Use of low-fidelity models with machine-learning error correction for well placement optimization

TL;DR

This paper introduces a framework combining low-fidelity models and machine learning error correction to significantly accelerate well placement optimization, maintaining near-optimal results compared to high-fidelity simulations.

Contribution

The work presents a novel integration of low-fidelity models with machine learning error correction for efficient well placement optimization, reducing computational cost substantially.

Findings

Speedup factor of 46 in the first case

NPV within 1% of high-fidelity results in the best case

Speedup factor of about 8 in the second case

Abstract

Well placement optimization is commonly performed using population-based global stochastic search algorithms. These optimizations are computationally expensive due to the large number of multiphase flow simulations that must be conducted. In this work, we present an optimization framework in which these simulations are performed with low-fidelity (LF) models. These LF models are constructed from the underlying high-fidelity (HF) geomodel using a global transmissibility upscaling procedure. Tree-based machine-learning methods, specifically random forest and light gradient boosting machine, are applied to estimate the error in objective function value (in this case net present value, NPV) associated with the LF models. In the offline (preprocessing) step, preliminary optimizations are performed using LF models, and a clustering procedure is applied to select a representative set of 100--150 well configurations to use for training. HF simulation is then performed for these configurations, and the tree-based models are trained using an appropriate set of features. In the online (runtime) step, optimization with LF models, with the machine-learning correction, is conducted. Differential evolution is used for all optimizations. Results are presented for two example cases involving the placement of vertical wells in 3D bimodal channelized geomodels. We compare the performance of our procedure to optimization using HF models. In the first case, 25 optimization runs are performed with both approaches. Our method provides an overall speedup factor of 46 relative to optimization using HF models, with the best-case NPV within 1% of the HF result. In the second case fewer HF optimization runs are conducted (consistent with actual practice), and the overall speedup factor with our approach is about 8. In this case, the best-case NPV from our procedure exceeds the HF result by 3.8%