A Practical Workflow for Probabilistic History Matching and Forecast Uncertainty Quantification: Application to a Deepwater West Africa Reservoir

Author(s):  
T. Yeh ◽  
T. Uvieghara ◽  
J. W. Jennings ◽  
C. Chen ◽  
F. O. Alpak ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Arnold ◽  
V. Demyanov ◽  
D. Tatum ◽  
M. Christie ◽  
T. Rojas ◽  
...  

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1557
Author(s):  
Amine Tadjer ◽  
Reidar B. Bratvold

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been increasingly looking like a promising strategy to reduce CO2 emissions and meet the Paris agreement’s climate target. To ensure that CCS is safe and successful, an efficient monitoring program that will prevent storage reservoir leakage and drinking water contamination in groundwater aquifers must be implemented. However, geologic CO2 sequestration (GCS) sites are not completely certain about the geological properties, which makes it difficult to predict the behavior of the injected gases, CO2 brine leakage rates through wellbores, and CO2 plume migration. Significant effort is required to observe how CO2 behaves in reservoirs. A key question is: Will the CO2 injection and storage behave as expected, and can we anticipate leakages? History matching of reservoir models can mitigate uncertainty towards a predictive strategy. It could prove challenging to develop a set of history matching models that preserve geological realism. A new Bayesian evidential learning (BEL) protocol for uncertainty quantification was released through literature, as an alternative to the model-space inversion in the history-matching approach. Consequently, an ensemble of previous geological models was developed using a prior distribution’s Monte Carlo simulation, followed by direct forecasting (DF) for joint uncertainty quantification. The goal of this work is to use prior models to identify a statistical relationship between data prediction, ensemble models, and data variables, without any explicit model inversion. The paper also introduces a new DF implementation using an ensemble smoother and shows that the new implementation can make the computation more robust than the standard method. The Utsira saline aquifer west of Norway is used to exemplify BEL’s ability to predict the CO2 mass and leakages and improve decision support regarding CO2 storage projects.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boxiao Li ◽  
Hemant Phale ◽  
Yanfen Zhang ◽  
Timothy Tokar ◽  
Xian-Huan Wen

Abstract Design of Experiments (DoE) is one of the most commonly employed techniques in the petroleum industry for Assisted History Matching (AHM) and uncertainty analysis of reservoir production forecasts. Although conceptually straightforward, DoE is often misused by practitioners because many of its statistical and modeling principles are not carefully followed. Our earlier paper (Li et al. 2019) detailed the best practices in DoE-based AHM for brownfields. However, to our best knowledge, there is a lack of studies that summarize the common caveats and pitfalls in DoE-based production forecast uncertainty analysis for greenfields and history-matched brownfields. Our objective here is to summarize these caveats and pitfalls to help practitioners apply the correct principles for DoE-based production forecast uncertainty analysis. Over 60 common pitfalls in all stages of a DoE workflow are summarized. Special attention is paid to the following critical project transitions: (1) the transition from static earth modeling to dynamic reservoir simulation; (2) from AHM to production forecast; and (3) from analyzing subsurface uncertainties to analyzing field-development alternatives. Most pitfalls can be avoided by consistently following the statistical and modeling principles. Some pitfalls, however, can trap experienced engineers. For example, mistakes made in handling the three abovementioned transitions can yield strongly unreliable proxy and sensitivity analysis. For the representative examples we study, they can lead to having a proxy R2 of less than 0.2 versus larger than 0.9 if done correctly. Two improved experimental designs are created to resolve this challenge. Besides the technical pitfalls that are avoidable via robust statistical workflows, we also highlight the often more severe non-technical pitfalls that cannot be evaluated by measures like R2. Thoughts are shared on how they can be avoided, especially during project framing and the three critical transition scenarios.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document