Logistics Optimisation – From Insight to Action

Background & Challenge

A mid-size North Sea operator faced rising logistics costs and an increasing stock of unused rental equipment at its warehouses. Materials such as casing accessories and consumables were accumulating without being reused, creating unnecessary storage and rental cost.

The analysis revealed fragmented communication, unclear ownership, and limited visibility across the supply chain. Each stakeholder — from logistics coordinators and service providers to warehouse staff and vessel operators — worked efficiently within their own area, but the lack of coordination led to:

• No unified stock overview or ownership
• Late changes to equipment lists and time plans
• Repeated handling and poor backload control
• Cost variation in vessel and base operations

Second logistics map of the End-to-End Logistics Supply Chain Mapping, showing the mobilisation and discharge process from supplier to rig

Tailored Solution Delivered

A structured four-stage process was applied:

• Alignment – Clarifying scope, expectations, and objectives
• Logistics Study – Mapping the full supply chain from supplier mobilisation to equipment return
• Lean Workshop – Identifying, prioritising, and assigning improvement actions
• Implementation – Supporting follow-up and execution of defined actions

Interviews, site visits, and process mapping revealed more than 40 improvement opportunities across planning, mobilisation, vessel utilisation, warehouse management, and communication.

Technical Limit Workshop Yielding 22%-24% Time Saving

An operator was in the midst of a campaign to drill and complete 48 wells, developing a field in the Asia region. The campaign began with a Drill Well on Paper (DWOP) session, and although operations were running smoothly, no organic learning or changes had led to significant performance improvements since the campaign’s start. Even a small improvement could result in major savings due to the number of wells and the campaign’s long duration.

Tailored Solution Delivered

It was decided to conduct a combined Technical Limit Workshop and DWOP, focusing on reducing the time required to drill the remaining wells. By scrutinising previously drilled wells, breaking operations into small increments, and selecting the best-in-class performance from these wells, the teams were able to define a “Technical Limit Well”—representing optimal efficiency. Tasks were assigned to achieve this performance, with clear actions for each incremental improvement. Two teams were formed during the workshop: one focusing on improving the upper section of the well and the other on the lower section.

Measurable Value and Results

The dedicated work of these teams led to an impressive 22% time saving on the upper section and a 24% time saving on the lower section of the well. Along with the time savings, safety was improved, operations became smoother, and unplanned events were reduced.

Inspiration and Long-Term Impact

The operator continued running occasional Drill Well on Paper (DWOP) and Complete Well on Paper (CWOP) sessions to maintain continuous improvement and safety. These workshops also ensure that new equipment and procedures are implemented safely and efficiently.

Team-Based Stuck Pipe Prevention

– Where Crews Learn, Apply, and Perform

Background & Challenge

With a complex exploration well ahead — involving a new drilling contractor and a high-risk reservoir section — the operator recognised the need to strengthen both technical knowledge and crew coordination.

Drillconsult was engaged to deliver a tailored, high-impact Stuck Pipe Prevention programme, minimising time away from operations while ensuring practical relevance and lasting results.
results.

Tailored Solution Delivered

The training was structured as a modular, role-based programme combining classroom instruction, hands-on exercises, and onboard facilitation:

• Efficient delivery format: Sessions were held near the airport on crew-change days and continued onboard to reach both oncoming and offgoing crews — reducing travel time while maintaining engagement.
• Role-specific focus: Content was adapted to each participant’s function — from OIM and Toolpusher to drill and deck crew, mud engineers, and mudloggers — ensuring immediate applicability to daily operations.
• Team-based learning: Crew Resource Management (CRM) principles were applied through interactive discussions and scenario-based exercises, enhancing coordination, communication, and leadership in critical situations.
• Hands-on drill string exercises: Participants trained with a functional drill string model featuring jars and an accelerator, simulating realistic stuck pipe scenarios to bridge theory and practice.
• Onboard Stuck Pipe Audit: A comprehensive audit was performed to verify equipment layout, material readiness, and emergency response capability.
• Implementation discussions: Each session concluded with group reflection on how to apply the new knowledge in upcoming operations, translating insights into concrete improvement actions.
• Field handbook distribution: Every participant received a copy of Drillconsult’s new Stuck Pipe Prevention Handbook — a concise field reference designed to support continuous learning and on-the-job decision-making.

Introduction to Drilling  – One Stop Shop – Turnkey Solution

A client experienced rapid growth in their organisation while simultaneously relocating departments and functions to other countries. This expansion led to the hiring of a large number of new employees over an extended period, both in technical and non-technical roles, many of whom lacked prior drilling experience. Learning about offshore operations on the job proved inefficient for office staff, who needed to grasp complex offshore operations, organisational structures, and processes.

Tailored Solution Delivered

To accelerate the integration of these new hires and departments, the “Introduction to Drilling” course was introduced as part of the onboarding process. The objective was to shorten the learning curve, allowing new employees to quickly become productive team members and contribute from day one.

As the office space was repurposed and the number of participants increased, the training sessions were relocated to an external venue. The client selected the most suitable option from several venues proposed by Drillconsult.

To further reduce the client’s administrative workload during this rapid expansion, Drillconsult’s One-Stop-Shop solution was chosen, allowing the client to focus on core operations while Drillconsult managed all training logistics.

Drillconsult received a continuously updated list of candidates from the client and grouped participants into training sessions based on their roles and availability. The one-day training sessions were customised to reflect the client’s specific operations, equipment, processes, and branding, ensuring full alignment with the organisation’s culture and values.

At the conclusion of each session, participants were awarded a Certificate of Attendance, and the candidate list was updated accordingly.

Measurable Value and Results

The Introduction to Drilling course provided participants with essential knowledge of drilling operations and the challenges they would face daily. This allowed them to become effective team members from day one, boosting their confidence and job satisfaction.

By utilising Drillconsult’s One-Stop-Shop solution for training delivery, venue management, and participant coordination, the client’s HR department was able to focus on other critical tasks. This comprehensive service was delivered at no additional cost to the client.

Inspiration and Long-Term Impact

The One-Stop-Shop has been the preferred method for delivering the Introduction to Drilling course to this client, as it has consistently proven its efficiency and streamlined the process of booking external training sessions. This approach simplifies the coordination and administration of training, making it a hassle-free solution for the client while ensuring smooth and timely delivery.

If downtime isn’t caused by people or equipment — who is responsible?

The usual suspects were found — and again, it wasn’t the people

A returning client raised concerns about a drilling rig start-up where what was initially accepted as “normal start-up pain” had slowly become the baseline. Excessive non-productive time — both visible and invisible — persisted, along with repeated rework and continuous last-minute firefighting.

The symptoms were familiar:

Equipment not available when needed — or failing during execution
Decisions made late and with limited context
Plans constantly changing
Crews waiting, compensating, and improvising

Because the project had been rushed out of the gate, it was assumed things would “sort themselves out” once people found their rhythm. That explanation was convenient — but wrong.

It was agreed that Drillconsult would step back and look at the operation as a system — not to assign blame, but to understand why execution never stabilised and what would actually fix it.

First: understand the system – not the symptoms

Before touching anything operational, an overview was built of:

• The execution model
• The organisational setup
• The planning and decision-making processes
• The supporting systems, reports, and interfaces

The intent was simple: understand how the system was designed to work before judging how it actually behaved.

Only then was a structured, hypothesis-driven approach finalised.

The alignment that usually comes too late

Before stepping onto the rig, a final alignment was carried out with both leadership and frontline stakeholders on:

• Scope and priorities
• Roles, decision authority, and interfaces
• Expectations, deliverables, and timing
• How the end-to-end execution was intended to flow

This alignment deliberately covered two horizons:

• Short-term actions to stabilise execution and rebuild confidence
• Longer-term improvements to strengthen robustness, capability, and ownership within the organisation

What is often missed — and was also missing here — is early alignment with the people who actually execute the work. Frontline personnel were brought in only after plans and key decisions had already been made, removing their ability to challenge assumptions, highlight practical constraints, and take ownership of the plan.

Skipping this step is a classic failure mode in rig start-ups. It almost always results in superficial fixes, recurring problems, and growing frustration — at a steadily increasing cost.

Boots on the ground

Once on site, the priority was to build trust and transparency.

The symptoms were immediately obvious. The root causes were fewer.

Rather than jumping to conclusions, observations were combined with structured data collection:

• Direct observation of operations
• Conversations across functions and shifts
• Review of how work was actually planned and executed — not how procedures described it

Conclusions were drawn only once the data had sufficient quality and granularity.

Learn deliberately — not accidentally

Early in the process, it was agreed to conduct Section After Action Reviews (AARs) after each completed section.

These were not “lessons learned theatre”. They were used deliberately to:

• Reinforce that learning is part of execution — not something saved for the end
• Build competence while experience was still fresh
• Continuously validate and refine the overall analysis
• Demonstrate the value of structured reflection

Based on these learnings, short-term corrective actions were implemented:

• Coaching of crews and supervisors, supported by indirect competence assessments to identify gaps
• Clearer meeting structures and facilitation, supported by templates and guidelines
• Targeted training linked directly to execution gaps
• Clarified roles, responsibilities, and interfaces — documented in writing
• Active work on trust, psychological safety, and ownership

Execution was continuously monitored to verify that improvements worked in practice, not just on paper.

What the real causes turned out to be

The real causes were not unique. They are the same systemic failures repeatedly seen in underperforming rig start-ups and drilling campaigns.

These are not people problems.
They are system failures — shaped, funded, and tolerated by leadership decisions.

Weak execution readiness and poor front-end alignment — especially with the frontline

Execution-readiness processes (DWOP or equivalent) were either missing or treated as a formality. Critical risks, interfaces, competence gaps, and logistical constraints were identified during execution rather than mitigated upfront

Frontline personnel were involved too late to meaningfully influence the plan

Unclear roles, responsibilities, decision authority, and communication channels

Work was assigned based on job titles rather than demonstrated capability. Decision rights were unclear, slowing execution and increasing rework. Little effort was made to verify that people in critical roles were equipped to make the decisions expected of them.

Poor on-site planning, look-ahead, visibility, and communication

Look-ahead planning was high-level and largely confined to leadership. Crews lacked forward visibility and context. Those executing the work did not clearly understand how their output affected downstream activities or other teams.

Weak meeting discipline and ineffective communication

Communication channels were unclear or inconsistently used. Meetings lacked clear objectives and rarely concluded with aligned decisions or actions. Information was shared late, incompletely, or not at all.

Knowledge hoarding and reluctance to give away responsibility

There were no robust structures to share knowledge. In some cases, knowledge was treated as power rather than as a shared operational asset. Responsibility was retained rather than distributed.

Low trust and limited psychological safety

An “open door policy” was referenced but not practised. Personnel did not feel safe escalating concerns early. By the time issues surfaced, options were limited and costly.

The uncomfortable truth

• The equipment didn’t fail first
• The system failed first

When a rig continues to struggle long after start-up, it is rarely a “rig problem”. It is almost always a planning, alignment, communication, and ownership problem.

People were doing their jobs — but they did not understand that their output was someone else’s critical input. When quality degrades at one interface, the cost is paid downstream — in time, safety margin, and trust.

Systems do not fix themselves during execution.

The longer-term corrective actions will be covered in a follow-up article.