QUE$TOR is built for the awkward stage of an upstream project when the team must compare development concepts before detailed engineering exists. It gives estimators a structured way to assemble onshore, offshore or LNG regasification concepts and produce lifecycle cost cases on a consistent basis. Its database is useful for screening, but it cannot replace current quotations, local productivity data or a documented basis of estimate.
Need This Software?
Contact us to request the software and receive download and access information.
We reviewed S&P Global’s current product pages, release resources and training material; we did not install or benchmark QUE$TOR. The article therefore covers documented scope and the buying questions that follow from it, not measured accuracy or usability.
The job QUE$TOR is designed to do
S&P Global positions QUE$TOR for concept screening, optimization, CAPEX and OPEX estimation, scheduling and regional benchmarking. Its current product page describes more than 100,000 cost data points and dedicated Offshore, Onshore and LNG Regasification modules.
In practice, a team defines the field concept, location, production assumptions, currency and estimate date, then selects the relevant components and applies regional cost data. QUE$TOR can produce CAPEX, OPEX and decommissioning estimates, schedule capital spending and report activity- or project-level GHG estimates for documented onshore and offshore coverage. Approved cases can then move into economics or portfolio analysis. Subsurface volumes and risks remain separate inputs; the Logicom REP profile covers that adjacent evaluation workflow.
The model is most useful when alternatives need to be compared on the same basis. A repeatable template can expose why one concept costs more than another, provided the estimator records scope exclusions, overrides and the source of each important assumption.
Offshore, onshore and LNG are different buying cases
The Offshore module covers topsides, fixed structures, floaters, drilling, subsea systems, pipelines, cables and loading systems, along with documented offshore-wind components. The Onshore module includes wellsite groups, drilling, gathering and production facilities, terminals, pipelines, roads, camps and buildings. Both are broad enough for concept comparison, but neither removes the need for discipline engineering and supplier engagement as the design matures.
The LNG Regasification module uses inputs such as gas specification, NGL removal, vaporization method, tank type, marine civil work and dredging disposal. S&P Global’s training catalogue covers facility models, cost methodology, lifecycle estimates and scenario analysis. Liquefaction is not listed as the module’s scope, so a buyer should not treat “LNG” as coverage of the entire value chain.
The database is a starting point, not the estimate basis
S&P Global says its cost information is updated twice a year. That cadence supports consistent screening across regions and dates, but it does not guarantee that every line item reflects a project’s contracting strategy, sanctions exposure, logistics, labour productivity or quotation date.
A defensible estimate should record its class, base date, currency and escalation convention. Major cost drivers should be checked against recent supplier quotations and local rates. Contingency and risk allowances should remain separate from the deterministic model output, and changes in probabilistic volumes should be traceable into facility size and schedule. For related risk work, see the GeoX exploration risk overview.
Release, deployment and commercial questions
The current name is QUE$TOR, supported by S&P Global Energy; “IHS Questor” and “IHS Markit Questor” are older names. S&P Global’s software resources page lists QUE$TOR 2026 Q1, released in May 2026, as the latest version available when this article was checked. The same page provides release notes, installation files, licensing guidance and a benchmarking report for entitled customers.
Network and standalone activation are documented, but public pricing, module packaging, named or concurrent user terms, supported operating systems, virtualization policy, API coverage and enterprise deployment details were not clear in the public material reviewed. These points belong in the quotation and technical evaluation. The vendor also offers introductory and advanced training; the advanced course lists three to six months of prior use as a prerequisite, which is a useful signal that effective estimating requires more than learning the interface.
How it compares with other estimating platforms
| Choose around | QUE$TOR | Aspen Capital Cost Estimator | Cleopatra Enterprise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary problem | Early upstream field-development concepts and lifecycle costs | Process and capital-project estimating as engineering detail grows | Enterprise estimating and continuity into project controls |
| Model emphasis | Onshore, offshore and LNG regasification components with regional cost data | Equipment, bulk materials, construction quantities, labour and schedules | Parametric, factor, object and detailed BoQ/MTO methods |
| Shortlist when | Upstream concept configuration is central | Process-plant and construction detail drive the estimate | Standardization and estimate-to-controls integration drive the decision |
Aspen Capital Cost Estimator focuses on a consistent costing model across the capital-project lifecycle. Cleopatra Enterprise emphasizes centralized cost data, several estimating methods and project-controls integration. A fair comparison should use the same scope, basis date and required outputs in all three tools.
Need Access to This Software?
Need this software for your project? Contact us for download access, availability, and related information.
Our take
QUE$TOR 2026 Q1 is a sensible shortlist choice for operators, partners and consultants comparing upstream concepts before detailed engineering. Its value comes from consistent engineering structure and maintained cost data. The risk is false confidence: a polished model can still be wrong for the local market if scope, overrides and uncertainty are poorly controlled.
The best evaluation is a benchmark using a known project. Rebuild one representative onshore, offshore or regasification case, compare the result with the approved estimate and recent quotations, and document every material difference before deciding whether the database and workflow fit the organization.
