Comparative analysis of filtering methods for measurement data from complex well configurations
-
Published:2024-07-03
Issue:2
Volume:10
Page:104-120
-
ISSN:2500-3526
-
Container-title:Tyumen State University Herald. Physical and Mathematical Modeling. Oil, Gas, Energy
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:TSU Herald. Phys Math Model. Oil, Gas, Energy
Author:
Shengeliya David Yu.1, Kovalenko Igor V.2, Zakharova Irina G.1
Affiliation:
1. University of Tyumen 2. Gazpromneft Science & Technology Center
Abstract
This article presents a comparative analysis of various filtering methods for synthetic measurements that simulate data from well test analysis (WTA).
The main objective of this work is to identify the most effective filtering methods for noisy WTA data, with the aim of preserving useful information and facilitating the subsequent interpretation of the results.
The initial dataset consisted of 200 synthetic pressure drawdown (PDD) and pressure buildup (PBU) curves with varying levels of artificially introduced noise. Both classical filtering methods (Kalman filter, Savitzky–Golay filter, one-dimensional Gaussian filtering) and numerical methods based on neural networks (autoencoders) and machine learning (support vector machines) were considered for data filtering.
The comparative analysis demonstrated that the performance of different filtering methods depends on the type of curve (PDD or PBU) and the well characteristics. The best results in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and root mean square error (RMSE) were achieved using modern autoencoder-based methods.
The conclusion is that the choice of an optimal filtering method requires a detailed analysis of the specific problem and the characteristics of the input data. A combination of different filtering methods is proposed to improve the quality of processing and interpretation of WTA data for complex well designs.
The obtained results have practical significance, as they can simplify the segmentation of PDD and PBU curves, which is necessary for the correct identification of various operating periods of the well during the investigation process.
Publisher
Tyumen State University
Reference19 articles.
1. Asalkhuzina, G. F., Davletbaev, A. Ya., Khabibullin, I. L., & Akhmetova, R. R. (2020). On the selection of suitable operate durations for injection tests in low permeability reservoirs. Tyumen State University Herald. Physical and Mathematical Modeling. Oil, Gas, Energy, 6(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.21684/2411-7978-2020-6-1-135-149 [In Russian] 2. Brilliant, L. S., Dulkarnaev, M. R., Danko, M. Yu., Elisheva, A. O., Nabiev, D. Kh., Khutornaya, A. I., & Malkov, I. N. (2022). Oil production management based on neural network optimization of well operation at the pilot project site of the Vatyeganskoe field (Territorial Production Enterprise Povkhneftegaz). Georesources, 24(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2022.1.1 [In Russian] 3. Bukhmastova, S. V., Fakhreeva, R. R., Pityuk, Yu. A., Davletbaev, A. Ya., Azarova, T. P., Farger, D. V., & Yakupov, R. F. (2020). Approbation of MLR and CRMIP methods in research of well interference. Oil Industry Journal, (8), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.24887/0028-2448-2020-8-58-62 [In Russian] 4. Esipov, D. V., Kuranakov, D. S., Lapin, V. N., & Cherny, S. G. (2014). Mathematical models of hydraulic fracturing. Computational Technologies, 19(2), 33–61. [In Russian] 5. Zaikin, A. A., & Kareev, I. A. (2020). Modeling fluid flows in oil fields using the Kalman filter. Itogi nauki i tekhniki. Seriya “Sovremennaya matematika i ee prilozheniya. Tematicheskie obzory”, 175, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.36535/0233-6723-2020-175-27-35 [In Russian]
|
|