Performance Improvement Techniques Used on Goodwyn A Platform, Northwest Shelf, Australia
- S.P. Dolan (Woodside Energy Ltd.) | G.J. Williams (Woodside Energy Ltd.) | W.J. Barrows (Woodside Energy Ltd.) | J.W. Dickson (Woodside Energy Ltd.) | D. Torry (Woodside Energy Ltd.) | R.F. Drury (Atwood Oceanics Australia)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- June 2003
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 138 - 145
- 2003. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.1 Well Planning, 6.1.5 Human Resources, Competence and Training, 7.6.6 Artificial Intelligence, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 3 Production and Well Operations, 1.6.5 Drilling Time Analysis, 6.3.7 Safety Risk Management, 1.1.2 Authority for expenditures (AFE), 2 Well Completion, 1.14.1 Casing Design, 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 319 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
This paper reviews the techniques that have generated a large improvement in drilling and completion performance on the Goodwyn A Platform, Northwest Shelf, Australia. The collective effort of well-construction professionals using these techniques has resulted in the drilling of a 6263-m (20,550-ft) total depth (TD) well with a horizontal stepout of 5200 m (17,060 ft) at a tangent angle of 67° in 39 days from spud to well handover. This was 31% under the P50 authorization-for-expenditure (AFE) time estimate.
This paper describes a method to produce systematic, steady, and sustainable improvements to well-construction operations. The methods described are a way of harnessing the collective brainpower of well-construction professionals and focusing that energy toward rigorous problem analysis or potential improvement areas, then systematically working through and implementing solutions.
The technical limit methodology and performance improvement groups (PIGs) are best suited for complex, high-cost drilling projects, typically extended reach drilling (ERD) developments, high-cost mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) exploration or subsea operations.
In addition, other tools, such as hazard management, learning system, and planning processes that contributed to success, are explained.
Goodwyn Phase 1 consisted of 13 wells and ended in April 1998. The need for performance improvement was evident; for example, all the last six wells overran the AFE estimates by an average of 68%. The wells had been challenging, with horizontal stepouts up to 7.3 km (24,200 ft); however, it was evident that processes were not in place to handle these challenging wells properly. Subsequent investigations found that the root causes for this poor performance inevitably were related to planning, specifically, a lack of detailed planning, short lead times available for planning, a limited number of personnel, and no formal processes for hazard management and mitigation.
To improve performance, the following were implemented.
Use of the formal technical-limit method.
Changes to the work practices resulting in a work culture that practiced hazard management, planning, and learning.
In addition, the Woodside well-construction management system had been rewritten and provided a valuable set of guidelines that improved consistency between well-construction teams.
Goodwyn Phase 2 well operations commenced in October 1998 with four wells drilled. This resulted in three of the four being under AFE time estimates, the last of which (Goodwyn 17) was drilled and completed in 31% less time than the P50 time estimate. Goodwyn 17 had a TD of 6263 m (20,550 ft) and a horizontal stepout of 5200 m (17,060 ft), and it was drilled and completed from spud to handover in 39 days. The first two wells had horizontal sections of up to 2300 m. Refer to Table 1 for performance results for all Phase 2 wells. Note that downtime (DT) is defined as any deviation from the plan. DT was not used as a key performance indicator (KPI) because honest and critical reporting is the feedstock of the improvement process.
Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 for a clear graphical demonstration of the improvement made from Phase 1 to Phase 2 wells. It can also be seen that a continual improvement trend is evident.
The changes made in the period between Goodwyn's Phases 1 and 2 included the following.
Full-time resources dedicated to performance measurement and improvement.
Collection and detailed analysis of platform well-construction performance data from Phase 1 to identify problem areas and target areas in which improvements might be achievable.
Rigorous implementation of the technical-limit process and education of the team on its use and value.
Overcome ingrained misconceptions that the technical limit process is intrusive, critical of performance, and impossible to achieve.
Standardization of the definition of DT within platform well construction.
Management focus on and commitment to performance improvement.
The organizational model applied for planning and execution of Phase 2 operations is shown in Fig. 3 (shown at peak staffing levels). This team was organized around the general flow of work through upfront planning, detailed planning, and execution of operations involving company and key service-provider personnel. There were four component groups within the team.
Platform well planning (PWP). This group performed planning work for the next well campaign. This mainly involved feasibility studies and conceptual design.
Platform well engineering (PWE). This group performed the detailed well design, scheduling, and drilling engineering in the operations phase (i.e., current and next well to be drilled).
Platform well operations (PWD). This group was responsible for wellsite operations and design implementation (i.e., current well being drilled).
Platform well services (PWW). This group was responsible for all detailed well completions and the perforating system design as well as execution of completion and workover operations.
Handovers between the groups involved a high degree of internal review and challenge. Rigorous challenge, good-quality documentation, good team communication, and an agreed-upon handover process mitigated the risk of issues falling "between the cracks" during the handover process. The benefits of the challenge process offset the loss of the "cradle to grave" concept in which one engineer is responsible for all the planning and execution on a well.
The technical limit process was developed within Woodside.1,2 It has been used throughout Woodside well construction with success; however, its implementation in platform well construction had been incomplete. The following technique was used to fully implement the technical limit process in platform well construction.
|File Size||5 MB||Number of Pages||8|