MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015566913 · doi:10.2118/71428-ms

Near-Field Exploration: From Failure to Success

2001· article· en· W2015566913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. R. Marchant, H. Hugh Wilson, David Bamford

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpstream (networking)Production (economics)Petroleum industryCompromiseField (mathematics)BusinessMarketingEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the late 1980's and early-mid 1990's both BP and Amoco invested large sums of money exploring close to their core producing fields in traditional ‘heartlands’ such as the North Sea, Alaska and L48. These investments were largely unsuccessful. Amoco coined the term ‘stealth exploration’ to describe the activity carried out by individual assets whose failure costs only later appeared on the corporate balance sheet as exploration write-off. The recent industry focus on short-term production has reawakened interest in near-field exploration. BP is no exception. Despite the overall corporate perception of failure, it became apparent that some business units, notably Canada Gas and Egypt Oil, were making a quiet success of near-field exploration. Therefore the company conducted a study to understand what made these BU's successful. The lessons learned were: – A focus on monetisation and cycle time – Tight integration between exploration and production – Tight control of subsurface technical risk – Focus on certain key plays The company allocated a limited amount of seed capital to test the concept of near-field exploration in five business units where BP has a dominant ownership of the regional infrastructure. This diverse group of upstream businesses has successfully managed a limited exploration programme and demonstrated that near-field exploration can be controlled and can add value through short-term production. The key conclusion to be drawn from this story of ‘corpor; learning’ is that near-field exploration in large companies c make money provided three actions are taken: Do not compromise on subsurface technical risk in the face of pressure from engineers and others attracted by the economics – an investment with a positive EMV and/or high RoR with a high technical risk is still a high-risk investment. Manage the activity as an integrated part of the production asset to minimise cycle time. Set tight performance metrics and manage the portfolio globally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207