So what went wrong? Here we are, a US $130 billion industry with a poor track record for adopting standards that relate to units and information sharing. Because of this, end users are limited in their ability to move data between applications or databases, which are already juggling between metric and standard units. This obviously results in a loss of efficiency and, in some cases, incorrect assumptions due to an inability to cross-reference data sets. The E&P industry is filled with smart people, so why are we so slow to develop and adopt information standards?

Well, as bad as things are, they are better today than 15 years ago. Back then, it seemed an engineer spent 70% of his time searching for data or converting it into a useable form. Today, I suspect the percentage is closer to 15%. And, while this is a definite improvement, it also means there is no looming crisis that might culminate in definitive action. Before we start congratulating ourselves for improving things over the past decade and a half, let's keep in mind that the majority of this progress is due to industry consolidation, increased mass storage, better networks and the guy everybody loves to hate: Mr. Bill Gates. (Like him or not, when was the last time someone sent you a Lotus spreadsheet?)

Our industry's drive toward true standards is slowed by the belief that we must identify the perfect definition, or all encompassing model, before moving forward. We keep forgetting the underlying truth to any successful standard: "It doesn't need be perfect, it just needs to be adopted by the majority." It's that simple. Case in point, PC vs Apple, VHS vs Beta, the 56.5-in. railway gauge. Our industry continues to over-engineer proposed standards and fails to recognize that mass adoption is the principal quality of any good standard. "Standards" are also self regulating, as an impractical unit or definition rarely achieves the critical mass necessary for widespread acceptance.

There are more causes of inaction. Standards implementation on any decent scale is a major undertaking and complicated by the large number of interested parties. Data and application providers feed off the end users love of choice, while simultaneously pushing for their formats to become the de-facto standard. Oh sure, the "import/export" routine will be trotted out as a sign of being a "team player," but import/export is a compromise which, by definition, precludes a winning situation.

So what is a pragmatic and achievable plan for introducing standards? Should we define common models for seismic, geologic, drilling and production data? I think not. Doing so is impractical and would limit creativity, as new applications would need to equate back to that common denominator, the base data model. So what should we do? The light bulb exemplifies one potential solution. There are thousands of types of bulbs that vary in size, color, intensity and even principle of operation, yet there are only a handful of standard sockets. It seems the sensible course of action for our industry is to abandon the concept of defining huge hierarchical data models that satisfy all needs. Instead, we should focus on enabling the transparent flow of data across competing applications and databases, allowing end users to choose best in class applications or services.

The recent introduction of XML (Extensible Markup Language) to the industry is a good first step towards a practical solution. XML, like many good ideas, is not entirely new, having evolved from the SGML standard of the '70s. "But XML is an exchange mechanism, and that sounds suspiciously like an import/export routine," you say. Well, no. Returning to our bulb analogy, import/export loosely equates to a unique adaptor for each bulb socket combination. XML defines what is acceptable in terms of socket and insert design, ensuring companies that have never heard of each other can share data. Its strength lies in simplicity (a structured ASCII-based standard). I applaud Petrotechnical Open Software Corp. (POSC) for supporting development of XML within the industry.

I hope we see this trend accelerate as it offers the best of both worlds. Who knows, the E&P industry may have 0.0311 kg of sense after all!

Pat McGinley is director of surface systems for Baker Hughes Inteq.

Comments