A Review of Mathematical Optimization AP

July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010
International Journal of Energy and Statistics

Vol. 1, No. 2 (2013) 143154
c Institute for International Energy Studies

DOI: 10.1142/S2335680413500105
Int. J. Energy Stat. 2013.01:143-154. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by Dr. Majid Shakhsi-Niaei on 07/31/13. For personal use only.
A REVIEW OF MATHEMATICAL OPTIMIZATION

APPLICATIONS IN OIL-AND-GAS UPSTREAM &
MIDSTREAM MANAGEMENT
MAJID SHAKHSI-NIAEI , SEYED HOSSEIN IRANMANESH

and SEYED ALI TORABI
Department of Industrial Engineering,
College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
m.niaei@ut.ac.ir
Received 27 May 2013
Revised 2 June 2013
Accepted 3 June 2013
Published 5 July 2013
The growth of demand in developing countries has given rise to a constant increase in
consumption of most non-renewable resources, including oil and gas. In this regard, the
importance of planning activities rises because of the limited availability of oil and gas
resources. Optimization techniques are tools that help upstream and midstream managers to decide optimally. The purpose of this review article is to provide a summary of
the scientic literature on optimization applications in oil-and-gas upstream and midstream management. The main problems are described within a classication scheme
and the most important contributions are summarized.
Keywords: Mathematical optimization; Oil and gas; Upstream; Midstream.
1. Introduction
Economic development mainly relies on non-renewable resources [1]. The rapid
growth of demand in developing countries has given rise to a constant increase
in consumption of most non-renewable resources, including oil and gas [2]. Liquid
fuels are expected to remain the major source of energy and their total consumption
continues to increase despite rising prices [3]. Similarly, worlds total natural gas
consumption is expected to increase by 1.6 percent per year on average. Figure 1
shows the upward trend in consumption of all energy sources.
A typical optimization problem consists of maximizing or minimizing
one/several objective function(s) by systematically choosing input values from
within allowed sets. The allowed sets of input variables are dened in forms of
several constraints. Figure 2 represents a general form of mathematical optimization problems. As oil and gas resources have a limited availability, the importance
143
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804

144
1350010
M. Shakhsi-Niaei, S. H. Iranmanesh & S. A. Torabi
Fig. 1. World energy consumption by fuel, 19902035 (quadrillion Btu) [3].
Minimize / Maximize {One or more objective function(s)}

Subject to:
Resource constraint(s)
Structural constraint(s)
Other constraint(s)
Declaring variables and variable types
Fig. 2. A typical mathematical optimization problem.
of planning activities rises. Optimization techniques are important tools that help
upstream and midstream managers to decide optimally.
As an example, a basic form of exploration project selection problem can be
formulated via the following equations:
Max z =
n
fi xi
(1)
i=1
Subject to:
n
ci xi budget
(2)
i=1
x3 + x4 1,
(3)
x2 x1 1,
(4)
xi {0, 1},
(5)
where, xi is the binary variable that denotes the selection (xi = 1) or not (xi = 0)
of the i-th project, n is the number of projects, and fi is the utility of the i-th
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010

A Review of Mathematical Optimization Applications
145
project, e.g. net present value of the i-th project. Equation (1) maximizes the total
utility achieved by selected projects.
Equation (2) applies the budget constraint where parameter budger represents the available budget. Equation (3) is an example of logical constraint where
projects 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Equation (4) is another example of logical constraint denoting if project 2 is elected then project 1 must be also selected.
Finally, equation 5 declares the binary nature of variables x. Many researchers have
added dierent considerations to this basic problem to meet real-world needs, e.g.
considering interaction between projects, uncertainty, budget segmentation, policies, and so on.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the scientic literature
on optimization applications in oil-and-gas upstream and midstream management.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Upstream and midstream optimization
problems have been categorized in Sec. 2. The literature on strategic optimization
problems is reviewed in Sec. 3. Sections 4 and 5 review the literature on tactical
and operational optimization problems, respectively. Finally, Sec. 6 concludes this
paper.
2. Categorizing Upstream and Midstream Optimization Problems

Various researchers have tried to apply optimization tools and techniques in oil
and gas planning area. Nygreen and Haugen [4] have surveyed applied mathematical programming models in Norwegian petroleum eld and pipeline development. Hagem and Torgnes [5] have classied related optimization problems into four
groups according to their time scale, i.e. operator optimization, real-time production optimization, eld optimization, and strategic decisions as shown in Figure 3.
Wang [7] reviewed the applications of optimization techniques to petroleum
elds and categorized them into the following groups:
Lift gas and production rate allocation
Optimization of production system design and operations
Optimization of reservoir development and planning
Fig. 3. Time scale for exploration and production decisions (reproduced from [6]).
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
146
1350010

Table 1. Taxonomy of upstream and midstream optimization problems.
Scope

Timeframe of
decisions
Exploration & Development
Production
Transportation
Annual delivery planning

(ADP)
Vessel purchasing /leasing

/chartering decisions
Strategic
Project portfolio selection

and scheduling
(exploration, new facilities,
pipelines, refineries,
petrochemicals, etc.)
Tactical
Staffing
Drilling optimization
Production planning
Cargo planning
Job assignment
Production optimization
and scheduling
Well optimization
Transport scheduling
Vehicle routing
Operational
Ulstein et al. [8] divided the related planning tools into operational, tactical, and
strategic tools. This classication seems compatible with that of Wang [7].
Herein, by adding production and planning scopes, we propose a mixed taxonomy for upstream and midstream optimization problems based on their timeframe
and scope of planning, as shown in Table 1.
3. Strategic Optimization Problems
Walls [9] and Orman et al. [10] endeavoured to implement Markowitz optimization
method to exploration and production portfolio project selection, providing ecient
set of portfolios via minimizing risk subject to a particular level of return. Some
researchers have added some considerations to this problem, e.g. interdependencies
among projects [11] or scheduling of the selected projects, as an integral part of
project selection model.
Bohannon [12] proposed a linear programming model for optimum drilling and
facility expansion schedules for multi-reservoir pipeline systems.
McFarland et al. [13] applied generalized-reduced gradient nonlinear programming methods to solve optimal control models for petroleum reservoir development
planning and management. The decision variables include how many wells to drill
in each time period, the production rates, abandonment time, and platform size
while the objective function of their model is to maximize present value of prots.
Aboudi et al. [14] proposed an integrated mathematical programming model for
the development of petroleum elds and transport systems. Their work was the
earliest integrated work which considers all of development, production, and transportation planning scopes at a strategic level. They considered only one product and
xed-production proles for potential elds while later works have developed these
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010

147
considerations into multiple products and variable production proles. Jrnsten

[15] proposed a model for sequencing oshore oil and gas eld developments under
uncertainty where the emphasis is on the eld sequencing decisions and the transportation network is given in aggregate form. Haugen [16] and [17] tried to incorporate uncertainties in led development planning and used stochastic dynamic
programming as the solution approach where the transportation decisions are at
an aggregated level. Even some computational improvements in dynamic stochastic
programming formulation have been suggested; the computational burden is still
onerous. Johansen [18] discussed optimal development of an oshore natural gas
eld. Nygreen et al. [19] proposed a mixed-integer-programming model for infrastructure planning. Although their model was formulated deterministically, it is used
more than fteen years by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate and other major
Norwegian oil companies. Nygreen and Haugen [4] pointed out that early stochastic modelling attempts did not survive in the companies as operative models. It
is possibly because deterministic models are hard enough to solve while stochastic
models add (stochastic) informational needs to them. Compared to the full-scale
models, attempts to include uncertainty had to contain simplications and signicantly reduce the number of possible projects, time periods, and etc.
Carvalho and Pinto [20] proposed an mixed-integer linear model and solution
technique for the planning of infrastructure in oshore oilelds as well as the timing
of extraction and production rates. Rahmawati et al. [21] evaluated optimal production strategies using several key control variables and eld operational constraints
in an integrated optimization model. Their integrated model consists of reservoir,
surface facility, and economic models.
Dutta-Roy et al. [22] analysed the compressor installation costs and operating
strategy required to meet the production goals over the life of a gas eld. Key elements of the objective function which have been optimized include a time-dependent
revenue stream based on the projected price of gas, capital costs associated with
adding incremental compression at periodic intervals, and compressor fuel consumption costs that are typically a near-linear function of the operating horsepower.
Lee and Aronofsky [23] proposed a linear programming model for scheduling
crude oil production from ve sources over an eight-year period subject to certain
restrictions.
4. Tactical Optimization Problems

Dyer et al. [24] proposed a decision support system for prioritizing oil and gas
exploration activities and then assigning personnel to the most promising ones.
Lasdon et al. [25] investigated optimal production strategies for several optimization criteria and potential constraints on reservoir over 1 to 3 year(s) period. The
strategies considered include dierent aspects of production and storage operations.
Haugland et al. [26] proposed some models for an early evaluation of a petroleum
eld which suggest decisions concerning platform capacity, drilling program, and
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
148
1350010

Table 2. Several strategic optimization researches.
Author(s)
Scope(s)

Exploration &
Development
Production
Transportation
Walls [9]
Orman et al. [10]
Brashear et al. [11]
Bohannon [12]
McFarland et al. [13]
Aboudi et al. [14]
Jrnsten [15]
Haugen [16]
Haugen [17]
Johansen [18]
Nygreen et al. [19]
Carvalho and Pinto [20]
Rahmawati et al. [21]

Dutta-Roy et al. [22]
Lee and Aronofsky [23]
Remarkable
consideration(s)
Interdependencies
among projects
One reservoir
Fixed production
proles, single
product system
Uncertainty
in price
Uncertainty in
price and
demand
Uncertainty
in resource
(eld size)
One oshore
natural-gas eld
Variable
production
Pressure in each
reservoir
Surface facilities
well production plan. Carroll and Horne [27], and Ravindran [28] used multivariate
optimization to determine optimal recovery over a period of time while Fujii and
Horne [29] also considered network parameters in determining optimum production
rates, i.e. separator pressure, the diameters of tubing, pipeline, or surface choke, and
the length of pipeline. Owing to the nonlinearity of the model, they used Newton
derivative-based methods, the polytope function-value-based method, and a genetic
algorithm. Considering several test calculations, they suggested polytope method
for low dimension problems and genetic algorithm for large systems with many
variables. Zhang and Zhu [30] formulated a bi-level programming method for pipe
network optimization. Their problem consists of a given pipe network where several
available diameters can be selected for each pipe. Palke [31] proposed an integrated
nonlinear model to optimize the gas-lift conguration. The numerical methods can
nd the combination of production parameters that maximizes the net present
value. The control parameters include tubing diameter, separator pressures, depth
of gas injection, and volume of gas injected. Polytope and genetic algorithm optimization techniques have been used which are shown to be both stable and ecient.
Barua et al. [32] used a non-linear sequential-quadratic-based network optimizer to
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010
149
Table 3. Several tactical optimization researches.

Scope(s)
Author(s)

Dyer et al. [24]

Lasdon et al. [25]
Haugland et al. [26]
Carroll and
Horne [27]
Ravindran [28]
Exploration &
Development
Production
Zhang and Zhu [30]

Palke [31]
Barua et al. [32]
Dutta-Roy
et al. [22]
Hagem and
Torgnes [5]
Atkinson and
Isangulov [34]
Remarkable
consideration(s)
Single-well system
Fujii and Horne [29]
Bittencourt and
Horne [33]
Ulstein et al. [8]
Transportation
Decision variables can

vary with time
Multi-well production
system
Compressor installation
cost and operating
strategy
Disruptions, ow
components, chemical
processing, markets
Failure of a component
solve some of the typical problems in the oil and gas production including tactical
operation problems. Bittencourt and Horne [33] used a hybrid genetic algorithm for
reservoir development decisions including reservoir properties, well locations, and
production scheduling parameters. They applied their model on a real oil eld development project with 33 new wells. The wells were allowed to be placed anywhere in
the reservoir and could be vertical or horizontal. They reported a reduction of the
total number of new wells as a result. Ulstein et al. [8] proposed a mathematical
model to optimize a group of tactical decisions, i.e. Regulation of production levels
from wells, splitting of production ows into oil and gas products, and further processing of gas and transportation in a pipeline network. They implemented their
model in Norwegian production network and also analyzed possible shut-downs in
one of its production elds. Hagem and Torgnes [5] proposed and evaluated dierent
mathematical models for a petroleum production allocation problem and investigated the computational performance of a parallel Dantzig-Wolfe algorithm and
Branch & Price applied to these problems. Atkinson and Isangulov [34] formulated
a mathematical model for development of an oil and gas eld. They considered
completion of wells and production amounts as random processes.
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
150
1350010

5. Operational Optimization Problems

Attra et al. [35] used linear programming to maximize daily income from a multireservoir producing eld on a day-to-day basis. Lo and Holden [36] proposed two
methods for maximizing eld oil rate at every time step. In the rst method, the
problem of well management is formulated as a linear programming problem and
solved by the standard Simplex method. The second method provides approximate
results in close agreement with the LP results (within 5%) for most cases. Christiansen and Nygreen [37] proposed a planning model for the management of approximately 130 petroleum-producing wells in the North Sea including decisions about
which wells to produce from and which to shut down during a period. The wellmanagement model is solved by means of a standard mathematical programming
procedure. Nishikiori et al. [38] developed a new method to maximize the total oil
production rate and to determine the optimum gas injection rates for a group of continuous gas lift wells. They used a quasi-Newton nonlinear optimization technique
to solve this problem. Fang and Lo [39] developed an integrated model to maximize
oil production which considers reservoir performance, wellbore hydraulics, surface
facility constraints, and lift-gas allocation. Dutta-Roy and Kattapuram [40] proposed an approach for simulation and optimization of the overall gas-lift allocation
problem using pressure-balance-based multiphase ow network solving technique
integrated with a robust sequential quadratic programming approach.
Heiba et al. [41] formulated an integrated approach for management of cyclic
stimulation programs. The approach combines the use of technologies to simulate
the ow of steam in networks and wellbores with an industrially tested variant of
the successive quadratic programming algorithm for process optimization. Vazquez
et al. [42] developed an optimization procedure combining articial intelligence
techniques with operations research techniques to deal with oil production systems.
Yeten et al. [43] proposed a methodology for optimization of nonconventional wells
which are more complicated than other well optimization problems. Wang et al.
[44] developed an optimization technique for allocating production rates and lift-gas
rates to wells in large elds subject to multiple ow rate and pressure constraints.
Neiro and Pinto [45] developed a complex multi-period mixed-integer-non-linear
programming model for petroleum supply chain including some nodes representing
reneries, terminals, and pipeline networks. Decision variables consist of stream
ow rates, properties, operational variables, inventory, and facilities assignment.
Huseby and Haavardsson [46] optimized the problem of determining production shares of dierent reservoirs in a multi-reservoirs eld. Their model considers
uncertainty about key reservoir parameters. However, the optimization problem is
analysed deterministically.
Gunnerud and Foss [47] proposed a mixed-integer-linear model for real-time
optimization of production network. They used and tested two decomposition methods in order to lower the computational complexity of the problem, i.e. Lagrange
decomposition and DantzigWolfe decomposition. Herr
an et al. [48] formulated a
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010
151
Table 4. Several operational optimization researches.

Scope(s)
Author(s)
Exploration &
Development

Dutta-Roy and
Kattapuram [40]
Heiba et al. [41]
Vazquez et al. [42]
Yeten et al. [43]
Wang et al. [44]
Neiro and
Pinto [45]
Huseby and
Haavardsson [46]
Gunnerud and
Foss [47]
Herr
an et al. [48]
Transportation
Attra et al. [35]

Lo and Holden [36]
Christiansen and
Nygreen [37]
Nishikiori et al. [38]
Fang and Lo [39]
Production
Multiple reservoirs
Multiple ow rate
constraints
Lift gas and production

rates
Flow interactions among
wells
Remarkable
consideration(s)
Flow interactions among

wells when allocating
well rates
Petroleum supply chain
Multiple reservoirs with
uncertain parameters
Multiple petroleum
products in a
multi-pipeline system
mathematical model for optimizing transportation of multiple petroleum products

in a multi-pipeline system where multiproduct pipelines have been connected and
formed a complex system.
6. Conclusion
The study of oil-and-gas upstream & midstream optimization problems is a relatively new and fast growing research area which should gain importance because
in many situations, decisions are irreversible and have a signicant impact on the
industry. Moreover, it has been observed that optimization techniques, in a wide
variety of models, have helped upstream and midstream managers in making optimal decisions.
References
[1] Mennenga, M., Thiede, S., Beier, J., Dettmer, T., Kara, S., and Herrmann, C. (2012).
A Forecasting Model for the Evaluation of Future Resource Availability. In Leveraging
Technology for a Sustainable World (Springer), pp. 449454.
[2] BGR (2010). Bundesrepublik Deutschland Rohstositutation. In Rohstowirtschaftliche L
anderstudien, Schweizerbart, Germany. Available at: www.bgr.bund.de
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804

152
1350010
[3] EIA (2011). International energy outlook. Energy Information Administration, USA.
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo
[4] Nygreen, B., and Haugen, K. (2010). Applied Mathematical Programming in Norwegian Petroleum Field and Pipeline Development: Some Highlights from the Last
30 Years. In Energy, Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, (Springer),
pp. 5969.
[5] Hagem, E., and Torgnes, E. (2009). Petroleum Production Planning Optimization
Applied to the Statoil Hydro Oshore Oil and Gas Field Troll West. MSc Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
[6] Schlumberger (2005). Acting in Time to Make the Most of Hydrocarbon Resources.
Oileld Rev, 17(4), pp. 413.
[7] Wang, P. (2003). Development and applications of production optimization techniques
for petroleum elds. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
[8] Ulstein, N. L., Nygreen, B., and Sagli, J. R. (2007). Tactical planning of oshore
petroleum production. European Journal of Operational Research, 176(1), pp. 550
564.
[9] Walls, M. R. (2004). Combining decision analysis and portfolio management to
improve project selection in the exploration and production rm. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44(12), pp. 5565.
[10] Orman, M. M., and Duggan, T. E. (1999). Applying Modern Portfolio Theory to
Upstream Investment Decision Making. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 51(3),
pp. 5053.
[11] Brashear, J. P., Becker, A. B., and Gabriel, S. A. (1999). Interdependencies Among
E&P Projects and Portfolio Risk Management. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas.
[12] Bohannon, J. (1970). A Linear Programming Model for Optimum Development
of Multi-Reservoir Pipeline Systems. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 22(11),
pp. 14291436.
[13] McFarland, J. W., Lasdon, L., and Loose, V. (1984). Development planning and
management of petroleum reservoirs using tank models and nonlinear programming.
Operations Research, 32(2), pp. 270289.
[14] Aboudi, R., Hallefjord,
A., Helgesen, C., Helming, R., Jrnsten, K., Pettersen, A. S.,
Raum, T., and Spence, P. (1989). A mathematical programming model for the development of petroleum elds and transport systems. European Journal of Operational
Research, 43(1), pp. 1325.
[15] Jrnsten, K. O. (1992). Sequencing oshore oil and gas elds under uncertainty.
European Journal of Operational Research, 58(2), pp. 191201.
[16] Haugen, K. K. (1991). Possible computational improvements in a stochastic dynamic
programming model for scheduling of o-shore petroleum elds. PhD thesis, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
[17] Haugen, K. K. (1996). A Stochastic Dynamic Programming model for scheduling of
oshore petroleum elds with resource uncertainty. European Journal of Operational
Research, 88(1), pp. 88100.
[18] Johansen, G. R. (2011). Optimization of oshore natural gas eld development. MSc
Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
[19] Nygreen, B., Christiansen, M., Haugen, K., Bjrkvoll, T., and Kristiansen, . (1998).
Modeling Norwegian petroleum productionand transportation. Annals of Operations
Research, 82(1), pp. 251268.
[20] Carvalho, M. C. A., and Pinto, J. M. (2006). An MILP model and solution technique
for the planning of infrastructure in oshore oilelds. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 51(12), pp. 97110.
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804
1350010

153
[21] Rahmawati, S. D., Whitson, C. H., Foss, B., and Kuntadi, A. (2012). Integrated eld
operation and optimization. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 81, pp.
161170.
[22] Dutta-Roy, K., Barua, S., and Heiba, A. (1997). Computer-aided gas eld planning and optimization. SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
[23] Lee, A. S., and Aronofsky, J. S. (1958). A linear programming model for scheduling
crude oil production. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 10(7), pp. 5154.
[24] Dyer, J. S., Lund, R. N., Larsen, J. B., Kumar, V., and Leone, R. P. (1990). A Decision Support System for Prioritizing Oil and Gas Exploration Activities. Operations
Research, 38(3), pp. 386396.
[25] Lasdon, L., Coman, P. E., MacDonald, R., McFarland, J. W., and Sepehrnoori,
K. (1986). Optimal hydrocarbon reservoir production policies. Operations Research,
34(1), pp. 4054.
[26] Haugland, D., Hallefjord,
A., and Asheim, H. (1988). Models for petroleum eld
exploitation. European Journal of Operational Research, 37(1), pp. 5872.
[27] Carroll, J. A., and Horne, R. N. (1992). Multivariate Optimization Of Production
Systems. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 44(7), pp. 782831.
[28] Ravindran, N. (1992). Multivariate Optimization of Production Systems The Time
Dimension. MSc Thesis, Stanford University, Ca, USA.
[29] Fujii, H., and Horne, R. N. (1995). Multivariate Optimization of Networked Production Systems. SPE Production & Facilities, 10(3), pp. 165171.
[30] Zhang, J. and Zhu, D.A. (1996). bilevel programming method for pipe network optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 6(3), pp. 838857.
[31] Palke M. R. (1996). Nonlinear optimization of well production considering gas lift
and phase behavior. MSc Thesis, Stanford University, Ca, USA.
[32] Barua, S., Probst, A., and Dutta-Roy, K. (1997). Application of a general-purpose
network optimizer to oil and gas production. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.
[33] Bittencourt, A. C., and Horne, R. N. (1997). Reservoir development and design optimization. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Texas.
[34] Atkinson, C., and Isangulov, R. (2010). A mathematical model of an oil and gas eld
development process. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(3), pp. 205227.
[35] Attra, H. D., Wise, W. B., and Black, W. M. (1961). Application of Optimizing Techniques for Studying Field Producing Operations. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
13(1), pp. 8286.
[36] Lo, K. K., and Holden, C. W. (1992). Use of Well Management Schemes for Rate
Forecasts. SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakerseld, California.
[37] Christiansen, M., and Nygreen, B. (1993). Well management in the North Sea. Annals
of Operations Research, 43(8), pp. 427441.
[38] Nishikiori, N., Redner, R. A., Doty, D. R., and Schmidt, Z. (1995). An improved
method for gas lift allocation optimization. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,
117(2), pp. 8792.
[39] Fang, W. Y., and Lo, K. K. (1996). A Generalized Well-Management Scheme for
Reservoir Simulation. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(2), pp. 116120.
[40] Dutta-Roy, K., and Kattapuram, J. (1997). A new approach to gas-lift allocation
optimization. SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California.
[41] Heiba, A., Barua, S., and Dutta-Roy, K. (1997). Surface Facilities Management for
Thermal Recovery Processes. International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakerseld, California.
July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804

154
1350010
[42] Vazquez, M., Suarez, A., Aponte, H., Ocanto, L., and Fernandes, J. (2001). Global
Optimization of Oil Production Systems A Unied Operational View. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana.
[43] Yeten, B., Durlofsky, L. J., and Aziz, K. (2002). Optimization of Nonconventional
Well Type, Location, and Trajectory. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.
[44] Wang, P., Litvak, M., and Aziz, K. (2002). Optimization of Production Operations
in Petroleum Fields. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas.
[45] Neiro, S., and Pinto, J. M. (2004). A general modeling framework for the operational
planning of petroleum supply chains. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28(6),
pp. 871896.
[46] Huseby, A. B., and Haavardsson, N. F. (2009). Multi-reservoir production optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(1), pp. 236251.
[47] Gunnerud, V., and Foss, B. (2010). Oil production optimizationA piecewise linear
model, solved with two decomposition strategies. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34(11), pp. 18031812.
[48] Herr
an, A., De la Cruz, J. M., and De Andres, B. (2010). A mathematical model for
planning transportation of multiple petroleum products in a multi-pipeline system.
Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34(3), pp. 401413.

A Review of Mathematical Optimization AP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Review of Mathematical Optimization AP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

July 2, 2013 15:43 WSPC/2335-6804

International Journal of Energy and Statistics

Int. J. Energy Stat. 2013.01:143-154. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com