Abstract

This paper examines the properties of the Iterated Ensemble Smoother (IES) and the Multiple Data Assimilation Ensemble Smoother (ES–MDA) for solving the history matching problem. The iterative methods are compared with the standard Ensemble Smoother (ES) to improve the understanding of the similarities and differences between them. We derive the three smoothers from Bayes’ theorem for a scalar case which allows us to compare the equations solved by the three methods, and we can better understand which assumptions are applied and their consequences. When working with a scalar model, it is possible to use a vast ensemble size, and we can construct the sample distributions for both priors and posteriors, as well as intermediate iterates. For a linear model, all three methods give the same result. For a nonlinear model, the iterative methods improve on the ES result, but the two iterative methods converge to different solutions, and it is not clear which should be the preferred choice. It is clear that the ensemble of cost functions used to define the IES solution does not represent an exact sampling of the posterior-Bayes’ probability density function. Also, the use of an ensemble representation for the gradient in IES introduces an additional approximation compared to using an exact analytic gradient. For ES–MDA, the convergence, as a function of increasing number of uniform update steps, is studied for a huge ensemble size. We illustrate that ES–MDA converges to a solution that differs from the Bayesian posterior. The convergence is also examined using a realistic sample size to study the impact of the number of realizations relative to the number of update steps. We have run multiple ES–MDA experiments to examine the impact of using different schemes for choosing the lengths of the update steps, and we have tried to understand which properties of the inverse problem imply that a non-uniform update step length is beneficial. Finally, we have examined the smoother methods with a highly nonlinear model to examine their properties and limitations in more extreme situations.

Highlights

  • Ensemble methods for data assimilation and parameter estimation [9, 11, 12] are well established as a standard tool in the reservoir-engineering community for history matching reservoir models

  • The Iterative EnKF (IEnKF) is an exciting method for solving the history matching problem, but it is not practical in its standard form with the vast ensemble size used in this paper

  • We have discussed the derivation of the Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ES–MDA) and the Iterative Ensemble Smoother (IES) and analyzed their performance with a simple nonlinear scalar model

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ensemble methods for data assimilation and parameter estimation [9, 11, 12] are well established as a standard tool in the reservoir-engineering community for history matching reservoir models. Skjervheim et al [24] introduced the use of Ensemble Smoother (ES) as an alternative to the sequential EnKF for history matching reservoir models and showed that similar performance and results were obtained using ES and EnKF in a reservoir test case. In Evensen and Eikrem [Strategies for conditioning reservoir models on rate data using ensemble smoothers, under review] ES, ES–MDA, and IES were used with a real reservoir model. They observed that IES and ES–MDA with a different number of update steps gave slightly different results.

History matching problem
Derivation of the smoothers
ES–MDA
Scalar example
Scalar model
Linear-model results
ES–MDA scheme for αi
Definition of line legends
ES experiments
IES experiments
ES–MDA experiments
ES–MDA convergence with number of step lengths
ES–MDA convergence with non-uniform step lengths
Iteration
Iterative smoothers with highly nonlinear dynamics
Findings
Summary
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.