Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 373–396 | Cite as

Reservoir Geological Uncertainty Reduction: an Optimization-Based Method Using Multiple Static Measures

  • Shahed Rahim
  • Zukui LiEmail author
  • Japan Trivedi
Article

Abstract

Uncertainty in reservoir geological properties has a major impact in reservoir design and operations decision-making. To quantify the production uncertainty and to make optimal decisions in reservoir development, flow simulation is widely used. However, reservoir flow simulation is a computationally intensive task due to complex geological heterogeneities and numerical thermal modeling. Normally only a small number of realizations are chosen from a large superset for flow simulation. In this paper, a mixed-integer linear optimization-based geological realization reduction method is proposed to select geological realizations. The method minimizes the probability distance between the discrete distribution represented by the superset of realizations and the reduced discrete distribution represented by the selected realizations. The proposed method was compared with the traditional ranking technique and the distance-based kernel clustering method. Results show that the proposed method can effectively select realizations and assign probabilities such that the extreme and expected reservoir performances are recovered better than any of the single static measure-based ranking methods or the kernel clustering method.

Keywords

Reservoir uncertainty Optimal realization reduction   Mixed-integer optimization Static measures 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Resource Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grant Program.

References

  1. Armstrong M, Ndiaye A, Razanatsimba R, Galli A (2013) Scenario reduction applied to geostatistical simulations. Math Geosci 45:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballin PR, Journel AG, Aziz K (1992) Prediction of uncertainty in reservoir performance forecast. JCPT 31(4):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christie MA, Blunt MJ (2001) Tenth SPE comparative solution project: a comparison of upscaling techniques. SPE J 4(4):308–317Google Scholar
  4. Deutsch CV (1998) Fortran programs for calculating connectivity of three-dimensional numerical models and for ranking multiple realizations. Comput Geosci 24:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutsch CV (1999) Reservoir modeling with publicly available software. Comput Geosci 25:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch CV, Begg SH (2001) The use of ranking to reduce the required number of realizations. Centre for Computational Geostatistics (CCG) Annual Report 3, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch CV, Srinivasan S (1996) Improved reservoir management through ranking stochastic reservoir models. In: SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 21–24 April 1996, Tulsa, USA. doi: 10.2118/35411-MS
  8. Dupacova J, Growe-Kuska N, Romisch W (2003) Scenario reduction in stochastic programming an approach using probability metrics. Math Progr 95:493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenik DR, Nouri A, Deutsch CV (2009) Criteria for ranking realizations in the investigation of SAGD reservoir performance. In: Proceedings of Canadian International Petroleum Conference, 16–18 June 2009, Calgary, Canada. doi:  10.2118/2009-191
  10. Gilman JR, Meng H-Z, Uland MJ, Dzurman PJ, Cosic S (2002) Statistical ranking of stochastic geomodels using streamline simulation: A field application. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 Sept–2 Oct 2002, San Antonio, USA. doi:  10.2118/77374-MS
  11. Kantorovich LV (1942) On the transfer of masses. Dokl Akad Nauk 37:227–229Google Scholar
  12. Li SH, Deutsch CV, Si JH (2012) Ranking geostatistical reservoir models with modified connected hydrocarbon volume. In: Ninth International Geostatistics Congress, 11–15 June 2012, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  13. Li Z, Floudas CA (2014) Optimal scenario reduction framework based on distance of uncertainty distribution and output performance: I. Single reduction via mixed integer linear optimization. Comput Chem Eng 70:50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lie KA, Krogstad S, Ligaarden I, Natvig J, Nilsen H, Skaflestad B (2012) Open-source MATLAB implementation of consistent discretisations on complex grids. Comput Geosci 16:297–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IBM (2009) User’s Manual for CPLEX V12.1. ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/
  16. McLennan JA, Deutsch CV (2005) Selecting geostatistical realizations by measures of discounted connected bitumen. In: SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, 1–3 Nov 2005, Calgary, Canada. doi:  10.2118/98168-MS
  17. McLennan JA, Deutsch CV (2004) SAGD reservoir characterization using geostatistics: applications to the Athabasca Oil Sands, Alberta, Canada. In: Press, Canadian Heavy Oil Association HandbookGoogle Scholar
  18. Monge G (1781) Mémoire sur la théorie des déblais et des remblais: Histoire de 1’AcademieRoyale des SciencesGoogle Scholar
  19. Park K, Caers J (2011) Metrel: Petrel plug-in for modelling uncertainty in metric space. Stanford University, Department of Energy Resource EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheidt C, Caers J (2009) Representing spatial uncertainty using distances and kernels. Math Geosci 41: 397–419Google Scholar
  21. Scheidt C, Caers J (2010) Bootstrap confidence intervals for reservoir model selection techniques. Comput Geosci 14:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh AP, Maucec M, Carvajal GA, Mirzadeh S, Knabe SP, Al-Jasmi AK, El Din IH, (2014) Uncertainty quantification of forecasted oil recovery using dynamic model ranking with application to a ME carbonate reservoir. In: International Petroleum Technology Conference, 20–22 Jan 2014, Doha, Qatar. doi:  10.2523/17476-MS
  23. Shi J, Malik J (2000) Normalized-cut and image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intel 22(8):888–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Materials EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations