Production Loss Reporting: A Best in Class Approach › wzukusers › user... · Production Loss Reporting: A Best in Class Approach ... The following document is a more generic version

A Best in Class Approach to Production Loss Reporting Neil Hardy

Production Loss Reporting: A Best in Class Approach

Detailed Guidance and Procedure for adopting a standard approach to Production and

Injection loss reporting with the purpose of continuous efficiency improvement.

Neil R Hardy

[email protected]

www.younglight.com

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 2

The Choke Model Concept .......................................................................................................................... 2

Origins ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Modelling the Asset ................................................................................................................................ 2

Identifying the Asset’s capacity for Improvement and Growth .................................................................. 3

Ownership ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Choke Model Champion ......................................................................................................................... 4

Ownership Embedded in the People Processes ...................................................................................... 4

Developing the Choke Model Structure...................................................................................................... 5

The People Processes ................................................................................................................................. 5

Setting MPP ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Monthly MPP Review .............................................................................................................................. 5

The Challenge Process ............................................................................................................................ 6

Choke Capacities ..................................................................................................................................... 7

The Reservoir Capacity........................................................................................................................ 7

The Wells Capacity .............................................................................................................................. 7

The Plant Choke Capacity ................................................................................................................... 7

The Export Choke Capacity ................................................................................................................. 7

The Market/Commercial Capacity ...................................................................................................... 7

Capture of Daily Losses ............................................................................................................................... 8

Capture of Potential Losses ...................................................................................................................... 10

Grow MPP Opportunities .......................................................................................................................... 11

Growth Opportunity Data ......................................................................................................................... 13

Performance Review and Sharing Knowledge .......................................................................................... 14

Analysis and Reporting .......................................................................................................................... 14

Prioritisation, Identification of Causes & Highlighting Trends .......................................................... 14

Ad-hoc Analysis and Reporting ......................................................................................................... 16

Performance Metrics and Trends ......................................................................................................... 17

Production Efficiency (PE) ................................................................................................................. 17

Operational Availability (OA) ............................................................................................................ 17

Review Meetings ....................................................................................................................................... 18

End of Production Day Offshore Operations Review Meeting ............................................................. 18

Daily Review Meeting ........................................................................................................................... 18


Weekly Offshore Operations Review Meeting ..................................................................................... 18

Monthly Performance Review Meeting ................................................................................................ 19

Monthly and Quarterly Cross-Asset Reporting ......................................................................................... 19

Federal Campaigns ................................................................................................................................ 19

Sharing Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 19

Audit/Peer Review .................................................................................................................................... 20

Terms and Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix 1: Full Asset System Source Example ...................................................................................... 22


1 The Choke Model www.younglight.com

Introduction Having spent 20 years working with a diverse set of operators around the globe, we have amassed a

wealth of experience, specifically in the area of Production (and Injection) Efficiency Improvement.

Today, more than 300 assets continue to benefit from our software, which is designed to support an

integrated set of People-Processes.

Over the years, these people processes have been improved, refined and augmented to reflect the

emerging industry best practice.

Recently, we were asked by a National Oil Company to create their “Standard Approach” to Production

Efficiency Improvement, based on our experience with other clients. As with most operators, they

already had certain systems and processes in place and wanted to integrate the industry best practice

as much as possible rather than start with a blank canvas. This was therefore an exercise in applying the

principles of the industry best practice to a mature organisation, balancing the proven benefits of the

associated people processes with minimising procedural and systems change.

In our experience, our clients may perform certain aspects of the production efficiency improvement

very well. However, we have yet to encounter one that performs well in all areas. There is always

opportunity for improvement!

The following document is a more generic version of this standard approach which, in theory, could be

used as the complete “blueprint” for an operator wishing to adopt a best in class approach to production

efficiency improvement whilst not being unduly restricted by existing systems and procedures.

Perhaps more realistically, this document will help you to improve production efficiency by adapting

some of the key processes detailed below in a way which will work well within your organisation.

Emphasis has been placed on the people processes as the technology is only there to support those

processes. Once properly engaged, empowered and supported, it is your people that will deliver

improvement.



Objectives This best practise uses an advanced “Choke Model” technique, where the complete reservoir to market

supply chain is divided into a series of chokes, each with its own potential to restrict production.

The key objective of this “Standard Approach” is to provide a consistent framework for the development

and application of this advanced Choke Model technique in each asset. This approach will deliver value

to the asset by systematically eliminating loss and improving the ratio of planned- to-unplanned losses

and events. The outcome is increased production and extended life of field through lower lifting costs

and incrementally improved capacity. The approach encourages the asset to transition to a more

proactive and planned operation, reducing reactive behaviours (improving cost efficiency) and

encouraging focus on root causes, monitoring and analysis (improving integrity management).

The Choke Model Concept

Origins

First developed in the 1990’s, the Choke Model has consistently delivered Production Efficiency

Improvement for many assets worldwide. Current users include BP, Marathon, Nexen CNOOC,

Centrica, E.ON, ENGIE (GDF Suez), Tullow Oil and United Energy Pakistan, amongst others.

Modelling the Asset

In a Choke Model, the asset is broken down into a number of “System Sources” (e.g. Well, Compressor,

Mol Pump, Seawater System, Export Pipeline etc.). These sources are organised and grouped into

“Chokes” as follows:

1. Reservoir

2. Wells

3. Plant

4. Export

5. Market/Commercial



Figure 1: Choke definitions agreed by the SPE Production Efficiency Steering Group

Identifying the Asset’s capacity for Improvement and Growth The Capacity of each choke is derived and represented (along with any uncertainties) next to the other

Chokes on a chart so that an overall view of the complete supply chain is produced. This “Choke

Model” then supports a number of people processes developed to improve the production efficiency

throughout the whole asset.



Figure 2: An example of a choke model showing the current capacity through each choke together with the uncertainties

(upside & downside). The breakdown of the wells choke is illustrated here, showing how a “top level” choke model can be built

from its component parts.

This chart is critical for two main processes, the Maximum Production Potential (MPP) decision making

process and for logically organising opportunities in order to Grow the MPP. The MPP itself is used on a daily basis where any gap between MPP and actual production is

allocated to one or more Loss/Deferment events. Each loss/deferment event is allocated a System

Source, Cause, Volume and various other pieces of information.

Ownership For any such initiative to succeed, it is critical that there is ownership of the process at a high level in

the organisation and ownership embedded in the lower level detail of the people processes.

Choke Model Champion

A Production Loss Reporting or Choke Model “Champion” should be appointed whose role it will be

to support and challenge assets after implementation and training has been completed. The Champion

will be someone who understands every aspect of the processes involved, but more importantly,

understands the benefits that performing the processes well, can deliver. They should therefore be

enthusiastic and motivating as their main aim will be to ensure that all assets are delivering maximum

$ benefit to the organisation through consistent application of this process. The Champion may use

techniques including score cards and prizes to encourage friendly competition between assets and to

encourage production efficiency related suggestions from individuals that may benefit their asset and

others. The Champion will also ensure that lessons learned and success stories are shared across the

organisation. Finally, the Champion will facilitate a periodic intra asset performance review involving

appropriate representatives from each asset together with members of the regional or group

management team.

Ownership Embedded in the People Processes

“Reviews of Choke Model usage have clearly shown that when the production loss data is owned it

affects behaviours such that remedial actions are identified by the owners, which upon implementation,

leads to performance improvement. Conversely where an asset has just imported a successful Choke

Model structure from another asset, success has not been repeated where the organisational roles and

responsibilities are different, thus preventing the ownership of the data”1. An “owner” is a person identified as one who is knowledgeable and accountable for a particular area

of the production process. Ownership should be allocated to those that can make a difference. This lower level embedded ownership is expanded upon in the following paragraphs.

1

Production Efficiency Using the Choke Model – a Best Practice. Andrew Goodwin, Production Efficiency TDN Leader, BP.



Developing the Choke Model Structure The grouping and sub-grouping of System Sources should be organised in a way that it reflects the local

infrastructure. This will facilitate the logical roll up of (participating) System Source capacities into a

choke model chart (see figure 2) together with their associated opportunities for increasing capacity.

At the top level it should be clear who owns each of the main Chokes - Reservoir, Wells, Plant,

Export and Commercial. These should be owned by each of the relevant Asset Team Leaders. A System Source should be “big” enough to be able to identify or choose an owner and “small” enough

to be meaningful when appearing in the loss reporting analyses. For example “Compressors” might

reasonably be assigned a single owner, however, it is too large an area to be helpful when conducting

a performance review as there would not be enough granularity/detail. An individually named

compressor would be considered a normal System Source. Finer detail about a System Source’s

sub-components right down to nuts and bolts are not required to be part of the Choke Model, but if

relevant to Production Loss Events, they can be captured elsewhere as will be explained later in

this document under the section “Capture of Daily Losses”.

An example of a North Sea offshore asset has been included at the end of this document (Appendix 1)

in order to give an indication of the level of detail required.

Potential System Source owners should be involved in the development of an asset’s choke model to

ensure that the System Sources included are meaningful to them and that every known potential source

of loss is included.

The People Processes

Setting MPP

Before any meaningful measurement of performance can be made a clear target must be agreed

and set for the maximum daily production rate (Maximum Production Potential, MPP). This will

represent the “perfect production day” against which daily performance is measured. This target should

be set in such a way that it becomes a target for performance improvement: realistic, but challenging.

Monthly MPP Review

Setting the MPP is carried out (at least) every month at a meeting which involves the choke owners and

members of the asset management team. The choke model chart (see fig 2) is updated before the

meeting and used, together with a chart showing recent production performance (fig 3), as the basis

for this conversation. Once the team have agreed the MPP decision, it is recorded and used for the

following month’s daily loss allocation process.



The decision should take into account the installed capacities of each choke as displayed on the

chart plus all the other relevant factors such as the economic environment, the age of the asset, the

remaining life of the asset, current business needs etc. The resulting 100% definition should be rate

where the asset is “flat out”, producing the very best it is capable of achieving. Consequently it will be

a target that all the BU teams onshore and offshore are striving to deliver on a daily basis. It should not

be simply based on the lowest of all the chokes as this will rarely be an effective target for improvement.

Normally, it is often the case that to progress from a current level of performance to 100% will be

achieved using Opex and approved Capex, whilst the opportunities for improvement above the 100%

target will require the approval of further Capex.

Figure 3: Production performance chart used in the MPP setting process and the performance review.

The Challenge Process

Once the 100% Efficiency production rate has been defined for each asset the choke model chart can be

used to communicate the basis for the daily production target within an asset. The chart should also be

offered for challenge within the asset peer group and also with the relevant partner company

representative. A comparison of the choke model charts for each asset within a peer group will bring visibility to

whether there is a consistent degree of stretch within each asset’s forecast targets, or whether there

are inconsistent variations.



Choke Capacities

Each individual choke should be represented by its own choke model chart in order to bring visibility

and transparency to the corresponding choke capacity decision and identify where the uncertainties

(upsides & downsides) are. It is not necessary to include the capacities of all system sources within a

choke, only those that may from time to time limit the overall choke capacity.

The Reservoir Capacity

The Reservoir Capacity is a very important part of the asset’s choke model as it shows the potential for

the asset to deliver more hydrocarbons if more wells, plant or export capacity are added. As the

reservoir is the one part of the asset that has not been designed and installed, it is the most difficult to

define exactly. For this reason it would be reasonable to expect the greatest degree of uncertainty

(upside and downside). A good rule of thumb to help decide the reservoir capacity is, “the maximum

sustainable production rate beyond which reserves would be lost”, (eg due to gas and/or water coning,

or breakthrough).

The Wells Capacity

The Wells Capacity is the total well potential of all the wells able to produce hydrocarbons, (ignoring

any restrictions imposed by plant or export limitations). This is often best defined by the sum of the well

tests.

The Plant Choke Capacity

The Plant Capacity is the currently installed ability for the Plant to process hydrocarbons. In the simplest

case this is the capacity of the oil plant. However there are a number of sections of plant that typically

impact on each other. If gas processing is a limiting factor due to gas lift requirements or gas injection

capacity, it is helpful to illustrate this on a choke model chart for Plant only. Similarly if the Produced

Water Treatment Plant capacity is limiting the maximum production rate this should also feature.

The Export Choke Capacity

The Export Capacity is the maximum throughput that can be delivered by the asset. Whether the

hydrocarbons are exported by pipeline or vessel, and irrespective of any limiting commercial, sales or

equity agreements, the export capacity is the physically installed capacity in place to export

hydrocarbons. An example of a typical way to deliver upside for a pipeline, is the effect of the addition of drag reducing

agent.

The Market/Commercial Capacity This is generally more applicable to gas products where fluctuations in demand, price and therefore,

daily nominations, may cause an asset to reduce production even though there is no physical

restriction in place. Complex arrangements involving shared pipelines, substitution and product

quality/blending are also often responsible for restrictions within this choke category.



Capture of Daily Losses By measuring performance of an asset on a daily basis, the production “losses” that are recorded will

provide a quantitative measure of the value of taking the required actions to deliver the improved

production performance.

Identifying the “Losses” is the first step in the process. This is a daily activity that is carried out at the

end of every 24 hour production period. It is a simple comparison between the current 100%

Production potential target and the actual production delivered in the 24 hour period. It is

recommended that there is brief review of the previous 24 hour period as part of the morning shift

handover where both shifts are together. This should be made part of the daily routine in every

production facility.



Once the amount of the “loss” is identified, the System Source and Immediate Cause of the “loss”

should be agreed together with a number of additional items as follows:

Data to Capture Guidance Mandatory? System Source A part of the production process identified in

your choke model Yes

Equipment A lower level of detail relating to the System Source from a generic equipment hierarchy.

Yes

Equipment Name A specific equipment component if known. No Equipment Tag Maintenance system tag number of the specific

component if known. No

Cause Type Planned/Unplanned/Planned (Not TAR). Yes Immediate Cause From a generic Cause hierarchy. Yes

Cause Description Free text description of cause. No Root Cause If and when known. From a generic Root Cause

hierarchy. No

Root Cause Description Free text description of root cause. No

Immediate Action Free text description of any immediate actions taken.

No

Start & End Time Beginning and end times of the loss event which can be useful for cross referencing with daily report/log book.

No

Responsible Third Party Choose from a list if appropriate. Later Reporting will distinguish between loss events within your control and within 3rd Party control.

No

Potential Loss Details If and when this event is likely to happen again. No

For any 24 hour period there may be more than one source and cause of production loss. These should

be captured separately.

The loss events captured are then reviewed at the daily meeting between the onshore and offshore

teams where loss event details are confirmed & completed where possible and any immediate

actions agreed. The “5 Whys” approach should be attempted in each case during the initial review in order to get as close

to the root cause as possible. However, it is understood that this is not always possible without further

time consuming investigation. Whether or not that happens is a judgement that has to be made by the

Choke Owner and would usually depend on the volume significance of the loss.



Capture of Potential Losses A Potential loss is an event that we think may occur in the future if no action is taken to prevent it. The

capture of Potential Loss events is a more pro-active HSE style approach rather than just waiting for

something to happen and then recording it. A brief discussion about potential losses should be had

on a daily basis along with the capture of daily losses, ideally as part of the morning shift handover

where both shifts are together. If any potential loss events are identified the same information should

be captured as for an actual daily losses, together with an estimate of volume and a timescale

prediction.

These loss events can be categorised in three ways:

1. Recurring Event – an actual loss event that you think may happen again unless the root

cause is discovered and addressed. When capturing daily losses, this judgement can be

made about each actual daily loss.

2. Near Miss – an event that occurred whilst the production was already shut down or

restricted, such that it did not cause any (additional) loss of production.

3. Observation – the “feeling” that a breakdown or restriction may occur in the future, perhaps

because part of the production process is behaving in a way that it did before a prior loss event

happened. This is an opportunity to engage the experience and insight of the control

technicians and any other personnel who think they might be able to predict a loss event

occurring. If you asked the control techs/operations team to predict what loss events might

occur in the coming weeks, what would they say and why?

Any Potential Loss events captured should be discussed in the daily meeting between the onshore and

offshore teams and any immediate actions agreed. As part of the monthly performance review, the potential losses gathered should be discussed in the

context of a risk matrix where one axis indicates the scale of loss in terms of volume and the other

axis indicates the predicted timescale.

1 1

2 3 2 1

2 3

1

Figure 4. Example of an interactive Potential Loss Risk Matrix with numbers of potential events listed in each cell. Details of

potential loss events are displayed by clicking a row, column or individual cell.



Grow MPP Opportunities This process helps to organise growth opportunities and bring visibility and transparency to the

decisions about which opportunities to pursue. This process involves a 6 monthly (or less) review of the opportunities to increase MPP. It takes the

form of a multi-disciplinary meeting involving the choke owners and members of the management

team. All potential opportunities for improving MPP should be reviewed in the context of the choke

model. This is accomplished by relating each opportunity to a position within the choke model structure.

An opportunity might be related to a specific System Source (for example, a well workover opportunity

would be related to a specific well System Source). Alternatively an opportunity might be related to

a grouping of System Sources (for example, the opportunity to drill a new well would be related to

the “Wells” grouping rather than a specific well System Source). However you decide to relate an

opportunity, it must always fall within a particular choke so that a logical view of all opportunities

will make it clear which opportunity or combination of opportunities will be required in order to grow

the overall asset MPP. This will facilitate a cost/benefit analysis of the available opportunities and make

it easier to plan and budget for the activities that will bring about the increased MPP.



Figure 5: The logical roll-up of opportunities clearly show which are required and which are not required in order to bring

the MPP up to the constraining level of the Commercial capacity. This example also illustrates that the “Economic” well

opportunity alone would increase MPP to the constraining level of the (current) plant and export capacities. When

planning the associated activities it would make sense to carry out the well opportunity before the others. The lower chart

illustrates the breakdown of the plant choke where the opportunities are logically rolled up along with the capacities.



Growth Opportunity Data Information captured for each growth opportunity should be consistent and complete enough to facilitate

the conversations which take place at the review meeting. As a minimum, this should include:

Data to Capture Guidance Mandatory?

Name Title of opportunity. Yes Description A brief description as full details are likely to be

help elsewhere. Yes

Capacity Increase How much additional capacity this opportunity will add to the related System Source or System Source grouping within the choke model. Not the overall capacity that might be added to the asset.

Yes

Accountable Person Someone with an in depth knowledge of the opportunity and its potential cost.

Yes

Implementation Date When the activity will take place (if known). No

Expire Date When the activity will no longer be available/valid (if appropriate)

No

External System Reference If details of the activity relating to this opportunity are held elsewhere, the reference number.

No

External System Name Name of the external system where the details are held.

No

Once the activities relating to a growth opportunity have been completed, the choke model should be

updated to incorporate the related increase in choke and overall capacity.



Performance Review and Sharing Knowledge Reviews show what can be done better and compare performance across functions, assets and history.

Prior analysis of Choke Model data is shared at Review Meetings in order to shape discussion

and decision making. Sharing knowledge requires analysis and outcomes to be disseminated or made available to Teams and

individuals at set frequencies to provide insight and understanding of the current performance.

Investing time and resource to discuss, analyse and review performance is essential if the systematic

elimination of unplanned losses is to be achieved.

Analysis and Reporting

Analysis and reporting of the Choke Model loss data is a crucial step in the Performance

Improvement process in order to share insights throughout the operations teams and in particular

for the effectiveness of operational review meetings and resulting decisions.

The quality and effectiveness of the analysis and reporting depends on the quality and completeness of

the information obtained in the Capture Daily Losses and Capture Potential Losses processes. The most important analysis to provide, in order to ensure that systematic performance

improvement is delivered, is feedback to system owners on the performance of their systems.

Prioritisation, Identification of Causes & Highlighting Trends

Loss data should be analysed per system source and ranked in terms of volume of production loss. This

will provide a prioritisation of system source, highlighting the most important part of the facility in terms

of opportunity for performance improvement.



Figure 6: Losses by System Source in descending order of magnitude

In other words, the System Sources with the largest amount of loss become the most important

priorities for finding ways to reduce future loss thereby increasing production delivery. Commonly, the

analysis period will be by month, quarter, year to date or a rolling 12 month period. Having narrowed the focus to these prioritised System Sources, a corresponding table of the Causes

associated with each should be produced in order to provide System Source owners some insights into

the actions that may be required to prevent re-occurrence.

Repetitive events that result in a significant cumulative size of production loss will most probably benefit

from further Root Cause Failure Analysis to identify the physical, human and system elements of

the cause at the root of the event.

Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of any interventions by the asset team it is important for the

System Source owners to be able to identify any trends of either improvement or deterioration. The

use of a ‘Losses over Time’ chart will help inform the owners about the effectiveness of any remedial or

improvement actions taken.



Figure 7: Loss trends. These charts can show improvement or deterioration over time as well as periodic recurring issues.

Ad-hoc Analysis and Reporting

It is important to provide a consistent, relatively small set of reports to the various teams and system

source owners that allow the systematic elimination of unplanned losses. There are inherent

dangers in overloading the asset team with too many varying analyses that may detract the team’s

central objective of performance improvement. As such, reporting should be in the service of

attaining this objective and not become an objective itself. Similarly, many requests for data come in to every asset from Team leaders, Peer Groups, Partners and

many such others. Great care should be taken to ensure the volume of such request does not interfere

with the process of reporting clear information back to the system source owners who operate the

facilities.



Performance Metrics and Trends

When measuring performance there are two standard terms used:

Production Efficiency (PE)

This is the amount of Actual Production expressed as a percentage of the Theoretical Production

Capacity or MPP. It includes certain other measures as follows:

Production Efficiency = Actual Production + Fuel + Flare – Flush Production

Maximum Production Potential

Operational Availability (OA)

This is a similar measure to Production Efficiency that excludes external or 3rd Party losses. This is a

measure of the performance that you have control over. Operational Availability =

Actual Production + Fuel + Flare – Flush Production + 3rdParty Losses

Maximum Production Potential

It is important not to place too much emphasis on the “attainment” of a particular % target figure

for either of these metrics as this will put a downward pressure on the MPP level decision making

process: The lower the MPP is set, the easier it is to get close to 100% PE and OA. Instead a “We are

where we are” approach should be adopted to begin with emphasis placed on IMPROVING PE and

OA over time.



Review Meetings There are various types and frequencies of meeting that should be held by the onshore and offshore

teams to ensure loss data quality is optimised, actions are defined and progressed and the asset team’s

performance improvement efforts are appropriately focussed. They present the asset team with the

opportunity to ‘close the Performance Improvement loop’.

The Choke Model has a key role to play here in providing the analyses for each and facilitating the

relevant discussions within each.

End of Production Day Offshore Operations Review Meeting

Mentioned earlier in this document as part of the Capture Daily Losses process: A brief team

meeting of 10-15 minutes duration. Each loss event is identified and entered in to the Choke Model.

Indicative loss volume, source, cause, a brief description and any immediate action taken are recorded.

Daily Review Meeting

Mentioned earlier in this document as part of the Capture Daily Losses process: A daily review meeting

between offshore and onshore operations teams held the morning after each 24 hour production

period. This meeting provides an initial opportunity for the team to review the previous day’s losses

for accuracy, quality and consistency, editing the loss detail if necessary. From the review, remedial

actions should be raised and allocated to an owner with any issues requiring a greater level of root

cause analysis identified.

Weekly Offshore Operations Review Meeting

A weekly offshore operations meeting providing the team an opportunity to review the accuracy, quality

and consistency of the System Source and Cause assignments of recent losses, some of which may have

had partial information added or only temporary classification pending full analysis. The focus of the meeting is on identifying short term trends within the previous two weeks losses,

the progression of remedial actions raised and identification of any issues that require a greater level of

root cause analysis.

It is crucial that all relevant operations disciplines are represented at the meeting.



Monthly Performance Review Meeting

The monthly review meeting involves representatives of each discipline and source owners. The

focus is on reviewing medium to long term trends within the Choke Model data in order to:

Identify the largest and most important source of loss

Review the status of actions identified to reduce or remove the most important sources of loss.

Review the causes for any sources of loss that have not been reduced by remedial actions

Identify new sources of loss or increasing loss trends

Identify new remedial actions required to reduce or remove the Causes associated with the new sources of loss

Identify any new potential sources of loss and actions required to eliminate their manifestation

Identify successes or lessons learned that could be shared with other assets

Monthly and Quarterly Cross-Asset Reporting Once all assets employ the Choke Model to identify and capture information about the size, source and

cause of production “losses” there are many opportunities to further improve performance across

assets by addressing identified Regional or Federal priorities.

Federal Campaigns

Quantifying and tackling key sources of loss at a Federal Campaign level can be initiated as management

will be able to efficiently collate quantitative and qualitative data across assets. Causes such as Scale

and Sand under the Wells Choke and Corrosion and Metering under the Plant Choke will inevitably

increase in visibility at a federal level. A full list of such items will emerge as the Choke Model develops.

These are however not the initial priority as the major proportion of the value will be delivered by each

asset systematically removing its own causes of loss.

Sharing Knowledge

It is important that the processes put in place encourage teams to objectively review performance and

continually seek improvements. Improvements can be achieved as a result of individuals within the

asset identifying improvements through systematic analysis of Choke Model data or through inter

asset knowledge sharing, where key learning from the wider community, both failures and successes,

avoid the duplication of mistakes and reinvention of solutions.



Audit/Peer Review To help insure that the processes detailed in this document are being applied well and to identify

opportunities to support the assets in maximising the benefits of these processes, there will be a

periodic review of the Choke Model in each asset. The following areas will be covered:

Embedded Ownership

MPP Review meetings

MPP Setting & Challenge process

End of Production Day Offshore Operations Review Meeting

Daily Review meetings, offshore with onshore

Quality and completeness of loss data

Number of Potential Loss events captured

Performance Review Meetings & resultant actions

Grow MPP Meetings

Number of Grow MPP Opportunities captured


Terms and Definitions

Actual Production Actual production is the metered volume of hydrocarbons

leaving the export system of the asset. This is always measured

and recorded as a Gross volume.

Choke A bottleneck in the system. The tightest part of the

production system in terms of throughput of oil or gas. 1) Any restriction in the hydrocarbon production system from the reservoir to the market. 2) A piece of equipment with a fixed or variable orifice used to manage flow rate and/or pressure.

MPP Maximum Production Potential

Planned Losses Losses relating specifically to identified planned slowdowns

or shutdowns (e.g. for inspection, preventative maintenance,

planned well work, reservoir surveillance or new tie-ins) that

were identified at the time the Annual Plan was set.

Source The Source of a production or injection loss is ‘where’ it occurred.

This can be anywhere from within the Reservoir to the Well to a

part of the Plant or facilities or part of the Export system. A Source

is a physical location. This distinguishes a Source from a Cause. A

Source can almost invariably be touched. It is important to

establish the source of each loss. A remedial action is usually

required at the Source of the loss in order to re-establish

production or injection.

Immediate Cause The immediate reason for the loss i.e. what was it about the

SOURCE which caused a loss. An example might be: "The valve

was sticking/seized". Addressing the Immediate Cause is

effectively the remedial action required to re-establish

production or injection, but will not prevent reoccurrence.

Root Cause The original reason as to ‘Why’ it occurred. In other words, what eventually lead to the immediate cause. In the example above this was "incorrect material selection". Addressing the Root Cause of each production or injection loss is the only way to improve the future performance and prevent reoccurrence of the loss.


Appendix 1: Full Asset System Source

Example

Documents

Production Loss Reporting: A Best in Class Approach › wzukusers › user... · Production Loss Reporting: A Best in Class Approach ... The following document is a more generic version