Robust Optimization of Cyclic CO2 Flooding through the

Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process under Geological Uncertainties

Watheq J. Al-Mudhafar1,∗, Dandina N. Rao2 , Sanjay Srinivasan3

3306 PFT Hall, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, United States

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine an estimate for actual optimal oil recovery through
cyclic Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) process in a heterogeneous sandstone reservoir under
geological uncertainties. A robust optimization approach was adopted to determine the optimal
durations of gas injection, soaking, and oil production under geological uncertainties. 100 stochas-
tic reservoir realizations of the 3D permeability and porosity distributions were created to honor
geological constraints. Ranking was applied through quantifying of reservoir oil response to select
P10, P50, and, P90 that represent the overall reservoir uncertainty. A compositional reservoir flow
simulation was used for the GAGD process performance evaluation. Approximately 200 simulation
jobs were created, including the aforementioned durations and geological uncertainty parameters,
through Design of Experiments (DoE). The Latin Hypercube Sampling was adopted to create these
200 simulation jobs that then evaluated by the compositional reservoir simulation to calculate the
cumulative oil production by the end of 10 prediction years. The robust optimization approach was
then applied to select the true optimal solution of the highest oil recovery by taking into account the
geological uncertainties in permeability, porosity, and anisotropy models. The nominal optimization
of one single realization was also adopted for the comparison. The robust optimization has shown its
feasibility to increase oil production through the cyclic GAGD process from 4.535 to 4.62547 billion
barrels. However, the nominal optimization case increased oil production to 5.9726 billion barrels.
The presented robust optimization workflow under geological uncertainties resulted in higher oil
recovery and net present value than nominal realization optimization, with providing degrees of
freedom for the decision-maker to significantly reduce the project risk. It was specifically concluded
that the robust optimal solution represents the most economically feasible solution to obtain the
highest NPV through the GAGD process for a range $(30-80) per barrel oil prices. However, the
base case and nominal solution (no geological uncertainties) were not economical when the oil price
declines to be less than 36and32, respectively.
Keywords: Cyclic CO2 Flooding, GAGD Process, Robust Optimization, Geological Uncertainties,
Enhanced Oil Recovery, South Rumaila Oil Field

∗ Corresponding author
Email address: wmoham4@lsu.edu, Tel:+1-225-715-2578, Fax:1-888-965-9518 (Watheq J. Al-Mudhafar)
1 Researcher, Louisiana State University
2 Professor, Louisiana State University
3 Professor, Penn State University

Preprint submitted to Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering March 6, 2018

© 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the Elsevier user license
http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
 1. Introduction

Optimization of carbon dioxide flooding performance is an essential step in the development of oil
1
2 reservoirs under EOR process implementation. However, the optimization procedure requires a high
3 number of reservoir simulation runs, each of which can take hours to run, especially in some large
4
5 5 compositional reservoir models. In the real oil field evaluation of CO2 flooding, the reservoir models
6
are usually quite large with respect to the number of grids and fine-grids in near-wellbore injection
7
8 wells. The overall running time requires searching for the best optimization approach to obtain
9
10 the optimal solution with the fewest number of simulations. Additionally, the EOR optimization
11 process should take into account the geological uncertainties to obtain the true optimal solution.
12
13 10 Most of the previous optimization techniques have considered only a single reservoir model (nom-
14
inal optimization) and have not incorporated geological uncertainty by finding the optimum field
15
16 development scenario (Brouwer and Jansen , 2004, Sarma et al. , 2008, Wang et al. , 2009, Zakirov
17
18 et al. , 1996). Therefore, the Design of Experiments-based robust optimization was adopted in this
19 study to optimize CO2 flooding using the Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) process under
20
21 15 geological uncertainties through the field-scale application on a heterogeneous sandstone reservoir
22 in the South Rumaila oil field.
23
24 Since sometimes limited geological information is used to build efficient reservoir models, there
25
is the inability to precisely evaluate the reservoir performance. The limited knowledge comes from
26
27 lack of observations, distinct scales of petrophysical data, measurement error, limited understanding
28
29 20 of physical problems, and non-linear data behavior. This increases the uncertainty associated with
30 forecasting in the future reservoir performance and negatively impacts the economic returns (Zhang
31
32 , 2003). Therefore, an uncertainty assessment is necessary to construct a strong reservoir manage-
33
ment base for which development and optimization can improve the decision making (Cruz , 2000).
34
35 Geological uncertainty becomes an essential factor in heterogeneous reservoirs, in which risk in-
36
37 25 creases because heterogeneity affects the performance of EOR processes, especially with respect to
38 the sweep efficiency and hydrocarbon recovery. Several studies have reported the effect of hetero-
39
40 geneity on the reservoir performance. The combined effect of permeability variation and spatial
41 correlation of the reservoir continuity on the performance of miscible and immiscible flooding dis-
42
43 placements have been quantified through horizontal wells. Accordingly, the combination of high
44
30 permeability variation and high correlation length significantly reduces the displacement perfor-
45
46 mance of horizontal wells (Gharbi et al. , 1997). Additionally, high reservoir heterogeneity in CO2
47
48 miscible flooding performance helps make the flooding front more unstable with early breakthrough
49 (viscous fingering). However, dip angle assists gravity segregation of CO2 by forming a more sta-
50
51 ble flood front, which in turn slows down the breakthrough and allows more oil to be recovered
52
35 (Summapo et al. , 2013). The heterogeneity has been assessed by creation of a synthetic reservoir
53
54 with two depositional systems: fining-upwards, or coarsening-upwards. It has been concluded that
55
56 the fining-upwards reservoir had earlier breakthrough, higher water production, and lower oil re-
57 covery than in the coarsening-upwards reservoir. The oil recovery factor increased with an increase
58
59 in the ratio of vertical permeability to horizontal permeability in a coarsening-upwards sequence;
60 40 while an increase in the same ratio resulted in a decrease in oil recovery factor in a fining-upward
61
62
63 2
64
65
 sequence (Nguyen et al. , 2015a). A similar study concluded shale distribution is an indicator for
heterogeneity quantification. The various percents of shale, which were randomly created through a
1 set of reservoir models, were quantified for their impact on oil production through the SAGD process
2
3 efficiency. It was concluded that the location of shale baffles represents the key for their effects, espe-
4 45 cially between the injectors and producers which highly impact the recovery process (Ravalec et al.
5
6 , 2009). The heterogeneity has been likewise quantified through CO2 EOR and storage processes by
7 random generation of permeability and porosity by including thin, discontinuous and intermittent
8
9 shale laminae. The results showed that the presence of shale layers could lead to lower oil recovery
10
than the model when shale laminae disappear (Li et al. , 2015).
11
12 50 Many studies have been recently implemented using robust optimization approaches to deter-
13
14 mine the true optimal solution in various IOR/EOR studies under geological uncertainty. Robust
15 approaches have been adopted in water flooding optimization (Ambia , 2012, Lorentzen et al. ,
16
17 2006, Van Essen et al. , 2009), closed-loop reservoir management (Chen et al. , 2009, 2012), SAGD
18 process (Fedutenko et al. , 2013, White and Royer , 2003), well placement (Aanonsen et al. ,
19
20 55 1995, Alpak et al. , 2015), assisted-history matching (Nguyen et al. , 2015b), and unconventional
21
22 reservoirs (Nguyen et al. , 2016). The most recent efficient optimization approaches considering ge-
23 ological uncertainties utilize design of experiments-based robust optimization procedures. Different
24
25 approaches have been chosen for robust optimization: DECE, Designed Exploration and Controlled
26 Evolution (Nguyen et al. , 2015b, Yang et al. , 2011), Genetic Algorithm and Particle-Swarm Op-
27
28 60 timization(Ambia , 2012, Nguyen et al. , 2016), Steepest-Ascent Algorithm (Alpak et al. , 2015),
29
and Ensemble-based optimization (EnOpt) for robust optimizations (Lorentzen et al. , 2006, Chen
30
31 et al. , 2009). In Design of Experiments (DoE), setting multiple levels for each of the operational
32
33 decision factors that govern the EOR process performance results in many experimental simulation
34 runs. In EOR optimization, it is essential to determine the optimal levels of operational decision
35
36 65 factors that most significantly impact the EOR process performance. These factors are mainly in
37 the form of operational constraints in production and injection wells. The optimization of these
38
39 factors will result in the optimal reservoir performance over time with respect to field cumulative oil
40
41 production and Net Present Value (NPV).
42 In this paper, CO2 flooding was implemented through the cyclic Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage
43
44 70 (GAGD) process simulation in a heterogeneous sandstone reservoir in the South Rumaila oil field,
45 located in Iraq. Optimal oil recovery through the cyclic GAGD process was developed by integrating
46
47 multiple geological scenarios into the optimization of injection, soaking, and production durations
48
over 10 years of future reservoir forecasting. Two comparative optimization procedures for the
49
50 cyclic GAGD process optimization were considered: Nominal one single realization of vertical and
51
52 75 horizontal permeability, and robust optimization using multiple permeability and anisotropy ratio
53 realizations. The DoE approach selected for the optimization of CO2 flooding under geological un-
54
55 certainty is Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). LHS was adopted for its ability to efficiently sample
56 the uncertainty distributions of reservoir and operational parameters (Jin et al. , 2005, McKay ,
57
58 2000). LHS was considered to create many designed simulation runs evaluated by the composi-
59
60 80 tional reservoir simulation to obtain the optimal reservoir flow responses. More specifically, LHS
61
62
63 3
64
65
 approach creates the experimental simulation jobs by combining continuous levels of operational de-
cision factors and discrete levels for geological realizations that reflect the overall uncertainty space.
1 Incorporating geological uncertainties into the EOR optimization processes requires the generation
2
3 of many stochastic reservoir images (realizations) for permeability, porosity, and anisotropy ratio.
4 85 Since it is difficult to simulate all the realizations, it is essential to rank them to select the least-
5
6 likely (P10), median (P50), and most-likely (P90) models. These combined experiments are then
7 evaluated using compositional reservoir simulation to calculate the reservoir flow response or Net
8
9 Present Value after a period of future prediction (White and Royer , 2003). To the best of the
10
authors’ knowledge, the presented workflow of robust optimization has never been adopted in the
11
12 90 gas flooding literature, especially for GAGD process evaluation on a real heterogeneous sandstone
13
14 reservoir.
15
16
17 2. Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) Process
18
19 Gravity drainage is a very effective mechanism to achieve high oil recovery in water-wet, con-
20
21 nate, and water-bearing reservoirs as gravity represents the dominating driving force that controls the
22 95 gas/oil displacements. Therefore, the gravity drainage mechanism reduces the residual oil saturation
23
24 to minimum levels conditioning to the gravitational/viscous forces, shape of oil relative permeability,
25
and reservoir geometry and heterogeneity (Hagoort , 1980). Since the principle of gravity drainage
26
27 mechanism states vertical gas-oil-water displacements, the Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD)
28
29 process has been suggested as a promising technique to improve/enhance the recovery of oil in sec-
30 100 ondary and tertiary modes for both immiscible and miscible gas flooding processes. In the GAGD
31
32 process concept, horizontal producers are placed at the bottom of the payzone. The gas is injected
33
either immisciblly or misciblly in a gravity-stable mode using vertical wells completed at the top
34
35 of a formation (Rao et al. , 2004). Due to gravity segregation resulting from the contrast in fluid
36
37 densities at reservoir conditions, the injected gas accumulates at the top of pay zone to formulate a
38 105 gas cap and to provide gravity stable displacement of bypassed oil, which drains downwards to the
39
40 horizontal producers. The formed gas cap and the resulting gravity segregation of fluids, as well as
41 the drainage of oil towards the bottom of the pay zone leads to better sweep efficiency and higher oil
42
43 recovery (Mahmoud and Rao , 2008). The schematic of the GAGD process was illustrated in Figure
44
1. In comparison to other gases, CO2 is the most favorite solvent for injection because it attains high
45
46 110 volumetric sweep efficiency with high microscopic displacement efficiency by reducing the surface
47
48 tension of oil and water. Additionally, the high volumetric sweep efficiency assures delaying CO2
49 breakthrough to the production wells. Delaying or eliminating gas breakthrough results in diminish-
50
51 ing concurrent gas-liquid flow, and leads to increased gas injectivity while maintaining the injection
52
pressure. Furthermore, CO2 can extract heavier crude oil components up to C30, especially in the
53
54 115 miscible injection mode, as its solubility promotes swelling of hydrocarbon oil. CO2 also reduces
55
56 oil viscosity and attains miscibility at relatively low-pressure ranges of 1500-4500 psi (Mathiassen ,
57 2003, Rao et al. , 2004). However, many factors impede CO2 performance in oil reservoirs, such as
58
59 reservoir description in terms of: areal and vertical permeability distribution, fractures and faults,
60 as well as barriers and continuity. Moreover, gravity forces, viscous fingering, and mobility ratio
61
62
63 4
64
65
 120 further affect CO2 sweep efficiency (Mathiassen , 2003).
CO2 has other advantages that make it very effective in enhanced oil recovery projects as it can
1 be economically obtained either from thermal power plants or refineries, especially in the area of
2
3 Rumaila field.
4
5
6 3. Reservoir Flow Modeling
7
8 125 The main pay reservoir in the South Rumaila oil field was selected for full detailed compositional
9
10 reservoir simulation to enhance oil recovery through the GAGD process. For field-scale reservoir
11 modeling, there are some factors that should be taken into consideration to decide the property
12
13 upscaling and grid dimensions selection. These factors are cost, time available to conduct the study,
14
as well as the processing speed of the CPU. Simulator type is also a significant factor to be consid-
15
16 130 ered in upscaling because the compositional model (CMG-GEM), for instance, requires much more
17
18 running time than the black-oil models (CMG , 2011).
19 The main pay does not contain any complex geological features such as faults or fractures. It has
20
21 three-lithology types: sand, shaly sand, and shale distributed in a fluvial depositional environment
22 (Wells et al. , 2013), with distinct spatial permeability distributions. Therefore, Multiple-Point
23
24 135 Geostatistics (MPS) has been adopted for 3D lithofacies modeling and Sequential Gaussian Simu-
25
lation has been used for petrophysical property modeling given each of the three lithofacies in MPS
26
27 simulation (Al-Mudhafar , 2016).
28
29 The original geological model has 1,908,900 grid cells with 210, 202, and 45 grids in I, J, and
30 K directions, respectively. The regular dimensions of the fine grid blocks are constant: 50m x 50
31
32 140 m. The root mean square-upscaled reservoir model, of 69, 66, and 12 grid dimensions was exported
33
to build the compositional reservoir flow simulation.The coarse grid system has a 150m x 150m
34
35 regular dimension 54,648 total grid cells. Based on the cross-sectional well log, the 45 vertical layers
36
37 were upscaled to only 12 layers. In order to preserve the data variation and reservoir heterogeneity,
38 arithmetic and harmonic mean formula were considered for well porosity and permeability upscal-
39
40 145 ing, respectively. Since the oil relative permeability is a key factor in the gravity-drainage process
41 (Hagoort , 1980), Three different relative permeability and capillary curves were included in the
42
43 reservoir model given the three available lithofacies based on the ranges of permeability: sand, shaly
44
sand, and shale (Mohammed et al. , 2010), as shown in Figure 2:
45
46 Primary oil production started in the South Rumaila field in early 1954, but water injection was not
47
48 150 initiated until the 1980s. During that period, 40 vertical production wells, mainly located at the
49 crest of reservoir, were opened to flow. Since there is an infinite active edge-water aquifer, natural
50
51 depletion and water drive were the only production mechanisms until the late 1970s. Later, 20
52
injection wells were drilled at the east flank in order to maintain the huge aquifer support from the
53
54 west flank, which accumulates up to 20 times the influx than east one (Kabir et al. , 2007). The
55
56 155 location of the original production and injection wells were shown in Figure 3. The production
57 of some layers ceased because water cut values exceeded 98%. The 20 injectors were primarily ar-
58
59 ranged in two parallel downdip rows. Specifically, the inner row was completed only in the bottom
60 two layers, while the others were completed only in the second two layer intervals. By the year
61
62
63 5
64
65
 2004, the cumulative water injection was approximately 1.1 billion barrels. The injection rates have
160 varied widely, with a maximum of nearly 426,000 BPD for two months in 1988. Artificial lift has
1 been recently installed in the main pay wells in order to assist the wells incapable of flowing to the
2
3 surface after water cut reaches approximately 80%. Furthermore, the estimated original oil in place
4 (OOIP) for the main pay is 6.123 billion barrels. Moreover, the approximate current recovery factor
5
6 is 55% by the end of history matching period. The peak oil production rate was 1.35 MMBPD in
7 165 May 1979. The oil production rate in July 2013 was approximately 1.25 MMBPD. Figure 4 shows
8
9 the production and injection history for the field.
10
11
12 3.1. PVT Fluid Behavior
13 To track the fluids interaction through porous media in terms of their compositions, a full PVT
14
15 model was constructed through the WinProp package within the CMG reservoir simulator (CMG ,
16
17 170 2011). WinProp is a compositional equation-of-state based phase behavior and properties calculation
18 package. In WinProp, the fluid are characterized in terms of their components in order to allow
19
20 compositional fluids interaction through porous media. The calculation steps implemented to build
21 the complete PVT model, for the main pay/South Rumaila oil field, include:
22
23 1. Fluid component properties.
24
25 175 2. Plus fraction characterization.
26
27 3. Multiple-contact miscibility calculations and ternary diagram generation.
28
4. Flash, saturation, and envelope calculations.
29
30 5. Recombination and constant composition expansion calculations.
31
32 6. Differential liberation and constant volume depletion.
33
34 180 7. Separator and swelling tests.
35
36 The compositions of the primary oil and secondary (injected gas) was depicted in Figure 5 and
37 the general PVT data of solution GOR, oil and gas fomation volume factor (FVF), and oil and gas
38
39 viscosity, all as a function of pressure were outlines in Table 1.
40
41
42 4. History Matching
43
44 Validation of the reservoir model as it relates to matching the observed response to the calculated
45
46 values is a crucial step in integrated reservoir studies (Kabir et al. , 2003). If the validated reservoir
47
model accurately represents the fluid flow behavior through the reservoir and better captures the
48
49 current pressure and saturation state, it can then be used to predict future reservoir performance
50
51 in response to reservoir management and optimization. Performing an acceptable history matching
52 is not an easy step as it requires many iterations of simulation runs to reduce the discrepancy
53
54 between observed and calculated values. The difficulty of the history matching process stems from
55
the uncertainties related to reservoir and production parameters (Kabir et al. , 2003).
56
57 The parameters considered for history matching are: production and pressure data, the average
58
59 reservoir pressure, well bottomhole pressure, water cut, initial time of breakthrough, and depth of oil-
60 water contact. The most common parameters changed to achieve history matching are: permeability
61
62
63 6
64
65
 Table 1: General PVT Data of the used in the GAGD Compositional Reservoir Simulation

pressure, psia solution GOR oil FVF gas FVF oil vis,cp gas vis,cp
1
2 14.70 0.0000 1.0469 0.21852 1.3624 0.00855
3
4 100.00 36.9525 1.0748 0.03127 1.0614 0.01017
5 200.00 89.6405 1.1096 0.01540 0.9292 0.01075
6
7 300.00 128.3230 1.1333 0.01018 0.8457 0.01111
8
400.00 161.8011 1.1529 0.00758 0.7805 0.01136
9
10 500.00 193.0021 1.1705 0.00603 0.7252 0.01155
11
12 600.00 223.1102 1.1872 0.00499 0.6767 0.01170
13 700.00 252.7181 1.2033 0.00426 0.6333 0.01183
14
15 739.46 264.2473 1.2095 0.00402 0.6175 0.01188
16 1074.80 366.4098 1.2641 0.00272 0.5008 0.01227
17
18 1644.93 567.8513 1.3717 0.00175 0.3561 0.01298
19
2313.55 868.1831 1.5330 0.00123 0.2438 0.01415
20
21 4577.55 3889.9479 3.2476 0.00069 0.0646 0.02749
22
23
24
and porosity distributions, aquifer strength, relative permeability and capillary pressure, along with
25
26 vertical to horizontal permeability ratios (Kv/Kh). For a given number of observations nobs , the
27
28 mismatch error can be quantified as the weighted sums of squares of the difference between the
29 observed response Y obs and the calculated model results Y cal (Landa , 2001):
30
31 n
X obs

32 Q(x) = wi (Y obs − Y cal )2 (1)

33 i=1
34
35 185 where Q(x) refers to the mismatch error between predicted and measured history matching param-
36 eters and wi is the weight coefficient of that mismatch.
37
38 In this study, an excellent history matching was obtained through a trial and error process with
39 respect to cumulative oil production and water injection, as well as fluid flow rates in regard to the
40
41 entire field together with all wells. The production and injection matching is a good indicator of
42
43 190 reservoir and fluid behavior as it reflects the matching of water cut and saturation distributions. It
44 was not necessary to adopt an optimization tool for automatic history matching procedure because
45
46 the matching, in this study, was performed through limited number of runs after setting a suitable
47 aquifer size. Since the reservoir is surrounded by an infinite edge-water active aquifer, a strong
48
49 Carter-Tracy aquifer model was set in the reservoir model, which efficiently improved the matching
50
195 process.
51
52 The entire production history of the simulation period in this study is approximately 56 years.
53
54 The production and injection flow rates were available until February 2010. Therefore, the history
55 matching was achieved from 1954 until 2010. Figure 6 shows the match between field production
56
57 rates and cumulative oil production. Additionally, Figure 7 illustrates the production match for a
58 200 sample of four producers. However, near-perfect history match was conducted for all other produc-
59
60 ers. Figure 8 shows the match between field injection rates and cumulative water injection, and
61
62
63 7
64
65
 Figure 9 depicts the water injection match for only four injectors. Note that all other injectors have
achieved good matches.
1
2
3 5. GAGD Process Simulation
4
5 205 To apply the main concept of the GAGD process, 22 vertical injection wells and 11 horizontal
6
producers with a combined length of 3,000 m were placed throughout the reservoir within the
7
8 sand and shaly-sand lithology zones, far from shale channels. In the GAGD process simulation,
9
10 11 production wells from the original field wells were transferred and re-completed to be injection
11 wells. In addition, all the 22 horizontal producers were literally completed from the original vertical
12
13 210 production wells.
14
Initially, CO2 was injected through the vertical injectors completed in the top two layers. At
15
16 the same time, the 2nd set of three layers were left as a transition zone to allow a vertical interval
17
18 for gas gravity drainage. Next, horizontal producers were set up through the sixth, seventh, and
19 eighth layers where the oil saturation was the highest. Finally, the last four layers were left with
20
21 215 no injection/production activity, as they are fully flooded with water from the infinite edge water
22 aquifer (Mohammed et al. , 2010). The presented layer classification for injection and production
23
24 activities was suggested to reduce the fingering of the gas due to viscous instabilities. Reducing gas
25
fingering or channeling improves sweep efficiency and oil recovery (Zhang et al. , 2014). Figure 10
26
27 depicts the four groups of layers set for injection, transition, and production activities for the GAGD
28
29 220 process simulation.
30 It should be noted that all 22 production and 11 injection wells were placed in the GAGD model
31
32 prior to the optimization period. However, history matching process was implemented based on
33
the original set of vertical producers and injectors. Some of these initial wells were removed and
34
35 others were re-utilized for CO2 injection in the optimization GAGD study. The total prediction
36
37 225 period of CO2-GAGD process evaluation was set for 10 years (2016-2026). Figure 11 shows the 3D
38 horizontal permeability map, in which the locations of 22 CO2 vertical injectors and 11 oil horizontal
39
40 producers were assigned. The wells were placed in the high permeability zones, where the sand and
41 shaly-sand facies were distributed. Red color refers to the high permeable zones of sand and orange
42
43 color represents the shaly sand zones. Figures 12 and 13 show the 3D vertical permeability and
44
230 porosity distributions.
45
46 The edge-water drive aquifer, which is located at the eastern and western boundaries (Mohammed
47
48 et al. , 2010), was activated in the reservoir model, through Carter-Tracy approach, to support
49 pressure maintenance and improve history matching.
50
51
52
6. Optimization Approaches
53
54
55 235 In this paper, the optimization approach of the cyclic GAGD process was Design of Experiments
56 (DoE) techniques, such as, Designed Exploration and Controlled Evolution (DECE) and Latin Hy-
57
58 percube Sampling (LHS).
59
60 The DECE algorithm is used for generating computer experiments for sensitivity analysis and
61
62
63 8
64
65
 production optimization. DECE approach is conducted through two successive stages: Designed
240 Exploration and Controlled Evolution. In the Designed Exploration stage, simulation runs are de-
1 signed by random selection of levels for each parameter through Tabu search and experimental
2
3 design (Yang et al. , 2007). In the Controlled Evolution, the objective function is then optimized
4 based on the principle of natural selection (Yang et al. , 2007). A gene and an allele represent
5
6 each parameter and level, respectively. Identifying which gene has the most effect on the objective
7 245 function is accomplished by observing which allele leads to unwanted results and hence needs to be
8
9 deactivated. The purpose of this procedure is to obtain the maximum amount of information using
10
a minimum number of simulation experiments. The main advantage of the DECE algorithm is that
11
12 it reaches the optimal solution faster than other experimental design tools and does not get trapped
13
14 in local optima while checking for deactivated alleles. The repeated verification of the deactivated
15 250 alleles ensures that these alleles will not be re-entered into the algorithm. (CMG , 2011, Yang et al.
16
17 , 2007). DECE was employed in this paper for the nominal optimization of cyclic GAGD process,
18 where each of operational decision parameters represent a gene and hence each level of these param-
19
20 eters is represented as an allele.
21
22 Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) is a statistical sampling tool that is used to create samples
23 255 from the input parameters in order to construct many computer experiments from a multidimen-
24
25 sional distribution (McKay , 2000). To capture many levels of variation for each parameter with
26 minimum experiments, the sampling techniques provide limited data points through the design do-
27
28 main in a uniform distribution through the space-filling design (Bhat , 2001). LHS design is one
29
of these e client designs that produces minimum uniform and low discrepancy simulation jobs by
30
31 260 achieving maximum in-formation corresponding to various combinations of the input parameter val-
32
33 ues (McKay , 2000). Figure 15 shows the space-filling design by LHS for two parameters.
34 LHS provides a regular spread points design because it keeps the maximum distance between each
35
36 design point to all the other points (Stocki , 2005), and that is the strength of Latin Hypercube
37 Sampling approach. Sampling K parameters in LHS is performed by dividing each factor into many
38
39 265 equal partitions. LHS is also an augmentation procedure that generates a new set of experiments in
40
41 random manner if the original dataset does not represent the problem. There is no exact procedure
42 to determine the number of experiments that can be created, as pointed out by Stein (1987).
43
44 In this paper, LHS was adopted for the robust optimization of the cyclic GAGD process under
45 geological uncertainties, which were represented by creating several reservoir models (realizations).
46
47 270 LHS created the training dataset of simulation jobs that was evaluated by the compositional reser-
48
voir flow simulation to calculate the reservoir flow response. This workflow enables users to perform
49
50 optimization efficiently.
51
52
53 7. Optimization under Geological Uncertainty
54
55
56 Capturing a more realistic geological environment for the reservoir simulation is a crucial step for
57 275 field development optimization. Due to the expected impact of reservoir properties on the Gas As-
58
59 sisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) process performance, the optimization procedure should take into
60 account geological uncertainties and should not be based on a single realization. Therefore, multiple
61
62
63 9
64
65
 realizations were created through the the combination of multiple-point statistics and sequential
gaussian simulation and then evaluated in the compositional reservoir model in order to rank them
1 280 and determine the three quantiles (P10, P50, and P90), which represent the overall geological un-
2
3 certainty. The ranked geological realizations were then incorporated into the optimization processed
4 along with Design of Experiments (DoE). This type of optimization under geological uncertainty is
5
6 called Robust Optimization (Yang et al. , 2011). The nominal and robust optimization approaches
7 were adopted for the cyclic GAGD process.
8
9
10
285 8. Robust Optimization
11
12
13 The nominal optimization adopts only one single realization of each reservoir property. Due to
14
the inherent uncertainty associated with geological parameters such as permeability and porosity,
15
16 it is essential to take into account these uncertainties in the optimization process (Fedutenko et al.
17
18 , 2013). In order to quantify geological uncertainties, multiple realizations of the reservoir stochas-
19 tic images, which describe the unknown uncertainty space, need to be simulated (Yang et al. ,
20
21 2011). The following equation illustrates the uncertainty space (Θ) comprising of the ranked three
22 geostatistical realizations for each property (θd ).
23
24
25 θd = {θ1 , θ2 , ..., θNr } ⊂ Θ (2)
26
27 where Nr is the total number of ranked realizations.
28
29 The objective function considered in this optimization problem is the cumulative oil production
30
calculated by the end of 10 years prediction period. When the reservoir flow response (Objective
31
32 Function) in the GAGD process optimization is J, the well constraint and period parameters in
33
34 the cyclic optimization are T , and the geostatistical realizations (θd ), the objective function under
35 geological uncertainty is formulated as (Fedutenko et al. , 2013):
36
37
38 J = H(T, θd ) (3)
39
40 where H is a transfer function. The objective function in robust optimization is calculated corre-
41
42 sponding to each realization in the finite space. The objective function can then be defined as JRO
43 (Van Essen et al. , 2009):
44
45 p
46 JRO = Eθd [H(T, θd )] − r. σθd [H(T, θd )] (4)
47
48 where Eθd represents the expected value over the geological uncertainty space of all realizations θd ,
49
50 σθd is the variance, and r is the risk aversion factor (Van Essen et al. , 2009).
51 Since all the realizations are equiprobable stochastic models, the expected value equals the av-
52
53 erage of all realizations:
54 Nr
1 X ¯
55 Eθd [H(T, θd )] = H(T, θd ) = J. (5)
Nr i=1
56
57 Penalizing J¯ by subtracting the standard deviation term changes the case to be a bi-objective
58
59 optimization problem where the two objective are to maximizeJ¯ and minimize the standard deviation
60
of objective function (J) over the set of realizations. The estimated optimum of the vector of design
61
62
63 10
64
65
 variables T then depends heavily on the weighting parameter r.
By substituting equation (7) in equation (6), the final equation of a robust optimization objective
1 function can be rearranged as (Yang et al. , 2011):
2 v
3 u
u 1 Nr
X
4 ¯
JRO = J − r.t ¯ 2.
(H(T, θd ) − J) (6)
5 NR − 1 i=1
6
7 The entire workflow of the robust optimization procedure is outlined below (Fedutenko et al. ,
8
9 2013, Van Essen et al. , 2009):
10
11 1. Creating large number of Geostatistical realizations of reservoir permeability, porosity, and
12 anisotropy ratio. In this case, 100 realizations were created for porosity and permeability.
13
14 290 2. Ranking the realizations to select the quantiles of least-likely (P10), median (P50), and most-
15
16 likely (P90) that represent the overall geological uncertainty.
17 3. Incorporating the ranked realizations in the robust optimization algorithm.
18
19 4. Use Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) to generate multiple simulator experiments considering
20
the cyclic decision parameters and the geostatistical realizations.
21
22 295 5. Run all the simulation jobs by the compositional reservoir flow models and calculate the
23
24 cumulative oil production by the end of 10 years prediction period.
25
6. Review the robust optimization outcome (Objective Function) that has the optimal flow re-
26
27 sponse with optimal set of decision parameters, including the realizations.
28
29 7. Analyze the decision risk of the future prediction after obtaining the least-likely, median, and
30 300 most-likely reservoir flow response forecast.
31
32
The robust optimization flowchart was illustrated in Figure 16.
33
34 The ranking of realizations was conducted by generating 100 realizations of each property and
35
36 performing numerical simulation of GAGD performance for a limited prediction period. Then,
37 the initial oil in place and cumulative oil production were quantified for porosity and permeability
38
39 305 ranking, respectively. The immiscible cyclic optimization was implemented through a comparison
40 of nominal procedure as well as robust optimization under geological uncertainty.
41
42
43
9. Ranking of Geostatistical Realizations
44
45
46 To represent geological uncertainties, 100 equiprobable reservoir models(realizations) were cre-
47
ated honoring geological constraints for permeability and porosity through multiple-point statistics
48
49 310 and sequential gaussian simulation. Since it is impractical to simulate all these realizations in the
50
51 reservoir study, ranking was applied considering cumulative oil production for permeability and ini-
52 tial oil in place (IOIP) for porosity to determine the P10, P50, and P90 that represent the overall
53
54 reservoir uncertainty. All these property realizations were evaluated in the compositional reservoir
55 model for the ranking process with short production period. Based on the cumulative probability
56
57 315 function curve, constructed from the IOIP for 100 realizations, three reservoir porosity models were
58
59 sampled and depicted in Figure 17. In this figure, there is significant difference between the three
60 realizations that reflects the overall uncertainty range.
61
62
63 11
64
65
 The same procedure was conducted to rank the reservoir permeability stochastic models based
on cumulative oil production for a specific period. The 3D images of the three reservoir permeability
1 320 models are depicted in Figure 18.
2
3 Only the three quantiles (P10, P20, and P90) were employed in the robust design of cyclic GAGD
4 process optimization
5
6
7 10. Optimization Results of Cyclic GAGD Process
8
9
10 Cyclic GAGD process is an efficient way to sustain long-term oil production. It is difficult to
11 325 randomly assign the injection and soaking durations. In this section, we propose an integrated
12
13 approach to optimize the durations of gas injection, soaking, and oil production, along with the
14
number of cycles through the nominal and robust optimization approaches. These parameters rep-
15
16 resent the main variables affecting the cyclic GAGD process. They also have been adopted in many
17
18 other optimization cases, such as SAGD process (Frenette et al. , 2014, Yang et al. , 2009). In
19 330 addition, the approach includes determining the optimal minimum BHP of production wells that
20
21 changes periodically during the future prediction period. It should be mentioned that changing the
22 durations of injection, soaking, and production was adopted for all wells together. That means all
23
24 injectors and producers were assumed to shut-in on exactly the same time intervals; whether there
25
is exactly one BHP control per producer on each time interval of production.
26
27 335 Originally, the nominal optimization procedure did not include geological uncertainties. However,
28
29 robust optimization integrated the three quantiles of the geostatistical realizations of permeability
30 and porosity. More specifically, the three realizations represent the minimum, median, and maxi-
31
32 mum levels of the 3D geostatistical property distributions.
33
The base case of cyclic GAGD process simulation led to higher cumulative oil production than
34
35 340 when the process is operated on a continuous basis. In particular, the cumulative oil production by
36
37 the end of the prediction period in the base case of the continuous GAGD process produced 4.3887
38 billion barrels. However, the cyclic base case with default injection period setting resulted in obtain-
39
40 ing 4.535 billion barrels. Figure 19 illustrates the field cumulative oil production and oil rate in the
41 case of cyclic GAGD process simulation in comparison the continuous base case of GAGD process.
42
43 345 In this figure, it is noticeable that the cyclic GAGD process simulation obtained a significant increase
44
in oil recovery of about 142.71 million barrels more than the continuous GAGD process base case.
45
46 As a result, it is to be expected that the nominal and robust optimization approaches would improve
47
48 the performance of the cyclic GAGD process. The DECE algorithm was implemented for nominal
49 optimization of the cyclic GAGD process. The DECE algorithm calculates the optimal solution with
50
51 350 a smaller number of simulation runs than other Design of Experiments methods.
52
The base case parameters and nominal design optimization of the cyclic simulation of the GAGD
53
54 process are outlined in Table 2 that summarizes the minimum and maximum levels of the optimiza-
55
56 tion constraints.
57
58
59 355 Figure 20 depicts the flow responses (objective function) corresponding to the simulation jobs
60 of the cyclic nominal optimization process, calculated at the end of 10 years prediction period. In
61
62
63 12
64
65
 Table 2: Constraints of the cyclic parameters in the GAGD process optimization

Parameter BaseCase Min Max No. of Levels

1
2 Injection period, days 30 15 60 4
3
4 Soaking Period, days 15 15 60 4
5 Production Period, days 137 62 152 7
6
7 Number of Cycles 1 2 3 2
8
MIN BHP, psi 1000 100 2500 7
9
10
11
12 this figure, the optimal solution was obtained in a small number of simulation runs without get-
13 ting trapped in local optima. In order to demonstrate the efficacy of the optimization procedure,
14
15 the responses obtained by base case operation (without) optimization are also plotted (green filled
16
17 360 circles). As can be seen the responses obtained by optimization (red filled circles) are consistently
18 more than the base case responses. The field cumulative oil production and oil rate for cyclic
19
20 GAGD base case and optimal solutions are depicted in Figure 21 and Figure 22, respectively. The
21 optimal solution consistently has the highest values of cumulative oil production and oil rates. In
22
23 the optimization process, the levels’ frequencies of the selected parameters are decorated in Figure
24
365 23. The high frequent parameters’ levels were mostly employed in the optimization solutions.
25
26 Finally, the comparison between the base case and the optimal solution based on nominally op-
27
28 timizing one realization of the reservoir properties indicates significant increase in oil recovery, as
29 illustrated in Figure 24. More specifically, the optimal cumulative oil production is 4.59726 billion
30
31 barrels and it is 62.26 million barrels larger than the base case. The nominal optimization proce-
32 370 dure adopted only one single realization of the reservoir properties. Next, robust optimization was
33
34 performed using the P10, P50 and P90 realization of porosity and permeability. The same levels of
35
36 injection, soaking, and production periods, which were incorporated in nominal optimization case,
37 were again used for the robust optimization. Latin Hypercube Sampling was again used to find the
38
39 optimal cumulative oil recovery.
40 375 Figure 25 shows the histogram of field cumulative oil production given all the simulation jobs.
41
42 The optimal solution for the highest field cumulative oil production, obtained by the end of the
43
prediction period, is represented by the last bar (24 count) in the histogram.
44
45 Figure 26 and Figure 27 compare the results obtained by implementing the general cyclic GAGD
46
47 scheme with those obtained by robustly optimizing gas injection for cyclic GAGD process. The red
48 380 curves refer to the optimal solution of the highest field cumulative oil production and the continuous
49
50 high oil rate along during the prediction period.
51 Figure 28 depicts the cross-plots between the cumulative oil production versus the six decision
52
53 parameters that were selected in the robust optimization procedure, illustrates the optimal level
54
55 of each variable that lead to obtain the robust optimal solution. More specifically, the most-likely
56 385 levels of permeability and anisotropy ratio along with the least-likely level of cyclic parameters(the
57
58 production and soaking periods, and the producers’ minimum bottom hole pressure) have the high-
59 est impacts on the selection of optimal solutions. The median level of porosity have contributed to
60
61
62
63 13
64
65
 obtain the optimal solutions because the reservoir porosity has limited effect on the reservoir flow
response.
1 390 Figure 29 depicts the comparison of field cumulative oil production and daily oil rate between
2
3 the nominal and robust optimization resulted from the Cyclic GAGD optimization. The robust op-
4 timization process led to the result of 4.62547 billion barrels resulting in about 28.21 million barrels
5
6 of oil higher than the nominal optimization.
7 The optimal sets of the decision parameters for the robust optimization case, including the geo-
8
9 395 statistical realizations corresponding to the optimal solutions, are outlined in Table 3. The results
10
reveal that incorporating geologic uncertainty in the optimization process results in better, risk-
11
12 qualified operating strategy for the GAGD process.
13
14
15
16 Table 3: Optimal decision parameters of robust cyclic GAGD optimization
17
18 Parameter BaseCase Optimal
19
20 Injection period, days 30 10
21
Soaking Period, days 15 5
22
23 Production Period, days 137 45
24
25 Kv/Kh 0.7 0.9
26 PERMI, md P50 P90
27
28 POR P50 P50
29
30
31 In order to further illustrate the effect of geological uncertainty on the robust optimal solution
32
33 400 of the GAGD process evaluation, the optimal robust case was re-plotted along with the least-likely
34 (P10) and most-likely (P90) models of permeability and porosity, respectively. These cases with
35
36 P10 and P90 models of permeability and porosity were re-implemented with keeping the optimal
37
levels of other cyclic parameters. As shown in Table 3, the robust optimal case was achieved at P90
38
39 permeability and P50 porosity. As shown in Figure 30, there is significant cap between the robust
40
41 405 optimal case and the P10 permeability and porosity case because considering the least-likely perme-
42 ability is highly affecting the fluid flow performance. However, the P90 permeability and porosity
43
44 has identical curve to the robust optimal case because P90 porosity model does not have an effect
45
to improve the flow performance as porosity mainly affect the fluid storage, not flow.
46
47
48
49 11. Economic Evaluation of the GAGD Process Optimization
50
51 Any economic field development study should incorporate revenues, such as oil and gas sales, as
52
53 well as expenses, such as operating, water handling and injection costs (Mian , 1992, Bittencourt and
54 Horne , 1997). In order to illustrate the feasibility of the robust optimization of the Gas-Assisted
55
56 Gravity Drainage (GAGD) process, a detailed net present value (NPV) calculations were conducted
57 to evaluate reservoir flow behavior and the future field performance. NPV is a function of economic
58
59 variables representing costs and revenues. The revenue is directly proportional to the cumulative oil
60
production, which is predicted by simulator. The costs include capital (CAPEX) and operational
61
62
63 14
64
65
 (OPEX) expenditures. The NPV is one of the applications of cash flow model (future income).
More specifically, NPV is defined as the revenues from produced oil and gas sales, after subtract-
1 ing the costs of disposing produced water and the cost of fluid injection and the initial costs. The
2
3 initial costs represent the capital expenditures. The result is the net cash flow:
4
5 N etCashF low(t) = OilP roduction(t) × OilP rice + GasP roduction(t) × GasP rice–W aterP roduction(t)
6
7 ×W aterHandlingCost − GasInjection(t) × GasInjectionCost − OP EX − CAP EX
8
(7)
9
10 410 where:
11
12
13
14 • Oil price: $ per STB.
15
16 • Gas price: $3.0 per MSCf.
17
18
• Water handling cost: $3 per bbl.
19
20
21 415 • Gas Injection Cost: $1 per MSCF.
22
23 • OPEX: the operational expenditures ($1/oil barrel) that include staff costs, daily energy re-
24
25 quirements, transportation tariffs, workover operations, maintenance, and facility upgrades
26 (Al-Mudhafer , 2010).
27
28
• CAPEX: the capital expenditures ($100 Million) that include the operations of drilling, com-
29
30 420 pletion, cementing, perforation, acidizing services, and rig movement. CAPEX is also encom-
31
32 passes tangible materials, such as well head, casing and casing accessories, pipelines, cement
33 and cement additives, and completion material and equipments. Furthermore, it includes non-
34
35 tangible materials, such as bit, mud material, perforating material charges and accessories,
36 and acid material(Al-Mudhafer , 2010).
37
38
39 It should be noted that the prices of oil and gas and the cost of water injection are assumed to be
40 constant over the project life (Bittencourt and Horne , 1997, Güyagüler , 2002, Ozdogan , 2004).
41
42 Equation 7 represents the net cash flow after a given period, which is Net Future Value (NFV); it
43
must be discounted into net present value (NPV) by using the mathematical relationship between
44
45 future value, present value, and interest rate, as shown in the following equations:
46
47
48 FV − PV
i= (8)
49 PV
50 FV=PV (1+i) in the 1st year or:
51
52
53 FV
PV = (9)
54 (1 + i)t
55
56 Equation 9 can be written in the following form:
57
58 X N CF (t)
59 NPV = (10)
t
(1 + i)t
60
61
62
63 15
64
65
 425 where N P V is the net present value, N CF is the net cash flow, F V is future income value, P V
is the present income value, and t is the future time, in which N P V is calculated. The interest rate
1 i is the interest paid or received on the original principal regardless of the number of periods that
2
3 have passed or the amount of interest that has been paid or accrued in the past (Güyagüler , 2002,
4 Ozdogan , 2004).
5
6 430 In this paper and after identifying the robust optimal solution based on the cumulative oil pro-
7 duction as objective function, the NPV was considered to further illustrate the feasibility of robust
8
9 optimization under geological uncertainties. Therefore, the base case, nominal, and robust optimal
10
cases were economically evaluated by calculating the bet present value given a range of oil prices
11
12 from $30-$80/barrel, as shown in Figure 31.
13
435
14
15 It can be seen from Figure 31 that the robust optimal solution represents the most feasible
16
17 economic scenario for a range $(30-80) per barrel oil prices. However, the base case and nominal
18 solution (no geological uncertainties) were not economical when the oil price becomes lower than
19
20 $36 and $32 per barrel, respectively.
21
22 440 The designed simulations in Figure 25 were evaluated and optimized based on the field cumula-
23 tive oil production, obtained by the end of the prediction period. To further illustrates the efficiency
24
25 of robust optimization to obtain a significant optimal solution, these designed simulation jobs were
26 re-evaluated by calculating the NPV given four levels of oil prices: $80, $70, $60, $50 per barrel, as
27
28 shown in Figure 32.
29
445
30
31
32
33 12. Conclusions
34
35 The optimization of the cyclic Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) process was conducted for
36
37 the immiscible CO2 injection mode in a heterogeneous sandstone oil reservoir. All the optimization
38 cases of continuous and cyclic GAGD process were implemented, through the EOS-compositional
39
40 450 reservoir simulation, for 10 years of future prediction. The base case of cyclic GAGD simulation has
41 an increment of cumulative oil production about 142.71 million barrels over the base case continuous
42
43 GAGD process. In particular, periodic injection, soaking, and production activities led to increase
44
in the oil production during the prediction period.
45
46 Nominal and robust optimization approaches were implemented to determine the optimal so-
47
48 455 lution corresponding to the highest oil recovery for the cyclic GAGD process. Both approaches
49 involve sampling of cyclic parameters, such as injection duration, soaking, production periods, and
50
51 the number of cycles in addition to the minimum bottomhole pressure. However, the robust approach
52
additionally takes into account the geological uncertainty. Geologic uncertainty in the form of the
53
54 least-likely, median, and most-likely models (realizations) of permeability, porosity, and anisotropy
55
56 460 ratio was incorporated. The DECE optimization algorithm was implemented because it is faster
57 than other experimental design methods. DECE algorithm removes the weak control settings that
58
59 badly affected the objective function values. Therefore, it avoids the optimization process getting
60 trapped in local optima. The Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) was adopted for robust optimization
61
62
63 16
64
65
 under geological uncertainty.
465 The nominal optimization of one single realization led to 62.26 million barrels increase in cumu-
1 lative production over the base case. However, the optimal robust solution increased the cumulative
2
3 oil production by 28.21 million barrels over the nominal optimization case (90.47 million barrels
4 larger than the cyclic base case). Specifically, the base case, nominal, and robust optimization of
5
6 the cyclic GAGD process led to a cumulative recovery of 4.535, 4.59726, and 4.62547 billion barrels
7 470 of oil, respectively.
8
9 In order to demonstrate the influence of optimization under geological uncertainties, a compari-
10
son was conducted between the robust solution and the least- and most-likely models of permeability
11
12 and porosity without changing the optimal levels of other cyclic parameters. There was a significant
13
14 difference between the robust optimal case and the least-likely model case because considering the
15 475 least-likely permeability is highly affecting the reservoir flow response. In addition, a full economic
16
17 evaluation was conducted to calculate the NPV based on the base case, nominal, and robust so-
18 lutions. It can concluded that the robust optimal solution represents the most feasible solution to
19
20 obtain economic return through the GAGD process for a range $(30-80) per barrel oil prices. How-
21
22 ever, the base case and nominal solution (no geological uncertainties) were not economical when the
23 480 oil price declines to be less than 36and32, respectively. All these analyses reflect the feasibility and
24
25 necessity of embedding geological uncertainties in the optimization process of the GAGD process
26 implementation in real field-scale evaluations.
27
28
29 Acknowledgments
30
31
32 The authors would like to present their appreciation to the Institute of International Education
33 485 for granting Watheq Al-Mudhafar the Fulbright Science and Technology Awards that funded three
34
35 years of his PhD program. Sincere thanks are also due to the extra financial support of Craft and
36
Hawkins Department of Petroleum Engineering and the research grants from US-DOE, Chevron
37
38 Innovative Research Fund, and LSU-LIFT fund. Thanks also should go to the South Oil Company-
39
40 Iraq for providing the data for the South Rumaila Oil Field to accomplish this study.
41
42
43 490 References
44
45 Aanonsen, S. I., Eide, A. L., Holden, L., Aasen, J. O. 1995. Optimizing Reservoir Performance
46
47 Under Uncertainty with Application to Well Location. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
48 Exhibition, Dallas, Texas. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30710-MS
49
50 Al-Mudhafar, W. J. 2016. Multiple-Point Geostatistical Lithofacies Simulation of Fluvial Sand-Rich
51
52 495 Depositional Environment: A Case Study from Zubair Formation/ South Rumaila Oil Field.
53
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/27273-MS
54
55
56 Al-Mudhafer, W. J. M., Al Jawad, M. S., Al-Shamaa, D. A. A. Using Optimization Techniques for
57 Determining Optimal Additional Locations of Oil Wells in South Rumaila Oil Field. International
58
59 Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, (8-10 June), Beijing, China (2010). https:
60
500 //doi.org/10.2118/130054-MS
61
62
63 17
64
65
 Alpak, F. O., Jin, L., Ramirez, B. A. 2015. Robust Optimization of Well Placement in Geologically
Complex Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas. http:
1 //dx.doi.org/10.2118/175106-MS
2
3 Ambia, F. 2012. A Robust Optimization Tool Based on Stochastic Optimization Methods for
4
5 505 Waterflooding Project. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.
6
http://dx.doi.org/0.2118/160907-STU
7
8
9 Bhat, C. R. 2001. Quasi-Random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multi-
10 nomial Logit Model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, (35)7, 677–693. http:
11
12 //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00014-X
13
14 510 Bittencourt, A. C., Horne, R. N. Reservoir Development and Design Optimization. SPE Annual
15
16 Technical Conference and Exhibition, (5-8 October), San Antonio, TX (1997). https://doi.
17 org/10.2118/38895-MS
18
19
20 Brouwer D. R., Jansen, J. D. 2004. Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding with Smart Wells Using
21 Optimal Control Theory. SPE Journal 9(04), 391-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78278-PA
22
23
515 Chen, Y., Oliver, D. S., Zhang, D. 2009. Efficient ensemble-based closed-loop production optimiza-
24
25 tion. SPE Journal, 14(4), 634-645. https://doi.org/10.2118/112873-MS
26
27 Chen, C., Li, G., Reynolds, A. 2012. Robust Constrained Optimization of Short- and Long-Term
28
29 Net Present Value for Closed-Loop Reservoir Management. SPE Journal 14(03), 849-864. http:
30
31 //dx.doi.org/10.2118/141314-PA.
32
33 520 CMG. 2011. Manual of Computer Modelling Group’s Software. Computer Modelling Group. Calgary,
34 Canada.
35
36
37 Cruz, P.S. 2000. Reservoir Management Decision-Making In The Presence Of Geological Uncer-
38 tainty. Stanford, USA. 239p. PhD Dissertation, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford
39
40 University.
41
42 525 Fedutenko, E., Yang, C., Card, C. Naghiem, L. 2013. Optimization of SAGD Process Accounting
43
44 for Geological Uncertainties Using Proxy Models. CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention, Calgary,
45 AB, Canada.
46
47
48 Frenette, C. T., Saeedi, M., Henke, J. L. 2014. Integrated Economic Model for Evaluation and
49 Optimization of Cyclic Steam Stimulation Projects. SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation
50
51 530 Symposium, Houston, Texas. https://doi.org/10.2118/169859-MS
52
53 Gharbi, R.B., Peters, E.J., Elkamel, A., Afzal, N. 1997. The Effect of Heterogeneity on the Perfor-
54
55 mance of EOR Processes with Horizontal Wells. SPE Western Regional Meeting, (25-27 June),
56 Long Beach, California. https://doi.org/10.2118/38320-MS
57
58
Güyagüler, B. Optimization of Well Placement and Assessment of Uncertainty. PhD Dissertation,
59
60 535 Stanford U., Stanford, California (2002).
61
62
63 18
64
65
 Hagoort, J. 1980. Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage. SPE Journal, 20(03), 139-150.https://doi.
org/10.2118/7424-PA
1
2 Jin, R., Chen, W., Sudjianto, A. 2005. an Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Optimal Design
3 of Computer Experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inferences 134(1), 268-287. http:
4
5 540 //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2004.02.014
6
7 Kabir, C. S., Chien, M. C. H., Landa, J. L. 2003. Experiences with Automated History Matching.
8
9 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/79670-MS
10
11 Kabir, C. S., Mohammed, N. I., Choudhary, M. K. 2007. Lessons Learned From Energy Models:
12 Iraq’s South Rumaila Case Study. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(04), 759-767.
13
14 545 https://doi.org/10.2118/105131-PA
15
16 Landa, J. L. 2001. Technique to Integrate Production and Static Data in a Self-Consistent Way.
17
18 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA. http://dx.doi.org/10.
19 2118/71597-MS
20
21
Li, L., Khorsandi, S., Johns, R. T., Dilmore, R. M. 2015. CO2 enhanced oil recovery and storage
22
23 550 using a gravity-enhanced process. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 42, 502-515.
24
25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.09.006
26
27 Lorentzen, R. J., Berg, A. M., Naevdal, G, Vefring, E. H. 2006. A new approach for dynamic
28 optimization of water flooding problems. SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, (11-
29
30 13 April), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2118/99690-MS
31
32 555 Mathiassen, O. M. 2003. CO2 as Injection Gas for Enhanced Oil Recovery and Estimation of the
33
34 Potential on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. MS thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
35 Technology, Stavanger, Norway.
36
37
Mahmoud, T.N., Rao, D. N. 2008. Range of Operability of Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process.
38
39 SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
40
41 560 113474-MS.
42
43 McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., Conover, W. J. 2000. a Comparison of Three Methods for Select-
44
ing Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics
45
46 (JSTOR Abstract) (American Statistical Association) 21 (2), 239-245.
47
48 Mian, M.A. Petroleum Engineering, Handbook for the practicing Engineer: PennWell Publishing
49
50 565 Company (1992).
51
52 Mohammed, W. J, Al Jawad, M. S., Al-Shamaa, D. A. 2010. Reservoir Flow Simulation study for a
53
54 Sector in Main Pay-South Rumaila Oil Field. SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition,
55 Mumbai, India. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/126427-MS.
56
57 Nguyen, T. B. N., Dang, T. Q. C., Chen, Z. 2015. Effects of Lithofacies and Reservoir Heterogeneity
58
59 570 on Improved Oil Recovery Processes. SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, (9-11 June),
60
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. https://doi.org/10.2118/174473-MS.
61
62
63 19
64
65
 Nguyen, N. T. B., Dang, C. T. Q., Nghiem, L. X., Yang, C., Bourgoult, G., Li, H. 2015. In-
tegrated Modeling for Assisted History Matching and Robust Optimization in Mature Reser-
1 voirs. SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia.
2
3 575 http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/176290-MS.
4
5 Nguyen, N. T. B., Dang, C. T. Q., Nghiem, L. X., Chen, Z., Li, H. 2016. Robust Optimization of
6
Unconventional Reservoirs under Uncertainties. SPE Europec featured at 78th EAGE Conference
7
8 and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180108-MS
9
10 Ozdogan, U. Optimization of Well Placement under Time-Dependent Uncertainty. MS Thesis, Stan-
11
12 580 ford U., Stanford, California (2004).
13
14 Ravalec, M. L., Morlot, C., Marmier, R., Foulon, D. 2009. Heterogeneity Impact on SAGD Process
15
16 Performance in Mobile Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Oil & Gas Science and Technology-Rev. IFP, 04(64),
17 469-476.
18
19
20 Rao, D. N., Ayirala, S. C., Kulkarni, M. M., Sharma, A. P. 2004. Development of Gas-Assisted
21 585 Gravity Drainage (GAGD) Process for Improved Light Oil Recovery. SPE/DOE Symposium on
22
23 Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89357-MS
24
25 Sarma, P., Chen, W. H., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K. 2008. Production Optimization with Adjoint
26
27 Models under Nonlinear Control-State Path Inequality Constraints. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
28 Engineering 11(02) 326-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99959-PA
29
30
31 590 Stein, M. 1987. Large Sample Properties of Simulations Using Latin Hypercube Sampling. Techno-
32 metrics. 29, 143–151. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1269769.
33
34 Stocki, R. 2005. A method to improve design reliability using optimal Latin hypercube sampling.
35
36 Computer Assisted Mechanics and Engineering Sciences. 12, 87–105. http://bluebox.ippt.pan.
37
38 pl/~rstocki/cames_olh_impr_draft.pdf.
39
40 595 Summapo, S., Srisuriyachai, F., Atchichanagorn, S. 2013. Evaluation of CO2 Flooding in Multi-
41
Layered Heterogeneous Reservoir. ASEAN Forum on Clean Coal Technology, (November 11-13),
42
43 Chiang Mai, Thailand.
44
45 Van Essen, G., Zandvliet, M., Van den Hof, P., Bosgra, O., Jansen, J. D. 2009. Robust Waterflooding
46
47 Optimization of Multiple Geological Scenarios. SPE Journal 14(1), 202-210. http://dx.doi.org/
48
600 10.2118/102913-PA.
49
50
51 Wang, C., Li, G. Reynolds, A. C. 2009. Production Optimization in Closed-Loop Reservoir Man-
52 agement. SPE Journal 14 (03), 506-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/109805-PA.
53
54
55 Wells, M., Kitching, D., Finucane, D., Kostic, B. 2013. an Integrated Description of the Stratigraphy
56 and Depositional Environment of the Main Pay Member of the Zubair Formation, Rumaila, Iraq.
57
58 605 Second EAGE Workshop on Iraq, Dead Sea, Jordan. http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.
59 20131455.
60
61
62
63 20
64
65
 White, C. D., Royer, S. A. 2003. Experimental Design as a Framework for Reservoir Studies. SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/79676-MS.
1
2 Yang, C., Card, C., Nghiem, L. 2009. Economic Optimization and Uncertainty Assessment of Com-
3 610 mercial SAGD Operations. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48(09):33-40. https:
4
5 //doi.org/10.2118/09-09-33.
6
7 Yang, C., Card, C., Nghiem, L.X., Fedutenko, E. 2011. Robust optimization of SAGD operations
8
9 under geological uncertainties. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, the Woodlands, Texas.
10 http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141676-MS.
11
12
13 615 Yang, C., Nghiem, L.X., Card, C., Bremeier, M. 2007. Reservoir Model Uncertainty Quantification
14 through Computer-Assisted History Matching. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
15
16 Anaheim, California. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/109825-MS.
17
18 Zakirov, I. S., Aanonsen, S. I., Zakirov, E.S., Palatnik, B.M. 1996. Optimization of Reservoir Per-
19
20 formance by Automatic Allocation of Well Rates. 5th European Conference on the Mathematics
21 620 of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria. http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201406895.
22
23
Zhang, G. 2003. Estimating Uncertainties in Integrated reservoir Studies. PhD Dissertation, Depart-
24
25 ment of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University.
26
27 Zhang, Y., Wang, Y. T., Xue, F. F. 2014. CO2 Foam Flooding for Improved Oil Recovery: Reservoir
28
29 Simulation Models and Influencing Factors. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133:
30
31 625 838-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.003.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 21
64
65
 List of Figures

1 Schematic of the Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) EOR Process . . . . . . . 23

1 2 Curves of Relative Permeability and Capillary Curves for the Three Lithofacies Types:
2 Sand(top), Shaly Sand (middle), and Shale (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 630 3 Locations of the Original Production and Injection Wells in South Rumaila Oil Field,
4 Extracted from the Porosity Data Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 4 The Production and Injection History in the Main Pay of South Rumaila Oil Field . 26
6 5 The Primary and Secondary Compositions from the Main Pay of South Rumaila Oil
7 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 635 6 History matching of entire field production of South Rumaila oil field . . . . . . . . . 28
9 7 History matching of production wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10 8 History matching of entire field injection of South Rumaila oil field . . . . . . . . . . 30
11 9 History matching of injection wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12 10 Side view of permeability map showing four groups of layers for injection, transition,
13 640 and production activities for the GAGD process simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14
11 3D permeability map with locations of injection and production wells in high perme-
15
able zones for the GAGD process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
16
17 12 3D Vertical Permeability Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
18 13 3D Porosity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19 645 14 3D Lithofacies Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
20 15 Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHD) Design for Two Parameters (R output) . . . . . . 37
21 16 Flowchart of robust optimization procedure of cyclic GAGD process . . . . . . . . . 38
22 17 3D Distribution Images of the Ranked Porosity Stochastic Models . . . . . . . . . . 39
23 18 3D Distribution Images of the Ranked Stochastic Permeability Models . . . . . . . . 40
24 650 19 Comparison of cumulative oil production between cyclic GAGD case and continuous
25 base case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
26 20 General and optimal objective function of nominal cyclic GAGD optimization . . . . 42
27 21 Cumulative oil production from nominal cyclic GAGD optimization . . . . . . . . . 43
28 22 Field oil rate from the nominal cyclic GAGD optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
29 655 23 Frequency of Optimization Parameters in the Nominal Cyclic GAGD Process opti-
30 mization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
31 24 Comparison between base case and nominal optimal flow responses of cyclic GAGD
32 optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
33
25 Histogram of the robust optimization solutions of cyclic GAGD process simulation . 47
34
660 26 Optimal and general cumulative oil production of robust cyclic GAGD process simu-
35
36 lation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
37 27 Optimal and general field oil rate of robust cyclic GAGD process simulation . . . . . 49
38 28 Cross-plots of the cumulative oil production and the operational decision parameters
39 in the Robust Cyclic GAGD Process optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
40 665 29 Comparison of reservoir flow response between base case and robust GAGD optimization 51
41 30 Comparison of reservoir flow response between base case, robust optimal, least-likely,
42 and most-likely robust optimal GAGD cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
43 31 NPV Comparison between base case, nominal, and robust optimal solutions given a
44 wide range of oil prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
45 670 32 NPV calculations of the robust optimal solution given four levels of oil prices . . . . 54
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 22
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 Figure 1: Schematic of the Gas-Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) EOR Process
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 23
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 Figure 2: Curves of Relative Permeability and Capillary Curves for the Three Lithofacies Types: Sand(top), Shaly
Sand (middle), and Shale (bottom)
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 24
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 3: Locations of the Original Production and Injection Wells in South Rumaila Oil Field, Extracted from the
25 Porosity Data Map
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 25
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 4: The Production and Injection History in the Main Pay of South Rumaila Oil Field
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 26
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 5: The Primary and Secondary Compositions from the Main Pay of South Rumaila Oil Field
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 27
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 6: History matching of entire field production of South Rumaila oil field
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 28
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 7: History matching of production wells
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 29
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 8: History matching of entire field injection of South Rumaila oil field
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 30
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 9: History matching of injection wells
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 31
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 10: Side view of permeability map showing four groups of layers for injection, transition, and production
26 activities for the GAGD process simulation
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 32
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 11: 3D permeability map with locations of injection and production wells in high permeable zones for the
25 GAGD process
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 33
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 12: 3D Vertical Permeability Map
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 34
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 13: 3D Porosity Map
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 35
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 14: 3D Lithofacies Map
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 36
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 15: Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHD) Design for Two Parameters (R output)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 37
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 16: Flowchart of robust optimization procedure of cyclic GAGD process
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 38
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Figure 17: 3D Distribution Images of the Ranked Porosity Stochastic Models
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 39
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Figure 18: 3D Distribution Images of the Ranked Stochastic Permeability Models
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 40
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 19: Comparison of cumulative oil production between cyclic GAGD case and continuous base case
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 41
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 20: General and optimal objective function of nominal cyclic GAGD optimization
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 42
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Figure 21: Cumulative oil production from nominal cyclic GAGD optimization
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 43
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 22: Field oil rate from the nominal cyclic GAGD optimization
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 44
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Figure 23: Frequency of Optimization Parameters in the Nominal Cyclic GAGD Process optimization
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 45
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 24: Comparison between base case and nominal optimal flow responses of cyclic GAGD optimization
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 46
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure 25: Histogram of the robust optimization solutions of cyclic GAGD process simulation
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 47
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 26: Optimal and general cumulative oil production of robust cyclic GAGD process simulation
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 48
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 27: Optimal and general field oil rate of robust cyclic GAGD process simulation
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 49
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 28: Cross-plots of the cumulative oil production and the operational decision parameters in the Robust Cyclic
19 GAGD Process optimization
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 50
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 29: Comparison of reservoir flow response between base case and robust GAGD optimization
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 51
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 30: Comparison of reservoir flow response between base case, robust optimal, least-likely, and most-likely
robust optimal GAGD cases
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 52
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 31: NPV Comparison between base case, nominal, and robust optimal solutions given a wide range of oil prices
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 53
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Figure 32: NPV calculations of the robust optimal solution given four levels of oil prices
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 54
64
65