Lessons Learned in a Decade of Automated Reservoir and Production Engineering Surveillance

Abstract

AbstractIntroducing new technology in the oil patch is not for the faint of heart. Introducing automation, which some perceive as threatening their jobs, as opposed to making their jobs easier and their decision process more efficient, requires some form of irrationality. With this in mind, the authors would like to take the readers through their journey of the last ten years, with the hope that others can learn from their experience.Without making any claims about the efficacy of the technology (Fair, 2014) to solve every problem an operator has, and without badmouthing any potential competition (Lesson 1: Never do this! It makes YOU look bad!), the authors introduced the technology via the ‘drug dealer’ method: The first time is free…When people come back for more, start charging. The technology was introduced and trialed at most majors and many of the larger independent companies, with a surprising amount of early adoption. There was then a significant bifurcation in the way the majors and the independents behaved.Amongst the independent operators or majors with operating units that acted like independents, acceptance of the technology in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and North Sea was very binary. Either it was accepted as plausible and at least tried-out, or it was declared impossible and outright rejected.Amongst the majors and the independents that act like majors, the entry path to a trial was byzantine. A couple of majors never accepted free trials. Amongst the others that did go to a trial, once the trial was completed, it never led to implementation…rather, it led to years-long internal R&d (that’s right…Big R, small d) efforts, usually resulting in nothing. This inevitably led the holders of the purse strings to declare that since their internal experts couldn’t duplicate or even understand the technology, it was therefore impossible and/or does not work.The reason the engineers and managers at the independents adopted the technology was that they were ‘closer to the coal face’. It didn’t matter if they understood all of the details of the technology. What mattered was simple: Can using this technology make the company more money (or save it more money)? Quite frankly, the technology implementation was more successful the less the company management cared about understanding the minutia.This paper presents a firsthand account of how technology is absorbed or rejected by different company types in the oil & gas industry and seeks to explain the reasoning behind their decision-making. It also provides some guidance to others who wish to bring new tech to the oil patch.Note: This will not be a formal technical paper. This will be more akin to an editorial/advice column, presented in a way that hopefully helps the reader use their time more efficiently and promote their ideas more successfully. As such, a good portion of the article will not be written in third person.