Log in

A Functional Data Analysis Approach to Surrogate Modeling in Reservoir and Geomechanics Uncertainty Quantification

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Mathematical Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncertainty quantification for geomechanical and reservoir predictions is in general a computationally intensive problem, especially if a direct Monte Carlo approach with large numbers of full-physics simulations is used. A common solution to this problem, well-known for the fluid flow simulations, is the adoption of surrogate modeling approximating the physical behavior with respect to variations in uncertain parameters. The objective of this work is the quantification of such uncertainty both within geomechanical predictions and fluid-flow predictions using a specific surrogate modeling technique, which is based on a functional approach. The methodology realizes an approximation of full-physics simulated outputs that are varying in time and space when uncertainty parameters are changed, particularly important for the prediction of uncertainty in vertical displacement resulting from geomechanical modeling. The developed methodology has been applied both to a subsidence uncertainty quantification example and to a real reservoir forecast risk assessment. The surrogate quality obtained with these applications confirms that the proposed method makes it possible to perform reliable time–space varying dependent risk assessment with a low computational cost, provided the uncertainty space is low-dimensional.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera-Morillo MC, Durbán M, Aguilera AM (2017) Prediction of functional data with spatial dependence: a penalized approach. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess 31(1):7–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigoni F, Della Rossa E, Francesconi A, Imagambetov K, Tumbarello G (2013) A pragmatic way to handle uncertainty analysis in a brown field, Karachaganak field Republic of Kazahstan. SPE-Europec EAGE

  • Burman P (1989) A comparative study of ordinary cross-validation, v-fold cross-validation and the repeated learning-testing methods. Biometrika 76(3):503–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caers J, Menafoglio A, Grujic O (2016) Universal kriging of functional data: trace-variography vs cross-variography? Application to gas forecasting in unconventional shales. Spat Stat 15:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capasso G, Mantica S (2006) Numerical simulation of compaction and subsidence using ABAQUS. In: Proceedings of the ABAQUS users conference, Boston USA

  • Coussy O (1995) Mechanics of porous continua. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Veiga S, Gervais V (2015) Uncertainty analysis and history matching on grid responses from a reduced-basis approach. In: 77th EAGE conference and exhibition 2015

  • Dudley JW, van der Linden A, Mah KG et al (2009) Predicting accelerating subsidence above the highly compacting Luconia carbonate reservoirs, offshore Sarawak Malaysia. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 12(01):104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floris FJ, Bush MD, Cuypers M, Roggero F, Syversveen A-R (1999) Comparison of production forecast uncertainty quantification methods: an integrated study. In: 1st Symposium on petroleum geostatistics, Toulouse, pp 20–23

  • Giraldo R, Delicado P, Mateu J (2008) Functional Kriging: total model. In: Eighth international geostatistics congress proceedings, vol 2, pp 1161–1166

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Josset L, Ginsbourger D, Lunati I (2015) Functional error modeling for uncertainty quantification in hydrogeology. Water Resour Res 51(2):1050–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Gratiet L, Cannamela C (2015) Cokriging-based sequential design strategies using fast cross-validation techniques for multi-fidelity computer codes. Technometrics 57(3):418–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leguijt J (2012) Using two-point geo-statistics reservoir model parameters reduction. In: ECMOR XIII-13th European conference on the mathematics of oil recovery

  • Menafoglio A, Dalla Rosa M, Secchi P (2013) Universal Kriging Predictor for spatially dependent functional data of a Hilbert space. Electron J Stat 7:2209–2240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monestiez P, Nerini D (2008) Kriging predictions of curves when spatial data are curves: an extension of cokriging to functional data. In: Eighth international geostatistics congress proceeding, vol 1, pp 379–387

  • Myers R, Montgomery D, Anderson-Cook C (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerini D, Monestiez P, Manté C (2010) Cokriging for spatial functional data. J Multivar Anal 101(2):409–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay J, Silvermann BW (2005) Functional data analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt C, Zabalza-Mezghani I, Feraille M, Collombier D (2007) Toward a reliable quantification of uncertainty on production forecasts: adaptive experimental designs. Oil Gas Sci Technol Rev IFP 62(2):207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield A, Wroth C (1968) Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulak A, Danielsen J (1988) Reservoir aspects of Ekofisk subsidence. Offshore Technology Conference, 2–5 May, Houston, Texas

  • Thenon A, Gervais V, Le Ravalec M (2016) Multi-fidelity meta-modeling for reservoir engineering—application to history matching. Comput Geosci 20(6):1231–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel H (2003) Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction with applications, 3rd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Dvorkin J, Nur A (2001) Linking oil production to surface subsidence from satellite radar interferometry. Geophys Res Lett 28(7):1307–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeten B, Castellini A, Guyaguler B, Chen W (2005) A comparison study on experimental design and response surface methodologies. SPE Reserv Simul Symp 41:164–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (2000) The finite element method: solid mechanics, vol 2. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Eni for the permission to publish this work, the anonymous reviewers and Dario Grana for helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Bottazzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bottazzi, F., Della Rossa, E. A Functional Data Analysis Approach to Surrogate Modeling in Reservoir and Geomechanics Uncertainty Quantification. Math Geosci 49, 517–540 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9685-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9685-y

Keywords

Navigation