Navigating the Great Australian Bight using system models

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 553
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Fulton ◽  
Cathy M. Bulman ◽  
Simon Goldsworthy

The expanding blue economy means the oil and gas industry is just one of many activities in marine and coastal ecosystems. The future management of ecosystems such as the Great Australian Bight (GAB) should be based on a sound knowledge of the physical, ecological, economic and social interactions among the human and natural system components. The Great Australian Bight Research Program (GABRP) has generated extensive new knowledge about the GAB system, making it one of the most well understood deep-water Australian ecosystems. It is a complicated system, with novel and newly recognised ecosystem pathways. A set of system models have been developed to help navigate this complexity, to integrate the new information and establish improved understanding of system processes and the implications of any activities in the region – including monitoring and management.

Author(s):  
Jan Diederik van Wees ◽  
Hans Veldkamp ◽  
Logan Brunner ◽  
Mark Vrijlandt ◽  
Sander de Jong ◽  
...  

Abstract Over the past decade in the Netherlands, most operators have only developed a single doublet. The learning effect from these single events is suboptimal, and operators have only been capable of developing doublets in areas with relatively low exploration risk. This ‘stand-alone’ approach can be significantly improved by a collective approach to derisk regions with similar subsurface characteristics. Such a play-based portfolio approach, which is common in the oil and gas industry, can help to accelerate the development of the geothermal industry through unlocking resource potential in areas marked by high upfront geological risk, effectively helping reduce costs for the development. The basis of the methodology is to deploy new information to the play portfolio by trading off with the risk of the first wells, resulting in a strong geological risk reduction. The added value of the portfolio approach is demonstrated for the Netherlands in this paper through a comparison with a ‘stand-alone’ development. In the stand-alone approach, each new project will be equally risky, and therefore relatively unprofitable. In the case of a portfolio approach, all experience about the play is used optimally for derisking. In case of success, subsequent projects will have a higher chance of being successful, due to the experience gained in previous projects. Even if a project fails, this may help in increasing the probability of success for subsequent projects. For plays that are initially considered too risky for the market to start developing, the value of information (VoI) of a play-based portfolio approach will help by derisking the play to such an extent that it becomes attractive for the market to develop, even at high initial risk. It can be demonstrated for several geothermal plays in the Netherlands that by adopting the portfolio approach, the probability of a play being developed becomes higher, the number of successfully developed projects increases and the average profitability of the project will also be higher. Five more advantages are: (1) continuous improvement by integrated project development, (2) cost reduction through synergy, efficiency and standardisation, (3) optimisation of the surface heat demand and infrastructure, (4) the possibility of structural research and development (R&D) and innovation, and (5) financing advantages. The advantages reinforce each other. A preliminary estimate of the geothermal potential of the Netherlands adopting the portfolio approach is between 90 and 275 Petajoules (PJ). For about 350 doublets being developed, producing about 70 PJ, the value of the advantage of the play-based portfolio approach is €2 billion for the three main plays: Rotliegend, Triassic and Jurassic/Cretaceous. The learning effects of synergy, efficiency and standardisation are expected to be significant.


2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Kosowski ◽  
Jerzy Stopa

Abstract Paper discusses issues relating to the valuation of investment efficiency in the oil and gas industry using a real options theory. The example of investment pricing using real options was depicted and it was confronted with the analysis executed with the use of traditional methods. Indicators commonly used to evaluate profitability of investment projects, based on a discounted cash flow method, have a few significant drawbacks, the most meaningful of which is staticity which means that any changes resulting from a decision process during the time of investment cannot be taken into consideration. In accordance with a methodology that is currently used, investment projects are analysed in a way that all the key decisions are made at the beginning and are irreversible. This approach assumes, that all the cash flows are specified and does not let the fact that during the time of investment there may appear new information, which could change its original form. What is also not analysed is the possibility of readjustment, due to staff managment’s decisions, to the current market conditions, by expanding, speeding up/slowing down, abandoning or changing an outline of the undertaking. In result, traditional methods of investment projects valuation may lead to taking wrong decisions, e.g. giving up an owned exploitation licence or untimely liquidation of boreholes, which seem to be unprofitable. Due to all the above-mentioned there appears the necessity of finding some other methods which would let one make real and adequate estimations about investments in a petroleum industry especially when it comes to unconventional resources extraction. One of the methods which has been recently getting more and more approval in a world petroleum economics, is a real options pricing method. A real option is a right (but not an obligation) to make a decision connected with an investment in a specified time or time interval. According to the method a static model of pricing using DCF is no longer used; an investment project is divided into a series of steps and after each one there is a range of possible investment decisions, technical and organizational issues and all the others called ‘real options’. This lets one take many different varieties of modyfiying a strategy while pricing the project. This also makes it possible to react to the changing inner and outer situation and introducing new information while accomplishing the investment project. Owing to those, the decision process is a continuous operation, what is an actual vision of a real investment project management in the petroleum industry.


2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 448
Author(s):  
Robyn Glindemann

Globally, the oil and gas industry has been at the forefront of social licence to operate issues for over 20 years: from Brent Spar in the North Sea in the mid-1990s to the Greenpeace-led Lego campaign in 2014. However, the increasing demand from stakeholders for transparency from both companies and regulators, combined with the use of social media platforms to bring disparate groups of people together and globally disseminate information, has created new issues and risks for the industry to manage, often within compressed timeframes. To date, the focus of environmental groups has been on exploration activity in the oil and gas sector. The formation of the Great Australian Bight Alliance to oppose the development of resources in the Great Australian Bight, the Wilderness Society’s freedom of information (FOI) request for BP’s oil spill modelling data (which was the subject of an August 2016 decision from the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and the rise of the Lock the Gate Alliance in the context of the onshore gas sector are three examples of mixing traditional protest tactics with social media strategies. Using these and other examples, this paper will discuss the new issues and risks that oil and gas companies and regulators have to address as a consequence of social media being added to the stakeholder arsenal, and consider what new issues may arise in the social licence to operate space as the industry begins to address decommissioning and rehabilitation issues.


2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (7) ◽  
pp. 861-868
Author(s):  
Casper Wassink ◽  
Marc Grenier ◽  
Oliver Roy ◽  
Neil Pearson

2004 ◽  
pp. 51-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Sharipova ◽  
I. Tcherkashin

Federal tax revenues from the main sectors of the Russian economy after the 1998 crisis are examined in the article. Authors present the structure of revenues from these sectors by main taxes for 1999-2003 and prospects for 2004. Emphasis is given to an increasing dependence of budget on revenues from oil and gas industries. The share of proceeds from these sectors has reached 1/3 of total federal revenues. To explain this fact world oil prices dynamics and changes in tax legislation in Russia are considered. Empirical results show strong dependence of budget revenues on oil prices. The analysis of changes in tax legislation in oil and gas industry shows that the government has managed to redistribute resource rent in favor of the state.


2011 ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
A. Oleinik

The article deals with the issues of political and economic power as well as their constellation on the market. The theory of public choice and the theory of public contract are confronted with an approach centered on the power triad. If structured in the power triad, interactions among states representatives, businesses with structural advantages and businesses without structural advantages allow capturing administrative rents. The political power of the ruling elites coexists with economic power of certain members of the business community. The situation in the oil and gas industry, the retail trade and the road construction and operation industry in Russia illustrates key moments in the proposed analysis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 50-59
Author(s):  
O. P. Trubitsina ◽  
V. N. Bashkin

The article is devoted to the consideration of geopolitical challenges for the analysis of geoenvironmental risks (GERs) in the hydrocarbon development of the Arctic territory. Geopolitical risks (GPRs), like GERs, can be transformed into opposite external environment factors of oil and gas industry facilities in the form of additional opportunities or threats, which the authors identify in detail for each type of risk. This is necessary for further development of methodological base of expert methods for GER management in the context of the implementational proposed two-stage model of the GER analysis taking to account GPR for the improvement of effectiveness making decisions to ensure optimal operation of the facility oil and gas industry and minimize the impact on the environment in the geopolitical conditions of the Arctic.The authors declare no conflict of interest


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document