Applying Technical Limit Methodology for
Step Change in Understanding and
Performance
D.F. Bond, SPE, P.W. Scott, SPE, P.E. Page, SPE, and T.M. Windham,* Woodside Offshore Petroleum Pty. Ltd.
Summary
This paper presents an alternative planning approach to the drilling
and completion process, technical limit, which has resulted in a step
change in Woodside’s performance. Three new wells and six
subsea completions were finished 20% under budget with this tool
and with a simple philosophy characterized by the following questions.
● What is current performance?
● What is possible?
● What is needed to get there?
The target was to drill a directional well in 20 days when the
previous best time was 42 days. A target of 12 days was set on
subsea completions, although a conventional approach had previ-
ously been 201 days.
The methodology was to ask what would be possible if every-
thing went perfectly on every operation making up the well time.
This is not the usual trouble free time but a well time built up of
individual components, with each component representing its the-
oretical best performance.
Details of how the approach was used to plan, and operational
data that confirm that the technical limit can be approached are
presented. As a result, the well construction performance delivered
step change improvement when managed against the technical limit.
Introduction
Drilling performance offshore on the North West Shelf of Australia
from 1968 to 1992 was erratic. A simple plot of time vs. total depth
(Fig. 1) showed unacceptable scatter and a high average drilling
time, particularly when benchmarked against published data (No-
erager et al.1). The conclusion was the well construction process
was not in control. The company developed a plan to remedy this
when faced with an upcoming development project (Wanaea and
Cossack subsea development).
An aggressive target setting and planning methodology was
developed on the basis of question, “What is possible?” rather
than the question, “What can be improved?” to get the desired
performance.
The approach was greatly influenced by achievements in other
parts of the world. Some new drilling operations standards were set
in the North Sea during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, as
documented by Shute et al.2. A major factor claimed in the success
of this work came from time analysis, which rigorously pursued the
identification and removal of drilling problems. Work by Huber et
al.3 in the North Sea took a similar approach, which also produced
excellent results.
The high level objective for the Wanaea and Cossack projects
was the requirement for highly productive wells and low construc-
tion cost. Work carried out to maximize well productivity had the
highest priority because of the potential pay back and has been
documented by Walters.4 The focus of this paper was the reduction
of well costs.
With time as the predominant cost driver for well cost (70% of
the well cost was time sensitive), time reduction took priority over
unit cost reduction. Application of the “ What is possible?” question
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 51181) was revised for publication from paper SPE 35077, first
presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, 12–15
March. Original manuscript received for review 12 July 1996. Revised manuscript
received 30 April 1997. Paper peer approved 17 April 1998.
*Now with Chevron Overseas Petroleum Inc.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998
to every component of well construction resulted in aggregate
drilling and completion time, which was called the technical limit.
Technical limit was a term used to describe a level of perfor-
mance defined as the best possible for a given set of design
parameters. Such performance can be approached but requires a
perfect set of conditions, tools, and people. A close analogy of the
technical limit is a world record in athletics.
The Philosophy of Targeting Technical Limit
The decision to target technical limit was a profoundly significant
one. As with a decision to pursue a world record in athletics, pursuit
of technical limit required extraordinary effort and commitment and
would probably not be achieved. This is contrary to the commonly
held belief that targets must be achievable. Implications included
a need for highly competent people, team work, and effective
leadership.
In meeting the challenge, many deficiencies were exposed (and
dealt with) that had not been exposed in the past, thereby inviting
criticism and invoking the blame culture, not uncommon in the oil
industry. A key success factor was to stay committed to the
technical limit strategy, not to image.
Determining the Technical Limit
The Theoretical Well. The first stage in the development of a
technical limit well time was the construction of a theoretical well.
The theoretical well assumed a flawless operation on the basis of
current knowledge and design technology. It was made up of
activities and durations that were derived from collective experi-
ence. Assumptions included, for example, no midsection trips
required to change bit or bottomhole assembly (BHA), no reaming
(stable hole), no waiting on equipment, no wiper trips,2,3 and no
significant circulating time. This diverged from the assumptions
made by Kadaster5 for a normal well. We concluded that to include
such times would have included technical shortcomings in the plan.
The goal was to highlight technical shortcomings as the focus for
action and change, rather than accept, them.
The well construction was broken into easily definable sections
to calculate a theoretical well, such as drilling a 171⁄2-in. hole,
running and cementing 133⁄8-in. casing, and drilling a 121⁄4-in. hole.
This produced about 9 to 16 sections depending on the design detail
of the particular well. The sections were then broken into subac-
tivities as shown in the following example.
Section: 171⁄2-in. Hole. Lay down 26-in. BHA; pick up 171⁄2-in.
BHA; run in hole; drill shoe; perform leak-off test; drill 171⁄2-in.
hole; circulate bottoms up; and, pull out of hole.
The aim of breaking each section down was to define sufficient
design detail to enable estimating of actual durations; too much
detail became cumbersome to work with. Durations were then
estimated for each subgroup. Drilling time assumed a 10 minute
connection time3 and rate of penetration (ROP) from the best bit
runs in the area. A well time produced by this method often resulted
in disbelief of the short duration calculated (see Table 1).
By developing the theoretical well’s technical limit in a group
session, it was possible to bring about a shift in paradigms about
what was, and is possible.
Removable Time. The difference between actual well time and
theoretical well time was called removable time. It included con-
197
 Fig. 1—Days to total depth (TD) for wells drilled on the North West Shelf between 1968
and 1992.
TABLE 1—ACTUAL VS. THEORETICAL DURATIONS
Theoretical Time Actual Time
Offset Directional Wells (Days) (Days)
Cossack 2 22.0 42.3
Cossack 3 22.0 51.5
ventional lost time and down time and also another component
termed invisible lost time. Invisible lost time was the name given
to the time taken to perform those activities included in a normal
well but excluded in the theoretical well. It was called invisible
because, before development of this method, it had not been recog-
nized or reported as lost time. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between
theoretical well, invisible lost time, and conventional lost time.5
The times being generated by the theoretical well were indicating
that reductions of 40 to 60% were possible, so quantifying the
amount of removable time was important.
Identification of the removable time (invisible lost time and
normal lost time3) was achieved manually by use of daily reports
from offset wells and application of the assumptions made for the
theoretical well. The exercise of extracting removable time analysis
was very time consuming (up to 2 man months for the eight wells
reviewed) and required a high level of drilling/completion knowl-
Fig. 2—Diagrammatic representation of the relationship be-
tween the theoretical well, invisible lost time, technical limit, and
conventional lost time.
198
edge. The study provided quantification of the missing invisible lost
time and a list of all the problems and technical limitations that
prevented best performance on those wells.
The result was significantly greater after subtracting removable
time from actual time than the time predicted by the theoretical
well. This indicated that either the theoretical well was overly
optimistic or that further removable time was hidden in the reports.
To deal with this discrepancy, another term was introduced, effec-
tive time (shown in Table 2).
It was concluded that there must be a component of invisible lost
time associated with such things as efficiency improvements in rig
crew activities and drilling optimization (e.g., bit type and bit
weight). It would require cross comparison of inefficiencies on
different wells to identify the best.
The data set of the eight immediate offset wells was checked for
effective time for each section to investigate these inefficiencies
further. Table 3 shows the effective time for each section of the
wells. The highlighted times represented the best sections, and,
when combined, they added up to 19 days. This compared very
closely with, in fact a little lower than, the theoretical well times
estimated, although design parameters had changed somewhat for
the new wells. The conclusion was that the theoretical well times
were valid as the starting point for the technical limit.
The theoretical well time developed for the completions (as with
drilling) also appeared too low. A similar exercise of removable
time analysis was performed on a comparable North Sea subsea
completion campaign. The results from the study confirmed the
theoretical durations.
An opportunity to reduce well times by up to 60% was revealed
by objectively assessing the removable time with this method.
Use of the Technical Limit Method
Planning. The planning process used the technical limit concept to
identify the problems that prevented the technical limit being
TABLE 2—AN EXAMPLE OF EFFECTIVE TIME WITH
COSSACK 2 AND 3 DURATIONS
Theoretical Actual Removable Effective
Offset Wells Well Times Time Time
Cossack 2 22.0 42.3 13.6 28.7
Cossack 3 22.0 51.5 22.3 29.2
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998
 TABLE 3—EFFECTIVE TIME IN HOURS FROM WANAEA AND COSSACK REMOVAL TIME STUDY

Wanaea Cossack
Technical
Section No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Limit

Run TGB 2.25 2.00 3.00 2.50 1.50 6.50 2.50 2.50 1.50
Drill 36-in. hole 9.50 8.50 11.00 19.50 7.50 18.00 9.00 15.50 7.50
Run 30-in. casing 10.50 7.00 6.00 6.75 4.60 9.50 10.25 8.50 4.60
Drill 26-in. hole 28.25 33.00 23.00 27.25 27.75 28.50 30.50 25.75 23.00
Run 20-in. casing 10.25* 11.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 11.50 13.50 15.00 10.25
Run Bop 13.25 13.50 13.00 10.00 16.25 17.00 9.00 10.75 9.00
Drill 17 1⁄2-in. hole 133.25 110.00 118.00 117.50 114.75 155.50 172.75 174.00 110.00
Run 13 3⁄8-in. casing 32.50 23.50 36.25 21.75 25.00 22.50 22.75 23.00 21.76
Drill 12 1⁄4-in. hole 270.25 201.50 119.50 105.50 106.50 319.00 122.75 193.75 106.60
Run 9 5⁄8-in. casing 44.00 25.00 27.50 24.25 44.75 24.50 42.25 23.75 23.76
Drill 8 1⁄2-in. hole 130.25 53.00 72.00 90.75 71.25 61.00 98.50 111.25 53.00
Log 49.00 71.00 54.00 36.50 43.00 22.75 62.0m 36.50
Run liner 59.50 25.00 37.50 41.25 23.50 42.50 42.50 23.50
Clean out 44.00 37.50 26.50 45.00 69.50 26.60

Total hours 684.5 640.00 576.25 227.25 511.00 785.00 668.50 715.25 466.26
Total days 28.5 26.70 24.00 23.20 21.30 32.70 27.90 29.80 19.00

* The highlighted cells identify previous best (Technical Limit) times.

reached and then planned their removal. The time taken to drill and
complete wells would be the indication of the ability to understand
and manage the variables.
Approximately 9 months were spent planning the startup of
operations. The planning process used the theoretical well and
offset well analysis to develop an engineering workscope and
determine the resources needed. Execution of the engineering
workscope involved getting engineers and contractors to under-
stand potential obstacles to achieving the technical limit and then
manage them.
Approximately 175 days were identified as removable time from
a total of 435 days on the eight offset wells. The problems identified
by analysis are shown in Fig. 3 as a Pareto chart. Significantly, the
invisible lost time was categorized as bit/BHA, 47%; mud, 23%;
waiting on weather (WOW), 13%; and other, 15%. Clearly, if the
bit/BHA and mud problems were addressed, then 72% of the
removable time would be eliminated. Drilling and completing
outside cyclone season would potentially remove another 13%
because of WOW.
The development of the theoretical well activities and times
provided a baseline for further analysis of the sequences required.
Program evaluation review technique charts were constructed,
typically listing 300 tasks/well, and used to undertake critical path
analysis. A number of activities were removed from the critical path
by introducing new tools and/or techniques.
The engineering planning work had a big impact on the speci-
fication of the drilling rig needed for the project. The cost of the
higher rig specification was easily justified against the potential

Fig. 3—Results of the removable time study performed on eight offset wells. Categorized by bit/BHA, mud, WOW,
and other.

SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998 199

 Fig. 4 —Diagrammatic representation of the management model developed to
support the technical limit approach.

efficiencies indicated by the theoretical well time. The result allowed
fit for purpose rig selection and, ultimately, sole source negotiation of
the selected rig rather than a low bid tendering process.
A number of other factors were addressed during the planning
stage and were influential in the overall success of the project.
These included identification and management of risk; communi-
cation of the plan to all involved, to gain ownership and shared
goals; and, preoffshore review of procedures, sequence of events,
and equipment.
Operations. Invisible lost time was made very visible in the
operational phase of the project. Any activity time deviation from
the technical limit schedule was reported on the daily report. If the
deviation was negative (i.e., time reduced), the time expected on
future wells was adjusted downward and a new technical limit was
defined. If the deviation was positive (i.e., extra time taken), it was
analyzed for cause. If the extra time taken was unavoidable (i.e., the
technical limit time had been underestimated), a new time was
defined for the next well. If it was removable, solutions were
developed that would prevent reoccurrence of the event.
Similar to the approach taken by Kadaster,5 the use of a total
quality management (TQM) approach was found to be very effec-
tive (see the TQM feedback loop in Fig. 4). The feedback system
was very broad in it’s application and became very efficient with
proper resourcing from either company or contractor.
Initially, offshore personnel were uncomfortable reporting
against the technical limit because every nonconformance, large or
small, was exposed. It was important that management encouraged
and supported the offshore team in pursuit of the ideal standards
that had been set. A no-blame environment was essential and
practiced with vigor.
The measurement of operations against the technical limit sched-
ule was extremely powerful. No better way was found to highlight
and pursue maximum opportunity for improvement.

Fig. 5—Days to total depth (TD) for wells drilled on the North West Shelf between 1968 and
1992. Results from Wanaea and Cossack have been included to show the improvement made.

200 SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998

 TABLE 4—POST-WELL ANALYSIS FROM WELL 1

Starting New
Technical Actual Removable Effective Technical
Section Limit Time Time Time Limit

Drill 36-in. 9.0 11.0 0 11.0 10.0

Run 30-in. 11.0 9.0 2.0 7.0 7.0
Drill 26-in. 21.0 27.0 0 27.0 21.0
Run 20-in. 25.0 67.0 42.0 25.0 25.0
Run BOP 20.0 30.0 0 30.0 20.0
Drill 17 1⁄2-in. 107.0 380.0 249.0 131.0 107.0
Run 13 3⁄8-in. 36.0 43.0 2.0 41.0 36.0
Drill 12 1⁄4-in. 77.0 142.0 48.0 94.0 77.0
Run 9 5⁄8-in. 44.0 42.0 0 42.0 42.0
Drill 6 1⁄2-in. 65.0 104.0 39.0 65.0 65.0
TD logging 6.0 14.0 5.0 8.0 6.0
4 1⁄2-in. liner 57.0 292.0 241.0 51.0 51.0

Total hours 476.0 1158.0 626.75 531.0 467.0

Total days 19.8 48.2 26.1 22.1 19.5

Results A comparison between the technical limit, actual, and effective

Drilling Performance. Typical historical drilling times for direc-
tional appraisal wells on these fields were 42 to 52 days. Antici-
pating some improvement in performance, 50/50 budget estimates
(a budget estimate based on time, considered as equally likely to be
exceeded than beaten) had been prepared with 34 days for a typical
moderately deviated well and 46 days for a horizontal section well.
Technical limit determination was carried out with the methodol-
ogy described, arriving at durations of 19.8 days and 27.5 days,
respectively.
times on Well 1 is presented in Table 4. The fifth column shows
where a new technical limit had been set.
Furthermore, Well 1 took 22.1 effective days. This was an
improvement of 6.6 days compared with effective times of 28.7 and
29.2 days of the previous offset wells; however, Well 1 had 26.2
days of removable time. Table 5 shows the causes of the removable
time and the actions taken to prevent recurrence. Most of the
removable times were new problems not seen on the offset wells,
an indication that the drilling process was still not in control.

TABLE 5—POST WELL REMOVABLE TIME ANALYSIS FOR WELL 1

Removable
Time
Number Problem (hours) Cause Action and Solution

1 Back-off in 17 1⁄2-in. hole 187.25 High drilling torque as a Reduce drilling parameters. Eliminate
result of formation and string weak-points, review drilling
aggressive drilling. procedures.
2 Twist off 2 3⁄8-in. drillpipe in liner 97.00 Excess weight on pipe. Procedures. Source stronger pipe.
Minimize use.
3 Cleanout of cement in liner 71.00 Plug not bumped, no shear Reviewed procedures. Developed inner
indication. string method.
4 Dropped junk basket and nut 64.00 Nut backed off downhole. Weld nut to shank. Review tool
procedures.
5 Correction run in 12 1⁄4-in. hole 44.00 Right hand bit walk and drop Review bit and BHA selection. Allow left
too high. hand lead.
6 No cement in 9 5⁄8-in. shoe 29.00 Mud syphoning through top Reviewed cement head design. Increased
drive when changing over to shoe track to 3 joints. Plan to bump plug
release dart. and pressure test casing.
7 Dropped 20-in. casing 24.00 Backup tong slipped. Review top drive and casing procedures.
8 Rig downtime (total) 22.00 Various equipment problems, Review maintenance planning.
critical path maintenance.
9 Problem landing CGB 18.00 Incorrect bolts-quality Use correct bolts. Review procedures.
control. Cuttings build up at
wellhead.
10 Washout in Monel DC 14.00 Stress corrosion cracking. Inspect all monels internal (boroscope).
Review quality assurance/quality control
procedures.
11 Trip in 17 1⁄2-in. slow ROP 11.00 Bit balling. Use PDC bit. Review mud system.
12 Logging failure 4.00 Intermittent short in tool Tool returned for repair. Calibrate backup
connection. before use.
13 Miscellaneous 42.50 Small events. As available resources allow.

SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998 201

 TABLE 6—POST WELL ANALYSIS FOR WELL 3

Starting Technical Actual Removable Effective New Technical

Section Limit Time Time Time Limit

Drill 36-in. 10.0 7.5 0 7.5 7.5

Run 30-in. 7.5 6.5 0 6.5 6.5
Drill 26-in. 21.0 24.5 1.5 23.0 21.0
Run 20-in. 25.0 24.0 4.0 20.0 20.0
Run BOP 16.5 19.8 0 19.8 16.5
Drill 17 1⁄2-in. 111.0 117.0 1.8 115.3 111.0
Run 13 3⁄8-in. 36.0 40.0 7.5 32.5 32.5
Drill 12 1⁄4-in. 77.0 103.8 16.3 87.5 77.0
Run 9 5⁄8-in. 42.0 41.3 3.0 38.3 38.3
Drill 6 1⁄2-in. 63.0 59.8 4.8 55.0 55.0
TD logging 6.0 9.3 1.8 7.5 6.0
4 1⁄2-in. liner 51.0 205.3 155.0 50.3 50.3

Total hours 466.0 658.5 195.5 463.0 441.5

Total days 19.4 27.4 8.1 19.3 18.4

Fig. 6 —Comparison of the effective time and removable time wells drilled
before the start of the project and Wells 1 and 3. The inefficiency shown is
a result of advancing the technical limit and taking a backward view.

Fig. 7—Comparison of the effective time and removable time for the
comparable portions of the completions. Again inefficiency can be shown
by taking a backward view from the final technical limit.

202 SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998

 Well 3 was almost identical to the first well (Well 2 had the
horizontal section) and makes a good comparison. The drilling
performance for Well 3 is presented in Table 6. Overall perfor-
mance had improved by 2.8 days, as indicated by the effective time;
also, the offshore team was more efficient in many areas, including
running blowout preventer and casing. Again, new events happened
that had not been anticipated. Only 8.2 days were identified as
removable time, 85% of which was accounted for by just two
events. An indication that process control was quickly improving.
The analysis for Well 2 (with 808 m of horizontal section) was
drilled in 40.4 days with 9.4 days of removable time. Adding all
wells together, the drilling part of the project took 116.1 days
compared to the budget base time of 114 days. Although drilling
performance still contained significant removable time, it was a
marked improvement on the past (see Fig. 5).
A learning curve is evident by comparing effective time and
removable time for each of the three wells (Fig. 6). Indeed, it would
appear that the operational efficiency had approached the technical
limit in just three wells. Such a performance has been described by
Brett et al.6 and termed as excellent. Good is the adjective used for
approaching the learning curve asymptote in five wells.
Completion Performance. Subsea completions technical limits of
10.5 days (new well) and 14.0 days (predrilled well) had been
established based on the planning phase described. These compared
with 50/50 budget estimates of 16.5 days and 21.5 days, respec-
tively. All these times included production testing.
The actual durations achieved averaged 11.3 days for new wells
and 15.9 days for existing wells on the six well campaign.
The process of refining the technical limit continued as wells
were completed. The six completion times are shown in Table 7.
The technical limit for a new well had changed from 10.5 days to
8.5 days at the end of the six well campaign. The best new well
completion was 9.1 days, which includes all forms of removable
time. The subsea completions were finished 33 days ahead of the
50/50 budget times.
The completions, by their more mechanically controllable na-
ture, started further along the learning curve than drilling did. The
first completion took 25% less time than the 50/50 budget time. Fig.
7 shows the technical limit after the final completion compared with
effective time and removable time for each core completion ac-
tivity. The completions learning curve is still evident in Fig. 7,
although less pronounced than with drilling.
The drilling and completion campaign not only delivered sig-
nificant cost savings against the budget, but also delivered subsea
wells with productivity 30% greater than expected.
Conclusions
The results presented here could be considered lucky with such a
small data set; this is not disputed. The important conclusion with
the methodology outlined lies with a focus on the theoretical well
TABLE 7—FULL COMPLETION TIMES
Technical Actual Removable Effective
Limit Time Time Time
Completion (days) (days) (days) (days)
1 11.4 12.5 1.4 11.1
2 10.7 12.8 2.3 10.5
3 10.9 10.8 1.2 9.6
4 8.9 9.1 1.2 7.9
5 14.9* 19.3 4.7 14.6
6 13.2* 14.2 2.0 12.4
* Include running additional equipment.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1998
and a technical limit. These concepts were quantified and used in
an aggressive method to target the “What is possible?” question.
Technical limit was applied to planning and operations. The fol-
lowing points have been concluded from this approach.
1. Drilling and completion performances can be usefully mod-
eled with the technical limit.
2. The invisible lost time component of this model offers insight
into operational inefficiencies that conventional industry lost time
systems ignore.
3. Technical limit was used to set the highest performance
standards possible.
4. Quantifying and addressing removable lost time provided the
maximum opportunity to improve.
5. The technical limit model led to a step change in understanding
and performance when applied to three new directional wells and
six subsea completions.
6. Adoption of this technique requires courage because it reveals
every deviation from the ideal. A no-blame culture was essential to
its acceptance.
Acknowledgments
We thank Woodside Offshore Petroleum and its joint venture
participants [BHP Petroleum, BP Developments Australia, Chev-
ron Asiatic, Japan Australia LNG (MIMI), and Shell Development
Australia] for support throughout this project. Additional thanks to
Sedco Forex, Baker I.S., and all personnel that contributed to the
development and application of the technical limit method. Per-
sonal thanks to Phillis Harley for tireless support from the begin-
ning of the project and through the preparation of this paper.
References
1. Noerager, J.A., White, J.P., and Floetia, A.: “Drilling Time Predictions
From Statistical Analysis” paper SPE/IADC 16164 presented at the 1987
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 15–18 March.
2. Shute, J. and Alldredge, G.: “Conoco Cuts North Sea Drilling Time by
40%.” World Oil (July 1982).
3. Huber, D.D. and Walton, H.: “A Realistic Goal From a Semi: Drill to
10,000 ft in 10 Days,” World Oil (September 1983).
4. Walters, N.S.: “Maximizing Well Potential: An Integrated Approach,”
paper SPE 36997 presented at the 1996 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 28–31 October.
5. Kadaster, A.G., Townsend, C.W., and Albaugh, E.K.: “Drilling Time
Analysis: A Total Quality Management Tool for Drilling in the 1990’s,”
paper SPE 24559 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., 4–7 October.
6. Brett, J.F. and Millhiem, K.K.: “The Drilling Performance Curve: A
Yardstick for Judging Drilling Performance,” paper SPE 15362 presented
at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 5–8 October.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft 3 3.048* E201 5 m
in. 3 2.54 E100 5 cm
*Conversion factors are exact. SPEDC
David F. Bond is a principal drilling engineer for Woodside
Energy Ltd. in Perth, Australia, responsible for technical integrity
and performance of all Woodside drilling activities. He holds a
BS degree in mechanical engineering from the U. of Leeds, U.K.
Phil W. Scott is an implementation manager for new systems
being developed by Woodside Energy Ltd. in Perth, Australia.
His recent focus has been on human elements in well construc-
tion. He holds a BS degree in civil engineering from the U. of
Western Australia. Peter E. Page is a senior completions engi-
neer for Woodside Energy Ltd. in Perth, Australia. Previously,
Peter worked for Shell Intl. He has worked for Shell in the U.K. and
in Norway before moving to Australia in 1992. Tom M. Windham
is a drilling superintendent with Chevron Overseas Petroleum
Inc., in Escravos, Nigeria. He was seconded to Woodside from
November 1993 to December 1996. He holds a BS degree in
petroleum engineering from West Virginia U.
203