Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

SPE 162875

Analytical Probabilistic Reserve Estimation by Volumetric Method and


Aggregation of Resources

C. Karacaer, SPE, Colorado School of Mines, and M. Onur, SPE, Universiti Teknologi Petronas

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 SPE Hydrocarbon, Economics, and Evaluation Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Calgary, 24–25 September 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessar ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In oil and natural gas production projects, many investment and development plans are based on oil and gas reserve
estimates. There is a large uncertainty in the calculation of hydrocarbon reserves because the input variables always contain
uncertainties to some degree that propagate into reserve estimates. From the view point of a field investment, an accurate
assessment of uncertainty in reserves is crucial for making decisions that will create value and/or mitigate loss in value.
Therefore, to make good decisions, one must be able to accurately assess and manage the uncertainties and risks. In this
study, we present an analytical uncertainty propagation method (AUPM) for modeling of uncertainties on volumetric reserve
estimations. Analytical uncertainty propagation equations (AUPEs) are derived based on a Taylor-series expansion around
the mean values of the input variables. The AUPEs are general in that correlation among the input variables, if it exists, can
also be accounted for on the resulting uncertainty. Comparative studies that we have conducted show that the AUPM is as
accurate as the Monte Carlo method (MCM). The AUPM provides a fast alternative to Monte Carlo simulation for accurately
characterizing uncertainty markers such as variance, P90, P50, and P10. In addition, we present uncertainty percentage
coefficient for simulating uncertainty contribution of each parameter and correlated parameter pairs to the total uncertainty in
volumetric calculations.
We also discuss the problem of probabilistic aggregation of reserves for projects involving more than one reservoir or
field. We provide a general analytical formulation for estimating the values of mean, variance, P10, P50 and P90 for
aggregated estimates. Probabilistic aggregation requires the knowledge of pair-wise correlation of the fields. In this study, we
propose uncertainty sorting method (USM) to determine pair-wise correlation coefficients for multiple resources. The method
provides a simple and fast analytical approach based on uncertainty percentage coefficient of individual field parameters.
Proposed analytical models can be used as a fast tool eliminating the need for MCM.

1. Introduction
Uncertainty is inherent in estimation of any type of resources from underground energy systems. Unfortunately, this is also
true regardless of any method used for estimation, e.g., volumetric, decline curve, or reservoir simulation methods because
the input variables required for the estimation problem always contain uncertainties to some degree that propagate into
estimates. Therefore, to make good decisions, one must be able to accurately assess and manage the uncertainties and risks.
In this work, we limit our study to the assessment of uncertainty in oil and gas reserves estimated and probabilistic
resource aggregation by the volumetric methods. Volumetric methods are usually used in the early life of oil and gas
reservoirs. Estimation of the resources/reserves requires geological, geophysical, and petro-physical data including reservoir
area, thickness, porosity, saturations, etc. The values of these input variables have usually large uncertainties associated with
them; hence it is very important to propagate these uncertainties on to the estimation of hydrocarbon reserves or resources.
Although we use the terms reserve and resources interchangeably here and throughout this paper, their definitions differ
indeed; normally reserve is defined as the economically recoverable part of a resource. From the view point of a field
investment, an accurate assessment of uncertainty in recoverable and in place reserves is a crucial task from which to make
decisions that will create value and/or mitigate loss in value (risk).
In the past, various authors have considered assessing uncertainty in estimation oil and gas resources from the volumetric
method by using the Monte Carlo method (MCM). It is no doubt that the MCM is used as a general approach for assessing
the uncertainty. In this work, however, we show that there is a simple and fast alternative method – which we refer to it as the


on sabbatical leave from Istanbul Technical University
2 SPE 162875

analytic uncertainty propagation method (AUPM) – to the MC method for characterizing uncertainty. The validity of the
AUPM for accurately characterizing uncertainty results from the fact that the distributions of recoverable or in-place
hydrocarbons for a zone, well, or field to be computed from the volumetric method always tend to be log-normal. This result
simply follows from the fundamental theorem of statistics and probability  the central limit theorem (CLT) (e.g., see Parzen,
1962). The CLT states that the sum of a sufficiently large number of independent random variables each with finite mean and
variance will be approximately normally distributed. As a consequence of this theorem and the functional relationship of the
volumetric method which involves a product/quotient of several random variables for computing oil and gas reserves, one
should expect that the resulting distribution of the reserves is to be nearly log-normal as the number of input random
variables increases (Capen 1996 and 2001). This result is in fact valid no matter what form of uncertainty the input variables
assume.
Furthermore, we discuss the problem of aggregating individual fields’ resources for oil and gas projects involving many
diverse fields, zones, wells or a country’s total resources. It is shown that the arithmetic addition underestimates the P90 that
would be obtained by the probabilistic addition, which is the statistically proper method for adding resources or reserves
unless all fields considered in aggregation are perfectly correlated with each other. We present a method referred to as the
uncertainty sorting method (USM) to determine dependency (correlation coefficient) between two fields-zones which is
indispensable component of probabilistic aggregation process.

2. Uncertainty on Volumetric Method


Based on the volumetric method, we can estimate recoverable gas in-place (RGIP) or oil in-place (ROIP). For instance, for a
single-phase under-saturated gas reservoir, recoverable gas in-place (RGIP) is computed from the well-known following
volumetric equation:

Ah  n g 1  S wi 
RGIP  RF (1)
Bgi

If we replace Bgi by Boi in Eq. 1, then we obtain the volumetric equation for the recoverable oil in place ROIP. As the
equations for calculations of RGIP and ROIP are of the same form, we will demonstrate the methods proposed in this work
by considering only the RGIP given by Eq. 1.
Although it is important how to choose the variables and their ranges for accurately assessing uncertainty in RGIP (Eq. 1),
our purpose here is not to get into a detailed discussion of appropriate sources of data and how one could determine the
appropriate values of the variables and the associated uncertainties. Assessment of uncertainties in the input variables itself is
a notoriously difficult problem, because, to our knowledge, there is no standard rule for characterizing uncertainty in the
input variables.
Uncertainty in the recoverable reserves results from our lack of knowledge in most of the input variables in Eq. 1.
Quantification of uncertainty is inevitably subjective because knowledge about the input variables is dependent on available
data and personal experience of the interpreter (Capen 1976, Welsh et al. 2007). As well stated by Welsh et al. (2007), it is
quite possible for two people to have different probability estimates for the same input variable, based on their differing
knowledge. Thus, there is no single “correct” probability distribution of input variables, unless all people have identical
experience and information, and process it in the same way (Welsh et al. 2007). As we will show later based on the CLT, the
resulting distributions of RGIP tend to be log-normal regardless of the types of probability distributions chosen for the input
variables.
It is very important that some input variables involved in Eq. 1 can be statistically correlated. For example, A , the
reservoir area, is expected to be dependent on the value of h, reservoir gross thickness. We would expect that increasing A
increases h , which indicates that these two variables are positively correlated. Hence, this indicates that A and h may not
be treated as two independent variables in Eq. 1. A further discussion of the correlation between the input parameters used in
the volumetric method is provided in Holtz (1993) and Hawkins et al. (2002). Our point is that ignoring existing correlations
between input variable pairs may lead to an incorrect characterization of uncertainty. If data and available information permit,
one should make scatter plots of input variable pairs to identify the correlation between them, if any, and then include these
correlations into the uncertainty assessment procedure. In the absence of data analogies can be used.

3. Quantification of Uncertainty
In this section, we briefly review some basic equations and methods used for quantification of uncertainty in the estimation of
reserves by the volumetric method (Eq. 1). We first consider the Monte Carlo method (MCM) and then the analytical
uncertainty propagation method (AUPM). However, before getting into details of these methods, we first note that Eq. 1 for
estimating RGIP involves a product of seven random variables; A , h ,  ,  n g  , 1  Swi  , RF and a quotient of one
variable; B . Taking natural logarithm of RGIP given by Eq. 1, then we obtain the following equations, respectively:
SPE 162875 3

ln  RGIP   ln A  ln h  ln   ln  n g   ln 1  Swi   ln RF  ln Bgi (2)

Eq. 2 clearly indicate that ln(RGIP), can be written as a sum of the natural logarithms of all independent random variables. If
all these random variables are treated as independent, then it follows from the CLT, discussed previously, that the resulting
distribution of ln(RGIP), will tend to be normal. It is important to note that this is true no matter what type of distribution for
the input random variables assume. Hence, if ln(RGIP) will tend to be normal, then the corresponding distributions of RGIP
will tend to be log-normal. Note that the CLT promises that ln(RGIP) will be normal if all the random variables are
independent. However, our simulations shows that the resulting distributions of ln(RGIP) still tend to be normal even if the
input variables are treated as dependent. Similar observations have also been reported by Capen (2001).
Finally, we would like to state our definitions to be used for characterizing uncertainty in RGIP. For this characterization,
we will refer to P90 as “proved or 1P”, P50 as “proved +probable or 2P”, and P10 as “proved +probable possible or 3P”,
where P90, P50 and P10 correspond to 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of the cumulative distribution function, respectively,
for RGIP. Here, we comply with the definition used by SPE as most of the SPE papers use these definitions, though these
definitions are not strictly consistent with the definitions used in the statistics and probability (Capen 1996 and 2001).
Based on the CLT theorem, the uncertainty on the resource RGIP of a single field-reservoir or zone will tend to be a log-
normal distribution. So, lnRGIP follows a normal distribution characterized by its mean ( ln RGIP ) and variance (  ln2 RGIP ),
while RGIP is a log-normal by its mean ( RGIP ) and variance (  RGIP
2
). The two sets of parameters are related by the equations
(Capen 2001):
 2 
RGIP  exp  ln RGIP  ln RGIP  (3)
 2 

and
 ln exp  ln2 RGIP   1
1
 RGIP
2
 RGIP
2
(4)
2

We can also derive the following equations from Eqs. 3 and 4:

1   RGIP
2

ln RGIP  ln RGIP  ln 1   (5)
2  RGIP 
2

and
  RGIP
2

 ln2 RGIP  ln 1   (6)
 RGIP 
2

The 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of RGIP are computed from the following equations (Capen 2001):


P90  exp ln RGIP  1.28  ln2 RGIP  (7)

P50  exp  ln RGIP  (8)

and

P10  exp ln RGIP  1.28  ln2 RGIP  (9)

In following subsections, we review some basic equations and methods used for quantification of uncertainty (i.e.,
computing mean, variance, P90, P50, and P10 given by Eqs. 3-9) in RGIP (or lnRGIP) by the volumetric method (Eq. 1). We
first consider the Monte Carlo method (MCM) and then the analytical uncertainty propagation method (AUPM).

3.1. Monte Carlo Method (MCM)


The MCM relies on a specified probability distribution of each of the input variables and generates an estimate of the overall
uncertainty in the prediction due to all uncertainties in the variables (Kalos and Withlock 2008). As it does not require a
linearization of the function and a continuity of the random variables, it is a more general approach for characterizing the
uncertainty for any given nonlinear random function f. In our case, f represents RGIP given by Eq. 1. In the applications to be
given, we perform Monte Carlo simulations by using @RISKTM spreadsheet-based software (@RISKTM 2004).
4 SPE 162875

3.2. Analytical Uncertainty Propagation Method (AUPM)


The AUPM provides a simple approach for estimating the variance of a function defined by several random variables -
particularly so, of a function defined by products and quotients of random variables, whether they are independent or
correlated. The analytical uncertainty propagation equation is based on a Taylor series approximation of the function around
the mean values of the variables up to its first derivatives with respect to each of the input variables. As a consequence of this
approximation, the uncertainty propagation equation provides a linearization of the function in terms of its input random
variables (Barlow 1989; Coleman and Steele 1999; Onur et al. 2010)
The method does not assume a specific type of distribution for the input variables and all needed to use the AUPM are the
statistical properties of the distribution of each random variable; specifically the mean, variance (or std. dev.), and the
covariance (or correlation coefficient) among variable pairs if the random variables are correlated.
Before we present the derivation of the AUPM, it is worth noting that the AUPM provides an exact result for the mean
and variance of a random function f if f is linear with respect to the input random variables. Otherwise, i.e., if f is nonlinear,
then the AUPM provides only approximate estimates of the mean and variance of f. The approximation gets better if the
nonlinear f can be well approximated by a linear function near the means of the input random variables.
A few different approaches may be considered when the AUPM is used to derive approximations for the mean and
variance of RGIP. For example, we may directly apply the AUPM to the RGIP given by Eq. 1 as a function of the input
variables (Approach 1) or may directly apply the AUPM to the ln(RGIP) function given by Eq. 2 by treating it as a function
of natural logarithms of the input variables (Approach 2) or treat RGIP given by Eq. 1 as a function of the natural logarithms
of the input variables (Approach 3). We have found that Approaches 1 and 2 provide more accurate estimates of the mean,
variance, P90, P50, and P10 of the lnRGIP than does Approach 3 In this paper, we present the equations for the AUPM
based on only Approach 1 and Approach 2.

3.2.1. AUPM for RGIP (Approach 1). Let’s consider a random function f of M variables, Xi, i=1,2,…,M, i.e., f = f ( X1, X2
,..., XM ) . Then, expanding f around the mean (or true) values of Xis (denoted by  X , i=1,2,...,M) by using Taylor series up
i

to first derivatives, we obtain:

 f 
   
M
f  X 1 , X 2 ,..., X M   f  X1 ,  X 2 ,...,  X M   X i   X i   (10)
i 1  X i  X i  Xi ,i 1,..., M

It can be shown that the mean  f and variance  2f of f are approximated, respectively, by:

 f  f   X ,  X ,...,  X
1 2 M
 (11)

and
M 1 M
 2f  i2 X2 i  2  i j cov  X i , X j 
M
(12)
i 1 i 1 j i 1

where cov(Xi,Xj) represents the covariance between the variable pairs Xi and Xj, and if we use the relation between covariance
and correlation coefficient, Xi ,X j  X i , X j , then we can express Eq. 12 in terms of the correlation coefficient as:
M M 1 M
 2f  i2 X2  2  i j  X , X  X2  X2
i i j i j
(13)
i 1 i 1 j i 1

In Eqs. 12 and 13,  i is the derivative of f with respect to the variable Xi, i.e.,

 f 
i    (14)
 X i  X i  Xi ,i 1,...,M

Note that θi represents the sensitivity of f to the variable Xi evaluated at the mean values of all the variables. It can be noticed
(from Eqs. 12 and 13) that the uncertainty propagation on to f is determined not only by the variances of the variables and
correlation among them, but also the sensitivity of f to each variable in the volumetric method for RGIP.
As mentioned previously, for the problem of interest, f in Eqs. 10-14 represents RGIP given by Eq. 1. The sensitivities of
RGIP (i.e., θis ) required in Eqs. 12 and 13 can be obtained by analytical differentiation of Eq. 1 with respect to the input
variables in Eq. 1. These sensitivities are presented in Table 1.
SPE 162875 5

TABLE 1—SENSITIVITY OF RGIP WITH RESPECT TO A


GIVEN INPUT VARIABLE Xi in EQ. 1

Variable Sensitivity
Xi i  RGIP X i

h   n g  1 S   RF
wi
A
B gi

 A   n g  1 S   RF
wi
h
B gi

 A h  n g  1 S   RF

wi

B gi

 A h  1 S   RF
wi
(n/g)
B gi

 A h   n g   RF
(1-Swi)
B gi

 A h   n g  1 S wi 
RF
B gi

h   n g  1 S   RF
wi
Bgi
B gi

Once the mean  RGIP  and variance  RGIP


2
 of RGIP are computed by the use of Eqs. 11 and 13, we then use these
values in Eqs. 5 and 6 to compute the mean  ln RGIP  and variance  ln2 RGIP  of lnRGIP, which is normal based on the CLT
theorem. The other uncertainty markers such as P90, P50, and P10 can be computed from Eqs. 7-9.

3.2.2. AUPM for lnRGIP (Approach 2). The second approach is based on the Taylor series expansion of lnRGIP around
the mean values of natural log of the input variables; i.e. ln X i s . For this case, the AUP equations are given by Eqs. 10-14
with f replaced by lnf, Xis by lnXis, and ln X i s . So, in this approach, the mean and variance of lnRGIP are computed from:

ln RGIP  ln RGIP  ln X , ln X ,..., ln X


1 2 M
 (15)

and
M M 1 M
 ln2 RGIP  i2 ln2 X  2  i j ln X ,ln X  ln2 X  ln2 X
i i j i j
(16)
i 1 i 1 j i 1

where the sensitivities θis in Eq. 16 are given by:

  ln RGIP 
i    (17)
  ln X i  X  i X i ,i 1,..., M

and are tabulated in Table 2.

Once the mean  ln RGIP  and variance  ln2 RGIP  of RGIP are computed by the use of Eqs. 15 and 16, we then use these
values in Eqs. 3 and 4 to compute the mean  RGIP  and variance  RGIP
2
 of RGIP. The other uncertainty markers such as
P10, P50, and P90 can be computed from Eqs. 7-9 using the values ln RGIP and  ln2 RGIP .
6 SPE 162875

TABLE 2—SENSITIVITY OF lnRGIP (EQ. 2) WITH RESPECT


TO NATURAL LOGARITHM OF A GIVEN INPUT VARIABLE
Xi in EQ. 2

Variable Sensitivity
Xi i   ln RGIP  ln X i

A 1

h 1

 1

(n/g) 1

(1-Swi) 1

RF 1
Bgi
-1

Finally, a few remarks are in order for the AUP equations based on the Approach 1 or 2. Our numerical results indicate
that Approach 2 provides a slightly better estimate of the variance than does Approach 1. However, unlike the Approach 1,
the Approach 2 requires us to work with the means and variances of the natural-log of the input model variables, i.e., ln X i
and  ln2 X i . In the correlated case, we will also need to convert to correlation coefficient between two pairs, say ln X i ,ln X j to
 X , X , but our results show that ln X ,ln X   X , X for all practical purposes. If the distribution of Xi is chosen as a log-normal
i j i j i j

with mean  X i and variance  X2 i , then lnXi is normal with the mean ln X i and variance  ln2 X i which can be simply computed
from:
1  X 
2

ln X  ln  X  ln 1  2 i
 (18)
i
2   Xi
i

and
  X2 i 
 2
 ln 1  2  (19)
ln X i
 X 
 i 

If the chosen distribution for the input variable Xi is not log-normal, then we can use descriptive statistics on the available
data to compute ln X i and  ln2 X i . If such exhaustive data are not available, then we may generate samples from a known
distribution and use descriptive statistics on these samples to compute ln X i and  ln2 X i .
3.2.3 Sensitivities of Parameters. Here we present uncertainty percentage coefficient, UPC, for uncertainty contribution
of each parameter and/or correlated parameter pairs to the total uncertainty in RGIP. UPCi is a measure of the uncertainty
contribution of individual parameter X i to the total uncertainty:
  ln X i 
2

UPCi  i2   (20)


  ln RGIP 

Also UPCi,j is a measure of the uncertainty contribution of correlated parameters X i and X j :

  ln X i    ln X j
2

2

UPCi , j   i    j  ln X i ,ln X j (21)


  ln RGIP    ln RGIP 

The sensitivities  e.g. i  are obtained by analytical differentiation of Eq. 2 with respect to the natural logarithm of the input
variables in Eq. 2. These sensitivities are presented in Table 2. Based on Eq. 20 and 21, it can be written as following:
SPE 162875 7

M M 1 M

UPC    UPC
i 1
i
i 1 j i 1
i, j 1 (22)

As a matter of fact, UPC gives almost the same values of squared correlation coefficient obtained from MC simulations.

3.3. Example Applications


In this section, we consider some example applications comparing the results obtained from MC and AUP approaches for
predicting the uncertainty in reserve estimates for a single field.

3.3.1. Example Application 1. The first example application pertains to a case where all input variables are independent
in RGIP given by Eq. 1. For the purpose of this example, we follow two steps: Step 1 assumes that the distribution of each
input variable in Eq. 1 can be characterized by a triangular distribution, whereas Step 2 assumes that the distribution of each
input variable in Eq. 1 can be characterized by a log-normal distribution. For Step 1, the minimum, most likely (mode), and
maximum values of the input variables are given in Table 3. The values of mean and variance given in Table 3 were
computed from the well-known formulas for a triangular distribution:

MinX i  MaxX i  ModeX i


X  (23)
i
3

and
 Min    Max    Mode 
2 2 2
MinX i  MaxX i  MinX i  ModeX i  MaxX i  ModeX i

Xi Xi Xi
2
Xi   (24)
18 18

For Step 2, we assume that the distribution of each input variable X i is log-normal with the mean and variances computed
from Eqs. 23 and 24. Table 4 presents the values of the mean and variances for ln X i computed by using the values of mean
   and variance   for
Xi
2
Xi X i given in Eqs. 18 and 19.
Table 5 compares the estimates of mean, variance, P90, P50, and P10 computed for RGIP from the MCM and AUPM
based on Approaches 1 and 2 as described earlier.. As can be seen from Table 5, the computed values of means and
uncertainty markers from the MCM and AUPM for RGIP agree well. We also notice that the values of means and variances
computed from the AUPM based on Approach 2 better agrees with corresponding ones from the MCM. This is not surprising
though, and is an expected result because as mentioned previously; the AUPM provides a linear approximation to a nonlinear
random function around the mean values of the input variables and can provide exact results for the mean and variance for a
function f if that function is linear with the input random variables. In our case, RGIP (Eq. 1) are in fact nonlinear functions
of their input variables. On the other hand, lnRGIP (Eq. 2) are almost linear (or weakly nonlinear) functions of the input
variables. Nonetheless, the AUPM (based on either Approach 1 or 2) provides estimate of mean and variance for RGIP
agrees very well with those computed from the MCM.

TABLE 3—DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS OF THE INPUT VARIABLES; TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS; STEP 1

Variable X i Min Max Mode Mean,  X i


Variance,  X2 i

6 6 6 6
A 2.50×10 6.50×10 5.50×10 4.68×10 6.83×10-11
h 93.3 194 122.50 136.60 447.37
 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.150 1.67×10-3
n g  0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 6.67×10-3
1  Swi  0.3 0.95 0.9 0.717 2.18×10-2
RF 0.5 0.9 0.85 0.750 7.92×10-3
Bg 7.317×10-3 7.386×10-3 7.318×10-3 7.340×10-3 2.58×10-10
8 SPE 162875

TABLE 4—DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS OF THE INPUT VARIABLES; LOG-NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS; STEP 2


Variable X i Mean,  X i
Variance,  X2 Mean, ln X i
Variance,  ln2 X
i i

A 4.68106 6.8310-11 15.344 0.031


h 136.60 447.37 4.905 0.024
 0.150 1.6710-3 -1.933 0.071
n g  0.5 6.6710-3 -0.706 0.026
1  Swi  0.717 2.1810 -2
-0.354 0.042
RF 0.750 7.9210-3 -0.295 0.014
-3 -10
Bg 7.34010 2.5810 -4.914 0.000

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF THE STATISTICAL PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM THE AUP AND MC METHODS

AUPM
Values MCM
Approach 1 Approach 2
P90 1.82109 1.77109 1.78109
9 9
P50 3.1910 3.1710 3.15109
9 9
P10 5.5910 5.6710 5.71109
9 9
Mean 3.5110 3.5110 3.52109
18 18
Variance 2.6210 2.8510 2.921018

As stated earlier, the AUPM also provides sensitivity analysis for individual parameters. This sensitivity analysis is useful
to indentify which of the parameters contribute more to the total uncertainty in the estimated reserves from the volumetric
method. For instance, Table 6 presents the results of such an sensitivity analysis of Example 1 obtained from both the AUPM
and MCM methods in comparison. As can be seen from Table 6, the sensitivity values (UPC for AUPM and correlation
coefficient) computed from the AUPM and MCM methods agree quite well. A comparison of the values of UPC computed
for the parameters indicate that the porosity is the main source of uncertainty, contributing 34% to the variance of RGIP or
the total uncertainty in RGIP.

TABLE 6—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS; UNCORRELATED CASE

Variable X i MCM, Squared


AUPM, UPCi (fraction)
Correlation Coefficient
A 0.15 0.13
h 0.11 0.10
 0.34 0.31
n g  0.13 0.12
1  Swi  0.20 0.18
RF 0.07 0.06
Bg 0.00 0.00

3.3.2 Example Application 2. Our next example application pertains to a case where some of the input variables in Eq. 1
are correlated. As mentioned previously, it is possible that various input variables can be correlated with each other. We refer
the readers to the work of Holtz (1993) and Hawkins et al. (2002) for further details regarding correlation relationships of
input parameters in Eq. 1. For this investigation, we use the same input data given in Table 3, but assume correlation between
the five correlated pairs and the correlation coefficients are given in Table 7.
Table 8 compares the value of mean, variance and uncertainty markers computed from the MCM and AUPM (Approach
2) methods for the correlated case. As noted before, this approach requires that we work with the correlation coefficient
between the pairs in terms of the natural-log of input random variables; i.e., ln X i ,ln X j Our results indicate ln Xi ,ln X j   X i , X j .
That is; one can use the correlation coefficients based  X i , X j when using the AUPM method based on Approach 2. Table 8
compares the means and uncertainty markers obtained from MCM and AUPM based on Approach 2 for RGIP. Again, there
is a very good agreement in the uncertainty markers computed from both methods.
SPE 162875 9

TABLE 7— CORRELATED VARIABLE PAIRS AND


THEIR CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
Correlated Variable Pairs Correlation coefficient
X ,X 
i j
X ,X
i j

 h, RF  0.3
 A,   0.2
 A, h  0.3
 ,1  Swi  -0.1
 h, n g  0.2

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF THE STATISTICAL PARAMETERS FROM


THE MC AND AUP METHODS FOR THE CORRELATED CASE
Values AUPM MC
P90 1.66109 1.66109
P50 3.17109 3.19109
P10 6.03109 5.96109
Mean 3.59109 3.58109
Variance 3.711018 3.601018

In the correlated case the variance of RGIP is increased significantly (about 25%) and also P90, P50 and P10 is changed
slightly (about 5-10%) compared to the corresponding results for the uncorrelated case (Table 8). In this case, AUPM has an
advantage that it can give sensitivities both for individual parameters and correlated parameter pairs. Table 9 shows the
individual sensitivity parameters for Example Application 2 obtained by the AUPM and MCM methods. Table 10 presents
the values of UPC computed for correlated parameter pairs (see the second term in the left-hand side of Eq. 22).

TABLE 9—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL


PARAMETERS; CORRELATED CASE

Variable X i MCM, Squared


AUPM, UPCi (fraction)
Correlation Coefficient
A 0.121 0.116
h 0.094 0.086
 0.283 0.261
n g  0.104 0.095
1  Swi  0.165 0.154

RF 0.055 0.050
Bg 0.000 0.000

TABLE 10—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF CORRELATED


VARIABLE PAIRS; CORRELATED CASE

Correlated Variable Pairs  X i , X j  AUPM, UPCi,j (fraction)

 h, RF  0.0432
 A,   0.0741
 A, h  0.0640
 ,1  Swi  -0.0432
 h, n g  0.0395

As shown in Table 10, the correlated pairs may have a significant impact (about 18% in our case) on the total uncertainty,
i.e., variance of the RGIP. Our results show that correlation among variables if they exist and that data available permits one
to identify correlation among variables, should be accounted for accurate characterization of uncertainty in the RGIP.
Sensitivity analysis of individual input parameters and parameter pairs actually guide us to which parameter we should focus
on to characterize much better to reduce uncertainty in the RGIP.
10 SPE 162875

3.4 Dependence on Distributions


The MC simulations given in the previous sections are based on an assumption that distributions of all the input variables in
Eq. 1 are log-normal. In this section, we will investigate the impact of different distribution types of input variables to the
total uncertainty. Therefore several MC simulations are conducted using the same input data given in Table 3 but with
different distribution combinations. Table 11 presents six scenarios considered for different distribution combination of
individual input parameters. It should be noted here that the mean and/or variance of each input parameter may change from
scenario to scenario depending the on distribution assumed for the parameter as we keep the min, max, and mode values the
same as given in Table 3. For example, the mean and variance of  (which is assumed to be uniform) in Scenario 4 are
0.15 and 3.3310-3, respectively, whereas the corresponding values for a triangular distribution of  in Scenario 3 are 0.15
and 1.6710-3. Table 12 compares mean, variance, and uncertainty markers of six different scenarios, computed from both
the MCM and AUPM (Approach 2) methods. It is should be noted that the values of AUPM given in the Table 12 are
computed by using the mean and variances given in Table 4 and it is included in Table 12 as a reference case for comparison.
Of course, the mean and/or variance can change for the input parameter as we change the distribution for a given parameter
for each scenario considered in Table 11. Although not shown here, the results of our MC simulations show that the RGIP is
well approximated by log-normal distribution for each scenario in Table 11, and the mean and the uncertainty markers
computed from the AUPM for each scenario in Table 11 agree well with the corresponding ones predicted from the MCM for
each scenario in Table 11. Here, our objective is to show that the type of distribution for input parameter (unless its mean and
variance are not kept same from distribution to distribution) has an effect on the total uncertainty, as clearly see in Table 12.
So,the shapes of distributions for individual input parameters have a remarkable effect particularly on the value of P90.
As can be seen from Table 12, distribution shapes may have an impact on calculated uncertainty markers. AUPM almost
identical values for uncertainty markers in the case that distributions of all the input variables are log-normal and it gives
approximate results when all input variables have normal distribution. As stated in PRMS Guide (2011) normal and log-
normal distributions are the most general distributions to represent uncertainty in reserve calculations. It means that AUPM is
a powerful tool when decision maker has not enough data for individual parameter distributions.

TABLE 11—SCENARIOS CONSIDERED FOR DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTION TYPES


FOR INPUT PARAMETERS

Variable X i Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

A Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Log-normal Uniform


h Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Log-normal Normal
 Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Normal Normal
n g  Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Log-normal Normal
1  Swi  Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Log-normal Log-normal
RF Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Normal Log-normal
Bg Log-normal Normal Triangle Uniform Uniform Uniform

TABLE 12—MEAN, VARIANCE, AND UNCERTAINTY MARKERS FOR RGIP


FOR SIX DIFFERENT SCENARIOS OF TABLE 11

MCM
Values AUPM
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
1 2 3 4 5 6

P90 1.77×109 1.78×109 1.66×109 1.62×109 9.14×109 1.69×109 1.35×109

P50 3.17×109 3.15×109 3.22×109 3.22×109 2.34×109 3.18×109 2.80×109

P10 5.67×109 5.71×109 5.67×109 5.80×109 5.56×109 5.72×109 5.41×109

 RGIP 3.51×109 3.52×109 3.50×109 3.52×109 2.88×109 3.51×109 3.16×109

 RGIP
2
2.85×109 2.92×109 2.75×109 2.88×109 4.21×109 2.89×109 2.91×109
SPE 162875 11

4. Aggregation of Resources
Here, we consider the problem of aggregating (or adding) resources of diverse fields, zones or wells. It was shown that the
simple arithmetic sum may significantly underestimate the P90 and significantly overestimates the P10, relative to the
corresponding ones estimated by probabilistic sum. As is well known [for example see, Capen (1996, 2001), Carter and
Morales (1998), and Delfiner and Barrier (2008)], the correct procedure when aggregating the resources of many diverse
fields is probabilistic addition whether the fields to be aggregated are independent or not. As to be shown mathematically, the
arithmetic sum assumes that all fields considered in aggregation are fully correlated (i.e., pair-wise correlation coefficients for
all fields is equal to unity). In other words, probabilistic sum will be equal to the arithmetic sum if all fields are fully
correlated. On the other hand, if we assume that all fields are independent and apply the probabilistic addition, then the
probabilistic sum overestimates the P10 and underestimates P90 of the all fields used in aggregation. As well stated by
Delfiner and Barrier (2008), in reality fields are neither perfectly dependent nor perfectly independent, but instead are
correlated. So, although the probabilistic sum is the most general approach that one should use whether the fields are
independent or not, however it requires the knowledge of pair-wise correlation coefficients for the fields.

4.1. Aggregation of Means, Variances, P90, P50 and P10


In the following, we provide a general formulation for estimating the values of mean, variance, P90, P50 and P10 for a total
of n resources, each following a log-normal distribution characterized by its mean  RGIPJ 
, j  1, 2,..., n and variance

 2
RGIPj 
, j  1, 2,..., n . Note that each RGIP is a lognormal distribution, then lnRGIP is a normal distribution with a mean
equal to RGIPJ , j  1, 2,..., n and a variance  RGIP
2
j
, j  1, 2,..., n . Now suppose that we are interested in the uncertainty of the
total resources (denoted by RGIPs). It is not difficult to show that the mean (denoted by RGIPs ) and the variance of RGIPs
(denoted by  RGIPs
2
) are given by the following equations, respectively:
n
 RGIPs    RGIP j
(25)
j 1

and
n n1 n
 RGIPs
2
   RGIP
2
 2   RGIP , RGIP  RGIP
j
2
 RGIP
2
i j i j
(26)
j 1 i 1 j i 1

where  RGIPi , RGIPj represents the pair-wise correlation coefficient between resources i and j.
A few remarks are in order for Eq. 25 and 26: Eq. 25 indicates that the mean of the sum of the resources is equal to the
arithmetic sum of the mean of each resource RGIPj, whether field resources used in aggregation are correlated or not. So, this
result indicates that we can add the mean of each field resources to find the mean of the sum of all fields’ resources. Eq. 26
indicates that the variance of the sum of the resources will not be equal to the sum of the variances of individual resources
unless all field resources are independent, i.e., RGIPi , RGIPj  0 for all field resource pairs i and j. So if all fields are
independent Eq. 26 reduces to:

n
 RGIPs
2
   RGIP
2
j
(27)
j 1

On the other hand, if we assume that all pair-wise correlations in Eq. 28 are equal to unity, i.e., RGIPi , RGIPj  1 for all i and j
such that i ≠ j, then it is not difficult to show that Eq. 26 reduces to:

2
 n 
 2
RGIPs     RGIPj  (28)
 j 1 

As stated earlier, the sum of a sufficiently large number of independent random variables each with finite mean and
variance (e.g. aggregation of reserves) will be approximately normally distributed. In other words, distribution of sum of
individual fields converges to normal distribution. Capen (2001) and Delfiner and Barrier (2008) state that convergence is
very slow so that log-normal approximation gives better results for aggregation purposes. To investigate the validity of this
approximation we conduct a numerical experiment. Our experiment is based on aggregation of different number of random
synthetic fields with log-normal RGIP distributions and varying skewness coefficient between 1.0 and 1.8. Monte Carlo
simulations are accepted as correct one and relative errors are calculated from values obtained by analytical aggregation
12 SPE 162875

formulas (Eqs. 29- 36) for two cases that the sum of lognormal distributions is log-normal or normal. Figure 1 shows P90
relative errors for both assumptions. As can be seen from the Fig. 1, convergence to normal distribution is very slow because
of the skewed shape of the log-normal distribution. Log-normal distribution model is a better approximation for the
aggregation of field reserves than normal distribution model for a finite number of fields. This is also valid for P10.

Figure 1. Aggregation of different number of random synthetic fields.

If we will assume the sum of log-normal distribution of reserves is normal then, the P90, P50, and P10 of the RGIPs are
given by:

P90s  RGIPs  1.28  RGIPs


2
(29)

P50s  RGIPs (30)

and

P10s  RGIPs  1.28  RGIPs


2
(31)

On the other hand, if we assume that the sum of n field log-normal reserves is still log-normal, i.e., RGIPs will have a log-
normal distribution (as discussed before, in practice with a finite number of fields, this assumption provides better results for
P90s, P50S, and P10S), then the RGIPs follows a log-normal distribution with mean equal to  RGIPs (Eq. 25) and variance
equal to  RGIPs
2
(Eq. 26). These parameters are related to the mean ln RGIPs and variance  ln2 RGIPs of lnRGIPs by:

1   RGIPs
2

ln RGIPs  ln RGIPs  ln 1   (32)
2  RGIPs 
2

and
  RGIPs
2

 lnRGIPs
2
 ln 1   (33)
 RGIPs 
2
SPE 162875 13

The P10, P50, and P90 of the RGIPs, based on the assumption that RGIPs is log-normal, are given by


P90s  exp ln RGIPs  1.28  ln2 RGIPs  (34)

P50s  exp  ln RGIPs  (35)

and

P10s  exp ln RGIPs  1.28  ln2 RGIPs  (36)

Now, we consider a synthetic example application to verify our theoretical findings given for aggregation of field resources
of RGIP. We consider a project consisting of 2 fields, each having its log-normal distribution of RGIP with its values of
mean, variance, P90, P50, and P10 as given in Table 13.

TABLE 13—MEAN AND UNCERTAINTY MARKERS FOR TWO FIELDS

Values Field A Field B


 RGIP 5.46×10 9
8.28×109
 2
RGIP
18
3.58×10 5.05×1018
P90 3.35×109 5.68×109
P50 5.15×109 8.00×109
9
P10 7.93×10 1.12×1010

In Tables 14, 15, and 16, we compare the values of mean, variance, P90, P50 ,and P10 for the sum of field’s RGIP for
the two fields, obtained from arithmetic and probabilistic sums (based on MC simulations using @RISK, Eqs. 27, 28, 31-33,
and Eqs. 37-41). The results given in Table 14 are for the case assuming that the two fields are independent. Table 15
presents the results for the case assuming that the two fields are perfectly correlated. Table 16 presents the results for the
case assuming that the two fields are correlated with a correlation coefficient equal to 0.5.
The results given in Tables 14-15 and 16 indicate that (i) the arithmetic sum provides almost identical values of P90, P50,
and P10 for the sum of 2 fields’ resources if all fields are fully or perfectly correlated with each other, (ii) if all fields are
independent or correlated with pair-wise positive correlation coefficients different from unity, then the arithmetic sum will
underestimate the value of P90 and P50, but overestimate the value of P10, and (iii) the probabilistic addition assuming
normality for the sum of all fields’ resources does not provide as accurate estimates of P10, P50, and P90 as the probabilistic
addition based on the assumption of lognormality for RGIPs.

TABLE 14—SUM OF THE FIELDS RESOURCES


FOR THE CASE WHERE FIELDS RESOURCES ARE INDEPENDENT

Methods P90 P50 P10


9 10
Arithmetic Sum 9.03×10 1.31×10 1.92×1010

Probabilistic Sum (Normal Dist.) 9.98×109 1.37×1010 1.75×1010

Probabilistic Sum (Lognormal Dist.) 1.03×1010 1.34×1010 1.76×1010

Probabilistic Sum (Monte Carlo) 1.03×1010 1.34×1010 1.76×1010

TABLE 15—SUM OF THE FIELDS RESOURCES FOR THE CASE WHERE


FIELDS RESOURCES ARE PERFECTLY CORRELATED
Methods P90 P50 P10
9 10
Arithmetic Sum 9.03×10 1.315×10 1.92×1010
Probabilistic Sum (Normal Dist.) 8.44×109 1.37×1010 1.90×1010
Probabilistic Sum (Lognormal Dist.) 9.02×109 1.32×1010 1.92×1010
Probabilistic Sum (Monte Carlo) 9.03×109 1.31×1010 1.92×1010
14 SPE 162875

TABLE 16—SUM OF THE FIELDS RESOURCES FOR THE CASE WHERE


FIELDS RESOURCES ARE CORRELATED WITH A CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT OF 0.5
Methods P90 P50 P10
9 10
Arithmetic Sum 9.03×10 1.31×10 1.92×1010
9 10
Probabilistic Sum (Normal Dist.) 9.15×10 1.37×10 1.83×1010
Probabilistic Sum (Lognormal Dist.) 9.57×109 1.33×1010 1.85×1010
Probabilistic Sum (Monte Carlo) 9.56×109 1.33×1010 1.85×1010

In summary, we can state that the arithmetic addition assumes that all fields resources considered in aggregation are
perfectly correlated and provides a “pessimistic” estimate of P90. On the other hand, the probabilistic addition based on the
assumption that all fields considered in aggregation are independent provides an “optimistic” estimate of P90. In reality, the
correct P90 value should be between the P90 values estimated from the arithmetic sum which always assumes that all fields
are perfectly correlated and the probabilistic addition based on the assumption that all fields are independent because fields
are neither perfectly dependent nor perfectly independent, but instead are correlated.

4.2. Estimation of Pair-wise Correlation Coefficient


Estimation of pair-wise correlation coefficients of the resources involved in aggregation process is very critical. Qualified
persons-experts interested in the subject try to make the best prediction based on personal experience and judgment. This is
the reason why different people working on the same project may give different dependency estimations. Some authors have
proposed simplified and pragmatic approaches for aggregating field resources in a more subjective and systematic way to
overcome this problem [Carter and Morales (1998), van Elk et al. (2000), and Delfiner and Barrier (2008)]. The method
proposed by van Elk et al. (2000) is based on single factor sensitivity analysis of reservoir parameters and tornado diagrams.
They use experimental design to determine uncertain reservoir parameters and then define correlation coefficients between
those parameters for different resources to estimate overall dependency between two fields. Our approach – uncertainty
sorting method (USM) - is based on the similar idea yet we only consider individual parameters of Eq.1 and whole process is
completely analytical and straight forward. Instead of tornado diagrams, we consider UPC diagrams obtained from Eq. 20 to
rank uncertainty contribution of individual parameters to total uncertainty.
Here we present an equation based on Taylor expansion of Eq.1 to calculate correlation coefficient between two
resources:
n n

 
i 1 j 1
A
Xi  XB  X
j
A B
i ,Xj
 XA  XB
i j

 A, B  (37)
n 1 n 1

     
n n n n
 2      2    
2 2
A
Xi  A
Xi
A
Xi
A
Xj
A
Xi ,X j  
A
Xi
A
Xj
B
Xi  B
Xi
B
Xi
B
Xj
B
Xi ,X j  
B
Xi
B
Xj
i 1 i 1 j i 1 i 1 i 1 j i 1

Here, A and B represents two different resources let’s say two different fields and sensitivity values of individual parameters,
 , can be calculated from Table 1. Xi and Xj represent individual parameters of Eq.1 (e.g. Xi=2 represents h etc., n=7 for Eq.
1.) Note that Eq. 37 can be applied only for the equations which involve product/quotient of several random variables such
as Eq. 1.
USM allows including interior (different reservoir parameters for the same field) and exterior (same parameters of
different fields) correlations. Different reservoir parameters for different fields (e.g. h for Field A and n/g for Field B) can
also be included but generally those correlations are not taken into account. Interior and exterior correlations are required to
be determined by experts. Our experience shows that parameters that have UPC under the 5% for both fields do not have a
significant contribution to correlation coefficient between resources. Thus one can eliminate the parameters from correlation
coefficient estimation process (USM) that have UPC under the 5% for both fields.

4.2.1. Example Application. Field A and Field B are two synthetic fields and their UPC values can be seen from Figure 2.
Here Field A and Field B have exterior correlations between the parameters A, h,  and (1-Swi). Besides, Field A has an
interior correlation between the parameters: A and h; Field B also has an interior correlation between parameters: A and RF.
As can be seen from Figure 2, (1-Swi) has very low UPC values for both fields. Thus we will ignore the correlation of (1-Swi)
between the fields. Assigned correlation coefficients and required parameters are given in Table 17 and Table 18,
respectively.
From Eq. 37, correlation coefficient between the fields can be calculated as  A,B  0.386 . It is worth to note that the
parameter with higher UPC has higher effect on correlation coefficient (A for this example) and also positive interior
correlation coefficients between the field’s parameters itself reduces the correlation between the fields and negative
correlations increases correlation coefficient between the fields.
SPE 162875 15

Figure 2. UPC values of Fields and Correlated Parameter Pairs.

TABLE 17—CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF TWO FIELDS


Correlated Correlation
Parameters Coefficient
AA  AB 0.5
hA  hB 0.4
A  B 0.6
AA  hA 0.3
AB  RFB 0.2

TABLE 18- VALUES REQUIRED FOR EQ.37 - EXAMPLE APPLICATION

Field A Field B
Xi
 A
 A
 B
B
A 1.22×106 9.07×102 1.16×106 1.21×103
1 7 1
h 2.12×10 3.99×10 1.42×10 5.29×107
 2.04×10 -2
3.64×10 10
1.65×10 -2
5.29×1010
1  Swi  5.40×10-2 6.42×109 5.40×10-2 9.75×109
-2 9 -2
RF 8.25×10 7.61×10 8.69×10 1.17×1010
Bg 4.41×10-5 -7.43×1011 4.41×10-2 -1.13×1012

n g  6.24×10-2 1.02×1010 4.08×10-2 1.38×1010

Conclusions
Analytical uncertainty propagation equations (AUPEs) were presented for computing the mean and variance of the
recoverable gas or oil-in place. The AUPM method, when combined with the assumption of log-normality for the recoverable
gas/oil in-place, provides a fast alternative to the Monte Carlo simulation for accurately characterizing uncertainty markers
such as variance, P90, P50, and P10. The derived AUPEs are quite general in that it can account for correlation among the
input variables used in the volumetric equation.
We discussed the problem of probabilistic aggregation of resources or reserves. We provide a general analytical
formulation for estimating the values of mean, variance, P90, P50 and P10 for aggregated estimates. We proposed a method
so-called the uncertainty sorting method to determine pair-wise correlation coefficients for multiple resources. This method
16 SPE 162875

provides a simple and fast analytical approach based on uncertainty percentage coefficient of individual field parameters it is
general for the equations which involve only product/quotient of several random variables. Both AUPM and USM can be
used as a fast tool eliminating the need for MCM.

Nomenclature

A = Area, m2
AUPM = Analytical uncertainty propagation method
Bgi = Initial formation volume factor, m3/ sm3
cov(X, Y) = Covariance of X and Y
f = A random function
h = Reservoir gross thickness
M = Number of variables
MCM = Monte Carlo method
n = Number of total resources
(n/g) = Net to gross thickness, fraction
PXX = Value which is likely to be exceeded XX% probability
PXXs = PXX value of total resources
RGIP = Recoverable gas in place, m3
RGIPs = Recoverable gas in place of total resources, m3
RF = Recovery factor, fraction
Swi = Initial water saturation, fraction
UPC = Uncertainty percentage coefficient
X = Variable
i = Sensitivity of variable Xi
 x,y = Correlation coefficient between x and y
x = Standard deviation of x
x = Mean of x
 = Porosity, fraction

References
Barlow, R.J.1989. Statistics: A Guide to the Use of Statistical Methods in the Physical Sciences, John Wiley & Sons.
Capen, E.C. 1996. A Consistent Probabilistic Definition of Reserves. SPE Reservoir Engineering 11(1): 23-28.SPE-25830-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25830-PA.
Capen, E.C. 2001. Probabilistic Reserves! Here at Last? SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 4(5): 387-394. SPE-73828-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/73828-PA
Capen, E.C. 1976. The Difficulty of Assessing Uncertainty. JPT 28(8): 843-850. SPE-5579-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5579-PA
Carter, P.J. and Morales, E. 1998. Probabilistic Addition of Gas Reserves Within a Major Gas Project. Paper SPE 50113, presented SPE
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 12-14 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/50113-MS
Coleman, H.W. and Steele, W.G. 1999. Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, second edition, Wiley& Sons.
Delfiner, P. and Barrier, R. 2008 . Partial Probabilistic Addition: A Practical Approach for Aggregating Gas Resources. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering 11(2): 379-385. SPE-90129-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/90129-PA
Hawkins, J.T., Coopersmith E. M. and Cunningham P.C. 2002. Improving Stochastic Evaluations Using Objective Data Analysis and
Expert Interviewing Techniques. Paper SPE 77421 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, U.S.A., 29 September-2 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77421-MS
Holtz M.H. 1993, Estimating Oil Reserve Variability By Combining Geologic and Engineering Parameters, Paper SPE 25827 presented at
the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 29-30 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25827-
MS
Kalos, M.V. and Whitlock P.A. 2008. Monte Carlo Methods, Willey-Blackwell.
SPE 162875 17

Onur, M., Sarak, H. and Türeyen, Ö.Đ. 2010. Probabilistic Resource Estimation Of Stored and Recoverable Thermal Energy For
Geothermal Systems By Volumetrics Methods, proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April
Parzen, E. 1962. Modern Probability Theory and Its Applications, John Wiley & Sons.
@RISK, version 4.5.5. 2004. NY, US: Palisade Corporation.
SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE/SEG Guidelines for Application of Petroleum Resources Management System, 2011
http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/PRMS_Guidelines_Nov2011.pdf (downloaded 10 October 2011)
van Elk, J. F., Vijayan, K., and Gupta, R. 2000. Probabilistic Addition of Reserves. Paper SPE 64454 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16-18 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/64454-MS
van Elk J.F., Gupta, R. and Wann D. 2008. Probabilistic Aggregation of Oil and Gas Field Resource Estimates and Project Portfolio
Analysis. Paper SPE 116395 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 20-22 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/116395-MS
Welsh, M.B., Begg, S.H., and Bratvold, R.B. 2007. Modeling the Economic Impact of Cognitive Biases on Oil and Gas Decisions. Paper
SPE 110765 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 November.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110765-MS

S-ar putea să vă placă și