In the oil and gas industry, numerical reservoir modelling and simulation is the most common and widely used tool for decision making. However, construction of such model requires a large amount of data from sources such as well logs, seismic, core analysis and well testing. The data obtained are not error free, they are prone to measurement error. Moreover, due to the humongous size of reservoirs, their properties are inferred from measurements taken at only some limited locations within the vicinity. Therefore, calibration of numerical reservoir models is necessary. In this paper, artificial neural network modelling is applied for calibration of a numerical reservoir model under primary recovery. A benchmark reservoir model, referred to as PUNQ-S3, was selected to investigate the application of neural network model. The neural network model was developed by using an inverse solution method to formulate the training and testing data. From the numerical reservoir simulation point of view reservoir properties to be calibrated are the inputs while pressure and production profiles are outputs. On the contrary, we have employed the inverse. This allowed carrying out history matching without the requirement of an objective function and optimization algorithm. In order to calibrate the numerical reservoir model, the trained neural network was simulated by using historical data. The results of this study have brought forward an improved technique for history matching (calibration) of a numerical reservoir model.
XuS. Automatic history match and upscaling study of VAPEX process and its uncertainty analysis. Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina, 2012.
2.
Schulze-RiegertRAxmannJHaaseORianDYouY-L. Evolutionary algorithms applied to history matching of complex reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering2002; 5(02): 163-73.
3.
ShirangiMGEmerickAA. An improved TSVD-based Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for history matching and comparison with Gauss-Newton. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering2016; 143: 258-71.
4.
AngusDFisherQSeguraJVerdonJKendallJ-MDutkoM, et al. Reservoir stress path and induced seismic anisotropy: Results from linking coupled fluid-flow/geomechanical simulation with seismic modelling. Petroleum Science2016; 13(4): 669-84.
5.
YehT-HJimenezEVan EssenGChenCJinLGirardiA, et al., editors. Reservoir uncertainty quantification using probabilistic history matching workflow. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition2014; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
6.
ChenYOliverDS. History matching of the Norne full-field model with an iterative ensemble smoother. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering2014; 17(02): 244-56.
7.
MirzadehSChambersRCarvajalGSinghAMaučecMKnabeS, et al., editors. Reservoir simulation design strategy for next-generation multi-level assisted history matching. IPTC2014; International Petroleum Technology Conference.
8.
JungHY. Application of History Matching Quality Index with Moving Linear Regression Analysis. Texas A&M University2015.
9.
YangCNghiemLXCardCBremeierM, editors. Reservoir model uncertainty quantification through computer-assisted history matching. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition2007; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
10.
ChenWHGavalasGRSeinfeldJHWassermanML. A new algorithm for automatic history matching. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal1974; 14(6): 593-608.
11.
SlaterGDurrerE. Adjustment of reservoir simulation models to match field performance. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal1971; 11(03): 295-305.
12.
CoatsKDempseyJHendersonJ. A new technique for determining reservoir description from field performance data. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal1970; 10(01): 66-74.
13.
BiZOliverDReynoldsA, editors. Conditioning 3D stochastic channels to pressure data. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition1999; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
14.
HajizadehYChristieMDemyanovV. Ant colony optimization for history matching and uncertainty quantification of reservoir models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering2011; 77(1): 78-92.
15.
SinghAPMaucecMKnabeSP, editors. History matching using streamline trajectories. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference2014; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
16.
ManticaGSloanA. Chaotic optimization and the construction of fractals: Solution of an inverse problem. Complex Systems1989; 3: 37-62.
17.
RwechunguraRWDadashpourMKleppeJ, editors. Application of particle swarm optimization for parameter estimation integrating production and time lapse seismic data. Offshore Europe2011; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
18.
NegashBMTufaLDRamasamyM. Performance prediction of a reservoir under gas injection using Box-Jenkins model. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology2016; 12(3): 285-301.
19.
NegashBMTufaLDMarappagounderRAwangMB. Conceptual framework for using system identification in reservoir production forecasting. Procedia Engineering2016; 148: 878-86.
20.
NegashBMTufaLDMarappagounderRAwangMB. Performance Prediction of a Reservoir Under Gas Injection, Using Output Error Model, 2016.
21.
KhanalAKhoshghadamMLeeWJNikolaouM. New forecasting method for liquid rich shale gas condensate reservoirs with data driven approach. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering2017.
22.
AleneziFMohagheghS, editors. A data-driven smart proxy model for a comprehensive reservoir simulation. Information Technology (Big Data Analysis) (KACSTIT), Saudi International Conference on2016; IEEE.
23.
ParasharMKlieHCatalyurekUKurcTBangerthWMatossianV, et al. Application of grid-enabled technologies for solving optimization problems in data-driven reservoir studies. Future Generation Computer Systems2005; 21(1): 19-26.
24.
DaremaF, editor. Dynamic data driven applications systems: A new paradigm for application simulations and measurements. International Conference on Computational Science2004; Springer.
25.
RoutAKDashP. Forecasting foreign exchange rates using hybrid functional link RBF neural network and Levenberg-Marquardt learning algorithm. Intelligent Decision Technologies2016; 10(3): 299-313.
26.
NairBBMohandasV. Artificial intelligence applications in financial forecasting – a survey and some empirical results. Intelligent Decision Technologies2015; 9(2): 99-140.
27.
GoyalSGoyalGK. Intelligent artificial neural network computing models for predicting shelf life of processed cheese. Intelligent Decision Technologies2013; 7(2): 107-11.
28.
CococcioniMD’AndreaELazzeriniB. One day-ahead forecasting of energy production in solar photovoltaic installations: An empirical study. Intelligent Decision Technologies2012; 6(3): 197-210.
29.
DiasLCAntunesCHRios ÍnsuaD. Special issue on intelligent technologies for planning and decision making under uncertainty. Intelligent Decision Technologies2012; 6(4): 243-4.
30.
MartínezLGCastroJRRodríguez-DíazALiceaG. Decision making fuzzy model for software engineering role assignment based on fuzzy logic and big five patterns using RAMSET. Intelligent Decision Technologies2012; 6(1): 59-67.
31.
KarayiannisNBVenetsanopoulosAN. On the training and performance of high-order neural networks. Mathematical Biosciences1995; 129(2): 143-68.
32.
ZanglGGrafTAl-KinaniA, editors. Proxy modeling in production optimization. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition2006; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
33.
CullickASJohnsonWDShiG, editors. Improved and more rapid history matching with a nonlinear proxy and global optimization. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition2006; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
34.
SilvaPCMaschioCSchiozerDJ. Application of neural network and global optimization in history matching. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology2008; 47(11).
35.
SampaioTPFerreira FilhoVJMNetoADS, editors. An application of feed forward neural network as nonlinear proxies for use during the history matching phase. Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference2009; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
36.
ZubarevDI, editor. Pros and cons of applying proxy-models as a substitute for full reservoir simulations. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition2009; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
37.
MohagheghSD, editor. Quantifying uncertainties associated with reservoir simulation studies using a surrogate reservoir model. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition2006; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
38.
MohagheghSDLiuJSGaskariRMaysamiMOlukokoOA, editors. Application of surrogate reservoir models (SRM) to am onshore green field in saudi arabia; case study. North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition2012; Society of Petroleum Engineers.
39.
MohagheghSDModaviAHafezHHaajizadehMGuruswamyS. Development of surrogate reservoir model (SRM) for fast track analysis of a complex reservoir. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology2009; 2(1): 2-23.
40.
MohagheghSD. Converting detail reservoir simulation models into effective reservoir management tools using SRMs; case study – three green fields in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology2014; 7(2): 115-31.
41.
ZhangYFanZYangDLiHPatilS. Simultaneous estimation of relative permeability and capillary pressure for PUNQ-S3 model with a damped iterative-ensemble-Kalman-filter technique. SPE Journal2017.
42.
DingSJiangHLiJLiuGMiL. Optimization of well location, type and trajectory by a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm for the PUNQ-S3 model. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information2016; 4(1).
43.
FlorisFBushMCuypersMRoggeroFSyversveenAR. Methods for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: A comparative study. Petroleum Geoscience2001; 7(S): S87-S96.
44.
PUNQ-S3_model, Department of Earth Science and Engine- ering IcL. (http://www.imperial.ac.uk/earth-science/research/research-groups/perm/standard-models/eclipse-dataset (Last Accessed January 2017).
