About This Item
- Full TextFull Text(subscription required)
- Pay-Per-View PurchasePay-Per-View
Purchase Options Explain
Share This Item
Schoellkopf, N. B.,
Quantitative Assessment of Hydrocarbon Charge Risk in New Ventures Exploration: Are We Fooling Ourselves?
Noelle B. Schoellkopf1
1Chevron Energy Technology, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
I thank Marek Kacewicz, Ken Peters, and an anonymous reviewer for taking the time to comment on this article. Their suggestions were useful and pertinent and I believe have improved the text.
Basin modeling software includes tools to statistically vary model input parameters, such as fetch area, depth, source thickness, total organic carbon, hydrogen index, temperature gradient, or heat flow, and consider the impact on fluid phase and volumes. We can rank these parameters, but we should be aware of pitfalls. The underlying geologic assumptions may account for the greatest uncertainty in new basin areas, where data are sparse and models remain poorly calibrated. Modeling tools must be flexible enough to allow multiple working hypotheses within the project time frame.
These multiple hypotheses are best evaluated by an integrated project team that includes the basin modeler. The team members' shared knowledge of regional basin history, tectonics, stratigraphy, and source rock depositional models can provide an advantage in weighing alternative geologic scenarios and hydrocarbon charge risk.
This chapter provides seven examples of modeling pitfalls based on new ventures exploration studies performed using a combination of flow path and two-dimensional models. Although not representative of all possible pitfalls, these examples illustrate the substantial impact of some pitfalls on model outcome.
Pay-Per-View Purchase Options
The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.
|Protected Document: $10|
|Internal PDF Document: $14|
|Open PDF Document: $24|