Our experience is that the majority of participants are willing to discuss their performance, and aspects of how they achieve it, with other participants.

Participation in benchmarking studies does, after all, imply a willingness to share.

This is made easy by the identification on the website of an individual within each Operator as the first point of contact for any enquiries about their data and performance.

We know of inter-Operator performance improvement activities set up directly as a result of participation in the studies.

The data submitted for each well, or for each completion, is subject to over 400 automated checks for its ‘internal integrity’.

This automatic checking process will raise a query for data that is missing, illogical, falls outside the ‘norms’ or incompatible with other data provided for the well or completion.

These queries are then individually examined by our data processing staff to determine which need to be referred back to the participant for resolution.

The data provided in spreadsheet form is then also checked manually against the time-depth chart or completion schematic diagrams which may also raise queries.

Calculated cost or time data, such as cost per metre or metres per day, that falls outside the usual performance norms without apparent reasons being present, are also queried.

A list of queries is then sent to the participant. When a response is received the amended data is then re-checked thoroughly and any new or unanswered queries returned to the participant until all queries are satisfactorily answered.

Only then is the data published on the website for other participants to access.

We consider the technical data provided to be highly reliable. Although we cannot guarantee that there are no errors we believe that you can use this data with a high degree of confidence.

We also believe the time data provided to be sufficiently reliable to be used with confidence for all the usual applications to which it is put by participants.

For drilling, most Operators produce time-depth charts during well construction that are used within the Operators organisation over time and, as a result, they are normally very accurate. These are a very useful confirmation of the time data provided in spreadsheet form which may be liable to transcription errors.

The ratio of time to cost for a well of a given type is normally within certain limits which acts as an additional check.

Finally, a great proportion of the wells in the databank are drilled or completed by an Operator with partners who are also participants. This also provides something of a check as any erroneous time data provided by the Operator is likely to be the subject of queries to us by these partner companies.

The situation with cost data is different.

While it is possible to use the time-cost ratio ‘norms’ as something of a check, and also partner involvement as given above, different accounting practices do introduce a margin of error into the cost data.

It is important to understand that cost data provided is subject to maybe a 15% margin of error and should be used upon that basis.

Data provided to us is extensively checked by us for accuracy.

A large proportion of the wells in the databank are drilled or completed by an Operator with partners who are also participants.

These partners often check the data provided for wells in which they have an interest and are encouraged to inform us if the data provided for any well does not accord with their information.

When this happens we will query the data with the Operator who provided it without revealing that it had been the subject of question by another participant.

Those participants who analyse the data carefully will also sometimes identify anomalies with other participants data.

One participant noticed in the Gulf of Mexico some years ago that the ratio of dry hole cost to total cost for E&A wells was in a fairly narrow band for all participants except one.

We then queried this with the ‘exceptional’ participant who discovered that some costs had been included erroneously in their dry hole costs. The data was then corrected.

We also check a number of publicly available sources that can confirm certain data that way.

Inform us, we will check it and make any corrections necessary

Not necessarily.

The data and performance charts need to be intelligently interpreted in context of an understanding of the reality behind the numbers.

For example, it is not valid to simply look at a chart of comparative drilling speed and cost performance and conclude that Operator A is a better performer than Operator B.

The data and performance charts are just really starting points that provide indicators or clues.

In order to draw meaningful conclusions about comparative performance it is necessary to first select appropriate ‘peer group’ or ‘comparator’ wells.

Even within this group there will often be differences in local geology, rig procurement strategies, demands of internal customers (explorationists or geophysical groups) and many other factors which mean that simple metrics cannot just be taken at face value.

There is undoubtedly an important place for the use of simple metrics such as feet per day or cost per foot but they never tell the whole story and do need to be used appropriately when attempting to draw conclusions about comparative performance.

Within the limitations of simple metrics such as metres per day or cost per metre it is possible to gain benefit from comparisons of wells from different countries.

If you find that Operators in, for instance, Thailand appear to be drilling faster and cheaper than Operators in, say, Ecuador the relevant questions are ‘why?’ and ‘how?’.

Legislative restrictions may play a part, as might geology, geography, availability of drilling contractor and service company technology or staff and many other factors.

There might also be, however, attitudes or behaviours or techniques or contracting strategies or reward mechanisms or approaches that do deliver performance in Thailand that could be used in Ecuador.

It might also be possible to derive a ‘premium factor’ that describes the effect that government legislation (or geology or any other aspect) has and will allow a factored comparison to be made.

Absolutely.

There are many benchmarking methodologies but all of them require that;

• you understand your own performance and how it compares to your competitors
• you identify the ‘best in class’ or ‘world class’ companies

Participation in the DPR and CPR allows you to do these things for drilling and completions – something that is not readily available anywhere else.

An example of a full benchmarking process is:

Planning

• Identify the subject area to be reviewed.
• Define the objectives for the study and the criteria that will be used to assess success.
• Select the approach and type of benchmarking.
• Identify potential partners.
• Produce a project plan.
• Develop a communications strategy.
• Assign resources and appoint a project team.
• Seek approval and support of senior managers

Collecting data and information

• Compile information and data on performance. This may include mapping processes.


• Select and contact partners.


• Develop with partners, a mutual understanding about the procedures to be followed and, if necessary, prepare a Benchmarking Protocol.


• Prepare questions and agree terminology and performance measures to be used.


• Distribute schedule of questions to each partner.


• Undertake information and data collection by chosen method for example, interviews, site visits, telephone, fax and e-mail.


• If benchmarking visits are to be undertaken, develop a programme of visits and agree their purpose.


• Collate the findings to enable analysis.

Analysing the findings

• Review the findings and produce tables, charts and graphs to support the analysis.
• Identify gaps in performance between your organisation and better performers.
• Seek explanations for the gaps in performance.
• Ensure that comparisons are meaningful and credible. Where necessary, normalise the measures used - that is apply correction factors to take account of reasons for differences in performance other than inefficiencies.
• Communicate the findings as outlined in the communications strategy at the beginning of the project.
• Identify realistic opportunities for improvements.

Recommendations - making and doing

• Examine the feasibility of making the improvements in the light of the conditions that apply within your own organisation.
• Agree on the improvements that are likely to be feasible.
• Produce a report on the Benchmarking Project in which the recommendations are included.
• Obtain the support of key stakeholder groups for making the changes needed.
• Develop action plan(s) for implementation
• Implement the action plan(s).
• Monitor performance.
• Reward and communicate successes.
• Keep key stakeholders informed of progress

Monitoring and reviewing

• Evaluate the benchmarking process undertaken and the results of the improvements against objectives and success criteria plus overall efficiency and effectiveness.
• Document the lessons learnt and make them available to others.
• Periodically re-consider the benchmarks in the light of changes in those conditions that impact on performance relative to good practice

Participants provide a ‘declaration’ which is approved by the Drilling Manager or equivalent that confirms that all wells have been submitted.

Checks are made against publicly available sources such as the database at www.rigzone.com and others.

You can only access other Operators data after we have received a valid Purchase Order from you, our invoice has been paid and you have submitted data for at least one quarter of the year which has been fully verified by us.

See the terms and conditions of participation available, upon request, from Helen Rushmore for full details.

Participation is on an annual basis which means that in exchange for data on your 2012 wells you will gain access to other Operators 2012 data.

However, all DPR participants also gain access to the 1989 to 1999 global DPR data and all CPR participants to the 1994 to 1999 global CPR data.

You may join the studies retrospectively. You will either need to provide data on wells / completions for the years in which you participate or data on wells drilled / completed in an earlier year.

It is also possible, subject to conditions, to purchase access to data for years prior to your first operated well.

For full details please contact Helen Rushmore.

Yes except for any county where a member of your group of companies has drilled or completed but will not be submitting that data to us.

Assuming that we have a valid PO from you and your invoice has been paid, once your quarter 1 data is fully verified you will be able to access other Operators quarter 1 data.

The same process applies for subsequent quarters.

Unless you have participated previously in the DPR or CPR you will not be able to access other Operators data until your Q3 data has been fully verified by us.

Previous participants (as defined in the 'terms and conditions') in these circumstances may access other Operators Q1 and Q2 data upon joining.

A member of your group of companies is drilling in Egypt and has joined the DPR but has not sent us any data yet.

Your access rights to data from a country are the most restrictive of;

• your access to data
• the access to data of any member of your group of companies in that country

We suggest that the data for any quarter is submitted by six weeks following the end of the quarter i.e., by 15th May for Q1, 15th August for Q2, 15th November for Q3 and 15th February for Q4.

There is an additional ‘late submission’ fee to be paid when data for Q1/2 data has not been submitted by 15th August, data for Q3 has not been submitted by 15th November and data for Q4 by 15th February.

This ‘late submission’ fee does not necessarily apply to new participants who join the studies late in the year.

It is necessary to provide cost data. There are no problems with anti-trust or anti-competition laws sharing the high level, aggregated costs that appear in the Reviews.

You should prepare your data in accordance with the data input workbook supplied.

If you do not have a data input workbook you can obtain one from Helen Rushmore.

Once your data has been incorporated into the Review and published on the website it cannot be withdrawn.

However, data that is incorrect can be amended where necessary.

You retain ownership of the data that you provide.

The data that you submit as a participant can be seen by the employees and sub-contractors of Rushmore and Sigma and by some other participating Operators.

In general, other Operators who are participating and drilling or completing in the same country as you will probably be able to see your data in the same way that you can see their data.

Some other participating Operators may be able to see your data as well, if they have access rights that allow them to see data for the country in which you are drilling or completing and participating.

Anti-trust or anti-competition laws are designed to prevent Operators from sharing details of the prices they pay for goods or services and then using this information to conspire to control the market price of those goods or services.

There are no problems with anti-trust or anti-competition law as far as the Reviews are concerned as only a limited number of high level, aggregated costs are included.

It is therefore not possible to identify what Operators have paid for individual goods or services. Many Operator legal staff have looked at this issue in detail over a number of years and have satisfied themselves that the Reviews are in compliance with anti-trust and anti-competition laws.

However, if doubt remains, you should seek confirmation that providing and receiving cost data does not infringe your country's laws .

In participating in the Reviews you agree to supply data on all wells drilled or completed by you in the current year for any country in which you have joined.

Data may be withheld for genuinely tight wells i.e. those for which the data is considered to be confidential except for some key items including the well name, spud depth, MTD, dry hole days and dry hole cost which must be submitted in every case.

Participation is only possible where 'tight' wells comprise a very small proportion of your total well submission.

This restriction is included because it would be unfair on the other participants if one Operator declared all or most of their wells to be 'tight', withholding their own data but still expecting to see all other Operator's data.

General:
You agree to keep the data confidential and to ensure that it cannot be accessed by anybody who is not allowed to see it.

Sharing within your group of companies:
You are not allowed to pass on, or provide access to, the data to other members of your group of companies. If they are not participating in their own right they are not entitled to access to the data. If they are participating in their own right they will have their own access.

Corporate global participation:
However, if your group of companies commits to providing data on all its wells in every country (except for land wells in the USA and Canada), you will be confirmed by Rushmore as a ‘corporate global participant’. This allows your staff in a country that is not providing data, and therefore not obtaining access in their own right, to apply to become a ‘sleeping participant’ for that Review and year.

Sharing with Head Office:
You may share the data with your Head Office as long as you ensure that your Head Office also obeys the same confidentiality obligations that you have agreed to.

Sharing with non-operating partners or joint venturers':
You may provide access to data to your non-operating partners or non-operating joint venturers' if this is necessary as part of an operating agreement.

However, if you are going to share data in this way, you must ensure that your non-operating partners or non-operating joint venturers' also obey the same confidentiality obligations that you have agreed to.