1887

Abstract

Summary

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process is one of the most viable thermal recovery methods for heavy oil reservoir. In order to assess uncertainty in such reservoirs, many different equally-probable models, called realizations, are generated. Each realization is used with a flow modeling process to obtain the degree of uncertainty in reservoir performance parameters such as the production rate. Clearly, this can be a cumbersome process, since many of the realizations may exhibit nearly equal flow performance and also simulation process is very time consuming for such thermal models. In this research, we introduce a visual analytics framework for filtering of realizations for SAGD and select the ones that potentially represent different flow performance. This framework is based on calculating (dis)similarity distance between all pairs of models and then clustering models using the computed distance. Each cluster contains models that have potential similar flow performance. The results on the case studies used in our framework, show that our technique is much faster than and well matched with the brute force approach, which is based on running the flow simulations for all realizations. In addition to that, the proposed framework represents results in visual and interactive way.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701313
2017-06-12
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ballin, P., A.Journel, and K.Aziz
    . 1992. “Prediction of Uncertainty in Reservoir Performance Forecast.” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 31(04).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Butler, RM.
    1991. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Caers, J.
    2011. Modeling Uncertainty in the Earth Sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Deutsch, CV and S.Srinivasan
    . 1996. “Improved Reservoir Management through Ranking Stochastic Reservoir Models.” SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dhillon, IS, Y.Guan, and B.Kulis
    . 2004. “Kernel K-Means: Spectral Clustering and Normalized Cuts.” Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD (pp. 551–556). ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. France, SL and JDCarroll
    . 2011. “Two-Way Multidimensional Scaling: A Review.” Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 41(5), 644–661.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Li, Z. and CAFloudas
    . 2014. “Optimal Scenario Reduction Framework Based on Distance of Uncertainty Distribution and Output Performance: I. Single Reduction via Mixed Integer Linear Optimization.” Computers & Chemical Engineering, 70, 50–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Sahaf, Z., H.Hamdi, F.Maurer, and L.Nghiem
    . 2016. “Clustering of Geological Models for Reservoir Simulation Studies in a Visual Analytics Framework.” 78th EAGE Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sun, Guo-Dao, Ying-CaiWu, Rong-HuaLiang, and Shi-XiaLiu
    . 2013. “A Survey of Visual Analytics Techniques and Applications: State-of-the-Art Research and Future Challenges.” Journal of Computer Science and Technology28(5):852–867.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Turta, AT and AKSinghal
    . 2004. “Overview of Short-Distance Oil Displacement Processes.” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 43(02).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Yazdi, M. Majdi
    . 2014. “Screening Geostatistical Realizations for SAGD Reservoir Simulation.” (Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary)
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701313
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701313
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