Oil Well Completions Concepts and Calculations Part 1

Ali Taqi

it

Vishal Kokate Mechanical Engineer (B.Tech, MS), Engineering Team Lead & Project Manager (PMP)

This course turned out to be more technical than I anticipated. Coming from a drilling operations role, the sections on wellbore trajectory planning and dogleg severity finally connected a few dots that were missing on recent oil and gas projects. The walkthroughs on BHA selection and how mud motors influence build rates felt grounded in how things actually behave on the rig, not just theory. MWD/LWD basics were also useful, especially understanding survey spacing and how it impacts anti-collision risk in crowded fields. One challenge was keeping up with the math behind directional surveys and toolface orientation. That part took a couple of replays and some note-taking, but it was worth pushing through. A practical takeaway was being able to sanity-check a proposed directional plan and flag unrealistic build/turn expectations before it hits execution. That’s already helped during a well review with the drilling contractor. The course filled a clear knowledge gap between vertical drilling experience and deviated well planning, which is becoming standard across energy utilities and upstream work. It definitely strengthened my technical clarity.

Dr Surekha Prabhu R & D | Drilling & Completion Fluid I Catalysis I Analytical Chemistry I Material Science I LLM Trainer

At first glance, the topics looked familiar, but the depth surprised me. The sections on wellbore trajectory planning and dogleg severity went beyond the usual surface-level treatment and tied directly into how torque and drag show up during execution. Coverage of MWD/LWD fundamentals was solid, especially where it contrasted slide vs. rotary steerable behavior, which aligns with current oil & gas field practice rather than textbook assumptions. One challenge was the pacing around survey calculations and coordinate systems. Without recent hands-on exposure, the math-to-operations connection took effort to follow, particularly when thinking about edge cases like high-angle build sections near casing shoes. Still, those scenarios are realistic and forced some rethinking of how small planning choices ripple through drilling performance and NPT risk. A practical takeaway was the emphasis on planning for uncertainty—toolface tolerance, formation variability, and anti-collision margins—rather than assuming ideal conditions. That mindset mirrors what’s needed when coordinating with geosteering, mud programs, and energy utilities on shared pads. Compared to typical onboarding material, this course leaned more toward system-level implications than rote procedures. I can see this being useful in long-term project work.

sarath Selvaraj Piping Engineer

Coming into this course, I had some prior exposure to the subject through field coordination work, but directional drilling always felt like a black box once the well went off vertical. The modules on well trajectory planning and bottom hole assembly design helped close that gap. Concepts like dogleg severity, toolface orientation, and how mud motors actually influence build and turn rates were explained in a way that tied back to real oil and gas operations, not just theory. Coverage of MWD/LWD surveys and basic anti-collision principles was also useful, especially for understanding why certain drilling decisions get made on the rig. One challenge was wrapping my head around translating survey data into a mental picture of the wellbore, especially when dealing with multiple sections and targets. It took a bit of rewatching and sketching on my own to get comfortable with that. A practical takeaway was learning how kickoff points and planned build rates impact later well control and casing runs. That’s already helping in conversations with drilling and subsurface teams. I can see this being useful in long-term project work.