ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE
Crossing the Technology Chasm:
Managed Pressure Drilling
Steve Jacobs, Principal, Decisions Strategies, and John Donnelly, JPT Editor
Editor’s note: This is the first install- tions, a growing amount of today’s MPD
ment of a multipart series examining applications are for HSE benefits and About this Series
key upstream technology challenges ‘insurance against a blowout’ on pros-
The petroleum industry has a proud history of
facing the oil and gas industry and pects that may be technically drillable
developing technology capable of exploiting
the reasons for the lack of accelerated with conventional open-to-atmosphere reserves in increasingly harsh surface and down-
acceptance of technologies needed to circulating fluid systems. Perhaps one hole environments. Despite these considerable
expand the frontiers of exploration of the more significant impacts of the accomplishments, it has been documented that
and production. technology has been that of increasing the speed of technology acceptance is slower in
the amount of reserves deemed recov- the petroleum sector than in a number of other
Managed pressure drilling services have erable by drilling prospects previously industries. As exploration continues to focus
been offered for almost a decade and, thought to be economically or tech- on even more challenging environments (e.g.,
while some believe it has the potential nically undrillable.” This last benefit high pressures, high temperatures, deep water,
to be a widely used technology in the would appear to be the ultimate value and extended reach applications), the need
for advanced technology to successfully exploit
future, thus far it has been met with rel- proposition for MPD.
hydrocarbons will only escalate. JPT and Decision
atively limited acceptance by oil com- Lance Cook, vice president of Wells Strategies, an oil and gas management consult-
panies. The evaluation of this emerging Technology Deployment and Tech ing firm, have teamed up to examine these key
technology and its acceptance involved Services for Shell, believes that opera- upstream challenges, the potential technology
a worldwide survey among approxi- tors and service providers may be look- solutions, and the reasons for a relatively low
mately 600 SPE members who com- ing at the technology differently. “Shell acceptance rate of some new technologies in
pleted an e-mail questionnaire. achieves value from the constant bot- the industry.
In an effort to determine what was tomhole pressure and the ability to To start this market analysis, a worldwide
important to the participants, the first keep the well in balance downhole and, survey of SPE members was conducted to iden-
question asked was: “What are the thus, reducing mud cost and avoid- tify specific technologies that represent real
benefit to end users. The initial survey asked
main value propositions you see for ing other issues such as stuck pipe,”
one question: “What do you believe are the
managed pressure drilling services?” he says. “Most MPD service suppliers most important upstream technologies that will
As shown in Fig. 1, the most important market this constant bottomhole pres- be needed in the coming years?” Respondents
value proposition cited for MPD is that sure as the primary value from MPD, supplied more than 1,000 suggestions, with no
it allows operators to “walk the line but they often assume operating com- single technology mentioned with dominant
between pore pressure and the fracture panies know more about the subsurface frequency. However, several products and ser-
gradient.” This capability confirms an than we actually do. In Shell, we obtain vices were identified by both users and service
important benefit of MPD, and was fur- higher value from safely using MPD providers as being important technologies for
ther substantiated by the second most practices to routinely determine what the future. Some of the technologies identified
frequently mentioned value proposi- our pore pressure to leak off gradient is as having significant potential were managed
pressure drilling (MPD), seismic while drilling,
tion of MPD—that it allows an operator real time with short duration decreases
and permanent downhole monitoring.
to drill wells not possible otherwise. or increases to applied annular back A second, more detailed survey among SPE
There were no significant differences pressure. As most of our MPD oper- members was conducted to identify the value
in responses to this question between ations are on high temperature/high propositions for MPD, determine why MPD is not
technology providers and users. pressure wells, they inherently come more widely used, and to analyze its potential
The survey results were discussed with high pressure uncertainty. We also if these obstacles to technology acceptance are
with both operators and service compa- introduce drilling window uncertainty addressed. Results were then shared with repre-
nies familiar with the technology. Don with routine borehole strengthening sentatives of technology providers and users to
Hannegan, director of emerging tech- operations. By eliminating the drilling further explore the issues surrounding the ben-
nologies, Controlled Pressure Drilling window uncertainty with MPD ‘finger- efits possible with the uptake of this technology.
Similar surveys are being conducted for other
and Testing Services, with Weatherford printing,’ we are then able to control the
technologies identified in the initial survey with
International, stated: “In addition to constant bottomhole pressure to what is the results to be explored in future issues of JPT.
such drilling hazard mitigation applica- known to be the optimum bottomhole
30 JPT • FEBRUARY 2011
pressure, not relying on pore pressure
Percent of Total
and fracture gradient predictions.”
Walks the line between A follow-up question in the survey
pore pressure and fracture asked participants to state the reasons
2% gradient
18% why they thought MPD has not been
Allows drilling of wells not accepted more rapidly by operators.
33% possible otherwise Operators said they believe it is difficult
to justify the cost of MPD (Fig. 2). This
22% Results in safer drilling
is a common finding in many emerging
25%
technology market assessments con-
ducted over the years, some of which
Optimizes penetration rates
have concluded that it is hard for opera-
tors to justify the price of a new technol-
Reduces formation damage
ogy if they do not have a comprehensive
understanding or appreciation of its
Fig. 1—The Value of MPD. benefits. Half of all operators in the
survey—whether from international oil
companies, national oil companies, or
independents—stated that technology
providers have not adequately commu-
nicated the value of MPD. According
to one operator: “MPD applications
are not very well defined by suppliers
Operators believe it is
14% 2%1% and, in some cases, MPD is being rep-
hard to justify cost
resented as a cure-all instead of being
Technology providers presented as application-specific.”
have not communicated Some operators also believe that
48%
35% its value there are limited applications for MPD.
Often, in the early years of a new
MPD has limited technology introduction, applicability
applications is low—in some cases because opera-
Concerns about safety tors do not view the emerging product
or service as a viable alternative to
Technical expertise is conventional techniques and practices.
l acking As part of the product development
process, service companies frequently
Fig. 2—Why MPD has not been more quickly accepted by operators. modify or expand their emerging tech-
nology in response to both interaction
with and resistance from oil company
buyers. This situation was character-
ized by John Samuell, president of
Schlumberger At Balance, a leading
MPD service provider: “It is more about
Better communication the customization of the system to the
of benefits applications rather than taking the full
blown system out and saying this is
9% More case studies, what the operator needs. We are try-
10% ing to custom design the solutions to
29% including cost/benefit
analysis address the problems on the well.”
10%
Reduce cost of MPD
Steps to Accelerated
20% 22% More successful Technology Acceptance
applications An additional survey question attempt-
ed to determine what steps operators
Better/more training and technology providers might take
to accelerate the rate of acceptance of
More information from
MPD (Fig. 3). Answers were received
conferences/forums
from more than 570 individuals, with
more than half citing better communi-
Fig. 3—Steps to accelerated MPD acceptance. cation of the benefits of the technology,
JPT • FEBRUARY 2011 31
ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE
including more detailed case studies Hannegan, a recognized expert on the erated would be for their business units
and cost/benefit analyses. According development of MPD technology and to cross-pollinate their experience with
to one operator: “(We need) publi- an SPE Distinguished Lecturer on the MPD applications,” said Hannegan.
cation of MPD successes. It would topic: “This is not surprising at this “There appears to be a chronic discon-
seem that the larger operators would juncture in the evolution of indus- nect between business units of the same
readily accept this as they have the try acceptance,” he said. “It depends operator in this regard, a phenomenon
resources and are usually more open considerably upon the prospects the difficult to explain. Operators often
to using advanced technology. Some operator has in mind and where he apply the technology on specific and
of the smaller operators appear appre- often one-off prospects where ‘nothing
hensive when it comes to the use of else works.’ Operators’ business units
new technology and methods. Perhaps “MPD is a complex, and technology providers should work
this is due to the cost and/or being set multidisciplinary activity more closely together toward multiwell
in their habits. Published results on MPD drilling programs that are con-
the successes of MPD may overcome and requires proper ducive to technology transference with
these obstacles.” project engineering, staying power.”
However, the speed of technology Application of MPD may be complex
uptake is not necessarily determined integrated skills or simple, as the technique has several
by the size of the oil company. Some management, HSE variations and application possibili-
of the fastest adopters of new technol- ties, says Charles “Rick” Stone, presi-
ogy have been independents or select management, and dent of Signa Engineering, which has
national oil companies that have seen effective project made MPD a cornerstone of the ser-
benefit in working with technology vices it offers over the past decade. “It
providers in the development and test-
management.” is important to understand that the best
ing of new products and services that solution for every MPD application is
provide solutions to drilling and pro- places his value proposition. Service typically the simplest solution,” he said.
duction problems. companies have applied some self- “Drillers should analyze their project
Another important perspective of restraint to avoid MPD applications and determine the level of complexity
operators was voiced by Shell’s Cook: where the cost-benefit is unfavorable, that is needed to reach the prospect,
“I believe many operators are still very in part to avoid giving MPD a bad and then select the proper tools and
uncomfortable taking influx all the name. An International Association of procedures. Otherwise, technological
time. Managed pressure drilling is also a Drilling Contractors’ committee has understanding of the process will be
complex, multidisciplinary activity and emphasized MPD Candidate Selection low and the application runs a high risk
requires the right skills and resources Guidelines for this reason. Most strive of failure. In addition, the company’s
throughout the process, ensuring prop- to participate in it being applied where long-term acceptance of the technology
er project engineering, integrated skills the cost benefit is most favorable, for will be hindered.”
management, HSE management, and example, on wells where offsets have Confusion about MPD’s application
effective project management.” experienced the types of drilling-related may contribute to its relatively low
While operators in the survey also nonproductive time, mud loss excesses, acceptance rate, Stone said. “In our
suggested reducing the cost of MPD and/or well control scenarios that MPD observation, there is still some confu-
services, a comparatively small percent- has proven to be capable of addressing sion between MPD and underbalanced
age of service company personnel saw safely and effectively,” he said. drilling (UBD), which has led to mis-
this as a viable solution to higher tech- “For operators, the single most effec- application of MPD technology and
nology acceptance. Said Weatherford’s tive way MPD acceptance can be accel- caused some operators to lose faith
in its benefits. MPD and UBD are two
distinctly different technologies, but
A
Assumes steps
t tto accelerated
l t d acceptance
t are ttaken
k
because they utilize some of the same
surface equipment, they are sometimes
seen as the same technique. This confu-
43% sion is evident in both service compa-
40%
39% nies and operators,” he said.
36%
33%
“The distinction between UBD and
28% MPD is simple,” he said. “UBD encour-
ages flow of gas and liquids from per-
meable formations while MPD does
not. A company that is unsure of the
distinction between these two tech-
nologies will also be unsure regarding
IOCs NOCs Independents Total Service TOTAL the solution.”
Operators Companies One operator who participated in the
Fig. 4—Percent offshore wells using MPD in 5 years.
survey addressed some of the “hidden
32 JPT • FEBRUARY 2011
INVESTI 1*3$571(5
B U I L D I 1*3$571(5
PLANNI 1*3$571(5
A DV I S I 1*3$571(5
FINANCI 1*3$571(5
ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE
costs” that influence the acceptance use MPD 5 years from now. As shown has not been a reportable well control
rate for new technology, which can take in Fig. 4, the question received a range incident where the root cause has been
the form of testing and evaluation, per- of responses from operators and tech- attributed to failure of the technology
sonnel training, and equipment main- nology providers. Overall, respondents to address a drilling hazard of interest
tenance and modification. “In areas indicated that 40% of all offshore wells or failure of MPD enabling equipment.
where it has been used (service provid- will use MPD in 2015 and beyond. Also, all operators’ business units who
ers should) demonstrate the reasons the Representatives of international oil com- practiced MPD for their first time have
technology was applied, and the values panies were the least optimistic about found enough benefit to not hesitate its
gained,” he said. “Discussions I have the level of applicability of MPD, stating application to future wells. Many of these
heard on MPD say, yes, we could use it that they believe 28% of all offshore wells first adopters of offshore MPD prac-
but we do not really need it. There are will utilize this technology in the future. ticed the technology only on prospects
fears that it is different than what the One service provider optimistic on the previously thought to be economically
crews are used to; it is additional equip- technology’s future made the following or technically undrillable due to their
ment to maintain. (Service providers) comment: “There are many forms of challenging hydraulics, narrow mud
must clearly demonstrate that the safety MPD technologies. However, the biggest windows, offset wells grossly exceeded
advantages outweigh risks of equip- prize lies in the floating drilling market. AFEs, or well control problems.”
ment new to the crew. (They) must When drilling subsea wells, MPD tech- Offshore use of MPD is showing
define what training should be in place nology must be applied as a mainstream robust signs of growth, said Deepak
to safely use the equipment and to give technology to be used for the entire drill- M. Gala, engineering lead for Drilling
understanding to the rigsite personnel ing operation. Now, MPD is basically a Hazard Mitigation at Weatherford and
of the advantages of the technology.” niche market where technology is used an instructor for SPE’s MPD and UBD
only when everything else fails.” short courses. “Offshore acceptance
Offshore Applications Service companies see a compelling of the technology appears to be on
Technology users and providers were future for MPD offshore. “MPD’s com- a faster track than its onshore roots’
next asked if steps were taken to acceler- mendable onshore well control incident experienced,” he said. “This is in part
ate industry acceptance of MPD, what track record is being repeated on all types because the majority of ‘easy prospects’
percentage of all offshore wells would of offshore rigs,” says Hannegan. “There have already been drilled. Additionally,
Register Now
SPE DIGITAL ENERGY
CONFERENCE
EXHIBITION
AND 2011
19 –21 A P R I L 2 011
TH E WO O D L A N D S , TE X A S , U S A
www.spe.org/events/dec
With the support
of the SPE Gulf
Coast Section
Society of Petroleum Engineers
34 JPT • FEBRUARY 2011
MPD’s ability to detect quick influxes/ is a closed system, the ability to monitor • It is also apparent that some opera-
losses and minimize well control events the pressure on the well at all times.” tors do not have an optimized pro-
enables it to meet requirements to drill gram for technology transfer within
in deeper water more efficiently.” Summary their own organizations. This can make
Gala said he believes that the survey Several findings can be drawn from the the acceptance cycle quite long for
results predicting that more than a third survey and separate discussions held the service provider due to multiple
of offshore wells could be using MPD with MPD experts: efforts required for the technology to
in a few years are positive. “When one • Even technologies with strong value be accepted on an enterprise-wide basis
considers MPD is not a panacea solu- propositions often face slow uptake within the operator.
tion or applicable in a cost vs. benefit because of the cautious nature of opera- • Also contributing to slow uptake is
fashion to all remaining offshore pros- tions personnel, the time required to that some technologies are introduced
pects, that is pretty impressive for an thoroughly evaluate a product or service, before a reliable product/service has
industry that has somewhat of a repu- and the potential risk involved. A dis- been created. This can make technol-
tation for slow uptake on new technol- connect sometimes exists between tech- ogy acceptance relatively unpalatable
ogy, particularly one which requires nology providers and operators about to oil company personnel because of
a new way of drilling conventional which technologies should be developed the “pain and suffering” that must be
wells,” he said. and introduced. (Over the years numer- endured during the process.
Samuell of Schlumberger At Balance ous market assessments have been con- • Operators believe that service com-
is also optimistic. “I would say 75% of ducted in which the emerging tech- panies sometimes do not appreciate the
offshore wells 5 years from now will nology being evaluated was perceived “hidden costs” of training and evalua-
use MPD and, depending on pending by operators to have only moderate to tion that operators incur as they incor-
government regulations, it could be that low benefit, including some emerging porate the use of emerging technologies.
100% of all offshore rigs will have some technologies that eventually achieved • Pending government regulations
form of managed pressure drilling. Just mainstream acceptance.) The onus is on will likely have an impact on the rate
to control the well and have the ability the technology providers to effectively of technology acceptance. However, it
for advanced kick detection you basi- communicate the value propositions of is not clear at this time just what that
cally need a rotating head, and where it new technology to the operators. impact will be. JPT
SPE Bookstore
www.spe.org/store
NEW TITLE
Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 12
Robert F. Mitchell and Stefan Z. Miska
This textbook, an update of the classic Applied Drilling Engineering volume (Textbook Series
Vol. 2), takes a new look at the basics of drilling engineering. Chapters are written by experts
from industry and academia and provide numerous example problems to reinforce the
concepts presented.
FUNDAMENTALS OF
DRILLING ENGINEERING
This book is essential for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as industry
Robert F. Mitchell
professionals trying to gain detailed knowledge of basic drilling concepts.
Stefan Z. Miska
Contents:*OUSPEVDUJPOUPSPUBSZESJMMJOHt*OUSPEVDUJPOUPHFPNFDIBOJDTJOESJMMJOHt%SJMMJOH
SPE TEXTBOOK SERIES VOL. 12
nVJETt$FNFOUJOHt%SJMMJOHIZESBVMJDTt3PUBSZESJMMJOHCJUTt$BTJOHEFTJHOt%JSFDUJPOBM
ESJMMJOHt'VOEBNFOUBMTPGESJMMTUSJOHEFTJHOt%SJMMJOHQSPCMFNT
Visit our online bookstore at www.spe.org/store
JPT • FEBRUARY 2011 35
