IADC/SPE 87177

Improving Drilling Performance Through Systematic Analysis of Historical Data:

Case Study of a Canadian Field
A.R Adeleye, SPE, B.K Virginillo, SPE, A.W Iyoho, SPE, K Parenteau, SPE and Henry Licis, Anadarko
Canada Corporation

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

project economics in the matured sedimentary basins of
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Western Canada.
Texas, U.S.A., 2–4 March 2004.

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
At the commencement of drilling analysis in the Wild River
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Field, a total of 41 gas wells have been drilled by Anadarko
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 and its predecessors since the first well was spudded in 1999.
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
Thirteen of these wells were drilled to between 5 and 20
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of degrees deviation while the rest were drilled as vertical wells
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 with maximum allowable deviation of 2 degrees. Hole sizes
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print and casing schemes were largely similar (Fig 1). The surface
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 holes were drilled with 311 mm bits to about 430 m while the
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435. production holes were drilled through the reservoir (Cadomin)
to TD in the Fernie formation at 3050 m.
Abstract
Drilling operations daily generate large amounts of data but
surprisingly, a significant proportion of these data are not 219 mm x 430 m
utilized in a manner that shortens the learning curve and
promotes drilling efficiency. The authors, through this paper,
demonstrate how drilling analysis methodology helped
identify performance gaps in a West Central Canadian field.

The above is captured under the much espoused philosophy

characterized by the questions:

• Where are we now? 114 mm x 3050 m

• What is possible?
• How do we get there?
By applying this tool, significant cost savings to the tune of
CAD$7.3 mln have been achieved as at the time of preparing
this paper.
Introduction
There have been various approaches developed over the years
to optimize the well construction process but only a few of
these have addressed the subject of improving drilling
performance through a systematic analysis of historical data.
The drilling analysis concepts described in a companion
paper1 were applied to an already optimized field and
additional cost savings of 15% were realized as at the time of
preparing this document. The driver to the adoption of drilling
analysis as a core requirement was prompted by the
requirement to reduce drilling cost as a way of improving
Figure 1: Casing Scheme for a Typical Wild River Well
The wells, from spud to rig release, were initially drilled
between 56 and 70 days at the onset of field development, but
with more wells drilled, drilling operations time improved and
flattened at between 22 and 38 days, averaging 29 days for
well depths of approximately 3050 m (Fig 2).
The well cost associated with the drilling of these wells also
improved from CAD$2.50 - CAD$3.75 mln (in money of the
day terms) at the beginning of field development to an average
of CAD$1.76 mln (or $570/m) before performing
drilling analysis.
The public domain data from 40 other wells drilled by 4 other
operators in the Wild River field were also studied and the
drilling time results showed similar performance level as
Anadarko’s (i.e spud to rig release time of 30 days, Fig A-1).
2 IADC/SPE 87177
The cost data for these wells were not available
for comparisons.
Average well
duration 29 d
Figure 2: Historical Performance Trend (spud to rig release)
Analysis Methodology
A detailed analysis was performed on drilling execution time
since more than half of the cost items in the field are time
sensitive. The drilling process for each well was broken down
into phases in accordance with the hole sizes (e.g drill 311 mm
hole, run and cement casing, etc). Each phase was then broken
into its component operations (e.g run in hole, bit on bottom,
circulate hole clean, run casing, logging, etc). The best time,
based on the best-ever performance achieved for each
component operation, was established for each component
operation. The best times of individual component operations
were summed up to provide a Best Composite Time (BCT),
less non-productive time. This methodology resulted in a well
time estimate composed of the best performance seen to date
and is, therefore, considered the “perfect well” possible with
current technology and operational practices2.
The above is similar to the process originally applied by
Woodside Petroleum and described in the paper presented by
Bond et al3. The relationship between the perfect BCT well,
invisible lost time and conventional lost time is as represented
in Figure 3.
Actual well duration
Industry Normal well4 time
Perfect Well Invisible Lost Conventional
Time Time NPT
Removable Time
Technical Limit
Figure 3: Diagrammatic representation of the relationship
between the perfect well, hidden lost time, technical limit and
non-productive time.
The BCT concept is considered simple and devoid of the many
problems associated with establishing the drilling Technical
Limit of a field. It relies more on the quality of historical data
and requires an upfront investment in drilling analysis tools
and knowledge management applications. It should be noted
that the BCT is a moving target which gets re-established as
data from an increasing number of wells become available.
Eventually, the BCT flattens out to the technical limit of the
field as more pacesetter wells are drilled. This is illustrated in
Figure 4.
BCT = > moving target
BCT
BCT1 = > established with
BCT2 = > re-established after
drilling more wells with
pacesetter performance
BCTn = > constant
TL
Time
Figure 4: BCT tends towards Technical Limit
as more pacesetter wells are drilled
BCT Result
Table A-1 shows the best ever time performance based on
each discreet operation in each of the two hole phases for the
Wild River field. The result showed a BCT of 14.28 days
(surface hole phase 1.73 d, production hole phase 12.55 d).
The performance gap between the above BCT and the result
from historical well data is as shown in Figure 5. The cost
associated with this (BCC), in money of the day terms, is
CAD$850k ($280/m).
Comparing the field’s average of 29 days with the BCT
showed a huge deficit (i.e the wells could have been drilled at
half the time!). There in lies the opportunity for
performance improvement.
IADC/SPE 87177
2. Invisible lost time
Figure 5: BCT vs Historical Field Drilling Duration.
Problem Identification
Each hole phase was analyzed for removable time
(Conventional and invisible lost time) in an attempt to identify
and ‘pinpoint’ the problems that created the gap between the
BCT and the average field performance. Drilling analysis tools
and knowledge management applications greatly aided in the
identification of the magnitude and nature of these problems.
Summary results are discussed below;
1. Conventional Lost time
Historical analysis of NPT showed average time lost as a
result of unexpected events at the onset of development
drilling, pre 2001, to be 15 days (Fig 6). A significant
proportion was due to well control issues.
< 2001 2001 2002 Q1 ‘03
14.56 d
Yearly avg.
2.39 d
2.24 d
1.94 d
Figure 6: Historical ConventionalLost Time Performance.
As learning and knowledge of the field’s geology
improved, NPT improved significantly to about 2 days in
the following years.
3
In the past, the most common problems were due to well
control issues in the high pressured Viking and Gething
formations, reaming of under gauged hole and hole
instability problems mostly encountered in the production
hole. Other problems include surface hole losses and
downhole tool failures in the production hole. Well control
and production hole problems have been minimized over
the years. From the analysis, predominant current problems
are rig equipment failures (drawworks, pumps, rotary etc),
downhole tool failures (MWD and PDMs), tight hole in the
surface hole and losses (also in the surface hole).
Figure A-2 shows the major troubles encountered in the
surface and production hole sections of the field. Note that
due to the overwhelming well control issues in the first 3
wells, the chart was adjusted to exclude these wells for
better visual clarity of problems in the other wells.
The exercise of identifying the invisible lost time was more
rigorous than that of conventional NPTs. It required the
wells to be ordered chronologically so that lags inherent in
the history of equipment/tools usage, mud, BHA selection
and drilling practices can be more readily identified.
Specifically, performances in the following major
operational areas were considered for invisible lost time;
• Bit on bottom
• Drillstring trips and tool handling
• Wellhead and BOP operations
• Casing and Cementing
• Wireline Evaluation and Coring
• Wellbore Surveys
2.1 Bit on bottom performance
The normalized surface hole bit on bottom performance,
discounting conventional lost time, is as shown in Figure 7
(wells in chronological order). Bit on bottom performance
was measured from the overall rate of penetration when the
bit was actually making hole and did not include bit trip
in/out, mud conditioning/circulation time and other times
when the bit was stationary.
From Figure 6, pre-2001 performance averaged 1.76 days
and it deteriorated marginally to 1.82 d in 2001. There was
a considerable improvement to 1.40 d in 2002, a
performance increase of 23% over the 2001 level. The
wells drilled in Q1, 2003 showed a slight decrease of 2%
(averaged 1.43 days).
Drilling records were studied for tangible parameters that
could impact bit on bottom performance such as bit
selection, drilling parameters, BHAs and mud
type/properties. BHA, Mud type and properties were
similar in all the wells. The area of major differences was
in bit selection (which also impacts directly on the
drilling parameters).
4 IADC/SPE 87177
1.82 d Yearly avg.
1.76 d
1.43 d
1.40 d
Figure 7: Surface Hole Bit on bottom performance.
From the analysis, the bit selection trend became clear and
it was observed that the significant bit on bottom
performance recorded in 2002 was due, largely, to the
selection of bits identified in Figure A-3. In the years prior
to 2002, 2 or 3 bit runs were required to drill the 430 m
surface hole section. The bit strategy adopted in those years
called for the deployment of previously used milled tooth
bits through the gravel section of the surface hole, followed
by refurbished bits to section TD. Due to the above,
drilling parameters were less than optimal which
consequently impacted on the ROPs.
The normalized production hole bit on bottom performance
is shown in Figure 8. Drilling the section was originally
benchmarked at 14.97 days prior to 2001.
14.97 d
Yearly avg.
13.94 d
13.72 d
11.27 d
Figure 8: Production Hole Bit on bottom performance.
In 2001, performance improved moderately by 7% to
13.94 days. Bit on bottom performance continued to
improve in 2002 to 13.72 d. It recorded significant
increases to a record 11.27 days during the 1st quarter of
2003. The production hole was examined for the impact of
the same properties as the surface hole. The analysis was
more rigorous due to the heterogeneous nature of the
formations beneath the surface casing shoe.
For ease of analysis, the production hole was divided into 5
zones corresponding to expected bit trip depths. Zone 1
covers a metrage of about 1125 m, from shoe to the Belly
River formation. Zone 2 encompasses the section between
the Belly River and Cardium formation while Zone 3
extends below the Cardium to the Blackstone. The effect of
hole deviation was considered in Zone 3 where about 30 %
of the wells were kicked off and drilled as deviated wells.
The section between Blackstone bottom and top of Gething
formation was analyzed as Zone 4 while the last zone
(Zone 5) extends to well TD from the Gething.
In all of the above zones, the objective was to establish the
optimal bit selection and BHAs that maximizes ROP and
drilled metrage. This was achieved by studying the bit
records and BHAs for all of the previously drilled wells in
charts such as those shown in Figure A-4. Result highlights
include
the following;
i. While the insert bits drilled more metrage in Zone
1 than any other bit type, the best performance
was observed with the PDCs. The PDCs drilled at
about twice as fast and covered 80% of the
metrage drilled by the inserts. In Zone II, there
was no clear performance distinction between the
PDCs and inserts. However, below Zone 2, it was
clear PDC territory.
ii. The PDCs require a PDM in the BHA to improve
performance while the inserts could be used to
drill from shoe into Zone 2 without the support of
PDMs (performance not seriously compromised).
iii. Better ROP results where seen in cases where
vertical drilling devices (such as the square motor)
were utilized below Zone 2, no clear performance
advantage above this zone (no deviation problems
were observed above Zone 2, hence no
requirement for vertical drilling devices).
iv. The bit requirement for Zone 3 was identified due
to its peculiar steering requirement for
deviated wells.
v. Inverts were mostly used to drill the production
hole, although WBM was tried in 3 wells. There
were no indications of a performance advantage in
these wells over the invert ones. Generally, mud
weights were kept between 900 and 1070 kg/m3
while drilling from the casing shoe to about 500 m
above a possible high pressure zone in the Viking
formation (Zone 4). At this depth mud is usually
weighted up and kept between 1250 and 1500
kg/m3 to well TD.
The production hole bit on bottom performance was better
during the 1st quarter of 2003 due to a number of reasons,
the major ones being the consistent use of vertical drilling
devices in the toolstring and a better bit selection.
2.2 Tripping and Tool Handling performance
The analysis for drill string tripping was combined with
tool handling due to the fact that durations for these
operations were lumped together in a lot of the well
IADC/SPE 87177 5

reports. The performance is shown in Figure 9, net of 1.48 d

conventional lost time. The performance trend mirrors that 1.38 d
1.17 d
of the production hole bit on bottom performance, as to be 1.16 d Yearly avg.
expected. This reflects the higher number of bit runs and
the time expended tripping the drillstring in the
production hole.

3.98 d Yearly avg.

3.32 d
3.18 d
2.97 d

Figure 10: Wellhead and BOP operations Performance

2.4 Casing and Cementing performance

The performance for this operation measures the overall
time for running and cementing the surface and production
casing strings. Note that the times for waiting on cement
and circulating casing were included in this performance
Figure 9: Drill string trips & Tool Handling Performance category. The normalized performance is as shown in
Figure 11.
Across the field, bit consumption averaged 3 in the surface
hole and 10 in the production hole. During the first quarter
of 2003, consumption dropped to 2 bits for the surface hole
1.30 d 1.18 d
and 8 for the production hole. Some poor drilling habits 1.13 d
1.10 d
such as pipe strapping and wiper/short trips, where the hole
gave no indication of trouble, also impacted significantly
on this category of performance. Overall, drillstring trips
and handling performance was seen to be better in wells
where the bit strategy was optimal.

2.3 Wellhead and BOP Operations performance

The overall performance for Wellhead and BOP
installation is as shown in Figure 10. The yearly trend
shows a consistent improvement until Q1, 2003. The time
drivers are listed below;

• Wellhead operations Figure 11: Casing and Cementing operations Performance

• BOP installation
With the exception of 2001, casing and cementing
• BOP pressure/function tests.
performance has been declining as can be seen from the
• BOP de-installation
yearly trend. Analysis showed that the time for mixing and
pumping cement was comparable across the wells; the
An area of of major invisible lost time was the application
performance difference was largely a result of casing
of stress relief to align matensitic properties of the casing
equipment rig up and running times. Some rig crews were
bowl material to that of the top surface casing joint, usually
faster at running south with the casing joints. Mud
of L80 grade (to satisfy regulatory requirement). This task
circulation and conditioning time was also observed to be
took an average of 15 hrs to accomplish in wells where it
erratic just as WOC time was inconsistent.
was applied. In other wells, the casing bowl was welded,
without the need for stress relief, to a top surface casing
2.5 Wireline Evaluation and Coring
joint (K55 steel) in less than 3 hrs. Other areas of invisible
The performance for this category is shown in Figure 12.
lost time include BOP rig up and time required for
Wireline logs continued to be run in all wells drilled in the
associated integrity tests. These vary from rig to rig and
area. Two levels of performance can be discerned from the
largely dependent on rig contractor’s pressure test policy
chart – the lower level applies to wells with only wireline
and the prevailing regulatory requirement. Analysis
logging and the higher level to wells with both wireline
showed that as much time is taken to nipple up the BOPs
evaluation and coring.
as is required to ascertain the integrity of the
different components.
6 IADC/SPE 87177
Wells with coring
Wells without
coring
Figure 12: Wireline Evaluation and Coring Performance
2.6 Wellbore Surveys
The performance for well surveys is as shown in Figure 13.
The surveys were acquired via, Teledrift, TOTCO in a
majority of the wells and MWD tools mostly in the
deviated wells. The performance driver here is the survey
frequency and the time taken per survey. The frequency
ranged from 60 to 200 m and the time for each survey in
the majority of the wells was between 15 mins in the
surface hole to 45 mins in the production hole with the
TOTCO. Survey frequency tends to increase with hole
deviation problems.
Figure 13: Wellbore Survey Performance
Field Engagement
The analysis results were presented in-house at a field
engagement session in Q2, 2003. The engagement session
coincided with a full 5 rig mobilization in the field. Due to
logistics constraints and to avoid shutting down operations in
all of the 5 rigs, only the senior field supervisory staffs (a total
of 30 field staff) were engaged in the field discussions. The
main objectives of the workshop were to;
• Present the drilling analysis result so that participants
have a feel for current efficiency level and a target to aim
for as far as drilling in subject field is concerned.
• Get buy-in from field staff in the whole drilling
analysis process.
• Generate ideas that will improve on current efficiency
level such that performance gaps are
sufficiently minimized.
Expert facilitation was provided to encourage free flow and
expression of ideas. These ideas were captured for eventual
follow up actions. The level of participation was high and
extremely satisfying to the team. The workshop was organized
into 3 groups to allow as much time for discussions as
possible; at the end of the workshop each of the groups had
over 50 improvement ideas on the table.
These ideas were taken back to the office for ranking,
prioritization and economic evaluation. Some of the ideas are
shown in Table A-2. The ranking was performed in
accordance with an opportunity matrix (Fig 14).
Hi
Impact
Med
Lo
Difficult Med Easy
Ease of Implementation
Figure 14: Opportunity Matrix
The team’s attention was immediately focused on those ideas
that ranked in the top right hand corner of the matrix (high
impact and easy implementation), the so called ‘low hanging
fruits’. To date, more than a half of the ideas have been
implemented. The other ideas that are yet to be implemented
require the support and approval of other functions,
management, regulatory authorities, or have been
deemed impractical.
Post Analysis Performance
A total number of 25 wells have been drilled, in the field since
the commencement of drilling analysis and the
implementation of performance improvement ideas. Results
(Fig 15) showed a 37% reduction in drilling time to an average
of 19 days, measured from spud to rig release. The possibility
of drilling a train wreck (wells drilled above 25 days) is also
down by 10%.
IADC/SPE 87177 7

One of the major areas of success was in the reduction of

Average well conventional lost time. Trouble time was reduced by 40%
duration 19 d to 1.22 d.

Also, gains were made in bit on bottom performance. The

surface hole section is now consistently drilled with an insert
bit that delivers 15 - 20 m/h and lasts the entire 430 m section.
This bit ROP performance was extended well below the Belly
River formation, where it is now customary to have one bit,
drilling at between 25 and 38 m/h, drill the 1125 m section
from shoe to the Belly River. Technologies continued to be
tried to ensure that bits are kept in hole to drill as fast as
possible, the highly compressive and abrasive sandstone/Shale
lithologies of the Cardium formation and Falher Series.

Improvements have also been seen in flat spot times (casing

Figure 15: Post Analysis Drilling Result (spud to RR) running, cementing, wellhead, BOP operations, logging, etc).
One area of note is switching from a weld-on to a screw-on
The field’s pacesetter performance (Fig 16) continued to be type casing bowl. The results are shown in Figure 17.
challenged by each of the 5 rigs such that records kept
tumbling. To date, the pacesetter performance which

11.27
12.00

Before Analysis
previously stood at 21.64 d is now 14.37 d, a few hours short After Analysis

10.06
of the intial BCT. 10.00

Latest value of work done shows average well cost reducing 8.00
from CAD$1.76 mln to CAD$1.50 mln, a 15% improvement.
This has resulted in a CAD$7.25 mln saving on the 25 wells
6.00
drilled to date.

Spud 4.00
WR 4-29

2.97

to RR
(days)
2.12
1.88
WR 13-17

1.48
2.00

1.40
1.27

1.23
1.22

1.18

0.92
21.64

0.65

0.42
Nabors 78
WR 4-22

0.00
20.77 Production Bit on Drillstring Trips Trouble time Casing & Wireline Wellhead & BOPs Surface Bit on
Nabors 78 bottom Cementing Evaluation Bottom
WR 13-14

19.04 Figure 17: Post Analysis Result (in days)

Nabors 78
WR 1-22

18.44 PRE BCT

Nabors 67 Due to all of the record performances above, the BCT was re-
established at 11.45 days as at the time of preparing
WR 3-29

17.66 POST BCT

Nabors 67 this document.
WR 5-24

17.46
Shetah 5 Conclusion
WR 16-24

15.69
Nabors 67
It is difficult not to arrive at the same general conclusion that
14.37 Nabors 67 others2 who have used simple but effective drilling analysis
BCT = 14.28 methodology to improve efficiency arrived at. These can be
Established BCT
RR 4/4/2003

RR April 26

RR June 9

RR July 19

RR August 14
RR June 30
RR 3/21/2002

RR July 4

summarized as follows;

• Improved results have been achieved with the collective

and focused brainpower of competent well-construction
professionals using the drilling analysis methodology
Figure 16: Post Analysis Pacesetter Performance described above.
• Applying the BCT method of measuring performance and
A study of the data from wells drilled by the other players in identifying areas for improvement is a key process. This is
the field under the same time frame (April to date), showed the based on the principle that striving for difficult but
average well duration reducing from 30 to 26 days, a 12% achievable goals is a constant and continuing challenge.
improvement. No cost data was available to • A culture that supports an emphasis on performance
make comparisons. improvement is not difficult or costly to create. The culture
8 IADC/SPE 87177

must be supported by the methodical application of tools

and the expectation that change is required.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the management of Anadarko
Canada Corporation for their permission to publish this paper.

We also thank Andrew Dale, Mike Crumrine and Ken

Hovland for their help in reviewing the contents of this paper,
and not to forget Munira Lalji and Kim Neeve for their
brilliant support.

Thanks are also owed the Wild River Drilling team, office and
field, because their efforts, in either direct operational areas or
in support, generated the results.

References
1. Iyoho A.W. et al: “Methodology and Benefits of a Drilling
Analysis Paradigm” paper IADC/SPE 87121, prepared for
the 2004 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, Mar.
2-4.
2. Dollan, S.P. et al: “Performance Improvement Techniques
Used on Goodwyn A Platform, Northwest Shelf,
Australia,” paper SPE 83728 published in the June 2003
edition of SPE Drilling & Completion Journal.
3. Bond D.F. et al: “Step Change Improvement and High Rate
Learning are delivered by Targeting Technical Limits on
Sub-Sea Wells,” paper IADC/SPE 35077 presented at the
1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA,
Mar. 12-15.
4. Kadaster, A.G. et al: “Drilling Time Analysis: A Total
Quality Management Tool for Drilling in the 1990s,” SPE
24559, presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Washington DC, Oct. 1992.
 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
28.00
T A L W ild R iver 5-8-57-23
24.00
T A L W ild R iver 7-9-57-24
IADC/SPE 87177

34.00
TA L W ild R iver 10-35-56-24
26.00
T A L W ild R iver 8-4-57-24
47.00
TA L W ild R iver 15-2-56-23
31.00
TA L W ild R iver 11-2-57-23
31.00
T A L W ild R iver 1-3-57-24
24.00
TA L W ild R iver 6-10-57-24
41.00
TA L W ild R iver 11-1-56-23
26.00
TA L W ild R iver 2-13-57-24
41.00
TA L W ild R iver 11-12-56-23
30.00
TA L W ild R iver 8-11-57-24
41.00
TA L W ild R iver 1-32-56-24
39.00
TA L W ild R iver 6-14-56-24
34.00
TA L W ild R iver 10-31-56-24
28.00
T A L W ild R iver 7-9-57-23
37.00
TA L W ild R iver 10-25-56-24
25.00
D E V W ild R iver 10-28-56-24
36.00
TA L W ild R iver 7-22-56-24
36.00
W IS W ild R iver 12-21-57-24
31.00
W IS W ild R iver 8-29-57-24
25.00
Average Drilling Days 30

TA L W ild R iver 11-10-56-23

28.00
T A L W ild R iver 6-3-56-23
28.00
T A L W ild R iver 6-2-57-24
26.00
TA L W ild R iver 11-12-57-24
61.00
D E V W ild R iver 1-30-56-24
22.00
W IS W ild R iver 12-36-57-24
26.00
TA L W ild R iver 9-24-56-24

Figure A-1: Competitors’ Drilling Time Performance (Spud to Rig Release).

23.00
TA L W ild R iver 3-14-57-24
22.00
TA L W ild R iver 7-31-56-23
24.00
TA L W ild R iver 6-20-57-23
29.00
D E V W ild R iver 15-16-56-24
22.00
W IS W ild R iver 11-20-57-24
26.00
TA L W ild R iver 2-33-56-24
24.00
TA L W ild R iver 11-24-57-24
21.00
TA L W ild R iver 6-18-57-23
9
10 IADC/SPE 87177

Surface Hole Phase Best Ever Average Performance Worst Ever

Performance Performance
Bit on bottom 22.50 43.15 65.00

BOP Operations 6.50 15.49 34.75

Drillstring Trips/Handle 5.61 6.28 9.43

Run Casing 2.60 4.00 9.50

Wellhead Operations 1.75 8.75 21.50

Cementing (inc WOC) 1.25 7.00 11.50

Mud Circulation & Con. 0.50 1.85 6.90

Surveys 1.00 3.00 6.00

Total (hrs) 41.71 89.52 164.58

Production Hole Phase Best Ever Average Performance Worst Ever

Performance Performance
Bit on bottom 239.57 331.50 568.13

Drillstring Trips/Handle 30.45 60.85 175.49

Run Casing 7.80 10.48 16.14

Evaluation 8.17 14.85 55.77

Surveys 4.75 13.35 36.34

BOP Operations 3.50 13.71 79.94

Mud Circulation 4.29 24.85 158.70

Cementing 1.74 5.07 39.58

Wellhead Operations 1.00 9.01 37.20

Total (hrs) 301.27 483.67 1167.29

Table A-1:BCT Analysis Result in the Surface and Production Holes

IADC/SPE 87177 11

Surface Hole Phase Troubles

Production Hole Phase Troubles

Figure A-2: Nature and Magnitude of Lost Time (Surface Hole).

12 IADC/SPE 87177

Figure A-3: Surface Hole Bit Selection.

IADC/SPE 87177 13

Figure A-4: Production Hole Bit Records.

14 IADC/SPE 87177

N Activity Originator Opportunities Risks Category Impa Ease of Action

o ct impleme Party
. ntation
1 Use Kerry Current method of casing Safety concerns since Wellhead Medi Medium
. Screw Genest bowl installation takes 14 casing bowl can not go & BOP um
on or Brad hrs. Review other available through rotary.
differen Virginillo option or change welding Substructure job.
t casing procedures on casing bowl
bowl to minimize time
type

2 Elimina Boyd Presently, casing bowl Get EUB dispensation. Wellhead Medi Easy
. te Robinson weld to L80 takes 6-12 hrs Run ditch magnets to & BOP um
casing Neil Bliss to align matensitic/grain give casing wear
stress Randy properties via stress relief indication. When
relief Rushfeldt job. If requirement for casing is wearing
stress relief is eliminated, mitigate by jacking rig
there will be no need to run up. Do this before
top 2 joints of L80. cementing

3 Have Rob Hari This will eliminate the Problems procuring Wellhead Low Easy
. casing requirement to wait on cutters to cut 219 mm & BOP
cutter welders to cut conductor surface casing. Cost of
and casing. The crew can cutter
use the cutter to cut
casing/conductor. Down
time waiting on welders 1-
2 hrs in 1 out of every 10
wells.

5 BOP Boyd Easier and safer Cost of procurement of Wellhead Low Easy
handlin Robinson handling/transport cradle. BOP will still & BOP
g have to be broken
system down for nippling up.
(cradle)
6 Stump Ade Testing BOPs on the stump Wellhead Medi Medium
. test Adeleye off critical path will help & BOP um
BOPs Hugh reduce 5 – 15 hrs in BOP
Munro pressure tests

One other area of lost time

is with the test plug. Have
correct thread on test plug.
Cut a test plug thread that
can be used. Port test plugs

Table A-2: Sample of Recommended Ideas.