Analysis of Exploration Expenditure for Unconventional Gas: How Investing in Exploration Would Improve Reserves and Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years petroleum producers have become engaged in significant expenditure towards exploration and development in conventional and unconventional gas plays in United States and in Canada. How efficient would be such expenditure for different producers and different basins? This paper describes the methodology of the analysis of correlation between exploration expenditure and producer's reserves and production. A model has been developed to quantitatively assess exploration expenditure, production, and reserves of various producers for different conventional and unconventional gas plays. The model incorporates producer's booked reserves and production from the public sources as well as reserves and production forecasts. The model is used to analyze different types of exploration expenditure, including land, drilling and seismic, incurred at different time periods prior to the booking of reserves and production. The proposed methodology has been used to compare the exploration expenditure of various producers operating in the United States. The analysis has demonstrated an overall positive correlation between exploration expenditure and reserves and production; however the correlation showed significant variance between various producers operating in different plays. The proposed methodology and the result of the study can be applied to the analysis of efficiency of the exploration investment, which in turn can help improve corporate planning process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".