1887
Volume 38 Number 2
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

DHI scenarios can usefully be divided into 1) ‘high grade DHI’ scenarios that have DHI characteristics consistent with the trap and indicative of a fluid contact and 2) ‘low-grade DHI ’ scenarios that have amplitude and AVO anomalies or low confidence fluid indications. This categorization is justified based on rock physics principles and historical data. Highgrade DHIs warrant a positive uplift to the chance of success of the prospect whereas low-grade DHIs generally do not.

In late stage basin settings (such as the North Sea), with pressure to find prospects that pass internal risk and volumetric thresholds, it is easy to have a myopic focus on seismic amplitude, misunderstand the relative importance of geological and geophysical information and to exaggerate the significance of amplitude and AVO anomalies. Offsetting these tendencies requires an integration of prospect lookback/base rate information with bias mitigation strategies in the risking process.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020008
2020-02-01
2021-09-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Avseth, P., Janke, A. and Horn, F.
    [2016]. AVO inversion in exploration — Key learnings from a Norwegian Sea prospect.The Leading Edge,35 (5), 405–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Avseth, P., Flesche, H. and Van Wijngaarden, A.-J.
    [2003]. AVO classification of lithology and pore fluids constrained by rock physics depth trends.The Leading Edge,22 (10), 1004–1011.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooper, M.M., Evans, A.C, Lynch, D.J., Neville, G. and Newley, T.
    [1999]. The Foinaven Field: managing reservoir development uncertainty prior to start-up. In: Fleet, A.J. and volumey, S.A.R. (Eds.) Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 5th Conference, 675–682, Geological Society, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Finlayson, A.
    [2018]. Prospect Maturation and Post Well Look Backs; Sharing good practices.Oil and Gas UK Exploration Conference 2018, Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gawande, A.
    [2010]. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Profile Books Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hall, M.
    [2010]. The rational scientist.The Leading Edge, – (5), 596–601.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Houck, R.T.
    [1999]. Estimating uncertainty in interpreting seismic indicators.The Leading Edge,18 (3), 320–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kahneman, D.
    [2012]. Thinking, Fast and Slow.Penguin Random House, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Klein, G.
    [2007]. Performing a Project Premortem. Harvard Business Review.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lowry, D.C., Suttill, R.J. and Taylor, R.J.
    [2005]. Advances in risking exploration prospects.APPEA Journal,45 (1), 143–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Milkov, A.V.
    [2017]. Integrate instead of ignoring: base rate neglect as a common fallacy of petroleum explorers.AAPG Bulletin,101 (12), 1905–1916.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. [2015]. Risk tables for less biased and more consistent estimation of probability of geological success (PoS) for segments with conventional oil and gas prospective resources.Earth-Science Reviews,150, 453–476.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nixon, S., Hallam, T. and Constantine, A.
    [2018]. Ranking DHI attributes for effective prospect risk assessment applied to the Otway Basin, Australia.Australian Exploration Geoscience Conference, Abstracts. Accessed online at: http://sydney2018.aseg.org.au/Documents/Wednesday%20Abstracts/W9.4C.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Peel, F.J. and Brooks, J.R.V.
    [2016]. A practical guide to the use of success versus failure statistics in the estimation of prospect risk.AAPG Bulletin, 100 (2), 137–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Roden, R., Forrest, M. and Holeywell, R.
    [2005]. The impact of seismic amplitudes on prospect analysis.The Leading Edge,24 (7), 706–711.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. [2010]. Threshold effects on prospect risking.AAPG annual convention, Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. [2012]. Relating seismic interpretation to reserve/resource calculations: Insights from a DHI consortium.The Leading Edge,31 (9), 1066–1074.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rudolph, K.W. and Goulding, F. J.
    [2017]. Benchmarking exploration predictions and performance using 20+ yr of drilling results: One company’s experience.AAPG Bulletin,101 (2), 161–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Rudolph, K.
    [2001]. DHI/AVO Analysis Best Practices: a worldwide analysis. AAPG distinguished lecture programme.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Simm, R.W.
    [2017]. A ‘sense check’ method for incorporating seismic amplitude information into prospect risk (a tribute to Mike Bacon).First Break,35 (10), 45–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Simm, R.W. and Bacon, M.
    [2014]. Seismic Amplitude: An Interpreter’s Handbook. C.U.P
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stabell, C., Lunn, S. and Breirem, K.
    [2003]. Making effective use of a DFI: A practical Bayesian approach to Risking Prospects. SPE 82020.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Uruski, C.I. and Warburton, J.
    [2010]. Seismic evidence for active petroleum systems and charge history; PEP 38451 deep-water Taranaki Basin.2010 New Zealand Petroleum Conference, Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Westwood Group
    Westwood Group [2018] - Advances in Exploration Technology and Geosciences – Past and Future on the NCS. Accessed online: https://www.westwoodenergy.com/news/westwood-insight/exploration-technology-and-exploration-performance-offshore-norway/
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wojcik, K.M., Gonzalez, E. and Vines, R.E.
    [2016a]. Derisking low-saturation gas in Tertiary turbidite reservoirs.Interpretation,4 (3), SN31–SN43.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wojcik, K.M., Esepo, I.S., Kalejaiye, A.M. and Umahi, O.K.
    [2016b]. Bright spots, dim spots: Geologic controls of direct hydrocarbon indicator type, magnitude, and detectability, Niger Delta Basin.Interpretation, 4 (3), SN45–SN69.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020008
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020008
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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