Upload
brant
View
209
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Optimization of Advanced Well Type and Performance Louis J. Durlofsky. (from www.halliburton.com). Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University ChevronTexaco ETC, San Ramon, CA. Acknowledgments. B. Yeten, I. Aitokhuehi, V. Artus K. Aziz, P. Sarma. Multilateral Well Types. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
(from www.halliburton.com)
Optimization of Advanced Well Type and Performance
Louis J. Durlofsky
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University
ChevronTexaco ETC, San Ramon, CA
2
• B. Yeten, I. Aitokhuehi, V. Artus
• K. Aziz, P. Sarma
Acknowledgments
3TAML, 1999
Multilateral Well Types
4
Optimization of NCW Type and Placement
• Applying a Genetic Algorithm that optimizes via analogy to Darwinian natural selection
• GA approach combines “survival of the fittest” with stochastic information exchange
• Algorithm includes populations with generations that reproduce with crossover and mutation
• General level of fitness as well as most fit individual tend to increase as algorithm proceeds
5
101011011010110101111101100010110011010011010...
I1 J1 K1 lxy hz Jn lxy hz
heel toe
main trunk
heel toe
lateral
multilateral well
• Representation allows well type to evolve (Jn 0 generates a lateral)
Encoding of Unknowns for GA
6
well
kz
k
kxy
k
z
xy
z
xy
z
y
x
dq
t
l
J
t
l
J
t
l
h
h
h
1
1
1
1
p well
Y
ng
w
o
T
ng
w
o
nC
C
C
C
Q
Q
Q
if
1 1
1
Unknowns Objective Function
• Objective function can be any simulation output (NPV, cumulative oil)
Nonconventional Well Optimization
7
Flowchart for Single Geological Model
evaluatefitness
reservoir sim ulator
0101011101010111110100100111110000101101111000101101011100111101
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6
y 1 y 2
rank based selection
reproduction
ANN
hillclim ber
formchildren
skintransformer
4
1
2
com posepopulation
performa local search
3
6
5
Objective function f (or fitness):
NPV, cumulative oil
8
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
0 10 20 30 40Generation #
Fitn
ess
- NP
V, M
M$
Best Average
Single Well Optimization Example
• Objective: optimum well and production rate that maximizes NPV, subject to GOR, WOR constraints
(from Yeten et al., 2003)
Optimum well (quad-lateral)
9
Evolution of Well Types
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
invalid monobore 1 lateral 2 laterals 3 laterals 4 laterals
(from Yeten et al., 2003)
10
?
Nonconventional Well Optimization with Geological Uncertainty
11
Optimization over Multiple Realizations
• Find well that maximizes F = < f > + r < f > is average fitness of well over N realizations, r is
risk attitude, is variance in f over realizations)
• Evaluate each individual (well) for each realization (well i, realization j)
Op
tim
i za t
ion
En
gi n
e ( G
A)
{In
div
idu
al} i
F f= < > + r i ii
12
Realization #
NP
V (
$)
Risk Neutral (r =0) Optimization(Primary Production, Maximize NPV)
13
Realization #
NP
V (
$)
Risk Averse (r = -0.5) Optimization (Primary Production, Maximize NPV)
14
Risk averse attitude (r = -0.5)
well cost = $ 1,058,704
expected NPV = $ 3,401,210
std = $ 404,920
Risk neutral attitude (r = 0)
well cost = $ 759,158
expected NPV = $ 3,506,390
std = $ 935,720
Realization #
NP
V (
$)
Comparison of Optimization Results
15
attr
ibu
te 1
attribute 2
attr
ibu
te 1
attribute 2
Proxy - Unsupervised Cluster Analysis
fitn
ess
cluster #
• Attributes can be combined into principal components
16
Proxy Estimate for a Single Realization(Primary Production, Monobore Wells)
esti
mat
ed f
itn
ess
actual fitness
r = 0.93
17
Estimated Mean for All Realization(Primary Production, Monobore Wells)
esti
mat
ed m
ean
fit
nes
s
actual mean fitness
r = 0.97
18
www.halliburton.com
19
• Reactive control: adjust downhole settings to react to problems (e.g., water or gas production) as they occur
• Defensive control: optimize downhole settings to avoid or minimize problems. This requires:
– Accurate reservoir description (HM models)
– Optimization procedure
• Optimize using gradients computed numerically or via adjoint procedure
Smart Well Control:“Reactive” versus “Defensive”
20
Numerical Gradients
• Define cost function J (NPV, cumulative oil)
1
1
0
,N
n n n
n
L x uJ
• Numerically compute J/u
x - dynamical states, u - controls
( ) ( )J J u u J u
u u
• Apply conjugate gradient technique to drive J/u to 0
21
Adjoint Procedure
1
1 ( 1) 1
0
, , , N
n n n T n n n n nA
n
L x u g x x uJ
- Lagrange multipliers, x - dynamical states, u - controls, g - reservoir simulation equations
• Optimality requires first variation of JA = 0 (JA = 0):
1 1( 1) 0
n n nT n Tn
n n n
L g g
x x x
( 1) 0n n
T nAn n n
J L g
u u u
optimality criteriaadjoint equations
• Define augmented cost function JA
22
Adjoint versus Numerical Gradient Approaches for Optimization
Numerical Gradients
Advantages• Easily implemented• No simulator source
code required
Main Drawback• CPU requirements
Adjoint Gradients
Advantages• Much faster for large number
of wells & updates• Can also be used for HM
Main Drawback• Adjoint simulator required
• Adjoint and numerical gradient procedures developed; implementation of smart well model into GPRS underway
23
Smart Well Model
• Numerical gradient approach (Yeten et al., 2002) allows use of existing (commercial) simulator
• Applying ECLIPSE multi-segment wells option
24
• Sequential restarts applied to determine optimal settings
Optimization Methodology - Fixed Geology
25
Impact of Smart Well Control - Example
• Channelized reservoir, 4 controlled branches
• Production at fixed liquid rate with GOR and WOR constraints (three-phase system)
26
Effect of Valve Control on Oil Production
Oil rate - uncontrolled case Oil rate - controlled case
• Downhole control provides an increase in cumulative oil production of 47%
(from Yeten et al., 2002)
27
Optimized Valve Settings
28
Optimization with History Matching
• Actual geology is unknown (one model selected randomly represents “actual” reservoir and provides “production” data)
• Update reservoir models based on synthetic history
• Optimize using current (history-matched) model
29
History Matching Procedure
• Facies-based probability perturbation algorithms (Caers, 2003)
• Multiple-point geostatistics (training images)
• Performs two levels of nonlinear optimization (facies and k-)
• History matching based on well pressure, cumulative oil and water cut (for each branch)
• Initial models from same training image as “actual” models
30
History Matching Objective Functions
• Two levels of optimization
– Single parameter facies optimization
– Multivariate permeability-porosity optimization
data observed data, model
))(( )( minimize 2,
]1,0[
obs
jjobsDjD
r
DD
DrDrgD
2,
0 1
( ( ) )minimize ( )
: statistics of and log
i
j obs j
j
D Df
k
αα
α
31
Channelized Model I
• Unconditioned 2 facies model, 20 x 20 x 6 grid• Quad-lateral well with a valve on each branch
– Constant total fluid rate (10 MSTB/D initial liquid rate)– Shut-in well if water cut > 80%
• OWG flow, M < 1; 4 optimization and HM steps
32
Optimization on Known Geology
• Valves provide ~40% gain in cumulative oil over no-valve base case
33
Dimensionless Increase in Np
• Dimensionless cumulative oil difference, N
N = 0 (no valves result)
N = 1 (known geology result)
valveson geology, nownkp w/valvesgeology, knownp
valvesno geology, nownkp w/valvesmodel targetp
NN
NNN
34
Illustration of Incremental Recovery
N =0
N =1
N =0.5
HM with valves
35
Optimization with History Matching
• Optimization with history matching gives N =0.94
• Repeating for different initial models: N =0.900.18
36
Channelized Model II
• Unconditioned 2 facies model, 20 x 20 x 6 grid• Different training image than Channelized Model I, same
well and other system parameters
37
Optimization with History Matching - CM II
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
days
Cu
m.
oil,
MS
TB
Known geol. w/o valves
HM w/valves
Known geol. w/valves
N =0.41
• Repeating for different initial models: N =0.440.27
• Inaccuracy may be due to nonuniqueness of HM
38
Optimization over Multiple HM Models
• Use of multiple history-matched models provides significant gains
Number of HM Models N ()
1
3
5
0.44 0.27
0.85 0.16
0.84
39
Effect of Conditioning (on Facies)
• Partial redundancy of conditioning and production data reduces impact of conditioning in some cases
• For CM II, use of 3 conditioned and history matched models gives N = 0.83 0.10 (~same as w/o cond)
Single HM Model
40
Summary
• Presented genetic algorithm for optimization of nonconventional well type and placement
• Applied GA under geological uncertainty
• Developed combined valve optimization – history matching procedure for real-time smart well control
• Demonstrated that optimization over multiple history-matched models beneficial in some cases
41
Research Directions
• Developing efficient proxies for optimization of well type and placement under geological uncertainty
• Implementing adjoint approach (optimal control theory) and multisegment well model into GPRS for determination of valve settings
• Plan to incorporate additional data (4D seismic) and accelerate history matching procedure