Delivery Discipline, Not Technology, Drives Large Energy Project Success, Argues Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum highlights a critical, often overlooked, factor in the success of large-scale energy projects: delivery capability rather than technological innovation. Drawing on two decades of experience in the oil and gas sector, Curum contends that the primary reasons for project failures lie not in flawed engineering or physics, but in the immaturity of the systems designed to manage their complex execution.

Curum’s analysis shifts the focus from the typical debates surrounding new energy technologies to the practicalities of implementation. He points out that as attention grows for sectors like nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and grid expansion, the conversation often fixates on:

• Reactor design and efficiency
• Safety engineering and novelty

While acknowledging the importance of these technical questions, Curum argues that the greater source of risk in major infrastructure projects resides in the delivery system itself. He elaborates on these execution-related risks:

“Interface management across multiple contractors
Regulatory sequencing and approval continuity
First-of-a-kind design changes during execution
Capital structures that assume schedule discipline
Political cycles intersecting with construction timelines”

According to Curum, the significant discrepancies between projected economics and actual capital costs are rarely due to thermodynamic limitations. Instead, they stem from execution challenges.

The Compounding Nature of Execution Risk

Nick Curum emphasizes that execution risk is not a static problem but one that compounds over time. He illustrates this point by detailing how delays and disruptions escalate costs and erode project momentum.

• Each year of delay increases interest during construction.
• Each restart interrupts valuable learning curves.
• Each coordination failure widens capital exposure.

Curum notes that this pattern has been a consistent feature in oil and gas, LNG, and offshore development for decades. He posits that emerging infrastructure sectors like nuclear and others are unlikely to deviate from this historical trend.

“Technology risk is often visible.
Delivery risk is institutional.”

In Curum’s view, the systems that ultimately succeed will not merely boast credible designs. Their success will hinge on possessing robust, repeatable, and disciplined delivery capabilities.

Focus on Institutional Capability

Curum’s insights suggest a fundamental re-evaluation of how large energy projects are assessed and managed. The emphasis, he argues, should move beyond the allure of technological breakthroughs to a deeper understanding of organizational capacity and project management maturity.

“The difference between modelled economics and realised capital cost is rarely thermodynamics. It is execution.”

He further elaborates that the difference between planned and actual capital expenditure is seldom rooted in the fundamental science but rather in the intricacies of how the project is managed and delivered. Curum encourages a focus on these institutional and delivery aspects, rather than solely on the more visible technological headlines. He points to his own work, which explores these execution patterns within energy infrastructure, focusing on capital allocation and institutional capability.

Ultimately, Nick Curum challenges industry stakeholders to consider what has been the dominant risk driver in their experience: technical uncertainty or delivery discipline. His analysis strongly suggests that mastering the latter is paramount for navigating the complexities of future energy infrastructure development.