Developing a credible methodology
Building a credible methodology hinges on three crucial factors: transparency of scope, validity of scope, and robust data to inform the comparative calculations.
We need to be sure that the technologies and scenarios involved in the comparison are valid real-world options, and it’s also important that the right phases within a technology’s life cycle are considered. Lastly, it’s critical to ensure that the data driving the comparison is accurate and consistent.
For impact quantification of a given technology, these aspects are covered during a thorough and robust technical review process involving our domain and engineering experts. Then we document the review findings and the data, methods, and reference so that it can be repeated. In many cases, multiple review iterations are required before a sufficiently accurate quantification is achieved.
To streamline and standardize future work, we’ve focused on defining the impact of “building block” operations, such as rig emissions, fuel consumption, and emissions from flaring, that consistently influence the quantification process across a range of applications. However, even their impact can be challenging to define. Rig emissions will vary depending on many factors including geographical location, whether the rig is drilling or tripping or engaging in another activity and the depth and hole size of the well. Flaring emissions will vary with fluid type, burner combustion efficiency, and other factors. Balancing this complexity with a pragmatic, standardized, and useable impact definition for these activities is challenging in itself.
As the qualification process has matured, we’ve gained a better understanding of how the technologies rank in terms sustainability impact. In some cases, if the numbers didn’t look valuable, then we didn’t proceed with that qualification. For new technologies, we are working to embed this framework into our new product development processes.
The fact is that this topic is new to a lot of people in the company, and there is a lot of enthusiasm for it. From this perspective, the quantification process itself is more than just a methodical, qualification process; it’s truly a classic learning experience. We’re looking to channel this enthusiasm, while still ensuring a consistent and credible approach.
As we got into the details of qualifications, it became easy to convince ourselves that we had a fantastic solution. We had to make sure the right people were involved to keep a realistic eye on all the background assumptions that led us to the qualifications.
Looking forward, we are working toward embedding sustainability in the development process for all our new products and services. For this, we are combining a detailed knowledge of our footprint with a customer-centric approach to determine key industry focus areas in the near-, mid-, and long-term. This understanding, together with this quantification framework, will be key pillars in our success.
Whether it’s related to existing products and services or the development of new ones, the core objective of the Transition Technologies portfolio is to provide customers with the most optimal impact-reducing solution for their oil and gas operations. Consistently quantifying this impact is fundamental to this effort, and we will continuously work to refine our capabilities and procedures to do exactly that.