Summary
Probabilistic methods for reserves estimation, including uncertainty
quantification and probabilistic aggregation, have gained widespread acceptance
in the oil and gas industry, since the first comprehensive guidelines were
issued by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) in 2001. The probabilistic
methods now used in the oil industry, as proposed in these guidelines, are
similar to those also used in portfolio theory and risk management by the
finance industry. A significant amount can be learned from the extensive
experience with probabilistic methods and quantification of risk with measures
[e.g., value-at-risk (VAR)] in financial risk management. Especially, the
guidelines issued by the Basel II Accord (Bank for International Settlements
2006) and the discussions since the 2008 financial crisis contain important
lessons.
In this paper, we examine a fundamental question: "Is the P90 reserves value
an appropriate measure for quantifying the reserves' downside?" For the P90
reserves value to be considered a good measure of the reserves' downside, it
needs to possess a number of basic characteristics involving P90 reserves for
each field and the probabilistically aggregated P90 reserves for the portfolio
of fields. Analogous to the definition of a coherent risk measure used in the
finance industry, we define these characteristics for P90 reserves.
The P90 reserves are as good a risk measure as VAR used in the financial
industry. However, like VAR, it is not a coherent risk measure. A possible
uncertainty scenario, in which one of these necessary characteristics does not
hold, is given. An alternative measure of risk for quantifying the reserves'
downside, defined as the average reserves over the confidence interval higher
than P90, is presented. This is a coherent risk measure.
In this paper, we highlight the appropriateness and limitations of using the
P90 reserves estimate as a measure of the reserves' downside. Understanding of
the limitations posed by using the P90 reserves value is vital in management of
reserves risk.
© 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
433 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
21 July 2010
- Meeting paper published:
18 October 2010
- Revised manuscript received:
19 September 2011
- Manuscript approved:
9 November 2011
- Published online:
7 February 2012
- Version of record:
8 February 2012