Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Abstract Decision-making related to oil and gas exploration and production relies on objective data analysis as well on subjective judgment of experts. Expert judgment often considered to be less and accurate than objective data analysis. Nevertheless it is still one of the most common ways in which decisions are made in the petroleum company. By improving judgment elicitation process particularly in the case of multi-criteria decision-making, it is possible to improve quality of critical decisions. Different technique can be used to elicit judgment from individual experts and group of experts. A judgment elicitation workflow includes interviewing of experts, comparing subjective expert judgment with results of objective data analysis for example related to geological uncertainty, performing reality checks, making a decision, and reviewing and evaluation of the judgments. Proper use of judgment elicitation techniques together with objective data analysis will lead to significantly better decisions related to oil and gas exploration and production. Introduction Uncertainty assessment in the petroleum industry can be performed based objective information, such as using analogs or actual production data, as well as by interviewing experts [1,2,3]. Traditionally expert judgment considered to be less accurate than objective data analysis due to inherited biases. However recent research shows that subjective expert judgment can be accurate as long as it is properly elicited [4,5,6]. In other words the experts need to be asked proper questions in a proper order. The judgment elicitation process should be properly designed for the particular problem. There are two types of biases: cognitive and motivational. Cognitive biases show up in the way we process information. In other words, they are distortions in the way we perceive reality. There are many forms of cognitive bias, but they can be separated into a few groups:Behavioral biases influence how we form our beliefs. An example is the illusion of controlling something that we cannot influence. Another example is our tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect the project. Perceptual biases can skew the ways we see reality and analyze information. An example of one of the more common perceptual biases is overconfidence. Many project failures originate in our tendency to be more certain than we should be that a certain outcome will be achieved. Probability and belief biases are related to how we judge the likelihood that something will happen. This set of biases can especially affect cost and price estimates. Social biases are related to how our socialization affects our judgment. It is impossible to find anyone who manages an oil and gas exploration and production project in complete isolation. Memory biases influence how we remember and recall certain information. An example is hindsight bias ("I knew it all along"), which can affect judgment elicitation.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England (0.46)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.28)
- Management > Risk Management and Decision-Making (1.00)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems (1.00)
- Management > Strategic Planning and Management > Project management (0.94)
- Management > Strategic Planning and Management > Exploration and appraisal strategies (0.75)
Primary Judgment of Liquefaction Possibility Based On Groundwater Level For Detached Houses
Kim, Cholho (Department of Engineering, Hokoku Engineering Corporation) | Ogawa, Masahiro (Department of Engineering, Hokoku Engineering Corporation) | Tei, Kouji (Department of Engineering, Crea-Tec Corporation) | Fujii, Mamoru (Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokai University)
ABSTRACT: In Japan, the Swedish Weight Sounding (SWS) test is a popular and essential method for evaluating the ground bearing capacity in home site. Measurement of groundwater level using a SWS test hole is applicable only when a groundwater sensor or a rod with tapeline for eye measurement can be installed into the hole. However, the method of eye measurement using the tapeline is susceptible to inaccuracies. In this point of view, in the former paper, we introduced the new groundwater measurement technique using a SWS test hole, a foraminate pipe and an Alternating Current (AC) resistivity sensor. The excellent performance of the new technique, degree of accuracy and the short settling time of less than 30 minutes were confirmed. In this paper, based on in-situ experiments, we investigated the relationship between settling time of the groundwater level in the SWS test hole and N-value with respect to the soil classification. In addition, by carrying out the two dimensional seepage flow analysis (FEM), the groundwater flow surrounding the SWS test hole was simulated numerically, and the new technique may become an effective tool for the primary judgment of liquefaction possibilities of home sites. INTRODUCTION Method for evaluating the ground bearing capacity in home sites using the Swedish Weight Sounding (SWS) test has been regulated by law in Japan, and it is required in advance to check the subsidence and displacement of buildings caused by liquefaction due to earthquakes. On the other hand, by the "Recommendations for Designing of Small Buildings Foundations", the conventional method for liquefaction judgment with regard to the geographic features, grain size analysis and groundwater level has been prescribed for middle level earthquakes. Whether groundwater level exists within 3m deep from the ground surface is crucial in judging the possibility of liquefaction.
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper IPTC 12502, "Judgment Elicitation Process for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Oil and Gas Industry," by Lev Virine, SPE, Schlumberger, originally prepared for the 2008 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 3–5 December. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Decision making related to oil and gas exploration and production relies on objective data analysis as well as on the subjective judgment of experts. Expert judgment often is considered to be less accurate than objective data analysis. By improving the judgment-elicitation process particularly in the case of multicriteria decision making, it is possible to improve the quality of critical decisions. Proper use of judgment-elicitation techniques together with objective data analysis will lead to significantly better decisions related to oil and gas exploration and production. Introduction Uncertainty assessment in the petroleum industry can be performed on the basis of objective information, such as using analogs or actual production data, as well as by interviewing experts. Traditionally, expert judgment has been considered to be less accurate than objective data analysis because of inherited biases. However, recent research shows that subjective expert judgment can be accurate as long as it is elicited properly. In other words, the experts need to be asked the proper questions in a proper order. The judgment-elicitation process should be designed properly for the particular problem. There are two types of biases: cognitive and motivational. Cognitive biases show up in the way we process information. In other words, they are distortions in the way reality is perceived. There are many forms of cognitive bias, but they can be separated into a few groups:Behavioral biases influence how beliefs are formed. An example is the illusion of controlling something that we cannot influence. Another example is our tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect the project. Perceptual biases can skew the ways we see reality and analyze information. An example of one of the more common perceptual biases is overconfidence. Many project failures originate in our tendency to be more certain than we should be that a certain outcome will be achieved. Probability and belief biases are related to how we judge the likelihood that something will happen. This set of biases can especially affect cost and price estimates. Social biases are related to how our socialization affects our judgment. It is impossible to find anyone who manages an oil and gas exploration and production project in complete isolation. Memory biases influence how we remember and recall certain information and can affect judgment elicitation. An example is hindsight bias ("I knew it all along").
- Asia > Malaysia > Kuala Lumpur > Kuala Lumpur (0.24)
- Asia > China (0.16)
Well-seismic calibration is basis of structural interpretation and reservoir prediction in geophysical research, whose results directly determine the accuracy of structural interpretation and reservoir prediction. The determination of the polarity of seismic data is the most basic work of well-seismic calibration. The correct identification of the polarity of seismic data can not only more accurately calibrate the interpretation horizon and describe the reservoir, but also has important significance for the description of the interlayer within the reservoir. At present, the methods to judge the polarity of seismic data mainly include wavelet extraction, synthetic seismogram, single / double track judgment method, etc. The premise of these methods is that the residual wavelet on the reservoir profile is assumed to be zero phase, which is not the real case, so it is easy to misjudge. Therefore, in view of the conventional polarity judgment method, two improvements are put forward. By using the two-color display to highlight the contrast of strong amplitude, using the marker layer with clear impedance relationship in shallow layer to calibrate and judge, and according to the situation of "one positive and one negative" / "one negative and one positive" in the top-bottom interface and the similar energy intensity, by extracting a set of stable and independent lithology stratum top and bottom seismic attributes,based on the correlation analysis of seismic attributes, a method for polarity judgment and verification of seismic data is proposed, which has been successfully applied in Bohai A oilfield. Note: This paper was accepted into the Technical Program but was not presented at the 2020 SEG Annual Meeting.
- Asia > China (0.48)
- North America > United States > Texas > Dawson County (0.45)
- Geophysics > Seismic Surveying > Seismic Processing (1.00)
- Geophysics > Seismic Surveying > Seismic Interpretation (1.00)
Abstract It is commonly recognised that the Wisdom of Crowds [1] enables a group of people with limited knowledge to make, on average, very accurate estimates. This process underlies the success of prediction markets [2], which are used to accurately predict outcomes as disparate as elections and box office takings. In the O&G industry, however, there are clear limits on the number of people who can be canvassed for their opinions. Not only are there a limited number of people with sufficient knowledge to make any estimate at all for a particular problem but confidentiality restricts this further. Recent psychological research, however, has demonstrated benefits of repeated individual judgments - asking the same person to repeatedly estimate a parameter. We critically review individual, repeated-elicitation techniques currently in use and describe a method that avoids many of the problems with these - More-Or-Less Elicitation (MOLE) [3]. The MOLE is compared with alternate, single- and repeated-judgments elicitation methods, yielding superior accuracy and calibration to any of the alternate techniques. Its estimates explain an additional 20% of the variance in the parameter of interest over its nearest rival and less than 9% of its elicited ranges did not contain the true value when expected to. We argue that, for the O&G industry, repeated individual judgments have the potential to greatly improve the accuracy and calibration of estimates and, further, that the MOLE harnesses the benefits of repeated judgments while avoiding common problems such as repetition of answers and confirmation bias. This paper reviews the latest research on repeated judgments in elicitation and demonstrates the benefits of repeated, individual judgments for elicited values. The MOLE, which takes advantage of these benefits, is simple and easily transferable to most elicitation domains, enabling its benefits to apply throughout the industry. Introduction Recently, the concept of the Wisdom of Crowds [1] (the observation that average or median predictions from a large group tend to be more accurate than individual estimates) has gained significant traction within a variety of disciplines. This work is, however, of limited use in areas where expert knowledge is required simply to understand what is meant by a question and where the supply of experts is limited - either in an absolute sense or due to restraints such as confidentiality or cost of consulting them, as is commonly the case in the oil industry. However, the underlying idea of repeated judgements is appealing and current psychological work [3–6] is focussed on using the insights from the Wisdom of Crowds literature to assist in elicitation tasks where only a single expert is available. This paper gives a general introduction to the problems commonly associated with obtaining estimates from experts (elicitation) and discusses the benefits known to result from the Wisdom of Crowds and why these are unlikely to help oil and gas decisions. The reasons why similar benefits could be expected from appropriately structured individual repeated judgment tasks are then discussed before we review the main findings from a number of papers discussing such tasks. Finally, we discuss their potential for application to decision making in the petroleum industry. Elicitation of Uncertainty Elicitation is the conversion of individual or group's beliefs into numerical form - whether a point estimate or a probability distribution. Generally, this is done not for its own sake but to, for example, predict future outcome ranges, or provide inputs for forecasting models [7]. That is, we generally approach experts for their opinions in an attempt to reduce our uncertainty regarding the likelihood of different possible outcomes of some event of interest. Within the oil and gas industry, for example, values elicited from experts in a variety of fields are used to inform exploration, appraisal, project development and on-going operational decisions.