TECHNOLOGY FOCUS

Drilling Management
Certainly there is not a single JPT reader that has not already read and heard
about the Macondo-well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Over the last
few months, this accident has been present in almost every conversation about
the oil industry. Many articles have been written, and many more certainly will
be prepared and presented at future conferences. The subject has been present in
the daily media around the world. In the SPE Drilling and Offshore Operations
technical interest groups, several posts have generated heated discussions as well
as a diverse array of propositions about how our industry should proceed from
now on. So it seems natural that this JPT section dedicated to drilling management also should address the subject.
For those of us working in the GOM area, it is more than clear by now that this
accident will change the industry forever; and not only in the GOM. Members
of the industry, managers and technical experts alike, are taking this occasion
to reassess operational procedures, equipment safety, and training needs to find
opportunities for improvement that will make our operations safer and more
efficient. A proficient drilling-management process is now more important than
ever. This process must permeate all phases of a project, from early planning to
final execution. Risk assessment of all operations must become a routine.
Last year, I wrote in this space about the importance of risk management for
drilling and completion operations. I mentioned that there are many articles concerning successful projects in which risk analysis was a fundamental part of all
operations. Now may be the right moment for all of us to follow those engaging
examples. At the risk of being repetitive, I would like to conclude with exactly
the same words that I used to close last year: It is clear to me that drilling management is related closely to risk management. The correct assessment of all risks
involved in drilling operations will provide better planning and consequently
JPT
will improve operational results.

J.C. Cunha, SPE, is Well Operations

Manager for Petrobras America in
Houston. Previously, he was an Associate
Professor of petroleum engineering at the
University of Alberta, Canada. Cunha
has served on several SPE committees
and chaired the SPE Drilling Technical
Interest Group, and currently is a
201011 SPE Distinguished Lecturer.
He holds a civil engineering degree from
Juiz de Fora Federal University, Brazil;
an MS degree in petroleum engineering from Ouro Preto University, Brazil;
and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa,
USA. Cunhas career spans engineering
and management positions on several
projects in South America, the Gulf of
Mexico, Africa, and the Caribbean. He
has authored various technical articles
including 30 SPE papers. Cunha currently chairs the JPT Editorial Committee.

Drilling Management additional reading

available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org
SPE 128288 Drilling Efficiency and Rate of PenetrationDefinitions,
Influencing Factors, Relationships, and Value by Graham Mensa-Wilmot, SPE,
Chevron, et al.
SPE 128222 High Performance and Reliability for MPD Control System
Ensured by Extensive Testing by John-Morten Godhavn, SPE, Statoil, et al.
SPE 128871 Real-Time Drilling-Data Analysis: Building Blocks for the
Definition of a Problem-Anticipation Methodology by R.A. Gandelman,
Petrobras, et al.

72

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

DRILLING MANAGEMENT

Implementation of a Real-Time Drilling-Problem

Diagnostic Program
The full-length paper details the fieldimplementation experience of an inhouse-developed system for drillingproblems detection and identification. Starting from real-time drilling
data, the system was designed to
investigate reasons for deviations in
important measured variables (e.g.,
downhole and pumping pressures,
temperatures, and torque and drag)
during drilling operations. Based on
a hybrid approach, including multiphase-hydraulics and torque-anddrag modeling, case-history matching, and knowledge of specialists,
the system should identify undesirable events.

Introduction
Deep- and ultradeepwater exploratory
drilling is a very risky and costly
operation in which every effort to
guarantee performance and operational safety is welcome. Low fracture
gradients, abnormal pressures, losses,
and unstable formations are among
the items that make well design complex and well construction a continuous challenge.
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper OTC 20652,
Field Implementation of a Real Time
Drilling Problem Diagnostic for Deepwater Exploratory Wells, by Roni
Gandelman, Alex Waldmann,
Andre L. Martins, SPE, Gleber
Teixeira, and Atila Arago,
Petrobras, and Mauricio Rezende and
Alexandre de Mari, ESSS Scientific
Software, originally prepared for the
2010 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 36 May. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
Copyright 2010 Offshore Technology
Conference. Reproduced by permission.

Several exploratory prospects currently ongoing in Petrobras face very

narrow operational windows, and well
construction will demand unconventional techniques.The anticipation and
remediation of potential hole problems is an ultimate goal of most realtime measurement devices installed
on drilling rigs. Much effort has been
spent in downhole sensors and datatransmission systems, but there is a
common sense in the industry that
very little is available in real-time data
interpretation. Pressure-while-drilling
(PWD) data, for instance, is used in a
subjective manner, and interpretation
depends to a great extent on the philosophy of the operator.
Some preliminary implementation efforts at rigsites and at onshore
decision-support centers have demonstrated the potential of drillingdata-interpretation systems in reducing
operational costs and risks.
In 2006, as a strategy to preserve
the knowledge retained by experienced professionals and to achieve
effective gains from real-time data, a
development project was started to
generate a drilling-interpretation system. Starting from a long-term experience in developing steady-state and
transient-hydraulics models, an initial
development of a real-time hydraulics
model for vertical wells to guarantee
pressures inside the operational window was proposed. Soon, the team
understood that a reliable analysis
would have to go beyond hydraulics.
A multidisciplinary team, including
software developers, data-communication professionals, artificial-intelligence specialists, and petroleum engineers, was established to define the
requirements and objectives for the
system. The idea was to make full use
of measurement-while-drilling/PWD
and mud-logging data for analyzing

the drilling operation. Logging-whiledrilling data would be considered in

a further step because the company
already had a team for real-time geopressure analysis.
PWD System
The goal was to establish quantitative
criteria to interpret real-time data and
to provide a tool to help the operators
to make important decisions rapidly
in an objective way, optimizing the
drilling job (reducing time and operational costs).
The methodology developed exists in
several integrated modules that receive,
simulate, and interpret all available
data. PWD data, pump pressure, and
torque and drag are predicted and
compared with the real parameters.
Differences between real and predicted
curves indicate that some unexpected
phenomenon may be happening. The
different tendencies of real and predicted curves are interpreted to identify
potential problems. Once a problem is
identified, the methodology proposes
preventive and/or corrective actions to
be taken.
Among the operational parameters
available, the most important are the
following.
Bottomhole annular pressure
Bottomhole annular temperature
Pump pressure
Inlet and outlet flow rates
Drillstring rotation
Rate of penetration (ROP)
Torque
Drag
Hole depth (measured and vertical)
Bit depth (measured and vertical)
Weight on bit
The modules receive the data and
process and interpret them. The identification module identifies, on the basis
of input mud-logging data, the current
operation among several possibilities

The full-length paper is available for purchase at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org.

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

73

such as drilling, circulating, reaming,

and tripping in or out. The transienthydraulics module predicts solids concentration, equivalent circulating density (ECD), and pump pressure and is
composed of two different parts.
The heat-transfer part of the transient-hydraulics module predicts a
temperature profile in the annulus and
inside the drillstring on the basis of
geothermal gradient, flow rate, and
drilling-fluid properties. Temperature
plays an important role in oil- and
water-based-fluid rheology and in oilbased-fluid density. The fluid-rheology
variation affects solids-transportation
and friction-loss calculations. Thus,
the correct prediction of temperature
effect on drilling-fluid properties is
essential for an accurate prediction of
solids concentration, ECD, and pump
pressure. After the temperature profile
is determined, the module calculates
the fluid rheology and density profiles,
which will be used in the second part of
the hydraulics module.
The solid/liquid-flow module contains cuttings-transport transient
models that are fed the fluid-rheology
and -density profiles (calculated in the
temperature module). It receives realtime PWD and mud-logging data during drilling and on the basis of ROP
(solids loading), predicts a solids-concentration profile (for each timestep).
Once a solids-concentration profile is
determined, a pressure profile also is
determined. For synthetic-based drilling fluids, compressibility effects may
be important and are addressed in the
calculations. In this case, heat-transfer
and flow calculations should be iterative until convergence is reached.
The torque-and-drag module receives
solids-concentration- and bed-heightprofile predictions from hydraulics calculations, along with other operational
parameters such as drillstring rotation,
drillstring composition (diameters
and weights), and wellbore geometry.
Calculations are based on simple models that predict torque and drag.
The surge-and-swab module receives
the predicted solids-concentration
and bed-height profiles (that directly
affect pressure variation resulting from
surge-and-swab effects) and drillstring axial velocity during trips. The
module contains models to predict
how bottomhole pressure increases
or decreases when the drillstring is
tripped in or out, respectively. If there

74

is no flow rate and the drillstring has

an axial velocity, the model predicts
increments and reductions of bottomhole pressure. If the pumps are on,
the flow rate reduces the surge-andswab effects dramatically, and they are
not calculated.
The gel-prediction module predicts
gelation. Gelation begins when drilling fluid is submitted to static conditions and is a fundamental property of
drilling fluids because it keeps solids
in suspension while the pumps are
off. Gelation tendency is higher at
low temperatures, typical of deepwater conditions. Once the gelled structure is formed, the energy required
to break it will be higher and, consequently, a pressure peak is observed.
In this way, the gelled fluid induces
pressure peaks when the pumps are
turned on again after a static period.
The gel-prediction module uses some
correlations to estimate bottomholepressure peaks after static periods on
the basis of startup flow rate, static
time, and fluids properties.
The geopressure and wellbore-stability module receives geopressure and
fracture-collapse data and defines an
operational window. This operational
window is compared with real bottomhole pressure (ECD) to guarantee
a safe operation. If ECD is close to
(or outside of) the limits of the operational windows, the user is alerted and
should adopt some action to avoid
operational problems. Geopressure
and wellbore-stability data are provided by other specialized services within
the company.
The interpretation module also is
divided into two parts. The first part
accounts for deviations between predicted and measured values, using
noise filters and considering instantaneous or average values whenever pertinent. A second part contains
interpretation rules based on physical fundamentols, pattern recognition,
and artificial-intelligence issues. It
receives all the predicted parameters
(e.g., ECD, pump pressure, and torque
and drag) along with all other realtime parameters and compares the real
and predicted data. Different behaviors
between predicted and real curves can
indicate the occurrence of an unexpected phenomenon, and the methodology tries to identify it, warning the
operators and suggesting corrective or
preventive actions.

An example of unexpected behavior is when the real pump pressure

and ECD curves show a tendency to
increase while predicted pump pressure and ECD are constant. There are
many possible causes for this behavior such as inefficient solids removal,
annular obstruction, or drilling-fluid
degradation, but each one has its own
specific symptoms. For example, if the
wellbore walls collapse, besides the
increment of pump pressure and ECD,
there may be an increment in torqueand-drag values. On the other hand,
a gas influx may cause a reduction
in ECD and an increment in bottomhole temperature. The methodology
might identify one unique cause among
the several possible by analyzing all
operational parameters (e.g., torque,
drag, and temperature) that may have
a different behavior depending on the
specific symptom of the occurring phenomenon. Sometimes, however, it is
not possible to distinguish one unique
cause for an abnormal behavior. When
that happens, a list of possible causes
and, for each one listed, possible preventive and/or corrective action to be
taken is presented. The interpretations
of the different tendencies of the curves
are made by hundreds of rules of interpretation implemented in the module.
Problems and events the methodology is able to identify include the following.
Washouts
Bit-nozzle obstructions
Bit-nozzle failure
Wellbore enlargment and/or collapse
Drillstring balling
Bit balling
Annular obstructions resulting
from wellbore collapse or shale/drilling
fluid interaction
Annular obstructions resulting from
deficient solids-removal conditions
Packoffs
Breathing/ballooning
Pit-volume increments
Circulation losses
Pumps-off data analysis
Deficient solids-removal conditions
As an illustration, one of the interpretation charts analyzes the possible
causes of pump-pressure reduction
while drilling. Possible causes are gas
influxes, washouts, and bit-jet failures.
The use of other variables, such as ECD
and flow out, would help to identify the
correct cause.
JPT

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

W E L L B O R E

P R O D U C T I V I T Y

Same ball.
Whole new ball game.
Bringing proven ball-activated tool expertise to the drilling arena.
Across the E&P lifecycle the pressure is on to perform downhole. Now a single
drilling valve bypass system can help meet the demands of challenging
drilling operations.
Building on our success with downhole circulating equipment, M-I SWACO
takes reliable downhole performance one step further. The WELL COMMANDER*
tool enables the widest range of critical drilling functions to be performed
with confidence, from cuttings removal to lost circulation treatment and kill
weight fluid spotting.
As well as being simple to operate, versatility is maximized with seven full
cycles activated with one-size ball, while other ball-activated tool access is
maintained below this drilling valve. Engineered for reliability, an isolation
sleeve protects the activation mechanism against debris and solids-laden
fluids. The tool can be locked in either the open or closed state, and remain
unaffected by high circulation rates and pressure changes. Using the
WELL COMMANDER tool, sensitive BHA equipment can be protected from
aggressive solids-laden treatments.
Optimize rig time and resources by eliminating additional auxiliary tools and
avoiding unnecessary trips. When performing critical drilling operations with
the WELL COMMANDER tool, the ball is in your court.

Drilling
Solutions
*Mark of M-I L.L.C

Wellbore
Productivity

Production
Technologies

Environmental
Solutions

www.miswaco.slb.com

DRILLING MANAGEMENT

Managing Drilling Risk in a Mature North Sea Field

The likelihood of losses increases as

reservoir pressures decline while higher
mud weights are needed to prevent collapse of overburden shales as targets
are pushed farther from the platform.
Drilling parameters for the Forties field
have become fairly well established
after years of experience, yet 65% of
the wells drilled between 2002 and
2007 experienced incidents attributed
to instability. Through a better understanding of the field geomechanics
and past drilling events, the drilling
team has implemented fit-for-purpose
drilling procedures that have improved
drilling efficiency significantly.

Introduction
Discovered in 1970, the Forties field has
been developed and produced from five
platforms in the UK sector of the central
North Sea since 1974. There are now
more than 300 boreholes in the area.
In recent years, the drilling program
has pursued infill targets from donor
wells sidetracked near the base of the
95/8-in. casing or step-out targets with
sidetracks higher up existing wells.
Of the 94 boreholes drilled over a
5-year period (200207), 45% were
lost because of drilling or completion problems. A bottomhole assembly
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper SPE 124666,
Managing Drilling Risk in a Mature
North Sea Field, by Brett McIntyre,
SPE, Ted Hibbert, SPE, Donald Keir,
and Rachel Dixon, Apache North Sea
Ltd., and Tom ORourke, SPE, Farid
Mohammed, Adam Donald, Liu
Chang, Anzar Syed, and Valerie
Biran, SPE, Schlumberger, originally
prepared for the 2009 SPE Offshore
Europe Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Aberdeen, 811 September.
The paper has not been peer reviewed.

(BHA) was lost in 40% of these failures.

Even the successful wells encountered
various drilling problems, and when
this is taken into account, 65% of all
the wells drilled during this period
experienced some degree of instability. As field production declined,
economic viability demanded a step
change in performance.
Drilling parameters for the Forties
field have become fairly well established after years of experience. Over
the period, mud weights tended to
creep up in response to cavings and
packoffs and then were lowered when
losses became of greater concern.
Where these events became more than
a minor problem, drilling practices frequently were responsible. Fragile zones
often are stable if undisturbed, but
mechanical or hydraulic disturbance
will generate debris, sometimes in considerable volumes.
Were the holdups, stuck pipe, pickoffs, and loss incidents in the Forties
field caused by hole instability as a
result of incorrect mud weights or
caused by drilling practices? Is the
debris in the borehole fresh cavings or
unremoved cuttings? If the cause of
these problems can be identified correctly, appropriate drilling and operational contingencies can be defined
before hazards are encountered. When
hole problems do develop, appropriate
remedial actions can be taken on the
basis of an understanding of what is
occurring downhole. Incorrect diagnosis can lead to an inappropriate solution, exacerbating the problem and
leading to further damage.
Method
Using a geomechanical model that
includes stress state and rock strength
computed from offset-well data, a continuous mud-weight window is estimated along selected well trajectories

to define mud-weight windows and to

identify potentially troublesome zones
and drilling problems. Analysis of historical drilling events and data provides
a set of observations with which to verify the predictions of the geomechanical model and distinguish problems
caused by incorrect mud weight from
those induced by drilling practices.
For a proposed well trajectory, the
well plan identifies potential hazards,
estimates drilling parameters, and recommends practices to minimize the
incidence of wellbore instability, and it
supplies contingencies for zones where
failure is unavoidable. Drilling parameters can vary, sometimes dramatically,
as well angle and azimuth change.
Occasionally, a mud-weight window
does not exist and formation failure
is unavoidable. This does not indicate
automatically that the well is undrillable, rather that the drilling strategy
and practices should be aimed toward
managing wellbore instability.
During drilling, surface and downhole
measurements should be monitored to
detect the onset of wellbore instability
and minimize the risk of borehole failure or loss caused by mechanical wellbore instability. Measurement while
drilling, logging while drilling, surface
mechanics, fluids, and solids (cavings)
monitoring all can be used to diagnose
the wellbore state and compare it to
the well-design prediction. The process
provides a record of the wellbore-stability information, which can be used
to update the mechanical Earth model
for future wells in the field if desired.
Geomechanical Analysis
The geomechanical review involves a
brief assessment of the in-situ-stress
setting and mechanical properties of
the formations in the overburden and
reservoir section. The geomechanical
model was generated from well data

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
76

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

Layered
Fractured

Competent

Layered shale interspersed with

weak layerssome parts fail,
others remain intact

Fig. 1The nature and fabric of shales vary in a non-predictable manner across the Forties field.

including logs, cores, leakoff tests, and

reservoir-pressure measurements. Rock
properties and the in-situ stress state
estimated from logs were calibrated
to core measurements and validated
against drilling experience. Subsequent
wellbore-stability analysis defines mudweight windows and identifies potentially troublesome zones and drilling
problems along the proposed well path.
Several vintages of previous geomechanical analysis provided a starting
point. Refinements incorporated in the
current work address the effects of reservoir depletion and anisotropy related to
the layered nature of some formations.
During the course of the study,
slabbed cores from several wells were
reviewed. From well to well, the character of the same shale (i.e., Lower
Eocene or Sele) changed from homogeneous to highly layered, to fractured.
Fig. 1 illustrates examples of these variations. These imperfections, which
appear to occur in a nonpredictable
manner, weaken the rock fabric and
are responsible for many incidents of
borehole failure. Such significant variations help to explain why no difficulties would be encountered in one well
while another well experiences severe
instability issues.
Geoscientists observed a correlation
between acoustic velocity and borehole
deviation within the Sele formation.
Subsequent investigation to understand
the source of this effect led to the realiza-

78

tion that this correlation was a result of

anisotropy related to the layered nature
of the formation. From a geomechanical
perspective, this causes the rock strength
of the Sele formation to be highly variable. New core plus -sonic, and -seismic
measurements were used to quantify the
effects of anisotropy related to bedding
planes and weak shales.
Dynamic elastic moduli calculated
from full-waveform sonic data show a
separation between horizontal and vertical shear stiffness within the Sele, but
not in adjacent formations. Calculations
using phase-slowness curves would
result in a decrease in stiffness and
rock strength for relative dips between
40 and 55. This character agrees well
with that of the unconfined-compressive-strength measurements from core.
The stress/strain data from triaxial tests
indicate a large amount of nonlinear
elasticity and plasticity.
As pore pressure declines with depletion, the horizontal stress decreases
in depleting sands and increases in
the adjacent shales. This decreases the
fracture gradient in the reservoir and
increases the mud weight needed to
control caprock and reservoir shales,
ultimately causing the safe mud-weight
window to collapse. The amount of
change depends on rock properties,
relative thicknesses, and the geologic
structure. 3D analysis is required to
estimate these stress changes properly
in both the sands and adjacent shales.

Given the narrow mud window in

Forties wells, it is unlikely that instability and losses can be avoided completely, but the consequences can be
managed with careful selection of well
trajectories, appropriate drilling practices, and stability monitoring during
drilling. Drilling and tripping practices
should be designed to minimize disturbance to damaged zones.
Drilling Events
A review of wellbore-instability incidents observed in offset wells has
been used to verify the geomechanical
model and establish the most likely
cause of the instabilities observed.
Establishing the location and timing is
critical in determining the root cause
of an instability event. Unfortunately,
this analysis is not always unambiguous. Conflicting experiences
are common, and reliable data often
are sparse.
Of the 94 boreholes drilled over a
5-year period (200207), 45% were
lost because of drilling or completion problems. These failures could be
grouped into four categories of immediate operational causes: lost BHA,
lost borehole, directional issues, and
inability to complete. A BHA was lost
in 40% of these failures. Further analysis of the immediate operational causes
revealed four main root causes: hole
cleaning, wellbore instability, mechanical issues, and directional issues.

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

IHS PETRA
Volumetrics

Optimize Hydrocarbon
Potential

Performing volumetric and uid recovery calculations for oil and gas reservoirs has never been
easier, thanks to PETRA Volumetrics. Calculate hydrocarbon pore volumes with a high level of
accuracy; determine oil and gas recoveries and gas & condensate recoveries using a variety of
deterministic models and perform probabilistic Monte Carol simulations to produce cumulative
distribution plots based on your unique inputsall at no additional cost.

Find out more today at www.ihs.com/petravolumetrics

volumetrics-1-page-ad_rev.indd 1

4/14/10 2:10 PM

ADVERTISERS INDEX
Aera Energy ........................................... 33

KUDU Industries .................................... 87

AGR CannSeal ...................................... 21

M-I SWACO .......................................... 75

American Business Conferences ...... 52, 84

MPGE University of Oklahoma ............ 112

AMETEK Drexelbrook ............................. 51

National Oilwell Varco ........................... 77

Aramco Services Co. ........................... 113

Packers Plus ........................................... 59

BJ Services ............................................. 65

Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi ............. 111

Boots & Coots ........................................ 69

Polyguard Products .............................. 105

Cudd Energy Services .............................. 2

R&M Energy Systems .............................. 15

Darcy Techonologies .............................. 63

Red Spider ............................................. 71

Dragon Products, Ltd. ............................ 37

Roper Pump Co. .................................... 19

EXPRO

................................................ 53

Roxar Software Solutions ........................ 70

Fairmount Minerals Santrol ...................... 7

Schlumberger Oilfield Services ..... Cover 2,

....................................... 3, Cover 4

Fekete Associates .......................... Cover 3

Seawell Americas, Inc. ........................... 13
FMC Technologies ................................. 57
SPE.org .................................................. 40
Frac Tech Services, Ltd. .......................... 67
SPT Group ................................ 39, 81, 91
Friedrich Leutert GmbH & Co. KG ....... 105
TAM International .................................. 55
General Electric Co. ................................ 9
Tejas Completion Solutions .................... 83
Halliburton ............................... 11, 17, 25
Tendeka ................................................. 29
Halliburton Easywell ............................... 95
Tesco Corp. ........................................... 49
Halliburton Sperry Drilling ..................... 47
Tomax AS .............................................. 41
Hexion ....................................................23
Weatherford International Ltd. ............ 4, 5
IHS ....................................................... 79
Weatherford Laboratories ...................... 54
Kelkar and Associates, Inc. .................. 105
Wood Group ESP .................................. 44
Kongsberg Oil & Gas Technologies ....... 27
ADVERTISING SALES OFFICES
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Craig W. Moritz SPE
Senior Manager Exhibits and Sales
10777 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1075
Houston, Texas 77042-3455 USA
Tel: +1.713.457.6888 Fax: +1.713.779.4220
Email: cmoritz@spe.org
Michael McManus SPE
Advertising Sales Representative
10777 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1075
Houston, Texas 77042-3455 USA
Tel: +1.713.457.6825 Fax: +1.713.779.4220
Email: mmcmanus@spe.org

80

Myla Dixon SPE (Online Sales)

Sales Development Specialist
10777 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1075
Houston, Texas 77042-3455 USA
Tel: +1.713.457.6826 Fax: +1.713.779.4216
Email: mdixon@spe.org

International Sales Office

Rob Tomblin SPE
Regional Sales, Europe
1st Floor, Threeways House
40/44 Clipstone Street
London W1W 5DW, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7299 3300 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7299 3309
Email: rtomblin@spe.org

Assimilating the information from

more than 90 boreholes can be a difficult task. When wellbore-stability
incidents are displayed in time/depth
plots, it becomes evident that most
problems in the Forties field ocur not
while drilling or making connections
but when pulling out of hole. This
implies that the mudweights selected
for most wells are correct (or nearly
so) and that many events have been
induced by drilling or hole-cleaning practices.
Well Planning
The well plan provides a practical
method to apply geomechanical knowledge to the drilling process. For a proposed trajectory, the well plan identifies potential hazards, estimates drilling
parameters, and recommends practices
to minimize the incidence of wellbore
instability, and it supplies contingencies for zones where failure is unavoidable. Correct mud weight is only one
element of a drilling plan. Operational
procedures also are important.
Formation failures associated with
the rock fabric are responsible for many
well problems. Incorporating knowledge of the rock fabric into the plan
ensures that the correct procedures
are in place to detect these failures and
implement appropriate remedial action
to guarantee effective management of
any wellbore instability.
In the Forties field, the occurrence
of some troublesome geologic features
(e.g., anisotropic layered shales) cannot
be predicted consistently. In the same
fashion, it cannot be predicted if a fault
or stringer along a proposed wellpath
will prove troublesome. The best that
can be done is to highlight the potential
hazards, prepare contingencies, and
watch for early warning signs of a hazard developing.
Conclusions
The knowledge gained during the
course of this project has contributed
to reducing Forties field 2007 nonproductive-time costs by more than 60%
in 2008. In contrast to earlier years, no
BHAs have been lost following implementation of the practices identified.
In the Forties Field, mud-weight
selection is a compromise between hole
collapse and losses. Capturing and classifying drilling events is a key process
in understanding the mechanism and
JPT
causes of wellbore failures.

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

DRILLING MANAGEMENT

Increasing Drilling Efficiencies Through Analysis

of Real-Time and Historic Drilling Data
Estimated spending on drilling and
completions was more than USD 250
billion in 2008. With rig costs estimated to consume 37% (or USD 92.5
billion) of that spending, every effort
to reduce drilling time has a direct
effect on the bottom line. Estimates
of nonproductive time (NPT) ran from
15 to 40%, or USD 14 to 37 billion,
depending on well type and operator.
The causes were varied and included technical and nontechnical challenges. Obviously, any effort made
to reduce NPT will affect bottomline spending.

Introduction
The oil and gas industry spends millions of dollars each year collecting
vast amounts of drilling data, yet
has not made effective use of these
data to improve drilling performance.
Drilling analysis is a proven technique
for improving the return on investment of drilling operations, but comprehensive drilling analysis has not
been a regular part of well planning
and operations.
So why is it that comprehensive
drilling analysis is not a consistent
part of drilling best practices? In part,
perhaps, because of the culture. One
author suggested that 95% of drilling
activities are operationally focused,
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper SPE 128722,
Increasing Drilling Efficiencies Through
Improved Collaboration and Analysis
of Real-Time and Historical Drilling
Data, by Catheryn Staveley, SPE,
and Paul Thow, SPE, Schlumberger,
originally prepared for the 2010 SPE
Intelligent Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
2325 March. The paper has not been
peer reviewed.

placing emphasis on doing, rather

than planning or analyzing. Many
people in drilling operations thrive
on operating by gut instincts and
succeeding through heroic efforts.
While experience dealing with unexpected events is crucial for success in
an environment where uncertainty
exists, surely it would make more
sense to be taking pride in telling stories about the well where everything
went according to plan. Furthermore,
while most companies have health,
safety, and environmental policies
that are zero-tolerance, an acceptance of waste and inefficiency as
being inevitable in drilling operations
continues. It is difficult to imagine
another industry that would accept
60% waste when it is widely known
that something as simple as better
planning can improve drilling results.
Two other key obstacles to integrated drilling analysis are the inability
to manage the volumes of data that
potentially could be used in drilling
analysis and the historical limitations
of traditional well-planning software.
The vision for integrated drilling analysis includes the ability to:
Visualize and correlate low- and
high-density data.
Allow effective sharing of crossdiscipline expertise.
Provide continuous real-time updates.
This integrated approach includes
technologies to overcome data-management challenges and well-planning
limitations, and to implement multidisciplinary work flows to help facilitate planning and analysis across an
asset team.

This data selection and quality control is one of the most difficult stages
in drilling analysis. Simply increasing the amount of data often means
nothing more than adding irrelevant
noise. Large amounts of data are
availablea situation that likely will
increase as new technologies, such as
wired drillpipe, become adopted more
widely. However, determining which
data are relevant is not a simple task,
which often leads to a trial-and-error
approach to data selection.
Building an effective data set from
the wide variety of available data
sources is both time consuming and
frustrating. Data exist in multiple
formats and from multiple vendors,
such as rig contractors, mud loggers,
measurement while drilling (MWD)/
logging while drilling (LWD), wireline, and others. Data quality, particularly with manually reported data,
is often an issue. There is a natural
tendency to want to avoid reporting negative news, and values tend
to be either a quick glance at a dial
or, worse yet, hand-picked to match
planned values.
Often data must be retrieved from
storage facilities, and may exist only
on paper or outdated media, such as
51/4-in. floppy disks, which may be
difficult to read using todays technology. Daily operations reports, end-ofwell reports, and various other vendor
reports must be sifted through manually to generate a digest or synopsis.
This process can take several weeks or
even months and generally is finished
when time runs out, rather than when
a satisfactory level of knowledge has
been achieved.

Data Problem
The first step is defining and scoping the drilling project, followed by
data selection and quality control.

Limitation of Tools
The majority of the drilling software
tools available focus on planning a
single well. Existing tools rely on

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
82

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

import of geological data, often without direct liaison with the owners
of this information. This means that
many decisions are made using outof-date information or data that are
out of context from original analysis.
Other petroleum-engineering software tools, such as production analysis and reservoir simulators, typically
focus on multiple wells, combining
historical and current data, simulation, and analysis.
In implementing a drilling-analysis
solution, it was determined that one
of the challenges was that of effective
integration of the various types of
drilling data: low-density data, such
as daily drilling reports and bottomhole-assembly (BHA)-run summaries;
high-density data, such as real-time
drilling data and wireline logs; and
information from other disciplines,
such as geology and geomechanics.
Drilling-analysis implementations
often tend to be focused on just one
form of this wide knowledge base, and
are not oriented toward automatically
maintaining these data through realtime updates. Furthermore, many organizations have not yet adopted technologies with these real-time capabilities.
Overview of an Integrated
Approach to Drilling Analysis
Seeking to address what was felt to be
a gap in the drilling-analysis process,
types of functionality were defined.
Some examples include:
Correlation and calculation of
drilling and geomechanical properties
such as mechanical specific energy
(MSE) and rock strength
BHA- and bit-performance correlation
Earth-model integration
Histogram drilling parameters,
including distribution curve functions
Ability to record and play back a
set of work-flow steps
Filtering of data by depth and
other log values
Ability to implement additional
displays, calculations, and domain
objects
Real-time integration of data
In addition, it was determined that
key visual displays needed to include:
Well-section correlation
3D views
Crossplots
Histograms
Composite plots.

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010

Enabling the results in real time

is considered to be highly valuable
because it would provide the capability to develop and monitor key performance indicators, such as current rateof-penetration (ROP) performance as
a function of ROP distribution. Realtime functionality also would allow
optimizing well placement within the
reservoir (geosteering), improving the
accuracy of the Earth model, and
optimizing drilling as it is occurring.
Typically, analysis of real-time data
takes place using an integrated multidisciplinary approach, and this led to
examination of use of Earth-modeling
software to achieve project objectives.
Geoscientists have long used, in
modeling reservoirs, many of the
techniques that the project sought to
apply to drilling analysis. Although
these tools lacked specific drillingdomain data, it was possible to incorporate these data, either through use
of open software development platforms or by compromising on the way
in which the data were incorporated.
For example, the project team has
been able to extract the daily summary from the drilling report and
incorporate it as a series of comments,
and they were able to completely
integrate drilling events and risks as
custom objects. Moreover, by using
the same set of tools for multiple
disciplines, the team has been able to
expand the available knowledge to all
disciplines involved in the field-development process. Additionally, by taking an Earth-model-based approach,
the team found that they were able
to provide much better predictive
capabilities, through the ability of the
software to help the team see beyond
the bit.
Implementing an Integrated-Drilling-Analysis Approach Creating the
Knowledge Base. The first step in
implementing the drilling-analysis
system is to create a drilling knowledge base. The drilling knowledge
base is used for historical drilling data
collected on a rig, such as surface
parameter data and MWD/LWD data.
Other data, such as outputs from realtime viewing software, wireline logs,
bit records, BHAs, drilling risks and
events, best practices, lessons learned,
and any other information valuable
to drillers, are loaded into the drilling
knowledge base.

83

Well Planning. After the drilling

knowledge base is populated for
the project, it can be displayed with
respect to other wells in a field and
correlated by time, depth, and formation, in both 2D and 3D displays,
which is unique from a drilling perspective. By combining these data as
described, detailed offset-well analysis
can be performed and used for future
well planning. Numerous calculations
can be performed such as unconfined compressive strength, MSE,
and unlimited crossplots, graphs, and
charts. ROP estimations can be calculated on the basis of offset wells, and
optimal operating parameters, such as
bits and BHAs, can be identified and
uncertainty can be reduced dramatically. New wells can be planned on the
basis of data from the closest or most
pertinent offset wells. Users can create
a stick diagram with all of their vendor
programs incorporated, along with
casing best practices for particular

formations or hole sizes, and display it

next to their best offsets for reference.
This can be used as a reference tool for
the well being planned.
Real-Time Capabilities. The value
of real-time data within the drilling
knowledge base is the ability to relate
what is being seen in real time with
patterns and events from the past. This
comparison can help make decisions
that could potentially cost or save millions of dollars. Real-time capabilities
also can provide a robust collaboration
tool where the office and rig simultaneously view all the past and current
drilling data within the context of the
Earth model by use of a web-hosted
application. Current parameters can
be displayed next to offsets along with
any other data relevant in a single
workspace as a collaboration tool for
morning calls or meetings. This is
an extremely effective tool because it
is updated automatically in real time

Benchmarking Best Practice

For Guaranteeing Safe Drilling
& Well Control

and requires minimal manipulation on

the part of the drilling engineers, thus
making them much more efficient.
This process can enhance morning
calls to rigs and enable drilling engineers to make better decisions for the
days drilling program.
Conclusions
Pilot projects have shown multiple
applications where this integrateddrilling-analysis approach facilitated
the drilling-optimization workflow and
the integration of more information
while reducing worker efforts. Worker
efforts are reduced by having all the
drilling data organized in one location
and correlated by well, formation, and
depth and in two or three dimensions;
by enabling engineers to plan around
drilling events by referencing the historical data quickly and easily; and by
the ability to mitigate risks in real time,
enhanced by referencing the drilling
knowledge base.
JPT

American Business Conferences

Presents Deepwater Operators
Including:
Francois Rodot
VP Operations
TOTAL E&P USA

October 26-27 2010. Hyatt Regency Houston, Texas, USA

Achieve Well Control & Contingency Planning

Excellence For Optimal & Reliable

Fernando Ruiz
Drilling/Completion
Engineering Manager
REPSOL BRAZIL

Risk Assessment & Management

Throughout The Deepwater Drilling Industry
International Regulatory, HSE & Drilling Experts To Speak:
6 REASONS TO ATTEND:
I Hear Potential Regulatory Changes To Deepwater Equipment,

Save $200

Register & Pay

before Sept 24

Personnel & Procedures

I Review The Latest Well Control Technologies, Cementing Integrity, Casing Design &
Magda Chambriard
Director
NATIONAL PETROLEUM
AGENGY BRAZIL

Luciano Scataglini
Safety Manager
Upstream
ENI

Ashootosh Garg
Drilling
Superintendent
RELIANCE

Global Deepwater Regions To Be Present:

Subsea Equipment
I Network With Senior Drilling, HSE & Well Engineering Experts From The International

Deepwater Drilling Industry To Advance The Safety Agenda

I Learn Processes & Tools For Successful Risk Management & Contingency Planning In

Deepwater Operations
I Hear Best Practice For Testing & Inspection Of Well Control Equipment & The BOP
I Hear How Leading Operators Are Developing Personnel Competencies To Manage The

Human Factor In Operational Risk

Register Now! Visit www.global-deepwater-drilling-risk-management.com

Call: 1-800-721-3915 Fax: 1-800-714-1359 Email: info@american-business-conferences.com

84

JPT SEPTEMBER 2010