Future Challenges in Cooperative Petroleum Research Status Progress

1. Future Challenges in Cooperative Petroleum Research • Status • Progress Grafisk030118

3. Norwegian Research Council suggested 20% increase (570 MNOK) in funding from the government for 2003 Wanted to strengthen research within • Biotechnology • Petroleum technology • Materials engineering Before last week: Actual increase was 10% Revised budget last week: Actual increase is 8% October 1st 2002: SkatteFUNN (max 4MNOK/year/company)

4. R&D-support as % of GNP(Source: NRC, 2003) • Sweden : 4.3 % • Finland : 3.4 % • Iceland : 3.0 % • Denmark : 2.4 % • Norway : 1.6 % OECD-average: 2.2 % • Sweden: 10300 NOK/inhabitant • Norway: 5400 NOK/inhabitant

5. Good relations - personal contacts Research institutions Oil companies

6. Project proposal Several research istitutions lack ”the right links” to the ”right people” in the oil companies • Project theme defined based on internal/personal interest or believing idea • might be of interest to the companies • Proposal sent to people ”they know” without necessarily being the right • technical person • Possibly no initial discussion prior to project presentation sent via e-mail

7. write project proposal • marketing the proposals Research institutions are using lots of time and effort to Should use the time for research

8. Oil company Dept. F Dept. E Dept. D Recommendation:No Dept. A Dept. B Dept. C Need a more effective process! • no formal system for internal • handling of external project proposals • no given formal contact person • no deadline for feedback • no given system for feedback

9. FORCE Secretariat (NPD) FResCo Research institutions 2002 Seminar Enhanced cooperation

10. Feedback from research institutions No more “boxes”, please! Action is needed! High quality research projects

11. Abroad…. ? Example: UK • Industry Technology Facilitator (ITF) • a not for profit organisation owned and supported by major operating and service companies • the vehicle through which these companies fund joint industry projects that address the technology needs of the UK oil and gas industry. • Among other tasks: • Identify gaps in technology and potential solutions • Assess feasibility of proposed projects • Proposals that have passed through the assessment stage are developed and • put forward to members with a recommendation for funding

13. FORCE Secretariat (NPD) FResCo Research institutions Action: Improve the process Asked all oil companies to list Long-term research topics and technology needs

15. Message: Base the project proposals on ”Long-term research topics and technology needs” Submit the proposal to Force within 15th June • Purpose • find the right themes for projects • gain more interest for the proposals

16. Experience • Discussion of project theme was often fruitless as the “right people” • were not involved either concerning content or budget • Companies answered “No” without giving any feedback on • what theme(s) might rather be of interest • Companies hesitate to give out ideas of what to do research on • due to competition (especially in exploration) • Result • Not a single project was initiated

17. Consortium: Norwegian Sea 18th Round and Beyond Bio -stratigraphy Basin modelling Seismic Imaging Structural geology Reservoir Prediction Robert Williams Christian Magnus Harald Brekke Tore Høy Arild Haugen

18. Norwegian Sea (Lysing/Lange) Research Consortium Biostratigraphy Sedimentology Rock Properties Structural Geology? Depositional model. Biofacies Petrography Seismic interpr. Key data ? Paleogeographical maps. Biostrat/dating Diagenesis Provenance Core descriptions Clay minerals* Trace Fossils (Atlas?) *Link to geophysics, rock properties. N/G distribution Budget estimate pr. year; 2000 kNOK + 1000kNOK (forskningsråd)

19. Norwegian Sea Research Consortium (NOSE RES-Q) The aim of the project is to address two main un- certainties in the exploration process • The absence of mineralogical input to a "rock properties" model for the • Upper Cretaceous (shale rock properties in particular), enhancing • seismic attribute evaluation • Methodologies to predict sand-presence in a distal/basinal setting Interest from technical people, but need to be aligned with the fundingprocess within the companies

20. Conclusion • Action has been taken, but success is lacking • Why? • Lack of interesting themes • Lack of money

21. Needs • Agreement on themes for research among oil • companies that address the technology needs • Commitment from high-level management • Communication of agreed themes to research • institutions

22. Focus this year’s seminar on Mechanism of cooperation

24. Need • Mechanism of cooperation • Which leads to initiation of high quality • research projects • Does there already exist such a mechanism • to build on?

25.  The absence of mineralogical input to a "rock properties" model for the • Upper Cretaceous (shale rock properties in particular), enhancing • seismic attribute evaluation • Methodologies to predict sand-presence in a distal/basinal setting

26. Norwegian Research Council Not enough to increase activity and raise level of research Research institutions Although a list of needs was presented, some project proposals were not aligned according to the list

27. that address the technology needs • Purpose • find the right themes for projects • gain more interest for the project proposals • Result • Not a single project was initiated • Assess themes that address the technology needs