SPE 26339

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Risk Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation Applied to the Generation of Drilling APE
Estimates
S.K.Peterson, Marathon Oil Co., I.A.Murtha, Consultant, and F.F.Schneider, Marathon Oil Co.
SPEMembers
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum EDgioeen, IDe.
TbII ..... __HIeded rar pnHIllallon It)' an SPE I'reInmCcImmI_ r...-... rm- flllDl'OI'III8lIan _ ........ ID an _..mmlled It)' the aulhar(a). Can.... fllthe ........ , .........
baWl not II-. It)' the Sad"fll EnaID-- and .... aubject '" awnctIan It)' theaulhar(a). The.......u ,............ not n-ntJnIIIdany paallion flllhelladlt7 fll
.........m EnaID I.. oman. ar m Papan , at SPE -mp.... aubJad '" publlalllon review It)' EdItarial CcImmI_fllthe IladIt7fllPelroleum En........ 1'a'mJuIan '"
...". .. nelrIc:ted '" an ....._ fll not _than381 m...-..., not be CIIpIed. Theabolnd ahould _ ..... -..,......... ""*'-\edpIenl fll ......and It)' wham the .......
pnHIl..... Write LIbnrIIIIl. SPE. P.O. Box 833lIM, ~ TX'754IlIh1IU, U.s.A. T.... '131MSPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to present a methodology for
developing an APE-generating model, using a specific
offshore field development case study to illustrate the
technique. The model utilizes risk analysis and
incorporates Monte Carlo simulation in conjunction with
statistical analysis of historical drilling data to generate
more accurate, risked, APE estimates. In addition to the
general methodology, we present an example of an APE
estimate using the presented techniques with an
interpretation and statistical analysis of three years of
drilling data for the North Sea.
INTRODUCTION
Several concurrent movements have contributed to this
investigation using risk analysis and Monte Carlo
simulation to generate Authorization for Expenditures
(AFEs) for drilling operations: (1) the availability of
historical drilling data, (2) the recognition of the
inadequacies of current AFE-writing procedures, and, (3)
the acceptance of risk analysis methodology.
The Availability of Accurate Historical Data
In the past few years it bas become standard practice for
major operators to collect a variety of data relevant to
drilling operations in database format. In our case, the
data were gathered initially as part of a worldwide effort
(1) to collect time and cost information for various
operations; (2) to document drilling problems, their
associated time and costs, and their solutions; and, (3) to
References and illustrations at end of paper
provide a basis for future comparisons of drilling
performance.!
The degree of detail collected in our drilling data allowed
more accurate drilling performance evaluation. For each
operational phase during the drilling operations, trouble-
free and trouble events were recorded distinctly.
As with many operators, we are evaluating the value of
this data. Therefore, we have begun to question the
usefulness, potential usefulness, and shortcomings of the
data acquired.
Current AFE-Writing Procedures
For many engineers, the task of writing an APE consists of
artfully incorporating offset well data, engineering
calculations, projections regarding operational
improvements, and judgments about suitable contingencies.
Fundamental to the APE estimate is an estimate of time to
perform the various operations. Our attempts to analyze
the first three years of drilling data highlighted that current
AFE-writing procedures are inadequate. particularly if a
goal is to compare actual drilling performance to predicted
performance. First, it was unclear exactly how the APE
time estimate was arrived at. Secondly, the APE
categories recorded did not clearly coincide with the
operational phases distinguished in the database. Other
operators have reported on similar concerns and offered
guidelines for predictive statistical methods.
2
,3,4
Meanwhile, the desire to more wisely allocate limited
drilling funds among potential projects has accentuated the
need for representative APE estimates, thereby
2 RISK ANALYSIS AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPLIED TO THE
GENERATION OF DRILLING APE ESTIMATES
SPE 26339
perpetuating the use of drilling "performance" evaluation
based on APE estimates.
Peiformance Evaluation
A popular method of quantifying drilling performance has
been to look at problem time as a percentage of actual
time. Drilling personnel are often held accountable for
excess costs, especially those associated with problematic
events commonly referred to as "trouble time." Yet in
spite of painstakingly recording each trouble event during
the actual drilling, few (if any) operators clearly
distinguish problem-free time from problem time on the
APE, thus making fair judgment in a historical context
nearly impossible, except by those most intimate with the
area. Occasionally the obscure "contingencies" category
shows up on the APE.
In addition, at least one major company has used APE-
deviation analysis as a method of drilling performance
evaluation.
5
Fig. 1 illustrates the cumulative frequency of
deviation of the actual dry-hole times from the APEd dry-
hole times. The deviation is calculated as the difference
between the actual and APEd times, and is reported as a
percentage of the APEd dry-hole times. A rule of thumb
has been to regard the range from -10% to +10%as an
acceptable, or desirable, range for the deviations. Wells
with deviations outside this range are frequently subjected
to closer scrutiny, often disregarding that given the
inherent uncertainty associated with drilling, it would be
expected that some APE deviations fall outside that range.
Allocation ofAvailable Drilling Funds
The convention that management uses to analyze drilling
performance by comparing APE costs to actual costs
incorporates the philosophy that APEs should be written to
ensure that just enough money is approved to drill the
well, without being short of funds or leaving unspent funds
"on the table." This makes good business sense, allowing
operators to drill as many promising prospects as possible
in a period while staying within the constraints of an
approved budget. In recent years especially, restricted
drilling budgets have given impetus to this philosophy
which perpetuates the practice ofjudging drilling
performance by comparing it to the deterministic APE. In
the future, some operators will likely take a portfolio
analysis approach for selecting drilling projects to more
prudently allocate drilling funds.
The Acceptance of Risk Analysis Methodology
Risk analysis methods were articulated in the sixties
6
,7,8
and appeared to take hold in the oil and gas industry in the
mid-seventies
9
,10. Both managers and technical staff,
however, resisted embracing stochastic modeling until
more recently as papers began to routinely appear on the
subject of Monte Carlo simulation and related topics
ll
-
16
.
Among possible explanations for the rebirth of interest are
the emphasis on-quantifying alternative choices competing
for limited budgets, the availability of fast, inexpensive
desktop computers, and, the availability of inexpensive
spreadsheet-based simulation software.
In recent drilling literature, statistical analysis of drilling
data and predictions seem to be appearing more ~ u e n t l y
as well, particularly with regard to stuck pipe.l7-2
Using Risk Analysis with the Historical Data
A natural use of the historical data available from the
drilling database is to improve time and cost estimates for
wells in a specific area. Ideally, in an area where a
company has experience, the APE would be written using
the results of statistical analysis of offset data. In this way,
the APE should be fully reproducible by any qualified
engineer designing the well plan under the same operating
parameters, and post-mortem analysis would be consistent.
Rather than a deterministic estimate, a more mature view
of an APE estimate might be one in which the range of
possible times and costs are presented, in recognition of
the inherent uncertainty associated with drilling wells. A
risk analysis methodology incorporating Monte Carlo
techniques using the historical data available could
accomplish this goal.
THE MEmODOLOGY
Monte Carlo simulation methods appear to be gaining
acceptance by engineers, geoscientists, and other
professionals who wish to evaluate prospects or to analyze
problems that involve uncertainty. The user is required to
prescribe statistical distributions for the input parameters.
Selecting these distributions is guided by experience and
fundamental principles, but driven by historical data. If
two or more variables are dependent on one another, that
dependency must be included in the model.
Monte Carlo Simulation
A Monte Carlo simulation begins with a model in the form
of one or more equations. The variables of the equations
SPE 26339 S.K.PETERSON, I.A.MURTHA, AND F.F.SCHNEIDER 3
are separated into inputs and outputs. Some or all of the
inputs are treated as probability distributions rather than
numbers. The resulting outputs are then also distributions,
described in terms such as minimum, maximum, and most
likely values, means and standard deviations, 90th
percentile, and so on.
Running a Monte Carlo simulation is customarily done
using special software, either spreadsheet add-ins or
compiled programs. A trial consists of selecting one value
for each input parameter, according to some specified
distribution, and calculating the output. A simulation is a
succession of hundreds or thousands of repeated trials,
during which the output values are stored. Afterwards the
output values for each output are grouped into a histogram
or cumulative distribution function.
Monte Carlo simulation is an alternative to both single
point (deterministic) estimation and the scenario approach
that presents worst, most likely, and best cases.
Distributions and Data Presentation
The cumulative distribution function (COF) is useful to
illustrate how Monte Carlo sampling is accomplished, as
shown in Fig. 2. First a uniformly distributed random
number is selected between 0 and 1 and used to enter the
vertical axis, which represents cumulative probability.
Proceeding to the curve and then down to the horizontal
axis, a unique value of the corresponding parameter is
determined. Thus, the sampling process requires only the
existence of a COF for the parameter being sampled. This
is the key to using any set of historical data as a model for
an input distribution. We simply construct the COF for
the data, by first grouping it into classes and then
calculating the cumulative relative frequency.
Output distributions are most often represented with a COF
as well, although some people prefer the probability
density function (pOF).
Dependency
One rule of Monte Carlo simulation is that the variables
are assumed to be independent. In reality, many common
models contain parameters that depend on each other in a
cause-and-effect manner. Linear dependency can be
recognized by making a "scatter plot" or "crossplot", and
checking the correlation coefficient. If this type of
dependency exists, it must be incorporated into the model.
CASE STUDY - USING mSTORICAL DATA TO
GENERATE AN AFE
This example results from an analysis of drilling time and
performance data on 27 wells drilled in the U.K. North Sea
since 1990. For the purposes of this introductory paper,
the primary focus of the model was to predict the time of
the dry hole drilling operations necessary to achieve the
work planned in the AFE and thereby to meet the dry-hole
depth or geologic objectives.
Problem time was defined in strict terms as any incident in
the operation that delayed or slowed the progress of the
well, even if the problem could have been reasonably
anticipated or took a relatively short time to remedy. For
example, problem time could range from a one-half hour
delay in a bit trip due to "tight hole, " to a 20-day delay
due to a well control problem resulting in stuck pipe and a
sidetrack to redrill that hole interval.
1heModel
In our case, the model can be described by three equations
that summarize the rig time required to drill a well through
the AFE dry-hole objective:
(1) Total problem free time = problem free MoblDemob
time + problem free drilling time + problem free
evaluation time + problem free P&A time
(2) Total problem time = problem MoblDemob time +
problem drilling time + problem evaluation time +
problem P&A time
(3) Total time = total problem free time + total problem
time
The model is initiated based on the projected depth of the
well for which the AFE is to be written. The single-value
input depth becomes a distribution by accounting for
variations in actual depth from AFEd depth based on the
historical data. Other input parameters are distributions
for each of the parameters on the right-hand side of
equations (1) and (2).
For the purposes of this example, the three output
distributions are total problem free time, total problem
time, and total time.
The Input Distributions
We used history-matching software called BestFit
21
to
match our data to the best distribution by the chi-square
4 RISK ANALYSIS AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPLIED TO THE
GENERATION OF DRILLING AFE ESTIMATES
SPE 26339
"goodness of fit" criterion. We selected several candidate
distributions such as normal, lognormal, triangular, beta,
gamma, and exponential. Fig. 3 shows the CDF from the
history match for the problem-free drilling time input
parameter. Table 1 records the corresponding distributions
for each of the problem-free and problem time inputs.
Interestingly, many of the times were best represented by
the gamma distribution.
While perhaps not as familiar to petroleum engineers and
geoscientists as triangular, normal, and lognormal types,
the gamma distribution is quite commonly used in other
disciplines and has several useful features. Based on the
gamma function, which simply extends the factorial
function to real numbers other than whole numbers, the
gamma distribution is a generalization of both the
exponential and the chi-square distributions. The beta
distribution can be defined in terms of the gamma. The
gamma distribution is used to revise prior probability
distributions in light of experimental sample data. Dhir et
al used the gamma distribution to model permeability
(notoriously right skewed), reservoir pressure, and gas
content in a coalbed methane volumetric model.
Dependency
We checked the dependency of the nine input parameters
using crossplots of the raw data, and then calculation of the
rank correlation coefficients (as are customarily used in
Monte Carlo simulation). Rank correlation coefficients
describe relationships between parameters, without
influence by either the types of underlying distributions or
the magnitudes of the parameters. The only parameters
that showed dependence were the problem-free and the
problem drilling days, which were strongly dependent on
depth, as expected. Figs. 4 and 5 show the crossplots.
The rank correlation coefficients were 0.82 and 0.62,
respectively. The dependency was into the
model using the bounding box method. 2
We also checked whether or not a learning curve effect was
influencing the well times. Fig. 6 illustrates the lack of
chronological dependence of the data. This is not
surprising, since the operator has been actively drilling in
this area for several years. In addition, exploration and
development wells showed no important differences in
drilling times (either trouble-free or trouble times) through
the AFE-scope of work.
Results ofMonte Carlo Simulation
Two cases were run using @RISK23, a spreadsheet add-in,
to prepare an AFE time estimated based on the historical
data using Monte Carlo simulation results. Simulations
were run for 1,000 iterations and outputs were graphed in
PDF format. The first case was for a 20,090 ft well, and
the second was for a 17,907 ft well. In each case the
simulation results were compared to the original AFE time
estimates and actual well times.
20.090 ft Well
Figs. 7, 8, and 9 are the three output PDFs generated by
Monte Carlo simulation for a 20,090 ft well. The PDFs
illustrate the ranges of problem-free, problem, and total
days for the well. The expected value for each of the
output distributions is the mean of the distribution. The
well was AFEd using conventional methods for 180 days
dry-hole, with no specific time allotment for problem days.
The Monte Carlo simulation provided an expected value
time estimate of 194 days, of which 36 days were due to
problem time. The well was drilled in 192 days, with 32.5
days of problem time. Table 2 shows the simulation-
generated AFE times and compares them to the
conventionally-generated AFE times and the actual well
times.
17.907 ft Well
This well was a development well, therefore no time
estimates were required for MoblDemob or P&A
operations. The original well AFE called for a total dry-
hole time estimate of 121 days. Monte Carlo simulation
yielded a total time estimate of 135 days, of which 25 days
were expected to be problem time. The well was drilled in
132 days., with 19.5 days of problem time. Table 3
compares the two AFE estimates to the actual well times.
For both cases, the AFEs generated using risk analysis and
Monte Carlo simulation were more accurate than the
conventionally-generated AFE estimates. The output
PDFs helped to clarify the uncertainty associated with
drilling operations based on historical data, and to quantify
the contribution of problem days to total days.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We have presented the application of Monte Carlo
simulation in conjunction with statistical analysis of
drilling data to generate more accurate, risked, AFE
estimates.
SPE 26339 S.K.PETERSON, I.A.MURTHA, AND F.F.SCHNEIDER 5
2. We have introduced a non-standard use of data
collected in typical drilling databases.
3. The AFE-estimating routine presented in this paper
would be applicable to any development field drilling
program, although its greatest use will be in those fields
with adverse and difficult drilling conditions. The
advantages are the reproducibility of time estimates as they
incorporate historical data, the more representative nature
of the stochastic estimates instead of the traditional
deterministic estimate, and the flexibility to improve as
more data is obtained.
4. The two AFE estimates generated using Monte Carlo
simulation were better predictors of the actual well days
than the conventionally-generated AFE estimates, offered
more insight of problem-free and problem days
contribution to the total days, and emphasized the
uncertainty associated with drilling operations.
5. The example presented is an elementary use of risk
analysis and Monte Carlo simulation; the methodology has
the ability, however, to be expanded as the quality of the
historical drilling data permits, and to be combined with
appropriate price forecasts in order to fully generate an
AFE.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Marathon Oil Co. for
permission to publish this paper. The authors offer special
thanks to I.A. Turley, C.W. Truby, and J.C. Brannigan
for their contributions to the original work.
REFERENCES
1. Brannigan, I. C. : "The Characterization of Drilling
Operations and Their Representation in Relational
Databases, " paper SPE 24429 presented at the Seventh
SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, TX,
July 19-22, 1992.
2. Kadaster, A.G., Townsend, C.W., and Albaugh, E.K.:
"Drilling Time Analysis: A Total Quality Management
Tool for Drilling in the 1990's," paper SPE 24559
presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Washington, D.C., October 4-7, 1992.
3. Shilling, K.B., and Lowe, D.E.: "Systems for
Automated Drilling AFE Cost Estimating and
Tracking," paper SPE 20331 presented at the Fifth SPE
Petroleum Conference, Denver, Colorado, June 25-28,
1990.
4. Noerager, J.A. et al.: "Drilling Time Predictions
From Statistical Analysis," paper SPEIIADC 16164
presented at the 1987 SPEIIADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, LA, March 15-18, 1987.
5. Peterson, S.K. and Pearce, D.W.: "The Effect of
Unplanned Operations on Drilling Performance
Evaluation," paperSPEtIADC-25761 presented at the
1993 SPEIIADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
February 23-25, 1993.
6. Hertz, D.B.: "Risk Analysis in Capital Investments,"
Harvard Business Review, Jan. - Feb. 1964, p. 95-106.
7. Howard, R.A.: "Decision Analysis: Practice and
Promise, " Management Science, 34, p.679-695.
8. Walstrom, J.E., Mueller, T.D., and McFarlane, R.C.:
"Evaluating Uncertainty in Engineering Calculations, "
lPT (Dec. 1967) 1595.
9. McCray, A.W:, Petroleum Evaluations and Economic
Decisions, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1975.
10. Megill, R.E., An Introduction to Risk Analysis,
PetroleumPublishing Co., Tulsa, 1977.
11. Cronquist, C.: "Reserves and Probabilities-
Synergism or Anachronism?, lPT (Oct. 1991) 1258-
1264.
12. Damsleth, E. and Hage, A.: "Maximum Information
at Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development
Study Using Experimental Design," paper SPE 23139
presented at the 1991 Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen.
13. Davies, G.G. and Whiteside, M.W.: "An Integrated
Approach to Prospect Evaluation, " paper 23157
presented at the 1991 Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen.
14. Dhir, R., Dem, R.R. and Mavor, M.J.: "Economic
and Reserve Evaluation of Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs," lPT(Dec. 1991) 1424-1431.
15. Murtha, J.A.: "Infill Drilling in the Clinton: Monte
Carlo Techniques Applied to the Material Balance
6 RISK ANALYSIS AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPLIED TO THE
GENERATION OF DRILLING APE ESTIMATES
SPE 26339
Equation, " paper SPE 17068 presented at the 1987
Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, 21-23 October.
16. Murtha, J.A.: "Incorporating Historical Data in
Monte Carlo Simulation, If paper SPE 25245 presented
at the 1993 Petroleum Computer Conference, New
Orleans, July 11- 14.
17. Weakley, R.R.: "Use of Stuck Pipe Statistics To
Reduce the Occurrence of Stuck Pipe, " paper SPE
20410 presented at the 65th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, New Orleans, 23-26 September 1990.
18. Schofield, T.R., Whelehan, O.P., and Baruya, A.:
"A New Fishing Equation, " paper SPE 22380
presented at the SPE International Meeting on
Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China 24-27 March
1992.
19. Harrison, C.G.:" "Fishing Decisions Under
Uncertainty, " lPT(Feb. 1992) 299-300.
20. Shivers, R.M. and Domangue, R.J.: "Operational
Decision Making for Stuck-Pipe Incidents in the Gulf
of Mexico: A Risk Economics Approach, " SPE
Drilling and Completion, (June 1993) 125-130.
21. "BestFit - Distribution Fitting Software for
Windows, " Beta Release 1.0,PalisadeCorp.,
Newfield, NY, 1993.
22. Murtha, J.A., Decisions Involving Uncertainty - An
@RISK Tutorialfor the Petroleum Industry, Houston,
1993.
23. "@RISK - Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for
Microsoft Excel," Release 1.1 User's Guide, Palisade
Corp., Newfield, NY, 1992.
Table 1 - Input Distributions
Input Parameter Input Distribution
Depth variation Normal(-14.64,395)
Problem-free MoblDemob days Gamma(5.23,0.49)
Problem-free drilling; dayS Gamma(4.16,12.61)
Problem-free evaluation days Gamma(2.97,2.92)
Problem-free P&A days Loe:normal(4.98,3.13)
MoblDemob problem days Gamma(0.97,1.34)
Drilling problem dayS Exp(13.99)
Evaluation problem dayS Gamma(0.26,4.83)
P&A problem days Gamma(0.51,2.06)
Table 2 - AFE to Actual Comparison for 20,090 ft Well
Actual Well Conventional AFE Simulation AFE
Problem-free days 159.5 NA 158
Problem days 32.5 NA 36
Total dayS 192 180 194
Table 3 - AFE to Actual Comparison for 17,907 ft Well
Actual Well Conventional AFE Simulation AFE
Problem-free days 112.5 NA 110
Problem days 19.5 NA 25
Total dayS 132 121 135
SPE 26339 S.K.PETERSON, I.A.MURTHA, AND F.F.SCHNEIDER 7
L/
r
I
/
"'"
/
--/
L/
~
~
1
>- 0.9
~ 0.8
! 0.7
CT
~ 0.6
u.
D 0.5
~ 0.4
ca
~ 0.3
<3 0.2
0.1
o
-50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50%
Deviation of Actual Time from AFEd Time
Fig. 1 - Cumulative frequency. deviations of actual from AFEd time.
~
,--
".,-
--
/'
/"""
7
~
.... J
./
..",."
~
,..-I
-
"
1
>- 0.9
~ 0.8
! 0.7
CT
~ 0.6
u.
D 0.5
>
i 0.4
~ 0.3
~ 0.2
CJ
0.1
o
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Fig. 2 - Sampling using a cumulative distribution function.
---
./
10'
7
~
V'
./
./
./
/'
V
.----/'
1
>- 0.9
~ 0.8
I)
6- 0.7
~ 0.6
u.
D 0.5
~ 0.4
ca
~ 0.3
<3 0.2
0.1
o
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Problem-free Drilling Days
Fig. 3 - Input distribution from BestFit. GammaC4.16. 12.61
8 RISK ANALYSIS AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPLIED TO THE
GENERATION OF DRILLING AFE ESTIMATES
SPE26339
Correlation Coefficient - 0.821
......--

""""'

.1

II



-
II) 140
>-
120
DI
100
80
60
"i
E 40
CD
:g 20
..
CL 0
5000 10000 15000
Measured Depth (ft)
20000 25000
Fig. 4 - Problem-free drilling days vs measured depth.
25000 20000 15000
Measured Depth (ft)
10000
o __.-+--"""O<;"'----+-------l
5000
60
II) Rank Correlation Coefficient = 0.62

ftI
'0
40
30+------+------::;."",e.'----+---------1.--------j

:is
2
CL
Fig. 5 - Problem.drilling days vs measured depth.
600
IRank correlation coefficient = -0.181

500
>-
400 ftI
'0

-
CD
300

a
as

...

0
200

-
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Chronological well number
Fig. 6 - Footage per rig day vs chronological well number.
SPE 26339
S.K..PETERSON, I.A.MURTHA, AND F.F.SCHNEIDER 9
270 2&0
IORISK SlmuI.uon R.uIt8l
110 130 1&0 170 180 210 230
Fig. 7 - Output distribution for problem-free de,..
,
j :
----t----r-r--- i-_i ! _.:-_.. i
----r--r------r-----+-----+--+---I----
-+----r---t---.---r----.t--...--.t--....--+---..
---r---+ .- ;
+---i
80
o
70
0.1
0.12

0.14 __--
0.04
0.02

:a 0.08
CI
1l 0.08
..
Do
120
i

= :
1 j
j
i
I :
,..---i-- --.......;--.----;------;.-.-----
! ! .
40 80 80 100
Fig. 8 - Output distribution for problem de,..
20
0.02
o
o
0.04
0.12
IExpec:t-:.V..ue -,
0.14 __-----------------------------.....
0.1
l
:a 0.08
CI
1l 0.0.
It
380
!
. i
---+------+------j----i-----I
j 1
..
I
!ORISK Slmullnlon R.uIt8l
130 180 230 280 330
Fig. 9 - Output distribution for totel dry-hole de,..
o
80
-,
0.12 ----
0.1
0.02
lO.08
:a
CI 0.08
1l
It
0.04