Noble Exploration has had some of the most eye-opening deepwater discoveries in recent years with their Levant and Leviathan fields in the Mediterranean. What was the secret to Noble's success? Welcome to an interview with Henry Pettingill, Noble Energy, who discusses the technologies and mindsets that enabled the Noble teams to succeed.

What is your name and your relation to oil and gas exploration?

Henry S. Pettingill, worked in industry for 33 years as Geology and Exploration Manager

What are some of the projects that you're involved with that have benefitted from creative thinking and problem-solving?

Most significantly in recent years, the opening of the Deepwater Levant and the 8 Noble discoveries. Not so much the technology. "Creative thinking" was not as much new thinking as "associative thinking" which is a critical aspect of creative thinkers — such as making associations with other basins, seeing "successful formulas" worldwide seeing them in the Levant, framing the problem at a mega-regional context vs. a local context, and other aspects of creative problem-solving.

More recently, finding new ventures where we wonít have to spend money to drill until our Leviathan project starts generating cash in 2020.

In the field of seismic direct hydrocarbon indicators (DHIs), I've been involved in the Rose DHI consortium in how to better predict outcomes of DHI prospects. One aspect is to more rigorously and logically assess strat traps, seal risk, and other "geological aspects" of DHI (as opposed to geophysics). This has required me to turn the problem upside down -instead of viewing the seismic as a direct fluid indicator, view the seismic amplitude as something that explains the required non-fluid geological aspects like seal presence, reservoir presence, stratigraphic pinchouts, charging systems, etc., which led me to coining the term "geological conformance" for DHIs. This has also led me to work with the younger staff to better characterize the array of lithological and fluid scenarios that could cause a DHI, by making multiple forward models, testing for model-matches, and finally requiring an objective assessment of the probabilities of each. The novel thinking here as I see it is not 'technology', but rather forcing technology to conform to basic geological principles and internally-consistent explanations of the entire geological picture.

Have some of the new projects involved new approaches? What are the benefits of the techniques and technologies?

On the DW Levant at my company, it isn't new approaches as much as thinking of the problem differently, as explained above.

As for the aforementioned DHI endeavor with the consortium, one key aspect has been to more rigorously and logically assess strat traps, seal risk, and other "geological aspects" of DHI (as opposed to geophysics). This has required me to turn the problem upside down ñinstead of viewing the seismic as a direct fluid indicator, view the seismic amplitude as something that explains the required non-fluid geological aspects like seal presence, reservoir presence, stratigraphic pinchouts, charging systems, etc., which led me to coining the term ìgeological conformanceî for DHIs. This has also led me to work with the younger staff to better characterize the array of lithological and fluid scenarios that could cause a DHI, by making multiple forward models, testing for model-matches, and finally requiring an objective assessment of the probabilities of each. The novel thinking here as I see it is not "technology", but rather forcing technology to conform to basic geological principles and internally-consistent explanations of the entire geological picture.

Another aspect within my company is our integrated reservoir description from logs, core, and outcrop analogs. Again not new technology as much as inventing a rigorous process and workflow to logically produce the best integrated reservoir models. Advances in our understanding of sedimentological processes of deepwater systems, however, has led to these models being better IMHO. Advanced petrophysical techniques and special core analysis ("SCAL") have been significant contributors.

Otherwise on other projects, not necessarily at my company but for deepwater Exploration:

• Seismic processing, especially for subtle 'DHIs' and even some at deep depths and/or subsalt, has improved dramatically.
• Multi-azimuth, long-cable and other seismic acquisition improvements
• CSEM technology continues to get calibrated (used successfully in the Barents)
• Better use of Chimney cubes

How are they different than they were before?

Really not different, it just seems we are getting better outcomes, and more importantly, fewer surprises.

Please share a few examples of positive results.

As above, we have a 100% success rate in the Miocene play of the DW Levant, and our global success rate in deepwater DHIs exceeds 75% since 2007 (can't get more specific for anything that will be seen publically).

On the reservoir description and modelling front as described above, we have successfully defended our high-profile deepwater reservoir models in front of reserve auditors and government officials (can't be specific when/where), and had excellent history matches during early production.