Case Study: The Norwegian Petroleum Resource Accounts · 12 EGRC, 6th Session, Geneva, 2015 Kjell Reidar Knudsen, NPD Mapping NPD Classification System to UNFC UNFC definitions versus

Case Study: The Norwegian Petroleum Resource Accounts

UNFC Workshop,, Geneva, April 2015

Kjell Reidar Knudsen

Senior Adviser

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD)

Outline

• Norwegian Petroleum Activity

• The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD)

• The Norwegian Petroleum Resource Classification System (2001)

• The 2012 Pilot Study


Norwegian Petroleum Activities


Macro-economic indicators for the petroleum sector 2013

http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/




Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

Subordinate to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (MPE)

Advisory body to the MPE

Exercise management authority

Established 1972 in Stavanger

Approximate 220 employees


Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

• One of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate's (NPD's) important tasks is to maintain an overview of all of the petroleum resources on the Norwegian continental shelf.

• The objective is to ensure that the resources are managed in the best interests of the Norwegian society.


Resource Account and forecasts


Company Reporting for Revised National Budget (RNB)


Reporting file (Excel)

http://www.npd.no/en/Reporting/National-budget/





Basic principles for NPD Petroleum Classification (2001)

• Project based

• Project maturity: Prospect Discovery Field development Production Cessation

• Only recoverable quantities are classified

• Each project is used as a “hub” for combining different types of information related to the project • volumes, investments, costs, production profiles, emissions, etc.


6 Development

not very

likely

9 Leads and unmapped

resources

8 Prospects

5F Development

likely, but not

clarified

3F Licensees

have decided

to recover

4F In the

planning

phase

2F Approved

development and

operation plan

1 In

production

7F New discoveries

that have not

been evaluated

Undiscovered

resources

Contingent

resources

Reserves

0 Sold and

delivered

Historical

production

7A Possible future measures

to improve the recovery

factor

5A 4A 3A 2A


The Norwegian Petroleum Resource Classification System 2001


“The uncertainty axis”

EGRC, 6th Session, Geneva, 2015 12 Kjell Reidar Knudsen, NPD

Mapping NPD Classification System to UNFC

UNFC definitions versus NPD definitions and guidelines

• First time in 2011 Case Study

• Second time in 2012 Case Study

UNFC definitions and Generic Specification and PRMS Bridging Document

• 2014 Case Study

• 2015 Update of Case Study


2012 Pilot Study: Two approaches

• General rule method (Top down)

• Total aggregated resources in all projects inside one Norwegian class is mapped to one UNFC-class (sub-class) based on Norwegian – and UNFC definitions

• Project specific classification

• Each project is mapped to UNFC class (sub-class) based on it’s own characteristics and UNFC definitions


2012 Pilot: Classification of individual projects to

”alternative UNFC sub-classes” based on reported project info

Green represent the “General Rule” categorisation (“Top down”) The projects classified as reserves is straight forward. There are no alternatives. For the “contingent resources” more sub-classes have to be considered for classifying the projects. This is one of the beauties with the UNFC which may make the UNFC very functional for Government Resource Management. In the “Project Specific approach the “Project Stopper”- attribute was used to Classify some projects into “white boxes”


2012 Pilot: Detailed Mapping results

Norwegian Resource Accounts per 31.12.2011 according to UNFC (2012)


G1+G2

Mill Sm3

o.e

2012 Case Study Summary

• UNFC could be used to classify the 700 projects that constitutes the total Norwegian Resource Account

• The differences between individual project classification and class mapping results are however minor

• This demonstrate that the mapping which was done between NPD system and the UNFC is acceptable - as a Pilot


End of presentation


2014 Case study

• Step by step

1. Mapping each Norwegian category to one PRMS category

2. Mapping the PRMS Project Maturity sub-class to the UNFC E – F matrix

3. Try to sort out any ambiguities ( one-to-many possibilities)

• By using project specific information

4. Aggregate resource values (estimates) for all projects in each UNFC sub-classes

• This is described together with the 2012 Case study in the paper outside the room.

• The 2014 with 2015-updates will be presented in the Expert Group meeting.


Documents

Case Study: The Norwegian Petroleum Resource Accounts · 12 EGRC, 6th Session, Geneva, 2015 Kjell Reidar Knudsen, NPD Mapping NPD Classification System to UNFC UNFC definitions versus