Convolutional neural networks (CNN) for feature-based model calibration under uncertain geologic scenarios

This paper presents convolutional neural network architectures for integration of dynamic flow response data to reduce the uncertainty in geologic scenarios and calibrate subsurface flow models. The workflow consists of two steps, where in the first step the solution search space is reduced by eliminating unlikely geologic scenarios using distinguishing salient flow data trends. The first step serves as a pre-screening to remove unsupported scenarios from the full model calibration process in the second step. For this purpose, a convolutional neural network (CNN) with a cross-entropy loss function is designed to act as a classifier in predicting the likelihood of each scenario based on the observed flow responses. In the second step, the selected geologic scenarios are used in another CNN with an ℓ2-loss function (as a regression model) to perform model calibration. The regression CNN model (step 2) learns the inverse mapping from the production data space to the low-rank representation of the model realizations within the feasible set. Once the model is trained off-line, a fast feed-forward operation on the observed historical production data (input) is used to reconstruct a calibrated model. The presented approach offers an opportunity to utilize flow data in identifying plausible geologic scenarios, results in an off-line implementation that is conveniently parallellizable, and can generate calibrated models in real time, i.e., upon availability of data and without in-depth technical expertise about model calibration. Several synthetic Gaussian and non-Gaussian examples are used to evaluate the performance of the method.

[1]  Jiri Matas,et al.  Systematic evaluation of convolution neural network advances on the Imagenet , 2017, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[2]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision , 2015, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[3]  Influence of conceptual model uncertainty on contaminant transport forecasting in braided river aquifers , 2015 .

[4]  Alexandre Campane Vidal,et al.  3D porosity prediction from seismic inversion and neural networks , 2011, Comput. Geosci..

[5]  H. Posamentier,et al.  An Overview of the Fundamentals of Sequence Stratigraphy and Key Definitions , 1988 .

[6]  Lianlin Li,et al.  Sparse geologic dictionaries for subsurface flow model calibration: Part I. Inversion formulation , 2012 .

[7]  Tapan Mukerji,et al.  Probabilistic falsification of prior geologic uncertainty with seismic amplitude data: Application to a turbidite reservoir case , 2015 .

[8]  Denis José Schiozer,et al.  Bayesian history matching using artificial neural network and Markov Chain Monte Carlo , 2014 .

[9]  Samy Bengio,et al.  The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks , 2002 .

[10]  N. Allroggen,et al.  Toward automated delineation of ground-penetrating radar facies in clastic sediments: An example from stratified glaciofluvial deposits , 2015 .

[11]  Sung-Il Kim,et al.  History Matching of a Channelized Reservoir Using a Serial Denoising Autoencoder Integrated with ES-MDA , 2019, Geofluids.

[12]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[13]  G. P. Allen,et al.  Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy; concepts and applications , 1999 .

[14]  Pierre-Antoine Absil,et al.  Principal Manifolds for Data Visualization and Dimension Reduction , 2007 .

[15]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[16]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[17]  Guillaume Pirot,et al.  Hydrogeological Model Selection Among Complex Spatial Priors , 2019, Water Resources Research.

[18]  Nitish Srivastava,et al.  Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[19]  Behnam Jafarpour,et al.  A Bayesian mixture‐modeling approach for flow‐conditioned multiple‐point statistical facies simulation from uncertain training images , 2013 .

[20]  Amir Adler,et al.  Deep-learning tomography , 2018 .

[21]  Rui Jiang,et al.  SCENARIO DISCOVERY WORKFLOW FOR ROBUST PETROLEUM RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 2016 .

[22]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition , 1998, Proc. IEEE.

[23]  Guillaume Caumon,et al.  Method for Stochastic Inverse Modeling of Fault Geometry and Connectivity Using Flow Data , 2012, Mathematical Geosciences.

[24]  Shahab D. Mohaghegh,et al.  Reservoir simulation and modeling based on artificial intelligence and data mining (AI&DM) , 2011 .

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

[26]  Jef Caers,et al.  Uncertainty in training image‐based inversion of hydraulic head data constrained to ERT data: Workflow and case study , 2014 .

[27]  Alexander Y. Sun,et al.  A learning-based data-driven forecast approach for predicting future reservoir performance , 2018 .

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

[29]  Behnam Jafarpour,et al.  Combining Regularized Convolutional Neural Networks with Production Data Integration for Geologic Scenario Selection , 2019 .

[30]  Roger Ghanem,et al.  Probabilistic Data-Driven Prediction of Wellbore Signatures in High-Dimensional Data Using Bayesian Networks , 2018 .

[31]  Hans O. Jahns,et al.  A Rapid Method for Obtaining a Two-Dimensional Reservoir Description From Well Pressure Response Data , 1966 .

[32]  F. Friedmann,et al.  Assessing Uncertainty in Channelized Reservoirs Using Experimental Designs , 2001 .

[33]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  The handbook of brain theory and neural networks , 1995, A Bradford book.

[34]  P. H. Nelson,et al.  Permeability-porosity relationships in sedimentary rocks , 1994 .

[35]  P. Jacquard,et al.  Permeability Distribution From Field Pressure Data , 1965 .

[36]  N. Linde,et al.  Reduction of conceptual model uncertainty using ground-penetrating radar profiles: Field-demonstration for a braided-river aquifer , 2019, Journal of Hydrology.

[37]  Behnam Jafarpour,et al.  Prior model identification during subsurface flow data integration with adaptive sparse representation techniques , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[38]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Neural networks and inversion of seismic data , 1994 .

[39]  Z. Shipton,et al.  What do you think this is? "Conceptual uncertainty" in geoscience interpretation , 2007 .

[40]  Ming Zhong,et al.  A Data-Analytics Tutorial: Building Predictive Models for Oil Production in an Unconventional Shale Reservoir , 2018 .

[41]  Charles H. Randle,et al.  Uncertainty in geological interpretations: Effectiveness of expert elicitations , 2019, Geosphere.

[42]  A. Tarantola Popper, Bayes and the inverse problem , 2006 .

[43]  Matthias Scholz,et al.  Nonlinear Principal Component Analysis: Neural Network Models and Applications , 2008 .

[44]  A. Boucher,et al.  History matching and uncertainty quantification of facies models with multiple geological interpretations , 2013, Computational Geosciences.

[45]  P. C. Shah,et al.  Reservoir History Matching by Bayesian Estimation , 1976 .

[46]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Rectified Linear Units Improve Restricted Boltzmann Machines , 2010, ICML.

[47]  Ilsik Jang,et al.  Optimal Well Placement Based on Artificial Neural Network Incorporating the Productivity Potential , 2011 .

[48]  Hariharan Narayanan,et al.  Sample Complexity of Testing the Manifold Hypothesis , 2010, NIPS.

[49]  Michael Andrew Christie,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Prediction: Part 2—Handling Uncertainty in the Geological Scenario , 2018, Mathematical Geosciences.

[50]  Behnam Jafarpour,et al.  Simultaneous geologic scenario identification and flow model calibration with group-sparsity formulations , 2016 .