Offset Well Data Analysis for Drilling Performance Optimization   

Add Your Comments

Introduction 

Offset well data analysis is an effective and proven method for improving drilling performance and preventing the recurrence of past problems. A structured review of historical wells provides realistic expectations for time, cost, and risk, and helps teams distinguish between systemic performance issues and isolated, one-off events. 

When applied consistently, offset analysis supports better technical decisions, strengthens risk management, and improves execution discipline. It also provides a factual basis for planning discussions, benchmarking, and alignment between office and rig-site teams. 

The analysis should cover a sufficiently large and relevant population of offset wells, typically 20 to 30 wells selected based on similar geology, hole sizes, pressure regimes, well trajectories, operating environments, and rig types. Where data quality varies, priority should be given to wells with reliable operational records, complete time breakdowns, and documented post-well reviews. 

1. Non-Productive Time Analysis by Operation and Hole Section 

  • Both the operation type and the hole section should analyze non-productive time (NPT) to identify where performance losses are concentrated. This includes drilling, tripping, casing running, cementing, well control events, equipment repair, waiting on weather, and waiting on logistics or services. 

  • Segmenting NPT by hole section is particularly important because risk profiles and operational challenges change significantly from surface to reservoir sections. In offshore and deepwater wells, conductor and surface holes often account for a large share of total time losses. These losses are commonly linked to shallow hazards, weak or unconsolidated formations, weather exposure, shallow flows, cementing challenges, and wellhead installation issues. 

  • Breaking down NPT at this level helps prioritize improvement efforts and ensures that mitigation measures are focused on the phases that deliver the greatest overall performance impact. 

2. Categorization of Historical Issues and Failure Modes 

  • Historical problems should be grouped into clear, consistent categories to allow meaningful comparison across wells and campaigns. Typical categories include: 

    • Wellbore instability 

    • Stuck pipe and differential sticking 

    • Hole cleaning deficiencies 

    • Losses and well control events 

    • Equipment or tool failures 

    • Waiting on weather, logistics, or third-party services 

  • Within each category, failure modes should be examined to understand how problems developed, escalated, and were resolved. Visualization tools such as Pareto charts, time-loss histograms, or failure frequency tables help identify dominant contributors and recurring patterns. 

  • This structured approach supports effective root cause analysis and prevents teams from repeatedly addressing symptoms instead of the underlying causes. 

3. Evaluation of Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarks 

  • Key performance indicators (KPIs) should be reviewed to understand historical variability and establish realistic targets for the planned well. Common KPIs include: 

    • Total days per well 

    • Drilling time per hole section 

    • Rate of penetration trends 

    • Connection and stand drilling times 

    • Trip speeds and flat time 

    • Casing running and cementing durations 

    • Frequency and duration of major unplanned events 

  • These metrics should be compared across offset wells drilled under comparable conditions. Benchmarking should focus on the fastest safe execution achieved without compromising safety, well integrity, or equipment reliability, rather than simple averages. 

  • Well-defined benchmarks improve planning accuracy, support credible performance targets, and help align expectations between planners and execution teams. 

4. Translation of Historical Learnings into Actionable Improvements 

  • Lessons learned from offset wells should be reviewed systematically and filtered for relevance to the planned well. Differences in geology, water depth, formation strength, pressure and fracture gradients, well trajectory, rig capability, and operating environment must be considered when applying historical insights. 

  • Effective lessons are converted into specific and actionable measures, such as: 

    • Adjustments to mud systems or rheology targets 

    • Changes to casing setting depths or hole sizes 

    • Modified drilling practices or operating limits 

    • Revised equipment or BHA selection 

    • Enhanced monitoring or contingency plans 

  • Generic statements without clear actions should be avoided, as they rarely lead to measurable performance improvement. 

5. Subsurface and Pressure Trend Review 

  • Offset well data should be used to validate pore pressure, fracture gradient, loss of circulation, and wellbore stability trends across the field or area. Any differences between pre-drill predictions and actual drilling behavior should be documented and understood. 

  • This review helps refine drilling margins, casing design assumptions, mud weight strategies, and operational windows. Improving the accuracy of subsurface assumptions reduces the likelihood of unexpected losses, kicks, or instability and minimizes the need for reactive design changes during execution. 

6. Equipment, Tools, and Technology Performance Review 

  • Offset analysis should include a review of equipment and downhole tool performance and reliability. This includes bits, bottom-hole assemblies, motors, or rotary steerable systems, reamers, cementing equipment, and well control equipment. 

  • Recurring equipment issues or tool failures should trigger corrective actions such as design changes, alternative tool selection, revised operating practices, or enhanced inspection and maintenance requirements. Conversely, technologies that consistently delivered measurable performance improvements should be considered for reuse where operating conditions are comparable. 

7. Operational Practices and Human Factors 

  • Offset well reviews should examine operational practices that influence performance, including tripping discipline, hole cleaning routines, connection consistency, response to abnormal indicators, and decision-making during unplanned events. 

  • Human factors such as crew experience, supervision quality, communication effectiveness, and clarity of roles and responsibilities often play a significant role in performance outcomes. Identifying practices associated with superior results helps standardize execution and reduce variability between wells and crews. 

8. Data Quality, Consistency, and Limitations 

  • The reliability of conclusions drawn from offset analysis depends directly on data quality. Drilling reports, time logs, and incident descriptions should be reviewed for consistency, completeness, and accuracy. 

  • Where data gaps or inconsistencies exist, assumptions should be clearly stated, and conclusions treated with appropriate caution. Continuous improvement of reporting standards and data management systems strengthens future planning and supports long-term organizational learning. 

Summary 

A comprehensive analysis of offset well data goes far beyond reviewing time curves. It integrates performance metrics, failure modes, subsurface behavior, equipment reliability, and operational practices to create a realistic and risk-aware drilling plan. 

When applied consistently and translated into actionable improvements, offset analysis reduces uncertainty, improves execution quality, and prevents the repetition of known problems. It forms a critical bridge between historical experience and future performance optimization for drilling. 

References and Further Reading: 

  1. Helgesen, J. T., Stene, F., and Tønnessen, R. 1999. Deepwater Cementing at the Gjallar Ridge Offshore Norway. Internal Report. 

  2. Jacobsen, D. 1999. Atypical Planning Process Cuts Drilling Costs. Oil & Gas Journal. 

  3. Jones, M. L., and Alworth, C. D. 1999. Well Planning, Evaluation Programs Improve Gulf Results. Oil & Gas Journal. 

  4. Stene, F., and Aird, P. 1999. Teamwork, Extensive Preplanning Pay Off for Norwegian Sea Well. Offshore Magazine. 

  5. Al Hammadi, M., Al Ameri, M., Al Marzouqi, A., et al. 2017. Invisible Lost Time Reduction and Drilling Risk Management Optimization in United Arab Emirates Onshore Field. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November. SPE-188640-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/188640-MS. 

  6. AlEnezi, D., AlKandari, A., AlMansour, A., et al. 2024. Delivering Challenging Wells with Reduced NPT Using Real-Time Geomechanics: A Middle Eastern Perspective. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 12-14 February. IPTC-23347-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-23347-MS. 

  7. Gao, D., Sun, L., Lian, Z., et al. 2013. Enhancing Reamer Drilling Performance in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Wells. Drilling Contractor 35 (3): 329-335. https://doi.org/10.2118/123456-PA. 

Disclaimer: This guide synthesizes and paraphrases industry best practices from referenced sources for educational and field-reference purposes only. It does not reproduce copyrighted material verbatim and is not official company policy or engineering advice. All information belongs to the original authors and publishers who retain full rights. No claim of original authorship is made for referenced concepts, and the document is distributed in good faith for drilling professionals.