This paper introduces a decision optimization procedure that can evaluate and rank hundreds of prospect development scenarios quickly. Sophisticated optimization techniques that include uncertainty analysis are combined with fully coupled reservoir simulation models and a surface production network.In an example, 12 prospects are evaluated together. Each prospect is multi-zone with varying physical parameters, where each prospect has an equal probability of success. This procedure represents a holistic approach that incorporates technical drilling constraints, full-cycle development costs, and economic evaluation. The methodology yields production profiles for a maximum of seven successes out of the 12 prospects. Production plateaus range from 5 to 20 years at rates ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 BOPD. More than 3,000 simulations, representing 60 development scenarios each covered by 64 uncertainty samples were executed for the integrated asset model. This method yields full-development cycle results and enables decision makers to screen potential projects quickly. This approach considers all possible scenarios under conditions of uncertainty to provide associated risks. The procedure can quickly be scaled from quite coarse subsurface models, e.g., "tanks", to higher-resolution models as new information is acquired.We present a rigorous method for the rapid evaluation of a portfolio of exploration prospects to benefit operators who perform early pre-screening of projects in their current portfolios or who are considering new business opportunities that require rapid and accurate evaluation. Strategic tendencies are quickly identified and enable integrated asset teams to focus on critical aspects of potential project performance.

Introduction: Displaced proximal humerus fractures pose significant clinical problems. The aim of this study was to compare treatment results between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Material and methods: The study was a retrospective assessment. Sixtythree patients (30 HA, 33 ORIF) met the inclusion criteria; mean age: 64.5 years. The Constant-Murley scale, DASH score and VAS surveys for pain and satisfaction were used to evaluate the results. Results: The HA group: the constant score was 44 points, and the DASH score was 57 points; 53% of patients had osteolysis of the greater tubercle; none of the patients had revision surgery. ORIF group: the constant score was59 points, and the DASH score was 38 points; 21% of patients had a vascular necrosis; revision surgery was performed in 18% of cases. A significant correlation between good functional outcomes and young age of patients was found in the ORIF group (p-value < 0.048). Patients who started physical therapy earlier achieved better results. DASH scores were better compared to ones from the objective Constant-Murley score. There was no difference in satisfaction between HA and ORIF groups (p-value < 0.1). Conclusions: The ORIF should be considered for patients < 60 years old, but gives increased risk of urgent revision, due to screw protrusion. The HA provides fewer complications, lower risk of revision and can be better for patients between 60 and 70 years old. When choosing the treatment method, we should avoid focusing only on fracture configuration, but should also consider patient-related factors, such as age and lifestyle.