Performance Drilling—Definition, Benchmarking, Performance Qualifiers, Efficiency and Value
Authors: Mensa-Wilmot Graham , Southland Stephen G. , Mays Patrick Andrew , Dumrongthai Panurach 
Published: March 2009

Drilling programs continue to be pushed into harder and more abrasive formations. In addition, directional drilling activities, with the on-going surge in deployment, have become more complex. Well depths, profiles, dog-leg severity (DLS), departures, and the other associated parameters, are continuously been pushed into newer and more challenging frontiers. Consequently, and as a result of these factors, sharp operational cost increases are being recorded. The resulting economic impact challenges the practicality of the industry's push for oil and gas in harsher environments. Considering the undeniable need to find new oil and gas reserves, the cost increases must be reversed. Performance drilling, when effectively implemented, will serve as one of the enablers that facilitate achievement of this objective.

This paper will define and establish the framework for performance drilling (PD). In addition to identifying performance qualifiers (PQ), it will also establish their dependencies and relationships. The significance of offsets, especially in the benchmarking process will also be discussed. Drilling efficiency1,2 will be analyzed and differentiated from rate of penetration (ROP) maximization3. Value creation, measured in terms of drilling cost reductions per section drilled, will also be discussed. Performance data, supporting the discussions and processes outlined in this paper, will be presented.

Background

The need to improve drilling performance, as an operational cost reduction initiative, is seen as a critical industry goal. Researchers and engineers, to better understand the requirements that influence this objective, have committed time and resources to this endeavor. As a result, new drilling tools, technologies4,5, and processes are continuously being developed to support this effort. Although project objectives have always been obvious, results have sometimes fallen short of expectations. In some instances, and even when the intended performance effects are achieved, the results have not been sustainable. PD, to achieve its intended benefits, must sustain and continuously improve on past results. To achieve this goal, the industry needs to have an open discussion that focuses on PD and its constituents.

As a starter, PD needs a definition. Currently, there is ambiguity as to what it means. Some in the industry believe that the use of a new tool or technology constitutes PD. In this regard, there is the assumption that what is new or claimed to be new technology is always better. Some also believe that the use of drive tools that increase RPM or torque (PDM or turbine) in a bottomhole assembly (BHA) qualifies as PD. Others associate PD with the use of rotary steerable tools (RST). It must be stated, that even when relevant for a particular drilling operation, the mere use of a new technology or tool does not qualify as PD.

The current ambiguity in PD's definition has created a process vacuum. As an enabler to reductions in operational cost, it is not enough to just identify the need for PD. This realization must be supported by processes that help identify and optimize the factors that influence PD.