The Role of Knowledge, Tools, and
Systems for Drilling Analysis
Alejandro J. Lagreca,* Curtin University of Technology; Carlos Damski, CSIRO Petroleum; James M. Peden,
Curtin University of Technology, and Edson Y. Nakagawa, CSIRO Petroleum
Summary
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 as-
pects of the analysis of drilling data are not clear; for example
1. Actual use of drilling data is still unclear and under debate.
2. Most of the available engineering tools limit the range of
applications to drilling-performance estimators.
3. The proposed methods of analysis vary, depending upon the
needs of individual organizations or processes using the concept of
“method and methodology” indistinctly.
4. Various sets of concepts and theories, from internal and ex-
ternal 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 pur-
pose, 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.
Introduction
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 corpo-
rate 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. There-
fore, 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.
* Now with Baker Hughes.
Copyright © 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 3 November 2004. Revised manuscript re-
ceived for review 7 December 2007. Paper (SPE 87996) peer approved 13 May 2008.
330
This paper is about specifying what constitutes a methodology
for drilling analysis. For this purpose, the concept of the method-
ological 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 synony-
mous and uses them indistinctly. The usefulness of the method-
ological 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 indepen-
dent field within the drilling-engineering knowledge named drill-
ing analysis, and the evolving role of the drilling analyst. The
needs and challenges of the further use of drilling data will con-
stantly update the contents of the methodology for drilling analy-
sis; it requires consensus, time, and support for further develop-
ments and implementations.
What Is a Methodology?
Merriam-Webster (Merriam-Webster OnLine 2004) defines meth-
odology as “a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by
a discipline.” On the other hand, method is “a systematic proce-
dure . . . employed by . . . a particular discipline.” The definitions
show that method and methodology are not alike. Recognizing that
a methodology refers to the knowledge about methods, (de Hoog
1998) and taking into account that methods also embrace knowl-
edge, a methodology can be thought of as a kind of metaknowl-
edge (de Hoog 1998).
Fig. 1 describes drilling-engineering knowledge (Bourgoyne
et al. 1986) as comprising several drilling specialties with a par-
ticular area of expertise. Each field embodies several methods
constituting a “systematic procedure,” which are a specific knowl-
edge within the domain of the expertise. Then, such knowledge
represents the “know-what,” “know-how,” and “know-when” of
the drilling specialty that describe the acts of a drilling engineer.
The quality of this knowledge is not whether it enables the drilling
engineer to “predict” or “explain” something (e.g., uncertain drill-
ing events, performance). Instead, it gives him or her a means to
improve the extent of goal achievement (i.e., well objectives). In
this sense, the drilling-engineering knowledge is a body of meth-
odologies of drilling specialties whose specific knowledge can be
structured by using the methodological pyramid (de Hoog 1998).
The Methodological Pyramid
The components of a methodological pyramid are depicted in
Fig. 2. Each layer represents progressive steps from top to bottom
within the pyramid. It graphically explains that most methodolo-
gies are based on a limited number of worldview key principles,
which in turn seed more elaborate theories that are made opera-
tives in a set of methods, which can be implemented in different
tools where their users can use them to provide adequate feedback
for improvements. As Fig. 2 shows, an arrow represents such a
feedback to each of the upper layers. The higher the arrow ends,
the greater will be the consequences for the methodology.
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Fig. 1—Drilling-engineering knowledge (Bourgoyne et al. 1986).
The methodological pyramid provides a practical structure to
embody the knowledge of actual drilling specialties (Bourgoyne
et al. 1986). Fig. 3 shows its application for two cases, drilling
hydraulics and casing design. As shown, each one has its world-
view, theories, methods, and tools, whose use dictates further im-
provements. Therefore, this paper considers that such a method-
ological approach can provide a convenient manner to structure
current knowledge, tools, and systems for the analysis of drilling
data within the field of drilling analysis.
An example from a drilling specialty (casing design, as shown
in Fig. 3) will illustrate these concepts as follows.
The Worldview. This represents the goals and principles of a
methodology. Casing design has well-known (Bourgoyne et al.
1986) and established objectives, which, in essence, are fixed.
Conversely, casing-design principles are evolving. An example is
the solid-expandable-tubular technology, needed for accessing and
producing complex reservoirs and drilling environments. This
technology can change future well designs (Pallanich 2002) based
on new or modified principles for designing, running, and install-
ing these tubulars, which requires the development of new theories
for such applications (Pallanich 2002).
The Theories. These, for casing design (Bourgoyne et al. 1986),
are the core of knowledge of this subject. This knowledge com-
prises an extensive set of theories and terminology within its do-
main of study. It is the result of understanding physical phenom-
ena. If the principles of casing design do not change over time, any
new theory or concept is an improvement. Conversely, the
principles for solid-expandable-tubular technology (Pallanich
2002) require understanding of the mechanisms of plastic defor-
mation in casings that will rule the know-how for devising new
practices and methods.
The Methods. These represent those systematic procedures that
make the developed theories operational. For solid-expandable tu-
Fig. 2—The methodological pyramid (de Hoog 1998) represents
the elements that constitute most methodologies.
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
bulars, the drilling engineer must know and handle the casing-
expansion methods, representing the “know-what,” the “know-
how,” and the “know-when” (de Hoog 1998), to achieve specific
goals (e.g., how to expand a solid tubular for specific wellbore
conditions; what would be the final casing properties after expan-
sion; or when to initiate such an expansion). These systematic
procedures require specialized tools.
The Tools. These are those manual or computerized systems for
casing design. Some can be very simple, where the results show
the simulation of a few variables for practical and quick verifica-
tion (e.g., practical charts, spread sheets). Others, on the other
hand, can be extremely complicated or time-consuming [e.g., finite
element (FE) software] and are used only for research. In between,
there are tools that provide other means for planning and drilling
(e.g., casing-design software). In any case, the amount and quality
of the available field data will dictate the quality of the results,
which have implications over the decision-making process while
planning or drilling.
The Use of Tools. This facilitates drilling engineers’ tasks (casing
design). As more experts use the tools, their range of application
will be tested and validated. This process provides the means to
set up standards that feed further improvements. For example,
the functional and material specifications of solid-expandable tu-
bulars cause us to rethink or to redevelop all conventional assump-
tions for using existing casing-design programs, methods, theories,
and practices.
Drilling Analysis . . . A Methodology?
When drilling analysis is seen as a new expertise, and as part of the
drilling-engineering knowledge, reviewing some of the published
works discloses interesting aspects. Some papers treat this subject
directly (Adeleye et al. 2004; Millheim et al. 1998; Iyoho et al.
2004), whereas others may not sound related (Bond et al. 1998;
Brett and Millheim 1986; Perrin et al. 1997; Oag and Williams
2000; Kravis et al. 2002; Peterson et al. 1995; Aldred et al. 1999).
The majority refer to methods or methodologies indistinctly, spe-
cifically developed to undertake the tasks for the analysis of his-
torical drilling data. In other cases (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski
et al. 2002; Womer et al. 2003), the analysis is performed by other
means and objectives. In this context, it seems that current inde-
pendent efforts for the analysis of drilling data can fit within the
layers of the methodological pyramid (Fig. 2).
The following subsections will present how such papers were
allocated in Fig. 2, starting from the base of the methodology “use
of tools,” in a progressive feedback following the arrows upward.
For each layer, the reviewed papers are depicted briefly to contrast
the different approaches, where necessary. By this process, it is
believed that the actual scenario for drilling analysis can be de-
picted. For clarity, the drilling-analysis methodology is presented
in Fig. 4 in conjunction with the other drilling specialties already
presented in Fig. 3.
The topics that embody the drilling-analysis methodology are
discussed as follows.
The Use of Tools in Drilling Analysis. Drilling engineers use
current analysis tools on the basis of available well information
331
Fig. 3—Description of the elements of a methodology using two well-known areas of drilling expertise as examples (Bourgoyne
et al. 1986). The content of each box is not comprehensive; it is for illustration purposes only.
and data. By using such tools, the analysis of daily reports, cor-
porate databases, or time/depth data provides the means to set up
standards that feed the requirements for further improvements or
adaptations. This section then addresses research that reflects two
separate analyses of drilling data: (1) historical drilling data and
(2) real-time drilling data.
Historical-Drilling Data. Millheim et al. (1998) presented an
analysis of what they called “the data dilemma.” It was recognized
that drilling data revolve around their use (i.e., for a use that adds
value within organizations) when the data are analyzed. This work
(Millheim et al. 1998), as well as others (Bond et al. 1998; Adeleye
et al. 2004; Iyoho et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 1995) uses historical
drilling data from corporate digital drilling databases. In this sense,
the analysis of historical drilling data aims to detect those drill-
ing events that can compromise overall drilling performance in
future wells. Two important highlights were addressed by Mill-
heim et al. (1998):
1. Companies and drilling organizations collect drilling data
without questioning its quality and without a clear picture of what
their data needs are.
2. Drilling data are not collected with the thought that they can
be analyzed later and for specific purposes.
Real-Time Drilling Data. A recent SPE workshop (Womer et
al. 2003) addressed the issue of how to use well/field data. The
need for standards was emphasized, principally to ensure the qual-
ity of well/field data for their use in the decision-making process.
332
In addition, the workshop highlighted the fact that decision makers
can add their own observations to the process if they are on site.
Otherwise, they must rely on the data as they come. In this sense,
it was suggested that a quality-assurance system should be put in
place to take into account accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility,
and traceability of the measurements. Another important aspect
was the need to re-examine the basic definition of data. From the
case studies presented in the workshop (Womer et al. 2003), drill-
ing data are used as follows:
1. Optimize position of well path in real time (geosteering).
2. Improve the accuracy of the Earth model, or update the
geological model in real time.
3. Optimize drilling in real time.
4. Secure data transmission and monitoring.
The Tools for Drilling Analysis. Computational or measurement
tools support drilling-analysis activities based on the needs for
using well/field data. One use is to assist in the analysis of his-
torical drilling data (Bond et al. 1998; Adeleye et al. 2004; Mill-
heim et al. 1998; Iyoho et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 1995), and the
second use is for solving the needs of real-time decision making
(Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski et al. 2002; Womer et al. 2003). In
the first case, specific software has been developed (Irrgang et al.
2002) or used (Behm and Brett 2004; Peterson et al. 1995). These
engineering packages are being used for post-drilling analysis.
Conversely, the analysis of real-time data is achieved mainly by
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
Fig. 4—Comparison of the methodological knowledge from two current Drilling Expertise and Drilling Analysis, considering the last one as another drilling specialty.

333
multidisciplinary integrated teams within workflows in opera-
tional/visualization centers (Branch et al. 2001; Kaminski et al.
2002; Womer et al. 2003). These high-level operational centers
integrate existing simulators, practical charts, or logs to analyze
drilling data, specifically for data monitoring and data manage-
ment from Earth-model databases.
Most efforts in developing drilling tools or systems are being
focused on solving problems while drilling (Hood et al. 2001).
Such tools allow registering more data that possibly can be ana-
lyzed at a later stage. As stated by Millheim et al. (1998), “more
data does not mean data can be analyzed;” nor does it mean that a
meaningful database can be used for building relations and corre-
lations because the problem is the quality of data, which varies
greatly. The focus (Womer et al. 2003) moves to issues concerning
data transmissions to and from systems for ensuring data security
or confidentiality protocols. On the drilling side, the need for more
work was recognized (Womer et al. 2003), specifically for acquir-
ing/processing drilling data. Topics of interest include sensor de-
sign, calibration, or output processing. As observed, the needs for
using well/field data, which can orient efforts on tool/software
development, goes either into the computer-science area (e.g., vir-
tual networks, data encryption, data display) or into the hardware
topics for acquiring and processing large amounts of data. This
perhaps highlights the relatively small effort applied to post-
drilling analysis (2 to 4%) (Millheim et al. 1998).
The Methods for Drilling Analysis. The analysis methods rep-
resent those techniques that comprise the know-how, the know-
when, or know-what of a methodology. These methods make the
developed theories operational. Because actual methods analyze
drilling data on the basis of the process or purpose, they have been
structured as cost- and time-performance methods, specific-
performance methods, and qualitative-performance methods.
Cost- and Time-Performance Methods. These are methods for
evaluating the drilling process as a whole. Their goal is to provide
a means for optimizing drilling time and, thus, reducing overall
well-construction costs. Some examples are presented here:
1. The drilling-performance curve (Brett and Millheim 1986) is
a method adapted from an existing approach called learning-curve
theory. This theory has been used previously in the manufacturing
industry. It contrasts the classical drilling method of plotting
(depth vs. days) for drilling operations. Instead, the method plots
normalized historical drilling data from a consecutive series of
similar wells that have been drilled in an area. By this means, a
mathematical relationship is used to correlate the normalized data.
The coefficients of the model permit the measurement of difficulty
to drill, learning capacity, and level of performance. The drilling-
performance curve (Brett and Millheim 1986) has been applied
and used to analyze several drilling cases (Brett and Millheim
1986; Adeleye et al. 2004; Millheim et al. 1998).
2. The technical limit is a systematic process “to describe a
level of performance defined as the best possible, for a given set of
parameters” (Bond et al. 1998). The core of the method relies on
structuring a theoretical well, which assumes a perfect operation
based on current knowledge and technology. The theoretical well
is divided into activities and subactivities whose duration is deter-
mined by experts with a high level of drilling/completion knowl-
edge. Such an expertise has the purpose of quantifying what the
method called the “removable time” (Bond et al. 1998). By this
process, a series of goals are set to achieve the technical limit when
drilling the next well.
3. The best composite time (Iyoho et al. 2004) is a statistics-
based approach that breaks the drilling process into discrete chro-
nological activities such as rig up, make up bit, run in hole, and
drill a hole section, among others. From comparable well data, the
method seeks to identify the best time recorded and the well that
caused the best time for each activity. All best times are then
summed up. This best composite time is representative of what is
“challengingly achievable.”
4. The perfect-well (PW) analysis (Behm and Brett 2004) is an
approach based on the criterion of specific energy for calculating
the minimum time named the PW time, which represents the mini-
334
mum drilling time for a specific well section. This PW time is not
based on the “best observed,” the “P90,” or the “technical limit”
time. The calculated perfect time is then divided by the actual
drilling time to determine a dimensionless parameter called the
PW ratio. This PW ratio is used for comparison of wells in dif-
ferent conditions to a common benchmark.
Specific-Performance Methods. These comprise those meth-
ods for evaluating the performance of specific drilling processes or
tools. The analysis of drilling data is based on performance indices
that account for several parameters specific to the process under
evaluation. By this means, developers of these methods also are
introducing new terminology. Some examples are presented here:
1. The drilling index (Perrin et al. 1997) is a method for bit-
performance evaluation. It is based on estimating four dimension-
less parameters. They comprise the bit’s performance, behavior,
responsiveness, and steerability, all in terms of operational indi-
cators dictated by the well profile and drilling program. Fifteen
steps are necessary to determine the bit’s drilling index. This num-
ber is then compared with the benchmark bit, whose drilling index
is set as one. The method relies on techniques for estimating
rock-mechanical properties and formation types, as well as infor-
mation from offset bits and the benchmark bit. It also defines
the bit economic index on the basis of the bit cost and the bit
drilling index.
2. The design index (O’Hare and Aigbekaen 2000) is a system-
atic approach to select polycrystalline-dimond-compact (PDC) bits
for a given set of well conditions. The selection is based on the bit
that provides the closest match to the attributes of an ideal bit
design for the hole section under analysis. The method uses for-
mation parameters such as porosity, sonic travel time, and others to
calculate formation strength. The characteristics of the ideal bit
(e.g., PDC-bit cutter size and number) are determined by some
previous calculations such as the profile index, which gives the
directional responsiveness of the PDC bit. The attributes of the
ideal and vendor bit are then introduced into a mathematical ex-
pression that normalizes all proposed bits. Once all proposed bits
are ranked by the design index, the performance index and the
economical index are then used for the final bit selection.
3. The directional-difficulty index (Oag and Williams 2000) is
a process to evaluate the relative difficulty to be encountered in
drilling a directional well. It is based on a set of drilling parameters
that characterize the directional-drilling difficulty. It was devel-
oped by use of a questionnaire that permitted identifying key per-
formance measures. Drilling data were analyzed by use of statis-
tical methods. The index was developed to help a user evaluate the
same process on a group of wells of similar complexity as a mea-
sure of the learning-curve improvements. As a result, it provides a
measure of performance in this process.
Qualitative-Performance Methods. These methods are those
approaches that look for a means to integrate the analysis of dif-
ferent subjects. The integrated analysis is developed and imple-
mented for benchmarking or for providing risk assessment. Some
examples are presented here:
1. The well quality (Kravis et al. 2002) is an approach that
looks for integrating aspects such as formation damage, drilling
interactions, and hole rugosity. The method is embodied within a
computer program for estimating expected well-quality metrics,
mainly related to drilling/production conditions, potential risks,
and attributes that can affect the quality of the well. By using well
data and stored drilling experiences, probabilistic networks and
expert knowledge are combined to predict the well-quality metrics.
These metrics support the decision for setting drilling parameters
and practices to ensure the desired level of quality.
2. The causation model (Aldred et al. 1999) is an approach to
evaluate the causes that result in an event becoming a loss. It
combines risk-management theory and cause/event analysis. The
method looks for means to understand how the inadequacies of the
system, personal factors, and substandard practices contribute to
causing an event to become a loss, and it looks for the decision
time involved for such a loss to occur. This approach divides the
analysis in terms of the decision time, which consists of five
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
stages. The first stage is the longest decision time (months), and
the last one is when the loss happens.
The Theories of Drilling Analysis. From the reviewed literature,
it seems that a set of drilling-analysis theories has not been estab-
lished formally. All published analysis methods base their ap-
proaches on borrowed theories or concepts. Some adapt the theo-
ries into drilling from the manufacturing industry, like the learn-
ing-curve theory (Brett and Millheim 1986). Others use the
theories and concepts from petroleum-related fields, such as the
specific-energy criterion (Behm and Brett 2004) or formation
strength (Perrin et al. 1997; O’Hare and Aigbekaen 2000). In other
cases, probabilistic (Kravis et al. 2002; Peterson et al. 1995) and
statistical analyses (Oag and Williams 2000; Iyoho et al. 2004) are
used for evaluating risks (Kravis et al. 2002; Aldred et al. 1999).
Questionnaires (Oag and Williams 2000) also have been used to
extract expert knowledge. An emerging and growing approach
uses artificial-intelligence theories, such as knowledge-based sys-
tems (Iyoho et al. 2004), machine learning (Kravis et al. 2002), or
case-based systems (Irrgang et al. 1999). For all methods, the goal
is focused on estimating a number or index that accounts for the
many factors that affect drilling operations in terms of time, costs,
or risks.
The previous cases show only examples of how existing theo-
ries were used for the analysis of historical drilling databases. For
the analysis of real-time drilling data, the subject seems less clear,
mainly because the use of the real-time data is meant for real-time
tasks while drilling. However, as soon as such a large amount of
real-time data is gathered and saved, it becomes real-time histori-
cal drilling data.
What types of analysis and theories are needed for retrieving
useful information from these data? At this stage, it seems difficult
to envision. It also depends on the goals and principles that guide
the drilling analyst to perform his or her duties.
The Worldview of Drilling Analysis. Any methodology is built
on specific goals and principles (de Hoog 1998) that guide its
activities. It is the foundation of these steps that is discussed in the
subsections within a methodological context. In addition, a meth-
odology requires a range of activities that bounds its task within a
clear scope. The next two subsections are only the initial steps for
suggesting a set of principles, assumptions, and range of activities
for drilling analysis.
Principles and Assumptions. On the basis of the existing use of
drilling data, it is evident that two trends exist for suggesting what
goals could orient drilling-analysis activities. A first goal path
could be focused exclusively on the analysis of historical data,
as analyzed from corporate databases. In this case, one assumption
would consider that historical drilling data are reliable and can
be collected properly for post-drilling-analysis purposes. Con-
versely, a second goal path could be focused on the analysis of data
when gathered in real time. One assumption for the second case
would be to consider the extent to which real-time data are accu-
rate and traceable.
These two goal paths (i.e., historical and real-time) appear to be
different, but in the future, they will be unified. This trend can be
envisioned from an operator that suggested (Womer et al. 2003)
that by using real-time data, it could both optimize drilling and
analyze performance. In this sense, this company (Womer et al.
2003) considered planning the next phase of its project specifically
for devising a means to analyze real-time data—for example, pull-
ing bits at optimum points or detecting trouble time.
Therefore, from the considerations, the objectives for a drilling-
analysis methodology would be to provide support for the deci-
sion-making process of planning or drilling an oil or gas well and
to provide a systematic process for analysis of available informa-
tion aimed at process improvements.
The Scope of Drilling Analysis. In addition to the goals and
assumptions, it is important to consider the scope of a methodol-
ogy. This scope is defined as the range of activities included in a
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
methodology (de Hoog 1998). In this sense, what would be the
range of activities for drilling analysis?
Defining the scope of drilling-analysis methodology is not so
obvious. A first attempt comes from the manner in which the
different analysis methods were presented. The ranges of drilling
activities (scope) would then be those related to supporting spe-
cific tasks within the cost- and time-, specific-, or qualitative-
analysis activities.
The Drilling Analyst Engineer
Iyoho et al. (2004) raised questions about the engineer or what type
of skills or training this engineer should have in order to perform
drilling-analysis activities. The interest (Iyoho et al. 2004) was to
elicit discussions among the drilling community to share ideas
about the benefits of performing such tasks. In this sense, it pro-
vided (Iyoho et al. 2004) a description of background, knowledge,
skills, and duties required by the drilling analyst. It also proposed
(Iyoho et al. 2004) the type of training, from academia through his
or her career in drilling (i.e., the drilling analyst should be taught
in the type of training reservoir engineers receive, such as how to
perform pressure-transient analysis or steady-state analysis), in-
cluding also a course or two of industrial engineering.
All the above ideas (Iyoho et al. 2004) are important. They
reveal the future opportunities and challenges of career growth to
those drilling engineers who will work on drilling analysis. How-
ever, it is also necessary to discuss what the worldview of drilling
analysis (i.e., if its principles, assumptions, and scope can guide
the activities and the future of such a drilling analyst) is.
Needs and Challenges
To consider drilling analysis as a new drilling specialty requires
consensus. The framework depicted in Fig. 4 illustrates a proposed
structure for a drilling-analysis methodology, which is too broad a
subject to be addressed in one paper. As in any field, it requires
demand for its development and growth. At the same time, proven
results will drive support from people and organizations. It may
take years to be accepted and developed fully.
At this stage, many needs require being addressed. These needs
are manifested by the variety of existing methods for drilling
analysis, but are specific to support the needs of individual orga-
nizations or processes. At the same time, drilling technology is
rapidly acquiring and using other technologies for its operations,
specifically for decision making in operational/visualization cen-
ters. This brings challenges to devise theories, methods, and tools
that support such processes. In this sense, current approaches for
drilling analysis might not be implemented fully or be adequate to
accommodate future needs. Some methods are in continuous im-
provement within their domain, but in general, the usefulness and
applicability of any of them might vary depending upon the sce-
nario. Another consideration relies on the new expertise and
knowledge to handle the amount of data and information produced.
This might result in a new generation of experts, specifically
trained for the purposes of drilling analysis.
Conclusions
This paper reviewed available drilling literature to analyze the role
of drilling knowledge, tools, and systems within the scope of a new
task named drilling analysis. The review and use of independently
developed approaches allowed the proposal of a structured meth-
odology for this topic. By this procedure, it is shown that indi-
vidual methods, tools, and systems can embody the domain of a
new drilling expertise—namely, the drilling analyst. To facilitate
the growth of drilling analysis, within drilling-engineering knowl-
edge, the following subjects require attention:
1. An adequate definition of the use of drilling data is a determi-
nant for dictating the type of tools, methods, and theories that
drilling-analysis activities require. A clear understanding of its
use will provide the means to gather drilling data with the re-
quired quality and quantity for performing meaningful post-
drilling-analysis activities.
2. Current drilling-analysis tools are limited to support future de-
cision-making processes. Existing computational tools base
335
 their analysis upon the source of such data, especially from
corporate databases. This means that the real-time data, gathered
currently from the operational/visualization centers, might not
be useful for future drilling-analysis activities.
3. New methods must be developed for the analysis of large
amounts of drilling data. Some of the existing methods estimate
indices to measure performance. However, this approach might
limit the applicability or usefulness of the data in the future.
4. The theories and concepts that will form the body of drilling-
analysis knowledge need to be structured and developed. The
bases of existing methods of analysis use helpful and valid
theories as isolated subjects, responding to the needs of conven-
tional-drilling operations.
5. Efforts must be undertaken for training the drilling analysts of
the future. Their tasks will be different from current drilling
specialties, but they will complement the whole process of well
construction.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Department of Petroleum
Engineering of Curtin University of Technology and CSIRO
Petroleum Division for their support and permission to publish
this work.
References
Adeleye, A.R., Virginillo, B.K., Iyoho, A.W., and Parenteau, H.L. 2004.
Improving Drilling Performance Through Systematic Analysis of His-
torical Data: Case Study of a Canadian Field. Paper SPE 87177 pre-
sented 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
drilling risk. Oilfield Review 11 (2): 2–19.
Behm, E. and Brett, J.F. 2004. Analysis used to assess, improve drilling
performance. Oil & Gas Journal 102 (9): 43.
Bond, D.F., Scott, P.W., Page, P.E., and Windham, T.M. 1998. Applying
Technical Limit Methodology for 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. Applied
Drilling Engineering. Textbook series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 2.
Branch, A.J., Andersen, K., Lavillonniere, J.L., Larsen, T., Kremer, Y., and
Capacho, G.A. 2001. Real-Time Well Construction Monitoring—A
Case History of Sincor’s Heavy Oil Project. Paper SPE 67757 pre-
sented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 Febru-
ary–01 March. DOI: 10.2118/67757-MS.
Brett, J.F. and Millheim, K. 1986. The Drilling Performance Curve: A
Yardstick for Judging Drilling Performance. Paper SPE 15362 pre-
sented at the 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 Sys-
tems. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Hood, J.A., Leidland, B.T., Haldorsen, H., and Heisig, G. 2001. Aggressive
Drilling Parameter Management Based on Downhole Vibration Diag-
nostics Boosts Drilling Performance in Difficult Formation. Paper SPE
71391 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, 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 Drilling Costs. Paper SPE 56504 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6
October. DOI: 10.2118/56504-MS.
Irrgang, R., Kravis, S., and Nakagawa, E. 2002. Drilling Knowledge Man-
agement, What is Missing and Can We Fix it? Paper SPE 77249 pre-
sented at IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta, 8–11
September. DOI: 10.2118/77249-MS.
Iyoho, A.W., Millheim, K.K., Virginillo, B.K., Adeleye, A.R., and Crum-
336
rine, M.J. 2004. Methodology and Benefits of a Drilling Analysis Para-
digm. Paper SPE 87121 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Confer-
ence, Dallas, 2–4 March. DOI: 10.2118/87121-MS.
Kaminski, D., Pellerin, N.M., and Williams, J.H. 2002. A New Data Inte-
gration and Work Process System for Providing Online Real-Time
Drilling Collaboration. Paper SPE 78343 presented at the European
Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 29–31 October. DOI: 10.2118/
78343-MS.
Kravis, S., Irrgang, R., Phatak, A., Martins, A., and Nakagawa, E. 2002.
Drilling Parameter Selection for Well Quality Enhancement in Deep-
water Environments. Paper SPE 77358 prepared for presentation at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
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
Process for Extended Reach Wells. Paper SPE 49111 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27–
30 September. DOI: 10.2118/49111-MS.
Oag, A.W. and Williams, M. 2000. The Directional Difficulty Index—A
New Approach to Performance Benchmarking. Paper SPE 59196 pre-
sented at the IADC/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 of PDC Drill-Bit Selection. Paper SPE 59112 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. 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 In-
dex—A New Approach to Bit Performance Evaluation. Paper SPE
37595 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
4–6 March. DOI: 10.2118/37595-MS.
Peterson, S.K., Murtha, J.A., and Roberts, R.W. 1995. Drilling Perfor-
mance Predictions: Case Studies Illustrating the Use of Risk Analysis.
Paper SPE 29364 presented 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 Technology Workshop ‘Off Well Site
Decision Making.’ Paper SPE 79891 presented at the SPE/IADC Drill-
ing Conference, Amsterdam, 19–21 February. DOI: 10.2118/79891-
MS.
Alejandro J. Lagreca is currently an optimization engineer with
Baker Hughes. He started his oil and gas career in 1992 as a
drilling mechanics engineer and later held a variety of posi-
tions in drilling, technology, and research with PDVSA Intevep
and in petroleum engineering with the Commonwealth Scien-
tific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia.
His areas of interest are in drilling mechanics and data analysis.
Lagreca holds a BS in mechanical engineering from Univer-
sidad Simon Bolivar in Venezuela and an MS in mechanical
engineering from the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, USA. His
PhD is in petroleum engineering from Curtin University of Tech-
nology in Australia. Carlos Damski is currently the managing
director of Genesis Petroleum Technologies Pty Ltd. Damski
holds a BS in electronic engineering, an MS in computer sci-
ence, and a PhD in computer science. He has over 30 years
experience in software development in both commercial and
scientific environments. Over the last 10 years he has focused
in methodologies and processes to improve oil and gas explo-
ration and production activities based on data analysis. James
M. Peden is an independent consultant, based primarily in Aus-
tralia and the UK. He obtained his BS in chemical engineering,
and an ME and PhD in petroleum engineering all from Heriot
Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland. Previously, he worked
for Shell International, was a Shell UK professor of petroleum
engineering and department chairman at Heriot Watt Univer-
sity, was a visiting professor at Stanford University, and until
early 2008 was a strategic and technical advisor to Advanced
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
Well Technologies Pty. based in Perth, WA, USA. He has au-
thored over 125 papers, and his areas of interest include
completion design, sand control, formation damage, and
well/field performance optimization. Edson Nakagawa leads
CSIRO’s research in offshore oil and gas with a focus on explo-
ration and production technologies for accessing remote
deepwater oil and gas reserves. His major areas of develop-
ment include novel exploration technologies, rock physics,
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
geomechanics, reservoir characterization, enhanced oil re-
covery, production optimization, novel fluids (formation
strengthening, relative-permeability modifiers), flow assurance,
and subsea-separation technologies. Nakagawa obtained his
MS in petroleum engineering from the University of Ouro Preto
in Brazil and his PhD from Louisiana State University in the USA.
He has served in several SPE technical conferences and work-
shops as well as on many publication review committees.
337