Summary from the Strategic Work session

Paris May 14th-15th 2007

Strategy Track

• Subject Areas:– [S1] Refine the WITSML long-term road map.

• For those from energy and vendor companies with significant WITSML experience and a clear vision for WITSML’s destiny.

– [S2] Conduct an open workshop on how to define and obtain approval for a business case for WITSML use in an energy company .

• For people involved in making such decisions, preparing proposals, and supporting the decision process.

Review and Agreement of Basic Road Map Principles

• Objective: Agree on basic Road Map principles– Before we begin the three-track sessions

• Assumption:– The Strategy Road Map session [S1] will refine the draft

Road Map (December 2006) using this as a starting point.

• Road Map Principles:– We need a future plan (Road Map) that includes target dates

for new versions of the WITSML Standards.– New versions (releases) can generally be classified as:

• Major: Substantially changed scope and/or substantially not compatible

• Minor: Substantially same scope and substantially compatible• Bug-Fix: Changes are only to fix errors (not to add functionality)

Road Map

• Version Release Pattern– Bug Fix ~ asap when no work around, at least 1 year– Minor ~ 2 years– Major ~ when needed (revisited in the regular WITSML

meetings)• Compatible new or expanded data objects /

schemas can be accommodated as additions. Backward compatibility should always be the goal for improvements

• Milestones– 2008 Minor Release (Automation, other pending issues)– 2009 Bug Fix– 2010 Minor Release– 2011 Bug Fix– 2012 Minor Release– 2013 Bug Fix– 2014 Minor Release

Service Company Perspective

• High Cost – WITSML is not ‘free’– Development– Implementation– Support– Vendors cannot charge a premium for supplying WITSML

• Slow take-up of WITSML in the industry– Lack of understanding in the industry

• Opening up for competition (positive and negative)

• A lot can still be done with WITS• New opportunities for cross disciplinary

business• Consolidation vs. development of WITSML

Oil / Energy Company Perspective

DIGITAL GROUPRIGSITE

PERSONNELD&C / G&G GROUP

24/78/5 ?8/5 – 24/7

WITSML innovation

Domain ExpertsContracts response.

DeliveryMust complete well

Oil / Energy Company Perspective

• Operator keeps control and ownership of data• Enables 24/7• Standard architecture allow greater integrity in

configurations• Interact / Insite Anywhere / Riglink are used widely

but WITSML enables us to see RT data in native applications

• Challenge to demonstrate value directly to the WITSML, focus on value of enabled work processes

• Operating personnel are to busy to change work process

• Handling WITS data streams are time consuming. This is taken away by WITSML

What to focus on when deciding to go for WITSML

• D+C / G&G function is getting access to RT data in familiar applications

• Rigsite is getting expert involvement / help, and operational support from onshore

• It is creating ‘ease-of-use’ for the Digital Group

• It creates the possibility for on-rig data exchange between vendors

Strategic areas for further development of WITSML and actions

• Benefits and roadmap for SOA and W3C compliance– PRODML/Chevron grp. document to technical grp.

• Automation for: (use case / tech.group)– Digital group– D&C / G&G group

• Look into bi-directional development – Strategy group

• Smart applications (Decision Support)– On hold

• Write paper : Review status, vision, examples of WITSML– Strategy group (Statoil, Shell, BP, Energistics, Halliburton,

Schlumberger)