Technology Implementation Process, Best Practices, and Learnings from Jurassic Gas ETSA Experience
Authors: Dashti Qasem , Olusegun Kolawole , Al-Qadeeri Bashar , Thakuria Chandan , Shaikh Karim , Jensen Peter , Rice John 
Published: October 2019

Abstract
Since the start of the North Kuwait Jurassic Gas (NKJG) Project, Enhanced Technical Service Agreement (ETSA) in 2010 with Shell, Technology implementation has been a priority. The key challenge, following the successes of technology deployment at pilot level, is to deliver sustainable solutions, with business impact on the NKJG project, vis-à-vis production maximization, well cost reduction and ultimate recovery maximization. Moreover, NKJG technology focus, in line with business priorities, has recently changed to assurance of near- and medium-term gas supply.
An integrated technology mapping workshop, led by Shell Technology Deployment experts from the Netherlands, was held during 18-20th January 2016, using a refined technology mapping and prioritisation process applied in Shell assets globally, to ensure that KOC technology efforts are prioritised and aligned across the organisation at large and deliver maximum value to NKJG in particular. The workshop participants were drawn from six discipline teams (Drilling and Completions, Production Operations, Well Intervention and Management, Subsurface, Project Management and HSE).
From the technology mapping workshop, Downhole fibre optics; Well Reservoir Facility Management (WRFM); Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD); Underbalanced drilling and Annular Isolation technology emerged as the top five technologies to deliver the most value to NKJG project, considering the participants focus on the business challenges, related to well quality improvement, reservoir performance understanding and optimisation of field development. Furthermore, the workshop also identified ‘solution gaps’ in addressing many of the subsurface related challenges (Optimise integrated field development, improving predictability of reservoir performance) and additional technology solutions will be required to address these gaps.
The value of technology ‘at risk’ of not realising full value from implementation is assessed to range from 30 to 70% of the full value of the technology. These are due to both technical and non-technical risks in implementation. Key non-technical risks identified such as organisational misalignment, contracting delays need to be addressed in order to realise full value from technology implementation. The workshop participants proposed the following improvements to support technology implementation; Robust, detailed and realistic multiple year implementation plans taking account of standard KOC contracting and procurement processes.
Annual work plans driven by technology implementation priorities rather than the opposite. Progress of the top-ranking technologies tracked at senior management level. Preferably monthly or quarterly as part of a decision review board (DRB) governance structure. Individual technology implementation targets to be included as shared KPIs of concerned Shell / KOC managers and Team Leads. This paper documents the outcome of the workshop in terms of the ranking of the business challenges/opportunities within NKJG, the ranking of technologies that need to be implemented to address these challenges, the technology mapping and prioritisation process followed, the key technology implementation challenges identified and their suggested mitigations.