1887

Abstract

Summary

In this work we investigate how the form of the objective function can influence the results and the speed of history matching (HM). The objective function definition depends on the production variables included in the objective and their weighting factors. These choices may impact, for instance, the speed of assisted history matching. We demonstrate how the choice of the suitable form for the objective function used in HM should depend on the particular reservoir development problem at stake.

The work presents a comparative study between different objective function formulations used in history matching a synthetic reservoir example. An industry standard stochastic optimization algorithm - evolution strategy was chosen for the comparative benchmarking of the impact of the objective function choice on history matching. The synthetic model represents waterflooding case with 3 production, 3 injection wells, 7 years of simulated history and 8 parameters of reservoir uncertainty. The findings from the comparative study are not limited to a particular assisted HM algorithms applied.

Processing and analysis of the experimental results confirmed that the formulation of the objective function is important, since its value allows the algorithm to accelerate towards finding better HM solutions. The study demonstrates how different objective function formulations lead to different computational costs to reach the history matched solution. This means an optimal objective function formulation for each particular problem should provide the fastest convergence.

Novelty of the work is in demonstrating how the different objective function formulation can help to history match a reservoir model with minimized computational cost when solving different production problems. We show that the objective function should not be defined in the same way for any history matching process but rather adjusted to the particular application allowing to reach required history match at minimum computational cost. This will give more chances to history match real complex hydrocarbon field models within a reasonable time.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035082
2020-09-14
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlmeidaF.R., DavolioA., SchiozerD.J.
    [2014] A New Approach to Perform a Probabilistic and Multi-objective History Matching, SPE-170623-MS.
  2. AlmeidaF.R., FormentinH.N., MaschioC., DavolioA., SchiozerD.J.
    [2018] Influence of Additional Objective Functions on Uncertainty Reduction and History Matching, SPE-190804-MS.
  3. BertoliniA.C., SchiozerJ.D.
    [2011] Influence of the objective function in the history matching process, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. Elsevier B.V., 78(1), pp. 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2011.04.012.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BeyerH.G. and SchwefelH.P.
    [2002] Evolution strategies: a comprehensive introduction, Natural Computing: an international journal, vol 1, pp. 3–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BoothR., BertoliniA.C., MortonK.L., FitzpatrickA.J.
    [2013] Design of Objective Function for Interference Well Testing, OTC-24513-MS.
  6. BouzarkounaZ., NobakhtB.N.K.
    [2015] A Better Formulation of Objective Functions for History Matching Using Hausdorff Distances, SPE-174302-MS.
  7. CarneiroJ., AzevedoL., PereiraM.
    [2018] High-dimensional geostatistical history matching. Comput Geosci22, 607–622 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-017-9712-6
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ChristieM.A., EydinovD., DemyanovV., TalbotJ., ArnoldD., ShelkovV.
    [2013] Use of Multi-Objective Algorithms in History Matching of a Real Field, SPE-163580-MS.
  9. DingY.D., McKeeF.
    [2011] Using partial separability of the objective function for gradient-based optimizations in history matching, SPE-140811-MS.
  10. FerraroP., VergaF.
    [2009] Use Of Evolutionary Algorithms In Single And Multi- Objective Optimization Techniques For Assisted History Matching, OMC-2009-079.
  11. FerreiraC.J., DavolioA., SchiozerD.J.
    [2017] Use of a Probabilistic and Multi-Objective History Matching for Uncertainty Reduction for the Norne Benchmark Case, SPE-185837-MS.
  12. HutahaeanJ.J., DemyanovV.V., ChristieM.A.
    [2017] On Optimal Selection of Objective Grouping for Multiobjective History Matching, SPE 185957-PA.
  13. HutahaenJ.J. DemyanowV.V., ChristieM. A.
    [2015] Impact of Model Parameterisation and Objective Choices on Assisted History Matching and Reservoir Forecasting, SPE-176389-MS.
  14. ParkH.Y., Datta-GuptaA., KingM.J.
    [2013] Handling Conflicting Multiple Objectives Using Pareto-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for History Matching of Reservoir Performance, SPE-163623-MS.
  15. RwechunguraR.W., DadashpourM., KleppeJ.
    [2011] Advanced History Matching Techniques Reviewed, SPE-142497-MS.
  16. Schulze-RiegertR.W., KroscheM., FahimuddinA., GhedanS.G.
    [2007] Multiobjective Optimization With Application to Model Validation and Uncertainty, SPE 105313.
  17. ShahkaramiA., MohagheghS.D., Gholami, V., HaghighatS.A.
    [2014] Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assisted History Matching, SPE-169507-MS.
  18. StephenK.D.
    [2013] Seismic History Matching With Saturation Indicators Combined With Multiple Objective Function Optimization, SPE-164857-MS.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035082
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202035082
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