Investigation of Biases Caused by Model-Based Optimization Processes for Reservoir Management

Abstract In reservoir management, many decisions are made considering model-based production forecasts and optimization processes. These approaches can generate biases and the actual production and economic return may be overestimated. One of the reasons for these biases is the optimization process itself (procedure bias). Thus, the objective of this work is to investigate biases caused by model-based optimization processes using synthetic benchmark cases, analyzing the magnitude and the impact on future decisions. We use synthetic benchmarks composed of: (1) an ensemble of data-assimilated simulation models; (2) a subset of this ensemble, named Representative Models (RMs); (3) a reference case, used as the real response of the reservoir (ground truth). Two case studies are analyzed: one focused on design variables (development phase), and the other on control variables (management phase). We demonstrate how specialized and robust strategies (resulting from nominal and robust optimizations, respectively) behave in relation to the ensemble of models and in relation to the reference case, using Net Present Value (NPV) and Expected Monetary Value (EMV) as objective functions. The results confirm the presence of bias and overestimated forecasts caused by optimization processes. In Case Study 1 (development phase), the robust strategy showed an expected return improvement of 45% due to optimization, while the actual gain was only 6%. Specialized strategies presented differences between expected and actual economic gains ranging from 38% to 179% (with an average of 79%). In Case Study 2 (management phase), the robust strategy yielded a 4.1% expected increase in economic return compared to a 2.5% actual gain, with specialized strategies showing an average overestimation of 38% for the specialized strategies. The bias was stronger in Case Study 1 due to the greater impact of development variables on reservoir performance. Risk curve and boxplot analyses showed that strategies tend to become overly specialized to the model in which they were optimized, may leading to suboptimal decisions when applied to the real field. By employing synthetic benchmarks with known reference cases, this work quantifies the overestimation introduced by optimization processes, providing valuable insights to help practitioners recognize and account for procedure bias, reducing the risk of overconfident model-based decisions in real-field applications.