MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2171737926 · doi:10.2118/114162-ms

Achieving Global Acceptance of and Compliance With a Universal Set of Petroleum Resources and Reserves Definitions—Are We There Yet?

2008· article· en· W2171737926 sur OpenAlex
D. Ronald Harrell

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMandatePetroleumPetroleum industryGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)BusinessAccountingPolitical scienceEngineeringLawSociologyGeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract SPE has long been a leader together with several other cooperative industry organizations over time in establishing petroleum resources and reserves definitions. This began in 1962 with the appointment of the first SPE Oil and Gas Reserves Committee (OGRC) and continues through the most recent SPE programs and processes created to inform and educate industry and the public about the applicability and significance of the Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS) approved in March 2007. The three other sponsors of the PRMS are the World Petroleum Council (WPC), the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE) who, along with SPE, effectively represent virtually every segment of the greater petroleum industry worldwide. Developing the PRMS required more than three years and the direct, hands-on participation of more than two dozen industry volunteers. The document was further subjected to a 100-day industry wide review period where comments were solicited and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final approved version. This was, in every measure, a global effort as the mandate for the OGRC and its observers was strengthened by having representation from 10 countries including Australia, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela. Employers of the OGRC members and those of its six observers included privately-owned, state-owned, independent and integrated producers plus large and small consulting firms, one government agency and an international accounting board. All of the individuals who participated in the creation of the PRMS fully recognize the dynamic nature of this exercise and the continuing need for periodic updating of the constituent PRMS documents in recognition of advancing technology and ongoing global discussions. The value of having a unified (and broadly understood) set of definitional standards for petroleum resources definitions will become more appreciated over time as many world leaders continue to express concern about the ability of the industry to meet its share of the energy demand of an expanding population and economy. Many would agree that the first concrete step in achieving international recognition of a single standard for petroleum reserves and resources definitions began with the efforts of the WPC and SPE in their joint 1997 publication of updated reserves definitions and the recognition of both deterministic and probabilistic assessment methodologies. Three years later, the AAPG joined SPE and WPC in developing and issuing petroleum resources definitions in 2000. These two significant steps plus the inclusion of the SPEE led to the March 2007 release of the PRMS. The more challenging part of this process clearly lies ahead as the sponsoring organizations work together to "sell" these definitions and principles to the upstream petroleum industry management, the financial community including investors and creditors, the accounting world, governments, certain mining interests and governmental regulators. Upstream investment decisions, including those arising from cooperative agreements between companies, are facilitated and optimized through reliance upon information generated through a uniform and modern set of resource definitions and classification standards. Investors, in particular, need to have a clear understanding of the meaning of terms in a reserves report, for example, before they can make judicious decisions about value and comparability. Is this achievable? Who are the key players and what incentives are there to bring universal acceptance and compliance? The good news is that this process has been ongoing for at least 10 years and has now being accelerated through the combined and concerted efforts of many individuals and organizations, all of whom have or are beginning to develop a clear vision of the benefits to be derived from a universal petroleum resources classification code to meet the needs of the greater petroleum industry and its investors. Has the SPE OGRC reached a sufficiently high level of consensus in crafting the PRMS for it to warrant recognition and acceptance by the companies, agencies, organizations and individuals who will ultimately make these decisions? This paper attempts to address this very important question.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,485
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,336

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle