A two-stage stochastic programming framework for oil and gas exploration well portfolio optimization under geological and economic uncertainty

JunYi Cui

arxiv: 2605.26493 · v1 · pith:DYVNOYMYnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🧮 math.OC

A two-stage stochastic programming framework for oil and gas exploration well portfolio optimization under geological and economic uncertainty

Junyi Cui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC

keywords two-stage stochastic programmingoil and gas explorationwell portfolio optimizationgeological uncertaintyeconomic uncertaintyrisk-return frontieradaptive planningmulti-objective optimization

0 comments

The pith

A two-stage stochastic optimization framework selects oil and gas exploration well portfolios by incorporating geological learning from early results.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a posterior-informed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization model for choosing limited portfolios of drilling and appraisal projects before geological outcomes are known. First-stage decisions commit to frontier traps, appraisal projects, and mature units, after which second-stage recourse actions adjust based on observed successes or failures. A logit-scale mechanism updates success probabilities for related projects to capture learning. The model maximizes expected net present value while minimizing conditional value-at-risk and enforces chance constraints on success rates and reserve targets. A numerical case study demonstrates that the resulting portfolios form an interpretable risk-return frontier and support adaptive planning under downside-risk control and reliability requirements.

Core claim

The framework formulates exploration planning as a two-stage stochastic program in which here-and-now selections of frontier traps, appraisal projects, and mature appraisal units are followed by scenario-dependent recourse projects such as follow-up appraisal, reserve upgrading, conversion to proved reserves, rolling extension, and data re-evaluation; geological learning is represented by a logit-scale posterior updating rule that links first-stage outcomes to the success probabilities of recourse projects, and the model is solved by combining sample average approximation with NSGA-II for the first stage and scenario-wise constrained 0-1 optimization for the second stage to maximize expected

What carries the argument

posterior-informed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization framework with logit-scale posterior updating mechanism

If this is right

The model produces an interpretable risk-return frontier for portfolio selection under uncertainty.
It supports adaptive exploration planning that incorporates geological learning from first-stage outcomes.
Downside-risk control is achieved through explicit minimization of conditional value-at-risk.
Reserve-reliability requirements are enforced via chance constraints on success rate and reserve targets.
The solution procedure combines sample average approximation with NSGA-II and scenario-wise 0-1 optimization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same two-stage structure with explicit recourse and learning updates could apply to other sequential investment decisions where early outcomes revise later probabilities.
Calibration of the logit-scale parameters would likely require fitting to historical drilling records from the specific basin.
Static expected-value optimization would omit the value of information that the recourse stage explicitly models.
The chance-constraint formulation could be extended to additional reliability metrics such as production-rate targets.

Load-bearing premise

Geological learning is accurately captured by a logit-scale posterior updating mechanism that links first-stage success or failure to the success probabilities of related recourse projects.

What would settle it

Field data in which the risk-return performance of model-selected portfolios deviates substantially from the predicted frontier or in which observed geological outcomes fail to follow the logit-scale update rule used in the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26493 by JunYi Cui.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Framework of the proposed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization method. The coefficients 𝜆 𝑜 𝑞𝑚 and 𝜆 𝑔 𝑞𝑚 allow the same physical reserve potential to contribute differently to predicted, controlled, and proved reserve indicators. Thus, reserve uncertainty enters the optimization model through both economic value and chance-constrained reserve target satisfaction. 2.3. Economic-value uncerta… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Input distributions of key project-level parameters for first-stage projects and second-stage appraisal projects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Pareto frontier obtained by the proposed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Out-of-sample comparison between the stochastic Pareto frontier and the deterministic mean-value benchmark. contrast, the stochastic portfolios provide a set of feasible alternatives with different return–risk profiles. This result supports the necessity of the proposed stochastic formulation: exploration portfolio optimization should not be based only on deterministic expected value, but should jointly c… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: shows that introducing recourse substantially improves out-of-sample performance. Compared with the norecourse setting, posterior-informed exact recourse increases the mean expected NPV from 253,732.31 to 339,920.36 (104 CNY), while reducing the mean CVaR loss from 27,208.41 to 11,191.13 (104 CNY). The joint reserve reliability also increases from 0.7679 to 0.7931. These results indicate that second-sta… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: compares the in-sample and out-of-sample performance of the posterior-informed exact recourse portfolios. The mean expected NPV decreases from 346,395.45 to 339,920.36 (104 CNY), corresponding to a reduction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Sensitivity of portfolio performance to the CVaR confidence level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Sensitivity of portfolio performance to geological learning strength. of posterior-informed learning: stronger geological information transfer improves the selection quality of second-stage appraisal projects and reduces downside exposure without undermining reliability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Scenario stability of SAA-based performance estimates under different scenario-bank sizes. The SAA stability test evaluates the posterior-informed exact recourse portfolios under scenario banks with 𝑆 = 50, 100, 200, and 500. For each scenario size, 10 independent scenario banks are generated, while the number of second-stage sub-scenarios is fixed at 𝐾 = 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Variability of Pareto fronts obtained from repeated NSGA-II runs under different random seeds. 6. Conclusion This paper develops a posterior-informed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization framework for oil and gas exploration portfolio selection. The proposed model jointly considers geological success uncertainty, reserve uncertainty, and economic value uncertainty. First-stage decisions deter… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Annual oil and gas exploration planning involves selecting a limited portfolio of drilling and appraisal-related projects before geological outcomes are known. This decision is affected by uncertainties in geological success, reserve size, and economic value, while also subject to budget, well-count, success-rate, and reserve-reliability requirements. A strategy based only on expected value is therefore insufficient, as early drilling results may change the value of subsequent follow-up opportunities. This study develops a posterior-informed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization framework for exploration well selection under uncertainty. The first stage selects a here-and-now portfolio of frontier traps, appraisal projects, and mature appraisal units. After first-stage outcomes are observed, the second stage determines scenario-dependent recourse projects, including follow-up appraisal, reserve upgrading, conversion-to-proved reserves, rolling extension, and data re-evaluation projects. Geological learning is modeled using a logit-scale posterior updating mechanism that links first-stage success or failure to the success probabilities of related recourse projects. The model maximizes expected net present value and minimizes conditional value-at-risk, while imposing chance constraints on drilling success rate and individual and joint reserve targets. To solve the model, sample average approximation is combined with NSGA-II for first-stage portfolio search and a scenario-wise constrained 0-1 optimization procedure for second-stage evaluation. A numerical case study shows that the proposed framework provides an interpretable risk-return frontier and supports adaptive exploration planning under geological learning, downside-risk control, and reserve-reliability requirements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a competent applied paper on two-stage stochastic optimization for oil and gas well portfolios that adds logit-based geological learning and CVaR with chance constraints, but the core techniques are standard and the contribution stays within one industry.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is a two-stage model where the first stage picks an initial portfolio of exploration and appraisal wells, then the second stage adds recourse actions once drilling outcomes are seen. It uses a logit-scale update to revise success probabilities for follow-on projects based on first-stage results, maximizes expected NPV while minimizing CVaR, and adds chance constraints on success rates and reserve targets. The solution approach combines sample average approximation with NSGA-II for the first stage and a per-scenario 0-1 solver for the second. A numerical case study produces a risk-return frontier and shows adaptive planning under the learning rule.

What works is the clear mapping from industry constraints (budget, well count, reserve reliability) to the optimization structure and the explicit handling of how early outcomes change later project values. The framework is coherent on its own terms and the numerical example illustrates the intended behavior without obvious internal contradictions.

The soft spots are mostly in the modeling choices and validation. The logit posterior update is presented as a modeling device, but the paper gives little detail on how its parameters are set or tested against actual geological data, so the learning effect could be sensitive to those choices. The case study is numerical rather than based on proprietary field data, which limits claims about real capital allocation gains. The solution method is standard for this class of problems, so the novelty sits mainly in the domain-specific combination rather than new theory.

This paper is for researchers working on stochastic programming applications in energy or for optimization teams inside oil and gas companies. A reader already familiar with two-stage models and CVaR will see the extensions quickly and can judge whether the logit rule fits their setting. It is coherent enough and addresses a real decision problem, so it deserves a serious referee even if revisions will focus on parameter justification and additional sensitivity checks.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a posterior-informed two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization framework for selecting oil and gas exploration well portfolios under geological success, reserve size, and economic uncertainties. First-stage decisions select a portfolio of frontier traps, appraisal projects, and mature units subject to budget and well-count limits; second-stage recourse actions (follow-up appraisal, reserve upgrading, etc.) are determined after outcomes are observed. Geological learning is incorporated via a logit-scale posterior updating rule linking first-stage results to updated success probabilities. The model maximizes expected NPV while minimizing CVaR, subject to chance constraints on success rate and reserve targets. It is solved by combining sample average approximation with NSGA-II for the first stage and scenario-wise 0-1 optimization for the second stage. A numerical case study is presented to illustrate an interpretable risk-return frontier and adaptive planning capabilities.

Significance. If the modeling choices and numerical results are robust, the work offers a practical advance in stochastic optimization for exploration planning by integrating geological learning, downside-risk control via CVaR, and reserve-reliability constraints into a single adaptive framework. The combination of NSGA-II with scenario-wise recourse evaluation provides a computationally tractable way to generate Pareto fronts that decision makers can interpret, which addresses a recognized gap between expected-value planning and risk-aware adaptive strategies in the oil and gas sector.

minor comments (3)

The abstract states that the logit-scale posterior updating 'links first-stage success or failure to the success probabilities of related recourse projects,' but the precise functional form, parameter estimation procedure, and any sensitivity analysis for these parameters are not described; this should be added with explicit equations in the model formulation section.
The numerical case study is said to demonstrate an 'interpretable risk-return frontier,' yet no details are given on the number of scenarios, the specific CVaR confidence level chosen, or quantitative metrics (e.g., out-of-sample performance or comparison against a myopic expected-value benchmark); these should be reported in a dedicated results subsection with tables or figures.
Notation for the multi-objective weighting between expected NPV and CVaR, as well as the chance-constraint violation probabilities, should be introduced consistently and early in the mathematical model to avoid ambiguity when reading the solution algorithm description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation of minor revision. The report provides no specific major comments to address point by point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework is a modeling construct evaluated externally

full rationale

The paper presents a two-stage stochastic multi-objective optimization model with chance constraints and a logit-scale posterior updating rule for geological learning. The first-stage decisions select a portfolio, second-stage recourse is scenario-dependent, and the solution uses SAA combined with NSGA-II. The numerical case study evaluates the framework against external metrics such as expected NPV, CVaR, and reserve-reliability targets. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a quantity defined by the model's own fitted parameters or by a self-citation chain; the logit updating and multi-objective formulation are explicit modeling choices whose validity is application-specific rather than self-referential. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; the model relies on standard stochastic programming assumptions plus paper-specific modeling choices whose precise parameter values and justifications are not provided.

free parameters (3)

Number of scenarios
Used in sample average approximation to represent uncertainties; value not specified.
Logit-scale posterior parameters
Control updating of success probabilities from first-stage outcomes; values not given.
CVaR confidence level and weighting
Balance the multi-objective optimization between expected NPV and risk; specific values not stated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Uncertainties in geological success, reserve size, and economic value can be represented by a finite set of scenarios
Foundation for the stochastic programming and sample average approximation approach.
ad hoc to paper The logit-scale posterior updating mechanism accurately links first-stage outcomes to recourse project probabilities
Central modeling choice enabling the adaptive second-stage decisions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5791 in / 1619 out tokens · 54078 ms · 2026-06-29T16:21:45.385339+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

W. C. LaCosta, A. V. Milkov, Petroleum exploration portfolios gen- erated with different optimization approaches: Lessons for decision- makers, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 214 (2022) 110459. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110459

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110459 2022
[2]

Suslick, D

S. Suslick, D. Schiozer, Risk analysis applied to petroleum explo- rationandproduction:anoverview,JournalofPetroleumScienceand Engineering 44 (1) (2004) 1–9, risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and Production.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol. 2004.02.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol 2004
[3]

A. V. Milkov, Risk tables for less biased and more consistent estima- tionofprobabilityofgeologicalsuccess(pos)forsegmentswithcon- ventional oil and gas prospective resources, Earth-Science Reviews 150 (2015) 453–476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev. 2015.08.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.earscirev 2015
[4]

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005

M.R.Walls,Combiningdecisionanalysisandportfoliomanagement to improve project selection in the exploration and production firm, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 44 (1) (2004) 55– 65, risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and Production. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005 2004
[5]

S. M. Santos, V. E. Botechia, D. J. Schiozer, A. T. Gaspar, Expected value, downside risk and upside potential as decision criteria in productionstrategyselectionforpetroleumfielddevelopment,Journal ofPetroleumScienceandEngineering157(2017)81–93. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.07.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2017.07.002 2017
[6]

Scalar field vacuum expectation value in- duced by gravitational wave background

R. Ahmadi, R. B. Bratvold, An exposition of least square monte carlo approach for real options valuation, Geoenergy Science and Engineering 222 (2023) 111230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. petrol.2022.111230

work page doi:10.1016/j 2023
[7]

Aghajani, R

D. Aghajani, R. B. Bratvold, V. Hagspiel, O. Noshchenko, V. K. Toutain,Amulti-objectivedecision-makingframeworkforthechoice betweenmutuallyexclusivealternativesunderuncertainty:Assessing the competitiveness of offshore wind for a gas field electrification on thencs,EnergyEconomics141(2025)108032. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2024.108032

work page doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2024.108032 2025
[8]

C. Yong, M. Tong, Z. Yang, J. Zhou, Conventional natural gas projectinvestmentanddecisionmakingundermultipleuncertainties, Energies 16 (5) (2023).doi:10.3390/en16052342

work page doi:10.3390/en16052342 2023
[9]

H. Liu, T. Zhang, How to optimize the investment decision of shale gas multi-objective green development for energy sustain- able development?, Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Produc- tion Technology 15 (12) (2025) 192.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13202-025-02084-7

2025
[10]

Nadarajah, N

S. Nadarajah, N. Secomandi, A review of the operations literature on real options in energy, European Journal of Operational Research 309 (2) (2023) 469–487.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022. 09.014

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2022 2023
[11]

Noshchenko, V

O. Noshchenko, V. Hagspiel, Environmental and economic multi- objective realoptions analysis: Electrification choicesfor field devel- opment investment planning, Energy 295 (2024) 131053.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131053

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.131053 2024
[12]

M. A. G. Dias, R. E. P. Borges, Valuing oil reserve volumes under price uncertainty, Journal of Economics and Business 137 (2025) 106277, recent Developments and Challenges in Real Options.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2025.106277

work page doi:10.1016/j.jeconbus.2025.106277 2025
[13]

Y. G. Lopes, A. T. d. Almeida, A multicriteria decision model for selecting a portfolio of oil and gas exploration projects, Pesquisa Operacional 33 (3) (2013) 417–441.doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0101-74382013005000011

2013
[14]

Y.G.Lopes,A.T.deAlmeida,Assessmentofsynergiesforselectinga project portfolio in the petroleum industry based on a multi-attribute utility function, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 126 (2015)131–140.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.12.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.12.012 2015
[15]

Tarhan, I

B. Tarhan, I. E. Grossmann, V. Goel, Stochastic programming ap- proachfortheplanningofoffshoreoilorgasfieldinfrastructureunder decision-dependent uncertainty, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (6) (2009) 3078–3097

2009
[17]

Martinelli, J

G. Martinelli, J. Eidsvik, K. Hokstad, R. Hauge, Strategies for petroleumexplorationonthebasisofbayesiannetworks:Acasestudy, SPE Journal 19 (04) (2013) 564–575.doi:10.2118/159722-PA

work page doi:10.2118/159722-pa 2013
[18]

Martinelli, J

G. Martinelli, J. Eidsvik, R. Hauge, Dynamic decision making for graphical models applied to oil exploration, European Journal of Operational Research 230 (3) (2013) 688–702.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.057

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.057 2013
[19]

Gupta, I

V. Gupta, I. E. Grossmann, Multistage stochastic programming ap- proach for offshore oilfield infrastructure planning under produc- tion sharing agreements and endogenous uncertainties, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 180–197.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.006 2014
[20]

Kettunen, M

J. Kettunen, M. A. Lejeune, Data-driven project portfolio selection: Decision-dependent stochastic programming formulations with reli- ability and time to market requirements, Computers & Operations Research 143 (2022) 105737. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor. 2022.105737

work page doi:10.1016/j.cor 2022
[22]

Artzner, F

P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, D. Heath, Coherent measures of risk, Mathematical Finance 9 (3) (1999) 203–228.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1111/1467-9965.00068

work page doi:10.1111/1467-9965.00068 1999
[23]

R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, et al., Optimization of conditional value-at-risk,Journalofrisk2(2000)21–42. doi:10.21314/JOR.2000. 038

work page doi:10.21314/jor.2000 2000
[24]

Krokhmal, J

P. Krokhmal, J. Palmquist, S. Uryasev, Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints, Journal of risk 4 (2002) 43–68

2002
[25]

doi:10.1137/ S1052623499363220

A.J.Kleywegt,A.Shapiro,T.Homem-deMello,Thesampleaverage approximation method for stochastic discrete optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 12 (2) (2002) 479–502. doi:10.1137/ S1052623499363220

2002
[26]

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist mul- tiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii, IEEE Transactions on Evolu- tionaryComputation6(2)(2002)182–197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017

work page doi:10.1109/4235.996017 2002
[27]

1995.10476572

R.E.Kass,A.E.Raftery,Bayesfactors,JournaloftheAmericanSta- tistical Association 90 (430) (1995) 773–795.doi:10.1080/01621459. 1995.10476572

work page doi:10.1080/01621459 1995
[28]

F.P.Agterberg,Q.Cheng,Conditionalindependencetestforweights- of-evidence modeling, Natural Resources Research 11 (4) (2002) 249–255.doi:10.1023/A:1021193827501

work page doi:10.1023/a:1021193827501 2002
[29]

P. W. Monigle, T. S. Hedayati, F. J. Goulding, Integrated and im- proved direct hydrocarbon indicators: A step forward in petroleum risk discrimination, AAPG Bulletin 109 (5) (2025) 617–636.doi: 10.1306/04042524030

work page doi:10.1306/04042524030 2025
[30]

Rockafellar, S

R. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions,JournalofBanking&Finance26(7)(2002)1443–1471. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00271-6. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 17

work page doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00271-6 2002

[1] [1]

W. C. LaCosta, A. V. Milkov, Petroleum exploration portfolios gen- erated with different optimization approaches: Lessons for decision- makers, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 214 (2022) 110459. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110459

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110459 2022

[2] [2]

Suslick, D

S. Suslick, D. Schiozer, Risk analysis applied to petroleum explo- rationandproduction:anoverview,JournalofPetroleumScienceand Engineering 44 (1) (2004) 1–9, risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and Production.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol. 2004.02.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol 2004

[3] [3]

A. V. Milkov, Risk tables for less biased and more consistent estima- tionofprobabilityofgeologicalsuccess(pos)forsegmentswithcon- ventional oil and gas prospective resources, Earth-Science Reviews 150 (2015) 453–476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev. 2015.08.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.earscirev 2015

[4] [4]

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005

M.R.Walls,Combiningdecisionanalysisandportfoliomanagement to improve project selection in the exploration and production firm, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 44 (1) (2004) 55– 65, risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and Production. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005 2004

[5] [5]

S. M. Santos, V. E. Botechia, D. J. Schiozer, A. T. Gaspar, Expected value, downside risk and upside potential as decision criteria in productionstrategyselectionforpetroleumfielddevelopment,Journal ofPetroleumScienceandEngineering157(2017)81–93. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.07.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2017.07.002 2017

[6] [6]

Scalar field vacuum expectation value in- duced by gravitational wave background

R. Ahmadi, R. B. Bratvold, An exposition of least square monte carlo approach for real options valuation, Geoenergy Science and Engineering 222 (2023) 111230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. petrol.2022.111230

work page doi:10.1016/j 2023

[7] [7]

Aghajani, R

D. Aghajani, R. B. Bratvold, V. Hagspiel, O. Noshchenko, V. K. Toutain,Amulti-objectivedecision-makingframeworkforthechoice betweenmutuallyexclusivealternativesunderuncertainty:Assessing the competitiveness of offshore wind for a gas field electrification on thencs,EnergyEconomics141(2025)108032. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2024.108032

work page doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2024.108032 2025

[8] [8]

C. Yong, M. Tong, Z. Yang, J. Zhou, Conventional natural gas projectinvestmentanddecisionmakingundermultipleuncertainties, Energies 16 (5) (2023).doi:10.3390/en16052342

work page doi:10.3390/en16052342 2023

[9] [9]

H. Liu, T. Zhang, How to optimize the investment decision of shale gas multi-objective green development for energy sustain- able development?, Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Produc- tion Technology 15 (12) (2025) 192.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13202-025-02084-7

2025

[10] [10]

Nadarajah, N

S. Nadarajah, N. Secomandi, A review of the operations literature on real options in energy, European Journal of Operational Research 309 (2) (2023) 469–487.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022. 09.014

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2022 2023

[11] [11]

Noshchenko, V

O. Noshchenko, V. Hagspiel, Environmental and economic multi- objective realoptions analysis: Electrification choicesfor field devel- opment investment planning, Energy 295 (2024) 131053.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131053

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.131053 2024

[12] [12]

M. A. G. Dias, R. E. P. Borges, Valuing oil reserve volumes under price uncertainty, Journal of Economics and Business 137 (2025) 106277, recent Developments and Challenges in Real Options.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2025.106277

work page doi:10.1016/j.jeconbus.2025.106277 2025

[13] [13]

Y. G. Lopes, A. T. d. Almeida, A multicriteria decision model for selecting a portfolio of oil and gas exploration projects, Pesquisa Operacional 33 (3) (2013) 417–441.doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0101-74382013005000011

2013

[14] [14]

Y.G.Lopes,A.T.deAlmeida,Assessmentofsynergiesforselectinga project portfolio in the petroleum industry based on a multi-attribute utility function, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 126 (2015)131–140.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.12.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.12.012 2015

[15] [15]

Tarhan, I

B. Tarhan, I. E. Grossmann, V. Goel, Stochastic programming ap- proachfortheplanningofoffshoreoilorgasfieldinfrastructureunder decision-dependent uncertainty, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (6) (2009) 3078–3097

2009

[16] [17]

Martinelli, J

G. Martinelli, J. Eidsvik, K. Hokstad, R. Hauge, Strategies for petroleumexplorationonthebasisofbayesiannetworks:Acasestudy, SPE Journal 19 (04) (2013) 564–575.doi:10.2118/159722-PA

work page doi:10.2118/159722-pa 2013

[17] [18]

Martinelli, J

G. Martinelli, J. Eidsvik, R. Hauge, Dynamic decision making for graphical models applied to oil exploration, European Journal of Operational Research 230 (3) (2013) 688–702.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.057

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.057 2013

[18] [19]

Gupta, I

V. Gupta, I. E. Grossmann, Multistage stochastic programming ap- proach for offshore oilfield infrastructure planning under produc- tion sharing agreements and endogenous uncertainties, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 180–197.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.006 2014

[19] [20]

Kettunen, M

J. Kettunen, M. A. Lejeune, Data-driven project portfolio selection: Decision-dependent stochastic programming formulations with reli- ability and time to market requirements, Computers & Operations Research 143 (2022) 105737. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor. 2022.105737

work page doi:10.1016/j.cor 2022

[20] [22]

Artzner, F

P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, D. Heath, Coherent measures of risk, Mathematical Finance 9 (3) (1999) 203–228.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1111/1467-9965.00068

work page doi:10.1111/1467-9965.00068 1999

[21] [23]

R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, et al., Optimization of conditional value-at-risk,Journalofrisk2(2000)21–42. doi:10.21314/JOR.2000. 038

work page doi:10.21314/jor.2000 2000

[22] [24]

Krokhmal, J

P. Krokhmal, J. Palmquist, S. Uryasev, Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints, Journal of risk 4 (2002) 43–68

2002

[23] [25]

doi:10.1137/ S1052623499363220

A.J.Kleywegt,A.Shapiro,T.Homem-deMello,Thesampleaverage approximation method for stochastic discrete optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 12 (2) (2002) 479–502. doi:10.1137/ S1052623499363220

2002

[24] [26]

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist mul- tiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii, IEEE Transactions on Evolu- tionaryComputation6(2)(2002)182–197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017

work page doi:10.1109/4235.996017 2002

[25] [27]

1995.10476572

R.E.Kass,A.E.Raftery,Bayesfactors,JournaloftheAmericanSta- tistical Association 90 (430) (1995) 773–795.doi:10.1080/01621459. 1995.10476572

work page doi:10.1080/01621459 1995

[26] [28]

F.P.Agterberg,Q.Cheng,Conditionalindependencetestforweights- of-evidence modeling, Natural Resources Research 11 (4) (2002) 249–255.doi:10.1023/A:1021193827501

work page doi:10.1023/a:1021193827501 2002

[27] [29]

P. W. Monigle, T. S. Hedayati, F. J. Goulding, Integrated and im- proved direct hydrocarbon indicators: A step forward in petroleum risk discrimination, AAPG Bulletin 109 (5) (2025) 617–636.doi: 10.1306/04042524030

work page doi:10.1306/04042524030 2025

[28] [30]

Rockafellar, S

R. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions,JournalofBanking&Finance26(7)(2002)1443–1471. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00271-6. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 17

work page doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00271-6 2002