Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A two-stage optimization strategy for large-scale oil field development

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Optimization and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The optimization of the locations of a large number of wells in an oil or gas field represents a challenging computational problem. This is because the number of optimization variables scales with the maximum number of wells considered. In this work, we develop and test a new two-stage strategy for large-scale oil field optimization problems. In the first stage, wells are constrained to lie in repeated patterns, and the reduced set of optimization variables defines the pattern type and geometry (e.g., well spacing, orientation). For this component of the optimization, we introduce several important modifications, including optimization of the drilling sequence, to an existing well-pattern optimization procedure. The solutions obtained in the first stage are then used to initialize the second stage optimization. In this stage we apply comprehensive field development optimization, where the well location, type (injection or production well), drill/do not drill decision, completion interval for 3D models, and drilling time variables are determined for each well. Pattern geometry is no longer enforced in this stage. Specialized treatments (consistent with actual drilling practice) are introduced for cases where multiple geomodels, used to capture geological uncertainty, are considered. In both stages optimization is achieved using a particle swarm optimization-mesh adaptive direct search (PSO-MADS) method. The two-stage procedure is applied to 2D and 3D models corresponding to different geological scenarios. Both deterministic and geologically uncertain systems are considered. Optimization results using the new procedure are shown to clearly outperform those from the single-stage comprehensive field development optimization approach. Specifically, for the same number of function evaluations, the two-stage treatment provides net present values that exceed those of the single-stage approach by about 15–18% for the cases considered. This suggests that this optimization strategy may indeed lead to improved results in practical problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertoni A, Lake LW (2003) Inferring interwell connectivity only from well-rate fluctuations in waterfloods. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 6(01):6–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aliyev E, Durlofsky LJ (2017) Multilevel field development optimization under uncertainty using a sequence of upscaled models. Math Geosci 49(3):307–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awasthi U, Marmier R, Grossmann IE (2019) Multiperiod optimization model for oilfield production planning: bicriterion optimization and two-stage stochastic programming model. Optim Eng 20(4):1227–1248

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Awotunde AA (2014) On the joint optimization of well placement and control. Paper SPE-172206-MS presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section technical symposium and exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 21–24 Apr

  • Awotunde AA (2019) A comprehensive evaluation of dimension-reduction approaches in optimization of well rates. SPE J 24(03):912–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros E, Van den Hof P, Jansen J (2020) Informed production optimization in hydrocarbon reservoirs. Optim Eng 21(1):25–48

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • de Brito DU, Durlofsky LJ (2020) Well control optimization using a two-step surrogate treatment. J Pet Sci Eng 187(106):565

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso MA, Durlofsky LJ (2010) Linearized reduced-order models for subsurface flow simulation. J Comput Phys 229(3):681–700

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Echelon (2019) Echelon User’s Guide v2019.3. Stone Ridge Technology

  • Fan Z, Cheng L, Yang D, Li X (2018) Optimization of well pattern parameters for waterflooding in an anisotropic formation. Math Geosci 50(8):977–1002

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca R, Della Rossa E, Emerick A, Hanea R, Jansen J (2018) Overview of the Olympus field development optimization challenge. In: ECMOR XVI-16th European conference on the mathematics of oil recovery, European association of geoscientists and engineers

  • Fonseca RRM, Chen B, Jansen JD, Reynolds A (2017) A stochastic simplex approximate gradient (StoSAG) for optimization under uncertainty. Int J Numer Methods Eng 109(13):1756–1776

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fu J, Wen X (2018) A regularized production-optimization method for improved reservoir management. SPE J 23(02):467–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo Z, Reynolds AC (2018) Robust life-cycle production optimization with a support-vector-regression proxy. SPE J 23(06):2–409

    Google Scholar 

  • He J, Sætrom J, Durlofsky LJ (2011) Enhanced linearized reduced-order models for subsurface flow simulation. J Comput Phys 230(23):8313–8341

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Isebor OJ, Durlofsky LJ, Echeverría Ciaurri D (2014a) A derivative-free methodology with local and global search for the constrained joint optimization of well locations and controls. Comput Geosci 18(3–4):463–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isebor OJ, Echeverría Ciaurri D, Durlofsky LJ (2014b) Generalized field-development optimization with derivative-free procedures. SPE J 19(05):891–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JD, Durlofsky LJ (2017) Use of reduced-order models in well control optimization. Optim Eng 18(1):105–132

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JD, Brouwer D, Naevdal G, Van Kruijsdijk C (2005) Closed-loop reservoir management. First Break 23(1):43–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin ZL, Liu Y, Durlofsky LJ (2020) Deep-learning-based surrogate model for reservoir simulation with time-varying well controls. J Pet Sci Eng 192(107):273

    Google Scholar 

  • Khor CS, Elkamel A, Shah N (2017) Optimization methods for petroleum fields development and production systems: a review. Optim Eng 18(4):907–941

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lasdon L, Shirzadi S, Ziegel E (2017) Implementing CRM models for improved oil recovery in large oil fields. Optim Eng 18(1):87–103

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Litvak ML, Angert PF (2009) Field development optimization applied to giant oil fields. Paper SPE-118840-MS presented at the SPE reservoir simulation symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 2–4 Feb

  • Møyner O, Krogstad S, Lie KA (2015) The application of flow diagnostics for reservoir management. SPE J 20(2):306–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasir Y, Yu W, Sepehrnoori K (2020) Hybrid derivative-free technique and effective machine learning surrogate for nonlinear constrained well placement and production optimization. J Pet Sci Eng 186(106):726

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira DF, Reynolds AC (2015) Hierarchical multiscale methods for life-cycle-production optimization: a field case study. SPE J 20(05):896–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwunalu JE, Durlofsky LJ (2010) Application of a particle swarm optimization algorithm for determining optimum well location and type. Comput Geosci 14(1):183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwunalu JE, Durlofsky LJ (2011) A new well-pattern-optimization procedure for large-scale field development. SPE J 16(03):594–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdogan U, Sahni A, Yeten B, Guyaguler B, Chen WH (2005) Efficient assessment and optimization of a deepwater asset development using fixed pattern approach. Paper SPE-95792-MS presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9–12 Oct

  • Pan Y, Horne R (1998) Improved methods for multivariate optimization of field development scheduling and well placement design. Paper SPE-49055-MS presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27–30 Sept

  • Shirangi MG, Durlofsky LJ (2015) Closed-loop field development under uncertainty by use of optimization with sample validation. SPE J 20(05):908–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorek N, Gildin E, Boukouvala F, Beykal B, Floudas CA (2017) Dimensionality reduction for production optimization using polynomial approximations. Comput Geosci 21(2):247–266

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Suwartadi E, Krogstad S, Foss B (2015) Adjoint-based surrogate optimization of oil reservoir water flooding. Optim Eng 16(2):441–481

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Van Doren JF, Markovinović R, Jansen JD (2006) Reduced-order optimal control of water flooding using proper orthogonal decomposition. Comput Geosci 10(1):137–158

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Volz R, Burn K, Litvak M, Thakur S, Skvortsov S (2008) Field development optimization of Siberian giant oil field under uncertainties. Paper SPE-116831-MS presented at the SPE Russian oil and gas technical conference and exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 28–30 Oct

  • Wang C, Li G, Reynolds AC (2009) Production optimization in closed-loop reservoir management. SPE J 14(03):506–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeten B, Wolfsteiner C, Durlofsky LJ, Aziz K (2000) Approximate finite difference modeling of the performance of horizontal wells in heterogeneous reservoirs. Paper SPE-62555-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG western regional meeting, Long Beach, California, 19–23 June

  • Zhang K, Zhang H, Zhang L, Li P, Zhang X, Yao J (2017) A new method for the construction and optimization of quadrangular adaptive well pattern. Comput Geosci 21(3):499–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y (2012) Parallel general-purpose reservoir simulation with coupled reservoir models and multisegment wells. PhD thesis, Stanford University

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Stanford Smart Fields Consortium and the Stanford Graduate Fellowship program for financial support. We are also grateful to the Stanford Center for Computational Earth and Environmental Science for providing the computational resources used in this study, and to Stone Ridge Technology for providing us with the Echelon simulator. Finally, we thank Marco Thiele for helpful suggestions when this work was at an early stage.

Funding

Funding for this work was provided by the Stanford Smart Fields Consortium and the Stanford Graduate Fellowship program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Yusuf Nasir, Oleg Volkov & Louis J. Durlofsky

Authors
  1. Yusuf Nasir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oleg Volkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Louis J. Durlofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yusuf Nasir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known conflicts of interest.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

The well-pattern and scheduling optimization code is available at https://github.com/yus-nas/Well-pattern-optimization.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nasir, Y., Volkov, O. & Durlofsky, L.J. A two-stage optimization strategy for large-scale oil field development. Optim Eng 23, 361–395 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-020-09591-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-020-09591-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation