See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317551353

Lies, damned lies, and creaming curves. Why they tell you little or nothing about
yet-to-find nor do they tell you what explorers want to know…

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201701723

CITATIONS READS

0 107

1 author:

Ian Longley
GIS-pax
18 PUBLICATIONS 428 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Longley on 17 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Lies, damned lies, and creaming curves. Why they tell you little or nothing about yet-to-
find nor do they tell you what explorers want to know…

Ian M Longley GIS-pax Pty Ltd Perth, Australia

In Basin and Play ranking exercises the conventional E&P industry ubiquitously uses cumulative
volumes vs well count (or time) plots which are normally called “creaming curves”. These are normally
used to make a quantitative estimate of yet-to-find volumes and the shape of the curve is used to
qualitatively indicate relative maturity level of the exploration effort (based on the assumption that
“the cream” in this case large fields are found first and then the discovery field sizes progressively
decrease in size). A classic mature basin creaming curve will thus be a convex upwards shape that
flattens and asymptotically approaches a flat line with increasing exploration effort. In this discovery
conceptual model a steep curve profile implies a relative immature exploration effort which should
have significant yet-to-find potential whereas flattened curves imply exploration maturity and limited
remaining exploration potential.

The main problems with using creaming curves is that 1. They are not spatial so are useless for indicating
which blocks are more prospective than others 2. They only predict known play volumes in proven basin
areas 3. They cannot predict an absolute yet-to-find volumes since the interpreter has to select an
arbitrary future date or well count for the volume estimate and 4. Observation of many historical
creaming curves suggest the predictive process commonly does not accurately predict the future. Real
examples are shown of significant discoveries that are made late in mature areas due to a new play
interval being discovered or a new trap type being found within an established play interval. These
“game changer” wells rejuvenate basin exploration (and treasury coffers) and only play analysis that
collates the right penetration, well failure and trap type data can help identify these rare but significant
opportunities.

Predicting definitively where the next large discovery will be from historical discovery volume curves is
clearly impossible but based on observed data these late exploration stage major discoveries occur
more frequently in inefficiently explored complex basins rather than simple efficiently explored basins.
The methodology for capturing this key ranking dimension as a Serendipity Index is presented and this
cross-plotted against a more robust screening Yet-to-Find guestimate methodology is shown to
demonstrate how basins (and plays) can be better ranked and high-graded to provide focus for later
more detailed play and prospectivity evaluations.

View publication stats