OTC 18375
A Process Used in Evaluation of Managed-Pressure Drilling Candidates and
Probabilistic Cost-Benefit Analysis
R.R. Brainard, RRB Energy Inc.
Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 14 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference 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, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The paper will discuss the processes, methods, factors and
parameters utilized to evaluate potential candidates using a
defined process and simulation methods for the application of
Managed-Pressure Drilling (MPD) technology in well
construction operations. The use of MPD technologies can
influence many wellbore pressure-related drilling challenges,
including lost circulation, kicks, wellbore ballooning, tight
pore pressure (PP)/fracture pressure (FP) margins, close
tolerance casing programs, wellbore stability problems,
shallow water/gas flows, slow ROP, etc. These techniques
may also enable future well programs that are currently
thought to be conventionally undesignable with single
gradient mud systems.
Potential drilling efficiency benefits may include improved
HSE, drilling with less Non-Productive Time (NPT) or trouble
time, improved wellbore stability, reduced mud losses,
improved ROP performance and extension of casing
seats/fewer casing strings
A process has been applied to evaluate the economics of
candidate wells for the use of MPD. This evaluation has
included the use of a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation of
the potential results of the use of MPD and takes into account
time dependent, cost dependent and performance related
factors. The use of other technologies such as wellbore
strengthening or wellbore stability technologies in conjunction
with MPD can also be modeled to look at the overall benefit
of use of all applied technologies within the well construction
process.
The significance of MPD, in the face of increasing well
construction costs around the world, is that these techniques
may allow step-change reductions in drilling duration and
associated costs. More importantly, MPD may allow the
drilling of wells that cannot be drilled with conventional
drilling processes. MPD technologies may also allow
improved well performance through a more efficient
completion size and an increase in recoverable reserves.
Managed-Pressure Drilling (MPD)
Managed-Pressure Drilling (MPD) is an advanced form of
primary well control that many times employs a closed and
pressurizable drilling fluid system that allows potentially
greater and more precise control of the annular wellbore
pressure profiles than mud weight and pump rate adjustments
alone. The primary objective of MPD is to optimize drilling
processes by decreasing non-productive time (NPT) and
mitigating drilling hazards in the well construction process. 1
The IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced
Operations Committee defines Managed-Pressure Drilling as:
MPD is an adaptive drilling process used to more precisely
control the annular pressure profile throughout the wellbore.
The objectives are to ascertain the downhole pressure
environment limits and to manage the annular hydraulic
pressure profile accordingly. 2
MPD processes employ a collection of tools and techniques
which may mitigate the risks and costs associated with drilling
wells that have narrow downhole environmental limits by
proactively managing the annular hydraulic pressure profile.
The techniques used in MPD may include control of
backpressure, fluid density, fluid rheology, annular fluid level,
circulating friction, and hole geometry, or any combinations
thereof. MPD may allow faster corrective action to deal with
observed pressure variations. The ability to dynamically
control annular pressures facilitates drilling of what might
otherwise be economically unattainable prospects under the
conventional drilling process. MPD techniques may be used to
avoid formation influx and typically flow incidental to the
operation will be safely contained using an appropriate
process. 2
Wellbore pressure-related drilling challenges result in
significant NPT within the well construction process. The
wellbore related part of these problems may include loss of
circulation, kicks, ballooning of the wellbore, drilling in a
tight PP/FP margins, use of close tolerance casing programs,
wellbore stability problems due to fluctuation and/or cycling
2 OTC 18375
of imposed pressure on the wellbore, water/gas flows in the
shallower formations below the mudline, slow ROP due to
high imposed hydrostatic along with ECD overburden and
other related problems. Many statistical studies have been
completed on Operator supplied drilling databases and they
typically demonstrate consistent correlation with respect to
these type of wellbore related problems as compared to the
total NPT areas for concern. Typically wellbore related
problems account for between 30% and possibly up to 50% of
the overall NPT in a typical industry well. With the costs of
well construction today, industry spends billions of dollars on
these types of wellbore related problems in which MPD may
provide significant advantages.
Discussion of MPD Portfolio Techniques
Techniques for the provision of MPD to our well construction
operations are varied throughout the industry and generally
can be categorized into either single gradient or dual/variable
gradient technologies (Figure 1). Many of these techniques
have been practiced for many years in industry, although they
may have never been identified as belonging to the collection
of MPD technologies.
Single Gradient Technologies
Single gradient MPD technologies are those wellbore pressure
management technologies that utilize a single gradient fluid in
conjunction with either surface or downhole pressure
management technologies to achieve the desired annular
pressure profile.
Surface Pressure Control Technologies may include:
External Riser Rotating Control Diverter (RCD) w/
Subsea BOPs
Surface RCD w/ Surface BOPs
Continuous Circulation System
Circulation Friction Control Annular Geometry
Underbalanced drilling w/ RCD
In the case of many Operators, underbalanced drilling may not
be considered a technique within the MPD umbrella of
technologies, but rather considered outside the bounds of
MPD, distinguished by planned influxes into the wellbore.
Surface/Subsurface Pressure Control Technologies may
include:
Subsea RCD w/ Subsea BOPs
Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) Reduction
Tool
Dual/Variable Gradient Technologies
Dual or variable gradient MPD technologies are those
wellbore pressure management technologies that utilize two
fluids of different densities or a fluid of varying density to
provide the desired annular pressure profile. Again, this is
used in conjunction with either surface or downhole pressure
management technologies to achieve the desired annular
pressure profile.
Surface Pressure Control Technologies may include:
Dual Gradient Drilling (DGD) - Annular Nitrogen
Injection
DGD - Nitrogen Injection
DGD - Surface Controlled Diluent Injection and
Surface Separation
DGD - Surface Controlled Hollow Sphere Injection
Riserless Pump & Dump
Subsea RCD Riserless Pump & Dump
Subsea or Downhole Control based technologies may include:
Dual Gradient Drilling - Mudline/Riser based Subsea
Pumping Systems
Top Hole Riserless Mud Recovery (RMR) system
Additional detail on some of the currently utilized or higher
valued technologies identified above is discussed below.
Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling (PMCD) and/or
Constant Bottom Hole Pressure (CBHP) mode of
MPD
The use of Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling (PMCD) (Figure 2)
and or Constant Bottom Hole Pressure (CBHP) (Figure 3)
mode of MPD with use of a Rotary Control device (RCD) and
associated choke manifold, Annular Pressure While Drilling
(AWPD) tool and possible surface mud/gas separation
equipment provides annular pressure control of the well using
a combination of surface backpressure and a typically lighter
hydrostatic column provided by the drilling fluid for a
combined bottom hole pressure in excess of pore pressure.
In PMCD, the use of these tools, in conjunction with dual
annular fluid gradients, is intended to the enhance HSE
aspects of well control through the elimination of flow to
surface. PMCD is also used to minimize costs due to extreme
mud losses to formations where there is no capability to re-
establish returns (such as in vugular or highly fractured
limestone formations or in pressure depleted zones). With the
CBHP mode, the use of surface pressure allows a lighter mud
weight than that used in conventional drilling. This technique
uses fluid density, frictional pressure losses along with surface
back pressure to maintain the imposed wellbore pressure
between the pore and formation fracture pressures.
The technology is intended to bring value to both onshore and
offshore applications. Potential drilling efficiency benefits
include:
Improve HSE through safely managed annular
pressures and reduction of any occurrence of possible
annular gas migration
Drilling with less wellbore related NPT
Improved wellbore stability through less cycling of
annular pressure
Reduced mud costs through reduced losses
Enabling of well program unachievable by
conventional drilling processes
Improved ROP performance
Improved well performance capability
OTC 18375
MPD projects of these types have been successfully
accomplished in industry offshore SE Asia 3,4 utilizing floating
rigs and in deepwater GOM and offshore Angola from surface
facility installations.
Equivalent Circulating Density Reduction Tool
Many of the problems associated with drilling in deepwater
can be related back to the inherent uncertainty in predicting
pore pressures and fracture gradients. Maintaining sufficient
hydrostatic pressure for controlling the pore pressure while not
exceeding the fracture pressure on the previous casing shoe is
typically present from the initial stages of the well until the
well is completely cased and cemented. In ultra-deepwater, the
severity of the problem is exacerbated because shallow
formations have less strength and cannot support the weight of
a mud column.
Extensive pre-drill engineering and geological work is
performed to provide the best understanding about the narrow
pressure window. Multi-disciplinary teams are essential in
planning deepwater wells. However, the accuracy of their pore
pressure predictions is based on the reliability of the available
offset data and at times this data is minimal. Predictions are
based on empirical calculations and any enhancements to
pressure control with the application of mechanical technology
such as a DGD system or ECD Reduction tool would increase
the drillability of the prospect.
The use of any type of ECD Reduction tool could provide a
multitude of benefits to deepwater and ultra-deepwater
operations. The use of an ECD Reduction Tool in MPD
provides for a reduction in the wellbore pressure sensed by the
annulus. This technology provides for the introduction of
mechanical energy (Figure 4) at a single point within the
upper portion of downhole string in hole at the discharge of
the tool and translates this energy into a pressure reduction at
the point of introduction of the pump discharge. Accordingly,
a shift in the pressure gradient through a reduction of the
pressure of a fixed amount, typically 200 - 300 psi, is noted.
This reduction in pressure translates into a reduction in
annular wellbore pressure at all points below the depth of tool
installation. Accordingly, as the name implies, the ECD on the
formation is thereby reduced.
This cost effective technology is needed to reduce well
construction cost and enhance safety, particularly in the lower
portion of the hole interval(s). Use of an ECD Reduction Tool
in MPD would improve the ability to drill close pore pressure
(PP) / fracture pressure (FP) window regimes more
economically, reduce associated NPT, significant mud losses,
reduced mud weighting requirements, reduced associated
logistical support and improve access to lower cost reserves.
ECD Reduction Tool technology is currently being field tested
by two different industry service providers. It is felt that a
commercialized tool will be available within 6 to 12 months
after the completion of the ongoing field trials of these tools.
3
Riserless Mud Recovery (RMR)
Top-hole sections in deepwater and ultra-deepwater wells are
currently being drilled using riserless Pump and Dump
technology, where mud and cuttings returns are taken to the
seafloor. RMR technology is needed to reduce well
construction cost and enhance safety. Deepwater RMR will
reduce mud volume requirements, reduce logistical support,
lessen operational dependence on weather, and minimize
discharge to the environment. It will eliminate the large
volumes of top-hole mud, often in excess of 40,000 bbls, that
are currently required to execute the Pump and Dump
approach on some wells.
BP has successfully contributed to the development of
riserless mud recovery (RMR) technology (Figures 5 & 6)
through its use in over 20 wells in shallow waters of the
Caspian Sea. Historically, the surface holes of the wells in the
West Azeri field of the Caspian Sea were drilled
conventionally with seawater and gel sweeps with destabilized
highly reactive soil formations. Resulting unacceptable
movement of the 20-in. casing has required the use of a RMR
system to allow formation inhibition with a silicate mud
system. 5,6
Additional RMR work is being considered in shallow water
applications offshore Russia, Australia and Malaysia.
Additionally, Statoil and Norsk Hydro have participated in the
North Sea field trial of the Demo 2000 Joint Industry Project
(JIP) to develop and qualify an RMR system for water depths
of up to 1,500 ft (450 m). An additional RMR JIP has been
recently proposed in 2005 by AGR, Intellectual Property (IP)
holder, to further the commercialization of this technology in
deepwater depths. This R&D project will take the technology
beyond its current 1,500 ft (450 m) WD limitations, extending
its application to water depths of up to approximately 5,000 ft
(1,500 m). The objective of the proposed JIP will be to
deliver a low-to-medium capital cost system for use in
commercial riserless well construction in these deepwater
depths. However, the current pump type used in this
technology is unable to achieve capability on the ultra-
deepwater water depths due to the mechanical efficiency of its
design.
Dual Gradient Drilling (DGD)
In deepwater, the seawater column, and the unconsolidated
nature of the sediments near the seafloor make for a
challenging drilling environment. The pore pressure and
fracture pressure are often close together, making it difficult to
maintain wellbore annulus pressure safely between these
values. If the annular pressure at the seafloor is reduced to
that of seawater by a dual gradient (riserless) system, the
hydrostatic progression with depth becomes a straight line that
extends from the surface to the seafloor. Using this method,
the pressure control point at the mudline is significantly
reduced, when compared to a hydrostatic column of mud,
allowing a much greater vertical distance to be drilled while
maintaining pressures safely between the pore and fracture
pressures.
4 OTC 18375
Several major operators and others have contributed to the
development of DGD technology over the last 10 years
through their participation in both the SubSea MudLift
Drilling (SMD) JIP and the DeepVision JIP. This
participation enabled the development of dual gradient
technology through two distinctly different and competing
approaches. Additionally, both Shell and Maurer Engineering
have provided additional investments in similar DGD
technology.
SubSea MudLift Drilling (SMD) JIP
In response to some of the challenges of deepwater drilling,
five years ago, Conoco, BP, Amoco, Chevron and Texaco
along with Hydril supported by a consortium of drilling
contractors, and other service companies began participation
in the SubSea MudLift Drilling JIP (SMD JIP). The goal
was to find a method of overcoming the challenges of
deepwater drilling, and it was quickly determined that dual
gradient drilling was potentially one of the optimal solutions.
The JIP was then charged with delivering a dual gradient
drilling system, along with all the attendant drilling and well
control procedures necessary to support this technology. The
field test of the SubSea MudLift Drilling system and its
MudLift Pump (MLP) provided the first successful
demonstration of the drilling of an offshore well under a dual
gradient system. 7,8,9,10
The SMD JIP developed and delivered a pre-commercial
version of DGD technology. However the next major hurdle is
to take the technology from the development stage to full-
scale field implementation. The right to commercialize the
equipment developed within the SMD JIP was assigned to
Hydril. In late 2000, Hydril formed SMDC, LLC, and began
to actively market the technology within the industry. SMDC
initially shifted their major focus for securing industry support
for a commercial system from a single operator to a
consortium of interested operators. However, insufficient
demand for this relatively high Capex technology (over $ 50
MM to integrate into a rig) has shelved it over the last four
years due to insufficient demand by the deepwater operator
industry segment. 11
The DeepVision JIP
Industry participated in another JIP project, DeepVision and
BP (Amoco) and Chevron in conjunction with other industry
companies, Transocean Sedco Forex (TSF) and Baker Hughes
Inteq (BHI). The DeepVision Project was initially
envisioned to focus on the feasibility of developing a
deepwater drilling and well intervention vessel using the
concept of riserless drilling with a reeled pipe system. The
advancement of this concept was completed in late 1998 and
attention shifted to the development of a DGD system that
would utilize conventional drillpipe deployed from a
conventional drilling rig. After focused work on this proposed
DGD system, the third phase of the project was initiated. The
participants in the third and final phase were BP (Amoco),
Chevron, BHI, and TSF.
This phase consisted of the design, manufacture, and testing of
key components, including a pump and its control system,
updating and refinement of operating procedures, and
development of a training plan. The pump design utilized in
this project is in contrast to the SMD JIPs hydraulically
powered positive displacement MudLift Pump. The
DeepVision project developed a multi-stage centrifugal
pump configuration utilizing an electric powered variable
speed drive. The testing in the third phase of the
DeepVision project was completed in early 2002 with the
successful shop testing of the major components, including the
pump and its control system, in a flow loop. 11
Through the third phase of the DeepVision project, a
variation of the DeepVision pump system was discussed, to
provide significant benefits to the end user through a less
capital-intensive system, allowing a more phased development
of the technology. The DeltaVision concept utilized the
motor and centrifugal pump developed in the DeepVision
Project to boost return mud flow to offset ECD rather than
deliver a full dual gradient column at the mudline. An
enhanced version of DeltaVision, DeltaVision Plus, used
the motor and centrifugal pump modules at 3,000 ft. to 5,000
ft. setting depths to obtain the majority of DGD benefits with
much less complexity. 11
Surface Controlled DGD Technology
The use of DGD techniques with surface controlled fluid
density is potentially less complex than conventional mudline
or riser based pumping solutions. Considerable work has been
done by Luc de Boer to develop and test a Fluid Dilution
DGD concept. He has been able to demonstrate, in a full-scale
pilot technology trial, the ability to separate an intermediate
density 80/20 fluid into heavy and light discharge streams
using a centrifuge. Importantly, the heavy fluid stream retains
the properties required of a drilling fluid. 12,13
A fluid dilution DGD system does not require complex subsea
pumping systems or major modifications to drilling
procedures and rig systems.12,13 Light weight solids (e.g.
hollow-spheres) and/or fluid dilution systems in which a
lighter density component becomes mixed with annular mud
returns at or below the seafloor have potential advantages in
that they are simple lower cost alternatives to subsea based
mud pumps. Many deepwater rigs could use the system
without significant and costly rig modifications.
Fluid dilution alone can result in riser column fluid densities
of 9.0 to 9.5 ppg. The use of light weight solids, such as
hollow-spheres in conjunction with fluid dilution, may allow
the hydrostatic to be lowered to the equivalent seawater
gradient of 8.6 ppg. Fortunately, because of normal increases
in rock strength with increased well depth, a DGD system with
a seawater gradient to the mudline may not be required to
obtain the majority of the benefits of DGD. The primary
disadvantage of light weight solids is that they can effectively
reduce mud weight only about 3 ppg. However, when used in
conjunction with fluid diluent technologies, light weight solids
may be able to achieve much more significant reductions
approaching a seawater gradient at the sea floor. Additionally,
future offshore shelf and/or deep onshore wells may also be
OTC 18375
able to utilize this technology through the introduction of a
parasite string or other deep injection point within the well.
This technology also has the added benefit of replacing heavy
drilling mud in the riser with a lighter fluid. This reduces riser
tensile loads, thereby increasing the rigs water depth capacity
and may open up the use of smaller rigs to the well
construction process in deeper water applications. This
technology may also provide an opportunity to utilize slim
hole and smaller OD riser, reducing riser tension capacity
requirements and enabling smaller and older generation rigs
increased riser storage capacity for the deepwater depths. 12,13
The Future of DGD
Overall, the industry has spent significant research and
development funds for the initial determination of the
capability and development of DGD technology. It is
estimated that total research dollars in excess of $100 MM,
were spent on industrys DGD technology development
through 2002. This would include the work done in the late
1990s through 2002 by the SMD JIP, DeepVision JIP,
work on Shells DGD solution, as well as other industry
efforts such as Maurer Engineering to advance gas lift and
light weight solids approaches. 11
Much of the past DGD focus has been upon tricking the
wellbore hydraulics into thinking the rig is setting on the sea
floor of a deepwater well. However, possibly several years
may lapse before the necessity of a true seawater DGD
technology will be economically viable. The industry may find
in the nearer term that the 80/20 rule may be applicable in this
regard. At 20% of the cost, 80% of the benefit of DGD
technology can be obtained.
Many of these other DGD techniques will not remove all of
the mud and cuttings hydrostatic head within a marine riser
equivalent to a seawater gradient at the mudline. One may say
that these techniques will only trick the wellbore into thinking
the rig is closer to the seabed than it actually is while
allowing significant changes in Equivalent Mud Weight
(EMW) and the resulting slope of the imposed pressure
profile. Such DGD techniques may be applied to reap the
rewards of the lower hanging fruit within the next several
years.
Processes, Methods, Factors and Parameters
Utilized to Evaluate Potential MPD Well Candidates
A process will be presented that has been has been developed
and employed to evaluate candidate wells for the use of MPD
techniques. The technical and commercial benefits of MPD
can be evaluated using this process.
This process includes preparation of the following studies
which a stage gate management process (Figure 6):
Feasibility Study
Preliminary Engineering Study
Detailed Engineering and Implementation Planning
Study
5
Feasibility Study
A feasibility study is initially completed to provide a first look
basis of the technical and commercial benefits of potential
application of the MPD technologies to the well construction
process.
Objectives typically include:
1) Identify the MPD technical solution best suited for
the candidate well
2) Determine risk to personnel, environment, platform
and wells introduced by the technology
3) Briefly evaluate risk mitigation tools, systems and
processes
4) Determine potential MPD value through a scoping
cost estimation and an overall Cost-Benefit analysis
The Feasibility Study will address both the technical and
commercial issues and allow management to make a decision
on the merits of further study. If the stage gate is passed, work
will progress with the development of a Preliminary
Engineering Study. Typically the scope and duration of
Preliminary Engineering Study activities for the initial
well/well program candidate application can be completed
within 4 to 6 weeks and with the required funding of
US$ 50,000 - $ 100,000.
Typical deliverables for a Feasibility Study may include:
1) Cataloging of available MPD techniques for the
candidate well/well program
2) Technical evaluation of techniques & lessons learned
from other relevant MPD projects
3) Preparation of a wellbore pressure profile with
potential MPD techniques identified
4) Evaluation of the risks & benefit of MPD to the
candidate well
5) Determine time and cost estimates for:
a. Preliminary Engineering Study
b. Detailed Engineering and Implementation
Planning Study
6) Determine scope, schedule and deliverables for above
studies
7) Evaluate the economic benefit of MPD techniques for
targeted hole sections of a candidate well or well
program through a Cost-Benefit analysis
Preliminary Engineering Study
After a completion and review with Management of the results
of a successful Feasibility Study, an approved Preliminary
Engineering study will provide more engineering and
technical support for development of a general strategic MPD
plan for the candidate well or well program. This study will
also provide detailed AFE cost estimate support and additional
detailed verification of the applicability and benefits of such
work.
The scope of work will typically include collection,
organization and review of pertinent data on the candidate
well/well program, review of offset well information, review
of field site and/or rig specifications including drilling
operations history, vendor data, desired completion plans, and
6 OTC 18375
detailed specification of requirements or a Basis of Design
(BOD) for the required MPD equipment. Detailed analysis of
site-specific costs and spread rates for the MPD equipment
and personnel will be undertaken, and the basis of a general,
strategic MPD plan will be developed.
Specific tasks to be undertaken generally will include:
1) Implementation of a kick-off meeting to review the
Feasibility Study and establish project objectives
2) Gather electronic data on offset candidate well
operations
3) Organize, review and analyze data
4) Develop preliminary well & pressure profile designs
and perform specific preliminary hydraulics analysis
5) Prepare a justification basis to address regulatory
concerns in technology application
6) Meetings with Operator regulatory groups
7) Meetings with potential MPD vendors and
contractors
8) Field or rig site based visit
9) Determine and document required rig modifications
and MPD equipment layout/integration
10) Prepare impact of MPD on basic well design
11) Final MPD method/technique selection and
application
12) Review AFE costs and spread rates for MPD
equipment, personnel and rig integration costs
13) Determine time requirements/schedule for execution
of MPD
14) Perform a probabilistic Cost-Benefit analysis
15) Present recommended MPD methods and basic
program
Typical deliverables for a Preliminary Engineering Study may
include:
1) Well Profile Basis of Design (BOD)
2) Preparation of a wellbore pressure profile with
potential MPD techniques and pressure profile for
BOD design, including hydraulics analysis
3) Presentation material for regulatory introduction to
project
4) List of required rig modifications, including
estimated cost of each modification and proposed
responsible party
5) Strategic plan, including specific MPD method for
the specified wellbore/well program
6) Refine time and cost estimates for MPD
implementation as a basis for changes in the
assumptions utilized in the initial Cost-Benefit
analysis
7) Preparation of a more defined probabilistic Cost-
Benefit analysis
8) Overall MPD BOD for the application of the
technology
With the basis of funding and completion of a Preliminary
Engineering Study, it is envisioned that Management can be
provided significant evidence with regard to both the technical
and commercial viability of the project. Should a negative
result be encountered, Management may suspend further
work. Alternatively, a positive and convincing case for the
use of an MPD approach will result in passing through a stage
gate into the next phase for the preparation of a Detailed
Engineering and Implementation Planning Study. Typically
the scope and duration of the activities for a Preliminary
Engineering Study for an initial well/well program candidate
application can be completed within 8-12 weeks and with
required funding of no more than US$ 100,000 - $ 200,000.
Detailed Engineering and Implementation Planning
Study
The Detailed Engineering and Implementation Planning Study
will provide for preparation of detailed MPD procedures,
including hazard identification and mitigation, a contingency
plan, detailed hydraulics analysis of the wellbore, a tactical
MPD plan including a training program as required for
successful implementation of the MPD technology.
The scope of work typically will include thorough planning
required to penetrate the target formations, managing both
virgin and/or potentially depleted or transition/regression
pressure horizons to drill to the projected total depth. Details
such as target location, casing design criteria, drilling fluids,
the formation evaluation program, and review of well control
issues must be considered. Hazards and operational aspects
necessary to mitigate the hazards will be identified and
contingency procedures will be prepared for inclusion in the
overall MPD plan. All necessary equipment, including any
additional well control or specialty equipment will be sourced
and procured, and any necessary rig modifications will be
specified. Site-specific training programs will be developed
and presented in a timely manner to allow sufficient time for
Operator, drilling contractor and vendor personnel to become
familiar with the MPD equipment and techniques that are to
be used. All material generated will be organized and used to
prepare a specific, detailed tactical MPD plan.
Specific tasks to be undertaken will include:
1) Compilation of standards and practices related to
MPD
2) Description of specific PP/FP/wellbore stability
profile and hydraulics analysis
3) Preparation of detailed MPD procedures
4) Specification of MPD equipment, monitoring, and
suggested procurement
5) Design of path of the flow design, routing and
definition of required pressure testing
6) Description of drilling fluids & required parameters,
particularly rheology
7) Evaluate and analyze casing design for MPD and
associated changes in rating for revised Maximum
Anticipated Surface Pressure (MASP)
8) Review MPD Implications on BOP and Well Control
equipment and practices
9) Prepare casing/liner running and cementing
procedures w/MPD
10) Define bit program, general hydraulics and hole
cleaning parameters for MPD
11) Drill string design and analysis
OTC 18375
12) Identify MPD potential equipment and processes
problems and prepare detailed contingency
procedures for proper risk mitigation
13) Prepare HazID/HazOP Report
14) Finalize regulatory requirements & meetings with
regulatory personnel
15) Review HSE implications and modify mitigations as
necessary on the well program
16) Refine time and cost estimates for MPD equipment
and MPD rig integration
17) Prepare schematics and P&ID's, including rig
modifications/integration
18) Peer review of MPD drilling program
19) Prepare customized training
Deliverables related to the Detailed Engineering and
Implementation Planning will be similar to the Preliminary
Engineering phase, however will be more detailed to allow
implementation to proceed. However, these deliverables will
typically include in addition:
1) System P&ID drawings for MPD, including rig
modifications
2) Detailed MPD drilling/tripping procedures for all
intervals
3) Regulatory requirements changes
4) Detailed MPD casing/liner running and cementing
procedures
5) HazOP Report
6) Documentation of a customized training program,
including training manuals and defined program
Commitment by Management to undertake the Detailed
Engineering and Implementation Planning Study typically will
require thorough preparation and adherence to the project
schedule to deliver a completed plan that all office and field
personnel are prepared to execute to make MPD a part of the
well construction process. Typical scope and duration of the
activities for a Detailed Engineering and Implementation
Planning Study for an initial well/well program candidate
application can be completed within 8 to 20 weeks and with
required funding for total costs typically in the US$ 150,000 -
$ 250,000 range.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost-benefit analysis is an evaluation of the total estimated
incremental costs and associated time for the application of the
MPD techniques as compared to the value of the benefits of
the use of these techniques. This analysis requires collection
of vendor and operator estimates of MPD and other equipment
costs, personnel costs, study and training costs, and estimates
of the duration of incremental tasks within the well program as
related to changes due to MPD application. Additionally, the
benefits of these techniques such as increases in ROP for
particular hole interval(s), reduction in wellbore related NPT,
reduction in liner requirement and associated setting costs or
other benefits will also have to identified for the project.
A cost-benefit analysis is initially prepared for the Feasibility
Study. This base analysis is further evaluated in subsequent
7
Preliminary and Detailed Engineering and Implementation
Planning phase studies. As necessary, the cost-benefit analysis
can be refined with modifications to the variable assumptions
and the possible introduction of additional variables within the
model.
Simulation Methods
This evaluation has included the use of a probabilistic Monte
Carlo simulation of the potential results of the use of MPD and
takes into account time dependent, cost dependent and
performance related factors. This method allows for a range of
potential inputs to be used to develop a probabilistic result
based on probabilities rather than the conventional
methodology of using a deterministic number based on past
experience. With respect to past experience, in many cases
there is generally no reliable experience that can be applied to
the inclusion of MPD into the well construction process due to
the limited industry experience with such technology.
Probabilistic modeling of general cost estimating for drilling
operations was discussed in industry literature in the 1990s by
S. K. Peterson et al.14,15 of Marathon. Other work has
addressed risked based decision-making and modeling for
stuck pipe and fishing operations, the influence of
environmental conditions in Arctic areas on drilling
operations, and weather downtime. Through the use of
probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation techniques, a more
accurate assessment of the expected distribution of total well
costs or potential savings in costs and duration for the well
construction operations can be made. 16
Additional sensitivity modeling within this analysis can
identify the effects of certain modeled parameters to the
effective outcome of events such as total well days or well
cost to more cost effectively apply resources to that those
parameters that can most influence the outcome of events. 16
With this modeling, the forecasted benefits of MPD can be
identified that are most sensitive to certain variables such as a
change in rig and/or spread rate, reduction in number of
required casing strings or other similar variable.
With the continuing significant rise in the cost of both the
drilling contractor and other industry services required for
well construction along with considerable escalation in
tangible and other materials and equipment costs, it has been
increasingly difficult to accurately assess costs related to both
the use of MPD technologies, particularly when trying to
assess these costs one to two years before the actual project
may be initiated and the variability of the benefits of these
technologies with variation in their associated costs. Through
the use of probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation techniques, a
more accurate assessment of the expected distribution of total
costs and the results of the benefits of the MPD process for
drilling operations can be made.16 We can introduce
uncertainty into the level of costs that comprise the daily
spread rate which includes items such as the MPD equipment
and MPD personnel rates, drilling contractor rig costs, rental
tools, transportation and other logistics costs, company
supervision costs, daily mud maintenance costs, daily rig
consumables and other daily costs.
8 OTC 18375
Although many times we think we have a better estimate of
our non-time dependent costs such as tangibles and
intangibles, we also need to introduce uncertainty into the
evaluation of these costs. This is particularly important when
application of estimates from time period may not reflect
differences in labor rates, competitiveness or lack of
competitiveness of the local service industry and other factors.
16
An Excel spreadsheet has been prepared with the modeled
assumptions and forecasted variables on which commercial
Monte Carlo simulation software packages can be run. Due to
the relatively short cumulative duration of the required studies
of 6-12 months followed by well drilling time of less than 180
days, no attempt has been made to introduce Net Present
Value (NPV) concepts into the spreadsheet calculation.
Modeling Parameters
A level of uncertainty regarding the duration of time savings
and similar variables was captured through assignment of an
assumed range for the particular variable modeled. Typically
either a uniform (Figure 8) or triangular distribution (Figure 9)
is utilized to represent variability within our defined
assumptions. One exception would be when actual historical
data on NPT is available and can be curve fitted. The
resulting distribution often takes the form of a Beta or Weibull
distribution. Variation in the type of assumptions utilized
within the spreadsheet model for analysis of the cost-benefit
analysis of several different techniques of MPD is further
discussed below.
The use of other complimentary technologies to MPD, such as
wellbore strengthening or wellbore stability technologies can
also be incorporated within the model variables to look at the
overall use of any applied technologies in conjunction with
MPD to further benefit the well construction process. An
additional particularly complimentary technology may be
casing or liner drilling, which reduces required trips in the
process of well construction, a set of tasks in which MPD is
most difficult to manage with a RCD.
Description of Variable Factors in the Model for
Varied MPD Techniques
The variables considered for inclusion within the Cost-Benefit
Analysis Model include 1) Time Dependent factors, 2) Non-
Time Dependent factors along with 3) Performance related
factors.
PMCD and or/ CBHP Mode with RCD
These techniques, within the umbrella of MPD technologies,
are some of the more frequently utilized applications at this
time within industry. These techniques have applications for
candidate wells on fixed bottom offshore facilities such as
jack-ups or platforms as well as floater applications, both for
subsea and surface BOP stacks.
Additional detail on the factors typically considered in the
modeling for such techniques is shown below:
Time Dependent Factors
Increased tripping time due to MPD
Decreased NPT trouble time
Increased/Decreased circulating time
Faster ROP
Presence of Downhole Deployment Valve (DDV) or
similar to reduce trip time
Incremental installation time for DDV
Additional RCD RU/RD time
Additional Separator/Piping/Choke RU/RD time
Non Time Dependent Factors
DDV equipment and installation costs
Additional RCD deployment and rental costs
Additional separator/piping/choke costs
Reduced mud costs-lower density/less losses
Additional operator/rig personnel training costs
Performance Factors
Decreased skin/Increased well performance
No acid job required in completion
Decreased HSE risk in hole section due to improved
gas/kick detection
Improved ability to get liner to bottom-contingency
liner reduced
No trip/swab surge losses while running liner
Forecasted potential total cost savings of US$ 2.4 MM from a
typical cost-benefit analysis of MPD application in two hole
intervals for a candidate offshore well using a jack-up rig is
shown in Figure 10.
Riserless Mud Return (RMR)
The potential application of RMR technology in the deepwater
and ultra-deepwater regions will provide advantages as related
to reduction in mud discharges to the environment as an
enabling technology and the reduction in mud and logistics
costs and potential casing/liner settings costs as an
enhancement technology.
Additional detail on the factors typically considered in the
modeling for such techniques is shown below:
Time Dependent Factors
RMR deployment/recovery time
RMR rental costs
Decreased NPT trouble time
Decreased circulating time
Faster ROP
Flat time reduction for elimination of casing/liner
Reduced logistics costs
Non Time Dependent Factors
Reduced mud costs-less losses
Additional Operator/rig personnel training costs
Performance Factors
Reduction of environmental discharges to the
environment at the mudline
OTC 18375 9

Decreased HSE risk in upper hole sections due to P(10) - $ 12 MM P(90) were modeled. Typical variables that
gas/water flows were used in this probabilistic model included: 10
Improved ability to get casing to bottom-no Consumable Materials per Well (Excluding Mud)
contingency involved Mud
Improved cementation of hole due to less washout, Contingent Casing/Liner string, Hanger, etc.
better cement contact to formation and less required Time Savings per Well
remediation Casing Flat Time Days Savings
Decreased susceptibility to flow after cementing with ROP Days Savings
improved cement results Historical Non-Productive Time (NPT)
Reduced potential of loss of well and required re- Deepwater Trouble-Free Well Days
spud NPT Associated with DGD technology
Variation in Days through Surface (20 in. Csg.)
One of the most important and visible factors to the erosion of Setting
value of a deepwater version of the RMR system at this time is NPT Savings
the total rig spread rate costs, now approaching US$ 675,000 -
Total Days Saved
$ 750,000/d, for deepwater and ultra-deepwater regions of the
Contract Drilling Rates
world. Much of the potential value of RMR in deepwater is
Rig Total Daily Spread Rate
eroded by the effective value of critical path rig time that may
be required to initially deploy and ultimately recover the RMR
mud return line and other subsea components. A simulation of An additional analysis has recently been performed with this
same model. Updating of the previous simulations with the
the overall benefit of the use of RMR solely by the reduction
range of current total rig spread rates (US$ 675,000 -
of pump and dump mud volumes shows a forecasted savings
$ 750,000/d) for deepwater operations, it becomes apparent
(Figure 11) of approximately US$ 723,000 P(50). This benefit
that there is significantly more value to be realized to
is approaching the effective value of the range of the total rig
operators if a low Capex, low rig integration cost, efficient
spread costs for one day of a deepwater operation. An operator
DGD system with high reliability can be provided to the
may judge the benefits of this potential savings not to be
industry. Potential cost savings/per deepwater well of
significant enough when considering the value of the spread
approximately $US 8 MM P(10) - $ 16 MM P(90) (Figure 13)
rate should potential delays in deployment or recovery of the
are now realistic in the current industry market structure,
mud return line and the rest of the subsea components occur.
significantly higher than seen in the previous time frame due
to the up tick in deepwater rig rates.
It also becomes apparent that the potential reduction in one or
more shallow casing string(s) by the ability to pump higher
mud weight fluids in the shallow hole sections may be a more Conclusion
Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) with its many techniques,
important factor to commercialization of deepwater RMR than
is currently providing decreases in costs of well construction
the value realized in the reduction of cost savings from pump
within the industry with additional HSE benefits. Certain
and dump mud volumes and associated logistics costs. In this
MPD techniques less commonly utilized such as DGD and
case, a savings of approximately US $ 4.34 MM P(50) (Figure
RMR, previously have been considered only as an
12) may be realized with RMR and this benefit has
enhancement technology, but are now ready to be
significantly more cushion in terms of comparison to the daily
commercialized to become enabling technology as industry
spread rate should delays occur.
steps further into the ultra-deepwater depths of the Gulf of
Mexico and other areas of the world, often exceeding 6,000 ft
This modeling suggests that significant potential savings can
water depths with planned well depths in excess of 30,000 ft.
be realized in the use of a pre-deployed deepwater RMR mud
return line. In this case, a deepwater rig would move onto
For the further commercialization of DGD, the industry must
location, deploy a suction module and hook up subsea/surface
evaluate the status of the various DGD technologies, either
mud return hoses to a pre-installed mud return line adjacent to
developed or yet to be developed, and determine which
the rig..
technology is technically most cost-effective for the range of
water depth or other parameters. To move DGD technologies
DGD
forward on a common industry basis, operators with the help
The potential savings for the use of dual gradient technology
of drilling contractors and other technology providers will
for typical wells in deepwater basins has previously been
need to work together to implement these technologies to
estimated in the US$ 5 MM - $15 MM range per well during
make the significant step changes possible in reduction of well
the 1999 - 2002 time period. These primary benefits are
construction costs. 11
achieved by the reduction of required casing strings and less
reliance on close tolerance casing designs.7,8
Techniques, processes and modeling simulations such as
presented in this paper can be used to evaluate the potential
An extensive exercise to determine the value of using DGD
use of MPD technologies in candidate wells or well programs.
technology has been previously performed and potential cost
MPD techniques have the potential to allow industry to make
savings/per deepwater well of approximately $US 6 MM
the most significant step-changes in drilling well duration and
10
also reduce costs associated with non-productive time. More
importantly, MPD will allow the drilling of wells that are
otherwise incapable of being drilled with conventional drilling
processes and will improve well performance through a more
efficient completion size and resultant increase in recoverable
reserves, particularly for the ultra-deepwater areas of the
world.
References
1. Managed Pressure Drilling, Hannegan, D.M., Section 10,
Chapter 9, new SPE textbook in editorial process entitled
Advanced Drilling Technology & Well Construction
2. Technical Meeting notes from the IADC MPD & UBO
Committee Meeting, Leiden, The Netherlands, March 13,
2004.
3. SPE/IADC 92294 Pressured Mud Cap Drilling from a
Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig by J.H Terwogt, SPE, L.B.
Makiaho, and N. van Beelen, SPE Shell Malaysia
Exploration and Production, B.J. Gedge, SPE and J.
Jenkins, Weatherford Drilling and Well Services presented
at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amersterdam, The
Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005
4. Pressured Mud Cap DrillingAdvanced Well Control for
Subsea Wells", Jan Terwogt, Leo Maekiaho, Wee Si-Boon,
Shell Malaysia Exploration and Production, James Jenkins
and Ben Gedge, Weatherford presented at the Petromin
Subsea Asia Conference, 20-21 September 2004, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
5. SPE/IADC 92769 Silicate-Based Fluid, Mud Recovery
System Combine to Stabilize Surface Formations of Azeri
Wells, S. E Alford, A. Asko and M. Campbell, M-I
SWACO; M. S. Aston and E. Kvalvaag, BP Exploration
6. OMC 038 Riserless Mud Recovery System and High
Performance Inhibitive Fluid Successfully Stabilize West
Azeri Surface Formation, S. E. Alford, A. Asko, M-I
SWACO, R. Stave, AGR Subsea, M. S. Aston, E.
Kvalvaag, BP Exploration presented at the Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy,
March 16-18, 2005
7. SPE 7159, SubSea MudLift Drilling: Design and
Implementation of a Dual Gradient Drilling System, J.C.
Eggemeyer, P.E., M.E. Atkins, R.R. Brainard, P.E., R.
Judge, C. Peterman, R. Theti, and L.J. Scavone, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA., 30 September3 October 2001.
8. SPE 71358, SubSea MudLift Drilling: Planning and
Preparation for the First Subsea Field Test of a Full-Scale
Dual Gradient Drilling System at Green Canyon 136, Gulf
of Mexico, J.P. Schumacher, J.D. Dowell, L.R. Ribbeck
and J.C. Eggemeyer, 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA., 30
September3 October 2001.
9. SubSea MudLift Drilling JIP- Achieving Dual Gradient
Technology, K.L Smith, et al., Deepwater Technology,
August 1999, pp. 21-28.
10. Dual gradient drilling nearly ready for the field test, K.L.
Smith, et al., World Oil, October 2000, pp. 61-67.
11. What Has Happened to the Industrys Commercialization
of Dual Gradient Technology? A.E. Frazelle, R.R.
Brainard, P.E., 2002 Deep Offshore Technology
Conference, November 13 through 15, 2002 in New
Orleans, LA.
12. New Proposal Summary DEA-154: "DGS Technology"
submitted October 23, 2003 by L. de Boer & Curtis Huff
OTC 18375
13. DGS Dual Gradient Drilling System presentation to the
DEA, November 20, 2003 by L. de Boer
14. SPE 30887, Brief: Risk Analysis and Monte Carlo
Simulation Applied to the Generation of Drilling AFE
Estimates, S.K. Petersen, J.A. Murtha, F.F. Scheider, SPE,
1995.
15. SPE 29364, Drilling Performance Predictions: Case
Studies Illustrating the Use of Risk Analysis, S.K.
Petersen, J.A. Murtha, R.W. Roberts, SPE, 1995.
16. R.R. Brainard, P.E., Use of Probabilistic Cost Estimating
Techniques in Assessing Exploratory Drilling Costs
Throughout Latin America, 1998, XI Congreso
Latinoamericano de Perforacion, Buenos Aires, Argentina,
October 26, 1998.
Acknowledgments
The author offers special thanks and credit to the Mr. Ken
Armagost - BP America Inc. and Mr. Don Hannegan, P.E. -
Weatherford International for review and advice in the writing
of this paper.
Author
Mr. Richard R. Brainard, P.E. is a consulting Petroleum
Engineer providing particular expertise in deepwater drilling
and subsea completions, conceptual project evaluation, project
planning and operations management of drilling, completion,
and production operations around the world. His expertise also
extends to Dual Gradient Drilling, Managed Pressure Drilling
(MPD) along with probabilistic analysis through Monte Carlo
simulation. He was seconded by BP to the Subsea Mud Lift
(SMD) JIP and participated on this JIPs Field Test Team in
the drilling of the worlds first dual gradient well. His clients
include major oil and gas companies such as BP America (and
former Amoco Production Company and its subsidiaries),
Marathon Oil, Shell International Exploration and Production,
Repsol YPF, independent oil companies including Mariner
Energy, Burlington International, Devon Energy, and Norsk
Hydro, turnkey drilling contractors including Applied Drilling
Technology (ADTI), Schlumberger Drilling and Completions
(SDC) and Diamond Offshore Turnkey Services, and other
professional and engineering clients. His 27 years of overall
industry experience have included the domestic U.S. Gulf
Coast and deepwater/shelf offshore (OCS) Gulf of Mexico,
California, and Alaskan waters. International experience has
included projects in the North Sea, offshore Sudan, offshore
India, offshore Angola, offshore Australia, onshore/offshore
the Peoples Republic of China, the former Soviet Union,
onshore/offshore Venezuela, offshore Trinidad and Brazil and
onshore Argentina and Bolivia. Mr. Brainard formed
RRB ENERGY INC International Petroleum Engineers
and Consultants in 1990 to provide consulting services to the
upstream oil and gas industry. His prior 14 years of industry
experience included former employment with Amoco
Production Company, Tenneco Oil, Texas Eastern E&P, and a
domestic independent oil and gas company. Mr. Brainard
graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Florida in 1978 and has
been a Registered Professional Engineer in Petroleum and
Natural Gas Engineering in Texas since 1985.
 OTC 18375 11

FIGURES

CONS TANT BHP M P D

Managed N o te : Id e a lly , A F P = B P , s o B H P
Pressure
Drilling (MPD) re m a in s c o n s ta nt, a n d p re s s u re
a t w e a k zo n e is re d u c e d .

Single Gradient Dual/Variable

Technologies Gradient
Technologies

T
V
D

S T A T IC
B H P = H H (M W ) +B P
Surface Pressure Surface/Subsurface Surface Pressure Subsea or Downhole
Control Pressure Control Control Technologies Control Technologies
D Y N A M IC
B H P = H H (M W ) + A F P

psi
AFP

Figure 1-MPD Technologies Figure 3-Constant Bottom Hole Pressure (CBHP) Mode of MPD w/
RCD (Courtesy SPE 2)

Pressurized M ud Cap M PD
BACK PRESSURE
GELLED M UD INJECTED INTO
ANNULUS PREVENTS HC
M IGRATION
TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, FT

ALL RETURNS
INJECTED INTO CARBONATE
LOSS ZONE

EQUIVALENT SINGLE
DENSITY GRADIENT

LOW DENSITY FLUID,

E.G. SEAWATER
BHP
PRESSURE, PSI

Figure 2- Pressurized Mud Cap (PMCD) Mode of MPD w/ RCD Figure 4- ECD Reduction Tool Pressure Profile
12 OTC 18375

Defined MPD
Well Candidate Process
Stage Gate Stage Gate Stage Gate
Execute

Preliminary Detailed Engineering

Feasibility Study Engineering and Implementation
Study Planning Study

Figure 7-Defined MPD Well Candidate Process

8 1/2" Hole-Avg Trip Depth

Figure 5-Riserlesss Mud Recovery (RMR) Technology Pressure

Profile 13,100.00 13,950.00 14,800.00 15,650.00 16,500.00

Figure 8-Example Uniform Distribution for 8 1/2 Hole Average

Trip Depth

12 1/4" Hole-Bit Trips

Power Supply, Winch and
umbilical

Return line
Suction
module
Pump module 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00

Figure 6-RMR Basic System Configuration (Courtesy AGR) Figure 9-Example Triangular Distribution for 12 Hole Bit Trips
OTC 18375 13

Forecast: All-Total Well Cost/Savings w MPD Forecast: RMR Estimated Total Savings

5,000 Trials Frequency Chart 4,950 Displayed 5,000 Trials Frequency Chart 4,998 Displayed
.028 139 .020 102

.021 104.2 .015 76.5

.014 69.5 .010 51

.007 34.75 .005 25.5

.000 0 .000 0

($1,423,486) $600,563 $2,624,612 $4,648,661 $6,672,710 $3,047,127 $3,698,764 $4,350,402 $5,002,039 $5,653,677
$

Figure 10- Forecasted Total Well Cost Savings w/ MPD (Jack-up Figure 12-Forecasted Total Well Cost Savings w/ RMR (DW
Case) Floater Case w/ One String Casing/Liner Reduction)

Forecast: RMR Estimated Total Savings Forecast: Total Savings/Well

5,000 Trials Frequency Chart 4,997 Displayed 5,000 Trials Frequency Chart 4,887 Displayed
.018 90 .024 121

.014 67.5 .018 90.75

.009 45 .012 60.5

.005 22.5 .006 30.25

.000 0 .000 0

$4,405,301 $8,377,102 $12,348,903 $16,320,703 $20,292,504

($335,386) $198,963 $733,313 $1,267,662 $1,802,012
$
$

Figure 11-Forecasted Total Well Cost Savings w/ RMR Figure 13-Forecasted Total Well Cost Savings w/ DGD
(DW Floater Case w/ Pump & Dump Mud Reduction Only) (DW Floater Case w/ Current Rig Market Rates)