Risking of prospects and

segments

Probability concept
Fundamental rules

PROBABILITY

1.0 0.0

Probability = 1- Risk

0.9 0.1
0.8 0.2

P=1.0 means 100% certainty

0.7 0.3

P=0.0 means 0% certainty

0.6 0.4
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.5
0.3 0.7
0.2 0.8
0.1 0.9
0.0 1.0

RISK
2

Probability concept
Multiplication rule.
P=Pa x Pb x Pc x Pd.
Used when estimating the
probability of discovery for
mapped prospect.
Prospect probability is a product of
several independent factors (such
as reservoir, trap, charge and
retention).
3

Probability concept
Addition rule.
P=Pa + Pb.
Deal with several outcomes such as
the question of whether oil or gas
will be the dominant phase in the
prospect being evaluated.

Probability concept
Combination rule.
(1-P)=(1-Pa) x (1-Pb).
Deals with interdependency between
prospects.

Risk model
Estimate the probability of making
a discovery
Make the volume estimates less
wrong (White, 1993)

Establish risking guidelines prior to

assessment
To provide consistency
Attempts to promote objectivity

Risk levels
Split into prospect level and play
level.
Play attributes assumed to be common to
all prospects in the play are grouped in the
play level.
Prospect risk factors are assumed to be
unique for each prospect and estimates
vary from prospect to prospect.

Play and Prospect risk

Risk Model
Play risk factors

Prospect risk factors

Presence of reservoir facies

Presence of effective porosity

Presence of mature source rock

Presence of structure

Timing of structuring

Presence of effective seal

Migration into the structure
Retention after accumulation

Probability of discovery
The estimated prospect probability
is not the probability of making a
discovery but:
The probability of finding at least
the minimum quantity of HC
estimated in our resource
assessment.
CCOP-REP Vung Tau 1996

Probability of discovery
The product of major probability
Pdisc = Pplay x Pprospect
factors
where Pplay = Preservoir facies x Pmature source x Ptiming
and Pprospect= Pporosity x Pgeometry x Pseal x Pmigration x
Pretention.

Probability factors are evaluated with

respect to presence and
effectiveness.
10

Probability of regionally
distributed reservoir facies
Describes the probability that a regionally
distributed facies that constitute the reservoir
interval in the mapped prospects and
unmapped resources exist.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Found in all wells in the play area; facies modeling and

seismic data clearly indicates presence of the reservoir
unit in between wells

0.8 -1.0

Found in at least one well; convincing seismic data

clearly indicate a regional distribution of the unit

0.6 - 0.8

Regional distribution of the unit is probable

0.4 - 0.6

Presence is based on analog model

0.2 - 0.4

Reservoir unit not present in the play area

0.0 - 0.2
11

Probability of sufficient
mature source rock
Describes the probability that a sufficient
mature source rock exists.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Commercial production in play area, wells tested moveable

HC

0.8 -1.0

Found in at least one well; convincing seismic data clearly

indicate a regional distribution of the unit

0.6 - 0.8

Wells in play have HC shows/well samples show presence

of source rock & geochemical modeling predicts mature
source rock

0.4 - 0.6

Presence is based on analog model

0.2 - 0.4

Presence of mature source rock is probable

0.0 - 0.2
12

Source rock evaluation

Best done through basin modeling
Factors to be examined
Quality of potential source rock
Type of hydrocarbon generated
Areal and spatial distribution of mature
source rock within play area
Poin in time for onset and end of oil
generation
Volume of hydrocarbon generated
13

Probability of timing of
structuring
Describes the probability that the
structures have been present before the
end of the hydrocarbon generation.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Unambiguous data suggest trap existed before start of

migration

0.8 -1.0

Convincing data indicate trap existed before migration

0.6 - 0.8

Based on the available data, it is equally probable that the

trap was in existence prior to the end of the HC
generation.

0.4 - 0.6

Unconvincing data indicate that the trap was not present

prior to the end of the HC generation

0.2 - 0.4

Unambiguous data suggest that the trap was not in

existecen priori to the end of HC generation.

0.0 - 0.2
14

Probability of the effective

porosity
Describes the probability of the existence of
an effective reservoir facies with reservoir
parameters equal to or higher than the
minimum estimate
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Identical reservoir rock parameters are found in field or

discovery in immediate vicinity

0.8 -1.0

Lateral continuity is probable as indicated by seismic, well,

and/or outcrop data

0.6 - 0.8

Existence of effective reservoir parameters is equally

probable

0.4 - 0.6

Adequate reservoir parameters may exist in trend

0.2 - 0.4

Reservoir rock has parameters lower than the minimum

0.0 - 0.2
15

Probability of
structure/geometric body
Describes the existence of the mapped
structural/geometrical body with a bulk rock
volume equal or larger than the minimum
value used in the analysis.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Identical structure in immediate vicinity tested

successfully

0.8 -1.0

Convincing data indicates probable structure

0.6 - 0.8

A firm conclusion cannot be drawn

0.4 - 0.6

Structure poorly defined by seismic

0.2 - 0.4

Identical structure proven absent

0.0 - 0.2
16

Probability of effective seal

Describes the probability of an efficient
top, base and lateral seal of the
structure.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Presence of thick, regionally extensive and effective sealing

0.8 -1.0

Same sealing rock unit tested in trend

0.6 - 0.8

Presence of seal is equally probable

0.4 - 0.6

Sealing mechanism poorly defined

0.2 - 0.4

Sealing mechanism proven unsuccessful

0.0 - 0.2

17

Probability of migration

Describes the probability of efficient

migration of hydrocarbons from the
source to the mapped structure.
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

Unambiguous data verify that HC migrated into similar traps

0.8 -1.0

Trap is situated within a migration pathway

0.6 - 0.8

Available data indicate that it is equally probable that HC

have migrated into the trap

0.4 - 0.6

Migration path is complicated and tortuous

0.2 - 0.4

Trap is not within a migration pathway

0.0 - 0.2
18

Probability of retention after

accumulation
Evaluates reactivation of faults,
regional uplift and tilting after
accumulation
Technical tests criteria

Quantitative
probability
range

No indication of tectonic movement after accumulation

0.8 -1.0

Overlying sediments were eroded after accumulation

0.6 - 0.8

Equally probable that the trap has been or has not been
affected by tectonic movements after accumulation

0.4 - 0.6

Sealing mechanism after accumulation is poorly defined

0.2 - 0.4

Trap has experienced disturbances by tectonic movements

0.0 - 0.2

19

Definition of terms
Marginal probability
The chance that at least one field of at least
minimum size exists in the play. This chance
reflects the regional, play-specific risks
within the play

Conditional probability
The chance that the prospect would hold a
field of at least the minimum size on
condition that the play were regionally
successful
(D.A. White, 1993)
20

Play probability
Confirmed play
Probability (P) is 1
Tested and flowed HC to the surface
(technical discovery)
Example:
Play risk factors

Probability (Play)

Presence of reservoir facies

1.0

Presence of mature source rock

1.0

Timing of structuring

1.0

Marginal play probability

1.0

Marginal play probability = 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0

21

Play probability
Unconfirmed play
Probability is between 0 and 1
Play is not drilled yet or play has no
technical discovery
Example:
Play risk factors

Probability (Play)

Presence of reservoir facies

1.0

Presence of mature source rock

0.9

Timing of structuring

1.0

Marginal play probability

0.9

Marginal play probability = 1.0 x 0.9 x 1.0

22

Prospect probability
Conditional probability
The chance that the prospect will be an
accumulation on the condition that the play is
favorable to hydrocarbon accumulation (GeoX)
Prospect risk factors

Probability (Prospect|Play)

Presence of effective porosity

0.8

Presence of structure

0.8

Presence of effective seal

1.0

Migration into the structure

0.8

Retention after accumulation

1.0

Conditional prospect probability

0.512

Conditional prospect probability = 0.8 x 0.8 x 1.0 x 0.8 x 1.0

23

Other terms for probability of

discovery
Probability of success
Chance of success
Overall prospect chance
Unconditional probability (GeoX)

24

Unconditional probability
Probability of success = Pplay * Pprospect
PROSPECT WHOSE PLAY
IS CONFIRMED

Probability

PROSPECT WHOSE PLAY

IS NOT CONFIRMED

Probability

Marginal play
probability

1.0

Marginal play
probability

0.9

Conditional prospect
probability

0.512

Conditional prospect
probability

0.512

Unconditional
probability

0.512

Unconditional
probability

0.46

Dry hole risk

0.488

Dry hole risk

0.54

Unconditional probability = 1.0 x 0.512

Dry hole risk = 1 0.512

Unconditional probability = 0.9 x 0.512

Dry hole risk = 1 0.46

25

Risk dependency -

a probability perspective
Would your estimate of
A2 COS change if you
knew the outcome of
drilling the A1 segment?
If YES, then you imply
that there is risk
dependency between A1
and A2.

A1
30% COS

A2
20% COS

Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge

26

Shared risk approach to

modeling risk dependency
Consider the segments A1 and A2. The
shared risk approach partitions the chance
of adequacy into ...
P(shared), that captures all chance of
adequacy that is shared between A1 and A2,
and ...
Independent conditional probability for A1
and A2, given that the shared probability is
OK; P(A1|shared) and P(A2 |shared).
Thus ...
P(A1) = P(A1| shared) * P(shared) = 0.3
P(A2) = P(A2| shared) * P(shared) = 0.2

A1
30%
COS

A2
20%
COS

Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge

27

Geological interpretation of risk

dependency
FULL dependency example, proven play

Geologic Setting:
Deepwater fan in a proven play.
Proximal

.70

Decreasing
Reservoir COA

.50

Distal

.30

.20

There is a 30% chance that the

reservoir was deposited at A.
If the reservoir is proven at A, then
the chance at B will improve to 67%.

.10

The reservoir cannot be deposited at B

without also being deposited at A.

What is probability that sand reached A? 30%

What is the probability that sand reached B, given that
it reached A? .2/.3 = 67%

Segment
A
B

Shared
Risk

Shared Probability
P(shared)

.70

1 - .70 = .30

Shared x Independent Independent Probability

P(segment)
P(segment | shared)
.30
1.00
.20
.67
Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge

28

Geological interpretation of risk

dependency
PARTIAL dependency example, proven play

Chance the channel was deposited = 50%

.20*

Margin

.30*

Axis

Geologic Setting:
Channel system in a proven play.
There is a 50% chance that the channel was
deposited in this area.
It is more likely to be at A (Channel axis) than
at B (channel margin).

Due to the sinuosity of the channel, it could

have been deposited at B without being
deposited at A. Or it could have been
deposited in the area, but at neither A nor B.
What is probability that the system was deposited? 50% (must be risked
separately)
Given that it was deposited, what is the chance that it is present in A?
.3/.5 = 60%
Given that it was deposited, what is the chance that it is present in B?
.2/.5 = 40%
*Total reservoir COA

Segment
A
B

Shared
Risk

Shared Probability
P(shared)

.50

1 - .50 = .50

Shared x Independent
P(segment)
.30
.20

Independent Probability
P(segment | shared)
.60
.40

Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge 29

Geological interpretation of risk

dependency
Geologic Setting:
FULL INDEPENDENCE
example
Two independent sand systems: Miocene
channel and Pliocene fan.
There is a 20% chance that the channel was
deposited at B.

.20
.30
A

There is a 30% chance that the fan was

deposited at A.
Structure formed in the Pleistocene.

Segment
A
B

What is chance that the fan was deposited

at A? 30%
What is the chance that the channel was
Shared
Shared Probability
Shared x Independent Independent Probability
deposited
at B? 20%
Risk
0

P(shared)

1 - 0 = 1.00

P(segment)
.30
.20

P(segment | shared)
.30
.20

Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge 30

Shared risks in GeoX 5.4

Set at the level of individual risk factors by
enrolling segments in risk dependency groups
System constrains value of shared probability
according to chance of adequacy probabilities
for segments in risk dependency group
GeoX options for defining shared risks
between segments
Shared Probability
Max Correlation
Play chance
Note: Technically speaking, these are all variations
of the same method.

Copyright 2004 GeoKnowledge

31

Organization and Flow

32