Performance of ensemble Kalman filter and Markov chain Monte Carlo under uncertainty in forecast model

Abstract Ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) are popular methods to obtain the posterior distribution of unknown parameters in the reservoir model. However, millions of simulation runs may be required in MCMC for accurate sampling of posterior as subsurface flow problems are highly nonlinear and non-Gaussian. Similarly, EnKF formulated on the basis of linear and Gaussian assumptions may also require a large number of realizations to correctly map the solution space of the unknown model parameters, ultimately resulting in the high computational cost. Data-driven meta/surrogate/proxy models provide an alternative solution to alleviate the issue of high computational cost. Since these models are not as accurate as numerical solutions of partial differential equations (PDE), their implementation may add an uncertainty in the forecast model. In literature, the effect of uncertainty in forecast model on data assimilation is not well studied, especially with field-scale reservoir models. In this work, we take the opportunity to evaluate and compare the performance of EnKF and MCMC using polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) based forecast model. Proposed forecast model relies on reducing parameter space using Karhunen–Loeve (KL) expansion which preserves the two-point statistics of the field. Random variables from KL expansion and orthogonal polynomials corresponding to the prior probability density function (pdf) form the set of input parameters in PCE. Further, non-intrusive probabilistic collocation method (PCM) is used to compute PCE coefficients. PCE forecast model is then used in EnKF and MCMC to calculate the likelihood of the samples in place of high fidelity full physics simulation runs. A case study is performed using a 3D field scale model of a reservoir located near Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, Canada. Performance of EnKF and MCMC are assessed under forecast model uncertainty using rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis and posterior distribution characterization. Results clearly depict that, although EnKF provided reliable mean and variance estimates of model parameters, MCMC outperformed the former even under the uncertainty associated with PCE metamodel. Inaccurate initial assumptions of model parameters were successfully handled by MCMC, although, with a longer burn-in period. Furthermore, characterization of posterior demonstrated reduced uncertainty in the estimation of model parameters using MCMC as compared to EnKF. Practical implications of the proposed approach and performance assessment under forecast model uncertainty will be consequential in designing accurate and computationally efficient reservoir characterization workflows and hence, improved decision-making in reservoir management.

[1]  A. R. Syversveen,et al.  Methods for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: a comparative study , 2001, Petroleum Geoscience.

[2]  Dean S. Oliver,et al.  Improved initial sampling for the ensemble Kalman filter , 2008 .

[3]  Marco A. Iglesias,et al.  Evaluation of Gaussian approximations for data assimilation in reservoir models , 2012, Computational Geosciences.

[4]  Jeffrey L. Anderson An Ensemble Adjustment Kalman Filter for Data Assimilation , 2001 .

[5]  Rajan G. Patel,et al.  Application of polynomial chaos theory as an accurate and computationally efficient proxy model for heterogeneous steam‐assisted gravity drainage reservoirs , 2017 .

[6]  Louis J. Durlofsky,et al.  Use of Reduced-order Models for Improved Data Assimilation within an EnKF Context , 2011, ANSS 2011.

[7]  Zukui Li,et al.  Initial Sampling of Ensemble for Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage-Reservoir History Matching , 2015 .

[8]  P. Houtekamer,et al.  Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter Technique , 1998 .

[9]  Albert C. Reynolds,et al.  Combining the Ensemble Kalman Filter With Markov-Chain Monte Carlo for Improved History Matching and Uncertainty Characterization , 2012 .

[10]  Yalchin Efendiev,et al.  An Efficient Two-Stage Sampling Method for Uncertainty Quantification in History Matching Geological Models , 2008 .

[11]  Pavel Sakov,et al.  Relation between two common localisation methods for the EnKF , 2011 .

[12]  Dean S. Oliver,et al.  Evaluation of Monte Carlo Methods for Assessing Uncertainty , 2003 .

[13]  Albert C. Reynolds,et al.  Quantifying Uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 Problem in a Bayesian Setting With RML and EnKF , 2006 .

[14]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[15]  Qin He,et al.  Investigating Continuously Updated History Matching Using Smart Proxy (Surrogate Reservoir Model) , 2016 .

[16]  D. Oliver,et al.  Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review , 2011 .

[17]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  Uncertainty Assessment of SAGD Performance Using a Proxy Model Based on Butler's Theory , 2008 .

[18]  Rolf Johan Lorentzen,et al.  Underbalanced and Low-head Drilling Operations: Real Time Interpretation of Measured Data and Operational Support , 2001 .

[19]  P. A. Slotte,et al.  Response Surface Methodology Approach for History Matching and Uncertainty Assessment of Reservoir Simulation Models , 2008 .

[20]  Shahab D. Mohaghegh,et al.  State-Of-The-Art in Permeability Determination From Well Log Data: Part 1- A Comparative Study, Model Development , 1995 .

[21]  Albert C. Reynolds,et al.  Investigation of the sampling performance of ensemble-based methods with a simple reservoir model , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[22]  Xianlin Ma,et al.  History matching and uncertainty quantificiation using sampling method , 2008 .

[23]  E. Grimm CONISS: a FORTRAN 77 program for stratigraphically constrained cluster analysis by the method of incremental sum of squares , 1987 .

[24]  S. Nejadi,et al.  Estimation of Facies Boundaries Using Categorical Indicators with P-Field Simulation and Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) , 2015, Natural Resources Research.

[25]  Alexandre Castellini,et al.  Constructing reservoir flow simulator proxies using genetic programming for history matching and production forecast uncertainty analysis , 2008 .

[26]  A. Gelman,et al.  Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms , 1997 .

[27]  G. Roberts,et al.  MCMC Methods for Functions: ModifyingOld Algorithms to Make Them Faster , 2012, 1202.0709.

[28]  Daein Jeong,et al.  Uncertainty Analyses of Basement Fracture Reservoir Performances Using Proxy Models with High-Quality History Matching , 2013 .

[29]  Xian-Huan Wen,et al.  Some Practical Issues on Real-Time Reservoir Model Updating Using Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2007 .

[30]  Baoyan Li,et al.  Semiautomatic Multiple Resolution Design for History Matching , 2007 .

[31]  Dani Gamerman,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference , 1997 .

[32]  Christian P. Robert,et al.  Monte Carlo Statistical Methods , 2005, Springer Texts in Statistics.

[33]  Mary F. Wheeler,et al.  Efficient Bayesian inference of subsurface flow models using nested sampling and sparse polynomial chaos surrogates , 2014 .

[34]  H. Bazargan An efficient polynomial chaos-based proxy model for history matching and uncertainty quantification of complex geological structures , 2014 .

[35]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Inverse problem theory - and methods for model parameter estimation , 2004 .

[36]  Genbao Shi,et al.  Improved and More Rapid History Matching With a Nonlinear Proxy and Global Optimization , 2006 .

[37]  Akhil Datta-Gupta,et al.  A Multi-Objective Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach for History Matching and Uncertainty Quantification , 2015 .

[38]  D. Oliver,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for conditioning a permeability field to pressure data , 1997 .

[39]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling , 2002 .

[40]  G. Evensen Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi‐geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics , 1994 .

[41]  Brit Elise Melhus Reservoir Uncertainty Evaluation - A Producing Gas Field Case Study , 2015 .

[42]  G. Evensen,et al.  Assimilation of Geosat altimeter data for the Agulhas current using the ensemble Kalman filter with , 1996 .

[43]  Dongxiao Zhang,et al.  Probabilistic collocation method for flow in porous media: Comparisons with other stochastic methods , 2007 .

[44]  W. B. Whalley,et al.  The use of fractals and pseudofractals in the analysis of two-dimensional outlines: Review and further exploration , 1989 .

[45]  Mohammadali Tarrahi,et al.  Assessing the performance of the ensemble Kalman filter for subsurface flow data integration under variogram uncertainty , 2011 .

[46]  Xian-Huan Wen,et al.  Uncertainty quantification and value of information assessment using proxies and Markov chain Monte Carlo method for a pilot project , 2017 .

[47]  Michael Andrew Christie,et al.  Surrogate accelerated sampling of reservoir models with complex structures using sparse polynomial chaos expansion , 2015 .

[48]  Dean S. Oliver,et al.  THE ENSEMBLE KALMAN FILTER IN RESERVOIR ENGINEERING-A REVIEW , 2009 .

[49]  Yalchin Efendiev,et al.  Efficient sampling techniques for uncertainty quantification in history matching using nonlinear error models and ensemble level upscaling techniques , 2009 .

[50]  Kok-Kwang Phoon,et al.  Convergence study of the truncated Karhunen–Loeve expansion for simulation of stochastic processes , 2001 .

[51]  J. J. Trivedi,et al.  Polynomial-Chaos-Expansion Based Integrated Dynamic Modelling Workflow for Computationally Efficient Reservoir Characterization: A Field Case Study , 2017 .

[52]  Jérémie Bruyelle,et al.  Neural networks and their derivatives for history matching and reservoir optimization problems , 2014, Computational Geosciences.

[53]  J. W. Barker,et al.  Quantifying Uncertainty in Production Forecasts: Another Look at the PUNQ-S3 Problem , 2001 .

[54]  N. Wiener The Homogeneous Chaos , 1938 .

[55]  Salvador Pintos,et al.  Surrogate Modeling-Based Optimization for the Integration of Static and Dynamic Data Into a Reservoir Description , 2002 .

[56]  Rick Chalaturnyk,et al.  Application of Analytical Proxy Models in Reservoir Estimation for SAGD Process: UTF-Project Case Study , 2013 .

[57]  B. Jafarpour,et al.  History matching with an ensemble Kalman filter and discrete cosine parameterization , 2008 .

[58]  J. Rosenthal,et al.  Optimal scaling for various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms , 2001 .

[59]  Denis Igorevich Zubarev,et al.  Pros and Cons of Applying Proxy-models as a Substitute for Full Reservoir Simulations , 2009 .

[60]  Jiang Xie,et al.  Efficient and Robust Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Simulation with Polynomial Chaos Expansions and Non-intrusive Spectral Projection , 2011, ANSS 2011.

[61]  O. Knio,et al.  Assessing an ensemble Kalman filter inference of Manning’s n coefficient of an idealized tidal inlet against a polynomial chaos-based MCMC , 2017, Ocean Dynamics.

[62]  G. Evensen The ensemble Kalman filter for combined state and parameter estimation , 2009, IEEE Control Systems.

[63]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[64]  Franz Schreier,et al.  Statistical inversion theory , 2010 .

[65]  Denis José Schiozer,et al.  Application of artificial neural networks in a history matching process , 2014 .

[66]  Geir Nævdal,et al.  Reservoir Monitoring and Continuous Model Updating Using Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2005 .

[67]  Dean S. Oliver,et al.  The Ensemble Kalman Filter for Continuous Updating of Reservoir Simulation Models , 2006 .

[68]  Albert C. Reynolds,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of permeability fields and reservoir performance predictions with SVD parameterization in RML compared with EnKF , 2011 .

[69]  Yan Chen,et al.  Data assimilation for transient flow in geologic formations via ensemble Kalman filter , 2006 .