Selected work/Deferral reporting
A deferral register and weekly facility summaries that keep oil separate from liquid, transfers separate from net gains, and every item with an owner and a date.
Outcome
Objective met4 of 4 success criteria. Read the conclusionDeferral reporting mixed categories that overlapped: backpressure, choke scale, equipment outages, water treatment limits, well failure, integrity shut-ins, flowline test holds and disposal injectivity. Some were summed twice. A well moved between facilities appeared as a gain at the receiving facility with no reduction at the source. A transfer line capacity in barrels of liquid was quoted as if it were oil. Management could not tell what was recoverable, by whom, or by when.
Each deferral record was given a fixed set of fields: well, home facility, current facility, cause, gross potential oil, actual oil, deferred oil, associated water, basis date, fix, approval status, cost, owner, target date, latest action and linked project. Causes were made exclusive so nothing was counted twice. Facility summaries were laid out as current, net change and after the move, each with oil, water and gas to one decimal. The rules were written on the register: a liquid capacity is not an oil gain; a moved well is counted once; a well test is not an allocated rate; a disposal increase is not an oil benefit unless it releases a named deferral.
The weekly handover note was written from the register: dated facts by facility, the impact in barrels where the data supported it, the blockers, the owners and the next action.
Management had a register that reconciled to the facility totals and a handover that read as one engineer's account. The water column made the downstream effect of each oil opportunity visible before it was approved.
The objective was a deferral register that reconciled to facility totals and gave every item an owner and a date. It was achieved. Overlapping causes were removed, liquid and oil are kept in separate columns with the water cut used to convert them, and the weekly handover note was issued from the register for the period of the engagement.
| Success criterion | Met | How it was achieved |
|---|---|---|
| iRegister total equals the sum of facility deferrals with no double counting | Met | Register reconciled to facility totals each week; overlapping causes removed |
| iiEvery item has an owner, a cost basis and a target date | Met | Owners and target dates completed for every open item; items without an owner escalated at the weekly meeting |
| iiiOil and liquid never mixed in a total | Met | Liquid capacities shown in their own column with the water cut used to convert them |
| ivWeekly note issued on time from the register | Met | Weekly handover notes issued from the register for the period of the engagement |
Deliverables
Evidence note
Work done for the operator of an onshore field in the Middle East. Register structure and rules as applied. Individual well and facility figures not shown.
A three-scenario oil and water forecast across five central processing facilities, with transfer line, facility and disposal limits applied to every well and each well counted once.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseNorth Sea·Producing assetIntegrated well, network and facilities modelling on a mature offshore asset, where the binding limit sat with a different team from the one reporting the loss.
Met3 of 3 success criteriaPractitioner experienceRead the caseSend us the version you are dealing with. We will tell you what we would do first.
hello@assostechltd.com · 5 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AN