A Second Set of Eyes That Actually Pushes Back
A peer review that confirms what the design team already believes is not a peer review. It is a validation ceremony. The value of independent technical review lies precisely in the willingness of the reviewer to identify what the design team has missed, assumed incorrectly, or glossed over — and to say so clearly, with evidence.
SPD provides peer reviews that are designed to find problems. We review well designs, drilling programmes, P&A proposals, completion strategies and feasibility studies — at any stage of development, and across any technical environment. Our reviewers bring direct operational experience to every review: they have drilled the well type being designed, supervised the operation being planned, or managed the campaign being proposed.
What a SPD Peer Review Delivers
- Structured review against your design basis, applicable industry standards and regulatory requirements
- Check calculations on key design inputs: casing design, kick tolerance, torque and drag, cementing, hydraulics
- Identification of gaps, optimistic assumptions and missing contingencies
- A Peer Review Report: issues identified, evidence, recommended resolution, and confirmation of acceptance
- Follow-through on actions to final close-out — not a report that creates a new to-do list and disappears
When Clients Bring Us In
- Before committing to a drilling programme or a specific well design option
- Before a major investment decision, a farm-in, or a board presentation
- When a regulator has raised a concern about a design or programme
- When a prior well on the programme did not go as planned and the team wants to understand why
- As a structured quality gate before a multi-well campaign begins
What a Genuine Peer Review Protects You From
We were engaged to review a planned deepwater exploration well with a documented blowout in its structural history. We identified that the pore pressure estimate in a critical section was more optimistic than the offset kick data warranted; that the kick tolerance in the 12¼” section would fall below the minimum industry standard of 25 bbls under the higher pressure case; and that no contingency casing string was budgeted. We also identified an overall cost underestimate of approximately 25% against our independent estimate.
The client had the information they needed before committing capital. That is what a genuine peer review provides — not comfort, but clarity.