PLAY BASED

EXPLORATION
A GUIDE FOR AAPGS IMPERIAL
BARREL AWARD PARTICIPANTS
Provided by Royal Dutch Shell

WEST GREENLAND

GOOD GEOLOGY VERSUS

SOUND BUSINESS
DECISIONS

TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Chapter

Page

Introduction 2
I - The Play Based Exploration Pyramid

II - Basin Focus: The Foundation

11

III - Play Focus

19

IV - From Play Focus to Prospect Focus

39

V - Play Based Exploration in our Ventures

45

APPENDIX - Quantitative Aspects of Play-Based Exploration

51

INTRODUCTION

Efficiency improvement also results from having a

better focus on our most valuable plays. The whole
approach provides greater technical rigour, and
hence quicker, more confident decisions, even with

Play Based Exploration, or PBE, is a phrase that

partial or incomplete data. New play Growth is

is being heard more and more frequently as

enabled by the creativity and innovation that can

Explorers return to their geological roots in the

be unleashed most effectively at the level of basin

increasingly demanding search for exploration

or petroleum system understanding.

opportunities, in particular those which offer the

potential to add material hydrocarbon volumes

The PBE methodology is encapsulated in the

to our portfolio.

Exploration Pyramid, where the initial focus is

on the basics - the determination and description

Many of you will have encountered the concepts of

of the regional context and the basin framework

Play-Based Exploration during training. For you, this

leading to an understanding of the working

booklet is intended as reminder of the essentials

petroleum system(s).

of PBE. For those who have not yet experienced

Prospect focus
Play focus

Basin focus

the training, this is an introduction to the concepts,

Petroleum system understanding forms the basis for

and we hope will encourage you to find out more

the subsequent play focus - quantifying the various

details from your technical advisors.

aspects of the system within each play, and using

tools such as common risk segment mapping to

What exactly is Play Based Exploration? It

highlight sweet spots within each play.

is simply a method to build and leverage an

understanding of the basins and petroleum systems

When the plays have been mapped and where

in which we work, and the geological plays

possible, quantified, then the focus shifts again to

they contain. The benefits lie in providing better

use more detailed geological and geophysical

early Focus to a range of exploration activities.

analysis to define prospects within each play, and

build the portfolio, including making estimates of

significant acreage in recent years using essentially

volumetrics, risk and uncertainty.

a play-based approach, and much of this growth is

PBE, admittedly, requires up front investment

in areas new to Shell. Play Based Exploration will

of time if the regional play framework has not

also be essential in the fast and effective evaluation

already been defined. However, that investment

of these ventures. It will also play a vital role in in

will be repaid by swifter and simpler assessment

evaluating new plays in our existing areas.

of individual prospects, and in the quality of

subsequent decisions.

The most important effort to improve exploration

performance is, by far, the rebuilding of a play-

Using a play-based approach, or regional

based approach to exploration. This can quickly

understanding, is not new to Shell. However, in

lead to more opportunity identification through

the 1990s, particularly when the oil price was

better understanding of petroleum systems,

low, an asset focus characterised exploration, with

more coveted prospects on competitor acreage,

near-field opportunities to add value fast being

better risking, better POS polarisation, and more

given priority over more wildcat type exploration.

efficient exploration campaigns.

This filled the needs of the times, but could not be

sustained in terms of consistently adding volumes to
our portfolio.
With the need now to add more material
exploration opportunities, we are rediscovering the
regional approach to geology which had been
somewhat neglected in the detailed evaluation of
individual blocks and prospects.
Our new ventures team has successfully added

Chapter I

THE PLAY BASED

EXPLORATION PYRAMID
SFR Maturation
Prospect Identification
Prospect level
Evaluation

Prospect focus*

Prospect
Portfolio
Volumetrics
Risk
Uncertainty
Prospect Image
Geologic Models
Geophysical Evaluation

Play Creation
Basin & Play
Evaluation

Play focus*

Basin focus

Play quantification Lead

Play mapping,
FSD analogues
Portfolio CRS Mapping, Uncertainty
Lead density
Exploration history
Sequence Stratigraphy
Petroleum Systems
4D Basin History

MISSISSIPPI

Plate setting
Tectonostratigraphic frame
Megasequences, Basin Fil

Regional maps
Data management
Mining legacy knowledge

fication

The fundamental elements or building blocks of

selected prospects from a portfolio. A geological

the PBE methodology are represented by the PBE

model is built and then volumetrics, technical risk

Pyramid. It is organised into levels of Basin, Play

and confidence assessed for a range of models

and Prospect focus with appropriate key inputs and

and prospects.

activities identified.
New Venture opportunity evaluation usually occurs
Basin Focus

at the lower part of the pyramid (basin-to-play focus

The essential ingredients for the petroleum

levels). Decisions are typically made about selecting

system are verified by examining the basin as

the right basin, the right play and then the best

a whole. Elements such as the plate setting,

acreage (sweet spots) for investment.

tectonostratigraphic framework and basin history

determine the fill, stratigraphic sequences and

Detailed prospect level evaluation activities occur

potential for generating and trapping hydrocarbons.

in the upper part of the pyramid both for new and

Prospect focus*

Play focus
An understanding of the petroleum system in the

Prospect

existing
Portfolio ventures, turning geological leads from the
Uncertainty
Prospect Image
Geologic Models
Geophysical Evaluation

To be done well, these prospect evaluations need

basin leads to the identification, mapping and

quantification of plays within the basin. Existing

to be carried out with a firm grounding in the

knowledge is summarised in play element, summary

play context.

Play focus*

play maps, and common risk segment maps,

leading to the identification of sweet spots.

Basin focus

Prospect focus
Most play execution activity is concerned with

Key Decisions
Prospect
Maturation

Volumetrics
play
inventory into firm, drillable prospects.
Risk

Play quantification Lead

Play mapping,
FSD analogues
Portfolio CRS Mapping, Uncertainty
Lead density
Exploration history
Sequence Stratigraphy
Petroleum Systems
4D Basin History

Plate setting
Tectonostratigraphic frame
Megasequences, Basin Fil

Regional maps
Data management
Mining legacy knowledge

New Data Iteration

(Wells, seismic etc.)

Key Decisions

NV Opportunity
Maturation

defining prospects - seismic evaluation and other

maturation activities, and eventually drilling

THE FOUNDATION OF A
GOOD PROSPECT INVENTORY

quality assurance tollgates at the conclusion of

each of the basin and play focus levels that allow
us to proceed with confidence to the next level of

The pyramid shows the importance of the

evaluation. Our understanding at each of the levels

foundations - the solid understanding of the basins

is not static - there is an iterative feedback loop

and plays needed to build a good prospect

that takes new information from drilling, studies etc.

inventory and select the best of these for drilling. An

back to the appropriate level to update the totality

inventory built upon an incomplete understanding

of knowledge.

at the play or petroleum system will not be optimal.

Play-based exploration can be seen as having

Petroleum Systems, Plays and Prospects

Prospect - a potential trap, a successful prospect turns into an oil/gas field when drilled or disappears
DETAIL

Prospect

when it is unsuccessful. Many can exist in one play.

COST

Play Segment - subdivision of a geologic play. Fields and prospects that share common geological
Play Segment

controls and thus a common PoS profile.

Play - a group of hydrocarbon fields and prospects having a chance for charge, reservoir, and trap and

Play

belonging to a geologically related stratigraphic unit (eg - the Upper Jurassic play).
Petroleum System - a natural system that links an active or once active source rock to all of the geologic

Petroleum System

elements and processes that are essential for a hydrocarbon accumulation to exist in time and space
regardless of economics.

Where we know it

Risking

12

Assessment

Volume found in
Volume found in Play

Denition

12

Play Focus Workow

Basin characterisationWhat we know, where we

2nd
3rd
1st
8 Identify plays
B know it (page 24)
Well Test Count Assessment
Play Denition (page 20)
Quantitative
(page
17)
framework
KEY WORKFLOWS
A2PlayTectonostratigraphic
Definition
B What we know, where we
ommon Risk
D Quantitative Assesment
7 Trap
distribution
Common
Risk Segment
Segment
(page
12)CC CMapping
(page
52)
4 Basin evolution (page
13)
2nd
3rd
1st
know
it - we
Playknow,
Element
and Play
What
where
we
(page
20)
(page
28)
(page 52)
Mapping
(page
28)
(page
B Summary
A
Play Denition (page 20)
Quantitative Assessment
D16)
Mapping
(page
24)
know it (page 24)
Well Test Count
(page 52)
KM
3 Sequence analysis
Play Creaming Curve
0
These are the key workflows that together
Risk Segment
C Common
Mapping (page 28)

What we know
Where we know it

CRS
Risking

Quantitative
Assessment

KM
0

Play Creaming Curve

Volume found in Play

12

B
12

1 Basinrock,
characterisation
5 Source
reservoir,

What we know, where we

know it (page 24)

} }

Volume found in Play

Play
Denition

2nd

1st

3rd

Well Test Count

Common Risk Segment

(page 28)
8Mapping
Identify
plays

1B
 asin characterisation
(page 24)

TERT

3 Sequence analysis

(page 17)

(page 12)

1st

SR
MATURITY
RES/SEAL
TRAP

2nd

3rd

Well Test Count

Common Risk4 Segment

4 Basin evolution (page
(page 13) 28)

4 Basin evolutionMapping
(page 13)

4B
 asin evolution
(page 13)Source

7 Trap (page
distribution
16)

5S
 ource rock, reservoir, seal
distribution (page 13)
reservoir,

5
rock,
seal distribution
1 Basin characterisation
(page
13)
2 Tectonostratigraphic
framework

plays
(page 17)

seal distribution
(page 13)

TERT

CRET

TERT

CRET

JUR

JUR

TRIAS
PERM
CARB

5 Source rock, reservoir,

5 Source rock,
reservoir,
seal distribution
seal distribution
(page 13)
(page 13)

Assess
petroleum
system
6 Assess petroleum
system
(page 14)
(page 14)

DEV

(page 12)

5 Source rock,Identify
reservoir,

(page 16)

8 Identify plays
(page 17)

TRIAS
PERM
CARB

3 Sequence analysis

7 Trap(page
distribution
16)

7 Trap distribution

Basin evolution (page 13)

DEV

Basin focus

CRET

2 Tectonostratigraphic framework

What we know, where we

3 Sequence analysis
know it (page 24)
(page 24)

Play focus

JUR

DEV

framework
(page 24)

TRIAS
PERM
CARB

(page 17)
seal
distribution
2 Tectonostratigraphic
framework (page
6 Asses
petroleum system
7 Trap distribution
12)
1 Basin characterisation
8 Identify
plays 16)
(page 13)
Assess petroleum
system
(page614)
(page
7 Trap distribution
3 Sequence analysis
(page 17)
2
Tectonostratigraphic
framework
(page12)14)
Basin evolution (page 13)
(page
(page 16
2 Tectonostratigraphic
1
Basin
characterisation
3 Sequence analysis
8 Identify plays

Basin Focus Workflow

form the Basin and Play level Focus

Play Focus Workflow

SR
MATURITY
RES/SEAL
TRAP

Assess petroleum system

TERT

CRET

CRET
TERT

JUR

(page 14)

TRIAS
PERM
JUR
CARB

PERM
CARB

DEV

DEVTRIAS

6 Assess(page
petroleum
14) system
SR

MATURITY
RES/SEAL
TRAP
SR
MATURITY

4 Basin evolution (page 13)

7 Trap

RES/SEAL
SR
TRAP
9
MATURITY
RES/SEAL
distribution
TRAP

Chapter II

BASIN FOCUS:
THE FOUNDATION
The basis of Play-Based Exploration
Basin

type, fill and structural evolution are

the critical elements that build and combine to

define a working Petroleum System.

Geologic boundaries are defined that later

translate to the natural boundaries for the
reservoir, entrapment and charge play elements.

Determine the hydrocarbon generation, flux,

and timing.

Together, these elements define the hydrocarbon

potential for the basin.

10

OMAN MOUNTAINS WALIBAS

Basin focus

Sequence Stratigraphy
Petroleum Systems
4D Basin History
Plate setting
Tectonostratigraphic frame
Megasequences, Basin Fil

Regional maps
Data management
Mining legacy knowledge

STEPS 1-3
Basin characterisation,
tectonostratigraphic framework
and sequence analysis
The tectonic setting(s) of a basin is a primary control
on structural architecture, stratigraphic fill, source
rock distribution, thermal history, and the foundation
for understanding petroleum systems, plays and
ultimately, prospectivity. All that follows in play-

Synrift

Post Rift

Oceanic

Continental

Pre-rift

based exploration builds upon this foundation. Early

identification of Megasequences is an essential part
of the basin-fill analysis.

Megasequence: A group of related

depositional sequences, bounded by major

Syn-rift facies (section view)

regional unconformities, created in response

to large-scale processes such as plate
tectonics and eustacy. Influenced to a lesser
degree by depositional rates. Examples: of
megasequences are Syn-Rift, Passive Margin.
(A basin fill will typically contain several distinct
megasequences.)

11

STEP 4-5

STEP 6

Basin evolution, source rock, reservoir

self consistent - from structural development and

Assess petroleum system

and seal distribution

assessment of accommodation space, to sediment

Initial steps involve integrating all the hydrocarbon

Determining the basin evolution is essential to

thickness, to the facies filling the space.

occurrence data such as source rock observations

understanding the basin fill pattern through time

The maps should be annotated and the source of

from well penetrations and outcrops, oil and

and ultimately, the creation of the 4D model that

the interpretations as well as the confidence should

gas in wells, piston core extracts, seeps, slicks,

in turn serves as the foundation of the Petroleum

be described.

hydrates and direct hydrocarbon indicators from

System Analysis. The basin evolution should be

seismic data.
Present day maturity can tell us the integrated
history of a source interval. On their own, however,
maturity assessments and maps can sometimes be

Middle Miocene facies

Middle Miocene facies

Middle Miocene
Middle
Miocene
structure &&accomodatio
spacespace
structure
accommodation

Middle Miocene isopach

Middle Miocene isopach

misleading. To better understand the petroleum

system, you can also look at hydrocarbon flux
through time. For example, to pose an important
question - Does the charge timing fit with the timing
of reservoir deposition and trap formation?
Petroleum systems analysis involves more than
traditional charge modelling.
A complete understanding of charge modelling
covers aspects of reservoir conditions through time.
This is taken into account using programs such as
Cauldron and Gridcharger.
The petroleum system can be characterised most

12

simply by an events chart. It will usually take more

TERT

CRET

JUR

TRIAS

PERM

CARB

basin adequately.

Petroleum System Events Chart

DEV

than one chart to describe the variability across the

The events chart helps identify the critical moment

when all elements of a viable petroleum system are

SR
MATURITY
RES/SEAL
TRAP

first in place.

Reservoir temperature
Reservoir
temp.

Reservoir
Reservoirporosity
porosity

Maturity
Maturity(VRE)
(VRE)

Oil flux
ux(today)
(today)

(Note the spatial relationship

between present day flux and
HC occurrence in red.)

13

STEP 7
Trap distribution
Palinspastic reconstructions (opposite) can provide

and mappable. Properties such as trap timing, size

information on the timing of structural development.

distribution, and structural lead spacing are similar

Structural domains are generally spatially distinct

within these domains.

Lead density variation by

structural
domain
Structural Domains and
Trap Timing

Mini Basin
5-10 /1000km2

12 - 2
14

-4

9-0
10 - 2

14 - 4

Fold/Thrust Belts
5-7/1000km2

5-0

Line of section

Structural Domains and Trap Timing

14

Inner Foldbelt Minibasin W

NE

Inner Fold Belts

3-5 /1000km2

Today

STEP 8
Identify plays
What plays are present in the petroleum system?

Reconstruction - Lower Miocene

Thrustbelt E

15

Chapter III

PLAY FOCUS
In the basin focus identify plays leads us into the
next level of the PBE pyramid - Play Focus.
Play Focus Workflow
Play Play
Definition
Defenition

16

BAHAMAS - CARBONATE SHOALS

Play focus

What
know
What
weweknow
Where we
we know
know itit
Where

Play Quantification
FSD Analogues
Lead density

CRS CRS
Risking
Risking

Lead
Portfolio

Quantitative
Quantitive
Assessment
Asessment

Play Mapping,
CRS Mapping, uncertainty
Exploration history

THE PLAY FOCUS WORKFLOW

Step D. Quantitative Assessment - Estimate

Stratigraphic Framework North Alaska

volumetric scope and materiality (see appendix).

Plays Studied:

Step A. Play Definition - Take observations from

Basin Focus and determine the logical number
each play.

STEP A: Play Definition,

Stratigraphic

Step B. Understanding what we know and

Stratigraphic definition encompasses the key

where we know it - Assemble a play test

reservoir and entrapment elements of the play and

database, which wildcats had technical success

allows the main structural variation to be captured

or failure after testing the play, identify why key

as segments of the play area. A single play

wells failed. Show geological boundaries for the

map representing the entire section will probably

elements of the petroleum system: creating play

represent a misleading grouping of several different

element maps of reservoir, charge and entrapment

distinct plays through the section.

of discrete plays, and the areal distribution of

(lithologic and structural elements of seal) and build

a summary play map. In the absence of sufficient

Stratigraphic play boundaries should:

calibration data, identify appropriate analogues to

Be no less detailed than megasequences.

build a model for the play.

Reflect the maximum amount of detail of our

Step C. CRS (Common Risk Segment) Mapping

Upper
Brookian

Lower
Brookian

Kamik/LCU
Beaufortian

Sadlerochit

current geological understanding.

and Risking - Use play element maps and well data
to define dependent and independent risk factors in

Have a clear line-of-sight back to our

exploration objectives.

Lisbourne/
Endicott

the context of the proper confidence level. Convolve

these maps to define the play sweet spots
and reality-check the maps against the existing
prospect portfolio.

17

Plays are defined stratigraphically either by

Play boundaries commonly share a sequence

As a rule of thumb, a megasequence is the

a significant change in the play elements:

stratigraphically controlled horizon (e.g.,

minimum level of fidelity for play analysis. Since

a regional unconformity, mega-sequence boundary

a megasequence is observable on even sparse,

or maximum flooding surface).

greenfield basin data, most areas can be evaluated

A major bounding seal.

Gross depositional environment in the section.

Petroleum system (for example,

The primary criterion for delineating plays is

a younger source),

regional or master seal, usually associated with

using play-based methods, even if there is no access

to a complete set of detailed information.

second- or third-order flooding surfaces. These

While a useful minimum threshold for defining plays,

or other significant changes in the working

regional seals often form migration barriers that

in most cases the use of megasequence boundaries

geological model.

can affect a whole family of prospects.

grossly oversimplifies the number of stratigraphic

plays. Typically, there are several vertical grossdepositional environment changes within
a single megasequence.

KM
0

play 1
play 2
MFS

Shelf
B.G. Slope
Prodelta shale
Toe of Slope

18

play 3
MFS

MFS
MFS

12

Play Definition, areal

The areal play outline shown by the green colour
below represents the maximum vertical coincidence
of all of the elements of the petroleum system for this

Extent of
Traps

Extent of
regional top
steal

play: reservoir, charge and seal.

Field

The play sweetspot should be a boundary outside

of which there is ZERO chance that the play will be

PLAY
SWEETSPOT

found (e.g.- reservoir and seal are totally eroded,

source rock is at 10m below surface, etc).

Reservoir
Extent

Extent of
Mature
source rock

Play Focus Workflow

Play
Definition

What we know
Where we know it

CRS
Risking

Quantitative
Assessment

19

STEP B: What do we know?

Where do we know it?

analysis on key wells is a crucial step in finding

A good play element map and play summary

why and where risk elements worked or didnt

map should reflect geologic boundaries and:

work.

Understanding the drilling history of the basin within

Display wells within the stratigraphic play as

technical successes or failures

the context of the plays is fundamental in tested

For each element of the petroleum system (reservoir,

basins. It yields a basic framework with which to

charge and entrapment), create a map of

interpret play boundaries, estimate chance and

boundaries, or segments that describe what we

confidence (PoS), calculate technical success rates,

know and where we know it.

Have annotations of why lines were drawn and

what data were used.

Not be complex - capture the geologic trends

for the chance factor: show how an exploration

and deduce the critical risk element(s).

sweet spot in this play would occur.

Play Test Analysis

1. Which wells are a valid test of a play?

A valid, play-testing exploration wildcat well is

Is a well a
play test?

Was it a technical
success or failure?

If a failure why?

where the objective sequence had a chance to

find trap, reservoir, seal and charge.

Building Play Element and Play Summary maps Two factors should be balanced:

2. Which play-testing wells were

1. Make the boundaries as numerous as necessary

technical successes?

to define the geology that drives

A technical success is a well with a flowable

success/ failure of a given chance factor.

in-place volume at the formation level. This

key definition is the threshold by which we risk
prospects and plays.

2. Make the boundaries simple enough to relate

back to definable geological trends
that speak to the interpreter or decision-maker.

3. Was the play-testing well a technical failure,

and if so, why?

In some cases, the play element maps can be

Example: Reservoir Element (Segment) Map

Understanding wildcat failure may be more

used across several plays (maturity and source rock

N.B: If you dont capture the rationale, then

important than documenting successes. Failure

distribution, for example).

subsequent explorers may not understand the maps.

20

Input data example

Focus map
ARC Gis/
Openworks Concessions
Partnerships
Source and Maturity Map
SR Quality
Flux map
Temperature
Slicks/seeps
Fetch map
Inversion Timing
Top Seal Isopach Map
TA I Fault seal risk
TAII Pressure Analysis
Timing
Reservoir Facies Map
Isopach
Porosity/PermNet/
Net to Gross

AVO/
Amplitudes
Provenance

Top Reservoir Structure Map

Tectono-strat Timing
Velocity Sensitivity
Fault Analysis
Database Map
Wells/Penetration Map
Success/Failure analysis
Risk statistics
Field Analogues
Creaming Curves/FSDs
21

Play segment boundaries:

convert that knowledge into predictive models that

Should represent a significant change in geological

define the probability of success.

model. E.g. a facies boundary as the boundary

between shelf and slope depositional environments,

Should be segmented to contain an appropriate

location of sediment input points, channels, fan

amount of subdivision.

systems, delta lobes, etc. Two prospects drilled in

Ensure that boundaries are consistent with

relatively close proximity to, but on either side of

geological controls that drive large changes in

this boundary will usually have different chances

technical success/ failure (e.g., VRE boundary,

of success.

migration focus areas, facies, structural domains,

etc.).

Should identify where confidence changes

significantly.

Boundaries (segments) should always be drawn

Confidence reflects the density/ quality of

based on geologic features, and not be drawn

information available and the interpreters ability to

just to fit a well or prospect.

Play Focus Workflow

Play
Definition

22

What we know
Where we know it

CRS
Risking

Quantitative
Assessment

STEP C:
Common Risk Segment (CRS)
mapping and risking

There are four steps to the CRS Risking workflow:

1. Determine the confidence level of the chance
Maastricht Chance Factors

Typical CRS
Chance factor Maps

PLAY RESERVOIR

Common Risk Segment: (CRS):

Play

An area on a map that contains the same

PLAY RECOVERY
SR + PLAY CHARGE
PLAY STRUCTURE

general chance for success (PoS) and

REGIONAL SEAL
PROSPECT RESERVOIR

charge, seal or structure, as defined in Shells

PROSPECT RECOVERY

Maastricht risking template.

Prospect

confidence for a given chance factor: reservoir,

PROSPECT CHARGE
PROSPECT STRUCTURE
PROSPECT TOP SEAL

factor for which you are assigning PoS

2. Assign a Play PoS to the segments

Play PoS Reservoir

3. Assign a Lead PoS to the segments

Play PoS Charge

4. Create an amalgamated total PoS map and

Play PoS Entrapment

perform a reality check.

CRS Risking

Lead PoS Reservoir

Lead PoS Charge
Lead PoS Entrapment

Determine
confidence level

Assign
Play PoS

Assign ave.
Lead PoS

Perform the
reality check

CRS mapping and risking uses all available

(data quality and/ or density). Probability values are

For some people it is easier to start from a view on

geological and exploration history data to create a

assigned to each segment.

the total pos for a chance factor, and then separate

out the shared (play PoS) and local (independent or

view of the play-scale risks and dependencies.

This work follows upon the play element mapping,

lead PoS).

and uses the boundaries (segments) created during

The number of maps or chance factors that go into

that work.

the CRS mapping exercise may vary, but experience

has shown that play-level and prospect-level maps

The play is divided into segments with similar

for Reservoir, Charge and Entrapment are usually

probability characteristics, with the boundaries

sufficient to describe the risks. If more are needed,

reflecting changes in either geology, or confidence

make sure they are included.

23

Determine confidence levels

MEDIUM: Existing geologic models help to show

for each segment

where the chance factor may work. Intermediate

to coarse 2D seismic exists, some regional maps

What are typical confidence levels for

and geological models of play elements have been

play analysis?

made. Play testing wells may or may not exist.

HIGH: Existing geologic models are robust enough

to predict confidently where the chance factor

LOW: Very little to no primary or secondary data

is a success or failure. Several valid, analyzed

exist to support a geologic model or suggest

play-testing wells exist. Dense 2D or 3D seismic

where the chance factor works. Little or no seismic

with good imaging exists on which play elements

coverage. Quick-look analysis relying primarily on

(charge, reservoir, entrapment) can be mapped or

analogue data.

modelled, play analogues exist.

High Condence example:
Central Luconia (Malaysia) TB 2.4 - 2.6 carbonates
P
P
P

High Confidence example:

Several, well understood play tests

Extensive seismic
Mapped charge, reservoir and seal play
elements

Central Luconia (Malaysia) TB

2.4 - 2.6 carbonates
Several, well understood
play tests
Total PoS

Extensive seismic
Mapped charge, reservoir
and seal play elements

24

Medium Condence example:

Mackenzie Delta (Canada), Taglu base of Slope Turbidites
P
P
P

Sparse valid play tests in similar play segment

Regional 2-D seismic
Reservoir facies model
A

KM
0
4

Shelf
B.G. Slope
Prodelta shale
Toe of Slope

Reservoir mylar
Valid play tests

Medium Confidence example:

Mackenzie Delta (Canada),
Taglu base of Slope Turbidites

12

Condence map

Sparse valid play tests in

similar play segment

Total PoS

Regional 2-D seismic

Reservoir facies model

Low Confidence example:

Colombia River Basin sub-basalt
Continental clastics
No sub-basalt image
Magnetotellurics map

Speculative stratigraphic column based

on sparse well data
Play relies on regional, conceptual
basin evolution concept pinned to
global analogue

Some areas of play conceptually

betterthan others, but all are heavily
hachured to reflect low confidence

25

Assign play PoS and average lead PoS

Average Lead PoS (Prospect Success Ratio):
Play PoS (shared PoS):

Percentage of prospects predicted to be

Probability of trapped hydrocarbons being

hydrocarbon bearing (expected success rate),

present and capable of being produced from

or probability that an average lead or prospect

the formation somewhere in the play segment

would be a technical success, assuming the

- irrespective of volume, rates, and economic.

play is proven. Its a measure of the repeatability

criteria

in a play segment.

Example: Play PoS Charge

Assuming no lateral migration, all of the prospects

Shelf

above the thick salt would fail for the lack of

charge. Because of this dependent failure risk, the

Slope

play PoS for charge in the segments with yellow

Base
of Slope

arrows would be very low, even though the play

works in the green arrowed segment.
Example: Average lead PoS reservoir

In this example, all of the play reservoir segments

Res/Seal

(salt)

5km
Mature SR

26

are proven, since there are discoveries within each

of the geologic domains.
The repeatability of finding reservoir in prospects
is higher in the base of slope segment than the
channel-prone slope.

Repeatability = Average Lead PoS = Success rate

for the chance factor in each segment
Shells 2004 risking template, also known as the
Maastricht template is used to determine unbiased
prospect and play chance factors.
Example Reservoir (below):
Medium Confidence,
Play PoS = 0.8
Lead PoS = 0.3
Total PoS = 0.8 x 0.3 = 0.24)

Very
High
High

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

very likely

e
likely

None

y
unlikely

Very
Low

very unlikely

Low

equivocal

.24

Medium
Exclude
extremely unlikely

Confidence/ Knowledge

Perfect

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

27

Total (Geological) PoS

Play x Lead PoS

Composite CRS

Reservoir CRS

Charge CRS

Entrapment CRS

Average Lead PoS

28

Play PoS

In the last step of CRS Risking we multiply the maps

Does the resulting map still show clearly the

together to create Composite Common Risk Segment

key trends of the play or does the map look

(CCRS) maps. A reality check against known data

like shards of glass? Often such maps reflect

is then preformed. By multiplying the play and

a level of detail not supported by the data

lead PoS CCRS maps, we can approximate total

available, and are more detailed than the level

geological PoS.

of knowledge needed to answer the relevant

technical exploration questions.

Reality Checks:

Do the CCRS maps reflect our intuitive picture

of for the average prospect PoS within each
segment?

Does the PoS compare with the exploration

history and prospect portfolio? For proven
segments (play PoS = 1.0). Does the lead PoS
make sense in the light of historic success rates?
When plotted on a CCRS map, are prospect
risks representative of the average PoS portrayed
by the play analysis and do the prospect PoS
values change across key boundaries?

29

Chapter IV

FROM PLAY FOCUS

TO PROSPECT FOCUS

Framing - Early Assist

Review and Challenge

Prospect Maturation

After Action Review

SFR Maturation
Prospect Identification

Prospect focus*

Prospect level
Evaluation

5 Step

Prospect
Portfolio

After Act

Peer Cha

Volumetrics
Risk
Uncertainty

Peer/vol

Prospect Image
Geologic Models
Geophysical Evaluation

Early Ass

Play focus*

SFR Maturation
Prospect Identification
Prospect level
Evaluation

Prospect focus*

Prospect
Portfolio
Volumetrics
Risk
Uncertainty

Framing-

5 Step Prospect Maturation

After Action Review
Peer Challenge
Peer/volumetrics Review

Prospect Image
Geologic Models
Geophysical Evaluation

30

INDIA - GODAVARI DELTA

Early Assist

Play focus*

Framing-Kick Off

When evaluating prospects and prospect portfolios

in related prospects within the same play or play

Specific guidelines exist for how prospects and

we should place them in a play context. This gives

segment. It can shorten prospect evaluation by

prospect portfolios can be placed in the play

us strategic information needed to de-risk the play

giving a focus to the work. Such as the identification

context - what key play-based products should

and assess the prospects ability to deliver Scope

of the success factors needed and the likely failure

be used. These include play CRS maps, Field Size

for Recovery (SFR) volumes. We ultimately can also

modes for the prospect as predicted by the regional

Distributions (FSDs - see appendix), YTF estimates

understand the additional potential (yet-to-find - YTF)

risk elements.

etc. The table shows key questions that should

be addressed at various phases of the 5 step
maturation process - deliverables on value drivers,
critical success factors, project risks, project plan,

Framing - Early Assist

Key Products
Play Cross Sections
Play & CCRS maps
Play Element CRS maps
Exploration History Analysis

Key Questions
Can the focal Play be succinctly described on a cross section ?
Does exploring in this Play segment have merit based on Regional Sweet spot
analysis ?
What geological aspects of the Prospect should be the main focus of the evaluation
work (I.e. likely failure modes) ?
What can we learn from the Exploration history to best augment the
evaluation and improve our understanding of the prospect ?
What does the history indicate as good analogues to use ?

Materiality maps
Play YTF, CSFs
Play Execution Plan
Well Plan
AAR
Multiple PBE products

Examples of prospects in a play context

We can ask questions about how reasonable
prospect risks and volumes are when compared with
the play based evaluations.
A prospect portfolio is overlain on the corresponding
composite common risk segment (CCRS) play

Review & Challenge

Play & CCRS maps
Play Element CRS maps
Exploration History Analysis
FSDs

volumetrics estimates etc.

Does maturing view of the Prospect reconcile with Play Segment Risking ?
Prospect Risking consistent with Play PoS maps ?
What phase of Play Creaming is the Prospect In ?
Does Prospect volume range fit the appropriate FSD ?
Is there likely material follow up to a well test ?
Does the Play and Play segment have enough running room ?
Does prospect test fit in agreed Play execution plan ?
Does well plan contain provision for key Play data gathering ?

Have well learnings been fed back to evergreen basin and play understanding ?

Show differences - investigate

.5
.5

.3
.3

.5
.5

.3
.3
.2
.2

.3
.3

Prospect in low risk area

(good chance of success)
how much follow up?
(e.g. in low chance area)

.5
.5

.3
.3
.2
.2

.4
.4

.4
.4

.3
.3

.2
.2

.3
.3

.4
.4
.2
.2

.2
.2

.1
.1
.1
.1

.2
.2

.1
.1

.1
.1

.1
.1

31

map. Annotated prospect technical risks can be

We can plot prospect Mean Success Volume (MSV)

compared with regionally assigned risks and any

estimates on the most appropriate future Field Size

clear differences investigated. CCRS maps also help

Distribution (FSD) for that play or play segment

identify drill candidate prospects in segments with

to see if they are reasonable. Note that prospects

acceptable chances of success and show possible

will tend to be the largest undrilled structures and

follow-up.

will often plot in the upper part of the FSD. (See

appendix page 58)
In certain cases, prospect MSVs may exceed the
observed or calculated maximum field size for the
FSD. For example this may occur where unexplored

??
P1

Cumulative Probability

Lead-4a(3)

unreasonable MSV estimates may cause re-

Lead-4b
Lead-2 (3)

Lea d-3

appropriate place on the play segment creaming

curve. This is characterised in three phases.

P90

1
10

Field Size

100mmboe

1000

Estimated Prospect MSVs plotted on appropriate FSD for the Play as a `reality check

32

evaluation of the prospect volumetrics.

As a further test, we can place the prospect in the

P50

P99

lack of technology has constrained exploration

such as with poorly imaged sub-salt. Alternatively,

Lead-1 (3)

P10

play segments are previously not licensed or if

Typical Play Specific creaming curve

Note;

14000

1. Quick play or segment calibration will allow

better, earlier decision-making.

Cumulative MMBOE

12000

Phase 3

10000

2. Confident exploration for material prospects

only starts in Phase 2
3. Phase 3 prospectivity should be measured

8000

against exploration value generation and

Phase 2

6000

strategy for the basin

4000

The creaming context of the prospects should

2000

dictate the reasonable expectation of their

potential volume and value delivery.

Phase 1

0.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Discovery#

Phase 1 - Play Testing/ Calibration

Phase 2 - Play harvesting

Phase 3 - Maturity

Technical risks poorly constrained and few or

The play is calibrated for risks and volumetrics and

Few material opportunities remain. Often a Near

no exploration tests. Early information is key to

maturation is designed to maximize SFR return,

Field Exploration (NFE) phase optimizing value.

decisions on play participation.

assisted by appropriate technology deployment.

As returns diminish, play exit may become the

preferred option.

33

Chapter V

VENTURE EVALUATION
Good PBE Practice involves building first the basin,
then play and then the prospect understanding.
Exploration strategy, planning and execution are
therefore based on the foundation of understanding the
plays in a venture.

Prospect focus

Play focus

34

USA - GRAND CANYON

Basin focus

A basic understanding of the subsurface and its

So early identification of and access to the play

potential is our greatest strength.

sweet spots is vital. In some recent cases, late play

Other TECOP factors (economics, commercial,

identification led to expensive access where our

operational and political) should be also overlain on

initial acreage position was not in the sweet spot.

the play-based view of a venture or opportunity to

arrive at the appropriate decision. Remember Primary Focus

The best contract terms, price fluctuations,

politics or acreage access conditions do not
put valuable, material hydrocarbon plays in the

Second Tier

ground or close contours on maps

Securing a material position requires us to quickly
identify key plays and focus on the sweet spots.

Dont Do It !

35

Building an exploration plan

for the focus play

Maximise volume capture in the short and

long term.

Address the key points for the focus play;

Principal technical play risks.

Risk dependency within the portfolio.

Quick strategic decisions-more acreage or exit?

To understand prospect value of information and play upside:

Use (depedent) Play Pos CRS and Materiality maps to assess zone of influence from a possible well test.
0.9 Ave Play Pos

0.9 Ave Play Pos

PoS Uplift
throughout Play
segment due to
reduction
of dependent
Play Risk

Targeting Play
Segment with
Running Room
Use YTF and Materiality
maps to assess Play
Segment Volume Prize

150 MSV
45 EXP

180
45

150
45

100
20

400
50

120
15

100
10

36

Building play optionality into

The variety of these plays requires a different

the Venture Plan

approach for the execution plans for each.

A typical basin venture will contain several plays

and often each of these at different stages of

Play Scope vs PoS

understanding and techn ical maturity. Ideally,

1200

play scope or ability to deliver SFR volumes together

with the information needs of each of the plays,
key decision points and an understanding of the
possible inter-relationships between plays.

Play Scope mmboe

Venture Plans should be built with a clear view of the

1000
800
600

400

200
0
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

PoS %

se 3
Pha

In this schematic example, Play A is proven and

mature, B is technically proven but still poorly

Ph
as
e

Play UR mmboe

B
C

Phase 1

Time/Discovery #

understood and C is largely conceptual but with

significant scope.

37

A Venture Plan for these plays

Partially calibrated deep Play B shares certain

could look like this:

petroleum system elements with the shallow play A

Play A is well calibrated such that most of

but overall the need for additional information in this

the remaining drilling opportunities have only

emerging play is high in order to target early tests

independent (lead) risk. The learning value

and quickly identity the sweet spot. Opportunistic

of these wells is minimal and they can be most

deepening of a remaining play A prospect well

likely drilled out in the most efficient way as part

to test the deeper play B is a clear option for

of an NFE programme of low risk, low volume

efficiently building understanding in the deeper

prospects. Future key decisions could be the optimal

play but should always be measured against the

exit point whenever smaller discoveries suggest

cost of testing play B in an optimal location and the

that exploration resource could be better spent

richer information that could come from that tactical

elsewhere.

choice. The plan for this play consequently focuses

on the prospects that will get to a confident go

Year 1

+acreage

+acreage

38

Studies
seismic+

+acreage

+acreage

forward/exit decision soonest.

Play C is unproven and shares no petroleum system

elements with the shallower plays.
It should be treated as a Frontier play opportunity
with the same importance in establishing basic
petroleum system understanding - source rock
presence, maturity, timing, reservoir/ seal pairs
etc. In the absence of hard calibration data, play
analogue information and primary delineation data
such as high resolution gravimetric studies
or long cable deep target seismic could form the
basis of the early effort.
The followup to this effort could then be deep
well tests to conclusively test the petroleum system
elements.
The strong message here is to treat plays
independently in execution planning and where
relevant prioritize calibration efforts in new plays
and avoid committing to drilling consecutive and
probably dependent wells back-to-back.

39

Appendix
Play Focus Workflow

40

RUSSIA - LENA DELTA

Play
Definition

What we know
Where we know it

CRS
Risking

Quantitative
Assessment

STEP D: Quantitative aspects of

Play-Based Exploration

CRS maps alone, however, do not answer other

business questions, e.g:

(in play focus)

The numerical basis of PBE analysis

Discoveries

What does success look like? - scope - materiality

What will the portfolio achieve?

What is the chance of achieving success

(a venture question)?

1.00
1.00
Tertiary
Tertiary clastics
clastics

0.46
0.46

Play PoS

0.40
0.40
0.46
0.46

026
026

066
066
Tertiary
Tertiary clastics
clastics

0.59
0.59

032
032

0.66
0.66
Tertiary
Tertiary clastics
clastics

032
032

0.16
0.16

Avg. Lead PoS

0.10
0.10

0.19
0.19

To answer these questions, an assessment of

volumetric potential is required.

Total PoS

The rationale for breaking out play and average

the basin the best chance of achieving exploration

lead PoS

success is maximized. The segments containing

From a portfolio of segments perspective, it

discoveries (highlighted on the maps above) are

is critical to understand both the play and

proven and thus have a play PoS of 100%.

average lead PoS to evaluate the chance of

The segments to the east are, as yet, unproven

The total PoS on these segments is very low.

What is the at-risk financial exposure

(not covered here)?

0.12
0.12

The Play focus (section III) described where in

and have play PoS values less than100%.

venture success.

To understand and communicate what one of the

unproven segments would look like if successful,
however, the average lead PoS is used.

41

Describing play segment volumes

PoS

volumetric assessment

up any single play segment is either the success

Venture success volume
avg. Lead PoS risked

0.25

Deterministic methods for

from a portfolio perspective (roll-up of a number of

segments), since the ultimate outcome from drilling

Volume vs. Risk

0.3

The venture risked volume description is only useful

0.2

1. Summed prospect expectation volumes

case, or failure case. In a proven segment the

venture risked and venture success volumes are

Elements to be considered

the same.

a. How good are the prospect

This type of plot also clearly illustrates the potential

b. Is an economic minimum being considered?

value of information obtainable from a given well or

c. Has the data density given a complete

expectation volumes?
0.15
0.1

Venture Risked volume

venture PoS (3 well dry-hole
tolerance)

0.05

farm-in. A variety of tools can be used to provide the

500

1000

1500

2000

Risked Volume (MMBOE)

d. Has a dry-hole tolerance been factored?

time frame of interest in the analysis and the amount

e. Has the full extent of the play been identified?

of data available.
Play with lead inventory and synthetic leads

The chart shows the difference between a success

What Yet To-Find tools can we use?

description of an unproven play segment (venture

success risked volume, the upper right point)
and the portfolio description (total venture risked
volume, lower left point).

15 Time
10
Horizon
Of the Answer
(Years)

5 -

The difference between the two points describes the

potential volume that can be achieved by proving
up a play segment in a successful venture. If the
venture is unsuccessful, however, the volume is zero
(dashed line).

42

lead inventory?

volumetric description. Their usage depends on the

0 3D

Calibrated basin model

risked volumes

Statistical (GEPI) type Play Analysis

Discovery process
modelling

Play-data
driven
# of well
tests> 15

Summed expectation
volumes

Analogue
driven
# of well
tests< 16
Statistically
insignificant
play data->

Decreasing data & increased uncertainty

Earlier view of play extent

2. Calibrated basin model

Quantitative play analysis tied to charge models
allows rapid testing of different scenarios with the
ability to see the results quickly for block or play
segment ranking.
A quality control check on predicted versus actual
results is required.
Due to incomplete data, deterministic methods

Expulsion and Migration

may not provide a complete view of a play or

entries. In these situations,
a statistical volumetric assessment can provide the
critical information.

Quality Control Check

Perfect Match

10000

Volume Discovered

play segment, e.g. in frontier areas, and new Shell

Volume and Fluid Prediction

Gas Fraction High

1000

100

Fault Retention Low

10
10.0

100.0

1000.0

100000.0

Predicted Volume

43

3. Statistical (GEPI) type play analysis

The terms of statistical analysis:

All statistical methods are built upon

Total PoS: (Play PoS x Avg. Lead PoS)

3 basic components.

The calculation uses both figures not just

the rolled-up Total PoS.

The Basic Equation:

Play potential= Total POS (@ zero cutoff) * Future FSD * Remaining lead count

Future Field Size Distribution (FSD):

A numerical distribution reflecting the range
of undiscovered future accumulations (EUR) in a

Play Potential

play or play segment, including sub-commercial

accumulations (Presented in a cumulative logprobability plot).

Total POS
(Play POS x Avg. Lead POS)

Field Size Range

Lead count

Probability

Lead Count: The number of potential leads in a

X

Often calculated from a lead density, typically

expressed in # / 1000km2.

Volume

44

given segment of analysis.

Each of the elements has pitfalls. These must be

understood in advance.
Past scepticism of results from this approach are
not because the method is flawed (our competitors

Canadian Williston Basin

have borne this out), but in many cases because of

careless or poorly constrained inputs.

P99 = 0.03
P90 = 0.2
P50 = 2.4
Mean = 9.3
P10 = 25.3
P1 = 175.5

No outcome gives the right answer (as with any

Williston Basin field size

distribution chart
A field size distribution (FSD) provides a
considerable amount of information about a play or
play segment. From the example above:

Cumulative Probability

model), therefore we must use ranges to indicate

the results.

P1

P10

P10
Mean

P50

P50

P90

P90

Any randomly selected field has only a 10%

P99

chance of being larger than 25 million barrels;

50% of the discoveries are smaller than

2,5 million barrels.

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

Ultimate field size (MMBOE)

45

Play Creaming Curve

Volume found in Play

A field size distribution represents a

snapshot in time
A history of discovery volumes in a play shows the
FSD of the 1st third of the discoveries is larger than
the 2nd third, which, in turn is larger than the 3rd.
This is a representation of exploration creaming.

Volume found in Play

A forward-looking FSD is required for a
1st

2nd

3rd

Well Test Count

Yet-To-Find exercise in partially creamed

play segments
Producing an FSD for a volume assessment requires
a forward (YTF FSD) look at the potential field sizes

FSD Chart

yet to be discovered. The previous examples show

3rd third

P1
P10

2nd third

existing (already discovered) size distributions. These

1st third

should not be used for a future look assessment.

The analysis would then result in the simulated
discovery of fields that have already been found

P50

however, may be used as analogues for frontier

mean

mean

P99

mean

in a partially creamed play segment. Native FSDs

P90

areas, or in new play extensions (e.g. same play

projected under salt where imaging problems

10

100

1000

Recoverable Volume (MMBOE)

46

precluded exploration in the past).

Discovery-process-based FSD Chart

Producing an appropriate lead count

URData
Current Fields FSD Fit

P1

P 1

P1

New / immature plays - start with lead density

per1000 km2 from appropriate geologic

P10

P 5

YTF FSD

P10

analogue (with sufficient exploration maturity).

P 10

P 20
P 30

P50

1000 km2 from an extensively explored similar

P 40

Present-day FSD
Volume (Billion BOE)

12

P90

P90

P99

Ultimate FSD

P99

10

1.

10

10

100

P 60
P 70

Map-based trap delineation (basin models).

Discovery Process modelling: Top-up method

P 80

Creaming Curve

P 90

- e.g. FSDecoder / PlayCraft (counting the

P 95

number of unidentified leads that fit under a log

4
2

0.0

0.1

calibration area.

P 50

P50

99
PresentPDay
1

26

51
76
Number of Tests

1000

101

Play extensions - extrapolate lead density per

normal distribution).

126

10000

There should be a balance between the lead

density and the FSD (how many billion barrel

Volume (MMBOE)

fields can fit in 1000 km2?).

Calibration area
Unidentied
Prospects

Fields

Volume Classes

47

Demystifying the GEPI calculation (PoS x FSD x Lead Count)

Lognormal FSD Plot
3.0

Proven play segment

P1

Play PoS

= 1.0

Avg. Lead PoS = .66

Lead Count
.0
S 1 oS
Po ad P
y
e
Pla g. L
Av

Mean FSD

= 13
= 25

Log Normal Probability

2.0

Venture Risked = Venture Success

6
.6

Truncated FSD-Curve1
Untruncated FSD-Curve1

P10

1.0

0.0

P50

-1.0
P90

-2.0
-

Log Normal Probability

P99

-3.0
-

Venture Volume = .66 x 25 (mean of FSD) x 13 = 214 MMBO

0.01

Max

411.0

P10

154.0

Mean

41.2

P90

1.50

Min
0.1

10

100

0.20
1000

10000

Ultimate Recovery (MMBOE)

Venture Scope = .66 x 13 = ~ 8 successes (8.6)

Materiality expectation ~ 1 lead > 66 MMBO

Lognormal FSD Plot

3.0
P1

Play CCRS map

Play PoS

= .71

Avg. Lead PoS = .32

Lead Count

= 30

Mean FSD

= 41 (totally uncreamed segment)

Total Venture Risked Volume = For portfolio roll-up

.71 x .32 x 41(mean of FSD) x 30 = 279 MMBO

Unproven play segment

Total venture risked scope = For portfolio roll-up

Venture Risked = Venture Success

.71 x .32 x 30 = ~ 7 successes (6.8)

48

2.0

Log Normal Probability

71
S . oS
Po ad P
y
e
Pla g. L
Av

2
.3

Truncated FSD-Curve1
Untruncated FSD-Curve1

P10

1.0

0.0

P50

-1.0
P90

-2.0
-

Log Normal Probability

P99

-3.0
-

0.01

Max

375.0

P10

66.0

Mean

25.0

P90

1.50

Min
0.1

10

100

0.10
1000

Ultimate Recovery (MMBOE)

10000

Would we ever expect to find 7 successes in this

What would success look like?

segment? No! If the segment fails, nothing will be

Venture Success Volume =.32 x 41 mmbo x 30 leads = 394 MMBO

found, and if it does work, then we need to look at

Scope with play success = .32 lead PoS x 30 leads =10 successes

the success case.

Materiality expectation ~ 1 lead > 150 MMBO

This number is only useful from a roll-up of a

GEPI venture success simulation output map from BPA (segment colours

portfolio of segments perspective

reflect success HC richness). Smaller number is total
venture risked volume prediction, larger number is
venture success risked volume prediction.

49

NOTES

50

NOTES

51

Designed and Produced by: 896656 - Graphics, Media and Publishing Services (GMP), Rijswijk.