Ll
SPE 30485
High-Power Slim-Hole Drilling System
John H. Cohen, William C. Maurer, Ph.D., SPE, Curtis E. Leitko, Maurer Engineering Inc.
Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation althe 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dailas, Texas, 22-25 October
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee foilowing review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sUbjected to
correction by the author(s), The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to pUblication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowiedgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-214-952-9435.
Abstract
Economic conditions in the oil and gas industry have encouraged
the use of new methods to reduce drilling costs. Slim-hole
drilling, abandoned in the past, has found new life because it
offers savings by reducing equipment size, tubular products, and
environmental impact. A new high-power slim-hole drilling
system has been developed that overcomes many of the
problems that led to the abandonment of slim holes in the past.
This new system is composed of a new high-power positive-
displacement motor and new TSP bits developed to run at high
horsepowers and produce high drilling rates. The new slim-hole
system has the potential for reducing drilling costs by 40 to 60
percent.
Introduction
The oil and gas industries are faced with increasing costs and
decreasing product revenues and they are compelled to reduce
production costs. One method that is fmding success in reducing
cost is the use of slim holes for exploration and production.
There is no exact definition for slim holes. However, 4%-in.
diameter and smaller holes are generally considered slim holes,
while holes between 4%- and 6Yz-in. diameter are considered
"reduced holes". 1
In the late 1950s and 1960s, over 3000 slim holes were
drilled in oil and gas fields worldwide. These slim holes reduced
well costs by 27 to 75 percent in many areas, primarily due to
reduced rig and tubular costs. Although significant cost savings
were achieved, larger holes became common in the 1970s and
1980s due to 1) short life of small diameter roller bits,
2) reduced rate of penetration (ROP) in slim holes, 3) high oil
371
Society of Petroleum Engineers
prices, and 4) the misconception that large holes were needed
everywhere.
There are currently three basic slim-drilling systems (Figure
1) that are being utilized:
1. ROTARY slim-hole rigs rotate small-diameter drill pipe at
speeds of 300 to 800 rpm. Twist-offs of the small-diameter
drill pipe are a major problem with this system.
2. DOWNHOLE MOTOR systems utilize slim-hole motors to
rotate bits at speeds of 800 to 2000 rpm. They drill at high
rates and eliminate drill string twist-off problems by
eliminating drill-string rotation.
3. CONTINUOUS CORING systems use slim-hole mining core
barrels to continuously core entire wells. They are used in
new drilling areas where geologists need cores to define
geology.
The development of new high-power slim-hole motors and
advanced PDC and TSP bits have overcome many of the
problems encountered with early slim-hole drilling. These new
motors and bits have the potential for reducing well costs by 40
to 60 percent.
Table 1 shows how slim-hole motor drilling in the Austin
Chalk reduced new horizontal well costs by 32 percent and re-
entry costs by 50 percent.
Rate of Penetration
The importance of ROP in drilling cannot be over-emphasized.
Figure 2 shows the results of a drilling time study conducted for
the Gas Research Institute (GRI). The study showed that over 70
percent of the total drilling time in deep gas wells is spent in
rotating and tripping operations.
The time breakdown for all gas wells in the study showed
similar results where drilling and tripping consumed over 50
percent of the time. The figures demonstrate the importance of
ROP in drilling. It is clear that if drilling costs are to be reduced,
ROP must bc increased while retaining or reducing the number
. of trips to change bottom-hole assemblies.
One of the reasons cited for the early failure of slim-hole
drilling was reduction in ROP. To overcome this problem, new
high-power motors have been developed that significantly
increase ROP. These motors utilize either two power sections
2 HIGH·POWER SLlM·HOLE DRILLING SYSTEM
coupleq together, or long power sections with more stages than
conventional motors. Table 2 shows that a 6Y4-in. tandem motor
increased ROP 33 to 100 percent over a conventional motor in
a hQrizontal well in Canada.
This tandem motor was run with roller cone bits. When
high-power motors are run with new high-power TSP and PDC
bits, their potential for increasing ROP is even higher.
Motor Theory
A positive-displacement motor (PDM) is a mechanical device
that converts the energy in the mud stream pump down the drill
pipe into rotary power for turning drill bits.
The power input, PI' to a positive-displacement motor
equals:
p :; pQ (hp) (1)
I 1714
and the power output, Po, equals:
p '_ p _ p _ 21tNT
(hp) (2)
o - 'll I - 'llh'llm I - 33,000
Motor power output can be increased by increasing effi-
ciency, pressure drop, or flow rate as shown by Eqs. 1 and 2.
The rotary speed, N, equals:
'llh Q
N :; ---=-- (3)
v
and the torque output, T, equals:
- parameters. Increasing the motor speed by halving the pitch
T :; ll mPv (4)
21t
When the motor is rotated freely with no pressure drop, the
theoretical and actual volumetric displacements are equal
(llh = 1), whereas when drilling with torque on the bit (i.e.,
pressure drop across the motor), some leakage occurs past the
rotor and the effective displacement is greater than the theoretical
displacement (llh < 1).
Note that ~ is in the denominator in Eq. 3 and in the
numerator in Eq. 4, so ~ cancels out when saiculating power
output (Eq. 2), showing that for a given flow rate and preSsure
drop, motor power output is independent of ~ .
A PDM stator contains one more lobe than the rotor as
shown in Figure 3.
The pitch of the rotor to the stator is the same ratio as the
number ofthe rotor to stator lobes. Figure 4 shows the stator and
rotor pitch for a 1:2 PDM.
For agiven rotor/stator design, motor speed is proportional
to flow rate. Multilobe motors have larger volumetric displace-
ment ~ and therefore deliver higher torque and run at lower
speeds than single-lobe motors (l :2).
The pressure drop, p, across the motor equals:
372
SPE 30485
p = nps (5)
Eq. 5 shows that the pressure drop (I.e., power output) ·of
the motor can be increased by increasing the number of stages
in the motor (I.e., increasing the motor length) or by increasing
the pressure drop per stage (e.g., tighter interference between the
rotor and stator). Increasing pressure increases torque, but does
not change rotary speed.
Table 3 shows how the rotary speed, torque and power
output of a positive-displacement motor can be increased by
increasing flow rate and motor length and by decreasing rotor
pitch length. All values are normalized for Case 1.
Table 3 shows that doubling flow rate (Case 2) or halving
pitch length (Case 3) will double rotary speed and power output.
Doubling motor overall length (i.e., doubling the number
ofstages) while holding pitch length and flow rate constant (Case
4) will' double torque and power..,
. "
Doubling motor overall length and flow rate while holding
pitch length constant (Case 5) will double torque and speed while
quadrupling power (,lutput.
Doubling motor overalliertgth l:lnd flow rate while halving
pitch length (Case 6) will double torque,quadruple speed, and
increase power output 8-fold.
This example shows that there are several options for
increasing motor poWer output. With fln optimized design~ all
three design parameters are usually changed.
Motor Design
Designing a slim-hole motor requires baiancing many design
length or over-pumping the flow rate can shorten the life of the
stator. A laboratory swdy of an instrumented motor '(Figure 5)
showed thatmotor speed greatly affects the heat generated in the
stator rqbber' (Figure 6). High temperature c~n reduse the stator
rubber strength and life.
Conversely, increasing the pressure drop across the motor
has less effect on stator rubber temperature as shown in Figure 7.
The power section for the High-Power Slim-Hole Drilling
System was manufactured by welding two commercially avail-
able stators together using a proprietary process to form one
stator. A special rotor containing nine stages was machined to
fit the extra long stator.
Incomparjson tandem motors are joined using a universal
joint between the power sections. This increases their versatility
since the sections can be used singly or together. However, the
universal joint is a mechanical member subject to failure and is
therefore aweak point in the tandem motor. The new slim-hole
motor eliminates the universal by making a single longro-
tor/stator section.
To accommodate the increased power, the strength ·ofthe
breaking pack and universal. have, been improved allowing the
motor to be run at higher, bit weights and higher torques. To
capitalize on the increaseeltorque, the thrusthearings and load
SPE 30485 HIGH-POWER SLIM-HOLE DRILLING SYSTEMS 3

distribution components were enlarged. Metal-on-metal radial normal for this size bit. These bits performed well in these tests
bearings are used in place of conventional rubber marine indicating that they will work well with the new high-power
bearings to absorb the higher lateral loads. The fluid passage motors.
down the center of the bearing pack shaft has been enlarged so
increased flow rates will not cause excess pressure losses in the Conclusions
bearing pack. 1. Slim-hole drilling can reduce drilling costs by 40 to 60
Special care was used in selecting materials for the percent. Slim-hole drilling abandoned in the 1970s has found
universal, which is a weak point in any PDM. Maximum renewed interest due to improved drilling systems and has
universal strength is necessary for effective operation and long proven in many areas that slim holes can reduce drilling costs.
life under the increased torque capabilities of this motor.
2. New high-power slim-hole motors that utilize double length
Laboratory Tests rotors and stators deliver twice as much power as
The slim-hole motor was tested on the Drilling Research Center conventional motors.
(DRC) dynamometer motor test stand (Figure 8), which tests
motors under varying load conditions while monitoring flow, 3. The new high-power motors increase ROP 50 to 100 percent
pressure drop, speed, and torque. The test data are used to and provide better speed control.
calculate the performance of the motors in terms of input and
output horsepowers, and to generate performance curves. 4. New high-power TSP bits are ideal for use with high-power
Figure 9 shows that the motor holds nearly constant speed PDMs. In laboratory testing, these large cutter TSP bits
over a large range of differential pressure, keeping the output drilled medium-hard formations at rates up to 500 ft/hr.
power high and making the motor difficult to stall. As weight is
applied to the bit, the motor must deliver more torque to rotate Nomenclature
the bit. The increased torque output of the motor is accompanied p == Pressure drop across motor (psi)
by increased pressure drop across the motor which causes the Q == Flow rate (GPM)
drill string to lengthen and further increase bit weight. This can N == Rotary speed (I'm)
cause conventional motors to stall, making running of motors T = Torque output (ft-Ibs)
difficult, especially in highly deviated or horizontal holes where
11 == Overall efficiency (== 11h 11m)
the drill string has a stick/slip problem. The high-power motor
can continue to run under these conditions, increasing ROP and
11h = Hydraulic efficiency
eliminating the motor stalling problem. 11 m = Mechanical efficiency
Figure 10 shows that the slim-hole motor can deliver very ~ = Theoretical volumetric displacement per revolution
high torque, thus allowing use of aggressive, high-power TSP n = Number of stages
and PDC bits. The high torque is accompanied by high Ps == Pressure drop per stage
differential pressures, limiting use of the high-power motor to
rigs with adequate mud pumps. Acknowledgments
Maurer Engineering Inc. (MEl) thanks the Department of Energy
TSP Bits (DOE) and John Duda, the project manager, for their support on
Motor and bit developments have always gone hand-in-hand. this project. MEl also thanks the Gas Research Institute and Dr.
The new high-power slim-hole motor will require bits that can Paul Westcott for their help in the development of high-power
operate and survive on the high-power motors. The high-power TSP bits and fundamental research of high-power motors.
slim-hole drilling system developed on this project will use new
high-power TSP bits that utilize large TSP cutters as shown in Metric Conversion Factors
Figure 11. The large cutter TSP (LC-TSP) bits were extensively Inches x 2.54* E+OO cm
laboratory tested at the DRC and found to have longer life and ft x 3.048* E-OI m
higher ROP than conventional TSP bits. Figure· 12 shows the ftlhr x 3.048* E-OI mlhr
ROP in Batesville Marble as a function of bit weight for four test (OF -32) x 5.56 E-Ol ° °C
bits run on an over-powered, single-lobe motor.
ft-Ibs x 1.356 E+OO Nm (Joule)
The bit utilizing large 7 mm x 7 mm x 5 mm cutters
gpm x 3.785 E+OO lImin
performed the best over a wide range of bit weights. This bit also
psi x 6.894 E+OO kPa
gave the highest ROP at a fixed horsepower as shown in Figure
13.
*Conversion factor is exact
It should also be noted that the 3-in. test bits were operated
at power levels up to 45 horsepower, which is much higher than

373
4 HIGH-POWER SLIM-HOLE DRILLING SYSTEM SPE 30485

References
Hall, L.R.and Ramos, A.B., Jr., Oryx Energy Co., 1992: "Development

••
and Evaluation of Slim-Hole Technology as Method of Reducing
Drilling Costs for Horizontal Wells," SPE 24610, presented at the
67th Annual SPE Technical Conference & Exhibition held in
Washington, D.C.;, October 4-7.
1/2 311.

Matthews, S. and McCosh, R, Halliburton Drilling Systems, 1995:

"Tandem Motor Application in Canada,'" CAODC 95-1007, pre-

•
sented at the CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, April 19-21.

Bourgoyne, Adam T., Jr., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E. and Young,
5/6 9/10
F.S., Jr., 1986: Applied Drilling Engineering, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
FIGURE 3. ROTOR/STATOR CONFIGURATrONS
(BURGOYNE ET AL., 1986)
Cohen, J.H., Maurer, W.C., Evans, C.R., Maurer Engineering Inc., and
Westcott, Paul, Gas Research Institute, 1995: "High-Power Down-
hole Motor," Drilling Technology, The American Society ofMechan- I 2 x Rotof Nell.

(~
ical Engineers, Book No. H00920, Vol. 65.

Cohen, HI. , Maurer, W.C., Maurer Engineering Inc., and Westcott,

PA, Gas Research Institute, 1994: Improved High-Power TSP Bits,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Book No. G00827,
PD-Vol. 56 Drilling Technology.

FIGURE 4. POSITIVE-DISPLACEMENT MOTOR ROTOR!

STATOR COMBINATIONS (BURGOYNE ET AL., 1986)

THERMOCOUPlES
tIr~---_.JIlo-
....· ....- - - -......
_
1 2 ;'3 4 5 6

ROTARY DOWNHOLE
MOTOR
CONTINUOUS
CORING ".ow_~- ::~
FIGURE 1. BASIC SLIM-HOLE DRILLING SYSTEM
ROTATING SHAFT .

FIGURE 5. THERMOCOUPLES IN STATOR

(COHEN ET AL., 1995)

RUNNING TIME 5.1% TRIPPING 21.9%

TROUBLE TIME 4%
320 r;::==::=:;--------------,
1270 FT-L6SI

270 ..
TEST & LOG 6.8%
CONDITION
MUD 5.2%
t +-0- 1250 RPM
WAIT TIME 2.7% ~ 220
::J
BOP 3.4% --t;~~&~~4:fZ:ZZ22~ REAMING 2.5%
~
c: 620 RPM,
~ 170 ... , ,."., ,., ~ , .
::;
...
UJ

120 ..

70 -I---_....-........~-_._-....,.,--.___-...._-l
o 10 30 40 50 60 70
ROTATING 48.4%
TIME (MIN)

FIGURE 2. TIME STUDY OF WELLS> 15,000 FEET DEEP FIGURE 6. EFFECT OF ROTARY SPEED ON
STATOR TEMPERATURE (COHEN ET AL., 1995)

374
SPE 30485 HIGH-POWER SLIM-HOLE DRILLING SYSTEMS 5

TORQUE vs DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

320....----------------,
1200 GPMI
2,OOO.,-----r--.,---......- - - r - - , - - - , - - - - ,
1,800
270 , .. , " , .......•.. , , .
1,600
tw ]' 1,400
a: 220
::J
t 1,200
to:a: ~ 1iOOO
~ 170 ~ 800-
;:;
w
t"-
12 600-
120 400
200
0-+-'---+--1-----1---+--+----+---4
8 12 16 20 o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
TIME (MIN) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (psi)

FIGURE 7, EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE FIGURE 10. SLIM-HOLE

ON STATOR TEMPERATURE (COHEN ET AL" 1995) MOTOR TORQUE CURVES

CUBE RECTANGULAR

FIGURE 8. MOTOR DYNAMOMETER

TEST STAND

MOTOR SPEED vs DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

500 ~--,,._---,----,---,...-,---r----, HEXAGON ROUND
- , ,

i~,:o"O ~S7~2
FIGURE 11, LARGE TSP CUTIERS

6OO-n=:':'=:;:;,;=:~=,=,,=,-------......,
IlATES\'IU.E MAA8LE
2","" SlHGt..E LOBE MOTOR

:::~S: ::::::.::::::::::':::::::::::::::::"
70 GPIA " .

1~~
500
=- :::::::: :l" 8lT'S

o c;:.4OO
3,000 3,500 :r ROUNO--......,-'
o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 j::'
............................. ..;":: ..
~~., , .
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (psi) ~
Q.

FIGURE 9. SLIM-HOLE
o
a: 200 .... ,.~ ;;#.. ;;<~ .
MOTOR SPEED CURVES 100 ....•.•.•.... ~:•.• ~~ ...•.•.......:-: ••••••...••....•....•
J1' •• -
o -+--.:-....:.....,----.,.-----.,...---~
o 1.000 2,000 3.000 04,000
BIT WEIGHT (lBS)

FIGURE 12. ROP VS, BIT WEIGHT

FOR LC-TSP BITS (BATESVILLE MARBLE)
(COHEN ET AL., 1994)

375
6 HIGH-POWER SLIM-HOLE QRILLING SYSTEM SPE 30485

600 r;::==::::::~::::::=::;---------]
eAllSSVlLLE MARBLE
2 3/8' SINGLE LOBE MOTOR
70 GPM RECTANGULAR
500 3' BITS

400

ROUND

100

20 30 40 50
HORSEPOWER (hp)

FIGURE 13. ROP VS. POWER (BATESVILLE MARBLE)

(COHEN ET AL., 1994) ..

TABLE 1. ORYX AUSTIN CHALK WELL COSTS

(Hall and Ramos, 1992)
HOLE DEPTH/ LATERAL TOTAL
SIZE (in.) DISPLAQEMENT (ft) COST ($) COST ($)
Conventional 8% 10,289/3741 1.00 1.00

Reduced Hole 6Vo 9698/3257 0.87 0.82

. Slim-Hole Re~Entry 3% ---/1980 2.38 0.50

New Slim Hole 4% 9697/3154 0.73 0.68

TABLE 2. ROP COMPARISON SINGLE VS, TANDEM MOTORS

(Matthews and McCosh, 1995)

DRILLED MOTOR
BIT HOLE SIZE (in) DEPTH IN (tt) DEPTH OUT (tt) FOOTAGE HOURS ROP (ftIhr) ROPINC. TYPE

1. F37D 6Vo 9,403 9,865 462 47.0 '9.83 SINGLE

2. F37D 6Va 9,865 10,285 420 27.75 15.14 , 54 TANDEM

3. F37D 6Vo 10,285 10,820 535 40.75 13.12 34 TANDEM

4. F37D 6Vo 10,820 11,673 853 46.25 18.44 88 TANDEM

5. F37D 6Vo 11,673 11,893 220 11.25 19.56 99 TANDEM

TABLE 3. NORMALIZED MOTOR CHARACTERISTIQS

DESIGN PARAMETERS MOTORP~RFORMANCE

Case Overall Length Pitch Length Flow Rate Rotary Speed Torque Power Factor

1 1. 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 11 2 2 1 2

3 1 0.5 1 2 1 2

4 2 1 1 1 2 2

5 2 1 2 2 2 4

6 2 0.5 2 4 2 8

376