WorkflowDrilling, Wells & Decommissioning

Well Program Review

Well program review that proves whether each hazard from the offset wells reached a step in the program, and leaves each section's signature to the technical authority.

See the demo Book a demo

Follow the dangling G30 hazard to a signed section ↓

The problem

Offset well hazards that never reach a step in the program

A drilling program runs to hundreds of pages, and the offset study behind it to thousands of daily reports. The people who sign it have days, so they read the summary and the sections they know are risky.

A lost-circulation event in a depleted sand can sit in one offset's report, get a line in the summary, and still never become a step. When a revision lands, the review starts over, and sections already signed get read again from the top.

Built forDrilling engineersDrilling technical authoritiesWell control specialistsSubsurface leadsAssurance reviewers

The Problem Today

A long program is checked by a few busy people, and nobody can prove each offset hazard reached a step.

0.5 ppg: Offshore rule: mud this far under the fracture gradient published

Checked by hand today

Programs
Offsets
Standards
Sums

Offsets read by summaryThousands of reports, and few are read in full
One change, full restartA new revision reopens signed sections

The Solution

Read everythingThe whole program and each offset daily report, handwriting included
Trace by depthEach event lined up by formation and joined to the step dealing with it
Do the sumsMargins and kick tolerance redone against what the offsets saw
Send what is openHazards with no step, and deviations, are routed to a named owner

Built-in controls

Each new step is checked by someone else
Agents never write into the program
A section is signed on one revision only

What You Get

Technical authorities sign sections knowing which hazards reached a step, and which still wait on a person.

422: hours to read the sample's offset reports, three minutes each our estimate
$300K: for one offset's 20 lost hours, at a sample rig day our estimate

Dangling hazards in plain viewA hazard with no step shows as a loose line
Sums redone against the offsetsMargins and kick tolerance from what the wells saw
Signed section by sectionA change reopens only the section it touches

One revision, one dangling line

A well program review of 14-153: the G30 sand nobody planned for

An extended reach well, a 380-page program and 18 offset wells chosen by rock. Most hazards trace cleanly to a step. Three do not.

demoThe well, its offsets, the people and the program are sample data, including the depths.

01Review
88 hazards from 18 offset wells; 85 reach a step and 3 dangle
Drilling engineer
A depth scale runs down the middle: each event from an offset well on the left, the program's sections on the right, and a line from each event to the step that deals with it. Three lines end in the middle of the screen. The engineer starts with the one in his own section.
02Review
380 bbl lost in the depleted G30 sand, and no step covers it
Drilling engineer
The hazard page quotes the offset's drilling report: lost returns at 7,640 ft with 10.6 ppg mud, two LCM pills, losses cured after 11 hours. Five reports from four wells say the same. The sum beside them puts the program's mud 0.4 ppg over the loss point, against a company limit of 0.5 under it.
03Review
He drafts step 3.9: drill the G30 at 10.4 ppg and test it to 11.8
Drilling engineer
He starts the step from the agents' facts, then sets the test himself. In the new step the G30 is drilled first, strengthened, and tested to 11.8 ppg before the J shale. With the G30 as the weak point, kick tolerance works out at 41 bbl. Nothing goes into the program until he adds it under his own name.
04Review
Added to Rev D, and the line now waits for someone else to check it
Drilling engineer
Back on the trace, the G30 line runs to step 3.9 and the counter reads 85 connected, 1 to check. The engineer cannot check his own step. The next step bar names who it waits for: the well control specialist.
05Check
The specialist agrees the new step covers the hazard
Well control specialist
He opens the hazard page, reads the engineer's step against the offset reports and the sum, and agrees with a stated reason: it covers the hazard. The page now reads connected, checked, with the step quoted beside the passages it answers.
06Sign-off
She agrees the link herself before it can count in her section
Drilling technical authority
The technical authority opens the same hazard and agrees the link in her own name. New and changed links come first in the sample she must open, so a fresh step is never waved through on the specialist's check alone.
07Sign-off
The margin breaks the standard, so it is a deviation with a condition
Drilling technical authority
The mud still sits over the G30's loss point, so DV-1 goes to her as a deviation. She accepts it with a condition: the rig stops if the test fails. With DV-1 and DV-4 both accepted with conditions and all six sampled links agreed, nothing stops Section 3.
08Sign-off
Section 3 signed on Rev D, after opening 6 sampled links
Drilling technical authority
Her signature belongs to one section on one revision. Sections 1 and 5 still have hazards to clear, and the release of Rev D to the rig needs every section signed plus the well control specialist's concurrence. A later change to Section 3 would withdraw the release.
09Sign-off
86 of 88 now reach a step; the last two wait on named people
Drilling technical authority
The trace shows what is left: a shallow gas-cut flow waiting on the well control specialist and a hydrogen sulfide reading on the subsurface lead's desk, each with a due date. No section holding one of them can be signed until it is answered.

The G30 sum, from the offset reports to the program's mud

The standards checker redoes the sum from the reports, not from the summary.

Check	Value
G30 pressure, from the 10.6 ppg mud and 1,400 psi overbalance	7.1 ppg
Loss point, returns lost on the offsets	10.5 ppg
Program mud for the J shale, same open hole	10.7 to 10.9 ppg
Margin under the loss point, company limit 0.5 ppg	-0.4 ppg
Overbalance on the sand at 10.9 ppg	1,510 psi

demoSample data, from the working solution. The mud the J shale needs breaks the G30, so the new step tests the sand to 11.8 ppg before the shale is drilled.

Around the sign-off

Offsets, standards and design basis behind well design assurance

The rest of what the engineer, the specialist and the authority read before a revision goes to the rig.

List of offset well hazards with report, depth, formation, the program step that deals with each, and its status — **All 88 hazards**One row per event in an offset well, with the report, the depth reported and as lined up on the new well, the formation, the step and its state.

Offset wells chosen for a drilling program review, with distance, report days, reports read, hazards and record quality — **18 offset wells**Chosen by rock, not distance, in the signed offset study. 8,445 reports of seven kinds, with thin and handwritten files marked.

Drilling program read into steps by hole section, with one step's text and the offset hazards that end at it — **The program, Rev D**380 pages read into 31 steps by section, with the hazards that end at each step listed beside it.

Design basis check: mud window against depth with offset losses, and each pressure and margin sum redone — **Design basis**The mud window against depth, as written and with the offsets, and each design sum redone: pressures, margins and kick tolerance.

Company drilling standards checked rule by rule against the program, with passes and deviations and who signs each — **Company standards**40 rules checked: 34 pass and 6 raise deviations, each with a named signer. The standards text is the company's own copy.

Audit trail of a well program review: links added and agreed, deviations accepted and sections signed, by revision — **Audit trail**Each read, link, agreement and signature with its revision, kept for years after the well is abandoned. The record exports for assurance.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Four people, and none of them checks their own step

Each reads a different part first.

Drilling engineer

Sees: Dangling hazards and the sums against his program
Signs: Adds steps; never checks them

Well control specialist

Sees: New steps on kicks, losses and well control
Signs: Checks each change and concurs with the release

Subsurface lead

Sees: Pressure and fluid hazards from the offsets
Signs: Answers the hazards routed to the subsurface

Drilling technical authority

Sees: A sample of links, new ones first, and each deviation
Signs: Agrees links, accepts deviations, signs each section on one revision

Who reads the program

Six agents read the program and the offsets, and none of them writes a step

They find, quote and redo sums. People write and sign.

Program reader

Reads the program's pages into its steps.

Never rewords a step

Offset reader

Reads the offset study's reports, handwriting too.

Never guesses a depth
Never reads silence as safe

Depth aligner

Lines events up by formation and rig floor height.

Never hides the raw depth

Hazard tracer

Quotes the step that deals with each hazard at that depth.

Never connects on a word match
Never writes into the program

Standards checker

Checks the company's rules and redoes the design sums.

Never waives a rule or accepts a deviation

Review router

Names the person for each open item and picks the sign-off sample.

Never signs
Never relaxes a sample

What technical authorities ask about well program review

What is a well program review?

A well program review checks a drilling program before it goes to the rig. This well program review traces each hazard from the offset wells to the step that deals with it, redoes the design sums, checks the company's standards, and leaves each open item and each section's signature to a named person.

Does it grade the program?

No. It shows whether each known hazard reached a step, quotes that step, and leaves loose any hazard with no step. Judging the plan stays with the engineer, the specialist and the technical authority.

Does it replace a well engineering peer review?

No. A peer review relies on the reviewers' reading. Here every offset report is read first, so the reviewers start from the hazards that have no step and the sums that break a standard.

What happens when a new revision is issued?

Only the sections a change touches reopen. A signed section stays signed on its revision, and a change to it withdraws the release.

Can the agents add a contingency to the program?

No. They gather the facts and the sum; the drilling engineer writes the step, someone else checks it, and the technical authority agrees the link.

Where do the offset wells come from?

From the signed offset study for the well, chosen by rock rather than distance. The review reads every report from those wells.

Drilling, Wells & Decommissioning

Send us one program
and its offset wells.

We will trace each hazard the offsets recorded and show you the ones with no step.

Book a demo Browse solutions

Well Program Review

Offset well hazards that never reach a step in the program

The Problem Today

The Solution

What You Get

A well program review of 14-153: the G30 sand nobody planned for

88 hazards from 18 offset wells; 85 reach a step and 3 dangle

380 bbl lost in the depleted G30 sand, and no step covers it

He drafts step 3.9: drill the G30 at 10.4 ppg and test it to 11.8

Added to Rev D, and the line now waits for someone else to check it

The specialist agrees the new step covers the hazard

She agrees the link herself before it can count in her section

The margin breaks the standard, so it is a deviation with a condition

Section 3 signed on Rev D, after opening 6 sampled links

86 of 88 now reach a step; the last two wait on named people