zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Efficient uncertainty quantification of reservoir properties for parameter estimation and production forecasting. (English) Zbl 1429.86012
Summary: Three levels of uncertainty and their impact on reservoir estimation and forecasting are examined: (1) definition of reservoir facies geometry derived from uncertain geologic and geophysical information; (2) non-uniqueness of identifying the permeability distribution through inverse parameter estimation using injection and production data; and (3) unknown, fine-scale spatial variation in the heterogeneous rock properties. Inverse parameter estimation with pilot points and kriging is used to create accurate estimates of the permeability field. Efficient sampling of the uncertainty space surrounding these estimates through both probability-field (p-field) simulation and sequential Gaussian simulation (sGs) is demonstrated using a test case reservoir with permeability dominated by a sand-shale, facies distribution. A geologic conceptual model, measured permeabilities at the wells and 2100 days of injection and production data are used to estimate the permeability distribution and create empirical prediction intervals for future production. Diversity of the estimated and sampled fields across all three levels of uncertainty is examined through multi-dimensional scaling. Sampled permeability fields provide precise and accurate parameter estimation from injection and production data. The sGs fields create a wider prediction interval and underestimate the true production rates relative to the p-field samples. For a given estimated variogram model, the p-field samples result in shorter ranges and lower nugget values relative to the sGs fields. Conditional sampling through p-field and sGs simulation provides greater diversity in the solution space than the parameter estimation alone for a fraction of the computational expense.
86A32 Geostatistics
Full Text: DOI
[1] Basu S, Das A, De Paola G, Echeverría Ciaurri D, Embid Droz S, Ibañez Llano C, Ocheltree K, Rodríguez Torrado R (2016) Multi-start method for reservoir model uncertainty quantification with application to robust decision-making. In: Paper IPTC 18711 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, November 14-16
[2] Bissell RC, Dubrule O, Lamy P, Swaby R, Lepine O (1997) Combining geostatistical modelling with gradient information for history matching: the pilot point method. In: SPE- 3873
[3] Borg, I.; Groenen, Pjf, Modern multidimensional scaling (2005), New York: Springer, New York
[4] Cao H (2002) Development of techniques for general purpose research simulator. PhD thesis, Stanford University
[5] Carbonetto P (2013) A MATLAB interface for L-BFGS-B. https://github.com/pcarbo/lbfgsb-matlab. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
[6] Cuypers M, Dubrule O, Lamy P, Bissell R (1998) Optimal choice of inversion parameters for history-matching with the pilot method. In: Proceedings: ECMOR VI—6th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
[7] De Marsily, G., Spatial variability of properties in porous media: a stochastic approach, Fundam Transp Phenom Porous Med, 82, 719-769 (1984)
[8] Deutsch, Cv; Journel, Ag, GSLIB: geostatistical software library and user’s guide, 369 (1998), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford
[9] Deutsch, Cv; Tran, Tt, A program for object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems, Comput Geosci, 28, 525-535 (2002)
[10] Floris F (1996) Direct conditioning of Gaussian random fields to dynamic production data. In: Leoben A (ed) Proceedings of 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (ECMOR V), pp 3-6
[11] Floris, Fjt; Bush, Md; Cuypers, M.; Roggero, F.; Syverseen, A-R, Methods for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: a comparative study, Pet Geosci, 7, S87-S96 (2001)
[12] Gomez-Hernandez, Jj; Srivastava, Rm, ISIM3D: an ANSI-C three-dimensional multiple indicator conditional simulation program, Comput Geosci, 16, 4, 395-440 (1990)
[13] Goovaerts, P., Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation, 483 (1997), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford
[14] Gower, Jc, Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate data analysis, Biometrika, 53, 315-328 (1966) · Zbl 0192.26003
[15] Hutahaean JJ, Demyanow V, Christie MA (2015) Impact of model parameterisation and objective choices on assisted history matching and reservoir forecasting. In: SPE-1763
[16] Isaaks, Eh; Srivastava, Rm, An introduction to applied geostatistics (1989), New York: Oxford University Press, New York
[17] Jafarpour, B.; Goyal, Vk; Freeman, Dbmwt, Compressed history matching: exploiting transform-domain sparsity for regularization of nonlinear dynamic data integration problems, Math Geosci, 42, 1, 1-27 (2010) · Zbl 1185.94011
[18] Jiang Y (2007) Techniques for modelling complex reservoirs and advanced wells. PhD thesis, Stanford University
[19] Journel, Ag, The theoretical links between sequential gaussian simulation, gaussian truncated simulation, and probability field simulation, Math Geol, 33, 1, 31-40 (2001) · Zbl 1010.86011
[20] Lantuéjoul, C., Geostatistical simulation: models and algorithms, 259 (2002), Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg · Zbl 0990.86007
[21] Lee J, Mukerji T (2012) The Stanford VI-E reservoir: a synthetic data set for joint seismic-EM time-lapse monitoring algorithms. 25th Annual report: technical report, Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting
[22] Mariethoz, G.; Renard, P.; Straubhaar, J., The direct sampling method to perform multiple-point geostatistical simulations, Water Resour Res, 46, 13 (2010)
[23] Morales, Jl; Nocedal, J., Remark on “Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound constrained optimization”, ACM Trans Math Softw, 38, 1 (2011) · Zbl 1365.65164
[24] Pyrcz, M.; Deutsch, Cv, Two artifacts of probability field simulation, Math Geosci, 33, 7, 775-799 (2001) · Zbl 1010.86015
[25] Ramarao, Banda S.; Lavenue, A. Marsh; De Marsily, Ghislain; Marietta, Melvin G., Pilot Point Methodology for Automated Calibration of an Ensemble of conditionally Simulated Transmissivity Fields: 1. Theory and Computational Experiments, Water Resources Research, 31, 3, 475-493 (1995)
[26] Rasmussen, Ce; Williams, Cki, Gaussian processes for machine learning (2006), Cambridge: MIT Press, Cambridge
[27] Ray, J.; Mckenna, Sa; Van Bloemen, Waanders B.; Marzouk, Ym, Bayesian reconstruction of binary media with unresolved fine-scale spatial structures, Adv Water Resour, 44, 1-19 (2012)
[28] Ren, W.; Mclennan, Ja; Leuangthong, O.; Deutsch, Cv, Reservoir characterization of McMurray Formation by 2D geostatistical modeling, Nat Resour Res, 15, 2, 111-117 (2006)
[29] Scheidt, C.; Caers, J., Representing spatial uncertainty using distances and kernels, Math Geosci, 41, 397-419 (2009) · Zbl 1163.86317
[30] Srivastava RM (1992) Reservoir characterization with probability field simulation. In: SPE-2475
[31] MATLAB and statistics toolbox release 2016a (2016), Natick, Massachusetts, United States: The MathWorks Inc, Natick, Massachusetts, United States
[32] Tonkin M, Doherty J (2009) Calibration-constrained Monte Carlo analysis of highly parameterized models using subspace techniques. Water Resour Res 45:W00B10. 10.1029/2007WR006678
[33] Torgerson, Ws, Theory and methods of scaling (1958), New York: Wiley, New York
[34] Van Der Maaten, L.; Postma, E.; Van Den Herik, J., Dimensionality reduction: a comparative review, J Mach, 10, 66-71 (2009)
[35] Yadav S, Srinivasan S, Bryant SL, Barrera A (2005) History matching using probabilistic approach in a distributed computing environment. In: SPE 93399
[36] Yoon, H.; Hart, Db; Mckenna, Sa, Parameter estimation and predictive uncertainty in stochastic inverse modeling of groundwater flow: comparing null-space Monte Carlo and multiple starting point methods, Water Resour Res, 49, 1, 536-553 (2013)
[37] Zhou Y (2012) Parallel general-purpose reservoir simulation with coupled reservoir models and multi-segment wells. PhD thesis, Stanford University
[38] Zhu, C.; Byrd, Rh; Lu, P.; Nocedal, J., Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization, ACM Trans Math, 23, 4, 550-560 (1997) · Zbl 0912.65057
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.