Risk Assessment of Petroleum

System, Plays and Prospects

 Risk and Uncertainty
Risk: the probability of loss or failure

As “risk” is generally associated with the negative

outcome, the term “chance” is preferred for general
usage to describe the probability of a discrete event
occurring.

Uncertainty: the range of possible outcomes in a series

of estimates. For recoverable resource assessments, the
range of uncertainty reflects a reasonable range of
estimated potentially recoverable quantities for an
individual accumulation or a project.

Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
World Petroleum Council (WPC)
Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE) 2007 definition
Assessment Scale – Definitions and Issues
Play Assessment – Projection of undiscovered potential
for family of prospects, taking into account shared
(regional) geologic controls
ISSUES: Regional trends can overlook local complexities.

Prospect Assessment – Projection of undiscovered

potential for individual prospects, taking into account
(local) feature-specific complexities
ISSUES: Multiple, stand-alone evalutions can overlook shared regional
controls. Often only top prospects are evaluated.

Integrated Assessment – Projection of undiscovered

potential for family of prospects, taking into account both
shared (regional) controls among prospects and (local)
specific complexities of individual prospects
Hood and Stabell (2006)
 Assessment through the Upstream

Exploration
Basin
Analysis

Prospect
Generation
Appraisal

Wildcat

Play
Drilling
Development
Assessment Discovery,
Appraisal,
Development
Field Production
Optimization
Prospect
Enhanced
Assessment Recovery

Decline,
Abandonment
Reserves +

Assessment +

Sykes et al. (2006)

“A group of leads and prospects, and possibly
oil and/or gas fields, all having similar geologic
origins -- a family of geologically similar traps.”
PLAY CHARACTERISTICS: ATTRIBUTES OF
CONSTITUENT PROSPECTS & FIELDS
• Common Source Rock, HC-type, migration history;
• Similar Reservoir Rock (depositional origin, production characteristics);
• Similar Structural configuration, trap type, structural history;
• Generally trapped by common master seal;
• Prospects form a coherent lognormal Field-size Distribution

Rose (2006)
 Risk Assessment (1)
• Risk assessment assigns a probability of success.
• In our assessment process, we evaluate four different concepts of
exploration as a function of the degree of knowledge about the specific
project: basin framework, petroleum system framework, play, and prospect.
• Basin Framework Is there a volume of sedimentary rocks capable of
containing potential ingredients of a working “hydrocarbon machine”:
source, reservoir, trap and seal, and proper timing and migration? This
assessment is a screening device only, and does not include economic
considerations.
• Petroleum System Framework The petroleum system framework is
defined as a volume of sedimentary rocks containing hydrocarbons and
charged by a single source rock. The definition requires manifestations of
hydrocarbons (seeps, shows, or a producing well) and is applicable in many
frontier basins only by analogy. Recognition of an active petroleum system
also serves only as a screening device because it carries no volumetric
(and therefore, no economic) value. Otis and Schneidermann (1997)
 Risk Assessment (2)
• Play In our definition, the play is the elemental part of a petroleum system,
and is recognized as having one or more accumulations of hydrocarbons
identified by a common geological character of reservoir, trap, and seal;
timing and migration; preservation; a common engineering character of
location, environment, and fluid and flow properties; or a combination of
these. Individual plays, therefore, have unique geological and engineering
features, and can be used as a basis for economic characterization. In our
assessment process, we evaluate four different concepts of exploration as a
function of the degree of knowledge about the specific project: basin
framework, petroleum system framework, play, and prospect.
• Prospect Prospect represents an individual, potential accumulation. Each
prospect is perceived as belonging to an individual play, characterized by
risk components and a probabilistic range distribution of potential
hydrocarbon volumes within its trap confines.

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)

 Risk Assessment (3)

• Within the evaluation process, the risk considered is geologic risk; i.e., the
risk that a producible hydrocarbon accumulation exists. We consider a
producible accumulation to be one capable of testing a stabilized flow of
hydrocarbons. Geologic risk is assessed by considering the probability that
the following four independent factors of the play concept exist.

– (1) Presence of mature source rock (Psource )

– (2) Presence of reservoir rock (Preservoir )
– (3) Presence of a trap (Ptrap)
– (4) Play dynamics (Pdynamics ) or the appropriate iming of trap formation
relative to timing of migration, pathways for migration of hydrocarbons from the
source to the reservoir, and preservation of hydrocarbons to the present day.

• The probability of geologic success (Pg) is obtained by multiplying the

probabilities of occurrence of each of the four factors of the play concept.

Pg = Psource x Preservoir x Ptrap x Pdynamics

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)
Petroleum System and Risk Analysis

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)

 Risk Assessment Computation

Probability of Probability Probability Probability Probability of

= of HC x of Reservoir x of Trap x Timing and
HC Discovery
Source Quality Integrity Migration

Geology Risk Factor = 1 / Probability of HC Discovery

For any Risk Factor, the “weakest”element determines the risk

< 0.30 Risk Factor contains unfavourable elements

0.30 – 0.50 One or more elements questionable

0.50 Elements unknown or no definitive data (Neutral)

0.50 – 0.70 All elements at least encouraging to favorable

>0.70 All elements well documented and encouraging to favorable

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)

 Risk
Assessment
Checklist

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)

Otis and Schneidermann (1997)
Otis and Schneidermann (1997)
 Independent Geologic Risk Factors

For a hydrocarbon accumulation to be present and recoverable, nine

independent geologic elements must be adequate to the degree that
the Assessment Minimum volume of hc’s can be produced

Source Richness - is there source lithology with sufficient TOC to generate hc’s?

Source Maturation - is the source rock sufficiently mature to generate hc’s?

Trap Closure - is there a geologic configuration capable of retaining hc’s?

Migration Pathways - are there paths along which the hc’s can move to the trap?
Trap-Migration Timing - did the trap exist when the migration occurred?

Trap Seal - is there a means for retaining hc’s in the trap?

Reservoir Facies - is there a suitable reservoir lithology in the trap?

Reservoir Quality - does the reservoir have suitably high N/G and porosity?

Hydrocarbon Recovery- can hc’s be recovered from the reservoir?

Sykes et al. (2006)
Petronas Carigali (2006)
example

Petronas Carigali (2006)

BPMIGAS (2010)
 Type I 1
Type Of Kerogen(A): Type II 1
Type III 1
Type IV 0.063

0 – 0.5 0.0625
0.5 – 1 0.25
Source Rock Maturity In fetch Area TOC(B): 1– 2 0.5
2– 4 0.75
SOURCEASSESSMENT >4 1

Unmatured 0.0625
EarlyMature 0.5
Source Rock Maturity(C):
Mature 1
OverMature 0.125

Well 1
Source Rock Maturity in Fetch Area Based on Well(D):
Field 0.5

Assessment (A+B+C+D)/4

BPMIGAS (2010)
 Shallow M a r ine Blangket Proximal 0.95

Shallow M a r ine Blangket M id d le 0.85

Shallow M a r ine Blangket Distal 0.75

Coastal, Deltaic, Tidal Pro xima l 0.9

Coastal, Deltaic, Tidal M i d d l e 0.8

Coastal, Deltaic, Tidal Distal 0.75

S U B M A R I N E F A N Proximal 0.75

S U B M A R I N E F A N M id d le 0.675

S U B M A R I N E F A N Distal 0.55

R e e f W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s B a c k R e e f 0.9

R e e f W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s C o r e R e e f 0.8

R e e f W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s F o r e R e e f 0.7

R e e f Without Karstifikasi P r o c e s s B a c k R e e f 0.9

R e e f Without Karstifikasi P r o c e s s C o r e R e e f 0.8

R e e f W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s F o r e R e e f 0.7

R E S E R V O I R Reservoir Depositional Platform W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s Proximal 0.7

Environment T y p e a n d Position
ASSESSMENT ( A) : Platform W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s M id d le 0.6

Platform W i t h Karstifikasi P r o c e s s Distal 0.5

R e e f Without Karstifikasi P r o c e s s Proxima l 0.7

R e e f Without Karstifikasi P r o c e s s M id d le 0.6
R e e f Without Karstifikasi P r o c e s s Distal 0.5
Lacustrine Deltaic Proxima l 0.8
Lacustrine Deltaic M id d le 0.7
Lacustrine Deltaic Distal 0.6
Alluvial F a n , B r a i d e d S t r e a m , M e a n d e r i n g
C ha nne l Proximal 0.8
Alluvial F a n , B r a i d e d S t r e a m , M e a n d e r i n g
C ha nne l M id d le 0.7
Alluvial F a n , B r a i d e d S t r e a m , M e a n d e r i n g
C ha nne l Distal 0.6
Eolian Proximal 0.9
Eolian M id d le 0.8
Eolian Distal 0.7
Fractured B a s e me n t & Fractured P o r o u s L a v a
Proximal 0.5
Fractured B a s e me n t & Fractured P o r o u s L a v a
M id d le 0.45
Fractured B a s e me n t & Fractured P o r o u s L a v a
Distal 0.4

BPMIGAS (2010)
reservoir assessment (cont’d)
SEIS MIC A N A LY SIS 0.4
L O G CHARACTERISTIC 0.5
C O M B I N E L O G & SEISMIC 0.7
C O M B I N E L O G & C O R E 0.9
SEIS MIC A N A LY S IS K A R S T 0.75
L O G CHARACTERISTIC K A R S T 0.75
Reservoir Depositional C O M B I N E L O G & SEISMIC K A R S T 0.75
Environment defined b y (B): C O M B I N E L O G & C O R E K A R S T 0.75
SEIS MIC A N A LY S IS N O N K A R S T 0.0625
L O G CHARACTERISTIC N O N K A R S T 0.0625

C O M B I N E L O G & SEISMIC N O N K A R S T 0.0625

C O M B I N E L O G & C O R E N O N K A R S T 0.0625

S A N D S T O N E S 0.9
C A R B O N A T E S 0.9
CLASTIC C A R B O N A T E S 0.5
V U L C A N O C L A S T I C S 0.5
C O N G L O M E R A T E 0.5
Reservoir Lithology (C): FR A C T U R E D M E T A S E D IM E N 0.4
RESERVOIR FR A C T U R E D M E T A M O R F 0.4
FR A C T U R E D IG N E O U S R O C K S 0.4
ASSESSMENT C O A L 0.2
O T H E R S 0.2

Yes 0.99
Reservoir Fracture (D):
N o 0.0625

1 % – 1 0 % 0.5
Reservoir Porosity (E): 1 0 % – 2 0 % 0.9
> 2 0 % 0.99

Well 1
Reservoir Porosity Data F r o m (F):
Field 0.5

1 – 3 K M 0.9
Estimated Dep t h O f Reservoirs
3 – 4 K M 0.7
(G)
> 4 K M 0.6

Proven 1
Reservoirs Proven In Well (H)
N o Proven 0.0625

((A*B)+C+D+E+F+G+H)/7
Assessment

BPMIGAS (2010)
 T r a p D a t a Seismic T y p e ( A) : 2D 0.7
3D 0.9

<1980 0.6
T r a p D a t a Seismic Y e a r 1980 – 2000 0.7
Acquis ition ( B ) : 2000 – 2005 0.8
>2005 0.9

0 – 0.5 M 0.99
0.5 – 1 K M 0.99
T r a p D a t a Se is mic Line S p a c i n g 1 – 2K M 0.8
(C): 2 – 4K M 0.7
4 – 8K M 0.6
>8 K M 0.5

0 – 5 0.6
5 – 10 0.7
T r a p D a t a Seismic N u m b e r o f
10 – 15 0.8
Se is mic Line ( D ) :
15 – 20 0.9
>20 0.99

<1980 0.6
TRAP T r a p D a t a Seismic Y e a r 1980 – 2000 0.7
Reprocessing (E) : 2000 – 2005 0.8
ASSESSMENT >2005 0.9

<1980 0.6
T r a p D a t a Seismic Y e a r A d v a n c e 1980 – 2000 0.7
Reprocessing (F) : 2000 – 2005 0.8
>2005 0.9

Gravity
Multybeam
Trap Others Data Type (G) : Sattelite I ma g e
CSEM
IPDS

Poor 0.0625
T r a p O t h e r s D a t a Integr ity W i t h Fair 0.5
Seismic D a t a (H): Good 0.8
Excellent 0.9

Poor 0.0625
Fair 0.5
T r a p C lo s ur e Se is mic Quality (I):
Good 0.8
Excellent 0.9

Assessment ((A*B)+C+D+E+F+H+I)/7

BPMIGAS (2010)
 Very Near (0 – 2 K M ) 0.99
Dynamics Migration P a t hwa ys Near (2 – 5 K M ) 0.9
Position O f T r a p W i t h R e s p e c t T o M i ddl e ( 5 – 1 0 K M ) 0.8
Kitchen/Fetch Ar ea (A) Long (10 – 20 K M ) 0.6
Very Long ( > 2 0 K M ) 0.4

1 0.7
Dynamics Migration P a t hwa ys
2 0.75
Amount O f Sour c e R o c k In The
3 0.8
Oil W i n d o w Within F e t c h A r e a
4 0.85
(B)
>4 0.9

Vertikal 0.8
Dynamics Migration P a t hwa ys ( C )
Lateral 0.8
:
Vertical & Lateral 0.99

Dynamic Migration P a t hwa ys Proven 1

Connection O f Pathways to UnProven 0.0625
Reservoir (D): N o Pathways 0
DYNAMIC
Dynamics Preservation / Yes 0.99
ASSESSMENT Segregation P o s t Entrapment
T e c t o n i s m O r Fa ul t i ng ( E ) : No 0.0625

Dynamics Preservation / Yes 0.99

Segregation O n Displacement o f
Oil B y W a t e r or gas (F) : No 0.0625

Dynamics Preservation / Yes 0.99

Segregation O n Biodegradation
(G) : No 0.0625

Dynamics Preservation / Yes 0.99

Segregation Thermal Cracking
(H): No 0.0625

Dynamics Preservation / Yes 0.99

Segrega tion Preferential Migration
O f G a s ( I) : No 0.0625

Assessment (A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I)/9 BPMIG AS (2010)

PRMS (2007)
PRMS (2007)
 RESOURCES & RESERVES CLASSIFICATION

PRMS (2007)
Petronas Carigali (2006)
Petronas Carigali (2006)