In this discussion with Fulcrium, Andrew Gould reflects on performance, leadership, and the realities of operating at scale across global oil & gas systems.
The conversation explores how performance is shaped across assets, services, and the wider value chain – and why these interactions are often not fully visible within individual organisations.
Many of the perspectives shared remain highly relevant today, particularly in how performance is understood and evolves across systems and over time.
The discussion spans multiple dimensions of benchmarking – from upstream performance and cost, through to value chain, organisational, and service company dynamics.
In a discussion with Fulcrium, Sir Jim Ratcliffe – Founder and Chairman of INEOS – reflects on the role benchmarking plays in driving exceptional performance across complex industrial systems.
The discussion spans benchmarking across petrochemicals, oil & gas, and the broader value chain – including operational performance, cost, safety, and commercial outcomes.
What emerges is a consistent theme:
Performance is not defined in isolation.
It is shaped across systems –
and understood relative to what is achievable.
Across industrial operations of scale, improvement is continuous:
But these improvements do not, by themselves, define best-in-class.
The critical question is not:
“Are we improving?”
It is:
“How does our performance compare to what is fully achievable?”
Benchmarking provides that reference.
Not as comparison alone – but as a discipline that establishes:
Across petrochemicals, upstream and downstream oil & gas, and integrated industrial systems, this perspective becomes essential.
Because performance differences are rarely driven by a single factor.
They are shaped by:
As a result, the gap between current performance and best-in-class is often:
This is where benchmarking shifts from analysis to impact.
It does not simply describe performance.
It defines what is achievable – and where performance sits relative to it.
In that context, benchmarking is not a supporting activity.
It is foundational to understanding performance – and extending it.
Images courtesy of Sir Jim Ratcliffe / INEOS
Julio Dal Poz – Upstream Senior Strategy Advisor at Equinor.
Strong assets do not guarantee strong portfolio performance.
Benchmarking reveals the difference.
In a discussion with Fulcrium, Julio Dal Poz reflects on benchmarking, strategy, and portfolio performance — and why leading operators consistently outperform across upstream systems.
Across large-scale upstream portfolios, performance is shaped by more than individual assets.
Reservoirs perform differently.
Projects evolve differently.
Decisions compound over time.
Optimisation improves individual components.
But portfolio-level performance depends on how these components are aligned.
The critical question is not:
“Are individual assets performing well?”
It is:
“How does performance across the portfolio compare to what is achievable?”
Across comparable systems, performance differences are rarely explained by a single factor.
They emerge from:
These differences are not always visible at asset level.
They are expressed across the system.
This is where benchmarking operates at a different level.
Not as comparison alone —
but as a discipline that enables:
In that context, benchmarking is not only about improving performance within assets.
It is about ensuring that performance across the portfolio reflects what is fully achievable.
Performance leadership is not a function of individual excellence — but of system-level alignment.
Dr Dominic Emery – Former bp Group Chief of Staff
Cost can be reduced — without ever becoming efficient.
Benchmarking defines what cost should actually be.
In a discussion with Fulcrium, Dr Dominic Emery reflects on benchmarking-driven performance improvement across mega-projects, investment cycles, and supply chains.
Across large-scale oil & gas systems, cost and performance are continuously optimised.
Projects are refined.
Supply chains are improved.
Investment decisions evolve.
But optimisation alone does not define efficiency.
The critical question is not:
“Are we reducing cost?”
It is:
“How does our cost and performance compare to what is achievable?”
Across mega-projects and long-cycle investments, small differences in performance translate into material outcomes over time.
Not driven by a single factor —
but by how systems are configured, how decisions are sequenced, and how execution is managed across the lifecycle.
These differences are not always visible.
They are embedded in how projects are delivered, how supply chains operate, and how investment is sustained through the cycle.
Benchmarking provides the reference.
Not as comparison alone —
but as a discipline that establishes:
In that context, benchmarking does not sit alongside performance improvement.
It defines what performance improvement actually means.
Paul Beijer – Vice President Strategy, Planning & Assurance, Shell
Performance can be measured — without being understood.
Benchmarking defines the difference.
In a discussion with Fulcrium, Paul Beijer reflects on how benchmarking supports strategy, planning, and assurance across complex oil & gas systems.
Across large-scale operations, performance is continuously measured.
Metrics are tracked.
Plans are developed.
Assurance processes are applied.
But measurement alone does not define performance.
The critical question is not:
“Are we measuring performance accurately?”
It is:
“Are we interpreting performance correctly?”
Across reservoirs, facilities, and integrated systems, performance is shaped by interaction — not individual components.
Yet performance is often assessed in parts.
As a result, what appears strong within individual areas can still fall short at system level.
This is where benchmarking plays a distinct role.
Not as comparison alone —
but as a discipline that enables:
In that context, benchmarking does not sit alongside strategy and planning.
It underpins them.
Because without a clear reference:
Performance can be measured —
without being fully understood.
And what is not fully understood cannot be optimised correctly.
Ann-Christin Andersen – Director, TechnipFM
Supply chain cost can be reduced — without improving efficiency.
Benchmarking defines the difference.
In a discussion with Fulcrium, TechnipFMC reflects on how operators and service companies can achieve material supply chain cost reductions — including up to 30% — through standardisation, collaboration, and operating model change.
Across large-scale oil & gas developments, supply chain performance is continuously optimised.
Contracts are renegotiated.
Costs are reduced.
Suppliers are challenged.
But cost reduction alone does not define efficiency.
The critical question is not:
“Are we reducing supply chain cost?”
It is:
“How does our supply chain performance compare to what is achievable?”
Across comparable systems, material differences in cost are rarely explained by price alone.
They are shaped by:
These differences are not always visible in contracts or line items.
They are embedded in how the system operates.
This is where benchmarking plays a distinct role.
Not as comparison alone —
but as a discipline that enables:
In that context, benchmarking does not sit alongside procurement or supply chain management.
It defines the reference against which both operate.
'
