MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337727998 · doi:10.2118/179996-ms

Unconventional Risk and Uncertainty: Show Me What Success Looks Like

2016· article· en· W2337727998 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Fulford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Volume (thermodynamics)Frequentist inferenceBayesian probabilityEconometricsRisk managementOperations researchBayesian inferenceMathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceBusinessMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The translation of risk from conventional to unconventional resources moves the fulcrum from risk of finding, towards risk of commerciality. We are often certain a hydrocarbon producing system exists; but, uncertain in what manner (production profile) it will produce. This reality is incompatible with traditional methods of risking in which recoverable volumes are estimated from volumetric calculation, and risked volumes may be calculated as the product of unrisked volumes and some risk factor. Production profile is then determined after-the-fact. Unconventional resources are typically evaluated from the basis of a type well or production analog first, and then the recoverable volume is emergent from this production profile. Like the chicken-and-egg problem, uncertainty of recoverable volumes must be estimated in association with one or more production profiles. The threshold of commerciality can be calculated, and the chance of commercial success determined by the intersection of the threshold volume on the distribution of recoverable volume. This distribution is truncated and the outcomes above the threshold are rescaled to represent success outcomes… but, failure outcomes are disregarded. This paper presents a simple workflow using Frequentist and Bayesian approaches, respectively, for proper risking of uncertain recoverable volumes for an unconventional resource, taking into account the chance of false positives from appraisal well information. A subjective risk tolerance can be included to respect how aggressive or conservative a company may be in pursuit of a project. A method of re-casting production profiles is demonstrated as an improvement over the common method of scaling, or factoring, the initial production rate. The scaling approach may reach unrealistic values of initial production in an attempt to achieve the proper recoverable volumes. Productive yet uneconomic outcomes should be included in any thorough project evaluation. Failure to do so may overestimate the value of a given project. However, the chance of such outcomes occurring is often seen as a difficult-to-determine value. Quantifying the uncertainty in type well volumes allows evaluation of the imperfectness of information of early well results. Enhanced knowledge of the project risk, the chance of success, a view of the success case, and an understanding of false positive outcomes, can lead to higher quality decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207