Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. 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
The operator's drill rate management process is designed to
maximize rate of penetration (ROP) in every foot of hole
drilled. Due to its quantitative nature and the degree to which
it is incorporated into all phases of the drill well process, the
operator believes it to be the industry's first comprehensive
ROP design process. The workflow is being implemented
uniformly across an organization drilling approximately 4.5
million feet of hole per year in a wide range of rock types,
directional profiles, and international locations. The results to
date have been similar in most applications with significant
gains in ROP, bit life, and reduction in tool failures related to
vibrations.
The workflow evolved from surveillance techniques the
operator developed to utilize Mechanical Specific Energy
(MSE) surveillance to evaluate drilling performance in real-
time
(1),(2)
. MSE surveillance proved to be an effective aid in
identifying bit and system inefficiency. However, having this
knowledge does not ensure the team knows why the
inefficiency is occurring, or how to correct it. There are
organizational processes that must also be considered when
mitigation of the problem involves increased mechanical risk,
significant changes in established practices, or a high level of
technical training. MSE is a technology, while the ROP
management process is a broad workflow designed to ensure
MSE and numerous other sources of data are used effectively
to maximize ROP. Consistent implementation of the
workflow has been shown to achieve consistent increases in
ROP. The key elements of the workflow required to achieve
this performance are discussed.
Over 40 categories of ROP-limiters have been identified,
of which only 4 are directly related to the bit. The ROP in a
large portion of footage drilled is constrained by factors other
than bit performance, which are referred to as non-bit limiters.
The workflow addresses both bit and non-bit limiters equally,
and includes a simple model to aid drill teams in prioritizing
the large number of potential ROP-limiters so resources
available for surveillance and redesign are used most
effectively.
Performance improvements have been sustained since
the staged rollout began in late 2004, and additional gains are
continuing. Performance data is included, as well as a
discussion of key implementation learnings.

Introduction
The concept of Mechanical Specific Energy, as formulated by
Teale
(3)
in 1965, has been used in bit mechanics labs as a
metric for drilling efficiency and to lesser extent in post-well
performance analysis. In 2004, the operator demonstrated rig
site personnel could also use the display of MSE effectively to
improve performance in real-time operations and daily drilling
progress was increased an average of 213% on eleven pilot
wells
(1)
.
However, significant additional gains appeared possible.
MSE surveillance only allows the team to detect drilling
dysfunction. It does not ensure the cause of the dysfunction is
identified or appropriate action is taken. In many situations
the causes are complex, or there may be multiple dysfunctions
occurring simultaneously. In others, the cause is apparent, but
the industry lacks solutions that are consistently effective.
This is especially true of the vibrationally-induced
dysfunctions.
ROP may also be constrained by factors other than bit
dysfunction. The operator estimates that bit performance is
relatively efficient in over 60% of its global footage and yet
ROP must be limited due to non-bit factors such as shaker
capacity, cuttings handling, target control, or hole cleaning.
Non-bit limiters, which results in control drilling, are
particularly difficult to deal with systematically because of
their great diversity and the breadth of expertise required. The
results of the MSE pilot also demonstrated many ROP limiters
are neither technical nor operational in nature. Examples
included organizational processes, communication processes,
rig workforce instability, contracting constraints, risk adverse
behavior, and the not-invented-here syndrome.
Expansion of the process to include such a wide range of
issues was driven by the performance philosophy that arose
from the use of MSE itself. MSE illuminates limiters, and
ROP is then increased by extending those limiters. The
operators ROP management process creates an expectation
that the next most important limiter will be dealt with through
redesign. When teams become committed to the process and
observe the next limiter in line is non-technical, the desire to
address it is no less strong. The systematic manner in which
MSE is used to identify and address drilling dysfunction tends

SPE 102210
Comprehensive Drill-Rate Management Process To Maximize Rate of Penetration
F.E. Dupriest, ExxonMobil Development Co.
2 SPE 102210
to internalize a philosophy that any form of dysfunction must
be addressed, regardless of its nature.
Success in maximizing the ROP in every foot of hole
derives as much from management of the workflow as the
deployment of drilling technology. The workflow must ensure
the opportunity to improve performance is identified
systematically, personnel are trained to respond appropriately,
and barriers to redesign or change in practices are removed.
The manner in which these objectives are best met may vary
depending on the intrinsic strengths of a given operator.
However, there are many elements in an ROP management
process that may be transportable. This discussion includes
detail from the operator's process, but also highlights key
philosophical elements that may be central to any ROP
management process.

Science-Based Workflow (Linear Response Model)
ROP management begins with recognition of dysfunction.
This is not the manner in which operations personnel have
historically tended to view drilling performance.
Traditionally, offset performance has been studied in order to
identify success, and then an attempt is made to duplicate the
success. That is to say, there is a tendency to use the bit,
bottomhole assembly (BHA), and directional steering system
that achieved the best results in offset or similar wells.
However, when a science-based view is taken of the process, it
is clear all drilling systems are intrinsically capable of higher
performance and ROP is limited only by the onset of
dysfunction. It is not appropriate to think of one bit as being
intrinsically a 30-ft/hr bit, while another is a 40-ft/hr bit. Both
are capable of much higher performance. If the nature of the
limiting dysfunction is identified and corrected, the ROP
achieved with either bit will increase.
For example, in South Texas the operator now routinely
drills with instantaneous ROP of 500 to 600 ft/hr with
essentially the same bit and system that was limited to
200 ft/hr prior to the rollout of the ROP management process.
The ROP was increased when the nature of the limiter was
identified and extended, and not by the selection of a
significantly different drilling system. Because few rigs
operate at their absolute mechanical limit, the opportunity to
enhance ROP by extending limiters is significant across
worldwide operations. Even when a system is at a mechanical
limit, such as available top drive torque, the process should be
thought of as being limited by a factor that might be extended
rather than being at peak performance. This view of ROP
management leads to the conclusion that very large gains are
possible up to a point referred to as the "economic limit of
redesign." In this example, the cost of replacing the top drive
may not be justified by the potential gain in ROP. However,
in a period of high daily operating costs, the threshold for
breakeven investments has also risen. Logistics, contract
stability, and other factors may also need to be considered.
The technical model used to communicate the science-
based view of bit performance and the ROP management
process is referred to as the "linear response model." This is
an adaptation of the traditional drill off curve. Fig. 1 shows a
notional drill off curve and the typical relationship between
weight on bit (WOB) and ROP. As low weight is initially
applied to a bit, it is inefficient due to inadequate depth of cut
(Region I). At some threshold in depth of cut, the efficiency
stabilizes and bits exhibit a linear ROP response to increasing
WOB (Region II). Eventually, ROP is constrained by the
onset of some form of bit dysfunction, also referred to as the
founder or flounder point (Region III). While operating in
Regions I or III, the bit is regarded as being dysfunctional,
which is to say it is not achieving the depth of cut that should
occur for the given WOB. The bit is not 100% efficient in
Region II either, but it is operating at its peak efficiency.
Efficiency is defined as the ratio between the energy that
should be required to destroy the given volume of rock to that
which is actually being used. Throughout Region II, the drill
rate increases as WOB is increased, but the ratio of energy
input to volume of rock destroyed does not change. This is
apparent from the constant slope of the line, or linear
relationship between WOB and ROP. Non-linear behavior is
then taken to indicate a change in the efficiency with which
energy is being used to destroy rock, or the onset of
dysfunction in the rock cutting process.
The extended dashed line in Fig. 1 shows the performance
that should be achieved with the given bit and in situ
conditions if there were no change in efficiency. The linear
response should continue because ROP is the product of the
indention depth of the cutting structure and the number of
rotations per minute. As increased weight is applied, the
indention depth of the cutting structure should continue to
increase. In Region III, weight is being applied but the
average indention exposure of the cutters is not increasing
linearly. The expectation of continued linear increase in
indention exposure with WOB is an underlying principle in
the ROP management process. This view leads to the
conclusion stated earlier that ROP management should focus
on the extension of limiters, rather than the identification of
superior bits or systems. If weight is applied and the indention
depth does not increase, there must be a cause. If the cause is
addressed, the indention depth should continue to increase as
well as ROP.
It is also possible to increase the ROP by changing the
slope of the line, which is to say by using a more aggressive
bit that generates more torque for a given WOB. However, a
bit that generates 20% more torque will only generate 20%
more ROP. By comparison, extension of the founder point has
routinely achieved gains in excess of 100%. Founder is the
primary constraint to ROP, and consequently extension of the
founder point has been made the focus of the operator's
workflow.

SPE 102210 3
Prioritization of Limiters
The operator has identified over 40 ROP limiters. Many are
complex and difficult to address. Consequently, a process is
needed to prioritize the redesign effort so resources are not
committed to solving a higher level limiter when other factors
actually constrain the drill rate to lower levels. Fig. 2 shows
examples of a variety of these limiters superimposed on the
linear response model. Limiters have been divided into two
categories, bit limiters relating to bit dysfunction or founder,
and non-bit limiters.
Founder is characterized as being due to one of three
factors; bit balling, bottomhole balling, or vibrations. Though
the industry refers to these conditions as bit dysfunctions, it is
more useful to think of these events generally as any failure to
achieve expected depth of cut (DOC) for the given WOB. In
some cases, the dysfunction is strongly related to in situ
conditions and has little to do with the bit. Fig. 3 shows a
more detailed, yet still notional, view of the effect of various
forms of bit dysfunctions on drill rate. The traditional drill off
curve developed in the 1950's was created from lab work in
which the dysfunction was bit balling in water base mud.
Consequently, the founder point tends to be associated with
higher WOB. Today, in the operator's well mix, the use of
non-aqueous fluid (NAF) is widespread. As expected, bit
balling has not been observed in NAF. The most common
form of dysfunction is now vibrational in nature and may be
associated with either higher (stick slip) or lower (whirl)
WOB. However, the ranges in which severe whirl and stick
slip occur commonly overlap. The aspect that all forms of
dysfunction have in common is they cause the ROP to be less
than expected for the given WOB, which is to say they reduce
the average depth of cut below that which should occur with
the given bit and in situ drilling conditions.
The second category of ROP limiters are those that occur
in Region II of Fig. 1. When operating in Region II, the bit is
at peak efficiency and ROP response to increased WOB will
be approximately linear. Consequently, ROP gains are certain
and predictable as WOB is increased. Operations in this
region are referred to as "non-bit limited" and the result is
commonly called control drilling. Example reasons for
control drilling might include directional target control, hole
cleaning, logging while drilling (LWD) data acquisition rates,
or solids handling equipment limitations. While a few of these
items are shown in Fig, 2, the operator has identified over 40
categories of non-bit limiters to date.
Because the number of bit and non-bit ROP limiters is
large, they may consume a great deal of engineering resources.
To effectively manage resource allocation, an ROP
management process must include a method for prioritizing all
forms of limiters in field operations. The linear response
model is also used conceptually for this purpose and the
operational practice is simple.
1. Raise the WOB. If the ROP response is linear (as
determined through MSE surveillance), the bit is efficient.
2. Continue raising WOB until non-linear response is
observed, or the ROP becomes non-bit limited
3. In the first case, make operational adjustments to the extent
possible to minimize MSE then operate at just below
founder. For both bit and non-bit limiters, identify and
document the nature of the founder and communicate it to
engineering.
4. Redesign the system appropriately to extend the identified
limiter and repeat steps 1-4.
At any point in time, there will be only one ROP limiter
identified for redesign in a given interval. Bit and non-bit
limiters are treated as equally important and deserving of
redesign. The drilling process will, and should be, limited at
all times by some factor. If not, the WOB should be raised
until it is. There can be only one limiter to deal with at a time
because the various limiters will lie at different positions on
the linear response line. In this manner, the limiters become
prioritized.
A discussion of limiters in this manner may appear to
complicate observations that should be obvious. The non-bit
limiters identified by the operator are not unique or unfamiliar
to the industry. At any moment, most drill teams are aware of
the reason why they are control drilling and believe they are
acting appropriately. However, visualization of the linear
response model is useful. First, it causes all limiters to be
viewed as a target for redesign and challenges the teams
historical paradigms. Awareness that a linear increase in ROP
is certain if the non-bit limiter can be extended causes control
drilling to be less acceptable and leads to greater
organizational focus on the issue. In addition, restricting the
redesign effort to a single issue at a time allows teams with
limited resources to make greater progress than if they are
uncertain as to which of the 30 to 40 limiters might need to be
redesigned.
The need to focus on a defined number of limiters is also
driven by the fact that non-bit limiters may be very complex.
For example, the ROP in one offshore operation is limited by
the rate at which cuttings can be ground and re-injected. The
limiter is not the equipment but the need to constrain fracture
growth height to the designated injection interval. This
example is typical because most control drilling operations
contain a margin of uncertainty and any increase in ROP
requires the team to effectively manage or mitigate some
increase in risk. The ROP management process must ensure
increased risks are mitigated, and this tends to be particularly
true in the redesign of non-bit limiters.

Relentless Redesign and the Plan-Do-Analyze Cycle
Confidence that linear response will occur if ROP limiters are
extended has lead to the conceptualization of "relentless
redesign." Early gains from the ROP management process
have often been modest and high levels of performance are
achieved over repeated cycles of limiter identification and
redesign. Quality drilling personnel will seek to do this, but in
order for a global organization to do so uniformly requires the
relentless aspect to be institutionalized. The first team to
implement the ROP management process has set 27 interval
records and 22 daily footage records since the rollout. All
nine rigs working for the operating company have held field
records. As limiters are extended, the subsequent problem
tends to be more difficult. This type of progression over a
long period of time with multiple wells, rigs, and changing
personnel is challenging to maintain. The redesign process
lends itself well to the traditional plan-do-analyze cycle shown
in Fig 4. While the cycle concept is not unique, the actions
4 SPE 102210
taken within it represent a significant break from traditional
approaches to ROP management.
The most significant new element is the introduction of
Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) surveillance into the
workflow. The manner in which the operator uses MSE in
field operations has been described in previous
publications
(1)(2)
. MSE is used as an indicator of bit
efficiency. It has significant impact on all five phases of the
workflow cycle.
During the planning phase, historical MSE plots are
developed from offset digital data and analyzed to identify the
intervals where the drilling process is dysfunctional. An
example well plot is shown in Fig. 5, which has been highly
compressed to show broad trends. Each operations engineer is
responsible for analysis of this and other data, such as
downhole vibrations plots, to determine the most likely nature
of the dysfunction and potential mitigations. The non-bit
limiters must also be identified in intervals where the MSE
shows the bit to be efficient and control drilling is occurring.
The workflow requires each procedure to contain a plan to
address each limiter identified. This requirement helps to
institutionalize the practice of relentless redesign. Clear
identification of the current limiter ensures it becomes the
focus of redesign, that management is aware of the limiter and
the entire team is engaged, including appropriate contractor
and vendor personnel. Procedures are also required to address
any increased risk associated with the plan to drill faster.
As the well is drilled, the MSE and other digital data are
plotted and observed continuously on displays at various
locations on the rig. The rig supervisor coordinates the efforts
of the driller, directional driller, logging while drilling (LWD)
engineer, mud logger, mud engineer and other key personnel
to maximize the ROP. All key personnel are trained to
identify the onset of bit dysfunction and its cause from the
MSE curve and to react appropriately to mitigate the specific
dysfunction. An example in which a correction was made is
provided in Fig. 6. ROP limiters are documented and
discussed within the drill team throughout the day and in
morning conference calls. The team also ensures drilling
parameters are maintained within agreed upon limits.
After rig site personnel have made all operational
adjustments possible to extend ROP limiters, the nature of the
remaining problem is communicated to engineering for
redesign. To the extent possible, this occurs in real-time and
design changes are made on bit trips or whenever appropriate.
To facilitate this, the operator provides real-time digital data to
the desk top of each engineer. The data feed is collected and
passed to a global information management center, from
where it is distributed to the engineering staff and
management.
Both operations and engineering are responsible for
capturing learnings. This has been an expanded role for
operations and it has become necessary due to the complex
nature of many ROP limiters. Experience has shown the
ability of offsite engineering personnel to effectively analyze
MSE curves, vibrations, or other digital data is limited. For
example, if digital data shows a WOB decline and
simultaneous MSE increase, the offsite engineer cannot know
if the MSE increased because the WOB was reduced
(indicating whirl had been induced), or the WOB was reduced
because the MSE increased (indicating the crew was
attempting to mitigate stick slip). Consequently, rig site
personnel have become responsible for continuously
documenting the observed ROP limiters. Engineering ensures
the documentation is captured in an organized fashion to aid in
the redesign of subsequent operations.
The workflow cycle differs significantly from historical
practice in many aspects. Bit records have been replaced to a
large degree by historical MSE analysis. Performance is
assessed continuously over every foot of hole drilled, rather
than from the average 24-hour ROP or total run shown on bit
records. The reasons for poor or good performance are
understood and action is taken in real-time. ROP is advanced
by identifying specific limiters and re-engineering, rather than
seeking a better performing system from offset empirical
experience. The historical MSE curve allows the learnings to
be captured in a way that is accurate and convincing to ensure
appropriate redesign occurs. Finally, the requirement that
each procedure identify both the limiter and a proposed
solution helps to institutionalize and sustain redesign over
multiple wells and long periods of time.

Rig-Based Process
The ROP management process was first pilot tested in an
operating company the operator supports in Qatar. The most
significant learning during the pilot was the need for the
process to be rig-based. There were several reasons why this
was not the original concept. The workflow evolved from
earlier work in MSE surveillance, which was a new industry
concept few rig site personnel would be familiar with.
Vibrations were also known from MSE surveillance to be a
major ROP limiter and they are complex to interpret and
mitigate. Consequently, it was assumed MSE and vibrations
analysis would be conducted by designated experts or highly
trained engineers. This is one reason the decision was made to
provide digital data to all engineers. It was believed the real-
time interface would allow the organization to bring more
engineering to the brake handle.
The effect in high performing teams has been quite the
opposite. First, as stated above, offsite personnel cannot
effectively interpret the data without detailed knowledge of
ongoing operations. When interpretation and real-time
decision making occur offsite, their effectiveness and accuracy
are greatly reduced. The second unexpected development was
the degree to which the process empowered rig site personnel
to direct the focus of engineering design. Though engineering
has become more involved in real-time issues at the rig, this
has not occurred to the degree operations has become more
directly involved in the engineering functions and the
"relentless redesign" process. When rig based personnel
identify the current limiter, they are essentially defining and
prioritizing the required engineering redesign effort. They
then have the role of evaluating the new solution and may
require further redesign. Where personnel may have been
aware of an ROP limiter in the past but assumed it was
intractable, the ROP management process now empowers
them to ensure the problem is addressed.

Enabling the Cycle: Five Strategic Elements
During the implementation of the operator's workflow, each
SPE 102210 5
operating team is aligned around five strategic elements.
These are intended to ensure the potential impact of the new
work process on drilling performance is maximized. While
the ROP management process is uniform across the global
organization, each team is required to ensure the local
implementation plan places specific emphasis on these items.
The five elements are training, MSE surveillance practices,
relentless redesign, management of high-ROP risk, and
stewardship of results. With the exception of MSE
surveillance, the elements are similar to those that already
existed in the operator's integrity management system. The
ROP management process was structured to take advantage of
the existing culture of process control and measurement,.
The five elements are largely intended to be enabling,
which is to say that if managed well they provide an
organizational environment that reduces barriers that could
prevent the workflow from being effective. An example is the
management of risk while control drilling. Control drilling
practices are normally developed from prior experience and
ensure high risk operations are avoided. As the team tests
these limits, significant increase in ROP must be engineered.
This involves identifying any associated risks and redesigning
to mitigate them prior to increasing the ROP. For example,
the fluid properties required to establish a high quality filter
cake at 600 ft/hr are quite different than at 150 ft/hr. The
teams have existing processes for managing operations
integrity and each must ensure the ROP management process
is implemented in a consistent manner.

Training
Of the five enabling strategic elements, training has proven to
be both the most necessary and challenging. This is
particularly true if the desire is to support a rig-based process.
The operator has trained over 1,000 personnel since the global
implementation was begun. Over 800 of these have been
contractor or vendor employees. An additional 500 to 700 are
likely to be trained by year end when the initial rollout is
expected to be completed. These include all management and
engineering staff in each team, and all rig supervisors and key
contractor personnel. Contractor personnel at the rig site
receive the same level of training as the operator's rig
supervisors. This includes around 70% of the personnel on
location. The training is designed to ensure each person
understands the workflow and his/her role, and is capable of
identifying and mitigating the major ROP limiters in real-time.
Office based vendors who provide engineering design support
receive the level of training provided to the operator's
engineering personnel. The engineering training differs in that
it includes additional material on redesign of the drilling
system, while the field training focuses on operational
responses that may be made in real-time by the crew.
Formalized training has impacted the operation in a
variety of ways. The major effect appears to arise from
enhancing the crew's understanding of how bits and other
downhole equipment work. Over the last 50 years, the
industry has made fairly steady progress in its understanding
of the rock cutting process and the level of knowledge among
researchers and designers is high. However, many rig
supervisors or contractor personnel have decades of
experience but no formal bit mechanics training. Operations
personnel are also exposed to a great deal of misinformation.
A consistent observation from the drill teams with experience
in the operator's ROP management process is that greater
gains occur from the manner in which a bit is run than from
redesign of the bit. This would likely not occur without a high
level of rig site training.
Training also ensures individuals understand their role
and are confident in executing it. Establishing common
understanding of the science related to the various forms of bit
dysfunction enables more effective discussion and
consideration of solutions. Education also creates ownership
in the process, and the ability of each individual to contribute.
Rig crews have responded favorably to the workflow,
particularly when they come to see it as empowering them to
create change.
The cost, logistics, and effort associated with the training
program are significant. The program was designed to take
advantage of the operator's size and access to global resources.
While most features of the ROP management process appear
transportable, some operators may require alternative
approaches to training.

Technical Learnings and Global Workflow
At the time the ROP management process was developed, the
operator had significant experience with MSE surveillance.
The learnings from this experience helped to shape the process
and emphasis placed on the manner in which technology and
practices are shared.
One of the insights derived from MSE surveillance is
illustrated in Fig. 7. The figure shows a comparison of MSE
curves from wells in various global locations. It can be seen
there is great similarity in the broad patterns, regardless of
location. Though the Gulf of Mexico is considered soft
drilling and Sakhalin is considered firm to hard, the MSE
curves show similar patterns of dysfunction with increasing
depth. Detailed analysis has shown the actual cause of the
dysfunctions is similar throughout much of the footage. The
plots have been divided into regions of efficient drilling, mild
vibrations, and severe vibrations. Regardless of location,
wells tend to contain the first two regions, and may contain the
third.
The plots suggest many wells are constrained by similar
issues. The workflow implication is that if an advance is made
in extending a limiter in one application, the workflow should
place a high priority on moving the practice to other
applications. For example, the dysfunction shown in the
second region of "mild vibrations" is largely due to the onset
of whirl as the formations become harder with depth. This
occurs worldwide and with all bit types. Field experience
during the rollout of the ROP management process has shown
the mitigations developed for whirl in one location are likely
to work globally.
The need to effectively share learnings is particularly true
of non-bit limiters. Because they are numerous and complex,
few drill teams contain the expertise or engineering resources
required to deal with all of them. In many cases this lies with
a contractor or vendor and may exist only in one geographic
region. When a team does develop a new practice, the
operator's workflow ensures the practice is captured by
directing it to a central technical team that resides in the
6 SPE 102210
functionally aligned global drilling organization. In some
cases, the team itself will not have access to the required
expertise to solve a problem and the Technical organization
will serve as the interface with contractors or technical experts
to develop the solution. Regardless, the objective of the
information sharing process is to ensure a solution only needs
to be developed once in order to be used effectively across the
global organization.
The industry places a high priority on learnings capture
and sharing. However, this has not necessarily been reflected
in ROP design because many operations personnel believe
their local conditions are unique. Consequently, they tend to
make progress through an empirical process of trial and error.
The nature of the dominant bit dysfunction or non-bit limiter
will vary from location to location, but the solution may not.
The belief that local problems are unique arises primarily
because dysfunction has not historically been understood at
the rig site.
Once a practice is shared, training again becomes the key
enabler to change.

Results
The ROP management process has been implemented in two-
thirds of the operator's teams, with the remainder to be
completed by year end 2006. Following the initial pilot in the
Qatar operating company, the rollout to the remaining teams
will have taken a little over one year, largely due to the
significant training effort required. Fig. 8 shows the results of
six teams, five of which now have mature processes. Two
additional teams that have not drilled a statistical number of
similar wells are not shown. Performance increases are
calculated relative to the most recent performance. The
footage per day includes all non-productive time, trip time,
circulating time and connection time. Plateau times at casing
points are excluded from the ROP metric. Because most of
the fields include high-angle wells with large displacements,
the circulating and tripping time is significant and the data
does not reflect instantaneous ROP increases, which are
generally in excess of 100 to 200%.
The data dispels several common industry beliefs. One is
that drill rate on high-angle and extended reach wells should
not be emphasized due to the potential for stuck pipe
associated with hole cleaning. On the surface, this would
appear to be reasonable because the high cost of a single stuck
pipe event is likely to offset the savings over many wells.
However, the Sakhalin program includes some of the
industry's longest throws, with displacements in excess of
30,000 ft and trouble time since the implementation of the
ROP management process has declined despite increases in
instantaneous ROP of 200 to 300% in some intervals. Similar
reduction in trouble time has been observed uniformly across
all teams. The implication is that the risk management and
design process built into the workflow are proving effective in
mitigating many of the increased risks. High ROP only
increases trouble if hole cleaning, fluid management, and other
high-angle practices are not modified appropriately to
accommodate the increased ROP. Training is again a central
requirement. Another factor contributing to the reduced
trouble time is that many ROP gains have occurred through
improved management of whirl and stick slip. Tool life, bit
life, and borehole quality have also benefited from reduced
vibrations, though they were not the original objective of the
work process. This has been a major factor in the improved
performance in areas with firm to hard laminated formations.
The ROP management process focuses on workflow and
redesign, rather than ROP. While the business objective is to
increase the drill rate, this is not presented as the key
objective. Instead, the need to instill an effective workflow is
emphasized. If the workflow is effective in ensuring ROP
limiters are identified and addressed from well to well,
performance must increase. The linear response model
ensures this.
The focus on limiter identification and redesign also
changes the manner in which success is judged. The key
questions are:
Does the digital data show parameters were adjusted
effectively in real-time to address dysfunction to the extent
possible?
Did the rig site team correctly identify and document the
ROP limiters for engineering redesign?
Did effective redesign occur on the subsequent well?
If the answers to these questions are positive, the maximum
performance possible was achieved in real-time and
performance will continue to improve in the future. These are
the objectives of the ROP management process.
The Western Canada data is shown in Fig. 8 to illustrate
the point, though it includes only the team's first well and not
the mature processes reflected in the other plots. The 15%
increase was less than achieved in many initial rollouts.
However, the MSE curve shows the performance was near the
highest level possible with the current system. It is not useful
to compare the performance to other rigs with greater
capabilities directly related to the given ROP limiters. The
team identified a wide range of ROP-limiters that required
redesign and effectively documented and communicated them
to the engineer. Their one-well performance is judged to be as
much a success as that in the United Kingdom where the
cumulative gain is now at 105%. In Qatar operations, which
have now achieved a 64% gain across a nine-rig program,
there was no improvement in some intervals in the first two
wells. However, limiters were being identified and once
started, gains have been made steadily throughout the last
year.

Drill Fast, Not Work Fast
The ROP management process seeks to maximize the drill
rate, but does not address casing running, evaluation,
completions, or other plateau times. While different programs
are in place to optimize those operations, the teams are not
allowed to associate them with the ROP management process.
Critical well objectives such as the evaluation program,
completion quality, and targeting control are not
compromised. As configured, the process is attractive in that
it also clearly separates safety from ROP performance.
Processes that focus on total well or plateau time may be
useful, but it is difficult to manage them in a truly aggressive
manner without being concerned individuals will begin to
work faster or take personal risk. Clear separation of the ROP
management process from the continuing core value of safety
SPE 102210 7
creates confidence that high levels of ROP performance can be
achieved while maintaining an industry leading safety record.

Conclusion
An ROP management process has been developed to align
with a science-based view of the manner in which bits drill.
Non-linear behavior, as shown by the response of the MSE
curve to changes in drilling parameters, is used as an indicator
of dysfunction. Where MSE data shows linear response in
ROP to WOB, the process is still considered to be constrained,
but by non-bit limiters. The ROP management process is
designed to ensure both bit and non-bit limiters are identified
and corrective action is taken to the extent possible in real-
time. When rig site personnel have maximized the ROP with
the available system, the remaining limiters are communicated
to engineering for redesign. The operator's process ensures
limiters are prioritized so engineering resources are used
effectively. The workflow is a complete well planning,
surveillance, and learnings capture process that
institutionalizes identification and relentless redesign of
limiters.
By year end, the ROP management process will be used
uniformly on all wells drilled worldwide. While the process
is tailored to the strengths of the organization, the underlying
bit mechanics principles and workflow may be transportable to
other operations. The most significant enabler is training of
all drill team personnel. It is also the greatest challenge, given
a high level of industry activity, rig crew mobility, and the
numbers of personnel playing key roles in the process.
Results have been consistent and performance gains have
greatly exceeded expectations. Initial improvements may be
moderate during early periods of training and limiter
identification, but continued gains have been achieved in
mature processes. The certainty of linear response ensures
progress will be made if personnel are trained to identify
dysfunction and redesign appropriately, and if workflow
supports these activities effectively.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Dave A. Anglin, Joel W. Kiker, Carl W.
Sandlin and Chuck M. Roberts (ExxonMobil Development
Company) for their contributions to the design of the drill rate
management process and active support for its
implementation. Shane A. Harris and J uan C. Alvarez
(ExxonMobil Development Company) receive special thanks
for their training, coordination and technical support of the
global drill teams. The highest level of appreciation is
reserved for the many drill team engineers, operations
personnel and contractor employees for outstanding field
performance and personal efforts to continue to relentlessly
redesign the drilling process.

Nomenclature
BHA Bottomhole Assembly
DOC Depth of cut
LWD Logging while drilling
NAF Non-aqueous fluid
ROP Rate of penetration, ft/hr
RPM Bit rotating speed, revolutions per minute
WOB Weight on bit, lbs force
MSE Mechanical specific energy, psi
MSE
adj
Adjusted mechanical specific energy (see SPE
92194 for definition), psi

References
1. Dupriest, F. and Keoderitz, W. " Maximizing Drill Rates
with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific
Energy," SPE paper No.92194 presented at annual
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 23-25
February, 2005
2. Dupriest F. "Maximizing ROP with Real-Time Analysis
of Digital Data and MSE," IPTC paper No.10706-PP
presented at International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November, 2005
3. Teale, R.: "The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock
Drilling," Intl. J . Rock Mech. Mining Sci. (1965) 2, 57-73
8 SPE 102210


Figure 1: ROP responds linearly to WOB, unless the process is dysfunctional
(founders). Additional improvement is achieved by adjusting parameters in
real-time or redesigning the system. SPE 92194.



Figure 2: ROP limiters can be grouped into 1) bit limiters associated with
dysfunction and founder, and 2) non-bit limiters that prevent additional WOB
frombeing applied to an efficient bit.


Figure 3: Notional depiction of the manner in which various forms of
dysfunction may cause the ROP to fall below the expected linear response for
the given bit and in situ conditions. Objective of redesign is to achieve
expected linear response.


Figure 4: ROP management workflow. The use of MSE and other digital
data is a central element in all phases of the ROP management process.




Figure 5: Compressed log showing MSEadj and ROP limiters requiring
redesign. Identification of limiters may require detailed analysis of MSE data,
vibrations logs, and various other well information.



Figure 6: Rig teamrecognized balling pattern with high MSE in shales and
efficient drilling in sands. Trip was made to reduce nozzle size and increase
hydraulics. ROP increased to over 350 ft/hr. The new limiter was related to
the design of the drilling fluid. SPE 92194

SPE 102210 9


Figure 7: Similar forms of dysfunction occur in many wells. The ROP
management process is designed to ensure proven mitigations move quickly
between teams.




Figure 8: Data fromfive teams with mature processes, and one first-cycle
well in Western Canada. Footage per day includes connection and trip time.
Data shows average values since implementation, including early lower
performing wells. Most recent performance is generally higher than the
averages shown.






Figure 9: Gains in Qatar are being achieved in all hole sizes and formation
types.




Figure 10: Sakhalin displacements range up to 33,000 ft. Best performance
to date is 33,000 ft of directional hole in 36 days, frompreset conductor to
total depth, including plateaus.