Reserves to Production Ratios and Present Value Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reserves to Production Ratios and Present Value Relationships I. G. Hayhow; I. G. Hayhow National Energy Board Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J. A. Lemee J. A. Lemee National Energy Board Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2000. Paper Number: SPE-59783-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/59783-MS Published: April 03 2000 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Hayhow, I. G., and J. A. Lemee. "Reserves to Production Ratios and Present Value Relationships." Paper presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2000. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/59783-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 Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search Abstract Reserves to production ratio (R/P) is equivalent to the inverse of an exponential decline rate which is commonly used to forecast production rates. For a tank type gas reservoir, adding wells will increase the pool's producing rate and reduce the reserves life and R/P. Therefore, R/P indirectly represents the amount of development. For this analysis the optimum R/P is the value which results in the highest present value.An approximation of present value for a single pool is represented by a single equation which takes into account the number of wells in the pool, initial productivity, capital cost per well, decline rates, discount factors and the netback received. A second equation has been derived to calculate the optimum R/P or the amount of development, which will yield the maximum present value. The results from these equations are not precisely the same as those determined by the cash flow model, but they are useful for checking sensitivities to various input parameters. The equations show that every pool has a unique maximum present value which is dependant on pool size, productivity, capital cost, number of wells, etc. However, the R/P at which the maximum present value occurs is only dependant on the ratio of individual well productivity to its capital cost (q/c). The equations also show that the optimum R/P decreases for pools with higher q/c ratios. This dependency to q/c ratios suggests that the optimum R/P for recently discovered pools will likely be lower than for older pools of equivalent reservoir quality because of improvements to the q/c ratio. New producing techniques such as horizontal wells and the utilization of an established infrastructure have increased productivity relative to the capital invested.The optimum R/P's have been determined for a number of pools using the equations and these results have been compared to values derived from a cash flow model. Keywords: discount rate, producer, production monitoring, producing rate, spe 59783, project valuation, equation, wcsb, production ratio, reservoir surveillance Subjects: Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, Formation Evaluation & Management, Reserves Evaluation, Asset and Portfolio Management, Project economics/valuation Copyright 2000, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".