1887

Abstract

Summary

Ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) are popular methods to obtain the posterior distribution of unknown parameters in the reservoir model. However, millions of simulation runs may be required in MCMC for accurate sampling of posterior as subsurface flow problems are highly nonlinear and non-Gaussian. Similarly, EnKF formulated on the basis of linear and Gaussian assumptions may also require a large number of realizations to correctly map the solution space of the unknown model parameters, ultimately resulting in the high computational cost. Data-driven meta/surrogate/proxy models provide an alternative solution to alleviate the issue of high computational cost. Since these models are not as accurate as numerical solutions of partial differential equations (PDE), their implementation may add an uncertainty in the forecast model. In literature, the effect of uncertainty in forecast model on data assimilation is not well studied, especially with field-scale reservoir models.

In this work, we propose the robust assisted history matching workflow using polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) based forecast model. Proposed forecast model relies on reducing parameter space using Karhunen–Loeve (KL) expansion which preserves the two-point statistics of the field. Random variables from KL expansion and orthogonal polynomials corresponding to the prior probability density function (pdf) form the set of input parameters in PCE. Further, non-intrusive probabilistic collocation method (PCM) is used to compute PCE coefficients. PCE forecast model is then used in EnKF and MCMC to calculate the likelihood of the samples in place of high fidelity full physics simulation runs.

A case study is performed using a 3D field scale model of a reservoir located near Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, Canada. Performance of EnKF and MCMC are assessed under forecast model uncertainty using rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis and posterior distribution characterization. Results clearly depict that, although EnKF provided reliable mean and variance estimates of model parameters, MCMC outperformed the former even under the uncertainty associated with PCE metamodel. Inaccurate initial assumptions of model parameters were successfully handled by MCMC, although, with a longer burn-in period. Furthermore, characterization of posterior demonstrated reduced uncertainty in the estimation of model parameters using MCMC as compared to EnKF.

Practical implications of the proposed approach and performance assessment under forecast model uncertainty will be consequential in designing accurate and computationally efficient reservoir characterization and optimization workflows and hence, improved decision-making in reservoir management.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802229
2018-09-03
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aanonsen, S.I., Naevdal, G., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Valles, B.
    [2009] The ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir engineering – a review.SPE Journal, 14(3), 393–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J.
    [2001] An ensemble adjustment Kalman filter for data assimilation.Monthly Weather Review, 129, 2884–2903.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Azad, A. and Chalaturnyk, R.J.
    [2013] Application of analytical proxy models in reservoir estimation for SAGD process: UTF-Project case study.Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 52(3), 219–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barker, J.W., Cuypers, M. and Holden, L.
    [2001] Quantifying uncertainty in production forecasts: another look at the PUNQ-S3 problem.SPE Journal, 6(4), 433–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bazargan, H.
    [2014] An efficient polynomial chaos-based proxy model for history matching and uncertainty quantification of complex geological structures. Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazargan, H., Christie, M., Elsheikh, A.H. and Ahmadi, M.
    [2015] Surrogate accelerated sampling of reservoir models with complex structures using sparse polynomial chaos expansion.Advanced Water Resources, 86(B), 385–399.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruyelle, J. and Guerillot, D.
    [2014] Neural networks and their derivatives for history matching and reservoir optimization problems.Computational Geosciences, 18, 549–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, Y. and Zhang, D.
    [2006] Data assimilation for transient flow in geologic formations via ensemble Kalman filter.Advanced Water Resources, 29, 1107–1122.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Computer Modelling Group (CMG)
    [2013] STARS User’s Guide, Version 2013.Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, L.A.N., Maschio, C. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2014] Application of artificial neural networks in a history matching process.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 124, 30–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cotter, S.L., Roberts, G.O., Stuart, A.M. and White, D.
    [2013] MCMC methods for functions: modifying old algorithms to make them faster.Statistical Science, 28(3), 424–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cullick, A.S., Johnson, D. and Shi, G.
    [2006] Improved and more-rapid history matching with a nonlinear proxy and global optimization.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deutsch, C.V.
    [2002] Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling.Oxford University Press, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Efendiev, Y., Datta-Gupta, A., Ma, X. and Mallick, B.
    [2009] Efficient sampling techniques for uncertainty quantification in history matching using nonlinear error models and ensemble level upscaling techniques.Water Resources Research, 45(11), 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Emerick, A.A. and Reynolds, A.C.
    [2010] EnKF-MCMC.SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. [2012] Combining the ensemble Kalman Filter with Markov chain Monte Carlo for improved history matching and uncertainty characterization.SPE Journal, 17(2), 418–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. [2013] Investigation of the sampling performance of ensemble-based methods with a simple reservoir model.Computational Geosciences, 17(2), 325–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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), 10143–10162.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Evensen, G. and van Leeuwen, P.J.
    [1996] Assimilation of Geosat altimeter data for the Agulhas current using the ensemble Kalman filter with a quasi-geostrophic model.Monthly Weather Review, 124, 85–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Evensen, G.
    [2009] The ensemble Kalman filter for combined state and parameter estimation.IEEE Control Systems, 29(3), 83–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gamerman, D. and Lopes, H.
    [2006] Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference.Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gao, G., Zafari, M. and Reynolds, A.
    [2006] Quantifying uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 problem in a Bayesian setting with RML and EnKF.SPE Journal, 11(4), 506–515.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gelman, A., Roberts, G.O. and Gilks, W.R.
    [1996] Efficient Metropolis jumping rules.Bayesian Statistics, 5(5), 599–607.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ghanem, R.G. and Spanos, P.D.
    [1991] Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach.Springer, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gu, Y. and Oliver, D.S.
    [2006] The ensemble Kalman filter for continuous updating of reservoir simulation models.Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 128(1), 79–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. He, J., Sarma, P. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2011] Use of reduced-order models for improved data assimilation within an EnKF context.SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. He, Q.
    [2016] Investigating Continuously Updated History Matching Using Smart Proxy (Surrogate Reservoir Model). Ph.D. Thesis, West Virginia University, West Virginia, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Houtekamer, P.L. and MitchellH.L.
    [1998] Data assimilation using an ensemble Kalman filter technique.Monthly Weather Review, 126, 796–811.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Huang, S.P., Quek, S.T. and Phoon, K.K.
    [2001] Convergence study of the truncated Karhunen-Loeve expansion for simulation of stochastic processes.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 52, 1029–1043.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Iglesias, M.A., Law, K.J.H. and Stuart, A.M.
    [2013] Evaluation of Gaussian approximations for data assimilation in reservoir models.Computational Geosciences, 17(5), 851–885.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jafarpour, B. and McLaughlin, D.B.
    [2008] History matching with an ensemble Kalman filter and discrete cosine parameterization.Computational Geosciences, 12(2), 227–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jafarpour, B. and Tarrahi, M.
    [2011] Assessing the performance of the ensemble Kalman filter for subsurface flow data integration under variogram uncertainty.Water Resources Research, 47(5), 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jain, T., Patel, R.G. and Trivedi, J.
    [2016] Application of ANN based proxy models for efficient and fast track assisted history matching of SAGD reservoirs.World Heavy Oil Congress.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. [2017] Application of polynomial chaos theory as an accurate and computationally efficient proxy model for heterogeneous steam-assisted gravity drainage reservoirs.Energy Science and Engineering, 5(5), 270–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jeong, D., Jeong, K., Baik, H. and Choe, J.
    [2013] Uncertainty analyses of basement fracture reservoir performances using proxy models with high-quality history matching.Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 31(3), 395–410.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaipio, J.P. and SomersaloE.
    [2005] Statistical inversion theory. In: Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems.Springer-Verlag, New York, 49–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, B. and Friedmann, F.
    [2007] Semiautomatic multiple resolution design for history matching.SPE Journal, 12(4), 408–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, Z. and Zhang, D.
    [2007] Probabilistic collocation method for flow in porous media: comparisons with other stochastic methods.Water Resources Research, 43(9), 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu, N. and Oliver, D.S.
    [2003] Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty.SPE Journal, 8(2), 188–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lorentzen, R.J., Fjelde, K.K., Froyen, J., Lage, A.C., Nεevdal, G. and Vefring, E.H.
    [2001] Underbalanced and lowhead drilling operations: real time interpretation of measured data and operational support.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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(1), 77–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, M.N., Teller, A.H. and Teller, E.
    [1953] Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1081–1092.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Naevdal, G., Johnsen, L.M., Aanonsen, S.I. and Vefring, E.H.
    [2003] Reservoir monitoring and continuous model updating using Ensemble Kalman Filter.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nejadi, S., Trivedi, J. and Leung, J.Y.
    [2014] Estimation of facies boundaries using categorical indicators with P-field simulation and ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF).Natural Resources Research, 24(2), 121–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Oliver, D.S. and Chen, Y.
    [2009] Improved initial sampling for the ensemble Kalman filter.Computational Geosciences, 13(1), 13–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. [2011] Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review.Computational Geosciences, 15(1), 185–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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(1), 61–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Patel, R.G., Trivedi, J., Rahim, S. and Li, Z.
    [2015] Initial sampling of ensemble for steam-assisted-gravity-drainage-reservoir history matching.Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 54(6), 424–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Patel, R.G., Jain, T., Trivedi, J.J.
    , 2017. Polynomial-Chaos-Expansion based integrated dynamic modelling workflow for computationally efficient reservoir characterization: a field case study.SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Queipo, N.V., Pintos, S., Rincon, N., Contreras, N. and Colmenares, J.
    [2000] Surrogate modeling-based optimization for the integration of static and dynamic data into a reservoir description.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Robert, C.P. and Casella, G.
    [2004] Monte Carlo Statistical Methods.Springer, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, G.O., Gelman, A. and Gilks, W.R.
    [1997] Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithm.The Annals of Applied Probability, 7(1), 110–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts, G.O. and Rosenthal, J.S.
    [2001] Optimal scaling of various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms.Statistical Science, 16(4), 351–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sakov, P. and Bertino, L.
    [2011] Relation between two common localisation methods for the EnKF.Computational Geosciences, 15(2), 225–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sarma, P. and Xie, J.
    [2011] Efficient and robust uncertainty quantification in reservoir simulation with polynomial chaos expansion and non-intrusive spectral projection.SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shin, H., Hwang, T. and Chon, B.
    [2012] Optimal grid system for SAGD simulation.SPE Heavy Oil Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Siripatana, A., Mayo, T., Sraj, I., Knio, O., Dawson, C., Le Maitre, O. and Hoteit, I.
    [2017] Assessing an ensemble Kalman filter inference of Manning’s n coefficient of an idealized tidal inlet against a polynomial chaos-based MCMC. Ocean Dynamics, 67(8), 1067–1094.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Slotte, P.A. and Smorgrav, E.
    [2008] Response surface methodology approach for history matching and uncertainty assessment of reservoir simulation models.SPE Europe/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tarantola, A.
    [2005] Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tavakoli, R. and Reynolds, A.
    [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]
  61. VanegasP. J.W., Deutsch, C.V. and Cunha, L.B.
    [2008] Uncertainty assessment of SAGD performance using a proxy model based on Butler’s theory.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wen, X. and Chen, W.
    [2007] Some practical issues on real-time reservoir model updating using ensemble Kalman filter.SPE Journal, 12(2), 156–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wiener, N.
    [1938] The homogeneous chaos.American Journal of Mathematics, 60(4), 897–936.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Yu, T., Wilkinson, D. and Castellini, A.
    [2008] Constructing reservoir flow simulator proxies using genetic programming for history matching and production forecast analysis.Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications, 2008, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Zubarev, D.I.
    [2009] Pros and cons of applying proxy-models as a substitute for full reservoir simulations.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802229
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802229
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