Planning, Implementation, And Evaluation Of A North Sea Drilling Organization
Authors: McCuish J.D. , Weekley D.E. , Brett J.F. 
Published: October 2008

Through an example case study, this paper addresses the following question : How can exploration/production operation affectively measure the relative impact of different drilling staff Ievels and different drilling organizations on their company's bottom lines? In other words, "What is the most cost effective manpower level?", and "What is the most effcient way to organize this staff?"

The approach used BOTH qualitative and quantitative analyses to assess organizational alternatives and to determine optimum manpower levels. Since its implementation, the methodology applied in this case has brought significant operations improvement and reduction in total major cash spent.

INTRODUCTION

In recent year our industry has been challenged by the need for cost reduction and "right-sizing"(usually synonymous with "down-sizing") Many drilling groups have been impacted by organizational and manpower changes, and they will continue to revisit these complex issues in the future. As we strive to provide effective drilling results, which are a pivotal lever in the full-cycle economics of the exploration and production system, we must assess the organization design alternatives in terms of their relative monetary impacts.

In the case study, a multi-disciplinary task group was formed to develop methodologies to both qualitatively and quantitatively assess the monetary impact of several drilling staff organizations.

This study used a systems approach to establish causal relationships between engineering effort and its monetary impact, by laying out the entire analysis in small logical steps. in this way, we more easily pinpointed the real cause of any problems and all steps were open to full review and to modification by management and staff. The recommendation was based upon an agreed "full-cycle" final monetary impact, rather than on short term cost savings from staff reductions.

This paper outlines the same sequence used by the task group to perform the analysis.Characterize the current situation;Identify what this situation means for the Drilling Group studied;Determine what is causing any problems;Determine what alternatives are available; andChoose between the alternatives.

Thus, before we could decide what needed to be, we had to agree on what situation currently existed.

We then had to develop a means to relate the impact of different organization alternatives and manpower levels on the bottom line. Further, the analyses had to be such that management and operations staff could have input on the details and "exercise"the projected impact "pro-formas". This work during the analysis gives management more confidence to act on the results.

CASESTUDY:

Situation

In 1990, Amoex's (Amoco UK Exploration) drilling group was based in London and was organized along functional (i.e. engineering and operational) lines rather than by "operational teams." For seven rigs, the organization would have 1.3 engineers per active rig if fully staffed. The organization was not fully staffed.

The operational arm was based in Aberdeen and reported through an operations management structure. There was daily communication between the groups, and engineers went to Aberdeen, or the rig, when necessary.