iRI-97/0236

GYI"
(

Gas Research Institute

Underbalanced
Underbalanced Drilling Manual

Published by
Gas Research Institute
Chicago, Illinois

GRI Reference No. GRI-97/0236

 Copyright 0 1997 by Gas Research Institute
AI1 Rights Reserved

This work is the property of Gas Research Institute. No part of this worl; may be used or
reproduced without prior written permission from Gas Research Institute, a i d no part of this
work may be transmitted to any other party in any form or by any mems, electronic or
mechanical, including without limitation, photocopy, recording or input inti ) any information
storage or retrieval system without prior written permission of Gas Research In ;t'itute.

Requests for permission to reproduce any part of the work should be mailed to:

Contract and License Management Group

Gas Research Institute
8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 6063 I

LEGAL NOTICE

This publication was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Gas Resea ch Institute (GRI)
and other organizations. Neither GRI, members of GRI, nor any person or orga nization acting on
behalf of either:

A. MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED

WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PUBLICATION, THkLT THE USE OF
ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN
THIS PUBLICATION MAY NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, OR

B. ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE, OR ;OR DAMAGES

RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION, APPARF TUS, METHOD,
OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS PUBLICATION.
About this Manual
One of GRI's primary exploration and production goals has been to lower the cost of i inding and
developing natural gas reserves. Appropriate application of underbalanced drilling techniques
has the potential to significantly impact drilling costs. In the consummate, original manual on air
drilling, Lyons, 1984, estimated that up to 30% of the wells drilled in the United 5 tates were
candidates for air drilling. Today, with improved technology, the number of wells t h it could be
safely and cost-effectively drilled with air or other underbalanced technologies i ; probably
significantly higher than this. However, some estimates are that only about ten per1:ent of the
current wells in the United States are being drilled underbalanced. Initial evaluations by GRI
attributed this low percentage to lack of public-domain knowledge and experience. T lis manual
is an attempt to consolidate some of the publicly available knowledge, protocol and ex Jerience in
one reference.

Industry experience has been drawn on to assemble a thorough presentation of und x-balanced
drilling. The goal has been to characterize various techniques and methodologies - air, N2,
natural gas, mist, foam, mudcap, flowdrilling, coiled tubing drilling, snub drilling ... I. Various
methods are described and the concepts and operational considerations are indicated .o assist in
designing, planning and running underbalanced drilling operations. Underlying cc ncepts are
emphasized so that engineers can evaluate new developments and techniques that art occurring
rapidly.

...
111
About the Authors
John McLennan is Vice President of TerraTek, Inc., in Salt Lake City, Utah. .ohn has a Ph.D. in
Civil Engineering (Rock Mechanics); University of Toronto, 1980. Prior to jc ining TerraTek, he
worked for Dowel1 Schlumberger, Inc. He has varied engineering experience n rock mechanics,
analyticalhumerical modeling, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal wellbore stabilit,I , coalbed methane
exploitation and core analysis. He has more than fifty technical publications.

Richard S. Carden is Manager of Special Projects for Grace, Shursen, Moore a nd Associates, Inc.
(GSM), in Amarillo, Texas. He earned a B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineeiing from Montana
College of Mineral Science and Technology in 1977. Rich has more than eighte en years of drilling
engineering and operational experience, including geothermal wells; deep, high pressure gas wells;
air drilled wells; as well as directional and horizontal wells. He has worked on the Grand Canyon
Waterline Project (an air and mist drilled, directional well), on DOE horizontal iir drilling projects
and on numerous frontier technology drilling and well control operations. R ch teaches classes
worldwide on many aspects of drilling, including air and gas drilling, horizoi tal operations and
advanced well control. He has authored numerous technical papers on direction: 1 and air drilling.

David Curry has fourteen years of experience in drilling research and ceveloping drilling
technology. He is currently Technical Support Manager for Hughes Christensen 's OASIS (Drilling
Performance Optimization) group. Previously, he has been the Drilling Man iger for TerraTek,
Inc.'s Drilling and Completions Laboratory, Managing Director of the Interna ional Drilling and
Downhole Technology Center, and Drilling Mechanics Program Leader at Schlumberger
Cambridge Research. David has an M.A. in Natural Sciences and a Ph.D. in 17 'acture Mechanics,
both from the University of Cambridge.

C. Rick Stone is founder, President and owner of Signa Engineering Corporation, a contract
petroleum engineering and project management company, based in Houston, TI:xas. He currently
designs and supervises the drilling and completion of wells, many of them hor zontal, throughout
the world. This includes many underbalanced Austin chalk wells. Rick has oler sixteen years of
experience in drilling and production engineering, mostly with Sun Explorati )n Production and
then Oryx Energy Company. During his tenure with Oryx, Rick devised the technique for
flowdrilling horizontal wells in the Austin chalk and helped to design the Rotating Blowout
Preventer (RBOP). He was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer, on underbalancec drilling, in 1993-
1994. Rick received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Texas k &M University in
1979.

Richard E. Wyman recently retired as Vice President of Canadian Hunter Exl~loration,Ltd. He

received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Cilifornia. Prior to
joining Canadian Hunter, Dick was with Shell Oil Company for twenty-three rears. During this
time, he was responsible for the Pacific Coast area logging and wellbore evaluation, and for
petrophysical research in Houston; he also held positions of Chief Engineer for Shell and Manager
of Engineering Research for Shell Development. Twenty years ago, Dick joine 1 Canadian Hunter
as Director of Research. He has authored a number of technical papers and holds several patents.

iv
Acknowledgments
Contributors and Reviewers
Gas Research Institute and the authors wish to thank the people and organizations li ;ted below
for contributing to and reviewing this manual. Their comments and recommendations were a
great asset.

Santos Ltd provided unpublished case studies of successful air drilling operations in A ustralia.

Brian Tarr, Mobil Technology Company, provided detailed reviews, suggestions an 1 guidance
for all chapters of this manual.

Mike Akins, Chevron Petroleum Technology Corporation, reviewed all chapters of the manual.

Reuben Graham, Reuben L. Grah,am,Inc., provided important practical observations In the first
two chapters and provided an unsolicited protocol for unloading holes.

Les Shale, Baker Hughes Inteq, reviewed and critiqued the first two chapters of the ms nual.

Mike Tweedy, Chevron Petroleum Technology Company, reviewed all chapters of the nanual.

Jim Williams, Parker Drilling Company, provided valuable review and critique of tk e first two
chapters of the manual.

Mike Weiss, Gas Research Institute, was the driving force for pioduction of this rranual, and
provided in-depth review and editorial revisions for the entire manual.

Manuscript Preparation
Sherri Heroux, TerraTek, Inc., prepared and laid out the entire manuscript, text and ill ustrations.

Research Institute and the authors wish to express their appreciation to all L ther
individuals in the natural gas industry, especially members of the GRI Natural Gas
Project Advisory Group, who oflered support and useful suggestions for the
development of a complete and balanced Underbalanced Drilling Manual. I
The cover artwork was conceived by Rick Stone and prepared by Ben Siegel, bot i of Signa
Engineering Corporation, in Houston Texas.

V
Table of Contents
About this Manual.................................................................................................................
...
iii

About the Authors ................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. v

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 What Is Underbalanced Drilling? .............................................................................. 1.1
1.2 Why Drill Underbalanced?........................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques.......................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Limitations To Underbalanced Drilling .................................................................... 1-10
1.5 Summary................................................................................................................ 1-14

CHAPTER 2 UNDERBALANCED DRILLING TECHNIQl IES

2.1 Dry Air Drilling .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Nitrogen Drilling,.’................................................................................................... 2-48
2.3 Natural Gas Drilling ................................................................................................ 2-53
2.4 Mist Drilling............................................................................................................. 2-60
2.5 Stable Foam Drilling ............................................................................................... 2-75
2.6 Stiff Foam Drilling................................................................................................. 2-119
2.7 Gasified Liquids..................................................................................................... 2-131
2.8 Flowdrilling ........................................................................................................... 2-180
2.9 Mudcap Drilling .................................................................................................... 2-196
2.IO Snub Drilling......................................................................................................... 2-201
2.11 Closed Systems ................................................................................................... 2-207

CHAPTER 3 BENEFITS OF DRILLING UNDERBALANt :ED

3.1 Penetration Rate ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Bit Life .................................................................................................................... 3-16
. .
3.3 Differential Sticking................................................................................................. 3-20
3.4 Lost Circulation ...................................................................................................... 3-21
3.5 Formation Evaluation .............................................................................................. 3-22
3.6 Formation Damage ................................................................................................ 3-25

vi
CHAPTER 4 SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUE
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Potential Applications ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.3 Technical Feasibility ................................................................................................. 4-6
4.4 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................. 4-32

CHAPTER 5 WELL ENGINEERING

5.1 Circulation Programs................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Circulation Calculations (Air, Gas, Mist) .................................................................... 5-4
5.3 Circulation Calculations (Gasified Liquids) ................................................................ 5-7
5.4 Wellhead Design ..................................................................................................... 5-15
5.5 Casing Design ......................................................................................................... 5-22
5.6 Completion Design .................................................................................................. 5-24
5.7 Bit Selection ............................................................................................................ 5-27
5.8 Underbalanced Perforating...................................................................................... 5-33
5.9 Drillstring Design ..................................................................................................... 5-35

CHAPTER 6 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Safety in Underbalanced Drilling ............................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Regulatory Requirements.......................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Environmental Issues ............................................................................................... 6-7
6.4 Directional Drilling .................................................................................................... 6-9
6.5 Percussion Drilling.................................................................................................. 6-31
6.6 High Pressure Drilling............................................................................................. 6-42
6.7 Cementing.............................................................................................................. 6-48
6.8 Formation Evaluation ............................................................................................. 6-54

CHAPTER 7 CASE STUDIES

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Case Study 1 .Controlling Bottomhole Pressure ..................................................... 7-2
7.3 Case Study 2 .Barrolka 3 ........................................................................................ 7-9
7.4 Case Study 3 .Swan Lake-1 ST ............................................................................ 7-13
7.5 Case Study 4 .Karwin- 1 ST ................................................................................... 7-16
7.6 Case Study 5 .Unloading the Hole From the Bottom ............................................. 7-18

vii
7.7 Case Study 6 .Gasified Liquid (Concentric String Injection) .................................. 7-24
7.8 Case Study 7 (Underbalanced Re-Entryl ............................................................... 7-27
7.9 Case Study 8 .Controlled Tripping......................................................................... 7-29
7.10 Case Study 9 .Flowdrilling..................................................................................... 7-31
7.11 Case Study 10 .Coiled Tubing Drilling................................................................... 7-34
7.12 Case Study 1 1 .Cementing ................................................................................... 7-38
7.13 Case Study 12 .The Friction Dominated Regime .................................................. 7-39

APPENDIXA .................................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... B- 1
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................... C- 1
APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................... D-1

...
Vlll
 INTRODUCTION
T i s chapter introduces underbalanced
drilling, summarizes the different techniques
available for drilling underbalanced, and
indicates the various benefits and restrictions
to their use.
1.1 What is Underbalanced
Drilling ?
Most oil and natural gas wells are drilled
using rotary techniques, in which a drill bit
disaggregates rock at the base of the well. A
drilling fluid is pumped to the bottom of the
hole and then back up to the surface. The
fluid is pumped down the well inside the
drillstring and it returns to the surface, in the
annulus between the drillstring and the
borehole wall. As it flows over the hole
bottom, the drilling fluid entrains the rock
cuttings and removes them to the :surface.
In conventional drilling operations, the
drilling fluid serves several other functions.
These include stabilizing the borehole,
cooling the bit, and most importantly,
controlling the formation fluids. The well is
said to be at balance if the borehole and
formation fluid pressures are equal. In this
situation, there is no net fluid flow into or
out of the borehole.
The composition and properties of the
drilling fluid are often chosen to ensure that
the fluid pressure in the borehole exceeds
the pore fluid pressure in the formations
penetrated by the wellbore, at all depths
where the formation is open to tl e borehole.
In this overbalanced situation, the drilling
fluid pressure prevents formation fluids from
flowing into the well during dri ling. There
is some fluid flow from the boret ole into the
rock around the borehole. Miterials are
added to the drilling fluid to cstrict this
flow, by depositing low perme: bility filter
cake on the borehole wall and i i the pores
and fractures adjacent to the bore iole.
In underbalanced drilling ope: ations, the
pressure of the drilling fluid in t le borehole
is intentionally maintained ,elow the
formation pore fluid pressur:, in the
openhole section of the well. a result,
formation fluids flow into the v ell when a
permeable formation is penetr: ted during
underbalanced drilling. For t lis reason,
underbalanced drilling is sometir ies referred
to as “flowdrilling.”
Special equipment and procl :dures are
required to control formation f uid inflow
during underbalanced drilling. N wertheless,
drilling underbalanced offei s several
significant benefits over c mventional
drilling techniques. These includ ::
9 Increased penetration rate and bit life,
Chapter 1 Introduction
Reduced probability of sticking the
drillstring downhole,
Minimized lost circulation while drilling,
Improved formation evaluation,
Increased well productivity, and,
The requirement for primary stimulation
treatments can be reduced or eliminated.
The extent to which it is possible to achieve
any of these benefits is generally controlled
by the properties of the target reservoir and
overlying formations; and, in some
instances, even by the specific
characteristics of the well being drilled.
1.2 Why Drill
Underbalanced?
The simple answer to the question “Why
drill underbalanced?” is that it can improve
the financial returns on drilling the well.
This improvement can come from a variety
of different factors that reduce the cost of
drilling the well or increase its productivity
once drilled.
Increased Penetration Rate
Drilling underbalanced can lead to increased
penetration rate. Most references,
describing drilling operations with air or
lightened drilling fluids, report penetration
rates which are greater than these for wells
drilled overbalanced with conventional
liquid drilling fluids. A systematic review
of air drilling operations, conducted by
Carden, 1993,’ cited that air drilling
penetration rates could be as much as ten
times greater than those for mud drilling in
equivalent formations.
Increased Bit Life
It is often claimed that bit life is increased
1-2
when lightened fluids ar: used instead of
conventional drilling I nuds. Drilling
underbalanced removes the confinement
imposed on the rock b! the overbalance
pressure. This should de( rease the apparent
strength of the rock and re h c e the work that
must be done to drill awiy a given volume
of rock. It is reasonable .hat this increased
drilling efficiency shoi Id increase the
amount of hole that can bt drilled before the
bit reaches a critical wear ,$ate.
Minimized Lost Circulutic in
Lost circulation occurs v hen drilling fluid
enters an open formation downhole, rather
than returning to the sufice. It is possible
for drilling fluid to be 1cst by flow into a
very permeable zone. Mc re frequently, lost
circulation involves f l c lw into natural
fractures that intersect tht wellbore or into
fractures induced by exce: sive drilling fluid
pressure. Lost circulation can be very costly
during conventional drillii ig. The lost fluid
has to be replaced, and thc losses have to be
mitigated, usually by addi ig lost circulation
material to the mud (to pl i g off the path by
which the fluid is enterirg the formation),
before drilling can safely t e resumed. Since
there is no physical forc: driving drilling
fluid into the formation if the well is drilled
underbalanced, underbs lanced drilling
effectively prevents a ost circulation
problems.
This is not to say that lost circulation cannot
occur when drilling with 1 ghtened fluids. It
is possible to lose circula ion whenever the
wellbore pressure exceel Is the formation
pore pressure. Using a lil ;htened fluid does
not, by itself, guarantc e underbalanced
conditions. This is clear1 illustrated by a
well, drilled with mist, in he Grand Canyon
National Park.2 The pore pressure gradient
was almost zero and air circulation could
only be achieved for less than one-half of the
drilling time.
It is possible for chemical driving forces,
caused by activity differences bletween the
aqueous phase of a drilling fluid and the
formation, to cause fluid to enter the
formation, even though there is a pressure
gradient driving flow in the opposite
direction. These low rates are usually so
low that they are undetectable while drilling
although they can affect a well's subsequent
productivity .
Minimized Differential Sticking
In a well drilled conventionally, a filter cake
forms on the borehole wall from solids
deposited when liquid flows from the
drilling mud into permeable zones, due to an
overbalance pressure. If the drillstring
becomes embedded in the filter cake, the
pressure differential between the wellbore
and the fluid in the filter cake can act over
such a large area that the axial force required
to move the string can exceed its tensile
capacity. The drillstring is then
differentially stuck. There will be no filter
cake and no pressure acting to "clamp" the
drillstring if the well is underbalanced.
Other mechanisms can cause sticking;
underbalanced drilling does not eliminate
the possibility of a stuck drillstring (refer to
Section 1.4).
Reduced Formation Damage
Anticipated well productivity is often
reduced by regions of impaired permeability,
formation damage, adjacent to the wellbore.
Formation damage can occur whem liquid(s),
solid(s) or both enter the formation, during
drilling.3*4 If the drilling fluid pressure in
the wellbore is less than the pore pressure,
the physical driving force: causing
penetration of material from the drilling
fluid is removed. That is not to say that the
possibility of formation damale from the
drilling fluid is completely renoved. In
some circumstances, chemic; I potential
differences between drilling and pore fluids
could cause filtrate to enter th: formation
against the pressure gradient.3 Also, there
are instances in which a well, tkat is drilled
nominally underbalanced, experiences
transient overbalanced conditic ns, due to
less than perfect control of circulating
pressures or possibly due to fluid inflow
while the well is not being circul ~ t e d . ~
In any case, there are many examples of
wells drilled underbalanced 1rith higher
productivity than adjacent w :lls drilled
conventionally.
Earlier Production
When a well is drilled unc erbalanced,
hydrocarbon production can begi i as soon as
a productive zone is penetraed. With
suitable surface equipment, it is possible to
collect oil while drilling. Some
underbalanced wells have paid for
themselves entirely from produc tion before
drilling operations were completr d.
Reduced Stimulation Requiremc nts
Following conventional drilling operations,
wells are often stimulated to insrease their
productivity. Stimulation c in include
acidizing or surfactant treatment!, to remove
formation damage; or hydraulil : fracturing
can be used to guarantee adequate
production in low permeability I zservoirs or
to bypass damage in higher 1 iermeability
formations. Reduced formati In damage
means lower stimulation costs.
Improved Formation Evaluatioi
Drilling underbalanced can il nprove the
detection of productive hydroca rbon zones,
1-3
Chapter I Introduction
even identifying zones that might otherwise
have been bypassed if the well had been
drilled conventional1y .
When a well is drilled underbalanced,
formation fluids flow into the wellbore from
any permeable formation in the openhole
section. Penetrating any hydrocarbon-
bearing formation with adequate drive and
permeability will result in an increased
hydrocarbon cut in the drilling fluid
returning to the surface. With adequate mud
logging and drilling records, underbalanced
drilling can indicate potentially productive
zones, as the well is drilled. Conversely,
during conventional drilling, the overbalance
pressure prevents formation inflows;
hydrocarbon-bearing zones have to be
identified from cuttings, core analysis,
logging or DSTs.
It should be possible to use the volumes of
produced hydrocarbons, from a well drilled
underbalanced, to give an indication of the
productivity of any pay zones that have been
penetrated. Shutting down circulation will
allow flow from the well to be measured; for
example with a pitot tube or flow prover.’
This is a straightforward practice when a gas
well is drilled with a dry gas or mist. The
length of the flare at the flare pit can give a
qualitative indication of productivity. Since
this is also influenced by the rate of
circulation, the size of the blooie line and
the wind direction, it is difficult to quantify
gas production rates solely from the flare
length. If a drilling fluid with non-negligible
liquid content is being used, the well will
have to be allowed to unload before stable
flow is established. The flow measured is
the sum of the production from all open
zones; different zones are not being
selectively tested.
1-4
The reduction or elimin: tion of formation
damage that results from drilling
underbalanced will al: o improve the
interpretation of openk ole logs. For
example, there should be io modification of
formation fluid compositi 3n adjacent to the
wellbore, that might otllerwise mask the
presence of hydrocarbons.
Environmental Benefits
There can be enviro imental benefits
associated with pro 3erly managed,
underbalanced drilling o Jerations. These
depend on the exact ~lrilling technique
adopted. With dry, gaselus drilling fluids
there is no potentially damaging liquid
drilling mud to dispose of after drilling is
completed. The chemical ; used in mist and
foam drilling are ofien benign and
biodegradable surfactants that do not pose
significant environmental :oncerns.
On the other hand, forination fluids are
produced while drillin;; underbalanced.
Particularly with open surl ace systems, these
have to be handled carefully, to avoid
environmental contamin ation. However,
with closed surface syst:ms, there is no
reserve pit and both cuttiigs and produced
fluids are contained in a v ay that minimizes
the potential for environmental
contamination.
1.3 Underbalawed Drilling
Technique s
Many different technique: are available for
intentionally achieving underbalanced
conditions. These mostly i nvolve circulating
a drilling fluid with a density that gives a
hydrostatic pressure gradjc nt in the wellbore
that is less than the pore pressure gradient.
The drilling fluid may b: a single gas or
liquid phase, or a two-phase gas-liquid
mixture. When there is any significant
volume fraction of gas (injected or
produced) present, the drilling fluid will be
compressible.
Underbalanced drilling does not require the
use of a compressible drilling fluid - a
conventional, liquid drilling fluid can give
underbalanced conditions in normally or
over-pressured formations, if the circulating
pressure (sum of the hydrostatic head and
the frictional pressure drop to the open end
of the fluid return line) is less than the pore
pressure. Using a drilling fluid with a
density less than the reservoir pressure
gradient does not guarantee underbalanced
conditions. Particularly with foamed fluids,
the frictional pressure drop can be
substantial. This can result in a circulating
wellbore pressure that exceeds the pore
pressure even when the hydrostatic head of
the drilling fluid does not.
Gaseous Drilling Fluids
Probably the simplest and old.est of all
underbalanced drilling techniques is to use
dry air as the drilling fluid.6 Compressors
pump air to the swivel attached to the top of
the drillstring, down the drillstring, through
the drill bit and back up the annulus. Figure
1-1 is a schematic of a simplified air drilling
flow system.+ A rotating head provides a
low pressure seal around the drillstring
between the wellhead and the drill rig's
rotary table, which diverts the return flow
away from the rig floor. For this reason, it is
sometimes referred to as a diverter. A
blooie line takes the returning, cuttings-
laden air flow from immediately beneath the
rotating head's seal to a safe distance away
'Detailed rig-site layouts are shown in Chapter 2.
from the rig. The cuttings are allowed to
collect in a pit. It is common l o use some
form of water spray close to the c xit point on
the blooie line, to prevent dust clouds. A
lighted flame is maintained at t i e exit from
the blooie line to ignite any hydr ,carbon gas
in the return flow.
It is possible to use an inert gas, instead of
air, as the circulating fluid; nitrogen is
almost invariably chosen. Othei inert gases
are usually too expensive. Nitrogen may be
brought to location as a liquid in cryogen
tanks. In this case, heaters are iised to boil
the liquid nitrogen before it is :ompressed
and pumped downhole. It is alsc possible to
generate nitrogen, using mer ibrane-type
filters that remove oxygen from he air flow
delivered by the compressors 1)efore it is
pumped d ~ w n h o l e . ~
Another option is to use natural gas as the
drilling fluid. This can be less costly than
using nitrogen, when drilling in L producing
gas field or close to a natural g~ pipeline.
The pipeline pressure may be lsrge enough
that compressors are not needec . Pressure
boosters will normally be require i API and
NFPA (National Fire Protectic n Agency)
guidelines must be followed.
Whatever gas is used, the compression
system has to be have sufficier t flow rate
and delivery pressure capacities t I be able to
lift drilled cuttings and fluid in luxes from
the wellbore. Circulating prc s u r e and
cuttings transport are not indeper dent of one
another. The weight of cutt ngs being
transported up the annulus inxeases the
wellbore pressure. As the penetration rate
(the rate of cuttings generation) i icreases, so
does the wellbore pressure. If thc circulation
rate is too low, cuttings will ac1:umulate in
Chapter 1 Introduction
Wellbore,
Figure 1-1. Simplified air drilling flow system.
the wellbore, the wellbore pressure will
increase and flow will be choked.'
Charts prescribing minimum air flow rates
for adequate hole cleaning were developed
by Angel, 1957.9 These charts are still
widely used in the design of air drilling
operations. The circulation rates they
suggest correspond to an annular velocity
that would be equivalent to 3,000 ft/min at
atmospheric pressure. Angel argued that
this was the minimum velocity for effective
cuttings transport. Predicting circulating
pressures and appropriate flow rates for
gaseous drilling fluids i s not, however,
trivial. It will be discussed in much greater
detail in Section 2.1. For the time being, it
is sufficient to note thad several of the
assumptions made in the: development of
Angel's charts are not conservative" and
1-6
le Line
/
that higher gas flow rates are often required
than would be predicted by the
Today, most drilling servil :e companies have
predictive simulators.
Two-Phase Drilling N i rids
Mixing of gaseous and liquid phases is a
way to achieve any des red drilling fluid
density, from pure gas to ] m e liquid. These
mixtures of gas and liqtid are sometimes
collectively referred to as "lightened drilling
fluids." Lightened drillii ig fluids can be
classified as mist, foam or aerated liquid,
according to the struclure and relative
volumes of the gaseous ,ind liquid phases.
Their structure and F roperties depend
critically on the relative v Aume fractions of
gas and liquid at the pre Tailing conditions
of pressure and tempei ature. Different
lightened drilling fluid dc nsities are shown
in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Densities (ppg) of
Lightened Drilling Fluids
Description Density
0.01 -0.1
I I 0.1 - 0.3
I I
Mist
Foam
Gasified Liquid
0.3 - 3.54
3.5 - 6.95 with backpressure
4.0 - 6.95
Liquid 6.95 - 19.0
If the volume fraction of an unviscosified
liquid is less than about 2.5 percent, the
liquid will be suspended as discrete droplets
in a continuous gaseous phase. Drilling with
these low liquid volume fractions, is usually
referred to as “misting” or “mist drilling.” A
small triplex pump is used for low-rate,
liquid injection, into the circulating gas at
the surface before the fluid enters the
drillstring. The injected liquid is usually
water, a surfactant and a corrosion inhibitor.
Sometimes, polymers or salts are added to
inhibit interaction with wate:r-sensitive
shales. Since the liquid is present as discrete
droplets, it has little direct impact on the
rheology of the circulating gas. The liquid
droplets do, however, affect wellbore
pressure; in a manner that is analogous to
the influence of drilled cuttings in dry air.
If the relative liquid volume is higher, a
stable foam results. A stable foam is usually
generated when liquids, similar to those used
in mist drilling, are injected into the gas
flow, at rates giving downhole liquid volume
fractions in the range k2.5 to +2:5 percent.
The liquid forms a continuous cellular
-
structure, entrapping the gaseous phase. The
gas and liquid move together wit 1 nominally
the same velocity. Foams are often
described in terms of their quali y and their
texture. Foam quality is the 2 as volume
fraction, usually expressed as a percentage,
at the prevailing pressure and t :mperature.
For example, a 90 quality foam i! 90 percent
gas and 10 percent liquid, by vclume. The
I
texture describes the bubble stru :ture of the
I foam - a fine foam has small ),as bubbles
and a coarse foam has large bubb es.
Foams have high viscosities, en tbling very
good cuttings transport. Foam .heology is
largely controlled by the liquid volume
fraction, at the prevailing pressu .e.13 Foam
viscosities have been measured ri nging from
115 CP at a liquid volume frac :ion of 2.5
percent, to 35 cP, at a liquid volu ne fraction
of 25 p e r ~ e n t . ’ ~ In some instances,
viscosifiers are added to the inje:ted liquid.
These are termed “stiff’ foams.
If cuttings are to be efficiently rer loved from
a well, the foam needs to be afficiently
stable to retain its structure inti1 it is
discharged from the blooie line. Untreated
drilling foam can have a lifetime of several
hours after it returns to the surf ice. Since
the circulating rate is usually hindreds of
cfm, very large volumes of foam night have
to be contained at the surface. This foam
containment problem can be o\ ercome by
using an appropriate defoaming si ‘stem.
Once the liquid volume fracticn exceeds
about 25 percent, the foam struc ure breaks
down. The gas forms isolated bibbles that
are independent of the liquid p1,ase to the
extent that the two phases can move with
different velocities. When gas-liquid
mixtures with this structure ar: used as
1-7
Chapter 1 Introduction
drilling fluids, they are usually described as
aerated muds. They can, be formed with
combinations of gas and liquid other than air
and drilling mud. It is not unusual for the
liquid to be fresh water or brine, with or
without viscosifiers, diesel oil or even crude
oil.
The drilling rig’s mud piimps are used to
pump the liquid phase to the standpipe and
from there into the drillstring. Compressors,
suitable for the gas in use, are normally
arranged to inject the gas into the flowing
mud at or close to the standpipe, aerating the
drilling fluid before it is pumped down the
drillstring. The aerated liquid returning
from the well is passed through a gas-liquid
separation system. The gas is then directed
to a flare pit, whiIe the liquid flows through
a conventional solids removal system.
Additional gas separation measures may be
necessary before the liquid can be pumped
downhole again (if at all). Some form of
oil-mud separation system may be required
if liquid hydrocarbons are produced. Figure
1-2 schematically illustrates the main
elements of an aerated mud drilling system.
It is possible to create an aerated drilling
fluid downhole rather than at the surface.
This is most often done by using a “parasite
string.” This is a small-bore tubular that
penetrates the wellhead and leads into the
wellbore just above the last casing shoe. By
circulating a gas, which may be air, nitrogen
or natural gas, down the parasite string and
into the wellbore, the density of the fluid
returning up the annulus is reduced (above
the injection point) and the wellbore
pressure decreases correspondingly. The
same effect can be achieved during re-entry
drilling of previously gas-.lifted wells if the
drilling assembly can he run downhole
without pulling the gas lift tubing and
production casing string. This requires a
small diameter, drilled hole. This is
probably only practical \/hen drilling with
coiled tubing. It is also possible to aerate
the returning drilling flui il by injecting gas
outside an uncemented cising string, or by
using a dual wall drill pipe, where the
drilling liquid is pumped down the central
conduit of the pipe and the gas down the
outer conduit. These techniques will be
explained in more detail i1 Section 2.7.
Mist drilling is often usec after a significant
water influx is encountered while dry air
drilling. Normally air is used in mist
drilling. Other than ccst, there is, no
fundamental reason why c ther gases, such as
nitrogen, carbon dioxidc or natural gas,
should not be used in lightened drilIing
fluids. If the liquid phase is flammable, i.e.,
crude oil or diesel, iiitrogen may be
preferred over air, for easons of safety.
Also, using air in lighteied drilling fluids
can create conditions d3wnhole that are
ideal for corrosion of the drillstring and any
exposed casing. Finally, ,;as can dissolve in
liquid; some more than u.hers; for example
carbon dioxide in aqueou: liquids, or natural
gas in crude oil.
Because gases are much nore compressible
than liquids, the liquid vclume fraction in a
lightened drilling fluid will vary as the
drilling fluid is circulatetl around the well.
As pressure increases, the liquid volume
fraction and drilling fluic density will also
increase. This situat on is further
complicated by formation fluids flowing into
the well. For example, w ien a water inflow
occurs, the drilling fluid n Lay be a mist on its
way down the drillstrink but change to a
foam when it enters the annulus and picks
up the additional water from the inflow.
Calculating circulating pi essures is critical.

Figure 1-2. Simplified aerated liquid drilling flow system.
Concepts for the design of lightened drilling
fluid operations are described in Chapter 2;
commercial simulators are available.
Liquid Drilling Fluids
The formation pore fluid pressure often
exceeds the hydrostatic pressure of fresh or
saline water at the same depthi. In this
environment, it is possible to drill under-
balanced using a liquid. It is not uncommon
for conventional drilling oper-ations to
become underbalanced (un-intentionally) if
the wellbore penetrates a region of higher
than anticipated pore pressure.
In certain circumstances it is possible to
achieve underbalanced conditions even
though the drilling fluid has a density
exceeding the pore pressure gradient. For
example, loss of drilling fluid into a low
0 Flare P l f
pressure zone can reduce th: wellbore
pressure, allowing formation flu ids to flow
into the well from higher up the hole. The
inflowing fluids then reduce he drilling
fluid density until circulation is rl :gained and
a mixture of drilling and form ttion fluids
flows to the surface. This is the case in the
Pearsall Field in Texas, which h is seen one
of the most extensive and succe;sful recent
applications of underbalanced dr lling in the
United States.14
Surface Systems
Probably the key distinctioi I between
underbalanced and conventior a1 drilling
operations is that addition 11 surface
equipment is required if a we11 is to be
drilled underbalanced. This equipment
essentially diverts all return flow away from
the rig floor and separates produced
I-9
Chapter 7 htroduction
hydrocarbons from the drilling fluid in a way
that allows them to be contained. In this
way, underbalanced drilling can continue
safely once a permeable formation is
penetrated.
The complexity of the surface system is
influenced by the choice of drilling fluid and
the nature and quantity of formation fluids
produced while drilling. In the case of dry
air drilling, with natural gas as the only
potential inflow and no potential for
hydrogen sulfide, it is often sufficient to
have the blooie line discharge flared over an
open, earthen pit in which the cuttings
collect. At the other extreme, a closed,
multi-phase separator, used with a nitrified
water drilling fluid, has to handle cuttings,
produced oil, produced gas, circulating
water, and nitrogen. Such systems allow oil
to be collected for storage, gas to be flared,
and water to be re-cycled to the rig pumps.
Broadly, it is possible to characterize the
separation systems as open or closed,
depending on whether or not the separation
vessels themselves are open to the
atmosphere or sealed. Closed separators are
not normally used with drilling fluids
containing air, in order to minimize any
explosion hazard when hydrocarbons are
encountered. Conversely, a closed system
should be used if hydrogen sulfide may be
present in the produced fluids. Specific
requirements for various drilling fluids will
be discussed in more detail in the relevant
sections of Chapter 2.
In many instances, surface equipment
incorporates an adjustable choke in the
drilling fluid return line, between the
diverter and the separation system. Back
pressure on the well provides some degree
of control over the wellbore pressure,
1-10
independently from the dr illing fluid density
and rheology. If this is to be done, a rotating
seal element in the s ack is normally
required, to provide s ifficient pressure
bearing capacity to seal the back pressure
generated by the choke. This technique
provides the flexibilit! in controlling
wellbore pressure that c tn be particularly
important when drilling through poorly
consolidated or very prod uctive formations,
where it may be necessiry to restrict the
underbalance pressure (dij ferential) to a few
hundred psi. In air or mist drilling, if back
pressure is increased, annular velocities are
reduced and hole cl1:aning may be
jeopardized. Applying a Jack pressure can
also help to control charges in the liquid
volume fraction with deIth. This may be
required if a foam is o be maintained
throughout the annulus.l5
1.4 Limitation! : to
Underbalar iced Drilling
Along with their benefits, .here are technical
and economic limitations of underbalanced
drilling. Carden, 1993,' rt ported that, in the
United States, wellbore in itability and water
inflow were the two riain reasons for
terminating air drilling c perations. Other
technical factors restricti ig underbalanced
drilling include downhole fires, directional
drilling difficulties, and excessive
hydrocarbon productio 1. Various
limitations on underbala iced drilling are
outlined below.
Wellbore Instability
As in conventional c rilling, wellbore
instability may arise fron mechanical or
chemical mechanisms. These may be
accentuated by drillini underbalanced.
Whatever the underly mg mechanism,
wellbore instability can result in the
drillstring becoming stuck downhole. Rock
fragments, too large for the drilling fluid to
lift from the hole, may fall, accumulate and
stick the drillstring or the formation may
swell or creep, reducing clearance to the
point where the string sticks.
In conventional, overbalanced drilling
operations, the excess of wellbore pressure
over the formation pore pressure provides
some degree of support at the borehole wall.
In underbalanced drilling this support is
missing; as the degree of underbalance is
increased, so too does the tendency for
wellbore instability. This can put a lower
limit on the wellbore pressure; below which
it is effectively impossible to drill. This
limiting underbalance pressure is principally
influenced by the prevailing in-situ-stresses,
the formations’ strengths, the actual
reservoir pressures and the wellbore
geometry. In general, it is normally only
older, harder and more competent
formations that have sufficient strengths to
allow drilling with dry air without wellbore
instability problems. In some instances,
mechanically-induced wellbore instability
may be controlled by adopting a drilling
technique that restricts the degree of
underbalance to less than the critical level.
In other cases, particularly in tectonically
active areas, the wellbore may be: inherently
unstable under any conditions.
Chemically-induced wellbore instability can
occur when drilling formations with
significant amounts of water-sensitive clays.
These may be dehydrated when drilling with
a gaseous fluid. Conversely, these water-
sensitive clays may absorb water from an
aqueous phase present in the well when
mist, foam or aerated liquid drilling fluids
are used. In either case, the chaige in shale
water content induces additiona stresses in
the near-wellbore region. These can
destabilize the wellbore. In principle, it is
possible to adjust the activity of :he aqueous
phase; for example, by the iddition of
suitable electrolytes, to match i he exposed
shale and prevent chemically inc luced stress
changes.I6 This can be a challmging task
and complicating factors, such 2 s variations
in the water inflow rate salinity, may render
it impossible.
Water Inflows
Water inflow can impede un lerbalanced
drilling for several reasons. W ien drilling
with gas, formation water can noisten the
cuttings downhole, causing thcm to stick
together and accumulate on thi : drillstring
and on the borehole wall. Tliis is most
likely to occur at the top of the ilrill collars,
where the decrease in drillstrir g diameter
leads to a sudden decrease in annular
velocity. This cuttings accui nulation is
sometimes called a “mud .ing.” If
unchecked, a mud ring can grow to the point
where the string is trapped. Pa -adoxically,
adding water to the circulatinl: fluid can
control the formation of muc rings, by
saturating the cuttings and previ :nting them
from adhering to each other.’ For this
reason, it is normal to change fiom dry gas
to mist drilling when water nflow first
occurs.
Metering in foaming agent can allow
relatively large water inflows I O be lifted
from the well. However, foam I tability can
be compromised by saline water inflows, or
water inflows can be encounteied that are
too rapid to be removed from thi: well, even
when circulating foam. In thcse circum-
stances, the buildup of water in I he well can
1-11

Chapter 1 Introduction
increase the circulating pressure to the point
that the surface equipment’s pressure
capacity is exceeded, requiring a change in
drilling fluid. However, the major concern
when large water inflows occur is economic;
i.e., disposal costs.
Water inflows may be further controlled by
using an aerated drilling fluid. Since these
fluids tend to have lower underbalance
pressures (differential) than occur when
drilling with gas, mist or foam, the rate of
water inflow will be reduced. Produced
water mixes with the liquid phase of the
drilling fluid and is circulated from the well.
Inflow may, however, lead to difficulties in
determining the air injection rate required to
maintain target wellbore pressures.
There are some circumstances in which it is
possible to seal off water-bearing zones, by
pumping chemicals that penetrate the
formation and react with one another or with
the formation water to form flow barriers.
Downhole Fires
Downhole fires should perhaps more
properly be termed downhole explosions.l 7
They are infrequent but their consequences
are spectacular” - the drill collars and bit
can be melted or burnt away. For a fire to
occur, the downhole composition of the
hydrocarbon and air mixture has to be in a
flammable range. There also has to be an
ignition mechanism, such as a mud ring,
downhole sparking, or a small hole or
washout in the drillstring.” A mud ring can
lead to ignition when it seals the annulus and
continued circulation causes the pressure of
the hydrocarbon-air mixture to increase to
the point at which combustion ignition
occurs, much as it does in a diesel engine.
Sparks can result downhole from contact
between the drillstring and hard minerals in
1-12
--
the borehole wall. Circu lating air, leaking
through a small washout in the drillstring,
can cause a local hot spot with the potential
to ignite a combustibh hydrocarbodair
mixture.
Downhole fires can be a ioided by using a
non-flammable circulatiq fluid. It may not
be practical to change from air to a non-
flammable gas, such as iitrogen, part way
through drilling a well In that case,
changing from dry air to mist drilling can
help by reducing the protability of forming
mud rings. Since the structure of a stable
foam made with air is ilates the air in
separate “bubbles,” the air in foam is not
normally available for COInbustion. This is
one reason why air foams are widely used to
extinguish hydrocarbon fi .es; using them in
drilling fluid may well piovide a means to
avoid downhole fires.
Directional Drilling €q iipment
Difficulties with dirt ctional drilling
equipment have caused :ome operators to
abandon underbalanced drilling prior to
undertaking directional 1 iork. The issue
here is the requirement f 3r the hole to be
surveyed frequently, partic mularly in the case
of horizontal wells. C mventional, mud
pulse telemetry Measurern :nt While Drilling
(MWD) tools cannot c~perate with the
compressible fluids ~)ften used in
underbalanced drilling - t le pressure pulses
they generate to convey 11 eir signals do not
propagate back to the surf ice with sufficient
amplitude to be detectable Electromagnetic
MWD systems do exist, but there are
concerns about their reliab dity, although tool
development is imprc ving
Wireline steering tools c a i be used. These
have a hard-wired coniiection from the
surveying instruments doc rnhole back to the
surface. They cannot be It ft downhole if the
-
drillstring is to be rotated, as is normally the
case. The additional time taken to trip the
steering tool in and out of the hole can make
underbalanced drilling unattractive. There
are “wet connect” and cartridge wireline
systems that allow the wireline tool to
remain in the hole while rotating the
drillstring, but they also result in some
slowing of the drilling
Conventional downhole motors were
designed to operate on incompressible
fluids. Their performance deteriorates when
they are run with compressible fluids. They
tend to give high circulating pressures that
can require additional compression
equipment in the circulating system. High
levels of energy stored in the drillstring can
lead to disastrous overspeeding of the motor,
if the bit is pulled off bottom without first
venting the drillstring pressure. Downhole
motors have recently been (and are being)
developed specifically for operation with
compressible fluids,22capable of generating
penetration rates that match those in rotary
drilling2’
Excessive Hydrocarbon Production
Well control concerns are fundamentally not
a limitation on underbalanced drilling.
Because the formation fluids are not
prevented from flowing into the wellbore by
the drilling fluid, as they are in conventional
drilling, different well control practices and
procedures are required. Under most
circumstances, suitable surface equipment
can contain and control produced fluids
while drilling underbalanced. High
hydrocarbon production rates and high
pressures are desirable from the point-of-
view of the long term profitability of the
well. They can, however, prevent, or at least
complicate, some underbalanced drilling
operations. The surface equip] nent should
be able to safely handle the maxi num rate of
production. It should also be ab e to contain
the maximum probable surfac e pressure,
which could be substantial. : f excessive
production rates are encounterec, there may
be little alternative but to kill t le well and
switch to overbalanced drilling.
Economic Factors
While it may be technically pos; ible to drill
a well underbalanced, it may nct always be
economical. Factors that can prc vent under-
balanced drilling from being c( st effective
include large water inflcws, good
penetration rates or produc ivity with
conventional drilling technique! , and local
logistics.
In many locations, en {ironmental
restrictions make produced wa er disposal
expensive. With large watt r inflows,
disposal costs can negate any rt ductions in
well cost associated with un lerbalanced
drilling.
The increased penetration rate dL e to drilling
underbalanced may not always reduce the
drilling cost. If the penetration ra:e with mud
drilling is already quite high, (fir example,
50 f a r or more) or if only a sho -t interval is
to be drilled underbalanced, the 1 otal drilling
time for that interval may not b z decreased
sufficiently to pay for the additional
mobilization and daily costs ass ciated with
the underbalanced drilling equip] nent.
Similarly, if the well producti7,ity is high
when drilled conventionally, th :re may be
little to be gained by drilling unc .erbalanced.
At the other extreme, there are many
reservoirs which have such low undamaged
permeability that they would lave to be
1-13
Chapter 1 Introduction
stimulated by hydraulic fracturing even if
drilled underbalanced (presuming high ROP
when drilling conventionally).
Finally, in some areas, it can be uneconomic
to drill underbalanced if the required
equipment and materials., such as com-
pressors, boosters, foaming agents, etc., are
not available locally and the cost of their
mobilization or transport exceeds the
benefits of drilling underbalanced.
1.5 Summary
This chapter has introduced the different
techniques that can be used to generate
underbalanced conditions while drilling. The
benefits of drilling underbalanced can be
considerable, in terms of reduced drilling
cost and increased productivity. However,
1-14
underbalanced drilling is lot suitable for all
wells. It requires specid equipment and
procedures, not used in cc nventional drilling
operations. A number of technical and
economic factors limit ihe application of
underbalanced drilling. Sometimes, the
limitations seem to bc very daunting.
However, it will often :urn out that the
benefits outweigh the disa Ivantages.
Chapter 2 provides, mcre detail on the
different techniques c f underbalanced
drilling, describing how the underbalance
pressure is generated, summarizes the
concepts for predicting cir :ulating pressures,
cuttings and liquid lifi capacities, and
highlights the regimes O F application and
specific limitations for th 2 various specific
techniques.
References

1. Carden, R.S: “Technology Assessment of Vertical and Horizontal Air Drilling Potential in
the United States,” U.S. Department of Energy Report No. DOEMCI !8252-3514
(DE94000044), (August 1993).

2. Lattimore, G.M., Carden, R.S. and Fisher, T.: “Grand Canyon Directional I killing and
Water Line Project,” paper SPE 16169 presented at the 1987 S P E W 1 C Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

3. Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B.: “Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal We 11s: Does it
Really Eliminate Formation Damage?” paper SPE 27352 presented at the 1994 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA.

4. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.W. and Bietz, R.F.: “Formation Dam ige Control
and Research in Horizontal Wells,” presented at 1993 International Conference or Horizontal
Well Technology, Houston, TX.

5. Graham, R.L., Foster, J.M., Amick, P.C. and Shaw, J.S.: “Reverse Circulation 4ir Drilling
Can Reduce Wellbore Damage,” Oil and Gas J. (March 22, 1993) 85-94,

6. Brantley, J.E.: History of Oil Well Drilling, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, ‘IX(1971).

7. Allan, P.D.: “Nitrogen Drilling System for Gas Drilling Applications,” paper SPE 28320
presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New ( Irleans, LA
September 25-28.

8. Tian, S. and Adewumi, M.A.: “Multiphase Hydrodynamic Model Predict5 Important

Phenomena in Air-Drilling Hydraulics,” SPE Drill. Eng. (June 1991) 145-152.

9. Angel, R.R.: “Volume Requirements for Air and Gas Drilling,” Pet Truns., AI ME (1957)
210, 325-220; also Volume Requirements for Air and Gas Drilling, Gulf Pub ishing Co.,
Houston, TX (1 958).

10. Johnson, P.W.: “Design Techniques in Air and Gas Drilling: Cleaning (‘riteria and
Minimum Flowing Pressure Gradients,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May 1995) 34, No. 5, 18-26.

11. Gray, K.E.: “The Cutting Carrying Capacity of Air at Pressures above Atmospl ieric,” SPE
paper 8746, Pet. Truns. AIME (1958) 23.

12. Hook, R.A., Cooper, L.W. and Payne, B.R.: “Air, Gas and Foam Drilling: A Lot )k at Latest
Techniques,” World Oil (April 1977) 95- 103.

I-I5
Chapter 1 Introduction

13. Beyer, A.H., Millhone, R.S. and Foote, R.W.: “Flow Behaviour of Foam as a Well
Circulating Fluid,” paper SPE 3986 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, San
Antonio, TX.

14. Stone, C.R.: “Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling,” SPE Distinguished Le sture Series, 1993-
94.

15. Okpobiri, G.A. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Volumetric Requirements for Foam and Mist Drilling
Operations,” SPE Drill. Eng. (February 1986) 7 1-88.

16. Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K. and Salisbury, D.P.: “The Influence of Cheinical Potential on
Wellbore Stability,” SPEDC (September 1993) 207.

17. Grace, R.D. and Pippin, M.: “Downhole Fires During Air Drilling,” Woild Oil (May 1989)
42-44.

18. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” preseni Ed at 1995 ASME
Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX (January 30 - February 1).

19. Carden, R.S.: “Air Drilling has some Pluses for Horizontal Wells,” Oil LE zd Gas J. (April 8,
1991) 76-78.

20. Shale, L. and Moberley, G.T.: “Development of a Cartridge Data Trans] nission System for
Use with Air Drilling Motor,” IADC/SPE paper 23907 presented at th: 1992 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA.

21. Shale, L. and Curry, D.A.: “Drilling a Horizontal Well Using Air/Foam ‘ rechniques,” paper
OTC 7355 presented at 1993 Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Hc iuston, TX.

22. Shale, L.: “Development of Air Drilling Motor Holds Promise for Spec ialized Directional
Drilling Applications,” paper SPE 22564 presented at the 199 1 SPE, Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX.

1-16
 UNDERBALANCED
DRILLING TECHNIQUES
This chapter provides detailed
descriptions of the different techniques of
underbalanced drilling. The major function
of the circulating drilling fluid in
underbalanced drilling is to lift cuttings from
the hole. This aspect of each technique is
considered in some detail. Methods for
analyzing hole cleaning and circulating
pressures are reviewed. In each case, the
required equipment is described. Any
special operating procedures that may have
to be adopted are described, as are any
limitations.
2. I Dry Air Drilling
Hole Cleaning
It will rapidly become impossible for the
drill bit to deepen a hole, if the cuttings it
generates are not removed from the
wellbore. In air drilling, the main function
of the circulating air is to lift cuttings from
where they are generated at the hole bottom
to the surface and out of the wellbore. If the
air flow is not adequate to do this, there is a
real danger that the drillstring will become
stuck by cuttings that settle back downhole
and pack around the bottomhole assembly
(BHA) when circulation is stopped (for
example, to make a connection). A key
concern, in any air drilling job, is to
determine the air flow rate required for
adequate hole cleaning. As a result, the
processes of cuttings transpon and hole
cleaning have been stud ed quite
extensively. These processes ai e reviewed
below.
How does the air lift cutting! from the
hole? The flowing air exerts a di ag force on
each individual cutting, opposing gravity. If
the drag force is larger than the gravitational
force, the cutting will move up hole.
Conversely, if the drag force is to I small, the
cutting will fall back down hole. Intuitively,
it is clear that the drag force will increase as
the air flow rate past the cuttinl, increases.
The gravitational force on the cutting will
not be influenced by the air flow -ate. There
should, therefore, be some thresh1 )Id air flow
rate at which cuttings begin to mc ve up hole.
As the flow rate increases, the rate at which
the cuttings move upwards siould also
increase.
It is also intuitively clear that the air velocity
required to lift a cutting will inciease as the
cutting size increases. Day-to-day
experience tells us that dust is frequently
picked up and carried along by e fen modest
winds, whereas it is an unusuilly strong
wind that can move sand, gri; or loose
gravel. Cuttings, recovered at thl: surface in
air drilling operations, are of en almost
exclusively very fine. In fact, dry air drilling
is sometimes termed “dusting.” These are
2-1
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
probably not representative of the cuttings
generated by the bit. Laboratory air drilling
experiments have shown that cuttings with
dimensions of one-half inch or more are
formed, although even under these
conditions the majority of cuttings are fine
enough to be classified as dust. Johnson,
1995,’ reported collecting cuttings that were
close to one-half inch in maximum diameter,
from two different shallow air drilled wells.
Other author^^.^ have collected air drilled
cuttings as large as one inch in dimension, in
junk baskets located at the bit and at the top
of the collars. It seems reasonable to
conclude that these large cuttings normally
stay downhole, possibly accumulating at the
top of the collars, until they are broken down
to a sufficiently small size that the air flow
can lift them from the well.
The process of cuttings transport is
complicated by the compressibility of air. As
air flows up the annulus, the frictional
pressure drop increases the air pressure
downhole. So too does the mass of cuttings
and air in the annulus, and the air density
increases in direct proportion to its pressure.
In consequence, the air velocity decreases
with increasing depth, provided that the
annular geometry remains unchanged. The
drag force on the cuttings increases with
increasing air pressure and decreases with
decreasing air velocity. The net effect is that
a higher air flow rate, when expressed in
standard cubic feet per minute, is required to
lift cuttings as a well becomes deeper. Air
temperature also influences density, and the
temperature will also change as the air flows
around the well.
Strictly, there is a buoyant force on the
cutting due to the displacement of its
volume of air. This will be influenced by
the air flow rate since the flow rate
2-2
influences the local air prcssure and hence
the density. However, this buoyant force is,
small for cuttings in air e‘en when the air
pressure is quite high, since the air density
remains much less than that of the cuttings.
At high air flow rates, the cuttings move at
more or less the same spec:d as the air and
are lifted efficiently out of the well. Under
these circumstances, the bottomhole air
pressure is largely controlled by the
frictional pressure loss up tl e annulus. If the
flow rate is decreased, the fictional pressure
loss will fall and initialIy t1 e bottomhole air
pressure will also decrease. As the air flow
rate is further decreased, he efficiency of
cuttings removal decreases. This causes the
mass of cuttings in the anrulus to increase.
At some point, the increas: in air pressure
due to cuttings accumulatio 1, with falling air
flow rate, exceeds the decr:ase in frictional
pressure drop, and the air p; essure downhole
will actually increase wit 1 decreasing air
flow rate. The pressure then increases
rapidly as the flow rate is .educed until the
air flow is no longer capallle of supporting
the cuttings. This )henomenon is
sometimes referred to as ‘choking” and is
well recognized in the pnt umatic transport
~iterature.~
In the context of air drilliiig, choking flow
has been studied experimcntally by Supon
and Adewumi, 1991,5 u;ing a 3%-inch
internal diameter, 26-folI t long model
wellbore. Figure 2- 1 s immarizes their
findings. The choking velc city is defined as
the velocity below which th 2 cuttings are not
supported by the air flow. Supon and
Adewumi suggested that the air velocity
leading to the minimum bottomhole air
pressure represents the op:imum flow rate
for cuttings transport. They found that this
optimum velocity increasec , with increasing
cuttings diameter and penetration rate.
I
frictional
resistance
I predominates
I
I corresponding to the minimu m pressure
I Minimum
I Pressure Drop
I
I flow rates are required to efficitntly clean a
I deviated hole drilled using i downhole
I Choking Optimal
1 Vebcify Air Velocity
nnnulus Air Velocity
Figure2-1. The influence of air flow
rate on annular pressure drop (affer
Supon and Adewumi, 199f).
An alternative way of expressing this is that
the minimum annular pressure drop
increases with increasing cuttings' size and
penetration rate. Interestingly, it was the
diameter of the largest few percent of
cuttings that seemed to control the so-called
optimum air velocity, as opposed to an
average cuttings diameter.
Deviated Holes
In a deviated hole, the situation is
complicated by friction between the cuttings
and the borehole wall. The drag force must
exceed the combined effect of gravity and
friction, for a cutting to move up hole.
Conversely, the gravitational force must
exceed the combined effect of the drag force
and friction if the cutting is to move
downhole. There will be a regime in which
a more or less stationary bed of cuttings will
build on the lower side of an inclined hole.
Hagar et a]., 1995,6extended earlier cuttings
transport experiments, to exami le modestly
inclined wellbores. The OF timum air
velocity increased with increasi ig wellbore
inclination, at least up to an irclination of
12", the highest angle studied. 1his increase
in air flow requirement was ascribed to
friction between the cutting; and the
borehole wall. They observed hat the bed
of cuttings would be removed \/hen the air
flow rate was increased t ) a level
1
drop. Shale, 1995,7 noted tha. higher air
motor, if the drillstring is ]rot rotated.
b Drillpipe rotation aids hole ( leaning by
grinding up the cuttings. This reduces the
air velocity required to tram port them.
Rotation also agitates thc cuttings,
restricting the formation of a cut1 ings bed.
The Annular Geometry
The annular geometry of a well 1 leing drilled
influences cuttings transport. The lowest
portion of the drillstring, i.e. the bottomhole
assembly (BHA), almost inv uiably has
larger diameter components (drill collars)
than the drillpipe above it. Tius, the air
velocity drops significantly as i flows past
the top of the drill collars. This is the most
demanding region for cuttings t -ansport. It
is here that cuttings will accumi late first, if
the flow rate is not sufficient tc remove all
cuttings from the well. Beczuse the air
velocity is proportional to the stluare of the
wellbore diameter, even modest increases in
wellbore diameter (washouts ... can reduce
the air velocity sufficiently to degrade
cuttings transport efficiency.
Gas Inflows
Significant gas inflows can a so degrade
cuttings transport efficiency, if they occur
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
above the BHA. Such inflow increases the
flow rate from the point of influx to the
surface, causing the annular pressure drop
and the air pressure below the influx to
increase. The increased air pressure reduces
the air velocity lower down the well and
cuttings are not lifted as efficiently in the
region below the influx.
The foregoing discussion should illustrate
the main factors involved in the transport of
cuttings out of an air drilled wellbore, and
the ways in which they interact. It should be
clear that cuttings transport and circulating
air pressure are closely linked. Both must be
considered in any air circulation model.
Drag Force and Terminal Velocity
In principle, it is possible to model the
cuttings removal process by computing the
drag force on the cuttings. This is probably
best done by considering the terminal or free
settling velocity, Vt, of the cuttings. This is
the maximum velocity that is attained by a
particle falling freely in an infinite quantity
of the fluid in question. In a vertical hole, if
the upward air velocity is Vf, the cuttings
velocity, V,, will be:
v, = Vf - v,
The higher the cuttings terminal velocity, the
higher the air velocity that will be required
to transport the cuttings. Several authors
have predicted minimum volumetric air flow
rates on the basis that the air velocity
downhole should be at least equal to the
cuttings terminal v e ~ o c i t y . ~ ~ ~
A knowledge of cuttings terminal velocity is
therefore important for fundamentally-based
models of cuttings transport during air
drilling. The fluid dynamics literature
contains a number of different correlations
2-4
for determining terminal velocities. The
following discussion is based on an
experimental study cond x t e d by Gray,
1958.8 For a spherical particle of diameter,
d,, and density, p, falling through a fluid of
density, pf, the terminal vel,)city is given by:
P c -Pf
where:
g .........gravitational accelei ation
(32.17 ft/s2),
d,........ characteristic particle diameter
(feet)
7
Cd .......drag coefficient,
pc ....... density of cuttings ( bm/ft3), and,
pf ........density of fluid (lbn /ft3).
The drag coefficient is, in g meral, a function
of the Reynolds number, which is in turn
determined by the velocity of the cutting
relative to the fluid throlgh which it is
moving. However, Gray fo md that the drag
coefficient of a cutting can safely be
regarded as a constant, independent of
velocity, if the air flow arolind the cutting is
turbulent. This will norma ly be the case in
air drilling. On the othe hand, the drag
coefficient was found to I)e influenced by
the particle shape. Flat pirticles had drag
coefficients of about 1.4. while particles
classified as angular to ~ b - r o u n d e d had
drag coefficients of about 0.8. Combining
these findings with the gas law, Gray
derived the followini ; approximate
expressions for terminal vel ocity:
JF
V, -- 3.369 - (2.3)
for flat cuttings, and

(2.4)
for sub-rounded cuttings.
where T and P are the bottomhole
temperature (OR) and pressure (psia),
respectively. The terminal velocity of
cuttings in air drilling is determined mainly
by the cuttings diameter, shape and density,
and by the bottomhole temperature and
pressure. The above expressions do not
account for interactions between adjacent
cuttings or between cuttings and the
borehole wall. Since these interactions
should tend to reduce the terminal velocity,
it is probably conservative to discount their
effects when modeling cuttings removal.
It can be seen from Equations (2.3) and (2.4)
that the terminal velocity of cuttings will
increase as their diameter increases. Higher
air velocities (i.e., higher volumetric flow
rates) are required to lift larger cuttings from
a well. Rounded cuttings will require more
air flow to remove them than flat cuttings.
The air pressure and temperature downhole
vary around the well, and differ from those
at the surface. As the air pressure goes up,
the cuttings terminal velocity goes down,
indicating that the local air velocity required
to lift cuttings will also decrease. However,
air density increases more or less in direct
proportion to the pressure. The local air
velocity will be inversely proportional to the
air pressure, if the mass flow rate of gas
remains constant (as it will be if the flow
rate at standard temperature and pressure is
constant). The terminal velocity only
decreases as the square root of the pressure.
As a result, the air flow rate required to lift a
given size of cutting will increase as the
bottomhole air pressure increases
Friction Pressure
The pressure at the hole bottom is increased
by the frictional pressure drop as he cuttings
laden air flows up the annulus an1 1 out of the
surface equipment, and by the inass of air
and cuttings in the annulus. A further
pressure drop occurs if the cuttini s are being
accelerated. It is usually stfficient to
assume that the cuttings have reached a
steady velocity and that the 2 cceleration
term can be neglected. Th: pressure
gradient, dP/dL (psflft), in the annulus can
then expressed by:
where:
fm .......friction factor of the mixti re of air
and cuttings,
pm.......mixture's density (Ibm/ft3,,
Vm .......mixture's velocity (ft/s),
Dh .......hole diameter (feet), and,
D, .......drillstring outer diameter (feet).
The friction factor of the airkuttii Igs mixture
is commonly regarded as the :um of the
friction factors due to the air alclne, fa, and
due to the presence of the cutting: , fc:
+
f, = fa f,
There are a number of expresions that
predict the frictional pressure diop for gas
flow in pipes. The best known of these
expressions is probably the Weymouth
equation." Whichever frictional analysis is
used, it has to be modified for he annular
geometry of a well being drillei This is
2-5
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
usually done through the concept of the
hydraulic radius, which is defined as the
cross-sectional area of the conduit divided
by its perimeter. The hydraulic radius of an
annulus is 0.25(Dh - Dp), where Dh is the
diameter of the hole and D, is the outer
diameter of the body (in this case the
drillpipe) inside that hole. The hydraulic
radius of a pipe of internal diameter D is
simply 0.25D. When modified in this way,
Angel, 1957," showed that the friction
factor determined from the Weymouth
equation is:
0.14
fa = (2.7)
(D, -Dp)0.333
This does not strictly apply to the case of
flow in rough-walled pipes, and as argued by
Guo et al., 1994,'* a borehole wall will
appear rough to the circulating air flow. As
air flow during drilling is nearly always
turbulent, Guo et al., 1994, argued that the
friction factor correlation developed by
Nikuradse, 1933,13 for turbulent flow in
rough pipes, is more applicable to air
drilling. For annular flow, this correlation
is:
A1
-- - 1.14- 0.861n
where:
E .........the absolute roughness of the pipe
(feet).
The component of friction due to th,e
presence of cuttings in the air flow was
studied by Machado and Ikoku, 1981,9 who
experimentally determined friction factors
for the cuttings, f,.
2-6
The density of the mi:.ture of air and
cuttings in the annulus is determined by the
mass of the cuttings and :he density of the
air. The mass of cuttings is itself controlled
by the penetration rate ( he rate at which
cuttings are generated) an([by the efficiency
with which the cuttings ; r e removed from
the well. As the penetrat on rate increases,
the mass of cuttings inject1:d into the aifflow
downhole increases. If these cuttings are not
removed efficiently from the wellbore, the
mass of cuttings in the annulus will increase,
as will the density of tht air and cuttings
mixture. The density of tl e air is controlled
by the local pressure; ir creasing pressure
increases the air density.
The additional circulatin ; pressure drops
down the drillstring and icross the bit are
relevant to cuttings trans, iort because they
can influence the : iir temperature.
Temperature changes rt :sult from heat
exchange with the cuttin ;s, the formation
and (through the drillstrink ) with air flowing
in the opposite directior , from frictional
heating, and from adiaba:ic effects as the
pressure changes around tk e well.
Required Air Injection Ra tes
It should be clear from tkis discussion that
relating the air velocity downhole to the
surface injection rate is not trivial.
Prediction of surface aj r injection rates
required for efficient cut1 ings removal, by
comparing air velocity anc cuttings terminal
velocity, is not readily accomplished.
Nevertheless, several met1 iods for so doing
have been presented iii the petroleum
literature.9,14,15,16,17
All of these analyses hav: the same major
problem when they come to be applied to
field operations. They req lire knowledge of
the cuttings shape and si;e. This is rarely
available. They also require knowledge of
hole geometry. The annular velocity will
fall markedly, and with it the cuttings
transport efficiency, opposite any washouts
(sections of enlarged hole diameter).
An alternative analysis of cuttings transport
forms the basis of what is probably the most
widely used method to predict air injection
rate requirements. This was presented by
Angel, 1957." Angel assumed that, for
efficient cuttings transport downhole, the
kinetic energy of the air (or gas) striking
each cutting should be the same as that of air
giving efficient cuttings transport at standard
pressure and temperature, i.e.:
(2.9)
where:
p min.. .. density of air (or gas) at the
minimum required downhole
injection rate (lbdft3),
vm,"..... air (or gas) velocity downhole
(ftlmin),
pstp......density of air at standard pressure
and temperature (lbm/ft3),and,
v, t p . . . . . . minimum air velocity for efficient
cuttings transport, at standard
pressure and temperature (ftlmin).
Alternatively, this can be expressed as:
I
(2.10)
It was seen earlier that a cutting's terminal
velocity is more or less inversely
proportional to the square root of the density
of the gas through which it is falling.
Angel's analysis indicates .he same
dependence of minimum air \. elocity on
downhole pressure as do the ana yses based
on terminal velocity.
Experience from shallow blast hc les, drilled
in limestone quarrying operation! , indicated
that cuttings were transported el ficiently if
the air velocity equaled or exce1:ded 3,000
feet per minute. In choosing tl-is cuttings
transport criterion, Angel implicit ly assumed
that all cuttings lifted from a ell would
have the same size and shapc as these
limestone cuttings that were ransported
efficiently at 3,000 ft/min a i ' velocity.
Johnson, 1995,' has shown that this
corresponds to Gray's (1958)* value for
terminal velocity; for flat cuttir gs with a
major diameter of 0.46 inches, a i d for sub-
rounded particles with a diameler of 0.26
inches.
Angel computed the air pressure downhole
using Equation (2.5), assumin;; that the
cuttings traveled uphole at the sar le speed as
the air (no slippage of the cutting: relative to
the airflow). The density of the mixture of
air and cuttings is given by:
(2.1 1)
where:
w, .......mass of cuttings generated in a
given time; the mass flow rate of
cuttings (lbdmin), and,
wa.......mass of air flowing past ai y point
in the well in a given time the
mass flow rate of air (lbm min).
If the cuttings do slip, the mixt ire density
will be higher than predicted b r Equation
(2.1 l), by an amount that will inc 'ease as the
2-7
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

rate of slippage increases. This means that where:

Angel's analysis will predict lower
downhole pressures than would be observed
in practice, and that the discrepancy will
become greater as the air flow rate is
decreased and choking starts to occur. As
shown by Supon and Adewumi, 1991,5
Angel's analysis fails to predict a minimum
bottomhole pressure (refer to Figure 2- 1);
instead it gives a pressure that decreases
monotonically with decreasing air flow rate.
If air velocity downhole is sufficient to give
reasonable cuttings transport (that is limited
cuttings slippage), this does not lead to
major practical concern.
P,. .......surface air pressure
(Ibf/ft2, absolute),
T, .......surface temperature (OF), and,
G ........annular temperaturf gradient,
(assumed to be 1°F per 100 feet).
T, the downhole temperatu 'e, is given by:
T=T,+Gh (2.13)
where:
h .........hole depth (feet).

Angel used Weymouth's friction factor to a is given by:

compute bottomhole pressure. As noted
above, this strictly applies for flow in SQ + 28.8 ROP D:
smooth pipes. Borehole walls are normally a= (2.14)
53.3 Q
far from smooth. Annular pressure drop
tends to be higher than Angel computed.
The tacit assumption that the cuttings do not where:
contribute to the frictional pressure drop will
also tend to make the predicted pressure S ......... gas specific gravity (air = l),
drop lower than actually seen. Other Q ........gas flow rate (scfm:, and,
assumptions made were that the annular ROP ...rate of penetration ( Whr).
geometry is appropriately represented by a
pipe with the same hydraulic diameter as the b is given by:
annulus (as in Equation (2.8)), that
interactions between cuttings can be
neglected, that the surface air temperature is (2.15)
80"F, that the downhole air temperature
increases by 1°F per 100 feet of depth, and
that the cuttings have a specific gravity of where:
2.70.
Dh ....... hole diameter (feet), and,
The expression Angel obtained for the D,....... drillpipe diameter ( eet).
annulus air pressure at the hole bottom, Pb
(lbf/ft2), is: This was combined w th the cuttings
I 2a
transport criterion defined n Equation (2.10)
to deduce the minimum a r (gas) flow rate,
as a function of hole depth, annular
geometry and penetratio I rate. Angel
(2.12)

2-8
simplified the analysis by using the average
downhole temperature, T,,, when calculating
the downhole pressure. The resultant
expression is:
6.61s (T. + Gh) Q2
(2.16)
,/(Ps2 + bT2 - bT,2,
av ) e2ah/T,v
This was solved numerically for the gas
injection rate required to give an annular
velocity equivalent in cuttings lifting power
to air with a velocity of 3,000 ftlmin. A
series of charts was generated for different
combinations of hole size, drillpipe diameter
and penetration rate. These charts are
commonly used in estimating air flow rate
requirements.
It is possible to approximately represent the
recommended minimum injection rate, Qmin,
by the following expression:
(2.17)
where:
Qo.......injection rate (scfm) at zero depth
that corresponds to an annular
velocity of 3,000 ft/min,
N ........factor dependent on the
penetration rate, (refer to
Appendix C), and,
H ........ hole depth (thousands of feet).
Differences between the minimum injection
rate estimated with Equation (2.16) and the
exact solution of Angel's analysis are
considerably less than 10 percent for all
except the smallest hole sizes at high
penetration rates.
Angel also calculated bottomho e pressures
for air and gas, as functions ol depth and
penetration rate, at a gas injxtion rate
corresponding to a surface annular velocity
of 3,000 ftlmin. The pressure lepends on
the annular geometry, through tlie hole and
drillpipe diameters. The predictc d pressures
for some typical cases are shown in Figure
2-2. At 12,000 feet hole depth, they range
from 40 psi, for an I 1-inch hole lrilled with
5X-inch pipe at a zero penetration rate, to
over 200 psi, for a 4%-inch hole jrilled with
2 7/8-inch pipe and a penetratioii rate of 90
feet per hour.
Grace'* measured bottomhol 2 annular
pressure in an air drilled hole an i compared
his measurements with values 1: redicted by
Angel's analysis. A 7 7/8-inc 1 hole was
being drilled below 3800 feet, with 3%-inch
drillpipe and 6-inch drjll collars A caliper
log had been run to determine actual hole
size prior to starting the :xperiment.
Initially, pressure losses were r ieasured at
various flow rates, while circulat ng with the
bit off bottom, without cutting! in the air
stream. The results of these mc asurements
are presented in Table 2- 1, togetl ier with the
predicted pressures. At all flow rates
studied, the predictions were abmt one psi
less than the actual measured vali ies.
Bottomhole pressures were the 1 measured
while drilling, to determine hc I W cuttings
affected the circulating air pressure in the
annulus. The penetration rat( was held
constant at approximately 30 fel :t per hour,
while air ff ow rates were changc d from 600
to 1,200 scfm. The pressures m :asured at a
depths of 3,812 feet and 4,4118 feet are
plotted, as functions of the air injection rate,
in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3 ilso shows
predictions made using Angel's method-
2-9
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

250

200
-
h
0
(I)
n
E
v

3
u)
150
Q)

-
.?t
Q)

g 100
E

m
50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Depth (feet)

Figure 2-2. Bottomhole pressures predicted for injection rates equivak nt to 3,000 feet
per minute standard air velocity (after Angel, 1957 ").

2-10
 Table 2-1. -
Annular Bottomhole Pressures in an Air Drilled Hole Compa rison of
Predictions and Measurements Made While Circulating Off-€rottom.

I 589.79 I 19.33 I 18.40

I 699.52
I 77 1.92
I 856.96
1007.34
1238.52
I 20.34
I 21.05
I 21.85
23.26
25.43
I 19.27
I 19.90
I 20.69
22.10
24.76

ology. Not surprisingly, the measured
pressures were all somewhat higher than
those predicted, the differences ranging from
five to fourteen psi. All other factors being
equal, it would be expected that the pressure
should increase with increasing depth. It is
interesting to note that the pressures
measured at higher air flow rates were lower
at 4,488 feet than they were at 3,812 feet.
The cause of these anomalous observations
is not certain. It is plausible, however, that
there was a change in cuttings size or shape,
perhaps resulting from a change in formation
type. This would lead to a change in the
concentration of cuttings in the annulus. If
the cuttings were smaller, they would be
lifted more efficiently from the hole and this
would reduce the bottomhole pressure. It is
also possible that there was a washout close
to the hole bottom. This would reduce the
local annular velocity, reducing the frictional
pressure losses in the washed out zone. At
the same time the cuttings concentration in
the air flow would increase at the washout,
causing an increase in bottomhole pressure.
Without details of the hole geometry and the
cuttings size and shape, it is not possible to
determine the relative impact of these
different factors on the air pressure.
These measurements show that ;ome of the
assumptions made in Angel’s inalysis are
non-conservative. They lead to under-
prediction of downhole air pressures,
whether or not cuttings are prcsent in the
annulus. Guo et al., 1994,’’ ovc rcame what
is probably the most significait of these
simplifications by incorporating Nikuradse’s
friction factor into Angel’s anal! sis. This is
more appropriate for flow through a rough-
walled borehole than Weymoi th’s factor.
They also introduced varying hole
inclination into the analysis.
Summary
It should be apparent from thi., discussion
that there are a number of differ :nt methods
of analyzing cuttings trar sport and
circulating pressures in air dril ing. These
analyses tend to give somewfat different
recommendations for air flow rf quirements.
Figure 2-4 compares the recon imendations
from several available ana lyses with
injection rates found from exper ence to give
adequate hole cleaning.” There is no
uniquely “correct” flow rate for any one
well. Neither is there a univer;ally correct
way to specify air flow rate. Th :re will be a
minimum flow rate below which the well
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

45 I I I I I I I

Penetration Rate: 29 ft/hr

-
n
(P
u)
40 __.__

P
W

20 I
1 - -1 T
~ f
I
l
I
II
I I
e Angers Predicted Pressur
A Measured Pressure
I I
7
I
1I

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12 10 1300

Flow Rate (scfm)

34
I Penetration Rate: 28 ft/hr I I
32
-
n
(P

4 30
u)

?!
a
$ 28
?!
n
$ 26
s

i
E
8m 24

L
m d i c t e d Pressur 1
22 A Measured Pressure

20
I I
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12c 3 1300

How Rate (scfm)

Figure 2-3. Measured versus calculated bottomhole pressures (afil?rGrace 18).

2-12
 3.5

3
n
tMacado and lkoku
r
E -& Guo Miska and Lee
% 2.5

a
W
L

6 2
Q)
c
Q
1.5
TI
.-?a!
e 1
Q)
K

0.5

0
a1 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 21000

Depth (feet)

Figure 2-4. Comparison of air flow rates recommended by several differer it cuttings
transport analyses (affer Guo et al, 1994 ").

will choke, and increasing the flow rate will
lift progressively larger cuttings from the
well. Those cuttings that are not lifted from
the well are ground up until they become
fine enough for the air flow to lift them to
the surface. As a result, the drilling process
may be slowed, but the increased cost of a
lower penetration rate will be offset by the
lower compressor rental and fuel
requirements; i.e., operational and economic
factors will influence the choice of air flow
rate, in addition to cuttings transport
considerations.
Circulating Pressures
In mud drilling, the standpipe pressure is a
major source of information on downhole
conditions. The relationship between the
standpipe and downhole pressures is easily
established if the drilling fluid is
incompressible. If the drilling fluid has
significant compressibility, as it does when
drilling with air, the relationsh p between
these pressures is more conplex. The
standpipe pressure is a result of t i e pressure
beneath the bit, the pressure droI across the
bit, and the pressure change down the
drillstring between the standpipe and the bit.
The various analyses of hole c1:aning that
were described in the preceding section all
required computation of the annu ar pressure
downhole. This was done by ev,iluating the
pressure loss as the air and cuttings flowed
uphole and discharged to :tmospheric
pressure at the blooie line exit.
Bit Pressure Drop
Air flow is restricted at the tit. In air
drilling, it is common practice not to fit
nozzles into the bit. Even so, the empty jets,
which are typically less than cne inch in
diameter, constrain the air to f l o ~through
i a

2-13
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

passage with a much smaller cross-sectional where:

area than the drillstring. As air flows
through the jet, it expands in response to the
decreased pressure and its velocity increases.
Once the pressure drop exceeds a certain
level, the air velocity reaches the prevailing
speed of sound. At this point, the air cannot
expand any faster and the upstream pressure
becomes independent of the pressure into
which the jet is discharging. This implies
that, under sonic discharge conditions,
standpipe pressure is “independent” of the
annular pressure. Flow through the jet is
then said to be critical or sonic. The
condition for the onset of sonic flow in ideal
gases is:’9
G ........ mass flow rate of 2 ir in I b d s ,
A,, .......total area of the bit nozzles (in2),
Ta ....... air temperature ab( Ive the bit (OR),
R ........ the universal gas c’mstant
53.3 ft.lbf/lbm.’R o r air),
S .........gas gravity (1 for a ir), and,
g .........gravitational const mt (32.17 ft/s2).
Noting that the density of air under standard
conditions is 0.0764 lbm/f ~ 3 for
, air Equation
(2.20) reduces to:
[r) [r)
Pa = 1.88 GT,0.5 = 0.002: 19 QTa0.5

$=(A)=
(2.21)
-k
where:
(2.18)
Q ........air flow rate (scfm:
where:
If the air flow velocity through the jets
Pb .......downstream pressure (psia), remains sub-sonic, the pre ;sure above the bit
Pa .......upstream pressure at the onset of is related to the mass flow rate and the
sonic flow (psia), and, annulus pressure beneath the bit, Pb (psia),
k .........ratio of the specific heat at by2’
constant pressure to that at
constant volume (dimensionless).
1
k
R(k - 1)G2Tb Ci
For air, k = 1.40, and: (2.22)
2gkSAiP;

Pa = 1.89Pb (2.19)
For air, this becomes:
If the upstream pressure is more than 1.89
times the annulus pressure beneath the bit,
flow through the bit will be sonic. In this
case, the pressure upstream of the bit, P a (2.23)
(psia), will be given by:20 G = -QP,
60

(2.20) where:

2-14
Tb .......temperature beneath the bit (OR).
pg.......gas density at STP (lbm/ft3), and
pair......0.0764 at STP (lbm/ft3).
The pressure beneath the bit, Pb, can be
computed following Angel's analysis, using
Equation (2.12).
The circulating air cools as it expands
through the flow restriction at the bit.
Assuming ideal gas behavior, the
temperature decrease can be estimated from
the relationship:
I .-
k-1
Tb -- T] : [a - (2.24)
This indicates that the absolute air
temperature beneath the bit will be
approximately 17 percent lower than that
above the bit, if flow through the jets is
sonic.
Standpipe Pressure
Any one of several friction factors can be
used to establish the relationship between
pressure above the bit and pressure at the
standpipe. If the flowing air pressure above
the bit has been determined, this can be used
to calculate the standpipe pressure. The
change in pressure over a small element of
depth down the drillstring will be the
difference between the pressure loss due to
friction and the pressure increase due to the
change in hydrostatic head.
In this instance, the air is flowing down a
more or less smooth pipe and there are no
cuttings in the air flow. It is reasonably
accurate to take Weymouth's equation to
represent the friction between the flowing air
and the inner bore of the drillstring. If this is
done, the standpipe pressure, P: (psfa), is
related to the pressure above the b it by:22
(2.25)
where a and p are given by:
S
a=- (2.26)
53.3
1 . 6 2 5 10"Q2
~
P=
D5.333
(2.27)
where:
D, .......internal diameter of the dri llstring
(feet).
The standpipe pressure can be deb :mined by
first assessing whether or not flc w through
the bit is sonic. If it is sonic, tl e pressure
above the bit can be determ ned from
Equation (2.21). This value can be used in
Equation (2.25) to predict the standpipe
pressure. If the flow through the bit is sub-
sonic, the annulus pressure bene3th the bit
must first be predicted. This c a i be done,
following Angel's analysis, by using
Equation (2.12). The pressure ab w e the bit
can then be predicted using Eque tion (2.23)
and this value can be used in Equ: tion (2.25)
to arrive at the standpipe pressure
A very important point to note when air
drilling is that large changes i t annulus
pressure may result in smaller i hanges in
standpipe pressure, or in the case of sonic
flow through the bit, no thange in
standpipe pressure at all. Coi sequently,
hole problems that lead to an iicrease in
annulus pressure may be indicar ed by little
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
or no change in standpipe pressure. For
this reason, it is important to monitor
standpipe pressures closely and to react
promptly to any unanticipated changes. It
is also important to know whether or not
flow downhole is sonic. If it is sonic, the
standpipe pressure will not change in
response to hole problems.
This is illustrated with an example. An 8%-
inch hole is being drilled at 6,000 feet with
4%-inch drillpipe. The air rate is 1,400
scfm. For simplicity, it is assumed that there
are no collars in the string. Standpipe
pressures have been predicted following the
method described above; for a range of
penetration rates up to 300 feet per hour, and
for a bit equipped with no nozzles and with
three 14/32-inch diameter nozzles. Table 2-
2 and Figure 2-5 show the resulting
predictions.
As shown in Figure 2-5, for sub-sonic flow
through a bit without nozzles, as the
penetration rate increases from zero (i.e. off-
bottom) to 300 feet per hour, the bottomhole
annular pressure increases from 33 psia to
88 psia. At the same time, the standpipe
pressure increases from 94 psia to 114 psia.
A 55 psi (164 percent) increase in annular
pressure has caused an increase of only 21
psi (22 percent) in the standpipe pressure.
For a bit with nozzles, flow through the bit
is sonic and the standpipe pressure does not
change at all in response to the increasing
annular pressure.
Inadequate hole cleaning can increase
annular pressures, by increasing the quantity
of cuttings in the annulus, exactly as would
happen when the penetration rate increases.
There may be little or no increase in the
standpipe pressure to indicate the onset of
hole cleaning problems. The fact that sonic
2-16
flow effectively isolate i the standpipe
pressure from the annulus should be
considered very carefully 1 )efore deciding to
fit nozzles to the bit for d q air drilling.
Equipment
Air Compression System
Figure 2-6 shows a typicsl layout of an air
compression system for d r I air drilling. The
major components are desc ribed below.
Compressors
As their name indicate!, these are the
primary means of compr:ssing air to the
pressure required to circtlate it round the
well. Several different ty] les of compressor
units are available - rota y vane, straight-
lobe, reciprocating, and 13tary screw. Of
these, the reciprocating ind rotary screw
type are the most widely used for drilling
applications. Local availability of
compressors, with the n xessary delivery
rate and pressure, teids to control
compressor selection. F' )r example, both
reciprocating and rotary screw types are
commonly used in the Arkoma Basin and in
West Texas, whereas rotary screw
compressors predomin ate in the
Appalachian Basin.
An internal diesel engine irovides power to
drive the air compres,ing unit itself.
Specially silenced compre! sors exist. These
units are capable of mezting EPA noise
restrictions for industrial compressors (76
dBA at 22 feet) and have sufficiently high
delivery rate and op =rating pressure
capacities for oil ard gas drilling
applications. Considen ition should be
given to the use of these u wits wherever rig-
site noise levels may be a c toncern.
Compressor output is USI ally expressed in
 Table 2-2. Predicted Eottomhole Annular and Standpipe Pressures at V orious
Penetration Rates in a 6,000 Foot Dry, Air Drilled Hole.

300 88 114 167

180

160

140 -a -Standpipe Pressure (Without Nozzles) ___-

2 100
3
v)
VI
2 80
n

60 - _ _ _ _ ~

40

20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Penetration Rate (ftlhr)

Figure 2-5. Predicted standpipe pressures as functions of penetration rat'?, for a bit
with and without nozzles, in a 6000 foot deep, air drilled hole.

-
2-I7
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-6. A typical layout of an air compression system, (modified ffi P r n Cooper, et
al., 197724).
terms of the free volume that the output air
would occupy under the prevailing input
conditions. Delivery capacities of 750 to
1,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) are
common in oilfield applications.
Compressor output is sometimes expressed
in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).
This is the volume that the air delivered by
the compressor in one minute would occupy
under standard conditions of temperature
and pressure (STP, 60°F and 14.7 psia).
When expressed in scfm, the output
decreases with increasing altitude and
temperature because of the accompanying
reduction in density of the free air drawn
into the compressor. Assuming that air
behaves as an ideal gas, the volume, VI,
occupied by a given quantity of air at
pressure, P1 (psia), and temperature, T I ( O F ) ,
is related to the volume, VO, at standard
pressure (14.7 psia) and temperature (60°F
or 520"R) by:
2-18
14.7(TI + 460)
v, = v, 520 P,
(2.28)
The air delivery rate, Qo,el pressed in scfm,
can be found from the free iir delivery rate,
Q, (cfm), the ambient press Ire, P (psia), and
the temperature T("F), usin ;:
520 P,
(2.29)
Qo = 14.7(T,+460)
The influence of reduced ambient pressure
on air delivery rate, due to operating at high
elevations, can be significimt in some parts
of the United States. Appe idix A includes a
table showing normal atm >spheric pressure
as a function of elevatior. As a rule-of-
thumb, atmospheric press ire decreases by
0.5 psi for each 1,000 leet of elevation
increase. In the Rocky Mountains, it is not
unusual to have wells loc: ted at 6,000 feet
above sea level, where the ambient pressure
is around 11.8 psia. At this elevation, a
compressor rated at 1,000 scfm free air
delivery will deliver only 803 scfm, if the
ambient temperature is 60°F. The influence
of temperature on delivery rate is smaller,
but not necessarily negligible. Considering
the same well location, if the ambient air
temperature is 100"F, the delivery rate will
drop further to 745 scfm. The wellsite
elevation and ambient temperature should
therefore be considered when determining
compressor requirements.
Wellsite elevation can have a further impact
on compressor output because of its effect
on the power generated by the compressor's
diesel engine. Lyons, 1984,20 indicate that
the power output of internal combustion
engines decreases linearly with increasing
altitude. A normally aspirated diesel engine
will lose 22 percent of its sea-level power
rating when operated at an altitude of 6,000
feet; a turbo-charged engine will lose
approximately 15 percent of its power
rating. This will be significant if the
compressors are to be operated close to both
their volumetric delivery and pressure
ratings.
Measurements of compressor delivery rates,
made with an orifice meter during field
operations, have indicated that the delivery
rate actually achieved by different
compressors can vary between 50 and 95
percent of rated capacity. A common
average is 70 to 75 percent of the rated inlet
capacity. The efficiency of the compressor
is primarily a function of how well it has
been maintained. As a result, it is not
possible to determine the discharge volume
simply by measuring the compressor rpm.
An orifice meter is the only practical way to
determine actual volumes delivzred to the
standpipe.
Very often, two or more comlressors are
used to provide the required flow rate.
Depending on the daily rent 11 rate for
compressors, in comparison to th e total daily
drilling cost, there can be adiantages in
having an extra compressor In site, in
addition to those necessary t , give the
desired flow rate. In this way, one
compressor can be pulled out ol service for
maintenance without impedii ig drilling
Operations.
Single stage compressors typic illy have a
maximum discharge pressure o . about 135
psi. Most compressors that are used for air
drilling are multi-stage (usually wo-stage in
the case of rotary screw compres sors). These
have maximum discharge prc ssures that
range from 250 to 350 psi. In many
instances, this pressure capacity is sufficient
for dry air drilling. However, particularly
when drilling deeper wells, wlien using a
downhole motor or a percussion hammer, or
when significant water inflows a re expected,
the required air delivery pressun can exceed
the pressure rating of ( onventional
compressors. The booster is the1 I used.
Boosters
Boosters are essentially positive
displacement pumps (compressc rs) that take
the output of the compressor(:) and boost
the pressure to as high as 1,500 1 )si. Boosters
for oilfield use are either sinl,le- or two-
stage. Single-stage boosters are usually
adequate only for lower pressur1 ; operations.
Almost all of the boosters in the
Appalachian area are single stage. In
combination with the 107 r' pressure
compressors used in this region, the total
2-19
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
system can typically operate at a maximum
pressure of about 500 psi for extended
periods. They are capable of higher
pressures but not for long periods of time.
The high compression ratio causes excessive
heat that can damage the booster. The
majority of the boosters available from air
drilling service companies are two-stage and
are capable of sustaining much higher
delivery pressures. A typical two-stage
booster system can operate for extended
periods, at 1500 psi, without overheating.
Normally one booster unit will have
sufficient volume capacity for most air
drilling operations. If necessary, two or more
boosters can be run in parallel to handle
higher flow rates. The booster is always
required to unload water from casing after
cementing.
Air Header and Valves
A large diameter, ideally 4 inches, hose or
pipe, with a pressure rating matching or
exceeding the booster’s should be used to
take the air from the compression system to
the rig’s standpipe manifold. This is
sometimes termed the air header. The
compressors are often connected to this line
with ball valves, to avoid problems if it is
necessary to take one out of service.
Similarly, ball valves are usually used to
isolate the lower pressure portion of the
compression system from possible flowback
through the booster when that is shut down.
Check valves in these latter locations can
provide an additional degree of security
should there be concerns about possible
operator error.
There should be a valve for venting the
compressor end of the delivery line. It is
also advisable to install a pressure relief
valve, set to open just above the delivery
2-20
pressure rating, in ordei to protect the
compressors. If a booster is installed in the
circulating system, provisim has to be made
for venting high air pressires between the
booster and the standpiFe. Since these
pressures can potentially be 1,500 psi or
more, attention must be pai d to how the high
pressure vent line is sited a id restrained.
Mist and Soap Pumps
Figure 2-6 shows mist a n i foamers (soap)
pumps. These are not str ctly required for
dry air drilling. However mist pumps are
always required when unlo iding casing after
cementing, even if the well is later dried out
and dusted to TD. All air packages have a
mist pump. Also, the pxsibility always
exists that it will be neczssary to switch
from dry air to mist cr foam as the
circulating fluid, in which :ase these pumps
will be needed. Further dctails are given in
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 on mist and foam
drilling, respectively.
It should be possible, wten necessary, to
divert air from the air headx, directly to the
blooie line, through a bypa: s line, so that the
compressors can be kept running during
connections. The bypass i ; sometimes also
referred to as a blow-down line. There
should be a second, bleed off line between
the standpipe and thl: blooie line,
downstream of the bypass line, to allow air
pressure in the standpipe ar d drillstring to be
bled down before makin g a connection.
Two-inch diameter pipe ; are normally
adequate for both bypass a id bleedoff lines.
It may be possible to arral ge the standpipe
manifold to provide the net ‘essary control of
air flow. If not, suitable valves that can be
operated from the rig floor, must be
installed.
If there is any potential of having to circulate
air down the annulus, a connection with
appropriate valving should be made from the
air delivery line to the wellhead.
It is advisable to have mud pumps rigged up
so that liquids can be circulated into the well
without delay if downhole conditions so
dictate. The mud pump delivery line can be
connected to the standpipe manifold to allow
selection of the circulating fluid. Even so, it
is advisable to install check valves in the air
and mud lines to prevent flow from one line
entering the other.
Once the circulating air reaches the
standpipe, conventional rig equipment is
used to connect to the top of the kelly (or
drillstring if the rig is fitted with a top
drive).
Drillstring
There will normally be one or two non-
return or float valves placed in the
drillstring; one near the surface and one just
above the bit. These may be flapper or dart
(piston) type valves. Both are illustrated in
Figure 2-7.
d shallower depths.
Flapper Style Dart (or Piston) Style
Figure 2-7. Drillstring float valves for
air drilling.
--
The drillstring should never be i un without
at least the lower float valve. Th s is often a
dart-type valve. It prevents cu tings from
flowing back through the bit when they
could plug the bit, or any downhc le motor or
hammer that might be in use. In he absence
of a string float, the lower float prevents any
flow from the annulus back up tfe string. It
also prevents flow of gas up thr drillstring
while tripping.
The upper float is commonly :ermed the
string float. This is usually a flapper-type
valve. It prevents most of the #:ompressed
air in the drillstring from being ICst at the rig
floor when a connection is made. It reduces
the time required to bleedoff the iir pressure
in the string, and thereby reduc1:s the time
taken to make a connection. It is not
normally necessary when standpipe
pressures are low. Typically, a string float
will not be added to the string ur til the well
depth reaches 3,000 to 4,000 'eet. If a
downhole motor or percussion h: mmer is in
use, the standpipe pressure will be higher
than for conventional rotary drilling
operations. In these instances, a string float
will often be added to the diillstring at
It is common practice to remove the spring
that closes the flapper valve in the string
float before it is put in the string When the
standpipe manifold is opened to )leedoff air
pressure before making a connec ion, the air
flow up the string will close the \. alve. Then,
after the air pressure below the valve has
bled down through the annulus the valve
will fall open. Thus, if the flipper valve
spring has been removed, it is possible to
run wireline tools through the strmg float. It
is possible to run inclination s irvey tools
through the string float in this wzy, although
2-21
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
great care has to be exercised when pulling
the survey tool back up through the float
valve. Alternatively, the string can be
tripped, the float valve removed and the
string run back to bottom before taking a
survey. The string float will then be
installed at the surface before resuming
drilling operations.
Custom-modified float valves can be
included in the drillstring to prevent the flow
of air down the drillstring in the event of a
downhole fire (refer to Figure 2-8). A fire
stop will normally be run near the top of the
collars. This is basically an inverted flapper
valve, in which the flap is held open by a
zinc ring. If a downhole fire occurs, the zinc
ring melts and allows the flap valve to close.
As with the conventional flapper valve run
FIRE STOP
I FIRE FLOAT-Normal Condltion
Figure 2-8. Drillstring floats for air drilling; fire stop and fire flo 3t valves.
near the top of this string, the fire stop does
not obstruct the inner bore of the drillstring;
wireline tools can safely >e run through it
when it is open. A fire f oat is a modified
dart-type float valve, ru11 instead of the
conventional lower float. Under normal
circumstances, it fun :tions like a
conventional dart-type va ve. It opens in
response to air pressure ir the string above
the valve and closes when irculation is shut
down. If there is a fire downhole, the zinc
ring melts, allowing a s1c:eve to close the
flow ports in the valve body, preventing
flow in either direction thrc lugh the valve.
Return System
A conventional open bel nipple will not
direct the returning air f l a w away from the
rig substructure. Additio Tal equipment, a
FIRE FLOAT-Downhole Fire
diverter, is required above the Blowout
Preventer (BOP) stack to do this. Although
it is possible to use various types of
equipment as a diverter, it is now normal to
use either a rotating head or a rotating BOP.
These are shown in Figure 2-9. Both of
these use elastomeric elements to seal
around the kelly and direct the return flow
laterally through the outlet and into the
blooie line. The principal difference
between these two types of diverters is that
the sealing element in a rotating head is
actuated by the air pressure that it seals,
whereas the element in a rotating BOP is
actuated hydraulically. Typically, rotating
heads have a pressure limitation of 500 psi,
and rotating BOPS can seal higher pressures,
up to 1,500 psi while drilling (2000 psi
static).23 It is important that both are
operated according to their manufacturers'
recommendations.+ Unacceptably rapid
wear of the seal element and mechanism will
occur if the axis of the diverter is not aligned
directly with the center of the rotary table or
if lubrication is inadequate.
The diverter system does not remove the
need for a conventional BOP stack. This
should comply with local regulatory
requirements. At a minimum, it should
contain pipe and blind rams so that the well
can be shut in with the string in or out of the
well. For gas wells at least, the pipe and
blind rams should be able to support the
highest anticipated formation fluid pressure.
Where it can be accommodated beneath the
rig floor, it is desirable to have a full stack
consisting, from the wellhead up, of pipe
rams, blind rams, pipe rams and annular.
This provides operational flexibility. For
example, it allows stripping pipe back into
Higher rated devices are now availabIe.
the well under pressure if high pressure is
encountered that cannot be conta ned within
the lower pressure capacity of the diverter.
The returning air flow is taker from the
diverter to a flare pit through the blooie line
(Figure 2-10). Ideally, the blooie line should
be oriented at 45" away from the Lirection of
the prevailing wind, and must be firmly
restrained along its full length. I should be
sufficiently long that any flared o r unignited
gases and cuttings are kept well away from
the rig. Regulations often set E minimum
length of 100 or 150 feet for the dooie line,
but lengths of up to 300 feet have been
recommended.
If the diameter of the blooie line i i too large,
cuttings may not be efficient y carried.
Conversely, if it is too narrow, tlle pressure
drop down the line can become excessive.
As a rule-of-thumb, the blooie lir e diameter
should have a cross-sectional a-ea that is
equal to that in the annulus over he longest
section of hole to be drilled with air. Most
blooie lines are 7-inch or 8 5/8-iiich casing.
Seven-inch casing would have the same
cross-sectional area as a 7 7/8-ir ch by 4%-
inch annulus. An 8 5/8-inch Jlooie line
would have a cross-sectional area equivalent
to a 9 1/8-inch by 4Yz-inch ann ilus. It is
unusual for a blooie line to have an internal
diameter greater than nine inchc s. Larger
diameter blooie lines are very heavy and
difficult to rig up. Cranes may 1)e required
to set very large diameter lines in place. It is
normal for the blooie line to ha re a cross-
sectional area that is less than t le annulus
when drilling surface hole. F gure 2-1 1
shows frictional pressures losses, calculated
for typical, 150 foot long blooie 'ines, made
from 7-inch and 8 5/8-inch casin ;. Even at
2-23
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

w
Rotating Head

Quickchange packer
assembly
- = A , ,rKelly dtiver
assembly

Hydraulic fluld Inlet

Inner packer

Outer packer

Beatings

Mechanical seal -
11 id retu n
Outlet flange

Rotating Blowout Preventer

Figure 2-9. Diverters; rotating head and rotating blowout preventer (af er Cooper et ai.,
1977t4and courtesy of Signa Engineering Corporation).

2-24
 Rotating Head

-Dual Ram BOP

Figure 2-10. BIooie Line.

3.5

0.5

0
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000

Flow Rate (scfm)

Figure 2-1 1. Frictional pressure losses down two different 150 foot long blc oie lines.

4000 scfm, the friction losses for the 8 5/8-
inch line are only 1 psi and would not be
detrimental to drilling operations. The 7-
inch blooie line has a friction loss of 3 psi at
4000 scfm. This will have a slightly greater
effect on drilling operations.
The bypass line should be connxted to the
primary jet, which is located inside the
blooie line. When air is pumped through the

2-25
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
bypass line during a trip, the primary jet
reduces pressure in the blooie line. Provided
that the pressure decrease is sufficient, this
will pull any produced gas flowing from the
well into the blooie line and away from the
rig floor. The rotating head is always kept in
place when making a connection so that any
gas flow is automatically diverted into the
blooie line without having to rely on the
primary jet.
Figure 2-12 shows the most effective way to
install a primary jet. It should be located at
a distance of about four times the blooie
line's internal diameter from the exhaust
end.24 This location maximizes the pressure
drop in the blooie line for any given air flow
rate through the jet. If it is much closer to
the exhaust end, the air stream from the jet
will not have expanded to the full internal
diameter of the blooie line. On the other
hand, if the primary jet is placed farther up
the blooie line, the pressure decrease is
reduced by the friction losses downstream of
the jet.
Cuttings will eventually erode the tube
extending into the blooie line and the jet will
have to be replaced. This jet should be
constructed of 3/4- to 1-inch diameter
tubing. To extend the useful life of the jet, it
can be covered with rubber hose. Another
method for protecting the jet is to tack weld
used tong dies on the upstream side of the
tube. In either case, the jet should be
designed so that the tube can be easily
replaced.
The bleedoff line should be connected to a
secondary jet, which is normally located at
the other end of the blooie line, close to the
diverter. A simpler design, as shown in
Figure 2-12 (b), is normally adequate for the
secondary jet.
2-26
Cooper et al., 1977,24measured the pressure
reduction that occurred while flowing air at
1200 scfm, sequentially ihrough identical
primary and secondary j e s , into a 7-inch
diameter blooie line. Wit11 the primary jet
located approximately 28 inches from the
blooie line exhaust end, . i 6 psi pressure
drop was generated at the diverter end of the
blooie line. The same flow, through the
secondary jet, located mu:h closer to the
diverter, resulted in a press re drop of only 2
psi.
If too small a diameter blc oie line is used,
the amount of gas that can be jetted out of
the wellbore can be restri :ted. When the
combined pressure drop h e to the full
production rate of gas flow ng from the well
down the blooie line excezds the pressure
drop (including momentun changes due to
the jet configuration) creaied by the jet in
use, some of the produced as will be vented
to the rig floor when the rotating head is
pulled on a trip. The pressu -e drop down the
blooie line will be higier for smaller
diameter blooie lines. Less gas can be jetted
away from the rig floor witt a smaller blooie
line than with a larger line.
In normal drilling operalions, the noise
generated by the air flow exhausting from
the end of the blooie line is low. Noise
levels can become signijicant when the
compressor delivery is byp: ssed through the
primary jet or when bleedin ;pressure off the
drillstring. In these situ itions, air flow
through the smaller diame er lines and the
primary and secondary jets xeates the noise,
rather than the exhaust f-om blooie line
itself.
A gas detector, capable c f discriminating
hydrogen sulfide and hyc rocarbon gases,
should be installed in the lllooie line, close
 1
D

~~

Blooie Line

(a) Primary Jet

b
Air flow

Blook Line

(b) Secondary Jet

3
Figure 2-12. Recommended jet construction; primary jet and secondau jet (after
Cooper, et a/., 197724).

to the diverter if at all possible. Gas
detectors located at the exhaust end of the
blooie line can be damaged by the flare if the
wind is blowing towards the rig. It is good
practice to have a similar gas detector on the
rig floor or in the substructure.
Some arrangement should be made to collect
cuttings samples. This can be done with a
valved stub line. This would normally be
approximately two inches in diameter,
leading from the bottom of the blooie line at
some convenient point along its length. A
design that has proven to be effective is
shown in Figure 2-13. A used tong die,
welded into a 3-inch to 1-inch pipe swedge,
deflects cuttings from the return flow into
the swedge, where they accumulate until the
ball valve is opened. Alternatively, if there
is no flare burning, it is possible to use a
plate downstream of the blooie line exhaust
to deflect cuttings into a suitable container.
Cuttings coming from the blooie line are
often very fine, dry dust. These pose both an
environmental and a health hazard, if they
can blow freely about the rig site. Some
form of dust control is requ red. This
normally involves dampening he cuttings
with a water spray either at the end of the
blooie line or preferably short11 before the
cuttings leave the blooie line. C ~ o p e et
r al.,
1977,24 described one system .hat used a
one-inch diameter water line discharging
into the blooie line through two jets,
separated by about eighte :n inches.
Alternatively, it is possible to use a ring
arrangement of jets, as is sometit nes used for
defoaming when drilling wii h mist or
foam.25 This provides mo-e uniform
coverage of the returning cutting i flow.
One I ich Ball Valve
Figure 2-13. Cuttings samplc catcher.

2-27
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
The exit end of the blooie line should be
above a flare pit. A pilot light should be
kept ignited in the exit air flow adjacent to
the end of the blooie line at all times when
there is any prospect of producing
hydrocarbon gas.
The requirements for flare and reserve pits
will differ from well to well. For example,
Cooper et al., 1977,24recommended a flare
pit at least 30 feet square in plan, with a
separate reserve pit. When the well is to be
drilled from surface to total depth with dry
air or mist, the reserve pit and flare pit can
be combined into one relatively small pit, as
illustrated in Figure 2-14. A separate
reserve pit is not required if this combined
pit can accommodate all produced water and
cement displacement water. If drilling mud
is to be used in addition to air or mist, a
more extensive reserve pit will be required.
Sometimes, as shown in Figure 2-15, this is
constructed separate from the flare pit. Then,
if the flare pit is not big enough to hold all of
the liquids produced when air drilling, a
spillway can be constructed to allow the
surplus, produced liquids to flow into the
reserve pits. Care is required when the well
produces a large amount of oil. All of the
oil will not burn at the end of the blooie line.
Some of the oil will burn on top of the
reserve pit. A large burn pit is best when oil
is expected.
The reserve pit wall, at the back of the
reserve or flare pit, should be far enough
from the end of the blooie line that water
unloaded from the hole will not wash it out.
When unloading cement displacement water
or produced water, the water will come out
of the end of the blooie line at a high
velocity. If the blooie line is too close to the
reserve pit wall, the water can erode a hole
2-28
and breach the reserve pit. The wall at the
back of the reserve pit should be higher than
the other walls. This hil;h wall prevents
cuttings, dust and produ :ed fluids from
drifting over the wall with t le air.
Instrumentation
Some supplementary ins rumentation, in
addition to that found or a conventional
drilling rig, is advisable for air drilling. A
low pressure gauge, with a range somewhat
greater than the compress0 . pressure rating,
should be installed in the lir delivery line,
close to the compressors. A I equivalent high
pressure gauge, with a ran ;e exceeding the
delivery pressure rating of the booster,
should be installed betweer the booster and
the standpipe.
An orifice meter should bc installed in the
air line between the boos er and the mist
pump to measure the air injection rate. An
air pressure gauge and a thermometer should
be located upstream of, t u t close to, the
orifice meter. The flow rite, Q (scfm), is
calculated from the pres sure differential
measured across the orific:, h, (inches of
water), the flowing air pressure, Pf (psia),
and the temperature, Tf (OF) by:
(2.30)
where:
F b .......orifice flow factor, ( 4ppendix B),
Fg.......R US)'.^, and,
S ......... gas gravity (1 for air 1.
The flowing air pressure can be converted
from gage to absolute press-ire by adding the
normal atmospheric pressui e for the rig-site
altitude (Appendix A).
 I' Bloole Line

Figure 2-14. Combined flareand reserve pit.

SAMPLE CATCHER
r P R I M A R V JET I FLANGE GOING
-TO FLUIDS

GAS SNIFER

a
RESERVE P I T WALL
SECONDARY JET
ROTATI NG
HEAD
BURN PIT
FROM WATER PUMP

- I
RESERVE P I T S

OPTIONAL HOOK U P
FOR MUD
FROM
STANDPIPE MAN1FOLD

RESERVE P I T S

s looc

Figure 2-15. Separate flare and reserve pits (Cooper et al., 197724).

2-29
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
A good indication of the standpipe pressure
is required. This pressure will typically be
much lower than during mud drilling
operations. A standpipe pressure gauge with
a lower range than normal, for example, 0 to
1,000 psi, should be installed. It should be
possible to isolate this value from the
standpipe if higher pressures are required.
Small changes in standpipe pressure when
air drilling can be an indication of larger
changes in bottomhole pressure. Therefore,
it is strongly recommended that the
standpipe pressure gauge should be capable
of reliably indicating any pressure change of
10 psi or more.
Operating Procedures
This section gives general guidelines on
operating procedures, when drilling with dry
air. These are guidelines only and will need
to be changed to fit specific well conditions.
Standpipe Pressure
It is important to monitor standpipe pressure
carefully when circulating or drilling ahead.
Large pressure changes downhole due to
major hole problems may only cause small
changes in standpipe pressure. For
example, Figure 2-16 is an orifice meter
chart from an air drilled hole. The well was
drilled in the Arkoma Basin, using air as the
circulating medium. The chart shows the
pressure in the air header, which is
effectively the same as the standpipe
pressure. The scale is from 0 to 500 psi. The
differential record is the differential pressure
across the orifice, on a scale of 1 to 100
inches of water. As can be seen on the chart,
the drillstring became stuck at 3:45 a.m.,
while drilling at 10,854 feet. During the
day, the circulating pressure was between
140 and 150 psi. When the drillstring
became stuck, the pressure had increased to
only 160 to 170 psi. A 20 psi pressure
2-30
increase was the differenc e between drilling
and being stuck.
Any detectable changy in standpipe
pressure should be treared as a warning
sign of a potential problem downhole, its
cause determined a m , if necessary,
appropriate corrective act ton taken.
Making Connections
Connections, when drillin; with dry air, are
a little more complicated han when drilling
with mud. Air is a comlressible fluid and
the pressure must be bled -rom the drillstring
before breaking off the kc:Ily. If this is not
done, the energy stored in the compressed
air inside the drillstring kelly hose, and
standpipe will be released violently when the
kelly is broken off. This poses a
considerable hazard to tke rig crew. The
standpipe manifold is wed to bypass the
flow from the compressors and bleed the
pressure off the drillstring. Figure 2-17 is a
schematic of a standpipe manifold. In this
figure, Valves I and 2 woiild be open during
air drilling. This would allow air to pass
into the standpipe. Valve:,3, 4 and 5 would
be closed.
After drilling the kelly dlwn, it is time to
make a connection. Urlike mud pumps,
compressors are not no mally turned off
while making a connecticn. Instead the air
is bypassed to the blooit line through the
primary jet. Valve 3 (Fig re 2-17) is opened
to allow the air to bypzss the drillstring.
Valve 2 is closed to isola-e the compressors
from the drillstring. Valve 4 is opened to
bleed the pressure off If the drillstring.
Valve 4 allows the compressed air to be
vented to the blooie ine through the
secondary jet. Once the pressure has bled
off the drillstring, thc kelly can be
disconnected and a joint a1 lded.
Figure 2-16. Meter chart from a well in the Arkoma Basin. The drillstring beci rme stuck
at 3:45 a.m. while drilling at 10,854 feet.

After the connection is made, Valve 2 is
opened first. Valves 4 and 3 are then closed.
Valve 3 is not closed before opening Valve
2 because the compressors will be shut in
and the pressure will increase rapidly.
Unlike mud drilling, it takes time for the
drillstring to re-pressurize and for returns to
be observed at the blooie line.
After adding another joint, it is very
common in air drilling operatiors to leave
the pipe on the slips until circulation is
established; Le. returns are noied at the
blooie line. Since differentia pressure
sticking is not a problem in air dr lled holes,
pipe movement is not a requirement. With
air in the annulus, the cuttings will drop to
the bottom while a connection is made. If
the volume of cuttings in the innulus is
greater than the hole volume belo\ I the bit or

2-31
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

if the cuttings bridge off at the bit, the
cuttings will fill the annulus above the bit.
As air is circulated into the annulus, the
cuttings will again be suspended in the air
column and drilling can resume. Increased
standpipe pressure when breaking
circulation is an indication that cuttings are
above the bit. When the pressure is high
enough, the cuttings wiIl start to move and
the standpipe pressure will decrease.
substantially different frcm tripping with
mud in the hole, except hat it is a much
cleaner operation. Genertlly, it is a good
idea to circulate bottoms u 3 prior to tripping
out. In an air hole, this will only take a few
minutes, since annular velxities are on the
order of 1000 to 6000 feet per minute,
depending on the depth of he well. The trip
can begin when the vo’ume of cuttings
observed at the blooie line iecreases.

Standpipe Do not drop the survey nstrument before

T o Kelly

t
tripping out of the hole. S irvey instruments
fall much too rapidly in zir. They will be
destroyed when they hit bo tom.

Any surveys should be rufi on wireline.

Unlike mud drilling, the ro ating head rubber

is left in the bowl while pu ling the drillpipe.
Any gas flowing from 1he well will be
diverted down the blooie 1 ne, keeping it off
the rig floor. Stripping thiough the rotating
head rubber is usually che iper than the cost
of fuel to keep the con pressors running
through the primary jet. [f the well is not
From M u d Bleed-Off Line Bypass Line From making gas, the rotating h :ad rubber can be
Pumps To Secondary T o Primary Compressors
Jet Jet pulled to extend its life.

Figure 2-17. Schematic of a standpipe
manifold.
Shortly after this, returns should be observed
at the blooie line. If the drillstring is picked
up before the cuttings are moved, the
cuttings can be tightly packed in the
annulus, making it more difficult or
impossible to break circulation. The
drillstring will be stuck. It is good practice
to observe circulation at the blooie line
before moving the drillstring.
Tripping
Tripping from an air drilled hole is not
Prior to pulling the bottc lmhole assembly,
the rotating head rubber is pulled. However,
collars with a diameter eqi a1 to the drillpipe
couplings can be stripped t irough the rubber
if desired. The primary jet is used to keep
gas off the rig floor after p illing the rotating
head rubber. The amount B f gas that can be
pulled down the blooie ine is extremely
variable. It depends on th: gas volume, the
gas velocity in the annuhs, the blooie line
diameter and how the primary jet was
installed (refer to the previ 3us section). It is
not uncommon to jet t w i to five million
cubic feet of gas per day down the blooie
line.

2-32
With the gas being jetted down the blooie
line, the bottomhole assembly can be pulled
and changed. Once the bottomhole
assembly is run back into the wellbore, the
rotating head rubber can be installed and the
trip continued to bottom. After reaching
bottom, it is good practice to start the air and
observe returns before starting to wash to
bottom. This should indicate whether or not
water is present in the well. If it is, the
water must be unloaded from the hole and
the hole dried before drilling can resume.
Unloading the hole is described below. With
small quantities of water in the well, it may
be possible to unload with the bit at bottom.
Otherwise, it may be necessary to stage the
string into the hole. This is also described in
the following section. Water in the hole
must be unloaded after running casing and
when formation water is encountered.
Unloading the Hole
When the casing is cemented, the cement is
displaced with water. The displacement
stage is left in the casing until the cement
sets up. In order to drill the section of the
hole below the casing with air, this water
must be unloaded from the hole. There are
two ways to unload the casing.
One method is to trip in the hole to the float
collar:
9 Start circulating water with the mud
pump(s), at a low enough rate that the
standpipe pressure remains low. Cooper
et al.,1977,24 suggested a flow rate as
low as 1.5 to 2 BPH (1 to 1.5 gpm).
9 Start up one compressor and booster.
Deliver air to the standpipe so that it
begins to aerate the water being
delivered to the standpipe by the mud
pumps. If necessary, reduce the air
deIivery rate so that the standpipe
pressure remains below the ;,ir delivery
pressure capacity.
Pump approximately 10 BPH of mist
fluid into the air flow witli the mist
pump. The mist fluid should ;ontain 0.1
to 0.25 percent, by volumc :, foaming
agent, or "soap".
After air returns to surface, reduce the
mud pump volume and increase the air
volume. As the standpipc pressure
decreases, the mud pumps ca 1 be turned
off.
Another method, staging into the hole,
unloads the hole without using mi id pumps:
9 The string should be trippei part-way
into the hole. With a float valve near the
bit, water will not enter the st ing as it is
tripped downhole. Instead, it will be
displaced into the annulus, inc reasing the
hydrostatic head and the )ottomhole
pressure.
9 Attach the kelly and start air :irculation.
The air in the drillstring will be
compressed progressively UT til the air
pressure at the float valve exceeds the
water pressure below the valve. Water
will then be lifted up the ainulus and
discharged from the blooie lin 2.
P Once water flow has stopptd, remove
the kelly and start tripping.
9 The cycle of tripping and u iloading is
repeated; unloading the hole in stages,
until the float collar is reached and the
casing is empty.
The depth to which the string should be
tripped before circulating air is partly
determined by the pressure capzcity of the
air compression system. Lo\ v' pressure
systems will not be able to unload water
2-33
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
from as deep a stage as high pressure
systems. If the delivery pressure capacity of
the air system is PmaX (psi) and the formation
water pressure gradient is 0.433 psi/ft, the
maximum stage depth, DmaX (feet), from
which water can be unloaded is:
Dm,x
PIMX
=-0.433 (2.31)
For an air pressure capacity of 350 psi, the
maximum stage depth is little more than 800
feet. With a pressure capacity of 1,500psi, it
would be possible to unload over 3,500 feet
of water per stage. This is not advisable.
Once air passes the bit and enters the
annulus, the hydrostatic pressure resisting air
circulation will reduce. The compressed air
will expand and cause the rate at which the
water is displaced from the well to
accelerate. Water discharge from the blooie
line can become very violent if the standpipe
pressure necessary to initiate water
displacement is high and significant energy
is stored in the air compressed inside the
drillstring. The high annular velocities near
the surface can damage the well and surface
equipment. For this reason, it is unusual to
unload more than 2,000 feet in any one
stage.
Even with restricted stage lengths, this
method of unloading the hole causes greater
water surges at the blooie line than when the
mud pumps are used in conjunction with the
air delivery system. The blooie line must be
securely anchored. Water surges are also
more likely to wash out the bank of the
reserve pit opposite the blooie line. To
some extent, surging can be limited by using
only one compressor and booster, until air
returns to the surface.
After unloading, the float equipment and
2-34
shoe are drilled out, using mist at about 6 to
10 BPH (refer to Se1:tion 2.4 “Mist
Drilling”). Once neyv formation is
encountered, the hole mist be dried out
before the well can be dr lled with dry air.
This should be done careft lly. Before drying
out the well, it should be circulated until the
mist comes back clean; with very few
cuttings in it. The mist pump should be
turned off.
The well is sometimes thcn “slugged” with
extra foaming agent, in an ittempt to remove
as much water as possible. To do this, the
air compressors are turned off and the kelly
is removed. Ten to tlienty gallons of
foaming agent and two t i four barrels of
water are poured down tt e drillpipe. The
kelly is re-attached, the bi is run to bottom
and air is circulated at thc rate that will be
used when drilling. The SI ig will be seen as
a stiff foam at the blooie line; like shaving
cream in consistency.
Whether or not the well is slugged with
foam, the hole should be blown with dry air
(usually for one-half hour one hour at the
most). The longer circi lating times are
required for deeper wells. If the well
continues to make water throughout this
period, it is likely that fcrmation water is
being produced and that tlle well cannot be
dried out.
When the well quits maE ing water at the
blooie line, it is ready to t e dried out. The
moisture remaining on the iipe and borehole
wall must be removed. 5imply circulating
air will not normally dry out a well in an
economically acceptable t meframe. If the
surface humidity is higk , air circulation
alone may never entirely cry the hole. The
most economical drying ag :nt is cuttings. As
cuttings travel up the well3ore, they absorb
moisture and carry it out of the hole. Drill
ahead in five to ten foot intervals, circulating
off bottom for a few minutes between each
interval. While circulating off bottom after
each interval, pass a tool joint to make sure
that the drillstring can be moved freely. This
will indicate that no mud ring is forming
(the formation of mud rings, their detection
and treatment are described below).
The well should start dusting (returning dry
cuttings to the surface), before more than 30
feet have been drilled. If the well is only
making a little water, two to three joints may
need to be drilled down before it starts
dusting. If the well does not start dusting
after drilling 90 feet, the well is making too
much water. In this case, the prospect of
further dry air drilling should be abandoned
and mist drilling should be adopted. The
total time required to dry out the hole
depends on depth. It should not exceed two
to six hours.
Economics of drilling can be improved if
unloading and tripping is done more rapidly.
Williams, 1997, (personal communication),
provided an example of how a top drive rig
can reduce required times, since connections
can be broken every ninety feet rather than
every thirty feet. A comparison is shown in
Figure 2-18.
An example of a slightly different unloading
protocol is included in Chapter 7, Section 7-6
(Graham, 1997, personal communication).
Water Inflows While Drilling
Water will flow into the wellbore when a
permeable, water-bearing formation, or a
water-bearing fracture system, is penetrated.
As water enters the wellbore, it will be
broken up into droplets that are lifted out of
the hole; much like cuttings arc:. The dry
cuttings will tend to absorb wlter as they
travel up hole. They can effecti. rely dry the
’
well if the water inflow is slight.2
There is a dangerous regime wht n a modest
water inflow occurs. This moistens the
cuttings and they tend to build UF into a mud
ring. A mud ring can stick thl: drillstring
and may lead to a downhole fi-e. Higher
inflow rates saturate the cuttings and reduce
their tendency to agglomerate is a sticky
mass that forms a mud ring. A this stage,
water droplets are likely to be jeen in the
return air flow at the end of the blooie line.
If the inflow rate increases, the a r flow may
ultimately be incapable of se1 arating the
water into droplets downhole. At this point,
flow tends to “slug”; the water s lifted out
of the well as discrete volumes or slugs.
These slugs of water can aggrav: te wellbore
instability problems as they pass uphole. If
the flare/cuttings pit has earth lvalls, these
may be damaged or cut out by water slugs
when they reach the ~ u r f a c e . ~
Water inflows cause the standpj pe pressure
to increase because of the increa5e in density
of the air/cuttings/water mixture flowing up
the annulus. A pressure increas; of five to
ten psi can accompany an inflov, with the
potential to form mud rings.” This can
occur before any water is detected at the
blooie line. If slug flow ~)ccurs, the
standpipe pressure will show 1 irge surges
(50 psi or more24) due to thc additional
hydrostatic head of the water in t‘le hole.
The consequences of water infliw and the
required remedial action depend on the
amount of water flowing into the well. Small
water inflows are not readily detc cted. Water
may not be seen at the surface be cause it can
2-35
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

200

180

160

-
L
140

En 120

100

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Connection Time (minutes)

Figure 2-18. An example comparison of effective ROP when a top dri le rig is used.

be absorbed downhole by the cuttings. The
first indication of a small water inflow is
usually that the well will stop dusting; i.e.
the discharge of cuttings at the blooie line
will stop. This is not always easy to detect.
In most air drilling operations, the dust is
suppressed with water at the blooie line, and
no change will be visible from the drilling
floor. Careful and frequent checking of the
sample catcher will reveal if cuttings return
has stopped, since the catcher should be
upstream of the deduster.
A small water inflow has the potential to
stick the drillstring, unless it is caught in
time. The water mixes with the cuttings
downhole and creates a mud-like slurry of
moistened cuttings. Since cuttings transport
efficiency is lowest at the top of the drill
collars, the slurry of cutt ngs will tend to
accumulate here, on the crillstring and the
walls of the hole. The clearance in the
annulus progressively del :reases until the
annulus is blocked and the drillstring is
stuck. This restriction is mown as a mud
ring. This is illustrated in I Yigure 2- 19.
The sooner the formation of a mud ring is
detected, the less likely it is that the
drillstring will become stuck. The formation
of a mud ring can be detec ed by an increase
in standpipe pressure. Si ice the mud ring
forms a restriction in the annulus, it
increases the frictional pre: sure losses and in
turn increases the standpipt pressure.
While an increase in stanjpipe pressure is
not always associated with the formation

2-36

Figure2-19. Cuttings mixed with a
small amount of water will form a mud
ring at the top of the drill collars where
hole cleaning is critical.
of a mud ring, it should be considered as a
warning of potential problems. If the
standpipe pressure increases, stop drilling
and check to see if the well is still dusting
properly. If the well has quit dusting, there
is a good chance that a mud ring has
formed. Cuttings are one of the primary
ingredients necessary to form a mud ring.
By stopping drilling, additional cuttings will
not be generated. Any mud ring will be
inhibited from growing further and
becoming more serious.
String Washouts
Although string washouts are not especially
common when air drilling, they can cause
problems. They occur when a hole develops
in the drillstring, allowing air to escape into
the annulus without passing through the bit.
The washout may be due to a fully-
penetrating fatigue crack, in the pipe itself or
in the tool joint, or due to a poo . seal at the
threaded connection.
In dry air drilling, the cuttini s-laden air
flowing at high velocity up the ar nulus tends
to erode the drillstring. This erosion is
concentrated at the lower portion i of the tool
joints. The tool joints also tend .o wear due
to rotating contact with the hole wall. Since
there is no lubricating liquid, abrasive wear
occurs more rapidly than if mud 'vas present.
Dry air drilling is also assoc:iated with
greater downhole vibration than if mud was
in the hole. These vibration: are often
attributed to dramatically low er viscous
damping of string motions in ai-.7,26 As a
consequence, fatigue cracks can initiate and
propagate more rapidly in air dri' ling than in
conventional mud drilling operat ons.
Washouts associated with poor seals may
deteriorate more slowly and n a y be less
troublesome when drilling with air than with
mud. The air flow down thl: pipe and
through the washout should not Zontain any
solids. As a result, metal around the
leakage path is not eroded away :s rapidly as
it would be by mud. Air drillinl, operations
can continue for extended pt riods with
minor string washouts at poor connection
seals. In a mud drilled hole, wishouts can
be found in a drillstring that is u: ed after the
string has been used for air drillir g.
When a washout occurs in a i w d drilled
well, standpipe pressure reduces. When this
is detected, the string is tripped wet. When
the washout comes through th: rig floor,
mud will flow out of it. TI-e rig crew
removes the section(s) of pip: with the
washout and returns to bottom.
In air drilling operations, a wasiout is also
2-37
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
indicated by a reduction in the standpipe
pressure, although the pressure change is
smaller than it would be with mud. Finding
the washout is difficult because the
drillstring cannot be pulled wet. Attempts
should be made to locate suspected
washouts. Trip out of the hole and install
small jets in the bit. Attach the bottomhole
collar to the kelly and record the standpipe
pressure, while circulating with the
compressors and booster. Trip the drillstring
in the hoIe and periodically (every five to six
stands) pick up the kelly and observe the
standpipe pressure while circulating. A
substantial reduction in the standpipe
pressure indicates that the washout was in
the last section of pipe run. Pipe is pulled
from the hole, testing each stand. When the
standpipe pressure increases, the washout is
in the last stand pulled. Now it is a matter of
finding which joint or connection contains
the washout so that it can be laid down.
Overall, this is a time consuming process.
There is a temptation to drill ahead until the
string parts and then fish for the parted
string. This can be a dangerous strategy if
the string parts when being tripped. The fish
will fall more rapidly through air than
through mud. It is more likely to corkscrew
inside the hole when it hits bottom. Cooper
et al., 1977,24noted that these corkscrewed
fish can be very difficult to retrieve. If it is
believed that the washout is so severe that
the string could part when tripped, they
recommended that no attempt be made to
trip the string. Instead, they suggested the
following procedure.
> Set the bit on bottom.
> Locate the washout by reverse
circulating air and running a wireline
spinner tool inside the string.
> Adjust the neutral point and back off the
2-38
string below the wash )ut. This should
leave a readily-retrieve4Ifish.
Limitations of Dry Air I killing
The three main limitations of dry air drilling
are water inflows, dow ihole fires, and
wellbore instability.
Water Inflows
The flow of water into a 'vel1 being drilled
with dry air can cause problems that are
significant enough to preclude dry air
drilling.
Methods are available tc shut off water
inflow. All involve attempting to inject
material into the formation that is producing
water, where it sets to form a barrier to water
flow. The oldest, establish :d technique is to
squeeze cement into the water producing
zone. This is only likely t ) be successful if
the water is flowing from natural fractures;
cement is unlikely to entei matrix porosity.
Hower et al., 1958,27 descr,bed field trials of
two different water shutoff systems. One of
these was based on a rcsin and catalyst
system, which could be use 1either neat or in
a slurry containing inert silids for bulking
and for fluid loss control. Water further
catalyzed the resin setting, which tended to
restrict preferential channc ling of the resin
into the most permeable zones. The set
resin had a compressive :trength of 2,000
psi, giving it the ability to shut off
substantial water flows on:e set. The neat
slurry could be squeezed iito the matrix of
reasonably permeable fon iations, although
it seemed to be more suitilble for fractured
zones. The other water shitoff system they
described was a watei -based polymer
solution that set as a stiff ;el. This system
had a lower initial viscosi y, allowing it to
enter low permeability zcnes. Core tests
showed that the gel was c2pable of sealing
differential water pressures of up to 2,000
psi.
Particularly in the case of cement or resin-
based treatments, high pressures have to be
applied to squeeze the treatment into the
formation. These pressures can jeopardize
wellbore integrity. Treatment is less likely
to be successful if the formation is fractured
during the squeeze. The open fracture(s)
will accept the shut-off material at the
expense of the water-producing
permeability. Water shut-off methods that
rely on liquid material setting all involve a
waiting period of several hours after
placement to set, before it will resist water
flow and the wellbore pressure can be
reduced.
There are several water shut-off methods
that use gas. One requires pumping an
aluminum sulfate solution into the
formation, followed by gaseous ammonia.28
These react to form a solid aluminum
hydroxide precipitate, in the formation. This
obstructs porosity and shuts off the water
flow. The gas and liquid tend to effectively
mix inside the formation's porosity.
Ammonia has a low vapor pressure and
liquefies at quite low pressures. If the
interval to be treated is deeper than one or
two hundred feet, it may be necessary to use
a mixture of ammonia and an inert gas, such
as nitrogen or natural gas, to avoid
liquefaction due to the injection pressure. In
this case, it has been suggested that a second
liquid treatment should follow the gas
injection. Otherwise, the quantity of
precipitate may be insufficient to shut-off
the water flow.
This shutoff method has several advantages.
It does not require any waiting time for
setting and there is no significaiit risk of it
setting prematurely. The materi: 1s involved
are also inexpensive (but, gaseoi s ammonia
is toxic). However, it does not seem to be
particularly successful in fractured
formations and care needs to t e taken to
avoid fracturing while treating. It has been
suggested2* that injection pressi ires should
not exceed 0.6 psi/ft.
Another water shutoff method2' uses only
gaseous silicon tetrafluoride. ' rhis reacts
with formation water to generate a blocking
precipitate of hydrated silicon d ioxide. In
formations containing calcium, nagnesium
or sodium salts, additional I olids will
precipitate and further con ribute to
blocking. Laboratory tests have shown that
Berea sandstone cores pluggej by this
method retained only one percent of their
untreated permeability, even whe 1 subjected
to a pressure differential of 4,00( psi. Field
treatments involve pumping a si earhead of
liquid hydrocarbon or a non-re active gas,
such as air or nitrogen, folloved by the
silicon tetrafluoride, and finall! tailing-in
with additional inert gas or a ribber plug
and water.
With all of these water shutoff systems, a
single packer has to be set above the zone to
be treated if it is close to the hole bottom, or
a straddle packer has to be set across the
zone. In either case, the water producing
zone must be located accurately. This may
require wireline logging. Treat nents take
time, particularly if they involve cement or
resin placement. A shutoff tIsatment is
probably only worth considering f there is a
substantial interval still to be drill :d with dry
air and the operator can be cor fident that
further water producing zones ryrill not be
encountered between the treatec zone and
-
2-39
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
the projected end of the air drilled interval.
The usual response to a water influx is to
switch from dry air to mist or foam. This
can lift the inflowing water, without
slugging or mud ring formation. The
produced water still has to be handled at the
surface and disposed of in an acceptable
manner. The cost of this can outweigh the
reduction in drilling costs for underbalanced
drilling. Conventional mud drilling may
become more cost effective.26
Downhole Fires
The possibility for downhole fires is a
potential limitation on the use of dry air
drilling. Fires occur when a mixture of oil
or natural gas and air, with the hydrocarbon
concentration in a combustible regime, is
exposed to an ignition source. A igniti~n.~
concentration of five to fiiften percent
natural gas is combustible at atmospheric
pressure. The upper limit is extended with
increasing pressure, reaching thirty
percent when the pressure is 300 psi.
Figure 2-20 shows the influence of pressure
on the combustible regime, for a typical
natural gas. These limits vary somewhat
with gas composition. Consider a typical air
drilling flow rate of 2,000 scfm.
Combustion limits suggest that gas inflows
of 100 to 600 scfm (144 to 864 MscfD)
would be required for a combustible mixture
to occur during normal air drilling.
However, as reported by Cooper et al.,
1977,24 and by Grace and Pippin, 1989,30
most downhole fires are preceded by
formation of a mud ring that obstructs air
flow. Carden, 1993,26 has noted that
downhole fires have not occurred when dry
gas is encountered while drilling with dry
air. Some liquid, either water or oil, had to
be present. The role of the liquid in causing
2-40
a fire is presumably to moisten the cuttings,
permitting the formation of a mud ring.
Once flow is obstructed, tht: air pressure will
rapidly rise to the delivery pressure limit of
the compressor system. This increases the
temperature of the gas below the mud ring.
Since air flow has been obs:ructed, even low
hydrocarbon inflow rates c;in rapidly lead to
combustible mixtures. Onc 2 the gas mixture
is in the combustiblf' regime, the
compression itself can often ignite the
mixture. Sparking, fron I the drillstring
rubbing against the borehole wall,
particularly where the ro:k penetrated is
strong and has a high qu,u-tz content, can
ignite the gas mixture. Fric:tional heating of
the string by air flow thro igh pinholes has
also been cited as a potcntial sources of
Downhole fires can be Tery difficult to
detect since the combustic n rarely reaches
the surface. It may be nccessary to run a
temperature survey through the drillstring to
confirm that a fire has occi rred. Downhole
fires usually melt the d rillstring at the
combustion site. It has bet n reported24that
slag from a downhole fire could be blown
several hundred feet uphol:. The damaged
string can be very difficult to fish and
downhole fires usually requ ire sidetracking.
Obvious ways to avoid a cownhole fire are
to prevent formation of a combustible
mixture and to remove the source of
ignition. Changing the circ :dation medium,
from air to natural gas or in inert gas, will
prevent the formation ol a combustible
mixture. This may not be economically or
logistically feasible. . 'reventing the
formation of mud rings will effectively
avoid downhole fires. Probably the most
common method used to avoid a fire when
 400

350

300

250
.-Q
h

v)
P
v
0
5 200
v)

E
v)

n
150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40

Natural Gas in Mixture ("!by Volume)

Figure 2-20. Effect of pressure on combustible concentrations of natural gi 4
s in air.

natural gas is encountered is to use mist
rather than dry air.24
Cooper et al., 1977,24recommended steps to
minimize the probability of a downhole fire.
First, attentive monitoring of the standpipe
pressure is necessary. An increase of five to
ten psi, without any accompanying increase
in compressor output, can indicate the onset
of mud ring formation or a gas inflow. Once
a mud ring has developed fully, the flow of
air and cuttings from the blooie line will
stop. By then, the string may be stuck or a
fire may already have startec. If the
standpipe pressure increasl :s when
approaching a possible gas beari ig zone, or
when there is a gas show at the f are pit, the
following steps should be taken:
P Stop drilling.
> Shut off the air and monitor t le gas flare
at the pit. If the flare contini es to burn,
any of the following indicaizs that the
gas is wet: wet cuttings, b1,ick smoke,
yellow flame, sparking at the blooie line
exit (the last three conditio IS indicate
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
condensate).
P If the flare does not continue to bum
with the air shut off, resume air
circulation and determine if the gas is
wet, using the indicators in (2) above.
DO NOT DRILL. New cuttings will
promote the formation of a mud ring.
Reciprocate the string to avoid formation
of a mud ring.
P If the gas is wet, switch to mist or
natural gas drilling.
P If the gas is dry, drill ahead in five to ten
foot intervals, reciprocating the string
between intervals. Continue to do this
until it is certain that there is no further
possibility for wet gas to be encountered.
Wellbore Instability
Dry air drilling usually leads to the lowest
wellbore pressures of any drilling method.
These low wellbore pressures can cause
mechanically-induced instability, especially
in weak formations. Alternatively, if there is
a significant water inflow with water-
sensitive shales exposed uphole, it is
possible for the produced water to cause
wellbore instability as it is lifted out of the
well.
Wellbore instability, during air drilling, is
especially problematic when large fragments
of rock break away or slough from the
borehole wall. In most cases, the sloughed
rock fragments are much larger than the
drilled cuttings. Fragments, as large as 1.5
inches in diameter, may come over the shale
shakers in a mud drilled hole. Figure 2-21
shows how particle terminal velocity (under
standard conditions, computed using
Equation (2.2)) increases with increasing
particle size. Terminal velocities of these
large rock fragments can be much higher
than the 3,000 feet per minute annular
2-42
velocity used in Angel s predictions of
recommended air flow .ates. The rock
sloughing fragments will lot be lifted from
the well by circulation rate j normally used in
air drilling.
Those fragments that are too large to be
lifted from the well will remain downhole
until grinding action of the string breaks
them down into particles sufficiently small
to be lifted by the circulating air. If the rate
of sloughing exceeds the rate at which the
debris is broken up dou nhole, fragments
will accumulate and eventually stick the
string. This process is axelerated by the
increased concentration of rock fragments in
the air flowing up the annu us. The resulting
increase in air pressure rehces the annular
velocity and progressivel! leads to poorer
hole cleaning so that eren smaller rock
particles cannot be remov:d from the hole.
Sloughing from the boi ehole wall also
increases the hole diametl :r. This reduces
annular velocity and furtf er degrades hole
cleaning.
The time, over which the tnnulus packs off
with enough rock particlef for the string to
become stuck, depends on the rate at which
the formation sloughs, he size of the
sloughed rock fragments, and the rate at
which they can be ground L p downhole.
If the formation sloughs loo fast or in big
pieces, air drilling must be terminated. It is
unlikely that the air circul2tion rate can be
increased sufficiently to lj ft enough of the
sloughed rock fragments f -om the borehole
to prevent the annulus from eventually
packing off. Furthermoi e, the increased
annular velocity will tend tc ) increase the rate
at which rock fragments ale dislodged from
the borehole wall. A diilling fluid with
greater lifting capacity an( higher wellbore
 8000

7000

-.-
C
6000
E
5000
.-E0
9 4000
>”
-
.- 3000

---I
E8

-*---I-
I
t- 2000

1000

0 I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Particle Diameter (inches)

Figure2-21. Terminal velocity as a function of parficle size at standard conditions

(assuming a drag coefficient of 0.85).

pressures must be used. procedure, still considered exper mental, has

Other Limitations
Other factors that can restrict the use of air
drilling are higher friction between the
drillstring and the wellbore, and the
difficulties in operating conventional
downhole motors and MWD systems with
compressible drilling fluids. These are
normally only relevant to directional wells.
Reverse Circulation Air Drilling
Some of the problems described in this
section on conventional air drilling may be
overcome or mitigated by reversing the
circulation of the air. In this procedure, air
is injected down the annulus and returned
with cuttings up the drillstem. This
several important advantages inc icated from
tests by Graham, 1986.31
P Reduced Damage to Permea Zle
Formations
Tests strongly suggested les: damage to
the formation than with coni entional air
drilling. Conventional air drilling, in
‘turn, normally resulted in 1 :ss damage
than conventional mud drillir g.
> Quality and Size of Drill Cui tings
Improved
Drill cuttings are larger and less
“contaminated.” With the lar :er cuttings,
it is possible to run quantitative
petrophysical analyses. This is virtually
impossible with conventiona “dusting.”

2-43
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
9 Wellbore Integrity Improved
There is a potential for reduced wellbore
damage because there is less hole
erosion by cuttings or water influx that
could promote uphole sloughing of
sensitive shale.
9 Less Air Volume Required
Tests have indicated that reverse drilling
used less air. This would be expected
2-44
since the velocity of air in the larger
annular space would nc longer be critical
to cuttings removal.
Q
7 Limitations
There is a greater likeliiood of cuttings
plugging the bit. Surface =quipment design
needs improvement. Lar,;e inflows above
the bit may cause problem in circulating
down the annulus.
References

1. Johnson, P.W.: “Design Techniques in Air and Gas Drilling: Cleaning (kiteria and
Minimum Flowing Pressure Gradients,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May 1995) 34,No. 5, 18-26.

2. Bruce, G.H., Simons, L.H. and Whitaker, W.W.: “You Can Recover Large Cu tings When
Air Drilling,” Oil and Gas J. (May 1962) 112-116.

3. Pratt, C.A. : “Modifications to and Experience with Air-Percussion Drilling,” SPE Drill.
Eng. (December 1989) 3 15-320.

4. Zenz, F.A. and Othmer, D.F.: Fluidization and Fluid-Partick Systemr , Reinhold
Publishing C o p , New York (1960).

5. Supon, S.B. and Adewumi, M.A.: “An Experimental Study of the Annulus Pr s u r e Drop
in a Simulated Air-Drilling Operation,” SPE Drill. Eng. (March 1991) 74-80.

6. Hagar, J.M., Tian, S., Adewumi, M.A. and Watson, R.W.: “An Experimenlal Study of
Particle Transport in a Deviated Wellbore,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (February 199:;) 34,No.2,
5 1-54.

7. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” presented it the 1995
ASME Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, January 30- February 1.

8. Gray, K.E.: “The Cutting Carrying Capacity of Air at Pressures Above At nospheric,”
paper SPE 874-G, Pet. Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 180-185.

9. Machado, C.J. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Experimental Determination of Solids Frictioi I Factor and
Minimum Volumetric Requirements in Air and Gas Drilling,” paper SPE 9938 xesented at
the 1981 California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA.

10. Weymouth, T.R.: “Problems in Natural Gas Engineering,” Trans., ASME (19 12 ) 34, 185.
11. Angel, R.R.: “Volume Requirements for Air and Gas Drilling,” Pet. Trans., Al ME, (1957)
210, 325-330; also Volume Requirements .for Air and Gas Drilling, Gulf Pub lishing Co.,
Houston, TX (1958).

12. Guo, B., Miska, S.Z. and Lee, R. L.: “Volume Requirements for Directional A ir Drilling,’’
IADC/SPE paper 275 10 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX.

13. Nikuradse, J., “Forschungshelf,” (1933) 301.

14. Schoeppel, R.J. and Sapre, A.R.: “Volume Requirements in Air Drilling,” papc r SPE 1700
(1967).

2-45
 Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

15. Mitchell, R.F.: “Simulation of Air and Mist Drilling for Geothermal Wt lls,” J. Pet. Tech.
(November 1983).
16. Puon, P.S. and Ameri, S.: “Simplified Approach to Air Drilling Opera ions,” paper SPE
13380 presented at the 1984 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, October 31-
November 2.

17. Wolcott, P.S. and Sharma, M.P.: “Analysis of Air Drilling Circulating Systems with
Application to Air Volume Requirement Estimation,” paper SPE 15931 presented at the
1986 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH.

18. Grace, R.D.: “A Field Study of Annular Pressure Losses In Rotary Drillir g with Air-Solids
Mixtures,” MSc. Thesis, University of Oklahoma.

19. Streeter, V.L.: Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1971) 33“.

20. Lyons, W.C.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Gulf Publishing Co., Houstc n, TX (1984) 46.

21. Lyons, W.C.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Gulf Publishing Co., Houstc n, TX (1984) 84.

22. Lyons, W.C.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Gulf Publishing Co., Hoiston, TX (1984)
Appendix A.

23. Cress, L.A., Stone, R. and Tangedahl, M.: “History and Development of a Rotating
Blowout Preventor,” paper IADC/SPE 2393 1 presented at the 1992 Ip DC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

24. Cooper, L.W., Hook, R.A. and Payne, B.R.: “Air Drilling Techniques,’ paper SPE 6435
presented at the 1977 Deep Drilling and Production Symposium, Amarillc I, TX.

25. Shale, L. and Curry, D.A.: “Drilling a Horizontal Well Using AirEoam T xhniques,” paper
OTC 7355 presented at the 1993 Annual Offshore Technology Conferenc :, Houston, TX.

26. Carden, R.S.: “Technology Assessment of Vertical and Horizontal Air DIilling Potential in
the United States,” Final Report, Contract No. DOE/MC/28252-3514 (D Z94000044), U.S.
DOE (August 1993).

27. Hower, W.F., McLaughlin, C., Ramos, J. and Land, J.: “Water Can be Controlled in Air
and Gas Drilling,” paper SPE 1099-G presented at the 1958 SPE Annial Fall Meeting,
Houston, TX.

28. Goodwin, R.J. and Teplitz, A.J.: “A Water Shut-off Method for Sand-Ty ,e Porosity in Air
Drilling,” paper SPE 1098-G, Pet. Trans., AIME (1959) 216,163-167.

2-46
29. Becker, F.L. and Goodwin, R.J.: “The Use of Silicon Tetrafluoride Gas as a Formation
Plugging Agent,” paper SPE 1098-G, addendum, Pet. Trans., AIME (1959) 216 168.

30. Grace, R.D. and Pippin, M.: “Downhole Fires During Air Drilling,” WorZd Oil (May 1989)
42-44.

3 1. Graham, R.L: “Exploration-Production Studies in Newly Drilled Devonian Shale Gas

Wells,” Annual Report, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL (November 1986).

2-47
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
2.2 Nitrogen Drilling
In underbalanced drilling operations,
nitrogen can be used as the drilling fluid, or
as a component of the drilling fluid. The
major advantage over air is that mixtures of
nitrogen and hydrocarbon gases are not
flammable. This removes the possibility of
downhole fires.
The circulating gas does not have to be pure
nitrogen to prevent downhole fires.
Mixtures of air, nitrogen and hydrocarbon
are not capable of combustion, provided that
the oxygen concentration is kept below a
critical level. Allan, 1994,' demonstrated
that the flammability of natural gas is quite
well represented by the flammability of
methane, which has been studied extensively
by the U.S. Bureau of mine^.^.^ At
atmospheric pressure, at least 12.8 percent
oxygen is required before it is possible to
create a flammable mixture of oxygen,
nitrogen and methane. The minimum
oxygen concentration required for a
flammable mixture is influenced by the
prevailing pressure and can be represented
by the following correlation:
O,, = 13.98 - 1.68log (P) (2.32)
where:
Omin ....percent oxygen, and,
P .........absolute pressure, psia.
This correlation is shown in Figure 2-22.
For a pressure of 3,000 psi, a mixture of
oxygen, nitrogen and methane has to contain
slightly more than eight percent oxygen to
be flammable. As Allan indicated,* this
represents the level of oxygen in the drilling
2-48
fluid, which effectively elifninates any
possibility for downhole fii es.
Hole Cleaning
Circulating nitrogen will lift cuttings and
liquid inflows, in the same way that air does.
As with air, flow in the ~nnulusis usually
turbulent. Consequently, c ensity is the fluid
property with the most iripact on cuttings
transport. Since the dens ty of nitrogen is
only slightly (about three >ercent) less than
that of air at standard temperature and
pressure, cuttings transport efficiency will be
effectively the same as it is for air at the
same surface injection rate.
When using air or nitro;;en, selecting an
injection rate is usuallj a compromise
between increased clea ning efficiency,
leading to increased overal I penetration rate,
and increased nitrogen c osts, compressor
rental and fuel charges. The cost of
increasing the nitrogen in-ection rate is far
greater than for air. The riost cost efficient
injection rate (not total C I)sts) for nitrogen
drilling will likely be lowtr than for dry air
drilling.
Equipment
The principal differences between nitrogen
and air drilling equipmert are due to the
substitution of nitrogen for air, as the
circulating fluid. There ire currently two
main methods of suppljing nitrogen for
drilling operations-cryoger ic and membrane
filter.
Cryogenic Nitrogen Suppi y
Nitrogen is widely used ir well completion,
stimulation and productioi I operations. For
these applications, nitrc bgen is usually
transported to the wellsite 3s a liquid. Since
the boiling point of licuid nitrogen, at
 12

11.5

11

10.5

10

9.5

8.5

8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 :'000
Pressure (psia)

Figure 2-22. Influence of pressure on the minimum concentration of oxyge n required

for a flammable mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and methane (ilffer Allan,
1994,' and Zabetakis, 1964').

atmospheric pressure, is -32 1O F , cryogenic
tanks are necessary for transportation to
location. A nitrogen pumping unit consists
of a diesel-driven, positive displacement
pump and a heat exchanger. The pump
takes liquid nitrogen from the cryogenic tank
and delivers it through the heat exchanger,
where heat from the pump engine's exhaust
is used to evaporate the liquid nitrogen.
There is a Jarge rental fleet of nitrogen units
available in most parts of the United States.
Various sized units are available. They have
maximum delivery rate and pressure
specifications, but generally power
restrictions will prevent them from reaching
both limits simultaneously. For example, a
small unit will typically be ablc to deliver
1,100 scfm at pressures of up tcl 3,000 psi,
but this rate will then fall if t i e delivery
pressure is increased towards ts delivery
pressure rating of 4,500 psi. Lar,;e units can
often deliver 6,000 scfm at up to 8,000 psi.
The delivery pressure of a cryogenic
nitrogen unit will not be a prob em for dry
nitrogen drilling.
For drilling applications, the nit1 ogen pump
unit replaces the bank of comFressors and
the booster. Since the nitrogen i: pumped as
a liquid and the conversion lrom liquid
volume to gas volume, a standard
conditions, is well characterized, it is

-
2-49
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
straightforward to accurately measure the
nitrogen delivery rate. Control of delivery
rate is also good.
If the pump is at ambient temperature when
it is started up, some liquid nitrogen is
effectively lost in cooling the unit down to
where the nitrogen remains as a liquid until
it is delivered to the heat exchanger. Before
then, formation of gaseous nitrogen in the
pump reduces its efficiency. Controlling the
delivery rate is uncertain during cooldown.
However, this does not take more than a few
minutes, and should not affect operations
substantially.
Each gallon of liquid nitrogen generates
approximately 100 scf of nitrogen gas. For a
typical drilling operation, with a volumetric
flow rate of up to 2,000 scfm, this means
that up to 30 bbl, or roughly 5 tons per hour,
of liquid nitrogen will be required.
Membrane Filter
On-site generation of nitrogen by membrane
filtration can provide a feasible alternative
nitrogen source. It does not involve
transporting and storing large quantities of
cryogenic liquid.' It requires that air coolers
and a filter array are added to an otherwise
conventional air drilling compression system
(refer to Figure 2-23).
As shown in Figure 2-23, conventional air
compressors deliver the air, at a pressure of
150 psi. The compressed air is cooled to
approximately 80°F and passed through a
series of primary filters. These remove
contaminants, such as dust, compressor
lubricant oil, and atmospheric water. The air
flow then passes through the membrane
filter. This consists of an array of many,
very fine, hollow polymeric fibers. The
lighter nitrogen molecules pass down the
2-50
fibers, while heavier ox ygen molecules
penetrate the fiber walls. 7 he two gases are
separated. Nitrogen is tlelivered to the
booster unit and then tc the standpipe.
Oxygen is vented to the atm xphere.
Nitrogen concentration ir the gas flow
delivered by these membrane filters can be
readily controlled, and can -ange from 92 to
99.5 percent. Nitrogen pu ity is controlled
by varying the air input rlte and the back
pressure on the filter unit.
Other Equipment
Firestops or firefloats in tl e drillstring are
not needed when drilling with nitrogen.
Otherwise, the equipment u ;ed is effectively
the same as that used for diy air drilling, as
described earlier, in Section 2.1.
Operational Procedures
No special operating procl :dures, different
from those described for dr:' air drilling, are
required for nitrogen drillii~g. The risk of
downhole fires is removed. Since formation
of a mud ring can cause st Ick pipe, timely
detection of the symptoms of mud ring
formation is still necessary. The release of
large quantities of nitrogen and enriched
oxygen into the atmosphere do not normally
pose any risks. Care shoulc nevertheless be
taken so that dispersion ol the discharged
oxygen is not hindered. Even a modest
increase in oxygen concent .ation can result
in dramatic changes in the ( ombustibility of
familiar materials.
Limitations
An appropriate concentratio I of nitrogen, in
the circulating medium, ren oves the risk of
downhole fires. This overcjmes one of the
major limitations of dr I air drilling.
However, the other limitations of dry air
drilling apply equally when iitrogen is used.

Figure 2-23. Schematic of a nitrogen dri//ing system using membrane filter ' generation
(after A/lan, 1994 ').
The formation of mud rings remains a
concern. It is possible to use nitrogen as the
gaseous phase in mist or foam drilling,
overcoming problems with excessive water
production.
The principal limitation on the use of
nitrogen for drilling is economic. The
nitrogen supply is costly, whether liquid
nitrogen or membrane filters are used. The
quantities of liquid nitrogen required can
easily cost from $10,000 to $35,000 per day
of drilling. AIlan, 1994,' cited a daily
incremental cost of over $7,000, to use a
membrane filter unit, capable of delivering
up to 3,600 scfm of nitrogen. This cost
includes rental of the compressors and
boosters, and all mobilization. As a result of
Nitrogen
Into
Standpipe
its high cost, nitrogen is norma ly only used
when drilling through a Ion; producing
interval, as would be the case ir a horizontal
well. It is less likely that the ad jitional cost/
can be justified (particularly cry )genic liquid
nitrogen), for drilling long venical (or near
vertical) intervals, unless multil )le zones are
likely to be penetrated.
There is a possibility that nitro;en could be
re-cycled if a closed surface sy item is used.
This could make the use of n trogen more
attractive, although the saving ; in nitrogen
cost would be partly offset by t ne additional
daily cost of the surface eq iipment that
might be involved. This will be discussed
again in Section 2.7, "Gasifi =d Liquids."
2-51
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

References

1. Allan, P.D.: “Nitrogen Drilling System for Gas Drilling Applications,” iaper SPE 28320
presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibitic In, New Orleans,
LA.

2. Coward, H.F. and Jones, G.W.: “Limits of Flammability of Gases ard Vapors,” U.S.
Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 503, Washington, DC (1952).

3. Zabetakis, M. G.: “Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases a id Vapors,” U.S.

Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 627, Washington, DC (1964).

2-52
2.3 Natural Gas
Drilling
As was the case with nitrogen, natural gas can
be used (instead of air) as the circulating fluid
for drilling underbalanced. Using natural gas
will prevent the formation of a flammable gas
mixture downhole when a hydrocarbon
producing zone is penetrated. Unlike
nitrogen, however, natural gas will almost
invariably form a combustible mixture when
it is released into the atmosphere. This
inherently higher potential for surface fires
requires few changes in operating procedures
from those used in dry air drilling.
Hole Cleaning
The density of natural gas is generally
different from the density of air, at the same
temperature and pressure. It is convenient to
represent a gas's density by its specific
gravity, S. The specific gravity is defined as
the ratio of the weight of a unit volume of the
gas at standard conditions to the weight of the
same volume of air. Gaseous hydrocarbons
have specific gravity's that increase with
increasing molecular weight. For example,
methane has a gravity of 0.55, ethane 1.05
and propane 1.55 at STP. The gravity of
natural gas (gas density divided by the density
of air, both densities at STP) depends on its
composition, but is often in the range of 0.6
to 0.7. Thus, the density of natural gas
circulating round a well differs sufficiently
from air injected at the same volumetric rate
that cuttings transport efficiency is
influenced.
Equation (2.33) shows that a cutting's
terminal velocity is effectively inversely
proportional to the square root of the density
of the fluid through which it is falling:
vt $2;; (2.33)
where:
Vt .......terminal velocity (fth),
d, ........ diameter of the particle (ft ),
p, ....... density of the particle (lbr dft3),
pf........density of the fluid ( l b d f '),
g ......... gravitational acceleration
(32.17 ft/s2), and,
c d ....... drag coefficient.
This equation requires that the deisity of the
carrier fluid is much less than hat of the
cutting. This is the case when dri ling with a
gaseous fluid. At atmospheric p -essure, the
terminal velocity in natural g s, V,,, is
related to the terminal velocity in 2 ir, V ~by:,
(2.34)
The minimum gas injection rate iequired for
efficient cuttings transport at ;tmospheric
pressure increases in inverse propc srtion to the
square root of the gas's specific gr,ivity.
Equation (2.5) shows that the vari ition of the
pressure gradient with depth is pro ?ortional to
the density of the gaskuttings mi rture in the
annulus. The pressure gradient w 11 be lower
for natural gas than for air, and th :downhole
pressure will also be lower. However, the
mixture density is not, directly pro Portional to
the specific gravity of the gas. It a so depends
on the mass of the cuttings and noisture in
the annulus (and hence on the penetration
rate). As a result, there is no simple
relationship between the ga: pressure
downhole and its specific gravitj. The full
2-53
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
frictional pressure drop and cuttings transport
analysis has to be repeated using the specific
gravity of the appropriate gas. When this is
done, the net effect is that the gas injection
rate required for efficient cuttings transport is
higher for natural gas than it is for air, but the
fractional difference decreases with
increasing depth. The bottomhole pressure is
lower for natural gas than it is for air, at an
injection rate providing equivalent cuttings
transport. As can be seen from Figure 2-2,
Angel’s analysis indicates that bottomhole
pressures with natural gas are ten to fifteen
percent lower than those for air.
An additional complication is departure from
ideal gas law behavior. Natural gas is
characterized by a phenomenon referred to as
“supercompressibility.” This means that it
compresses more readily at some pressures
than an ideal gas. The deviation from ideal
compressibility can be significant at pressures
around 2,200 psi, where it is possible for
natural gas to compress to twice the density
that would be estimated for an ideal gas. In
most gas drilling situations, downhole
pressures will be well below this level. Given
the overall uncertainty of the computations, it
is still probably reasonable to neglect
departures from ideal gas compressibility
when estimating required injection rates. If it
is necessary to have good control of
bottomhole pressure - for example, to
maintain the underbalanced pressure within a
specific range - then the real compressibility
of natural gas may have to be considered.
Natural gas is more expensive than
compressed air. The incremental cost of
increasing the injection rate is higher when
drilling with natural gas than it is when
drilling with air. The most cost effective
injection rate is likely to be closer to the
recommended minimum rate than would be
2-54
the case with air.
Cummings, 1987,’ prese:ited a case history
of natural gas drilling in the San Juan Basin,
New Mexico. Gas injection rates of
between 900 and 1,200 s:fm were found to
be adequate for drilling 6%-inch hole to
depths of between 6,900 and 7,500 feet, at
penetration rates ranging from 40 to 75 feet
per hour. The gas us:d had a specific
gravity of 0.65. Angel’s analysis indicated
minimum air injection ra es of between 8 15
and 950 scfm, for this rznge of depths and
penetration rates. For nzturul gas, a first
order estimate of the riinimum injection
rates required could be derived by taking
Angel’s figures for ai. drilling at the
appropriate depth and pt netration rate and
dividing these by the squ: re root of the gas’s
specific gravity. Whc n this is done,
minimum injection rates, .anging from 1,000
to 1,180 scfm, are inferred. These are very
close to the rates that prwed acceptable in
practice.
When drilling with natural gas, the size of the
hole to be drilled should be carefully
considered. Even minor reductions in hole
diameter could lead to si€nificant reductions
in gas injection rates and s avings. Cummings,
1987,’ noted that increa ing the hole size
from 61/-inches to 6%-i iches would have
required a fifteen to twenty percent increase
in the gas injection rate, while going to a 7
7/8-inch hole would h; .ve increased gas
consumption (and the gas :ost) by as much as
40 percent.
Equipment
Currently, natural gas drilling is only
undertaken if the natural as can be obtained
directly from a supply pip dine. Usually, the
pipeline operator will proT ide a drill gas unit,
which consists of a scrubbing vessel and an
orifice meter,' connected to the pipeline. A
three-inch diameter line is used to take the
gas supply to the rig location. Cummings,
1987,' noted that this line could be as much
as one-half mile long. The pressure drop
along the supply line needs to be considered,
to ensure that adequate delivery is available at
the rig site. With a three-inch diameter
supply line, the pressure drop is unlikely to be
much more than one psi per 100 feet of
pipeline, at a gas flow rate of 1,200 scfm and
an average line pressure of 150 psi. This will
probably not have significant impact on gas
delivery rate.
Compressors may or may not be required,
depending on the pipeline pressure and the
anticipated gas injection (standpipe) pressure.
It may be advisable to have a booster
available, in the event that downhole
problems require a standpipe pressure higher
than pipeline delivery pressure.
It is important to remove, as much as
possible, any water or condensate from the
supply gas before injecting it downhole.
Otherwise, problems with mud ring formation
and wellbore stability" may occur.
Cummings, 1987,' suggested installing a
three-phase production vessel between the
drill gas supply unit and the booster. It
should have working pressure and
temperature ratings that at least match the
pipeline delivery pressure and temperature
and it should be able to handle flow in excess
of the highest required gas injection rate.
These requirements are not difficult to meet.
For example, the vessel used by Cummings
was sixteen inches in outside diameter by six
feet long, with a 1,000 psi and a 100°F
working pressure and temperature. It had a
If water sensitive shales are penetrated.
rated capacity of 3,125 scfm (4.5 IAMscfD).
Collected water was discharged into a water
tank and hydrocarbon vented in13 a stock
tank.
Downstream of the booster, the 1;as should
flow through an adjustable choke, to control
the flow rate during drilling an( tripping.
Otherwise, the gas delivery rat: can be
controlled by a pressure regulatir g valve.
The gas flow is then directed to a three-inch
valve manifold, ideally located ( n the rig
floor, adjacent to the driller's con!ole. This
should allow gas to be sent to the dooie line
primary jet or to the standpipe. It should also
be possible to independently vert the gas
delivery line and the standpipe. Bo .h of these
vent lines, which should be two-inches in
diameter, should run to a flare pit. hmmings
recommended that this flare pit should be
separate from the main flare pit into which
the blooie line discharges (refer to Figures 2-
24 and 2-25).
Additional lines, from the choke manifold
direct to the flare pit, and throu,;h a flow
tester to the flare pit, should be in: talled if it
is intended to measure the gas x-oduction
rate. These lines must be ratej for the
maximum anticipated well flow rate and
wellhead pressure.
As natural gas is always present in the rig
site, it is sensible to have hydrocarbon gas
and hydrogen sulfide detectors loc: ted on the
rig floor and in the well cellar. A hydrogen
sulfide detector should be also be ited at the
blooie line exit. As with air an11 nitrogen
drilling operations, care should be t ken when
locating this detector, to prevent it 1 rom being
damaged by the flare while still guaranteeing
2-55
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

Booster

Driller's hfan bm

Figure 2-24. Surface equipment required for drilling with natural gas ( Mer Cummings,
1987 ').

Fla e Pit

7" Blooie Line 150 Feet Long

T
3
2" Line lo Blooie Line Jet
Flare Pit
Orifice

I9
Choke Manifold .Well Tester

Rotary 1
C r I

u
A/ 2" Vent Line

Dog House Driller's

Manifold

Figure 2-25. Flaring arrangements for drilling with natural gas (after Cu mmings, 1987 'I.

2-56
its exposure to the returning gas flow. There
is little point in having a hydrocarbon detector
at the blooie line exit.
Other required surface equipment is similar to
that needed for air drilling. Cummings
indicated that a conventional rotating head
could be used to divert gas flow into the
blooie line in certain situations (i.e. low
permeability wells that need to be
hydraulically fractured). Particularly if it is
anticipated that high formation gas pressures
or production rates may be encountered, the
additional pressure capacity of a rotating
blow out preventer is worth considering.
Large volumes of gas have to be flared when
drilling with natural gas. The flare pit has to
be designed accordingly. It may be necessary
to construct banks, or even possibly use a
vertical flare stack. Since the flare is larger
and is burning whenever natural gas is
circulated, there is a greater risk of fire
damage to the hydrogen sulfide detector
located at the end of the blooie line, than
when dry air, nitrogen or mist are used.
Instead of using pipeline gas, in rare
instances, it may be possible to transport
natural gas to the rig site in large pressure
vessels. Typically, these can hold up to
160,000 scf of gas at pressures up to 2,400
psi. The gas would be discharged from the
vessel into a compressor and re-compressed
to the required delivery pressure, rather than
discharging directly to the standpipe. This
allows much more of the gas in the vessel to
be used. Assuming ideal gas behavior, only
approximately 10,800 sft3 could be delivered
at 200 psi, while 116,000 sft3 of charge could
be delivered at an absolute pressure of 20 psi.
If natural gas were supplied in this way,
surface equipment used 1 vould be
substantially the same as that usetl for dry air
drilling, except that the compi essors and
booster would have to be rated foi natural gas
service. Requirements for rem07 al of water
and hydrocarbon upstream of th 5 standpipe
would depend on the purity )f the gas
supplied. As with nitrogen, wl ken drilling
with natural gas, fire floats and fire stops are
not required in the drillstring.
Using a top drive may provide significant
savings in connection times (J Williams,
personal communication). Wher using any
gaseous fluids, modifications are required to
provide adequate sealing, beyonl 1 that used
for mud systems. These m 3difications
depend on the specific manuf;tcturer, i.e.
some top drives have integrated SL rivels while
others do not.
Operating Procedures
Operating procedures are general1 y similar to
those used when drilling with dry air or
nitrogen. The gas delivery rate i ; controlled
by adjusting the choke in the :upply line.
Alternatively, rather than me: suring the
volumetric rate, it is possible to control the
gas delivery by computing tht standpipe
pressure for a desired rate and aijusting the
pressure regulating valve to this target
standpipe pressure.
When tripping, the drillstring should be
stripped through the rotating heid as far as
possible, before pulling the ro ating head
rubber seal element. The gas Ilow should
then be directed to the primary jet to keep
produced gas away from the rig floor. The
cost of replacing rotating head n bbers worn
by the stripping operations is almost
invariably lower than the cost of 1 he gas used
to jet the blooie line.
2-57
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
While there is no risk of downhole fires when
drilling with natural gas, formation of a mud
ring can still stick the pipe. It is possible to
mist when using natural gas as the injected
gas. If the well starts to make limited
quantities of water, mist drilling should be
adopted.
Because the returning gas is flared at all
times, water droplets in the return flow are
not as readily observed at the blooie line as
when drilling with air. Similarly, low
cuttings return may not be easily detected.
However, the standpipe pressure will increase
with water inflow or the formation of a mud
ring. It is important that the standpipe
pressure gauge have a resolution of 5 psi
and that it is monitored at all times. There
should also be a change in the character of the
flame at the flare pit when significant water
inflow occurs.
Limitations
In almost all instances, natural gas drilling
currently requires that there is a supply of
pipeline gas, within about one-half mile of the
rig site. This is probably the greatest
limitation on the use of natural gas as a
drilling fluid.
Even when the rig site is close to a supply
pipeline, the cost of using natural gas is high,
in comparison to dry air drilling. Allan,
1994,2 cited an example where the daily
incremental cost of drilling with natural gas
(at an injection rate of 3,000 scfm) was over
$8,500 in the San Juan Basin, a region where
2-58
natural gas is readily ava lable. Although
directly comparable figures were not given, it
is almost certain that the equivalent cost for
dry air drilling would haje been less than
one-half of this. The cos: of drilling with
nitrogen generated on-site was not much
lower than for natural gas.
Using natural gas prevents he formation of a
combustible mixture downhole and
eliminates the possibility o f downhole fires.
The potential for a surface f re is present at all
times and the volume of ga; to be handled is
greater than it would be for Iry air drilling. A
typical gas injection rate of 2,000 scfm
corresponds to 2.88 MMscf, D, the output of a
respectably productive ga! well. Careful
attention to the design of surface equipment
and to operating procedures is necessary to
handle this volume of gas, although it is not a
technical limitation on thc applicability of
natural gas drilling.
In some locations, such as c ose to habitation,
there may be problems 4 )f environmental
acceptability, associated u ith flaring large
volumes of gas. Similar problems would
exist if natural gas were encountered when
drilling with dry air, in tl-e same location.
Natural gas is unlikely to .lose significantly
greater environmental problc ms than dry air.
Finally, mud rings can still form when water
inflows occur, the disposal ( If produced water
remains costly, and there is 5 till a potential for
wellbore instability.
 e American Petroleum Institute (API) RP 500B: Recommended Practice for
Classification of Areas for Electrical Installations at Drilling Rigs and Prod iction
Facilities on Land and on Marine Fixed and Mobil Platforms - 1973

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70: National Electric Code - 1 )90

0 NFPA 496: Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipmlmt in

Hazardous (Classified) Locations - 1988

The cost savings while drilling with natural gas should offset any additional ex])enses
associated with regulatory compliance.

References

1. Cummings, S.G.: “Natural Gas Drilling Methods and Practice: San Juan Basin, New
Mexico,” SPE/IADC paper 16167 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, LA.

2. Allan, P.D.: “Nitrogen Drilling System for Gas Drilling Applications,” papel SPE 28320
presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Kew Orleans,
LA.

2-59
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
2.4 Mist Drilling
Mist versus Foam
It is normal practice to switch from dry air to
mist drilling, if a modest water influx is
encountered. To do this, a small quantity of
water, with a foaming agent, is injected into
the compressed air flow before it enters the
drillstring. This liquid and any produced
formation water are dispersed into a mist of
independent droplets of liquid, which move at
approximately the same velocity as the gas.
Mist drilling is only one of several different
drilling techniques in which the drilling fluid
is a two-phase mixture of gas and liquid.
Other drilling fluids which contain gaseous
and liquid phases include foams and aerated
(or gasified) muds. These are sometimes
collectively termed “lightened drilling
fluids.”’ Since the droplets in a mist are not
connected to one another, the liquid phase is
discontinuous. In a foam, a continuous liquid
phase forms the walls of closed cellular
structures that entrap the discontinuous
gaseous phase. Finally, in gasified muds, the
gas exists as discrete and independent
bubbles.
As indicated in Chapter 1, the liquid volume
fraction largely determines the structure of
lightened drilling fluids. Gases have
significant compressibility (their density
increases with increasing pressure), whereas
liquids are largely incompressible. As a
result, the volume fractions of gas and liquid
in a lightened drilling fluid change in
response to the pressure changes that occur as
the fluid circulates round the well. It is quite
possible to have more than one fluid
structure, such as mist and foam, present at
different points in the same well.
Since mist drilling entails circulating a fluid
2-60
with essentially the same ( omponents as are
used in foam drilling, (watc r, a foaming agent
and a gas), there is a possit ility for confusion
between these two drillin; techniques. A
mist is formed if the liquid volume fraction is
below approximately one o two percent, at
the prevailing pressure an(I temperature. In
mist drilling, the volumes of liquid and gas
injected into the well giarantee that the
drilling fluid is a mist as t flows down the
drillstring. If there is a significant water
inflow, the liquid volume ‘raction downhole
can increase to where a fo; m is formed. As
the drilling fluid moves ull the annulus, the
pressure will decrease and any foam may or
may not revert to a mist, kefore it returns to
surface. Consider mist dilling to refer to
those operations where the drilling fluid is a
mist for at least part of its circulation history.
During foam drilling, (!;ection 2.5) the
volumes of liquid and gas injected into the
well are carefully controllc :d. This ensures
that foam forms when the liquid enters the
gas stream, at the surface. The drilling fluid
remains foamed through0 at its circulation
path down the drillstring, u 3 the annulus and
out of the well. Foam his a dramatically
higher viscosity than diy air or mist.
Effective hole cleaning c wing true foam
drilling will occur at much lower circulation
rates than are required for rr ist drilling.
Effect of Pressure on b olume
Fractions in Lightened Drilling Fluids
Before discussing mist drill:ng in more detail,
the impact of changing pressure on the
volume fractions and dens ty of a lightened
drilling fluid is considered.
Generally, a lightened fluicI consists of gas,
liquid and solid phases. The solid phase
consists of cuttings that en er the circulating
fluid at the bit. The volunie fraction, Fp, of
each component at any particular pressure, P,
is defined as the volume, Vp, which the
individual component occupies at that FgP = (2.38)
pressure, divided by the volume of the
mixture, Vfl, at the same pressure:
From this, the gas fraction at press ure is:

(2.35)
(2.39)

The subscripts g, f, and s denote gas, liquid

(fluid) and solids, respectively. The sum of
the volume fractions is, by definition, unity: Similarly, for the liquid and sclid volume
fractions:
Fgp+ F, + Fsp= 1 (2.36)
FO
f

(+)
Ffp= (2.40)
Over the range of pressures encountered in
(1 - Fgo)+ Fgo
most underbalanced drilling operations, it is
usually adequate to assume that the gaseous
phase of a lightened drilling fluid acts as an
ideal gas and that the liquid and solid phases (2.41)
are incompressible.+ That is, if Vo is the
volume each component occupies at pressure,
Po,then, under isothermal conditions:

(F)
The finite compressibility of t le gaseous
phase in lightened drilling fluids means that
VgP = v g o their density increases with increasing
pressure. The presence of inc' Impressible
v, = v, = v, (2.37) liquid and solid phases means thai the density
does not change in direct propo tion to the
vsp= vso= v, pressure, as would be the case lor an ideal
Considering the volume fraction of the gas. Denoting the mixture density at
gaseous phase first, and substituting from pressure, P, by pmp and the volunie occupied
Equation (2.37) into (2.35), by a fixed mass of the mixture at t iat pressure
as V,, then:

Assumptions of an ideal gas can be easily changed if (2.42)

necessary, by considering Z, the real gas deviation
factor.

2-61
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Assuming that the gaseous phase obeys the
ideal gas law and that the liquid and solid
phases are incompressible, it follows that:
Finally:
(2.44)
These equations can be used to demonstrate
the significance of pressure changes during
mist drilling. Consider a mist drilling
operation where liquid is metered at 10.7
BPH (1 cfm) into 2,000 scfm of dry air, being
delivered to the standpipe at 210 psig. The
liquid volume fraction at atmospheric
pressure is:
1 cfm (liquid)
2000 scfm (dry air) + 1 cfm (liquid)
---
- 1 - 5x 10-4(x100 3 0.05%)
2000
To simplify the ratios involved, atmospheric
pressure will be assumed to be 15 psi. The
ratio of the absolute standpipe pressure to the
atmospheric pressure is (210+15)/15, that is
(P/Po) = 15. The air at the standpipe will be
compressed to one-fifteenth of its volume
under standard conditions, and the volumetric
air flow rate at this point will be 133 cfm
(one-fifteenth of the value under standard
conditions). Substituting these pressure and
2-62
flow rate values into Equation (2.40), the
liquid volume fraction at tlie standpipe is 5 x
10-4/(5x + 0.9995/15) = 7.5 x (x 100
3 0.75%). This value is ;till below the one
to two percent threshold at which a foam may
start to form. This drilling fluid will probably
remain a mist during 111 stages of its
circulation.
Suppose that there is a wlter inflow of 96.3
BWPH (i.e. 9 cfm), and tliat the bottomhole
pressure is 135 psig. Als I suppose that the
volume of cuttings added to the circulating
fluid at the bit is negligible The total volume
of liquid in the mixture flowing up the
annulus is now 10 cfm :the injected plus
produced fluid). At the b ooie line exit, the
liquid volume fraction will be 10/2000 x 100,
or 0.5 percent. Presuming water inflow only
at the hole bottom, the 3ottomhole liquid
volume fraction will be 4.7 3 percent. A foam
will probably form when t le flowing air and
foamer solution mix with the water flowing
into the wellbore. The liqu id volume fraction
will drop as the foam moles up the annulus
and the foam will have br >ken down by the
time it reaches the surface.
In practice, non-unif0rmi.y in the drilling
fluid can lead to the forniation of slugs of
foam and slug flow. I'articularly if the
penetration rate is high, the solid volume
fraction added to the circtlating fluid at the
bit may not be negligible. This will reduce
the volume fraction of ccmpressible gas in
the circulating fluid and iiifluence the effect
of pressure on the mixture density. This will
probably not greatly influe ice the circulating
fluid's structure because it - vi11 not change the
continuity of the liquid and gaseous phases.
In addition to pressure, temperature also
regulates the density and v ~ l u m efractions of
lightened drilling fluids. A gas expands
significantly on heating. The fractional
volume increase, at constant pressure,
depends on the fractional increase in the
absolute temperature. Assuming ideal gas
behavior, with temperature in OR, Equation
(2.37) can be re-written as:
(2.45)
The various equations for density and volume
fractions can be modified to incorporate the
effects of temperature changes. In practice,
the impact is often small. The surface gas
temperature is likely to be around 60°F or
520"R. The geothermal gradient is typically
around 1.6"F per 100 feet. The bottomhole
temperature at 5,000 feet will then be
approximately 140°F or 600"R. At 10,000
feet, the temperature is about 220°F or 680"R.
Comparing these temperatures, it is seen that
the effect on volume fractions is unlikely to
exceed 30 percent and for many
underbalanced drilling applications it will be
less than 15 percent. Taking the example
given above, if the bottomhole pressure is
135 psig and air is injected at 2,000 scfm, the
volumetric air flow rate at bottomhole
pressure would be 200 cfm (2,000 x 15/(135
+ 15)) at a bottomhole temperature of 60°F. If
the bottomhole temperature were 140°F or
220°F, the volumetric air flow rate would be
231 or 262 cfm, respectively. The
corresponding liquid fractions would be 4.15
percent and 3.68 percent.
In contrast, pressure changes in a circulating,
lightened drilling fluid can lead to more than
ten-fold changes in the volume fractions. In
many instances, at least for liquid volume
fractions, it may be a sufficient to neglect
temperature changes.
Hole Cleaning
The liquid droplets in mist can be considered
to be somewhat analogous to cutt ngs. They
have a lower density than cutting; (less than
one-half of the density of typical ci ittings) and
they tend to be smaller than most ( uttings. As
a result, the droplets, in many ca;es, can be
assumed to move with the same velocity as
the gas;2 this means that their slip velocity is
zero. They do not markedly chan ;e the flow
properties of the gas in whicl they are
dispersed. Consequently, mi ;t is not
fundamentally more efficient than dry air for
transporting cuttings from the wellbore.
Theoretically, high annular vel ?cities are
therefore required in mist drilling
The circulating fluid density is however,
increased by the presence of the liquid
droplets in mist. Droplets may alsc add to the
frictional pressure losses. Bot1 I of these
factors increase the bottomhole pr s u r e over
that seen with dry air circulating ; ~the
t same
volumetric rate. The higher f l i lid density
reduces the terminal velocity of tlie cuttings,
in comparison to dry air. At the same time,
the increased bottomhole pressure leads to a
lower annular velocity for mist (in
comparison to dry air at the same volumetric
injection rate). As a result, higher air
injection rates are necessary ivhen mist
drilling, to achieve the same annu ar velocity
as for dry air. The net result of th ?sevarious
factors is that the air injection rat,? may need
to be increased when changing8 om dry air
to mist drilling, if the level of ho e cleaning
efjiency is to be maintained. It is possible
to adapt Angel's method of est mating air
injection rates required for ade p a t e hole
cleaning with dry a i 3 to mist drill ng. In this
method, cuttings are assumed to travel with
the same velocity as the air. Thi; would be
the case for the liquid drople s in mist
drilling. Angel's analysis incor )orates the
2-63
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
influence of cuttings in the annulus
(generated at a specified penetration rate) on
the bottomhole pressure and determines the
air injection rate needed to give the
circulating fluid kinetic energy (downhole)
equivalent to that for air flowing at 3,000
ft/min under standard conditions.
The first step in modifying the analysis for
mist drilling is to determine the penetration
rate that would generate the same mass of
cuttings as the mass of liquid entering the
well over a unit time period (i.e., represent the
liquid as cuttings). The liquid includes base
liquid and foamer injected at the surface, as
well as any formation water inflow into the
wellbore. If this total liquid rate is L (BPH),
the mass flow rate of liquid entering the well
will be 350.5L lbm/hr, assuming that the
liquid is water (62.4 lbdft’). Angel assumed
the bulk density of the rock being drilled to be
169 lbm/ft3 (2.70 g/cm’). For consistency,
this density is used below. If the bit diameter
is Db (inches), the apparent penetration rate,
ROP, (ft/hr), giving the same mass rate
(lbm/hr) as the combined liquid rate L (BPH),
is:
’
ROP, =
350.5L --380L (2.46)
169(:)(2r -
This apparent penetration rate, ROP,,
computed for the expected liquid rate, is
added to the actual anticipated penetration
rate ROP. Finally, the minimum air injection
rate, required for good hole cleaning during
mist drilling, is determined; either from
Angel’s charts or from the approximation in
Equation (2.17). This would be the air
injection rate for dry air drilling the same hole
at a penetration rate of ROP + ROP,.
2-64
As an example, consider di il1ing.a 7 7/8-inch
diameter hole, at a depth 0’ 5,000 feet, using
4%-inch diameter drillpipc :. A penetration
rate of 30 f a r is anticipa.ed. In this case,
using the nomenclature ol Equation (2.17),
Qo = 670, N = 65, H = 501)0/1000 = 5 (refer
to Appendix C), and the mi nimum air rate for
dry air drilling, Qa (scfm), i:,:
Q,=Q,+W
(2.47)
= 670+ 6 5 x 5 = 995 scf m
Suppose that, for this exmple well, liquid is
injected into the air stream 3t the surface, at a
rate of 6 BPH. Assume thr t water is flowing
into the well at 3.8 BPH. T i e total volume of
liquid entering the well i! 9.8 BPH (3435
lbm/hr). The penetration rs te that would give
this mass of cuttings per ho ir (Equation 2.46)
is 60 ft/hr. The minimum air rate for mist
drilling at 30 ft/hr actual penetration rate
should be the air rate recuired for dry air
drilling at a penetration rate of 90 f a r . Using
the value of N at 90 ft/hr, N = 98.3 (Appendix
C), the minimum air rate p-edicted would be
1,I 62 scfm.
Mitchell, 1981,4 developec a model for dry
air and mist circulatior , with cuttings
transport. It accounted foi the effect of the
masses of cuttings ancI mist on the
momentum of the flowing fluid, and for the
settling velocity of the cuitings in the mist.
The model assumed that CI ttings were 0.375
inches in diameter, and usel 1 drag coefficients
from Gray, 195K5 The licuid droplets were
treated as cuttings with the density of water,
moving with the same vclocity as the air.
Mitchell modeled mist drol llet flow, using an
expression for the settlin;; velocity of the
droplets. These simulatio is confirmed that
the droplets travel with thc same velocity as
the air.
This model also represented temperature
changes that occur around a well. Mitchell
presented a sample temperature analysis for a
dry, air drilled well. This anaIysis indicated
that flowing air temperatures, at all points in
the annulus, are within 10°F of the
undisturbed geothermal gradient, over most
of the depth of the well. This supports
Angel’s simplifying assumption that the gas
temperature is equal to the geothermal
temperature.
Mitchell’s model predicts higher dry air
volume rates (for efficient hole cleaning) than
does Angel’s analysis. For an 8%-inch
diameter hole, drilled using 5-inch drillpipe,
at a penetration rate of 90 f a r , Mitchell
computed that an air injection rate of 1,575
scfm would give a downhole air velocity
equivalent to 3,000 ft/min under standard
conditions. Angel’s analysis indicated that an
injection rate of 1,387 scfm would give this
air velocity. Mitchell did, however, find that
the lower air rate would be sufficient to lift
the 0.375-inch diameter cuttings uphole.
Slippage between cuttings and air would
increase the cuttings load in the annulus,
leading to a higher bottomhole pressure and
lower air velocity than would be predicted by
Angel’s method.
Mitchell compared dry air and mist drilling
for an W-inch diameter hole, drilled with 5-
inch drillpipe, at 90 ft/hr, to a depth of 10,000
feet. Mist was generated by injecting liquid
at 2 BPH. This is rather low, in comparison
with the 6 to 12 BPH liquid rates frequently
used in practice.6 He used the air injection
rates for dry air drilling indicated by Angel’s
analysis as the minimum required for
effective hole cleaning. Mitchell computed
the downhole air velocity, at these air rates,
using his model. The air injection rates were
then determined that would give he same air
velocity downhole for mist drilli ig. The air
injection rates are compared in Iiigure 2-26.
The rates for mist drilIing were ty )icaIly 30 to
40 percent higher than the dry air rates. Mist
drilling standpipe pressures a id cuttings
velocities were also 30 to 40 pe cent higher
than for dry air drilling. The ; i r injection
rates shown for mist drilling are higher than
would be necessary to achieve equivalent
cuttings velocities and efficient h de cleaning
for dry air.
As indicated earlier, it is possiblt for a foam
to form when a significant watx influx is
encountered. Foam has a mich greater
viscosity than mist or dry air aid is much
more efficient at transporting cu lings. The
various analyses described a 3ove have
assumed that the circulating flui 1 remains a
mist everywhere in the annulus. From the
point-of-view of hole cleaning eff iciency, this
is a conservative assumption. Standpipe
pressures will, however, increasl : if a foam
forms and this could influence equipment
specification.
Field experience provides guid; nce on air
injection rates and pressures for r list drilling.
Cooper et al., 1977: reportec that mist
drilling requires 30 to 40 percert higher air
injection rates for acceptable hole cleaning; in
comparison to dry air drilling. l’hese higher
injection rates lead to standpi1e pressures
during mist drilling that are typic ally 100 psi
(30 to 50 percent) higher than thc se in dry air
drilling.
Equipment
The liquid phase in a drilling mis is normally
water, a surfactant, and a corrosi m inhibitor.
The surfactant, often referred tc as “soap,”
reduces the surface tension of tl-e water and
2-65
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

2500
n

-
E
*
Mist
0
cn
2000
3
2
23 1500
.-
0
c

-5
a
L

1000
0
>
U
.-
Q)
500
U
Q)
K

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 !000 10000

Depth (feet)

Figure 2-26. Comparison of air injection rates for dry air and for mist dr Wing giving the
same air velocity downhole (from Mitchell, 19814).

promotes the formation of fine, stable liquid
droplets in the flowing gas. These same
surfactants are commonly used, at higher
concentrations, to create stable foams
(Section 2.5).
The corrosion inhibitor (refer to Section 2.5)
protects the drillstring and any exposed
casing strings if, as is generally the case, air is
used as the gaseous phase in mist drilling.
The corrosion inhibitor must be compatible
with the foaming agent.
Mist is created by injecting the liquid into the
gas flow, between the gas delivery system and
the rig’s standpipe. There can be benefits in
using separate water and foaming agent
injection s y ~ t e m s .This
~ allows the water and
foaming agent to be controllt :d independently.
This can be useful, for exankple, if slug flow
occurs when a significant water influx is
encountered downhole. Or the other hand,
there are many successfi 1 mist drilling
operations that do not use a separate foaming
agent injection pump; the fcaming agent and
other additives are mixed ~ 4 t hthe water in
the mist pump tanks.
Mist injection rates are often in the range of 6
to 20 BPH,depending on ho le size.7 A 40 to
50 horsepower triplex pu np, capable of
delivering 25 to 35 gpm (36 to 50 BPH), will
normally be adequate. The pump’s delivery
pressure must be at least eqi.al to the highest
anticipated gas delivery pres:\ure. The size of
the water reservoir should bc large enough to

2-66
avoid frequent refilling, but small enough for
accurate monitoring of the water injection
rate. A 12 bbl reservoir has been
recommended for routine mist drilling
operations.7
Skid-mounted mist pump units are generally
available in those areas where air and mist
drilling are common. A typical mist pump
will come with two compartmentalized tanks
on the same skid. The tanks each have a
volume of 10 to 20 barrels and resemble the
displacement tanks on a cementer. The tanks
are usually equipped with a simple gauge,
consisting of a steel rod in the tank, with
marks for each barrel of tank volume. Mist
injection rates, which are usually reported in
barrels per hour (BPH), can be measured
adequately using these gauges.
Enough water must be available on location,
to refill the water reservoir without
interrupting drilling. It is possible to recycle
water from the reserve pit. Although, this
will greatly reduce water requirements,
several factors must be considered before
reusing this water. First, any injection water
must be relatively solids free; a high solids
content could damage the water injection
pump. This means that water returning from
the well has to stay in the pits long enough for
all cuttings to settle out. There has to be
sufficient water above the cuttings and the pit
bottom so that it can be drawn off without
entraining solids. Second, fomiation water
lifted from the well must not interfere with
the foaming agent. Finally, it can be difficult
to determine the concentration of various
additives, such as foaming agents and
corrosion inhibitors, remaining in the
recycled water. If water is to be recycled
from the reserve pit, a suitable air-driven or
centrifugal pump should be rigged up to
transfer the water from the pit to the injection
pump reservoir. The suction hose should be
fitted with a good strainer. : t should be
supported to prevent the suctim end from
falling too close to any solids in t ie pit.
If a separate foaming agent injection pump is
used, it will need to deliver frcm 0.25 to 5
GPH, or occasionally more.7 Ar air-operated
pump may be adequate. It should have a
delivery pressure that matches o exceeds the
highest anticipated gas delivery pressure. It
requires a much smaller reserrroir than is
necessary for the water injection system. It is
often possible to feed the foam ump directly
from the drums containing the fo rming agent.
When separate water and foar ier injection
pumps are used, they ar: normally
manifolded together before enti :ring the air
header, downstream of the corrpressors and
booster. Isolating and check Val1 es should be
installed in the delivery lines from both
pumps. This will allow tiem to be
disconnected, if required, and will prevent air
from entering the pumps whm they are
operating. Figure 2-6 shows a tj pica1 surface
system arrangement, with separa .e mist water
and foamer injection pumps.
Since air injection rates for mist drilling tend
to be 30 to 40 percent higher tl~anthose for
dry air drilling, an additional c1)mpressor or
compressors may be required. Standpipe
pressures during mist drilling csn be 100 psi
higher than during dry air drillin);. For deeper
wells or when a downhole m o t x is used, a
booster may be needed when compressors
alone might have been adequat: for dry air
drilling.
Normally, the return flow of mis and cuttings
is directed to a system of flare and reserve
2-67
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
pits, similar to that sometimes used in dry air
drilling. When mist drilling, significant
volumes of formation water may have to be
contained at the surface, possibly more than
2,000 BWPD. Surface equipment must be
capable of holding this liquid until it can be
properly disposed of. In some locations, it
may be possible to arrange for continuous
disposal of the returning liquid, if all
additives and any produced water are
environmentally benign. If the well is close
to others in a producing field, it may be
possible to dispose the waste water down a
water injection well. In some instances, it
may be possible to re-inject the water into a
permeable zone, cased-off above the interval
being drilled.
Otherwise, the waste water will have to be
hauled off in tankers. The logistics for liquid
collection and disposal have to be confirmed
before starting drilling operations. It is
probably appropriate to design surface
equipment with the capacity to contain one or
two days worth of liquids; any disruption of
liquid removal could force drilling to be
stopped. The pit’s liquid holding capacity is
in addition to the volume required for
cuttings.
It is useful to be able to measure the rate at
which liquid is returning from the well.
Comparing this with the liquid injection rate
indicates the rate of any influx. One way to
do this is to route the returns initially through
a steel tank, comparable in size to a typical
mud pit. Since cuttings will tend to
accumulate in this tank, there should be ready
access, so that these drilled solids can be
periodically removed with a grab-crane or
bucket digger. The liquid will have to be
defoamed first.
During mist drilling, the liquid volume
2-68
fraction in the circulating fluid is normally
too low for foam to exit the blooie line. Foam
returns may occur if there i: substantial water
influx or if the water njection rate is
excessive. Foamer remaini ig in the returned
liquid can lead to foaming j n the cuttings pit,
if it is agitated for any reasc n. It is advisable
to be prepared for defoamiig, particularly if
substantial water inflov is expected.
Adequate foam control shoi Jd be possible by
chemical means alone. I befoaming agents
will be described in Seciion 2.5, “Stable
Foam Drilling.’’ A suitable defoamer should
be sprayed onto the pit if the liquid foams
there, or injected into the b ooie line if foam
returns are experienced. A I ing-type spray, in
which the defoamer enter: the blooie line
through a number of small nozzles, can help
in defoaming by mixin); the defoamer
uniformly with the foam. T lis unit should be
located three to six feet fro n the exit end of
the blooie line.
Other surface equipment is the same as for
dry air drilling. There is no fundamental
reason why a mist should nc It be formed with
other circulating gases, such as nitrogen or
natural gas. If this is done, he mist and soap
pumps should be incorporr ted into the gas
delivery manifold, upstream of the standpipe
manifold. The increased g a s flow rate and
standpipe pressure required for mist drilling
would have to be considererl when designing
the gas delivery system. Particularly for
misting with natural gas, the increased surface
pressure might require adc itional compres-
sors or boosters.
Operating Procedures
Most mist drilling operatin ;procedures are
similar to those used when dry air drilling.
Procedures that are specific to mist drilling
are described below.
With a twin-tank mist pump unit, the mist
liquid is pumped out of one tank, while the
other is isolated and re-filled with water.
After filling, corrosion inhibitor and any other
additives are mixed in the tank. The tank can
be physically stirred or rolled using a small
amount of air from the compressors. The
foaming agent is added last to prevent excess
foaming.
Liquid additives are much easier to mix in
than solids. Solids often require long periods
of stirring before they go into solution.
Potassium chloride (KCl) is a common
additive used to help stabilize shales. It is
supplied in bags. Large quantities of
undissolved KCl often remain on the bottom
of the mist tank when the job is complete.
Powdered polymers, used for shale
stabilization, are even worse and can form
small globules because of incomplete
dispersion in the water. These globules are
commonly called "fish eyes." If anything
other than liquids is mixed with the mist
liquid, this should be done in the rig's premix
or suction tank, using the mud hopper. The
shearing action through the mud hopper does
a much better job of dispersing and dissolving
powdered additives. The premix can be
transferred to the mist tanks with a small
centrifugal pump. The foaming agent,
however, should always be added to the mist
tank. Otherwise, it will foam excessively
during circulation through the hopper and
pumping to the mist tank,
When separate water and foaming agent
injection systems are used, corrosion inhibitor
can be added either to the water or to the
foaming agent reservoir. If the foamer
injection rate changes during drilling, it may
be preferable to add the corrosion inhibitor to
the injection water reservoir. The water
~
injection rate is less likely to be vxied. This
will help to ensure that adequate volumes of
inhibitor are pumped.
Water and foaming agent injecticln rates are
dictated by hole conditions. Co3per et al.,
1977,' suggested that a good rul 2-of-thumb
was to pump one and one-half barrels of
water per hour per inch of holl: diameter.
They also suggested that the foaning agent
should be injected at between 0.5 and 6
GPH. Suitable concentrations will vary,
depending on the foaming agent. Typically,
mist drilling requires only arour:d one-fifth
of the concentration of foamer thi .t would be
needed for foam drilling. For t xample, if
0.75 to 2 percent foamer is requir :d to create
a stable foam, then the concentr; tion of the
same agent for mist drilling wou d probably
be in the range 0.1 to 0.5 percc nt. If the
injection water is re-cycled from the reserve
pits, there will be some foamer ir this water
and it may be possible to reduce the rate at
which foamer is added to thl: injection
water. It may be possible to e ;timate the
foamer concentration in the re-c; cled water
if the water inflow rate can be tletermined.
If this cannot be done, it i! probably
appropriate to maintain the foam :r injection
rate, unless foam slugging occurs
The type and volume of fluid fl(1wing from
the blooie line should be monitor1:d carefully
when mist drilling. It is importar t that there
are'continuous returns. If the Waf zr injection
rate is too low, a mud ring ma:' form and
restrict circulation, with the atten0 lant risk of
stuck pipe or a downhole fire. If returns
stop, the water injection rate should be
increased immediately.
Slugs of liquid will be seen at the blooie line
if the liquid in the well is not cispersed as
-
2-69
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
droplets. This happens if the gas injection
rate is too low or if the concentration of
foaming agent is too low. Slugging causes
the standpipe pressure to fluctuate markedly.
Normally, a foaming agent concentration of
between 0.1 and 0.25 percent should be
sufficient for misting.6 If the foaming agent
concentration in the returning liquid is in this
range or higher and slugs of liquid are seen at
the blooie line, the air injection rate should be
increased.
The rate of water inflow will determine what
corrective action should be taken if the
foaming agent concentration is too low.
Usually, the foamer concentration should be
increased until the return flow becomes
steady.
If there is significant water influx, it is
tempting to reduce the water injection rate if
the well begins slugging. If this were done, it
would not be necessary to increase the foamer
injection rate. However, this should be
considered only when it is certain that the bit
is still drilling the water producing formation.
Once the bit is below the inflow, it is possible
for cuttings traveling up the annulus to form a
mud ring when they mix with the inflowing
water at the bottom of the water producing
zone. If the liquid rate has been reduced, it
should be re-established when drilling below
the water zone.
It is critical to avoid too high a foamer
injection rate. This leads to unnecessarily
high chemical costs and can cause slugs of
high viscosity foam. The standpipe pressure
will fluctuate widely as each foam slug leaves
the well. The high viscosity of foam
increases the pressure drop up the annulus
and causes the standpipe pressure to increase.
The foaming agent concentration should be
2- 70
reduced until steady flo\ I is re-established.
The liquid volume fractior downhole must be
exceeding the threshold f )r foam formation,
at least intermittently. E .educing the water
injection rate may also he1 I to stabilize flow.
Water is probably flowint into a mist drilled
wellbore when the drillstri ig is tripped. When
the string is run back in t le hole, water may
have accumulated in the j~ellbore. The well
will have to be unloaded before drilling can
resume. Procedures for dc ing this were given
in Section 2.1, “Dry Air Drilling.” If the
amount of water is signifi:ant, it may not be
advisable or possible to brc :ak circulation with
the bit on bottom. If this is the case, the hole
will have to be unloadej in stages while
tripping in, as would be dc ne to remove water
from the casing after cemtmting. The length
of each unloading stage will have to be
smaller than when empty ng casing because
formation water will cortinue to enter the
wellbore while tripping d ter each unloading
stage. The hydrostatic pre sure that will have
to be overcome is due to the length of each
stage plus the influx volun e. After staging to
bottom and before resumir g drilling, the well
should be circulated for s(#metime to reduce
the amount of water in the mnulus.
Limitations
The main reason for mist drilling is to avoid
forming mud rings, if P water producing
zone is penetrated when cry air drilling. As
discussed in Section 2.1, ‘ Dry Air Drilling,”
a mud ring is often the irecursor to stuck
pipe or a downhole fire Water injected
during mist drilling satu *ates the cuttings.
This, in combination w th the surfactant
properties of the foaming igent, prevents the
cuttings from sticking tc lgether downhole.
Also, liquid in the circulating fluid
significantly increases its thermal capacity.
This reduces the temper; ture increase that
occurs if the circulating fluid is compressed
by a flow obstruction, further decreasing the
potential for ignition. Misting greatly
reduces the probability of a downhole fire,
overcoming one of the major limitations of
dry air drilling.
If the annular velocity is insufficient to lift
rock fragments, it is possible for the annulus
to close, even if there is no mud ring. This
may happen in highly deviated or horizontal
holes, where the circulation rates required
for efficient hole cleaning are much higher
than in vertical and near-vertical holes. It
may also happen when large fragments spall
from an "unstable" formation into the
wellbore. Once the annulus has packed off,
the gas below will be compressed if
circulation is continued. If the gas in the
annulus is combustible, there is a potential
for downhole ignition, just as if the annulus
were closed by a mud ring.
Hole drag and an increase in standpipe
pressure indicate that an accumulation of
cuttings and/or rock fragments may be
beginning to pack off the annulus. If this is
suspected, pull off bottom to stop generating
cuttings that would otherwise add to the
obstruction. Continue circulating and work
the pipe in an attempt to break up the
obstruction. Do not attempt to pull the
string without air circulation. The standpipe
pressure will continue to rise until the
obstruction is cleared or circulation is shut
off. A downhole fire or stuck pipe both
require fishing or sidetracking. The decision
on how high the standpipe pressure can be
allowed to rise before shutting off
circulation, if the string has not been freed,
will be influenced by hole conditions. It
also depends on the bottomhole assembly. If
the risk of downhole fire is great, (Le., if the
well is producing wet gas), and the
bottomhole assembly includes expensive
components (such as an MWD unit or a
downhole motor), circulation shoi Id be shut
down earlier than if the only components at
risk are the bit and a few drill coll; .rs.
Cooper et al., 1977,7 reported si iccessfully
blowing free a stuck pipe, using high
pressure nitrogen from an oilfi :Id liquid
nitrogen unit. They not.ed that this
procedure was only likely to be successful
with a pipe that had not bem pulled
excessively; where the cuttings ha 1 not been
packed too tightly.
Mist drilling helps to reduce the impact of
water inflow on drilling operati >ns. The
foamer disperses water into droplets
downhole. It should, therefore, .educe the
air flow rate at which the trans tion from
slug to mist flow occurs downholc:. That is,
mist drilling permits larger volumc s of water
to be lifted from the well than would be
possible in dry air drilling, whilc : avoiding
unsteady slug flow. However, thc ability to
handle larger water inflows do:s require
greater compressor capacities.
The other limitations of dry a r drilling
remain, particularly those relating to
wellbore instability and hi drocarbon
inflows. Mist drilling has its own
characteristic limitations, inch ding in-
creased air compression and waiste water
disposal demands, additional PO :entia1 for
wellbore instability as a result of tie misting
liquid injected into the well, and corrosion
of downhole equipment. These imitations
are discussed below.
Air Compression
Mist drilling usually requires ai injection
'
-
2- 71
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
rates that are 30 to 40 percent higher than
are required for dry air drilling at the same
depth and penetration rate. Similarly,
standpipe pressures are higher than they
would be for dry air drilling, typically by
around 100 psi. Not only will more
compressor capacity be required, but it is
also more probable that the booster will need
to be used. These increased air requirements
lead to higher daily fuel costs. They may
not, however, lead to higher equipment
rental charges. The compressor capacity on
site depends on the capacity of the
individual units available in that area. For
example, consider a 7 7/8-inch hole, being
drilled to 6,000 feet, using 4%-inch drillpipe.
Angel's charts indicate that a minimum dry
air injection rate of 1,200 scfm is required.
If 1,000 cfm rated compressors are the only
units available, two would be rented. Even
when dry air drilling, these two units would
probably be used at more than the minimum
circulation rate, perhaps at 1,500 scfm. Mist
drilling would require an air rate about 30
percent greater than the 1,200 psi minimum,
which would be little different from the
1,500 scfm in use. This suggests that there
would be no automatic requirement to have
an additional compressor on site in order to
switch from dry air to mist drilling in this
case. The procedure normally followed is to
start misting and then to determine whether
or not more air volume is required, by
observing hole conditions. If hole cleaning
problems are encountered, an additional
compressor can be added. If suitable
compressors are not readily available on
location and there is the prospect of having
to drill with mist, appropriate compressors
should be selected at the outset.
Waste Water Disposal
The cost of waste water disposal can be an
economic limitation. Typically, 200 to 500
2-72
bbls of injected water 'vi11 be circulated
through a well each day. This water is not
normally re-circulated, ar d incurs disposal
costs; often more than $1 I ber barrel.
When a large water inflow occurs, the
produced water can ra])idly exceed the
surface storage capacity. In some areas,
large reserve pits are conctructed to handle
anticipated water producf ion. Once these
are filled, the options arc to abandon mist
drilling and mud up, or to iaul away some of
the produced water for off-site disposal.
Cost per foot calculation: indicate when it
will be more cost effective to mud up.
The various additives inje :ted into the well,
including the foaming agent, corrosion
inhibitor and any salts or polymers, add to
the well cost. Finally, the supply cost of the
injected water may be sig iificant in remote
locations. These cost-rc dated factors all
serve to limit the applicaticsn of mist drilling.
Wellbore Instability
When drilling with dr r gas, wellbore
instability can occur beciluse of the large
difference between the stiesses in the rock
adjacent to the wellbore a Id the pressure of
the drilling fluid in the wellbore. The
wellbore pressure is norm ally higher when
drilling with mist than wit i dry gas, but the
difference is not very 1ar;e in comparison
with the in-situ stresses. There is little
prospect for mist drill ng to improve
wellbore stability if mec hanically-induced
instability problems have been encountered
when dry air drilling.
During mist drilling, the gns flow rate tends
to be higher and the density of the
circulating fluid is greater than it is for dry
air drilling. These faciors increase the
potential for wellbore erc sion, if weak or
poorly consolidated formations are
penetrated. The much lower annular
velocities experienced during stable foam
drilling may be more appropriate if wellbore
erosion is suspected.
The aqueous phase in the mist drilling fluid
can cause chemically-induced wellbore
instability if water-sensitive shales are
encountered. These shales tend to dehydrate
and slough into the wellbore during dry air
drilling. On the other hand, they will tend to
hydrate and swell, leading to undergauge
hole, on exposure to certain circulating
liquids during mist drilling. Swelling may
be reduced by the addition of salts, such as
potassium chloride (KCl), to the injected
water.* These reduce the activity of the
water phase and this decreases the rate of
It is also possible to add
shale h y d r a t i ~ n . ~
polymers to inhibit shale hydration. These
include polyanionic cellulose (PAC) and
partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
(PHPA). Since these can add considerably
to the cost of the well, it may be more cost
effective to switch to conventional mud
drilling if shale hydration is leading to
wellbore instability.
Attempts to chemically stabilize shale may
not, in any case, prove very successful. One
example of mist-induced wellbore instability
is the Wolfcamp shale, in West Texas.
There are very few sloughing problems if
these shales are drilled with dry air.
Formations above the Wolfcamp produce
water. If these are left open, drilling cannot
continue into the Wolfcamp without misting.
However, if mist is used, sloughing occurs.
Often the well cannot reach total depth
without having to mud up. Some operators
have elected to run intermediate casing to
isolate the water producing zones. The
Wolfcamp interval can then be dry air
drilled and sloughing is normally not
experienced. Even though anaysis of the
shale suggested that it was not particularly
sensitive to brine exposure, sloui ,hing occur-
red even when salts were added to the mist
water.
Corrosion
During mist drilling, there is E significant
potential for rapid corrosion 0' downhole
equipment. When mist is fc mned with
compressed air, there is a h gh oxygen
concentration in the aqueous piase. This
promotes corrosion of exposed steel. The
rotating drillstring impacts agai 1st the hole
wall and the casing. The resultant local
deformation creates anodic regi' )ns that are
more prone to corrosion than indeformed
steel. Any oxide film that forms on exposed
steel downhole tends to be remo7ed by these
"impacts" and by the erosive a:tion of the
cuttings being carried uphole. rhis allows
corrosion to proceed unhinde red. Any
ferrous steel equipment doa nhole will
corrode rapidly if protective rr easures are
not taken.
The best protection against downhole
corrosion is adding a suitable ink ibitor to the
injected water or the foaming igent. The
corrosion inhibitor must be corn patible with
the foamer and with any othe- chemicals
added to the injected water. Since many
foaming agents used in mist and foam
drilling are anionic, anionic corrosion
inhibitors will normally be requ red. Of the
readily available anionic inhibitc rs, complex
organo-phosphate esters are p ?obably the
most successfully and widely sed in mist
and foam drilling applicatioi is. Film-
forming inhibitors are not usual1 y successful
(they are the most commonly us1 :d inhibitors
2-73
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

in liquid environments). They are not particularly successful in preventing

normally compatible with foaming agents, corrosion in the presence c f high dissolved
any film they form will be continuously oxygen concentrations.
disrupted downhole, and they are not

References

1. Rankin, M.D., Friesenhahn, T.J. and Price, W.R.: ‘&LightenedFluid Hydraulics and
Inclined Boreholes,” paper S P E U D C 18670 presented at the 1989 SPI BADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 28-March 3.

2. Govier, G.W. and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, R ibert E. Kreiger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida (1982) 419.

3. Angel, R.R.: “Volume Requirements for Air or Gas Drilling,’’ Pet. Tram ., AIME (1957)
210,325-330.

4. Mitchell, R.F.: “The Simulation of Air and Mist Drilling for Geotherm; 1 Wells,” paper
SPE 10234 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX.

5. Gray, K.E.: “The Cutting Carrying Capacity of Air at Pressures Above At] nospheric,” Pet.
Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 180-185.

6. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” ASME pa ?er PD-Vol. 65,
Drilling Technology, presented at the 1995 ASME Energy and Environment Expo ‘95,
Houston, TX, January 29-February 1.

7. Cooper, L.W., Hook, R.A. and Payne, B.R.: “Air Drilling Techniques,” ]laper SPE 6435
presented at the 1977 SPE Deep Drilling and Production Symposium, Ama illo, TX.

8. Carden, R.S.: “Technology Assessment for Vertical and Horizontal Air D rilling Potential
in the United States,” Final Report, Contract No. DOE/MC/28252-35 14 (DE94000044),
U.S. DOE (August 1993).

9. Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K. and Salisbury, D.P.: “The Influence of Chemical Potential on
Wellbore Stability,” SPEDC (September 1993) 207.

2- 74
2.5 Stable Foam
Drilling
Foam can be used as the circulating fluid
during drilling and for many well
completion and production operations.
Foams consist of a continuous liquid phase,
forming a cellular structure that surrounds
and entraps a gas. Foams can have
extremely high viscosities; in all instances
their viscosities are greater than that of both
the liquid and the gas that they contain. At
the same time, their densities are usually less
than one-half that of water.
With this combination of high viscosity and
low density, foamed drilling fluids can
provide several benefits to drilling
operations.
P The high viscosity allows efficient
cuttings transport, at annular velocities
that are much lower than those required
for dry air or mist drilling. The gas
injection rates for foam drilling can be
much lower than those for dry gas or
mist drilling.
P The low density of foam allows
underbalanced conditions to be
established in almost all circumstances.
Bottomhole pressures with foam-tend to
be higher than those in dry gas or mist
drilling. This may reduce penetration
rates below those for dry gas. However,
penetration rates with foam are often still
considerably higher than can be achieved
in mud drilling.
P The higher annular pressures with foam
can potentially reduce mechanical
wellbore instability experienced when
drilling with a dry gas or mist. At the
same time, the low annular velocities,
typical of foam drilling, gi eatly reduce
the possibility of erosion of the borehole
wall or the drillstring.
Air is most commonly used as the gaseous
phase in foam drilling. It is poss ible to make
foam with other gases. The licuid phase is
aqueous. Because the liqujd phase is
continuous, a foam formed wit1 air will not
normally permit combustion If produced
hydrocarbons. Air foams ar ; frequently
used in fire-fighting to extingi iish burning
hydrocarbons.
Probably the greatest benefit oj foam as an
underbalanced drilling fluid, a i d the main
reason for its use, is its ability to lift large
quantities of produced liquids. When water
inflows are too large to be effi :iently lifted
with mist, it is often possible to continue
drilling underbalanced by switck ing to foam.
During foam drilling, a surfactai it solution is
mixed with a gas flow and th: mixture is
injected into the drillstrin;:. Foam
generation may not be complete until the gas
and liquid phases are mixed tl oroughly as
they pass through the bit. In pre-formed
stable foam drilling, the foam is
intentionally formed at the surface by
mixing the surfactant and ga! in a foam
generator. The term foam drilling will be
used in this report for those cperations in
which the circulating fluid rema ns a foam at
all points in the well. Circulatir g conditions
have to be chosen or control1c:d to ensure
this. Principally, the circulati ig pressures
have to guarantee that the liciuid volume
fraction remains within a rea: onably well
defined range. In this way, tlie beneficial
properties of foam, notably its I iscosity, can
be adequately exploited.
2-75
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Foams
A foam consists of an aggregate of gas
bubbles in a continuous liquid matrix.'
Water alone will not form a foam - any
bubbles that are created coalesce as soon as
they touch one another. A surfactant, or
foaming agent, in the liquid phase, stabilizes
the films that form the bubble walls which
allow the foam structure to persist.
Bubble Shape
Foams are often classified according to the
shape of the bubbles which they
In a freshly generated foam, or one
containing very small bubbles, the bubbles
will be spherical. These are called sphere
foams. Conversely, polyhedron foams
contain polyhedral bubbles. Generally,
sphere foams have higher liquid volume
fractions than polyhedron foams -
undistorted spheres do not pack as closely
together as do polyhedra, and the liquid
phase between spherical bubbles must be
thicker than that between polyhedral
bubbles. In an ideal polyhedron foam,
consisting of equally-sized bubbles, the
bubbles would be pentagonal dodecahedra,
that is twelve-sided, with each side
consisting of a pentagon. It is possible to
achieve perfect close packing with this
shape, minimizing the liquid volume
required to form the films between bubbles.
In practice, a number of factors prevent
foams from containing equally sized and
shaped bubbles.
Quality and Texture
Two other terms used to characterize foams
are quality and t e ~ t u r e .A
~ foam's quality is
its gas volume fraction, expressed in
percent. A 65 quality foam contains 65
percent gas by volume, while a 90 quality
foam contains 90 percent gas by volume. A
low quality foam (wet foam) contains more
2- 76
liquid than a high quality foam (dry foam).
Texture describes the size , md distribution of
the bubbles. A fine foam ias small bubbles
and a coarse foam ha.; large bubbles.
Combining these various terms, a sphere
foam tends to be a low tuality, fine foam
and conversely a polyhedron foam tends to
be a high quality, coarse fo m.
Once a foam's quality exceeds some
threshold level, the liquic I phase becomes
discontinuous and the foim breaks down
into a mist of dispersed droplets. The upper
limit for a stable foam is n1)t clearly defined.
It depends on the shear ra:e. Okpobiri and
Ikoku, 1986,3 found that f3am collapsed to
mist at a quality of 94 rercent, for shear
rates below 5,000 s-', but M ould persist up to
96 percent quality, for she2 r rates above this
level. Beyer et al., 1972,4 reported foam
becoming unstable at qualities of 97 to 98
percent, and that foam flowed as slugs of
foam and gas, once the qu ility exceeded 98
percent.
The upper limit of foan stability also
depends on the composition of the liquid
phase. Russell, 1993,5 reported foam
drilling operations in which a quality of at
least 99.1 percent was required to generate a
stable foam using surfacta it solution alone,
but that the addition of polymeric
viscosifiers to the liquid I hase gave stable
foam at qualities as high as 99.65 percent. It
is not clear in this case, h )w much, if any,
liquid was being added to the foam by
formation water inflows as the foam traveled
uphole, but the effect of thl : viscosifiers was
clear.
The lower limit of foam s ability is more a
question of definition. Bul lbles dispersed in
liquid can remain stable do vn to vanishingly
small gas volume fractions The bubbles do
not interact at all, in flowing foam, until the
quality reaches about 55 If the
quality exceeds about 75 percent, flow is
dominated by deformation of adjacent
bubbles, and the foam viscosity increases
rapidly with increasing quality. It is
probably this observation that led Rankin et
al., 1989,7 to describe stable foams used for
drilling as having qualities ranging from 75
to 97.5 percent. A lightened fluid will be
regarded as a stable foam if its liquid phase
is continuous and its quality exceeds 55
percent.
Breaking
All foams are ultimately unstable. However,
fine, low quality sphere foams decay much
more slowly than do coarse polyhedron
foams. Two processes disrupt the foam
structure - thinning of the bubble walls, and
growth of large bubbles at the expense of
smaller ones.
Bubble walls thin due to gravity. The
bubbles tend to rise towards the top of the
foam, while the liquid drains through the
bubble walls towards the base of the foam.
At some point, the walls become so thin that
they rupture. This is energetically favored
since it reduces the surface area of the liquid
and therefore reduces the surface free
energy. Stirring a sphere foam to re-
distribute the bubbles can prevent excessive
thinning. Any agitation of a high quality
polyhedron foam will, however, promote
rupture of the thinned bubble walls.
Surface tension of the liquid in a bubble wall
tends to collapse the bubble. This is
balanced by the gas pressure inside the
bubble. The gas pressure within a bubble is
inversely proportional to the bubble size.
When a large bubble contacts a smaller
bubble, the higher gas pressure inside the
smaller cell causes the gas ii side it to
diffuse through the liquid separat ng the two
bubbles, until the smaller bubt le is fully
absorbed by the larger.
Foams can be stabilized by inc-easing the
strength of the bubble walls and by slowing
drainage of liquid through those walls.
Surfactants strengthen the bul )ble walls
against excessive thinning. So too can
certain proteins which, if presmt in the
liquid phase of an air foam, react with
oxygen at the air-liquid interface, to form a
skin. Increasing the bulk visccsity of the
liquid phase slows drainage. Surfactant
mixtures can increase the surfac e viscosity
of the base fluid and this can also slow
drainage through bubble walls.
Foaming Agents
The primary agents used to gentrate foams
are surfactants. All surfactants consist of
molecules having a hydroph lic group
attached to a long hydrophobic ta 11, which is
usually a fatty hydrocarbon chain They are
classified according to the nat ire of the
hydrophilic group; which may )e anionic,
cationic, amphoteric, or non-ionic.
Whenever possible, surfactant molecules
orient themselves so that the iydrophilic
group is in an aqueous environmxt and the
hydrophobic tail is in a nm-aqueous
environment. They will therefore
concentrate at the liquid-gas ir terfaces in
foams. Here, they may increase 3r decrease
the surface tension of the liqui1 and may
strengthen or weaken the bubble walls. Not
all surfactants will act as foami ig agents -
some will destabilize the foam structure and
can be used instead as defoamers
At one time or another, all classes of
2-77
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
surfactant have been considered for drilling
applications. Ammonium salts of alcohol
ether sulfates are probably the most widely
used. These anionic surfactants are highly
soluble in most liquids. They provide a
foam with good thermal stability and are
suitable for use at very low surface
temperatures. Their main drawback is
comparatively high cost. Other anionic
surfactants that can be used as foaming
agents are alpha olefin sulphonates. These
are inexpensive, perform well in fresh water
and are very resistant to hydrocarbon
contamination. They do not, however, work
well in brines and will not tolerate low
surface temperatures.'
Very often, commercial foaming agents
contain both anionic primary foaming agents
and foam boosters. The latter may be
ethylene or propylene glycol butyl ethers, or
amphoteric betaines. Their function is
primarily to enhance foam stability.
Cationic surfactants are not commonly used
as foaming agents in drilling operations.
Quaternary ammonium chlorides do not
perform well in fresh water, give poor to
mediocre foam stability and must be used at
high concentrations.2 Nevertheless, cationic
surfactants may be worth considering for
drilling water-sensitive shales, because of
their ability to stabilize clays.7
In general, increasing the foaming agent
concentration in the liquid phase will
increase the stability of the foam. A
convenient way to assess foam stability is to
measure its half-life. Half-life is the time
required for the foam volume to decrease to
one-half of its original value. Initially, foam
half-life will increase more or less in direct
proportion to the concentration of foaming
agent. With common foaming agents, once
2-78
the concentration exceeds 0.5 percent, the
half-life does not increase as rapidly. Rankin
et al., 1989,7 presented data showing an
increase in half-life from about 200 to 300
seconds, as foaming ageni concentration was
increased from 0.5 percen to 1.5 percent.
There is a critical foaming agent
concentration above whicl I the foam half-life
will tend to decrease wit 1 further increases
in concentration.' This cc ncentration should
not be encountered in normal drilling
operations.
Contamination of foari by brine or
hydrocarbon can signifi :antly reduce its
stability. For example, 6 percent oil and 12
percent sodium chloride each reduced the
half-life of one drilling loam by about 50
percent, and the simultai leous presence of
both contaminants reduce([ it to less than 25
percent of its original valu :.7 Some foaming
agents are more sensitive to brine
contamination than others. In extreme
cases, fluids will not fcam at all in the
presence of even inodest chloride
concentrations.2
Temperature also influenc es foam stability.
As temperature increases, the rate of foam
decay increases. It is necessary to increase
the foaming agent concentration, as the
downhole temperature ir:creases. In one
example, foaming agent :oncentration had
to be increased to ten tim:s that required at
70"F, in order to genera e foam with the
same half-life at 400°F.'
Defoaming
When correctly formulat,:d, drilling foam
can have a half-life of maiy minutes, if not
hours. Unmanageably largc : volumes of foam
can rapidly accumulate at the surface when it
is circulated at typical rates. In many
instances, it is necessary to accelerate the
decay of the foam once it returns to the
surface.
Several different chemical means are
available to destroy a foam. Very often,
defoamers are themselves surfactants. The
effectiveness of a defoamer usually depends
on the specific foaming agent in use. For
example, iso-octanal, an oil-soluble alcohol,
is effective at destroying foam made with
the commonly used anionic foaming agents.
So too are various silicone emulsions. The
addition of very fine solids, that are not
wetted by the foam's liquid phase, can
enhance a defoamer's effectiveness. '
It may be necessary to stir the foam in order
to achieve effective defoaming. The initial
foam collapse that follows application of a
defoamer can create a film of liquid that
effectively shields the foam beneath from
the defoamer. This is more likely to occur
with oil-soluble defoamers, such as iso-
octanol.
If the foam is generated with an ionic
surfactant, contact with a small quantity of
foam generated with an oppositely-charged
surfactant can cause rapid collapse of both
foams.'
It is also possible to destroy foams
mechanically. In some instances, particularly
with high quality foams, it is sufficient to
agitate the foam and rupture the bubble
walls. This will not be effective on lower
quality sphere foams, and may actually
increase their half-life by reversing any
gravity-induced phase segregation. Drainage
of the liquid phase can be accelerated and
the foam destabilized by rotating or swirling
the foam so that it is subjected to radial,
inertial forces. Various n iechanical
defoaming systems exist. These c ither flow
the foam through a hydrocyclone c r a tightly
spiraling tube to induce rotation, or pass it
through a rotating chamber. Furtl ier details
on chemical and mechanical defomers are
provided later.
Hole Cleaning
A good drilling foam resemble,, shaving
cream. It would be expected th(it drilling
foam should be able to lift cut tin;^ from a
borehole, at even very modes annular
velocities. A number of factors interact to
make hole cleaning with foan a very
difficult process to model. Fi-st, foam
rheology is complex and stronglj depends
on foam quality. Foam vis:osity is
sufficiently high that the flowing pressure
drop around the well is much grea er than it
would be with dry gas or mist as tl e drilling
fluid. As shown previously, thc gaseous
volume fraction in a lightened dril ing fluid,
and by definition, foam quality, strongly
depend on pressure. There is COI isiderable
interaction between rheology and c irculating
pressure. The situation is further
complicated by inflow of formatior fluid. A
gas inflow will increase foam quality,
possibly to the extent that the foam breaks
down into a mist and loses its visi osity. A
liquid inflow will reduce foam qu: lity. This
will lead to a loss of viscosity and will
increase the foam density.
Rheology
There have been numerous studie: of foam
rheology, covering wide ranges ir gas and
liquid flow rates, compositions ind flow
geometries. Although there are d fferences
in the results of the various stud es, some
general conclusions can be drawn.
9 The two factors having the greatest
2- 79
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

impact on the flow behavior of foams are least. In this regime, the f 3am viscosity was
quality and flow related to its quality and o the viscosity of
9 Foam viscosity is largely independent of the liquid phase by:
the foaming agent's concentration in the
liquid phase, at least when using oilfield (2.48)
foaming agents at concentrations typical
of drilling foams.4,6,10,11 where:
9 When viscosifying agents are added to p~......foam viscosity (CP;,
the liquid phase, the foam viscosity
p~......base liquid viscosit y (cP), and,
increases with increasing liquid phase
viscosity. l 2
r ....... foam quality (fracti onal).
This expression has tht same form as
Foam rheology is not very sensitive to other
theoretical models of tw o-phase viscosity
flow variables. Beyer et al., 1972,4 studied
proposed by Einstein, 1901i,I3and Hatschek,
foam flow in several different internal
1910,14although the numerical values of the
diameter pipes, under a wide range of
coefficients are somewhat lifferent.
pressures, temperatures, qualities, flow
velocities, and foaming agent
Mitchell also found that foams with qualities
concentrations. They found that pressure
greater than approximatel: 55 percent were
and temperature influenced foam rheology
non-Newtonian, at shear 'ates below about
mainly by regulating foam quality.
20,000 s-'. He represented their rheology, in
Increasing pressure reduces the volume
this regime, using a Bingh am plastic model,
occupied by the gaseous phase, reducing the
frequently used to desciibe the flow of
foam quality. When allowance was made
drilling muds:
for this, pressure had only a minor impact on
the pressure drop characterizing foams
flowing at the same rate and quality. z=z,+- PVY ,y I2 x 1o4s -I (2.49)
Increasing temperature causes the gas to 479
expand and increases foam quality. There is
a secondary effect of temperature on where:
viscosity. As the temperature increased
from 70°F to 180"F, the pressure drop at z ........ shear stress (lbf/ft2:,
constant rate and quality decreased by about z,,.......yield point (Ibf/ft2).
25 p e r ~ e n t .By
~ comparison, the viscosity of PV .....plastic viscosity (cI'), and,
water decreases by 65 percent over the same y ........shear rate (s-1).
temperature interval.

Mitchell, 1971,6 measured foam rheology,
by flowing through small diameter tubes. He
found that foam was effectively Newtonian,
at qualities up to about 55 percent. This
means that the viscosity is independent of
the shear rate, up to this quality level at
Mitchell determined va lues for plastic
viscosity and yield point as functions of
foam quality. These are s iown in Figure 2-
27. Both plastic viscosity and yield point
increased with increasing quality, up to 96
percent; the highest qualit studied. Plastic

2-80
 20
18
16
0 0.2 0.4
Foam Quality (fractional)
Figure 2-27. Plastic viscosity and yield point of foam as functions of foam qi iality (afier
Mitchell, 1971 ").
viscosity ranged from less than 4 CP at 60
-
percent quality to more than 15 CP at 96
percent quality. Yield point increased from
less than 0.1 lbf/ft2 to more than 2 lbf/ft2
over the same range. Bearing in mind that
drilling mud yield points are usually
reported in units of lbj7100 ft,it is clear
that a high quality foam can have a
resistance to flow that is much greater than
many liquid drilling muds.
Beyer et al., 1972,4also concluded that foam
could be described as a Bingham plastic.
They noted that there was some slippage
between the flowing foam and the walls of
the pipes used in their experiments. This
complicated the determination of plastic
viscosity and yield point from the measured
flowing pressures. Making allowance for
this slippage, they found the yield point to
L.3
2
0.5
0
0.6 0.8 1
be independent of foam quality, n the range
from 75 percent to 98 percent, ~ r i t ha value
of 0.1 Ib/ft2. They reported hij;her plastic
viscosities than Mitchell's, ref lecting the
lower yield point value and slipiiage. Their
plastic viscosity ranged from clcse to 40 CP
at 75 percent quality to over 1( 0 CP at 97
percent quality.
Several authors15~16s17have conc' uded that a
power law model is a better rel~resentation
of the flow behavior of f o a m than a
Bingham model. For a power la1 I model:
z = Ky" (2.50)
where:
K ........consistency index (lbf.s"/i t2), and,
n .........flow behavior index.
2-81
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Sanghani and Ikoku, 1983,17reported values
for K and n, determined from experiments
performed using an annular geometry.
These data covered shear rates from 100 to
1,000 s-'. They reported effective viscosities
that ranged from 60 to 500 cP. Again,
viscosity increased with increasing quality,
up to about 94 percent. Thereafter, viscosity
decreased with increasing quality, reflecting
the breakdown of foam to mist. However,
even at 97.5 percent quality, viscosity was
still comparable to an 80 quality foam.
Above this, viscosity dropped very rapidly,
implying that cuttings transport efficiency
would be poor if foam quality were allowed
to rise to more than 97.5 percent. These data
were interpreted by Okpobiri and Ikoku,
1986,3 to indicate that foam flow would be
laminar for Reynolds numbers of up to at
least 3,000. This would imply that most
foam drilling operations could be performed
in laminar flow.
Effective viscosity (shear stress divided by
shear rate) is one means of comparing the
results of these different foam rheology
studies. Figure 2-28 shows the effective
viscosities of foam, as reported by Mitchell,
197 1: Beyer et al., 1972; and Sanghani and
Ikoku, 1983,17at several different shear rates
and foam qualities. Despite differences in
reported values, it is clear that drilling foam
has a high effective viscosity under all
conditions, and that this viscosity will
increase as the foam quality increases, at
least up to 90 percent quality.
Estimating Circulating Pressure
Flowing pressure drop will be strongly
influenced by viscosity and quality. Both
viscosity and quality change, as the
prevailing pressure changes. Changing the
relative volumes of gas and liquid injected
2-82
into the well is not the cnly way to vary
foam quality downhole. Increasing the
annular pressure at the surface, by choking
back the return flow, will .educe the extent
to which foam quality incrc ases between the
hole bottom and the wellhe; .d.
This is illustrated by a simple, and very
approximate, example. 'onsider a foam
circulating round a mode1 ately deep well.
Foam quality at the surface is 95 percent (a
gas volume fraction of 0.9:) with the return
line open to atmosphere (1 1.7 psia). If the
bottomhole pressure is 1,4; 0 psia, Equation
(2.39) indicates that the gas volume fraction,
Fgp, at the hole bottom is:
(2.5 1)
0.95
-
-
= 0.16
+ \
0.95 0.05 (1470/14.7,
That is, the foam quality M ould be only 16
percent. The large increase in pressure
between the surface and tke bottom of the
hole compresses the gas to I me-hundredth of
its surface volume, and he gas volume
fraction in the foim decreases
correspondingly.
Now, suppose that the suiface pressure is
increased to be 161.7 psia, ~y choking back
the flow. At the same time, he air and liquid
injection rates are changed $0that the foam
quality at this elevated surface pressure is
still 95 percent. Ignoring .he considerable
changes in annular pressure drop associated
with this backpressure, a isume that the
bottomhole pressure would increase by the
 80 Q U 8 / / f y Foam
1000

1
1 10 100 100 10000
Shear Rate (s-')

90 Qualffy Fo8m
10000

1
10 100 lo00 loo00
Shear Rate (8-' )

95 Qualify Foam
10000

-m
f> 100

-f
3
E 10

1
1 10 100 lo00 10000
Shear Rate ( 8 " )

Figure 2-28. Effective viscosity of foam as a function of shear rate and fc )am quality
(after Mitchell, 1971,' Beyer, et a/., 1972,4and Sanghani and Ikok u, 19833).

-
2-83
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
amount of the imposed backpressure, so that
it becomes (1,470 + 147) = 1,617 psia. In
this instance, the gas volume fraction at the
hole bottom would be:
0.95
=0.66 (2.52)
Fgp 0.95+0.05(1617/161.7)
The foam quality at the hole bottom would
be 66 percent. In reality, the new
bottomhole pressure will not simply be the
sum of the original bottomhole pressure and
the additional backpressure. Changes in
foam density and viscosity combine to make
the computation of the new bottomhole
pressure complex, but the trend is the same.
Applying a surface backpressure to
circulating foam will reduce the change in
foam quality between the hole bottom and
the surface.
As noted above, any change in quality will
change the effective viscosity, which
influences the flowing pressure drop, which
will further influence the quality. The
situation is even more complicated because
the foam density changes in response to
changing pressure, and the hydrostatic head
will depend on the coupling of viscosity and
quality. Consequently, it is not possible to
relate circulating pressures explicitly to flow
parameters. Instead, numerical methods are
required to predict foam circulating
pressures.
Numerical Pressure Predictions
Numerical models are available to predict
circulating pressures and rates, when foam is
used. Recent improvements in computing
power allow representative calculations to
be done on a PC (for example, Liu and
Medley, 199618). Some of the earlier
numerical approaches are described below.
2-84
These are useful for understanding the
concepts of the interrelat onships between
pressure, rate and quality.
Krug and Mitchell, 1972 ,19 approximated
foams with a Buckingham-Reiner model, for
laminar flow (without slippage) of a
Bingham plastic fluid thro igh a pipe. They
divided the flow path into small increments
of equal pressure drop, anc assumed that the
foam properties, includj ng quality and
rheology, were constant over each
increment. Foam temperltures in the pipe
and the annulus were assur led to be equal to
the undisturbed formation I emperature at the
depth in question. The pressure drop, down
each increment of c rillpipe length,
incorporated the flowing f Yictional pressure
drop and the hydrostatic p -essure increases.
For example, in the annulus, the pressure
drop due to friction and due to loss of
hydrostatic head, are add tive. The flow
increment length was exp-essed as (in the
annulus):
Li = Pi+l- Pi
(2.53)
Pi gc +
where:
L,........ the length of the ith increment in
the circulation patk (ft),
pi ........pressure at i (lbf/ft2>,
pi+] .... pressure at i + 1 (lbi lft2),
Pi ........flowing density at i Jbm/ft3),
g, .......32.2 lbm-ftAbf.s2,
Vi ........ average flow veloci y (fds),
PVi .....plastic viscosity (lbi -s/ft2),+
Dh .......hole diameter (ft), a id,
D, .......pipe/collars diamete c (ft).
To convert from CP to lb-s/ft2, multiply by 4.788 x
io4.
Similar formulations were used for flow
through the drillpipe. A finite difference
scheme was used, taking each interval as
having a pressure drop of 5 psi and iterating
until the sum of the interval lengths was
equal to the length of the circulating system.
The foam density, quality and flowing
velocity, in each interval, were adjusted to
allow for cuttings and it was assumed that
there was no slippage of the cuttings relative
to the foam. Again, it was necessary to
iterate until the sum of the flow increment
lengths equaled the circulation length.
Charts were developed that showed the air
and liquid volumetric injection rates and
injection pressure predicted to give a
bottomhole annular velocity of 90 ft/min,
with an annular surface pressure of 14.7
psia, and an annular surface foam quality of
96 percent. These conditions were taken to
represent practical limits for adequate hole
cleaning, with a minimized circulating
power requirement.
Beyer et al., 1972,4 developed a similar
finite difference model of foam circulation.
This model made explicit allowance for
foam slippage and for possible eccentricity
of the drillstring in the annulus. It did not
allow for cuttings in the annulus or their
impact on foam quality. The rheological
data assumed in the model only covered
foams with qualities from 75 to 98 percent.
For lower foam qualities, the frictional
pressure loss was found by interpolating
between the pressure losses computed for 75
quality foam and for water at the same total
velocity. For qualities above 98 percent,
when foam would be expected to break
down to mist, the frictional pressure loss
was found by interpolation between the
pressure losses computed for 98 quality
foam and dry air, at the same toial velocity.
This model was tested against da:a collected
while circulating pre-formed fc am around
two test wells. In one of these veils, foam
was circulated down a one-inch diameter
tubing string and back up t le annular
spacing between this and two-in1 :h diameter
production tubing. In the se:ond well,
circulation was down 2 7/8-inc h diameter
tubing and back up the annulus (2 7/8-inch
tubing x 9 5/8-inch casing). In both cases,
the total depth was approxim;itely 3,000
feet. Foam pressure was measired at the
surface and at several different d:pths. The
model was used to predict circulating
pressures, for the different geoi netries and
flow conditions examined. T le average
difference between predicted anl1 measured
pressures was less than 10 percent.
An approximate method for pred icting foam
pressure losses and injection pre ssures, that
does not require iterative sol Jtion, was
developed by Blauer et al., 19 74.20 This
model assumed that the density of the
gaseous phase is negligible, thrc lughout the
well, irrespective of the prevaili ig pressure
and temperature. Lord, 1979,21: howed that
this is unreasonable. Despite thif , the model
did predict injection pressures that were
reasonably close to those measurt d.
Lord, 1979,21developed an equal ion of state
for foam. This related foam density to
pressure, temperature, liquid den! ity, and the
gas mass fraction, presuminf real gas
behavior. A mechanical energy balance for
the circulating system related the pressure at
the entrance and exit of the circulating
system in terms of the equaticn of state.
Frictional pressure losses were e stimated by
assuming a constant friction factor
throughout the system, taken as the average
2-85
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
of the friction factors computed at the inlet
and the outlet. This model still requires
numerical solution, if flowing pressures are
to be predicted, and the friction factor has to
be carefully selected. The model accurately
predicted downhole pressures when
proppant-laden foam was pumped down a
well.
These foam circulation models did not
account for flow restrictions at the bit (i.e.
nozzles), or for the influence of cuttings on
annular friction pressure. Okpobiri and
Ikoku, 1986,3 developed a foam circulation
model that incorporated these two factors. It
used rheological properties measured by
Sanghani and Ikoku, 1983,17 together with
friction factors for clean and solids-laden
foam (from Okpobiri and Ikoku, 1986).22
This model included settling of the cuttings
through the foam. This model again
required iterative solution. Some sample
predictions of circulating pressures and gas
and liquid injection rates required for
efficient hole cleaning at various depths
were presented. The predicted bottomhole
pressures were fairly close to those
predicted, for the same conditions, using the
Beyer et al., 1972, model.4
In practice, the additional complexity of
allowing for the bit pressure drop may not be
necessary. Okpobiri and Ikoku22showed that
the bit pressure drop is small, in comparison
with other circulating pressure losses, if the
bit is not fitted with nozzles. Also,
additional frictional pressure due to cuttings
may be negligible, unless the foam velocity
is so low that cuttings accumulate in the
well. At the highest solids concentration
studied, the friction factor was
approximately 30 percent higher than for
clean, solids-free foam of the same quality.22
2-86
Recently, Guo et al., 1995,23 developed a
simpler method of pred icting bottomhole
pressures, during foam drj [ling. The required
bottomhole foam ve ocity and the
bottomhole and surface oam qualities are
specified as input. The bl )ttomhole pressure
and the average foam den,ity and quality are
approximated (neglecting friction). Effective
viscosity is estimated frjm Sanghani and
Ikoku, 1983.17 This, ir turn, is used to
determine a friction facto - and the resulting
frictional pressure loss. 'Ihis is added to the
first estimate of bottom1 iole pressure; the
computation is repeated 1 inti1 the predicted
bottomhole pressure conv xges. Predictions
made by this method coapared well with
those from Beyer et al., 1 )72,4 for a case of
circulation without drillir g. In addition to
its basic simplicity, this model uses a simple
enough representation of wellbore geometry
that it can be used for deviated or horizontal
wells. No allowance is ma de for the increase
in foam density from cutti igs in the annulus.
As a result, this model piedicts bottomhole
pressures that are lower than those predicted
by Okpobiri and Ik0ku,19113.~~
Most of these methods f t r predicting foam
circulating pressures dc not allow for
formation fluid inflows One of the
principal reasons for dr lling with foam,
rather than dry gas, is to handle large
inflows. For example, a Tvater inflow of 60
BPH (42 gpm) can oc:ur during foam
drilling. Liquid injection -ates are often less
than this. This indicates hat liquid inflows
can significantly change t le foam quality at
all points above the inflov. They will also
influence foam quality 1,efore the inflow
point, because the additio la1 liquid changes
the borehole pressures. The situation is
further complicated by the interaction
between borehole pressurc and inflow rate -
as the borehole pressure increases, the
difference between borehole and formation
pressure (that drives the inflow) will
decrease.
Millhone et al., 1972,24 demonstrated the
impact of water inflow on bottomhole
pressure. Using Beyer et al.'s model, they
computed bottomhole pressures for four gas
and liquid injection rate combinations
(ranging from 0 to 20 BPH) with different
water inflows in a 3,000 foot vertical well (2
7/8-inch diameter tubing inside 7-inch
casing). The predictions are shown in
Figure 2-29. They showed an increase in
bottomhole pressure, with increasing liquid
injection rates. For this well at least, the
bottomhole pressure would decrease as the
gas injection rate increased. In other words,
the extra friction pressure drop, due to the
increased quality, is more than offset by the
simultaneous reduction in foam density.
In Figure 2-29, the predicted bottomhole
pressures also increased as the water inflow
rate increased. At a liquid injection rate of
10 gpm (14.3 BPH), bottomhole pressures
could be doubled by an influx of about 30
BPH. Increasing the specified water inflow
rate is analogous to increasing the area of
productive formation exposed to the
wellbore or increasing the formation
pressure. If these parameters remain fixed,
the inflow rate will be controlled by the
bottomhole pressure. The well productivity
line shows how, with one particular
producing interval exposed, the inflow rate
would decrease in response to increasing
bottomhole pressure (the formation was
assumed to be normally pressured). The
intersections between the productivity line
and the predicted bottomhole pressure lines
show the relevant rates of inflow and
bottomhole pressure. Particul irly when
drilling for natural gas, the prob: bility of a
large gas inflow needs to be recognized. The
volume of gas flowing into the W I:llbore can
easily exceed that injected at tf e surface.
The additional gas will tend to -educe the
liquid volume fraction, increase he quality
and reduce the foam density. Increased
foam quality, providing that the quality is
below the threshold at which foim breaks
down, would increase the friction i1 pressure
loss. So too would the increased vrolumetric
flow rate. Both of these effects 1)ppose the
reduced foam density. If the liqt id volume
fraction falls so low that the foim breaks
down into a mist, the viscosit! will fall
dramatically. There is a stroni coupling
between borehole pressure and ii iflow rate;
the overall impact of the gas inflow on
borehole pressure is not easy to prl :dict.
Newer generation models (Liu ar d Medley,
1996") solve the mechanical ener zy balance
and also incorporate inflows of ;as, liquid
and oil. The pressure profile, fozm quality,
density and cuttings transport are predicted.
Inclined and horizontal wells are
represented.
Cuttings Transport
Since foam's effective viscosity is large, it is
reasonable to expect that it should be an
efficient medium for transportin,; cuttings.
Beyer et a]., 19724 measured the lifting force
exerted by foam, flowing past a 0 1875-inch
diameter sphere. Figure 2-30 stows these
lifting forces as functions of f o a m quality;
expressed as a fraction of the hi1;hest force
that they observed. Lifting fora increased
with increasing foam quality (decreasing
liquid volume fraction) to a p( ak at the
transition from foam to slug and mist flow.
At this point, the force exerted b j foam was
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 45

Formation Fluid Influx (BWPH)

Figure 2-29. Predicted influence of water inflow on bottomhole pressui e (after Millhone
et a/., 197224).

0.:

0.8 i-\
0.5
T-
0.4
I
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Liquid Volume Fraction

Figure 2-30. Lifting forces acting on a 0.1875-inch diameter sphere for different quality
foams (after Beyer et al., 1972').

2-88
over ten times greater than by water alone
(liquid volume fraction of one). Much of the
increase occurred as the quality increased
above 80 percent; for a 60 quality foam, the
lifting force was little more than twice that
for water.
Rankin et al., 1989,7used a model horizontal
well to compare the transport capacities of
several different lightened drilling fluids and
water. Two different, unspecified foam
qualities were both more efficient at
transporting sand (when flowing at an
annular velocity of 30 ftlmin) than water
flowing at 120 ftlmin. An annular foam
velocity of 100 ftlmin was adequate to lift
sand along the horizontal section, around the
build and out of the wellbore. In contrast,
dry air needed an annular velocity of 2,500
to 3,000 ftlmin and aerated water needed
300 to 400 ftlmin.
Cuttings transport can be analyzed by
comparing the drilling fluid's uphole
velocity, with the settling velocity of the
cuttings. The lifting force does not directly
correlate with the settling veIocity (the
maximum velocity that a single cutting
would reach if falling freely through the
fluid). It is the velocity at which the buoyant
weight of the cutting is exactly opposed by
the drag force generated by the fluid flowing
past the cutting.
Abbott, 1974, measured terminal velocities
of different sized spherical particles falling
through foams.'' He found that the terminal
velocities through foam were significantly
less than through water, and were equivalent
to those in many drilling muds. For
particles, approximately 0.1 inches in
diameter, terminal velocities were 10 to 20
ftlmin. Surprisingly, terminal velocities
increased as the foam quality increased.
Abbott calculated that the increase in a
foam's annular velocity, due to tl: e reduction
in borehole pressure as the fcam moved
uphole, would be more than sifficient to
offset the increase in termind velocity
measured for increasing foa n quality.
Cuttings transport efficienl:y wouM
increase as the cuttings move up hole.
In dry air drilling, flow past th; cutting is
almost always turbulent. Tiis is not
necessarily the case for foarr. Moore,
1974,26forecasted the terminal v :locities for
laminar, transitional, and turbule it flow past
a cutting. His predictions wer: based on
Equation (2.2) and drag ( oefficients,
determined experimentally for lir iestone and
shale cuttings flowing through nixtures of
water and glycerin:
in laminar flow:
2[pci:f1
V, =4980d, -
in transitional flow:
in fully turbulent flow:
v, = 92.6,/dc [y ) (2.54)
where:
vt ........terminal velocity of a cutting
(ftlmin),
d, ........ the cutting's diameter (in( hes),
p, .......the cutting's density (ppg ,
pf........the drilling fluid's densitj (ppg),
and,
2-89
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drillhg Techniques
.......the fluid’s effective viscosity at the
rate flowing up the annulus (cP).
A cutting’s Reynolds number, N R ~can
~ , be
expressed as:
15.47 pf v, dc
NRec = (2.55)
Pe
Theoretically, flow past the cutting will be
laminar if N Re ~1 , ~transitional if 1 < NR=<
2000, and turbulent if N R>~2000. ~
In summary, the following generalizations
are possible:
9 If the flow is laminar, an increase in
foam viscosity with increasing quality
will dominate the reduction in foam
density, and the terminal velocity will
decrease with increasing foam quality,
until the foam breaks down into mist.
9 If the flow is turbulent, the terminal
velocity is independent of the foam’s
viscosity. vt will increase with
increasing foam quality, due to the
reduction in density.
P For typical foam drilling conditions, Guo
et al., 1995,23 presented an example
showing that flow past a one-half inch
diameter cutting, in a 60 quality foam, at
nearly 10,000 feet, was transitional. The
terminal velocity computed was about 60
feet per minute.
P In transitional flow, the terminal velocity
is sensitive to the density difference
between the cutting and the foam, as
well as the effective viscosity of the
foam. This dependence on fluid density
and foam’s greatly reduced density
(compared to drilling muds), is probably
why foam does not show as much
2-90
increase in cuttings ti ansport capacity
(over water) as might Ile expected from
its viscosity.
Recent foam circulation m Idels incorporate
cuttings transport and can t e used to predict
gas and liquid injection r41tes required for
efficient hole cleaning. Giio et al., 1995,23
calculated the bottomhole 1 ressure first and
from this determined the irculating foam
velocity. Moore’s terminal velocity
was then used, together with Sanghani and
Ikoku’s rheological data,’ to compute a
terminal velocity for sor le user-selected
cuttings diameters. This irras added to an
arbitrary minimum, re( uired cuttings
transport velocity, to determine the
necessary foam annular velocity. For the
conditions considered, Guc 1 et al., 1995,23
found that an annular veloc ity of 90 ft/min
would be sufficient for good transport of
0.5-inch diameter cuttings.
Okpobiri and Ikoku, 1986,3 coupled cuttings
transport with their circulati ng model. They
developed charts, showing ti le injection rates
and pressures necessary for good hole
cleaning; as functions ( f depth, hole
geometry, penetration rate, ( uttings diameter
and annulus backpressure (choking back the
return flow at the surface).
These models have the same practical
problem as many of d!y air drilling
cuttings transport models -
the cuttings
size needs to be known bdfore the model
can be used precisely.
Design Charts
For dry air (and for mist) Angel’s charts,
while not necessarily p -ecise, provide
convenient guidelines. ‘’he best foam
drilling analog to Angel’s dry gas drilling
model is probably charts From Krug and
c-
Mitchell, 1972.19 These charts are
reproduced in Figure 2-3 1. They indicate air
and water volumes requirements (straight
hole) for an annular bottomhole velocity of
90 ft/min, at a surface annular pressure of
14.7 psia (i.e. no backpressure) and a surface
foam quality of 96 percent. Different charts
interrelate depth, penetration rate, hole size,
drillpipe diameter and predicted injection
pressure.
Krug and Mitchell also computed
bottomhole pressures that would be seen if
their recommended gas and liquid schedules
were followed. These are shown in Figure
2-32. The nonlinearity is due to the increase
in average foam density with depth. As an
example, when drilling 1295-inch hole with
595-inch drillpipe, at a penetration rate of 90
f a r , the bottomhole pressure is predicted to
be -850 psi at a depth of 3,000 feet and
-3,000 psi at a depth of 9,000 feet. These
correspond to average densities of 5.5 to 6.4
ppg.' Too much reliance should not be put
on design charts. With currently available
PC-based software, they are unnecessary
except for approximate comparisons of
different drilling systems.
The different models of foam circulation
used to assess cuttings transport show that:
> Both air and liquid injection rates should
increase with increasing drilling depth.
P There should be little need to increase air
or liquid injection rates if the penetration
rate increases. However, the injection
pressure will increase with an increased
penetration rate. If annular velocity has
to be increased to improve hole cleaning,
both air and liquid injection rates must
' These recommendations assumed that there is no
formation fluid inflow.
be increased; the injection 1ressure will
increase as a result.
Higher quality foams ger erally give
lower bottomhole pressures.
In order to maintain foam qiiality within
an acceptable range, as well depth
increases, it may be necessay to apply a
backpressure by choking back the return
flow.
Field Evidence
Typical air injection rates, repor ed for foam
drilling, are much lower than thc se normally
used in dry air drilling. Hut1:hinson and
Anderson, 1972, 27 described a 20-inch
diameter surface hole that could not be
cleaned with 4,000 scfm of t l r y air, but
which was effectively cleaned with stable
foam, pre-formed from 700 scfr 1 air and 12
gpm surfactant solution. Russell, 1993,5
reported cases where 17%-inch and 26-inch
surface holes were drilled to .ibout 1,000
feet, using only 375 to 460 scfrr air to form
foam of about 99 percent quaity. These
particular holes were drille at low
penetration rates, and hole c1:aning was
apparently less than perfect; biit the holes
were nevertheless drilled s itisfactorily.
Polymer-stiffened foam and higl ier injection
rates improved hole cleaninf (refer to
Section 2.6).
Foam has also been used to drill at
significantly greater depths (Dupont,
1984'*). A seven-inch hole was drilled
through a depleted Gulf Coast g i s reservoir,
at 15,000 feet, using 350 scfm air and 15
gpm foaming agent solution. No annular
backpressure was applied. I:espite high
(99.4 percent) surface foam qua ity, no hole
cleaning problems were rep orted. The
reservoir pressure was so low thr t the pay (at
2-91
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

400
I
1180
Drilling Rate = 1.5 'ps
350 Pipe Size ...3.50 inches 1 70

300 - ~~

160

250 150 -
A
%
!!!
m
¶
m
200 140
.-s
150 130 .--3
C

100 120

50 110
I

- 1 I
-
7
I
I I I
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

-
I
Hole Size
Pipe Size
... 9.87inches
I

... 5.50 inches __

- 180
540

E?,/-
Drilling Rate = 1.5 fi 8
440 I-160
---
A
m
P
v

2
340 1.0 ps 140 $
m0
t
.-s
240 120 .--p
C

140 100

40 80
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

Figure 2-31a. Recommended air and liquid injection rates and prel licted injection
pressures for foam drilling (after Krug and Mitchell, 19;2 "); no inflow
continued .....

2-92
 450 1; 10
I I I I Drilling date = 1.5 f p s I
400 1"O

350 11 io

300 1:io 2
v
2
250 1a.o
e
n
200 1:10
-H
g

150 1:lo 1
100 1 0

50 110

0 91 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

1200
I Hole Size ... 12.5 inches 1
1050

900

750

600

450

300

1 50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

Figure 2-31b. Recommended air and liquid injection rates and predictec 1 injection
pressures for foam drilling (affer Krug and Mitchell, 1972 "); no inflow
continued.....

2-93
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

450 180

400 170

350 160

300 150
v
Q
250 140 2a
e
n
200 130 6
.-
150 120 z5
100 110

50 100

0 90
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

1800 - 140

1600
Hole Sue ... 15.0 inches
.
Pipe Size . . 5.50 inches
__ -_
- 130

1400
f-----t- t----i----
120

I- -
I =

t-
~~

Drilling Rate 1.5 fps

A
a
1200 110 9
I e3
-
1.1 fps
;
W
a
1000 100
s
800 90 5-
-
C

600 80

/
1 fps
400 70

200 60
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Depth (feet)

Figure 2-3ic. Recommended air and liquid injection rates and pr6 dicted injection
pressures for foam drilling (affer Krug and Mitchell, 1972 '); no inflow.

2-94
 4500
I
Drill Rate = 1.5 fps
Hole and Plpe Sizes
4000 -
-
6.75 3.50 In.
-
7.87 4.50 In.
-
3500 9.00 5.50 In.
-
-
e
cn
P
3000
f!
~~

3
u)
2500 Drill Rate = 0 fps

t----
- ~ -

h
u0 2000
r
E
E
1500 ~

m
1000

500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1: 000
Depth (feet)

5000

4500

4000

vE 3500
f!
3000
cn
0
h 2500
-Q

2 2000
E
g
0
1500
m
1000

500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12 )oo

Depth (feet)

Figure 2-32. Predicted bottomhole pressures during foam drilling, no inflow (i rfter Krug
and Mitchell, 1972 ").

_I

2-95
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Driiiing Techniques
15,000 feet) was drilled overbalanced, even
though foam was used and the bottomhole
pressure was predicted to be less than 2,000
psi. This does not mean that there would
have been no inflows that might have
modified the foam quality. Dupont also
indicated that good hole cleaning had been
achieved in other foam drilling jobs, at
annular velocities as low as 50 ft/min.
Foam has been used to successfully drill
through permafrost. Anderson, 1971,29
reported a 17%-inch diameter hole, drilled to
700 feet, using 300 scfm of -99 percent
quality foam. Fraser and Moore, 1987,30
presented guidelines for permafrost drilling
with foam, based on experience from
drilling ten wells in the Canadian arctic.
Twelve and one-quarter-inch surface hole
was drilled with 4%-inch drillpipe.
Recommended air injection rates ranged
from as low as 215 scfm near surface to 465
scfm at 2,000 feet. Suggested surface foam
qualities were 98 to 99 percent. Since there
were water inflows, the annular qualities
could have been lower than these. For
comparison, Krug and Mitchell’s charts
recommended about 650 scfm air for 12%-
inch hole at 2,000 feet, and Angel’s analysis
indicates rates of approximately 2,500 scfm
if dry air were to be used.
Without giving specific injection rates,
Shale, 1995,31 noted that annular velocities
during foam drilling are often as low as 100
feet per minute, and that surface foam
qualities typically range from 95 to 99.7
percent. Finally, in a thorough review of
lightened drilling fluid use in the U.S. mid-
continent, Sheffield and Sitzman, 1985,32
recommended that surface foam quality
should be kept between 95 and 98 percent,
to avoid hole cleaning problems.
2-96
Summary
> Foam is often selectctd as the drilling
fluid when water inflo N S are anticipated.
With inflows, the fo#im quality in the
annulus will often bc lower than that
anticipated from the injected air and
liquid volumes. Thir almost certainly
contributes to the fr1:quent reports of
good hole cleaning and stable foam
returns with pre-forme i foam injected at
rates that the theorer ical work would
suggest should have broken down to
mist. Nevertheless, t does seem that
surface foam qualitie5 may be over 95
percent, without catastrophic
degradation of hole cle ming efficiency.
9 Overall, during foari drilling, it is
concluded that e, ficient cuttings
transport will nonially occur at
relatively low annula] velocities (-100
ft/min), provided that the foam quality is
maintained between 6C and 98 percent.
9 Convincing evidencc of the hole
cleaning that can be ac hieved with foam
are reports of granite f-agments, as large
as 2X-inches in dian eter, being lifted
from a well during a foam cleanout
operation .33
> Unless a large backpre ;sure is applied to
the annulus, foam injec tion pressures are
not very different frori those occurring
in dry air or mist drilling, although air
injection rates are us~allymuch lower.
Foam drilling ge ierally requires
significantly lower con ipressor power, in
comparison to dry or mist drilling
techniques.
Fluid Removal
Circulating foam ( an effectively
accommodate large inflc ws of formation

water. Any water entering the annulus is
likely to be rapidly incorporated into the
structure of the flowing foam. This is
accelerated by the “stirring” effect of the
rotating drillstring. Bentsen and Veny,
1976,34 observed that small water inflows,
10 to 20 BPH into 4%-inch diameter holes,
were so effectively absorbed by 150 to 350
scfm of 99 percent or higher quality foam
that the inflow could go undetected.
With large water inflows, the air injection
rate may have to be increased in order to
keep the foam quality within acceptable
limits. If the quality is allowed to fall too
low, hole cleaning efficiency will be
impaired. It may also be necessary to
increase the concentration of foaming agent
in the injected liquid, to prevent the foam
from deteriorating into slugs of air and
water. Provided that the air rate is adjusted
accordingly, inflows as large as 500 BPH
may be lifted from a well with foam.31
Water inflow will normally increase both the
bottomhole and the injection p r e s ~ u r e s . ~ ~ , ~ ~
Increasing the air injection rate will,
however, tend to offset the increase in
bottomhole pressure. In some circumstances,
the amount of water that can be lifted from
the well will ultimately be limited by the
available air rate and pressure capacity. The
cost of foam consumables and waste water
disposal will normally intervene to make it
uneconomic to continue foam drilling, long
before an inflow becomes too large to be
lifted from the well.
Problems may arise if the foaming agent in
use is not compatible with one or more of
the components of the formation fluids.
Chlorides, for example, can cause some
foamers to loose their efficiency. Similarly,
CYI”
hydrocarbon inflows can dest: bilize some
foams by interacting with the f >amer. Any
liquid hydrocarbon flowing irto the well
will not mix with the aqueous liquid phase
of the foam and will not, therr fore change
the foam quality.
Any gas flowing into the borehole will
increase the foam quality betwecm the site of
the inflow and the surface. For the foam to
remain stable to surface, the piimps should
be able to deliver a sufficieni volume of
liquid to keep the quality belcw 98 or 99
percent. If the foam quality rises above this,
the foam will break down into s ugs of foam
and gas, or even into mist. This can
jeopardize cuttings transport a id wellbore
stability.
For example, consider a well 1 being drilled
with 300 scfm of air and 99 qu.ility foam at
the surface. The liquid injec ion rate to
achieve this quality would be 3 cfm (22
gpm). If a gas inflow of 432 IAscflD (300
scfm), is encountered, the to a1 gas rate
flowing
up the annulus (natuial gas plus
injected air) will increase to 600 scfm. If the
liquid injection rate is not inzreased, the
liquid volume fraction will fall too low and
the foam will collapse. At the same time,
the annular velocity may be toc low for the
flowing mist and slugs of foari to provide
hole cleaning. The drillstring can rapidly
become stuck under these circ ~ m s t a n c e s . ~ ~
Increasing the liquid rate will estore foam
circulation and efficient hole cleaning, if
there is a modest gas inflow as in this
example. If this is done md drilling
continues below the inflow, the ‘oam quality
between the bit and the site 0 -the inflow
may become so low that hole (leaning will
suffer in this region. Ideally, a foam
circulation model should b: used to
2-97
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
determine the impact of the increased liquid
rate on foam quality and hole cleaning
below the inflow.
Now, suppose that a large gas inflow is
encountered; for example, 5 MMscfD. This
corresponds to approximately 3,500 scfm;
the total gas rate flowing from the well
would be 3,800 scfm. This would require 38
cfm, which is 285 gpm, of liquid for the
foam to remain below 99 quality at surface.
Few foam drilling units can come close to
that liquid rate. In any case, there would be
very high consumable costs and too low a
foam quality below the inflow. It would be
effectively impossible to continue drilling
with foam throughout the borehole if such a
large inflow were encountered. However, in
most circumstances, the annular velocity of
the mist would be sufficient for good hole
cleaning. Drilling could possibly continue
safely even though the returns would be mist
rather than foam.
Circulating Program Design
To summarize, a good starting point for
designing a foam circulation program is to
target at least 65 quality foam downhole,
with a minimum annular velocity of 100 feet
per minute, and a foam quality of not more
than 95 to 98 as the foam reaches the
surface. It may be necessary to have an
annular backpressure to achieve this range of
foam qualities. Particularly if there is no
local experience, it is advisable to carefully
design the circulation program. Formation
fluid inflows can influence circulating foam
quality to the extent that they should be
considered as part of this design exercise.
Equipment
In most respects, the same equipment is used
to drill with pre-formed foam as is used in
dry air and mist drilling. The following
2-98
sections summarize the additional
equipment required for foa n drilling.
Compressors
The gas is usually rrovided by air
compressors. Normally, th z air rates used in
foam drilling are lower tha 1 those for dry air
or mist. It may be possible to use fewer or
smaller compressors. For example, Fraser
and Moore, 1987;' usec two 300 scfm
reciprocating compressors, with a 1,000 psi
delivery pressure capacity. Surface injection
pressures, during routinc foam drilling,
rarely exceed 200 psi. Exceptions may
occur if an annular backprmure is applied,
if jets are run in the bit (wkich is not normal
practice), or if a downholc motor is used.
Higher surface pressures w 11 be necessary if
there is a large liquid infloiv, or if liquid has
to be unloaded from the borehole following
a trip. For this reason, if low delivery
pressure compressors ale used, it is
advisable to have a booster that can increase
the air pressure to 1,000 psi or more, if
necessary. Boosters are ccmmonly rated to
1,500psi.
The Gas
Air is most frequently used in foam drilling.
Other gases, such as nitro;en, natural gas,
carbon dioxide, or exhaust gas, can be used
instead. It is unlikely thet these specialty
gases will be less :xpensive than
compressed air, although t' le comparatively
low gas rates used in fcam drilling can
reduce the additional cost associated with
these alternatives. Whatcver gas is used,
adequate volume and pres! ure capacity are
essential (Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
The Base Fluid
Liquid mixing tanks and njection pumps,
similar to those used in riist drilling, are
required. Two 10 bbl mixing tanks are
normally used. The liquid injection pump
(often referred to as the mist pump) is fed
from one tank, while mixing fresh liquid in
the other. A higher capacity pump may be
required for foam drilling. Liquid rates
typically reported for foam drilling are in the
range of 10 to 20 gpm. Rates close to 100
gpm have been recommended for good hole
cleaning in deep, large diameter well^.'^^'^
Because of the great impact of foam quality
on hole cleaning, good metering of the gas
and liquid is essential. Although monitoring
the fall in liquid level in the mix tanks is
usually adequate in mist drilling, a flow
meter, in the mist pump suction line, may be
necessary for foam drilling.
Foam Generator
The one addition to a conventional aidmist
drilling compressor system, for pre-formed
foam drilling, is the foam generator. It
ensures thorough mixing of the two phases.
One type of foam generator is located where
the gas and liquid flows meet. It introduces
the liquid into the gas flow through a small
bore tube centered in the gas flow path, and
then directs the mixture through a venturi-
type flow constriction. Other foam
generators are located downstream from
where the air and liquid flows meet. . These
foam generators may contain baffle plates,
or even sand beds, to promote mixing.
In practice, it is not clear that a foam
generator is specifically req~ired.~’The air
and liquid mixture will invariably flow
through a number of valves and experience
many changes in direction, before it enters
the kelly; these alone may produce a good
foam. Even if foam does not form at the
surface, it will when the mixture passes
through the bit. There is evidence that foam
generated at the surface is more tolerant of
contaminants, such as formatic n water or
hydrocarbons, than foam form:d in their
presence.33 Unless there are spec ific reasons
not to do so, it makes sense to use a foam
generator.
Portable Units
As an alternative to conventiona air drilling
equipment, there are a number of custom-
built, portable, air foam unlts in the
continental U.S.36 Although these units
have mostly been assembled for completion
and workover operations, s 3me have
sufficient output for many fo im drilling
operations. They combine air c Impressors,
sometimes with a booster as well, a divided
mixing tank, liquid pumps, foan generators
and metering systems. Voluml :tric output
from a single unit can range fiom 650 to
1,500 scfm, with pressure capaci ies ranging
from 800 to 1,500 psi, for "lei/' pressure
units, and up to 3,000 psi for a “high”
pressure unit. The mixing tank n x-mally has
a 60 bbl capacity, divided into t YO sections
to allow liquid mixing to take lace in one
section while pumping from the other. The
liquid pump is generally capable Df pumping
at least 50 gpm.
Mud Pumps
As was the case for dry air drilling, it is
advisable to have mud pumps hcoked up, to
allow liquids to be pumped in o the well
rapidly, if necessary. If there is any risk of
hydrocarbon production, at rates y-eater than
the surface equipment can handlc , or if there
is uncertainty about the maxin um inflow
rate that might be encountered, ;in adequate
volume of kill weight mud should be on
location.
Drillstring
Float valves are necessary in thc drillstring,
just above the bit and near surfaze. If long
2-99
 ~ ~~
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
intervals are to be drilled, it may be
advisable to reposition the upper string float
(or install another) to minimize the time
taken to bleed down the string pressure
before making a connection. Fire stops are
probably not necessary, except possibly for
wells with long horizontal sections that are
to be drilled with an air foam.
Return System
A choke should be installed in the blooie
line, close to the rotating head or rotary
blowout preventer, to pressurize the annulus,
if necessary. Dupont, 1984,28recommended
a bladder-type choke. If the circulating
program indicates that annular backpressure
may be necessary, then this additional
pressure should be considered when
specifying the pressure capacity of the
rotating head or rotating blowout preventer.
The section of the blooie line between the
choke and the rotating head should also have
a pressure rating sufficient to support the
highest backpressure likely to be imposed.
In very cold conditions, there is the
possibility for foam returns to freeze and
plug the blooie line. In these areas, Fraser
and Moore3’ recommended using an
additional foam discharge line, with both the
blooie and foam discharge lines leading to
the flare pit. This redundancy is not
necessary for normal operations, where there
will be a line from the choke manifold to the
flare pit that could be used to continue
circulation, but not drilling, if the blooie line
were to plug. Small rigs may not have
enough clearance below the floor for two
diverters on top of a conventional BOP
stack.
There is no fundamental reason why the
blooie line should be any longer for foam
than for dry air or mist drilling. The flare pit
2-100
should be far enough from the well that heat
from the flare cannot ignite any gas
inadvertently released onto the rig floor. At
the same time, as discussej in Section 2.1,
“Dry Air Drilling,” the bac cpressure created
by the flowing pressure drop down the
blooie line should not be excessive, if the
primary jet is to be able t ’ ) draw produced
gas away from the rig floor juring trips.
For most operations, a 150.foot long blooie
line has proven to be saiisfactory. Four
hundred feet of separation between the
well’s centerline and the flire pit was used
for a recent foam drilling pi oject in Oman.37
In this case, the blooie 1 ne was only 6
inches in diameter, and the jets were placed
close to the rig and about h;Jf way along the
blooie line. The wells were, however, killed
prior to pulling off bottom; there were no
concerns about jetting gas a way from the rig
during trips. Both natural as and crude oil
were flowing into the well: during drilling.
To eliminate problems wit I the flared gas
igniting crude oil in the r:turn pit, a gas
separator was installed in the blooie line,
330 feet from the rig. Salt w iter was injected
into the separator, presumi bly to act as a
defoaming agent. Two linzs ran from the
separator. One line, betwe zn 100 and 130
feet long, took gas to the flare pit. The flare
pit was banked on three sidc s to reduce heat
radiation at ground level. The other line,
which was 130 feet long, ook the liquids
(foaming solution, produced water and crude
oil) to a lined liquid pit, apxoximately 130
feet by 130 feet in plan and ( 1.5feet deep.
In foam drilling operatiois, it is more
normal to discharge the retLrns into a large,
combined flare and reserve ,it, as described
in Section 2.1. The volimes of liquid
discharged into the pits a-e likely to be
greater than those in air ar d mist drilling,
considering that foam is often used to handle
large water inflows. Adequate arrangements
must be made to handle the anticipated
volumes of liquid.
A large, open return pit is not essential for
foam drilling. Effective defoaming and
waste water disposal are the keys to
decreasing the size of the return pit. It is
even possible to use a closed, surface system
when drilling with stable foam. The
equipment used to do this is described in the
Section 2.9, “Closed Flow Systems.”
lnjected Liquid
The Foaming Agent
The injected liquid includes (at a minimum)
water, a foaming agent, and a corrosion
inhibitor. The foaming agent should be
selected to suit the anticipated downhole
conditions.
API RP4638 describes a method for testing
foaming agents to be used in mist drilling. It
should be equally applicable for foam
drilling:
P The standard test liquids are fresh water,
fresh water with 15 percent kerosene, 10
percent brine, and 10 percent brine with
15 percent kerosene.
P Ten grams of silica flour are added to
one liter of test liquid, to simulate the
presence of cuttings.
P Foam, generated with the specific agent,
is used to lift each of the four test liquids
up a 10-foot long, 2.5-inch diameter
model wellbore.
P The quantity of test liquid collected in 10
minutes, at the top of the wellbore is
taken as an indication of the foaming
agent’s suitability for use in saline or
hydrocarbon environments.
> If possible, samples of actual formation
fluids and cuttings should be ubstituted
for the regular test liquids and solids.
Downhole conditions, and the interaction
between the foaming agent and formation
fluids, will dictate the concentrai ion of the
foaming agent in the injected liqiid. Most
commercial foaming agents arc: used in
concentrations that range from 0.5 to 2
percent. A concentration of 1 percent is
often a good starting poin.. The
concentration of foaming agents should be
adjusted to achieve a level of foa rt stability
that balances good hole cleaning with easy
defoaming.
Other Additives
Particularly if air foam is used at depths
greater than about 4,000 feet, careful
evaluation and selection of the corrosion
inhibitor are vital to preveit severe
corrosion of downhole equipmen. As was
the case with mist drilling, KC’,or other
shale hydration inhibitors, may be added.
Viscosifiers may be added to the liquid
phase to create a so-called “st ff foam,”
(refer to Section 2.6).
Disposal
The surfactants in foaming agents are almost
invariably bio-degradable. Sor le of the
components may pose minor health or
environmental hazards. Any haz 3rd should
be identified on the Material S ifety Data
Sheets (MSDS’s) for the material in
question. These should be consic ered when
selecting a foaming agent, pariicularly if
there are constraints on disposa of waste
liquid for the well in questioi. Some
commonly used foaming agen.s are so
environmentally benign that tht:y can be
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
disposed into urban waste water drainage
systems. Contamination of the waste liquid
by formation fluids or by a chemical
defoamer may create disposal problems,
even if the foaming agent itself is
environmentally acceptable.
The liquid injected into a well is not
normally recycled. If the foam decays so
rapidly at the surface that chemical
defoaming is not required, it may be possible
to recycle the spent liquid collected in the
return pits. To do this, Anderson, 1984,33
recommended using a large, U-shaped pit, to
hold the returned foam until it collapses,
returning the spent liquid from the pit to the
mixing tank, and re-conditioning it to the
original specifications (foaming agent
concentration, corrosion inhibitor
concentration, etc.) before reuse. When this
can be done, savings of 25 to 50 percent in
consumable costs are possible. It may also
be possible to re-cycle injected liquid
recovered from closed surface systems.”
Some form of solids control is advisable to
minimize the concentration of formation
solids in recycled liquid. This is particularly
important if downhole tools are used. These
include motors which might be susceptible
to erosion damage or plugging.
Finally, ensure that an adequate water supply
is available at the rig site to maintain the
planned injection rate.
Chemical Defoamers
Very large volumes of foam can rapidly
accumulate at the surface, particularly if the
foam quality is not very high (for example
95 percent or less), and if there are nq
formation fluid inflows to destabilize the
foam. It is normal practice to take measures
to accelerate foam decay. This can be done
chemically and/or mechanically.
2-102
It is possible to destroy foam simply by
spraying a suitable defoan er on top of the
foam in the return pit. Mcre effective foam
destruction results if the d1:foamer is mixed
thoroughly with the retuning foam. This
can be done by injecting tie defoamer into
the blooie line using a ring spray, as
described in Section 2.4 “ vlist Drilling” or
using a turbolizer tube.40 When possible,
the defoamer should be di uted, before use,
with an appropriate liquid (water whenever
possible), to assist in mixin,;with the foam.
The effectiveness of a part icular defoaming
agent often varies markedly from one
foaming agent to another. t is important, to
match the defoamer to th: foaming agent
being used. Simple pi1 )t tests can be
performed:
> Make a small batch (for example, one-
half liter) of foam, by stirring a solution
of the foaming agent in a high shear
mixer.
> Spray a small quantity, (perhaps 5 ml),
of the candidate defoamer onto the
newly formed foam, usi ng a hypodermic
syringe.
> An effective defoame- will cause a
significant portion of the foam to
collapse in seconds.
If there are environmental r :strictions on the
disposal of the waste licpid, a silicone
antifoam should be considx-ed. These are
effective on many comr iercial foaming
agents and are environment; lly benign.
Rates for adding defoilmers will be
controlled by the concentri tion and rate of
foaming agent injection, tfe quality of the
foam at the surface, the extent of any
contamination by formatio n fluid inflows,
the efficiency of the defoamer and the rate at
which foam has to be destroyed. Effective
foam destruction usually requires smaller
volumes of defoamer than foamer. For
silicone antifoams, which are available in
different concentrations of active silicone,
significantly smaller volumes of defoamer
will probably be required. Even with only
10 percent active silicone, the volume of
silicone antifoamer, required for very rapid
defoaming, will likely be less than one-tenth
of the volume of foaming agent used.
Mechanical Defoamers
There are several different types of
mechanical defoamers. All of these work by
accelerating gravity-induced separation of
the foam's liquid and gaseous phases. Hall
and Roberts, 1984,40 described using an
hydrocylone, in conjunction with a chemical
defoamer. This combination was sufficiently
successful in destroying foam that stable
foam could be used in offshore drilling
operations (because of disposal and storage
restrictions). Defoamer was injected into the
blooie line and returning foam was passed
through a hydrocyclone. The solid and
liquid discharge stream was passed over a
shale shaker and into a surge tank, from
where it was disposed of down an adjacent
water injection well. This is shown in
Figure 2-33. In this instance, fines in the
waste liquid plugged the injection well and,
ultimately, the waste liquid had to be
disposed of at an onshore treatment facility.
If this system is used when natural gas might
be encountered, the gas emerging from the
hydrocyclone should be piped to a flare.
There are two other generic types of
mechanical defoaming. One, is conceptually
similar to a hydrocyclone. It uses a
corkscrew-like internal flow pat1 I to subject
the foam to radial inertial brces and
accelerate drainage. The ot ier has a
spinning, perforated drum inside an outer
vessel. Foam flows into the spinning drum.
There, it breaks down under the centrifugal
force. Liquid passes through the holes, into
the drum, and is discharged through the base
of vessel, while gas is dischargzd through
the top. It is not clear how well :his system
will handle large quantities of sol ds, such as
cuttings entrained in the foam.
Combined Chemical and il lechanical
Defoaming
It may be necessary to combin: chemical
and mechanical defoaming, if thc : discharge
is into a small tank or a clos:d system.
MacDonald and Crombie, 1994;' conducted
yard trials with a p( llyurethane
hydrocyclone. This system dec reased the
volume of foam passing throigh it by
approximately 97 percent. As they noted,
the remaining 3 percent would bl: sufficient
to fill a conventional well tes' separator
within an unacceptably short time. Injecting
defoamer into the blooie line, befi )re passing
the foam through the hyc rocyclone,
increased the efficiency of the foam
destruction process to the extc:nt that a
closed surface system could be us(:d.
When drilling with an open retun system, it
is worthwhile to check the qualit:' and level
of foam in the pits. Particularly i ' defoamer
efficiency is low or if defoamer i: not being
used, it is possible for foam to be blown
around the rig location or even (Iff the site
altogether. Although this shoulc . not have
permanent impact on the environr lent, it can
cause much annoyance in urbar or semi-
urban areas.
2-103
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Water
Well
(80 gpm) A BC
Foamer
(0.08 gpm)
Cyclone
0
Generator
Shah? Shaker
(3 gpm)
Foam Killer
(0.03 gpm)
Figure 2-33. A foam disposal system used offshore (affer Hall and R<Iberts, 1984"),
Recycling
Using most chemical defoamers effectively
precludes any possibility of recycling the
killed foam liquid. A technique has recently
been in which foam is
destroyed by changing its pH. Foam is
generated and circulated through the well in
the normal manner, except that a pH
sensitive foaming agent is used. Acid,
injected into the blooie line, reduces the pH
and destabilizes the foam. The treated foam
passes through a gashquid separator. The
gas is directed to the flare pit. The cuttings-
laden liquid discharge is passed over the
shale shaker and into a conventional
arrangement of mud pits. Some of the liquid
is drawn off the shaker tank to re-inject into
the blooie line; extra acid is added to
decrease the pH, as necessary. If necessary,
2-104
1
Anti-
Onshore
Water
Treatment
Facility
Di:posal
Yell
the liquid can be treated with flocculant to
remove clays or centrifuge d to remove fines.
Lime is added to the liqiid in the pits to
raise its pH and conditicn it for foaming.
The liquid can then be rt -injected into the
foam generator. A 90 percent reduction in
the consumables required for a given foam
rate was claimed for tt is system. The
necessary surface equipn lent is shown in
Figure 2-34. There is little information
currently available to gaug :the effectiveness
of this system. The co npatibility of the
foaming agent with the make-up water,
formation water and hyc lrocarbons would
have to be establishec, just as with
conventional foaming c perations. The
anticipated savings in cc nsumables would
then have to be weighed against the
additional cost of the syste n.
 Blooie Line Return
To Air Pit or
Nitrogen Recycle

Cuttings El Storage

I I

Supplemental Defoamer
Q .>\=I
Storage

Additlon (lf Necessary)

I
Alkali Feed

Excess Foam

Free Water
Slop Pit Return Mud Pits Polymer Recol 'ery Solution
Flocculent Reac for Reuse
Addition
of Necessary) To Centrifuge
for Solids Control

Figure 2-34. A recyclable foam system (after Clearwater Inc., 1996 4' 1.

Operating Procedures quality carefully. A steady dis:harge of a

In many instances, drilling with stable foam
is similar to dry air or mist drilling. The
procedural differences are highlighted
below.
Standpipe Pressure
As with dry air or mist drilling, the
standpipe pressure should be monitored
carefully. Mud rings should not form when
foam drilling. An increase in standpipe
pressure usually indicates a formation fluid
inflow. Changes in the foam quality at the
blooie line can often confirm the influx.
Foam Quality
It is important to monitor the returning foam
stiff, high quality foam that colla x e s rapidly
in the flare pit is preferred. Wit1 a properly
designed circulation program, this will
occur, unless formation fluids ire flowing
into the well. Without careful p -e-planning,
it may be necessary to adjust in-ection rates
and foaming agent concentration, to achieve
the desired foam.
If the foam is wet (quality subst intially less
than 95 percent) at the surface its quality
downhole may be too low for effective hole
cleaning. There is no point in inj xting more
liquid than necessary, incurring innecessary
expenditures. Furthermore, a wet foam

2-I05
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
takes longer to decay and requires more
defoamer than a dry (high quality) foam. If
the foam seems wet at the surface and
there is no evidence of a water inflow,
reduce the rate at which liquid is injected
into the well.
A water inflow can be detected from
increased standpipe pressure and, if the
surface system permits, by comparing the
liquid injection and production rates. If a
water inflow is suspected, it may be
necessary to increase the concentration of
the foaming agent.
If the gas volume fraction (the quality) has
been allowed to become too high, the foam
may destabilize as the pressure falls on
approaching the surface, and slugs of foam
and gas will be seen at the blooie line. In the
extreme, the foam may collapse to a mist
before reaching surface. These conditions
will normally arise as a result of a gas influx,
or too low a liquid injection rate.
Gas Znflow
A gas inflow will increase the standpipe
pressure and burn at the flare. If the rate of
inflow is much larger than the air injection
rate, it can displace the foam above it.
Initially, this correlates with an increase in
the rate at which foam is discharged from
the blooie line. Once the foam has been
blown from the well, the returns are likely to
be either slugs of foam and gas or mist, and
there will be a large flare. When a gas
inflow is suspected because of slugs of
foam and gas in the return flow, stop
drilling and increase the liquid injection
rate until stable foam returns are re-
established. If this is not done, cuttings
may not be lifted efficiently from the well
and the string can become stuck.
__
2-106
Liquid hydrocarbons can 2 Is0 be produced.
These can reduce the effectiveness of some
foaming agents. If a foariing agent is not
resistant to hydrocarbon :ontamination, it
may be necessary to inciease the foamer
concentration and injectior rate, in order to
re-establish stable foam rea irns.
As noted earlier, a very high rate gas inflow
may give an annular ve1o:ity sufficient to
effectively lift cuttings frcm the well. To
determine if this is the case
9 Estimate the inflow rate
P Compare the total gas rate (inflow plus
injected air) with th: injection rate
required for efficient mi st drilling for the
relevant depth and hole Gize.
9 If the total gas rate is ufficient for the
mist to clean the hole, tl iere is little point
in increasing the liquid rate. If the total
gas rate is not sufficieiit, and it is also
not possible to incrt:ase the liquid
injection rate to re .establish foam
returns, it may still be possible to
increase the air rate to where mist
drilling become feasible
9 Otherwise, it may be ne ;essary to switch
to mud.
9 If drilling does continuc with mist, with
a gas inflow, the ,)otential for a
downhole fire should bt? considered and
the appropriate precautic Ins taken.
Liquid Inflow
Slugs of liquid and gas mzy be seen at the
blooie line. This will hap3en when liquid
inflow is not compatible ijith the foamer.
The foamer concentrati )n should be
increased. It may also )e necessary to
increase the foamer conc' mtration simply
because the well is getting deeper and the
foam temperature is increasing corres-
pondingly.
If it is necessary to reduce the liquid
injection rate, increase the concentration of
corrosion inhibitor in the injected liquid to
compensate for the reduction in injection
rate.
Lost Circulation
It is possible to lose circulation when
drilling with foam. A temporary loss of
returns, followed by a violent surge of foam,
may be observed following a break in
circulation if a water inflow has occurred
and the hydrostatic head of water has to be
overcome before circulation can be
established. Under some circumstances,
however, the circulating pressures can be
sufficient for foam to be lost into downhole
cavities or fractures. Particularly if this
happens near surface, careful consideration
must be given to where the foam may be
going. This becomes even more important if
hydrocarbons are flowing into the well when
returns are lost. There are anecdotes of
foam finding its way through aquifers, into
nearby streams and rivers, or emerging from
a hillside below the rig site. Any apparently
uncontrolled release of foam could have
damaging consequences in terms .of local
opinion, even though its environmental
impact should be small if no hydrocarbons
are released.
Hole Cleaning
The well should be monitored for
characteristic signs of poor hole cleaning,
such as excessive drag or fill. Poor cuttings
transport may simply indicate too low an
annular velocity, if steady returns of dry
foam are occurring. If the well is deep, or if
a wet, low quality foam is being discharged
at the blooie line, the foam quality
downhole may be too low for good cuttings
transport. This may be improved by
reducing the liquid injection rale or, if the
surface foam is dry, by increasing the air
rate and applying backpressare to the
annulus.
Backpressure
In some foam drilling jobs, pa~ticularlyin
deep wells, it may be necessary to apply a
backpressure, to maintain fo;un quality
everywhere in the annulus. The circulating
program should specify a b rckpressure
schedule, likely increasing with increasing
depth. If backpressure is require( ., the choke
should be adjusted, as necessaq, to follow
the predetermined pressure schedule.
Whenever possible, the impa:t of any
change in backpressure on form quality,
annular velocity and hole cleanin should be
computed and evaluated before a ljusting the
choke.
There is a large volume of compressible
fluid in the well. The circulating pressures
only respond slowly to changes i 1 the choke
setting. Care should be taker , to avoid
"over-controlling" the choke. 't is better
I
practice to make small adjustments to the
choke setting and allow the E'ressure to
stabilize before making an y further
adjustment.
If possible, do not use backl~essure to
reduce foam quality. It increases circulating
pressures and compressor pow :r require-
ments. If annular velocities are high
enough, increasing the liquid in ection rate
or even reducing the air inject on rate, is
more efficient than imposing a ba ckpressure.
Making Connections
Connections are made in the same way as
they would be in mist drilling. Stop
2-107
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
injecting liquid, before bypassing the air
flow to the primaryjet. Continue jetting the
blooie line with air, while making the
connection. This will draw any natural gas
that might be flowing from the well away
from the rig floor.
Provided that the foam quality is not too
high, most of the foam in the annulus will
not collapse while making a connection.
With foam’s high viscosity and low settling
velocities, cuttings will tend to be held in
suspension by the foam in the annulus.
Although it is still good practice to circulate
the annulus clear of cuttings before making
the connection, this is not as important with
foam as it is with dry air or mist drilling.
However, with a poor, unstable foam, (for
example, if the quality is too high or if there
is a de-stabilizing liquid inflow), the foam
half-life can be less than one minute. In this
case, a significant proportion of the foam in
the annulus will collapse during the
connection, and any cuttings will settle
rapidly. If this is likely, the hole should be
circulated clean before making the
connection.
As with dry air drilling, it is advisable to
wait until returns are established, before
resuming drilling after a connection.
Cuttings fill around the bottomhole
assembly is less likely when drilling with
foam. Very often, foam is used because
there is a significant liquid influx, and there
will normally be liquid in the hole after
making a connection. This will not trap the
string as a cuttings accumulation could.
Liquid accumulation could, however,
prevent re-establishing circulation, until the
foam pressure below the bit overcomes the
hydrostatic pressure. The hydrostatic head
of the accumulated liquid can be noticeable,
2-108
even with a rapid connection. Consider an
8%-inch diameter hole, bei-ig drilled with 6-
inch collars, and making 60 BWPH. If
circulation is shut off for 5 minutes, 5 bbl of
water would flow into ‘ h e well. This
volume, flowing into a d q hole, would fill
143 feet in the annulus, ccrresponding to a
bottomhole pressure increi nent of over 60
psi. The standpipe pressi re will progres-
sively increase after foi m injection is
resumed, until the pressure of the liquid that
accumulated in the well is ( vercome and the
liquid is lifted from the w:11. It can take
several minutes, after mesuming foam
injection, before foam ac’ually begins to
flow up the annulus. Uniil that happens,
any cuttings that are genei-ated will not be
lifted from the hole. 110 not resume
drilling, at least until the standpipe
pressure has begun to fall Depending on
hole conditions, it may be 4 idvisable to wait
until foam returns are established before
resuming drilling.
Tripping
Over the time taken for a .ound trip, foam
will separate into its liquid and gas
constituents in all except t le shallowest of
holes. This will allow all CL ttings to settle to
the hole bottom. It is impoi tant to circulate
the hole clear of cuttings bt fore tripping.
Liquid from a collapsed, v e t (low quality)
foam can provide a signif cant hydrostatic
pressure at the hole bottom. For example, if
the average foam quality armnd the well is
95 percent, the liquid phase is filling about 5
percent of the hole volume. In a 5,000 foot
deep hole, the foam’s bzse liquid alone
could fill at least 250 feet,+ giving a
bottomhole pressure increzse of over 100
psi. If the well is not maki ig any liquid (at
Neglecting any inflow.
the current depth), displacing the hole with
air before tripping will avoid problems in re-
establishing circulation.
If liquids are flowing into the well at a
significant rate, a much larger volume of
formation liquids can accumulate during a
trip. As an example, consider a 5,000 foot
deep, 8S-inch diameter hole, making 60
BWPH. A round trip will take
approximately 5 hours. During this time,
''
approximately 300 bbl, or 1,685 ft3, will
flow into the hole. This would fill over
4,000 feet of the hole. The volume of the
foam's liquid phase is negligible in
comparison. In this case, there is no point in
displacing the well to air before tripping.
The most efficient tripping procedure will
depend on the volume of natural gas being
produced. If the well is producing gas, or
even suspected of producing gas, steps have
to be taken to prevent gas from reaching the
rig floor.
9 After circulating the hole clean and, if
appropriate, displacing the well to air,
shut off the air injection and strip the
string back through the rotating head or
rotating BOP, as far as possible before
pulling the rubber.
9 If the well is not making more than
about 2 MMscfD, turn on the
compressors and jet the blooie line, as
described in the section on tripping when
drilling with dry air. This volume of gas
should be jetted away from the rig floor.
> Continue tripping with the rotating head
rubber removed.
9 If the well is making much more than 2
'' Neglecting reduction in the inflow rate due to
increasing hydrostatic pressure.
MMscfD, close the annular IIOP before
pulling the rotating head rubb :r and strip
the BHA through the annular as far as
possible.
9 It may be necessary to jet the dooie line,
to draw gas leaking past the BHA away
from the rig floor.
9 Close the blind rams and flow the
produced gas through an open choke to
the flare pit while the string i ; out of the
hole.
9 Once the blind rams are 4 losed, the
compressors can be shut dowr .
9 Conventional air drilling surface
equipment should be able to 1 andle over
5 MMscfD of gas produaion, when
tripping. In extreme cases o very high
'
production rates, it may be nxessary to
kill the well before tripping. Since this
has the potential to damage a productive
formation, it should only be considered
when it is felt to be unsafe to allow the
well to flow while tripping.
> Resume jetting, open the blin rams and
close the choke before re-rinning the
string.
9 With significant gas production, it may
be advisable to strip as much If the BHA
as possible back into the wrA1 through
the annular.
9 When possible, re-install tl e rotating
head rubber and stop jetting.
> If the well is not produciiig liquids,
continue the trip back to bott ,m and re-
establish foam circulatio i , before
resuming drilling, as describe(I above.
9 If the well is making water, it will be
2-109
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
necessary to unload this from the hole
before resuming drilling. The method
adopted to do this will influence how the
string is tripped back into the hole.
When drilling with foam, the procedures
for unloading water from the hole are
similar to those used when drilling with
dry air.36 There are options for staging
into the hole or for unloading in one
stage.
Staging into the Hole
As was the case for dry air drilling, the
length of stage that can be unloaded is
determined by the maximum available
injection pressure. A general rule-of-thumb,
reported by Scott et al., 1995,36 is to limit
the stage length (feet) to no more than twice
the injection pressure capacity (psi). For
example, up to 1,600 feet could be unloaded
with 800 psi air injection capacity. This
differs little from the stage length estimation
given in Section 2.1, for unloading with dry
air.
9 Run the string to the. selected stage
depth.
9 Install the string float.
9 Connect the kelly.
9 Begin injecting a low (50 to 60 percent)
quality foam.
9 Once circulation is established, the
standpipe pressure will fall and the well
will begin to unload.
P At this point, increase the foam quality
to the level specified for drilling, by
increasing the air rate, and reducing the
liquid injection rate, as appropriate.
Circulating pressures will stabilize once
the formation liquid is removed from the
stage.
2-110
Shut down foam inject!on, trip the string
down to the next s:age depth, and
continue unloading n stages, until
bottom is reached.
Once the bit is on bottlym, with the hole
unloaded and steady fcam circulation is
re-established, there is I IO need to dry the
hole further before resu ning drilling.
Unloading in One Stage
Alternatively, it is possib e to unload the
hole in one stage. This method uses the
hydrostatic head of a low q iality foam in the
drillstring, to reduce the surface pressure
needed to displace liquid frc )m the annulus.
9 Run to bottom, and begin injecting
liquid at up to 30 gpm.
9 Turn on the compres;ors and slowly
inject air, to create a lo\ J quality foam. If
the air rate is too hi;;h, the injection
pressure will rise quite rapidly. In this
case, shut down the air and slug the well
with liquid, before resui ning air injection
at a lower rate.
9 The standpipe pressure should begin to
fall when liquid reaches the surface, or
when foam enters the annulus, if the
borehole was liquid-fillc d.
9 When foam returns are seen, the air and
liquid injection rates SI- ould be adjusted
to give the foam qiality and rate
required for drilling to r :sume.
9 Once the bit is on bottcm, with the hole
unloaded and steady foim circulation is
re-established, there is r o need to dry the
hole further before resui ning drilling.
This procedure should on/ v be used i;f it is
clear that the wellbore tan support the
bottomhole pressure and t llow circulation
to be re-established, withoi :t losing injected
fluids into the formation.
Mudding Up
It can be difficult to mud up a well that is
producing gas at a high rate. The gas can
blow the mud out of the well as fast as it is
pumped downhole. If this happens, the well
can be shut-in and flow diverted through the
choke line to restrict the gas production rate.
Since this will increase the annular
pressures, care must be taken not to subject
the openhole section and casing shoe to a
pressure higher than they can support. If
there is any concern about the openhole’s
ability to withstand shutting-in the well, it
should be mudded up as soon as the gas
production rate approaches the, level at
which filling the hole with mud becomes
difficult. For example, Sheffield and
Sitzman, 1985,32advised mudding up, in the
Arkoma Basin, if a gas flow rate of 3
MMscf/D is encountered.
Limitations Of Foam Drilling
Why is Foam Drilling Done?
9 The principal reason for using stable
foam as an underbalanced drilling fluid
is its ability to lift large quantities of
formation water from the borehole,
without requiring excessive air (gas)
volumes or injection pressures.
9 Foam gives good hole cleaning, at lower
annular velocities than other
compressible drilling fluids, reducing the
potential for erosion of the, borehole
wall.
> It is possible to conduct foam drilling
operations, using only biodegradable
consumables. This means that cuttings
disposal can be much easier than it
would be for a mud drilled hole, if no
liquid hydrocarbons are e icountered.
This is also the case for dry air (or gas)
and mist drilling.
The control of foam returns is sometimes
thought to restrict the us( of foam
drilling. With proper attenticm to foam
control, as described previou: ,ly, there is
no reason why this should pose any
technical limitation to foam d ,illing.
What are the Limitations?
There are a number of factors tl at do limit
the applicability of foam drillii Lg. These
include corrosion of downhole Equipment,
wellbore instability, downhole fires in
horizontal wells, waste water di ;posal, and
consumable costs. Some of these limitations
are also common to dry air and rr ist drilling.
Corrosion
If air is used as the gas phase iii a drilling
foam, the corrosion rates of ferrous
downhole equipment can be hi;;h. As in
mist drilling, oxygen and wa er in the
drilling fluid allow corrosion do. vnhole. A
combination of flowing cond tions and
mechanical contact between the drillstring
and borehole can remove potentially
“protective” corrosion products i nd prevent
significant local depletion of oxjgen by the
corrosion reactions. Both effec :s promote
further corrosion. Foam has a higher liquid
content than mist and the liqui1 phase is
continuous, encouraging corrosioi I.
Any saline formation fluid flowiig into the
borehole will increase the electrical
conductivity of the foam’s liquid phase; this
will accelerate corrosion. So toc will salts,
such as potassium chloride, adled to the
injected liquid to control shale hy iration.
Sour gas will further increase corrosion
2-111
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
problems during foam drilling, (and other
types of underbalanced drilling). Corrosion
will reduce the wall thickness of downhole
equipment, as steel is converted into oxides
that have little strength. If hydrogen sulfide
is present, there is real potential for stress
corrosion cracking, in addition to loss of
bulk material. Sulfide scavengers in the
injected liquid will prevent small quantities
of hydrogen sulfide from attacking
downhole equipment. It will not be
economic to treat large quantities of
hydrogen sulfide in this way. Instead,
downhole equipment should be specified for
sour service. Furthermore, for safety
reasons, a closed system should be specified
to handle the wellbore returns if hydrogen
sulfide is anticipated.
Corrosion is not an insurmountable
limitation to foam drilling. Adding an
effective corrosion inhibitor to the injected
liquid will, in many instances, slow
corrosion of downhole equipment to an
acceptably low level. The inhibitor must be
compatible with the foaming and defoaming
agents in use. Its function should not be
impaired by any formation fluid inflows that
might occur. As with mist drilling, it is
advisable to conduct corrosion rate studies,
to confirm the effectiveness of the selected
corrosion inhibitor.
Corrosion problems with foam increase with
increasing depth, principally because of the
associated increases in temperature. For
example, Scott et al., 1995,36described a
series of air foam workover jobs, in which
the workstring showed a distinct line where
corrosion began, at a depth of 4,000 feet.
The corrosion inhibitor was ineffective at
greater depths. Corrosion inhibitor
evaluations should be performed under
conditions that replicate downhole
2-112
temperatures and pressure i, if air foam is to
be used in protracted dril ing operations, at
great depths.
Using an inert gas to mzke the foam will
prevent corrosion. E>cept in special
circumstances, this will )e uneconomical,
even when allowance is m ide for the cost of
corrosion and its inhibition.
Wellbore Instability
In naturally fractured fc rmations, drilled
~ v e r b a l a n c e d ,wellbore
~~ :rosion has been
lessened by reducing w :llbore boundary
shear stress. This happei IS because foams
are efficient at cuttings ransport, at low
annular velocities. Annul ir velocities with
foam tend to be much lo~rerthan with dry
air or mist. As has beeii discussed, high
quality foams typically use in drilling, have
high viscosities at low s h e u rates. It is not
unreasonable that foam shc wld have a lower
tendency to erode the boreliole wall than dry
air or mist.
P Mechanical Instabilii y
When drilling with foam, borehole
pressures tend to be Iiigher than those
encountered when drilling with dry gas
or mist. The differenc :may or may not
be sufficient enough tc have a beneficial
effect on wellbore sta d i t y . Consider,
for example, a 5,1100 foot deep,
normally pressured well (refer to the
example in Section 2.4). Assume that
the maximum effectit e circumferential
stress concentrated at he borehole wall
is approximately 4,175 psi. The
bottomhole pressure vould be around
25 psig with dry air ar d around 50 psig
with mist. Krug and F iitchell’s charts”
indicate that the circu ating bottomhole
pressure could be as hi ;h as 1,500 psi, if
this well were drilled with stable foam.
 Using foam could increase the borehole
pressure by as much as 60 times. This
would decrease the difference between
circumferential stress and borehole
pressure by 30 percent, from 4,875 psi
to 3,400 psi, but still may not provide
adequate support. This will help reduce
mechanically-induced wellbore in-
stability in weak rock. In many
instances, mudding up is the only option
when major wellbore instability
problems are encountered while drilling
with foam. Stability calculations are
discussed in Chapter 4.
P Chemical Instability
As with mist drilling, it is possible to
include shale inhibiting salts and
polymers in the liquid phase of a foam
drilling fluid. If the additives are
carefully selected, they can certainly
reduce chemically-induced instability
problems, when water-sensitive shales
are penetrated. Foam is often used
when significant formation water
inflows are encountered. These inflows
will alter the composition of the foam's
liquid phase and may promote
interaction with water-sensitive shales,
exposed further uphole. Foam drilling
uses larger quantities of liquid than mist
drilling; the costs of treating the foam
will be correspondingly higher. The
cost of shale stabilizing additives can
become prohibitive when large water
inflows occur.
Workovers
Many shallow wells have been successfully
worked over by drilling a liner into place in
an unconsolidated and underpressured
reservoir, using stable foam as the drilling
Essary and Rogers, 1976,44reported
that conventional drilling operations with
-- -
foam were djfficult because, alth mgh stable
when circulating, the formati Ins would
slough into the wellbore as soon as foam
circulation was stopped. U ider some
circumstances, the circulating iressure of
foam can provide sufficient support to
prevent wellbore instability. Loss of
borehole pressure when circulath In was shut
down in these wells caused rap d wellbore
collapse. Wellbore instal lility that
accompanied stopping circul ition was
overcome by attaching the bit o the liner
and drilling-in the liner. E ~ . e n though
circulation would be shut down lor up to 30
minutes per connection, few diffi alties with
liner sticking were reported.
Downhole Fires
Downhole fires, when drilling v rith dry air,
were discussed in Section !.1. The
continuous liquid phase in a foan I provides a
barrier to combustion, even if he gaseous
phase is air. There are mai~y reported
instances of wells drilled and v,orked over
using air foam, without any fire safety
p r o b l e r n ~ . ~ ~ * ~Regardless,
~ proceed
intelligently.
The reported instances of dowihole fires,
when drilling with foam, are ii horizontal
wells.37 With the low annula. velocities
typically used in foam drillir g, gravity-
induced separation may occur in a long,
horizontal section. It is suspec:ed that the
reported fires occurred when the foam
separated, forming an air-contin JOUS phase,
which could support combustioi on the top
side of the hole. The pstential for
downhole fires when drilling 'vith an air
foam should be considered whc n planning
a well, particularly a horizontal well.
Foam made with inert gases idill provide
more complete protection again it downhole
2-113
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
fires, irrespective of the borehole trajectory.
In foam drilling, the cost of using any gas
other than air is often prohibitive.
Waste Water Disposal
Stable foam can lift enormous quantities of
water from a well, and foam drilling can
safely continue, even in the presence of very
large inflows. The economic benefit of
continuing to drill underbalanced with foam
must be balanced against the cost of
handling and disposing of the waste water.
Because larger quantities of water will
probably be produced during foam drilling
than during dry air or mist drilling, the cost
of waste water disposal becomes more of a
limitation. The options for water disposal
should be carefully considered, taking into
account formation water composition and
liquid additives.
In some locations, it may not be possible to
build a reserve pit large enough to hold all of
2-114
the waste water that may lie produced when
drilling a particular inter r a l . If it is not
possible to dispose of the water while
drilling, it may be necessar 7 to mud up, once
the pit level reaches a critic a1 limit.
Consumable Cost
A final limiting factor in foam drilling is the
cost of the consumables. T saline or liquid
hydrocarbon inflows are er perienced, it may
be necessary to use larze quantities of
expensive foaming agents, to maintain foam
stability in the annulus. In :ombination with
the additional costs of t’ie foam drilling
equipment (compressors, liquid pumps,
rotating head, etc.), the COI t of consumables
may become too high for foam drilling to be
economically more effec tive than mud
drilling. In general, this is not the case and
stable foam drilling can often provide a
flexible and economically I leneficial method
of drilling underbalanced.
References

1. Sebba, F.: “Foams and Biliquid Foams - Aphrons,” J. Wiley and Sons, Chichc ster (1987)
Chapter 4.

2. “Reduced Pressure Drilling Systems,” Bachman Drilling and Production Spec]alties, Inc.,
Oklahoma City, OK.

3. Okpobiri, G.A. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Volumetric Requirements for Foam and Mist Drilling
Operations,” SPEDE (February 1986) 71-88.

4. Beyer, A.H., Millhone, R.S. and Foote, R.W.: “Flow Behavior of Foam as a Well
Circulating Fluid,” paper SPE 3986 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Fall Mzeting, San
Antonio, TX (October 1972).

5. Russell, B.A.: “How Surface Hole Drilling Performance was Improved 65 Percent,” paper
SPE/IADC 25766 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amst :rdam, The
Netherlands, February 23-25.

6. Mitchell, B.J.: “Test Data Fill Theory Gap on Using Foam as a Drilling Fluic , ”Oil and
Gas J. (September 1971) 96-100.

7. Rankin, M.D., Friesenhahn, T.J. and Price, W.R.: “Lightened Fluid Hydi aulics and
Inclined Boreholes,” paper SPE/IADC 18670 presented at the 1989 S P E W IC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 28-March 3.

8. Kouloheris, A.P.: “Surfactants: Important Tools in Chemical Processing,” Chemical

Engineering (October 1989) 130-136.

9. Burcik, E.J.: J. Coll. Sci.,(1950) 5,421.

10. Clark, N.O.: Special Report No. 6, Department of Scientific and Industrial Re ;each, Her
Majesty’s Stationary Office, London (1947).

11. Fried, A.N.: “The Foam Drive Process for Increasing the Recovery of Oil,” U.S . Bureau of
Mines, Report of Investigation No. 5866 (1961).

12. Reidenbach, V.G, Harris, P.C., Lee Y.N. and Lord, D.L.: “Rheological Study of Foam
Fracturing Fluids using Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide,” SPE Production L ‘ngineering
(1986) 39-41.

13. Einstein, A.: “Eine Neue Bestimmung der Molekuldimensionen,” Annalen der E hysik, Vol.
19, Ser 5 (1906) 289.

I_

2-115
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

14. Hatschek, E. : “Die Viskositat der Dispersoide II. Die Emulsionen und Emulsoide,”
Kolloide, Vol. 8 (1910) 34.

15. Raza, S.H. and Marsden, S.S.: “The Streaming Potential and the Rheology of Foam,” SPEJ
(1967) 7,4.

16. Wendorff, C.L. and Ainley, B.R.: “Massive Hydraulic Fracturing of 1 ligh-Temperature
Wells with Stable Frac Foam,” paper SPE 10257 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, TX.

17. Sanghani, V. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Rheology of Foam and its Implicatior s in Drilling and
Cleanout Operations,” ASME paper AO-203 presented at the 1983 ASM E Energy Sources
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, January 30-Februa y 3.

18. Lui, G. and Medley G.H. Jr.: “Foam Computer Model Helps in Analysis 3f Underbalanced
Drilling,” Oil and Gas J. (July 1996) 114-119.

19. Krug, J.A. and Mitchell, B.J.: “Charts Help Find Volume, Pressure IJeeded for Foam
Drilling,” Oil and Gas J. (February 7, 1972) 61-64.

20. Blauer, R.E., Mitchell, B.J., and Kohlhaas, C.A.: “Determination of Li .minaryTurbulent
and Transitional Foam Flow Friction Losses in Pipes,” paper SPE 488:; presented at the
1974 Annual SPE California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

21. Lord, D.L.: “Mathematical Analysis of Dynamic and Static Foam Behzvior,” paper SPE
7927 presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas RIservoirs, Denver,
co.

22. Okpobiri, G.A. and Ikoku, C.U.: “Experimental Determination of Frictioi I Factors for Mist
and Foam Drilling and Well Cleanout Operations,” J. Energy Resources Tech. (December
1983) 542-553; Trans., ASME, 105.

23. Guo, B., Miska, S. and Hareland, G: “A Simple Approach to Determinatj 3n of Bottomhole
Pressure in Directional Foam Drilling,” presented at the 1995 ASME Energy and
Environmental Expo 95, Houston, TX, January 29 -February 1.

24. Millhone, R.S., Haskin, C.A. and Beyer, A.H.: “Factors Affecting Foam Zirculation in Oil
Wells,” paper SPE 4001 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio,
Tx.
25. Abbott, W.K.: “An Analysis of Slip Velocities of Spherical Particles in Foam Drilling
Fluid,” MSc. thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO (1974).

2-116
26. Moore, P.L.: Drilling Practices Manual, The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1974),
Chapter 8.

27. Hutchinson, S.O. and Anderson, G.W.: “Preformed Stable Foam Aids Workover,
Drilling,” Oil and Gas J. (May 15, 1972) 74-79.

28. Dupont, J.: “Foam Used to Drill, Gravel-Pack Deep Gas Well,” Oil and Ga5 J. (May 7,
1984) 192-194.

29. Anderson, G.W.: “Near-Gauge Holes Through Permafrost,” Oil and Gas J. (Se itember 20,
1971) 132-142.

30. Fraser, I.M. and Moore, R.H.: “Guidelines for Stable Foam Drilling through I ‘ermafrost,”
paper SPE/IADC 16055 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Confe-ence, New
Orleans, LA.

31. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” presented it the 1995
ASME Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, January 30 - February 1.

32. Sheffield, J.S. and Sitzman, J.J.: “Air Drilling Practices in the Mid-Continent and Rocky
Mountain Areas,” paper SPE/IADC 13490 presented at the 1985 SPE/IAIlC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

33. Anderson, G.W.: “Use of Preformed Stable Foam in Low Pressure Reservoir Vi ells,” paper
SPE 12425 presented at the 1984 Offshore South East Asia Conference, Singap ire.

34. Bentsen, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: “Preformed Stable Foam Performance in Ilrilling and
Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Alberta,” paper SPE 5712, J. Pet. Tech. (October 1976)
1237-1240.

35. Cobbett, J.S.: “Application of an Air-Drilling Package in Oman,” paper SPE 9600
presented at the 1981 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Manama, Ba irain.

36. Scott, S.L., Wu, Y. and Bridges, T.J.: “Air Foam Improves Efficiency of Con.pletion and
Workover Operations in Low-Pressure Gas Wells,!’ SPEDC (December 1995) 2 19-225.

37. Kitsios, E., Kamphuis, H., Quaresma, V., Rovig, J.W. and. Reynolds, E.: “Un derbalanced
Drilling Through Oil Production Zones with Stable Foam in Oman,” paper IADC/SPE
27525 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX.

38. “API Recommended Practice for Testing Foam Agents for Mist Drilling,” 4PI RP-46,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. (1966).

2-11 7
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

39. Rovig, J.: “The Evolution of Stable Foam as an Underbalanced Drilling Medium,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

40. Hall, D.L. and Roberts, R.D.: “Offshore Drilling with Preformed Stable F oam,” paper SPE
12794 presented at the 1984 SPE California Regional Meeting, Long Beac h, CA.

41. MacDonald, R.R. and Crombie, D.L.: “Balanced Drilling with Coilec Tubing,” paper
IADC/SPE 27435 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, I )allas, TX.

42. Clearwater, Inc., “Underbalanced Drilling Fluids, (Air, Mist, Foam and Mud),” Product
Information, Pittsburgh, PA (1996).

43. Santarelli, F.J., Dardeau, C . and Zurdo, C.: “Drilling Through E [ighly Fractured
Formations: A Problem, A Model and A Cure,” paper SPE 24592 prescnted at the 1992
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C.

44. Essary, R.L. and Rogers, E.E.: “Techniques and Results of Foam Redril ing Operations -
San Joaquin Valley, California,” paper SPE 5715 presented at the 1976 SPE Symposium
on Formation Damage Control, Houston, TX.

45. Hutchinson, S.O.: “Stable Foam Lowers Production, Drilling and Remel Iial Costs,” 17th
Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (April 1970).

2-118
2.6 Stiff Foam
Drilling
The previous section described drilling with
pre-formed or stable foam. The liquid phase
in a stable foam contains surfactants, and
possibly salts and corrosion inhibitors, none
of which has a significant impact on the
viscosity of the liquid. It is also possible to
make what is conventionally termed a "stiff'
foam, by using viscosified water. This
results in a more viscous and stable foam
than can be produced from surfactants alone.
The use of stiff foam as a drilling fluid was
pioneered by the US Atomic Energy
Commission, who used it to drill a series of
64-inch diameter test holes.' In this
application, the principal benefit claimed
over conventional stable foam was improved
wellbore stability in unconsolidated
formations. Subsequent oilfield applications
have established that stiff foam can be used
at lower annular velocities and higher
qualities (lower liquid volume fractions)
than stable foam. In some circumstances,
the associated reductions in compressor
power requirements and water consumption
can make stiff foam economically attractive,
in comparison to other lightened drilling
Bottomhole pressures may also be
lower than for a stable foam. This may be
beneficial; for example, during percussion
drilling.3
In practice, stiff foam drilling involves
similar equipment and procedures to those
used when drilling with stable foam. The
properties of stiff foams do, however, differ
from those of unviscosified stable foam.
Stiff Foams
What is a stiff foam?
Consider a stiff foam to be one with an
intentionally viscosified liquid pl lase. In the
field, stiff foams are usually mad e by adding
a foaming agent to a fairly thin, unweighted
drilling mud and using this mixt ire in place
of the foamer solution used in ;table foam
drilling.
Essentially the same structures ue seen in
stiff and non-viscosified (stable) foams. In
stiff foams, the increased visccsity of the
liquid phase seems to provide a nore stable
structure, perhaps by slowii ig gravity
drainage and rupture of the cell yvalls. This
allows a foam to be created wi h a higher
quality (lower liquid volume frz ction) than
would be possible without the riscosifiers.
7
As might be expected, the composition of
the liquid phase influences tht extent to
which the liquid volume fraction can be
reduced before the foam structurl : collapses.
For example, Russell, 1993: described
drilling operations that used botk stable and
stiffened foams. A liquid volume fraction of
around 1 percent (i.e., 99 percent quality), in
the injected fluid, was requircd to give
steady foam returns and avoid a r slugging,
if the liquid phase was not visccsified. By
adding 0.125 ppb of each of PAC
(polyanionic cellulose) and X(. (xanthan
gum) polymers to the injected liquid, steady
returns were achieved, at liqu id volume
fractions as low as 0.35 percsnt. The
minimum liquid volume fr: ction for
adequate foam stability was furtt er reduced
to 0.15 percent when 0.5 1)pb CMC
(carboxymethyl cellulose) was substituted
for the other polymers. These wells were
drilled in the Yemeni desert, where water is
scarce and expensive. Lowering the liquid
volume fraction necessary for ade p a t e foam
stability resulted in worth%hile cost
reductions at this location.
2-119
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Rheology
The rheological properties of stiff foams
depend on the composition of the liquid
phase and the foam quality. This is different
from stable foam, where viscosity is more or
less independent of the foaming agent
concentration and is controlled by quality.
This is not surprising since the concentration
of clays or viscosifying polymers has a
considerable impact on the viscosity of the
base of liquids, whereas low concentrations
of surfactants have rather little impact on
base viscosity.
Hatschek, 19 developed a theoretical
model of foam viscosity, for qualities
between 74 and 96 percent. The foam's
viscosity, pF,was related to the base liquid
viscosity, pL , and the foam quality r
(expressed as a fraction), using:
(2.56)
Mitchell, 1971,5 found a better fit to his
experimental data (for stable foams), if the
exponent acting on the quality was increased
to 0.49:
(2.57)
An analogous expression for the viscosity of
lower quality foams was presented as
Equation (2.48) in Section 2.5. In the
context of stiff foams, these expressions
indicate that foam viscosity increases as the
viscosity of the liquid phase increases.
Few systematic studies of the rheology of
stiff foam drilling fluids have been reported.
There have, however, been studies of foam
fracturing fluids that indicate, qualitatively
2-120
at least, the sort of rheolcgical behavior to
be expected in stiff foam d rilling operations.
Reidenbach et al., 1986,' investigated the
flow properties of nitro(;en- and carbon
dioxide-based fracturing fi lams, at different
qualities, with aqueous su factant solutions,
containing various cc ncentrations of
hydroxypropyl guar (3PG) as the
viscosifying agent. 'Ihey used their
experimental data to dlwelop a model
describing the rheology in terms of its
quality and the rheology 0.'the liquid phase.
Effective viscosities corn puted using this
model are shown in Figure ; 2-35a and b.
These figures show that increasing foam
quality and increz sing polymer
concentration both inci ease a foam's
viscosity. The viscosity of a foam made
with 1.68 ppb HPG (40 11~m/1000gal) was
typically three to four t mes that of the
unstiffened foam made with the same
foaming agent concentrat ion. Addition of
the HPG had the greatest ielative impact on
the viscosity at low quilities. This is
reasonable, since bubble dc formation plays a
large part in controlling oam rheology of
high quality foams. It doe: indicate that the
assumption of direct proportionality
between foam and liquid! phase viscosity
implicit in Equations (2.5 i)and (2.57) may
not be correct.
Hole Cleaning
Benefits of Stiff Foam
Because the effective visc )sity of stiff foam
is higher than that of st ible (unstiffened)
foam, it is possible to use even lower
annular velocities, wl ile maintaining
acceptable hole cleaning e 'ficiency. In foam
drilling, the annular kzlocity and the
efficiency of cuttings tran! port are generally
at their lowest close to tht: top of the BHA.
 1000

t 10 Ibm HPG/lOOO gal

+20 Ibm HPG/l OOO gal
+40 Ibm HPG/lOOO aal

100

10

10 100 1000 11000

Shear Rate (s-')

000

%
Y

.-E
8
u)
100
.-
u)
>
.-n
Q)
P

c
C
!! 10
Q

2
n

1
10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (s-')

Figure 2-35a. Effective viscosity of stiffened nitrogen-based fracturing foams 60 and 70

quality (af?er Reidenbach et al., 1986 ').

2-121
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

1000

t 70 Ibm HPW70 PO gal

n
n

0
v

E
.L

100
80
u)

c
.clr

5
P
10

1
10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (s-’)

10000

1000

100

10
10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (s-’)

Figure 2-356. Effective viscosity of stiffened nitrogen-based fracturing fo im, 80 and 90

qualjty (afier Reidenbach et ai., 7986 ‘)-

2-122
Foam quality here is lower than at the
surface, because of the elevated borehole
pressure. Since viscosifying the base liquid
has the most dramatic effects at low foam
quality, the improved viscosity is most
pronounced at the point in the well where it
is needed the most.
Another benefit of the increased liquid phase
viscosity is that foam structure will persist at
higher qualities (lower liquid volume
fractions). Since foam viscosity drops
rapidly as the foam structure breaks down,
stiff foams maintain hole cleaning efficiency
at low liquid volume fractions.
Predictive Models
There are models for calculating cuttings
transport in stiff foam. The restrictions of
these models lie in adequately characterizing
friction, slippage and viscosity. Rheological
models, such as the one developed by
Reidenbach et al., 1986; have been
incorporated into foam circulation models.
Despite accurate numerical protocol, field
calibration of these models (as with any
oilfield models) is generaIly necessary.
There are some back-of-the-envelope
methods. For example, Garavini et al.,
1971,7 presented a chart that indicated
suitable air and liquid (which they termed
mud) injection rates for stiff foam drilling,
in various hole sizes. This is shown in
Figure 2-36. For a 17%-inch hole it suggests
an air rate of 300 to 450 scfm and a liquid
rate of 8 to 35 gpm. These limits correspond
to surface foam qualities af 99 to 99.6
percent.
One rule-of-thumb for designing stiff foam
circulating programs is to aim for a surface
foam quality from 99 to 99.7 percent and an
annular velocity from 100 to 200 feet per
minute, making no correcticn for the
compressibility of the foam.8 Using this
approach, foam quality recon Lmendations
are similar to those from Garavi ii et al., but
the suggested injection rates ar ; somewhat
lower. For the same example used above
(17%-inch diameter hole, drilled with 5-inch
drillpipe), the annular area is 1.53 ft2.
According to the rule-of-thumb, a foam rate
of 150 to 300 scfm should be s ifficient for
adequate hole cleaning (comparc:d to 300 to
450 scfm, predicted using Figure 2-36).
Field Cases
Cobbett, 1981,2 described 17%-inch
diameter holes, drilled succ :ssfully to
approximately 2,500 feet, using stiff foam.
Typical air rates were 150 to 1' 5 scfm and
liquid rates were 14 to 18 ~ p m .These
correspond to surface qualities of slightly
less than 99 percent. In this iistance, the
liquid phase of the foam contained 2 ppb of
hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) ;md 1.25 to
1.5 percent foaming agent. Cobbett also
reported that an annular velocity of 15 to 20
ft/min was sufficient to keep the hole clean,
during coring operations with sti ff foam. In
these operations, annular backp ressure was
used to keep the bottomhole piessure high
enough to prevent the well frc m flowing;
foam qualities downhole wer ; relatively
low.
Russell, 1993,3 found that ir stantaneous
penetration rates and holc cleaning
efficiency were improved by in :reasing the
foam injection rate to levels : ,ubstantially
higher than those suggested abwe. When
drilling a series of 17%-inc h diameter
surface holes to depths of arouncl 1,000 feet,
using a very low liquid fractim polymer
stiffened foam, increasing the air rate from
750 to 1,600 scfm increased the penetration
rate from 65 to 85 ft/hr. Some :uttings fill,
2-123
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

Mud Injection Rate (gpm)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450
Air Injection Rate (cfm)

Figure 2-36. Suggested air and liquid (mud) injection rates for stiff foi Im drilling (afier
Garavini et a/., 1971 ’).

as well as tight hole, were still noted at the
higher injection rate. Increasing the air rate
still further, to 2,100 scfm, eliminated any
indications of hole cleaning problems and
minimized water requirements in an arid
location.
Higher injection rates may be necessary to
drill to great depth with stiff foam. Sheffield
and Sitzman, 1985,9 reported using 1,000
scfm air to drill a 12x-inch diameter hole, to
a depth of 11,725 feet, using a foam
containing a polymeric viscosifier. In
contrast, at 7,300 feet, 3,400 scfm of air had
been required for mist drilling. Foam
chemistry was not specified precisely and
the degree of viscosification is uncertain. In
any case, it is clear that using a foam drilling
fluid permitted underball nced drilling to
continue to considerable jepth, with only
modest air compressor pou er.
Field and laboratory data i idicate that there
can be considerable variatic In in the injection
rates required for adequa te hole cleaning
when drilling with stiff fcam. This partly
reflects the variations in fcam viscosity that
can be achieved by varyin) the liquid phase
composition. In add tion, different
operations can tolerate di fferent levels of
cuttings buildup in the anrulus. There is an
economic balance betweer reduced air and
liquid injection rates and increased
consumables costs, as v scosifying agent
concentration is increased to increase foam
viscosity. The optimum i s likely to vary

2-124
from well to well.
Circulating Pressures
Typically, injection pressures of around 200
psi have been reported when drilling to
depths of 2,500 feet2. These are not very
different from those typical of unstiffened
(stable) foam. The higher viscosity of the
stiff foam is offset by the lower injection
rates. Without anything to rely on, it is
probably reasonable to anticipate that
circulating pressures will be similar to those
computed for stable foam drilling.
There is no fundamental reason why annular
backpressure should not be used to control
the downhole quality of stiff foams. In
practice, it is less likely to be necessary than
with unstiffened foams. Any increase in
frictional pressure drop for stiff foams is
often largely offset by the lower annular
velocities that are required. It is possible to
maintain a foam structure at lower liquid
volume fractions, and, the density of stiff
foams can be lower, than for unstiffened
foams. This reduces the rate of hydrostatic
pressure increase with depth; this means that
these foams do not compress as rapidly as do
unstiffened foams. As a result, stiff foam
quality may not decrease as rapidly with
increasing depth (compared to sta.ble foams).
This reduces the need to choke back the
return flow in order to maintain foam
throughout the well.
Equipment
Much of the same equipment is used for stiff
foam as for stable foam drilling. This
section will highlight those features that are
distinctive to stiffened foam.
Surface Equipment
Because of lower air injection rates, it may
be possible to reduce the air compression
capacity on location. Unless a very large
hole will be drilled, it may not t e necessary
to have more than 450 scfri injection
capacity. Although many operati 3ns will not
require more than 250 to 300 .)si delivery
pressure, it is advisable to have ; booster on
site, for unloading water.
With stiff foam, liquid injection 1 ates tend to
be lower than in stable foam dri ling. Even
when drilling large holes (for ex: mple, 17%-
inch and larger), it is unlikely th; t more than
35 gpm will be required. The so ip pump on
an aidmist drilling rig will ha?*e adequate
capacity for many stiff foam drill ng jobs.
One difference from stable foani drilling is
that a separate tank, in addiiion to the
injection pump tanks, is used to prepare the
liquid phase. A hopper sysiem, which
allows solids to be added to a f l c wing liquid
stream, is usually required fc br effective
mixing of polymeric viscosifiers in water.
On a conventional drilling rig, t1 e mud tank
and mud hopper will normally 3e used for
mixing the injection liquid. A suitable
pump is necessary to transfer t le hydrated
polymer to the injection pump's suction
tanks. If a custom-built air dr lling rig is
being considered for stiff, as opposed to
stable, foam drilling, then allowance must be
made for the additional cost of these liquid
mixing facilities.
Stiff foam tends to have a lon ;er half-life
than stable foam. Even though the foam
flow rate may be lower, more zttention has
to be paid to foam control at thc surface. If
the foam is to be allowed to collapse
naturally, it may be necessary to increase the
size of the reserve pits from those shown in
2-125
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-15. Pilot tests with the intended
foam composition can indicate the haIf-life
of the foam and the effectiveness of any
proposed defoaming measures. If these tests
are conducted before the location is
prepared, they can be used as a guide to
sizing of the pits.
-
Foam Consumables Viscosifiers
Originally, stiff foams were commonly made
by adding bentonite to water, at a rate of 10
to 12 ppb, to create the viscosified base
liquid. Often, up to 0.5 ppb of polymer,
such as guar gum or CMC, were added to
augment the bentonite. Recently, the trend
has been to use polymers exclusively.
Formulations that have been reported
include:
9 2.0 Ibmhbl HEC', or,
9 0.5 lbm/bbl PAC and 1 lbmhbl Cypan
(sodium polyacrylonitrile)8, or,
P 0.125 lbm/bbl PAC and 0.125 ppb XC3,
or,
9 0.5 ppb CMC3.
The CMC has shown better resistance to
calcium and chloride contamination than
PAC and XC. Similarly, the PACKypan
mix has been reported to be more resistant to
minor saline and oil contamination than
ben tonite-based mixes.
Where there is significant calcium in the
make-up water, or if calcium contamination
of the foam by formation water is possible, it
may be necessary to add soda ash to the
liquid phase to prevent the base fluid from
breaking.
Increasing the concentration of viscosifiers,
whether bentonite or polymers, will increase
2-126
the foam viscosity and tend to improve
cuttings transport efficiei icy. In general,
higher foam injection rates are required for
adequate hole cleaning wit 3 the low polymer
content fommlations (li: ted above) than
when higher concentrat ons were used.
Increasing the polymer c oncentration will
increase the consumable c ost, although this
will be partly offset if thl: higher viscosity
allows a lower foam inj xtion rate to be
used. Further, an excessiv :ly stiff foam will
be very stable and difficult to break at the
surface, potentially leadin(; to foam control
problems. The base liquid should not be
thicker than necessary to a :hieve the desired
hole cleaning capability. Cobbett, 1981,'
recommended a Marsh flnnel viscosity in
the range 50 to 80 seconds; this is probably a
good starting point.
-
Foam Consumables Foa ners
There is some possibilily for confusion
between the influence of tie foaming agent
and the viscosifiers on foam stability.
Constien, 1989," noted hat the polymer
concentration in fra :turing foams
contributed less to foam itability than did
the type and concentratioii of the foaming
agent. The same foaminl agents are used
for stiff foam as for statle foam drilling.
Typical foaming agent cc ncentrations will
be around 1 percent. Beciuse the foaming
agent plays the principii role in foam
generation, there has to be an adequate
concentration of foaming igent for a stable
I
foam to form. Contamination by saline
formation water or liquid hydrocarbons, as
well as elevated temperatu -es, will reduce a
foaming agent's effectii eness and de-
stabilize a stiff foam, in :xactly the same
way as they do an unstiffer ed foam. Higher
foaming agent concenti ations will be
required under these circun stances.
 -
Foam Consumables Corrosion Inhibitors
Corrosion of downhole equipment is a
concern when drilling with stiff foam.
Suitable corrosion inhibitors, which must be
compatible with the other components of the
foam and with any potential contaminants,
should be added to the liquid phase. In
some instances, caustic soda is added to
increase the pH to between 9 and 10; this
will tend to retard corrosion.'
The optimum foam composition will
probably vary from well to well, and may
have to be determined by on-site
experimentation. If at all possible, pilot
tests should be conducted to confirm the
foam's stability in the presence of
anticipated contaminants, regardless of the
foam composition.
Foam Control
Because of its stability, stiff foam can be
resistant to defoaming measures. The high
viscosity of the liquid phase makes
mechanical defoaming less effective than it
is with unstiffened foams. Chemical
defoamers are effective, but the high
viscosity of stiff foam can slow their
dispersion through the foam. For this
reason, thorough mixing of the defoamer
with the foam is required. Where location
constraints demand that defoaming measures
be taken, the consumption of defoamer is
likely to be higher than for an unstiffened
foam.
Operating Procedures
Operating procedures are virtually identical
to those for stable foam drilling. The only
significant differences relate to mixing the
injected liquid and controlling foam
composition and quality.
Mixing the Injected Liquid
Base liquid is prepared in the mixing tank,
rather than in the injection puml's suction
tanks. Many polymeric viscosifie rs can only
be added slowly, if they are to di! perse, mix
and hydrate satisfactorily in the 1 quid. The
polymer should be trickled into water
flowing through the rig's m i d mixing
hopper. The liquid should be circulated
through the hopper, to allow viscosity to
build. If the liquid phase contain5 bentonite,
this should be allowed to hydrate, preferably
overnight, before being used.
Large quantities of liquid may Iiave to be
mixed. A liquid rate of 25 gpm c mesponds
to over 850 BPD of continLous foam
injection. Because the mixing op :ration can
take some hours, it is necessaiy to start
mixing a fresh batch of base 1 quid well
before the previous batch is exhwted. It
may be advisable to transfer eaci batch of
base liquid, once mixed, to anotler tank so
that the next batch can be prepare( .
Base liquid is pumped to the injection
pump's suction tank that is not ir use. The
foaming agent is added to the suction tank
to avoid any possibility of foam formation
in the main mud tanks.
Inflows
In addition to a stiff foam's qiality, the
concentration of viscosifying :gent also
influences its viscosity and stabi lity. This
provides another parameter th: t can be
manipulated if there are problem: with hole
cleaning or foam stability.
9 Stiff foam returns should have a
consistency similar to shavi ig cream.
Provided that the foamer concc mtration is
sufficient and that the surfice liquid
2-Z27
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
volume fraction is not more than 99
percent, steady foam returns should be
observed. If slugs of liquid and air are
seen, either the foamer concentration is
insufficient or it is incompatible with a
formation fluid inflow. In either case
the response should be to increase the
foamer concentration in the injected
liquid.
P If hole cleaning problems are
experienced with steady foam returns,
the options are to increase foam
injection rate, to increase the
concentration of viscosifiers in the
injected liquid, or some combination of
both. The economics of each specific
operation will dictate which of these
options is likely to be most cost
effective.
P Water inflow can reduce the hole
cleaning efficiency of stiff foams. It will
reduce both the foam quality and the
concentration of viscosifier in the liquid
phase, possibly causing the viscosity
downhole to fall considerably. If a
water inflow occurs and hole cleaning
problems are suspected, the air rate
should be increased. It may also be
necessary to increase the concentration
of foaming agent and viscosifiers in the
injected liquid. The liquid injection
rate should not be reduced. Reducing
the liquid injection rate would lower the
concentrations of foamer and viscosifiers
in the foam above the inflow, which
would further reduce cuttings transport
efficiency.
P Because stiff foams tend to be used at
lower annular velocities and higher
qualities than stable foams, they are
more vulnerable to gas inflows. A
modest gas inflow can increase the
quality to the point that the foam breaks
2-128
down and cuttings tran: port efficiency is
lost. If this happens su fficiently rapidly,
the string could becom': stuck. Slugs of
foam and gas will be soen at the surface
and the gas will burn it the flare. If a
gas inflow is suspect?d, stop drilling
and increase the liqxid rate to re-
establish foam returns if at all possible.
Increasing the foamc r concentration
may help if liquid hvdrocarbons are
entering the well alonk with gas. If the
inflow is too rapid, it may not be
possible to achieve ste;.dy foam returns.
Then, if possible, incre tse the air rate to
a level sufficient to permit mist drilling.
If there is insufficient c 3mpressor power
to do this, the well musi be mudded up.
Limitations
Stiff foam can effectively lift cuttings, at
very low annular velocitie: . This makes it
particularly suitable for drilling large
diameter holes, where the as injection rates
required for other lightenc d drilling fluids
may not be econorrically feasible.
Otherwise, most of the f ictors that limit
stable foam drilling also lj mit drilling with
stiffened foams.
Wellbore Instability
As was noted earlier in Illis section, stiff
foams can give better v rellbore stability
through poorly consolidate(I formations than
other lightened drilling luids, including
stable foams.* It has bcen claimed that
bentonite in a foam can cr:ate a stabilizing
'
cake on the borehole wall It is not clear
how any cake could deposi if the well were
truly underbalanced. The Atomic Energy
Commission's large diameter holes were
located in desert areas, ard it is plausible
that they were above the wcitertable. In this
case, they would have bcen overbalanced
and there would have be:n a differential
pressure tending to push foam into the
formation. The very low annular velocities
that can be used when drilling with stiff
foam reduce the potential for erosion of the
borehole wall below that of unstiffened
foam and other lightened fluids. This
probably contributes to wellbore stability in
unconsolidated formations. Reduced fluid
loss and less change in capillary pressure
may also afford stability.
Gas Inflows
Gas inflows can pose a problem for stiffened
foams. Since stiff foams tend to be used at
higher qualities, there is more chance for the
foam structure to collapse downhole. At the
same time, air rates tend to be lower than for
unstiffened foam, and there is a greater
probability that the annular velocity of the
collapsed foam will be too low for efficient
cuttings transport.
This does not mean that stiff foam should
not be used to drill gas wells. In many
circumstances, it should be possible to
increase the liquid injection rate and
maintain a foam until the annular velocity is
sufficient to lift cuttings, even after collapse.
Difficulties may arise if drilling is to
continue beneath a gas inflow. Then, the
foam quality may be too low between the bit
and the inflow site, if the liquid injection
rate is to be sufficient to keep a foam stable
to the surface, with the additional gas
flowing up the annulus.
Downhole Fires
Stiff foams tend to be more stable than
unstiffened foams. For this reason, they
should be more resistant to the gravity
separation that can lead to downhole
combustion in long, horizontal sections. The
lower gas phase rates required with a stiff
foam may also make it less costly to make
the foam with an inert gas, such is nitrogen,
than would be the case if the foam were
unstiffened. This would comple' ely remove
the risk of downhole fires and would also
greatly retard downhole corrosior .
Corrosion
Stiffened foams are characteri;.ed by the
same combination of an ami de oxygen
supply and a continuous aqueoi s phase as
are unstiffened foams. This offers the same
potential for rapid corrosion 01' downhole
equipment. While this I hould be
controllable in most applications by correct
selection and use of corrosion nhibitor, it
does add to the cost of all foim drilling
operations.
Consumable Costs
Viscosifying agents in the inje Zted liquid
add considerably to the cost of th :operation.
In those locations where water is expensive,
the low water volumes requircd for stiff
foam drilling can sometimes off:*etthe high
product costs. So too can any Izduction in
compressor power re pirements.
Nevertheless, there are applicat ions where
high consumable costs make stiff foam
economically unattractive, co npared to
other lightened drilling fluids.
Waste Water Disposal
Disposal of waste water may a1 LO limit the
use of stiff foam. Some viscosiiying agents
have restrictions placed on their disposal.
The increased viscosity of the tilled foam
could also limit the possibility of re-
injecting it in disposal wells.
Formation Damage
Finally, the potential for format on damage
should be considered. Provided that the well
is kept underbalanced through th :producing
zone, liquid from the foarr will not
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

mechanically enter the formation. Should productive zones. The cl,iy or polymers in
overbalanced conditions be inadvertently the base liquid would red1 ce fluid loss, but
created, the liquid phase of the foam can could impair permeability nuch more than a
enter the pore structure of exposed simple surfactant solution.

References
1. Shale, L.T.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Formation Damage Control Durii ig High-Angle or
Horizontal Drilling,” paper SPE 27351 presented at the 1994 S PE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA.

2. Cobbett, J.S.: “Application of an Air-Drilling Package in Oman,” )aper SPE 9600

presented at the 1981 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Manarr a, Bahrain.

3. Russell, B.A.: “How Surface Hole Drilling Performance was Improved 6 5 Percent,” paper
SPE/IADC 25766 presented at the 1993 SPEAADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, February 23-25.

4. Hatschek, E.: “Die Viskositat der Dispersoide II. Die Emulsionen md Emulsoide,”
Kolloide, Vol. 8 (1910) 34.

5. Mitchell, B.J.: “Test Data Fill Theory Gap on Using Foam as a Drillinl Fluid,” Oil and
Gas J. (September 6, 1971) 96-100.

6. Reidenbach, V.G, Harris, P.C., Lee, Y.N. and Lord, D.L.: “Rheologica Study of Foam
Fracturing Fluids Using Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide,” SPEPE (1986) 1, 39-41.

7. Garavini, O., Radenti, G. and Sala, A.: “How Foam Aids Drilling Operitions on Zagros
Mountain in Iran,” presented at the 1971 Weatherford International Round Up, London.

8. Anon: “Stiff Foam,” Magcobar Technical Memorandum.

9. Sheffield, J.S.and Sitzman, J.J.: “Air Drilling Practices in the Mid-Con1 inent and Rocky
Mountain Areas,” paper SPEAADC 13490 presented at the 1985 SPIYIADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

10. Constien, V.G.: “Fracturing Fluid and Proppant Characterization,” Reser )air Stimulation,
M.J. Economides and K.G. Nolte (eds.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, IJJ (1989).

2-130
2.7 Gasified Liquids
Foams are not the only lightened drilling
fluids in which the liquid is the continuous
phase. A flowing liquid's density will be
reduced when a gas is mixed into it,
whatever the structure of the: resultant
mixture. Gasified liquids are sometimes
used as underbalanced drilling fluids.
Generally, these do not contain surfactants
and often have high liquid volume fractions
under downhole conditions. A bubbly flow
regime, rather than a stable foam, is created
in the wellbore. Bottomhole pressures are
generally higher for gasified liquids than for
other lightened drilling fluids. Effective
densities of gasified liquids are usually in
the range 4 to 7 ppg. Unlike other lightened
drilling fluids, the liquid phase of gasified
liquids is normally cleaned and pumped
back downhole, after it returns to surface.
Although they had been previously used by
the oil and gas industry, the first engineered
approach to drilling with gasified liquids
was made in Emery County, Utah in the
early 1950s.' Compressed air was injected
into drilling mud at the standpipe, to reduce
the borehole pressure and avoid the lost
circulation that occurred with mud alone.
Originally, aerated muds constituted the
majority of gasified liquid drilling fluids.
Their primary application was to avoid lost
circulation, rather than specifically for
drilling underbalanced. Severe lost
circulation can be an expensive and time
consuming drilling problem. There are areas
where lost circulation material, cement and
proprietary additives are, at best, partially
successful in regaining circulation. In these
areas, gasifying the drilling fluic , to reduce
its density until the circulating pressure is
equal to or less than the formatica pressure,
can be a cost-effective way to I irevent lost
circulation.
Recently, gasified liquids have lecome the
predominant underbalanced dri ling fluids
used in Canada and some other regions of
the world. The base liquids a e normally
unviscosified water, or crude 0:lYtgasified
with nitrogen or, less frequt ntly, with
natural gas. Many of these ;.pplications
involve horizontal wells. rhese are
particularly prone to formation lamage, as
the producing interval tends to be exposed to
the drilling fluid for longer periods of time
than it would be when drilling vertically.
Stimulation of long horizontal i itervals, to
overcome formation damage, is c ifficult and
expensive. Drilling underbala iced often
avoids formation damage and tle need for
any stimulation. This can reduc:e the total
well cost, even if the drilling costs are
increased by the additional equipment
required.
Circulating pressures can be co ntrolled by
adjusting the gas and liquid injection rates.
Often, the intended underbalanc :d pressure
differential between the wellbore and the
formation fluid is fairly small, i 1 the range
of 250 to 500 psi. These low uiiderbalance
pressures, which are typical of d rilling with
a gasified liquid, give fewe- wellbore
instability problems and lower formation
fluid inflow rates than would bc seen with
other lightened drilling fluids. , i s a result,
gasified liquids allow less consc lidated and
more prolific formations to be drilled
underbalanced.
Occasionally gel mud or condensate.
2-131
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Gasified liquids have other benefits over dry
gas or mist drilling. They provide a degree
of hydraulic damping of drillstring
vibrations. Directional drilling, with dry
gases or mist, often involves frequent
failures of steering tools and MWD systems
due to high vibration levels. Vibrational
failure of directional tools is not a major
problem when drilling with a gasified liquid.
Drillstring components tend to show less
erosive wear with gasified liquids than they
do when drilling with dry gases or mist,
reflecting the lower annular velocities used
when drilling with gasified liquids. Finally,
in vertical holes at least, the potential for
downhole fires is eliminated.
Drillstring Injection
Annulus Injection: Parasite Casing
Figure 2-37. Gas injection methods for drilling with a gasified liquid I after Bieseman
and Emeh, 1995*).
2-132
Gasification Techniqut 1 s
There are two basic technil p e s for gasifying
the drilling fluid; injectini the gas into the
liquid at the surface bef >re it enters the
drillpipe, and injecting it ( ownhole into the
liquid in the annulus. It i ; also possible to
use both techniques n combination.
Downhole gas injection requires a con-
nection from the surface to the annulus. This
may be provided by a par:site tubing string
run outside the last string of casing, by the
annulus between a tempoiary casing string
hung off inside the last cemented casing
string, or if deepening a pre viously gas-lifted
producing well, by the €as lift system.
Options for gasification are illustrated
schematically in Figure 2-3 7.
Annulus Inwtion: Parasite String
Annulus Injection: Through Completior
Drillpipe Injection
Drillpipe injection has certain advantages.
9 It does not require any additional
downhole equipment, and therefore has a
lower capital cost than gasifying with
either a parasite tubing string or with a
temporary casing.
9 Because gasified fluid fills the entire
annulus, lower bottomhole pressures can
be achieved than if the gas is injected
part-way up the annulus.
> For the same reason, the ga.s injection
rate needed for any particular
bottomhole pressure is lower than with
annular injection.
9 There are better hydraulics at the bit.
There are also drawbacks to drillpipe gas
injection.
9 It is impossible to continue gasification
when circulation is shut down to make
connections or for tripping. As a result,
it becomes difficult to maintain a
specific underbalance pressure.
Procedures exist that allow
underbalanced conditions to be
preserved when circulation is shut down,
but these do not give good bottomhole
pressure control.
9 Since gas is trapped under pressure in
the drillpipe by the various string floats,
the drillpipe pressure takes a finite time
to bleed down when making connections
and tripping. These operations are
slower than they would be with only
liquid in the drillpipe.
9 Flow down the drillpipe will be two-
phase. This tends to give higher
frictional pressure losses than would be
seen with single-phase, li quid flow.
Standpipe pressures will, tt erefore, be
higher than they would be vsith annular
injection. The compressible phase (the
gas bubbles), in both the anniilus and the
drillpipe, causes rapid attenu;ltion of any
Measurement While DrilliI g (MWD)
pressure pulse signals. C mventional
mud pulse telemetry MWD cannot be
used. With drillpipe injecticn, both gas
and liquid flow through an!' downhole
motor. This can reduce tie motor's
efficiency. It can also causl: downhole
vibrations that may shorten tk e operating
life of mud motors and othe- downhole
equipment.
> Another potential problem w th drillpipe
gas injection can arise when gasification
is resumed with the bit opposite or
below a permeable formaticm. If the
wellbore pressure exceeds th ; formation
fluid pressure and fluid 10s: control is
not good, it is possible for he injected
gas to flow into the exposec permeable
formation rather than up the a n n ~ l u s . ~
9 Drillpipe gas injection exposc s the entire
drillstring to higher corrosion rates.
Annular Gas Injection
With annular gas injection:
9 It is possible to continue ga:ification of
the fluid in the annulus wl en making
Connections or tripping. HOMever, liquid
circulation will be suspended and control
of the bottomhole pressure is not perfect.
9 Flow down the drillstring is 5 ingle-phase
(liquid); mud pulse MWD 5ystems can
be used, downhole motcrs operate
efficiently, and downhole vibration
levels may be lower.
9 The gas injection point will iormally be
2-133
 --
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
inside casing, and the potential for
injected gas flowing into exposed
permeable formations is more or less
eliminated.
P Although the gas pressure required to
initiate injection may be higher than for
drillstring injection, it will normally fall
to less than the standpipe pressure, once
the target bottomhole pressure is
established. As a result, the gas
compression power required for annular
injection may be less than for drillstring
injection.
P Finally, if the injected gas is compressed
air, not all of the drillstring will be
exposed to the potentially very corrosive
aerated liquid.
General
The different annular gas injection
techniques all require higher gas rates, and
higher gas costs, to achieve a given
underbalance pressure. There are further
limitations specific to each technique. There
is additional capital cost associated with
injection down either parasite tubing or a
temporary casing string. The possibility for
using either method in a re-entry drilling
operation is severely limited, unless existing
casing or large-bore production tubing can
be pulled.
There has to be sufficient clearance between
the casing to which a parasite tubing string
is attached and both the casing and the
openhole section inside which it is run, to
accommodate the tubing and its injection
sub. Parasite tubing strings slow down
running the casing to which they are
attached. Mechanical damage is a risk while
they are run. This may be a particular
concern in deviated wells. The injection sub
through which they port into the casing can
2-134
be a weak point in the casir g string.2
If a parasite, or micro-ann ilus casing string
is used, the hole size that can be drilled is
restricted to the drift iliameter of the
temporary casing. The annular volume
outside of the temporary ca sing will be large
in comparison to the volume of a parasite
tubing string. This slows down the rate at
which gas injection : .nd bottomhole
pressures respond to changc s in gas injection
rate, to the extent that bot omhole pressure
control can be difficult. The casing will
normally be retrieved once the target section
has been drilled; the time needed for this
will add to the well cost. One benefit of the
temporary casing string if that it can be
safely run into deviated 01 even horizontal
wells, facilitating a deep :r gas injection
point than could be achievc d with a parasite
tubing string.
It may be possible to deepen a well by
drilling inside the existing completion. If
there is a gas-lift system in ilace, this can be
used to lighten the drilling fluid in the
annulus without installing any additional
equipment downhole. The iole size that can
be drilled will in gene*al be severely
restricted. Since the COI ipletion is also
vulnerable to damage by a rotating
drillstring, this gasificatior technique may
only be feasible when dri. ling with coiled
t~bing.~
Finally, it is possible to us: more than one
gasification technique at thc same time. This
can be an attractive option in some
circumstances, notably fo . maintaining a
very low borehole pressure when hole
cleaning demands high ar nular velocities.
Using both micro-annulu ; and drillpipe
injection can allow highc :r gas injection
rates, at an acceptable surfa :e pressure, than
could be achieved with either annular or
drillpipe injection a10ne.~
The Liquid Phase
Originally, unweighted drilling muds were
used as the liquid phase in gasified liquid
drilling fluids. The recent trend is to use
unviscosified fluids, such as water, brine,
diesel, crude oil or condensate.
If possible, drilling mud should not be used
as the liquid phase for gasified liquid
drilling. Formation fluid inflows are likely
during underbalanced drilling. These will
contaminate and dilute the mud. Re-
conditioning this mud can be expensive
(removing comtamination, countering
dilution).
The base liquid should be non-damaging to
any producing formation to be drilled and
compatible with formation fluids that may
be encountered. Interactions between the
drilling fluid liquid phase and formation
fluids are possible in the formation, in the
annulus and in the surface separation
system. As long as the well is
underbalanced, formation fluids will flow
into the borehole and mix with the drilling
fluid. Because pressure control is not easy
when drilling with gasified liquids, it is
probable that transient overbalanced
conditions will occur and that drilling fluid
will periodically flow into the formation. It
is also possible, particularly when drilling a
dry, gas-saturated formation with an aqueous
fluid, for fluid to flow from the borehole
into the formation, even when drilling
underbalanced.6
Emulsions
The formation of emulsions can be
trouble~ome.~Emulsions can occur when
formation water flows into a hydrocarbon-
based, gasified liquid or when oil flows from
the formation into a water-bast d, gasified
liquid. Emulsions can cause high and
irregular annular pressure losses. These not
only increase the gas injection ri te required
to maintain the desired U I iderbalance
pressure, but also make maintainj ng a steady
downhole pressure very difficult. Commonly
used viscosifying and fluid hiss control
polymers can promote the form;ition of oil
and water emulsions. If emulsior s are likely
to form downhole, adding a de-e nulsifier to
the injected liquid should be cons dered.7
Foaming
Foaming at the surface can also be a
problem when liquid formatio i fluid is
produced and mixes with the injected
liquid.2 Minimizing the use of 1 iscosifying
agents will restrict foaming. Ac ding small
quantities of a silicone anti-foa n or other
.defoaming agent to the mud pits of an open
system may be required to control foaming.
If a closed surface system is used, the
defoamer may have to be adced to the
injected liquid.
Additives
Water is often the most cost-effe1:tive liquid
for gasification. It is relatively -esistant to
contamination by produced fluid ;. Drilling
with water can lead to excessive shale
sloughing in some formations. A iding salts,
such as potassium chloride, ar d suitable
polymers, can inhibit shale hyc ration and
restrict sloughing problems, but t lese add to
the cost of the drilling fluid.
Separators
Water, and other non-viscosifit :d liquids,
may not provide sufficient hol: cleaning
capacity, in large diameter holes or when
sloughing leads to hole enlargemc :nt. It may
be necessary to use a drilling n u d for the
2-135
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
liquid phase. If this has to be done, the
liquid phase viscosity and gel strength
should be as low as possible to meet the
requirements of good hole cleaning. High
viscosities cause high annular pressure
losses and can require increased gas
injection rates to achieve the target pressure
downhole. High viscosity and gel strength
make separation of gas and liquid more
difficult. If natural gas is flowing into the
borehole, gas breakout from the drilling
liquid in any open tanks has to be prevented.
This requires efficient de-gassing, upstream
of any open portion of the surface system.
To avoid malfunctioning of the mud pumps,
good gas removal is also necessary before
the liquid is returned to them.
Gases readily break out of water when it
passes through a simple mudgas separator.
An atmospheric de-gasser will probably be
sufficient for gas removal from low viscosity
muds. A vacuum de-gasser may be required
for higher viscosity muds.
Field Examples
It has been reported that some increase in
liquid phase viscosity, above the viscosity of
water, was beneficial in preventing air
slugging in the annulus and flow surging,
when drilling geothermal wells.* Slugging
of the return flow during normal circulation
has not been a major problem in the many
wells recently drilled with gasified water and
diesel. The higher liquid rates typically used
in these wells may effectively suppress slug
flow. However, slugs of liquid and gas can
form with these unviscosified liquids when
circulation is resumed, after it has been
suspended for some time; for example after
a connection or a trip.
Claytor et al., 1991,9 described drilling a
horizontal well in Michigan, using an
2-136
aerated mud. This provid :d an illustration
of the problems that ( a n result from
inadequate de-gassing. They used a mud
with a yield point in the *ange of 6 to 12
l b d 1 0 0 ft2. Initially, th: surface system
routed the returning mud through parallel
gas separators and througf two of the rig's
mud pits, before it went bick to the pumps.
Sufficient air remained in the mud when it
was pumped downhole aga In that the pumps
cavitated. The volume frac:tion of air in the
mud became so high, due to the air
entrapped in the liquid being pumped
downhole, that a large air ~ubbledeveloped
in the annulus and un1oad:d the well. No
additional problems, relate(i to inefficient air
removal from the mud, liere experienced
after two additional pits and a de-gasser
were added to the surface s,'stem.
The liquid phase is normal y re-used after it
returns to surface. Removd of fine drilled
solids can be important for controlling
viscosity and limiting erosi In. A high liquid
yield point can restrict solids removal, and
should be avoided, if possil lle. 10
The Gas Phase
Air, nitrogen and natural !;as have all been
used to gasify drilling fluijs. The primary
advantage of air is that it is less expensive
than nitrogen. Compresscrs and a booster
are required to supply the a r at the necessary
injection pressures and ra.es. In order to
maintain the downhole p ressure within a
tolerable range, more prec se control of the
air rate is needed than f o - dry air or mist
drilling.
Aerated liquids can be very corrosive.
Careful attention should be paid to corrosion
inhibition. Some drilling ( ontractors refuse
to allow their drillstring: to be used in
aerated liquids because c f high corrosion
rates. With careful selection of water, good
pH control and appropriate selection and use
of corrosion inhibitors, corrosion rates can
be reduced to acceptable levels. The
inhibitors involved are, however, expensive.
Combustion
The risk of combustion rules out using air to
lighten hydrocarbon liquids. There is no
significant risk of a downhole fire with an
aerated aqueous drilling fluid, provided that
the liquid phase remains continuous.
However, downhole fires are possible in
horizontal wells drilled with aerated liquids.
As was the case with air foams, the
horizontal hole acts as a separator, with air
migrating towards the top or high side of the
hole and liquid to the bottom or low side. If
the annulus bridges and the circulating
system pressure increases, ignition can
occur. To avoid this, nitrogen or natural gas
can be used.
Aerated liquids should not be used with
closed surface systems where combustible
mixtures of air and hydrocarbon vapor could
form inside the separators (if hydrocarbons
are produced).
Nitrogen may be supplied either cryo-
genically or by membrane filters operating
on location, as described in Section 2.2
“Nitrogen Drilling.” Regardless of the
nitrogen source, it eliminates the possibility
of downhole fires. Pure, cryogenic nitrogen
also prevents downhole corrosion.
Membrane-generated nitrogen contains
some oxygen, and downhole corrosion
remains a major concern.
It is possible to inject both nitrogen and
compressed air sim~ltaneously.~ Particularly
for wells requiring high gas injection rates,
this could be a cost effective pvocedure, if
the reduced nitrogen cost outweighs the
additional cost of the air compression
equipment. As was the case with
membrane-generated nitrogen, c mosion of
downhole equipment will be 2 problem.
Correct specification of the prc portions of
air and nitrogen will, however, prevent the
composition of the drilling quid from
entering the combustible region Different
hydrocarbons will have different
combustible limits. If samples ( If produced
hydrocarbons are available, expe iments can
be performed to determine thc minimum
proportion of nitrogen required to prevent
combustion. As noted in 5ection 2.2
“Nitrogen Drilling,” a mixtu -e of air,
nitrogen and natural gas will not iormally be
combustible if the oxygen conc mtration is
less than 8 percent. Notin*; that the
concentration of oxygen in air i: around 21
percent, using 38 percent air and 62 percent
nitrogen in the injected gas wi 1 keep the
oxygen concentration at or beloTf 8 percent
at all times. Teichrob, 1994,5found that
injecting a 60 percent air - 10 percent
nitrogen blend, in water, was s Jfficient to
prevent combustion in a heavy oi well.
It has been reported’’ that hydrc gen sulfide
can reduce the concentration of oxygen at
which a mixture of natural gas, r itrogen and
oxygen can ignite. Until more nformation
is available, it is advisable not tc use mixed
nitrogen and air or membran =-generated
nitrogen (which can contain up 1 0 5 percent
oxygen) in any application whe-e sour gas
production is possible.
Natural gas may be taken from i gas supply
line close to the well site, using the
equipment described in Section :..3 “Natural
Gas Drilling.” Using natural g 1s demands
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
very efficient gas removal from the returning
liquid, under conditions that allow all of the
gas to be collected and either flared or
treated and transferred to the local gas
production system.
Provided that the risk of combustion can be
controlled, the selection of gas for a gasified
drilling operation ultimately depends on the
comparative economics. Gas injection rates
tend to be lower when drilling with an
aerated liquid than during conventional air
or mist drilling. The gas is being injected to
reduce the drilling fluid density, not to
clean the hole. The lower injection rates
can make the high unit costs of liquid
nitrogen and natural gas less restrictive than
they are in dry gas drilling.
Recycling
Finally, there is no method to recycle the gas
returns. Superficially, recycling looks
attractive. If gas could be collected from the
separator, compressed and re-injected, there
could be real savings in the cost of injected
nitrogen or natural gas. However, several
factors combine to make this process
impractical." First, the quality and rate of
return gas are not steady. A secondary gas
supply would be necessary to guarantee that
a consistent injection rate is maintained.
The return gas would have to be dried, to
prevent liquid condensation in the
compressors. Since most compressors are
not rated for sour operation, the recycled gas
would have to be scrubbed to remove any
hydrogen sulfide that might enter the returns
from the formation.
Rheology
Elevated viscosity and yield point should be
avoided where possible.
2-138
In practice, the flow of I gasified liquid
drilling fluid will almost dways be highly
turbulent. The Reynolds number, k,for
flow of a liquid up an annu' us is given by:
15.47Dhpw v,,
Re = (2.58)
P
where:
Dh .......hydraulic diameter ( f the annulus
(the difference betw :en the hole
and pipe diameters) [inches),
pw ......liquid density (ppg),
van......average annular vel<city (fdmin),
and,
p .........liquid viscosity (cP)
Turbulent flow (at least trai sitional) is often
designated as being established once the
Reynolds number exceeds t,OOO. Consider
water flowing up the annul is of an 8Yi-inch
diameter hole being drilled with 5-inch
drillpipe. An annular velccity of 7 ft/min
would be sufficient for turbulent flow.
Typically, liquid rates giving annular
velocities in excess of 100 f imin are used in
gasified liquid drilling. Alsc , the gas bubbles
are more likely to promote turbulence than
to suppress it. Turbulent flow should be
expected.
The practical consequence of this is that the
gasified liquid's rheology will have little
impact on circulating pressr re losses or hole
cleaning, at least when the liquid phase is
unviscosified and annulai velocities are
reasonably high.
There may be circumstan :es, particularly
when drilling large hole sizc s, when it is not
possible to achieve an innular velocity
sufficient for good hole c eaning with an
unviscosified liquid. In these instances,
drilling mud is used as the base liquid. The
combination of low annular velocity and
high viscosity may then prevent the
development of turbulent flow. U required,
the viscosity of the gasified fluid can be
estimated from the gas volume fraction and
the viscosity of the base fluid using
relationships for low quality foams
(Equation (2.48), Section 2.5, “Stable
Foams”).
Circulating Pressures
Multi-Phase Flow
Prediction of circulating pressures, when
drilling with a gasified fluid, accounts for
multi-phase flow. There are at least three
phases in the annulus - liquid, gas, and solid
(cuttings). Depending on the injected liquid
and any formation fluid inflow, there may be
both aqueous and hydrocarbon liquid phases.
With drillpipe gas injection, gas and liquid
phases flow down the drillstring. With
annular gas injection, the flow down the
drillstring is purely liquid.
Generally, four different flow regimes have
been identified in gas-liquid flow; bubbly,
Guo et al.,
slug, churn and
1993,” noted that the flow regime in
gasified liquid drilling is normally bubbly
and it is reasonable to treat the drilling fluid
as a homogenous mixture of gas, liquid(s)
and solids.
Because of the compressibility of its gaseous
phase, the density of a gasified liquid
changes with pressure. This means that the
density of the gasified liquid decreases as it
flows up the annulus. The rate at which the
density changes can be influenced by the
frictional pressure loss. As flow rates are
increased, the frictional pressure loss up the
annulus increases, as does the bottomhole
~~
pressure. This compresses t le gaseous
phase and increases the downholz density of
the circulating fluid. Consec uently, the
bottomhole pressure of a circulat ing gasified
liquid is determined principa ly by the
interaction between the hydrostai ic head and
the frictional pressure chanie up the
annulus. Strictly, there is also a component
of downhole pressure due to accsleration of
the fluid up the annulus. This is ;mall and is
generally neglected in any imalysis of
circulating pressures.
Formation fluid inflows can t e expected
when drilling underbalanced w th gasified
liquids. These add to the liquid and gas
flowing up the annulus. Their effects on the
circulating pressure can be consic .erable.
Pressure Prediction
Drilling with a gasified liqu[d can be
considered analogous to conditions in a gas-
lifted well.7 Although a full analysis of
circulating pressures requires computer
simulation, in some instances it is possible
to use a static analysis i o roughly
approximate the bottomhole pressure,
without recourse to more complex
simulation. The various f tctors that
influence gasified liquid circulating
pressures are considered below.
Hydrostatic Pressure in the Ann ulus
The bottomhole pressure, due to I static mud
column, can be analyzed in terms of the gas
and liquid volume fractions. Pot .ttmann and
Bergman, 199S,14 developed charts showing
the volume of gas required (pir barrel of
mud) to achieve any particular ieduction in
effective density of the drilling Iluid. For a
static column of fluid:
1441’’ V d P + h = O (2.59)
P2
2-139
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

where:
808(Pb -Ps)-42hMW
S=
V ........ specific volume of the fluid 0.0764 h - 4.07 1(Tavg
t 460) In (P,,/Ps )
(ft3/lbm),
P .........pressure (psia), (2.63)
PI .......pressure at the top of the column where:
(psis),
P2 .......pressure at the bottom of the P, ........surface pressure (ps a), and,
column (psia), and, Pb ....... desired bottomhole iressure (psia).
h .........height (feet).
When the fluid column i! flowing up the
In oilfield units, assuming ideal gas annulus, work is done against friction
behavior: between the fluid and the cnnular walls (the

{
hole wall, the casing's imide surface, and
Vm= 5.61+
14.7S(Tavg+460)
520P -} (2.60)
the drillstring). Neglecting acceleration, the
pressures at the top and bo tom of a vertical
flowing column of fluid zre related to the
fluid's specific volume, tlre height of the
M = 42 M W + 0.0764 GS (2.61) column and the energy lost to friction, Wf,
by:
where:
lGJp'VdP+h+Wf = O (2.64)
Vm...... total volume (ft3) of gashbl liquid P2

at pressure,
P .........pressure (psia), Poettmann and Bergman related Wf to a
Tavg..... average temperature (OF), Fanning friction factor, f:
M .......mass of mixture (Ibdbbl) of
liquid, 2.85~ fQ2V2mavg
S ......... volume of gas (scfhbl) of mud, w, = (2.65)
G ........gas gravity, and, (Dh +Ds>' (Dh -Dsy

MW ... mud weight (ppg).

where:
For a static column of mixed gas and liquid
in a well of depth, h, Equation (2.59) can be Q ........flow rate of liquid (E pm),
re-written as: Vmavg .. integrated average o ' V m between
the surface and the I: ottomhole
pressures (ft3hbl),
1 1 2117S(Ta,, +46O)dP
Dh .......hole diameter (inche s), and,
p,

h=-["808dP+-j
M Pz M Pz 520P D, ....... drillstring diameter ( inches).

(2.62) This relationship implies that an average

friction factor is taken to re xesent frictional
This can be integrated and re-arranged to effects up the full length of the annulus.
find S, the volume of gas (scfhbl of liquid): Substituting Equation (2.6.;) into Equation

2-140
(2.64) and integrating, the following
relationship between well depth, surface and
bottomhole pressures is obtained:
808 (Pb- P,) + 4.071(Tavg+ 460) In( P,/Ps)
__h =
2.85xlO-'f Q'V&
(42MW + 0.0764GS)
(Dh +Ds)2(Dh
Poettmann and Carpenter, 1952,15
determined the friction factor, f, using a
correlation with a reduced Reynolds number
for flow of gas and liquid mixtures up gas
wells. The reduced Reynolds number, &PC,
was defined (in oilfield units) as:
5.16 x 10" MQ
RePC =
Dh +Ds
where:
Q ........liquid flow rate, stock tank (gpm).
The correlation between the friction factor
and this reduced Reynolds number is shown
in Figure 2-38. This correlation was used by
Poettmann and Bergman in conjunction with
Equation (2.66), to compute the quantity of
gas required to give a bottomhole pressure
of 2,497 psig, when drilling a 6,000-foot
deep 8%-inch hole with 4%-inch drillpipe
and circulating an 8.6 ppg mud at 350 gpm.
This example situation would require 14.9
scfm of air per barrel of mud, or 124 scfm
(added to the 350 gpm mud rate) to give the
desired bottomhole pressure. Equation
(2.63) was used to compute the volume of
air required to give this bottomhole pressure
if the mud column were static. This was
13.4 scfhbl of mud (1 12 scfm).
Poettmann and Bergman, 1955, concluded
that the difference between static and
flowing states was sufficient]:' small to
allow the much simpler static analysis to be
I
used to estimate the air rate thzt would be
required to achieve a target redu:tion in the
effective fluid weight. They generated
-Ds)3 charts using their static analysis, for
different average fluid temperatL res. These
(2.66) relate the air volume required, iii scfhbl of
liquid, to the desired reducticn in mud
density, the initial mud density, and the
bottomhole depth. Figure 2-3 9 provides
charts for average fluid temperati ires of 100,
150, and 200°F. The fluid tenlperature is
often not well known and it doe: not have a
large impact on the air volume required.
These charts are probably SI fficient to
estimate air requirements, in ;ipplications
(2.67) where the target bottomhole x-essure is
poorly defined and when largc formation
fluid inflows are not anticipated.
When drilling, the cuttings in { h e annulus
will add some component to the bottomhole
pressure. In most instances, this is small and
can safely be ignored when predicted
circulating pressures.
In order to predict standpipe prei sures, flow
down the drillstring and throcgh the bit
nozzles has to be considered. I ' the gas is
injected into the annulus, flow down the
string and through the nozzles w 11 be single
(liquid) phase.
For liquid only, the prediction of hydrostatic
pressure and frictional pressur: losses is
relatively straightforward. The fl owing fluid
compressibility is negligible and its density
does not change measurably unt 1 it reaches
the gas injection point. Any c mventional
drilling hydraulics model can >e used to
2-141
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

100

10

0.1

0.01

0.001
1 10 100
Reduced Reynolds Number, RePC

Figure 2-38. Correlation between friction factor, f, and the reduced Re vnolds number,
RePC,(after Poettmann and Carpenter, 1952.)51

CUBIC FEET OF AIR AT 14.7 PSlA AND 60.F PER BARREL OF MUD

DRILLING DEPTH IN FEET

Figure 2-39 (a). Air volumes required to achieve desired mud weigl it reductions;
average fluid temperature 100°F (Poettmann and Bel gman, 1955 14).

2-142
 Cubic Feet Of Air At 14.7 PSlA And 60° F Per Barrel Of Mud
CFM-180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 0 0

Depth-

Figure 2-39 (b).

_ _ Air volumes required to achieve desired mud weight fi ?ductions;
average temperature 150°F (Poettmann and Bergman, 195:i14).
-
CUBIC FEET OF AIR AT 14.7 PSlA AND 60°F PER BARREL OF MUD
180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 ) 50 4 0 30 20 40 0

AVERAGE FLUID COLUMN TEMPERATURE

LUlD WEIGHT

--
-
.-
1
!OOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 K,OOO
DRILLING DEPTH IN FEET
-
Figure 2-39 (c). Air volumes required to achieve desired mud weight fi ?ductions;
average temperature 200°F (Poettmann and Bergman, 195:i14).

2-143
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
predict the pressure change through the bit
nozzles and up the annulus. The standpipe
pressure will be the sum of the bottomhole
pressure, the bit pressure drop, and the
drillstring frictional pressure drop, minus the
hydrostatic head in the drillstring. Because
the fluid flowing through the nozzles is
incompressible, there is no prospect for
sonic flow to isolate the standpipe pressure
from the annulus, unlike dry gas drilling.
If gas is injected down the drillstring, flow
will be two-phase down the string and
through the nozzles. The finite
compressibility of the gasified liquid means
that the pressure drop through the bit
nozzles, if there are any, cannot be
computed from the conventional, liquid
pressure drop formula. Guo et a1.,1993,”
gave an expression for computing the
pressure drop of a gasified liquid flowing
through a nozzle:
Pa = Pb + {GZ2}{
-
gcAn
i-
L]
Pb Pa
(2.68)
where:
G ........mass flow rate of drilling fluid
(Ibds),
A,,.......total flow area of the nozzles
(feet),
gc........ gravitational conversion factor
(32.17 ft .lbm/lbf *s2),
P a ....... fluid’s density above the bit
(Ibm/ft3),
P b .......fluid’s density below the bit
(Ibmfft3),
Pa .......p ressure above the bit (psfa), and,
Pb ....... bottomhole pressure (below the
bit) (psfa).
This relationship neglects any energy loss
2-144
through the nozzles due tc frictional effects
and any change in potential energy of the
fluid due to the vanishirgly small height
difference across the nozz les. Substituting
from Equation (2.44), for the density of a
lightened drilling fluid, this becomes:
where:
Fgo......volume fraction of 1 as in the liquid
under standard conc itions, and,
po.......density of the fluid 1 inder standard
conditions (pressure, Po) (Ibdft3).
This expression can be used to compute the
pressure above the bit frori the bottomhole
pressure. The effect of ten perature changes
on fluid density is neglected in this
expression. As the liquid I olume fraction is
quite high, the thermal capacity of the
drilling fluid will be large in comparison to
that of a gas. The temperat ire change across
the nozzles will be much smaller than for a
pure gas.
Hydrostatic and frictional p ’essures mutually
interact during flow down the string. The
increase in flowing pressur,>,due to friction,
causes changes in the hyd -astatic pressure.
The annular geometry term (Dh + D,)2 (Dh -
D,)3 in Equations (2.f5) and (2.66)
simplifies to D5 for flow down the string.
With this substitution and with the
appropriate sign changes, Equation (2.66)
can now be used to pred ct the standpipe
pressure from the pressure :bove the bit.
Circulation Simulations
Several computer simulat m, representing
flow of circulating gasifil :d liquids, have
been developed; for example, by Guo et al.,
1993,12Sap0nja,1995,~and, by Wang et al.,
1995.16
Guo et al.'s model was validated by
comparing its standpipe pressure predictions
with measurements made when drilling at
depths from 3,000 to 7,000 feet, in three
different wells, with liquid rates ranging
from 180 to 300 gpm and gas rates ranging
from 0 to 680 scfm. Predicted and measured
standpipe pressures ranged from less than
300 psi to 700 psi. In most instances, the
differences between predictions and
measurements were 10 percent or less.
The frictional pressure drop, up the annulus,
increases rapidly with increasing gas
injection rate, to the extent that it can control
the bottomhole pressure at high gas rates.
Figure 2-40 illustrates the effect of gas and
liquid injection rates on bottomhole
pressures predicted, using Goii et al.'s
methodology. This example is for a vertical
8X-inch diameter hole, 6,000 feet deep,
being drilled with 4%-inch drillpipe and 6%-
inch collars. Bottomhole pressure is plotted
as a function of the gas injection rate, for
liquid rates of 200 and 350 gpm. It is
assumed that the annulus is open to
atmospheric pressure at the surface.
Initially, the bottomhole pressure decreases
as the gas injection rate is increased. The
reduction in fluid density in the annulus is
much more than the increase in frictional
pressure drop due to the increased gas rate.
As the gas rate increases, the frictional
pressure drop becomes more significant.
There is a critical gas rate for which the
bottomhole pressure is a minimum. As the
gas rate is increased beyond this critical
value, the frictional pressure drop dominates
any reduction in fluid densit[ and the
bottomhole pressure actually increases
slightly. Guo et al., 1993,12poin ed out that
the critical rate depends on t i e annular
geometry, the well depth and the liquid
density.
Saponja, 1995; termed the rej:ion where
increasing gas injection rat: reduces
bottomhole pressure as I ydrostatic-
dominated, while the regi In where
increasing the gas rate increases pottomhole
pressure was labeled friction-don inated.
In the hydrostatic-dominated r :gime, the
bottomhole pressure is sensitiv : to small
changes in the gas injection rate Figure 2-
40 shows that an increase in tlie gas rate
from 100 to 200 scfm, injected into a 350
gpm liquid flow, would r:duce the
bottomhole pressure from 1,150 psi to 825
psi. The bottomhole pressu .e is also
sensitive to gas inflow. If gas flows from
the formation into the an iulus, the
bottomhole pressure will be redlced if the
flow is in the hydrostatic-domina ted regime.
This will allow more gas to f l c w into the
annulus, further reducing the pre ssure. The
bottomhole pressure will only sta ilize when
the gas rate becomes sufficien ly high to
move flow into the friction -dominated
regime.
On the other hand, bottomhole pressures do
not substantially change in respoi ise to small
changes in gas injection rate, if the flow is
friction-dominated. Again, using the
example in Figure 2-40, an incrzase in gas
rate from 500 to 1,000 scfm WOL Id cause an
increase of only 75 psi in the bottomhole
pressure. This contrasts with the 325 psi
bottomhole pressure reduction when gas
flow was increased from 100 to 2 00 scfm. In
2-145
 --
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

2000

1800

1600

1400

1 200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 )OO 1000

Air Rate (scWbbl)

Figure 2-40. Influence of gas and liquid injection rates on predic red bottomhole
pressures.

the friction-dominated regime, gas inflows bottomhole pressure can be estimated by

tend to be self-stabilizing. Bottomhole
pressure increases in response to the inflow
and this reduces the gas inflow rate. Saponja
recommended designing the circulating
program so that flow would be friction-
dominated, whenever possible. However,
there is no point in using flow rates that are
higher than necessary for adequate hole
cleaning. As can be seen from Figure 2-40,
the critical gas rate is roughly proportional
to the liquid rate. It is possible to achieve
friction-dominated flow at a lower gas rate,
by reducing the liquid rate. Particularly
when using nitrogen, the cost of an
unnecessarily high gas rate can be
considerable and should be avoided, if at all
possible. Optimization of flow rates will be
discussed in more detail later.
The impact of formation liquid inflows on
adding the formation flirid rate to the
injected rate of the ap ?ropriate phase.
Consider the example shou n in Figure 2-40,
with a liquid injection rate of 200 gpm. A
liquid inflow of 214 BPH 150 gpm) would
increase the liquid rate in tl le annulus to 350
gpm. This would increasi: the bottomhole
pressure at all except very ow gas injection
rates. At low gas rates the change in
pressure due to the liquid inflow becomes
larger with increasing gas rtte. Approaching
the onset of friction-dominated flow, the
bottomhole pressure becon ies less sensitive
to the inflow and changes in bottomhole
pressure are smaller with in xeasing gas rate.
Gas inflows can cai se bottomhole
pressures to decrease or t 3 increase. The
rate of gas inflow can be added to the gas
injection rate to estimate the change in

2-146
bottomhole pressure. If flow is hydrostatic
dominated, the bottomhole pressure is
reduced by the inflow, whereas it is
increased if the flow is friction-dominated.
Whether the inflow is gas or liquid, the
inflow rate will be influenced by the
bottomhole pressure. For gas inflow into a
hydrostatic-dominated flow regime,
reduction in bottomhole pressure will
increase the inflow rate, tending to amplify
the pressure change. In all other instances,
formation fluid inflows increase the
bottomhole pressure and therefore tend to be
self-regulating.
In general, it will be necessary to adjust the
gas and/or liquid injection rates to re-
establish the desired bottomhole pressure if
an inflow occurs. For a liquid inflow, a
corresponding reduction in liquid injection
rate will restore the bottomhole pressure. If
the inflow occurs well above the bit, this
could lead to hole cleaning problems. The
correct response to a gas inflow will depend
on the jlow regime prevailing downhole. It
can be possible to exploit formation fluid
inflows to reduce gas injection rates along
with the cost of the injected gas. This will
be discussed further in the section on
operating procedures.
To adequately balance an injection gas rate
with a gas or formation fluid inflow requires
a great deal of knowledge about the flowing
formation. This becomes more difficult if
the inflowing formation is damaged during
tripping. Response needs to be monitored
and changes made on the fly.
Drillstring injection reduces gas
requirements and bottomhole pressures.
Figure 2-4 1 compares bottomhole pressures,
predicted for the example 6,000 foot well
(Figure 2-40) with drillstring ir jection and
with injection through a parisite string
ported into the borehole at 2,OCO feet. The
minimum bottomhole pressure fc lr drillstring
injection with a liquid rate of 350 gpm is
around 650 psi, whereas injecticn down the
parasite string cannot reduce the bottomhole
pressure below 1,200 psi at this liquid rate.
A bottomhole pressure of 1 , 2 3 1psi would
require less than 100 scfm of as injected
into the drillstring, but would -equire 200
scfm if it were injected down :he parasite
string. The same effects would I le seen with
other methods of annular gas injc ction.
Due to the compressibility of a gasified
liquid, its equivalent circulati ig density,
ECD, changes with depth. Iiigure 2-42
shows the equivalent circulatin g densities,
predicted for the 6,000 foot hole used above,
with air being injected into the liquid at a
rate of 100 scf per barrel. With both
drillstring and parasitic string g is injection,
the ECD is 2 ppg at about 301 feet from
surface. The ECD increases i o 5 ppg at
6,000 feet, if the gas is injecfed into the
drillstring, while it exceeds 6 ppg at this
depth with the same injection rate down the
parasite string. This demonstra es that it is
possible to be at balance or even
overbalanced at the hole bottom while at the
same time being substantially ur derbalanced
near surface. Zt is possible to lose
circulation into a formation ntar the hole
bottom while at the same timl?formation
fluids flow into the borehole from a
permeable zone up the hole.
It is possible to choke back the return flow,
to pressurize the annulus, at lea ;t within the
pressure limitations of the rota1 ing blowout
preventer. When drilling wit1 foam, this
may be necessary to maiitain foam
throughout the annulus. t ;ood hole
2-147
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

2500
-C Standpipe

- Parasite String
.-g,
n
Q
2000 ______ --
Y

t
S
cn

--
u)
2 1500 -~
n
-0)
0 -
c q-4+ 4- 0- 0-

E
8
m
loo0
-

0
B
a0 500
t
a

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 E30 1000
Air Rate (scfhbl)

Figure 2-41. Comparison of bottomhole pressure predicted for drills2 ring (standpipe)
and annular (parasite string) gas injection.

10 1
Standpipe(Equivalent CirculatingDensity
9
4-
__ 0.9
+Parasite (Equivalent Circutating Density)
a
n

E 8
_I _I__ -A- Standpipe(Volume Fraction Air) -_ 0.8
-A- Parasite (Volume FractionAir)
--__- 0.7
C
0.6 0
‘E
0.5 E
cn
0.4 aQ
c

.--5> 3 0.3
.-s 2 0.2
U
Lu
1 0.1

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Measured Depth (feet)

Figure 2-42. Predicted equivalent circulating densities and gas volui ne fractions as
functions of depth.

2-148
cleaning, with a gasified liquid, does not
require that the liquid volume fraction has to
be maintained within any specific range.
Choking back the return flow will increase
the bottomhole pressure. It will also
increase the standpipe pressure and the gas
compression requirements. Any choke
system should be monitored for erosion by
cuttings in the return flow. Bottomhole
pressure can normally be increased by
reducing the gas injection rate or by
increasing the liquid rate, without significant
change in gas consumption.
In general, a backpressure should not be
imposed on the annulus when drilling with
a gasified liquid.
Finally, as is the case when drilling with
other compressible fluids, the standpipe
pressure does not necessarily respond to
changes in annular pressure. Saponja,
1995,7 compared pressures recorded
downhole and at the surface, during a
gasified liquid drilling operation (refer to
Figure 2-43). The annular pressure was in
the range of 325 to 450 psi when drilling
normally, but increased to over 870 psi when
the annulus apparently packed off due to
inadequate hole cleaning. The standpipe
pressure did not give any indication of a
downhole problem.
Hole Cleaning
The methods for ensuring good hole
cleaning with a gasified liquid are influenced
by the properties of the base liquid, by the
hole geometry, and to some extent by the
formation fluid inflow. Annular velocities
of approximately 100 to 200 feet per minute
are required to keep holes clean with
unviscosified liquids. It may not be possible
to generate that high an annular velocity in
large diameter holes. If this is the case, the
base liquid viscosity will hive to be
increased to provide adequa :e cuttings
transport capacity. A significar t formation
fluid inflow may be exploited to improve
cuttings transport, by allowing t to add to
the annular flow rate.
Settling Velocity
Cuttings transport in a simple ga ;ified liquid
can be forecasted using a n analysis
presented by Guo et al., 1993 l 2 Simple
spreadsheet versions can be codt d. The key
assumption made is that a gasified liquid can
be treated as an homogenous nLixture; this
allows a cutting's settling vel xity to be
determined by the average flow I lroperties of
the mixture. The settling velocity of a
particle of diameter, d, (inches), was taken
to be:
v, = 9 2 . 6 i d c ( y ) (2.70)
where:
pc .......cutting's density (ppg), artd,
pf ........drilling fluid's average dc nsity, at
the prevailing temperatur :and
pressure (ppg).
Equation (2.70), derived by Mo xe, 1974,17
incorporates a drag coefficient ( f 1.5. This
is typical of cuttings falling through a
viscous liquid. Gray, 1958,'* .bund lower
values for the drag coeffcient, r inging from
0.8 for rounded particles to 1.4 for flat
particles; for cuttings falling thtough air, at
elevated pressures. Since gas]fied liquids
tend to have flow properties clcser to those
of the base liquid than those of gases, c d =
1.5 is assumed here. The settlir g velocities
are not very sensitive to the valu ;of the drag
coefficient. A cutting, with a diameter of
2-149
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

8000 b

7000

m
h

B
Y

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1'00 1800 1900
Time (min)

Figure 2-43. Comparison of downhole and surface pressures (after Sap mja, 1995 '). To
convert from kPa to psi, multiply by 0.145.

0.25 inches and a density of 21 ppg (specific where:

gravity 2.5), in a fluid with a downhole
density of 5 ppg (specific gravity 0.6), will
have a terminal velocity of 83 ftlmin. The
annular velocity must exceed this value if
the cutting is to move uphole.
Guo et al., 1993,12assumed that the cuttings
concentration in the annulus should not
exceed some criticaI value, C,, if hole
cleaning problems were to be avoided. The
velocity, V,, with which cuttings must travel
uphole to keep their concentration in the
annulus below the critical level was related
to the penetration rate ROP by:
ROP
v, = -
60 C,
v, ........critical velocity (ftli nin),
ROP ... rate of penetration ( Ft/hr), and,
C,.......cuttings concentrati in (fraction).
Taking the critical con:entration as 4
percent, cuttings would net d to travel uphole
with a velocity twenty-fi ve times greater
than the penetration rate. For a penetration
rate of 30 ft/hr, this cor-esponds to 12.5
ft/min. In a vertical well, the minimum
annular velocity required for this cuttings
velocity is the sum of the terminal velocity
and the required cuttings velocity; 95.5
ftlmin in this case, for vt = 83 ft/min. Larger
cuttings, lower circulatin ; fluid densities
(2.7 1) and higher penetration r Ltes will require

2-150
higher annular velocities, as will highly
deviated and horizontal wellbores. For
example, Saponja, 1995,19 reported hole
cleaning problems in a horizontal well
drilled with nitrified water, when the annular
velocity was 400 ft/min. A second
horizontal well, drilled with nitrified crude,
showed adequate hole cleaning, with an
annular velocity of nearly 600 fvmin.
Examples were given by Guo et al., 1993,12
relating the gas and liquid injection rates
required for good transport of different sized
cuttings, for several different well
geometries. Figure 2-44 is one example; for
a 6%-inch diameter hole being drilled with
3%-inch drillpipe, at a depth of 10,000 feet.
Increasing the gas injection rate increases
the size of cutting that can be lifted uphole,
whatever the liquid flow rate. In this
example, a dry air injection rate of 2,400
scfm would be sufficient for efficient hole
cleaning with 0.25-inch diameter cuttings. A
liquid injection rate of less than 11W gpm
(14.7 cfm) would actually reduce the
efficiency of cuttings transport. That is, it
would decrease the size of cutting that could
be lifted uphole efficiently. The liquid rate
would have to be above 1101 gpm to
maintain or increase cuttings transport
capacity.
The downhole density of the drilling fluid
depends on the relative gas and liquid
injection rates. If the liquid injection rate is
increased while the gas rate is held constant,
the circulating fluid density will increase.
However, the average annular velocity of the
drilling fluid downhole will initially
decrease, as the liquid injection rate is
increased. At first, the higher downhole
pressure reduces the volume of the gas phase
by more than the increase in the liquid
injection rate. With further ii creases in
liquid injection rate, the rate of rzduction in
gas volume becomes smaller than the
increase in liquid volume, and he annular
velocity begins to increase. As i' lustrated in
the example in Figure 2-44, thi! can cause
the efficiency of cuttings trmsport to
decrease if the liquid injectilm rate is
increased. This is analogous to crilling with
mist rather than dry air; that is, when
injecting liquid, the air rate reqiiired to lift
any given size of cutting increises. This
should be considered when c esigning a
gasified liquid circulating prograi n.
When designing the circulation program, it
is possible to use formation fluil inflow to
improve cuttings transport efficic ncy. If the
inflow occurs at the hole bottori, its effect
on cuttings transport can be det:rmined by
adding the inflow rate to the in, ected fluid
rate(s). Gas inflow at the bit vi11 always
improve cuttings transport. Liqu d inflow at
the bit may or may not improve cuttings
transport, depending on how thc. additional
liquid flow affects bottomhole p ressure and
annular velocity.
While this supplementary transp >rt capacity
can be a bonus, care should be :xercised if
drilling is to continue below .he inflow.
Cuttings transport between the bit and the
depth of the inflow may be imp:ded by the
additional fluid flow. As noted 1 bove, a gas
inflow can either increase or decrease the
bottomhole pressure. A liquid inflow will
always increase the bottomhole, wessure. If
the bottomhole pressure increa, 'es because
of an inflow, the annular velocity between
the bit and the inflow site will dt!crease and
the circulating fluid density wi I1 increase.
An increase in bottomhole pi essure can
reduce the efficiency of cutting i transport,
2-151
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

350

300
-C 1B inch

+114 inch
250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Air Injection Rate (cfm)

Figure 2-44. Gas and liquid injection rates required for efficient cuttings transport (afler
Guo et a/., 199312).

even though the circulating fluid density
increases. Gas inflow may hinder cuttings
transport between the bit and the inflow
site. This will probably not be a significant
concern until the drill collars are below the
inflow, since the annular velocity is higher
past the collars than it is past the smaller
diameter drillpipe.
The analysis of cuttings transport presented
so far has assumed turbulent flow. With a
large annulus, it may not be possible to
achieve an annular velocity sufficiently high
for efficient cuttings transport. In this case,
the circulating fluid viscosity will have to be
increased, in order to reduce cuttings’
settling velocity. This will probably involve
a substantial increase in the liquid phase’s
viscosity, bringing annular flow into the
laminar or transitional regimes. A cutting’s
settling velocity depends on the fluid’s
effective viscosity. A SIandard cuttings’
transport a n a l y ~ i s ’ ~givc s the settling
velocity, for a cutting falliI; g through a fluid
in transitional flow, as:
0 661
(Pc - P J
v, = 175dc (2.72)
(Pf P)0.333
where:
vt ........terminal velocity (ft min),
d, ........average cutting’s “d ameter”
(inches),
p, .......cutting’s density (PI g),
pf........drilling fluid’s density (ppg), and,
p ......... fluid’s effective visc osity
(i.e. accounting for i nnular flow)
(CP).

2-152
For example, consider a 0.25-inch diameter
cutting, with a density of 21 ppg, falling
through a fluid with a circulating density of
5 ppg. If the maximum attainable annular
velocity is 15 ftlmin, Equation (2.72)
indicates that the settling velocity would
have to be restricted to 17.4 ftlmin for
effective hole cleaning, at a penetration rate
of 30 ft/hr. This would require an effective
viscosity of 160 cP. Equation (2.48) can be
used to estimate the effective viscosity of the
gasified liquid, from the viscosity of the base
liquid and the gas volume fraction.
Remember that a high liquid viscosity will
make de-gassing the returning fluid more
difficult. This can lead to significant
operational problems.
Equipment
Gas Injection System
Gas supply and compression equipment,
appropriate to the selected gas, will be
required; these are described in Section 2.1
for air, Section 2.2 for nitrogen and Section
2.3 for natural gas. Whatever gas is used, the
injection system should be capable of
delivering the required gas volume, at the
highest anticipated injection pressure. For
drillstring gas injection, the gas supply must
be able to overcome the standpipe. pressure.
This can be of the order of 1,000 psi. For
parasite tubing or casing injection, the gas
delivery pressure at the injection point must
exceed the hydrostatic pressure of a column
of any anticipated wellbore liquid. This can
also easily exceed 1,000 psi, depending on
the depth of injection. With air, on-site
generated (membrane filter) nitrogen, or
natural gas, boosters will probably be
needed. A cryogenic nitrogen pump unit
will probably have adequate delivery
pressure for most normal drilling situations.
.______-I_
Whatever the type of gas an( injection
technique, the rate of gas injecticln must be
monitored and controlled more precisely,
when drilling with gasified liquids, than
when drilling with dry gases or foams.
Otherwise, the desired bottomho e pressure
will not be maintained. Many cc bmpressors
provide little possibility for de ivery rate
control by varying operating slieed. An
adjustable choke should be set up on the gas
delivery line, to allow controlled venting of
part of the compressor output through a
bypass line, direct to the flare pit. An orifice
meter should be installed downstr =am of the
choke to measure the volune of air
delivered to the well. The metere 1 flow rate
can then be used to adjust the chc ke setting,
as required.
Claytor et al., 1991,9 describe11 using a
backpressure valve, controlled b; feedback
from a downstream flow meter, o regulate
the volume of gas bypassed. This responds
rapidly to variations in standpipi pressure,
such as those due to bit torque changes when
drilling with a downhole motor.
Cryogenic nitrogen pump units j v e much
better control of delivery volume. The pump
speed can be adjusted to d1:liver the
appropriate nitrogen volume and :xcess gas
does not have to be bypassed.
If natural gas will be injected down the
drillstring, the gas supply should be
connected to the standpipe in the same way
as for dry gas or mist drilling (refer to
Sections 2.1 and 2.4).
Parasite Tubing String
The parasite gas injection strirg can be
continuous (i.e. coiled), or joint :d tubing.
2-153
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Continuous tubing itself will be less costly
than jointed tubing. It is more costly to rig
up to run continuous tubing, but once rigged
up, it is usually quicker to run than jointed
tubing. Only the casing connections have to
be made.
Whatever tubing is selected, it must have
sufficient pressure integrity to survive any
feasible combination of internal and external
pressures that it may experience during
installation and operation. The most
stringent collapse condition will probably
arise when cementing the casing string it is
attached to. Filling the parasite string with
water or mud will offset the load trying to
collapse the string. The parasite tubing
could be exposed to gas at full bottomhole
pressure minus the gas density gradient, or
to gas at the formation pressure gradient.
The parasite tubing should be designed to
the same burst rating as its host casing.
In many instances, 1-inch diameter coiled
tubing will be adequate. If the parasite
string is jointed, 1.66-inch non-upset 10
threads per inch tubing is often used. When
a high gas injection rate is required, (for
example, when drilling large diameter hole),
or when the injection point is very deep, the
frictional pressure drop down the injection
line may become significant. Under these
circumstances, larger diameter tubing
(greater than one-inch) coiled tubing may be
required, in order to limit the gas injection
pressure at surface. Clearance between the
host casing string and the annular openhole
space through which the parasite string is
run must be considered when selecting the
parasite tubing size. There has to be
sufficient room for the parasite tubing and
whatever clamps are used to attach it to the
host casing.
2-154
If the parasite tubing is joiI ted, the clearance
must be sufficient for both the tubing
outside of the casing coinection and the
tubing connection outsid : of the casing
body. Appropriate length pup joints of the
parasite tubing should be used to ensure that
tubing connections are nc It made opposite
casing connections. This v rould increase the
casing (drift) and opc mhole diameter
required to accommodatl > the combined
casing-parasite tubing douk le string.
The lower end of the I arasite string is
normally ported into the :asing through a
custom casing subz0 (refer to Figure 2-45).
This is located in the casin ;, above the float
collar. After cement has b :en placed, water
is circulated down the pa-asite tubing and
into the casing to ensure that cement cannot
plug the parasite tubing. L.lternatively, it is
possible to use a gas-injec :ion float shoe,’l
as shown in Figure 2-46. In that case, the
lower end of the parasite tubing remains
closed until the float equ pment is drilled
out. This prevents cement rom entering and
allows the parasite string to be pressure
tested before the shoe is diilled out and the
string is opened to the annu us.
A jointed parasite string can simply be
screwed into an appropriatt : box connection
on the injection sub or sho:. Consideration
should be given to how a cc ntinuous parasite
string will be attached to tie injection sub,
since it is not possible to rotate the string
during installation. It can 1)e welded onto a
stub of tubing, previously screwed into the
sub and projecting above he upper end of
the sub, or, with good access, it may be
possible to weld the tubin; directly to the
sub. A compression type iitting on the sub
can also be used, but this \,ill require more
annular clearance than a wt lded connection.
 Pln
2 1B -inch Parasno Into
Figure 2-45. Parasite tubing injection
sub (affer Westermark,
1986").
The connection of the parasite string to the
casing must be strong enough to support
tensile loads which may be imposed when
running and by the different pressure
regimes that can be experienced during
cementing and subsequent operations.
The parasite string should be clamped to the
outside of the casing, to avoid buckling of
the tubing under its own weight, if it is
unsupported at any time during running.
This can be done with hinged, bolt-on
clamps similar to modified casing
centralizers.20 Ensure that there is sufficient
clearance between these clamps and the
rotary table so that they will not snag when
run or pulled back through the table.
Westermark, 1986,20 reported welding
segments of clamp to the casing
connections, in order to minimze the outside
diameter of the clamp. If this is done,
consider the impact of the welding operation
on casing integrity.
Figure 2-46. Parasite tubin g injection
float shoe (am !r Comeau,
1995").
A coiled tubing unit should be used when a
continuous parasite string is n n . Coiled
tubing can be pulled directly off an
unpowered spool, by using the meight of the
casing string being run. But, here is no
possibility for re-spooling the tu i n g if it is
necessary to retrieve the ci sing-tubing
string. An injector head is not nc:cessary. A
coiled tubing gooseneck should ,e hung off
above the rig floor, out of the path of the
block and elevators. The coiled tubing is
run over the gooseneck and rhrough the
rotary table with the casing. Ens Ire that it is
possible for the slips to suppor the casing
without pinching the parasite tub ng.
Continuous tubing can normall I be pulled
far enough to one side to clear collar-type
elevators. It may not be possible to bend the
tubing sufficiently to clear slip-type casing
elevators. With jointed pipe, it i: possible to
keep the upper end of the parrsite tubing
below the casing elevators and slips at all
2-155
 --
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
timesY2'permitting any type of elevators and
slips to be used. To do this, the first joint of
the parasite tubing has to be shorter than the
first joint of casing above the injection sub.
P Make up the parasite tubing to the
injection sub, and then make up two
joints of casing.
9 Pull back the casing until the parasite
tubing is above the rotary table.
9 Make up one joint of parasite tubing and
clamp it to the casing.
9 Lower the casing and hang off at the top
connection.
9 Pick up and make up the next joint of
casing.
9 Pull back the casing to expose the
parasite tubing, add the next joint of
parasite tubing and repeat the process.
Often the parasite tubing will be run outside
of the surface casing string, there will be no
wellhead and the parasite tubing will simply
extend from the conductor pipe at the
surface. In this case, it is important that the
casing is cemented back to surface. The
parasite tubing and its clamps will make it
very difficult to run a top-up string into the
annulus if cement returns are not obtained
and a top-up cement job is necessary.20 If
there is a potential for lost cement returns,
consider running a top-up string with the
casing, in addition to the parasite tubing
string.
The parasite string will push the casing off-
center in the conductor. When the wellhead,
BOP and rotating head or rotary BOP are
installed on the casing that carries the
parasite string, these will not be aligned with
the center of the rotary table. The degree of
eccentricity can be sufficient to cause rapid
I_
2-156
wear of the rotating head or RBOP sealing
elernenk2' Functionalit! of this control
equipment is essential. The rig can be
skidded across to re-cente the rotary table,
after setting the surfacc casing-parasite
tubing string. If the condi ctor pipe will be
set with the rig, it is much easier for it to be
pulled to one side before ils cement sets. If
this is done, the surfac; casing-parasite
tubing string will be certered below the
rotary table when it is iistalled. If the
conductor pipe was driven 1 )efore rigging up,
the rig should be located !o that the rotary
table will be centered 01 the (eccentric)
surface casing-parasite tubi ig string and not
on the conductor pipe.
If a parasite string is un outside the
intermediate casing, it will lave to penetrate
the wellhead at the surface and seal against
it. Clearance for the para: ite tubing inside
the wellhead will be very li nited. It may be
possible to obtain an eccentric casing
hanger. If not, a reduced di imeter section of
tubing may have to be us:d inside of the
wellhead.
A check valve and a ball valve should be
installed on the parasite tubing at the
surface. These prevent an:' fluid flow into
the gas supply system ard provide well
control in the event that th: well has to be
shut-in. The gas supply is :onnected to the
parasite string through the b 111 valve.
Annular Gas Injection
Recognizing the wellhea J complexities
described above, it may be easier to
temporarily install a secon casing string;
inside the intermediate casi ig, to allow gas
injection down the annulu: between these
two strings; rather than sing a parasite
string on intermediate casini . If this is done,
the size of the intermediate :asing may have
to be increased to accommodate a temporary
string with sufficient drift diameter for the
hole section to be drilled. This in turn may
require that the previous hole section is
drilled to a larger diameter than would have
otherwise been done. The diameter of the
lower hole section may also have to be
reduced. Deis et al., 1995,22 gave an
example of horizontal wells drilled with and
without annular gas injection. 7 5/8-inch
intermediate casing was set and 5%-inch
casing was temporarily hung off to allow
annular gas injection while drilling a 4%-
inch hole. Without annular injection, the
intermediate casing was 7-inch diameter and
the hole below was drilled to 6 1/8-inch
diameter.
In some instances, a special casing head has
been used to hang off the temporary casing
string, inside the intermediate
Figure 2-47. Casing head for micro-annular gas injection (after Teichrob, '994').
(refer to Figure 2-47). These he; ds typically
have two pairs of two-inch out:ets, to give
separate access to the intermec iate-surface
annulus and to the temporary-j ntermediate
annulus down which the gas was injected. It
is advantageous for the temporary string's
hanger to have a sufficiently ;mall outer
diameter so that it can pass through the BOP
stack.5 This allows the tempora y casing to
be retrieved without having to remove the
BOP stack.
In certain cases, it may be posiible to use
conventional wellhead equipm ent. The
temporary string can be hung (Iff inside a
spool which is left empty when the
temporary string is removed. This will
normally result in a larger gzs injection
annulus than the special bowl. [t may also
lead to a wellhead and BOP stacc-up so tall
that it can be difficult to ac:ommodate
2-157
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
underneath the rig floor.
As was the case with parasite tubing
injection, it is necessary that the gas supply
system can be isolated from the casing
annulus at the surface, if the well has to be
shut-in. Connecting the gas supply to the
wellhead through a ball valve and a check
valve allows this and also prevents any
liquid from flowing from the well into the
gas supply system. Local well control
regulations may require a second ball valve
for redundancy.
Some operators run two joints of casing,
with the same diameter as the temporary
string, at the shoe of the intermediate string.
This permits the well to be packed off before
retrieving the temporary casing, ensuring
well control during this operation.
The temporary string is sometimes run with
an anchor and pack-off tool, to locate it
firmly in the permanent casing inside which
Turbolator
Figure 2-48. Concentric casing string shoe joint (after Teichrob, 1994”).
2-158
it is run. Injection ports zre then milled in
the temporary casing abcve the pack-off.
There has been concern thz t cuttings can get
through these injection poi ts, (for example,
if the gas injection rate is rt duced) and settle
on the pack-off, preventing its release when
the temporary string is pullc hd. To avoid this,
Teichrob, 1994,5 recomme nded running an
aluminum turbolator, betw =en shear-pinned
stop collars, at the base of the temporary
string (refer to Figure 2-43). This should
minimize the extent to whi :h cuttings could
build up around the temEorary string. It
would also allow the collirs to be sheared
off and the casing retrie led, leaving the
drillable turbolator dol mhole, if an
excessive buildup of cutting s did occur.
It is possible to run the teml korary casing as a
tie-back into a drilling line]. A slotted joint
at the bottom of the tempoiary string can be
used to route the injecttd gas into the
returning drilling fluid.
Shear-mounted End
Stop Collar Set 12.5mm
at 44,000 daN
Liquid Injection
The mud pumps on a conventional rig will
normally be capable of injecting the liquid
phase. In some instances, the required liquid
injection rate may be too low for the rig
pumps. Then, it will be necessary to install
a smaller triplex pump, with the capacity to
operate continuously at or below the
required rate. The delivery pressure capacity
of this pump should exceed the highest
anticipated standpipe pressure.
Generally, the injection pumps will be fed
from the rig’s active mud tank. Returns will
not normally be taken directly to the rig
tanks. The return system will be discussed
below.
It is advisable to have an adequate supply of
kill fluid, stored on site. Typically, this is
1.5 times the well volume. In some
instances, local regulations will dictate the
volume required. When drilling depleted
reservoirs, the injected liquid itself may be
sufficient to kill a well. If this is not the
case, storing the kill fluid may require
additional tanks on site, over and above the
rig’s mud tanks.
Drillstring
The BHA for a well drilled with gasified
liquid should be kept as simple as possible.
Components such as stabilizers, spiral or
square collars, and jars can prevent a
pressure seal and may damage the sealing
element when run through a RBOP or
rotating head.
As with other underbalanced drilling
techniques, drillstring floats are required.
Unlike the techniques described so far,
however, the string is often tripped with the
well under pressure. Normally, the float is
retained in the string by the pin tbove it. If
there is pressure beneath the float, it may be
forced out of the string when the connection
above it is broken. This can be avoided by
machining the connection into which it is
placed to accept a snap-ring abov 2 the insert,
to hold the insert in place. Altcmatively, a
short joint (pipe or collar, as iippropriate)
may be run above the float.7
A float in the bottom stand ol the string
allows the entire string to be lulled with
pressure beneath it. Canadian p ,actice is to
use two flapper-type float valves in this last
stand for redundancy7 and to ru11a flapper-
type upper string float every 33) feet (100
m). These floats reduce the time taken for
the drillstring pressure to bleetl down on
connections. They can also limi separation
of gas and liquid inside the siring, when
flow is shut down.
When tripping with pressure beneath the
string, a special tool is used to release
pressure trapped beneath each float. This is
installed on top of the float sub ;md a pin is
screwed down to depress the flapper valve.
A side outlet directs the released,
pressurized fluid flow laterally away from
rig floor personnel.
A custom designed “hydrosta :ic control
valve” has been used in place of
conventional or modified drill tring float
valves.21 This uses a second, SF ring-loaded
seal beneath a float valve, to pievent fluid
from flowing downhole until tlie pressure
above the valve reaches some prc determined
value. In this way, it is possible to keep the
string above the hydrostatic control valve
filled with liquid during a connc ction, even
though the annular pressure may ,e less than
the hydrostatic head of the liquicl inside the
2-159
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
drillstring. This in turn prevents air from
being drawn into the string at a connection,
even if the string has been filled with liquid
to allow a conventional pressure pulse
MWD system to transmit a survey uphole.
Finally, the influence of the string's
geometry on circulating pressures should be
considered. A large diameter string
decreases the frictional pressure down the
string, reduces the standpipe pressure, and
increases the pressure drop up the annulus.
In a prolific well, the increased annular
pressure drop may be desirable since it will
tend to limit the surface flowing pressure.
On the other hand, it may make it difficult to
achieve sufficient downhole pressure
reduction for low pressure reservoir
applications. In these instances, it may be
appropriate to use smaller diameter
drillstring components or even a tapered
casing ~ t r i n g . ~
BOP Stack
The BOP stack design depends on
anticipated well conditions and local
regulations. A number of different,
successful configurations have been
reported.
In the United States, many of the gasified
liquid drilling applications to date have used
aerated water or mud to overcome lost
circulation in hole intervals above known
reservoirs, where surface pressures are
expected to be low. In these cases, rotating
heads are used on top of conventional BOP
stacks, to seal around the drillstring and
divert flow into the flow line.
In contrast, nitrified liquids are often used in
Canada, to allow very productive wells to be
drilled underbalanced. Normally, a rotating
blowout preventer (RBOP) is used rather
2-160
than a lower pressure rotaiing head. If the
rig is equipped with a top drive it is possible
to use dual annular BOP: to give a high
pressure seal around the itring above the
return line. Since an RB3P gives better
control of the closing pressi .re and has lower
stripping friction, it is usual y preferred."
It has been recommended that blind rams
should be installed at the bc ttom of the BOP
stack.7 This maximize 3 the distance
between the blind ram ;ind the RBOP,
allowing short, irregularl: r shaped BHA
components to be run intc the well under
pressure, without relying c n the RBOP or
annular to seal around them.
A second set of pipe rams, below the blind
rams, provides redundanc y. They are
normally only used to shut-i i the well, in the
event that work is requirecl on one of the
elements higher up the stack ,23
Carefully consider how he BOP stack
'
configuration will affe :t ram-to-ram
stripping operations, if there is any
possibility of having to str p into the well
under high pressure.
Clearance beneath the rig f o o r needs to be
considered when designing the well cellar,
wellhead and BOP stack. 30P stacks, for
underbalanced drilling, tend to be taller than
those used in conventio ial operations.
Clearance is a greater pioblem if con-
ventional wellhead equiprr ent is used to
inject gas down a temporary 2asing string.
Return System (Low Surfac e Pressure and
Limited Hydrocarbon Prod1 ction)
The surface systems used to drill with
gasified liquids vary con siderably from
application to application. In areas where
low surface pressures and limited hydro-
carbon production are anticipated, simple
surface systems can be used.
If aerated water is used, the return line can
be routed from the rotating head, out to a
combined return and flare pit; as would be
done when drilling with dry air, mist or
foam. No additional gas separator is needed.
A centrifugal pump is used to transfer water
from the pit to the rig's mud pumps, for re-
cycling downhole. The suction line is fitted
with a foot valve and filter cover, to avoid
having to re-prime the transfer pump and to
prevent excessive solids' pick-up. There
should also be a choke line, running from
below the blind rams on the BOP stack,
through the rig's choke manifold, and out to
the pit. This is shown in Figure 2-49.
When mud or brine is used as the liquid
phase, cost limits the circulating volume. In
this case, returns will not normally be routed
to the pit. Instead, the return flow line leads
either directly to the rig's shale shakers or to
a mudgas separator, mounted alongside the
shakers (refer to Figure 2-50). The separator
stand should be set so that the liquid
discharge is high enough to run freely onto
the shakers. Mud/gas separators are
available, in a range of sizes, as rental items
in most parts of the United States. Both the
flow line and the separator should be sized
to handle the maximum anticipated gas and
liquid return rates; the sum of the produced
and injected fluid rates. The flow line is
often six-inch diameter, although up to ten-
inch diameter may be required. Jt should be
fitted with valves to allow flow to be sent
either to the shaker or to the separator.
Typically, the inlet from the flow line to the
separator will be six-inch diameter, as will
the outlet feeding from the separator to the
shakers. A four- to six-inch diameter line
should take gas from the separatca out to the
flareheserve pit. There sholld be an
ignition source here, to permit fl uing, along
with gas and hydrogen sulfide cetectors; as
are used in dry air, mist and foarr drilling.
Return System (High Hydrocarl on
Production and/or Elevated Sur, 'ace
Pressure)
If there is any potential for significant
hydrocarbon production or elev;ted surface
pressures, some means of closiiig the flow
line is needed, adjacent to its ccnnection to
the BOP stack. An emergencr shutdown
device (ESD) may be required in the flow
line. Although not normally Jsed, it is
possible to mount a manual chc ke between
the flow line and the mud/gas if
it is essential to apply a backpressure to the
well.
There will normally be one set cf choke and
kill lines in these operations with two
valves between the BOP stack ar d the choke
line. Local regulations may dicrate that one
of these is hydraulically control11:d, and may
also require that a check valve is used to
prevent flowback into the well. The choke
line to the rig's manifold shculd have a
pressure rating equal to the maiifold, BOP
stack and wellhead arrangem mt. Two
discharge lines, from the chok 2 manifold,
should lead to the mudgas separator and to
the pit. These lines, and the choke line,
should be able to handle thr maximum
anticipated flow rate, witho It creating
excessive backpressure anywherc : upstream.
When significant liquid iydrocarbon
production or elevated surfac 2 pressures
occur - for example, when planing to drill
underbalanced through a known reservoir - a
more sophisticated surface separ ition system
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

in
compressor Booster

Transfer
Pump

Figure 2-49. A typical surface system, for drilling with aerated water, c then significant
oil production and elevated surface pressure are not expeci ed.

Gas (4-6-inch Outlet)

Mud and Gas

(6" Outlet)
\

Valve rI \
Gate
Mud and Gas
(6'' Inlet)

Valve

Rig

Figure2-50. A typical surface layout, for drilling with aerated mud >r brine, when
significant oil production and elevated surface pre: 'sure are not
anticipated.

2-162
 is probably required. This may be open or
closed. Closed systems are normally
necessary, if there is any possibility for HzS
in the produced fluids. It is not advisable
to use a closed system when drilling with
an aerated liquid which could lead to the
formation of a combustible mixture in the
separator. Section 2.8, “Flowdrilling,”
describes open system design and operation,
and provides guidelines on choosing an open
or closed system. Details of the design and
operation of closed systems are given in
Section 2.9, “Closed Surface Systems.’’
Instrumentation
The amount of instrumentation, required to
drill underbalanced with gasified liquid,
depends on the bottomhole pressure. In
applications, where the gasified liquid is
being used to overcome lost circulation,
there is no potential penalty in terms of
formation damage if the well is
unintentionally drilled overbalanced for
short periods. In that case, no extra
instrumentation is required beyond that used
on an air drilling job. This includes, in
addition to the normal rig instruments, an
orifice meter to gauge the air delivery rate,
good air and liquid delivery pressure gauges,
an air delivery temperature gauge, and
natural gas and hydrogen sulfide detectors
on the rig floor, at the shakers and at the
flareheserve pit.
More sophisticated instrumentation is
necessary if the bottomhole pressure needs
to be kept within tightly specified limits; to
avoid formation damage without
compromising wellbore stability or well
control. Perhaps the best indication of the
bottomhole pressure is direct measurement
downhole, using an MWD unit; several of
which are able to measure annular pressures.
Conventional pressure pulse telemetry
MWD systems cannot transmit nformation
from downhole to the surfa:e, if the
drillstring contains compressible fluid. Once
the gas concentration in the fluid, through
which the signal is being ransmitted,
exceeds about 90,000 pp n, signal
attenuation becomes too rapid ’or reliable
transmission.” In some dril [string gas
injection applications, it may be acceptable
to fill the drillstring with a suppc sedly, non-
damaging liquid, before send ng MWD
information uphole. This necessarily
disturbs the bottomhole pre ssure and
normally results in a temporary I werbalance
downhole (a situation that tl-e pressure
information being sent uphole is !upposed to
~
help avoid). The practical imjdication is
that mud pulse MWD system3 can only
effectively be used for real-timt downhole
pressure monitoring when gc ‘s is only
injected into the annulus using a parasite
tubing or temporary casing strin .;
MWD systems, with downholc : (annular)
pressure recording capability, do exist.25
These can be interrogated at t le surface,
after a trip, to recover a record of downhole
pressures seen during the previous run.
While this information can 1 elp adjust
operating parameters for the nzxt run, it
cannot be used for real-time conti 01 and may
not be sufficient to avoid operating
overbalanced for some period of 1 ime.
Electromagnetic MWD can transmit
downhole information to the surface, even
when the drillstring is f lled with
compressible fluid. There are some
limitations to the reliability and t ,ansmission
capabilities of EMWD systems. They will,
however, often operate satisf actorily in
many gasified liquid drilling a ?plications.
One commercially available EM W D system
does provide real-time indicat on of the
2-163
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

annular pressure,26 and others are under
de~elopment.~~
Several surface instrumentation packages
have been developed, specifically for
gasified liquid underbalanced drilling with a
closed surface system.25,26,21 These typically
measure gas and liquid injection pressures
and rates, return fluid composition, pressure
and rate, surface liquid volume, measured
depth, wellbore geometry and bit position.
Other drilling data, such as hook load,
weight on bit, and rotary speed, may be
included. From these measurements, it is
possible to compute the drilling fluid
pressure, at any point in the well, using an
hydraulics simulator. Other outputs are
often available, including the flow regime
(laminar, turbulent), veloc ities of gas and
liquid, gas density, shear rates, viscosities,
frictional and hydrostatic F ressure gradients,
bottoms-up time (for Sam1 le depth location
and for indicating systerr response time),
and liquid volumes.
These computed outpui s can provide
valuable information on thc : well's condition
and guidance for drilling operations. For
example, the bottomhol ; pressure and
pressure gradients can be 1 sed to adjust the
injection rates, to maintain a desired degree
of underbalance. Figuie 2-51 is one
example where botton lhole pressures
indicated a progressive in1 :rease in annular
pressure at the bit and we-e used to adjust
the injection rates to stay UI derbalanced.

1000

900

800

8
L
600
f!
UJ

500
-
P

eE
8

400

g
0
300
m
200

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Openhole Length (feet)

Figure 2-51. Bottomhole pressure information, used to adjust injection I ates, in order to
stay underbalanced (after Wilson, 1995").

2-164
 Formation fluid inflows can also be detected
and q ~ a n t i f i e d . ~ ' A
? ~qualitative,
~ indication
of permeability is possible, using the
production data and an estimated borehole
pressure. Water producing zones can be
identified. Changing gas production rates
have been interpreted to indicate the
proximity to gadoil contacts. There have
been a number of horizontal wells in Canada
in which non-productive zones have been
identified while drilling, leading to changes
in the planned trajectory away from regions
of poor prod~ctivity.~'Wilson, 1995,26cited
an instance where real-time analysis of
production data, while still drilling,
indicated that a horizontal well had reached
its economic productivity limit. This
justified terminating the well approximately
2,000 feet short of the originally planned
horizontal length.
Determining annular pressure is
comparatively straightforward, when gas is
injected down a parasite tubing or a
temporary casing string.27 The flow
geometry and the injected gas's properties
will be well characterized. Measurements of
the gas injection rate and pressure can be
used to accurately compute the pressure at
the bottom of the injection string. The
hydrostatic head and the frictional pressure
loss of the injected liquid (between this
point and the hole bottom) can also be
predicted with reasonable confidence.
Combining these with the annular pressure
at the gas injection depth indicates the
bottomhole pressure with an accuracy that is
often acceptable.
Operating Procedures
Controlling Bottomhole Pressures
When drilling ahead, bottomhole pressure is
principally controlled by varying the gas
injection rate. This is done by aljusting the
bypass choke (for air or natural gas), or by
adjusting the nitrogen pump rat€ (for liquid
nitrogen).
In applications where aerated liq lid is being
used to limit lost circulation, the air rate will
often be adjusted with referencc: to the pit
volume. If the pit volume decreases,
indicating losses are occurring, the air rate
will be increased to reduce the bottomhole
pressure. Conversely, if the pit volume
increases, a liquid inflow is occurring, and
the air injection rate will be dxreased in
order to increase the bottomhc le pressure
and stop the inflow.
In most Canadian underbalanc ed drilling
operations, gasified liquid is usefl to prevent
formation damage when drillinl; through a
producing zone. The economic penalty for
failing to maintain underbalancec I conditions
is much greater when drilling through a
reservoir which is prone to formation
damage, than when drill ng other
formations. Greater care is nxessary to
avoid overbalanced condition!, and the
benefit of real-time indication c f downhole
pressure is clear. Since the dosmhole flow
regime in these wells will usually be
friction-controlled, the bottomhc de pressure
will not normally decrease f the gas
injection rate is increased. 1 nstead, the
liquid and possibly the gas inject on rate will
have to be reduced in order to clecrease the
bottomhole pressure. Determini ng new gas
and liquid injection rates, to gike a specific
pressure, is not trivial, and mi st be done
using a flow simulator.
Since the circulating s j stem has
considerable compressibility, an! adjustment
to the injection rates will cause the
2-165

Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
circulating pressures to respond and stabilize
over a finite period of time. There is a
danger of over-controlling under these
circumstances. It will be much easier to
achieve the desired pressure levels if new
injection rates are first computed and used
for guidance in making the rate adjustments.
Connections
Connections can be slow when drilling with
drillstring gas injection.
9 Gas injection should be stopped.
P The liquid injection pumps should be
then shut down.
P The pressure in the drillstring has to be
bled down through the standpipe bypass
line before the joint can be broken open.
This takes longer with gasified liquid
than with dry air. Even with an upper
string float, it can take 5 to 15 minute^.^
Breaking open the joint before the
pressure has fully bled down should be
avoided.
P If there is no check valve in the gas
supply line, the gas supply should be
shut off at the standpipe manifold. The
pressure in the supply line should be
kept close to its operating level, to avoid
any possibility of liquid running into the
gas supply equipment when injection is
resumed."
9 Making a connection can be speeded up
by displacing the string as far as the
upper float valve, either to gas or to
liquid. If the string is displaced to gas,
the pressure can be bled down rapidly
and liquid should stay below the float
valve. If liquid is completely displaced
from the string, liquid will be discharged
at the floor when the joint is broken
open. Displacing to liquid is the
quickest method of making a connection.
2-166
-
The higher fluid dens ty in the string
causes it to flow ("L-tube") into the
annulus, and the rig crc w does not need
to wait for pressure to I,leed down. This
puts a slug of liquid in o the circulating
system that will cause a pressure spike
downhole when inject ion is resumed;
possibly causing balanced or
overbalanced conditions.
Benion et al., 1995,28 d2monstrated the
variation of downhole pres ure for different
connection methods (refer to Figure 2-52).
There are larger pressure peaks when the
string is displaced to liquid, than when it is
displaced to gas prior to the connection.
The drillstring does not hav 2 to be displaced
to gas or liquid before a onnection when
annular gas injection is 1 sed. Gas will
migrate up the annulus and liquid will flow
from the string into the anndus. The liquid
flowing into the annulus can be prevented
from increasing bottomhc le pressure by
continuing gas injection aft,:r the pumps are
shut off. However, the anr ulus will unload
during the connection, idhether or not
injection is continued.
If connection times are shoi t and the gas-to-
liquid ratio is small, it is sol netimes possible
to keep the annulus frori unloading by
stopping gas injection and shutting-in the
Extreme caution should be used
when doing this. The annu us pressure may
build rapidly due to thl: difference in
drillstring and annular fluid densities and the
migration of gas up the annulus. The
compressibility of the gas nc lw trapped in the
annulus, between the lower string float and
the BOP, will limit the pre sure increase to
less than the difference in the hydrostatic
pressures of the liquid in tke drillstring and
the gasified fluid in the ann1 lus. Shutting-in
 /
l l l l l _ l - - - _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - - l l l _ l l _ l _ l l l l l _ . _ _ l _ . I .

Hydrostatic Pressure

Reservoir Pressure

Pressure Spikes During Connections

N 2 Circulation Prior to Connections

-
Time

Figure 2-52. The impact of the connection procedure on bottomhole pressurt (modified I

after Bennion et al., 1995").

the BOPs can cause liquid to flow into the When injection was stopped '0 make a
formation because pressures are greater than connection, a large oil influx kill :d the well.
during circulation. The pressure difference It was not possible to regain circt lation until
is larger at the casing seat than at the hole the oil had been pushed bacc into the
bottom. Applying surface pressure to a formation with nitrogen pressi re on the
gasified liquid gives a higher equivalent annulus. The connection took ~ . 5minutes.
mud density at shallower depths than at An alternative procedure, involvi ig "annular
greater depths. Finally, the surface pre-charging," was devised. T i e annulus
equipment will be subjected to very high was charged with nitrogen, at ap]roximately
instantaneous flow rates when the BOPs are 1950 scfm, for one or two ininutes, to
opened, unless the well is first flowed increase the annular pressui E. This
through the rig's chokeline (bleed off line) restricted inflow. Circulation wa 3 easily re-
to release built-up annular pressure. established after making the conr ection, and
the total connection time cam: down to
Saponja, 1995,19 presented an example in seven minutes. While connectioi time may
which increasing the annular pressure be reduced, formation daniage may
actually sped up making connections. The overwhelm any benefits, particularly if a
well was initially drilled with water, with water-based liquid is used. In this example,
nitrogen injection down the drillstring. the injected liquid was switched t 3 oil before

2-167
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
trying this annular pre-charging; there was
no detectable formation damage.
Trips
Tripping procedures depend on the extent
and nature of any formation fluid inflow.
Tripping is easy if the well will not flow to
surface, particularly if the well is not making
any hydrocarbons. First gas and then liquid
injection should be shut-down. If there is
uncertainty about lost circulation and no
potentially productive intervals are open to
the wellbore, liquid injection can be
continued after the gas is shut-down, to
determine if there are full liquid returns. The
string is stripped back through the rotating
head or RBOP, as far as the BHA. At this
point, the annulus should have stopped
unloading and the well should be dead. The
rotating head or RBOP rubber can now be
removed and the trip completed. In general,
it will not be possible to jet any produced
gas away from the rig floor, once the
rotating head or RBOP rubber is pulled.
This tripping procedure cannot be used if
the well is making any gas. If the well will
not support a full column of liquid, hole fill-
up volumes cannot be used to confirm if the
well is flowing.
With drillstring gas injection, establishing
circulation, after a trip, may be difficult if
there is lost circulation. Many lost
circulation zones can also produce
substantial water volumes. Gas will break
out of the drilling fluid when the well is not
circulated, leaving gas between the surface
and the top of the liquid column. After a
short time, this liquid column will contain
little entrained gas and the hydrostatic
pressure at the lost circulation zone will
approach the formation pressure. When gas
and liquid injection are resumed, the drilling
fluid will flow up the annulus to the lost
2-168
circulation zone, displac ng the standing
liquid uphole and increai ing the pressure
adjacent to the loss zone. If the loss zone
has significant permeabilip which it usually
I,
will, much or all of the g isified liquid can
flow into the loss zone, rither than up the
annulus.
It may be necessary to st; ge the drillstring
into the hole, breaking c rculation several
times before reaching bc ttom. Breaking
circulation above the loss zone will gasify
the liquid column in the a nulus and reduce
the hydrostatic pressure sufficiently that
circulation can be establi ,bed from below
the loss zone.
With annular gas injection, it is possible to
inject gas and gasify the liquid standing in
the annulus above the injection point, before
any liquid is pumped into the well. If this
does not reduce the annula. pressure enough
for circulation to be est; blished, the gas
supply system can, in prirciple at least, be
re-configured so that gas ci n also be injected
down the drillstring to fi rther reduce the
annular pressure.
Tripping becomes more cc mplex if the well
is producing hydrocarbon: or will flow to
the surface. It is possible to trip, as
described above, if the well is making only
oil with a very low GOR, f -om a sufficiently
underpressured zone that t i e well will load
up and kill itself before oil reaches the
surface, In most cases, some oil will reach
surface and other opticns need to be
considered. There are also concerns that
repeated flow-cycles can lead to formation
damage.2
If a well does flow to surfal :e, the options are
to strip out of the hole wnile allowing the
well to flow, or to kill the well before
tripping. When feasible, stripping out of the
hole is preferable, since this should preserve
the underbalance and avoid formation
damage while tripping. Drillpipe can be
stripped through the rotating head or RBOP,
while the well is allowed to flow through the
flow line. A rotating head or a normally
configured RBOP will not seal on larger
diameter drillstring components. Cylindrical
collars and other slick BHA components can
be stripped through the annular. If essential,
it is possible to remove the kelly packer
rubber from an RBOP and to allow the inner
packer element to seal around larger
diameter string component^;^^ but, this
practice is not recommended. It may be
possible to “stage” irregularly shaped BHA
components, such as stabilizers, out of the
well through an RBOP. To do this they have
to be small enough in diameter to pass
through the RBOP sealing element29 and
short enough for the irregularly shaped
portion to fit between the annular and the
B O P . In this case, the component in
question is stripped through the RBOP until
the “irregularity” is above the annular. The
annular is shut around the string and the
RBOP is opened to allow the “irregularity”
to pass.
When stripping through the annular, the
choke line below the blind rams should be
opened and the well flowed through an open
choke to the separator system or the
flareheserve pit, as appropriate. The blind
rams should be closed below the bit before
finally opening the annular and removing the
last stand.
Flowing the well through an open choke
keeps the wellhead pressure to a minimum.
Nevertheless, it is almost inevitable that a
“pipe light” situation will occur before the
string is out of the hole. This ot:curs when
the pressure beneath the drillstring exerts an
upward force on the string that :xceeds its
effective weight (the sum of tlie buoyant
weight of string below the presstre seal and
the weight in air above it). Mlthout any
restraint, the string is then forcec out of the
well by the pressure beneath it. Snubbing
calculations should be perforn led before
stripping the string from thc well to
determine when pipe light conc itions will
occur. These should consider ti e probable
surface pressure, the weight of thl; drillstring
above the pressure seal, its buoj ant weight
below the seal, the area of the stri ig where it
passes through the pressure sei], and the
frictional force of the sealing eler ient on the
string. When a pipe light sittation does
occur, the string can sometimes be kept in
the hole by the frictional force of the RBOP
sealing element. The frictional f xce on the
string can be augmented by (losing the
annular.29 Increasing the closing xessure on
the seal elements will increase the frictional
force they exert on the string. It is also
possible to use reverse-acting s ips. With
high wellhead pressures, it may b 3 necessary
to use a snubbing unit to control t i e string as
it is withdrawn from the well.
With a BHA consisting of collars, the
weight of the first stand may be sufficient to
overcome both the pressure thrus: due to the
flowing well’s backpressure and the seal
frictional force so that it can enter the
flowing well without additional assistance.
The bit should be run just above the closed
blind rams, the RBOP (or anntlar) closed
and the blind rams opened, before running
the string into the hole. It is pos;ible to use
a large diameter collar above lrillpipe to
push the drillpipe into the well i the pipe’s
weight alone is insufficient. A simple
2-169
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
crossover between the collar and the pipe
can be difficult to handle, and a special
connection tool has been used instead.29
This resembled a pipe elevator, with a collar
thread box on top. It was made up onto the
bottom of the collar and a single joint of
drillpipe was picked up using the “elevator”
portion. This would be made up to the pipe
held in the RBOP and the RBOP closing
pressure reduced to allow the string to run
into the hole. Again, a snubbing unit may be
required if the wellhead pressure is still too
high.
This procedure requires that the surface
system can handle the unrestricted flow rate
of the well. The surface system should
normally have been sized to do this. Well
flow can be choked back, if necessary, to
restrict the flow rate. This will increase the
pressure at the wellhead. If the well flow
has to be choked back, the pressure
limitations of the BOP stack, and
particularly of the rotating head or RBOP, if
these are being used to contain the annular
pressure, must be recognized. It may be
necessary to kill the well if the flow cannot
be handled safely.
Higher wellhead pressures will increase the
snubbing loads. It may be necessary to use a
snubbing unit to control the string.
Hydraulic Rig Assist (HRA) snubbing units
have been specifically developed to
supplement drilling operations with a
conventional drilling or workover rig3’ A
truck-transportable unit is shown in Figure
2-53. It incorporates a BOP system, a pair
of hydraulic rams to move the string,
stationary and traveling slips to hold the
string, a working platform and a control
panel. Both the stationary and the lower set
of traveling slips hold the string down
against wellbore pressure when pipe light.
2-170
The upper set of slips, tlie “heavy” slips,
hold the string’s weight wh :n necessary. The
equalizehleedoff spool, be ween the annular
and ram-type BOP units, i: connected to the
annulus below the blind rams and to the
choke manifold. It k as hydraulically
activated valves that are cc ntrolled from the
work platform. It allows 1 ressures beneath
different BOP component! to be equalized
(for example during staginj operations) or to
be bled down as required.
The lower BOP is attached either directly to
the drilling rig’s BOP stac :or to a suitably
long riser spool so that the snubbing unit is
just above the drilling rig’s floor. Figure 2-
53 shows one rig-up that kas been used for
drilling underbalanced wit 1 a conventional
drilling rig and an RBOF, with the HRA
snubbing unit’s BOPs abcve the rig floor
and the rig’s BOP stack bc low. The BOPs
are usually rated to 5,000 I si, and can often
pass equipment up to abcut six inches in
diameter. This effectively imits these units
to drilling operations ir side seven-inch
diameter or smaller casing A typical BOP
stack for drilling undert alanced with a
conventional drilling rig and an HRA
snubbing unit is shown in F gure 2-54.
The hydraulic cylinders, shiwn in Figure 2-
53, provide maximum snu Ibing forces that
typically range from 45,OCO to 80,000 Ibf.
These control the string i s it is removed
from the well and force it tack into the well
against the wellbore pressui e. Most hoisting
operations are performed with the rig’s
drawworks. Drillstring and tubing are
racked back in its derrick w ien necessary.
Killing a well is not an at ractive option if
the well is being drilled iinderbalanced to
avoid formation damage. It may become
necessary if the BHA con-‘iguration cannot
 Control Panel
Heavy Slips
Trawling Plate
Trawling Slips

Work Platlorn

Stationary Slips
4.25m Hydraulic Cylinders
Qpically

-EqualizingSpool
Hydraulically
Activated Equalid
BleedoffP l w Valves

L
" W
'
Figure 2-53. An Hydraulic Rig Assist (HRA) snubbing unit (after MacPt erson and
Goertzen, 1995"').

I Eauaiizs'i9ieedoff
plug valve
Bleedoff Line

Riser Spool
Rig Floor
I II I

Figure 2-54. A typical BOP stack, for drilling underbalanced with a conventit mal drilling
rig and an HRA snubbing unit (after MacPherson and Goertzer ?, 19953').
-
2-1 71
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
be tripped from the well without losing the
pressure seal, if the string cannot easily be
run into or out of the hole in any pipe light
state that can arise, or if the well’s flow
cannot safely be handled by the surface
system. The kill fluid should be chosen to
minimize formation damage. Selecting
nominally non-damaging fluids is beyond
the scope of this document. It will not be
discussed in any detail. An introductory
discussion of the various factors involved
can be found in many references; for
example, Ali et al., 1994.31 A clear brine is
one possibility if sufficient density can be
achieved without undue cost or health and
environmental concerns. Alternatively,
‘liquids, to which suitably sized calcium
carbonate particles have been added, can be
considered. The particles should be sized to
minimize fluid loss, ideally by conducting
pilot tests on core samples from the
producing formation. Spotting an
appropriate acid, after drilling, should
remove the majority of calcium carbonate
particles and restore the permeability.
If possible, the kill fluid should be placed on
top of produced crude oil, to reduce the
probability of contact between the formation
and the kill fluid. To do this, the well
should be allowed to flow until all open
productive formations are covered. The
string should be stripped back above the
produced liquid, ideally inside the casing
shoe. Kill fluid can then be spotted above
the produced liquid to kill the before
continuing the trip. Alternatively, the kill
fluid can be pumped down the annulus while
continuing to strip the pipe. In this case, the
kill fluid should be pumped at a rate equal to
that at which the open displaced volume and
internal volume of the drillpipe are removed
from the hole.32 The kill fluid density
should be chosen so that the well is dead
2-1 72
before the top of the € H A reaches the
surface. Whatever procc dure is used to
place the kill fluid, coni entional tripping
practices, trip sheets, hole -fill, etc., should
be followed once the we1 is killed. As a
warning, the higher densit) kill fluid and the
lower density produced 1 iydrocarbon may
“flip over,” due to their dcnsity differences,
allowing the kill fluid to contact and
potentially damage the forn iation.2
Gas Inflows
When a gas inflow is dejected, it may be
possible to reduce the gas njection rate and
cost. However, if drilling c mtinues until the
BHA is below the inflow, the reduced
annular velocity close to the hole bottom
may not be sufficient f < r good cuttings
transport (if the gas injection rate has been
reduced substantially).
Limitations
Recent experience in Canac a has shown that
gasified liquids can be used to successfully
drill underbalanced, in a wide range of
normally and sub-hydrost: tically pressured
reservoirs. There are factois which limit the
application of gasified li quids, including
high formation pressure or productivity,
wellbore instability, inac equate pressure
control, excessive pr iduced water,
corrosion, and limited penei ration rates.
Formation Pressure and PA*oductivity
Gasified liquids give 1 iigher borehole
pressures, in comparison to dry gases or
other lightened drilling flu ids. Because of
this, they can be used to dri 1 higher pressure
and productivity formatic Ins, before the
pressure and rate of hydroc ubon production
while drilling approach the imitations of the
surface equipment. The lir iiting factors are
the pressure capacity of the surface
equipment, particularly the BOP stack and
diverter system and the flow rate capacity of
the surface separator system. The flow
capacity of a suitably designed surface
system can be very high - natural gas
production rates of as much as 40 MMcf/D
have been handled safely in Canadian
underbalanced drilling operations.
Assessing formation productivity and pore
pressure, along with the capacity of the
surface system, can indicate the largest
drawdown that would be tolerable during
drilling of a particular intend. This
effectively sets a restriction on the borehole
pressure, below which it is unsafe to drill.
There are many overpressured reservoirs
where the difference between borehole and
formation pressures would be too great for
gasified liquids to be used safely, and, a
single-phase liquid drilling fluid with an
appropriate density, could be used to
generate underbalanced conditions. Section
2.8, "Flowdrilling," describes these oper-
ations.
Wellbore Instability
Gasified liquids can be used in weaker, less
competent rocks than dry gases and other
lightened drilling fluids. Their higher
wellbore pressures reduce the effective
stresses adjacent to the borehole wall. Many
horizontal wells have been drilled with
gasified liquids in weak rocks. Even so,
borehole pressures will be lower with a
gasified liquid than they would be with a
drilling mud and mechanically-induced
wellbore instability remains more likely.
Large fluctuations in borehole pressure, that
often occur when gasified liquids are used,
may aggravate wellbore instability, by
disturbing rock fragments that might
otherwise have remained more or less stable
under static loading.
Wellbore instability can be nore of a
problem when drilling through shales than
through sandstones or carbor ates. For
example, when drilling towards a depleted
reservoir, overlying shales may be
overpressured, relative to the target
formation. This increases the u iderbalance
pressure through the shale and nakes them
more prone to mechanical instability.
Wellbore instability provides a iother limit
on how low the borehole pressire may be
taken.
Water-sensitive shales can alsc swell and
slough when exposed to aqueous liquids. As
the liquid phase of the drilliig fluid is
usually re-cycled, it may be economical to
limit shale instability by adding appropriate
salt and/or polymer to a water-l: ased liquid.
Using hydrocarbon-based li iuid may
eliminate concerns about chemically-
induced wellbore instability in sl-ales.
Pressure Control
In general, downhole pres sur:^ do not
remain constant when drilling P ith gasified
liquids. They tend to fluctuate, particularly
when tripping or making conned ions. Peak-
to-peak pressure fluctuations of 500 psi are
commonly recorded downholc .7725 The
example in Figure 2-55 shows significant
downhole pressure fluctuations above and
below an average value.
These pressure fluctuations will usually not
cause major problems whc n drilling
underbalanced to avoid lost circulation,
except possibly when re-establishing
circulation. When drilling unde ,balanced to
avoid formation damage, the up] ber tolerable
limit to borehole pressure is g ven by the
formation pressure. If the boreh de pressure
increases above the formation pi essure, then
2-173
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

1000

900

=
a
U
800
!3!!
8 700
!!!
n
Q)
5 600
c
E
L-
0
500
m

400

300
0 20 40 60 80 100 1: 0 140
Time (minutes)

Figure 2-55. Bottomhole pressures, recorded while drilling with gash ied liquid (affer
Saponja,1995'I.

damage is probable. A lower tolerable
borehole pressure limit will be set by
productivity, wellbore stability and the
surface facilities. There can be great
difficulty in drilling underbalanced with a
gasified liquid if this lower pressure limit is
not at least 500 psi lower than the formation
pressure.
Produced Water
Produced water can be a problem when
gasified liquid is used to avoid lost
circulation. The equivalent circulating
density changes with depth when drilling
with a gasified liquid. The gas volume
fraction decreases with increasing depth due
to the higher pressure, and this increases the
mixture's density. Depending on the
variation of formation pressure with depth,
this could mean that a well can potentially
be overbalanced near the hole bottom but
underbalanced higher up h Ae. Under these
circumstances, it is p'ssible to lose
circulation at the same lime that a zone
uphole is flowing into the well. It may be
very difficult to achieve :irculation if the
zone uphole is producing large quantities of
water. There have been illstances in which
uphole water inflows have kept the pressure
in the wellbore above the f mnation pressure
in a lower loss zone, so that it was not
possible to circulate any fluid to surface
even when injecting only dry air down the
drilling string. In this cas:, the options are
to drill ahead without retu-ns, to run casing
or to abandon the well.
It will often be possi )le to maintain

2-174
circulation with water flowing into the well,
provided that the inflow is not too rapid. If
drilling continues for very long after the
inflow starts, water disposal can easily
become a problem. If the well is making
fresh water, surface discharge might be
approved. Otherwise, the produced water
will usually have to be hauled away for
disposal, off site. This can be expensive. If
it is an in-fill well, it may be possible to tie
into an existing disposal system.
Some wells will produce water at low
circulating pressures, and then stop
producing water and instead lose circulation,
if the borehole pressure is increased. In this
situation, it may be possible to re-inject the
water downhole. This has been done in
coalbed methane wells, in the Black Warrior
Basin.33 These were drilled with dry air
until water production occurred and filled
the reserve pit. The drilling fluid would then
be switched from dry air to produced water.
Drilling continued with total losses, until the
reserve pit was emptied, at which time air
drilling was resumed. By repeating this
process it was possible to reach TD with
minimal amounts of produced water for off-
site disposal. Drilling without returns may
not be possible in all wells. Sloughing above
the lost circulation zone can cause the pipe
to become stuck. The potential for wellbore
instability and stuck pipe should be carefully
considered before adopting this option.
Produced water entering the well cannot be
separated from a water-based gasified liquid.
Gasified mud should not be used when large
volumes of produced water are expected.
The produced water will dilute the mud,
requiring continuous and expensive
replenishment of mud additives to maintain
the liquid's properties. If a mud has to be
used to clean the hole, it should l ~ designed
e
to minimize the cost of the consu nables that
will have to be added to counter dilution by
produced water. If water prclduction is
encountered when drilling with a gasified
mud, the borehole pressure should be
increased, if possible (witha ut risking
formation damage or losing circ dation), in
order to reduce the water inflow r kte.
Corrosion
Corrosion of the drillstring and other
downhole equipment, including a ny exposed
casing in the well, can be a 7 ery severe
problem when drilling with aerat :d water or
water-based liquids. The rate o ' corrosion
increases as the conductivity of the liquid
phase increases. Using a saline liquid phase,
such as produced water, or add ng salts to
inhibit shale hydration, wil increase
corrosion problems, as will higl downhole
temperatures and the presence o ' even very
small quantities of hydrogen sulfi de.
Corrosion inhibitors have to be used with
aerated, water-based drilling flu ds. These
are expensive and can add confiderably to
well costs, particularly if water production
dilutes the circulated liquid. F irthermore,
some corrosion inhibitors become
ineffective once the temperatu -e exceeds
about 100°F and may even accelerate
corrosion at temperatures of 300°F or
more.34 The injected liquid's p€[ should be
controlled to be above about nine, if
possible, since this will ten([ to slow
corrosion. Corrosion coupons should be
used to monitor corrosion raes and to
indicate if protective measures ai e adequate.
The cost of corrosion control w ien drilling
with an aerated, water-based f uid (if the
downhole temperature is high anc I if the well
is making high salinity wate.) may be
2-175
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
prohibitive.
Corrosion remains a problem if membrane-
generated nitrogen or mixed air and nitrogen
are used to gasify the drilling fluid. It is not
a concern when using natural gas, cryogenic
nitrogen, or a hydrocarbon-based liquid
phase.
If there is any prospect of hydrogen sulfide
production, all exposed equipment should be
rated for sour service.
Penetration Rates
The penetration rates, with a gasified liquid,
will generally be lower than those for dry
gas, mist or foam. This is because of the
higher borehole pressures. Because the
borehole pressure is lower than for a mud,
the penetration rates will normally still be
higher than for a mud. The maximum gas
delivery pressure is usually less than the
maximum mud pump pressure. Therefore,
the standpipe pressures cannot be as high
when injecting gas down the drillstring as
when drilling with mud. 1his limits the bit
pressure drop that can bo used with the
gasified liquid, and this can in turn restrict
any penetration rate incr:ase that might
accompany the use of the g; lsified liquid.
Gasified liquids are often used in weaker
formations instead of other lightened drilling
fluids. In these formations, penetration rates
can be high even when drilling
overbalanced. The econc mic benefits of
penetration rate increases ire less at these
high penetration rates, whm only a small
fraction of the total rig time is actually spent
with the bit on bottom mzking hole. It is
possible that the time ssvings due to a
penetration rate increase c annot cover the
cost of the extra equii ment involved;
drilling underbalanced with a gasified liquid
may actually cost more tl an conventional
drilling. In this case, o:her benefits of
drilling underbalanced havc to be sufficient
to justify its use. This will )ften be the case.
References

1. Bobo, R.A. and Barrett, H.M.: “Aeration of Drilling Fluids,” World Oil (1953) 137,No. 4,
145.

2. Bieseman, T. and Emeh, V.: “An Introduction to Underbalanced Drilling,” pap( r presented
at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The € ague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

3. Eide, E., Brinkhorst, J., Volker, H., Burge, P. and Ewen, R.: “Further Advances in Coiled
Tubing Drilling,” paper SPE 28866, JPT (May 1995).

4. Wodka, P., Tirsgaard, H. and Damgaard A.P.: “Underbalanced Coiled Tub ng Drilled
Horizontal Well in the North Sea,” paper SPE/IADC 29359 presented ai the 1995
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.

5. Teichrob, R.R.: “Low Pressure Reservoir Drilled with Air/N2 in a Closed Systei n,” Oil and
Gas J. (March 21, 1994) 80-90.

6. Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B.: “Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal We 1s: Does It
Really Eliminate Formation Damage?,” paper SPE 27352 presented at the 1994 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA.

7. Saponja, J: . “Engineering Considerations for Jointed Pipe Underbalanced Drill ing,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The 3ague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

8. Wolke, R.M., Jardiolin, R.A., Suter, R.L., Moriyama, S., Sueyoshi, Y. and (ihara, Y.:
“Aerated Drilling Fluids can Lower Drilling Costs and Minimize Formation Damage,”
Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin (May 1990) 131- 137.

9. Claytor, S.B., Manning, K.J. and Schmalzried, D.L.: “Drilling a Med um-Radius
Horizontal Well with Aerated Drilling Fluid: A Case Study,” paper SPE/IPDC 21988
presented at the 1991 SPEIIADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlamds.

10. Curtis, F. and Lunan, B. : “Underbalanced Drilling Operations: Correct Operating

Procedures Using a Closed Surface Control System to Drill for Oil and (;as,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The -Iague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

11. Fried, S. and McDonald, C.: “Nitrogen Supply Alternatives for Underbalancei 1 Drilling,”
paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands, October 2-4.

2-177
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

12. Guo, B., Hareland, G. and Rajtar, J.: “Computer Simulation Predicts 1 ‘nfavorable Mud
Rate and Optimum Air Injection Rate for Aerated Mud Drilling,” psiper SPE 26892
presented at the 1993 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, P ttsburgh, PA.

13. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: “A Study of Multiphase Flow Behavior in Vertical Wells,”
SPEPE (May 1988) 263-272.

14. Poettmann, F.H. and Bergman, W.E.: “Density of Drilling Muds ]!educed by Air
Injection,” World Oil (August 1955) 97-100.

15. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: “Drilling and Production Practice,” API (1952) 257.

16. Wang, Z., Rommerveit, R., Vefring, E.H., Bieseman, T. and Faure, A.IA.: “A Dynamic
Underbalanced Drilling Simulator,” paper presented at the 1995 L st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October ,-4.

17. Moore, P.L.: “Drilling Practices Manual,” PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1 374) 234.

18. Gray, K.E.: “The Cutting Carrying Capacity of Air at Pressures Above AI mospheric,” Pet.
Trans. AIME (1958) 213,180-185.

19. Saponja, J.: “Comparing Conventional Mud to Underbalanced Drillin ; in a Depleted

Reservoir,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Dri lling Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

20. Westermark, R.V.: “Drilling with a Parasite Aerating String in the Disturt ed Belt, Gallatin
County, Montana,” paper IADC/SPE 14734 presented at the 1986 IAI )C/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX.

21. Comeau, L. : “Underbalanced Drilling: Directional and MWD Experience, ’ paper presented
at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, 1 he Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

22. Deis, P.V., Yurkiw, F.J. and Barrenechea, P.J.: “The Development of a 1 Underbalanced
Drilling Process: An Operator’s Experience in Western Canada,” paper presented at the
1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
October 2-4.

23. Hannigan, D.M. and Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.: “Underbalanced Drilling Rotat.ng Control Head
Technology Increasing in Importance,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 1-4.

2-7 78
24. Shale, L. : “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” presented at the 1995
ASME Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX.

25. Roy, R. and Hay, R.: “Measuring Downhole Annular Pressure While Drilling for
Optimization of Underbalanced Drilling,” paper presented at the 1995 1 st tnternational
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

26. Wilson, J.: “Optimizing Drilling of Underbalanced Wellbores with Data Acquisition
Systems,” paper presented at the 1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

27. Taylor, J., McDonald, C. and Fried, S.: “Underbalanced Drilling Total System: Approach,”
paper presented at the I995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands, October 2-4.

28. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F. and Bennion, D.W.: “Underbalanl :ed Drilling,
Praises and Perils,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalar ced Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

29. Cagnolatti, E. and Curtis, F.: “Using Underbalanced Technology to Solve Traditional
Drilling Problems in Argentina,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbdanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

30. MacPherson, L. and Goertzen, J.B.: “Hydraulic Rig Assist Snubbing-Well Control for
Underbalanced Drilling,” paper presented at the 1995 1 st International U iderbalanced
Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

31. Ali, S., Burnett, D., McLeod, H., Peden, J. and Penberthy, W.L., Jr.: “Experts Share Views
on Formation Damage Solutions,” JPT (November 1 994) 936-940.

32. Joseph, R.A.: “Underbalanced ‘Horizontal Drilling - Conclusion Special Tec hniques and
Equipment Reduce Problems,” Oil and Gas J. ( March 27, 1995) 41 -47.

33. Graves, S.L., Niederhofer, J.D. and Beavers, W.M.: “A Combination Air and I luid Drilling
Technique for Zones of Lost Circulation in the Black Warrior Basin,” SPELIE (February
1986) 57-6 1.

34. Scott, S.L., Wu, Y. and Bridges, T.J.: “Air Foam Improves Efficiency of Co npletion and
Workover Operations in Low-Pressure Gas Wells,” SPEDC, (December 1995) 2 19-225.

2-1 79
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
2.8 Flowdrilling
The term “flowdrilling” refers to drilling
operations in which the well is allowed to
flow to surface while drilling. It was first
coined by a group of Oryx Energy Company
engineers (Stone, unpublished), to describe
the drilling technique that they had
developed for the Austin chalk reservoir in
the Pearsall Field, in South Texas.
Flowdrilling of this and other Austin chalk
reservoirs represents one of the most
successful applications of underbalanced
drilling to date in the United States.’
The underbalanced drilling techniques,
described previously in this manual, have all
used drilling fluids that are either completely
gaseous or contain a gaseous phase. In the
Austin chalk application, however,
underbalanced conditions were created with
a liquid drilling fluid. Although all
underbalanced drilling is strictly
flowdrilling, the term will be reserved here
for those underbalanced drilling operations
that involve a liquid drilling fluid.
Flowdrilling occurs when a permeable
formation is intentionally drilled with a
drilling fluid that encourages the formation
to flow during drilling operations. Most
commonly, the fluid influx will be from a
hydrocarbon-bearing formation, and the flow
returning to surface will consist of oil,
natural gas and the drilling fluid. When
flowdrilling, well control problems are
handled at the surface rather than downhole.
Specific downhole and surface equipment
are required for safe and efficient
flowdrilling operations.
Borehole pressures are necessarily higher for
a liquid drilling fluid than for a gaseous or
gas-containing drilling fluid. This allows
2-180
flowdrilling to be suc~:essful in many
applications where it would not be
technically or economical y feasible to drill
with other underbalanced techniques. More
productive formations, v rhich may mean
higher pore pressures, hi ;her permeability
formations, or both, can be drilled
underbalanced, before the limits of surface
equipment are reached. Higher borehole
pressures may allow less competent
formations to be drille d underbalanced
without serious wellbore i;)stability. No gas
supply system is requirec for flowdrilling.
This can lead to lower daily operating costs
than other underba anced drilling
techniques. Since gas is not flowed down
the drillstring, convention2 1 mud motors and
MWD units can be used for flowdrilling,
making it particularly si iited for drilling
directional and horizontal 1 rrells.
However, excessive F roductivity and
wellbore instability prerent flowdrilling
from being appropriate fcr all oil and gas
wells. These limitations Nil1 be discussed
later in this section.
Creation of Underbalar iced
Conditions
In order for formation flui 1 to flow into the
wellbore while drilling, the borehole
pressure, resulting from the hydrostatic
pressure of the drilling fluid plus the
frictional circulating press Ire, must be less
than the pore pressurt of the open
formations. In other word;, there must be a
pressure differential into t ie wellbore from
the reservoir. The formatilm must also have
sufficient permeability, I :ither matrix or
fracture permeability, to adequately flow
reservoir fluids.
There are two distinct situations where
underbalanced conditions can be achieved
with a liquid drilling fluid. The most
obvious of these occurs when the equivalent
circulating density of the drilling fluid is less
than the pore pressure gradient of the
formations being drilled. This is directly
analogous to the previously described
underbalanced drilling techniques, that used
lightened drilling fluids to give a borehole
pressure less than the pore pressure. There
are many localities where pore pressures are
high enough that underbalanced conditions
can be achieved in this way, with a liquid
drilling fluid.
In certain instances, it is possible to allow
the formation to induce underbalanced
conditions even though the drilling fluid
initially gives a higher hydrostatic pressure
than the pore pressure. The Pearsall Field is
an excellent example of this.' The native
pore pressure gradient of this Austin Chalk
Formation is approximately 7.3 ppg. In this
field, flowdrilling was achieved using a
fresh water system weighing 8.3 ppg! At
first, this seems strange, yet it was here that
horizontal flowdrilling was developed.
There had been significant oil production in
the past, from those vertical wells that had
intersected one or more hydrocarbon-filled,
natural fractures. The matrix permeability is
low. This history resulted in quite large
variations in pore pressure, with some of the
previously-produced natural fractures having
lower pressure than the rest of the reservoir.
The actual underbalanced condition occurred
when the overbalanced fresh water system
drilled out from an impermeable formation
into one of the low pressure, naturally
fractured zones, causing loss of circulation.
This initiated a reduction in hydrostatic head
in the wellbore and a corresponding
reduction in the hydrostatic drilling fluid
pressure at all points downhol:. This, in
turn, resulted in formation f l ~ i d sflowing
into the wellbore from permeable drilled
intervals, usually resulting in the
introduction of oil and gas into 1 he wellbore.
These fluids have lower dens ty than the
fresh water drilling fluid, S(I that they
naturally lowered the hydrostatic: pressure of
the wellbore and alloF fed more
hydrocarbons to flow into the well. Thus,
flowdrilling was initiated. Thi 5 process is
represented in Figure 2-56.
Regardless of which method iritiates flow,
the flowdrilling process will per Jetuate itself
until the hydrostatic pressur: plus the
equivalent circulating pressure equals the
downhole pore pressure(s). Once this
occurs, influx of fluids into the wellbore
from the formation will cease as the two
pressures equalize or as the hyd 'ostatic head
from the drilling fluid ecceeds the
bottomhole producing pressure. Flowdrilling
can also result in crossflov downhole
'
between higher pressured, permeable
intervals and lower pressured frz ctures.
Drilling Fluids
The primary requirement for f l )wdrilling
~ is
that the wellbore pressures should be
maintained between a maximi im pressure
equal to the formation presxre and a
minimum pressure dictated 1 'y wellbore
stability. The density of the tlrilling fluid
should be chosen so that thc circulating
pressure will normally be in this range.
The pressure limitation of .he diverter
should also be considered when selecting the
drilling fluid density. It is r ormally not
advisable for the sum of the tlrilling fluid
hydrostatic head and the maxim um tolerable
annular pressure while drillin]; to be less
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-56. Flowdrilling a naturally fractured, horizontal well (cod rrtesy of Signa
Engineering Corporation).
than the formation pressure.2
It should be remembered that, particularly
when drilling for natural gas, the gas cut
associated with flowdrilling will reduce the
density of the fluid in the annulus below that
in the pits. Tangedahl, 1995,3noted that a 10
ppg mud can easily be reduced to an
equivalent of 6 ppg in a high gadoil ratio
well.
A major reason for drilling underbalanced is
2-182
to avoid formation dama,;e. It has to be
recognized that there may be periods when
underbalanced conditic ns are not
maintained. The drilli ig fluid should
damage the formation as little as possible.
As a general rule, whenevc r possible, a clear
liquid should be used a: the flowdrilling
fluid.
The cost and healti, safety and
environmental concerns, associated with
using heavy brines, I:articularly those
containing zinc bromide, will often make
conventionally weighted muds more
attractive, if high densities are required.
Solids may be necessary in the drilling fluid
to limit losses in those formations where lost
circulation can occur during flowdrilling.
Experience in the Pearsall Field indicates
that drilled solids may be effective in
limiting fluid losses.
Viscosifying the drilling fluid should be
avoided if possible. It can lead to surface
separation problems once hydrocarbon
production begins, by slowing the rate at
which hydrocarbons can separate: from the
drilling fluid. Many viscosifying polymers
promote the formation of emulsions, and
these can increase separation problem^.^ So
too can lubricant additives that may be
required to control drillstring torque and
drag with clear drilling fluids. Bentonite
concentrations should be restricted, if there
is any possibility of the mud being lost into
fractures from which it is hoped to produce.
Otherwise, and particularly if downhole
temperatures are high, the mud may gel up
in the fractures and not flow back when the
well is brought into production.2
It will often be possible to achieve adequate
hole cleaning with an unviscosified drilling
fluid, simply by keeping the annular flow
turbulent and the annular velocity high
enough. When flowdrilling is established,
that is once formation fluids are flowing into
the wellbore, the annular velocity will
increase and this will help transport cuttings
uphole. Calculations of terminal velocity
and mechanical energy balance equations are
used to determine the annular velocity
needed for adequate hole cleaning.
Generally, higher velocities are needed in
deviated and horizontal wells thar in vertical
wells.
With large hole sizes or extenr ive lateral
sections, good hole cleaning rray not be
possible, without viscosifying t le drilling
fluid. This may also be necessary in order to
keep the surface pressure withi I tolerable
limits (by restricting migration o ' formation
gas up the annulus).
A final point to consider when s(:lecting the
drilling fluid is the solubility of formation
gas downhole. If produced gas is in solution
downhole, there may be high pres sure surges
when it comes out of solution at he surface.
This may exclude the use of a11 oil-based
mud in a well where gas prcduction is
anticipated.*
Surface Equipment
Producing oil and gas while drilli ng requires
integrating drilling and producti in systems
safely and efficiently. When f lowdrilling
techniques were being developel1, this was
accomplished by installing a ro ating head
on top of a conventional BOP s ack with a
high pressure choke manifold, ncluding a
hydraulically-operated control v; Ive (HCR)
with a surface equipment system for
separating drilling fluids, cuttin ;s, oil and
gas. The rotating head diverts return fluids,
under pressure, through the surf,ice system,
while drilling continues.
The approximate maximum pressure
capability of the conventional rc tating head
was 400 psi. Introduction of higher
operating pressure rotating blowout
preventers (RBOP) has inci eased the
pressure rating to about 1,500' psi while
Higher pressure-rated units are now av iilable.
2-183
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
drilling and 1,000 psi while stripping,
providing a safer operating margin. It is this
level of underbalance which determines the
amount of formation influx that can be
allowed. On drilling into a permeable or
fractured zone, the driller diverts the return
fluids from the rig pit to a mudgas separator
with a hydrostatically-maintained fluid level.
The gas is separated from the total return
stream, transferred to a remote flare system
and burned, while the fluids and cuttings are
routed to special separation pits. There, the
cuttings are separated from this remaining
stream, and, finally, drilling fluids are
separated from any liquid hydrocarbons.
These drilling fluids are sent back to the rig
pits, while all produced oil or condensate is
sent to remote storage. Figure 2-57 is a
schematic of the surface equipment used
when flowdrilling.
Although surface equipment is important
in any type of drilling, it is crucial to the
success and safety offlowdrilling.
An open, or atmospheric, system is
commonly used in most flowdrilling
applications. The Texas Atmospheric
System (TAS) is the most economical
method of surface fluid separation, while
flowdrilling. The components of this system
are illustrated in Figure 2-58. In very high
gas content formations or if hydrogen sulfide
gas might be encountered, a Closed Loop, or
pressured, Separator system (CLS) should be
used upstream of a vacuum degasser, for
improved gas management and safety. The
CLS can cost about four times more than the
TAS because of its additional manpower
requirements and the expense of having a
nitrogen source available to supply operating
pressure for the separator system before the
onset of natural gas production.
2-184
BOP Stack
A typical flowdrilling bl iwout preventer
stack consists of a rotating I lead or a rotating
blowout preventer (RBOP) , installed above
the conventional rig blo Nout preventers
(refer to Figure 2-59). A :ingle or double-
ported drilling spool separa es the two. One
of these outlets leads to t i e possum belly
and shale shaker, for non-flow operations.
The other outlet leads to the choke manifold,
for flowdrilling operation i. Below this
spool, the normal prekenter stack is
installed. It consists of an ai mular, or Hydril,
preventer flanged to a double ram-type BOP.
This unit includes a set of p pe rams above a
set of blind rams. A secor d, double-ported
drilling spool is flanged nect in the system.
One outlet on this spool is used for the
choke line and the other s:rves as the kill
line. Ideally, an additional, lower set of pipe
rams is installed below this ;pool.
All components of the BO€ stack should be
tested to their rated workin ;pressures prior
to any drilling operations. The drill crew
and rig depend on the protection and
isolation from formation p .essures that the
rotating head or the RBOP can provide
during drilling and strippir g. The pressure
rating of the BOP stack shoi Id be selected to
accommodate the worst case, or highest
possible surface pressure e: pected, in order
to provide the maximum d:gree of drilling
safety.
In addition to the stack itsel ’, ensure that the
total choke system (choke ai id kill lines, gate
or ball valves and check val ves, HCR valves
and all manifold piping) ii properly rated,
tested and in good working condition. A
typical choke line should c:onsist of a ball
valve, an HCR valve and a check valve
allowing flow toward the ;hoke manifold.
 GYI"

UNDERBALANCE

-
-

Figure 2-57. Schematic of surface equipment required for flowdrilling (ct iurtesy of
Signa Engineering Corporation).

Gas boot (Open on bottom)

RBOP

Annular Preventer

Pipe Rams
Blind Rams

Pipe Rams

Figure 2-58. Atmospheric surface system for flowdrilling (courtesy of Signa

Engineering Corporation).
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-59. Typical flowdrilling BOP
stack (courtesy of Signa Engineering
Corporation).
The kill line should consist of dual ball or
gate valves and a check valve allowing flow
toward the wellbore annulus. With proper
valving, the return fluids (oil, gas, cuttings
and drilling fluid) can safely be routed to the
choke manifold and beyond.
Rotating Head vs. RBOP
The rotating control head has been in use for
many years. It provides a low pressure
means of diverting return fluids away from
the rig, in the event of flow from the well. It
has found widespread acceptance in air, mist
and foam drilling operations. It can also be
2-186
used safely in low pres lure or partially
depleted formation drilling or in low gadoil
ratio (GOR) applications. Caution always
should be exercised in usir g a rotating head
in drilling applications because gas can
migrate out of the returnirg annular fluids,
bringing higher than expe :ted pressures to
the surface.
The rotating control head uses one or two
stripper rubbers, designed for interference
between the inside diamet1:r of the rubbers
and the outside of the drillp ipe or kelly. This
seal design operates adeq uately at design
pressures until these I ubber elements
become worn from use, and a low pressure
leak occurs, as shown in Figure 2-60. The
seal design also does not allow for
monitoring wear or predicting life
expectancy of the rubber el :ments. Because
of these problems, the Am xican Petroleum
Institute (API) refuses to recognize the
rotating head as a blowoiit preventer and
equipment manufacturers should not rate
their equipment with regard to pressure
containment.
As more operators began using
underbalanced drilling ope1 ations in the late
1980s, well control became a major concern.
More than a few incidents nvolving the use
of a rotating head led t i rig accidents,
fatalities and well cost ovt rruns. The low
operating pressure tole rance of the
conventional rotating head i nd its propensity
to leak made it the weak li ik in the system,
as higher pressured formati 3ns were drilled.
An example of correct use ( if a rotating head
would be horizontal flc wdrilling of a
partially depleted reservoir, which has a low
bottomhole pressure and pr 2dictable surface
annular pressure.
For higher pressure 2 pplications, an
 Drillstring
1
Figure 2-60. Leaking worn rotating head rubber.
improved diverter system was needed. The
rotating blowout preventer (RBOP) was
conceived, as shown in Figure 2-61. It
solved the low pressure limitation, by
increasing the drilling pressure rating of the
rotating head from 400 to 1,500 psi. The
RBOP uses hydraulically-actuated packing
elements, supported on large roller bearings
and isolated by mechanical seals, inside a
large pressure vessel. Hydraulic oil pressure
activates the rubber packing elements, which
contact the drillpipe or kelly (refer to Figure
2-62). This activating pressure ccan be varied
automatically as the wellbore pressure
varies. The packing elements are designed
to secure the wellbore with a minimum
application of 300 psi hydraulic closing
pressure.
The roller bearings are cooled and lubricated
with the same hydraulic oil, which is
contained by two mechanical seals. The
seals isolate the rotating packer I nd bearings
from the wellbore. The internil, bag-type
packer element is made in two sections, so
that any split or leak in the ii ner section
does not result in a loss c f actuating
pressure. The inner section of the packer
can be replaced, without replaci ig the outer
section. Also, the internal packer is
engineered for full-opening operation,
eliminating the need to disa5semble the
preventer stack in order to change bits. This
kelly packer element provides a positive
pressure seal on any surface As this
element wears during normal operations,
automatic increases in hydraulic oil volume
compensate for rubber loss. 'This feature
keeps leaks from developing thi oughout the
entire wear life of the packx element.
Whenever the element eventu: lly requires
replacement, the kelly packer c m be easily
pulled through the rotary table and
exchanged for a new element by simply
2-187
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-61. Rotating blowout
preventer (RBOP).
releasing the securing mechanism.
One of the best applications for the RBOP is
drilling in highly fractured or vugular, high
pressure environments. In such areas, the
potential for rapid loss of circulation and
resulting influx of hydrocarbons can cause
significantly higher surface annular pressure.
The higher working pressure of the RBOP
adds a margin of safety over that provided
by a rotating head. The RBOP is designed
to meet the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers ’ (ASME) pressure
vessel codes and the API’s specifications
for annular blowout preventers.
Choke Manifold
The choke manifold is necessary to maintain
a safe operating back pressure on the return
fluids, to control the rate of hydrocarbon
influx into the wellbore, and also to maintain
proper hole stability. A typical flowdrilling
2-188
Figure 2-62. RBOP sl!sling elements.
choke manifold is shown i n Figure 2-63. It
should be designed to hanile the maximum
expected volumes (4-inch minimum piping)
and should be redundant, with dual chokes
that enable one to be qui:kly isolated and
cleaned if plugged with c ittings, while the
backup choke is operating Flanged fittings
are recommended on the choke, in order to
expedite the replacement process, in the
event of internal erosion ( uring operations.
After each flowdrilling jo 1, all ell and tee
fittings should be visually or
radiographically (x-ray) in ;petted, for fluid
or cuttings washout, 2nd replaced if
necessary. Systems for continuous
monitoring of critical flowline points are
currently being developed. It is
recommended that the ;e fittings be
“leaded”t to decrease the i mount of erosion
which can occur diring extended
flowdrilling.
Sometimes referred to as babbi t.
 Choke
Figure 2-63. A typical flowdrilling choke manifold (courtesy of Signa 1 rngineering
Corporation).
If any hydrogen sulfide (HzS) gas is possible
in the formation fluids to be produced, it is
critical that special trim and metallurgy be
used in the choke manifold construction and
that all safety requirements and training for
sour service are met. It is safer to use a
“closed,” two- or three-phase, low pressure
separator system, ahead of an “open”
atmospheric pressure separator, to -remove
poisonous vapors from the return fluid
stream. To counter HzS, the pH can also be
adjusted and scavengers added.
During flowdrilling, the chokes will be
essentially fully-opened and will gradually
be closed, as necessary, to control fluid rates
and pressures at the surface. It is imperative
that the annular pressure not exceed the
maximum rated working pressure (MWP) of
the rotating device, during choking. From
the choke manifold, the oil, gas, drilling
fluid and cuttings move downstream to a
mudgas separator.
A sample catcher is often conrected at the
choke manifold, so that formxion cuttings
may be caught and analyzed from the return
flow stream, during “live” flowdrilling
operations when the rig pits and shale shaker
are bypassed to the chokc manifold.
However, cuttings from flowdrilling
operations can become contan iinated with
hydrocarbons, making mud11 )g analysis
difficult.
Mud/Gas Separator
A large, vertical mud/gas sepa’ator, with a
height-adjustable support frame, is necessary
for proper gas removal in the se Jarator. This
“open system,” or atmosphe ic-pressured
vessel, should be at least 6 feel in diameter
by 12 feet high, with sufficien ly large gas
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
flare lines (6- to 12-inch) and adequate
liquid dump lines to handle the expected
instantaneous flow rates. The flare stack,
with variable height adjusters for different
flow or location condit.ions, must be
equipped with an automatic flare igniter
system. In areas of high gas production, it is
common to see a 50- to 100-foot high flare,
concurrent with an annular pressure of 1,000
psi or more. This instantaneous production
rate cannot be precisely calculated; rather it
is empirically derived to be between the
expected future production rate and the
absolute open flow (AOF) rate of the
formation. The operating fluid level inside
this vessel, as well as the diameters of the
gas and fluid lines, however, can be
calculated from this instantaneous rate.
Conventional production criteria cannot be
followed in the design of flowdrilling
surface production equipment because of
slug flow from the wellbore, caused by the
relatively unregulated vertical expansion of
gas in the liquid system. A maximum
instantaneous gas flow rate must be selected
and then that rate is used in calculations to
properly size the flare line and to optimize
the liquid level in the vertical separator. The
pressure drop down the flare line, when
flowing the maximum instantaneous gas
rate, should be less than the hydrostatic head
of liquid in the U-tube between the separator
and the skimmer tank gas boot. This
prevents gas from entering the skimmer
tank.
Weymouth's equation can be used to predict
the pressure drop for a gas, in steady-state,
adiabatic, flow along a pipe:
dI6l3(P: - Pi)
Q = 433.($] J STLZ,
(2.73)
2-190
where:
Q ........gas flow rate (scf/D 1,
d ......... inside diameter of tl le pipe (the gas
flare line in this cas :) (inches),
To....... standard temperatur :(520' R),
Po .......standard pressure ( I 4.7 psia),
S .........gas gravity (air =1),
T ........ flowing gas temper; ture (OR),
L ........pipe line length (mi es), and,
Z , .......average compressib lity factor
(Weymouth used Z, = l),
PI, P2.. the inlet and outlet I ressures
(psia).
Weymouth's Equation (2.7 3) incorporates a
friction factor, f = 0.032/d1''.
Assuming a gas gravity' of 0.6, and
substituting for standard temperature and
pressure, Equation (2.73) bg :comes:
Q = 19,754 (2.74)
Converting length, L, from miles to feet, and
flow rate, Q, from scf/D o MMscf/D, the
inlet pressure, PI, is:
=i
PI Q2TL +P2" (2.75)
2.06 dI6l3
The pressure differential erterted by the U-
tube head can be expressed as:
PI - P2 = 0.433ph (2.76)
where:
p .........specific gravity of tl Le fluid in the
U-tube or separator, and,
h .........height from the top if the gas boot
to the bottom of the U-tube (feet).
Equations (2.75) and (2.76) can be
combined to solve for the U-tube height, in
terms of the gas flow rate, temperature,
outlet (atmospheric) pressure, and flare line
diameter:
(2.77)
The mud/gas separator and the various
separation pits and oil transfer tank should
all be surrounded by earth dikes, to contain
any possible spillage.
Primary Oil Separation Pit
The liquids (oil, water and drilling fluid) and
the cuttings, with free gas already removed,
are carried out of the mudgas separator in
the liquids line, to an open-topped skimmer
pit. This 400 bbl primary oil separation pit
consists of an entry gas-scrubbing device,
called a mud buster or gas boot. It is
designed to remove most of any retained
gas, that was not previously separated in the
primary mudgas separator. A gas boot is
simply an open-ended vertical section of 20-
inch casing, extending from the inlet to the
pit down to within two feet of the bottom of
the pit. A three- to four-inch atmospheric-
pressured flare line will vent the gas boot
and avoid accumulation of free gas in this
pit.
Skimming in this pit involves a bucket and
weir type mechanism that depends on
regulated (manual) leveling of the fluids in
the pit. The open-top design is necessary so
that cuttings accumulating in the first pit
section can be removed by jetting, in much
the same way that rig pits are managed.
After these cuttings gravity-settle out of the
oil and drilling fluid, they are periodically
jetted out of the primary oil sepal ation pit to
a nearby, lined cuttings pit, wheie they may
be disposed of in an environmc:ntally safe
manner.
Secondary Oil Separation Pit
Drilling fluid from the primary oi separation
pit is usually gravity flowed to :nother 400
bbl settling pit, for additional re ention and
further removal of any cu tings and
formation oil, carried over from Ihe first pit.
The cleaned drilling fluid is then transferred
to a drilling fluid return pit. Bcth of these
skimmer pits have baffles, par titions and
valves to increase retention timz. Longer
retention time improves oil rec:overy and
allows any final cuttings to settlc out of the
drilling fluid. Chemical injectior treatments
can be carried out in each of tke skimmer
pits, as necessary, to help breac oil-water
emulsions and aid in oil recovery and
drilling fluid cleaning.
Skimmer System Safety
An open-topped pit is a possible fire hazard
and must be at least 400 feet dcwnwind of
the wellhead. Vehicular traffic should be
prevented from entering the skimmer area
after flowdrilling begins. It is nc t advisable
to flow drill with an open-toFped pit, if
hydrogen sulfide is anticipated ( br detected.
Fire extinguishers should be placed near the
skimming system pits, in accorjance with
the requirements of the local regulatory
authority.
All transfer pumps, lights, electrical
connections and switchgear should be
explosion proof. The pits stould have
handrails, to prevent an operator :rom falling
into them, and the exit stairway, should be
located to permit quick evacuaticn of the pit
area.
2-191
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Drilling Fluid Pit
The drilling fluid pit serves as a reservoir for
cleaned drilling fluid, which is automatically
returned to the rig pit for mud pump suction.
The drilling fluid pit contains two or more
centrifugal pumps, with level controllers.
These maintain levels adequate to ensure
proper gravity flow from the primary and
secondary oil separation pits. Each
centrifugal pump has its own level controller
and acts independently, to maintain pit level
regardless of the return flow from the well.
Complete redundancy in these pumps is
necessary, to ensure that the return flow of
drilling fluid will not be interrupted during
critical flowdrilling periods.
Oil Transfer Tank
The oil transfer tank receives the oil
recovered by the primary and secondary oil
separation pits. It is located at a safe distance
from the drilling rig, and is constructed to
allow the operator's representative to
accurately estimate oil production rates
during flowdrilling operations. This
information, along with flare data, provides
the operator with fairly accurate production
rate estimates, for qualitative, real-time
evaluation of downhole hydrocarbon-bearing
intervals. The oil transfer tank should be
equipped with a high liquid level alarm and
be positioned at least 100 feet upwind of the
primary and secondary skimmer systems, for
safe loading of oil transport trucks. A
manifold system and sufficient oil storage
tanks are required to keep up with oil
production into the oil transfer tank.
Operating Procedures
The mechanical objectives during
flowdrilling are to control the well at the
surface (rather than below the surface), to
maintain underbalanced conditions
downhole at all times, to minimize
2-192
differential sticking pro Aems and to
minimize drilling fluid loss :s caused by lost
circulation. Drilling opera :ions should be
designed to hold the maximum safe
underbalance and to avoid all unnecessary
interruptions to circulation.
Initially, when drilling out the casing shoe,
returns should be sent dire:tly to the shale
shakers. As soon as formaion fluid inflow
starts and flowdrilling is esi ablished, returns
should be directed instead tl irough the choke
manifold into the surface se!)aration system.
Maximum tolerable surface pressures should
be established before drill]ng. These will
depend on the pressure be:ring capacity of
the rotating head or RBO€'. The pressure
limits of an RBOP, are h ghest when the
string is static, and are lower when stripping
the string through the div:rter than when
drilling ahead. If the ~urface pressure
reaches these limits, steps Iiave to be taken
to reduce it. This can be tlone by shutting
the well in below thc diverter and
bullheading a higher densit / liquid into the
annulus. Alternatively, t h ; influx can be
circulated out through the :hoke. Once the
surface pressure has stabili zed, the density
of the drilling fluid should be increased to
reduce the underbalance pressure to a
manageable level.
If the annular pressure iicreases during
connections or trips, whe I circulation is
suspended, this probably indicates gas
migration up the annulus. In this case,
increasing the viscosity of he drilling fluid
can restrict the rate at which pressure
increases. This can, 1 iowever, cause
problems with separating gas from the
drilling fluid at surface.
Tripping and logging oper; tions should be
planned to reduce the underbalance pressure,
while still maintaining underbalanced
conditions.
Special procedures are used during
flowdrilling, to make connections and for
tripping. These necessitate longer rig time
than is required in overbalanced drilling. In
making a connection, pressure on the
drillpipe must first be bled off above the top
drillstring float, before breaking the
connection. One or more of these floats is
installed in the drillstring to serve as check
valves and prevent reverse flow up the
drillpipe due to the underbalanced pressure
differential. One float, installed every
twelve joints, provides an ideal system for
making connections and trips.
To make a trip, additional steps must also be
taken to ensure safety. If a gas source is
available, injecting gas down the drillstring
can displace the drilling fluid down to the
deepest drill float, to avoid pulling a wet
string. On the annulus side, it is desirable to
lower the pressure differential before
making a trip. This is generally done by
bullheading down the annulus with a more
dense drilling fluid, to reduce the
underbalanced pressure differenti al, but
maintain, if possible, underbalanced
conditions downhole. The volume of fluid
bullheaded is usually calculated to displace
annular fluids in the vertical, cased portion
of the hole only, avoiding the curve and
horizontal lateral sections in directional
holes.
An example is a well being horizontally
flowdrilled with fresh water to achieve an
underbalanced condition downhole. With
adequate pressure in the target formation,
gas injection may not be required for
underbalanced drilling. The .eservoir is
immune to the negative affects of clay
swelling or other reactions caused by
contacting it with fresh wat1:r. Surface
annular pressures during lowdrilling
operations are sufficiently low t 3 allow the
use of the lower operating press ire rotating
head. Drilling costs are reduced 'lecause this
equipment is significantly less e %pensiveto
rent than a rotating blowout prevc mter.
Connections are easily made, following
pressure bleed off above the sha:lowest drill
float. To minimize annular pres! ures before
a trip, a 10.0 ppg saturated sodiiim chloride
(NaCl) saltwater is bullheaded down the
annulus to the shoe at the bottom of the
deepest casing set. Annular piessures are
then monitored during the trip, as the
drillstring is removed under pn :ssure from
the well. If the annular pressure mcreases to
a safe level below the maximum working
pressure of the rotating head dur ng the trip,
for example 300 psi, additional brine must
be bullheaded down the annulus o lower the
pressure differential before con tinuing the
trip.
Once an underbalanced drillin1 operation
is finished, the well should be completed
using underbalanced techno16 gy. Well
impairment reductions achiev ed in the
flowdrilling phase can be lost 01- reduced if
an overbalanced completion is wade. If a
slotted liner completion is selectc :d, the liner
must be run below the "slippinj:" elements
in the BOP stack while flooding the annulus
with clear, non-damaging fluid. Once the
slotted line clears the BOP stack, flooding
the well can be discontinued a i d the liner
running string can be stripped in to the liner
setting depth. If casing must >e run and
cemented, it is important that the pipe be run
2-I93
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
in the hole with the well underbalanced.
Again, annular pressures may be subdued
with clear, non-damaging fluid, to allow the
safe running of pipe. In most cases, casing
may be run through the rotating device by
removing the rubber packing element. In
certain cases, a snubbing unit must be used,
if annular pressures cannot be sufficiently
lowered. Foamed cement may be used to
cement the casing, while maintaining
downhole underbalanced conditions.
Limitations
High Annular Pressures
As noted earlier, flowdrilling can allow
more productive formations to be drilled
underbalanced. Correctly sized surface
equipment should be able to handle any
feasible instantaneous production rate. It is
possible that the limiting production rate
used to design the surface system could have
been underestimated. In that case, once the
production rate approaches the surface
system limit, the return flow can be choked
back. The extent to which the flow can be
choked back is limited by the pressure
capacity of the diverter. The annular
pressure that is required to restrict
production to a manageable rate may reach
the safe working limit of the diverter. Then,
there are two options; increase the drilling
fluid density or change drilling technique.
When lost circulation occurs while
flowdrilling, the cost and drawbacks of high
density drilling fluids may make an
alternative drilling technique more
attractive. Two possible techniques are
mudcap drilling and snub drilling
(flowdrilling with a snubbing unit). These
are described in Sections 2.9 and 2.10,
respectively .
Uncertain Formation Pressures
Flowdrilling is not particularly suited to
2-194
areas where pore pressurzs are not well
known, or where the pore pressure gradient
increases with increasing measured depth.
Under these circumstances, the well is likely
to experience increasing I urface pressures
and/or crossflow bet?veen different
permeable zones downhole.
One situation that should be avoided, if at
all possible, is flowdrilling a gas producing
formation when there is a lost circulation
zone open uphole, that is r~nownto have a
significantly lower pore pl*essurethan the
producing formation. It s quite possible
that such a well will have to be killed, to
avoid charging the lost :irculation zone
uphole. If the producing formation is to be
drilled underbalanced, thzn it may be
necessary to case the lowcr pressure zone,
before penetrating the prod ucing formation.
These concerns limit, bul do not totally
preclude, the application o F flowdrilling in
vertical wells.
Generally, horizontal well i are drilled in
regions of known formaticn pressures and
the pay is likely to have a more or less
constant pressure gradient As a result,
flowdrilling is well suite1 to horizontal
wells.
Wellbore Instability
Flowdrilling involves h igher borehole
pressures than would be secn with lightened
drilling fluids. Weaker fomations can be
drilled with reduced risk of borehole
collapse. Even so, the b )rehole pressure
may still be insufficient to 1 irevent the onset
of wellbore instability in \. reak formations.
Furthermore, the high annul ar velocities and
high levels of turbulence luring flow can
erode the borehole wall. Fl Iwdrilling is not
suitable for unconsolidated formations.
References
1. Stone, C.R.: “The History and Development of Underbalanced Drilling in the 1 JSA,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

2. Joseph, R.A.: “Underbalanced Horizontal Drilling-1 Planning Lessens Pro1 dems, Gets
Benefits of Underbalance,” OiE and Gas J. (March 20, 1995) 86-89.

3. Tangedahl, M.J.: “Well Control Issues of Underbalanced Drilling,” paper pre: ented at the
1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The :getherlands,
October 2-4.

2-195
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
2.9 Mudcap Drilling
Sometimes, uncontrollable loss of
circulation occurs during flowdrilling
operations. The driller is faced with higher
annular pressures than can safely be handled
with the rotating head or RBOP equipment.
One technique, called “mudcap drilling,”
can be used to overcome this situation. The
technique has been successfully used in
drilling fractured carbonate formations in the
United States, in Western Siberia and in
offshore drilling areas of Southeast Asia.’ It
is not strictly an underbalanced drilling
technique, since the well does not flow to
the surface. Rather, it is a technique for
managing severe lost circulation in an over-
pressured environment, without losing well
control. Mudcap drilling does, however, use
much of the equipment used for flowdrilling,
and, in some circumstances, it is a logical
alternative, when the formation pressure is
too high for flowdrilling.
In mudcap drilling, the driller loads the
annulus with a heavy, viscosified fluid, often
saturated brine, and shuts-in the annulus of
the well. This is illustrated in Figure 2-64.
The shut-in surface pressure on the annulus,
plus the increased hydrostatic pressure
resulting from this viscous pad, will equal
the formation pressure. Viscosification of
the pad should be designed to minimize gas
migration up the annulus. The annular
column is held in place by its density and the
bullheading pressure of the rig pumps. It
may be periodically necessary to add fluid to
this mudcap, to offset annular losses to the
formation during connections or trips.
Drilling may then be resumed by pumping a
clean fluid that is compatible with the
formation fluids down the drillpipe, while
the choke is closed and the well remains
2-196
shut-in. This “blind” drilli;ig approach with
a sealed annulus results ir bullheading all
drilling fluid pumped with no return flow.
Obviously, the formation nust be able to
freely accept these fluids aiid the fluid used
must readily be availablc and relatively
inexpensive. This p ocess requires
specialized well control and circulating
equipment; however, unlik, flowdrilling, it
does not require an :xtensive fluid
separation system, since the formation fluids
are kept downhole.
Mudcap drilling is best zpplied in wells
with:
Sustained surface presstres in excess of
2,000 psi,
Sour oil and gas product on, and,
Small diameter wellbor :s (3 7/8-inches
up to 4%-inches).
One additional differc nce between
flowdrilling and mudcap dtilling is that an
RBOP, with its high opt rating pressure
limits, is essential for safe snudcap drilling.
Flowdrilling is possible I sing either an
RBOP or a rotating head. A schematic
layout is shown in Figure 24 5. In designing
a well plan using a mudcap drilling format,
drilling engineers should ca refully consider
the high standpipe pressurt s involved and
the associated safety consic erations, before
finalizing their recommendai ion.
Mudcap Drilling Example
A fractured carbonate forn iation, with an
initial pore pressure gradie it of 14.5 ppg,
containing sour oil and gas (H2S), was the
drilling target below the %inch casing
shoe, in a 4%-inch hole, at a true vertical
depth (TVD) of 8,000 fe1:t. Horizontal
penetration, of the vertical Fractures in the
Figure 2-64. An example of mudcap drilling (courtesy of
Corporation).
formation, was expected to result in the loss
of drilling fluid. Permanent formation
damage from the water-based mud was
possible. The operator also wanted to keep
the sour production downhole while drilling
underbalanced.
These challenges -high pressure, sour
production, loss of circulation, formation
-
damage, slim hole made this an ideal
Signa €1 igineering
candidate for mudcap drilling.
Mudcap drilling can be used t 3 control
annular pressures and decrease he cost of
lost drilling fluid. In this exarrple, a pre-
calculated volume of fresh . vater was
weighted to 14.5 ppg by addi1.g calcium
carbonate chips and viscosified 1 [sing XCD
polymer. This fluid pad was bull1 leaded into
the annulus, with the return line shut-in. The
2-197
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-65. Schematic of equipment required for mudcap drilling (co urtesy of Signa
Engineering Corporation).
driller would then start drilling with the
annulus closed in, by pumping down the
standpipe, using either brine or fresh water,
treated with potassium chloride or lime for
inhibition and a hydrogen sulfide scavenger.
The 3%-inch motor used to drill a 4%-inch
hole requires approximately 110 gpm supply
for efficient operation. At this rate, a sixteen
hour drilling day would require over 2,500
bbls of drilling fluid.
If a 10 ppg NaCl brine was used as the
drilling fluid in the above example, the
standpipe pressure would be 1,872 psi plus
the drillstring friction pressure plus the
formation injection pressure. If fresh water
was used, rather than the NaCl, the
2-198
standpipe pressure would 1 le 2,580 psi plus
the drillstring friction pi s u r e plus the
formation injection pressur ;. The relatively
low pump rate used in a sliI ihole application
(low drillpipe friction press Ire) and the high
permeability of a nat irally fractured
formation (low injection pressure) would
minimize the increase in st andpipe pressure
above the differential pressi re exerted by the
annular mudcap.
Slimhole drilling using the mudcap
technique is logistically e Fficient. In the
above example, the volum: of the viscous
mudcap fluid is only 16 bb s in the annulus.
This small volume allows the driller to
economically build and pla :e the expensive
mudcap fluid in place. The small annular
volume of a slimhole also decreases the
bullheading volume required to place the
mudcap in position.
Bloys et al., 1994,’ discussed drilling
protocols in certain carbonates, using
mudcap drilling. “Currently [offshore
South-East Asia] it is only possible to drill
with a rotating head on rigs equipped with a
surface stack; this includes jackup and
platform type rigs offshore. The advantages
of this method are that there is no guess
work about the fluid level in the well and the
pump rate required on the annulus is dictated
only by the need to prevent gas migration. In
gas filled carbonates the increasing over-
balance would also be reduced by using a
lower density mud. Hence, the logistics of
pumping mud down the annulus could be
planned more precisely based on the velocity
required to prevent gas influx and migration
(i.e. up to [120 ft/min] depending on fluid
viscosity). Hence, the use of a rotating head
and lower density mud could potentially
reduce the volume of fluid required and the
cost to drill a given massive lost circulation
interval.” If substantial lost circulation is
anticipated and if there is a potential for
mudcap drilling, Bloys et al., 1994,’ called
out extra equipment and protocols for their
offshore operations, including:
9 The subsea BOP stack must include two
annular BOP’S. An extra kill line
connection between them is useful.
9 Kill and choke lines must be a minimum
of three inches in diameter, to minimize
friction.
9 There must be a facility for displacing
the choke line and the riser booster line
to diesel and periodically pumping diesel
to keep the lines full.
9 Supplementary monitoring equipment
includes chart recorders tc both the
choke and kill lines, as well as pressure
gauges (0-500 and 0- 1000 psi ranges).
P Pressure transducers (and br ckups) are
required in both the booster Ime and the
kill line at the BOP and 1inl:ed via the
BOP control system to t le surface
pressure gauges and charts. This gives
direct measurement of pres ure above
and below the annular.
9 The BOP and accumulator s:rstem must
be tested, to permit ram cortrols to be
left in the activated open posii ion. In the
block position, the rams can :lose when
the fluid level in the riser falls.
9 Two non-ported floats in the string are
needed for mudcap drilling.
9 For deep water, the riser should be
equipped with a facility to choke out gas
(up to 1000 psi) that gets abore the BOP
and a line for injecting glyctl from the
surface directly into the BOP.
9 Mixing and storage fac lities are
required. On the rig, mixing ;!nd storage
for 10,000 BPD is needed foi up to two
days.
9 Storage and batch mix tanks are needed
for 100 bbl pills.
9 It must be possible to have ciesel in all
lines from the rig floor standpipe
manifold to the cementing un t and from
the cemenvgunk pill tan: to the
cementing unit.
P There needs to be an adeq late diesel
supply (200 gpm) to the cemcmting unit,
for mixing and pumping ccment/gunk
pills.
9 There needs to be an adequa e seawater
supply (1000 gpm) to the niud pumps
2-199
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

and manifolding for seawater to be
pumped down drillpipe and mud to be
pumped down the kill line or into the
riser, simultaneously.
> There must be supply boat resupply of
mud materials for 10,0(1
0 BPD.
> Contingency procedure j. and supplemen-
tary crew training are e sential.

References

1. Bloys, B., Brown, J.D. and Tarr, B.A.: “Drilling Safely and Economically in Carbonates:
Collective Experience of Arco, BP and Mobil,” paper presented at the I994 IADC Well
Control Conference of the Asiflacific Region, Singapore, December 1-2

2-200
2.10 Snub Drilling
Snub drilling is simply an underbalanced
drilling operation that involves the use of a
snubbing unit or a coiled tubing (CT) unit.
The additional expense of this equipment
can be justified if very high formation
pressure and uncontrollable loss of
circulation are expected. Often, personnel
safety considerations provide the necessary
reasons for snub drilling. Finally, if sour gas
is expected, there is additional motivation.
Both snubbing and CT units have BOP
stacks that allow a drillstring (coiled tubing
in the latter case) to be run into or out of the
hole, at much higher pressures (routinely up
to 10,000 psi) than can be tolerated by either
a rotating head or an RBOP. Both units also
allow the drillstring to be pushed into a well
under pressure, even when the weight of the
string alone is insufficient to overcome the
pressure tending to push it out of the well.
Snubbing and CT units can be used for
underbalanced drilling, at pressures that
cannot be managed by conventional
drilling rigs.
Stone, 1996 (unpublished), recently used a
rig-assisted snubbing unit, to drill a
horizontal hole through an abnormally
pressured (17.0 ppg), fractured carbonate
formation at a TVD of 8,000 feet. This well
is used to illustrate the process of snub
drilling. Figure 2-66 shows the well profile.
The expected problems, which had been
determined in preparing the well design plan
and cost estimate, were:
P Very high annular surface pressure,
> Vertical fractures,
P Severe loss of circulation,
9 High pressure stripping operations,
k Expensive drilling fluid,
9 Surface equipment limitation ;, and,
9 Personnel and rig safety cons derations.
Vertical offset wells, drilled with 17.0 ppg
oil-based mud systems, were extremely
expensive, because of severe lost circulation.
An evaluation was made to de ermine the
feasibility of drilling a well u ;ing a less
expensive, lighter drilling flu d, with a
viscous mudcap to reduce t i e surface
pressures during trips. Thc resulting
recommendation called for setti ig 5%-inch
casing at the top of the target foimation and
drilling a 4%-inch hole using 2 7/8-inch
tubing as the drillstring.
A snub drilling method was sekcted as the
best approach. A standard 150,000 lbf
snubbing unit was mounted inside the
derrick of the drilling rig, above a 15,000 x
10,000 psi snubbing BOP stzck. This
combined snub drilling BOP stac k is shown
in Figure 2-67. The rig rotaq table was
removed, to allow the top BOP element to
extend through the rig floor. A11 circulating
lines (standpipe and kelly f- ose) were
replaced with 10,000 psi equipment.
Saturated 10.0 ppg sodium chlo ide (NaCI)
was selected as the drilling f uid. The
expected 7.0 ppg underbalancc d pressure
differential required extrem :ly close
coordination between all personn 1: involved
in the operation.
The vertical section of the well was drilled
to 8,000 feet using 17.0 ppg oil-based
drilling fluid and was cased wi:h 5Y2-inch
pipe. This oil mud then displac :d with the
NaCl brine after the snubk ing stack,
snubbing jack and surface equilment were
rigged up and pressure tested.
-
2-2OI
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Figure 2-66. Snub drilled well profile (courtesy of Signa Engineering 4 :orporation).
The intent was to flowdrill 1:he well through
the prospective formation, controlling the
influx of gas from this high pressure
reservoir with the surface choke system.
Mudcap drilling techniques were only to be
used for trips. The snubbing unit would be
used for these trips. With no gas cutting of
the NaCl drilling fluid, the anticipated
surface annular pressure would be 2,900 psi,
due to the high pore pressure of the
2-202
formation. With the expeci ed gas cutting of
this fluid, annular pressu res approaching
5,000 psi were probable. One thousand
barrels of 1 1.6 ppg calcium chloride (CaC12)
brine and XCD polymer were kept on
location for bullheading vi cous pills down
the annulus during trips, to lower these
surface pressures. Fine-to medium-ground
calcium carbonate was kept on location, as a
weighting additive, to incre tse the density of
-~
 7-1/16., 10Mx 7-1/16., 5M

' Cameron s l n p
7-1/16', 10M

--
Annular Preventer
Camemn 7-1/16: 10M

5
Cameron 'U'double
7-1/16'. 1OM

Install companion flange

WE' WECO 1502 thread

Drilling S p l
7-1/16,. 15M X 1OM

Camemn 'U'doubla
7-1/76', 15M

DSA
7-1/16: lOMx 7-1/16: 15M

Frac Valve
7-1/16', 1OM

-- TUBINGHEAD
11: 5M x 7-1/76., 10M

oumr wrn (2) 1 - 1 ~ ~

10M Gate Valve

Figure 2-67. BOP stack (courtesy of Signa Engineering Corporatiof ).

the viscous "trip" pills. To make a 100 bbl
trip pill, weighing 14.5 ppg, 342 sacks (100
lbm each) of fine calcium carbonate were
mixed with the 11.6 ppg CaC12 brine.
Tripping with this fluid in the annulus
lowered the surface pressures to 1,050 psi or
less. With this pressure on the annulus, the
rig crews had to pull wet strings during trips.
The drillstring was new 2 7/8-inch, 8.70
l b d f t , P-105, PH-6 pipe. This tubing was
pressure tested at the surface, each time a
joint was made up, as it passed through the
top stripper rubber. Each BOP stack
element was fitted with a prt ssure bleed
valve, to relieve trapped press ire between
elements, during trips. In adc ition to the
surface BOP stack, a full-opining safety
valve and inside blowout prever ter for the 2
7/8-inch drillstring were kept on the rig floor
at all times. Both upper and lower kelly
cocks were installed.
The surface equipment sysl zm, shown

2503

Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
schematically in Figure 2-68, included four
choke manifolds. Two of these handled
annular flow when the fluid was primarily
gas. They safely eliminated erosion
problems, caused by high pressure and
velocity of a gas stream, laden with drill
solids. The remaining two chokes were
designed to process the return stream when
it included liquids. The operator of these
chokes would monitor the flare for liquids,
to switch from the gas chokes to the liquid
chokes and vice versa. Both liquid choke
manifolds were four-inch, 10,000 psi
working pressure systems. Both the primary
and the back-up chokes consisted of one
hydraulic and one manual choke. The
command station for all four chokes
consisted of the controls for each manifold,
as well as pressure gauges showing both the
FLARE
PIT
MANUAL CHOKE
AILLING FLUID
Figure 2-68. Snub drilling choke system (coufiesy of Signa Engineerin Corporation).
2-204
-
standpipe and annular pressures. The
chokes were adjusted to maintain constant
standpipe pressure. Twc choke operators
were on duty at all times to man the choke
command station.
The skimmer pit received the drilling fluid
and condensate from ea:h of the liquid
choke manifolds and atta ihed gas busters.
The drilling fluid, skiinmed of liquid
hydrocarbons and cleared of all drill
cuttings, was returned to 11 e rig mud pits for
circulation downhole. Th ; cuttings volume
was quite small in this W i n c h slimhole
application. The liquid h ydrocarbons were
directed to the oil transf :r tank. During
drilling operations, twc snubbing unit
operators worked on the rig floor. Their
duties included maintainii ig control of the
f
Prevai ing Wind
Dir !ction
snubbing stack, manipulating the pipe and
assisting the driller. During drilling of the
curve and lateral sections, the drawworks
was used to support and lower the drillstring
to provide weight at the bit. Rotation of this
string was accomplished with a power
swivel. As previously mentioned, the
snubbing unit was used only for tripping the
pipe. The secondary BOP stack controls
were remotely positioned a safe distance
away from the rig floor.
Communication between rig-site personnel
becomes especially important when drilling
with these extreme surface pressures. A
loudspeaker intercom was installed to
interconnect the rig floor, shaker pit,
skimmer pit and all living quarters. Very
high noise levels will normally accompany
fluids flowing through chokes that are
dropping over 5,000 psi at times. Hearing
protection was necessary for all hands
working on the rig floor and close to the
choke manifolds.
The motorman, as usual, monitored and
maintained the operation of the rig pumps
and engines. A pump truck was added to
provide drilling fluid to the operation, when
the standpipe pressures exceeded 4,000 psi.
The operation also required two fluid
transfer operators, at all times during drilling
operations. Their primary responsibility was
to mix brine and trip pills and maintain
working pit levels. The logistics of
transferring and mixing brine were critical.
A brine mixing plant was recommended for
use on location for rapid fluid building
capability.
The project coordinator was responsible for
training each man to do his job and to
coordinate verbal and hand signals among
the team members. He had ulti nate control
of the project and could shut dol m the entire
operation, if necessary, for safet:r reasons. In
the event of a shutdown, the cho te operators
would monitor the surface pr:ssures and
report each 100 psi increase. 'rwo project
coordinators were always on lo :ation, with
only one having control of operations, at any
given time; the other served as a relief for
the active coordinator. All c ritical team
members were housed on 1oca:ion so that
any off-duty team member cou d be called
on to assist, if needed.
Sunb drilling and coiled tube drilling are
discussed further in Chapter 6. Adam and
Berry, 1995,' summarized scme of the
considerations in an underbal inced well,
drilled with coiled tubing, in the Dalen field.
These included custom modi 'ications of
standard well test equip nent, and
separatiodsurge systems. Bec muse of the
potential for HzS, which was s( luble in the
drilling fluid, a "closed tank" c rilling fluid
treatment and storage system w :re adopted.
Drilled solids were removed with sand
filters and sand catchers, upstieam of the
choke manifold and separator. This was
sufficient because the volumc of drilled
solids was very low. They also developed a
sub-surface safety valve, which 1 (as installed
in the completion string at 107 m and was
used to isolate reservoir pressu es from the
surface, effectively creating a "downhole
lubricator" system. While ex; )enses were
incurred, it was anticipated th: t there was
economic merit since previou: wells had
encountered severe mud losses, where the
costs in terms of materials and t ,me spent to
combat the problem were on he order of
$2,500,000. Finally, there was the
opportunity for interactive v 'ell design.
Underbalanced drilling was selected to
2-205
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Rrilling Techniques

overcome the lost circulation and to allow
gauging the production contribution from
each fracture system intersected, as specific
fractures were penetrated. “Thus it should
be possible to tailor the length of the
horizontal section based )n observed well
potential rather than drilling to some
nominal departure, which may not provide
any incremental benefit.”

References

1. Adam, J. and Berry, M.: “Through Completion, Underbalanced, Coiled 1‘ubingSide-Track

of Well Dalen 2,” paper presented at the 1995 IADC Drilling Conference: Milan, Italy.

2-206
2.11 Closed Systems
Some of the underbalanced drilling
techniques, described so far, have been
categorized according to the drilling fluid
involved. This section describes an
underbalanced drilling technique that
involves using a specific type of surface
system, rather than a specific drilling fluid.
The distinguishing feature of this technique
is the use of a pressurized, four-phase
separator and a fully closed surface system,
to handle the fluids returning from the well.
The use of a closed surface system when
drilling underbalanced was pioneered in
These systems are finding
applications elsewhere in the world; for
example in the UK,4 Argentina, the
Netherlands,' and in Oman.6 At the time of
writing, they are not extensively used in the
United States. They offer benefits over open
surface systems, but they also have
limitations that have to be considered. The
benefits arise because all fluids are
contained within flow lines, pressure vessels
and closed holding tanks. These systems
can safely manage natural gas production
containing hydrogen sulfide, prevent
hydrocarbon vaporization from open pits,
(i.e. environmental benefits) and, with
appropriate instrumentation, allow
continuous measurement of a well's
productivity.
With planning, closed systems can be
designed for high pressures, when drilling
deep and over-pressured reservoirs.
Surface Equipment
A closed surface system consists of a BOP
stack connection, choke manifold, sample
catcher, a pressurized separator system
which may consist of one or more
component vessels), a flare stack. production
tank(s), and a clean drilling li juid return
line. Figure 2-69 schematically shows a
closed system, typical of thofe used in
Canadian operations. Many of these
components are more or less tlie same as
those used in open surface sys ems. The
distinguishing feature is that the entire
system is closed until cleaned dr lling liquid
returns to the mud pump suction ank.
Several Canadian service compar ies provide
underbalanced drilling closed Gystems as
rental items. Often two or n ore of the
components of the system will b: combined
on single skids.
Return Line
The return line will normally be taken from
beneath the RBOP or rotating head outlet
flange. If dual annulars are usell, it will be
taken from a diverter spool immediately
below the upper annular. The li le diameter
should be sufficient to keep t le pressure
drop down the line to a safe 1 :veI, at the
maximum anticipated return fl IW rate of
injected and produced fluids. A 6-inch
return line may be necessary. Some means
of closing the return line should )e installed,
adjacent to its connection to the BOP stack.
So too should an emergencj shutdown
(ESD) valve. Local regulations r lay demand
installation of this ESD. The ES > itself, and
any piping between the BOP st ick and the
ESD, should have a pressure r:ting that at
least matches the rating of the BOP
immediately above the return linc take-off.
The return line should be eqi ipped with
valving, downstream of the shi t-in valves,
to permit the option of directing return flow
to the shale shakers. This may ,e desirable
if no hydrocarbons or toxic gases are
2-207
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Flare Stack
r-
Production I Pressure Vessel Choke Manifoll
I
Tank
Drilling Fluid Tank
Rig Pump
Figure 2-69. A typical closed surface system (modified after Lunar 1, 1994').
entering the well or anticipated to enter it.
There will normally be a flow control
manifold and sample catcher arrangement
between the return line and the separator
system.
There may be one or two sets of choke and
kill lines.3 As a minimum, a single choke
line, from below the blind rams, will be
routed through the rig manifold to the
separator system or directly to the flare pit.7
The well can then be flowed while tripping
or when the string is out of the hole and the
blind rams are closed. This will prevent
excessive surface pressures from building
up. A second choke line may be installed,
either between the annular and the upper
pipe rams, or from between the upper pipe
rams and the blind rams. If installed, this
will be valved to permit flow to be routed
through the return line and its flow control
manifold to the separator or directly to the
flare pit.7 This system provides a degree of
redundancy against blockage of the main
2-208
N2 Pumpers
Mix
2 Vapor izor
return line or problems w th either of the
choke manifolds.
Typical Canadian operatio1 s use 2,000 psi
rated, hammer union couple 1 flow lines. The
return and choke lines should have pressure
ratings matching those of the choke
manifold to which they are attached. These
should be sufficient to contain any surface
wellhead pressure that cai I reasonably be
anticipated. Since one of tlle major reasons
for using a closed system i s to handle sour
gas, the closed system p:omponents are
normally rated for sour ser lice. If there is
any potential for hydrogel sulfide being
encountered, it should be CI mfirmed that all
components of the surface system, that
might be exposed to the lie11 returns, are
suitable for sour service. All flow lines
should be electrically bonde d to prevent any
sparking.
The lines, between the BOP stack and the
separator, can erode because they are
exposed to solids-laden return flows. All
elbows and tees should preferably be leaded,
to restrict this erosion. This becomes
particularly important if consolidated
sandstones or cherts are drilled.
Flow Control Manifold
Returns from the well should be routed
through a flow control manifold at all times
when drilling with a closed system. A
second choke manifold, in addition to the rig
choke manifold, is normally installed. Figure
2-70 is one example of a flow control
arrangement. A flow control manifold,
designed specifically for underbalanced
drilling, would normally be used for this
purpose. These tend to have larger diameter
Rotating Blow out
Preventer/Diverter
RBOP Height
1700 mm
I Northland Manifold
Surface Casing
3W400m,508.0 mm
-Intermediate Casing
1300-145Dm.339.7mm
Production Casing
I890m,244.5 mm
Figure 2-70. Flow control arrangement (after Saponja, 1995 ').
valves, (six-inch gate valves an(i four-inch
ball valves, in some instances7,, than the
conventional choke manifolds found on
many rigs. This allows them to handle
higher flow rates, without generating
excessive back pressure. The unc erbalanced
drilling flow control manifold wi 1 normally
be used to control flow into the separator.
The rig manifold is only used to c mtrol flow
to the separator when the primarq manifold
requires maintenance or when excessive
pressures are encountered.
Sample Catcher
With a closed system, cuttings a r e normally
collected inside the separator ves sel. Some
form of sample catcher has to be nstalled in
re C a t c h
oke
E FlareStack
Separator
200 PSI Vessel
Water Returned C '1 Storage/
to Rlg Tanks 7 ansport
2-209
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
the flow line, between the BOP stack and the
separator, if cuttings samples are to be taken
for geologic control. Usually, two sample
catch vessels are used; one collects a sample
while the other is being emptied. The catch
vessels may be mounted downstream of the
flow control manifold, or alternatively
integrated with it. Figure 2-71 shows an
arrangement that puts the catch vessels on
the flow control manifold. The two catch
vessels normally contain screens through
which some of the well rleturns will flow,
depositing cuttings on the screen. The catch
vessel is isolated from the return flow, and
flow is routed through the other catch vessel
while the screen is removed from the first
vessel and cuttings are collected. Screened
vessels are not necessarily used when
drilling gas wells; instead the sample may
just be allowed to collect in the catcher pan.2
Sample
Catcher
#I
Dlrection
Figure 2-71. Integrated flow control and sample catcher manifold (z ffer Lunan and
Boote, 1994 '*).
2-210
Separator
Many of the separitors used in
underbalanced drilling ha le been modified
from production separator s, because of the
different design requireme nts.* A separator
used to process under1 )alanced drilling
returns will need to pr mide four-phase
separation of liquid hydrc carbon, water or
aqueous drilling fluid, gas!:s (both produced
and injected), and cutti igs. Typically,
underbalanced drilling ser arators operate at
20 to 50 psigy but they ca 1 be rated for 200
to 500 psi maximum pre:sure. Separating
gases from the returns is o ~ l yefficient if the
separator pressure is low Additional de-
gassing equipment ma! ' be necessary
downstream of the primary separator - this
will be discussed later in th is section.
Frequently, underbalancec drilling returns
Sam1 le
Catcl er
#2
#4
are produced in slug flow, with intermittent
slugs of liquid at much higher instantaneous
flow rates than the overall average liquid
rate. These slugs can overwhelm a
conventional separator. At the very least,
the internal separator design will have to
minimize "splashing" when a slug enters.
Some underbalanced drilling separators have
a spiraled entry baffle for this purpose.'
Using a higher vessel pressure will reduce
the tendency for slug flow, but this will also
decrease the efficiency of removing gas from
the liquids.8
The separator vessel should be able to
rapidly dump significant liquid volumes,
coming from a large liquid slug. The
pressure vessel may need to be fitted with
several large, mechanically activated dump
outlets.
The vessel must be large enough to allow
adequate retention time for the separation of
the solids. The larger the vessel the better.
Originally, the separators used in Canadian
underbalanced drilling operations were sized
so that all cuttings generated in the drilling
operation could be contained within the
separator itself, without any need to
discharge cuttings until total depth (for the
interval in question) was reached. If this is
to be done, the solids capacity of the vessel
should be at least three times the volume of
the hole to be drilled, to account for bulking
of the fragmented rock and for possible
shale swelling." Newer separators,
designed for underbalanced drilling,
incorporate sealed, auger, screw-type pumps,
to remove cuttings from the separator under
pressure.2
Horizontal or vertical separators may be
used. Vertical separators are more effective
when the returns are predominzntly liquid,
while horizontal separators tend t 3 be able to
handle higher gas volumes more efficiently.
It is possible to run vertical stparators in
parallel, to provide good operating
efficiency. Horizontal separatic In is better
managed with one, large vessel.8
The Energy Resources Conserv; ition Board
of Canada (ERCB) has set out design and
operation guidelines for close d systems.
These provide a sound basis for designing a
closed, underbalanced drilling s stem." A
typical horizontal separator, used in
Canadian operations, is shown sc hematically
in Figure 2-72. This cylindric 11 vessel is
nine feet in diameter and 40 feet ong, with a
working pressure rating of 2M psi. The
maximum gas rate for this sepirator is 35
MMscfD, with a total liquid cap tcity of 425
bbl. This pressure vessel is sk id-mounted
and is enclosed and heated for told climate
operations.
In this horizontal separator, \le11 returns
enter and are slowed by th: velocity-
reducing baffle. Solids settle pi incipally in
the first compartment, from wht re they can
be removed by the solids trar sfer pump.
Liquids pass over the partition pl ate, into the
second compartment, where fu rther solids
separation occurs, and where the liquids
begin to separate. The liquids spill into the
third compartment, where se paration is
cofnpleted. Liquid hydroc: rbons and
drilling liquid are discharged frc lm different
levels in this compartment.
The separator vessel should be fitted with
adequately sized pressure relief valves and
an emergency shutdown valve, riggered on
high liquid level, and high or low vessel
pressure. It should also be fitted, at a
2-211
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
Adustable Partition Plates
t .. ..J
a.
Gas:
::
Figure 2-72. A typical, horizontal, four-phase separator, for underbalanc Ded drilling (after
Lunan and Boote, 1994 ‘*I.
minimum, with sight glasses to indicate
liquid levels, and with some means of
observing solids levels without having to
shut down or enter the vessel. Additional
instrumentation can be beneficial; this will
be discussed below.
If a closed system is to be used with a
drilling fluid that contains any oxygen, it
must be possible to purge the separator
vessel with an inert gas, such as nitrogen,
in order to prevent the buildup of a
potentially explosive gas mixture in the
separator.
Cuttings filter
It is possible to use a three-phase separator,
when drilling small diameter holes where
limited volumes of cuttings are generated.
This might be the case in coiled tubing
drilling operations. To allow this, a sand trap
or filter is installed upstream of the separator
~ e s s e l .This
~ reduces erosion of the flowline
between the sand trap and the separator and
2-212
Well Effluents
*\
\.:
-z In
Velocity Reducer
... ...
Gas
Continuout Pressurized
Solids Tra mfer Pump
of the entry region of the sc parator itself.
Heater
Mixtures of low Ilecular weight
rnl
hydrocarbons and water ca 1 potentially form
hydrates at low temperatu es. These could
interfere with flow into the separator or with
the separator’s operation. Normally, well
returns will not warm er ough to prevent
hydrate formation. If the-e is a large gas
volume fraction in the retiirns and they are
choked back, the decrease ( If the temperature
downstream of the chole may lead to
hydrate formation. In this case, the returns
should be routed through a heater, upstream
of the flow control maniftdd. The returns
should also be passed through a heater if
large volumes of heavy oil (with viscosities
at low temperatures that prf vent efficient gas
separation) are being produ :ed.
Degasser
Gas carryover from the serarator to an open
mudpump suction tank is potentially
dangerous, particularly if there is any
possibility of H2S production. Gas in the re-
injected liquid can cause lower than
anticipated pressures downhole, with
consequent higher production and safety
concerns. It will also interfere with the
efficiency of the mud pumps. All gas has to
be eliminated from any liquid to be re-
injected into the well. In most
circumstances, it will be necessary to use an
additional degasser, downstream of the
primary separator.* Secondary degassing is
particularly important if high pressures or
significant gas dissolution are likely, as they
probably will be when drilling deep or
overpressured reservoirs. An atmospheric
separator or vacuum degasser can be used
for this second stage of degassing.
Adam and Berry, 1995,' used closed settling
tanks, vented to the flare line, to handle
remnant gas. A secondary degasser is not
always used in Canadian closed systems.
These wells typically have low formation
pressures. Here, the combination of low
pressures, unviscosified liquids, and long
residence times allows an adequate portion
of the entrained gas to escape so that the
liquid returned to the mud pumps from the
separator vessel can be re-injected without
problems.
Flare StackPit
The flare stack must be large enough to
handle the maximum anticipated gas rate
(both produced and injected gas). The
height and location of the stack are likely
dictated by local regulations governing
natural gas flaring. The flare stack should
be equipped with an igniter and pilot flame
system to ensure combustion of any
discharged flammable gases.
Saponja, 1995,7 described a separate flare
stack and flare pit, with ga! from the
separator going to the stack and gas vented
from the wellhead casing annulls going to
the flare pit.
Louison et al., 1984,13 used tlvo separate
flare lines; one twelve-inch diameter and
one ten-inch diameter, with sepal ate six-inch
diameter, twenty-foot tall flarc stacks, to
handle gas produced while llrilling the
Midway and Navarro formatiorts in South
Central Texas. They reported flares that
were 25- to 30-feet high when clrilling, and
up to 120 feet high after a long : hutdown in
drilling. They also recommende a flare pit
at the base of the stack, ior burning
condensate, which would not be required or
appropriate with a closed system
A backpressure regulating valve in the flare
line between the separator a n j the flare
stack, allows the separator pressure to be
maintained when the gas produ1:tion rate is
low.
Produced gas does not have t > be flared
when drilling underbalanced. 1 is possible
to route gas from the separator o an export
line, if there are local producti in facilities
that can handle the returning ga;. This has
been done successfully on an un derbalanced
coiled tubing drilling operation onshore in
the Netherlands.'
Production Tank
The production tank should b: closed to
prevent vapor release. Any me: surable gas,
evolving from liquid hydrocarjons in the
production tank, can be vented to the flare
stack.
Water Tank
When the drilling fluid has an aqueous
phase, water from the separalor will be
2-213
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
discharged into one or two settling tanks,
before being transferred to the mud pump
suction tank. Since additional solids
separation occurs in these tiinks, they should
have sloped bottoms and be fitted with
internal risers for water drawoff, to provide
the cleanest possible water to the mud
pumps.3
Solids Tank
There should normally be a cuttings storage
tank to receive solids discharged from the
separator, unless the anticipated volume of
cuttings is sufficiently low that the separator
will only be emptied at the end of the job.
Instrumentation
Closed surface systems collect all material
returning from the well. With appropriate
instrumentation on the closed system and on
the drilling fluid injection systems, it is
possible to determine the rates and pressures
at which the well is producing hydrocarbons
while drilling. It is also possible to conduct
a production test, using the (closedsystem, at
any time while drilling, or before or after
completion.
Much of the formation evaluation
information, that can potentially be collected
when drilling underbalanced, requires that
an integrated instrumentation package is
used to record injection rates, flow rates and
pressures. Instrumentation packages for
underbalanced drilling were described in
Section 2.7, “Gasified Liqunds.” Separators,
used for underbalanced drilling, can be
instrumented to measure gas pressure and
temperature, liquid hydrocarbon and water
levels (flow rates), as well as methane,
oxygen and hydrogen sulfide contents. The
differential pressure, across an orifice meter
in the flare line, will give the gas flow rate.
2-214
If the drilling fluid coni: ins any oxygen,
measurement of oxyger and methane
concentrations inside tk e separator is
’
essential. Teichrob, 1994,’ reported using a
methane chromatograph, along with a
portable oxygen and lowe. explosive limit
(LEL) meter, to continuo isly monitor the
flammability of the gas in a closed system
separator, when drilling wi :h an airhitrogen
mixture.
Drilling Fluids
Closed systems can, in pinciple, be used
with any underbalanced drilling fluid. The
majority of applications tc date have used
nitrified liquids.
It is not normally appropriate to use a closed
system when drilling with air, air mist, air
foam or an aerated liqi id, due to the
potential for forming an e Icplosive mixture
inside the separator pressi re vessel. It is
possible to use a closed system, with a
drilling fluid containing ( xygen, provided
that the oxygen content of 1 he injected gas is
maintained at a level telow which an
explosive mixture occurs. Steps necessary
to establish a safe oxyg1:n content were
described in Section 2.7, “< iasified Liquids.”
It is necessary to m mitor the gas
composition inside the szparator and to
purge it with inert gas, wlien necessary, to
prevent combustion or expl xion.
Using a viscosified drilliiig fluid, with a
closed surface system, s h ~ u l dbe avoided
whenever possible. Visc Isification slows
the separation of gas from 1 he liquid returns.
This becomes particularly i mportant if there
is any hydrogen sulfide in tl ie produced gas.
Usually, the separator system has to be
operated above atmospheri c pressure. The
elevated pressure drives liquids from the
separator, to the various secondary
separation and/or storage vessels
downstream. Particularly for long,
horizontal separators, this pressure promotes
efficient separation of the various phases
within the vessel. If the well returns contain
injected andlor produced gas, the
backpressure from gas flow through the flare
line will normally provide the required
separator pressure. It there is little gas in the
returns, it is possible to pressurize the
separator vessel directly with n i t r ~ g e n . ~
Alternatively, it is possible inject a small
volume of nitrogen in the drilling fluid at the
standpipe, even though this may not be
strictly necessary to achieve underbalanced
conditions d ~ w n h o l e . ~
It is possible to use a closed system for
drilling underbalanced with foam.
Defoaming will have to take place inside the
separator vessel(s). MacDonald and
Crombie, 1995,15described a closed surface
system that incorporated both mechanical (a
polyurethane hydrocyclone) and chemical
defoaming inside a low pressure separator
vessel. This operated satisfactorily, without
any foam carryover from the separator,
while drilling nominally balanced with
coiled tubing in a shallow (1,500 ft), low
bottomhole pressure (275 psi) gas well and a
somewhat deeper (5,875 ft TVD), higher
pressure (740 psi), oil well. However, flow
rates and surface pressures were low, in both
of these cases. The liquid discharged from
the separator could not be re-injected,
because it contained defoamer. This
prevented re-foaming, even with additional
foamer.
Operating Procedures
This section describes only those operating
procedures that are distinctive to closed
systems. Other procedures, that ue specific
to each type of underbalanced drilling fluid,
are detailed in the sections describing the
techniques used for drilling with those
fluids.
> Liquid and solid levels in tke separator
vessel should be monitored it all times
that returns are flowing into the
separator. Liquids and solid ; should be
discharged, to the appropi iate tanks,
when necessary, to maintai 1 separator
efficiency.
> The liquid and solid levels should be
recorded periodically, togetk er with all
liquid volumes discharged, the gas
pressure and temperaturt in the
separator, and the gas flow ra e down the
flare line. These measurem :nts can be
combined with drilling flu; 3 injection
rates to estimate the ~~lriationin
productivity with depth.
P The separator pressure ;hould be
monitored whenever returns $re flowing
into the separator. If th s pressure
approaches the safe working Limit of the
separator vessel, the well should be
choked back using the fl )w control
manifold, or the drilling fl lid density
should be increased to reducc the rate of
production. If this fails t ) keep the
pressure sufficiently low, the well should
be shut-in and killed. A ? adequate
volume of kill fluid, typical1 y 1.5 times
the hole volume, should be 1 ept on site,
if the ungasified liquid pkase of the
drilling fluid is insufficient to kill the
well.
> The gas flow through the fl r e line can
be choked back to increas? the back
pressure on the separator. '?his can be
-
2-215
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques
done if the separator pressure becomes
too low for efficient liquid discharge or
to avoid slug flow into the separator.
This should only be done if the gas flow
rate is steady and there is no possibility
of a sudden increase in the gas flow
rate. If that occurred, the separator
pressure would rise rapidly, potentially
exceeding its safe working limits.
9 As was noted in Section 2.7, “Gasified
Liquids,” choking back the well returns
should be avoided if at all possible. This
increases the gas compression and liquid
injection power requirements, and, more
significantly, has an impact on the
bottomhole pressure that is difficult to
determine. By manipulating the choke,
it is very easy to inadvertently take the
well overbalanced and damage the
producing formation.
9 Watch for any signs of plugging inside
the separator or flare line. If plugging
occurs in a redundant coimponent, switch
flow to the backup and clear the
blockage. Otherwise, the well should be
shut-in and the plugging remedied
immediately.
9 If injecting a gas containing oxygen as a
component of the drilling fluid, monitor
the gas composition in the separator
vessel at all times. Purge the separator
with inert gas if the composition
approaches the lower explosive limit.14
9 Ensure that the flare is ignited at all
times when natural gas is returning from
the well. This is especially important if
hydrogen sulfide is present.
9 Monitor all flowlines for erosion, paying
particular attention at any changes in
direction. Ultrasonic pipe wall thickness
meters make this an easy task.
2-216
9 It may be necessary to e iter the separator
vessel after a job i , ) complete, for
example to clean out cuttings. This
should only be done i f essential. All
appropriate precautions should be taken
before and during any rr anned entry.
Limiiations
Planning is required befcre using closed
systems when high surfac e pressures are
possible. Precautions are a1 ,o required if the
drilling fluid is oxyge iated. Other
limitations include availat ility of suitable
equipment and personnel and increased
operating costs. Using a clc sed system does
not remove any of the spc:cific limitations
associated with the drilling fluid (other than
air) or the technique adoptec .
High Surface Pressures
Properly designed and )perated closed
I
systems can handle high gas production
rates, in excess of 35 MMscfD. To date,
closed systems have on11 been used in
shallow or modestly dee I, sub-normally
pressured reservoirs, that (lo not have the
potential for very high sirface pressures.
Deep, overpressured reservc iirs can generate
surface pressures that are 11 uch higher than
available separators can tolerate. The
separators are normally exFxed only to the
back pressure from the gas low through the
flare line. Plugging of the :eparator or flare
line, for example, could exp ise the separator
vessel to pressures higher than its design
rating.
Extreme caution should be exercised
before using a closed systei ’t to drill a deep
or over-pressured gas rl!servoir, under
underbalanced conditions. It is essential
that a thorough safety revi1:w is conducted
before committing to the ise of a closed
system. In addition to the hazards common
to other drilling techniques, this review
should evaluate all possible surface pressure
regimes, identify all hazardous conditions,
and devise means to eliminate, or to handle,
any potential condition that might expose
any surface system components to pressures
in excess of their safe working limits.
Oxygen Containing Drilling Fluids
The potential for creating an explosive gas
mixture inside the separator, when there is
oxygen in the drilling fluid, has already been
noted. Closed systems should not be used
with dry air, air mist, air foam, or aerated
liquid drilling fluids.
Equipment and Personnel Availability
Currently, there are a number of customized,
closed systems available for rental in
Canada; together with crews trained and
experienced in their operation and
maintenance. Few systems and trained
crews are available in the United States at
this time.
Operating Costs
The additional surface equipment associated
with a closed system, and, the additional
personnel required to operate an d maintain
that equipment, lead to higher rlaily costs
than would be incurred vith other
underbalanced or convention: 1 drilling
techniques. Additional costs will also result
with mobilization and demobilizi .tion of the
equipment and experienced c r e vs. Since
neither the equipment nor the crews for
closed system underbalanced c rilling are
readily available in the United S:ates, these
costs will probably be significant.
Any realistic economic evalu: tion of a
closed system will be well specilic. Closed
system drilling may offer real rierit if the
formation being drilled is sr nsitive to
formation damage and is likely to be very
productive if it is drilled underbal mced.
-
2-21 7
Chapter 2 Underbalanced Drilling Techniques

References
1. Deis, P.V., Churcher, P.L., Turner, T. and Curtis, F.: “Horizontal Under balanced Drilling
Techniques used in the Mississippian Midale Beds of the Weyburn Fielc ,” paper 93-1 105
presented at the 1993 CADEKAODC Drilling Conference, Calgary, Aha.

2. Lunan, B.: “Underbalanced Drilling - Surface Control Systems,” p iper HWC94-20

presented at the 1994 SPE/CIM/CANMET International Conference on iecent Advances
in Horizontal Well Applications, Calgary, Aka.

3. Deis, P.V., Yurkiw, F.J.and Barrenechea, P.J.: “The Development of B n Underbalanced

Drilling Process: An Operator’s Experience in Western Canada,” prese nted at the 1995
International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Nethe]lands.

4. Crerar, P.: “Underbalanced Re-entry Horizontal Drilling in the We ton Field Basal
Succession Reservoir Onshore UK,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October !-4.

5. Adam, J. and Berry, M.: “Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Sidetrack Suct :essful,” Oil and
Gas J. (December 18, 1995) 9 1-98.

6. Surewaard, J., de Koning, K., Kool, M., Woodland, D., Roed, H. ar d Hopmans, P.:
“Underbalanced Operations in Petroleum Development Oman,” paper pre: ented at the 1995
1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Net’ierlands, October
2-4.

7. Saponja, J.: “Engineering Considerations for Jointed Pipe Underbalancec Drilling,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

8. Stone, C.R.: “History and Development of Underbalanced Drilling in he USA,” paper

presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference. The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

9. Comeau, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Directional and MWD Experience, ’ paper presented
at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, 1 he Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

10. Northland Production Testing Limited, Underbalanced Drilling Divisi m, Promotional

Literature (1994).

11. Energy Resources Conservation Board: “Interim Directive ID 94-3,” Ca gary, Alta (July
18, 1994).

2-218
12. Lunan, B. and Boote, K.S.: “Underbalanced Drilling Techniques Using a Close1ISystem to
Control Live Wells - Western Canadian Basin Case Histories,” presented i t the 1994
SPE/CIM Annual One Day Conference, Calgary, Alta.

13. Louison, R.F., Reese, R.T. and Andrews, J.P.: “Case History; Underbalance hilling the
Midway and Navarro Formations Successfully in Hallettsville, TX,” paper SPE 131 12
presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houstc In, TX.

14. Teichrob, R.R.: “Low Pressure Reservoir Drilled with Air/N2 in a Closed Systei n,” Oil and
Gus J. (March 2 1, 1994) 80-90.

15. MacDonald, R.R. and Crombie, D.L: “Balanced Drilling with Coiled Tub ng,” paper
IADC/SPE 27435 presented at the 1995 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas TX.

2-219
~
 BENEFITS OF DRILLING
UNDERBALANCED
underbalanced drilling can offer certain
advantages over conventional drilling
techniques:
9 Increased penetration rate,
9 Increased bit life,
9 Reduced probability of differential
sticking,
9 Minimized lost circulation while
drilling ,
P Improved formation evaluation and
reduced costs of testing,
9 Reduced formation damage,
9 Earlier production ,
9 Environmental benefits,
9 Improved safety,
9 Increased well productivity ,and,
9 Less need for stimulation treatments.
The extent to which it is possible to achieve
any of these various benefits generally
depends on the specific application. Reasons
why these benefits can occur arc, described.
Field examples are given; indicating, where
possible, the significance of the various
benefits that can be expected fior different
applications.
3. I Penetration Rata !
One of the most significant and I Iften quoted
benefits of underbalanced drilling is
increased penetration rate. 1 is almost
invariably true that switc ling from
conventional, overbalanced dri lling to an
underbalanced drilling tech]iique will
increase the instantaneous penie tration rate.
The change in penetration rate i d 1 vary for
different underbalanced drillin! techniques
and in different rock types. E Lamples are
given of the order of magnitude )f change in
Penetration rate that can be a(: iieved with
different underbalanced drilling techniques.
If conventional drilling g ives high
penetration rates or if the int:rval to be
drilled is relatively shor , drilling
underhalanced may not save eno igh rig time
to pay for the additional equipment
involved.
Why Should Penetration Rig re Be
Higher?
It is often stated that reducing he pressure
differential across the hole bottlc m increases
the penetration rate. Swi1.c hing from
overbalanced to underbalanc :d drilling
changes the differential pre ;sure from
positive to negative, so that a penetration
rate increase should be expected This is an
over-simplification. It does lot address

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
some fundamental aspects of how downhole
pressures influence drilling response in
permeable rocks and shales.
Permeable Rocks
In permeable rocks, a positive pressure
differential, between the drilling fluid in the
wellbore and the pore fluid adjacent to the
workfront, reduces penetration rates in two
ways.
P This differential pressure represents an
effective confining stress acting on the
rock being fractured by the bit’s teeth.’*2
In most sandstones and carbonates,
increasing the effective confining
pressure increases the shear strength of
the rock. The assertion that higher
differential pressure increases the
effective mean stress in permeable rocks
needs to be viewed with caution,
depending on the specific poroelastic-
plastic properties of the rock.
Regardless, shear stress, promoting
failure, increases with underbalance.
P Cracks that form when the rock fractures
will very rapidly fill with pore fluid at or
near the original pore pressure. The
difference between this pressure and that
of the fluid in the borehole “clamps” the
rock fragments against intact rock until
communication with the wellbore can
equalize the pressures around these
fragments and relieve the so-called “chip
hold-down forces.”2 If the bit teeth
contact the workfront before the chip
hold-down forces have been overcome,
work will be expended unnecessarily in
re-grinding the rock fragments that
remain clamped to the workfront.
Increasing the mud weight will increase
the chip hold-down forces, making the
bit’s action less efficient and decreasing
the penetration rate.
3-2
I
There is supporting physicr 1 evidence. Both
r n i ~ r o - b i t ~ .and
~ full scale4 drilling
experiments have shc wn that (in
overbalanced situations) th :penetration rate
in permeable rocks decreases as the
difference between the b orehole pressure
and the pore pressure ircreases. These
measurements have shown that the absolute
value of the wellbore pressure in permeable
rocks does not influence pmetration rate to
any detectable extent; it is t le difference that
is important. Figure 3-1 sh )ws one example
of the effect of differen ial pressure on
penetration rate, for a micr 3 roller cone bit,
drilling Indiana limest me with an
unweighted, water-based mud. With a
positive differential pressu re of 1,000 psi,
the penetration rate was 01ly 30 percent of
that seen at balance.
Figure 3-2 (Moore, 1974’) s a composite of
wells drilled with mud cimpared with a
composite of wells drilled with gas. The
figure shows that, below a certain depth,
drilling with gas was over six times faster
than drilling with mud.
When drilling at balance, there is no
longer any (compres,rive) effective
confining stress acting on the rock being
drilled nor any static chip 1 rold-downforce,
favoring more rapid drillin,:. Underbalance
is hypothetically even more favorable.
It is the difference betwem the borehole
pressure and the pore pres ure, adjacent to
the workfront, that control: the penetration
This local pore pressure is not
necessarily the same as the undisturbed far-
field pore pressure. Drill ng fluid filtrate
(and in some cases, whole mud) will flow
into the penetrated formaticns, if there is an
overbalance. The hydrauli :driving forces
for fluid flow will act fro n the formation
 12

10

E
n
& a

c
Q

2 6
w
-
.-
c
.-
6 4

0
0 lo00 2000 3000 4000 51 100

Overbalanced Differential Pressure (psi)

Figure 3-7. Micro-bit test data showing the influence of differential pfi ?ssure on
penetration rate (after Cunningham and Eenink, 7959').

into the borehole, if it is underbalanced. In application. They are usually on he order of

either case, fluid flow can change the pore
pressure close to the workfront from its
original value. Figure 3-3 shows penetration
rates (under overbalanced conditions),
measured at two different weights on bit, in
laboratory drilling tests. A 7 7/8-inch
diameter insert bit was used to drill 200 md
Berea sandstone. The pressure differential
across the workfront was determined in
these tests, and the penetration rates are
plotted versus the local differential pressure
in Figure 3-3. An overbalanced pressure
dgferential of 500 psi reduced the
penetration rate to between 30 and 45
percent of its value at balance.
Pressure differentials, in normal drilling
operations, vary from application to
a few hundred psi. At a depth of 6,600 feet,
a mud overbalance of 0.5 ppg (ar equivalent
circulating density of 0.5 ppg higl ier than the
formation pressure gradient), cor esponds to
a differential pressure of approxi nately 165
psi. The laboratory drilling dal:;L shown in
Figures 3-1 and 3-3 indicate that the
penetration rate might increase Icy 30 to 40
percent in going from 165 psi 07 erbalanced
to balanced.
As the borehole pressure is red1 ced below
the pore pressure, Le., as t h t level of
underbalance increases; the rock at the
workfront moves into a state c f effective
axial tension. Chip hold-down forces, in
permeable rock at least, are elimir ated. As a
result, the penetration rate is csrtpected to

3-3
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

Drilling Days
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
CI
0
@

5000
CI

:6000
P

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 3-2. Gas drilling versus mud drilling (after Moore, 19 74 ’).

increase, with increasing underbalance, but set of micro-bit experimc n t ~ in , ~ Indiana

its sensitivity to pressure changes should be
lower then if it was overbalanced.
There is little experimental data, from
laboratory drilling tests, to quantify the
impact of underbalance pressure on
penetration rate. One set of experiment^,^
with a micro (1.25-inch diameter) roller
cone bit, showed that the penetration rate in
Berea sandstone increased by only 20 to 25
percent, in going from balanced to between
1,000and 4,000 psi underbalanced. Another
limestone drilled at a 430 1 isi underbalance,
penetrated at a rate that w 3s apparently 10
percent lower than when tkere was a 70 psi
overbalance.
Impermeable Rocks
The pore pressure in any fractures created
during drilling in impermt able zones does
not rapidly equilibrate to r :servoir pressure
levels. There is an incrc ase in effective
porosity because of these cracks. This is
known as dilatancy. If tl e fluid pressure

3-4
from the reservoir cannot rapidly enter these
cracks, suction occurs, and the pressure in
the fractures can approach zero. In this
situation the chip hold-down forces will be
proportional to the borehole pressure,
compared to the difference between the
borehole and pore pressures for a more
permeable medium. When fluid from the
wellbore has been able to flow into the chip-
forming cracks, allowing the pressure in the
fractures to equalize with the drilling fluid
above the workfront, the chip hold-down
forces decrease to zero. This argument
suggests that penetration rates in hard shales,
and other hard impermeable rocks, should be
determined by the absolute wellbore
pressure and not by the difference between
wellbore and pore pressures. As with
permeable rocks, effective rad al stresses
will increase due to the stress ccncentration
at the bottom of the hole, but th:se stresses
are relatively independent of thl: degree of
balance. However, the variation in effective
mean stress is largely govemzd by the
potential for dilatancy, depen iing more
strongly on the differential pressure.
The situation in other shales, 1barticularly
soft younger formations is more difficult to
resolve. Some measurements I ave shown
that in certain sojter or srneciitic shales,
ROP depends on the differential pressure.
Zijsling, 1987,* performed single cutter tests
on medium-hard, illitic Mancos shale and on
soft, montmorillonitic Pierre sha !e. ". .. the

n
L
c

n
z

Pressure Drop Through Filter Cake (psi)

Figure 3-3. Penetration rate, as a function of the differential pressure (ow !rbalanced)
across the workfront; from full-scale, laboratory, drilling test data (after
Black et al., 1985').

3-5
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
total bottomhole pressure rather than the
overbalance (and thus the pore pressure in
the sample) governs the cutting process of a
PDC in Mancos shale.'' In the Pierre shale
tests, the magnitude of the pore pressure and
the mud pressure were both important.
Similar observations were alluded to by
Gray-Stephens et al., 1994.9 Regardless of
the specific mechanism, evidence indicates
increased penetration rate with an increased
underbalanced pressure differential.
Maurer, 1966,'' showed the increase in
drilling rate with reduced borehole pressure,
during microbit tests on two shales, a
dolomite and a quartzite. Recent laboratory
experiments' have confirmed this, at least
for hard shales. Figure 3-4 shows
penetration rates for a milled tooth bit,
drilling a hard Jurassic shale, at several
different combinations of borehole and pore
pressures. The penetration rate decreased
with increasing borehole pressure, but it did
not change if the pore pressure was changed
at constant borehole pressure. Compare
Figures 3-4 (a) through (c). From a
mechanics point-of-view, this is completely
consistent with a poroelastic constant
approaching zero, characteristic of a low
permeability medium.
Figure 3-5 shows the results of several shale
drilling experimental program^.'^' In this
figure, the penetration rates are incorporated
into a normalized drilling strength index,
DS,:
(3.1)
where:
3-6
WOB ..............weight on b t (lbf),
RPM ..............rotary speed (rpm),
ROP ...............rate of pene. ration ( f a r ) ,
P ..................... pressure (ps a),
subscript b .... indicates bo -ehole
conditions, ; md
subscript o ..... indicates atr iospheric
conditions.
This drilling strength is equal to one at
atmospheric pressure. 1 i value of five
indicates that the penetrition rate, at a
specific borehole pressure, is one-fifth of the
penetration rate at atmosph :ric pressure (i.e.,
the higher the index, DS,, the lower the
penetration rate). The diffe rent shales in this
figure all showed simi!ar increases in
normalized drilling strengtl I, with increasing
borehole pressure. At 2,l )OO psi borehole
pressure, the normalized irilling strengths
were all approximately si: .; indicating that
the penetration rate, a1 this borehole
pressure, would be one-si: th of the rate at
atmospheric borehole prc ssure, with the
same weight on bit and rota ry speed.
These results show that a small reduction in
borehole pressure only causes a small
increase in penetration ratc , if the borehole
pressure is significantl! greater than
atmospheric. Consider an E xample:
> A well is being c rilled with an
unweighted mud (8.5 p ig), at a depth of
6,600 feet.
> The borehole pressure will be
approximately 2,900 p: i, neglecting the
annular pressure drop.
P A reduction in effective mud weight to 7
ppg would reduce the 1)orehole pressure
by 500 psi, to 2,400 ])si. This would
decrease the drillini strength, Le.
increase the penetration rate, by less than
15 %.
 - I_-

CYI"

150

125

z
n
L

100
E
.-
0

e
c

E 75
B
n
L
0
50
m
c
a
25

0
0 5000 10000 15000 Zoo00 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Downhole Weight on Bit (Ibf)

(a)

150

125

5
n

100
c
.- 0

e
CI

75
B
n
0
L

3 50
0
a
25

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Downhole Weight on Bit (Ibf)

(b)

Figure 3-4. Penetration rate in a Jurassic shale, drilled with an @%-inchI iilled tooth
bit; as a function of weight on bit, for different pore pressures PPI;(a) 440
psi borehole pressure; (6) 1450 psi borehole pressure; (ifter Gray-
Stephens et ai., '1994 ') (continued).. .

3-7
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

150

125

i
h

100
c
.-
0

Ee
CI

75
0
n
.c
0
2 50
(R
K

25

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Downhole Weight on Bit (Ibf)

(c)
Figure 3-4. Penetration rate in a Jurassic shale, drilled with an 8 x 4 7ch milled tooth
bit; as a function of weight on bit, for different pore pressb res (Pp); (c) 4800
psi borehole pressure (after Gray-Stephens et al., 1994 ’).

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

Figure 3-5. The influence of bottomhole pressure on the normalized dr illing strength in
hard shales (afier Gray-Stephens et al., 1994 ’).

3-8

> It would be necessary to reduce the
borehole pressure to approximately
1,500 psi before the penetration rate
would be doubled. This degree of
pressure reduction would be close to the
lowest achievable with a gas,ified liquid,
and would be typical of stable foam
drilling.
A borehole pressure of around 100 psi might
be expected if dry air drilling. With such a
low borehole pressure, a penetration rate, as
much as five times that seen when drilling
with mud, could be anticipated (on the basis
of the laboratory data in Figure 3-5).
Additional Factors
As indicated, permeability influences how
underbalance pressure can affect penetration
rate. Bit type, bit hydraulics and drilling
fluid rheology are also important.
Roller cone bits rely on the bit hydraulics to
remove cuttings from the workfront, before
the bit teeth again strike the same location
on the workfront. Conversely, for bits that
cut with a shearing action, such as natural
diamond, Thermally Stable Polycrystalline
(TSP) diamond, and Polycrystalline
Diamond Compact (PDC) bits, the bit's
cutters push the cuttings ahead, across the
workfront. With different drilling action,
individual bits may respond differently to
varying the magnitude of the differential
pressure.
The specific influence of a bit also depends
on the clearance between the bit body and
the workfront. When the bit is on bottom,
many natural diamond and TSP bits have
restricted clearance between the bit body and
the workfront. The drilling fluid pressure
drops as it flows across the work.front and up
GYI"
into the annulus. The pressire over the
central portion of the workfro1 t can easily
be more than 500 psi greater than in the
This means that he pressure
differential experienced by the *ock, as it is
being drilled by a natural diarr ond or TSP
bit, may be greater (tending to be more
overbalanced) than it would be 1 qhen drilling
with a roller cone or PDC bit. I r the extreme
case, these bits might even gererate locally
overbalanced conditions, ever when the
annulus pressure is underbala iced. How
this affects penetration rate is not
specifically known.
Roller cone and most PDC 3its provide
minimal flow restriction to crilling fluid
once it has passed through the bit nozzles.
For these bits, the drilling fliid pressure
above the workfront is more ox less equal to
that in the annulus.
All drill bits will not be charact xized by the
same relationship between 1 rnderbalance
pressure and penetration rate. rhere are no
laboratory data to confirm this. However, it
has been shown that natural tiamond bits
undergo a greater fractional -eduction in
penetration rate, with increasing
overbalance, than do roller conc bits.6 Drag
bits showed slightly smaller I :ductions in
penetration rate than roller COI le bits, with
increasing overbalance.6
If ,the hydraulics of the entirc system are
considered, removing cuttings f rom the hole
bottom is not necessarily eisier during
underbalanced drilling. For ex,ample:
P Underbalanced drilling witk gases, mist,
and foam tends to require less bit
hydraulic horsepower thai I would be
used in conventional drillini ,
P If bit nozzles are used, soiic flow can
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
modulate annulus conditions, and,
P Drilling fluid densities are lower.
Cuttings removal from the workfront may
be less efcficient with the lower density
drillingfluids. This might lead to smaller
increases in penetration rates than would
be expected from the borehole pressure
reduction alone.
Numerous drilling fluid properties can
influence the penetration rate. It can be very
difficult to change one property of a drilling
mud without changing other properties.
Nevertheless, viscosity likely has an
important affect on penetration rate - higher
viscosity results in lower penetration rates,
all other factors being Drilling
fluid viscosity will influence the rate at
which fluid can flow into any chip-forming
cracks and the rate at which chip hold-down
forces relax6 It may even be possible that
drilling fluid viscosity can favorably
influence penetration rates in low
permeability rock that is drilled
underbalanced. For example, gas or mist
drilling might give higher penetration rates
in shales than techniques using foams or
liquids, even if the borehole pressures were
similar. High viscosities for stable and stiff
foams may cause lower penetration rates
than would occur for a lower viscosity,
gasified liquid, at a similar borehole
pressure. There is no laboratory data to
confirm or disprove this hypothesis.
Drilling fluid viscosity should have less
influence on penetration rates in permeable
formations. Pore fluid from the undamaged
rock will rapidly infiltrate chip-forming
cracks and there will be reduced driving
force for drilling fluid to flow into these
cracks.
3-10
Field Examples
Figure 3-6 shows depth v:rsus time curves
for three wells, all drilled in the same area.
One well was drilled exc usively with dry
air, while the other wells 1 ad to be mudded
up before reaching total lepth because of
hole problems. This figtre clearly shows
that switching to mud gave much lower
penetration rates.
Figure 3-7 is a plot of bit weight and
penetration rate versus delith for Well 1 in
Figure 3-6. A hammer bit vas used to about
6,800 feet, with bit weigh s slightly greater
than 5,000 lbf. Hamme. bits generally
operate at weights much ower than those
used in rotary drilling - iammer bits are
discussed in more detai in Chapter 6,
Section 6.4, “Percussion Drilling.” The
penetration rate with the h immer was 55 to
65 f a r . Rotary drilling vrith air was used
from 6,800 feet to total d1:pth. Bit weight
was increased to 20,000 1E.f with the rotary
bits, and the penetration r;Ite was about 30
ft/hr.
Figure 3-8 shows the equi7 alent weight and
penetration rate data for t7eZl 2 . Hammer
bits were used to 6,000 f :et. Rotary bits
(still with dry air) were ussd to 8,100 feet.
The well was mudded up it 8,100 feet and
the penetration rate fell frclm over 20 fthr,
with 10,000 Ibf bit weight, to approximately
5 ft/hr, with 40,000 Ibf bit \ reight.
Figure 3-9 is a plot of bit weight and
penetration rate versus depth for Well 3.
This well was mudded up l~elow6,700 feet,
due to hole problems. W ien drilling with
mud, the penetration rate di opped to about 5
f t h r (as in Well 2), even with maximum bit
weight. Despite a four-fold increase in bit
weight, the penetration rat: with mud was
less than one-third of the rate during air
 3000

4000

-
c
al
al
5000

r;
6 6000
[L

p"
7000

8000

9000
5 10 15 20 25 :9

Days

Figure 3-6. Depth versus days, for three wells drilled in the same area. Wt?'I I was air
drilled to TD. Wells 2 and 3 had to be mudded up becarr.;e of hole
problems.

LL-
40,000

35,000 .- - Rotary Bits (WOB)

30,000

25,000
v

E
$ 20,000
3
15,000

10,000

5,000

0
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500
Depth (feet)

Figure 3-7. Bit weight and penetration rate for Well 1.

-
3-11
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

40,000 80

35,000 70

30,000 60 .=.
50
s
d
40
.-5
E
c

-m
c
15,000 30
c

aJ
n
10,000 20

5,000 10

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Depth (feet)

Figure 3-8. Bit weight and penetration rate for Well 2.

40,000

35,000 -+- fenetratlon Rate

1 80

70

30,000 60

t E
h

E
25,000

.$ 20,000
4-7-I -
~

1.- 50

40
Y

a
c
d
c
3 .-c0
Q
c
E 15,000 30 4L
-
aJ
C
aJ
n
10,000 20

5,000 10

0 0
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 3500

Depth (feet)

Figure 3-9. Bit weight and penetration rate for Well 3.

drilling. If the bit weight for air drilling is
normalized to 40,000 lbf, a penetration rate
of 80 ft/hr might be expected. For this
example, the penetration rate for air
drilling couM be predicted to be (zs much as
sixteen times that for mud drilling at the
same weight on bit.
There are a number of published case
histories, documenting penetration rate
increases occurring after switching from
conventional to underbalanced drilling, or
comparing wells drilled underbalanced with
adjacent wells drilled conventionally. For
example:
> Pratt, 1989,15compared penetration rates
for air and mud drilled wells, in several
fields in the Canadian foothills and
Rockies:
e In the Jumping Pound Field, rotary
air drilling from surface casing to
7,500 feet gave an average overall
penetration rate of 3 12 ft/day,
whereas liquid drilling with water or
mud had given an average
penetration rate of 115 ft/day over
the same interval.
e Two air drilled wells, in the
Arrowhead area, averaged more
than 600 ft/day over an interval
from 5,000 to 8,000 feet, where mud
drilling was less than 220 ft/day.
Even higher penetration rates were
reported when an air-percussion
hammer was used.
P Lyons et al., 1988,16 reported on a
shallow, 10 5/8-inch diameter hole,
drilled in the Kirtland Formation, in
New Mexico. This was drilled with an
insert bit; using mud from 273 feet to
323 feet and dry air from 323 feet to 373
feet. Various weights on I.) t were run,
wilh both drilling fluids. T'he average
penetration rate with air wa; twice that
wilh mud.
Drilling with natural gas c:; tn result in
penetration rate increases similar to
those seen with dry air. In t le San Juan
Basin, New Mexico, natural ;as drilling,
through Cretaceous sand: tones and
shales, averaged from 40 '0 75 ft/hr.
Mud drilling resulted in betTYreen only 6
anti 20 ft/hr.17
Mitchell and Salvo, 1991, provided
data comparing penetration .ates for air
mist and mud drilling, throu ;h normally
pressured and depleted sari1 Lstones and
dolomites. These format ons were
between depths of 2,700 anc 4,100 feet,
in the Eunice Monument Field, in
southeastern New Mexico. A ir mist gave
an average penetration rate of 57 fthr.
Mud gave 28 f a r . Drillinj: with mist
doubled the penetration ra1.c seen with
mud.
Foam drilling penetration ra es can also
be higher than for mud drilling. Fraser
and Moore, 1987,19 rep xted that,
drilling through permafrost, stable foam
gave penetration rates that were twice
those seen in adjacent mud d rilled wells.
Another permafrost applil:ation saw
stable foam giving penetrat on rates of
up to three times those for unweighted
mud.20
Hutchinson and Andersc n, 1972,20
discussed a well in Pecos Co mty, Texas,
where stable foam drilling natched the
best offset dry air penetratim rates for
20-inch hole, to 1,000 feet. Foam then
gave an average penetration rate of 320
ft/tjay for 14%-inch hole, tc 5,800 feet.
Previously, the best averag: penetration
3-13

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
rate over this interval, with an
unweighted brine mud, was 110 ft/day.
> Hutchinson, 1970;’ cited a number of
fractured reservoir applications where
stable foam drilling gave penetration
rates greater than those in adjacent wells,
drilled conventionally with mud.
0 Penetration rates of 30 to 75 ft/hr
were seen in the Delaware limestone
in Texas, where brine penetration
rates averaged 15 ftkr.
0 A fractured schist, in Kern County,
California, was drilled at rates from
four to eight times greater than that
normally achieved with clay-based
muds.
Miocene cherts, near Santa Maria,
California, were drilled with stable
foam at two to four times normal
mud penetration rates.
> Wolke at a], 1990,22presented data that
showed the instantaneous penetration
rate increased from around 18 ft/hr to
more than 40 f a r when they switched
from straight mud to aerated mud, at a
depth of 5,000 feet in a geothermal well.
> Comeau, 1995,23 reported that the
instantaneous penetration rate, in the
first horizontal well drilled
underbalanced in Canada, increased
from 32 ft/hr to 137 fthr, when nitrogen
injection was started.
9 Drilling with nitrified water gave
penetration rates of up to six times those
with mud, in a horizontal well, in the
Hussar field, South Central Alberta.24
The cost per foot with underbalanced
drilling was almost one-half of that for
conventional mud drilling. This
glauconitic sandstone reservoir was
3-14
- ~ _
depleted; the convent onal mud gave a
differential pressure 04 1,750 psi.
9 Data from the W=yburn field in
Canada25showed that drilling horizontal
wells underbalanced v ith nitrified water
(through a soft, ,balky dolostone
reservoir) gave smallc r penetration rate
increases over mud crilling than those
reported above. Hc rizontal sections
drilled underbalanced averaged 80 ftlhr,
whereas a starch-basel 1, freshwater mud
averaged 60 fthr. Typ cally, connections
take longer with nitr fied liquids than
with mud if underba anced conditions
are to be maintained. The instantaneous
penetration rate probi bly increased by
more than the average Jenetration rate.
These field examples shou that it is possible
to reduce, dramatically ir some instances,
the total time to drill a fu 1 hole interval by
drilling underbalanced. Th :se improvements
were mainly achieved by e xperienced crews.
An inexperienced crew w 11 inevitably take
longer to make connecticns and trips and
may not be able to achievt the same overall
drilling time reduction tha: can be achieved
by an experienced crew.
Practical Significance
Instantaneous penetratio 1 rates will be
higher underbalanced th in overbalanced.
Drilling with a gas, mist or foam will give
borehole pressures that are much lower than
those with mud in thr hole. These
underbalanced drilling tec hniques result in
penetration rates that, in ml )st circumstances,
are at least twice those for drilling
overbalanced with mud. I [igher penetration
rate increases, three-fold or more, can often
be achieved when it is possible to drill with
a dry gas. Gasified liquid:, and flowdrilling
have borehole pressures that are often
controlled within a few hundred psi
underbalanced. The penetration rate
increase, for these underbalanced drilling
techniques, may be less than two times,
particularly when drilling shales or other low
permeability rocks. On the basis of the
magnitude of the differential pressure alone,
penetration increases using underbalanced
drilling should be relatively largest in
depleted zones or reservoirs.
The instantaneous penetration rate is the
rate at which the bit advances when it is on
bottom. Connection times may be longer
than when drilling conventionally. The
difference in connection times will be slight
for an experienced crew, drilling with dry
air, mist or foam. It may be significant when
using drilktring gasification with a gasified
liquid drilling fluid. Round trip times may
also be increased when drilling
underbalanced. When drilling with dry air,
time is lost after each trip if the wellbore has
to be dried out before drilling cam resume.
Time will also be lost if special steps have to
be taken to limit the change in blottomhole
pressure while tripping, as is usually the case
when drilling with a gasified liquid using
drillstring injection. Any additional time for
connections or tripping reduces the benefit
of increased instantaneous penetration rates.
Fewer trips, due to increased footage per bit,
may more than offset increased tripping
time.
The impact of extending time for
connections or drilling on the overall drilling
time depends on the instantaneous
penetration rate. Some simplistic: examples
illustrate this. In these examples, the
fractional changes in penetration rate, as
well as the connection and tripping times,
have been chosen for illustrative purposes
only. While they are not unrepre:! entative of
what might actually be seen in typical
operations, they should not be arbitrarily
used for economic analysis of I potential
underbalanced drilling applicatior .
Suppose that a 3,000 foot long interval is to
be drilled, from 6,000 to 9,000 fet t.
P Drilling conventionally, connc ctions take
5 minutes and the in!tantaneous
penetration rate averages 5 it/hr. One
hundred connections have tc be made,
which take 8.3 hours altogethc r. The trip
into the hole, at the start of tlie interval,
will take 3 hours and the trip out, at the
end of the interval, will take 4.5 hours.
Time on bottom will dondnate this
interval, even assuming that no time is
lost to unscheduled events. The 3,000
feet will require 600 hours on bottom.
The total time taken to drill 1he interval
will be (600 + 8.3 + 3 + 4.5) = 615.8
hours.
P Suppose that the same intervi 1 is drilled
with dry air and that the in! tantaneous
penetration rate increases tc 10 f a r .
But, suppose that both conrnxtion and
trip times are increased by :;O percent.
The net result is a substantia reduction
in time to drill the interval, to 331.6
hours. Under virtually all cirl: umstances,
this time reduction will more than repay
for any additional daily costs associated
with underbalanced drilling.
Consider the same length of in erval in a
softer, more permeable formation
P Presume that this formaticn can be
drilled conventionally, at :n instant-
aneous rate of 100 feet per hmr. In this
case, the total time for the intt rval would
be (30 + 8.3 + 3 + 4.5) = 45.6: hours.
3-15
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
> Drilling with a gasified liquid, the
instantaneous penetration rate increases
to 150 feet per hour, but the connection
and trip times are doubled. The total
time for the interval is now (20 + 16.6 +
6 + 9) = 51.6 hours. Since the
penetration rate was so high when
drilling conventionally, the interval
actually takes longer to drill
underbalanced. A reduction in formation
damage may still repay the higher daily
cost of underbalanced drilling, but in this
case the increased instantaneous
penetration rate will not.
3.2 Bit Life
It is often claimed 23, 24, 26, 21 that bit life is
increased by drilling underbalanced. If
actual rotating hours on a bit are increased,
this has not been weJ documented.
However, and perhaps more importantly, it
does appear well established that with
underbalanced drilling, fewer bits are
required to drill comparable intervals
underbalanced.
Roller Cone Bits
Bearing Wear
Before the introduction of sealed bearing
bits, the number of hours that a bit could
survive downhole may well have been
increased by drilling with dry air. The air
would be more or less free from the abrasive
particles found in most drilling muds, and,
open bearings could operate for longer with
air flowing through them, than with mud.
Roller cone bits now almost invariably have
sealed bearings. Any benefit from the
“cleaner” drilling fluid is lost. Using sealed
bearings has increased the number of
rotating hours that can be accumulated
before bearing wear becomes excessive,
3-16
irrespective of the drilling h i d in use.28
Vibration levels downhole are usually higher
when drilling with lighten zd drilling fluids.
Frequent failures of surv :ying equipment,
such as MWD units and stc :ering tools, attest
to the severe vibrations that are often
experienced when drilling vith dry air.29 As
noted by Kelly, 1990,30rou ;h running causes
momentary overloads that xomote localized
seizures of the bearing sud aces, accelerating
the wear process. As a lesult, bit bearing
life, in hours or rotation! to failure, may
actually be decreased sli ;htly by drilling
underbalanced, particular y for dry air
drilling in hard rock.
Cutting Structure
Bit life may be defined, eitl ler in terms of the
hours downhole, or, in ierms of footage
drilled per bit. Penetraticn rates are often
higher when drilling unc lerbalanced than
when drilling conventiona ly. A bit could
last fewer hours underbalai iced but still drill
more footage than it wotld if it was run
under overbalanced conditi Ins. The number
of bits required to drill ar interval will be
inversely proportional to tl le footage drilled
by each bit. Consider the extent to which
drilling underbalanced L an increase bit
footage rather than just the number of
hours each bit can survive downhole.
The mechanical specific mergy, MSE, is
defined as the mechanical work that has to
be done to excavate a unit iolume of
In rotary drilling, work is lone both by the
torque required to rotate tlie bit and by the
weight on bit. The work dc ne by the bit is:
WOB . ROP
W=2nT+ (3.2)
60 RPM
where:
W .......work done by the bit (ft-lbf/
revolution),
7 .........torque (ft-lbf),
WOB.. weight on bit (lbf),
ROP ...rate of penetration (ft/hr), and,
RPM ..revolutions per minute.
The volume of rock excavated per
revolution is:
ndt ROP
V= (3.3)
240. RPM
where:
V ........volume of rock excavated per
revolution (ft3), and,
db .......bit diameter (feet).
The mechanical specific energy is given by:
4807.RPM 4WOB
MSE =
d i ROP
+- ndt (3.4)
*
where:
MSE .. mechanical specific energy (psi).
Bit torque does not normally change
substantially with changing borehole
pressures. As discussed, penetration rates
generally increase with decreasing borehole
pressures. Mechanical specific energies are,
therefore, usually lower at lower borehole
pressures. Laboratory drilling data illustrate
this trend. Gray-Stephens et al., 1994?
showed an example, in a Jurassic shale,
where a roller cone bit's torque increased by
40 percent, when the borehole pressure was
decreased from 4,800 to 450 psi. At the
same time, the penetration rate increased by
approximately 525 percent. TI e net effect
was that the mechanical spec:ific energy
decreased by more than 75 perct: nt.
In most cases, cutting structuri wear rates
(expressed in terms of the disIi nce drilled)
should be inversely related to the
mechanical specific energy. If 1 he bit has to
do less work to remove a give11 volume of
rock, its cutting elements shou d wear less
and a bit should be able to drill more
footage (remove more rock), w ken drilling
underbalanced than when dr iling over-
balanced.
There are few published exam11des of field
data that provide unambiguous onfirmation
of this. Mitchell and Salvo's penetration
rate comparison, for wells dril ed with air
mist and with mud, in the Eunicl: Monument
field,'* has already been mentioied. In that
instance, the interval from 1, ZOO feet to
4,100 feet could be drilled with < me bit using
air mist, whereas mud drilling I equired two
bits. Comeau, 1995, 23 reportell tricone bit
runs in excess of 80 to 100 hours with
underbalanced drilling (two to three times
the life in comparable overbalan :ed hole).
Gauge Wear
Roller cone bit gauge wear occi rs when the
outer surfaces of the bit (heel and gauge row
teeth, shirt-tails) slide agair st abrasive
minerals in the borehole wall. '1 his can be a
problem when drilling will I lightened
drilling fluids; particularly when dry gas or
mist is used to drill hard, quart itic rocks.26
When measurable gauge wear o :curs, it will
normally be necessary to ream tl e next bit to
bottom. Both the cutting struc:ure and the
gauge of the next bit are likely t wear when
reaming, reducing the footage if new hole
that the bit can drill, before it 00 becomes
excessively worn. In additii )n, reaming

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
imposes side loads on the bit's bearings that
can increase the rate of bearing wear.30
Roller cone bits suitable for air drilling are
available in a variety of diameters, including
sizes that are not normally used in oilfield
applications. Reaming can be reduced, or
eliminated, if it is possible to run a slightly
larger bit, at the top of an interval, than is
required to complete the interval. Cooper et
al., 1977,26 cited an example of an 8-inch
diameter mining bit being run above a 7 7/8-
inch diameter bit, allowing up to 0.125
inches of gauge wear on the 8-inch bit,
before reaming became necessary.
Underbalanced liquid drilling involves
circulating a lower density fluid (than would
be used in conventional drilling). The
reduced fluid density implies a lower solids
content. This in turn makes the under-
balanced drilling fluid less abrasive than
conventional drilling muds. As a result,
lower abrasive wear rates c<anbe expected.
This should make gauge wear less of a
concern than it would have been in a
conventional drilling operation.
Dry gases have lower lubricity than liquid
drilling fluids. Measurements of torque and
drag in deviated and horizontal wells
indicate that dry gases have drillstring
friction factors of approximately 0.4 to
0.45.29 For water-based drilling muds,29
friction factors of 0.2 to 0.35 are typical.
Mist and foam will improve this somewhat.
It is not really feasible to use lubricant
additives when drilling with dry gas, mist or
foam. As long as the liquid volume fraction
remains low, the friction factor will probably
be large. Higher friction usually equates to
higher wear rates. Gauge wear occurs more
rapidly when drilling with gas, mist or
foam as opposed to liquid.
3-18
-__._
Gauge wear tends to be agirravated by poor
hole bottom cleaning. Higher than
minimum gas injection rat€s can help keep
gauge wear to a manageade level, when
drilling abrasive formation i with dry gas,
mist or foam.32
Diamond Bits
Bits with natural and syilthetic diamond
cutting structures have different wear
characteristics than roller c one bits. Both
natural and synthetic dinimonds exhibit
considerable temperature se isitivity in their
wear resistance. Diariond is only
metastable, at the ambient t :mperatures and
pressures that prevail 0 1 surface and
downhole. Diamond reverts to graphite,
once its temperature exceed, a critical value
(1472"F), at pressures that are not
dramatically higher than at rnospheric. As
graphite is a very soft solid, the wear rate of
a natural diamond bit becoi nes catastrophic
if the diamonds are allowed o overheat.
Conventional Polycrystal ine Diamond
Compact (PDC) cutters, U S I : ~in PDC bits,
show detectable increased Near rates once
their temperature exceeds 6 i0°F.33 Thermal
stresses in the polycrystallir: e diamonds can
become so high that corventional PDC
cutters have no effective wear resistance
once their temperature reach1 :s 1,380°F.34
Cooling diamond cutting str rctures, whether
natural or synthetic, is esse rtial in order to
prevent wear at unacceptabl! high rates. The
thermal capacities of gases and mists are
much lower than those (If conventional
drilling fluids. This mezns that higher
diamond temperatures are probable (with
gases or mist). In hard rccks, this could
easily result in very rapid wear of natural
and synthetic diamonds. Tk ermal modeling
led Glowka and Stonc, 1986,34 to
recommend that PDC bits not be used for
dry air drilling. Higher vibration levels,
common in some lightened fluids, could also
lead to increased impact damage of both
natural diamonds and PDC cutters. Despite
this, natural diamond bits have been used
quite successfully in coring with dry air and
mist; for example, in shallow Arkoma Basin
wells.
Natural diamond bits have also been used
successfully in mist coring of the Devonian
shale with mist.35 There are no reports in
the literature of successful use of PDC bits
in full-hole drilling with dry gas or mist.
Natural diamond and PDC bits may be better
suited to drilling with foam than with other
gasified, aqueous, drilling fluids. Since
diamond is not naturally water wet, thermal
transfer between the water phase and the
diamond is poor. Foaming agents are
surfactants and provide better contact with
diamond; potentially, foams offer better
cooling than do other gasified aqueous
liquids. With reasonable foam qualities and
circulation rates, it is possible that foam
could provide adequate cooling of natural
and polycrystalline diamonds. The wear rate
of the diamonds, in terms of the volume of
rock removed, is likely to be lower, and the
footage higher, than it would be if the
drilling was overbalanced. There are a
number of instances21,36y37 in which natural
diamond bits have been used in foam coring
without excessive wear. To date, however,
there are no public domain field data to
confirm that full-hole PDC bits can be
successfully run with foam, although one
major operator is currently experimenting
with this.
Drilling underbalanced with a liquid drilling
fluid will give higher penetration rates than
drilling overbalanced. The soli is content of
the drilling fluid will be low :r, while its
thermal capacity will be little c€anged. As a
result, abrasive wear rates of bo h roller cone
and PDC bits are expected to t e lower, and
bit footages higher, in wells drilled
underbalanced with a liquid rilling fluid,
IC
relative to wells drilled c( Inventionally
through the same formations.
Summary
9 Slightly lower rotating hou-s should be
expected for a roller cone bit drilling
with dry gas, mist or foam 11 Ian would be
seen in mud drilling. Ex~eriencewith
liquids (e.g. nitrified cmc le) suggests
rotating hours can be increa ed by two to
three times.
> A higher footage per bit is probable in
the majority of cases where the
instantaneous penetration rate is
increased significantly iy drilling
underbalanced.
9 Gauge wear may be a prcblem in dry
gas, mist and foam drilling c f hard rocks.
The overall footage per bit is still likely
to be higher than it is tl-illing over-
balanced.
9 Dry gas drilling hard rock v ith synthetic
diamond bits could dramatic ally increase
wear rates, due to excess ve diamond
temperatures.
9 Although both natural 81id synthetic
diamond bits may have accle ptable life in
foam drilling, there is no 1'rm evidence
confirming this.
P With a liquid drilling fluid, both roller
cone and PDC bit footages should be
higher when drilling underb alanced than
when drilling overbalanced.
3-19

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
3.3 Differential Sticking
Differential sticking is a leading cause for a
stuck pipe. When it occurs, it usually adds
considerably to drilling costs; through the rig
time taken to recover as much of the string
as possible and the cost of equipment that
may be left downhole. Additional rig time is
incurred if the hole has to be redrilled
around lost equipment. Drilling
underbalanced can prevent differential
sticking. Avoiding differential sticking in
an area where it is prevalent can be
sufficient justification for drilling under-
balanced.
In conventional drilling operations, a
positive differential is maintained between
the drilling fluid pressure in the borehole
and the pore fluid pressure in the formations
that are open to the borehole. Liquid from
the drilling mud flows into exposed
permeable formations, depositing a cake of
solids from the mud on the borehole wall.
The thickness of this mudca.ke depends on a
number of factors, including the volume of
liquid lost to the formation and the solids
content of the mud. The mechanisms of
mudcake deposition will not be discussed.
Although it is possible to restrict the
mudcake thickness by controlling the fluid
composition and its properties, it will form
as long as the well is overbalanced and a
permeable formation is exposed.
There will be a pressure gradient through the
mudcake. The mudcake permeability is
generally lower than that of the host
formation. As a result, the pressure at the
interface between the mudcake and the intact
formation will usually be quite close to the
undisturbed formation pressure and the
change in pressure through the mudcake
thickness will be close to the total
3-20
_.-___
overbalance pressure.
Mudcake is relatively soft. If the drillstring
is forced against the riudcake, it can
ultimately contact intact r( ck. The contact
area will increase with inc reasing length of
permeable zone and inc ,easing mudcake
thickness. With even i modestly long
permeable interval, this coitact area can be
considerable.
The pressure differenti; I through the
mudcake will impose i force on the
drillstring, pushing it agai nst the borehole
wall. The force, F, reqi ired to pull the
string uphole through the m udcake is:
(3.5)
where:
A, .......area of contact (ft2),
AP ......pressure differential across the
mudcake (psid), and,
p,........coefficient of frictio I between the
string and the mudc; Ike
(dimensionless).
Quite often, the force requ red to move the
string exceeds the permissil Ile overpull. The
string is then differentially stuck. This is a
particular problem when dc pleted zones are
drilled conventionally, sinc 2 the differential
pressures through these zmes tend to be
high.
Various procedures can be implemented to
reduce the severity of diff xential sticking.
The contact area can be r:duced by using
spiral or square drill collars, bladed
stabilizers, and hevi-wate drillpipe in the
BHA, or by reducing the mudcake thickness
through improved fluid loss and solids
control. The coefficient of friction can be
reduced by adding lubricants to the mud or
by spotting a pill of lubricating fluid
opposite the site of sticking. An added
benefit of hydrocarbon-based lubricants is
the destruction of WBM mudcakes, allowing
pressure equalization and freeing the string.
If there is no positive pressure gradient
through the mudcake, then there will be no
force tending to stick the string and
differential sticking will be impossible.
Since the borehole pressure is necessarily
lower than the formation pressure when
drilling underbalanced, it is not possible for
differential sticking to occur if the openhole
portion of the well is underbalanced.
Saponja, 1995,24gave an example of how
underbalanced drilling can prevent
differential sticking. The first 3130 feet of a
horizontal well through a depleted reservoir
were drilled overbalanced. Differential
sticking was a problem through this interval.
The well was then switched to
underbalanced drilling, first with nitrified
water and then with nitrified cnide. There
were no more problems with differential
sticking. The string was stuck once more
when an unstable shale was entered and hole
cleaning became inadequate. Increasing the
annular velocity by 50 percent improved
hole cleaning and no further problems were
encountered.
A number of instances have belen reported
where a string has been freed by creating
underbalanced conditions after the string had
become differentially stuck while drilling
conventionally. Cagnolatti and Curtis,
1995,38 described one such case, that
occurred during a well control operation.
Reducing the mud weight by centrifuging
would free the string, while killing the well
to prevent any further inflow w( uld then re-
stick it.
Differential sticking is possible as long as
the string is exposed to a perrieable zone
with a positive (overbalance 1) pressure
differential. If a well is bl:ing drilled
underbalanced in order to avoic differential
sticking, it is important that the entire
openhole be underbalanced. LAuison et al,
1984,39 reported drilling ur derbalanced
through the Midway and Navarrc ) formations
in the Hallettsville area of Texa: , in order to
reach a deeper but lower pressur !productive
zone, the Edwards limestone. To do this,
depleted Wilcox sands had to bc penetrated.
The pore pressures in these sands were
sufficiently low that a positive differential
pressure existed across them cven though
the Midway and Navzrro were
underbalanced. Differential s .icking and
lost circulation were experierced in the
Wilcox sands.
3.4 Lost Circulation
Moore, 1974,5 characterized 10s. circulation
as the most common drilling pro ilem. It can
involve mud flowing into highl r permeable
zones, open fractures or vugs t iat intersect
the wellbore. In these thief zon:s, borehole
pressure merely has to exceed tk e pore fluid
pressure for mud losses to occur. Losses can
also occur if the borehole pressure is
sufficiently high that the fc nnation is
hydraulically fractured. Lost cir xlation can
be very costly, particularly if ex] lensive mud
systems are being used or if the well is in a
location where water is costly. I can also be
dangerous, if it allows the well t kick when
proper surface equipment is not available to
3-21
 -~
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
handle inflow.
Lost circulation can be used to create
underbalanced conditions in flowdrilling.
During flowdrilling, however, the resultant
production is anticipated and the surface
facilities required to handle it safely will be
in place. Under these circumstances,
underbalanced drilling can legitimately be
regarded as a safer procedure than drilling
conventionally without the additional
surface equipment.
Whatever the underlying mechanism,
reducing the circulating borehole pressure to
less than the pore pressure in exposed
formations will prevent losses. Lost
circulation should not, therefore, occur when
drilling underbalanced, in most cases.
However, it still can, given the right
circumstances. Lost circulation can occur if
the bottomhole pressure is extremely low. In
a Texas Panhandle well, the reservoir
pressure was 30 psia at approximately 4,000
feet. Even while drilling with air, the
circulating pressure was greater than the
reservoir pressure and the well experienced
partial lost circulation.
In two other wells, lost circulation occurred
because of excess water production and low
bottomhole pressures. While drilling with
mist, a high volume water zone was
encountered along with a depleted zone. The
hydrostatic pressure of the wellbore could
not be lowered enough with air to circulate
out the water from the water zone. The
pressure required to circulilte the water to
the surface was greater than the lost
circulation zone could tolerate.
Consequently, circulation could not be
established. There are very many instances
where underbalanced drilling has been
-
successful in controlling this: 17.1 8,37,39,40,41,
42.43,44
The technique of dr lling with aerated
mud was developed primal ily to combat lost
c i r ~ u l a t i o n . ~ ~As was the case with
differential sticking, it is e $tirelypossible to
lose circulation during wl at is supposed to
be an underbalanced drilling operation if
part of the openhole ,.ection is over-
balanced.
3.5 Formation E valuation
Drilling underbalanced can improve
formation evaluation, b: r providing an
indication of productivity \. rhile drilling, and
by restricting or preventinl; filtrate invasion
of exposed formations. SIlecific techniques
available for formation c valuation during
underbalanced drilling a -e discussed in
Chapter 6, Section 6.7. Prc bduction potential
and real-time formation ch aracterization are
possible.
Production Measureme nt
Formation fluids flow into m underbalanced
well whenever a perneable zone is
penetrated. As noted in Chapter 2, Section
2.7, “Gasified Liquids,” several different
instrumentation package i have been
developed for use with closed surface
systems.46,47,48 These can combine
measurement of formation fluid production
rates and pressures, while drilling
underbalanced.
A closed system is no: necessary for
measuring gas or liquid prc duction rates. If
the surface system allows produced liquids
to be separated from any liquid component
of the drilling fluid, IiqLid rates can be
measured by recording tank levels. Gas
flowing from the well can 1 le routed through
the choke manifold to a cr tical flow prover

or an orifice plate, before flaring.
If desired, the bit can be pulled off bottom
and drilling fluid injection can be stopped so
that only formation fluids flow from the
well, in effect performing an openhole
production test. In a gas producer, this can
allow stable production rates to be
determined within one Limited (or
no) invasion of drilling fluid filtrate into the
producing formation accelerates the
development of steady or pseudo-steady
flow, as can the limited volume of liquid in
the borehole, if the well is drilled with a dry
gas, mist or foam.
Holdup in horizontal sections and slug flow
in vertical sections of wells can complicate
the interpretation of measured production
rates.49 So too can production from multiple
intervals. It is generally not possible to
determine the extent to which each
producing zone is depleting with time, if
production from additional zones is added to
the measured total production as the well is
deepened. Nevertheless, it is possible to
obtain a qualitative indication of the
permeability of different exposed formations
from the production rate measured while
drilling underbalanced, by comparing
cumulative production and estimating
thickness and formation pressure^.^' This
gives an indication of potentially productive
zones while drilling.
Canadian experience2' is that production
rates observed when drilling usually give
accurate indications of the subsequent
production capacity of the well. Drilling
necessarily measures the early production
history only. In some instances, factors
unrelated to the drilling technique can
prevent the observed production rate from
GYI"
being maintained when the we 1 is put on
production. For example, sale: production
rates from some air mist drillell (San Juan
Basin Mesaverde) horizontal ga! wells were
reported" to be lower the rates seen while
drilling. This was thought to re:llect loading
of the wellbore by produced licluids which
restricted the flow of g , ~ s uphole.
Alternatively, fines migrati >n during
production can reduce the pen neability of
the near-wellbore region and cause the
production rate to decrease 7 jith time.51
Different mechanisms of Iermeability ,
impairment and the extent to which
underbalanced drilling can preve nt them will
be discussed in the following section.
Measurements of production rates have
allowed non-productive 2011:s to be
identified and the planned well .rajectory to
be modified while drilling a number of
horizontal wells. Changes in t€ e GOR can
be inferred from the production
measurements, and these lave been
interpreted as indicating approac h towards a
gas-oil contact. Measui-1:merits of
production made while drilling, can also be
Water
used to aid g e o ~ t e e r i n g . ~l9~ , ~ ' ~
producing zones can be identifie 1. This may
assist in making completion deci $ions.
Very often, measurements ojF production
rate made while drilling milierbalanced
will give enough information tl at drillstem
testing is not required. This reduces the
cost of evaluating the well. If it is necessary
to perform an openhole te;t for gas
production, this can be done Iery rapidly
when drilling with dry gas, m st or foam.
Rig time is reduced by not haviI g to make a
round trip, rig up and rig down t le test tools,
and, as noted above, the test tin e itself may
be reduced. Additional equipnent is not
3-23
 --
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
required to conduct the test, except possibly
the flow prover. Reduced testing costs offer
the possibility of more extensive evaluation
than might otherwise have been undertaken.
Invasion While Drilling
During conventional overbalanced drilling
operations, whole mud, filtrate and solids
may all invade permeable zones while they
are open to the wellbore. Liquid
hydrocarbons and formation water may be
displaced. Filtrate may also increase water
saturation close to the wellbore. Invasion
can complicate interpretation of wireline
logging data. Understanding and managing
the effects of invasion are fundamental to
quantitative log interpretati~n.~~
Invasion can complicate testing by requiring
lengthy flow periods or clean-up operations
before stable production rates are
established. Difficulties in determining
whether or not a well has cleaned up prior to
testing introduce uncertainty into the
assessment of test results. In the Calling
Lake/Algar area of Northern Alberta, this
uncertainty motivated one operator to switch
to drilling exploration wells underbalanced
to improve evaluation p e r f ~ r m a n c e ,and
~~
avoid the cost of pre-test clean-up operations
and running DSTs.
Maintaining underbalanced conditions while
drilling greatly restricts or prevents most
forms of invasion, by removing the physical
force that drives material from the wellbore
into exposed formations. The quality of
drillstem or production tests is generally
improved if the well is drilled
underbalanced. Reduced invasion will
normally help with the interpretation of logs,
but selected logging tools need to be run in
air-filled holes. Formation evaluation is
discussed in Chapter 6. If at all possible,
3-24
- - ~ -
one should avoid filling tke hole with mud
to run logging tools since this may damage
the formation.
There are circumstances under which an
aqueous phase of the djilling fluid can
enter the formation even though the pore
pressure is higher than the drilling fluid
pressure. This invasion mechanism
(spontaneous imbibition) I Jill be discussed
in Section 3.6, “Formation Damage. Also,
underbalanced conditions may not be
maintained throughout thc : drilling of an
entire interval, particularly when a gasified
liquid is being used as tlie drilling fluid.
Generally the liquids used in these drilling
operations do not have any fluid loss
control, and can rapidl:‘ penetrate the
formation during even E-rief periods of
overbalance, leading to significant in-
vasion.49
Formation damage can occur when drilling
underbalanced in lower 1 bermeability gas
formations. Even with air, the pressure at
the sandface will fall until i t is equivalent to
the wellbore pressure. W1 d e tripping, the
well is allowed to flow :nd the pressure
declines. After tripping back in the hole, re-
setablishing circulation c;m increase the
wellbore pressure faster tf an the sandface
pressure can recover. ;ome formation
damage can occur befor: the sandface
pressure equals the circulati ig pressure.
Invasion While Coring
Cores can be invaded as lhey are cut and
while they are inside the core barrel
downhole. Filtrate invasil )n of cores can
lead to inaccurate det xminations of
wettability, relative permeal ility, and oil and
water saturation^.^^
Successful techniques for c verbalanced low
invasion coring (Rathmel et al., 1990f4 have
been developed. An essential element of
these procedures is that the coring
penetration rate has to exceed the filtrate
invasion rate ahead of the bit. This may not
always be possible, particularly in certain
hard, depleted reservoirs. To avoid
significant invasion, underbalanced coring is
an option.
Cutting and collecting cores underbalanced
has been done with air, air mist,35foam and
other techniques.21336,37 This can provide
cores that are generally more representative
of the reservoir. The presence of oxygen in
the coring fluid could influence: formation
wettability.I8 It might be appropriate to
avoid using air in underbalanced coring
fluids if wettability modification by
oxidation is a concern. Untreated lease
crude may be a desirable base fluid.
Economic Impact
While the value of improved formation
evaluation resulting from underbalanced
drilling will vary considerably from
application to application, it can be
substantial:
9 Improved geosteering of horizontal wells
can increase productivity or delay the
onset of coning.
9 The cost of testing can be reduced or
even eliminated totally.
9 IJnderbalanced drilling will allow
delineating additional, productive
formations that might have otherwise
been bypassed or not tested, if they were
drilled overbalanced. This would
include zones that might be difficult to
interpret if they were significantly
damaged or zones difficult to recognize
with normal logging (e.g.. fractured
zones or permeable, radioactive
dolomite).
3.6 Formation Dama ge
Formation damage is the t a m used to
describe reduction in the perr ieability of
reservoir rocks, induced whi le drilling,
completing, stimulating, or producing/
managing a well.
Bennion et al., 1993,55argued th it formation
damage seems to be a greater woblem for
horizontal wells than for vc: tical wells
through the same formations:
9 The producing formation is exposed to
the drilling fluid for longer periods of
time, because a greater distar ce is drilled
through the pay zone allid because
drilling horizontally can zive lower
penetration rates than drilling vertically.
9 Many horizontal wells are kft openhole
or completed with slotted or pre-
perforated liners. Ur der these
circumstances, it may not bl: possible to
perforate through near-well13 3re damage
or to do selected interval stin ulation.
9 Concerns about wellbore ins1 ability limit
the drawdown that can be applied to
some horizontal wells. This in turn can
restrict clean-up during early production.
k Finally, the greater length of exposed
reservoir formation can rend er chemical
clean-up treatments c nacceptably
expensive.56
In many applications, drilling un jerbalanced
can greatly reduce or elimin: te drilling-
induced formation damage. Thi: is the main
driving force behind the recei t, dramatic
upsurge in underbalanced drillirn;; in Canada.
Different mechanisms for forma ion damage
 -I
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
are briefly described below, distinguishing
between those that can be prevented by
maintaining underbalanced conditions and
those that cannot.
Laboratory studies of specific formations
can indicate whether or not reduction of
their permeability can be avoided by drilling
underbalanced. There is little public domain
information directly comparing wells drilled
underbalanced and overbalanced. From the
literature, it is difficult, in most cases, to
unambiguously establish the impact of
underbalanced drilling on productivity.
Nevertheless, a number of field examples
have been given showing how productivity
can be increased by drilling underbalanced
and how, in some instances, it can remove
the need for primary stimulation. One case,
in Canada, compared two wells drilled 328
feet apart; the well drilled underbalanced
had a seven-fold increase over the first well
which had been drilled overbalanced.
There are applications in which drilling
underbalanced may not yield economically
valuable productivity increases. These
involve formations that can be damaged
during underbalanced drilling, during
completion and subsequent production, and
those that are not sufficiently productive
even when undamaged to be economically
viable without stimulation.
Formation Damage Mechanisms
During drilling, formation damage can occur
in a variety of These include:
Formation of scales, sludges or
emulsions due to interaction between
invading mud filtrate and pore fluids,
Interaction between aqueous mud filtrate
and clay particles in the formation,
Invasion of solids from the drilling fluid,
3-26
restricting fluid flow through the pore
structure,
9 Invasion and entrapment of high oil or
water phase saturaticns in the near
wellbore region (I)base trapping/
blocking),
9 Adsorption of drilling fluid additives,
leading to permeabili y reductions or
wettability alteration,
9 Migration of fines ii the formation,
particularly under hig ily overbalanced
conditions, and,
> Generation of pore-t locking organic
byproducts from bactc ria entering the
formation from the drill ing fluid.
These mechanisms all invo ve penetration of
the drilling mud, filtrate cr solids into the
formation. If the drilling fluid pressure is
reduced below the pore pn s u r e by drilling
underbalanced, the physical driving force for
this penetration is rem0 led. However,
underbalanced drilling causes higher
effective stresses arounc the wellbore,
potentially reducing perme: bility.
Formation Damage Wh ‘le
Underbalanced
Underbalanced drilling tel :hniques do not
completely eliminate thc possibility of
formation damage. It can o :cur due to:
0 Temporary overbal tnce,
0 Spontaneous imbib tion,
0 Gravity-induced in. rasion,
0 Wellbore glazing,
0 Post-drilling damag e, and,
0 Mechanical degrad; Ition.
Temporary Overbalance
Overbalanced conditions nay temporarily
occur during drilling and completion. This
may be intentional; for example, to kill the
well prior to tripping, to transmit MWD
surveys when drilling with gas injection
down the drillstring, to log the well, or to
perform various completion and workover
operation^.^^
Overbalanced conditions may also
inadvertently occur. Slug flow or liquid
holdup in the annulus can cause large
fluctuations in downhole pressures. These
are particularly likely when d r i l h g with a
lightened liquid or when gas is flowing from
the formation into the annulus.
9 When drilling with gasified liquid by
injecting gas down the drillstring (refer
to Section 2.7), fluctuations in downhole
pressures, sufficient to create an
overbalance, can arise during con-
nections.
9 With natural diamond and TSP bits, the
drilling fluid pressure over the central
portion of the workfront is significantly
higher than in the annulus. The pressure
drop across the face of a natural diamond
bit can easily exceed 500 psi." If the
target underbalance pressure (the
difference between the bottolmhole and
formation fluid pressures) is less than
this, some invasion is possible. Bennion
et al., 1995,49argued that annular gas
injection can allow the drilling fluid
pressure (where flow from the bit's
nozzles impacts the workfront) to be
significantly higher than in the annulus.
> Flow from the formation into the
wellbore after the bit has passed will
reduce the pore pressure adjacent to the
wellbore, in effect locally depleting the
reservoir. The locally depleted regions
will be less tolerant to fluctuations in
downhole pressure before 0 verbalanced
conditions are created.49
> Varying pore pressure regim :s along the
wellbore can allow one ione to be
overbalanced while anothlc 'r is con-
currently underbalanced. !n incorrect
value of pore pressure may be
inadvertently used to selec the target
drilling fluid pressure.
9 Temporary overbalance may occur when
the drillstring is run in too fii ;t after a bit
change (acts like a piston on luids in the
hole).
9 Finally, there may be equipment
malfunctions or procedural errors that
prevent underbalanced cond itions from
being maintained.
Very often, the drilling fluic s used in
underbalanced operations provi le no fluid
loss control. As a result, there i ; nothing to
reduce the rate at which they cai invade the
formation, if overbalanced condi tions occur.
If a well is being drilled UII jerbalanced
principally to reduce formation I lamage, the
drilling fluid should be chosen to be
compatible with the producing fi: rmation. In
this way, significant I lermeability
impairment can be avoided i ' an over-
balanced situation is temporar ly created.
Laboratory screening tests, when > core plugs
are exposed to candidate drillini fluids, can
be very helpful in selecting a non-damaging
fl~id.~''
Spontaneous Imbibition
It is possible for a liquid component of the
drilling fluid to enter an exposei formation
by capillary pressure effects, even when
there is an opposing underbalan :e pressure.
Bennion et al., 1993,55 indicat1:d that this
may allow formation damage to occur when

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
drilling underbalanced.
Simplistically, capillary pressures arise
because of the forces that act at liquid, gas,
and solid interfaces. These depend on the
nature and composition of the fluids and the
matrix. These compositional variations
regulate the magnitude of the capillary
pressure and control which in-situ fluids will
preferentially wet (be in intimate contact
with) the solids constituting the formation.
Some reservoir rocks are naturally water-
wet, (Morrow, 1990),60indicating that the
surface energy of the rock is lower when
covered by water (or an aqueous fluid) than
when it is covered by a hydrocarbon. As a
result, water will tend to be drawn into the
rock’s pore structure if an initially
hydrocarbon-filled pore is exposed to water.
The capillary pressure, Pc, can be thought of
as the pressure that has to be applied inside a
particular pore, to prevent the wetting fluid
(often water) from being drawn into it. The
significance of this for underbalanced
drilling is that the underbalance pressure
must equal or exceed the capillary
pressure, if an exposed water-wet
formation is not to imbibe (draw in) water
from a drilling fluid that contains an
aqueous phase.
In a porous medium, capillary pressure can
be approximated as:
(3.6)
where:
P, .......capillary pressure (psi),
y .........interfacial tension between the
relevant fluids and/or gases
(lbf/in) ,
3-28
_-__~ I --
8.........contact angle of thr wetting fluid
on the rock matrix, measured
through the denser ?base and
varying from 0 to 1 80°, and,
rp ........effective capillary I adius (in).
This shows that the sm:ller the pore (rp
“indicates” pore size), the higher the
pressure that must be allplied to prevent
water from being drawn into it. Taking
typical values for quartz, a specific methane
and brine saturations6’ the capillary pressure
will be approximately 10 psi for a pore
diameter of 2 p.m, 100 psi for a pore
diameter of 0.2 pm, and 1, I00 psi for a pore
diameter of 0.02 pm.
There is not a unique cap llary pressure for
various combinations of rock, water and
hydrocarbon. The capill q pressure is
related to the degree of wetting phase
saturation; that is to the fral :tion of pores that
are filled with the wetting 1 ihase. Presuming
a very strongly water-wct formation, the
capillary pressure is initial1y very low at 100
percent water saturation, increases with
decreasing water saturatic n, and becomes
very large (values exceeding 1,000 psi are
not infrequently measured) as the irreducible
water saturation (Swim) is i pproached. This
is illustrated schematicallj in Figure 3-10.
The underbalance pressure necessary to
prevent water from bein) drawn into an
exposed water-wet forrr ation from an
aqueous drilling fluid will depend on the
initial formation water SE turation and the
pore sizes.
A number of water-wet gas reservoirs,
notably in tight formatioiis and in zones
which have experienced significant gas
migration, have water COi itents below the
irreducible water saturatioi I . It ~will be
~ ~ ~
effectively impossible :o impose an
underbalance pressure that is high enough to
prevent spontaneous imbibition of water into
these formations. If the water saturation is
above but close to the irreducible level,
water may still be imbibed into the
formation if the underbalance pressure is
low. As shown in Figure 3-10, this counter-
current imbibition would be possible into
water-wet formations against an
underbalance pressure of AP, for initial
water saturations of up to Swc.
Equivalent imbibition of hydroc,wbon-based
drilling fluids into oil-wet (or mixed or
neutral wettability) formations is possible
under analogous circumstances. Gas-bearing
formations may be oil-wet when they
contain naturally oil-wet miner ds, such as
pyrobitumen, sulfur, asphalt or residual
heavy bitumen, or when a sub-ir .educible oil
saturation has been establish ed by gas
displacing an original oil columr .49
Strongly water-wet formation ; will not,
however, imbibe hydrocarbons, neither will
strongly oil-wet formations imt ibe aqueous
fluids. Once liquid is imbib:d into the
formation from the drilling fl lid, it may
cause formation damage by any of the
mechanisms that might have o~eratedif it
had been forced into the fornoation by an
overbalance pressure. For exar iple, it may
interact with the formation tself or the
formation fluids, or it may leid to phase

800 I I
;4------c;
for Initial Wetting Phase Saurations
I I
700 I Zone of Potential I Between 20 and 47% for the

I
I Spontaneous k
lmbibiton I Underbalance Pressure Shown in this

600 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
500 I
I
I
I
400 I
1
I

+-
I
I
300 I
I
I
I Example Underbalance Pressure
200 - - - - - - C - * - - L
I
------------------I

I
I
100 S,,=20% I S,r,=40% I
I I \
I S (I = 47% (Equilibrium)
I

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wetting Phase, a,Saturation (YO)

Figure 3- IO. Schematic relationship between capillary pressure and water si turation for
water-wet reservoir rock (afier Bennion et al., 199355).

3-29

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
trapping and blocking.
Knowledge of wettability, initial saturation,
and capillary pressure characteristics will
facilitate the identification of those regimes
where spontaneous and counter-current
imbibition may occur during underbalanced
drilling. Together with laboratory core-
flood studies, this should assist the selection
of underbalanced drilling fluids and annular
pressures that would minimize the potential
in future
Gravity-Induced Invasion
The density of any liquid phase in the
drilling fluid will almost invariably be
greater than the density of natural gas in a
gas-bearing formation. Under normal
circumstances, flow from the formation into
the borehole when drilling underbalanced
will prevent movement of drilling fluid into
the formation, even if it has a higher density
than the formation fluid. If, however, the
formation produces from natural fractures or
large vugs, it is possible for liquid to flow
into these openings under the influence of
gravity even though the well is
~ n d e r b a l a n c e dand
~ ~ natural gas is flowing
into the wellbore through the same
apertures.
Wellbore Glazing
Particularly when drilling with a dry gas,
high temperatures can be generated where
the bit and the BHA rub against the borehole
wall. Since frictional coefficients between
steel and dry rock are high, more energy is
dissipated in friction than if there was a
significant liquid volume fraction in the
drilling fluid. Also, since the thermal
capacity of dry gases is lower than for liquid
drilling fluids, they cannot cool the borehole
-
as effectively. These high :emperatures have
long been suspected of cr:ating a thin, low
permeability, “glazed” zone57 on the
borehole wall. Glazing hzs been noticed on
the surface of whole core and rotary sidewall
cores in air drilled holes. [n highly deviated
and horizontal wells, tl ere will almost
certainly be beds of cuttings on the hole
bottom that will be regrcund between the
BHA and the intact rock of the borehole
wall. Glazing has beer noticed on the
surface of whole core a n j rotary sidewall
cores in air drilled holes. This regrinding
may create a paste of fine cuttings that can
contribute to glazing.
Glazing tends to be localized in the
immediate vicinity of th : borehole wall,
extending at most a few enths of an inch
into the formation.57 It bill not, therefore,
inhibit the productivity of a cased and
perforated well. Simil arly, glazing is
unlikely to be a problem i n formations that
produce from natural fracti ires or vugs, even
if these wells are completcd openhole. The
size of the productive fea:ures is generally
too great to be obstructed by the glaze.49
Any glaze created in carbonates is likely to
be acid soluble, and can piobably be readily
removed by an acid wash. A silicate-based
glaze might be expected i.1 sandstones, and
this could be more difficult to remove.49
Mud acid or hydrofluor c acid may be
effective.
Damage After Drilling
There is little point in drilling a well
underbalanced to avoid for nation damage, if
the well is then “intenti mally” damaged
during completion, workov :r or production.
9 The possibility of damaging the
formation by killing th: well to conduct
 completion or workover operations has
already been mentioned. If a separate
completion fluid is used, care should be
exercised to ensure that this does not
damage the formation. This is probably
even more important than would be the
case for a conventionally drilled well
since there will be little or no
“protective” mudcake on the wall of a
well that was drilIed underbalanced.
9 Cementing can create damage by
invasion of filtrate or cement solids. A
cemented casing will, holwever, be
perforated and the perforations may
penetrate beyond the damaged zone.
> There are several mechanisms that may
cause the permeability of the near-
wellbore region to decrease during the
productive life of the well. Fines may be
mobilized from within the producing
formation by the flowing pore fluid and
carried into the near-wellbore region.
Francis et al., 1995,51 conducted
laboratory core-flooding measurements,
in which plugs from a reservoir that was
a candidate for drilling underbalanced
were exposed to the proposed drilling
fluid under both under- and over-
balanced conditions. These experiments
all showed a significant permeability
reduction, to 20 percent of the original
level or less, irrespective of the
differential pressure. Thin section
petrography and scanning electron
microscopy showed that the permeability
impairment was caused by migration of
intrinsic fines. The fines were displaced
both by flow from the formation, when
underbalanced, and by flow into the
formation under conditions of high
overbalance pressure. Drilling
underbalanced would not avoid
formation damage by fines migration in
this reservoir.
9 It is also possible for lkuids to be
carried into the near-well1 )ore region
during production, to the exb :nt that they
reduce the permeability to ga 5. Drop-out
of produced liquids has beer reported as
the probable cause of formxion damage
in air mist drilled horizontal gas wells in
the San Juan Basin:’ and in a Canadian
well drilled underbalanc ed59 with
nitrified liquid.
Mechanical Degradation
The rock around a wellbore el periences a
concentration of in-situ stresses;. simply due
to drilling the well. As tl e weIIbore
pressure is lowered, particularkr if there is
no filter cake, the effective stres ;es increase.
With elevated stresses, pc rosity and
available flow channels ca.1L decrease,
reducing permeability. This is :nalogous to
reductions in permeability that may occur
during, the productive life of a reservoir as
the reservoir is depleted. Reductions in
permeability may or may not be: recoverable,
possibly less so in poorly :onsolidated
formations.
Around the wellbore, stresses 1 nay become
so large that failure occurs, in which case
near-wellbore permeability may or may not
increase.
Formation Damage Reducifr on
Beyond the drilling technique, 1 nany factors
influence the productivity of we 11s drilled in
the same field. For exampl;, there are
inevitably variations in reser (oir quality
(porosity, permeability, thickne ;s ...) and in
formation pressure support for production.
Well trajectories vary, as do the r orientation
and placement in the reservir. These
inherent variations must be coni idered when
3-31
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
comparing production data from wells
drilled over- and underbalanced. Also, the
relative refinement of the different drilling
techniques needs to be considered - it may
be inappropriate to compare the last
overbalanced well with the first well drilled
underbalanced. Ideally, comparisons should
be made from equivalent points on the
learning curve.
Surewaard et al., 1995,58 recognized these
uncertainties and developed a statistical
model to determine how many wells would
have to be drilled underbalanced in order to
establish, with reasonable confidence, that a
particular level of productivity improvement
had been achieved. The.y applied this
analysis to the Nimr field in Oman, where
conventionally drilled horizontal wells
showed a significant spread in productivity
indices. The conclusion was that, for this
field at least, ten wells would have to be
drilled underbalanced to establish (at an 80
percent level of confidence) that a 50
percent increase in productivity had been
achieved. Fewer underbalanced wells would
be required to establish higher productivity
increases - one well would be enough to
prove benefit from drilling underbalanced if
it gave more than 2.5 times the average
productivity of equivalent conventionally
drilled wells.
Noting these various qualifications, a
number of examples are presented to
illustrate the sort of productivity increases
that drilling underbalanced can cause.
9 In the United States, the Austin Chalk
has probably seen the most
underbalanced drilling activity. Stone,
unpublished, 1993,64reported that many
operators in South Texas had
consistently achieved higher productivity
3-32
from Austin Chalk wells that were
drilled underbalanced flowdrilled) than
from wells that were drilled
overbalanced.
9 Joseph, 1995,65 desxibed a deep,
horizontal well thz t was drilled
underbalanced into the Austin Chalk, in
central Louisiana. This achieved a gas
production rate that 'vas seven times
higher than the best rate from any
horizontal well drilled :onventionally in
that area.
9 Hutchinson, 1970,21 cescribed a well
drilled with stable fcam in fractured
Miocene cherts, nea' Santa Maria,
California. This well pi oduced heavy oil
at 500 BOPD, whereas the best mud-
drilled offset well p.oduced at 150
BOPD.
P Recently, there has bl:en considerable
underbalanced drilling i 1 Canada. Much
of this has been undertaken specifically
to avoid formation damage. The
Weyburn field, ir southeastern
Saskatchewan, producs oil from a
chalky dolostone at app -0ximately 4,600
feet TVD. The average porosity is 26
percent and permeabilik varies from 1 to
r
100 md. To date, over :ighty horizontal
wells have been drilled inderbalanced in
this field. Despite this level of activity,
there remains uncertain1y over the extent
to which underbalancc :d drilling may
impact productivity. Springer et al.,
1994,66 reported that drilling
underbalanced in thi! field led to
productivity that was tv'o to three times
greater than for horizor tal wells drilled
overbalanced. Howeve, Mullane et al.,
1995,67 suggested a more complex
situation. Some of the early
underbalanced wells we -e disappointing.
 It was suspected that they had been
damaged by allowing overbalanced
conditions to occur when making
connections. Acid stimulation greatly
improved production, possibly
confirming damage. More recent
underbalanced wells have adopted better
connection procedures that maintain the
underbalance pressure. The preliminary
results from these wells indicated
increased productivity, but it was felt
that further production would be
required before this could be confirmed.
> The Westerose gas field, in Alberta,
provides a more encouraging; picture of
the extent to which underbalanced
drilling can enhance productivity, while
at the same time confirming the
difficulty in objectively comparing
different drilling techniques.
productive formations are glauconitic
sandstones. They are prone to
permeability impairment by swelling of
interstitial clays and by phase trapping.
Four vertical wells were drilled
underbalanced, two using nitrified KCl
and two using nitrogenKC1 foam.
During drilling, two of these wells
flowed gas at rates that were typically
three times those from DSTs in
equivalent wells drilled ~ v e r b a l a n c e d . ~ ~
These increases were not sufficient for
the wells to be economic without further
stimulation. In one well, the productive
formation was damaged by the water and
condensate that were used to load the
well for pre-frac testing and was
subsequently lost into the formation
during testing. The remaining two wells
that were drilled underbalanced
penetrated oil-bearing, shaley sands
which did not flow either oil or gas at
economic rates.
> Lunan, 1995,68 presented production
data from two vertical wells. drilled 330
feet apart, in the Sinclai. Field, in
Northern Alberta. The productive
formation in this field, the Paddy, is a
medium- to coarse-grainec sandstone
that is susceptible to formation damage
when drilled conventionally The first
well was drilled and completed
conventionally and then fra Ztured. The
fracturing treatment was not particularly
successful, possibly because of high in-
situ stresses. The seconc well was
drilled underbalanced usir g nitrified
condensate. This well produ :ed at a rate
that was seven times greater than for the
first well. Production test d; ta indicated
an effective permeability thit was five
times higher than for the first well. The
well drilled underbalanced tad no skin,
The
whereas the well drilled o Jerbalanced
and then fractured had a skin of +43. The
hig,her permeability in the !econd well
negates this as an effective ompa par is on,
although zero skin is encoura $ng.
> A horizontal well was dril1:d into oil-
bearing glauconitic sandsf()ne in the
Hussar field, in Albe-ta, using
overbalanced and then UII lerbalanced
conditions along the same lat xal section,
in an attempt to assess any benefits of
drilling ~nderbalanced.~~ Thc first 330 ft
of the horizontal interval ~ i e r edrilled
overbalanced with a starc1dguar gum
polymer water-based mud. Damage
sustained during overbalaric *ed drilling
prevented production from t le first 330
feet of the hole when tht well was
switched to nitrified crude a i d a further
2,060 feet were drilled unc erbalanced.
This damage was subsequeri ly removed
by underbalanced abrasive jetting. A
rotating jetting tool was ru 1 downhole
3-33

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced
on coiled tubing. Oil was pumped down
the coiled tubing and nitrogen was
pumped down the annulus between the
coiled tubing and the production tubing
annulus. This effectively removed the
mud-induced damage and allowed that
section to produce oil.
9 Kitsios et a]., 1994,70described a vertical
well drilled with air foam, in the Amal
field in Oman. This had a productivity
index that was over twice the average for
adjacent conventionally drilled wells.
9 It is not just production rate that can be
improved by drilling underbalanced. The
protocol may accelerate hydrocarbon
production from wells drilled in
reservoirs prone to lost circulation.
Mitchell and Salvo, 1991," reported that
wells air mist drilled in the Eunice
Monument Field, in New Mexico, would
produce immediately. Conventional
overbalance wells typically took between
one month and one year to begin
producing oil, due to large volumes of
mud and water that had been lost into the
producing formation.
Required Stimulation
In some wells, supplementary stimulation
treatments are required; for example matrix
acidizing or hydraulic fracturing, to remove
or bypass drilling-induced formation
damage. Underbalanced drilling can, in
some instances, remove the need for primary
stimulation, by restricting the occurrence of
formation damage.
Mullane et al., 1995,67 reported that
horizontal wells drilled underbalanced in the
Weyburn field were cheaper overall than
equivalent wells drilled overbalanced,
principally because they did not require the
bleach clean-up or acidization treatments
3-34
--__-__
that were necessary to tievelop adequate
production in the overbalar ced wells.
Hutchinson and Anderson, 1972,20described
an oil well drilled with air foam, into a
carbonate reservoir, in lolorado. This
produced over 600 BOPD Adjacent mud-
drilled wells experienced 1 ost circulation in
the pay and required rnassii'e acid treatments
before they would produce.
Summary
9 Drilling underbalanced will often reduce
or avoid drilling-inc uced formation
damage. The resullant increase in
productivity, earlier production and
possible reduction in stimulation costs
often make underb, danced drilling
economically attractivl ;, even without
considering an imprc ved penetration
rate.
9 There is no clear evidence that any one
underbalanced drilling technique gives
greater or lesser prodi ctivity increases
than other techniques.
9 It is important that tlie well be kept
underbalanced at all til nes, if formation
damage is to be minim3zed. A well that
was drilled unde "balanced can
experience severe forn iation damage if
overbalanced conditio is exist during
completion, production or workover.
P There are mechanisms 1)y which damage
can occur during under Jalanced drilling,
even if an underbalan :e is maintained
continuously. The txtent to which
underbalanced drillin ; can reduce
formation damage rn ill be strongly
dependent on the specific target
formations. Laboratory evaluations can
reveal the potential for reducing
formation damage by drilling under-
 balanced.
P There is little point in drilling
underbalanced (to avoid formation
damage) if damage occurs during
subsequent production; for example, by
fines migration. Increased ROP and
other factors in the total economics may
dictate using underbalanced methods,
regardless of formation damage.
P Drilling underbalanced will not cause a
negative skin unless 11 :ar-welIbore
failure causes permeabilit y increases
(possibly undesirable fro m stability
considerations). If an UI derbalanced
well is not economic with cero skin, it
will still need stimulation. Avoiding
formation damage alone docs not justify
using underbalanced drillin;; techniques
for a well that will still have to be
stimulated after drilling.

References
1. Cheatham, J.B. Jr.: “An Analytical Study of Rock Penetration By a SingIe Tooth,” Proc.,
Eighth Drilling And Blasting Symposium, University of Minnesota ( I 958) 1A- 22A.

2. Gamier, A.J. and Van Lingen, N.H.: “Phenomena Affecting Drilling Rate: at Depth,”
I

Trans., AIME (1959) 216,232-239.

3. Cunningham, R.A. and Eenink, J.G.: “Laboratory Study of Effect of Overburden,

Formation and Mud Column Pressures on Drilling Rate of Permeable Formatit m,”Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216,9-17.

4. Black, A.D., Dearing, H.L. and DiBona, B.G.: “Effe,ctof Pore Pressure and hl ud Filtration
on Drilling Rates in a Permeable Sandstone,” JPT (September 1985) 1671- 168 1.

5. Moore, P.L.: Drilling Practices Manual, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1974).

6. Van Lingen, N.H.: “Bottom Scavenging - A Major Factor Governing Penetra ion Rates at
Depth,” paper SPE 165, JPT (February 1962) 187-196.

7. Eckel, J.R.: “Effect of Pressure on Rock Drillability,” paper SPE 877G, Pet. TIans., AIME,
(1958) 213, 1-6.

8. Zijsling, D.H.: “Single Cutter Testing - A Key for PDC Bit Development,” paper SPE
16529/1 presented at the 1987 Offshore Europe 87, Aberdeen, Scotland.

9. Gray-Stephens, D., Cook, J.M. and Sheppard, M.C.: “Influence of Pore Pressure on
Drilling Response in Hard Shales,” SPEDC (December 1994) 263-270.

10. Maurer, W.C. “How Bottomhole Pressure Affects Penetration Rate,” Oil and Gas J.
(January 10, 1966) 61-65.

3-35
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

11. Cheatham, C.A., Nahm, J.J. and Heitkamp, N.D.: “Effects of Selected P4ud Properties on
Rate of Penetration in Full-Scale Drilling Simulations,” SPE/IADC pape 13465 presented
at the 1985 SPEAADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA.

12. Winters, W.J. and Warren, T.M.: “Laboratory Study of Diamond-Bii Hydraulic Lift,”
SPEDE (August 1986) 267-276.

13. Moore, P.L.: “How Drilling Rate is Affected by Drilling Fluid Properti x,”Oil & Gas J.
(October 1958) 141.

14. Beck, F.E, Power, J.W. and Zamora, M.: “The Effect of Rheology on Rai e of Penetration,”
SPE/IADC paper 29368 presented at the 1995 1st International Undei balanced Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

15. Pratt, C.A.: “Modifications to and Experience with Air-Percussion I Irilling,” SPEDE
(December 1989) 3 15-320.

16. Lyons, W.C., Miska, S.Z. and Johnson, P.W.: “Downhole Pneumatic Turbine Motor:
Testing and Simulation Results,” paper SPE 18040 presented at the 1388 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.

17. Cummings, S.G.: “Natural Gas Drilling Methods and Practice: San .uan Basin, New
Mexico,” paper SPE/IADC 16167 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Dri lling Conference,
New Orleans, LA.

18. Mitchell, R.K. and Salvo, G.S.: “The EMSU Waterflood Project: A Cas: History of Infill
Drilling, Completions and Workovers,” SPEDE (June 1991) 1 18-124.

19. Fraser, I.M. and Moore, R.H.: “Guidelines for Stable Foam Drilling Thrc ugh Permafrost,”
paper SPE/IADC 16055 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling (jonference, New
Orleans, LA.

20. Hutchinson, S.O. and Anderson, G.W.: “Preformed Stable Foam Aids Workover,
Drilling,” Oil & Gas J. (May 15, 1972) 74-79.

21. Hutchinson, S.O.: “Stable Foam Lowers Production, Drilling and I. .emedial Costs,”
presented at 17th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, (April 15 70).

22. Wolke, R.M., Jardiolin, R.A., Suter, R.L., Moriyama, S., Sueyoshi, Y. and Kihara, Y.:
“Aerated Drilling Fluids Can Lower Drilling Costs and Minimize Fori nation Damage,”
Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, (May 1990) 131- 137.

23. Comeau, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Directional and MWD Ex perience,” paper

3-36
 presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

24. Saponja, J.: “Comparing Conventional Mud to Underbalanced Drilling in a Depleted

Reservoir,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling. Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands;,October 2-4.

25. Deis, P.V., Yurkiw, F.J. and Barrenechea, P.J.: “The Development of an Un lerbalanced
Drilling Process: An Operator’s Experience in Western Canada,” paper pres :nted at the
1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The 1 qetherlands,
October 2-4.

26. Cooper, L.W., Hook, R.A. and Payne, R.R.: “Air Drilling Techniques,” pape- SPE 6435
presented at the 1977 SPE Deep Drilling and Production Symposium, Amarillo TX.

27. Wilson, G.E.: “Air Drilling and Crooked Hole Problems,” paper SPE 9529 pre5 ented at the
1980 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV.

28. Brannon, K.C., Grimes, RE. and Vietmeier, W.R.: “New Oilfield Air El t Improves
Drilling Economics in Appalachian Basin,” PD-Vol. 56, Drilling Technol ’gy (1994),
ASME (1994).

29. Carden, R.S.: “Air Drilling has Some Pluses for Horizontal Wells,” Oil & Ga,s J. (April 8,
1991) 76-78.

30. Kelly, J.L., Jr.: “Forecasting the Life of Rock-Bit Journal Bearings,” SPEDE :June 1990)
165-170.

31. Simon, R.: “Energy Balance in Rock Drilling,” SPEJ (December 1963) 298-30( I.

32. Shale, L. and Curry, D.A.: “Drilling a Horizontal Well Using Airmoarn Technic lues,” paper
OTC 7355 presented at the 1993 Annual OTC, Houston, TX.

33. Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.: “Thermal Response of Polycrystalline Diamo Id Compact
Cutters under Simulated Downhole Conditions,” SPEJ (April 1985) 143-156.

34. Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.: “Effects of Thermal and Mechanical Loading; on PDC Bit
Life,” SPEDE (June 1986) 20 1-213.

35. Eaton, N.: Coring the Horizontal Hole, PD-Vol 27, ASME Drilling Technology
Symposium, Weiner, P.D. and Kastor, R.L (eds).

36. Bentsen, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: “Preformed Stable Foam Performance in Ihilling and
Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Alberta,” JPT (October 1976) 1237-1240.

-
3-37
 --_- -
Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

37. Cobbett, J.S.: “Application of an Air-Drilling Package in Oman,” Yaper SPE 9600
presented at the 1981 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Manan a, Bahrain.

38. Cagnolatti, E. and Curtis, F.: “Using Underbalance Technology to :;olve Traditional
Drilling Problems in Argentina,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

39. Louison, R.F., Reese, R.T. and Andrews, J.P.: “Case History; Underbal ance Drilling the
Midway and Navarro Formations Successfully in Hallettsville, TX,” I aper SPE 13112
presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1 louston, TX.

40. Sheffield, J.S. and Sitzman, J.J.: “Air Drilling Practices in the Midcon inent and Rocky
Mountain Areas,” paper SPEWDC 13490 presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

41. Westermark, R.V.: “Drilling with a Parasite Aerating String in the Disturl led Belt, Gallatin
County, Montana,” paper IADCISPE 14734 presented at the 1986 IA >C/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX.

42. Claytor, S.B., Manning, K.J. and Schmalzried, D.L.: “Drilling a Medium-Radius
Horizontal Well With Aerated Drilling Fluid: A Case Study,” paper SPE/IADC 21988
presented at the 1991 SPEAADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.

43. Teichrob, R.R.: “Low Pressure Reservoir Drilled with Air/Nz in a Closetl System,” Oil &
Gas J. (March 21, 1994) 80-90.

44. Adam, J. and Berry, M.: “Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Sidetrack Succe: sful,” Oil & Gas
J. (December 18, 1995) 91-98.

45. Bobo, R.A. and Barrett, H.M.: “Aeration of Drilling Fluids,” World Oil (1 953) 137, No. 4,
145.

46. Roy, R. and Hay, R.: “Measuring Downhole Annular Pressure While Drilling for
Optimization of Underbalanced Drilling,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 1 1-4.

47. Wilson, J.: “Optimizing Drilling of Underbalanced Wellbores with 1lata Acquisition
Systems,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Dri lling Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

48. Taylor, J., McDonald, C . and Fried, S.: “Underbalanced Drilling Total Sys tems Approach,”
paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Confer mce, The Hague,
The Netherlands, October 2-4.

3-38
49. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F. and Bennion, D.W.: “Underbalarn :ed Drilling,
Praises and Perils,’’ paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalar ced Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

50. Dreiling, T., McClelland, M.L. and Bilyeu, B.: “Horizontal and High Angle A r Drilling in
the San Juan Basin, New Mexico,” The Brief(June 1996) 12-19.

51. Francis, P.A., Patey, I.T.M. and Spark, 1.S.C.: “A Comparison of Underbalanced and
Overbalanced Drilling-Induced Formation Damage Using Reservoir Con( .itions Core
Flood Testing,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalan zed Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

52. Schlumberger: Log Interpretation Principles/Applications, Schlumberger Educational

Services, Houston, TX (19137).

53. Pallatt, N., Stockden, I.L.M., Mitchell, P.S.H. and Woodhouse, R.: “Low Inw ision Coring
Gives “Native” Reservoir Water Saturations,” European Society of Professior a1 Well Log
Analysts, London (1991).

54. Rathmel, J.J., Tibbitts, G.A., Gremley, R.B., Warner, H.R., Jr. and lihite, E.K.:
“Development of a Method for Partially Uninvaded Coring in High Permeability
Sandstone,” paper SPE 20413 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technicail Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA.

55. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.W. and Bietz, R.F.: “Formation Dar iage Control
and Research in Horizontal Wells,” presented at the 1993 International Cclnference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Houston, TX.

56. McLennan, J.D., Roegiers, J-C. and Economides, M.J.: “Extended Reach an i Horizontal
Wells,” Reservoir Stimulation, Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G., (eds.) 1’ rentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989).

57. Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B.: “Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal Pv ells: Does it
Really Eliminate Formation Damage,” paper SPE 27352 presented at the 1S94 SPE Intl.
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA.

58. Surewaard, J., de Koning, K., Kool, M., Woodland, D., Roed, H. and P opmans, P.:
“Underbalanced Operations in Petroleum Development Oman,” paper presente d at the 1995
1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Nether]; nds, October
2-4.

59. Churcher, P.L., Yurkiw, F.J., Bieti, R.F. and Bennion, D.B.: “Designing ard Testing of
Underbalanced Drilling Fluids to Limit Formation Damage: Examples from It’ le Westerose

3-39
 - --.

Chapter 3 Benefits of Drilling Underbalanced

Field, Canada,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Undei balanced Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

60. Morrow, N.R.: “Wettability and Its Effect on Oil Recovery,” JPT (Dece nber 1990) 1476-
1484.

61. Vavra, C.L., Kaldi, J.G. and Sneider, R.M.: “Geological Applicati ms of Capillary
Pressure: A Review,” AAPG Bulletin (June 1992) 76, No. 6, 840-850.

62. Katz, D.L. and Lundy, C.L.: “Absence of Connate Water in Michigan Reef Gas
Reservoirs,” AAPG Bulletin (January 1982) 66, No. 1,91-98.

63. Gray, R. and Bird, K.: “Laboratory Evaluation of Underbalance Fc rmation Damage
Compared to Neutral and Overbalance Conditions,” paper presented at the 1995 1st
International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherla ids, October 2-4.

64. Stone, C.R.: “Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling,’’ SPE Distinguished Le(ture, 1993/1994.

65. Joseph, R.A.: “Underbalanced Horizontal Drilling - Conclusion. Specia 1 Techniques and
Equipment Reduce Problems,” Oil & Gas J. (March 27, 1995) 41-47.

66. Springer, S.J., Christie, D.S., Flach, P.D., Gust, D.A. and Porter, K.: “4 Review of the
First 1500 Horizontal Wells in Western Canada,” presented at the 1914 SPE/CIM 4th
Annual One-Day Conference on Horizontal Wells, Calgary, Canada.

67. Mullane, T.J., Churcher, P.L., Edmunds, A.C., Eddy, D.B., Martin, B.G. and Flach, P.D.:
“Benefits of Underbalanced Drilling: Examples from the Weyburn and ’Yesterose Fields,
Western Canada,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Under ~alancedDrilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

68. Lunan, B.: “Underbalanced Drilling - Surface Control Systems,” paper presented at the
1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, rhe Netherlands,
October 2-4.

69. Cheung, V., Aheam, B., Scheidt, K.A., Saponja, J., Penrose, R. and Christensen, D.:
“Underbalanced Horizontal Drilling in the Hussar Glauconitic “A” Pool,’ presented at the
SPE/CIM 4th Annual One-Day Conference on Horizontal Wells, Calgary, Canada.

70. Kitsios, E., Kamphuis, H., Quaresa, V., Reynolds, E. and Rovig, J.: “Underbalanced
Drilling Through Oil Production Zones with Stable Foam in Oman,” 1 japer IADC/SPE
27525 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX.

3-40
 SELECTING AN
APPROPRIATE T€CHNIQlJ€
4. I Introduction
Chapter 2 summarized various techniques
for drilling a well underbalanced. This
chapter summarizes some of the con-
siderations for:
9 Determining if underbalanceti drilling is
potentially applicable.
9 Evaluating wellbore stability. A
controlling factor in selecting a drilling
technique is the allowable range of
borehole pressures.
P Selecting the potential underbalanced
drilling methods, and,
9 Evaluating the economics to identify the
most cost effective procedure..
Underbalanced drilling is technically
feasible in almost all situations. There will
be many instances when it is also the most
cost effective procedure. The sa.me drilling
technique does not have to be used for an
entire drilling program in a well. There are
instances where it can be cost effective to
drill through the overburden conventionally
and then switch to underbalanced drilling to
penetrate the productive zones. Conversely,
in solme instances, it may be advantageous to
drill the upper section of a hole
underbalanced and then mud up to drill
through a highly productive or over-
pressured pay zone.
There will often be uncertainty in carrying
out technical and economic evaluations.
Underbalanced drilling is no di 'ferent from
conventional drilling in this re! ard. Local
experience with different drillinl ; techniques
often minimizes some of these 11?certainties.
Sensitivity analyses and risk assessments
can be helpful in selecting t t e optimum
procedures. As experience is giiined with a
specific drilling technique, operational
efficiency increases as does thz ability to
evaluate and forecast the asso :iated costs
and benefits.
4.2 Potential Applici Itions
The key to successful exploitation lies in
application of appropriate techniques.
Underbalanced drilling is a go( jd example.
This drilling protocol is not appropriate in
all instances. The daily spe id rate for
underbalanced drilling can be yeater than
for conventional drilling method ; because of
the use of supplementary well control and
surface production equipment. lowever, in
many instances, total drilling costs and long-
term return on investment are greatly
improved. Underbalanced drillii ig programs
generally require more engir eering and
planning to ensure safety and eff ciency. The
benefits may be downstream of the drilling
 .---
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
operations.
Candidate Selection
It is necessary to economically screen
underbalanced methodologies. Beyond
reduction of impairment, increased and
earlier production, reduced fluid loss, better
evaluation ... severe drilling problems alone
may dictate adopting underbalanced drilling
methods. Regardless, each situation must be
evaluated individually.
Some of the situations where underbalanced
drilling may offer advantages include:
> Any formation subject to impairment,
and particularly naturally fractured
reservoirs drilled with straight hole or
horizontal laterals. Mud damage of the
productive fractures can be devastating
when conventional drilling methods are
adopted. Certain productive sands and
carbonates may also be severely
impaired with conventional drilling.
> Deeper reservoirs below depleted or
underpressured zones can cause severe
drilling problems when conventional
methods are used. These problems may
include lost circulation and stuck
drillpipe.
9 Gas storage wells rely on high
production rates during peak demand
periods. Minimized formation
impairment is essential to guarantee
adequate on-demand deliverability.
9 Produced water or other disposal wells,
particularly where hydraulic fracturing is
environmentally unacceptable, depend
on high injectivity polential associated
with minimized drilling impairment.
9 Better evaluation: Recognition of
productive zones while drilling, should
4-2
lessen the chances of b {passed pay.
9 Any situation wher,! ROP can be
economically increast d and fewer bits
are required.
These are only a few of the generic
situations where underbal w e d drilling can
offer significant advantage i. There are some
situations where the ( lpportunities are
moderate to marginal. Ir each case, there
may be compensating fact1 )rs such as higher
ROP, reduced list circulation .... .
Certainly, these situatioi is require more
careful evaluation. For ex: mple:
9 Low permeability, massive and
relatively unfractured reservoirs which
will likely need to be hydraulically
fractured.
> Very high permeability formations
which would pro( uce significant
volumes of formation k i d s and exceed
surface equipment h,indling capacity.
This is a solvable problem, but it may
not be economic. In tliis situation, non-
invasive, clear fluid; are preferred.
Clear fluids with acid- soluble solids are
acceptable.
9 Macrofractured or vu rular formations
which are susceptible to gravity-driven
invasion of fractures or vugs or would
produce volumes of formation fluid
which cannot be accommodated by
surface equipment. rhese difficulties
can be overcome by ising clean fluids
with soluble divertei s (Le., calcium
carbonate chips, rock : alt ... ). In fact,
there are cases whei e underbalanced
drilling is the only method that is
appropriate.
9 Extremely high pres wre formations
which would require t xcessively costly
 fluids or wellhead and surface equipment
to ensure adequate safety. Even in mud
drilling, the surface equipment (BOPS,
wellhead equipment, casing) must be
designed for maximum shut-in surface
pressure. This design pressure is the
same for conventional and under-
balanced drilling. Overpressured
formations can be drilled with air mist
and foam. Carden, 1997 (unpublished)
reported deep drilling at a bottomhole
pressure equivalent of 14.4 ppg (-0.75
psi/ft). As long as the production is
being vented down the blooie line and
there is no backpressure, a rotating head
may be acceptable. The problem with
overpressured formations arises with
high production rates. It is more
difficult (but not impossible) to kill a
high pressure well, flowing at high
production rates. Even normally
pressured wells, flowing at high rates,
are more difficult to kill. Either one of
these situations may be drilled and
completed with proper design.
There are some situations where under-
balanced drilling may not be appropriate:
9 Highly unconsolidated formations
which require elevated wellbore pressure
to maintain hole stability.
9 Formations where s w e l h g and
significant hole size reduction or
wellbore instability are anticipated.
Swelling and instability can also be
serious problems with conventional
muds.
These are generalities. In fact, under-
balanced drilling may be attractive even in
some, of the scenarios where stability is a
real concern. The key to ev:ry under-
balanced drilling project is propel evaluation
of the prospect and comparison c) .the cost to
drill and complete, both convenl ionally and
underbalanced. In every case, 2 well must
provide the maximum returi on its
investment, including appropri: .te consid-
eration of safety and the el vironment.
Economics is the final measure 0" success.
Drilling and production data irom offset
wells, either individually or together,
facilitate identification of mo5 t potential
applications for underbalanced ( rilling. In
some instances, underbalanced drilling is
adopted principally to impro re drilling
perforniance through one or mo-e intervaIs
in a hole; overburden or productive zones.
Alternatively, using underbalanc ed drilling
can be driven exclusively by the I otential for
reducing formation damage in1 known or
anticipated pay zones.
Successful implementation of unc lerbalanced
drilling methods in offsets is in obvious
indicator of the viability of the ti: :hnique. If
offset wells were successfully dri ,led using a
particular underbalanced tech1 ique, that
technique is a strong candidate for future
drilling operations. Howeve:], previous
success does not guarantee: that the
technique will be the optimun, for other
wells, even wells in the immedi tte locality.
It does not necessarily imply tha. it was the
best technique for the wells alre3dy drilled.
It merely demonstrates feasibility
Penetration Rates
If offset well data indicates low penetration
rates for mud (for example, less than fifteen
f a r ) and the formations are 0111 and hard,
dry gas, mist or foam an potential
alternatives to mud. The lower the
4-3

Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
penetration rate, the more likely it is that
these techniques will reduce the drilling
times sufficiently to make them
economically attractive. Caution must be
exercised since low penetration rates do not
always indicate hard rocks. For example,
very soft Gulf of Mexico shales are often
characterized by penetration rates which are
less than ten feet per hour, when drilled with
PDC bits and water-based muds. Air, mist
or foam drilling would not be suitable for
these formations, principally because of the
potential for wellbore instability. In addition,
Gulf of Mexico sandstones are often so
permeable that formation fluid inflows,
either water or hydrocarbon, would probably
occur at rates which could be difficult to
manage on the surface if they were drilled
with dry gas, mist or foam.
Air, Mist and Dry Gas Drilling
Carden, 1993,' reviewed drilling practices in
the continental United States, indicating that
air drilling predominated in the Arkoma and
Appalachian Basins, where target zones are
Pennsylvanian or older. Air drilling is also
frequently used in the Paradox, Uinta-
Piceance-Eagle and San Juan Basins, where
some of the formations are Cretaceous or
even Tertiary. This indicates that age alone
is not a deciding factor in selecting air
drilling. Inflow rate and formation integrity
are two other deciding factors.
Characteristic Formation Properties
While rate of penetration and formation age
are not stand alone diagnostics of
environments where air, mist or foam
drilling are appropriate, there are some
general guidelines on identifying appropriate
formations.
9 The formations penetrated must be
sufficiently strong (or at least competent)
4-4
--.
that the wellbore will remain stable at
the very low pressure ; associated with
these techniques.
Water-sensitive shales ue unlikely to be
stable if drilled with dry gas, mist or
foam. Dehydration and associated
desiccation (drying 01 it and cracking)
may occur with dry gas. Clay swelling
can occur with aqueou! mists. Elevated
pressure may be requir :d to compensate
for borehole creep. Ni:rified crude may
help.
Wireline sonic log! can provide
qualitative indications of integrity and
strength. Sonic trlvel times (the
reciprocals of the vel01 :ities) are related
to a formation's bLlk density and
dynamic elastic modu i (characterizing
the ability of the formition to deform).
However, high el istic constants
commonly correlate with higher
compressive strength. Due to the many
factors which influenc e underbalanced
drilling and sonic loggiig response, it is
not possible to specify a universal
threshold for sonic travel time. As a
rule-of-thumb, if thr compressional
wave travel time is con: istently less than
70 ps/ft through form itions which are
known not to be natuially fractured or
water-sensitive, under1 lalanced drilling
with dry gas, mist or fo; m is probably an
option.
Dry Gas Versus Mist DI illing
Chapter 2 indicated the different
environments where these two techniques
might be used. It only takzs a small liquid
inflow to require that drilling is switched
from dry gas to mist. Under most
circumstances, it is desirzble to have the
additional equipment re( uired for mist
drilling on location, whenc ver drilling with
dry gas. Even before drilling starts, the
decision to use mist or air drilling should be
carefully considered.
When Is Foam Drilling Preferred?
Foamed drilling fluids can generally provide
better hole cleaning than dry gas or mist. A
foamed drilling fluid should be considered
when excessive water inflow has forced dry
gas or mist drilling to be terminated in offset
wells, or if substantial water production is
anticipated. At significant depths, for
example, below 10,000feet, or when drilling
large diameter hole, unrealistically high gas
injection rates may be required for good hole
cleaning with dry gas or mist. Foam would
be a preferable fluid under these
circumstances.
Stable foams have proven to be particularly
successful for drilling in permafrost
(Anderson, 1971,2 Fraser and Moore, 19873)
and are a candidate drilling technique when
permafrost will need to be penetrated.
Stiffened foams should be considered when
a foamed drilling fluid is indicated and
where hole cleaning is particularly
demanding or where water supply is severely
restricted. This is often the situation for
large diameter holes.
As with other lightened drilling fluids,
wellbore instability can be a problem when
drilling through weaker or less competent
formations with foam. If penetration rates,
when drilling conventionally, were already
acceptable, gasified mud should probably be
used (instead of foam).
Lost Circulation
Major problems with lost circulation suggest
using underbalanced drilling procedures. If
the interval to be drilled is sub-normally
pressured, it will be necessary to use a
lightened fluid to minimize or avoid
significant fluid loss. Since many lost
circulation zones can also potentially
produce large volumes of water! stable foam
is likely preferred over dry gases and mist.
Differential Sticking
Problems with differential stick ing in offset
wells are an indication that UI derbalanced
drilling may be desirable.
Depleted Zones
Any well that will penetrate a depleted
reservoir or formation, should 11 :considered
as a candidate for underbalan :ed drilling.
Underbalanced drilling will ofte n reduce the
occurrence of differential !; icking and
restrict formation damage in these
environments. The fractional increase in
penetration rate alone may not be adequate
to justify drilling underbalanc ed. If the
formation pressure gradients a ' e very low,
foam may be necessary. Otherwise, a
gasified liquid is probably tl le preferred
fluid.
Permeability Impairment
For target formations which are highly
susceptible to drilling damage and which
will not be stimulated h:r hydraulic
fracturing, underbalanced drillii ig may offer
substantial advantages. This i: particularly
true for horizontal wells, whi :h are more
likely to benefit from underbala nced drilling
than vertical wells. This is evm more true
for naturally fractured reservoi *s which are
highly susceptible to drilling damage and
which are often most effectivr :ly produced
by horizontal wellbores, drillec to intersect
the fractures.
Depleted and naturally fractur :d wells are
primary candidates for 11 iderbalanced
techniques. However, norma ly pressured
 _p-__
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
and over-pressured reservoirs can also be
drilled underbalanced using lightened
drilling fluids (to minimize damage). If
underbalanced conditions can be achieved
with a liquid drilling fluid, the additional
cost of a lightened drilling fluid is likely
only justified when drilling a long interval of
hard rock, where penetration rates would
otherwise be unacceptably low. Similarly,
the additional cost for snubbing equipment
will normally only be justified if surface
pressures are too high for other more
conventional underbalanced drilling
techniques.
The chemistry and physics of formation
damage are beyond the scope of this manual.
For additional information, the reader is
referred to Allen and Roberts, 19824 (or
many other references).
Multiple Drilling Protocols
Just as it may be necessary to change from
air drilling to mist drilling as the water cut
increases, it is not necessary for an entire
well to be drilled underbalanced. It is
possible for one or more interval(s) in a well
to be drilled underbalanced (with the
associated benefits and costs) and the
remaining (or other) zones are drilled
conventionally (underbalanced drilling in
these other zones is either uneconomic or
technically impractical). There are many
instances of depleted or damage-prone
reservoirs, below weak, water-sensitive or
unconsolidated zones, where the overburden
has been drilled conventionally and cased
off before drilling underbalanced through
the pay. This is common practice for
horizontal wells in many fields in central
and western Canada. Also, there are many
examples in the Rocky Mountains where
intervals are drilled with aerated mud, and
then cased off to drill the pay zone
4-6
conventionally.
4.3 Technical Fe asibility
In evaluating the feasibil ty of candidate
drilling techniques, a contrc lling factor is the
range of anticipated bo1 ehole pressures
which will be required for each zone to be
drilled. The upper limit fc lr underbalanced
conditions is, by defin tion, the pore
pressure. The lower limit Nil1 generally be
regulated by the lowest piessure at which
wellbore stability is ensiired and/or the
pressure at which produced fluids can be
safely and economically handled at the
surface. Often, determininj the anticipated
pressure ranges will impli Atly dictate the
particular underbalanc ed drilling
technique(s) which could t e adopted (refer
to Table 4- 1).
The first step in ewluating which
underbalanced drilling tec ‘znique to adopt
is to determine the anticipaled pressures.
After the pressure ranges are delineated,
determine which methods are functional
within the anticipated pr :ssure window.
Other wellbore and fluid s1)ecifics are then
considered. These include:
Will there be sloughing shales? Are
aqueous fluids inappropi iate?
Will water producini horizons be
penetrated?
Will multiple, permeal de zones, with
dramatically different p( Ire pressures, be
encountered?
What is the potentia for chemical
formation damage, due to fluid/fluid or
fluidformation interaction and is this an
overwhelming problem regardless of
what wellbore pressure i ; used?
 Table 4- I. Underbalanced Drilling Applications and Candidate Techn iques
I Reason for Drilling Underbalanced
Lost circulation through the overburden.
Formation damage through a softlmedium-
depleted reservoir.
Formation damage through a normally pressured
reservoir.
Lost circulatiodformation damage through a
normally pressured, fractured reservoir.
Formation damage through an overpressured
reservoir.
Preferred Underbalanced Drillin! I Technique
(1) Dry air.
( 2 ) Mist, if there is a slight water inflcr v.
(3) Foam, if there is heavy water inflo N, if the borehole
wall is prone to erosion, or if there i j a large hole
diameter.
(4) Nitrogen or natural gas, if the we1 is producing
wet gas and it is a high angle or hoir zontal hole.
(1) Aerated mud, if the ROP is high (r x k strength low
or moderate) or if water-sensitive SI ales are present.
(2) Foam is possible if wellbore instat ility is not a
Droblern.
(1) Nitrified mud, if gas production is8likely, especially
if a closed system is to be used.
(2) Aerated mud, if gas production is 1 nlikely and an
open surface system is to be used.
( 3 ) Foam is possible if the pore pressu re is very low
and if the formations are very hard.
(1) Nitrified brine or crude:
String injection, if the pore pressur t is very low;
a Parasite injection, if the pore press ire is high
enough and a deviatedhorizontal hLt de needs
conventional MWD andor a mud II otor.
Temporary casing injection, if the lore pressure is
intermediate and a high gas rate is reeded.
e String and temporary casing injeci ion, if the pore
pressure is very low and/or if very 1 igh gas rates are
required with a closed surface syste m.
(2) Foam, if the pore pressure is very ow and an open
surface. system is acceptable.
Flowdrill (use a closed surface system f sour gas is
possible).
FlowdriZZ (use an atmospheric system i. no sour gas is
possible).
Snub drill (use a closed surface system if sour gas is
possible).
 - ----
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
> Is there a potential for sour gas
production?
9 Are there features of the well geometry
which dictate specific underbalanced
protocols?
> What is the local availability of suitable
equipment and consumables (including
liquids and gases for the drilling fluids)?
These issues are considered below.
Borehole Pressure Limits
Pore Pressure
The pore pressure in formations that will be
open to the borehole is the upper limit for
the range of borehole pressures which will
give underbalanced conditions. The drilling
technique adopted must result in a borehole
pressure which is less than the pore pressure
in all open zones. This restriction can only
be relaxed for open zones that will not be
influenced by overbalance.
In practice, the borehole pressure at any
depth will fluctuate during drilling,
principally when circulation is shut down to
make a connection or to trip the string.
Chapters 2 and 5 describe procedures for
calculating the changes in borehole pressure
that will accompany changes in circulation.
If there is no formation fluid inflow,
borehole pressures with dry gas, mist, foam
or pure liquid drilling fluids will normally
decrease when circulation is stopped.
Therefore, if it is established that
underbalanced conditions will result during
circulation, they will likely be maintained if
circulation is stopped, unless there is an
overwhelming fluid influx.
As was discussed in Chapter 2, the borehole
pressure can change significantly when
4-8
-.-
gasified liquid is used. It may either
increase or decrease, depending on the
connection and tripping p-ocedures. As a
generalization, the borehc le pressure will
probably increase during a connection when
drilling with a liquid gasified by drillstring
gas injection. In practice, if it is generally
not possible to maintail t a circulating
pressure that is 300 to 500 psi less than the
pore pressure, underbala need conditions
may not be maintained dui ing connections,
when drilling with a gasifid d liquid.
As with all drilling techniqi es, pore pressure
is a controlling element. 7 he difficulties in
estimating pore pressurc will not be
discussed. It is inevitable 'hat there will be
some uncertainty in the pore pressure
estimates. In some case;, this is not a
serious problem. For exam )le, during in-fill
drilling in depleted, non-cc mpartmentalized
reservoirs, where underbal inced drilling is
commonly used, reservoi pressures are
*
often well known. In Ither situations,
formation pore pressures Mill need to be
inferred from offset drilli ig and wireline
logging information. In thc se instances, the
pore pressure that is enccuntered may be
very different from the estin iated value.
Best practice is to use a ieasonable lower
bound estimate of the porl: pressure when
comparing candidate drillin ;techniques (for
stability and pore pressure) Wells may be
mistakenly drilled overbala iced if the pore
pressure is lower than expec ted (Bennion, et
al., 1995a5). Surface equipment capacity
and drilling specifics shoulcl be based on an
upper bound estimate of the pore pressure.
Wellbore Stabirity
Just as formation pore pressure is an upper
limit to allowable underbal mced pressures,
a lower limit may be established by the
minimum pressure required to maintain hole
stability. In underbalanced drilling:
> When there is an aqueous component in
the drilling fluid, water-wet formations
may still imbibe water when drilled
underbalanced. This is summarized in
Bennion, 1996,6 and describe:d in detail
in Bennion, et al., 1995.’. Precautions
for inhibiting the base fluid should still
be taken (when drilling undtxbalanced)
and exposure to diluted formiation fluid
from greater depths should also still be
considered. “Because of adverse
capillary pressure relations, it is possible
for the formation to imbibe water-based
(and in some cases hydrocarbon-based)
fluids in the near wellbore region ... In
an underbalanced drilling operation,
imbibition effects can cause phase
trapping and damage problems in a
number of different reservoir scenarios.”
Formation damage is not the only risk.
Instability can be a far more serious
concern.
9 The effects of desiccation (drying out),
when a formation is contiicted with
circulating dry gas, are not well defined
in the literature. Imbibition into the
formation would seem to be inhibited. If
the water content reduces, the strength
may increase (Hale et a l , 1993”).
However, desiccation cracking may
occur during shrinkage and some
sloughing may occur. This may heighten
imbibition if water does ultimately
contact the shale. In sands, the strength
may also be increased because of
increasing capillary forces. Horsrud et
al., 1994,8 indirectly referred to the
potential of desiccation cracking and its
impact on exposure time and extent.
9 Less dampening of vibrations may cause
greater formation disaggrega tion uphole
from the bit.
> “When drilling in underba ance, pore
pressure invariably leads to i . less-stable
situation at the borehole wall (Bo1 et al.,
1994).”9. This is supported i idirectly by
Tan and Rahman, 1994,” who stated
“When drilling under an iverbalance
condition without an effec ive barrier
present at the wellbore wall, mud
pressure would penetrate p ,ogressively
into the formation. Due o the low
permeability of shales, the nn ud pressure
penetration would result in ar increase in
pore pressure near the we:]lbore wall.
The increase in pore pressure reduces the
effective mud support whict leads to a
less stable wellbore condi1 ion. This
time-dependent stability is!; ie depends
strongly on the mud filtrat: and pore
fluid properties and the ro:k material
composition.’’ If the c xollary is
assumed to apply, underbalar ced drilling
should reduce drilling proble ns in shale,
provided of course, the effective stress
conditions do not lead to fail1 re.
Failure Modes
Wellbore stability is an equal, if not greater,
concern in underbalanced I killing as
compared to conventional operations.
Wellbore failure can be caused by one of
three generic mechanisms. Thesc include:
Tensile failure: This 0cc:iirs if the
maximum tensile stress acting around a
wellbore exceeds the tensile strcngth of the
formation. Two types of tensille failure can
occur. The first is assolciated with
increasing the wellbore pic s u r e and
generating an hydraulic frit :ture (lost
circulation situation). The secx ind type of
tensile failure is extensior al, where
4-9
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
concentric failure surfaces can develop
around the wellbore if the pressure in the
wellbore is reduced and/or if there are
significant seepage forces due to inflow.
This means that material can spa11 into the
wellbore or can be “pushed or dragged” into
the wellbore by flowing formation fluids, in
an environment where frictional resistance is
reduced because there are no compressive
stresses acting (the radial effective stresses,
at least, are tensile).
Shear failure: In a frictional material, shear
failure is governed by the mean stress
(arithmetic average of the principal stresses),
the deviatoric stress tensor (representation of
the differences in magnitudes of the in-situ
principal stresses) and the shear
characteristics of the medium (often a Mohr-
Coulomb failure envelope, where the
governing material parameters are the
cohesion - the inherent shear strength - and
the angle of internal friction). Shear failure
can occur in an active or a passive mode.
The first mode is associated with the lowest
tolerable downhole pressure and movement
of the yielded material is inwards (towards
the wellbore). The second mode requires
larger pressures and movement of the
yielded material is outward (into the
formation). Failure planes and directions of
sliding along these planes can occur in any
direction, depending on the orientations of
the wellbore and the principal stresses and
the material properties.
Mutrix/Pore Collapse: This is structural
collapse. It is governed by the spherical
stress tensor (stress average) and the matrix
isostatic compressive strength (strength
under hydrostatic stress application). This
failure is associated with a volume reduction
and densification of the medium. It can
occur in chalks, weakly cemented sands and
4-10
certain other high porositr materials, as the
effective hydrostatic stress es increase with a
reduction in pore pressure.
The symptoms and r:sults of these
instabilities include:
The wellbore may slough because of
high stresses (drillinj; the hole itself
concentrates stresse ; around the
wellbore), causing shl :ar failure and/or
spalling. This can bc accompanied by
inadequate hole cleanj ng, pipe sticking,
mud rings ... Ther nal stresses can
mitigate the effects O F elevated in-situ
stresses (cooldown red uces stresses) but
in extreme cases coolir g itself can cause
extensional fracturing.
Initiation and/or exten ;ion of hydraulic
fractures if the bc rehole pressure
becomes high enough.
Local mobilization of ; )re-existing faults
if the fluid pressure alc ng the fault plane
increases.
Sudden spalling mat occur during
swabbing or tripping due to transient
reductions in the wellbc re pressure.
Rapid production of fo mation fluiddgas
can occur if higher prc:ssured zones are
encountered. Drag fl )rces may cause
rapid sand production.
Ductile formations su :h as salt, other
evaporites and soft shales can squeeze
and restrict the hole.
Certain shales can swell, causing
restricted hole gauge and accelerated
sloughing.
The driller may not be ablc: to identify what
type of failure is occurring For example, it
may not be possible to cetermine if it is
shear failure or matrix collapse. The
significance lies in understanding how a
material will fail due to pore pressure
reduction. Shear and tensile failure can
jeopardize drilling. Matrix collapse may or
may not jeopardize drilling but may lead to
significant skin and dramatically restrict
future productivity. Understanding your
reservoir is extremely important.
Shale Stability
Certain shales present additional problems -
chemical instability.
The concerns for chemical stability in shale
drilling are similar to those when
conventional muds are used (exposure time,
filtrate chemistry, ionic transport...) with the
added complication that dehydration-
induced desiccation may be a supplementary
problem. In addition, some level of
wellbore integrity is provided b,y pressure
drop through cake or by capillary forces in
the farmation during mud drilling; less cake
develops in underbalanced operations.
“Borehole instability is related
fundamentally to inadequate mud weight
and to the influx of water into the
formation, which aggravates instability
by increasing near-wellbore pore pressure
and by decreasing shale strength. Several
mechanisms govern water (fluid)
movement in or out of the shale. The two
most relevant mechanisms are the
hydraulic pressure difference, Ap,
between the wellbore pressure (mud
weight) and the shale pore fluid pressure,
and the chemical potential differences,
Ap, between the drilling and shale pore
fluids.”
(Hale et al., 1993l’)
___I
Smectitic Shales
These are often ductile and can creep.
Reduced wellbore pressure will accelerate
creep. They are chemically sensitive to the
filtrate’s ionic strength. True unc lerbalanced
drilling probably reduces ionic iegradation
1
and associated swelling. In two-phase
systems, it is reasonable to follo Y the same
procedures that would be used to minimize
ionic diffusion when drilling It: alanced or
overbalanced. The rationale for this is that
ionic movement is governed dor iinantly by
concentration gradients and bsu e aqueous
fluids will contact the wellbc re surface
regardless of the pressure regirre. Inflow
will be usually restricted becaise of the
pressure boundary conditions, bi t this does
not prevent chemical interactioi , although
transient conditions should be 1 ieriodically
anticipated.
If the activity of water in the siale’s pore
fluid is lower than the activity of vater in the
1
drilling fluid, water will be imbibed by the
shale. The shale will expanc, with an
associated degradation in strength Fragments
of shale will slough off the borehc le wall and
fall into the wellbore. These cavings can be
much larger than typical cuttings; hey are not
readily lifted from the hole by many
underbalanced drilling fluids. H gh quality
foam can be an exception. Unfort mately, the
rate at which cavings slough into t le borehole
often does not decrease with time. If they are
too large to be lifted from the boiehole, they
accumulate around the BHA and an stick the
:I
string, often leading to a catastrolihic loss of
hole.
Increasing the borehole’s hydrostatic
pressure may return the hole to stable
conditions, but only temporarik; At this
.1
point, shale integrity has been co mpromised
and ROP will be reduced by thc increased
4-1I
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
hydrostatic pressure.
Salts, gilsonite additives or polymers can be
added to the aqueous phase of a drilling fluid,
to inhibit shale hydration (that can lead to
sloughing). This can be prohibitively
expensive when drilling with mist or foamed
fluids (Le., when the liquid is not re-cycled
around the well.). Regardless, it may be very
difficult to match the activities of these
inhibited drilling fluids with the activities of
the formation, considering dilution with
formation water inflows from further
downhole.
As a result, mist or foam drilling with an
aqueous liquid phase should be avoided if
water-sensitive shales are to be penetrated. If
there is no chance of water inflow and the
shales are relatively strong, it may be possible
to drill them with dry gas. Alternatively, it
may be economic to drill through water
producing zones with mist or foam and then
case them off before switching to dry air
drilling to penetrate a deeper water-sensitive
shale. An example of this is a well drilled in
West Texas (unpublished). In this well, it
was cost effective to case off the water
producing formations and then drill with dry
air through a water-sensitive shale that
displayed unmanageable wellbore instability
when drilled with mist.
Illitic Shales
These formations, particularly those with
significant quartz content, are frequently
brittle and more chemically inert. Creep and
swelling are usually less of a problem. Fines
migration can occur if the drawdown is too
large (probably more of a formation damage
concern than a wellbore stability issue).
Potentially, massive instability can occur
during drawdown because of significant
amounts of stored (a characteristic of brittle
-
4-12
rock) energy. Natural facturing may be
significant, providing ( Npportunities for
reducing lost circulatil )n by drilling
underbalanced.
Failure Criteria
Stability analysis is performed by
determining the far-field principal stresses
(using whatever methodo ogy is available;
refer, for example, to Kinze and Steiger,
1991’2), calculating the sti esses which exist
around the wellbore due t 3 this stress field
and then comparing the existing stresses
with a failure criterion (representing the
strength of the material at particular in-situ
stress conditions). If the stress field
concentrated around the Nellbore exceeds
the failure criterion, yield c an occur.
It is necessary to define a 1 ailure criterion in
order to analyze shear f ulure conditions.
There are many classics1 failure criteria
(e.g., von Mises, Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb,
Drucker-Prager, Hoek and Brownt).13
Steiger and Leung, 1991,I4 discussed various
other failure/yield represen tat ions,
specifically for shales. I t is important to
choose one that represents the characteristics
of the medium in question. The Mohr-
Coulomb relationship i 5 probably the
simplest to use. Thc basis of this
relationship is that a failure locus is
developed from laborator 1 triaxial testing.
The yield or failure stres 1 is characterized
as:
z=c,+o’,tan$ (4.1)
where:
z.........shear stress (one-hz If of the
difference between the maximum,
and minimum princ ipal stresses),
-
Lowry and Ottesen, 1993.13
o,'...... effective normal stress (average of
the maximum and minimum
effective principal stresses),
c,, ........ cohesion (intercept on a z - 0,' plot),
and,
$ ......... angle of internal friction (angle of
Mohr-Coulomb locus from the
0111 axis on a z - 0,' plot).
If the in-situ stress conditions are on or
above this line (on a plot of shear stress
versus normal stress) failure is predicted.
Risnes et al., 1982,15 and Bratli and Risnes,
1981,I6 provided simple analyses for
evaluating stress distributions and yielding
of wellbores in saturated, elastic materials.
Wang and Dusseault, 199 1,17718 presented a
simple elastoplastic model. The analytical
relationships in these publications form a
good basis for approximating the wellbore
pressures required to maintain mechanical
stability. These computational approaches
are described below.
Computational Approaches
Classical Elasticity
Linear elastic theory (Bradley, 1979;19
Zoback et al., 198520) overpredicts the
stresses near the borehole wall. It frequently
indicates that almost any moderately
competent sand or shale will have yielded,
although field and laboratory evidence
suggests that stability is in fact still
maintained. Although these analyses are
simple, they do not adequately represent
non-linear behavior and frequently yield and
failure are not discriminated. They often
provide pessimistic estimates of stability -
they are probably conservative.
Ramos, et al., 1994,21demonstrated a simple
I__-
application of elastic theory. 'I his paper is
important because it showed 1 )asic elastic
formulations, indicated how the basic
equations can be used on a w:11 which is
oriented in the direction of a pri icipal stress
which is not vertical (a horizontal
completion was modeled), inc icated how
fluid flow might be simply iicluded and
described the role of core test ng and log
analysis. Ramos et al., 1994 21 used the /
following elastic formulation:
9 The liquid, steady-statr pressure
distribution was characterize i by:
(4.2)
where:
B ........formation factor (bbl/sbb I),
p(r) fluid pressure at a distanc e, r
(feet), from the center of the
wellbore (psi),
Q ......-.flow rate per unit length sBPD/ft),
p .........viscosity (cP),
k ....... permeability (md),
I .
a .......-.wellbore radius (feet),
pw.....".wellbore pressure (psi), 2 nd,
5.........units conversion factor (: 21.8).
> A critical flow rate was ca!culated, for
steady state conditions, as:
C'nkc, cos$
Q5-- (4.3)
p l-sin$
where:
r........
units conversion factor
(6.806 x
-- __
4-13
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
9 The advantage of this very simple
formula is that it provides an indication
of a critical stability limit, based on flow
(which can be measured) at the surface,
rather than strictly on pressure.
Alternatively, it can be expressed in
terms of pressure.
9 For a horizontal well, centrally
positioned in a reservoir of thickness, H
(feet), the tolerable drawdown can be
expressed as:
AP =
where:
AP ...... tolerable drawdown (psi), and,
dh ....... wellbore diameter (feet).++22
Wang and Dusseault, 1991,'7*'8presented
more complicated solutions for two wellbore
situations, accounting for plastic
deformation. However, if their solutions are
evaluated only up to the limit of yield, the
solutions are useful for providing
conservative estimates of required wellbore
pressures. Wang and Dusseault, 1991,'63'7
defined two wellbore situations. These were
active and passive yield. Active yield
correlates with a reduction in wellbore
pressure; the reduced pressure causes the
radial effective stress at the wellbore wall to
be less than the circumferential effective
stress. Inward movement occurs and shear
yield will eventually occur. Passive yield (in
shear) can occur when the wellbore pressure
is increased so that the radial effective stress
at the wellbore exceeds the circumferential
stress. Generally, tensile failure (hydraulic
'' This solution applies to slightly compressible
fluids. Wang, et al., 1991,22addressed gas.
fracturing) will occur befo -e passive shear.
Consider the following mot .ified versions of
formulations proposed I)y Wang and
Dusseault, 1991.'7*'8
> For active loading (rciduced wellbore
pressure) analogous to :n underbalanced
drilling situation, at th ; wellbore wall,
with no filtercake:
In an impermeable medium:
=3<3HMAX -OHMIN -Pw
(or= Pw
(4.4)
In a permeable medium:
where:
00 .......circumferential (hoo;1) total stress
(Psi),
OHMAX . far-field maximum tc )tal principal
stress (psi),$*
OHM^ .. far-field minimum tc tal principal
stress (psi),"
a ........Biot's poroelastic co istant
(effective stress, d,i s equal to
total stress, CY, minus a p )
(dimensionless),
v ......... drained Poisson's rat io
(dimensionless),
p ......... local reservoir press1 re (psi),
po........"virgin" reservoir prt s u r e (psi),
pw....... wellbore pressure (p: i), and,
or........radial total stress (ps ).
-
'' These formulations were writter for a vertical
wellbore. A horizontal wellbore can be represented
by incorporating the vertical stre js.
> For an active state of stress, two other Figure 4-1 is an example 3f tolerable
parameters were defined: pressures to avoid shear fa lure, based
strictly on linear elastic anzlysis (using
2c, cos 0 Wang and Dusseault's formuli tions). The
sa= - l-sin+ reservoir simulated was assum1:d to have a
depth of 5000 feet, O H M=~4 0 10 psi, O ~ N
+
(4.6)
varied, po = 2165 psi (0.433 psirft), = 35",
and v = 0.25. The cohesion yraried. The
figure indicates that cohesion i i a dominant
parameter and every effort shodd be made
> Assuming a Mohr-Coulomb failure to determine it. It also show; differences
criterion (Equation 4. 1), active failure between permeable and mpermeable
can be predicted when: reservoirs. Wellbore pressure 3 below the
predicted value (psa) indicate nstability in
(4.7) shear. These predictions will generally be
conservative. Similar formu ations were
> For an impermeable medium: developed for passive failure. ' The reader is
referred to the cited papers.

Detournay and Cheng, 1988,23have shown

poroelastic formulations for creation of
(4.8) hydraulic fractures. This woul 1 be passive
where: loading, with tensile failure.

is the minimum wellbore pressure > In a porous, permeable inedium, the

psa
that is allowable before shear failure breakdown pressure, Pi, can be
is predicted (psi). approximated. Hydraulic f1 acturing and
associated lost circulation re predicted
to occur if the wellbore prer sure exceeds
> For a permeable medium (with e l ) : this value.

Psa = 1-2v
2-a-
1-v 1-2v
(4.9)
where:

po........far-field reservoir pressure (psi). where:

If these calculations are used tznd P s a > pw pb ....... the breakdown pressure (psi), and,
the wellbore is predicted to be at risk of To....... tensile strength (psi).
shear failure.

4-15
 - -- --
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

I-. -. I I I II
7000
Minimum Prlncipai Stress ... 4000
6000 .. \. \ -i---L--- --- Minimum Principal Stress ... 3500 pa f
-.... \. Permeable _ _ Principal Stress ... 3000 pa I
- - . _Minimum
-_-.Minimum Principal Stress ...2500 ps I
5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 lt00 2000

Cohesion (psi)

Figure 4-1. Minimum tolerable pressures to avoid shear fail'Ire.

Simple elastic stability apI mroximations are

P If no fluid penetrates the formation, the
shown in Table 4-2.
breakdown pressure can alternately be
expressed as:
Relationships such as th:se have been
developed for deviated vells. (Bradley,
1

1979,19 Brudy and Zoback, 1993;24

Mcknnan et al., 198925).
(4.1 1)
Even if a material has yielded and is
where: deforming plastically, stres i is still carried
by the post-yielded media. Catastrophic
pi ........pore pressure at the borehole wall collapse or spalling may not necessarily yet
(behind a filtercake, if any). occur. The calculatior s are further
complicated by pore pressur ;changes due to
transient flow. Wang and Dusseault,
Detournay and Cheng, 1988,23 also
1991b,'* presented quas -analytical re-
demonstrated the potential for time-
lationships which can be u ;ed to represent
dependent collapse occurring in conjunction
the additional seepage force ; that act during
with equilibration of pore pressure, after
flow into the wellbore.
drilling.
--
4-16
 Table 4-2. Possible Formulae for Estimating Mechanical Stability

Failure Mode
1Permeable
Formation
Impermeable
Formation
Equation Equation
Number

Extensional d Q = -t'nkc, cos$ (4.3)

(Due to p l-sin$
FIow)
Active Shear d

Active Shear d

Passive d
Tension
(Hydraulic
Fracturing)
Passive
Tension
(Hydraulic
Fracturing)

Non-Linear Elastic Approaches (Pressure- 9 The tangential stresses near t le wellbore

Dependent Modulus and Damage
Mechanics) Classical predictions. have
usually assumed that the reservoir behaves
as a linear elastic material, with failure being
predicted by comparing the stresses at the
borehole wall, calculated using elastic
theory, with the peak strength of the rock.
Recognizing the conservative character of
these analyses, Santarelli et al., 1986,26
developed a closed-form solution for the
stresses and strains around an axisymmetric
wellbore in elastic rock, where the modulus
was a function of the confining pressure.
This model indicated:
may be much lower than predicted by
elastic analysis, and,
9 The maximum tangential strt ss may not
occur at the wellbore wall.
These impb that elastic analysec alone may
be conservative. Non-linear el,astic models
and damage mechanics models (assessing
microstructural degradation due. to stresses;
refer for example to Pellegrino et al,, 199427)
delimit a zone of reduced stre ses around
wellbores and can even indicate :xtensional,
circumferential failure. The bri ;is of these
models (Santarelli, et al., 1986;' Nawrocki

4-17
 ---I-_
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
and Dusseault, 199528) is to calculate the
effective stress regime, with the added
stipulation that Young’s Modulus is a
function of the effective secondary
minimum principal stress. The resulting
stress field is compared to the failure
criterion adopted to assess if yield has
occurred. Preferably, non-constant pore
pressure distributions away from the
wellbore (at least transient and preferably
steady-state as well) should be incorporated
into the model to represent seepage forces
and more realistic radial variation of
effective stresses.
Elastoplustic Approaches
These models predict a yielded zone around
the wellbore, but they do impart some load-
bearing capability to these zones and the
wellbore may remain intact. Elastic-plastic
models are an approximation of material
behavior, but they do at least allow yield to
occur. Numerical modeling is generally
required, unless restrictive assumptions are
adopted. Finite element models are usually
used (Vaziri and Byrne, 199029; Wang,
199530). They have the advantage that,
pending adequate knowledge of material
properties and an expert to perform the
analysis, various three-dimensional
geometries, and assorted behavioral laws
(creep, elastic-plastic, flow, non-isothermal,
ionic transport...) can be simulated. The
relationships between the existing stresses
and the associated deformations are
governed by constitutive relationships. This
is beyond the scope of this document. The
reader is referred to Charlez, 1994;31Ewy,
1991;32Detournay, 1986;33and, Veeken et
a]., 1989.34
Chemo-Mechanical Models
Some models have been developed, trying to
integrate inflow, ionic diffusion and time-
4-18
-
dependent mechanical behavior. The
calculations are usually c omplex, requiring
numerical modeling and i i significant effort
in determining material parameters. As
Wong and Heidug, 1 9 ! 1 4 , ~stated,
~ “the
chemical effect results fro m modification of
the strength of the structiiral and hydration
forces operating between 1 :losely spaced (4
nm) and hydrated clay particles that
accompanies invasion of water-based
drilling fluids.” The mc idel described by
these authors used an ertension of Biot’s
poroelastic theory to ncorporate fluid
chemistry and a modified rersion of Darcy’s
law to accommodate o:motic flow. A
similar, but simpler, tac :ic (incorporating
hydration forces into the mechanical stress
equations) has been propcsed by Bo1 et al.,
1994.9
Field Testing
Surewaard et al., 1996,36d scussed instability
during underbalanced drill ng in a heavy oil
reservoir in Oman. An ittempt to drill a
horizontal hole with foan had met with
wellbore instability proble ms in a different
formation. Caliper data in the unstable shale
above the target reservoir showed how the
hole diameter changed wit1 I different degrees
of overbalance. These indi :ated that the hole
could enlarge considerably through this shale
(they predicted a twenty-in ch diameter if the
drilling was underbalancc d). A field trial
was performed, in whic:h the proposed
underbalanced drilling flu id was circulated
through a 100 foot interv<dof hole, drilled
through the formation (shzle) with the most
potential for wellbore instal lility. Caliper logs
showed the hole evolving -rom 8.2 inches to
20 inches in diameter, ovt r that period. In
order to drill the reservoir underbalanced, an
additional casing string would need to have
been, set across the unstable shale. Eventually,
it was decided that the in( remental costs of
this and other changes made underbalanced
drilling uneconomic.
The dimulties in forecasting stability can
be signijkant. Field calibration of
predictions is oflen required.
An Example
Even though elastic analyses are approximate
(usually overestimate the minimum wellbore
pressure for shear and underestimate the
maximum wellbore pressure for hydraulic
fracturing; except if natural fractures are
present), they are useful for preliminary
scoping of stability situations. Consider a
vertical well with the following
characteristics:
depth ............................................... 5000 feet
O ~ A ..............................
X .4000 psi (.8 psi/ft)
O ~ I ..............................................
N unknown
c, ....................................................... 1000 psi
9................................................................ 35"
po................................... 2165 psi (.433 psi/ft)
To........................................................ 500 psi
v ................................................................ 0.3
Figure 4-2 shows elastic stability limits for
shear and tensile failure, as a function of
different values of the minimum horizontal
stress, The intersection of the area beneath
the hydraulic fracturing line and above the
shear failure line is predicted to be stable.
Bottomhole pressures should fall in this
range for stable drilling.
Hydrocarbon Production Rate and
Surface Pressures
In some circumstances, the maximum
hydrocarbon production rate that can safely
be handled at the surface will enforce a lower
limit on the borehole pressure that can be
--__I__-
tolerated.
For gas production, the pressure inside the
surface system will be controllzd by the
frictional pressure loss upstream ( d the flare.
If the surface system incoqlorates an
atmospheric mudgas separ itor, the
backpressure must not exceed the imit set by
the height of the liquid seal. Oth:rwise, gas
may escape into the open liquids collection
tanks, with potentially dangerous
consequences. With a closed surf ice system,
the backpressure must not iertceed the
pressure limitation of the 1 nulti-phase
separator vessel.
There will be maximum toleri.ble liquid
production rates for both 2 tmospheric
mudgas separators and for in mlti-phase,
closed separators. The liquid retun I rate is the
sum of the returning (drilling fluid liquid rate
and the produced liquid rate. For :ither open
or closed surface systems, an exce sive liquid
return rate will cause ineff cient gas
separation, with gas carrying ov:r into the
liquids' collection tanks or liqu d carrying
over to the flare.
In principle, surface equipmer t can be
designed to handle almost any ( onceivable
production rate. If the surface iystem can
handle the production under abs olute open
flow rate conditions, combined with the
injected drilling fluids, the produi: :ion rate or
surface pressures will not place: any lower
limit on the allowable borehol z pressure
while drilling. In practice, equipment
availability will be a factor. It is IJ nlikely that
it would be economic to ccsnstruct an
oversizt:d surface system from scri tch.
Formation Damage
Another limit to the tolerable drav idown may
4-19
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 380) 4000
Minimum In-Situ Stress (psi)

Figure 4-2. Variation of allowable wellbore pressure, estimated using I, near elastic
theory, for an example 5000 foot deep well.

be the onset of formation damage caused by
fines mobilization in the producing
formation. Determining this limit is complex
(and often highly inaccurate); involving the
reservoir rock mineralogy, petrology,
permeability, strength and formation fluid
rheology, as well as the prevailing pressures.
Laboratory experiments, using core under
simulated downhole conditions, are probably
the only practical way to estimate what
drawdown can be tolerated before significant
damage occurs.
Backpressure
If the combined return rate of absolute open
flow production and injected drilling fluid
cannot be handled by available surface
equipment, it is possible to restrict the
production rate by taking returns through a
choke before entering a s eparation system.
This imposed backpressure will increase the
borehole pressure, which vi11 in turn reduce
the rate of influx. The allowable
backpressure is limited by tl le pressure ratings
of the surface equipment upstream of the
choke, the choke itself, the wellhead and the
surface casing ,.. The lowest working
pressure limit is almost in variably provided
by the diverter system (Le., a rotating head or
MOP) in use. RBOPs were developed
specifically to increase tke ability to use
surface pressure to control downhole influx
while drilling.
When using compressible c rilling fluids, it is
usually more cost effectiv: to switch to a
higher density drilling flu d than to choke
back the well. Applying a jackpressure will

4-20
increase the gas injection pressure. It will
also increase the gas injection rate required
for acceptable hole cleaning, when drilling
with dry gas or mist. Both of these effects
will increase the cost of the gas supply; air
compressors, natural gas or nitrogen ...
It is usually possible to increase the borehole
pressure by reducing the gas injection rate
when a gasified liquid is used. Manipulating
the surface backpressure is usually not
necessary in this situation.
When drilling with foam, backpressure may
be necessary to maintain the foam quality
within acceptable limits throughout the
wellbore.
The most benefit from choking back can be
derived for liquid drilling fluids, in order to
increase the borehole pressure. This is often
done to control the rate of production during
the latter stages of drilling a horizontal
interval. It can permit continued use of
simple drilling fluids, such as water, without
incurring the incremental costs for a weighted
drilling fluid.
Once the maximum tolerable surface
pressure is reached, production rate can
only be further reduced by increasing
downhole pressure by increasing the
effective density of the drilling .fluid.
Implications of Drilling Technique
Select ion
9 Pore pressure gradients vary with
depth.
9 Formation strength will vary with
depth.
9 In-situ stresses will vary wit1 1 depth.
P The tolerable stresses, partic ularly from
a stability point-of-view arc? affected by
the inclination and oritntation of
deviated, extended reach ani4 I horizontal
wells. The underbalance pressure at
the onset of instability co~imonlyde-
creases as the hole angle inc reases.
Due to these various factors, it is often not
possible to represent the boreh de pressure
required to prevent instability with a single,
simple pressure gradient. Also, a ; was shown
in Chapter 2, the effective pressure gradient
for a compressible drilling flu d increases
with increasing well depth. 4 thorough
assessment of the potential f )r wellbore
instability for different underbala iced drilling
techniques involves comparinl predicted/
calculated circulating pressures md limiting
borehole pressures, at diffei ent depths
throughout the interval(s) in ques ion.
Production rates depend on tl.13 length of
reservoir that is open to the we'l'bore and on
the underbalance pressure. The 1 nderbalance
pressure (the drawdown) Ziving the
maximum tolerable production rate will be
smallest at TD in the reservoir. In vertical
wells, the amount of undert dance will
generally increase with incre: sing depth.
This is not the case in horizon a1 wells. In
these wells, frictional pressure 1 xses up the
annulus will increase with mea ;ured depth,
while hydrostatic pressures del lend on the
true vertical depth. The circulat mg borehole
pressure will be higher at the bit than at the
start of the horizontal section. Since the

Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate lechnique
virgin pore pressure will be nominally the
same along the horizontal section, the
underbalance pressure will generally be
smaller at the bit than further uphole. As a
result, the rate of production while drilling a
horizontal well may not increase in direct
proportion to the length of the horizontal
section. Nevertheless, the total production
should be greatest when the hole is at TD.
From the point-of-view of technique
selection, it is normally sufficient to confirm
that the candidate drilling technique will not
allow excessive production at TD.
Once the borehole pressure limits,
corresponding to wellbore instability and
excessive production rate, have been
determined, a first pass evaluation of
different drilling techniques can be
performed by using the ranges of equivalent
circulating densities (ECD). If the range of
ECDs shown for a particular technique does
not give a borehole pressure between the
pore pressure and the higher of the wellbore
instability and excessive production limits,
that technique is unlikely to allow safe
underbalanced drilling, without choking
back the return flow.
This simple screening method is illustrated in
Figures 4-3 through 4-5 (Examples 1 through
5), to follow. These schematics show the
approximate ranges of borehole pressure
achievable with various underbalanced
drilling techniques, plotted against true
vertical depth. These schematic plots
(Figures 4-3 through 4-5) are for depths up to
10000 feet. There is no reason why
underbalanced drilling should not be
successful at depths well in excess of this.
Note that the ranges of achievable pressures
shown are only approximate. With lightened
fluids and gases, the borehole pressure, for a
given combination of injection rates, will not
-
increase linearly with depth It will increase
more rapidly than this due to the
compressibility of the gaseous phase, The
lower limit for the boreho'e pressure when
drilling with foam will alriost certainly be
higher than that shown for d :pths in excess of
5,000 feet if the fluid is to .emain a foam to
the surface. A single limiting ECD is used in
these illustrations to avoid u idue complexity.
In practice, computer sir iulation of the
circulating pressures is e sential for any
potential foam application at depths much
greater than 5,000 feet.
Example 1
Figure 4-3 shows a shdlow, normally
pressured (8.35 ppg or 0.43: psi/ft) reservoir.
There are no wellbore ins1 ability concerns,
from the surface casing point, at 700 feet, to
TD, at 4,000 feet. The 1)roposed surface
system can handle the ant cipated absolute
open flow rate of the well. Minimal water
inflow is expected. Since ;tability is not a
problem, any gaseous or 1 ightened drilling
fluid could be used, and tec hnique selection
should be based principal y on economic
analysis (and certain othe r considerations
given in a Section 4.4). In practice, dry air
drilling would probably be the most
economic drilling technique Misting might
be necessary to avoid mud--ing formation if
slight water inflows are enco mtered. If water
inflow becomes excessive, a stable foam
might be needed.
Example 2
Figure 4-4 illustrates a hole interval from
2,000 to 6,000 ft which includes a depleted
sandstone from 3,000 to 4,0( 0 feet. The pore
pressure gradient in the depl :ted sandstone is
5 ppg (-0.26 psi/ft). Tt e pore pressure
gradient above and below the sandstone is 8
ppg (0.416 psi/ft). Drillin ; conventionally
with mud encounters sign ficant problems
 4500

4000

3500
n
-
sa
a
3000

;.;.. .')
/
L
2500 Llquld
ln , I
9!
/
.I'

a Pore Pressure
al 2000
-
0
r

m
1500

1000
.- Foam Mist Gas
500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
True Vertical Depth (feet)

Figure 4-3. Stability regimes for the well described in Example 1.

4500

4000

3500

% 3000
a
v

2
2500
ln
9!
a
-
0,
0
2000

E
S

1500

lo00

500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
True Vertical Depth (feet)

Figure 4-4. Stability regimes for the well described in Example ;!.

4-23
 -
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

4500

4000 Pore Pressure LImlt

3500

E 3000
v
Llquld
z
2500
z
a
- 2000
(u
0

s?
r

2 1500
1000 ...-

500
Foam
I Mist Gas I
0
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 lOoc 3
True Vertical Depth (feet)

Figure 4-5. Stability regimes for the wells described in Examples 3 through 5.

with lost circulation and differential sticking
across this formation. The entire hole interval
is comparatively stable, and mechanical
wellbore instability is not anticipated, if the
ECD is maintained above 2 ppg (-0.10
psi/ft). The depleted sand produces gas at
low rates and the surface system can
comfortably handle the absolute open flow.
This hole could be drilled with foam, either
stable or stiffened, or with a gasified liquid. In
the latter case, high gas injection rates would
probably be required; air would probably be
the only economic option for the gasifying
medium.
Example 3
The next example is for an interval that
encompasses overburden and a reservoir. The
pore pressure, gradient is equivalent to 8 ppg
(0.416 psi/ft). This situation is shown in
Figure 4-5.There is a section of shale (from
6000 to 8000 feet) above th; reservoir (from
8000 to 9000 feet) in which it is estimated
that a borehole pressure grad lent equivalent to
7 ppg (0.364 psi/ft) is required to avoid
wellbore instability. The I eservoir itself is
competent, and wellbore i nstability is not
expected to be a problem un less the borehole
pressure gradient falls belcw 5 ppg (0.260
psi/ft) equivalent. The reser voir is, however,
prolific. By the time the taget TD (9,000 ft
TVD) is reached, it is es imated that the
maximum tolerable drawdoi m would be 500
psi. Assuming that the pon: pressure at this
depth would be 3,744 psi (i e. 0.416 psi/ft x
9,000 feet), the minimum al owable borehole
pressure would be 3,244 psi. This
corresponds to 6.93 ppg (0.2 60 psilft). If the
overburden is uncased wher the reservoir is
drilled, the complete section requires that the

4-24
equivalent circulating density of the drilling
fluid should be in the range 7 to 8 ppg, using
a low density liquid, such as diesel or crude
oil. Gasified water could also be used, but
the t'zrget pressures are at the upper end of
those normally developed when drilling with
gasified liquids. For a gasified liquid, the
volume fraction of gas required to maintain
the borehole pressure gradient above 6.93 ppg
(0.36 psi/ft) would not be large. It might not
be possible to operate in the friction-
dominated flow regime. Operating in the
friction-dominated regime is preferable for
controlling the borehole pressure. The
possibility for drilling with a gasified liquid
would require more sophisticated evaluation
of the circulating pressures.
Example 4
Suppose that the maximum tolerable
drawdown in Example 3 was estimated to be
only 100 psi. This would set the lower
borehole pressure limit at 3,644 psi (7.79
ppg) at TD. A drilling fluid formulated with
diesel or crude oil would give pressures lower
than this. Plain water would be too dense to
give underbalanced conditions. This is little
different from the situation in many Austin
chalk wells, that have been successfully
flowdrilled with plain water. In these Austin
chalk wells, lost circulation has caused the
onset of production and the hydrostatic
pressure exerted by the mixture of water and
formation fluid is sufficiently low that
production has continued thereafter. If flow
cannot be induced in this way, it may be
possible to drill underbalanced with a light
hydrocarbon drilling fluid and to choke back
flow, to keep the production rate below the
limits of the surface equipment. Any decision
to drill like this would require detailed
analyses of the circulating pressures,
incorporating produced fluids and the surface
system capacity, to confirm that this
techniq,ue could be safely ir Iplemented.
Experience with flowdrilling in iffset wells
might provide sufficient conf dence that
production rates would not beconi 5 excessive.
Example 5
A final example is a further malification of
Example 3. Suppose that the rtservoir had
been depleted to a 6.5 ppg (C.338 psi/ft)
equivalent gradient. If the maximum
tolerabfe drawdown remained at 500 psi, the
tolerable range for equivalenl circulating
density through the reservoir W O L I ~be 5.4 to
6.5 ppg. A gasified liquid would be required.
This would not provide sufficien: support to
avoid wellbore instability in the shale above
the reservoir. It would be necessary to set
casing at the top of the reservo r to drill it
underbalanced. This would cert :inly impact
the drilling economics.
When evaluating highly productive
formations, more detailed numeri ;al analyses
of circulating pressures are requi .ed than the
simplistic ECD considerations described
above.
> Computation of borehole pr:ssures and
praduction rates, for differ :nt drilling
fluid injection schemes, i ; complex.
Formation fluid inflows inter x t with the
drilling fluid to change t t e borehole
pressure. This in turn leads to changes
in the inflow rate. When c rculation is
stopped to make connection^ or to trip
the string, produced fluids 'vi11 tend to
lift the remnant drilling flu d from the
annulus. This changes tk e borehole
pressure and the production r zte.
> Choking back the well retiims further
complicates calculation (1F borehole
pressures and production rates. If the
drilling fluid is incompn ssible, the
choked back circulating pres sure will be
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
the sum of the circulating pressure at that
depth, without the backpressure, and the
imposed backpressure.. If the annular
fluid contains any gas, compressibility
normally causes the borehole pressure to
increase by more than the imposed
backpressure. Determining borehole
pressure and production rates for
different fluids, rates and backpressures
normally requires computer simulation.
9 It is inevitable that there will be
uncertainty in simulator input
parameters. Sensitivity of the
predictions to variations in these input
parameters is required. In many
circumstances, the overall uncertainty in
the input parameters can be so great that
the effort required for repeated
computer-based simulations may not be
justified, at least for technique selection.
Water Production
Theflow of formation water into the
borehole can influence the selection
Production of even small volumes of water
can make dry gas drilling difficult. A mud
ring can form as damp cuttings collect,
usually at the top of the BHA where the
annular velocity is lowest. It is common to
switch to mist, or even foam, if a water
inflow is encountered. When onset wells
indicate that formation water inflows are
probable, the operator should not expect to
drill below the water producing zone with
dry gas.
When misting, higher air injection rates are
required to lift the water from the hole. The
air rate must be sufficiently high to prevent
4-26
slug flow. Slug flow can damage the
borehole and surface equip ment. The high air
rate, in combination with tie weight of water
in the annulus, significaitly increases the
standpipe pressure. Bc bosters are often
needed to increase the ga; delivery pressure
when substantial watc :r inflows are
encountered. More con pressor power is
required. If nitrogen or nilturd gas are used
as the gas phase, the gas I upply cost will be
greatly increased.
Certain wells can tolerate 1,lrge water influxes
and slugging, during mist drilling. Surface
holes have been drilled n Terrel County,
Texas, with water flows Teater than lo00
BPH. Since the water \{as fresh, surface
disposal was approved. Ir central Australia,
fresh water flows into riist drilled wells
occurred at 2000 BPH. Su rface disposal was
also possible here. In both of these cases the
wellbores were stable enc ugh that slugging
was acceptable.
It may not be feasible to lift large volumes of
water from the well by niisting. At some
stage, the additional gas njection rate and
pressure required become i npractical. When
this occurs, foam is prefer tble. There is no
unique water inflow rate E bove which foam
drilling is preferable t i misting. The
appropriate time for chang:ng fluids depends
on the availability of additional air
compression power when drilling with air
mist, and on the cost of thc gas supply when
drilling with other gases. Since other gases,
such as nitrogen or naturil gas, are much
more costly than compresse air, misting with
these gases at lower rates is less economic
than drilling with air mist.
Hole size also influences tfe impact of water
inflow on required gas i ijection rate and
pressure. Increased cross-sectional area
reduces annular velocity and hole cleaning
efficiency, although large holes can usually
produce more water before the gas injection
pressure becomes impractically high.
Carefully managed foam can lift considerable
volumes of water from a well - as much as
500 BWPH has been reported by Shale,
1995.37 When large water inflows are
anticipated, dry gas or mist drilling may not
be appropriate, even if wellbore stability and
hydrocarbon production rates indicate that
these drilling fluids would be nominally
acceptable.
In many locations, the cost of waste water
disposal precludes mist drilling. Foam may
or may not be an alternative. Since borehole
pressures will tend to be somewhat higher
when foam is used instead of mist or dry gas,
the water inflow rate will probably be
somewhat lower. The reduction in inflow
rate from normally pressured aquifers will
not, however, be dramatic and disposal
volumes may not be substantially different.
For example, the formation fluid pressure at
4,000feet in a normally pressured reservoir
will be approximately 1,750 psi. Mist drilling
might generate a borehole pressure of 50 to
100 psi before any water inflow (assume 75
psi for illustrative purposes), whereas a
pressure in the range 500 to 1,000 psi might
be developed when drilling with foam
(assume 750 psi for illustrative purposes).
Using these wellbore pressures, the
underpressure (drawdown) with mist would
be 1750 - 75 = 1,675 psi (not considering any
borehole pressure increase due to produced
water) and 1750 - 750 = 1,000 psi for foam.
This example suggests that the water inflow
rate with foam would be expected to be
roughly 60% of that when drilling with mist
(presuming Darcy flow with the inflow rate
proportional to the drawdown). However,
higher liquid injection rates are used in foam
drilling. Considering these co npensating
factors (higher pressure but greate . base fluid
load), the volume of waste watx is often
fairly similar for the two diffennt drilling
techniques. When water disp mal costs
prevent mist drilling, it is unliketi that foam
drilling will be more cost effective
In situations where water productit )n rates are
too high for mist or foam drillinj;, the main
alternatives are to drill underbal lnced with
aerated liquids or low density licuids, or to
mud up and drill overbalanced. In some
instances, it is possible for a well to make
water when drilled underbalz nced (for
example, with dry air) and to lose circulation
when drilled with liquid. In such 3 case, it is
worth considering drilling with d y air until
the reserve pit is filled, switching to drilling
with the produced water until the ’eserve pits
are depleted and then switching liack to dry
air. There are only a limited number of
applications where this may be ~ossible. It
has been cost effective in the Blzck Warrior
Basin (Graves et al., 199638). Tliis practice
should only be attempted when the operator is
confident that the uncertainties of drilling
“blind” can be tolerated w’ien water
circulation is lost.
Multiple Permeable Zones
If all zones are to be drilled unierbalanced,
the circulating pressure must satisfy the
borehole pressure requirements f t )r all open,
permeable zones, simultaneous11 . Several
4-2 7

Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
factors can prevent this from occurring. For
example:
9 The equivalent circulating density of
compressible drilling fluids increases
with increasing depth along the hole.
k In vertical wells, it is possible for a
permeable zone close to the bit to be
overbalanced when a permeable zone
higher uphole, with the same pore
pressure gradient, is underbalanced.
9 In highly deviated and horizontal wells,
the effect may be more pronounced. The
annular pressure drop increases with
distance along the hole whereas the pore
pressure increases with vertical depth.
Particularly in horizontal hole sections,
the borehole pressure at the bit can be
markedly higher than at the start of the
horizontal section, even though the
formation pore pressure is the same
throughout the section.
9 There may be changes in the borehole
pressure gradient along the wellbore,
either due to overpressure or due to
production from another zone(s). Deis et
al., 1995,39 cited an example where a
horizontal well in a compartmentalized
reservoir, penetrated one portion of the
reservoir overbalanced and a second
portion underbalanced.
The major concern when drilling
underbalanced with more thim one permeable
zone open to the wellbore is the potential for
an underground blowout. In an underground
blowout, formation fluid flows uncontrollably
from one permeable formation into another
formation uphole, rather than up to the
surface and out of the well. If the borehole
pressure is lower than the fomiation pressure
in all open, permeable zones, formation fluids
will flow from all zones into the borehole and
4-28
-.
there will be no crossflow from ,one zone to
another. Care should be t: ken to ensure that
changes in borehole pressu -e, occurring when
circulation is suspended f 3r connections or
tripping, or when the well is shut-in, do not
allow crossflow to occur. If this cannot be
guaranteed, the consequenc es of charging the
formations uphole with for nation fluids from
downhole must be assesscd carefully. The
impact is likely to be m x e serious when
drilling through gas-produc ing formations. If
crossflow cannot be toleiated, the options
include:
9 Using a different drilling technique that
allows all permeable zones to remain
underbalanced (if suck a technique can
be identified),
9 Killing the well btfore suspending
circulation (this may d efeat the purpose
of underbalanced dril' ing for reducing
formation damage), or,
k Changing the casing s( heme so that the
upper formation(s) are cased off before
penetrating the lower z(,ne(s).
Whether drilling under- o overbalanced, it
must always be possible to mud up to kill the
well, without losing circuli tion or fracturing
the formation. This may no be possible if the
formation fluid pressun in an open
permeable zone is greater tl an the pressure at
which circulation is lost iito another open
zone or at which some portion of the
openhole can be fractured. Correct selection
of casing points will preven this situation. (It
should only occur if the pore pressure or
fracture gradients are sign ificantly different
from those assumed when c esigning the well.
If this does occur, a well control program
must be implemented). Tiis problem does
not occur exclusively wher a well is drilled
underbalanced. The same : ituation can arise
if a well is drilled convent onally, with mud
in the hole.
Sour Gas
Thepotential for producing h3ydrogen
sulfide to the sugace always needs to be
considered when selecting a drilling
There must be no possibility for hydrogen
sulfide to be released into the atmosphere
while the well is being drilled or completed.
Beyond being extremely toxic, hydrogen
sulfide (HzS) is also combustible and very
corrosive. If any is produced during drilling,
it should be discharged into a suitable flare.
This can, in principle, be done safely if the
drilling system is a dry gas or mist and if all
returns from the well are flared at the
discharge end of the blooie line.
Gaseous hydrogen sulfide can become
entrained in any liquid phase in the drilling
fluid. At the surface, it must be separated
from produced and returned liquids
Conventional mud/gas separators and open
liquid tanks should normally not be used if
hydrogen sulfide bearing formations are to be
drilled underbalanced. The separation
process must be completed in a closed vessel,
with all separated gas being routed to a
suitable flare. Otherwise, hydrogen sulfide
may be released into the atmosphere. The
requirement for controlling hydrogen sulfide
release effectively mandates thle use of a
closed surface system, if there is any
possibility of producing sour gas while
drilling.
Sour gas can also become entrained in a
foamed drilling fluid. Complete separation of
a foam into its constituent gas and liquid
phases can take a considerable time - hours -
if no measures are taken to kill the foam.
Unless eflective defoaming can be
guaranteed, foams cannot be used with
closed systems and, as a rerult, foams
should not normally be used W A en sour gas
may be encountered.
Operators and all rig site penonnel must
adhere to all appropriate pegulutions.
Appropriate safety precau tions are
essentiul.
Drilling 1Reservoir Fluid
lncompatibility
From time to time, it can be diffixlt to avoid
temporarily creating overbalance 1 conditions
in a well drilled with a gas fied liquid,
particularly when making coni ections and
trips. Temporary overbalance is tlso possible
when drilling with a low-density liquid if, for
example, a gas-producing well is shut in and
gas is allowed to migrate up the v .ell.
This is a problem because steps r e normally
not taken to improve the fluid 10;s properties
of underbalanced drilling fluids Mud cake
will nominally not be deposited on the
borehole wall when the well is
underbalanced. In fact, formatio I fluid flow,
into an underbalanced wellbore, will tend to
remove any solids (for example d rilled solids)
remaining from previous transient
overbalanced interludes. Consec uently, flow
of liquid from the drilling fli id into the
formation is unlikely to be res ricted when
overbalanced conditions (uni ntentionally)
occur. There is also the pcssibility for
counter-current imbibition of the liquid phase
of the drilling fluid into the rltservoir, if a
water-wet reservoir is below it ; irreducible
water saturation or an oil-wet reservoir is
below its irreducible oil saturation.
Presuming periodic overbalance or counter-
current imbibition, it is important to ensure
that the drilling fluid's liquid phase is
4-29
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
compatible with the formation when a liquid
or a gasified liquid is used to drill through the
reservoir (Bennion et al., 1995a;5 Surewaard
et al., 1996;36and Deis et al., 199539).
Laboratory testing can help to formulate an
“inert” fluid system. Simple index tests (for
example, capillary suction testing) can be
performed, or, alternatively, cores from target
formations can be exposed to candidate
drilling fluids, under pressure regimes that are
representative of conditions that might be
experienced while drilling and completing the
well (Bennion et al.,1995a,’ Deis et al.,
199539).
It is very unlikely that overbalanced
conditions will occur in a well that is being
drilled with foam. Counter-current imbibition
could cause the aqueous phase of a foamed
drilling fluid to enter the formation, although
there are no reports of this having happened.
Therefore, there is probably less need for
comprehensive core evaluations, unless some
form of foam block is possible.
Evaluating drilling fluid compatibility is
probably unnecessary if dry gas is to be used
as the drilling fluid or if only the overburden
is to be drilled underbalanced (unless chemo-
mechanical degradation is an issue).
Hole Geometry
Hole geometry can influence selection of an
optimized drilling fluid in several different
ways.
9 As has been discussed, the equivalent
circulating density of compressible
drilling fluids increases with increasing
depth. A gasified liquid, with an ECD of
2 ppg at 2,000 feet, can develop an ECD
of 5 ppg at 6,000 feet (refer to Figure 2-
41). In other words, a fluid that would
give underbalanced c( lnditions at one
depth may not be ;~ble to provide
comparable underbalanl :ed conditions at
a greater depth, when 1 he pore pressure
gradient is the same.
9 Annular gas injection mly reduces the
density of the fluid c( lumn above the
injection point. Since tl le injection point
is at or just above the shoe of the last
string of casing, it is not possible to
develop a low ECD at the bottom of a
long vertical section, P ith annular gas
injection. Drillpipe gas injection may be
necessary if long vertic 11 sections are to
be drilled with gasified iquid.
P The increase in ECD with increasing
depth means that it cai be difficult to
maintain acceptable fot rrn quality from
the hole bottom to thc surface, during
deep drilling with foan . Backpressure
may be required to m,iintain the foam
quality up the annulus vithin limits that
1
permit adequate hole cleaning. This
increases the gas SUPF ly requirements,
and can make foam unattractive for
drilling at great depth. However, foam
has been used satisfac orily to drill to
15,000 feet (Dupont, 198440) - the
limitation is more economic than
technical.
P The effect of increasing hole diameter on
hole cleaning efficiency is a major
consideration. The dr lling fluid flow
rate, required to achievt a given annular
velocity, increases in ~roportionto the
annulus area. Good clt aning in a 17%-
inch diameter hole ti pically requires
circulation rates that ai e approximately
four times greater thosc required for an
%&inch diameter hol: to the same
depth. This geometric :ffect can restrict
the use of those drillin,; fluids that rely
on high annular ve ocity for hole
 cleaning. This means that high viscosity
drilling fluids can become more
attractive as the hole diameter increases.
Foams, particularly stiffened foams, and
gasified muds are often the preferred
fluids for drilling holes with diameters of
17%-inches and larger.
9 When drilling large diameter holes, the
pressure capacity of diverter equipment,
capable of passing large diameter bits,
may restrict the choice of drilling
technique to those that do not require
any significant backpressure. RBOP's
with through bore dimensions of eleven
inches (up to 6.75 inches with the kelly
packer in place) are off-the-shelf items.
Additional sizes may be available.
When drilling with dry gas, reverse
circulation can provide good cleaning in large
diameter holes, without unacceptably high
gas injection rates. This technique is
described in Chapter 2, Section 2.1.7. It does
require special surface equipment and cannot,
at this time, be regarded as an established,
routine, drilling technique. It may,
nevertheless, be an option for drilling large
diameter holes with very low borehole
pressures.
There are appreciable technical limitations on
directional drilling equipment suitable for
underbalanced drilling. In particular, mud
pulse telemetry MWD systems ccmnot operate
with a compressible drilling fluid in the
drillstring. Liquids, or liquids gasified by
annular injection, are the only underbalanced
drilling fluids that can be used with a mud
pulse MWD system. Other MWD systems or
procedures can be used for liquids gasified
through the drillstring. Underbalanced
drilling in directional and horizontal wells is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
-
Naturally Fractured Format ions
Stable foam (stiff foam is even tetter) can be
used at much lower annular vclocities than
other underbalanced drilling flu ds. Beyond
cleaning performance, reduct d wellbore
erosion is sometimes cited as a benefit of
foam drilling. However, in cor ipetent rock,
there are few applications whei e significant
erosion is likely if other 11 iderbalanced
drilling fluids are used. This m iy not be the
case when drilling through natur dly fractured
formations. In fractured fonr ations, high
viscosity drilling fluids, circul,iting at low
annuliu velocities, can be t eneficial in
controlling borehole enlargemei it (Santarelli
et al., 199241). For this reaso 1, stiff foam
may be a preferred candidate for drilling
underbalanced through natura ly fractured
formations. The high viscosity a nd good hole
cleaning capacity of a stiffened fi )amwill also
help lift fragments of naturally f *acturedrock
that may have spalled off during, jrilling.
Logistics
Logistical issues, associated with certain
locations, can often influence what fluid
system is selected. For exaniile, in some
desert locations, water supples may be
restricted and/or very expenshe. In these
environments, a drilling technique that
minimizes water requirement: would be
preferTed. A stiff foam m iy be more
economic than its stable counte part because
(refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.6) t can be used
at lower liquid injection rat( s. Drilling
techniques that permit re-circul: tion of water
would also be desirable.
Availability and access also nfluence the
choice of the gaseous phase foir compressible
drilling fluids,. as well as wellsi .e equipment.
Cryogenic nitrogen is generall! uneconomic
in a remote location. Natura gas can be
attractive when drilling in a , ;as-producing
4-31

Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
field, particularly if local gas gathering and
processing facilities can recover some of the
gas used.
The specific location type is a consideration.
Offshore operations can generally
accommodate much less supplementary
surface equipment than land-based
operations. The equipment that is used in
underbalanced drilling operations onshore
may not be suitable for use offshore. New,
underbalanced drilling equipment is
becoming available for offshore deployment
(particularly closed systems). Nesa et al.,
1995,42 reported on some of these
developments, designed to comply with the
relevant authority's requirements for offshore
application. These modular drilling systems
would be closed. Generically, the main
components are an RBOP, a customized
choke manifold, a well fluid processing unit
(separators, drilling fluid tank with degasser
equipment ...), a nitrogen injection unit and
monitoring equipment.
The high cost of new offshore drilling
operations and production facilities means
that these fields must be extremely productive
if they are to be economic. This makes them
unlikely candidates for drilling with dry gas
or mist. However, in mature, offshore fields,
there are situations where the infrastructure
platform and pipeline systems are in-place,
have been amortized and production is
declining. These will provide future
opportunities for assorted, underbalanced
drilling technologies.
4.4 Economic Analysis
Introduction
The use of an underbalanced drilling
technique is driven by different
considerations in different applications. For
4-32
_I__-
example, drilling cost redu:tion is the only
justification for drilling underbalanced
through an interval t f unproductive
overburden. However, if thc re is a possibility
of productive zones withir the overburden
(that are not easily recolnized on logs),
underbalanced drilling car identify these.
Drilling a pay zone underialanced will be
justified if the total cost to 1 Iring that interval
onto production is lower thin it would have
been for conventional drillin 5 methods. Even
if the well cost is increfied by drilling
underbalanced, in many in, 'lances, avoiding
formation damage can inc -ease production
rates sufficiently that the ne1 present value of
the well is increased despit its higher cost.
On the other hand, if the productive
formation is not susceptible to drilling-
induced damage and ther: are no other
potential zones to be evaluated,
underbalanced drilling must reduce the well
cost.
When evaluating drilling tecl iniques that have
not been used previously in a particular
region, there is uncertainty n predicting the
factors that influence costs; such as
penetration rates. It is ofter useful to assess
how sensitive any predict:d benefit, i.e.,
reduced well costs or an increase in net
present value, is to the variaus assumptions
made in its prediction. It can also be useful to
determine how much pen :tration rate or
productivity has to ircrease if an
underbalanced drilling tecl-nique is to be
economically beneficial, compared to
conventional drilling; and then to decide
whether or not that represer ts an achievable
target.
Variations in cost and 1 mductivity are
inevitable, even when adj icent wells are
drilled with nominally ider tical techniques
and procedures. Statistical i nalysis can help
to compare the cost performance of wells
drilled using different techniques. If
performance increases are not large, it may be
necessary to drill a number of wells with each
technique before any firm conclusions can be
drawn about their relative merits.
Testimonials
9 Anderson, 1971,’ was an early proponent
of foam drilling, in Arctic locations
where foam’s insulating properties
minimized thermally-induced hole
enlargement.
0 “Cost of drilling in this remote area
with mud was calculated to be
$227/hr. Cost of drilling with stable
foam was $275/hr, but resulted in
two and one-half to three times more
hole [per hour].”
0 “It is estimated that the use of stable
foam on the second well resulted in a
savings of $12,000, even after
allowing for the cost of
transportation and standby time due
to weather.”
0 “Another operator drilled in this area
using straight air. He had good
penetration rates without excessive
hole enlargement, but air
requirements were five times those
used with stable foam. On a 16-
hr/day operating basis, the costs
[daily] for air drilling would be $915
as compared to $468 for stable-foam
drilling. The transportation cost in
and out of this remote area would,
proportionately, favor stable foam
since it requires only two units
[compressors] as compared to six
units for air drilling.”
9 Anderson, 1984,43 advocated that
recycling of foam on longterm foam
drilling operations can improve
economics significantly. Sat. rings of 25
to 50 percent in foaming agent and
additive usage were claimed.
(Defoaming agents cannot be used if the
foam system is to be reclaimed).
Anderson also cited that f c ams could
improve the economics of re( ompletions
in situations where fluid loss is a severe
problem in underpressured reservoirs.
“Surveys indicate th i .t foam
recompletions showed a 3 1 to 50%
savings over new well costs and
reduction in formation dama ge resulted
in a 33% gain in oil produ:tion when
compared to new wells dilled with
mud.”
9 Bentsen and Veny, 1976,44 also found
drilling pay with pre-formed, ;table foam
was advantageous:
Mud costs were reduced.
“Time-consuming conver tional DST
procedures and costs werc eliminated
by providing a system that gave a
continuous formation evaluation
during drilling.”
Immediate and accurate formation
evaluations were PO ;sible by
eliminating damage and tie need for
lengthy, expensive formal ion cleanup
operations.
Formation damage was less and
completion costs were 5 ignificantly
reduced.
9 Comeau, 1995,45 presented nformation
from carbonate reservoirs:
0 “In carbonate reservoirs, treatments
can be effective to dissolve solids
that are plugging the forrr ation [from
-
4-33
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

overbalanced drilling]. In sands, underbalanced dril ling methods can

fewer effective treatment options are
available. The cost for such a
service ranges from $100,000 to
$300,000 Canadian dollars
depending upon the length of the
well and the type of treatment
required.”
> Crearar, 1995,46stated:
“The Welton and its satellite fields
are exploited by 36 producing wells.
Of its typical daily production of
around 3000 BOPD 40% of this is
currently produced by the five side-
be employed lot only cost
effectively, but cin even improve
drilling con litions and
performance.”
“Penetration rates in the horizontal
section averaged I lightly below 20
m/hr in the overb(i1anced wells and
25 m/hr in the untlerbalanced wells.
Also, hole conditio i appears superior
in the underba1anc:d wells. This is
apparent in that iole conditioning
trips are required on occasion to
reduce drag only 01 the overbalanced
I

tracked wells drilled in the last two wells.”

years. The two wells which were “The overbalanced wells require that
drilled underbalanced produce 40% each lateral be soiked in a bleach
of the side-tracked wells’ production solution to removc filter cake after
and 15% of the total field drilling has been zompleted. This
production .” process requires re -entering the first
9 Cummings, 1987,47 discussed lateral. Re-enterir g laterals after a
advantages of natural gas drilling in the trip has not been a common problem
San Juan Basin: on the underbalancc :d wells.”

“Natural gas drilling in the Basin > Mullane et al., 1995,48 provided
Dakota field near Blanco, New supplementary infon nation on the
Mexico has eliminated lost Weyburn field. They indicated that if
circulation potential and has acid stimulation is relluired to remove
increased penetration rates over skin damage in recently drilled
conventional mud drilling overbalanced wells, hese wells cost
techniques. Refinements in drilling more on average than ‘he underbalanced
programs have helped reduce drilling wells. They also citec situations where
costs which are 20-30% less than the advantages of unde rbalanced drilling
mud drilling in lost circulation were not clear. In thl: Westerose area,
areas.’’ the incremental :ost to drill
underbalanced is approximately
> Deis et al., 1995,39 described drilling $100,000 (Canadian). ‘ The gas produced
operations in western Canada. while drilling was found to be
Underbalanced drilling was definitely approximately three tir ies that produced
advantageous in the Weyburn area (refer during drill stem test:’ on offset wells
to Table 4-3). that were drilled overkalanced using gel
0 “It has been observed, especially in chem or extended gel mud systems.”
the Weyburn project, that However, these well; needed to be

4-34
 Table 4-3. Comparison of Drilling Costs in the WeyburnLougheedAi eas
(after Deis et al., 199599)

WeyburnLougheed Well Cost to Drill and Drilling Days

Case

I zz I
Type
($ Canadian)

I Single Laterals (16 wells)

Underbalanced
Single Laterals (2 wells)
486,000 9.4

Overbalanced ~ 11*
I-

Dual Laterals (1 1 wells) ll.

Underbalanced

I Dual Laterals (4 wells)

Overbalanced
62 1,000’ 14.9
I
‘Incremental amounts of $16,000 and $30,000were included to swab the wells clean before
pipeline tie-in, for the overbalanced single and dual laterals, respectively.

hydraulically fractured anyway. If required to drill 17%-inch si^ rface holes

reduction of wellbore formation damage
is the only motive for underbalanced
systems where fracturing will ultimately
be required, the advantages may be
marginal.
> Russell, 1993,49 discussed significant
improvements in drilling large diameter
surface holes through hard formations
prone to severe lost circulation, in the
Yemen Republic. Large diameter holes
were drilled through 1000 feet of hard,
fractured, limestone. Modified hammer
bits were used with powerful industrial
hammers. Polymer-enhanced foam
systems were used to remove cuttings.
“By changing foam properties, air
injection rate, bit design, hammer size
and the depth at which the hammer
drilling assembly was replaced with a
rotary drilling assembly, the time
was reduced by 65%. Similarly, the time
required to drill 26-inch SLI face holes
was, reduced by 35%.”
Saponja, 1995,50 compared over- and
underbalanced drilling in the 1 Yauconitic
“A” Pool of the Hussar fielc, in south-
central Alberta. The cost p:r foot for
mud drilling was -$200/ft; tie cost for
underbalanced drilling was -9 115/ft.
Whitely and England, 1986,‘ provided ’
cost comparisons between air and
conventional mud drilling.
0 “Most air drilling is done with three-
cone carbide button bits :n d various
types of pneumatic HT; [hammer
tools]. This method provides
improved ROP over C:I mventional
mud drilling. However, the recent
introduction of a ca -bide-insert

4-35
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
FPB/HT [flat-bottomed bithammer
tool] has dramatically improved ROP
over the three-cone bits and HTs
previously used.”
0 “The average cost per foot for a 12%-
inch hole was reduced from $35.48
to $18/ft - a 49% reduction.”
> Westermark, 1986,52 published figures
for a situation where parasite string
aeration was used as the lightening
technique. The average cost per foot
without aerating was $145/foot. While
drilling with a parasite aerating string,
the average cost was $67/ft.
Factors Affecting The Economics of
Underbalanced Drilling
As the previous testimonials have shown,
underbalanced drilling may be justifiable on
the basis of lower drilling costs, on higher
drilling rate and lower completion cost, with
increased productivity and reserves. Each
case needs to be evaluated individually to
determine whether underbalanced drilling is
technically and economically feasible. The
factors controlling the overall drilling
economics are summarized below. Many of
these factors have been addressed in
previous chapters. Some ;are restated here
for completeness.
Penetration Rate
The variables affecting penetration rate
include the drill bit, the bit weight, the rotary
speed, as well as the bottomhole cleaning
and mud properties.
Bit Selection
This will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Some general remarks are pertinent. Fear,
1996,53 discussed methodologies for
optimizing bit selection and the drilling
program in general. For example, the
4-36
influence of bit design or ROP; with PDC
bits, probably only be( omes significant
when the type of drilling f uid and rock lead
to bit cleaning problems o when the cutters
*
become worn. For roll1:r cone bits, the
evidence suggests that v y i n g the jet nozzle
arrangement may or may n 2t influence ROP,
depending on efficiencj of bottomhole
cleaning.
Generally, using air instea 1 of conventional
mud allows drilling highcr footage per bit
and decreases the number of trips per well.
In a fairly deep well, the rig time savings
from this could be substantial.
Bourgoyne, 1995,54indicat :d that “air or gas
drilling can be used f o - intervals of a
borehole that have a high rt )ck strength and a
very low permeability, such that the
borehole will not col1ap;e and the well
cannot flow. The drilling -ate possible with
air or natural gas is usuall:‘ at least twice as
fast as that with clear wat :r and four times
as fast as that with mud.“ The economic
counterbalance is that mu1 .iple compressors
may be needed to provide the necessary air
pressure and flow rates. Also, small
amounts of formation hyc rocarbons mixed
with compressed air can >e explosive and
spontaneous combustion ‘an occur down-
hole. Further, if water i ; produced, mist
drilling may be required. “Drilling rates
with foam are generally 1 :ss than with air
but more than with watx or mud. De-
pending on the capability >f the formations
to produce water, a mist-’ype flow pattern
could be more economical han foam.”54
During air drilling, d amond-enhanced
hammer bits, with diamon l-coated tungsten
carbide inserts, offer ii nproved cutting
structure wear resistance. These bits have
improved bit life and peretration rate and
have reduced the cost per foot in the
Arkoma and Appalachian Basins (Reinsvold
et al., 198855).
Bit Weight and Rotary Speed
For many formations, an increase in bit
weight and rotary speed will increase the
drilling rate. The relationships depend on
specific bit types and the forma.tions being
drilled. In general, the footage that a bit can
drill tends to decrease with increasing rotary
speed. Simple formulations are available for
assessing optimum conditions. Moore,
1974,56 provided a concise and under-
standable discussion. Beyond wear, increase
in drilling rates must be tolerable, in order to
provide adequate hole cleaning. Main-
taining adequate hole cleaning capabilities
strongly affects the logistics of under-
balanced drilling. For adequate cleaning,
sufficient bottomhole velocity and/or
viscosity is required and may require
optimization of the bit type.
Mud Weight
Beyond formation damage issues, mud
weight reduction probably is the greatest
advantage of underbalanced drilling systems.
An increase in mud weight will decrease the
drilling rate. There may be limiting
situations in some shales where increasing
the mud weight beyond a certain level does
not cause significant change in the rate of
penetration. Figures 4-6 and 4-7, from
Moore, 1 974,56illustrate this premise. “In
both of the series of the field tests in Figures
4-6 and 4-7, the degree of improved
performance occurred primarily because the
hydrostatic pressure was less than the
formation pore pressure.”
Cost reduction, by minimizing lost circu-
lation, is a very important consideration in
evaluating an underbalanced drilling
program.
Completions and Stimulatic In
Underbalanced drilling is of1en merited
(technically and economically) f it reduces
formation damage, hole pro ilems, and
reduces costs of stimulation or cleanup
programs in moderate or high iermeability
or fractured formations. If ur derbalanced
drilling is used to avoid format on damage,
the total drilling and completim program
should be designed so that the well will
never have to be killed, prior to Ieing put on
production. Mitigation of forma :ion damage
in formations which will meed to be
hydraulically fractured (except if naturally
fractured) may be a poor and unnecessary
economic decision.
Also, in certain circumstances, iigher grade
surface casing may be required, ilthough the
potential for underground 1 )lowout in
shallow situations is probably rr ore strongly
controlled by the formation breakdown
pressure. Pipe grade should also be a
consideration in flowdrilling :nd mudcap
drilling or if corrosive fluids i3.e expected.
The opposite situation is also rue, as was
discussed by Grace, 1975.’7 “In the
Anadarko Basin of the Texas Pl nhandle and
western Oklahoma, the Morraw sands of
Pennsylvanian age can be abnormally
pressured while shallow foil nations are
almost always subnormally pre sured. The
routine practice in the early 1560’s was to
set an intermediate string of casi ng on top of
the Morrow interval in or& r that any
abnormal pressure might t e properly
controlled. This practice, comli ned with the
stratigraphic nature of the Mc rrow sands,
resulted in unacceptable economics.
Consequently, operators a i d drilling
contractors adopted the practic : of drilling
into the Morrow interval wit 5out setting
protective pipe. Statistically, in approxi-
 -
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

Drllllng Days
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

1000

200

3000

-2 4000

=
5 500
P
2
6000

7000

8000

9Ooo

10000

Figure 4-6. Gas and mud effect on drilling time (after Moore, I J7456).

Rotating Time (hours)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

500

3
h

=
5
1000

1500
!
\
--

i’
2000

2500

3000

Figure 4-7. Air and water effect on drilling time (after Moore, I ! 174 ”‘).

4-38
mately one in four Morrow testa, sands will
be present, and in approximately one in 10
Morrow sands, the productivity will be
sufficient to cause a drilling problem.”57
This practice requires training and
equipment for handling a controlled blowout
(flowdrilling) situation.
Formation Evaluation
Real-time formation evaluation (refer to
Chapter 6, Section 6.7) can offer significant
advantages in interactive well design. TD
can be altered if a diminishing return on the
investment is diagnosed during drilling.
Underbalanced coring is also possible. There
is a potential for catching more pristine core
(at least without substantial saturation
alteration). Core integrity in weak, high
GOR formations may be jeopardized by
underbalanced recovery. Pressure transient
analysis in nominally pristine formations is
also possible (i.e., reduced skin should
improve measurement quality and reduce
time). Coring, logging and testing can be
more cumbersome in underbalanced
situations, although they are generally
possible. Bloys et at., 1994,58 provided a
good discussion of formation evaluation
during mudcap drilling of offshore
carbonates:
> “Wireline logging and conventional
coring have been attempted in
carbonates with massive lost circulation
when pressure control was maintained
with a floating mudcap. However, both
these operations are considered
extremely hazardous under these
conditions.”
9 “A completely “virgin” formation
production test of a mudcap drilled
carbonate (to measure productivity
without acidizing to remove plugging
materials) is only feasible if the whole
section of interest is mudca drilled and
then cased without incur ring losses.
Planning to mudcap drill wt ole intervals
to permit “virgin” formatio 1 production
testing is only feasible if I ware ship
[supply ship] is planned to provide the
volumes of mud required to mudcap drill
continuously.”
9 “A future alternative to :onventional
coring with a floating mud( ap is coring
with a 9.5 m long wireliri: retrievable
coring system with an inne- core barrel
that can be run through tl e drillstring
..- ” The core is relatively sr la11 (1.7 1- to
2-inches) and there car be some
diameter restrictions for passing the
bmel. Nevertheless, “wii dine coring
with a floating mudcap wc uld be safer
than conventional coring because no
tripping of the drillstring is involved to
recover individual cores ... Until a
combination LWD/wireli ne coring
drilling assembly is availabl 5 for floating
mudcap coring of m issive lost
circulation intervals, such ii tervals must
be drilled twice to get bc th logs and
cores. The first time dril ing with an
LWD logging tool in the !; ring and the
second time, after side trac king, coring
with the wirelisc retrie\ able coring
system.”
Environmental Savings
Pit construction and reclamati >n costs can
make up a significant part (If a drilling
budget because of increasinl;:ly stringent
government regulations and SI irface owner
concerns. Pitless drilling is po! sible when a
closed system is used (ei her over-or
underbalanced) (refer to Chapt :r 2, Section
2-1 1). In assessing cost- benefit, the
estimates of cost should inch de costs for
ancillary equipment, flocculatic In unit rental
4-39
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
(for reconditioning, if necessary), labor and
chemicals. The cost (operational and rig-up)
of additional rig equipment, such as the
centrifuge, feed pump, special tanks, and
supplementary mechanical separators should
be included. Estimates must also include all
labor, equipment and chemical costs
(typically polymer, acids, bases and
coagulants).
Astrella and Wiemers, 1996,59indicated that
“the use of highly automated flocculation
units results in maximum cost savings to the
operator in continuous drilling programs
because the equipment has a high utilization
rate. The high utilization rate permits the
capital cost to be amortized at a reasonable
daily rental rate. It is uneconomical for the
expensive equipment to stand idle.” The
intangible side of this is guaranteeing
performance and equipment reliability.
Further, in selecting a closed system, there
must be adequate capacity to keep up with
maximum anticipated penetration rates.
“Insufficient capacity can force a reduction
in penetration rate or require the digging of
an emergency pit.”
After a closed loop system has been
designed, it is essential to compare its cost
with the cost of constructing and reclaiming
reserve pits. “The longer it takes to drill a
well, the less economically beneficial a
closed system will be,” unless disposal is an
issue. There are other considerations. State
regulations may impact the use of
centrifuged solids. It may be possible to
recycle these solids in the drilling operations
(fluid). Also, recycling water reduces
transportation costs and may eliminate the
need for a fresh water pit.
Water disposal is another consideration. As
Carden, 1993,’ stated,
4-40
“Ordinarily, water influx is not a drilling
problem; rather it is a disposal problem.
The reserve pit will hold I limited quantity
of water. When the pit i ; full air drilling
must be discontinued or tle water must be
hauled off location to a prc per disposal site.
Hauling water to disposil can be very
expensive. Disposal cost for reserve pit
water can range anywherc: from $1.00 to
$10.00 per barrel dependin ;upon the solids
content, salinity and the distance to the
disposal.” The operator c in determine the
amount of water that can bl: hauled off each
day. If it costs less per foclt than mud, it is
economical.
Fluid Type
The bottom line controllin g factor may be
the specific fluid system ad( lpted. Each fluid
type has technical and ecor omic advantages
and limitations (refer to Tat le 4-4).
Cost Comparisons
Some line item cost comparisons are
available in the literature. For example,
Allan, 1994,60 comparec nitrogen and
natural gas drilling, anti Tag, 1995,61
compared the expenditure 3 for cryogenic
nitrogen and membrane gen :ration.
Case 1 (after Allan, 1994 6o I Nitrogen
versus Natural Gas
“The nitrogen drilling sy: tern [membrane
generated] eliminates the dc wnhole fire risks
associated with air drilling in hydrocarbon
producing formations wh de significantly
reducing costs as comparec to pipeline gas
(methane) drilling or trucke 1 liquid nitrogen
drilling. Typically, wells that must be gas
drilled through productive ntervals rely on
pipeline gas, expensive trucked liquid
nitrogen, or air-water njection (mist)
systems. Water misl injection is
unacceptable in horizontal wells as the
 Table 4-4. Costs and Savings For Various Underbalanced System s
Drilling Method Savings
Air High penetration rates and
reduction in rig time.
Low bit cost.
Low water requirement.
No mud removal.
Low additives cost.
High penetration rates and
Low water reauirement.
Low biccosts.
Low water Ireauirements.
High solids carrying capacity.
Good hole cleaning capability.
Compatible with oil, salt water,
calcium carbonate and most
formation contaminants.
Can safely entrain a considerable
volume of gas into aqueous foam,
rendering it non-flammable until
sumped.
Can handle large flows of water.
Problems ancVbr Pot€ntial
Expenditures
I Possible problems if water f l o ~I is
encountered.
Hole erosion, if poorly consoli jated.
Possibility of downhole fire, if
hydrocarbons are encountered..
I Suuulementarv eauiDment rent 11.
I Is not suitable for H&.
Problems if water flow is enco mtered.
of gas and/or rentals.
erosion if poorly consolic ated.
I Cost is high if a market for the gas exists.
I Careful metering reauired.
I Suecialized metering equiume it.
Defoaming.
Considerable cost.
Separation and disposal.
Water disposal.
-
4-41
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
Table 4-4. Costs and Savings For Various Underbalanced System.i (continued..)
Drilling Method Savings
or Fluid System
Stzy Foam
I High penetration rates and
reduction in rig time.
Improved directional drilling in
comparison to dry gases or mist
(refer to Chapter 6).
I Reduced drillstring wear.
Reduced potential for downhole
fires in vertical holes with aqueous inhibitod2) if air is use 1.
fluids.
I
Flowdrilling Higher borehole pressures reduce
the oossibility of instability.
No gas supply system.
Conventional mud motors and
MWD units can be used.
Mudcap Drilling Can be used in situations where
surface pressure is too high for
flowdrilling.
4-42
Problems ancVc w- Potential
Expendil ures
I Considerable mud and :hemical costs-
Gas costs if air not use( ,
Fluid degradation possible if oil, salt
water or calcium chlori je are
temporary casing string
Higher gas rates are req uired.
Slow pressure response if a parasite
string is used.
Low underbalance pres: ure may cause
transient departures fro1n underbalanced
conditions and advantal es to impairment
reduction may be lost.
Tool problems with dril lstring injection.
I supplementary surface :quipment.
Corrosion potential (ami requirement for
~
Supplementary surface :quipment and
safety measures.
Excessive uroduction is possible.
Safety issues associated with oil and gas
on drill site.
Supplementary equipmc nt and safety
considerations.
Snubbing or CT unit.
Equipment rental and 01 ierating costs.
Cannot be used with ex]ilosive mixtures.
extended drilling time in producing intervals
greatly increases the probability of downhole
fires.”
Natural gas drilling and membrane nitrogen
drilling were compared for certain wells
drilled in the San Juan Basin, in New
Mexico, where severe lost circulation was an
issue.
General Assumptions
Flowrate ................................................ 3000 cfm
Gas Price.............................................. $2.00/mcf
Trucking Distance ................50 miles (one way)
Drilling Hours/day .......................................... .20
Average Gas Drilling Days/well ...................... 12
Diesel Usagehoudunit ..................... 1.0.7 gallons
Diesel Fuel Price ............................. $0.80/gallon
Standby Days (Equipment)/well........................ 4 the wellsite.”
Nitrogen Drilling System Cost
Compressors (8) @ $135/unit/day.,.........$12960
Boosters (2) 0 $200/unit/day
(air use) ...................................................... $4800
Membrane Skids (2) @$1500/unit/day
(1800 cfm/skid) ....................................... $36000
TruckingRransportation............................ $9200
Fuel (delivered)
25,680 gallons x $O.SO/gallon ................. $20540
Mist Pump ................................................. $1500
Equipment Standby (4 days) ...................... $1800
Total Nitrogen Drilling CosUweU ..........$88600
Pipeline Gas Drilling Cost
Pipeline gas 43.2 mmcf 0
$2.00/mcf................................................. $86400
Booster (2) $300/unit/day (gas use) .......... $7200
Drill Gas Unit (installed on location) ........ $1000
Gas Line (2000 feet) .................................. $1800
Trucking/Transportation ............................ $1 800
Fuel (delivered)
5 138 gallons @ $O.SO/gallon..................... $41 10
Mist Pump ................................................. $1500
Equipment Standby (4 days) ........................ $700
Total Pipeline Gas Drilling
CosUwell................................................ $104510
Case 2 (afer Tag, I9956’) Liquh Nitrogen
versus Membrane Nitrogen
Fried and MacDonald, 1995,6’ compared
options for nitrogen supply in unc erbalanced
drilling.
“Although operationally simlj le, the cost
of the supply of the liquid nit1 3gen to the
wellsite can represent a significant
expense to the total UBD pro€ram.”
“Under optimum circumstanc es, the use
of natural gas can be the most cost
effective method for UBI) programs
with the only cost being the (: >mpression
equipment. This can be m nimal if a
high pressure feed supply is ;wailable at
“The suitability of nitrogen membrane
systems to high pressure, shcrt duration
applications is not good. Only when the
equipment is used over prolonged
periods, at high utilization can it be
made cost effective on land. Offshore
applications are more affected by
support logistics and obvi msly lend
themselves to membrane tech iologies.”
“The system’s largest operati ig expense
is the cost of fuel for the air c Impression
units ... The advantage of 1:Iie nitrogen
membranes versus a liqui 1 nitrogen
system is the ample supp y of free
nitrogen available in the air versus the
cost of liquid nitrogen and t le required
transportation to site.”
“The process of gas recycling can be cost
effective with the previous systems in
very specific applications tut is both
technically and operationally :hallenging
for most UBD programs.”
4-43
 --
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

Tag, 1995,61 provided estirnates of the costs below.

for liquid nitrogen and nitrogen generated on
location. These are indicated in Table 4-5.
Economic Analysis
Precise guidelines for economic analysis are
too specific to individual operators. Some
general guidelines/examples are provided
9 On the basis of avalable technology,
select the potential drilling systems to be
evaluated.
9 Tabulate the tangiblc: and intangible
costs for each system.

Table 4-5. Comparison of Liquid Nitrogen and Membrane Nitrogen (Tag, 1995"').

gen Generating
;tern
Jays
' scfm
[lo days)

% (by volume)
D psi
Nitrogen Requirement 1500 scfm x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day 1500 scfm x 60 IT i n h r x 24 hr/day x
x 10 days = 584,000 sm3 10 days = i84,OOO sm3
= 834,000 liters liquid N2
= 139 tanks
Method of Nitrogen Supply Trucked in Liquid NZ On-Site I nembrane
(equipment rental) (equipmen purchaset )
Logistics 139 liquid N2 tanks, 1 evaporator 4 skids maximum, 14 tonnes each, 1
and 1 diesel skid (141 containers) power unit, 14 to]ines (5 containers)
Cost of Utilities $1,284,000 Electrical Powe -: 1400 kW x 10
(liquid N2, electricity, days x 24 hours @ $O.O5/kWh =
diesel) $If 800
(Power unit re ita1 included in
capita costs)
Maintenance None 10% of Interest a nd Depreciation =
$32,000
Capital Cost None Interest and De[ reciation over 10
years = $324,000
Total Approximately $1,300,000 Approximat :ly $375,000

These units are also available on a rental basis.

4-44
 9 When possible, rely on previous history
and recognize the inevitability of
statistical variation (Fear, 1996;'3
Surewaard, et a]., 199564). For the
particular situation evaluated by
Surewaard et al., 1996,T6 it was
determined that (if a log normal
distribution was applied), at least ten
wells needed to be drilled underbalanced
to prove with reasonable confidence
(80%) that the cutoff level of
improvement (a 50 percent improvement
in this case) would be achieved.
> Perform basic costjft drilling
evaluations. A convenient way to do
this is to use the formulation from
Moore, 1974?
B+C,(t+T) +
c, = F
(4.12)
where:
CT ............................................ total costjfoot,
B ........................................................ bit cost,
C, ........................................... hourly rig cost,
t ................................................. rotating time,
T ................................... round trip time, and,
F ....................................... footage per bit run.
Assess Drilling Costs
Carden, 1993,' provided an example of
using formulas such as this for direct
evaluation of the reduction in development
costs. In any drilling operation, the
development costs include the drilling costs
(footage and day work), the intangible costs
(location and roads, coring;, logging,
formation testing, fuel, water, drilling fluid,
cementing, transportation, perforating,
stimulating, bits, rental equipment .., ) and
* If systems other than dry air are used, modify this
~ ~~
relationship to include the cost of fluids.
the tangible costs (including iurface and
production casing, tubing, the C'1 iristmas tree
and surface connections, su 3plementary
equipment ... ). Underbalanced drilling can
affect all of these areas. The example shown
is for determining the amount cf water that
can be hauled off each day. St k t l y on the
basis of development costs,+' data from
Carden, 1993,' can be used to develop the
comparison shown in Table 4-6.
Break-even water volumes arr : shown in
Figure 4-8.
Accelerated Production
Drilling is an integrated part If the field
development and exploitation irocess. In
addition to development costs, I he potential
for increased or accelerated production
needs to be evaluated. A criterion for
success can be defined; such as a well
inflow quality indicator (Bit seman and
Emeh, 199565)or a production i nprovement
factor, PIF, (Surewaard et at., I >9564). The
latter authors evaluated the Vimr field;
underh a1anced operations were not
considered to have an effect on the ultimate
recovery. The economic benefit in the Nimr
field was considered to be earlier
(accelerated) oil production. Well pro-
duction profiles were prepared 1' )r a range of
PIF values, but subject to a gros ; production
ceiling, limited by the lift capacity of the
currently used beam pumps. Break-even
well costs were then deterriined as a
function of PIF, by evaluati ig the Net
Present Value (NPV) as an incremental oil
acceleration project. Biesman and Emeh,
1996,"' also discussed the impzct of earlier
production on the net present calue (NPV).
(unlike direct lifting expenses, thes :expenses are
often capitalized in the first year of IJ .eduction),
4-45
 -
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

Table 4-6. Comparison Between Air and Mud Drilling

Trip in to 4000 ft
Trip out from 7000 ft

Trip Time (T) (hr) 16.5 33

'
-.
Hourly Operating Cost $375/hr $250/hr
(CJ

cost / ft =
B +C,(T+ t)
F
Competitive Cost for Air 4800+ C ,(16 5 + 100)
1 9600 + 250(33+ 200'
3000
'

= $22.62/ ft
1

$22.62 =
Drilling 3000
I * C r =$541.29/hr I
Barrels of Water That = ($541.29-$375)/$1.OO
Can be Disposed of at = 166 x 24 = 3984 BWPD
$l.OO/bbl
Barrels of Water That = ($541.29-$375)/$5.00
Can be Disposed of at = 33 x 24 = 798 BWPD
$5.00/bbl
Barrels of Water That = ($541.29-$375)/$10.00
Can be Disposed of at = 16.6 x 24 = 400 BWPD
$10.00/bbl

' Including fluid, for illustrative purposes.

4-46
 25

24

23

22

sz
cn
21
20

6 19

18

17

16

15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 boo
Barrels of Produced Water Per Day

Figure 4-8. Economic wafer volume production (modified after Carden, 199 3 '
1 0.00708kh
(4.13) PI = (4.14)'

where:
9 The productivity index for ;in horizontal
NPV ...Net Present Value (discounted value oil well is:
of asset),
DR .....Discount rate (%), and, 0.00708kL __
PI=-
t ..........Discount time (years).

Improved ProductiodReserves 1% 4- In(k)+s

In addition to accelerated production,
production at any time can be improved by
reduction in skin. To make this assumption,
simple forecasts of production are required.
9 The absolute and relative increase in
production should be calculated, or at
least estimated. For estimation, the
productivity index (PI) for a vertical oil
well is:
'where:
k ......-..reservoir permeability (rid),
h ......"..reservoir thickness (feet' ,
p.......*..oil viscosity (cP),
Bo.......formation volume factor (bblhbbl),
-
' From Biesman and Emeh, 1996.
65

-
4-47
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

re ........ external radius (of reservoir) (feet),

r, ........ wellbore radius (feet),
L ........ length of horizontal reservoir
section (feet), and,
s ......... skin (dimensionless).
9 The
P For a vertical well, if the reservoir is
considered to be radial, prior to pseudo-
steady-state conditions:
Well Inflow Quality Indicator
(WIQI) is the ratio cf the PI for an
impaired to that for an undamaged well.
PTA (pressure transil :nt analysis) is
preferable for determining skin. It can
be difficult and costlj. Biesman and
Emeh, 1995,6sargued t iat core flooding

I
.-I (4.15)t offered another possibil ty.
9 Consider the followir~g example for
0.87s (oil)
evaluating PI:
k ......................................................... 50 md,
h ........................................................ 25 feet,
........................................... ..................2 CP,

I'
Bo................................................. 1 bblhbbl,
kt re ................................................... 1980 feet,
3.23+ 0.87s (gas) r, ........................................................ 0.411,
s ...................................................... variable,
where: orientation. ....................................... vertical,
dep..................................... ....... 10,000 feet,
q .........rate (BOPD, MscfD), reservoir pressure ...................4330 psi, and,
-
pi ....... average reservoir pressure (psi), BHPP ............3000 psi (psei Ido-steady state).
pwf...... wellbore pressure (psi),
Z ........ real gas deviation factor The relevant calculations ar~! shown in Table
(dimensionless), 4-7 and Figure 4-9.
T ........ temperature, (OR),
t .......... time (hr), and, Simple analyses such as these can
ct ........ total compressibility (psi-'). qualitatively show how prc duction rate can
be increased if underbi lanced drilling
P At pseudo-steady state, for a radially reduces skin. They may ,how that fewer
flowing, vertical well: wells are required and that t le producible oil
or gas in place can be increa :ed.
0.00708kh(pi - pwf)
9= Abandonment pressure 1 night be also
reduced if the skin is red iced by drilling
underbalanced. This is because of the
(4.16) pressure drop through the sk in. Consider the
additional pressure drop due to skin in an oil

4-48
 Table 4-7. Variation of PI and WlQI with Skin
Skin Production PI WIQl
Rate
(BOPD)

I 0 I 761 I 0.572 I 1 I
674 I 0.507 I 0.89 I

0.249 0.44
100 55 0.041 0.07

800 I' 12
1
700 0 98
1

600

500
1-
-----I 84

n
400

300

200
1
100 1 014

0 MJ 0
0 1 2 5 10 100
Skin

Figure 4-9. Variation of PI, production rate and WIQI with drilling induce jr skin.
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique
well, for radial steady-state flow.
1412QB,p
ms= S (4.17)
kh
where:
APs pressure drop due to skin,+(psi),
Q ........ flow rate, (BOPD),
Bo....... formation volume fixtor (bblhbbl),
p .........viscosity, (cP),
k ......... permeability (md),
h ......... thickness (ft), and,
s ......... skin factor (dimensionless).
This effect can be significant and should not
be ignored in economic assessments.
An Example
One final example illustrates the impact of
underbalanced drilling in one hypothetical
five well field. The analysis is very
simplified and illustrative only. Consider
the following scenario. It was developed for
an oil well. Similar analyses could be done
for gas.
Revenue Interest ............................ R = 0.375
Working Interest .......................... WI = 0.500
Gross Income @er net bbl)
Crude Price ................................... $20.00/bbl
Gas Revenue...................................... $O.OOtt
Total ............................................. $20.00/bbl
Less
Transportation ................................ $1.00/bbl
Production Taxes ............................ $6.00/bbl
Leaves
Gross Income (per net bbl) .................$13.00
Estimated Operating Expenses
' Consider damage only; not due to mechanical skin
or partial penetration.
Similar calculations can be done for a gas producer.
4-50
(per well month) ................................. $5000
Number of Wells ........................................ 5
Three cases were examned. The only
differences were in the c evelopment costs
and in accelerated productj on.
Case I : This is the base c; .se. All five wells
were drilled in the f i s t year with a
conventional mud system. The operator has
a 0.375 revenue interest an 1 a 0.500 working
interest. A cash flow projection is shown in
Table 4-8 and Figure 4-1 3. The appraisal
value is equal to a fractim of the present
worth of the net cash flow, before federal
taxes, computed at a saf: rate of interest
(5%).
Case 2: This is the same z s Case 1, with the
exception that there is higf er production due
to reduced formation damage from
underbalanced drilling. Table 4-9 and
Figure 4-10 show the proje stions.
Case 3: This is the same a s Case 2, with the
exception that developmen : costs for the five
wells are $150,000 less, due to improved
drilling while underbalanc :d. The forecasts
are shown in Table 4-10 and Figure 4-10.
The operator can assess toth drilling costs
and estimate the overall economics on net
present value. Doing this, a final decision
on the drilling fluid systtm can be made.
-
Year
Table 4-8.

I units
Case I (Base Case)

-
-'
+ --
6 Total
Estimated Future Operation
-
1) Gross Lease
Production I bbl
55,388 18,( 24
-- I 742,528

2) Net Production
to Operator
3) Gross Income tc
Rx(l) I bbl
20,77 1

270,O17
Operator
4) Development
o l o l o 0

l- I I
costs
5 ) Numberof
Producing Well
Months
6) Operating
- 6o I 6o 48 48 36
36

--
180,000 120,
2. I

I
312

ExDense --
7) Capital 20,000 20,s
Expenditure
8) Shareof 535,000 160,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 100,000 70,(100 1,225,000

t
Operating and
Capital
Expenses

I
9) Cash How to 170,017
Operator
10) 5 % Annual 0.7632 0.7: 68 0.9010
Deferment
Factor --
11) Present Worth 129,757 --
12,! '86 2,157,736
of Cash Flow I I

where:
-
D,, ...................annual deferment factors, applicable to equal payments at the end of :ach month
during a specific interval of one year between (t - 1) and t year:, ; from now,
i ......................................... effective annual compound safe interest rate as a decimal fraction, and,
t ..................................................................................................................................... t i ne in years.
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

Table 4-9. Case 2

I Year I I 1 2 3
Estimated Future I Operation I units I

I I I I
I

(1) Gross Lease 221,324 187,308 135,247

-l-l--
Production bbl
(2) Net Production
to Operator
(3) Gross Income 1
Rx(l) I ddl
82,997 70,241

1,078,9561913,127 1659,33C
50,718

-I-
ODerator
I
I

(4) Development $ 750,000 0 O 0 750,000

costs

I I
(5) Numberof 60 60 48

3f
Producing Well

I
Months
(6)Operating
Expense
1 ( 5 ) x $5000 I $ 300,000 300,000 240,OOC
24 312

Expenditure
20,000
I 20,000
1 20,000 20,000 20,00(

(8) Shareof
Operating and
WI x
[(4)+(6)+(7)1
$

I /
535,000 160,000 130,000

+--I-+-
Capital Expenses
(9) Cash Flow to 543,956 753,127 529,330

0.9740 0.9276 0.8835

L--I--
Deferment Factor

I I
L I I

(11) Present Worth (9) x (8) $ 529,814 698,600 461,663 $27,019254,862 150,: 64 19,312 2,483,883
of Cash Flow

where:
-
D,, ...................annual deferment factors, applicable to equal payments at the c nd of each month
during a specific interval of one year between (t - 1) and t years from now,
i ......................................... effective annual compound safe interest rate as a decj mal fraction, and,
t .................................................................................................................................... time in years.

4-52
 Table 4-10. Case 3
Year I 7 3 1 4 1 5
Estimated Future I Operation Units
-
-
(1) Gross Lease bbl 221,324 187,308 50,927 816,781
Production
-
12) Net Production
to Operator I R x (1)

3) Gross Income ti (2) x $13.00

ddl 82,997

1,078,95'
70,24 1

313.127
22,848

97,011
306,293

___

3,98 1,806
Operator

(4) Development 600,000 0 0 0 600,000

costs
-
(5) Numberof 60 60 36 312
Producing Well
Months
~~

(6)Operating ( 5 ) x $5000 $ 300,000 100.000 80,00( 1,560,000

Expense

(7) Capital 20,000 20,000 !O,OOO 140,000

Expenditure

(8) Shareof 460,000 160,000 OO,OO( 1,150,000

Operating and
Capital Expenses

(9) Cash Flow to

Operator
618,956 153,127
I I
;29,330 388,661 318,061 97,011 2,83 1,806

(10) 5 % Annual
Deferment Factor I ++ 0.9740 0.9276

602,864 598,600
1.7632

50,36.
0.9010

2,551,458
of Cash Flow I I -

ttt - (1 + i)'-' - (1 + i)+

DCR =
1 4(1 + i)"'* - 11
where:
-
D,, ...................annual deferment factors, applicable to equal payments at the end ol each month
during a specific interval of one year between (t - 1 ) and t yea 's from now,
i ......................................... effective annual compound safe interest rate as a decimal f raction, and,
t. .................................................................................................................................... t me in years.

4-53
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

700,000

600,000
r ConYentional (Total $2,157,736)

Underbalanced (10% Increase in Production) (Tor rl$2,483,883)

~~

3
n

W Underbalanced (Add. 10% Reduction In Drilling C mts)(Total

$2,557,458)
500,000
ii
c
1
0 400,000
rc
0
c
f 300,000
c

:
C
200,000
p!
n
100,000

0
1 2 3 5 6 7

Figure 4-10. Projections Over Seven Years

Table 4-1 I . Summary of all Cases (Present Worth of Cash )

I I
I I I
I

Year
Total

2,483,883
19 372 2,551,458

4-54
References
1. Carden, R.S.: “Technology Assessment of Vertical and Horizontal Air Drill ng Potential
in the United States,” U.S. DOE Report No. DOE/MC/28252-3514 (I:E94000044)
(August 1993).

2. Anderson, G.W.: “Near-Gauge Holes Through Permafrost,” Oil and Gas J. (Sc :ptember 20,
1971) 132-142.

3. Fraser, I.M. and Moore, R. H.: “Guidelines for Stable Foam Drilling Through ?ermafrost,”
paper SPE/IADC 16055 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conft rence, New
Orleans, LA.

4. Allen, T.O. and Roberts, A.P.: “Production Operations - Well Completions, T I orkover and
Stimulation, Volume 2 , OGCI, Tulsa, OK (1982).

5. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F. and Bennion, D.W.: “Underbalan,:ed Drilling,
Praises and Perils,” presenled at the First International Underbalanced Drilling Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4, 1995a.

6. Bennion, D.B.: “Underbalanced Operations Offer Pluses and Minuses,” C il & Gas J.
(January 1, 1996) 33-40.

7. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F. and Bennion, D.W.: “Water and . lydrocarbon
Phase Trapping in Porous Media-Diagnoses, Prevention and Treatment,” pa[ er presented
at the 1995 Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society of CIM, Bar1 f, Alta, May
14-17, 1995b.

8. Horsrud, P., Holt, R.M., Sonstebo, E.F., Svano, G. and Bostrom, B.: “Tim :-Dependent
Borehole Stability: Laboratory Studies and Numerical Simulation of Different Mechanisms
in Shale,” paper presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics h i Petroleum
Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands (August 29-3 1) Euruck ’94, Balkema Rotterdam,
(1994) 259-266.

9. Bol, G.M., Wong, S-W., Davidson, C.J. and Woodland, D.C.: ‘‘Borehole Stability in
Shales,” SPEDC (June 1994) 87-94.

10. Tan, C.P. and Rahman, S.S.: “The Mechanism of Mud Support Reduction Due to Mud
Pressure Penetration,” paper presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM Rock lv [echanics in
Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands (,4ugust 29-3 1) Euruck ’5 4, Balkema,
Rotterdam (1994) 285-292.

11. Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K. and Salisbury, D.P.: “The Influence of Chemical Potential on
Wellbore Stability,” paper IADC/SPE 23885 presented at the 1992 IDACI’,;PE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 18-21 .

4-55
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

12. Kunze, K.R. and Steiger, R.P.: “Extended Leakoff Tests to Measure In I itu Stress During
Drilling,” paper presented at the 1991 U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Norman, OK
(July 10-12) Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science; Proceeding: of the 32nd US.
Symposium, J-C. Roegiers (ed.), Norman, OK (1991) 35-44.

13. Lowrey, J.P. and Ottesen, S.: “An Assessment of the Mechanical S ability of Wells
Offshore Nigeria,” paper SPE 2635 1 presented at the 1993 Annual Tech nical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6.

14. Steiger, R.P. and P.K. h u n g : Critical State Shale Mechanics,” paper pres mted at the 1991
U S . Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Norman, OK (July 10-12) Rock Mechanics as a
Multidisciplinary Science; Proceedings of the 32nd US.Symposium, J-( j. Roegiers (ed.),
Norman, OK (1991) 293-302.

15. Risnes, R., Bratli, R.K. and Horsrud, P.: “Sand Stresses Around A ‘Vellbore,” SPEJ
(1982) 22,883-898.

16. Bratli, R.K. and Risnes, R.: “Stability and Failure of Sand Arches,” SI’EJ (April 1981)
236-248.

17. Wang, Y. and Dusseault, M.B.: “Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fracure Initiation in
Poorly Consolidated Strata - Part 1. Impermeable Media,” Znt. J. Rock M x h . Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. (1 99 1 a) 28, No. 4,235-246.

18. Wang, Y. and Dusseault, M.B.: “Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fraciure Initiation in
Poorly Consolidated Strata - Part II. Permeable Media,” Znt. J. Rock M(1ch. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. (199 I b) 28, No. 4,247-260.

19. Bradley, W.B.: “Failure of Inclined Boreholes,” J. Energy Resources Teck ., Trans., ASME
(1979) 101,232-239.

20. a b a c k , M.D., Moos, D., Hastin, L. and Anderson, R.N.: “Wellbore Brea Louts and In Situ
Stress,” J. Geophys. Res. (1985) 90,5523-5530.

21. Ramos, G.G., Katahara, K.W., Gray, J.D. and Knox, D.J.W.: “Sand Prodl ction in Vertical
and Horizontal Wells in a Friable Sandstone Formation, North Sea,” papei presented at the
1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, “he Netherlands
(August 29-3 1) Eurock ’94,Balkema, Rotterdam, (1994) 309-3 15.

22. Wang, Z . , Peden, J. and Damasena, E.: “The Prediction of Operating Conditions to
Constrain Sand Production From A Gas Well,” paper SPE 21681 prese:ited at the 1991
SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK.

4-56
23. Detoumay, E. and Cheng, A. H-D.: “Poroelastic Response of a Borehole in a Non-
Hydrostatic Stress Field,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (19f 8 ) 25, 171-
182.

24. Brudy, M. and Zoback, M.D.: “Compressive and Tensile Failure of Borehole: Arbitrarily
Inclined to Principal Stress Axes: Application to the KTB Boreholes, G e m any,” paper
presented at the 1993 U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, University of Wisc onsin (June
27-30) Preprint Proc. (1993) 69-72.

25. Mcknnan, J.D., Roegiers, J-C. and Economides, M.J.: “Extended Reach and Horizontal
Wells,” Reservoir Stimulation, M.J. Economides ‘and K.G. Nolte (eds.), P *entice-Hall
Publisher, N.J. (1989) Vol. 12, 19.1-19.28.

26. Santarelli, F.J., Brown, E.T. and Maury, V.: “Analysis of Borehole Stnsses Using
Pressure-Dependent, Linear Elasticity,” Znt. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Gar;iech. Abstr.
(1986) 25, 159-170.

27. Pellegrino, A., Sulem, J. and Barla, G.: “Nonlinear Effects in the Study of Borehole
Stability,?’ paper presented at the 1994 SPEASRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands (August 29-3 1) Eurock ’94, Balkema,, Rotterdam,
(1994) 231-237.

28. Nawrocki, P. and Dusseault, M.: “Addressing the Effects of Material Non-Ld nearities on
Wellbore Stresses Using Slress- and Strain-Dependent Elastic Moduli,” Rock: Mechanics,
J.J.K. Daemen and R.A. Schultz (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam (1995) 819-824.

29. Vaziri, H. and Byme, P.M.: “Analysis of Stress, Flow and Stability Around Wellbores,”
Geotechnique (1990) 40, No. 1,63-77.

30. Wang, X.: “Numerical Modeling of Wellbore Cavitation and its Influence on Fluid
Production in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,” Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Univers ity of Nova
Scotia, Canada (1995).

31. Charlez, P.A.: “The Impact of Constitutive Laws on Wellbore Stability: A General
Review,” paper presented at the 1994 SPEhSRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands (August 29-3 1) Eurock ’94, Balkema, Rotterdam,
(1994) 239-249.

32. Ewy, R.T.: “3D Stress Effects in Elastoplastic Wellbore Failure Models,” pap :r presented
at the 1991 U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Norman, OK (July 10-12) Rock
Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science; Proceedings of the 32nd US.Symr iosium, J-C.
Roegiers (ed.), Norman, OK (1991) 951-960.

4-57
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

33. Detournay, E.: ‘‘Elastoplastic Model of a Deep Tunnel for a Rock With Variable
Dilatancy,” Rock Mech, Rock Eng. (1986) 19,99-108.

34. Veeken, C., Walters, J.V., Kenter, C.J. and Davies, D.: “Use of PlanticityModels for
Predicting Borehole Stability,” paper presented at the 1989 ISRM. SPEhternational
Symposium, Pau, France, Rock ut Great Depth, Balkema, Rotterdam (191 )9)2, 835-844.

35. Wong, S.W. and Heidug, W.K.: “Borehole Stability in Shales: A Constitutive Model for
Mechanical and Chemical Effects of Drilling Fluid Invasion,” paper prei ented at the 1994
SPEDSRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft, The Nether lands (August 29-
3 1) Eurock ’94, Balkema, Rotterdam (1994) 25 1-257.

36. Surewaard, J., de Koning, K., Kool, M., Woodland, D., Roed, H. ind Hopmans, P:
“Approach to Underbalanced Well Operations in Petroleum Developmi :nt Oman,” paper
IADC/SPE 35069 presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, N :w Orleans, LA.

37. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” paper pre jented at the 1995
ASME Energy Technology Conference, Houston, TX, January 30 - Februar y 1.

38. Graves, S.L., Niederhofer, J.D. and Beavers, W.M.: “A Combination Air md Fluid Drilling
Technique for Zones of Lost Circulation in the Black Warrior Basin,’’ $PEDE (February
1986) 57-61.

39. Deis, P.V., Yurkiw, F.J. and Barrenechea, P.J.: “The Development of (rn Underbalanced
Drilling Process: An Operator’s Experience in Western Canada,” paper pre ;ented at the 1995
1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Nei herlands, October
2-4.

40. Dupont, J.: “Foam Used to Drill, Gravel-Pack Deep Gas Well,” Oil and Gu r J. (May 7, 1984)
192- 194.

41. Santarelli, F.J., Dardeau, C. and Zurdo, C.: “Drilling through Highly Fractu .ed Formations: A
Problem, a Model and a Cure,” paper SPE 24592, presented at the 1992 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC.

42. Nesa, D.O., Larsen V., and Birkeland, R.: “Underbalanced Drilling Offshore,” paper
presented at the 1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and
Exhibition,” The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

43. Anderson, G.W.: “Use of Preformed Stable Foam in Low Pressure Rest rvoir Wells,” 5th
Offshore South East Asia Meeting, Singapore, February 2 1-24, 1984.

4-58
44. Bentsen, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: “Preformed Stable: Foam Performance in Prilling and
Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Alberta,” paper SPE 5712, JPT (October, 1376) 1237-
1240.

45. Comeau, L. : “Underbalanced Drilling: Directional and MWD Experier ce,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

46. Crearar, P.: “Underbalanced Re-Entry Horizontal Drilling in the Welton 1;ield Basal
Succession Reservoir Onshore UK,” paper presented at the 1995 1st IJ lternational
Underbalanced Drilling conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlan Is, October
2-4.

47. Cummings, S.G.: “Natural. Gas Drilling Methods and Practice: San Juan ILasin, New
Mexico,” paper SPE/IADC 16167 presented at the 1987 S P E m D C Drilling ( lonference,
New Orleans, LA, March 15-18.

48. Mullane, T.J., Churcher, P.L., Edmunds, A.C., Eddy, D.B., Martin, B.G. and I;lach, P.D.:
“Benefits of Underbalanced Drilling: Examples from the Weyburn and Weste ‘ose Fields,
Western Canada,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanc ed Drilling
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4..

49. Russell, B.A.: “How Surface Hole Drilling Performance Was Improved 6 i%,”paper
IADC/SPE 25766 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, f kmsterdam,
February 23-25.

50. Saponja, J.: “Comparing Conventional Mud to Underbalanced Drilling in a Depleted

Reservoir,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling I :onference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

51. Whiteley, M.C. and England, W.P.: “Air Drilling Operations Improved by ’ercussion-
Bit/Hammer-Tool Tandem,” SPEDE (October 1986) 377-382.

52. Westermark, R.V.: “Drilling With a Parasite Aerating String in the Dist irbed Belt,
Gallatin County, Montana,” paper IADC/SPE 14734 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX,February 10-12.

53. Fear, M.J.; “How to Improve Rate of Penetration in Field Operations,” paper IADC/SPE
35107 presented at the 1996 IADCISPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA..

54. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr.: “Rotating Control Head Applications Increasing,” Oil and Gus J.
(October 9, 1995).
Chapter 4 Selecting An Appropriate Technique

55. Reinsvold, C.H., Clement, J., Oliver, M., Witt, C. and Crockett, J.: “D amond-Enhanced
Hammer Bits Reduce Cost per Foot in the Arkoma and Appalachian Basins,” paper
IADC/SPE 17185 presented at the 1988 IACDISPE Drilling Confercnce, Dallas, TX,
February 28 - March 2.

56. Moore, P.L.: DriZZing Practices Manual, PennWell Publishing Corn pany, Tulsa, OK
(1974).

57. Grace, R.D. : “Pressure Control in Balanced and Underbalanced Drillini in the Anadarko
Basin,” paper SPE 5396 presented at the 1975 SPE Regional Meeting, 01lahoma City, OK
March 24-25.

58. Bloys, B., Brown, J.D. and Tarr, B.A.: “Drilling Safely and Economica ly in Carbonates:
Collective Experience of ARCO, BP and Mobil,” paper presented at the 1994 IADC Well
Control Conference for the AsiaPacific Region, Singapore, December 1-2 .

59. Astrella, L. and Wienies, R.: “Closed Loop Drilling Systems Can Elirr inate Reserve Pit
Costs,” Oil & Gas J. (May 27, 1996) 62-68.

60. Allan, P.D.: “Nitrogen Drilling System for Gas Drilling Applications,” Japer SPE 28320
presented at the 1994 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New 3rleans, LA.

61. Tag, A.: “Portable Prism@Nitrogen (PPN): A New Concept to Replace ,iquid Nitrogen,”
paper presented at the 1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

62. Scott, S.L., Wu, Y. and Bridges, T.J: “Air Foam Improves Efficiency o ‘ Completion and
Workover Operations in Low-Pressure Gas Wells,” SPEDC (December l! 195) 2 19-225.

63. Fried, S. and MacDonald, C.: “Nitrogen Supply Alternatives for Underb,danced Drilling,”
paper presented at the 1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

64. Surewaard, J., de Koning, K., Kool, M., Woodland, D., Roed, H. aitd Hopmans, P.:
“Underbalanced Operations in Petroleum Development Oman,” paper presented at the
1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The
Netherlands, October 2-4.

65. Bieseman, T. and Emeh, V.: “An Introduction to Underbalanced Drilling, ’ paper presented
at the 1995 1 st International Underbalanced Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The
Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

66. Allen, T.O. and Roberts, A.P.: “Production Operations - Well Completio is, Workover and
Stimulation,” Volume 2, OGCI, Tulsa, OK, 1982.
 WELL ENGINEERING
5. I Circulation Programs
Design of circulation programs for
underbalanced drilling is fundamentally no
different than for balanced or underbalanced
situations. The basis for hydraulics design is
to guarantee adequate hole cleaning, to
ensure vertical transport of cuttings in
annular zones where velocities are reduced
because of changes in annular area, to
maintain wellbore stability and mitigate
formation damage and to operate within the
pressure and rate constraints of the tubulars
and the surface equipment. Mathematically,
most wellbore drilling hydraulics programs
are based on continuity of mass and solution
of mechanical energy balance relationships
(refer to Appendix D).
The total pressure drop over an interval is
equal to the change in pressure due to
hydrostatic head plus the (acceleration
pressure drops (kinetic energy) fior fluid and
solid phases, almost always negligibly small,
plus the pressure drop due to frictional
interaction with the drillpipe, casing and
openhole. The hydrostatic component
includes the fluid(s) as well as the solids in
the annulus. As indicated, the kinetic energy
effects of the solids are usually ignored,
although they may play some role in the
region immediately above the drill collars
where velocity is reduced, if extreme
overbalance is encountered. Ki ietic effects
for the fluids are usually onl} considered
when accounting for pressure d cop through
the bit nozzles.
Guo et al., 1993,' showed relalionships for
pressure loss through a bit foi an aerated
mud. Neglecting elevation :hange and
energy loss due to friction, the energy
balance equation through a bit can be
expressed as:
where:
PI .......upstream pressure (psf),
P2 .......downstream pressure (ps 3,
gc........conversion factor
(32.17 lbm.ft/lbf-s2),
M .......mass flow rate (lbds),
A ........nozzle area (ft2>,
OF2 ......downstream density (lbrr /ft3), and,
PFI ......upstream density (Ibdft:).
-k
For air drilling, sonic Pa = Pb - -
( k :I)=
(5.2)
Pb - Pa = 0.471Pa J
5-1
Chapter 5 Well Engineering
-k
For air drilling, sub - sonic Pa e Pb -
(k:l)=
k 1
R(k - l)G2Tb}G}
2gkSA;P; (5.2 cont.)
where:
G ........mass flow rate of air I b d s ,
A,, .......area of the bit nozzles (in2),
T, .......air temperature above the bit (OR),
T b .......temperature beneath the bit (OR).
R ........ the universal gas constant
(53.3 ft.lbf/lbm."R for air),
k ......... ratio of the specific heat at
constant pressure to that at
constant volume (dimensionless),
S ......... gas gravity (1 for air), and,
g ......... gravitational constant (32.17 ft/s2).
Normally, in well executed drilling
operations, the pressure loss through the bit
will be approximately fifty percent of the
surface pressure. The flow regime through
surface connections and inside the drillstring
is generally turbulent, accounting for
between sixty and eighty percent of the
remaining component of the surface
pressure. The flow regime in the annulus is
generally laminar for liquids, accounting for
twenty to forty percent of circulating
pressure losses (excluding those through the
bit). This is not necessarily the case for gas.
Turbulent Flow
Particularly in air and mist drilling, the
majority of pressure losses in the circulating
system are associated with turbulent flow.
These include the pressure losses in surface
connections, drillpipe and drill collars. In
turbulent flow, the local velocity vectors are
not ordered and the velocity profile is flat,
with the average velocit approximately
equal to the maximuri velocity (as
compared to parabolic distributions in
laminar flow).
In frictional pressure rt lationships, the
pressure drop is commonlj incorporated by
using the Fanning Friction Factor, f. While
there is a considerable uncl :rtainty in values
for f, approximate relatiinships can be
developed from relations hips shown in
Figure 5- 1. Relative 1 oughness, from
Moody's diagram, Figurt: 5-2, can be
incorporated using Nikurad ;e's formulations
(refer to Chapter 2).
Reynolds number is defined as:
Re = 15.47- "P'm (5.3)
P
where:
Re ....... Reynolds' Number ( 3imensionless),
D ........equivalent hydraulic diameter (ft),
-
v ........average cross-sectio la1 velocity
(ft/s),
pm.......mixture density (Ibn /ft3), and,
p ......... mixture viscosity, CI '.
In turbulent flow, viscosit:. has an unclear
meaning. It may be represe ited as:
PV
p=- (5.4)
3.2
where:
PV ......plastic viscosity (Ibf '100 ft2).
The frictional pressure drop is then given by:
pmV2ALf
AP = (5.5)
9.298x104D
 I
5
64/Re

01

XIS

W1

= 0.00005
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1OOOO( 00
Reynolds Number, Re

Figure 5-1. Friction Factor, < as a function of Reynold's numbej .

l.OOE+OO

n
u)
1.00E-01
-
u)
Q)
E
.-0
2 1.00E-02
-E
U
v
.00E-03

cn"
u)
.00E-04
r
m
=1
a0 1.00E-05
-3!
-m
c

1.00E-06
U
Q)

I I I l l l l l I I I
1.00E-07 I I I I I I

1 10 100
Pipe Diameter, D (inches)

Figure 5-2. Moody correlation for relative roughness.

5-3
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

where: Drilling rate (ft/hr), tnd,

Depth (thousands of feet).
AP ...... pressure drop (psi/ft), and,
AL ......length interval (feet). 9 In the table in Appendix Cydetermine Qo
and N. Interpolate valuc :s as required.
Other pressure and velocity conditions are 9 Calculate the required circulation rate
covered in Chapter 2. The following section using:
shows example calculations using some of
the available analytical routines for
predicting fluid (gas and/or liquid
requirements), specifically for air drilling.
where:
Depending on the particular project,
commercial wellbore hydraulics simulators
Qo,N.. parameters from Apj Iendix Cy
should be used interactively with available
H ........depth in thousands o F feet, and,
or real-time drilling data.
Q ........circulation rate (scfn 0.
5.2 Circulation Calculations Example 1
(Air, Gas, Mist) Using Angel’s table, detern line the required
circulation rate to air drill an 11-inch hole
Dry Air Drilling with 5Yi-inch drillpipe, at 91 1 f a r , at 11,000
Order of magnitude calculations of required ft.
air rates can be determined using Angel’s
analysis techniques, as described in Chapter
2. Section 2.1. The problem can be
P From the table in Appen jix C:
approached in two ways. The fundamental
Qo.......1456,
relationships can be specifically solved or
approximations published by Angel N........ 135, and,
(Appendix C) can be used. Regardless of H........ 11.
which analysis is used, the rates are
commonly underestimated. Some operators Q = Q, + NH = 1456+ 135%11 = 2941 scfm
take Angel’s predictions and order out (5.7)
equipment to handle twice these rates;
further adjusting on the fly. Some Solving Angel’s Equation
improvements may be possible by A somewhat more precise solution can be
manipulating Angel’s parameter, by to derived by programr ling Angel’s
incorporate alternate friction factors. relationships into a spreads ieet. The basic
equations are:
Angel’s Approximate Method
6.6 1s(T, + Gh)Q*
9 Collect the required information for the -
calculations. This includes: (D; - D:)Vto
0 Drilled hole size (inches),
0 OD of the drillpipe (inches),

5-4
where:
S .........gas gravity, air = 1.0
(dimensionless),
T, ....... surface temperature (OF),
G.. ...... geothermal temperature gradient
(“F/ft),
h ......... depth below surface to any point
under consideration (feet),
Q ........circulation rate (scfm),
Dh ....... hole diameter (feet),
D, ....... pipe outside diameter (feet),
v, tp......velocity of air at standard
temperature and pressure (Angel
recommended 3000 ft/min),
P, ........pressure in the annulus at the
surface (including backpressure)
(psi@,
T,, ...... average absolute temperature of the
flow stream (T,+(T,+Gh))/2, (OR),
(to convert from O F to OR,add
459.67 to the temperature in OF),
SQ + 28.8KD:
a ......... 7
53.34
K ........ drilling rate ( f a r ) , and,
1.625x 10”Q’
b .........
- D;)’*
(D, - D,)’.333(D2,
The only real difficulty in solving for this is
the fact that Q appears on both sides of the
equation. Solve this by iteration.
Revising Angel’s Equation
One of the difficulties with Angel’s analysis
is that it uses Weymouth’s equation for a
vertical, smooth-walled pipe and does not
completely represent the contribution of
cuttings to friction. One resolution to this is
modifying Angel’s parameter, I). It was
defined as:
1.625X 10” Q 2
b=- (5.9)
(Dh - D,)1.333(D:- D:)’
Recognizing that this ncorporates
Weymouth’s friction factor, f = 0.014 (Dh-
D -.333, b can be rewritten as:
p)
1.167 x 104Q2f
(5.10)
Alternate values of b can be nferred for
different friction factors (refer fc sr, example,
to Govier and Aziz, 1982*). Foi example, f
can be varied to account for roi ghness and
adjustments could be made to include
supplemental friction due to cut ings. Note
that the simple formulation prese nted here is
for straight hole.
Simulation
Angel’s analysis can be modif ed for any
gaseous drilling system. The ahantage of
Angel’s approach is its simplicity.
Additional discussion of 1 sing this
technique is found in Johnson znd Cooper,
1993.3
Nitrogen Drilling
Angel’s method can also be used for
nitrogen. The procedures are similar to
those for dry air. As a first order
approximation, it can be assurr ed that the
cuttings transport efficiency is sii nilar to that
for air. The gas gravity, S, for I itrogen can
be taken as S = 0.97, compared o S = 1 for
air.
Natural Gas Drilling
Procedures for natural ga s drilling
circulation assessment, usin, ; Angel’s
5-5
 ~ ~~

Chapter 5 Well Engineering

approach, are similar to those for air and liquid.

nitrogen drilling. Typically, the gravity will
vary from 0.60 to 0.70 for dry hydrocarbon ROP’ = ROP, + ROP, (5.12)
gases. If PVT information is not available, a
> Use Angel’s methodo ogy to determine
the required air rate, C,in scfm, and the
reasonable default value would be 0.65.
bottomhole pressure, P ,, using ROP’ .
Mist Drilling
As indicated in Section 2.4, a simple
approximation of the pressure and the Example 2
Estimate the required air 1:irculation rate to
required delivery capacities during mist
drilling can be found by using Angel’s mist drill at 11,000 feet it 90 ft/hr. Pipe
analysis and artificially representing added diameter is 5%-inches and the hole diameter
is 1 1-inches. Foamer is ad ded at the surface
or produced liquid as cuttings. For order of
at 4 gpm and water is rroduced into the
magnitude predictions:
annulus at 11,000 feet at 9 BWPH.
P Estimate the total liquid rate flowing up
0 The injected liqui3 rate is 4 gpm,
the annulus (BPH). This includes
which is 5.71 BPH .
foamer and produced water.
0 The produced forn lation fluid rate is
Determine the liquid added at the
9 BPH.
surface (BPH).
Determine the liquid inflow (BPH).
0 The total liquid ’ate is 5.71 + 9
=14.71 BPH.
Determine the total liquid (BPH) by
0 The apparent pe ietration rate to
addition.
account for water i 3:
P Calculate an apparent, supplementary
rate of penetration, to account for the 380x 14.71
ROP, = = 46.2 ft / hr (5.13)
liquids. 1 l2

ROP, =-380QL (5.11) 0 The desired penztration rate is,

D2 ROPd = 90 ft/hr.

where: 0 The total artificia rate is ROP’=

46.2 + 90 = 136.2 ’t/hr.
ROP, .. apparent additional ROP due to water 0 From Appendix D
(far).
QL...... total liquid flow rate (BPH), and, Q, = 1456
D ........ bit diameter (inches).
N = 160 (Extrapolated)

P Decide on the desired (actual) Q=Qo+NH (5.14)

penetration rate, ROPd, ft/hr.
= 1456+ 160X 11
P Calculate an artificial penetration rate,
ROP’, to “gas lift” the cuttings and = 3216 scfm

5-6
5.3 Circulation Calculations
(Gasified Liquids)
Approximate volumes and pressures, for
gasified liquids, can be determined using the
techniques described previously. More
precise predictions require added levels of
sophistication. Some examples of more
refined circulating procedures are provided.
These can be adopted for any of the fluid
systems discussed. The examples shown are
for flow in the annulus. Drillpipe flow
calculations are similar, although cuttings
are not included and the pipe's internal
dimensions are used. Additional
sophistication can be incorporated to
account for pressure drop at the bit, and
changing head due to solids or water influx
(refer to example Guo et al., 1993'). The
circulation simulations described below
indicate methodologies for estimating air
requirements to lighten or aerate muds.
Although commercial simulators are readily
available for drilling hydraulics, this
discussion is included so that the drilling
engineer can understand the concepts of
those models and can do quick parametric
comparisons.
Gasifying a liquid is intended to reduce the
pressure within the wellbore and to
minimize lost circulation or formation
damage. In either case, the pressure in the
zone of interest must be known in order to
design the drilling system. The average
density of the liquid above the zone of
interest must exert a pressure that is less
than (or equal to) the anticipated pressure.
The amount of gas that needs to be injected
into the drilling fluid can be estimated in
two different ways; using relationships
presented by Poettmann and Bergman,
1955,4 or by doing first principle
calculations to determine volumes,
hydrostatic pressures and frictio n losses in
the annulus.
Poettman-Bergman Equatio,7s
A set of charts was developed by Poettmann
and Bergman, 1955,4 for avenge annular
temperatures of 100, 150 and 20( )OF. Figure
5.3 is a reproduction of the 150'F chart (all
three charts are included in Zhapter 2,
Section 2.7). These nomograI hs can be
used to quickly estimate requi red aidgas
volumes.
To Find The Air Requirements
1. Find the drilling depth in feet, on the
bottom scale.
2. Go up to the appropriate curvl! of
Desired Fluid Weight After A =ration
(Wd).
3. Go across to the appropriate c Jrve of the
difference between the Actual Fluid
Weight before Aeration and tl le Desired
Fluid Weight After Aeration ( W, -Wd).
4. Go up to the Cubic Feet of Ai. needed
per Barrel of mud on the top s cale.
Example (Follow the Dotted Lin ?s)
1. Consider a 4200 feet deep hol 2 (bottom
axis).
2. Move up to 6 ppg. Desired F uid Weight
After Aeration.
3. Move over to 4.5 ppg (10.5 pi ig Actual
Fluid Weight minus 6 ppg De sired Fluid
Weight) .
4. Move up to 73 scf airhbl of I: iud.
Alternatively, the relationship de veloped by
Poettman and Bergman can be ;olved in a
spreadsheet, to calculate the voh mes, rather
5-7
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

Cubic Feet Of Air At 14.7 PSlA And 80" F Per Barrel Of Mud
CFM-180 170 160 160 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 60 40 3(1 P 10 0

- -
\ ESTIMATE OF AIR

XXXI'

Figure 5-3. Nomograph for determining air rates to reduce the hydrosi atic pressure of
a drilling fluid, at an average temperature of 150°F (Poeffman and
Bergman, 195!j4),.

than using a nomograph. Qa.......gas rate (i.e. air, nib ogen) (scfhbl of
drilling fluid),
Tavg..... average annular ten perature (OR),
42hp, - 808(P2- PI)
Q, = (5.15) P d ....... desired average den ;ity of the
drilling fluid (ppg), and,
pf ........density of the drillir g fluid (ppg).

Example 3 shows how tho basic Poettman

P2 = PI +0.052hpd
where:
h .........depth of interest, (feet (TVD)),
PI ....... surface pressure (psia), (14.7 psia
or local barometric pressure if
there is no backpressure),
P2 ....... pressure at the depth of interest,
formation pressure plus barometric
pressure (psia),
(5.16)
and Bergman, 1955: equa ion can be used.
Equation (5.15) does not ac count for friction
losses in the annulus. Poettmann and
Bergman, 1955,4 showed tl iat friction losses
make very little difference n most instances.
However, there are instancf s where it can be
important, especially when using high rates
of air or nitrogen.
Example 3 (Standpipe Inject on)
Consider a well that is to be drilled in a

5-8
formation at 6000 feet that has a pressure
equivalent to 7.5 ppg (-2350 psi at 6000
feet). The average annular temperature will
be 90°F (550"R). It is planned to use a 9.0
ppg base drilling mud. Air must be added to
reduce the hydrostatic head and to develop
underbalanced conditions. Determine how
much air must be injected into the mud in
order to make the bottomhole pressure at
6000 feet equivalent to a 7.5 ppg mud.
9 First, determine the pressure at the zone
of interest (6000 feet in this case) using
Equation (5.16).
P2 = P, -k 0.052hpd
P2 = 14.7 +(0.052)(6000 feet)(7.5 ppg) =
= 2354.7 psia
(assuming 14.7 psi is the local barometric
pressure)
9 Next, use Equation (5.15) to determine
the number of standard cubic feet of air
per barrel of drilling fluid that must be
injected into the standpipe.
42hp, - 808(P2 - PI)
Qa =
(42)(6000)(9) -(808)(2354.7 - 14.7)
-
(4.071)(550)ln(---)-(0.0764)(6000)
2354.7
14.7
= 34.59 scf per barrel
Therefore, 34.59 standard cubic feet of air
must be added to every barrel of 9 ppg mud
in order for the pressure at 6000 feet to be
equivalent to a 7.5 ppg mud.
-
Parasite String
The previous example imp1 es uniform
aeration of the column. If a par: site string is
used, only part of the column s lightened.
Equations (5.15) and (5.16) can be modified
to allow the same calculation -or injection
down a parasite string. The (rilling fluid
will be aerated from the depth o the parasite
'
string to the surface. The drilling fluid
below the depth of the parasitl: string will
not be aerated. The modified eq iations are:
42h,p, -808(P2 - PI)
Qa =
-
(5.17)
P2 = P, + 0.052hpd - 0.052(h - h )pr
(5.18)
where:
h .........depth of interest (feet) (TVD),
h, .......depth of the parasite strir g (feet)
(TVD), and,
Pz .......pressure at the depth of ti ie parasite
string (psia).
The average annular temperalure is only
considered over the depth inter r a l from the
bottom of the parasite string to tl ie surface.
Example 4 (Parasite String)
Given all the data in Example 1, determine
the air volume that is required if a parasite
string is set at 2000 feet. "he average
annular temperature is only con iidered from
2000 feet to the surface and nct from 6000
feet to the surface. The aveiage annular
temperature was estimated t I be 70°F
(530"R).
5-9
 -
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

> First, calculate P2. This is the required 42h,p, - 808(P, - >,)
pressure at the bottom of the parasite Q, =
string. 4.07 lTa,, In
)(;
- --0.0 764h,
--
P2=PI +0.052hpd -O.O52(h- h,)p,
P2 = 14.7 psia + (0.052)(6000feet)(75ppg)- (42)(2000)(9)- (80t)(482.7- 14.7)
Qa =
- (0.052)(6000feet- 2000feet)(9 ppg) (4.07 1)(530)In -- - (0.0764)(2000)
14.7 ,
(483
=482.7 psia
= 51.20 scf per barrel

This indicates that the pressure where the air

enters the annulus from the parasite string
must be 482.7 psia, in order for the
equivalent mud weight at 6000 feet to be 7.5
PPg-
P Now, calculate the required air volume
per barrel of mud:
Since all of the fluid i n th: annulus is not
being aerated, more air is ret luired to achieve
the same equivalent mud wc ight at 6000 feet
when a parasite string is usc d. Figure 5-4 is
a plot of the annular pressui e profile for this
example well, using both ieration through
the standpipe and through a ?arasite string.

1000

2000
n
c
Q,
s
Q,

c 3000
c
P
a
n
4000 . . .._ _ _

5000

6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Pressure (psia)

Figure 5-4. Plot of pressure versus depth for the wells in Examples 3 md 4, injecting
through the standpipe or a parasite string at 2000 feet.

5-10
Annular Calculations
There is another, relatively simple way to
determine pressures in a well drilled with
gasified fluid. It involves calculating
volumes, hydrostatic pressures and friction
losses in the annulus. Pressures are
incrementally calculated (from first
principles).
Calculating Gas Density and Volume
9 The gas density and voliime can be
calculated, at any pressun:, using the
following equations:
2.703SPi
Pg = (5.19)
T,

9 The pressure at the surface is assumed (5.20)

and the volumetric flow rates are
calculated for a short interval (usually
around 100 feet), starting from the top. where:
9 Based on the flow rates and fluid
properties, the pressure at the bottom of Pi ........pressure at the top of the first
the first interval is calculated, using both interval (psia),
friction losses and hydrostatic pressure. Qa.......injection gas volumetric flow rate
(sft3/bbl of drilling fluid:,
9 The pressure at the bottom of this first QL......base liquid volumetric fl IW rate
interval is used to recalculate the fluid
(gpm),
properties and flow rates. These are S ......... gas gravity (air = l),
used to calculate the pressure at the Ti ........ temperature at the top of the first
bottom of the second interval. The interval (OR),
process is repeated until the pressure at V, ....... gas volumetric rate at prl :sure
the zone of interest is determined. (ft3/min),and,
> If desired, you can keep going pg.......gas density at temperatui e and
(incorporate pressure drop through the pressure (lbm/ft3).
bit and work back up through the
drillstring) to get standpipe pressure. 9 The density and volume of 1 he liquid are
determined. Equations (5.2 I) and (5.22)
Performing these calculations by hand can are then used to convert ljquid density
be tedious. Spreadsheets can be used to (ppg) and rate (gpm) to un ts of lbm/ft3
perform the calculations efficiently. The and ft3/min.
calculations must be done over short
intervals because the actual volume, density pL = 7 . 4 8 ~ ~ (5.21)
and flow rate change with pressure. Since
gas is compressible, the volume is a strong
function of pressure. The volume of the gas V, =- QL (5.22)
7.48
determines the flow rate and density of the
single phase (air) or composite (gas-liquid) where:
mixture.
QL......base liquid volumetric fl OW rate
(gpm) 7

-
5-11
 ~ -
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

VL...... base liquid volumetric flow rate where:

(ft3/min>,
pf........ drilling fluid weight (ppg), and, Dh ....... diameter of the hole (inches),
p~....... drilling fluid density (lbm/ft3). D, ....... outside diameter of the pipe
(inches),
.....measured length of .he calculation
> The next step is to determine the
L d
interval (feet),
combined density and volume of the
L d ..... true vertical length I )f the
mixture:
calculation interval :feet),
Pk.......friction losses in the calculation
v, = vg+v, (5.23)
interval (psi),
Phy ...... incremental hydrost itic pressure
over the calculation interval (psi),
(5.24)
Pi+,..... pressure at the bottc rn of the
calculation interval 'psi), and,
where: PV ......plastic viscosity (cP 1.

VT...... volumetric flow rate of the mixture
of gas and liquid (ft3/min),and,
pm....... density of the mixture of gas and
liquid (lbm/ft3).
> The hydrostatic pressure and friction
losses for the discrete interval (annulus)
are calculated with the following
equations, along with the pressure at the
bottom of the interval (ignoring
cuttings)+ :
(5.25)
Using Equations (5.19) th ough (5.27), the
annular pressures in the wellbore can be
calculated at any deptl . Hydrostatic
pressure and friction 11 )sses are both
included. These equations can also be used
in a directional well sincc : the hydrostatic
pressure and friction pressu -es are calculated
separately. Hydrostiatic pressure is a
function of the true veitical depth and
friction losses are a funct on of measured
depth.
The following example illu ;trates how these
equations can be used 1 0 calculate the
pressures in the wellboie described in
Example 3.

Example 5
Given the conditions frc m Example 3,
(5.26) determine the pressure at 6000 feet. The air
injection rate is 34.59 ft3/bbI of drilling mud.
The drilling fluid rate is 251 1 gpm. The hole
Pi+,= Pi + Phy+ Pfr (5.27)
size is 8.5 inches and the OL tside diameter of
the drillpipe is 4.5 inches. There are 600
feet of 6.25-inch OD dri 1 collars at the
A solid phase can be added for cuttings. In most bottom of the drillstring. Assume that the
cases this is second order. Liquid inflow can also
surface temperature is 60°F and the
be incorporated.

5-12
geothermal gradient is l"F/lOO feet. The
returns are being vented through a mud/gas
separator and the surface pressure is
assumed to be 14.7 psia. The calculation (0.0764)(205.89) + (67.32)( 33.42)
interval length will be 100 feet. The plastic 239.3 1
viscosity of the drilling fluid is 10 cP. = 9.47 lbm / ft3

P Calculate the density and volume of each P Calculate the hydrostatic pressure,
phase for the first interval. This interval friction losses and pressiire, at the
is near the surface. The temperature is bottom of the first interval.
-60°F which is (60459.67) = 520"R.
PlIlLtV, - (9.471bm/ft3)(l(Ofeet)
The densities and flow rates are:
h'y = 144- 144
-- -

= 658 psia
P, = 2.703SPi - (2.703)(1)(14.7 psia) -
-
T 520" R
( 5 . 8 8 ~104)py' V?' PV0," L,
= 0.0764 Ibm / ft3 Pf, = -- -
(Dh-Dp)3(Dh +Dp)l"

-
-
(5.88 x 10-4)(9.471bm/ft3)0'8
\ X X
(85 in-45 inY(8.5 in+4.5 in,
- (0.35)(3459ft3/ bb1)(250gpm)
- - (239.31ft' /min)l'81(10cP)0.I9(100 ft)
14.7 X
(85 in - 4 5 i n r (85 in + 4 5 i 1)1"'
= 205.89 ft / min
= 1.71 psia
pL = 7 . 4 8 ~=~(7.48)(9.Oppg) =
= 67.32 lbm/ ft3 Pi+,= Pi + Phy+ Pf, = 14,7 + 6.58 i 1.71=

= 22.99 psia
v Q 250gpm = 33.42 ft / min
-L-
- 7.48 - 7.48 P The pressure at 100 feet is 22.99 psia.
For the next interval, from 100 to 200
> Calculate the total flow rate and the feet down the annulus:
density of the mixture of air and drilling
fluid.
(2.703)(1)(22.99)
-
V, = V, + V, = 205.89 + 33.42 = pg = 520" R + 0.01" F/ft x 100fec - t
= 239.3 1 ft3/ min = 0.1 191 lbm/ft3

5-13
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

V, = 89.8 1+ 33.42 = 123.; 3 ft3/ min

vg= (0.35)(22.99
34.59)(250) -

(0.1743)(89.81)-t- (6; .32)(33.42) -

= 131.65 ft3/ min Pm = 123.23

= 18.38 Ibm/ ft3

P The volume and density of the liquid
remain approximately the same as for the (18.38)(100)
first interval since the base liquid is a yh' = = 12.76 psia
144
slightly compressible fluid:
(5.88x lo4)( 18.38)0'8(123.23)'.81
V, = 131.65+33.42 = 165.07 ft3/min Pf,=
(85- 4.5)3(8;5+ 15)''81
X

(0.1 191)(131.65) + (67.32)(33.42)-

-
Pm = 165.07 (~ o ) O . ' ~(100)
(8.5- 45)3(8.5+ 45)
X 1.81 =
= 13.72 Ibm/ ft3
=0.88 psia
(13.72)( 100)
yh' = = 9.53 psia = c + 2 +yh' -k
144 'i+3 ,f'

(5.88 x 10-4)(13.72)0~81(165.07)1'81 Pi+2= 33.70 + 12.76+ 0.88 = 47.34 psia

Pf,= X
(85- 4$ (85+4.5)'.81
> The pressure at 300 fee. is equal to 47.34
(1o)O.l9 (100) psia.
X
(85-4.5)3(8.5+45)''81 9 The procedure is repeal ed until the depth
of interest is reached. In this case, the
= 1.18 psia
pressure at 6000 feet i calculated to be
2362 psia. This pressu .e is equivalent to
c+2= 'i+l +yh' +
it'
a 7.57 ppg mud. This implies that the
P,+2= 22.99 + 953 + 1.18 = 33.70 psia friction losses in the an iulus are equal to
an equivalent mud weight of only 0.07
ppg (-0.36 psi per 100 feet). Given the
9 The pressure at 200 feet is 33.70 psia. fact that air rates do not remain
The procedure is repeated for the interval absolutely constant anc that connections
from 200 to 300 feet: have to be made, the lriction losses are
insignificant. This indicates that
(2.703)( 1)(33.70) variations in actual bo tomhole pressure
P, = 522
= 0.1743 lbm/ ft3 are more a function t f changes in air
volumes during connec ions than friction
vg= (0.35)(34.59)(250)
33.70
= 89.8 1 ft / min
losses. Equation (5.17) is a good starting
point for any field toper ation. The actual
volumes must be varic d on location in

5-14
 order to accomplish the project
objectives.
5.4 Wellhead Design
Wellheads used in underbalanced drilling
vary from crude, very simple equipment for
very low pressure operations to expensive,
redundant systems designed for very high
pressure operations. For extremely low pore
pressure drilling applications, a simple
annular preventer alone might suffice to
contain wellbore pressures; however, a
principal manufacturer of such equipment
strongly cautions that such use exceeds the
design criteria of this equipment.
Therefore, the minimum setup for an
underbalanced drilling system should
consist of a rotating head mounted above a
two ram set of manually-operated blowout
preventers, consisting of a pipe ram and a
blind ram. An improvement to this basic
system would be installing the rotating head
above a set of hydraulically-operated
blowout preventers. For slightly higher
pressure operating conditions, a system
consisting of a rotating head, an annular
preventer and a two ram set of manually-
operated preventers will probably work
adequately. For added safety, hydraulically-
operated preventers with a manual backup
should be provided.
These basic systems all use a rotating head
with a 400 psi (sometimes 500 psi) MWP
(Maximum Working Pressure) capability.
Early day air drilling used this type of
equipment, along with a surface pit and a
return flowline venting to this pit. Mist and
foam drilling extended the depth limits and
maintained low surface pressures in this
underbalanced system.
A rotating head is sufficient f o - almost all
air and mist operations, in ireas where
formation pressures are well ct aracterized.
The rotating head is used as a civerter only
and is not used to maintain a b<tckpressure;
therefore, there is no t. ackpressure
limitation. In fact, back] ressure is
detrimental to air and mist (killing and
should not be applied.
It is extremely unlikely that th: flow rate
through the blooie line would cr :ate enough
backpressure to exceed thi : pressure
limitation of the rotating head. The flow
rate would have to be in exc:ss of 100
MMscfD to cause a 200 psi pres a r e drop in
an 8-inch blooie line.
When accurate pressure data a .e available
for an area, drilling with a rotaiing head is
possible in deeper wells, especially if the
target contains oil rather than gis. Because
of lower rental rates, rotating h:ad drilling
applications are stretched to thl :ir pressure
limits, before resorting to more c xtly RBOP
equipment. Many Pearsall an i Giddings
(Austin Chalk) field wells are still drilled
with this style of equipment, Zespite' the
safer MWP offered with the RBOP.
Regrettably, cost factors vel sus safety
margin considerations often win >ut in favor
of the rotating head. Today, a t y lical well in
these fields is drilled with a rctating head
system, in combination with an a inular BOP
and a hydraulically-operated thrc e ram BOP
stack, consisting of two sets oj pipe rams
and one set of blind rams.
Return flow is diverted througf the choke
manifold and surface separation equipment
to isolate gas, oil, drilling fluids and
cuttings. An automatic flare sq stem safely
burns off hydrocarbon or hydrcgen sulfide
5-15
Chapter 5 Weii Engineering
gases from the rig site. Even moderately
deep wells are drilled in this manner using
nothing but fresh water as the drilling fluid.
Heavier 10.0 ppg NaCl brine water is then
used to reduce surface pressures during trips.
To drill these deeper wells, many operators
have added the additional set of hydraulic
pipe rams, to make a two pipe ram stack
with blind rams. Above these BOPS, the
annular preventer, with the rotating head on
top, completes the medium pressure
wellhead equipment. The additional set of
pipe rams provides a higher level of
operating safety, as well as making it
possible to snub or strip from the well. As
higher pore pressures are encountered,
sodium chloride brine fluids can replace the
previous fresh water system and provide
lower surface operating pressures, in order
to stay in the pressure range of the rotating
head.
The next higher level of underbalanced
wellhead equipment usually involves
drilling deeper formations or gas-bearing
reservoirs. Either one or both of these
conditions can cause surface pressures to
exceed the working pressure limit of the
rotating head. For these wells, the RBOP,
with a 1,500 psi MWP (some equipment
now is functional at 2500 psi
operatingkotating and 5000 psi static
pressures), offers substantial depth capacity
and safety advantages compared to the
rotating head.
If hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas is expected or
if formations with even higher pore pressure
are drilled, wellhead equipment design
might call for either coiled tubing drilling
(CTD) or snub drilling operations.
5-16
Rotating Head
A typical rotating head ar d its components
are shown in Figure 5-5. 1 schematic cross-
section of a rotating heacI is illustrated in
Figure 5-6. In air :nd gas drilling
operations, rotating heads ire also called air
heads. Rotating heads are used to pack off
the annulus, diverting the air and gas flow
down the blooie line. Without the rotating
head, the air and gas woulc come up through
the rotary table and onto th :rig floor.
Many adequate rotating he ads are available.
Newer-generation rotatin;; heads usually
have sealed bearings, ratlier than external
oilers. Most are driven lly a kelly driver.
This attaches to the kelly md is mated to a
machined piece on top of the bearing
assembly. The kelly driver transfers rotation
of the drillstring to the seal ng element in the
rotating head. The E Earing assembly
provides a seal and alloas rotation of the
stripper rubber while: th: bowl remains
stationary. The stripper n tbber is designed
to rotate with the kelly since rotating the
kelly within the stripper ru 3ber would cause
the stripper rubber to wear jut much faster.
Hexagonal kellys allow for a better seal than
do square kellys. These should be used
whenever possible fo - air drilling
applications. The life of tk e sealing element
will be increased by proptr lubrication and
minimal tripping through it. The drillpipe
can be tripped through t h z stripper rubber
when necessary but it wil not last as long
before it has to be replaced. If the well is
making smaller amounts o ’ gas, the stripper
rubber and bearing assemlily can be pulled
prior to tripping. Gas can t e jetted off of the
rig by passing air through he primary jet in
the blooie line, as explainec I in Chapter 2.
Figure 5-5. Components of a low
pressure rotating head (after Eourgoyne,
1995, source: Williams Tool Company,
Inc.).
In an air drilling operation, the rotating
head is only a diverter and must not be
thought of as a replacement for a properly
designed blowout preventer stack. Pressures
on the sealing element should be kept to a
minimum. Most low pressure rotating heads
are not designed to handle much more than a
few hundred psi. High pressure rotating
Figure 5-6. Cross-section o a
rotating head, showing how tl re stripper
rubber seals around the drillp pe or
kelly, diverting flow down the blooie line
(after Cooper et al., 1977 1
'.
heads or rotating blowout pnventers are
available for underbalanced drill ng.
The stripper rubber in a rotating head can be
changed without tripping out of the hole.
The driller first pulls the pipe until a tool
joint is at the bottom of the strilper rubber.
The annular preventer (or l o v rams) is
5-17
Chapter 5 Well Engineering
closed and the pressure trapped below the
rotating head is bled off. The bonnet on top
of the bowl is opened and the drillpipe is
stripped from the hole. The first tool joint
below the rubber should pick up the stripper
rubber and bearing assembly as the pipe is
hoisted from the hole. The tool joint is a
larger OD than the pipe and will not slide
through the rubber as easily. When the
stripper rubber and bearing assembly are
above the rig floor, the slips are set and the
drillpipe connection just below the stripper
rubber is broken. The stripper rubber and
bearing assembly can then be pulled off of
the drillpipe. The old stripper rubber is
released from the bearing assembly and
replaced with a new stripper rubber. The
new stripper rubber and bearing assembly
are placed on top of the mouse hole and the
drillpipe is stabbed through the rubber with
the aid of a spear. Once the new stripper
rubber is above the tool joint, the tool joint
is made up to the drillstring and lowered into
Qulckthsnge packer --\
assembly
Hydrauliclluid Inlet
Inner packer
Outer packer
Bearings
Mechanical seal -
Outlet flange
Figure 5-7.
5-18
the hole. The stripper ru1,ber and bearing
assembly are again placed in the bowl and
the bonnet on top of the bowl is closed.
Drilling can then continu: with the new
stripper rubber.
Specific Consideration:i
Dry Air Drilling
A conventional open bell nipple will not
direct the returning air florq away from the
rig substructure. To do this, additional
equipment, a diverter, is reiuired above the
BOP stack. Although it i: possible to use
various types of equipment as diverters, it is
now normal to use either a rotating head
(Figure 5-6) or a rotating B( )P (Figure 5-7).
Both of these use elastomxic elements to
seal around the kelly ‘and iirect the return
flow laterally through the o itlet and into the
blooie line. The prin ipal difference
between these two types 0 ’diverter is that
Kelly driver
, , 7 assembly
z
: I 1 id return
Blowout prewenter
the sealing element in a rotating head is
actuated by the air pressure that it seals,
whereas the element in a rotating BOP is
actuated hydraulically. Typically, rotating
heads have a pressure limitation of 400 psi,
and new-generation rotating BOPs can seal
higher pressures, up to 2,5001 psi while
drilling (5000 psi static).6 It is important
that both are operated according to their
manufacturers 'recommendations. Un-
acceptably rapid wear of the seal element
and mechanism will occur if the axis of the
diverter is not aligned directly with the
center of the rotary table or if the lubrication
is inadequate.
With dry air drilling, the well should be
stripped through the rotating head rubber
and not the primary BOPs. If the flow rate
or pressures are too high to use the rotating
head for stripping, the well should be killed
before leaving the bottom. After all, the
pipe must be stripped out of the well before
it is stripped back into the well.
If the flow rates and pressures are high
enough to require stripping ram to ram
through the BOP stack, then a snubbing unit
will be required, with a snubbing stack.
The diverter system does not remove the
need for a conventional BOP stack. This
should comply with local regulatory
requirements. At a minimum, it should
contain pipe and blind rams, so that the well
can be shut-in with the string in or out of the
well. For gas wells at least, the pipe and
blind rams should be able to support the
highest anticipated formation fluid pressure.
Where it can be accommodated beneath the
rig floor, it is desirable to have a full stack
consisting, from the wellhead up, of pipe
rams, blind rams, pipe rams and annular.
This provides operational flexibility. For
example, it allows stripping pi:)e back into
the well under pressure if h gh pressure
hydrocarbons are encountered tk at cannot be
contained within the lower pres: ure capacity
of the diverter. The returning air flow is
taken from the diverter to a flar : pit through
the blooie line.
Nitrogen Drilling
The requirements are similar to .hose for dry
air drilling.
Drilling with Natural Gas
Beyond the additional surface equipment,
including gas monitoring ins .rumentation
described in Section 2.3, t le required
equipment is similar to that nteded for air
drilling. Cummings, 1987,7 inc icated that a
conventional rotating head couli be used to
divert gas flow into the blooie 1 ne in certain
situations (i.e. low permeabilil y wells that
need to be hydraulically fractured).
Particularly if it is anticipated that high
formation gas pressures or production
rates may be encountered, ths additional
pressure capacity of a rotah ng blowout
preventer is worth considering.
Regardless, implement,fc dlow and
strictly enforce all st fety
requirements.
Mist Drilling
The requirements are similar to those for dry
air 'drilling.
Foam Drilling
A choke should be installed j n the blooie
line, close to the rotating head or RBOP, to
pressurize the annulus, if neces: ary. Dupont,
1984,* recommended a bladde '-type choke.
If' the circulating program ii idicates that
annular backpressure may be nc cessary, then
this additional pressure should 1 le considered
5-19

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
when specifying the pressure capacity of the
rotating head or RBOP. The section of the
blooie line between the choke and the
rotating head should have a pressure rating
sufficient to support the highest back-
pressure likely to be imposed.
In very cold conditions, foam returns may
freeze and plug the blooie line. In these
areas, Fraser and Moore, 1987;
recommended using an additional foam
discharge line, with both the blooie and
foam discharge lines leading to the flare pit.
This redundancy is not necessary for normal
operations, where there will be a line from
the choke manifold to the flare pit that could
be used to continue circulation, but not
drilling, if the blooie line were to plug.
Small rigs may not have the clearance below
the floor for two diverters on top of a
conventional BOP stack.
Gasified Liquids
In the United States, many of the gasified
liquid drilling applications to-date (when
surface pressures are anticipated to be low),
have used aerated water or mud to overcome
lost circulation in hole intervals above
known reservoirs. In these instances,
rotating heads are used on top of
conventional BOP stacks, to seal around the
drillstring and divert flow into the flowline.
Nitrified liquids are often used in Canada, to
drill very productive wells underbalanced.
An M O P is normally used, rather than a
lower pressure rotating head. If the rig is
equipped with a top drive, it is possible to
use dual annular BOPS to give a high
pressure seal around the string above the
return line. Since an RBOP gives better
control of the closing pressure and has lower
stripping friction, it is usually preferred."
5-20
-
It has been recommended that blind rams
should be installed at the bc ittom of the BOP
stack.'' This maximize the distance
between the blind ram md the RBOP,
allowing short, irregular1 y shaped BHA
components to be run into the well under
pressure, without relying on the RBOP or
annular to seal around them
A second set of pipe rams. below the blind
rams, will provide redunlancy, and will
normally only be used to sl. ut in the well, in
the event that work is requi -ed on one of the
elements higher up the stacl . I 2
The influence of tht BOP stack
configuration on ram-tc )-ram stripping
operations should be carefu Ily considered, if
there is any possibility of h: ving to strip into
the well under high pressurc .
The clearance beneath the rig floor should
be considered when desi gning the well
cellar, wellhead and BO" stack. BOP
stacks, for underbalanced di illing, tend to be
taller than those used In conventional
operations. The situation is more difficult if
conventional wellhead equi sment is used to
inject gas down a tempcraq casing string.
Additional discussion of g<isified liquids is
found in Chapter 2, Section 2.7.
Flo wdrilling
Although surface equipmer t is important in
any type of drilling, it i! crucial to the
success of flowdrilling . Wellhead
equipment and operating procedures are
discussed in detail in Chaptc r 2, Section 2.8.
Mudcap Drilling
One significant differ mce between
flowdrilling and mudcap d-illing is that an
RBOP, with its high operating pressure
limits, is essential for mudcap drilling.
Flowdrilling is possible using either an
RBOP or a rotating head. A schematic
layout for mudcap drilling is shown in
Figure 5-8. In designing a well plan using a
mudcap drilling format, drilling engineers
should carefully consider the high standpipe
pressure involved and the associated safety
considerations, before finalizing their
recommendation.
Bloys et al., 1994,13 discussed offshore
floating mudcap drilling, in carbonate zones
in South East Asia. “Typically mud with a
density only slightly higher than the pore
pressure in the top of the exposed section of
carbonate is continuously pumped into the
annulus at a rate that maintains a constant
fluid level sufficient to prevent any influx.
I
-
umn
Figure 5-8. Schematic of equipment required for mudcap drilling (courtes V of Signa
Engineering Corporation).
(Mud pump rates depend on the loss rate to
the formation but rates of t h ? order of
10,OOO bbls/day are typical). Sea water is
pumped down the drillpipe at normal
circulation rate for the hole size i o clean and
cool the bit and move cuttings lip the hole.
To make connections, mud is pu nped down
the drillpipe to minimize the differential
I
across the non-ported drillstring float but it
is the float that actually prevent: any influx
entering the drillpipe.”
“With a ware ship [supply ship] 1 nudcapping
may be continued during bit trip; and while
running casing but this involves aking extra
risk as there will be times when the BOP
cannot effectively close off tht well, e.g.
when the BHA is across the BO]’. The safe
method for tripping is to stop tlie losses in
the open hole before tripping. Others have
+
,wn
ImW
Vh.
”
5-21
Chapter 5 Well Engineering
successfully stopped losses for tripping by
spotting a fast setting, viscous, cement slurry
just inside the casing shoe as an alternative
to plugging the formation to cure losses but
this is not recommended.”
“Future refinements in mudcap drilling that
have been considered ..., but not yet applied
offshore, would involve the use of a rotating
head (or rotating BOP) and lower density
mud being pumped into the annulus ... .
Currently it is only possible to drill with a
rotating head on rigs equipped with a surface
stack; this includes jackup and platform type
rigs offshore. The advantages of this
procedure are that there is no guess work
about the fluid level in the well and the
pump rate required on the annulus side is
dictated only by the need to prevent gas
migration. In gas filled carbonates the
increasing over-balance would also be
reduced by using a lower density mud.
Hence, the logistics of pumping mud down
the annulus could be planned more precisely
based on the velocity required to prevent gas
influx and migration (Le. up to 2,200 m/hr
[120 fpm] depending on fluid vis~osity).~
Hence, the use of a rotating head and lower
density mud could potentially reduce the
volume of fluid required and the cost to drill
a given massive lost circulation interval.”
One significant concern is to guarantee
that riser collapse pressure is not exceeded.
The decision to use mudcap drilling in the
operations described by Bloys, et al.,
I994,I3 is only made afler the first
occurrence of total losses has been
experienced and cured.
Snub Drilling and Coiled Tubing Drilling
Both snubbing and CT units have BOP
stacks that allow a drillstring (coiled tubing
in the latter case) to be run into or out of the
5-22
hole, at much higher presures (routinely up
to 10,000 psi) than can be .olerated by either
a rotating head or an RBO ’. Both units also
allow the drillstring to be 1 bushed into a well
under pressure, even when the weight of the
string alone is insufficieni to overcome the
pressure tending to push i t out of the well.
Snubbing and CT units can by used for
underbalanced drilling, 4 it pressures that
cannot be managed iy conventional
surface equipment. Ck apter 2, Section
2.10, provides a descriF tion of required
wellhead equipment anc operating con-
siderations.
Closed Systems
Surface equipment connmo d y used in closed
system drilling operation! is discussed in
Chapter 2, Section 2.1 I.
5.5 Casing Design
Casing design for an undc rbalanced hole is
not substantially diffe rent than for
conventional drilling. No mally, the casing
is designed for tension, iiternal yield and
collapse (biaxial casing design), and a
design factor is assigned fcpr all three design
parameters (using APT Standard 5A,
operator’s company pol icies, regulatory
agency requirements, wl- ichever is more
stringent).
For tension, some operatl )rs will calculate
the string weights biised on the buoyant
weight of the casing P hile others will
calculate string weight ba ;ed on air weight
and use buoyancy as an additional design
factor. In an air hole, it i. very common to
run casing without fillirg the well with
fluid first. In this case, there is no
buoyancy and the string veight should be
based on air weight ratker than buoyant
weight. Most operators us! the same tension
design factor for air as they do for fluid.
The maximum internal yield pressure is
usually based on the maximum anticipated
shut-in pressure. The maximum pressure at
the depth of interest will be either the shut-in
bottomhole pressure minus a gas gradient or
the fracture gradient at the shoe minus a gas
gradient; whichever value is lower. Since
the design is the same for air or fluid, the
same design factor is typically used.
In designing for collapse resistance in fluid,
it is common to assume that the pressure
inside the casing is zero and that the
pressure in the annulus is equivalent to a full
column of mud. In a fluid-filled hole, the
pressure inside the casing is rarely zero.
Some operators do not assume that the
pressure inside the casing will be zero and
there will always be some fluid inside the
casing. For this reason, the collapse design
factor for fluid drilling is usually very close
to one; however, the pressure inside the
casing will always be very close to zero in
an air-drilled well. Most operators will
increase the collapse design factor when
designing casing for an air-drilled hole. A
common design factor for a fluid-filled hole
is 1.125 and a common design factor for an
air-drilled hole is 1.20. Similar logic is
followed if the drilling fluid is not dry air,
although dry air will likely be one of
extreme situations for all of the design
parameters.
There are other considerations for casing
design. Even when designing casing for a
fluid-filled hole, the potential reduction in
wall thickness due to corrosion and casing
wear must be considered. Casing wear must
be considered in an air drilled hole.
Corrosion
For fluid-filled wells, corrosion .s seldom a
consideration while drilling. 1 Iowever, it
must usually be considered during the
productive life of the well. C o n x i o n is not
a factor when drilling with dry zir. If' there
is no water present, corrosion CE nnot occur.
Corrosion can be a problem with mist, foam
and aerated fluids. Aerated fluids provide
the most risk. In most i.ir drilling
operations, corrosion is conti olled with
corrosion inhibitors. It is relath ely easy to
control corrosion in a mist 01)eration by
adding corrosion inhibitors to the mist. As a
result, corrosion is seldom a prc blem when
drilling with mist; if the mist c~ntainssalt
for shale stabilization, uninhibite d corrosion
rates will increase substantially.
Foams and aerated fluids will ty] iically have
higher corrosion rates, even wh:n they are
treated with inhibitors. If a well is going to
be drilled for an extended periDd of time
with foam or aerated fluids, it may be
necessary to design the casing wi h a slightly
greater wall thickness. Spend ng a little
extra money on corrosion con rol is also
advantageous.
Casing Wear
Casing wear is caused by rotaion of the
drillstring inside the casing. If tool joints
rub against the casing while diilling, both
the tool joints and the casing will wear.
Casing wear is accelerated in ail air-drilled
hole because there is no lubricatj on between
the drillstring and the casing. Tortunately,
most air drilled holes are dril ed rapidly.
Spending less time drillii ig (fewer
revolutions of the drillstring) w 111 result in
less casing wear.
5-23

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
For substantial wear to occur, there must be
doglegs in the wellbore trajectory. A tool
joint laying against the casing, in or near
vertical well sections, will not apply
sufficient force to cause much wear. The
force with which a tool joint presses against
the casing is commonly called the tool joint
normal force. Placing the tool joint in a
dogleg and adding tension will substantially
increase the tool joint normal force.
Therefore, casing wear will preferentially
occur in sections of the hole that have
doglegs and where the drillstring has
sufficient tension. For this reason, casing
wear usually occurs closer to the surface and
is normally not a problem near the bottom of
the well.
If a well is being drilled in an area where
deviation and doglegging are problems,
casing wear should be considered in the
casing design. If only a few days are spent
drilling below each casing string, wear will
probably not be a significant problem and
can generally be ignored, unless severe
doglegs are present. Casing wear will only
be a problem when a well is drilled below
the casing string for an extended period of
time. Bradley and Fontenot, 1975,14
presented a method to predict casing wear,
depending on the conditions in the wellbore,
including dogleg severity, tension in the
drillstring and rotating hours below the
dogleg.
5.6 Completion Design
One of the primary advantages of drilling
wells underbalanced is the elimination or
minimization of formation impairment. In
overbalanced situations, drilling fluid and
solids can penetrate and damage matrix
porosity or fractures, reducing the
permeability. Zf a well is properly drilled
5-24
-
under underbalanceti! CG nditions, but is
completed using overba ‘anced methods,
much if not all of the implrirment-reducing
benefits might be perntanc ntly lost. Even if
this completion-related lamage can be
removed or bypassed, the associated
expenses can be avoided if the operator uses
proper underbalanced completion
procedures. These procellures, sometimes
called “live well,’’ underbalanced
completion techniques, are described in this
section. They include:
> Running production casing, liners,
slotted liners and otlier tools under-
balanced,
> Controlled cementing of production
casing or liners,
> Running production tLbing and down-
hole completion assemt lies, and,
> Perforating underballam ed.
Running Casing and Li qers
Underbalanced
Before drilling operations are completed,
and the bottomhole assembly (BHA) is
removed from the wellborl under pressure,
completion protocol must be determined.
For example, will the completion be
barefoot (openhole) or will some type of
casing or liner be run.
If the completion is not bar :foot, it becomes
necessary to run the casing or liner without
killing the well. In this scenario, surface
pressures are usually incr :ased to subdue
exposed downhole Corn ations, without
exceeding their pore prlessu -es. This is done
by replacing the lighter innular fluid by
bullheading a heavier fluicI down the back
side before tripping out o f t le hole.
To run production casing or an unslotted
-
production liner in a live well, a float shoe
and float collar are usually used. The shoe
and float collar are often separated by two
joints of pipe, in order to isolate
contaminated cement and to prevent it from
surrounding the lower portion of casing in
the open hole. Depending on the surface
pressures, it may be necessary to flow the
well through the choke manifold while
running pipe, to reduce the shut-in surface
pressure. Even flowing the well might not
sufficiently reduce this pressure to permit
passage of the pipe into the well against
underbalanced forces. If this is the case, a
snubbing unit or a coiled tubing injector
head might be required to push the casing
until it becomes “pipe heavy.”
On the other hand, a slotted liner does not
restrict the flow of fluids into the liner
(through the slots). The slotted liner and
liner hanger are run on the bottom of
drillpipe or some other work string. A drill
float is generally run above an ordoff tool,
located immediately above the liner hanger.
Once the hanger is set, the on/off tool is
released and the drillpipe or work string is
tripped out of the hole. The drill float
provides back flow protection.
It may be necessary to “flood” the backside
with drilling fluid to reduce the surface
pressure and enable tools or pipe to be run
into the hole. Fluid is continuously pumped
down the annulus to overcome pressure
resistance. If necessary, the rubber element
or packer, inside a rotating head or RBOP,
can be removed to allow larger diameter
pipe to be run through the wellhead stack.
Cementing Pipe Underpressured
Presuming that casing has been run
underbalanced, underbalanced cementing
should also be considered. Formation
impairment from the cement and associated
filtrate fluids can be equally or more
damaging than drilling. UI derbalanced
cementing is not substantially d: fferent from
underbalanced drilling. The hydrostatic
head of the slurry can be reduced by
entraining gas, usually nitrogen, or reduced-
density additives. These technc dogies were
originally developed to avoid b .eakdown in
weak formations.
The requirements of the cemen remain the
same as for conventional treatrr ents. There
must be annular sealing to prevcnt flow and
strength must be adequate to resist
degradation of the cement bonj under the
action of in-situ stresses. Otker common
considerations are permeability elimination
in the microannulus, compress ;ve strength
and drilling fluid displacement.
Nitrogen is often added to cement to reduce
its density. This reduces the hydrostatic
head adjacent to target reservo rs and may
further impede flow (into thc formation,
before setting) because of its multi-phase
characteristics. Nitrified ce ment was
originally developed for place nent across
lost circulation or underpressur :d intervals.
It is commonly used for ur derbalanced
cementing.
Historically, operators have had some
difficulty in guaranteeing adeqt ate bond of
lightened cement to the casiig and the
formation, using conventional cementing
methods, particularly across gas-bearing
zones. Formation gas would often
“channel” into this cement and cause
contamination. This “honeycon bing” could
cause inadequate bond, r(sulting in
crossflow (flow of formatioii fluids in
5-25

Chapter 5 We//Engineering
channels or a microannulus) between
different formations. When one of these
reservoirs contained water, a channel could
allow water flow into a hydrocarbon
interval, resulting in premature abandonment
of the completion and loss of reserves.
Today’s high quality foamed cements tend
to reduce this problem. Compressible
slurries can maintain cement pore pressure
throughout setting and hardening,
particularly through the transitional phase
where the cement matrix is vulnerable to gas
channeling.”
Alternatively, normal extenders are suitable
for slurries with densities as low as 11.5 to
12 ppg. Below this, the resulting water
separation will affect slurry properties and
continuity of the annular cement column.
Hollow microspheres have been used as a
cement extender. Light-weight slurries using
hollow spheres, enable slurries in the 9 to 12
ppg range, with no water separation and a
reasonable cost. Also, as indicated, foamed
cement, using nitrogen as the extender, has
been accepted by many operators. The
system requires alternatively formulated
base cement slurries and gaseous nitrogen to
create an homogeneous, ultra light-weight
slurry.
Running Tubing in Underbalanced
Wells
Whether or not a well is designed as an
openhole completion, a slotted liner
completion or a perforated casing com-
pletion, production tubing is generally
required to protect production casing against
excessive or concentrated pressures and to
minimize corrosion and/or erosion. Most
regulatory agencies enforce the use of tubing
in well completions, to protect shallow
freshwater aquifers against hydrocarbon or
salt invasion and pollution.
5-26
-
If the underbalanced well above is an
openhole or slotted liner ( ompletion, there
will generally be pressurc at the surface.
Cemented casing completic ns will have zero
pressure until they are perf ]rated. Methods
have been developed to run completion
assemblies and tubi ng downhole
underpressured, in openholt and slotted liner
wells. Unperforated, cased wells present no
problem and tubing is r t n into the well
without special equipment.
If a well has surface prcssure, it should
preferably not be kil led (formation
impairment from cornple .ion fluids and
solids might occur). Since it is not possible
to use permanent tubing str ng floats similar
to drill floats, temporary fl >at systems have
been developed. By placi ig a tubing sub,
containing a custom glass c isk in the string,
pipe and tools can be run i n the well under
pressure without backflo w of wellbore
fluids. The glass or other similar material
isolates the inside of tlie tubing from
pressure while it is run ir the well along
with a retrievable packe- or seal bore
assembly for a per] nanent packer
installation. Once the pacEer is set and the
system pressure tested, this glass disk is
broken by dropping a sinkx bar down the
tubing and breaking the d sk. A “catcher”
assembly is usually positioiied inside a mud
anchor, located below a 1erforated nipple
underneath the packer, to ke ep the sinker bar
from falling out of the tiubin g into the casing.
This is a simple and effectik e technique.
There are other methods t ) isolate surface
pressure and trip into a well. For example, a
wireline-set permanent pa( ker can be run
with a pump-out or push-oi t plug assembly.
Once the packer is run a i d set in place,
pressure above the pack:er c an be bled off to
zero to run the tubing. Alter the tubing is
stung into the packer and pressure tested,
either pump pressure or a sinker bar is used
to "open" the well to the surface;
communicating the formation below the
packer with the surface through the
production tubing.
Another method to protect against surface
pressure while running tubing into the well
involves the use of a pressure rupture disk
located inside the tubing string. Again, after
setting and hydrostatic testing of the packer,
this pressure disk is ruptured by pressuring
up the tubing to a preset limit. Of all of
these methods, the most commonly used is
the shear glass disk sub because of its
reliability and simplicity.
5.7 Bit Selection
Basic principals of bit selection for
underbalanced drilling are essentially the
same as those that should be followed for
conventional, overbalanced drilling oper-
ations. There are some detailed differences,
relating to the properties of the drilling fluid
in use and how these affect the drilling
process. The first section below outlines the
bit selection process. Subsequent sections
describe those aspects of bit selection which
are specific to drilling with air, mist and
foam and to drilling with gasified liquid and
liquid drilling fluids.
The Bit Selection Process
The steps in developing the most cost-
effective bit program are:
9 Assemble offset well data,
9 Develop a description of the well to be
drilled,
9 Review offset well bit runs,
9 Develop candidate bit programs,
9 Confirm that the selectcd bits are
consistent with the proposed BHAs and,
P Perform an economic ekaluation, to
identify the preferred bit pro yam.
The end result of this selec ion process
should'be a bit program, cons sting of the
sequence of bits that will allov. the well to
be drilled for the lowest cost, M hile meeting
trajectory and wellbore quality t ugets.
Assemble Offset Well Data
Identify a number of offset wells, ideally in
the same field and drilled throigh the same
target formations. Assembl: as much
information as possible about ( killing these
wells. When possible, this sh mld include
bit records, mud logs, wirelini : logs, daily
drilling reports, as well E mud and
directional drilling reports.
Develop A Description of the P anned Well
Characterize the proposed holt geometry -
hole sizes, casing points, an i trajectory.
Using available information anc I experience,
outline the anticipated valu :s of rock
hardness and abrasivity at all de Iths.
9 Sonic travel time logs giv: qualitative
indications of the formatio I hardness -
low travel times correspoid to rocks
with high compressive strei igths. There
are several proprietary con elations that
interrelate unconfined compressive
strength with sonic trawl time and
lithological information.16,li 18 There are
methods that use such corre ations for bit
selection. 17
9 Abrasivity is more difficull to quantify.
This is not an intrinsic rock property. It
is possible to form a qualitative
assessment of the rock's potential for
abrasive bit wear. In genxal terms, a

Chapter5 ’ Weii Engineering
rock’s abrasivity is related to the
hardness of its constituent minerals, its
bulk compressive strength, the grain size
distribution and the grain shape. Quartz
is the most abrasive mineral commonly
encountered in sedimentary rocks. The
higher the quartz content, the more
abrasive the rock. Similarly, the higher
the bulk compressive strength, the more
abrasive the rock is likely to be. An
experimental correlation has been found
between the angle of internal friction of
sandstones and the abrasive wear rate of
drill bit materials sliding over them. *
P Make note of any formations that may
have a special impact on bit
performance; for example, a conglom-
erate with a high proportion of chert
nodules would normally not be PDC
drillable.
P To organize the bit selection process,
divide the well into distinct zones. 19
Each zone would correspond to any
significant change in formation proper-
ties or drilling conditions. For example,
a new formation usually means a new
zone, as does a change in hole size or a
planned BHA change.
Review Offset Well Bit Runs
P From offset well bit records, determine
what bits have been used to drill through
each formation likely to be penetrated by
the planned well. Identify which bits
gave the best and worst performance, in
terms of overall penetration rate and
footage. Remember that many factors
can cause the penetration rate or bit run
length to be less than what could have
been achieved with better operating
practices or parameters. Consider the
specific circumstances when evaluating
5-28
__ -
each bit run; past or pla ined.
Consider the dull gradii ig carefully. Why
was each bit run term nated, what was
the bit’s wear state at tl e end of the run,
and how did that wear affect the overall
penetration rate?
Use the observed bit performance to
infer the apparent hardness and
abrasivity of the forma1ions penetrated -
low penetration rates of en correspond to
hard rocks; abrasive roc cs will give short
bit runs, ending witl- severe cutting
structure wear and unde *gaugebits, etc.
Identih Candidate Bits
The next step in the bit selxtion process is
to identify candidate bits fo . each zone to be
drilled. Initially, consider both roller cone
and fixed cutter bits.
Roller Cone Bits
The key design features to 1 ie considered for
roller cone bits are the cutt ng structure, the
bearing and seal types, and , ;auge protection.
The cutting structure involves tooth
material, count, tooth length, tooth shape,
and cone offset. Roller cole bit teeth may
be either steel (milled tooth bits) or tungsten
carbide hard metal (insert b ts). The cutting
structure should be matched to a formation’s
anticipated hardness anti abi asivity. Bearing
and seal selections are in’luenced by the
intended operating paran ieters and the
required run duration. The degree of gauge
protection should be match :d principally to
the formation abrasivity ar d the nature of
the drilling fluid.
Fixed Cutter Bits
Design features to be considered for fixed
cutter bits include the cutti ig structure, the
body material and profi e, gauge, and
stabilizing (anti-whirl) feat ires. For these
bits, the cutting structure involves the cutter
material (PDC or Polycrystalline Diamond
Compact, TSP or Thermally Stable
Polycrystalline diamond, impregnated
diamond, and natural diamond), the size,
backrake, and density. As with roller cone
bits, the cutting structure should be
consistent with the formation hardness and
abrasivity .
PDC cutters usually experience
excessively rapid wear in very hard and
abrasive formations or formations that
contain numerous hard inclusions, such
as chert and pyrite.
Impregnated and natural diamond bits
can tolerate very hard and abrasive
formations.
The required gauge protection depends
on a formation's abrasivity.
Requirements for directional drilling
may influence the nature and length of
gauge that is suitable with a fixed cutter
bit.
To penetrate hard formations with a
PDC bit, it may be necessary to specify
anti-whirl features for the bit's cutter
layout (to avoid vibrational damage).
Develop Bit Programs
At this stage of evaluation, the intent should
be to develop several alternative bit
programs. These should consist of the bit
type (or sequence of bit types) to be run, the
start and end depths, and anticipated
penetration rates for each run.
For these remaining candidate bits, estimate
their probable penetration rate and footage in
the different zones.
P Are there bits that could drill the entire
hole section in one run?
If so, the softest formation bit that can
drill the interval without excessively
rapid wear may often bc the most
effective selection.
If not, evaluate possible bits 'or different
combinations of adjacent zc nes in each
hole interval. Make allowince for bit
wear experienced in one zme on the
penetration rate in subsequen : zones.
When considering candidate bit: , remember
the bit run objectives. In som: instances,
these may be fixed by directicnal drilling
considerations or by the casing l~rogram. It
may not be appropriate to select a bit that is
capable of effectively drilling tl iousands of
feet, if a trip is planned to chani:e the BHA
after 500 feet or if the interval is only that
long.
Confirm that the Bits are ConsiA tent with
the BHAs
Before proceeding any further with each
candidate bit program, confirm 1 hat the bits
are consistent with the proposed BHAs. In
other words, do the operating pzrameters of
the proposed BHAs inhibit bit pc rformance?
The BHA can limit bit performal ice if WOB
is limited because of restricted E HA weight
or stabilization, or if the selecte i downhole
motors operate at rotary speeds .hat are too
high for the chosen bit. It may t e necessary
to iterate the bit selection proces! in order to
develop a bit program that is con sistent with
all other aspects of the drilling 01 eration.
Evaluate the Economics
By this time in the evaluation, se [era1 bits or
sequences of bits should lave been
identified as candidates for each hole
interval. Use the estimated pent :tration rate
and bit life to predict the probade cost for
each bit run:
5-29

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
(5.28)
where:
C, ..... the hourly cost of operating the rig
during that bit run, including the
rig rate, fuel, all special services
and rental items,
Ti ........ the duration of the run in hours.
Cbi..... is the cost of the bit.
The duration of the bit run should include all
non-productive activities, such as making
connections, surveying, circulating, etc.
Different amounts of non-productive time
may be required by different drilling
techniques.
The predicted cost to drill the interval Ci is
the sum of the costs predicted for each bit
run in the program.
ci= .c chi
I
(5.29)
Rank the alternative bit program according
to the predicted cost to drill the hole
interval.
Finally, determine the sensitivity of the
predicted drilling cost, for each candidate bit
program, to uncertainties in the predicted
drilling performance and to potential
problems associated with each candidate bit.
Bit Selection for Dry Gas, Mist and
Foam Drilling
This section describes the main ways in
which bit selection for drilling with dry gas,
mist and foam differ from bit selection for
other drilling techniques. The effective
hardness of the rock will probably be
somewhat lower than it would be for
5-30
-
overbalanced driIling with mud. The rock is
subjected to lower confiring stress due to
lower borehole pressures. This may allow
using bits that are intonded for softer
formations than wou d have been
appropriate when drilljng 1Iith mud.
Roller Cone Bits
When drilling with mud, it is desirable to
have as much of the hole 1ottom as possible
contacted by the bit’s te1:th. This avoids
leaving uncut rings of r x k . The much
lower borehole pressures a ;sociated with dry
gas, mist and foam cause more brittle rock
failure. This creates :. smoother hole
bottom, reduces the requirt ment for full hole
bottom coverage, and dlo! u’s bits with fewer
rows of teeth and longer teeth to be used.
These features can improvl > penetration rates
somewhat.20 However, experience has
shown that roller cone bit penetration rates
are sometimes not as stror gly dependent on
cutting structure design a hen drilling with
dry gas, mist or foam a s they are when
drilling with mud. When drilling
underbalanced, selection o f the bit’s cutting
structure may be less critic a1 than it is for a
conventionally drilled well
Abrasive wear rates tend t I be higher when
drilling with dry gas, mist x foam than they
are when drilling with hig:ier density fluids.
This may be partly due to the reduced
cooling and lubrication c apacities of low
density drilling fluids.
Oilfield roller cone bits art usually designed
with cones offset, in order to impart a
scraping motion to the tit’s teeth. This
promotes good penetrat ion rates when
drilling with mud at e levated borehole
pressures, but seems to h a re little impact on
penetration rates when dri ling with air.20*21
-
The increased scraping motion created by
cone offset increases a bit's susceptibility to
rapid tooth wear. When drilling with dry
gas, mist or foam, excessive tooth wear can
be avoided by using bits with no cone offset.
Specialized oilfield, air bits have been
developed that combine insert shapes
suitable for relatively soft formations with
zero cone offset.20 If there is no cone offset,
harder grades of tungsten carbide can be
used for the inserts, further reducing wear
rates.
Brannon et al., 1994, reported that there
were fewer problems with insert loss or
rotation when air drilling (in comparison to
mud drilling). This makes it possible to use
shallower insert holes for air bits. These, in
turn, can permit thicker cone shells, larger
and more durable bearings, and closer insert
spacing on each row.2o
When drilling with dry gas, mist or foam, it
is almost always important to select a bit
with good gauge protection. Gauge wear is
often a problem when drilling with dry gas,
mist or foam.22 It is frequently more severe
than it would be during drilling the same
formations with liquid. Gauge wear can be
particularly rapid if a low fluid injection rate
causes inefficient removal of cuttings from
the workfront. Excessive gauge wear,
accompanied by rounding of the heel region
of the cones, is often indicative of
inadequate bottomhole cleaning.
If a bit is pulled undergauge, the next bit
often needs to be reamed to bottom.
Reaming can cause wear of the new bit's
cutting structure and gauge even before it
reaches the hole bottom. It also imposes
inward loads on the bearings that can reduce
bearing life. If a new bit is run into an
undergauge hole without sufficie It care, it is
possible to pinch the bit and fora the legs in
towards the bit's center. Cone nterference
can be seen on a severely pinche 1 bit, when
teeth on one cone strike those o n the other
cones or even the shells of the c ther cones.
This can cause catastrophic bit fa lure.
Older roller cone bits, design:d for air
drilling, had open roller bearing; that were
cooled by diverting some of tke air flow
through the bearing. These bcarings had
much shorter operating lives than more
modern sealed bearings. Open 'learing life
can be very short if water inflows or injected
liquids enter the bearings and (.orrode the
bearing surfaces. These bits should not be
considered for mist or foam dril ling unless
the drilled interval(s) are very shc rt.
Both sealed ball and roller ind sealed
journal bearing bits are available. If sealed
bearings are used, journal bear in;:^ are often
preferable to ball and rollel bearings.
Vibration levels can be higher w ien drilling
with dry gas, mist or foam :han when
drilling with mud. Journal b':arings are
more tolerant of vibrations. Dri gas, mist
and foam drilling is often done in smaller
hole sizes (less than 12Vi-inches diameter),
and at relatively low rotary speeds (less than
120 rpm); both of these situaticins tend to
favor journal bearings.
If wear of the shirt-tails becomes sufficient
to expose the seal, gauge wear can
contribute to premature bearing failure. If
the flow rate for efficient cutting: removal is
inadequate, seal and bearing failure is
greatly accelerated, since this causes the
shirt-tails and seals to rotate i i i a bed of
cuttings.
5-31

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
Seals that have been designed for mud
drilling may not be optimal for dry gas, mist
or foam drilling, where the seal temperature
can be higher. It has been suggested that
larger cross-sectional diameter seals, made
of high temperature elastomers and installed
with lower radial squeeze, may help to
extend the seal life (and therefore the
bearings) in bits intended for dry gas, mist
and foam drilling.
Sealed bearing bits are usually more
expensive than bits with open bearings. In
most oilfield applications, the reduced
number of trips, associated with the longer
life of sealed bearings, will more than offset
their additional cost. Regardless, the costs
and benefits of using sealed bearing bits
should be evaluated for each application.
Mining bits have been successfully adapted
for oilfield drilling with dry gas, mist or
foam. These have open roller bearings and
their diameters are sometimes different from
conventional oilfield bits. This makes it
possible to drill a tapered hole in situations
where high gauge wear occurs; for example,
a 7 7/8-inch oilfield bit could be followed
with an 8-inch mining bit, reducing the
amount of reaming required. This would
also reduce the risk of pinching the new bit
on the trip to bottom.22 Mining bits also
have different diameter tolerances than their
oilfield equivalents. In the past, they would
be up to 0.25 inches over the nominal gauge.
This may have led to problems running
downhole, if several mining bits were used
in the same hole.
Fixed Cutter Bits
Under most circumstances, roller cone bits
will be the most effective bit type with dry
gas, mist or foam. It is not advisable to use
a PDC bit with these drilling fluids. Since
-
their low thermal ca pacities prevent
adequate cooling of the PDC cutters, the
polycrystalline diamond layer is likely to
overheat and to wear verj rapidly.23 There
are few, if any, public domain reports of
successfully using P I X tits with dry gas,
mist or foam drilling. PDZ bit applications
are normally successful wk en the increase in
penetration rate and foot ige drilled (over
roller cone bits) and any r xulting reduction
in rig time cost offset the iigher cost of the
bit. When drilling with dry gas, mist or
foam, the penetration rate! with roller cone
bits are often so high that 1 here may be little
economic advantage to PDC bits, even if
they were capable of opera ling effectively in
these fluids.
It may be possible to use natural diamond
bits with these drilling f uids; cores have
been successfully cut in shallow Arkoma
Basin wells with dry air and mist, and in
Devonian shales, with mist 24
Diamond is not natu .ally water-wet.
Surfactants in injection wa er can reduce the
diamond wear rate for nati ral diamond bits.
This does increase their pe ietration rate and
overall ~ i f e . ~ ' ,The
~ ~ suifactants used in
drilling foam may permi cooling of the
diamonds to rival that foi water. Natural
diamond bits are inon likely to be
successful with foam than with dry gas.
Natural diamond bits have been successfully
used to core with foam. 27,2 ;,29
Bit size may influence thl: performance of
natural diamond bits. SITall diamond bits
are more likely to give a1:ceptable footage
when drilling with dry gas. mist or foam (in
comparison to larger bj:s in the same
formations). With the sm; Her bit diameter,
the cutting speed is slower for a given rotary
speed, the diamond tempe rature is reduced
and abrasive wear is slowed.
Gasified Liquid and Liquid
Selecting a bit for underbalanced drilling
with a gasified liquid or a liquid is not much
different than when drilling overbalanced.
The only possible difference may be that the
lower bottomhole pressure may reduce the
effective hardness of the target formation; a
softer formation bit might be effective where
it would not be if drilling conventionally.
Gasified liquids and liquids have much
better cooling capacities than dry gas, mist
and foam. PDC bits can be used to drill
underbalanced with gasified liquids and
liquid drilling fluids, if the formation
properties would allow these bits to be used
in conventional drilling fluids.
5.8 Underbalanced
Perforating
Wells which have been properly cased and
cemented under pressure require no extra
equipment for running tubing and packers.
Since there is no surface pressure until they
are perforated, these wells are handled in a
conventional manner. However, perforating
these wells does require an underbalanced
methodology.
Underbalanced perforating methods depend
on the pressure conditions in a particular
well. In some cases, a low density
completion fluid might be used to provide
an underbalanced hydrostatic pressure at the
proposed perforation interval (if sufficient
bottomhole pressure is present in the
reservoir). In other cases, a “cushion” of
lower density fluid is placed in the tubing
before perforating. Typically, this involves
removing some of the fluid column inside
-
the tubing, either by swabbing o displacing
the completion fluid with a g,is, such as
nitrogen. The resulting fluid co umn inside
the tubing exerts lower pressure against the
pore pressure in the reservoir, naintaining
underbalanced conditions.
Perforating itself can be done thr )ugh tubing
with a retrievable tubing gun (RTG), a
“strip-type” perforating charge or a
disintegrating link-type charge, ;uch as the
Tornado Jet (T-J). A more pow :rful tubing
conveyed perforating gun (TCP) can be run
with the tubing and positioned below the
packer. This type of perforator (:an be fired
by several alternate methods. The most
popular approach is to drop a sinker bar to
contact an explosive firing head 3n the tool.
Another method of activation s to use a
timing device with a preset ti ne interval
before firing. The firing mec:ianism can
also be activated using pump pre ;sure. TCP
is an excellent approach for perforating
underbalanced. If desired, a t )ol dropoff
assembly can be run, to remore the gun
assembly from the tubing after fii ing.
The merits of underbalanced perforating,
and its requirements in wells tha: have been
drilled and cased underbalanctd are less
definitive than for drilling and c: sing. High
overbalanced or extremely o rerbalanced
(ROPE) techniques, partic ularly if
overpressure is generated by a nitrogen
cushion, may be acceptable or even
preferred methods. The primary criteria are
adequate access to the formation,
minimization or removal of 2hemically-
related perforation dam;Lge and
minimization of mechanical skir or pseudo-
skin.
Although tubing-conveyed perf )rating has
5-33

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
been extensively implemented since the
early 1970’s, definitive guidelines for the
optimum underbalance and surge flow
requirements, to achieve maximum clean-up
efficiency, have not been adequately
defined. “Rules-of-thumb” may recommend
anywhere from between one-quarter of a
gallon of surge flow per perforation to one
gallon per perforation. The actual amount,
however, is very dependent on the number
of perforations actually open to flow. In
reality, this may be as low as ten percent of
the total number of shots fired.
A number of recommendations have been
made for the optimum underbalance for
perforating both oil and gas wells.
P Gas wells typically require a higher
underbalance (differential), due to the
more concentrated amount of shock
damage which occurs when perforating
formations containing a highly
compressible fluid (Yew and Zhang,
1993).30
P Bell, 1994,3’ recommended the
following underbalances:
I Permeability Liquid
> King et al., 1986,33used the productivity
increases achieved from post-perforating
acidizing to quantify the effectiveness of
underbalanced perforating procedures.
In wells where acidizing had no
beneficial impact, it was felt that
perforating underbalance was sufficient
5-34
-I -
to have removed the p :rforation-induced
permeability damage. rhis underbalance
pressure may not ac ually have been
optimum; but merely lhat acidizing was
ineffective.
P Similarly, Crawford, 1’%9,32interpreting
the data of King et al., 1986,33
recommended using p mneability as an
indicator for predictii kg the minimum
underbalance, Pu(min) necessary to
achieve “clean” (zero ;kin) perforations
in oil wells:
2500
. =-
pu(mn) (5.30)
k0.3
where:
P.........pressure (psi), and,
k .........permeability (md).
P Regalbuto and Riggs, 1988,34 showed
that the final flow rate ratio through the
perforations was+:
0 58% increased if tf e perforating was
done with a 1000 ?si underbalance,
and,
0 50% greater if thc perforating was
done at balanced ;onditions and a
1000 psi “surge u! iderbalance” was
applied after perfor ating.
P Regalbuto and Rigg;, 1988,34 also
reported that, in c imparison with
balanced perforating. the average
perforation volume was about:
56% larger alter perforating
balanced and latei surging with a
--
In laboratory experiments wid 100 md to 300 md
Berea sandstone cores, flolv.ing at a 40 psi
differential pressure.
 1000 psi underbalance,
0 61% larger after perforating with a
1000 psi underbalance, and,
0 140% larger after perforating with a
1000 psi underbalance and later
surging with a 1000 psi under-
balance.
P In other studies, Halleck and Deo,
1989,35 found that underbalance
pressures of between 500 and 1000 psi
were needed to obtain optimum flow
efficiency in Berea sandstone. By
separating the perforation clean-up
occurring from transient surge flow
effects from that occurring due to post-
shot steady-state flow, they concluded
that although continued clean-up of
damaged perforations (perforated at sub-
optimal underbalance pressures) did
occur, the perforation flow efficiency did
not recover to optimum levels.
5.9 Drillstring Design
Drillstring design for an air-drilled hole is
very similar to that for a mud drilled hole.
The drillstring still consists primarily of
drillpipe and drill collars. Stabilizers,
reamers, jars and shock subs can still be
used in an air hole. There are a few subtle
differences. These are discussed below.
Logical decisions on the string configuration
can be made for various underbalanced
drilling fluids and configurations. Air
drilling is used as an example.
Float Valve
Using a float valve is the primary difference
between drilling with air and with fluid. It is
not common to run a float valve when
drilling with fluid. A froat valve is a
requirement when drilling with air. In an
. --
air hole, the drillstring should not be run
without a float valve near the bit Air in the
annulus contains cuttings, making it much
more dense than the air inside th ;drillstring.
When air is vented from the crillstring to
make a connection, air and cuttings will U-
tube intb the drillstring from the annulus. As
the differential pressures equali ze, air will
stop moving and the cuttings wi 1 fall to the
bottom. Inside the drillstring, he cuttings
will settle on top of the bit aiid plug the
drillstring. The pipe will most li cely have to
be tripped out of the hole in ordl:r to unplug
the drillstring. Installing a float lralve above
the bit eliminates the possibility of plugging
the drillstring with cuttings wh le bleeding
pressure off the drillstring. Wh de the best
place for the float valve is mmediately
above the bit, sometimes it ma) have to be
run immediately above a doLmhole tool
(such as a motor, hammer tool 01 stabilizer).
Safety is another reason for haring a float
valve above the bit. The float vi11 prevent
formation gas from venting lhrough the
drillstring. While tripping 01 making a
connection, gas will continue to . eed into the
wellbore from the formation. Although
most of the gas will flow up the annulus and
out the blooie line, some gas ma: flow to the
surface through the drillstring. If a float
valve is present, gas cannot f ow up the
drillstring and all the gas wil be vented
through the blooie line. Gas b3ng vented
from the drillstring onto the rig Floor can be
a safety hazard if it is present n sufficient
quantities.
As shown in Figure 5-9, two conmon types
of float valves (check valves) ar: used. The
flapper style valve has a s )ring-loaded
flapper that opens when air pressure is
applied above it. When flov' stops, the
5-35

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
spring closes the flapper. Any pressure
below the flapper pushes against the bottom
of the flapper, keeping it closed. A piston
(or dart) style float valve works in much the
same way. The flapper is replaced by a
spring-loaded piston. When air pressure is
applied above the piston, the valve opens.
When flow stops and the pressure
differential on the piston reaches zero, the
spring moves the piston up and shuts off
flow from below. Any pressure differential
from below the piston will help keep the
valve closed. Either float valve works well
above the bit.
Flapper Style Dart (or Piston) Style
Figure 5-9. Flapper and piston style
float valve.
In addition to the float above the bit, float
valves are sometimes installed in the
drillstring. When a float valve is installed in
the drillstring, it is commonly called a string
float. String floats are run to reduce the time
required to bleed pressure off of the
drillstring before making a connection. As
the drillstring gets longer and the capacity
increases, it takes longer and longer for the
pressure to bleed off the drillstring during a
connection; especially as the standpipe
pressure increases. A string float can be
5-36
--___i__-
installed near the top of t le drillstring in a
float sub. When the pressure is bled off
during a connection, the oily portion of the
drillstring that has to be depressurized is
from the surface to the strir g float and it will
depressurize much more ra ?idly. Pressurized
air-fluid below the string float will vent
through the bit while makir g the connection.
String floats can hinder w ireline operations
such as inclination surveys The string float
can cause the survey tool tc 1 become stuck in
the hole. The survey tool i heavy enough to
open the flapper style float and pass through
it. When the survey tool i s pulled from the
hole, the float is held part ally open by the
wireline but it is not open enough to pass the
tool. The survey tool w 11 encounter the
flapper and push it closed causing the tool
to become stuck. To plrevt nt problems with
surveying, the string float s usually tripped
out of the hole, laid down <indthe drillstring
is run back to bottom tefore surveying.
After surveying, the string 1 loat is reinstalled
in the drillstring near the SL rface and drilling
continues until the next survey. Each time
the well is surveyed, thc string float is
tripped out of the hole.
Some operators do survey through a string
float. To keep the string float open while
taking a survey, the spring is removed from
the flapper. When pressur es are equalized,
the flapper will fall open and stay in the
open position while taking he survey. Since
the flapper is always in the fully open
position, the survey tool :an generally be
pulled back up through thc float. There are
times when the survey tool will hang up on
the float, but it can us1 ally be worked
through by alternately pull ing and slacking
off the wireline. Regardkss, care must be
exercised when pulling a su rvey tool through
the float. If the survey too1 hits the float
valve too hard, the wireline could part. In an
air hole, the survey tool would then fall with
a very high velocity and usually would
penetrate the bit. The survey tool, bottom
float and bit would be ruined and the
drillstring would have to be tripped out of
the hole. Survey tools should never be
dropped in an air hole.
Tripping the drillstring to remove the string
float does not prevent problems that might
occur if the drillstring becomes stuck. There
are times when freepoint tools and backoff
shots have to be run in the hoIe through the
float. The string float can prevent running
these tools; and, since the drillstring is stuck,
the string float cannot be tripped out of the
hole. For this reason, operators will use a
jlupper style string float with the spring
removed to prevent problems running
wirelines even if they do not run surveys
through the string float. Once pressure
bleeds off the drillstring, the flapper will fall
open, allowing wireline tools to be run
through the float valve. The flapper valve
still operates properly without the spring.
Air rushing past the flapper will cause it to
close when bleeding pressure off of the
drillstring.
Some operators drill a small hole. in the
center of the flapper. If the, drillstring
becomes stuck by cuttings packing off in the
annulus, the pressure in the drillstring below
the flapper cannot bleed off through the
annulus. Wireline tools have to be run to
open the flapper valve and equalize the
pressure. At times, the trapped air volume
has been sufficient to blow wireline tools up
the hole, causing them to become stuck. In
at least one instance, wireline tools have
been blown completely out of the hole when
the string float was close to the surface. A
small hole in the flapper allows the pressure
to equalize over an extended pe iod of time.
This hole must be sufficiently sr iall to avoid
problems with making a coinection or
tripping pipe.
The piston style float precludes running any
wireline tools. It should not t e used as a
string float. As can be seen in Fi,y r e 5-9, the
piston provides an obstruction in the
drillstring that wireline tools :annot pass
through, even if the pressure is e palized.
Normally, the float is retained n the string
by the pin above it. If there is pressure
beneath the float, it may be forcc .d out of the
string when the connection ab01 e is broken.
This can be avoided by ma:hining the
connection into which it is place 1 to accept a
snap-ring above the insert, to hcld the insert
in place. Alternatively, a short j lint (pipe or
collar, as appropriate) may be n n above the
float."
Downhole Tools
Downhole tools, such as jars and shock
subs, can be used in an air drillej hole. It is
best to use mechanical jars rather than
hydraulic jars. If the drillstri ig becomes
stuck and the well cannot be cirl ulated, heat
can build up in hydraulic jars, c ~ & ~ them
g
to fail more rapidly. Unlike d-illing fluid,
air does not readily conduct hea: away from
the jars. Excess heat builliup in the
hydraulic fluid can cause seal fiilures. This
does not affect mechanical j a s in an air
hole. Hydraulic jars can be run in air holes,
but they may not perform as \]ell over an
extended period of time,
Hook et al., 1977,36illustrated ;,ometypical
bottomhole assemblies used in air drilling
operations (Figure 5-10). Thc assemblies

Chapter 5 Well Engineering
shown may seem different than those
typically used in fluid-drilled wells. This is
because the assemblies in Figure 5-10 are
used for deviation control. Air drilling
operations are commonly associated with
deviation problems. Harder rocks, where air
drilling is particularly applicable, are often
characterized by deviation problems, when
dipping bedding is encountered. The
assemblies shown in Figure 5-10 are
specifically designed to limit dogleg severity
or inclination. Air drilling is also conducted
in areas where deviation is not a problem
and slick bottomhole assemblies (no
stabilizers or reamers) are used to drill those
wells, just as are used in fluid drilled wells.
In Figure 5-10, the assembly on the extreme
left uses a square drill collar to provide
stiffness. This drill collar is essentially a
thirty-foot stabilizer. A square drill collar
has a much higher relative stiffness than a
round drill collar and will reduce dogleg
severity. The outside diameter of this collar,
along the diagonal, is only slightly smaller
than the hole diameter; however, the edges
do contact the hole wall and will wear down.
When the collar wears, it has to be built
back up to its gauge diameter. This is more
expensive than rebuilding a stabilizer and
has to be considered in the economics, to
determine if square drill collars should be
used. Square drill collars are not commonly
used in air drilling but, they are much more
common in air than in fluid drilling.
The second assembly shown in Figure 5-10
uses reamers and stabilizers to stiffen the
bottomhole assembly. In an airhole, reamers
are often used in place of stabilizers. Gauge
problems can occur in harder formations; the
reamers are used to keep the hole in gauge.
Often, formations penetrated are hard
5-38
-
enough that reamers ,done (i.e., no
stabilizers) are needed.
The third configuration in Figure 5-10 (on
the right) is a pendulum assembly. The
assembly consists of a bit, shock sub, float
sub, short drill collar, drill collar, stabilizer
and additional drill collars. This assembly is
not stiff and will not ininimize dogleg
severity. A shock sub is no : required for this
assembly. The shock suli and short drill
collar can be replaced wiih a regular drill
collar. The stabilizer can b: replaced with a
reamer, without changing the bottomhole
assembly's effectiveness. ' rhe best position
for the float sub would be I )elow rather than
above the shock sub.
Drillstring Design
In any well, drillstring desi ;n starts with the
bottomhole assembly. rhe bottomhole
assembly should be designc d so that the top
of the assembly remains n tension while
drilling with the maximur I anticipated bit
weight. A typical design riay leave the top
ten to fifteen percent of t t e drill collars in
tension.
There are times when dr llpipe is run in
compression; in some directional and all
horizontal wells. The drill1 ipe can be run in
compression, provided that the compressive
load does not exceed the critical buckling
load of the pipe. However, the critical
buckling load in a vertical vel1 is near zero.
Consequently, drillpipe shculd not be run in
compression in a vertical w :11. The drillpipe
must remain in tension, otherwise it will
buckle and may fatigue. 7 wo examples are
provided, summarizing 1 he basic com-
ponents of BHA design.
Figure 5-10. Typical bottomhole assemblies used in air drilling operations 'after Hook
et a/., 197736).The two assemblies at the left are referred to as lacked hole
assemblies; they are designed to minimize angle building tent rency. The
assembly at the right (pendulum) can be designed for building 1 P r dropping
angle, depending on the applied WOB.

Example 6 W, = 2.67 (6S2-2.81252) = 92 1 > / f t

Consider a planned well, where the
maximum weight on an 8%-inch bit will be
50,000 lbf, the drill collar size will be 6%-
inches outside diameter by 2 13/16-inches
inside diameter, the drilling medium will be
air and the excess collars should be ten
percent to ensure that the drillpipe remains
in tension. Determine the number of thirty-
foot drill collars that will be required.
> The weight per foot of a drill collar can
be determined from Equation (5.3 1).
W, = 2.67 (DP2- Di') (5.3 I)
where:
Di .......inside pipe diameter (incl ies),
D, .......outside pipe diameter (in :hes), and,
Wf ......weight per foot in air (lb/ Ft).
P The length of the drill co'lars can be
calculated using Equation (: .32). Since
this well is to be drilled in air, the
buoyancy factor is one. It will not be
one in other circumstances.
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

W( 1+ DF) Example 7
L, = (5.32) Using the data from Exaniple 6, determine
w*€3 the drillstring configuratic In for a 12,000-
where: foot deep well. The dril1p:pe available is 5-
inch, 19.50 lbift, Grade E ind 5-inch, 19.50
B ........ buoyancy factor (air = l), Ib/ft, Grade G. The tensile capacity of the
dimensionless, Grade E and G pipe are 3 11,000 lbf and
DF ...... design factor (decimal), 436,000 lbft respectively. All the drillpipe
Lc ....... length of the bottomhole assembly is API Premium Class and the tensile
(feet), and, strengths can be found in the API RP7G,
W ....... bit weight, (lb). available from the Amc rican Petroleum
P For a bit weight of 50,000 lb: Institute. Use a design faci or of 1.10 and an
overpull of 100,000 lbf.
500001b (1+ 0.10)
L, = =598 feet From Example 6, the col ar weight at the
(921b / ft)(l) bottom of the Grade E pile will be 55,000
lb. The maximum pull on he Grade E, with
the 1.10 design factor woull1 be:
P The number of thirty-foot drill collars
would be:
pI M X =- 1 s t (5.33)
598 ft DF
-- - 19.93 or 20 drill collars.
30
where:

9 The total weight, W,,, of twenty drill
collars would be:
W,, = 5 9 8 f t ~ 9 2 l b / f =55,016
t lb
To develop 50,000 lb of drilling weight,
twenty drill collars are required. The total
weight of the drill collars will be
approximately 55,016 lb, including the ten
percent design factor.
Drillpipe is usually designed with both a
design factor and an overpull. A common
design factor in tension is 1.10 (ten percent).
The overpull usually ranges from 50,000 to
100,000 lbf. In directional wells, it may be
higher due to excess hole drag. Example 7
shows how overpull can be incorporated in
the calculations shown in Example 6.
DF ......design factor (dimer sionless),
P, ......maximum pull on di illpipe (lbf), and,
T,, .......tensile capacity of d .illpipe (lbf).
For this example:
31 1000 lb
pmax = =283,OoC lb
1.10
The maximum weight, Wnm, of Grade E
that can be used with lOC,OOO lb overpull
remaining is:
Wmx = 283000 - 55000 - 1( 0000 =
= 128,000 lb
--
The tensile force that can be applied to five-inch
diameter premium (used) dri llpipe at minimum
yield strength.

5-40
The maximum length, Lax,
that can be used drillpipe that can be used is:
is:
113000
L, = = 5795 feet
L, =-
w,, (5.34) 19.50
Wf
Since the length of Grade G is greater than
128000 lb that necessary to reach the sufice, Grade G
L a x = 19.50 lb/ft = 6564 feet (Grade E) is acceptable to the surface. Tlte drillstring
would consist of the following:
The maximum pull, Pmm, on the Grade G, 0 598 feet of drill colkrs (refer to
with the 1.10 design factor, would be: Example 6),

436000 lb 0 6564 feet of 5-inch, 19.50 lb/ft,

pmx = = 396,000 lb Grade E drillpipe, and,
1.10
0 4838 feet of 5-inch, 19.50 lb/ft,
The maximum weight, Wmm, of Grade G Grade G drillpipe.
that can be used with 100,000 lbf overpull
remaining is: In this example, the maximum fi wce that can
be pulled on the drillstring in the event it
W, = 396000-55000- 100000- 128000= becomes stuck is 100,000 lbf o\er the string
weight, once all of the Grade E drillpipe is
= 113,000 lb in the hole. The weak point will be at the
top of the Grade E drillpiFe. If the
drillstring is changed while fish ng, the new
The maximum length, L,-, of Grade G maximum pull must be calculate 3.
 -
Chapter 5 Well Engheering

References

1. Guo, B., Hareland, G. and Rajtar, J.: “Computer Simulation Predicts 1Jnfavorable Mud
Rate and Optimum Air Injection Rate for Aerated Mud Drilling,” piper SPE 26892
presented at the 1993 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition Pittsburgh, PA,
November 2-4.

2. Govier, G.W. and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, r:print, Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida ( 1982).

3. Johnson, A.B. and Cooper, S.: “Gas Migration Velocities During Gas K icks in Deviated
Wells,” paper SPE 26331 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6.
4. Poettmann, F.H. and Bergman, W.E.: “Density of Drilling Muds ‘<educed by Air
Injection,” World Oil (August 1, 1955) 97-100.

5. Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.: “Rotating Control Head Applications Increasing.” Oil & Gas J.
(October 9, 1995).

6. Cress, L.A., Stone C.R. and Tangedahl, M.: “History and Developmeit of a Rotating
Blowout Preventor,” paper IADC/SPE 2393 1 presented at the 1992 IAI W S P E Drilling
Conference, New Orleans.

7. Cummings, S.G.: “Natural Gas Drilling Methods and Practice: San Jian Basin, New
Mexico,” paper SPE/IADC 16167 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Dril ing Converence,
New Orleans, LA.

8. Dupont, J.: “Foam Used to Drill, Gravel-Pack Deep Gas Well,” Oil uric Gas J . (May 7,
1984) 192-194.

9. Fraser, I.M. and Moore, R.H.: “Guidelines for Stable Foam Drilling Thro igh Permafrost,”
paper SPE/IADC 16055 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, LA.

10. Curtis, F. and Lunan, B .: “Underbalanced Drilling Operations: Cc rrect Operating

Procedures Using a Closed Surface Control System to Drill for Oil arid G as,” presented at
the 1995 International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, ’he Netherlands,
February 28-March 2.

11. Saponja, J.: “Engineering Considerations for Jointed Pipe Underbal mced Drilling,”
presented at the 1995 International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, lmsterdam, The
Netherlands, February 28-March 2.

5-42
12. Hannigan, D.M. and Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.: “Underbalanced Drilling Rot; ting Control
Head Technology Increasing in Importance,” presented at the 1995 International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, February 2 %March 2.

13. Bloys, B., Brown, J.D. and Tarr, B.A.: “Drilling Safgy and Economically ir Carbonates:
Collective Experience of ARCO, BP and MOBIL,” paper presented at the 1991i IADC Well
Control Conference for the AsiaPacific Region, Singapore, December 1-2.

14. Bradley, W.B. and Fontenot, J.E.: “The Prediction and Control of Casing Wear,” JPT
(February 1975) 233-243.

15. Dowel1 Schlumberger, Cementing Technology, Nova Communications L d., London,

(1984).

16. Coates, G.R. and Denoo, S.A.: “Mechanical Properties Program Using Bo *ehole Stress
Analysis and Mohr’s Circle,” Trans. 1981 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposiu m.

17. Mason, K.L.: “Tricone Bit Selection Using Sonic Logs,” paper SPE 13256 presented at
the1984 59th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Ter as.

18. Sparr, J., Ledgerwood, L., Goodman, H., Graff, R.L. and Moo, T.J.: “Formation
Compressive Strength Estimates for Predicting Drillability and PDC Bi Selection,”
SPE/IADC paper presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Am iterdam, The
Netherlands, February 28-March 2.

19. Fear, M.J., Meany, N.C. and Evans, J.M.: “An Expert System for Drill Bjt Selection,”
SPE/IADC paper 27470 presented at the 1994 SPE/IADC Drilling Confermce, Dallas,
Texas, February 15-18.

20. Brannon, K.C., Grimes, R.E. .and Vietmeier, W.R.: “New Oilfield Air ]lit Improves
Drilling Economics in Appalachian Basin,” ASME J. Energy Tech. PD-Vol. 56, Drilling
Technology (1994) 79-87.

21. Newman, E.F.: “Design and Application of So€ter Formation Tungsten C arbide Rock
Bits,” IADC/SPE paper 1 1386 presented at the 1983 IADC/SPE Drilling Con ‘erence, New
Orleans, LA.

22. Cooper, L.W., Hook, R.A. and Payne, R.R.: “Air Drilling Techniques,” pap !r SPE 6435,
presented at the 1977 SPE Deep Drilling and Production Symposium, Amarill >,Texas.

23. Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.: “Effects of Thermal and Mechanical Loadin] on PDC Bit
Life,” SPEDE (June 1986) 201-213.
 -
Chapter 5 Well Engineering

24. Eaton, N.: “Coring the Horizontal Hole,” PD-Vol. 27, ASME Dri ling Technology
Symposium, Weiner, P.D. and Kastor, R.L. (eds).

25. Selim, A.A., Schultz, C.W. and Strebig, K.C.: “The Effect of Additive! on Impregnated
Diamond Bit Performance,” paper SPE 2387, SPEJ (December 1969) 425.433.

26. Unger, H.F., Snowden, B.S. and Engelmann, W.H.: “Diamond Drilling with Surfactants in
Upper Michigan Conglomerates Using Surface-Set Bits,” paper SPE 423 ipresented at the
1973 Conference On Drilling and Rock Mechanics, SPE AIME, Aiistir, Texas (January
1973).

27. Hutchinson, S.O.: “Stable Foam Lowers Production, Drilling and F emedial Costs,”
presented at the 17th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (April 1970).

28. Bentsen, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: “Preformed Stable Foam Performance in Drilling and
Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Alberta,” JPT (October 1976) 1237- 1241 1.

29. Cobbett, J.S.: “Application of an Air-Drilling Package in Oman,” paper SPE 9600
presented at the 198 1 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Manam I, Bahrain.

30. Yew, C.H. and Zhang, X.: “A Study of the Damaged Zone Created l y Shape Charge
Perforating,” paper SPE 25902 presented at the 1993 Low Pelme; bility Reservoir
Symposium, April 26-28.

31. Bell, W.T.: “Perforating Underbalanced-Evolving Techniques,” JPT (( kt. 1984) 1653-
1662.

32. Crawford, H.R.: “Underbalanced Perforating Design,” paper SPE 15,749 presented at the
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, T :xas, October 8-
11.

33. King, G.E., Anderson, A. and Bingham, M.: “A Field Study of Under lalance Pressure
Necessary to Obtain A Clean Perforation Using Tubing-Conveyed Perfora ting,” paper SPE
14321, JPT (June 1986) 38, No. 8,662-664.

34. Regalbuto, J.A. and Riggs, R.S.: “Underbalanced Perforation Characteri ;tics as Affected
by Differential Pressure,” SPEPE (February, 1988) 83-88.

35. Halleck, P.M. and Deo, M.: “The Effect of Underbalance on Perfora ion Flow,” JPT
(November 1989) 1 13- 1 16.

36. Hook, R.A., Cooper, L.W. and Payne, B.R.: “Air, Mist and Foam Drilling: A Look at the
Latest Techniques: Parts I and II,” World OiE (April and May, 1977).

5-44
 SPECIAL CONSlD€RATlllNS
6.7 Safety in Underbalanced
Drilling
Introduction
Underbalanced drilling differs from
conventional overbalanced drilling in that
flow of reservoir fluids (brine, oil and gas)
into the wellbore is intentionally promoted
because of the differential pressure.
Appropriate surface equipment is available
to process this returned fluid and to safely
separate hydrocarbons from brine, drilling
fluid and cuttings. Since significantly
greater volumes of oil and gas are
produced in underbalanced drilling
(compared to Overbalanced drilling), and
because these products are highly com-
bustible, considerable attention must be
paid to safety procedures.
Mudcap drilling is one case where fluids are
not produced to surface (Chapter 2, Section
2.9). In this method, all reservoir fluids are
contained below the surface and are not
allowed to circulate back to the surface. In
mudcap drilling, drilling fluid, designed to
have a smaller density than the necessary kill
weight fluid required by the formation pore
pressure, is “bullheaded” clown the
drillstring, while the annulus, which has
been pre-loaded with a higher weight,
viscosified fluid, remains shut-in. Safety
measures are essential.
For underbalanced drillin ;, safety
procedures are required to isolatf potentially
explosive and flammable hydroc arbons and
to properly dispose of these liquid or
gaseous hydrocarbons. Onsht )re, oil or
condensate is dispatched to stora ge facilities
for removal while produced gas is generally
flared. Offshore, both oil aiid gas are
usually burned due to space lin itations for
safe storage at the drilling site. T a liquids’
pipeline outlet or oil tanker is avfilable, it is
possible to pump produced oil or condensate
and avoid burning these products
Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Oper;ations
Hydrogen sulfide gas ( H 2 S ) i: extremely
poisonous. It can be presen in liquid
hydrocarbon vapors or as a free gas phase.
H2S is particularly dangerous bec ause it first
attacks a person’s sense of smc11 and then
renders the olfactory system ii (capable of
noticing the distinctive rotten e ;gs odor of
the gas. H2S gas can kill a : very low
concentrations. The higher the cc mcentration
of HZS, the more rapidly de5th occurs.
Finally, H2S gas will attack 1 igh carbon
content (high strength) metals, c iusing them
to become extremely brittle and i ail.
Many states have regulations spc cifically for
drilling in known H2S areas. If an operator
conducts underbalanced drilling operations
in a known H2S area, or is drilling in a

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
remote, untested area, special precautions
must be implemented to protect personnel
and equipment. These situations require:
9 Providing necessary notice of the
proposed operations and hazards.
9 Adequate training.
9 Special safety equipment, such as H2S
sensors, warning alarms, wind direction
socks, H2S concentration measuring
devices, portable and fixed air breathing
respirators.
9 An H2S emergency contingency plan
with site specific information and
detailed procedures.
9 Hydrogen sulfide-resistant materials and
training.
> Pressured surface separation vessels and
auxiliary vacuum degassing equipment
to isolate all personnel from possible
exposure to this poisonous gas.
Flaring Gas
Particularly where very high gas volumes
will be produced to the surface, adequately
sized flare lines, leading to properly
positioned flare stacks, equipped with
automatic flame igniters, are essential on
underbalanced drilling sites. The prevailing
wind direction must be taken into
consideration in placing these flare systems
on location. Depending on the specific
location requirements, the height of the flare
stack may be adjusted for optimum
performance. Be certain that flare lines are
adequately anchored.
Separation and Storage
To avoid fire or explosion hazards, liquid
hydrocarbon separation and storage
facilities, again with wind direction taken
into account, must be positioned remotely.
6-2
-
Adequate storage vc Jume, properly
manifolded for transfer or loading, is
necessary for safe, uni iterrupted under-
balanced drilling.
Training
Personnel training and detailed, written,
underbalanced drilling pi xedures are also
required for safe operatior s. Redundancy in
critical manpower posititm and in choke
manifold equipment he ps to avoid or
accommodate unforesec n emergencies,
which can rapidly develop Location ingress
and egress are critical dur ng underbalanced
operations. Emergency, back-up escape
access is very helpful in he event of wind
direction changes or blocked primary
entrance access. Gas detection, fire
extinguishing and other safety equipment
should be placed at strateg IC locations on the
rig and on the location site
Downhole Fire
Air, when used to lightei a drilling fluid
column for underbalanced drilling, may lead
to equipment corrosion ivhen it is mixed
with water, or explosicn or fire when
contacted with hydroca bons. Extreme
caution must be exercised when using air in
drilling applications. Exte nsive experiment-
ation has been conducted to determine the
maximum safe limits of combining
conventional air or reducc d-oxygen content
air with drilling fluids anc hydrocarbons, to
avoid combustible mi>tures (refer to
Chapter 2).
Drilling with Natural G,3s
Never underestimate the ( angers of surface
fires, in any underl: alanced drilling
operation. This is paricularly true for
drilling with natural gas In the United
States, safety conformlancc: on a drilling rig
using natural gas must 1:t least meet the
-
following guidelines.
9 American Petroleum Institute (API) RP
500B: Recommended Practice for
Classification of Areas for Electrical
Installations at Drilling Rigs and
Production Facilities on Land and on
Marine Fixed Mobile Platforms - 1973.
9 National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 70: National Electric Code -
1990.
> NFPA 496: Purged and Pressurized
Enclosures for Electrical Equipment in
Hazardous (Classified) Locations - 1988.
The cost savings while drilling with natural
gas should offset any additional expenses
associated with regulatory complimce.
Backflow
To prevent flow back up the drillpipe,
drillstring floats should be installed. Tools
have been developed to relieve pressure
trapped below drillstring floats. This tool is
installed above a drill float and allows a pin
to be screwed down to mechanically open
the valve and release possible trapped
pressure. A side-port outlet on the tool
safely releases any pressure.
Placement of drillstring floats is important
for operational and safety reasons. Complete
redundancy of these valves ensures a reliable
back-up in the event of a tool failure. The
number of float valves chosen for an
underbalanced drilling job depends
somewhat on the type of drilling being used.
If the drilling fluids are primarily liquids,
most operators minimize the number of drill
floats, sometimes using only a single valve
to save rig time and rental expense.
Underbalanced systems, where gas is used to
reduce the drilling fluid density, generally
use many more float valves in thc drillstring.
Two floats should be placed c ose to the
surface to minimize the time mequired to
bleed off pressure before making a
connection. In the middle sec ion of the
drillstring, valves are also important, to
minimize downhole fluid separarion and to
prevent slug flow. For maximun safety and
control, two floats should also be installed in
the last stand of the drillstring assembly.
For optimum conditions, a gold rule-of-
thumb in gas-assisted drilling is to install a
float every twelve joints. Be certain that
floats are restrained when connyctions are
made (refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.9).
Well Control Procedures
Carefully develop contingency F lans before
the drilling operations start (re fer to, for
example, Willis, 1995l). 'Ihe casing
program and circulation design, as well as
on-location quality control and nonitoring,
are particularly important in situa .ions where
an underground blowout is possik le.
Equipment
Collins, 1994,2provided a conci: e summary
of certain important considei ations for
ensuring safe operation of rig site
equipment. The discussion was c esigned for
flowdrilling but the componen:~and the
philosophy can be adopted elsewl iere. Some
of the important aspects are:
9 Operational and equipme nt testing
procedures must be :stablished,
comprehended by all penonnel and
enforced.
9 Operations should not cmtinue if
pressures exceed the maxi1 aunt limits
established.
9 "In flowdrilling, emphasis i! placed on
monitoring pressure whil ; drilling,
6-3
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
tripping and stripping, in addition to
early kick detection if wells are killed.
Like BOP drills, safety, fire and
environmental awareness should be
included in routine practice.”
9 “There are many BOP equipment failure
causes. The only way to develop testing
procedures [to ensure safe equipment
operation] is to prepare detailed BOP
and manifolding flow diagrams that
show step-by-step testing for system
parts. BOP stacks should be tested when
installed, each time they are reinstalled,
once each week and following repair.”
9 Regularly inspect and monitor surface
equipment (i.e. gas monitors, mudgas
separators, diverter rubber elements and
safety equipment).
9 Stop flowdrilling when H2S is detected.
9 Inspect mudgas separators daily (check
for cuttings plugging), or more
frequently in areas where ROP is high.
9 Inspect diverter rubber elements several
times a day.
9 Check diverter alignment with the rotary
table.
9 Have developed contingency plans.
6.2 Regulatory
Requirements
Introduction
As Eresman, 1993,3 stated, “API Committee
RP 53+ proposed in draft Section 13 that
underbalanced drilling is any drilling
operation where an influx of formation
‘“Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for
Drilling Wells,” American Petroleum Institute
Recommended Practice (1984) API RP 53.
6-4
fluids is allowed intcl the wellbore,
circulated out and control ed at the surface.
The influx can occur as i result of severe
and uncontrollable lost returns and/or by a
conscious decision of the operator to drill
with an influx as a me(ins of enhancing
drilling performance.”
In the United States, ( I survey of the
primary oil and gtzs ,~roducing states
indicated that there ere no special
regulations written pecifcally for
I
underbalanced drilling. A n most cases, the
existing regulations c o d d be broadly
interpreted to cover under balanced drilling.
For instance, in L0uisian;b in reference to
drilling fluids, the operatlpr or company is
required to “use due cliligimce in correcting
any objectionable conlditic ns.” Most states
will require adequate blc wout preventers;
for underbalanced drilling as well as
conventional drilling. In some cases, such
as in California, it may be sufficient to
simply convince the State 1 Iivision Inspector
that operations would be carried out in a
prudent and safe manner.
In Texas, the Railroad Con imission of Texas
specifically recognized tl le possibility of
underbalanced drilling in clause (E) of Rule
13 (Casing, Cementing Drilling, and
Completion Requirements-Amended August
13, 1991) of regulation :.13. Clause (E)
states that wells drilling to formations where
the expected reservoir pre ;sure exceeds the
weight of the drilling fluic column shall be
equipped to divert any we’lbore fluids away
from the rig floor. All divc rter systems shall
be maintained in an e ffective working
condition. No well shall continue drilling
operations if a test or ( dher information
indicates that the diverter s {stem is unable to
function or operate as desii ned.
In planning an underbalanced well, it is
always advisable to check with the local,
state or federal agency governing the well’s
location, to determine the latest changes in
applicable laws or rules which might apply.
For example, in planning to drill a horizontal
underbalanced well under the jurisdiction of
federal authorities, the limit on total
emissions from the location probably will be
reached more rapidly than for a vertical well,
due to the higher expected production and
the length of formation exposed in the
lateral. An exception request to this limit,
made in advance, will more likely be
approved than one made during or after
drilling has started.
Regulations for Underbalanced
Drilling (Canada)
In North America, the most detailed
regulatory suggestions are outlined in
Interim Directive ID 94-3,4 from the Energy
Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) in
Alberta, Canada. This Directive covers
recommended practices and contains
sensible, well considered suggestions by
individuals experienced with underbalanced
drilling. This document is available from
the ERCB. Of the recommended practices,
the ERCB has mandated strict enforcement
for three areas, pertaining to:
9 Blowout prevention system config-
urations,
9 Tripping procedures, and,
9 Well control certification of key per-
sonnel.
For the remainder of the practices, the
ERCB accepted industry suggestions that
these practices place “considerable legal and
moral responsibility on operators and
contractors involved in underbalanced
drilling to follow the recommended practices
or to otherwise provide technically
equivalent or better practices.’y4
Regulations for Underbalar iced
Drilling (United Kingdom)
Outside of North America, otler countries
have developed regulations governing
underbalanced wells. In the United
Kingdom, these rules have undergone
significant changes over time. Regulations
are well summarized by Moore, 1995.5 The
Department of Trade and Ind istry (DTI),
with authority under the Petroleum
Production Regulations, se s specific
requirements and regulations pe tinent to the
drilling and completion of UI derbalanced
wells. The DTI, in turn, has ddegated this
authority to the Health and Safe :y Executive
(HSE) to review operators’ app ications and
detailed well plans, and to grmt or deny
permits for the proposed work.
Safety of drilling personnel anc the general
public is the overriding conside-ation of the
HSE. The work must be ca-ried out in
accordance with good oilfield practice, as
defined by the HSE. Safety at work is the
primary subject of The Health 2nd Safety at
Work etc. Act of 1974 and the : rlanagement
of Health and Safety at Work RI:gulations of
1992, much the same as the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) i n the United
States.
New regulations for the petrolc um industry
are based on a combination of ti lese existing
laws and a review of safety incidents,
notification of well operations, and follow-
up inspections and audits. ,Additionally,
offshore requirements are establ shed by The
Offshore Installations (Sal ety Case)
Regulations of 1992, Thc : Offshore
Installations (Prevention of Fire and
Explosion, and Emergency Response)
6-5

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Regulations of 1995 and The Offshore
Installations and Wells (Design and
Construction) Regulations of 1996.
These regulations are designed to protect the
safety and health of offshore oilfield workers
by:
> Identifying potential offshore drilling
hazards,
> Properly assessing these risks,
> Ensuring that these risks are as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP),
> Correctly providing notice of proposed
well operations,
> Defining the performance standards for
all aspects of offshore operations, and,
> Establishing a clearly defined Safety
Management System.
Three months prior to the beginning of
operations, an operator must submit a safety
case to the HSE for their review. This must
contain information identifying all hazards
associated with the proposed operations and
ensure that appropriate countermeasures will
be in place to handle these problems and to
keep the risks ALARP.
On November 30, 1995, Regulation 11 of
the Safety Case Regulations became
effective. It requires offshore operators to
notify the HSE twenty-one days before
commencing well operations, to avoid
penalty. The Borehole Sites and Operations
Regulations, which became effective
October 1, 1995, require onshore operators
to follow similar notification procedures. It
is necessary to not only notify the HSE of
proposed underbalanced operations, but also
to update them on all operational plans,
drilling equipment to be used, procedures to
-
be followed, other SF ecific materials
required, and environment il considerations.
Both the operator and the (killing contractor
must demonstrate that all identifiable risks
are ALARP. The Britisk legal system is
very familiar with interpret itions of this law.
They have established rea: onable measures
of weighing an operator’s cost in money,
time and effort to achieve tl lese reductions in
risks. If a proposecl operation is
economically marginal 0 1 so excessively
burdened with regulation:) as to become
intolerable, latitude is genei ally allowed.
Regulations for Underk alanced
Drilling (United States)
In the United States, a survey of the
primary oil and gas producing states
indicated that there w ?re no special
regulations written s 7eciJically for
underbalanced drilling. I] 1 most cases, the
existing regulations COL M be broadly
interpreted to cover under€alanced drilling.
If regulations are not clear or the burden is
placed on the operator to adopt safe and
prudent practices, what shc uld the operator
do?
9 Research specific regulations of the
governing agencies.
> Interact with the relei ant agencies to
ensure that there will be no future
repercussions.
> Adopt reasonable practices. For ex-
ample, in Canada, surfaze BOP systems,
as a minimum, must COIisist of an ERCB
Class III well serviciig stack design
(Energy Resources Cor servation Board,
Alberta Oil and G ; s Conservation
Regulations Section L129 to 8.148
(including schedules 8, 10 and 11) with
some type of diverter system, flaring
 capability, and the capability to equalize
pressure between the diverter line and a
point below the lowest ram type
preventer (with some exceptions).
9 For example, as Eresman, 1995,3 stated:
“When a well is being drilled with air,
the licensee shall install and maintain:
0 in addition to the blowout prevention
equipment required in Schedule 8, a
rotating head that diverts the flow
during the period the well will be
drilled with air,
0 a diverter line not less than 50 m
[164 feet] in length,
0 a reserve volume of drilling fluid
equal to or at least 1.S times the
capacity of the hole,
when drilling formations that may
0
contain hydrogen sulfide, a
continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor
on the diverter line, and,
0 a continuous ignition device at the
end of the diverter line.”
Consider the following issues:
9 Be certain that the BOP stack, with a
diverter system:
permits drilling to proceed while
controlling annular pressure,
allows connections to be made either
with the well flowing or shut-in,
allows tripping of the drillstring
under pressure to change bits or
bottomhole assemblies,
provides for backup annular control
in case of failure of the diverter,
provides for a choke manifold
arrangement which allows annular
pressure to be varied sc that it will
not exceed related work ing pressure
of the equipment,
provides a means to bleed-off
pressure or to kill the well,
independent of the diw rter system,
grid,
provides a means to pickly and
safely shut-in the well.
9 Use string float(s) and fire f oat(s), if air
is used,
9 If sour gas is present, drillpi]be protection
and blind shear rams are nee led,
9 Kill fluid is needed,
9 Casing integrity needs to bo guaranteed
and full length cementing should be
implemented as regulated,
>
Surface equipment spacing needs to
adhere to appropriate regula1 ions,
P Flaring must follow appropriate
regulations,
9 Appropriate separator equiF ment should
be used, as required,
9 Provide adequate provision for storage
of produced fluids,
> Crews need to be appropria :ely certified
and trained,
> Monitoring and alarms are essential for
H2S environments, and,
9 Adhere to all safety regulati ons.
6.3 Environmental 1 s u e s

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Land and Water Pollution
Underbalanced drilling provides some
environmental benefits but also causes some
unique environmental complications which
must be properly handled. For example,
produced oil and natural gas have to be
safely and environmentally processed. Oil
presents the greatest challenge. If drill
cuttings are oil-coated, surface handling is
different than for regular, non-oiled material.
These oil-coated cuttings are commonly
jetted to lined containers which are
environmentally disposed of following
drilling operations. Designated, approved
disposal sites are available for this purpose.
The cuttings are either trucked or barged to
these sites.
Closed loop surface facilities provide extra
environmental protection over drilling
operations which use earthen reserve and
cuttings pits. With some exceptions (i.e.
possibly supplementary chemical additives
for flocculation), cleanup and disposal
requirements are simplified for closed loop
systems. Even more significantly, under-
balanced drilling inherently involves lower
drilling fluid densities than are used in
comparable overpressured drilling. Clear
fluid systems are often used. These fluids
may be less expensive and may cause less
formation damage if lost circulation or
seepage occurs. Heavier mud systems, in
conventional operations, can contain higher
concentrations of heavy metals and other
potentially harmful additives, commonly
barite. In Louisiana, the Department of
Natural Resources Office of Conservation
and the Department of Environmental
Quality both have jurisdiction over the
petroleum industry. Statewide Order 29-B
sets limits on the allowable concentrations
of nine heavy metals, sometimes found in
drilling fluids. These are arsenic, barium,
~ ~-
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, silver and zinc. ’ The concentration
limit for barium is set at 20,000 ppm for
wetland areas and 40,00C ppm in upland
areas of the state. When si,pificant amounts
of barite are in a liquid mud system, the
fluid becomes “contamina ted”. This mat-
erial requires environmel ita1 disposal or
dilution treatment on locati in (land farming)
in order to restore the surlace locations (as
part of cleanup durii ig post-drilling
operations). Soil sample: must be taken
before and after drilling opt :rations to ensure
proper compliance with tlese rules. This
expense can be minimizc d or eliminated
entirely by using under1 alanced drilling
methods and clear drilling f uids.
Heavier drilling fluids also tend to
effectively entrain pro hced oil or
condensate, without breakir g out of the mud
at the surface. On the cther hand, clear
fluids separate oil fairly easily. Some liquid
muds can contain as much as thirty percent
oil by volume. These oil- iaturated drilling
fluids, as well as oil-based nud systems, are
an environmental consider ition for storage
or disposal, if they cannclt be reused on
another well.
Since underbalanced drill ng incorporates
new generation wellhe ad equipment,
environmental (as well as safety)
considerations are improve 3. The rotating
head provides low to n edium pressure
containment, in addition to the rig’s
conventional set of blowout preventers. The
M O P provides safer, uedium to high
pressure containment, as re dundancy to the
regular blowout preveriters Both systems
offer improved benefits over the rig
preventers alone.
Surface production hand1 ing equipment,
including dual choke manifolds, gasniquid
separators, liquid skimmer and retention
tanks and liquid hydrocarbon storage tanks,
all serve to provide a more environmentally-
safe operation for underbalanced drilling.
Air Pollution Considerations
Burning of hydrocarbons, produced during
underbalanced drilling, can become an
environmental concern. Air pollution,
especially when liquid hydrocarbons are
burned, can exceed allowed emissions limits
for a particular drill site. This problem can
be more severe when the location is in a
populated or smog-prone area. Federal and
state limits on total emissions originating
from a particular location must be known in
advance, in order to properly plan the well
and to comply with these limits (or request a
special waiver for an exception). Exceptions
may be granted. Dust clouds may be a
problem during air drilling. Water sprays
can quench the dust. With air drilling, noise
pollution may be a special concern near
populated areas.
Produced Water Disposal
In addition to hydrocarbons, produced
formation water can be a disposal issue.
Produced water can be supplemented by
drilling water. This becomes more‘ of an
issue with foams. Defoaming is an
important surface procedure. Options are
available for disposal. They are all impacted
by specific regulations and associated costs.
Disposal operations can include:
P Disposal into surface water drainage
systems. This is dependent on volumes,
water quality and supplementary surface
processing (such as aeration), regulations
and monitoring facilities.
> Reinjection. Subject to regulations,
- -
reinjection into permeable zones in
designated disposal wells may be
permitted. It may or may not be required
to remove cuttings. Cutting! reinjection
down the annulus may be possible, if
pressures are acceptable, and zone
permeability is adequate. Avoiding
aquifer contamination anc I ensuring
containment integrity ar 5 primary
considerations in permittir g disposal
wells.
Approved lund disposal sites.
Overboard offshore disposl:1. This is
highly regulated and it should be
anticipated that regulations r Jill become
even more stringent in the ful ure.
Reserve pits. As indicated by Collins,
1994,’ “Reserve pits should t e built with
integrity to retain wastes i nd prevent
ovefflow during rains. In acidition, pits
and drilling pads should be designed to
collect rig wash, spills and leaks from
equipment, stormwater n moff, and
should keep non-drilling pa d rainwater
from entering pits. Lined its, barrier
walls or closed mud systems ue required
in environmentally sensitj ve areas.”
Collins, 1994,’ provide d further
summary discussions regardi ng pits, i.e.
liners for pits for oil-based muds and
brines must be compatible with these
fluids. Operator responsib Jities were
summarized.
Any pollution resulting from d illing must
be a concern to the petro1eu.n industry.
Before drilling the operator mu;t be aware
of pertinent regulations.
6.4 Directional Drilli,7g
lntroduction
There is no reason why dirxtional or
6-9

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
horizontal wells should not be drilled
underbalanced. The design and operational
issues are the same as for conventional
direction drilling - directional control,
surveying, hole cleaning and drillstring
friction. The same downhole equipment can
generally be used as for overbalanced
drilling. Many high angle, extended reach
and horizontal wells have been drilled with
gasified liquids, with the attendant
advantages.
Drilling high angle, extended reach or
horizontal wells with air as the circulating
medium is not yet common practice;
however, air has some distinct advantages
over drilling mud. These include:
9 Penetration rates are significantly
increased, leading to shorter drilling
times and lower costs,
9 Lost circulation problems are eliminated
(or moderated) especially in areas with
very low bottomhole pressures,
9 Drillstem testing of potential producing
formations is continuously possible, and,
> Formation damage is minimized.
Along with the advantages of underbalanced
operations, using compressible drilling
fluids can complicate direction drilling.
Because compressible fluids may pose more
operational problems than liquids, this
section concentrates on their use in
directional drilling. Some of the problems
that could be expected are:
9 Conventional downhole motor life is
shorter and conventional motors do not
operate as efficiently,
9 Conventional Measurement While
Drilling (MWD) systems do not work in
an environment with compressible fluid,
6-10
-
9 Hole cleaning can lie a problem at
inclinations above, 5( O , with dry gas,
mist and foam,
9 The horizontal section length is reduced
because of the inc -eased drillstring
friction (drag), and,
9 Not all formations aiId lithologies are
suitable for drilling wi h dry gas, mist or
foam.
However, horizontal drill,ng with air, mist
and foam systems can b?, and has been,
successful. With careful planning, all of
these problems can bo minimized or
eliminated.
Horizontal wells have 1 een successfully
drilled with air or foam since 1986. At a
minimum, operators a .e drilling the
horizontal section with air or foam to
eliminate lost circulation problems in low
pressure (partially deplete 1) reservoirs, and
to reduce formation dama;e due to drilling
fluid invasion. Problem; have been en-
countered in drilling these horizontal wells.
Not all of these problems are unique to air
drilling. They are sometim ES exaggerated by
the conditions in an air hde. By changing
the conventional method O F operations in an
air hole and anticipating p )tential problems,
air drilling can be cost competitive and
possibly even less zxpensive than
conventional drilling.
Bottomhole Assemblie s
The United States DOE lias led efforts in
horizontal air drilling." Tt e main issues for
directional drilling unl lerbalanced are
similar to those for convei tional directional
drilling:
> Directional control.,
9 Surveying,
P Hole cleaning, and,
P Drillstring friction.
Forces Acting at the Bit
A bottomhole assembly is the arrangement
of the bit, stabilizer, reamers, drill collars,
subs and special tools, used at the bottom of
the drillstring. Anything that is run in the
hole to drill, ream or circulate is a
bottomhole assembly. Hole incljnation can
be controlled by adjusting the bottomhole
assembly stabilization, exactly as it is in
rotary drilling with conventional fluids. The
simplest assembly is a bit, collars and
drillpipe. This is often called a slick
assembly. Use of this assembly in
directional drilling is very limited and is
usually confined to the vertical section of the
hole, where deviation is not a problem.
Bottomhole assemblies will deviate a hole.
To understand why this happens, consider
the slick assembly. It is the simplest and
easiest to understand. The deviation
tendency in this assembly is a result of the
flexiblility of the drill collars and the forces
which act on the assembly, causing the
collars to bend. Even though drill collars
seem to be very rigid, they will bend enough
to cause deviation.
The point at which the collars contact the
low side of the hole is called the tangency
point (Figure 6-1). The distance, L, from the
bit to the tangency point, depends on the
collar size, the hole size, the applied bit
weight, the hole inclination, and the hole
curvature. Generally, L is less than 150 feet.
Above the tangency point of the slick
assembly, the remainder of the drillstring
has no effect on deviation. As weight is
applied to the bit, the tangency point will
move closer to the bit.
Because of the bending of the crill collars,
the resultant force applied to the jormation is
not in the direction of the hole a ;is. It is in
the direction of the drill collar a: is. This is
shown in Figure 6-2. The angle 1 )etween the
hole and the collar axis is denoted as @.As
bit weight is applied, the tangency point
moves toward the bit, increasing he angle 9.
An increase in bit weight leads to an
increase in 41 and a resulting ncrease in
deviation tendency.
Unfortunately, the resulta it force
incorporates additional compone nts (Figure
6-3). The primary component is the drilling
force in line with the axis of the 1 borehole. In
addition, FB is the bit side forcc caused by
bending of the collars, acting pe rpendicular
to the axis of the borehole. Fp s the force
due to gravity (acting on the tnsupported
section of drill collars) resob ed in the
opposite direction to and countr racting FB.
The net deviation force is then rqual to the
summation of FB and Fp. Ideally, if Fp is
greater than FB, the hole angle will drop. If
Fp is equal to FB, the hole angle will remain
the same; and, if Fp is less than I ~ B , the hole
angle will increase.
The deviation tendency can be c( Introlled by
changing the bit weight. Increaiing the bit
weight will lower the tangency point,
increasing the angle 9. Si ice FB is
proportional to sin@, an increase in bit
weight increases the bit side force and
ultimately the deviation tendency.
Conversely, a decrease in bit .veight will
decrease the deviation tendency.
This may all sound significai t, but the
deviation force for a slick bottomhole
assembly is very small. Figures 5-4 through
6-8 show the calculated resultani force for a
6-11
 - - -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

Figure 6-1. Schematic representation of a bottomhole assembly in ai I inclined hole.

Figure 6-2. The resultant force applied to the formation is not in the direction of the
hole axis. The force is in the direction of the drill collar axis because of
bending of the drill collars.

6-12
 Figure 6-3. Schematic showing deviating and restoring force compor ents.

!
slick assembly under various conditions. In Table 6-1. Relative stiffnez s of
most instances, a slick assembly will have a various drill coll om.
negative resultant force (dropping tendency)
Collar Diameter Relati te
at inclinations above 2". Stiffne ss
(inches)
-
Drill ColEars
The stiffness of the drill collars also affects
12 16
-
10 8
the deviation tendency. Stiffer collars will
bend less. This increases the length, L, to the
tangency point. If the tangency point moves
up the hole, the deviation tendency will be
reduced. The relative stiffness of a drill I
I
4 I
I
0.2
-
collar is proportional to the collar radius to
the fourth power. As an example, assume Sta bilizers
that the relative stiffness of a six-inch OD Adding a stabilizer abov: the bit
drill collar is one. An eight-inch or a ten- significantly affects the deviatj on tendency
inch OD collar would be approximately of a bottomhole assembly. The stabilizer
three or eight times stiffer, respectively acts as a fulcrum, around which the
(Table 6-1). Therefore, small OD collars unsupported section of the bottomhole
(with less stiffness) increase the tendency for assembly reacts. The addi ion of the
deviation. moment arm between the bit 2nd stabilizer
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

100

80
60

F
=
40

0) 20
g
LL o

-35
c
-20
c
-40
al
-60
-80

-100

-120
0 loo00 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 71lOOO
Bit Weight (Ibf)

Figure 6-4. Resultant force for a slick assembly in a 7 7/8-inch dial neter hole.

0
e 10
LL

-s
- 0

3 -10
v)

= -20
al

-30

-40

-50
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Bit Weight (Ibf)

Figure 6-5. Resultant force for an assembly with 4%-inch drill collar P in a 6%-inch
hole. Note the reduction in the resultant force, in cornpark on to Figure 6-
4.

6-14
 250

200

150
E
v
8 100
2
0
L
50
-s3
c

w 0
t -50

-100

-1 50
0 loo00 20000 3oooo 40000 50000 60 XI0
Bit Weight (Ibf)

Figure 6-6. Resultant force in a hole, inclined at 2", drilled with 6Wnch c ollars. The
resultant force is shown as a function of bit weight and hole siz ?.

100

50

F
G O
8
2
5E
0
-50
-a3
8 -100
K

-150

-200

Figure 6-7. Resultant force in a holey inclined at 24 drilled with 8-inch collars. The
resultant force is shown as a function of bit weight and hole si, !e. Note the
influence of the larger diameter drill collars.

6-15

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
-50 - -
aa -100
2
9
-200
-250
Figure 6-8. Resultant force in a hole, inclined at 24 drilled with Sine :h collars. The
resultant force is shown as a function of bit weight and holt size.
increases the bit side force. In fact, a single
stabilizer assembly is a very strong building
assembly.
Addition of multiple stabilizers to an
assembly makes determination of side forces
at the bit much more complicated.
Analyzing these types of bottomhole
assemblies is beyond the scope of this
manual.
Formation Anisotropy and Dynamic
Conditions
Assuming that a formation is uniform and
that the bit can drill in any direction, the
bottomhole assembly would drill in the
direction of the vectorial sum of the forces at
the bit. Unfortunately, a bit’s side cutting
and forward cutting ability are not equal.
Also, anisotropic failure of the rock can
cause deviation in a direction other than the
6-16
-
1
simple vectorial sum of the Forces at the bit.
The side cutting atditj of a bit is
proportional to the side: for:e exerted at the
bit (the vectorial sum of FE and Fp). Under
static conditions, the side force on the bit
can be calculated using cor iputer modeling.
When the entire bottomh3le assembly is
considered, it can ble :hown that the
stabilizers in the assembly also exert a side
force. Therefore, stabilizer: also have a side
cutting ability. It would seem that the
deviation tendency could th :n be calculated.
However, the side forces will change under
dynamic conditions. Both the bit and the
stabilizers cut sideways, rt ducing the side
force on each, until equjlibr:urn is reached.
Under dynamic conditions, the relative side
cutting of the bit and stalilizers becomes
complicated. This makes il very difficult to
-
calculate the deviation tendency. The
relationship between the bit and stabilizer
side cutting depends on the type of bit, the
type of stabilizer, the penetration rate, the
rotary speed, the lithology, the hole size, and
the bottomhole assembly type.
Amoco test data, published by Millheim and
Warren, 1978: proved that both the bit and
stabilizers will cut laterally under dynamic
conditions. Figure 6-9 shows the results of
some of those tests. The insert at the top
shows the influence of the magnitude of the
side force on a bit. The rate of side cutting
decreased after this force was first applied,
until an equilibrium was reached; after this,
the rate of displacement remained constant.
The slope of the line would be the side
cutting ability of the bit under ideal
conditions. A significant difference in side
cutting was caused by a small change in
the magnitude of the side force.
The middle insert (in Figure 6-9),
demonstrates how the side cutting ability of
a bit changes with the penetration rate. The
cutting rate was lower at higher penetration
rates. The bottom insert, shows the
influence of side cutting, when drilling with
a stabilizer and a constant side force. Note
that with 1,500 lbf side force, the blade
stabilizer cut laterally at approximately the
same rate as the bit with 800 lbf side force.
These tests indicated that even though the
side cutting ability of a bit is small
compared to the forward cutting ability, it is
enough to drill in the direction of the
vectorial sum of the forces at the bit under
dynamic conditions. Since the angle, $, is
usually less than 1" in normal drilling
operations, an operator could expect
horizontal displacements similar to those in
the Amoco tests. Also, the 5ide cutting
ability of soft formation bits is generally
considered to be better thar for hard
formation bits. Diamond bits hafe a greater
side cutting ability because they i re designed
with more of a cutting structur: along the
lateral face of the bit.
An additional factor affectini deviation
tendency is formation anisotropy. In
isotropic formations, equal chip . rolumes are
formed on each side of the bit tc 0th and the
bit will drill straight ahead (Fi y r e 6-10).
However, bedding planes an d oriented
structural weaknesses make 1nost rocks
anisotropic. In such an anisotrop ic situation,
relatively large chip volumes arc formed on
one side of the bit tooth, causing the bit to
deviate (Figure 6-10).
The magnitude and direction o ' deviation,
attributable to formation anisotro ?y, depends
on the bedding dip. Generally, a bit will
walk updip when beds are dipp ng from 0"
to 45" and downdip when beds are dipping
from 65" to 90". Bedding plane lip between
45" and 65" can cause either :n updip or
downdip walk. Bedding strike c;UI cause the
bit to walk left or right.
Basic Assemblies
There are three basic types of assemblies
used in directional drilling. Thes 2 are:
0 building assemblies,
0 dropping assemblies, and
holding assemblies.
A building assembly is intended to increase
hole inclination; a dropping i ssembly is
intended to decrease hole inclin; tion; and, a
holding assembly is intended :o maintain
hole inclination. It should be iioted that a
 -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

-
Bit Side F o m Test Data Variable Side Force
0

0.5

f5
Y

1.5

2.5

3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Horlzonbi Displacement (inches)

0
-
Bit Side F o m Test Data Variabk,&netratlon R8te

0.5

5 1.5

Y+*I 2

2.5

3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
HorizontalDisplacement (inches)

Stabilixer Skb Force Test Data

0

0.5

5 1.5

2.5

3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
HorizontalDisplacement ( i n c h )

Figure 6-9. Results of Amoco tests assessing the side cutting ab'lity of bits and
stabilizers (refer to Millheim and Warren, 1978 ').

6-18
 EqmI Chlp
Unequal Chlp
Figure 6- 10. Chip volume formation in isotropic and anisotropic rock (refer fo example,
to Millheim, 1979*).
building assembly may not always build
angle. Formation characteristics may cause
the assembly to drop or to hold angle. The
building assembly is intended to build angle.
The same is true for the dropping and
holding assemblies.
Building Assemblies
As indicated, the building assembly uses a
stabilizer, acting as a fulcrum, to apply a
side force to the bit. The magnitude of this
force is a function of the distance from the
bit to the tangency point. An increase in bit
I
weight and/or a decrease in ~lrill collar
stiffness will increase the side f irce at the
bit, increasing the rate of build.
The strongest building assembly consists of
one stabilizer, placed 3 to 6 feel above the
bit face, with collars and drillpipi: above the
stabilizer. This assembly will tuild in the
majority of situations. The rate of the build
will be controlled by formation character-
istics, the bit and stabilizer types, the
lithology, the bit weight, the hill collar
stiffnesses, the drillstring rpms, the pene-

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
tration rate, and the hole geometry.
Another strong to moderate building
assembly consists of a bottomhole stabilizer,
placed 3 to 6 feet from the bit face, 60 feet
of collars, a second stabilizer, collars, and
drillpipe. This is the most common
assembly used to build angle. The second
stabilizer tends to dampen the building
tendency. This assembly can be used when
the previous assembly builds at an excessive
rate. Other building assemblies are shown
in Figure 6- 11.
Dropping Assemblies
A dropping assembly is sometimes referred
to as a pendulum assembly. Wilson, 198OY9
provided a good discussion, relevant to air
drilling. In this assembly, a stabilizer is
placed at 30, 45 or 60 feet from the bit. The
stabilizer produces a plumb-bob or
pendulum effect; hence the name pendulum
assembly. The purpose of the stabilizer is to
prevent the collar from touching the wall of
the hole, causing a tangency point.
An increase in the effective length of the
bottomhole assembly (the length below the
tangency point) results in an increase in the
weight. Since the force, Fp, is determined by
that weight, it is also increased, exceeding
the force, FB,due to bending. The net result
is a side force on the bit, causing the hole to
drop angle.
Addition of bit weight will decrease the
dropping tendency of this assembly because
it increases the force due to bending, FB. If
enough bit weight is applied to the assembly
to cause the collars to contact the borehole
wall (between the stabilizer and the bit), the
assembly will act as a slick assembly. Only
the section of the assembly below the
tangency point affects the bit side force.
-
If an increase in drop1)ing tendency is
required, larger diameter Dr heavier collars
should be used below thl: stabilizer. This
increases the weight of he assembly and
causes an increase in the c ropping tendency.
As an example, suppose that a dropping
assembly, with seven-inch OD collars, is
being used in a 121/-inch hole. By
substituting nine-inch 011 collars for the
seven-inch OD collars, an increase in
dropping tendency can be : chieved.
Dropping assemblies will lave a higher rate
of drop as hole inclination I, increases. The
force, FP, (which caus1:s the dropping
tendency) is calculated us ing the following
equation:
Fp = 05W sin I (6.1)
where:
W ....... buoyant weight of the collars
below the stabilizer (lbf), and,
I .......... inclination angle (d :grees).
An increase in hole anl,le results in an
increase in Fp, resulting n an increase in
dropping tendency. Ad litional dropping
assemblies are shown in Fi ;ure 6- 12.
Holding Assemblies
Holding the inclination ir a hole is much
more difficult than liuilc ing or dropping
angle. Under ideal :onditions, most
assemblies either have a building or
dropping tendency. Mc s t straight hole
sections of a directional well will have
alternating build and drop sections. When
holding inclination, these build and drop
sections should be minimi; ed and spread out
over a large interval.
Amoco has statistically compared the
 Strength 6ottomhole Assembly
<-' 9ofeet -*'
High

High

60 feet
High
To
Medium A
Medium
To
LOW

Bit 1 Stabilizer Collar

Figure 6-1 1. Schematics of various building assemblies (refer for example, to Millheim
and Apostal, 1980 lo).

Strength Boffomhole Assembly

High

High

Medium

Low

This Assembly Can Build Angle Under Certaln Circumstances.

Bit 1 Stabilizer Collar

Figure 6-12. Schematics of various dropping assemblies (refer for example, to Millheim
and Apostal, 1980 lo).

~- ~ -___
6-21
9-

Chapter 6 Special Considerations

performance of various holding assemblies.
Figure 6-13 shows three of the most
commonly used holding assemblies. The
assembly at the top proved to be the most
successful, even though it maintained
inclination only 60 percent of the time. The
assembly in the middle maintained
inclination less than 50 percent of the time,
and the bottom assembly was even less
effective.
When selecting a holding assembly, research
the well records in the area, to assess which
assembly works best for the formations
being drilled. If no formation-specific data
are available, use the assembly at the top of
Figure 6- 13 and adjust it as necessary.
Downhole Motors
Downhole motors play a major role in
drilling directional and horizontal wells.
Kicking off from vert cal requires a
downhole motor with a lent sub or bent
housing. All direction: 1 wells require
steering during initial kil :koff, correction
runs, sidetracks and redri 1s. High build
rates (greater than say 2 c r 3"/100 ft) also
require a motor and benit ho Ising.
The increasing availability of steerable
systems has dramaticall I changed the
number of wells that are dri lled directionally
and horizontally. These s,(stems include a
downhole motor (or tiirbir e) fitted with a
bent sub, as well as come means of
surveying while drilling. Orienting the
motor and drilling with n > string rotation
allows the bit to drill (mole or less) in the
direction in which it is p( inted, providing
the ability to change inclination and
azimuth, as required. Adjusting the bent
housing angle controls he build rate.

Strength Bottomhole Assembly

-
75 20 feet
-+'
f-
30,60 or 90 feet

A A
Medium

-
5 75 feet
k +'+ 30feet & 30feet +'
--
A
- 30 or 60 feet & 30 or 60 feet 4
v
I+ 30 40 feet+'+
Low b:
A E-
Bit 1 Stabilizer Colla r

Figure 6-13. Schematics of various holding assemblies (refer for exam/ ,le, to Millheim
and Apostal, 1980 lo).

6-22

Rotating the drillstring, when drilling with a
motor and bent sub, allows the bit to drill
ahead at more or less constant angle.
Since drillstring friction can restrict weight
transfer if the string is not rotating, the
penetration rate tends to be lower when
drilling in oriented mode as opposed to
rotating the string, Using a bent housing
means that the hole is drilled slightly over-
gauge, whenever the pipe is rotated.
Rotating the pipe while drilling with a motor
and a high angle bent sub can lead to
tracking, poor penetration rate and rapid off-
center wear with a roller cone bit. These
same problems are experienced whether the
well is drilled under- or overbalanced; with a
compressible or incompressible fluid.
However, drillstring friction can be a more
significant issue if drilling underbalanced
with a compressible fluid.
Conventional positive displacement mud
motors can be run on compressible fluids.
As indicated by Shale, 1991,” there are
major disadvantages to doing this.
9 Conventional motors are designed to run
with low volumetric flow rates and high
pressure drops. This leads to high inlet
pressures and low efficiency wben the
motor is run on compressible fluids such
as air, mist or foam.
9 With compressible fluids, these motors
are prone to stalling and can be difficult
to restart after connections.
9 The high inlet pressure means that there
is a large amount of energy stored in the
compressed fluid in the drillpipe above
the motor. If the bit is pulled off bottom
so that the resistance to rotation is
removed, the motor can speed up rapidly
and be damaged by the overspeed, before
E
the energy stored in the drillpipe is
dissipated. The high mc tor pressure
drop often requires that a bioster is run
in the compression system.
9 “Typically, the air volume required to
clean the hole is three times greater than
the ’recommended flow rate for the
conventional mud motor.”” There is a
way to reduce the flow thro igh a motor.
Some of the air can be direrted before
passing through the motor sxtion. This
can be accomplished by plac ing a jet sub
above the motor. This will allow some
of the air to escape from t’ie drillstring
without passing through th: motor. In
motors with a hollow roto], the bypass
valve can be replaced by ail orifice. In
each case, the orifice is a p .edetermined
size and diverts the necesszry air to the
annulus without it passing through the
motor section. Jets shoild also be
placed in the bit to prov:de adequate
bottomhole cleaning and e xtra cooling
for the motor. The jets can be designed
for bottomhole cleaning, using the
method presented by Lyl ms, 1984,12
although, a pressure drop 0’ 200 to 300
psi is usually sufficient. I;xpansion of
the air through the bit noz;,les provides
the cooling. Friction betw1:en the rotor
and the stator within the inotor causes
heat to build up. Cooling i t the bottom
of the hole helps the motor t 3 run longer.
9 !‘Mud motors are hydrosta ic, they can
use only the displacement vrork, and not
the expansion work of the compressed
,,’
air.
Downhole motors have been leveloped to
run on compressible fluids. These are
designed to run at higher vol imetric rates
and lower pressure drops than conventional
mud motors. The advantages )f these new

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
generation air motors are:
> Boosters are not needed,
> Efficiency is improved,
P These motors do not stall as easily as
conventional motors,
> Overspeed is less likely, and
> They can be used with compressible (dry
and mist) and slightly compressible
fluids (gasified liquids, liquids).
Shale, 1991,” provided a summary of the
flow rate and pressure drop calculations
required to assess motor performance. He
showed power outputs for one air motor
type. The power outputs of these air motors
are typically 1.5 to 2 times those of similar
size mud motors. As a result of the higher
efficiency, these motors give higher
penetration rates than conventional mud
motors run under the same conditions. They
are capable of penetration rates that are
essentially the same as those for rotary
drilling with the same fluid.
These motors are recommended for
directional drilling with compressible
Dreiling, et al., 1996,14provided some field data.
with poor success. Jetting the bit did help but reduced the motor’s power mtput.”
6-24
-
fluids.
This type of improved perf Drmance depends
on proper lubrication. h, ist or foam can
provide lubrication. WheI water (included
in the mist or foam) is in roduced into the
wellbore, enough rnust be used to
completely wet the bo.ehole and the
generated cuttings. Othepvise, a mud ring
will form and the drillstr ng will become
stuck. As a rule, a ininixum rate of 10
BWPH is used even thoug 1 the motor does
not require this volume for ubrication.
Injection of water into a wellbore sometimes
causes shale stability prollems and a dry
hole may be desirable. Jijecting a small
quantity of oil into the: air stream can also
provide effective motor lub rication. 0.15 to
0.25 gallons of motor oil pt r hour should be
added to dry air (Shale, 109lt1). Foamer,
graphite powder, and ben onite have also
been used successfully. Iqection rates of 5
gallonshour will provide a nple lubrication.
Too much oil will cause tht drill cuttings to
become slightly “wet;” th s can stick the
drillstring. Therefore, oil injection rates
should be limited.
1
Lyons et al., 1988,15 outlined the principles
and performance of a prototype air turbine
drill. Numerical simulations indicated the
feasibility of using a turbine motor to
convert the internal energy in a gas stream to
mechanical energy at the bit. “Two field
tests have been performed. The drilling rates
obtained compared favorably with those
from conventional air drilling.”
Surveying
MWD
When drilling directionally, it is essential to
know the hole inclination and azimuth. In
conventional directional drilling, this is
normally accomplished with an MWD
(Measurement-While-Drilling) system in the
BHA. This periodically transmits magnet-
ometer and accelerometer measurements
uphole, from which inclination and azimuth
(or toolface orientation) can be calculated.
Data transmission normally involves pulsing
the mud flow, to create encoded pressure
pulses in the drilling fluid in the drillpipe.
These pulses are detected at the standpipe.
Mud pulse telemetry does not work with
compressible fluids - the signal is attenuated
too rapidly for it to reach the surface.
Conventional mud pulse MWD systems can
only be used in underbalanced drilling if the
drilling fluid inside the drillstring is
incompressible. This will be the case in
flowdrilling, when drilling with a parasite
string or when using temporary casing
gasification.
Roy and Hay, 1995,16 discussed some
pressure measurement systems. “The
Pressure-While-Drilling system measures
the annulus pressure by means of a pressure
sensor that is located in a special sub with a
port to the annulus located below the MWD.
The pressure data are either recorded down-
hole or transmitted in real-tine to the
surface using MWD transmissior .7916
E W D
One option with compressiblc fluids is
electromagnetic MWD (EMW D). This
electromagnetically transmits a signal
through the formation (the w i n g and/or
drillstring will serve as a wave guide). It
requires adequate formation con( uctivity for
the signal to reach the surface. T msmission
can be interrupted by high resistivity
formations. The transmission rznge can be
limited even when the forn ations are
suitable. More details on these ;ystems are
given by Soulier and Lemaitre, 1993.17 In
the past, reliability has been an issue with
EMWD systems. Recent ieports are
encouraging, although vibrat on levels
downhole can be particularly s’were when
drilling with dry air, mist or foim. Shale,
1994,13 indicated that vibratioi .a1 damage
and inadequate signal transm ssion may
become problematic at depths be ow 4000 to
5000 feet.
Inherent limitations relate to signal
attenuation.
P Younger, uncompacted rock; with high
apparent porosity are chara 2terized by
extremely high attenuation.
P “There is no difference of at enuation in
cased hole sections for boreholes filled
with air or water-based nuds but a
noticeable reduction of atte iuation has
been observed in the openhol ;
EMWD systems have been used in air holes
with mixed results. Signals do get back to
the surface and the informatior is correct.
Reliability has been the main pioblem with
EMWD. Frequent failures lave been
6-25

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
experienced in air holes. Drilling conditions
in an air hole are more extreme than those
experienced in a mud-filled hole. There is
no fluid in the hole to dampen vibration.
EMWDs are not yet durable enough to work
consistently in an air hole; but with
experience and improvements, EMWD
continues to improve.
Steering Tools
In most air wells, a steering tool is used to
get survey and tool face data while drilling
with a downhole motor. The steering tool is
different from EMWD in that information is
sent back to the surface using a single
conductor wireline rather than
electromagnetic waves. The system is
cumbersome and more time consuming
because the wireline extends back up
through the drillstring to the surface.
Depending on the system used, the wireline
must be removed in order to add more
drillpipe as drilling progresses. This adds
time and expense to the drilling operation.
Until recently, the drillstring could not be
rotated with the steering tool in the hole.
Therefore, a steerable system could not be
used with a steering tool. A steerable
system requires that the drillstring is rotated
for at least a portion of the drilling process.
In the past few years, some service
companies have developed what is called a
quick- or wet-connect. The tool allows the
drillstring to be rotated with the steering tool
still in the bottomhole assembly. A sub is
run in the vertical portion of the well and the
wireline is connected from the steering tool
to the sub. The wireline is connected into
the top of the sub when a survey is taken or
when drilling without rotation. The wireline
is disconnected from the sub and pulled into
a custom swivel when the pipe is rotated.
-~
Now operators can run a teerable system in
air.
Currently, the motors ar: oriented with a
steering tool that sends information to the
surface using a single C IInductor wireline.
Some steering tools have the same problem
as EMWD. Vibrations n the well cause
frequent failures. In fact all steering tools
will experience more faihres in an air hole.
Selection of the right steering tool is
essential. Placing jets in t le bit also reduces
the vibration experience(. by the steering
tool.
There are two methods thit have been used
to survey the horizonta section. Both
involve tripping the drill string. The first
method uses an electric lin z with a side entry
sub. The drillstring is pu led from the hole
until the bit is at an incliiation of 70". A
side entry sub is required i long with a latch-
in assembly for the steerir g tool. Above an
inclination of 70°, the ste:ring tool will no
longer fall in the hole and :annot be pumped
down with air. Unlike mild, the air passing
by the steering tool does not generate
enough drag to carry a he,ivy tool down the
hole. The steering tool must be installed
through a side entry SUI' above 70" and
tripped to bottom with the Irillstring. A side
entry sub is installed ancI the survey tool
(single-shot or steering tocl) is run to the bit
on an electric line. Then the drillstring is
tripped back to bottom wit 1 the remainder of
the wire on the outside if the drillstring.
After reaching TD, a survc y is taken and the
drillstring is tripped back 3ut of the hole to
the side entry sub. The survey tool is
removed and the drillstriilg is run back to
bottom to continue drillin:. As is evident,
surveying the horizontal section is time
consuming and expensive.
An alternative method has been used to
reduce the time and associated costs for
surveying. Tripping the drillpipe to 70" is
still required; but an electric line and side
entry sub are not used. A single-shot (a
steering tool cannot be used) is run on
slickline with a releasing overshot. When
the single-shot enters the monel collars, a
monel sensor activates the releasing
overshot, disconnecting the single-shot from
the slick line. The slickline is removed from
the hole and the drillstring tripped to bottom.
The survey is taken and the pipe is tripped
back to 70". The single-shot is retrieved by
using a standard overshot on the: slickline.
Costs are reduced because tripping is much
quicker without an electric line on the
outside of the pipe, and the cost of the
electric line is eliminated. The cost of the
releasing overshot is only a fraction of the
electric line costs.
Without an MWD system for air holes, it is
much more difficult to use a steerable
system in the horizontal section. The
steerable system has to be oriented by a
steering tool, and the drillstring must be
tripped to 70" in order to install the steering
tool. The cost savings associated with
steerable systems are derived from reducing
the amount of tripping necessary to drill the
well. In an air hole, tripping is required
anyway, so steerable systems are frequently
not cost effective, especially since motor life
is shorter and less predictable. Ordinarily,
rotary assemblies are used to drill the
horizontal sections using motor corrections
as necessary.
Other alternatives to EMWD include using
either a continuous wire cartridge link to a
steering tool that stays downhole with the
drilling BHA, or a wet-connect to the
-~
steering tool. The former is dt scribed by
Shale and Moberley, 1992,'* whi e the latter
is described by Shale and Cury, 1993.19
The cartridge system is similar o the wet-
connect but, instead of having a single wet-
connect, the wireline is connect:d back to
the surface with a series of disposable
cartridges. It is connected into a slip ring
sub at the top of the kelly to allov electrical
connection while rotating. The system is
relatively new and its reliability is not yet
proven.
9 A cartridge data transmiss on (CDT)
system uses a steering tool hat allows
orientation of the drilling I iotor in a
particular direction, while sti I1 allowing
drilling straight ahead with drillstring
rotation. "... the CDT system comprises
three main subsections; the downhole
probe, which is connected to itransition
assembly; the wireline ca rtridge as-
sembly and cartridge landing assembly;
and, a rotating slip ring asseribly which
connects to the surface proc:ssing unit
and driller's remote display Data is
transmitted to the compute - interface
unit via a simple conductor w reline."
9 The time taken for a survey w th the wet-
connect system partially depe Ids on hole
geometry, but it is on the crder of 10
minutes.
Dreiling, et al., 199614discussed ising a wet
connect system. "In this system, he steering
probe is inserted in its rece ving non-
magnetic collar while the drillstri *lg is in the
vertical hole. The wireline is cut and a
connection made to a "wet-coinect" sub
inserted into the drillstring at t le surface.
The trip is then completed a i d drilling
operations begun. When a survel is desired,
the drillstring is "blown down" o evacuate
6-2 7
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
the air and the female end of the connection
is then lowered on wireline to the wet-
connect sub.” These operations were so
time-consuming and there was so much
trouble time that subsequent wells were
drilled with EMWD.
Regardless of which method is used with the
steering tool, failures in air are still a
problem. Like EMWD, steering tools fail
much more frequently in air than they do in
mud. Both tools need to be hardened to
work consistently in an air environment.
Hole Cleaning
It is more difficult to lift cuttings effectively
from a highly deviated or horizontal hole
than it is from a near-vertical hole. The
cuttings settling direction is still vertical
while the drilling fluid flow is not. As a
result, the cuttings tend to settle on the hole
bottom. There is a strong tendency for
cuttings beds to form at hole angles of from
45 to 60”. If accumulation is left unchecked,
this deposition can lead to difficulties in
tripping or even to stuck pipe. Also:
“Experience has shown that the
volume of air that will clean the
hole while drilling with a rotary
assembly will not necessarily clean
the hole during downhole motor
drilling with no drillstring
rotation.”
“In high inclination or horizontal
wells, cuttings fall to a maximum
inclination. Thus, poor hole
cleaning will be evidenced by
excessive drag while the BHA is
pulled through that section, and by
bridges encountered during a trip in
the hole.”
Shale, 199520
6-28
It is possible to cleln deviated and
horizontal holes drillec I underbalanced,
whether using dry air (l,attimore, Carden
and Fisher, 1987”), foam (Shale and Curry,
199319), gasified liquids (many horizontal
holes are drilled with gisified liquids in
Canada) and flowdrillir g (Pearsall and
Giddings fields of South ai id Central Texas).
Even when dry air s used, the rate
needed to clean the ho e is more than for
a vertical well. As a de-of-thumb, the
rate should be twice tiat recommended
by Angel, 1957.22 Even more rate is
required when drillil g with mist or
foam. The exact volt me is difficult to
predict. For this reison, it is often
desirable to run downliole motors using
oil as the lubricant.
Drillpipe rotation aids cleaning in an air
hole. Experience ha! shown that the
volume of air that will clean the hole
while drilling with a rotary assembly,
will not clean the htle while drilling
with a downhole m o t x (no drillstring
rotation). The cutting:, are agitated and
ground finer by the rotation of the
drillpipe, allowing the air to carry them
out of the hole.
Many studies of cutting; transport from
inclined holes have beer done for mud.
Relatively little has b :en done with
compressible fluids. The -e are theoretical
analyses of cuttings transliort for dry air,23
for foam,24and for gasifiec These
models have the same limitations as they do
in vertical hole applicatio is - for example,
the cuttings size is rarely known with any
accuracy.
A rule-of-thumb that seens to work is that
adequate cleaning of a ho rizontal hole will
probably be achieved by utVing 2.5 times the
volumetric rate that would have been
required for a vertical hole of the same
measured depth. In the absence of field
experience, this is probably a reasonable
starting point.
Torque and Drag
Torque and drag are significant issues in
drilling with compressible fluids. They are
caused by frictional interaction between the
drillstring and the wellbore wall. Drag is a
function of the frictional coefficient. In
mud-filled holes, the coefficient of friction is
regulated by the lubricity of the mud and the
relevant additives. In holes drilled with
compressible fluids, the drag can only be
impacted by modifying the frictional
coefficient (may be possible with foam or
mist), changing the profile of the well
(“building angle at higher rates and to low
inclinations will yield a greater drag than
buildup at low rates and to high
inclinations”26) or changing the string
weight (“reducing the tension in a dogleg
reduces the torque and drag in the
~ellbore”~~).
The friction coefficient in an air-drilled
hole can be three to four times that
expected in mud-filled holes (Shale,
1995JZ6 Carden, 1991,27 gives typical
numbers for friction coefficients with dry air
and with oil- and water-based muds. String
torque and drag must be carefully considered
before drilling a deviated or horizontal well
with a compressible fluid, to ensure that the
proposed BHA can be tripped in and out of
the hole and rotated safely, and can supply
the required weight on bit. Higher string
friction with air (or mist particularly) can
limit the ultimate horizontal departure that
can be attained to much less than that
achievable with a liquid drilling fluid. It
will also reduce the penetration rate that can
be achieved when drilling in orit nted mode.
Horizontal Section Length
The length of horizontal hole that can be
drilled with air will be less thai with mud.
At some point, drag will x-event the
drillstring or casing from fallini in the hole.
The drag is a function of the friction
coefficient between the pipe ancI the wall of
the hole. In a mud-filled hole. the friction
coefficient is affected by the lulricity of the
mud, which can be controlled w th additives.
There are no friction reducing additives that
can easily be added to air. Foan I or mist can
increase lubricity, but the att mdant hole
cleaning problems can often nullify the
effect. Cuttings will create addi,ional drag.
A typical friction coefficient fo . an air hole
is 0.45. Frictional coefficients i n mud-filled
holes range from 0.2 to 0.35. F gure 6-14 is
a plot of hook load versus hoiizontal hole
length for 5%-inch, 20 l b d f t ca ;ing at 2,600
feet TVD, with various friction coefficients.
When the hook load falls bel( w zero, the
pipe will no longer fall into the hole by
itself, limiting the amount of ho izontal hole
section that can be drilled.
Lithology and Target Consi raints
The types of lithologies that c; n be drilled
with air are limited. Gene-ally, older,
consolidated rocks are applic ible for air
drilling. Softer rocks will havl: a tendency
to slough since there are rcduced fluid
pressure forces to support the bc rehole wall.
The amount of water th It can be
accommodated in an air hole i t *limited. If
the formations above the tari:et reservoir
produce significant amounts 0. water, that
portion of the well would have to be drilled
with fluid. The horizontal sec ion can still
 -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

60000

50000

40000
F
v

U
(II
0 30000
4
Y
0

=
0
20000

10000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4510 5000

Horizontal Section Length {feet)

Figure 6-14. Horizontal section length versus hook load.

be drilled with air, if casing is set through
the water producing strata. A cost analysis
would have to be performed in order to
determine if an extra casing string would be
economical.
Air drilling cannot be continued when
excessive oil and/or gas rates are realized
from the producing formation. The gas
presents a fire hazard while tripping.
Normally, up to 5 MMcf/D can be kept off
the rig floor by using a blooie line with
proper jetting configurations. Large volumes
of oil must be picked up from the pit, stored
in tanks, cleaned and sold.
Without a true steerable system for an air
assemblies. The build and drop tendencies
of rotary hold assemblies are difficult to
maintain below 0.25"/100 feet. In thin
targets, too many motor correction runs
would usually be requirei to make air
drilling cost effective.
Summary
Underbalanced drilling of directional and
horizontal wells is essentii lly no different
than if these well were drill :d overbalanced
with mud. Drilling I Lirectional and
horizontal wells underbala wed is now a
practical proposition and can be a cost
effective alternative to dri ling with mud.
The operator needs to bc aware of the
limitations and advantages )f air drilling in
1

hole, thin reservoirs cannot be drilled order to optimize drilling 01 lerations. Some
efficiently. A target thickness of 50 feet or of the standard practices ised in drilling
more is required when using rotary vertical air holes have to b: modified. As

6-30
with any horizontal drilling operation,
careful planning is one of the keys to a
successful well. Underbalanced directional
surveying is evolving so rapidly? that
service companies should be consulted for
the status of current technology.
Specialized air motors are available. These
have largely overcome many of the
restrictions on using downhole motors with
compressible fluids. Even so, motor life can
still be shorter in an air-drilled hole than
when drilling with mud, and motor operating
procedures need careful attention.
Surveying the horizontal section is difficult
and time consuming. A reliable
electromagnetic MWD system would greatly
simplify survey programs and would make a
steerable system cost effective. Horizontal
drilling with air is more effective in thicker
target intervals because of the limitations of
steerable systems. Hole cleaning is more
difficult above inclinations of 50" and is
complicated even further when mist or foam
is used. The formations that are applicable
to air drilling are older, consolidated
formations that do not produce excessive
amounts of gas, oil, or water.
6.5 Percussion Drilling
Background
In percussion drilling, rock is broken by
causing the bit to repeatedly strike the
workfront, without imparting any significant
shearing component to its action. In oil and
gas drilling, this action is achieved by
incorporating a hammer tool in the BHA,
immediately above the bit. The hammer is
actuated by the drilling fluid flowing
through it. It takes energy from the fluid
flow and uses this to drive the bit down to
impact the rock, lift the bit, drive it down
again, and so on. Typical hamrier operation
rates are 10 to 20 Hz. Noise mz y or may not
be a problem; the operating frequencies are
in the low audible range (partb:ularly when
the bit is near the surface).
Percussion drilling is normally only used
when drilling with dry gas, mist or foam.
The main reason for this is that reliable
hammers are not available for drilling with
liquid (such as mud). One can ii nagine that a
liquid would effectively c ampen the
hammer's impact. With wate inflow, the
increased annular pressure can also dampen
percussion effectiveness. Mot lest pressure
increases (or differential iressure in
permeable rock) over format on pressure
may reduce penetration rates more than
would happen in rotary dri ling. This
pressure rapidly suppresses ten: ile failure at
the workfront that occurs in a d y hole being
percussion drilled. Similar da npening can
occur with foam.28
Impacts between teeth (imerts) of a
percussion bit and the rock cau: e crushing at
the points of impact. In add tion, impact
loading sends compressional ;tress waves
into the rock being drilled. Tht se reflect off
internal boundaries in the rock (grain
boundaries, bedding planes, et :.) as tensile
waves. These tensile waves sp 3111 fragments
from the rock surface. Since th rock breaks
in tension, the fracturing prccess is very
efficient. Percussion drilling can be one of
the most energy-efficient drillin g techniques.
It removes the largest volume D f rock for a
given quantity of energy input. Percussion
drilling is not appropriate i r soft rock,
particularly soft? ductile shale s. It should
not be used if even a shor interval of
ductile rock will be penetrated.
One of the main benefits c f percussion

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
drilling is a high penetration rate in hard
rock, with a low weight on bit. It can be
very difficult to get sufficient weight in the
string above the bit to drill hard rock near
surface with a roller cone bit. In this
situation, a hammer can be very beneficial.
Penetration rates with percussion drilling
can be significantly higher than those for
rotary drilling with the same drilling fluid,
even when it is possible to get full weight on
the roller cone bit. Details of penetration
rate increases associated with percussion
drilling are given by Finger, 1984,28 and
Pratt, 1989.29
Percussion drilling requires low weight on
bit. Only a few thousand pounds is required,
even for large diameter bits. The weight
only needs to be enough to ensure that the
bit is in contact with the workfront and to
actuate the hammer. The hammer action
provides the energy to break the rock, not
the string rotation or the weight on bit.
Whitelely and England, 1986;' suggested
drilloff tests to find the optimum weight for
each application.
Another potential benefit of percussion
drilling (over rotary drilling) is that the
reduced rotary speed and weight on bit can
increase the life of drillstring components.
Abrasive wear is much reduced, and the
fatigue life can be improved because of the
reduced number of string revolutions to drill
a given distance.
It has been claimed that hammer drilling will
reduce hole deviation, because the hammers
are operated at lower weights on bit
(Reinsvold et al., 198831). Pratt, 1989,29
noted that a stabilized hammer is required if
percussion drilling is to give dogleg
severities less than those for rotary drilling
and to avoid spiraled or ledged hole.
6-32
_l_l___
Equipment
Oilfield air percussion hammers, using
reinforced three cone bits, were introduced
in the early 1960s. Roller cone bits are not
used with current generatic n hammers since
higher impact energy levzls will lead to
fatigue failure of the bit 3ody. Industrial
hammers, with a solid heal! and a relatively
flat-bottomed bit, with ungsten carbide
inserts, supplanted the original oilfield
hammers. As Finger, 1 %4,28 indicated,
testing established that inc ustrial hammers,
with less WOB and abolt the same air
supply, drill much fastc.r than oilfield
hammers. Oilfield ha,mm :rs are designed
with lower piston velocitit s, to protect the
bearings. Also, energy tra isfer through the
one-piece industrial bit is F ore efficient than
through the bearings and t ireaded joints in
the roller bit.
Industrial hammers with flat-bottom bits
were used as early as tlie 1960s. The
operating pressure of thes e hammers was
typically 100 psi and their t ffectiveness was
limited. Hammers, wit 1 an operating
pressure range of 250 psi, u ere introduced in
the 1970s and penetration rates improved.
By the 1980s, the trend toward higher
pressure hammers continue 1, with operating
pressures as high as 350 €si; however, the
higher pressures can causc problems with
the flat-bottom bits. H#amner pressure drop
typically adds 150 to 200 psi to the
standpipe pressure. An ope 'ator will usually
need to run a booster, in addition to air
compressors. Othenvis z , no special
requirements are needed, t eyond those for
rotary drilling with the sane fluid. Finger,
1984,28 indicated that it has been
theoretically shown that thc power input to
the rock should increase as the 3/2 power of
the fluid supply pressure. F gure 6- 15 shows
laboratory data correlating ROP to supply
pressure.
Figure 6-16 shows one type of industrial
hammer. This figure indicates that an
industrial hammer transfers kinetic energy
through the bit to the rock by using a
reciprocating piston within the hammer. The
rock fails in compression and the hammer
drills ahead. In most cases, weight on bit is
maintained at less than 5000 lbf and the
hammer is rotated at 15 to 30 rpm. The
percussion hammer provides high
penetration rates at low bit weights. Figure
6-17 shows common flat-bottomed bits used
with an air percussion hammer.
The device in Figure 6-16 is commonly
called an internally ported hammer. High
pressure air is contained within the control
rod by the choke at the end of the rod. The
air pressure forces the piston to travel up and
down. The hammer in Figure 6-16 is in the
open position, as it would be while being
run into the hole. Once the bit is placed on
bottom, the bit pushes the piston up, until
these upper ports align with the upper
control rod window. High pressure air will
pass through the upper piston ports and into
the bottom air chamber, causing the piston
to move up. Once the piston moves above
the foot valve, the high pressure air is
allowed to bleed off through the bit. As the
piston continues to travel up, the lower
piston ports pass by the three lower windows
in the control rod, allowing high pressure air
to pass into the upper air chamber. The high
pressure air above the piston will cause the
piston to reverse direction and the piston is
forced down. As the piston hits the strike
face of the bit, the high pressure air above
the piston is vented below the choke,
through the lower piston ports.
Simultaneously, the upper piston ports will
again be aligned with the upper control rod
window, repeating the cycle.
Figure 6- 18 shows anothei hammer
available to the industry. l'his is an
externally ported hammer. The tool works
in the Same way as the internally ported
hammer except that the high pressure air
travels on the outside of the p ston rather
than through a central tube. Cor iponents of
this type of tool are shown in Fig ire 6- 19.
The rate of penetration of a hammer tool in
hard rock is proportional to th: operating
pressure. The higher the pressure differential
between the upstream and downstream side
of the choke, the more impact erergy that is
imparted to the bit. A common h ammer will
cycle at 10 to 20 Hz (higher pressure is
associated with a higher frequenc I).
If a rock's unconfined compressi re strength,
C,, is known, it is possible to use the high
efficiency of percussion drilling to estimate
the maximum penetration rate tiat will be
achieved. The mechanical spec fic energy,
MSE, for drilling, is the enzrgy input
required to excavate a unit voluine of rock.
In hard rock percussion drilling, this can be
close to the unconfined compress ve strength
of the rock (Teale, 1963,32 and Simon,
196333).An approximation of tke ROP can
be made:
> Assume that the MSE = C,.
> Determine the hammer ma. iufacturer's
power output value. The pen($ration rate
is related to the rock's unconfined
compressive strength, the har imer power
output and the hole area by:
 -- -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

70

60

=
cQ
fii
50

40

-5
K
.-
c
2 30
t
t 20

10

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Air Supply Pressure (psi)

Figure 6- 15. ROP for three different percussion tools with 8- to 8 W n c solid-head bits +
in Sierra White Granite, for a WOB of 5000 Ibf. The flaw r ste was between
600 and 1100 scfm for each hammer (affer Finger, 1984

Pln up Connection

Beckflow Valve

Control Rod

Control Rod Wlndows (4)

&-- Piston Foot Valve

e T P i s t o n Strike Face

-Upper Bearlng Surface

(lock rlngs attach here)

Lower Bearlng Surface

1- ---

d-Enhanced Inserts
Cutaway vlew o t a Downhole Hammer Blt Profile
lndustrlal Hammar with Speclffc Featuras

Figure 6-16. Internally ported hammer and a flat-bottom &it (z Inon.).

6-34
Figure 6-17. Flat-bottom bits, used in conjunction with an air percussion ham,ner
(anon.).

Figure 6-18. Externally ported hammer (anon.).

 -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

Piston

-0-Ring

a-
-Bit Retaine(r
Ring
0-Ring

Dart

V
Spring
B 8- Foot Vaive

Check
Valve Guide -@
Make-up
Ring -0 I
Drill Bit
Choke 8
Rigid Vaiv-

0-Ring - a L
Piston Casn

-
5" 8"

Piston Retainer Ring

Figure 6-19. Components of an externally ported hammer (a,ion.).

pressure is a function of tlie choke size, the

where:
ROP ...rate of penetration ( f a r ) ,
-
P .......hammer power output (hp),
C, .......unconfined compressive strength
air rate and the bottomhcle pressure. The
operating pressure is the d ifference between
the pressure upstream of 1 he choke and the
bottomhole pressure. Thi : deeper the well
gets, the higher the bottom hole pressure will
be. This reduces the pre ssure differential.
As a well gets deeper, snialler choke sizes
are required to maintain a :onstant operating
1

(psi), and pressure if the flow rate is not increased.

Dh .......hole diameter (inches). When water is encou itered, wellbore
pressure can rise dramatic illy and hammers
The pressure differential or operating often quit working.

6-36
The injection flow rates should meet the
manufacturer's specifications and should be
consistent with rates required for good hole
cleaning. If hole cleaning requires a higher
flow rate than the hammer can tolerate, there
may need to be a bypass port in the hammer
or in the string just above the hammer. This
port is adjusted (using a changeable
chokehozzle) to ensure that the hammer's
specifications are not exceeded.
Hammers require lubrication for trouble-free
operations. Inadequate lubrication is a
major cause of hammer wear and failure.
Most hammer manufacturers recommend
using rock drill oil, because it has a high
film strength and will adhere to the piston.
The oil is usually injected into the standpipe
with a positive displacement pump. The
minimum recommended injection rate is
approximately 0.2 quarts per 100 scfm per
hour. Alternatively, oil can be dumped
down the drillstring during connections.
When first running a hammer, several
gallons of oil should be poured down the
drillstring, to coat its inside; otherwise, very
little oil will reach the hammer during initial
injection.
A dirty drillstring can lead to premature
hammer failure. Rust, mud and dirt in the
drillstring can flake off while drilling with
the hammer and this debris will be carried
down to the hammer with the air. To work
effectively, hammer tools have small
clearances between the piston and other
parts. Dirt or rust between moving parts will
cause excessive wear. To avoid problems,
the inside of the drillstring should be
cleaned, especially if it has been previously
used in mud drilling. Many operators will
hit the drillpipe with a hammer as it is being
picked up, to knock rust and mud loose. The
best method for cleaning is to use a high
pressure wash inside the drillst ing, similar
to that used to clean paraffin rom tubing.
Avoid excessive doping of :onnections;
dope can accelerate hammer we; r.
One of the primary uses of hammers has
been to drill larger diameter sur-ace holes in
hard rock. When drilling wit11 the rotary
close to the surface, very little weight can
initially be applied to the bit, due to the
small number of drill collars. Not enough
weight can be applied to cause the rock to
fail in compression (the prin ary drilling
mechanism). A hammer will diill with very
low bit weights because thc energy is
supplied by the piston. Surface hole can be
drilled in a matter of hours rathe than days.
Hammers have also been usell to control
hole deviation. The literature i idicates that
a well drilled with a hammer uill have less
deviation than a well drilled wii h the rotary,
although no specific reason can be given. In
any event, penetration rates with the hammer
are much higher than with a rot t r y assembly
fanning bottom. The operator I hould prove
to himself that the added exlense of the
hammer is offset by lower f ~ a drillingl
costs. Deviation problems stil exist, even
with hammers.
Directional drilling is possi ,le with a
hammer in the string, usirg stabilizer
placement to control bit inclii iation. The
hammer's stiffness and proxim ty to the bit
can limit possible stabilizer placement,
restricting directional control.
Percussion hammers have been ised in place
of drilling with a typical rotary i ssembly, but
they are not economical when I iaximum bit
weights can be run with the rot: ry assembly.

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Even hammer bits should be rotated at the
slowest rotary speed possible, without
stalling the rotary drive (1 5 rpm, if possible).
The string is rotated only to ensure that the
bit inserts do not fall into cavities created by
the previous impact and to “pulverize” the
formation over the full cross-sectional area.
Rotation does not impart additional energy
to the rock. Pratt, 1989,29stated that “We
generally kept the rotary table speed below
45 rev/min because bit life above this value
is short.” Excessive rotary speed increases
gauge wear. Although penetration rates will
be comparable in both instances (hammer
versus rotary), the extra cost of the hammer
and potential failures makes the cost per foot
for percussion drilling higher. If maximum
bit weight cannot be run, then the hammer
will outperform the rotary assembly.
Whiteley and England, 1986,30 provided
some indication of the influence of WOB for
the bit-hammer combinations that they used
(refer to Figure 6-20).
Finger, 1984,28also addressed the issue of
WOB, emphasizing that solid heads are
vulnerable to excessive weight because they
are relatively weak in shear and that
maintaining relatively small weight control
can become difficult at greater depth.
Hole Cleaning
“Before we used the industrial air hammer,
we used Angel’s model to calculate
minimum air volumes as a function of depth.
Fill on bottom and long circulation times
necessary to clean the hole indicated that the
air volumes used were inadequate ... The
problems with the Angel model are that
cuttings slip velocity is neglected, cuttings
are assumed to be dust size, and 3,000 ft/min
air velocity is assumed to be adequate for
hole cleaning.”29 Pratt, 1989,29 indicated
that an alternative, more fundamental
6-38
-
cleaning model was adopt :d and modified
by:
> Using a revised air piediction module
inside the drillstring where the friction
factor was calibrate 1 from actual
measurements.
> Exit boundary conditioi~swere modified
as an input paramete and exit chip
velocity was fixed at zei 0.
> The influence of the BIIA and changing
hole size were incorpor; ted, and,
> Chip size change wa: built into the
model.
“Misting is usually reqi ired in larger-
diameter holes because of freshwater sands
encountered near the surfaze. Soaps, clay
stabilizers, and corrosion nhibitors mixed
with water are injected into the supply air to
facilitate hole cleaning, to avoid clay
swelling, and to protecl the drillstring. The
volume of chemicals and w iter injected into
the supply air is usually ne;;ligible and does
not affect the operation o f t le FPB/HT [flat-
bottomed percussion l i t h m m e r tool] at
typical injection rates :nd supply air
“Inhibited mist is a mixtu e of KC1 water
and soap to clean the hole of cuttings and
prevent mud rings from forming. This
formula also works in I irotecting water
sensitive shales from sloug ling. Usually a
concentration of 3 to 4% I:CI will provide
some inhibiting qualitie! to eliminate
hydration of clays; hc bwever, higher
concentrations may be req uired depending
on the degree of sensitivi y. An anionic
polymer can be used in con-unction with the
KC1 water and soap to prwide additional
inhibiting qualities. The liquid volume
fraction [for foam] must be maintained
between 2 to 5% to possess a high solids
 7000

6000
s
v

5000
C
0

3000
TI
5
2000
8
lo00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Bit Diameter (inches)

Figure 6-20. FPBLHT [flat-boftomed percussion bimammer tool] tandem rei :ommended
WOB versus hole size (after Whiteley and England, 198S3*).

carrying capacity [polymer base fluid]. Too
much liquid causes the foam to collapse
under its own weight, whereas too much air
- air pockets to form."34
causes large
Russell, 1993,35 also advocated misting
andor foaming to prevent air slugging and
cleanup. "To prevent air slugging, water
and foaming surfactant were sometimes used
in concentrations that were higher than
necessary. This increased the hydrostatic
pressure of foam in the annulus, which
reduced the frequency of the air hammer
and, as a result, also reduced its power .... It
became apparent that, to optimize air
hammer performance, a foam with high
bubble stability and low density was
required .... The desired foam properties
were achieved by adding polymers to the
water and foaming agent. The optimum
formula, per barrel of water, cor sisted of
1/8 lb polyanionic cellu ose polymer
(PAC)
1/23 Ib xanthan gum poly ner (XC)
1% foaming agent by weight
water.3935
Later CMC (carboxymethyl ct llulose) was
used instead of XC and PAC. It was less
expensive, easier to mix, resista it to calcium
and chloride ion contaminatim, and the
liquid volume was reduced.35
Gauge Wear
Hammers are not without prcblems. The
most significant problem has been gauge
wear. In some formations, . lat-bottomed
bits can loose gauge quickly. Higher bit
weights have a tendency to mcrease this

6-39
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
wear (Sheffield and Sitzman, 1985;34
Whiteley and England, 198630). Gauge
problems are particularly prevalent when
drilling through abrasive formations, such as
those with a high quartz content (Reinsvold,
et al., 198831). Undergauge hole is very
difficult to ream with a flat-bottomed bit and
hammer. Separate reaming runs with a
rotary assembly are required. A solution is
to continually downsize subsequent bit runs.
By running a smaller bit on the next run,
reaming can be avoided. Downsizing is
always an option in larger surface holes but
may be a limited option in smaller holes and
where long intervals are drilled.
The diamond-enhanced hammer bit was an
advancement in hammer bit technology,
designed to combat gauge problems. The
inserts are diamond-enhanced by fusing
polycrystalline diamond to the tungsten
carbide. This bit resists gauge wear and will
generally last longer than a standard hammer
bit. With the diamond-enhanced bit, gauge
problems are reduced but not eliminated.
Since these bits are much more expensive
than standard hammer bits, their application
should be economically justified. Figure 6-
21 is a schematic of a diamond-enhanced
insert. As can be seen, there is a layer of
polycrystalline diamond on top of the
tungsten carbide core of the insert, with
transition layers to prevent spalling of the
diamond. These bits have been found to be
much more effective in some horizontal
sections with extreme side loading and
abrasive sands (Dreiling, et al., 199614).
Smooth Hole
Pratt, 1989,29reported that hammer bits do
not necessarily drill a smooth wellbore.
Both spiral holes and ledges were observed
in test holes, drilled in granite blocks using
an industrial hammer and a flat-bottomed
6-40
bit. Figures 6-22 and (1-23 show these
effects. As a result, full- ;auge rotary bits
and stabilizers will not fo low the hammer
bit without reaming to bo tom. Whenever
possible, a slightly larger h,immer bit should
be used, prior to drillin,: with a rotary
assembly. Pratt used a stabilized body and
driver sub with gauge-p-otected bits to
eliminate the problem. It is appropriate to
use a near-bit stabilizer, or preferably a
hammer with a stabilized t ody. Otherwise,
the BHA can be very light md simple - one
or two collars and only eno Igh heaviwate to
avoid fatigue problems at ti e transition from
the collar to the heaviwate t 1 the drillpipe.
Po1ycrystalfin.sDiamond
-2 Tn nsltional Layers of
Dian ondCarbfd8 Composite
Figure 6-21. Diamond-€ ihanced Insert
(affer Reinsvold, et al., 19 383').
Do not ream down a hammer bit. If the
hammer actuates without s ifficient rock in
front of the bit, the bit can k reak off the rock
ledge before all of the )low energy is
absorbed. The hammer pi:ton then hits its
stops and a tensile wave is 1:reated in the bit
shank. This can rapidly lead to the bit
shanking and the he:ad falling off ...
Similarly, do not actuate the hammer if there
is any possibility of the )it not meeting
intact rock.
Figure 6-22. Spiral hole drilled with an industrial hammer and a flat-boffome d bit (after
Pratt, 1989*').

Figure 6-23. Ledges drilled with an industrial hammer and a flat-bottomerl bit (after
Praff, I989*').

Fatigue hammer, is reflected at the bit-ro :k interface

Over a period of time, a hammer will fail
and extra trips will be required to replace it.
To prevent excess wear, the inside of the
drillpipe should be clean. Dirt, rust and
scale will lead to premature failure.
Flat-head bits are prone to fatigue cracking
where the head attaches to the shank
(shanking the bit). This is one of the main
problems with percussion drilling. Some of
the energy in the compressional stress wave,
that is sent down through the bit by the
and travels back up through tl e bit as a
tensile wave. Concentration of these
repeated tensilc stresses at thc transition
from the bit head to the shank :an lead to
fatigue cracking. It is importait to avoid
large differences between the b t head and
shank diameters. This can be ~lifficultfor
some hole sizes (notably 171/2-irch hole) as
the shank size is dictated by the hammer to
be used, and there are some large gaps
between available hammer diame ters. Avoid
using smaller diameter hammes than the
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
hole can accommodate. This minimizes
the risk of bit shanking and provides more
hammer power, leading to higher
penetration rates.
Some flat-head bits are provided with a
fishing thread on top of the head. Fishing
for the head can be difficult if there is any
hole instability - debris often covers the
thread. An alternative is to use a “catching
ring” that prevents the bit head from being
left downhole when the hammer is tripped,
even if the head has separated from the
shank.
Performance
Pratt, 1989,29 cautioned that acoustic
analysis indicated that hammers may strike
more slowly than indicated by the
manufacturer’s specifications, confirming
that the manufacturer’s air volume
consumption curves are highly inaccurate in
deep oilfield applications. These curves are
commonly developed for atmospheric
pressure discharge porn the tool. Air
volume through the hammer is reduced
considerably by backpressure. Choke sizes
should be adjusted to keep the on- versus
off-bottom pressure difference at about 100
psi. Choke sizes can be calculated by using
the equations for calculating bottomhole
pressures.
Summary
9 Maintain proper WOB.
> Rotate as slowly as possible.
9 Provide an air bypass if necessary.
9 Keep the threads clean and use
recommended lubricant. Dope the pins
only.
> When changing out bits in unfinished
hole, be sure that the next bit is no more
6-42
than 0.25-inches largei than the bit being
removed.
9 Stabilize as required, particularly if the
bit size is more than two inches larger
than the outer d i m e t x of the hammer
tool.
> Monitor the cc~mpiessors and the
standpipe gauge.
9 Blow the hole clean pe riodically.
9 Never run on downholl :junk.
6.6 High Pressi ire Drilling
In previous chapters, vari,)us high pressure,
underbalanced drilling techniques were
described. These teciiniques included
flowdrilling, mudcapl di illing and snub
drilling. Each of these methods will be
discussed with emphasis o n their application
in high pressured environr ients. Because of
the high pressures, flowd illing with coiled
tubing (CTD) will also be discussed and
compared to jointed I ipe flowdrilling.
Special attention must be 1 jven to the higher
surface pressures because of the additional
forces required to o p ~ o s e them when
running tools and pipe into the hole.
Stringent safety considera tions are required
because of the higher s u f i ce pressures.
Flowdrilling in High Pi essured
Formations
Flowdrilling may be perfo med using jointed
pipe or coiled tubing (C’T). With the trend
towards drilling hjghe: pressured en-
vironments, more and more work is being
done with coiled tubing. Improvements in
CT manufacturing and CTD (coiled tubing
drilling) technology hav 2 facilitated this
trend. CTD provides a safer method of
drilling than jointed pipe drilling, primarily
due to the elimination of c innections.
"Coiled tubing provides a safe, rigless way
to perform underbalanced drilling and
significantly reduce formation damage in
horizontal wells, lateral drainholes and
deepenings. Coiled tubing units are
typically used for live well interventions.
Coiled tubing equipment isolates wellbores
from the atmosphere during the entire well
work or drilling operation and avoids killing
wells before tripping. Coiled tubing,
however, is also limited by higher cost
compared to fully depreciated conventional
rigs, and cannot perform jointed pipe
running for casing and tubing completion
operations.3736
Regardless of the increasing use of CTD, a
great amount of high pressure,
underbalanced drilling is performed using
jointed pipe. Most of this drilling also
involves drilling in horizontal laterals or
curves. This includes using drillpipe in the
string as well as using tubing drillstrings.
Without exception, all surface well control
equipment pressure ratings must be
increased to a safe level. The maximum
working pressure (MWP) of standard
BOPs must be upgraded to exceed the
highest possible surface pressures.
Rotating blowout preventer equipment
should replace the rotating head to achieve
safer, higher pressured operations. All
other surface equipment should also be
reviewed, to ensure maximum operational
safety.
In many high pressure drilling applications
with jointed pipe, using clear drilling fluids
could result in surface pressure that would
exceed even the higher rated maximum
working pressure of the RBOP. For
additional discussion on RBOPs, refer to
Chapter 2 or to Hannegan and Bourgoyne,
1995.37 Unfortunately, the F ermeability
impairment-reducing properties of clear
drilling fluids must be sacrificed n changing
to a more conventional heavier n md system.
The increased hydrostatic pressu .e resulting
from these heavier muds would still be
below the pore pressure in the arget, high
formations. Heavier muds wc uld reduce
surface annular pressures to a saj e operating
range and formation F ermeability
impairment would still be mil imized by
drilling underbalanced.
An example of flowdrilling very high
pressured formations using jointt d pipe is a
fractured limestone target at 13,000 feet,
with a pore pressure in excess of 2,100 psi; a
pressure gradient of 0.70 psi/f. At this
pressure level, the rig BOPs, mi st be rated
for 10,000 psi service. Mud weights of
approximately 13.0 ppg could ,e used to
achieve underbalanced drilling conditions,
and still reduce surface annular ~lressuresto
a safe operating limit. In this :xample, a
static surface pressure of greate * than 300
psi would be seen if a full column of
drilling fluid opposed formi tion pore
pressures. Reduction in flu d density,
caused by hydrocarbon influx and gas cut
mud, would result in high:r surface
pressures. Extreme care should be used to
ensure that these pressures remai I below the
MWP of the RBOP. Before mak ing trips in
such pressured environments, a higher
density mud could be bullheadell down the
annulus to subdue the well anc allow for
lower surface pressures durir g tripping
operations.
As even higher pressure areas are drilled,
coiled tubing drilling, mudcap drilling or
snub drilling may -be required (refer for
example, to Bloys, et al., 199438).
6-43
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Coiled tubing (CT) is ideal for deployment
in “live well” conditions. Its very design,
using a reel of continuous drillpipe,
eliminates the need for making connections,
required in jointed pipe operations. Coiled
tubing has a uniform outside diameter. This
eliminates tool joint and tubing upsets.
Leising and Newman, 1993,39 summarized
some typical CTD applications (refer to
Table 6-2). Vertical deepening, with a
pendular assembly to keep the hole straight,
is probably the most straightforward
application, A long BHA is used to provide
WOB without buckling the CT. The neutral
point is always in the BHA so that the CT is
always in tension.
Coiled tubing operations in Canada have
encompassed underbalanced deepening of
vertical wells and horizontal sidetracks, after
rotary drilling to the top of the target
formation. In Alaska, coiled tubing
operations have been coupled with larger
workover rigs. Snubbing jacks have also
been used for completion and running tubing
after drilling. Since CTD operations rely on
downhole tool movement with a mud motor,
rather than drillstring rotation, stripper
rubbers may be used to contain surface
annular pressures. “Typical CTU blowout
preventer stacks include a four ram unit with
tubing rams, blind rams, cutter rams (shear
rams), and slip rams. Above the rams is a
riser. The riser must be of sufficient length
to lubricate tools in or out of a live well. At
the top of the riser a hydraulic pack-off is
installed to facilitate an annular seal while
sliding pipe in or out of the well.”3 All rams
are replaced with an annular for shallow gas.
Snubbing CT into the well with hydraulic
jacking force is accomplished with an
injector head, rather than a snub unit. The
injector head is an i n t e F l part of a coiled
tubing unit. Its function i! to inject CT pipe
into, or remove it from, the well during live
well conditions.
Madigan, 1993,40 in dis cussing slimhole
CTD, indicated that:
“Openhole drilling with motors on
coiled tubing h IS several key
advantages over c( mventional rotary
drilling techniques First, a smaller,
much more mobile rig can be used.
Second, considerab le trip time can be
saved since connections do not have
to be made up and broken every
thirty feet. Thir3, coiled tubing
offers a cons iderable safety
advantage in that drilling can
proceed underbalar ced with relative
safety. y40
“Another benefit i: that the addition
of a circulating, sut above the motor
allows the drilliiig fluid to be
circulated out of the well
immediately upon :ompletion of the
well. The well c a i be immediately
tested, and the tubi ig stripped out of
the well under pressures as high as
5000 psi.”4o
Drilling engineer; often worry
whether relatively flexible coiled
tubing and the lack of drill collars
will allow drillin ; straight holes.
High speed PDMs and small fixed
cutter bits, such a: thermally stable
diamond (TSD) t its, allow much
higher rate of penet ration at lower bit
weights than poss ible with rolling
cutter bits, affordi ng straight hole.
TSDs apparently also produce
smaller cuttings.40
 Table 6-2.

1
Summary of Typical CTD Applications (aRer Leising and Newm 3n, 1993 "')

I
I
Vertical ~ Deviate1 f
Re-entry Drilling Deepening of existing wells Lateral drain ioles
New Well Drilling Disposal exploration wells Steam injec :ion
I
~ ~~ I

Observation and delineation wells Environmental ot servation

S limhole productiodinjection wells

Coiled tubing design and manufacturing > In Vertical Wells: "If a cmstant wall
technology continues to advance. Similarly, thickness with depth is a;sumed, the
slimhole tools run in the hole with CT have maximum depth of the CT i 1 the drilling
improved in recent years, with the increased fluid, without exceeding :io% of the
use and demand for these operations. With yield strength of the mater.al, is given
that has come improved field experience and by:
training. Higher strength alloy steels,
combined with sophisticated and rigorous OY
Dmax = 4.245 - 0.06493Wd,
(6.3)
quality assurance measures, provide safer,
more dependable CT products. Field testing
and computer modeling have also helped to where:
determine fatigue limits for every string of
CT pipe currently in use. D, ...maximum depth (feet),
Wdf.....drilling fluid weight (ppl ),
Design Considerations for Coil Tubing and,
Drilling 0, .......yield stress (psi).
Leising and Newman, 1993,39 is a good
reference on CTD design. The protocol Tapered strings can be used for greater
should (iteratively) entail: depths.

> Select the CT size, the hole size, the
drilling fluid, and the BHA.
> Calculate the reel weight and size. Be
sure it can be transported and will fit on
location.
P Calculate the tubing forces and stresses,
to ensure that they never exceed 80% of
the yield strength and that the minimum
acceptable WOB can be provided at TD.
Include friction associated with bending
the BHA around any curves.
9 In Deviated Wells: A tiibing forces
model should be used because of the
potential for helical locking in the hole.
The force that can be app1ic:d to the CT
to push the BHA around tt e curve and
into the deviated section inay also be
limited by the maximum fc rce that can
be applied in the vertical section.
0 Ensure that the inject01 can supply
the necessary pull/push :if kickoff is
shallow).

6-45
 - _~
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Calculate the drilling fluid pressure
drop in the CT, BHA and annulus at
100% motor flow capacity and
determine the absolute pressure in
the CT during drilling. Be certain
that pressure limitations are not
exceeded.
Assess torsional limitations. “The
downhole motor-stall torque should
be no larger than the maximum
working torque for the CT. When
the string is picked up, torque will be
near zero. During drilling, the torque
again will be at the maximum
operating torque. Torsional cycling
compounds bending cycling and
reduces fatigue life ....,939 In
general, torque is not a signijkant
limitation unless large hole drilling
is performed with small diameter
CT. This is most relevant to
shallow, vertical-hole drilling.
Calculate the fatigue life using the
parameters from above. Large
diameter and continuous application
of drilling pressure can increase
fatigue wear. Some life prediction
models are available.
Assess any hydraulic limits (assume
drilling at 80% of the maximum
motor flow rate). Consider hole
cleaning in vertical, inclined and
horizontal sections.
0 Be certain that methods for
directional control are possible. “If
the tubing is too limber, small WOB
and torque changes will change the
toolface angle. An orienting tool is
used to make toolface changes
during CTD. This tool can be
controlled from the surface by means
of pressure, weight, or an electric
6-46
.l__l__-
wireline and causes drilling to
proceed in a diffeient direction ...
BHA analysis is the same as for
conventional drilling. Because the
CT cannot be rotatel 1, to drill straight
ahead, either the na urd tendency of
the formation must be countered by
the BHA, or the orienting tool must
be actuated periodj :ally to prevent
undesired uniform b iild.”39
High Pressure Mudcap Drilling
Mudcap drilling, described n Chapter 2.9, is
another technique conimo ily adopted for
high pressure operations. 1‘his method uses
a high density, viscosific d mud in the
annulus, while drilling without returns; a
less expensive drilling fluid is pumped down
the drillpipe. In lower pressure
environments, this drilling fluid is often a
non-damaging clear fluid such as brine
water. As higher pore presure formations
are encountered, the ma: .imum working
pressure of the M O P is rc:ached with this
relatively low density fluid. Mudcap drilling
in these areas requires highe r density drilling
fluids.
Consider, for example, ( 1 formation at
15,000 feet, with a pore prc mure of 1 1,900
psi. The mud weight nece;sary to balance
this pressure is approxim itely 15.2 ppg.
Mudcap drilling in this for nation could be
performed with a 14.0 3pg viscosified
annular fluid closed in at t le surface, with
approximately 1,000 psi pressure. The
drilling fluid pumped throL gh the drillpipe
must weigh more than satuiated NaCl brine
water, due to the 4.,10(1 psi resulting
underbalanced pressure. Th at pressure, plus
the frictional pressure losse: #,would put too
great a strain on su face pumping
equipment. An 11.7 ppg ( alcium chloride
water (40.0%calcium chloride by weight of
solution) would lower surface pumping
pressures by 1,326 psi, still resulting in
excessive conditions. More costly brines
such as calcium bromide or zinc bromide
would be cost prohibitive. A 12.8 ppg
lignosulfonate mud could be used to mudcap
drill the zone, with surface pump pressures
of 1,916 psi plus friction loss.
In selecting fluids to be used for mudcap
drilling projects, a close evaluation of cost
and possible formation impairment must be
factored into the equation. The maximum
operating limits of the rig’s pumps, as well
as its BOPs and the M O P must also be
considered. The optimum design for the job
requires a balance between these pressure
limits and the cost of the necessary fluids.
Bloys et al., 1994,38 provided additional
discussion of required equipment for
offshore operations.
Snub Drilling in High Pressure
Formations
Conventional snubbing units, as well as
hydraulic rig assist (HRA) snubbing, allow
entering a well under pressure. In
underbalanced drilling, snubbing enables a
we11 to be safely drilled, by allowing the
removal and insertion of all downhole
equipment, including tools and pipe, under
live well conditions. HRA snubbing was
introduced in Canada roughly fifteen years
ago. About eight years ago, it began to be
used in the United States. It offers a lower
cost alternative to the conventional snub
unit.
Equipment for HRA snubbing is designed to
be portable and easy to rig up and rig down.
It consists of a set of hydraulic ram-type
BOPs, connected directly above the rig
BOPs or MOP. A pair of hydraulic
cylinders provides the jacking f irce for pipe
movement. This equipment, ;long with a
working platform and contrcll panel, is
transported on a tandem axle truck which
also carries the hydraulic pcwer source.
Risers are used to position t i e unit just
above bhe rotary table. As pari of this riser
spool, ports with hydraulicdly-operated
valves are added to bleed off md equalize
pressures between the ram prevl :nters and an
annular preventer mounted or top of the
snub stack. Above this annu ar, a set of
inverted slips, or stationary siubbers, are
installed, to hold the pipe while the snubbing
operator extends or retracts 1 he traveling
head of the unit. In this manner, the
operator is able to move the pile into or out
of the well one step at a time. The inverted
positioning of these slips prevc:nts the pipe
from being pushed out of the well by the
pressure. A second set of irverted slips,
called traveling snubbers, is mcunted on the
bottom of the traveling head, dong with a
conventional set of slips, moun ed on top of
the traveling head. This trawling head is
fixed on top of the hydraulic cylinders, to
mechanically push or pull the ~ i p from
e the
wellbore under pressure.
HRA snubbing is so named because it
assists the drilling rig, while iising the rig
drawworks and derrick for pulling and
racking pipe during trips. Th: HRA snub
operator works on the unit platform,
operating the hydraulic cylindc rs, slips and
BOPs at the control panel. :‘his operator
must work very closely with he driller in
coordinating all rig activities. In snubbing
pipe into the hole, the hydratlic cylinders
provide the physical force to ~ u s hthe pipe
downhole under “pipe light’ conditions.
When sufficient pipe has been run to allow
enough weight in the strin;, the pipe
becomes “pipe heavy,” and the cylinders are
Chapter 6 Special Consideratlons
no longer required to push the pipe into the
hole. The rig drawworks are then used to
run the pipe into the hole or pull it from the
well, until a “pipe light” condition again
exists.
A typical HRA snubbing unit crew consists
of two men per twelve hour tower and one
twenty-four hour supervisor, for a total
compliment of five men. Close coordination
between the toolpusher and the snubbing
supervisor is very important. The rig crew
and the snub crew must work together to
safely achieve the desired drilling goal. Due
to the technical nature of snubbing
equipment and because of the advanced
training and experience of the snubbing
supervisor, the snubbing supervisor has final
authority whenever disputes arise. Aside
from the very high daily expense of the
snubbing unit, there are a number of
advantages to snubbing, including the
following:
9 Pressure control is handled with the
snubbing unit’s BOPs, with its annular
preventer as a primary system and its
rams as secondary preventers. The
snubbing unit also has its own
accumulator system. The rig BOPs and
accumulator provide backup to these
systems.
P Snubbing crew personnel are highly
trained and experienced in working with
high pressure at the surface; rig
personnel are more accustomed to
controlling and preventing such
pressures.
9 In the event of “pipe light” conditions,
the snubbing unit can provide the
necessary control to inject or pull pipe
and tools under pressure.
6-48
Snubbing offers a versatile and safe, yet
expensive, solution in underbalanced
drilling operations. To offs :t this expense, it
is possible to minimize the time on location
for these services. Snubking provides the
most positive method for pipe movement
and pressure control through its independent
use of hydraulic cylinders, pipe slips and
BOPs.
6.7 Cementing
Introduction
Slotted or pre-drilled liner s are commonly
run in high permeabilit I environments.
There are situations when : cementing and
perforating are carried out; for example, in
lower permeability environ nents, in certain
naturally fractured fonnati ins, or where a
gas cap needs to be cement€d off, etc.
Remedial procedures to overcome
incomplete cement col imns due to
formation fracturing or e: xessive loss of
returns, are expensive anc historically are
relatively ineffective. Lig itweight cement
slurries were designed to o\ ercome gradient-
driven loss of cement to i i ~ i t uformations
(either from hydraulic fracturing in
formations with low in-situ stresses and low
tensile strength or flow into naturally
fractured or cavernous fori nations). These
slurries complement othe . underbalanced
operations performed on a 1 vell; there is less
chance of fracturing weak formations and
the number of stages r:quired can be
reduced. This section b riefly highlights
some of the design coisiderations for
underbalanced cementing.
Normal extenders can be used to provide
slurries with densities as 1c w as 11.5 to 12
ppg. For densities less .han this, water
separation becomes a significant problem,
unless alternate methodologies are adopted.
These alternatives include using hollow
microspheres as extenders or using cement
foamed with nitrogen.
Extremely lightweight cement can be used
Provide primary cementing in
formations that will fiacture easily.
Foamed cement density can be reduced
to as low as 6 ppg in order to minimize,
or completely eliminate, losses during
single-stage cementing of long intervals.
Cements with light-weight solid
extenders are commonly used for
primary cementing of conductor and
surface pipes, where washouts and low
fracturing pressures are common.
Cure Lost Circulation in Cavernous
Vugs: Remedial plugging of large vugs
is not always effective with conventional
systems, since gravity causes the slurry
to slump to the bottom of the cavity.
Thixotropic characteristics of foamed
cement can reduce this gravitational
segregation.
Squeezing Depleted Zones: Squeezing is
carried out to place cement in a specific
location to achieve an hydraulic seat.
This includes shutting off perforations,
fractures, channels and other undesirable
voids. Accurate placement and
controlled dehydration is difficult in
formations that cannot tolerate con-
ventional cement densities (13 to 16
PPg)* Light-weight systems are
appropriate.
Zonal Isolation: Gas influx during
hydration and setting may be reduced if
foamed cements are used.
P Heat Insulation: As is tlie case for
foamed drilling in permdrost, the
entrained voids in foamed cements
provide good insulating char: cteristics.
Properties of Foamed Ceme nt
Nitrogen is incorporated direci ly into the
slurry. Some modifications cf the base
cement system are usually idopted to
guarantee relatively homogem ous distri-
bution of the gas phase in the slurry.
Conventional extenders, such as perlite, will
crush as hydrostatic pressure of the column
increases. Nitrogen concentrati ms, on the
other hand, can be increased to overcome
volumetric reductions with incre sing depth.
On location, foamed cement is generated by
providing gas from a compresso. or a liquid
nitrogen vaporizing unit; surfa ctant(s) are
added to stabilize the foam. l'he specific
surfactant system used is a kej to cement
stability, particularly in th ; alkaline
environment of the water phase c F the slurry.
As with foamed drilling fluids, rheology is
relatively complex, depending on the gas
content, bubble size, water-to-c :merit ratio
... Pumping is usually not a p-oblem and
these foams can be generally c iaracterized
as pseudoplastic fluids. The f l c w behavior
index, n', generally decreases as the quality
of the foam increases. Relarders and
accelerators can be used, as in conventional
systems, in accordance wi :h service
company recommendations, an( preferably
in conjunction with supporting laboratory
information.
The questions many operators as :are:
P Will the strength of the system be
adequate and will the sheath be
completely destroyed by I erforating?
 --
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
The compressive strength of the foam
slurry will generally be higher than a
comparable non-foamed slurry of the
same density. Compressive strength will
vary with the base slurry density and the
foam quality. Consider the specifics of
the well and consult with the service
company. The degree and impact of
perforation damage has probably not
been adequately quantified.
Will there be gas migration through the
cement itself a f e r the system has set?
Possibly. Consult with the service
company to design an appropriate
system.
Will bond be any different than for
conventional systems? The same
precautions apply as for any cement
system, the most important being
effective mud removal.
Systems With Low Density
Particulate Additives
The service companies also have various
competitive products where hydrostatic head
of the cement column is reduced by the
addition of lightweight particulates, for
example hollow microspheres. Using these
as extenders facilitates developing lower
density (9 to 12 ppg) with only modest
sacrifices in strength, permeability and free
water segregation. There are upper limits of
applicability associated with hydrostatic
particle crushing; but these limits are often
quite high. “Extra caution is required when
mixing slurries with densities below 9
lb/gal.” It is important that free water is
carefully controlled. Hollow glass spheres
have been used to lighten drilling fluids,
with the advantage that the system is
relatively incompressible. These drilling
systems have been described by Medley et
6-50
- _ _ _ _ ~
al, 1995.42
Design Consideration,5
Foam Quality
As with foamed drilling fl uids, foam quality
indicates the volumetric c( Incentration of gas
in the total cement sysiem. In general,
depending on the specifi : application, the
quality should not exce:d 40 to 44%.41
Recent publications SUE gest that higher
qualities may be used, clepending on the
required strength and permeability of the
sheath. Good foam stabi ity is essential in
order to maintain a pore gtructure which is
not highly interconnected when the cement
sets. “This [interconnecti rrity] is caused by
unstable nitrogen bubble walls that rupture
upon contact with other nitrogen bubbles,
then bubbles coalesce forming large gas
pockets. This results n a sponge-like
structure with PO ;sible density
inhomogeneity due to grav ity drainage of the
base slurry. A good rule-of-thumb for an
initial design is to mix thr base slurry at its
optimum water ratio ... The same
mechanisms that product free water will
contribute to segregati on in foamed
slurries.7743
Foamers and stabilizers a e selected on the
basis of stability, efficiei cy, compatibility
(elevated temperature, pressure, highly
alkaline calcium containi ng water phase),
adequate strength and per meability control,
cost, safety, ease of handling ... Pure
surfactants are never us1 :d without foam
stabilizers, preventinghr hibiting bubble
coalescence. de Rozib es and Ferrikre,
1990,43 found it difficult to produce stable
foams with qualities gi eater than 70%
(except in certain high sk ear environments
where they reached 80%).
PVT Behavior
Nitrogen requirements are affected by the
system response to temperature and
pressure; the pressure after displacement and
the temperature prior to setting. Cement
wellbore hydraulics simulators are available
for designing the nitrogen requirements.
Cement systems with nitrogen are
commonly designed to yield densities in the
range of 7 to 11 ppg. System design is
similar to conventional systems, taking into
account the density variations and the in-situ
fracture and formation pressure gradients.
Cement System
Nitrogen requirements are also affected by
the formulation of the basic system. The
base slurry can be extended itself and this
will reduce nitrogen requirements (higher
water content). This will however lead to
sacrifices in strength and permeability. In
foamed cementing, it is essential to have a
reliable caliper log since the hydrostatic
head strongly influences the system’s
densities. Finally, non-nitrifed caps (on the
order of 500 feet) of mud, spacer or cement
are commonly used when circulating to the
surface.
Free Water
Excess free water is an extremely critical
issue in deviated, particularly horizontal
sections. “This is of particular importance
in nonconventional wells, since any free
water present may migrate to the high side
of the annulus and create a channel.” 44 This
may severely restrict the use of some foamed
or solid extended systems; regardless, great
care is required. Requirements for
horizontal well cementing are well
summarized by Wilson, 1991.45 Ryan et al.,
1995,46 provided general guidelines for mud
clean-up in horizontal wells.
Backpressure
With modern simulation comp iter codes,
the hydrostatic and density pro ’ile can be
characterized during all of the circulation
period. Accurate backpressu re control
during circulation to the surface i ; extremely
important (de Rozikres and Ferris -e, 199043).
Permeability
“Permeability increases with qua ity. When
the bubbles are small and the listribution
uniform, this increase is very pro1 Lressive. If
the bubbles are non-unif jrm, the
permeability remains fairly lorn and then
increases sharply. This transit ion occurs
between [lo and 10.85 ppg] on he class G
system and between [9.2 and 10 l~pg]on the
class C system. Therefore it secms that in
case of non-uniform bubbles, a 1 iercolation
threshold occurs around 35% qu zlity.” 43
Compressive Strength
Below 5 ppg, foams are not sol d. Above
this density, strength and p xmeability
depend on the bubble size distrimtion, the
cement type, the additives and inany other
parameters. Table 6-3 shc ws some
controlled laboratory data from c e Rozikres
and Ferri&e, 1990.43 Measur :ments by
these authors also supported using the
thickening time of the base slurry to estimate
the thickening time of the comple e system.
Fluid Loss
In general, increasing the g;ts content
reduces the fluid loss. This is shown in
Figures 6-24 and 6-25, from C’hmilowski
and Kondratoff, 1992.47 System
permeability can also be ajfected by
temperature. Increased tempe :ature can
reduce permeability due to )referential
growth of certain crystals.
 -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

Table 6-3. Example unconfined compressive strengths and permeab lities for various
foamed cements (after de Rozieres and Ferriere, 1990&,

Class G foamed cement (curing time 72 hours at 81'9

Broad Bubble Size Distribution Narrow Bubble 2 'ize Distribution

Compressive Permeability
Strength (md)
(Psi)

1.89 4915

1.45 3

1.27 14.5

1.12 173

0.85 676

0.6 1 3730

Class C foamed cement (curing time 72 hours at 81 OF)

Broad Bubble Size Distribution Narrow Bubble 6 ire Distribution

Compressive Permeability Compressive Permeability

Strength (md) Strength (md)
(Psi) (Psi)

3015 0.050

2030 0.0075 1335 1.25

5.7

25.7

199

6300

6-52
 160

140

120

0
-
E 100
0
v
u)
$ 80
-I
TI
iai 60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (minutes)

Figure 6-24. Fluid loss values for varying foamed cement qualities (after Chmilowski
and Kondratoff, 199Z4').

120 I I I I

100

0
-
80
E
0
v
cn
60
3
E
a
40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (minutes)

Figure 6-25. Fluid loss values for 37% quality foamed cement with vaying amounts of
fluid loss additive (after Chmilowski and Kondratoff, 1992 ).

-
6-53
Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Basic Design
The design of a foamed cement job should
consider the pressure and density profiles at
various stages during circulation and not just
at the end of the job. Simulators consider,
for each stage, the depth to the middlet of
the stage, and calculate the pressure at the
middlet of the stage. The overall job design
optimizes:
9 The number of stages,
9 The nitrogen ratio for each stage,
P The value of the backpressure (critical
because the magnitude of the back-
pressure strongly affects the amount of
base fluid in the well) and,
9 The number of feet of cap fluid and its
method of placement. The cap can be
circulated ahead of the foam or can be
pumped when foam first reaches the
surface (bullheading down the annulus).
While more difficult operationally, the
second option may be preferable to avoid
U-tubing of the first foam behind the
cap. Also, if the cap precedes the foam,
the hydrostatic pressure of the column
may exceed the fracturing pressure when
the cap turns around the shoe. For
bullheading, after foam has reached the
surface and the correct backpressure is
applied, the tail is pumped and followed
with mud (avoid free fall). When the tail
has turned the shoe, pumping stops and
the well is shut in, keeping backpressure
on the return line. The cap is then
pumped down the casing.
The governing constraints are:
P The hydrostatic profile of the column
should always remain below
fracturing pressure,
One service company uses the bottom of the stage.
6-54
P In certain environmeits, it may be
possible to cement c( kmpletely under-
balanced by cement ng below the
formation pressure. Thj s is only possible
if it can be guarantee11 that the slurry
quality will not be atlversely affected
(gas pockets, supplemei itary liquids) and
that channeling and/or microannuli will
not develop. Work 1:losely with the
service company.
> The density profile at tlie end of the job
must provide the cenent qualities to
support casing and F rovide adequate
isolation,
P The procedures need to be as
operationally simple as : iossible,
9 Cement loss must be mi iimized and,
9 Nitrogen usage should t: e minimized.
Purvis and Smith, 1994,48 discussed some
operational issues and presented case
studies. Chmilowski i nd Kondratoff,
1992,47 provided observatic Ins on designing
foamed cement squeeze 01)erations in low
pressure, highly permeable formations (e.g.,
the Ellenberger and San 4ndres in West
Texas, the Sadlerochit in jlaska, the Keg
River, Wabamum and Led1 c D3 in Canada
and the Baturaja in Indsnesia). They
advocated more effective u: e of information
from pre-squeeze injectivity data.
6.8 Formation €1 raluation
Evaluation of Underbali rnced Holes
Evaluation of Formation Fluids While
Drilling
the The information that can b : acquired while
drilling underbalanced holl :s is commonly
more diagnostic than that obtained while
drilling conventional holes. Since under-
balanced drilling implies that the pressures
in the borehole are less than formation
pressures, formation fluids may be produced
into the borehole. The circulating drilling
fluids will carry these fluids to the surface
where these produced fluids may be
evaluated.
Evaluation at the surface can be qualitative
or quantitative. For instance, an experienced
driller can infer something about the
produced fluids by simply watching the flare
or effluent at the end of the blooie line in an
open drilling system. Increased amounts of
natural gas will, of course, lead to a larger
flare. Oil would cause a darkening of smoke
from the flare while an influx of water will
result in a noticeable change in the color of
the flare, if not extinguishing it altogether.
Mud logging should be used to help identify
the formations, assess the quality of the
reservoir rock, and pinpoint the types and
depths of formation fluid influx into the
wellbore.
In a closed system, flares may still be
monitored but liquids can be quantitatively
> Epitherml
- -
Neutron
..
-
To identify porosity
__ -__ - . -
.. --
of liquid-filledzones.
measured, using sight tubes at! ached to the
separator at various levels. Other instru-
mentation can be used to keep rack of fluid
'
types and rates. In addition, the various
liquids produced can be collect€d in separate
tanks after separation, for recycling, sales or
disposal at a later time.
Evaluation with Logging Tc BOIS49s0951*52
The choice of logging tools run into a
borehole, whether drilled unde rbalanced or
not, will largely depend on wh, it liquids are
in the borehole at the time of 13gging. If a
liquid was used to drill the hol: and covers
the zones of interest during logging, the
logging program would be no ( ifferent than
for a conventionally drilled hole. Depending
on the pressure balance at .he time of
logging, the wireline tools miglit have to be
run through a lubricator. Hoivever, if the
hole was drilled with gas (zir, methane,
nitrogen ...) and gas remains o"er the zones
of interest at the time of loggilg, a careful
selection of logging tools is recluired. Any,
or all, of the following tools c o ~ l dbe useful
for evaluation of such holes:
- -- - - - - . - . __ - -- I

Chapter 6 Special Considerations
Gamma Ray Log
The Gamma Ray Log measures the natural
radioactivity of the formation and usually
correlates with the Spontaneous Potential,
SPY (which cannot be run in gas-filled
boreholes). Like the SPYthe gamma log can
distinguish sands from normally more
radioactive shales. Also, it provides a good
correlation curve, defines bed thicknesses,
and aids in interpretation of environmental
deposition. It is usually a more diagnostic
indicator of beds in a carbonate sequence
than the SP. The gamma log can be run in
any liquid- or gas-filled hole, either cased or
uncased. A gamma log run in a gas-filled
borehole may have a slightly higher
radioactive count than the same log run in a
hole filled with mud, particularly if the mud
has a high concentration of barite.
Spectral Gamma Ray Log
Like the conventional Gamma Ray Log, the
Spectral Gamma Ray Log records gamma
ray intensity; however, additional curves
identify potentially productive zones. These
curves (uranium, potasium and thorium
concentrations) also provide for more
detailed correlation with nearby wells that
have similar information. Sometimes,
naturally fractured zones or carbonates will
have small quantities of uranium,
precipitated by subsurface water flow. This
can be identified by the uranium curve as a
potentially productive zone whereas it might
be misinterpreted as a shale interval from the
gamma ray log. In an underbalanced hole,
this would provide important auxiliary
information to help pinpoint flow intervals.
Epithermal Neutron Log
Neutron logging instruments contain a
radioactive source that bombards the
formation with fast neutrons. These
neutrons are slowed primarily by hydrogen
6-56
-I -
atoms in formation flui Is and can be
counted by detectors i n th: tool which are
scaled in porosity units. 11 clean or shale-
free formations, the neutrm log does not
recognize gas-filled poro:ity. It can be
compared with another porc sity device, such
as a density log, to detect gas-filled zones
(crossover). It can all o be used in
combination with other ~orositylogs for
interpretation of lithology, including shaly
sands.
In an air-filled or mixed fluid (such as
nitrified crude oil) hole, the normal
Compensated Neutron Log will not respond
properly; detrimental effect: of the borehole
fluid can be minimized vith a Sidewall
Epithermal Neutron instrurient. In such a
tool, both the neutron iource and the
detector are mounted in a pad shoe that is
pressed against the )orehole wall.
Intermediate speed (e:pith :rmal) neutrons
can then accurately reflect the liquid-filled
porosity. Log interpret8 tion charts are
available to distinguish sandstone and
dolomite porosity from lime stone porosity.
Induction Resistivity Log
The induction log is designc. d for medium to
deep investigation If formation
conductivity. It is pro1)ably the most
commonly run logging tciol. This tool
consists of one or more ccils that generate
an alternating electromagn ;tic field. The
induced currents, which depend on the
conductivity of the formati on, are detected
by receiver coils. Multiple coils are used to
focus the measurement deep into the
formation. This minimizes effects of the
borehole, the invaded zoie, and nearby
zones. The induction log lvorks best when
the borehole fluid is rc:lati-rely resistive, as
would be the case with fresl iwater, oil-based
muds or empty boreholes. Focused
resistivity tools, such as the Laterolog,? are
recommended for conductive borehole
fluids, but are not suitable for air-filled holes
where air (or other gases) remains in the
borehole at the time of logging.
With a measurement of formation resistivity,
Rt, (the reciprocal of conductivity) and
knowledge of porosity, @, from other logs or
core measurements, formation water
resistivity, Rw,the cementation exponent, m,
and the saturation exponent, n; an estimation
of water saturation, Sw,may be made from
the classic Archie's equation.'
[3--]
Iln
s, = (6.4)
Where significant amounts of conductive
minerals, such as clay, are also present in the
formation, allowance must be made for their
influence on the total resistivity. As with
logging in conventional holes, consideration
must also be given to borehole geometry and
bed thickness.
If a Dual Induction Focused Log is run in an
air hole, the SP and focused curves are not
presented (because a conductive borehole
liquid would be required) but the medium
and deep induction curves do an excellent
job, due to the lack of invasion and reduced
borehole fluid effects.
High Resolution Density Log
Under ideal conditions, the density log can
provide excellent measurements of porosity
in a gas-drilled hole. This tool, which is
firmly pressed against the borehole wall,
emits a beam of gamma rays into the rock,
Mark of Schlumberger.
assuming a = 1
__
from a source, such as C S ' ~ ~TI~ese
. gamma
rays interact with electrons in thz formation
through Compton scattering. TI e resulting,
lower-energy gamma rays are sei ised by two
detectors above the source. Although the
tool responds to electron density, for most
formatibn rocks the apparent bulk density is
practically identical to the zctual bulk
density. For a few rocks or mi ierals, such
as sylvite and halite (and to a 1:sser extent
gypsum, anhydrite, and cc al), small
corrections are needed to arrive st true bulk
density values. In addition to bilk density,
the tool will record an index of photoelectric
absorption, Pe. This value ii useful in
determining formation lithology. Porosity is
calculated from:
@= -Pb XlOO
Pm - P f
where:
@ .........porosity (percent),
Pma .....density of the rock matrix (g/cm3),
Pb ......bulk density of the formal ion
(g/cm3), and,
pf .......density of the formation f uid
(g/cm3>.
One of the difficulties in this fo mulation is
selecting pf. To illustrate the inportance of
selecting the correct densit r for the
formation fluid, consider the following
example. If a gas zone is dril ed with an
aqueous mud, pf could be taken i s l g/cm3. If
the same hole is air-drilled, a possible
assumption for pf would be 0.5 g/cm3.
Assuming P b = 2.1 g/Cm3 and Pma = 2.64
g/cm3, porosity would be calcula ed as:
'
2.64 - 2.1
= 33% for an aque )us mud
= 2.64- 1.0
or
6-57

Chapter 6 Speciaal Considerations
' 2.64 - 2.1
= 2.64- 05
= 25% for an air drilled hole
Conditions that can cause difficulties with
density log interpretation include rugose or
caved boreholes and lack of information on
matrix or fluid density. Environmental
corrections must be made for the borehole
size and the fluid in the well.
Temperature Log
Because cooling occurs as gas expands into
the wellbore from the formation, a
temperature log can assist in pinpointing
zones of gas entry. Estimates may be made
of the percent contribution from each
interval. Temperature logging can also
locate zones of lost circulation or fluid entry
into the formation.
Either absolute or differential temperature
can be measured. A logging tool that
measures differential temperatures will
quantify the temperature difference between
one sensor and another, located a short
distance away. The differential temperature
curve allows observation of very small
temperature changes without the need to
frequently adjust the borehole temperature
curve scale. Temperature tools are usually
combined with gamma ray tools for
correlation and readings are taken as the tool
is run into the borehole.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Log
Although Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
(NMR) logs are less commonly used in
underbalanced holes, they can provide useful
information for liquid-filled formations.
Borehole fluid will not affect these
measurements. Parameters such as effective
porosity, initial water saturation, and
permeability (especially for sandstones) can
6-58
-
be estimated without pr or knowledge of
lithology or calibrations T Jith cores. Other
information, such as oil viscosity, pore size
distribution, and residual ( iil saturation, may
also be estimated.
NMR tools evaluate the riagnetic moments
of hydrogen nuclei, abur dantly present in
both water and oil. Magnets in the tool
orient the magnetic rioments of the
hydrogen nuclei parallel 1 0 the field. The
magnitude of the magnet zation is directly
related to the number of h) drogen nuclei and
consequently the liquid-fi led porosity. By
disturbing the magnetic 'ield with an RF
pulse from the tool, the ra:e of return of the
nuclei to their original coiifiguration can be
measured. Short relaxatior times correspond
to small pores, long relaxa ion times indicate
large pores. The variaiice in relaxation
times can be related to por size distribution,
which can be correlated to capillary pressure
and permeability. Fluid f ow should be not
be permitted while these neasurements are
made.
MWD
If an MWD (Measuremer t While Drilling)
system is used, further elraluation may be
made, while drilling with ntegrated logging
devices that sense n atural radiation,
resistivity and porosity. If gas or gasified
liquid is used as thc drilling fluid,
conventional mud pulse te lemetry cannot be
used to transmit the sign; Is. Alternatively,
as described previous !y, other data
transmission systerns: such as
electromagnetic or hard-w red tools, may be
considered.
Coring Underbalancecj
Underbalanced coring has been carried out,
to obtain relatively pristinc samples and still
avoid formation damage. Reducing coring
fluid invasion allows for careful
determinations of formation properties
where wettability alteration has been
minimized.
Permeability And Deliverability
Assessments
Butler et al., 1996,53emphasized the value
of pressure monitoring for real-time
evaluation of reservoirs; to identify geologic
anomalies (fractures, tight zones, pinchouts,
discontinuities, water zones ... ). Computer
modeling may be used during drilling to
evaluate sandface drawdown, develop
inflow performance relationships, and, in
combination with mass balance monitoring,
indicate wellbore productivity. “Effective
monitoring of production rates permits
real-time decisions regarding changes in
drilling depth, wellbore orientation, and
overall section length. In some cases, hori-
zontal lengths have been reduced 75%from
that planned when economic production
rates have been achieved, saving the
operator significant drilling costs.” 53
These authors emphasized the importance of
an adequate sampling interval (take
measurements as frequently as needed), to
detect any and all significant fluid slugs.
“Each drillpipe connection introduces an
annular fluid slug into the system. Annular
fluid slugging occurs primarily during pump
off periods. The severity of annular
slugging depends on fluid concentration in
the injection mixture as well as the type of
hydrocarbon produced and the capacity of
the well to flow under its own energy. If a
well produces relatively small amounts of
gas, for example, and there is a relatively
large fluid concentration, a definite fluid
slug will form in the b ~ t t o m h o l e . ” ~ ~
If the underbalanced ROP is sufficiently
high and bottoms up (along with the
connection slugs) are not beini circulated
out, controlled drilling should be ;onsidered.
Consider a low-energy gas we 1. Precise
production data monitoring after a
connection shows decreased gas production
followed by a significant gas p e k As the
fluid slug, formed by separation of injected
fluids moves to surface, gas pr3duction is
reduced. Eventually, the slug is I urged from
the well, and the resultant com )ressed gas
behind the slug expands at the ;urface and
manifests itself as an increase in 1 roduction.
A well that is producing liquid h! drocarbons
would continually exhibit fluid s ugging due
to formation loading. Prc lific fluid
producers can actually kill themselves
during times of pump off. Restarting
gadfluid injection down drillp pe can be
problematic under these circumst mces.
If there is insufficient time for each fluid
slug, containing increased conce itrations of
drilled solids, to circulate througf the system
and back to surface befoie another
connection is made, the dugs can
accumulate and create enough b ickpressure
to overbalance the well. Penetration rate
must therefore be adequately cor trolled.+ If
only one fluid slug is observed at the surface
between connections, the system is in
equilibrium with injection, pro( uction and
penetration rate. If more tha I one slug
occurs, the system is not in equil brium. The
effective rate of penetration is de k e d by the
overall pumping time necessary to purge a
slug of fluid from a well.
Periodically circulate bottoms up be-ore making a
connection.
 -
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

References

1. Willis, R.B.: “Well Control Practices for Air-Drilled Holes,” paper SPE 4497 presented at
the 1995 Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV, November 6-8.

2. Collins, G.J.: “Proper Planning Improves Flowdrilling,” World Oil (Octo1ber 1994) 43-50.
3. Eresman, D.: “Underbalanced Drilling - A Regulatory Perspectivl :,” paper 93-306
presented at the 1993 CADEKAODC Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, April 24-16.

4. “Recommended Practices for Underbalanced Drilling,” Energy Resoui ces Conservation

Board Interim Directive ID 94-3 (July 1994) Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

5. Moore, B.: “The Regulation of Underbalanced Drilling in the UK Sector ” paper presented
at the 1995 International Underbalanced Drilling Conference, Imsterdam, The
Netherlands.

6. Yost, A.B.: “Horizontal Gas Well Promises More Devonian Productio,1,” The American
Oil and Gas Reporter (July 1988).

7. Millheim, K.K. and Warren, T.M.: “Side Cutting Characteristics 0 ’ Rock Bits and
Stabilizers While Drilling,” paper SPE 7518 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 1-3.

8. Millheim, K.K.: “Hard-Formation Directional Drilling Calls for Speci;11 Care,” Oil and
Gas J. (February 12, 1979).

9. Wilson, G.E.: “Air Drilling and Crooked Hole Problems,” paper SPE 952 9 presented at the
1980 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV, November 5-7.

10. Millheim, K.K. and Apostal, M.C.: “The Effect of Bottom-Hole Assen bly Dynamics on
the Trajectory of a Bit,” paper SPE 9222 presented at the 1980 SPE Innual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX.

11. Shale, L.: “Development of Air Drilling Motor Holds Promise for Speci dized Directional
Drilling Applications,” paper SPE 22564 presented at the 1991 SPE innual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX.

12. Lyons, W.C.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Gulf Publishing Companj, Houston, Texas
(1984) 46-25.

13. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Formation Damage Control Durii ig High-Angle or
Horizontal Drilling,” paper SPE 2735 1 presented at the 1994 5 PE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 7-10.
14. Dreiling, T., McClelland, M.L. and Bilyeu, B.: “Horizontal and High Angle A r Drilling in
the San Juan Basin, New Mexico,” The Brief, Murphy Publishing Inc. (June 19 96).

15. Lyons, W.C., Miska, S.Z. and P.W. Johnson: “Downhole Pneumatic Tur h e Motor:
Testing and Simulation Results,” paper SPE 18040 presented at the 1988 , ;PE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5.

16. Roy, R. and Hay, R.: “Measuring Downhole Annular Pressure While Drilling for
Optimization of Underbalanced Drilling,” paper presented at the 1995 1st hternational
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

17. Soulier, L. and Lemaitre, M.: “E.M. MWD Data Transmission Status and P~:rspectives,”
paper SPEDADC 25686 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, February 23-25.

18. Shale, L. and Moberley, G.T.: “Development of a Cartridge Data Transmissioi i System for
Use with Air Drilling Motor,” paper SPE/IADC 23907 presented at the 199: SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, February 18-21.

19. Shale, L. and Curry, D.A.: “Drilling a Horizontal Well Using Air/Foam Techni lues,” paper
OTC 7355 presented at the 1993 Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Ho iston, TX.

20. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling Equipment and Techniques,” PD ( 1995) 65, Drilling
Technology, ASME (1995).

21. Lattimore, G.M., Carden, R.S. and Fisher, T.: “Grand Canyon Directional 3rilling and
Waterline Project,” paper SPE/IADC 16169 presented at the 1987 SPE/IA DC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA, March 15-18.

22. Angel, R.R.: “Volume Requirements for Air or Gas Drilling,” Pet Trans., P I M E (1957)
210,325-330.

23. Guo, B., Miska, S.Z. and Lee, R.: “Volume Requirements for Directional P ir Drilling,”
paper IADC/SPE 27510 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference Dallas, TX,
February 15- 18.

24. Guo, B., Miska, S.Z. and Hareland, G.: “A Simple Approach to Deteimination of
Bottomhole Pressure in Directional Foam Drilling,’’ paper presented at the 1995 ASME
Energy and Environmental Expo 95, Houston, TX, January 29-February 1.

25. Guo, B., Hareland, G. and Rajtar, J.M.: “Computer Simulation Predicts Unfa rorable Mud
Rate and Optimum Air Injection Rate for Aerated Mud Drilling,” paper SPE 26892
presented at the I993 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Pittsb xrgh, PA.
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

26. Shale, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling With Air Offers Many Pluses,” Oil unc ’ Gus J. (June 26,
1995) 33-39.

27. Carden, R.S.: “Air Drilling Has Some Pluses for Horizontal Wells,” Oil m
d Gus J. (April
8, 1991) 76-78.

28. Finger, J.T.: “Investigation of Percussion Drills for Geothermal Ap Aications,” JPT
(December 1984) 2128-2136.

29. Pratt, C.A.: “Modifications To and Experience With Air-Percussion C rilling,” SPEDE
(December 1989) 3 15-320.

30. Whiteley, M.C. and England, W.P.: “Air Drilling Operations Improver I by Percussion-
Bit/Hammer-Tool Tandem,” SPEDE (October 1986) 377-382.

31. Reinsvold, C.H., Clement, J., Oliver, M., Witt, C. and Crockett, J.: “Di;mond-Enhanced
Hammer Bits Reduce Cost per Foot in the Arkoma and Appalachiar Basins,” paper
IADC/SPE 17185 presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Confereice, Dallas, TX,
February 28 - March 2.

32. Teale, R. : “The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling”, Int. J. Rock Mech. and
Mining Sci. (1965) 2, 57-73.

33. Simon, R.: “Energy Balance in Rock Drilling,’ySPEJ (December 1963) 29,i-306.

34. Sheffield, J.S. and Sitzman, J.J.: “Air Drilling Practices in the Mid-cont nent and Rocky
Mountain Areas,” paper SPE/IADC 13490 presented at 1985 SPE /IADC Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

35. Russell, B.A.: “How Surface Hole Drilling Performance Was Irn1x-o~:d 65%,” paper
SPE/IADC 25766 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 4msterdam, The
Netherlands, February 23-25.

36. Tee], M.E.: “What’s Happening in Drilling- ‘Pseudo-underbalanced’Drilli ig and Beyond,”

World Oil (April 1995) 29.

37. Hannegan, D.M. and Bourgoyne, A.T. : “Underbalanced Drilling - Rotati ig Control Head
Technology Increasing in Importance,” paper presented at the 1995 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2 -4.

38. Bloys, B., Brown, J.D. and Tan-, B.A.: “Drilling Safely and Economical1y in Carbonates:
Collective Experience of ARCO, BP and Mobil,” paper presented at the 994 IADC Well
Control Conference for the AsiaPacific Region, Singapore, December 1-2

6-62
39. Leising, L.J. and Newman, K.R.: “Coiled-Tubing Drilling,” SPEDC (Decembc r 1993) 227-
232.

40. Madigan, J.: “Applications of Slimhole Technology - A Service Company ’erspective,”

presented at the 1993 DEA 44/67 Forum on Horjzontal and Slimhole/Ccliled Tubing
Technology.

41. Dowel1 Schlumberger: Cementing Technology, Nova Communications L :d., London,

1984.

42. Medley, G.H., Maurer, W.C. and Garkasi, A.Y.: “Use of Hollow Glass Spheres for
Underbalanced Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE 30500 presented at the 1995 3PE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

43. de Rozi&es, J. and Ferribe, R. F.: “Foamed Cement Characterization Undl:r Downhole
Conditions and Its Impact on Job Design,” paper IADCISPE 19935 presentee at the 1990
IADCISPE Drilling Conference, February 27-March 2.

44. Reiley, R.H., Black, J.W., Stagg, T.O., Walters, D.A. and Atol, G.R.: “Improving Liner
Cementing in High-Angle/Horizontal Wells,” World Oil’s Handbook 0,. Horizontal
Drilling and Completion Technology, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, T: C (1991) 54-
58.

45. Wilson, M.A.: “Cementing Horizontal Wells in Preparation for Stimulation,” World Oil’s
Handbook of Horizontal Drilling and Completion Technology, Gulf Publishii Ig Company,
Houston, TX (1991).

46. Ryan, D.F., Browne, S.V. and Burnham, M.P.: “Mud Clean-up in Horizonlal Wells: A
Major Joint Industry Study,” paper SPE 30528 presented at the 1995 3PE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.

47. Chmilowski, W. and Kondratoff, L.B.: “Foamed Cement for Squeeze Cerr enting Low-
Pressure, Highly Permeable Reservoirs: Design and Evaluation,” SPED1 ’ (December
1992) 284-290.

48. Purvis, D.L. and Smith, D.D.: “Real-Time Monitoring Provides Insight Into Flow
Dynamics During Foam Cementing,” SPEDC (June 1994) 124-132.

49. Halliburton Log Interpretution Charts, Halliburton Energy Services, Houston, TX (1994).

50. Log Interpretation Principles/Applications,Schlumberger Educational Servic es, Houston,

TX (1991).

I _-__
6-63
Chapter 6 Special Considerations

5 1. Wireling Services Catalog, Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston, TX (199 1).

52. Western Atlas Services Catalog, Western Atlas, Atlas Wireline Servic zs, Houston, TX
(1984).

53. Butler, S.D., Rashid, A.U. and Teichrob, R.R.: “Monitoring Downhole PI zssures and Flow
Rates Critical for Underbalanced Drilling,’’ Oil and Gus J. (September 16, 1996) 31-39.

6-64
 CASE STUDIES
7.I Introduction
There are numerous published and
unpublished case studies demonstrating the
feasibility and practice of underbalanced
drilling. This chapter selects some
illustrative examples. The case studies
provided include.
9 CaseStudyl
Controlling Bottomhole Pressure
This case study emphasizes one of the
most important elements in
underbalanced drilling. This is dealing
with reservoir influx. An example
vertical well is shown, from Saponja,
1996.' The discussion is supplemented
by methods for forecasting and the value
of monitoring bottomhole pressure.
9 CaseStudy2
Barrolka 3
This case study was provided courtesy of
Santos Ltd. It demonstrates successful
implementation of air drilling.
P CaseStudy3
Swan Lake-1 ST
This is another air drilling example, also
supplied courtesy of Santos Ltd. This
well showed production ten times that of
conventionally drilled wells. Sloughing
difficulties were encountered. However,
drilling was finally stopped because it
was not advisable to continie with the
high gas flow rate.
P CaseStudy4
Karwin-1 ST
This air drilling example wis provided
courtesy of Santos Ltd. Whi e sloughing
was a problem, air drilling €roved to be
more successful than c onventional
techniques.
9 CaseStudy5
Unloading A Hole From Thl r Bottom
This is an hypothetical exam )le showing
how a well can be unloaded from the
bottom after setting and cementing
casing. It is included to demonstrate the
diversity of the applicatic ns for air
drilling and to emphasizl: how an
understanding of wellbore hy baulics can
lead to cost effective solulions. The
authors are grateful to It. Graham
(Reuben L. Graham, Inc.) for this
demonstration case study.
> Case Study 6
Husky Wainwright 15B-31-4 4-4W4M
Creative engineering, witk extensive
preplanning and safety eval iations, led
to successful drilling of thi: well, with
water, air ,and nitrogen, and ; i concentric
string gasifying configuratior , into a low
pressure reservoir. This is a clearly and
comprehensively documei ited case
7-I
Chapter 7 Case Studies
(Teichrob, 1994).2
Case Study 7
Deep, High Pressured Re-entry
Overbalanced re-entry had failed to
access a target gas sand at 16,500 feet, in
three previous sidetrack attempts. Casing
had collapsed at 15,450 feet. Flow-
drilling was ultimately successful (Stone
and Cress, 1997).3
Case Study 8
Cotton Valley Lime
Using an M O P and determining an
acceptable trip rate (to prevent surging
and swabbing pressures from exceeding
critical downhole limits) substantially
reduced lost time in this well (Stone and
Cress, 1997).3
Case Study 9
Depleted Fractured Carbonate
A target carbonate was overlain by
overpressured shales and underlain by
normally pressured permeable water
sands. Significant lost circulation
problems had been encountered in the
past. Flowdrilling reduced the time to
drill the section from about 60 days to 2
days (Stone and Cress, 1997).3Although
not included here, two additional papers,
by Joseph, 1995a,b>5 are important
reading for anyone considering high
pressure drilling.
Case Study 10
Dalen-2
A considerable amount has been
published about the coiled tubing
drilling of this well in the Netherlands. It
demonstrates the value of effective
planning and coiled tubing technology.
The case study is accompanied by a
further description of some of the
methods available for underbalanced
7-2
completions. Two O F the papers des-
cribing the procedures in this well are by
Adam and Berry, 1995 ,6 and Wang et al.,
1995.7
> Case Study 11
Cementing The Dakoi z Formation
Purvis and Smith, 1 >94,8 provided a
description of s ~ m e of the
methodologies for underbalanced
cementing (whether 1 [sed with under-
balanced drilling or no ).
> CaseStudyl2
The Friction Control14 d Regime
Saponja, 1995? clearly demonstrated the
importance of effectively nanipulating flow
rate of each phase, di ring multiphase,
underbalanced drilling.
7.2 Case Study I
Controlling 1 3ottomhole
Pressure
Reference
Saponja, J.: “Challenges Kith Jointed Pipe
Underbalanced Operatioi s,” paper SPE
37066 presented at he 1996 SPE
International Conference o I Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, 1 dberta, Canada,
November 18-20.
Background
Saponja, 1996,’ describe( a vertical well,
drilled underbalanced w th nitrogen and
water, at 706 cfm md 3.8 BPM,
respectively. Gas inflow s arted at 6970 feet
and rapidly increased t , 2.3 MMcf/D.
Concurrently, the bottc d o l e pressure
dropped from 2030 to 13 15 psi, since this
system was in the hydrost: tically-dominated
regime. Drilling contirued but it was
inefficient since the fomation gas inflow
would have allowed low1 :r nitrogen rates.
Figure 7-1 shows how reducing the nitrogen
injection rate by 75 percent, and increasing
the water injection rate, impacted the
pressure behavior.
This example clearly indicates the
importance of forecasting a reservoir’s
inflow performance. In this instance,
bottomhole gas inflow would be reduced by
almost 60 percent if the bottomhole
pressure were maintained at 2030 psi. How
should formation inflow be anticipated?
Offset well information can be used as can
real-time monitoring. Pre-drilling simul-
ation can be of great value.
Before Drilling
Develop a typical inflow performance curve
(Vogel IPR curve, Figure 7-2). This will
allow for sizing of drillpipe and surface
facilities. For example, separator sizing, to
avoid blow-through, depends on the peak
gas rate (refer, for example, to MacDougall,
199 l).”
Most operators specify hole and tubing size
prior to deciding on specific fluids and
operational protocols. Hole and tubular size
may prevent or at least severely limit
successful drilling and unloading of solids
and produced fluids. This is more of a
problem in re-entry situations where the hole
and casing sizes often require compromises.
During Drilling
Reservoir fluid inflow is particularly
important for horizontal wells that penetrate
long sections of productive pay or intersect
natural fractures. As Saponja, 1995,9stated:
“Maximizing use of the natural energy
available from the reservoir can reduce
circulation system requirements, such as
nitrogen injection rates, but rese rvoir liquid
inflow during connections can re ;ult in large
liquid slugs, large pressure ;pikes and
problems with regaining circu ation (lost
circulation). In highly perrneablt reservoirs,
inflow of liquid during connectil Ins can kill
the well, making circulation in possible to
regain without imposing o rerbalanced
pressures. Connection time must be
minimized to reduce the amour t of liquid
inflow from the reservoir.”
For horizontal wells, as more horizontal
length is drilled, it can become pi ogressively
more difficult to regain circulai ion after a
connection. Saponja, 1995,” ha; discussed
a procedure, referred to as A~lnular Pre-
Charging, where the annular pi essure and
GLR are increased prior to a :onnection,
reducing the formation drawdowr , as well as
the liquid inflow. This protocol a Is0 reduces
the liquid volume in the wellbore and
inhibits liquid slugging an 3 inertial
acceleration effects. Operatic aally, the
procedure requires precise tim ng of the
annulus closure followed by a period of
continued gas injection and cauti In to avoid
causing overbalanced condi :ions. In
horizontal wells particularly, different
inflow conditions along the length of the
well must be considered; for cxample to
prevent excessive inflow at the lee1 and/or
fluid loss at the toe, because 0’ frictional
effects (Comeau, 1995)”
Comeau, 1995,” discussed using a
Hydrostatic Control Valve duri ig drilling
with gasified liquids with a parzsite string.
The valve maintains an hydro! tatic head
while making a connection and peevents the
drillpipe from going on vacuuci. It also
prevents backflow up the drillFipe during
tripping and making connections.
7-3
Chapter 7 Case Studies

1
3500

s 3000
B
v

2500
3
?!
-
a,
0
2000
r:
Start Nitrogen Injection
1500 Clrculatlon Rates: .
. ___
g
m
W8W: 3.88PM
Nitrogen: 706cftn
-za
' ,t
1000 ______. -
Formation Gas Inflow
e
2.3 MMcUD Clrculatlon Rates:
500 Water: 3.8BPM
Nitrogen: 706cfm
Formation Gas: 2.3 MMcm
"
6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200
Depth (feet)

Figure 7-1. Controlling bottomhole pressure in a vettical well drilled v rith nitrogen and
water (afier Saponja, 1995').

2 0.7
f$ 0.6

fa
u)
0.5

?! 0.4
u,

-r

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.: 1

Flow RatelMaximum Flow Rate

Figure 7-2. A typical representation of Inflow Performance Relationst ips showing the
interrelationship between bottomhole pressure and flob I rate (modified
from Saponja, 1995 '). For additional information, refer to Brown and Lea,
1985,l3 or Vogel, 1968.l4

7-4
Numerical Predictions
Butler et al., 1996,15stated:
> “Multiphase flow modeling software
should incorporate a choice of several
distinct fluid flow models to commingle
injected and produced fluids, ultimately
defining flow regimes and velocities.”
> <‘It is extremely diffiult to
predetermine the inflow from a hori-
zontal wellbore during underbalanced
drilling operations. Therefore, a range
of inflow rates is designed into the
program to ensure successful comple-
tion. Typically, inflow at 50%? loo%,
and 150% of the anticipated production
rate is modeled and evaluated. It is
critical to ensure that the pressure drop
calculations across the horizontal
section conform to equilibrium of
production, drawdown, and reasonable
backpressure held at the surface.”
> ‘(A test matrix, comprised of differing
flow rates at specified drawdown is
performed. The objective is to
construct an operational envelope
under which the probability of success
is maximized. The envelope should
contain enough end points in pressure
drawdown and corresponding flow
rates to encompass actual well site
conditions. This analysis ensures
effective contingency planning is in
place should reservoir inflow markedly
differ from that anticipated.”
> “As drilling proceeds, reservoir inflow
will likely change. On site engineering
personnel may have to respond
immediately with an injection blend ratio
change to maintain optimum
underbalanced drilling conditions.
Injection blend changes are based on
updated multiphase flow model results.
Computer modeling may be used during
drilling to evaluate sandfacl : drawdown,
develop inflow performar ce relation-
ships and, in combinatior with mass
balance monitoring, provi le wellbore
productivity information. ”
“Due to the nature of uiiderbalanced
drilling, the well con rol during
underbalanced drilling is c1 ianged from
primary pressure contrc 1 by the
hydrostatic pressure of drill ng fluids to
flow control where the bottomhole
pressure and thereby the production
during drilling is moritored and
controlled. The critical pa aameters are
the gas injection rate (if appj icable), well
head pressure, bottomhole I ressure, and
reservoir drawdown. It is rssential that
the operation is in a stab e operating
range where the bottomholt pressure is
not sensitive to the changes in normal
control parameters, espc cially gas
injection rate and reservoir d -awdown.”
Because of the added level of complexity,
underbalanced drilling numeric: 1 simulators
have been developed, affordin g organized
pre-planning. For example, Mj sselbrook et
al., 1991,16 discussed a siinulator for
evaluating circulation conc itions for
multiple phases and for foreczsting coiled
tubing stress states. These aut1 ors gave an
example:
“Computer modeling allows he user to
calculate whether or not a job is possible. It
is also an economical means 0 ’optimizing
particular job programs. Fa r example,
consider a sand cleanout in a d:viated well
with a water sensitive formatim and low
bottomhole pressure. An effect ive cleanout
will require that the return velocity in the
annulus be above certain minim ims in order
7-5
Chapter 7 Case Studies
for sand transport to take place. As the
pump rate is increased to accomplish this, it
is possible that the combination of
hydrostatic and friction pressure may
become greater than the bottomhole pressure
can support and the returns will then be lost
to the formation. Knowing this, the model
can be used to simulate different approaches.
Foam or various ratios of liquid and nitrogen
slugs may be tried to reduce the hydrostatic
pressure and smaller diameter coiled tubing
can be modeled to ascertain the effects of
reduced annular flow restriction.’’
Wang et al., 1995,7 described a dynamic (as
opposed to static or steady-state simulators
which represent constant flow rates for
drilling fluids, gas injection and reservoir
production, with no significant drillstring
movement) underbalanced drilling simul-
ator. It incorporated transient multiphase
hydraulics in a realistic well geometry and
well-reservoir interaction. Reservoir influx
(matrix and fractured) was considered.
Downhole Monitoring
Operators can use downhole monitoring to
comprehend the interactive processes which
occur during underbalanced drilling.
Adjustments made to surface. parameters can
be monitored so that the operator can make
procedural modifications. Simulations can
also be run during planning stages so that
correctly sized tubulars and surface
equipment, such as separators, can be used.
High frequency data acquisition can allow
identification of downhole pressure
fluctuations. Figure 7-3, from Wilson,
1995,17 is an example of pressure
fluctuations discernible with rapid data
acquisition, showing:
(1) ................................................ pipe purge,
(2) ...................................... connection made,
(3), (4) ...................... an ann ilar slug forming
and traveling to the surface, and,
( 5 )................re-establishme nt of equilibrium
with injection fluids, gases md produced gas.
Figures 7-4 and 7-5, from Wilson, 1995,17
show the increase in gas production rates
and the variations in pressure with
increasing openhole length Intersection of
fractures was evidenced. E ‘igure 7-5 shows
that while the casing shoe p -essure remained
relatively constant, the bit p messure increased
constantly until liquid and I itrogen injection
rate adjustments were requ ired to maintain
an underbalanced condition.
Various pressure monitorii g systems have
been described in this msnual. Roy and
Hay, 1995,18 described a system for
measuring pressure while drilling (PWD)
and provided example dsta showing the
potential for deviating fro1 i underbalanced
conditions. This syster 1 for pressure
measurement monitors the tnnulus pressure
with a sensor that is locatetl in a sub below
the MWD. The data is eiiher recorded or,
when appropriate, it can b z transmitted in
real-time to the surface using MWD
protocols. The well descr bed was drilled
with drillpipe N2 injection, with misting to
lubricate the air motor. Da a were recorded
only. Real-time manipulaiions of flow to
maintain underbalanced cor ditions were not
possible since the pressure data were
recorded only. Figure 7-6 shows the
measured pressures. It ind cates that much
of the well was drilled underbalanced
although overbalance wi s much more
common during the latter p; rt of the drilling
program. This figure d :monstrates the
occurrence of overbalance a i inflowing fluid
fills the annulus, part cularly during
connections when nitrogen vas not injected.
 3.5

$
n
2.5
I
I
v
I D 2
CI

2
E
0 1.5
5a
U
e 1
n

0.5

0
0.0 0.5 1.o 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Time (hours)

Figure 7-3. Variation of production rate, as measured at five minute saripling inter-
vals, showing characteristic pressure signatures (after Wilson, 1995 ").

7000 3650

6000
*.. - 3700

5000
- 3750

---
Gas Rete
E
n
True Vertical Depth
s
c
4000 I I 3800
4
(A
K
8 3000 3850
(3

2000 3900

1000 3950

0 4000
3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

Drilled Depth (feet)

Figure 7-4. The variation of gas production with drilling and the intiications of
intersecting fractures (after, Wilson, 1995 ").

7-7
Chapter 7 Case Studies

1200

1 000

-
fi
u)
P
800
2 I
a
J

u)
u)
a' Nitrogen: 950 rcfm I NHmgen: 9 . 0 scfm
/

-
t
f 600 c -
I * I
B
- Bottomhole Pressure at the Cash Shoe
-
0 4 I
c
---
Bottomhole Pressure at the Bit
400 Formation Pressure
5
m
200

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Openhole Length (feet)

Figure 7-5. The variation of bottomhole pressure with drilling and dt 'monstration of
the maintenance of underbalance pressure by manipulating injection rates.
(after Wilson, 1995 ").

2200 -
2100 -.

2000
n
.$ 1900
v
n
e! 1800
a
3
u)
1700
n
-5a 1600
C
$ 1500

1400

1300
I - t T t - I I- - ---

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Time (hours)

Figure 7-6. Downhole annular pressure during drilling (after Roy and Hay, 1995 ").

7-8
Summary
Saponja, 1996,’ stated:
9 “Underbalanced drilling has been
unsuccessful in some reservoirs - wells
believed to be drilled underbalanced
were found to have formation damage or
positive skin. However, review of
operating procedures and Circulating
systems revealed that overbalance
pressures occurred during drillstring
connections and incompatible drilling
fluids were used.”
9 “A properly designed circulating system
does not allow extreme reservoir inflow
rates or high annular flowing pressures at
the surface.”
9 “Multi-phase flow can allow drilling at
any pressure gradient. Computer models
simulate the multi-phase flowing system,
including reservoir inflow and pressure-
volume-temperature relationships. Most
available models are static and interpret
steady state flow. The dynamic
simulators that have been developed
consider the impact of starting, stopping
and changing circulation, fluid effects
during connections and drillstring
movement .”
9 “At the pre-planning phase, multi-phase
flow modeling is required to determine
circulation system parameters. Injection
fluids must be analyzed in conjunction
with produced reservoir fluids, at a
variety of conditions, to determine
bottomhole pressure operating limits.
Operating limits are determined prior to
execution so that contingency plans for
the circulating system are in place.
Actual well conditions, reservoir
pressure variations, and reservoir inflow
performance will determine the optimal
____c;__-
circulating system.”
7.3 Case Study 2
Barrolka 3
Refereqce
This unpublished case study w i s provided
courtesy of Santos Ltd.
Objective
The primary objective was to iir drill the
Toolachee 85.3 sand to minimize formation
damage and to evaluate the undamaged
potential of this reservoir. Thi,; was a gas
exploration well. Figure 7-7 is a well
schematic.
Operational Summary
9 Sixteen-inch conductor pipe was set at
forty feet below ground level
9 12G-inch hole was drilled t , 1754 feet
RT, without problems. A rrill-tooth bit
was run on a slick BHL, and pre-
hydrated bentonite spud mu1 1 was used.
The bit drilled to 1754 feet RT in 16.0
hours, at an average ROP of 09.6 f a r .
9 9 5/8-inch casing was run ar d cemented
to the surface, with the shoe i t 1748 feet.
9 8%-inch hole was drilled with few
problems. A new, milled-tcoth bit was
run in the hole on a pendilum BHA,
with stabilizers at 45 feet anc 75 feet and
j k s located two drill collar; below the
heavy-weight drillpipe. A leakoff test
was performed after drilling jut the shoe
track with water. Breakdo\ in occurred
at 14.9 ppg (0.77 psdft).
9 The hole was displaced o 8.9 ppg
KClPHPA mud. Drillinl continued
through the Cadna-Owie, Murta and
Namur formations to a del th of 5188
7-9
Chapter 7 Case Studies

Depth (feet) Formation

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Weatbourns

6000

I
7000
Nappamsnl

8000
- Patchawarra
Toolaches

9000

Figure 7-7. Formations drilled and the casing program for Ba,rolka 3.

feet, at which point the bit was pulled
due to increased torque. The bit drilled a
total of 3434 feet in 45.5 hours, at an
average ROP of 75.5 ft/hr.
9 A new 8%-inch bit was run in the hole
on a pendulum BHA assembly, similar
to that used before. The bit was
reameawashed to bottom from 5063 feet
and drilling then continued through the
Namur, Westbourne, Adori, Birkhead
and into the Hutton formation, to 6645
feet. The mud weight had been
gradually increased with KCl to 9.4 ppg
by 6600 feet. The bit vas pulled due to
an increase in torque. Tight spots were
encountered on the uay out and these
were worked (from 6100 to 5900 feet
and from 5500 to 54:O feet). This bit
drilled a total of 1457 i eet in 52 hours, at
an average ROP of 28.1 ) ft/hr.
9 A new bit, on a simi ar assembly, was
run into the hole. Real ning was required
from 5754 to 5980 feel and from 6252 to
6645 feet. At 7129 feet, a 700 psi
pressure drop was 4 bbserved. After
pressure testing surfs( e equipment, the

7-10
 rig pulled out of the hole, looking for a
washout in the drillstring. This bit
drilled 484 feet in 32.5 hours, at an
average ROP of 14.9 f a r . The pressure
drop was due to a lost nozzle.
9 The bit used to drill to 6645 feet was run
back into the hole with a junk sub. The
hole was worked and drilled to 7 132 feet
and the lost nozzle was recovered.
9 A new 8%-inch bit was run into the hole
on a BHA with a junk sub, near-bit
reamer and a stabilizer at 60 feet. It was
necessary to ream hole from 4971 to
5501 feet and from 5739 to 7132 feet.
Drilling continued to 7 150 feet, at which
time the bit was pulled because of
concern over having reamed an
excessive amount of hole. The average
ROP over the 18 feet drilled was 18
far.
9 A new bit was run in on a pendulum
assembly and drilling continued through
the Nappamerri formation to 7993 feet.
The bit was pulled due to a decrease in
the penetration rate. 843 feet had been
drilled, at an average rate of 15.5 f a r .
9 A new bit was run into the hole on a
similar pendulum BHA. The hole was
reamed from 7891 to 7993 feet. Drilling
continued to 8420 feet, with the top of
the Toolachee formation at 8298 feet
(casing depth).
9 Logging showed enlarged hole at 8406
feet.
9 Seven-inch casing was set and cemented.
After waiting on cement, the tubing
spool and 7 1/16-inch BOPS were
installed and successfully pressure and
function tested to a high of 3000 psi and
a low of 200 psi.
9 The cement and shoe track were drilled
out with mud. A new, six-iich bit was
used on a slick assembly (one drill
collar, two float subs, 12 drill collars and
one set of drilling jars). Thl: bit drilled
the cement, float shoe and collar and
three feet of new hole usi ig 9.4 ppg
KCIPOLYPHPA drilling fl lid to 8423
feet. A pressure integrit:' test was
performed. The formation held at an
equivalent mud weight of 14.0 ppg (0.73
psi/ft). The bit was tripped and a bond
log was run. The actual cernmt top was
logged at 4100 feet, with the xising shoe
at 8418 feet.
9 As air drilling was a new pi-ocedure in
this region, before any t i r drilling
started, all wellsite perso nnel were
trained on air drilling proc ?dures and
safety aspects. There were eight, one-
half hour sessions.
9 The well was rigged up to ccnvert to air
drilling operations. The sal ne six-inch
bit was rerun. The drillinl fluid was
displaced with water and thc water was
displaced by aidmist. Air hilling the
six-inch hole began at 8423 fr et RT.
9 The six-inch hole was drillec from 8423
to 8481 feet in 3 hours, whim the flow
from the blooie line ignited. Open flow
tests were inconclusive. Dril ing contin-
ued to 8488 feet and a secoI d flow test
was performed. The results were
inconclusive. At TD (853 feet), the
well was flowed through a test choke
manifold and successfully flo w tested.
> Because of wet conditions on location,
the crane needed for the snibbing unit
could not be used. The dri lstring was
stripped out of the well using the
primary jet and the rotating f ead rubber,
without incident. 108 feet ivere drilled
in 5 hours, at an average R 3 P of 21.6
7-11
Chapter 7 Case Studies

ft/hr. > The well was logged under lubricator

> During all flow testing and drilling
operations, exposed coals appeared to be
sloughing. Several attempts were made
to stabilize the formation. The entire
Toolachee 85.3 sand reservoir and
approximately ten feet of the lower coal
seam were drilled. There were hole
cleaning problems due to sloughing,
during the aidmist operations. Future air
drilled wells might use lower air rates to
prevent formation erosion and switch to
higher air rates if hole cleaning becomes
more difficult. Water rates will be
minimized in the future.
and wireline BOPS.
P A hydraulic set retric vable production
packer with blanked 3ff tailpipe on 2
3/8-inch tubing was sr ubbed in the well
and set at 8340 fec t RT. Drilling
operations lasted for 34.44 days from
spud.
Highlights of the Air D illing Program
> The air drilling ope ,ations went ex-
tremely well, particu larly considering
that this was the in tial well in the
project.

Time (days)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
0

I I
1000
4ndr Casingand
rminingforcrews

2000

3000

-
4000

Q
Q
5000
5
Q
0
6000
Fish forNo- and

7000

8000 and Rig Up to Ak Drlll

I
Ak Drillland Snub
9000

10000

Figure 7-8. Drilling schedule (Barrolka 3).

7-12
 During air drilling, there were several
gas shows and open flow tests were
performed. The air drilling eliminated
the cost of conventional openhole
testing.
It is difficult to compare rates of
penetration between mud and air
drilling. Some comparison is possible
from Table 7- 1.
Pre-drilling safety and training were
effective.
The final pressure test showed subs-
tantial production potential.
Although sloughing was a continual
problem, air drilling in the coal seams
may have identified supplementary gas
reservoirs. This has been the case in
certain coalbed methane reservoirs in the
United States.
7.4 Case Study 3
Swan Lake -I ST
Reference
This unpublished case study was provided
Table 7-1.
courtesy of Santos Ltd.
Objective
The primary objective was to :idetrack this
well to test the Toolachce, Epsilon,
Patchawarra and Tirrawarra for nations. The
proposed total depth was 1O,OS2 feet. The
formations had been tested in the original
well, where DSTs indicated a CI bmbined rate
of 0.83 MMscfD.
A permanent packer was set it 9622 feet
with 3Yi-inch tubing. The tubing was
pulled, the packer was pluggei off, and a
retrievable whipstock was set : it 8 195 feet.
The sidetrack was to be drilled L sing aidmist
in order to minimize formation damage and
to identify productive zones whi le drilling.
Operational Summary
P Pressure was bled to 100 ])si and 9.94
ppg brine was pumped down the tubing
to kill the gas flow. k BPV was
installed in the tubing harger and the
tree was removed. The BCP stack was
nippled up and pressure rested. The
tubing was pulled.
Drilling Summary
7-13
Chapter 7 Case Studies
P A DR latch plug was run on tubing and
set at 9614 feet. The casing and packer,
with the DR plug, were pressure tested
to 3000 psi.
P Wellhead equipment was installed and
pressure tested.
P A six-inch bit and casing scraper were
run on a BHA (twelve 4%-inch drill
collars and 3%-inch drillpipe) to the
sidetrack depth. The bottom collar was
plugged with scale. The BHA had to be
pulled and a casing scraper was run. The
hole was displaced with 9 ppg KCl and
the tubing was pulled.
> A retrievable whipstock assembly was
set at 8195 feet. A casing window was
milled from 8178 to 8186 feet and new
formation was drilled to 8193 feet. The
casing seat was tested to 13.7 ppg EMW.
P A six-inch hole was drilled with mud
from 8193 to 8206 feet. The drilling
mud was displaced with water and the
water was displaced with aidmist. Six-
inch diameter air drilling began at 8206
feet.
P The hole was drilled to 8329 feet
without difficulty. An openhole flow
test was carried out. 183 M c f D was
measured for three hours, through a %-
inch choke, at 18 psi.
P Air drilling continued without difficulty
to 8452 feet, at which point the
standpipe pressure increased by 600 psi
and the mud loggers had an increase in
gas. The average ROP was 20 fthr.
Flow testing indicated 4.74 MMcfD
through a %-inch choke, at 857 psi.
P Air drilling continued to 8505 feet. A
third flow test indicated 8.20 MMcfD,
through a %-inch choke at 1535 psi.
P Air drilling continued to 8578 feet when
the standpipe pressure i icreased to 1000
psi for 15 minutes. Tile pipe was free
but it was difficult to get back to bottom.
The pressure fell to "10 psi and the
drillstring was workel 1 several times
through the tight hole. After making a
connection at 8578 feet, the pipe became
stuck without reciproc: tion or rotation.
A single had to be laij down and the
kelly reconnected. Air . iressure was 750
psi and appeared to be Circulating. The
drillstring was worked, without the jars
hitting, and air was ciculated for two
hours to clean the hole The drillstring
started to move down ar d the jars started
hitting. The drillstring started rotating.
White smoke, indicatini water, appeared
at the blooie line. rhe string was
worked to bottom i/hile the well
unloaded fluid,
P The drillstring was pul ed inside of the
casing window. Singles were run back
into the hole, while cii culating air and
mist. The blooie line tischarge cleared
up quickly. The hole was reamed and
washed 40 feet to bottor 1.
P After circulating for 30 minutes to clean
the hole, the connectioii was made and
air drilling continued t 8671 feet. A
flow test was conductecl to evaluate the
Epsilon formation (8531 to 8556 feet).
A flow rate of 8.0C MMcf/D was
measured through a '/!-inch choke at
1485 psi, after a flou period of 289
minutes.
P A final flow test 'vas performed,
indicating a rate of 7.685 MMcfD,
through a %-inch chol e, at 1418 psi,
after a flow period of 19 5 minutes.
P The drillpipe was pi lled using the
primary jet and the rotai ing head rubber.
 While pulling the string, it became stuck
at 5600 feet. The string was jarred out to
5038 feet, where it pulled free. This was
caused by casing collapse from 5027 to
drilling was the 7-inch cas ng collapse.
Drilling was not terminate(1 because of
these problems. Drilling was stopped
because it was not advisabk to continue
1

5050 feet. with the high gas flow rate.

P The drillstring was run in the hole and
the well was dynamically killed with 9.3
PPg mid.
> The drilling parameters for this sidetrack
are shown in Figure 7-9.
Highlights of the Air Drilling Program
P Air drilling was initiated through the
target interval. Stress related sloughing
of the carbonaceous shales and coals
caused some hole cleaning problems
while drilling.
P The major difficulty encountered while
> The DSTs performed in the original
strarght hole had indicated a combined
rate of 0.83 MMcfD. The f nal flow test
in the sidetracked, air dr lled section
indicated rates almost ten :imes higher
than this. It would seem that the air
drilling program dramatic,illy reduced
formation damage.
> During drilling, a leak had jeveloped in
the rotating head. It was f xed with no
difficulties. The entire i ir discharge
system would be inspected Jefore future
use, to ensure that the conponents had
not experienced excessive w ear.

Parameter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 130
8150

8200

8250

8300

8350
5
n

r; 8400

f 8450
P
8500

8550

8600

8650

8700

Figure 7-9. Drilling parameters, during sidetracking of Swan Lake-I ST, wii b air mist.

7-15
Chapter 7 Case Studies
> To avoid future casing collapse
problems, surface pressure could be
monitored in the production-
intermediate casing annulus and pressure
buildup prevented. On re-entries of
existing wells, it was recommended that
a casing inspection log be run to
determine if corrosion has reduced the
wall thickness and weakened the pipe.
7.5 Case Study 4
Karwin-1 ST
Reference
This unpublished case study was provided
courtesy of Santos Ltd.
Objectives
The Karwin-1 ST well was sidetracked
below 7753 feet in order to test the
Patchawarra Formation. It had been tested
in the original well, resulting in gas flows
that were too small to measure. The
sidetrack hole was to be drilled with air and
mist, in order to minimize formation damage
and increase productivity.
Operational Summary
> Cement was drilled out to the sidetrack
point and a bond log was run. An
"anchorstock" whipstock assembly was
run in the hole and the well was
sidetracked at 7753 feet. The casing seat
was tested to an EMW of 13.6 ppg.
9 The mud was unloaded from the hole
and the Patchawarra Formation was
drilled with aidmist. The hole was
drilled from 7767 to 7878 feet without
difficulty. An openhole flow test was
conducted (79 Mcf/D).
9 A second flow test was conducted at
7938 feet (177 Mcf/D).
7-16
Hole cleaning problem! became evident
at 7985 feet. The formation was
sloughing and the hol: was becoming
more difficult to clean. A third flow test
was conducted (3 1 1 Mc 7D).
Drilling continued ant I hole cleaning
problems increased. 1he pipe became
stuck while drilling at t 182 feet. It was
jarred free. The remai ider of the kelly
was drilled down to 8:!05 feet. While
circulating to clean th > hole, the pipe
became stuck again, d i e to sloughing.
Sloughing problems c( d n u e d . Since
most of the drilling tirgets had been
reached, drilling was ter ninated.
A four-arm caliper rur could not pass
81 10 feet. An ellilltical hole was
demonstrated. There was a large wash-
out in a carbonaceous sl:ale from 7956 to
7962 feet, and there were massive
washouts below SO00 fe :t.
A final flow test indicatzd a flow rate of
182 Mcf/D.
A completion packer \{as run into the
hole and set at 7640 fe:t. The annulus
was filled with 2% K(11 brine and the
tree was installed.
Air Drilling Highlights
Problems were encounter :d because the
formations were sloughing. The sloughing
problems were responsible for considerable
time being spent to circulate and clean the
hole, stuck pipe and fishing. Of all the
options available, dusting h i s been the most
successful in reducing sloughing in this well.
It has been recommended hat future wells
be dusted until there is an ii,dication that the
wellbore needs to be misted
In future operations, if watt r is encountered
and the hole has to be inisted, the hole
would be drilled with as little water as
possible and at lower annular velocities. If
the well sloughs and drilling can continue,
the viscosity of the mist should be increased
by adding more surfactant. If the well still
does not clean up, the air volume should be
Parameter
0 5 10 15
increased up to the maximum ra:e available.
If the hole cannot be cleaned b j running all
of the compressors, air drilling vi11 need to
be terminated. Otherwise, the BHA will
eventually become stuck. Figur :s 7-10 and
7-1 1 indicate the drilling history 3f this well.
20 25 30

7700

7800

p 7900
h

=
5
f eo00

8100

8200

8300 ' I I I I I

Figure 7-10. Weight on bit and rotating time while air mist drilling the sidetrac :k in
Karwin-I ST.

Parameter
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
7600

7700

7800

y= 7900
5
eo00

81 00

8200

8300

Figure 7-11. ROP and RPM while air mist drilling the sidetrack in Karwir - I ST.

__
7-17
~
Chapter 7 Case Studies

7.6 Case Study 5 pressure at the bottom 0’’the hole [0.052

Unloading the Hole From (psi/ft/ppg) x depth (fee) x mud weight
the Bottom (ppg)] and divide by two. This gives an
average pressure which can be used to
estimate the volume of ai in the drillstring
Reference
*

for a first unloading cyc e. Consider the

This hypothetical situation was provided
courtesy of R.L. Grahim, Rebuen L.
Graham, Inc.
lntroduction
Unloading a hole from the bottom is a
technique that can be used to remove water
or mud from the hole ‘after setting and
cementing casing, so that air drilling can be
resumed. This operation is a simple process
that is not widely used or understood, but
can be implemented at any depth (it has been
used at depths greater than 17,000 feet) with
a relatively modest booster capacity (1000
psig). This is accomplished by reducing the
equivalent mud density of the liquid by
adding air.
following hypothetical cas1 !.
Suppose that 8 5/8-inch, 6 lb/ft casing has
been set and cemented a’ 7000 feet. The
cement plug, cement anc shoe have been
drilled out using water and it is desired to go
back to air drilling. The compressor system
consists of two 1050 scfri primaries and a
two-stage booster which :an handle about
1400 scfm at 1000 psig. The drillpipe is
4%-inch, 16.6 Iblft and ttere are fifteen 6-
inch x 2%-inch collars. The temperature
gradient is loF/10O feet and the surface
temperature is 60°F (520”P).
First Injection Cycle

The maximum available booster operating The first step is to calculi ite the volume in
pressure is used to counteract the hydrostatic the drillstring and in the a nnulus.
head and friction. This relationship
determines the amount of air that can be
9 The drillstring capacity is the drillpipe
volume plus the drill c( lllar volume.
injected into the circulating system.
Typically, liquid circulation is established at
2 to 3 BPM and air is then injected at an
appropriate rate. To determine the proper air
injection rate, check the circulating pressure
with just liquid (as above) and subtract this
pressure from the maximum booster
operating pressure. The result is the
maximum difference in hydrostatic head
which can be utilized for unloading the
9 The capacity of the dril lpipe is:
liquid from the hole. A calculation must be
made to determine the proper volume of air
to be injected. One simple method is to 6550
(T) 2

7c
=523 ft3
determine the average pressure in the well
by adding the surface circulating pressure
(mud gauge) and the liqcid hydrostatic > The capacity of the dril I collars is:

7-18

30x15~ = 15.3 ft3
4
9 The total drillstring capacity is 538 ft'.
9 For the specified casing, the internal
diameter is 7.825 inches. The annular
by dividing the total depih by two,
multiplying this by the emperature
(7.2) gradient and adding the surfac :e pressure.
(7000/ 2) X 0.01 + 60 = 95" F = 555'R (7.6)
9 The average volume occupiec by 1 scf of
air is:

]-
volume is:
7000[ .n(7.825 / 12)' 1-6550[ .n(4.5/ 12), v, = v,{=}
TIP,
=1 { 5 5 5 - 14X
1

520. (14.6 + 1' 160.6)

= 7.89 x 10-3ft3

(7.7)
L

(7.3) where:

Calculate the average volume of air. TI ....... temperature at standard c( lnditions

9 For the equipment on location, it is
known that the circulating pressure at 3
BPM (126 gpm) is 250 psig as fluid is
pumped down the drillpipe. This
pressure can be up to 900 psi (this
provides a cushion of 100 psi below the
booster capacity).
9 The hydrostatic pressure with water in
the hole is:
(OR),
T2 ....... average downhole temper iture (%),
PI .......pressure at standard conditions
(psia), and,
P2 ....... average downhole (psia).
The density of this unit surface v(dume of air
at average downhole conditions i;1:

7000 feet x 0.052 psi / ft / ppg X

(7.4)
X 8.33 ppg = 3021.2 psig
9 The average downhole pressure is the
arithmetic average of the surface
pressure plus the bottomhole hydrostatic
pressure (ignoring friction at this low
rate):
(302 1.2 + 900) / 2 = 1960.6 psig (7.5)
= 9.68 lbm/ ft3 = 1.29 ppg
(7.8)
where:
pl ....... density of air at standard 1 emper-
ature and pressure (0.0761. lbm/ft3),
and,
p2 .......density of air at the averaj :e down-
hole temperature and pres sure
(1bm/ft3).

9 The average temperature is determined 9 Since the density of the air is less than
Chapter 7 Case Studies

the density of water, the hydrostatic
pressure in the column can be reduced
by aeration. Recall that the available
booster pressure is 1000 psi minus a 100
psi safety factor minus 250 psi which is
expended in circulating water at 3 BPM.
This gives an additional 650 psi to work
with.
First Cycle
> Knowing that the excess booster
capacity is approximately 650 psi,
calculate the volume of air that will
reduce the hydrostatic pressure by 650
psi when the lightened fluid reaches the
bit:
AF' = 7000 (feet) x .052 (psi / ft / ppg) x
(frictional changes have. not been
incorporated), a sma ler air rate, for
example, 500 scfm, wc uld be chosen and
pumping started. To begin, one com-
pressor unit is brough: on line, making
every effort to control the air rate (with
the bleed choke) to 50( 1 scfm (4.05 cfm).
Since the total drillstri ig capacity is 538
ft3 and the approximatl: downhole rate is
20.89 cfm (126 gpm = 126/7.48 = 16.84
cfm plus 4.05 cfm) it should take
approximately 538/(20 89) = 26 minutes
of pumping for the li,;ht fluid to reach
the bit. The circulating pressure should
rise from 250 psi to abc but 900 psi.
9 This is an approxirnatc: method that can
be used on location f x estimating the
initial required air volu nes.

x 8.33 (ppg)l,, - 7000 (feet) x .052 (psi / ft / ppg) Second cycle

x PAF (PPg) I aerated fluid 9 The next step is to more accurately

determine the time and circulating
...650 = 3032 - 3 . 6 4+
~ PAP
~ ~ = 654 ppg
pressure when the ligit fluid (aerated)
(7.9) turns the bottom of t le hole. Simple
9 The required density of the aerated fluid approximations, showi I above, indicate
is 6.54 ppg. With water (8.33 ppg) that this will occur a t e r -26 minutes.
circulated at 3 BPM (126 gpm) and air, The circulating pressi re could change
at the average downhole pressure, (1.29 this time. Observe the circulating
ppg), the required air rate is: pressure and deternine the largest
circulating pressure a n J when this peak
occurs. Using these o xerved pressures
and time data, recalclilate the average
pressure and the werage volume
occupied by one sft3 of air. As the
circulating pressure drlps, more air can
be added. It is importint not to increase

-}
the air rate too aggress ively. Therefore,
520-(14.6 + 1960.6) the next step is to evaluate an interim
-+ Q, = 5.77
555.14.6
= 713 scfm
scenario after pumpir g for about ten
(7.10) minutes (this is an arbi rary time) longer
than required to get thz aerated fluid to
> Since this is a gross approximation the bottom.

7-20
Evaluate The Pressures and Volumes annulus, 207.95 - 61.93 = 146.02 ft3 is
After 36 Minutes behind the drillpipe. The annular
9 Because of mass balance considerations,
pumping for ten minutes longer than
Y
ca acity around the drillpip: (ft3/ft) and
(ft ) is:
needed to get aerated fluid to bottom
leads to a volume of aerated fluid in the
annulus that is approximately equal to
the sum of the volume of water pumped
4
-(ET]
?{(TI = 0.2235 t3I ft

in the ten minutes plus the downhole 6550 feet x 0.2235 ft3/ ft = 1464 02 ft3
volume of air injected in the same ten (7.15)
minutes.
> The volume of water moving into the 9 The height of aerated licuid in the
annulus in the ten minutes is: annulus between the drillp pe and the
borehole wall is 146.02 ft3/1.2235 ft3/ft
126 gpm x 10 minutes = 653.3 feet. The total heigl~tof aerated
v, =
7.48 gallons/ ft3
= 1685 ft3 fluid in the annulus is 450 + 653.3 feet =
(7.1 1) 1103.3 feet.
> The hydrostatic head at tliis point is
9 The volume of air moving into the (7000-1103.3) feet x 0.052 psi/ft/ppg x
annulus in the ten minutes is: 8.33 ppg = 2554 psig. Using the
pressures of 2554 psig and 3021.2 psig
V, = 500 scfmx 10 minutes X (refer to Equation (7.4)), to calculate an
average pressure for the aer ited fluid in

{
555.14.6
= 39.44 ft3 the annulus, results in an average
520.(1960.6+ 14.6) pressure of 2788 psig. Using this average
(7.12) pressure and an average teriperature of
584"R (temperature at the nidpoint of
9 The total volume moving into the 6446 feet) the corrected ail volume in
annulus in the ten minutes is: the annulus is:

V, = 1685+ 39.44 = 207.95 ft3 (7.13) = 500 scfm x 10 minutes: :

Vcorrected

> The annular capacity around the drill

(;r}
collars (ft3/ft) and (ft3) is:

(FJ
(7.16)
9 The total volume movin; into the
?{
4 - = 0.1376 ft3 / ft annulus in the ten minutes is then:

V, = 1685+ 29.25 = 197.75 ft (7.17)

450 feet ~ 0 . 1 3 7 6ft'/ft = 61.93 ft3
(7.14)
> The volume behind the crillstring is
> Since 207.95 ft3 has moved into the 197.75 - 61.93 = 135.82 ft3. This
Chapter 7 Case Studies

corresponds to 135.82 ft3/0.2235 ft3/ft = 9 Approximate the tempe 'atwe as:

607.7 feet. The total height of aerated
fluid in the annulus is 450 + 607.7 = T = 5942.3 X 0.0 1+ 520 = 57' 1" R (7.20)
1057.7 feet.
9 The volume of water moving into the
9 Calculating the bottomhole pressure: annulus in this addition; 1 ten minutes is:
PBH= (7000- 1057.7)X0.052 X 8.33+ 126 gpm x 10 minutes
v, =
7.48 gallons / ft
= 1685 ft3
0.052
+ 1057.7 X 7.48. (29.25 +1683 (7.21)

x (29.25x.0764
[
520.(2788+ 14.6)]
5 84 * 14.6
+ 9 The volume of air rioving into the
annulus in this addition: 1 ten minutes is:
+ 1685X 7.48 X 8.33) = V, = 500 scfm x 10 minutes K
= 2573 + 404.3 = 2978 psi
(7.18) {
x 520 . = 3 1. CO ft3
(7.22)
i

9 This indicates that the bottomhole

pressure has decreased from 3021 to
2978 psi. Very little pressure drop has
occurred. This pressure drop may not be
apparent on a typical mud gauge.
Continue the pumping program in the
same manner until a pressure decrease is
apparent. Perform additional interim
pressure calculations, for example, after
another ten minutes (i.e., 46 minutes
after the start of pumping).
Evaluate The Pressure and Volumes
After 46 Minutes
As a starting point, take a first estimate of
the average downhole pressure in the aerated
column on the backside as the pressure at
the top of the column in the annulus after 36
9 The total volume moving into the
annulus in this additional ten minute
period is:
V, =1685+31.40=199.9 f t ' (7.23)
9 The additional footage If annulus filled
is behind drillpipe onlj. This is 199.9
ft3/0.2235 ft3/ft = 894.L feet. The total
height of aerated fluid n the annulus is
approximately 1057.2 b 894.4 = 1952
feet.
9 The bottomhole pressure is now
approximately:
PBH= (7000 - 1952)~.052X I 1.33 +
0.052
+ 1952x 7.48. (3 1.40 + 1685:

[
minutes of pumping. This would be for a
'

depth of water of 7000 - 1057.7 = 5942.3

x { 3 1.40x.0764 520-(2574i 14.6)] +
feet. The corresponding hydrostatic pressure 579.14.6
would be:
+ 1685x 7.48 x 8.33)
PBH= 5942.3 x 0.052 x 8.33 = 2574 psi = 2925 psi
(7.19) (7.24)

-- __;_

7-22
~
9 The measured pressure drop (from initial
conditions) is now 3021 - 2925 = 96 psi.
This is probably detectable on the mud
gauge. This suggests that there is now a
possibility to increase the air rate and
decrease the water rate to further lighten
the fluid.
9 Since it is not known exactly how much
to increase the air, increase the air rate
nominally and cut the water rate to offset
the increase in the volume of air. The
rate changes can be estimated. Suppose
that the air injection rate is increased
from 500 to 800 scfm. The previous
calculations have indicated that there is
approximately 96 psi in excess booster
capacity because of the reduced head in
the annulus. The average downhole
pressure is determined from the circul-
ating pressure of 900 psig and the
previously estimated bottomhole
pressure of 2925 psig [(900+2925)/2 =
1913 psig. The temperature can be
averaged over the full well depth
(555"R). Increasing the surface air rate
from 500 to 800 scfm (by 300 scfm)
increases the average downhole air rate
by:
{
AQ, = 300 scfm X 520 l??l4.6)}.=
= 2.425 cfm = 18.1 gpm
(7.25)
Therefore, if the air rate is increased by
300 scfm, reduce the water rate by 18
gpm, from 126 to 108 gpm. Presuming
that the surface circulating pressure is
900 psig, the bottomhole conditions,
after an additional 15 minutes of
pumping (61 minutes total air injection
time) can be approximated.
Evaluate The Pressure and Volumes
After 61 Minutes
As a starting point, take a first estimate of
the average downhole pressure n the aerated
column on the backside, as th: pressure at
the top of the column in the anr ulus after 46
minutes of pumping. This wculd be for a
depth of water of 7000 - 1952 = 5048 feet.
The corresponding hydrosta ic pressure
would be:
PBH= 5048 x 0.052 x 8.33 = 218i psi (7.26)
9 Approximate the temperatui e as:
T = 5048 X 0.01 + 520 = 570"R (7.27)
9 The volume of water moiing into the
annulus in this additional fi teen minutes
is:
108 gpm x 15 minutes
v, = 7.48 gallons / ft3
= 2 6.6 ft3
(7.28)
> The volume of air moving i ito the annu-
lus in this additional fifteen minutes is:
V, = 800 scfm x 15 minutes x
X { 5 2 0 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : 4 . 6 )=
} 87.23 f i 3
(7.29)
9 The total volume moviiig into the
annulus in this additional f fteen minute
period is:
V, = 216.6+87.23 = 297.83 ft3 (7.30)
9 The additional footage of innulus filled
is behind drillpipe only. 'Ihis is 297.83
ft3/0.2235ft3/ft = 1332.6 feet. The total
height of aerated fluid in t le annulus is
approximately 1952 + 1332.6 = 3285
7-23
Chapter 7 Case Studies
feet.
P The bottomhole pressure is now
approximately:
PBH= (7000- 3285) X 0.052 x 8.33 +
+ 3285 x 7.48 - (20.052
16.6+ 87.23)
[
X (87.23x.0764 520.(ZL87+14.6)]
570. 14,6 +
+ 2 16.6x 7.48x 8.333 = 2772.4 psi
(7.31)
9 It is apparent from this calculation that
the adjustments are very reasonable and
it is justified to proceed with pumping
the new volumes.
Additional Cycles
At this point, nearly half of the non-aerated
water is out of the hole and the emphasis
should be on cutting back on the water rate.
Use the pressure gauge to govern additional
pumping. Cut the water volume by 0.5 bpm
and pump for ten minutes, continuously
monitoring the pressure. If there is no
change (increase or further decrease) in pres-
sure, reduce the water rate by another 0.5
bpm and continue until all water injection
has been stopped. If the pressure increases
at any time, try to continue pumping at the
same rate, unless the pressure exceeds the
pre-established pressure limits, in which
case, increase the water rate by the last 0.5
bpm decrement until pressure decreases.
The final air volume is sufficient to unload
the hole, but it can be increased after the
non-aerated water has been displaced.
Rigup for this operation (presuming the
7-24
depth shown and water ini ially in the hole)
should consider that the Wi ter injection will
last for about two hours (n:arly 360 bbls of
total water). If possible, r g up so that the
displaced water can be reJsed. Also, the
rigup should take into accoi int that there will
be a substantial kick when :he aerated water
nears the surface. Be sure that the flowline
is staked down and be prep; red for the kick.
These calculations are fc r demonstration
only. More sophisticated ci lculations can be
used and easily progrilmmed into a
spreadsheet. The majoi point of this
hypothetical example is to emphasize the
time savings that are po!sible using this
method, as compared to staging into the
hole.
7.7 Case Study t ;
Gasified Liqk lid (Con-
cenfric Strin! i Injection)
Reference
Teichrob, R.R.: “Low-Pr s u r e Reservoir
Drilled With Air/N2 In A Closed System,”
Oil & Gas J . (March 21, 19‘14) 80-90.
Background
A well, with an 1800 ft lat :ral section, was
proposed in the Camrose reservoir, in
Alberta (Husky Wainwri ;ht 15B-3 1-44-
4W4M). This is a low-p-essure reservoir
with a history of high fluid losses during
conventional drilling. The -eservoir proper-
ties were:
Preparation
Since oil production in a closed system was
expected, the potential for a flammable
mixture was assessed using lease crude,
solution gas, mud and air. Ignition due to
compression was not considered a problem
(because of the low reservoir pressure). Test
results showed that a safe mixture was (by
volume) 85% air, with 9% drilling fluid and
6% hydrocarbons. 70% air was ultimately
decided as a safe limit. However, to meet
underbalanced conditions, 95% air would
have been required. To meet this, further
testing showed that a 60:40 airhitrogen gas
mixture would be acceptable.
Surface Facilities
> The BOP stack, including an RBOP,
allowed for commingled gas injection on
the casing side (9 5/8-inch x 7-inch) and
recovery of the 7-inch concentric string
after the well had reached TD.
9 Flow line diameter from the RBOP
flange through the separation system was
sized at 4-inches because of the low
reservoir pressure and the relatively high
injection rates.
9 A three-phase, horizontal, skid-mounted
separator (rated at 50 psi) was sized to
handle return fluids.
9 Produceddrilling water was recycled.
Produced oil was transferred to a 400 bbl
tank and then trucked off location.
> Produced gas (air, nitrogen and
hydrocarbon) was run through a 4-inch
line to a 39-foot flare stack.
9 Drilled solids were contained in the
separator during the horizontal drilling
portion.
> Because of combustibility concerns, a 1-
inch N2 blowdown line was run to an
inlet upstream of the separator. A
methane chromatograph anc a portable
0 2 and lower explosive limit meter were
incorporated in the surface sy stem.
Operations
A paraGte string was an undesiiable option
in this horizontal well. Als,, a water
hydrostatic from the kickoff p i n t to the
TVD would kill the well. A sy;tem had to
be devised to get injection gas t I TVD that
could eventually be removed an( reused. A
concentric string application u.as selected
(this could be surveyed with c mventional
MWD and unloaded from the casing side
simultaneously).
Operations went as follows (refc :r to Figure
7-12):
17.5-inch surface hole was drilled to
approximately 490 feet TVI, (mud and
native clays were used fo- the mud
system).
13 3/8-inch casing was cc:mented to
surface.
12Winch hole was drilled tc the top of
the Nisku formation (planned build angle
of 8-10"/100 feet). The upper Colony
gas would be squeezed.
There was severe lost circulation on
drilling into the Nisku. Following a
squeeze, drilling continued and 9 5/8-
inch casing was set at 2375 fc et MD, at a
64" inclination.
Drilling continued with an 8 3/4-inch bit
to intermediate TD at 2927 fi:et MD and
an inclination of 90". A 7-i ich drilling
liner was run to intermediate I'D,set and
foam cemented.
A 4%-inch motor and M \ J D system
7-25
Chapter 7 Case Studies
were used for drilling. Flow rates were
1.25 BPM of liquid with 805 scfm
(initially) aidnitrogen down the drillpipe
and 505 scfm aidnitrogen down the
casing string. With the kelly down,
liquid was injected at 3.1 to 3.8 BPM
and casing injection was increased to up
to 706 scfm. Nitrogen and air services
were on line once the 6%-inch bit was in
the 7-inch shoe.
9 Water and nitrogen were circulated to
the surface.
9 Air was then injected and commingled
(60/40 aidnitrogen). This supply was
then split and fed to the casing and the
drillpipe.
9 When the well was blown down and
circulating rates had stabilized (and
water added to the drillstring stream), the
shoe was drilled out at stabilized annular
pressures of 21.8 to 29 psi (standpipe
pressures of 725 to 1015 psi).
9 With the kelly down, prior to the next
connection, all gas was directed to the
casing and the water rate was increased,
as previously indicated. The drillpipe
was circulated with water and the
connection was made.
9 After a survey, initial rate conditions
were re-established. Injection pressure
typically increased (annular pressure of
189 psi) until the fluid column was
displaced from the well. With the
resulting decrease in annular pressure,
injection pressure also declined.
9 After drilling approximately 656 feet, it
was determined that if the survey
frequency was increased, injection and
annular pressure did not have a chance to
return to minimum levels. Eventually
overbalanced conditions resulted, the
7-26
well was killed and the pipe was stuck.
P To avoid this, injecfion rates on the
backside were increa ;ed. Oil returns
possibly suggested th: success of this
procedure. Eventual1 y, backside rates
were increased to 1515 scfm.
9 With increasing oil pr iduction, nitrogen
purging through the se ?arator blowdown
line had to be initiatec (and maintained)
at 230 scfm.
> At TD, air and watc:r pumping were
stopped and the well v 'as displaced with
nitrogen (to purge oxy1 ,en).
9 The well was displi.ced with native
crude.
> A bridge plug was rur and set in the 7-
inch liner, the casing E bove the liner top
was displaced with water and the bridge
plug was pressure teste j.
9 The BOP stack was lai 1 down and the 7-
inch tie-back conce itric string was
recovered.
9 A 9 5/8-inch packer was set at the
surface and the rig was released.
Results
Initial production rate s from this well
were between about 2.5 and 6 times
higher than typical pro iuction rates from
vertical wells in the arc a.
Pre-drilling expendit1 res, to evaluate
required nitrogen COI tent, resulted in
substantial savings, since decreased
volumes of nitrogen W I:re used.
Underbalance would not have been
possible without the concentric string
(problems with bend ng of a parasite
string, holiday in the intermediate
casing, economics of I ecycling, required
flow rates ...).
 - 17.5-inch hole diameter
13 7/8-inch surface casing
492 feet TVD
3 1/2-inch drillpipe
intermediate casing
12 Vrl-inch hole diameter
7-inch tie back liner

39 foot slottedjoint

Foamed cement
ter hole

I'
I

Figure 7-12. Schematic configuration of Wainwright 158-31-44-4W4M (after Teichrob,

1994').

7.8 Case Study 7 The First Re-entry Attempts

(Underbalanced Re-
Entvl
Reference
Stone, C.R. and Cress, L.A.: "New
Applications for Underbalanced Drilling
Equipment,'' paper SPE 37679, manuscript
under review, 1997.
Background
This was a re-entry candidate. 5%-inch,
26.80 lb/ft casing had been set at 16,500
feet, but had collapsed at 15,450 feet.
Originally, attempts were made to whipstock
at 15,378 feet in order to go around the
obstruction. Three attempts failed. Flow-
drilling was then attempted and was
successful.
> A whipstock was set and a si ietrack was
initiated in the 5%-inch casing. The
BHA incorporated 3 1/8-inch drill col-
lars, without stabilization. 4 3/8-inch
hole was drilled to 16,100 .eet. Shale
and gas problems at this d:pth led to
increasing the mud weight t 17.5 ppg.
There was increasing evidenc e of torque
and drag. Swab and surge p *essuresled
to more gas problems duriig tripping.
The string became stuck whil e in several
partially depleted sands. Tt-e pipe was
freed with oil spotting agents.
Eventually, a fish was left in the hole at
16,207 feet.
P A cement plug was set abcve the fish
and dressed off. Drilling pro1 :eeded until
Chapter 7 Case Studies
the pipe again became stuck at 16,100
feet, due to sloughing shale. A second
fishing job resulted in a second sidetrack
around a fish left in the hole.
9 The drilling fluid was changed to an oil-
based mud. A cement plug was set
above the fish and dressed off. A mud
motor was used to sidetrack off the plug.
The water-based mud was displaced by
oil-based mud at the window in the
casing. A kick resulted because of
problems in the displacement. The kick
was circulated but the drillstring failed
and another fishing job was required.
This was also unsuccessful.
The Successful Re-entry
After the previous failures, certain modifi-
cations were made.
9 Another whipstock was set at 14,500
feet, to eliminate problems with the
original window. A schematic of the
well is shown in Figure 7- 13.
9 Another problem had been swabbing gas
during trips It was determined that
underbalanced conditions would be
maintained if the mud weight did not
exceed approximately 16.0 ppg.
9 Differential sticking and hole stability
had also been identified as problems, the
stability being related to the water-based
mud system.
> The decision was made, to change to an
oil-based mud, to decrease the mud
weight to 16.5 ppg and to modify the
bottomhole assembly. The BHA was
changed to consist of a positive
displacement motor, one 3 1/8-inch
monel drill collar and 2 7/8-inch PH-6
tubing as a drillstring. This assembly
was designed to minimize surging and
swabbing problems, by reducing the
length of the BHA. Nc it using stabilizers
helped avoid sticking problems across
the depleted sands.
9 An RBOP was used. “The swab pres-
sures were high d i e to the tight
clearances between the hole size and the
bottomhole assembly I ize. Calculations
showed a 1.2 ppg hyhostatic pressure
loss due to these tight clearances.
Regardless of how slo vly the drillstring
was pulled out of thz hole, the hole
would not fill up with t i e correct amount
of fluid. To overcomc this problem the
RBOP was used as a stripping device.
The annulus was pressi red up to 100 psi.
The drillpipe was striiped through the
RBOP’s kelly packer inti1 the pressure
was reduced to 0 psi. 11 effect, the fluids
were being forced pa: t the bottomhole
assemblies by the ac ditional pressure
that was applied at the : >urface.”
> Many wells in this area experience
pressured shale or tight gas sand
stringers. On penetrati in of these zones,
gas cut mud has in( icated that mud
weight might not be idequate. In this
area, increasing mud w :ight to overcome
this had led to a ciain reaction of
required addjtional wc ighting. Before
raising the mud weight bottoms up were
circulated several timc s. The pressure
was allowed to decreise to as little as
16.2 ppg. Sticking wa; not encountered
and the well was succe! sfully drilled.
Justification
> The savings of weight ng up from 16.2
to 17.5 ppg were alculated to be
$42,000.
> Maintenance of the additional mud
weight would have cos1 $1800/day.
Figure 7-73. Schematic of the re-entry drilling history described in Case Str rdy 7 (mod-
ified from Stone and Cress, 79973).

P Trip time was dramatically reduced. Applications for Underbalanc ed Drilling

Equipment," paper SPE 37679 manuscript
Other References under review, 1997.
The reader is also referred to two papers by
Joseph, 1995a,b,4.5 which provide compre- Introduction
hensive descriptions of underbalanced
P During vertical drilling of he Pinnacle
drilling operations in deep, high temp-
Reef structures of the Cc tton Valley
erature, abnormally pressured Austin chalk,
Lime, at depths of up to 16,000 feet,
in Louisiana.
operators would typically drill and set 9
5/8-inch casing at 9500 feet and drill
7.9 Case Study 8 ahead with 8%-inch hole through the
Controlled Tripping Cotton Valley Sand into th: top of the
Cotton Valley Lime for a 7-inch drilling
Reference liner seat. The target is then drilled with
Stone, C.R. and Cress, L.A.: "New a 6%-inch bit, using a taperc :d drillstring

7-29
Chapter 7 Case Studies
(4% x 3S-inch). In offset wells, the mud
weight was typical1,y 15.0 ppg,
increasing to 17.5 ppg at the top of the
Cotton Valley reef. Mud weights of up
to 18.5 ppg had often been used through
the reef. A typical section is shown in
Figure 7-14.
9 It was determined that the maximum
pore pressure in the reef was typically 13
ppg and many previous drilling
operations had been severely over-
balanced.
9 In drilling through the Cotton Valley
Sand, at approximately 12,000 feet,
stuck pipe had previously been
encountered, as well as gas seepage,
particularly C02.
> Mud rheology problems had been
diagnosed because of difficulty in
breaking circulation and excessive wall
cake buildup across the tight sands.
There were difficulties in pulling
stabilizers out of the hole across these
sands as well as sticking of logging
tools.
9 Lost time across the sands had also been
extensive because of swabbing high
pressure gas.
> Tripping back into the hole, circulating
bottoms up and conditioning the mud
would be common, time-delaying
requirements because the holes would
not accept the proper amount of mud.
Solution
How were these problems resolved in a new
well?
An RBOP was installed on the top of the
BOP stack, with a pressurized flowline and
an HCR valve to prevent swabbing gas into
7-30
the wellbore and to avo d kicks during
tripping out of the hole. Tripping was
performed as follows:
9 The RBOP’s activating pressure was set
to “automatic” mode S ( I that its sealing
rubber would automatic<illy exert 300 psi
closing force greater tian the annular
pressure.
P The driller would close the flowline and
the choke valve to isolat :the annulus.
9 As the bit was pulled ofi bottom, annular
pressure was monitored to determine the
magnitude of the swab pressure at the
BHA.
9 Tripping speed was opti nized so that the
assembly could be pulled without
exceeding the “trip marg in” at the bit.
9 Using this information, the RBOP was
opened and tripping wis carried out at
this particular rate. It was determined
that the pipe speed mLst not cause an
annular pressure of m0.e than 390 psi.
In this well, the swab pressure around
the BHA decreased cc nsiderably after
the first three stands had been pulled and
the mud gel proper ies had been
overcome.
“This technique should be used with
caution if there are weak inder-pressured
formations open to the werlbore above the
bottomhole assembly (BHL). All sections
of the open hole above the BHA would be
subjected to the inverse OJ’ swab pressure
which is surge pressure. Surge pressure
can cause well control problems by
breaking down a weak formation and
possibly initiating loss of cii rulation.”
Outcome
The well was successful y drilled with
minimal lost time due to ccntaminated mud
 Water Based Mud
COP Confaminatlon

Trip Speed Calculations

(Bit at 15000 feet)

(Unknown Mud Properties Downhole)

...
1 Trip Margin 0.5 ppg ... 390psi
2 Close RBOP, Flowline and Choke
3 Pull Pipe at Given Speed
4 Monitor Annulus Pressurn
5 Pipe Speed Must Not Produce Annular
Pressure > 390 psi
6 Open Annulus and RBOP
7 Trip Out at Prescribed Rate

Figure 7-14. Wellbore schematic for Case Study 8 (after Stone and Cress, 19973).

and swabbing on trips. Introduction

The,primary pioducer in this fi :Id is a thick
(600 feet), highly-fractured, t arbonate, at
7.10 Case Study 9 approximately 8000 feet T V D . Gas
Flowdrilling production contains up to 3% H2S and a
small amount of COz. The z011e is partially
Reference depleted (approximately 5 ipg EMW).
Stone, C.R. and Cress, L.A.: “New There are overpressured shales above and
Applications for Underbalanced Drilling normally pressured, permeable water sands
Equipment,” paper SPE 37679, manuscript below. The thickness of the t Kget and the
under review, 1997. over- and underlying formatio ns prevented
Chapter 7 Case Studies
drilling the carbonate with any other
formation exposed. In the past, significant
problems had been encountered:
Typically, 9 5/8-inch casing was set near
the top of the carbonate and drilling
proceeded with an invert emulsion oil
mud.
Within 100 feet of the casing seat,
massive lost circulation would occur.
With this loss of circulation, the annular
fluid column would fall below
equilibrium and a kick would lead to
severe well control problems and
pressures up to 2500 psi on the surface
annulus.
At the point where drilling was
discontinued because of well control,
operations would be suspended. The
wells were commonly completed with
only partial interval coverage or were
Annular Surface Pressures Up To 2500 psi
Figure 7-15. Wellbore schematic for Case Study 9 (afier Stone and Cf ~ s 19973).
7-32
plugged and abandoned
Solution
These problems were sign ificant and were
compounded by the motiLation to reach a
deeper target, seismicall I forecasted at
approximately 1 1,000 feel. The protocol
used to successfully drill i o this new zone
was as follows (refer to Fig1 ire 7- 15).
9 9 5/8-inch intermediatc casing was set
above the depleted zone
9 Drilling proceeded tovards the deeper
target (6 l/S-inch hoe), using flow-
drilling with 7.4ppg in Iert emulsion oil
mud.
> Surface equipment c m i s t e d of an
RBOP on top of a thrce-ram stack and
one annular preventer with twin gas
separators (capable of each processing
40 MMscfD), vacuum degasser tanks
and chemical injection F umps.
Highly Fractured arbonate
Depleted Gas Zone I 5 ppg EhlW)
Severe Loss Of C rculation
3% HZS + C 0 2
,
9 Twin vacuum degassers removed
entrained gas from the drilling fluid.
Produced gas was flared through a
vertical flare boom with an automatic
igniter. H2S monitors were located
upstream of the gas separators and in the
vacuum degasser tanks. The drill fluid
was pretreated with liquid H2S
scavenger. Any sour gas detected at the
choke manifold was further treated using
a liquid injection pump downstream of
the choke manifold.
Drilling
> During flowdrilling of the depleted
interval, the maximum surface casing
pressure was 2500 psi. Minor seepage
losses were encountered.
9 “At one point in the drilling of this
section, the kelly packer needed to be
changed during a connection. The well
was alive with about 1800 psi on the
annulus. The annular preventer was
closed, and the volume between the
annular preventer and RBOP contained
trapped pressure. Assuming H2S laden
gas, we bled the pressure to the gas
separators and purged the stack section
with N2 prior to opening the RBOP. The
RBOP kelly packer was quickly changed
and drilling resumed. The entire section
was drilled in two days.”
9 “Historically, the operator had struggled
with this section for as much as 60 days
using conventional well control
procedures.”
9 “Full circulation of the drill fluid in the
hole followed by a shutdown of the
pumps to monitor fluid column stability
preceded any attempt to trip out of the
hole. The well had an ability to bubble
and come alive at any moment with H2S
gas at the surface with no conduit
(drillpipe) in the hole to c rculate kill
fluid.”
Logginp
With a wireline lubricator on top of the
RBOP, the section was loggc :d, without
incident, with less than 500 p;i wellhead
pressure.
Running The Liner
9 A conditioning trip was mr de. There
were only minor seepage loss :s.
9 “The drilling team desired t3 minimize
well control risk when the d illpipe was
out of the hole or when runni ig casing.”
9 With the kelly packer reinoved, the
M O P had an 11-inch open b Ire with the
inner packer relaxed.
9 Since it was anticipated th it the well
would be surged and would kick while
running casing, facilities to strip the 7-
inch liner into the wellbore vere rigged
up as a contingency.
9 If the surface pressure war low (less
than 2500 psi, as was eqected), the
casing couplings would 1 e stripped
between the RBOP and t l e annular
preventer.
9 For surface pressure in exc,?ss of 2500
psi, the casing couplings ~iouldhave
been stripped between the upper pipe
rams (7-inch rams installe(i) and the
RBOP.
9 With the well static, casin: was run
slowly without incident ani r cemented
with a nitrogen-foamed ceitent. The
RBOP was used (a pipe ram and
annular preventer could kave been
7-33
Chapter 7 Case Studies
used) because it allowed rotation.
Rotation can be particularly important
in a hole with unknown rugosity or in a
depleted formation. In this case, it was
important to allow reciprocation and
rotation to prevent the casing Jioni
becoming stuck off bottom with the
depleted zone uncovered.
7.1 I Case Study 10
Coiled Tubing Drilling
References
Wang, Z., Rommetveit, R., Vefring, E.H.,
Bieseman, T. and Faure, A.M.: “A Dynamic
Underbalanced Drilling Simulator,”
presented at the 1995, 1st International
Underbalanced Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands,
October 2-4.
Adam, J. and Berry, M.: “Underbalanced
Coiled Tubing Sidetrack Successful,” OiE &
Gas J. (December 18, 1495), 91-98.
Background
Underbalanced, horizontal drilling was
selected as a desirable methodology for
developing the Dalen field, a sour gas play
in the eastern part of the Netherlands.
Despite production success in this field,
previously drilled wells, including an
horizontal well, had suffered severe mud
losses to the formation when natural
fractures were encountered, leading to
unacceptable costs for time and materials as
well as stuck pipe. The Dalen 2 well had
previously been shut-in when production
declined to approximately 1.06 MMcf/D. It
was desired to sidetrack the original hole
and drill horizontally in the fractured
carbonate, underbalanced, for a target
delivery of 4.6 MMcf/D. The procedures
7-34
included:
> Abandon the lower section of the
original hole (remove he old production
tubing, plug back the I erforated interval,
cut and retrieve the existing 7-inch
production casing and replace it with a
new tapered string (7 !&inch x 7-inch)
from surface to 3234 feet MD to
accommodate the ive-inch outside
diameter SSSV (si b-surface safety
valve), control lines sild the side pocket
mandrel.
9 Sidetrack conventional ly to the anhydrite
at the top of the rese voir, from below
the 7-inch casing sho:. During actual
operations, about 66 fe et of the reservoir
were penetrated. Mu 1 losses (fracture
communication) requii ed plugging back
and dressing off thc cement to the
anhydrite.
9 Run and cement a fiv:-inch liner. The
shoe was approximattly 10 feet above
the reservoir. The holt angle at the shoe
was approximately 60”
9 The five-inch liner sho > track was drilled
out prior to running and stabbing the
completion string into the top of the
five-inch liner tie-bat k polished bore
receptacle.
9 The Christmas tree wa: installed.
9 Drill 3%-inch hole iito the reservoir
through the completio I, underbalanced,
with coiled tubing. rhis is discussed
below.
Drilling Fluid
The underbalanced drillin,; fluid was form-
ulated according to:
9 The expected bottc mhole reservoir
pressure was 4860 psi at 9482 feet (9.86
 ppg EMW or 0.5 1 psi/ft).
9 8.83 ppg NaCl brine was selected to
provide the underbalance and to provide
a margin of tolerance if backpressure
was applied.
9 Annular nitrogen injection was also
possible at 3232 ft MD.
Surface Facilities
Flaring produced gas had to be minimized.
To deal with produced gas, returned drilling
fluids and solids, a standard well test
equipment configuration was modified for
underbalanced operations:
9 Gases and liquids would be separated
with a conventional three-phase separ-
ator.
9 Gas would be directed to existing gas-
handling facilities or flared if necessary.
9 Condensate and drilling fluid would be
directed to their respective surge tanks.
9 Condensate would be trucked off
location.
9 Drilling fluids would be reconditioned.
9 Since H2S could occur and was soluble
in the drilling fluid, a closed system was
needed.
9 Drilled solids were removed by a set of
sand filters and catchers upstream of the
choke manifold and separator.
Testing
Before drilling out the cement, circulation
computer models were calibrated with a
nitrogen lift test. A new two-inch diameter
coiled tubing string was successfully tested
for fatigue life.
Operations and Deployment
9 Rigging up for CT drilling ’vas carried
out, along with training of site personnel.
9 The CT BHA was 75.5 feet IC ng. A sub-
surface safety valve was userl to deploy
this assembly. It was insta led in the
completion string at 350 fec t MD and
isolated the reservoir pressurc :s from the
surface - a downhole lubricator system.
This allowed running the BHA into and
out of the live, but isolated we 11.
9 The first assembly consistc d of two
pieces, in addition to t 3%-inch
“barracuda” mill for drilling )ut cement
below the liner and drilliig to the
reservoir top. Pressure testin), failed and
the BHA was reconfigured. A short
Monel drill collar was run dir xtly above
the orienting tool, allowing the three-
inch inverted rams to be c l c ~ e dabove
the orienting tool.
9 The top of the cement was located at
9770 feet. Drilling was slow. Circulating
pressures were high. Additior of friction
reducer decreased the circulating
pressure by 30 percent. Drilli ig rate was
very variable. The target for nation was
encountered at 9846 feet. T le nitrogen
gas lift test was conducted at 1 his time.
9 Drilling was discontinued at 9849 feet
and the assembly was pulled The mill
was 50% worn and 0-ringed.
9 22 bbl of 15X HCl were sliotted with
NaCl brine. This was an attempt to
communicate with the previously
encountered (and cemente i) natural
fracture. No significant g:s was en-
countered.
9 At 9872 feet, the electrical cc nnection to
the BHA was lost. It was ~ebuiltafter
Chapter 7 Case Studies
retrieval. Difficulties with isolating the
orienting tool when the SSSV was
operated were encountered and
overcome.
9 A reverse circulation junk basket was
run to recover metal debris. It was
determined that the SSSV had been
dislodged. Components were retrieved
and replaced.
9 On a subsequent run, the BHA was lost
and fished.
9 Drilling progressed at approximately 6.5
ft/hr to 9902 feet where the tool became
stuck while pulling back for a survey.
Eventually the entire string was
displaced with N2. It was still not
possible to work free and there was no
influx of gas even when the wellhead
pressure was bled to zero.
9 Eventually, the assembly was retrieved
and the hole was plugged back above the
fish (the top of the fish was approx-
imately 36 feet below the liner shoe).
9 There was speculation that debris had
contributed to the sticking. The
sidetrack proceeded with a higher
drilling fluid gradient. The cement was
tagged at 9721 feet and drilling
proceeded to 9829 feet where the motor
stalled.
9 When the next assembly was run in, the
well started to unload brine and produce
gas at 0.53 to 1.06 MMcf/D at an FTP of
638 psi, at a depth of 9823 feet.
9 Bottomhole pressure was maintained
with the choke at approximately 4130
psi. The inclination of the well had
dropped (instead of the planned build)
from 57” to 40” in 98 feet, because of a
computational error. After this, it was
impossible to build angle and steer.
7-36
Because the well wa! producing, high
differential pressures t etween the inside
and outside of the irilling assembly
acted on the internal holding slips of the
orientation tool, serioi sly impacting its
effectiveness. “The eff :ct of the extreme
borehole geometry or the bent BHAs
could not be overcome by the orientation
tool, and the hole :ended to spiral
uncontrollably.”
The well was drillec to 10,046 feet
where a drilling break was encountered.
Pressures increased r ipidly at 10,053
feet and production went to 10.6
MMcf/D. At 10,128 fe :t, gas production
varied from 8.8 to 21.2 MMcfD.
The hole angle had recwered to 70” but
directional control w; .s very difficult.
No further progress cculd be made and
operations were termin,tted.
Results
Despite difficulties in steer ing, this well was
successful. Its productic n (over approx-
imately three hundred fec t in the pay) is
second in the field, only exceeded by the
previously drilled horizo ita1 well, which
accessed approximately 1360 feet of pay.
Important operational cc nsiderations and
major cost saving t zhniques were
developed.
Related Consideration:i
A downhole lubrication system, such as the
configuration used in 1)alen 2, is an
important component in d illing operations.
In most instances, it is alsc important (if not
essential) to log and zomplete under-
balanced. Deployment SJ stems have been
developed which allow in! erting any length
of BHA under pressure (bc th into and out of
wells). In addition, a Cown Hole Swab
Valve (DHSV) has lieen developed,
permitting insertion of long BHAs into live
wells (Shaman and Pettitt, 1995*’). These
techniques (new generation deployment
systems, etc.) mean that lubricator height is
no longer the limiting factor for the length of
a BHA. Applications include:
9 Long perforating guns,
9 Long logging tools, and,
9 Running screens or other completion
components into live wells.
“The normal constraint on the length of a
BHA which can be run in a live well is the
distance between the top of the lubricator
and the swab valve of the Christmas tree.
Occasionally, extremely long BHAs are
called for, or headroom limitations severely
restrict lubricator height.” In the past,
techniques used to circumvent this problem
have included lubricator valves (not suitable
for production wells), using the riser (in a
subsea well) or well kill. Since there are
certain situations where none of these
options are appropriate, alternate deploy-
ment systems have been developed.
One system uses breechlock connectors,
with a hollow core. These connectors can be
manipulated by a deployment actuator while
inside the riser and allow latching and/or
unlatching of segments of the BHA while
under pressure. The lower section of the
BHA is hung off from a no-go shoulder
inside the deployment actuator, while the
upper section is pulled higher into the
lubricator. The deployment actuator
manipulates the connector with dual rams in
a converted BOP body. Standard gate
valves are then closed between the hung-off
BHA sections and the upper broken-out
section. After breaking the lubricator, the
upper BHA section is extracted. The
-
sequence is repeated to add or I :move more
BHA sections. This particular deployment
system may be used with eithe wireline or
coiled tubing. Usually coiled tt bing will be
used because of the weight of thl! assembly.
A Down Hole Swab Valves (DHSV) has
also been developed. Tlis surface-
controlled downhole valve creates a
subsurface lubricator. This s a second
downhole barrier, in addition t the tubing
retrievable subsurface safety valve. It
eliminates the need for a well kill. For
example:
9 Presume that the well has been drilled
and cased. A conventional c ompletion is
run to the required depth. 4 downhole
swab valve (DHSV or DSV: and control
line are added to the string
approximately 100 feet abok e the typical
tubing retrievable down1 (ole safety
valve.
9 Tubing conveyed perfor; lting guns,
logging tools or other BH1,s are made
up. Both the DSV and tke downhole
safety valve are closed.
9 Pressure is bled off from tlie tree. CT
BOP equipment and the injel :tor head are
nippled up to the tree. Safe1 y checks are
performed.
9 The well is opened and the 001s are run
(adding components as requi red).
9 After the assembly is in the hole, typical
coiled tubing procedures a -e followed.
Pressure is bled off fron the DSV,
allowing it to open. Presure is then
increased to open the dowihole safety
valve.
> The assembly is deployed tci the desired
depth and the completion pe formed.
7-37
Chapter 7 Case Studies
P The assembly is retrieved.
In addition to drilling, development of these
tools emphasizes the importance of
maintaining underbalanced conditions at all
times during the life of the well. Other
underbalanced completions protocols can
include:
9 Flowing The Well: For example, a liner
can be run into the openhole while the
well is flowing. This technique has been
commonly used in the Austin chalk in
Southeastern Texas.
9 Two-Stage Drilling: This common
method entails drilling to the top of the
critical horizon, running; and cementing
intermediate casing, drilling out the shoe
and to TD underbalanced and running a
liner across the production interval. As
always, safety precautions are followed
and appropriate wellhead equipment is
used.
9 Inflatable Packer Isolation: This
entails setting an inflatable bridge plug
to serve as a temporary barrier. After
underbalanced drilling, the drilling
assembly is pulled and an inflatable
bridge plug is run and set in the
intermediate string at a depth great
enough to allow the liner (or TCP guns,
sand screens, etc. ...) to be run above it.
The casing above the packer is bled off
(or pressurized and then bled off) to
check integrity. The liner is run into the
hole and the bridge plug is engaged and
released with an overshot. The liner and
bridge plug are moved to the desired
depth and cemented in place as required.
Thru-tubing inflatable bridge plugs have
also been used and retrieved after the
liner is temporarily suspended in the
casing.
-
-
7-38
Other References
Walker, T. and Hopmanr, M.: “Under-
balanced Completions Imp .eve Well Safety
and Productivity,” World Oil (November
1995), 35-39.
Sharman, D.M. and Pettitl, A.J.: “Deploy-
ment Systems and Do\m Hole Swab
Valves,” paper SPE 30406 presented at the
1995 Offshore Europ : Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, Septen !ber 5-8.
7.12 Case Study 1I
Cementing
Reference
Purvis, D.L. and Smith, D. D.: “Real-Time
Monitoring Provides Ins ght Into Flow
Dynamics During Foal I Cementing,”
SPEDC (June 1994), 124-1: 12.
Background
Purvis and Smith, 1994,8 reported several
examples of cementing across the Dakota
formation, a corrosive saltw ater zone. “Two
to three salt zones and three to four potential
lost-circulation zones can be encountered,
depending on the area, duing drilling and
completion.” The numbe r of stages and
casing collapse problems h; ve been reduced
by using foamed systems.
Compatibility with the dri ling fluid is an
important consideration. ‘Invert-emulsion
oil-based muds have beccme common in
vertical and horizontal well: in the Williston
basin. Although these mud; provide a more
uniform hole size, additiona I problems occur
when using foam cement. The oil phase of
the muds destabilizes the le,iding edge of the
foam slurry, which releases the nitrogen and
results in free gas migratioi ... To prevent
this problem, a 100- to 200-sack cap slurry
is pumped to contain the nitrogen ... In
wells where salt-saturated muds are used,
foam stability is usually not a problem. On
these wells, the elimination of the cap slurry
has become common. Lower concentrations
of foam stabilizer and foaming agent may
also be used.”
An Example Bakken Shale Well
This well had been drilled with an invert-
emulsion oil-based mud and 51/-inch casing
was to be set to 10,000 feet (planned top at
approximately 3200 feet). The bottomhole
circulating temperature was 185°F. The
cementing protocol was as follows.
> Pump 20 bbl of oil-based flush.
> Pump 20+ bbl of turbulent flow spacer.
> Pump 350 bbl of saltwater spacer.
> Pump 20 bbl of freshwater flush.
> Mix 150 sacks of 15.8 Ibdgal cap
cement.
> Mix 16.2 l b d g a l cement, foamed to 9.5
Ibdgal downhole. This foamed slurry
covered approximately 1900 feet from
the uppermost salt to approximately 500
feet above the Dakota interval.
> Mix 16.2 l b d g a l cement, foamed to
12.5 l b d g a l downhole. This was placed
in the 1600 feet between the Charles salt
and the upper salts (Pine members) to
prevent collapse.
> Mix a 15.6 l b d g a l Class G tail, to
extend from the stage collar to above the
Charles salt.
9 Bump the plug.
7.13 Case Study 12
The Friciion D pminated
Regime
Reference
Saponja, J.: “Challenges With Jointed Pipe
Underbalanced Operations,” paper SPE
37066 presented at the 1996 SPE
International Conference on Ho izontal Well
Technology, Calgary, Alberta, November
18-20.
Background
This was a re-entry to drill a 4%-inch
horizontal well. Figure 7-1t shows the
predicted annular bottomhole pressure (at
the bit) versus nitrogen injectim rate, for a
fixed surface backpressure of 51 psi. 38”
API gravity oil was used as the liquid phase
in the drilling fluid. The figure
demonstrates that if the licuid rate is
increased, the gas-to-liquid rai io decreases
and the optimum nitrogen rate needs to be
increased to accommodate u iderbalanced
conditions. This is the crux ol multi-phase
underbalanced drilling. Sap mja, 1995,9
illustrated it conceptually in Fig Ire 7- 17.
Friction Versus Hydrostatil:
> As the nitrogen rate is clianged, at a
constant liquid injectior rate, the
bottomhole pressure changt s because of
a change in hydrostatic pres sure. At low
gas injection rates, the aniiular friction
does not affect the bottom’iole pressure
as strongly as does the hyd .astatic head;
with a decrease in gas rate, bottomhole
pressure increases substanti,dly.
9 With an increase in the ilitrogen rate,
frictional effects bec )me more
significant and the rate t f change of
7-39
Chapter 7 Case Studies

2500

0
L 5-1)2' Intwmedlate Casing
3 Maln Horkontal Hob
30 2000 I ndicaWs OptimumN2 Rate
B

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Nitrogen Rate (sctm)

Figure 7-16. Calculated annular bottomhole pressure for an horizontal H ell with varying
rates of nitrogen and oil injection (modified after Saponja, 1 395 ').

- __

- -
FRICTION-DOMINATED
NitrogenIs Wasted
More stable System
lncnraslngNltrogsnor Influx Increases €

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Nitrogen Rate (scfm)

Figure 7-17. Variation of annular bottomhole pressure, for an horlzoni 31 well with oil
pumped at 1.25 BPM and varying nitrogen rates (modifiec after Saponja,
1995').

7-40
 bottomhole pressure decreases.
> In a representation of bottomhole pres-
sure versus nitrogen (or other gas)
injection rate (refer to Figure 7-17), rates
less than a critical value indicate an
hydrostatically-dominated regime. This
minimum is the optimal circulating
point. It is reached when the reduced
hydrostatic head is balanced by the
increased annular friction.
> If the nitrogen (gas) injection rate is
increased beyond this optimum value,
the system becomesfriction-dominated.
> In planning and performing drilling
operations, it is essential to determine
whether the circulating system is
hydrostatically- or friction-dominated.
An increase in gas injection rate may not
> In the friction-dominated regj me:
always cause a decrease in bottomhole
pressure and excessive (additional
expense) gas volumes may be pumped.
> “The impact of fluid inflow on the
circulation system must be considered
for its proper design, operation limits,
and control of annular bottomhole
pressure. ... It is important to review a
large variety of reservoir fluid inflows
to determine their impacts on the
circulating system and the limitations
of the circulating system.’”
> The consequences of operating in the
hydrostatically-dominated regime in-
clude:
Small changes in the gas injection
rate or formation inflow can cause
dramatic changes in the bottomhole
pressure.
Gas inflow can decrease the bottom-
hole temperature, incr :zing the
pressure gradient into the well,
causing the production of more
formation gas, and so on.
0 Drastic pressure changes can occur
with small changes in t i e gas rate
downhole (injected an Vor form-
ation). These pressure fluctuations
impact all open zones ani can cause
overbalance and/or instab lity.
Liquid holdup and sluggii ig can more
readily occur in the hyd -0statically-
dominated regime.
0 The circulation systen is more
stable.
0 Changes in gas injectior rate cause
smaller pressure fluctuatic ms.
If formation gas is inf owing, the
increased bottomhole g i s rate will
modestly increase the bottomhole
pressure, impeding inflow.
Reservoir fluid inflow is minimized
and controlled in th: friction-
dominated regime.
At higher liquid rates, stability of the
circulation system may lie less of a
concern and it may not t e necessary
to be in the frictio1 -dominated
regime (refer to Figure 7- 17).
Chapter 7 Case Studies

References

1. Saponja, J.: “Challenges With Jointed Pipe Underbalanced Operations,’ paper SPE 37066
presented at the 1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Ne11 Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, November 18-20.

2. Teichrob, R.R.: “Low-Pressure Reservoir Drilled With Air/N;?In A C11 )sed System, ” Oil
& Gas J. (March 2 1, 1994) 80-90.

3. Stone, C.R. and Cress, L.A.: “New Applications for Underbalanced Dr lling Equipment,”
paper SPE 37679, manuscript under review (1997).

4. Joseph, R.A.: “Planning Lessens Problems, Gets Benefits of Underbalai Ice,” Oil & Gas J.
(March 20, 1995a) 86-89.

5. Joseph, R.A.: “Special Techniques and Equipment Reduce Problem;,” Oil & Gas J.
(Mach 27, 1995b) 41-47.

6. Adam, J. and Berry, M.: “Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Sidetrack Succt ssful,” Oil & Gas
J. (December 18, 1995) 9 1-98.

7. Wang, Z., Rommetveit, R., Vefring, E.H., Bieseman, T. and Faure, A.M.: “A Dynamic
Underbalanced Drilling Simulator,” presented at the 1995, 1st Internatioi tal Underbalanced
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, Octobc :r 2-4.

8. Purvis, D.L. and Smith, D.D.: “Real-Time Monitoring Provides 1 isight Into Flow
Dynamics During Foam Cementing,” SPEDC (June 1994) 124-132.

9. Saponja, J.: “Engineering Considerations for Jointed Pipe Underb; !lanced Drilling,”
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced Drilling Confere ice & Exhibition,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

10. MacDougall, G.R.: “Mud/Gas Separator Sizing and Evaluation,” Sj ’EDE (December
1991) 279-284.

11. Saponja, J.: “Comparing Conventional Mud Drilling To Underbalanc :ed Drilling In A
Depleted Reservoir,” paper presented at the 1995 Calgary DE 4-44 Horizontal,
SlimholeKoiled Tubing International Technical Forum, June 28-30.

12. Comeau, L.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Directional and MWD E rperience,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Drilling Conference and Exhib ,tion, The Hague,
The Netherlands, October 2-4.

7-42
13. Brown, K.E. and Lea, J.F.: “Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells,” J Pet. Tech.
(October 1985) 1751-1763.

14. Vogel, J.V.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wl :Ils,” J.Pet.
Tech. (January 1968) Trans., AIME 243 (83-92).

15. Butler, S.D.,Rashid, A.U. and Teichrob, R.R.: “Monitoring Downhole Pressurc :s and Flow
Rates Critical for Underbalanced Drilling,” Oil & Gas J . (September 16, 1996) . Il-39.

16. Misselbrook, J., Wilde, G. and Falk, K.: “The Development and Use of a Co led-Tubing
Simulation for Horizontal Applications,” paper SPE 22822 presented at the 1991, 66th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,October 6-9.

17. Wilson, J.: “Optimizing Drilling of Underbalanced Wellbores with Data Acquisition
Systems,” paper presented at the 1995, 1st International Underbalancc :d Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 2-4.

18. Roy, R. and Hay, R.: “Measuring Downhole Annular Pressure While 1)rilling for
Optimization of Underbalanced Drilling,” paper presented at the 1995, 1st I iternational
Underbalanced Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlan ds, October
2-4.

19. Sharman, D.M. and Pettitt, A.J.: “Deployment Systems and Down Hole Sw ib Valves,”
paper SPE 30406 presented at the 1995 Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdee 1, Scotland,
September 5-8.

__=

7-43
APPENDIX A
Normal Atmospheric Pressure at Different Altitudes

A-I
Underbalanced Drilling Manual

APPENDIX B

Orifice Factors, Fb, for Different Meter Run Diameters and Pressure

r-
Tap Types

I
I
Meter Run
(inches)
2 4

I 0.25
0.375 1I ::::: 0.218
0.495
0.217
0.484
0.217
0.489 0.4 53
I 0.50 0.861 I 0.895 I 1.340 I 0.874 I 0.856 I 0.868
I I I I I I I
I ______I__---

I
0.625 1.352 I
1.434 I
1.936 1.378 1.337 1.361

I I I I I I I
L

L
1.125 4.632 5.592 5.490 4.802 4.370 4.588
7.467 6.702 6.089
--
9.956 8.063 7.584
9.245 9.591 9.376 7.8 56 8.565
I 1.625 I I I 11.31 I 11.47 I 9.268 I 10.26
I ~~ 1.75 I I I 13.25 I 13.96 I 10 82 I 12.18
1.875 14.34
16.79
2.125 19.58
22.75
26.38
30.56
35.40
41.04

42

B-1
APPENDIX C
Data for calculating approximate circulation rates required to produce P minimum
annular air velocity which is equivalent in lifting power to a standard ai r velocity
of 3,000 Wmin (Angel, 1957)

Q (scfm) = Qo + N x H (depth, thousand ft)

Example: Calculate the circulation rate required to air drill an 11-inch hole with 5 %-inch
drilbipe, at a rate of 9Oftntr, at II,OOO ft.

Q = Q o + N x H = 1,456+ 135x 1 1 =2,941 scfm

c-1
Underbalanced Drilling Manual

APPENDIX D

pvA = y~ = constant

where:

APT.......................... total pressure change over an interval from Point 1 to Point : !(in the drillpipe
through the nozzles, up the annulus and through any flow restrictioi IS at the surface),
QF................................................................................. volumetric flow rate of flu d (gas or liquid),
Qs ...................................................................................... volumetric flow rate of solids (cuttings),
MF............................................................................. mass flow rate of fluid (gas I )r liquid ... pvA),
Ms ............................................................................................... mass flow rate of solids (cuttings),
v ..................................................................................................... cross-sectional average velocity,
A ........................................................................................................................ cro ss-sectional area,
g .............................................................................................................. acceleratic )n due to gravity,
g, .......................................................................................... conversion factor (32 17 1bm.ftAbf.s2),
Az ................................................................................. change in elevation from a specified datum,
vF ............................................................................................ average fluid (liquic or gas) velocity,
vs ................................................................................................. average solids vc :locity (cuttings),
+................................................... velocity profile correction factor (fluid) in kir etic energy term,
as................................................. velocity profile correction factor (solids) in kir etic energy term,
APf ............................................................................................................... frictioi ial pressure drop,
pF ................................................................................................................................. fluid density,
ps ............................................................................................................................... solids density,
sF................................................................ cross-sectional average in-situ volume fraction of fluid,
E,...................................................... cross-sectional average in-situ volume fractj on of solids, and,
E~........................................................ ..Ap/A, Ap is the areal cross-section occupi :d by the p phase
and A is the overall crc ss-sectional area.

~~

D-1