Decommissioning Basis of Estimate Template Cost certainty and cost reduction June 2017, Rev 1.0
2 Contents Introduction... 4 Cost Basis of Estimate... 5 What is a Basis of Estimate?... 5 When to prepare a Basis of Estimate... 5 How to use a Basis of Estimate... 5 Additional Resources... 6 The Template Basis of Estimate... 6 1.0 Executive Summary... 9 2.0 Purpose of Estimate Report...11 3.0 Project Scope Description...12 4.0 Estimate Methodology...13 5.0 Estimate Class...14 6.0 Planning Basis...15 7.0 Cost Basis...16 8.0 Allowances...16 9.0 Assumptions...16 10.0 Exclusions...17 11.0 Exceptions...17 12.0 Risks and Opportunities...17 13.0 Contingencies...18 14.0 Reconciliation...19 15.0 Benchmarking...20 16.0 Estimate Quality Assurance...20 17.0 Estimating Team...20 Attachments...22
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A cost Basis of Estimate (BOE) is a brief document that captures and communicates the critical aspects of a project or programme cost estimate. A sufficient and well organised BOE will permit a cost estimating professional to understand and assess an estimate. The Decommissioning Delivery Programme, published in 2016, included the following deliverable from the Cost Certainty and Reduction Element: A recommended standard decommissioning basis of estimate The expectation for operators to have a documented BOE was included within the Planning for Decommissioning Asset Stewardship Expectation, issued in late 2016. This document contains a sample template of a BOE commonly used in the construction and oil and gas industries. The purpose of this document is to provide assistance to operators with the preparation of a robust Basis of Estimate, increase the quality of the estimates, and provide increased opportunity for meaningful comparison across different estimates, prepared by different operators. This sample BOE is not intended as a mandatory requirement, but rather guidance on the structure, but more importantly the content of a high quality BOE. The template is based on the recommendations of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). The AACE is an internationally recognised authority on cost estimating and cost engineering.
4 INTRODUCTION OGA Tool Cost Basis of Estimate This is the first OGA Decommissioning tool, issued as part of the Cost Certainty and Reduction element of the 2016 OGA Decommissioning Delivery Programme. This tool is designed to assist operators in the preparation of robust decommissioning cost estimate as part of their own project planning processes, and to aide in engagements with the regulatory bodies. The tool is based on the recently published UKCS Decommissioning 2017 Cost Estimate Report, issued by the OGA, which described the data, process and people involved in the overall UKCS decommissioning cost estimate. While this base document is titled an Estimate Report, the structure and content of an Estimate Report and a Basis of Estimate can be identical. This tool does not provide a mandatory requirement for the industry and has been developed to provide assistance and guidance. If an operator already has a robust estimating process, which includes its own tools for describing the methods and foundations for an estimate, this will probably be sufficient to meet the OGA expectations. The tool is delivered as a draft Estimate Report with call-outs describing each section. This template can be used to develop a project specific BOE.
5 COST BASIS OF ESTIMATE What is a Basis of Estimate? A cost Basis of Estimate (BOE) is a brief document that captures and communicates the critical aspects of a project or programme cost estimate. A sufficient and well organised BOE will permit a cost estimating professional to understand and assess an estimate. A BOE can provide a forward looking plan on how the estimate will be prepared, or, as an Estimate Report (ER), a historical look back on how an existing estimate was prepared. Both uses are of significant value. A BOE provides an overview of what is being estimated, (the scope), by whom (the team), and using which information (data). When to prepare a Basis of Estimate A BOE is best prepared at the start of the estimating process. By developing the BOE early, the complexity of the estimating process, the data and information requirements and the expertise required to adequately prepare and validate the estimate can all be pre-defined and secured. An ER, prepared following completion of the estimate, will record how the process actually worked, the assumptions made during the process, the resulting information and knowledge gaps, together with risks and opportunities associated with the estimate. How to use a Basis of Estimate The BOE prepared prior to staring the estimating process can assist in ensuring the correct resources, including software, estimating and technical personnel, management support, and assurance teams are in place and prepared. The process, as documented within the BOE, will validate or challenge the desired, or required level of accuracy of the estimate. The Basis of Estimate is a key component of assuring a quality estimate and is critical for a reviewer or assessor to examine. The BOE can also be used to help secure the required resources, including adequate time, to prepare the estimate. Finally, a BOE greatly assists in improving a project team s understanding of the project, and in gaining alignment of team members. The ER will provide a record of how the estimate was developed, the risks and opportunities associated with the estimate, and a description on how these risks will be managed or mitigated. Any assumptions or exclusions will also be recorded. An important use of the ER is as a communication tool to management, partners and external project stakeholders, describing the level of understanding of the project, its uncertainty, challenges and opportunities, as well as the estimated cost of completing the scope.
6 The risk mitigation plans, opportunity realisation plans and the assumptions and exclusions contained within an ER should be used to identify future required work scope and deliverables to further mature the project definition, improve the cost estimate and reduce uncertainty. This should, once again, help project teams secure the necessary skilled resources required to manage project risk and achieve project goals. Additional Resources The following organisations and companies can provide detailed information on cost estimating, risk analysis and decision making. Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) http://web.aacei.org/ @Risk Decision Software https://www.palisade.com/risk/ Oracle Primavera Risk https://www.oracle.com/applications/primavera/products/risk-analysis.html The Template Basis of Estimate The BOE / ER template included below is based on the recent UKCS Decommissioning Cost Estimate prepared and issued by the OGA. While this estimate is not for a specific asset or field, the structure and type of content included within each section is offered as one possible way of presenting a quality Basis of Estimate. It is anticipated that this tool will be improved and updated as operator Bases of Estimate are prepared and submitted.
7 UKCS Decommissioning [Basis of Estimate / Estimate Report] This template uses the recent UKCS Decommissioning 2017 Cost Estimate Report as content example for use in the tool, rather than simply describing what should and could be in each section. [Date] This same structure of document can be used for generating either a Basis of Estimate (BOE), or an Estimate Report (ER). The key difference between the two is that the BOE should be developed before the estimate is prepared, while the ER accompanies a developed and published estimate. It is good practice to develop a BOE before work commences on the estimate itself to ensure sufficient resources, expertise and time are allocated to the effort, particularly if a detailed estimate is planned. As such, the tense used in the narrative will change. Prepared Reviewed Approved Comments
8 Contents 1.0 Executive Summary... 9 2.0 Purpose of Estimate Report... 11 3.0 Project Scope Description... 12 4.0 Estimate Methodology... 13 5.0 Estimate Class... 14 6.0 Planning Basis... 15 7.0 Cost Basis... 16 8.0 Allowances... 16 9.0 Assumptions... 16 10.0 Exclusions... 17 11.0 Exceptions... 17 12.0 Risks and Opportunities... 17 13.0 Contingencies... 18 14.0 Reconciliation... 19 15.0 Benchmarking... 20 16.0 Estimate Quality Assurance... 20 17.0 Estimating Team... 20 Attachments... 22
9 1.0 Executive Summary Insert name of project, programme, or estimate This Estimate Report documents the purpose, scope, estimating methodology, inputs, analysis, assurance and outputs of the (Estimate). Cost Estimate Results [Date] UK Pounds Gross (Millions) P10 P50 P90 Project Management Facilities Costs (Post CoP OPEX) Wells Abandonment Facilities Making Safe Topsides Preparation Topsides Removal If the estimate is deterministic, the range of each WBS Element should be indicated as a plus and minus percentage from the best estimate point, rather than P10 and P90 values. The ranges selected should be in accordance with the recommended ranges identified by the AACE, given the estimate class. Substructure Removal Onshore Recycling Subsea Infrastructure Site Remediation Monitoring The Estimate was prepared by the OGA with input from the Decommissioning Task Force (DTF), the DTF Cost Certainty and Reduction Team, and was assured by internal and external experts. This Estimate provides the basis for establishing the monetary cost reduction target for the industry following the Decommissioning Strategy, published in 2016, which set a target of a minimum 35% reduction from the 2017 cost estimate.
10 The Estimate is based on data from the 2016 UKCS Stewardship Survey with decommissioning cost inputs from 34 operators. The estimate raw data was collected using the Oil and Gas UK Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as per previous estimates compiled by OPRED and Oil and Gas UK. Inclusion in this section for specific projects could cover such things as execution methodology, contracting strategy, campaigning, and the like This is the first OGA Estimate for UKCS decommissioning at the basin level, so there are no differences or reconciliations in approach, rates, or risks to address. Previous decommissioning estimates for the basin have been done using different experts, different methodologies, and slightly different scopes, so the resulting estimate numbers are not directly comparable. Any key differences from previous estimates for the same project should be highlighted and described The Estimate has been carried out probabilistically, with a simple deterministic assurance estimate. In both cases the level of contingency applied (deterministic), or the accuracy ranges (probabilistic), have been taken from the recommended practices of the internationally recognised Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). It should be stated whether the estimate is fully or primarily deterministic or probabilistic The Estimate has resulted in an 80 percentile range of certainty from 44.5 Billion (P10) to 82.7 Billion (P90). The P50 value is 59.7 Billion, which given a target of a minimum of 35% cost reduction, results in a target of less than 39 Billion.
11 2.0 Purpose of Estimate Report The generic purpose of this Estimate Report is to: Document the purpose and intended use of the Estimate, Communicate the critical aspects of the project cost Estimate, Document the processes used to develop the Estimate Permit meaningful review and assessment of the Estimate quality Further specific purposes of this Estimate Report include: Establish the baseline cost estimate to assist the OGA meet its Energy Act obligations to review operator estimates and drive cost efficiency Document and communicate the target cost for the total UKCS Decommissioning effort, which represents a minimum of 35% reduction from this Estimate Other reasons for developing the estimate could be, as the way of examples, provisioning assessment, budget funding, project team alignment, regulator requirements, identification of resource requirements, risk identification, record communications or decisions, and the like Document the proposed method for measuring progress towards and beyond the 35% reduction in cost
12 3.0 Project Scope Description The project scope includes the decommissioning of UKCS infrastructure including: All facilities and development wells currently in place and yet to be decommissioned All facilities and development wells currently undergoing decommissioning, excluding work performed prior to and including 2016 All proposed project developments, not yet sanctioned or built All intra-field pipelines and export lines Suspended Open Water Exploration and Appraisal wells Onshore Terminals and Wytch Farm For facilities due to cease production prior to, and including, 2025, the estimate raw data have been collected using the following Oil and Gas UK Work Breakdown Structure: Project Management Facilities Costs (Post CoP OPEX) Wells Abandonment Facilities Making Safe Topsides Preparation Topsides Removal Substructure Removal Onshore Recycling Subsea Infrastructure Site Remediation Monitoring The BOE, the Estimate and the ER should all be structured in line with the OGUK WBS. If there are items of the standard WBS that do not apply to the project being estimated, this should be made clear. Similarly, if there are additional areas of work scope, not covered by the standard WBS they should be clearly identified in this section. For facilities due to cease production following 2025, the estimate raw data have been gathered at the overall facility level.
13 4.0 Estimate Methodology This estimate has been prepared probabilistically, with an accompanying deterministic assurance estimate, using cost information sourced directly from operators through the 2016 UKCS Stewardship Survey. A simplified graphic of the estimating process is shown below in figure 4.1, with the following key steps: Raw data provided by operators via the stewardship survey In line AACE recommended practice: o Contingency added to raw data to form deterministic estimate o Uncertainty ranges defined to form the probabilistic estimate External assurance event is held Cost metrics extracted from the raw data Cost report prepared Process updated and improved Not only is the type of methodology to be described (deterministic versus probabilistic), but it is also useful to identify the primary methods of obtaining the best estimate points. This could include cost factors, metrics, cost models, project databases, analogue projects, estimator judgment, expert opinion, contractor estimates and the like. Further details can be provided in the Cost Basis section of the BoE / Report Figure 4.1 Simplified Cost Estimating Process If there is a graphical representation of the company estimating process this is valuable input for any BOE or ER assurance reviewer The classification of estimate raw data, also provided by the survey respondents, was used to determine the appropriate contingency levels for the deterministic estimate and the ranges of uncertainty for the probabilistic estimate, all in line with recommended practice of the AACE. The deterministic assurance estimate was established by the addition of a contingency percentage, assessed using expert judgment, on the raw data to provide a point of comparison against the probabilistic P50. For the probabilistic estimate the estimate class defined the uncertainty range, as per AACE recommended practice. The tri-gen distribution shape was selected, to
14 account for estimating bias, which tends to result in a narrow range of outcomes. The uncertainty, or accuracy, range results in the 90% confidence level of cost outcomes; that is, the project outcome can be expected to fall within the stated range 90% of the time. The remaining 10% of possible outcomes was divided with 8% above the 95% confidence level and 2% below the 5% confidence level. This unequal distribution was selected to reflect the optimism of estimating, and the probability of most estimates being provisioning rather than project estimates. The industry recommended correlation value of 0.7 across the cost data inputs was applied. A simple sensitivity analysis of the distributions is included in Attachment D. 5.0 Estimate Class For a specific project or estimate, there may only be one estimate class definition. The reasons for selecting a certain class of estimate should be explained, and the selected accuracy range should be explained. The Estimate is comprised of various elements, not all having the same estimate classification. The estimate raw data classification was requested from the operators responding to the Asset Stewardship Survey and no adjustments were made to these operator self- assessments. The estimate classifications used are in accordance with those recommended by the AACE as presented in Table 5.1, below. Cost Estimate Classification Class 5, Order of Magnitude Class 4, Budget Class 3, Preliminary Level of Definition (% of Complete Definition) Cost Estimating Description (Techniques) 0% to 2% Stochastic, most parametric, judgment (parametric, specific analogy, expert opinion, trend analysis) 1% to 15% Various, more parametric (parametric, specific analogy, expert opinion, trend analysis) 10% to 40% Various, including combinations (detailed, unitcost, or activity-based; parametric; specific analogy; expert opinion; trend analysis) Expected Accuracy Range L: -20% to - 50% H: +30% to +100% L: -15% to - 30% H: +20% to +50% L: -10% to - 20% H: +10% to +30% Class 2, 30% to 70% Various, more definitive L: -5% to -15%
15 Cost Estimate Classification Intermediate Level of Definition (% of Complete Definition) Cost Estimating Description (Techniques) (detailed, unit-cost, or activitybased; expert opinion; learning curve) Expected Accuracy Range H: +5% to +20% Class 1, Definitive 50% to 100% Deterministic, most definitive (detailed, unit-cost, or activitybased; expert opinion; learning curve) L: -3% to -10% H: +3% to +15% Table 5.1 AACE Classification of Estimates The values within the expected accuracy ranges and used in the probabilistic distributions were selected at the higher end of the low (L) and high (H) accuracy ranges shown above. For example, Class 5 estimates were given an expected accuracy range of -20% / +100%. This was to address the strong possibility of estimating optimism from operators for decommissioning scope. This optimism was assessed as being high for the following reasons: Estimates may be influenced by the need to manage provision estimates Immaturity of decommissioning expertise within many operators The lack of industry experience generally with decommissioning 6.0 Planning Basis For a project specific BOE or ER the planning basis would normally include three elements. Unlike this high level overall ER, the planning basis would normally be detailed separately for each primary WBS element, describing how the work within that element will be performed, and by whom (self, or otherwise) The reasons for selecting, or assuming, the planning basis should be described. The key risks and opportunities that are quantified within each WBS element should be identified. Any assumptions, or calculations for timing and durations, should equally be described. The planning basis for the overall UKCS decommissioning scope was not documented in detail, nor differentiated across assets or operators. As requested within the UKCS Stewardship Survey, it has been assumed that operators have assessed the costs, based on today s market rates, and with the application of today s technology. There is a risk that allowances for future factors or technical advancement may have been taken and resulted in lower estimates, but given the
16 approach in selecting estimate classes and accuracy ranges described in Section 5.0 above, it was considered inappropriate to adjust the estimates any further. It is felt that the current classification of estimates, as a largely order of magnitude maturity allows for a number of execution and contracting strategy solutions, so no detail needed to be assumed at a work breakdown structure level. Also, unlike specific project estimates, no event driven risks, or discrete opportunities were quantified within the Estimate. For a project specific BOE or ER the cost basis would normally be detailed separately for each primary WBS element. The BOE or ER report should identify where the costs used in the estimate were sourced (e.g. metrics, previous projects, contract rates, market enquiries). Any adjustments or normalizations to the cost should be identified and described. 7.0 Cost Basis The cost basis for the UKCS overall cost was derived from the operators as part of the 2016 UKCS Stewardship Survey. No detailed analysis of asset configuration or challenge estimates were performed, on the basis that the operators were best placed to understand the scope, condition and proposed end-state of the decommissioning scope for specific facilities. As with the planning basis, it is felt that the current classification of estimates, as a largely order of magnitude maturity allows for a number of execution and contracting strategy solutions, so no detail on market prices, or rate sources, needed to be assumed at a work breakdown structure level. 8.0 Allowances If any general or specific allowances have been added to the estimate the reason for incorporating these should be explained, as should the methods for quantifying the allowances. If no allowances have been added this should be stated. No additional allowances have been included. 9.0 Assumptions All key assumptions, that will have a positive or negative impact on the cost estimate, should be included. The following assumptions have been made regarding the framework and environment for the work within the Estimate: 2016 pricing has been provided by the operators, as requested in survey Estimate classes as defined by operators are correct Current working and contracting methods are employed Post 2025 estimates provided by operators are Class 5
17 Contractor availability will not be a constraint, and the work demand will be actively managed to ensure no pricing spikes. 10.0 Exclusions All specific exclusions from the estimate should be listed. No exclusions should be included that are actually known scope required to be done. It is good practice to minimise the number of exclusions The following items are excluded from the Estimate: Future Factors; for example o New technology o Improved contracting methods Aggregation of scope across operators Inflation Event driven risks Exceptions relate to where company or industry standards Specific opportunities for cost reduction or good practice have not been adopted or fully complied with. Obviously these are undesirable, but can be unavoidable in certain circumstances. If there are no exceptions, this should be stated. 11.0 Exceptions No specific estimating exceptions have been considered. Normally risk and opportunities will be included as part of the cost estimate, and their description should be included within the BOE and ER. It is good practice to list the risk and opportunities by each WBS element. The list may be limited to only those risks and opportunities that have been quantified. The description of each risk and opportunity should include the following information: What might happen? What might be the cause of this happening? How likely it is to happen? What will be the impact on the project? The description may also include a brief description of the planned mitigation Opportunities should include such things as future factors and the like. 12.0 Risks and Opportunities No specific event driven risks or opportunities have been quantified within the Estimate. The following issues are recognised, however, but not quantified. The
18 recommended treatment to mitigate or eliminate these risks and issues is through effective and robust management plans. Key issues: Operator Behaviours. There is a strong preference to favour cash flow over NPV in decision making around decommissioning. This can defer expenditures which can help in the short term, but this could create problems and increased costs in the longer term. Estimating Bias. The operators are pushed to be optimistic in developing provisioning estimates and this can result in lower values, consciously or unconsciously. Clear Sea Bed. There is a belief that the regulator is pushing more towards the presumption of a clear sea bed. This may prevent operators from challenging this presumption and failing to provide full comparative assessment proposals. In addition to the above issues, there are also a number of event driven risks and opportunities. Again these have not been quantified and the recommended treatment is again to effectively manage the risk and opportunities to eliminate or realize them. Key risks: Operators commence planning for decommissioning too late, thereby eliminating cost saving alternatives. Traditional investment project approaches are adopted for the planning, managing and executing of decommissioning projects, unnecessarily over engineering the solutions and increasing the cost. A lack of investment in new technologies and transfer of existing technologies from other industry sectors fails to capture cost reduction opportunities. Key opportunities: New entrants to the market initiate a different approach, contracting solutions, and pricing basis for decommissioning projects. Innovative cost reducing technologies or techniques are implemented for well P&A activities. Regulations are complied with intelligently, consistently and appropriately, to ensure safe and environmentally acceptable outcomes, at minimum cost. 13.0 Contingencies This section should describe the method used to assess contingency levels (e.g. AACE recommendations, company standards, expert opinion, etc). The resulting percentage of contingency added to the raw estimate should be documented. Contingency for the deterministic estimate has been derived from the AACE recommended practice for the appropriate classification of estimates, as presented by Operator respondents to the Asset Stewardship Survey. Given the uncertainty of the frequency and level of contingency contained within the survey raw data a judgment was made to add in only half the recommended contingency percentage. This equated to a 25% contingency being added across all raw data.
19 Contingency requirements for the probabilistic are derived from the Monte Carlo runs, and are dependent on the degree of certainty (P-factor) selected, from P1 to P100. For a P50 level of confidence, this equates to a 27% contingency addition over the estimate raw data. There is no separate allowance or calculation for management reserve. For project specific BOE s is it good practice to relate the current Estimate back to the most recent previous estimate, highlighting any key changes in scope, markets, methodologies, execution assumptions, and the like. 14.0 Reconciliation This reconciliation need not be exhaustive. It is designed to capture significant changes only and should not include minor adjustments to quantities, rates or methodologies. This is the first OGA Estimate for UKCS decommissioning at the basin level, so there are no differences in approach, rates, or risks to address. Previous decommissioning estimates for the UKCS basin have been done using different experts and different methodologies so the numbers are not directly comparable. The previous estimates developed by OPRED, the latest being 52 Billion, were deterministic estimates, using different data sources and excluded areas within the OGA estimate such as terminals and future decommissioning projects. This difference of source data, methodology and basis constrains meaningful reconciliation. Moving forward, a reconciliation effort on the Estimate will be performed on an annual basis. This reconciliation will not only document what has changed from one year to the next, but also communicate progress towards meeting and then beating the target total cost of less than 39 Billion for the UKCS decommissioning scope. This progress measurement process is challenging to design and build due to the multitude of variables, but is essential to stimulate and promote continuing improvement. Current thoughts on how this may be managed are included within Attachment C Cost Improvement Measurement Process.
15.0 Benchmarking Benchmarking an estimate is good practice. As decommissioning data increases, the quantity and quality of benchmarking data available will increase. Benchmarking may be internal only, or external compiled by the estimating organisation or third party experts. Even in the event of limited benchmarking possibilities, this should be described and explained. 20 There are limited cost outcomes for previously executed projects against which to benchmark the overall estimate. Initial benchmarks and metrics will be constructed from the survey data and two comparisons will be carried out: The metrics extracted from the Estimate will be compared against the limited number of actual project outcomes to compare estimates with actuals. As the number of executed projects increase, the usefulness of this comparison will increase dramatically. The metrics extracted from the Estimate will be filtered and sorted to identify cost differentiators, thereby increasing their value and applicability to other projects and operators. These metrics will be widely shared with the industry as part of the annual estimate update. In addition, specific operator positioning with the range of metrics will be shared and discussed with operators as part of the operator engagement process and the review of applications for Cessation of Production and Decommissioning Programmes. 16.0 Estimate Quality Assurance The following assurance events took place: All estimates should be subjected to an appropriate level of assurance.assurance should ideally be carried out by personnel that are experts in the field, and not associated with the project, or the project organisation. The type of assurance carried out, by whom and when it was done should be addressed. Any key findings coming from the assurance should be described, including the action being taken to address the finding, if any. Internal presentation and discussion of the process and outcomes with a number of OGA directorates, including Operations and Strategy Discussion of the estimate process and outcomes with the Decommissioning Task Force sponsor. Review of the estimating process with an independent third party cost estimating expert (Rider Hunt International) Presentation of, and discussion relating to, the estimating process with HMT, HMRC and BEIS. Assurance on the progress measurement process is ongoing with internal OGA directorates. 17.0 Estimating Team The estimating team included the following: All operators through their completion of the Asset Stewardship Survey
21 The Decommissioning Task Force Cost Certainty and Reduction Team, incorporating participation from: o The OGA o BEIS o HMT o Oil and Gas UK
22 Attachments Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Overall Cost Estimate Graphics Cost Estimate Statistics Cost Improvement Measurement Process Estimate Sensitivity The actual list and content of attachments will vary from estimate to estimate, but this list is a reasonable generic starting point.
23