View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Teeside University's Research Repository

$PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI(QJLQHHULQJ5HVHDUFK $-(5  


$PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI(QJLQHHULQJ5HVHDUFK $-(5 
H,661S,661
9ROXPH;;,VVXH;;SS;;;;
ZZZDMHURUJ

5HVHDUFK3DSHU2SHQ$FFHVV


)UDPHZRUNIRU(YDOXDWLRQDQG,PSURYHPHQWRI:RUNRYHU5LJV
LQ2LOILHOGV

+DLWKDP0DQVRXU 3URI0RKDPPDG0XQLU$KPDG


6FKRRORI6FLHQFHDQG(QJLQHHULQJ7HHVVLGH8QLYHUVLW\8.
2PDU$O0XNKWDU8QLYHUVLW\)DFXOW\RI(QJLQHHULQJ7REUXN/LE\D 

6FKRRORI6FLHQFHDQG(QJLQHHULQJ7HHVVLGH8QLYHUVLW\8. 

5HFHLYHG0DQXVFULSW;;;;;;;;
$FFHSW0DQXVFULSW;;;;;;;;
3XEOLVKHG0DQXVFULSW;;;;;;;;

$%675$&7 7KHDLPRIWKHZRUNLVWRGHYHORSDIUDPHZRUNHYDOXDWLRQIRURSHUDWLRQDOSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKH
ZRUNRYHU ULJV LQ RLOILHOGV 7KLV IUDPHZRUN LV XVHG DV D EDVLV WR DQDO\VH DQG HQKDQFH WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH
ZRUNRYHUULJLQFOXGLQJWKHLPSURYHPHQWLQULJHIILFLHQFLHVDQGUHGXFWLRQLQRSHUDWLRQDOFRVWV7KHIUDPHZRUNLV
EXLOWRQWKHFROOHFWLRQDQGDQDO\VLVRIWKHRYHUDOOHTXLSPHQWHIILFLHQF\ 2(( HVWDEOLVKHGIURPWKHGDWDJDWKHUHG
E\ WKH ZRUNRYHU DQG SURGXFWLRQ HQJLQHHUV RQ WKH ZRUNRYHU ULJ ,W FDQ EH XVHIXOO\ DGRSWHG LQ FHUWDLQ
FLUFXPVWDQFHVWRFDOFXODWHWKHHIILFLHQF\RIZRUNRYHUULJV7KHUHVXOWVRIPHDVXUH2((DUHHIIHFWLYHZKHQXVHG
WRLPSURYHWKHZRUNRYHUULJDQG(63HIILFLHQFLHV7RLOOXVWUDWHVRPHRIRXUZRUNZHSUHVHQWDQGGLVFXVVUHVXOWV
IURPRQHRIPDQ\FDVHVWXGLHVZKLFKGHPRQVWUDWHWKHYDOXHRIPDLQWHQDQFHVWUDWHJLHVVXFKDVIUDPHZRUN7KH
IUDPHZRUN DQG 2(( PHDVXUH DUH VKRZQ WR EH HIIHFWLYH ZKHQ XVHG WR LPSURYH ULJ HIILFLHQF\ DQG UHGXFH
GRZQWLPHFRVW)LQDOO\WKHZRUNVXJJHVWVDZD\WKDWFDQKHOSERWKZRUNRYHUULJVDQG(63XVHUVWRFRRSHUDWH
ZLWKDQDLPWRKHOSRLOZHOOVWRSURGXFHPRUHZLWKHIILFLHQWHTXLSPHQWDWDQ\RLOILHOG


.H\ZRUGV 2YHUDOO(TXLSPHQW(IILFLHQF\ 2(( :RUNRYHUHIILFLHQF\


, ,1752'8&7,21
7KHRLODQGJDVLQGXVWU\VSHQGVPLOOLRQVRIGROODUVHDFK\HDUFROOHFWLQJYDVWDPRXQWVRIGULOOLQJGDWD
\HWKDVQRWPDGHHIIHFWLYHXVHRIWKLVGDWDWRLPSURYHGULOOLQJSHUIRUPDQFH:LWKULJFRVWVHVWLPDWHGWRFRQVXPH
RU86'ELOOLRQRIWKDWVSHQGLQJHYHU\HIIRUWWRUHGXFHGULOOLQJWLPHKDVDGLUHFWLPSDFWRQRXUERWWRP
OLQH(VWLPDWHVRIQRQSURGXFWLYHWLPH 137 UDQIURP±RU86'±ELOOLRQGHSHQGLQJRQZHOOW\SH
PDLQWHQDQFHDQGRSHUDWRU>@
:RUNRYHUVXSSRUWVRLOILHOGVWRUHWXUQRLOZHOOVWRSURGXFWLRQE\GHOLYHULQJRSHUDWLQJHTXLSPHQW
UHOLDELOLW\DQGRSHUDWLQJHTXLSPHQWULVNUHGXFWLRQ7KHRLOZHOOVDUHGHSHQGHQWRIPDLQWHQDQFHVHUYLFHVVXFKDV
FOHDQLQJUHLQVWDWHPHQWDQGVWLPXODWLRQ7KHVHVHUYLFHVFDQEHSHUIRUPHGE\DOLPLWHGQXPEHURIZRUNRYHUULJV
8VXDOO\ZHOOVQHHGPDLQWHQDQFHVHUYLFHVDQGDSUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHZRUNRYHUULJVPXVWEHGHILQHG7KLV
SUHSDUDWLRQPXVWFRQVLGHUVRPHIDFWRUVVXFKDVWKHZHOOSURGXFWLRQWKHW\SHRIVHUYLFHWREHSHUIRUPHGDQGWLPH
ZLQGRZVIRUWKHZHOOPDLQWHQDQFH>@


ZZZDMHURUJ 3DJH
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015

There is a production loss associated to wells waiting for maintenance services, so it is important to
attend them as soon as possible. Thus, the workover rig scheduling problem consists of finding the best schedule
for the limited number of workover rigs, minimising the production loss associated with the wells waiting for
maintenance service [3].

The workover rigs must service oil wells requesting maintenance as soon as possible. When a well
requires maintenance, its production is reduced or stopped for safety reasons and some workover rig must
service it within a given deadline. It is therefore important to service the wells in a timely fashion in order to
minimise the production loss. The total cost includes the rig expenses (transport, assembly and operation),
which are functions of time and distances, plus the losses of revenue in the wells waiting for the rig, which are
dependent on time [4].

The purpose of the study is to investigate the current problems and practice in the workover activities
in the Oilfield. This study evaluates the steps needed to implement Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), based
on how it is defined by Nakajima (1988) and H. Mansour & M. Munir (2013) [3].

In this work the Practical Framework is mainly built on a quantitative measure of performance based
on data collection and subsequent analysis of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) originally introduced by
Nakajima (1988). The Framework method, when implemented in the company, resulted in the operators
recognising the benefits that OEE carries in tracking and reducing hidden losses to improve their workover rig's
efficiency. In addition, in this research, we show how a simplified version of this OEE measure can be usefully
adopted in certain circumstances to calculate the efficiency of workover rigs. Both Framework and the OEE
measure are shown to be effective when used to improve equipment efficiency [6].

1.1 Workover Processes

Workover program is an orderly step-by-step procedure to be followed in conducting the workover
operation. This procedure of the workover include the main stage of workover processes, the first step in the
process is to move the rig to the location of the oil well where many procedures must be followed in order to
return the oil well to normal production see fig 1. The procedures such as the rig up (R/U), rig down (R/D) and
ESP installation, Run in Hole (RIH) and pull out of hole (POH) of the equipment such as ESP. The program
must provide operating personnel with all information necessary to achieve the required objectives safely at the
minimum cost and with the minimum expenditure of resources [7 and 8].
Oil well inspection and workover consists of measuring actual processes from start to finish the
workover job. To keep oil wells ruing, they require maintenance and repair, from time to time, due to normal
wear and tear, age and the effects of the environment to which the equipment is exposed. Workover operations
include any number of activities performed on a well, after initial completion, including recompletion and
remedial repair work to achieve the required objective safely, at the minimum cost, with minimum expenditure
of resources [10].

www.ajer.org Page 2
$PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI(QJLQHHULQJ5HVHDUFK $-(5  

Prepair the
workover Move to new well
programme

Move Rig to well

location
ULJUHOHDVH

Rig UP on the well )LQDO&KHFN

Proper the well 5,+Z(63

5XQLQKROH5,+
Pull out of hole POH
the ESP
:LWKFOHDQLQJ 32+ZVDPH
HTXLSPHQW


)LJXUH7KH0DLQ6WDJHRI:RUNRYHU3URFHVVHV 0DQVRXU 




,, 385326(2)2((,12,/,1'8675<

,QWKHRLOLQGXVWU\HYHU\ZHOOLQWKHRLOILHOGLVDSURGXFWOLQHWRSURGXFHWKHRLOLWKDVPDQ\SURFHVVHV
WR NHHS WKH RLO ZHOO LQ SURGXFWLRQ >@ 7KH RLO ZHOO LV DV D VPDOO PDQXIDFWXULQJ SODQW DQG HDFK SODQW QHHGV
GLIIHUHQWHTXLSPHQWDVWKHFRQGLWLRQVIRUHDFKSODQWDUHXQLTXH>DQG@,QWKHILHOGRIDSSOLFDWLRQRI2((LQ
RLODQGJDVLQGXVWULHVWKHUHVHDUFKHUFRPSDUHVWKHRYHUDOOHTXLSPHQWHIIHFWLYHQHVVLQZRUNRYHUULJVZLWK:RUOG
&ODVV0DQXIDFWXULQJ>DQG@

2YHUDOO(TXLSPHQW(IIHFWLYHQHVV 2(( )RU:RUNRYHU
(TXLSPHQWHIIHFWLYHQHVVLQFOXGHVHTXLSPHQWDYDLODELOLW\SHUIRUPDQFHHIILFLHQF\DQGUDWHRITXDOLW\RI
RXWSXW  2SHUDWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH GDWD FROOHFWLRQ RI WKH WKUHH 2(( YDULDEOHV DYDLODELOLW\ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG
TXDOLW\>DQG@

ܱ‫ ܧܧ‬ൌ ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„‹Ž‹–›š’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ ‡š“—ƒŽ‹–›

7KHILUVWHOHPHQWRIWKH2((FDOFXODWLRQLVSURFHVVDYDLODELOLW\,WLVWKHUDWLRRIWKHZRUNRYHUWLPHWR
WKHSODQQHGZRUNRYHUWLPH>@

‫‡‹–‰‹–ƒ”‡݌݋ݎ݁ݒ݋݇ݎ݋ݓ‬
‫ܡܜܑܔܑ܊܉ܔܑ܉ܞۯ‬Ψ ൌ  
’Žƒ‡†™‘”‘˜‡”–‹‡


ZZZDMHURUJ Page 3
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015
Planned workover time = TWT − breaks

Workover operating time = planned workover time − downtime

The second element is “performance rate”. This element measures the ratio of the best time achieved to
the actual time. That has been calculated in the method of evaluation of the workover [3].

BTWT
𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 % =
TWT

Where :
BTWThours   total best hostorical  timeachieved by workover rig  moving  Rig Up
 pulling ESP  RIH with equipment  POH with equipment  RIH with ESP  Final check  Rig release

TWT hours   total workover time actual time  moving  Rig Up  pulling ESP  RIH with equipment
 POH with equipment  RIH with ESP  Final check  Rig release

The third element of the OEE calculation is the “quality rate”, and is used to indicate the proportion of
defective time for good workover to the total workover time [3].

time for good workover

𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 % =
time for total workover

III. RIG EFFICIENCIES

The rig efficiencies of four rigs in different oilfields in Libya (Sarir, Nafoora and Messla oilfields) have
evaluated to identify the gap for improvements. The below table 1 shows many examples of results obtained
with evaluation method of the workover rig efficiency. It shows the average efficiency of the rigs and also the
efficiency of the rigs.
Table 1: workover rig efficiencies
Highest lowest
Average Gap
efficiency efficiency
Oilfield rig identified for
Rig No. achieved by achieved by
name efficiency improvement
rig rig
% %
% %
Rig 10 Sarir 70 93 48 45
Rig 23 Sarir 68 83 52 31
Rig 32 Nafoora 67 84 51 33
Rig 21 Messla 66 85 54 31

The variation in efficiencies identifies the potential for improvement. For example, the highest
efficiency is 93% for rig number 10 in Sarir oilfield, and the lowest efficiency is 48% for rig 10 at the same
oilfield. Therefor it is possible that in practice all the rigs could perform at 93% efficiency given the right

www.ajer.org Page 4
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015
procedures adopted with very little variation. Therefore, a workover rig in this case study should be most
efficient if it is running at the highest efficiency achieved.
Each year, non-productive time during drilling operations costs the oil and gas industry billions of
dollars; this equates to a loss of approximately one-third of oil and Gas Company’s average annual drilling
budget. The downtime Cost can give a good display to see the impact of the rig efficiency [14]. It can be seen in
the figure 6 the improvement in each rig can be performed and the improvement of the efficiency of the rigs can
be maintained. Each rig has target obtained hours in each steps of the workover operation.
The improvement in workover procedures greatly could reduce the downtime caused by incorrect
operating procedures while a good workover program reduces downtime caused by worse workover procedures
could be achieved [9].

Table 2: Summary statistics for Rigs downtime (DT).

Rig10 Rig23 Rig32 Rig21
Av. Rig Efficiency % 70% 68% 67% 66%
Av. TWT 70.9 70.8 69.4 70.7
Av. DT hrs 13.1 22.8 14.54 20.5
Av DT cost £ 19,926 33,816 20,863 33,514
DT cost % 20% 34% 20% 30%

The variation in downtime (DT) and its impact on different workover rigs (table 2) reflects the
condition of the rig equipment, the quality of the rig equipment, the quality of workover programme and the
company’s operating policies, the location of the well, and the nature of the work.
The utilisation of the resources is the main factor that affects both the performance and profit of a
company, this means decreasing the downtime hours and keeping operation running without any failures. The
facility in this research will be workover Rig in the Libya area focusing on the performance improvement.
Is it possible for workover to implement TPM in the way it has been mentioned. In order to address this
question the solution could lie in a simple and practical maintenance framework for these companies to follow,
and allow them to improve their situations, taking into consideration their time, abilities and resources. The
framework could be presented as a solution for workover rigs efficiency problem.

IV. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

The framework’s steps as shown in table 3 are strongly based on the twelve steps of Nakajima's
development program with different degree of sophistication [13 and 6]. Framework, as a method concentrates
on the elements that are practical and suitable for maintenance development program, which are training,
autonomous maintenance, and periodic maintenance [6].

In this work, the framework can be defined as a procedure that provides a practical workover
maintenance system for workover rig and production engineers in the oilfield. This procedure involves
operators, Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) technicians in the workover jobs acting as a team to monitor the
workover procedures including ESP processes (installation and uninstallation) and reduce the production losses
in the oil wells by return the oil well to production at right time. In the first section, framework is defined and its
linkage to Nakajima's twelve steps of TPM illustrated. Then each framework step is defined in detail and the
way it could be used and implemented.

www.ajer.org Page 5
$PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI(QJLQHHULQJ5HVHDUFK $-(5  
7DEOH%ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIIUDPHZRUNVWHSV
)UDPHZRUN 'HVFULSWLRQ
6WHSV
2QH 'HWHUPLQHWKHJDSEHWZHHQWDUJHWDQGDFWXDO2((LQWKHZRUNRYHU
DFWLYLWLHV
7ZR ,QWURGXFWLRQRIIUDPHZRUNWRVWDIIE\WKHPDQDJHPHQW
7KUHH ,PSURYHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQRSHUDWRUVDQGPDLQWHQDQFHSHRSOH
)RXU /DXQFKHGXFDWLRQDQGWUDLQLQJWRLPSURYHZRUNHU VVNLOOV
)LYH 0RQLWRUSURFHVVSHUIRUPDQFHVHWUDLVHWDUJHWOHYHO
6L[ ,PSOHPHQWDXWRQRPRXVPDLQWHQDQFH
6HYHQ ,PSOHPHQWSHULRGLFPDLQWHQDQFH

7KHRLOSURGXFWLRQFRPSDQ\ VZRUNIRUFHFDQLPSOHPHQWIUDPHZRUNVWHSVZLWKRXWWKHQHHGIRUH[WHUQDO
DGYLVHUV 7KHVH VWHSV DV VKRZQ LQ WDEOH  DERYH DUH IOH[LEOH DQG FDQ EH WDLORUHG E\ HQJLQHHUV DQG WKH
PDQDJHPHQW WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO RLO FRPSDQ\ V FDSDELOLWLHV ZKHUH HDFK FRPSDQ\ FRXOG GHYHORS LWV SODQV
GLIIHUHQWO\EHFDXVH RIGLIIHUHQWQHHGVDQGFKDOOHQJHVWKH\ DUHIDFHG ZLWKGHSHQGLQJRQWKHGLIIHUHQWDUWLILFLDO
PHWKRGVDSSOLHGLQWKHRLOILHOGSURGXFWLRQHTXLSPHQWFRQGLWLRQVDQGW\SHRIULJV


 3URFHVVHV,QSXW


2((GDWD
 FROOHFWLRQ


%HVWZRUNRYHU$UFKLYHG $FWXDOZRUNRYHUDFWLYLWLHV


 &RPSDULVRQVDQGLGHQWLILFDWLRQRI
JDEV

 LPSURYHPHQW


,PSOHPHQWVWHSVLQWKHSURFHVV
 N
Y 5HYLHZ
 ,VWKHUH,PSURYHPHQW" LPSURYHPHQW
5HODWLRQLPSURYHPHQWEHWZHHQ
RSHUDWRUV VWDII

 N

 ,VWKHUH,PSURYHPHQW"
5HYLHZ
LPSURYHPHQW
/DXQFK7UDLQLQJSURJDUPIRU
Y
ZRUNRYHUWHDP

(YDOXDWLRQRISHUIRUPDQH N

 N
,PSOHPHQW$XWRQRPRXV  5HYLHZDOO ,VLWLPSOHPHQWHG
VXFFHVVIXOO\"
3HULRGLF0DLQWHQDQFH
 Y Y
+DV7DUJHWEHHQ 2((GDWD
5HDFKHG" FROOHFWLRQ


)LJXUH)UDPHZRUNIRU(YDOXDWLRQDQG,PSURYHPHQWRI:RUNRYHU5LJVLQ2LOILHOGV>@

ZZZDMHURUJ Page 6
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015

The fundamental measure of the method is the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) value, which as
described by Nakajima (1989), should be the driving force and provides direction for improvement-based
activities within manufacturing organizations.

The framework proposed in Fig. 2 supports workover rigs and production engineering department in oil
companies in four ways; first, the framework is simple and easy to follow as it only has three stages and seven
steps. Second, framework does not require a significant financial commitment; steps could be implemented by
the production engineers at oilfields (there is no need for a consultant to explain and help implement the
method) and training is carried out by the crow (operators) and workover engineers at the rig and this reduces
the additional financial pressure. The maintenance technicians will train the workover operators on autonomous
maintenance and will be responsible for planning their own periodic maintenance program. This is because
maintenance technicians are the best people that have the maintenance skills to train workover operators, and
also have the knowledge and experience to plan their periodic maintenance program [6]. Third, improvements
could be achieved shortly after implementation. Fourth, the framework does not involve specialist TPM teams
and committees; instead there is only a single team to which everyone in the company will be attached. The
benefit that companies will gain by applying framework is through the reduction of lost time, wasted effort and
incurred cost. [6]

V. CASE STUDY - WORKOVER RIG NUMBER (10)

In this case study a workover rig number 10 in Sarir oilfield has been chosen to implementing the
framework, the introduction and preparation stages took seven working days, and the research was agreed to be
applied on only two workover rigs. The ideal cycle time is a standard known value for the machine. The
workover manager and the maintenance and ESP technicians were responsible for investigating any problems
on the workover rig that caused the decline in OEE.
The implementation of framework on one workover rig took only a short time to be accomplished in
this case study. The total time of the introduction and preparation stages was only seven working days. Each oil
well has taken an average of 6 to 8 days from start to return the well to production. On the other hand, the
implementation of AM helped in reducing breakdowns on the rig by controlling and eliminating contamination
on the rig machines and in the surrounding area.
The purpose of this case study was to show that the Production Engineering Department (PED)
management at oilfields can improve the workover rig's efficiency and quality which allows engineers to return
the oil well to production in the correct time to minimise costs and maximise production.

Table 4: OEE for Rig data

BTWT
Rig Well Total
Average
DT In work operating Availability Performance Quality OEE
OEE
No No. Hours
(hrs)

Rig 10 well 1 13.2 75.5 88% 59% 53% 28%

well 2 22.8 85 87% 52% 46% 21%

27%
44.5

well 3 14.4 70 79% 64% 53% 27%

well 4 22.5 54 65% 82% 62% 33%

www.ajer.org Page 7
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015
The practical method for evaluating the operational performance of workover activities in Sarir oilfield
is varies greatly. The rig 10 efficiencies remain relatively constant when they are operated in the different
locations. The table 4 shows the combined effect of rig efficiency and the efficiency to perform all other
workover operations as the effective daily workover cost, which is a practical measure of the overall workover
performance. Each rig has target obtained hours in each steps of the workover operation. The table 4 below
shows many examples of results of current OEE obtained.

The data obtained from the workover rig in Table 4 above showed that Average OEE was only 27%.
After OEE was analysed we were able to show the PED the causes of loss on the equipment.
When the causes were located and identified, it was explained to the PED management how the
workover crew and ESP technicians could eliminate the causes of these problems with the help of framework.
We explained to the PED management that when AM is implemented on the rig equipment it could help reduce
and eliminate the causes of ESP failure.

4.1 Framework Application

The steps, as shown in table 3 in previous section (IV) are flexible and can be tailored by PED
engineers and the PED management to the individual oilfield’s capabilities, where each oilfield could develop
its plans differently because of different needs and challenges they are faced with, depending on the different
artificial methods applied in the oilfield, production equipment conditions, and type of rigs. The fundamental
measure of the method is the OEE value, which as described by H. Mansour and M. Munir (2013), should be the
driving force and provides direction for improvement-based activities within workover rig activities [3].

80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
OEE for
40.0 Workover
OEE %

30.0 No. 21

20.0
10.0
0.0
well1 well2 well3 well4 well5 well6 well7 well8 well9 well10

Figure 3: OEE for Rig 21

We explained to the PED that periodic maintenance would help reduce major and minor breakdowns
on the machine thereby improving the condition of the machine. In addition, we explained how OEE could help
the PED to track any causes of reduction in the workover rig’s efficiency.
The results of OEE has been improved, the OEE for the first rig selected has increased from
approximately 29 % to 72 %. This is the result of improvement in: availability, performance efficiency and rate
of quality as in Fig 3.
The framework introduced in this research contributes mainly in terms of the following features. First,
the framework identifies factors that cause downtime. Second, the framework emphasizes the importance of

www.ajer.org Page 8
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015
focusing on crew-level factors. Third, the framework shows how the ramifications of downtime can occur by
generating a feedback structure through managerial action and decisions. Finally, the framework provides a
framework for tracing the causes of downtime and its impact on project performance.

Table 4 summarises overall evaluation results the DT cost impacts on the workover in each workover
job from well number 1 up to well number 10 against the OEE results during the study period. The framework
presented in this paper could assist managers in minimising the impact of downtime by providing insight into
equipment management [6].

Table 4: Summarizes of overall evaluation results

Previous OEE Current OEE
Well No. Downtime/ hr Downtime cost £
% %
Well 1 28.7 28.7 20 33,514
Well 2 28.7 38.8 18 29,986
Well 3 38.8 49.2 14 23,215
Well 4 49.2 58.3 10 16,500
Well 5 58.3 55.7 8 13,405
Well 6 55.7 57.2 6 10,000
Well 7 57.2 63.4 5 8,400
Well 8 63.4 69.6 3 5,001
Well 9 69.6 72.4 3 5,024
Well 10 72.4 69.4 2 3,300

The implementation of framework on one workover rig took only a short time to be accomplished in
this case study. The total time of the introduction and preparation stages was around 4 months. Each oil well
has taken an average of 6 to 8 days from start to return the well to production. On the other hand, the
implementation of AM helped in reducing breakdowns on the rig by controlling and eliminating contamination
on the rig machines and in the surrounding area.
The workover process improvement opportunities continue to be identified based on OEE results and
new variations of these measures can be implemented for other oilfields using the same artificial lift method [2
and 4]. Workover supports oilfields to return oil wells to production by delivering operating equipment
reliability and operating equipment risk reduction. Good and bad workover procedures affect both the cost and
time of operations [2 and 4].

VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

The result of the study was impressive, in that framework helped improve the overall equipment
effectiveness of a chosen machine in the workover rigs, from 29% to approximately 72%. This was the result of
a cooperative effort of the operator and the maintenance staff. The period of improvement was short, being only
eight months. Due to this success, the management decided to commit to further implementation of framework
on other workover rigs.
The results of the example show that the proposed method of OEE is very effective for doing
improvements to increase the effectiveness of the workover procedures within specific time period by
identifying the problem exactly. However, the importance of practical workover performance measure which
can aid in rig procedures negotiation and rig selection. Improvements tools such as TPM can be applied to
enhance the performance of workover activities. Further, the metric OEE for workover activities can be used as
a benchmark at various levels to achieve world-class standard in other sectors such as manufacturing sector.

www.ajer.org Page 9
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2015
Extension to this work is to initiate further studies on the effectiveness of framework, based on the
extension of cost analysis on different rig drilling and workover companies on both onshore & offshore
operations with different cultural backgrounds. This would enable a comparison of the applicability of the
method to different company’s results with the research finding.

REFERENCE

[1] Staveley, Catheryn, and Paul A. Thow. "Increasing Drilling Efficiencies Through Improved Collaboration and Analysis
of Real-Time and Historical Drilling Data." SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2010.‫‏‬
[2] Ribeiro, Glaydston Mattos, Geraldo Regis Mauri, and Luiz Antonio Nogueira Lorena. "A simple and robust
Simulated Annealing algorithm for scheduling workover rigs on onshore oil fields." Computers & Industrial
Engineering 60.4 (2011): 519-526.‫‏‬
[3] H. Mansour, M.Ahmad, , N. Dhafr and H. Ahmed: “Evaluation of operational performance of workover rigs
activities in oilfields”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , Vol.62, No.2, pp. 204-
218, 2013.
[4] M. Masahiro, Y. Yutaka and K. Osamu, “ESP Performance in Mubarraz Field”, International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, SPE 87257, UAE. 2000.
[5] M. Ahmad, & R .Benson, Benchmarking in the Process Industries, IChemE. 1999.
[6] H. Mansour, M. Ahmad & F. Ahtita, “Practical Evaluation Workover Framework (PEWF) for Evaluation and
Process Improvement of Workover Rigs”, Proceedings of 24 th International Conference on Flexible Automation and
Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 118-126, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2014.
[7] H. Mansour, M. Ahmad & H. Ahmed, “A practical method for evaluating operational performance of workover
activities in Sarir oilfield”, Proceedings of 20 th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent
Manufacturing, pp. 799-807, Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
[8] H. Mansour, M. Ahmad & H. Ahmed, “Potential using of OEE in evaluating the operational performance of
workover activities”, Proceedings of 23th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent
Manufacturin,. pp. 877-886, Porto, Portugal, 2013.
[9] H. Mansour, M. Ahmad & G. Abdulrahman, “Downtime model development for evaluating operational
performance of workover activities in AGOCO”, Proceedings of 23th International Conference on Flexible
Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 865-876, Porto, Portugal, 2013.
[10] H. Mansour, M. Ahmad & N. Dhafr, “An investigation into benchmarking of workover activities of rigs in the
oilfields”, Proceedings of 20 th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, pp.
775-781, Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
[11] S. Zandieh, S.Tabatabaei, M. Ghandehary: “Evaluation of Overall Equipment Effectiveness in a Continuous
Process Production System of Condensate Stabilization Plant in Assalooyeh”, interdisciplinary journal of
contemporary research in business, Vol.3, No.10, pp. 590 - 598, 2012.
[12 ] L. Pintelon., S.K. Pinjala and A. Vereecke: “Evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance strategies”, Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 7 - 20, 2011.
[13] S. Nakajima, ntroduction to TPM: total productive maintenance,1988.

www.ajer.org Page 10