Petroleum engineer with over 14 years of experience in Alaska’s Arctic oil fields, specializing in Wireline and Perforating operations. Proven track record in field operations management, production logging, and well diagnostics. Seeking to leverage expertise in daily operations and production within a leading oil company.
Professional Experience
Dent Impact
Anchorage, AK
Drilling Analyst
Sep 2024 – Current
- Remote monitoring of real time data from three drilling rigs on Alaska’s North Slope to ensure section plans are being followed and all drilling operations are within designed parameters.
- Identify and record all pressure test, FIT/LOT, pack offs, and trouble events that result from the drilling process.
- Monitor torque and drag parameters, ECD, and directional data to ensure trouble free drilling.
- Pull data from WellView, NOV WellData 4.0, and CORVA system, for analysis.
- Analyze pulled data to determine performance metrics from well to well and rig to rig.
Halliburton Energy Services
Prudhoe Bay, AK
Field Operations Manager
Apr 2024 – Sep 2024
- Managed daily operations for a $2-$3 million monthly business, driving profitability through strategic cost management.
- Engaged directly with customers to ensure satisfaction and promptly addressed operational issues.
- Oversaw a workforce of 130-150, prioritizing safety and compliance while ensuring timely service delivery.
- Provided technical support for various operations (cased hole, memory, TCP), enhancing crew efficiency and customer service.
- Served as Radiation Safety Officer, ensuring compliance with safety regulations and leading the radiation safety program.
PEAK Champion
Nov 2023 – Apr 2024
- Successfully transitioned paperwork and equipment utilization records for 12 units to compliance, enhancing operational efficiency and regulatory adherence.
- Assessed and organized over 500 pieces of pressure control equipment to identify field utilization and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.
- Recognized by global management for significant improvements in efficiency and compliance.
Team Lead
Feb 2019 – Apr 2024
- Led multiple crews of engineers and operators in cased hole, Relay, and TCP operations for various customers.
- Collaborated with customer representatives to resolve operational issues and ensure smooth daily field operations.
- Worked with customers to develop effective diagnostic plans for challenging wells.
- Successfully navigated two departments through a primary customer transition during a significant industry downturn.
- Coordinated with management and crews to implement cost-reduction strategies, achieving a 14% FBOI revenue goal set by corporate.
General Field Professional
Feb 2016 – Feb 2019
- Played a key role in launching a new memory logging contract for slickline and coil units, resulting in eight years of consistent work.
- Contributed to the successful initial field trials of a memory perforating system and continued to support the system post-trials.
- Utilized insights from memory perforating field trials with slickline to enhance operations using tubing conveyed perforating on coil drilling rigs.
- Created a new maintenance plan for unsterilized tools.
- Promoted crew safety during a record-setting period of safe operations.
Senior Field Professional
Oct 2013 – Feb 2016
- Participated in 24-hour operations during the startup for a new customer, securing a three-year contract.
- Received intensive training in open hole logging, focusing on safe handling of radioactive materials and open hole log analysis.
- Utilized pulsed neutron tools extensively for leak detection and logging formation for gas identification.
- Successfully operated in remote off-grid locations to meet complex customer requirements.
Field Professional
Aug 2011 – Oct 2013
- Participated in field trials for a new three detector pulsed neutron tool.
- Honed skills in production logging and trouble well diagnostics.
- Led crew to accomplish customer goals with minimal down time and maximum efficiency.
- Served as the primary point of contact for multiple third-party contractors during well operations, ensuring successful project completion.
Associate Field Professional
Jun 2010 – Aug 2011
- Completed intensive field training in cased hole logging, focusing on explosive safety and proper usage.
- Completed comprehensive classroom training for entry-level logging, covering perforating, cement bond logs, production logging, and pipe recovery.
Education
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK
Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering
May 2020
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK
Bachelor of Science in Petroleum Engineering
May 2010
- Relevant Coursework: Reservoir, production, and drilling engineering as well as petroleum economics and well log analysis.
- Senior Project: Identification and remediation of inner annulus to outer annulus leaks for wells on Alaska’s North Slope in the Prudhoe Bay field.
Sinclair Community College
Dayton, OH
Associate of Applied Science in Computer Information Systems Network Engineering
Dec 2004
- Trained as Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer for Windows 2000 and XP.
- Trained as Cisco Certified Network Professional.
- Trained as A+ and Network+ computer and network hardware support.
Skills and Credentials
Technical Skills
- Extensive production logging quality assurance, interpretation, and analysis.
- Open hole log analysis.
- Passed FE Exam 2010.
Software Proficiency
- Microsoft office suite with emphasis on Excel and VBA programming.
- Knowledgeable in fluent computation fluid dynamics software.
- Advanced Knowledge of Warrior Logging software.
- Data analysis with R and Python.
- HYML/CSS/JS full stack web design.
- SQL
- GitHub
- Advanced computer troubleshooting.
Credentials
- Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
- Class B CDL with air brake, hazmat, and passenger endorsements.
- Cleared by BATFE to handle explosives.
- Cleared by NRC to handle radioactive materials.
The production of heavy oil resources is becoming more prevalent as the conventional resources of the world continue to deplete. These heavy oil resources are being produced from horizontal wells and need to be transported in pipeline to processing facilities as a two-phase flow. Two-phase flow is important to the oil industry with the general focus being placed on light oil or water and gas flows. With little work having been done on two-phase heavy oil flow this study will examine these two-phase flows by recreating experimental data generated for heavy oil and air flow in a 1.5-inch diameter pipe and expand this data to include larger 2.875-inch and 3.5-inch pipes.
A computational fluid dynamics model was generated to mimic the 1.5-inch diameter pipe used in the experiments. This model was validated for laminar and turbulent flow by using the same heavy oil properties from the original experiment and air respectively. The model was then run to simulate the given two-phase oil-air flows provided from the experimental data for the flow velocities that had pressure drop and liquid holdup data available. The two-phase results were compared to both the experimental data and the Beggs and Brill values for both pressure drop and liquid holdup. A 2.875-inch and 3.5-inch model were generated and the same process was followed for laminar and turbulent validation and then with a subset of four two-phase flow velocities. Without the availability of experimental data for the two larger size pipes the two-phase results were only compared to the Beggs and Brill values.
Overall the results showed a good correlation to the laminar and turbulent flow in all three models with the turbulent flow showing the largest error for the pressure drop when the flow was in the laminar to turbulent transition zone for Reynolds numbers. The two-phase results showed to be in between the experimental and Beggs and Brill method values for the original 1.5-inch model and showed that as the gas flow velocity increased in the system the error grew for all three models. Given that the Beggs and Brill method values were generated based on experiments for water-air flow in a 1.0-inch pipe the values for the pressure drop in the 2.875-inch pipe and the 3.5-inch pipe were not unexpected and seemed to match well with an extrapolation of the experimental values.
This study shows that a model can be generated to examine the two-phase flow behavior in horizontal sections of well and in pipelines on a computational basis. While these models are time consuming to generate and run with the increase in computing capacity available easily they can become more suitable than generating experimental setups for finding the same information. There will need to be more work done on heavy oil two-phase flow and additional experiments run for larger size pipes and two-phase flow to help tune these models but they do show promise for the future.
There are many different ways of running a completion in a well including barefoot openhole completion, single string completions, plug and perf frac completions, submersible pump completions, and multiple string completions. Each of these completions types has its advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the completions engineer to determine what will work best for a given reservoir. When an older well is producing from multiple reservoirs, it is possible that one of the zones would need to produce less so that the well is still economically viable.
This work looks at two common completion designs to model flow from a reservoir into a tubing string. A multi-zone single-string completion is looked at to see how the changing of tubing size and different valve sizes affect the flow from both reservoirs. A single mandrel-valve system is examined for three common sized tubing of 2.875, 3.5 and 4.5 inches being observed. The reservoir produces through a valve of four different sizes, 0.5, 0.375, 0.25, and 0.125 inches. A fourth case is considered looking at a sliding sleeve model with four openings from the tubing to the annular area of 0.125 inches.
These models are run through computation fluid dynamics software to determine flow rates from both the upper and lower reservoir for each of the cases. Pressure gradients and drawdowns of the tubing and reservoir are examined to look at the effects from the different sized tubing and valve combinations. The velocity profiles are also examined to determine if there are any adverse effects from smaller valves compared to larger valves. A comparison is then done between the single valve models and the sliding sleeve model to observe the possible difference between one fluid entry point and four fluid entry points into the tubing.
Resume