MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4247259446 · doi:10.2523/77419-ms

The Exploitation Enigma

2002· article· en· W4247259446 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Etherington, Patrick Leach, David Slaght

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationExhibitionLibrary scienceComputer scienceDownloadWorld Wide WebOperations researchHistoryArt historyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Exploitation Enigma John R. Etherington; John R. Etherington PRA International Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Patrick E. Leach; Patrick E. Leach APM International Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar David H. Slaght David H. Slaght Marathon Canada Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 2002. Paper Number: SPE-77419-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/77419-MS Published: September 29 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Etherington, John R., Leach, Patrick E., and David H. Slaght. "The Exploitation Enigma." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/77419-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractEvaluation of exploitation drilling programs raises unique issues around risking logic plus estimated ultimate recoverable (EUR) and project economic uncertainties. Clarification of these issues will assist in managing portfolios of exploration, exploitation, and development investment opportunities.Under USA accounting rules, all wells drilled outside the area of proved reserves are classified as "exploratory wells" for computation of cost of finding. However, companies typically segregate wells into Exploration (targeting prospective resources in undiscovered accumulations) and Exploitation (targeting probable and possible reserves in and around discovered fields).Classification as "discovered" signifies a high degree of confidence that the accumulation's EUR exceeds an internal economic threshold for development. However, there remains significant risk of drilling a dry well within the projected field limits. At the field level, the non-proven area is part of the uncertainty distribution for discovered reserves. At the exploitation well level, risk of failure and success case volume uncertainty both come into play. This multiple level view of risk and uncertainty gives rise to the "exploitation enigma".Exploitation well results change the field/reservoir model, the EUR uncertainty profile and associated cash flow projections. Successful wells not only develop reserves within a drainage area but also modify the total field volume uncertainty distribution. Results redefine the remaining proved undeveloped, probable, and possible reserve volumes and their associated confidence levels. Dry exploitation wells also change the EUR distribution and increase investment costs without an increase in forecast production.This paper compares alternative approaches to the evaluation of exploitation programs. It concludes that the economic analysis to support exploitation drilling decisions should not be based solely on the individual well's anticipated results, but rather on its risk-weighted, incremental effect on the overall project value.IntroductionThe dictionary defines an "enigma" as something obscure and hard to understand or explain. Oil and gas exploitation drilling programs certainly fit this definition.Exploitation wells share attributes with conventional wildcats, exploration appraisal wells, and field development wells. While the definition of an exploitation well varies from company to company, generic characteristics include:drilled into unproven areas in and around an existing fieldhas significant chance of failureif successful can be completed and quickly tied into existing production facilitiesresults may significantly impact field economicsExploration managers often describe exploitation wells as low risk wildcats. However, they are concerned that these ventures, which may impact their performance metrics ("exploration success ratios", cost of finding, dry hole costs), are not within their control and may not fit their corporate strategies. Producing managers view exploitation wells as high risk and are often concerned that these programs take money out of development drilling programs. Further, exploitation well failures will negatively impact cost of development metrics upon which they are judged. Staff assigned to exploitation programs thus suffer distrust from both parts of the organization. Keywords: spe 77419, prospective resource, upstream oil & gas, slaght, project valuation, scenario, reserves evaluation, exploration, project level, etherington Subjects: Reserves Evaluation, Asset and Portfolio Management, Reserves classification, Project economics/valuation This content is only available via PDF. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

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 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 enseignants0,724
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,269

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 Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionMême sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207