Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A data-driven reservoir simulation for natural gas reservoirs

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Physics-based reservoir simulation is the backbone of many decision-making processes in the oil and gas industry. However, due to being computationally demanding, simulating a model multiple times in iterative studies, such as history matching and production optimisation, is extremely time intensive. This downside results in it being practically impossible to update the model every time a set of new data are available. One of the popular solutions for this problem is creating a proxy model of the desired reservoir. However, the consequence of this approach is that such a proxy model can only represent one corresponding reservoir, and, for every new reservoir, a new proxy model must be rebuilt. Additionally, when the overall runtime is considered, it can be observed that, in some cases, iteratively running a numerical reservoir simulation may be quicker than the process of building, validating and using a proxy model. To overcome this obstacle, in this study, we used deep learning to create a data-driven simulator, deep net simulator (DNS), that enables us to simulate a wide range of reservoirs. Unlike the conventional proxy approach, we collected the training data from multiple reservoirs with completely different configurations and settings. We compared the precision and reliability of DNS with a commercial simulator for 600 generated case studies, consisting of 500,000,000 data points. DNS successfully predicts 45%, 70% and 90% of the cases with a mean absolute percentage error of less than 5%, 10% and 15%, respectively. Due to the indirect dependency of DNS on the initial and boundary conditions, DNS acts incredibly fast when compared with physics-based simulators. Our results showed that DNS is, on average, 9.25E+7 times faster than a commercial simulator.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ertekin T, Abou-Kassem JH, King GR (2001) Basic applied reservoir simulation

  2. Jansen J-D, Brouwer R, Douma SG (2009) Closed loop reservoir management. In: SPE reservoir simulation symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers

  3. Beckner BL et al (2015) General parallel reservoir simulation. In: Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers: Abu Dhabi, UAE

  4. Eldred ME et al (2014) Reservoir simulations in a high performance cloud computing environment. In: SPE intelligent energy conference & exhibition. 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Utrecht, The Netherlands

  5. Coats KJ (1969) Use and misuse of reservoir simulation models. J Pet Technol. 21(11):1391–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fanchi JR (2001) Principles of applied reservoir simulation, 2nd edn. Gulf Pub, Boston, p xvii

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mohaghegh SD (2017) Data-driven reservoir modeling. Society of Petroleum Engineers

  8. Abooali D, Khamehchi E (2019) New predictive method for estimation of natural gas hydrate formation temperature using genetic programming. Neural Comput Appl 31(7):2485–2494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen JL (2017) Comment on “Characterizing interwell connectivity in waterflooded reservoirs using data-driven and reduced-physics models: a comparative study” by E. Artun. Neural ComputAppl 28(7):1745–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2152-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zheng J et al (2019) An AI-based workflow for estimating shale barrier configurations from SAGD production histories. Neural Comput Appl 31(9):5273–5297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Artun E et al (2011) Development of universal proxy models for screening and optimization of cyclic pressure pulsing in naturally fractured reservoirs. J Nat Gas SciEng 3(6):667–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghassemzadeh S, Charkhi AH (2016) Optimization of integrated production system using advanced proxy based models: a new approach. J Nat Gas SciEng 35:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalantari-Dahaghi A, Mohaghegh S, Esmaili S (2015) Data-driven proxy at hydraulic fracture cluster level: a technique for efficient CO2- enhanced gas recovery and storage assessment in shale reservoir. J Nat Gas SciEng 27:515–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen B et al (2017) Uncertainty quantification and value of information assessment using proxies and Markov chain Monte Carlo method for a pilot project. J Petrol Sci Eng 157:328–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. He J et al (2016) An alternative proxy for history matching using proxy-for-data approach and reduced order modeling. J Petrol Sci Eng 146:392–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim M, Shin H (2018) Development and application of proxy models for predicting the shale barrier size using reservoir parameters and SAGD production data. J Petrol Sci Eng 170:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nwachukwu A et al (2018) Fast evaluation of well placements in heterogeneous reservoir models using machine learning. J Petrol Sci Eng 163:463–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodwin N (2015) Bridging the gap between deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty quantification using advanced proxy based methods. In: SPE reservoir simulation symposium. 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, USA

  19. Alenezi F, Mohaghegh S (2017) Developing a smart proxy for the SACROC water-flooding numerical reservoir simulation model. In: SPE western regional meeting. 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Bakersfield, California.

  20. Alenezi F, Mohaghegh S (2016) A data-driven smart proxy model for a comprehensive reservoir simulation. In: 2016 4th Saudi international conference on information technology (big data analysis)(KACSTIT). IEEE

  21. Mohaghegh SD, Gaskari R, Maysami M (2017) Shale analytics: making production and operational decisions based on facts: a case study in Marcellus Shale. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference and exhibition. 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers: The Woodlands, Texas, USA

  22. Ghassemzadeh S, Perdomo MG, Haghighi M (2019) Application of Deep Learning in Reservoir Simulation. Pet Geostat 2019:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tour JM, Kittrell C, Colvin VL (2010) Green carbon as a bridge to renewable energy. Nat Mater 9(11):871–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leung GCK (2015) Natural gas as a clean fuel. In: Handbook of clean energy systems, pp 1–15

  25. Brown SP, Krupnick A, Walls MA (2009) Natural gas: a bridge to a low-carbon future. Issue Brief, p 09–11

  26. Kerr RA (2010) Natural Gas From Shale Bursts Onto the Scene. Science 328(5986):1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hagoort J (1988) Fundamentals of gas reservoir engineering, vol 23. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  28. Iwere FO, Moreno JE, Apaydin OG (2006) Numerical simulation of thick, tight fluvial sands. SPE Reservoir EvalEng 9(04):374–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zou C et al (2012) Tight gas sandstone reservoirs in China: characteristics and recognition criteria. J Petrol Sci Eng 88–89:82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Timur A (1968) An investigation of permeability, porosity, & residual water saturation relationships for sandstone reservoirs. The Log Analyst 9(04):3–5

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schön JH (2015) Physical properties of rocks: Fundamentals and principles of petrophysics. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  32. Baker RO, Yarranton HW, Jensen J (2015) Practical reservoir engineering and characterization. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  33. Guo B, Ghalambor A (2014) Natural gas engineering handbook. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  34. Slider HC (1983) Worldwide practical petroleum reservoir engineering methods. PennWell Books, Tulsa

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hagoort J (1988) Fundamentals of gas reservoir engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian School of Petroleum and Energy Resources (ASPER), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Shahdad Ghassemzadeh, Maria Gonzalez Perdomo & Manouchehr Haghighi

  2. Australian Institute for Machine Learning (AIML), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Ehsan Abbasnejad

Authors
  1. Shahdad Ghassemzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Gonzalez Perdomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manouchehr Haghighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ehsan Abbasnejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahdad Ghassemzadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghassemzadeh, S., Gonzalez Perdomo, M., Haghighi, M. et al. A data-driven reservoir simulation for natural gas reservoirs. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 11777–11798 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05886-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05886-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation