Preview

PROneft. Professionally about Oil

Advanced search

Methodology of surrogate models (metamodels) and their prospects for solving petroleum engineering challenges

https://doi.org/10.24887/2587-7399-2019-2-48-53

Abstract

Traditional mathematical modeling tends to set limits to the amount of computational experiments to be conducted with mathematical models in order to optimize solutions. Over recent years, metamodeling – a new, alternative approach – has been rapidly developing with a view to facilitate the solution of optimization challenges. Such models are built upon the ideas of machine learning, when the models’ training set is derived from numerous prototypes of input and output data (results of field and computational runs with varied data types). The models are built to imitate (replace) the physics-based mathematical models and reduce computational time and decision-making period. In this paper, we offer approaches for metamodeling (data models) of various levels of complexity depending on actual tasks. We show that application of metamodels significantly reduces the amount of time and computational resources required for solving a wide range of petroleum engineering challenges, e.g. selection, monitoring and optimization of field development. Metamodels returns results without any loss of quality compared to traditional «physical» models.

About the Authors

M. V. Simonov
Gazpromneft NTC LLC
Russian Federation

Saint-Petersburg



A. V. Penigin
Gazpromneft NTC LLC
Russian Federation

Saint-Petersburg



A. S. Margarit
Gazpromneft NTC LLC
Russian Federation

Saint-Petersburg



A. A. Pustovskikh
Gazpromneft NTC LLC
Russian Federation

Saint-Petersburg



N. A. Smirnov
Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University
Russian Federation


A. N. Sitnikov
Gazprom Neft PJSC
Russian Federation

Saint-Petersburg



References

1. Cao Fei, Luo Haishan, Lake L.W., Oil-rate forecast by inferring fractional-flow models from field data with Koval method combined with t he capacitance/resistance model, SPE 173315-PA, 2015.

2. Artun E., Characterizing reservoir connectivity and forecasting waterflood performance using data-driven and reduced-physics models, SPE 180488-MS, 2016.

3. Grihon S. et al., Surrogate modeling of buckling analysis in support of composite structure optimization, Proceedings of DYNACOMP 2012 1st International Conference on Composite Dynamics May 22-24 2012, Arcachon, France.

4. Mohaghegh Sh. et al., Development of surrogate reservoir model (SRM) for fast track analysis of a complex reservoir, SPE 99667-MS, 2006.

5. Mohaghegh Sh., Full field reservoir modeling of shale assets using advanced data-driven analytics, Geoscience Frontiers, 2015, V. 49(1), DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2014.12.006

6. Mohaghegh Sh., Virtual-intelligence applications in petroleum engineering. Part 1. Artificial neural networks, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2000, V. 52, no. 9.

7. Mohaghegh Sh., Virtual-intelligence applications in petroleum engineering. Part 2. Evolutionary computing, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2000, V. 52, no. 10.

8. Mohaghegh Sh., Virtual-intelligence applications in petroleum engineering. Part 3. Fuzzy logic, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2000, V. 52, no. 11.

9. Simonov M., Akhmetov A., Temirchev P. et al., Application of machine learning technologies for rapid 3D modelling of inflow to the well in the development system (In Russ.), SPE 191593-18RPTC-MS, 2018.

10. Schuetter J., Mishra S., Experimental design or Monte Carlo simulation? Strategies for building robust surrogate models, SPE 174905-MS, 2015.

11. Sayyafzadeh M., A self-adaptive surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithm for well placement optimization problems, SPE 176468-MS, 2015.

12. Simonov M.V., Perets D.S., Kotezhekov V.S., Adaptive tool for solving applied problems of oil engineering, Proceedings of Conference: Geomodel 2018, DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201802418.

13. Jared L., Clayton V., Latin hypercube sampling with multidimensional uniformit, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 2012, V. 142, no. 3, pp. 763-772, DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2011.09.016.

14. Geurts P., Ernst D., Wehenkel L., Extremely randomized trees, Machine Learning, 2006, V. 63, no. 1, pp 3–42, DOI: 10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1

15. Friedman J.H., Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine, The Annals of Statistics, 2001, V. 29, no. 5, pp. 1189–1232, DOI: 10.1214/aos/1013203451.

16. Breiman L., Random forests, Machine Learning. 2001, V. 45 (1), DOI:10.1023/A:1010933404324.


Review

For citations:


Simonov M.V., Penigin A.V., Margarit A.S., Pustovskikh A.A., Smirnov N.A., Sitnikov A.N. Methodology of surrogate models (metamodels) and their prospects for solving petroleum engineering challenges. PROneft. Professionally about Oil. 2019;(2):48-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24887/2587-7399-2019-2-48-53

Views: 129


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2587-7399 (Print)
ISSN 2588-0055 (Online)