Means and methods review
A method statement is a promise about what will happen in the field. Most are written by people who want the work, reviewed by people who have never run a rig, and discovered to be optimistic at about three hundred metres.
What a review actually consists of
We read the contractor's submission against the ground, the pipe and the machine they are proposing, and we mark the places where the document and the physics disagree. It is not a compliance checklist. It is a reading by someone who has watched this go wrong.
Does the rig match the job?
Pull and torque rating against the computed loads, drill-pipe size and grade, the mud system's capacity against the hole volume, and whether the spread as listed can actually support the shift pattern proposed.
Does the method match the ground?
Jetting assemblies in cobble, mud motors in soft clay, a single-pass ream in a formation that needs three. The commonest finding is a technique imported from the contractor's last job in different soil.
Is the fluid programme real?
Whether the mix, the flow rate and the solids control are matched to the formation and the hole volume, or copied from a template. Whether anyone has computed the annular pressure limit at all.
Is the production rate honest?
Metres per shift against the rod count, the connection time, the ream passes and the actual rig. An optimistic rate is the root of most schedule claims.
What happens when it goes wrong?
The inadvertent-return response, the stuck-pipe procedure, the abandonment criteria and the re-drill plan. A method statement with no failure branch has not been thought about.
Who is actually on the rig?
The navigator's experience, the driller's, and whether the named people are the ones who will be there. Directional navigation is where competence shows and it is the hardest seat to fill.
Where we most often find the problem
- A pull-force calculation done on the total length rather than segment by segment, missing the real governing case.
- No annular pressure limit stated anywhere, and therefore no trigger for the fluid-release response.
- A ream schedule that assumes the hole stays open in a formation that will not hold it.
- Separation from foreign facilities asserted but never computed, and no anti-collision monitoring proposed for a multi-line corridor.
- Navigation on a walkover system across ground where walkover coverage will be lost, with no wireline fallback.
- Containment sized for a nuisance return rather than for the volume actually in the hole.
What you get
A marked-up review with findings graded: must change before award, must resolve before mobilisation, and watch in the field. Each finding names the clause, the physical reason and what would close it. Written so you can send it to the contractor as-is.