Adrin Shafil

Petrofac Drilling and Completions Manager
Last Updated: August 25, 2017
1 view
Drilling & Completions

I used to be a pure red blooded driller. Red, the colour of fire and blood, associated with energy, war, danger, strength, power, determination as well as passion, desire, and love. And all of that hot emotions was for my passion to drill. I did not care about anything else other than well length, cost, time, and how great I was at selecting the right tool, using it and of course telling people about my accomplishments. And in Feb 2004, I reached the very pinnacle of being a drilling engineer. I drilled, single handedly (that shall go in my future memoirs), the longest well in Malaysia. At 6313mMD, I, the lead drilling engineer, held the Malaysian record for longest well ever drilled.


Unfortunately that intense self admiration and jubilation was short lived, when in a few weeks that record was broken by another operator. My ego deflated, my self worth diminishing by every mention of the other well's length, I banged my forehead whenever I thought of them who beat my record by a measly 50m. And of course, being a red blooded driller, the only lesson I learned was to just to drill longer next time. If I ever drilled another record breaking well, I will make sure I just put in some contingency shale drilling of about ~60m, so that I never get beaten again -_-

Sadly, I have never had a chance again, because since 2004, there have only been a handful of ultra ERD wells drilled. To put this into perspective, the longest well currently in Malaysia was drilled in 2014 to ~6700m, which is a laudable achievement, but exemplifies a slow progression over 10 years. As a driller, I feel that it is my responsibility to revive the interest in ERD and invigorate the passion for world class records which has since waned in the Malay Basin.


But now I've since gone to the Dark Side (Star Wars trademark), the side that bleeds hydrocarbon, I realise that my previous infatuation with drilling KPIs just seems so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, when the oil business bottom line are production and profits, and doesn't really give a hoot on how long a well is. To stay profitable, and as reserves become even smaller and difficult to access, it has becomes an ever-more important to focus on looking at several concepts with enabling techniques, to be able to select the right solution to exploit hydrocarbons. As a driller, nothing is sexier and more elegant than suggesting extended reach drilling. While its the most straightforward option which allows the ability to explore and produce further and deeper, and minimise facilities installation, it does come with added risk and possibility of failure.


Any solution proposed requires capital expenditure. And capital expenditure proposals must be sufficiently specific to permit their technical and commercial justification, with sufficient risk assessment, for exploration and production operations, not just for the immediate fiscal year, but the life of the production sharing contract or field. In the economic phase of evaluation, oil management may find that it has more investment opportunities than capital to invest, or more capital to invest than investment opportunities. Whichever situation exists, oil management needs to resort to some economic criteria for selecting or rejecting investment proposals. Management’s decision in either case is likely to be based largely on the measures of financial return on the investment. In the current depressed oil price climate, how do we make extended reach drilling a viable option?


I won’t pretend that I’m an expert at economics like Wally in the Dilbert strip above, but let’s try to simplify the concept for the purpose of this article. Lets just say, all of the KPIs of a well, production, cost, schedule, IRR, ROI, terms of PSC, can all be rolled into a variable limit, the economic threshold of the project.


This chart represents the likelihood of costs in a normal Monte Carlo S-curve spread, where the cost of a project is typically quoted as the P50, with a range given for sensitivities. In layman's terms, the mid case is the P50 (50% chance having costs below that threshold) and P10 and P90 is the low and high side respectively. The range of costs are given so that the project can be carefully evaluated against the returns for any given scenario.


However, most projects focus on the most straightforward approach, which is trying to reduce base cost ('What we plan for' curve), in an attempt to get closer to the low side, and hope that nothing goes wrong to upset the cart and skew to the upside. To shift the whole S-curve downwards, the team will negotiate contracts, purchase cheaper tangibles/consumables, reduce the technology, and try to get the work done with a lean operation. However, as we lower down our price point, we will inevitably be introducing creep, compromising quality and safety. Post experiencing a trainwreck, the looming result is cost inadvertently passing the economic threshold ('What will actually happen' curve).

A prudent project manager should try to visualise, manage and contain all of the outcomes, trying to put a cap on the risk and exposure of the upside, while making the likelihood of meeting the P50 expectation more likely, even if it means increasing the mid-case, and forgoing a more aggressive P10 ('What we actually need' Green curve). To put it simply, don't lose the farm while trying to save every single dollar.

If you are planning to justify a new technology, a new technique, or a risky proposition such as extended reach drilling, there are 5 key elements that you need in your proposal, to emulate the 'What we actually need' green curve:


Key 1: Collaborate and Build the knowledge of your team: Collaborate as much as possible internally, and externally with partners, host government, increase data trade transactions, and engage professional networks in order to learn as much as you can on the venture you are undertaking. In this environment, you will be pleasantly surprised that others might actually be interested to learn from you to. In my previous life, I was part of an assurance team, called upon by our partner in Western Australia to look at their concept work. They were down to two options, where they were weighing a 10km ERD well versus a subsea development, where the costs of subsea were 50% higher. The upside costs presented by the drilling team for the ERD looked reasonable, with their P90 costs about a wash with the subsea well. So on paper, ERD looked to be the right selection. However, the Drilling Manager confessed that despite the economics and his attempt to show the risks, he believes that his team does not have the capability to carry out the work, in other words the drillability due to the capability was questionable. The ERD well was dropped in favor of the subsea well, and everybody agreed that was the right call, because regardless what the evaluation on paper shows, there was no confidence in the team that was to carry the work out. Pity.


Key 2: Cap your upside costs: Gone are the days when people say, "A well is going to cost what its going to cost". Have savvier contracts, such as with lump sum capped, performance incentivised, meterage measured or even turnkeyed contract. We should no longer be dependent on time based contracts, just because the supplier says so. Determine the cost structure which fits your project and design your contracts to meet what is required


Key 3: Increase your execution reliability: This doesn't mean not having problems. What it means is being able to deliver what you promised. So if the design is complex, and on average non productive time is high, design the lower complexity aspects of the project to absorb the possible problems that you will eventually have. Sometimes you have to accept that your planned costs would have to be higher to increase reliability. Justify the increase and plan for success, but be ready for failure.


Key 4: Have contingency plans for everything, even failure of your base plan: It goes without saying that risk assessments are the support system for a project, but without closing out and implementing any of the mitigation plans, the risk assessment are just a waste of time. An always think of what would happen if the primary plan fails? Do you have a fall back plan to still retain value or limit exposure? An alternative target, perhaps? A ready for deployment sidetrack assembly?


Key 5: Increase the value statement of your design: During detailed design, a D&C team often gets carried away on focusing too much on 'getting the job' done versus remembering why the job was done in the first place. Reaching an objective is just the means to extract the value from the project. Design the well in order to increase the returns on the project, and increase the economic threshold. Drill better wells, which doesn't necessarily mean drilling longer or more wells.

Hopefully the keys above will assist the reader in creating more palatable ERD proposals. Every single project, every single team, and every single company will have a different approach in creating value, but I do hope that maybe in some minute way, I managed to jog some life back into excitement about drilling and ERD in Malaysia. Stay savvy, people.

16 4

Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today

Latest NrgBuzz

In 2018, the United States consumed more energy than ever before

U.S. total energy consumption

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Primary energy consumption in the United States reached a record high of 101.3 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2018, up 4% from 2017 and 0.3% above the previous record set in 2007. The increase in 2018 was the largest increase in energy consumption, in both absolute and percentage terms, since 2010.

Consumption of fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—grew by 4% in 2018 and accounted for 80% of U.S. total energy consumption. Natural gas consumption reached a record high, rising by 10% from 2017. This increase in natural gas, along with relatively smaller increases in the consumption of petroleum fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear electric power, more than offset a 4% decline in coal consumption.

U.S. total energy consumption

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Petroleum consumption in the United States increased to 20.5 million barrels per day (b/d), or 37 quadrillion Btu in 2018, up nearly 500,000 b/d from 2017 and the highest level since 2007. Growth was driven primarily by increased use in the industrial sector, which grew by about 200,000 b/d in 2018. The transportation sector grew by about 140,000 b/d in 2018 as a result of increased demand for fuels such as petroleum diesel and jet fuel.

Natural gas consumption in the United States reached a record high 83.1 billion cubic feet/day (Bcf/d), the equivalent of 31 quadrillion Btu, in 2018. Natural gas use rose across all sectors in 2018, primarily driven by weather-related factors that increased demand for space heating during the winter and for air conditioning during the summer. As more natural gas-fired power plants came online and existing natural gas-fired power plants were used more often, natural gas consumption in the electric power sector increased 15% from 2017 levels to 29.1 Bcf/d. Natural gas consumption also grew in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors in 2018, increasing 13%, 10%, and 4% compared with 2017 levels, respectively.

Coal consumption in the United States fell to 688 million short tons (13 quadrillion Btu) in 2018, the fifth consecutive year of decline. Almost all of the reduction came from the electric power sector, which fell 4% from 2017 levels. Coal-fired power plants continued to be displaced by newer, more efficient natural gas and renewable power generation sources. In 2018, 12.9 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity were retired, while 14.6 GW of net natural gas-fired capacity were added.

U.S. fossil fuel energy consumption by sector

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Renewable energy consumption in the United States reached a record high 11.5 quadrillion Btu in 2018, rising 3% from 2017, largely driven by the addition of new wind and solar power plants. Wind electricity consumption increased by 8% while solar consumption rose 22%. Biomass consumption, primarily in the form of transportation fuels such as fuel ethanol and biodiesel, accounted for 45% of all renewable consumption in 2018, up 1% from 2017 levels. Increases in wind, solar, and biomass consumption were partially offset by a 3% decrease in hydroelectricity consumption.

U.S. energy consumption of selected fuels

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Nuclear consumption in the United States increased less than 1% compared with 2017 levels but still set a record for electricity generation in 2018. The number of total operable nuclear generating units decreased to 98 in September 2018 when the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey was retired. Annual average nuclear capacity factors, which reflect the use of power plants, were slightly higher at 92.6% in 2018 compared with 92.2% in 2017.

More information about total energy consumption, production, trade, and emissions is available in EIA’s Monthly Energy Review.

April, 17 2019
Casing design course
Candidates :Drilling engineers/ drilling supervisors- Venue: Istanbul/Turkey- Duration: 5 days- For more information contact me at: Tel: +905364320900- [email protected] [email protected]
April, 17 2019
A New Frontier for LNG Pricing and Contracts

How’s this for a first? As the world’s demand for LNG continues to grow, the world’s largest LNG supplier (Shell) has inked an innovative new deal with one of the world’s largest LNG buyers (Tokyo Gas), including a coal pricing formula link for the first time in a large-scale LNG contract. It’s a notable change in an industry that has long depended on pricing gas off crude, but could this be a sign of new things to come?

Both parties have named the deal an ‘innovative solution’, with Tokyo Gas hailing it as a ‘further diversification of price indexation’ and Shell calling it a ‘tailored solutions including flexible contract terms under a variety of pricing indices.’ Beneath the rhetoric, the actual nuts and bolts is slightly more mundane. The pricing formula link to coal indexation will only be used for part of the supply, with the remainder priced off the conventional oil & gas-linked indexation ie. Brent and Henry Hub pricing. This makes sense, since Tokyo Gas will be sourcing LNG from Shell’s global portfolio – which includes upcoming projects in Canada and the US Gulf Coast. Neither party provided the split of volumes under each pricing method, meaning that the coal-linked portion could be small, acting as a hedge.

However, it is likely that the push for this came from Tokyo Gas. As one of the world’s largest LNG buyers, Tokyo Gas has been at the forefront of redefining the strict traditions of LNG contracts. Reading between the lines, this deal most likely does not include any destination restriction clauses, a change that Tokyo Gas has been particularly pushing for. With the trajectory for Brent crude prices uncertain – owing to a difficult-to-predict balance between OPEC+ and US shale – creating a third link in the pricing formula might be a good move. Particularly since in Japan, LNG faces off directly with coal in power generation. With the general retreat from nuclear power in the country, the coal-LNG battle will intensify.

What does this mean for the rest of the industry? Could coal-linked contracts become the norm? The industry has been discussing new innovations in LNG contracts at the recent LNG2019 conference in Shanghai, while the influx of new American LNG players hungry to seal deals has unleashed a new sense of flexibility. But will there be takers?

I am not a pricing expert but the answer is maybe. While Tokyo Gas predominantly uses natural gas as its power generation fuel (hence the name), it is competing with other players using cheaper coal-based generation. So in Japan, LNG and coal are direct competitors. This is also true in South Korea and much of Southeast Asia. In the two rising Asian LNG powerhouses, however, the situation is different. In China – on track to become the world’s largest LNG buyer in the next two decades – LNG is rarely used in power generation, consumed instead by residential heating. In India – where LNG imports are also rising sharply – LNG is primarily aimed at petrochemicals and fertiliser. LNG based power generation in China and India could see a surge, of course, but that will take plenty of infrastructure, and time, to build. It is far more likely that their contracts will be based off existing LNG or natural gas benchmarks, several of which are being developed in Asia alone.

If it takes off  the coal-link LNG formula is likely to remain a Asian-based development. But with the huge volumes demanded by countries in this region, that’s still a very big niche. Enough perhaps for the innovation to slowly gain traction elsewhere, next stop -  Europe?

The Shell-Tokyo Gas Deal:

Contract – April 2020-March 2030 (10 Years)

Volume – 500,000 metric tons per year

Source – Shell global portfolio

Pricing – Formula based on coal and oil & gas-linked indexes

Learn more about LNG business, technology, markets and contracts
LNG Fundamentals - May, 27 – 29, Singapore
LNG Markets, Pricing, Trading & Risk Management - May, 27 – 29, Singapore
LNG Terminal Operations - June19 – 21, Singapore
Gas & LNG Contract Negotiations - August, 21 – 23, Kuala Lumpur
LNG Fundamentals – October, 22 – 24, Singapore

April, 15 2019