1887

Abstract

Summary

Data-space inversion (DSI) methods provide posterior (history-matched) predictions for quantities of interest, along with uncertainty quantification, without constructing posterior models. Rather, predictions are generated directly from a large set of prior-model simulations and observed data. In this work we develop a data-space inversion with variable controls (DSIVC) procedure that enables forecasting with user-specified well controls in the prediction period. In DSIVC, flow simulations on all prior realizations, with randomly sampled well controls, are first performed. User-specified controls are treated as additional observations to be matched in posterior predictions. Posterior data samples are generated using a randomized maximum likelihood procedure, with some algorithmic treatments applied to improve performance. Results are presented for a channelized system. For any well control specification, posterior predictions can be generated in seconds or minutes. Posterior predictions from DSIVC are compared to reference DSI results. DSI requires prior models to be resimulated using the specified controls, while DSIVC requires only one set of prior simulations. Substantial uncertainty reduction is achieved through data-space inversion, and reasonable agreement between DSIVC and DSI results is consistently observed. DSIVC is applied for data assimilation combined with production optimization under uncertainty, and clear improvement in the objective function is attained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802227
2018-09-03
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aitokhuehi, I. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2005] Optimizing the performance of smart wells in complex reservoirs using continuously updated geological models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 48(3–4), 254–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Audet, C. and Dennis, J.E.Jr
    [2006] Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 17(1), 188–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brouwer, D.R. and Jansen, J.D.
    [2004] Dynamic optimization of waterflooding with smart wells using optimal control theory. SPEJournal, 9(04), 391–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gao, G., Zafari, M. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2005] Quantifying uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 problem in a Bayesian setting with RML and EnKF. Paper SPE-93324-MS, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 31 January-2 Feburary.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jansen, J.D., Brouwer, D.R. and Douma, S.G.
    [2009] Closed loop reservoir management. Paper SPE-119098-MS, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 2–4 February.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jansen, J.D., Brouwer, D.R., Naevdal, G. and Van Kruijsdijk, C.
    [2005] Closed-loop reservoir management.First Break, 23(1), 43–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jiang, S.
    [2018] Data-space inversion with variable well controls in the prediction period. Master’s thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Le Digabel, S.
    [2011] Algorithm 909: NOMAD: Nonlinear optimization with the MADS algorithm. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 37(4), 44.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Oliver, D.S. and Chen, Y.
    [2011] Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review. ComputationalGeosciences, 15(1), 185–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Liu, N.
    [2008] Inverse Theory ƒor Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Sarma, P., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K. and Chen, W.H.
    [2006] Efficient real-time reservoir management using adjoint-based optimal control and model updating.Computational Geosciences, 10(1), 3–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Satija, A. and Caers, J.
    [2015] Direct forecasting of subsurface flow response from non-linear dynamic data by linear least-squares in canonical functional principal component space.Advances in Water Resources, 77, 69–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Satija, A., Scheidt, C., Li, L. and Caers, J.
    [2017] Direct forecasting of reservoir performance using production data without history matching.Computational Geosciences, 21(2), 315–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Scheidt, C., Renard, P. and Caers, J.
    [2015] Prediction-focused subsurface modeling: investigating the need for accuracy in flow-based inverse modeling.Mathematical Geosciences, 47(2), 173–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sun, W. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2017] A new data-space inversion procedure for efficient uncertainty quantification in subsurface flow problems.Mathematical Geosciences, 49(6), 679–715.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sun, W., Hui, M.H. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2017] Production forecasting and uncertainty quantification for naturally fractured reservoirs using a new data-space inversion procedure.Computational Geo-sciences, 21(5-6), 1443–1458.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Tarantola, A.
    [2005] Inverse Problem Theory and Methods ƒor Model Parameter Estimation.SIAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Wang, C., Li, G. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2009] Production optimization in closed-loop reservoir management. SPE Journal, 14(03), 506–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhou, Y.
    [2012] Parallel General-purpose Reservoir Simulation with Coupled Reservoir Models and Multisegment Wells. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802227
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802227
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error