1887

Abstract

Summary

Reservoir modelling studies are now widespread and are often built into a formal gated process used for decision-making, at least as an option. Once ubiquitous, it is easy for the models to simply become tools for verification of a decision that has partially (sometimes wholly) been made – ‘modelling for comfort’. This is particularly the case in mature fields, when the presence of an inherited model already anchors the view of the field, and the volume of production data discourages the practitioner from exploring uncertainties with multiple models. It is proposed that reservoir modelling offers most value when used to create some discomfort – a stress-test for decision-making that can identify upsides and secure against loss. This requires an awareness of the biases at work in model design and a conscious choice to move away from the default of a single, detailed, full-field model. This ideally means moving away from base-case led modelling altogether and typically involves multi-scale model design and multiple-models for uncertainty handling, based either on stochastic modelling or multi-deterministic, scenario-based approaches.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700858
2017-06-12
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baddeley, M. C., Curtis, A., and Wood, R.
    [2004] An introduction to prior information derived from probabilistic judgements: elicitation of knowledge, cognitive bias and herding. In: Curtis, A. and Wood, R., (eds): Geological Prior Information: Informing Science and Engineering. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 239, 15–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentley, M.
    [2016] Modelling for comfort. Petroleum Geoscience, 22(1), 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentley, M. and Smith, S.
    [2008] Scenario-based reservoir modelling: the need for more determinism and less anchoring. In: Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price, S., Hegre, J. and Muggeridge, A. (eds) The Future of Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 309, 145–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentley, M. and Woodhead, T.
    [1998] Uncertainty Handling Through Scenario-Based Reservoir Modelling. SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. SPE 39717.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Caers, J.
    [2011] Modeling Uncertainty in the Earth Sciences. John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chellingsworth, L., Bentley, M., Kane, P., Milne, K., and Rowbotham, P.
    [2011] Human limitations on hydrocarbon resource estimates—why we make mistakes in data rooms. First Break, 29(4), 49–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. van de Leemput, L. E. C, Bertram, D., Bentley, M. R. and Gelling, R.
    [1996] Full-field reservoir modeling of Central Oman gas/condensate fields. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(4), 252–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ringrose, P. and Bentley, M.
    [2015] Reservoir Model Design – A Practitioner’s Guide. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.
    [1974] Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700858
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700858
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error