Shaving off unnecessary features was an idea proposed by William Occam in the 15th century. Today, Occam's razor can still generate benefits.

Everybody should cut unnecessary costs. That much is clear. But as with most things in life, it is in the doing, not the thinking, where things get blurred. To keep that focus sharp, here are three plain and simple ways to make the most of your budget.

First, resist the temptation to cut 'n' paste. Well profiles, bottomhole assemblies or rig contracts should be scrutinized so that unnecessary costs do not get hidden away. In this way, redundancy can be identified and removed.

Second, use cost-effective equipment. Let's say you adopt expensive equipment that reduces 20% of your trips. Other things remaining equal, after a few jobs, the equipment pays for itself while the savings start to mount up. It follows, too, that the higher the rig rate, the greater the savings. However, a cost-effective approach does not advocate cheap over expensive because both terms are relative. What it means is seeing through pricing to look at technical integrity, gains and the long view.

Third, select game-changing or value-added technology. That doesn't mean you should use technology for its own sake or because it's fashionable. Neither does it mean you should waste resources due to over-engineering and excess capacity.

Now, this column isn't a crusade against new technology, it's a call to use technology appropriately.

Correct

usage must not be confused with new technology development or testing.
That is a separate issue and is exemplified by well construction problems that can only be solved through new or modified technology. As a result, the need for a research project is defined. The project is given a budget and timeline in order to deliver cost-effective or game-changing tools.

Our livelihoods depend on a host of new techniques such as slimmer wells that offer greater production or reduce environmental impact and improve safety. But you should not lose the ability to question assumptions regarding the use of technology.

There are plenty of reasons not to ask questions. For people that are risk averse, over-engineering can offer comfort and convenience. There is a strong and sometimes erroneous belief that higher specifications reduce risk. According to this argument, a wider range of contingencies can be covered, therefore justifying extra features. That's acceptable in an exploratory frontier, but not in a mature province. Established oil fields are characterized by plenty of offset data for refining technical choices.

The question of convenience - perceived or real - is another reason for keeping things the same.
Working with a single supplier who has a representative stationed in your office reduces extra work and hassle. However, this can restrict technology options and the scope for cost effectiveness.

Time, or a lack of it, is probably a major reason why the problem of uncritical data transfer is growing. Engineers are bright, capable and experienced, but they are also overloaded. But then again who isn't?
We could be more like the engineer who, after drilling the well on paper, acts as if each well is financed out of his life savings. That level of dedication may be admirable, but it isn't common or healthy.

So here are a few ideas for the rest of us. Hire new hands. Let them shadow you (notify your local technical college/university). Also, hire an admin person. If your budget doesn't stretch, train the receptionist. The idea is to free up your time so you can concentrate on drilling and completing wells by treating them uniquely. Do the applications analysis and get service companies to help.

Failing that, draw up a 5-minute checklist that can be referred to before making final decisions. This will keep track of data transfer and costs from one well to the next. Something that focuses on these main elements and encourages "dumb" questions would be a good start.

• Rig. Can a third- or fourth-generation rig do the job? Could a retrofit work? Would contracting a state-of-the-art, fifth-generation rig be the best option?
• Well trajectories. Do target and intermediate formations warrant a complex well path? Would geophysicists be satisfied with a simpler trajectory?
• Directional. Can a simpler directional bottomhole assembly work? Is a 3-D rotary steerable tool necessary? Could a lower cost 2-D rotary steerable or motor combination do the job?
• Logging. Can you run simpler logging technology? Is a complete logging suite required for previously characterized areas? Will existing data be duplicated or enriched?
• Mud/Cementing. Can you simplify the mud/cement system? Are all additives necessary? Can a less costly mud work effectively?
• Bits/Reaming while drilling. Can you simplify the bit? Are all its features required? Is a new bit necessary? Could a low footage/reconditioned bit do the job? Is under-reaming essential?

Often an overriding geological or other justification for higher specifications and complexity will exist. But opportunities to "shave" and generate benefits will present themselves. By removing excess capacity and over-engineering, you can make better use of limited resources. Equipment will gravitate to correct applications, and over time, market forces will balance supply and demand. By then, the use of razor blades in drilling will be as common as drill bits.

Comments