Drilling Performance: Change your Connection Practices::SPE-196807-MS
Usama Sabir. PMP?
Drilling Engineer | Project Management | Limiter Redesign Performance Advocate
This the part-1 of the upcoming (hopefully) paper summaries. I plan to write more, but please beware that I practised the 80-20 rule for this article and written it to get the process started. Else, the perfectionist in me will not let me finish this even in the next 10 days.
The Paper
Making drill pipe connections is one of the most common operations in drilling a Well. This non-drilling time can be minimized if the practice is dissected properly and reviewed, revised, and changes are implemented correctly.
The reason for a particular connection practice depends upon multiple factors such as:
- Well type (Exploratory or Development)
- Well Design (ERD/High angle or under 30 deg or vertical)
- Geological conditions (Wellbore stability/formation behaviour)
- Recency Bias (Historical incidents)
There can be multiple other factors also but let's stick to what the paper was discussing. The paper discussed—the improvement in connection making practice, the efforts made, gradual steps taken, and execution results.
For most of us, there is no standard-API/SPE definition of connection time (Nothing that I know of). Usually, Weight to Weight is taken as a connection time (last drill off to once the next stand starts making a hole). The paper divides the connection time with the following breakdown:
The biggest contributing factors in the above table are step-2, 3 and 4 that takes up 40-50 % of connection time. The author identified that reaming and washing (Whether a complete stand or half a single) is driven from a conservative practice in ERD Wells (where you usually do not have favourable pump power). It may not be required on every Well, and this hypothesis was tested using data analytics, software simulations and later implemented in the field.
Data Analysis
Analysing the data of 120 Wells (from Vertical to ERD) and looking at the SPP/hook load and ECD data before the connection and after the connection with and without reaming (considering that hole was cleaned with proper GPM etc.), there was no change in SPP/hook load. Proving a notion that for especially low angle/vertical Wells with other factors remain the same (DF properties/GPM, drill off practices etc.), a connection can be made successfully without washing and reaming it multiple times and with no adverse effect on hole cleaning.
Simulations
HCI (Hole Cleaning Index) simulations were done on different parameters and compared with the HCI index. The simulations are used to identify the maximum ROP, over which the connection needs extra circulation time to be cleaned. This practice helped the team zero in on the sustainable ROP that can be achieved without spending additional time on washing and reaming. For example, it was highlighted that for a 6'' hole, ROP above 200fph would need extra circulation time to clean the hole. The team at the field can remain in the ROP range and, instead of focusing on the "on-bottom ROP", can drill the overall footage faster with better connection times and lower off-bottom times.
Identification of Practice
Two practices were identified:
- For Horizontals Wells: Perform 2 minutes drill at the end of every stand. Washup single with low RPM and ream down with drilling RPM. Make connection.
- For low angle/Vertical Wells: Perform 2 minutes drill at the end of every stand. Make connection.
The big chuck of Well time in development Wells was saved with this practice; Development Wells require extreme cost efficiency, and the only way to succeed is to optimize Well loss time with a similar approach.
Field Implementation
The gradual implementation and education of field staff with the results continues, and it started paying dividends. In some Wells, connection time was reduced 2.5 times, and for vertical Wells washing and reaming time was eliminated, and it became a standard practice reducing connections times by 15-17 minutes each in some fields.
My Personal Experience:
The connection time can be reduced with a data-driven pragmatic approach. Starting last year, the Rig I was given had one of the worst tripping and connection time in the fleet. I, in fact, everyone knew that the crew had a bad experience earlier with tripping, and after that, they just went dud on making connections to make sure that the last mistake is not repeated next time.
I analysed the rig data, compared that to other rigs, talked to my manager, and got a vote of confidence from him. Then came the hardest part educating the wellsite team. It took me 6-8 months of gradually putting up data, time comparison, changing practices ever so slightly, taking their inputs on how confident they felt the change was helping them—a multi-team effort from the service company to Rig crew and the client. We reduced our connection time by 20-30% in vertical wells, our tripping time went as fast as the other rigs, and I had people asking me, " Since when are they tripping so fast?"
There is still a long way to go for us, but the process has started and hopefully will be matured in the future.
Disclaimer
The article summarizes what I understood and learned from the paper, SPE 196807-MS. Alexy Ruznikov wrote the paper, and SPE holds all the right to it. The article intends to share the knowledge and have a healthy discussion. It can be taken off on the copyright owner's request.
Co-Founder and CEO at DrillDocs
1 年Just seeing this now. We aim to optimize these connections by trending cuttings recovery efficiency for any ROP or hole size. This provides a good reference.
Senior Drilling Optimization Engineer
3 年If I might add, there are other factors that one should look at which are not easily understood by sitting in a driller's chair -valuable though that experience is - or just by looking at surface data. Downhole data can give us important insights into what is happening at the bit when drilling off, or when off-bottom completely, as shown in my recent paper SPE-201518-MS (self-advertising at its worse, my apologies) However, I applaud the effort you have put into this. All too often I have seen identical wells drilled close by each other in the same formations for the same operator but with different personnel, where connection and clean-up practices were completely different - two bottoms' up at TD compared with a full day circulating for instance. There, the experience of sitting in a driller's chair along with the other experience that goes to produce a supervisor, had led to completely different opinions on how to manage connections and clean-up cycles. Each supervisor of course felt that their experience qualified them to dictate what was done. Logically they cannot all be correct, so it is important to look at the data.
(Semi Retired) Well's drilling and engineering, instructor, facilitator, advisor.
3 年High performing teams simply deliver higher quality wellbores? That starts in the planning design and engineering phases. If we are struggling well site in delivery the roots of problems eminated via the office! If we do all the right things In the first place? Expectancy is to rotate far less than most folks when coming off bottom. Because this was is what all the evident physics, mechanics, geology, science, hydraulics, pressure, stability wellbore understanding of safe drilling led many of us to conclude was/is the right thing to do? More so on high angle and horizontal wells. Where at some point due to increasing frictional and gravitational forces at play. Where more rotation after drilli become required particularly when going into a hole. Downward rotation is the most beneficial mode if all is achieved when drilling in the first place!. Minimal further rotation is then required. Upward rotation is the most physically destructive mode in terms of further wellbore and eqpt deterioration. This must be exercised with full understanding care and caution? Prevention Is always preferred to cures and a further need to ream and even worse backream. That Result from all failings so evidently at play?
Support Technician (On Long Term sick leave), ex-Mud logging Instructor
3 年excellent summary - look forward to seeing more. Even rig crew could understand this interpretation and explanation. I know some mud logging units are monitoring those parameters and times for clients - to see if anything missed on each crew. One thing to remember and be aware of is articles try to cover all options but did this article mention rig types used? Plus there is always an exception to a ''rule'' - keep an open mind. Geology is not uniform in its compositions and can catch you out (done 6 wells on one field - 5 went ok, no 6 was a nightmare). The only type of rig not worked on as mud logging is a drill ship and found manual tripping, manual tongs (no iron roughneck) and manual racking rigs, these tripping timings vary during a trip due to - crew getting into routine, experience of the crews and how regular changing roughnecks /roustabouts around to give crews a break, during trips. More modern Mechanical tripping rigs should be more consistent as machines taking the work load during the trips. One thing that can throw a ''spanner'' in any trip and its timings is the type of weather during tripping, as wet / ''bad'' weather can slow even an efficient crew down.
Unlock drilling performance by removing what’s limiting your team.
3 年Great debut! Write a summary on 92194??, maybe we can collaborate?