IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,561,500
Granted Patent B2
US 12,561,500 · App. 17/327,021 · Granted Feb 24, 2026

History-matching methodology that minimizes non-uniqueness problem and ensure smooth transition from history to prediction

Inventor: Babatope Kayode (Al Khobar, SA)
Assignee: Saudi Arabian Oil Company
G06F30/28E21B49/087E21B2200/20G06F2111/10G06F2113/08
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,561,500
App. No.
17/327,021
Granted
Feb 24, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems and methods include a computer-implemented method for predicting values. A numerical simulation model is generated based on observed production rates and flowing pressure and build-up (FPBU) test rates. A simulated diagnostic plot is generated using simulated FPBU data extracted from the numerical simulation model. Simulation model properties of the numerical simulation model are adjusted until the simulated diagnostic plot matches within a tolerance to an observed FPBU diagnostic plot. Predicted values including a static pressure, a water cut, and a gas-oil rate (GOR) are predicted using the simulated FPBU data. Observed data of a reservoir is reviewed and quality-checked based on comparing the predicted values within a tolerance of the observed data.

Claims (49)

1 . A computer-implemented method, comprising:

receiving, from a gauge lowered into a well and positioned by a perforation of the well, measured production rates and a pressure transient survey comprising a flowing pressure and build-up (FPBU) test rates, the FPBU test rates comprising a build-up pressure derivative;

generating a numerical simulation model based on cored data and logs, the numerical simulation model being constrained to the measured production rates and the pressure transient survey;

generating, using simulated FPBU data extracted from the numerical simulation model, a simulated diagnostic plot;

determining missing well events comprising missing production data within the measured production rates;

adjusting simulation model properties of the numerical simulation model until the simulated diagnostic plot matches within a tolerance to a measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprising the FPBU test rates to calibrate an aquifer strength, wherein the simulation model properties comprise an aquifer support, a wellbore skin, and a reservoir permeability and wherein the numerical simulation model captures relevant well events comprising depletion and injection;

calibrating inter-well grid-blocks of the numerical simulation model within each connected reservoir region minimizing a discontinuity at a history-forecast junction;

predicting, using the simulated FPBU data, predicted values comprising a static pressure, a water cut, and a gas-oil rate (GOR);

reviewing and quality-checking measured data of a reservoir based on a comparison of the predicted values within a tolerance of the measured production rates and the FPBU test rates; and

controlling one or more well operations based on the comparison.

2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the tolerance is defined as 5%.

3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a function of permeability.

4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a delta-pressure plot for fixing a value of a well productivity index.

5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a productivity index (PI) multiplier.

6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a PI multiplier and a rate constraint.

7 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a truth case forecast and a history-matched case forecast.

8 . A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:

receiving, from a gauge lowered into a well and positioned by a perforation of the well, measured production rates and a pressure transient survey comprising a flowing pressure and build-up (FPBU) test rates, the FPBU test rates comprising a build-up pressure derivative;

generating a numerical simulation model based on cored data and logs, the numerical simulation model being constrained to the measured production rates and the pressure transient survey;

generating, using simulated FPBU data extracted from the numerical simulation model, a simulated diagnostic plot;

determining missing well events comprising missing production data within the measured production rates;

adjusting simulation model properties of the numerical simulation model until the simulated diagnostic plot matches within a tolerance to a measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprising the FPBU test rates to calibrate an aquifer strength, wherein the simulation model properties comprise an aquifer support, a wellbore skin, and a reservoir permeability and wherein the numerical simulation model captures relevant well events comprising depletion and injection;

calibrating inter-well grid-blocks of the numerical simulation model within each connected reservoir region minimizing a discontinuity at a history-forecast junction;

predicting, using the simulated FPBU data, predicted values comprising a static pressure, a water cut, and a gas-oil rate (GOR);

reviewing and quality-checking measured data of a reservoir based on a comparison of the predicted values within a tolerance of the measured production rates and the FPBU test rates; and

controlling one or more well operations based on the comparison.

9 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the tolerance is defined as 5%.

10 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a function of permeability.

11 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a delta-pressure plot for fixing a value of a well productivity index.

12 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a productivity index (PI) multiplier.

13 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 12 wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a PI multiplier and a rate constraint.

14 . The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a truth case forecast and a history-matched case forecast.

15 . A computer-implemented system, comprising:

one or more processors; and

a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

receiving, from a gauge lowered into a well and positioned by a perforation of the well, measured production rates and a pressure transient survey comprising a flowing pressure and build-up (FPBU) test rates, the FPBU test rates comprising a build-up pressure derivative;

generating a numerical simulation model based on cored data and logs, the numerical simulation model being constrained to the measured production rates and the pressure transient survey;

generating, using simulated FPBU data extracted from the numerical simulation model, a simulated diagnostic plot;

determining missing well events comprising missing production data within the measured production rates;

adjusting simulation model properties of the numerical simulation model until the simulated diagnostic plot matches within a tolerance to a measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprising the FPBU test rates to calibrate an aquifer strength, wherein the simulation model properties comprise an aquifer support, a wellbore skin, and a reservoir permeability and wherein the numerical simulation model captures relevant well events comprising depletion and injection;

calibrating inter-well grid-blocks of the numerical simulation model within each connected reservoir region minimizing a discontinuity at a history-forecast junction;

predicting, using the simulated FPBU data, predicted values comprising a static pressure, a water cut, and a gas-oil rate (GOR);

reviewing and quality-checking measured data of a reservoir based on a comparison of the predicted values within a tolerance of the measured production rates and the FPBU test rates; and

controlling one or more well operations based on the comparison.

16 . The computer-implemented system of claim 15 , wherein the tolerance is defined as 5%.

17 . The computer-implemented system of claim 15 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a function of permeability.

18 . The computer-implemented system of claim 15 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot is a delta-pressure plot for fixing a value of a well productivity index.

19 . The computer-implemented system of claim 15 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a productivity index (PI) multiplier.

20 . The computer-implemented system of claim 19 , wherein the measured FPBU diagnostic plot comprises a plot for a history-matched pessimistic case plus a PI multiplier and a rate constraint.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 24, 2021
From: KAYODE, BABATOPE
To: SAUDI ARABIAN OIL COMPANY
Reel/Frame 056329/0374 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20220374571A1 · Nov 24, 2022
References Cited (50)
US 10359542B2 · Kayode et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10867248B1 · Sun et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20090070086A1 · Le Ravalec et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090119082A1 · Fitzpatrick et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090319180A1 · Robinson · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100286971A1 · Middya et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110040536A1 · Levitan · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20130073272A1 · Wallace et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140349268A1 · Tazerout et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140350906A1 · Killough et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20210018637A1 · Amin · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20220373711A1 · Weijers · 2022 [cited by examiner]
WO WO2011100009 · 2011 [cited by applicant]
Williams et al. “The Stratigraphic Method: A Structured Approach to History-Matching Complex Simulation Models” 1998 (Year: 1998). [cited by examiner]
Siu et al. “Efficient Approach for Well Calibration in Reservoir Simulation After a Successful History Match” 2000 (Year: 2000). [cited by examiner]
Rehman et al. “Role of EWT in Declaration of Commerciality & Field Development” 2010 (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Teng et al. “Well Testing by Design: Transient Modelling for Predicting Behaviour in Extreme Wells” 2006 (Year: 2006). [cited by examiner]
Liu et al. “Continuous Reservoir Simulation Model Updating and Forecasting Using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method” 2009 (Year: 2009). [cited by examiner]
Shchipanov et al. “Pressure Transient Analysis as an Element of Permanent Reservoir Monitoring” 2014 (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Anderson et al. “Formation pressure testing at the Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well, Alaska North Slope: Operational summary, history matching, and interpretations” 2011 (Year: 2011). [cited by examiner]
A. Z. Noah. Use repeat formation tester for determination of some reservoir characteristics for kareem formation in some wells at Amal Field, Gulf of Suez Area, Egypt. American Journal of Research Communication (Year: 2… [cited by examiner]
PetroWiki “Diagnostic plots” retrieved from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on Aug. 5, 2024 after being archived on Jan. 21, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210126183043/https://petrowiki.spe.org/Diagnostic_plo… [cited by examiner]
PetroWiki “Pressure transient testing” retrieved from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on Aug. 5, 2024 after being archived on Jan. 21, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210121015948/https://petrowiki.spe.org/Pres… [cited by examiner]
Ariadji et.al., “Reservoir Characterization Through Single-Well Numerical Simulation Study Using DST Matching for a Gas-Condensate Reservoir,” SPE-93218, presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition… [cited by applicant]
Chen et al., “A New Algorithm for Automatic History Matching,” SPE 4545, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Dec. 1974, 14(6), 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Clarkson et al., “Relative permeability of CBM reservoirs: Controls on curve shape,” International Journal of Coal Geology, Dec. 2011, 88(4):204-217. [cited by applicant]
Farzeen et.al, “History to forecast transition challenges in reservoir simulation of giant oilfields,” SPE 186051, presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, May 2017, 16 … [cited by applicant]
Greaser et al., “Use of Fine Gridding in Full Field Simulation,” SPE 29854, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, Mar. 1995, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Horne, “Listening to the Reservoir—Interpreting Data from Permanent Downhole Gauges,” (Slide Presentation), SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program 2009-2010; 17 pages. [cited by applicant]
Jackson et al., “An Integrated Approach to Interval Pressure Transient Test Analysis Using Analytical and Numerical Methods,” SPE 81515, SPE International, Middle East Oil Show, Jun. 9-12, 2003, Bahrain; 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kabir et al., “Experiences With Automated History Matching,” SPE 79670, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Feb. 3-5, 2003, Houston, TX; 13 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kayode et al., “Pressure conditioned modeling: application of time lapse shut in pressure data to map connected reservoir regions for conditions of 3D geomodel property distributions,” SPE-192204, presented at the SPE K… [cited by applicant]
Kayode et.al, “Advances in Transient Modelling: Conducting High Resolution Transient Modelling on Full-Field Coarse Simulation Models,” SPE-187992-MS, presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Sympos… [cited by applicant]
Kayode et.al., “Advances in Reservoir Modelling: A New Approach for building Robust Reservoir Models,” SPE-187993, presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Ar… [cited by applicant]
Landa et al., “A Procedure to Integrate Well Test Data, Reservoir Performance History and 4-D Seismic Information into a Reservoir Description,” SPE 38653, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 5-8, 1997,… [cited by applicant]
Little et al., “History Matching with Production Uncertainty Eases Transition into Prediction,” SPE-100206, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna Austria, Jun. 12-15, 2006, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Liu et al., “A Practical Approach to History-matching Large, Multi-well SAGD Simulation Models: A Mackay River Case Study,” SPE 165555, SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada, Jun. 11-13, 2013, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 11 pag… [cited by applicant]
Ludvigsen et al., “DST Matching and Interpretation through Numerical Well Testing on the Johan Sverdrup Field,” SPE-175088-MS, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Sep. 2015, … [cited by applicant]
Masumoto, “Pressure Derivative Matching Method for Two Phase Fluid Flow in Heterogeneous Reservoir,” SPE 59462, SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Apr. 25-26, 2000, Yokohama, Japan… [cited by applicant]
Mohmed et al., “History to Forecast Transition Challenges in Reservoir Simulation of Giant Oilfields,” SPE-186051-MS, presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, … [cited by applicant]
O'Sullivan et al., “State of the art geothermal reservoir simulation,” Geothermics, Aug. 2001, 30(4):395-429. [cited by applicant]
Sarac et al., “Integrated History Matching on Interference Well Test Data in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir with Automated Adjoint Gradient Based Inversion Technique,” SPE 181498, SPE International, SPE Annual Technica… [cited by applicant]
Siu et al., “Efficient Approach for Well Calibration in Reservoir Simulation After a Successful History Match,” SPE-59718, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, Mar. 2000, 4… [cited by applicant]
Teng et al., “Well Test by Design: Transient Modelling to Predict Behavior in Extreme Wells,” SPE 101872, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 11-13, 2006, Adelaide, Australia, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Tovar et al., “Improved Reservoir Description from Pressure Transients,” SPE 170719, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 27-29, 2014, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Verga et al., “An Effective Criterion to Prevent Injection Test Numerical Simulation from Spurious Oscillations,” Oil and Gas Science and Technology, Jan. 2014; 69(4):633-651. [cited by applicant]
Welty et al., “Automated History Matching Of Well Tests,” SPE 7695, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1979, Denver, CO, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zheng et al., “Geological Model Evaluation through Well Test Simulation: A Case Study from the Wytch Farm Oilfield, Southern England, ” Journal of Petroleum Geology, Jan. 2007, 30(1):41-58. [cited by applicant]
Ehlig-Economides, “Use of the Pressure Derivative for Diagnosing Pressure-Transient Behavior,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, Oct. 1988, 40(10):1280-1282, 3 pages. [cited by applicant]
SAIP Examination Report in Saudi Arabian Appln No. 122431074, dated Jan. 3, 2024, 15 pages (with English translation). [cited by applicant]