MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334214805 · doi:10.2118/176290-ms

Integrated Modeling for Assisted History Matching and Robust Optimisation in Mature Reservoirs

2015· article· en· W2334214805 on OpenAlexafffund
Ngoc T. Nguyen, Zhangxin Chen, Cuong T. Dang, Long X. Nghiem, Chaodong Yang, Gilles Bourgoult, Heng Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMG Reservoir Simulation FoundationUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsWorkflowReservoir simulationComputer scienceMatching (statistics)SoftwareReservoir engineeringProcess (computing)Reservoir modelingGeologyPetroleum engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract History matching and production optimization are the important keys in reservoir modeling. Reservoir geology plays a crucial role in these complicated processes and the oil and gas operators highly demand for a fast, accurate and effective integration of geology and reservoir engineering that is still limited in the past. This paper aims to present: (1) a modeling approach that automatically integrates geological modeling software, a reservoir simulator, and history matching and optimization software in a closed-loop; (2) the advantages of an assisted history matching approach; (3) a robust optimization workflow based on multiple geological realizations. This new approach was successfully applied in a Brugge reservoir. We first present a systematical workflow of the integrated modeling that allows us to capture the crucial effects of geology. Based on this approach, multiple geological realizations are geostatiscally generated for history matching, robust optimization and uncertainty assessment. We utilize the benefits of coupling the geological modeling software, the reservoir simulator and the optimization tool together. The Designed Exploration and Controlled Evolution optimization method is used to perform the history matching. In the history matching process, the optimizer invokes geological software with new variogram parameters to calculate the reservoir properties. Finally, a robust optimization approach based on multiple geological realizations is introduced to overcome the current weakness of optimization based on single realization. The closed loop modeling approach is proven a powerful tool to improve the modeling quality and reduce the time and engineering efforts for capturing the critical effects of reservoir geology in complex sandstone reservoirs. Using this closed loop modeling, we successfully perform an assisted history matching of the secondary waterflooding process. This method effectively accounts for the uncertainty of geological characteristics in terms of facies proportion and spatial distribution. The properties of each facies were controlled by both blocked data histograms and the vertical trend. The results of history matching show that the misfit of objective functions was reduced from 16.45% to 6%. Finally, we optimize the rates of thirty injection and production wells over the life of a reservoir, with the objective to maximize the average NPV based on the geological realizations that the history misfit is less than 7% rather than using a single realization. The results show that the robust optimization significantly improve the expected NPV and reduce substantially the risk associated with geological uncertainties. This paper presents an efficient modeling and optimization approach under geological uncertainties by integrating various simulator's available in the industry. The innovative closed loop modeling workflow together with an assisted history matching and robust optimization provides a means of optimizing recovery and assessing uncertainties of both secondary and tertiary EOR processes.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207