Application of artificial intelligence to forecast hydrocarbon production from shales

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) methods and applications have recently gained a great deal of attention in many areas, including fields of mathematics, neuroscience, economics, engineering, linguistics, gaming, and many others. This is due to the surge of innovative and sophisticated AI techniques applications to highly complex problems as well as the powerful new developments in high speed computing. Various applications of AI in everyday life include machine learning, pattern recognition, robotics, data processing and analysis, etc. The oil and gas industry is not behind either, in fact, AI techniques have recently been applied to estimate PVT properties, optimize production, predict recoverable hydrocarbons, optimize well placement using pattern recognition, optimize hydraulic fracture design, and to aid in reservoir characterization efforts. In this study, three different AI models are trained and used to forecast hydrocarbon production from hydraulically fractured wells. Two vastly used artificial intelligence methods, namely the Least Square support Vector Machine (LSSVM) and the Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), are compared to a traditional curve fitting method known as Response Surface Model (RSM) using second order polynomial equations to determine production from shales. The objective of this work is to further explore the potential of AI in the oil and gas industry. Eight parameters are considered as input factors to build the model: reservoir permeability, initial dissolved gas-oil ratio, rock compressibility, gas relative permeability, slope of gas oil ratio, initial reservoir pressure, flowing bottom hole pressure, and hydraulic fracture spacing. The range of values used for these parameters resemble real field scenarios from prolific shale plays such as the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and the Niobrara in the United States. Production data consists of oil recovery factor and produced gas-oil ratio (GOR) generated from a generic hydraulically fractured reservoir model using a commercial simulator. The Box-Behnken experiment design was used to minimize the number of simulations for this study. Five time-based models (for production periods of 90 days, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years) and one rate-based model (when oil rate drops to 5 bbl/day/fracture) were considered. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) routine is used in all three surrogate models to obtain the associated model parameters. Models were trained using 80% of all data generated through simulation while 20% was used for testing of the models. All models were evaluated by measuring the goodness of fit through the coefficient of determination (R²) and the Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE). Results show that RSM and LSSVM have very accurate oil recovery forecasting capabilities while LSSVM shows the best performance for complex GOR behavior. Furthermore, all surrogate models are shown to serve as reliable proxy reservoir models useful for fast fluid recovery forecasts and sensitivity analyses.

Keywords

Surrogate models / LSSVM / ANN / Oil recovery / Artificial intelligence / Unconventional reservoirs

References

[1] B. Yeten, A. Castellini, B. Guyaguler, W.H. Chen, A comparison study on experimental design and response surface methodologies, in: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, The Woodlands, Texas, 2005.

[2] T.C.A.D. Amorim, D.J. Schiozer, Risk analysis speed-up with surrogate models, in: SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Mexico City, Mexico, 2012.

[3] B. Li, F. Firedmann, A novel response surface methodology based on “amplitude factor” analysis for modeling nonlinear responses caused by both reservoir and controllable factors,in:SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas, 2005.

[4] C.Y. Peng, R. Gupta, Experimental design in deterministic modelling: assessing significant uncertainties,in:SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2003.

[5] J.P. Dejean, G. Blanc, Managing uncertainties on production predictions using integrated statistical methods, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, 1999.

[6] B. Corre, P. Thore, V.d. Feraudy, G. Vincent, Integrated uncertainty assessment for project evaluation and risk analysis, in: SPE European Petroleum Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, Paris, France, 2000.

[7] E. Manceau, M. Mezghani, I. Zabalza-Mezghani, F. Roggero, Combination of experimental design and joint modeling methods for quantifying the risk associated with deterministic and stochastic uncertainties -an integrated test study, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2001.

[8] R. Venkataraman,Application of the method of experimental design to quantify uncertainty in production profiles, in:SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, Yokohama, Japan, 2000.

[9] J. Chewaroungroaj, O.J. Varela, L.W. Lake,An evaluation of procedures to estimate uncertainty in hydrocarbon recovery predictions, in:SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, Yokohama, Japan, 2000.

[10] S.D. Mohaghegh, Quantifying uncertainties associated with reservoir simulation studies using a surrogate reservoir model, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006.

[11] B. Guyaguler, R.N. Horne,Uncertainty assessment of well placement optimization, in:SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2001.

[12] E. Manceau, F. Roggero, I. Zabalza-Mezghani, Use of experimental design methodology to make decisions in an uncertain reservoir environment from reservoir uncertainties to economic risk analysis, World Pet. Congr. (2002).

[13] J.L. Landa, B. Güyagüler, A methodology for history matching and the assessment of uncertainties associated with flow prediction, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 2003.

[14] P.E. Carreras, S.E. Turner, G.T. Wilkinson, Tahiti: development strategy assessment using design of experiments and response surface methods,in:SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 2006.

[15] C. Yang, L.X. Nghiem, C. Card, M. Bremeier, Reservoir model uncertainty quantification through computer-assisted history matching, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 2007.

[16] P.A. Slotte, E. Smorgrav, Response surface methodology approach for history matching and uncertainty assessment of reservoir simulation models, in: Europec/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Rome, Italy, 2008.

[17] M.A. Ahmadi, R. Soleimani, A. Bahadori, A computational intelligence scheme for prediction equilibrium water dew point of natural gas in TEG dehydration systems, Fuel 137 (2014) 145-154.

[18] S.D. Mohaghegh, J.S. Liu, R. Gaskari, M. Maysami, O.A. Olukoko, Application of well-base surrogate reservoir models (SRMs) to two offshore fields in Saudi Arabia, case study,in:SPE Western Regional Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Bakersfield, California, USA, 2012.

[19] R. Velasco, P. Panja, M. Deo,New Production Performance and Prediction Tool for Unconventional Reservoirs, in:Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 1e3 August. San Antonio, Texas, USA, URTEC-2461718-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2016.

[20] T.W. Patzek, F. Male, M. Marder,Gas production in the Barnett Shale obeys a simple scaling theory, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (49) (2013) 19731-19736.

[21] R.A. Wattenbarger, A.H. El-Banbi, M.E. Villegas, J.B. Maggard, Production analysis of linear flow into fractured tight gas wells, SPE-39931-MS, in:SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-permeability Reservoirs Symposium, 5-8 April, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1998.

[22] M. Nobakht, L. Mattar, S. Moghadam, D.M. Anderson, Simplified forecasting of tight/shale-gas production in linear flow, J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 51 (06) (2012) 11.

[23] A.U. Al-Kaabi, W.J. Lee, Using Artificial Neural Networks to Identify the Well Test Interpretation Model (Includes Associated Papers 28151 and 28165 ), 1993, 8(03).

[24] I.R. Juniardi, I. Ershaghi, Complexities of Using Neural Network in Well Test Analysis of Faulted Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1993.

[25] C.D. Zhou, X.-L. Wu, J.-A. Cheng, Determining reservoir properties in reservoir studies using a fuzzy neural network, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, 1993.

[26] S. Mohaghegh, R. Arefi, S. Ameri, M.H. Hefner, A methodological approach for reservoir heterogeneity characterization using artificial neural networks, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1994.

[27] E. El-Sebakhy, T.S., S. Al-Bokhitan, Y. Shaaban, I. Raharja, Y. Khaeruzzaman, support vector machines framework for predicting the PVT properties of crude-oil systems, in: Kingdom of Baharin: 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, 2007.

[28] M. Oloso, A. Khoukhi, A. Abdulraheem, M. Elshafei, Prediction of crude oil viscosity and gas/oil ratio curves using recent advances to neural networks, in: SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2009.

[29] A. Rabiei, H. Sayyad, M. Riazi, A. Hashemi, Determination of dew point pressure in gas condensate reservoirs based on a hybrid neural genetic algorithm, Fluid Phase Equilibria 387 (2015) 38-49.

[30] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Ebadi, Evolving smart approach for determination dew point pressure through condensate gas reservoirs, Fuel 117 (2014) 1074-1084.

[31] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Ebadi, A. Yazdanpanah, Robust intelligent tool for estimating dew point pressure in retrograded condensate gas reservoirs: application of particle swarm optimization, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 123 (2014) 7-19.

[32] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Ebadi, P.S. Marghmaleki, M.M. Fouladi, Evolving predictive model to determine condensate-to-gas ratio in retrograded condensate gas reservoirs, Fuel 124 (2014) 241-257.

[33] M.A. Ahmadi, Neural network based unified particle swarm optimization for prediction of asphaltene precipitation, Fluid Phase Equilibria 314 (2012) 46-51.

[34] M.A. Ahmadi, S.R. Shadizadeh, New approach for prediction of asphaltene precipitation due to natural depletion by using evolutionary algorithm concept, Fuel 102 (2012) 716-723.

[35] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Ebadi, A. Shokrollahi, S.M.J. Majidi, Evolving artificial neural network and imperialist competitive algorithm for prediction oil flow rate of the reservoir, Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (2) (2013) 1085-1098.

[36] A.A. Fatai Adesina Anifowose,Prediction of porosity and permeability of oil and gas reservoirs using hybrid computational intelligence models, in:Cairo, Egypt: North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE, 2010.

[37] F.A. Anifowose, A.O. Ewenla, S.I. Eludiora, Prediction of Oil and Gas Reservoir Properties Using Support Vector Machines, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 2011.

[38] F. Ammal, G. Al-anazi, D. Ian, Support-vector regression for permeability prediction in a heterogeneous reservoir: a comparative study, SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (03) (2010).

[39] M.A. Ahmadi, R. Ahmadi, S.M. Hosseini, M. Ebadi, Connectionist model predicts the porosity and permeability of petroleum reservoirs by means of petro-physical logs: application of artificial intelligence, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.s 123 (2014) 183-200.

[40] M.A. Ahmadi, A. Bahadori, A LSSVM approach for determining well placement and conning phenomena in horizontal wells, Fuel 153 (2015) 276-283.

[41] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Ebadi, S.M. Hosseini, Prediction breakthrough time of water coning in the fractured reservoirs by implementing low parameter support vector machine approach, Fuel 117 (2014) 579-589.

[42] M.A. Ahmadi, Connectionist approach estimates gaseoil relative simulation in petroleum reservoirs: application to reservoir simulation, Fuel 140 (2015) 429-439.

[43] A. Eslamimanesh, F. Gharagheizi, M. Illbeigi, A.H. Mohammadi, A. Fazlali, D. Richon, Phase equilibrium modeling of clathrate hydrates of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen + water soluble organic promoters using Support Vector Machine algorithm, Fluid Phase Equilibria 316 (2012) 34-45.

[44] Reza Gholgheysari Gorjaei, R.S. Mohammad Torkaman, Mohsen Safari, Ghassem Zargar, A novel PSO-LSSVM model for predicting liquid rate of two phase flow through wellhead chokes, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 24 (2015) 228-237.

[45] M.-A. Ahmadi, M.Z. Hasanvand, A. Bahadori, A least-squares support vector machine approach to predict temperature drop accompanying a given pressure drop for the natural gas production and processing systems, Int. J. Ambient Energy 38 (2) (2015) 122-129.

[46] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Masoumi, R. Askarinezhad, Evolving connectionist model to monitor the efficiency of an in situ combustion process: application to heavy oil recovery, Energy Technol. 2 (9-10) (2014) 811-818.

[47] M.-A. Ahmadi, M. Masumi, R. Kharrat, A.H. Mohammadi, Gas analysis by in situ combustion in heavy-oil recovery process: experimental and modeling studies, Chem. Eng. Technol. 37 (3) (2014) 409-418.

[48] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Masoumi, R. Askarinezhad, Evolving smart model to predict the combustion front velocity for in situ combustion, Energy Technol. 3 (2) (2015) 128-135.

[49] M.A. Ahmadi, M. Zahedzadeh, S.R. Shadizadeh, R. Abbassi, Connectionist model for predicting minimum gas miscibility pressure: application to gas injection process, Fuel 148 (2015) 202-211.

[50] M. Ali Ahmadi, A. Ahmadi, Applying a sophisticated approach to predict CO2solubility in brines: application to CO2sequestration, Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 11 (3) (2016) 325-332.

[51] M.-A. Ahmadi, A. Bahadori, S.R. Shadizadeh, A rigorous model to predict the amount of Dissolved Calcium Carbonate Concentration throughout oil field brines: side effect of pressure and temperature, Fuel 139 (2015) 154-159.

[52] P. Panja, T. Conner, M. Deo, Factors controlling production in hydraulically fractured low permeability oil reservoirs, Int. J. Oil, Gas Coal Technol. 3 (1) (2015) 18.

[53] G.E.P. Box, D.W. Behnken, Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables, Technometrics 2 (4) (1960) 455-475.

[54] P. Panja, T. Conner, M. Deo, Grid sensitivity studies in hydraulically fractured low permeability reservoirs, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 112 (0) (2013) 78-87.

[55] P. Panja, M. Pathak, R. Velasco, M. Deo,Least square support vector machine: an emerging tool for data analysis,in:SPE Low Perm Symposium,5-6 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Colorado, Denver, 2016.

[56] R. Eberhart, J. Kennedy,A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, in:Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995. MHS '95., Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on, 1995.

[57] C. Banerjee, R. Sawal, PSO with dynamic acceleration coefficient based on multiple constraint satisfaction, in: International Conference on Advances in Electronics Computers and Communications. Bangalore, India, 2014.

[58] M.A. Ahmadi, R. Soleimani, M. Lee, T. Kashiwao, A. Bahadori, Determination of oil well production performance using artificial neural network (ANN) linked to the particle swarm optimization (PSO) tool, Petroleum 1 (2) (2015) 118-132.

[59] P. Panja, M. Deo, Unusual behavior of produced gas oil ratio in low permeability fractured reservoirs, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 144 (2016) 76-83.

[60] M. Pathak, H. Kweon, P. Panja, R. Velasco, M.D. Deo,Suppression in the bubble points of oils in shales combined effect of presence of organic matter and confinement, in:SPE Unconventional Resources Conference,15-16 February, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2017.

[61] R. Velasco, M. Pathak, P. Panja, M. Deo, What happens to permeability at the Nanoscale? A molecular dynamics simulation study, in:SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 24-26 July. Austin, Texas, USA: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 2017.