Many thanks for your comprehensive reply. This is going to take some work to refine for our customer. I intend to put all ideas on the table and see where they want to go with this. A lead to the software provider could be extremely useful to them...
Many thanks for your insights. I will start with a daily drilling report breakdown of NPT but need to assign categories.
I believe that your point that providing mechanisms to fix the problem is fundamental. I don't want to criticise - I want to help them improve.
Many thanks for your views and apologies to all for taking so long to reply.
1. Although in most cases I'm sure you're correct about assigning 55% to well planning, in this case I'm not really concerned with that because I believe that is something they do know about. Without saying too much (I do not wish to name or embarrass the client)this is not your average operation and formation strength is not a factor here.
However, there are aspects of this (Planning for sufficient drill water - partial to full losses much of the time) that definitely fall into this category.
I am most concerned with the actual drilling operations themselves - getting them up to a reasonable efficiency. This really comes down to lack of experienced personnel.
We used these to categorize what our losses were and every year, spent the next year focusing on which one had lost the most money.
The IADC codes today are perhaps too basic, so you need something a tad more in todays more complex well's drilling and high tech industry.
I have therefore attached a derived reporting architecture history 'for offshore drilling' that may be useful to you.
Here the company had a generic software system that they were paying for with few wells drilled. However as we know, these generic software systems have grown arms and legs due to the big operators persons deriving so many inputs of what people think they need vs what is really needed.
As the companies senior staff rep (everyone else was a consultant), I drove for a far simple drilling coding system in such a small company.
I therefore first sat down with the managers and discussed what they wanted to measure, manage and control i.e I started with the end in mind to what their expectations needs were.
I/we then stripped the system down to a very more basic version in 2010 to best suit our needs. More was in fact less in out view. As stated it is easier to add something new vs. get lost in translation of hundreds of codes!
What further resulted after we drilled some wells was that in 2011 we decided further codes were still too detailed so we stripped it down further to 'generic codes' as illustrated in the 2011 tab.
Far from perfect as we can do better, this provides an example of where you might want to be or a good place to start from.
However when we hit the "generate the 'end of well report button', what was instantly generated, more than met the end user well results requirements
Note: Once you have a system that more simply recognises and analyses your end of well data as to where the drilling success, problems, waste, loss exists.
The report and metrics shown is the start, where further investigating is needed via leads BHA sheets, mud, cement, DD reports, equipment reports, geology reports, etc. etc. and all the other data that you need to manage as well in a more simplified way.
Where more importantly managing all this data train of information into sustainable actions to deliver measurable value addition, loss or waste reduction, safer better operating systems, more competent people, maximum profitability or minimum loss from your wells, that's the hardest but most important part in my view. So don't get too hung up in daily drilling reporting as many do!