SPE-182803-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
A Cost-Effective Method to Maximize the Hydrocarbon Recovery by
Optimizing the Vertical Well Placements through the Simulation
Opportunity Index
Wardana Saputra, Institut Teknologi Bandung, The Upstream Petroleum Engineering Research Center, King
Abdullah University of Science and Technology; Tutuka Ariadji, Institut Teknologi Bandung; Tadeusz W. Patzek,
The Upstream Petroleum Engineering Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28
April 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During periods of low oil prices, profitability of field developments drops drastically. To help with this
difficulty, we offer a cost-effective method of boosting hydrocarbon recovery by optimizing well
locations.
A new software program has been developed to optimize vertical well placements based on the
Simulated Opportunity Index (SOI). SOI is an intelligent method to identify zones with high potential for
production. The production potential of an oil & gas field area is empirically calculated from basic rock
and fluid properties, and from reservoir pressure as its energy capacity. In order to obtain the best results,
the original SOI formula (Molina et al., 2009) was extended to both oil and gas fields.
With the new SOI software, it is possible to rank the best layers in each areal location, resulting in
appropriate vertical well locations and perforated intervals in multilayer reservoirs. Furthermore, the
developed software can account for the effects of existing wells and sealing faults to accommodate infill
programs in brown fields and compartmentalized reservoirs.
This paper describes how the software helps in obtaining optimal solutions with better accuracy than
previous studies resulting in the highest recovery for three different case studies in an oil and gas field
located in offshore Indonesia. The sensitivity analysis that was performed shows a strong relationship
between SOI value and recovery factor. It validates that the higher SOI values selected by the software
give higher recovery factors.
The developed software could boost field development projects even in the period of low oil prices. On
one hand, the proposed method could save money by minimizing the required number of wells. On the
other hand, it could maximize profit by maximizing recovery.

Introduction
In this age of low oil prices, increasing well costs, and maturing reservoirs, engineers have been
challenged to provide fast, accurate, and cost-effective field development plans. The most decisive factor
2 SPE-182803-MS

in field development is to achieve the highest hydrocarbon recovery through selection of well locations.
Yet, to determine an appropriate well location is not easy because of the many reservoir parameters which
may affect drainage performance. Suppose there are three locations in an oil field: A, B, and C. Location
A has the highest oil saturation with low porosity and permeability. Location B has the best value of
porosity and permeability, whereas Location C has the highest pressure potential. The question is which

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
drilling locations will result the highest oil recovery?
To answer of such questions, most engineers still use the conventional method of trial and error by
picking a random well location and simulating reservoir performance. The recovery factor which is
obtained from simulation is then used to determine which selection is the best. This seems like a good
approach, but imagine that your reservoir model consists of tens of thousands of gridblocks. How many
well locations should be simulated? Indeed, this conventional trial and error method is highly time
consuming and gets worse when reservoir consists of multiple stacked layers.
In this paper, a petroleum engineering software depicted in Figure 1 has been developed as a simple,
fast, and accurate way of obtaining the most appropriate vertical well locations based on the Simulation
Opportunity Index. The main idea behind the ⬙SOI Tool⬙ software development is the utilization of
existing static and dynamic simulation models to generate a new 3D reservoir property called Simulation
Opportunity Index (SOI), a robust indicator to determine the ⬙sweet spots⬙ with maximum flow and
storage capacities.

Figure 1—The initial screen of software based on the simulation Opportunity Index to optimize vertical well placements

In order to achieve the highest hydrocarbon recovery, the original SOI formula introduced in 2009
(Molina et al.) has been modified to accommodate either an oil or gas field. An algorithm to avoid the
presence of existing wells and sealing faults has also been added for infill purposes and overcoming the
complexity of compartmentalized reservoirs. Furthermore, to verify pertinence of the developed software,
SOI has been validated with field case studies in Natuna and Madura offshore fields, Indonesia, either for
new drilling in a green field or infill of a brown field.
Simulation Opportunity Index
Simulation Opportunity Index (SOI) is an intelligent method that uses numerical simulation models to
identify zones with high potential of production. Such an identification with conventional reservoir
engineering approach often represents a problem that is too complex and time consuming (Molina et al.,
2009). The proposed method calculates several basic rock and fluid properties to obtain the producer
potential. Then, all those parameters are combined and normalized to generate an index between 0 and 1,
capable of identifying zones of greater potential.
SPE-182803-MS 3

In order to calculate SOI, three secondary indexes which represent three different vital reservoir
characteristics are needed. Appendix A shows in full detail the original SOI formulation introduced in
2009, where the first index represents the capacity of flow, the second one is associated with recoverable
hydrocarbon pore volume, and the last one proposes an operational window of pressure energy in the
reservoir.

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
SOI Mapping Concept
In the original paper, the SOI formula was applied as a direct mapping method illustrated in Figure 2.
Some commercial reservoir simulators already provide a specific feature called ⬙calculator⬙ to generate
new reservoir properties as a function of existing properties. First, the three secondary indexes were
generated, then SOI is obtained as the geometric mean of these indexes. In order to generate 2D SOI Map,
all SOI values in all layers at a certain X-Y location were summed by the following equation:

Figure 2—Workflow of simulation opportunity index as a mapping method ⴖSOI Mapⴖ.

(1)

The SOI map can be used to determine the most appropriate vertical well placements by locating the
highest SOI value depicted by the color difference. In this paper, the main concept of SOI map is still used
to develop an algorithm for the software program. The most valuable benefit of implementing SOI into
a compact software instead of SOI mapping is the selection of a number of best layers to be perforated.
In reality, it is rare to drill or perforate all layers in a reservoir section. Operators usually choose only
several best layers to be perforated to limit cost.
Modified Simulation Opportunity Index for Oil Field
For oil reservoirs, the original SOI formula has been modified by introducing three following new indices:
Movable Oil Index (MOI), Oil Flow Index (OFI), and Pressure Potential Index (PPI). The mathematical
definitions of these indices are as follows:
(2)

(3)
4 SPE-182803-MS

(4)

(5)

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
The MOI index represents pore volume of potentially recoverable oil. The OFI index represents
capability of reservoir to deliver the oil, and the PPI index represents the potential energy of the oil
reservoir. Notice that these three variables are under the square root to normalize each one of them. Instead
of taking a direct multiplication of each index, it is better to normalize to ensure that all three indices are
the equally weighted. The simulation opportunity index for oil field is defined by the geometric mean of
these indexes, followed by a normalization to yield a dimensionless index between 0 and 1.
Modified Simulation Opportunity Index for Gas Field
We consider the effect of variations of pressure-dependent gas viscosity, ␮, and gas compressibility factor,
Z, on the flow of real gases through porous media. A rigorous concept of gas flow through porous media
(Al-Hussainy, 1966) was developed to account for the non-linearity in the combined mass and momentum
balance equation by introducing a pseudo-pressure, ␺, as follows:
(6)

Here ␮ and Z are calculated by Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows gas viscosity (1954) and Brill-Beggs Z-factor
(1974) equations. The substitution of ␺ into the SOI formulation yields three following indices: Movable
Gas Index (MGI), Gas Flow Index (GFI), and Pseudo-pressure Potential Index (PPI). The mathematical
definitions of these terms are as follows:
(7)

(8)

(9)

The logarithmic term in GFI describes a fact that the production potential of gas reservoirs is more
affected by gas saturation than rock permeability. Normalization of the geometric means of these indices
yields the dimensionless Simulation Opportunity Index for Gas Field, SOIG, as follows:
(10)
SPE-182803-MS 5

Methodology

The methodology used to optimize selection of vertical well placements is depicted in Figure 3.

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure 3—Flowchart of the methodology

Data Gathering
The first case study, field X, is an offshore oil field located in the western area of Natuna Sea – East
Block with original oil in place of 28 MMSTB. The second case study, field Y, is an offshore gas field
located in the southern area of Madura Island with original gas in place of 128 BSCF. The third case study,
field Z, is also an offshore oil field located in the western area of Natuna Sea with the original oil in place
of 168 MMSTB. Both field X and field Y are green fields because there is no production activity yet,
while field Z is a brown field since it has 26 existing wells detailed in Table B-1.
Table 1 sumarizes the general reservoir model specifications for the three fields, which is required
input for the developed software program. These data are combined with reservoir properties grid data in
the GSLIB ASCII format.

Table 1—Specifications of Three Case Studies.

Case Study-1 Case Study-2 Case Study-3

Field Name Field X Field Y Field Z

Reservoir Fluid Type Oil Gas Oil
Existing Wells No No Yes
Abandonment Pressure 1500 psia 300 psia 1500 psia
Residual Saturation 0.2 0.1 0.2
Average Reservoir Temperature 180 °F 180 °F 180 °F
Average Fluid viscosity 0.94 cp 0.85 cp 0.941 cp
Specific Gravity 0.86 0.7 0.86
H2S Content – – –
CO2 Content – 0.1 –
N2 Content – – –
Reservoir Model Grid Size (i ⫻ j ⫻ k), grid unit (28 ⫻ 39 ⫻ 90) (82 ⫻ 69 ⫻ 40) (105 ⫻ 31 ⫻ 45)

Software Development
The software was written in C#, which delivers high speed computing, friendly user interface, and wide
portability. A new algorithm program for SOI Tool is detailed in Figure 4. In order to guide a systematic
workflow for the software users, the developed software was developed into several integrated sequences
depicted in Figure B-1.
 Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
SPE-182803-MS

Figure 4 —Algorithm driving developed software

6
SPE-182803-MS 7

Field Data The users need to define the type of reservoir fluid type because each reservoir type has a
different SOI formulation and input data. Figures B-2 and B-3 show the differences of input data for the
oil field and the gas field in the SOI software.
Grid Data The users need to define the dimension of reservoir grid (i, j, k) and import the reservoir grid

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
properties in the GSLIB ASCII file depicted in Figure B-4. The required reservoir properties are: layer
thickness, net to gross, permeability, porosity, current pressure, and current saturation of hydrocarbon.
This ASCII file has a simple structure detailed in Figure 5 that can be exported by many commercial
reservoir simulators.

Figure 5—GSLIB ASCII file data example

Existing Wells If wells already exist in the field and the software does not take them into account, an
error may occur in the selection of infill wells. The drainage of the selected wells and existing wells may
overlap resulting in oil and gas production decrease. Consequently, the users need to define existing wells
and each corresponding location depicted in Figure B-5. Once the software recognizes an existing well,
the grids covering the well drainage radius will be marked to make the corresponding SOI value less.
Hence, new wells always avoid existing wells.
Fault Existences Existence of faults needs to be considered to avoid problems in drilling operations and
production of compartmentalized reservoirs. The users are allowed to input a number of faults by
assuming the faults as lines with the coordinates (x1,y1,x2,y2) depicted in Figure B-6. To recognize these
lines, the developed software uses modified Bresenham’s algorithm called supercover line, the difference
of the original Bresenham’s and the supercover line algorithm is illustrated in Figure 6. In SOI software,
a grid covered by this supercover line will get a zero SOI value to avoid drilling on faults.
8 SPE-182803-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure 6 —Algorithm that is used to recognize the fault existences

Drainage Plan In this section, the users are allowed to input number of proposed wells and proposed
completion layers depicted in Figure B-7 to accommodate a proper result for multilayer reservoirs. This
feature would be favorable when a company only has limited money and perforates only certain numbers
of layers.
Results Part The results of proposed wells are presented in a table sorted by rank of SOI values depicted
in Figure B-8. These SOI values can be visualized by a bar chart depicted in Figure B-9. Furthermore, the
developed software can show a map which contains the locations of proposed wells, existing wells, and
faults at a given grid resolution (x,y) detailed in Figure B-10.
Validation
In order to verify accuracy of the SOI software, a validation phase is required. The validation phase
utilizes a commercial reservoir simulator to obtain recovery factors for wells identified by the developed
software. The validation process used three different case studies detailed in Table 1. The first case
validates the SOI software in selecting the most appropriate well locations in a green oil field (Field X).
In order to make the results comparable, this study only searched for 3 optimum well locations, each with
12 layers to be perforated. The second case validates the SOI software through obtaining the best well
locations in a green gas field (Field Y). Both the conventional method and this study proposed 3 wells with
20 layers to be perforated. The third case is an application of the SOI software in a mature oil field (Field
Z) with 26 existing wells to select best infill wells. The parameters used as inputs to SOI software and
reservoir simulators for the three case studies are detailed in Table B-2 and B-3.
Analysis
The analysis phase is the last important step required to determine whether this software needs more
improvements or not. SOI software has to pass the initial quest to obtain the optimum well locations which
give the highest recovery surpassing the previous studies, including conventional trial-error approach.
Results and Discussion
Sensitivity Analysis of SOI Values
A sensitivity analysis has been performed in order to see how strong the relationship between SOI values
and the corresponding recovery factors is. The developed software was used to determine 4 best ranks of
the well to be drilled in Field Y, then each rank was simulated with the commercial simulator software
to calculate the cumulative production that can be achieved by each well. The result of this sensitivity
analysis depicted in Figure 7 clearly shows that the higher SOI value, the greater the recovery factor can
is. Since the developed software works only by searching for the highest SOI value, it is reasonable to
SPE-182803-MS 9

claim that this developed method only yields the best proposed wells which will result the highest
recovery.

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure 7—Relationship between SOI values and its corresponding recovery factor.

Case Study-1 (Green Oil Field: Field X)

Comparison to Previous Studies The SOI software was utilized to propose three new vertical wells in
field X. The result is compared with well locations selected by conventional trial-error method, previous
study-A, and previous study-B (Table B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7). Previous study-A (M. L. Putra, 2010) used
genetic algorithm method to obtain best well placements assuming the reservoir is a single layer. Previous
study-B (I. T. Rau, et al., 2013) used the same genetic algorithm method accounting for multi-layers
reservoirs. Yet, study-B still used a simple objective function with multiplying all reservoir parameters.
Our proposed method substitutes the study-B’s objective function with an advanced SOI value to improve
the results.
The cumulative oil production and recovery factors for all methods are shown in Table 2. Our SOI
software yields the highest cumulative oil production of 12.80 MMSTB with recovery factor 45%,
provides an extra 160 MSTB oil compared with study-B, an additional 1,000 MSTB oil compared with
study-A, and an increment of 2,210 MSTB oil compared with conventional method. Difference of oil
saturation distribution before and after producing SOI wells is depicted in Figure 8.

Table 2—Comparison of different methods to develop Field-X.

Method Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) Recovery Factor (%)

Conventional Trial-Error Method 10.66 38%

Previous Study-A 11.80 42%
Previous Study-B 12.64 45%
Proposed SOI Method 12.80 45%
10 SPE-182803-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure 8 —(a) Initial oil saturation of field X. (b) Final oil saturation of field X.

Case Study-2 (Green Gas Field: Field Y)

Comparison to Conventional Trial-Error Method Proposed wells from our SOI method and conven-
tional trial-error method are shown in Table B-8 and B-9. The cumulative gas production and recovery
factors for both methods are shown in Table 3. Production of first rank SOI method’s well gives 10% more
recovery factor than first rank of conventional method’s well which is equivalent to 2.63 BSCF increment.
The comparison of gas saturation distribution before and after producing SOI wells is depicted in Figure
9.

Table 3—Comparison of different methods to develop Field-Y.

Conventional Trial-Error Method SOI Tool

Number of Drilled Cumulative Gas Recovery Factor Number of Drilled Cumulative Gas Recovery Factor
Wells Production (BSCF) (%) Wells Production (BSCF) (%)

1 Well 107.33 84% 1 Well 119.96 94%

2 Wells 118.41 92% 2 Wells 121.95 95%
3 Wells 120.50 94% 3 Wells 122.41 95%

Figure 9 —(a) Initial gas saturation of field Y. (b) Final gas saturation of field Y.

The Optimum Number of Wells Table 3 shows that the more wells are drilled, the higher recovery
factors are achieved. There is an optimum point where increasing well number does not affect recovery
factor significantly. Based on the graphical method illustrated in Figure 10, optimum well number of our
SOI method is only two wells, whereas the conventional trial-error needs more than three wells to achieve
the optimum point.
SPE-182803-MS 11

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure 10 —Determination of the optimum well numbers by graphical method

Case Study-3 (Mature Oil Field: Field Z)

Comparison to previous study Proposed wells from our SOI method, conventional method, and previ-
ous study (I. T. Rau, et al., 2013) are shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12. The resulting cumulative oil
production and recovery factors are shown in Table 4. SOI infill wells give the highest cumulative oil
production of 84.2 MMSTB with the recovery factor of 50%, providing an extra 1 MMSTB oil compared
with previous study and additional 1.34 MMSTB oil compared with conventional method. Figure 10
depicts the comparison of saturation distribution prior to infill with infill wells.

Table 4 —Comparison of different methods to develop Field-Z.

Scenario Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) Recovery Factor (%)

Base Case Prior to Infill 69.67 42%

Base ⫹ 4 conventional wells 82.90 49%
Base ⫹ 4 previous study wells 83.25 50%
Base ⫹ 4 SOI Infill wells 84.24 50%

Figure 11—(a) Prior to infill oil saturation distribution of Field Z (b) Final oil saturation distribution of Field Z

Conclusions
A Simulation Opportunity Index based software has been developed to optimize the selection of vertical
well locations in oil and gas fields with less time and effort. The sensitivity analysis shows a strong
12 SPE-182803-MS

relationship between SOI value and recovery factor. It validates that the higher SOI values selected by the
software result in higher recovery factors.
The SOI software offers better results in a green oil field compared with (a) conventional method by
7.86% or 2.22 MMSTB, (b) the previous study-A by 3.68% or 1.04 MMSTB, and (c) the previous study-B
by 0.56% or 157 MSTB. In a green gas field, while one conventional method’s well achieves an 83.6%

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
recovery factor, one SOI well achieves up to 93.5% or equivalent to 12.63 BSCF of gas. In this case, SOI
software helps to reduce the optimum well number by two. In a mature oil field with 26 existing wells,
SOI software also enhances the recovery factor by 0.6% or 1 MMSTB of oil compared with previous
study and 0.8% or 1.35 MMSTB of oil compared with conventional method.
The SOI software could boost field development projects even in the period of low oil prices. On one
hand, the developed method could save money by minimizing the required number of wells. On the other
hand, it could maximize profit by maximizing recovery.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Department of Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia, as an origin of
the SOI Tool software development. And thanks to Energy Geosystem Group of the Upstream Petroleum
Engineering Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology for giving a valuable
input to develop SOI Tool ver 1.1.

Nomenclature
So ⫽ Current oil saturation at end of History Matching (HM) period or prior to infill,
fraction
Sor ⫽ Residual oil saturation, fraction
Sg ⫽ Current gas saturation at end of History Matching (HM) period or prior to infill,
fraction
Sgr ⫽ Residual gas saturation, fraction
␾ ⫽ Porosity, fraction
k ⫽ Permeability, mD
h ⫽ Height of net sand or (DZxNTG) in simulation models, ft
␮o ⫽ Oil viscosity at end of HM period or prior to infill, cp
␮g ⫽ Gas viscosity at any pressure calculated by Carr-Kobayashi-Burrow correlation, cp
Z ⫽ Gas compressibility factor at any pressure calculated by Beggs-Brill correlation,
fraction
P ⫽ Current pressure at end of HM period or prior to infill, psi
Pabn ⫽ Abandonment pressure, psi
␺ ⫽ Pseudo-pressure at current pressure (P), psi2/cp
␺abn ⫽ Pseudo-pressure at abandonment pressure (Pabn), psi2/cp

References
Al-Hussainy, R., Jr., H.J.R., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. J Pet Technol 18
(5): 624 –636. [Link]
Bresenham, J. E. 1965. Algorithm for computer control of a digital plotter. IBM Systems Journal 4 (1): 25–30.
[Link]
Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D.B. 1954. Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases under Pressure. J Pet Technol 6 (10):
47–55. SPE-297-G. [Link]
Chuah, B., et al 2014. Reservoir engineering aspect of well construction for cost effective field development: advances in
drainage point selection. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 10-12
December. IPTC-18243-MS. [Link]
SPE-182803-MS 13

Ghazali, M., Razib, M. 2011. Optimizing development strategy and maximizing field economic recovery through
simulation opportunity index. Presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and
Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, 9-11 October, SPE 148103. [Link]
Molina, A., Rincon, A. 2009. Exploitation plan design based on opportunity index analysis in numerical simulation
models. Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena, 31 May-3
June. SPE 122915. [Link]

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Putra, M. L. 2010. The role of genetic algorithm for well placement optimization in the x oil field: Final Project at the
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Rau, I. T., Ariadji, T. 2013. A new software development of genetic algorithm application to optimize vertical well
placements based on basic reservoir rock properties considering existing wells, drainage radius and fault existence for
multi-layer reservoirs: Final Project at the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
14 SPE-182803-MS

Appendix A
The Original Opportunity Index Formula (Molina, 2009)

(A.1)

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
(A.2)

(A.3)

(A.4)

where
Iopor ⫽ Opportunity Index, (fraction).
IKH ⫽ Relative Flow Index, (fraction).
IHCPVm ⫽ Porous Mobile Volume Index, (fraction).
IP_oper ⫽ Operation Pressure Index, (fraction).
PERMX ⫽ Horizontal Permeability, (mD).
OILKR ⫽ Oil Relative Permeability, (fraction).
NTG ⫽ Relation Net to Gross, (fraction).
DZ ⫽ Thickness, (meters).
SOIL ⫽ Current Oil Saturation, (fraction).
SOWCR ⫽ Residual Oil Saturation, (fraction).
PORO ⫽ Porosity, (fraction)
PRESSURE ⫽ Pressure, (Kg/cm2)
Pa ⫽ Abandonment Pressure, (Kg/cm2)
SPE-182803-MS 15

Appendix B
Supporting Tables and Figures

Table B-1—Existing wells data of oil field Z.

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Well Name X-location (i unit) Y-location (j unit)

A-1 88 19
A-2 81 23
A-3 92 21
A-4 78 17
A-5 71 15
A-6 86 6
A-7 71 23
A-8 83 14
A-9 96 14
A-10 103 19
A-11 77 10
A-12 86 21
B-1 44 19
B-2 37 26
B-3 35 18
B-4 54 21
B-5 28 16
B-6 61 18
B-7 41 13
B-8 49 24
B-9 35 23
B-10 58 24
B-11 24 20
B-12 62 15
B-13 55 18
B-14 48 16

Table B-2—Parameters used in the developed software for three case studies.
Case Study-1 Case Study-2 Case Study-3

Number of Proposed Wells 3 3 4

Number of Proposed Layers 12 20 12
SOI Filter 0.5 0.5 0.4

Table B-3—Parameters used in the commercial reservoir simulator software in validation phase.
Case Study-1 Case Study-2 Case Study-3

Tubing Size 7.5 inch 7.5 inch 7.5 inch

Simulation Control BHP Field Gas Rate BHP
Minimum Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP Target) 1500 psia 100 psia 1200 psia
Field Production Control – 20 MMscfd 2000 STB/day
Production Economic Limit 5 STB/day – 5 STB/day
Maximum Water Cut 0.98 – 0.98
Simulation Period 20 years 30 years 20 years
16 SPE-182803-MS

Table B-4 —Well placements using the developed software – field X.

Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 7 27 5,6,36,7,21,28,51,49,32,50,24,44
Well 2 12 31 7,5,6,8,1,3,12,4,11,9,15,19
Well 3 24 26 5,6,7,3,17,18,19,14,12,8,13,1

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Table B-5—Well placements using conventional trial and error method – field X.
Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 19 23 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25
Well 2 9 23 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25
Well 3 7 28 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25

Table B-6 —Well placements using previous study-A (genetic algorithm) – field X.
Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 23 25 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25
Well 2 7 28 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25
Well 3 12 31 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25

Table B-7—Well placements using previous study-B (genetic algorithm - multilayers) – field X.
Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 12 31 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,15,19
Well 2 7 27 5,6,7,21,24,25,26,28,31,32,36,49
Well 3 22 26 3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,19,20

Table B-8 —Well placements using the developed software – field Y.

Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 48 36 12,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,36
Well 2 43 24 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,31
Well 3 48 21 11,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,31,32,33,34,35

Table B-9 —Well placements using the conventional trial-error method – field Y.
Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 46 26 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
Well 2 49 42 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
Well 3 52 30 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
SPE-182803-MS 17

Table B-10 —Well placements using the developed software – field Z.

Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 66 19 11,12,18,20,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38
Well 2 39 21 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,22,26
Well 3 67 15 11,12,14,17,18,31,32,33,34,35,36,37

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Well 4 71 19 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13,17

Table B-11—Well placements using the conventional trial-error method – field Z.

Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 42 16 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 2 100 17 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 3 43 22 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 4 71 10 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34

Table B-12—Well placements using the previous study – field Z.

Well X Y Perforated Layers

Well 1 76 21 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 2 97 19 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 3 89 15 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34
Well 4 79 13 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,31,32,33,34

Figure B-1—Homepage of the developed software

18 SPE-182803-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
Figure B-2—Field data input for oil reservoir (examples)

Figure B-3—Field data input for gas reservoir (examples)

Figure B-4 —Grid data input (examples)

Figure B-5—Existing wells data input (examples)

 Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
19

Figure B-6 —Fault existences data input (examples)

Figure B-7—Drainage plan data input (examples)

Figure B-8 —Results section

Figure B-9 —results chart

SPE-182803-MS
 Downloaded from [Link] by Norwegian University of Science & Technology user on 21 April 2025
SPE-182803-MS

Figure B-10 —Results map

20