Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMcVay, Duane
dc.creatorAldossary, Mubarak Nasser
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-08T15:08:17Z
dc.date.available2016-07-08T15:08:17Z
dc.date.created2016-05
dc.date.issued2016-04-21
dc.date.submittedMay 2016
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/156856
dc.description.abstractDespite the perception of lucrative earnings in the oil industry, various authors have noted that industry performance is routinely below expectations. For example, the average reported return for the industry was around 7% in the 1990s, even though a typical project hurdle rate was at least 15%. The underperformance is generally attributed to poor project evaluation and selection due to chronic bias. While a number of authors have investigated cognitive biases in oil and gas project evaluation, there have been few quantitative studies of the impact of biases on economic performance. Incomplete investigation and possible underestimation of the impact of biases in project evaluation and selection are at least partially responsible for persistence of these biases. The objectives of this work were to determine quantitatively the value of assessing uncertainty or, alternatively, the cost of underestimating uncertainty. This work presents a new framework for assessing the monetary impact of overconfidence bias and directional bias (i.e., optimism or pessimism) on portfolio performance. For moderate amounts of overconfidence and optimism, expected disappointment (having realized NPV less than estimated NPV) was 30-35% of estimated NPV for typical industry portfolios and optimization cases. Greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism resulted in expected disappointments approaching 100% of estimated NPV. Comparison of simulation results with expected industry performance in the 1990s, indicates that these greater degrees of overconfidence and optimism have been experienced in the industry. The value of reliably quantifying uncertainty is in reducing or eliminating expected disappointment and expected decision error (selecting the wrong projects), which is achieved by focusing primarily on elimination of overconfidence; other biases are taken care of in the process. Elimination of expected disappointment will improve industry performance overall to the extent that superior projects are available and better quantification of uncertainty allows identification of these superior projects.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectuncertaintyen
dc.subjectunderestimating uncertaintyen
dc.subjectcognitive biasesen
dc.subjectoverconfidenceen
dc.subjectoptimismen
dc.subjectpessimismen
dc.subjectportfolios optimizationen
dc.subjectexpected disappointmenten
dc.subjectoptimizer's curseen
dc.subjectexpected decision erroren
dc.subjectdirectional biasen
dc.titleThe Value of Assessing Uncertaintyen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.departmentPetroleum Engineeringen
thesis.degree.disciplinePetroleum Engineeringen
thesis.degree.grantorTexas A & M Universityen
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen
dc.contributor.committeeMemberLee, John
dc.contributor.committeeMemberGildin, Eduardo
dc.contributor.committeeMemberMallick, Bani
dc.type.materialtexten
dc.date.updated2016-07-08T15:08:17Z
local.etdauthor.orcid0000-0003-3124-764X


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record