skip to main content
10.1145/2983310.2985762acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring Immersive Interfaces for Well Placement Optimization in Reservoir Models

Published:15 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

As the oil and gas industry's ultimate goal is to uncover efficient and economic ways to produce oil and gas, well optimization studies are crucially important for reservoir engineers. Although this task has a major impact on reservoir productivity, it has been challenging for reservoir engineers to perform since it involves time-consuming flow simulations to search a large solution space for an optimal well plan. Our work aims to provide engineers a) an analytical method to perform static connectivity analysis as a proxy for flow simulation, b) an application to support well optimization using our method and c) an immersive experience that benefits engineers and supports their needs and preferences when performing the design and assessment of well trajectories. For the latter purpose, we explore our tool with three immersive environments: a CAVE with a tracked gamepad; a HMD with a tracked gamepad; and a HMD with a Leap Motion controller. This paper describes our application and its techniques in each of the different immersive environments. This paper also describes our findings from an exploratory evaluation conducted with six reservoir engineers, which provided insight into our application, and allowed us to discuss the potential benefits of immersion for the oil and gas domain.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

suifp0197-file3.mp4

mp4

38.9 MB

p121-mota.mp4

mp4

224.6 MB

References

  1. CMG. http://www.cmgl.ca. Accessed: 2016-07-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Hover vr interface kit. https://github.com/aestheticinteractive/Hover-VR-InterfaceKit. Accessed: 2016-07-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Middlevr for Unity. http://www.middlevr.com/middlevr-forunity. Accessed: 2016-07-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Schlumberger petrel. http://www.software.slb.com/products/petrel. Accessed: 2016-07-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Cossé. Basics of reservoir engineering: oil and gas field development techniques. Editions Technip, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. M. de Carvalho, E. V. Brazil, R. G. Marroquim, M. C. Sousa, and A. Oliveira. Interactive cutaways of oil reservoirs. Graphical Models, 84:1--=14, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Denney et al. 3d visualization: A common language for the drilling and subsurface communities. Journal of petroleum technology, 57(04):80--=83, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. R. Fenik, A. Nouri, and C. Deutsch. Ranking realizations for sagd performance predictions. Published report http://www. ccgalberta.com/ccgresources/report11/2009--204 ranking realizations for sagd. pdf, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. R. Graves, J. Turley, B. Macon, et al. Educating for leadership, management and teamwork. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Harris, J. Young, N. Sultanum, P. Lapides, E. Sharlin, and M. C. Sousa. Designing snakey: a tangible user interface supporting well path planning. In Interact 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Hird, O. Dubrule, et al. Quantification of reservoir connectivity for reservoir description applications. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1(01):12--=17, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Hovadik and D. Larue. Stratigraphic and structural connectivity. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 347(1):219--=242, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Hovadik and D. Larue. Predicting waterflood behavior by simulating earth models with no or limited dynamic data: From model ranking to simulating a billion-cell model. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. M. Hovadik and D. K. Larue. Static characterizations of reservoirs: refining the concepts of connectivity and continuity. Petroleum Geoscience, 13(3):195--=211, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. H. Ishii and B. Ullmer. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 234--=241. ACM, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. L. Kinsland and C. W. Borst. Visualization and interpretation of geologic data in 3d virtual reality. Interpretation, 3(3):SX13--=SX20, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. K. Larue and J. Hovadik. Connectivity of channelized reservoirs: a modelling approach. Petroleum Geoscience, 12(4):291--=308, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. E. M. Lidal, T. Langeland, C. Giertsen, J. Grimsgaard, and R. Helland. A decade of increased oil recovery in virtual reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 27(6):94--=97, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. Gruchalla. Immersive well-path editing: investigating the added value of immersion. In Virtual Reality, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE, pages 157--=164. IEEE, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. E. D. Ragan, R. Kopper, P. Schuchardt, and D. A. Bowman. Studying the effects of stereo, head tracking, and field of regard on a small-scale spatial judgment task. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(5):886--=896, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Sharifi, M. Kelkar, A. Bahar, T. Slettebo, et al. Dynamic ranking of multiple realizations by use of the fast-marching method. SPE Journal, 19(06):1--=069, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Somanath. Exploring tabletops as an interaction medium in the context of reservoir engineering. Master's thesis, University of Calgary, Citeseer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Somanath, A. Rocha, H. Hamdi, E. Sharlin, and M. C. Sousa. Reservoirbench: An interactive educational reservoir engineering workbench. In Human-Computer Interaction, pages 340--=348. Springer, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. N. Sultanum, E. Sharlin, M. C. Sousa, D. N. Miranda-Filho, and R. Eastick. Touching the depths: introducing tabletop interaction to reservoir engineering. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pages 105--=108. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Sultanum, S. Somanath, E. Sharlin, and M. C. Sousa. Point it, split it, peel it, view it: techniques for interactive reservoir visualization on tabletops. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pages 192--=201. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Ware and G. Franck. Evaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing information nets in three dimensions. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 15(2):121--=140, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploring Immersive Interfaces for Well Placement Optimization in Reservoir Models

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                SUI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
                October 2016
                236 pages
                ISBN:9781450340687
                DOI:10.1145/2983310

                Copyright © 2016 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 15 October 2016

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                SUI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate20of77submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate86of279submissions,31%

                Upcoming Conference

                SUI '24
                ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
                October 7 - 8, 2024
                Trier , Germany

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader