Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Efficient frontier theory is gaining acceptance as a part of the
portfolio analysis process in the petroleum industry. One of
the major difficulties companies encounter in creating
corporate efficient frontiers is in representing project level
risks in a corporate consolidation of value. Full stochastic
evaluations require the management of huge quantities of data.
As a result several current solutions use multiple discrete
outcomes to represent any given project, rather then a
complete stochastic distribution. This paper evaluates the
differences resulting from using these two approaches to
project risking. By examining the optimized portfolio results
and the resultant efficient frontier, we are able to draw direct
conclusions about the added value attributable to detailed
Monte Carlo based evaluations. Since price is the source of
most correlation between projects, the investigation was done
with and without price as an input variable. It was discovered
that the differences between the stochastic and discrete
outcome evaluations are not significant when price uncertainty
is neglected, but the inclusion of price leads to significant
differences if the resulting correlation is not accounted for.
Introduction
Petroleum managers are constantly faced with the decision
of how to invest limited amounts of capital in order to
maximize shareholder value or return. This is usually done by
evaluating all the available investments, and then selecting a
subset in which to invest. This subset is often referred to as
the companys portfolio. Selection of this portfolio is critical
to a companys success and therefore it requires significant
consideration.
The goal of the portfolio selection process is to select the
optimal set of projects. However, this is not a simple
SPE 69594
Project Generation
In order to evaluate the differences that the project risk
evaluation method has on portfolio risk, we needed to start
with a typical group of projects. In our case we used thirty
projects based on real evaluations from differing locations
SPE 69594
SPE 69594
Results
Using the full Monte Carlo evaluations, the resultant portfolio
NPVs ranged from MM$1,510 to MM$3,070, while the
associated risk ranged from MM$225 to MM$660 (Fig. 7).
While using the simple stochastic evaluations, the resultant
portfolio NPVs ranged from MM$1,510 to MM$3,070, and
the associated risk ranged from MM$200 to MM$490 (Fig. 8).
The identical NPV values are no surprise as the expected
values of the simple stochastic evaluations matched the mean
values (expected) from the full Monte Carlo evaluations
(Table 2).
In order to compare the optimized project selection
between the two project risking methods, fourteen of the most
efficient portfolios found based on the full Monte Carlo
SPE 69594
Conclusions
The method of describing risk at the individual project level, is
a factor in the portfolio optimization and analysis process.
Using full Monte Carlo based evaluations does lead to
improved risk measurement and more accurate portfolio
analysis.
Using a relatively simple uncertainty tree approach to
evaluate the projects will lead to similar portfolio optimization
results when using risk measures as the main selection criteria,
with significantly less effort in the creation of the project
evaluations.
The incorporation of price uncertainty leads to large
differences in the two approaches due to the effects of the
correlation. The authors feel more investigation is warranted
in the effects of incorporating correlated prices in the simple
stochastic evaluations.
This paper firmly demonstrates that companies can start
down the road of risked based portfolio optimization and
analysis without having to put together detailed Monte Carlo
based evaluations for every project. A mix of the approaches
can be used to perform risk based portfolio optimization and
analysis, allowing companies to use the detailed data where
available, without having to force everyone into long and
detailed analysis of every project.
References
1. Markowitz, H.: Portfolio Selection, The Journal of Finance,
Vol. VII, No. 1, (1952) 77-91.
2. McVean, J.R..: The Significance of Risk Definition on Portfolio
Selection, SPE 62966, 2000 SPE annual technical conference
and exhibition in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 Oct, 2000.
AT Cash
NPV 10%
(MM$)
127
102
200
251
367
68
90
77
125
128
80
85
30
92
51
47
8
7
5
6
106
38
110
148
184
50
118
187
283
23
Capital
Undisc.
(MM$)
142
62
133
119
345
75
137
28
88
204
71
121
86
95
31
96
21
20
9
5
452
182
352
42
387
73
143
82
69
51
Oil Prod.
Type
(MMSTB)
56
50
182
212
47
57
88
48
44
111
80
85
38
66
21
47
11
10
7
6
182
79
138
28
237
46
103
32
39
39
SPE 69594
Probability
of Success
(%)
Acq.
Dev.
Dev.
Dev.
Acq.
Del.
Expl.
Expl.
Expl.
Expl.
Del.
Expl.
Expl.
Dev.
Dev.
Expl.
Expl.
Expl.
Del.
Del.
Expl.
Expl.
Expl.
Expl.
Dev.
Expl.
Del.
Expl.
Del.
Expl.
90
72
35
41
17
94
30
27
40
30
20
95
90
30
60
23
43
80
90
15
90
25
Name
Max V
HV - 1
HV 2
HV 3
HV 4
AV 1
AV 2
AV 3
AV 4
LV 1
LV 2
LV 3
LV 4
Min R
AT Cash
NPV 10%
(MM$)
3,070
2,860
2,796
2,690
2,613
2,552
2,420
2,352
2,240
2,186
2,034
1,889
1,771
1,510
Semi-Standard
deviation based
on Full
Monte Carlo
Inputs
(MM$)
660
639
611
565
540
523
460
430
403
380
362
337
311
225
Number
of
Projects
25
22
23
23
25
21
24
24
23
22
20
21
19
19
Semi-Standard
deviation based
on Simple
Stochastic
Inputs
(MM$)
490
477
485
442
378
377
350
315
310
285
276
255
225
200