IADC/SPE 87102

Specialized Rig-Crew Training Produces Results for New Technology Drilling Rigs
Richard A. Plageman, Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Scott A. Milliren Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling Co., J.D. Blackman, Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

on-the-job (OJT) experience gained during rig construction,
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, the crews acquire an intimate knowledge of their rig. As part
Texas, U.S.A., 2–4 March 2004.
of the overall construction plan, the rig crewmen were not
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
hired until the rig was complete, resulting in men who knew
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling very little of their rig before they were tasked to drill for a
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International customer. This lack of skills plus the new equipment
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
associated with the technology and the volume of rigs being
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of built caused concern in the company’s leadership as to
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling whether there would be enough skilled crewmen to safely and
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print effectively operate all these rigs. Therefore, the company
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was decided to invest in a training program to ensure that the
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435. people who operate these rigs will have the necessary skills to
excel from start-up.
The size of this program was very large in terms of
Abstract
financial investment, number of attendees and briskness of
This paper describes a successful training program that
pace. Seven hundred people would eventually attend the
bridged the gap between machine capabilities and human
training. The company invested $2.5 million in the training
skills. The program was conducted in support of a land-
program and made available another $2.5 million in assets for
drilling rig construction project utilizing leading edge
hands-on exercises of critical procedures. Rig crews were
technology in rig components and manufacturing techniques.
trained in eight-day cycles that occurred every two weeks for
The targeted training was designed to accelerate the learning
the first twenty-five rigs.
curve and provide the rig crews a foundation of skills and
Quality training programs follow a process that
knowledge that allowed them to excel beyond the company
begins with a needs assessment. Once the upfront analysis is
and industry expectations. The curriculum was developed in
complete, the next step is to develop the program and then
part from organizational learnings taken from previous new-
deliver the instruction. The final part of a training program is
build programs and from equipment manufacturers’
to evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction.
recommendations and expertise.
The combined effect of focused training,
Needs Assessment
organizational learning, and leading edge technology has lead
The goal of a needs assessment is to identify the desired
to superior performance in the field. To date, the Total
performance, the current status of performance and then, if
Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) is 76% lower than
valid, to pinpoint the training needs. According to Robert
comparable, in-house, new-build programs. Likewise,
Majer1, this is a three-step process: 1) Analyze goals, 2)
turnover is 70% lower than the past projects. Out of 169 wells
Analyze performance, and 3) Analyze tasks.
drilled by these new rigs, 70% of all wells are below and 6%
are on target with the customer’s estimated drilling time.
Project Goals. The company leadership set high expectations
for the overall project in order to improve value for the
Introduction
company’s customers. The first goal was to reduce safety and
A drilling company embarked on a major new-rig build
environmental incidents. This was to be achieved by using
program that consisted of thirty-two highly advanced, land
“safety by design” techniques and developing new ideas to
drilling rigs. These FlexRigsTM incorporated leading edge
eliminate known hazards.
technology never utilized on land drilling rigs. Because the
The second goal was to improve productivity in
company built such a large number of units, lean
reducing the customers’ total well cost and well cycle time.
manufacturing techniques were employed to take advantage of
To meet this goal, one important factor the company focused
the economy of scale and produce the rigs more
on was to maximize crew retention by making the rig
cost effectively.
crewmen’s jobs more attractive. By reducing the likelihood of
Traditionally, the rig crews are hired before the rig is
injury, reducing the amount of drudgery, and giving the crews
built and they provide the bulk of construction labor. Through
exposure to cutting-edge technology, the company believed
2 SPE/IADC 87102
that people would be more likely to stay employed long-term.
This will result in better crew integrity and ultimately
improve productivity.
Another way the company wanted to improve
productivity was to capture and use organizational learnings.
The construction team established regular forums with field
leadership so that best practices would be integrated into the
new rig design. Other means for implementing lessons
learned came from the HSE management system, the Rig
Asset Management System (RAMSTM), other training
programs and the use of the company’s Wide Area Network to
share organizational learnings. The company took this wealth
of knowledge and used it to apply new ideas in design
and technology.
The last goal was to build the right rig at the best
value. To accomplish this, the company implemented Lean
Manufacturing techniques to take advantage of the economy
of scale in building thirty-two identical rigs. This meant that
rig crews would not be part of the construction effort and
would meet their rig for the first time during mobilization to
the first well site.
Performance Analysis. Majer1 describes a performance
analysis as a tool to use to find out the differences between
what people should be doing and what they are doing. Then a
decision can be made as to whether instruction or some other
action is needed to correct the problems. An analysis of a
previous new rig build program uncovered situations where
training would have helped. Some examples include damage
to equipment and excess downtime because the crews did not
know proper operating procedures; excess drilling times
because drillers did not understand the optimum techniques in
operating the advanced rig control systems, and higher than
expected turnover due to frustration with the rig and new team
members. All three of these examples could have been
prevented if the teams knew how to operate and care for the
equipment and if they had been given the opportunity to build
a team foundation before going to the rig site.
In the new project, the potential for similar events
was very high. The volume of rigs, volume of people and the
extent of new technology created a high risk that the rig teams
would not be able to meet the project goals. Relying on
“OJT” would not create successful start-ups and could
ultimately cost the company millions of dollars in lost
revenue, maintenance repairs and a battered reputation.
Therefore the company leadership decided that a formal
training program was needed.
Task Analysis. The last step in the needs analysis is to
pinpoint what should be taught. Majer points out that the task
analysis will “reveal the components of competent
performance in a step-by-step look at how competent people
perform a task2.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to
describe the elements of the all the tasks in the analysis.
However, it is appropriate to discuss the categories of tasks in
terms of skill sets useful to the rig crews in order to meet the
project goals.
The first project goal was to reduce safety and
environmental incidents. To accomplish this the newly
formed rig teams had to follow the company’s established
safety processes. Major tasks included performing STOP
observations, writing Job Safety Analyses, performing and/or
participating in a Lock Out/Tag Out process, performing a
Dropped Object Inspection, attaching lacing wire to bolt
heads, and hoisting personnel.
The second project goal was to reduce the total well
cost and cycle time. This is accomplished by ensuring the rig
equipment is available to operate when needed and the crews
know how to use it. Operation and maintenance skills of the
following systems would be critical in meeting the second
goal: Varco Automated Drawworks System (ADS-20SD),
Varco Integrated Control and Information System with
Electronic Driller (VICIS-eD), the Variable Frequency Drives
(VFD) and AC motors, Varco TDS-11HP, power generation
system, hydraulics system, air system, solids control system,
and the Varco ST-80 “mechanized tongs”.
The last skill set also supports the second project
goal. The rig crews were created out of a pool of existing
employees and newly hired personnel. The teams were
assembled for each rig and needed to go through the forming
and storming phases of the Team Growth3 cycle in order to set
themselves up for optimum performance at the rig site. The
key skills included effective communication, trust, planning,
and shared leadership.
Program Development
Once the project’s goals were understood, the need for
training was established and the skills to teach were identified,
the next step was to develop the program. Just like it did in rig
design, the company decided to leverage organizational
learnings to create the training program. Training was a main
topic at the regular forums held with field leadership.
Curriculum, costs and logistics were all discussed and agreed
upon by several layers of management. This approach
fostered an atmosphere of open communication, which led to
strong leadership support.
Target Population Analysis. Before the details of how to
implement the training program are fully developed, trainers
must analyze the characteristics of the attendees. There are six
categories of information that will paint an accurate picture of
who will be trained: Interests, Prior Training, Personal
Benefit to Learning, Attitudes and Biases, Physical
Characteristics and Cultural Characteristics4. By describing
the audience in these terms, the curriculum can be tailored
with examples, methods and amount of material to best fit the
audience and increase the amount of retention. The people
who were to attend the rig training have specific
characteristics as listed below.
1. Interests: Rig crewmen are generally outdoors-
type people. Some of their hobbies include hunting and
fishing. Many of these people work on cars and build homes.
“Quiet time” is not a top priority.
2. Prior Training: Most of these people will have
attended safety training tailored to rig work and some will
have had formal training on drilling processes. Many will also
have experience with earlier versions of the equipment.
3. Personal Benefit to Learning: Most of the people
will see the training as necessary to be able to effectively
SPE/IADC 87102
operate the new rigs. Some will perceive the training as a
negative consequence for being put on the new rig.
4. Attitudes and Biases: Because of the high
technology and fear of not being able to work the equipment
properly, many of the learners will be open to learning the
new skills. Some will attend because they have to and will not
be fully engaged. The learners will not have a strong bias to
classroom style lecture and must have activity to keep
them engaged.
5. Physical Characteristics: Almost the entire class
will be male. The job-roles they fill are physical in nature.
6. Cultural Characteristics: There will be a
combination of English and Spanish speaking individuals.
The majority of people will be able to speak and read English.
There will be a mix of newly hired personnel and employees
with company experience.
There are several key results from this analysis.
First, the attendees will respond best to “hands-on” activities
that will allow them time to practice the skills. Second, the
training must not be a repeat of past experiences; but, must
address the company-culture issues associated with newly
hired employees. All the topics covered should build off the
learners’ current skills with equipment and HSE. Third, the
physical characteristics of the class dictate that long lectures
will not be received well. To provide variety, the program
should use a combination of lectures, small group activities,
and hands-on practice.
Vision and Scope. With the analyses complete, the training
team set the vision and scope for the program. The
FlexRig3TM training program was designed to provide a
practical, start-up training program that:
1. Teaches hands-on rig skills.
2. Is a quality, professional and organized
training effort.
3. Is adaptable to changes in operational needs.
4. Is relevant.
5. Is supported by leadership.
6. Helps eliminate recurring problems through
organizational learning.
This program utilized actual rigs in the fabrication
mode as well as rig components displayed in a dedicated
training facility. The instructors came from within the
company’s operations and included the rig-level leadership.
The training curriculum focused on HSE instruction combined
with technical and operational topics. This foundation was
then enhanced by the introduction of people skills. The goal
in mind was to provide the crews with the “tools” required to
work successfully as a team.
Curriculum. We designed the curriculum to meet the basic
skill needs of the rig crewmen as defined in the task analysis.
Table 1 is a matrix of course titles. The courses are grouped
by the three broad areas of HSE, technical and people skills
and pinpoint the requirements for each position. The training
team enlisted help from many sources within and outside the
company. The HSE classes were created using the material
from the company’s land, offshore and international
operations. HSE professionals and field leaders alike
contributed their lessons learned and teaching tools. The
3
company enlisted the help of a third party training vendor that
specializes in experiential learning to design and deliver the
teambuilding classes. The company, in concert with the
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), designed the
equipment operation and maintenance classes. The OEMs
provided invaluable assistance in creating the equipment
related courses. Their involvement ranged from consulting on
course design to full course construction and teaching.
Alberto Ramirez and Dharmesh Prasad state that
“Trainees are motivated to (learn new skills) when (1) they are
confident about using the skills, (2) perceive job-performance
improvement will likely occur as a result of use of the new
skills, and (3) believe that the knowledge and skills
emphasized will help solve work-related problems.”5
Therefore the classes were created from the perspective of the
learner and the course objectives bear that out. Those learning
objectives are detailed in Appendix 1. To further establish the
link between training and work, each course was designed
with as much “hands-on” instruction as possible. Actual rig
components were staged in the training center to allow
unfettered access during class. Major pieces of equipment
included an ADS, an TDS-11HP with pipe handler and
traveling block, an VFD house, an Engine/Generator set, dual
air compressors and solids control equipment. These pieces
were extremely useful in the practical experience of operation
and care of the equipment. For the “hands-on” safety skills
training, the company built a fully functioning personnel
hoisting skid, rigged up floor tools, and created a mock-up of
the rig’s lock out/tag out system.
Program Delivery
The FlexRigTM3 training program was conducted in a
dedicated facility in a Greens Port, Houston warehouse that
was located near the rig assembly facility. All pieces of
equipment were rigged up, permanently, until fabrication on
the last rig. Then the rig components were put into service.
The rig crews attended between ten and four days of
training based on their position (refer to Table 1). Rig
Managers, Tourpushers, Drillers and Assistant Drillers
attended ten days of training. Derrickmen and Motormen
attended eight days and Floormen attended four days. Since
Floormen account for over 65% of all company turnovers, the
purpose of the “tiered” training system was to maintain a cost-
effective program. The logical course of action was to teach
the experienced, long-term employees who then would teach
and coach the new employees on the proper skills. If the new
Floormen were to leave the company, the lost investment is
not as great as if they attended all eight days.
The first twenty-five rigs were to be built at a pace of
one complete rig every fourteen days. This meant that two
complete rig crews had to be trained every month. The crews
began their training cycle as close to the rig’s mobilization as
possible. Daily class consisted of a combination of lecture,
small group instruction, and hands-on practice with the
equipment. The first two days for the Rig Managers and
Drillers were conducted off-site at an OEM facility in Cedar
Park, TX. The Derrickmen and Motormen joined the rig
leadership in Houston for the next four days, which were
dedicated to the maintenance and operation of the rig
equipment. Day five in Houston was a teambuilding day and
4 SPE/IADC 87102
marked the first day that the full crews worked together. The
teambuilding event used experiential learning techniques to
help the rig teams develop the people skills necessary to get
through the forming and storming phases. The last three days
were dedicated to HSE skills training and maintenance tasks.
In the last three days the instructors coached the rig leadership
to help set the standards of conduct for the team.
Unique to this training event was the crew’s access to
the full drilling rig. At the end of each training day, the crews
went to the rig-up yard for more hands-on learning. The Rig
Managers were given a copy of the rig procedures at the
beginning of the program and some expectations on what tasks
they should focus their crews’ attention at the rig-up yard.
Examples include rig-up procedures, string-up procedures,
BOP handling procedures, bringing generators online and
working with the VICIS-eD system. The Rig Managers
directed the learning process in the yard and each morning the
instructors facilitated a discussion on what the crews learned
the previous evening.
Organizational Learning. As the rigs went to work for
customers, best practices began to emerge. The company’s
leadership reinstated the forum approach to sharing those
lessons. The instructors attended each forum and incorporated
all new lessons learned into the course content. Likewise, if
an incident occurred, the company’s management system
ensured that the instructors were included in the
dissemination. Therefore, they would share the incidents with
the incoming class and discuss lessons learned. The company
leadership’s support was instrumental in ensuring the training
program was always up-to-date.
Training Evaluation
An organization invests resources into a training program this
large expecting to gain a return larger than the investment.
The return from training ultimately manifests itself in bottom-
line financial gains that are difficult to measure exactly. There
are many studies and best practices available for trainers to
structure their evaluation programs. As Kurt Kraiger and
David Peterson state, “Evaluation is primarily about making a
credible case to support important business priorities.”6 The
intent of evaluating this training program is to show that (1)
the learners have gained the necessary skills to perform their
jobs, (2) that they will use these skills and (3) that through the
use of these skills, the company performs better. The difficult
part is to balance the need to accurately evaluate training’s
impact on the business and to allocate the resources needed to
perform the evaluation. The more detailed the evaluation, the
more costly and time consuming the measurement program
will be. For this training program, the company used
Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation7 to varying degrees.
Level One – Learner’s Reaction. This evaluation measures
the learner’s satisfaction with the training and is conducted
using a survey – commonly called a “smile sheet”. While this
technique produces only a snapshot and will not predict future
behavior change in the attendees, it is useful in maintaining a
quality training experience. The survey used for this program
rated each class from one to five, with five being “best”. The
students answered five questions after each class.
1. Did this class prepare you for your job?
2. Do you feel confident to work on this equipment?
3. How well did the instructor teach the material?
4. How would you rate the course handouts?
5. How would you rate the practical exercises?
Table 2 details the mean scores for all classes within
the program. The overall program mean was a 4.69 with a
standard deviation of 0.568. The scores were heavily skewed
to the higher end of the scale; however, all classes were within
one standard deviation of the mean (Figure 1). These two
facts demonstrate that the program was a quality, consistent
effort. The HSE classes maintained the highest mean of the
three skill groups. There were three classes that consistently
scored lower than the program mean over the first few classes.
The training team analyzed the participant feedback and
adjusted the classes to better suit the students’ needs.
One interesting result from the learner surveys
centered on the “job relevance” questions (1, 2). The
attendees consistently felt that the HSE and people skills
classes were more relevant to their jobs than the technical
skills classes.
Level Two – Learning. This measure attempts to show how
much a person has learned by attending a class. The tools
used to evaluate learning consist of tests, performance checks,
peer evaluations and observation. Ramirez and Prasad5 have
shown in their efficacy model that learning does not
necessarily manifest in good job behaviors. Therefore, this
program subjectively evaluated the student’s knowledge and
skills through instructor observation during the practical
exercises. If needed, on-the-spot coaching was conducted to
ensure all crewmen learned the skills.
Level Three – Behavior Change. This measure attempts to
demonstrate that the learner’s are using the new skills at their
workplace. The instructors conducted field audits of several
crews to assess how well they were using the skills taught.
These field audits were not designed to be statistically valid
nor were they designed as a formal study into the crews
behavior change. The main purpose of the field audits was to
gauge the effectiveness of the training and to provide on-site
coaching of deficient skills.
The instructors went to the rig with a prepared Field
Audit Guide book that contained questions for them to ask the
rig crews. The interviews were conducted so as not to impact
the ongoing rig operations and may have been conducted one-
on-one or in groups. Based on the percent of questions
answered correctly, the crews are using their HSE skills more
than the technical or people skills. Interestingly, this
corresponds to the Level One surveys, which stated that the
learner’s felt that the HSE skills were most relevant to their
jobs. Figure 2 compares the field audit scores to the end-of-
class mean scores. The left vertical axis plots the Level One
mean scores by class and the right vertical axis plots the field
audit score for the corresponding class. The class titles on the
horizontal axis are ordered from highest to lowest Level One
survey mean score. This plot shows that there is a moderate
correlation (r=0.4996) between audit scores and Level One
survey scores on job relevance.
SPE/IADC 87102
The field audit process is on going. The purpose is to
gather data on the need for refresher training and which skills
need to be addressed. Please refer to Appendix 2 for more
details on the audit process and two examples of the auditor
interview guides.
Level Four – Business Results. Ultimately, all training
should positively affect the key performance indicators (KPIs)
for the business and enhance customer value. The level-four
metric is the hardest to prove unless steps are taken to isolate
the effects of training. However, the purpose of evaluating
training is to present a credible case as to the impact of a
training intervention. To that effect, a comparison can be
made between the KPIs for the FlexRigTM3 (Flex3) project
and the FlexRigTM2 (Flex2) and FlexRigTM1 (Flex1) projects.
For example, as of the writing of this paper, the Total
Recordable Incident Rate for the Flex3 project is 76% below
the Flex1 and Flex2 startup rate. Crew turnover for Flex3 is
70% below the Flex1 and Flex2 startups. Even though there
are major technological differences between the rigs, the HSE
skill gaps and team cohesiveness issues were the same for all
three projects. One major difference, however, is that the
company used the lessons learned from the previous
FlexRigTM projects and created a formal training program.
Therefore, training can credibly account for assisting the Flex3
crews in achieving such high marks. Similarly, the Flex3
startup downtime per well over each rig’s first three wells is
fifty hours less per well than the same timeframe for the Flex2
startup. Better rig design and more advanced technology can
account for much of this difference. However, this difference
would not be as large if the crewmen had to learn the basic
operational and maintenance skills “on-the-job”.
Intangible benefits to the training program include
the development of a team culture prior to commencing rig
mobilization and drilling operations; the immediate
application of the field generated best practices to the new
crews’ skill sets, and the crew’s rapid acceptance of the new
technology changes. Evidence of these benefits can be found
in a loose link to the drilling performance. 70% of 169
complete wells were drilled under the customer’s estimated
drilling time and another 6% of the wells were drilled on
target with the customers’ expectations. This success can
only be achieved if the crews have the skills to safely and
effectively operate their drilling rigs and if they function as a
cohesive team.
Continuous Improvement. We also used the evaluation
process, coupled with the regular forums, to continually
update the training content. For example, the level-one
surveys showed that several classes delved too deeply into the
technological advances of the equipment. The students
commented that the classes needed to focus more on
operational skills; therefore, the instructors adjusted the
content. Based on the field audits and forum discussions,
several new classes were added during the program’s life. An
OEM delivered class on the ST-80 mechanized make-
up/break-out tool was created. A more detailed hydraulics
class, that included an “in-house” produced training video,
was created. Several smaller topics were also added to
address lessons learned in the field operations.
5
Conclusions
The FlexRigTM3 training program has trained over seven
hundred people in skills necessary to operate their
technologically advanced drilling rigs. The evaluations have
shown that a formal training program does have a positive
impact on the results rig crewmen can achieve in the field.
There are several lessons learned that can be applied to any
training program.
The instruction must be targeted at a specific skill set
that is relevant to the audience’s work. Upfront planning in
the needs assessment is critical. By analyzing the larger goals
of the project, assessing current and desired performance and
performing a task analysis, training developers can understand
the exact needs of the intended learners. By also
understanding the characteristics of the audience, the method
of instruction and content can be tailored to best keep the
learners engaged.
Organizational learning and leadership support are
critical factors to a successful program. By incorporating
lessons learned from past projects and taking the time to listen
to the ideas of the “customer”, training programs can be a
valuable resource to the company. Throughout the
FlexRig3TM Training Program’s life cycle, newly discovered
best practices and lessons learned from the working rigs kept
the program fresh. Commitment from company leadership set
the foundation for the training team to perform the needed
assessments and use company resources to deliver a quality
program. Support at the corporate and field levels also gave
the trainers access to the right people within and outside the
company in order to ensure project success.
Finally, rig crewmen, and adults in general, learn best
through discovery and practical exercise. Even though a large
amount of hands-on activities were planned into the
curriculum, the learners asked for more. Successful training
programs targeted at adults, especially who work in physical
environments, must have the maximum possible amount of
practical, hands-on exercises.
Acknowledgements
We thank the leadership of Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling Co. for having made the commitment to invest in the
people who operate its rigs everyday. We also thank Mauricio
Cuervo and Ross Berg for their outstanding efforts in teaching
all 700 crewmen! To the FlexRigTM3 construction team,
design team, and field operating teams, thank you for your
support in executing this training program. One last 'thank
you' to the numerous OEM training and support personnel for
your expertise and flexibility.
References
1. Majer, Robert F.: Making Instruction Work, second edition, The
Center for Effective Performance, Atlanta, GA (1997) 17,18.
2. Majer, Robert F.: Goal Analysis, third edition, The Center for
Effective Performance, Atlanta, GA (1983) 10.
3. Scholtes, Peter R. et al.: The Team Handbook, Joiner and
Associates Inc., Madison, WI (1993) 6-4.
4. The Training Clinic: How to Design Effective Training
Programs, The Training Clinic, Seal Beach, CA (1999) 20.
5. Ramirez, Alberto E. and Prasad, Dharmesh: “Safety Training
Effectiveness”, paper SPE 61251 presented at the 2000 SPE
6 SPE/IADC 87102

International Conference on Health, Safety, and the

Environment in the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production,
Stavanger, Norway, June 26-28.
6. Kraiger, Kurt and Peterson David, B.: A Practical Guide to
Evaluating Coaching: Translating State-of-the-Art Techniques
to the Real World. J.E. Edwards et al. (ed.) The Human
Resources Program-Evaluation Handbook. Sage Publications,
Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA (2003) 280.
7. Kirkpatrick, D.L.: Evaluating Training Programs: The four
levels, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco (1996).
SPE/IADC 87102 7

Tables and Figures

er
rill
r
ge

an
tD
he

n
na

an
km

ma
tan
us
Ma

orm
rric
urp

tor
sis
ille
Rig

Mo

F lo
De
To

As
Dr
Course Title
Technical Skills
Rig Asset Management System (RAMS) X X
Varco Integrated Control and Information System (VICIS eD) X X X X
Automated Drawworks System (ADS-20SD) X X X X X X
Top Drive System (TDS-11HP) X X X X X X
Variable Frequency Drive House (VFD) X X X X X X
Solids Control X X X X X X
Genset Controls & Maintenance X X X X X X
Air System X X X X X X
Basic Hydraulics X X X X X X
ST-80 Mechanized Tongs X X X X X X X
P-Quip Liner Changing System X X X X X X X
Fabrivalve X X X X X X X
Basic Lubricants X X X X X X X
Flex3 Lubrication Management X X X X X X X
Superbolts X X X X X X X
Hydraulics-Electrical-Fiber Optics Best Practices X X X X X X X
HSE and People Skills
Yard Orientation X X X X X X X
Teambuilding X X X X X X X
Log Out/Tag Out System (LO/TO) X X X X X X X
Personnel Hoisting X X X X X X X
Hand Safety X X X X X X X
Safety Training Observation Program (STOP) X X X X X X X
Job Safety Analysis (JSA) X X X X X X X
Safety Tiewire X X X X X X X
Man-Lift Operation X X X X X X X
Dropped Objects Campaign X X X X X X X
Safety Commitments X X X X X X X

Table 1: FlexRig3 Training Requirements Matrix

Table 1: FlexRig3 Training Requirements Matrix.

Mean Scores for FlexRig3 Training Program - Level 1 Surveys

Level 1 Survey Data Field Audit Scores
Rank Class Meanpop MeanR210-R218 MeanR219-R228 MeanR229-R235 Skill Set % Correct Rank
1 Hand & Finger Safety 4.83 4.90 4.76 4.85 HSE 99% 2
2 P-Quip (Leaders) 4.80 4.76 4.78 4.89 TECH 62% 16
3 Personnel Hoisting 4.79 4.84 4.71 4.85 HSE 91% 4
4 Dropped Objects Prevention 4.77 4.81 4.71 4.81 HSE 70% 11
5 JSA 4.76 4.77 4.72 4.80 HSE 100% 1
5 Teambuilding 4.76 4.77 4.74 4.81 PEOPLE 84% 6
7 LO/TO 4.75 4.80 4.66 4.80 HSE 93% 3
8 Solids Control 4.74 4.73 4.71 4.83 TECH 68% 13
8 STOP 4.74 4.77 4.70 4.78 HSE 84% 6
8 Lubrication Management 4.74 4.85 4.67 4.80 TECH 79% 8
11 Fabri-Valve 4.72 4.75 4.68 4.76 TECH -- --
12 P-Quip (Floormen) 4.71 4.74 4.60 4.80 TECH -- --
13 Fluids & Filtration 4.68 4.76 4.59 4.78 TECH -- --
14 Hyds & E;ect Pract 4.66 4.66 4.59 4.79 TECH 86% 5
15 Hydraulics 4.63 4.68 4.51 4.78 TECH 69% 12
16 3512B 4.62 4.57 4.58 4.74 TECH 67% 14
17 ADS-20 4.56 4.53 4.52 4.68 TECH 55% 18
18 Air System 4.54 4.55 4.48 4.64 TECH 79% 8
19 TDS-11 4.51 4.47 4.42 4.70 TECH 66% 15
20 VFD 4.43 4.30 4.39 4.66 TECH 71% 10

Overall Program 4.69 4.71 4.63 4.78

Table 2: Level 1 Survey Mean Scores
8 SPE/IADC 87102

FlexRig 3 Training Program Mean Scores by Rig

5.00
(Level 1 Surveys)
4.90
4.80

4.70 µpop = 4.69

(Scale = 1 to 5)

4.60

4.50
4.40
4.30

4.20
4.10 σpop = .568

4.00
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

FlexRig Number
Figure 1: Program Mean Scores with 1 Standard Deviation.

FlexRig3 Training Program

Job Relevance Survey Questions
5.00 120%
Level 1 Mean Scores (Scale 1-5)

4.80 100%

(% Correct Questions)
Field Audit Scores
4.60 80%

4.40 60%

4.20 40%

4.00 20%
r = 0.4996
3.80 0%
O
SA

20

11
ty

ct

2B

se
n
s)

t
g

cs
g

tro

en
O
io

/T

te
fe

in

ra
tin

er

S-

ou
S-
J

si
51
ST
nt

LO

em

ys
on
Sa

ild

tP
d
is

Ba

AD

TD

H
ve
ea

rS
bu

C
o

es
ag
er

D
H

re

s
(L

s
am

Ai

VF
tB

ic
ng

an
lid

tP
el

ul
nn
Fi

Te

So

ec
M
ui

ec

ra

Question A,B Mean

Q
so
&

El
n

yd
bj
P-

io
r
d

&

H
Pe

at
an

Field Audit Scores

ed

s
ic

yd
H

br
pp

H
Lu
ro

Linear (Field Audit Scores)

D

Figure 2: Comparison between Level 1 surveys and field audit

scores – job relevance category.
SPE/IADC 87102
Appendix 1
The class title appears first and is underlined. Below
each title, the course objectives are numbered.
Personnel Hoisting and Fall Protection.
1. Identify and correctly wear the 3 types of full body
harnesses (FBH) used on H&P drilling rigs.
2. Safely hoist a man following H&P’s Personnel
Hoisting Procedures.
3. Safely climb a fixed ladder over 5 feet following
H&P’s 100% fall protection guidelines.
Varco TDS-11.
1. Identify all dropped object hazards associated with
the TDS-11.
2. Understand crew-level responsibilities for operating
the TDS-11.
3. Understand the crew-level maintenance and lubrication
procedures of the TDS-11.
Varco ADS-20SD.
1. Understand the basic theory of operation of
the ADS-20SD.
2. Understand crew-level responsibilities for operating
the ADS-20SD.
3. Understand the crew-level maintenance and
lubrication procedures of the ADS-20SD.
Varco ST-80.
1. Understand the basic theory of operation of the ST-80.
2. Understand crew-level responsibilities for operating
the ST-80.
3. Understand the crew-level maintenance and
lubrication procedures of the ST-80.
Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) System.
1. Identify and understand the VFD Components.
2. Operate the G5+ Digital Operator under a
simulated load.
3. Understand the crew-level tasks associated with the
VFD system.
Engine/Generator Set (Caterpillar 3512B EUI).
1. Operate the CAT EUI panel in order to log operating
values and troubleshooting codes.
2. Understand the crew-level maintenance procedures of
the 3512B engine and the KATO generator.
3. Start and put online the 3512B Genset.
Gardner-Denver PZ-11 with P-Quip Liner Retention System
or Superbolt System.
1. Identify hand and finger hazards associated with
changing fluid-end components.
2. Correctly change a liner using the P-Quip or
Superbolt liner retention system.
3. Understand the crew-level maintenance and
lubrication procedures for the PZ-11.
9
Rig Floor Tools and Hand Safety.
1. Safely apply the drill pipe tongs to a tool joint.
2. Identify and safely use various hand tools found on
an H&P rig.
3. Identify potential hand and finger hazards that may
occur on the rig floor.
4. Safely make and break hammer unions; identify
compatible and non-compatible unions.
Care of Hydraulic Fittings, Hoses and Cylinders.
1. Understand the “dos” and “don’ts” of the FlexRigTM3
hydraulic system.
2. Understand how to maintain hydraulic hoses,
connections and cylinders.
3. Properly make up an hydraulic hose connection.
Care of Electrical Cables and Connections.
1. Understand the “dos” and “don’ts” of the FlexRig3
electrical system.
2. Understand how to maintain electrical cables
and connections.
3. Properly make up an electrical cable connection.
4. Understand how to maintain fiber optic cables
and connections.
FlexRigTM3 Air System.
1. Operate the PLC control panel on the Gardner-
Denver air compressor.
2. Correctly start and stop the air compressor and
dryer system.
3. Understand the crew-level maintenance procedures of
the FlexRigTM3 air system.
Solids Control Equipment.
1. Understand the basic fundamentals of drilling mud
solids control techniques.
2. Understand the crew-level responsibilities for
operating and maintaining the shale shaker and
vacuum degasser.
Lock Out/Tag Out (LO/TO) Process.
1. Understand H&P’s LO/TO policies and procedures.
2. Correctly LO/TO a piece of equipment.
3. Understand that LO/TO is meant for all forms of
energy isolation.
RAMSTM End User Level Training.
1. Understand the Rig Asset Management System.
2. Navigate within the RAMS environment.
3. Create work orders within RAMS.
4. Allocate work based on RAMS work orders.
Rig Crew Teambuilding.
1. Understand how to better relate with people by using
the DiSC® behavior profile.
2. Better communicate with new team members.
3. Realize the importance of trust within teams.
4. Create the foundation for future team successes.
5. Have fun with experiential learning activities.
10
Safety Training Observation Program.
1. Practice the basic principles of H&P’s STOP.
2. Use non-threatening, questioning techniques during a
STOP conversation.
3. Accept personal responsibility for safety on and off
the job.
Job Safety Analysis.
1. Develop effective work plans following the
JSA process.
2. Identify potential hazards and the steps to
eliminate them.
3. Conduct post-job assessments of the JSA.
4. Understand the value of a JSA in documenting
best practices.
Basic Equipment Lubrication and FlexRig3TM Lubrication
Management.
1. Understand the benefits of lubrication management
for drilling rigs.
2. Understand the basic principles behind
lubricating machinery.
3. Know where the lubrication points are located on all
FlexRig3TM equipment.
Dropped Object Inspections.
1. Understand the importance of inspecting for
overhead hazards.
2. Understand H&P’s dropped object procedures.
3. Conduct a dropped object inspection on a mast and
top drive.
Appendix 2
Description. The purpose of the FlexRig3TM (Flex3) Training
Field Audit is to gauge the knowledge transfer of the Flex3
Training Program by assessing the rig crew’s retention of key
training points. This is a non-scientific audit that is done at
the rig site. Time permitting, the auditor interviews crewmen
alone or in small groups using a set of questions based on the
Flex3 training objectives. The value in the process is twofold.
First, the training department gains insight into how the men
are using the skills gained at the Flex3 Training Program and
identifies areas for improvement. Second, the crews and
auditor share information with each other, which acts as a
quick refresher of the key training points.
Scope.
The audits will do the following:
1. Rig-based, non-punitive interviews of available
crewmembers.
2. Raw data tabulated and analyzed for the benefit of the
Flex3 Training Program.
3. Provide on-the-spot refresher training.
The audits will not do the following:
1. Provide valid competency testing results.
2. Impede the rig tasks by tying up crewmen.
3. Provide statistically valid data for use in comparing
crews’ performance.
SPE/IADC 87102
Process. The training team pulled questions from the key
learning objectives of each Flex3 class. The OEM course
providers developed questions for their respective courses.
The questions are grouped according to topic in a Field Guide
booklet used by the auditors to record the data. Figure 4
shows two sample interview forms – one for an HSE topic and
one for an equipment topic. The audit process contains the
following elements:
1. Plan - Operations Skills Trainer coordinates with field
Operations Leaders to:
a. Notify the rigs of an upcoming audit.
b. Discuss purpose of audits and auditor actions.
2. Conduct – Technical Trainers conduct audit at rig site
a. Meet with Rig Manager for orientation and
safety brief.
b. Explain process for auditing.
c. Interview crewmen as available.
d. Record data in Field Guide booklets.
e. Back-brief Rig Manager.
3. Compile Data and Analyze Results
a. Training Coordinator enters the information into
the database.
b. Operations Skills Trainer analyzes data and
creates report.
4. Adjust training as needed (any or all of these actions)
a. Adjust curriculum.
b. Recommend formal refresher.
c. Send training materials to rig manager for
on-site training.
5. Repeat audit as requested.
6. Continuous improvement of the audit process.
a. Review audit questions for value
i. Operations leaders.
ii. Training leaders.
iii. OEM course instructors.
b. Develop more rigorous data reporting.
Results. The audit process provides a review of the Flex3
learnings and tells the Training Department how well we are
teaching certain points. The report will show us the following
pieces of information:
1. Demographics of the crews audited
2. Percent correct answers at the rig level by topic
3. Percent correct answers for all rigs by topic
4. Areas for reinforcement of key learnings
A baseline audit was performed on R234’s crews two
weeks after their training program ended. Based on this data
retention levels should be in the 75% to 100% range. Figure 3
shows a sample report.
The Training Department will use the results in the
following ways: 1) Provide on-the-spot refresher training to
the interviewed rig crewmen; 2) Identify trends to improve the
Flex3 Training Program; 3) Provide recommendations for
formal refresher training and/or performance coaching and
4) Provide data to begin building standards for future
competency program development.
SPE/IADC 87102 11

FlexRig3 Field Audit

Shale Shaker 57%
Rigs Audited:
Rig-210 (Crew A) P-Quip 54%
Rig-215 (Crew A)
Rig-216 (Crews A & B)
Air System 53%
Rig-218 (Crews A & B)
Rig-220 (Crews A & B)
Rig-222 (Crews A & B) VFD House 46%
Rig-229 (Crews A & B)
Rig-235 (Crews A & B) ADS-20SD 60%
Rig-236 (Crews A & B & C)
ST-80 63%

TDS11 62%
Average length of service
(Days) (Years)
GenSet 58%
82 Interviewed
Rig Managers = 5 6533 17.9
Drillers = 12 1452 4.0 Basic Hydrualics 64%
Derrrickmen = 15 1246 3.4
Motormen = 16 716 2.0 Teambuilding 84%
Floormen = 30 856 2.3
Pithands = 4 454 1.2 FlexRig3 Lube Management 79%

Hyd&Elec Practices 86%

Percent of Interviewees Trained:

Dropped Object Awareness 70%
74%

Percent of Interviewees Hand Safety 99%

that were SSE at time of audit:
17% Lock Out / Tag Out 93%

Percent of Interviewees JSA 100%

that were SSE at time of training:
23% STOP 84%

Legend
Personnel Hoisting & PPE 91%
=75% & higher
Potential refresher training topics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
=60%-74%
=59% or less

Figure 3: FlexRig3 Field Audit Summary Report. Bars show the percent questions answered correctly.
12 SPE/IADC 87102

Figure 4: Sample Field Audit Interview Forms.

F L E X R IG 3 F IE L D A U D IT F O R M
D a te _
R ig # _
R ig M a n a g e r _
D r ille r _

T O P IC ST O P PR O G R AM COMMENTS
F le x R ig 3
C re w m e m b e rs q u e rie d P o s itio n T r a in e d ? 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Q u e rie s :
1 D o y o u h a v e th e rig h t (a n d re sp o n s ib ility ) to s to p a n u n s a f e
p ro c e d u re ? T o s h u t th e jo b d o w n if n e e d e d ?
2 W h a t d o e s "A B B I" m e a n ? H o w d o y o u a p p ly th e te c h n iq u e ?
3 W h a t is a "q u e stio n in g a ttitu d e "?
4 W h e n y o u r in v o lv e d in a jo b a n d y o u r c o -w o rk e r m a k e s a
S T O P o b se rv a tio n , h o w d o y o u re sp o n d to th e m ?
5 C a n y o u n a m e a p o te n tia l h a z a rd o u s in c id e n t th a t w a s
a v o id e d b e c a u se y o u p e rso n a lly u se d th e S T O P o b se rv a tio n
p ro c e d u re s?
6 If y o u o b se rv e d a su p e rv is o r in v o lv e d in a n u n s a f e a c t, w o u ld y o u sto p
th e jo b a n d d isc u ss th e h a z a rd s?
A n s w e rs :
Y e s , it is e v e ry o n e 's re s p o n s ib ility .
L o o k in g A b o v e , B e lo w , B e h in d , a n d In s id e fo r
h a za rd s . D e m o n s tra te .
E X : W h a t in ju rie s c o u ld o c c u r if th e u n e x p e c te d
h a p p e rs ? / W h a t c a n b e d o n e d iffe re n tly ?
In a n u n th re a te n in g ly , o p e n -m in d e d m a n n e r.
L is t o n e o r tw o in s ta n c e s .
Y e s . It's p a rt o f e v e ry o n e 's jo b to s to p u n s a fe a c ts .

R e v ie w s :
1 E x a m in e a s a m p lin g o f th e c u rre n t S T O P C a rd s o n th e rig . N o te if th e y re f le c t a c o n v e rsa tio n a s p a rt o f th e d o c u m e n ta tio n
2 A re th e S T O P c a rd s re v ie w e d a n d sh a re d d a ily o r w e e k ly a m o n g th e c re w s?
3 A re S T O P c a rd s re a d ily a v a ila b le to th e c re w s ?

F LEXRIG 3 FIELD AUDIT FO RM

Date _
Rig # _
Rig M anager _
Driller _

T O PIC S T -80 CO M M ENT S

FlexRig3
Crew m em b ers q ueried Position Trained? 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Q ueries: Answ ers:

1 The ST-80 cannot be used on a connection greater than 1/2" The unit w ill be dam aged. 1/2" difference m eans
difference, why? no m ore than a 1/4" on each side of the
connection.
2 The hydraulic system pressure m ust be in the 1900 to 1950 psi range. At the beginning of each w ell.
At a m inim um , how often should this pressure be checked?
3 W hat has happened when the pressure suddenly drops to zero while The cylinder has fully extended. You m ust start the
m aking up a connection? cycle over to finish the task.
4 Is it okay to Clam p the unit using the T orque m ode? NO , it m ay dam age the fittings on the left side
torque cylinder. Alw ays use the Clam p lever.
5 How long m ust you hold the lev er in the Spin and T orque m odes ? You m ust hold it for at least one second in order
W hy? for the unit to develop full pressure.
6 Are the ST-80 Lubrication and O perations instructions av ailable to Should be in Dog house.
you?

Review s:
1