week 16: operations

Thinking about my last post, there are two guys I work with who call themselves Bicardi and cola. And yes, one of them is black and the other is white. They also happen to be two of the people I most like working with in the field. But it doesn't make me want Bicardi and cola any more than before.

Since I have a free subscription to Fortune magazine and I have an interest in business news, I do more than just cut out large letters from the pages to make stalker letters to send to all my favorite celebrities. Besides, large enough Qs are hard to find. The latest issue was their signature Fortune 500 issue, though they appear to be going for an even 1000 now. (But then they'd lose that delightful alliteration which so many businesses have a thing for, Ford.) Understandably, there was a featured article on ExxonMobil largely due to their number 1 ranking (as determined by revenues) and also their record setting profits for 2005.

The article, like almost any about ExxonMobil, mentions the company's famous discipline and relentless drive for efficiency. It kind of makes me wonder what it would be like to work for them to get a first hand look at how they operate. But then again, in a geographically spread out industry like this one, local operations can vary in quality a great deal, even in an exceptionally well run company. Besides, from what I can tell, ExxonMobil has very little presence in the San Juan Basin which is where most of our district's work lies.

I also wonder what it would be like to work for ExxonMobil to see if they would do anything all that different than any of the other major operators in the basin. Especially since it seems like there are aspects of the operations of all our clients that don't strike me as being the most efficient.

The oil and gas industry, more so than most others, should run on a long term time scale. Projects can take years to develop and it can take many more to see a profit on a particular venture. Thus, I'm always slightly amused and a bit more disappointed whenever I see clients take a cheap, easy, and probably ineffective approach to solve a problem instead of spending more to significantly increase the chances of getting it right the first time. There's never enough money to do it right the first time, but there's always enough to do it wrong three times. Or maybe it's just incredibly easy to second guess decisions after something hasn't gone as planned.

And I just don't get that. Information is increasingly inexpensive. Offset (aka nearby) wells, similar basins, production values, and so forth. The ruthlessly efficient and unbiased crunching of numbers is far more reliable than the hazy recollections of what someone thinks they did that seemed to work on a similar well a year ago. It's because while the industry is run on a long term scale, it still has plenty of the old school "git 'er done" (see Jan 23) spirit that's half done on feel.

I'm a big believer in what technology and proper analysis can reveal. I have found that most people (not necessarily most people I know) aren't so willing to look at all the reasonable and likely possibilities instead of picking a convenient answer. I suppose that quick and easy will trump difficult and complex but ultimately correct far more often than the other way around. Unfortunately, this is tragically true in all aspects of life as well.