A trajectory revision can change more than the directional plan. It may alter the string-mechanics case, the inputs used in tubular design, and the assumptions behind a cost estimate. A team evaluating Landmark Engineer’s Desktop should ask how that change reaches the other engineers—and how an approved calculation can still be reproduced afterward.
Need This Software?
Contact us to request the software and receive download and access information.
This research-based technical assessment uses official product and support material checked on 8 November 2026; Engineer’s Desktop has not been independently installed or tested.
Halliburton’s current Engineer’s Desktop Suite page presents EDT as a well-construction application suite with shared Engineer’s Data Model (EDM) technology and cloud delivery. This article focuses on accepting a shared-design workflow; our existing Engineer’s Desktop overview introduces the wider application set.
EDT is the application suite; EDM is the shared data foundation
The current supplier is Halliburton Landmark. Halliburton’s October 1996 acquisition filing records completion of its purchase of Landmark Graphics on 4 October 1996, and its current software portfolio continues to identify Halliburton Landmark. The current EDT page remains an active product offering; the public evidence reviewed does not establish that it has been discontinued or wholly renamed as another platform.
The suite page identifies COMPASS, WellPlan, StressCheck, WELLCAT, CasingWear, Well Cost, CasingSeat, and EDM. A portfolio listing is not a license-entitlement matrix. It also should not be expanded into a claim that EDT is a general reservoir simulator, geological interpretation system, or a single calculation engine covering every listed discipline.
EDM is described as the common well-data platform supporting engineering and operational workflows. COMPASS documentation on the current product page specifically distinguishes data-level integration with EDM from cross-domain integration with OpenWorks. Our OpenWorks assessment provides context for that subsurface data-management role. The two names describe connected responsibilities, not interchangeable databases.
Follow one well revision across the engineering handovers
For a representative evaluation, start with a controlled trajectory and survey dataset, wellbore geometry, tubular specifications, fluid properties, formation pressure/temperature assumptions, and operating cases. Record the units, reference datums, revision, and owner of each input. These are proposed acceptance inputs for the engineering workflow, not a claim that this assessment created a project or ran an EDT calculation.
The official COMPASS page documents trajectory planning, survey data management, anti-collision scans against company-specified criteria, and proximity plots and reports. It also describes look-ahead planning from real-time survey data. The adoption question is which surveys, offset wells, error assumptions, and criteria control the scan in the customer’s build. A plot or automated warning does not prove that the underlying survey population and acceptance criteria are appropriate.
Next, carry the agreed geometry into the relevant string-operation analyses. WellPlan’s official module description documents hydraulics, torque and drag, assembly dynamics, swab/surge, and other well-engineering tools. In an acceptance case, change one agreed input and inspect the cases and reports that should be affected. The presence of a shared database does not itself prove that every previously calculated result is automatically recomputed, invalidated, or approved.
Pressure and stability assumptions deserve a separate handover. Our Drillworks profile concerns that upstream interpretation context. It is not evidence of an automatic connector or a guarantee that a pressure curve is appropriate for a particular design load case. The team should identify who owns those inputs and how an updated interpretation becomes an approved engineering basis.
Shared inputs do not make the tubular analyses identical
StressCheck’s product page describes burst, collapse, axial, and triaxial/working-stress design checks, with summaries of design factors and reports. It specifically documents sharing fluid-density, cementing, landing, and design parameters with WELLCAT through EDM. That is useful evidence for an engineering handover, but it does not specify every transferred field, database schema version, or calculation-setting dependency.
WELLCAT’s current module page documents transient thermal/fluid analysis, mechanical and thermal casing/tubing loads, buckling and movement, and multi-string annular pressure-build-up analysis. Its Drill, Casing, Prod, Tube, and Multi-string roles answer related but distinct questions. Decide whether the project needs a defined load-case check or a linked pressure/temperature operating scenario before deciding that one component can replace another.
For both routes, request the selected release’s technical manuals, supported correlations and standards, load definitions, boundary conditions, and validation scope. Public product descriptions establish the documented analysis categories; they do not justify a claim of particular numerical accuracy, a universal HP/HT envelope, or compliance with every applicable standard. Compare controlled reference cases and explain material differences before using a changed configuration in a design workflow.
Confirm the release and deployment together
The latest EDT build could not be verified from the public official sources accessed. The existing draft’s version “18” was not supported by those sources and is not retained as a current-version claim. Halliburton’s customer-support page directs users to its portal for releases, patches, release information, and knowledge-base material. Opening the official portal reached customer sign-in; version-specific manuals, release notes, and an OS/database compatibility matrix were not available for inspection here.
That gap matters for rollout planning. Obtain the exact EDT application and EDM schema versions, supported client/server OS and database configuration, migration path, backup/restore process, and supported integration versions as one configuration baseline. Hardware sizing, graphics, remote access, supported database drivers, and any license-server runtime also require release-specific confirmation. An old installation manual or another Landmark application’s requirements would not establish compatibility.
The current EDT offer describes cloud access and multi-user database technology, while iEnergy is Halliburton’s broader hybrid-cloud deployment and management environment. Neither page defines the entitlement or architecture for every existing EDT desktop installation. Clarify the proposed hosting model, data location, identity/access arrangement, connectivity requirements, recovery responsibility, and export/access rights at contract end. No universal browser-only, offline, VM, or subscription entitlement is established by these public pages.
Need Access to This Software?
Need this software for your project? Contact us for download access, availability, and related information.
Compare the shared-data task, not a list of product names
Oliasoft WellDesign is a relevant alternative over integrated trajectory, casing/tubing, and drilling-mechanics workflows. Its official product page lists those engineering modules, and its dated third-party integration example documents calculation-engine integration as a workflow route. The latter is vendor case material, not a transferable performance benchmark; no claimed time saving from it is adopted here.
Use the same controlled well revision to compare input mapping, calculation assumptions, result traceability, access controls, and the supported automation contract. For EDT, documented EDM sharing and OpenWorks integration are concrete capabilities, but the reviewed public pages do not specify a general API’s authentication, schema, endpoint coverage, or supported unattended-use rights. Missing public API detail is an unresolved procurement question, not a negative performance score.
EDT is a plausible fit when a team needs the documented Landmark well-engineering applications to share well data and can obtain a supported configuration and clear ownership of changes. Consider another workflow when its verified calculation scope, data interfaces, and deployment arrangements align more closely with the project. Confidence is strongest in the current application roles and explicitly described data-sharing relationships. The decisive next step is a vendor-supported demonstration that a revised well can be traced through the required analyses, approved, exported, and reproduced with its original inputs and software versions intact.
