Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 493–511 | Cite as

Quantifying Asymmetric Parameter Interactions in Sensitivity Analysis: Application to Reservoir Modeling

  • Darryl Fenwick
  • Céline ScheidtEmail author
  • Jef Caers
Article

Abstract

In this paper, a new generalized sensitivity analysis is developed with a focus on parameter interaction. The proposed method is developed to apply to complex reservoir systems. Most critical in many engineering applications is to find which model parameters and parameter combinations have a significant impact on the decision variables. There are many types of parameters used in reservoir modeling, e.g., geophysical, geological and engineering. Some parameters are continuous, others discrete, and others have no numerical value and are scenario-based. The proposed generalized sensitivity analysis approach classifies the response/decision variables into a limited set of discrete classes. The analysis is based on the following principle: if the parameter frequency distribution is the same in each class, then the model response is insensitive to the parameter, while differences in the frequency distributions indicate that the model response is sensitive to the parameter. Based on this simple idea, a new general measure of sensitivity is developed. This sensitivity measure quantifies the sensitivity to parameter interactions, and incorporates the possibility that these interactions can be asymmetric for complex reservoir modeling. The approach is illustrated using a case study of a West Africa offshore oil reservoir.

Keywords

General sensitivity analysis Parameter interaction  Reservoir modeling Model classification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Chevron for permission to use the WCA model, and Alexandre Boucher of AR2Tech for his support in the use of SGems for modeling the petrophysical properties of WCA. The authors would also like to thank the sponsors of the Streamsim/Stanford HM JIP, the Swiss National Science Foundation (ENSEMBLE project), and the Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting for their financial support. The Matlab code for DGSA is available at https://github.com/SCRFpublic.

References

  1. Bastidas LA, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Shuttleworth WJ, Zhang ZL (1999) Sensitivity analysis of a land surface scheme using multicriteria methods. J Geophys Res 104(D16):19481–19490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batycky RP, Blunt MJ, Thiele MR (1997) A 3D field-scale streamline-based reservoir simulator. SPE Reserv Eng 12(4):246–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven KJ, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caers JK (2005) Petroleum geostatistics. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  5. Corder GW, Foreman DI (2009) Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox DR (1984) Interaction. Intern Stat Rev 52(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies DL, Bouldin DW (1979) A cluster separation measure. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell PAMI-1(2):224–227Google Scholar
  8. Dejean JP, Blanc G (1999) Managing uncertainties on production predictions using integrated statistical methods. Proc. of the (1999) SPE ATCE, Houston. doi: 10.2118/56696-MS
  9. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 81(1):1175–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalla S, White CD (2007) Efficient design of reservoir simulation studies for development and optimization. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 10(6):629–637Google Scholar
  12. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Pappenberger F, Beven KJ, Ratto M, Matgen P (2008) Multi-method global sensitivity analysis of flood inundation models. Adv Water Resour 31(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (eds) (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Scheidt C, Caers JK (2009a) Representing spatial uncertainty using distances and kernels. Math Geosci 41(4):397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheidt C, Caers JK (2009b) Uncertainty quantification in reservoir performance using distances and kernel methods—application to a West-Africa deepwater turbidite reservoir. SPE J 14(4):680–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spear RC, Hornberger GM (1980) Eutrophication in peel inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis. Water Res 14(1):43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spear RC, Grieb TM, Shang N (1994) Parameter uncertainty and interaction in complex environmental models. Water Resour Res 30(11):3159–3169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Westfall PH, Young SS (1993) Resampling-based multiple testing: examples and methods for p-value adjustment. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. White CD, Willis BJ, Narayanan K, Dutton SP (2001) Identifying and estimating significant geologic parameters with experimental design. SPE J 6(3):311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zabalza-Mezghani I, Manceau E, Feraille M, Jourdan A (2004) Uncertainty management: from geological scenarios to production scheme optimization. J Pet Sci Eng 44(1–2):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Streamsim Technologies, IncPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Energy Resources EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations