Despite the perception of lucrative earnings in the oil industry, various authors have noted that industry performance is routinely below expectations. For example, Brashear et al. (2001) noted that average return was around 7% in the 1990s, despite using typical project hurdle rates of at least 15%. The underperformance is generally attributed to poor project evaluation and selection due to chronic bias. While a number of authors have investigated cognitive biases in oil and gas project evaluation, there have been few quantitative studies of the impact of biases on economic performance. We believe that incomplete investigation and possible underestimation of the impact of biases in project evaluation and selection are at least partially responsible for persistence of these biases. The objectives of our work were to determine quantitatively the value of assessing uncertainty or, alternatively, the cost of underestimating uncertainty. In this paper we present a new framework for assessing the monetary impact of overconfidence bias and directional bias (i.e., optimism or pessimism) on portfolio performance. For moderate amounts of overconfidence and optimism, expected disappointment was 30-35% of estimated NPV for the industry portfolios and optimization cases we analyzed. Greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism resulted in expected disappointments approaching 100% of estimated NPV. Comparison of modeling results with industry performance in the 1990s indicates that these greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism have been experienced in the industry. The value of reliably quantifying uncertainty is reducing or eliminating expected disappointment (having realized NPV substantially less than estimated NPV) and expected decision error (selecting the wrong projects). Expected disappointment and decision error can be reduced by focusing primarily on elimination of overconfidence; other biases are taken care of in the process. Elimination of expected disappointment will improve industry performance overall to the extent that superior projects are available and better quantification of uncertainty allows identification of these superior projects.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractProper field management for optimal performance of hydrocarbon reservoirs must capture the interdependence of the subsurface reservoir behavior and surface facility constraints. In this work we describe how full coupling improved development of a Saudi field by reducing water production by 30% while maintaining the target plateau for the required period of time.This was achieved by an iterative procedure that was able to devise an optimal producing strategy. The strategy involved time-dependent well production/injection rate allocations in response to field behavior. The strategy devised take into account production network constraints, network bottlenecks/under-utilization, and reservoir engineering complexities in producing three different reservoirs that make up the field.
Despite the perception of lucrative earnings in the oil industry, various authors have noted that industry performance is routinely below expectations. For example, the average reported return for the industry was around 7% in the 1990s, even though a typical project hurdle rate was at least 15%. The underperformance is generally attributed to poor project evaluation and selection due to chronic bias. While a number of authors have investigated cognitive biases in oil and gas project evaluation, there have been few quantitative studies of the impact of biases on economic performance.Incomplete investigation and possible underestimation of the impact of biases in project evaluation and selection are at least partially responsible for persistence of these biases.The objectives of this work were to determine quantitatively the value of assessing uncertainty or, alternatively, the cost of underestimating uncertainty. This work presents a new framework for assessing the monetary impact of overconfidence bias and directional bias (i.e., optimism or pessimism) on portfolio performance. For moderate amounts of overconfidence and optimism, expected disappointment (having realized NPV less than estimated NPV) was 30-35% of estimated NPV for typical industry portfolios and optimization cases. Greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism resulted in expected disappointments approaching 100% of estimated NPV.Comparison of simulation results with expected industry performance in the 1990s, indicates that these greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism have been experienced in the industry.iii The value of reliably quantifying uncertainty is in reducing or eliminating expected disappointment and expected decision error (selecting the wrong projects), which is achieved by focusing primarily on elimination of overconfidence; other biases are taken care of in the process. Elimination of expected disappointment will improve industry performance overall to the extent that superior projects are available and better quantification of uncertainty allows identification of these superior projects.iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.