Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reserves Growth: Enigma, Expectation or Fact? Dennis Beliveau; Dennis Beliveau Epic Consulting Services Ltd. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Richard Baker Richard Baker Epic Consulting Services Ltd. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 2003. Paper Number: SPE-84144-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/84144-MS Published: October 05 2003 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Get Permissions Search Site Citation Beliveau, Dennis, and Richard Baker. "Reserves Growth: Enigma, Expectation or Fact?." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 2003. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/84144-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 Abstract The phenomenon of "reserve growth" in established fields has been discussed by several authors, and described as a surprise or even an "enigma". This study uses the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) historical reserve database to show the evolution of proved reserves versus time for oil pools in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), and demonstrates the consistent, long-term growth in reserves associated with the majority of these pools. The advantage of looking back at the performance of these fields is that many of them are very mature, so actual cumulative recovery levels are now very close to the estimates of expected ultimate recovery. We discuss the regulatory, business and technical reasons for these reserve changes and growth trends. Thoughts about the future growth potential of these reservoirs are also presented. Keywords: spe 84144, category, reserve estimate, growth function, mmb, ogip, upstream oil & gas, discovery, asset and portfolio management, efficiency Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Reserves Evaluation, Asset and Portfolio Management, Estimates of resource in place, Reserves classification, Reserves replacement, booking and auditing Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".