SPE Economics & Management
Volume 2,
Number 1,
April 2010,
pp. 19-31
Summary
Analysts have increasingly used probabilistic approaches to evaluate the
uncertainty in reserves estimates based on decline-curve analysis (DCA). This
is because the results represent statistical analysis of historical data that
usually possess significant amounts of noise. Probabilistic approaches usually
provide a distribution of reserves estimates with three confidence levels
(P10, P50, and P90) and a
corresponding 80% confidence interval (CI). The question arises: How reliable
is this 80% CI? In other words, in a large set of analyses, is the true value
of reserves contained within this interval 80% of the time? Our investigation
indicates that it is common in practice for true values of reserves to lie
outside 80% CIs much more than 20% of the time using traditional statistical
analyses. This indicates that uncertainty is being underestimated, often
significantly. Thus, the challenge in probabilistic reserves estimation using
DCA is not only how to appropriately characterize probabilistic properties of
complex production-data sets, but also how to determine and then improve the
reliability of the uncertainty quantifications.
This paper presents an improved methodology for probabilistic quantification
of reserves estimates using DCA and practical application of the methodology to
actual individual-well decline curves. Application of our proposed new method
to 100 oil and gas wells demonstrates that it provides much wider 80% CIs than
methods previously presented, and these CIs contain the true values
approximately 80% of the time. In addition, the method yields more-accurate
P50 values than previously published methods do. Thus, the
new methodology provides more-reliable probabilistic reserves estimation, which
has important impacts on economic risk analysis and reservoir management.
© 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
1,819 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
19 August 2009
- Meeting paper published:
10 October 2005
- Manuscript approved:
16 February 2010
- Published online:
27 April 2010
- Version of record:
27 April 2010