Product Mix Optimization for an Oil Field Operating Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a mathematical model is formulated to select the optimal product mix of wells in terms of numbers and types of wells that helps to maximize profit. The optimization model comprises two main components, the first component is revenue which includes forecasting of production and oil price, and the second component is cost which includes capital and operating costs. In addition, the model considers all related constraints such as budget, production targets, surface facility limitations, drilling rigs availability and others. Time has influence on the model, since its output is not limited only to the types and numbers of wells to be drilled during the planned period, but also when each well to be drilled for the same plan. Actual planning data for three consecutive years is used for model testing. The results show that 42% to 47% cost saving can be achieved by using the model. The analysis shows that with every 10% increase in oil price, the profit increases by about 6%. Also, it shows that the number of rigs and the rig daily cost affect the profit tremendously, where by reducing these two parameters by 50% an increase of 66% in oil profit can be achieved. The study confirms that oil field operating companies can stand a better chance of maximizing their profit by using product mix optimization model to define the optimum schedule for the number of wells, type of wells and time of drilling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".