2016
DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.2016004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimum economic field size estimation and its role in exploration project risks assessment: evaluation of different methodologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of course, the MEFS varies across a part play depending on factors like fluid type, flow rate, water depth, development concepts, proximity to infrastructure, etc. (Rose, 2001;Van Wees, 2008;Yemez, 2016). Nonetheless, a large disparity between the MEFS and historical minimum developed size deserves further investigation.…”
Section: Reality Checks On Yet-to-find Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of course, the MEFS varies across a part play depending on factors like fluid type, flow rate, water depth, development concepts, proximity to infrastructure, etc. (Rose, 2001;Van Wees, 2008;Yemez, 2016). Nonetheless, a large disparity between the MEFS and historical minimum developed size deserves further investigation.…”
Section: Reality Checks On Yet-to-find Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%