gerarooooo Member
 member is offline
Joined: Mar 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 9
|  | Example of MPD vs OBD costs? « Thread Started on Jun 6, 2012, 1:06am » | |
I´ve looking for a good example for my thesis in MPD about a comparison of costs.
I would like to you send me a standard budget of MPD vs OBD.
The cost of a MPD Assemebly + the revenue. An averange of costs per day in MPD tools would be good.
The other hand, the revenue missing using OBD. the production rate and the incomes predicted for OBD in comparision to MPD.
Thanks in advance.
Gerard
| |
|
Rebel Tool Leading Member
    member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://www.tellumo.co.uk/brent%20storm%20100.jpg)
One fine sunny day.......
Joined: May 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 829 Location: UK
|  | Re: Example of MPD vs OBD costs? « Reply #1 on Jun 6, 2012, 8:01am » | |
I think that you are asking a lot. There is no real answer to your query. The cost of MPD, like any service, depends on the geographical area, the availability of equipment, the availability of personnel, local wage costs, level of service (pumping nitrogen?). In some areas equipment has to be manufactured and operated to special local standards (NORSOK, ATEX etc.), this will be reflected in the provider's costs and therefore his dayrate. There could be discounts available for contract work, for example a supplier might be willing to absorb some mobilisation costs if he knows the spread is going to be on a job for a long time. Are you talking offshore or land based?
The main thing about MPD is that it allows wells to be drilled that would otherwise be impossible to drill. I know of one operator who spent over a year drilling a HTHP well in the North Sea, they had all sorts of problems with lost circ and influx Casing ended up being set much higher than expected due to well control problems which had a knock on effect for the rest of the well. In short it was a nightmare. The next well was drilled using MPD and went much better. If you compared those two wells side by side the operator must have saved millions. They had other major problems but that wasn't due to pressure control. A similar approach was used in Norway.....
According to this article http://www.worldoil.com/March-2012-Recor....nd-control.html
COST SAVINGS Using MPD led to significant operational and economic advantages. In total, using the MPD system saved 18.5 days or about $13.9 MM. Less the time for MPD rig-up and testing the net savings were 10 days and about $7.5 MM. Four days, or about $3.0 MM, were saved compared to a conventional set-up when controlling gas influxes, determining the pore pressure and enabling controlled weighting up. About tens days ($7.5 MM) were saved by successfully drilling the 8½-in. hole to TD in the narrow pore pressure/fracture gradient margin. The elimination of gas check trips when pulling out for bit changes and coring saved 2 days ($1.5 MM) The MPD system allowed stripping out with backpressure to control swabbing. Other savings include two days, because no dummy connections were required, and a half-day from conducting open hole LOT’s and pressure tests of cement plugs. Time savings were achieved by locking in the ECD pressure during connections, which totally eliminated long circulation periods. However, this is difficult to quantify and is not included in the time calculation. A total of 8.5 days was spent on critical rig time for rigging up, flushing, pressure testing, fingerprinting and carrying out a full-scale drill.
|
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with individuals qualified in these respective fields. |
|
gerarooooo Member
 member is offline
Joined: Mar 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 9
|  | Re: Example of MPD vs OBD costs? « Reply #2 on Jun 7, 2012, 1:25am » | |
Thank you very much Mr. Rebel tool. Just in case, the aplication I was looking for is for drllling on land (3000 m) and an estimate averange of costs per day for a CBHP variation. Weatherford or Halliburton.
RCD NGU DDV CCS or CCV Automated manifold Separators
Again, Thanks.
| |
|