SPEE

© All Rights Reserved

306 views

SPEE

© All Rights Reserved

- O'Leary Patterson Garway-Heath Crabb ARVO Poster 2006
- SPEE
- SPEE Guidelines for the Practical Evaluation of Undeveloped Reserves in Resource Plays
- Spee Monograph 4
- Legends of Production and Operations
- SPEE Monograph 3 Discussion
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Analysis of Production Decline Curves.pdf
- Production Logging Measurements and Analysis
- Honarpour - Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoir
- 14142761 Statistical Process Control QPSP
- OCR S1 Revision Sheet
- Addmaths Project
- STATISTICS.pdf
- American Society for Quality answers questions.pdf
- 2012 Stats Mst
- SDA 3E Chapter 3 (2)
- QUALITY CONTROL TOOLS APPLIED TO PH VALUES IN AN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF CASSAVA STARCH
- Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion
- EDA_Lecture2.pdf

You are on page 1of 3

SPEE first published Monograph 3 in early 2011 and, after two years of practical user

feedback, some amplifications, clarifications, and corrections are now desirable.

Amplifications

Most of us can recall an ingenious teacher who tricked us into solving a mathematical

problem by accidentally dividing by zero with a resulting impossible answer. The

instructor emphasized the need to understand the underlying assumptions and the

requirement of upholding the assumptions. The deceptive dividing by zero problem

illustrated the outcome when the assumptions were violated. The same problem occurs in

our evaluation practices, we dont always recognize or understand the assumptions used

to create a solution and, if we mistakenly ignore the assumptions, we generate incorrect

results.

Monograph 3 presents a practical evaluation method to estimate undeveloped reserves in

Resource Plays. To employ these techniques, the evaluator MUST ensure the reservoir is

a Resource Play as defined in Chapter 1. The evaluator may be tempted to prematurely

declare that a reservoir is a Resource Play. However, the Tier 1 Criteria requires a

repeatable EUR distribution and Chapter 2 discusses the minimum sample size (i.e. the

number of wells) for the distribution.

Feedback suggests evaluators may be overlooking Table 3.3, Approximate Producing

Well Count at Various Stages of Resource Play Development. In the early phase of

field development, insufficient data exists to demonstrate EUR repeatability.

Consequently the evaluator cannot determine if the subject reservoir is indeed a Resource

Play. Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 offer recommendations of how many PUD locations are

justified depending upon field development.

Clarifications

Graphs 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in Chapter 1 are plotted using the equal interval method, a

frequently-used graphing technique. The graphs compare well performance over several

years. A more rigorous graphing method for small data sets, the mid-point plotting, is

discussed in Chapter 2 on page no. 31. For most limited sample distribution graphs, we

recommend mid-point plotting.

In Monograph 3, data is plotted as both discrete points and as line connected points.

Often data points are connected on a graph to improve readability. Either graphing

style is acceptable based upon evaluator discretion. However the connecting line does

not infer additional data. For this reason, some evaluators prefer graphs of discrete data

points.

Chapter 2 introduces statistics, the study and description of data. The sample Mean is the

arithmetic average of the data-set samples. It is the sum of the sample points divided by

the number of samples. Similarly, the Population Mean is the average of all the possible

population values weighted by their respective likelihoods. The mode, median, mean,

and standard deviation of a sample are not necessarily (and rarely, if ever) equal to the

mode, median, mean, and standard deviation of the full population

Throughout Monograph 3, we consider wells already drilled to discern properties of

undrilled locations. To evaluators, this is a common practice; we study analogous wells

to forecast the performance of undrilled wells. In mathematical terms, the analogous

wells are a sample, or subset, of the entire population. However, the statistical

measurement of a population and a sample are not identical. This includes both central

tendency (mean, mode, etc.) and shape (variability, standard deviation, etc.). For

evaluators, the prime question is How representative of the entire population is my

sample? For a Resource Play, error in average EUR decreases as sample size (number

of wells) increases. From a practical perspective, the SPEE Evaluation of Resource Plays

Committee recommends using well counts from Table 2.1 as the minimum number of

wells in a sample.

To prepare Table 2.1, the committee assumed a mean and P10/P90 ratio for a log-normal

population truncated at P2 and P98, then solved for the sample size of randomly selected

data yielding a 90 percent confidence interval. In practice, during early development we

evaluate a sample or subset of the population (all analogous wells that will be drilled in

the field). Therefore we assume the mean and shape of the sample will represent the

population. As with Table 2.1, many graphs and tables in Monograph 3 are derived for a

defined population and applying these to a sample introduces a slight, yet acceptable,

error.

To indicate a Resource Play, the evaluator must demonstrate EUR repeatability by

comparing different groups of wells. Each group represents a sample of the entire

population (all wells that will ever be drilled) and should include enough wells to satisfy

the well counts from Table 2.1. For example, if the P10/P90 ratio for the field is 4.0, each

group of wells (a sample) needs to include at least 60 wells. Group one might be the first

60 wells drilled, group two might be the next 60 wells drilled, and group three might be

the last 60 wells drilled. A smaller sample size than suggested in Table 2.1 results in a

confidence interval which falls below 90 percent of the target.

In this preceding example, 180 producing wells, or three times the minimum sample size

are considered. Once the evaluator determines the reservoir is a Resource Play, all of the

wells should be grouped into a single sample for further statistical analysis (P10/P90 ratio,

Swansons mean, etc.).

The minimum well count of 60 for a P10/P90 ratio of 4 was selected so that the sample

size would meet the SECs reliable technology criteria. In more statistical terminology,

a total sample size of 60 is required to assure that we are more than 90% confident that

the sample is representative of the population mean. The committee made the

simplifying assumption in all of its aggregation work that the sample (60 wells) mean and

variance were equal to the population mean and variance. This was viewed as pragmatic

and within the SECs guidance of reliable technology.

Corrections

Chapter 2 used the lower case Greek letter sigma, , to represent the standard deviation

of a sample. Statisticians have standardized on the use of sigma, to reflect the

population standard deviation and the use of the Roman letter, s to represent the

standard deviation of a sample. In Monograph 3 we used analogous wells as a sample, or

subset, of the entire population. Hence Eq. 2.1 should be:

1 n

s

( x x ) i2

n 1 i 1

2

statistical measurement and is not used elsewhere in Monograph 3.

Chapter 3 presents the Expanding Concentric Radii (ECR) method to identify the Proved

area of a Resource Play. Throughout the discussion, groups of wells are considered

equal if the mean and P10/P90 ratios are within 10 percent of each other. In reality,

values which differ by 10 percent are not mathematically equal. Substituting similar

for equal offers a more reasonable discussion.

In Chapter 3, page 52 reads The following chart, Fig. 3.17, compared the P^ values for

the analogue wells, anchor wells, and three test sets should read The following chart,

Fig. 3.17, compared the Pmean values for the analogue wells, anchor wells, and three

test sets

In Chapter 4, the x-axis on Figure 4.14 should be titled PUD Well Count.

In Chapter 4, page 69, reads Both curves show the P^ method has less than five percent

error once the well count exceeds 30 wells. should read Both curves show the P^

methods has less than five percent error once the well count exceeds 35 wells. Later in

the same paragraph, As the graph depicts, the P^ method results in slightly optimistic

values when the well count is greater than 100 wells. should read As the graph depicts,

the P^ method results in slightly pessimistic values when the well count is greater than

100 wells.

In Chapter 4, the x-axis on Figure 4.16 should be titled Aggregate Factor versus PUD

Well Count for Various P10/P90 Ratios.

Figure 4.2 has a plotting error. Note that data values with a lower Probability value are

occasionally smaller than the value plotted beneath them at a higher probability value.

The greater than mid-point method requires the ranking of data from the smallest to the

largest value.

- O'Leary Patterson Garway-Heath Crabb ARVO Poster 2006Uploaded byneil_o_leary
- SPEEUploaded byreservoirengr
- SPEE Guidelines for the Practical Evaluation of Undeveloped Reserves in Resource PlaysUploaded byTwirX
- Spee Monograph 4Uploaded byShengyun Zhan
- Legends of Production and OperationsUploaded byAmin Gholami
- SPEE Monograph 3 DiscussionUploaded byManuel Rodriguez
- Hydraulic FracturingUploaded byjuangar1992
- Analysis of Production Decline Curves.pdfUploaded byWilliam Hu
- Production Logging Measurements and AnalysisUploaded byaolatunbosun
- Honarpour - Relative Permeability of Petroleum ReservoirUploaded bymbalai68
- 14142761 Statistical Process Control QPSPUploaded byRAVISSAGAR
- OCR S1 Revision SheetUploaded byDKS215
- Addmaths ProjectUploaded byRezinna Sebongbong
- STATISTICS.pdfUploaded byNikhilesh Prabhakar
- American Society for Quality answers questions.pdfUploaded bybmn_test
- 2012 Stats MstUploaded byElle Smart
- SDA 3E Chapter 3 (2)Uploaded byxinearpinger
- QUALITY CONTROL TOOLS APPLIED TO PH VALUES IN AN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF CASSAVA STARCHUploaded byIJAR Journal
- Measures of Central Tendency and DispersionUploaded byLouenna Tocoyo
- EDA_Lecture2.pdfUploaded byFerda Özdemir
- Module 2 - Session 1Uploaded byElimer Espina
- Data Analysis1Uploaded byTripty Khanna Karwal
- mean, median mode.docxUploaded byAnonymous hYMWbA
- Practice Calculating Variance and Associated StatisticsUploaded byPablo Expósito
- Short QuesUploaded byabhisek
- chapter-3Uploaded byAtul
- Statistics Ch 1-5 Notes (2)Uploaded byprfktshun1
- Copy of Pages From New Math Book_Part2-10Uploaded byNhocticaro Nhoc
- Black SchoolsUploaded bySaanDJ98
- Topic 7 StatisticsUploaded byShasha Wini

- OGR MappingUploaded byarthurvictor
- APPEA Decommissioning GuidelinesUploaded byreservoirengr
- Abadonment of obsolete wellsUploaded byreservoirengr
- PET-DecommissioningGuideline.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- 117-norwegian-oil-and-gas--recommended-guidelines-well-integrity---rev-6-final.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- Guideline for Oil and Gas Pipeline EngUploaded byreservoirengr
- Eastern Australian Domestic Gas Market StudyUploaded byreservoirengr
- Resources Regulator Overview June 2018Uploaded byreservoirengr
- Trinidad CprUploaded byreservoirengr
- indonesia_cpr.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- ConocoPhillips Glossary of Terms-External-FINAL 6-2-2016Uploaded byagah
- Petroleum TermsUploaded bydannycwsmith
- Sleipner CO2 StorageUploaded byreservoirengr
- Chadwick Etal 2001 GeoscientistUploaded byreservoirengr
- PUD-og-PAD-eUploaded byreservoirengr
- Introduction to Well IntegrityUploaded bylucaz273747
- long-term-integrity-co2-storage-well-abandonment.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- Rules and Regulations for UK Norwegian WatersUploaded byagaevski2008
- Sinopec Puffin Wells Abandonment EP SummaryUploaded byreservoirengr
- CSR in Saudi ArabiaUploaded byreservoirengr
- Saudi_Aramco_75.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- Saudi Arabia a Country StudyUploaded byreservoirengr
- PTTEP Q12017 Distribution VFinalUploaded byreservoirengr
- OxfordStrategicConsulting_SaudiEmployment_Jan2016Uploaded byreservoirengr
- oguk_well_integrity_guidelines_may_2015.pdfUploaded byreservoirengr
- Guidelines for Well AbandonmentUploaded byahmed
- API SC10_API Bulletin E3 Status_Jan 2016_rev 2Uploaded byreservoirengr
- Petroleum Atlas of VictoriaUploaded byreservoirengr
- Patricia-2 WCR InterpUploaded byreservoirengr

- Box PlotsUploaded bytheoryz_michael
- AssignmentIIUploaded byMahi On D Rockzz
- 08 Split PlotsUploaded byfrawat
- Discriminant (2)Uploaded byPranav Latkar
- FMCG Variable Selection ProblemUploaded byAravind Somasundaram
- Structural Equation Modeling in PracticeUploaded byPatricia Monteferrante
- Chap2 Sampling Distns IUploaded byChris Topher
- ICC in SPSS HandoutUploaded bygoyalkuldeep
- Chi SquareUploaded byAsi
- Research AnaUploaded byPruthviraj Rathore
- Unit 9 (STAT 17 Assignment)Uploaded byDharun Blazer
- x and r Chartin Class ExampleUploaded byshariq1234
- Bmj.d2090.FullUploaded byPercy Soto Becerra
- Multiple Classification Analysis Using SPSSUploaded bycicakadut
- Walpole Ch01Uploaded byFadi Mahfouz
- BACIUploaded bymruizdelarosa
- Effect Size Calculator 17Uploaded byAlina Ciabuca
- Scikit Learn DocsUploaded byGuedsonMachado
- knaus_m23805.pdfUploaded bypedrohcgs
- Introduction to StataUploaded byMo Ml
- hw2Uploaded bypersian67
- jurnal statistikUploaded byAry Pratiwi
- Lab5_SPSS_ChiSquareUploaded byUmair Uddin
- Eco No Metrics- Regression With StataUploaded bypotionpotion
- Sampling in BiometricsUploaded byErik Eddy
- One and Two Tailed TestsUploaded byFatima Ali
- Applied Regression Analysis - STAT 225 Z1 - Course Syllabus or Other Course-Related DocumentUploaded byContinuing Education at the University of Vermont
- Deurenberg Formula Imc Para %GrasaUploaded byEsmeralda Rd
- CorrelationUploaded byShishir Soodana
- Reckoner Six SigmaUploaded byMuzammil Fiaz