3 resultados para SCREW-SENSE INVERSION
em Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte(UFRN)
Resumo:
The history match procedure in an oil reservoir is of paramount importance in order to obtain a characterization of the reservoir parameters (statics and dynamics) that implicates in a predict production more perfected. Throughout this process one can find reservoir model parameters which are able to reproduce the behaviour of a real reservoir.Thus, this reservoir model may be used to predict production and can aid the oil file management. During the history match procedure the reservoir model parameters are modified and for every new set of reservoir model parameters found, a fluid flow simulation is performed so that it is possible to evaluate weather or not this new set of parameters reproduces the observations in the actual reservoir. The reservoir is said to be matched when the discrepancies between the model predictions and the observations of the real reservoir are below a certain tolerance. The determination of the model parameters via history matching requires the minimisation of an objective function (difference between the observed and simulated productions according to a chosen norm) in a parameter space populated by many local minima. In other words, more than one set of reservoir model parameters fits the observation. With respect to the non-uniqueness of the solution, the inverse problem associated to history match is ill-posed. In order to reduce this ambiguity, it is necessary to incorporate a priori information and constraints in the model reservoir parameters to be determined. In this dissertation, the regularization of the inverse problem associated to the history match was performed via the introduction of a smoothness constraint in the following parameter: permeability and porosity. This constraint has geological bias of asserting that these two properties smoothly vary in space. In this sense, it is necessary to find the right relative weight of this constrain in the objective function that stabilizes the inversion and yet, introduces minimum bias. A sequential search method called COMPLEX was used to find the reservoir model parameters that best reproduce the observations of a semi-synthetic model. This method does not require the usage of derivatives when searching for the minimum of the objective function. Here, it is shown that the judicious introduction of the smoothness constraint in the objective function formulation reduces the associated ambiguity and introduces minimum bias in the estimates of permeability and porosity of the semi-synthetic reservoir model
Resumo:
The key aspect limiting resolution in crosswell traveltime tomography is illumination, a well known result but not as well exemplified. Resolution in the 2D case is revisited using a simple geometric approach based on the angular aperture distribution and the Radon Transform properties. Analitically it is shown that if an interface has dips contained in the angular aperture limits in all points, it is correctly imaged in the tomogram. By inversion of synthetic data this result is confirmed and it is also evidenced that isolated artifacts might be present when the dip is near the illumination limit. In the inverse sense, however, if an interface is interpretable from a tomogram, even an aproximately horizontal interface, there is no guarantee that it corresponds to a true interface. Similarly, if a body is present in the interwell region it is diffusely imaged in the tomogram, but its interfaces - particularly vertical edges - can not be resolved and additional artifacts might be present. Again, in the inverse sense, there is no guarantee that an isolated anomaly corresponds to a true anomalous body because this anomaly can also be an artifact. Jointly, these results state the dilemma of ill-posed inverse problems: absence of guarantee of correspondence to the true distribution. The limitations due to illumination may not be solved by the use of mathematical constraints. It is shown that crosswell tomograms derived by the use of sparsity constraints, using both Discrete Cosine Transform and Daubechies bases, basically reproduces the same features seen in tomograms obtained with the classic smoothness constraint. Interpretation must be done always taking in consideration the a priori information and the particular limitations due to illumination. An example of interpreting a real data survey in this context is also presented.
Resumo:
The key aspect limiting resolution in crosswell traveltime tomography is illumination, a well known result but not as well exemplified. Resolution in the 2D case is revisited using a simple geometric approach based on the angular aperture distribution and the Radon Transform properties. Analitically it is shown that if an interface has dips contained in the angular aperture limits in all points, it is correctly imaged in the tomogram. By inversion of synthetic data this result is confirmed and it is also evidenced that isolated artifacts might be present when the dip is near the illumination limit. In the inverse sense, however, if an interface is interpretable from a tomogram, even an aproximately horizontal interface, there is no guarantee that it corresponds to a true interface. Similarly, if a body is present in the interwell region it is diffusely imaged in the tomogram, but its interfaces - particularly vertical edges - can not be resolved and additional artifacts might be present. Again, in the inverse sense, there is no guarantee that an isolated anomaly corresponds to a true anomalous body because this anomaly can also be an artifact. Jointly, these results state the dilemma of ill-posed inverse problems: absence of guarantee of correspondence to the true distribution. The limitations due to illumination may not be solved by the use of mathematical constraints. It is shown that crosswell tomograms derived by the use of sparsity constraints, using both Discrete Cosine Transform and Daubechies bases, basically reproduces the same features seen in tomograms obtained with the classic smoothness constraint. Interpretation must be done always taking in consideration the a priori information and the particular limitations due to illumination. An example of interpreting a real data survey in this context is also presented.