SPE-191574-MS

Delivering Drilling Automation II – Novel Automation Platform and Wired

Drill Pipe Deployed on Arctic Drilling Operations

Riaz Israel, Doug McCrae, Nathan Sperry, Brad Gorham, Jacob Thompson, and Kyle Raese, BP; Steven Pink and
Andrew Coit, NOV

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 24-26 September 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a case history of drilling automation system pilot deployment, inclusive of wired drill
pipe on an Arctic drilling operation. This builds on the body of work that BP (the operator) previously
presented in 2017 related to the deployment of an alternate drilling automation system. The focus will be
on the challenges and lessons learned during this deployment over a series of development wells.
Two major aspects of technology were introduced during this pilot, the first being a drilling automation
software platform that allowed secure access to the rig's drilling control system. This platform hosts
applications that interpret the activity on the rig and issue control setpoints to drive the operation of the
rig's top drive, mud pumps, auto driller, drawworks, and slips. The second component introduced was a
wired drill string, which provides access to high speed delivery of downhole data from a series of distributed
downhole sensors, providing an opportunity to improve both automated control and real-time interpretation
of downhole phenomena.
The project team identified several key performance indicators both at the project level and for each well.
The project level key performance indicators (KPIs) were designed to give the operator an understanding of
the reliability and robustness of the hardware and software components of the automation system. The KPIs
for the well were designed to assess the impact of the technology on drilling efficiency through aspects of
invisible lost time reduction (connection and survey times). The well level KPIs also fed into the project
KPIs by capturing uptime, reliability, and repeatability of the hardware and software components of the
system.
The paper describes several specific examples of where the benefits of the technology were realized as
related to the KPIs above and describes some of the technical challenges encountered and fixes employed
during the pilot campaign.
The paper also gives an insight into some of the non-technical challenges related to deployment
of this system, around human behavioral characteristics. It discusses how focused collaboration and
communication from all the stakeholders was managed and directed towards a successful deployment.
The work delivered on this project incorporates several technological innovations that were deployed
for the first time on an active drilling operation. Delivery of these were important milestones for both the
2 SPE-191574-MS

operator and the automation technology provider as part of their collaboration to increase the capability and
reliability of these systems. The operator believes that this effort is key to allowing its drilling operations
to realize longer term and sustainable benefits from automation.

Introduction
In an effort to enhance the safety of its operations, improve well construction efficiency, and leverage the
potential opportunities presented by digitalization of drilling, the operator has initiated a Remote Operations
and Intelligent Automation Project. The pilot is focused on evaluating the readiness of the industry's latest
automated drilling capabilities to deliver the benefits as mentioned above. This paper builds on the work
presented previously (Israel, et al, 2016), which documented our initial foray into drilling automation via
implementation of a rate of penetration optimization algorithm in closed loop.
The project involved the deployment of an automation operating system (AOS) on top of an existing
drilling control system. The AOS provides the ability for secure, programmatic access to control operation
of the rig's major drilling hardware via software controls. The software interface allows for custom
configuration of several routine drilling activities for automated execution. Details of this system are
provided later in the paper. The project also provided BP an opportunity to evaluate the latest version of
the service company's wired drill pipe (WDP). At the time of writing, the project has delivered eight wells,
with various combinations of the above technology implemented as dictated by technical, operational or
logistical reasons.
The overall objectives of the project were defined at the start as follows:

• Evaluate readiness of AOS for wider deployment for the operator

• Evaluate reliability of WDP version 2 (V2)

• Evaluate maturity of AOS drilling applications

• Evaluate the impact of the above technology in reducing well costs

For each well, a series of KPIs were defined that aligned with the project level KPIs and dependent on
the specific aspect of the technology being used on that well.

Field Description
Located on the North Slope of Alaska, on the edge of the Arctic circle, the giant Prudhoe Bay field was
discovered in 1968, with an initial estimate of 22 to 25 billion barrels of oil in place and has been in
production since June 1977 (Stanley). Since the field began production, it has generated more than 12.5
billion barrels of oil, making it the most productive U.S. oil field of all time (BP 2017). The field has been a
proving ground for advanced drilling techniques, including multi-lateral and coiled tubing, now employed
by oilfields across the globe. It also pioneered enhanced oil recovery technologies that are employed
globally. Production from Prudhoe Bay is supported by ongoing drilling activity and this project is another
example of how the operator is attempting to use cutting edge technology to improve the efficiency of
operations in this field.
SPE-191574-MS 3

Figure 1—North Slope of Alaska field map.

Technology Description
Automation Operating System (AOS): The AOS is a process control software layer installed on an AC
drilling rig (with the requisite hardware and baseline drilling control system (DCS)) and enables it to deliver
automated drilling control. The intent of this software is to better deliver routine processes such as ramping
up pumps, tagging bottom, and parameter optimization while drilling. This will then enable the driller to
focus more on safety and operationally critical processes, including crew resource management. These tasks
require an in-depth knowledge of the operational context, informed largely by data that is not captured
digitally, that an experienced and informed driller is more adept at managing than an AOS as described.
The AOS consists of several single board computers (SBCs) installed in the controller cabinet, an
additional or supplemented screen and an interface switch, with the latter two in the driller's cabin. The
system has an initial installed configuration which defines how the AOS will perform certain tasks such as
pump ramp speeds, block acceleration while transiting back to bottom.
The level of configuration options is extensive and allows for high levels of customization. Configuration
though is not isolated to installation only and the AOS interface allows for on the fly changes to the
system setup allowing for active optimization management both by drillers, optimization staff, and drilling
engineers alike as conditions change. This active management may be required for activities such as tag
bottom to minimize any induced vibration and thereby improve bit life.
While the architecture of the AOS allows for third-party control of the drilling process using various
process control applications written through the AOS’ software development kit, the focus of this particular
project was to evaluate the applications native to the AOS vendor.
Integral to the AOS system is the well program. This allows the drilling engineers to provide the AOS
with set of operating parameters envelopes (e.g. weight on bit, RPM, torque, flow, pressure, ROP) that define
how the well should be delivered by the system. These can be specified for a desired interval (formation
tops other) and are digitally uploaded into the system. Crucially, the driller does not have access to edit
these parameters while operating within the AOS, and so any change required must go through a defined
escalation and review protocol.
Wired Drill Pipe: BP has a long history of utilization of the original version of the wired drill pipe and
these are well documented by Edwards and Coley (2013). The experience from the initial implementation
which ran from ~ 2004 to 2012, in four different operating regions, allowed us to conclude that while there
was significant benefit to be had from the improved data bandwidth and speed that the system provided over
mud-pulse telemetry, that the overall system reliability at that time did not meet business and operational
requirements.
A new version of wired drill pipe was commercialized in 2016 and reported by the supplier to have
significantly improved overall system reliability. Additionally, with the introduction of the AOS, and the
4 SPE-191574-MS

ability to utilize the high-speed data to drive drilling parameter optimization and control, BP decided to
utilize the second version (V2) wired drill-pipe as a component of the automation project.
Sesah et al (2017) provide a detailed description of the changes made to enhance the reliability of the V2
wired drill-pipe, including the re-design on how the inductive coil is fitted into the pin end of the connection,
as illustrated in Fig. 1a below. In addition to the re-engineering of the coil placement, the V2 system also
included some ruggedization of components such as datalinks (booster subs). The V2 design also focused
on lowering cost of maintenance, by making the induction coils a consumable that could be replaced as well
as being more malleable to allow for greater stress resistance.

Figure 1a—WDP V1 vs. WDP V2 coil placement (Sesah, 2017).

Two different applications for automated ROP optimization were also part of the project delivery: the
first based on downhole weight on bit (DWOB) control, the second using a searching algorithm.
DWOB Control Application: The DWOB controller is a real-time supervisory control application
installed on the AOS that delivers a set DWOB value desired by the driller.
The application acquires highspeed data from both surface and downhole sources, this data is then
statistically analyzed. A complex computation is then performed to create a SWOB setpoint for the AOS
to use and to deliver the DWOB required by the driller. The AOS and auto driller receive the setpoint and
apply a contextual test of operational state to determine whether to apply the required setpoint.
To ensure optimal accuracy of downhole measurements an automated or manual taring or zeroing process
is performed to account for temperature, pressure, and wellbore influences on the measurement. More details
on this application are available from Pink et al. (2017)
ROP Optimization Application: Drilling parameter optimization application functions in two primary
modes: surface and downhole. Each mode uses a subtly different logic or algorithm. In surface mode the
application acquires surface data from rig sensors and applies a gaussian logic and simple cost function
with variable weighting depending on the performance criteria required. For surface optimization the cost
function is weighted between ROP and MSE (Mechanical Specific Energy) and this weighting is user
determined. Once the application is engaged the system begins an automated drill off test attempting to find
the optimal parameter set to deliver either the maximum ROP or the minimum MSE depending upon the
weighting chosen.
In downhole mode the application is also able to integrate downhole lateral and torsional vibration data
from the wired drill pipe network. As with the surface optimization, the application uses gaussian logic this
time, to create a synthetic 3D topographic map of performance versus drilling dysfunction with performance
SPE-191574-MS 5

being the third dimension. The cost function weighting is also user determined, now with the vibration
levels as an additional consideration

Figure 2—Technology overview.

Drilling Overview
The wells included in this project are production replacement wells. In most cases these are two-section
sidetracks of existing wells, the intermediate section being 8½ in. × 9⅞ in. coming out of milled window
exit through the intermediate casing. Typically, this interval is drilled in two runs, the first being a short
(400-800-ft) run with a conventional mud-motor to provide the desired wellbore separation from the original
wellbore. The second run is typically a rotary steerable with an under-reamer drilling a tangent and then 3-
D build and turn to the well landing point. Doglegs are in the range of 3- to 6-deg/100-ft. The production
interval is planned as 1-2 runs, drilling 6⅛-in. hole for about 1500- to 3000-ft horizontally, with inclination
changes ranging between 87° to 100° as dictated by the reservoir geometry. Doglegs in the build can get up
to 15deg/100ft, depending on trajectory requirements. Some geo-steering is done, but on the fly changes to
the pre-drilled well plan are generally limited.
The drilling challenges are typically around balancing ROP to stay within the bounds of the pressure and
wellbore stability windows. A hardline ECD limit is defined for the intermediate 8½ in. × 9⅞ in. interval
and ROP therefore is controlled. Close attention is paid to any signals of well breathing during connection
flowbacks. The production interval may sometimes encounter challenging mineralogy, including chert and
pyrites, which can accelerate the wear on polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits.
The logging while drilling program in the intermediate section is a standard gamma-ray, resistivity,
pressure while drilling suite, with a drilling mechanics and vibration package run on selected wells. The
production section logging is similar to the intermediate, with a standard neutron density package added. A
typical well schematic and bottomhole assemblies (BHAs) are included in the Fig. 3 below.
6 SPE-191574-MS

Figure 3—Wellbore schematic and BHA.

AOS & WDP Applications

The AOS and WDP technologies deliver distinct but complimentary functionality. In introducing the
technology, the initial plan was to introduce both together. However, due to unavailability of all the
components needed to start-up the WDP operation, inclusive of logistical challenges, the introduction was
staggered (i.e. no WDP on first two wells; AOS only). In hindsight, the staggered introduction seemed to
give the crew more time to assimilate the changes that each technology brought to the operation.
The AOS was focused on the delivery of the following capabilities:

• Automated connection sequences

◦ Weight to slip sequences, inclusive of pick-up and slack-off maneuvers

◦ Slip to weight sequences, inclusive of surveying requirements

• Closed loop drilling parameter management

◦ Via the ROP optimization application (in surface mode)

Fig. 4 illustrates the driller's view of the AOS on the rig floor.
SPE-191574-MS 7

Figure 4—AOS driller interface (HMI).

The WDP was focused on the delivery of the following capabilities:

• High speed telemetry applications

◦ Surveying

◦ Downlinking

◦ Memory quality data in real time

• Closed loop drilling parameter management

◦ Via the ROP optimization application (in downhole mode)

◦ Via the DWOB control application

• Distributed (or along-string) sensors

◦ Pressure and temperature

◦ Vibration

In the following sections of the paper, the discussion will focus on the application, results, and lessons
learned from the implementation of the above capability over the first eight wells of the project.

Automated Connection Sequences

The AOS provides the capability to define, configure, and execute procedures for the weight to slip (W2S)
and slip to weight (S2W) sequences associated with a typical drilling connection. The slips-in to slip-out
sequence was not a component of this project, as the rig was not equipped with mechanized pipe handling
equipment.
The initial configuration of the AOS requires some pre-planning. There are approximately 109
configuration items that need to be input, some of which may be easy to interpret and determine an associated
value. Other configuration items (e.g. rotation speed for tagging bottom, Gpm/sec ramp down speed of the
pumps, etc.) will require a rigorous assessment of the time-based data of benchmark connection sequences
to determine the most appropriate value, and so result in an engineered connection sequence. The level
of specificity required in designing a process for an automated system to execute is much higher when
8 SPE-191574-MS

compared with the process designed for human consumption/execution, a lesson that the BP was able to
bring into this project from the automation deployment previously described (Israel et al., 2017).
Once configured, the AOS delivers the above sequences without driller intervention, automatically
transitioning out of or into the drilling phase, depending on which sequence is being executed with the driller
confirming the position of the slips at designated times during the sequence. The driller can intervene at any
point, if the sequence is not being executed to plan (e.g. as the result of an AOS software bug) or if well
conditions dictate some other course of action that is different to the pre-configured sequence. Because of
this, each W2S and S2W sequences were defined as full (100% of the sequence done via the AOS), partial
(the sequence is partially executed by the AOS, and partly by the driller), and none (the sequence is fully
executed by the driller). These definitions were useful in measuring the KPIs of utilization, efficiency, and
repeatability as the project progressed.

Weight to Slip Sequences

This involves all the steps from drilling the lowest point on the stand, to picking up the pipe, reaming,
backreaming or wiping the stand as needed, managing rotary and pumps speeds to zero, actions to record
pick-up and slack-off weights, positioning the stand at the correct height in the rotary table, and, finally,
setting the automatic slips.
The utilization of the AOS to deliver W2S sequences is shown below (Fig. 5) based on the first six
wells of the campaign. Factors impacting utilization include the ongoing familiarization with the system,
well conditions that require deviation standard process, and software bugs that appeared periodically. The
numbers in the individual columns refer to the actual connections performed in each one of the respective
modes.

Figure 5—AOS utilization on weight to slip sequences by well.

Fig. 6 below illustrates the comparison of the time to execute the sequence for a particular hole section
(full AOS, partial AOS/driller, full driller).
Here the driller is about equal to the system in delivering the sequence in terms of overall time, but much
less interaction with the drilling control system is required to achieve this, suggesting that the driller can
better focus on looking for anomalies (overpulls, higher than expected flowbacks, etc.).
SPE-191574-MS 9

Figure 6—Weight to slip performance.

Slip to Weight Sequences

This involves all the steps from transitioning from releasing the automatic slips, staring the pumps, getting
the survey, starting the rotary, lowering the bit to bottom, and transitioning into drilling mode.
Fig. 7 below, is similar to the figure above that was used for the W2S section to show utilization and
efficiency of the S2W sequences. This figure illustrates the split across the first six wells of the AOS
utilization during the W2S sequences; similar factors impact the utilization as during the W2S sequence.
Again, the numbers in the graphic represent the actual number of connections in each discrete mode.

Figure 7—AOS utilization on slip to weight sequences by well.

Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the time to execute the S2W sequence for a run (full AOS, partial AOS/
driller, full driller). In this case, the AOS is about 35% faster (3.8 mins.) in executing the sequence over a
comparable number of sequences (23 vs. 17). The time potential savings over 40 sequences as delivered
by the AOS is 2.5 hours.
10 SPE-191574-MS

Figure 8—Slip to weight performance.

In addition to the time savings delivered by the AOS, the consistency of each step in the process is
compared below (Fig. 9), in this case the pump start-up rate. This data is taken from the same BHA run
where the plan was to alternate between the system and the driller to execute the sequence, of which the
pump start-up is a component. In a well with a narrow margin for initiation of losses, the ability to manage
the pump start-up as illustrated below could potentially prevent a major non-production time (NPT) event.

Figure 9—Pump start-up performance.

Friction Tests (pick-up/slack off weights)

Normal drilling practice at connections is to take pick up, slack off and free rotating weights just prior
to connections to monitor trends and give early indications of poor hole cleaning etc. This process, though
often well documented in the procedures manual, is potentially open to human error. There is a potential
risk of late identification of developing downhole problems or incorrectly interpreting trends.
SPE-191574-MS 11

The AOS was set up to perform friction tests prior to the connection and these were performed with a high
degree of consistency eliminating the "human" issues discussed. Fig. 10 below illustrates the consistency
of the AOS described above. The upper graph in Fig. 10 illustrates the consistency of the system. The lower
graph illustrates when the AOS was switched off and the weight to slips component, including friction pick-
up and slack off tests, were manually delivered by the driller.
However, whilst the system proved to be extremely good at consistently applying the process it was
ultimately observed to have an inadequate ability to "learn" as the wells progressed. With the inherent
increases in tortuosity, drag, etc., it was apparent the system wasn't picking up correctly to adequately break-
over the drag. This data was captured and is currently back to the developers to improve the current AOS
system capability.

Figure 10—Friction test performance.

Telemetry Time Savings

Downlinking -With the addition of wired drill pipe, the need to utilize mud pulse telemetry to send downlinks
to the BHA is eliminated, saving around 10-15 minutes per downlink if it is performed off bottom. This
includes the time taken to pick up, send the downlink, and subsequently run back to bottom.
The instantaneous downlink also provides the additional benefit of uninterrupted data to surface during
downlinking activities as opposed to a period of data blackout from the downhole tools during mud-pulse
downlinking.
Surveying – The combination of WDP and the AOS bring significant benefit to surveying operations.
Depending on where in the process a survey is needed, the process typically requires the string to be brought
to a standard position, cycling off/on of the mud pumps and then remaining stationary while the survey
is transmitted. This sequence was configured into the AOS, so that the driller essentially had a survey on
12 SPE-191574-MS

demand button on the drillers console or human machine interface (HMI), as shown in Fig. 4, that could
be used to initiate the procedure.
Due to the far northerly location, complex well trajectory, and adjacent well congestion of the mature
field, the operator's survey program often required multiple mid-stand surveys, which could add up to 10
minutes of wait time or more per stand with mud-pulse telemetry surveying.
With WDP, the process is identical but instead of having to wait for all the survey to be transmitted to
surface as with mud pulse telemetry, the surveys are available approximately 20 seconds after the pumps
are at tool operating flow-rates. This capability was measured to save 2.5 to 3 minutes per survey. The
cumulative impact of this savings quickly becomes significant.

Figure 11—Estimated telemetry time savings by well.

A total of about 31.7 hours of time savings were thought to have been realized over six wells (Fig. 11).
The following issues impacted the ability to increase this savings significantly:

• Break in WDP connectivity thru to the drilling BHA due to a failed BHA component on one run
(though the rest of the string was connected).
• At least two runs where the WDP was run in ‘dumb iron’ mode (once due to an unavailable
component to complete the network; once due to operational need to lay down ASMs/repeater
subs).
• Instances where the surveys were not decoded thru the WDP data bus and so they had to be re-
taken using mud pulse telemetry. The time savings depicted therefore, assumes a 90% success rate
of all surveys attempted. The downlinks incorporate only the off-bottom downlinks, though there
likely were additional savings from the on-bottom downlinks with WDP that are not captured.

Closed Loop Drilling Parameter Management

Another of the main aspects of functionality evaluated on this project was the system's ability to drill in
closed loop (i.e. a real time software algorithm calculating and sending setpoints to the control system for
execution without driller input). As covered in the technology section above, two applications (DWOB
control application and the ROP optimization application) were used to provide dynamic management of
drilling parameters for automated control and management of ROP. At the time of writing this paper, just
SPE-191574-MS 13

over 26,500-ft of hole have been drilled in closed loop, representing about 38% of the entire footage drilled
over the first eight wells (Fig. 12). Factors impacting the utilization include:

• Planned testing sequences (i.e. stand-on/stand-off) on several wells

• ROP restrictions as dictated by hole cleaning/equivalent circulating density (ECD) management

• AOS unavailability on well four

• ROP optimization application unavailability on well eight

• Comfort factors (i.e. DD/driller ‘not comfortable’ to run due to some circumstance, e.g. build angle)

• Troubleshooting tough drilling conditions (e.g. sticky hole conditions)

Figure 12—Closed loop drilling footage by well

There were very few occasions where a performance aspect (i.e. lower ROP from the algorithm control
versus driller) was identified where the recommendation/performance of the closed loop algorithm resulted
in a decision to switch to manual mode.
Due to the nature of the rock, i.e. the relatively low strength, the limits on ROP were often driven not by
how fast the bit could go, but on limits related to hole cleaning and/or wellbore stability. There were also
some restrictions on ROP during high angle build sections. As a result, for most instances, performance
improvements in ROP were often imperceptible to the driller, or equal to the ROP without the system, which
impacted the overall utilization. However, one of the key goals remained to evaluate the robustness of the
system and the ability to at least deliver what the driller does today.

ROP Optimization Application (Surface Mode)

Approximately 85% of the 26,500-ft drilled in closed loop on this project has been done under the control
of the ROP optimization application running in surface mode. Fig. 13a shows the utilization by stand of the
application for a given BHA run. Fig 13b shows the comparison of the ROP delivered conventionally versus
the ROP delivered with the application in control for each stand. In general, a small performance gain in
14 SPE-191574-MS

ROP is observed with the application, though this may be skewed somewhat by the higher percentage of
the stand drilled with ROP app on versus off.

Figure 13a—ROP optimization utilization by stand.

Figure 13b—ROP optimization performance (ROP) by stand.

Controlled ROP Intervals: One of the early scenarios evaluated was the ability to use the application in a
controlled ROP interval, the objective being to drill closer to the desired limit than a driller in manual mode
could, and therefore deliver an overall improvement in the run average ROP.
This proved to be challenging, as the logic in the application was not designed to control ROP, but rather
to keep searching for a better ROP. Even when the system was constrained with an ROP limit as part of the
application's pre-run configuration, it was determined that the overall performance was about the same as
a driller with a conventional auto-driller. In a controlled ROP scenario, the benefit to the driller of having
the drilling parameters managed by the system (i.e. reducing the task load on the driller) was more difficult
to determine. However, in the situation where the application was run in downhole mode, the ability to
autonomously adjust parameters for high levels of shock and vibration was seen to be beneficial even in
controlled ROP intervals.

ROP Optimization Application (Downhole Mode)

Fig. 14 shows a typical example from using the ROP Optimization algorithm in downhole control mode.
In this mode, the high-speed lateral and axial vibration data from the drilling mechanics tool in the BHA
are included as considerations along with ROP in the overall optimization algorithm. When either of these
SPE-191574-MS 15

vibration modes hit a pre-configured threshold, the algorithm responds with set-point adjustments (to RPM
and/or WOB) to mitigate the vibration. This sequence is described below and illustrated in the plot.

Figure 14—ROP optimization application via downhole control.

1. Lateral vibrations exceed pre-determined threshold

2. Algorithm detects this; begins to recommend lower RPMs, which then get executed via the AOS
3. Lateral vibrations are reduced

DWOB Control Application

The examples below are typical observations during the use of the DWOB control application. Fig. 15
shows the impact of the application when turned on (red-line between points 1 and 2 on the plot). Prior to
switching on, both the surface and downhole WOB can be seen to be trending downwards, with the ROP
trend following. When the application is switched on, and the downhole WOB set point (purple stepped
curve) is entered, the surface WOB is automatically increased, and ROP begins to trend upwards.
16 SPE-191574-MS

Figure 15—DWOB control.

Fig. 16 below shows the stand sequentially following the one above, where the system is not used. Note
that although the surface WOB appears constant, the downhole WOB shows a steady decrease and with
it the ROP.

Figure 16—Without DWOB control.

Fig. 17 shows an example from the same run, where the system is turned on, but appears to be unable
to maintain a steady downhole WOB. The finding here is that there was a surface WOB limit set in the
AOS that prevented the application from reaching the requested surface WOB set point to achieve a steady
DWOB. This is observed by the flat line (yellow curve) surface WOB set point that the algorithm is sending
– typically this is significantly more dynamic, but in this case is restricted to the limit set in the AOS. While
having that limit built into the AOS is definitely beneficial to prevent operation outside of an engineered
operating envelope (e.g. buckling limit, etc.), in this case and in many instances during the project, the
‘limit’ imposed was often due to the comfort level that the drilling team had working with surface WOB
SPE-191574-MS 17

and some risk aversion to switching to a mode of thinking where the DWOB becomes the control variable.
This behavior did improve as the project progressed but as discussed in various other areas of this paper,
is an area for improvement.

Figure 17—DWOB control limited by surface WOB.

Distributed Measurements
The following discussion has limited scope for conclusion due to the small sample size experienced during
the field trials. Some of the concepts were conceived "on the fly" and as such are nothing more than proof of
concept opportunities which were delivered successfully but now require further evaluation to deliver a fully
released product. There were others that were brought to the project later on and a conclusive evaluation
wasn't possible in the timeframe.

Sweep Fingerprinting
Attempts were made to use the visualization capabilities within the AOS to fingerprint the movement
and evaluate the impact of different sweep regimes used during the project. Fig. 18 illustrates one example
where there were four distributed pressure sensors in the annulus and the increased cuttings load being
picked up by the sweep can be seen. For clarification, the top half of the plot is time based suface (time
on the horizontal axis), the bottom half is the interpolated ‘heat map’ generated from the pressure sensors
along the string (distance from bit depth is along the vetical axis, time on the horizontal). Darker coloured
or hotter areas represent higher annular pressures.

Figure 18—Sweep visualization with distributed pressure sensors

18 SPE-191574-MS

One limitation of this visualization package is the inability to remotely monitor the display. This is
currently under development to ensure all interested stakeholders would have access via a web-based
application, thus eliminating the current issues with remote visualization. Additionally, improved accuracy
on the pressure sensors is also under development, as the current sensor accuracy (±150psi) is not suitable
for many applications

Well Control Drill Management

During a strip-in drill wellsite leadership realized an improvement opportunity through the use of the
pressure sensors in the WDP. Normally the choke control has an element of overshot and undershoot relative
to the operator experience and the physical setup of the system. With wired pipe in hole it was recognized that
the downhole pressure reading could be instantaneously monitored eliminating the requirement to "guess"
the choke influence with traditional methods.
The drill floor doghouse was already setup with AOS displays and a bespoke display was designed and
built to support the concept. This displayed the ideal upper and lower pressure range hard lines for the choke
operators to target. This application provided some insight into how the data could be used in the event of
a well control scenario to better manage downhole pressures while circulating

Liner Cementing Application

The WDP was used in dumb iron mode during cementing operations, with no adverse effects witnessed
on either the pipe (no cement sheaths or damage to the wire) or to the cementing operations (darts and
wipers passed at high dogleg and inclination angle without issue).
During one liner cementing operation, the cement head was configured on the rig floor with wired swivels
top and bottom and a cable by passing the body of the cementing-head to facilitate real time visualization
of annular pressures along the string while cementing. This resulted in some flat time to install the wired
swivels, which put the casing at risk for getting stuck. In the future, an engineered wired cement head
solution is recommended prior to attempting this activity. The distributed pressure measurements were used
to monitor the annular pressure while cementing (illustrated below in Fig. 19).

Figure 19—Annular pressure while cementing.

SPE-191574-MS 19

The results showed some unexpected, but not show-stopping downhole behavior and were referred to the
operator's in-house cementing specialist team for further analysis, including comparison to pre-job modelled
lift pressures.

Swab / Surge Monitoring during BHA Tripping

During some specific trips out of hole at section total depth (TD), the distributed pressure measurements
were used to monitor the annular pressure while tripping. This required connecting the top drive to allow
the WDP network to receive the real time pressure data from the distributed pressure sensors. To help
reduce NPT, a new device for allowing this data to be available while tripping conventionally on elevators
eliminating the requirement to torque up the top-drive to the wired pipe is being develop by the suppliers.
Use of the real time pressure data while tripping enabled live evaluation of the swab /surge model,
which included tripping at several different speeds. The real time pressure data seemed to suggest that
the swab surge model was overly conservative and that trip speeds could be safely increased. This data is
currently being analyzed in more depth before any change to the operational parameters (trip speed) can
be implemented.

Lessons Learned
At the time of writing, this project is on the final two wells prior to the rig being released as per existing
contract, in line with the drilling season on the North Slope. The work done on the project to deliver and
assess the technologies described has been an important milestone towards the operator's overall Intelligent
Automation Project. The lessons learned from this project are being directly fed in to forward plans and
recommendations on pace, scale, and application for other rigs/operating regions, with a focus on the
offshore fleet.
Documenting the full scope of lesson learned during this project is outside the scope of work of the paper,
and so only a high-level summary of key lessons is presented below:
Safety: No injuries were recorded during the delivery of this project, thanks to the unwavering focus of
the rig site and office operations team as relates to safety. Two important lessons or best practices captured
from this work include:
Situational Awareness for Rig Floor Team: In typical operations, the floor hands will often make eye
contact or gesture to the driller to gain his attention. With increasing automation capabilities, the driller
may not be always directing the movement of the rig floor machines during a given activity. To improve
the situational awareness of the floor hands, a red-light green light system tied to the AOS enabled/disabled
status was implemented. This provided the floor hands with a clear way to know if the rig was in automated
or manual mode.
Know your Interlocks: the AOS does not introduce any new process or physical interlocks other than what
is already in place as part of the baseline drilling control system. Design and configuration of automated
sequences must be done with specific knowledge of the interlocks in place on the drilling rig. This lesson
arose from an incident where the initial cause was thought to be that the AOS had overridden an existing
interlock on the rig. The use of the AOS was suspended for several days while a thorough investigation was
conducted, led by the operator. Through the ability to recreate the incident, as well as test the AOS against
other known interlocks, it was concluded that at the rig control system level, there was not an existing
interlock in place to prevent that sequence from being executed. This investigation allowed the use of the
AOS to be re-instated but underlined the need to know what interlocks exist on the rig.
Pre-planning: The experience of delivering this project to one of the most remote operating fields in
the world has highlighted several areas that are critical to the success of the overall project. Perhaps the
most obvious, but one of the most challenging, is to get the right levels of engagement and alignment from
all parties involved – including the operator's teams, rig contractor, third party drilling services, and the
AOS/WDP supplier. Without this engagement and alignment in place, some of the more tactical challenges
20 SPE-191574-MS

around identification and prioritization of BHA components for wire, agreeing on KPIs, data aggregation,
distribution and archiving plans, well design adaptations, workflow modifications, evaluation of subsurface
and non-standard drilling opportunities, and problem triage during operations all become exponentially
more difficult. Another important consideration in the pre-planning stage would be to consider the impact
of contingency scenarios (e.g. running a gyro, etc.) and how or if the AOS/WDP operations may impact
these. This was a particularly hard lesson for the team, as prior to a critical hole section, it was discovered
that there was a pass-through restriction in the internal diameter of the 4-in. datalinks that would prevent
running of the wireline pipe severing tool in the event of a stuck pipe situation. This resulted in the WDP
having to be run in ‘dumb-iron mode'. Had this been identified earlier on, the right pipe severing kit could
have been sourced and ready at the wellsite prior to the run.
Operational: Once the project was kicked-off, one the most valuable resources introduced was the role of
project coach – an employee from the operator, mostly rig based, but whose role was to support the teams
on a daily basis. This support came in many forms, most important of which was to ensure that the right
balance was achieved in delivering the technology evaluation with minimal disruption to the operations and
conversely working with the operations team to ensure that the objectives of the trial remained in focus
and were able to be executed. The coach hosted a daily session with a core project team to review ongoing
challenges and drive towards resolution, pulling in additional resources as required. In hindsight, the coach's
role has significantly accelerated to adoption of the technology by the rig-based teams and has been a crucial
component to the successful delivery of the project.
Other key operational lessons include:

• Conventional processes for managing tallies need to be modified in order to account for handling
of datalinks and ASM as singles
• The interface sub (adapter between the M/LWD data bus and the WDP data bus) is a critical
component that can significantly impair the value case for WDP. A significant level of detailed
planning is needed to ensure to service cycles, reliability, and the right number of back-up tools
are considered for the duration of the project.
• In configuring the ASMs to provide distributed ECD, it is critical to get an accurate value of true
vertical depth (TVD) tie-in. Failure to do so means that the conversion from the sensor pressure to
ECD will be incorrect. Robust QC procedures should be implemented.
Technical: based on the analysis of some of the data presented earlier, the operator has recognized the
benefits of automation as an opportunity to bring more procedural discipline in executing aspects of well
construction that this project was focused on. Perhaps the best example of this was on the second well of
the campaign, where a serious downhole issue during the drilling of the 6⅛-in. production hole required a
significantly more complex procedure for the connections to be implemented. This process was configured
into the AOS for execution, and after a couple of interventions to optimize, every single connection was
delivered as required, with minimal variation between connections. The capabilities demonstrated by the
AOS to repeatedly execute the same task (e.g. pump start-up on connection) bode well for its implementation
in challenging offshore wells, where this ability to be more systematic in executing procedures hold
significant benefits.

Conclusions
In reference to the objectives defined in the introduction section of this paper, the following conclusions
can be made:
SPE-191574-MS 21

• The AOS has largely met the reliability, robustness and functionality aspects of the pilot. Software
bugs were identified, some of which have either been addressed in pilot or documented for fixes
in future versions. Consideration for further deployment is now being reviewed.
• Hardware in the loop (HIL) testing is recommended for all new installations, including testing
against all documented interlocks from the baseline control system.
• The WDP V2 has proven to have a significantly higher level of reliability over the previous
generation. There is still a lack of adequate software applications to improve the real time analysis
of data available from this system, especially in support of the distributed measurements.
• Two AOS applications were evaluated and are now being considered for further deployment: the
ROP optimization application (surface and downhole) and the DWOB control application. Again,
as with most software, there are areas for improvement in both applications, that are currently part
of the development plan, with even further areas for improvement to be identified as the system is
implemented in a wider variety of downhole drilling environments.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following, without whom this project would not have been possible: Dan
Blydenburgh and the crew of Parker 272 – your cooperation, attitude, and teamwork are unsurpassed; the
NOV field crew for your commitment and dedication throughout the project, and the BP Team in Alaska
(Louis Romo, Carlos Schiavenato, Rich Burnett, Ken Allen, Ryan Cadenhead Blair Neufield and Steven
Fell) as well as the BP leadership (Anchala Klein, Nastassja Hagan, Ken Gibson and Leigh-Ann Russell)
for their vision, support, and permission to write this paper.

References
1. Ning, S. X., Jhaveri, B. S., Fueg, E. M. et al, 2016. Optimizing the Utilization of Miscible
Injectant at the Greater Prudhoe Bay Fields. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, AK 23-26 May. SPE-180420-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180420-MS
2. Michie, J. J., Siks, A., Sauve, M. A., et al, 2016. Revisiting Lisburne, a New Approach to a
Mature Fractured Carbonate. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, AK
23-26 May. SPE-180466-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180466-MS
3. Stanley, M. J., & Stoltz, D. S. 1997. The Evolution of Profitable Development Drilling
in Prudhoe Bay: A Case of Adapting to Survive. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6 March. SPE-37613-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/37613-MS
4. Israel, R., Farthing, J., Walker, H., et al, 2017. Development to Delivery - A Collaborative
Approach to Implementing Drilling Automation. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition The Hague, The Netherlands, 14-16 March. SPE-184695-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/184695-MS
5. Pink, T., Cuku, D., Pink, S., et al, 2017. World First Closed Loop Downhole Automation
Combined with Process Automation System Provides Integrated Drilling Automation in the
Permian Basin. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 14-16 March. SPE-184694-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/184694-MS
6. Sehsah, O., Ghazzawi, A., Vie, G. J., et al, 2017. Intelligent Drilling System: Expanding
the Envelope of Wired Drill Pipe. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAA, 13-16 November. SPE-188321-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/188321-MS
7. Edwards, S. T., Coley, C. J., Whitley, N. et al, 2013. A Summary Of Wired Drill Pipe (IntelliServ
Networked Drillstring) Field Trials And Deployment In BP. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
22 SPE-191574-MS

Conference and Exhibition Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5-7 March SPE-163560-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/163560-MS
8. Coley, C. J., & Edwards, S. T. 2013. The Use of Along String Annular Pressure Measurements
to Monitor Solids Transport and Hole Cleaning. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
and Exhibition in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5-7 March. SPE-163567-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/163567-MS
9. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/press-releases/bp-celebrates-40-years-production-
prudhoe-bay.html (29-May-2018)