Using Real Options to Value a Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Project and to Measure the Value of Adding an Upgrading Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) projects are characterized by long project lives, moderate profit margins and large upfront capital costs. Project capital costs are further increased when an upgrading facility is built to convert bitumen into synthetic crude oil before it is sent to a refinery. These projects are exposed to multiple sources of uncertainty, such as the light/heavy differential, the synthetic crude oil price, and the natural gas price, which can have an important influence on the design and value of the project. Indeed, an important reason for building an upgrading facility is its ability to reduce net cash flow uncertainty in addition to any gains in profit margin that it may produce. Currently, the design and value of SAGD projects are determined using discounted cash flow (DCF) methods. The effectiveness of these methods is limited by their inability to differentiate project designs based on net cash flow uncertainty associated with each design. We use the real option (RO) valuation method to demonstrate in an accessible manner that a reduction in net cash flow uncertainty may be a compelling economic reason for building an upgrading facility. We further show that using the DCF method may produce valuation results that are unfairly biased against the upgrading option since the DCF method has difficulty accounting for variations in project uncertainty. The implications of this difference between DCF and RO valuation methods for engineering design are also discussed. Introduction Albertan crude oil production currently accounts for 66% of total Canadian oil production. Bitumen production from oil sands currently accounts for 30% of total Albertan oil production. The Alberta Department of Energy suggests that by 2020, oil sands production could increase from the current level of about 1.0 million b/d to 3.0 million b/d. To achieve this production level, forecasts indicate that over $80 billion will be invested between 2003 and 2020. Ultimate potential reserves are estimated to be 315 billion barrels. Of the remaining oil sands reserves, about 85% are too deep to be mined, requiring insitu extraction methods such as SAGD. Clearly, insitu operations such as SAGD will dominate future oil production activities in Alberta, providing significant economic benefit to the province and it's people. An overview of the Discounted Cash Flow and Real Option valuation methods Modern finance and valuation theory provides two methods for calculating project net present value (NPV). One method is discounted cash flow (DCF) which has wide acceptance and an extended history in the petroleum industry. The other method is real options (RO) which is relatively new and is slowly gaining acceptance for its more detailed description of project risk and management's ability to manage it. These NPV calculation methods share the same theoretical foundation and limitations but are differentiated by their approach to adjusting project cash flows for risk. The DCF method uses an aggregate risk-adjustment method in which adjustments for both risk and time are applied to the net cash flow stream.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".