SPE/IADC 67706

Offshore Drilling Experience with Dual Derrick Operations

Lars Munch-Segaard, author, Smedvig Offshore AS; Arnfinnn Nergaard, co-author, Smedvig Offshore AS

Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are
subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without
the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Smedvig took delivery of the fully class 3 dynamic
positioned new generation drilling units West Navion
and West Venture in February 2000. Both are equipped
with full capacity dual Ramrigs with the capability of
running two strings in the water simultaneously. In a
single well application the advantage lies in using the
dual system for parallel making and breaking
bottomhole assemblies, tool strings and pipestands and
in running casing/BOP in parallel with drilling top hole.
In a multiwell subsea template situation there is an
additional potential in performing simultaneous in-water
operations. While the main rig is in a BOP/riser drilling
mode, the auxiliary rig can drill tophole and install
surface casings in the next well. With proper planning,
this could imply subsequent moving the BOP to the next
well without having to come back to surface. In later
phases the Xmas tree or other modules may be installed
in other slots/positions in parallel with the main activity.
The paper describes enhancement of drilling operations
through a selection of cases that are experienced and
proves that utilisation of the dual activity feature leads
to a paradigm shift in drilling and completion
operations.

of the rigs contracted during the late nineties building

boom are equipped with some sort of efficiency boost
tools. The simplest is an onboard make-and-break
assembly that builds or breaks out bottom hole
assemblies, drill pipe stands and casing stands. The
more advanced in this respect is the full capability twin
derrick systems that are found on less than ten vessels
on a worldwide basis. Dual operations from these
vessels are now being proven in a gradual step-by-step
approach. This paper will present a selection of
operational cases based on experience from West
Navion and West Venture. These cases will prove that
good planning and use of the main rig and the auxiliary
rig significantly reduces time of operation.
West Venture and West Navion
Figures 1 and 2 show the vessels in April, 2000.
Table 1 presents the main particulars of the two vessels.
West Venture and West Navion were both
contracted during the boom of 1997, West Venture as a
CS 45 semi-submersible to be built at Hitachi Zosen in
Japan and West Navion to be based on a Navion
multipurpose shuttle tanker (MST) already under
construction at Samsung, Korea.

Introduction:
In the past the drilling and completing of subsea wells
has been done by standard drilling rigs with all critical
path activities being dependant upon the successive
availability of the main work string/rotary/drillfloor.
There is a huge potential in removing activities from the
critical path and have parallel activities done, thus
reducing overall time to perform the operations. Many

They are the same generation drilling units with very

comparable capabilities, they are both equipped with
full capacity dual Ramrig systems, on West Venture
aligned transversely, on West Navion longitudinally.

LARS MUNCH-SEGAARD

Qualification of dual operations

Prior to building of the drilling units, evaluations of
the qualification criteria for dual drilling operations took
place, where operators, manufacturers and contractors
participated. Later, Statoil, BP and Norsk Hydro were
deeply involved in performing simultaneous operation
analysis, incorporating site specific environmental data.
The conclusion from the analysis is that dual operations
with two strings in the water can be done in a safe and
acceptable way by applying risk-reducing measures.
These measures are then incorporated into the
operational procedures and may include observing
present sea current and use of ROV to monitor distance
between the two strings in the water.

The Dual RamRig System

Figure 4 shows the dual RamRig on the West
Navion. Table 2 lists the main characteristics of the
RamRigs.
The dual RamRigs on West Navion and West
Venture are the only ones delivered this far. All lifting,
handling and rotation are powered hydraulically. There
is no draw-works, nor is there a drilline. The topdrives
are handled by two 18 meter stroke hydraulic cylinders
giving the topdrive a vertical travel distance of 36
meters. An important feature for units of this kind is the
integration of multi mode drillstring compensation into
the hydraulic system. This includes active
compensation, high speed long stroke and high load
limited stroke modes. For a drilling vessel occupied in
subsea completion work, the installation aspect may
become as important as the drilling itself. Especially
this is the case with deep water relative to the well
depth. Both RamRigs have this built-in feature.
Experience cases:

SPE 67706

operation avoided operational down time. (The Snadd

well.)

Case 4.
Installation of horizontal subsea tree by using dual
rig. A time comparison between dual rig and a single rig
operation is presented. (The Troll well.)
Case 1

THE QULLEC-1 WELL

The Qullec-1 well has the following main

characteristics:
Water depth:
1184m
RKB:
1186m
Well TD:
2970m
Well program: 36 x 26 x 17 x 12 x 8 inches
The well was drilled between July 3 and September
25, 2000, totalling 84 days.
The main phases and durations of the well were:
Transit to well-site:
1.67 days
Drilling top-hole:
9.67 days
Rig and run BOP:
9.00 days
Drill 17 section:
26.83 days
Pull and repair BOP: 9.46 days
Drilling 8 section: 22.17 days
P&A:
7.5 days
As can be seen from this list, this is the actual
performance outline which includes unplanned activities
like pulling and repairing the BOP.
Then the single rig program was established using
tripping, running and handling times identical to those
from the actual case, to isolate the effect of dual
operations.
Simplifying and reducing into the same main phases
as for the actual operation, gives the following results:

Case 1.
Main rig working undisturbed with drilling
operations (critical path) while the auxiliary rig is
making up bottom hole assembly etc.
A time comparison between dual rig and single rig
operation is presented. (The Quellec-1 well.)
Case 2.
Plug and abandon of well using dual rig. (Dual
running of string.)
A time comparison between dual rig and single rig
operation is presented. (The Heidrun Nord well.)
Case 3.
Incident of stuck seal assembly in LMRP during
cutting and retrieval of casing and how dual rig

Transit to well-site:
Drilling top-hole:
Rig and run BOP:
Drill 17 section:
Pull and repair BOP:
Drilling 8 section:
P&A:

1.67 days
12.38 days
9 days
34.67 days
9.46 days
25.58 days
11.13 days

The Quelle-1 simulated single rig program would

have terminated October 18, totalling 107 days. As the
actual operation on the Quellec-1 well was 84 days, the
dual handling effect is minus 23 days, thus
corresponding to 21.5% time reduction.
Case 2
The Heidrun Nord well
The well was temporary plugged back with a cement
plug at 560 m. depth and left with a conditioned mud

SPE 67706

OFFSHORE DRILLING EXPERIENCE WITH DUAL DERRICK OPERATIONS

pill above. An overtrawlable structure was placed over

the wellhead.
All data from previous cement jobs were available
and the cement bond logs indicated that the risk of
trapped pressure behind the casing string was at a
minimum. Upon completing analysis of the original
barriers, it was decided that the well should be
permanently plugged without running the BOP and
riser.
The program was then:
-

Pull trawl structure.

Perforate 9 5/8 casing and check for gas, then
cut and pull the 9 5/8 casing.
Perforate the 13 3/8 casing and check for gas,
then cut and pull the 13 3/8 casing.
Permanent plugging of the well with a surface
cement plug.
Cut the 20 30 wellhead and pull to surface.

From the daily drilling reports, the work has been

structured into appropriate sequences where the
actual duration for each sequence is included. In
evaluating the effects of dual derrick operations, the
duration of parallel work at the auxilliary rig is
separated and added to the actual time. This will
then give estimated time of the operations if a single
derrick has been used. The results are shown in the
table below.
Activity
Pull trawl
structure
Perforate 9 5/8,
cut and pull
Perforate 13 3/8,
cut and pull
Permanent
plugging
Cut 20 30 and
pull
Total
Equals in days

Actual, dual
rig (hrs)
12,0

Estimated,
single rig (hrs)
16

34,5

53,5

38,0

57,0

3,5

4,0

10,0

16,0

98,5
4,1

146,0
6,1

As can be seen from this table, the savings with dual

derrick operations are 2 days, which equals to 32,8 %.
Statoil claims that combination of innovative
plugging strategy and the use of dual rigs saved 60%,
compared to traditional plugging.

Case 3 The Snadd well

Working with plugging and abandoning of the well,
an incident occurred.
The well characteristics are:
Casing: 30 20 13 3/8 9 5/8
Waterdepth (RKB): approx. 440 meters.

The work had progressed fine, including cutting of

the 13 3/8 casing followed by flow checks of the well.
The 13 3/8 seal assembly got stuck in the annular
preventer, located in the LMRP, when pulling this to
surface. The decision was made to disconnect the
LMRP from the BOP and move the rig to the side. The
auxiliary derrick was then positioned for vertical access
through the BOP and into the well bore. A spear
assembly was then run from the auxiliary derrick and
into the 13 3/8 casing hanger/casing. The casing was
then retrieved to the surface. In parallel, freeing of the
stuck seal assembly was made successfully, workrig at
the main derrick. This was done without the need to pull
and re-run the riser and LMRP. The total work of
cutting and retrieving the 13 3/8 casing and seal
assembly was done in 35 hours. Enabling to free the
seal assembly without pulling and re-run of riser/LMRP,
saved 72 hours of disturbance in the critical path of
operation. The time reduction with the dual derrick for
this particular part of operation is then: 72 100/107 =
67,3%.
Case 4

The Troll well

The Troll well is a subsea producer to be completed

with a horizontal tree in approximately 360 metres
waterdepth.
Sections of the completion operations have been
extracted from the daily drilling reports and durations
for the individual steps are given. In table xxx work in
the derrick for the critical path of operation is listed.
Further, parallel work that has taken place in the other
derrick is identified and durations for these worksteps
are also given. Adding the elapsed time for work in each
derrick will give the estimated duration if only a single
derrick was used in these particular sections of the
completion operations. The durations are given in hours.
Activity
Run-set 6 5/8
screen-packers/
Make-brake
tool string
Disconn. BOP/
Run Xtree in
water
Retrieve BOP
Connect XtreeTest of same
Re-run of BOP
Connect BOP/
Retrieve Xtree
R/T
Elapsed time

Critical
path

Parallel
work

Estimate for
single rig

48.0

5.0

53.0

6.0

7.5

13.5

N/A

N/A

15.0

9.5
N/A

N/A

9.5
15.0

6.0

5.5

11.5

69.5

18.0

117.5

As can be seen form the table, the savings with dual

derrick operations for this particular section of
completion operations is 48 hours, thus corresponding
to 41% savings.

LARS MUNCH-SEGAARD

Conclusions
The main conclusion is that working with dual derrick
in parallel fully meets our expectations.

Drilling an exploration well gave us a saving of

about 21%
Dual handling saving is generally greater in the tophole and the P&A phase since these operations
allows operations with two strings in the water.
In the phase between these two, the dual handling
effect comes from making/breaking tool strings and
BHAs.

Performing dual operation when plugging and

abandoning a well without using BOP gives a
saving in operating time of about 32%.
Comparing dual operation with single rig and
traditional plugging and abandoning where a BOP
is used may increase the savings to 60%.

Challenging dual derrick operations in special tasks

as done in the incident described in case 3 may give
time savings in the range of 60-70%

In separate phases of a well, like well completions

for subsea production, the time saving may be as
high as 50%. This requires that both rigs work
100% with critical path activities.

Another good learning is that new areas of applications

and situations where the extra rig proves very helpful
pops up all the time and projects further potential
improvement in the dual handling effect.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Statoil, BP and Norsk Hydro for the
permission to make this paper. I will in particular
mention,
Per Dalmar, Statoil
Birger Rye, Statoil
Dr J.L.Thorogood, Exploration Drilling
Manager BP Amoco Exploration (Faroes)Ltd

Project

Birte Borrevik, BP
Ian Mills, BP and
Roald E. Soltveit, Norsk Hydro
for their contribution and review of the paper. I am
grateful to these persons and their companies for using
us and sharing our experience.

SPE 67706

SPE 67706

OFFSHORE DRILLING EXPERIENCE WITH DUAL DERRICK OPERATIONS

Figure 1 West Venture

Characteristics
Type
Displacement (tons)
Overall length (m)
Horsepower
Water depth (feet)
Built
Figure 3 Main particulars

Figure 2 West Navion

West Venture
Semi CS 45
50,000
118
44,000
5,000
Hitachi 99

Figure 4 West Navion Dual RamRig characteristics

West Navion
Ship Navion MST
100,000
253
45,000
10,000
Samsung/OM 99

LARS MUNCH-SEGAARD

Derrick rating (tons)

Topdrive rating (tons)
Topdrive travel (m)
Torque, continuous (ft x lbs)
Center distance (m)
Moonpool (m)
Figure 5 Ramrig main characteristics

2 x 680
2 x 590
36
50,000
10
19 x 12

SPE 67706