
Prospect Review Teams and prospect review sessions are not always very popular.
Many explorers are dreading the moment when their prospects must be reviewed. Especially younger explorers may feel exposed and uncertain. Some explorers become rather defensive, and some review teams may be a bit harsh in their challenges and can be rather intimidating.
What is sometimes forgotten is that reviewers and reviewees should really all feel to be on the same team. Both (should) have the same objective: making sure the best prospects are recognised and put forward for drilling. Nobody wants to waste good money on drilling a dog.
How not to do it
With Prospect Police (PP)
A PP Team has a hard-nosed view towards making sure that poor prospects don’t slip through the net and get drilled undeservedly. The members of the PP know that they are the experts. They see most of the prospect workers as capable of making contour maps, but not of understanding prospects and plays as well as they do themselves. PP members may look at each other meaningfully during review sessions and display inappropriate body language when the review team presents their work.
With Defensive Reviewees (DRs)
DRs see the PP as the enemy; only out to destroy their good prospects. DRs want to pass the review with as little damage as possible, and to get it over with quickly. They strongly defend their prospect and are careful to avoid mentioning uncertainties and any difficulties they experienced during the evaluation. DRs may be intimidated by the PP and are mindful to not say anything that might be considered foolish. If the PP does not detect a certain weakness of the evaluated prospect, then that is a victory for a DR.
How to do it – The Socratic Method
The Socratic method is “a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions” (from Wikipedia). It recognizes that reviewers and reviewees are on the same team and have a common objective. It also recognizes that a good review can only be done if all involved get ample chance to voice their opinions, to think aloud and do not have to be afraid to say something that may turn out to be a bit silly, in hindsight. The Socratic method also recognises that nobody is perfect and knows it all. The evaluator has seen much more of the data than the review team. The collective review team should have more experience, diverse expertise and has probably seen more prospects: ones that turned out to be successes and others that ended up in dry wells.
The prospect review team (PRT) – coaching and reviewing
An effective PRT engages at different stages with the evaluation team, and displays a genuine interest in the prospect. The PRT has a genuine interest in understanding the details of the prospect, how the prospect could work and what the main risks and uncertainties are.
The PRT participates in a Kick-off session to agree together with the evaluator(s):
- The objective of the evaluation project
- The key risks and main uncertainties
- Areas that need special attention: maybe a charge model, or evaluation of fault seals.
- Whether any specialists are likely to be needed at some point.
- A workplan.
- When to have the next session (early assist).
The PRT participates in an Early Assists, to:
- Check whether the initial assumptions about the project are still valid.
- Consider the work done, and to adjust the workplan if needed.
- Agree what does not have to be done. There always are many things that can be done, but not everything will be equally useful. Maybe a new charge model, or fault seal study, or whatever …, is not needed for this prospect. If that is agreed jointly, the project can proceed more efficiently.
The PRT conducts the final prospect review, to:
- Make sure all the subsurface work is complete and sound.
- Agree the POS and Volumes.
After the prospect review there may be a Well Picking session to agree on the objectives of the exploration well, its precise surface and subsurface location, the well programme, Total Depth and to formally decide to put the well on the drilling sequence.
Once the well has been drilled an After-Action Review should be organised to list the learnings from the well results: what went well, what could be improved.
The first 2 steps have a strong assist/coaching focus; the prospect review is, of course, a real review. The kick-off and early assist sessions will reduce the risks of unpleasant surprises at the prospect review stage. During each of the coaching/review steps, the PRT asks open questions and solicits opposing views. They listen with an open mind to all arguments put forward by the evaluation team, who, the PRT realises, has seen much more of the data then themselves.
The Prospect Evaluation Team (PET)
The PET sees the review team as a resource. The collective experience and expertise of the review team can be used to improve the evaluation. The PET engages with (members of) the review team also outside the scheduled sessions, whenever they think their input can be helpful. The PET doesn’t hide uncertainties; the PET draws attention to interpretation problems and to data that is not well understood. They are open-minded towards different opinions and realise that if their prospect is deemed to be not drill-worthy, it will save the company good money.
The Socratic Method is the opposite of an approach like that in a court of justice with defendants and prosecutors, with interrogations and where subject matter experts act as witnesses. In a court of justice there are winners and losers. In prospect reviews, it is not about winning or losing, it is about getting to understand prospects better, and to make sure that the prospects that are drilled are indeed worth drilling. If that is achieved, everybody wins.
The concept of winning or losing is counterproductive for effective prospect reviews
Read the next volume of the blog series:
- Rethinking Trap Distribution Through Seal Effectiveness
- Reporting Risk & Volume Assessments: Key Insights and Best Practices
- The Bull’s Head Risk Matrix: A Data-Driven Approach to Risk Assessment
- Data Acquisition for Exploration: Risk Reduction or POS Polarisation?
- Exploring Stratigraphic and Combination Traps: Definitions, Risks, and Applications
- Optimizing Risk & Volume Assessments in Mixed Hydrocarbon Fields
View upcoming related courses:
Trap & Fault-Seal Analysis, Modeling for Oil & Gas and CO2