1887

Abstract

Summary

When evaluating oil and gas field development plans, it is often necessary to construct a reserves distribution given only a very limited number of reservoir model realizations, in which case traditional (parameter–space) proxy modeling does not always provide a sufficiently accurate approximation to the true distribution. For example, a problem may arise in a situation where models corresponding to a few different geological scenarios are calibrated using the historical data, but it is expensive to explore the parametric space “between” these model realizations.

In this work we investigate the validity of a proxy modeling method—which we term distance-space modeling—that aims to address this issue by generating a model based on the characteristic production profiles from the available realizations of the reservoir models. The chief distinction between the two methods is that in parameter–space modeling, the proxy model is built in the parameter-space; that is to say that the coordinates assigned to a realization in the interpolation space are precisely its parameter values. Whereas in the proposed method, the coordinates of the realization are obtained in such a way that the proximity of any two realizations is in some way representative of the similarity of the output of the dynamic reservoir simulator (e.g., predictions of the bottom hole pressure, fluid production rates, ratios etc.).

We verify the proposed distance-space method against the “true” distribution of the total produced oil from a test reservoir and parameter-space proxy models. The “true” distribution was obtained by running a large number of model realizations in a reservoir simulator. For a small number of runs used to construct the proxy model, the distance-space approach seems to offer a valid alternative to traditional proxy-modeling, with comparable or better results. As the number of runs is increased, however, the performance of the distance proxy model does not seem to improve and can even deteriorate. This is in contrast to the results of parameter-space modeling, which tend to improve as the number of runs is increased.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141867
2014-09-08
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Borg, I. and Groenen, P.
    [2005] Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chilés, J.P. and Delfiner, P.
    [1999] Geostatistics : Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Honarkhah, M.
    [2011] Stochastic simulation of patterns using distance-based pattern modeling. PhD Thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Khuri, A.I. and Mukhopadhyay, S.
    [2010] Response surface methodology. WIREs Comp Stat, 2, 149–.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Park, K.
    [2011] Modeling uncertainty in metric space. PhD Thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Simpson, T.W., Korte, J.J., Mauery, T.M. and Mistree, F.
    [1998] Comparison of response surface and kriging models for multidisciplinary design optimization. Report, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. SPE
    [2001] Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves and Resources. Society of Petroleum Engineers, http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/GuidelinesEvaluationReservesResources_2001.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141867
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141867
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