Alberta Well ID Project Charter and Appendices - Approved

“The PPDM
Association is a not
for profit society Well Identification Alberta
that collaborates
Project Charter
with industry to
develop
Revision Date: January 18th, 2012
Professional Data
Management
standards for the
Petroleum Industry.”
Created for the PPDM Association by:

Kristen Kallstrom (ERCB)
Trudy Curtis (PPDM CEO)
Jeffrey Bonus (PPDM PM)
Copyright 2012, PPDM Association, All Rights Reserved.

DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND REVISION HISTORY
Version Date Author(s) Revision Notes
0.1 August 23rd, 2011 Kristen Kallstrom Reviewed WIP charter and updated
0.2 September 15th, 2011 Jeffrey Bonus Merged Charter and Framework documents
0.3 October 27, 2001 Kristen Kallstrom Edited and revised the merged charter
Added content to the Executive Summary and

0.4 November 16, 2011 Trudy Curtis
Introduction sections
Updated charter based on review meeting with

0.5 December 6th, 2011 Jeffrey Bonus
Kristen Kallstrom and Trudy Curtis
Added Background Section; Updated Key
th Milestones; moved Project Steering Committee
0.6 December 12 , 2011 Jeffrey Bonus
and Project Team sections to Project Plan; moved
project roles to appendix
Edits by Dave Fisher made to the Executive
0.7 December 13th, 2011 Jeffrey Bonus
Summary, Introduction and Background
Changes based on feedback received from

0.8 January 9th, 2012 Jeffrey Bonus
Industry review
Changes based on meeting with ERCB; Dwayne

0.9 January 18th, 2012 Jeffrey Bonus
Popowich and Kristen Kallstrom
The PPDM Association Copyright 2012, PPDM Association, All Rights Reserved.
Suite 860, 736 – 8th Ave SW Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 1H4
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
Email: info@ppdm.org Web: www.ppdm.org Page 2 of 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Project Overview....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Background..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Project Vision ................................................................................................................................. 9
1.5 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.6 Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................... 9
1.7 Benefits......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.8 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 11
1.9 Key Deliverables ........................................................................................................................... 12
1.10 Major Milestones .......................................................................................................................... 14
2 Timeframe ............................................................................................................................................. 15
3 Key Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Communication ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Communications Plan.................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Project Meetings and Progress Reporting ....................................................................................... 16
4 Key Dependencies .................................................................................................................................. 17
5 Critical Success Factors .......................................................................................................................... 17
6 Project Challenges .................................................................................................................................. 17
7 Project Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 18
8 Project Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 18
9 Project Interdependencies ....................................................................................................................... 18
10 Project Structure................................................................................................................................ 19
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
10.1 Project Management and Reporting ............................................................................................... 19
11 Risk Management.............................................................................................................................. 20
12 Change Management ......................................................................................................................... 21
13 Budget and Funding .......................................................................................................................... 22
14 Project Charter Approval ................................................................................................................... 23
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The province of Alberta (Canada) regulates well operations through the Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB), who, as part of their function, issue licenses for the construction and operation of a well. Directive 59,
“Well Drilling and Completion Data Filing Requirements”,
(http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/directives/directive059_2012.pdf) outlines how well information is to be
submitted to the ERCB. Appendix 2 of this document describes the rules under which Unique Well Identifiers
(UWI) are assigned; these rules are based on a document created by the Canadian Petroleum Association
(CPA).
In 2011, the ERCB undertook to review and revise Directive 59 as part of an overall initiative to ensure that as a
regulator, they provide leadership to industry for effective, innovative and appropriate management of Alberta’s
hydrocarbon resources. Quite simply put, the ERCB wants to be best nonconventional regulator in the world.
Part of this project will include reviewing the system used to identify wells (Appendix 2).
The PPDM Association is a vendor neutral industry body that works internationally to create consensus and
continuous improvement in how our information and knowledge are stewarded. Since 1991, the PPDM
Association, based in Alberta, has formed strong relationships with the global industry through standards
building, education, and communication.
The PPDM Association wish to collaborate with the ERCB and industry to create a series of recommendations
to update and improve the ways wells in Alberta are identified. We want to ensure that the direct and indirect
risks of the current well identification system are resolved in the best interests of this industry, and the public
good.
You are invited to be part of this project. We hope that you will be as eager to participate as we are at the
PPDM Association. Your ideas and input are essential to making this joint endeavour a success and we look
forward to your involvement. Several levels of involvement are outlined in this document. We ask that you
review these options and respond at the level most appropriate for your company.
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The province of Alberta (Canada) regulates well operations through the Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB), who, as part of their function, issue licenses for the construction and operation of a well. While there
are a number of regulations that govern well operations, Directive 59, “Well Drilling and Completion Data
Filing Requirements”, (http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/directives/directive059_2012.pdf) outlines how
well information is to be submitted to the ERCB. Appendix 2 of this document describes the rules under which
Unique Well Identifiers (UWI) are assigned; these rules are based on a document created by the Canadian
Petroleum Association (CPA).
In Alberta, wells are identified at the bottom of the hole by a UWI and at the surface by a license number. Well
drilling and completion technology has evolved since this identification scheme was devised. Limitations in the
current UWI system mean that some wellbores or well events may not be assigned with a UWI and are tracked
internally by the ERCB. During the planning, construction and operation of a well, an assigned UWI is subject
to change for a variety of reasons. Historically, murkiness resulted when a well license lapsed and was re-
issued; this problem made it difficult to connect all components of a well configuration at the surface. This has
been addressed by the revision of Directive 059 (released September 27th, 2011 and effective April 1st 2012).
Important well information, including well logs, core analysis, well tests and production volumes may be lost
entirely or associated with an incorrect, out of date, or misleading UWI. Everyone who is a stakeholder in the
business of managing information about wells (including the regulatory agency, operators, service companies
and data vendors) struggles to ensure that well information is properly managed and integrated through its life.
Operational and environmental risk has become a public issue for many operators, particularly when closely
spaced drilling patterns are used. Fracing operations, mis-steers or simple ignorance about existing wellbores
may result in collisions or unintended communication between well components. Every stakeholder is united in
their need to have a complete and unambiguous record of every wellbore drilled.
Globally, most regulatory agencies face a similar dilemma; consistently and correctly identifying well
components is a persistent challenge for everyone. Today, agencies around the world are working with the
PPDM Association to find methods for well identification that help our industry solve this critical problem.
The project described herein is one of two led by the PPDM Association that will affect the ways wells are
identified; the other project is focussed on the API D12a well identification system in the United States. Both
projects wish to collaborate in the development of a set of globally applicable recommendations that will
provide a framework to help regulators around the globe ensure that they are following industry best practices
for well identification.
In addition to the global framework, the Alberta well identification project will develop a series of
recommendations for the ERCB to develop a revised well identification system for Alberta.
This is a rare opportunity; regulators do not often make changes of this magnitude. The impact of this revision
will be profound, and will affect every aspect of operations. Given the opportunity to participate, we are
strongly motivated to ensure that we position the outcome for the best possible success for regulators, operators
and the services community. We urge you to participate and ensure that your voice is heard.
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.3 BACKGROUND
The Unique Well Identifier (UWI) standard for Canada was adopted in Alberta in about 1978 for all wells. The
UWI has three main components: resource type (conventional oil and gas, oil sands, water source), geographical
location (referred to the land survey grid), and well event (drilling and completion.)
The well license and the UWI are the two essential identifiers for wells, with different purposes. The well
license is shared by all wellbores and completions having a common surface location (Well Origin.) The UWI is
unique for each wellbore and completion; the geographic component refers to the location of the bottom of the
hole. However, there are limitations, exceptions, and problems in both kinds of identifiers.
The main challenges presented by the existing UWI system are:
1. The UWI is not a permanent identifier; it is subject to revision.
2. The UWI cannot be used reliably to identify or count all wellbores or completions belonging to a
particular well (i.e. sharing the same Well Origin.)
3. The UWI cannot identify more than 9 events in a well.
4. The UWI does not distinguish between wellbores and completions.
The UWI is a wellbore identifier; it also identifies completions. The ideal identifier is one that is both accurate
and permanent. In both respects, the UWI meets these criteria for most wellbores but is problematic for the
exceptions.
The UWI is initially assigned based on the projected bottom location. This invites problems, because the actual
bottom hole location is only known when a directional survey is made. If a survey is re-calculated or replaced,
the ERCB may change the UWI.
Additionally, interpretations and decisions may be based on an incorrect UWI because the UWI may be
changed after data has been attached or the data may be attached to the wrong UWI.
If a well has more than one wellbore, the UWIs do not identify the relationships between wellbores sharing the
same Well Origin (surface location.) Although two UWIs may be identical except for the 16th position, this is no
assurance that the wellbores are in the same well.
The well license, issued by the ERCB, applies to the original wellbore and all subsequent downhole events. The
license number is a useful means to link all UWIs in the same well (i.e. all UWIs sharing the same Well Origin.)
However, a re-entry on a new mineral lease (the original well having been abandoned and the lease expired) is
assigned a new license. In these cases, the license number does not identify all the UWIs in the well.
The UWI, as presently defined, cannot handle well events beyond 9 but a few wells have more than 9 wellbores.
The Well licensee makes a manual decision on which wellbores will not be assigned a UWI. These wellbores
become, in effect, invisible. Moreover, some data may be erroneously attached to the wrong UWI.
The UWI cannot be used reliably to count the number of wellbores in a well, even if there are no more than 9
events. This is because there is no direct way to tell if a “well event” (designated by the 16th position in the
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
UWI) is a new wellbore or a new completion in an existing wellbore. The well event number counts
completions and wellbores; these two types of events can only be distinguished by consulting other data.
A new completion creates a new UWI; exceptions cause problems. A new UWI is not created if the completion
is not in a new formation, or (in some areas of Alberta) is for commingled production. An attempted completion
that does not yield significant hydrocarbons is not deemed to be a completion and therefore no new UWI is
created; the criteria for “significant” have become more rigorous in recent years. All of these factors can create
difficulties in matching a completion to the correct interval in the wellbore.
In a well having more than one UWI, the operator may report production, tests or work over activity on the
wrong UWI. This problem is much less common now that reporting is done online, but some historical errors or
confusion remains – especially on well history documents and correspondence.
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.4 PROJECT VISION
A recommendation for a Well Identification approach that can be applied to all Wells related to the hydrocarbon
industry1 and that can be consistently adopted by all Stakeholders, so that every Wellbore can be uniquely
recognized and the exchange of well information is unambiguous.
1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Development of the following:
1. A well identification framework that is based upon industry and regulatory requirements in order to
meet the diverse needs of all Stakeholders.
2. A recommended revision plan for a new way to identify wells that can be practically implemented.
3. A recommended strategy for the adoption of the revised standard that is specific for each stakeholder
group.
4. Educational programs and a communication plan to communicate all new and/or updated standards.
1.6 STAKEHOLDERS
The term “Stakeholders” as used herein shall be deemed to include:
o Regulators
o Operators
o Service Companies
o Vendors (Data and Software)
1
Hydrocarbon industry – including Oil Sands, Coalbed Methane, Coal mining
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.7 BENEFITS
Strategic Benefits
Unique identification of Well components using a consistent format to reduce the ambiguity
associated with well-based information exchange
Cost Reduction Opportunities
Reduction of time on searching for data

Reduction of time spent maintaining the integrity of data
Avoid well re-measurement due to lost/missing data
Simplify solution architecture for integration
Simplify data exchange
Risk Avoidance Opportunities
Avoid potential well identifier collisions, especially between wells in different provinces
Avoid well spacing/density violations
Avoid potential well drilling or completions on wrong targets
Allow identification of all well events
Business Decisions
Missing opportunities due to incomplete or incorrect data
Avoid sub-optimal business decisions based on incomplete or incorrect data
Intangible Benefits
Better communication among operators, regulators and vendors
Shorter learning curve and greater job satisfaction for regulatory employees and filers
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.8 SCOPE
In Scope
The following are considered within the scope of this initiative:
Development of an Alberta well identification recommendation that is based on the global framework
The framework can be applied to all wells, regardless of the type of commodity or fluid, related to the
hydrocarbon industry
Development of a recommended strategy for adoption of the standard by the different stakeholder
groups
All well, or mine types related to the oil and gas industry
Well identification requirements from the Stakeholders
Input on the Global Framework for well identification
Publication of tools and materials to assist in the adoption of the standard
Adoption strategy recommendation
Out of Scope
Establishing a requirement for the adoption of the recommended well identification approach
Creation of a registry of well identifiers or assigning well identifier on behalf of regulatory agencies or
industry
The revision of any Regulatory Directives or other publications
Other activities that do not relate directly to the in scope activities
Requiring a specific agency to adopt the revised standard
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.9 KEY DELIVERABLES
Review Acceptance
Key Deliverables Acceptor
Date Date
1. A comprehensive communication plan for the life of

the project:
a. Project communication plan to gain
support, understanding, participation and
funding
b. Stakeholder communication plan to explain
what will be done
c. Adoption strategy communication plan to
explain what was done and how it can be
applied.
2. Analysis of key Stakeholders by group:
a. An evaluation of the current definition and
usage of the UWI and associated challenges
and risks
b. An analysis of the constraints on the
revision of the UWI to ensure that it can be
practically implemented by all
Stakeholders.
c. A set of business requirements for well
identification that meets the needs of the
Stakeholders
3. A well identification framework that meets the
defined business requirements of all Stakeholders.
4. A well identification recommendation to the ERCB
– position paper
5. Phase II – ERCB adoption
6. Phase III – A recommended adoption strategy

including high level documents with general
principles for each stakeholder group that addresses:
a. Strategy on a go forward basis
b. Strategy for legacy wells
7. Phase III – Case studies with specific
recommendations on how to implement the new
identification method. Case studies need to be done
for each of the stakeholder groups.
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
8. Phase III – Materials and services to assist
Stakeholders in implementing the well identification
framework including:
a. Presentation materials
b. Best practices for resolving integration
problems
c. Examples of problems that result in
inconsistencies
d. An integrated website for supporting
documentation and illustrations
e. An education program as recommended by
the Work Group
9. Project documentation that includes:

a. All relevant communications
b. All documents
c. All decisions with supporting/background
information
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
1.10 MAJOR MILESTONES
Estimated Estimated
Major Milestones – Phase I
Start Date End Date
Project Charter Approval
January 2012 February 2012
Stakeholder Interview Questions

January 2012 January 2012
Stakeholder Interviews
January 2012 February 2012
Project Plan
April 2012 May 2012
Stakeholder Analysis
February 2012 March 2012
Global Framework
April 2012 July 2012
Alberta Well Identification Recommendation

July 2012 October 2012
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
2 TIMEFRAME
TBD – 2012
Timeframe to be completed as part of developing the Project Plan
3 KEY STRATEGIES
3.1 COMMUNICATION
Key audience groups in which some form of communication is required:
Project Team
Sponsor Steering Committee
Global Committee
Regulators
Operators
Service Companies
Vendors (e.g. data, software)
PPDM Board
PPDM Members
ERCB Board
3.2 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
We will keep our key audience groups up to date on the project and manage their expectations the
following ways:
Monthly Status Report / Dashboard

Project Website
PPDM Well Identification Public Forum
PPDM Newsletter - Interspire
PPDM Conferences
PPDM LinkedIn Group
Public Articles (JuneWarren-Nickle’s)
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
3.3 PROJECT MEETINGS AND PROGRESS REPORTING
The following table provides a summary of the project meetings and status reporting mechanisms
that will be utilized.
Event Frequency Published Results Produced By Distribution

Project Work Bi-Weekly Meeting Minutes Project Manager Work Group
Group Meetings Members
Project Website
Project Sponsor
Steering Committee
Project Status Monthly Project Status Reports Project Manager Work Group
Reports Members
Project Sponsor
Steering Committee
Project Steering Monthly Meeting Minutes Project Manager Steering Committee
Meetings Work Group
Members
Project Sponsor
Project Work Group Meeting: This meeting is attended by all members of the Work Group Team to
discuss current activities, progress, any issues arising, as well as how the issues will be solved.
Meeting minutes will be created using Microsoft Word, and will be stored in a repository area
(Basecamp), and will be accessible to all team members.
Project Steering Meetings: The purpose of these meetings is to produce decisions or take action with
regard to the project. This includes the following:
Creating a consultative process that leads to decisions

Approvals
Authorization of resources
Removing project obstacles
Resolving jurisdictional and political conflicts arising from the implementation of the new
systems
Cost, progress, change and any other project issues will be raised at Steering Committee meetings
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
4 KEY DEPENDENCIES
A commonly agreed upon definition of what a well is (leveraging the output of the “What Is
A Well” working group of the PPDM and based on the current ERCB definition of what
constitutes a well)
ERCB Directive 59 revisions
PPDM Well Identification Project – US
PPDM What is a Well? Revisions Work Group
5 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Managing the expectations of key Stakeholders
Strong working group team including the proper Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
6 PROJECT CHALLENGES
Availability of volunteer Work Group members
Completing the stakeholder interviews and analysis before the Well Identification US Project
begins the Global Framework
Willingness of Stakeholders to adopt a revised standard
Obtaining consensus from Stakeholders
Agreement on what a well is
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
7 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
Working group has necessary expertise to complete revision of the well identifier
8 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Any new well identification framework will only be a recommendation; the ERCB retains
control of the standard and the well identification definition for wells and mines within
Alberta.
Small companies may not be able to adopt a revised standard for well identification as readily
as the larger organizations
9 PROJECT INTERDEPENDENCIES
Groups / Organizations
Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)
Alberta Department of Energy
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (SEPAC)
Projects
PPDM What is a Well? Revisions Work Group
PPDM Well Identification Project – US
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
10 PROJECT STRUCTURE
10.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING
The project structure is depicted in Appendix A, Well Identification Alberta Project Organization Chart.
Some positions have yet to be assigned a specific individual, and individuals listed may change over the life of
the project. Further details on the project roles and responsibilities are described in Appendix B, Specific Roles
and Responsibilities.
The PPDM Association will be responsible for managing this project through to its completion.
Professional services required for the successful management and execution of this project will be engaged
and supervised by the PPDM CEO.
Monthly project reports, prepared by the Project Manager and accepted by the PPDM CEO, will be
submitted to the Steering Committee for approval prior to public release.
An executive summary suitable for distribution to industry as a whole will be generated on a quarterly
basis.
Sponsor Steering Committee meetings will be held not less than once per month during the initial planning
phases of the project.
Working Group (WG) meetings will be held not less than bi-weekly during the development and
deployment phases.
Routine meeting schedules will be prepared at least 60 days in advance with notification provided via the
project forums and email to registered sponsors, Work Group participants and regulatory advisors. Every
attempt will be made to post meeting agendas at least one week prior to meeting.
Meeting minutes will be posted within three business days.
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
11 RISK MANAGEMENT
Risks to the overall success of the project are being identified and will be listed in the Project Framework
document along with an analysis of the probability that they will occur and an assessment of the impact to the
project if they did. Mitigation strategies for each of the defined risks will be built into the project plan and
managed throughout the course of the project.
High Impact Risks Probability Impact Consequence

Mitigation Strategy
Description
(L/M/H) (L/M/H (P x I)
Lack of financial support

M H H Create a value proposition for each Stakeholder
group.
Limitations of Work
Group participants' time H H H A time commitment must be associated with all roles
as part of the framing document and/or charter.
Ensure that the overall project plan is clear as to what

roles will be engaged when, how, where and why.
While we work through the project planning phase,

we may want to identify how participants can
effectively manage commitments in their internal
organizations.
ERCB will not

endorse/implement the M H H Ensure that appropriate, high level executives from
new identification the ERCB are on the Steering Committee, and that
standard appropriate people from the ERCB are members of
the Work Group.
Work Group ability to

reach consensus L L L Have clear arbitration rules for the Steering
Committee to make decisions when the Work Group
cannot reach consensus.
Ensure that Work Group considers each stakeholder

group and upstream function in their approach to
recommendations.
Lack of adequate and

appropriate publicity L M M Must have a clear and comprehensive communication
plan that is integrated into the overall Project Plan.
Stakeholder Sponsors need to share developed

communications internally.
Ensure that all communication from the Work Group

adheres to FOIP standards.
Subject to FOIP L L L
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
12 CHANGE MANAGEMENT
The impact of this initiative to the stakeholder groups cannot be underestimated and strategies for managing the
change when and if it is implemented should be prepared and clearly articulated. It may be necessary to use the
talents of an expert in behavioural change management to provide insight and leadership in this area. The ERCB
has experts in change management and will do its utmost to manage the impact of any well identification
changes to all stakeholders.
Change control refers to the procedures by which any changes to the project scope are administered. Adequate,
well understood, mutually agreed upon change control procedures are key to mitigating project risk. A well-
formulated change control methodology documents changes requested and approvals granted.
This is particularly important because:
• accurate test analysis is more difficult when changes are made “on the fly”;
• changes made to one area can have unpredictable impacts on other areas;
• unauthorized changes can complicate or negate approved changes, leading to project overruns,
additional costs and delays.
The Well Identification Change Control process is described in Appendix C, Change Control Procedures
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
13 BUDGET AND FUNDING
Estimated Budget for Phase I
PPDM Staff & Contractors 165,000
Administrative 40,000
Marketing 15,000
Communications 50,000
Travel 15,000
Project Contingency 5% 14,250
TOTAL $299,250
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
14 PROJECT CHARTER APPROVAL
Reviewed by the PPDM Association
Jeffrey Bonus, Project Manager Date
Trudy Curtis, Project Sponsor Date
Phone: 1 403-660-7817 Fax: 1 403-660-0540
Appendix A
Organizational Chart
PPDM Board
Steering Committee Project Sponsor

PPDM (Trudy Curtis)
Change Management Lead
TBD TBD
Project Manager Communications Lead

Jeffrey Bonus TBD
Stakeholder Analysis Lead

TBD
Workgroup Team Global Framework

Sub-Committee
TBD (See chart on next
page)
Well Identification Alberta Project Page 1 of 2

Appendix A
Organizational Chart
Well Identification
PPDM
Association
US Sponsors / Alberta Sponsors /

WIP – US WIP – Alberta
Steering Steering
Working Group Working Group
Committee Committee
Global
Sub-committee
Stakeholder
Analysis Stakeholder
Template Analysis Template
(Completed)
Stakeholder
Global Well Stakeholder
Interviews &
Identification Interviews &
Analysis
Framework Analysis
(in progress)
WIP – US WIP – Alberta

Working Group Working Group
Phase II Phase II
(WIP – US) (ERCB)
Adoption API D12A Well Identification Adoption

Strategy Revision Recommendation Strategy
Implementation End End Implementation

Appendix B
Roles and Responsibilites
Role Responsibility
• Approves project charter
PPDM Board of Directors
• Overall governance and oversight
• Initiates project
Project Sponsor
• Defines broad scope and objectives
• Provides direction
• Solicits funding
• Obtains membership commitment
• Ensures ongoing organizational commitment throughout project
• Facilitates decisions
• Reports to Project Sponsor
Project Manager
• Draft and manage the Project Charter and Plan
• Manage overall project to ensure completion on time; on budget and within scope
• Provide direction to Workgroup members
• Facilitate Workgroup and Steering committee meetings
• Approve the draft Charter before it goes to the PPDM Board for final approval
Steering Committee
• Review project progress and budget through regular monthly status meetings to ensure that goals
will be met within the defined timeline and cost.
• Reviews and decides upon Change Requests brought forth by the Project Manager
• Delegates responsibility for review and acceptance of detailed project deliverables to appropriate
Working Committee
• Ensures commitment of project participants
• Committee members agree to be “ambassadors” to their organizations and others to share
initiative communications
Time Commitment: Approximately 5 hours per month

• Attend Global Framework committee meetings
Global Framework
Committee • Validate and review all minutes and documentation
• Subject Matter Expert (SME)
• Help develop a Global Framework for Well Identification
Time Commitment: Approximately 5 hours per week over a 5-6 month duration
• Provide two (2)Workgroup participants; one primary and one back-up
Stakeholder
Representatives
• Attend and actively participate in bi-weekly Workgroup meetings
Workgroup Participant
• Validate and review all minutes and documentation required for the project
• Help to develop the material for the new Well Identification recommendation
• Provide input on current UWI business processes, policies, guidelines & timelines
• Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Time Commitment: Approximately up to 5 hours per week

Appendix B
Roles and Responsibilites
Role Responsibility
• Attend in bi-weekly Workgroup meetings
Change Management Lead
• Provide expertise around Change Management
• Develop a Change Management Plan
Time Commitment: TBD

Communications Lead
• Provide expertise around Communications
• Develop a Communications Plan
• Writes communiqués regarding the project status as per communication plan
Time Commitment: TBD

• Subject matter expert that reviews Workgroup output in terms of technical content for accuracy,
Content Reviewer
to propose alternatives, and to assess the potential industry impact and acceptance of decisions.
• Attend and actively participate in bi-weekly Workgroup meetings
Time Commitment: Approximately 5 hours per week

Stakeholder Interviewer
• Create Stakeholder Interview questions
• Conduct Stakeholder Interviews
• Write up Stakeholder Interviews
• Work closely with the Stakeholder Analysis Lead
Time Commitment: Approximately 80 hours

Stakeholder Analysis Lead
• Work closely with the Stakeholder Interviewers
• Prepares and reports on stakeholder analysis report
Time Commitment: Approximately 200 hours over a 2-3 month duration

Appendix C
Change Control
Change control refers to the procedures by which any changes to the project scope are administered. Adequate, well-
understood, mutually agreed upon change control procedures are key to mitigating project risk. A well-formulated change
control methodology documents changes requested and approvals granted. This is particularly important because:
• unauthorized changes can complicate or negate approved changes, leading to project overruns, additional costs
and delays
• changes made to one area can have unpredictable impacts on other areas
The scope change control process for Well Identification Project is described below.
Scope Change Control Process
The change control process begins when a business requirement is identified that is outside of the current scope.
1. Before a written Change Request is initiated, the change should be discussed within the project team areas that
are impacted by the change. If the team agrees that a change is in order, a Change Request Form is completed
and signed by the respective Team Lead.
2. The Project Manager reviews the change request—in consultation with the Technical Lead and Process
Owners(s)—to determine cost/schedule/resource impacts. One of the following categories is assigned to the
request.
Category Description
• Must be made before implementation.
Critical
• Legislative, labor/union agreement, mandated, or other overwhelming business
reason exists.
• Critical to project delivery.
• Changes would be preferable before implementation, but are not considered
Routine
critical and will not impact the end result if they are not completed.
• The Steering Committee will prioritize them.
3. If accepted by the Project Manager, the Change Request is entered into the Change Control Log and places it
on the agenda for the Steering Committee (The person originating the change request may be asked to attend
the meeting to provide further explanation). Requests with a category of Critical or Routine continue on in the
process and are assigned a status of Submitted. Requests with a category of Routine are prioritized. No other
categories need prioritization. Priority levels are 1 through 4 (1= lowest priority and 4= highest priority).
4. Requests with significant cost/schedule/resource impact will be escalated to the Project Sponsor(s), with a
recommendation from the Steering Committee. The Project Sponsor(s) reviews the request and either approves
or rejects it. If the request requires additional funding, the Project Sponsor(s) resolves the funding issue and
the request continues on to development.

Appendix C
Change Control
5. At this point, all Change Requests are assigned a further status condition. This value will change during the
Scope Change Control process. Status values include:
Status Description
Submitted Initial setting for all submitted requests
Approved Approved by Steering Committee
Rejected Not approved by Steering Committee
Cancelled When change request withdrawn before

review by the Steering Committee.
On Hold When a request is deferred
Closed When a request is completed
6. The Project Manager will update the project plan and forward approved changes directly to the appropriate
development person to execute the change.

Alberta Well ID Project Charter and Appendices - Approved

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alberta Well ID Project Charter and Appendices - Approved

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“The PPDM

Created for the PPDM Association by:

Copyright 2012, PPDM Association, All Rights Reserved.

Version Date Author(s) Revision Notes

Added content to the Executive Summary and

Updated charter based on review meeting with

Changes based on feedback received from

Changes based on meeting with ERCB; Dwayne

1.1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Project Vision ................................................................................................................................. 9

1.5 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 9

1.8 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 11

1.9 Key Deliverables ........................................................................................................................... 12

1.10 Major Milestones .......................................................................................................................... 14

3 Key Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Communication ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Communications Plan.................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Project Meetings and Progress Reporting ....................................................................................... 16

4 Key Dependencies .................................................................................................................................. 17

5 Critical Success Factors .......................................................................................................................... 17

6 Project Challenges .................................................................................................................................. 17

7 Project Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 18

8 Project Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 18

9 Project Interdependencies ....................................................................................................................... 18

12 Change Management ......................................................................................................................... 21

13 Budget and Funding .......................................................................................................................... 22

14 Project Charter Approval ................................................................................................................... 23

The main challenges presented by the existing UWI system are:

1. The UWI is not a permanent identifier; it is subject to revision.

3. The UWI cannot identify more than 9 events in a well.

4. The UWI does not distinguish between wellbores and completions.

1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Cost Reduction Opportunities

Reduction of time on searching for data

Risk Avoidance Opportunities

Avoid well spacing/density violations

Avoid potential well drilling or completions on wrong targets

Allow identification of all well events

Missing opportunities due to incomplete or incorrect data

Avoid sub-optimal business decisions based on incomplete or incorrect data

Better communication among operators, regulators and vendors

The following are considered within the scope of this initiative:

1. A comprehensive communication plan for the life of

5. Phase II – ERCB adoption

6. Phase III – A recommended adoption strategy

9. Project documentation that includes:

Stakeholder Interview Questions

Alberta Well Identification Recommendation

3.2 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Monthly Status Report / Dashboard

Event Frequency Published Results Produced By Distribution

Creating a consultative process that leads to decisions

ERCB Directive 59 revisions

PPDM Well Identification Project – US

PPDM What is a Well? Revisions Work Group

5 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

Managing the expectations of key Stakeholders

Availability of volunteer Work Group members

Willingness of Stakeholders to adopt a revised standard

Obtaining consensus from Stakeholders

Agreement on what a well is

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)