Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/125945
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAlrashdi, Z.-
dc.contributor.authorSayyafzadeh, M.-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019; 177:1042-1058-
dc.identifier.issn0920-4105-
dc.identifier.issn1873-4715-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/125945-
dc.descriptionAvailable online 20 February 2019-
dc.description.abstractField development optimisation is a critical task in the modern reservoir management processes. The optimum setting provides the best exploitation strategy and financial returns. However, finding such a setting is difficult due to the non-linearity between the reservoir response and the development strategy parameters. Therefore, growing attention is being paid to computer-assisted optimisation algorithms, due to their capabilities in handling optimisation problems with such complexities. In this paper, the performance of (μ + Λ) Evolution Strategy (ES) Algorithm is compared to Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimisation (PSO) and (μ, Λ) Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) using five different optimisation cases. The 1st and 2nd cases are well placement and trajectory optimisation, respectively, which have rough objective function surfaces and a small number of dimensions. The 3rd Case is well control optimisation with a small number of dimensions, while the 4th case is a high-dimensional control optimisation. Lastly, the 5th case is joint optimisation that includes the number of wells, type, trajectory, and control, which has a high dimensional rugged surface. The results show that the use of ES as the optimisation algorithm delivers promising results in all cases, except case 3. It converged to a higher NPV compared to the other algorithms with the same computational budget. The obtained solutions also outperformed the ones delivered by reservoir engineering judgments.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityZaid Alrashdi, Mohammad Sayyafzadeh-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherElsevier BV-
dc.rights© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.047-
dc.subjectEvolution strategy; Well placement optimisation; Nonconventional well; Control optimisation; Joint optimisation-
dc.title(μ + Λ) Evolution strategy algorithm in well placement, trajectory, control and joint optimisation-
dc.title.alternative(mu + Lambda) Evolution strategy algorithm in well placement, trajectory, control and joint optimisation-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.047-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidSayyafzadeh, M. [0000-0002-4414-372X]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Australian School of Petroleum publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.