Understanding the Enigma of Reserves Growth: The Whys
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract It is a common claim that reservoir engineers and geologists are too optimistic and overestimate reserves. To evaluate this claim, a total of 493 reservoirs of light/medium oil, heavy oil, and gas were tracked over a period of more than 40 years, compiling Alberta Government records estimating ultimate recovery from 1961 to 2002. Recovery factors, well counts, actual production/injection data, and implementation of improved recovery schemes were also tracked to determine the reasons for reserves growth. In addition, the effect of price on growth of reserves was also examined. Contrary to the claim, the study actually shows remarkable reserves growth in light/medium oil pools discovered in the 1950s. It was found that ultimate recoveries from over 73% of the light/medium oil pools were underestimated and that growth above the initial recovery estimates occurred. The light/medium oil pools averaged a 97% growth in reserves. Because of the mature state of depletion and extensive production history, we can see that the cumulative oil and gas produced to date is often well above the original ultimate recovery forecasted by earlier conservative techniques. Similar growth trends were discovered for heavy oil and gas pools discovered prior to the 1980s. Heavy oil pools averaged a phenomenal 1083% growth in reserves while gas pools averaged 86%. Light/medium and heavy oil pools tend to grow both in recovery factor and volumes in place (OOIP). Gas pool reserves grow mainly by volumes in place (OGIP). Although reserves growth phenomena have been studied before, this paper discusses the causes of reserves growth and shows the critical importance that improved recovery schemes, infill drilling information, and new technology have on this growth. In conclusion, reservoir engineers and geologists are, if anything, too conservative in their estimates of ultimate recovery, although their production rate predictions may be overly optimistic. Introduction Interest in reserves growth is gaining momentum as petroleum experts around the world speculate on remaining oil and gas reserves. Additional reserves come not only from discovery of new pools, but also from existing pools. Currently, the majority of reserves additions arise from known resources. Many factors contribute to reserves growth which, to this point, have never been evaluated for the province of Alberta. In this paper, we attempt to understand not only the enigma of reserves growth and the reasons behind it; we also attempt to determine the main characteristics of reserves growth in Alberta based on analysis of data obtained from the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). Background/Literature Review The oil and gas industry is widely divided with respect to reserves and their growth and there is an extensive body of research and literature on this issue. This review focuses on Canada and the United States. In the United States, Arrington1 was the first to recognize the significance of reserves growth. He developed a methodology for estimation of reserves growth in fields that are missing reserves data for the early years after discovery.
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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».