1887

Abstract

Summary

In the geosteering process, a local geomodel is continuously updated around the drill bit to guide the planning of the remaining well trajectory. It was shown that the ensemble-based data assimilation techniques were useful to perform the geomodel updating using directional resistivity data. In ensemble-based methods for parameter estimation, however, it is often assumed that the model error has zero mean and is uncorrelated in time. As a result, the model parameters will be over corrected when the model error has nonzero mean. There exist many studies on modeling and estimation of model error in state estimation problems using the ensemble-base methods. But very few studies have been on parameter estimation problems because it is often difficult to distinguish the effect of model error and the effect of poorly known model parameters.

In this study, we investigate techniques to correct bias from model errors when the ensemble-base methods are used for parameter estimation, i.e. estimation of the geomodel for geosteering. The model parameters to be estimated include the depth of the top reservoir surface and reservoir thickness. We consider model error due to the bias in the resistivity model and due to small scale heterogeneities that are below model resolution. We show that when the model error contributes significantly to the data mismatch, explicit estimation of model errors is necessary to obtain a reasonable estimate of the reservoir boundaries. Typically a state augmentation approach is effective for joint model error and model parameter estimation. When the number of data is much larger than the number of model error parameters, a weighted least square approach is also reliable for model error estimation. The weighted least square approach does not require a prior probabilistic model for the model error parameters, but requires explicit knowledge of the data sensitivity to the model error parameters. The performance of both approaches depends on the selection of the model error parameters.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141829
2014-09-08
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Chen, Y., Lorentzen, R.J. and Vefring, E.H.
    [2014] Optimization of well trajectory under uncertainty for proactive geosteering. SPE Journal, accepted.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. De Lannoy, G.J.M., Reichle, R.H., Houser, P.R., Pauwels, V.R.N. and Verhoest, N.E.C.
    [2007] Correcting for forecast bias in soil moisture assimilation with the ensemble Kalman filter. Water Resources Research, 43(9), n/a–n/a, ISSN 1944-7973, doi:10.1029/2006WR005449.
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005449 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dee, D.P.
    [2005] Bias and data assimilation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 131(613), 3323–3343, ISSN 1477-870X, doi:10.1256/qj.05.137.
    https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.137 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dee, D.P. and Da Silva, A.M.
    [1998] Data assimilation in the presence of forecast bias. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 124(545), 269–295, ISSN 1477-870X, doi:10.1002/qj.49712454512.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712454512 [Google Scholar]
  5. [1999] Maximum-likelihood estimation of forecast and observation error covariance parameters. part I: Methodology. Monthly Weather Review, 127(8), 1822–1834.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dee, D.P. and Todling, R.
    [2000] Data assimilation in the presence of forecast bias: The GEOS moisture analysis. Monthly Weather Review, 128(9), 3268–3282.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dee, D.
    [1995] On-line estimation of error covariance parameters for atmospheric data assimilation. Mon. Weather Rev., 123(4), 1128–1145.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Doucet, A., Godsill, S. and Andrieu, C.
    [2000] On sequential Monte Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian filtering. Statistics and Computing, 10(3), 197–208, ISSN 0960-3174, doi:10.1023/A:1008935410038.
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008935410038 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drecourt, J., Madsen, H. and Rosbjerg, D.
    [2006] Bias aware Kalman filters: Comparison and improvements. Advances in Water Resources, 29(5), 707–718, ISSN 0309-1708, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.006.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Erdal, D., Neuweiler, I. and Wollschläger, U.
    [2014] Using a bias aware EnKF to account for unresolved structure in an unsaturated zone model. Water Resources Research, 50(1), 132–147, ISSN 1944-7973, doi:10.1002/2012WR013443.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/2012WR013443 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evensen, G.
    [2003] The ensemble Kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean Dynamics, 53(4), 343–367, doi:10.1007/s10236‑003‑0036‑9.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0036-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Friedland, B.
    [1969] Treatment of bias in recursive filtering. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 14(4), 359–367, ISSN 0018-9286, doi:10.1109/TAC.1969.1099223.
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1969.1099223 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gillijns, S. and De Moor, B.
    [2007a] Model error estimation in ensemble data assimilation. Nonlinear processes in Geophysics, 14(1), 59–71, ISSN 1023-5809.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. [2007b] Unbiased minimum-variance input and state estimation for linear discrete-time systems. Automatica, 43(1), 111–116, ISSN 0005-1098, doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2006.08.002.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2006.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jazwinski, A.H.
    [1970] Stochastic processes and Filtering Theory. Academic Press, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalman, R.E.
    [1960] A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Transactions of the ASME, Journal ofBasic Engineering, 82(1), 35–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kitanidis, P.K.
    [1987] Unbiased minimum-variance linear state estimation. Automatica, 23(6), 775 – 778, ISSN 0005–1098, doi:10.1016/0005‑1098(87)90037‑9.
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(87)90037-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Liu, N.
    [2008] Inverse Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1st edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pauwels, V.R.N., De Lannoy, G.J.M., Hendricks Franssen, H.J. and Vereecken, H.
    [2013] Simultaneous estimation of model state variables and observation and forecast biases using a two-stage hybrid Kalman filter. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(9), 3499–3521, doi:10.5194/hess‑17‑3499‑2013.
    https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3499-2013 [Google Scholar]
  20. Reichle, R.H., McLaughlin, D.B. and Entekhabi, D.
    [2002] Hydrologic data assimilation with the ensemble Kalman filter. Mon. Weather Rev., 130(1), 103–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Zafari, M., Li, G. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2006] Iterative forms of the ensemble Kalman filter. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery —Amsterdam, A030.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zupanski, D. and Zupanski, M.
    [2006] Model error estimation employing ensemble data assimilation approach. Mon. Weather Rev., 134, 1354–.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141829
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141829
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