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

To study the impact of subsurface uncertainties on oil recovery, it is common to build a large set of models which cover these uncertainties. Despite increase of computational capabilities, as models become more complex, it is not possible to perform full physic flow simulation for all the generated models. This is why stochastic reservoir model sets are often decimated to assess the impact of static uncertainties on dynamic reservoir performance.

This contribution will focus on the use of proxy to perform this data set reduction. A lot of different proxies have been developed, from the simplest to the more complicated so it is difficult to choose the good one according to a particular goal.

We present different criteria to compare the proxy quality and their helps to assess uncertainties on oil recovery. A first criterion will be based on the relation which may exists between the model distances computed on the proxy responses and those compute on flow responses. Another criterion is the speed factor and simplification provide by the proxy compared to the full physic simulator. These two criteria are very simple and can be applied in an early time to avoid deploying time consuming proxies which won’t provide accurate information.

The last criterion presented here, is the confidence intervals which can be computed around probabilistic reservoir production forecasts computed on a small representative subset of model. Even if this criterion can be used only when the entire dataset has been simulated, it provides some quantification about a possible bias created by a proxy and the remaining uncertainties on oil recovery.

We present here a comparison study between widely different proxy responses applied on a real dataset of that methodology. This will give us some keys to choose a proxy which is a good compromise between accuracy and easy to handle methodology.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
2014-09-08
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alabert, F.G. and Modot, V.
    [1992] Stochastic Models of Reservoir Heterogeneity: Impact on Connectivity and Average Permeabilities. SPE, 355–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Batycky, R.P., Blunt, M.J. and Thiele, M.R.
    [1997] A 3D Field-Scale Stremline-Based Reservoir Simulator. SPE Resrvoir Engineering, 246–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Begg, S.H., Carter, R.R. and Dranfield, P.
    [1989] Assigning Effective Values to Simulate Gridblock Parameters for Heterogeneous Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 4(4), 455–463.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Borg, I. and Groenen, P.J.F.
    [2005] Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Castellini, A., Yeten, B., Singh, U., Vahedi, A. and Sawiris, R.
    [2006] History Matching and Uncertainty Quantification Assisted by Global Optimization Techniques. 10th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Datta-Gupta, A., Xie, J., Gupta, N., King, M.J. and Lee, W.J.
    [2011] Radius of Investigation and its Generalization to Unconventional Reservoir. JPT, 52–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Durlofsky, L.J.
    [Year] Upscaling and gridding of fine scale geological models for flow simulation. 8th International Forum on Reservoir Simulation.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Farmer, C.L.
    [2001] Upscaling: a review. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 63–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hovadik, J. and Larue, D.
    [2011] Predicting Waterflood Behavior by Simulating Earth Models with No or Limited Dynamic Data: From Model Ranking to Simulating a Billion-Cell Model. Uncertainty analysis and reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir, 96, 55–.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Scheidt, C. and Caers, J.
    [Year] A Workflow for Spacial Uncertainty Quantification using Distances and Kernels. SCRF procedings, 34.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Sethian, J.A.
    [1999] Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods; Evolving interfaces in computational geometry, fluid, mechanics, computer vision, and materials science. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. [2001] Evolution, Implementation, and Application of Level Set and Fast Marching Methods for Advancing Front. Journal of Computationnal Physics, 503–555.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Shawe-Taylor, J. and Christianini, N.
    [2004] Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Suzuki, S. and Caers, J.
    [2008] A Distance-based Prior Model Parameterization for Constraining Solutions of Spatial Inverse Problems. Mathematical Geosciences, 40(4), 445–469.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Tegnander, C. and Gimse, T.
    [1998] Flow Simulation To Evaluate Upscaling of Permeability. Mathematical Geology, 30(6), 717–731.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Thiele, M.R., Batycky, R.P. and Fenwick, D.H.
    [2010] Streamline Simulation for Modern Reservoir-Engineering Workflows. JPT, 62(1), 64–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Tsitsiklis, J.N.
    [1995] Efficient algorithms for globally optimal trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 40(9), 1528–1538.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
Loading
Proxy Comparison for Sorting Models and Assessing Uncertainty on Oil Recovery Profiles
Conference Proceedings 2014, 1 (2014); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141901
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