'Li'loilady' pid='74747' d Wrote:
What are the implications of using a deterministic approach vs. a probablistic approach for E/A in particular? GCA report published January, 2012, used probabilistic methodology. (I double checked.)
Art previously informed us:
"In the Notes section of the July 16th OSH ASX release "GCA and NSAI certification of Elk-Antelope fields completed" "As agreed in the SPA, NSAI employed a deterministic methodology while GCA employed a probabilistic methodology. Otherwise the Certifiers were provided with the same instructions."
Li'l - My point for noting the two companies were told to use two different models was to suggest if OSH was directing one element of the certification they could be stipulating other elements of the certifications as well and thereby influencing the results ... putting their thumb on the scale.
Thanks to the posting of Indoreservoir I have an initial understanding of the probablistic v deterministic approaches. It seems pretty clear one good reason for specifying the two different approaches be used is so that the two could not be compared.
Rose in the article makes the point that the probablistic model is faster, less expensive and more informative. I'll let the industry argue that one out although it appears one methodology is winning. Here's a quote from the article which seems appropriate given the matter at hand and the two certification firms having been declared 'tainted'.
‘‘Probabilistic expression will not deter unethical behavior by estimators or executives any more than deterministic expression will. However, the pernicious lack of geotechnical accountability that pervades the entire proved reserves arena goes back to the fundamental flaw in determinism: that reserves estimators cannot be accountable because the accuracy of their estimates cannot be measured, which impedes their ability to improve their technical performance in estimating. This flaw infects and compromises the entire field of reserve estimating. No system will inhibit people who want to cheat. But the probabilistic method identifies those who consistently miss their estimates, and it enables dedicated professional estimators to document their track records "
So why would OSH and IOC agree to specify two different approaches if not to cover their trail? And to my original point, what other elements of the certification were stipulated so as to influence the final numbers?
