Prediction of oil production with confidence intervals
Download
1 / 43

Prediction of Oil Production With Confidence Intervals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 141 Views
  • Updated On :

Prediction of Oil Production With Confidence Intervals*. James Glimm 1,2 , Shuling Hou 3 , Yoon-ha Lee 1 , David H. Sharp 3 , Kenny Ye 1 1. SUNY at Stony Brook 2. Brookhaven National Laboratory 3. Los Alamos National Laboratory.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Prediction of Oil Production With Confidence Intervals' - neona


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Prediction of oil production with confidence intervals l.jpg

Prediction of Oil Production With Confidence Intervals*

James Glimm1,2, Shuling Hou3, Yoon-ha Lee1,

David H. Sharp3, Kenny Ye1

1. SUNY at Stony Brook

2. Brookhaven National Laboratory

3. Los Alamos National Laboratory

*Supported in part by the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation


Application of prediction theory l.jpg
Application of Prediction Theory

  • Reservoir Development Choices, for example

    • Sizing of Production Equipment

    • Location of Infill Drilling

  • During Early Development Stages

    • Risk high

    • Payoff high


Basic idea i l.jpg
Basic Idea: I

  • History match with probability of error

  • Start with geostatistical probability model for permeability, etc.

  • Observe production rates, etc.


Basic idea ii l.jpg
Basic Idea: II

  • Multiple simulations from ensemble

  • (Re)Assign probabilities based on data, degree of mismatch of simulation to history


Basic idea iii l.jpg
Basic Idea: III

Redefine probabilities and ensemble to be consistent with:

(a) data

(b) probable errors in simulation and data


Basic idea iv l.jpg
Basic Idea: IV

New ensemble of geologies = Posterior

Prediction = sample from posterior

Confidence intervals come from

- posterior probabilities

- errors in forward simulation


New idea arrival time error models l.jpg
New Idea: Arrival Time Error Models

  • Formulate solution error model in terms of arrival times, rather than solution values

    • errors are equi-distributed relative to solution gradients, ie relative to changes in solution values:


Arrival time model is simple robust l.jpg
Arrival Time Model is Simple, Robust

Regard

as the new independent variable

and t as the new dependent variable. Thus

and the error is equidistributed in

units of

This makes the error robust.

We compare arrival time and

solution based error models


Illustration posterior reduces choices and uncertainty l.jpg
Illustration:Posterior reduces choices and uncertainty


New result l.jpg
New Result:

Predict outcomes and risk

Risk is predicted quantitatively

Risk prediction is based on

- formal probabilities of errors

in data and simulation

- methods for simulation error analysis

- Rapid simulation (upscale) allowing

exploration of many scenarios


Problem formulation l.jpg
Problem Formulation

Simulation study:

Line drive, 2D reservoir

Random permeability field

log normal, random correlation length


Simple reservoir description l.jpg
Simple Reservoir Description

in unit square

constant


Ensemble l.jpg
Ensemble

100 random permeability fields for each correlation length

lnK gaussian, correlation length


Upscaling l.jpg
Upscaling

Solution from fine grid

100 x 100 grid

Solution by upscaling

20 x 20, 10 x 10, 5 x 5

Upscaled grids


Slide15 l.jpg

Upscaling References

Upscaling by

Wallstrom, Hou, Christie, Durlofsky, Sharp

1. Computational Geoscience 3:69-87 (1999)

2. SPE 51939

3. Transport in Porous Media (submitted)


Examples of upscaled exact oil cut curves l.jpg
Examples of Upscaled, Exact Oil Cut Curves

Scale-up: Black (fine grid) Red (20x20)

Blue (10x10) Green (5x5)


Slide17 l.jpg

Design of Study

Select one geology as exact.

Observe production for

Assign revised probabilities to all

500 geologies in ensemble based on:

(a) coarse grid upscaled solutions

(b) probabilities for coarse grid errors.

Compared to data (from “exact” geology)


Bayes theorem l.jpg
Bayes Theorem

Permeability = geology

Observation = past oil cut

prior

posterior;


Errors and discrepancies l.jpg
Errors and Discrepancies

Fine

Coarse

usually

but

implies

geology

geology


Example l.jpg
Example

Fig. 1 Typical errors (lower, solid curves) and discrepancies

(upper, dashed curves), plotted vs. PVI. The two families of

curves are clearly distinguishable.


Slide21 l.jpg

Mean error

Sample covariance

Precision Matrix

Gaussian error model: has covariance C, mean


Slide22 l.jpg

In Bayes Theorem, assume is exact.

Then, is an error, probability


Slide23 l.jpg

For arrival time error models, the formulation is identical, except that the independent variables s and t now denote the solution values, and not the time values, while the error e(s) denotes an error in the time of arrival of the solution value s.


Model reduction l.jpg
Model Reduction: except that the independent variables

Limited data on solution errors

Don’t over fit data

Replace by finite matrix


Slide25 l.jpg

Three Prediction Methods except that the independent variables

Prediction based on

(a) Geostatistics only, no history match (prior).

Average over full ensemble

(b) History match with upscaled solutions (posterior). Bayesian weighted average over ensemble.

(c) Window: select all fine grid solutions “close” to exact over past history.

Average over restricted ensemble.


Slide26 l.jpg

Comparing Prediction Methods except that the independent variables

  • Window prediction is best, but not practical

  • -uses fine grid solutions for complete ensemble

  • -tests for inherent uncertainty

  • Prior prediction is worst

  • - makes no use of production data.


Slide27 l.jpg

Error Reduction except that the independent variables

Prediction error reduction, as

per cent of prior prediction

choose present time to be oil cut of 0.6


Slide28 l.jpg

Error Reduction except that the independent variables

Window based error reduction: 50%

(fine grid: 100 x 100)

Upscaled error reduction:

5 x 5 23%

10 x 10 32%

20 x 20 36%


Confidence intervals l.jpg
Confidence Intervals except that the independent variables

5% - 95% interval in future oil production

Excludes extreme high-low values with 5%

probability of occurrence

Expressed as a per cent of predicted

production


Slide30 l.jpg

Confidence Intervals except that the independent variables

s0 = oil cut at present time.

t0 = present time.

Compute 5%--95% confidence intervals for future oil production, based on posterior and forward prediction using upscaled simulation.

Result is a random variable. We express confidence intervals as a percent of predicted production, and take mean of this statistic.


Slide31 l.jpg

Confidence Intervals except that the independent variables

Confidence intervals in percent for three values of present oil cut s0 and three levels of scaleup with fine grid values included.

s0 100x100 20x20 10x10 5x5

0.8 [-13,22] [-21,36] [-24,35] [-27,34]

0.6 [-14,20] [-18,20] [-22,22] [-29,25]

0.4 [-14,17] [-18,18] [-24,21] [-33,23]


Arrival time error analysis l.jpg
Arrival Time Error Analysis except that the independent variables

Error Model defined by 5 solution values:

s = 1- (Breakthrough), 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2.

Covariance is a 5 x 5 matrix, diagonally

dominant, and neglecting diagonal terms,

thus has 5 degrees of freedom. Thus it is simple.

Covariance is basically independent of the

geology correlation length. Thus it is robust.


Covariance matrix 10x10 scaleup l.jpg
Covariance Matrix: 10x10 Scaleup except that the independent variables


Slide34 l.jpg

Correlation matrix = except that the independent variables


Slide35 l.jpg

Histogram of off diagonal except that the independent variables

elements of the correlation

matrices, 5x5, 10x10,

20x20 scaleup


Slide36 l.jpg

Diagonal covariance matrix elements, three levels of scaleup, averaged over all correlation lengths


Slide37 l.jpg

Error covariance for arrival time scaleup, averaged over all correlation lengths

error model is proportional

to the degree of scale up


Slide38 l.jpg

Diagonal covariance matix elements for 10x10 scaleup, averaged over all correlation lengths

scaleup, showing general lack of dependence

on correlation length (except for s = 0.2 entry)


Slide39 l.jpg

Covariance matrix diagonal entries scaleup, averaged over all correlation lengths

for arrival time error model are

independent of correlation length,

except for final (s = 0.2) entry.


Confidence intervals for arrival time error model l.jpg
Confidence intervals for arrival time error model (%) scaleup, averaged over all correlation lengths


Arrival time error model vs solution value model confidence intervals for s 0 6 and 10x10 scaleup l.jpg
Arrival time error model vs. solution value model: confidence intervals (%) for s = 0.6 and 10x10 scaleup


Summary and conclusions l.jpg
Summary and Conclusions confidence intervals (%) for s = 0.6 and 10x10 scaleup

  • New method to assess risk in prediction of future oil production

  • New methods to assess errors in simulations as probabilities

  • New upscaling allows consideration of ensemble of geology scenarios

  • Bayesian framework provides formal probabilities for risk and uncertainty


References l.jpg
References confidence intervals (%) for s = 0.6 and 10x10 scaleup

  • J. Glimm, S. Hou, H. Kim, D. H. Sharp, “A Probability Model for Errors in the Numerical Solutions of a Partial Differential Equation”. Computational Fluid Dynamics Journal, Vol. 9, 485-493 (2001).

  • J. Glimm, S. Hou, Y. Lee, D. H. Sharp, “Prediction of Oil Production with Confidence Intervals”, SPE reprint SPE66350 (2001).

  • J. Glimm, S. Hou, H. Kim, D. H. Sharp, K. Ye, W. Zhu, “Risk Management for Petroleum Reservoir Production”, J. Comp. Geosciences, to appear.

  • J. Glimm, Y. Lee, K. Ye, “A Simple Model for Scale Up Error” Cont. Math. 2002 (to appear).


ad