1887

Abstract

Summary

The subject of integrated uncertainty quantification of reservoir is not new; all majors and service companies are proposing their big loops. It is more robust and coherent to sample together static and dynamic parameters whether for uncertainty quantification or for optimization purpose. It avoids working with only few static models and thus avoids the bias in decision making. But in practice, handling in a big loop structural, geological and dynamic uncertainties often results in a complex workflow and lines of script. A specialist or an experienced engineer should be present in a project team.

TotalEnergies E&P has developed a Big Loop Uncertainty tool allowing an easy and intuitive integration of reservoir uncertainties in a single workflow. The objective was to give a tool that any engineer can manage with only understanding of the discipline. Based on the experimental design and surface response solid basis, the tool “hides” the complexity and routine links. The single parametrization allows to explore differently global and local uncertainties, impacts or do optimization.

Here we are presenting an application of this tool to a rather complex case with 9 geological and 24 dynamic parameters mainly associated with several levels of heterogeneity, active aquifer and fault transmissivities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202335012
2023-11-27
2025-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Busby, D., ChugunovaT., (2015). Embedded Response Surface Approach for Uncertainty Quantification.(IPTC) International Petroleum Technology Conference6–9 Dec 2015, Doha, Qatar. IPTC-18441-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Charles, T., Guéméné, J.M., Corre, B., Vincent, G., Dubrule, O. (2001). Experience with the quantification of subsurface uncertainties. SPE 68703.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Jakobsson, S., Wojciechowski, A., Patriksson, M. (2010). A Method for Simulation Based Optimization Using Radial Basis Functions.Optimization and Engineering (Dec 2010).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, H., Sarma, P., Zhang, D. (2010). A comparative study of the probabilistic-collocation and experimental-design methods for petroleum-reservoir uncertainty quantification. SPE 140738.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Maree, S. C., Alderliesten, T., Thierens, D., Bosman, P. A. N. (2018). Real-Valued Evolutionary Multi-Modal Optimization driven by Hill-Valley Clustering.GECCO 18: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Milliken, J., Levy, M., Strebelle, S., Zhang, Y. (2008). The effect of geologic parameters and uncertainties on subsurface flow: deep depositional system. SPE 114099.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Touzani, S., Busby, D., Antoniadis, A. (2010). A Comparison of Screening Methods for High Dimensional Input Problems. Paper presented at ECMOR XII the 12th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery. EAGE. 6–9 September 2010, Oxford, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Yeten, B., Castellini, A., Guyaguler, B., Chen, W.H. (2005). A Comparison Study on Experimental Design and Response Surface Methodologies, Paper SPE 93347 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 31 January‐2 February 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202335012
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202335012
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