Select Committee on Science and Technology Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 52

Memorandum submitted by Oilfield Systems Limited

INTRODUCTION

  1.  Oilfield Systems Limited is a UK company founded in 1984 to develop advanced software solutions for the oil and gas exploration and production market. The company is based in Southampton with offices in Aberdeen, Calgary and Houston. The company has developed GeoScene (a geological workstation), DAEX (a data migration solution), Quadrate (multi-screen handling for Unix computers) and FaMOUS (3D reservoir modelling system).

  2.  Oilfield Systems has employed between 10 and 25 people since 1989, with a current staff of 22. Revenues have grown to c £1.5 million per annum. The company has been only marginally profitable overall, mainly because of high continued investment in support and new product development.

  3.  Oilfield Systems has been a participant in two LINK scheme projects: Project No 7246 (FaMOUS: A new tool for geological modelling) and Project No 7256 (Improved hydrocarbon recovery through the integration of geological, petrophysical and engineering data from non-conventional wells).

HOW FIRST LEARNED ABOUT LINK

  4.  We originally heard about LINK through our contacts at the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow (now the Infrastructure and Energy Projects Directorate). That organisation had provided excellent support to our fledgling organisation in the late 80's by providing partial funding for our first major product development, GeoScene, which is today a successful software product.

WHY WE PARTICIPATED AND OUR EXPERIENCE

  5.  In both cases, the academic partner had developed expertise, complementary to our own, which we considered could be developed commercially using our skills and experience of bringing successful software products to market.

  6.  In both cases, finding industry support was very difficult, taking a minimum of six months. In addition, one of the proposals had to be submitted twice to the LINK Committee before support was forthcoming. Once the award was made, the running of the projects was smooth and regular meetings between the partners and sponsor companies has ensured a free flow of information.

DID OUR INVOLVEMENT MEET OUR OBJECTIVES?

  7.  In both cases, progress has been less than that forecast. This is no criticism of the LINK Scheme, of the academic partner or of ourselves. Rather, the nature of the projects is, by its definition, risky and there are many unknowns to be tackled between innovation and commercialisation. In each project, we have contributed more than we intended.

  8.  Neither Project has yet yielded financial benefits (as net contributors we are significantly out of pocket) though each is expected to break even within the next year.

WHAT IMPACT HAS LINK HAD ON OUR COMPANY?

  9.  One of the main benefits has been the contact that LINK has mediated between ourselves and academic partners. This has, in turn, encouraged us to work more closely with academic institutions who are gateways to early adopters of our technology.

  10.  The funding from LINK to Oilfield Systems has only covered a percentage of our incurred costs but has nonetheless been very welcome and gratefully received.

WHAT BARRIERS HAVE PREVENTED HIGHER GAIN?

  11.  LINK excludes marketing and sales effort from consideration as chargeable costs to the project. Today, more than ever, good products fail because of inadequate marketing and sales effort. To get the most of our nation's innovation we must recognise that good marketing and sales is as important as technical development.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

  12.  Positive. Any support to promote collaboration between sources and consumers of innovation is definitely a good thing.

  13.  The LINK Scheme, with its projects approval committee, sorts out viable projects from those considered inappropriate to the industry's current needs. However, more could be made of this in that approval by LINK should perhaps be a primary requirement for industry sponsorship. By working in concert with companies, the industrial sponsorship element would be more easily accessed, reducing the cost, effort and delay caused by seeking out industrial sponsors after LINK approval has been forthcoming.

8 January 1999


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 9 February 2000