Peer Reviewed Papers - Overview
Welcome to this month’s selection of peer-reviewed papers, which reflect areas of current activity and interest in the industry. The variability of the papers included in each issue encompasses subjects from conceptual design to analysis of executed projects.
The first paper describes the options and effects that occur very early in the selection of a development concept for an offshore field. For some discoveries, a choice between platform-based or subsea development exists. The paper describes the large number of complex and mutually dependent options available for offshore developments and encourages the engineer to look beyond the initial solution to include workover, recompletions, and enhanced-oil-recovery technologies.
The next paper identifies the cost-estimating errors that cause actual costs for compressor stations to deviate from estimated costs. The statistical analysis includes a review of the cost overruns in several different aspects, such as major components, project size, capacity, and location. In general, the larger cost overruns were in the labor-cost categories. The conclusions include recommendations to help focus the efforts.
The final paper discusses the engineering aspects of smart fields. The main functionalities of onshore smart fields are remote operation, real-time information, and collaboration. The author addresses how implementation depends on whether the current operation is a brownfield or greenfield. However, because primary production is becoming scarce and oil operating companies are struggling to increase recovery from mature reservoirs and develop marginal uncertain reservoirs, the business case for smart fields becomes more appealing.
The papers presented in this section were reviewed and ultimately approved in the peer-review process; however, the conclusions presented in these papers are based on the authors’ knowledge and experiences. As sharing of knowledge and experiences is essential, SPE welcomes further discussion of papers published in any SPE journal. Please feel free to submit a discussion of a paper to SPE if you disagree with the interpretations or conclusions presented, or if the authors and reviewers have missed publications that either support or invalidate results. I look forward to receiving such discussion letters.
Thank you for taking the time to review the selections presented on the following pages. I hope you enjoy these papers as much as I did when selecting them.
Jim Collins, Peer-Review Editor,
Williams Chirinos, Inexertus
Galen Dino, AMEC Oil and Gas Americas
Sudhakar Mahajanam, ConocoPhillips
Gerald Verbeek, Verbeek Management Services
26 January 2018
12 February 2018
25 January 2018
30 January 2018