1887

Abstract

Summary

Iterative ensemble smoothers are gaining recognition as robust data assimilation methods for modeling geological reservoirs in various applications, including hydrocarbon exploitation, water resources management, geothermal energy, and CO$_2$ storage. Despite numerous publications with both synthetic and field applications, there is a significant lack of discussion on the practical aspects of the implementation of these methods in operational settings. This work aims to bridge this gap by discussing practical considerations for effectively using iterative ensemble smoothers in reservoir data assimilation. The topics covered include:

(1) Setup of the data assimilation method: This includes a discussion about the number of iterations, ensemble size, truncation of singular values, and localization.

(2) Problem parametrization: This involves the selection and representation of uncertain model parameters, encompassing petrophysical properties like porosity and permeability, as well as more general scalar parameters such as relative permeability curves and faults. Special attention is dedicated to the representation of geological facies using a parametrization based on truncated plurigaussian simulation.

(3) Production data: This involves an examination of the type and frequency of selected production data and the associated data-error covariances.

(4) 4D seismic data: This includes a discussion about data preparation and selection, scale transfer, petroelastic modeling, and data-error covariance.

(5) Quality control of prior and posterior models: This involves metrics for measuring the representativeness of the prior model realizations, data-match quality, ensemble variance, and model changes.

The discussions in this work are backed by real-world examples from over a decade of hands-on experience in developing and applying ensemble methods to reservoir data assimilation for hydrocarbon recovery. While the paper’s primary focus is on the method ES-MDA (ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation), most discussions and recommendations are applicable to other iterative ensemble smoothers. The goal is to provide guidelines for researchers and practitioners in the field.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
2024-09-02
2026-04-10

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfonzo, M. A. and Oliver, D. S.Seismic data assimilation with an imperfect model.Computational Geosciences, 24:889–905, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10596‑019‑09849‑0.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-019-09849-0. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amini, H.A pragmatic approach to simulator-to-seismic modelling for 4D seismic interpretation. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, 2014. URL http://hdl.handle.net/10399/2756.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong, M., Galli, A., Beucher, H., Loc’h, G. L., Renard, D., Doligez, B., Eschard, R., and Geffroy, F.Plurigaussian simulations in geosciences. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2nd edition, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑19607‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19607-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Avansi, G. D. and Schiozer, D. J.UNISIM-I: synthetic model for reservoir development and management applications.International Journal of Modeling and Simulation for the Petroleum Industry, 9(1):21–30, 2015. URL http://www.ijmspi.org/ojs/index.php/ijmspi/article/view/152.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batzle, M. and Wang, Z.Seismic properties of pore fluids.Geophysics, 57(11):1396–1408, 1992. doi:10.1190/1.1443207.
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443207. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boisvert, J. B.Geostatistics with locally varying anisotropy. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brito, D. U., Moraes, R. J., and Emerick, A. A.The Marlim field: Incorporating time-lapse seismic in the assisted history matching. In Proceedings of the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, number SPE-137763-MS, 2010. doi:10.2118/137763‑MS.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/137763-MS. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brynjarsdóttir, J. and O’Hagan, A.Learning about physical parameters: the importance of model discrepancy.Inverse Problems, 30, 2014. doi:10.1088/0266‑5611/30/11/114007.
     https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/30/11/114007. [Google Scholar]
  9. Canchumuni, S. W. A., Castro, J. D. B., Potratz, J., Emerick, A. A., and Pacheco, M. A. C.Recent developments combining ensemble smoother and deep generative networks for facies history matching.Computational Geosciences, 25(433–466), 2021. doi:10.1007/s10596‑020‑10015‑0.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-020-10015-0. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan, S. and Elsheikh, A. H.Parametric generation of conditional geological realizations using generative neural networks.Computational Geosciences, 23:925–952, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10596‑019‑09850‑7.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-019-09850-7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, C., Gao, G., Gelderblom, P., and Jimenez, E.Integration of cumulative-distribution-function mapping with principal-component analysis for the history matching of channelized reservoirs.SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 19(2):278–293, 2016. doi:10.2118/170636‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/170636-PA. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cruz, N. M., Cruz, J. M., Teixeira, L. M., da Costa, M. M., de Oliveira, L. B., Urasaki, E. N., Bispo, T. P., de Sa Jardim, M., Grochau, M. H., and Maul, A.Tupi nodes pilot: A successful 4D seismic case for Brazilian presalt reservoirs.The Leading Edge, 40(12):886–896, 2021. doi:10.1190/tle40120886.1.
     https://doi.org/10.1190/tle40120886.1. [Google Scholar]
  13. Deutsch, C. V.Geostatistical reservoir modeling. Oxford University Press, 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Emerick, A. A.Analysis of the performance of ensemble-based assimilation of production and seismic data.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 139:219–239, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.029.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.029. [Google Scholar]
  15. Emerick, A. A.Investigation on principal component analysis parameterizations for history matching channelized facies models with ensemble-based data assimilation.Mathematical Geosciences, 49(1): 85–120, 2017. doi:10.1007/s11004‑016‑9659‑5.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-016-9659-5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Emerick, A. A.Analysis of geometric selection of the data-error covariance inflation for ES-MDA.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 182, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2019.06.032.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.06.032. [Google Scholar]
  17. Emerick, A. A. and Neto, G. M. S.Investigation on the production data frequency for assimilation with ensemble smoother.Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 231, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212356.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212356. [Google Scholar]
  18. Emerick, A. A. and Neto, G. M. S.Projection of 4D seismic onto the ensemble observation subspace for data assimilation.Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 237, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.geoen.2024.212835.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2024.212835. [Google Scholar]
  19. Emerick, A. A. and Reynolds, A. C.Combining the ensemble Kalman filter with Markov chain Monte Carlo for improved history matching and uncertainty characterization. In Proceedings of the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 21–23 February, number SPE-141336-MS, 2011. doi:10.2118/141336‑MS.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/141336-MS. [Google Scholar]
  20. Emerick, A. A. and Reynolds, A. C.Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation.Computers & Geosciences, 55:3–15, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.03.011.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.03.011. [Google Scholar]
  21. Evensen, G.Sampling strategies and square root analysis schemes for the EnKF.Ocean Dynamics, 54 (6):539–560, 2004. doi:10.1007/s10236‑004‑0099‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-004-0099-2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Evensen, G.Accounting for model errors in iterative ensemble smoothers.Computational Geosciences, First Online, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10596‑019‑9819‑z.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-019-9819-z. [Google Scholar]
  23. Evensen, G. and Eikrem, K. S.Conditioning reservoir models on rate data using ensemble smoothers.Computational Geosciences, 22(1):1–20, 2018. doi:10.1007/s10596‑018‑9750‑8.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-018-9750-8. [Google Scholar]
  24. Exterkoetter, R., Dutra, G. R., de Figueiredo, L. P., Bordignon, F., Neto, G. M. S., and Emerick, A. A.Feature extraction in time-lapse seismic using deep learning for data assimilation.SPE Journal, 1, 2023. doi:10.2118/212196‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/212196-PA. [Google Scholar]
  25. Floris, F. J. T., Bush, M. D., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F., and Syversveen, A. R.Methods for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: a comparative study.Petroleum Geoscience, 7(SUPP):87–96, 2001. doi:10.1144/petgeo.7.S.S87.
     https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.7.S.S87. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fonseca, R. M., Rossa, E. D., Emerick, A. A., Hanea, R. G., and Jansen, J. D.Introduction to the special issue: Overview of OLYMPUS optimization benchmark challenge.Computational Geosciences, 24: 1933–1941, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596‑020‑10003‑4.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-020-10003-4. [Google Scholar]
  27. Furrer, R. and Bengtsson, T.Estimation of high-dimensional prior and posterior covariance matrices in Kalman filter variants.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 98(2):227–255, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2006.08.003.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2006.08.003. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gaspari, G. and Cohn, S. E.Construction of correlation functions in two and three dimensions.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 125(554):723–757, 1999. doi:10.1002/qj.49712555417.
     https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555417. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gassmann, F.Elastic waves through a packing of spheres.Geophysics, 16:673–685, 1951. doi:10.1190/1.1437718.
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1437718. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gavish, M. and Donoho, D. L.The optimal hard threshold for singular values is 4/3.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(8):5040–5053, 2014. doi:10.1109/TIT.2014.2323359.
     https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2014.2323359. [Google Scholar]
  31. Grana, D., Mukerji, T., and Doyen, P.Seismic Reservoir Modeling: Theory, Examples, and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Houtekamer, P. L. and Mitchell, H. L.Data assimilation using an ensemble Kalman filter technique.Monthly Weather Review, 126(3):796–811, 1998. doi:10.1175/1520‑0493(1998)126<0796:DAUAEK>2.0.CO;2.
     https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493 [Google Scholar]
  33. Karsli, H. and Dondurur, D.A procedure to reduce side lobes of reflection wavelets: A contribution to low frequency information.Journal of Applied Geophysics, 96, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.07.002.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.07.002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kragh, E. and Christie, P.Seismic repeatability, normalized RMS, and predictability.The Leading Edge, 21(7), 2002. doi:10.1190/1.1497316.
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1497316. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lacerda, J. M., Emerick, A. A., and Pires, A. P.Methods to mitigate loss of variance due to sampling errors in ensemble data assimilation with non-local model parameters.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 172:690–706, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2018.08.056.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.08.056. [Google Scholar]
  36. Le, D. H., Emerick, A. A., and Reynolds, A. C.An adaptive ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation for assisted history matching.SPE Journal, 21(6):2195–2207, 2016. doi:10.2118/173214‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/173214-PA. [Google Scholar]
  37. Leeuwenburgh, O. and Arts, R.Distance parameterization for efficient seismic history matching with the ensemble Kalman filter.Computational Geosciences, 18(3–4):535–548, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10596‑014‑9434‑y.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-014-9434-y. [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, N. and Oliver, D. S.Ensemble Kalman filter for automatic history matching of geologic facies.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 47(3–4):147–161, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2005.03.006.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.03.006. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lomeland, F., Ebeltoft, E., and Thomas, W. H.A new versatile relative permeability correlation. In International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Toronto, Canada, 21–25 August, 2005. URL jgmaas.com/SCA/2005/SCA2005-32.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Luo, X. and Bhakta, T.Estimating observation error covariance matrix of seismic data from a perspective of image denoising.Computational Geosciences, 21(2):205–222, 2017. doi:10.1007/s10596‑016‑9605‑0.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-016-9605-0. [Google Scholar]
  41. Luo, X. and Bhakta, T.Automatic and adaptive localization for ensemble-based history matching.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106559.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106559. [Google Scholar]
  42. Luo, X., Bhakta, T., and Nævdal, G.Correlation-based adaptive localization with applications to ensemble-based 4D-seismic history matching.SPE Journal, 23(2):396–427, 2018a. doi:10.2118/185936‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/185936-PA. [Google Scholar]
  43. Luo, X., Lorentzen, R. J., Valestrand, R., and Evensen, G.Correlation-based adaptive localization for ensemble-based history matching: Applied to the Norne field case study.SPE Reservoir Engineering, Preprint, 2018b. doi:10.2118/191305‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/191305-PA. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J.The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. Cambridge University Press, first edition, 1998.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mosser, L., Dubrule, O., and Blunt, M. J.Deepflow: History matching in the space of deep generative models.arXiv:1905.05749v1 [cs.LG], 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05749.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nævdal, G., Johnsen, L. M., Aanonsen, S. I., and Vefring, E. H.Reservoir monitoring and continuous model updating using ensemble Kalman filter.SPE Journal, 10(1):66–74, 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Neto, G. M. S., Rios, V. S., Davolio, A., and Schiozer, D. J.Improving fluid modeling representation for seismic data assimilation in compositional reservoir simulation.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 194, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107446.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107446. [Google Scholar]
  48. Obidegwu, D., Chassagne, R., and MacBeth, C.Seismic assisted history matching using binary maps.Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 42, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.001.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.001. [Google Scholar]
  49. Oliver, D.S.Minimization for conditional simulation: Relationship to optimal transport.Journal of Computational Physics, 265:1–15, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.01.048.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.01.048. [Google Scholar]
  50. Oliver, D. S.Information content in 4D seismic data: Effect of correlated noise.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 208, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109728.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109728. [Google Scholar]
  51. Oliver, D. S. and Alfonzo, M.Calibration of imperfect models to biased observations.Computational Geosciences, 22:145–161, 2018a. doi:10.1007/s10596‑017‑9678‑4.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-017-9678-4. [Google Scholar]
  52. Oliver, D. S. and Alfonzo, M. A.Seismic data assimilation with an imperfect model. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (ECMOR XVI), Barcelona, Spain3–6 September, 2018b. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.201802283.
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802283. [Google Scholar]
  53. Oliver, D. S., Reynolds, A. C., and Liu, N.Inverse Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Oliver, D. S., Fossum, K., Bhakta, T., Sandø, I., Nævdal, G., and Lorentzen, R. J.4D seismic history matching.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 207, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109119.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109119. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rafiee, J. and Reynolds, A. C.Theoretical and efficient practical procedures for the generation of inflation factors for ES-MDA.Inverse Problems, 33(11):115003, 2017. doi:10.1088/1361‑6420/aa8cb2.
     https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/aa8cb2. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosa, D. R., Schiozer, D. J., and Davolio, A.Evaluating the impact of 4D seismic data artefacts in data assimilation.Petroleum Geosciences, 29(3), 2023. doi:10.1144/petgeo2022‑069.
     https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2022-069. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sætrom, J., Morell, E., and Munck, T. F.Reservoir modelling and uncertainty quantification – why we currently fail and what we can do to fix this. In ECMOR XV - 15th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 29 August–1 September, 2016. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.201601860.
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201601860. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sebacher, B. M., Hanea, R., and Heemink, A.A probabilistic parametrization for geological uncertainty estimation using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF).Computational Geosciences, 17(5):813–832, 2013. doi:10.1007/s10596‑013‑9357‑z.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-013-9357-z. [Google Scholar]
  59. Silva, V. L. S., Cardoso, M. A., Oliveira, D. F. B., and de Moraes, R. J.Stochastic optimization strategies applied to the OLYMPUS benchmark.Computational Geosciences, 24, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10596‑019‑09854‑3.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-019-09854-3. [Google Scholar]
  60. Skjaeveland, S. M., Siqveland, L. M., Kjosavik, A., Thomas, W. L. H., and Virnovsky, G. A.Capillary pressure correlation for mixed-wet reservoirs.SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 23(1), 2000. doi:10.2118/60900‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/60900-PA. [Google Scholar]
  61. Skjervheim, J.-A., Heanea, R. G., and Evensen, G.Fast model update coupled to an ensemble based closed loop reservoir management. In Proceedings of the Petroleum Geostatistics, Biarritz, France, 7–11 September, 2015. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.201413629.
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201413629. [Google Scholar]
  62. Soares, R. V., Luo, X., and Evensen, G.Sparse representation of 4D seismic signal based on dictionary learning. In Proceedings of the SPE Norway One Day Seminar, Bergen, Norway, May 2019., number SPE-195599-MS, 2019. doi:10.2118/195599‑MS.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/195599-MS. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tillier, E., Veiga, S. D., and Derfoul, R.Appropriate formulation of the objective function for the history matching of seismic attributes.Computers & Geosciences, 51, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.031.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.031. [Google Scholar]
  64. Trani, M., Arts, R., and Leeuwenburgh, O.Seismic history matching of fluid fronts using the ensemble Kalman filter.SPE Journal, 18(1), 2012. doi:10.2118/163043‑PA.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/163043-PA. [Google Scholar]
  65. Webb, S. J., Bayless, J. S., and Dunlop, K. N. B.Enabling the “big loop” – ensuring consistency of geological and reservoir simulation models. In Proceedings of the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California, April, 2007.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Zachariassen, E., Skjervheim, J.-A., Vabø, J. G., Lunt, I., Hove, J., and Evensen, G.Integrated work flow for model update using geophysical monitoring data. In Proceedings of the 73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 23–26 May, 2011. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.20149329.
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20149329. [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
Loading
Practical Considerations in the Application of Ensemble Smoother for Assimilating Production and 4D Seismic Data
Conference Proceedings 2024, 1 (2024); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437027
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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