Private Forums
Analysis of lost time from daily drilling reports
22 February 2015
Apologies to all if this is a very basic question but here goes. We are working for a non IADC drilling company. We are the first people to give them daily drilling reports. To say the operation is inefficient is a massive understatement. We want to help them improve and I need to categorise their inefficiencies in a meaningful way. Can anyone suggest a straightforward methodology / categorisation that we should use? C
12 answer(s)
Total Posts: 18
Join Date: 11/01/15
do you have a basic well time breakdown , eg 
rig move 100 hrs; mu bha 2 hrs; drill top hole 24 hrs; wiper trip 6 hrs; trip out 3 hrs; ru to run csg 2 hrs, run csg 6 hrs, cement 4 hrs WOC 6hrs install csg head 2 hrs, nU bops 8 hrs, test bops 4hrs etc etc based on rigs prior performance or your knowledge of what is achievable. Also factor ROP and number of bits per section in.
I'm think even with a spreadsheet you could come up with basic categories rig move, trip, drill, WOW, WO supplies, rig repair, fishing, tool failure, taking longer than planned, WO contractor, etc. There are commercial packages (Wellview,etc) and the web has lists of categories but firstly you need something to compare with. I actually find the commercial lists confusing and incomplete.
The basic high level categories as I'm sure you're aware are planned productive, planned npt, unplanned productive, unplanned npt, etc. Also you may need to consider the phase - drilling, completion, etc.
PS - there are also planning packages where planning = defining the timeline, eg AGR's P1.

Time vs depth curves (Actual vs Planned) are pretty powerful tools also.

Hope this helps.

Total Posts: 2
Join Date: 13/12/14
Hello all To use the DDR for identification of the NPT the reporting should be standardised for example tripping operation should be splitter to trip in open hole Tripping in cased hole Flow checks Lay down BHA By doing this weakness can be addressed and so for the rest of operations. Once the wasted time is identified a lean program can be recommended to eliminate the waste and reduce NPT This subject is long and need extended discussion Ahmed gabry
Service Company Operations Manager
Total Posts: 16
Join Date: 03/05/12

Hello Peter,

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...

Service Company Operations Manager
Total Posts: 16
Join Date: 03/05/12

Hello Ron,

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

Service Company Operations Manager
Total Posts: 16
Join Date: 03/05/12


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.

Many thanks

George Soden

Drilling Superintendent
Renaissance Offshore
Total Posts: 13
Join Date: 22/01/12

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.

Documents uploaded by user:
Unocal_Loss Categories .doc
Drilling Specialist/Well Engineer/Training Consultant
Kingdom Drilling
Total Posts: 362
Join Date: 10/01/05


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!


Drilling Specialist/Well Engineer/Training Consultant
Kingdom Drilling
Total Posts: 362
Join Date: 10/01/05
Managing lost and wasted time should be

and easily translated in corrective actions ( who, when how!) 

We also know that NPT is meaningless so avoid going down solely this route! 

i suggest you first sit down with your customers and the wells stakeholders and 'start with the end in mind'. What do they want need to measure in terms of safety, efficiency and effectiveness? 

What does everyone want out of the method to be used? What, how are you going to apply translate, sustain the lessons learned? 

Then build a simple system around this. E.g.  Using codes etc that are the agreed measurable priorities of what wants needs to be manage And controlled. Note: more is less where It is easier to add items to than start with hundreds of meaningless stuff! 

Clear event, phase, job. Task and activity needs to be outlined. 
E.g When an event phase or job begins and ends.

Compartmentalising certain phases is also important where architecture is poor in many systems so consider this also. 
E.g all subsea bop marine riser work etc should be phased together.

all evaluation work ( LWD, coring, logging, testing) should be phased together 

rig move, anchoring, marine work in offshore wells needs to be phased separately and given some thought.

make sure everyone is trained and conveyed in what is expected of them once operations begin. 

finally in my view safety and efficiency should be aligned in such a process where in "loss control management" it is all the same.  

Here most reporting systems do not capture invisible loss and why most of the software systems present add little 'safety' value as this is where many safety efficiency and effective work deficiencies will exist and are generally not captured on a day to day basis. Simply look at the observation cards to verify this or not, are they today about people things?  or work related things! Don't get me started on this :( then figure out for yourself where the work related safety issues reside and the importance to capture these! 

i will later today, attach as an example, a recently simplified reporting (coding) system that we generated for a small operator that used one of the typical software systems based on the above and how this then can be used ( taking 5 to 10 mins) of an engineers time per day to recognise and analyse the safety waste I.e.  invisible loss that then exists). 

A well event e.g. Drilling can now be easily measured to identify all operationsl and aligned safety, efficiency, and effectiveness issues that exist.

Using this method, Normal wells through application and experience should score about 50% using such methods highlighting that we have far way to go towards properly managed, measured and controlled (safer) drilling operations. 

Note: The exact same process can thrn also be applied to all other main well events to assure consistency throughout the complete well's life cycle. E.g completion, production, work over, intervention, well services and final well decommissioning and abandonment. 

This again should be a key measureable item as it is surely a complete wells life cycle safety efficiency and effectiveness that we should be interested in the most!
Drilling tech advisor
Franks International
Total Posts: 13
Join Date: 13/03/14
Some of the majors record their NPT in the following format, easy to record and very easy to understand (see file included), from this we can then impose KPI's.
Cheers, Dave
Documents uploaded by user:
NPT record for major.ppt
QA/QC customer rep
T H Hill Associates, Inc.
Total Posts: 3
Join Date: 12/03/14
Personally I would write a report or multiple reports. I would follow ISO Audit formating,however I would not use terminology such as Non conformaties as that Could come across a bit strong. As to labeling categories you have several options. However without knowing specifics I cannot Name the categories. Break it down by operation then move into sub categories if needed. I would imagine that will all depend on the issues you are facing. If you were doing an ISO Audit you would Categorize by division or dept, then sub categories from there. For example Completions/well test, Then DST operations, then Quality Control, For say lost time due to tool maintanence which could have been Avoided had proper quality checks been verified. Prior to use. That is vague and just a quick example, however breaking down That way may help separate majors from minors. For example some time spent On an one IRDV for maintanence no big deal, but consistent problems, With QC adds up. Also I would include Safety. Big thing to remember. Try to keep It simple and show the value of any recommended Changes. Generally change requires work, without seeing the value People don't like to change. I know that is not a straight forward answer but I do Hope it helps.
senior drilling engineer
Kuwait Energy
Total Posts: 14
Join Date: 29/11/13
Dear George,
The following are the different catigories you need to capture :
1. Efficiency related to well design, this should include preparing formation strength curves from offset log data. the level of technical advice offered by service company. this is the most importatant factor and you can say it shares up to 55%
2. Efficiency related to drilling equipment and this include the rig and the service equipment. can share up to 10%
3. Effeiciency related to people what is their experience and competency to do the job.can share up to 35%
All these items are refelcted in non productive times which need to be captured and improved from well to another.

Managing Director (
Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection Ltd.
Total Posts: 416
Join Date: 10/01/05
Hi George

We are the people who provide SPREAD. Our company focusses on drilling performance via various methods.

In addition to systems of work, we can also provide what we call ”˜performance coaches´ to help with additional onsite planning, job execution (though the Drilling Supv and Toolpusher are still in charge), capturing learnings, enhanced reporting and follow-up .. the so-called ”˜Virtuous Circle´. For organisations at the start of the journey, we offer a ”˜Helping hand´ solution (our coaches are ex-Toolpushers or Senior Drillers) and it´s about avoiding ”˜mess-ups", for those who are in a position to set their sights on ”˜world-class´ the focus is on building on what you´ve already got.

I would suggest you focus on being very clear what constitutes NPT (Non Productive Time) and encourage open and honest reporting. This should not just look at Drilling Co aspects, but all contributors (incl the Oil Co!!).

I attach a few items to help:
  • Definitions of NPT and ILT (Invisible Lost Time): the former details with mistakes/errors/obvious-losses, the latter deals with inefficiencies
  • Our company profile
Please let me know if you´d like a follow-up conversation

Kind regards

Jump to top of the page