1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. ECMOR XVI - 16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

In data assimilation problems, various types of data are naturally linked to different spatial resolutions (e.g. seismic and electromagnetic data), and these scales are usually not coincident to the subsurface simulation model scale. Alternatives like down/upscaling of the data and/or the simulation model can be used, but with potential loss of important information. To address this issue, a novel Multiscale (MS) data assimilation method is introduced. The overall idea of the method is to keep uncertain parameters and observed data at their original representation scale, avoiding down/upscaling of any quantity. The method relies on a recently developed mathematical framework to compute adjoint gradients via a MS strategy. The fine-scale uncertain parameters are directly updated and the MS grid is constructed in a resolution that meets the observed data resolution. The advantages of the technique are demonstrated in the assimilation of data represented at a coarser scale than the simulation model. The misfit objective function is constructed to keep the MS nature of the problem. The regularization term is represented at the simulation model (fine) scale, whereas the data misfit term is represented at the observed data (coarse) scale. The performance of the method is demonstrated in synthetic models and compared to down/upscaling strategies. The experiments show that the MS strategy provides advantages 1) on the computational side – expensive operations are only performed at the coarse scale; 2) with respect to accuracy – the matched uncertain parameter distribution is closer to the “truth”; and 3) in the optimization performance – faster convergence behaviour due to faster gradient computation. In conclusion, the newly developed method is capable of providing superior results when compared to strategies that rely on the up/downscaling of the response/observed data, addressing the scale dissimilarity via a robust, consistent MS strategy.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
2018-09-03
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aanonsen, S.I., Nævdal, G., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Vallés, B.
    [2009] Review of ensemble Kalman filter in petroleum engineering.SPE Journal, 14(3), 393–412.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Cole, S., Lumley, D., Meadows, M. and Tura, A.
    [2002] Pressure and saturation inversion of4D seismic data by rock physics forward modeling. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2002, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2475–2478.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cusini, M., van Kruijsdijk, C. and Hajibeygi, H.
    [2016] Algebraic dynamic multilevel (ADM) method for fully implicit simulations of multiphase flow in porous media.Journal of Computational Physics, 314, 60–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2003] Upscaling of geocellular models for reservoir flow simulation: a review of recent progress. In: 7th International Forum on Reservoir Simulation Bühl/Baden-Baden, Germany.23–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Emerick, A.A., Moraes, R., Rodrigues, J. et al.
    [2007a] Calculating seismic attributes within a reservoir flow simulator. In: Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. [2007b] History matching 4D seismic data with efficient gradient based methods. In: EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Emerick, A.A. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2013a] Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation.Computers & Geosciences, 55, 3–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. [2013b] Investigation of the sampling performance of ensemble-based methods with a simple reservoir model.Computational Geosciences, 17(2), 325–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Evensen, G.
    , [2009] Data assimilation: the ensemble Kalman filter.Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Farmer, C.
    [2002] Upscaling: a review.International journal for numerical methods in fluids, 40(1–2), 63–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fu, J., Caers, J. and Tchelepi, H.A.
    [2011] A multiscale method for subsurface inverse modeling: Single-phase transient flow.Adv. Water Resour., 34(8), 967–979.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fu, J., Tchelepi, H.A. and Caers, J.
    [2010] A multiscale adjoint method to compute sensitivity coefficients for flow in heterogeneous porous media.Advances in water resources, 33(6), 698–709.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gao, G., Reynolds, A.C. et al.
    [2004] An improved implementation of the LBFGS algorithm for automatic history matching. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gervais-Couplet, V., Roggero, F., Feraille, M.D., Ravalec-Dupin, L., Seiler, A. et al.
    [2010] Joint history matching of production and 4D-seismic related data for a North Sea field case. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gosselin, O., Aanonsen, S., Aavatsmark, I., Cominelli, A., Gonard, R., Kolasinski, M., Ferdinandi, F., Kovacic, L., Neylon, K. et al.
    [2003] History matching using time-lapse seismic (HUTS). In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hajibeygi, H. and Jenny, P.
    [2011] Adaptive iterative multiscale finite volume method.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(3), 628–643.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hou, T.Y. and Wu, X.H.
    [1997] A multiscale finite element method for elliptic problems in composite materials and porous media.J. Comput. Phys., 134(1), 169–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jansen, J.D.
    , [2013a] A simple algorithm to generate small geostatistical ensembles for subsurface flow simulation. Research note.Dept. of Geoscience and Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. , [2013b] A systems description of flow through porous media, 570. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jenny, P., Lee, S.H. and Tchelepi, H.A.
    [2003] Multi-scale finite-volume method for elliptic problems in subsurface flow simulation.J. Comput. Phys., 187(1), 47–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kraaijevanger, J.F.B.M., Egberts, P.J.P., Valstar, J.R. and Buurman, H.W.
    [2007] Optimal waterflood design using the adjoint method. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Krogstad, S., Hauge, V.L. and Gulbransen, A.
    [2011] Adjoint multiscale mixed finite elements.SPE Journal, 16(01), 162–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Landrø, M.
    [2001] Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data. Geophysics, 66(3), 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Le Ravalec, M., Tillier, E., Da Veiga, S., Enchéry, G. and Gervais, V.
    [2012] Advanced integrated workflows for incorporating both production and 4D seismic-related data into reservoir models.Oil & Gas Science and Technology–Revue dâĂŹIFP Energies nouvelles, 67(2), 207–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Li, Z., McWilliams, J.C., Ide, K. and Farrara, J.D.
    [2015] A multiscale variational data assimilation scheme: formulation and illustration.Monthly Weather Review, 143(9), 3804–3822.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S. et al.
    [2003] Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty.SPE Journal, 8(02), 188–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lumley, D., Meadows, M., Cole, S. and Adams, D.
    [2003] Estimation of reservoir pressure and saturations by crossplot inversion of 4D seismic attributes. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2003, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1513–1516.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MacBeth, C., Floricich, M. and Soldo, J.
    [2006] Going quantitative with 4D seismic analysis.Geophysical Prospecting, 54(3), 303–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Moraes, R., Rodrigues, J., Hajibeygi, H. and Jansen, J.D.
    [2017a] Multiscale Gradient Computation for Multiphase Flow in Porous Media. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Moraes, R.J.d., Rodrigues, J.R., Hajibeygi, H. and Jansen, J.D.
    [2017b] Multiscale gradient computation for flow in heterogeneous porous media.Journal of Computational Physics, 336, 644–663.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.
    , [2006] Numerical optimization.Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Oliver, D.S., He, N. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [1996] Conditioning permeability fields to pressure data. In: ECMOR V-5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Liu, N.
    , [2008] Inverse theory for petroleum reservoir characterization and history matching.Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodrigues, J.R.P.
    [2006] Calculating derivatives for automatic history matching.Computational Geosciences, 10(1), 119–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Strang, G.
    , [1993] Introduction to linear algebra.Wellesley-Cambridge PressWellesley, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Tarantola, A.
    , [2005] Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation, 89. siam.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tura, A. and Lumey, D.E.
    [1999] Estimating pressure and saturation changes time-lapse AVO data. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1999, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1655–1658.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ullmann De Brito, D., Caletti, L., Moraes, R. et al.
    [2011] Incorporation of 4D seismic in the reconstruction and history matching of Marlim Sul deep water field flow simulation model. In: SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Ullmann De Brito, D., Moraes, R., Emerick, A.A. et al.
    [2010] The Marlim field: incorporating timelapse seismic in the assisted history matching. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Y., Hajibeygi, H. and Tchelepi, H.A.
    [2014] Algebraic multiscale solver for flow in heterogeneous porous media.J. Comput. Phys., 259, 284–303.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. [2016] Monotone multiscale finite volume method.Computational Geosciences, 20(3), 509–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, F. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2002] Optimization algorithms for automatic history matching of production data. In: ECMOR VIII-8th European Conference on the Mathematics of oil Recovery.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhou, H. and Tchelepi, H.A.
    [2008] Operator-Based Multiscale Method for Compressible Flow.SPE J., 13(02), 523–539.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
Loading
A Multiscale Method For Data Assimilation
Conference Proceedings 2018, 1 (2018); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802230
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