ogst
Home All issues Volume 76 (2021) Oil Gas Sci. Technol. – Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles, 76 (2021) 41 References
Open Access
Issue
Oil Gas Sci. Technol. – Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles
Volume 76, 2021
Article Number 41
Number of page(s) 23
DOI https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2021014
Published online 14 June 2021
  • Akin S., Kok M.V., Uraz I. (2010) Optimization of well placement geothermal reservoirs using artificial intelligence, Comput. Geosci. 36, 776–785. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Artus V., Durlofsky L.J., Onwunalu J., Aziz K. (2006) Optimization of nonconventional wells under uncertainty using statistical proxies, Comput. Geosci. 10, 389–404. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bangerth W., Klie H., Wheeler M., Stoffa P., Sen M. (2006) On optimization algorithms for the reservoir oil well placement problem, Comput. Geosci. 10, 303–319. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Beckner B., Song X. (1995) Field development planning using simulated annealing-optimal economic well scheduling and placement, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • Bittencourt A.C., Horne R.N. (1997) Reservoir development and design optimization, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • Da Cruz P.S., Horne R.N., Deutsch C.V. (1999) The quality map: a tool for reservoir uncertainty quantification and decision making, SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 7, 6–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Emerick A.A., Silva E., Messer B., Almeida L.F., Szwarcman D., Pacheco M.A.C. (2009) Well placement optimization using a genetic algorithm with nonlinear constraints, in: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, February 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • Forouzanfar F., Li G., Reynolds A.C. (2010) A two-stage well placement optimization method based on adjoint gradient, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • Ghazali A.K., Razib A.R. (2011) Optimizing development strategy and maximizing field economic recovery through simulation opportunity index, in: SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • Guyaguler B., Horne R.N., Rogers L., Rosenzweig J.J. (2002) Optimization of well placement in a Gulf of Mexico waterflooding project, SPE Reser. Eval. Eng. 5, 229–236. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Insuasty E., Van den Hof P.M., Weiland S., Jansen J.-D. (2017) Flow-based dissimilarity measures for reservoir models: a spatial-temporal tensor approach, Comput. Geosci. 21, 645–663. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu N., Jalali Y. (2006) Closing the loop between reservoir modeling and well placement and positioning, in: Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • Lyons J., Nasrabadi H. (2013) Well placement optimization under time-dependent uncertainty using an ensemble Kalman filter and a genetic algorithm, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 109, 70–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Meira L., Coelho G., Santos A.A.S., Schiozer D. (2015) Selection of representative models for decision analysis under uncertainty, Comput. Geosci. 88, 67–82. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Molina A.R., Rincon A.A. (2009) Exploitation plan design based on opportunity index analysis in numerical simulation models, in: Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, May 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • Onwunalu J.E., Durlofsky L.J. (2010) Application of a particle swarm optimization algorithm for determining optimum well location and type, Comput. Geosci. 14, 183–198. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Saputra W., Ariaji T. (2015) A new simulation opportunity index based software to optimize vertical well placements, public hearing of final project presentation, Department of Petroleum Engineering ITB. [Google Scholar]
  • Sarma P., Durlofsky L.J., Aziz K. (2008) Computational techniques for closed–loop reservoir modeling with application to a realistic reservoir, Petrol. Sci. Technol. 26, 1120–1140. 10th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pan Y., Horne R.N. (1998) Improved methods for multivariate optimization of field development scheduling and well placement design, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • Shirangi M.G., Durlofsky L.J. (2016) A general method to select representative models for decision making and optimization under uncertainty, Comput. Geosci. 96, 109–123. [Google Scholar]
  • Taware S.V., Park H.-Y., Datta-Gupta A., Bhattacharya S., Tomar A., Kumar M. (2012) Well placement optimization in a mature carbonate waterflood using streamline-based quality maps, in: SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, March 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • Varela-Pineda A., Hutheli A.H., Mutairi S.M. (2014) Development of mature fields using reservoir opportunity index: a case study from a Saudi field, in: SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • Wang H., Echeverría-Ciaurri D., Durlofsky L., Cominelli A. (2012) Optimal well placement under uncertainty using a retrospective optimization framework, SPE J. 17, 112–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zandvliet M., Handels M., Essen G., Brouwer R., Jansen J. (2008) Adjoint-based well-placement optimization under production constraints, SPE J. 13, 392–399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zubarev D.I. (2009) Pros and cons of applying proxy-models as a substitute for full reservoir simulations, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 2009. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 62, 41-42. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.