Method And System For Evaluating Sensor Data From A Well Service Rig

Abstract

As activities are completed at a well service rig, sensors receive data and transmit it to a computer or database for storage. The sensor data, including the time it takes to complete particular activities on the rig, is evaluated to determine benchmarks. For example, data from multiple instances of an activity is organized and evaluated to determine the median value for data in that activity. Outlier data is removed and the new median and moving range is determined. A natural process limit range is then determined based on the moving range and data for each instance is compared to the natural process limit range. Instances that have data outside of the natural process limit range are noted and go through supplemental analysis to determine why the data was outside of the natural process limit range. The data can also be evaluated against activity benchmarks to determine if an activity was completed properly.

We claim: 
     
         1 . A computer-implemented method for evaluating data from a well service rig comprising the steps of:
 receiving, at an at least one analysis computer, a collection of data, wherein the collection of data includes data for a plurality of instances of an activity completed by a well service rig at a wellsite;   conducting, with the at least one analysis computer, a gross error review of the collection of data;   conducting, with the at least one analysis computer, a tech limit activity review of the collection of data; and   generating, with the at least one analysis computer, a report for the instances of the activity.   
     
     
         2 . The method of  claim 1 , further comprising the steps of:
 providing the well service rig at the wellsite;   conducting an instance of an activity with the well service rig;   receiving a plurality of data from a plurality of sensors at the wellsite while conducting the instance of the activity;   transmitting the plurality of data to an area remote from the wellsite; and   storing the plurality of data for the instance of the activity in the data storage device.   
     
     
         3 . The method of  claim 1 , wherein the gross error review comprises the steps of:
 sorting, with the at least one analysis computer, the collection of data from a lowest value to a highest value;   determining, with the at least one analysis computer, a first median data point for the collection of data;   determining, with the at least one analysis computer, a first median data value for the collection of data;   applying, with the at least one analysis computer, a lower level boundary to the sorted collection of data based on a first pre-programmed percentage;   applying, with the at least one analysis computer, an upper level boundary to the sorted collection of data based on a second pre-programmed percentage; and   selecting, with the at least one analysis computer, all data points in the sorted collection of data between the lower level boundary and the upper level boundary.   
     
     
         4 . The method of  claim 1 , wherein the first pre-programmed percentage is within a first range between 15 percent and 35 percent and wherein the second pre-programmed percentage is within a second range between 15 percent and 35 percent. 
     
     
         5 . The method of  claim 3 , wherein the tech limit activity review of the collection of data further comprises the steps of:
 sorting, with the at least one analysis computer, the selected data in a chronological order;   determining, with the at least one analysis computer, a second median data point for the selected, chronologically ordered data;   determining, with the at least one analysis computer, a second median value for the selected, chronologically ordered data;   calculating, with the at least one analysis computer, a moving range for the selected, chronologically ordered data;   calculating, with the at least one analysis computer, a median of the moving range; and   calculating an upper natural process limit, with the at least one analysis computer, based on the sum of the second median value and a product of a constant and the median of the moving range; and   comparing, with the at least one analysis computer, data values for each instance of the collection of data against the upper natural process limit, wherein data values above the upper natural process limit are out of range.   
     
     
         6 . The method of  claim 5 , further comprising the steps of:
 calculating a lower natural process limit, with the at least one analysis computer, based on the difference of the second median value and the product of a constant and the median of the moving range;   comparing, with the at least one analysis computer, data values for each instance of the collection of data against the lower natural process limit; and   designating, with the at least one analysis computer data values below the lower natural process limit as out of range.   
     
     
         7 . The method of  claim 5 , further comprising the steps of:
 adding information about each instance of the activity with data out of range to an out of range list;   conducting additional analysis on each instance of the activity on the out or range list;   
     
     
         8 . The method of  claim 1 , further comprising the step of determining, with the at least one analysis computer, a benchmark for the activity based on tech limit activity review of the collection of data. 
     
     
         9 . The method of  claim 1 , further comprising the steps of:
 determining, with the at least one analysis computer, if there is another activity having data for a plurality of instances of the another activity in the data storage device; and   repeating the steps of  claim 1  for each additional activity.   
     
     
         10 . A computer-implemented method for determining a trip activity coefficient for an activity completed by a well service rig comprising the steps of:
 receiving, at an at least one analysis computer, a plurality of data for a single instance of the activity completed by the well service rig;   evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, a first portion of the plurality of data to determine a gross time to complete the activity;   evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, a third portion of the plurality of data to determine a portion of the gross time the well service rig conducted operations during the instance of the activity and designating that portion of the gross time as a work time; and   calculating, with the at least one analysis computer, the trip activity coefficient.   
     
     
         11 . The method of  claim 10 , further comprising the steps of:
 providing the well service rig at the wellsite;   conducting the instance of the activity with the well service rig;   receiving the plurality of data from a plurality of sensors at the wellsite while conducting the instance of the activity;   transmitting the plurality of data to an area remote from the wellsite; and   storing the plurality of data for the instance of the activity in the data storage device.   
     
     
         12 . The method of  claim 10 , further comprising the steps of:
 evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, a second portion of the plurality of data to determine an amount of wait time occurring during the instance of the activity;   calculating, with the at least one analysis computer, the difference of the gross time and the amount of wait time as a net time; and   wherein calculating the trip activity coefficient comprises calculating the quotient of the work time divided by the net time.   
     
     
         13 . The method of  claim 12 , further comprising the step of storing, with the at least one analysis computer, the gross time, wait time, net time, work time and trip activity coefficient for the instance of the activity in the data storage device. 
     
     
         14 . The method of  claim 10 , wherein calculating the trip activity coefficient comprises calculating the quotient of the work time divided by the gross time. 
     
     
         15 . The method of  claim 10 , further comprising the step of calculating, with the at least one analysis computer, a total number of tubing joints run during the instance of the activity. 
     
     
         16 . The method of  claim 15 , wherein calculating the total number of tubing joints comprises the steps of:
 receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a plurality of tripping data comprising a plurality of trips of running tubing into or out of the well;   determining a joint length for each tubing joint run into or out of the well for each trip, receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a first data value representing a minimum block position sensed during the trip;   for each trip, receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a second data value representing a maximum block position sensed during the trip;   for each trip, calculating, at the at least one analysis computer, a difference between the second data value and the first data value as a block movement value;   for each trip, calculating to a nearest integer, at the at least one analysis computer, a quotient of the block movement value divided by the joint length as a tubing joint count for the trip; and   calculating as a total tubing joint value, at the at least one analysis computer, a sum of the tubing joint count for the plurality of trips.   
     
     
         17 . The method of  claim 16 , further comprising the steps of:
 for each trip, receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a third data value representing a maximum load sensed during the trip;   for each trip, receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a fourth data value representing a minimum load sensed during the trip;   for each trip, receiving, at the at least one analysis computer, a fifth data value representing a maximum pressure for a tongs during the trip;   for each trip, comparing, at the at least one analysis computer, a difference between the third data value and the fourth data value is greater than a load threshold value;   for each trip, determining, at the at least one analysis computer, if the fifth data value is greater than a pressure threshold value; and   for each trip, determining, with the at least one analysis computer, that zero tubing joints were run into or pulled out of the well if the difference between the third data value and the fourth data value is not greater than the load threshold value and if the fifth data value is not greater than the pressure threshold value.   
     
     
         18 . The method of  claim 17 , wherein the load threshold value is between one hundred pounds and ten thousand pounds. 
     
     
         19 . The method of  claim 17 , wherein the pressure threshold value is between one hundred and nine hundred pounds per square inch. 
     
     
         20 . A computer-implemented method for determining if a tubing anchor was set properly by a well service rig comprising the steps of:
 a. receiving, at an at least one analysis computer, a plurality of load data collected during an instance of setting the tubing anchor with the well service rig;   b. receiving, an the at least one analysis computer, a plurality of block position data collected during the instance;   c. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of load data to determine if there is a first portion of the plurality of load data that increases to a string weight;   d. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of block position data to identify a first period where a first portion of the plurality of block position data identifies that a block is moving upward;   e. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of load data to determine if during the first period, a load represented by the load data increases a first nominal amount;   f. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of block position data to determine if a second period exists after the first period where a second portion of the plurality of block position data identifies that the block is moving downward;   g. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of load data to determine if during the second period, the load represented by the load data decreases a second nominal amount;   h. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of block position data to determine if a third period exists after the second period where a third portion of the plurality of block position data identifies that the block is moving upward;   i. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of load data to determine if during the third period, the load represented by the load data increases a third nominal amount;   j. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of block position data to determine if a fourth period exists after the third period where a fourth portion of the plurality of block position data identifies that the block is moving downward;   k. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of load data to determine if during the fourth period, the load represented by the load data decreases a fourth nominal amount;   l. evaluating, with the at least one analysis computer, the plurality of block position data and the plurality of load data to determine if a fifth period exists after the fourth period where a fifth portion of the plurality of block position data and a fifth portion of the plurality of load data are substantially stable for a predetermined amount of time; and   m. generating a positive notification that the tubing anchor was set properly based on a positive determination in steps c-1.   
     
     
         21 . The method of  claim 20 , wherein the predetermined amount of time is at least three minutes. 
     
     
         22 . The method of  claim 20 , wherein the first nominal amount, second nominal amount, third nominal amount, and fourth nominal amount are each between 1500 pounds and 80,000 pounds.