Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The methodological pyramid provides a practical structure to bulars, the drilling engineer must know and handle the casing-
embody the knowledge of actual drilling specialties (Bourgoyne expansion methods, representing the “know-what,” the “know-
et al. 1986). Fig. 3 shows its application for two cases, drilling how,” and the “know-when” (de Hoog 1998), to achieve specific
hydraulics and casing design. As shown, each one has its world- goals (e.g., how to expand a solid tubular for specific wellbore
view, theories, methods, and tools, whose use dictates further im- conditions; what would be the final casing properties after expan-
provements. Therefore, this paper considers that such a method- sion; or when to initiate such an expansion). These systematic
ological approach can provide a convenient manner to structure procedures require specialized tools.
current knowledge, tools, and systems for the analysis of drilling
data within the field of drilling analysis. The Tools. These are those manual or computerized systems for
An example from a drilling specialty (casing design, as shown casing design. Some can be very simple, where the results show
in Fig. 3) will illustrate these concepts as follows. the simulation of a few variables for practical and quick verifica-
tion (e.g., practical charts, spread sheets). Others, on the other
The Worldview. This represents the goals and principles of a hand, can be extremely complicated or time-consuming [e.g., finite
methodology. Casing design has well-known (Bourgoyne et al. element (FE) software] and are used only for research. In between,
1986) and established objectives, which, in essence, are fixed. there are tools that provide other means for planning and drilling
Conversely, casing-design principles are evolving. An example is (e.g., casing-design software). In any case, the amount and quality
the solid-expandable-tubular technology, needed for accessing and of the available field data will dictate the quality of the results,
producing complex reservoirs and drilling environments. This which have implications over the decision-making process while
technology can change future well designs (Pallanich 2002) based planning or drilling.
on new or modified principles for designing, running, and install-
ing these tubulars, which requires the development of new theories The Use of Tools. This facilitates drilling engineers’ tasks (casing
for such applications (Pallanich 2002). design). As more experts use the tools, their range of application
will be tested and validated. This process provides the means to
The Theories. These, for casing design (Bourgoyne et al. 1986), set up standards that feed further improvements. For example,
are the core of knowledge of this subject. This knowledge com- the functional and material specifications of solid-expandable tu-
prises an extensive set of theories and terminology within its do- bulars cause us to rethink or to redevelop all conventional assump-
main of study. It is the result of understanding physical phenom- tions for using existing casing-design programs, methods, theories,
ena. If the principles of casing design do not change over time, any and practices.
new theory or concept is an improvement. Conversely, the
principles for solid-expandable-tubular technology (Pallanich Drilling Analysis . . . A Methodology?
2002) require understanding of the mechanisms of plastic defor-
When drilling analysis is seen as a new expertise, and as part of the
mation in casings that will rule the know-how for devising new
drilling-engineering knowledge, reviewing some of the published
practices and methods.
works discloses interesting aspects. Some papers treat this subject
directly (Adeleye et al. 2004; Millheim et al. 1998; Iyoho et al.
The Methods. These represent those systematic procedures that
2004), whereas others may not sound related (Bond et al. 1998;
make the developed theories operational. For solid-expandable tu-
Brett and Millheim 1986; Perrin et al. 1997; Oag and Williams
2000; Kravis et al. 2002; Peterson et al. 1995; Aldred et al. 1999).
The majority refer to methods or methodologies indistinctly, spe-
cifically developed to undertake the tasks for the analysis of his-
torical drilling data. In other cases (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski
et al. 2002; Womer et al. 2003), the analysis is performed by other
means and objectives. In this context, it seems that current inde-
pendent efforts for the analysis of drilling data can fit within the
layers of the methodological pyramid (Fig. 2).
The following subsections will present how such papers were
allocated in Fig. 2, starting from the base of the methodology “use
of tools,” in a progressive feedback following the arrows upward.
For each layer, the reviewed papers are depicted briefly to contrast
the different approaches, where necessary. By this process, it is
believed that the actual scenario for drilling analysis can be de-
picted. For clarity, the drilling-analysis methodology is presented
in Fig. 4 in conjunction with the other drilling specialties already
presented in Fig. 3.
The topics that embody the drilling-analysis methodology are
discussed as follows.
Fig. 2—The methodological pyramid (de Hoog 1998) represents The Use of Tools in Drilling Analysis. Drilling engineers use
the elements that constitute most methodologies. current analysis tools on the basis of available well information
and data. By using such tools, the analysis of daily reports, cor- In addition, the workshop highlighted the fact that decision makers
porate databases, or time/depth data provides the means to set up can add their own observations to the process if they are on site.
standards that feed the requirements for further improvements or Otherwise, they must rely on the data as they come. In this sense,
adaptations. This section then addresses research that reflects two it was suggested that a quality-assurance system should be put in
separate analyses of drilling data: (1) historical drilling data and place to take into account accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility,
(2) real-time drilling data. and traceability of the measurements. Another important aspect
Historical-Drilling Data. Millheim et al. (1998) presented an was the need to re-examine the basic definition of data. From the
analysis of what they called “the data dilemma.” It was recognized case studies presented in the workshop (Womer et al. 2003), drill-
that drilling data revolve around their use (i.e., for a use that adds ing data are used as follows:
value within organizations) when the data are analyzed. This work 1. Optimize position of well path in real time (geosteering).
(Millheim et al. 1998), as well as others (Bond et al. 1998; Adeleye 2. Improve the accuracy of the Earth model, or update the
et al. 2004; Iyoho et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 1995) uses historical geological model in real time.
drilling data from corporate digital drilling databases. In this sense, 3. Optimize drilling in real time.
the analysis of historical drilling data aims to detect those drill- 4. Secure data transmission and monitoring.
ing events that can compromise overall drilling performance in
future wells. Two important highlights were addressed by Mill- The Tools for Drilling Analysis. Computational or measurement
heim et al. (1998): tools support drilling-analysis activities based on the needs for
1. Companies and drilling organizations collect drilling data using well/field data. One use is to assist in the analysis of his-
without questioning its quality and without a clear picture of what torical drilling data (Bond et al. 1998; Adeleye et al. 2004; Mill-
their data needs are. heim et al. 1998; Iyoho et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 1995), and the
2. Drilling data are not collected with the thought that they can second use is for solving the needs of real-time decision making
be analyzed later and for specific purposes. (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski et al. 2002; Womer et al. 2003). In
Real-Time Drilling Data. A recent SPE workshop (Womer et the first case, specific software has been developed (Irrgang et al.
al. 2003) addressed the issue of how to use well/field data. The 2002) or used (Behm and Brett 2004; Peterson et al. 1995). These
need for standards was emphasized, principally to ensure the qual- engineering packages are being used for post-drilling analysis.
ity of well/field data for their use in the decision-making process. Conversely, the analysis of real-time data is achieved mainly by
333
multidisciplinary integrated teams within workflows in opera- mum drilling time for a specific well section. This PW time is not
tional/visualization centers (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski et al. based on the “best observed,” the “P90,” or the “technical limit”
2002; Womer et al. 2003). These high-level operational centers time. The calculated perfect time is then divided by the actual
integrate existing simulators, practical charts, or logs to analyze drilling time to determine a dimensionless parameter called the
drilling data, specifically for data monitoring and data manage- PW ratio. This PW ratio is used for comparison of wells in dif-
ment from Earth-model databases. ferent conditions to a common benchmark.
Most efforts in developing drilling tools or systems are being Specific-Performance Methods. These comprise those meth-
focused on solving problems while drilling (Hood et al. 2001). ods for evaluating the performance of specific drilling processes or
Such tools allow registering more data that possibly can be ana- tools. The analysis of drilling data is based on performance indices
lyzed at a later stage. As stated by Millheim et al. (1998), “more that account for several parameters specific to the process under
data does not mean data can be analyzed;” nor does it mean that a evaluation. By this means, developers of these methods also are
meaningful database can be used for building relations and corre- introducing new terminology. Some examples are presented here:
lations because the problem is the quality of data, which varies 1. The drilling index (Perrin et al. 1997) is a method for bit-
greatly. The focus (Womer et al. 2003) moves to issues concerning performance evaluation. It is based on estimating four dimension-
data transmissions to and from systems for ensuring data security less parameters. They comprise the bit’s performance, behavior,
or confidentiality protocols. On the drilling side, the need for more responsiveness, and steerability, all in terms of operational indi-
work was recognized (Womer et al. 2003), specifically for acquir- cators dictated by the well profile and drilling program. Fifteen
ing/processing drilling data. Topics of interest include sensor de- steps are necessary to determine the bit’s drilling index. This num-
sign, calibration, or output processing. As observed, the needs for ber is then compared with the benchmark bit, whose drilling index
using well/field data, which can orient efforts on tool/software
is set as one. The method relies on techniques for estimating
development, goes either into the computer-science area (e.g., vir-
rock-mechanical properties and formation types, as well as infor-
tual networks, data encryption, data display) or into the hardware
mation from offset bits and the benchmark bit. It also defines
topics for acquiring and processing large amounts of data. This
the bit economic index on the basis of the bit cost and the bit
perhaps highlights the relatively small effort applied to post-
drilling analysis (2 to 4%) (Millheim et al. 1998). drilling index.
2. The design index (O’Hare and Aigbekaen 2000) is a system-
The Methods for Drilling Analysis. The analysis methods rep- atic approach to select polycrystalline-dimond-compact (PDC) bits
resent those techniques that comprise the know-how, the know- for a given set of well conditions. The selection is based on the bit
when, or know-what of a methodology. These methods make the that provides the closest match to the attributes of an ideal bit
developed theories operational. Because actual methods analyze design for the hole section under analysis. The method uses for-
drilling data on the basis of the process or purpose, they have been mation parameters such as porosity, sonic travel time, and others to
structured as cost- and time-performance methods, specific- calculate formation strength. The characteristics of the ideal bit
performance methods, and qualitative-performance methods. (e.g., PDC-bit cutter size and number) are determined by some
Cost- and Time-Performance Methods. These are methods for previous calculations such as the profile index, which gives the
evaluating the drilling process as a whole. Their goal is to provide directional responsiveness of the PDC bit. The attributes of the
a means for optimizing drilling time and, thus, reducing overall ideal and vendor bit are then introduced into a mathematical ex-
well-construction costs. Some examples are presented here: pression that normalizes all proposed bits. Once all proposed bits
1. The drilling-performance curve (Brett and Millheim 1986) is are ranked by the design index, the performance index and the
a method adapted from an existing approach called learning-curve economical index are then used for the final bit selection.
theory. This theory has been used previously in the manufacturing 3. The directional-difficulty index (Oag and Williams 2000) is
industry. It contrasts the classical drilling method of plotting a process to evaluate the relative difficulty to be encountered in
(depth vs. days) for drilling operations. Instead, the method plots drilling a directional well. It is based on a set of drilling parameters
normalized historical drilling data from a consecutive series of that characterize the directional-drilling difficulty. It was devel-
similar wells that have been drilled in an area. By this means, a oped by use of a questionnaire that permitted identifying key per-
mathematical relationship is used to correlate the normalized data. formance measures. Drilling data were analyzed by use of statis-
The coefficients of the model permit the measurement of difficulty tical methods. The index was developed to help a user evaluate the
to drill, learning capacity, and level of performance. The drilling- same process on a group of wells of similar complexity as a mea-
performance curve (Brett and Millheim 1986) has been applied sure of the learning-curve improvements. As a result, it provides a
and used to analyze several drilling cases (Brett and Millheim measure of performance in this process.
1986; Adeleye et al. 2004; Millheim et al. 1998). Qualitative-Performance Methods. These methods are those
2. The technical limit is a systematic process “to describe a approaches that look for a means to integrate the analysis of dif-
level of performance defined as the best possible, for a given set of ferent subjects. The integrated analysis is developed and imple-
parameters” (Bond et al. 1998). The core of the method relies on mented for benchmarking or for providing risk assessment. Some
structuring a theoretical well, which assumes a perfect operation examples are presented here:
based on current knowledge and technology. The theoretical well 1. The well quality (Kravis et al. 2002) is an approach that
is divided into activities and subactivities whose duration is deter- looks for integrating aspects such as formation damage, drilling
mined by experts with a high level of drilling/completion knowl- interactions, and hole rugosity. The method is embodied within a
edge. Such an expertise has the purpose of quantifying what the computer program for estimating expected well-quality metrics,
method called the “removable time” (Bond et al. 1998). By this mainly related to drilling/production conditions, potential risks,
process, a series of goals are set to achieve the technical limit when and attributes that can affect the quality of the well. By using well
drilling the next well. data and stored drilling experiences, probabilistic networks and
3. The best composite time (Iyoho et al. 2004) is a statistics- expert knowledge are combined to predict the well-quality metrics.
based approach that breaks the drilling process into discrete chro- These metrics support the decision for setting drilling parameters
nological activities such as rig up, make up bit, run in hole, and and practices to ensure the desired level of quality.
drill a hole section, among others. From comparable well data, the 2. The causation model (Aldred et al. 1999) is an approach to
method seeks to identify the best time recorded and the well that evaluate the causes that result in an event becoming a loss. It
caused the best time for each activity. All best times are then combines risk-management theory and cause/event analysis. The
summed up. This best composite time is representative of what is method looks for means to understand how the inadequacies of the
“challengingly achievable.” system, personal factors, and substandard practices contribute to
4. The perfect-well (PW) analysis (Behm and Brett 2004) is an causing an event to become a loss, and it looks for the decision
approach based on the criterion of specific energy for calculating time involved for such a loss to occur. This approach divides the
the minimum time named the PW time, which represents the mini- analysis in terms of the decision time, which consists of five