Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
History matching is the process of adjusting uncertain reservoir parameters until an acceptable match with the measured
production data is obtained. Complexity and insufficient knowledge of reservoir characteristics makes this process timeconsuming with high computational cost. In the recent years, many efforts mainly referred as assisted history matching have
attempted to make this process faster; nevertheless, the degree of success of these techniques continues to be a subject for
debate.
This study aims to examine the application of a unique pattern recognition technology to improve the time and efforts required
for completing a successful history matching project. The pattern recognition capabilities of Artificial Intelligence and Data
Mining (AI&DM) are used to develop Surrogate Reservoir Model (SRM) for utilization as the engine to drive the history
matching process. SRM is an intelligent prototype of the full-field reservoir simulation model that runs in fractions of a
second. SRM is built using a handful of geological realizations.
In this study, a synthetic reservoir model of a heterogeneous oilfield with 24 production wells and 30 years of production
history was used as the ground truth (the subject and the goal of the history match). An SRM was created to accurately
represent this reservoir model. The history matching process for this field was performed using the SRM and by tuning static
data (Permeability). The result of this study demonstrates the capabilities of SRM for fast track and accurate reproduction of
the numerical model results. Speed and accuracy make SRM a fast and effective tool for assisted history matching.
Keywords: History Matching, Artificial Intelligence, Surrogate Reservoir Model (SRM), AI Assisted History Matching
SPE-169507-MS
1. Introduction
The purpose of reservoir management is to develop strategies to maximize recovery. Reservoir simulation is usually used as a
decision making tool in this procedure. The common concern of reservoir simulation and modeling is accuracy. It is generally
believed that models with higher resolution (in both time and space) are more accurate. Since increase in resolution (time and
space) translates to increase in computational time, a well-known dichotomy arises. On one hand the model must satisfy the
accuracy requirements (high resolution), and on the other hand, it needs to be fast enough to become practical.
The new advancements in reservoir data acquisition have raised the complexity of the reservoir model and therefore the time
required to run it. At the same time typical reservoir modeling tasks such as sensitivity analysis, history matching, field
development optimization, and uncertainty assessment require large number of simulation runs. The challenge now is to keep
the complexity of the reservoir model while shortening its run-time.
The main objective of history matching is to improve and validate the reservoir simulation model by incorporating the
observed data into the characterization process, in order to obtain reliable production forecast. A simulation model which has
been tuned to match the past performance of a reservoir offers a higher degree of confidence to predict the future. Having a
trustworthy prediction of field performance has direct impact on technical and financial performance of operators.
History matching, by nature, is an ill-posed inverse problem. Correspondingly, classical history matching where reservoir
parameters are adjusted manually by trial-and-error makes this scenario more tedious and time-consuming. Assisted
(automated) history matching was proposed to decrease the amount of labor required during the manual history matching.
During last two decades there have been efforts to improve assisted history matching in a way that could be applicable in the
real world. But despite all the attempts, due to increasing rate of complexity and resolution in the reservoir models, there is
still hesitation about the practicality and potential of these methods to handle highly complicated real reservoir models. This
makes assisted history matching still a challenging research topic.
The novelty of the idea in this study is to examine a new application of pattern recognition technologies to improve the time
and efforts required for completing a successful history matching project. The pattern recognition capabilities of Artificial
Intelligence and Data Mining (AI&DM) are used to develop a Surrogate Reservoir Model (SRM) and use it as the engine to
drive the history matching process. SRM is a prototype of the full-field reservoir simulation model that runs in fraction of a
second. SRM is built using a small number of geological realizations. The geological realizations are used to create a spatiotemporal database. The AI&DM techniques are utilized to derive the complicated relationship between different parameters in
SPE-169507-MS
the database. Clearly the relationship originates from the nonlinear behavior of fluid flow thorough the porous media. In this
study Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are the AI&DM tool in building the SRM. In order to develop the SRM, the spatiotemporal database was used to build ANNs.
2. Literature
Review
2.1. History
Matching
The advancement of computational power pushed reservoir simulation as the main tool to model the behavior of fluid flow in
reservoir (Watts 1997). Nowadays, feedbacks from reservoir simulation models are used in almost all reservoir development
decisions. Simulating reservoirs easily and realistically makes them a primary and reasonable choice for oil and gas companies
in the development of new (green) fields. Similarly, they are used in developed (brown or mature) fields where production
forecasts are required to help make future investment decisions.
In general, most of the required input data for building a numerical reservoir model comes from samples in wellbore or near
wellbore (Fanchi 2006). Compared to the size of a reservoir, these data are inadequate and their sources represent a very
limited section of reservoir. Furthermore, the methods applied for preparing these data are treating them in a very local aspect.
However, these data and the techniques to attain them are the only options that provide input data for the reservoir simulation
model of the field under study. The main point is that a huge part of the reservoir remains unknown to the engineers and
geologists working on the simulation model. As a result, the initial data in a simulation model should be adjusted in order to be
matched with the available historical data and predict the future performance of reservoir. This tuning procedure is performed
during history matching process. History matching is a calibration process that includes adjusting the uncertain parameters of
reservoir model until the model reproduces the historical field performance as closely as possible.
History matching is an ill-posed inverse problem. The inverse problem is the opposite of forward or direct problem which the
model parameters are used to predict the data. While in inverse problem the observed data is used to conclude (adjust) the
model parameters. On the other hand, a problem is ill-poised (not well-posed) when there are multiple non-unique solutions
for a certain problem. History matching is an ill-posed problem because many possible combinations of reservoir parameters
can result in almost the same behavior of reservoir (match the history data).
There is no doubt that history matching is a complicated procedure. Many criteria could be named which affect the degree of
success in this process: the quality and quantity of available data, the specific characteristics of the reservoir under study, the
SPE-169507-MS
time and resources allocated to the study, and finally the experience and knowledge of the research group working on the
model. Consequently, each one of these criteria gives the history matching problem its most important characteristic which is
the non-uniqueness character of the results. There is no specific and unique method for history matching process. Each
reservoir has the particular specification and behavior.
Many efforts to improve manual history matching techniques have been made since the mid 1960s to both speed up and
automate history match process (Kruger 1961) (Jacquard and Jain 1965) (Jahns 1966). Gradient optimization methods were
used for history matching in late 1960s (Coats, Dempsey and Henderson 1968)(Slater and Durrer 1970). Chen et al. (1974)
tried to formulate history matching as an optimal control problem. Williams et al (1998) offered a structured approach to
perform history matching on a complex reservoir and based on their experience proposed multiple recommendations which
make the manual history matching easier. Bush and Carter (1996) showed that simple optimization techniques are not good
enough to address complex history matching problems. He and Chamber (1999) claimed that automatic history matching using
an object-based approach could provide acceptable results without the need to manually adjust the model. In the early 90s,
using stochastic modeling to generate multiple realizations were started (Tyler, Svanes and Omdal 1993) (Palatnic, et al.
1993). Stochastic modeling, which provides many different geological realizations, increases the variation of the most
important input parameters, e.g. the geological properties influencing fluid flow. Sultan et al. (1994) and Ouenes et al. (1993)
used the Simulated Annealing Method (SAM) to automate history matching process. SAM was a non-gradient optimization
method capable of handling large number of parameters.
Gao et al. (2004) for the first time suggested the idea of combining the simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation
(SPSA) method with a simulator to perform automatic history match of multiphase flow production data. Hajizadeh et al.
(2009) (2010) introduced a stochastic approach for automatic history matching based on a continuous Ant Colony
Optimization (ACO) algorithm. Other stochastic algorithms have been examined in this area. Evolutionary algorithms have
gained popularity as a standard optimization approach in history matching. These algorithms are generally inspired by the
evolution theory. There have been may examples of application of these algorithms in history matching (Schulze-Riegert et al.
2002) (Cheng et al. 2008)(Ferraro and Verga 2009) (Abdollahzadeh et al. 2012) (Christie et al. 2013).
However, high nonlinear behavior of the problem, large computational expenses and huge dimension of a real size field make
the history match process more difficult. Although significant computational and solver efficiencies have been gained over the
past four decades, ever-increasing size of geo-statistical earth models has continued to challenge the computational speed issue
(Kabir, Chien and Landa 2003).
SPE-169507-MS
SPE-169507-MS
Table 1- Application of ANNs in different fields. The popularity of ANNs has seen rise and fall since their advent.
Sales forecasting
Customer research
Risk management
Credit evaluation
Medical diagnosis
Business applications
(Li 1994)
Financial applications
(Tan 2004)
Reservoir characterization
and
Jungwhan
(Briones, et al. 1994)(Gharbi and Elsharkawy 1997)(Osman, AbdelWahhab and Al-Marhoun 2001)(Oloso, et al. 2009)
SPE-169507-MS
et al. (2006) compared the performance of proxy models based on ANNs with reservoir simulator to perform history matching.
Their results support using ANNs as a substitute for numerical simulator over the trained parameter space. They tried to
challenge the limitation of proxy model in their work by decreasing the number of training realizations and increasing the
uncertain parameters.
The objective of Rodriguez et al. (2007) work was accelerating the history matching process by applying singular value
decomposition method. This method helped them to save 75 % of total CPU time. At the same time, they used an ANN in
order to reduce number of simulation runs and help to increase the accuracy of solution. Silva et al. (2006)(2008) presented the
application of global optimizers combined with ANNs to address the history matching problem. Their results supported the
potential of ANNs to reduce the computational effort in history matching process. Sampaio et al. (2009) used feed-forward
neural networks as nonlinear proxies of reservoir simulation to speed up history matching. The focus of their work was to
discuss the technical criteria that will lead implementation of ANN to be a successful experience. The points that they have
mentioned in their paper are crucial for the researchers who are interested in applying ANN in petroleum engineering
problems.
The aforementioned cases are some examples of ANN application. However what is worth mentioning is the approach used in
these examples through development and implementation of AI models, which is the same as the statistical methods. The
degree of success of using AI models based on this approach is highly uncertain and it could be as successful or disappointing
as the statistical techniques (Cullick, Johnson and Shi 2006)(Zubarev 2009). Particularly addressing application of AI in
petroleum engineering problems (such as history matching), it requires a comprehensive knowledge in both areas of petroleum
engineering and AI and DM to achieve success. This knowledge plays an important role in keeping the physics to solve the
problem. The fact of using physics is something that has been neglected in statistical methods (or applying AI techniques using
the same approach).
SPE-169507-MS
3. Methodology
SRMs are developed based on representative spatio-temporal databases. Building this database is the first step of developing
AI-based reservoir models. The main objective of the database is to teach the ANN model the whole process of fluid flow
phenomena in the reservoir. In general, this database should meticulously provide static and dynamic information of the
reservoir. The quality and quantity of this database determines degree of success to develop a successful AI-based reservoir
model including an SRM (Mohaghegh 2011). Compared to the other steps of SRM development, preparing the database is
relatively the most tedious part, which needs a lot of thought process. However a good database guarantees the success of the
modeling.
In order to build this SRM different steps were required. Followings are steps involved to develop the SRM:
1) Pre-processing step includes model development and dataset generation:
a.
Development of a heterogeneous reservoir model using a commercial simulator. Starting with the base case
of reservoir model a small number of informative realizations were created. These informative realizations
represent the geological uncertainties involved in the reservoir model.
b.
Depending on the objective of developing SRM, the reservoir could be divided into different segments and
tiers. Segmenting the reservoir helps to emphasize on the sections which are more important, such as well
block and the grid blocks around the well.
c.
Extracting different static and dynamic data from the numerical simulation models in order to build the
spatio-temporal database.
2) SRM Development:
SPE-169507-MS
a.
Performing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to identify and rank the influence of different reservoir
characteristics on the reservoir performance. The ranked KPIs will be a guide to select ANN inputs.
b.
Partitioning the spatio-temporal database into training, calibration and validation sets.
c.
d.
e.
Testing the created ANNs using a complete blind realization of the reservoir.
5. Training
Realizations
In order to introduce the uncertainties involved in the reservoir simulation model to the SRM, a small number of simulation
runs should be made. In this study, ten different realizations of the base model were designed to develop the SRM. Using the
permeability map from base reservoir model, ten different permeability maps were generated. The range of permeability for
10
SPE-169507-MS
the base model is from 10 to 70 md. Due to the uncertainty involved in reservoir properties, a range from 10 to 200 md was
considered to create the permeability distributions. Afterward, to create ten different cases of permeability values at well
location, an experimental method (Latin Hypercube) was used. Table 3 summarizes generated permeability values at the wells
location.
Table
3-
Permeability
(md)
values
designed
at
well
locations
for
generating
permeability
maps.
The
permeability
values
for
each
well
have
been
ranged
by
color,
which
red
and
blue
represent
minimum
and
maximum
value
respectively.
Well
Well-1
Well-10
Well-11
Well-12
Well-13
Well-14
Well-15
Well-16
Well-17
Well-18
Well-19
Well-2
Well-20
Well-21
Well-22
Well-23
Well-24
Well-25
Well-3
Well-4
Well-5
Well-6
Well-7
Well-8
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
Run 10
44.6
40.3
41.7
33.4
64.3
17.6
18.9
21.7
78.1
34.6
76.8
58.8
41.2
19.5
30.0
58.6
29.2
29.5
67.0
26.5
43.2
24.5
41.6
54.1
21.6
29.8
85.8
18.0
41.3
42.8
44.9
40.0
45.0
24.6
60.3
42.9
27.3
22.4
36.0
67.8
31.6
88.8
38.5
37.5
30.2
38.1
15.9
79.0
21.0
51.5
32.6
44.7
64.3
30.0
37.5
29.9
27.7
40.2
95.6
52.6
14.4
39.5
31.9
60.4
21.5
46.1
76.5
32.9
31.7
34.9
30.7
73.4
38.7
140.8
83.8
51.9
61.0
31.0
47.4
32.5
44.6
56.8
38.9
92.2
53.9
27.4
42.4
117.6
44.0
68.4
55.4
71.0
15.9
40.3
65.1
112.9
60.5
49.7
138.6
40.1
74.9
38.1
55.8
41.1
84.1
29.5
54.0
78.0
70.7
19.6
46.1
109.0
28.2
31.7
72.5
66.7
26.4
46.5
39.2
101.4
67.1
142.8
39.0
21.2
69.2
28.4
32.7
33.9
102.4
44.1
81.7
105.4
27.4
47.5
43.3
59.6
57.5
109.8
53.2
42.0
66.3
38.5
20.6
71.8
31.3
146.9
122.6
89.8
54.7
43.1
92.0
43.0
93.8
75.7
107.5
93.7
18.9
50.5
63.6
82.4
17.5
159.9
36.8
31.6
60.4
62.3
44.5
193.9
66.4
87.5
117.7
73.9
60.9
56.1
93.1
57.8
143.9
74.9
172.6
81.6
37.4
63.4
61.3
55.8
77.4
112.4
43.1
29.8
86.2
63.4
49.6
161.8
44.2
113.6
97.1
75.5
118.4
35.2
91.2
38.8
158.9
54.6
49.3
107.2
88.0
60.7
70.1
47.6
69.4
182.8
123.5
22.8
83.2
56.7
50.4
140.1
89.7
107.3
33.0
34.9
104.9
62.9
59.6
66.8
152.5
81.3
61.4
119.5
21.9
89.6
57.4
73.2
27.8
153.0
94.0
19.0
72.5
61.7
57.0
131.8
SPE-169507-MS
11
7. SRM
Development
7.1. Input
Selection
At this step, the inputs to develop the spatio-temporal database are selected. As it was mentioned, building this database is the
most important step of developing an SRM. In building of this database, the objective of the reservoir modeling should be
considered (Amini et al. 2012)(Mohaghegh et al. 2012a). For instance, the objective of this study is using the SRM to estimate
the well parameters such as oil production. Therefore, the reservoir properties, which are affecting the objective of study, have
higher degree of importance.
The spatio-temporal database includes different types of data such as static and dynamic reservoir characteristics, operational
constraints, etc. Static data refer to the properties of reservoir that are not changing through the time such as permeability,
porosity, top and thickness. Similarly, the dynamic data address variable parameters that are altering over the time, such as oil
production rate, bottom-hole pressure, and production time.
For the tiers which have more than one grid block, the average of the property was calculated. This calculation was done just
for static properties. Figure 7 summarizes different types of data in the spatio-temporal database.
TM
IDEA is a data-driving and AI modeling software developed by Intelligent Solutions Inc. (ISI).
12
SPE-169507-MS
The ANNs are adapted to this set to match the provided outputs (reservoir simulation results). On the other hand, the
calibration set is not used to adjust the outputs. This set is utilized to assure that any increase in accuracy over the training data
set will lead to an increase in accuracy over a data set that has not been shown to the ANNs before. This set of data is helpful
to find out when the training should be stopped. If the error trend over the training data set has a decreasing trend, but the same
error for the calibration set has different trend, the ANN is over-fitting and it is time to stop the training process. Finally, the
verification set is a part of database to verify the validity of the trained ANN. Obviously this data set has not been used to train
the ANN. It is worth mentioning that the elapsed time to perform the training process (learning, calibration and verification) is
negligible compared to the reservoir simulation run-time. The training, calibration and verification included 80%, 10% and
10% of the data in the database.
subtracting the maximum and minimum of measured production data for well . In the global objective function,
objective function for well , and
is the
is the
is the total number of wells (24 wells in this study). In practice, it is also common to
consider that the quality and importance of measured data may be different for some specific wells.
SPE-169507-MS
13
for well . In this work, all the wells were considered equally important and the weight coefficient is one for all of them.
Equation
1:
Individual
well
objective
function
8. Results
This section intends to present the results for one of the wells (well # 20) for different steps of developing and applying the
SRM. The results for all wells can be found in somewhere else (Shahkarami 2012). Figure 9 displays the results after the
training process; the chart portrays the oil rate profile for 30 years of production comparing SRM results with the simulator
outputs. The blue squares represent the SRM and the red line with stars shows the numerical simulator results. It is evident that
SRM can reproduce the simulator results accurately. Figure 10 shows the results of blind verification realization. As was
mentioned earlier, a blind realization was used for testing the SRM. The blind set consists of a realization, which has not been
seen by SRM in the training process. Therefore, this graph validates the potential of SRM to predict a realization performance
out of the training dataset and displays the robustness of the technique. Finally figure 11 is a snapshot of the history matching
(HM) results for this well. This graph is the comparison of the SRM outcome with the measured production data.
The distribution of matched values of permeability is shown in figure 12. The right side of this figure pictures some shots of
the matched permeability map, while the left side shots are the actual permeability distribution. Figure 13 demonstrates the
error distribution of the results after history matching process. Figure 14 is an error frequency distribution of these results, as
well.
14
SPE-169507-MS
ten heterogeneous realizations and then validated by a blind simulation run. Finally, the full field model was substituted by the
trained SRM to perform the history match process.
SRM was able to accurately match the results of training realizations. Robustness of SRM to predict the behavior of a
realization which has not been seen by SRM during learning process (blind case) was further verified. Matching the actual data
was perfect and comparison between the variable history matched property and actual distribution supports the claim. The
pattern recognition characteristics of SRM make it possible to achieve the results in a fraction of second. Although the running
time for the case study of reservoir model used in this study is not the concern, the number of simulation runs to attain a
desired match is time and power consuming. In numerical reservoir simulator, by increasing the size and complexity of the
components the run-time can increase in orders of magnitude. Nevertheless due to pattern recognition capability of SRM this
technology, it will not be an issue for SRM.
The results of this study could be counted as a proof of concept for showing the potential of this novel technology (SRM) to
assist history matching process. Increasing the uncertain variables and implementing the technology on a more sophisticated
(and real life) case study is the goal of the authors to achieve in future.
SPE-169507-MS
15
16
SPE-169507-MS
Figure
3-Three and two dimensional
top
views
of
simulation
model.
Figure
5-
Three and two dimensional
views
of
thickness
map.
SPE-169507-MS
17
Static Data
Identifier
Well Location
Dynamic Data
Time
Operational
Constraint
Production
Rate
Index
Well
Name
Run
Number
i
j
k
X
Y
Z
Top
Porosity
Permeability
Grid
Thickness
Bottom-hole
pressure
Oil
Rate
at
t
Oil
Rate
at
a
time
step
behind
(t-1)
18
SPE-169507-MS
Figure 8- The results of KPI analysis. Pre-modeling analysis of KPI is an appropriate guide to select the inputs of ANNs.
SPE-169507-MS
19
Figure 11- Comparison of the matched results coming from SRM with actual outputs (simulator) for well # 20.
20
SPE-169507-MS
Figure
12-
Comparison
of
matched
and
actual
Permeability
distributions.
SPE-169507-MS
21
Figure 14- Error frequency distribution for the history match results.
22
SPE-169507-MS
Bibliography
Abdollahzadeh,
A.
et
al.
2012.
On
Population
Diversity
Measures
of
the
Evolutionary
Algorithms
Used
in
History
Matching.
SPE
Europec/EAGE
Annual
Conference,
4-7
June,
Copenhagen,
Denmark
Adebiyi,
A.A.,
C.K.
Ayo,
M.O
Adebiyi,
and
O.S
Otokiti.
2012.
Stock
Price
Prediction
using
Neural
Network
with
Hybridized
Market
Indicators.
Journal
of
Emerging
Trends
in
Computing
and
Information
Sciences.
Ahmed,
T.,
C.A.
Link,
K.W.
Porter,
C.J.
Wideman,
P.
Himmer,
and
J.
Braun.
1997.
Application
of
Neural
Network
Parameter
Prediction
in
Reservoir
Characterization
and
Simulation
-
A
Case
History:
The
Rabbit
Hills
Field.
Latin
American
and
Caribbean
Petroleum
Engineering
Conference.
Rio
de
Janeiro,
Brazil.
Ali,
J
K.
Neural
Networks:
A
New
Tool
for
the
Petroleum
Industry?.
1994.
European
Petroleum
Computer
Conference.
Aberdeen,
United
Kingdom.
Al-Kaabi,
A
U,
and
W
J
Lee.
1990.
An
Artificial
Neural
Network
Approach
To
Identify
the
Well
Test
Interpretation
Model:
Applications.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
New
Orleans,
Louisiana.
Amato,
F.,
A.
Lpez,
E
Mara,
P.
Vahara,
and
A.
Hampl.
2013.
Artificial
neural
networks
in
medical
diagnosis.
Journal
of
Applied
Biomedicine:
47-58.
Amini,
S.
et
al.
2012.
Uncertainty
Analysis
of
a
CO2
Sequestration
Project
Using
Surrogate
Reservoir
Modeling
Technique.
SPE
Western
Regional
Meeting.
Bakersfield,
California,
USA.
Aminzadeh,
F.,
and
P.
deGroot.
2005.
A
Neural
Networks
Based
Seismic
Object
Detection
Technique.
SEG
Annual
Meeting.
Houston,
Texas.
Athichanagorn,
S,
and
Horne,
R
N.
1995.Automatic
Parameter
Estimation
From
Well
Test
Data
Using
Artificial
Neural
Network.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Dallas,
Texas.
Baesens,
B.,
Setiono,
R.,
Mues,
C.,
and
Vanthienen,J.
2003.
Using
Neural
Network
Rule
Extraction
and
Decision
Tables
for
Credit-Risk
Evaluation.
Management
Science:
312-329.
Baldwin,
J.
L.,
Otte,
D.N.
and
Whealtley,
C.
L.
1989.
Computer
Emulation
of
Human
Mental
Processes:
Application
of
Neural
Network
Simulators
to
Problems
in
Well
Log
Interpretation.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
San
Antonio,
Texas,
USA.
Briones,
M
F,
G.A.
Rojas,
J.A.
Moreno,
and
E
R
Martinez.
"Application
of
Neural
Networks
in
the
Prediction
of
Reservoir
Hydrocarbon
Mixture
Composition
From
Production
Data."
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
New
Orleans,
Louisiana:
Society
of
Petroleum
Engineers,
1994.
Bush,
M.D.,
and
Carter,
J.N.
1996.Application
of
a
Modified
Genetic
Algorithm
to
Parameter
Estimation
in
Petroleum
Industry.Intelligent
Engineering
Systems
through
Artificial
Neural
Networks(6):
397.
Chattopadhyay,
M.
et
al.
2012.
Application
of
artificial
neural
network
in
market
segmentation:
A
review
on
recent
trends.
Management
Science
Letters:
425-438.
Chen,
W.H.,
Gavalas,
G.cR.
,
Seinfeld,
J.
H.
and
Wasserman,
M.
L.
1974.
A
New
Algorithm
for
Automatic
History
Matching.
SPE-AIME
48th
Annual
Fall
Meeting.
Las
Vegas,
USA.
SPE-169507-MS
23
Cheng,
H.
et
al.
2008.
A
Structured
Approach
for
Probabilistic-Assisted
History
Matching
Using
Evolutionary
Algorithms:
Tengiz
Field
Applications.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition,
21-24
September,
Denver,
Colorado,
USA.
Cheng-Dang,
Z.
et
al.
1994.
Direct
Identification
of
Hydrocarbon
From
Well
Logs:
A
Neural
Network
Interpretation
Approach.Petroleum
Society
of
Canada,
Annual
Technical
Meeting.
Calgary,
Alberta,
Canada.
Christie,
M.
et
al.
2013.
An
Adaptive
Evolutionary
Algorithm
for
History-Matching.
EAGE
Annual
Conference
&
Exhibition
incorporating
SPE
Europec,
10-13
June,
London,
UK
CMG,
Computer
Modelling
Group.
2012.
Computer
Modelling
Group
Manual.
Coats,
K.,
Dempsey,
J.
and
Henderson,
J.
1968.
A
New
Technique
for
Determining
Reservoir
Description
from
Field
Performance
Data.
43rd
SPE
Annual
Fall
Meeting.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Cullick,
A.S.,
Johnson,
D.and
Shi,
G.
2006.
Improved
and
More-Rapid
History
Matching
With
a
Nonlinear
Proxy
and
Global
Optimization.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
San
Antonio,
Texas,
USA.
David,
H.
J.
1993.
Seismic
Attribute
Calibration
Using
Neural
Networks.
SEG
Annual
Meeting.
Washington,
DC,
USA.
Devadhas,
G.,
Pushpakumar,
S.
and
Mary,
D.M.
2012.
ANN
Based
MARC
Controller
Design
for
an
Industrial
Chemical
Process.
International
Conference
on
Computing,
Electronics
and
Electrical
Technologies.
Ershaghi,
I.
et
al.
1993.
A
Robust
Neural
Network
Model
for
Pattern
Recognition
of
Pressure
Transient
Test
Data.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Fanchi,
John
R.
2006.
Principles
of
Applied
Reservoir
Simulation.
Elsevier
Science
and
Technology
Books,
Inc.
Ferraro,
P.
and
Verga,
F.
2009.
Use
Of
Evolutionary
Algorithms
In
Single
And
Multi-
Objective
Optimization
Techniques
For
Assisted
History
Matching.
Offshore
Mediterranean
Conference
and
Exhibition,
25-27
March,
Ravenna,
Italy.
Gao,
G.,
Li,
G.
and
Reynolds,
A.C.
2004.
A
Stochastic
Optimization
Algorithm
for
Automatic
History
Matching.Society
of
Petroleum
Engineers.
Gharbi,
R.B.,
and
Elsharkawy,
A.M.
1997.Neural
Network
Model
for
Estimating
The
PVT
Properties
of
Middle
East
Crude
Oils.
Middle
East
Oil
Show
and
Conference.
Bahrain.
Hagan,
M.
T.,
Demuth,
H.B.
and
Beale,
M.
H.
2002.
Neural
Network
Design.
Hagan
Publishing.
Hajizadeh,
Y.
2010.
Ants
Can
Do
History
Matching.SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Florence,
Italy.
Hajizadeh,
Y.,
Christie,
M.
and
Demyanov,
V.
2009.
Ant
Colony
Optimization
for
History
Matching.SPE
EUROPEC/EAGE
Annual
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Amsterdam,
The
Netherlands.
Haykin,
S.
1998.
Neural
Networks:
A
Comprehensive
Foundation.
Prentice
Hall.
He,
N.,
and
Chambers,
K.T.
1999.Calibrate
Flow
Simulation
Models
With
Well-Test
Data
to
Improve
History
Matching.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Intelligent
Solutions
Inc.
2012.
www.intelligentsolutionsinc.com
(accessed
2011).
Jacquard,
P.,
and
Jain,
C.
1965.
Permeability
Distribution
From
Field
Pressure
Data.SPE:
281.
Jahns,
H.O.
1966.
A
Rapid
Method
for
Obtaining
a
Two-Dimensional
Reservoir
Description
From
Well
Pressure
Response
Data.SPE:
315.
24
SPE-169507-MS
Jong-Se,
L.,
and
Jungwhan,K.
2004.
Reservoir
Porosity
and
Permeability
Estimation
from
Well
Logs
using
Fuzzy
Logic
and
Neural
Networks.
SPE
Asia
Pacific
Oil
and
Gas
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Perth,
Australia.
Kabir,
C.S.,
Chien,
M.C.H.
and
Landa,
J.L.
2003.
Experiences
with
automated
history
matching.
SPE.
Kalam,
M.Z.,
Al-Alawi,
S.M
and
Al-Mukheini,
M.
1996.
Assessment
of
Formation
Damage
Using
Artificial
Neural
Networks.SPE
Formation
Damage
Control
Symposium.
Lafayette,
Louisiana,
USA.
Key,
S.C.
et
al.
1997.
Fault
And
Fracture
Classification
Using
Artifical
Neural
Networks
-
Case
Study
From
the
Ekofisk
Field.
SEG
Annual
Meeting.
Dallas,
Texas,
USA.
Kruger,
W.
D.
1961.
Determining
Areal
Permeability
Distribution
by
Calculations.J.
Pet.
Tech.:691.
Lei,
S.,
and
Xing-cheng,
W.
2010.
Artificial
Neural
Networks:Current
Applications
in
Modern
Medicine.
International
Conference
on
Computer
and
Communication
Technologies
in
Agriculture
Engineering.
Li,
E.
1994.
Artificial
neural
networks
and
their
business
applications.
Information
&
Management:
303-313.
Masoud,
N.
1998.
Neural
Network
Knowledge-Based
Modeling
of
Rock
Properties
Based
on
Well
Log
Databases.
SPE
Western
Regional
Meeting.
Bakersfield,
California,
USA.
McCulloch,
W.S.,
and
Pitts,
W.H.
1943.
A
logical
calculus
of
the
ideas
immanent
in
nervous
activity.
Bulletin
of
Mathematical
Biophysics
Vol.
5
:
115-133.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
1995.
Neural
Network:
What
It
Can
Do
for
Petroleum
Engineers.
Journal
of
Petroleum
Technology.
Mohaghegh.,
S
D.,
Arefi,
R.,
Ameri,
S.,
and
Rose,
D.
1995.
Design
and
Development
of
An
Artificial
Neural
Network
for
Estimation
of
Formation
Permeability.
SPE
Computer
Applications.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
2006.
Quantifying
Uncertainties
Associated
With
Reservoir
Simulation
Studies
Using
a
Surrogate
Reservoir
Model.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
San
Antonio,
Texas,
USA
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
2009.
Artificial
Intelligence
and
Data
Mining:
Enabling
Technology
for
Smart
Fields.
SPE's
The
Way
Ahead
Journal
:
14-19.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.,
A.
Modavi,
H.
Hafez,
and
M.
Haajizadeh.
2009.
Development
of
Surrogate
Reservoir
Model
(SRM)
for
Fast
Track
Analysis
of
a
Complex
Reservoir.
International
Journal
of
Oil,
Gas
and
Coal
Technology
:
2-23.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
2010.
Surrogate
Reservoir
Model.
European
Geological
Union
General
Assembly.
EGU
2010.
Vienna,
Austria.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
2011.
Reservoir
Simulation
and
Modeling
Based
on
Pattern
Recognition.
SPE
Digital
Energy
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Woodlands,
Texas,
USA.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
et
al.
2012a.
Application
of
Surrogate
Reservoir
Models
(SRM)
to
an
Onshore
Green
Field
in
Saudi
Arabia;
Case
Study.
North
Africa
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Cairo,
Egypt.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.
et
al.
2012b.
Application
of
Well-Base
Surrogate
Reservoir
Models
(SRMs)
to
Two
Offshore
Fields
in
Saudi
Arabia,
Case
Study.
SPE
Western
Regional
Meeting.
Bakersfield,
California,
USA.
Mohaghegh,
S
D.,
Amini,
S.,
Gholami,
V.,
Gaskari,
R.
and
Bromhal,
G.
2012.
Grid-Based
Surrogate
Reservoir
Modeling
(SRM)
for
Fast
Track
Analysis
of
Numerical
Reservoir
Simulation
Models
at
the
Gridblock
Level.
SPE
Western
Regional
Meeting.
Bakersfield,
California,
USA.
SPE-169507-MS
25
Nikravesh,
M.,
A.R.
Kovscek,
R.M.
Johnston,
and
T.W.
Patzek.
1996.
Prediction
of
Formation
Damage
During
Fluid
Injection
into
Fractured,
Low
Permeability
Reservoirs
via
Neural
Networks.
SPE
Formation
Damage
Control
Symposium.
Lafayette,
Louisiana,
USA.
Oloso,
Munirudeen
A.
et
al.
2009.
Prediction
of
Crude
Oil
Viscosity
and
Gas/Oil
Ratio
Curves
Using
Recent
Advances
to
Neural
Networks.
SPE/EAGE
Reservoir
Characterization
and
Simulation
Conference.
Abu
Dhabi,
UAE.
Osman,
E.
A,
Abdel-Wahhab,
O.
A.
and
A
Al-Marhoun,
M.
2001.
Prediction
of
Oil
PVT
Properties
Using
Neural
Networks.
SPE
Middle
East
Oil
Show.
Bahrain.
Ouenes,
A.,
et
al.
1993.
A
New
Algorithm
for
Automatic
History
Matching:
Application
of
Simulated
Annealing
Method
(SAM)
to
Reservoir
Inverse
Modeling.
Society
of
Petroleum
Engineers.
Palatnic,
B.,
L.
Zakirov,
S.
Haugen,
and
J.
van
Roosmalen.
1993.
New
Approaches
to
Multiple
History
Matching.
Seventh
European
Symposium
on
Improved
Oil
Recovery.
Moscow,
Russia.
Rodriguez,
Adolfo
A.,
Hector
Klie,
Mary
F.
Wheeler,
and
Rafael
Banchs.
2007.
Assessing
Multiple
Resolution
Scales
in
History
Matching
With
Metamodels.
SPE
Reservoir
Simulation
Symposium.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Roth,
Gunter,
and
Albert
Tarantoia.
1992.
Inversion
of
Seismic
Waveforms
Using
Neural
Networks.
SEG
Annual
Meeting.
New
Orleans,
Louisiana,
USA.
Sadiq,
T.,
and
I.S.
Nashawi.
2000.
Using
Neural
Networks
for
Prediction
of
Formation
Fracture
Gradie.
SPE/CIM
International
Conference
on
Horizontal
Well
Technology.
Calgary,
Alberta,
Canada.
Sampaio,
T.P.,
V.J.
Filho,
M.
Ferreira,
and
A.
de
Sa
Neto.
2009.
An
Application
of
Feed
Forward
Neural
Network
as
Nonlinear
Proxies
for
Use
During
the
History
Matching
Phase.Latin
American
and
Caribbean
Petroleum
Engineering
Conference.
Cartagena
de
Indias,
Colombia.
Sarci,
S.,
G.
Cantone,
and
V.
Basili.
2007.
A
Statistical
Neural
Network
Framework
for
Risk
Management
Process
-
From
the
Proposal
to
its
Preliminary
Validation
for
Efficiency.
Second
International
Conference
on
Software
and
Data
Technologies.
Barcelona,
Spain.
Schulze-Riegert,
et
al.
2002.
Evolutionary
algorithms
applied
to
historymatching
of
complex
reservoirs.
SPE
Reserv.
Evalu.
Eng.5(2),
163173
Silva,
P.
C.,
C.
Maschio,
and
D.
J.
Schiozer.
2008.
Application
of
Neural
Network
and
Global
Optimization
in
History
Matching.Journal
of
Canadian
Petroleum
Technology.
Silva,
P.
C.,
C.
Maschio,
and
D.
J.
Schiozer.
2006.
Applications
of
the
Soft
Computing
in
the
Automated
History
Matching.
Canadian
International
Petroleum
Conference.
Calgary,
Alberta,
Canada.
Singh,
Virendra
et
al.
2008.
Neural
Networks
And
Their
Applications
In
Lithostratigraphic
Interpretation
of
Seismic
Data
For
Reservoir
Characterization.
World
Petroleum
Congress.
Madrid,
Spain.
Slater,
G.,
and
E.
Durrer.
1970.
Adjustment
of
Reservoir
Simulation
Models
to
Match
Field
Performance.
SPE
45th
Annul
Fall
Meeting.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Shahkarami,
A.
2012.
Artificial
intelligence
assisted
history
matching:
proof
of
concept.
Thesis
(M.S.)-West
Virginia
University.
Sultan,
A.J.,
A.
Ouenes,
and
W.W.
Weiss.
1994.
Automatic
History
Matching
for
an
Integrated
Reservoir
Description
and
Improving
Oil
Recovery.
SPE
Permian
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Recovery
Conference.
Midland,
Texas,
USA.
26
SPE-169507-MS
Sultanp,
Mir
Asif,
and
Abdulaziz
U.
Al-Kaabi.
2002.
Application
of
Neural
Network
to
the
Determination
of
Well-Test
Interpretation
Model
for
Horizontal
Wells.
SPE
Asia
Pacific
Oil
and
Gas
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Melbourne,
Australia.
Tan,
C.
N.
W.
2004.
An
Artificial
Neural
Networks
Primer
with
Financial
Applications
Examples
in
Financial
Distress
Predictions
and
Foreign
Exchange
Hybrid
Trading
System.
Published
in
internet
(http://www.smartquant.com/references/NeuralNetworks/neural28.pdf).
Tyler,
K.J.,
Tarald
Svanes,
and
Sturle
Omdal.
1993.
Faster
History
Matching
and
Uncertainty
in
Predicted
Production
Profiles
th
With
Stochastic
Modeling.68
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition
of
the
Society
of
Petroleum
Engineers.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Watts,
J.W.
1997.
Reservoir
Simulation:
Past,
Present,
and
Future.SPE
Computer
Applications
:
171-176.
Williams,
M.A.
et
al.
1998.
The
Stratigraphic
Method:
A
Structured
Approach
to
History
Matching
Complex
SimulationModels.
SPE
Reservoir
Evaluation
&
Engineering
Journal.
Vol
(1):
169-176.
Yalcintas,
M.,
and
S.
Akkurt.
2005.
Artificial
neural
networks
applications
in
building
energy
predictions
and
a
case
study
for
tropical
climates.
International
Journal
of
Energy
Research:
891901.
Yang,
H.Z.,
and
Kou-Yuan
Huang.
1991.
Hybrid
Neural
Network
For
Seismic
Pattern
Recognition.
SEG
Annual
Meeting.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Yip,
D.H.F.,
E.L.
Hines,
and
W.W.H.
Yu.
1997.
Application
of
artificial
neural
networks
in
sales
forecasting.
International
Conference
on
Neural
Networks.
Houston,
Texas,
USA.
Zangl,
G.,
M
Giovannoli,
and
M
Stundner.
2006.
Application
of
Artificial
Intelligence
in
Gas
Storage
Management.
SPE
Europec/EAGE
Annual
Conference
and
Exhibition.
Vienna,
Austria.
Zubarev,
D.I.
2009.
Pros
and
Cons
of
Applying
Proxy-models
as
a
Substitute
for
Full
Reservoir
Simulations.SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition.
New
Orleans,
Lousiana,
USA.