FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2761749909> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2761749909 abstract "Abstract Unconventional plays have become increasingly more impactful to a company portfolio. This creates a demand for a better approach to rank and optimize a company portfolio considering situations like harsh price environments and competing capital allocation. Asset planners and corporate planning are the two critical teams in providing the best views for the decision makers to evaluate and allocate capital. Does this forecast best represent my asset? This question is the root of the constant communication struggle between asset level planning and corporate planning. Until asset planners can have more input into the determination of their performance targets, the proverbial black box of corporate planning is perpetuated. To remedy this, corporate planning groups have recently begun submitting unconventional forecasts for portfolio level analysis in the form of rig years: a year-long forecast segment which is intended to represent the maximum incremental potential of undeveloped wells in an asset given a single dedicated resource. An optimal portfolio can then be generated in which the ideal combination and number of rig years exist and in which order they occur are determined in relation to other assets within the portfolio. For asset level planners whose goal it is to meet or exceed performance targets, achievable targets with constrained capital and resources is half the battle. For corporate planners performing portfolio analysis, the difficulty lies in appropriately setting targets and realistically distributing of capital and resources to each asset. Doing this successfully implies a portfolio analysis which contains true representations of each asset. For most companies, asset level planners would argue that this is where corporate planning breaks. The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of a rig year, understand why rig years for unconventional plays are viable in a portfolio level analysis, and to explore the benefits and risks of two approaches to defining rig years, Type Curve and Ranking. Further, this paper investigates the impact of two different Ranking styles on the outcome of an optimized portfolio. By analyzing portfolio optimization results using either no rig years or a variation of a rig year, corporate planners can better communicate with asset planners the information required for portfolio analysis as well as determine which approach produces outcomes that best represents an unconventional onshore asset. Depending on how a rig year is generated, there are sweeping implications on a portfolio’s optimization and the feasibility of performance targets that honor the operational limitations for an asset. Contingent upon the characteristics of an asset itself, a homogenized Type Curve rig year, a single type curve forecast with no other variation, can well represent the asset. For a more complex or mature asset, the Type Curve approach is not sufficient and a Ranking approach should be taken. It is also imperative to take into account pad modeling and the ability to operationally execute a discrete rig year." @default.
• W2761749909 created "2017-10-20" @default.
• W2761749909 creator A5030105229 @default.
• W2761749909 creator A5047984925 @default.
• W2761749909 date "2017-10-09" @default.
• W2761749909 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2761749909 title "Critical Drivers in Optimizing Unconventional Portfolios Through Rigorous Rig Year Concept" @default.
• W2761749909 doi "https://doi.org/10.2118/187346-ms" @default.
• W2761749909 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2761749909 type Work @default.
• W2761749909 sameAs 2761749909 @default.
• W2761749909 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2761749909 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2761749909 hasAuthorship W2761749909A5030105229 @default.
• W2761749909 hasAuthorship W2761749909A5047984925 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConcept C77595967 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C112930515 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C127313418 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C127413603 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C144133560 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C162324750 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C41008148 @default.
• W2761749909 hasConceptScore W2761749909C77595967 @default.
• W2761749909 hasLocation W27617499091 @default.
• W2761749909 hasOpenAccess W2761749909 @default.
• W2761749909 hasPrimaryLocation W27617499091 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W1507653936 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W1576243702 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W1889430231 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2008066861 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2010779499 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2149719162 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2181752568 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W251100533 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2621263583 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2762173769 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2787230810 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2907576859 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2955462625 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W2994211655 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W3003570892 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W615937356 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W625472860 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W1782991959 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W3089711082 @default.
• W2761749909 hasRelatedWork W3104941995 @default.
• W2761749909 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2761749909 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2761749909 magId "2761749909" @default.
• W2761749909 workType "article" @default.