Engineering the next generation of deepwater production

Ian Jackson has spent the past decade tackling some of the most technically demanding production challenges in the global energy industry. As Shell's Global Subject Matter Expert for Hydraulic Fracturing, he has contributed to technologies that are reshaping deepwater development and has led well interventions, production optimisation, surveillance programs, and completion strategies across major offshore assets. Production technology has been the common thread throughout his work, spanning concept development and reservoir modelling through field execution and long-term asset management across some of the industry's most technically significant deepwater developments, including the Whale Field in the Gulf of Mexico.

A Chartered Petroleum Engineer (CEng) and Fellow of the Energy Institute (FEI), Jackson's contributions consistently bridge complex engineering challenges and practical field application, producing technologies and operating practices that improve production performance while influencing how deepwater assets are developed and managed. Alongside his engineering responsibilities, he regularly publishes technical research, presents at international industry conferences, collaborates across multidisciplinary technical networks, and mentors early-career engineers, demonstrating a broader commitment to advancing both engineering practice and professional capability throughout the energy industry.

Production technology increasingly determines how successfully deepwater developments balance recovery, economics, operational reliability, and long-term asset integrity. As reservoirs become more complex and engineering decisions carry consequences for decades, the discipline has become central to the success of major offshore projects. In this interview, Jackson discusses the engineering judgment, multidisciplinary collaboration, and production technologies shaping the future of deepwater development.

Ellen Warren (EW): Production technology today encompasses everything from reservoir characterisation and completion design to production surveillance, interventions, and long-term asset optimisation. How do you define the discipline today, and why has it become increasingly central to the success of modern deepwater developments?

Ian Jackson (IJ): I define Production Technology simply: it is the discipline accountable for the safe, reliable, and economic production of hydrocarbons, from reservoir to sales, throughout the life of a field. Because of its broad scope, it naturally sits at the center of the organisation, serving as the interface between reservoir engineering, completions, wells, facilities, operations, and supporting functions such as finance and commercial. That interface is where many of the most important risk and value decisions are made.

In deepwater developments, the role becomes even more critical because of the high capital investment and technical complexity involved. Decisions made early in a project's life can influence field performance for decades. Once a well has been constructed, it must remain operable throughout the field's life, typically 20 to 30 years. That requires careful consideration of fluid and rock environments, intervention requirements, surveillance quality, operating envelopes, well integrity tolerances, and ultimately hydrocarbon recovery.

Production Technology is therefore a true integrator discipline: technically deep, operationally realistic, and accountable for turning subsurface potential into reliable production.

EW: Your career has taken you through conventional offshore developments, HPHT gas, unconventional reservoirs, coal seam gas, and some of Shell's most technically significant deepwater projects. How has working across such a broad range of operating environments influenced the way you approach complex engineering challenges?

IJ: Working across such a diverse range of assets and teams has taught me there is rarely a "master-key" solution to an engineering problem. Every environment presents its own technical considerations, economic drivers, operational realities, commercial landscape, and risk profile.

Coal seam gas taught me the importance of scale and repeatability, where value comes from one small improvement multiplied across thousands of wells. HPHT reinforced the need for rigorous assurance and integrity barrier management. Deepwater highlighted the importance of getting it right the first time.

Collectively, those experiences taught me to become comfortable managing uncertainty, with success often depending on thoroughly defining the problem before trying to solve it. I spend much of my time understanding and challenging the underlying assumptions while identifying the technical risks that will have the greatest influence on the outcome.

Most importantly, I've learned that complex engineering challenges are rarely solved by one specialist. They are solved by integrating expertise across multiple disciplines.

EW: You were recognised as Shell's Global Subject Matter Expert for Hydraulic Fracturing after helping develop the High-Angle Multi-Frac (HAMF) concept for deepwater applications. What engineering challenge were you trying to solve, and what broader lessons did that experience teach you about innovation in production technology?

IJ: The challenge behind the HAMF solution was determining whether we could economically produce deepwater volumes from tight, low-mobility reservoirs that traditional vertical wells could not. The idea was to adapt and transfer the technique that had transformed onshore shale developments to deepwater by improving reservoir contact and well productivity.

Once the opportunity had been defined, the solution became twofold. First, we developed and qualified the technology itself. Equally important, my work focused on evaluating candidates across multiple deepwater assets by building and deploying a coherent assessment framework that integrated reservoir understanding, completion feasibility, fracture design, production forecasting, and execution risk to identify the most promising opportunities.

The broader lesson was that innovation succeeds only when it is practical. New technology needs more than technical merit. It requires supporting evidence, collaboration, sponsorship, funding, operational credibility, and a practical deployment framework. That is how an engineering concept becomes a technology that creates meaningful impact in production and field development.

EW: Your recent work has also focused on production surveillance in the Whale Field, where understanding inflow performance plays an important role in long-term asset management. How do production surveillance and completion design complement one another throughout the life of a deepwater well?

IJ: They are, and always will be, fundamentally linked. The completion determines how the well mechanically accesses the reservoir, while surveillance provides the data and insight needed to understand whether the well is performing as intended.

As mentioned previously, deepwater completions must be designed for the full lifecycle of the field, from initial production through long-term decline and eventual abandonment. A well that begins declining without a clear understanding of why could be much more difficult to remediate. An analogy I often use comes from medicine: a doctor needs a patient's medical history to confidently diagnose a problem. Production technologists need surveillance data to diagnose the health and performance of a well.

At Whale, my work has included surveillance planning, production and integrity diagnostics, operating envelope definition, and intervention design and execution. The most valuable insights into field performance typically come from combining surveillance data with a thorough understanding of both the completion design and the reservoir.

In my view, the most effective deepwater wells are designed not only to deliver a high initial production rate, but also to generate the information needed to maximise and sustain that performance throughout their lifecycle.

EW: Major offshore developments depend on close collaboration among reservoir engineers, drilling and completions specialists, production technologists, facilities engineers, and operations teams. How has multidisciplinary collaboration changed the way complex engineering decisions are made, and what distinguishes effective technical leadership in that environment?

IJ: Deepwater developments are simply too interconnected for any single discipline to operate in isolation. Reservoir behavior influences completion design, completion design affects operations, and operational decisions ultimately determine production performance. The most effective teams develop a shared understanding of the engineering problem before focusing on the decisions that will have the greatest impact.

Much of my own work extends beyond my technical specialty because bringing reservoir engineers, completions specialists, production technologists, facilities engineers, and operations teams together is often the only way to evaluate opportunities or manage risk effectively. Technical leadership is therefore less about having every answer than knowing when the available evidence is sufficient to make a sound engineering decision. That requires technical credibility, a willingness to challenge assumptions constructively, and the ability to influence specialists across multiple disciplines.

EW: Many of today’s offshore developments involve balancing production performance, well integrity, operational risk, and long-term reservoir management. When improving one objective may affect another, what principles guide your engineering decisions?

IJ: Our approach prioritises safety and aims to ensure long-term operational reliability. A short-term gain that compromises well integrity, future recovery, or long-term reliability is rarely, if ever, a worthwhile trade-off.

The next step is distinguishing between evidence and assumption. Every engineering decision contains uncertainty, so it is critical to understand what is known, what has been inferred, and what additional information could materially change the outcome.

Finally, transparency is essential. Decision makers deserve a clear understanding of both the value and the associated risk profile, even when the conclusions are not ideal. I spend a significant amount of time making those trade-offs as clear as possible so decisions are informed, aligned with the asset objectives, and understood by everyone involved.

EW: Digital technologies, predictive analytics, and AI are becoming increasingly important across production engineering. Where do you see these tools creating the greatest practical value, and where does engineering judgment remain indispensable?

IJ: Digital technologies create the greatest value when they help engineers move from data to actionable insight more efficiently. Modern assets generate enormous amounts of information, and tools such as predictive analytics, AI, and automation can identify patterns and prioritise opportunities or risks that might otherwise be missed.

They are particularly valuable for production surveillance, failure prediction, and production optimisation. In my own work, I've used advanced analytics to evaluate well risk and performance data, supporting faster and more informed technical decisions. I also use AI on a daily basis to test troubleshooting concepts and draw on wider experience from other assets, published research, and analogous engineering problems.

However, engineering judgment remains indispensable because data rarely explains itself. Models can identify correlations, but they cannot fully understand operating context. Engineers still need to interpret the results, challenge assumptions, understand the underlying physics, and appreciate the operational realities offshore. The future is not engineers versus AI. It is engineers using these tools to make better, faster decisions.

EW: Your work has included both developing new production technologies and bringing new engineering innovations into field deployment. In your experience, what enables an innovation to move successfully from an engineering concept to routine field practice?

IJ: In my experience, successful innovation begins with a problem that needs solving, not with a solution looking for a problem. It also needs to create measurable value by overcoming a limitation, unlocking new opportunities, reducing risk, improving safety, or enhancing performance. From there, I find three criteria need to be met.

First, credibility. The science must be sound, the practical application must be understood, and the economic case must justify the investment.

Second, trust. Wider adoption requires alignment across engineering, operations, leadership, technical authorities, and industry partners.

Finally, scalability. An innovation must be capable of moving beyond a one-off application to become something that can be deployed, repeated, and continuously improved. That's the point at which a new technology becomes part of the routine engineering toolkit.

EW: You were recently elected a Fellow of the Energy Institute (FEI), one of the profession's highest honours recognising sustained technical achievement, leadership, and industry impact. Every engineering discipline depends on knowledge being passed from one generation to the next. How has your own professional journey shaped your commitment to mentoring early-career engineers, and what responsibilities do you believe experienced technical leaders have in advancing the profession?

IJ: I've been fortunate throughout my career to learn from experienced engineers who invested time in explaining not only what decisions were made, but why they were made. Many of the most valuable lessons I've learned came through technical mentoring and exposure to real operations.

That experience has shaped my own commitment to giving back. Whether coaching graduates, presenting technical papers, participating in industry forums, or supporting competency development, I try to help engineers build sound judgment rather than simply follow processes or memorise equations.

I believe experienced technical leaders have a responsibility to contribute beyond their immediate roles. That includes mentoring, publishing, presenting, sharing lessons learned, and helping raise standards across the profession.

For me, Fellowship of the Energy Institute is both an honor and a reminder that advancing engineering knowledge is a collective responsibility extending well beyond any individual project.

EW: As operators pursue increasingly challenging deepwater developments, which engineering capabilities will have the greatest influence on how production technology evolves over the coming decade?

IJ: I may be biased, but I believe reservoir stimulation in all its forms, including hydraulic fracturing, could have the greatest influence on the future of production technology, closely followed by analytics and automation.

As developments move into deeper water, both cost and technical complexity increase dramatically, particularly as reservoirs become more challenging. We cannot continue applying the same solutions to increasingly complex problems and expect different results. As HAMF demonstrated, however, we can successfully adapt proven concepts from other environments to meet new challenges.

At the same time, improving the speed and quality of technical decision-making by shortening the journey from data to insight will give engineers more time to manage increasingly complex assets effectively.

EW: The energy industry continues to face increasing technical complexity, from more demanding reservoirs and evolving completion technologies to digital engineering tools and integrated production systems. Your election as a Fellow of the Energy Institute recognises your contributions to advancing engineering practice and driving innovation across the profession. What knowledge, technical capabilities, and leadership qualities do you think will distinguish the engineers who lead the future of deepwater production?

IJ: The future leaders of deepwater production are expected to combine strong technical fundamentals with natural curiosity and the ability to work effectively across disciplines. They will likely need an instinctive understanding of reservoir behaviour, well performance, hydraulic fracturing, production surveillance, integrity management, and operational execution.

Digital capability could become increasingly important, but technology alone will never be enough. Engineers must be able to distinguish evidence from assumption, make uncertainty tell a coherent story, and apply sound judgment when making or informing high-consequence decisions.

I believe that future challenges will not be solved by isolated experts. They will require technical leaders who can bring together diverse skill sets, challenge assumptions with credibility, and translate complex engineering into practical solutions that work in the field.

“Shell” refers to Shell plc and its subsidiaries collectively. Forward-looking statements in this interview involve risks and uncertainties; actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. For further information on factors that may cause these differences, refer to the “Risk Factors” section in our most recent Annual Report.