W3.1_Khalid Almamari_ Cost evaluation of site survey


1. Problem Definition

This subject is for estimating 5 km2 quotation of the area of the concession area related to our company from a survey contractor is OMR 2,000,000. Is the quotation is appropriate? If it is not, how much is the site survey price?

2. Identify the Feasible alternative

Options for alternatives:

1. Accept the quotation, as price as OMR 2,000,000

2. Using cost approach estimation. Historically, cost/km2 is about OMR 6,000. With length 5 km2, Total estimating budget is OMR 1,600,000

3. Using comparison with another project in another company with cost/km2 is OMR 11,000. Total cost is OMR 2,200,000. With this assumption, the quotation will be accepted. It is need more analysis

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Evaluating all alternative using Benefit – Cost ratio method.

How to validate MARR calculations of 12.8%:

Further to blog 7.2 where MARR has been calculated 8.6% (more details of the calculations) but with ignoring of risk scoring and assumed zero, in this section of this blog, MARR will consider all but the calculations here will focus on the risk scoring to be added. A lot of thanks are forwarded to the colleague of pmioman14 to support of these calculations.

MARR = WACC + Risk Scoring + Country Risk

The range of project risks are including activity type (production or exploration), location, and reservoir type and drilling type (onshore or offshore). Those criterions are summarized to determine the relative ranking for each sub-criterion.

A pair wise comparison matrix for each criterion is the next result to be calculated until priorities obtained for the sub criterion.

91

92

93

94

 To calculate for each of the criterion of the above section, Matrix algebra is used and results are summarized in below table.

95

Now, the range of project risks is re-written as following:

Activity type: production = 0.1 & exploration = 0.9

Location: north = 0.52, middle = 0.32 & south = 0.16

Reservoir type: conventional = 0.1 & unconventional = 0.9

Drilling type: onshore = 0.1 & offshore = 0.9

Looking at below table, and since no reservoir in Oman that can be described as an offshore and unconventional at the same time, 37.91% is considered as an outlier and 4.21% can be considered as highest most reasonable percentage. Lowest risk is 0.02%

96

Calculating for MARR by including both maximum and minimum risk scoring, it was found that

–          For the most risky project is, MARR= 8.6% + 4.2% = 12.8%

–          For the least risky project is, MARR = 8.6% + 0.02% = 8.62%

4. Selection of Criteria

Calculations:

With using discount rate 12.8%

Benefit per/year = OMR 1,000,000

O&M/year = OMR 70,000

Conventional B-C ratio with PW

Modified B-C ratio with PW:

w31

w32

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

All the alternatives are shows B-C Ratio’s calculation greater than one. All alternative is economically acceptable

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 1 is preferred to be used because it gives the highest value than other even though all alternative is accepted. Also, it is noted clearly that risk scoring has great impact on the calculations if included.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

Different alternatives only affect the amount of the B-C ratio, no effect on project tolerability. Extra analysis maybe needed to be done to present input in for a better conclusion.

Here, I would like to thank my colleague to support of adding such validation of above calculations.

References:

  1. West J, Public oil prospecting in Yemen 2: how would it work? (2010), Retrieved on August 5th, 2014 from http://openoil.net/2010/09/07/publicly-funded-oil-exploration-in-yemen-2-how-would-it-work/
  2. Sullivan, William G., Wick, Elin M., Koelling, C. Patric. (2012). Engineering Economy. 15th ed, Chapter 10, Pp. 419 – 450. Prentice Hall.
  3. Workbook 5, Cost Evaluations; 2000. Retrieved on August 5th, 2014. From http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_5867_EN_5_cost_evaluations.pdf
  4. Liana, Lita, (February, 2014), Using Analytical Hierarchy Process to Determine Appropriate Minimum Attractive Rate of Return for Oil and Gas Projects in Indonesia, Vol III, Issue II, Retrieved on September 7, 2014, from http://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pmwj19-feb2014-liana-analytical-hierarchy-for-roi-oilandgas-projects-indonesia-FeaturedPaper.pdf
  5. Lita, (2013, February 19). W6.0_LL_WACC&MARR_Gol vs Contractors, Mercure AACE 2013, Retrieved on September 7, 2014, from http://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/w5_gw_drilling-a-well-hurdle-rate/comment-page-1/
  6. Alshihi, S., MARR. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from https://pmioman14.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/w5_alshehhi_calculating-marr-using-analytical-hierarchy-methodology/
Advertisements

One thought on “W3.1_Khalid Almamari_ Cost evaluation of site survey

  1. AWESOME. Khalid!!! Really IMPRESSIVE job this time!!!

    I really hope that Takatuf will host our more advanced AACE Certification course (6 months long, not just 3 months and that you will consider taking the much more technically demanding AACE certifications.

    http://www.aacei.org/cert/whatCertOffers.shtml

    Unlike the PMP which is mostly a test to see if you know the terminology and fundamental concepts, the AACE certifications actually validate that you can apply the tools and techniques to solve real problems, just as you have been doing with your blog postings.

    PLEASE take a few moments to mentor Sulaiman……. I am confident he can solve the problems once he masters the step by step process…..

    Thanks!!!

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s