हमारा समूह 1000 से अधिक वैज्ञानिक सोसायटी के सहयोग से हर साल संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका, यूरोप और एशिया में 3000+ वैश्विक सम्मेलन श्रृंखला कार्यक्रम आयोजित करता है और 700+ ओपन एक्सेस जर्नल प्रकाशित करता है जिसमें 50000 से अधिक प्रतिष्ठित व्यक्तित्व, प्रतिष्ठित वैज्ञानिक संपादकीय बोर्ड के सदस्यों के रूप में शामिल होते हैं।
ओपन एक्सेस जर्नल्स को अधिक पाठक और उद्धरण मिल रहे हैं
700 जर्नल और 15,000,000 पाठक प्रत्येक जर्नल को 25,000+ पाठक मिल रहे हैं
Mohammad Asif Mian
Petroleum reserves assessment is a routine exercise performed by every oil and gas company. The reserves estimation could be achieved using deterministic or probabilistic methods. Depending on the type of data available, different assumptions and data are used at various stages of the assessment throughout the E and P life cycle, i.e., exploration, appraisal, development, depletion and so on. The accuracy of the reserves estimate is highly dependent on the amount and quality of data available and experience of the evaluator. The estimates become more accurate and refined as more and more data become available. The objective of this paper is to urge the industry to rethink the terminology used for categorizing probabilistic reserves (P90, P50 and P10). As a routine practice, we consider 1P=P90=proved reserves, 2P=P50=proved +probable reserves and 3P=P10=proved+probable+possible reserves. The reserves categories depend on the range of uncertainty. It is shown here that P50 (or mean/median/expected value) is a more robust and logical value to be used for categorizing reserves. The P90 and P10 demonstrate confidence levels but not the magnitude/range of uncertainty. Some examples are presented in this paper to show that P50 (or mean) with its corresponding standard deviation (indication of uncertainty) could be more appropriately used to book and categorize reserves. The concept of Expected Value (EV) is also revisited as this is not correctly reported in some publications.