-~

~· ..
IADC/SPE 35077 6oc1e: . .)1 Pet~;...leUI'T' :.ngl"'eers

Step Change Improvement and High Rate Learning are Delivered

by Targeting Technical Limits on Sub-Sea Wells.
D.F. Bond, P.W. Scott, P.E. Page*, T.M. Windham*,
Woodside Offshore Petroleum Pty Ltd
SPE Members
• P.E. Page seconde of Shell UK Ltd.
'T.M. Windham seconde of Chevron Asiatic

Copyright 1996, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. against the Technical Limit delivered step change
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling performance improvement with high rate of learning.
Conference held in New Orleans ,Louisiana, 12-15 March 1996

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee

following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
Introduction
author{s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed
by the Society of Pet~oleum Engineers and are subject to correction by
aut~~r{s). The ma~enal, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any Woodside's drilling performance offshore on the
pos1t1on of the Soc1ety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Pa~er~ presen~ed at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
North West Shelf of Australia from 1968 to 1992 was
Ed1tonal Committee of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to erratic. A simple plot of time versus total depth
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous (Figure I), showed unacceptable scatter and a high
a~kno':"'ledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
L1branan, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. fax
average drilling time, particularly when benchmarked
01-214-952-9435. ' against published data (Noerager 1 et al). The authors
believed the well construction process was not in
control. When faced with an upcoming development
Abstract
project (Wanaea and Cossack developments) we
undertook to remedy this.
This paper pre~ents an alternative approach to the
drilling and sub-sea completion process, the
To get the desired performance an aggressive target
Technical Limit, which has resulted in a "Step
setting and planning methodology was developed
Change" in Woodside's performance. Using a simple
based on the question "What is possible?" rather than
philosophy characterised by the questions:
the question "How can we improve?"
• Where are we now?
Our approach was greatly influenced by
• What is possible?
achievements in other parts of the world. During the
• How do we get there?
late 70s/early 80s, as documented by Shute 2 et al,
Conoco UK Ltd set some drilling operations
and applying this tool, three new wells and six
standards in the North Sea which in our opinion
subsea completions were completed 20% under
endure today as world class. A major factor claimed
budget.
in the success of this work came from time analvsis
which rigorously pursued the identification ~nd
Our target was to drill a directional well in 20 days
removal of drilling problems. The application of this
when the previous best was 42 days. On subsea
approach was extremely successful. Work by Hube~
completions a target of 12 days was set when a
et al also in the North Sea, took a similar approach
conventional approach had previously set 20+ days.
which, likewise produced excellent results. Latterly
Unocal in Thailand have apparently been settina
The approach was to ask what would be possible if
standards in the Far East few can match~
everything went perfectly with every operation
Unfortunately, Unocal has published very little on
making up the well time. This isn't the usual trouble
how this high level performance has been achieved.
free tune but a well time built up of individual
We understand that necessity and aggression drove
components, with each component performing it's
their improvements.
theoretical best performance.
The high level objective for the Wanaea and Cossack
Presented is operational data which confirms that the
projects the requirement for highly productive wells
Technical Limit can be approached. As a result the
and low construction cost. Work carried out to
well construction performance when managed
299 maximise well productivity had the highest priority,
2 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

but is not the focus of this paper. Section: 17W' Hole

1. Lay down 26" BHA
With time as the predominant cost driver for well 2. Pick-up 17W' BHA
cost (70% of the well cost was time sensitive), time 3. Run in hole
reduction took priority over unit cost reduction. 4. Drill shoe
Application ofthe" What is possible?" question to 5. Perform leak-offtest
every component of well construction resulted in 6. Drill 17W' hole
aggregate drilling and completions times which we 7. Circulate bottoms up
called the Technical Limit. 8. Pull out of hole

Technical Limit is a term used to describe a level of
performance defined as the "best possible" for a
given set of design parameters. Such performance
can be approached but requires a perfect set of
conditions, tools and people. A close analogy ofthe
Technical Limit is a world record in athletics.
The Philosophy of Targeting 'Technical Limit'
Our decision to target Technical Limit was a
profoundly significant one. As with a decision to
pursue a world record in athletics, we committed
ourselves to a course which required extraordinary
effort and commitment. Implications included a need
for highly competent people, team work and effective
leadership.
The aim ofbreaking each section down was to defme
sufficient design detail to enable estimating of actual
durations; too much detail became cumbersome to
work with. For each sub group, durations were then
estimated. Drilling time assumed a 10 minute
connection time 3 and ROP from the best bit runs in
the area.
A well time produced by this method often resulted
in disbelief at the short duration calculated. An
example comparing two offset directional well times
with their equivalent theoretical well times is:-
Offset Directional Theoretical Actual Time
Wells Time Days Days

Cossack 2 22.0 42.3

In meeting the challenge, we exposed (and dealt
with) many more of our deficiencies than we had in Cossack 3 22.0 51.5
the past, thereby inviting criticism and invoking the
'blame' culture, not uncommon in our industry. One
of our key success factors was to stay committed to
By developing the Theoretical Well's Technical
the Technical Limit strategy and not our image.
Limit in a group session, it was possible to bring
about a shift in paradigms about what was, and is
Determining the Technical Limit possible.

The Theoretical Well. The first stage in the

Removable Time. The difference between actual
development of a Technical Limit well time was the
well time and Theoretical well time we called
construction of a Theoretical Well. The Theoretical
Removable Time. It included conventional lost time
Well assumed a flawless operation based upon
and down time and also another component we
current knowledge and design technology. It was
termed Invisible Lost Time. Invisible Lost Time
made up of activities and durations which were
(IL T) was the name given to the time taken to
derived from our engineers' collective experience.
perform those activities included in a "normal" well
Assumptions included for example that mid section
but, excluded in the Theoretical Well. It was called
trips were not required to change bit or BHA, no
"invisible" because up until development of this
reaming (stable hole), no waiting on equipment, no
concept, it had not been recognised as "lost" time and
wiper trips 2.3 and no significant circulating time.
reported as such. Figure 2. shows the relationship
This diverged from the assumptions made by
between Theoretical Well, IL T and conventional lost
Kadaster 4 for a "normal" well. To include such
time.
times was to include our technical inadequacies in
the plan. The goal was to highlight technical barriers
Quantifying the amount of lL T was important since
as the focus for action and change, rather than accept
the times being generated by the Theoretical Well
them.
were indicating reductions of 40-60% were possible.

To calculate a theoretical well, the well construction

Identification ofthe Removable Time (invisible lost
was broken into easily definable sections such as
time and normal lost time), was achieved manually
drilling 17W' hole, running and cementing 13%"
using daily reports from offset wells and the
casing, drilling 12Y4'' hole, etc. This produced about
assumptions made for the theoretical well. The
9 to 16 sections depending on design detail of the
exercise of extracting Removable Time analysis was
particular well. The sections were then broken into
very time consuming (up to 2 man months for 8 wells
sub-activities as shown in the following example.
300 reviewed) and required a high level of
IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTT, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM
drilling/completion knowledge. The study provided
quantification of the missing IL T and a list of all the
problems and technical limitations which prevented
best performance on those wells.
After subtracting Removable time from actual time
the result was significantly greater than the time
predicted by the Theoretical well. This indicated that
either the Theoretical Well was overly optimistic or
that further removable time was hidden in the
reports. In order to deal with this discrepancy, we
introduced another term, Effective Time.
Again using Cossack 2 and 3 as an example:
Offset Wells Theoretical Actual Removable Effective
(Days) Well Time Time Time
Cossack 2 22.0 42.3 13.6 28.7
Cossack 3 22.0 51.5 22.3 29.2
It was concluded that there must be a component of
Invisible Lost Time associated with such things as
efficiency improvements in rig crew activities, and
drilling optimisation (bit type, and bit weight etc.).
It would require cross comparison of in-efficiencies
on different wells to identify the best.
To further investigate these in-efficiencies the data
set of the eight immediate offset wells was checked
for Effective Time for each section. Table 3. shows
the Effective Time for each section of the wells. The
highlighted times represented the "best" sections and
when combined they added up to 19 days. Although
design parameters had changed somewhat for the
new wells, this compared very closely to, in fact a
little less than, the Theoretical Well times estimated
above. The conclusion was that the Theoretical Well
times were valid as the starting point for the
Technical Limit.
The Theoretical Well time developed for the
completion (as with drilling) appeared too low.
Since Woodside had never performed a subsea
completion, it had no in house data to use in
verifying the Theoretical Well. Therefore, a similar
exercise ofRemovable time analysis was performed
on a comparable, three well North Sea subsea
completion campaign. The results from the study
confirmed that the theoretical durations were
achievable after IL T and down times were removed.
By objectively assessing the Removable Time an
opportunity to reduce well times by up to 60% was
revealed.
Using the Technical Limit Method
Planning. The planning process used the Technical
Limit concept to identify the problems which
prevented the Technical Limit being reached and
3
then planned their removal. The rate at which we
were to drill and complete wells would be the
indication of our ability to understand then manage
the variables.
Approximately 9 months were spent planning the
startup of operations. The planning process used the
Theoretical Well and offset well analysis to develop
an engineering workscope and determine the
resources needed. Execution of the engineering
workscope involved getting all engineers and
contractors to understand all potential obstacles in
achieving the Technical Limit and then manage
them.
Approximately 175 days were identified as
Removable Time from a total of 435 days on the
eight offset wells. The problems identified by
analysis are shown in Figure 3 as a Pareto chart.
Significantly, the invisible lost time was categorised
as Bit/BHA 47%, Mud 23%, WOW 13% and other
15%. Clearly if the Bit/BHA and mud problems
were addressed then 72% of the Removable Time
would be eliminated. Drilling and completing
outside cyclone season would potentially remove
another 13% due to WOW.
By knowing (from the Wanaea and Cossack
Removable Time study) what major "problems" had
been experienced before, we were able to
systematically work with all the drilling variables to
produce the drilling plans most likely to succeed. In
order to tap the expertise and resources of
contractors, selected service companies were asked
to research and prepare solutions to the identified
problems. When integrated, each solution had to
complement the total objective. The Woodside
management role was to resolve the inevitable
conflicts in engineering solutions agreeing what
compromises were to be made. At the end of the
planning phase each service company was able to
produce a report detailing the problems researched,
solutions considered and the final proposal for the
well plan. When all the reports were combined a
comprehensive reference was available for the rig
site in the event any part of the process or tool choice
was not understood.
The development of the theoretical well activities and
times provided a baseline for further analysis of the
sequences required. PERT charts were constructed
listing typically 300 tasks per well and used to
undertake Critical Path Analysis. A number of
activities were removed from the critical path by
introducing new tools and/or techniques. The PERT
charts provided an excellent visual presentation of
the process to be followed later offshore, and were
used by most of the rig personnel to gain
understanding of the jobs.
The engineering planning work had a big impact on
301 the specification of the drilling rig needed for the
4 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS
project. The cost ofthe higher rig specification was
easily justified against the potential efficiencies
indicated by the theoretical well time. The result
allowed 'fit for purpose' rig selection and ultimately
sole source negotiation of the selected rig rather than
a low bid tendering process.
PERT charts were further used to organise
procedures into a logical sequence with timing for
critical and non-critical path activities defined.
Examples included: Makeup of stands of drill pipe
when anchoring, achieving all stack up testing of the
subsea trees away from the moon pool, installing a
skid beam/hydraulic system to move large items of
equipment into the moonpool, and optimising 13Cr
tubing handling/running without compromising
connection makeup.
A number of other factors were addressed during the
planning stage and were influential in the overall
success ofthe project, these included:
Identification and management of risk;
Communication of the 'plan' to all
involved, to gain ownership and shared
goals;
Pre-offshore familiarisation to procedures,
sequence of events and equipment;
Operations. In the operational phase ofthe project,
IL T was made very visible. Any activity-time
deviation from the Technical Limit schedule was
reported daily. Ifthe deviation was negative (ie. time
reduced), the time expected on future wells was
adjusted downward, and a new Technical Limit was
defined. If the deviation was positive (ie. extra time
taken) it was analysed for cause. If the extra time
taken was unavoidable (ie. the Technical Limit time
had been under estimated), a new time was defined
for the next well. If it was removable, solutions
were developed which would prevent re-occurrence
of the event.
The team continually made changes to minimise or
eliminate the identified Removable Time. Similar to
the approach taken by Kadaster4 , the use of a TQM
approach was found to be very effective. (See the
TQM feedback loop in Figure 4). The feedback
system was very broad in it's application and with
proper resourcing from either company or contractor,
became very efficient.
As well as providing a benchmark by which
performance could be monitored, the activity
schedule also allowed accurate forward planning (+5
days) with a high level of certainty on the earliest
time an activity could start which enabled resourcing
(equipment and personnel) to be optimised.
302 days of Removable Time. Adding all wells together,
IADC/SPE 35077
Initially offshore personnel were un-comfortable
reporting via this method because every non-
conformance, large or small was exposed. It was
important that management encouraged and
supported the offshore team in pursuit of the ideal
standards we had set. A no-blame environment was
essential.
The measurement of operations against the
'Technical Limit' schedule was extremely powerful.
The authors believe that there is no better way to
highlight and pursue maximum opportunity for
improvement.
Results
Drilling Performance. Typical historical drilling
times for directional appraisal wells on these fields
were 42 to 52 days. Anticipating some improvement
in performance, 50150 budget estimates (a budget
estimate based on time, considered as equally likely
to be exceeded than beaten) had been prepared using
34 days for a typical moderately deviated well and 46
days for a horizontal section well.
'Technical Limit' determination was carried out using
the methodology described above, arriving at
durations of 19.8 days and 27.5 days respectively.
Presented in Table 4. is the comparison between the
Technical Limit, actual and Effective times on Well
1. The fifth column shows where a new technical
limit had been set.
Further, Well 1 could have taken 22.1 Effective days.
This compared to the previous offset well's Effective
time of 28.7 and 29.2 days, an improvement of 6.6
days. However, Well 1 had 26.2 days of Removable
Time. Table 5. shows the causes of the Removable
Time and the actions taken to prevent recurrence.
Most of the removable times were new problems not
seen on the offset wells, an indication that our
process was still not fully in control.
Well 3 was virtually identical to the first well (Well
2 had a horizontal section) and makes a good
comparison. Presented in Table 6. is the Drilling
Performance for Well 3. As indicated by the
Effective Time overall performance had improved by
nett 2.8 days. Also the offshore team was more
efficient in many areas including running BOP and
casing. Again, new events happened which had not
been anticipated. The Removable Time analysis is
presented in Table 7. Only 8.2 days was identified as
removable, 85% of which was accounted for by just
two events. An indication that process control was
quickly improving.
The analysis for Well 2 (with 808m (2651 ft) of
horizontal section) was drilled in 40.4 days with 9.4
IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTI, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM
the drilling part of the project took 116.1 days
compared to the budget base time of 114 days.
Although drilling performance still contained
significant removable time, it was a marked
improvement on the past (see Figure 5).
By comparing Effective Time and Removable Time
for each of the 3 wells (Figure 6) a learning curve is
evident. Indeed it would appear that the operational
efficiency had approached the technical limit in just
3 wells. Such a performance has been described by
Brett (et al) 3 as "excellent". "Good" being the
adjective used for approaching the asymptote in 5
wells.
On the activity level, the BOP running times provide
evidence of a rate of learning (see Figure 7) which
was common on the project.
Completion Performance. Based on the planning
phase described above, subsea completions Technical
Limits of 10.5 days (new well) and 14.0 days (pre-
drilled well) had been established. These compared
with 50/50 budget estimates of 16.5 days and 21.5
days respectively. All of these time included
production testing.
The actual durations achieved, averaged 11.3 days
for new wells and 15.9 days for existing wells on the
six well campaign. This performance was compared
to data obtained from two of our partners who carry
out similar operations and showed that we were
substantially more efficient. Unfortunately the data
cannot be published here.
Due to the detailed planning prior to the start of
operations which was unprecedented in our
experience, very few changes were required during
the first completion. The infamous "first well
syndrome" where deficiencies in lesser levels of
planning show up, were avoided.
As more wells were completed the process of
refining the Technical Limit continued. The six
completion times are shown in Table 8. At the end
of the six well campaign the Technical Limit for a
new well had changed from 10.5 days to 8.5 days.
The best new well completion was 9.1 days which
includes all forms of Removable Time. The subsea
completions were finished 33 days ahead of the
50/50 budget times.
The Completions, by their more mechanically
controllable nature started further along the learning
curve than drilling did. The first completion took
25% less time than the 50/50 budget time. Figure 8
shows the Technical Limit after the final completion
compared to Effective Time and Removable Times
for each core completion activity. Although less
pronounced than with drilling, the completions
learning curve is still evident in Figure 8.
303 from the beginning of the project and through the
5
The drilling and completion campaign not only
delivered significant cost savings against the budget,
but also delivered subsea wells with well productivity
30% greater than expected.
Conclusions
Ideal well construction operations were characterised
by the "Theoretical" well and a Technical Limit.
These concepts were quantified and used in an
aggressive method to target "what is possible?"
Technical Limit was applied to planning and
operations.
From this approach it has been concluded that:
w Drilling and completion performances can be
usefully modelled using the Technical Limit.
w The Invisible Lost Time component of this
model offers insight into operational
efficiencies which conventional industry Lost
Time systems ignore.
w Technical Limit was used to set the highest
performance standards possible.
w Quantifying and addressing Removable Lost
Time provided the maximum opportunity to
improve.
w When applied to 3 new directional wells and 6
subsea completions the Technical Limit model
led to a step change in performance and a high
rate of learning.
w Adoption of this technique requires courage, as
it reveals every deviation from the ideal. A no
blame culture was essential to its acceptance.
Nomenclature
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
IL T Invisible Lost Time
PERT Program Evaluation Review
Technique
wow Waiting on Weather
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Woodside Offshore
Petroleum and it's Joint Venture participants (BHP
Petroleum, BP Developments Australia, Chevron
Asiatic, Japan Australia LNG (MIMI) and Shell
Development Australia) for their support throughout
this project. Additional thanks to Sedco Forex,
Baker I.S., and all personnel that contributed to the
development and application of the Technical Limit
method.
Personal thanks to Phillis Harley for tireless support
6 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

preparation ofthis paper

References

1. Noerager, J.A., White, J.P., Floetia, A. :"Drilling

time Predictions for Statistical Analysis"
SPE/IADC 16164 presented at the 1987
SPEIIADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
March 1987.

2. Shute, J. and Alldredge, G.,: "Conoco Cuts North

Sea Drilling Time by 40%" . World Oil July 1982.

3. Huber, D.O. and Walton, H., : "A Realistic Goal

from a Semi: Drill to JO,OOOft in 10 days", World
Oil September 1983.

4. Kadaster, A.G., Townsend, C.W., Albaugh, E.K.

: "Drilling Time Analysis : A Total Quality
Management Tool for Drilling in the 1990's".
SPE 24559, presented at the 67th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington DC,
October 1992.

5. Brett, J.F., Millhiem, K.K.,: "The Drilling

Performance Curve: A Yardstick for Judging
Drilling Performance". SPE I 5362, presented at
the 61 st Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
New Orleans, LA October I 986.

304
IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTT, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM 7

Table 3 - Offset Removable Time Study

WANAEA/COSSACK REMOVABLE TIME STUDY

WAN WAN WAN WAN WAN coss coss coss TECH LIMIT

#1 #2 #3 #3

2.25 2.00 3.00 2.50

9.50 8.50 11.00 15.50

8.50 4.50

27.75 28.50 30.50 25.75 23.00

13.50 13.50

RUN BOP 10.00 16.25 0

DRILL 17-1/2" 133.25 114.75 155.50 172.75 174.00 110.00

HOLE

RUN 13-3/8" CSG 32.50 21.75

DRILL 12-1/4" 270.25 105.50

HOLE

RUN 9-5/8" CSG 44.00 24.50 42.25 23.75

DRILL 8-1/2" 130.50 72.00 90.75 61.00 98.50 111.25 53.00

HOLE

LOG 71.00 54.00 22.75 62.00 36.50

RUN LINER 42.50 42.50 23.50

CLEAN OUT 69.50 26.50

TOTAL 684.50 456.25

TOTAL 28.50 26.70 19.00

- Table shows Effective times for specific operations

-Effective time is the ACTUAL operations time with REMOVABLE TIME subtracted
- The highlighted cells identify previous best (Technical Limit) times
NOTE; Cossack 2 + 3 are directional wells similar in profile ro Wells 1 and 3, all other wells are vertical

305
 8 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

Table 4 - WELL 1 - Drilling Performance

Section Technical Actual Removable Effective New Technical

Limit Time Time Time Limit

Drill36" 9.0 11.0 0 11.0 10.0

Run 30" 11.0 9.0 2.0 7.0 7.0
Drill26" 21.0 27.0 0 27.0 21.0
Run 20" 25.0 67 42.0 25.0 25.0
Run BOP 20.0 30 0 30.0 20.0
Drill17-1/2" 107.0 380 249.0 131.0 107.0
Run 13-3/8" 36.0 43 2.0 41.0 36.0
Drill12-1/4" 77.0 142 48.0 94.0 77.0
Run 9-5/8" 44.0 42 0 42.0 42.0
Drill 6-1/2" 65.0 104 39.0 65.0 65.0
TO Logging 6.0 14 5.0 8.0 6.0
4-1/2" Liner 57.0 292 241.0 51.0 51.0

Total Hours 476.0 1158 626.75 531.0 467

TOTAL DAYS 19.8 48.2 26.1 22.1 19.5

Table 5 - WELL 1 Drilling Removable Time Analysis

No. Problem Removable Cause Action/Solution

Time

1 Back-oft in 17Y:z'' hole 187.25 High drilling torque due to Reduce drilling parameters. Eliminate string weak-points
formation & aggressive drilling review drilling procedures

2 Twist off 2%" drillpipe in 97.00 Excess weight on pipe Procedures. Source stronger pipe. Minimise use
liner

3 Clean out of cement in 71.00 Plug not bumped, no shear Reviewed procedures-developed inner string method
liner indication

4 Dropped junk basket and 64.00 Nut backed off downhole Weld nut to shank. Review Schlum tool procedures
nut

5 Correction run in 12Yz" 44.00 Right hand bit walk and drop Review bit and BHA selection. Allow left hand lead
hole too high

6 No cement in 9%" shoe 29.00 Mud syphoning through top Reviewed cement head design. Increased shoetrack to 3
drive when changing over to joints. Plan to bump plug and pressure test casing.
release dart

7 Dropped 20" casing 24.00 Back up tong slipped Review top drive and casing procedures

8 Rig downtime (total) 22.00 Various equipment problems, Review maintenance planning
critical path maintenance

9 Problem landing CGB 18.00 Incorrect bolts-QC. Cuttings Use correct bolts. Revise procedures
buildup at wellhead

10 Washout in Monel DC 14.00 Stress corrosion crackmg Inspect all monels internally (baroscope). Review BHI
QNQC procedures

11 Trip 1n 17%" slow ROP 11.00 Bit balling Use PDC b1t. Review mud system

12 Logging failure 4.00 Intermittent short in LOT Tool returned for repa1r. Calibrate back-up prior to use
connection

13 Mise 42.50 Small events None

306
 IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTT, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM 9

Table 6 - WELL 3 Drilling Performance

Section Technical Actual Removable Effective Time New Technical

Limit Time Time Limit Time

Drill36" 10.0 7.5 0 7.5 7.5

Run 30" 7.5 6.5 0 6.5 6.5
Drill26" 21.0 24.5 1.5 23.0 21.0
Run 20" 25.0 24.0 4.0 20.0 20.0
Run BOP 16.5 19.8 0 19.8 16.5
Drill17-1/2" 111.0 117.0 1.8 115.3 111.0
Run 13-3/8" 36.0 40.0 7.5 32.5 32.5
Drill 12-1/4" 77.0 103.8 16.3 87.5 77.0
Run 9-5/8" 42.0 41.3 3.0 38.3 38.3
Drill6-1/2" 63.0 59.8 4.8 55.0 55.0
TO Logging 6.0 9.3 1.8 7.5 6.0
4-1/2" Liner 51.0 205.3 155.0 50.3 50.3

Total Hours 466.0 658.5 195.5 463.0 441.5

Total Days 19.4 27.4 8.1 19.3 18.4

Table 7 - WELL 3 Drilling Removable Time Analysis

No Problem Time Lost Cause Action/Solution Status

1 Liner lap seal failure 153.5 Cause unknown Ran 2 JM packers then squeezed lap Open

2 Power supply to TDS 13.50 Faulty PCB boards (2) Fly in new board Closed

3 Drill cement on float collar 4.75 Under gauge pup joint Review procedures and responsibilities Closed

4 Cement head malfunction 4.75 Flapper valve failure Change cement head design Closed

5 Pack-off seal failure 2.75 0 ring alignment Redress tool, review maintenance Closed
programme

6 ROV repairs 2.50 Gremlin Change part Closed

7 Back out of running tool 2.50 Under gauge pup joint Review procedures and responsibilities Closed
replace dart

8 Circulate & short trip 2.25 Tight hole on Increase mud weight Closed
connections

9 Logging tool string stuck 1.75 Junk in hole from float Solution not yet identified Open
equipment

10 Lost rig power 1.50 Switch gear fault Replace part Closed

11 Remove cuttings from CGB 1.50 Drilling riserless Take longer with DP & ROV Closed

12 Accident investigation 1.50 Floorman hurt by Better planning of unusual jobs Ongoing
movement of pipe

13 Change pump liners 0.75 Long hours Improve PMS Closed

14 Pump problem 0.50 Swab failure Change swab, review hours Closed

15 Replace valve on cement 0.50 Seized manifold gate, Flush after use, review maintenance Closed
manifold poor preparation programme

16 Clear shakers 0.25 High ROP Encourage more, manage shaker Ongoing
screens

17 Clear mud pump strainers 0.25 Polymers in strainer Review mixing procedures Closed

18 Electrical fault 0.25 Not known No solution Open

19 Ream tight hole 0.25 Precaution prior to As required from well site Ongoing
running casing
307
10 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

Table 8- Core Completion Times (Completion, Pull BOP, Run Tree, Test and Pull Completion
Riser)

Completion Technical Actual Removable Effective

Limit Time Time Time

1 11.4 12.5 1.4 11.1

2 10.7 12.8 2.3 10.5

3 10.9 10.8 1.2 9.6

4 8.9 9.1 1.2 7.9

5 14.9 * 19.3 4.7 14.6

6 13.2 * 14.2 2.0 12.4

* Included running additional equipment

250 ~-----------------------------------.~~------~---------.

/~
i
I /
!
i

200 ~-------+~---~---~---------------+/_;________._·-4--------~
i
Curves represent upper & lower bound i
I
I
,/
i•
0 I 0

Cl 150 ~-----------~--------~--------- ---,+,------~-------+~--------~ /

1- ,/ . ,1

0 • I
~
U> I
I o .; o
I
I /
/
>- / I "I
/
~ 100 1--------------t------~ / • ! /

./.- . ~
i///
~
' / • • • /'[
I
!// I I I ·' : •• -= I L /,/// ~
)

50 1-------------~-----~-~----~.--~:~-~
I I

. // ,1 I/_..,/'" I

. ... ·... ..
: ·------·------··-~-·--·----·-··-
.--·······

QULLL-~W-~~--~--~~----~--~w_----~~~~'L'L'L
j'~-~~~LU
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Depth m

Figure 1 -Woodside Historical Drilling Performance 1968 - 1992

308
IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTT, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM 11

ACTUAL WELL DURATION

4
time
----- Industry Normal well
-------
.•·.·
THEORETICAL INVISIBLE CONVENTIONAL
WELL TIME LOST TIME LOST OR DOWN TIME
-•·'

t
Technical Limit
REMOVABLE TIME

Figure 2 - Well time terminology

TfiWrg w:::J.N Lqjljrg Rig D'Tirre PressTest Fislirg l.f'..O:; Slip & ClJ
ReaTirg Cae Oro.J<iirg Wp3rTri~ Too Falu-e W:il Ca1rd Stl.dl Ape

•
BiAIBT49%
D
MLD23%
D
WON13%

Figure 3 - Parieto Chart of Offset Well Removable Time

309
12 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

PLANNING FEED BACK LOOP

REMOVE OR
REFINE
PROCESS
(WHAT IF)
OPERATIONS
DEVELOP
ASSIGN TIME REPORTING

LIMIT TRACK IDENTIFY

AGAINST PLAN DEVIATION
FROM PLAN

TQM FEED BACK LOOP

OFFSET
DATA

PLANNING

Figure 4 - Diagram of Technical Limit Model

250 ~--------------------------------------------------,

•
.
! •
I
200
Curves represent upper & lower bound

c 150
1-
...
0
1/)
>. ·..· ..
~ 100 ------.----
...
.·. .....
50
·~.
:.--:~ ~~
~ . ·''-----------
....
-...
·.
·-·· ..
•
Wanaea & Cossack
Results
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Depth m

Figure 5- Final result after three wells

310
IADC/SPE 35077 D.F. BOND, P.W. SCOTT, P.E. PAGE, T.M. WINDHAM 13

60
Offset Wells Project Wells
50
~ 40
n:l
c
...
n:l 30
0
1-
20

10

0
Cossack 2 Cossack 3 Well1 Well3

~
D Technical
Limit
. .
~ lneff1c1ency
• Removable
Time

Figure 6 - Comparison of Effective Time and Removable Time

(Including best time from Removable Time Study)

50 ~--------------------------------------------------------~

-(/) 40 ---
Q)
1-
"0
c
ro
c
:::J
0:: EXPECTED TECHNICAL LIMIT TIME
.8 20

~ ~~,
:::J
I
I
0
10 - --~---- ·----r-----
1
I

Run 1 Run 3 Run 5

Run 2 Run 4 Offset Rig

Figure 7 -The BOP Running Rate of Learning

311
14 STEP CHANGE IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH RATE LEARNING IADC/SPE 35077
ARE DELIVERED BY TARGETING TECHNICAL LIMITS ON SUB SEA WELLS

14
12
10
8
....,ns 6
0
1-
4
2
0
Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Comp 4 Comp 5 Comp 6

~
D Technical
Limit
ff" .
~ 1ne ICiency
• . Removable
· Time

Figure 8 - Comparison of Effective Time and Removable Time

312