Many of us have had the dubious experience of being on one of "those projects" at least once in our careers. You know the type: urgent, important, but, despite the project team's expertise, experience and requests for more time, resources and planning, the Powers-That-Be determine we must forge ahead with what we have and what we know. And when the project fails, we can only grit our teeth and start over, finally doing much of the planning and analysis we had anticipated before the first go-around.

Many of the papers in the two deepwater sections at the 2005 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference & Exhibition focused on using well-known business process tools to improve performance. At first look, it might appear that these tools are too time-consuming and costly to be of value, but these project teams showed otherwise.

Risk assessment

In their paper "The Role of Risk Management in Development of New Technology," authors B.A. Levett and H. Brandt (SPE, Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc.) discuss the role of risk management as it pertains to deepwater drilling. They explain that capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX) associated with a particular option are typically considered when deciding between technical options for a particular program. However, a third factor - expenditures associated with the risk of a particular option (RISKEX) - should also be factored into the decision, and can have dramatic effects on the overall viability of a particular option.

While they acknowledge that there are a number of guidelines and recommended practices available, they strongly urge a project-specific, systematic, risk-identification process, conducted by a multidiscipline project team. The team must identify the project-specific risks, specify plans for mitigating or addressing risks and clear assignment of roles, responsibilities and associated cost.

In one case study, a comparison was made between using a single casing riser or dual casing riser during drilling operations for a specific project. If only CAPEX and OPEX expenses are considered, the single casing riser is the more economical option. However, when RISKEX is considered - including the possibility of an oil blowout and the need to mobilize a new rig to drill a relief well - the dual casing riser is the better option.

Benchmarking

Hugo Valdez and Jurgen Sager of Transocean discuss how to use continuous improvement and benchmarking techniques to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs in "Benchmarking Drilling Performance: Achieving Excellence in MODU's Operating Practices in Deepwater Drilling."

Benchmarking is defined as "a process of continuously comparing ones own performance against recognized leaders" which, with proper tools and analysis, leads to identification of performance gaps and improved performance to keep one competitive in the market place. It is a cyclic process of: identifying best in class, analyzing processes, identifying best practices, adopting best practices, monitoring performance and collecting data.

One case study examined drill pipe tripping on three identical Enterprise-Class drillships (DADS1, DADS2, and DADS3) all outfitted with the same pipe handling system and working under similar operational conditions. DADS1 had a noticeably better performance than the other two, so was designated the "Best in Class."

The benchmarking team was composed of a team leader from DADS2 and DADS3 as well as a process expert (a toolpusher), an expert from the engineering support group, and a facilitator. The results of their study showed that DADS1's superior performance was due to "consistent use of the retracting capability of the block...during tripping operations." After appropriate technical assessments and feasibility studies were completed, changes to retracting practices were implemented on DADS2 and DADS3 resulting in 30% and 25% performance improvements, respectively, which translated into monetary savings for operators.

Best practices

In "Magnolia Deepwater Development-Striving for Best in Class Drilling Performance," authors W. Randall Reinhardt, Roger N. Williamson, Luke F. Eaton and Stephen C. Actis, all of ConocoPhillips, provide a detailed case study of how the Magnolia project achieved their best-in-class performance, averaging 1.86 days per 1,000 ft (305 m) below the mud line. They describe project management best practices used, technical application and specific technical achievements.

No specific methodology (that is, risk management or benchmarking) is focused on in this paper. However, the authors discuss in detail common-sense project management techniques used to achieve best practices, including:

* Proper staffing and a team-environment.
* In addition to ensuring that appropriate personnel were assigned to the project and maintained throughout, special performance bonuses and incentive plans were also used. Communication, planning and early start.
* All planning was started and teams assembled as early in the process as possible and the entire rig team and office personnel were involved. Transfer of knowledge.
Lessons learned from previous projects, as well as from phases within the project, were documented and communicated for continuous improvement.

Common elements

All of these projects have many things in common, but the two things that struck me were: the importance of involving all appropriate team members in all phases of the process and letting the team take the time they determined necessary to think things through, do things right and do them well. I don't think I'm reading too far between the lines when I say, not only does this type of team involvement lead to meeting project deadlines, goals and budgets, but it provides the kind of professional satisfaction and pride that characterizes the people in our industry. That sounds like a win-win to me.

Comments