2022, Volume 18, Issue 11
Engineering >> 2022, Volume 18, Issue 11 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2022.04.015
Data-Driven Model Falsification and Uncertainty Quantification for Fractured Reservoirs
a School of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
b Key Laboratory of Tectonics and Petroleum Resources of the Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430074, China
c Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford 94305, USA
Next Previous
Abstract
Many properties of natural fractures are uncertain, such as their spatial distribution, petrophysical properties, and fluid flow performance. Bayesian theorem provides a framework to quantify the uncertainty in geological modeling and flow simulation, and hence to support reservoir performance predictions. The application of Bayesian methods to fractured reservoirs has mostly been limited to synthetic cases. In field applications, however, one of the main problems is that the Bayesian prior is falsified, because it fails to predict past reservoir production data. In this paper, we show how a global sensitivity analysis (GSA) can be used to identify why the prior is falsified. We then employ an approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) method combined with a tree-based surrogate model to match the production history. We apply these two approaches to a complex fractured oil and gas reservoir where all uncertainties are jointly considered, including the petrophysical properties, rock physics properties, fluid properties, discrete fracture parameters, and dynamics of pressure and transmissibility. We successfully identify several reasons for the falsification. The results show that the methods we propose are effective in quantifying uncertainty in the modeling and flow simulation of a fractured reservoir. The uncertainties of key parameters, such as fracture aperture and fault conductivity, are reduced.
Keywords
Bayesian evidential learning ; Falsification ; Fractured reservoir ; Random forest ; Approximate Bayesian computation
Figures
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
References
[ 1 ] Bourbiaux B. Fractured reservoir simulation: a challenging and rewarding issue. Oil Gas Sci Technol 2010;65(2):227–38. link1
[ 2 ] Azizmohammadi S, Matthai SK. Is the permeability of naturally fractured rocks scale dependent? Water Resour Res 2017;53(9):8041–63. link1
[ 3 ] Nelson RA. Geological analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs. 2nd ed. Woburn: Gulf Publishing Company; 1985. link1
[ 4 ] Turcott DL, Moores EM, Rundle JB. Super fracking. Phys Today 2014;67(8):34–9. link1
[ 5 ] Bonnet E, Bour O, Odling NE, Davy P, Main I, Cowie P, et al. Scaling of fracture systems in geological media. Rev Geophys 2001;39(3):347–83. link1
[ 6 ] Li Y, Shang Y, Yang P. Modeling fracture connectivity in naturally fractured reservoirs: a case study in the Yanchang formation. Fuel 2018;211:789–96. link1
[ 7 ] Pieters DA, Graves RM. Fracture relative permeability: linear or non-linear function of saturation. In: Proceedings of International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico; 1994 Oct 10–13; Veracruz, Mexico. 1994.
[ 8 ] Schiozer D, Muñoz Mazo E. Modeling fracture relative permeability—what is the best option? In: Proceedings of the 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC; 2013 Jun 1013; London, UK. 2013.
[ 9 ] Cho Y, Ozkan E, Apaydin O. Pressure-dependent natural-fracture permeability in shale and its effect on shale-gas well production. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 2012;16(02):216–28. link1
[10] Chen D, Pan Z, Ye Z. Dependence of gas shale fracture permeability on effective stress and reservoir: model match and insights. Fuel 2015;139:383–92. link1
[11] Mukerji T, Jorstad A, Avseth P, Markov G, Granli JR. Mapping lithofacies and pore-fluid probabilities in a North Sea reservoir: seismic inversions and statistical rock physics. Geophysics 2001;66(4):988–1001. link1
[12] Pedersen SI, Randen T, Sonneland L, Steen O. Automatic fault extraction using artificial ants. SEG Tech Prog Exp Abstr 2002:512–5. link1
[13] Leite EP, Vidal AC. 3D porosity prediction from seismic inversion and neural networks. Comput Geosci 2011;37(8):1174–80. link1
[14] Xu K, Sun Z. A new fracture detection method based on full-azimuth anisotropic migration and shaping regularization. J Geophys Eng 2018;15 (4):1624–37. link1
[15] Guerriero V, Iannace A, Mazzoli S, Parente M, Vitale S, Giorgioni M. Quantifying uncertainties in multi-scale studies of fractured reservoir analogues: implemented statistical analysis of scan line data from carbonate rocks. J Struct Geol 2010;32(9):1271–8. link1
[16] Wilson CE, Aydin A, Karimi-Fard M, Durlofsky LJ, Sagy A, Brodsky EE, et al. From outcrop to flow simulation: constructing discrete fracture models from a LIDAR survey. AAPG Bull 2011;95(11):1883–905. link1
[17] Agada S, Geiger S, Elsheikh A, Oladyshkin S. Data-driven surrogates for rapid simulation and optimization of WAG injection in fractured carbonate reservoirs. Petrol Geosci 2016;23(2):270–83. link1
[18] Williams JH, Johnson CD. Acoustic and optical borehole-wall imaging for fractured-rock aquifer studies. Appl Geophys 2004;55(1–2):151–9. link1
[19] Kovac KM, Lutz SJ, Drakos PS, Byersdorfer J, Robertson-tait A. Borehole image analysis and geological interpretation of selected features in well DP 27-15 at desert peak, Nevada: pre-simulation evaluation of an enhanced geothermal system. In: Proceedings of Thirty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; 2009 Feb 9–11; California, USA. 2009.
[20] Caers J. History matching under training-image-based geological model constraints. SPE J 2003;8(3):218–26. link1
[21] Oliver D, Chen Y. Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review. Comput Geosci 2011;15(1):185–221. link1
[22] Ghaedi M, Masihi M, Heinemann ZE, Ghazanfari MH. History matching of naturally fractured reservoirs based on the recovery curve method. J Petrol Sci Eng 2015;126:211–21. link1
[23] Athens ND, Caers JK. A Monte Carlo-based framework for assessing the value of information and development risk in geothermal exploration. Appl Energy 2019;256:113932. link1
[24] Yin Z, Strebelle S, Caers J. Automated Monte Carlo-based quantification and updating of geological uncertainty with borehole data (AutoBEL v1.0). Geosci Model Dev 2020;13(2):651–72. link1
[25] Aydin O, Caers J. Quantifying structural uncertainty on fault networks using a marked point process within a Bayesian framework. Tectonophysics 2017;712–713:101–24. link1
[26] Bonet-Cunha L, Olive DS, Rednar RA, Reynolds AC. A hybrid Markov chain Monte Carlo method for generating permeability fields conditioned to multiwell pressure data and prior information. SPE J 1998;3(3):261–71. link1
[27] Tjelmeland H, Eidsvik J. On the use of local optimizations within MetropolisHastings updates. J R Stat Soc B 2004;66(2):411–27. link1
[28] Romary T. Integrating production data under uncertainty by parallel interacting Markov chains on a reduced dimensional space. Comput Geosci 2009;13(1):103–22. link1
[29] Wen X, Chen W. Real-time reservoir model updating using ensemble Kalman filter with confirming option. SPE J 2006;11(4):431–42. link1
[30] Haugen V, Naevdal G, Natvik LJ, Evensen G, Berg AM, Flornes KM. History matching using the Ensemble Kalman Filter on a North Sea Field case. SPE J 2008;13(4):382–91. link1
[31] Nejadi S, Trivedi JJ, Leung J. History matching and uncertainty quantification of discrete fracture network models in fractured reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng 2017;152:21–32. link1
[32] Evensen G, van Leeuwen PJ. An ensemble Kalman smoother for nonlinear dynamics. Mon Weather Rev 2000;128(6):1852–67. link1
[33] Chen Y, Oliver DS. Ensemble randomized maximum likelihood method as an iterative ensemble smoother. Math Geosci 2012;44(1):1–26. link1
[34] Gu Y, Oliver DS. An iterative ensemble Kalman filter for multiphase fluid flow data assimilation. SPE J 2007;12(4):438–46. link1
[35] Emerick AA, Reynolds AC. Ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation. Comput Geosci 2013;55:3–15. link1
[36] Satija A, Caers J. Direct forecasting of subsurface flow response from nonlinear dynamic data by linear least-squares in canonical functional principal component space. Adv Water Resour 2015;77:69–81. link1
[37] Satija A, Scheidt C, Li L, Caers J. Direct forecasting of reservoir performance using production data without history matching. Comput Geosci 2017;21 (2):315–33. link1
[38] Sun W, Hui MH, Durlofsky LJ. Production forecasting and uncertainty quantification for naturally fractured reservoirs using a new data-space inversion procedure. Computat Geosci 2017;21(5–6):1443–58. link1
[39] Sun W, Durlofsky LJ. A new data-space inversion procedure for efficient uncertainty quantification in subsurface flow problems. Math Geosci 2017;49 (6):679–715. link1
[40] Caers J. Bayesianism in the geosciences. In: Daya Sagar BS, Cheng Q, Agterberg F, editors. Handbook of mathematical geosciences. Chem: Springer; 2018. p. 527–66.
[41] Scheidt C, Li L, Caers J. Quantifying uncertainty in subsurface systems. Hoboken: Wiley; 2018. link1
[42] Hermans T, Nguyen F, Klepikova M, Dassargues A, Caers J. Uncertainty quantification of medium-term heat storage from short-term geophysical experiments using Bayesian evidential learning. Water Resour Res 2018;54 (4):2931–48. link1
[43] Slotte PA, Smorgrav E. Response surface methodology approach for history matching and uncertainty assessment of reservoir simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 70th EAGE Conference & Exhibition; 2008 Jun 9–12; Rome, Italy. 2008.
[44] Castellini A, Gross H, Zhou Y, He J, Chen W. An iterative scheme to construct robust proxy models. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery; 2010 Sep 6–9; Oxford, UK. 2010.
[45] Friedmann F, Chawathe A, Larue DK. Assessing uncertainty in channelized reservoirs using experimental designs. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng 2003;6 (4):264–74. link1
[46] Aulia A, Jeong D, Saaid IM, Kania D, Shuker MT, El-Khatib NA. A random forests-based sensitivity analysis framework for assisted history matching. J Petrol Sci Eng 2019;181:106237. link1
[47] Brantson ET, Ju B, Omisore BO, Wu D, Selase AE, Liu N. Development of machine learning predictive models for history matching tight gas carbonate reservoir production profiles. J Geophys Eng 2018;15(5):2235–51. link1
[48] Alfonzo M, Oliver DS. Evaluating prior predictions of production and seismic data. Computat Geosci 2019;23(6):1331–47. link1
[49] Pradhan A, Mukerji T. Seismic Bayesian evidential learning: estimation and uncertainty quantification of sub-resolution reservoir properties. Comput Geosci 2019;24(3):1121–40. link1
[50] Oda M. Permeability tensor for discontinuous rock masses. Geotechnique 1985;35(4):483–95. link1
[51] Akin S. Estimation of fracture relative permeabilities from unsteady state core floods. J Petrol Sci Eng 2001;30(1):1–14. link1
[52] Scheidt C, Jeong C, Mukerji T, Caers J. Probabilistic falsification of prior geologic uncertainty with seismic amplitude data: application to a turbidite reservoir case. Geophysics 2015;80(5):M89–M. link1
[53] Noumir Z, Honeine P, Richard C. On simple one-class classification methods. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory; 2012 Jul 1–6; Cambridge, MA, USA. 2012.
[54] Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andrews T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, et al. Global Sensitivity Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. link1
[55] Fenwick D, Scheidt C, Caers J. Quantifying asymmetric parameter interactions in sensitivity analysis: application to reservoir modeling. Math Geosci 2014;46 (4):493–511. link1
[56] Park J, Yang G, Satija A, Scheidt C, Caers J. DGSA: a Matlab toolbox for distancebased generalized sensitivity analysis of geoscientific computer experiments. Comput Geosci 2016;97:15–29. link1
[57] Spear RC, Hornberger GM. Eutrophication in peel inlet-II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis. Water Res 1980;14 (1):43–9. link1
[58] Beaumont MA, Zhang W, Balding DJ. Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 2002;162(4):2025–35. link1
[59] Sadegh M, Vrugt JA. Approximate Bayesian Computation using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation: DREAM (ABC). Water Resour Res 2014;50 (8):6767–87. link1
[60] Barthelme S, Chopin N. ABC-EP: expectation propagation for likelihoodfree Bayesian computation. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2011 Jun 28–Jul 2; Washington, USA. 2011.
[61] Trehan S, Carlberg KT, Durlofsky LJ. Error modeling for surrogates of dynamical systems using machine learning. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2017;112 (12):1801–27. link1
[62] Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd Edition. Springer Series in Statistics; 2009. link1
[63] Schapire RE. The strength of weak learnability. Mach Learn 1990;5 (2):197–227. link1
[64] Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 1996;24(2):123–40. link1
[65] Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 2000;29(5):1189–232. link1
[66] Friedman JH. Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput Stat Data Anal 2002;38 (4):367–78. link1
[67] Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001;45(1):5–32. link1
京公网安备 11010502051620号
