Chapter 02 Drilling Cost Control

Chapter 2 D RILLING C OST C ONTROL
INTRODUCTION
There are few, if any, drilling operations in the world where cost is not important. There are few,
if any, drilling circumstances where costs are not important. If we as drilling people lose
consciousness of drilling costs, management will remind us in a very short time. Cost is
important! It is our responsibility as drilling people to accomplish the tasks before us at an
optimum cost - a minimum cost to safely develop the reserves and produce the assets at an
optimum level. The drilling operation must be cost effective.
The responsibilities on drilling people are greater than ever in our history. The significance of
good drilling practices has never been more important. Many in responsible positions are
suffering from hypertension and stress. Wells are deep and complicated and many thousands
of dollars can be lost in just minutes. The daily cost of some operations is as high as US
$500,000. With deep wells come higher pressures. There are more pressure control problems
today than ever before. With the emphasis on environmental protection, there is the constant
threat of expensive litigation over even the most insignificant spill. A minimal pressure control
problem can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Pressure control problems can quickly add
up to hundreds of millions of dollars plus environmental damage. These costs do not include
the value of the reserves lost forever to the atmosphere. Finally, during pressure control
problems there is always the potential for loss of life. Few executives in any industry bear such
burdens. It’s a BIG JOB - AN IMPORTANT JOB.
Drilling operations continue around the clock in what is often the most hostile environment.
Cost control is difficult at best due to the expense involved in even the simplest operation.
Currently, operating costs vary from less than $20,000 per day for simple land based operations
to more than $1,000,000 per day for deep water floating operations or Canadian Arctic
operations in the Beaufort Sea. Keeping daily costs is an absolute must if cost control is to be
effective. The effectiveness of various drilling techniques must be measured in total cost or in
cost per unit of length. Perhaps the two most important equations in all of drilling are:
CT = C B + C r (t + T ) Equation 2-1
CB + Cr (t + T )
CT =
F Equation 2-2
Example 2-1 illustrates the use of these equations.
Example 2-1
Given: Bit # 4
Rig cost = $2,000 per hour
Bit cost = $12,000
Rotating time = 100 hrs
Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-1

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
Footage = 3000 feet (914 meters)
Depth = 10,000 feet (3048 meters)
Trip time = 2 hr per 1000 feet (300 meters)
Rotary speed = 100 rpm
Determine: The cost of the bit run in terms of total costs and cost per foot.
Solution: CT = C B + C r ( t + T )
⎡ ⎛ 2 hr ⎞⎤
CT = $12000 + $2000 ⎢100 + ⎜ × 10000 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦
CT = $252,000
CB + C r (t + T )
CT =
F
⎡ ⎛ 2 hr ⎞⎤
$12000 + $2000 ⎢100 + ⎜ × 10000 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦
CT =
3000 ft
CT = $84.00 /ft
Solution SI Units: CT = C B + C r (t + T )
⎡ ⎛ 2 hr ⎞⎤
CT = $12000 + $2000 ⎢100 + ⎜ × 3048 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 300 ⎠⎦
CT = $252,640
CB + C r (t + T )
CT =
F
⎡ ⎛ 2 hr ⎞⎤
$12000 + $2000 ⎢100 + ⎜ × 3048 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 300 ⎠⎦
CT =
914 m
CT = $276 .41 /m
2-2 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control
The total cost of the operation would be given by Equation 2-3.
∑ C B + C r (∑ t + ∑ T )
CTC =
Total Depth Equation 2-3
Example 2-2
Given: The rig cost and trip time are given in Example 2-1
Bit # 5
Footage = 1300 feet (396 meters)
Rotating time = 63 hrs
Depth = 11,300 feet (3444 meters)
Bit cost = $12,000
Determine: 1. The cost per foot for bit # 5.
2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit # 4 and # 5.
Solution: 1. The cost per foot for bit #5.
CB + C r (t + T )
CT =
F
⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
12000 + 2000 ⎢63 + ⎜ × 11300 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦
CT =
1300
CT = $140 .92 /ft
2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit #4 and #5.
⎧ ⎤⎫
(12000 + 12000 ) + 2000⎨(63 + 100 ) + ⎡⎢⎛⎜2 ⎞
⎟(10000 + 11300 )⎥ ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 1000 ⎠ ⎦⎭
CTC =
3000 + 1300
CTC = $101 .21 /ft
Solution SI Units: 1. The cost per foot for bit #5.
CB + C r (t + T )
CT =
F

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
12000 + 2000 ⎢63 + ⎜ × 3444 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 300 ⎠⎦
CT =
396
CT = $464 .44 /m
2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit #4 and #5.
⎧ ⎤⎫
(12000 + 12000 ) + 2000⎨(63 + 100 ) + ⎡⎢⎛⎜ 2 ⎞
⎟(3048 + 3444 )⎥ ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 300 ⎠ ⎦⎭
CTC =
914 + 396
CTC = $333.25 /m
The arithmetic would indicate that bit run # 4 cost $84.00 per foot ($276.41 per meter) while bit
run # 5 cost $140.92 per foot (464.44 per meter). However, the cumulative cost over the
interval 7000 feet to 11,300 feet (2134 to 3444 meters) is calculated to be $101.21 per foot
($333.25 per meter).
The total project cost would include all costs attributable to the well from staking location to
putting the product into the pipeline. In addition, the cost over the life of the well must be
considered. For example, in Greece, initial drilling and completion costs had to be increased
due to the presence of plastic salt flows, which resulted in the loss of the earlier wells.
Therefore, the success or failure of any drilling technique such as bit selection, mud type, casing
program or any facet must be measured in terms of current cost per foot in relation to the total
cost over the life of the project.
FACTORS AFFECTING PENETRATION RATE
It is generally true that time is money and that improving the penetration rate will reduce costs.
It is also true that the total cost includes the cost of various auxiliary functions. The factors that
affect drilling time and costs are as follows:
• Bit type/formation hardness
• Bit weight
• Rotary Speed
• Bottom hole cleaning
• Mud properties:
1. weight
2. type
3. solids

Drilling Practices
4. fluid properties
• Auxiliary practices:
1. formation
evaluation
2. casing strings
3. hole sizes
4. trip time
5. connection time
6. bottom hole
assemblies
7. short trips
8. reaming
connections
9. rig limitations
As we shall see, these factors are both

independent and interrelated.
Figure 2-1 Bit weight versus penetration rate (field data).
BIT TYPE AND FORMATION HARDNESS

Obviously, a geothermal well drilled in granite is going to be more expensive over any interval
than a comparable depth well drilled in the soft sediment of the Gulf Coast. It is the
responsibility of the drilling personnel to match the formation with the proper bit. Bit selection
and drilling bits are a topic for an entire chapter. However, for the purpose of further discussion,
it is assumed that the proper bit has been selected for the formation being penetrated.
BIT WEIGHT
Assuming all other factors affecting drilling rate are adequate and constant, the relationship
between bit weight and drilling rate is given by:
DR ∝ W d Equation 2-4
DR = K d W d Equation 2-5
The exponent, d, to bit weight has been found in the laboratory to range between 0.95 and 2;
however, field data has not substantiated this range. That is, weight on bit is linearly related to
drilling rate, at least at the higher bit weights.
The slope, K d , is not constant and is a function of:

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
• Hole size
• Drilling fluid type and properties
• Formation characteristics
• Bit type
Generally, drilling rate is plotted linearly versus bit weight - divided by hole size. Experience has
shown that this relationship is valid over small ranges of changes in hole size. Black 1 observed
in tests ranging from 6½ to 11½ inches (165.1 mm to 292.1 mm) that diameter had a statistically
significant effect on rate of penetration.
Black concluded that variations over
these sizes were a function of the cutting
structure design for various bits. For
example, the 7⅞ inch (200.0 mm) bit
tested had fewer inserts per inch
diameter and therefore, higher load per
insert resulting in higher drilling rates.
Field experience has shown that while
correlation can be drawn over the range
from 6 to 11 inches (152 to 279 mm),
these correlations might not be accurate
when extrapolated to a 17½ to 26 inch
(444.5 to 660.4 mm) hole sizes.
Laboratory and field tests have illustrated

that fluid type has a significant effect on
the relationship between drilling rate and
weight on bit. Figure 2-1 summarizes
typical field data taken in the Atoka shale
of Southeastern Oklahoma. As
illustrated, the relationship between
drilling rate and bit weight per diameter
inch is linear for both mud and air.
However, it is particularly interesting that
the slope, K d , of the mud curve is
essentially 0.01 while the slopes, K d , of
the air curves are almost twice that value Figure 2-2 ROP versus bit weight - Laboratory data.
(0.01 vs. 0.018). For example, doubling
the bit weight while drilling with mud would increase the penetration rate from 3.5 fph to 25 fph
(1.1 m/hr to 7.6 m/hr). A similar increase while drilling with air would increase the penetration
rate from 20 fph to 54 fph (6.1 m/hr to 16.5 m/hr). Drilling with mud and increasing the bit
weight 1,000# per inch (1,130 daN/cm), increases drilling rate 10.8 fph (3.3 m/hr). Increasing
the bit weight 1,000# per inch (1,130 daN/cm) and drilling with air, increases the drilling rate
17.2 fph (5.2 m/hr). In the example at 2,000# per inch (2,260 daN/cm), air will drill 26.5 fph (30
fph - 3.5 fph) (8.0 m/hr or 9.1 m/hr – 1.1 m/hr) faster than mud. At 4,000# per inch (4,520
daN/cm), air will drill 39 fph (64 fph – 25 fph) (11.9 m/hr or 19.5 m/hr – 7.6 m/hr) faster than
mud. It is observed, therefore, that there are more benefits from higher bit weights in air drilling
than in mud drilling.

Drilling Practices
Doty 2 offered similar

observations. In his full
laboratory tests, various
drilling parameters were
compared as a function of
the drilling fluid being
used. Doty used four
drilling fluids - clear brine,
brine with drilled solids,
lignosulfonate water base
mud and oil base mud.
As Figure 2-2 illustrates,
WOB vs. Penetration rate
is essentially linear in the
presence of water mud, oil
mud and brine with drilled
solids. In these tests, the
relationship was quite
different in the presence
Figure 2-3 ROP versus bit weight for a PDC bit. of brine. As illustrated in
Figure 2-2 the exponent
‘d’ to WOB is approximately two in the presence of the clear brine. However, again it must be
stressed that field data does not verify an exponent value greater than one. It has been
suggested that the exponent ‘d’ to WOB would approach a value of two for perfect cleaning.
However, as illustrated, even with the perfect cleaning of air drilling, the exponent ‘d’ was
measured to be very close to one.
Formation characteristics and type will also affect the response of drilling rate to bit weight.
Figure 2-2 illustrates the typical differences. In addition to tests using Berea sandstone, Doty
made the same tests
in Mancos shale.
The results for clear
brine drilling in
Mancos shale have
been superimposed
in Figure 2-2 to
illustrate the
differences caused by
formation
characteristics.
These differences are
not always
predictable, but do
routinely exist. These
potential differences
stress the importance
of obtaining good
field data for any
area.
Figure 2-4 Response of PDC bit to bit weight for various rpms.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
The response in drilling rate to increases in bit weight is also affected by bit type. Drag bits
such as diamond and polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits drill as a result of the
shearing or tearing action of the cutting structure on the bottom of the hole. Roller bits combine
a limited amount of the dragging mechanism with the intrusion of the teeth. Figure 2-3
illustrates typical drag response in drilling rate to changes in bit weight. It is not uncommon in
the laboratory to measure the exponent to bit weight to be less than one (0.736, in this instance)
using a drag bit. Field data, however, has always resulted in an exponent value of one at least
in this writer’s experience. Generally, the slope of the response is less than that recorded for
roller bits. Figure 2-1 compared a hypothetical drag bit response with actual responses for roller
bits. A limited amount of data collected in the Middle East using diamond bits, illustrated that a
dramatic change in the response of drilling rate to bit weight occurred at a high (+10,000#/inch ,
+11,300 daN/cm) weight on bit. In these tests 14¾ inch (374.7 mm) diamond bits were run at
over 10,000#/ inch (11,300 daN/cm) diameter. Cost per foot was significantly reduced although
bit life averaged less than 20 hours.
Black, et.al. 3 have demonstrated in the laboratory that when using PDC bits, the relationship
between bit weight and drilling rate is a function of the rotary speed. Figure 2-4 summarizes
and illustrates the work. In these tests, a stereotype PDC bit was used to drill the Mancos shale
at constant mud type, borehole pressure, confining pressure and overburden pressure. As
illustrated in Figure 2-4, a rather unimpressive
response in drilling rate with increases in bit
weight is obtained at 50 rpm with the drilling
rate increasing from essentially zero feet per
hour (0 m per hour) at 2,000 pounds (890
daN) bit weight to 20 feet per hour (6.1 m per
hour) at 8,000 pounds (3,560 daN) bit weight.
However, at 900 rpm, the response to bit
weight is very impressive. As illustrated, the
drilling rate increases from essentially zero
feet per hour (0 m per hour) at 2,000 pounds
(890 daN) bit weight to 120 feet per hour (36.6
m per hour) at 8,000 pounds (3,560 daN) bit
weight.
In the past, it was popular to develop

equations for optimizing bit weight. However,
too many variables are associated with the life
of modern bits to make any mathematical
analysis meaningful. In time past, bit life was Figure 2-5 Bit life versus bit weight.
expressed as follows:
1
L∝
W bN Equation 2-6
The exponent, b ranges from 1.0 ≤ b ≥ 3.0 as shown in Figure 2-5.
Simply speaking, the bit lasted for a finite number of total revolutions at a constant bit weight.
This philosophy was even extrapolated and some finite number of revolutions was used to
determine when a bit should be pulled. While this practice, however poor, had some validity
years ago, it is virtually without foundation considering modern bits.

Drilling Practices
Equation 2-6 was developed for and based on experience with ordinary bits with unsealed roller
bearings and remains valid only for these type bits. The failure mechanism of the roller bearing
is fatigue. With each rotation, the roller is compressed and relaxed. A very simple illustration is
the breaking of a piece of wire by bending it first one way and then the other. The bearing life is
inversely proportional to the total load on the bit raised to the power ‘ b ‘. The exponent ‘ b ‘ is a
function of the solids in the mud and is considered to vary from 1 for solids free, clear water to 3
for mud systems having high solids content. Although no provision is made in Equation 2-6,
experience has shown that bearing life in air drilling is even longer than that obtained using
water. Further, experience has shown that smaller solids reduce the life of the bearing. For
example, the percent solids smaller than 10 microns is more detrimental to bit life than 10
percent solids larger than 150 microns.
In modern roller bits, the bearing is usually not a roller bearing but rather some form of bushing
or friction type bearing. In addition, the bearing is protected from the mud solids by a seal.
Therefore, bearing life also becomes a function of seal life. Seal life is a function of many things
including solids in the mud (i.e. higher solids mean shorter seal life) and temperature. Once the
seal has failed, the mud solids have a more detrimental effect on the friction bearing due to the
comparatively close tolerances. To further complicate matters, the bearing life is shortened by
higher orders of magnitude of rotary speed. At higher rotary speeds, more heat is generated
because of close bearing tolerance thereby reducing bearing life.
It should be obvious that the failure mechanism of bushing bearing bits is very complicated and
defies rigorous mathematical description or prediction. A complete discussion of bit life, bit
bearing, cutting structures, and when to pull a bit is given in the chapter on drilling bits. Further,
recommended bit weights and rotary speeds are discussed in the bit chapter. At this point, it is
sufficient to point out that the bit weight offering the lowest cost per foot is the optimum bit
weight and can usually be determined through trial and error for a particular drilling
environment. In general, the optimum weight is that which imparts the most energy to the bit
consistent with the integrity of the bearing structure and the cutting structure.
Undoubtedly, bit weight is the most significant factor affecting penetration rate.
ROTARY SPEED
The relationship between rotary speed and drilling rate is given by Equation 2-7 and ideally
illustrated by Figure 2-6.
DR ∝ N a Equation 2-7
The exponent to rotary speed, a , ranges from 0.5 ≤ a ≥ 1.0.
As illustrated in Figure 2-6, in soft formations, the drilling rate is linearly related (i.e. a=1) to
rotary speed, ‘a’, may be as low as 0.5. That is, increasing the rotary speed by a factor of 2
would only increase the drilling rate by square root of 2 or 1.41. The actual value of ‘a’ must be
determined for each drilling environment in order to evaluate the economics of selected drilling
rates.
In most drilling environments, the exponent to rotary speed, ‘ a ‘, is less than 1. Figure 2-7
illustrates actual field data obtained while drilling the Atoka shale in southeastern Oklahoma. In
view of the nonlinear response, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that higher rotary speeds are

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
not as economical as lower rotary speeds. However, Example 2.3 illustrates that each instance
must be evaluated on it’s own merit.
Figure 2-6. Penetration Rate Response to

Rotary Speed Figure 2-7. Field Data in the Atoka Shale
Example 2-3
Given: The conditions in Example 2-1.
Determine: The cost per foot if the rotary speed is reduced to 50 rpm assuming the
relationship that L ∝ 1/ N as in Equation 2-6.
The exponent to rotary speed, ‘ a ‘, is 0.5.
Solution: In Example 2-1, the bit life is 100 hours at a rotary speed of 100 rpm. If
the rotary speed is cut to 50 rpm, the assumption is that bit life should
double since bit life is inversely proportional to rotary speed. At 50 rpm,
the bit life will be 200 hours.
The exponent to rotary speed can be used to find the new penetration
rate.
0. 5
⎛ 50 ⎞
DR 50 = ⎜ ⎟ × 30 fph = 21.2 fph
⎝ 100 ⎠
The footage drilled at 100 rpm was 3000 feet.
The footage drilled at 50 rpm will be:

Drilling Practices
F = 21 .2 fph x 200 hours = 4243 feet
Calculate the cost per foot at 50 rpm.
CB + Cr (t + T )
CT =
F
⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
12000 + 2000 ⎢200 + ⎜ × 10000 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦
CT = = $106.53 / ft
4243
Solution SI Units: The exponent to rotary speed can be used to find the new
penetration rate.
0 .5
⎛ 50 ⎞
DR 50 =⎜ ⎟ × 9.14 mph = 6.46 mph
⎝ 100 ⎠
The footage drilled at 100 rpm was 914 meters.
The footage drilled at 50 rpm will be:
F = 6.46 mph x 200 hours = 1293 meters
Calculate the cost per foot at 50 rpm.
CB + Cr (t + T )
CT =
F
⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
12000 + 2000 ⎢200 + ⎜ × 10000 ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦
CT = = $349.57 / m
1293
The cost per foot at 100 rpm was calculated in Example 2-1 to be $84.00 per foot ($276.41 per
meter). In this example, the bit life is doubled while the total interval is increased by almost one-
half. These facts alone appear impressive and might result in a decision that lower rotary
speeds were more desirable. In fact, the cost per foot increased from $84.00 per foot to
$106.53 per foot ($276.41 per meter to $349.57 per meter) or almost 30% when the rotary
speed was reduced by one-half.
Rotary speed using sealed bearing, friction type bits are currently limited by bearing design to
something less than 150 rpm. The close tolerance of the friction bearing causes excessive heat
and premature failure at higher rotary speeds. However, rotary speeds for conventional roller
bearing bits, diamond bits and PDC bits do not suffer this limitation and should not be confined
to the limit. In all instances, the cost in terms of dollars per foot must dictate the drilling
practices for a given area.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
BOTTOM HOLE CLEANING

The importance of bottom hole
cleaning to efficient drilling
operations cannot be over
emphasized. Too often, in
actual field operations, the
question of the importance of
hydraulics continues to be
debated. The chapter on
hydraulics and the design of
hydraulics illustrate that no
purer application of science is
used in all of the drilling
industry. Why does the debate
continue? It is senseless. I
have heard a myriad of
excuses for not using good
hydraulics; but I’ve never Figure 2-8 Response due to inadequate hydraulics at lower flow rates.
heard a good excuse. A multi-
million dollar operation is grossly inefficient without the proper use of those tiny jet nozzles
costing but a few dollars each.
The result of inadequate bottom hole cleaning is what is termed “hydraulic flounder”.
Graphically, Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-6 illustrate the linear relationship between drilling rate and
bit weight and drilling rate and rotary speed respectively. Quite simply, with rotary bits and drag
bits, these relationships are not linear if the hydraulics are inadequate. This principle was
established prior to the advent of the jet bit in 1949 and continues to be proven almost daily.
This principle is true and provable for all drilling environments.
Typical examples can be found in almost any publication. Figure 2-8 adopted from Warren 4
illustrates the typical
response of drilling rate to
changes in bit weight as a
function of hydraulics. In this
figure, the drilling rate could
be improved from 60 feet per
hour (18.3 meters per hour)
with 40,000 pounds (17,790
daN) bit weight and poor
hydraulics, as evidenced by
the deviation from linearity,
to 160 feet per hour (48.8
meters per hour) at the same
bit weight utilizing better
hydraulics. The response of
drilling rate to rotary speed is
similarly affected. As Figure
2-9 adopted from Black 5
illustrates, drilling rate is
linearly related to rotary Figure 2-9. Response due to inadequate hydraulics at higher WOB and RPM.

Drilling Practices
speed at lower bit weights and

lower rates of cutting
generation. However, at
higher rates of cutting
generation resulting from
increased bit weight and rotary
speed, the relationship ceases
to be linear. That is, hydraulic
flounder results. Figure 2-10
also adopted from Black
further illustrates the hydraulic
flounder phenomena.
Over time, field data has

substantiated laboratory data
without exception. Figure 2-11
from Kexiang 6 is typical of field
data. Bottom hole cleaning is
Figure 2-11 Illustration of poor hydraulics in the lab usually expressed in terms of
bit hydraulics horsepower per
square inch of hole diameter which is abbreviated “HHP/in2”. Bottom hole cleaning is defined as
“adequate” when the response to drilling rate and bit weight are linear. Generally, 3-5 HHP/in2
is found to be “adequate” depending upon such variables as hole size, formation hardness and
drilling rate. Hole size is a variable since nozzles clean a specific area. Therefore, three
nozzles more than adequately cover an 8½ inch (215.9 mm) hole while four nozzles might
better cover the bottom of a 17½ inch (444.5 mm) hole. Formation hardness is an obvious
variable affecting cutting size. Generally, higher values of HHP/in2 are required for adequate
cleaning in soft formations. Drilling rate affects the required cleaning because of the volume of
cuttings generated at higher penetration rates. As shown in Figure 2-11, 5.41 HHP/in2 is
adequate for drilling rates up to approximately 15 feet per hour which corresponds to a bit
weight of 16,000 pounds (7,120 daN). At higher bit weights, hydraulic flounder is observed.
Notice that bit weights above
19,000 (8,450 daN) result in
reduced drilling rates and a
negative slope. Actual field
tests have observed the
drilling rate decreasing to
zero as a result of the
phenomena of hydraulic
flounder.
Effects of Increased Hydraulics

and Extended Nozzles
A consistent question among
drilling people concerns the
effect of hydraulic
horsepower over and above
that required for “adequate”
bottom hole cleaning.
Figure 2-10 Field data showing response to hydraulics. Maurer 7 demonstrated that

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
all rocks, even granite, exhibited a “threshold pressure”

defined as that point at which the impact of the fluid on
the rock caused the rock to be eroded away.
Obviously, the threshold pressure is very low for soft
formations and very high for hard rock such as granite.
The effect for conventional roller bits is clearly depicted
in Figure 2-11. At a constant bit weight of 20,000
pounds (8,900 daN), the drilling rate is approximately
15 fph (4.6 m/hr) with 5.41 HHP/in2, 21 fph (6.4 m/hr)
with 9.74 HHP/in2 and 27 fph (8.2 m/hr) for 11.22
HHP/in2. Alternatively, in this case, the drilling rate was
increased 80% by doubling the hydraulics. As always,
success must be measured in terms of cost in dollars
per foot. As a practical matter, up to 20 HHP/in2 have
been routinely and successfully used in actual field
operations and without excessive hole enlargement or
nozzle erosion.
Very definitive work in this area was described by

Deily8, et.al. In these actual field tests, five wells were Figure 2-12 Effect of extended nozzles on
impact force.
drilled in East Texas using both conventional and
extended nozzle bit and pressures to 12,000 psi (82,740 kPa). Extended nozzles were
developed to increase the impact force from the jet onto the bottom of the hole. As illustrated in
Figure 2-12, with conventional bits, approximately 65% of the total impact force remains when
the mud reaches bottom. With extended nozzles, approximately 90% of the total impact force is
available for cleaning the bottom of the hole. Figure 2-14, (adopted from Deily), illustrates that
the soft, shallow shale formations exhibiting low threshold pressures, the drilling rates were
dramatically improved from 60 fph to 220 fph (18.3 m/hr to 67.1 m/hr) by increasing the
pressure from 2,500 psi to 11,000 psi (17,240 kPa to 75,840 kPa), using conventional bits and
extended nozzles. Note that by 6,000 feet (1,829 m) the drilling rate using 12,000 psi (82,740
kPa) was little more than that obtained using 2,500 psi (17,240 kPa). The response for drilling
in sand is shown in Figure 2-13 and illustrates that by 6,000 feet (1,829 m) no advantage was
observed using the high pressure, extended nozzle bits.
Figure 2-15 illustrates data from the same work collected between 4000 feet and 8000 feet
(1,219 meters to 2,438 meters) for conventional and extended nozzle bits in sand. As shown,
using conventional bits, surface pressures were 2,000 psi, 3,000 psi and 6,000 psi (13,790 kPa,
20,680 kPa and 41,370 kPa) corresponding to bit hydraulics of 5.1 HHP/in2, 6.8 HHP/in2 and
16.8 HHP/in2, respectively. Note that no improvement was observed at higher pressures using
conventional bits and that by 8000 feet (2,438 meters) no improvement was observed using
extended nozzle bits. Similar results are illustrated in Figure 2-16 for performance of shale. It is
reasonable to expect that at some depth, the performance curves would overlay.
In these cases as in any case, the practicality must be determined in terms of cost, $/ft. In
general, higher pressures and/or extended nozzles should be economical in soft, shallow
formations. However, in deep, hard formations, high pressures and/or extended nozzles are
probably a waste of money. This theory is substantiated in the field tests reported by Pratt.
Figure 2-17 illustrates that at the Pachuta Creek Field in Clark County, Mississippi, extended
nozzle bits improved performance to almost 10,000 feet (3028 meters). Beyond 10,000 feet
(3028 meters), there was no advantage with extended nozzle bits. In this author’s experience,

Drilling Practices
Figure 2-14 Effect of increased impact force on Figure 2-13 Effect of increased impact force on soft
sandstone. formations.
the hydraulics generally used by the industry world-wide are only adequate for hole sizes of
approximately 8½ inches (215.9 mm). For hole sizes less than 6 inches (152.4 mm), the
presence of adequate hydraulics in routine drilling operations is virtually nonexistent. The same
is true for hole sizes larger than 9 inches (228.6 mm). The routine use of higher values of
hydraulics horsepower at the bit is equally rare. The conscientious drilling engineer can be an
instant success by properly designing hydraulics for the 12¼ to 17½ inch (311.2 to 444.5 mm)
surface holes and the 6 inch (152.4 mm) production hole. In one actual incident in the deep
Anadarko basin, the drilling cost in the 6 inch (152.4 mm) hole was reduced from $300 per foot
to $70 per foot by merely utilizing reasonable hydraulics.
HYDRAULICS AND PDC BITS

For PDC bits, considerable research, both in the laboratory and in the field, has clearly
demonstrated that hydraulics is even more important to successful PDC bit operations. The
effect of hydraulic horsepower or impact force on PDC operations is well established.
A good example is the work performed and summarized by Holster and Kipp 9 . These
researchers performed laboratory studies of the affect of bit hydraulic horsepower on
penetration rate using oil base and water base muds in three different type formations - Pierre
shale which is very soft, Mancos shale and Berea sandstone. Typical results are illustrated in
Figure 2-18. In this case, the laboratory research confirmed field experience. Performance
using PDC bits was acceptable using oil base mud and a dismal failure using water base muds.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
Figure 2-15 No improvement due to extended nozzles Figure 2-16 Improvement with extended nozzles in
below 8,000 ft (2,440 m) in sandstone. shale
Figure 2-17 Increased penetration rate to 10,000 feet (3048 meters) with extended nozzles.

Drilling Practices
Prior to 1984, the use of bit

hydraulic horsepower was not
considered important. From
analysis of Figure 2-18, it is
obvious that bit balling using
water muds at low values of
bit hydraulic horsepower
causes unacceptable
penetration rates. It is equally
clear that the drilling rate is
linearly related to bit hydraulic
horsepower at the higher
values. It is interesting that
with oil mud in the Mancos
shale, the penetration rate is
unaffected by hydraulic
horsepower. Figure 2-19
suggests that in extremely soft
shales such as the Pierre, oil
muds might offer acceptable
drilling rates without attention
to hydraulics. However, it is
indicated that the most
economical operation would
be obtained using water muds
at high values of bit hydraulic
horsepower. As illustrated in
Figure 2-19, the penetration
rate is doubled from 50 fph
(15.2 m/hr) at 1 HHP/in2 with
oil base mud to 100 fph (30.5
m/hr) at 8-10 HHP/in2 with
water base mud. In more
competent formations such as
Berea sandstone, little Figure 2-18 Effect of hydraulics on PDC bits.
difference was observed when
comparing oil and water muds
with water exhibiting a slight advantage at higher values of HHP/in2 (see Figure 2-20).
In the Berea sandstone, both muds balled the bit at lower values of bit hydraulic horsepower. It
is extremely important to note that drilling rate increased linearly with bit hydraulic horsepower
above 2 HHP/in2. Field results substantiate these laboratory results. Onisko 10 reported that bit
hydraulic horsepower in the range of 17-19 HHP/in2 was required for successful, economical
application of the PDC bits in soft formations.
Since then, bit design has come a long way to help minimize the effects of bit balling. Wells 11
indicated that hydraulics are still very important in soft formations, but did not make a significant
difference in medium to hard formations. He based it on drilling test in a full scale simulator.
The soft formation was Catoosa shale with a 6,000 psi (41,370 kPa) unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) and a cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 9.6. The medium formation was the

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
Figure 2-19 Hydraulics for PDC bits in soft formations. Figure 2-20 Hydraulics for PDC bits in harder formations.
Mancos shale with a UCS of 9,000 psi (62,050 kPa) and a CEC of 7. The hard formation was
Carthage limestone with a UCS of 14,000 psi.
Wells, et al. indicated that the penetration rate was a function of hydraulics in the soft Catoosa
shale. Figure 2-21 shows the results of the laboratory testing for horsepower. As the
horsepower per square inch increases, so does the penetration rate. Using computational fluid
dynamic simulations, he also presented the data illustrated in Figure 2-22. Wells thought that
the average fluid velocity across the cutting structure. It may be one reason why higher flow
rates seem to help PDC bits drill better in the field.
MUD PROPERTIES
It is extremely difficult to define the specific effects of the mud properties on drilling rate because
it is virtually impossible to completely isolate each variable. The effect of some properties is
rather obscure while others only affect performance because of an adverse affect on some
other mud property. The effect of still other properties is quite well defined.

Drilling Practices
Figure 2-21 Penetration rate versus horsepower per square inch in Catoosa shale.
Figure 2-22 Penetration rate versus fluid velocity in Catoosa shale.
Mud Weight
Specifically, it is not mud weight, which effects penetration rate. Rather, it is the difference
between mud weight and formation pore pressure. A typical response between drilling rate and
differential pressure is illustrated in Figure 2-23. In this figure, adopted from Cunningham 12 , the
relationship between drilling rate and differential pressure for laboratory tests on soft Duval

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
Figure 2-23 Drilling rate versus overbalance. Figure 2-24 Effect of formation hardness on drilling rate.
County shale indicates that the drilling rate can be reduced in soft formations ten fold! In fact, in
other laboratory tests, the differential pressure was increased until the penetration rate was
reduced to zero. The hyperbolic relationship continues with negative differential pressures (i.e.
formation pressure greater than drilling fluid hydrostatic). Drilling under-balanced and ultimately
drilling with air result in substantially improved penetration rates. As illustrated earlier in Figure
2-1, drilling with air in the Atoka shale of southeastern Oklahoma improved penetration rates by
a factor of sixteen (4 - 66 fph at 2,000#/in, 1.2 – 20.1 m/hr at 2,260 daN/cm).
Cunningham further demonstrated that the characteristics of Figure 2-23 are a function of
formation hardness. Figure 2-24 adopted from Cunningham’s work illustrates that the
differential pressure has very little effect on penetration rate in the very dense Ellenberger
Dolomite. But even going from 0.6 fph to 0.3 fph (0.18 to .09 m/hr) is a significant reduction in
penetration rate.
It has been suggested that the reduction in drilling rate is a result of an instantaneous filter cake
along with a “chip hold down” effect which is related to the differential pressure across the chip.
In a very good paper by Black, et.al. 13 , laboratory tests relating rate of penetration and filter cake
differential pressure with various muds are discussed. The researchers tested the relationship
between penetration rate and filter cake differential pressure using low solids, non-dispersed
(LSND), low solids, non-dispersed (LSND-SPA), dispersed (Disp) and oil emulsion.

Drilling Practices
Table 2-1. Composition of the Muds used in the Tests
MATERIAL CONCENTRATION PER BARREL

LSND LSND-SPA DISP OIL EMUL
Water, bbl 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.82

Bentonite, lbm 10.00 10.00 22.00 14.00
Caustic soda, lbm 0.05 0.05 1.00 0.50
Barite, lbm 35.00 35.00 25.00 45.00
Simulated Drill Solids (Rev Dust), lbm 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Beneficiating Polymer (Benex), lbm 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005
Sodium Polyacrylate (SPA), lbm 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00
Lignite, lbm 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00
Lignosulfonate, lbm 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.50
Diesel, bbl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
Cellulosic Polymer (Drispac Superlo), lbm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Table 2-2. Properties of the Mud Used in the Tests
LSND LSND-SPA DISP OIL EMUL
Before After Before After Before After Before After
Test Temperature, °F 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
Density, lbm/gal 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
Plastic Viscosity, cp 9 10 14 14 17 23 16 15
Yield Point, lbf/100 ft2 14 10 6 7 13 13 13 12
Apparent Viscosity, cp 16.0 15.0 17.0 17.5 23.5 28.5 22.5 21.0
Initial Gel, lbf/100 ft2 12 5 4 4 4 5 5 4
2
10 Min. Gel, lbf/100 ft 24 19 6 6 9 13 8 9
pH 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
API Filtration Rate, 1.0 0.9 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.43
in3/30 min.
API Filtration Rate, 16.4 14.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.8 7.1 7.0
cc’s/30 min.
The compositions and properties of the muds used in the tests by Black are given in Table 2-1
and Table 2-2. As illustrated in Figure 2-25, the mud type had a greater affect (80-100 fph, 24-
30 m/hr) at lower differentials than at higher differential (20-23 fph, 6-7 m/hr). It is equally
interesting that the poorer performer was the oil emulsion mud followed closely by the low
solids, non-dispersed mud containing the sodium polyacrylate filter loss additive. Undoubtedly,

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
the oil emulsion filter cake was least permeable of all muds tested. This effect is discussed
further in the section dedicated to filtration rate effects on rate of penetration.
Figure 2-25 Penetration Rate as a Function of Mud Type and Pressure Differential
It is a little more complicated than just the hydrostatic pressure holding down the rock chip. The
results are also different between permeable rocks and impermeable rocks. In permeable rock,
the absolute pressure does not influence the penetration rate. It is the difference between the
formation pressure and the hydrostatic pressure. When the bit tooth creates cracks in the rock,
the pore fluid helps maintain the pressure in the cracks making it easier for the pressure to
equalizer below the rock chip.
With impermeable rock the bit tooth creates cracks in the rock, increasing the porosity and
reducing the pressure. The pore fluid does not move into the cracks because there is no
permeability. Because of the increase in volume, the pressure in the cracks approaches
zero 14 , 15 . The chip hold down force becomes proportional to the hydrostatic pressure. The
drilling fluid must enter the cracks to equalize the pressure. Many mud properties will affect the
ability of the mud to equalize the pressure.
It has also been shown that when the confining pressure (hydrostatic pressure) is sufficient, the
rock will fail malleably rather than a brittle failure 16 . When the rock becomes more malleable,
the penetration rate decreases.

Drilling Practices
Mud Type
It is well established that mud type
significantly affects penetration
rate. It is indisputable in laboratory
tests and field experience that air
drills much faster than any other
media. Of the liquid systems
commonly used, performance is
much better with clear water free
of all solids. As typified in Figure
2-21, water with solids generally
drills considerably slower than
solids free water. Drilling mud and
barite (water mud) drills better than
solids ladened brine. Oil muds are
almost always the poorest
performers with penetration rates
Figure 2-26 Effect of solids type and content on penetration rate. 10-30% slower than water muds.
Some of the “relaxed filtration” oil
muds have improved penetration rates. The reasons for these differences will become clearer
as the effects of other mud properties are discussed. It should be noted that, as discussed in
the bit chapter, bit life and performance decreases in the presence of different drilling fluids and
in the same order. So, the effect is compounded. That is, air drills faster and bits last longer.
Water drills faster than mud and bits last longer in water than in mud.
Solids
That solids effect the penetration rate is well defined and little understood. As Figure 2-21
illustrated, solids free water drills faster than water containing inert solids that drills faster than
water containing active solids. Therefore, once solids are introduced to the system, the activity,
size and numbers affect the drilling rate.
Since solids contribute to mud weight, their mere presence will reduce penetration rate.
Typically, the mere presence of solids will reduce drilling rate by as much as 30%. Figure 2-22
adopted from Nelson, 17 typifies the effects of solids types on penetration rate. As illustrated, the
clays with particle sizes less than 30 microns and being most reactive have a greater effect than
less reactive drill solids with particle sizes in the range of 44 microns. Barite has the least effect
illustrated because it is essentially inert. It has been shown that dispersed clays will drill slower
than non dispersed clays, which drill slower than flocculated clays. Basically being, the reasons
are relative particle size, effective numbers of solids and water required to wet the solids.
Fluid Properties
Viscosity:
The viscosity of the drilling fluid in the mud tanks has little or no effect on penetration rate.
However, as illustrated in Figure 2-27, drilling fluids are shear thinning fluids. That is, drilling
mud setting in a mud tank is much thicker than that same fluid passing through a jet nozzle. In
the concept of “chip hold down”, the ability of the drilling fluid to equalize the pressure around a
chip and allow its removal from bottom is inversely related to the viscosity of the fluid coming

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
from the nozzle. Pursuant to that concept, water muds shear thinner than oil muds and would
drill faster which is true.
In addition, viscosity is usually caused by the addition of solids to the system. Therefore, the
reduction in drilling rate would be contributable to the increase in solids as previously discussed
and the increase in mud weight caused by the solids. This is a further illustration of the difficulty
in nullifying the interaction of variables. It must be concluded that for reasons that may even be
unrelated to the viscosity of the system, as a practical matter, when the viscosity of the mud in
the field is increased, the penetration rate will be reduced.
Filtration Rate:
It can and has been shown that no relationship exists between penetration rate and API filtration
rate. However, it is equally well known in field operations that lowering the filtration rate
dramatically reduces drilling rates.
One factor is related to the concept of chip hold down. Many researchers have observed an
instantaneous mud filter cake on the bottom of the hole. It is the presence of this filter cake
along with the magnitude of the differential pressure between mud hydrostatic and pore
pressure that contributes to the chip hold down or inability of the mud to remove a cutting in
order for the bit to generate a new
cutting. The ability of the mud to
equalize the pressure around the
cutting reduces the chip hold
down, permits the chip to be
transported from bottom and
allows the bit to generate new
cuttings. As previously described,
an increase in the viscosity of the
mud despite shear thinning at the
nozzle reduces the ability of the
mud to equalize the pressure
around the chip. Since most
filtration control agents merely
thicken the liquid phase of the
mud system, the viscosity at the
bit is also increased which
reduces the ability of the mud to
equalize pressure around the chip
(i.e. increases chip hold down)
and reduces penetration rate. In
Figure 2-27 Shear-thinning characteristics of drilling fluids
addition, as filtration is reduced by
thickening the liquid phase, the
mud entrains more small particles, which reduce penetration rate. Note that in Figure 2-25, the
dispersed system performed better than the LSND-SPA. Note also in that with the LSND-SPA,
filtration control was accomplished with the polymer sodium polyacrylate which thickens the
liquid phase while with the dispersed system filtration control was obtained using lignite and
lignosulfonate which function as a result of dispersing the clays. It is also interesting that the oil
emulsion mud contains cellulosic polymer, which also thickens the liquid phase.

Drilling Practices
A more tangible aspect of the effect

of filtration control on drilling rate is
illustrated in Figure 2-2 adopted from
Doty.2 In this figure, the drilling rate
is directly proportional to bit filtration
rate or the filtration rate beneath the
bit which was calculated as the
difference between the drilling and
circulating filtration rates. These
data support the chip hold down
concept since reduced pressure
drop across the newly formed chip
occurs with increased bit filtration
rate, permitting faster chip
displacement from beneath the bit.
AUXILIARY PRACTICES
The following are termed auxiliary
practices because they affect overall
cost, efficiency and performance.
Perhaps it is even more important
that these practices affect attitude
Figure 2-28 Drilling rate as a function of filtration rate.
toward drilling operations.
Short Trips
There is no operation in the entire history of the industry that is performed more routinely with
less justification. There is no known economic justification for the short trip before logging, drill
stem testing or running casing. In fact, the very limited data available suggest that the success
of logging is unrelated to short trips and that more hole problems occur when short trips are
made. Why does our industry rely on fear and superstition? Why do we believe in the mystic?
Why are we unwilling to apply the cost tests instead of blindly moving on the same road?
Short trips or wiper trips have a place and a purpose in drilling on selected occasions. Routine
short trips during drilling to “keep the hole open” are usually symptomatic of poor drilling
practices in other areas. Routine short trips before logging, if truly required, are usually
symptomatic of poor drilling practices and probably a waste of money. The tendency in the
industry is to get away from short trips. There must be an economic justification for a short trip.
A short trip before logging or running casing checks the condition of the hole. If short trips
routinely find no hole problems in a field, they should be eliminated. If short trips find hole
problems, then the drilling program should be modified to eliminate the hole condition that
routinely causes the problem. The technical limit is drill, log and run casing with no short trips
between.
Reaming Connections
Reaming connections consists of passing the bit up and down the hole prior to making a
connection. In one operation in Central America, ten minutes were required to drill a joint and
twenty minutes were consumed passing the bit up and down over the 30 feet just drilled. In that

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
particular instance, drilling costs were up 600% overall and practices such as reaming
connections were the reason why. Normally, it should not be necessary to ream connections.
If you don’t ream the connection, you will get stuck! That is often the reason given for reaming.
When asked how the drill string will become stuck, most reply that the shale is swelling.
Theoretically, the shale will swell, reducing the hole diameter above the bit. If you don’t ream it,
you will never get out of the hole. In reality, shale does not swell making the hole smaller. Have
you ever seen a caliper log showing the shale is undergauge? In areas where the shale is a
problem, the caliper log will show the shale section to be washed out.
Most of the time, hole cleaning is the issue. By reaming the connections, the overall penetration
rate is reduced and it is easier to clean the hole. If connections are made without reaming, the
hole will load up with cuttings and the drill string will become stuck. In this case, reaming
connections is not the solution to the problem. Working on hole cleaning issues will be the
solution to the problem.
Trip Time
Trip time and connection time have become can be excessive. Round trip times of one hour per
thousand feet (300 meters) are considered good. Anything in excess of two hours per thousand
feet (300 meters) should be considered excessive. Trips and connections must be performed
safely and efficiently. Trip times may be slower if surge and swab pressures are an issue.
The rig chosen should be that rig best designed to fit the particular job specification. There is no
economic advantage in having too much rig. For a shallow hole, it may take more time to rig up
a big rig than to rig up a small rig and drill the hole. Neither is there any advantage in having a
rig that is under-designed for the project. Whenever possible, the right rig for the project should
be selected.
Bottom Hole Assemblies

As in all other aspects of drilling, cost and overall economics must be the ultimate measure.
Stabilizers in bottom hole assemblies should only be used in directional wells or in wells where
deviation problems are common. Stabilizers in holes where deviation is not common are
usually a waste of money. Additionally, one must be careful about the placement of stabilizers.
It is quite easy to run a building assembly without knowing it.
There are some that suggest that a stabilizer above a drag bit is necessity or improves
performance enough to pay for the stabilizer - a concept that has never been proven. However,
a stabilizer above a roller bit will not improve performance or life enough to pay for the stabilizer.
In very hard formations that exhibit a tendency to cause gauge problems, stabilizers may prove
cost effective. Generally, blade stabilizers are more expensive than replaceable wear pad
stabilizers (about 30%) which are more expensive than roller equipment which is more
expensive than rubber sleeve stabilizers.
In directional wells, it is now well established that control is maintained in the bottom ninety feet
of the assembly. Any use of stabilizers more than 90 feet from bottom is probably a waste of
money. The most cost effective bottom hole assembly in directional wells appears to be one
stand of drill collars and hevi-wate drill pipe. Replacing drill collars with hevi-wate drill pipe
reduces torque and drag and reduces connection failures.

Drilling Practices
It has become common to run drilling jars in the string. The routine use of drilling jars must be
economically justified. Drilling jars are the same as buying an insurance policy. Should the drill
string become stuck, they may help to get the drill string unstuck. What are the odds that the
drill string will become stuck and what are the odds that the jars will get the string unstuck? Just
because there are jars in the hole, does not mean that the drill string cannot get stuck. The
more expensive the drilling operation, the more likely that jars will be cost effective.
Additionally, jars do not work efficiently in shallow drilling operations. Jars rely on the stretch of
the drill string to work properly. In shallow drilling operations, the string does not have enough
stretch. If jars can be economically justified, an accelerator may need to be run with the jars
while drilling at the shallower depths.
Another case in point is the routine use of shock subs. If the vibration is severe or there is a
good indication that the bit is being damaged by vibrations, a shock sub is warranted.
Otherwise, it will not withstand the economic test. These may seem like insignificant issues;
however, cost consciousness must apply to all areas. Remember, a shock sub is another point
of possible failure in the drill string. Trips have been required because the shock sub washed
out.
Casing Strings/Hole Sizes

Casing strings are run for a variety of reasons, and a complete discussion is given in the
chapter on casing design. Some of the poorer reasons for running casing are:
• We don’t like a lot of open hole.
• We’ve been doing it this way since 1939 and ….
Sometimes, we are compelled by some primeval force to run casing. There exists the
“international casing string” which is the combination of 20 inch (508.0 mm), 13⅜ inch (339.7
mm), 9⅝ inch (244.5 mm) and 7 inch (177.8 mm). Almost by definition, this combination is
mindlessly run in international operations no matter whether the well is 2,000 feet (610 meters)
deep or 20,000 feet (6096 meters) deep, it must have the “international casing string”. There is
only one good reason for running casing below surface pipe. That reason is that it would not be
cost effective to drill any deeper without setting pipe!
The hole sizes should be dictated by need. Large holes are more expensive to drill, case and
cement than are small holes. It would be economic madness to drill a small hole in the Middle
East where large production volumes are anticipated. However, there is a subtle efficiency in
designing wells to meet needs. For example, a 12,000 foot (3658 meter) gas reservoir was
being developed in the Midwest. The first ten wells were completed as illustrated in Figure 2-29
(A). An enterprising young drilling engineer analyzed the peculiarities and needs for the field
and recommended the program and combination illustrated in Figure 2-29 (B). The remaining
ten wells in the field were drilled, completed and equipped as illustrated in Figure 2-29 (B). The
savings per well represented one free well out of every four. Some were quick to prophesy
disaster in the future. I have followed this field throughout its history. It is now in the latter
stages of depletion. Only one well experienced tubular problems and was lost - one of the
original ten. It is equally interesting that no one did or could have prophesied the savings
experienced. That is, the sum of the parts added to less than the total - a common experience
in economizing drilling operations. Of course, this would not be applicable to all fields. It

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
depends upon how often the wells

need to be worked over and what
kinds of problems are
experienced.
SUMMARY
Efficiency in drilling must be a

team effort. Everyone involved
from top level management to the
roughneck must have the same
priorities to be successful.
Success is as much attitude as
engineering. Good, new ideas
must be given every opportunity to
be successful. The industry can ill
afford the hard-headed, old
stereotype that hasn’t learned
anything new in thirty years and
refuses to consider anything
different. That is not to say that
experience is not valuable.
Experience is extremely valuable
and should be coupled with an
open mind and sound engineering
to continue to bring new
technology to drilling.
In an Arctic operation, the first well

was drilling at 7,000 feet at a rate
Figure 2-29 Casing program comparison for the same well
of two feet per hour. Good drilling
people were involved and suggestions were made. Those involved could have adopted the
attitude that they were doing the best that could be done and continued. However, to their
credit, they admitted that it was a poor drilling operation and opened their hearts and minds and
dug into their experiences in an effort to improve. Their efforts were rewarded. The first well
was at 9,173 feet (2,796 meters) in 125 days and 11,044 feet (3,366 meters) in 168 days. The
second well was drilled to 9,123 feet (2,781 meters) in 78 days, saving 47 days at $30,000 per
day for total savings of $1,410,000. The third and final well was drilled to 13,522 feet (4,122
meters) in 92 days at estimated savings of more than $3,000,000! With today’s costs, the
saving would be even more significant. All this resulted because a few good drilling people
adopted the attitude that they could do better and dedicated themselves to doing better.
Here is one final observation. A drilling operation cannot be economized or optimized in part.
To obtain the ultimate benefit, all the factors must be optimized together. The whole is
inevitably greater than the sum of the parts. In all the illustrations, minimum benefit could only
be gained if the other variables had been optimized. For example, Figure 2-1, the best
response between drilling rate and bit weight was obtained when the best fluid (air) was used at
higher rpm. The same is true for Figure 2-2 where the best response to bit weight was obtained
for clear water with the worst being obtained in the presence of the poorest drilling fluid - oil
mud. In Figure 2-4 for drag bits, increasing bit weight is almost insignificant unless the rotary

Drilling Practices
speed is also increased. It should be obvious that without good hydraulics, nothing works - and
so it goes. In all, remember the old KISS rule - Keep It Simple, Stupid!
PROBLEMS
1. Calculate the cost per foot for each method used to drill the same interval.
Insert bits
Number or bits = 2
Cost per bit = $10,000
Cost of rig = $1250/hr
Rotating hours = 180
Total time for two trips = 21 hrs
Footage = 4500 feet
Average penetration rate = 25.00 feet per hour
PDC bit and motor
Number or bits = 1
Cost of motor = $300/hr included in drilling and trip time
Trip time = 12 hrs
Footage = 4500 feet
Average penetration rate = 33.33 feet per hour
2. Calculate the cost per foot for each method used to drill the same interval.
Insert bits
Number or bits = 2
Total time for two trips = 21 hrs
Footage = 1372 m
Average penetration rate = 7.62 meters per hour
PDC bit and motor
Number or bits = 1
Cost of motor = $300/hr included in drilling and trip time
Trip time = 12 hrs
Footage = 1372 m
Average penetration rate = 10.16 meters per hour

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
NOMENCLATURE
a = Exponent to rotary speed, usually between 0.5 and 1.0
b = Bearing wear factor
CB = Bit cost
Cr = Hourly rig cost
CT = Cost or Cost per foot or cost per meter
CTC = Total cost per foot for the entire well

d = Exponent to bit weight
DR = Drilling rate, ft/hr or m/hr
F = Footage drilled, ft or meters

K = Slope
L = Bearing life
N = Rotary speed (rpm)
t = Rotating time (hours)
T = Trip time (hours)
W = Weight on bit
SI UNITS
No conversion necessary
REFERENCES
1
Black, Alan, et.al., “Effects of size on Three-Cone Bit Performance in Laboratory Drilled Shale”,
SPE 11231, 1982.
2
Doty, P.A., “Clear Brine Drilling Fluids: A Study of Penetration Rates, Formation Damage and
Well Bore Stability in Full Scale Drilling Tests”, SPE Drilling Engineering, February, 1986, pp
17.
3
Black, A.D., et.al., “PDC Bit Performance for Rotary Mud Motor and Turbine Drilling
Applications”, SPE Drilling Engineer, December, 1986, pp 409.
4
Warren, T.M., “Penetration Rate Performance of Roller-Cone Bits”, SPE Drilling Engineering,
March, 1987, pp 9.
5
Black, A. D., et.al.
6
Kexiang, Li, “Current Status and Future Trends of Jet Bit Drilling in China”, SPE Drilling
Engineer, August, 1986, pp 257.
7
Maurer, W.C., “High Pressure Drilling”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1973, pp 851.
8
Deily, F.H., et.al., “Five Wells Test High-Pressure Drilling”, Oil and Gas Journal, July 4, 1977,
pp 74.

Drilling Practices
9
Holster, Jesse L. and Kipp, Robert J., “Effect of Bit Hydraulic Horsepower on the Drilling Rate
of a Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, December,
1984, pp 2114.
10
Onisko, J.E., “Application of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits in the Kuparuk River Field,
Alaska”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, July, 1985, pp 1220.
11
Wells, M., Marvel, T., Beuershausen, C., “Bit Balling Mitigation in PDC Bit Design,” SPE
114673, 2008.
12
Cunningham, R.A., “An Empirical Approach for Relating Drilling Parameters”, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, July, 1978, pp 987.
13
Black, A.D., et.al., “Effects of Pore Pressure and Mud Filtration on Drilling Rates in a
Permeable Sandstone”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, September, 1985, pp 1671.
14
Zijsling, D. H., “Single cutter Testing – A Key for PDC Bit Development,” SPE 16529/1, 1987
15
Grey-Stephens, D., Cook, J. M. and Sheppard, M.C., “Influence of Pore Pressure on Drilling
Response in Hard Shales,” SPE Drilling and Completion, December, 1994, pp. 263
16
Robinson, L.H., “Effects of Pore and Confining Pressures on Failure Characteristics of
Sedimentary Rocks”, SPE Paper 1096-G, presented at 33rd Annual SPE Fall Meeting,
Houston, TX., Oct. 5-8, 1958.
17
Nelson, M.D., “Drilling Impedance of Mud Solids”, World Oil, February, 1975, pp 55

Chapter 02 Drilling Cost Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 02 Drilling Cost Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 D RILLING C OST C ONTROL

Example 2-1 illustrates the use of these equations.

Rig cost = $2,000 per hour

Bit cost = $12,000

Rotating time = 100 hrs

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-1

Footage = 3000 feet (914 meters)

Depth = 10,000 feet (3048 meters)

Trip time = 2 hr per 1000 feet (300 meters)

Rotary speed = 100 rpm

2-2 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

The total cost of the operation would be given by Equation 2-3.

Footage = 1300 feet (396 meters)

Rotating time = 63 hrs

Depth = 11,300 feet (3444 meters)

Bit cost = $12,000

Determine: 1. The cost per foot for bit # 5.

2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit # 4 and # 5.

Solution: 1. The cost per foot for bit #5.

CT = $140 .92 /ft

2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit #4 and #5.

Solution SI Units: 1. The cost per foot for bit #5.

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-3

2. The cumulative cost per foot for bit #4 and #5.

FACTORS AFFECTING PENETRATION RATE

• Bit type/formation hardness

• Bottom hole cleaning

2-4 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

As we shall see, these factors are both

BIT TYPE AND FORMATION HARDNESS

The slope, K d , is not constant and is a function of:

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-5

• Drilling fluid type and properties

Laboratory and field tests have illustrated

2-6 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Doty 2 offered similar

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-7

In the past, it was popular to develop

The exponent, b ranges from 1.0 ≤ b ≥ 3.0 as shown in Figure 2-5.

2-8 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

The exponent to rotary speed, a , ranges from 0.5 ≤ a ≥ 1.0.

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-9

Figure 2-6. Penetration Rate Response to

The exponent to rotary speed, ‘ a ‘, is 0.5.

The footage drilled at 100 rpm was 3000 feet.

The footage drilled at 50 rpm will be:

2-10 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

F = 21 .2 fph x 200 hours = 4243 feet

Calculate the cost per foot at 50 rpm.

The footage drilled at 100 rpm was 914 meters.

The footage drilled at 50 rpm will be:

F = 6.46 mph x 200 hours = 1293 meters

Calculate the cost per foot at 50 rpm.

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-11

BOTTOM HOLE CLEANING

2-12 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

speed at lower bit weights and

Over time, field data has

Effects of Increased Hydraulics

Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved. 2-13

all rocks, even granite, exhibited a “threshold pressure”

Very definitive work in this area was described by

2-14 Copyright © 2008 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

HYDRAULICS AND PDC BITS