The Role of Knowledge, Tools, and Systems for Drilling Analysis
- Alejandro J. La Greca Veiga (Baker Hughes) | Carlos Damski (Genesis Petroleum Technologies Pty Ltd) | James M. Peden (Curtin U. of Technology) | Edson Y. Nakagawa (CSIRO Petroleum)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- December 2008
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 330 - 337
- 2008. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.14.1 Casing Design, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 6.1.5 Human Resources, Competence and Training, 6.4.3 Data and Communication Security, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 1.5 Drill Bits, 1.12.6 Drilling Data Management and Standards, 1.8 Formation Damage, 7.6.6 Artificial Intelligence, 1.11.5 Drilling Hydraulics, 1.6.7 Geosteering / Reservoir Navigation, 4.3 Flow Assurance, 1.5.1 Bit Design, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 1.6.6 Directional Drilling, 1.2.2 Geomechanics, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 729 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
This paper proposes a methodical structure to embody current expertise for the analysis of drilling data. This structure is based on two aspects: (1) the review of published literature, representative of present-day efforts to perform such tasks, and (2) the use of the methodological-pyramid concept, to illustrate what elements typify a methodology.
The review of published works revealed that several key aspects of the analysis of drilling data are not clear; for example
- Actual use of drilling data is still unclear and under debate.
- Most of the available engineering tools limit the range of applications to drilling-performance estimators.
- The proposed methods of analysis vary, depending upon the needs of individual organizations or processes using the concept of "method and methodology" indistinctly.
- Various sets of concepts and theories, from internal and external sources, of drilling-engineering knowledge have been used to develop existing methods and engineering tools.
Under this scenario, it seems that more effort is needed to unify current approaches to analyze drilling data (i.e., within the scope of an independent field with common goals, theories, methods, and tools that can support the decision-making process). For this purpose, the methodological pyramid was chosen as a convenient model to outline these efforts. By allocating some of the reviewed approaches within the elements of such a pyramid and contrasting their different ideas where necessary, a methodology for drilling analysis was formalized. It is believed that this methodology is a convenient framework for defining the goals and scope for an area of drilling expertise named "drilling analysis" and defining the evolving future role of the drilling analyst.
Current approaches to analyze drilling data comprise independent efforts that suit the needs of drilling organizations (Bond et al. 1998; Brett and Millheim 1986; Adeleye et al. 2004) or processes (Perrin et al. 1997; Oag and Williams 2000; Kravis et al. 2002; O'Hare and Aigbekaen 2000). All of these efforts rely on a set of engineering tools, developed to analyze drilling data from corporate databases (Millheim et al. 1998; Irrgang et al. 2002) or from operational/visualization centers (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski et al. 2002). These two different uses of drilling data orient the requirement and specifications of such engineering tools, as well as drilling-analysis methods (Bond et al. 1998; Brett and Millheim 1986; Behm and Brett 2004; Iyoho et al. 2004). To develop these methods, a variety of concepts and theories have been borrowed within (Millheim et al. 1998; Behm and Brett 2004) and outside (Brett and Millheim 1986; Peterson et al. 1995) the drilling-engineering knowledge. The use of these theories and concepts is valuable because they complement and expand such knowledge. However, this broad scenario of ideas, tools, and methods still lacks a unified framework for the analysis of drilling data. Therefore, structuring the current knowledge into a methodology for drilling analysis is a basic step for fulfilling the needs of the growing specialism named drilling analysis.
This paper is about specifying what constitutes a methodology for drilling analysis. For this purpose, the concept of the methodological pyramid (de Hoog 1998) was chosen to illustrate how current knowledge, tools, and systems fit within its layers. This approach was selected because it represents a structured view of the whole process. On the other hand, it was noticed that drilling literature uses the words "method" and "methodology" as synonymous and uses them indistinctly. The usefulness of the methodological pyramid is that it provides a graphical body for clarifying frequent confusion about the use of certain words (de Hoog 1998). In this sense, it contrasts both method and methodology with their definitions and with one drilling example before describing the methodology for drilling analysis.
The review of representative current efforts, and allocating them within the frame of the methodological pyramid, discloses the actual scenario for drilling-analysis activities. It also permits structuring a convenient framework for the growth of an independent field within the drilling-engineering knowledge named drilling analysis, and the evolving role of the drilling analyst. The needs and challenges of the further use of drilling data will constantly update the contents of the methodology for drilling analysis; it requires consensus, time, and support for further developments and implementations.
|File Size||890 KB||Number of Pages||8|
Adeleye, A.R., Virginillo, B.K., Iyoho, A.W., and Parenteau, H.L. 2004. Improving Drilling PerformanceThrough Systematic Analysis of Historical Data: Case Study of a CanadianField. Paper SPE 87177 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,Dallas, 2-4 March. doi: 10.2118/87177-MS
Aldred, W., Plumb, D., Bradford, I., Cook, J., Gholkar, V., Cousins, L.,Minton, R., Fuller, J., Goraya, S., and Tucker, D. 1999. Managing drillingrisk. Oilfield Review 11 (2): 2-19.
Behm, E. and Brett, J.F. 2004. Analysis used to assess, improve drillingperformance. Oil & Gas Journal 102 (9): 43.
Bond, D.F., Scott, P.W., Page, P.E., and Windham, T.M. 1998. Applying Technical Limit Methodologyfor Step Change in Understanding and Performance. SPEDC 13(3): 197-203. SPE-51181-PA doi: 10.2118/51181-PA
Bourgoyne, A.T., Chenevert, M.E., and Millheim, K.K. 1986. AppliedDrilling Engineering. Textbook series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 2.
Branch, A.J., Andersen, K., Lavillonniere, J.L., Larsen, T., Kremer, Y., andCapacho, G.A. 2001. Real-Time WellConstruction Monitoring--A Case History of Sincor's Heavy Oil Project.Paper SPE 67757 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27February-01 March. doi: 10.2118/67757-MS
Brett, J.F. and Millheim, K. 1986. The Drilling Performance Curve: AYardstick for Judging Drilling Performance. Paper SPE 15362 presented atthe SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 5-8 October.doi: 10.2118/15362-MS
de Hoog, R. 1998. Methodologies for Building Knowledge Based Systems:Achievements and Prospects. In The Handbook of Applied Expert Systems.Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Hood, J.A., Leidland, B.T., Haldorsen, H., and Heisig, G. 2001. Aggressive Drilling ParameterManagement Based on Downhole Vibration Diagnostics Boosts Drilling Performancein Difficult Formation. Paper SPE 71391 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September-3 October. doi:10.2118/71391-MS
Irrgang, R., Damski, C., Kravis, S., Maidla, E., and Millheim, K. 1999. A Case-Based System to Cut DrillingCosts. Paper SPE 56504 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, Houston, 3-6 October. doi: 10.2118/56504-MS
Irrgang, R., Kravis, S., and Nakagawa, E. 2002. Drilling Knowledge Management, Whatis Missing and Can We Fix It? Paper SPE 77249 presented at IADC/SPE AsiaPacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta, 8-11 September. doi: 10.2118/77249-MS
Iyoho, A.W., Millheim, K.K., Virginillo, B.K., Adeleye, A.R., and Crumrine,M.J. 2004. Methodology andBenefits of a Drilling Analysis Paradigm. Paper SPE 87121 presented at theIADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2-4 March. doi: 10.2118/87121-MS
Kaminski, D., Pellerin, N.M., and Williams, J.H. 2002. A New Data Integration and WorkProcess System for Providing Online Real-Time Drilling Collaboration. PaperSPE 78343 presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 29-31October. doi: 10.2118/78343-MS
Kravis, S., Irrgang, R., Phatak, A., Martins, A., and Nakagawa, E. 2002. Drilling Parameter Selection for WellQuality Enhancement in Deepwater Environments. Paper SPE 77358 prepared forpresentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SanAntonio, Texas, USA, 29 September-2 October. doi: 10.2118/77358-MS
Merriam-Webster OnLine. 2004. http://www.merriam-webster.com/.
Millheim, K., Maidla, E., and Kravis, S. 1998. An Example of the Drilling Processfor Extended Reach Wells. Paper SPE 49111 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September. doi:10.2118/49111-MS
Oag, A.W. and Williams, M. 2000. The Directional Difficulty Index--ANew Approach to Performance Benchmarking. Paper SPE 59196 presented at theIADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23-25 February. doi:10.2118/59196-MS
O'Hare, J. and Aigbekaen, O.O.A. Jr. 2000. Design Index: A Systematic Method ofPDC Drill-Bit Selection. Paper SPE 59112 presented at the IADC/SPE DrillingConference. New Orleans, 23-25 February. doi: 10.2118/59112-MS
Pallanich Hull, J. 2002. MonoDiameter technology keeps hole diameter to TD.Offshore (October 2002). http://www.enventuregt.com/assets/base/pdfs/articles/offsh_mono_oct02.pdf.
Perrin, V.P., Mensa-Wilmot, G., and Alexander, W.L. 1997. Drilling Index--A New Approach to BitPerformance Evaluation. Paper SPE 37595 presented at the SPE/IADC DrillingConference, Amsterdam, 4-6 March. doi: 10.2118/37595-MS
Peterson, S.K., Murtha, J.A., and Roberts, R.W. 1995. Drilling Performance Predictions:Case Studies Illustrating the Use of Risk Analysis. Paper SPE 29364presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February-2 March.doi: 10.2118/29364-MS
Womer, K., Kaminski, D., Hansen, O., Kirkman, M., and Curry, D. 2003. Results of the SPE Applied TechnologyWorkshop 'Off Well Site Decision Making.' Paper SPE 79891 presented at theSPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 19-21 February. doi:10.2118/79891-MS