Nonrenewable Resources

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 242–252 | Cite as

Application of the modified Arps-Roberts discovery proces model to the 1995 U.S. National Oil and Gas Assessment

  • L. J. Drew
  • J. H. Schuenemeyer
  • R. F. Mast
Articles

Abstract

ARDS (version 4.01), a modified version of the Arps-Roberts discovery process model, was used to forecast the remaining oil and gas resources in more than 50 provinces, super-exploration plays, and individual plays in the onshore and offshore United States for the 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment. The size distribution of oil and gas fields was estimated for the underlying distribution of fields; the size distribution for the remaining fields was calculated to be the difference between this distribution and that of discovered fields. The guidelines that govern the 1995 National Assessment require the underlying size distribution of fields to be estimated by using only data from two standard commercial data files (the NRG Associates field file and the Petroleum Information Inc. well file). However, a variety of situations required further modification of the discovery process modeling system; for example, multiple exploration plays that occurred nearly simultaneously and also displaced each other in time, and the phenomenon of field growth introduced a large bias in the forecasts produced by the discovery process models for some provinces.

Key words

Discovery process models Field growth 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment Statistical versus geologic estimates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arps, J.J., and Roberts, T.G., 1958, Economics of drilling for Cretaceous oil on the east flank of the Denver-Julesburg Basin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, no. 11, p. 2549–2566.Google Scholar
  2. Arrington, J.R., 1960, Size of crude oil reserves is key to evaluating exploration programs: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 58, no. 9, Feb. 29, p. 130–134Google Scholar
  3. Attanasi, E.D., and Root, D.H., 1994, The enigma of oil and gas field growth: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 78, no. 3, p. 321–332.Google Scholar
  4. Drew, L.J., and Lore, G.L., 1992, Field growth in the Gulf of Mexico — A progress report,in USGS Research on Energy Resources, 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1074, p. 22–23.Google Scholar
  5. Drew, L.J., Mast, R. F., and Schuenemeyer, J.H., 1993, The space-time structure of oil and gas field growth in a complex depositional system, 25th meeting, International Association for Mathematical Geology, Prague, Czech Republic, October 10–15, 1993, Programs and Abstracts, p. 12.Google Scholar
  6. Drew, L.J., and Schuenemeyer, J.H., 1990, Realtime validation of an oil- and gas-resource assessment for the offshore Gulf of Mexico: 1990 CSPG (Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists) Convention-Basin Perspectives, Calgary, Canada, May 27–30, 1990, Program and Abstracts, p. 49–50.Google Scholar
  7. —, 1992, A petroleum discovery rate forecast revisited-The problem of field growth: Nonrenewable Resources, v. 1, no. 1, p. 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drew, L.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., and Bawiec, W.J., 1979, Physical exhaustion maps of the Cretaceous D-J sandstone stratigraphic interval of the Denver Basin: U.S. Geological Survey I-Map 1138, scale.Google Scholar
  9. Drew, L.J., 1982, Estimation of the future rates of discovery of oil and gas discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1252, 26 p.Google Scholar
  10. Drew, L.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., and Mast, R.F., 1994, Application of a discovery process model to the 1995 U.S. National Oil and Gas Assessment,in International Association for Mathematical Geology, 1994, Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada, October 3–5, 1994, p. 111–116.Google Scholar
  11. Drew, L.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., and Root, D.H., 1980, An application to the Denver basin, Part Aof Resource appraisal and discovery rate forecasting in partially explored regions: U.S. Geological survey Professional Paper 1138, p. A1-A11.Google Scholar
  12. Forman, D.J., and Hinde, A.L., 1985, Improved statistical method of assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 1, p. 106–118.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, D.P., and Rieber, M., 1993, Evaluation of the United States Geological Survey's three-step assessment methodology: Tucson, University of Arizona, Contract 1434-92-C-30041, p. 377–378.Google Scholar
  14. Hubbert, M.K., 1967, Degree of advancement of petroleum exploration in the United States: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 51, no. 11, p. 2207–2227.Google Scholar
  15. —, 1974, U.S. energy resources — A review as of 1972, pt. 1of A national fuels and energy policy study. U.S. 93d Congress, 2d Session, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Serial No. 93-40 (92-75), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 267 p.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, G.M., Balcer, Y., and Kruyt, D., 1975, A probabilistic model of oil and gas discovery,in Methods of estimating the volume of undiscovered oil and gas resources: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, no. 1, p. 113–142.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, P.J., and Price, P.R., 1991, Successes in the 1980's bode well for W. Canada search: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 89, no. 16, p. 94–97.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, P.J., and Wang, P.C.C., 1985, Production of oil or gas pool size when discovery record is available: Mathematical Geology, v. 17, no. 2, p. 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manger, K.C., Vidas, E.H. and Woods, T.J., 1985, Oil and gas resources of the Gulf of Mexico: Arlington, Va. Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. 70 p.Google Scholar
  20. Marsh, R.G., 1971, How much oil are we really finding?: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 68, no. 14, p. 100–104.Google Scholar
  21. Mast, R.F., and Dingler, J., 1975, Estimates of inferred+indicated reserves for the United States,in Miller, B.M., and others, Geologic estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 725, p. 73–78.Google Scholar
  22. Meisner, J., and Demirmen, F., 1981, The creaming method — A Bayesian procedure to forceast future oil and gas discoveries in mature exploration provinces: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, v. 144, no. 1, p. 1–31.Google Scholar
  23. NRG Associates, Inc., 1991 [includes data current as of December 31, 1990], The significant oil and gas fields of the United States: Colorado Springs, Colo., release 7, NRG Associates, Inc. [database available from NRG Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 1655, Colorado Springs, CO 80901].Google Scholar
  24. Pelto, C., 1973, Forecasting ultimate oil recovery,in Petroleum Economics and Evaluation Symposium. Dallas, Tex., Society of Mining Engineers, p. 45–52.Google Scholar
  25. Petroleum Information Corp. 1993 [includes data current as of December 31, 1992], Well history control system: Littleton, Colo. Petroleum Information Corp. [database available from Petroleum Information Corp., 4100 East Dry Creek Road, Littleton, CO 80122].Google Scholar
  26. Root, D.H., 1982, Historical growth of estimates of oil-and gasfield sizes,in Oil and gas supply modeling: National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 631, p. 350–368.Google Scholar
  27. Root, D.H., and Mast, R.F., 1993, Future growth of known oil and gas fields. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, no. 3, p. 479–484.Google Scholar
  28. Schuenemeyer, J.H., and Drew, L.J., 1983, A procedure to estimate the parent population of the size of oil and gas fields as revealed by a study of economic truncation: Mathematical Geology, v. 15, no. 1, p. 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. —, 1991, Forecast of undiscovered oil and gas in the Frio strandplain trend—The unfolding of a very large play: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, no. 6, p. 1107–1115.Google Scholar
  30. Schuenemeyer, J.H., 1993, The impact of field growth on discovery process model forecasting: International Association of Mathematical Geology, 25th meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, October 10–15, 1993, Programs and Abstracts, p. 53.Google Scholar
  31. Schuenemeyer, J.H., 1994, Description of a discovery process modeling procedure to forecast future oil and gas using field growth (ARDS ver. 2.03):U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-113, 216 p.Google Scholar
  32. Schuenemeyer, J.H., in press, Adjusting an oil and gas discovery rate forecasting model for field growth: Journal of the American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  33. SYSTAT, 1990, SYSTAT Inc., Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  34. White, D.A., Garrett, R.W., Marsh, G.E., Baker, R.A., and Gehman, H.M., 1975, Assessing regional oil and gas potential,in Methods of estimating the volume of undiscovered oil and gas resources: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 1, p. 149–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Oxford University Press 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. J. Drew
  • J. H. Schuenemeyer
  • R. F. Mast

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations