1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2017
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

To propagate uncertainty in reservoir production forecasts, it is typically required to sample a nonlinear and multimodal posterior density function. To do so, different techniques have been proposed and used, such as Markovian algorithms, data assimilation methods and randomised maximum likelihood (RML) method. Through several studies, it has been shown that the RML method provides a reasonable approximation of the posterior distribution, despite the fact that it does not have any rigorous theoretical foundation for nonlinear problems.

In order to reduce the computation and also provide an extensive search for multimodal density functions, in this study, the RML method is proposed in a context of a multi-objective genetic algorithm in which each of the equations is considered as a separate objective function. The proposed technique was compared against a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm and an RML with a Levenberg-Marquardt minimiser, using IC-Fault model. The comparison showed that an acceptable set of samples for uncertainty quantification is obtained, and given the fact that the parallelisation of the algorithm is straightforward, it makes the proposed algorithm, efficient in terms of the total processing time.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
2017-06-12
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
    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 Vallès, B.
    [2009]. The Ensemble Kalman Filter in Reservoir Engineering—a Review. SPE Journal, 14, 393–412.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, D., Demyanov, V., Tatum, D., Christie, M., Rojas, T., Geiger, S. and Corbett, P.
    [2013]. Hierarchical benchmark case study for history matching, uncertainty quantification and reservoir characterisation. Computers & Geosciences, 50, 4–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Carter, J. and White, D.
    [2013]. History matching on the Imperial College fault model using parallel tempering. Computational Geosciences, 17, 43–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Coello, C.A.
    [2000]. An updated survey of GA-based multiobjective optimization techniques. ACM Comput. Surv., 32, 109–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T.
    [2002]. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6, 182–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gao, G., Zafari, M. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2006]. Quantifying uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 problem in a Bayesian setting with RML and EnKF.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Laloy, E. and Vrugt, J.A.
    [2012]. High-dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple-try DREAM (ZS) and high-performance computing. Water Resources Research, 48(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu, N. and Oliver, D.S.
    [2003]. Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty. SPE Journal, 8, 188–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Lorentzen, R.J., Fjelde, K.K., Frøyen, J., Lage, A.C., Nævdal, G. and Vefring, E.H.
    [2001]. Underbalanced and low-head drilling operations: Real time interpretation of measured data and operational support, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ma, X., Al-Harbi, M., Datta-Gupta, A. and Efendiev, Y.
    , 2008. An efficient two-stage sampling method for uncertainty quantification in history matching geological models. SPE Journal, 13, 77–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. MathWorks
    , [2016]. MATLAB.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Oliver, D. and Chen, Y.
    [2011]. Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review. Computational Geosciences, 1–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Oliver, D.S.
    [1996]. On conditional simulation to inaccurate data. Mathematical Geology, 28, 811–817.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Oliver, D.S., Cunha, L.B. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [1997]. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conditioning a permeability field to pressure data. Mathematical Geology, 29, 61–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Reynolds, A.C., He, N. and Oliver, D.S.
    [1999]. Reducing uncertainty in geostatistical description with well-testing pressure data. American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Memoir 71.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Robert, C. and Casella, G.
    [2013]. Monte Carlo statistical methods. Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Sayyafzadeh, M.
    [2016]. Uncertainty quantification using a self-supervised surrogate-assisted parallel Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, ECMOR XIV-15th EAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Tarantola, A.
    [2005]. Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, xii, 342 p. pp.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
Loading
Uncertainty Quantification Using a Multi-objectivised Randomised Maximum Likelihood Method
Conference Proceedings 2017, 1 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701022
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