Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
In 1989, Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Inc.,
developed a process to allow management to compare a wide variety of global exploration opportunities on a uniform and consistent basis. Over the
next five years, the process evolved into an effective method to plan exploration programs on a
basis of value incorporating prospect ranking, budget allocation, and technology management. The
final product is a continuous process and includes,
within a single organizational unit, the integration
of geologic risk assessment, probabilistic distribution of prospect hydrocarbon volumes, engineering
development planning, and prospect economics.
The process is based on the concepts of the play
and hydrocarbon system. Other steps of the process (geologic risk assessment, volumetric estimation, engineering support, economic evaluation,
and postdrill feedback) are considered extensions
of fundamental knowledge and understanding of
the underlying geological, engineering, and fiscal
constraints imposed by these concepts. A foundation is set, describing the geologic framework and
the prospect in terms of the play conceptsource,
reservoir, trap (including seal), and dynamics
(timing/migration). The information and data from
this description become the basis for subsquent
steps in the process. Risk assessment assigns a
probability of success to each of these four elements of the play concept, and multiplication of
Copyright 1997. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
1Manuscript received February 16, 1996; revised manuscript received
September 26, 1996; final acceptance February 4, 1997.
2 Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Inc., P.O. Box 5046, San Ramon,
California 94583-0946.
We acknowledge the champion of this process, M. W. Boyce, without
whose continuing, senior-management support this process would not have
been possible. We acknowledge the pioneering efforts of C. L. Aguilera, G. A.
Demaison, E. J. Durrer, F. R. Johnson, W. E. Perkins, J. L. Reich, and R. A.
Seltzer, who established the framework for the process in its early stages. We
also acknowledge the efforts to refine, document, and teach the process
during the later stages by S. D. Adams, A. O. Akinpelu, G. A. Ankenbauer,
G. L. Bliss, T. J. Humphrey, E. McLean, and D. B. Wallem. Finally, we
acknowledge all the people who, over the past several decades, have
championed such a process, but fell victim to deaf ears because of high oil
prices or dumb luck. These people provided the well-founded basis for the
theoretical and practical application of evaluation principles. We also wish to
extend special thanks to Gerard Demaison and Erwin Durrer for their
continuous support, guidance, and friendship.
these probabilities yields the probability of geologic success. A well is considered a geologic success
if a stabilized flow of hydrocarbons is obtained on
test. Volumetric estimation expresses uncertainty
in a distribution of possible hydrocarbon volumes
for the prospect constructed from ranges of parameters obtained from information specific to the
prospect, and data described by the parent play
concept. With this distribution, engineering support provides development scenarios for three
casesa pessimistic case (10%), the mean, and an
optimistic case (90%). Economic evaluation is run
for each of the three cases, thus providing a range
of economic consequences of the geological, engineering, and fiscal framework. Commercial risk is
based on the results of this evaluation, and overall
probability of success is the multiplication of the
probability of geologic success and probability of
commercial success. Postdrill feedback determines
whether the individual processes are providing predicted results consistent with actual outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
The topic of prospect evaluation has been discussed in the literature for many years and has been
recently described in a sequence of reviews by
Robert Megill in the AAPG Explorer. In recent years,
AAPG has encouraged discussions on this subject by
sponsoring Hedberg research conferences and convention sessions at which we presented parts of the
Chevron system (Otis and Schneidermann, 1994;
Otis, 1995). Many of the conference participants
requested that we summarize our process in print.
This paper is a summary of the exploration evaluation process that has been used to provide estimates
of exploration prospect value for the last 7 yr at
Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Inc. For obvious reasons, this summar y does not include all of the
details; however, we hope this paper will stimulate
further discussions and encourage the release of similar summaries by other companies.
The foundation of the process is knowledge of
geology; in particular, the concepts of hydrocarbon
systems and the play concept as developed over
the years by Dow (1972, 1974), Nederlof (1979),
Perrodon (1980, 1983, 1992), Demaison (1984),
1087
1088
Evaluating Prospects
RISK
Testing a Stabilized
Flow of
Hydrocarbons
PLAY CONCEPT
Source Rock,
Reservoir, Trap,
Timing, and
Migration
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
ENGINEERING
Conceptual
Development Plan
Facilities Costs
Production Profile
Recovery Factor
Cash Flow
Model
and Value
Measures
DECISION
DECISION
POSTDRILL
REVIEW
If Success,
Compare Actual
Parameters to
Predicted;
If Failure,
Reason Why
OPTIMIZATION
VOLUMETRICS
Volumetric Distribution
of Hydrocarbons
(In-Place and Estimated
Recoverable)
Figure 1The
exploration evaluation
process incorporates
specification of geologic
play concept, assessment
of geologic risk,
estimation of
hydrocarbon volumes,
conceptual engineering,
and a development plan
for economic analysis.
The process includes a
feedback loop for
process improvement
based on results of
comparisons between
predrill and postdrill
results.
953009 fre
1089
PLAY CONCEPT
The distribution of hydrocarbons in the Earths
crust follows a lognormal distribution typical of
many other natural resources. Such a distribution
implies that hydrocarbons are concentrated in relatively few basins, and that exploration is not an
equal-chance game. In our assessment process, we
evaluate four different concepts of exploration as a
function of the degree of knowledge about the specific project: basin framework, petroleum system
framework, play, and prospect.
Basin Framework
Is there a volume of sedimentary rocks capable
of containing potential ingredients of a working
hydrocarbon machine: source, reservoir, trap and
seal, and proper timing and migration? This assessment is a screening device only, and does not
include economic considerations.
Petroleum System Framework
The petroleum system framework is defined as
a volume of sedimentary rocks containing hydrocarbons and charged by a single source rock. The
definition requires manifestations of hydrocarbons (seeps, shows, or a producing well) and is
applicable in many frontier basins only by analogy.
1090
Evaluating Prospects
1091
Figure 3The risk assessment checklist lists the critical aspects of geologic risk assessment to help ensure all
aspects have been considered.
1092
Evaluating Prospects
Figure 4The risk assessment worksheet provides a method for transferring qualitative judgments on geologic risk
to quantitative probability of geologic success.
Evaluation
Same Play
Adjacent Structure
Same Play
Nearby Structure
Producing Area
Delineation
Prospect
LOW
RISK
VERY
LOW
RISK
1:2
Avg. Pg= 0.75
Frontier
Conventional
MODERATE
RISK
1:4
Emerging Area
Frontier Area
Play
Hydrocarbon System
HIGH
RISK
VERY
HIGH
RISK
1:8
(1) Very low risk (Pg between 0.5 and 0.99, better than 1:2). All risk factors are favorable. This category is associated with wells that test proven plays
adjacent to (<5 km) existing production.
(2) Low risk (Pg between 0.25 and 0.5, between
1:4 and 1:2). All risk factors are encouraging to favorable. This category is associated with wells that test
proven plays near (510 km) existing production.
(3) Moderate risk (Pg between 0.125 and 0.25,
between 1:8 and 1:4). Two or three risk factors are
encouraging to favorableone or two factors are
encouraging or neutral. This category is associated
with wells testing new plays in producing basins
or proven plays far from (>10 km) existing production.
(4) High risk (P g between 0.063 and 0.125,
between 1:16 and 1:8). One or two risk factors are
encouragingtwo or three factors are neutral or
encouraging to neutral. This category is often associated with wells testing new plays in producing
basins far from (>20 km) existing production or
proven plays in an unproved area.
(5) Very high risk (Pg between 0.01 and 0.063,
worse than 1:16). Two to three risk factors are no
better than neutral, with one or two factors questionable or unfavorable. This category is usually associated with wells testing new plays in an unproved
area far from (>50 km) existing production.
This categorization is summarized in Figure 5.
1:16
1093
VOLUMETRICS
Oil and gas volumes are expressed as a product
of a number of individual parameters. Because of
uncertainty in the value of each of the individual
parameters, oil and gas volumes can be represented as a distribution. The distribution is generally
assumed to be lognormal (Capen, 1993). In our
process, the distribution represents the range of
recoverable hydrocarbons (or reserves, in their
most general sense) expected to be found when
the well is drilled, assuming geologic success (stabilized flow of hydrocarbons on test). It is not the
distribution representing the range of commercial
reserves, proven reserves, or any other type of
reserves tied to economic considerations. Note
that we use the term reserves as being interchangeable with recoverable volumes throughout
this text based on the general definition of
reserves being those quantities of hydrocarbons
that are anticipated to be recovered from a given
date forward. (Journal of Petroleum Technology,
1996, p. 694). We address commerciality during
the economics phase of the process.
One method that can be used to obtain this distribution of reserves is Monte Carlo simulation. The
distribution is obtained by specifying distributions
for each of the individual parameters and then multiplying randomly selected values together many
times, thereby creating a highly sampled histogram
that approximates the actual distribution. The
number of estimates (iterations) necessar y to
obtain a satisfactory representation of the distribution ranges from a few hundred to several thousand. Monte Carlo simulation programs are widely
available and the calculation can be done in a
few minutes, depending on the number of iterations used.
1094
Evaluating Prospects
An alternative method to Monte Carlo simulation was developed by J. E. Warren of Gulf Oil
Corporation (Warren, 19801984, personal communication). This method produces distributions that
are essentially identical to Monte Carlo simulations,
but requires no iterations and no assumptions about
the distributions of the reserve parameters. We call
the method the three-point method; it is explained
in detail in Appendix 1. Briefly, the method uses as
input a range for each parameter by specification of
values corresponding to the 5, 50, and 95% probability of occurrence. From these ranges, a mean
and variance are estimated for each parameter
using the Pearson-Tukey operator (Pearson and
Tukey, 1965). The means and variances are combined to provide the mean and variance of the
resultant reserve distribution. A lognormal distribution is assumed for the reserves distribution and
can be calculated from the estimated mean and
variance.
Advantages of this method are the speed of the
calculation, which is essentially instantaneous on
any spreadsheet computer program, and that it has
no requirement for specifying the parameter distribution. The key to success with this method, therefore, is correctly specifying the ranges. Guidelines
include the following:
(1) Selecting the 5% value, which is generally
near the minimum value expected. For example,
for porosity the 5% value would be near the minimum porosity observed in nearby wells; for area,
the 5% value would be the area corresponding to
the minimum hydrocarbon column expected.
The explorationist should keep in mind that the
odds of finding a value less than the selection are
1 in 20.
(2) Selecting the 95% value, which is generally
near the maximum value expected. For example,
for porosity the 95% value would be near the maximum porosity observed in nearby wells; for area,
the 95% value would be the area corresponding
to a maximum hydrocarbon column expected.
Likewise, the explorationist should keep in mind
that the odds of finding a value greater than the
selection are 1 in 20.
(3) Selecting the 50% value, which is generally
near the middle of the expected range of values.
The median is often the most difficult to choose
and requires the support of data associated with
the play or with an appropriate analog. Analogs
should be used with caution. For example, in a
purely continental basin, a partial analog with
lacustrine source and marine reservoir does not
apply. The explorationist should keep in mind that
the odds of finding a value less than the selection
is equal to the odds of finding a value greater that
the selection.
1095
Figure 6Three-point-method spreadsheet illustrates volumetric parameter ranges and shows calculations based
on Pearson-Tukey estimator and the three-point method. M = million.
Figure 7An economic summary sheet provides critical economic and geologic information and provides a
mechanism for estimation of commercial or economic risk. M = million.
10
NUMBER OF WELLS
1097
8
6
4
2
0
1:2
1:4
1:6
1:8
1:10
1:12
1:14
1:16 >1:16
RISK
reservoir (or even if there is a reservoir), fluid properties, or amount of resource present, our experience indicates the time and costs of preparing a
detailed development plan for a specific case are
generally not justified. However, significant attention is given to the credibility of general plans covering a range of cases that rely heavily on analogs
or nearby producing examples. This approach is
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The first step is to take the mean reserve case
from the volumetric distribution and construct a
mean development plan. This plan uses the mean
parameters from the volumetrics and mean parameters for reservoir fluid and flow properties to construct a mean production profile. This becomes the
mean case (base case) for which facilities, drilling,
and transportation costs are estimated. From this
information, the revenue profile, based on the production profile and a product price assumption; an
investment profile, based on the phasing of drilling,
facilities, and transportation costs; an operating
cost profile, based on an expected opex/bbl as a
function of time; and a miscellaneous expense profile characterize the mean development plan and
are used as input for the economic model prepared
for the prospect.
The economic model is then prepared based on
the host country contract, if available. If no contract is available, the economic model is based on
other known contracts or other published information pertinent to the country. The economic
model takes as input the production, investment,
operating cost, and miscellaneous profiles and
applies the contract terms, resulting in output
profiles of net income to the company and other
tax-related profiles, such as depreciation, royalty,
and income tax. The model remains f lexible; if
negotiations are not complete, the contract usually becomes a subject of the negotiations and commonly changes.
The engineering and economic phases generally require refinement and involve a feedback loop
to mature the mean case. In other words, the
engineer constructs the conceptual development
plan and economics are run. Economic output is
examined, and an optimization loop among earth
scientist, engineer, and economist generally takes
place, resulting in modifications or refinements
to the plan and subsequent economic output.
Modifications are generally applied to facilities and
drilling plans because of preliminary poor economic indicators. If modifications do not result in economics acceptable for a commercial project, the
prospect is generally abandoned at this stage. The
construction of this mean development plan generally takes from 1 day to 2 weeks, depending on
the time available before a decision point and the
information available.
Once the mean case is completed, pessimistic
(P10) and optimistic (P90) cases are run by modifying the mean case input profiles to the economic
model. Modifications are based on the pessimistic
and optimistic reserve cases from the reserve distribution. Economics are run for these two additional
cases, and a range of economic outcomes is established. Volumetrics, development and contract
assumptions, and economic results are summarized
on a 1-page summary data sheet, as shown in Figure
7. The basic layout of the summary is a synopsis of
terms, development assumptions, and a range of
volumetric parameters and their impact on economic results. Two graphs are displayed that show
(1) the volumetric distribution, both cumulative and
density, and (2) the resultant ROR (rate of return) for
the unrisked case and several risked cases. From
these graphs, one can easily see the economic consequences of the expected distribution of reserves,
development plans associated with that distribution,
and the contract. Additional information, such as
NPV (net present value) and NCF (net cash flow), is
1:6
1:4
1:6
1993
1:4
1:8
10
12
1:2
1:2
1:6
1:4
1:6
1994
1:4
1992
1:8
1:8
1:10
1:10 1:12
Risk
Figure 9Risk histograms for 19911994 show progress of improvement in assessment of risk over a period of 4 yr.
1:2
1:2
10
12
Number of Wells
Number of Wells
1991
10
12
10
12
Number of Wells
Number of Wells
1098
Evaluating Prospects
Probability of Finding
Reserves Less Than (%)
Actual Reserves,
190 MBO,
corresponds to
64th percentile
60
40
20
1099
0
0
100
200
300
Reserves (MBO)
also plotted at the P10, mean, and P90 cases to illustrate results for those parameters as well.
Given the range of possible outcomes for the volumetrics and their economic consequences, an estimate of commercial risk is easily determined. Given
the conditions of commerciality, usually a minimum
ROR, the probability of a commercial prospect can
be read directly from the two graphs. In Figure 7, if a
20% ROR is considered a minimum for a commercial
project, from the bottom graph a 20% ROR corresponds to a reserve of 11 MBO (million barrels of
oil). From the top graph, 11 MBO corresponds to a
50% probability of finding that reserve or more.
Thus, the probability of commercial success is
approximately 50%. This will vary from prospect to
prospect, but this link is the fundamental driver for
this process. In other words, we need to understand
what nature has provided, which is the volumetric
distribution that describes what we might find when
we drill the well. We must also understand the economic consequences; that is, what nature has provided may or may not yield satisfactory economics.
Analysis of both geologic and commercial risk in this
manner allows appropriate decisions regarding risk
tolerance and potential reward.
POSTDRILL REVIEW
Postdrill information is primarily used as feedback to the risk assessment and volumetric estimation phases of the process. Feedback to the engineering and economics sections generally does not
occur within a time frame that can impact the process. In other words, by the time a discovered field
is developed and feedback is obtained, the process
has already changed because of other, more timely,
reasons.
Postdrill information is obtained from a postdrill
well review conducted within a few months after
completing the well. Data analyses are collected
and reviewed to (1) determine reasons for failure if
1100
Evaluating Prospects
31 MBO
25%
75 MBO
91%
9 MBO
22%
250 MBO
75%
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
00
10
20
30
40
25
50
75 100
Percentile Histogram
Number of Occurrences
4
2
0
0
20 40 60 80 100
Figure 11Example of percentile histogram with four predicted distributions and actual results. This histogram is
used to calibrate estimation of predrill volumetric parameters with actual results.
The percentile histogram can be used to diagnose a variety of problems, as shown in Figure 12.
The desired response is flat. In other words, if
we are estimating distributions correctly there is
an equal probability that the actual reserves will
fall within any one of the ten dectiles (ten 10%
intervals). It is analogous to rolling a ten-sided
die, because each side (a 10% interval) has an
equal probability of occurrence. Diagnostics are
relatively simple. If the histogram is heavy to the
low, or downside, we are tending to overestimate
potential. In other words, most of the actual
results are on the downside of the distribution. If
the histogram is heavy to the high, or upside, the
opposite is true; most of the actual results are on
the upside of the distribution, indicating a tendency to underestimate reserves. If the histogram
is heavy on the ends and light in the middle,
prospect reserve ranges are too narrow and need
to be broadened. If the histogram is heavy in the
middle, ranges need to be reduced.
Figure 13 shows the percentile histogram for
reserves for Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Inc.,
in 19891990. The histogram is heavy to the
downside; thus, we had overestimated potential
in the majority of cases and needed to account
for the large number of small discoveries we had
made. We knew we had to correct this problem,
but the primary cause required additional analysis. To determine what was causing the overestimation of reserves, we applied the same method
Distribution is
too wide
Satisfactory on
downside
Satisfactory on
upside
Distribution is
too narrow
Distribution too
pessimistic on
upside
Distribution too
optimistic on
downside
Distributions
are satisfactory
Skew to
highside
Desired
uniform
distribution
Skew to
lowside
Bimodal on
low- and
highsides
Center
weighted
1101
1102
Evaluating Prospects
Figure 13Actual
percentile histogram
for years 19891990.
Diagnostics indicate
distribution estimates
were too optimistic on
downside uncertainty
(downside and median
estimates were too large).
Figure 14Actual percentile histograms for parameters of reserve distribution for years 19891990. Note problems
with area, gross pay, geometry factor, porosity, and hydrocarbon saturation.
1103
Figure 15Actual
percentile histogram for
years 19931994 after
modifications to process.
Note distributions are more
consistent with desirable
uniform distribution.
Figure 16Actual percentile histograms for parameters for years 19931994 after modification to process. Note
problems have essentially been eliminated and distributions are consistent with desirable uniform distribution.
1104
Evaluating Prospects
Figure 17Step 1 of three-point method for calculating reserve distributions: specify parameter ranges. M = million.
R(gas) = 43560 A h S h 1 B gi R fg
R(condensate) = 43560 A h S h 1 B gi R fg CR
where A = areal extent of prospect in acres, h = average net pay in
feet, f = average porosity, S h = hydrocarbon saturation (1 S w,
where Sw = water saturation), Boi = initial oil formation volume fac-
tor in reservoir barrels/stock tank barrels (STB), Bgi = initial gas formation volume factor in reservoir cubic feet/surface cubic feet, Rfo
= recovery factor for oil, Rfg = recovery factor for gas, CR = condensate recovery factor in STB/ft3, 7758 = conversion factor from
acre-feet to barrels, and 43560 = conversion factor from acre-feet
to cubic feet.
The parameters are combined by multiplication; therefore, if
the parameters are assumed to be probabilistically independent,
the reserve distribution, R, will be lognormal in the limit as provided by the central limit theorem. Likewise, the first and second
moments of R [m(R) and m2(R)], respectively, will be the product
of the first and second moments of the parameter distributions,
respectively, as shown. Note that the first moment of the distribution is the mean.
m[R ( oil)] = 7758 m( A ) m( h) m()
( h ) m(1 B
mS
oi
) m(R fo )
(1)
1105
Figure 18Step 2 of three-point method for calculating reserve distributions: calculate parameter means and variances. M = million.
m 2 [R ( oil)] = 7758 m 2 ( A ) m 2 ( h) m 2 ()
( h ) m (1 B
m2 S
oi
) m 2 (R fo )
(2)
where P5 = the 5% probability of occurrence of the area distribution, P50 = the median of the area distribution, and P95 = the 95%
probability of occurrence of the area distribution.
1106
Evaluating Prospects
Figure 19Step 3 of three-point method for calculating reserve distributions: calculate mean and variance of
reserve distribution. M = million.
2 = ln m 2 (R ) m(R )
2 R ( oil) = 2 ( A ) + 2 ( h) + 2 () +
( S h ) + 2 (1 B oi ) + 2 (R fo )
2
1107
Figure 20Step 4 of three-point method for calculating reserve distributions: calculate values for different probabilities of occurrence. M = million.
and any percentile value of the lognormal distribution can be calculated using the formula
z x
R x = P50(R ) e ( )
1108
Evaluating Prospects
REFERENCES CITED
Bourdaire, J. M., R. J. Byramjee, and R. Pattinson, 1985, Reserve
assessment under uncertaintya new approach: Oil & Gas
Journal, June 10, v. 83, no. 23, p. 135140.
Capen, E. C., 1993, A consistent probabilistic approach to reserves
estimates: Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydrocarbon
Economics and Evaluation Symposium, SPE Paper 25830,
p. 117122.
Demaison, G., 1984, The generative basin concept, in G. Demaison
and R. J. Murris, eds., Petroleum geochemistry and basin evaluation: AAPG Memoir 35, p. 114.
Demaison, G., and B. J. Huizinga, 1991, Genetic classification of
petroleum systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, p. 16261643.
Dow, W. G., 1972, Application of oil correlation and source rock
data to exploration in Williston basin (abs.): AAPG Bulletin,
v. 56, p. 615.
Dow, W. G., 1974, Application of oil correlation and source rock
data to exploration in Williston basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 58,
no. 7, p. 12531262.
Haun, J. D., ed., 1975, Methods of estimating the volume of undiscovered oil and gas resources: AAPG Studies in Geology 1, 206 p.
Jones, R. W., 1975, A quantitative geologic approach to prediction
of petroleum resources, in J. D. Haun, ed., Methods of estimating the volume of undiscovered oil and gas resources: AAPG
Studies in Geology 1, p. 186195.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1996, SPE/WPC draft reserves
definitions: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 48, no. 8,
p. 694695.
Keefer, D. L., and S. E. Bodily, 1983, Three-point approximations
for continuous random variables: Management Science, v. 29,
no. 5, p. 595609.
Magoon, L. B., 1987, The petroleum systema classification
scheme for research, resource assessment, and exploration
(abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 71, p. 587.
Magoon, L. B., 1988, The petroleum systema classification
scheme for research, exploration, and resource assessment, in
L. B. Magoon, ed., Petroleum systems of the United States: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1870, p. 215.
Magoon, L. B., 1989, The petroleum systemstatus of research
1109
Nahum Schneidermann
Nahum Schneidermann is director of international technical relations, executive staff, Chevron
Overseas Petroleum, Inc., San
Ramon, California. A native of
Zayadin, former Soviet Union
(now Uzbekistan), Schneidermann
received his bachelors and masters degrees from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Israel, in
1967 and 1969, respectively, and
his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois,
in 1972. His career in the industry started in 1974 with
Gulf Oil, where he held various positions at the
Houston Technical Services Center. In 1985 he started
his tenure with Chevron Overseas Petroleum in San
Ramon, serving as manager, basin studies and geochemistry, for the exploration department prior to being
named to his present position.