1887

Abstract

Summary

Production optimization under uncertainty is complex and computationally demanding, a particularly challenging process for carbonate reservoirs subject to WAG injection, represented in large ensembles with high simulation runtimes. Search spaces of optimization are often large, where reservoir models are complex and the number of decision variables is high. The computational costs of ensemble-based production optimization can be decreased by reducing the size of the ensemble with representative models (RM). The validity of this method requires that the RM maintain representativeness throughout the optimization process, where the production strategy changes at each evaluation. Many techniques of RM selection use production forecasts of the ensemble for an initial production strategy, which raises questions about the robustness of the RM. This work investigates approaches to ensure the consistency of RM in ensemble-based long-term optimization. We use a metaheuristic optimization algorithm that finds sets of RM that represent the ensemble in the probability distribution of uncertain attributes and the variability of production, injection, and economic indicators ( ). Our case study is a benchmark light-oil fractured carbonate with features of Brazilian pre-salt reservoirs and many reservoir and operational uncertainties. We obtained production, injection and economic indicators using different approaches to provide valuable insight for RM selection. We inferred about RM fitness for production optimization based on their adequacy for uncertainty quantification for varying production strategies. Despite the effects of changing decision variables on RM representativity, our results suggest the possible use of RM for ensemble-based production optimizations with limitations related to the estimation of the probabilistic objective function due to mismatches in the probabilities of occurrence. Using production indicators obtained from a base production strategy decreased RM representativeness when compared to RM selection based on a more robust evaluation of reservoir performance using a wide-covering well pattern and no restrictions from production facilities. Finally, our results suggest valid RM selection using production forecasts for intermediate dates of the simulation period, an important contribution for ensembles with very high simulation runtimes. We also provide a broad theoretical background on the uncertain reservoir system and on approaches to obtain reduced ensembles and their applications.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035041
2020-09-14
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aliyev, E. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2015] Multilevel Field Development Optimization under uncertainty using a sequence of upscaled models. Mathematical Geosciences,49(3), 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Armstrong, M., Ndiaye, A., Razanatsimba, R. and Galli, A.
    [2013] Scenario reduction applied to geostatistical simulations. Mathematical Geosciences, 45(2), 165–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Botechia, V.E., dos Santos, D.R., Barreto, C.E.A., da Silva Gaspar, A.T.F., da Graça Santos, S.M. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2018] Estimating the chance of success of information acquisition for the Norne benchmark case. Oil & Gas Science and Technology–Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles, 73, 54.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Correia, M., Hohendorff, J., Gaspar, A.T.F.S and Schiozer, D.
    [2015] UNISIM-II-D: Benchmark case proposal based on a carbonate reservoir.SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, SPE-177140-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Douarche, F., Da Veiga, S., Feraille, M., Enchéry, G., Touzani, S. and Barsalou, R.
    [2014] Sensitivity analysis and optimization of surfactant-polymer flooding under uncertainties. Oil and Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP,69(4), 603–617.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Feraille, M. and Marrel, A.
    [2012] Prediction under uncertainty on a mature field. Oil and Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP,67(2), 193–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ferreira, C.J., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2015] Improving the estimation of the chance of success of a 4D seismic project based on representative models.EUROPEC 2015, SPE-174386-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gaspar, A.T.F.S., Santos, S.M.G., Ferreira, C.J. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2020] Estimation of the chance of success of a four-dimensional seismic project for a developed oil field.ECMOR XVII.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Helton, J.C., Davis, F.J.
    [2003] Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81(1), 23–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hutahaean, J., Demyanov, V. and Christie, M.
    [2019] Reservoir development optimization under uncertainty for infill well placement in brownfield redevelopment. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 175, 444–464.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jiang, R., Stern, D., Halsey, T.C. and Manzocchi, T.
    [2016] Scenario discovery workflow for robust petroleum reservoir development under uncertainty. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 6(6), 533–559.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Mahjour, S.K., Santos, A.A.S., Correia, M.G. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2020a] Developing a workflow to select representative reservoir models combining distance-based clustering and data assimilation for decision making process. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 190, 107078.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mahjour, S.K., Santos, A.A.D.S., Correia, M.G. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2020b] Two-stage scenario reduction process for an efficient robust optimization.ECMOR XVII, WeA15.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Meddaugh, W.S., Meddaugh, W. and McCray, B.
    [2017] Quantitative assessment of the impact of sparse data and decision bias on reservoir recovery forecasts.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE-187402-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Meira, L.A., Coelho, G.P., Santos, A.A.S. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2016] Selection of representative models for decision analysis under uncertainty. Computers and Geosciences,88, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Meira, L.A., Coelho, G.P., Silva, C.G., Abreu, J.L.A., Santos, A.S. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2020] Improving representativeness in a scenario reduction process to aid decision making in petroleum fields. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,184, 106398.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Meira, L.A., Coelho, G.P., Silva, C.G., Schiozer, D.J. and Santos, A.S.
    [2017] RMFinder 2.0: an improved interactive multi-criteria scenario reduction methodology.SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, SPE-185502-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MishraS.
    [1998] Alternatives to Monte-Carlo simulation for probabilistic reserves estimation and production forecasting.SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE-49313-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Panjalizadeh, H., Alizadeh, N. and Mashhadi, H.
    [2014] A workflow for risk analysis and optimization of steam flooding scenario using static and dynamic proxy models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,121, 78–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ravagnani, A.T.F.S., Mazo, E.O.M. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2011] A case study of the structure of the process for production strategy selection. International Journal of Modeling and Simulation for the Petroleum Industry, 4(1), 9–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Santos, A.A.S., Gaspar, A.T.F.S., von Hohendorff Filho, J.C., Correia, M.G., Santos, S.M.G. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2018b] Case study for field development and management - selection of production strategy based on UNISIM-II. University of Campinas, June 20, 2018. Available at: https://www.unisim.cepetro.unicamp.br/benchmarks/files/UNISIM-II-D.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Santos, L.S., Santos, S.M.G., Santos, A.A.S., Schiozer, D.J. and Silva, L.O.M.
    [2020] Influence of representative models in the expected value of information applied to petroleum fields development.SPE Europec featured at 82nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, SPE-200525-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Santos, S.M.G., Gaspar, A.T.F.S. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2018a] Comparison of risk analysis methodologies in a geostatistical context: Monte Carlo with joint proxy models and discretized Latin hypercube. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 8(1), 23–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sarma, P., Chen, W.H. and Xie, J.
    [2013] Selecting representative models from a large set of models.SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, SPE-163671-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Scheidt, C. and Caers, J.
    [2009] Representing spatial uncertainty using distances and kernels. Mathematical Geosciences, 41(4), 397–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Scheidt, C., Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Feraille, M. and Collombier, D.
    [2007] Toward a reliable quantification of uncertainty on production forecasts: adaptive experimental designs. Oil and Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP,62(2), 207–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Schiozer, D.J., Avansi, G. D. and Santos, A.A.S.
    [2017] Risk quantification combining geostatistical realizations and discretized Latin hypercube. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 39(2), 575–587.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schiozer, D.J., Ligero, E.L., Suslick, S.B., Costa, A.P.A. and Santos, J.A.M.
    [2004] Use of representative models in the integration of risk analysis and production strategy definition. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44(1), 131–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schiozer, D.J., Santos, A.A.S. and Drumond, P.S.
    [2015] Integrated model based decision analysis in twelve steps applied to petroleum fields development and management.EUROPEC 2015, SPE-174370-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schiozer, D.J., Santos, A.A.S., Santos, S.M.G. and Hohendorff Filho, J.C.
    [2019] Model-based decision analysis applied to petroleum field development and management. Oil and Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP,74, 46.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Shirangi, M.G. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2016] A general method to select representative models for decision making and optimization under uncertainty. Computers and Geosciences, 96, 109–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Silva, L.O.M., Santos, A.A.S. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2016] Otimização da estratégia de produção sob incertezas geológicas e econômicas.Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016, IBP1513_16.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. von Hohendorff Filho, J.C., Maschio, C. and Schiozer, D.J.
    [2016] Production strategy optimization based on iterative discrete Latin hypercube. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 38(8), 2473–2480.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, K.C. and Durlofsky, L.J.
    [2013] Optimization of shale gas field development using direct search techniques and reduced-physics models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,108, 304–975.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Yang, C., Card, C., Nghiem, L. and Fedutenko, E.
    [2011] Robust optimization of SAGD operations under geological uncertainties.SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, SPE-141676-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Yeten, B., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K.
    [2003] Optimization of nonconventional well type, location, and trajectory. SPE Journal, 8(3), 200–210, SPE-86880-PA.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035041
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035041
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