Abstract

The personalities of engineers and geoscientists are often very different. And when it comes to corporate risk assessment and reward systems, company incentives for these individuals can be counter to the overall corporate objectives: highest IP and superior well performance among their peer group. For example, drilling team metrics and service company personnel objectives may be counterproductive to pinpoint strata entry and maintaining geological target objectives (i.e. staying in zone); therefore the asset team misses the corporate goal for achieving the best possible productivity from their investment.

As a result of these sometimes divergent drivers and inherent dichotomies between asset team members, and other well operations participants, the results can sometimes become very evident. These noted conflicts can be due to many factors including individual incentives, different personas and simply, personal motivation. The ultimate outcome can be conflict between otherwise closely aligned asset team and service company participants.

We will explore the trade-offs of staying in the targeted zone (sweet spot) by carefully steering the well and monitoring every move along the way versus drilling ahead for maximum ROP (rate-of-penetration) and the least possible NPT (non-productive time). Several examples of recommended best practices for enhanced communications between team members and a better understanding of individual goals and compromises that can improve the overall outcome of a horizontal drilling program will be presented.

The goal of the paper is to provide a basis for better understanding what makes the drilling team itchy and uncomfortable versus the overall benefits of staying in zone ... sometimes the extra deliberations or seemly costly modifications in a drilling plan do in fact pay big dividends ... or do they?

What both engineers and geologists need to know!