1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. ECMOR XIV - 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Intelligent wells (I-wells) can provide a layer-by-layer production and injection control. The flow control flexibility relies on the real-time operation of multiple, downhole Interval Control Valves (ICVs) installed across the well completion intervals. Proactive control of I-wells, with its ambition of creating an optimal, operational strategy of ICVs for the full well lifetime, is a computationally demanding optimisation problem. Reservoir uncertainty adds an additional level of complexity related to the reliability of the reservoir model’s prediction. This, along with the large number of control variables involved in the proactive I-well control, make the traditional meta-heuristic optimisation approaches (e.g. Genetic Algorithms (GA)) inefficient.

A stochastic search algorithm based on the Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation (SPSA) is employed to solve the proactive, I-well control problem while a utility function approach is used to define the objective function to allow for the uncertainty in the reservoir’s description. The utility function accounts for both the expectation and variance of the Net Present Value (NPV) function while using the same control for the different reservoir model realisations. This approach to identifying a robust control strategy is an improvement compared with the traditional methods that rely on either a single realisation or on the mathematical expectation of the objective function.

The proposed robust optimisation framework is compared with the traditional methods on an uncertain reservoir model. It is found that the optimal control provided by ICVs inherently reduces the variance during the mean optimisation approach. The initial stages of optimisation when the control variables were far from the optimum value did not show conflicting behaviour when attempting to increase the mean and reduce the variance individually. However, conflict was observed between these two objectives during the later stages of optimisation as the optimum value of the augmented objective function is approached. A utility function approach is shown to be an efficient procedure for identifying the control scenario with the maximum expectation of added-value at an adjustable level of risk.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
2014-09-08
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alghareeb, Z., Horne, R. N., Yuen, B. B. W. & Shenawi, S. H.
    2009. Proactive Optimization of Oil Recovery in Multilateral Wells Using Real Time Production Data. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Almeida, L. F., Vellasco, M. M. B. R. & Pacheco, M. a. C.
    2010. Optimization system for valve control in intelligent wells under uncertainties. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 73, 129–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Asadollahi, M. & Naevdal, G.
    2009. Waterflooding Optimization Using Gradient Based Methods. SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brouwer, D. R. & Jansen, J.-D.
    2004. Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding With Smart Wells Using Optimal Control Theory. SPE Journal, 9, 391–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, W., Wiecek, M. M. & Zhang, J.
    1999. Quality Utility—A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 121, 179–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Do, S. & Reynolds, A.
    2013. Theoretical connections between optimization algorithms based on an approximate gradient. Computational Geosciences, 17, 959–973.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Essen, G. V., Hof, P. V. D. & Jansen, J.-D.
    2011. Hierarchical Long-Term and Short-Term Production Optimization. SPE Journal, 16, pp. 191–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Floris, F. J. T., Bush, M. D., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F. & Syversveen, A.-R.
    2001. Methods for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: a comparative study. Petroleum Geoscience, 7, S87–S96.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Forouzanfar, F., Li, G. & Reynolds, A. C.
    2010. A Two-Stage Well Placement Optimization Method Based on Adjoint Gradient. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Florence, Italy: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, G., Li, G. & Reynolds, A. C.
    2007. A Stochastic Optimization Algorithm for Automatic History Matching. SPE Journal, 12, pp. 196–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Giles, M. & Pierce, N.
    2000. An Introduction to the Adjoint Approach to Design. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 65, 393–415.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Grebenkin, I. & Davies, D. R.
    2010. Analysis of the Impact of an Intelligent Well Completion on the Oil Production Uncertainty. SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Moscow, Russia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Grebenkin, I. M. & Davies, D. R.
    2012. A Novel Optimisation Algorithm for Inflow Control Valve Management. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Guyaguler, B. & Byer, T. J.
    2008. A New Rate-Allocation-Optimization Framework.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Haghighat Sefat, M., Muradov, K. M. & Davies, D. R.
    2013. Field Management by Proactive Optimisation of Intelligent Wells - A Practical Approach.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Jansen, J.-D., Brouwer, R. & Douma, S. G.
    2009. Closed Loop Reservoir Management.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiefer, J. & Wolfowitz, J.
    1952. Stochastic Estimation of the Maximum of a Regression Function. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 462–466.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mohaghegh, S.
    2000. Virtual-Intelligence Applications in Petroleum Engineering: Part 2—Evolutionary Computing. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 52, 40–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mulvey, J. M., Vanderbei, R. J. & Zenios, S. A.
    1995. Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Operations research, 43, 264–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Pinto, M. a. S., Barreto, C. E. & Schiozer, D. J.
    2012. Optimization of Proactive Control Valves of Producer and Injector Smart Wells under Economic Uncertainty. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sadegh, P. & Spall, J. C.
    1998. Optimal random perturbations for stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 43, 1480-1484.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sarma, P., Chen, W. H., Durlofsky, L. J. & Aziz, K.
    2006. Production Optimization With Adjoint Models Under Nonlinear Control-State Path Inequality Constraints. Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Schlumberger
    2011. ECLIPSE Reference Manual 2011.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Spall, J. C.
    1992. Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 37, 332–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1998. Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization. Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 34, 817–823.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2003. Introduction to stochastic search and optimization: {E}stimation, simulation, and control, John Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Suwartadi, E., Krogstad, S. & Foss, B. A.
    2009. On State Constraints of Adjoint Optimization in Oil Reservoir Waterflooding. SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, C., Li, G. & Reynolds, A. C.
    2007. Production Optimization in Closed-Loop Reservoir Management. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Anaheim, California, U.S.A.: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2009. Production Optimization in Closed-Loop Reservoir Management. SPE Journal, 14, pp. 506–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Zang, C., Friswell, M. I. & Mottershead, J. E.
    2005. A review of robust optimal design and its application in dynamics. Computers & Structures, 83, 315–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhao, H., Li, Y., Yao, J. & Zhang, K.
    2011. Theoretical research on reservoir closed-loop production management. Science China Technological Sciences, 54, 2815–2824.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Zingg, D. W., Nemec, M. & Pulliam, T. H.
    2008. A comparative evaluation of genetic and gradient-based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization. European Journal of Computational Mechanics/Revue Européenne de Mécanique Numérique, 17, 103–126.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
Loading
Reservoir Uncertainty-tolerant, Proactive Control of Intelligent Wells
Conference Proceedings 2014, 1 (2014); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141834
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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