Some of you may have already browsed the OGA’s five year review of (UKCS) major oil and gas projects.
It is a sobering read, chronicling the various mishaps
that beset 58 major projects executed between 2011 and 2016. On average:
·
fewer than 25% of projects were delivered
on time (average of 10 months delay), and
·
projects were 35% over budget compared to
estimates made in Field Development Plans.
In shape, these conclusions are similar to those of
IPA in reviewing ~250 global FPSO projects.
QED: In the UKCS, and globally, major development
performance is pretty miserable, with misses on 1st Oil/Gas timing
and/or budget and/or production delivery, sometimes all three.
The IPA study pointed to under-appraisal, that is,
lack of understanding of the reservoir, its geometry and dynamic
characteristics, as a key driver of poor project performance – in essence many
folk designed the wrong production facilities.
The future of the UKCS relies in good part on the
successful development of marginal discoveries – see OGA’s recent review. These
leave no room at all for error and so getting your understanding of your
reservoir spot on will be absolutely key.
In my humble opinion, our prediction,
description and understanding of reservoir geometries, rock physical properties
and dynamic performance remains weak – “could do better” would be written on
our school reports. During the appraisal stage I
think we can do a lot more with the combination of 3D seismic + logs + core +
fluid analyses than we do and, as production develops, a lot more with 4D
seismic/permanent reservoir monitoring and down-hole technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment