Posts Tagged ‘owners’

Can We Sustain Global Energy Demands?

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011 by admin

Today we listened to Clay Vaugh, Vice President of Deepwater Projects from ExxonMobil Development Company, present the 2010 The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030. To summarize the report, the world’s energy demand for consumption is expected to grow 35% from 2005 to 2030. (Without discounting for future energy efficiencies, the global energy demand would essentially double.)

So the question is where can we expect the increase in energy supply – alternative energy, coal, oil, etc.? As shown in the following table from Exxon’s report, the majority of the fuel is expected to be provided by natural gas – at an estimated 2% increase per year over the next 25 years cumulating at 25% of global energy supply.

exxon-global-demand-by-fuel2

The rise in natural gas is expected to be a result of increased power generation needs and reduction of carbon emissions. While this may not be exactly considered newsworthy, what is interesting is where the additional natural gas is expected to be supplied. The largest percentage growth sector is anticipated to be domestic unconventional natural gas deposits, such as shale gas, and then imports.

So what does this mean for the future? Additional exploration and production in the United States for shale gas will allow us to meet demand. Secondly, national oil companies will continue to play a major economic and political role in the global economy.

Also of significance, the chart shows that while wind, solar and biofuels will contribute a smaller percentage of future energy source, the expected growth is the highest percentage at almost 10% per year. That annual growth rate will need to be funded by considerable capital investments and project experience. (More on that discussion at a later date.)

Given recent events in Japan, global nuclear investments may differ from what is currently projected at an annual growth rate of 2.1%.

What do you see as a major issue(s) to meeting these projected energy demands?

Proposed Offshore-Drilling Safety Institute: Help or Hinderance?

Friday, March 11th, 2011 by admin

According to a recent article from the Houston Business Journal “Energy industry considers offshore-drilling safety institute,” on March 18th, energy leaders will decide upon forming an industry run offshore-drilling safety institute in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Reilly — who sits on the board of directors at Houston-based ConocoPhillips — called for a framework of continual learning among companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. An industry organization should conduct routine safety audits of its members and “discipline or reject” companies that do not comply, he said. The government should support the organization and make its membership a prerequisite for operating in the Gulf, he said.

Here is some food for thought:

  • So is this a redundancy to the federal law recently passed – Workplace Safety Rule?
  • Will the costs of joining and complying with a offshore-drilling safety institute be too high for smaller or even large operators?
  • Will the standardization of “best practices” ultimately improve company margins while reducing health, safety, environmental and operational risks?

The change in capital markets and the effect on capital projects

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 by admin

In the current financial market turmoil, capital project investments have moved into the spotlight. And the need for capital projects to meet or exceed their expected return on investment has never been more critical. As the tightness in the financial sector plays out, the re-emergence of inflation risks related to labor, equipment, material and the cost of money will increase. These risks make project completion and cost control a critical necessity. Any extension of the project duration or growth in cost can have a devastating effect on a business’ financial position.

The method of construction contracting and risk mitigation must change based on this new market reality. The concept of shifting construction risk to construction firms may seem a prudent risk management approach. This approach has been used for many years through the process of lump sum biding, requiring insurance bonds, and imposing liquidated damage contract clauses.

In this new market reality construction companies are less likely to except these approaches as they present an unacceptable risk to the construction company. As a business, construction companies simply are not capitalized to the level required to cover large monetary awards, nor do they have the ability to obtain large enough insurance or performance bonds to support the end users business risks.

It is also highly possible that the age of lump sum bidding will continue to decline to become the exception verses the norm. Mixtures of contracting methods will be used in the future. The lump sum contracting method will be used with well-defined project scopes of work or with specialized subcontractors. Less defined project scopes of work will lend themselves to cost-plus, time and material, unit pricing or alternatives such as earned value contracting may see broader acceptance. As the project scope becomes better defined it is possible to convert these contract strategies to lump sum.

Fostering an environment that facilitates a clear dialogue between the business owners and the construction companies will be the best strategy in this difficult market. Proper due diligence related to business strategies and establishing clear expectations as to the final outcome of a capital project will be critical. An inclusive rather than adversarial project development approach, where contractors are invited to provide input for the overall success of the capital project, will be the order of the day.