Drilling Optimization – A Review of Process Changes

Abstract

Drilling activity in most operations in Russia is a "controlled" schedule of events. This makes the management of change process extremely difficult and challenging should the fundamental well design conditions fail or are no longer applicable. With little or no planned contingencies, recovery is usually difficult with unplanned events. For turnkey projects the general contractor is expected to to bear the cost for unforeseen events if these are not identified within the "project book". The use of technical institutes for drilling related field development planning is a thorough process culminating in what is normally referred to as the "Project Book". However, the quality of the final product as with all roles requiring a level of expertise, is limited to the experience and competency of all contributors to the planning document. This is due to a combination of factors: The absence of contractors at the field developing planning stage to challenge concepts and provide more realistic operational limitations;Poor risk identification and mitigation process at the planning stage leading to loss of efficiencies and financial loss;A reactive approach to project delivery;Poor planning or a lack of it;Lack of leadership or ownership through the project life-cycle; andUndue interference from project stake-holders. Project books are developed by institutes contracted by the operating companies. These project books are documented evidence that technical, health, safety and environmental considerations are accounted for to meet the requirements of the government. These documents are thorough and carefully formaulated. However, the lack of input from the field to project books makes contingency planning difficult to implement and sometimes and impossible consideration. Project books contain details of equipment and technologies to be deployed for each project. In most places if a plan becomes unattainable a management of change process may be required to adopt changes to ensure success. For most projects in Russia this is not the case. The general contractor model has been here a long time and there is no illusion of change apparent. It is a convenient way of doing business with advantages and disadvantages as well. One major advantage removes the bureaucracy of permits and licenses to operate specific types of equipment from the operator. It ultimately makes one company solely responsible for well delivery and all (or most) contractual relationships with sub-contractors. It transfers the risks associated with the project to the general contractor, thus making them liable. For the general contractor, disadvantages are not limited to liabilities. Since contingency planning is not within the scope of the project books, it tends to create bottlenecks especially where it is not captured during risk assessment and subsequently in the compensation matrix. Furthermore, the process of decision making and ensuring client acceptance for compensation for costs related to unforeseen events, is rather cumbersome. The very same bureaucracy that is an advantage comes into play as each event is followed up by a series of carefully worded letters of correspondence with a stay of action on a matter until an official response is received. A typical approach in the West may need an email communication to the client as sufficient notification demanding immediate response for the operation to carry on.. This paper looks at some of the events over the cause of the last one year and their eventual impact to both the client and the contractor. Impact assessment to client/contractor can be quantified in monetary terms, inefficiencies and profitability as well as an estimate of the cost of not meeting production quota/schedules and the overall project delivery objectives.

Network Analysis of Road Traffic Crash and Rescue Operations in Federal Capital City

“…According to Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC), road accident figure has increased by 22 percent in the first half of 2013 with April going down as the bloodless month, and the increase is largely due to poor response to accident victims by the public, the proximity of medical facilities and organizational problems [18]. Similarly, the contribution of RTC to the National death burden rose from 38.9% in 1967 to 60.2% in 1974 and 25% in 2012 [19].…”