MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088770173 · doi:10.2118/07-11-01

Iterative Updating of Reservoir Models Constrained to Dynamic Data

2007· article· en· W2088770173 on OpenAlexaff
Tarun Kashib, Sanjay Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservoir simulationComputer scienceReservoir modelingAlgorithmDynamic dataData miningMathematical optimizationGeologyPetroleum engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geostatistical algorithms are being widely used to integrate different data such as seismic amplitude, well logs and core measurements into reservoir models. However, approaches to integrate dynamic/production data efficiently into these models are largely lacking. Production data differs from other types of static data (such as porosity, permeability, amplitude, etc.) primarily because they are non-linearly related to the connectivity characteristics of the reservoir. In this paper, we develop a gradual deformation methodology to integrate two-phase production data in order to give rise to a suite of reservoir models that are conditioned to static data, as well as dynamic data. We utilize the Sequential Indicator Simulation algorithm within a non-stationary Markov Chain to iteratively update the realizations till a history match is obtained. The methodology is tested on a synthetic 2D and 3D reservoir. Introduction Reservoir flow simulation is used to forecast oil and gas production profiles corresponding to different development scenarios. The reservoir models on which the flow simulations are performed are themselves uncertain due to the sparse information that is available to construct them. There is minimum uncertainty at the well locations and maximum uncertainty at locations away from the well. Hence, the production profile for a particular development scheme cannot be predicted exactly. Geostatistical simulation algorithms such as Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) and Sequential Indicator Simuation (SIS) are being widely used nowadays to develop multiple equip-probable reservoir models. Each of these models is conditioned to the available static data, such as seismic, well logs, cores, etc., and the set of reservoir models quantify the uncertainty stemming from the lack of complete information about the reservoir. Historic production data contains valuable information pertaining to the connectivity characteristics of the reservoir. However, constraining reservoir models to measurements of pressure, oil, gas and water rates at different times is considerably more complicated due to the non-linearity between the dynamic response outputs and the model parameters. The procedure to adjust a reservoir model such that the production history is reflected correctly is known as history matching. It is a very time consuming process and may require several months of work by the reservoir engineer. In order to alleviate this problem, various attempts have been made to automate the process of history matching. History matching is an ill-posed problem and the parameter set that result in minimizing the deviation from data is non-unique. Mathematically, the history-matching problem can be posed in an optimization context, i.e., the minimization of a complex least squares objective function in a parameter space populated by multiple local minima. Two broad approaches for solving the problem are:Trial and error methods: Trial and error methods run repeated flow simulations on multiple reservoir models and retain only those models that reflect the historic production characteristics within some acceptable tolerances. Trial and error methods are computationally inefficient.Gradient-based methods: Gradient-based methods(1,2) capitalize on the nature of the physical relationship between the observed flow response and the model parameters in order to expedite convergence of the optimization process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207