Optimization of Horizontal Well Direction and Length Considering Geomechanics Properties and Drainage Area Using Genetic Algorithm in A Gas Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize a horizontal well production, we need to determine the optimum direction and horizontal well length that maximizes the gas field recovery for a certain constant flow rate called by plateau rate. This problem is conventionally solved by using a reservoir simulation model and trial and error procedure that consumes considerably a lot of time and efforts. This study uses a random search method, i.e., Genetic Algorithm (GA), to solve this optimization problem and it very much eases to find the best well location with less time and efforts consumed.Along the general technique in directing a horizontal well towards the least principal stress of rocks, this study considers the geomechanics effects that influence the gas production performance. And also, the drainage area of horizontal well will be considered in this study to obtain the optimum horizontal well direction and length. In order to do this, a new proposed objective function for the GA has been constructed based on basic reservoir properties (i.e., porosity, permeability and gas saturation) and geomechanics properties (i.e., Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio). The results of the proposed method are validated using a reservoir model and economics evaluation.It may be concluded that the applying GA, with the appropriate objective function, can give accurate and faster results compared with the trial and error method using reservoir simulator, technically and economically, and also the proposed method is able to reduce the amount of works considerably time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".