Computational Geosciences

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 851–885 | Cite as

Evaluation of Gaussian approximations for data assimilation in reservoir models

  • Marco A. IglesiasEmail author
  • Kody J. H. Law
  • Andrew M. Stuart
Original Paper


The Bayesian framework is the standard approach for data assimilation in reservoir modeling. This framework involves characterizing the posterior distribution of geological parameters in terms of a given prior distribution and data from the reservoir dynamics, together with a forward model connecting the space of geological parameters to the data space. Since the posterior distribution quantifies the uncertainty in the geologic parameters of the reservoir, the characterization of the posterior is fundamental for the optimal management of reservoirs. Unfortunately, due to the large-scale highly nonlinear properties of standard reservoir models, characterizing the posterior is computationally prohibitive. Instead, more affordable ad hoc techniques, based on Gaussian approximations, are often used for characterizing the posterior distribution. Evaluating the performance of those Gaussian approximations is typically conducted by assessing their ability at reproducing the truth within the confidence interval provided by the ad hoc technique under consideration. This has the disadvantage of mixing up the approximation properties of the history matching algorithm employed with the information content of the particular observations used, making it hard to evaluate the effect of the ad hoc approximations alone. In this paper, we avoid this disadvantage by comparing the ad hoc techniques with a fully resolved state-of-the-art probing of the Bayesian posterior distribution. The ad hoc techniques whose performance we assess are based on (1) linearization around the maximum a posteriori estimate, (2) randomized maximum likelihood, and (3) ensemble Kalman filter-type methods. In order to fully resolve the posterior distribution, we implement a state-of-the art Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method that scales well with respect to the dimension of the parameter space, enabling us to study realistic forward models, in two space dimensions, at a high level of grid refinement. Our implementation of the MCMC method provides the gold standard against which the aforementioned Gaussian approximations are assessed. We present numerical synthetic experiments where we quantify the capability of each of the ad hoc Gaussian approximation in reproducing the mean and the variance of the posterior distribution (characterized via MCMC) associated to a data assimilation problem. Both single-phase and two-phase (oil–water) reservoir models are considered so that fundamental differences in the resulting forward operators are highlighted. The main objective of our controlled experiments was to exhibit the substantial discrepancies of the approximation properties of standard ad hoc Gaussian approximations. Numerical investigations of the type we present here will lead to the greater understanding of the cost-efficient, but ad hoc, Bayesian techniques used for data assimilation in petroleum reservoirs and hence ultimately to improved techniques with more accurate uncertainty quantification.


Data assimilation Reservoir characterization Uncertainty quantification Inverse modelling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aanonsen, S.I., Naevdal, G., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C., Valles, B.: The ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir engineering—a review. SPE J. 14(3), 393–412 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aarnes, J.E., Gimse, T., Lie, K.-A.: An introduction to the numerics of flow in porous media using Matlab. In: Hasle, G., Lie, K.-A., Quak, E. (eds.) Geometric Modelling, Numerical Simulation, and Optimization, pp. 265–306. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arpat, B., Caers, J., Strebelle, S.: Feature-based geostatistics: an application to a submarine channel reservoir. In: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, SPE 77426 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker, J.W., Cuypers, M., Holden, L.: Quantifying uncertainty in production forecasts: another look at the PUNQ-S3 problem. SPE J. 6, 433–441 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, S.P., Gelman, A.: General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 434–455 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, Y., Oliver, D.: Cross-covariances and localization for EnKF in multiphase flow data assimilation. Comput. Geosci. 14, 579–601 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10596-009-9174-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Ensemble randomized maximum likelihood method as an iterative ensemble smoother. Math. Geosci. 44, 1–26 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, Z., Huan, G., MA, Y.: Computational methods for multiphase flows in Porous Media. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotter, S.L., Roberts, G.O., Stuart, A.M., White, D.: MCMC methods for functions: modifying old algorithms to make them faster. To Appear. Stat. Sci. (2013, in press). arXiv:1202.0709
  10. 10.
    Dashti, M., Law, K.J.H., Stuart, A.M., Voss, J.: Map estimators and posterior consistency in Bayesian nonparametric inverse problems. (2013, submitted). arXiv:1303.4795
  11. 11.
    Deutsch, C.V.: Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dovera, L., Della Rossa, E.: Multimodal ensemble Kalman filtering using Gaussian mixture models. Comput. Geosci. 15, 307–323 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Efendiev, Y., Datta-Gupta, A., Ma, X., Mallic, B.: Efficient sampling techniques for uncertainty quantification in history matching using nonlinear error models and ensemble level upscaling techniques. Water Resour. Res. 45(W11414), 11 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emerick, A., Reynolds, A.: EnKF-MCMC. In: Proceedings of the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, SPE 131375 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emerick, A., Reynolds, A.: Combining sensitivities and prior information for covariance localization in the ensemble Kalman filter for petroleum reservoir applications. Comput. Geosci. 15, 251–269 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10596-010-9198-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emerick, A., Reynolds, A.: Combining the ensemble Kalman filter with Markov chain Monte Carlo for improved history matching and uncertainty characterization. SPE J. 17(2), 418–440 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emerick, A.A., Reynolds, A.C.: Investigation of the sampling performance of ensemble-based methods with a simple reservoir model. Comput. Geosci. 17(2), 325–350 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gao, G., Zafari, M., Reynolds, A.: Quantifying uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 problem in a Bayesian setting with RML and EnKF. SPE J. 11, 506–515 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaspari, G., Cohn, S.E.: Construction of correlation functions in two and three dimensions. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 125(554), 723–757 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaipio, J.P., Somersalo, E.: Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Law, K.J.H., Stuart, A.M.: Evaluating data assimilation algorithms. Mon. Weather Rev. 140, 3757–3782 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, G., Reynolds, A.: Iterative ensemble Kalman filters for data assimilation. In: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, SPE 109808 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty. SPE J. 8, 188–195 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iglesias, K., Law, M., Stuart, A.M.: Ensemble Kalman methods for inverse problems. Inverse Problems 29, 045001 (2013). arXiv:1202.0709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ma, X., Al-Harbi, A., Datta-Gupta, A., Efendiev, Y.: An efficient two-stage sampling method for uncertainty quantification in history matching geological models. SPE J. 13(1), 7787 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S., Liu, N.: Inverse Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Matching, 1st edn. ISBN:9780521881517. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oliver, D., Chen, Y.: Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review. Comput. Geosci. 15, 185–221 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10596-010-9194-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliver, D.S., Cunha, L.B., Reynolds, A.C.: Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conditioning a permeability field to pressure data. Math. Geol. 29, 61–91 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Russell, T.F., Wheeler, M.F.: Finite element and finite difference methods for continuous flows in porous media. In: Ewing, R.E. (ed.) Mathematics of Reservoir Simulation. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakov, P., Oke, P.R.: Implications of the form of the ensemble transformation in the ensemble square root filters. Mon. Wea. Rev. 136, 1042–1053 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stordal, A.S., Karlsen, H.A., Nvdal, G., Skaug, H.J., Valls, B.: Bridging the ensemble Kalman filter and particle filters: the adaptive Gaussian mixture filter. Comput. Geosci. 15, 293–305 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stordal, A.S., Valestrand, R., Karlsen, H.A., Nvdal, G., Skaug, H.J.: Comparing the adaptive Gaussian mixture filter with the ensemble Kalman filter on synthetic reservoir models. Comput. Geosci. 16, 467–482 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stuart, A.M.: Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective. In Acta Numerica. 19 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tavakoli, R., Reynolds, A.: Monte Carlo simulation of permeability fields and reservoir performance predictions with SVD parameterization in RML compared with EnKF. Comput. Geosci. 15, 99–116 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10596-010-9200-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Naevdal, G., Skaug, H.J., Thulin, K., Aanonsen, S.I.: Quantifying Monte Carlo uncertainty in the ensemble Kalman filter. SPE J. 16(1), 172–182 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li, G., Wang, Y., Reynolds, A.C.: Estimation of depths of fluid contacts by history matching using iterative ensemble-Kalman smoothers. SPE J. 15(2), 509–525 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco A. Iglesias
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kody J. H. Law
    • 2
  • Andrew M. Stuart
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.CEMSE, King Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyThuwalSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations