Up to this time data sharing was sporadic, time intensive to organise and delivered inconsistent results. This was because each Operator might use different metrics and, even when they did use the same metrics, they would often define them quite differently.
The group, led by BP, agreed on a common set of metrics to be reported and established standard definitions for these metrics. They named this process the ‘Drilling Performance Review’ (DPR) and provided data on 202 wells drilled during 1989 in a standard format and subject to quality-control by a BP Engineer.
By 1992 this group had expanded to also include Elf, Enterprise, Hamilton and Kerr McGee but it had also become apparent that the running of the DPR was not core business for an Operator.
In 1993 the Operators out-sourced the management and organisation of the DPR to a joint venture of Rushmore Associates and the Sigma Consultancy with a remit to grow the participation. In the first year of the “Rushmore Reviews” the first non-UK wells were provided by NAM from the Netherlands while BG and Total were added to the participants list.
In 1994 a second and complementary study, the Completions Performance Review (CPR), was established to enable participants to share data on the whole of the well construction process for completed wells from spud to production operations.
In the same year the DPR expanded its coverage to include data from Norway and six countries from the Asia Pacific region. New participants recruited included Ampolex, Apache, BHP, Clyde, Esso, Fletcher, Phillips, Ranger, Sagasco, Santos, Sovereign, Talisman, Unocal, WAPET, WMC and Woodside.
The DPR expanded further in 1997 to include Africa and, from 1999 wells were included from the America's, Middle East and Former Soviet Union.
At the end of 2007 the Rushmore Reviews were approached by the UK Oil & Gas (formerly UKOOA) working group on Well Abandonments with a proposal to start sharing data on permanent well abandonments, initially focussed on the European region.
After meetings to establish the dataset and rules of participation the Abandonment Performance Review (APR) was formally launched early 2009. Initial participants included BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Fairfield, Hess, Lundin, Shell, Statoil, Talisman, Total, Tullow and Wintershall.
Online Data
Drilling and completions data became available to participants on the internet for the first time in 2000, allowing access not only to numeric performance metrics but also to time-depth charts, completion schematic diagrams and comparative performance charts.
The DPR 'land well lite' option was added in 2001. This allows high volume land well operators to participate in the study whilst minimising their data collection workload.
Participation in the Completions Performance Review grew significantly from 2002 and many Operators started to commit to long term contracts of between three and five years for both studies.
During 2004 a CPR 'lite' option was introduced to allow Operators running fifty or more similar completions in a country to provide a smaller volume of data.
The addition of a well location mapping and selection facility in 2008 enabled quick and easy identification and selection of offset wells, especially useful across national political boundaries.
Dynamic Charting
The power of web-based data delivery was further exploited in 2005 with the addition of a number of new website features including the provision of 'real time' performance metrics such as average, quartile and P10 / P90 figures for selected sets of wells displaying feet/metres per day, cost per foot/metre, cost per day, %NPT and %WOW and other key metrics.
Dynamic charting of a very wide range of metrics was also added in box plot, cross plot, bar chart and histogram formats. In the DPR metrics such as MTD, TVD, drilled interval, water depth, feet/metres per day, cost per foot/metre, cost per day, total days, coring days, logging days and many others can be charted by region, country, Operator, well type, year, rig type, number of casing strings and others.
In the CPR metrics such as total days, days per operation, total costs, tangible costs, cost per day, cost per MTD, total %NPT and %WOW, %NPT and %WOW per operation and many others are available in moments in three chart formats.
Data Input and Training Services
Demand from Operators led to significant enhancements to our data input, analysis and training services during 2005.
By 2006 Rushmore Reviews staff had provided on-site data input and other related services in Austria, Egypt, France, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway and Oman to a range of clients including Bapetco, Eni, OMV, Petronas Carigali, PDO, Sakhalin Energy, Shell, Statoil and Total.
A regular programme of training is provided at the Rushmore Reviews offices in Aberdeen for people tasked with completion of the data input workbooks. The course also looks at website navigation and the use of website display and analysis tools.
Data Input Automation
From 2006 onwards a facility to automate the input of data into the Rushmore Reviews spreadsheets was provided by IDS in their web-based DataNet application, by Landmark in OpenWells and by Peloton in WellView.
For more details please click on the relevant logo below.
