National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction: Questions about the Department of the Interior
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

2

LIMITATIONS OF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

It is essential to recognize that estimates of undiscovered oil and gas resources are just that: estimates. They are an attempt to quantify something that cannot be accurately known until the resource has been essentially depleted. For that reason, resource estimates should be viewed as assessed at a point in time based on whatever data, information and methodology were available at that time. Resource estimates therefore are subject to continuing revision as undiscovered resources are converted to reserves and as improvements in data and assessment methods occur.

Historically, estimates of the quantities of undiscovered oil and gas resources expected to exist within a region or the nation have been prepared for a variety of purposes using several different methods. To make effective use of such estimates, or to compare them with others, one must develop an understanding of how and why they were prepared; the extent and reliability of the data upon which they are based; the expertise of the assessors; the implications and limitations of the methodology used; and the nature of any geographic, economic, technologic, or time limitations and assumptions that may apply. It is equally important that those who prepare estimates provide documentation adequate to allow the users to evaluate the issues just described. The purpose of this chapter is to examine, in general terms, some of these issues and how they may impact on the credibility and usefulness of resource estimates.

ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

Resource estimates serve many purposes. They may be prepared simply to inventory various energy commodities to evaluate future supply options. They

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

provide data essential for appraising state or federal lands prior to leasing or sale. They may be undertaken to compare the relative merits of oil and gas development versus other uses for land. Large corporations and financial institutions use resource estimates for long-term planning and analysis of investment options. Industry groups, like the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), use them as guides to the future health of their industry. Increasingly, governments and the public are looking for resource estimates to provide objective statements of how much oil and gas will be available for future domestic consumption.

It is important to understand the purpose underlying any estimate, because it controls to some extent several factors that influence the assessment's outcome: the methods used, the geographic scope, the economic assumptions, the skills and biases of analysts, and the conclusions about the timing of resource availability. For some purposes, methods such as the simple extrapolation of historic resource discovery rates without regard for economic or technological change may suffice. Other uses of resource estimates may require methods capable of estimating the size ranges of individual accumulations and their reservoir properties to analyze future supply economics. Certainly if the objective of a national resource estimate is to determine if sufficient oil and gas will be available to maintain an acceptable standard of living and a viable industrial complex, then one must be concerned about levels of accuracy and the adequacy of data and analysis. One must be assured that all potential oil and gas sources have been considered. Reactions of citizens and governmental bodies, and resulting public policy, will be quite different if there is a perception of future domestic abundance rather than a perception of future domestic shortage; consequently, the need for accuracy is paramount in national resource estimates designed to help determine public policy.

UNCERTAINTY IN ASSESSMENTS

Uncertainty is an integral part of resource estimates. Almost every component of the assessment process has associated uncertainty, and the aggregate level of uncertainty for the final resource estimates can be large. Major uncertainties arise from limitations in the data base and methodology, difficulties in projecting the course of recovery technology, and the sensitivity of the economic analysis to changes in energy prices and production costs.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

In general, uncertainties in estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas are greatest for areas that have had little or no past exploratory effort. For areas that have been extensively explored and are in a mature development stage, many of the unknowns have been eliminated and future resources can be evaluated with much more confidence. Even in some mature producing areas, however, uncertainty remains about the potential oil and gas supply at greater drilling depths. Uncertainty also pervades projections of whether potential reservoirs have been unrecognized or bypassed in past drilling. Similarly, where resource estimates are based on analogue comparisons between maturely explored areas and unexplored areas, uncertainty is introduced because each area or basin has unique characteristics.

Although our fundamental knowledge of the origin, migration, and entrapment of oil and gas has advanced markedly during the past 30 years, the fact that incremental scientific advances are still being made leads to additional uncertainty in resource estimation, especially in frontier areas or at great drilling depths. In other words, new knowledge may lead to increases or decreases in estimates of undiscovered resources, but generally leads to a reduction of uncertainty.

Discovery is only the first step in crude oil and natural gas resource development. The present state of technical knowledge in reservoir geology and petroleum engineering, as well as existing regulations, determine the spacing, completion, and production methods of development wells (i.e., petroleum producing wells drilled after the discovery well). As engineering and geologic knowledge increase, our ability to withdraw larger increments of oil and gas from existing fields is enhanced. Thus, the sizes of fields in terms of ultimately producible barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas increase with time. Uncertainty as to ultimate sizes of discovered fields leads to uncertainty in estimates of size distributions of undiscovered fields in areas with analogous reservoir characteristics and geologic histories.

Scientists can estimate the quantity of technically recoverable undiscovered oil and gas based on the present state of geological and engineering knowledge, modified by a consideration of future technological advancement. However, the percentage of that quantity that may actually be discovered and produced is an economic question. Uncertainties about future well-head crude oil and natural gas prices and costs of exploration and development adversely affect all resource estimates. In short, uncertainties embodied in economic assumptions lead to significant uncertainties in estimates of economically recoverable resources and account for some of the large differences among estimators.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

There are no foolproof, completely mechanical methods for estimating undiscovered resources. Because all methods contain elements of subjective judgement or expert opinion, the degree of uncertainty is affected by the level of expertise of the personnel doing the estimating, the time devoted to the estimates, the methods by which the estimates are tested by peer review, and the level of enthusiasm for the appraisal.

ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES

In general, policy concerns about oil and gas resources are actually concerns about future domestic production rates. Policymakers tend to view resource estimates as indicators of production capability. However, the results of resource assessments are not often presented in a form that recognizes this concern with future production. Instead, the results commonly represent only a piece of the resource base.

The USGS/MMS assessment evaluated in this report covers conventional undiscovered recoverable oil and gas—only a part of the total resource supply that will contribute to future production. To the uninformed user of this assessment, it might seem that what the assessment includes is straightforward: undiscovered petroleum recoverable with existing technology. Yet, in this and other resource assessments, the distinctions between “conventional” and “unconventional,” “recoverable” and “unrecoverable,” “discovered” and “undiscovered” are hazy. To interpret the results of an assessment correctly, the user of the assessment must understand where the assessment' s boundaries are drawn—what is and what is not included in the assessment.

Discovered/Undiscovered Boundary

To some, the difference between undiscovered and discovered petroleum might seem obvious. The term “undiscovered” implies a clear distinction between resources we have found, identified, and measured and those we have not. Yet, in some cases, deciding what to classify as discovered is a judgment call that depends on an analyst's interpretation of oil-industry definitions.

Resource appraisers divide the nation's remaining oil and gas reserves into four categories, familiar to those in the petroleum industry:

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
  • Measured reserves are contained in known reservoirs, have been quantified by engineering studies, and are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions.

  • Indicated reserves are reserves from known reservoirs for which extraction depends upon improved recovery techniques.

  • Inferred reserves are as-yet undocumented resources that analysts expect may be added to existing petroleum fields from extensions and additional development.

  • Undiscovered resources are those outside of known petroleum fields that analysts postulate to exist based on broad geologic knowledge.

Figure 2.1 diagrams the distinctions between these types of reserves. On the figure, level of certainty that the reserves exist increases from right to left.

The distinction between inferred reserves and undiscovered resources may confuse users of assessments. Depending on how an assessor interprets the above definitions, a postulated but unknown reservoir that a layman might believe is “undiscovered” can be defined as “inferred” and therefore categorized as “discovered.”

Conventional/Unconventional Boundary

The term “conventional” implies that a common method of resource extraction or a well-identified set of physical characteristics clearly separates “conventional” from “unconventional ” petroleum. This is at best an oversimplification. The boundaries between conventional and unconventional resources have always been somewhat indistinct and have become increasingly so over the past several years. This complicates comparisons between alternative resource assessments and interpretation of individual assessments. Problems with maintaining strict boundaries include:

  • Relatively large quantities of natural gas from sources traditionally labelled “unconventional” are being produced in some areas. Examples of “unconventional” resources whose production is becoming more common are coal-seam methane and gas from low-permeability sandstone reservoirs (called “tight gas”) and fractured shale reservoirs.

  • Technologies used to produce unconventional gas, especially fracturing, are now being widely used in formations that are considered “conventional. ”

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

FIGURE 2.1 A diagram showing how petroleum resources are classified. The area within the heavy frame on the upper right represents the undiscovered recoverable resources estimated in the 1989 DOI assessment. The hachured area within the heavy frame indicates undiscovered resources that are estimated to be economically recoverable. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989.

  • Reservoir permeability, which is the defining characteristic for tight-gas reservoirs, can vary widely within individual formations; many formations combine permeability characteristics on both sides of any defined conventional/unconventional boundary. Similarly, gas withdrawn from coal seams may contain gas from both the seam and the adjacent sedimentary strata—that is, a combination of conventional and so-called unconventional gas.

Available data sources cannot distinguish between conventional and unconventional gas in these circumstances.

In the past, analysts placed resources in the “unconventional” category for two reasons: to designate resources that were considered a potential but not a current source of production (except perhaps in small quantities), and to identify resources that required production methods significantly different from those

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

normally used. Thus, as production of at least a portion of the unconventional resources has grown, and as the technology for this production has become widely used in the industry and thus “conventional,” it makes sense to move some of the unconventional resources out of this category and into the category of conventional. Allowing the boundaries between conventional and unconventional resources to be frozen according to obsolete conventions and practices fails to recognize important technological advances.

Recoverable/Unrecoverable Boundary

Most assessments use two criteria to define the boundary between recoverable and unrecoverable resources: technology and economics. Technically recoverable resources are resources for which technology exists that can locate and produce the oil and gas and transport it to market. Economically recoverable resources are those that a profit-driven industry would seek to exploit. (The USGS/MMS assessment gives two estimates of undiscovered oil and gas reserves: one that includes resources recoverable with conventional technology and one that includes only the recoverable resources that yield an 8 percent real profit.) The problem with categorizing resources as technically or economically recoverable is that changing assumptions and changing times can drastically alter these criteria and hence the assessment results.

Technically Recoverable Resources

Resource assessments should, but rarely do, begin with a calculation of in-place resources: the total volume of petroleum trapped within the play being assessed, without consideration of whether or not the petroleum is extractable. Instead, assessments typically limit their evaluation to resources recoverable with conventional technology. Thus, when assessors consider what resource volume exists in a petroleum field, they weight their considerations with a judgment about how much of the resource is recoverable. In part, this is because until recently, obtaining data on in-place resources was difficult, as this chapter will discuss later.

The distinction between in-place resources and recoverable resources arises because a substantial part of the earth's total petroleum content is either dispersed at very low concentrations throughout the crust or is present in forms that cannot be extracted except through methods that would cost more than the

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

petroleum is worth. An additional portion of the total petroleum resource base cannot be recovered because available production technology cannot extract all of the in-place crude oil and natural gas even when these resources are present in commercial concentrations. This is particularly important for crude oil; using current practices, only an average of one-third of the total in-place crude oil in a reservoir can be recovered by primary and secondary recovery processes. The remaining two-thirds of the resource may not be recoverable at the present time, but it does remain a target for future technology. For natural gas, a higher percentage (60 to 85 percent) of in-place reservoir natural gas is recovered using current technology.

The inclusion of oil and gas resources in the category of technically recoverable or technically unrecoverable is at best a snapshot in time, and, if history is to judge, one destined to be quickly rendered obsolete. The development of improved technology continually causes resources to move from the unrecoverable to the recoverable portion of the resource base. Improvements in offshore drilling technology have allowed drilling in deeper waters and more hostile conditions, opening up new territories to development. As a result, succeeding generations of natural gas resource assessments have steadily moved their boundaries to deeper and deeper waters. Other advances in offshore technology have lowered costs sufficiently to allow the exploitation of fields previously considered too small to develop profitably; thus, technical advances may move resources across economic as well as technical boundaries. Refinements in seismic techniques have allowed exploitation of the Western Overthrust Belt, which has very complex natural gas-bearing formations. (Here, there may be arguments about whether the boundary crossed was technical or economic, since intensive conventional drilling might have revealed the gas fields in this area.) Progress in horizontal drilling technology has opened production zones that otherwise would be uneconomic. Improvements in drill bit metallurgy, downhole drill control, and drilling mud systems have allowed exploration of deep natural gas deposits unreachable by earlier, “conventional” drilling technology.

The language describing technology assumptions in current resource assessments is sufficiently vague to inspire doubts about just where the technological boundaries lie. The Potential Gas Committee (PGC) assumes the use of “current or foreseeable technology.” The DOI defines its technological boundary by exclusion: it excludes all resources except those that can be produced by “natural pressure, pumping, or injection of water or gas.” It does not

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

mention exploration technology, even though an inability to locate resource deposits in complex formations can prevent recovery.

Our concerns about precisely where the technological boundaries of an assessment center on the following issues:

  • How does the assessment treat resources that theoretically could be recovered with conventional technology used at an unusual degree of intensity (for example, drilling at a closer-than-standard spacing) but that are unlikely to be economically recovered without development of new technology?

  • Many technologies that are “commercial” remain the province of a small portion of the potential users or are restricted to a few geological areas. Does the assessment assume that these technologies will be in use universally?

  • Just what does “the foreseeable future” mean?

  • In the absence of specific assumptions about exploration technology, does the assessment include all oil and gas fields containing economically recoverable resources—regardless of whether the technology for finding them is economical or available?

With the exception of a limited effort by the PGC, no assessors have attempted to identify the extent to which improved technology has caused resource estimates to increase over the years. Without the availability of such information, it is difficult to quantify the effects of technological improvement on total recoverable resource volumes. Consequently, it is difficult to predict credibly how future assessments are likely to change with technological improvements. However, we can identify the advances that are most likely to increase recoverable resource volumes in the near future. These include:

  • extension of horizontal drilling to common use, which will boost accessible resource volumes in thin pay zones and in highly fractured and compartmentalized reservoirs;

  • advances in chemical-enhanced oil recovery methods, which will raise recovery efficiencies in fields undergoing tertiary recovery;

  • progress in reservoir characterization and modelling, which should enhance the potential for using infield drilling to add to reserve growth; and

  • improvements in subsea completions, which will allow the development of smaller fields and fields farther offshore and in deeper water than was previously possible.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Economically Recoverable Resources

Of the technically recoverable resource, assessors wish to eliminate resources that exist in volumes too small, in waters too deep, in strata too far underground, in places too remote, or in physical conditions too difficult to allow for profitable extraction and shipment. Users of the assessment must recognize, however, that the location of the economic boundary will depend on both the economic assumptions chosen and economic conditions at the time of the assessment.

Economic boundaries are introduced into resource assessments in one of three ways: (1) through quantitative analysis using explicit assumptions about resource prices, economic conditions, and available technology; (2) through quantitative analysis using implicit economic assumptions like minimum economic field size (the smallest size field assessors determine is profitable to develop) and water depth limits; or (3) through subjective, qualitative assumptions about economic relationships. An example of (3) is the PGC's definition of economic boundaries: “only the natural gas resource which can be discovered and produced using current or foreseeable technology and under the condition that the price/cost ratio will be favorable. ” With (1) and (2), assessors attempt to define precise limits of economic attractiveness. They incorporate assumptions that may include an explicit price scenario that varies over time, a statement of the tax regime under which resource exploration and production take place, and a minimum acceptable rate of return. The MMS and USGS used this latter approach in their assessment.

Defining the economic boundaries of a resource base is a controversial issue in resource assessment, primarily because the economic attractiveness of resources is volatile over time and depends on a complex set of variables, including the state of technology. Furthermore, economic analysis undertaken during the past few years has been especially problematic for oil and gas resource assessment. The events of the past 15 years have demonstrated the instability of both costs and prices: the rapid “boom” in oil-industry activity from the late 1970s until about 1981, followed by the gradual decline from 1981 until 1985, followed by the plunge in 1985 and 1986 in both world oil prices and activity levels.

During the oil price increases of the 1970s and early 1980s, drilling and service costs rose sharply and industry efficiency fell. As a consequence, the actual price-driven expansion of the recoverable resource base was considerably below what might have occurred had costs and efficiencies remained constant. Similarly, although the gradual and then sharp oil price drops of the 1980s

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

pushed many prospects out of the range of economic viability, the effect was smaller than expected. Large declines in drilling and field-service costs have moderated the negative impact of the price drops, limiting the declines in operator profitability. In addition, the economic pressure that oil and gas operators experienced during the past few years stimulated major efforts at cost reduction and increased efficiency through better selection of prospects. These efforts have further alleviated the effects of the price drop. Thus, it has become common to learn about prospects being developed at $18 per barrel of oil that a few years ago were believed to require $25 per barrel or more to develop profitably.

The positive relationship between oil and gas prices and drilling and service costs, described above, implies that resource-base boundaries will be less sensitive to resource prices than would be expected from economic analyses assuming constant costs. Nevertheless, changes in resource prices or in other economic conditions—such as tax rates or allowed tax credits or income deductions—can add to or subtract from the economically recoverable resource. Users of any resource assessment should be aware of the nature of the assumptions that define the resource boundaries.

In addition to price fluctuations, another factor that strongly affects the economics of oil and gas resource development, and thus the volume of oil and gas within an assessment's “economically recoverable” boundary, is the available infrastructure: pipelines, ports, gas processing plants, and so forth. Where a strong infrastructure already exists, resources that would otherwise be uneconomic—those located in small fields or in difficult and expensive operating environments—often may be developed profitably. Most areas within the onshore lower 48 states have a strong existing infrastructure.

In more remote areas, however, the decision to develop must be predicated on having to invest heavily in infrastructure. For example, in many areas of Alaska's North Slope, development of future discoveries cannot proceed without building a pipeline to the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System and constructing extensive port and airfield facilities. For such an investment to be profitable, explorers must find large fields, with oil volumes of several hundred million barrels. In addition, natural gas is excluded from the economically recoverable resource base, because no pipeline exists to transport the natural gas to markets in the lower 48 states.

Assessment users should understand that once infrastructure is constructed, future assessments can change drastically. For example, if a pipeline were built from Prudhoe Bay to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, future resource

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

assessments would likely incorporate substantial new resource volumes from fields smaller than the smallest field that was necessary to support the initial pipeline development.

DATA BASES FOR RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

Two types of data bases play a key role in preparing resource estimates. One describes the geologic framework and is the starting point for all estimates. The second includes all of the information generated as wells are drilled and discoveries are made. Because resource assessments can be only as good as the basic data that support them, it is essential that the data bases be as complete and accurate as possible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. And, assessors commonly understate the inadequacy of their data, if they mention it at all.

Geologic Data Base

Geologic data bases typically are compiled by a group of experts in various disciplines formed to analyze the region's geologic history. Ideally, the experts pool their knowledge of the region's stratigraphy, sedimentation, tectonics, and geochemistry to develop a “best possible ” understanding of area's development in terms of opportunities for petroleum accumulation. They apply knowledge from scientific literature, consult with local experts in state and federal agencies and academia, solicit advice or assistance from industry petroleum explorers, and conduct original studies to the extent that time and resources permit. Any weaknesses in the geologic data base they create will be carried through whatever methodology is used in the assessment process. Unfortunately, the quality and completeness of the geologic data base are rarely adequate. This is, in part, because assembling it is a time-consuming activity that requires the dedication of people and resources on an ongoing basis.

Compiling the geologic data base requires geophysical data, particularly seismic data, both regional and detailed in scope. Most data from both state waters and the onshore are the proprietary property of oil companies and are not generally available to the USGS. The MMS, on the other hand, does have access to such data in the federal OCS waters. This creates a basic disparity in resource estimation capabilities and illustrates a serious weakness in the onshore data base.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Production and Drilling Data Base

The data base related to exploration and production history commonly is compiled from various federal and state agencies, trade associations, and commercial enterprises. More than three million wells have been drilled in the United States, creating an almost overwhelming amount of data. Thousands of staff years have been expended in correlating, summarizing, evaluating, and statistically analyzing these data.

The single most important component of this data base is the estimates of proved reserves: petroleum from already-discovered reservoirs that is recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. One might expect that quantitative information on reserves would be relatively complete. Unfortunately, this is not the case. One problem with reserves data is that because reserves tend to grow, it is difficult to know the appropriate ultimate reserve value for any field. A second problem is that although data on large- and intermediate-size fields are comprehensive in some instances, data for small fields are largely unavailable. Lack of data on small fields is an important shortcoming, because most remaining onshore undiscovered fields will be small relative to previously discovered fields. A third problem is that producers generally treat proved-reserve estimates as confidential. Producers aggregate by state or state subdivision the data they do release, withholding information on individual fields. There are some exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Virtually all modern methods of resource estimation depend on reliable reserves data. Some methods are essentially based on the sizes of discovered fields. It is therefore imperative that reserve values accurately reflect the real sizes of accumulations. Current data base development focuses largely on production data. That is, data bases express reserves as the component of the total accumulation deemed recoverable at any point in time. Thus, reserve estimates reflect the recovery technology and economics of the time. As such, they are subject to considerable change over time. The consequence is that reserve values can be poor facsimiles for the ultimate size of a field.

To circumvent this problem, assessors could use in-place values of resources and then apply appropriate recovery factors to estimate recoverable resources (Podruski et al., 1988). (Recovery factors express the percentage of in-place petroleum that can be brought to the surface.) In the past, however, determining in-place values has been difficult because of the lack of a comprehensive public data base of U.S. in-place petroleum. Several public and private data bases covered one or more elements of in-place petroleum. However, each of these

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

was incomplete, lacking either data on the total petroleum content of each reservoir or complete national coverage.

One example of a data base that included information on in-place petroleum was the American Petroleum Institute's (API) industry-wide crude oil data base. Unfortunately, the API stopped compiling this data base in 1979. The data, which reached back to 1920, covered annual statistics on discoveries, production, reserves added, estimated ultimate recovery, and original oil in place. The data base aggregated in-place petroleum volumes into production districts, states, and fields for the hundred largest fields in the U.S., but did not include figures for in-place reserves at other specific reservoirs.

In the future, determining in-place resource values may be easier, because the Department of Energy (DOE) is upgrading its Tertiary Oil Recovery Information System (TORIS), which provides data on original oil in place in individual reservoirs. Since its initiation in 1978, TORIS has provided comprehensive data on original oil in place in areas where substantial petroleum exploration has already taken place; TORIS data account for more than 72 percent of the original crude oil in place for the known fields of the nation. However, TORIS' s coverage of less-explored regions has, in the past, been incomplete; it includes information on only 3,700 of the more than 100,000 U.S. reservoirs (Brashear et al., 1989). Currently, the DOE is expanding TORIS to include more data about less-explored areas. The expansion of TORIS will help facilitate the use of in-place resource values in projecting undiscovered oil volumes.

ESTIMATING RESERVE GROWTH

Past production plus total estimated future production (from proved reserves) equals the so-called estimated “ultimate” amount of oil or gas that will be recovered from an existing field. However, predicting a field 's true ultimate recovery requires an estimate of its future reserve “growth.” Reserve growth can result from several factors: data reevaluation, extension drilling, new-pool exploration, infill drilling, enhanced-recovery techniques, better reservoir management, and changes in economic parameters. Some changes in reserve estimates may be negative rather than positive, but history has shown that, on average, reserve estimates grow with time. During the first five to seven years after explorers discover a field, estimates grow rapidly. Later, they tend to level out at some smaller increment per year. It is worth noting that recent annual

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

growth of estimated ultimate oil recovery from pre-1920 fields is still one to two percent per year.

Much of the increased reserves in large fields is the result of infill drilling and advances in enhanced-recovery techniques made possible by the higher oil prices of the late 1970s and early 1980s and from the knowledge gained during that period. The need for up-to-date reserve-growth estimates stems from the knowledge that changing economic and technological factors profoundly change the ultimate quantity of oil and gas that will be produced from existing and yet-to-be-discovered fields.

Historic data can be used to project future growth of newer fields. (As discussed in the next chapter, the USGS uses such a method of trend extrapolation.) One source of historic data is the revised estimates of oil and gas discovered in the United States each year since 1920 that were published annually by the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association, and the Canadian Petroleum Association from 1968 until 1980 (for the years 1967 to 1979). Analysts have used these data to develop statistical growth curves for estimating inferred reserves. Because this data series stopped in 1979, more recent reserve growth estimates based on the series fail to capture a decade of innovation in petroleum development geology and engineering.

Estimating reserve growth with direct geologic and engineering methods is also possible. For example, the PGC employs such a direct method to estimate additional natural gas resources in discovered fields. The PGC assesses accumulations thought to be only partly developed by using a yield factor and extended reservoir volume, multiplied by the probability that the extension actually exists. PGC assessment of all possible new pools within existing fields also involves volumetric calculations, with adjustments for possible changes in lithology and reservoir characteristics. Adjusted volumes are multiplied by adjusted yield factors, obtained by analogy with a producing area similar to the potential new pool under consideration. The amount of gas is then discounted by the probability that unknown traps exist and contain gas. Unfortunately, this direct approach to predicting future growth of newer fields requires detailed field information that commonly is proprietary and not readily available. Also, it is unlikely that this method captures all reserve growth that may result from new concepts of reservoir heterogeneity of already-developed reservoirs.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

A variety of methods for evaluating undiscovered oil and gas resources has evolved over the last 25 years. These methods range from simple models based on historical data to large and complex models based on probability theory. This section discusses the methods used most extensively, particularly by government agencies, in making regional and national assessments in North America during the 1970s and 1980s.

The Evolution of Government Assessments

In response to perceived global energy concerns of the early 1970s, the USGS embarked on a program to analyze the nation's oil and gas resources. Although major petroleum corporations had been conducting assessments for many years for internal purposes and had developed appropriate methods, by comparison the federal government was ill prepared for the task. The need to prepare estimates quickly, along with funding and staff limitations, led quite naturally to the acceptance of relatively crude methods. Early assessments began with a request for regional geologists to examine and summarize the petroleum geology of large regions. Analysts used those perceptions of regional geology along with comparisons to global analogues and volumetric yield factors (barrels per cubic mile of prospective basin-fill) derived from the literature to estimate ranges of possible oil and gas quantities. They employed a Delphi-like approach, averaging the opinions of several experts to produce the final results. The USGS published the results of these assessments in Circulars 725, 828 and 860.

In attempting to address the relatively simple objective of the early 1970s—to determine how much oil and gas might exist—USGS analysts recognized the need for improved methods. It was clear that a better means of systematically capturing, quantifying and reporting uncertainty was required; that regions had to be assessed in a more disaggregated fashion to use analogue information more effectively; that the objectives were more comprehensive than originally thought and ultimately must address questions of deposit size and exploration risk; that effective protocols for handling subjective judgment had to be developed; and that statistical methods and methods testing would be desirable. These concerns gave rise to increased research on appropriate methods. By the late 1970s, scientists had developed new methods that grouped similar oil and gas reservoirs into “plays” for assessment (see Box 2.1) and

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

BOX 2.1 How to Define a Play

In defining a play as “a group of geologically similar prospects having basically the same source-reservoir-trap controls of oil and gas,” White stressed the importance of geologic commonality in play definition (White, 1980). Achieving geologic commonality is essential for insuring that each set of reservoirs and prospects being evaluated is as homogeneous as possible. Yet, in practice, achieving commonality is not a straightforward exercise. There is no single operational formula for play definition that fits all geologic settings.

In the great majority of cases, plays are limited to a single formation, because each formation is associated with a distinct set of reservoir characteristics. Yet in some areas, notably California and some Rocky Mountain basins, a single play may encompass several producing formations, the play being essentially defined by a structural trend. Within a single formation, depositional system can be a key parameter in play definition, because differences among types of depositional systems are associated with differences in reservoir size distributions and patterns of reservoir location. Differences in petroleum sources, in thermal maturity within a source, and in migration history as they affect petroleum type and characteristics can also be important factors in determining play boundaries.

applied the widely recognized concept that petroleum pool or field sizes appear to be lognormally distributed in nature (Kaufman, 1965). Most importantly, the new methods made extensive use of subjective probability. (Roy et al., 1975; Roy, 1979; Energy Mines and Resources, Canada, 1977; White and Gehman, 1979).

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Subjective Probability Methods

Central to the new subjective probability methods was the solution of some variant of the standard engineering equation for calculating the reserves in an individual pool or field, but applied to all of the prospects in a play. In this process, a frequency distribution appropriate for all prospects represents each variable in the equation (net pay, area, porosity, hydrocarbon saturation, etc.). These distributions incorporate all the observed values that result from discovery, supplemented with the assessment team's subjective judgment. The distributions are inserted in the standard engineering equation in place of single number values for the variables. Where the equation requires, analysts multiply the distributions together with an appropriate mathematical procedure, such as Monte Carlo simulation. The equation then produces a conditional pool-size distribution: a curve showing the possible sizes of petroleum pools plotted against their frequency of occurrence.

The pool-size distribution is called “conditional” (or, alternatively, “unrisked”) because it assumes the condition that the play contains some minimum amount of petroleum. In other words, analysts consider the possible size attributes of petroleum deposits separately from the question of whether the play contains any petroleum. One can view the probability that a play contains petroleum as analogous to the chance of success of a wildcat exploratory well. Determining this probability requires knowledge of the geologic factors—a source rock, a reservoir rock, a trap, and so forth—necessary for petroleum accumulation. Based on geologic evidence, analysts assess a marginal probability for each such geologic factor. Then, they multiply the marginal probabilities together (a calculation that requires the sometimes questionable assumption that the factors are statistically independent) to obtain the chance that the play contains petroleum.

By combining the exploratory well success probability, the conditional pool-size distribution, and a second distribution representing the number of prospects in the play, analysts produce a probability curve showing the total petroleum volume in the play.

Subjective probability methods gained favor with assessors in part because they can be geology-based and because they provide a relatively simple means of reflecting uncertainties associated with the variables that describe pool size. A problem with such methods, however, is that the Monte Carlo combination of size variables is legitimate only if each variable is functionally independent. Empirical evidence has shown that this is not always the case. There may be

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

correlations between area and net pay; porosity and depth; and other sets of variables. More recently, analysts have altered programs to address possible dependence between size variables.

A variation on the subjective probability approach forms the basis for part of the MMS's PRESTO (Probabilistic Resource Estimates—Offshore) model: a computer program for simulating exploratory drilling. The PRESTO program applies subjective probability to assess individual prospects which can then be summed into plays.

The subjective probability methods described above can be shown to be statistically valid (Lee and Wang, 1983a,b), but commonly serious problems arise in their implementation. One problem is that analysts typically have little or no training in assessing uncertainties or in evaluating probabilistic dependencies between variables. A second problem is that an assessment team commonly reaches consensus at the expense of capturing the total spread of opinion regarding uncertainty. Assessments disguise the opinions of individual assessors by combining these opinions and publishing only a single, group probability distribution. A third problem is the absence of protocols to ensure consistency in assessment methods. Lacking such protocols, assessors may interpret differently even terms that seem relatively straightforward, like “maximum value” and “minimum value.” For example, one assessor may interpret the “minimum value” of the number of prospects in a play as a value such that a small but non-zero probability exists that the number of prospects is less than this “minimum.” Another assessor may interpret the same term to mean that there is zero probability that the number of prospects falls below this minimum. Assessors are generally aware of the potential problems with these subjective probability methods, but feel that there is such a large error cloud involved that many of the problems can be safely ignored.

Discovery-Process Models

To sidestep the problems with subjective probability methods, assessors developed a new generation of methods that centered on objective, probabilistic models of the petroleum discovery process. Such “discovery-process models” are built from assumptions that describe both physical features of petroleum deposits and fields and the manner in which they are discovered. Their principal premise is that discovery data are size biased: large deposits are more likely to be discovered early in the evolution of a play than are small fields (Kaufman et al., 1975). Thus, exploration produces a sample of the petroleum pool population

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

that is biased toward early discovery of larger pools. By understanding the nature of the bias and modelling it mathematically, Kaufman derived the parameters describing the North Sea petroleum pool population and successfully estimated resource values for North Sea plays. Lee and Wang built on Kaufman's work, employing somewhat different mathematical procedures to derive the population parameters and adding the capability to determine individual pool sizes (Lee and Wang, 1985).

Assessment methods based on discovery-process models have two obvious advantages. First, the input required comes from two of the most readily available and reliable types of geological data: the sizes of discovered deposits and the order of discovery. Second, the assumptions defining the model can be tested for validity. A difficulty of the process, common to all assessment procedures, is that assessors must be careful in defining exploration plays. Faulty definitions can result in mixing of plays, which can seriously distort the model 's projections of undiscovered oil and gas, as is shown in Appendix C.

In the assessment this report reviews, the USGS employed a hybrid of subjective probability methods and discovery-process models. A fundamental concept from discovery-process models is that a play 's field-size distribution (the graph showing the frequency at which each possible field-size occurs) shifts predictably with time. As exploration progresses, on average, the proportion of large deposits remaining undiscovered decreases rapidly relative to the proportion of smaller fields; the field-size distribution shifts toward a smaller percentage of large fields. Thus, the return on investment decreases as exploration progresses, as the large fields are exploited and the less profitable small fields remain. By applying this concept and creating different field-size distributions for different points in time, USGS analysts projected the rate of falloff of returns on exploratory efforts.

Subjective probability entered into the USGS assessment in the way analysts created field-size distributions. Instead of applying objective discovery-process models, USGS analysts used subjective judgment and a function called a “Pareto” distribution: a probability curve that analysts can tailor to fit known field-size data. To create field-size distributions, analysts fit sizes of known oil and gas fields in each play to Pareto distributions. They “truncated” the distributions at the maximum field size and “shifted” their origins to a minimum field size; hence, the equation that describes the resulting curve is called a “Truncated Shifted Pareto” (TSP). Fitting Pareto distributions to data from discovered fields requires expert judgment. Thus, one can view the TSP function as an aid for translating expert opinion about field sizes into mathematical language.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

To produce their final resource estimates, USGS assessors combined the TSP distributions with independently assessed distributions for the number of undiscovered fields in each play.

Methods for Considering Economics

As noted earlier, assessors may avoid quantitative economic analyses and the necessity for establishing explicit price and cost scenarios by defining economic boundaries qualitatively, as in the PGC's boundary of a “favorable” price/cost ratio. Problems with this approach include the difficulty of reviewing the estimates without precise boundary definitions, and the possibility—or probability—that individual assessors will apply different economic assumptions based on their own interpretations of this vague boundary condition. (At the PGC, discussions within working committees attempt to ensure that economic boundaries are applied consistently.) An advantage of this approach is its ability to recognize regional differences in production costs, infrastructure, and petroleum prices.

When an assessment includes explicit, quantitative economic analysis, analysts may choose from a number of economics “scenarios”:

  • They may use an actual oil and gas price forecast that varies over time, and assume drilling and other development costs are constant (adjusted only for inflation), as in the USGS/MMS assessment.

  • They may present the different resource estimates for different oil prices, ranging, for example, from $15 to $30 per barrel in $5 increments.

  • They may define precise physical boundary conditions tied implicitly to economic conditions: water depth limits, minimum economic field size, permeability limits, drilling depth limits, and so forth.

Analysts have shown that assessments of economically recoverable oil and gas vary considerably with world oil price. For example, the MMS evaluated the sensitivity to price of estimated recoverable oil and gas resources in offshore federal lands for its 1987 Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program document. This analysis found that leasable resources on the OCS varied from

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

9,100 million barrels of oil equivalent (Mmboe) when oil cost $17 per barrel 1 to 13,690 Mmboe when the price rose to $34 per barrel. 2 In other words, halving prices drove down recoverable resource estimates by 34 percent.

The sensitivity of estimated resource volumes to oil price depends on assumptions about costs. It is quite common to assume that oil field costs are constant (in real dollars) over time, regardless of oil prices. However, as explained earlier in this chapter, research has shown that oil-field service costs increase with oil prices (Kuuskraa et al., 1987). If oil prices rise quickly, stimulating immediate increases in drilling rates, service costs will rise rapidly as well. Similarly, a rapid fall in prices, with a sharp drop in drilling and rig utilization, would drive down costs. More gradual price changes would cause less dramatic changes in costs because rig supply would have time to adjust, and shortage or surplus situations would not contribute to swings in service costs.

This added complexity in economic analysis—that oil-field service costs vary with changing prices and the rate at which prices change—creates a serious dilemma for the resource analyst. It implies that an appropriate range of scenarios for a credible quantitative analysis of recoverable resources extends to predicting not only future price levels, but also how fast they are reached and how the service industry responds. On the other hand, the variability of service costs tends to damp out the sensitivity of recoverable resources volume to price, because changes in service costs eat up some of the potential profits or losses associated with higher or lower prices (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987).

Given the importance of drilling and other costs in analyzing the economic recoverability of resources, and the potential for cost volatility, resource assessors should seek baseline economic assumptions that reflect long-term equilibrium costs, rather than costs that have been artificially inflated or deflated by rapid price changes. These costs would reflect the assumption that the supply and demand of oil-field and gas-field services are essentially in balance. This does not mean that such equilibrium costs will be constant over time, because they will change with technical advances. Unless the assessors can define clear trends in such costs, however, they probably should assume constant real costs over time. If it is desirable, assessors can examine the effect of changing costs using

1  

In 1987 dollars, delivered at the Gulf of Mexico.

2  

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Appendix F: Economic considerations in the 5-year outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, in 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program for January 1987-December 1991, draft.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

parametric analysis. (That is, they can recalculate resource volumes at alternative costs.) Similarly, an ideal assessment would use long-term equilibrium values of oil and gas prices, avoiding values that can be sustained only for short times. Unfortunately, there is little likelihood of obtaining consensus on what these prices would be, so it makes sense for assessors to use well-known price forecasts like those from the Energy Information Administration's Energy Outlook series.

Additionally, to account for the role efficiency plays in prospect development one should choose economic and cost assumptions that reflect an “optimistic” rather than an “industry average” outlook. This choice is dictated by the nature of oil and gas development. For most prospects, there are several potential developers who, as a group, may represent an industry average in terms of drilling and service costs, required rate of return, exploration success rates, and so forth. However, it only requires one company to develop a prospect; the fact that all but one of the potential developers could not develop the prospect profitably (or would not proceed with development according to their investment decision rules) is not relevant to the prospect's inclusion in the economically recoverable resource base. Thus, the required rates of return assumed in the assessment should fall near the lower bound of all rates applicable to the group of producers capable of developing the prospects. Similarly, the assumed drilling costs should not represent the average, but should approach the costs achieved by the lowest-cost driller. It is not appropriate, however, to select the absolute lower bound (or upper bound, as appropriate) for these variables, as no individual producer is likely to be both the lowest-cost and most efficient performer in every category. Instead, one should perhaps select the lower (or upper) decile or quartile value for each variable.

A controversial aspect of selecting economic assumptions is whether or not to treat certain front-end costs as “sunk” (that is, as already spent and therefore not relevant to future investment decisions). Assessors may, in particular, treat leasing and exploration costs as sunk, on the basis that the critical economic/uneconomic decision often comes after exploration drilling, when a company has found a field and must decide whether or not to develop it. Under this assumption, assessors calculate minimum field sizes for assessment areas by comparing the value of the oil and gas found to the costs of developing the resources (i.e., the cost of building infrastructure and drilling development wells), without considering lease or exploratory drilling.

The validity of treating leasing and exploration costs as sunk depends on negative answers to two questions:

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
  1. Might developers choose to reject prospects in advance of exploration because they fear high exploration costs?

  2. If the field is abandoned before development commences, can developers recoup any of their exploration costs (i.e., is there any salvage value)?

An affirmative answer to either question implies that leasing and exploration costs cannot be ignored in deciding whether potential resources are economic.

A negative answer to the first question implies that, for all of the prospects considered, at least one company in the industry will be willing to buy a lease and conduct an exploration program. Individual geologists and companies tend to have diverging opinions about the attractiveness of most prospects; historically, company bids for individual offshore leases have varied widely. Consequently, the assumption that one company will be willing to invest in exploration is credible if the list of prospects was developed with attractiveness to industry in mind. However, this assumption would not apply to a group of prospects that represented an all-inclusive network of grid blocks over a broad area, because it is likely that some of these blocks would receive no bids. Consequently, leasing and exploration costs can be ignored in calculating economic levels of resources in a group of prospects and plays only if these costs were considered in the initial choice of prospects and plays to examine.

A negative answer to the second question implies that the current tax structure treats exploration costs nearly the same way whether a project proceeds to development or is abandoned. If the tax system treats industry costs more generously upon abandonment than upon development, the potential developer will not ignore exploration costs in his “develop or abandon” decision, and neither should the assessor, even if exploration costs were considered in selecting the list of prospects and plays. If an assessor chooses to treat leasing and exploration costs as sunk, he should justify this decision by demonstrating that any tax differences between an abandoned prospect and a developed prospect are zero or small.

RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS AND ENERGY POLICY

Resource assessments become tools for policy analysts when issues of resource scarcity, environmental sensitivity of potential resource-bearing lands, or shortfalls in resource production need to be addressed. For example:

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
  • Government promotion of energy technologies may hinge on perceptions of the adequacy of the domestic fuels resource base. For example, perceptions of the size of the U.S. natural gas resource base will influence decisions about promoting combined cycle electricity generation fueled by natural gas.

  • Proposals to stimulate drilling for oil and natural gas in the face of declining domestic production levels may hinge upon assessments of the conventional and unconventional or discovered and undiscovered part of the resource base. A conclusion that much larger volumes of natural gas reside in unconventional formations could shift policy attention to governmental assistance for production research, or to incentives aimed at tight gas or other unconventional resources. Similarly, assessment results that indicate large volumes of remaining recoverable oil in already discovered formations, with smaller volumes in the undiscovered portion of the resource base, might shift policy attention away from incentives for exploratory drilling and toward wider drilling incentives more likely to instill higher levels of infill and extension drilling.

  • Policymakers evaluating proposals to sequester environmentally sensitive lands, like the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, will likely be strongly influenced by resource assessments covering the lands under review, the region (especially if an existing investment, like a pipeline, would lose value without continued development), and the nation.

Policymakers are interested in resources primarily because they see them as a bridge to production. That is, they interpret an oil and gas resource assessment as a means of comprehending the prospects for maintaining high levels of domestic oil and gas production in the future. Because policymakers commonly are unsophisticated about resource terminology, they are likely to interpret a sharp change in resource volumes as signalling a similar change in future production prospects. Policymakers may find it difficult to comprehend—unless told very explicitly—that a so-called national assessment of oil and gas resources actually covers only a portion of the recoverable resource base: one that may have only a modest impact on future production. This is particularly true of the oil portion of assessments: fully 70 percent of the total U.S. oil reserve additions between 1979 and 1984 came from drilling thousands of extension and in fill wells in previously discovered oil fields, which are not part of the undiscovered resource base (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). Although there is continuing debate among industry analysts about whether or not development drilling will continue to dominate reserve additions to this extent, there is no doubt that an assessment of only the undiscovered resource base cannot

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

adequately inform policymakers about prospects for future domestic oil and gas production from all sources.

REFERENCES

Brashear, J. P., A. Becker, K. Biglarbigi, and R. M. Ray. 1989. Incentives, technology, and EOR: potential for increasing oil recovery at lower oil prices. Journal of Petroleum Technology 41(2): 164-170.

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. 1977. Oil and Natural Gas Resources of Canada, 1976. Report 77-1. Ottawa, Canada.

Kaufman, G. M. 1965. Statistical analysis of the size distribution of oil and gas fields. Pp. 109-131 in Symposium on Petroleum Economics and Evaluation. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Kaufman, G. M., Y. Balcer, and D. Kruyt. 1975. A probabilistic model of oil and gas discovery. Pp. 113-142 in Studies in Geology No. 1: Methods of Estimating the Volume of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Kuuskraa, V. A., F. Morra Jr., and M. L. Godec. 1987 Importance of cost-price relationships for least-cost oil and gas reserves. Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper No. 16289. Presentation to the Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, March 1987, Dallas, Texas.

Lee, P. J., and P. C. C. Wang. 1983a. Probabilistic formulation of a method for the evaluation of petroleum resources. Mathematical Geology 15: 163-181.

Lee, P. J., and P. C. C. Wang. 1983b. Conditional analysis for petroleum resource evaluations. Mathematical Geology 15: 353-363.

Lee, P. J. and P. C. C. Wang. 1985. Prediction of oil or gas pool sizes when the discovery record is available. Mathematical Geology 17: 95-113.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. U.S. Oil Production: The Effect of Low Oil Prices— Special Report. OTA-E-348. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress.

Oil and Gas Journal. 1989. U.S. fields with reserves exceeding 100 million barrels. January 30, pp. 69-70.

Podruski, J. A., J. E. Barclay, A. P. Hamblin, P. J. Lee, K. G. Osadetz, R. M. Procter, and G. C. Taylor. 1988. Conventional Oil Resources of Western Canada. Paper 87-26. Ottawa, Canada.

Roy, K.J. 1979. Hydrocarbon assessment using subjective probability and Monte Carlo methods. Pp. 279-290 in First IIASA Conference on Methods and Models for Assessing Energy Resources, M. Grenon, ed. New York: Pergamon Press.

Roy, K. J., R. M. Procter, and R. G. McCrossan. 1975. Hydrocarbon assessment using subjective probability: probability methods in oil exploration. Pp. 56-60 in Probability Methods in Oil Exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Research Symposium Notes, J. C. Davis, J. H. Doveton, and J. W. Harbaugh, eds. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey and Minerals Management Service. 1989. Estimates of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources in the United States—A Part of the Nation's Energy Endowment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the United States. Circular 725. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1980. Future Supply of Oil and Gas from the Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Circular 828. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Conventional Resources of Oil and Gas in the United States. Circular 860. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

White, D. A. and H. M. Gehman. 1979. Methods of estimating oil and gas resources. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin 63: 2183-2192.

Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 Limitations of Resource Assessments." National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1789.
×
Page 43
Next: 3 An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior »
Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

When the U.S. Department of the Interior released its 1989 estimates of how much undiscovered oil and gas remain in the United States, a controversy ensued. Some members of the petroleum industry charged that the estimates were too low. This book evaluates the scientific credibility of the statistical and geological methods underlying the estimates.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!