Real-Time Drilling Operations Centers: A History of Functionality and Organizational Purpose—The Second Generation

A previous paper, (Booth, 2009) identified two phases of drilling operations center activity which are shown in Figure 1. The first occurred in the 1980s and was represented by three significant operator-owned initiatives, those of Superior Oil, Tenneco and Amoco. Upon examination, significant differences between the respective strategies were apparent. Functionality ranged from a focus on management and distribution of data to more ambitious attempts to change process, or "New Ways of Working".

These operations centers were conceived in an era of high oil prices, and increased drilling activity. These factors together with increasing availability of digital drilling data from surface and downhole sources and the advent of mini-computers and technical workstations contributed to what these three operators saw as a viable business case for central support of drilling operations. However, only one of the strategies survived the low price and reduced drilling activity of the late 1980s. Superior’s Drilling Support and Communications (DSC) facility which started operations in 1981 survived two mergers and two relocations and continues to operate as ExxonMobil’s Drilling Information Management Center in Houston. As the name implies, the focus remains on acquisition, management and distribution of data. With the exception of the ExxonMobil example, drilling operations centers did not reappear as key components in operator strategies until the early 2000’s. Soon thereafter there was a proliferation of such centers and they are now well established and accepted. Those listed in Figure 1 are well documented in SPE published literature and are examined in detail to help identify recent trends in functionality and organizational purpose.

The North Sea was the focal point of renewed interest in drilling operations centers in the late nineties. During a growth period of some 25 years this had become an area of technological sophistication where most of the major international oil companies and service companies were well established. In the late nineties, however, with some major fields in decline (peak production was reached in 1999), governments and operators’ strategies started to shift toward long-term sustainability, efficiency, and cost management. The Norwegian government was proactive in promoting a vision of improved efficiency through Integrated Operations and identified information technology as a key enabler. In 1998/1999 a 1,143 kilometer long fiber-optic cable was installed as the backbone for a shared communications infrastructure. Access to broadband, zero latency, reliable communications, made effective video conferencing possible and provided a level of onshore access to real-time data essentially equivalent to that at the offshore installations. Early opportunities identified included the potential for reducing personnel on board (POB) offshore installations by means of remote support from shore-based facilities. As strategies evolved other work processes were redesigned and new processes developed which explored the potential for higher degrees of collaboration between offshore and onshore personnel.

Other significant advances occurred during the intervening decade between the two generations of drilling operations centers. One was the emergence of a shared earth concept for integration of geoscience work processes. Integration architectures, based upon multiple applications sharing data in a common project store, relied heavily on vendor-specific products. Once developed, the interpretation could be displayed as a shared visual representation of the subsurface environment and used to support new multidisciplinary work processes; for example, in the planning and placement of wells. Visualization environments using high-end graphical work stations became popular in the early 2000s. More precise placement of wells was further enabled by the increasing capability of Logging While Drilling (LWD) tools and the evolution of Rotary Steering Systems (RSS) which together with real-time interpretation and geosteering work processes made exploitation of complex reservoirs like Troll, Valhall and Heidrun viable. The second generation of Drilling Operations centers arose as a result by a convergence of several technologies.

Although the focus of this paper is on operator strategies, all drilling operations centers are to a significant degree, partnerships with the service companies who provide data services, software and even full solutions. These companies also use operations centers internally to support the increasingly sophisticated services they offer. For example in addition to transmitting LWD measurements information is gathered on tool run history, vibration exposure and component reliability. This information can be used to good effect in maintenance programs and supply chain management. These centers are not covered in this paper.

The following section comprises a review of several operators’ recent strategies for the use of drilling operations centers, using information compiled from published sources. These are grouped by location; North Sea, Gulf of Mexico and Middle East.

Nathan et al (2006) document the early history of Norske Hydro’s strategy for real-time drilling data. Work started with Baker Hughes in 1997 to redefine roles within work processes which spanned onshore and offshore locations. The strategy focused on reduction of POB and enhanced support through collaborative processes within companies and between operator and supplier, allowing "optimized utilization of expert resources". A 24/7 support center, named Baker Expert Advisory Center/Operations Network (BEACON), was piloted in 2000 and started commercial operations in 2001. Some MWD and mud-logging work processes were transferred, "essentially unaltered" onshore. An initial agreement with relevant labor unions was based upon adherence to existing offshore staff rotation schedules and travel to and from existing domicile locations. This soon proved unsustainable and operations were halted in spring 2004 while a new business model was developed. BEACON phase 2 began commercial service in January 2005 based on union endorsed onshore shift-based working conditions. Work processes were realigned within both organizations, new positions established and training developed to reinforce the new roles and required competencies. Hydro subsequently established an Onshore Operations Center in their office to enhance collaboration between drilling, operator G&G personnel and supplier FE support. Remote support was extended to five Hydro drilling operations including the Troll field, where it played a key role in developing an ambitious geosteering program involving wells with multiple long lateral horizontal sections. Subsequent papers by Dyve Jones et al (2008) and Thorsen et al (2009) describe the evolution of the Troll drilling process in detail and the associated improvement in performance of 3D rotary closed loop systems and integrated collaborative work processes with onshore and offshore participants. There is an interesting feedback loop between process and technology with ongoing refinement of each during the longstanding alliance between operator and service company and the associated use of the BEACON center. By mid 2007 more than 150 wells had been drilled. Including multilateral configurations this amounted to 250 horizontal reservoir sections. Of a total 900,000 meters drilled, some 560,000 or 60% was in reservoir. Over a 15 year period the length of horizontal sections had increased from approximately 1,500 to 5,000 meters and TVD placement accuracy had improved from ±1.5 meters to ±0.5 meters. Norske Hydro was also a pioneer in the development and use of virtual reality software and an immersive 3D visualization environment developed in partnership with the Norwegian Research Institute Christian Michelsen Research (CMR).

Statoil’s first Onshore Support Center (McCann et al, 2003), which began operations in December 2003, represents a similar alignment of business need, technology and process. The need for increased precision in drilling complex 3D wells, for example in the Heidrun Field, placed new demands on planning and steering processes. The existence of fiber-optic links to offshore installations is cited as a key enabler for a collaborative work process but other software and database elements were needed to improve the workflows. An internal DART project (Drilling Automation in Real Time) begun in 1999, focused on improvements in well positioning, data transfer and data quality control. The latter was a prerequisite for timely interpretation of well progress within a shared earth model. This allowed the asset team onshore to actively support decisions rather than follow up as in traditional work flows. DART Link, an Internet based transfer protocol for depth-based drilling parameters, directional surveys and LWD information, established a standard format for data acquisition from multiple vendors. A technology partnership with BP led to broader use of this standard and to the development of the WITSML industry standard. Another DART initiative, jTarget focused on managing geological and drilling uncertainties in an integrated fashion.

The support center, located in Statoil’s mid-Norway office, was a multipurpose facility with an operations area and collaboration and visualization rooms. Its initial role was to support regional drilling and completions activities but it was also considered a pilot for integrated operations in Statoil Girling et al (2004) provided a more detailed description of a collaborative well planning and geosteering process used on the Visund Field. The functionality and integration architecture of new generation technical applications are described in detail. The fact that this team was a new group comprised of Statoil and Norske Hydro personnel (pre-merger) and was located in a new building facilitated the organizational and behavioral change needed to implement a new process.

In 2005, Statoil created a corporate initiative for integrated operations with a goal of becoming a global leader. This involved extending processes which had been developed on the NCS to meet the need of global operations. Haarstad et al, (2008) describe a pilot test of key components in a global 24/7 drilling operations support model. A ‘follow the sun’ concept was tested as a way of providing continuous coverage of global operations based upon standard daytime schedules at three locations, in suitably spaced time zones; Houston (GMT – 6), Norway (GMT +1) and China (GMT +8). The latter site was simulated in the Houston facility. The initiative tested the viability of supporting key elements of standard global processes for well construction without the need for evening and night shifts at a single location. The approach is described as Man, Technology and Organization (MTO) based, with process as a fourth important element. Activities in each of the MTO areas are described. The underlying architecture provides access to 2D and 3D applications by means of a thin client architecture and terminal servers with secure access to data in centralized sources. The new approach was pilot tested in support of drilling operations in a 12 ¼" hole section on the Asgard Field, where the collaborative work processes were well established. Daily tasks performed by land-based personnel, such as quality control of real-time data and directional drilling and surveying services, were handed off at the end of office hours at each of the three locations. The pilot was deemed successful and led to a recommendation to proceed with a phased approach to implementation of Global Network Operations. Challenges identified were "mainly related to clear vision and strategy, leadership, culture, people and practical issues".

The merger of Statoil and Norske Hydro in October of 2007 resulted in a convergence of similar strategies, and a shared commitment to integrated operations. A further step toward a global integrated operations model for support of Drilling and Well Operations is described by Lowden et al (2009). A Subsurface Support Center (SSC), staffed with experienced operations personnel and technical specialists, is described as "…. a hub for communications of knowledge between professional networks and the operational assets". The SSC staff has access to the same real-time data used by local operations groups around the world who are responsible for some 40 to 50 drilling and well work operations typically underway at any time. The SSC staff has a proactive role both in the planning and execution phases. This broad involvement gives them an opportunity to promote consistency with corporate guidelines and in application of best practices. Indeed the SSC’s broad view of operations allows it to evaluate experiences and share knowledge. The SSC is staffed on an 8/5 basis with a multidisciplinary duty team available to provide 24/7 support when needed.

BP’s strategy for remote support of drilling operations had its origins in a Team 2000 project "…. created in 1997 to use information communications technology to relocate people from offshore to an Operations Service Center onshore." (Wahlen et al, 2002). BP and Norske Hydro partnered with Baker Hughes INTEQ in the development of the 24/7 BEACON center in Stavanger, Norway. Three critical success factors were identified in BP’s strategy; change the work process, adapt the physical environment and change the culture. A pilot phase of the initiative was completed in first quarter 2001 and at that time, operations were suspended due to a combination of "Human factors … compounded by reliability and maintenance problems". Services reverted to the prior, rig-based processes while systems were redesigned to address the deficiencies. "Many of the difficulties encountered… were attributed to poor communications and alignment between the parties involved". After changes were made the new processes were implemented a second time and became commercial by the end of 2001. Wahlen et al point out that some unresolved issues remain related to the interaction between operator and service company. A multi-client vendor managed facility can reap economies of scale, however, client-specific resources and processes which need to be part of integrated processes, are likely to remain at the operator’s office. Visualization, technical analysis and collaboration activities are examples.

Lauche et al (2006) describe a further stage in the evolution of BP’s strategy for remote support of drilling operations. Having recognized the importance of human factors, this paper reports on research conducted in 2004 and 2005 in conjunction with industrial psychologists from the University of Aberdeen. The paper also addresses the diversity of purpose of emerging strategies for real-time support of operations and the potential tensions between foundational support of operations (data acquisition, transmission, quality assurance etc.) and higher level processes such as team-based collaboration and interpretation. Attempts to implement these more significant process changes had met with mixed success. The paper emphasizes the need for clear strategies and extensive involvement on the part of those whose work will be impacted by the planned changes.

In a contemporary paper, Edwards et al (2006) describe a broader perspective for Advanced Collaborative Environments (ACE) in ‘Real Time’ drilling and production operations as part of BP’s FIELD OF THE FUTURE strategy. Five keys to success are listed and discussed in a ‘five petal model’ developed jointly with Boston University. This consists of the traditional People, Process and Technology components plus Physical Environment and Organization. The paper represents a more holistic approach to managing change across these five areas when developing and implementing ACE opportunities. A foundational aspect of BP’s strategy for drilling is covered by Pickering et al (2007) who describe "A Standard Real-Time Information Architecture for Drilling and Completions". This is evidence of the maturing of the WITSML standard and a move toward more operator ownership of the architecture to reduce reliance on vendor developed implementations of WITSML, with vendor-specific components. Although this approach involves more commitment on the part of the operator, it is seen as a prerequisite for a globally consistent, vendor-neutral foundation for the integration of real-time work processes such as use of a single data viewer and a standard solution for storage, aggregation and analysis of data from multiple sources.

Further information on a move toward an operator-owned and managed architecture for internal storage, viewing and integration of data across multiple assets is presented by Sawaryn et al (2009). The authors point out that vendor provided solutions are "still geared toward providing data through their proprietary data packages and tools" which works well on a local basis but can compromise ability to consolidate data on a broader scale and over a longer timeframe. As work processes come to rely more on a flow of accurate data, for example the use of real-time directional survey data for steering or in collision avoidance calculations, quality and reliability become of paramount importance. These key attributes can degrade when passed between systems. BP’s approach is to move to an operator managed model for aggregation of rigsite data and the use of a standard viewer. BP’s proactive approach to incorporating WITSML in their architecture includes laboratory testing of vendor products to ensure interoperability and compliance with the standard, as described by Pickering et al (2009). Planned configurations are tested prior to use in the field. Issues and limitations in the standard itself which are identified can be passed off to the WITSML Special Interest Group (SIG) and Technical Team to help drive the evolution of the standard.

An early account of Conoco Phillips Onshore Drilling Center (ODC), which began operations in November, 2002, is given by Hebert et al (2003) who described a "Step Change in Collaborative Decision Making". Explicit goals of their strategy included reduction in POB, fewer iterations in well trajectory planning, reduced drilling cost and improved integration between drilling and geology groups. The center was located at the operator’s office in Stavanger, adjacent to the drilling operations and planning team. In recognition of the challenges associated with changing long established work processes, a multidisciplinary team was formed with a neutral third party facilitator to identify tasks that could be moved onshore and develop detailed job descriptions. 24/7 manning of the center was achieved by means of 8 hour shifts during the week and 12 hour shifts at weekends. The space within the ODC was designed to include a well monitoring area along with visualization and collaboration areas. Five offshore positions were eliminated and replaced by onshore roles and / or reassignment of tasks. Transmission of real-time LWD was initially based upon the WITS standard. With just under one year of operation behind it, the center was deemed to have been successful in reducing the number of well planning iterations (from 10-15 to 1 – 5), improving the placement of complex horizontal wells, and providing remote support of cementing operations. Remote control of a Rotary Steerable System (RSS) from the ODC was successfully tested raising the interesting prospect of further remote control and automation initiatives.

Subsequent publications by Rommetveit et al (2007) and Fjellheim et al (2008) described different aspects of the ODC. The first focuses on eDrilling, a process involving real-time drilling simulation, 3D visualization and control. The simulation is achieved by means of multiple integrated models, including a Mechanical Earth Model, Torque and Drag, Wellbore Stability, Pore Pressure, Rate of Penetration and Drill String Mechanics. The real-time maintenance of these models at the ODC was used to support proactive forward-looking involvement in offshore drilling operations. Developing and maintaining robust and responsive real-time models, particularly in an environment with a large degree of uncertainty is challenging. The models are described as having an appropriate degree of complexity. The architecture is described as "open system", using standard data formats such as WITSML to support data flows across multiple partners. A Data Distribution Server feeds data to applications in the various frequencies and formats required.

The second paper, "Collaborative Decision Making in Integrated Operations", focuses more on the people and process aspects of Integrated Operations. By this time, the concept of Integrated Operations, promoted by The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF), had become well established and is used as a backdrop for describing the extent of change aspired to. The first generation of Integrated Operations is described as integration of offshore and onshore processes within a time frame from 2005 to 2010. A second generation of change would lead to "new operational concepts" enabled by broader integration across companies and greater automation in a time frame from 2010 to 2015. The former would require data and taxonomy standards within key domains (e.g. WITSML for drilling operations) the latter would require standards which span multiple disciplines; a shared industry ontology. Fjellheim et al discuss the development and testing of concepts such as information overload, decision theory, decision models and Bayesian networks, stating that after systematic testing these new decision support processes are being gradually introduced at the Onshore Drilling Center.

ConocoPhillips’s focus on real-time simulation using multiple interdependent technical models is reminiscent of Amoco’s strategy for their first generation Critical Well Facility. Developing suitable models and keeping them current so that reliable results are readily available, is resource intensive. While all drilling operations centers use models to some extent, a recent trend has been to take advantage of a broader range of direct measurements of downhole conditions such as drillstring dynamics, rock mechanical properties, pressure while drilling and borehole imaging. In the past downhole conditions, for example ECD and weight on bit, were modeled based on surface measurements. Nowadays these parameters can be measured directly. Modeling, however, remains a prerequisite for prediction and automation.

Shell’s recent strategy for drilling operations centers has its origins in the Gulf of Mexico in 2002. It did not therefore have the benefit of the fiber-optic-based communication network which North Sea-based initiatives enjoyed. Kaminski et al (2002) described the New Orleans Real Time Operations Center (ROTC) after six months of operation. The initial business driver was to reduce deep water exploration well costs by providing proactive support from an onshore facility. Staffed largely by service company personnel but located at Shell’s office, the architecture relies heavily upon a single vendor’s technical applications and services. With a goal of reducing non-mechanical down-hole trouble time by 10%, early focus was on monitoring, analysis and improved coordination between the onshore and offshore teams. Operation was on a 24/7 basis. To avoid possible conflicts in accountability, a clear protocol was established for communications between the ROTC and the Drilling Foreman on the rig with certain events deemed "Red Flag" invoking an intervention process. Ursem et al (2002) described the people aspects of operating the facility, and again emphasized the importance of managing the monitoring / intervention process. Analysis and knowledge management processes are also described which again rely heavily on the partner service company’s integration architecture and products.

van Oort et al (2005) described an RTOC which had expanded in scope and function beyond the initial pilot. In 2003 a larger facility was constructed to support up to 15 concurrent operations, initially in the Gulf of Mexico, and in 2004 the strategy was extended to provide global coverage by means of a "Hub and satellite architecture". The authors emphasized the expanded role of the RTOC in planning including interdisciplinary collaboration sessions and detailed engineering modeling within the center. The latter is an interesting division of labor and claimed benefits include more efficient use of operator company engineer’s time (by transferring the modeling work to service company engineers at the RTOC). Another benefit of central oversight of multiple operations is improved generation and dissemination of best practices. The foundational functionality provided by a hub such as that in New Orleans is supplemented at satellite facilities in other locations. These would rely on the hub for basic services such as data acquisition, aggregation and quality assurance but provide functionality used by local teams such as collaboration and visualization tools and space.

A case history showing the use of the hub/satellite architecture to support Shell-Egypt’s deep-water drilling operations in north East Mediterranean was published by Hamed et al (2007). The first phase of drilling in this area had been impacted by borehole stability problems so for the subsequent phase a 24/7 real-time support center was established in Cairo, connected back to the RTOC hub in New-Orleans for access to additional expertise and services in well planning and analysis. Like the hub in New Orleans, the satellite center was based upon the service company partner’s integration architecture and technical applications.

Breidenthal and Ochterbeck, 2008, describe Chevron’s Well Design, Execution and Collaboration Center (WellDECC) located in their Houston office and used by the Gulf of Mexico Deep Water group. As with Shell, Chevron’s primary focus is managing risk on technically complex, expensive wells. Chevron’s approach is to coordinate all associated activities using the Chevron Project Development and Execution Process (CPDEP), a structured approach used on all major projects and adapted for use in drilling in the form of Single Well CPDEP. WellDECC was established in 2004 as a partnership between Chevron and Halliburton and the architecture relies significantly upon the latter’s services and products. It is staffed on a regular weekday work basis with 24 hour on-call support when needed. Use of the center is integrated into the project management process as a whole. It is used in different ways for a range of activities during the five stages in the CPDEP process; identify and assess opportunities, generate and select alternatives, develop preferred alternatives, execute, and operate and evaluate. The visualization capability is used during the initial opportunity assessment process, primarily for G&G interpretation processes. The second stage is a collaborative well planning process where geoscientists and engineers assess options and select a viable plan. This involves gathering data from multiple sources and using integrated technical applications and a project data store to develop a common earth model representing geoscience and engineering perspectives. Developing a detailed plan in phase three involves detailed engineering analysis. The evolving plan and its relationship to the shared earth model can be shared with other disciplines. During the execution phase an operations area is used to gather and display realtime LWD and drilling information from rigs. This information is streamed to the project data store and used to update the earth model, track progress and for engineering analysis. The real-time information can also be accessed via the company network. Team rooms with videoconferencing capability are used for regular collaboration sessions with rig personnel. The final phase consists of a "look back" process where data is gathered, reviewed and lessons learned documented for use in future projects.

The two Gulf of Mexico drilling operations described are similar in that the primary purpose is to provide support for the drilling of complex wells as part of recent deepwater exploration strategies. It is not surprising therefore that the approach is different from that which dominates North Sea use of drilling operations centers, the efficient drilling and precise placement of long horizontal multilateral wells in mature fields.

Saudi Aramco’s recent use of real-time drilling operations centers is a good example of the migration of technology and processes developed in the N. Sea. The underlying strategy involves precise placement of Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC) multilateral wells. This is being used to extend production of long established fields and to efficiently exploit long-discovered fields whose complex geology had hitherto made them relatively unattractive for development. New fields, Manifa and Khurais, are being developed using horizontal wells, with 313 planned for the former and 325 for the latter. (Saudi Arabia Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Industry Portal, 2005). This has resulted in the development of an ambitious strategy for use of realtime data while drilling. In 2005, Saudi Aramco commissioned a dedicated 24/7 Geosteering Operations Center, capable of handling up to 75 rigs. This supplements several existing Real Time Operations Centers (RTOCs) to monitor and manage the associated dataflows.

Al-Hamid et al (2009) emphasized the importance of foundational capability and robust data architecture in managing RT data on a broad scale. This included use of a proprietary tool; Saudi Aramco Real-Time Auto-Load (SARTAL) for handling the various formats involved in collecting data from multiple sources and delivering it to a variety of applications spanning G&G and engineering clients. SARTAL also "QCs, processes and enhances the data quality". A thin client portal based architecture provides access to data and applications from multiple locations including via Internet connections. Standard profiles display data and provide access to applications relevant to a role or situation. High level overviews or dashboards are also supported.

This operator controlled Real-Time data architecture, established in 2007 is described in more detail by Khudiri et al (2008) with strong endorsement of WITSML as a key component. Although a recent member of the WITSML SIG, Khudiri et al state that Saudi Aramco is "the most active user of the WITSML standard worldwide"

A subsequent paper by Khudiri et al (2009) gave a general description of a new Drilling Real-Time Operations Center (RTOC) which started operations in January 2008. The paper describes a staged implementation with initial focus on trouble avoidance on critical wells. Subsequent stages involve improvements in drilling efficiency by better use of real-time data and a further stage of optimization using modeling and simulation. The center is multipurpose, with monitoring, visualization and collaboration areas and staffed by an eight person team of Saudi Aramco and contractor personnel. The authors again address the subject of ownership of the architecture referring to a "lack of stability and standardization in real-time information flow in the past", resulting in problems in sharing data and expertise.

The functionality of drilling operations centers may be considered to have two levels. The first is foundational capability which is a prerequisite for the support of higher level processes. This involves ongoing management and quality assurance of data from multiple sources relevant to support of remote 24/7 operations. These data must be trustworthy if remote players are to assume a direct, proactive role in ongoing processes; otherwise the onshore role inevitably becomes secondary. Establishing and sustaining such capability presents significant organizational challenges. This high level of reliability and quality assurance typically involves a facility which is staffed 24/7 to monitor the data acquisition, transmission, and aggregation services which are the life blood of the center. 24/7 onshore operations are expensive to maintain and increasingly difficult to staff as is evidenced by the union negotiations involved in the case of North Sea operations. Typically companies seek economies of scale by supporting multiple operations from a single hub or outsourcing to a supplier who can consolidate service across several clients. A service company delivered system gives clients access to proven solutions. However, this approach brings its own limitations. Workflows which cross companies must contend with contractual, cultural and hierarchical barriers. Further, although progress has been made in developing standards as a basis for greater compatibility across companies (see below), integration architectures still rely on company specific applications and data flows hence the system is not vendor-neutral except at a very low level in the data architecture.

The first generation of drilling operations centers led to the development of a Well Information Transfer Standard (WITS) as described by Jantzen et al (1987). The growth of real-time data services in the late nineties led to renewed interest in standards and the development of WITSML, which built upon prior WITS work updated to conform to the Extensible Markup Language (XML) standards widely used for Internet data transfer. Statoil’s internal DART initiative and their alliance with BP and Baker Hughes in the BEACON operations centers were precursors to WITSML. WITS is essentially a data transmission format. WITSML includes a protocol to support communication and interaction between systems; an Application Programming Interface (API). Commitment to WITSML in principle does not assure plug-and-play compatibility across systems from different sources. The standard is still evolving and software companies with application integration architectures have to strike a balance between standards-based solutions and exclusive capability which provides needed utility and can give them a competitive advantage. Adoption of such a system can deliver immediate gains in functionality, however, it compromises compatibility and scalability. A recent trend among operators who are committed to use of WITSML has been the assumption of more control of the real-time data architecture and the use of vendor neutral solutions for viewing, aggregating and storing data. The resulting architecture may be comprised largely of vendor products, but overall design and evolution are owned by the operator. Statoil (Deeks et al, 2009), BP (Pickering et al, 2007, and 2009, Sawaryn et al, 2009) and Saudi Aramco (Khudiri et al, 2009) appear to be assuming more ownership and control of internal real-time data architectures. This second wave of adoption of WITSML also reflects the maturing of the standard itself to where it is capable of implementing higher level processes.

Once foundational capability is in place, dataflow and applications can be configured to support higher level workflows or processes. These can be grouped into two categories. The first is the use of real-time data to improve the efficiency of the drilling process itself. The most obvious opportunities are for surveillance and early detection of trouble events or to track rig performance. These processes were central to the first generation centers but are less prevalent in the recent case studies. More ambitious attempts to use the real-time data for drilling optimization typically involve maintaining technical models or simulations for automated analysis and prediction. This approach was prominent in Amoco’s Critical Well Facility first generation operations center. More sophisticated technical models and computer programs are available to the second generation strategies and are used in the drilling of complex wells such as those with narrow design tolerances. Chevron’s Gulf of Mexico and Shell’s Gulf of Mexico and Egypt wells fall into this category. ConocoPhillips eDrilling strategy appears to be the most ambitious commitment to using drilling simulation for optimization and prediction of performance (Rommetveit et al, 2007)

A second category of higher level processes is the use of real-time data in multidisciplinary collaborative work flows. The most compelling example of this is in geosteering where there is very high frequency feedback between formation evaluation and directional control. Typically this involves team-based decisions using a variety of data types and large visual displays. These visualization environments arose somewhat independently in the early 2000s using specialized hardware and were used for interpretation or planning sessions with mixed success. More recently collaboration and visualization areas have become incorporated in or connected to drilling operations centers as equipment costs have dropped and integrated work processes become better established.

In addition to providing direct support to operations, the concentration of information and expertise at an operations center can be leveraged for training and knowledge management purposes. This is particularly beneficial where access to remote locations limits the opportunity for on the job training. Some obvious advantages in this approach are:

• Experts can mentor less experienced personnel. Expertise is not just what people know but what they do in certain circumstances calling upon a combination of knowledge, experience and intuition. The best way to transfer this aspect of expertise is to participate in the process and see it applied.

• HSE risk is reduced

• Learning can be accelerated where involvement in multiple operations increasing the frequency of exposure to rare or critical events

• Best practices can be applied in a more direct and consistent way and updated based on a rapidly growing experience and knowledge base

Several operators’ strategies for drilling operations centers include a knowledge management role. Statoil’s recently opened Subsurface Support Center, with global remit and a resident staff of experts (on six month rotational assignments) is noteworthy.

Changing the way work is done has proven to be a challenging undertaking. This was evident in the histories of the first generation of drilling operations centers and has been identified as a significant factor in the demise of the Amoco Center (Whalen et al, 2002, Booth, 2009). Several accounts of second generation strategies attest to the significance of resistance to change and the importance of managing such change. The growing visibility of this issue is evident in the recent inclusion of organizational psychologists and management of change experts in the development of strategies and in papers which deal specifically with this topic (Hepsø, 2006, Williams, 2006). Second generation strategies typically incorporate a structured approach to organizational and behavioral change management.

Technology changes rapidly, hence it is difficult to sustain technology-based competitive advantage. Organizational change is, however, a gradual and disciplined process. An interesting corollary of this is that companies who manage the transition to new working models involving virtual collaboration will find increasing opportunities to operate more efficiently in a business environment where experience is being lost to retirement and new resources are often located in remote and challenging locations.

The resurgence of interest in drilling operations centers in the early 2000s was due to the confluence of several factors atop a rising tide of advances in information technology from hardware to telecommunications to advanced technical computer applications. The first generation systems of the 1980s were primitive by comparison and were comprised of specialized, expensive, purpose-built architectures. The second generation centers benefited from a rich supply of commercially available components and services. Data acquisition services had evolved to where LWD/MWD tools provided a rich and expanding stream of real-time data allowing geoscientists and engineers to plan and drill to closer tolerances. Technical applications had not only grown more sophisticated and powerful but had benefited from a trend toward better integration such that data and results could be shared in multidisciplinary workflows and visualized within the context of a shared earth model. Good communications between remote operations and support bases had become the norm, using globally available commercial satellite-based services and more recently, high bandwidth, zero latency connections via a shared fiber-optic network installed in the North Sea in the late 90’s. BP have recently installed 1,300 km of fiber-optic based communications to support their Gulf of Mexico fields.

Other factors peculiar to North Sea operations also played a part. The prospect of a post peak production era resulted in a search for ways to operate more efficiently and to extend the producing life of aging fields. Overarching strategies, particularly those of the Norwegian OLF played a key role in promoting a vision of Integrated Operations, developing the business case and funding focused research and investment in key enabling areas such as ultra-reliable mud logging sensors. The sharing of resources such as the fiber-optic backbone mentioned above, and a Secure Oil Industry Link (SOIL) environment for intercompany connections helped reduce cost and promote collaboration across company firewalls.

Effective support of remote drilling operations is a compelling business opportunity as evidenced by the long history of initiatives. Circumstances are becoming much more conducive. Mud-pulse telemetry data rates from downhole systems have increased overtime but degrade with depth to around 3 bps in long reach wells. Wired drillpipe telemetry services are now commercially available with rates of 58 kbps one way or 29 kbps both ways. Interestingly StatoilHydro have pilot tested a system on the Troll field (Nygaard et al, 2008), building on seven years experience gained from use of their 24/7 operations center. The higher data rates can support more sophisticated services such as detailed borehole imaging, high frequency drillstring dynamics and proactive control of drilling using Rotary Closed Loop Systems (RCLS). Drilling automation is an area of growing interest with the SPE having recently established a Technical Section on the subject and the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) an Advanced Rig Technology Committee (Thorogood et al, 2009).

At the time of the first generation centers, those involved were in many cases being exposed to computers for the first time. Technological and social changes have made social networks and virtual reality collaborative environments commonplace. Individuals entering the oil and gas industry are comfortable with and adept in the use of such tools. The business environment has also changed in ways which make remote support of operations more attractive. The POB reduction strategies which became a strategic focus in the N. Sea might equally apply to other geographically remote or harsh environments which are increasingly part of the industry’s search for new resources and to the broadening quest for more efficient ways to develop existing fields. The more challenging wells needed in these situations will involve drilling within tight technical limits using as broad a range of relevant information as possible. Remote support of drilling and completion operations may also prove attractive in monitoring the placement and fracturing of multiple wells from a central facility during the development of tight gas reservoirs.

The second generation drilling operations centers are now well established as an integral part of new work processes for managing and supporting remote operations using multidisciplinary virtual teams. The enabling technologies are mature and proven. The organizational challenges are significant, however, several companies now have significant experience in adjusting to this new way of working. As the technologies continue to evolve and young professionals with collaborative work skills enter the workforce, opportunities for virtual team support of field operations will likely increase.