Abstract-Most previous research on golf swing mechanics has focused on the driver club. The aim of this study was to identify the kinematic factors that contribute to greater hitting distance when using the 5 iron club. Three-dimensional marker coordinate data was collected (250 Hz) to calculate joint kinematics at eight key swing events, while a swing analyzer measured club swing and ball launch characteristics. Thirty male participants were assigned to one of two groups, based on their ball launch speed (high : 52.9 ± 2.1 ms −1 ; low: 39.9 ± 5.2 ms −1 ). Statistical analyses were used to identify the variables which differed significantly between the two groups. Results showed significant differences were evident between the two groups for club face impact point and a number of joint angles and angular velocities, with greater shoulder flexion and less left shoulder internal rotation in the backswing, greater extension angular velocity in both shoulders at early downswing, greater left shoulder adduction angular velocity at ball contact, greater hip joint movement and X Factor angle during the downswing and greater left elbow extension early in the downswing appearing to contribute to greater hitting distance with the 5 iron club.
This paper is a review of the techniques that have caused a large improvement in drilling and completion performance on the Goodwyn A Platform North-West Shelf, Australia. The collective effort of Well Construction professionals using these techniques has resulted in the drilling of a 6263m (20,550') TD well with a horizontal step out of 5200m (17,060'), at a tangent angle of 67° in 39 days from spud to well handover. This was 31% under P50 AFE time estimate. The paper will describe a method to produce systematic, steady and sustainable improvements to Well Construction operations. The methods described are a way of harnessing the collective brainpower of Well Construction professionals and focus that energy towards rigorous analysis of problems or areas of potential improvement, then systematically working through and implementing solutions. The Technical Limit methodology and Performance Improvement Groups (PIGs) are best suited for complex, high cost drilling projects, typically ERD developments, high cost MODU exploration or subsea operations. In addition, other tools such as Hazard Management, Learning System and Planning Processes which contributed to success are explained. Introduction Goodwyn Phase 1 consisted of 13 wells and ended in April 1998. The need for performance improvement was evident as, for example, all the last 6 wells overran the AFE estimates, by an average of 68%. The wells had been challenging with horizontal step outs up to 7.3 km (24,200 feet), however it was evident that processes were not in place to properly handle these challenging wells. In subsequent investigations it was found that the root causes for this poor performance inevitably was related to planning, specifically a lack of detailed planning, short lead times available for planning, limited number of personnel and no formal processes for hazard management and mitigation. To improve performance the following were implemented:Use of the formal Technical Limit method;Performance Improvement Group (PIG) processes; andChanges to the work practices resulting in a work culture that practiced hazard management, planning and learning. In addition, the Woodside Well Construction Management System had been rewritten and provided a valuable set of guidelines that provided consistency between Well Construction teams. Goodwyn Phase 2 started in October 1998 and 4 wells were drilled. This resulted in 3 out of the 4 being under AFE time estimates, the last of which (Goodwyn 17) was drilled and completed 31% under the P50 time estimate. Goodwyn 17 had a Total Depth of 6263 metres (20,550 feet), a horizontal step out of 5200 metres (17,060 feet) and was drilled from spud to handover in 39 days. The first two wells had horizontal sections of up to 2300 metres. Refer to Table 1 for results. Note that Down Time is defined as any deviation from planned. Down Time was not used as a Key Performance Indicator as honest and critical reporting is the feedstock of the improvement process. Refer to fig.1 for a graphical demonstration of the improvement made from Phase 1 to Phase 2. It can also be seen that a continual improvement trend is evident.
Summary This paper reviews the techniques that have generated a large improvement in drilling and completion performance on the Goodwyn A Platform, Northwest Shelf, Australia. The collective effort of well-construction professionals using these techniques has resulted in the drilling of a 6263-m (20,550-ft) total depth (TD) well with a horizontal step out of 5200 m (17,060 ft) at a tangent angle of 67° in 39 days from spud to well handover. This was 31% under the P50 authorization-for-expenditure (AFE) time estimate. This paper describes a method to produce systematic, steady, and sustainable improvements to well-construction operations. The methods described are a way of harnessing the collective brainpower of well-construction professionals and focusing that energy toward rigorous problem analysis or potential improvement areas, then systematically working through and implementing solutions. The technical limit methodology and performance improvement groups (PIGs) are best suited for complex, high-cost drilling projects, typically extended reach drilling (ERD) developments, high-cost mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) exploration or subsea operations. In addition, other tools, such as hazard management, learning system, and planning processes that contributed to success, are explained. Introduction Goodwyn Phase 1 consisted of 13 wells and ended in April 1998. The need for performance improvement was evident; for example, all the last six wells overran the AFE estimates by an average of 68%. The wells had been challenging, with horizontal stepouts up to 7.3 km (24,200 ft); however, it was evident that processes were not in place to handle these challenging wells properly. Subsequent investigations found that the root causes for this poor performance inevitably were related to planning, specifically, a lack of detailed planning, short lead times available for planning, a limited number of personnel, and no formal processes for hazard management and mitigation. To improve performance, the following were implemented.Use of the formal technical-limit method.PIG processes.Changes to the work practices resulting in a work culture that practiced hazard management, planning, and learning. In addition, the Woodside well-construction management system had been rewritten and provided a valuable set of guidelines that improved consistency between well-construction teams. Goodwyn Phase 2 well operations commenced in October 1998 with four wells drilled. This resulted in three of the four being under AFE time estimates, the last of which (Goodwyn 17) was drilled and completed in 31% less time than the P50 time estimate. Goodwyn 17 had a TD of 6263 m (20,550 ft) and a horizontal step out of 5200 m (17,060 ft), and it was drilled and completed from spud to handover in 39 days. The first two wells had horizontal sections of up to 2300 m. Refer to Table 1 for performance results for all Phase 2 wells. Note that downtime (DT) is defined as any deviation from the plan. DT was not used as a key performance indicator (KPI) because honest and critical reporting is the feedstock of the improvement process. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 for a clear graphical demonstration of the improvement made from Phase 1 to Phase 2 wells. It can also be seen that a continual improvement trend is evident. The changes made in the period between Goodwyn's Phases 1 and 2 included the following.Full-time resources dedicated to performance measurement and improvement.Collection and detailed analysis of platform well-construction performance data from Phase 1 to identify problem areas and target areas in which improvements might be achievable.Rigorous implementation of the technical-limit process and education of the team on its use and value.Overcome ingrained misconceptions that the technical limit process is intrusive, critical of performance, and impossible to achieve.Standardization of the definition of DT within platform well construction.Management focus on and commitment to performance improvement. The organizational model applied for planning and execution of Phase 2 operations is shown in Fig. 3 (shown at peak staffing levels). This team was organized around the general flow of work through upfront planning, detailed planning, and execution of operations involving company and key service-provider personnel. There were four component groups within the team.Platform well planning (PWP). This group performed planning work for the next well campaign. This mainly involved feasibility studies and conceptual design.Platform well engineering (PWE). This group performed the detailed well design, scheduling, and drilling engineering in the operations phase (i.e., current and next well to be drilled).Platform well operations (PWD). This group was responsible for wellsite operations and design implementation (i.e., current well being drilled).Platform well services (PWW). This group was responsible for all detailed well completions and the perforating system design as well as execution of completion and workover operations. Handovers between the groups involved a high degree of internal review and challenge. Rigorous challenge, good-quality documentation, good team communication, and an agreed-upon handover process mitigated the risk of issues falling "between the cracks" during the handover process. The benefits of the challenge process offset the loss of the "cradle to grave" concept in which one engineer is responsible for all the planning and execution on a well. Technical Limit The technical limit process was developed within Woodside.1,2 It has been used throughout Woodside well construction with success; however, its implementation in platform well construction had been incomplete. The following technique was used to fully implement the technical limit process in platform well construction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.