Mitchell

What is the biggest complaint about SPEDC? It goes something like this: “I submit my paper and I don’t hear from SPE for about 2 years. Why does peer review take so long?” For academics, this is a very serious question as their job depends on publication. It is important for the rest of us because we need timely technical information to do our jobs well. To answer this question, let’s examine the review process, identify the bottlenecks, and see what we can do to improve it.

First, the paper must be submitted for review. While there are some unsolicited papers, the majority of papers come from SPE conferences. Most papers come from the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, with many more from the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition and the Offshore Technology Conference. For example, this year there were 134 papers submitted to the drilling conference alone.

The first hurdle to clear in the new peer review process is that in the submission process for conferences, there is a check box that requests peer review for the paper. Although this check box is optional, some people thought it was mandatory, indicating that it is too easy to ask for peer review. Therefore, SPE is working to change this. For example, if you have submitted a paper for a conference recently, you have received a request from SPE to justify why you feel your paper should be peer reviewed. If you are not sufficiently interested to write a few paragraphs on the value of your paper, this is one paper less to overload the review process.

The second hurdle is paper triage. In this process, we try to identify papers for initial decline. If you receive an initial decline, all is not lost, because sometimes we make mistakes. If you think your paper has value, I urge you to appeal the decision. At this point, your paper goes into the actual review process. Your paper is assigned to a review chair, who then assigns it to at least two reviewers. Even though our goal for reviewers to return the paper is 2 months, it often takes longer. Sometimes the process can take several months as we chase unresponsive reviewers and then, if unsuccessful, replacement reviewers are assigned, which starts the process all over. Also, if things slow because of some controversy about the paper, I may request additional reviews. To expedite the processes, we have added 12 new technical editors as of November 2007 and we have shortened the review time from 60 to 30 days. Once the review chair makes his recommendation, it is sent to the Executive Editor, who must make a final decision. I will try to make a final decision in a timely manner.

Once the paper gets final approval, it must be production edited before publication. This part of the process is perhaps the biggest bottleneck of all. SPE is currently working hard to expand its team of production editors as their resources are limited. Finally, the paper is published in the journal, along with about eight other papers.

While our industry is struggling with “The Big Crew Change," the SPEDC Journal is struggling with “The Big Backlog." With so many papers coming in the door, and so few papers actually reaching the journal, there is a large backup of papers in the middle. There are several things we are doing to help solve this problem. In my opinion, the most serious problem is that many of the papers have been in the system for more than 2 years. To solve this problem, I have appointed John Thorogood as deputy editor to expedite review decisions for these papers. The second goal is to publish more papers per issue. This requires more editing resource, and SPE is going to get that resource. The next issue of the journal will have many more papers. We are going to do more triage, so you may have to appeal your decision more often. If you have passion about your paper, writing an appeal will not be too onerous. If you don’t care to appeal, that’s one fewer paper in the backlog. Finally, we are soliciting more reviewers. WE NEED YOU! VOLUNTEER!

In this issue, you will find the following drilling papers. First, there's Prediction of Wellbore Position Accuracy When Surveyed With Gyroscopic Tools. Knowledge of wellbore position is critical for many reasons. Because we don’t have a downhole GPS, we must deduce the wellbore position from survey data; therefore, the accuracy of this data is a primary concern. This paper presents the latest model for the prediction of accuracy of gyroscopic surveying tools on the basis of a previous error model developed for magnetic MWD tools. The model is the product of the SPE Wellbore Positioning Technical Section, and is intended to sufficiently apply to a broad range of gyro systems and future developments in sensor design. Required reading if you are in the wellbore surveying business. Dynamic Depth Correction To Reduce Depth Uncertainty and Improve MWD/LWD Log Quality. This paper continues our topic of improving estimates of wellbore prediction. The subject is an old drillstring topic and drillstring stretch. The authors have determined that the most important factors in drillstring stretch are string weight, friction, and thermal expansion. They attack the first effects by use of a torque-drag simulator, and have many comments on the proper application of this tool to the string stretch problem. Thermal expansion is discussed in a more casual fashion, but highlights the difficulty in determining drillstring temperatures to an acceptable degree of accuracy for this calculation. Formation of Underwater Cuttings Piles in Offshore Drilling. A 2D solids-settling model has been proposed to simulate the formation of seafloor beds from discharged drill cuttings. The beds are assumed to be always at incipient sliding, so the geometry is defined by the angle of repose of the solids. It is assumed that the ocean current transports the cuttings laterally, gravity causes the cuttings to settle, and a distribution of cutting sizes and shapes determines the cutting’s resistance to motion through the fluid. Jetting of Structural Casing in Deepwater Environments: Job Design and Operational Practices. Installation of the conductor doesn’t receive a lot of technical analysis, and considering that the conductor is the foundation for the entire well, this doesn’t seem justified. This paper reviews the state of the art, and makes a good beginning at the analysis of structural casing installation in deepwater. In addition to the analysis, we are given five case histories with lessons learned.

Also in this issue are the following completion papers: New Technology Improves Performance of Viscoelastic Surfactant Fluids. The use of viscoelastic surfactant fluids is relatively new technology, first used in gravel-pack completions in the mid 1980s and later in frac-packs in the mid 1990s. The improved technology discussed in this paper solves several problems. The system works with high-density brines, the temperature range has been extended from 200 to 300°F, fluid loss control has been improved with nondamaging “filtercake”-like behavior, and an internal viscosity breaker developed. All of this, and improved economics, too. Effective High-Density Wellbore Cleaning Fluids: Brine-Based and Solids-Free. Step one in the installation of a well completion is to clean the wellbore of drilling mud or drill-in fluids. Conventional cleaning fluids are typically low-density, fresh water, or sea water, and the low density creates a number of operational problems. The solution proposed by this paper is a brine-based, solids-free, high-density cleaning fluid. The authors present results from both laboratory studies and four field test case histories. Polymer Reduction Leads to Increased Success: A Comparative Study. Polymer is required to create sufficient viscosity in frac fluids to open the fracture and place the proppant. Unfortunately, this polymer also damages proppant-pack conductivity. The obvious answer seems to be lower polymer loadings, but can lower polymer loadings be used successfully? This study of over 200 wells in the western Canadian sedimentary basin does a direct comparison of high and low polymer loading, which shows the low loading to be both effective and cheaper. World's First Gravel Packed Inflow Control Completion. Openhole horizontal gravel packs have been used successfully in the Etame oil field, offshore Gabon. The ET-6H well, however, was at risk of early water breakthrough. The operator decided to use flow control devices in the well completion to generate a more uniform inflow profile along the length of the gravel pack to protect against early water breakthrough. However, the gravel packing of inflow control devices had never been done before. This paper describes the complete gravel pack operation, including inflow modeling, gravel pack design, gravel pack installation, and post-job analysis. Zonal Isolation Modeling and Measurements—Past Myths and Today's Realities. In our industry, we do not often re-examine the fundamentals of our technology. There are few things more fundamental than the cementing of wells, but what are the mechanical properties, both short term and long term, of this cement sheath? These properties are the fundamental input to any model of cement failure used to predict well completion integrity. The authors have studied these models to understand exactly what experimental results were needed for valid predictions. The result is a well-defined consistent set of experimental methods and data analysis techniques to determine the key cement behaviors.

Finally, I would like to thank John Mason for his efforts as the previous Executive Editor, and you for your continued support of SPEDC.

Regards,

Robert Mitchell, rmitchell@lgc.com