Factors Contributing to Non-Productive Time in Geothermal Drilling in Kenya: A Case of Menengai Geothermal Project
Keywords:
Geothermal, Drilling, Non Productive TimeAbstract
This research work was geared towards determining the factors that contribute to Non Productive Time (NPT) in geothermal drilling. Further, the research sought to find out the contribution of equipment breakdown to Non Productive Time, How geological challenges aid Non Productive Time, ways in which operations planning contribute to Non Productive Time, and how decision making contribute to Non Productive Time. The parameters of interest observed included; completion depth, drilling duration, well location, well design, casing design, drill rig capacity, and number of staff in the rig. A sampling frame of 32 wells was developed. The results of the study revealed enormous amount of Non Productive time associated with geothermal drilling operations in Menengai Geothermal Project. It showed that the average total Non-Productive Time is 62%, while 38% of the total drilling duration is productive time. Operations planning was the biggest contributor of Non Productive time at 41%, equipment breakdowns contributed 12%, geological challenges 8%, and decision 1%. The study provided recommendations that should be undertaken in order to cut down Non Productive Time.
References
[2] Hsieh, L. “Rig NPT – The Ugly Truth,” Drilling Contractor Magazine, International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC). pp.7. Sep. 2010.
[3] Barringer, P. E. “Process and Equipment Reliability,” Presented at the Maintenance & Reliability Technology Summit. Chicago, IL, 2004.
[4]Walt, A., et al. “Managing Drilling Risk,” Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas, 1999.
[5] Samad, V.S. and Skalle, P. “Enhancing Decision Making in Critical Drilling Operations,” Presented at SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference. Bahrain, 2009.
[6] Kolodner, J.L., Owensby, J.N., and Guzdial, M. Case-Based Learning Aids. 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, pp. 829 – 861.
[7] Aamodt, A., et al. “Real-Time Decision Support System for High Cost Oil Well Drilling Operations” presented at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence conference. Bellevue, Washington, 2013
[8] Antonenko, P.D. “The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research,” Educational Technology Research and Development. Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 53-71. Feb 2015,
[9] Barnard, A., et al. “A conceptual framework of integrity,” SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol 34, No. 2, pp. 40-49
[10] Jabareen,Y. “Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure”. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. pp.49-62. Aug 2009
[11] Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques. Delhi: New Age International Publishers 2008, pp. 31-53
[12] Mugenda, A.G.. Social Science Research, Theory and Principles. Nairobi: Kijabe Printing Press. 2008, pp. 45-63.
[13] Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. Business Research Methods, 9th Edition. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 194-221.
[14] Mugenda & Mugenda. Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Nairobi. Acts Press 2008, pp. 96-120.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms.
