Holistic Appraisal Strategy Aims To Get the Most Out of Unconventional Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article, written by Editorial Manager Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 162776, ’Appraisal Excellence in Unconventional Reservoirs,’ by M.K. Burkholder, SPE, E.M. Coopersmith, SPE, and J.H. Schulze, SPE, Decision Frameworks, prepared for the 2012 SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 30 October-1 November. The paper has not been peer reviewed. This paper presents a pragmatic approach to frame, evaluate, and compare appraisal strategies in resource plays. The unique approach starts with framing the overall field-appraisal plan, holistically, and then progresses to evaluating the most commonly encountered individual appraisal decisions, enabling teams to answer the following questions: What are the key uncertainties, and which appraisal options should we consider to resolve them? Is there value in running a pilot to determine the optimal well spacing, and, if so, what is the best pilot design? Do we want to run a completions pilot, and how should we configure it? Do we need to pilot where and how to orient our laterals? Can we justify seismic to high-grade our drilling program? Introduction Open, Structured, Auditable Decision Process. Decision analysis is designed in two key phases, framing and analysis. Framing involves defining the decision problem, setting the objectives and decision criteria, agreeing on the alternatives to be evaluated, and structuring the evaluation. The analysis involves quantifying the key uncertainties and their effect on the development, estimating the uncertainty-reduction potential for each of the appraisal options, and applying standard value-of-information (VOI) analysis practices to gain insight on the strategic direction. Both framing and analysis are important and necessary. Frame and Evaluate the Development Strategy Without New Information Understanding the Risk Profile. Appraisal strategies are information strategies and, as such, require a VOI workflow to evaluate them. To define the value that information adds to an asset, the team must first understand the value of the asset without additional information. Therefore, VOI=(asset value with information)−(asset value without information). The evaluation results generated in this phase set the baseline “asset value without information” that excludes collecting any new information other than what one would normally collect in the course of a development. A cumulative probability plot displays the risk profile of a development—the chance of having a positive economic development—and is generated using probabilistic analysis methods. An example cumulative probability plot is displayed in Fig. 1. Three possible zero net-present-value (NPV) points (A, B, and C) are mapped on the plot. If the NPV zero point of the asset development is near C, there is a very low chance of achieving positive economic results (approximately 7%). In this situation, there is likely little value in appraisal because there is such an extremely low probability of finding an economic development. The reverse is true if the NPV zero point is near A. There is such a high chance of finding an economic development (approximately 91%) that there may also not be any value in appraisal. The team instead might consider stepping directly into development. When the NPV zero point is near B, there is considerable upside potential and downside risk of development and, as such, there is likely to be higher value in appraisal.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».