Drilling Simulation Improves Field Communication and Reduces Drilling Cost in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the past two years a drilling simulator has been applied in a pre-simulated and follow-up mode on dozens of well in Western Canada. Using a commercially available rate of penetration (ROP) drilling simulator, the drilling learning curve of mature fields in Western Canada is significantly improved. The ROP drilling simulator optimizes the bit runs, drilling parameters and pull depths prior to spud by applying offset drilling data and records. The drilling cost is maintained consistent and or reduced from well to well and pacesetter performance is constantly copied or improved. After simulating and obtaining the optimum operating conditions for the individual drilling bits, the optimum parameters were sent to the company man and drillers in advance. This has shown to be an efficient way of communicating and obtaining optimal results. During drilling the home office is in communication with the field as daily updates of field parameters are compared to the preplanned scenario. These parameters include the operating parameters, calculated bit wear and updated rock strength compared to the pre-simulated values. This paper presents field examples where the pre-simulation and daily drilling data are compared. The improved communication points from the updates are given in examples as well as how this improves the overall performance. Introduction To be able to simulate drilling performance prior to actually drilling the wells, the drilling simulation optimization software, "Optimizer"1, was utilized. The software uses nearby offset well drilling data and records to calculate the different formations drillability on a meter by meter or less basis. This is done by taking the meter by meter drilling data for each offset bit run in conjunction with the offset field reported bit wear, pore pressure and lithology composition. Through different bit type inverted ROP models the drillability or Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) is predicted using an iterative process in the simulator. The converged ARSL for all the bit runs total the drilling resistance for all the different formations on a meter by meter basis penetrated by the offset wells. The process of calculating the ARSL in the simulator involves the use of the offset operating parameters like weight on bit (WOB), bit rotational speed (RPM), flow rate, mud weight, bit wear, ROP, detailed bit type and design in addition to formation geology and pore pressure. The ARSL2-3 can also be obtained using log properties but care must be used. The ARSL from the reference well is further either stretched or shrunk to fit the geological prognosis for the planned well to be drilled. This is done so the ARSL match the formation tops for the new survey. The optimization of the drilling process for the upcoming well is then done by trying out different drilling scenarios including bit type selection and designs, pull depths and different optimal sets and distributions of operating parameters throughout bit runs. This is initially a trial and error process but after a little learning with the simulator quick and obvious conclusions can be drawn regarding bits types and designs and pull depths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".