Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
Brent Warren and Leonard Baltoiu, QMax Solutions Inc.
Abstract
A System Cost Analysis is a methodology used to
quantify drilling fluid costs to a common value, the
monies spent/saved which are impacted by the mud
system. Traditionally, most drilling fluid vendors and
operators are concerned only with the actual costs of the
mud materials, trucking, etc.. These costs only provide
a minor piece of the total impact which mud has on the
total well drilling costs. The System Cost Analysis
provides a more complete picture of drilling fluid costs by
considering both the material costs and actual time lost
and/or gained due to the fluid. In addition, production
data is readily included in a System Cost Analysis to
ascertain the amount of impairment seen in the drilling
process.
Items considered in an analysis include lost time due to
mud related problems such as lost circulation, borehole
instability, inability to log properly, ineffective solids
control, etc.. In addition, drilling fluids can have a
positive/negative
impact
on
time
by
increasing/decreasing ROPs; the System Cost Analysis
fixes a dollar value to this important variable.
The measurement method provides a framework for
measuring both past, present and future performance of
drilling fluid performance in a given study area. This
paper describes how a System Cost Analysis is done
and gives examples of analyses completed on projects
in Western Canada and South America.
Introduction
Over the last number of years, the quantification of
drilling costs has been rising dramatically, especially in
offshore and remote locations. As a result, a number of
studies have been published on quantifying those costs
in order to both understand where the dollars are being
1-4
spent and where savings potential exists.
While drilling fluids normally account for a relatively
small percentage (< 10% normally) of a well cost, they
are directly involved in a large number of the costs
AADE 2001
cost alone.
AADE 2001
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
Conclusions
The recommendations were implemented in the field
over a series of wells. The results from some of the
wells are shown in Table 3. All of the newly drilled
wells successfully ran logs to bottom on the first
attempt and hole problems due to wellbore instability
were minor. While the material costs were higher for
the post System Cost Analysis wells, the fewer
problems hours resulted in lower system costs.
2.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the many people
involved in the gathering of the data included in these
studies and in this paper. Special thanks goes to
George Rajbar of QMax who has brought the SCA to a
usable and functional methodology.
Nomenclature
ft = feet
K+ = potassium sulphate containing fluids
KNO3 =potassium nitrate
K2SO4 = potassium sulfate
MWD = measurement while drilling
N/A = not available
PHPA = partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
ROP = drilling rate of penetration
rpm = revolutions per minute
ss-PHPA = sterically stabilized partially hydrolyzed
polyacrylamide
SCA = System Cost Analysis
TD=total depth
References
1. Carter, T.:
A Model for Evaluating Mud Engineer
Perfromance presented at the 1996 AADE Drilling Fluids
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 3-4.
2. Trantham J.A. and Deagen J.M.: Barrier-Free Learning for
Well Construction SPE Paper No. 62833, presented at
the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, California, June 19-23
3. Thorogood, L., Jackson, M.D., Thorsen, O.H., Delivering
AADE 2001
AADE 2001
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
Lost Circulation
Reaming and Cleaning
Material costs and time (rig and other items such as water hauler).
Reaming and/or cleaning while rih or pooh due to poor hole conditions. Does not
normally include reaming undergauge hole after motor drilling.
Logs Bridging
Casing/Liner
Due to poor hole conditions. Includes time spent reaming logging tool to bottom,
time lost due to no logs run, hole conditioning and running tool back into hole.
As above noted in Logs Bridging section.
Sidetrack/Redrill
Stuck Pipe
Gravel/Boulders
Mud Rings
Kicks
Additional Costs
Rate-of-Penetration
Production Comparisons
Includes time and material costs incurred from running cement plugs to reaching
original depth before plugging back. Does not include sidetracks for geological
reasons.
Includes material/time due mechanically stuck pipe. May or may not include
problems because of differentially stuck pipe.
AADE 2001
Well LSD
Mud Type
ft drilled
$ material
$ material/ft
$ system cost
$ sc/ft
02-20-61-7 W6
12-26-61-7W6
05-33-61-7 W6
09-11-62-7 W6
07-03-62-7 W6
16-21-62-7W6
06-22-62-7 W6
16-20-62-7W6
09-31-62-7 W6
14-07-62-7 W6
16-15-62-7 W6
16-14-62-7 W6
05-12-62-7 W6
11-23-62-7 W6
03-28-62-7 W6
04-18-62-7 W6
10-23-62-8W6
14-11-62-8W6
11-14-62-8W6
05-26-62-8 W6
01-33-62-8 W6
02-04-63-8 W6
04-09-63-8 W6
08-12-63-8 W6
13-12-63-8W6
03-13-63-8W6
06-14-63-8 W6
13-28-63-8W6
02-31-63-8W6
12-32-63-8W6
12-33-63-8W6
16-20-63-8W6
13-14-63-8W6
04-15-63-8W6
10-18-63-8W6
13-19-63-8W6
07-21-63-8W6
05-22-63-8W6
10-22-63-8W6
K+/K+
PHPA
gel chem
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
gel chem
PHPA
PHPA
K+/K+
/K+
/K+
K+/K+
K+/K+
K+/K+
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
/K+
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
gel chem
gel chem
gel chem
gel chem
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
PHPA
gel chem
1365
3491
1654
738
3940
1165
3694
3002
1388
965
978
2510
2707
2461
2411
2871
548
2126
1234
2280
1772
1611
1453
600
876
1732
912
1188
1401
1332
1690
755
2051
1325
509
525
2461
2927
663
33445
25248
18586
2735
33261
16614
13640
11939
10423
28023
22792
38744
25330
34095
34830
45434
4467
12649
13168
23632
8972
9102
5655
9755
10353
20868
9742
5480
5297
5190
6667
5603
11880
6903
6102
5463
5204
6824
10699
24.50
7.23
11.24
3.71
8.44
14.26
3.69
3.98
7.51
29.05
23.31
15.44
9.36
13.86
14.44
15.83
8.15
5.95
10.67
10.36
5.06
5.65
3.89
16.25
11.82
12.05
10.68
4.61
3.78
3.90
3.95
7.43
5.79
5.21
12.00
10.41
2.11
2.33
16.14
42445
70623
76336
9860
151761
46052
25265
43252
37611
38336
97417
56744
30393
53408
48143
62872
13280
25024
32293
33945
18160
29352
16530
75943
45228
30993
63180
15043
16360
13440
28042
60353
19005
47966
32915
9963
7829
46387
66762
31.10
20.23
46.17
13.36
38.52
39.54
6.84
14.41
27.10
39.74
99.64
22.61
11.23
21.70
19.96
21.90
24.24
11.77
26.18
14.89
10.25
18.22
11.37
126.49
51.63
17.89
69.27
12.67
11.68
10.09
16.60
79.98
9.27
36.19
64.72
18.98
3.18
15.85
100.74
1712
2170
2218
1592
1334
15265
25760
24451
12578
8155
9.73
14.33
12.53
8.04
7.67
41408
63135
53932
24540
34738
31.29
32.50
28.97
17.46
37.49
61-7
62-7
62-8
63-8
MEAN
MEAN
MEAN
MEAN
Table 2 - Chicken Area (Alberta) Material and System Cost Values in Main hole mud drilled section. Lowest
mean material cost/ft as well as the highest system cost/ft was in the 63-8 section. The 62-8 section had the
lowest system cost mean and therefore the fewest amount of problems.
AADE 2001
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
Well LSD
Mud Type
ft drilled
$ material
$ material/ft
$ system cost
$ sc/ft
61-7 MEAN
06-36-61-07
K2SO4
2170
2648
25760
78335
14.33
29.58
63135
90335
32.50
34.11
62-7 MEAN
16-30-62-07
12-18-62-07
K2SO4
K2SO4
2218
2415
2740
24451
29286
45821
12.53
12.13
16.73
53932
56474
64196
28.97
23.38
23.43
63-8 MEAN
12-27-63-08
16-07-63-08
K2SO4
K2SO4
1334
722
6115
8155
6720
46163
7.67
9.31
7.55
34738
24720
54788
37.49
34.23
8.96
Table 3 - Chicken Area System Cost Analysis Comparison for wells drilled pre- and post-analysis. The
individual well locations are for the post-drilled SCA wells. Note that all of the post-analysis wells achieved
successful logs on first attempt. The well @ 06-36-61-07 had a high material cost due to massive lost circulation.
$
MATERIAL
$ MATERIAL/ft
$ SYSTEM
COST
$ SYSTEM
COST/ft
$ SOLIDS
CONTROL
$ SOLIDS
CONTROL/ft
297531
351809
135135
122928
96549
216650
149112
305746
218232
N/A
148487
N/A
144592
240252
33.54
35.77
15.74
14.37
11.02
22.60
18.28
32.68
20.20
N/A
16.33
N/A
15.81
25.65
421281
735559
300135
244178
96549
352900
229112
610746
385732
N/A
343487
N/A
144592
547752
47.50
74.79
34.96
28.54
11.02
36.81
28.08
65.28
35.70
N/A
37.77
N/A
15.81
58.47
172,000
186,000
132,000
122,000
136,000
134,000
116,000
232,000
148,000
145,000
100,000
188,000
125,000
166,000
19.39
19.38
15.25
14.26
15.52
13.96
14.23
24.80
13.70
16.33
11.00
21.17
13.67
17.68
193515
281302
243320
191113
427153
243940
234838
163872
219644
264718
N/A
239000
18.87
31.04
26.98
21.15
43.93
26.46
26.77
17.50
23.75
29.78
N/A
26.30
434765
753802
329570
256113
528403
360190
347338
321997
318394
395968
N/A
312750
42.40
83.18
36.55
28.34
54.35
39.07
39.60
34.39
34.42
44.54
N/A
34.41
159,000
130,000
141,000
57,000
121,000
131,000
84,000
93,000
98,000
93,000
89,000
138,000
15.50
14.35
15.64
6.31
12.85
14.21
9.58
9.93
10.60
10.46
9.67
15.18
Initial 14 MEAN
Later 12 MEAN
218588
245674
23.51
26.59
417088
396299
44.79
42.84
150,100
111,200
16.43
12.03
WELL NAME
Ft
DRILLED
9135
9240
Table 4 - System Cost Analysis raw data and solids handling costs for Ecuador Tipischa Basin area. Data is
included for total well analysis, surface hole to TD.
WELL
NAME
Ft
DRILLED
AADE 2001
DRILLING
DAYS
ft/
DRILLING
DAY
DAYS
to TD
ft/ DAYS
to TD
DAYS to
RIG
RELEASE
ft/ DAYS to
RIG RELEASE
INITIAL 14 WELL
SET
M8
8870
D1
9599
F 18b 13
8656
F 18b 14
8557
F18b 15
8762
D2
9600
F 18b 16
8150
D3
9356
D7
10805
F 18b 20
8880
D8
9093
F 18b 21
8880
M 4A
9145
F 18b 26
9388
6.7
12.4
7.4
7.3
N/A
8.8
7.5
10.5
14.7
8.9
7.8
N/A
N/A
13.9
1318
795
1168
1170
N/A
1085
1094
888
735
1003
1173
N/A
N/A
675
24.0
31.0
14.0
13.7
N/A
19.0
13.6
31.0
24.6
21.0
16.8
N/A
N/A
26.5
370
317
615
623
N/A
505
600
302
440
423
541
N/A
N/A
353
26.6
35.0
15.7
19.1
17.0
21.0
17.4
41.0
27.5
25.0
21.0
34.0
24.0
29.9
334
281
546
448
515
457
470
228
393
355
433
261
381
313
49.5
153.5
66.0
48.5
N/A
54.5
22.0
122.0
67.0
20.5
78.0
N/A
N/A
123.0
LATER 12 WELL
SET
T1
10255
F18b 27
9061
P1
9017
F 18b 25
9036
F 18b 37
9413
D6
9220
M 4A2
8771
M 4A3
9362
T1
9249
F 18b 46
8890
M 4A4
9207
T2
9088
13.0
11.3
9.2
5.4
7.4
5.9
8.3
9.8
5.8
9.3
N/A
6.5
789
801
977
1662
1317
1553
1053
955
1591
956
N/A
1398
28.7
18.7
23.5
11.3
26.5
17.1
17.0
18.6
16.4
18.9
N/A
19.2
357
485
384
799
367
540
516
502
565
471
N/A
474
31.7
29.4
26.3
14.6
32.1
19.5
19.6
19.5
17.5
22.5
21.0
20.8
323
308
343
620
303
474
448
479
528
396
438
438
96.5
179.0
34.5
26.0
40.5
46.5
45.0
63.25
39.5
52.5
N/A
29.5
9135
9.6
1009
21.4
463
25.4
387
79
9240
8.4
1186
19.6
496
23.0
424
60
Initial 14
MEAN
Later 12
MEAN
TROUBLE
TIME (hrs)
Table 5 - Time Analysis information for wells drilled in Ecuador Tipischa Basin area. Initial 14 wells used a gelPHPA system while the later 12 wells used a KNO3 ss-PHPA fluid. Drilling Days is a measure of rotating time to
reach total depth.
AADE 2001
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
ALBERTA
Chicken/
Route
Edmonton
Calgary
63
62
61
08
07
Figure 2 Chicken/Route area detailed well map. Wells with symbol indicate those with no logging or lost
circulation problems, symbol indicates logging problems or no logs run and symbol is for wells with lost
circulation. A well with symbol has both logging and lost circulation problems.
10
AADE 2001
40
$ material/ft
35
$ system cost/ft
$/ft cost
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
61-7 MEAN
62-7 MEAN
62-8 MEAN
63-8 MEAN
Figure 3 Comparative material and system costs for Main Hole section of wells in the various sectors of the
Chicken/Route area. Data taken from Table 2.
HOLE SIZE
DEPTH
CASING SIZE
17.5"
1400-1700'
13.375"
12.25"
7000-9000'
9.625"
8.5"
8500-10000'
7"
Figure 4 Typical well design for Ecuadorian Tipischa Jungle basin wells.
Using a System Cost Analysis to Quantify Drilling Fluids and Solids Control Costs
$/ft cost
AADE 2001
50
45
40
35
30
11
Initial 14 MEAN
Later 12 MEAN
25
20
15
10
5
0
$ material/ft
$ system cost/ft
$ solids cost/ft
Figure 5 Comparison of material costs, system costs and solids costs for initial 14 and later 12 wells in
Tipischa study area. Costs are given per foot to normalize the data and are shown for the entire well. Data taken
from Table 4.
1400
Initial 14 MEAN
1200
Later 12 MEAN
ft/day
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ft/ DRILLING DAY
ft/ DAYS to TD
Figure 6 Comparison of drilling rate (ROP), time to total depth and time to rig release for initial 14 and later 12
wells in Tipischa study area. Information is presented in value ft per days to normalize data. Data taken from
Table 5.