全球海上石油物探市场新动向及发展趋势

在高油价背景下,海上尤其是深海油气勘探开发已成为国际大石油公司的投资热点,海上物探市场正处于新一轮快速增长期.当前,全球海上物探技术服务市场规模不断扩大,服务能力趋于紧张,服务费用仍有进一步上升的空间;服务市场向多区域发展,少数大公司仍是市场主导者;海上油气勘探成本持续上升,物探装备需求旺盛.2009年以后,海上地震市场价值将呈下降趋势;海洋油气勘探还将向更深水域拓展;海上地震船将出现新一轮建造高峰,建造周期将更长,建造费用也将更高,深水钻井平台仍短缺;多分量地震市场将出现供不应求的局面;海上天然气勘探日益活跃,对物探技术服务提出新的要求.由于海上石油地震勘探行业的周期性很强,预计2010年海上物探市场投资将大幅降低,海上地震承包公司应未雨绸缪,提前思考应对市场低迷的对策.     

金融危机下世界石油物探市场的新动向及发展趋势

受金融危机影响,2009年全球油气勘探开发投资和物探市场价值出现近几年的首次下降,但油价的短暂骤降并未引发国际物探市场的并购热潮。同时,电磁勘探技术成为国际物探技术服务公司保持油气勘探业务稳步增长的重要手段。随着国际油价的回升,预计全球地震作业能力将继续增长,尤其是海上拖缆作业能力将不断增强,且海上合同地震的需求仍高于多用户地震的需求;海底作业市场仍呈现供不应求的态势;国际大物探公司将继续加大新技术的研发力度;海洋多用户服务将成为各大物探公司新的利润增长点。     

后金融危机时代世界物探行业发展趋势

金融危机以来,世界物探行业发展面临巨大挑战,当前处于“低谷期”,出现了新一轮“洗牌”.各大物探公司着眼于高端海上市场,大幅调整业务结构,剥离劣质资产,兼并收购符合其长期发展战略的技术公司,进一步提高自身的综合实力.同时,行业内的合作不断加强.在后金融危机时代,传统的以数据采集、处理、解释及油藏描述为核心的物探产业模式将转变为以数字油藏为中心,地震服务、地质研究、油藏监测为辅助手段的一体化的数字综合信息管理模式.未来陆上地震采集将更加强调设备的重要性.永久油藏监测技术(PRM)以及无源地震技术等将成为未来海上物探技术的发展方向.     

世界石油物探行业发展趋势分析及对中国公司的建议

近年来,世界石油物探行业的市场集中度日益提高,竞争呈现如下几个方面的特征:竞争态势从多公司的竞争走向几家大物探公司的寡头垄断竞争;竞争领域由陆上发展到海上,非洲和中东正成为物探的热点地区;竞争策略从重视低成本转向低成本和技术、服务并重;竞争内容从提供单一服务转向一体化服务;服务方式由合同服务转向合同服务、多用户服务共同发展.未来,世界石油物探行业将面临投资、资金增加和技术进步带来的良好发展机遇,与此同时,市场竞争也将会更加激烈.中国的石油物探企业必须适应世界物探行业的发展变化,大力推进技术创新,推进以物探业务为中心的一体化服务,在稳定陆上市场的同时,逐步向海上发展,积极开展与石油公司的联盟.     

近年世界物探行业并购特点及技术发展趋势

在高油价下,世界油气勘探活劝活跃,勘探开发投入不断增加,世界大型地球物理勘探公司通过一系列兼并与重组,强化技术和市场地位、提高综合一体化能力。近年来,世界物探行业的并购呈现三个明显特点：强强联手,扩大公司规模;通过收购拓展业务领域;增强技术竞争力,抢占市场份额。企业间的并购和重组对物探技术发展也产生了显著的影响;复杂条件下勘探技术的开发受到重视,非地震技术应用重新获得青昧,海上地震技术成为新的热点,多学科、多方位技术集成应用成为趋势。     

世界石油物探行业发展趋势及中国企业面临的挑战

国际金融危机造成石油公司大幅削减物探投资，对石油物探行业形成巨大冲击。金融危机后，物探作业队伍数量仍处于较高水平，物探市场供给过剩，竞争激烈，物探公司经营困难；大量深海低端船只退出市场，海上物探船走向高端时代；多用户业务投资和收入大幅下降。物探行业的变化给中国石油物探企业带来了巨大挑战。建议中国石油物探公司：1）加强成本管理。理顺流程，加大合力，发挥规模效应，避免重复建设和浪费；加大资源、管理和技术的共享，形成竞争优势；提高公司整体管理水平和项目运作效率。2）重视对国家石油公司和国际大石油公司这两个客户群体的细致分析和研究。3）培育多用户项目运作能力。通过与经验丰富的公司的合作，逐步实现独立自主运作多用户项目。4）大力推进技术创新。将科技投入作为加快企业发展的战略性投入，加强企业技术创新人才的培养和高端技术人才的引进，理顺物探企业技术创新管理体系，提高技术创新的投入产出率。     

提高地震队市场竞争能力方法初探

我们地调四处作为物探局改革的试点单位之一,在物探市场初具雏形的1993年,物探主业就被部分推向了市场.1994年,我处连一公里计划任务都没有,被全面推向了市场.全处2500多名职工,全部都要在物探市场的竞争中找饭吃.这种巨大的转折,对我们产生了巨大的冲击,使我们深刻地认识到,一个物探企业要想赢得市场,就必须提高地震队的市场竞争能力.地震队的竞争能力是地震队综合能力的全面反映,是由地震队的基本品质决定的.要提高地震队的市     

国内首个滑动扫描采集项目启动

东方物探吐哈物探处2200地震队承担的吐哈盆地萨克桑高精度三维地震采集项目,日前正式启动。 萨克桑高精度三维项目是吐哈油田2012年度部署的重点地震勘探采集项目,位于丘东凹陷和小草湖凹陷结合部位,油气成藏条件好。含油气层系多,区内发育众多圈闭．勘探潜力较大,是吐哈油田开展致密砂岩油气勘探的有利区域。     

物探院三大平台:以共享提升服务支撑能力

研发团队紧扣油气勘探开发的实际需求,着眼地震采集、处理、解释技术发展的趋势,在"新"字上大做文章。面对日益激烈的市场竞争,石油物探技术研究院为当好集团公司油气勘探开发的物探先锋,围绕提升市场服务支撑能力做文章,从基础方法研究、地震资料处理、自主软件研发入手,先后建设了地球物理实验平台、云计算平台,承接了集团公司的π-farme软件平台。三大平台的建设,为物探院进一步发挥"一部三中心"职能、为更多油田企业提供优质高效的服务支撑,起到了强有力的推动作用。     

中原物探海外"落地生根

中原油田地球物理勘探公司是从事石油天然气地震资料采集、处理、解释的专业化公司，是国际地球物理承包商（IAGC）协会成员，主要开展山地、戈壁、丘陵、沙漠、平原等不同类型地区二维、三维、高分辨率勘探和卫星定位测量业务。2002年以来，中原物探积极实施“走出去”战略，参与国际石油工程项目，坚持按照国际惯例运作项目、按照国际惯例确定价格原则，准确把握市场变化，以敬业和诚信精神做好每一件事情，不断扩大国际石油物探项目的市场占有份额，已连续中标苏丹、厄瓜多尔、埃塞俄比亚等国多个物探项目，成功完成了不同国家、不同环境、不同业主、不同要求的一系列石油物探项目，深受业主好评。在苏丹中标19个项目。2002年9月，与美国菲利斯公司联合中标厄瓜多尔亚马逊地区SSFD629平方公里三维地震项目，成功跨越了厄国土地高度私有化带来的施工难题。提升了中原物探国际竞争力和项目中标率，企业海外利润呈逐年增长态势。     

物探质量监督新模式探讨

随着我国物探行业飞快发展和油田公司对物探产品高质量的要求,物探单位需要全方位、全过程对物探项目进行质量监控,为此,质量监督人员必须掌握和提高技能,达到真正做好物探工程质量监控工作的目的。近几年,东方物探公司不断进行物探质量监督方式的探索,采取了一系列切实有效的措施,使物探质量监督工作取得长足发展,监督管理按章执法体系已基本形成,质量监督步入了依规执监的快车道。     

强化技术标准实施提升物探质量竞争力

通过分析物探企业在技术标准实施过程中存在的问题，明确树立物探技术标准的市场意识和理念是标准实施的前提；通过技术标准实施保证物探标准的持续改进是不断提高物探产品质量和服务质量的技术保证。指出，因地制宜，建立健全以技术标准为核心的适应市场需求的物探标准体系并且强化其实施力度，是提升物探质量竞争力的重要手段和途径。     

Whether to Integrate R&D and Marketing: The Effect of Firm Competence

Integration of research and development (R&D) with marketing remains a frequent topic in the new product development (NPD) literature, largely because it represents a critical antecedent of new product performance (NPP). Two divergent opinions about this integration exist, such that those who contend that firms should pursue high levels of integration in every case provoke criticisms from those who propose that various NPD processes require different levels of integration. This paper proposes that the two perspectives can be reconciled by taking into account the fact that R&D and marketing are integrated mainly to combine critical knowledge (technological and market) that otherwise would be separate to achieve market success. Following Danneels's approach, we investigate how the effect of R&D–marketing integration on performance change across four types of NPD processes: pure exploitation, pure exploration, technological competence exploitation, and market competence exploitation. Data derived from a deep study of 11 NPD projects by five firms, analyzed through qualitative methods, highlight the necessity to vary the level of integration according to the type of competence to be developed during the NPD process. Our analysis suggests two main conclusions. First, the effect of integration depends strictly on the type of competence that the firm uses to develop and launch a new product. Second, integration does not have a unique effect on performance, but it is necessary to distinguish between market performance (e.g., sales and market share) and process performance (e.g., meeting the planned budget and time to market). In some projects, the effect of integration on the two types of performance is diametrically opposite. In particular, we propose that (1) higher performance will be associated with lower integration in pure exploitative projects; (2) in projects that exploit existing market knowledge, higher market performance will be associated with a higher integration, although these projects tend to offer poor process performance regardless of integration level; (3) in projects that exploit technical knowledge, higher performance will be associated with higher integration; and (4) higher integration will be associated with higher market performance but poorer process performance in pure explorative projects.     

Configurations of Innovations across Domains: An Organizational Ambidexterity View

How do firms balance explorative and exploitative innovation for superior firm performance? While most prior studies have approached this issue by focusing on technology‐related innovation, the role of balancing exploration and exploitation in other important organizational domains, i.e., marketing, and the interaction effect of ambidexterity across different domains have been overlooked. This study contributes to this line of research by investigating how firms simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation across two critical domains, namely technology innovation and market innovation. The study distinguishes four types of configurations: market leveraging (technology exploration and market exploitation), technology leveraging (technology exploitation and market exploration), pure exploitation (technology exploitation and market exploitation), and pure exploration (technology exploration and market exploration). From an organizational ambidexterity perspective, the current work investigates whether and how these different combinations exert distinctive effects on firm performance. Specifically, the article posits that (a) technology exploration and market exploitation complement each other, and (b) technology exploitation and market exploration also complement each other, such that both market leveraging and technology leveraging strategies have positive effects on firm performance. The article also maintains that such positive relationships are fully mediated by differentiation and low cost advantages. Conversely, it is argued that (c) technology exploration and market exploration conflict with each other, and (d) so do technology exploitation and market exploitation, such that both pure exploration and pure exploitation have negative effects on firm performance. Hypotheses were tested using survey data collected from 292 manufacturing and service firms in China. The results supported most of the hypotheses, except that pure exploration demonstrated no significant relationship with firm performance.     

The Role of Suppliers in Market Intelligence Gathering for Radical and Incremental Innovation*

Drawing on transaction cost economics theory, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on innovation success in predesign or commercialization activities? and (2) Does supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities have a greater impact on success in radical or incremental product innovation? Hypotheses are tested using both subjective and objective measures of success from a study of 205 incremental and 110 radical new product development projects. Results from the estimation of a two‐group path model suggest that this theoretical framework is useful in providing guidance as to when product developers should emphasize the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers. Consistent with conventional wisdom, the findings suggest that supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities are positively related to success in incremental innovations across predesign and commercialization activities. However, supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities is found to have no significant impact on market share and is negatively associated with perceived product performance in radical innovations in predesign tasks. Also, while there was no significant difference in market share for supplier involvement in market intelligence gathering activities between radical and incremental innovation in commercialization activities, supplier involvement in these activities did have a greater impact on perceived product performance in radical innovation than it did in incremental innovation. Although current practice suggests that teams allocate fewer resources to the gathering of market intelligence through their suppliers during predesign activities in incremental innovation projects compared with radical innovation projects, the findings in this study suggest that they should do the opposite. Shifting resources allocated for engaging suppliers in market information gathering activities in predesign activities from radical innovation projects to incremental innovation projects could increase the return on these investments. Alternatively, these resources currently allocated to the gathering of market intelligence through suppliers in predesign activities of radical innovation projects could also provide greater benefits if allocated to commercialization activities of radical innovation projects, where they have the greatest positive impact.     

An industrial analysis market information system

The United States maritime industry share of world cargo movement has declined steadily for the last decade. The authors maintain that this situation is partially due to the industry's lack of a marketing orientation. Successful marketing hinges upon an effective market information system. This paper presents such a system for the U.S. maritime industry and discusses various information sources as a foundation for this system.     

The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders

Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm and, in particular, the capabilities perspective of firm performance, the authors examine the relationship between ambidexterity and firm performance for two strategy typologies: prospectors and defenders. Ambidexterity, defined as the combination of two discrete capabilities (exploration and exploitation), should have a less negative effect on firm performance among prospectors that add exploitation to exploration than among defenders who add exploration to exploitation. Hence, this research predicts an asymmetric effect of ambidexterity on firm performance for prospectors and defenders. The authors further posit that a boundary-spanning culture, such as market orientation, can function as a metaculture by integrating the subunit cultures generated by exploration and exploitation. As a result, market orientation should mitigate the negative effect of ambidexterity on firm performance, albeit differently for prospectors and defenders, and thus point to an asymmetric moderating role of market orientation. The findings provide mixed results, which the authors discuss along with some theoretical and managerial implications.     

The Role of Future‐Market Focus in the Early Stages of NPD across Varying Levels of Innovativeness

The concept of future‐market focus (FMF) arose out of the debate about firm size and incumbency in the face of radical or disruptive innovations, and has been demonstrated to have a positive correlation with radical innovation (RI) success. This study examines the relationship between FMF and the processes used in the early stages of NPD for four types of innovation projects: incremental innovations, technological breakthroughs, market breakthroughs, and radical innovations. We found that the future‐market focus of a project team can influence the early stage processes used in a new product innovation project, and does so differentially across levels of innovativeness. In particular, the concept generation process, understanding of market needs, and screening decision criteria are different for low‐ versus high‐FMF projects and there are differences based on the level of innovation. In addition, we found that radical innovation projects rated low in FMF are markedly different than the radical innovation projects described in prior studies.     

R&D project selection for promoting the efficiency of energy use

Screening criteria for selecting energy R& D projects are discussed and applied to a dozen projects currently underway. The impact on energy balance and environmental quality cannot be seen as the only, nor even the dominating, attribute. In the cases studied, the R&D portfolio seeks to achieve a balance between these factors and the other criteria related to technology and the market. In the event the development work is carried out at an independent R&D centre, it will be necessary to have a committed industrial partner from an early stage onwards in order to ensure objectivity, market perception and provide the best chance of commercialisation.