This paper will examine the influence of some recent court decisions on the preparation and presentation of scientific and technical evaluation as part of expert witness and other testimony amid the mounting concern about "junk science" in the courtroom. The implications of the Daubert and Robinson decisions, will be discussed in terms of the geologic and engineering evaluation of oil and gas properties and projects which may be used for expert witness testimony or which have the potential to end up in civil or administrative litigation. The Daubert decision, in particular, has resulted in considerable review of the common practice of relying on methods deemed to be "generally accepted" and had required some, but not all, courts and other judicial bodies which are subject to court review, to adopt more restrictive standards. These new standards include demonstration of the sources of supporting and derivative information, determination of error rates for the analytical methods used, and demonstration of the acceptance of the evaluation methods used among knowledgeable persons in the field This paper will explore the application of these standards to examples of evaluation for geologic prospect development, in reservoir engineering analysis of EOR reserves, and in the development of economic parameters such as price/cost projections, comparable sales analysis, and discount rates for use in economic evaluations for tax or other purpose.

You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.