Week 12

Prospect Generation and Evaluation:

HC Field Assessment

Petroleum Geoscience for PE

Alpha Beta

Courtesy of ExxonMobil

FWSchroeder
Overview of Prospect Analysis
Given the geologic framework and the results of our data analysis,
our next task is to analyze and assess viable prospects:
• Analyze prospect elements
• Source, Migration, Reservoir, Trap, Seal
• Consider the most-likely scenario
• Consider other cases - the range of possibilities
• Assess the prospect
• What volumes of HCs can we expect?
• Will it be oil or gas?
• Risk the Prospect
• What is our level of confidence that all the prospect elements
work?

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Outline
1. Define prospect elements
}
2. Estimating trap volume
3. HC Type
4. Assessment
5. Risk

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Outline
1. Define prospect elements
2. Estimating trap volume Correctly
Placed
3. HC Type Wells

4. Assessment
A “Container”
5. Risk “Plumbing” To Connect
From Which
Oil & Gas
the Container to the Kitchen Can Be
Produced

A “Kitchen”
Where Organic
Material Is
Cooked

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

A Real HC System
Draupne Shale
organic rich
serves as a source rock

Heather Shale
Sognefjord Shale
both organic poor

Oil
Spill Facies
Point Change
Fault
Leak
Point

HC Generation & Expulsion

oil & gas from the Draupne, gas from coals in the Brent
Brent Sandstone HC Migration
into Brent carrier beds and up faults
acts as a reservoir
HC Fill & Spill
late gas displaces early oil
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Sea Water

Oil Overburden
Fill & Spill
Seal

Reservoir
Oil
Migration
Source

Basement

Oil
Generation 18 Ma

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Sea Water

Overburden
Oil
Migration Seal

Reservoir
Oil
Migration
Source

Basement

10 Ma
Oil
Generation

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Sea Water

Overburden
Oil
Migration Seal

Reservoir
Oil & Gas
Migration
Source

Basement

Oil
Generation Present
Gas
Generation

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Oil

Oil

18 Ma
Map of the Reservoir Unit
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Oil
Oil

10 Ma
Map of the Reservoir Unit
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Most-Likely Scenario
Alpha Beta

Gas

Oil Oil

Present
Map of the Reservoir Unit
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Exploration’s Task
Identify
Opportunities Capture
Prime Areas
Acquire
Seismic Data Drill
Process Wildcats
Seismic Data
Interpret
Failure Success
Seismic Data
Assess Confirmation
Prospects Well

1. Volume
Uneconomic Success
2. HC Type
3. Assessment To EMDC
Drop
4. Risk Area or EMPC
Courtesy of ExxonMobil
FWSchroeder
Outline
1. Define prospect elements
2. Estimating trap volumes
3. HC Type
4. Assessment
5. Risk

Let’s start an exercise

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Exercise – Parts 1 - 6
We will do some quick estimates using a
series of simplifying assumptions

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Consider This ….

Let’s say our trap in

cross-section view
looks like this….

How can we get a

rough estimate of Height 1
the cross-sectional Height 2

area? Base 2

Base 1

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

From Area to Volume
Alpha Beta

Volume of a Cone = 1/3 Π r2 * h

r r

Consider the trap to be

approximately ½ a cone

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Outline
1. Define prospect elements
2. Estimating trap volumes
3. HC Type
4. Assessment
5. Risk

• DHI Analysis
• AVO Analysis
• HC Systems Analysis

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Oil or Gas???

• Should there be a difference in seismic response

Quantitative
(AVO) between an oil-filled reservoir and a gas-filled
reservoir?
• Model response with different rock & fluid properties

• If there should be a difference, which fluid type does

the seismic data support?
• Extract amplitudes from near- and far-angle stacks

• From our basin modeling & HC systems analysis,

Qualitative
which fluid type should we expect
• What did the source generate
• What did the trap leak or spill

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Model Seismic Responses - Input

10% 20% 30%

Porosity Porosity Porosity

Gas

Oil

Brine

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Model Seismic Responses - Output
10% Porosity 20% Porosity 30% Porosity
Offset Offset Offset

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Model Seismic Responses - Output

AVO Crossplot
0.4 Gas
Oil
10%
Brine
0.2 Shale

20%
Slope

0.0

30%
-0.2

-0.4
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Intercept
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Questions???

Many times the seismic data

will give us clues!

• How can we verify this scenario?

• To what level are the traps filled with oil & gas?
• What would be the value ($) if our scenario is correct?
• How much more/less HC could there be?
• How risky is this prospect (chance that we are totally
wrong)?
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Seismic Line Across ‘Alpha’
Alpha

Fluid Contact?
Gas over Oil?

Fluid Contact?
Oil over Water?

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Outline
1. Define prospect elements
2. Estimating trap volumes
3. HC Type
4. Assessment
5. Risk

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Types of Assessments
Once a lead has been high-graded into a prospect,
we have to assess its potential value

• Deterministic Assessment
• One value for each parameter
• One final number, e.g., 200 MBO
• Probabilistic Assessment
• A range of values for each parameter
• A range of outcomes, e.g. 200 ± 50 MBO

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Scenarios & Probabilities
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Alpha Alpha

Gas Cap & Oil Leg Gas Only

40% Chance of Occurrence 20% Chance of Occurrence

Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Alpha Alpha

Oil Only Low Gas Saturation

30% Chance of Occurrence 10% Chance of Occurrence

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Deterministic Prospect Assessment
To Assess a Prospect, We Assign Numbers
to the Parameters related to HC Volumes
ESTIMATES Alpha Beta
1. Gross Rock 2.91 km3 2.12 km3
Volume
In our exercise, 2. Reservoir 1.02 km3 0.66 km3
Volume
we have assumed
3. Pore Volume 0.25 km3 0.15 km3
the all oil case
4. In-Place 0.20 km3 0.12 km3
(Scenario 3) Volume
5. In-Place – 1280 MBO 735 MBO
Barrels
6. EUR – 288 MBO 132 MBO
Unrisked
7. EUR – Risked MBO MBO

Unrisked means everything in the HC System has worked!

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Alpha Prospect Assessment Results
Oil Gas Oil-Equivalent
Million Barrels Oil Billion Cubic Ft Gas Million Oil Equivalent Barrels

Scenario 1 162 MBO 97 GCF 178 MOEB

Oil & Gas 6 GCF = 1 MBO

Scenario 2 0 MBO 515 GCF 86 MOEB

Gas Only Uneconomic
Scenario 3 288 MBO 0 GCF 288 MOEB
Oil Only

Scenario 4 0 MBO 0 GCF 0 MOEB

Low Gas Saturation
Uneconomic
Assuming 100 MOEB is needed to make prospect economic
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder
Probabilistic Assessment

• The Goal is to Get A Number and a Range of Possible

Outcomes
• We Input a Range of Values for Each Assessment
Parameter
– minimum, most-likely, maximum
– P10, P50, P90
Area Thickness Net:Gross Porosity

Min ML Max

12 20 27

HC Sat. FVF Recovery

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Unrisked Results
Alpha Prospect – Unrisked
100%
Excedance Probability

100
80%

Economic Minimum
60%

40%

20%

0%

0 100 200 300 400

Million Barrels of Oil

50% Chance of finding 200 MBO or more

75% Chance of finding the economic minimum

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Outline
1. Define prospect elements
2. Estimating trap volumes
3. HC Type
4. Assessment
5. Risk

25% Risk

75% Chance of Success

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

9 Key Elements of the HC System

Source Reservoir Trap

Quality Presence Quality

Source Reservoir Seal

Maturation Quality Adequacy

HC Biodegra- Not Low Gas

Migration dation Saturation

• A team of experts consider these key elements for each prospect.

• They rate the chance of success (COS) for each on a scale of 0 to 1

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

COS for Alpha

• Alpha’s biggest risk is that the fault does not seal.

• There is also some risk that the trap holds low gas
saturation and that reservoir quality is poor

• Reservoir Presence - - - - 1.0 Some Risk

}
• Reservoir Quality - - - - 0.85
• Trap Quality - - - - 1.0 chance of success

• Seal Adequacy - - - - 0.8 (COS)

• Source Quality - - - - 1.0 0.61

• Source Maturation - - - - 1.0
Highest Risk
• HC Migration - - - - 1.0
• Not Low Gas Saturation - 0.9
• Biodegradation - - - - 1.0 Some Risk

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Risked Probabilistic Assessment Results

Alpha Prospect – Main Compartment - Risked

1.0
100
0.8
Gas Only
61 % COS
0.6 Economic Minimum Gas Cap & Oil Leg
51 % Chance of
Finding More
0.4
Than the
Oil Only Economic
0.2 Minimum

0.0

0 100 200 300 400 500

Million Oil Equivalent Barrels

72% Chance to find any hydrocarbons

58% Chance to find 100 MBOE
5% Chance to find 400 MBOE

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder

Exercise 14 – Part 7
In the exercise we will use
• A COS of 61%
• An economic minimum of 100 MBOE

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWSchroeder