1887

Abstract

Summary

We present a methodology to obtain a correct sampling of the posterior probability density function (pdf) conditional to observations where this posterior pdf can be formally expressed using Bayes’ theorem. Generating a correct sampling of a multimodal posterior pdf is a challenging task which can only be achieved with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. In standard MCMC such as random-walk MCMC, evaluation of acceptance probability for a proposed state requires a forward model run (a reservoir simulation run). When the forward model run is computationally expensive, we cannot afford to generate a long Markov chains with tens of thousands or more states. Therefore, it is critically important to design the MCMC such that it converges to the posterior pdf after generating a few thousand or less states.

Here, a two-level MCMC procedure which can sample multimodal posteriors relatively efficiently is developed and applied. In the first step, we use the distributed Gauss-Newton (DGN) method to generate many modes of the posterior pdf in parallel; this procedure estimates sensitivity matrices without the need of an adjoint solution. A Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is then constructed based on the distinct modes that we find in the first step. In the second step, the constructed GMM is used as the proposal distribution for our MCMC algorithm. Because the proposal distribution is constructed as a direct approximation of the target pdf (without the normalizing constant), the Markov chain(s) constructed should converge relatively quickly to the posterior distribution and applications of the two-level MCMC algorithm to test problems show that our proposed two-level MCMC is far more efficient than the random-walk MCMC.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802140
2018-09-03
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aanonsen, S. I., G.Naevdal, D. S.Oliver, A. C.Reynolds, and B.Valles
    [2009] The ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir engineering–a review,. SPE Journal, 14(3), 393–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alabert, F.
    [1987] The practice of fast conditional simulations through the LU decomposition of the covariance matrix,. Mathematical Geology, 19(5), 369–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brooks, S. P. and A.Gelman
    [1998] General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations,. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4), 434–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, B., J.He, X.Wen, W.Chen, and A. C.Reynolds
    [2017] Uncertainty quantification and value of information assessment using proxies and Markov chain Monte Carlo method for a pilot project, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 157, 328–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, C., G.Gao, R.Li, R.Cao, T.Chen, J. C.Vink, P.Gelderblom
    [2017] Integration of distributed Gauss-Newton with randomized maximum likelihood method for uncertainty quantification of reservoir performance, SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference,Society of Petroleum Engineers, Montgomery, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, W. H., G. R.Gavalas, J. H.Seinfeld, and M. L.Wasserman
    [1974] A new algorithm for automatic history matching,. SPE Journal, 14(6), 593–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, Y. and D. S.Oliver
    [2014] History matching of the Norne full-field model with an iterative ensemble smoother,. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 17(02), 244–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Conn, A. R., K.Scheinberg, and L. N.Vicente
    [2009] Introduction to derivative free optimization, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cotter, S. L., G. O.Roberts, A. M.Stuart, D.White
    [2013] MCMC methods for functions: modifying old algorithms to make them faster,. Statistical Science, 28(3), 424–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Emerick, A. A. and A. C.Reynolds
    [2012] Combining the ensemble Kalman filter with Markov chain Monte Carlo for improved history matching and uncertainty characterization, SPE Journal, 17(3), 639–659.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. [2013a] Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilations, Computational Geosciences, 55, 3–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. [2013b] Investigation of the sampling performance of ensemble-based methods with a simple reservoir model,. Computational Geosciences, 17(2), 325–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Evensen, G.
    [1994] Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(C5), 10,143–10,162.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , [2007] Data Assimilation: The Ensemble Kalman Filter, Springer, Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eydinov, D., G.Gao, G.Li, and A. C.Reynolds
    [2009] Simultaneous estimation of relative permeability curves and porosity/permeability fields by history matching production data, J. Canadian Pet. Tech., pp. 13–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fossum, K. and T.Mannseth
    [2014] Parameter sampling capabilities of sequential and simultaneous data assimilation: II. statistical analysis of numerical results, Inverse Problems, 30(11), 114, 003.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gao, G., J.Vink, C.Chen, Y.El Khamra, and M.Tarrahi
    [2016a] Distributed Gauss-Newton method for history matching problems with multiple best matches, in ECMOR XV-15th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gao, G., J. C.Vink, C.Chen, M.Tarrahi, and Y.El Khamra
    [2016b] Uncertainty quantification for history matching problems with multiple best matches using a distributed Gauss-Newton method, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Society of Petroleum Engineers, Montgomery, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao, G., H.Jiang, P. V.Hagen, J. C.Vink, T.Wells, et al.
    , [2017] A Gauss–Newton trust region solver for large-scale history-matching problems,. SPE Journal, 22(6), 1999–2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haario, H., E.Saksman, J.Tamminen
    [2001] An adaptive Metropolis algorithm,. Bernoulli, 7(2), 223–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen, N.
    [2016] The CMA evolution strategy: A tutorial, arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00772.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hastings, W. K.
    [1970] Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications,. Biometrika, 57(1), 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. He, J., J.Xie, P.Sarma, X.-H.Wen, W. H.Chen, and J.Kamath
    [2016] Proxy-based work flow for a priori evaluation of data-acquisition programs,. SPE Journal, 21(04), 1400–1412.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holden, L., R.Hauge, and M.Holden
    [2009] Adaptive independent Metropolis-Hastings,. The Annals of Applied Probability, 19(1), 395–413.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Iglesias, M. A.
    [2015] Iterative regularization for ensemble data assimilation in reservoir models,. Computational Geosciences, 19(1), 177–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaufman, L. and P. J.Rousseeuw
    [2009] Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis, vol. 344, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Le, D. H., A. A.Emerick, and A. C.Reynolds
    [2016] An adaptive ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation for assisted history matching, SPE Journal, 21(6).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, X. and A. C.Reynolds
    [2017] Generation of a proposal distribution for efficient MCMC characterization of uncertainty in reservoir description and forecasting, SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference,Society of Petroleum Engineers, Montgomery, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, X.
    [2017] Efficient MCMC Characterization of uncertainty in reservoir description and production forrecasts, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, R., A. C.Reynolds, and D. S.Oliver
    [2003a] Sensitivity coefficients for three-phase flow history matching,. J. Canadian Pet. Tech., 42(4), 70–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. [2003b] History matching of three-phase flow production data,. SPE Journal, 8(4), 328–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Liang, F. and W. H.Wong
    [2000] Evolutionary Monte Carlo: Applications to Cp model sampling and change point problem, Statistica sinica, 14(3), 317–342.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Liang, F., C.Liu, and R.Carroll
    [2011] Advanced Markov chain Monte Carlo methods: learning from past samples, vol. 714, John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, N. and D. S.Oliver
    [2003] Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty,. SPE Journal, 8(2), 188–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Luo, X., A. S.Stordal, R. J.Lorentzen, and G.Nævdal
    [2015] Iterative ensemble smoother as an approximate solution to a regularized minimum-average-cost problem: Theory and applications, SPE Journal, 20(5).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ma, X., M.Al-Harbi, A.Datta-Gupta, and Y.Efendiev
    [2008] An efficient two-stage sampling method for uncertainty quantification in history matching geological models,. SPE Journal, 13(01), 77–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, J., L. C.Wilcox, C.Burstedde, and O.Ghattas
    [2012] A stochastic Newton MCMC method for large-scale statistical inverse problems with application to seismic inversion,. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 34(3), A1460–A1487.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Metropolis, N., A. W.Rosenbluth, M. N.Rosenbluth, A. H.Teller, and E.Teller
    [1953] Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines, Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087–1092.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohamed, L., B.Calderhead, M.Filippone, M.Christie, and M.Girolami
    [2012] Population MCMC methods for history matching and uncertainty quantification, Computational Geosciences, 16(2), 423–436.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliver, D. S., L. B.Cunha, and A. C.Reynolds
    [1997] Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conditioning a permeability field to pressure data,. Mathematical Geology, 29(1), 61–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Oliver, D. S., A. C.Reynolds, and N.Liu
    [2008] Inverse theory for petroleum reservoir characterization and history matching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rafiee, J. and A. C.Reynolds
    [2017] Theoretical and efficient practical procedures for the generation of inflation factors for ES-MDA, Inverse Problems, 33(11), 115,003.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rafiee, J.
    [2017] Data assimilation and uncertainty quantification using the ensemble-based methods with and without Markov chain Monte Carlo, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Reynolds, A. C., R.Li, and D. S.Oliver
    [2004] Simultaneous estimation of absolute and relative permeability by automatic history matching of three-phase flow production data,. J. Canadian Pet. Tech., 43(3), 37–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Reynolds, A. C., M.Zafari, and G.Li
    [2006] Iterative forms of the ensemble Kalman filter, Proceedings of 10th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Roberts, G. O. and J. S.Rosenthal
    [2001] Optimal scaling for various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms, Statistical Science, 16, 351–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Seiler, A., S. I.Aanonsen, G.Evensen, and J. C.Reivenaes
    [2010] Structural surface uncertainty modeling and updating using the ensemble Kalman filter,. SPE Journal, 15(4), 1062–1076.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Shirangi, M. G.
    [2014] History matching production data and uncertainty assessment with an efficient TSVD parameterization algorithm, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 113, 54–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Shirangi, M. G. and A. A.Emerick
    [2016] An improved TSVD-based Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for history matching and comparison with Gauss–Newton, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 143, 258–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tavakoli, R. and A. C.Reynolds
    [2010] History matching with parameterization based on the SVD of a dimensionless sensitivity matrix,. SPE Journal, 15(12), 495–508.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. [2011] Monte Carlo simulation of permeability fields and reservoir performance predictions with SVD parameterization in RML compared with EnKF,. Computational Geosciences, 15(1), 99–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tierney, L.
    [1994] Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions,. The Annals of Statistics, 22(4), 1701–1728.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. van Leeuwen, P. J. and G.Evensen
    [1996] Data assimilation and inverse methods in terms of a probabilistic formulation, Monthly Weather Review, 124, 2898–2913.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, Y., G.Li, and A. C.Reynolds
    [2010] Estimation of depths of fluid contacts by history matching using iterative ensemble-Kalman smoothers, SPE Journal, 15(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wu, Z., A. C.Reynolds, and D. S.Oliver
    [1999] Conditioning geostatistical models to two-phase production data,. SPE Journal, 3(2), 142–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zafari, M. and A. C.Reynolds
    [2007] Assessing the uncertainty in reservoir description and performance predictions with the ensemble Kalman filter,. SPE Journal, 12(3), 382–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, F., A. C.Reynolds, and D. S.Oliver
    [2002] Evaluation of the reduction in uncertainty obtained by conditioning a 3D stochastic channel to multiwell pressure data,. Mathematical Geology, 34(6), 713–740.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802140
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802140
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