Computational Geosciences

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 43–65 | Cite as

History matching on the Imperial College fault model using parallel tempering

  • J. N. Carter
  • D. A. White
Original Paper


The history-matching inverse problem from petroleum engineering is analysed using the Imperial College fault model. This fault model produces a challenging inverse problem and is designed to show some of the problems which can occur whilst performing history-matching calculations on complicated geologies. It is shown that there can be multiple distinct geologies which match the history data. Furthermore, it is shown that the maximum-a-posteriori estimate does not correspond to the true geology in some cases. Both of these statements are corroborated via numerical examples where the parameter spaces are ℝ, ℝ3, ℝ7 and ℝ13. In addition, it is shown that the number of matches which agree with the data increases with dimension for these examples. It is also shown that the different matches can result in different reservoir management decision which, if incorrectly taken, would incur substantial financial penalties. All of these analyses are performed in a systematic manner, where it is shown that the standard algorithms can give a misleading answer. The history-matching problem is written as a minimisation problem, and it is shown that knowledge of all of the local minima is required. This presents significant computational issues as the resulting objective function is highly nonlinear, expensive to evaluate and multimodal. Previously used algorithms have been proved to be inadequate. Parallel tempering is a method which, if run for long enough, can find all the local minima. However, as the objective is expensive, a number of algorithm modifications had to be used to ensure convergence within a reasonable time. This new information is outlined in the paper. The algorithm as implemented produced results and new insights into this problem which were not suspected before. The results produced by this algorithm for the multimodal history-matching problem are superior to all other results of which we are aware. However, a considered amount of computation time was used within this paper, so this result does not infer that the algorithm cannot be improved upon. This algorithm not only produces good results but can be applied to all other history-matching problems. We have shown that this method provides a robust route of finding multiple local optima/solutions to the inverse problem, which is of considerable benefit to the petroleum industry. Furthermore, it is an entirely parallel algorithm which is becoming computationally feasible for other history-matching problems.


Parallel tempering Inverse problem History matching Uncertainty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aanonsen, S., Naevdal, G., Oliver, D., Reynolds, A., Valls, B.: The ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir engineering. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 14(3), 393–412 (2009). SPE 117274-PAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdollahzadeh, A., Reynolds, A., Christie, M., Corne, D., Davies, B., Williams, G.: Bayesian optimization algorithm applied to uncertainty quantification. In: SPE 143290. Paper presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE annual conference and exhibition Vienna, Austria, 23–26 May 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrieu, C., de Freitas, N., Doucet, A., Jordan, M.I.: An introduction to MCMC for machine learning. Mach. Learn. 50, 5–43 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atchade, Y.F., Roberts, G.O., Rosenthal, J.S.: Towards optimal scaling of Metropolis-coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo. Stat. Comput. 21, 555–568 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ballester, P.J., Carter, J.N.: Tackling an inverse problem from the petroleum industry with a genetic algorithm for sampling. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation—GECCO 2004: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 1299–1300. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). ISBN: 0302-9743Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballester, P.J., Carter, J.N.: Characterising the parameter space of a highly nonlinear inverse problem. Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 14, 171–191 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bush, M.D., Carter, J.N.: Applications of a modified genetic algorithm to parameter estimation in the petroleum industry. In: Intelligent Engineering Systems Through Artificial Neural Networks, vol. 6, p. 397. ASME, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cotter, S.L., Roberts, G.O., Stuart, A.M., White, D.: MCMC methods for functions: modifying old algorithms to make them faster. Stat. Sci. (2012). arXiv:1202.0709
  9. 9.
    Christie, M., Demyanov, V., Erbas, D.: Uncertainty quantification for porous media flows. J. Comput. Phys. 217, 143–158 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E., Stork, D.G.: Pattern Classification, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Earlab, D.J., Deema, M.W.: Parallel tempering: theory, applications, and new perspectives, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 3910–3916 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erbas, D., Christie, M.: Effect of sampling strategies on prediction uncertainty estimation. In: Proceedings of the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, SPE 106229, Houston, Texas, USA, 26–28 Feb 2007Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardiner, C.W.: Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hastings, W.K.: Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57(1), 97–109 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, L.Y.: Gradual deformation and iterative calibration of Gaussian-related stochastic models. Math. Geol. 32, 81 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin, L., Alpak, F.O., van den Hoek, P., Pirmez, C., Fehintola, T., Tendo, F., Olaniyan, E.: A comparison of stochastic data-integration algorithms for the joint history matching of production and time-lapse seismic data. In: SPE 146418 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kathrada, M., Carter, J.N.: Case studies of successfully history matched reservoir simulation models using a powerful optimization algorithm being of limited predictive value. In: SPE 136659, Abu Dhabi Petroleum Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolda, T.G., Lewis, R.M., Torczon, V.: Optimization by direct search: new perspectives on some classical and modern methods. SIAM Rev. 45(3), 385–482 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, B., Friedmann, F.: Semiautomatic multiple resolution design for history matching. SPE J. 12(4), 408–419 (2007). SPE 102277Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madras, N., Piccioni, M.: Importance sampling for families of distributions. Ann. Appl. Probab. 9(4), 1202–1225 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, M.N., Teller, A.H., Teller, E.: Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1092 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamed, L., Christie, M., Demyanov, V.: Comparison of stochastic sampling algorithms for uncertainty quantification. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 15(1), 3138 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohamed, L., Christie, M., Demyanov, V.: History matching and uncertainty quantification: multiobjective particle swarm optimisation approach. In: SPE 143067 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohamed, L., Calderhead, B., Filippone, M., Christie, M., Girolami, M.: Population MCMC methods for history matching and uncertainty quantification. Comput. Geosci. 16(2), 423–436 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petrovska, I., Carter, J.N.: Evolutionary algorithms with pairwise conditional sampling for history matching optimisation, B022. In: 12th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery. Pub European Association Geoscientists and Engineers (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Romary, T.: Integrating production data under uncertainty by parallel interacting Markov chains on a reduced dimensional space. Comput. Geosci. 13, 103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Romero, C.E., Carter, J.N.: Using genetic algorithms for reservoir characterization. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 31, 113 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N., King, P.R.: An analysis of history matching errors. Comput. Geosci. 9(2), 99–123 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth Science and Engineering DepartmentImperial CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Mathematics Dept, Zeeman BuildingUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations