表紙
市場調查報告書

DHI (油氣層直接探勘) 帶給探勘效能的影響

The Impact of DHIs on Exploration Performance

出版商 Douglas-Westwood 商品編碼 923178
出版日期 內容資訊 英文
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
如有價格方面的疑問請按下「詢問」鍵來信查詢
DHI (油氣層直接探勘) 帶給探勘效能的影響 The Impact of DHIs on Exploration Performance
出版日期: 2020年01月27日內容資訊: 英文
簡介

本報告以企業的開採前報告的最多5個DHI (油氣層直接探勘) 為對象,提供探勘坑井的成功率調查,各DHI類型的成果,各探勘狀況的DHI成功率,及DHI成果的變化等分析。

第1章 簡介 & 資料集

第2章 各DHI類型的12年的成果

  • DHI支援全坑井
  • 單體DHI vs. 複數DHI的坑井
  • 根據DHI的支援影響大的坑井

第3章 DHI成功率:探勘各狀況

  • DHI成果:各play成熟度
  • DHI成果:各石油層年代
  • DHI成功率:各盆地
  • DHI成功率:各trap類型
    • 地層trap
    • 複合trap、其他

第4章 DHI及烴層

第5章 DHI成果的轉變

第6章 討論

第7章 結論

目錄

Report Summary

Westwood has investigated success rates for exploration wells which targeted the five direct hydrocarbon indicators (DHIs) most commonly reported by companies pre-drill; Flat Spot, Amplitude Anomaly, Amplitude vs Offset (AVO) Anomaly, Amplitude Conformance and Electro Magnetic (EM) Anomaly. The DHI dataset covers 536 prospects with publicly reported pre-drill DHI support drilled between 2008 and 2019 (end Q3) across a range of play maturities from frontier to mature, in 95 basins globally.

Prospects with DHIs had a higher than average technical success rate (TSR) over the ~12 year period, however, only Flat Spots, had a higher commercial success rate (CSR) (39%) than the benchmark average (30%). Prospects with other DHIs (Amplitude, AVO, Amplitude Conformance, & EM) were found to have below benchmark commercial success rates. DHIs worked well for de-risking the presence of hydrocarbons but were generally less reliable in improving the chance of commercial success.

The presence of a DHI was most likely to lead to a gas discovery with 71% of discoveries with reported DHIs encountering gas, gas condensate or gas and oil. 86% of discoveries with flat spots were gas rich.

DHIs were found to be most effective in frontier and emerging plays. The TSR and CSR for frontier wells targeting DHIs were 49% and 16% respectively, both substantially higher than the benchmark TSR and CSR for all frontier play tests of 34% of 8%.

In maturing and mature plays, prospects with reported DHIs had TSRs three percentage points above the benchmark average at 58%, whilst the average CSR was six percentage points lower than the benchmark at 28%. Mature play DHI success rates globally were brought down by the mature plays of UK, Norway and Australia where success rates were particularly poor.

AVO supported prospects performed below the benchmark average for both TSR and CSR over the entire period highlighting a potential systemic misuse of AVO's as an exploration tool.

Commercial success rates for wells targeting all non-specific DHIs have shown a marked improvement in the last five-year period increasing from a low of 16% in 2013 to 45% in 2019. In the period 2015 to 2019 Q3, CSRs for DHI wells averaged 34%, in line with the global benchmark. This improved performance is driven mainly by improved CSRs in wells targeting DHI supported stratigraphic trap prospects. The industry seems to have reduced the number of false positives and learned that combining consistently well-conditioned seismic data with sound geological models is the key to applying DHIs effectively.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction & Dataset

2. 12-year performance of different types of DHI

  • 2.1. All DHI supported wells 2008-3Q 2019
  • 2.2. Wells with single DHIs versus multiple DHIs
  • 2.3. High Impact wells supported by DHIs

3. DHI success rates by exploration context

  • 3.1. DHI Performance by play maturity
  • 3.2. DHI performance by reservoir age
  • 3.3. DHI success rates by basin
  • 3.4. DHI success rates by trap type (all play maturities)
    • Stratigraphic Traps
    • Combination Traps
    • Faulted Traps
    • 4-way dip Traps

4. DHIs and hydrocarbon phase

5. DHI performance over time

6. Discussion

7. Conclusions