Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Leading Edge; February 2005; v. 24; no. 2; p. 186-188; DOI: 10.1190/1.1876047
© 2005 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peebler, R. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

E&P

Yin & yang of the upstream industry—bringing the exploration outlook to production

Robert P. Peebler

president & CEO, I/O

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.


In the upstream energy industry, explor-ation and production are like yin and yang—opposite yet complementary or symbiotic elements of a unified system. Professionals engaged in these two major phases of the reservoir life cycle—geoscientists on the one hand, engineers on the other—have uniquely different mindsets, with time-honored approaches to challenges and opportunities. Yet both are absolutely vital to the well-being of the industry and of the global economy.

Unfortunately, the yin and yang of E&P are out of harmony.

For years, oil and gas companies have globalized strategic exploration projects, aggressively applying cutting-edge geophysical technologies and portfolio management methods to balance risk and reward. The same companies have been decentralizing their production operations into local asset teams focused on optimizing efficiency. Does this strategy still make sense?

Since most of our future reserves are likely to come from existing fields, isn't it time we began selectively globalizing strategic production operations, better integrating reservoir geophysics with engineering, and portfolio-managing these assets just as we have in exploration? To do so, yang may need a bit more of yin's outlook.

But the payoff could be enormous. As an industry, we stand to gain far greater recovery from known producing fields, improve net present value, and invest our production capital much more intelligently.


    Are we too risk averse?
 
Everyone knows there is a looming shortfall between oil and gas demand and the industry's ability to meet the world's rapidly growing energy needs (Figure 1). According to some estimates, global consumption could jump from about 82 million barrels a day today to 120 million barrels by 2030.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (73K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Looming shortfall.

 
During a recent speech before approximately 1000 exploration geophysicists, I asked a rather pointed question: "How many of you believe our industry has become too risk-averse to substantially close the gap between supply and demand that everyone . . . [Full Text of this Article]







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists