Directional Drilling: Background and Recommendations

Although far from a panacea, directional drilling can be a useful tool in reducing the footprint of
drilling in areas deemed suitable for energy development. This fact sheet provides background
on the western drilling boom and The Wilderness Society’s recommendations for how directional
drilling can be used most effectively to reduce the impact of energy development.

Oil and Gas Boom: Thousands of new gas wells dot the landscape of the Rocky Mountain West,
transforming many once wild lands and rural communities into industrial centers. New
technology and high gas prices have led to a 43 percent spike in the number of gas wells in the
West, from 5,700 in 2002 to 8,100 in 2005. i Plans call for more than 125,000 new gas and oil
wells on public lands alone in Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana over the
next two decades, according to the government’s own numbers. ii Many more wells will be
drilled on private lands.

Increased Well Density: As the number of wells has spiked, so too has the density of wells per
acre. In the past, wells accessing a “conventional” gas reservoir would drain an area of about 640
acres or one square mile. With a focus on “unconventional” tight-sand gas deposits or coalbed
methane (CBM) seams, each modern well drains only a few acres and requires dense spacing of
up to one well per 5 acres, or 128 wells to the square mile. (Tight-sand gas are sandstone
formations with low permeability requiring artificial fracturing techniques for wells to be
productive (Figure 1). iii Coalbed methane wells extract gas from coal seams and remain “open
hole” producing mostly water with some gas (Figure 2). iv The bulk of the recent increase in
wells has been in tight-sand gas wells but the number of CBM wells also has risen substantially.)

Environmental Impacts of Drilling Boom: Human health, air and water quality, and wildlife all
face serious consequences from the extraordinary rate and density of drilling now taking place in
the West. Oil and gas development brings with it well pads, roads pipelines, and open pits of
discarded drilling fluids that greatly fragment wildlife habitat. At intensive levels, this drilling
infrastructure transforms open, wild country into industrialized landscapes no longer suitable for
wildlife habitat or hiking, hunting and other types of recreation. Directional drilling can greatly
reduce the negative impacts of oil and gas development.

What is Directional Drilling? During the last half of the 20th century, new technology has
enabled many companies to “directionally drill”, that is to drill wells at angles rather than just
vertically. This technique allows companies to reach oil and gas at distances of at 2,800 feet or
more from the surface hole. In the near future, greater directional drilling distances could be
increasingly used in tight-sand gas formations as drill rig technology continues to evolve as it has
in offshore drilling, where horizontal off-sets of 8,000 feet or more are already common. This
type of drilling allows operators to more fully tap oil and gas reservoirs that frequently possess
larger horizontal dimensions than vertical. Horizontal drilling is one type of directional drilling,
which is used to describe a drilling angle that is closer to completely perpendicular from vertical.
Horizontal drilling is used to access CBM formations because they tend to be even shallower
than tight-sand gas formations. Because multiple wells can be sunk from a single well pad,
directional drilling results in a greatly decreased impact to the land, wildlife, and habitat on the
surface.
 Figure 1. Directional Drilling in Tight-Sand Gas

Figure 2. Horizontal Drilling for Coal Bed Methane

Directional Drilling Reduces Impacts on Land: Directional drilling lessens the impacts on land,
wildlife and habitat by decreasing the density of well pads per acre with many wells drilled from
a single well pad. With horizontal reaches approaching one-half mile (directionally drilled wells
off shore often have several miles of reach), pads can be spaced at one or two per square mile.
That translates to only one or two well pads covering 20 to 30 acres per square mile, compared to
64 pads each covering approximately four acres when 10-acre spacing is used. By combining
directional drilling with other best management practices, impacts to habitat could be reduced by
80 percent or more. In recent years, directional wells accounted for nearly 40% of the total wells
drilled both off-shore and on-shore in the United States and have been increasing by a factor of
2% per year. v
Economic Benefits of Directional Drilling: Although directional drilling can cost 10 to 15
percent more than vertical drilling, this figure does not fully account for cost-savings realized
from the concentration of facilities on a single pad. Several companies who drill in tight-sand gas
noted that they need less surface infrastructure (such as roads, gathering lines and production
separators), have lower pad construction costs and can avoid the costly moving of hydraulic
fracturing equipment. vi With development costs for tight-sand gas reservoirs averaging less than
one-third of the price of natural gas, directional drilling can be economically profitable. vii
Similarly, horizontal wells (which penetrate an even greater length of a reservoir than other types
of directionally-drilled wells) can be two to seven times more productive than vertical wells in
CBM formations, offsetting the reported increases in costs. viii

Recommendations

Responsible Development of Energy: Responsible oil and gas development means that unique
lands that contribute to healthy wildlife populations, clean water supplies or other important
public values should not be drilled under any circumstance. Plans for areas deemed suitable for
drilling should seek to minimize environmental impacts by reducing the number of well sites and
miles of access roads by directionally drilling many wells from a single pad. In order for this
approach to work:

• Directional drilling should be an integral part of any environmental or technical field

analysis conducted to assess the impacts and ways to mitigate surface disruption by
drilling.
• The BLM should require directional drilling wherever technically feasible by setting
limits on pad spacing and more frequently utilizing “no surface occupancy” stipulations
with new lease offerings. For development of CBM formations, the BLM should also
require the use of multiple wells per pad to access coal seams at varying depths, in order
to further reduce surface disturbance. Other requirements, such as seasonal stipulations
that protect wintering wildlife, should rarely be waived or removed but instead calculated
as part of doing business on public lands mandated for multiple-use by law.
• Off-site mitigation of impacts should only be considered in conjunction with directional
drilling and other practices to avoid and minimize on-site impacts.
• Once leases are purchased from the federal government, they are often sold to other
companies. The BLM should consider a company’s financial and technical ability to
utilize directional drilling when approving the transfer or assignment of leases.
 • Geographic area plans should allow for the planning of well pads, roads, pipelines and
other associated infrastructure in a manner that supports directional drilling, minimizes
land disturbance and bolsters the economics of drilling directionally.
• The BLM, not the gas company, should publicly analyze whether directional
drilling is technically feasible and require it be used whenever possible. The
incremental cost of directional drilling should not be factored into the BLM’s
decision to require directional drilling. If the overall economics over the life of
the gas field cannot justify directional drilling, the lease should not be developed
until the directional drilling can be justified.
• It is overwhelmingly evident that today’s gas production from tight-sands formations
requires dense well hole spacing, either down-hole (underground) or on the surface;
production from CBM formations leads to similar spacing concerns. If directional
drilling is not used, any environmental analysis of impacts must assume eventual dense
well spacing and the associated impacts to wildlife, air and water quality and lands.

For more information about the economic and technical feasibility of directional drilling in the
Rockies, see Ken Kreckel’s report Directional Drilling: The Key to the Smart Growth of Oil
and Gas Development in the Rocky Mountain Region.

For questions or further information contact:

Nada Culver
Senior Counsel
The Wilderness Society
BLM Action Center
(303) 650-5818 Ext.117

Endnotes
i
Trammel, Stephen, “Rocky Mountains…Cooking With Gas and Oil”; IHS presentation, May 18, 2006.
ii
The Wilderness Society. “Preliminary Analysis of Current Federal Actions Authorizing Drilling of New Wells.”
August 2007. http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/WellCountOverview-Update2007.pdf
iii
Perry, Kent et al.; “New Technology for Tight-Gas Sand”; World Energy Council, 2005.
iv
Trammel, Stephen, “Rocky Mountains…Cooking With Gas and Oil”; IHS presentation, May 18, 2006.
v
DOE; “Drilling Sideways -- A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application”; Energy
Information Administration; DOE; April 1993
vi
Toal, Brian; “Piceance Basin”; Oil & Gas Investor; August, 2005; “Company Interview with Keith Rattie, CEO,
Questar”; Wall Street Transcripts; May 2004; and Dennison, Doug; “Drilling 101: Drilling of a Natural Gas Well
and Natural Gas Production in the Piceance Basin”; Garfield County Oil & Gas Liaison; October, 2005.
vii
Williams Corp.; “2006 1st Quarter Earnings”; [presentation]; Guderian, Bryan; “Williams Exploration &
Production”; Presentation to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Investment Forum COGA ; August 5, 2003.
viii
MHA Petroleum Consultants, Inc., “Northern San Juan Final Environmental Impact Statement: Appendix D:
Evaluation of Coalbed Methane Well Types In The San Juan Basin (November 2005 And March 2004), Draft
Report Prepared For Bureau Of Land Management,” November 2005.
http://www.nsjb-eis.net/Data/Appdx-D1.pdf