Uncertainty Quantification of an Asset Evaluation for an Oilfield Property Incorporating Response-Surface Monte-Carlo Simulation with Stochastic Oil Price Models
Free accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2013
Uncertainty Quantification of an Asset Evaluation for an Oilfield Property Incorporating Response-Surface Monte-Carlo Simulation with Stochastic Oil Price Models
This study analyzes the sensitivities parameters for a reliable asset evaluation, through response-surface monte-carlo simulation. The developed model yields more reliable asset evaluation integrating contractual terms, oil price changes, and production-decline estimation and distinguishes the significance of each variable. The uncertainty explains the larger range of the response. The sensitive variables in stochastic price models to net present value are drift in GBM (Geometric Brownian Motion), equilibrium price in MR (Mean Reversion), and maximum price in MRJ (Mean Reversion with Jumps). Reserves and average oil price influence significantly the cash-flow under fixed contractual terms.
Al-HarthyM.H., 2007. Stochastic oil price models: Comparison and impact. The Engineering Economist52(3), 269–284.
2.
ArpsJ.J. and MemberA.I.M.E., 1945. Analysis of decline curves. Transactions of the AIME160(1), 228–247.
3.
BeggS.H. and SmitN., 2007. Sensitivity of project economics to uncertainty in type and parameters of oil price models. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, November 11–14, Anaheim, California, US. (SPE paper 110812).
4.
BukhariA.A. and JablonowskiC.J., 2012. Optimization of production allocation under price uncertainty: Relating price model assumptions to decisions. Presented at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, April 16–18, Mexico City, Mexico. (SPE paper 151673).
5.
DejeanJ.P. and BlancG., 1999. Managing uncertainties on production predictions using integrated statistical methods. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 3–6, Huston, US. (SPE paper 56696).
6.
DiasM. and RochaK., 1999. Petroleum concessions with extendible options using mean reversion with jumps to model oil price. Presented at 3rd Annual International Conference on Real Options, June 6–8, Wassenaar, Leiden, Netherlands.
7.
DixitA.K. and PindyckR.S., 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, NJ.
8.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012. Department of Energy, Washington DC.
9.
HultzchP.LakeL.W. and GilbertR.B., 2008. Uncertainty estimation through the life of the field. Energy Exploration and Exploitation26(3), 175–195.
10.
KodukulaP. and PapudesuC., 2006. Project Valuation Using Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide. J. Ross Publishing, Florida, US, pp. 85–92.
11.
KomlosiZ.P., 2001. Application: Monte carlo simulation in risk evaluation of E & P projects. Presented at SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, April 2–3, Dallas, Texas, US. (SPE paper 68578).
12.
LaughtonD., 2003. Effect of input price uncertainty on asset valuation. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 5–8, Denver, Colorado, US. (SPE paper 84236).
13.
OlsenG.T.FariyibiF.L.LeeW.J. and McVayD.A., 2005. Price uncertainty quantification models advance project economic evaluations. Presented at SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, April 3–5, Dallas, US. (SPE Paper 94610).
14.
ParkC.KangJ.M., and AhnT., 2009. A stochastic approach for integrating market and technical uncertainties in economic evaluations of petroleum development. Petroleum Science6(3), 319–326.
15.
PeletM., 2003. Real options in petroleum: Geometric brownian motion and mean-reversion with Jumps: MS Thesis, Oxford University, UK, pp. 13–34.
16.
PindyckR.S., 1999. The long-run evolution of energy prices. The Energy Journal20(2), 1–27.
17.
RavagnaniA.LimaG.A.C.BarretoC.E.A.G.MuneratoF.P. and SchiozerD.J., 2012. Comparative analysis of optimal oil production strategy using royalty & tax and production sharing petroleum fiscal models. Presented at North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, February 20–22, Cairo, Egypt. (SPE paper 150907).
18.
SchiozerR.F.LimaG.A.C. and SuslickS.B., 2008. The pitfalls of capital budgeting when costs correlate to oil price. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology47(8), 57–61.
19.
ShawW.T., 2006. Sampling student's T distribution: Use of the inverse cumulative distribution function. Journal of Computational Finance9(4), 37–73.
20.
WangZ.ZhaoL., and LiuM., 2010. Impacts of PSC elements on contract economics under oil price uncertainty. Presented at International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE), May 7–9. Guangzhou, China, pp. 2708–2711.
21.
WhiteC.D. and RoyerS.A., 2003. Experimental design as a framework for reservoir studies. Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, February 3–5, Houston, Texas, US. (SPE paper 79676).
22.
ZhouY. and YanL., 2010. Evaluation of an oilfield development project using mean-reversion motion and mean-reversion with jumps. Presented at International Conference on E-Product, E-Service, and E-Entertainment (ICEEE), November 7–9, Henan, China.
