model resolution. A workflow has been setup to fix transition by calibrating PI for each well in a history matched simulation model. Simulation PI can be modified by changing permeability-thickness (Kh), skin, or by applying PI multiplier as a correction. For a history matched ensemble with a range in water-cut and gas-oil ratio, the proposed workflow involves running flowing gradient calculations for a well corresponding to observed THP and simulated rates for different phases to calculate target BHP. A PI Multiplier is then calculated for that well and model that would shift simulation BHP to target BHP as local update to reduce the extent of jump. An ensemble of history matched models with a range in water-cut and gas-oil ratio have a variation in required BHPs unique to each case. With the well calibration performed correctly, the jump observed in rates while switching from history to prediction can be eliminated or significantly reduced. The prediction thus results in reliable rates if wells are run on pressure control and reliable plateau if the wells are run on group control. This reduces the risk of under/over-predicting ultimate hydrocarbon recovery from field and the project's cashflow. Also, this allows running sensitivities to backpressure, tubing design, and other equipment constraints to optimize reservoir performance and facilities design. The proposed workflow, which dynamically couple reservoir simulation and well performance modeling, takes a few seconds to run for a well, making it fit-for-purpose for a large ensemble of simulation models with a large number of wells.
