Cheatham

Seventy days. That is a rough estimate of the number of workdays spent on peer review of the papers in each issue of SPE Drilling & Completion. That seems like a lot of time to produce a single issue containing an average of 13 papers, doesn't it? In reality, the number is probably much higher than 70 days. And to be clear, this does not include time spent by the authors performing the work described in their papers and writing their original paper. But before debating this question, let's take a look behind the scenes at our peer review process.

Peer Review Status on 4 August 2012

Everyone wants papers to be peer reviewed as fast as possible and with the highest possible quality. Balancing these two criteria on a consistent basis is the goal. Regarding the speed of peer review, several years ago the biggest complaint from our annual readers' survey was excessive time to complete peer review of papers. Since then we have made consistent and significant progress. To illustrate this point, SPE Drilling & Completion had achieved the following status as of 4 August 2012:

• The target for SPE journals is to send the authors a decision letter within 112 days of the date when they submitted their paper for peer review.
  • Currently, SPE Drilling & Completion averages 78 days.
• The target for SPE journals is for the Technical Editor (TE) to submit their review within 30 days of agreeing to review a paper.
  • Currently, SPE Drilling & Completion averages 24 days.

Each of these key performance indicators is better than the target, which represents a huge improvement over 5 years ago.

To help assess quality of our peer review process and results, SPE has implemented a questionnaire for all authors who publish papers in SPE journals to provide their critical feedback. So far, insufficient data has been gathered to reach meaningful conclusions. We look forward to receiving critical feedback and suggestions from authors who have experienced peer review with our journal. The objective is to help our Editorial Review Committee focus on areas where we can improve.

Over the last 12 months, the Editorial Review Committee for SPE Drilling & Completion has completed reviews for 173 papers. This translates to an average of 43 papers reviewed for each quarterly issue. A total of 52 papers have been published in the last four issues, which is an average of 13 papers per issue. The overall acceptance rate from the previously described data is 30%, which is typical for SPE journals currently.

Now, let’s return to the issue of the time spent on peer review for each issue of SPE Drilling & Completion. Each paper is typically reviewed by two TEs and one Associate Editor (AE). A TE's job is to read the paper, formulate their view, and write and submit their review in the online ScholarOne Manuscript system. An AE's job is to read the paper, formulate their view, read the reviews of the TE's, and write and submit their recommendation. If we estimate 2 hours for each person (two TEs and one AE), that equates to 6 hours per paper. In addition, administrative time is provided by SPE staff – Stacie Hughes and Meghann Mays – and the Executive Editor, which we will estimate is another 4 hours per paper (Stacie and Meghann are fast and efficient, but I am old and slow). The sum is 10 hours of work per paper. Therefore, 173 papers over the last 12 months required 1,730 hours. And this is the best-case scenario. Sometimes TEs spend significantly more than 2 hours on particular papers as they strive to submit the best possible review. Occasionally, AEs seek additional reviews after receiving the first two. In my experience, the 10 hours per paper is a conservative estimate.

Papers that are accepted for journal publication typically undergo at least one revision that requires an estimated 4 hours by the authors, another 4 hours by the reviewers, and 2 more hours by SPE staff. Therefore, the 52 papers published during the last 12 months required 520 hours for one revision. This also represents a lower bound estimate because some papers undergo two or three revisions.

Adding the 1,730 hours of initial review time to the 520 hours of revision time equals 2,250 hours to produce the last four issues, or 281 eight-hour workdays. By this rough estimate, at least 70 days is required for peer review by TEs, authors, and SPE staff for each issue of SPE Drilling & Completion. That represents a large investment of time by experienced people with a high degree of expertise in the appropriate subjects. The monetary value associated with this time is indeed an impressive figure. Naturally, we recognize that our readers expect nothing less. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to reflect on the magnitude of the effort that goes into each issue.

SPE Drilling & Completion Editorial Review Committee

The Editorial Review Committee that achieved these superb results comprises 170 TEs and 10 AEs. These volunteers work hard to produce reviews that are fair, technically correct, and completed in a timely manner. Moreover, they strive to clearly explain the basis of their recommendations. Their service and dedication is absolutely critical to the success of our journal.

Each paper is assigned to one AE who manages the review by selecting, assigning, and overseeing the TEs. AEs are chosen from the ranks of outstanding TEs and they perform the heaviest lifting of our entire Editorial Review Committee. We are privileged to have such exceptional and talented individuals as AEs for SPE Drilling & Completion. They are listed next along with the subjects they cover:

•  Shilin Chen – directional drilling, drill bits, and drillstring dynamics
•  Fionn Iversen – real-time operations, drilling automation, drilling process control and modeling, and well control
•  John Mason – completion and intervention operations, well design and construction
•  Steve Nas – managed pressure drilling, well control, and underbalanced drilling
•  Bernard Piot – cement, cementing, and zonal isolation
•  Kaibin Qiu – geomechanics, wellbore stability, and pore pressure
•  Carl Thaemlitz – drilling and completions fluids, and chemistry
•  John Thorogood – drilling automation, drilling project management, well design and construction, directional surveying, deep water, and arctic operations
•  Christoph Zerbst – completion planning, design, and installation, sand control, intelligent completions, and gravel packing
•  Yunxu (Joe) Zhou – hydraulics, coiled tubing, multiphase flow, and rheology

Maximiliano Medina recently completed a 3-year term as AE. Max covered completions design and planning, sand control, perforating, and advanced tubing/casing design with great expertise and passion. He has been a major factor in continuing the tradition of excellence for our journal. We are grateful for his service and are thrilled he will remain as a TE for SPE Drilling & Completion. Thanks, Max. Well done, my friend.

Now to the papers. This issue contains 11 papers.

• 1 on post-macondo deepwater well design
• 1 on shale-gas fracturing
• 2 on novel downhole drilling tools from China
• 1 on CO2 sequestration
• 1 on real-time LWD imaging
• 1 on directional surveying
• 2 on sand screens
• 1 on drilling and completion fluids
• 1 on casing design

Post-Macondo Deepwater Well Design

Our first paper describes what happened to another deepwater Gulf of Mexico well that was being drilled when Macondo blew out. Altering an Existing Well Design to Meet New BOEMRE Worst Case Discharge Criteria describes the engineering details of an exploration well that was suspended at a well depth of 24,529 ft when the Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium was imposed. Before drilling operations were able to resume, major changes to the well design were required to enable the well to survive a flowing blowout at the seafloor and then survive being shut-in. Clearly, the topic is extremely important. The paper provides excellent insight into how one operator is dealing with the new regulations for deepwater wells in the aftermath of the Macondo blowout.

Shale-Gas Fracturing

Our next three papers are noteworthy partly because they are the first to be published in SPE Drilling & Completion that had the majority of coauthors from China. For some time now, authors from China have been submitting papers to our journal. The next three papers represent a breakthrough because these are the first of these papers to successfully pass peer review and be published in our journal. We congratulate the authors and look forward to more contributions to our journal from China.

Shale gas horizontal wells have become a major game changer in recent years, yet many fundamental questions remain about productivity in such low permeability reservoirs. Our second paper uses numerical models to study The Effect of Fracture-Face Matrix Damage on Productivity of Fractures With Infinite and Finite Conductivities in Shale-Gas Reservoirs. This paper should interest completion engineers who are responsible for hydraulic fracturing in low permeability gas wells.

Novel Downhole Drilling Tools From China

For numerous years, research has been conducted to try to use jet nozzles in the drill bit to improve rate of penetration (ROP). Some research has focused on the use of high pressure to fail the rock, or to assist bit cutters in failing rock. Other research has investigated using cavitating jets or other means to remove the rock to clean the bottomhole better, thereby increasing ROP. Yet, no major breakthroughs have been achieved despite the continuing research effort. Our next paper describes field use that demonstrates impressive ROP improvement in China. A Novel Tool To Improve the Rate of Penetration--Hydraulic-Pulsed Cavitating-Jet Generator describes a downhole tool that combines pulsed and cavitating jet technology. The paper’s references show extensive publications in recent years in China for this (and other similar sounding) technology. We are pleased to present the technology to all our readers.

Fiber optic gyros (FOG) are well known, but their application in the oil and gas industry is not well established. Study on the FOG-based Well Trajectory Logging Tool describes the use of FOGs to replace magnetometers for directional surveying. Our reviewers found the neural network approach for modeling temperature dependencies to be new and intriguing. Consequently, we felt exposure of this technology to the journal readership is worthwhile.

CO₂ Sequestration

Depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs are attractive targets for gas storage and CO₂ disposal because of proven storage capacity, seal integrity, and existing infrastructure. Geomechanical Risk Assessments for CO₂ Sequestration in Depleted Hydrocarbon Sandstone Reservoirs proposes a method and overall workflow to assist well engineers and geoscientists with geomechanical assessments for optimum well placements and injection design. The paper does an excellent job of describing the problem and analyzing various aspects related to the geomechanics of CO₂ sequestration. It is recommended reading for anyone interested in natural gas or CO₂ storage.

Real-Time LWD Imaging

Available bandwidth is often a prized commodity for competing information required to make real-time decisions during drilling. Improving Real-Time Image-Data Quality With A Telemetry Model reports a simulation tool to help predetermine the parameters of transferring downhole-image logs to surface in real-time to obtain best quality within the available telemetry bandwidth. The paper shows how the images received at surface can be valuable tools for geosteering decisions.

Directional Surveying

Previous papers have reported on the magnetic interference on measurement while drilling (MWD) tools caused by the drilling fluid. The Design of BHA and the Placement of Magnetometer Sensors Influence How Magnetic Azimuth Is Distorted by the Magnetic Properties of Drilling Fluids reports a new modeling method and approach to analyzing the various configurations of sensor housing with interference from magnetic drilling fluids. The results give new insights and awareness to readers about the complex interaction between sensor housing geometry, borehole geometry, and magnetic fluid properties. This paper could be useful during mechanical design of MWD tools.

Sand Screens

Sand-control technology continues to be a subject of great interest in the industry. In this issue, we offer two papers on screens used to mitigate sanding into the wellbore.

Woven-metal-mesh sand screens, commonly known as premium screens, have been used extensively by the industry. But according to our first paper, sand retention testing performed to evaluate screen performance is deficient. A New Method for the Design and Selection of Premium/Woven Sand Screens proposes a new method incorporating results from numerical modeling (discrete-element method) with experimental data to estimate the mass and size distribution of produced solids in prepacked sand-retention tests.

Our second paper on sand control presents an analytical and statistical (Monte Carlo) approach for predicting sand production through wire-wrap standalone sand screens with slot geometry. A New Method for the Design and Selection of Premium/Woven Sand Screens offers new ideas and methods to evaluate sand retention.

Drilling and Completion Fluids

Avoiding formation damage while drilling the reservoir section is highly desirable. Too often the desire to form a good filter cake during the drilling process leads to problems removing the filter cake (using "breakers") when the well is completed. The result is often formation damage. Optimization of a Solid-Acid Precursor for Self-Destructing Filter Cake presents a technology for water-based drilling fluid that is weighted with calcium carbonate particles. The filter cake is created during drilling to prevent fluid leakoff and is subsequently cleaned up over time by use of an ester (in solid form) that hydrolyzes, producing an organic acid to dissolve the calcium carbonate. Polylactic acid particles were used in the study to generate lactic acid. Experiments were conducted to find optimum particle size of the solid ester and calcium carbonate particles to serve the dual functions of fluid-loss control and self destruction at the desired time and rate. This paper presents novel thoughts on application and control of filter cake breakers that will be of interest to many readers.

Casing Design

In typical casing and tubular stress design, a "soft-string" model is used that assumes casing strings are coincident with the wellbore centerline. A major consequence of this assumption is that radial clearances cannot be properly modeled. Advanced Casing Design With Finite-Element Model of Effective Dogleg Severity, Radial Displacements, and Bending Loads presents a purpose-built finite-element model to simulate radial displacement of a casing string constrained within a wellbore. As such, it represents a "stiff-string" model wherein the casing is approximated by general-beam elements. Key results predicted from the model are the deflection of the casing centerline from the wellbore centerline, effective dogleg curvature, bending deformation, wall-contact forces, and bending-stress magnification. Case studies are presented that show (1) optimized casing design using the model, thereby reducing unnecessary conservatism, and (2) a nonconservative design may result if severe bending loads are not modeled (that is, using the soft string model). The paper is highly recommended to those readers responsible for casing design for extreme conditions, such as high-pressure/high-temperature applications.

That wraps up this issue. On behalf of your entire Editorial Review Committee, thank you for your continued support of SPE Drilling & Completion.

Curtis Cheatham
cheatham@spemail.org