Operators' Group, Rig Contractors, and OEM/Service Company Work to Solve Rig Data Quality Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the current economic climate Operators must reduce drilling costs, so they are turning to well data analytics, real-time advisory, and automation systems to make sustainable improvements (Behounek et al. 2017). Rig surface sensor data is critical to improvement; however, documented issues with consistent, reliable, quality data complicates and delays the value from these systems. The Operators Group for Data Quality (OGDQ) seeks to accelerate the adoption of standardized key measurement specifications, data storage, transmission, transformation, and integration by working with Rig Contractors, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), and Service Companies. The OGDQ effort focuses on key measurements used for important drilling process decision making. For this paper, the OGDQ worked with Rig Contractors and an OEM/Service Company to advance recommended data quality components in work processes and commercial agreements. By bringing transparency to the process, the authors hope to contribute to the efforts to address operational data quality issues and to drive alignment and improvements among Operators, Rig Contractors, OEMs, and Service Companies. This paper outlines an approach to putting data quality into practice, including initially identifying the problem, field verification, developing key measurement specifications, constructing framework components, and anticipating management of change issues. Quality drilling data is essential to both rig and office personnel who are tasked with decision making for fast-paced well programs. Quality drilling data is also essential for the data-driven systems developed to assist in managing well delivery. Rig studies show several cases where Operators independently uncovered systematic errors for 10 key measurements used for drilling process decision making (Zenero 2014; Zenero et al. 2016). The 10 key measurements are listed as follows: Rotary/Top Drive TorqueJoint Makeup/Breakout TorqueHookloadRotary/Top Drive Rotational SpeedStand Pipe PressureDrilling Fluid Pump RateDrilling Fluid Tank/Pit VolumeDrilling Fluid DensityDrilling Fluid ViscosityBlock Position Widespread agreement on data quality practices among Operators, Rig Contractors, OEMs, and Service Companies is crucial for their quick adoption, and an industry-wide approach has a profound effect on drilling operations. Widely adopted practices will support and drive requirements for sensor quality, calibration, field verification, and maintenance. This standardization will, in turn, significantly enable improved drilling operations, drilling analysis, and big data processing by correcting many errors resulting from poor data quality. This paper outlines the methodology used to develop a guide for commercial drilling components, and illustrates the application of this guide with selected drilling data use cases.
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".