Mason

We all strive to follow best practice to deliver safe and efficient rig operations, but  too often the rig schedule, equipment lead times, and day-to-day demands seem to block out the chance of making those breakthroughs—sorting out rig operations programs and fire-fighting well problems; tendering and evaluating contracts; monitoring and reporting costs and performance; understanding nonconformances and nonproductive time; specifying and procuring equipment; managing people; approving invoices and timesheets; understanding what the latest change from subsurface modeling means to your well design. In the background is that nagging thought that things might be done differently and better if there was less noise in the open-plan office and more time to betterunderstand the fundamental engineering, to look at how similar problems have been managed elsewhere, and to investigate new and innovative ideas.

Unfortunately, each time a well costs more than planned, the organization’s enthusiasm for new and innovative ideas can get dented. If the team is on course to overspend, the focus becomes aversion to risk to protect the downside, rather than chasing those opportunities. If the project metrics can be achieved with low-risk well designs, innovations become relegated to incremental add-ons. Technology becomes limited to a few items of plug-and-play rental equipment which can be delivered in a few weeks, with a limited downside. High oil prices push more wells into this category, with metrics that can be delivered without inviting the perceived perils of innovation and technology. 

One of my current projects is planning for a produced water re-injector. Previous injectors on the field have failed to deliver required injection rates, and this well carries expensive consequences of failure. Our well design conversations are all about protecting the downside, with the result that the design has gravitated toward a proven, conservative, and more expensive well design. There is plenty of focus on best practice, but no appetite to invite risk.

The best projects I’ve worked on were around the times of the 1986 and 1998 low oil prices, where well engineering was forced to go outside the proven envelope. Innovations were not incremental add-ons, but were needed to deliver the metrics.  Multiwell projects meant that new ideas could be developed and optimized; the challenge was how far qualification testing could take one up the learning curve before the first field deployment. The industry has an excellent track record of delivering the goods in these situations, or at least one gets that impression reading publications like SPEDrilling & Completions. I suspect we don’t see a balanced picture, because you won’t get to read about the less successful projects that get shelved or sold. There is certainly an element of bad luck in some less successful projects; sometimes even the most thorough prejob preparations can fall apart in the face of subsurface surprises.

Whether your current project is low-risk or outside the proven envelope, SPE Drilling & Completions is an opportunity to digest best practice and look at innovative ideas to help you understand how things might be done differently or better. Consider it an excuse to get away from the noise for an hour and consider what might be possible.   

This issue starts with two papers looking at annulus pressure buildup; firstly, theoretical predictions are combined with measurements from a test well in Transient Behavior of Annular Pressure Build-up in HP/HT Wells. Analysis of a casing collapse failure during drilling is presented in Analysis of an Annular Pressure Buildup Failure During Drill Ahead.

The third paper, True Hybrid Operations Combining Coiled-Tubing Drilling and Conventional Rig Workover Techniques and Practices, presents a slimhole rig system, while recent advances in water-based mud are presented in New Water-Based Mud Balances High-Performance Drilling and Environmental Compliance.

Magnolia Deepwater Development—Striving for Best-in-Class Drilling Performance presents an operator’s story of development drilling, with many examples of innovative well operations.

Solid Expandable Tubular Technology: The Value of Planned Installation vs. Contingency is a good example of adding value from expandable systems.

The final paper, Well-Control Procedures for Dual-Gradient Drilling as Compared to Conventional Riser Drilling, discusses the challenges of well control in dual-gradient drilling.

Your subscription to SPE Drilling & Completion means that all these papers are available to you online at www.spe.org. The website also invites you to respond with questions and comments about the papers. This is your publication and your opportunity to maximize learning and add value in your business.

Regards,

John Mason