Scientific method: application to exploration

Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps
Series	Treatise in Petroleum Geology
Chapter	Developing a philosophy of exploration
Author	Edward A. Beaumont, Norman H. Foster, Richard R. Vincelette, Marlan W. Downey, James D. Robertson
Link	Web page
Store	AAPG Store

Technical effort in petroleum exploration that follows the six steps of the scientific method is the only effort that can consistently progress toward an acceptable solution. The table below shows how to apply the scientific method to petroleum exploration.

Examples

Step	Action	Example(s)
1	State the problem	Asking “Where are the economical hydrocarbon accumulations?”
2	Collect observations	Collecting outcrop, seismic, and well log data
3	Formulate hypothesis	Correlating seismic records with well logs Contouring structural and thickness data
4	Make predictions	Recommending lease purchases Recommending drilling a test well on the basis of map interpretation
5	Test predictions by observing phenomena	Seismically detailing a structural prospect Drilling a wildcat well
6	Accept, modify, or reject the hypothesis	Drilling another wildcat well Promoting a well to test a modified hypothesis Dropping acreage

Step 1: State objectives

In exploration, the general problem is locating substantial quantities of hydrocarbons that are economical to produce. A host of specific problems arise in given instances, but we should recognize that the major problem (objective) of an exploration effort is to find large amounts of oil or gas cheaply.

Step 2: Collect observations

Much of the technical work done in exploration can be categorized as collecting observations (data). Under this heading comes work such as logging samples, recording shows, compiling sediment interval thicknesses, acquiring field seismic data, and identifying paleontologic data.

Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis

In step 3, explorationists formulate hypothetical solutions (interpretations) to the problem stated in step 1 (Where are the hydrocarbons?) that are consistent with the observations of step 2. When explorationists interpret data, they formulate hypothetical solutions to the problem of finding commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons.

Unfortunately, exploration technical work often bogs down at step 3. Many people believe a modern interpretation derived from recently collected and carefully measured data is a high-level scientific piece of work that deserves a high level of confidence. In the rigorous context that we are attempting to describe, such an interpretation is only an untested hypothesis (step 3).

We should continuously evaluate whether the products of an exploration effort have passed step 3. For example, compare these two pieces of stratigraphic work:

• A simple gross sand isopach map that is essentially unaltered by results of considerable additional drilling. Such correct predictions represent work that has earned a high scientific confidence level and therefore is well past step 3.
• A newly prepared environmental, lithofacies (see Lithofacies and environmental analysis of clastic depositional systems and Carbonate facies), and seismic–stratigraphic interpretation of a similar sand unit. Although prepared with an impressive degree of advanced technical competence, this is only an untested hypothesis and therefore has only reached step 3.

The scientific method recognizes the degree of proof of the hypothesis, not the sophistication of the data used to prepare it.

Step 4: Predict results

Step 4 in the scientific method sequence is predicting that hydrocarbons can be found and economically produced at a specific location, using the maps, cross sections, etc., made in step 3. Predictions are of most value when their specific components are properly recorded in advance of verification along with some estimate of the degree of confidence in the components.

Step 5: Test predictions

Next, we must check or observe the predictions of step 4 against the outcome of some test, such as drilling a well or seismically detailing (reshooting) a prospect.

Step 6: Accept, modify, or reject the hypothesis

Drilling a wildcat well on a prospect rarely completely proves or disproves the original interpretation. Generally the test performed at step 5 modifies the interpretation to a greater or lesser extent and always alters the confidence level (see Risk: expected value and chance of success) attributable to the interpretation. Depending on the confidence retained in the interpretation, we may drill another wildcat well, promote a test, or drop the acreage, in descending orders of confidence. Step 6 of the scientific method as applied to petroleum exploration is accepting, modifying, or rejecting the hypotheses or interpretation developed at step 4.

See also

• Scientific method
• Scientific predictions: measurement and evaluation

External links

find literature about Scientific method: application to exploration

• Original content in Datapages
• Find the book in the AAPG Store