.

IADC/SPE
lADC/SPE 19931
-

Risk and Economics Evaluation in Drilling Operations

J.B. Willis, Wellpro Drilling Software, and S.M. Johnson,* Consulting Engineer
SPE Members
* !ADC Member

3opyrlght 1990, IADWSPE Drilling Conference.

rhls paper was prepared for presentation at the 1990 lADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texaa, February27-March 2, 1990.
This paper was eelecfed for presentation by an lADC/SPE Program Commlftw following review of information contained In an ebatractaubmiftad by the author(e).Contents of the
paper,as presented,have not bwn reviewedby lhe Societyof PetroleumEngineersor the InternationalAaeooiafionof Drilling Oontractoraand are aubjactto correctionby the author(s).
rhe material, ae presented,does not necessarilyreflect any position of the IADC or SPE, ite officers, or members.Peperapresentedat IACUSPE mwtings are aubkot to publfcafion
review by Ediforial Commitfws of the IADC and SPE. Permlasionto copy la restrictedto an abstractof not more than S00words. Illuatrationamay not be mpied. The abstractshould
containwnapiououaeokrmv!edgmenlof whereandbyWfVJM
the w
iaw-t~.
Writepubf~t~s MenaW, SpE. p.o. ~X m,
~mh~d~. ~ 7SOSS-SW.Tafex,7W9S9SPEDAL.

AESTRACI

accounts for numerous variations between alternative

eases, based on given input criteria. Operational experienee is necessary on mm lex or unusual eases to insure that the data used is suita! le.

A &Ming operations time and cost nmdeling program has

been used to rform risk and eeonomic evaluations of
drillin plan r tematives, Three major benefits resulted
from &e use of the modeling program

No program has previouslybeen reported that can be used

effectively in an operations oup, yet is so h~ticated
enough to evaluate the cost oF a wide range oIwell plan
and operational alternatives. An advanced engineering
simulator for drilling has been used to rfoml similar
analyses (3,4,S), but has not been used r ay-today in an
conventional operating group. The engineeri simulator
for drilling has extensive analytical models oT the entire
drillingprocess.

1. Speed major variations can be evaluated

~quikl~allowing far more what-ifsto be ex2. Quality; the eem rehenaive analysis is superior

to previouslyusei methods.
3. Ac.ceptanewbecause of the quality, conclusions
are more readily aeeepted.
The pro am uses only normally available well data and
time anf cost parameters.

The time and cost modeling program relies on operations

expertise and manual. engineering to insure that
reasonable data is used. Experience on several hundred
eases has demonstrated that the model does ade uately
represent drilling operations for the purpose of evJ uating
commonwell plan options.

Examples include evaluations of directional profile, Top

Drive economics,and drilling fluids seleetion.
INIRODUCIION

ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

This pa r deals with evaluatin$ drilling rocedure options. rt does not address the chstinetlydiEerent drilling
engineering re risibility of AFE cost estimate preparatio~ which has%! en covered elsewhere (1,2).

l%e reason for e neeringevaluations is to quantify the

viability, cost anY risk of alternatives. Technd analysis
addresses the viability questions of willit workand how
to do it. Economic evaluation addresses howlong and
how much will it cost. Risk analysis addresses the
reliabilityof the technical analysis.

The analysis of various drillin plan o tions and o rating

guidelines is extremely com$Pex if al interrelate r effects
are conside~ecL Because o the limited time available to
eem many sim lifjringassumptions are used
drilling e
in cost x ysiawhich ean Ie$ to loss of accuracy.

The two economic evaluation methods in common use in

drillingare direct estimation and historical analysis,

Time and coat modeling maintains accuracy but is too

detailed to do manually other than in exceptional eireumstances. Consequently, the model is implemented as a
microco~uter pro arm The program models a well as a
detailed hat ofs rru$ ste that is derived from the well
plan and operating pr J urea. The modeling procedure

In direct estimation the component variations are individuallyidentified and calculated from simple uations
involving depth and time fiwtorst The appr&La tion
made is that the
es intnttX
calculated are insignificant com areal
%to
es. Agoodexample is a ? op Drive evaluation pr%%& e reported by

~. eferencea and illustrations at end of paper

.-

107

RISK AND ECONOMICS EVALUAI )N IN DRILLING OPERATIONS

Adams(6). Situations which involve asinglechangeina

othemvisecons
istent
a proachare usually simple to solve
pies include:
bydirect estimation. L
- Fmics

IrI historical analysis, previously drilled wells are used to

determine the cheapest way to drill. The use of historical
analysisis limited in two ways, Firs4 to use history there
has to be a well already drilled using the technique you are
reviewing. Sem@ statistical variations in drilling time
limit the value of directl comparing wells. Noerager (7)
reported a 35% range o1uncertainty for North Sea data+
Careful selection of wells and review of their actual operations is critical. Nevertheless, when a new record well is
drilIed in an are% there is no better confirmation of the
techniques used!
Historical data is immensely valuable when used with the
modeling pro~arm Given even limited data on a single
well, it is poswble to reverse-engineersuitable model minputdata that can be used to predict results on a signifkantly different planned well.

As complexityincre~
the advantage of detailed nwdeling increases exponentially. For cases that involve differing criteria for circulating wiper tri , and d~tio~
profile, modeling is clearly superior. K ese cases involve
secondary effects to such a degree that the secondary and
interrelated effects must be considered to et a realistic
answer. Examples of complexanalysesinclui e:
- Use of a PDC bit on a steerable motor with an inhibitive mud that changeswiper trip frequency
- Top Drive USCoin
an ar~a reqr.ringfrequent wiper
trips and reanung on trips
- Use of a Top Drive to reduce underreamin~ time
and make a close-fitcasing pro~am econommd
. Cost difference between a budd & hold and an
s-turn profile - with and without use of a Top
Drive and or steerable syste~ for average angles
of 30 and 60 degrees
To account for the changes in the last example would require these steps:
1. Calculate the directional plan for the two
profile% for both 30 and 60 degrees (four
cases).
2. For each directional case, determine measured
depths fo~
: casks o:
P
. Bit trips (for convcztional and steerable
cases)
=

Wi -rtri

8 e rotating time for each of the

Cal#te
cases.
4. Calculate tripping wilxx trip, r~amin~ connectio% mud motor, casing mcmulatin~
logg@ and cementing time for each of the
cases.
colmecwi~r trip, r
5. Mjust tripp~
*
tioq orienting and cxrculatmgtune
or the Top
Drive.

3.

6. Calculate mud and cement costs based on hole

volumes.
7. Calculate the spread rate and other cosm the
total dam and total cost (includingall the other
items not listed here).

of diamond or PDC bit vs. roller cone

- MWD for surveys

- Liner vs full string to save~ipe cost
- Underrearning to save casing cost.

IADC/SPE 19931

Obviously, this would require at least a spreadsheet

progr~ but it would still take a lot of time. This is a
complicated case, but the need to evaluate similar combinations is not rare. Comple%expensivewells can justitjf
examining many alternatives - but in an operations oup,
without a tool to speed up the evaluation it is shnpYy not
practical to thoroughly investigate many alternatives.
Another particularly complex case is the combined use of
several novel techniques, using the fundamental advantages of one component to counteract the drawbacks
of another. Major advances in performance may result
from such combinations. The modeling program makes it
possible to do these complex evaluations routinely.

Recommending new rocedures based on attractive

economicsis of no bene%t unless the recommendations are
implemented (assuming they are valid). But when there
are numerous differencesbetween alternatives and the differences have not been explicitlyaccounted for, it has been
observed that discussions commonly be down into an ~
change of opinions and speculations. %
controversy, agreement can usually be obtained
everF$
point on fundamental criteria to account for
each actor.
all of the }ndividualfactors can be resolved acceptance of
fti conclusion is more likely. Tlus process
the resul
Y by the nature of the modelii program input
is sim@ie
criteria.
In some caseq even thou it is not possible to explicitly
account for all variable Pactorsj it is possible to narrow
them down to one or a few key unknowns. Discussion can
then be focused on the true uncertainti~ which @l lead
to better understanding of the real potential benefits and
drawbacksof an alternative. The objective of such discussions should be to gain agreement on one base caseplus
a,fewvariatio~ which can be used to reach a final conclusion.
HANDLINGRISK
In drilling risknormally refers to the potential for extra
cost over the predicted cost. This aper deals with risk in
the narrow scope of the relative ris$ of drillin plan alternatives. In proposing a new procedure it is ?ar more important to demonstrate how the risk is to be managed than
It is to talk about the probability of failure. The ability to
ut data for the model make $
use o rating criteri~ as
r
W$kpz?g:p%
C:t ;s:u3&
y:tg
P m d costi podly in
abl will result k chroruc ~ ded me
ad~ition to a catastrophic occurrence such as stuck PIP,
whichmust be accounted for.
For example, consider an inhibitive water-base mud
propo@ as an economy measure to re lace oil mud. If it
doesntwork then conwderable time J be spent circulating reaming and short tri ping to keep the hole usable.
The cost of the extra cirJ ati~ ream@ and short tiP
ing that will give a high certainty of not getting stuck can
L e@ determined and compared to the oil mud COSLIf
the lnhil itive water base tern is more economical even
with the added time, then r ere is excellentjustification for
tryingthe new system.
1.8s

UU)C/SPE 19931

J. B- WILLIS & S, M. JOHNSON

Risk is best handled by fonmdatin a set of operating

criteria that is expected to maintain h e risk of a new rocedure at a normal leve~ then baa the cost on J ose
criteria The operating criteria are% t determined by
experienced.based ud~ent in combination with use of
the model to show L e unpact of the criteria
HOWTHE PROGRAMWORKS
TIMmodeling program starts with data about the well such
+ casingpoints and #zer+rates-of-penetration bit life, loggIfISpmand duectIomd sp+ications. The strategy
used m the pro
is to determme the main obectivtx
and operations r om the specification then breJ down
the operations into progressively smaller uNts down to a
level of small operations that can be combined to drill
any well. ho mjor classifications are used for initial
classificationof the welk
-

Hole sections all operations from the time a

casing string is drilled out until the next casing
string h, set and cemented. The hole sections are
determined solelyby the casing program. A list of
the Hole Sections is included in the Appendix.

- Operation Groupx major categories of operations

that roughly correspond to visually identifiable
sections of a days vs depth cuwe. Operations
groups are limited to sections of hole with constant hole size, rate of angle change, and drilling
method. A list of the o rations groups is included in the Ap ndix. % e operations grou
Y
are determined s r the well geometry and hoe
sections are defined The operations groups are
primaril de ndent on the well plan specificationsde~~~theuser.
Some operations groups can oawr in any hole sectionj
other operation oups occur only in a certain hole sectiow
or not m any hoYe section (such as a rig move), but most
uence of drill-log-case.
hole sections will have the same
Other operatiom such as caring ?or eking-offare inserted
at the required depth.
The smallest units are incremental operations, and include all of the basic rig operations such as tri ping connectioru+surv~ rig setice, and circulating. 1
list of the incremental operations is include%hlti:;$:
dix Incremental operatmns cares nd to about the same
level as the items hated in aa hourPy breakdown on a corn=
prehensive morning reporL The exact sequence of incremental operations is highly variable. It depends on the
well desi~ the rig the specified operating criteri~ and
the preceding operations.
Lists of the hole sections and operation groups are generatet from which a detailed list of the incremental o ration
steps is generated. he time for each step is S culated
based on well conditions at the time the step is done. A
portion of an operation sequence listing showing typical
nwremental operations is shown in Table 1.

DrillingMethods Options
: ~r#
Rotary
- Mud motor in kick-offzone
- Steerable mud motor
- Underrearnin@hole opening
- Continuous me line coring
Wellbore Path Options
- Directional calculations are fidlyinte~ted
- Verti4 Build& Hold S-TurIZModdied S-llm
- Horizontal section on vertical or duectional well
- Tangent section in build zone for horizontal section
- Different rates-of-build between curved conductor
and motor zone
- AU deptha are entered as true verti~ program
calculatesmeasured depths
RigTJpe @tiOI.lS
Platforq Jack-up, S@ or Ship
- La@
- Dtierent mobilization and rig up operations
- Different BOP stack Positiou MalIatiow

and

- %%ent wellhead positions and casing hanging

- Abandonment ste
- Rig do~ demob& tion
Completion Options
- Singleor Dual
- Up to 9 well tests for explorationwells
Abandonment Options
- Based on dry hole or completed well
Horizontal Section Options
- Drill conventionallyor with steerable motor
- Build with conventional mud motor or steerable
motor
- Optional trips for
ent section ,
? or hole c1
- Optional wiper trips
log data
- Optional short trips to recover =
Rates-of-Penetration
-1 to 1Sintervals
- ROP, Bit Me, and Bit ~

for each intewal

casing
Program
:%%%%%%~?!~tiaee,
3 Protective, and
Production strings
- Strings can be ~ surface, line~ or tied-back iiners
-_
identdiea need for underreaming
- Pdot hole can be specified
Other Well Plan Data
-@S@JP- Core points and length
- Multiple contirigen~ fhctor optiona
- Ream@ on tri~ hole conditiordqg and problem
-%%%%

The program can handle a wide range of wells. I%eop

tions shown below all have an effect on the time and cost
of the well, l%eprogram is limited by design to data that
is readily available.

operations at any depth

Following determination of the wellbore desi

and
general operatio the detailed list of ineremenz operations is generated%mpmcedmsbuiltintothepy
Numerousvariations in the procedms result from
rig
type$@@ meth@ and operational criteri& These are
summariesof some of the procedures in the prograux

RISK
... AND ECONOMICS EVALUATION IN DRILLING OPE~TIO;iS

A
-.

-Drillpipe is not hdddownf orunderrea.mingor

hole OpeI@
- For reaming on trim no singles laydown or kelii
handling time
- Drill pipe not laid down at the end of well
- Mud motor orientations changed to new connection intend

BasicDrillingProcedure
-Tri inwithnewbit
- Dn% to next depth point or to joint down
- Checlqand if need~ run surveyor wiper trip
- Check bit life used. When bit is dulLtri out
- %doug
catchup on rig seMce, do & P test if
- If on a long bit rum force trip out for BOP test
when overdue

Those changes are made automatically. IEeresults can be

further refined by manually adjus~

LoggingProcedure
- Rig u to log
- Run rogs until maximum allowable time out of
hole is reached
- Rig down
- Makea clean-out trip
- Repeat procedure until all logs are run

- Trips ed
- CircuPsting before trips
- W@ trip internal
- Wiper trip time
- Connection time
- Reami~ time per joint for mud motor run
- Wiper tnp intemd for horizontal section

Ilner Procedure
- Liner hanger make-up
- Run-in on drillpipe
: Setetey$ler

Following $eneration of the opcations time, the cost is

calculated m a similar manner. Cost parameters arid calculations include:
- Fixed daily cost items
- Cost for specific
-Bitcostbasedon Woforo
enum randtypesused
- $;m~t
based on footage, da% and or hole

-Pull drillpi
- Calculate Pead time based on WOC and trip time
- Drill cement
- Optional squeeze top of liner
- Dress top of liner
- Lay down /pick up drillpipe
- Clean out reside
- Nipple-up time not added

- gent

DATAREQUIRED
Prior to developing the modeling pro an$ it was known
from personal experience that detail$ accuratetimeestimate could be
nemted (and were beinq ge~mted
dail ) based on reYativeiy few rule of thumb estimating
iJ dimes- These daily forecasts were used for scheduling
Yogisties and setting daily targets. Since operations were
already beii managed by these guideit followsthat
the same numbers should eld reasonable results in the
modeling rogr~ and in ract the progmm wa.. designed
to use suc{,numbers.

- Nipple up
- cleanout
Pilot Hole procedure
- Drill conventionally
- Lay down drill ipe (unless Top Drive in use)
- Redrill interv8 to final hole sw
The time for each o~ration is determined from input data
and calculations. Tune parameters includw

The validity of this datum has been proven by the fact that
many of the original time parameters entered three years
ago are still in use. To date, several hundred cases have
been run on all typa of wells throughout the world It is
an irn rtant point that excellent results are obtained using
only r e data that already exists in the minds of ddlling
operations personnel.

- Operations specificto rig type

- General operations (co~eetion.s, t$p iII%wiper
trip ftequency, BOP tes~ circulating!
- Dwectionaloperations (mud motor ~
steerable
te~ sumeys)
. z% ing setting running cementin& waiting on
cemenb drill out\
- Completion @re ~
logs, perforating tubing
tree, flowpemods
- ~~$vyt
(pI ug depm setting meth@ casing

In most ~
the same general data ia reused with some
Mk&dtilystments to match performance of offset wel&
L performance has been matched in detail in
several case4 by manually @just@ pm
*t
~~
There is no known case of time parameters being determined by extraction from a eomputeriaed driUing data
base, ~knotmmytitm~mmer~hmt~donlythatit haanotprovento be~tiuti.

liner settin%

As an example of the
the progmmj here is how
culations as a result of c
from 31 feet (9.45mete

The data used need only be good operational estima~

No lengthy collwtion and pre-evaluation of detailed +ta
is needed. Further, the use of lmv-leveldata and opera
criteria f~
attention on the underlying*
es 3
Y cads to
disadvmtagea of variousdrillbg procedures which
increased understandin&

- COnne@on interval > 45 feet (13.7 meters) is

as a Top Drive
- h% e r of connections changes
-

cost based on volume used and pump

- Tubulars and other tangible equipment

- Completion operation costs

Tie-back Rocedure
- Can tie back a drilling liner or production liner
- All appropriate liner operations included
~~lu~~;back Stli~

- Miscellaneous (n seMce, cO*

connection interv3 )

IADC/SPE 19931

.,M

LnPlcmi!
w,
.-

IQQ27
.

.7.
.

U-

-.

WTT.T.TS-----L
------

S.

M.
--

.JcMNsC)N
- --------

I
It is not only unimportant to exactly redict drilling time it is absolutely impossible. But it I!? possible to set up a
model that realistically reflects the change in time and cost
that would result in a real well for the given cases.

CONCLUSIONS
The use clf detaUed modeling of driU operations for
% effectivewith
time and cc..t analysishas been proven to
the benefiti. of increase speed of analysii bette; quaUty
resul% and improved acceptance of recommendations.

EXAMPLES

It adds a new
ility to thoroughly evaluate complex
drillingprogramT ternatives.
In an existing field, a re Iacernent well is to be drilled.
The closest platform (#1 Y is 3,300 feet away, but a slot
would be very e~nsive. Another platform (#2) has a slot
available, but it M8,800 feet away. The weUsare gravel
acked so the angle throup the pay is preferred to be
L low 45 degrees. The objective is to determine the cost
to drill from each platform and check the cost to reduce
the angIeto 45 degrees.

It improves the evaluation of risk by allowing better

evaluation of risk-avoidanceprocedures.

An existing data fUefor this field is used for the amdysis.

All of the cases were generated by changing three value~
bottom hole locatio~ maximum angle at targe$ and connection interval.

The increased cost to driU the well from the farthest platform is $1#50,000 if a Top Drive is used, $1,642,000]f no
Top Drive is used.

The program has been in heavy use since July, 1988.

Several hundred cases have been run on weUsaUover the
world using eve~ type of rig. Three major oil companies
own corporate hcenses and severaI other companies own
copies.
The modeUng program has reached an initial level of
maturity. Planned enhancements include expanded operations suppo~ ability to define start and end points in a
well for a partial
@ some en@wering calculation%
logisticsmode- Tan other Capabtities.

I%eresults shown in Tables 2 are be surprising. Dropping

the angle on the Ion , throw well reduced the well cost.
This is because in tL fiel~ the rate-of-penetration is
much dower in the ay zone than above i~ Consrguently,
the longer section or hole above the tar et did not increase
the time as much as the savin from drilling less measured
depth below the tar et. # e wiU dispense with fiwther
analysisof the Build k Hold profile from platform 2.
Table 3 shows minimum savings from a Top Drive of
$~
W! day, which is clearl economical since its cost in
tlus case IS$1S00 per day. (d e adjustments due to chang~ the comection interval are discussed in the section on
d ow the Program Works).

Quality results are obtained using common time estimating

factors. Quality is improved when offset data is available.

REFERENCES
, and Frederick M., Howto Estimate WeU
~
(December 6, 13, and 27,

, PennWell

2. Moore, P. L, ~
Book+ ThIs& 1974.

3. Millheixq K K, and Hu
R. L, The Enginee
Simulator for DriUing r) art I, SPE P rl~~
Presented at the 58th Annual Technical z
(San Franciso, 1983).

The total time to run all six cases was less than 15minutes.
Additional time would be s nt veriijb$ the data and
results and preparing the resuYts for transrmttal.

An exploration well drilled in a new area encounters

serious hole problems resulting in stuck pipe in the rotective hole section. Now a second weU is to be drUleJ . One
alternative is to w the same fresh water mud but spend
time reaming and circulating on trips, and make regular
wi~r trips. Another proposal is to use inhibitive mud to
eluninate the reamin~ extra circulatin~ and wiper trips.

5. Reynol~ W. R., EconomicAnalysisof DrUUngPlans

and Contractors b Using a Drilling S stems
roach, IADC/S { E Paper 13466Presentei at the
vl
1 5 IADC/SPE Drilling Technology Conference
(New Orleans).
6. Ad-D.
M., and Ciwanm@ J. M., Top Drive S tern Evaluation, SPE Paper 16064 Presented at 8 e
1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Technology Conference
(New Orleans).

Table 4 showsthe mud cost reamin and extra circulating

parameters used. For this case, a 8ata file ftom a similar
area was used following adjustments for the rates-ofpenetration experienced on the well. l%e results showthat
the inhibitive mud is slightlycheaper. Considering that the
risk of ettin stuck is probably less with the mldbitive
mu~it~kskeagood
choice.

7. ~oertj eq,J. A., White, J. P., Floetr& A., and Dawso%

b rdlin Time Predictions From Statistical
A&d is, Sf E Paper 16164 presented at the 1987
SPE~WC Drilling Technology Conference (New
Orleans).

This evtduation was done in a few minutes. Although it

could have been done in a little ion ~r wii~~mmcxk:
.
we now have a wddng model for L
tinue to run more evaluations with almost no extra effort.

1
m

IADC/SPE 19931

RISK AND ECONOMICS EVALUi

APPENDIX
HOLESECTIONS
Conductor 1
~;d~dor2
Protective 1
Protective 2
Protective 3
Production
Completion
OPERATIONS GROUPS
Mobiliition
Ri$ Up
Drive Conductor
Drilling
Ro
Mud
% otor Drilling
Steerable Mud Motor Drilling
(%
Wire
? neRetrievable Coring
Horizontal Build Seetion
Horizontal T~ent Section
Horizontal SectIonRun
Expected Trouble

Abaridonment
Rigdown
Demobilization
INCREMENTAL OPERATIONS
ratiom
Drilling
Make-up HA
Drifl Mud Plug in andu~or
Chulate
Connection
Drilling&Connections
Trip In
~: out
{
Ream Drilled Hole
Wiper Trip
Rig Service
Stiey
Orient Mud Motor
Ream Mud Motor Hole
Get Bore Protector
Set Bore Proteetor
Test BOP Stack
pkk U Mud Motor
Mud i otor Drilliig
Steerable Mud Motor Drilling
Retrieve MWD Log Data
Retrieve Wire Line Core
:~~~~
Core Barrel

I.ay Down Core

f..ayDown Core Barrel
D . operations done at caaingpoints
esaure Teat
%
5Drill ment
Formation PreaaureIntegri& Test
Underrearn

1Mobilization
JackUp Transit
iFloater Transit
set Anchors
BallastDown
Pre-SkidPreparation
Skid RiQ
Jack U
Land I?ig MfRU
Set TemrJGuide Base
SurveyC%nductor
!

Lo ng
Ri:n
% &: Log
Rig DownLoggers
CasingInstallation
Drive Conductor
Rig U Permanent Guide Base
Make b p Casing Han er
Make Up Subsea Welfhead
Run Riser
Pull Riser
N~ppleDowrIDiverter
~~%!.l~w+onp
Run
Make Up% er Hanger
Set Liner Hmer
Set Subsea Htiger
Set Subsea Packoff

kRiup~m~nlent
Diap1
ace Cement

Wmt On Cement
Nipple U Diverter
Prepare {ubaea BOP Stack
Nipple U Stack
Squeem $ op of Liner
DreaaTop of Iiner
Lay Down Drill Pipe
Pick Up Drill Pipe
Change Out Mud in Hole
Clean Mud Tanks
Final Surve
Extra Trou{ le
Completion / Tea~
Prepare Production Casing for Completion
Run Cased Hole Logs
WweLine Perforate
~~p~b~oduetion Zone
Y ree
Nipple Up
Inmal FIowPeriod
Stimulation
Final Flow Period
Finish Completion
Demobilization Abandonment:
Cut~t~
Wedhead
pull Anchors
I.AyDown Conductor
Jack Down
Wg Down Move Out
Cut CSaing
Pull Caaii
Run Retainer on Wire Line
Set Retainer on Drill Pipe
PUmDCement Plug

SE%19931
TABLE

EXAMPLE OPERATIONS SEQUENCE LISTING

Start Hole Section: Surface

oP#

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
~~
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

OPERATION
MMDrlg &Conn
Circulate
Trip @t
Trip In
MM Drlg &Conn
Trip Out
Make up BHA
Trip In
Drlg &Conn
Survey
Drlg &Conn
Circulate
Trip out
Rig Service
Trip In
Drlg &Conn
Circulate
Trip Out
Rig Up Tongs
Run Casing
Rig Up to Cement
Circulate
Pump Cement
Displace Cement
Rig Service
Nipple Up Stack
Stack Test
Make up BHA
Trip In
Test Casing
Drill Cement
Circulate
Run PIT (LOT)

END DEPTH
HOURS
2808.
14.71
2808.
.62
2808.
2.57
2308.
1.91
3439
6.92
3439.
3.01
3439
4.00
3439
2.20
3997.
3.23
3997.
.17
4255.
1.68
4255.
.95
4255.
3.58
4255.
,95
4255.
2.59
4633.
2.43
4633.
1,03
4633.
3.85
4633.
2.00
4632:
11.03
4633.
1.OO
4633.
1.93
4633.
2.3~
4633.
1.19
4633.
.63
4633.
24.00
4633.
6.00
463? ~
4.00
4633.
2.76
4633.
,50
4633.
1.00
4633.
1.03
4633.
50

CUM DAYS
cUM HRS
3.68
88.3
3.70
88.9
3.81
91.5
3.89
93.4
4.18
100.3
4.30
103.3
4.47
107.3
4.56
109.5
4.70
112.8
4.70
112.9
4.78
114.6
4.81
115.5
4.96
119.1
5.00
120.1
5.11
122.7
5.21
125.1
5.26
126.1
5.42
130.0
5 50
132.0
5.96
143.0
6.00
144.0
6.08
145.9
6.18
148.3
6.23
M:.:
6.26
7.26
174:1
7.51
180.1
7.67
184.1
7.79
186.9
7.81
187.4
7.85
188*4
7.89
189.4
7.91
189.9

Start Hole Section: Protective 3

TABLE 2
EXAHPLE 1: DIRECTIOWL

PROFILE

PLATFORM 2

DAYS

COST

Build &kiold
DrOp A@@
Drop Angle Savings:

78.2
71.5
6.7

$6,051,000
$ 5,)52,000
$
299,000

193

TABLE 3
EXANPLE 1: TOP DRIVE

ECONOMICS

Platform 1

Platform 2

Total Cost

51.0
$4,110,000

71.5
$5,752,000

UITH TOP DRIVE:

Days
Total Cost

48.2
$4,000,000

67.3
$5,550,000

~OJOP

DRIVE:

TOP DRIVE SAVINGS:

Days
Savings
Savings per Day

202,:6:
3,000

TABLE 4
EXANPLE 2: DRILLING
Mel1 Depth
Protective Hole:

EVALUATION

12,000 feet
1,225 feet to 10,000 feet

Wiper Trip Frequency, Hours

Reaming, Passes
Circulating, #of Bottoms Up
l!udCost, $/barrel
Hudliaintenence, $/barrel/day
Total Mud Cost
Dry Days
Dry Cost
Savings

FLUID

Uater Base l!ud

8
1

Inhlbitivellud
0
Q
0

o.%
$142,000

l.%
$180,000

34.3
$897,000
.

30.1
$888,000
$
9,000