Private Forums
Who is responsible for ROP performance
13 June 2018
Is there any study to quantify the responsibility of each contributor to ROP (or Feet per day)?
There are many contributors: rig company, directional drilling company, operator or well owner...
5 answer(s)
Companyrep
Drilling Specialist/Well Engineer/Training Consultant
Kingdom Drilling
Total Posts: 372
Join Date: 10/01/05
There is no I in Team.

A sections performance requires a multidisciplinary approach of all operator 3rd party and drilling contractor members who are in part responsible and accountable for wellbore delivery integrity and performance.

ROP for me is a secondary metric but has value if time and resource is afforded to all EVIDENT details required. Formation types, formation hazards, section interval lengths, BIT/BHA systems being used, hydraulics hole cleaning capabilities, trip time, casing running time, did optimal cement result. All these further qualifiers and quantifiers MUST be recognized analyzed and identified to interpret the true and EVIDENT underlying Value of a bit/BHA run.  

M/day from picking up the first Bit/BHA until casing is in the ground cemented and running tool retrieved perhaps a far better yet simple value metric vs ROP (that has a small but important part to play.)

e.g. in the 90's we sacrificed and held geld back on ROP in some instances for the following reasons. 
- The Bit/BHA/hydraulic systems capabilities could often in some formations now drill much faster (e.g. 100m/hr+) than hole could be cleaned. e.g. in this field development 12 1/4" limit at 40-60deg inclination we could see from modelling was around 40-60m/hr. We stayed within limits and tripped 4 12 1/4" section on elevators only (This was where greatest value is added by a long mile). 
- Piling weight to drill a herd stringer at higher ROP is generally counterproductive and can result in significant loss and consequential problem time later e.g. the next bit run (higher torque and drag that can then excite vibrational problems etc ) while tripping, wireline log, difficulties running casing, poorer cementing etc. 

- Chasing ROP and compromising on wellbore 'PPP**' from experience we had experienced was counterproductive. (**Peter's perfect cylinders was and is always my primary and principle goal to deliver a best in class section). If the end-result was lower ROP, overall we were not that concerned as we generally had trouble free trips and far less operational loss/waste etc that results hand in glove with deteriorating wellbore section quality..

Pure ROP measurement? is on its own vital and important where one number from start to finish we also concluded in the 80's as meaningless.  

ROP is measured for each section interval being drilled to record and then investigate what formations what bits drill well and do not.

Section A (83m) 15m/hr with connections 20m/hr on bottom hrs
WOB/RPM/Torque)SPP/(Jet.vel/HSI/JIF etc)
Section B (34m) 8m/hr with connections 10m/hr on bottom hrs
Section C (126m) 23m/hr with connections 28m/hr on bottom hrs
etc.

Who should be doing this to answer your question. Typically several people should be interested as part of their day to day jobs.

- Mud logger/Ops geologist
- Drilling Supv / Rig site engineers
- Real time centre operators.
- Drillers all to be measuring managing and controlling such metrics.
- Office based engineers, Supt etc.

Where the EVIDENT 'devil in such details shold be better investigated and analysed in much more depth if one desired to be delivering wells at outcome and benefits I.e world class at minimal loss/waste consistently well after well. 

Success.
Scott_McNeil
Consultant
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 125
Join Date: 05/03/08
Hi,

Further to Augustos post, where additional reaming or hole problems that may be down to the bit should be picked up in a cost per m (or ft) analysis of the bit run.

I usually do two cost/m calculations per bit run.

The first is a 'normalised' calculation with a standard trip time and excludes time lost to downhole or rig problems.

The second calculation uses actual times and this is where is becomes a judgement call on the part of the Drilling team.

E.g., is reaming to bottom due to the BHA configuration, hole issues which are not Bit or BHA related, or hole issues (e.g. undergauge) caused by the previous bit run?

Similarly for lost time encountered during the bit run and during the trip out - a decision has to be made if it could be bit related or not and whether that lost time should be assigned to the bit run.

Comparing actual costs over several Wells could pick up an issue with a particular bit design.

Nowadays, data based morning report systems (where a Company uses it, and uses it properly) could also be examined to see if there is a correlation between lost time and a particular bit type, or even BHA configuration.

All the best

Scott
Augusto
Consultant [retired Shell staff]
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 251
Join Date: 02/09/05
CORRECTED TEXT

Warning: This email is embedded with your SPREAD account credentials. Please refrain from forwarding this email, which may transmit your credentials to the recipients and may lead to unintended account usage.

 

Hello Augusto (Augusto),



1 new response received in group: Drilling Operations

Who is responsible for ROP performance

Baraket Mehri (Baraket) of Saudi Aramco, from Portugal on June 13, 2018 10:49:30

Is there any study to quantify the responsibility of each contributor to ROP (or Feet per day)?
There are many contributors: rig company, directional drilling company, operator or well owner...
Reply now


Responses

Augusto CarmonaDaMota (Augusto) of SPREADAssociates, on March 28, 2019 12:26:27

" Auld" Technology,


Fina, Angola 1967-73 As a new drilling engineer, I was collating all data to enable an acceptable drilling programme.                           

Obviously, past experience in the field was the major input. One of the Security tricone bits - S6 - was the winner by far, Security elected to drop the design!                                                               

Hughes Tool Company provided very useful indications in their old catalogs, showing the recommended parameters Weight on Bit and RPM. That was a good start up for deciding on the amount of Drill Collars and how to nurse the bit. The Driller was encouraged to find the winning W  x N  combinations, within the HTC diagram 

The Drilling Engineer was also in charge of the hydraulic design. Either you maximize the Hydraulic Horse Power at the bit or the jetting velocity. There were charts –e. g. REED - to help you finding the pressure losses in the drilling string.                                                                
TOTAL North Sea by 1980´s was the fastest Operator drilling in the North Sea. Their Drilling Engineer, Patrick Daget, had a bit program built in his computer that collated the data in a faster and more efficient way.                                                                           

SMFi As a result of French Research a bit with a nozzle looking upwards – the ARTEP concept - was the winner!
PATRICK DAGET elected to create his own Drilling Software Package where the bit programme shows up, See TECHDRILL DSP ONE.

 

RBI (ROCK BIT INTERNACIONAL) formerly "Globe" a known copy-catter, re-started with a new design... ensuring a cylindrical hole! USA, Egypt, etc confirmed this user-friendly bit which was not faster, didn´t last longer, BUT ensured a hole that required no REAMING and no FISHING for lost pieces, For me, the winner!

 

(REMARK: Present bit records ignore the amount of REAMING and FISHING – this is only qualitatively mentioned, as it can´t be integrated as feet and hours!)
So it is up to the DRILLING TEAM,  Driller-Toolpusher-Engineer,  to optimize the ROP based on reliable computer programs and taking the BIT RECORDS with a spec of a doubt. BEWARE that not-so-good bits are NEITHER penalized by the extra-effort in reaming of the subsequent bit NOR by  the time consuming fishing of lost pieces.)


SUMMING UP It is not the apparent drilling velocity BUT the hole quality that really matters.


Augusto
Consultant [retired Shell staff]
SPREADAssociates
Total Posts: 251
Join Date: 02/09/05
" Auld" Technology,
Fina, Angola 1967-73 As a new drilling engineer, I was collating all data to enable an acceptable drilling programme.                            Obviously, past experience in the field was the major input. One of the Security tricone bits - S6 - was the winner by far, Security elected to drop the design!                                                                Hughes Tool Company provided very useful indicatios in their old catalogs, showing the recommended parameters Weight on Bit and RPM. That was a good start up for decidimh on the amount of Drill Collars and to nurse the bit. The Driller was encouraged to find the winning WxN combinations . within the HTC diagram 
The Drilling Engineer was also in charge of the hydarulic design. Either you maximize the Hydraulic Horse Power at the bit or the jetting velocity. There were charts to help you finding the pressure losses in the drilling string.                                                                
TOTAL North Sea by 1980´s was the fastest Operator drilling in the North Sea. Their Drilling Engineer Patrick Daget had a bit program built in his computer that collated the data in a faster and more efficient way.                                                                            SMFi As a result of French Research a bit with a nozzle looking upwards was the winner!
PATRICK DAGET elected to create his own Drilling Software service provider where the bit programme shows up, See TECHDRILL DSP ONE.
RBI (ROCK BIT INTERNACIONAL) formerly "Globe" a known copy-catter, re-started with a new design... ensuring a cylindrical hole! USA, Egypt, etc confirmed this user-friendly bit which was not faster, didn´t last longer, BUT ensured a hole that required no REAMING and no fishing for lost pieces, For me the winner! (Present bit datalog ignores the amount of reaming and fishing i,e, is onky qualitatively mentioned!)
So it is up to the Drilling Team Driller-Toolpusher-Engineer to optimize the ROP based on reliable computer programs and taking the BIT RECORDS with suspiction. BEWARE that bad bits are NEITHER penalized by the reaming extra-effort of the subsequent bit NOR the time consuming fishing of lost pieces.
SUMMIG UP is not the velocity BUT the hole quality that really matters.

learning.lifewayne@g
D&C Project Coordinator / Decommissioning
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Total Posts: 22
Join Date: 25/01/16
I was looking at other posts and noticed this which could be an area I address as a project coordinator and drilling engineer / supervisor. 

ROP should actually be the consequence of right design for the formations being penetrated and the completion design desired. 

Different bits and BHA have different behaviors so all has to be understood a few do because learnings only come from experience and modelling.  The operator has full responsibility because they coordinate the service and procurement.  I once ran a PDC bit for a client and the directions were to drill 1200 ft and then formations too hard.  The bit provider provided offset impressibility logs and indeed the hard formations began below the 1200 ft interval.  I dressed the PDC bit with one extended Nozzle and varied the nozzle size to get a crossflow below the bit to assure no regrinding and heat generation.  I left instructions to the driller to reduce the WOB to 5000 lbs after the 1200 ft interval and to continue drilling.  Woke up the next day and well was at TD say an additional 800 ft below stopping depth.  I was a consultant, so got fired after the event for not following the program but the point is that only someone who knows how to keep the bits cool should be responsible for ROP performance. 

Note also a high ROP with harmonics or spiraling that reduces drift diameter will lead to a poor outcome and maybe the need to redrill.  Point being ROP should not be a key factor for managing performance.  Bit like ALARP.  It leads to making disastrous decisions. 
Jump to top of the page