NDX Longley PDF

Click to view video of presentation slides
AV
Why Bother? (With Play Based Exploration): The Five Reasons Why Play Based Exploration
Worthwhile in a Modern Busy Understaffed and Overworked Exploration Company Environment*
Ian Longley1 and Jeff Brown2
Search and Discovery Article #110227 (2016)**

Posted May 9, 2016
*Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG/SEG International Conference & Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, September 13-16, 2015
**Datapages © 2016 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd, Perth, WA, Australia (ian.longley@iinet.net.au)
2
Rose & Associates, Houston, TX, United States
Abstract
Exploration and new business teams use play mapping because it provides “focus” via the use of a spatial tool over which
opportunities can be layered to quickly rank and rate the flood of opportunities that teams typically have to filter in any active
exploration area. At a functionality level, the available tools diverge and many just provide qualitative or relative goodness
maps. This is still useful but without numeric estimates, it is always difficult to estimate the value or ranking of any opportunity
and thus get corporate endorsement. The simplest play tool is a crayon on tracing paper but this is hard to update as new data
becomes available and it is also easy to lose. The best play tools are consequently software packages that integrate dynamic well
data into the maps in a way that helps geologists build and make the maps and provides a way of evergreening the evaluation
with an audit trail and an archive mechanism that ensures that valuable corporate knowledge captured and retained. The second
function more advanced tools can deliver is the integration of postulated prospects from a calibrated analog database into the
evaluation. The third function advanced play tools can do is calculate the estimated yet to find volumes and values for each
evaluated play incorporating both identified and postulated/unidentified prospects. The forth function advanced tools can
provide is the ability to predict pre-drill what the impact of drilling one prospect will be on the evaluation of adjacent prospects.
This derisking “success volume” calculation of volumes and values associated with each target means geologists can
numerically justify wells that were always intuitively sensible but were never supported by the previously simplistic non-spatial
economic evaluations. The fifth function that more advanced tools can deliver is to assist companies exploring in proven play
areas where the play elements are all proven. In these areas information relating to types of traps that have been drilled and
which work and why some may have failed can be compared these data to the trap types of undrilled features thus providing a
methodology for the systematic search for new traps. In summary the play tools that are quantitative and can deal with the
dynamic changing environments of data, interpretations, prospects and trap types provide exploration and new business teams
with tools for making their jobs easier and ultimately delivering superior results.
Selected Reference
Milton, N.J., and G.T. Bertram, 1992, Trap styles; a new classification based on sealing surfaces: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, p. 983-
999.
Why Bother?
(with Play Based Exploration)
The five reasons why Play Based Exploration worthwhile in a modern
busy understaffed and overworked exploration company environment.
Ian Longley (GIS-pax)

Jeff Brown (Rose & Associates)
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 1

Why Bother? The five reasons why Play Based Exploration
worthwhile in a modern busy understaffed and overworked
exploration company environment.
Jeff Brown (Rose & Associates) and Ian Longley (GIS-Pax Pty Ltd)
As technicians, we frequently debate the nuances of play mapping techniques and the relative merits of the many tools available that
ci ax
are designed to facilitate the process, and forget why we actually use play maps in front-line exploration. The first and primary function
of play mapping (of any flavor) is that it provides “focus”. More specifically it provides a spatial tool with which opportunities can be
layered to quickly rank and rate the flood of opportunities that exploration teams typically have to filter in any active exploration area,
es
or when choosing entry opportunities.
so -p
The simplest play tool is a crayon on tracing paper or polygons in PowerPoint but these are hard to update as new data become
at
available, and paper maps are easy to lose. The best play tools are consequently software packages that integrate well data into the
As IS
maps in a way that helps geologists build and make the maps and this provides a way of ‘evergreening’ the evaluation with an audit trail
and an archive mechanism that ensures that valuable corporate knowledge captured and retained. At a functionality level though the
available tools diverge in subtle ways and many just provide qualitative or ‘relative goodness’ maps that show where play elements are
G
most favorable. This is still useful but without numeric estimates it is always difficult to estimate the value or ranking of any opportunity
and thus get corporate endorsement.
The second function advanced play tools provide is the ability to calculate the estimated yet to find volumes (and associated value) for
e by
each evaluated play, incorporating both identified and postulated/unidentified prospects. The latter requires the quantitative chance
mapping to emulate the risking mathematics done for prospects consequently the tool must be capable of dealing with different risking
structures.
The third function advanced tools can provide beyond is the ability to predict, pre-drill, the impact/influence of successfully drilling one
os d
prospect will be on remaining adjacent prospects, which is profoundly important in unproven potions of plays. This derisking “success
volume” calculation of volumes and values associated with each target means that prospects that were evaluated in isolation as sub-
R e
&
economic can sometimes be elevated positions in the drilling portfolio. This calculation can only be done by splitting play and prospect
chance estimates into polygons of equal chance value; hence, grid/raster methodologies simply cannot provide this important insight.
d wn
The fourth function that more advanced tools can deliver is to assist companies exploring in proven play areas is the ability to integrate
well results (key well analysis), both in terms of data analysis and in simply displaying why each wildcat succeeded or failed in map
sense When properly documented, analysis can be related to types of traps, providing a better understanding of critical risks by trap
type, better prediction of future success rates, and a basis for systematically looking for new material discoveries in old basins.
an o
Lastly, more advanced tools recognize that many key exploration decisions happen early in the exploration phase of a basin or play,
when prospects have not been defined and 2D/3D charge models have not been built. In these areas, the prediction of prospect sizes
IP
and frequency/density from a calibrated analog database is key, as is the simple integration of source and charge models (typically 1D
modelling or seismic isochron work) into the analysis.
In summary there are many play tools and techniques but the ones that are quantitative and can deal with the dynamic changing
environments of data, interpretations, prospects and trap types provide exploration teams with a tool that should provide inputs for
better exploration decisions and, ultimately, deliver superior results.
Abstract from AAPG ICE Conference Melbourne, Australia, 2015
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 Presentation Material from this presentation is also on AAPG Search & Discovery 2
What Is Player?
• Player is an extension in ArcGIS that provides the tools to do conventional and unconventional
Play Mapping and Play Assessments with the data saved into an industry standard database
structure
ci ax
• It now has 8+ years of development with 30+ global E&P companies using the software – it is the
benchmark for Play Analysis tools – nothing else comes close (see www.gis-pax.com for more info)
es
so -p
• It is not a prospect evaluation or volumetrics tool..
• The Player Suite is applicable to both unconventional and conventional exploration types
at
As IS
• Player is particularly well suited to evaluated large complex basins with multiple play levels and lots of
fields but it can be just as easily applied to frontier unproven basins with limited data and no discoveries.
G
In either setting it has a well defined workflow and is designed to make using ArcGIS easier – it is a
working geologist product not a specialist tool.
• Player in an unconventional setting provides the tools to qualitatively or quantitatively evaluate
e by
established single or stacked plays using your company defined workflows– every unconventional play is
different! These workflows then become the corporate knowledge libraries for unconventional plays and
these can be used to evaluate by analogy more frontier areas or unproven plays.
os d
• Its in ESRI ArcGIS because “the platform matters!”
R e
&
• It’s the software that deals with spatial objects the best
•
•
Objects are spatially “aware”
There are no grids or edges
d wn
• It’s a proper GIS and deals with projections properly and easily
an o
• Its an open development platform with 30 million licenses
IP
• Means its robust and can deal with large complex datasets
• It uses the clever functions developed in Arc Objects that have been developed over the last 20+ years
• It’s the industry platform- every regional team in every large company we have seen uses it. Period.
• It can sit on local flat files or on Oracle or SQL databases
• We could not do what we do on any other platform…
First of All..
• Let me point out that this talk is focussed on conventional
ci ax
oil and gas plays not unconventional ones.. we (at GIS-pax
es
and Rose) have solutions for the latter but this is not
so -p
covered nor discussed in this presentation
at
As IS
G
• Secondly let me give credit to Jeff Brown from Rose &
e by
Associates for both his contribution to this pack and to my
os d
learning over the last few years..
R e
&
• Many of the concepts and ideas here are from him and I would
d wn
recommend anyone thinking about a Play Based Exploration focus
engage Rose and him in both your planning and training plans..
an o
IP

ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
So why bother?!
R e
&
d wn
A simple example
an o
IP

Example of Why PBE
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
Kitchen area Prospect COS% Vol Product
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
• 3 prospects – which one would you drill? Legend

• All prosects and discoveries in the same play/reservoir interval HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
• Risks and volumes all peer reviewed by same team and process Migration Directions
Prospect COS/mmboe mean
volumes (mmboe)
Example of Why PBE
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
• If the drilling costs/value etc are all the same then
IP
every E&P company on the planet would drill Prospect Legend

A because it has the highest risk volume result. Dry Wells
HC Field mmboe
• This one is close to the discoveries as well so everyone Migration Directions
feels happy about this kind of easy decision! Prospect COS/mmboe mean
• Do you agree?!! volumes (mmboe)
Example of Why PBE
Migration Evaluation Added
Prospects B & C in same
migration risk polygon = shared
ci ax
100% Migration Chance risk
25% Migration Chance
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
• So now lets add some migration risks Legend

• We have 3 dry wells between the kitchen and Prospect B & HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
C so the migration risk is in this case put at 25%.. Migration Directions
• Clearly in the real work we need to know why these wells failed Prospect COS/mmboe mean
to understand this risk.. volumes (mmboe)
Example of Why PBE
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
Legend
• So now if we drill C and it is a discovery… HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
Migration Directions
volumes (mmboe)
Drill C.. The raw numbers
ci ax
es
so -p
at
Success 30 mmboe
As IS
20%
G
Drill C
e by
os d
80%
Failure = 0mmboe
R e
&
d wn
Risked Volumes 6mmboe
an o
IP
This is what happens to Prospect C in isolation….

But IF it works….

Example of Why PBE
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
Legend
• So now if we drill C and it is a discovery… then the Dry Wells
migration will be proven to prospect B!! HC Field mmboe
• In this case we have set the new migration risk to 100% Prospect COS/mmboe mean
volumes (mmboe)
Drill C Evaluation..
ci ax
es
so -p
at
Success 30 mmboe
As IS
20%
G
Drill C
e by
os d
80%
Failure = 0mmboe
R e
&
d wn
Risked Volumes 6mmboe
an o
• This is how C looks alone..

IP

If C works then the migration to B chance changes from 25% to
Prospect B 100% and the COS increases by a factor of 4 (25% to 100%)
COS=10% COS=40%
ci ax
MSV= 50mmboe MSV= 50mmboe Delta= 15mmboe
es
Risked= 5mmboe Risked= 20 mmboe
so -p
at
Success 30 mmboe
As IS
20%
G
Drill C
e by
os d
80%
Failure = 0mmboe
R e
&
d wnRisked Volumes 6mmboe
an o
• When we look at the impact of the C result on B .. This add 15mmboe of

IP
risked volume in the success case…

If C works then the migration to B chance changes from 25% to
Prospect B 100% and the COS increases by a factor of 4 (25% to 100%)
COS=10% COS=40%
ci ax
es
so -p
at
Success 30 mmboe Risked = 15 * 20% =3 mmboe
As IS
20%
G
Drill C
e by
os d
80%
Failure = 0mmboe
R e
&
Total Risked
d wnRisked Volumes 6mmboe Volumes = 9
mmboe
an o
• But this only happens 20% of the time when C works = the migration
IP
risk affecting B will change from 25% to 100% 20% of the time..
• This adds 3 mmboe of risked volumes to the overall risked result
A Success Result
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
Legend
• A success at A does not affect the shared HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
migration risk evaluation at B & C… Migration Directions

volumes (mmboe)
B success result
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
an o
C 20% 30 6
IP
Legend
• A B success will impact C given that our HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
interpretation is that B & C are in a polygon of Migration Directions
equal migration chance.. Prospect COS/mmboe mean
volumes (mmboe)
Drill B maths..
If b works then the migration to B chance changes from 25% to
Prospect C 100% and the COS increases by a factor of 4 (25% to 100%)
COS=20% COS=80%
ci ax
es
so -p
at
Success 50 mmboe Risked = 18 * 10% =1.8
As IS
10%
G
mmboe
Drill B
e by
os d
90%
Failure = 0mmboe
R e
&
Total Risked
d wnRisked Volumes 5mmboe Volumes = 6.8
mmboe
an o
• So 10% of the time C works and that means the migration risk affecting
IP
B will change from 50% to 100% 20% of the time..

• This adds 1.8 mmboe of risked volumes to the risked result
So in summary…
Pg POS COS Mean Risked Success Total Risked
ci ax
Volume Volume Volumes Volumes
es
Prospect A 50% 14 7 0 7
so -p
at
Prospect B 10% 50 5 1.8 6.8
As IS
Prospect C 20% 30 6 3 9
G
e by
On a risked basis drilling prospect C now looks like the best portfolio decision!!
Now how do we feel about that initial easy decision to drill prospect A???
os d
R e
&
d wn
The sharing of risks with real prospects will change
what you drill – this IS PBE exploration and why we
an o
do it!
IP
To do this we need maps of shared risks integrated

with prospect data – that is what Player can do for
you … and no other tool can.
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015
IP
an o
d wn
Why PBE
R e
explained…
os d
e by
& G
As IS
so -p
ci ax
at
es
19
Why Bother with Play Mapping?
1. Play Mapping Types – why all the confusion?
ci ax
a) Goldilocks Maps = Traffic Light
es
so -p
b) Average Prospect Chance Maps
at
As IS
c) Split Risking Maps
G
2. Why seismic amplitudes will NOT be the silver bullet for
e by
exploration in mature basins.
3. Why Charge Models are dangerous and often wrong.
os d
R e
&
4. The mature basin “Green Blob” problem and the solution.
d wn
5. YTF – explained.
an o
6. Summary
IP

Why all the confusion?
• Some geologists get very emotional about the different types of play maps
that are made in the industry today and what variety should be taught and
ci ax
used in their company..
es
so -p
• typically the senior managers favour whatever variety that they were taught
decades ago when they did real technical work in major oil companies
at
As IS
• This is because there is no industry consensus on how play mapping
G
“should” be done
• The answer is - it does not matter! – its about understanding the geology
e by
NOT arguing about colour bars..
• So let me explain the 3 basic types used in the industry today with their
os d
R e
&
advantaged and disadvantages and hence convince you of this conclusion
d wn
• The first and most common are companies that make “Traffic Light Maps”
• Methodology championed by BP
an o
• Effectively the geologist divides each element (typically reservoir, seal and charge)
IP
into high/moderate and low risk areas

• Followed by a “minimum” stack i.e stack is only green where all element maps are
green. A red at any level equals a red in the stack

Simple Traffic Light Mapping
1. Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir Presence
Presence
Presence = “High” Risk
ci ax
= “Moderate” Risk
es
so -p
2. Reservoir
Reservoir Effectiveness
Effectiveness = “Low” Risk
at
As IS
3.
G
Seal Presence++Effectiveness
Seal Presence Effectiveness
e by
4. small low risk area removed
Petroleum
due to burial depth Charge
(porosity)
os d
In
no change to composite risk
R e
&
Result
d wn
Low & mod. risk area
an o
reduced due to charge
IP
CompositeCommon
Composite CommonRisk RiskSegment
Segment Map
Map
(showsoverall
(shows overallplay
play risk)
risk)
after Fraser 2012
Coniacian-Cenomanian Interval Traffic
Light (Composite) Play Stack - Example
Goldilocks zone updip of postulated oil mature Cenomanian Source interval which
received some Tertiary burial plus an area where the reservoir is likely to be present
ci ax
and not too deep..
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
Goldilocks Maps DO give spatial focus and identify sweet spot areas
Traffic Light Maps = Goldilocks Maps
• Relative Goodness maps highlight the areas where the separate

play elements –typically reservoir, seal and charge are optimally
ci ax
overlain – these are the “goldilocks areas” where things are “best”
es
so -p
– “just right” – this is a relative/qualitative scale NOT quantitative
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
The map types are relatively easy and quick but..

Traffic Light Maps have a few
problems..
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn Orange
Green
an o
Red
IP

Traffic Light Issues
• Users commonly use a grids for risk evaluations and the
ci ax
selection of boundary values between the colours is
es
“computer generated” and thus have no geological basis
so -p
at
• In this example the probability of reservoir presence is being
As IS
predicted from an isopach grid of the whole play interval..
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

Example of Raster to Traffic Light
Issue
a Raster
ci ax
Input Raster layer: Coriaci51_Isop~ F ind i nT~ Number of output dasses: S .., {initi ally equal in s ize)
es
Input Renderer Type: Stretch renderer with 256 d asses in the colour ramp
so -p
-
Output d ass intervals can be cMnqed by df~iflO the rO'Ndividers up and down Of by changing the numbers in the left 2 columns
,
""""
""" """"
Histogram of Current Layer Renderer
""" """"""""""
...... V.... ...... V"'"'
at
Hom To eo.n d
As IS
Min Count 0 Max Count: 84397
-9555.08300...
To'
""'"
V....
Columb
1649 1 0 No Data
G
-
0
250 2000
8"'" 34
----'---- ".......,
2000
,.
e by
64528 4
BOOO
8000
8065 3 0 Bad G-id Overlap
os d
R e
"07177343.
&
Save to Raslef Dataset.
layer Nlime
d wn OK Close
an o
IP
• Red-Orange at 500m Orange-Green at 2000m

Example of Raster to Traffic Light
Issue
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
• Same raster…
IP
• Red-Orange at 2000m Orange-Green at 5000m

• Boundaries being drawn by computer/arbitrary selection of
grid boundaries NOT geological boundaries
Issues with Traffic Light Maps
• The second issues is if you plot real prospects on the map
ci ax
there is NO relationship/linkage between the colours and
es
the Pg/POS/COS
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
In this case a prospect here is in the “orange” – what does this mean? Lack of data?
Mid range COS/POS/Pg? It certainly CAN’T be used to infer a POS/COS/Pg for the
prospect..
Issues with Traffic Light Maps
• The third issue is if a prospect is successful- a discovery-then
ci ax
there is no way of evaluating what the impact of this success
es
will be on the adjacent prospects..
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
In this case if this prospect is successful what is the impact on these others on the
springboard trend area prospects?
Complex Geology Traffic Light
Questions..
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
• We have a submarine fan imaged on a 2D seismic
G
grid
• Its undrilled..
e by
• Is there a single green blob over the lobes? Or lots
of little ones? If they are undrilled should they be
green? The seismic is good and it looks like a fan?!
os d
Does green mean proven or just “good”?
R e
&
• Where is the boundary between the red and the
d wn orange? Is it simply an isopach value or geology?
Play Fairway definition?–

an o
The fourth issue is what do
stacking up all the green blobs
IP
the colours actually mean?

for Reservoir/Seal/Charge
How do you deal with areas
always results in a simple
with complex geology?
green blob around the fields..

Play Maps Types- Traffic Light Maps
Goldilocks Maps
• Useful for spatial focus – qualitative quicklook tool
• Grid based maps dangerous – non geological boundaries
ci ax
• No link to prospect evolutions
es
so -p
• Nor impact of success on portfolios
at
As IS
• Not clear what colours mean so not good at defining play fairways
G
Detailed
Regional Map Link Complex
quick look Study Scope heartland
Play Spatial Boundaries Portfolio
e by
Quantitative
areas Insight Geological? to Areas - Impact
YTF and value Map Prospect Definition of
mapping Risk of play
Type Values
success
fairways
os d
R e
&
P O O O O
Functionality
Goldilocks
d wn
P P P O O
an o
Average
Prospect
IP
Goldilocks =
Traffic Lights
P P P P P
Qualitative
Split Risk
Little Lots
Data/Time available

Average Prospect Chance Maps
• The second main play map type is where companies try to emulate their
prospect maths in a map form
ci ax
• E.g. if a company has Reservoir Presence x Reservoir Effectiveness x Trap
es
so -p
Effectiveness x Trap Presence x Charge then maps of all of these
elements are normally made and the results are multiplied
at
As IS
• Because we multiply these elements in our prospect maths
• Note Trap Presence now normally included because that is what we do with
G
prospects
• Typically the boundaries drawn are now NOT grids – they are polygons
e by
and the boundaries are geological boundaries – these are Common Risk
Segment Maps (senso stricto)
os d
• Abrupt and significant changes of the geology
R e
&
• Key here is to record on each input map what the boundaries are based on..
d wn
• One commercial software product does however still use a “rules based”
approach to generate average Prospect Pg/POS/COS maps (i.e. when the
isopach is > 200m the Pg Reservoir presence is 0.8 etc – we would not
an o
recommend this approach for numeric estimates – the product here would be a
“goodness” map NOT a CRS/Play map in our nomenclature)
IP
• If we have a CRS polygon with prospects in it now we also have some

indication of what the prospect POS/COS/Pg’s might be. Not exact but
an indication and guide.
The biggest problem
• With average chance maps is it tells us nothing about
ci ax
influence ie. If the play is “proven” or not
es
so -p
• i.e. a proven play segment 100% chance with a local
at
As IS
prospect risk of 25% looks exactly the same as a 50% play
segment with a 50% local risk. The overall Pg/POS/COS is
G
the same but they are totally different beasts..
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

Play Chance Maps Types
– Average Prospect
• These maps are numeric and based on geological boundaries
ci ax
• There is a soft link with real prospects
es
so -p
• But they still cant be directly used for prospect evaluation nor
at
As IS
deal with complex geology issues nor predict success impact.
G
Detailed
e by
Quantitative
mapping Common Risk Maps Risk of play
Type Values
success
fairways
os d
R e
&
P O O O O
Functionality
Goldilocks
d wn
Average
P P P O O
an o
Prospect Average
Prospect
IP
Goldilocks =
Traffic Lights
P P P P P
Qualitative
Split Risk
Little Lots
Data/Time available

Split Risking Play Maps
• The third main play map type is similar to Average Prospect
ci ax
Maps except the shared and local/prospect specific risks are
separated out
es
so -p
• Each Polygon has 3 values
at
As IS
• Methodology championed by Exxon (& Shell)
G
• These maps are ALWAYS polygons/CRS maps
e by
• The boundaries are always geological not computer driven
•
os d
The key theoretical learning is HOW to do this splitting..
R e
&
• This is a skill NOT commonly taught in E&P companies and many
d wn
managers and senior people have not see this in their careers –
especially those from BP…
an o
• Note Every Senior Manager (often non-technical) is concerned
IP
about double dipping which they perceive might make your

POS/COS/Pg estimates lower. We are Spitting the risk NOT double
dipping. The numbers should not change!

Split Risking Stacking
 Each Polygon has 3 values –
ci ax
 shared/play x not/shared/local/prospect specific = Average Prospect
es
POS/COS/Pg
so -p
This list of play elements is
customisable in Player by
at
As IS
company and project
Play Prospect Overall
G
Reservoir
Seal /Trap Effectiveness
e by
X = Trap Presence
Charge
Play CRS Maps
os d
This stack defines
R e
&
This stack defines the This stack is an
where the play is inherent variability of estimate of what a
proven= the
fairways.
d wn
the prospect level
risks.
typical prospect
COS might be.
an o
IP

Split Risking Stacking
In areas of complex geology split risking will better define your play fairways….
Play Prospect Overall/Average Prospect Chance
Reservoir
Seal
ci ax
X = Trap Presence
es
Charge
so -p
Play ‘x’ CRS Map
at
As IS
This stack defines where the play is This stack defines the inherent This stack is an estimate of what a typical
G
proven: the “fairways”. variability of the prospect level risks. prospect Pg/COS might be.
e by
Layer-cake
geology and
X =
os d
ubiquitous
R e
&
charge
d wn
an o
lateral
IP
reservoir
and seal
variability
with
X = ??
complex
charge
Play Fairway Easily Identified
Play Fairway hard to Identify 40
Split Risk Example
Slope/Basin Fan Complex Evaluation
ci ax
es
so -p
• We have a fan defined on a
at
good quality 2D seismic grid
As IS
• Now we are going to evaluate
G
the Reservoir Presence
probability
e by
• Process is the same for all
os d
other risk elements
R e
&
d wn
an o
Undrilled Prospect
IP

Split Risking Example..
Shared/Play Non-Shared/Prospect Specific Total/COS/POS/Pg
ci ax
50% 40% 20%
es
A
so -p
B
at
As IS
80% 60% 48%
X =
G
C
e by
D
20% 20% 4%
os d
R e
&
d wn
• We make estimates of the probability of reservoir presence ANYWHERE in
the polygon then estimate the REPEATABILITY to estimate the AVERAGE
Pg/POS/COS
an o
• Note by doing this we do NOT have to map all the lobes and the maps are
IP
simple and quick to draw..(and we do NOT use raster values/nor use a grid)
• In this case prospects B&C would have Prospect chance values for Reservoir
of ~50%
ci ax
50% 40% 20%
es
A
so -p
B
at
As IS
80% 60% 48%
X =
G
C C C
e by
D
20% 20% 4%
os d
R e
&
d wn
• So now if we drilled prospect C and it found sand what would happen?
an o
IP

ci ax
50% 40% 20%
es
A
so -p
B
at
As IS
100% 60% 60%
X =
G
C
e by
D
20% 20% 4%
os d
R e
&
d wn
• The play risk would now go to 100% in the central blob AND the
prospect reservoir risk for prospect B would have increased from 48% to
an o
60% AND prospects A&D would NOT be affected/changed..
• So if we do this for all the chance elements/maps then before we drill
IP
we can now calculate the effect of success of one prospect on all the
other adjacent prospects.. These are called success volumes (& values)
delivered from the portfolio based on success of each feature..
Example of Success Volumes Chart
CRS vs Halo Areas Figure
ci ax
es
Evaluated Target
so -p
Reservoir
at
As IS
Seal
Halo
G
Area
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
CRS Area Charge
an o
• This plot ranks the risked volumes (or values) of each prospect target plus the incremental
impact that success will have on the adjacent prospects through the de-risking of play
IP
segments
• This will change what you drill…and its why its worth doing play analysis
Evaluated Target
Other targets who’s risked volumes and value will change significantly if evaluated target is successful
Other targets who’s risked volumes and value will change incrementally if evaluated target is successful
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 Other targets who’s risked volumes and value will NOT change if evaluated target is successful 45
So Now We Can Properly
Compare the Different Branches..
 We normally drill single prospects
• Some will fail for local/prospect reasons and
ci ax
have zero impact on our understanding of the
play potential
es
so -p
• Others will prove/highgrade or
condemn/downgrade a play –
at
As IS
• PBE is understanding these linkages before you
select which prospect to drill AND how these
G
might change after you have drilled a prospect.
e by
Prospects
os d
A collection of potential traps some of which when
R e
&
drilled will be successful (oil or gas field) and some
d wn will fail and be quickly forgotten!

an o
Plays
Groups of related hydrocarbon fields, pools and prospects that have similar
IP
charge, reservoir/seal and trap controls on their occurrence. Typically defined

by stratigraphic name or age.
Basin/ Petroleum Systems

A single or group of natural systems that links an active or once active source rock with all of the geologic
elements and processes that are essential for a hydrocarbon accumulation to exist in time and space.
(Effective source socks linked via migration to one or more reservoir/seal pairs..)
Play Maps Types- Split Risk
• The advantages are.
• There is a direct numeric link between the play maps and the prospect
ci ax
risking estimates
es
• In areas with complex geology the play fairways are readily defined and
so -p
identified
at
As IS
• The impact of success of one prospect on others can be quantified
G
Detailed
e by
Quantitative
Type Values
success
fairways
os d
R e
&
P O O O O
Functionality
Goldilocks
Split d wn
Average Risk
P P P O O
an o
Prospect Average
Prospect
IP
Goldilocks =
Traffic Lights
P P P P P
Qualitative
Split Risk
Little Lots
Data/Time available

Play Maps Types Summary
• There are 3 basic types of Play Maps but only split risk maps can deliver insightful
analysis and deliver proper Play Based Exploration decisions
ci ax
• There is no “correct” way to do Play Analysis – they all give spatial focus - its about
es
so -p
understanding what else you want from the evaluation and focussing on the geology
at
NOT arguing about colour bars..
As IS
• We can make all types in Player easily.. and even move from one type to another in the same project*
G
Detailed
e by
Quantitative
Type Values
success
fairways
os d
R e
&
P O O O O
Functionality
Goldilocks
Split d wn
Average Risk
P P P O O
an o
Prospect Average
Prospect
IP
Goldilocks =
Traffic Lights
P P P P P
Qualitative
Split Risk
Little Lots
Data/Time available
GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 *We actually recommend explorers make simple traffic light maps from their split risk map in puts for senior management consumption 48
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
6. Summary
IP

Amplitude Supported Exploration
• Is based on fantastic and impressive technology
ci ax
• My personal experience is however that it is often a poor
es
exploration tool even in mature exploration settings simply
so -p
because the petrophysical/acoustic properties of the seal
at
As IS
and reservoir intervals are highly variable and its hard to
G
predict these accurately pre-drill even with “close” well
control.
e by
• Its is obviously a technique that is less effective for deeper targets
which are at or below “the amplitude floor”
os d
• Many Mesozoic rifts have less favourable initial contrasts between
R e
&
d wn
sand and shales making amplitude calibration more difficult than in
the Tertiary sequences.
an o
• But as an industry we worship this technology and hold it in
IP
high regard so how many large globally significant

discoveries has it delivered recently in mature settings??

Here is my list of the big/significant
discoveries of the last ~decade divided into
frontier and mature discovery settings..
Undrilled 1st well 1st Discovery
ci ax
Cumulative Discovery Volumes
Frontier Emerging Mature
es
so -p
at
As IS
Happy to argue/debate
G
the splits and add ones I
may have missed..
e by
os d
R e
&
Increasing Exploration Maturity/Drilling
New Province Discoveries
• Mangala/India/Cairn/2005
d wn Late/Mature Basin Discoveries
• Buzzard/UK/Nexen/2001(NAS)
• Lake Albert/Uganda/Tullow nee Hardman/2006+*
an o
• Wilcox DW GOM/Baha-2/Shell 2001 (NAS)
• Santos Subsalt/Brasil/Petrobras/2006
• Tawke/DNO/Kurdistan (2005) ++
IP
• Jubilee/Ghana/Kosmos/2007**
• Perla/Venezula/Repsol-Eni/2009 (?NAS)
• Tamar/Israel/Noble/2009*
• Ravuma/Mozambique/Anadarko/2012* • Flemish Pass/Statoil/Canada/2009
• Senegal/FAR & Cairn/2014 SNE & FAN * • Johan Sverdrup/Norway/Lundin/2010 (NAS)
• Pobeda (Victory)/Kara Sea/Rosneft/2014 • Cameia/Angola/Cobalt/2012 (NAS)
• Liza
GIS-PAX Pty Exxon Guyana (2015)
Ltd © 2015
• Zohr Eni Egypt 2015 (NAS) 51
So lets now colour up the amplitude supported
discoveries as red….
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
an o
IP
• Liza
Ltd © 2015
My conclusion is..
All Amplitudes
drilled here!!
ci ax
es
so -p
..that amplitude supported discoveries are useful in frontier
at
As IS
settings since it helps de-risk charge but it does little for
G
you in mature settings.. Why??
..the answer is simple –ALL the big amplitudes get drilled
e by
after the initial discovery period and there are none left
to be drilled in the later exploration phases..
os d
R e
&
an o
IP
• Liza
Ltd © 2015
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
6. Summary
IP

Common Workflows..
• All exploration companies do work and then shove the
ci ax
inputs together and then try and make decisions..
es
• I often see this workflow in companies
so -p
at
As IS
G
Seismic Data
e by
Mapping and Portfolio
Prospect Prospect Risking Decisions –
Volumetrics farmin/drill etc
os d
R e
Well Data
&
d wn
an o
“The Charge I find this often black box
IP
Source/Fluids Pet Model” approach very very scary

Systems data and worrying
This is where the basin/charge modeller is central and fed all the data to give “the answer”
Sacred Cows
• Charge Modelling Software is very impressive kit
ci ax
• Especially in animations when it spins in 3D and shows
es
so -p
hydrocarbons migrating
at
As IS
• Senior managers love this stuff
G
• But technology does not equal understanding and many of
the inputs into these models are poorly qc’ed and poorly
e by
understood – especially by senior managers..
os d
• Beyond specific boffin technical issues – always ignored..
R e
&
d wn
• Like in one of the main tools used widely in the industry today which still has no consideration of
transient heat flow effects in the crust - this means that heat flow is overestimated and does not
respond properly to crust thickness changes laterally or through time. This makes it impossible to
an o
correctly extrapolate from where you have temperature data (on the highs generally) to where
the source rocks are (in the lows generally).
IP
• There are generic issues with the whole process particularly

surrounding the understanding of migration and source presence

Why Most Charge Models are
Wrong and Dangerous 1. Migration
• Migration is an INPUT to these models NOT an output
ci ax
• Most/all basins have faults
es
• When migration hits these faults we have no idea what will happen
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
• So we tweak the migration models to fit the known distribution of
os d
hydrocarbons (and shows)
R e
&
d wn
• Every hc shows database I have seen has been full of misleading
rubbish – so the quality of your migration is always limited by how
an o
well you have calibrated your pools and shows database
IP

Typical Migration Calibration
Hairy Dog/ Amoeba Maps in Oz slang..
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
Interpreted mature kitchen area
os d
R e
&
d wn Orthocontours – migration lines
– at 90 degrees to contours
an o
simulating migration from the
kitchen in target play interval
IP
(vertical migration from underlying SR interval assumed to be 100%)

Hairy Dog/ Amoeba Maps in Oz slang.. Proven kitchen example – at least
one discovery is present – SP &SM
ci ax
=100%/proven
es
so -p
at
As IS
HC Discoveries
G
Wells with shows in database
Wells with no shows in database
e by
100% ~80%
os d
R e
&
~20%
d wn
an o
IP
Indicative Common Risk Polygon Values

Migration Problems -2
• Even if you do have a quality shows and pools database that
ci ax
has been qc’ed
es
so -p
• The other key element that needs to be incorporated to
at
As IS
understand migration is well failure analysis
G
• This needs to be done systematically (not in Excel)
• And the interpretations change as the data changes
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

Systematic Failure Analysis
This scheme is the Intellectual Property of GIS-pax and cannot be copied without permission
RESERVOIR Present SEAL
Present & Effective
ci ax
es
so -p
Ambiguous Ambiguous
at
As IS
Not Present or Ineffective Not Present
G
e by
Present
os d
HC’s Present
R e
&
Ambiguous
d wn HC Shows Present
an o
Not Present No Shows

IP
TRAP CHARGE
Player has a systematic post drill analysis (PDA) module that steps
geologists through a well failure analysis for each of the user defined
play intervals
Player Post-drill Analysis
Hierarchical Classification Scheme
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
We do this in a database that is evergreen - play by play

Back to that initial example
Prospects B & C in same
migration risk polygon = shared
ci ax
100% Migration Chance risk
es
so -p
at
As IS
B C
A
G
e by
Proven Source
os d
mmboe
R e
&
A 50% 14 7
d wn B 10% 50 5
The failure analysis of these three wells in this example are key to
an o
understanding the migration risk to prospects B &C.. C 20% 30 6
•
IP
If they all TD’ed above this play they tell us nothing!

• If they all penetrated the play but we all off structure this also tells us nothing!
Legend
• But if they were all dry valids (charge failures) then we would need a good HC Field mmboe Dry Wells
story to explain why we think they failed and B & C will work…
Understanding well failures is not academic… its key to understanding your Prospect COS/mmboe mean
prospectivity evaluations volumes (mmboe)
Example Player Data
• This is an example of the PDA data collected by well and various play
intervals
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
• This data is used to.. d wn
1. Understand the well results- what the wells are telling us - explaining why a play
interval in a particular well worked or failed
an o
2. Help constrain on maps both the known play limits and the distribution of the
IP
constituent play element maps for each play interval using any of the 3 main play map
types that the industry uses
3. Calibrate historical play level specific success rates and failure mechanisms which can be
used to help calibrate prospect estimates

Hairy Dog/ Amoeba Maps in Oz slang.. Proven kitchen example – at least
Now lets add some well failure data… one discovery is present – SP &SM
ci ax
And qc the shows… =100%/proven
es
so -p
at
As IS
HC Discoveries
G
Wells with shows in database
Wells with no shows in database
e by
100% ~80%
Dry Valids – charge failures
os d
Off structure test
R e
&
~20%
d wn
an o
IP
=Completely different evaluation result
Shows in these wells qc’ed and corrected to “no shows”

Why Most Charge Models are Wrong
and Dangerous 2. Source Presence
• The second major issue is understanding Source Presence
ci ax
• As an industry we are poor at predicting Source PRESENCE
es
particularly in frontier basins
so -p
• maturity is easy and multi-1D models are available earlier and are often
at
As IS
better than a 3D model – I like TWT vs Temperature
G
• The problem is especially critical in Australasia where we have
many wispy/ephemeral non-marine source rocks which may or
e by
may not be present in the mature kitchens area
• These are typically seismically invisible and very difficult to quantify in a
os d
charge model
R e
&
• Most software tools offer the ability of evaluating multiple charge
d wn
and migration models and turning this into a probability map
an o
• This averaging guesses and is clever but its actually not de-risking in any
way areas where there is no source rock actually present!
IP
• I have NEVER seen a model where any of the input models are NON source
rock outcomes…

Common Workflows..
• So when asked I always recommend this as a basic workflow
ci ax
es
so -p
Seismic Data
Mapping and Prospect Risking
at
As IS
Prospect
G
Volumetrics
Well Data
e by
Portfolio
Decisions –
farmin/drill etc
os d
Evergreen
R e
&
Charge Play Maps
Modelling
d wn With WFA
an o
IP
Source/Fluids Pet This puts the play maps at the heart of the evaluation NOT the charge model –
Systems data it will collect more data incrementally as exploration proceeds in a basin
With Qc’ed well shows
and pools data Its less sexy for senior managers but it captures your corporate knowledge in
an evergreen database and it helps you make practical exploration decisions
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
6. Summary
IP

The Green Blob Problem
• In well explored mature basins many plays have extensive
ci ax
proven play fairways that are well defined
es
so -p
• These are always coloured green and in competitive
at
As IS
environments they are heavily explored and drilled
G
• The issue most companies face is how does play analysis
help in these areas?
e by
• The answer is to classify the well tests, pools and prospects
os d
by trap types and try and identify new untested trap types
R e
&
d wn
in these well explored areas
an o
IP

Player Structural Classification
Scheme
• In Player we offer a two layered trap description scheme:
ci ax
1. Gross Structure – Genetic scheme describing how the trap
es
formed? (What kind of beast is the trap?)
so -p
2. Milton & Bertram – A Pool/Target level scheme that describes the
at
As IS
surfaces bounding the reservoir (Where did we drill on the
G
beast?)
• Based on Milton & Bertram 1992 AAPG paper
e by
• Why have a “fixed” scheme?
os d
• It’s flexible and together these schemes can describe the specific
R e
&
location of a well on any trap type on the planet.
d wn
• Prospect density data for specific trap types can then be collected
an o
using this schemer and used to calibrate yet-to-find estimates.
IP

Gross Structure Global Scheme
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
• Classifies ANY trap on the planet
an o
IP
• Hierarchical and flexible system
71
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn Milton & Bertram 1992
Pool Description Scheme
an o
AAPG Bull., 76(7), 983-999
IP
• Trap scheme is based on describing the surfaces that bound

the hydrocarbon pool namely conformable beds (C),
unconformable surface (U), fault (T) or facies/stratigraphic
change (F).
• The scheme does NOT describe the generic origin of the trap
(diapiric structure, compressional tectonics etc)
72
M&B “Where” the Prospect was
Drilled on the “Gross Structure”..
• In this example the structure is a thrust cored fault block.
ci ax
• Where you drill is critical – was it fault independent, fault dependent or
es
a stratigraphic trap?
so -p
at
• We use a scheme published in the AAPG in 1992 by Milton & Bertram
As IS
which is simple and comprehensive.
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

Subsalt Play Types in the DW GOM
• Gross structure would best suite this structural style..
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
• Whereas M&B might suffice for a simple rift/sag basin like
R e
&
d wn
the NW Shelf of Australia
an o
IP

Example green blob data
• From the North Carnarvon Basin 3rd Party Study built from
ci ax
public domain data release by the govt agencies in Australia
es
so -p
• Data from the North Carnarvon Player Project - see details
at
As IS
at www.cgss.com.au/current_projects.html
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

17 Mapped Regional
Seismic Horizons
Plus other local and
deeper Horizons
• Defined on Woodside
ci ax
Chronostrat Chart
es
so -p
• 17 Play Interval Evaluated
at
As IS
• Triassic to Early Tertiary
Paleogeographic
G
and Play Maps Interval
for all of these
intervals
e by
Example “JXX” Play Interval
os d
North Carnarvon Basin
R e
&
d wn
Play Intervals
an o
IP

JXX Play Penetrations
ci ax
Fu ll Sect io n penetrat ed
es
• Partial Penetrat io n
so -p
•
at
As IS
• •
Uncl ea r/ Un known
•
G
•
Beneath TD
....
.~
•
. 1 ••
-.
I
I
•
•
• •
j
e by
Fault ed out • •• A ........... .
•
• •• . . , '~r·
. .. .... . ".J.-..
-
~
•
•• •• •
• --~. ,..... .
'/ . ••...:..
.?'1 ' • J . "."
Art'§o.:
os d
•.___~
• • • t .~
•
R e
•
&
• (J :' ';
d wn
an o
IP
•
•

Well Failure Analysis Rosettes
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
o 0
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

Analysis of all JXX Failures
• Success Rates and Failure Mechanisms for the JXX Play
ci ax
Interval well tests..
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
This is how you calibrate your prospect risking – against well failure analysis at the play NOT the well level
JXX Play Stack (Split Risking)
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
Proven Play Fairway
IP
Green Blob of interest!

JXX tests – Trap Types Tested
.C
ci ax
es
• CICF
so -p
• CIT !
at
As IS
• C/ U
• CF
<
G
CT
CTF
) . • i
e by
• CUT
U
• •
· · v <;.:--'\\
, • • • p.
~----
------ -=-'-/'
• ~ . c,.-:
' ./"
os d
• UF
R e
&
• UT Il · I
Y • .\ I
d wn ;
an o
IP

JXX Trap Stats Proven Play Poly
• For proven play fairway only!
ci ax
• The rest failed for charge
es
so -p
• Success rates and field size distribution for different trap
at
As IS
types
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP
Lowside fault blocks – buttress traps

Example Conclusion..
• Only one well test drilled a lowside trap at the JXX level
ci ax
inside the proven fairway and this well failed due to
es
interpreted juxtaposition and fault plane leakage..
so -p
at
As IS
G
• This trap type is an under explored – especially since the
80mmbbl Enfield Field is exactly this trap type but at a
e by
different play level!
os d
R e
&
d wn
• Green Blob exploration is all about trap analysis integrated
with geological thinking..
an o
IP

ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
6. Summary
IP

YTF Demystified
Undrilled 1st well 1st Discovery ~20 Discoveries Production
ci ax
Emerging Mature
Remaining Exploration Potential
Frontier
es
so -p
at
As IS
Feature
G
Density
e by
estimates
Summation of Risked Prospects
os d
Recon 2D Detailed 2D +/- 3D Extensive 3D Blanket 3D Seismic Quantity
R e
&
d wn
• All yet to find estimates are wrong – especially in frontier areas

an o
• We make them to facilitate business decisions
IP
• In frontier areas we use pseudo prospects/feature density based on

anolog data and in very mature basins we map prospects and add up
the risked volumes
• Most basins are midway and need both types of estimates
Play Map Structural Density YTF Estimates
• In Player when we have made play maps we can
use them to evaluate and integrate real and
postulated prospects
• When convolved with economic and cost data we
can then value blocks plays and basins.. This is the Total Chance Polygon Value
ci ax
estimate NOT the Play/Shared Values
es
so -p
at
YTF = No of features x Size x Probability of Success
As IS
= Area (km2) x Feature Density (no/1000sq km) x Future FSD x Pg from Play Map
G
In Player we use an average size in mmboe – low medium and high
e by
estimates can be made with different deterministic scenarios
This estimate is ALWAYS made via a geological anolog which may or
may not be within the study area
os d
Polygons with equal Risk and Play Stack
R e
&
structural density and volumes
Play CRS Map
Volumes polygons
d wn
Common Stuctural Density and Future
CRS Map
Res.Effectiveness
Reservoir Presence
an o
Topseal Presence
In Player we call these UIP’s (Unidentified Prospectivity polygons)
IP
Charge
because non of the prospects have a specific location
If this evaluation is done using split risk play maps then the user can calculate the impact of success in
each common risk segment. In addition the “dry hole tolerance” can also easily be calculated for each
polygon (eg if you drill X wells what is the probability that you will have a success and derisk the play)
YTF Estimation In Player
• So for us…
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
Identified Unidentified
G
YTF
= Prospectivity + Prospectivity
e by
Yet-to-find Volumes
Risked mmboe Risked Volumes Risked Volumes
mmboe mmboe
os d
R e
&
d wn
• There are virtually no real basins where all the prospects are
an o
IP
identified or postulated – its always a mixture…

Industry YTF Methodologies
The industry generally uses the following main methods to
estimate the YTF in any area.
ci ax
es
so -p
Creaming Curve As per previous slide – should be plotted against well count not time unless exploration effort (drilling)
extrapolation was at a consistent level throughout the evaluation period.
at
As IS
Hydrocarbon Density Uses an estimate of the hydrocarbon volumes per unit area (typically mmboe/1000sq km) to estimate
Method
G
Field Size Distribution Basically adds the missing fields into a field size distribution making the assumption that the population
top-up method(s) is log normally distributed
e by
Geochemical/basin BM tool estimates the volumes of oil and gas generated migrated and trapped in evaluated source rocks
modelling estimates
os d
Expert Typically a numeric estimate of the number of remaining prospects/fields multiplied by the average field
R e
&
Estimates/Guestimates – size
Delphi/“Phone a friend”
Prospect Structural
d wn
Estimates the structural feature density of traps and risks the results using a stacked play map – Exxon
an o
Density Play Based methodology
Method
IP

Comparison of YTF Techniques
YTF Method Effort Usefulness in Ability to Ability to Ability to Spatial nature
Required to unproven predict predict new predict a of predictions
ci ax
generate an basins remaining play intervals new trap
estimate potential of in a proven type in a
es
so -p
existing plays basin proven play
at
Creaming Minimal None Yes None None Not Spatial
As IS
Curve
G
HC Density Minimal None None None None Spatial
FSD top-up Minimal None Yes None None Not Spatial
e by
Basin Moderate Moderate Limited Limited None Spatial
Modelling
os d
Delphi Minimal Possible Possible Possible Possible Rarely
R e
&
Structural Significant High High High Possible Spatial
Density /Play
d wn
Maps
an o
• The Structural Density/ Play Map approach is by far the most robust methodology since it is
IP
spatial, quantitative, can be applied to all phases of exploration and (in Player) it can help
geologists both identify new trap types in proven play intervals and identify potential
prospectivity in unproven play intervals late in the exploration history

Yet to Find
• Integrating real prospects into your play maps is key to
ci ax
estimating yet to find (and success volumes)
es
so -p
• Adding these risked prospect volumes to risked pseudo
at
As IS
prospects is the key to an evergreen and meaningful
calibrated YTF estimate.
G
• Every other method has major technical issues especially
e by
those based on charge models!
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

IP
an o
d wn
Summary
R e
os d
e by
& G
As IS
so -p
ci ax
at
es
91
ci ax
es
so -p
at
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
6. Summary
IP

Play Mapping Types
Portfolio
Analysis
ci ax
Portfolio
Analysis
es
so -p
Play
at
As IS
Prospects Maps
Play
Prospects
Maps
G
Split risking play
e by
mapping types have
direct linkage
These play between prospects
os d
mapping types and plays and
have NO linkage Player can do smart
R e
&
between analysis
prospects and
plays (or any kind
d wn
of analysis)
Play Based
an o
Not Play Exploration

IP
Based
Exploration!
“Luck is when preparation
meets opportunity”
• Preparation = Play Maps – know what has worked and know
ci ax
what has not and why – well post drill analyses calibrate
es
play maps.. nothing else can.
so -p
at
• Opportunity = a prospect – maybe in a data room or maybe
As IS
in your own portfolio?! – now you know why this particular
G
feature is significant and special. Without the preparation
e by
you are just guessing…
os d
• This is how you make your own luck
R e
&
• This is just basic common geological evaluation
d wn
an o
IP

Summary
• Play Mapping gives you spatial focus quickly so saves you time and
money
ci ax
• When integrated with well failure data and a qc’d shows database it is
es
so -p
better and more useful than any charge model
at
• It collects your corporate knowledge in a dynamic evergreen database structure
As IS
• There are different types of play maps but only split risk maps give
G
quantitative play based evaluations (success volumes) and in areas with
complex geology they are better at identifying the play fairways.
e by
• Play Maps can underpin spatial yet to find estimates in both frontier and
os d
mature basins settings
R e
&
• In proven play areas in mature basins trap type data can identify missed
and overlooked opportunities d wn
• At the end of the day it is all about sifting through the geological data in
an o
a structured and thoughtful way
IP
• Its people that find oil and gas – good software just helps and Player is the only
tool that has all of this functionality structured so that working geologists can
do quality play evaluations.

IP
an o
Contacts
d wn
R e
os d
e by
& G
As IS
so -p
ci ax
at
es
96
Contacts
• GIS-pax - Ian Longley ilongley@gis-pax.com
ci ax
• Note this presentation only covers a fraction of the Player Suite
es
capabilities..
so -p
at
• Rose & Assoc - Jeff Brown JeffBrown@roseassoc.com
As IS
G
e by
os d
R e
&
d wn
an o
IP

NDX Longley PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NDX Longley PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NDX Longley PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Click to view video of presentation slides

Ian Longley1 and Jeff Brown2

Search and Discovery Article #110227 (2016)**

Ian Longley (GIS-pax)

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 1

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 4

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 5

• 3 prospects – which one would you drill? Legend

every E&P company on the planet would drill Prospect Legend

• So now lets add some migration risks Legend

This is what happens to Prospect C in isolation….

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 10

• This is how C looks alone..

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 12

• When we look at the impact of the C result on B .. This add 15mmboe of

risked volume in the success case…

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 13

migration risk evaluation at B & C… Migration Directions

B will change from 50% to 100% 20% of the time..

To do this we need maps of shared risks integrated

1. Play Mapping Types – why all the confusion?

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 20

into high/moderate and low risk areas

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 21

• Relative Goodness maps highlight the areas where the separate

The map types are relatively easy and quick but..

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 25

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 26

8065 3 0 Bad G-id Overlap

• Red-Orange at 500m Orange-Green at 2000m

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 27

• Red-Orange at 2000m Orange-Green at 5000m

Play Fairway definition?–

the colours actually mean?

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 31

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 33

• If we have a CRS polygon with prospects in it now we also have some

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 35

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 37

about double dipping which they perceive might make your

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 38

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 39

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 41

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 43

CRS vs Halo Areas Figure

d wn will fail and be quickly forgotten!

charge, reservoir/seal and trap controls on their occurrence. Typically defined

Basin/ Petroleum Systems

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 47

1. Play Mapping Types – why all the confusion?

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 49

• Is based on fantastic and impressive technology

high regard so how many large globally significant

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 50

Frontier Emerging Mature

Frontier Emerging Mature

Frontier Emerging Mature

1. Play Mapping Types – why all the confusion?

GIS-PAX Pty Ltd © 2015 54