SPE 125331

Waterflooding Optimization Using Gradient Based Methods

Masoud Asadollahi, SPE, IRIS/NTNU, and Geir Naevdal, SPE, IRIS

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1921 October 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Finding the best strategy for production optimization is currently an important research task for closed-loop reservoir
management. The closed-loop reservoir management consists of two main tasks: history matching and production
optimization. A comparative closed loop reservoir management exercise was performed in connection with the SPE Applied
Technology Workshop Closed-loop reservoir management in Bruges June 2008. The model used in this exercise was a
synthetic reservoir with typical geological features of Northern Sea fields and considerably larger than those used in most
previous studies. In a previous work (Lorentzen et al., 2009), a set of history matched models were obtained using the
ensemble Kalman filter. We will use these models to investigate the effect of formulation and initial guess on gradient based
optimization methods.
Within production optimization, most of the works are focused on optimizing the reservoir performance under waterflooding.
We will review the waterflooding optimization studies so far. The mathematical theories of an optimization problem as well as
the practical issues regarding reactive and proactive approaches are discussed. The formulation of a waterflooding
optimization problem is investigated using three different optimization variables: bottomhole pressure, oil and liquid
production rates. Results show that proper formulation improves the performance of gradient based methods considerably.
Then it is verified that manual optimization of the initial guess based on reservoir concepts enhances both the result and
efficiency of the gradient based optimization. The manual optimization saves the gradient based methods from a number of
local optima and also decreases the simulation costs substantially. Two line search methods, steepest descent and conjugate
gradient, are used and compared in the adjoint based optimization approach. The conjugate gradient acts slightly faster than
the steepest descent method. However, the selection of a proper initial guess is far more important for the performance.
Finally, the optimal solution is applied on ten more history matched realizations to check the robustness of the solution. It is
shown that the well liquid rates are the best variables used for maximizing the net present value using gradient based
optimization. In previous works, well bottomhole pressure has been suggested.
Introduction
Reservoir management, as a practical science, uses elements of geology and petroleum engineering to predict and optimize the
future production of the oil or gas fields. The goal is to determine the most cost-effective strategy of developing a new field or
to bring new life to an older field with enhanced oil recovery methods. Through the use of a suite of technologies, including
remote sensors and simulation modeling, reservoir management can improve production rates and increase the total amount of
hydrocarbons that is ultimately recovered from a field. Closed loop reservoir management (CLRM) is defined as a combination of model-based optimization and history matching (or data assimilation), also known as real time or smart reservoir management, closed loop optimization or self learning reservoir management (Jansen et al., 2009). Recently, growing attention
has been given to the closed loop approaches in the industry with different names as smart fields, i-fields, e-fields, field of the
future, digital fields, next generation fields or integrated operations (see e.g. Jansen et al., 2005; Unneland et al., 2005; Reddick, 2006). The main elements of the CLRM process are shown in Figure 1. The physical system consists of the reservoir,
wells and facilities, each of these represented by models. The main task of the data assimilation is to update the reservoir models based on the measurements, whereas reservoir optimization is concerned with finding the best production strategy for the
producing field based on these updated models. The CLRM is well described elsewhere (Jansen et al., 2009). In this work, we
will focus on the optimization task in the context of the CLRM.

SPE 125331

Figure 1: Closed loop reservoir management process (Jansen et al., 2009).

One of the major challenges in the development of optimized production strategy is addressing the impact of reservoir uncertainty. Most optimized strategies are model-based and are effective if the model predicts the future reservoir behavior correctly. Traditional model updating schemes are computationally very expensive. Recently, ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) was
introduced as a new approach for history matching and became a promising methodology for sequential data assimilation and
uncertainty quantification. EnKF is a Monte Carlo approach that was originally developed to estimate dynamic variables in
atmospheric and oceanographic models (see e.g. Evensen, 1994). The method was modified to use for history matching and
model updating (Naevdal et al., 2005). The EnKF is demonstrated by a vast amount of literature (see e.g. Evensen, 2006;
Aanonsen et al., 2009). We use the history matched models from a previous work (Lorentzen et al., 2009).
The updated reservoir models are used to determine the best field development and production plan in the future. Traditionally, this task was done manually by a large number of trials and errors. During the last few years, different optimization
strategies were developed to assist this decision making process, e.g. well placement optimization or flow rates optimization in
a given well configuration. Optimization generally aims at maximizing the NPV from a given reservoir. The optimization
problem requires the maximization of the net present value, or recovery factor, by manipulation of some parameters in the
reservoir system, e.g. well location, well bottomhole pressures, liquid production or injection rates or valve setting in an on\off
mode. These parameters are usually subject to some limitations (also known as constraints) due to operational conditions, surface process facilities etc. These constraints pose substantial complication while solving the optimization problem.
Mathematically, optimization is a mature field and many techniques have been developed based on different kinds of problems. The optimization algorithms can be globally classified in deterministic and stochastic search methods. The deterministic
search methods always converge to the same optimum if they are started from the same initial point (also known as initial solution, initial guess or starting point), i.e. they are initial guess dependent. For this type of methods, initialization of the algorithm from different initial points can be useful in an attempt to reach a better solution. The stochastic search methods are
searching in a wider solution span and every optimization parameter combination has a nonzero chance of occurrence. The
initial guesses are generated randomly from different points and if the procedure runs long enough the global optimum is visited eventually. Depending on the type of the problem, some of the optimization techniques perform better than the others, in
terms of efficiency and robustness. There is generally a trade off between the efficiency, the robustness and the results in an
optimization algorithm. The deterministic search algorithms are usually more efficient than the global search algorithms while
the later have a better chance to find a global optimum.
The deterministic optimization techniques can be classified as evaluation-only and gradient based methods. Evaluation-only
methods are simpler and do not require gradient calculations. The Hooke-Jeeves pattern search, reflection simplex NelderMead and Powells conjugate gradient algorithms are some of the evaluation-only methods. Gradient based methods use the
derivatives of the objective function to find their search direction. The steepest descent, conjugate gradient, Newtons method,
quasi-Newton method, Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt are popular gradient based algorithms (Brouwer et al., 2001;
Yeten et al., 2003; Brouwer et al., 2004; Nocedal and Wright, 2006; Jansen et al., 2009).
Figure 2 shows a typical classification of the optimization problems, mainly categorized as continuous and discrete. Reservoir
optimization problems can be formulated in a continuous, e.g. rate allocation in the producers and injectors, or a discrete
framework. The discrete optimization problem can occur using an on and off valve setting at the reservoir production system.
This work is classified as a continuous optimization problem with simple bounds as well as non-linear constraints.

SPE 125331

Figure 2: Optimization tree (Optimization Technology Center, 2008)

Although production optimization can be applied to any kind of recovery method in the reservoir, most of the works focus on
optimizing the reservoir performance under waterflooding (Brouwer and Jansen, 2004; Jansen et al., 2005; Sarma et al., 2005;
Wang et al., 2007; Sarma et al., 2008). Waterflooding is a method of secondary recovery in which water is injected into a
reservoir in order to move additional quantities of oil from the injection toward producing wells. A simple recovery mechanism is increasing the volumetric (both areal and vertical) sweep efficiency in the reservoir. This sweep efficiency can be
maximized with mathematical optimization methods. In the earliest studies the reservoir models under investigation were
rather simple: two vertical injectors and a single vertical producer in Asheim (1987) and two vertical producers with a natural
aquifer in Asheim (1988). Some improvements were achieved by increasing the sweep efficiency and delayed water breakthrough. Virnovsky (1988) and Virnovsky (1991) studied the waterflooding optimization problem for incompressible fluids in
two dimensional reservoirs. The well location, well type as well as the well rates were optimized. Significant recovery improvements were achieved, up to 50 percent. Sudaryanto and Yortsos (2000) and Sudaryanto and Yortsos (2001) studied the
waterflooding optimization at the time of water breakthrough in a Bang-Bang control approach, i.e. wells operate only at the
extremes of being either fully open or closed. A defensive control (defined later) algorithm was applied by Yeten et al. (2002).
Brouwer and Jansen (2002) used an optimal control algorithm (see also Brouwer and Jansen (2004)) and the results were compared to those from Yeten et al. (2002) in Yeten et al. (2003) on a two-phase, two dimensional example. Later, Brouwer et al.
(2004) explored and studied the dynamic waterflooding optimization where adjoint gradients were used to dynamically optimize the production performance in a horizontal smart well injector-producer model. Sarma et al. (2008) investigated the production optimization problem using adjoint gradients under nonlinear constraints and compared different methods for nonlinear path constraints. However, the implementation of the adjoint gradients is not trivial, as it requires access to and in detail
knowledge of the reservoir simulator. To overcome this disadvantage, Lorentzen et al. (2006) used ensemble Kalman filter
(EnKF) as an optimization method. Some other ensemble based methods were introduced by Wang et al. (2007) and Chen et
al. (2008).
Lots of works have been done on general aspects of the waterflooding optimization problems. In this work, two gradient based
methods, steepest descent and conjugate directions, are evaluated on a reservoir waterflooding optimization problem. The
problem is investigated in more details in terms of the problem formulation and initial solution using gradient based methods.
The adjoint gradients and line search method are used from E300 optimizer applied to Brugge field. First, the mathematical
background and practical issues of production optimization problem is introduced. Then the Brugge field is described and the
production optimization problem is formulated. The results regarding the proper formulation of the optimization problem, improvement of the initial guess and consequently the performance of the gradient based methods are presented. Finally, the
steepest descent and conjugate gradient methods are compared and the robustness of the optimal solution against the geological uncertainties is verified.
Optimization: Mathematical Background
Optimization algorithms are generally iterative processes which are starting from an initial point until they terminate, hopefully, at an optimal point. The procedure to move from the current iteration to the next distinguishes them from each other.
Reservoir optimization is a multi disciplinary subject and different terminologies are used by different disciplines. The important terms and mathematical concepts are defined as follows:
Objective (or cost) function a quantitative measure of the performance of the system under study, for instance net present
value (NPV), as in this paper, or a least square error function, as, e.g., in data-assimilation.
Variables free/manipulative parameters that the objective is dependent on. Some other equal terms are optimization variables,
parameters, control parameters and decision variables. In this paper these are well bottomhole pressures and liquid rates.
Constraints restrictions on variables. Here, these are minimum or maximum bottomhole pressures and liquid rates.

SPE 125331

Considering these terms, the optimization problem is defined as minimization or maximization of an objective function by
manipulation of variables subject to the constraints. Mathematically, an optimization problem is illustrated as:
min f(x)
xR

c (x) = 0, i E
subject to i
ci(x) 0 , i I

(1)

where f is the objective function, x represents the variables and c(x) represents the optimization constraints and E and I are the
index sets of the equality and inequality constraints, respectively. The above optimization formulation as minimization of the
objective function is applicable to maximization problems as well by simple multiplication of the objective function by a negative sign. The good properties of an optimization algorithm are:
Robustness it should perform well on a wide variety of problems in its class, for all reasonable values of the starting point;
Efficiency it should not require excessive computer time or storage;
Accuracy it should be able to identify a solution with precision, without being overly sensitive to errors in the data or to the
arithmetic rounding errors that occur when the algorithm is implemented on a computer.
We use the term performance for both the efficiency and quality of the final objective value in this text. Using the gradient
based methods, two different strategies exist: trust region and line search. We use line search strategy to solve the optimization
problem. Every line search strategy is comprised of two main steps: search direction and step length determination. In the
search direction step, the algorithm chooses a direction pk and moves along this direction to find an improved objective function value. The algorithm then determines the distance to move along the direction pk by computing an appropriate step length
. In each iteration, this update of control parameters is formulated as:
x k +1 = x k + p k

(2)

where xk is the vector of the control parameter values in the current iteration, pk is the search direction, is the step length and
xk+1 is the updated control parameters for the next iteration. Some of the well known search direction methods are steepest
descent, conjugate gradient, Newton and quasi-Newton methods. Their main difference is the way they use the gradient information of an objective function. The steepest descent method uses the first derivative, or just gradient information, in the current iteration to determine the search direction:

p k = f (kx )

(3)

The conjugate gradient method uses the first derivative information from the current and previous iterations including, in a
sense, both the gradient and curvature information of the objective function to determine the search direction:
p k = f (kx ) + k p k 1

(4)

where k is a scalar that ensures pk and pk-1 are conjugate. There are many variants of conjugate gradient methods that differ
mainly in the calculation of the parameter k . The original formulation by Fletcher and Reeves (1964) defines this parameter
as:
k
FR
=

f
f

k ,T

k 1,T

k 1

(5)

An alternative, that to a certain extent deals with the problem of potential loss of conjugacy for non-quadratic objective functions, is the Polak-Ribiere formula:
k
PR
=

k ,T

(f

k 1,T

f
f

k 1

k 1

(6)

The Newton method uses both the first and second derivatives, that is, the gradient and curvature information, of the objective
function. Since calculation of the second derivatives is expensive and not trivial, quasi-Newton method substitutes the second
derivatives approximation from the first derivatives. The steepest descent and conjugated gradient methods are used for life
cycle optimization of the Brugge field. The Newton methods are out of the scope of this work so their mathematical procedure
is not discussed here.

SPE 125331

A number of algorithms are developed to approximate the step length along the search direction. The Wolfe conditions, Goldestein conditions and backtracking algorithms are among the popular ones that are well described elsewhere (Nocedal and
Wright, 2006).Typically is a number bounded between 0 and 1, in which; one represents a full step length. In an optimization problem with constraints, this upper bound is usually reduced by the constraints to keep the solution inside the feasible
region. In an aggressive step length determination this number can be considered higher than unity (Nocedal and Wright,
2006; Eclipse, 2008). It is worthwhile to mention that in Eclipse (2008) technical manual, step length determination is defined
as line search while we are using the definitions from Nocedal and Wright (2006).
Optimization: Practical Issues
The gradient information is calculated by means of the finite difference approximation or in an alternative approach using an
adjoint equation. Adjoint gradient calculation is more efficient than the finite difference methods, since the gradient information is obtained using a single additional dynamic simulation, independent of the number of control parameters. But the finite
difference method requires evaluating the objective function for perturbation over all control parameters at each time step k,
which becomes computationally prohibitive for large scale problems. However, the adjoint gradient calculation is not trivial
and it needs to program in the adjoint equations which is a major programming effort and it also requires a good knowledge of
the simulator (Brouwer and Jansen, 2004; Sarma et al., 2005).We will use adjoint gradients from Eclipse simulator. For more
details about the line search strategy, search direction and step length, and adjoint gradient calculations see Eclipse (2008).
The injected water may reach from the injectors to the producers without touching a large region of the reservoir, thus resulting to a low recovery factor. Intelligent or smart wells are equipped with downhole valves to control the fluid flow from the
reservoir to the well and sensors to monitor the downhole pressure and saturation changes. This technology has the capability
to significantly improve the recovery from the reservoir. Smart wells provide the opportunities for reactive and proactive, or
defensive, strategies. Reactive strategy is one of the first types of smart well control and generally comprises of an action on
the down-hole valves upon water or gas breakthrough. In a reactive strategy no action is undertaken before some changes in
the well measurements is observed. Proactive control scenarios are well operating strategies that start in an earlier time, before
water or gas breakthrough, to prevent or delay it as much as possible. Two main types of proactive control are: first, optimization of the valve settings based on well performance at the current time or forecasted well performance for a short period. This
kind of optimization is mainly referred to short-term or production optimization. Second, the entire production life of the reservoir is intended for the optimization, in which a reservoir model is needed to maximize the benefits, mainly NPV, from a
reservoir. The later approach is known as long-term or recovery optimization. The production optimization requires less information about the reservoir than the recovery optimization because the proposed time horizon is shorter. Intuitively, the proactive control promises achieving a higher objective value, e.g. recovery factor or NPV, than reactive control but at the price
of higher knowledge about the reservoir (Brouwer, 2004; Saputelli et al., 2005; Saputelli et al., 2006; Awasthi et al. 2008;
Markovinovic, 2009; Saputelli et al., 2009).
Determination of the optimal rate, or valve setting, is the main challenge of both reactive and proactive control. A number of
techniques have been used to find the optimal strategies for them. However, the problem is that all these control techniques are
based on uncertain well or reservoir models. Therefore, developing the control strategy based on these models is risky. Even
the updated reservoir models do not guarantee the reliable predictions for a reservoir (Tavassoli et al., 2004). Recent studies
suggest the periodic update of the reservoir models using the measured data (Brouwer et al., 2001; Yeten and Jalali, 2001; Yeten et al., 2002; Yeten et al., 2003; Brouwer and Jansen, 2004; Aitokhoehi and Durlofsky, 2005; Ebadi and Davis, 2006; Wang
et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2008). Addiego-Guevara et al. (2008) assessed the implementation of an intelligent horizontal well in
a thin oil rim reservoir in the presence of reservoir uncertainty. In a cost-benefit analysis they showed that the reactive control
strategies always yield a neutral or positive return. While reactive control strategies enhance the production and mitigate the
reservoir uncertainty, they may not deliver the optimum possible solution. Proactive control techniques, which additionally
incorporate data from downhole reservoir-imaging sensors, may yield near optimal gains. In the next sections, a lifecycle waterflood optimization is performed to maximize the NPV, as the objective value in the proposed oil field.
The large uncertainty of the geological realizations is a major challenge of taking decision based on reservoir simulation models. One way to resolve this problem is to use a set of geological realizations, or an ensemble of reservoir models. In this case a
robust objective function, which approximates the expected value of the objective function over an ensemble of realizations, is
optimized (Yeten, 2004; Van Essen et al., 2009). Then the robust reservoir optimization is defined as the maximization of the
robust objective function, e.g. the average NPV from an ensemble of reservoir models, by manipulation of the decision variables subject to the production constraints.
Brugge Field
A comparative solution CLRM project was prepared by the Dutch applied research organization (TNO) in connection with the
SPE Applied Technology Workshop (ATW) held in Brugge, June 2008. The aim of the project was to test the use of history
matching and waterflooding optimization methods in the form of an interactive competition in the ATW. Nine groups participated and presented their results in the workshop. A 3D synthetic data set, Brugge field, was made available to the participants. The original high resolution model consisted of about 20 million grid cells, and then it was upscaled to a 450,000 grid
cells model which is referred to the true model. From this model, data were extracted and used to create 104 realizations that
were made available to the participants, each contain 60,048 grid blocks with 44,550 active cells. The true model formed the

SPE 125331

basis to compare the submitted results from the participants by TNO. Additional information was 10 years of the production
history of the field, one set of inverted time-lapsed seismic data in terms of pressures and saturations after 10 years of production, and economic parameters to calculate NPV. Each of the realizations contained the following properties: facies, porosity,
NTG, water saturation and permeability in X, Y and Z directions.
The exercise had two cycles and each cycle consists of two main steps of CLRM tasks: data assimilation and production optimization based on history matched model. In the first cycle, participants were asked to provide a history match, for years 0-10,
and an optimal production strategy for the next 20 years. Then the optimization strategy could be sent to TNO for testing on
the true model. Their strategy was tested on the true model to obtain additional data over the next ten years period (years 1020). In the second cycle, based on these production data, they updated their reservoir model up to year 20 and revised their
optimal production strategy for the final 10 years period of production (years 20-30). Then the optimization strategy could be
submitted to TNO again, for testing on the true models. Remarkable results were obtained and presented during the workshop
and published by TNO (Peters et al., 2009) and some participants (Sarma and Chen, 2008; Alhuthali et al., 2009; Chen and
Oliver, 2009; Lorentzen et al., 2009).
The leasing life of the field is 30 years. The field has been developed by 20 crestal producers and 10 peripheral injectors, and
all can be operated with three separate completions. Figure 3 demonstrates the reservoir structure and well locations.

Figure 3: Brugge field with 20 crestal producers and 10 peripheral injectors.

The reservoir zones are typical for a North Sea Brent type field and comprises of four main formations, namely Schelde, Maas,
Waal and Schie, from top to the bottom. The producers are perforated in top eight layers and the peripheral injectors are perforated in all nine layers. Tables 1 & 2 describe the formation properties and well completions of the Brugge field, respectively.
Table 1: Properties of the formations of the Brugge field (Peters et al., 2009).
Formation
Schelde
Maas
Waal
Schie

Avg Thickness, m
10
20
26
5

Avg Porosity, %
20.7
19.0
24.1
19.4

Avg Permeability, md
1105
90
814
36

Avg N/G
60
88
97
77

Depositional Environment
Fluvial
Lower Shoreface
Upper Shoreface
Sandy Shelf

Table 2: The well completions.

Well\Formation
Injectors
Producers 1-4, 6-8, 11-13 & 16-20
Producers 5, 10, 14 & 15
Producer 9

Schelde,
Layers 1-2
Open
Open
Open
Open

Maas,
Layers 3-5
Open
Open
Open
Closed

Waal,
Layers 6-8
Open
Open
Closed
Closed

Schie,
Layer 9
Open
Closed
Closed
Closed

The dimensions of the reservoir are roughly 103 km and an average thickness of about 60 m. The main structure of the
Brugge field is an E-W elongated half-dome with a large fault at the north boundary and an internal fault with a modest throw
at an angle of about 20 degrees to the north boundary fault. Oil and water are assumed as the only phases in the Brugge reservoir. The Brugge field is described in more details in the original paper by TNO (Peters et al., 2009) and by some of the participants (Chen and Oliver, 2009; Lorentzen et al., 2009).
The two gradient based methods are applied for the production optimization task of the first cycle with 10 years history matching and 20 years production optimization. We use the history matched models from Lorentzen et al. (2009). They have applied

SPE 125331

ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) as described by Naevdal et al. (2005) for data assimilation task of the exercise. Among the 104
realizations that they were handed out, they used the 13 models without facies, where the permeability was generated by cokriging on porosity. The porosity is modeled using the variogram model. The reason for using these realizations was the EnKF
so far have been found to work better on non-facies cases, c.f. Aanonsen et al. (2009). They regenerated ninety-one additional
realizations based on the statistics computed from the 13 original models. After model updating, 104 history matched models
were obtained and then an average model was prepared from these models. The average model is used for production optimization and to verify the robustness of the solution, ten randomly chosen history matched models from 104, are used. All reservoir simulations are performed by Eclipse 100 and 300 (2008).
Reservoir Optimization
To define the reservoir optimization problem, an objective function, optimization variables and their constraints should be
specified.
Objective function The NPV is used as the objective function for Brugge field as follows:
M

Qo ro Qw rw Qi ri

k =1

(1 + b / 100)t k

NPV = t

(7)

where M is the total number of time steps, t is the difference between two time steps in days, Qo is the oil production rate in
bbl/d, ro is the oil price in USD, Qw is the water production rate in bbl/d, rw is the cost of water operation in USD, Qi is the
water injection rate in bbl/d, ri is the cost of water injection in USD, b is the discount rate in percent per year, and tk is the
elapsed time in years. Table 3 shows the economic parameters of the problem.
Table 3: Economic parameters to calculate NPV.
Parameter
Oil Price ($)
Water Operation Cost ($)
Water Injection Cost ($)
Discount Rate (percent per year)

Value
80
5
5
10

Variables (control parameters) Well liquid production and injection rates were used as the control parameters by most of the
participants in the SPE-ATW workshop. Considering 84 open completions, 54 in the producers and 30 in the injectors, and the
length of optimization time, these decision parameters produce a large number of variables to optimize, i.e. the number of open
completions multiplied by the number of optimization time steps. The selected strategy by most of the participants was updating the well rates every half a year (40 time steps over 20 years) and this produces an optimization problem with 3,360
(8440) variables. Since the reservoir is under waterflooding displacement, the main mechanism is increasing the sweep of the
reservoir to improve its recovery. Figure 4 shows the performance of the rate formulation to maximize the recovery of the
reservoir. It increases the reservoir sweep by enhancing the movement of waterflood front from the injectors toward the producers.

Figure 4: Reservoir sweep improvement by rate optimization.

Table 4 demonstrates three different choices of decision variables for the producers and injectors.
Table 4: Combination of control parameters for Brugge field.
Optimization Variables
Choice 1
Choice 2
Choice 3
1
2
4
Producers
WBHP
WOPR
WLPR
3
Injectors
WBHP
WWIR
WWIR
1 Well Bottomhole Pressure, 2 Well Oil Production Rate, 3 Well Water Injection Rate, 4 Well Liquid Production Rate

Constraints Finally the limits on the control parameters should be specified for the reservoir optimization problem. In the rate

SPE 125331

optimization formulation, nonlinear constraints are applied to the optimization problem. Table 5 shows the problem constraints in the producers and injectors as well as their maximum and minimum limits.
Table 5: Optimization constraints.
Variable
Minimum Bottomhole Pressure (psi)
Maximum Bottomhole Pressure (psi)
Maximum Rate (bbl/d)
Maximum Rate (bbl/d)

Domain
Producers
Injectors
Producers
Injectors

Value
725
2610
3000
4000

Considering three separated completions in each well, distinguished by numbers 1, 2, and 3 from the top to bottom, the constraints are formulated as follows:
q p1, j + q p 2, j + q p 3, j 3000 (bbl / day )

(8)

BHPp , j 725 ( psi )

(9)

where j = 1, 2,..., 20 for producers; and:

qi1, j + qi 2, j + qi 3, j 4000 (bbl / day )

(10)

BHPi , j 2610 ( psi )

(11)

where j = 1, 2,..., 10 for injectors.

Results
Selection of Optimization Variables Two main types of control parameters, bottomhole pressures and rates, were available
for the given formulation in the previous section. A combination of these decision variables were used to select the efficient
variables for the production optimization. Figure 5 shows the results of production optimization using variables set in Table 5.
They have been tested for different initial guesses but two initial solutions were selected to demonstrate the results. Using the
control parameters of Choice 1 (see Table 4), the optimization was stopped by convergence of the parameters without any
improvement of the objective function (red squares). These control parameters were strongly recommended elsewhere
(Eclipse, 2008). In the Choice 2, the optimization was stopped by convergence of the parameters after a few iterations (the
blue lines). A small improvement of NPV was achieved. Using Choice 3 the total liquid rates, both in producers and injectors,
considerable improvements of NPV were obtained (the black lines). The reason is that most of the wells are under liquid control so they seem reasonable decision variables to maximize the NPV.
3.9

3.8

NPV (MMM $)

3.7

3.6
Choice 1, IG* 1
Choice 1, IG 2

3.5

Choice 2, IG 1
Choice 2, IG 2
Choice 3, IG 1

3.4

Choice 3, IG 2
* IG: Initial Guess

3.3
0

10

Iteration Number

Figure 5: Selection of control parameters for Brugge field.

The well liquid production rate, in the producers, and well water injection rate, in the injectors, are used as the control parameters for further investigation of the gradient based methods.

SPE 125331

Manual Optimization The gradient based optimization methods are prone to trap in local optima. If the initial guess will be
too far from the optimal point, then the algorithm may not converge to a reasonable solution. In this section, the reservoir concepts will be used to improve the initial solution and its effect on the performance of mathematical optimization algorithm will
be demonstrated. Higher production rates were assigned to the completions with lower water cuts manually. In each producer,
three completions are under the constraint of maximum total liquid production rate equal to 3000 B/D. So assigning the higher
production rate to the neighboring completions with lower water cuts improves the NPV by either increasing the oil production
or decreasing the water injection. Figure 6 shows the effect of the manual improvement of the initial solution on the efficiency
and the final objective value of the gradient based methods. The black curve shows the optimization results with equal constant rates applied for the 20 years as the initial solution for all completions. The optimization stopped after 45 iterations with a
final NPV value of 3.94 MMM$. In the first step of manual optimization, the completions with high water cuts were closed.
These completions were producing with water cut value of about the economic limit, considering the economic parameters this
is 0.94 for Brugge field. As a result, improvement on final objective function value was achieved as well as better efficiency of
gradient based method (red curve). In a second step, the initial solution was provided for every single producing completion
according to their water cut in the end of forward simulation. For the completions in the same well (under the same total rate
constraint), the higher rates were assigned to those with lower water cut (productivity index was a limiting factor) and the lowest possible rate to the completion with highest water cut. Then they were optimized over the time using the gradient based
methods. The result is shown with the blue curve in the figure. Further improvement on the efficiency and results of the gradient based methods was achieved. This was performed for both steepest descent and conjugate gradient methods and the best
representative of the results is shown in the figure.
4.2

NPV (MMM$)

4
3.8
3.6
3.4
Default completions by TNO

3.2

Shutting some offensive completions

Initial Guess for every completion

3
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Iteration Number

Figure 6: The effect of initial solution on the performance of gradient based methods.

Manual optimization of the initial solution has improved both the efficiency and final results of the gradient based optimization methods. Mathematically, it is well clarified by Figure 7 as a schematic representation of a nonlinear problem. Improvement of the initial solution assists the local search methods to survive from a number of local optima and ending to the better
optimal points. Also initialization of the optimization problem close to optimal point requires lower number of search direction
and step length determination toward the optimum, which improves the efficiency of the gradient based methods.

10

SPE 125331

Figure 7: The effect of initial guess (IG) on the performance of gradient based methods.

Physically, Figure 4, well describes the mechanism of the sweep enhancement in the reservoir by improvement of the initial
solution.
Comparison of Steepest Descent and Conjugate Gradient Methods The performance of the steepest descent and conjugate
gradient methods were compared. Due to the presence of the constraints, the convergence rate of the two methods did not differ very much, although the conjugate gradient algorithm does appear to give a more stable convergence path (Eclipse, 2008).
Applying these two methods to Brugge field shows that conjugate gradient method is acting slightly faster than steepest descent when the optimizer is far from the optimal point. Figure 8 compares the rate of convergence of these two methods for
two different initial guesses in the beginning of the optimization runs.
3.9

3.8

NPV (MMM $)

3.7

* CG, IG 1

3.6

* SD, IG 1
CG, IG 2

3.5

SD, IG 2
* IG: Initial Guess
CG: Conjugate Gradient
SD: Steepest Descent

3.4

3.3
0

10

12

14

Iteration Number

Figure 8: Comparison of conjugate gradient and steepest descent methods far from the optimum.

Once the optimization methods move close to the optimal point, they behave with the same rate of convergence, Figure 9.

SPE 125331

11

4.11
4.1

NPV (MMM$)

4.09
4.08
4.07
* CG

4.06

* SD
4.05

* CG: Conjugate Gradient

SD: Steepest Descent

4.04
0

3
Iteration Number

Figure 9: Comparison of conjugate gradient and steepest descent methods close to the optimum.

Robustness Verification The optimization runs were performed using the mean history matched model obtained from 104
history matched realizations. To verify the robustness of the optimal solution against geological uncertainties, it was applied to
ten more randomly chosen history matched models. Figure 10 shows the response of other updated geological realizations to
the optimal solutions. In a robust optimization approach, this is done with optimization of the average NPV obtained from the
simulation of all geological realizations. In this study, to improve the optimization run time and get a deeper insight to production optimization task, this was performed with the mean model obtained from 104 history matched realizations. Here, the
optimized rates from E300 optimizer were transferred to E100 simulator. Since the two simulators have some differences, the
optimal objective value was changed by a small amount, using E100 simulator. The results confirm the robustness of the optimal solution. This also suggests the use of the mean history matched model for robust optimization when the response from
different history matched models is the same.

4.4

4.1

Model 10

Model 9

Model 8

Model 7

Model 6

Mean Model

Model 5

Model 4

Model 3

Model 2

4.2
Model 1

NPV (MMM $)

4.3

4
1

10

11

History Matched Models

Figure 10: Testing the robustness of the optimal solution.

Comparison with Other Works The final results from the proactive control here are compared with other approaches. Table
6 shows the results for the scenarios do nothing, in case no control is taken on the production and injection rates, and both the
injection and production rates are assigned to each well completion based on the productivity and injectivity indices. In a second scenario, the action is taken based on real time measurements in a reactive approach. The reactive approaches are first a
simple action based on economic water cut, 0.94, in the producers. Both the injection and production rates are assigned based
on productivity and injectivity indices respectively. Second the reactive control from Peters et al. (2009) was applied to our
mean history matched model, since we did not have access to the real model. The rules for the reactive base case were as follows:
Production only from layers 1 and 2;
Injection only in layers 2 and 3;

12

SPE 125331

for all producers: close in the inflow control valve (ICV) layer 2 at 92% water cut;
for all producers: close in the well at 94% water cut;
Water cut is checked after every calculation time step (usually 30 d);
all wells are produced at liquid rate constraint
The production and injection rates were assigned automatically by Eclipse according to potential of completions. These rules
were set to get a waterflooding from bottom towards the top, taking into account that the main geological structure as a sequence of high-low-high permeability. This has been indicated as the base case with an NPV value of 4.19 MMM$ in their
paper and requires the knowledge of the real model. Also, in a previous work during the competition, Lorentzen et al. (2009)
applied a sequential quadratic programming (SQP) with a different formulation to the Brugge field. In their strategy, during
the optimization, the injectors were steered by unity voidage replacement ratio, and the producers were initially producing
from all 54 open completions. Then they closed the completions when they achieve too high water production in terms of the
water cut. The maximum water cut level used to decide on closing the different completions, within 30 days intervals, were the
optimization variables. Total number of optimization parameters was equal to the 54 open completions in the producers. During the optimization, the completion liquid rates were assigned by Eclipse automatically. Finally they transferred the optimal
water cut values to monthly liquid rates in each completion and submitted to TNO. They achieved substantial optimal NPV
values starting from a high initial guess, 4.38 MMM$, using a robust objective function obtained from ten randomly chosen
history matched models with about 4000 number of simulations. Considering the number of models, 400 simulations is needed
for every single model for SQP optimization approach without the access to the adjoint gradients. Also, some results have been
illustrated by Peters et al. from the other competitors, but their final objective value are not comparable with this work since
the history matched models are different.
Table 6: Comparison of different approaches.
Strategy

No. of Simulations

NPV (MMM$)

Improvement (%)

Do nothing
1
3.07
Economic WCT=0.94
1
3.63
Base case (Peters et al., 2009)
1
3.94
0
CG & SD
7
4.27*
8
SQP
About 400
4.51**
14
*Further improvement on this value is assumed.
**From a robust optimization approach (average NPV optimization).

Since our optimization is gradient based it may find a local optimum. Furthermore, the optimization procedure used may not
always have converged completely to the absolute local optimum. The optimum results obtained in this study therefore represent the lower limit of possible improvement. Our results are based on Eclipse optimizer version 2008.1. During the investigations, a difficulty in the optimizer was recognized and reported to Schlumberger. Further improvement on final objective function value is assumed and the results will be updated as soon as the difficulty is resolved in the future versions.
Conclusion
Two gradient based methods were applied to a waterflooding optimization problem. The liquid rates were recognized as the
best decision variables for the problem. Improvement of the initial solution improved both the efficiency and results of the
gradient based methods considerably. Comparing the steepest descent and conjugate gradient methods for Brugge field
showed that the conjugate gradient method acts slightly faster in the beginning when the initial solution is far from the optimal
point. Close to the optimum the two methods act with the same rate of convergence.
Further work
The manual optimization of the initial solution had considerable effect on the efficiency and final objective value of the
mathematical optimization algorithms. Preparation of an appropriate workflow and automation of this manual algorithm is
intended for further research to start the optimization algorithms from a reasonable point.
Acknowledgement
The financial support by Research Council of Norway (PETROMAKS) and StatoilHydro is acknowledged. Academic
ECLIPSE licenses were donated by Schlumberger. We wish to acknowledge our colleagues Renato Markovinovic, Rolf J.
Lorentzen and Ali Shafieirad for helpful and efficient discussions during this work.
References
Aanonsen, S.I., Naevdal, G., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C. and Valles, B., 2009, Review Paper: Ensemble Kalman Filter to Petroleum Engineering, SPEJ (SPE 117274-PA).
Addiego-Guevara, E.A., Jackson, M.D. and Giddins, M.A., 2008, Insurance Value of Intelligent Well Technology against Reservoir Uncertainty, SPE 113918, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19-23 April.

SPE 125331

13

Aitokhuehi, I. and Durlofsky, L.J., 2005, Optimizing the Performance of Smart Wells in Complex Reservoirs Using Continuously Updated
Reservoir Models, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 48 (3-4), pp. 254-264.
Alhuthali, A. H., Datta-Gupta, A., Yuen, B. and Fontanilla, J.P., 2009, Field Application of Waterflood Optimization via Optimal Rate
Control with Smart Wells, SPE 118948, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4 February.
Asheim, H., 1987, Optimal Control of Water Drive, SPE 15978, Provided to the SPE for Distribution and Possible Publication in an SPE
Journal.
Asheim, H., 1988, Maximization of Water Sweep Efficiency by Controlling Production and Injection Rates, SPE 18365, European Petroleum Conference, London, U.K., 16-19 October.
Awasthi, A., Sankaran, S., Nikolaou, M., Saputelli, L. and Mijares, G., 2008, Short-Term Production Optimization by Automated Adaptive
Modeling and Control, SPE 112239, SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brouwer, D.R. and Jansen, J.D., 2001, Recovery Increase through Waterflooding with Smart Well Technology, SPE 68979, SPE European
Formation Damage and Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 21-22 May.
Brouwer, D.R. and Jansen, J.D., 2002, Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding with Smart Wells using Optimal Control Theory, SPE
78278, European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 29-31 October.
Brouwer, D.R., 2004, Dynamic Waterflood Optimization with Smart Wells using Optimal Control Theory, PhD Thesis, Delft University
of Technology, The Netherlands.
Brouwer, D.R. and Jansen, J.D., 2004, Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding with Smart Wells using Optimal Control Theory, SPE
Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 391-402.
Brouwer, D.R., Naevdal, G., Jansen, J.D., Vefring, E.H. and van Kruijsdijk, C.P.J.W., 2004, Improved Reservoir Management Through
Optimal Control and Continuous Model Updating, SPE 90149, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-29 September.
Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S. and Zhang, D., 2008, Efficient Ensemble-Based Closed-Loop Production Optimization, SPE 112873, SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19-23 April.
Chen, Y. and Oliver, D.S., 2009, Ensemble-based Closed-loop Optimization Applied to Brugge Field, SPE 118926, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Woodland, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4 February.
Ebadi, F. and Davis, D.R., 2006, Should Proactive or Reactive Control Be Chosen for Intelligent Well Management, SPE 99929, Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherland, 11-13 April.
Eclipse, 2008, Version 2008.1, Technical Manual, pp. 657-668, Schlumberger, http://www.slb.com.
Evensen, G., 1994, Sequential Data Assimilation with a Non-linear Quasi-geostrophic Model Using Monte Carlo Methods to Forecast Error
Statistics, J. Geophys. Res., 99(C5), 10, 143-10, 162.
Evensen, G., 2006, Data Assimilation: The Ensemble Kalman Filter, Springer press.
Fletcher, R. and Reeves, C.M., 1964, Function Minimization by Conjugate Gradients, Computer Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 149154.
Jansen, J.D., Brouwer, D.R., Naevdal, G. and van Kruijsdijk, C.P.J.W., 2005,Closed-Loop Reservoir Management, First Break, Vol. 23,
pp. 43-48.
Jansen, J.D., Douma, S.D., Brouwer, D.R., Van den Hof, P.M.J., Bosgra, O.H. and Heemink, A.W., 2009, Closed-Loop Reservoir Management, SPE 119098, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4 February.
Lorentzen, R.J., Berg, A.M., Naevdal, G. and Vefring, E.H., 2006, A New Approach for Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding Problems, SPE 99690, SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lorentzen, R.J., Shafieirad, A. and Naevdal, G., 2009, Closed Loop Reservoir Management using the Ensemble Kalman Filter and Sequential Quadratic Programming, SPE 119101, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Woodland, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4 February.
Markovinovic, R., 2009, System-Theoretical Model Reduction for Reservoir Simulation and Optimization, PhD Thesis, Delft University.
Naevdal, G., Johnsen, L.M., Aanonsen, S.I. and Vefring, E.H., 2005, Reservoir Monitoring and Continuous Model Updating Using Ensemble Kalman Filter, SPE Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 66-74.
Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.J., 2006, Numerical Optimization, Second Edition, Springer press.
Optimization Technology Center (OTC), 2008, http://www-new.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Guide/OptWeb/index.html.
Peters, E., Arts, R.J., Brouwer, G.K. and Geel, C.R., 2009, Results of Brugge Benchmark Study for Flooding Optimization and History
Matching, SPE 119094, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Woodland, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4 February.
Reddick, C., 2006, Field of the Future: Making BPs Vision a Reality, SPE 99777, Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, Netherland, 11-13 April.
Saputelli, L., Nikolaou, M. and Economids, M.J., 2005, Self-Learning Reservoir Management, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering
Journal, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 534-547.
Saputelli, L., Nikolaou, M. and Economids, M.J., 2006, Real-Time Reservoir Management: A Multiscale Adaptive Optimization and Control Approach, Computational Geosciences, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 61-96.
Saputelli, L., Ramirez, K., Chegin, J. and Cullick, S., 2009, Waterflood Recovery Optimization Using Intelligent Wells and Decision
Analysis, SPE 120509, Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.

14

SPE 125331

Sarma, P., Aziz, K. and Durlofsky, L.J., 2005, Implementation of Adjoint Solution for Optimal Control of Smart Wells, SPE 92864, SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A..
Sarma, P., Chen, W., Durlufsky, L. and Aziz, K., 2008, Production Optimization with Adjoint Models under Non-linear Control-State Path
Inequality Constraints, SPE Reservoir Engineering and Evaluation Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 326-339.
Sarma, P. and Chen, W.H., 2008, Applications of Optimal Control Theory for Efficient Production Optimization of Realistic Reservoirs,
IPTC 12480, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December.
Sudaryanto, B. and Yortsos, Y.C., 2000, Optimization of Fluid Front Dynamics in Porous Media Using Rate Control. I. Equal Mobility
Fluids, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 16561670.
Sudaryanto, B. and Yortsos, Y.C., 2001, Optimization of Displacements in Porous Media Using Rate Control, SPE 71509, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October.
Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N. and King, P.R., 2004, Errors in History Mathing, SPEJ, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 352-361.
Unneland, T. and Hauser, M., 2005, Real-Time Asset Management: From Vision to Engagement-An Operators Experience, SPE 96390,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9-12 October.
Van Essen, G.M., Zandvliet, M.J., Van den Hof, P.M.J., Bosgra, O.H. and Jansen, J.D., 2009, Robust Waterflooding Optimization of Multiple Geological Scenarios, SPEJ, Vol. 14, pp. 202-210.
Virnovsky, G.A., 1988, On Optimal Control of Multiphase Porous Flow in an Oil Bed, U.S.S.R. Comput. Maths. Math. Phys., Vol. 28,
No. 3, pp. 156163. Article contains error in the name of author: in the article the name is Birnovskii, G.A..
Virnovsky, G.A., 1991, Water flooding Strategy Design Using Optimal Control Theory, The 6th European IOR Symposium, Stavanger,
Norway, 21-23 May.
Wang, C., Li, G. and Reynolds, A.C., 2007, Production Optimization in Closed Loop Reservoir Management, SPE 109805, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, U.S.A..
Yeten, B. and Jalali, Y., 2001, Effectiveness of Intelligent Completions in a Multiwell Development Context, SPE 68077, SPE Middle
East Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March.
Yeten, B., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K., 2002, Optimization of Smart Well Control, SPE 79031, SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Yeten, B., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K., 2003, Optimization of Nonconventional Well Type, Location, and Trajectory, SPEJ, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp. 200-210.
Yeten, B., Brouwer, D.R., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K., 2004, Decision Analysis under Uncertainty for Smart Well Deployment, Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 43, pp. 183-199.