IADC/SPE 77247

Eight Years Experience with a Drilling Optimization Simulator in the North Sea
R. Nygaard and G. Hareland, Drops Technology, Y. Budiningsih, Conoco Indonesia, H.E. Terjesen, Statoil ASA and F.
Stene, Norsk Hydro ASA
Copyright 2002, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 911 September 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE 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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. 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 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
During the past eight years a drilling optimization simulator
has been applied to different fields in the North Sea with good
results. The simulator is based on penetration rate models and
uses offset drilling data through inverted drilling models to
obtain an apparent rock strength log (ARSL), which describes
the drillability in a field or area. The ARSL from an offset
well in the field or from nearby wells is correlated to the
survey of the upcoming well or wells that will penetrate the
same formations. The ARSL is then used as the driver in the
simulator and different combinations in terms bit designs,
operating parameters, mud weight programs and hydraulics
are simulated to obtain the lowest drilling cost. Experience
from different operators and different fields have shown that
the drilling simulator concept works with good accuracy and
that the simulator in advance can predict the penetration rates
on upcoming wells. The simulator is today used as a preplanning, day to day and post analysis tool. The concept of
the simulator is to obtain the lowest time based drilling cost
and to increase the experience transfer from one well to the
next and therefore increase the learning process. Using the
simulator while drilling is a powerful tool to troubleshoot
during the drilling process and examples have indicated that
changes in pore pressure from estimate, faults and formation
tops can be predicted continuously while updating the ARSL
and correlating it to the predetermined ARSL The simulator
also predicts the bit wear in the hole while drilling and clearly
identifies the slow drilling zones so that bits are not pulled
prematurely due to low penetration rates.
The main conclusions are that the simulator is a powerful tool
in real drilling operations and that the experience transfer from
well to well is increased. Cost savings using the simulator

have shown 10 to 25 percent cost reduction from the reference

wells. This paper includes field examples, which used the
simulator in different phases of the actual drilling operation.
Introduction
The DRilling OPtimization Simulator (DROPS) is
developed to reduce the cost of future wells based on a
apparent rock strength log (ARSL), created from the drilling
data collected on a previous well drilled in the same area. The
ARSL is created using ROP (Rate Of Penetration) models1-3
inverted to calculate rock compressive strength. The simulator
has the capability of simulating any combination of operating
conditions, bit designs, pull depths, hydraulics, WOB (Weight
On Bit) and RPM4-7. The basic idea behind DROPS is to
simulate the drilling operation prior to the actual drilling, and
to find the optimum cost level. The pre-simulated ROPs
compares well with the results for actual measured ROP and
cumulative rotating time, which proves the accuracy of the
method. Based on the application of pre-determined optimum
drilling conditions cost optimizations for future wells in this
region have been performed. The cost reductions obtained
indicate significant potential cost savings of total drilling cost
per well, compared to the current industry practice in the area.
By using this methodology in the planning process the most
cost effective drilling program can be obtained.
Drilling optimization during the past has been approached
in a highly speculative fashion. This is partly due to that the
process is highly complicated with a high degree of
uncertainty. As such, there is a heavy reliance on on the fly
decisions, which requires highly experienced personnel to be
involved in the process. Recently, several service companies
have tried to improve the drilling process by utilization of
groups of experienced personnel. These personnel are included
in the planning and execution of the drilling operation.
Because drilling takes place in many different locations and
under different operating conditions, experience gained in one
location, is not easily applied to new locations. This results in
biased and inaccurate predictions as to the resulting outcome
based on actions taken. This experience transfer method has an
inherent flaw in that it does not quantify the outcome of a
particular decision, hence changes in operating conditions and
parameters cannot be quantitatively evaluated before they are
changed. This is because of the qualitative approach
undertaken has the lack of a scientifically based evaluation

R. NYGAARD, G. HARELAND, Y. BUDININGSIH, H.E. TERJESEN, F. STENE

tool. Therefore not given such a tool quantitative evaluation to

the degree of improvement is nonexistent.
This paper seeks to illustrate, that by utilization of a
drilling simulator one can optimize the drilling process and
quantify the degree of improvement, which can be achieved.
Also demonstrated in this paper is the expanded use of rock
property data to enhance in tool selection and operation, in
conjunction with operating conditions and drilling parameters.
Experience from different operators and different fields have
shown that the drilling simulator concept works with good
accuracy and that the simulator in advance can
predict the penetration rates on upcoming wells.
Drilling Optimization Simulator Features
Apparent Rock Strength Log Generation
The first phase of the optimization process involves the
selection of a reference well, which closely matches the
planned well. Using the data from the reference well, a
Geologic Drilling Log8 (Apparent Rock Strength Log-ARSL)
is generated by the inversion of the bit specific rate of
penetration models. The effects of operating parameters, bit
design and wear, drilling hydraulics, mud rheology and pore
pressure being integral to the model.
The inverted rate of penetration provided a calibrated
measure of the rocks strength under actual drilling conditions
and simultaneously determines the wear characteristics of the
bits used in drilling the relevant sections.
This wear character is a statistical evaluation of the bits
performance while drilling varying formation types and under
a variety of operating conditions and includes, detailed bit
geometry and its resistance to wear. Where detailed section
data was available, for example in logged sections, this data
and neighboring well data were included in the generation of
the ARSL.
Apparent Rock Strength Log Applications
Of particular interest is the determination of a wellbore
stability profile. This is important to minimize the occurrences
of wellbore collapse, pipe sticking, loss circulation and so on.
The ARSL represents the compressive strength of the rock in
the same plane as the bits trajectory. A well bore stability
envelope with depth is calculated and hence a safe mud weight
and casing program can be determined using the ARSL. In
addition the ARSL strength profile in the reservoir section can
be used in sand production prediction9.
Another application of the ARSL is in determining the
ability of 3D rotary assemblies to steer effectively. The
relationship between the behavior of a rotary steerable bottom
hole assembly and changes in apparent rock strengths can be
determined by correlating tool behavior with data obtained
from the ARSL. This has been established from analysis
conducted on several wells.
The third phase involves use of the ARSL in the drilling
simulator. It is used in combination with established casing
points, well paths, drilling mode (rotary or steerable system),
mud types, bit types, pull depths, operating conditions and

IADC/SPE 77247

mud rheology/hydraulics to perform simulations. The ARSL

with information from simulator modules, known limitations
to operating parameters and rig equipment constraints, dictates
parameter boundaries to be used.
The effect of any number of drilling parameters and
operating conditions, within the prescribed limitations are then
evaluated. The performance of several bits is evaluated to
enable selection of the best bit and the corresponding optimal
set of parameters to use while running the bit.
As an integral part of the optimization process, multiple
scenario evaluations are conducted. These include variations
in:
WOB/RPM combinations.
Changes in operating parameters as a function of ARSL
variations.
BHA configurations.
Bit Hydraulics
Bit types, impregnated, NDB, PDC, and Rollercone
This approach ensures that an optimal solution is
obtained. These multiple scenario evaluations were also
conducted for separate bit runs and/or entire hole
sections.
Real Time Evaluation
The next phase described as the follow up phase involves
a continues evaluation of the drilling progress. During this
phase updates are conducted to verify and, if needed, modify
model predictions. Continues evaluation of variations in
operating parameters, lithology et cetera. Resulting effects on
predicted performance and bit wear condition are determined
and relayed back to the drilling operation.
Post Well Analysis
Finally, a comprehensive post analysis of the operation is
conducted to identify deviation form the predictions and
possible reasons for the outcome. This is undertaken in an
effort to further improve performance in subsequent wells to
be drilled in the field or area.
Field Application Well#1 - 12.25 Section
In order to simulate the drilling of the well#1 12,25
section, drilling data from offset reference well#A was used
with the inverted ROP models in DROPS to create the ARSL.
Using the ARSL with the planned well trajectory for the
12.25 section of well#1, the drilling of this section could be
simulated using DROPS.
The 12.25-inch sections for the two wells were similar in
length and trough the same formations. The well section from
well#A was successfully drilled using PDC bits and it was felt
that the drilling process was optimized on well#A. Even if the
section was drilled with one bit it was believed that
improvements could be done in increasing the ROP overall
throughout the section by selectively vary the operating
conditions as a function of the ARSL
The 12.25 section for well#1 is primarily claystone with
limestone beds in the Shetland Group. Figure 1 shows the

IADC/SPE 77247

EIGHT YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH A DRILLING OPTIMIZATION SIMULATOR IN THE NORTH SEA

well#1 path, which was similar to well#A, superimposed on

the ARSL. The ARSL clearly shows how the rock strength
increases in the vertical section as the well enters the
limestones. This last section of the well was shown to be
where there was room for improvement, due to the bit wearing
faster and the harder formations causing a drop in the rate of
penetration.
Initial Analysis of WOB and RPM
Initial analysis examines the relative effects of changing
WOB and RPM on 1/ROP. The normalized ROP, (1/ROP)
value equal to 1.0, was obtained using average WOB and
RPM data from well#A. The normalized ROP is then used as
the reference point, to which other average operating
parameters prediction values are compared. Changing the
WOB and RPM and simulating the drilling operation again
using the DROPS to obtain a new ROP constructed the
relative ROP curves. Since we are comparing to the
normalized ROP, the value may be higher than 1.0 if the result
of changing the drilling parameter gives ROPs less then the
reference well.
Running several different RPM and WOB combinations
for a given bit design used on well#A, and plotting them vs.
normalized ROP created Figure 2. The base on this plot
(normalized 1/ROP =1) is at 251 RPM and 5.5 WOB. The
most important conclusion we can draw from this plot, is that
RPM has a much smaller effect on ROP than WOB. Keep in
mind that the DROPS simulator also integrates the increase bit
wear due to higher RPM and WOB values on ROP. The
change in ROP on the RPM scale is less than 10%. This shows
that drilling the well at 360 RPM only gains 10% compared to
drilling the well at an average of 180 RPM. On the other hand,
the difference in ROP on the WOB scale is much more
pronounced. If the average weight on bit was increased from
5.5 tons to 10 tons, the relative ROP would be about 0.7, in
other words: a 30% reduction in drilling cost.
This analysis is not accurate enough to give a
recommendation on which drilling parameters to use when
drilling the well, but can be used as an indicator to show
which parameters have the largest effect on cost. The reason
the method cannot be used to give actual values for the
optimum drilling parameters is that we were only examining
average values for the entire section. To get optimum values,
we would have to split the section up to account for changes in
the ARSL values. This is done in the conventional DROPS
drilling optimization. As an illustration using the normalized
ROP analysis the effect of WOB, RPM and bit design can give
rapid conclusions.
The results from our analysis indicate that the previous
wells were drilled using close to optimal drilling parameters. It
should be noted, however, that fairly high values for RPM
were used throughout the entire well (due to the use of a high
speed low torque downhole motor in addition to the rotary),
especially in the upper, softer, section through the Hordaland
Group, and the lower vertical section penetrating the
Rogaland- and Shetland Group formations. Decreasing RPM

and increasing WOB through the upper section would save the
bit gage cutters for the harder, limestone-sections in the
Shetland Group formation. This is where most of the savings
in drilling costs could be achieved, since ROP is relatively low
in this section. Generally, the simulations indicate that
increasing WOB instead of RPM is preferable to maintain a
high ROP, since the increase in weight tends to shift some of
the wear from the gage cutters towards the center of the bit.
The DROPS simulations indicate that following these general
guidelines results in a higher average ROP for the entire
section.
Based on our analysis, it was recommended to use a low
speed high torque motor so that the RPM be kept as low as
possible and use higher WOB than previously for bit A bit to
get the best performance. The highest increase in ROP, and
subsequent decrease in drilling cost can be gained in the
vertical subsection of the well, where the Shetland Group
formations are entered. Herein the simulations indicated that
increasing the WOB while being conservative with the RPM
yields the best overall results, and decreases the risk of
premature gage wear.
Initial Analysis of Different Bit Design Performance
Evaluating 6 different bits designs and optimizing their
performance gave the results in Figure 3. These different PDC
bit design had variations in number of PDC cutters, size of
PDC cutters, variations in PDC layer thickness, cutter back
and siderake and junk slot area. Combined with the best bit
design features for the this section and the optimum operating
parameters used for the selected bit, a recommendation on
how to best drill the well#1 was made. It is evident that the
$/m analysis is close for the different the bit design with bit A
having the lowest overall drilling cost.
Bit A was recommended with operating parameter as listed
in Table 1. These were followed closely and the resultant time
vs. depth curve for the pre-simulated and actual is plotted in
Figure 4.
Conclusion Well#1
Based on the analysis using the DROPS simulator an
optimized drilling plan was recommended and followed.
Changing from a high speed low-torque to a low speed
high-torque motor in conjunction with selecting the best bit
design and operating parameter the cost savings on this 12,25
section was over $100,000. Even if it was believed that the
12.25 section was drilled close to optimal it was room for
large savings using the DROPS.
Field Application Well#2 - 8.5 Section
The drilling optimization study was performed on an 8.5
section, which was to be drilled in an area where the geology
was described as abrasive sandstone with interbeded shale and
coal stringers. Hard and abrasive sandstone had in the area
historically favored the use of wear resistant impregnated
diamond drilling bits mounted on turbines. Even though the
ROP from these bits are generally low, they are frequently

R. NYGAARD, G. HARELAND, Y. BUDININGSIH, H.E. TERJESEN, F. STENE

chosen instead of PDC bits, due to the known limitations of

PDC cutter technology in abrasive sandstone. The hardness of
the formations in the field severely limits ROP and due to the
high North Sea rig-rates, the cost per meter drilled is high,
thus a drilling optimization study of the field has great
potential.
Offset drilling data from two wells drilled through this
formation rock was collected and analyzed with the simulator
to create the ARSL. Because of the high deviation (80 degrees
plus) and the different formations to be penetrated the ARSL
used the strength profiles throughout each individual
formation and compressed or stretch the ARSL values in
correlation to the lengths of each section penetrating the zones.
In the cases where the well penetrated the formations zones in
reverse order the rock strength profile was reversed. The
ARSL was then used with DROPS to evaluate PDC and
impregnated drilling bits on turbine and motor bottom hole
assemblies in an effort to find the most effective combination.
The project was divided into three phases: planning, real
time drilling monitoring and post analysis, all three phases ran
in parallel with the work in the field.
Simulations and analysis of offset drilled wells showed
that that the wear rate of impregnated bits is fairly constant,
thus these bits could drill longer if ROP can be increased.
Reference well data clearly shows that if drilling can be
conducted using an operational WOB of 12-16 tons on a
turbine generating lower RPM for the desired flow rate, the
length of the bit runs will increase significantly. Simulation
results indicate that up to a 100% improvement in bit-run
lengths with higher applied WOB and lower turbine rotational
speeds is possible. Calculating the collapse pressure based on
the ARSL showed that the mudweight could be lowered and
also contributed to increased ROP and bit life.
The result from the recommended bit runs and operating
parameters in the field and the DROPS pre-simulated time
versus depth curves are presented in Figure 5.
The
recommended impregnated combined with PDC cutter bits on
turbine recommended performed very close to simulated.
Conclusions Well#2
The average ROP after drilling the 8.5 section was 24%
higher than the ROP recorded on the two reference wells. Use
of higher WOB and lower RPM compared to earlier field data
is beneficial to bit life for impregnated bits. Increasing WOB
from 12-16 tons and decreasing RPM to 900 as supposed to 510 tons and 1400 RPM resulted in longer bit runs. The post
analysis for this well showed that continued savings is
possible by selecting different drilling and turbine operating
parameters.
Field Application Well#3 - 12.25 Section
This case is from optimizing a 12.25 section, 2855m long,
with a rotary steering tool. Simulation showed that the section
was possible to drill with one bit considering the drillability
and abrasiveness of the formations. The section consists of
claystone with thin limestone stringers, with low strength

IADC/SPE 77247

down to 4300 mMD. From 4300 to 4800 mMD an increasing

trend in the strength is seen, when entering limestone and marl
formations. The reservoir zones at the end of the bit run is
generally low strength and highly drillable. The reservoir
contains a few stronger stringers. These harder beds may
require more weight on bit to maintain ROP. Simulations were
performed with WOB from 4 15 tons and RPM from 130
140. The simulated set of parameters gave an average ROP of
45.6 m/hr. In Figure 6 the pre-simulated and actual drilling
field parameters are plotted. The WOB applied to the bit has
generally a little lower values while the RPM has a little
higher value. These small variations cancels eachother out
and the hours on bit and ROP match very well until the
reservoir is penetrated. In the reservoir geosteering is
performed and the WOB applied is less then recommended
and therefore the hours on bit starts to deviate between
simulated and actual. The most important limitation for a high
average ROP is hole cleaning and controlled drilling through
the reservoir.
Conclusions Well#3
Geo-steering in reservoir reduces ROP due to lower
(WOB) but the bit performed very well as simulated. When
the ROP was reduced at about 5150m depth, drilling crew
wanted to pull the bit due to a possible wear out. However,
real time simulation with the actual drilling parameters in
DROPS showed that the bit was not worn out and also the
ARSL showed that it had entered a harder zone. It was decided
to continue drilling and the bit picked up after the hard zone.
This example clearly shows the fully use of the drilling
simulator and drilling optimization and that it is important that
good communication exist between on and offshore
participants from the pre-planning using the simulator and
during the follow-up of the drilling process. It is estimated
that a trip was saved ($200,000) due to the ARSL
predictability and real time bit wear prediction.
Conclusions
1. The use of the DROPS simulator greatly improves the
learning curve for new or mature fields.
2. Eight year of applying the DROPS simulator in the
North Sea has shown that the savings potential is between 10
and 25 percent of time based drilling cost from reference
wells.
3. Being able to better plan and see the actual effects of
possible drilling operating scenarios on the drilling cost using
the DROPS simulator has proven its value to the operators.
4. The DROPS simulator is used in selecting bits, pull
depth and section-by-section operating parameters to
maximize performance and integrate bit durability for highest
cost savings.
5. The DROPS simulator has been used to select the
correct bits and corresponding operating parameters with
proven results.
6. Using the DROPS simulator has proven its value during
follow-up as in Field Application Well#3.

IADC/SPE 77247

EIGHT YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH A DRILLING OPTIMIZATION SIMULATOR IN THE NORTH SEA

7. Even if focus is on limitations in the drilling process like

hole cleaning, borehole stability, steering and controlled
drilling rates there is room for ROP optimization which save
time and cost.
8. The ARSL has many areas of application including
wellbore stability and drilling optimization. The required
input to generate the ARSL is inexpensive in that only offset
drilling data is used. Generation of the ARSL can be done in
wells or sections of wells where no log data exists.
References
1. Warren, T. M., " Penetration Rate Performance of Roller Cone
Bits" SPE 13259 Presented at the 59th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition Houston, Texas. Sep. 16-19, 1984
2. Hareland, G. and L.L. Hoberock, "Use of Drilling Parameters
to Predict In-Situ Stress Bounds," SPE/IADC 25727, presented
and published at the Drilling Conference in Amsterdam,
February 22-25, 1993.
3. Hareland, G., P. R. Rampersad, and W. A. Iyoho, "Drag-Bit
Model Including Wear," SPE 26957 presented and published at
the III LACPEC Conference, Buenos Aires, Apr. 27-19, 1994.
4. Rampersad, P.R., G. Hareland, and P. Boonyapaluk, "Drilling
Optimization Using Drilling Data and Available Technology,"
SPE 27034, presented and published at the III LACPEC
Conference, Buenos Aires, April 27-29, 1994.
5. Gjelstad G., G. Hareland, K.N. Nikolaisen, R. K. Bratli The
Method of Reducing Drilling Cost More Than 50 Percent, SPE
47342, presented at the 4th ISRM/SPE Conference, Trondheim,
Norway, July 8-10, 1998.
6. Bratli R. K., G. Hareland, G. Dund, F. Stene, and G. Gjelstad,
Drilling Optimization Software Verified in the North Sea,
SPE 39007, presented at the V LACPEC Conference, Rio De
Janeiro, Brazil, August 30- September 2, 1997.
7. Hareland G., Paul R. Rampersad, Olav M. Skr, Simulation
Cuts Drilling Costs, presented and published World Petroleum
Congress, Calgary, Canada, June 2000.
8. E.C Onyia.: " Geology Drilling Log- A Computer Database
System for Drilling Simulation " SPE Drilling Engineering,
March 1987.
9. Budiningsih, Y., Hareland, G., Bratli, R.K. and S. Fagereng,
Directional Well Sand Production Prediction Dictates
Optimum Production Rates Using Continues Compressive
Strength Data From Drilling Data, presented at the
International Production Optimization Symposium, Bandung,
Indonesia, July 24-26, 1995, 118-126.

Depth (MD),
m
1482-1940
1941-2455
2456-2800
2801-3024

WOB
(tons)
8
5.5
18
18

RPM
170
120
170
180

Table 1. Optimized Drilling Parameters for Well#1

R. NYGAARD, G. HARELAND, Y. BUDININGSIH, H.E. TERJESEN, F. STENE

W e ll T r a je c to r y &

A R S L fo r

IADC/SPE 77247

1 2 1 /4 " S e c tio n

D e v ia tio n (m )
0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 2 0 0
A R S L
W e ll P a t h
1 4 0 0

1 6 0 0

H o r d a la n d
G p.

Depth TVD.rkb (m)

1 8 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 2 0 0

R o g a la n d
G p.

2 4 0 0

S h e tla n d
G p .

2 6 0 0

2 8 0 0
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

R o c k S tre n g th (M P a )

Figure 1 : Well#1-Well Trajectory and ARSL for 12.25" Section

WOB & RPM vs Normalised ROP

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8

1.6-1.8
1.4-1.6
ROP/ROP*

1.2-1.4
1-1.2
0.8-1

0.6

0.6-0.8
0.4-0.6

0.4

0.2-0.4
0-0.2

0.2

180
220

251
RPM

280
320
360
3

5.5

10

WOB (10^3 kg)

Figure 2: Well#1-Normalized (1/ROP) vs. WOB and RPM combinations

11

12

EIGHT YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH A DRILLING OPTIMIZATION SIMULATOR IN THE NORTH SEA

Optimized Bitruns For 12 1/4" Section,

600

Bit number

550

Average Cost / m ($)

500

450

400

350

300
1 (A)

2 (A)

3 (B)

4 (C)

5 (C)

6 (C)

7 (D)

Figure 3: Well#1-Average Cost ($/m) vs. the bits evaluated. The bits were run at their optimum parameters

m / hr
0

50

100

1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
Depth, mTVD

IADC/SPE

2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
R O P O b ta in e d F r o m D r illin g

R O P S im u la te d u s in g D D S

Figure 4: Well#1- ROP vs. depth graph comparing simulated time to actual field time.

R. NYGAARD, G. HARELAND, Y. BUDININGSIH, H.E. TERJESEN, F. STENE

IADC/SPE 77247

Depth Progress vs. Tim e

3839m MD to 4367m MD
3800
3850

Drilled Cem ent

3900

Coring

3950

Bit AA1 Turbine

Depth, mMD

4000
4050
4100

Bit AA 2 Turbine

4150
4200

Bit BB 1
Turbine

4250
4300

Bit AA 3
Turbine

4350

TD
4400

10

20

30

40

Tim e, hrs
Sim ulated

Field Progress

Figure 5: Well#2-Time vs. Depth graph comparing pre-simulated to actual field time

ARSL (Mpa)
0

30

60

Bit Hours
90

2700

2700

2900

2900

25

50

WOB [tonnes]
75

100

Depth (m)

Shetland

12

RPM
16

100

2700

2700

2900

2900

3100

3100

3100

3100

3300

3300

3300

3300

3500

3500

3500

3500

3700

3700

3700

3700

3900

3900

3900

3900

4100

4100

4100

4100

4300

4300

4300

4300

4500

4500

4500

4500

4700

4700

4700

4700

4900

4900

4900

4900

5100

5100

5100

5100

5300

5300

5300

5300

5500

5500

5500

5500

Crom er Knoll
Target

Simulated
Actual

Figure 6: Well#3-Time vs. Depth graph comparing simulated time to actual field time.
Pre-simulated operational parameters plotted with actual parameters.

120

140

160

180

200