Computational Geosciences

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 3–36

Efficient real-time reservoir management using adjoint-based optimal control and model updating

  • Pallav Sarma
  • Louis J. Durlofsky
  • Khalid Aziz
  • Wen H. Chen
Article

The key ingredients to successful real-time reservoir management, also known as a “closed-loop” approach, include efficient optimization and model-updating (history-matching) algorithms, as well as techniques for efficient uncertainty propagation. This work discusses a simplified implementation of the closed-loop approach that combines efficient optimal control and model-updating algorithms for real-time production optimization. An adjoint model is applied to provide gradients of the objective function with respect to the well controls; these gradients are then used with standard optimization algorithms to determine optimum well settings. To enable efficient history matching, Bayesian inversion theory is used in combination with an optimal representation of the unknown parameter field in terms of a Karhunen–Loeve expansion. This representation allows for the direct application of adjoint techniques for the history match while assuring that the two-point geostatistics of the reservoir description are maintained. The benefits and efficiency of the overall closed-loop approach are demonstrated through real-time optimizations of net present value (NPV) for synthetic reservoirs under waterflood subject to production constraints and uncertain reservoir description. For two example cases, the closed-loop optimization methodology is shown to provide a substantial improvement in NPV over the base case, and the results are seen to be quite close to those obtained when the reservoir description is known a priori.

Keywords

adjoint Bayesian inversion closed loop history matching Karhunen–Loeve model updating optimal control optimization reservoir simulation uncertainty waterflood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M.A. Tatang, Direct Incorporation of Uncertainty in Chemical and Environmental Engineering Systems, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Sarma, L.J. Durlofsky and K. Aziz, Efficient closed-loop production optimization under uncertainty, in: SPE Paper 94241 Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain (2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Jansen, D.R. Brouwer, G. Naevdal and C.P.J.W. van Kruijsdiik, Closed-loop reservoir management, First Break 23 (2005) 43–48.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.R. Brouwer, G. Naevdal, J.D. Jansen, E.H. Vefring and C.P.J.W. van Kruijsdiik, Improved reservoir management through optimal control and continuous model updating, in: SPE Paper 90149 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX (2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Naevdal, L.M. Johnsen, S.I. Aanonsen and E.H. Vefring, Reservoir monitoring and continuous model updating using ensemble Kalman filter, in: SPE Paper 84372 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO (2003).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    X.H. Wen and W.H. Chen, Real time reservoir model updating using ensemble Kalman filter, in: SPE Paper 92991 Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX (2005).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Aitokhuehi and L.J. Durlofsky, Optimizing the performance of smart wells in complex reservoirs using continuously updated geological models, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 48 (2005) 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Caers, The probability perturbation method: an alternative to traditional Bayesian approaches for solving inverse problems, presented at 9th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Cannes, France (2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.E. Gill, W. Murray and M. Wright, Practical Optimization (Academic Press, New York, 1982).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Faithi and W.F. Ramirez, Optimization of an enhanced oil recovery process with boundary controls – a large scale nonlinear maximization, Presented at the 4th IFAC Symposium on Control of Distributed Parameter Systems, Los Angeles, CA (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Mehos and W.F. Ramirez, Use of optimal control theory to optimize carbon dioxide miscible flooding enhanced oil recovery, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. (1989) 247–260.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Liu and W.F. Ramirez, Optimal control of three-dimensional steam flooding process, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. (1994) 137–154.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I.S. Zakirov, S.I. Aanonsen, E.S. Zakirov and B.M. Palatnik, Optimization of reservoir performance by automatic allocation of well rates, Presented at the 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria (1996).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Asheim, Maximization of water sweep efficiency by controlling production and injection rates, in: SPE Paper 18365 Presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, UK (1988).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.A. Vironovsky, Waterflooding strategy design using optimal control theory, Presented at the 6th European IOR Symposium, Stavanger, Norway (1991).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Sudaryanto and Y.C. Yortsos, Optimization of displacements in porous media using rate control, in: SPE Paper 71509 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA (2001).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.R. Brouwer and J.D. Jansen, Dynamic optimization of water flooding with smart wells using optimal control theory, SPEJ. (Dec 2004) 391–402.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W.H. Chen, G.R. Gavalas, J.H. Seinfeld and M.L. Wasserman, A new algorithm for automatic history matching, SPEJ. 14 (1974) 593–608.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G.M. Chavent, M. Dupuy and P. Lemonnier, History matching by use of optimal control theory, SPEJ. 15 (1975) 74–86.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.L. Wasserman, A.S. Emanuel and J.H. Seinfeld, Practical applications of optimal control theory to history-matching multiphase simulator models, in: SPE Paper 5020 Presented at the SPE–AIME Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX (1974).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A.T. Watson, J.H. Seinfeld, G.R. Gavalas and P.T. Woo, History matching in two-phase petroleum reservoirs, in: SPE Paper 8250 Presented at the SPE–AIME Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV (1979).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Z. Wu, A.C. Reynolds and D.S. Oliver, Conditioning geostatistical models to two-phase production data, SPEJ. 4 (1999) 142–155.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Li, A.C. Reynolds and D.S. Oliver, History matching of three-phase flow production data, in: SPE Paper 66351 Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX (2001).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Z. Wu and A. Datta-Gupta, Rapid history matching using a generalized travel time inversion method, in: SPE Paper 66352 Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX (2001).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Zhang, J.A. Skjervheim, A.C. Reynolds and D.S. Oliver, Automatic history matching in a Bayesian framework, example applications, in: SPE Paper 84461 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO (2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G.R. Gavalas, P.C. Shah and J.H. Seinfeld, Reservoir history matching by Bayesian estimation, SPEJ. 16 (1976) 337–350.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D.S. Oliver, Multiple realizations of the permeability field from well test data, SPEJ. 1 (June 1996) 145–154.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A.C. Reynolds, N. He, L. Chu and D.S. Oliver, Reparameterization techniques for generating reservoir descriptions conditioned to variograms and well-test pressure data, SPEJ. 1 (Dec 1996) 413–426.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Sarma, K. Aziz and L.J. Durlofsky, Implementation of adjoint solution for optimal control of smart wells, in: SPE Paper 92864 Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX (2005).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.F. Stengel, Optimal Control and Estimation (Dover Publications, New York, 1985).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Tarantola, Inverse Problem Theory (Soc. Ind. Appl. Math., Philadelphia, 2005).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S.P. Huang, S.T. Quek and K.K. Phoon, Convergence study of the truncated Karhunen–Loeve expansion for simulation of stochastic processes, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 52 (2001) 1029–1043.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Loeve, Probability Theory I and II, 4th Edition (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J.K. Cullum, Lanczos Algorithms for Large Symmetric Eigenvalue Computations (Birkhauser, Boston, 1985).MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Strebelle, Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics, Math. Geol. 34 (2002) 1–22.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pallav Sarma
    • 1
  • Louis J. Durlofsky
    • 1
  • Khalid Aziz
    • 1
  • Wen H. Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Chevron Energy Technology CompanySan RamonUSA

Personalised recommendations