When you step into a supergiant field such as Ghawar, Burgan, or Rumaila, it becomes immediately clear that no two reservoirs are alike – even when production levels appear similar on paper.
Differences in structure, drive mechanisms, fluid systems, development history, and operating strategy all shape how performance is expressed over time.
In these environments, performance is not defined by a single metric.
It is the result of how multiple factors interact:
pressure support, sweep efficiency, well placement, completion design, and the timing and sequencing of interventions.
Across large-scale reservoir systems, this complexity is well understood.
Significant capability has been built – in modelling, surveillance, data integration, and increasingly in the application of AI – to better characterise behaviour and support more informed decisions.
As a result, performance is continuously being improved.
But as capability increases, the nature of the question begins to shift.
It is no longer only about how to improve performance within a reservoir.
It is also about how that performance is anchored against what is fully achievable under comparable conditions.
Two reservoirs may exhibit similar production profiles, while operating at different levels of recovery efficiency.
Two development strategies may deliver comparable short-term outcomes, while diverging materially over the life of the field.
And two assets may both be improving – while progressing toward different performance horizons.
These differences are not always immediately visible.
Not because they are hidden – but because they are expressed through the interaction of many variables over time.
Best-in-class performance does not immediately reveal itself.
It exists – but it is not obvious.
As a result, the interpretation of performance becomes increasingly important.
Not just within a reservoir, but across reservoirs.
This is where benchmarking plays a distinct role.
Not as comparison alone, but as a discipline that maintains valid, comparable interpretation of performance across fields, reservoirs, over time, and as conditions evolve – helping ensure that performance is anchored against what is fully achievable, and that insight can be applied without distortion.
Best-in-class performance is not obvious – but it exists, can be identified, and applied within and across oil & gas systems.
In LNG systems, performance is not constrained by individual components, but by how tightly integrated systems operate under continuously shifting conditions.
On the surface, trains within the same complex often look similar – comparable output, comparable efficiency.
But over time, that similarity starts to drift. Not dramatically. Not all at once. Just enough to matter.
Small differences begin to show up:
Individually, none of these raise concern. Collectively, they start to shape how performance evolves.
What makes this more complex is that LNG trains don’t operate in isolation.
So what you’re seeing isn’t just train performance – it’s system behaviour. And this is where things get interesting.
Two trains can sit side by side, deliver similar results, yet behave very differently when conditions change. Over time, that difference becomes more than noise. It becomes structural.
Later trains often reflect improvements – design refinements, operational learning, adjustments based on earlier experience.
But those improvements are shaped by what has already been seen. And just as importantly, what hasn’t.
What works in one context doesn’t always carry across cleanly to another.
This is where benchmarking starts to shift in meaning. It’s no longer just about comparison. It’s about understanding what actually holds up.
The reality is, large-scale LNG operations already have data. They have visibility. They have highly capable teams.
Benchmarking itself isn’t new. It happens internally, across joint ventures, and with external providers.
And yet, outcomes vary. Not because of a lack of effort – but because maintaining comparability as systems evolve is far from straightforward.
What matters is not just what is measured, but how performance is interpreted in context.
When you look across LNG systems in this way, patterns begin to emerge.
These differences are rarely visible from within a single system.
What distinguishes more advanced approaches is access to unbiased data, and the ability to assess performance across systems, and over time, and in a way that remains consistent.
At that point, benchmarking becomes something different.
Not a comparison exercise –
but a discipline through which performance can be understood, tested, and extended…
…beyond the limits of any individual system or organisation.
Best-in-class performance does not immediately reveal itself.
It exists – but it is not obvious.
Benchmarking is the discipline of maintaining valid, comparable interpretation of performance across systems, over time, and as conditions evolve – enabling best-in-class performance to be identified and applied in a form that remains valid beyond the conditions in which it was first derived.
In large-scale facilities systems, performance is not defined by individual units, but by how the system behaves as a whole.
Across gas-oil separation plants, central processing facilities, compression systems, stabilisation trains, and export networks, processing is tightly coupled – often across long-life, high-throughput assets.
At this scale, capacity on paper is only a starting point.
Throughput depends on how constraints are understood and managed across the system.
This is where facilities systems become more dynamic.
A compressor operating slightly off design conditions, a separator approaching its limits, or variability in upstream fluids can introduce effects that propagate across the system.
Individually, these effects are familiar. Collectively, they shape how performance is expressed.
Across Middle East NOCs, significant capability has been built to manage this complexity.
Advanced process control, real-time monitoring, integrated workflows, and increasingly AI-enabled optimisation are improving visibility, responsiveness, and operational precision.
As a result, facilities performance continues to evolve.
As systems become more capable and more integrated, the nature of the question begins to shift. It is no longer only about how to improve performance within a facility.
It is also about how that performance is anchored against what is fully achievable across comparable systems.
Facilities with similar configurations and nominal capacities can perform differently in practice.
Not because of a single defining factor, but because of how constraints are managed, how systems are operated, and how decisions are sequenced over time.
These differences are not always immediately visible. They are expressed through the interaction of the system.
Best-in-class performance does not immediately reveal itself. It exists – but it is not obvious.
As a result, the interpretation of facilities performance becomes increasingly important.
Not just within a single asset, but across facilities.
This is where benchmarking plays a distinct role.
Not as comparison alone, but as a discipline that maintains valid, comparable interpretation of performance across facilities, fields and reservoirs, over time, and as conditions evolve – helping ensure that performance is anchored against what is fully achievable, and that insight can be applied without distortion.
Best-in-class performance is not obvious – but it exists, can be identified, and applied within and across oil & gas systems.
This global supermajor operating under unstable conditions in an African nation appointed Fulcrium to benchmark the upstream oil and gas business processes and practices against its comprehensive exploration and production database for the region.
Fulcrium also identified opportunities for remodelling the organisation for optimum exploration, appraisal, development and production performance.
Fulcrium generated numerous entrepreneurial solutions to the challenges of working within this developing nation.
They identified 17 credible key opportunities for us to pursue across the entire scope of the project (exploration and appraisal, development and production; drilling and completions; production operations’ readiness; organisational effectiveness and efficiency; and supply chain).
They had a controlled entrepreneurial approach to corporate and business unit issues and provided us with pragmatic solutions focused on making opportunities come to life.
ExxonMobil is outperforming its peers and national oil companies through industry-leading share price performance and remarkable shareholder returns.
This global supermajor used Fulcrium’s benchmarking services to provide unprecedented insights into service companies.
Contact us for a copy of the full case study.
Fulcrium gives an independent view of each service firm, using a very wide range of sources, making them from our point of view a highly valuable secret intelligence resource.
They also understand - from having worked in them - how service companies and technology firms operate in terms of structuring and extending engagements, setting fee levels and building strong relationships, so another benefit to us is the fact they are effectively “poachers turned gamekeepers”.
That is, they now act as buyers’ advocates - helping us to get the very best out of our service company suppliers.
INEOS founder and Chairman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe discusses:
Fulcrium was appointed by the in-house specialist assurance function accountable for second line Safety & Operational Risk Assurance at a Supermajor.
The brief was to undertake a wide-ranging benchmarking engagement comparing the frontline and second line strategy, systems, processes, organisation, risk, policies, standards, governance and assurance activities of the function with those of peers at IOCs, NOCs and service companies.
Part of the brief was to provide tangible evidence of what constituted a world class Safety & Operational Risk Assurance function and how such insights could translate into transformational value for the function in its support of Drilling & Completions, Reservoir & Wells, Major Projects and Operations & HSSE. Fulcrium was also required to assist the client with a renewed vision and roadmap to transform the function.
Following an extensive evaluation of the market for process safety / risk assurance providers, we appointed Fulcrium to conduct benchmarking and assist us with our thinking.
No benchmarking firm that we encountered can match it for methodology or, more importantly, for process safety, reliability and risk assurance domain specificity in the upstream and downstream oil and gas industry.
Fulcrium brought genuine new and impactful insights which have helped us shape the safety and operational risk assurance function.
BP Vice President – Group Strategy, Dr Dominic Emery talks to Fulcrium about benchmarking-driven performance improvements in:
Paul Beijer – Vice President Strategy, Planning & Assurance at Shell talks to Fulcrium, explaining how Oil & Gas benchmarking is used to make Shell a leader in the industry.
'
