MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252909665 · doi:10.2118/2009-052

Estimation of Relative Permeability by Assisted History Matching Using the Ensemble Kalman Filter Method

2009· article· en· W4252909665 on OpenAlex
H. Li, S. Chen, Daoyong Yang, Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsKalman filterEnsemble Kalman filterFast Kalman filterExtended Kalman filterComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Moving horizon estimationFiltering theoryPermeability (electromagnetism)EstimationStatisticsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a novel technique has been developed to implicitly estimate the relative permeability by history matching three-phase production data with the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF). Power law repetitive of the relative permeability curves is utilized, while both endpoints and shape of the relative permeability curve are included in the state vectors which are updated by assimilating the observed data sequentially. The newly developed technique has been validated with accurately evaluating the relative permeability in a synthetic reservoir with two-dimension and three-phase flow. It is shown from the synthetic case that good estimation of the relative permeability curves can be obtained by assimilating the observed oil rates, gas-oil ratios and well bottomhole pressures of the production wells. Both the shape factors and the endpoints of the relative permeability curves are accurately evaluated; however, a larger ensemble size is needed to avoid the filter divergence. Compared to the existing implicit methods, the newly developed technique does not require the gradient of the objective function and thus makes it easy to implement. Introduction Relative permeability is not only one of the most important parameters used in reservoir characterization, but also crucial for predicting reservoir performance throughout the life of a reservoir. In general, relative permeability is obtained from the displacement experiments with core samples. However, due to the huge scaling difference between the core samples and the reservoir as well as the difference between the experimental conditions and the formation conditions, direct application of estimated results generated from core samples to the whole reservoir may induce significant errors in evaluating the reservoir performance. Furthermore, interpretation of the laboratory experiment data may also add further uncertainty to the process of reservoir simulation. Therefore, it is of practical and fundamental importance to accurately evaluate the relative permeability in hydrocarbon reservoirs. In principle, estimation of the relative permeability curve can be obtained inversely by history matching the production data obtained from the displacement experiments or field operations[1–6]. A brief description of the process of implicit relative permeability estimation method is provided as follows. Prior to the history matching, a relative permeability representation model is selected and initialized. Then, reservoir simulation is conducted by using the initial relative permeability curve to generate the simulated production data. Subsequently, the relative permeability curves are adjusted using a robust algorithm to minimize the discrepancy between the simulated production data and the field observation data. Once the discrepancy is minimized, the corresponding relative permeability curve is regarded as the approximation of the real relative permeability curves. The relative permeability representation models are classified into two categories: the functional model and the nonfunctional model. Among the functional models, the power law model, which determines the relative permeability curve by the endpoints and the exponential factors, is the most widely used model[4, 6]. Compared to the functional models, the nonfunctional models are more flexible and show more degrees of freedom, among which the cubic or B-spline curve are commonly applied to represent the relative permeability.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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