1887

Abstract

Summary

Assessing uncertainties is common practice in the lifecycle of any E & P project. Whether during the appraisal or development stages of a project, reducing risk is important to minimize capital exposure and maximize project value. In the oil and gas industry, decisions are often taken based on limited, poor quality, and ambiguous data (limited number of wells & core, poor quality seismic etc.). This ultimately means any production forecasts generated are made from a fundamentally uncertain subsurface interpretation, and quite often, these forecasts (and decisions) are made using a single interpretation. This forecast and decision making process could be improved through a more robust forecasting methodology which incorporates the key uncertainties.

We propose a modern, integrated workflow to better assess and incorporate uncertainties within the modelling process. Instead of ranking or even rejecting models based on independent static measures, dynamic measures such as tracers (including pseudo-tracers) and liquid rates are used. This approach helps retain the diversity of interpretations and provides a better understanding of the interaction and importance of geology on fluid flow and is used for forecasting and decision making under uncertainty.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601142
2016-05-30
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 3DSL v2015.1217 Reference Manual. Streamsim Technologies.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballin, P., Journel, A. and Aziz, K.
    [1992] Prediction of Uncertainty in Reservoir Performance Forecast. JCPT, 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Caumon, G. and Journel, A.G.
    [2004] Early Uncertainty Assessment: Application to a Hydrocarbon Reservoir Appraisal. Geostatistics Banff 2004, 14, 551–557.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiotoroiu, M., Peisker, J., Clemens, T. and Thiele, M.
    [2016] Forecasting Incremental Oil Production of A Polymer Pilot Extension in the 8TH Tortonian Reservoir Including Quantitative Uncertainty Assessment.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Martínez, J.L.F. et al.
    [2010] Reservoir characterization and inversion uncertainty via a family of Particle Swarm Optimizers and differential evolution. Application to the synthetic Stanford VI reservoir. Stanforg: SCRF.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Scheidt, C. and Caers, J.
    [2007] A workflow for Spatial Uncertainty Quantification using Distances and Kernels. SCRF report, 20. studioSL v2015.1215. Streamsim Technologies.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.
    [1974] Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1124–1131.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhang, Y., Lewis, M., Pellon, M. and Coleman, P.
    [2007] A Preliminary Research on Modeling Cognitive Agents for Social Environments in Multi-Agent Systems. 116–123.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601142
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601142
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