Assessment Brief Presentation*This document is for CU Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for thismodule and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements ofthis rule should be reported to registry.cuc@coventry.ac.uk Module Title: Managing and Planning Oil & Gas AssetsModule Code: 605 OGE Assessment Type:PresentationAssessment Number:1Study Mode:Full-timeWeighting:15 creditsSubmission Date:May 7th 2021Submission Time:18:00Group Presentation Introduction:The client you represent has asked you to evaluate the feasibility of additional capital investmentto re-develop existing offshore oil and gas reservoir assets in Ghana. You are part of a team ofexperts asked to analyse the latest output from simulation models and deliver a final decisionregarding the technical and commercial viability of the proposed reservoir re-development. Thedata will be provided by your client for you and your team to analyse. Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:1.Critically analyse petroleum systems, reservoir properties and hydrocarbon productiondata.2.Critically analyse the constraints of planning and managing a petroleum reservoir3.Synthesise a range of geological, geophysical economic theories and concepts inrelation to reservoir management.4.Analyse reservoir simulator output to plan the production from a reservoir.5.Analyse environmental and safety risks related to the management of surface facilities.6.Recommend proposed projects to senior management.Task: Group PresentationTitle: Investment Decision on re-development of oil reservoirYou have been asked by your client to evaluate the feasibility of the investment options in relationto the re-development of the Ghana project. You must work with your group to analyse the dataprovided and advice your client accordingly regarding the technical feasibility of the proposed newproject, critically analyse the options identified by the client and produce a group powerpointreport highlighting the findings.Group Powerpoint ReportYou are required to work together with your team of experts to deliver your findings and advisethe client on the best investment option amongst the potentials cases selected by the client andadvice on the potential for the project to go ahead. The group report should be presented in powerpoint and submitted by the deadline through Aula. Each group member should showevidence of work produced. The report should include the following elements:1. Introduction2. Highlight the key aspects of the reservoir properties and characterisation3. Analyse key findings of the simulation output4. Evaluate the relevance of geological and geophysics analysis within the context of theoreticalconcepts of Reservoir Management5. Highlight key aspects of the Environmental plan including:a) Key supporting processes, such as compliance with legal requirements,b) Outline the key areas the plan should cover for effective environmentalmanagementc) Requirement for resourcesd) The main benefits of adopting an environmental management system to reduceenvironmental impacts.6. Summary and conclusion Guidance notes and considerationsLate SubmissionIf you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLYway to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days)is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site.CU Coventry – Registry.cuc@coventry.ac.ukCU London – Registry.cul@coventry.ac.ukCU Scarborough – Registry.cus@coventry.ac.uk* Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control orability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’.* Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiringan extension or deferral.* Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed theofficial forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zeromark.Plagiarism and Malpractice* You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on yourMoodle Web.* Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by otherstudents in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to theacademic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers.* A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in classdiscussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in youhaving to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your ownwork.* If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original versionand make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.* You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), eitherfor your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically providedfor in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must referenceit clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.Submission GuidelinesThere should be a title page which clearly identifies the following;* Student number * Name of the module* Title of the Assessment * Assessment number* Word countThe word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specificallystated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%. BandingKnowledge andUnderstanding(30%)Analysis, Interpretation andApplication of Theory(30%)Quality of Research(20%)Academic Writing(20%)90-100%Exceptional knowledgebase exploring andanalysing the disciplineand its theory withextraordinary originalityand autonomy.Makes exceptional use of a range ofrelevant techniques ofinterpretation, application and/oranalysis, where relevant to themodule learning outcomes.Demonstrates an exceptionaltheoretical understanding, whererelevant, with appropriately selectedtheoretical knowledge integratedinto the overall assignment tasks andall learning outcomes.Exceptional exploration of wideracademic sources with a highdegree of independent learningwhich exceeds the assignmentbrief. Sources have beenaccurately interpreted andintegrated with flawlesssynthesis and evaluation leadingto innovative and interestingideas.Exceptional answer with coherentand logical presentation of ideas.The answer is clearly expressedwith flair and originality. Nolanguage errors present andacademic writing style wasadhered to throughout.Referencing in the CU version ofHarvard has been employed in anaccurate manner.80-89%Outstanding knowledgebase exploring andanalysing the disciplineand its theory with clearoriginality andautonomy.Makes outstanding use of a range ofrelevant techniques ofinterpretation, application and/oranalysis, where relevant to themodule learning outcomes. Shows awell-developed ability to comparealternative theories and apply themwithin the context of the assignmenttask and all learning outcomes,where relevant.Outstanding exploration ofwider academic sources with ahigh degree of independentlearning which exceeds theassignment brief. Sources havebeen accurately interpreted andintegrated with a high degree ofanalysis and application, leadingto innovative and interestingideas.Outstanding answer withcoherent and logical presentationof ideas. The answer is clearlyexpressed with originality. Nolanguage errors present andacademic writing style wasadhered to. Referencing in the CUversion of Harvard has beenemployed in an accurate manner. 70-79%Excellent knowledgebase that supportsanalysis and/orinterpretation andproblem-solving intheory and/or practicewithin the discipline,with considerableoriginality.Makes excellent use of establishedtechniques of interpretation,application and/or analysis, whererelevant to the module learningoutcomes. Shows a systematic andaccurate understanding of keytheories, which are consistently andappropriately applied within thecontext of the assignment task andall learning outcomes, whererelevant.Excellent exploration of wideracademic sources with evidenceof independent learning whichmay exceed the assignmentbrief. Sources have beenaccurately interpreted,integrated and analysed, withan attempt made at synthesisleading to interesting ideas.Excellent answer with coherentand logical presentation of ideas.The answer is entirely relevantand focused. Minimal languageerrors which have no impact onclarity of expression. Academicwriting style was adhered to.Referencing in the CU version ofHarvard has been employed in anaccurate manner.60-69%Very good knowledgebase that supportsanalysis and/orinterpretation andproblem-solving intheory and/or practicewithin the discipline,with some originalitydisplayed.Makes very good use of establishedtechniques of interpretation,application and/or analysis, whererelevant to the module learningoutcomes. Shows an accurateunderstanding of key theories,where relevant, which areappropriately applied within thecontext of the assignment task andthe module learning outcomes.Very good evidence of wideracademic reading whichindicates an approach toindependent learning. Sourceshave been accuratelyinterpreted and integrated withsome attempt at analysis.Very good answer with coherentand logical presentation of ideas.The answer is largely relevant andfocused. Some language errorsmay be present but do notimpact on the clarity ofexpression. Academic writingstyle was inconsistently adheredto. Referencing in the CU versionof Harvard is mostly accuratewith some minor errors.50-59%Good knowledge basethat supports someanalysis and/orinterpretation andproblem-solving intheory and/or practicewithin the discipline.Makes good use of establishedtechniques of interpretation,application and/or analysis, whererelevant to the module learningoutcomes. Sound descriptiveknowledge of key theories, whereGood evidence of academicreading, with some attempt atmoving beyond therecommended texts.Interpretation of sources hasbeen largely accurate, but theremay be some instances ofGood answer with some attemptat coherent and logicalpresentation. The answercontains some irrelevant materialand lacks focus at points. Somelanguage errors are presentwhich impacts on clarity at times. relevant, with some appropriateapplication.misunderstanding. Limitedevidence of integration andanalysis.Academic writing style is notadhered to at all times.Referencing in the CU version ofHarvard is present, however maynot be entirely accurate at times.40-49%Satisfactory knowledgebase demonstratingcomprehension andformulation of basicknowledge with someomissions at the level oftheoreticalunderstanding.Limited ability to discusstheory and solveproblems within thediscipline.Makes satisfactory but limited use ofestablished techniques ofinterpretation, application and/oranalysis, where relevant to themodule learning outcomes.Selection of theory, where relevant,is satisfactory but application and/orunderstanding is limited.Satisfactory evidence ofacademic reading, with noobvious attempt to movebeyond the recommendedtexts. Interpretation of sourcesmay be inaccurate and poorlyintegrated. Analysis is unlikelyto have been attempted.Satisfactory answer, however,issues with coherence and logicalpresentation are likely to bepresent. The answer containsirrelevant material and lacksfocus. Language errors arefrequent which impacts on clarityand academic writing style is notpresent. Referencing in the CUversion of Harvard may beincomplete and is inaccurate.35-39%(Marginal Fail)Outcomes not or onlypartially met. Restrictedknowledge basedemonstrated. Limitedunderstanding ofdiscipline. Difficulty withlinking theory andproblem solving withinthe discipline.Attempts at analysis, whererelevant, and interpretation areineffective and/or uninformed bythe discipline. Knowledge of theory,where relevant, is inaccurate and/orincomplete. Choice of theoryinappropriate. Application and/orunderstanding demonstrated is verylimited.Limited evidence of reading atan academic level. Sources usedmay be inappropriate andinterpreted poorly. No evidenceof integration, analysis orinterpretation. Poor academicpractice may have resulted insections of plagiarised material.Answer is attempted but limited.Poor coherence and illogicalpresentation. The answercontains irrelevant material andlacks focus throughout. Languageerrors are consistent and impacton the clarity of expression.Academic writing style is notpresent. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is incompleteand inaccurate.0 – 34%Little or no evidence ofknowledge base. Littleevidence ofunderstanding ofdiscipline. Significantdifficulty with theoryand problem solvingwithin the discipline.Absence of relevant theoreticalcontent and/or use of theory, whererelevant. Lacks any analysis andinterpretation.Inadequate evidence of readingat an academic level with poorapplication of sources andideas. Answer is likely to includeinappropriate references whichare misunderstood and notintegrated. Possibility ofplagiarism OR no evidence ofacademic research. Answer maynot be research based.Serious and fundamental flawsleading to an unclear answer.Very weak academic skills andwriting ability. Poorly structuredwith multiple language errors.Inadequate application of CUversion of Harvard referencingstyle.
