Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth (2018) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Sapporo, Japan, June 10-15, 2018
Copyright © 2018 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-87-6; ISSN 1098-6189

An Intelligent Method for Deep-Water Injection-Production Well Pattern Design

Jing Ma 1, Pengwei Di 2, Yun Shen 1, Yongtu Liang 1, Haoran Zhang 1, Anqi Huang 2, Zhongliang Huang3
1.China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing, China 2.CMOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China
3. CNPC Offshore Engineering Company, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT
For deep-water oilfield development, there is no formed set of mature
development mode yet. The optimization of injection-production well
pattern is the important content because the deep-water well pattern is
usually irregular. This paper comprehensively considered limiting
factors of deep-water well pattern, optimized well type and number
with mathematical optimization method. We built the goal function of
evaluation model based on net present value (NPV) and established
mixed particle swarm optimization(PSO) algorithm coupled with ant
colony optimization(ACO) and genetic algorithm(GA). Application
instances show that the model can effectively maximize the NPV, so it
has a strong engineering practical significance.
KEY WORDS: Deep-water reservoir; Injection-production well
patter; Particle swarm optimization algorithm; Genetic algorithm
INTRODUCTION
The reasonable development of well-net pattern is one of the main
research topics in reservoir development. Different from the regular
well patterns on land and in shallow-water, for deep-water oil and gas
reservoirs, which are located 400m under water, the well pattern is
more special due to the high cost and great construction difficulty
(Zhang and Feng, 2011). First of all, due to the limited space, service-
life and well slots in off-shore platform, we always follow the principle
of one-time well spacing since there is no availability for multi-
adjustment. However, for deep-water oil reservoir that is insufficient in
natural energy, the injection wells must be applied to supply zone
energy. However, the drilling cost will be consequently increased,
making the demands for flooding well network much more strict (Ma,
2011). Therefore, aiming to a real reservoir, it is vitally important to
adopt the corresponding irregular flooding network according to the
geologic feature, operation difficulties and economic benefit.
There are five principles for the design of irregular well-net in deep-
water oilfield:
(1) In the development of offshore oilfield, the scale of well drilling is
limited by small area of drilling platform, thus the cluster well group
type is often used. For deep-water oilfield, the platform can be more
flexible, yet to maintain high operation efficiency, the cluster well
group is still often used (Choi, 2006);
(2) Deep-water drilling is far more expensive than the on-land one, and
the cost of single-well is 150~300 million yuan for the former. Thus,
we often apply wide well space in order to obtain the substantial
production of single-well and the considerable degree of reserve control
at the least drilling number. “Sparse well with high productivity” is one
major feature of offshore oilfield.
(3) For offshore oil field, the “priority of economic benefit” should be
especially considered (Zhang, 2014). Therefore, we should first deploy
and implement the major reservoir or the most advantageous position of
small reserve reservoir. Select the optimal production layer, start the
first drill at major oilfield or at the position where the reserve is the
mostly assured, and suspend or give up the development of non-active
layers.
(4) In the development of deep-water oilfield, we should fully consider
the recycle of exploratory well. After fully demonstrate the feasibility
of transforming test well, we can transform test well into production
well or transform by sidetrack drilling, therefore, we can further
decrease the investment on the construction of oilfield.
(5) The number of exploratory well is small in deep-water oilfield, and
the principle of development is: “integral deployment, by-step
implement, scrolling development, in-track adjustment”. We should
obey the “implement with track, adjust with study” implementation
process (Qin et al., 2009).
Deploy the irregular well-net by following the principle in deep-water
reservoir, we can try to avoid risks and maintain development
efficiency, but the optimal well pattern cannot be guaranteed. Different
well patterns lead to different development results, and the so called
optimal well-net is the maximum of economic benefits. However, for
one particular oil reservoir, there are many choices of well pattern
formed under different well numbers, well positions and well types,
thus the most direct way is to conduct simulation on all potential well-
nets, calculate the economic effects and determine the optimal well-net.
It is a huge workload, which is apparently impracticable. Currently, to
obtain the optimal well pattern, the representative optimization method
in the world is based on all mathematical methods, such as genetic
algorithm, polyhedral techniques, artificial neural network, ACO
algorithm and simulated annealing method, to get the relatively overall
optimal solution in the fastest speed (Fan, 2016).
PSO method is the optimization algorithm that simulates the birds
flock's looking for food behavior based on iterative, which is simpler
and has better convergence compared to the above, but its adaptability
and convergence is still not perfect when dealing with different

17
problems (Nwankwor, 2013; Ding, 2014; Ni, 2014). The existed
methods cannot cooperatively optimize well number, well type and
well position, and cannot obtain the global optimal result. Based on the
above researches and the development features of deep-water reservoir,
in this paper, we proposed a cooperative-optimization model of well
number, well position and well type for irregular well-nets in deep-
water reservoir by the improved PSO method, and examined the model
in a real application case.
OPTIMIZATION MODEL FLOODING WELL NETWORK
1.1 Model Establishment
For the optimization of well position and well type, we only need to
determine the coordinates of wellhead and bottom of the target well. In
this paper, we simplify the optimization of well position into solving
out the optimal coordinates of two points (root and toe end). The
established optimization model of well trajectory is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1 Well trajectory mode diagram
The established optimization model can simultaneously optimize the
number, position and well trajectory of three well types, which are
straight well, horizontal well and directional well. When the
coordinates of root and toe satisfy:
hx  t x , hy  t y , hz  t z （1）
The well is the straight well.
For the directional well, if we can know the coordinates of two points,
the root-end ( hx ， hy ， hz ) and the toe-end ( t x ， t y ，tz ), we can
decide on the well position ( hx ， hy ) and the well section I w in target
formation. Here:
Iw  ( hx  t x ) 2  ( h y  t y ) 2  ( hz  t z ) 2 （2）
For the horizontal well, it is actually a special case of directional well,
which turns into horizontal well when hz  t z  0 . In PSO algorithm,
we only need two particles in 3D space to represent the coordinates of
the root and toe in target well. Then we can find the optimal solution by
automatically iterative of target function in 3D space.
1.2 Build Objective Evaluation Function
In the development of deep-water reservoir, the aim is generally to get
the maximum benefit during time horizon, which is the terminal
condition for searching the maximum Net Present Value (NPV) to
optimize well position and well type (Ding, 2016) that is to set NPV as
objective evaluation function. The evaluation function model is:
R  Et
T I w  (hx  t x ) 2  (hy  t y ) 2  (hz  t z ) 2  I max
NPV   t  C capex （3）
t 1 (1  r )
t By following the above constraints, the calculation time in numerical
In which:
18
R t  p o Q to （4）
Et  p Q p
w t
w, p
p Q i
w t
w ,i
 E fac T （5）
N well
C capex   (C top
w  C junc  Lmain
w C
drill
) （6）
w1
C wtop  H z p d （7）
Here: T is the total production time, annual; r is the discount rate, float;
Rt and Et are the income and operation cost at the tth year, yuan;
C capex is the infrastructure cost, represents for the total drilling cost
and completion cost, yuan; po is crude oil price, yuan/m3, Qto is the total
production volume of oil at the tth year, m3; p wp is the treatment cost of
produced water, yuan/m3; Qtw, p is the accumulated volume of produced
water at the tth year, m3; pwi is the cost of water injection, yuan/m3; Qtw,i
is the accumulated volume of injected water at the tth year, m3; E fac is
the annual fee for using platform and equipment, yuan/a; N well is the
total number of well; C wtop is the drilling cost from ground to the top of
reservoir, yuan; C junc is the cost of every node in directional well or
horizontal well (no cost in straight well), yuan; Lmain
w is the length of well
section in target stratum, m; C drill is the drilling cost per meter in target
layer, yuan/m; H z is the depth of straight well section, m; pd is the
drilling cost per meter in straight well section, yuan/m.
1.3 Constraints Conditions
（1）Wellhead Constraints
To make the well pattern more realistic, there are some constraints need
to be added in calculation process. In this paper, the constraint of
minimal well space between two wells is proposed in optimization
algorithm, which is:
（ h x  t x）2 （ h y  t y）2  R （8）
Here R is the effective radium of well leakage.
（2）Well position Constraints
Under the constraints of reservoir development mode and engineering
technique, there are different requirements for well position in different
reservoir. To qualify the real features of reservoir and meet engineering
requirements, some constraints on well position should be added:
x1  hx  x2 , y1  h y  y 2 , z1  hz  z 2 （9）
x1  t x  x2 , y1  t y  y 2 , z1  t z  z 2 （10）
For example, for bottom water reservoir, the method is to inject water
at bottom, which always limits well position into the area of bottom
water. At this time,（ x1 , y1 , z1） and（x2 , y2 , z 2） stand for the area of
bottom water. But for gas cap reservoir, to avoid gas invasion, the
position of production well needs to be away from gas cap and the
perforation can only be conducted at oil zone. At this time,（ x1 , y1 , z1）
and（ x2 , y 2 , z 2） are the area of oil zone.
（3）Length Constraints of Horizontal Section
In general, the longer crossing distance of oil well in target layer, the
higher production volume. For the horizontal well, the drilling
difficulty will yet increase with longer horizontal section, which also
increase the unnecessary risks (Zhang, 215; Feng, 2012). In addition,
under the borehole effect, the longer well section, the slower
improvement of production volume. Therefore, in reality, there are
certain constraints on the length of horizontal section in horizontal well,
and in this model, the constraint on well length in target layer is:
（11）
simulation model can be effectively diminished, and the plan of well
pattern can be more realistic to real reservoir.

ACO-GA- PSO MIXED ALGORITHM
2.1 PSO
Particle swarm optimization(PSO) was first proposed by doctor
Eberhart and Kennedy in year 1995 (Zhang, 2015; Bergstad, 1987;
Martinho, 2009; Chen, 2013). The practice of this method is simple and
the convergence speed is relatively fast (see Figure 2). Therefore, this
method has drawn great attention from researchers and scholars.
For the production optimization problem, each particle corresponds to
one control vector. In PSO method, first, a random group of particles
are initialized (that is to initialize a group of random solutions), then
iterate them. In each time of iteration, there are two extreme values:
individual extremum (the optimal solution for the particle), and global
extremum (the currently optimal solution for the whole group). Based
on these two extremums, each particle will adjust its speed and position
by equation 14 and equation 15:
vin 1    vin  c1r1 ( pbest in )  c2 r2 ( gbest in  xin ) （12）
xin 1  xin  vin 1 （13）
Here, vin is the flying speed of the i th particle at the n th step;  is the
inertial coefficient, which can oscillate the speed of particle to avoid
premature convergence that leads to local optimum; c1 and c2 are
acceleration factors, which separately determines the maximum step
that particle searching to individual extremum point and global-optimal
extremum point; r1 and r2 are random numbers between 0 and 1.
Fig. 2 Diagram of particle swarm optimization (PSO)
2.2 GA
Genetic algorithm (GA) has the ability of fast searching, and untended
to fall into local optimum; and it is open to be combined with other
algorithms. However, the practice of GA is complex, which needs the
coding and decoding of objective evaluation function; and the
algorithm has strong dependence on the initial solution. In this paper,
Eclipse is used as the kernel calculation engine. In every calculation,
the particle swarm can generate input parameters for Eclipse, and the
calculated results are used in the fitness function of particle swarm.
However, here Eclipse model is a multi-variable and multi-peak
function. The calculation tends to fall into the local optimum, and it is
hard to find out global optimum in fast speed.
In this paper, the advantages of GA are adopted and the disadvantages
are abandoned. We introduced the random variation of GA into PSO,
that in the early calculation stage of particle swarm, some particles will
mutate at certain possibility, therefore the particle swarm will have less
tendency to fall into the local optimum. Meanwhile, we use PSO
19
method to give initial values for GA method, making these two
methods combine with each other, and play both their strengths, so that
the calculation efficiency will be greatly improved.
2.3 ACO
Ant colony optimization (ACO) is a type of probability algorithm to
find the optimal route in the map, which is widely applied to solve out
the shortest path. Its applicability and accuracy are proved to be
reliable. In calculating the shortest path TSP problem, ACO algorithm
uses a taboo table to store the already explored city. That is to say, in
every searching process, the explored and non-explored places are
separated to avoid overlap, thus the efficiency is improved.
In this paper, the taboo list of ACO algorithm is adopted. We set the
number range of selectable wells as the taboo list of the mixed
algorithm. After each time of calculation, the already calculated well
number will be added to taboo list to avoid repeated calculation, thus
the whole calculation speed can be accelerated.
2.4 Calculation Process
The automatic optimization of well number, well position and well type
in flooding well network can be accomplished by the hybrid
programming of C# calling Eclipse, a reservoir numerical simulation
software, and establishing the optimization module. The specific
optimization steps are:
(1) Determine the range of well number: determine the range of well
number according to exploitation experience and give the initial value
by ACO.
(2) Initialize particle swarm: based on the number of well for
optimization and the coordinates of heel-end and toe-end, define the
scale and dimension of swarm, and randomly generate the flying speed
and position of particle at initial iterative state;
(3) Calculate fitness value: for each particle, transfer its parameter into
Eclipse format, and call Eclipse to calculate. Substitute calculation
results into NPV model to get this particle’s fitness value for well-net
plan;
(4) Calculate the individual optimal value and global optimal value:
according to the fitness value of each particle, calculate and update the
individual and global optimal values;
(5) End condition for particle swarm: decide whether particle swarm
satisfies end condition. If not, calculate the fitness variance of each
particle to check whether it falls into local optimum. For those particles
that have fallen into local optimum, conduct mutation and update their
speed and position. For those particles that haven’t been local optimal,
update the speed and position as regular particle swarm. Repeat step (3)
and (4);
(6) Until the end condition is satisfied, record the current well-pattern
plan, and adopt the VPN value as the fitness value of ACO. Determine
whether the end condition is satisfied. If not, repeat steps (2) to (5);
(7) End calculation until all end conditions are satisfied. Output all well
pattern plans. The detailed process is shown in Figure 3.
 
 Start
number of production well is determined to be 6~8. Based on the water
injection ability and the pressure maintenance ability of reservoir, the
Accordi ng to exper ience, the range 
number of water injection well is determined to be 1~3. By studying in
of well  number is determined, and  reservoir engineering method, and considering reservoir structure and
the number of initial well s i s given 
by ACO drilling requirements, the well section length of horizontal well should
range from 600m to 1000m.
Init ial population

Transform each 
Update the velocity and posit ion 
par ticle parameter into 
of the parti cle
Eclipse format

Number of modi fied  Particle variation N

Cal l Ecli pse to calculate
well s by ACO

Read the resul ts, bring into the 
target eval uation function, and  Can each particl e be judged to 
Add the number of the  be locally  optimal?
cal cul ate the NPV
well to tabu t able

Cal cul ate the global optimal 

value of a population and the 
individual optimal value of each  Cal cul ation of populat ion  fi tness 
par ticle variance

  
Is the termi nating 
condition of the parti cle 
swarm satisfied?
N
Fig. 4 Oil and gas distribution in DM reservoir
Y

Log current well  lay out 

scheme

Cal cul ate the fitness 

value of ACO

Is the ant  col ony 

termi nation condition 
satisfied?

Outputting all  well l ayout 

schemes

End
 
Fig. 3 Calculation flowchart of the algorithm  
Fig. 5 Permeability distribution in DM reservoir
APPLICATION EXAMPLES
3.1 Basic Data According to the design, the plan is to inject water at bottom, and only
DM oilfield is a gas cap and bottom water oil reservoir in a fault block develop the middle part of oil. Well is located between oil-water
in deep sea (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). The water is 1350~1525m deep interface and oil-gas interface, thus to ensure the productivity in
and the work area is about 5.5km2. The middle part of reservoir is developing process, the main principle is to avoid the overriding of
2200m deep and the original stratum pressure is 28.4Mpa. The average injection water and the gas cut. Therefore, the distribution area of
permeability is 382.3mD; the average reservoir porosity is 22.5%; the injection well and production well should be limited. Besides, we
density of crude oil in oil zone is 0.845g/cm3, and the viscosity is should also consider the characters of drilling cluster well in deepwater
1.25mPaꞏs, making it a medium porosity, medium permeability, light oilfield, that constrain positions of well section and well head for
weight and low viscosity sandstone reservoir. The water in reservoir is horizontal well, in order to lower the difficulty in building angle from
CaCl2 type; the bottom water is inactive; the distribution range of gas straight well section to horizontal section.
cap is small; thus it is evaluated as reservoir with weak natural energy.
If apply the depletion-drive development mode to recover the deep- 600m  (h x  t x ) 2  (h y  t y ) 2  (h z  t z ) 2  1000m (14)
water reserve with weak natural energy, there may be large potential of
production risks, and the further adjustment of well net and pipelines 200m  （h x  t x）2 （h y  t y）2  400m (15)
will be difficult. To enhance development efficiency and improve
economic benefit, we must establish a set of irregular flooding well
3.2 Algorithm Parameters
network for deepwater reservoir (Siavashi, 2016). Build reservoir
Based on the actual condition in this oil field, we build the well-net
geologic model according to well test data and seismic data, and the
optimization model through PSO method. The following parameters are
calculated crude oil in place is 1886×104t. The reservoir model for
mainly set:
calculation has the number of 18×30×5 corase grid blocks with the step
(1) Particle number: it mainly describes the number of randomly
length of 100m×100m×10m. Based on the design of reservoir
generated particles in each group. For most cases, 10 particles can
exploitation and according to the single well controlled reserves, the

20
achieve good results (Dossary, 2016; Santoso, 2010). In this paper, the
model has many combinations of heel end and toe end. As a special
case, the number of swarm particles can be set among 20 to 40.
(2) Particle length: for each well, we need to determine the six-
dimensional variables, that is the heel end coordinates ( hx ， hy ， hz )
and the toe end coordinates ( t x ， t y ， t z ). The designed largest well
number is 11, thus particle length is 66 dimensions.
(3) Particle range: it is determined by optimization targets. Each
dimension can set different ranges. In this paper, particle coordinate
range is set by well type.
(4) Maximum speed: it determines the maximum displacement distance
of particle moving in a circle. Normally, it is set as the width of particle
range. In this model, the maximum speed is among 0.5 to 1.5.
(5) Maximum calculation times: it represents the group number of
randomly simulated particles in particle swarm. Generally speaking, the
longer maximum calculation time corresponds to the most optimal
solution, but the calculation speed will be slower.
Some parameters in the objective evaluation model are shown in the
following table. Other parameters may change with reservoir
characteristics. The specific economic parameters are shown in Table 1.
Table.1 NPV parameters
Parameters
Value
Fig. 6 Convergence of some calculated results
Chose three groups which correspondingly has the best convergence
effect(ACO-GA-PSO1), the medium effect(ACO-GA-PSO2) and the
worst effect(ACO-GA-PSO3) to analyze, their well-net distribution is
shown in following figures. For each group, the optimal well number is
10, including three injection wells and seven production wells. Since
the evaluation function of objective model is most sensible to oil
productivity and development time, there are economic different among
these three well-net patterns. In all the three patterns, the production
well is away from bottom water and gas cap, meeting with the
specification in well deployment, therefore they can avoid the decrease
in oil productivity by bottom water coning and gas cap cut. The
correspondences of calculated results with common recognitions in
regular well greatly represent the adaptability of optimization algorithm
in reservoir simulation (see Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9). The plan
ACO-GA-PSO2 and plan ACO-GA-PSO3 have similar results in
accumulated oil production (Figure 10), but the NPV of ACO-GA-
PSO2 is better than ACO-GA-PSO3 (Figure 11). It mainly because of
the shorter development time, which significantly lowers the
production and operation fees, and realizes faster cost recovery,
showing the actual features of “fast production” in deepwater reservoir.
The well-net plan ACO-GA-PSO1, which has the best development
effect, can not only realize higher productivity, but also shorten
reservoir development time, realizing the highest economic benefit.
Therefore, ACO-GA-PSO1 can be set as the optimal well-pattern for
this oil reservoir.

Drilling cost per meter in horizontal well

section pd , yuan/m 7.5×104
Drilling cost per meter inside target layer
20×104
C drill , yuan/m

Cost of each joint at end toe, yuan 7000×104

Annual use fee of platform and facilities
E fac 9000×104
, yuan/a
Cost of injecting water pwi , yuan/m3 60
Cost of treating production water p wp ,
60  
yuan/m3
Fig. 7 Well pattern optimization results of ACO-GA-PSO1
Crude oil price, yuan/m3 2300

3.3 Optimization Results

After 30 times repeated calculation by using this algorithm, some
converge curves are shown in Figure 6. From the figure we can see, the
mixed algorithm has fast convergence speed, and the optimal solution
is basically found in first 10 times of calculation. The optimal result is
40×108 yuan.
45

35  
NPV/108CNY

Simulation No.1 Fig. 8 Well pattern optimization results of ACO-GA-PSO2

Simulation No.2
Simulation No.3
Simulation No.4
Simulation No.5
25 Simulation No.6
Simulation No.7
Simulation No.8
Simulation No.9

15
0 10 20 30 40 50
Iteration times

21
 28
27
26

Recovery/%
25
24
PSO
23
GA
22 S‐PSO
ACO‐GA‐PSO
21
RS
20
 
Fig. 9 Well pattern optimization results of ACO-GA-PSO3 0 10 20 30 40 50
Calculation time

500 Fig. 12 Comparison of convergence effects of different algorithms

ACO‐GA‐PSO1
450
ACO‐GA‐PSO2
3.5 Stability
Cumulative oil production

400
350
ACO‐GA‐PSO3
To examine the stability of hybrid algorithm, we let the optimization
300 algorithm continuously run for 30 times. The optimization results are
(×104m3)

250 shown in Figure 13. The results basically spread near the optimum
200 value, and the deviation distribution of 30 plans is lower than 4%, in
150 which 23 plans have bias lower than 2%. The minor error shows that
100 the proposed ACO-GA-PSO algorithm has good stability and can find
50 the global optimum in fast speed and high efficiency.
0 45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Developing time (Year)
  40
Fig. 10 Accumulated oil production results of three programs
35
NPV/108CNY

50
ACO‐GA‐PSO1
30 Calculation results
40 ACO‐GA‐PSO2
ACO‐GA‐PSO3 Average value
30 25
NPV(×108 CNY)

20
20
10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 calculation times
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fig. 13 Algorithm stability results of ACO-GA-PSO
‐10

‐20 Developing time (Year) CONCLUSIONS

 
Fig. 11 Cumulative net present value result of three programs
3.4 Advantages of Algorithm
We compared the optimization effects by the improved ACO-GA-PSO
hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper and the regular algorithms
(since the single algorithm cannot simultaneously optimize the well
number, we only compare the optimization effects of well type and well
position at fixed well number). For the actual well spacing problem in
the example reservoir, the adopted regular algorithms are regular
Particle swarm optimization (PSO), modified particle swarm
optimization (S-PSO), genetic algorithm (GA) and random sampling
(RS). The comparison results are shown in Figure 12. From the
convergence procedure of recovery rate in this reservoir, we can learn
that RS method has no learning convergence function; GA method is
more mature, yet its convergence effect is worse than PSO method, and
its improvement space is limited. For PSO and S-PSO methods, their
convergence effects are worse than ACO-GA-PSO both in optimum
value and convergence speed. The results show great benefits of the
established ACO-GA-PSO method in solving the irregular well spacing
problem.
For planning the injection and production well net in deep-water
reservoir, by using the established ACO-GA-PSO algorithm, which is
based on PSO and combines ACO and GA together, we can effectively
solve the multimodal function effect in reservoir simulation. We
established the well-net optimization model that take well type, well
number, well position and well pattern in to consideration; by adjusting
the particle number, the maximum calculation time and the maximum
speed, we can control the calculation of standard PSO method. We
established the optimization model of well position and well pattern for
irregular well-net in deep-water oil reservoir, and constrained the
distribution of wellheads, the length of well section and injection
modes from exploitation experience; by combining the computer
assembly language and numerical simulation software, we realized the
automatically optimized deployment of irregular well-net. Finally, by
solving a real case, we obtained the well pattern arrangement plan that
can not only satisfy reservoir development features but also enhance
economic benefits. The established optimization model for flooding
well network in deep-water takes compound factors into consideration,
and compared to regular algorithm, it is much more realistic to the
development in real deep-water reservoir, therefore, it insights the
research on the flooding development for reservoir with weak natural
energy in deep water.

22
REFERENCES
Bergstad O A, Isaksen B(1987). “Deep-water resources of the Northeast
Atlantic: distribution, abundance and exploitation”.
Chen YX.(2013). “Theory and Applications in the Optimization of
Intelligent Well Network”. China Petroleum University (East China).
Choi MS.(2006). “Infrastructure-independent deepwater oil field
development concept: US,” US20060000615[P].
Ding SW., Jiang HQ., Zhou DY., Zhao J., Kuang XY., Bai P.(2016).
“Automatic optimization of irregular well pattern based on modified
particle swarm algorithm,” China Offshore Oil and Gas, 28(01):80-85.
Ding S, Jiang H, Li J, et al.(2014). “Optimization of well placement by
combination of a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm and
quality map method,” Computational Geosciences, 2014, 18(5):747-
762.
Dossary MA., Nasrabadi H. (2016). “Well placement optimization using
imperialist competitive algorithm,” Journal of Petroleum Science &
Engineering, 2016, 147:237-248.
Fan LJ., Yang JP., Zhao DY., et al.(2016). “Optimum Design of CO2
Flooding Well Based on Improved Particle Swarm,” Algorithm
Petroleum Engineering Construction, 2016, 42(5):6-9.
Feng Q., Zhang J., Zhang X., et al (2012). “Optimizing well placement in
a coalbed methane reservoir using the particle swarm optimization
algorithm,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 104(104):34-45.
Ma YJ., Jing Y., Wang L.(2011). “The Exploration of New Schemes for
the Development of Several Deepwater Oil and Gas Fields in China,”
China Marine Engineering Conference.
Martinho W., Ogasawara E., Oliveira D., et al.(2009). “A Conception
Process for Abstract Workflows: An Example on Deep Water Oil
Exploitation Domain,” EEE International Conference on e-Science.
Ni HM., Liu YJ., Fan YC., Li PC., “Injection and production project
23
optimization of steam flooding based on improved particle swarm
optimization algorithm,” Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2014, 35(1): 114-
117,140.
Nwankwor E., Nagar AK., Reid DC.. Hybrid differential evolution and
particle swarm optimization for optimal well placement[J].
Computational Geosciences, 2013, 17(2):249-268.
Onwunalu J., Durlofsky L.(2011). “A New Well-Pattern-Optimization
Procedure for Large-Scale Field Development,” Spe Journal,
16(16):594-607.
Qin YL., Wang SP., Feng SM.(2009). “Brief Analysis on the
Development Modes of Overseas Deepwater Oilfields,” Shipbuilding
of China, 2009, 50(supplementary issue 1):120-125.
Siavashi M., Tehrani MR., Nakhaee A.(2016). “Efficient particle swarm
optimization of well placement to enhance oil recovery using a novel
streamline-based objective function,” Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, 138(5):77-78.
Santoso G., Babayeju O., Nwabor D., et al (2010). “Optimizing a Two
Compartment Rerservoir in Deep Water Turbidite Sand by Single Well
Placement”.
Wang GL., Duan ML., Feng W., et al (2011). “Analysis of control factors
in deepwater oil & gas field development,” The Ocean Engineering,
29(3):139-145.
Zhang K., Wu HY., Xu YD., et al (2015). “Triangulated Well Pattern
Optimization Constrained by Geological and Production Factors,”
Journal of China University of Petroleum, 2015(4):111-118.
Zhang Y., Feng YX.(2011). “Introduction to Offshore Oil& Gas Field
Development,” China Petrochemical Press.
Zhang DD.(2014). “Deepwater Oil and Gas Field Development in South
China,” Sea. Qianren Energy, 01:8-9.