Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 75–107 | Cite as

Ensemble-Based Assimilation of Nonlinearly Related Dynamic Data in Reservoir Models Exhibiting Non-Gaussian Characteristics

  • Devesh Kumar
  • Sanjay Srinivasan
Article

Abstract

Inverse modeling techniques for estimating reservoir parameters (e.g., transmissivity, permeability) utilize some dynamic (secondary) information (e.g., hydraulic head or production data at well locations). Ensemble based data assimilation methods are one such class of inverse modeling techniques. Ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) in particular is built around the basic framework of linearly updating a state vector \({\psi ^f}\) to \({\psi ^a}\), based on observed dynamic data. Components of the state vector are reservoir model parameters such as transmissivity, permeability, storativity, porosity, hydraulic head, and phase-saturation. Although EnKF is able to update a large number of parameters successively as data become available, it has some shortcomings. It is optimal only in the cases where multivariate joint distribution describing the relationship between components in the state vector is Gaussian. The relationship between the model parameters and the observed data space is quantified in terms of a covariance function, which is adequate to describe a multi-Gaussian distribution. These assumptions and simplifications may result in updated models that are inconsistent with the prior geology (exhibiting non-Gaussian characteristics) and that, in turn, may yield inaccurate predictions of reservoir performance. The aim of this research work is to propose a novel method for data assimilation which is free from the Gaussian assumptions. This new method can be used to assimilate dynamic data into reservoir models using an ensemble-based approach. Model updates are performed after transforming the model parameters into indicator variables. The indicator transform is insensitive to non-linear operations, and it thus allows us to overcome some of the limitations of the traditional EnKF.

Keywords

Dynamic data assimilation Ensemble Non-Gaussian random field Non-linear flow models Indicator transform methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by John and Willie Leone Family chair endowment.

References

  1. Anderson JL (2007) An adaptive covariance inflation error correction algorithm for ensemble filters. Tellus Ser A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr 59(2):210–224.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00216.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Evensen G (2009) Data assimilation—the ensemble Kalman filter. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03711-5 Google Scholar
  3. Haugen VE, Naevdal G, Natvik LJ, Evensen G, Berg A, Flornes K (2008) History matching using the ensemble Kalman filter on a north sea field case. SPE J 13(4):382–391.  https://doi.org/10.2118/102430-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heidari L, Gervais V, Ravalec ML, Wackernagel H (2013) History matching of petroleum reservoir models by the Ensemble Kalman Filter and parameterization methods. Comput Geosci 55:84–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hendricks Franssen HJ, Kinzelbach W (2008) Real-time groundwater flow modeling with the Ensemble Kalman Filter: joint estimation of states and parameters and the filter inbreeding problem. Water Resour Res 44(9):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoffman BT, Caers J (2005) History matching under geological control: application to a North Sea Reservoir. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1067–1076.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3610-1_111 Google Scholar
  7. Hu LY (2000) Gradual deformation and iterative calibration of Gaussian-related stochastic models. Math Geol 32(1):87–108.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007506918588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Isaaks E, Srivastava R (1989) Applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://books.google.com/books?id=vC2dcXFLI3YC
  9. Journel AG (1983) Nonparametric estimation of spatial distributions. Math Geol 15(1066):445–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01031292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Journel AG (2013) Fundamentals of geostatistics in five lessons. American Geophysical Union (AGU), Washington, pp 2–10.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118667606.ch0 Google Scholar
  11. Journel A, Alabert F (1989) Non-Gaussian data expansion in the earth sciences. Terra Nova 1(2):123–134.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1989.tb00344.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Le Ravalec-Dupin M, Noetinger B (2002) Optimization with the gradual deformation method. Math Geol 34(2):125–142.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014408117518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li L, Srinivasan S, Zhou H, Gomez-Hernandez JJ (2015) Two-point or multiple-point statistics? A comparison between the ensemble Kalman filtering and the ensemble pattern matching inverse methods. Adv Water Resour 86:297–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luenberger D (1997) Optimization by vector space methods. Professional series. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Maharaja A (2008) Tigenerator: object-based training image generator. Comput Geosci 34(12):1753–1761.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mao S, Journel A (1999) Generation of a reference petrophysical/seismic data set: the Stanford V reservoir. Technical report, Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford, CA, 12th annual reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Moradkhani H, Hsu KL, Gupta H, Sorooshian S (2005) Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model states and parameters: sequential data assimilation using the particle filter. Water Resour Res 41(5):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubin D, Bernardo J, De Groot M, Lindley D, Smith A (1988) Using the sir algorithm to simulate posterior distributions. Bayesian statistics 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 395–402Google Scholar
  19. Schoniger A, Nowak W, Franssen HH (2012) Parameter estimation by ensemble Kalman filters with transformed data: approach and application to hydraulic tomography. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010462 Google Scholar
  20. Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Math Geol 34(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014009426274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tahmasebi P, Sahimi M, Shirangi MG (2018) Rapid learning-based and geologically consistent history matching. Transp Porous Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-018-1005-6 Google Scholar
  22. Tarun K, Sanjay S (2003) Iterative integration of dynamic data in reservoir models. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, pp 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.2118/84592-MS
  23. Tavakoli R, Srinivasan S, Wheeler MF (2014) Rapid updating of stochastic models by use of an ensemble-filter approach. SPE J 19(3):500–513.  https://doi.org/10.2118/163673-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tolosana-Delgado R, Egozcue J, Schez-Arcilla A, Gmez J (2011) Wave height data assimilation using non-stationary kriging. Comput Geosci 37(3):363–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yadav S, Srinivasan S, Bryant S, Barrera A, et al (2005) History matching using probabilistic approach in a distributed computing environment. In: SPE reservoir simulation symposium.  https://doi.org/10.2118/93399-MS
  26. Zhou H, Gmez-Hernndez JJ, Franssen HJH, Li L (2011) An approach to handling non-gaussianity of parameters and state variables in ensemble Kalman filtering. Adv Water Resour 34(7):844–864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhou H, Gomez-Hernandez JJ, Li L (2012) A pattern-search-based inverse method. Water Resour Res 48(3):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Energy and Mineral EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations