使用传统和改进的bootstrap方法对二叠纪盆地的不确定性进行量化

Q1 Earth and Planetary Sciences
Chukwuemeka O. Okoli , Scott D. Goddard , Obadare O. Awoleke
{"title":"使用传统和改进的bootstrap方法对二叠纪盆地的不确定性进行量化","authors":"Chukwuemeka O. Okoli ,&nbsp;Scott D. Goddard ,&nbsp;Obadare O. Awoleke","doi":"10.1016/j.ptlrs.2023.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Various uncertainty quantification methodologies are presented using a combination of several deterministic decline curve analysis models and two bootstrapping algorithms. These probabilistic models are applied to 126 sample wells from the Permian basin. Results are presented for 12–72 months of production hindcast given an average well production history of 103 months. Based on the coverage rate and the forecast error (with the coverage rate being more significant in our choice of the best probabilistic models) and using up to one-half of the available production history for a group of sample wells from the Permian Basin, we find that the CBM-SEPD combination is the best probabilistic model for the Central Basin Platform, the MBM-Arps combination is the best probabilistic model for the Delaware Basin, the CBM-Arps is the best probabilistic model for the Midland Basin, and the best probabilistic model for the overall Permian Basin is the CBM-Arps when early time data is used as hindcast and CBM-SEPD for when one-quarter to one-half of the data is used as hindcast. When three-quarters or more of the available production history is used for analysis, the MBM-SEPD probabilistic model is the best combination in terms of both coverage rate and forecast error for all the sub-basins in the Permian. The novelty of this work lies in its extension of bootstrapping methods to other decline curve analysis models. This work also offers the engineer guidance on the best choice of probabilistic model whilst attempting to forecast production from the Permian Basin.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19756,"journal":{"name":"Petroleum Research","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 439-454"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096249523000340/pdfft?md5=b3656898eaccba3d028a4388cf082890&pid=1-s2.0-S2096249523000340-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertainty quantification in the Permian Basin using conventional and modified bootstrap methodology\",\"authors\":\"Chukwuemeka O. Okoli ,&nbsp;Scott D. Goddard ,&nbsp;Obadare O. Awoleke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ptlrs.2023.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Various uncertainty quantification methodologies are presented using a combination of several deterministic decline curve analysis models and two bootstrapping algorithms. These probabilistic models are applied to 126 sample wells from the Permian basin. Results are presented for 12–72 months of production hindcast given an average well production history of 103 months. Based on the coverage rate and the forecast error (with the coverage rate being more significant in our choice of the best probabilistic models) and using up to one-half of the available production history for a group of sample wells from the Permian Basin, we find that the CBM-SEPD combination is the best probabilistic model for the Central Basin Platform, the MBM-Arps combination is the best probabilistic model for the Delaware Basin, the CBM-Arps is the best probabilistic model for the Midland Basin, and the best probabilistic model for the overall Permian Basin is the CBM-Arps when early time data is used as hindcast and CBM-SEPD for when one-quarter to one-half of the data is used as hindcast. When three-quarters or more of the available production history is used for analysis, the MBM-SEPD probabilistic model is the best combination in terms of both coverage rate and forecast error for all the sub-basins in the Permian. The novelty of this work lies in its extension of bootstrapping methods to other decline curve analysis models. This work also offers the engineer guidance on the best choice of probabilistic model whilst attempting to forecast production from the Permian Basin.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Petroleum Research\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 439-454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096249523000340/pdfft?md5=b3656898eaccba3d028a4388cf082890&pid=1-s2.0-S2096249523000340-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Petroleum Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1087\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096249523000340\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Earth and Planetary Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Petroleum Research","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096249523000340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

结合几种确定性下降曲线分析模型和两种自举算法,提出了各种不确定性量化方法。将这些概率模型应用于二叠纪盆地的126口样品井。根据平均油井生产历史为103个月,给出了12-72个月的生产预测结果。基于覆盖率和预测误差(在我们选择的最佳概率模型中,覆盖率更为显著),并使用二叠纪盆地一组样品井的一半可用生产历史,我们发现CBM-SEPD组合是中央盆地平台的最佳概率模型,MBM-Arps组合是特拉华盆地的最佳概率模型。煤层气- arps是米德兰盆地的最佳概率模型,当使用早期数据作为后验时,煤层气- arps是整个二叠纪盆地的最佳概率模型,当使用四分之一到二分之一的数据作为后验时,煤层气- sepd是最佳概率模型。当使用四分之三或更多的可用生产历史进行分析时,MBM-SEPD概率模型在覆盖率和预测误差方面都是二叠纪所有子盆地的最佳组合。这项工作的新颖之处在于将自举方法推广到其他下降曲线分析模型中。这项工作还为工程师提供了最佳概率模型选择的指导,同时试图预测二叠纪盆地的产量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncertainty quantification in the Permian Basin using conventional and modified bootstrap methodology

Various uncertainty quantification methodologies are presented using a combination of several deterministic decline curve analysis models and two bootstrapping algorithms. These probabilistic models are applied to 126 sample wells from the Permian basin. Results are presented for 12–72 months of production hindcast given an average well production history of 103 months. Based on the coverage rate and the forecast error (with the coverage rate being more significant in our choice of the best probabilistic models) and using up to one-half of the available production history for a group of sample wells from the Permian Basin, we find that the CBM-SEPD combination is the best probabilistic model for the Central Basin Platform, the MBM-Arps combination is the best probabilistic model for the Delaware Basin, the CBM-Arps is the best probabilistic model for the Midland Basin, and the best probabilistic model for the overall Permian Basin is the CBM-Arps when early time data is used as hindcast and CBM-SEPD for when one-quarter to one-half of the data is used as hindcast. When three-quarters or more of the available production history is used for analysis, the MBM-SEPD probabilistic model is the best combination in terms of both coverage rate and forecast error for all the sub-basins in the Permian. The novelty of this work lies in its extension of bootstrapping methods to other decline curve analysis models. This work also offers the engineer guidance on the best choice of probabilistic model whilst attempting to forecast production from the Permian Basin.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Petroleum Research
Petroleum Research Earth and Planetary Sciences-Geology
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信