DC178888 DOI: 10.
2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 1
Stuck-Pipe Prediction by Use of
Automated Real-Time Modeling
and Data Analysis
Kent Salminen*, Curtis Cheatham, Mark Smith, and Khaydar Valiullin, Weatherford
Summary
A real-time method is presented to predict impending stuck pipe
with sufficient warning to prevent it. The new method uses auto-
mated analysis of real-time modeling coupled with real-time data
analysis. It can be applied to all well types for any well operation,
including drilling, casing running, completion activities, and re-
entries. The method uses leading indicators of stuck pipe that
were identified by use of historical data sets of 36 stuck-pipe inci-
dents in the Eagle Ford, Utica, and Permian and in the Gulf of
Mexico. Two case histories show the utility of the new method in
shale and carbonate horizontal wells for both drilling and off-
bottom operations.
The new method combines two types of analysis: use of
hydraulics and torque-and-drag (T&D) software to determine
deviation of real-time data from the real-time model, and trend
analysis (i.e., rate of change) of real-time data. Parameters used
are pump pressure, flow rate, torque, rotary speed, hookload and
drag, and weight on bit (WOB), along with static inputs such as
bottomhole-assembly (BHA) and drillstring configuration and
directional surveys. Additional parameters, such as downhole
equivalent circulating density (ECD), are used when available and
improve the results. But the method is designed to monitor all
well types and provide a stuck-pipe-risk log even by use of only
basic instrumentation. A novel algorithm predicts the probability
of stuck pipe, which is presented in a real-time log.
Results demonstrate that there is no single leading indicator in
all stuck-pipe incidents. Our early-detection method, called the
stuck-pipe-risk (SPR) log, relies on multiple indicators to
strengthen the likelihood of detecting impending stuck pipe while
avoiding false alerts. A key element to automating the process is
the use of filtering for rig activity. The first indicator is deviation
of actual data from model predictions. A second indicator is trend
analysis (specifically, rate-of-change calculations), which pro-
vides valuable insight into rapidly deteriorating wellbore condi-
tions when deviation from model predictions does not respond
quickly enough over a short depth or time interval. Results are
presented that show the SPR-detection method successfully
detected impending stuck pipe on four historical shale wells an
average 38 minutes before sticking and on one historical carbon-
ate well more than 2 hours before the event. No false alerts were
recorded in these wells. These results were viewed as meeting the
initial goal of providing relevant alerts with sufficient time to pre-
vent the pipe from becoming stuck.
Introduction
Sticking Mechanisms, Best Practices, Company Task Forces,
and Training. Stuck pipe has been a major problem in drilling
even when most wells were drilled vertically (Warren 1940). This
pioneering paper discusses causes, prevention, and recovery of
stuck pipe. Major causes are described as key seating, improper
mud control, cuttings, sand, cavings, and “balling up.” Recom-
* now with Catalyst Software Incorporated
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 178888) was accepted for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1–3 March 2016, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 22 January 2016. Revised manuscript
received for review 3 January 2017. Paper peer approved 27 January 2017.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 14:11 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013
Total Pages: 10
mendations for preventing stuck drillpipe mainly deal with dril-
ling practices, such as keeping the neutral point below the top of
the drill collars, keeping the hole “straight,” running a reamer in
the drillstring, and avoiding improper mud control by ensuring
proper cuttings suspension and by providing low filtration rates
into the formation and avoiding excessively thick filter cakes.
Many of the causes and recommended practices are the same ones
the industry deals with currently.
Bradley et al. (1991) was a seminal paper that is often cited by
other papers on stuck pipe. The paper gives results from an inter-
nal task force in 1989 that details the high cost of stuck pipe to
their global operations and breaks costs and frequency down to
various root causes. They concluded that more value would be
derived by focusing attention on improving people’s performance
rather than introducing new technology. The company achieved
70% reduction in companywide stuck-pipe costs by recognizing
the importance of drilling contractor and service companies, pro-
moting a rig-team approach including training on stuck-pipe prob-
lem solving, and raising awareness through a coordinated
worldwide communication program.
In 2007, a service company described another internal com-
pany initiative to prevent stuck pipe (Yarim et al. 2007). In their
work, they determined that 54% of their stuck-pipe events (58 of
108) had occurred during tripping or back reaming.
The frequency for the various mechanisms of stuck pipe was
as follows:
• 65% from solids-induced packoffs
• 21% from differential pressure
• 14% from mechanical and wellbore-geometry issues
Several courses for stuck-pipe prevention were developed and
taught for operations personnel, engineers, and wellsite supervisors.
This paper describes the following real-time monitoring topics:
• Monitoring the plan during the execution phase by use of
surface and downhole measurements
• Recognizing and monitoring the trends, such as T&D trends
and annular pressure while drilling, that indicate whether the
operations team is drilling to the plan or starting to deviate
Yarim et al. (2007) reached the following conclusions:
• Training is a major contributor to reduction in severity and
effect of stuck-pipe incidents.
• A large focus of training is ensuring adequate hole cleaning
because inadequate hole cleaning was identified as the most
frequent cause of stuck pipe.
• T&D monitoring is critical in understanding hole cleaning
and effectively determining wiper-trip needs and the effec-
tiveness of sweeps and pills.
Dupriest et al. (2011) presented improvements in another oper-
ator’s incidents of stuck pipe. Dupriest et al. (2011) describes a
multiyear effort to reduce differential-pressure sticking through
changes in drilling practices, such as BHA design, fluid design,
and real-time cake-shear-strength recognition and remediation
practices. Engineering and operations training also contributed
greatly and allowed uniform implementation to the company’s
global operations in less than 1 year.
In 2012, an operator observed increased risk of stuck pipe as a
result of increased drilling activity in depleted and higher-risk res-
ervoirs (Muqeem et al. 2012). Like other operators before them,
the company formed a task force to focus on lowering stuck-pipe
1
 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17
costs. Their statistics showed 70% of stuck pipe was caused by
mechanical sticking and 30% by differential-pressure sticking. A
customized training plan was formulated to certify key drilling
and workover personnel every 2 years. The result was a signifi-
cant reduction in stuck-pipe costs.
These papers conclusively demonstrate that stuck pipe has
been, and continues to be, a major source of nonproductive time
and cost to the drilling industry. Our company conducted an inter-
nal study that clearly showed stuck pipe is a persistent and signifi-
cant problem. Hole cleaning and consequent solids-induced
packoffs are the primary causes, but differential-pressure sticking,
wellbore geometry, and other mechanical issues are also impor-
tant mechanisms for stuck pipe.
Predicting Stuck Pipe. One of the first papers proposing the use
of a statistical method for predicting stuck pipe was Hempkins
et al. (1987). Since then, many others have followed, including
• Multivariate statistical analysis (Weakley 1990; Biegler and
Kuhn 1994; Howard and Glover 1994)
• Logistic regression (Wisnie and Zhu 1994)
• Neural networks (Siruvuri et al. 2006)
• Fuzzy logic (Murillo et al. 2009)
• Support vector machines (Jahanbakhshi et al. 2012; Poordad
et al. 2013)
• Active-learning methods (Naraghi et al. 2013)
These statistical methods used databases representing large
numbers of wells. These statistical methods typically used daily
drilling reports, end-of-well reports, and other recorded informa-
tion that provides a single point per day for parameters used to
predict stuck pipe. Input variables generally numbered 30 or more
and included wellbore-trajectory data (such as measured depth,
true vertical depth, inclination, and dogleg severity), mud-proper-
ties data (such as mud weight, plastic viscosity, 10-second gel
strength, 10-minute gel strength, American Petroleum Institute
fluid loss, high-pressure/high-temperature fluid loss, pH, and
chlorides), operating parameters (such as WOB, surface torque,
hookload, pump pressure, flow rate in, and surface rotary speed),
and engineering calculations (such as drag). A fundamental limi-
tation in applying this approach to real-time prediction of stuck
pipe is that conditions leading to stuck pipe often occur within
minutes or hours. Therefore, much-higher data rates are required
than are available in daily-drilling reports and end-of-well reports.
Furthermore, the use of mud properties makes sense, but in our
experience, they are not measured frequently enough on most rigs
to provide the warning time necessary to prevent stuck pipe. Sys-
tems have been developed for continuous measurement of essen-
tial mud properties at the rig site, but these are not widely used
today (Vajargah et al. 2016).
Another approach has been to use analytical models to predict
T&D depending on the prewell plan and to compare these predic-
tions with real-time T&D field data to predict stuck pipe (Belaskie
et al. 1994; Guzman et al. 2012). The use of T&D data in this
manner is essential to predict incipient stuck pipe, but our work
demonstrates that reliability is significantly improved by includ-
ing hydraulics data [such as standpipe pressure (SPP) and
flow rate].
A recent paper (Ferreira et al. 2015) described a case-based
reasoning method to predict stuck pipe. Pattern recognition is
used to recognize symptoms as they occur while drilling. The
software platform compares real-time situations with historical
cases in which problems occurred, and then recalls and presents
to the real-time engineer the relevant cases and best drilling prac-
tices from the knowledge base of experience. In one example, the
remote service engineer monitored overpull and high breakover
drag events, which can be leading indicators of stuck pipe. In the
example, stuck-pipe events were avoided by starting back-ream-
ing procedures and mud-weight control. It should be noted that
for this approach to work, a previous case must have been
recorded and installed in the database.
This literature review shows that various approaches to pre-
dicting stuck pipe have been developed. Our development is
2 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 14:11 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013
Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 10
focused on detecting stuck pipe with sufficient warning to assist
the rigsite drill team to prevent it, or at least to minimize the con-
sequences. The goal is to develop a method that reliably detects
all forms of stuck pipe by use of commonly available rig data.
The following sections describe how the new method was devel-
oped and how it has been applied to date.
Historical-Data Analysis
The approach taken was to first study real-time data sets from
wells in which stuck-pipe incidents occurred and to determine
leading indicators. The majority of these wells were drilled
between 2009 and 2013 in the Eagle Ford shale; however, also
studied were wells from the Permian Basin, Utica shale, Marcel-
lus shale, and shallow-water Gulf of Mexico. Specific patterns in
the data were identified as leading indicators of stuck pipe. These
leading indicators formed the basis of the stuck-pipe-identifica-
tion/prevention system designed to alert relevant personnel that a
risk exists and to suggest actions to reduce that risk.
One of the first issues identified was that the type, frequency,
and quality of data available are not consistent from well to well.
This was true even for wells drilled by the same operator, in the
same field, and by use of the same drilling contractor. Successful
identification of impending stuck pipe would depend on gathering
specific streams of real-time data and use of that data to draw con-
clusions regarding the conditions in the well being drilled. Depend-
ing on the company drilling the well and the number of data
sensors on location, the number of data streams coming into the
Wellsite Information Transfer Markup Language (WITSML)
server could range from 10 to 100. In general, the presence of more
streams allows better interpretation of downhole conditions; how-
ever, many wells only have a basic set of instrumentation and will
not collect any other potentially useful drilling data, such as log-
ging while drilling (resistivity, neutron porosity, density, and
sonic), downhole-drilling mechanics (WOB, torque on bit, bending
moment, and vibration), and downhole pressure and temperature.
To ensure that the alerting system would work on different
well types, it was designed to monitor a well and provide alerts
even if only “critical” data streams are available. These critical
streams met the following criteria:
• Are available on most rigs
• Are useful in determining information regarding the drill-
string, drilling fluid, and the wellbore itself
• Fit within a logical progression that can indicate impending
stuck pipe
Comparison of the commonly available data sets meeting the
previously discussed criteria yielded the following list of critical
parameters:
• Inputs: parameters directly controlled by the driller at
surface
* Flow rate in
* Surface rotary speed
* Surface WOB
• Outputs: measurements that indicate response of the well to
the inputs
* Pump pressure
* Surface rotary torque
* Hookload
* ECD
Downhole-measured ECD was not available in the wells ana-
lyzed for this study, but it is sufficiently valuable to include when
it is available. The other six parameters are available in nearly all
cases and formed the basis for the stuck-pipe-prevention method
described later in the text.
The various parameters in the wells used in this analysis were
generally recorded at 1 data point/5 seconds (0.2-Hz frequency).
The fastest data rate was 1 data point/1 second (1 Hz) and the
slowest was 1 data point/60 seconds (0.017 Hz). Analysis showed
that at least 1 data point/10 seconds (0.1 Hz) for each parameter
was required for reliable prediction of impending stuck pipe.
An important conclusion drawn from analysis of the historical
stuck-pipe data set is that no single leading indicator is present in
 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 10

Rotary-Drilling Hookload (1,000 lbf)
0 25,000
Model Expected Hookload (1,000 lbf)
0 25,000
10,400
Measurement Depth (ft)
and model-predicted values becomes too large, then the risk of
impending stuck pipe increases. This point is discussed later.
Comparison of sensor measurements and model predictions
was used to assess wellbore condition as early as 1994 (Belaskie
et al. 1994). In our own company, such model vs. actual analysis
has been performed for several years but was very time-consum-
ing because it relied solely on an engineer to judge whether a
problem existed. An example of our method by use of activity-fil-
tered hookload data and a model curve generated from our T&D
software is shown in Fig. 1.

Hookload falling The T&D model used in our analysis is the classic soft-string
below anticipated model. Details of our company’s model have not been published,
value may indicate
insufficient hole but it generally follows standard industry soft-string models origi-
cleaning, drillstring nally developed by Johancsik et al. (1984) and put in differential
buckling, or form by Sheppard et al. (1987). Capabilities of our company’s
10,500 some other
problem. model are similar to commercially available software programs
except that our company’s T&D software accounts for axial and
rotary movement of the drillstring for all modes of drilling, such
as sliding, rotary drilling, tripping, reaming, and backreaming
(Tikhonov et al. 2014) (Table 1). A stiff-string model is also
available in our software, but so far we have not seen the need to
use it for real-time applications.
10,600

Fig. 1—Example of model vs. actual analysis.
100% of stuck-pipe incidents. Therefore, reliance on a certain pat-
tern in the data to be present all the time will lead to failure in at
least some cases. Consequently, we decided that our early-detec-
tion method should be flexible enough to generate valid alerts
without depending on deviation of a single specific parameter.
We used two types of data behavior to detect impending stuck
pipe: deviation of actual data from the model-predicted value
(MVA) and rate of change of actual data (ROC).
Leading Indicator No. 1: MVA for a Single Data Point. MVA
compares the actual value measured by a rig sensor and the
expected value generated from a hydraulics or T&D model. The
MVA deviation for parameter x in our method is expressed as
 
xactual  xpredicted
Deviation ð%Þ ¼  100: . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
xpredicted
When the actual value matches the model value within a tight
tolerance, then conditions are as expected and stuck pipe would
not be anticipated. However, when the deviation between actual
Leading Indicator No. 2: ROC for a Single Data Point. The
second leading indicator, ROC, detects potential problems by
identifying rapid changes in key parameters without reference to
the model value. In our method, the ROC formula used for param-
eter x from interval a to b is as follows:
xb  xa
ROCsingle-point ð%Þ ¼  100: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
xa
ROC alerts provide valuable insight into rapidly deteriorating
wellbore conditions. MVA alerts may not be generated when a cer-
tain parameter deviates from the baseline over a small depth or
time interval because of data-sampling/smoothing techniques. The
addition of ROC helps to compensate for this deficiency. An exam-
ple of rapid rate of change in real-time data is shown in Fig. 2.
The results showed that MVA and ROC could be combined as
reliable leading indicators of stuck pipe. The rest of the develop-
ment continued by use of the following six parameters:
• Deviation of surface torque data from model value: TQ
deviation
• Deviation of hookload data from model value: HL deviation
• Deviation of stand-pipe-pressure data from model value:
SPP deviation
• Rate of change of surface torque data: TQ ROC

MVA, Back Reaming ROC, Back Reaming

Bit Depth Hookload Hookload
(ft) Torque (%) (%) SPP (%) Torque (%) (%) SPP (%)
15,188.9 8.0 6.3 52.1 8.2 0.7 26.1
15,189.6 5.8 6.1 46.0 11.5 1.8 20.5
15,189.8 6.1 6.6 38.3 10.0 1.8 14.6
MVA and
ROC 15,190.2 5.3 7.1 30.2 8.3 2.8 3.5
behavior 15,191.6 4.1 7.5 25.2 8.3 4.0 –7.7
changes as
bit is back 15,191.6 3.3 7.2 25.8 7.9 5.2 –14.5
reamed 15,191.9 0.3 7.1 20.1 8.3 5.3 –16.4
toward
stuck-pipe 15,192.2 1.6 7.3 15.8 7.6 5.7 –21.9
depth 15,192.3 0.2 7.6 10.8 5.6 5.5 –24.5
15,192.6 1.2 6.9 11.1 5.4 5.8 –29.9
15,194.3 0.9 7.1 8.3 5.9 6.2 –35.6
15,195.0 1.4 7.1 7.6 4.7 5.9 –37.0
15,195.2 2.8 6.8 7.5 4.9 6.3 –41.6
15,197.0 2.9 6.8 6.9 1.8 5.7 –42.7

Table 1—Determination of actual deviation and trend data during stuck-pipe incidents.

2017 SPE Drilling & Completion 3

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17
Surface Torque (ft-lb)
0 25,000
Model Predicted Torque (ft-lb)
0 25,000
13,020
Measured
13,030
Depth (ft)
13,040
13,050
13,060
13,070
13,080
13,090
13,100
13,110
Fig. 2—Example of rate-of-change behavior. Note that much of
the data are actually below the planned curve.
• Rate of change of hookload data: HL ROC
• Rate of change of stand-pipe-pressure data: SPP ROC
Data Smoothing: Moving Average. Further study of the stuck-
pipe data sets confirmed that not all deviations from plan or trend
changes indicate an impending problem. There are two reasons
for this observation. First, T&D and hydraulics models are inher-
ently flawed to some degree because they never capture all the
physics. Second, rig-data sensors are never perfect and may expe-
rience large error because of poor calibration or offset. It is not
uncommon to see outliers in the data set. Data smoothing was
determined to help mitigate these problems. A moving average is
used to represent a data sample over a given time or depth inter-
val. Results showed smoothing over 25-ft depth intervals provided
best results with data analyzed to date.
Thresholds. It was decided that alerts would be generated only
when moving averages for deviation from model and ROC
exceeded some predefined thresholds. It is easy to understand that
0.01% deviation from model should not generate an alert; but
what about 1%? Or 10%? Where is the line between “normal”
and “abnormal”? To answer this question, the historical stuck-
pipe-incident data set was used to determine values for the appro-
priate threshold. We calculated the actual deviation of model vs.
actual and the rate of change for the critical parameters when
impending stuck pipe was occurring. Table 1 shows an example
for back reaming that led to a stuck-pipe event.
For each of the six parameter values, a threshold was deter-
mined below which the risk of stuck pipe is very low. The various
threshold levels depend on the rig activity as shown in Table 2
for six common drilling activities. Note that these thresholds are
qualitatively valid values for illustrative purposes rather than the
actual values. Thresholds shown in green have positive values
(meaning normal deviation and ROC should be less than the
threshold), and thresholds in red have negative values (meaning
the risk of stuck pipe increases if deviation or ROC becomes
more negative than the threshold value). Blank entries indicate
that there is no threshold, such as during slide drilling, when there
is no surface torque.
Maximum- Maximum-
Allowable Allowable
Activity Hookload MVA Torque MVA
Rotary drill –4% 10%
Slide drill –5% – 14%
Ream in –20% 6%
Back ream 10% 4%
Trip in –16% – –
Trip out 12% – –
Table 2—Example values for deviation and trend thresholds.
4 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013
Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 10
SPR Calculation
The next step was to determine how the SPR curve could be gen-
erated in real time as a well is being drilled. It was essential that
the proposed calculations take place in relevant time so drilling
crews and engineers would have time to mitigate the problem
when a high risk of stuck pipe was predicted.
There were two key questions:
• Should I be concerned with stuck pipe right now?
• If the answer is yes, how concerned should I be and what
should I do about it?
Providing a list of six (or more) calculated parameters and
relying on the user to interpret them would not be a successful
strategy. All these data needed to be combined into a single an-
swer that could be easily understood and acted upon. Our solution
was to combine these values into a single SPR log scaled from 0
to 100%, as described here. As the SPR-calculation system
receives time-based WITSML data, an algorithm automatically
assigns a rig activity to each row of incoming data. This allows all
rotary-drilling data, for instance, to be grouped together, which is
vitally important because model predictions from T&D or
hydraulics depend greatly on rig activity. For example, hookload
while rotary drilling varies significantly from hookload while
back reaming. Similarly, the difference in SPP while drilling with
a mud motor varies significantly from SPP while reaming.
The first step is to calculate the deviation and ROC values for
a particular bit depth by use of the smoothing process described
previously and accounting for rig activity. Fig. 3 provides an
example to help visualize this process.
In this example, the rig activity is reaming, and the current bit
depth is approximately 13,600-ft measured depth. Torque data
have been recorded both above and below this bit depth during
the current run. Each “window” is a 25-ft sample of data. Because
reaming in implies that the bit is moving deeper into the wellbore,
we will first focus on Window 2, which the bit traversed last to
reach the current depth.
To calculate the deviation from the model for a data point in
Window 2, we need to determine the percentage difference
between the actual data and the predicted model value. T&D and
hydraulics models generate predicted values at specific intervals,
but actual data are typically recorded at a much-higher frequency.
This means that most actual data values will fall in the “gaps”
between predicted values. An effective solution is to interpolate
the model curve at each bit depth so that we have a prediction for
every depth (Fig. 4).
The distance between predicted values is determined so that
linear interpolation can be used without incurring significant
error. We have used 1 prediction/100 ft with good success.
The deviation percentage is calculated for each point in Win-
dow 2, and a simple moving average for all those points is calcu-
lated and compared with the deviation threshold. For this
example, assume that the calculated deviation is 4%. Referring to
Table 2, the threshold for torque deviation while reaming in is
6%. The calculated deviation is lower than the acceptable thresh-
old. Therefore, an alert is not generated, which is expressed as
Alert Value ¼ 0. But what if the calculated deviation had been
15%? The initial approach was to assign Alert Value ¼ 1 to all
cases in which the threshold is exceeded. The primary downside
Maximum- Maximum- Maximum- Maximum-
Allowable SPP Allowable Allowable Allowable SPP
MVA Hookload ROC Torque ROC ROC
12% –8% 7% 4%
–15% – 15%
6% –6% 12% 5%
20% 4.5% 14% 30%
–4% – –
7.5% – –
 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 10

Reaming In Surface Torque (ft-lb) Reaming In Surface Torque (ft-lb)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
13,500 13,480

(x1, z1)
13,520
13,500

13,540

13,520
13,560
Bit Depth (ft)

Predicted Torque (ft-lb)

Window 1

Bit Depth (ft)

Actual Torque from WITSML Predicted from model
13,540
13,580 Actual data
Window 2 Interpolated
(xactual, zactual) prediction
13,600 13,560
Current bit depth
Window 3
13,620 (xpredicted, zpredicted)
13,580
Window 4
13,640
13,600
(x2, z2)
Fig. 3—Actual data (activity-filtered and bit-depth-indexed) vs.
model predictions. 13,620

to this approach is that it does not distinguish between deviations
that exceed the threshold by a large margin vs. a small margin.
Therefore, an alert-weighting system was developed, as shown in
Table 3.
In the example discussed previously of 15% deviation, the alert
level would be 15%/6% ¼ 2.5. If the ratio of deviation to threshold
is 3 or more, the alert level is capped at three. This provides a theo-
retical maximum alert level and helps to prevent extraneous data
points from producing an outsized effect on the alert level.
After the torque-deviation alert level is calculated, the same
process is used to calculate alert levels for hookload and SPP.
Because each item is capped at an alert level of three, the maxi-
mum that could be achieved would be an alert level of nine.
ROC calculations are much simpler. The moving averages for
Windows 1 and 2 are calculated by use of the raw measurements
directly from WITSML. The ROC is defined as
ROCð%Þ
MVG AVG ðWindow 2Þ  MVG AVG ðWindow 1Þ
¼  100;
MVG AVG ðWindow 1Þ
                   ð3Þ
where MVG AVG ¼ moving average. The same alert-level weight-
calculation method is used as shown in Table 4, although the
thresholds are different from those shown in Table 2.
Each of the three parameters (hookload, SPP, and surface tor-
que) is capped at an alert level of three, which means that the
Fig. 4—Actual data fall in between predicted values, creating
the need for interpolation.
Sum of all alert levels
Stuck-pipe risk ¼ 100: . . . . . . ð4Þ
Maximum alert level
In general, the maximum alert level will be six times the num-
ber of parameters monitored. This is because the MVA and ROC
methods, each of which is capped at three, is applied to each pa-
rameter. However, for rig activities with fewer than six parame-
ters (for example, trip out or in), the algorithm correctly accounts
for the lower number of maximum alert levels.
The example previously discussed used data windows appro-
priate for when the rig activity is reaming in. For other rig activ-
ities, the MVA and ROC calculations use different data windows,
as shown in Table 5, for six common rig activities.
Adaption to Drilling Software
During the development of the stuck-pipe-prevention method, a
software package was released that would serve as a platform for
real-time drilling engineering and optimization. This software
includes a number of features that required the method to be
modified slightly, as described here:
• The new software continuously recalculates predicted pump
pressure, hookload, torque, and ECD while accounting for
changes in flow rate, WOB, rev/min, and rig activity.
* This was a valuable change because it eliminated much of

maximum-achievable alert level from ROC calculations is nine. the manual building of hydraulics and T&D models for
Combining the MVA and ROC alerts yields 18 possible alert each activity. Instead, a continuous, time-based prediction
levels. The final step is to compare the actual alert level with the for each parameter and for each rig activity is automati-
maximum alert level to find the stuck-pipe risk: cally generated.

(Calculated
<1 1–3 >3
MVA)/(Threshold)
(Calculated
Alert level 0 3
MVA)/(threshold)

Table 3—Alert-weighting methods for MVA.

(Calculated
<1 1–3 >3
ROC)/(Threshold)
(Calculated
Alert level 0 3
ROC)/(threshold)

Table 4—Alert-weighting methods for ROC.

2017 SPE Drilling & Completion 5

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 10

Rig Activity MVA ROC

[(MVG AVG_Window 2) –
Slide drill, rotary drill,
MVA Window 2 (MVG AVG_Window 1)]/
ream in, trip in
(MVG AVG_Window 1)
[(MVG AVG_Window 4) –
Back ream, trip out MVA Window 3 (MVG AVG_Window 3)]/
(MVG AVG_Window 3)

Table 5—Data-window selection for common rig activities.

• The most-recent 300 seconds of data are stored in memory
for on-demand calculations. Earlier data are plotted and
stored in a database and are available for custom calcula-
tions only through queries.
* This decision was made to maximize the performance and
memory usage of the software.
The most-significant change occurred in how ROC and thresh-
olds are calculated. Where ROC had previously been calculated
by use of percent change per unit depth, the new method would
require percent change per unit time. The experimentally derived
thresholds were translated from the depth domain to the time do-
main by use of the following relationship:
% Change in parameter
ROC Threshold ð%Þ ¼
Depth
% Change in parameter
¼ : . . . . . ð5Þ
Bit velocity  time
By including a bit-velocity term with the percentage change of a
parameter per unit time, the same thresholds previously used for
depth-based analysis were found to be accurate for time-based anal-
ysis. Another change was added to ROC thresholds to account for
changes in rotation speed or flow rate, as explained in Appendix A.
Deviation from model and SPR calculations did not require
significant changes to the software. In fact, the ability to continu-
ously update model predictions and to account for changes in rig
activity made deviation calculations much simpler.
Case Studies
Once the method was coded into the software, a number of tests
were run by use of recorded real-time data from wells in which
stuck-pipe incidents were known to have occurred. The data were
replayed from a WITSML server to replicate the way that the soft-
ware would receive the data during an actual drilling operation.
The goal was to determine whether the following criteria were met:
• The numerical value of the SPR calculation should remain
comparatively low during normal operations when no prob-
lems occurred.
• SPR should increase leading up to the known stuck-pipe
event.
• The increase in SPR should occur sufficiently before the
stuck-pipe event itself so that the rig crew could have con-
ceivably taken a mitigating action if they had been alerted to
the problem.
Case Study 1. The first test well was drilled in a US shale play.
After landing the curve in the upper target zone, lost circulation
was observed and the operator elected to pull out of hole to run a
contingency liner and isolate the loss zone. On the trip out of
hole, the drilling BHA became stuck in the vertical section of the
wellbore while back reaming near the intermediate-casing shoe.
Fig. 5 shows the software output, including stuck-pipe risk for a
2-hour period leading up to the stuck-pipe event.
All the case-study logs shown in this paper have the same for-
mat: The logs are for an approximately 2-hour period. Actual

TRQD % SPPD %
–50.00 --- 50.00 –50.00 --- 50.00
BP ft HKLDD % RT kipf-ft CSPP psi
–5.00 --- 150.00 –50.00 --- 50.00 0.00 --- 40.00 0.00 --- 5,000.00
WOB kip Hookload kip CTRQ kipf-ft SPP psi ASPR % Well Depth ft
0.00 --- 60.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 40.00 0.00 --- 5,000.00 0.00 --- 100.00 12,689.81
ROP ft/hr Hookload kip TDS rpm Flow in gal/min SPRR % Bit Depth ft
250.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 300.00 0.00 --- 1,000.00 0.00 --- 100.00 0.00

17:36:02

17:41:43

17:47:13

17:52:42
17:57:53

18:03:58
Average SPR
exceeds 50% 18:10:09
here (18:38)
Monday, September 19,2016

18:15:34

18:22:30
18:26:57

18:32:31

Pipe is fully 18:38:02

immobile here 18:43:53
(18:47)
18:52:03

18:57:05
19:02:09

19:11:00

19:16:05

19:22:56
19:28:01

Fig. 5—Results of the SPR calculation on the first test well; warning time 5 9 minutes.

6 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 10

False Alarm
Well Name Incident Type Alert Time Incident Time Alert Level Warning Time Present?
Test Well 1 Stuck 8:03 p.m. 8:12 p.m. 59.7% 9 minutes No
Test Well 2 Near-miss 2:48 a.m. 3:36 a.m. 53.4% 48 minutes No
Stuck 4:10 a.m. 4:37 a.m. 62.8% 27 minutes No
Test Well 3 Stuck 5:24 p.m. 5:35 p.m. 54.2% 11 minutes No
Test Well 4 Near-miss 8:31 p.m. 8:50 p.m. 56.0% 19 minutes No
Stuck 8:15 p.m. 10:07 p.m. 65.6% 112 minutes No
Averages: 58.6% 38 minutes

Table 6—Summary of risk levels calculated for each test-well incident.

sensor data are shown in blue; model values are shown in red; per-
centage difference between the two is shown in dotted green; and
a few other data or calculated values are shown in black. Informa-
tion in the tracks is as follows:
• Track 1: Block position, WOB, and rate of penetration
• Track 2: Hookload
• Track 3: Surface torque and topdrive speed
• Track 4: SPP and flow in (black)
• Track 5: SPR log with SPR in red; unsmoothed (or raw) val-
ues (SPRR) in dotted black. The dots in this track represent
each time that SPR or SPRR has exceeded 50%.
• Track 6: Bit depth in black and well depth in red, which
makes it easy to discern when the bit is on bottom and, if
not, whether it is moving up or down.
In this case study, the first time the SPR exceeded 50%
occurred at 18:38, which was 9 minutes before the actual stuck-
pipe event. The average risk for the preceding 24 hours of
“normal” operations was approximately 12%. This test was con-
sidered successful.
Three other wells from the same shale play were tested and are
summarized in Table 6 along with the first case study (labeled
Test Well 1). Results showed that in each case, stuck pipe (or a
near miss) occurred within 2 hours whenever the SPR value
exceeded 50%. (A near miss was defined as overpull more than
twice as high as recent values.) Consequently, we established the
50% value for SPR as the leading indicator for stuck pipe. It was
also observed that suboptimal hole cleaning, excessive T&D, and/
or wellbore instability generally occurred when SPR was between
35 and 50%. When SPR was less than 35%, normal wellbore and
drilling conditions were observed. By use of these guidelines, the
SPR successfully detected all six events with an average warning
time of 38 minutes, which was considered sufficient for the rig
team to take remedial actions to prevent or at least mitigate
oncoming stuck pipe before it occurred. The sticking mechanism
for all test cases in these shale wells is believed to have been well-
bore packoff, bridging, or wellbore instability.
Case Study 2. The second case study was a horizontal well
drilled in a carbonate formation in the Middle East. Fig. 6 shows
operations slightly more than 6 hours before the stuck-pipe event.
Reaming operations were under way while the hole was being cir-
culated and conditioned. Tracks 2 (hookload) and 4 (SPP) show
that the deviation between actual data and model values is very
low (less than 10%). Track 3 shows that surface torque deviation
between actual data and the model is less than 20%, which is also
relatively low. In our experience, such close agreement confirms

TRQD % SPPD %
–50.00 --- 50.00 –50.00 --- 50.00
BP ft HKLDD % RT kipf-ft CSPP psi
–5.00 --- 150.00 –50.00 --- 50.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 --- 4,000.00
WOB kip Hookload kip CTRQ kipf-ft SPP psi ASPR % Well Depth ft
0.00 --- 20.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 --- 100.00 14,546.00
ROP ft/hr Hookload kip TDS rpm Flow in gal/min SPRR % Bit Depth ft
100.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 150.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 --- 100.00 0.00
10:30:15
Calibrated models
10:34:26
show close
correlation of MVA 10:39:51

10:45:17
10:50:00
10:55:00

11:00:00

11:05:00
Monday, September 19,2016

11:10:00
11:15:09

11:20:10

11:26:00

11:32:46

11:42:22

11:50:00

11:57:18

12:05:00

12:10:49

12:16:06

12:25:46

Fig. 6—Second test well; low SPR.

2017 SPE Drilling & Completion 7

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 10

TRQD % SPPD %
–50.00 --- 50.00 –50.00 --- 50.00
BP ft HKLDD % RT kipf-ft CSPP psi
–5.00 --- 150.00 –50.00 --- 50.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 --- 4,000.00
WOB kip Hookload kip CTRQ kipf-ft SPP psi ASPR % Well Depth ft
0.00 --- 20.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 --- 100.00 14,546.00
ROP ft/hr Hookload kip TDS rpm Flow in gal/min SPRR % Bit Depth ft
100.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 150.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 --- 100.00 0.00
12:20:00

Elevated SPP
12:28:31

12:33:51

12:40:00
12:45:00
12:50:00
Elevated SPR
12:55:00

13:00:00

Monday, September 19,2016

13:05:10
13:10:00
13:15:00
13:20:00
13:25:00
13:30:00
13:35:00
13:40:00
Erratic Torque SPR Flag #1
at 13:35 13:45:00
13:50:00
13:55:00
14:00:00
14:05:00
14:10:00
14:15:00

Fig. 7—Second test well; high risk of stuck pipe predicted more than 2 hours before event.

that the T&D and hydraulics models are accurately calibrated,
which is important to detect impending stuck pipe. Track 5 shows
that SPR is very low at less than 10%, as expected during normal
operating conditions.
At this time, it was decided to go back to the bottom and re-
sume drilling, as shown in Fig. 7. Track 4 shows that by 12:28:51,
even before the bit reached bottom, the actual SPP increased sig-
nificantly (by approximately 150 psi) at constant flow rate,
whereas the predicted-model value remained constant. This was
certainly an indication of a problem. Once drilling resumed, sur-
face torque became erratic and deviation from model values
exceeded 50%, as shown in Track 3. Moreover, SPP continued to
increase at constant flow rate until a very-large (300 psi) deviation
was observed between actual and model values. At 13:35, SPR
exceeded 50%, which was the first warning of impending stuck
pipe in this case study.
Over the next hour (not shown to save space) the rig came off-
bottom to ream the hole, presumably to improve the deteriorating
conditions.
Fig. 8 shows events after drilling resumed, as indicated by bit
depth equal to well depth in Track 6. Less than an hour later (at
16:00), SPR exceeded 50% for the second time, followed by tor-
que spikes and topdrive stalls. At 17:07, the drillstring became
stuck. This case study was also considered a success because the
SPR log predicted the stuck pipe 2 hours and 42 minutes before it
occurred. Moreover, a second warning was given 1 hour and 7
minutes before the pipe became stuck.
Discussion. The two case studies were conducted in different for-
mations (shale and carbonate) in two different drilling areas. In
both cases, the SPR log reliably detected impending stuck pipe
while avoiding false alarms. Several lessons were learned regard-
ing the use of the method. First, each drilling area has somewhat
different conditions that require analyzing several offset wells to
ensure the thresholds and other algorithm parameters are optimal.
For example, rate of penetration in the carbonate wells was much
slower than in the shale wells (average 10–20 ft/hr compared with
more than 100 ft/hr), and that required an adjustment to the bit-ve-
locity term to ensure that the moving average was appropriately
calculated. Second, calibration of T&D and hydraulics models is
important, especially the issue of when and when not to calibrate.
With these factors properly implemented, we concluded that SPR
provides a valid, automated, real-time method for detecting
impending stuck pipe.
Next Steps
The method will be further validated by continuing to test it on
historical wells with known stuck-pipe incidents and on live wells
as they are drilled. Generating alerts before the sticking point and
not generating alerts when no problems exist are considered
equally important.
The most significant obstacle to effective use of the method
will be training rig crews and drilling engineers on how to effec-
tively communicate stuck-pipe alerts and act on them. Increasing
average warning time by strengthening the method will help to
overcome this problem, but rigorous crew training will also be
necessary. Future development will also focus on automatic root-
cause analysis to determine the sticking mechanism and auto-
mated recommendation of mitigation techniques.
Conclusions
The method was determined to be accurate for detecting stuck
pipe in real time. SPR greater than 50% indicated hole conditions
conducive to stuck pipe. In each test case, the average SPR
exceeded 50% before stuck pipe occurred. For the four shale
wells, warning time averaged 38 minutes and varied from 9 to
112 minutes. For the one carbonate well, warning time was 162
minutes. False alerts did not occur in any of the test wells, and
that is also considered to be an important requirement for stuck-
pipe prediction. It was observed that SPR was less than 35% dur-
ing normal operations. SPR values between 35 and 50% generally
indicated suboptimal hole cleaning, excessive T&D, and/or well-
bore instability.

8 2017 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 10

TRQD % SPPD %
–50.00 --- 50.00 –50.00 --- 50.00
BP ft HKLDD % RT kipf-ft CSPP psi
–5.00 --- 150.00 –50.00 --- 50.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 --- 4,000.00
WOB kip Hookload kip CTRQ kipf-ft SPP psi ASPR % Well Depth ft
0.00 --- 20.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 15.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 --- 100.00 14,546.00
ROP ft/hr Hookload kip TDS rpm Flow in gal/min SPRR % Bit Depth ft
100.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- 350.00 0.00 --- 150.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 --- 100.00 0.00
15:16:15

15:22:34

15:30:00

15:35:00

15:40:00

15:45:00

15:50:00
15:55:00

Monday, September 19,2016

16:00:00
16:05:00
SPR Flag #2
at 16:00 16:10:00

Torque spikes 16:15:00

16:20:00
16:25:00
16:30:00

16:35:00
16:40:00

TD stalls 16:45:00
Pipe is fully
immobile here 16:50:44
(17:07)
16:57:09

17:07:00

17:14:00

Fig. 8—Second test well; fully stuck pipe after a second warning.

These results are viewed as meeting the initial goals of provid-
ing relevant alerts with sufficient time to prevent the pipe from
becoming stuck. The method is believed to be most effective in
providing alerts because of impending wellbore-packoff events.
This was a positive outcome because wellbore packoff has been
consistently observed to be the most-common sticking mecha-
nism. The method is considered an improvement over current
detection and prevention techniques.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Larry “Matt” Briggs for his contributions to the
development and application of the stuck-pipe-prediction method.
We are grateful to Dev Kumar and Greg Smith for their leadership
in continuing the development of the method as well as their help
in running the software and producing figures for the case studies.
Finally, we greatly appreciate the support of Weatherford.
References
Belaskie, J. P., McCann, D. P., and Leshikar, J. F. 1994. A Practical Method
To Minimize Stuck Pipe Integrating Surface and MWD Measurements.
Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15–18 Febru-
ary. SPE-27494-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/27494-MS.
Biegler, M. W. and Kuhn, G. R. 1994. Advances in Prediction of Stuck
Pipe Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Presented at the SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15–18 February. SPE-27529-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/27529-MS.
Bradley, W. B., Jarman, D., Plott, R. S. et al. 1991. A Task Force
Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 11–14 March. SPE-21999-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/21999-MS.
Dupriest, Fred E., Elks, William C., and Ottesen, S. 2011. Design Method-
ology and Operational Practices Eliminate Differential Sticking. SPE
Drill & Compl 26 (1): 115–123. SPE-128129-PA. https://doi.org/
10.2118/128129-PA.
Ferreira, A. P. L. A., Carvalho, D. J. L., Rodrigues, R. M. et al. 2015.
Automated Decision Support and Expert Collaboration Avoid Stuck
Pipe and Improve Drilling Operations in Offshore Brazil Subsalt Well.
Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 4–7 May.
OTC-25838-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/25838-MS.
Guzman, J. M., Khalil, M. E., Orban, N. et al. 2012. Stuck-Pipe Prevention
Solutions in Deep Gas Drilling; New Approaches. Presented at SPE
Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Kho-
bar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April. SPE-160875-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/160875-MS.
Hempkins, W. B., Kingsborough, R. H., Lohec, W. E. et al. 1987. Multi-
variate Statistical Analysis of Stuck Drillpipe Situations. SPE J. 2 (3):
237–244. SPE-14181-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14181-PA.
Howard, J. A. and Glover, S. B. 1994. Tracking Stuck Pipe Probability
While Drilling. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas,
15–18 February. SPE-27528-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/27528-MS.
Jahanbakhshi, R., Keshavarzi, R., Aliyari Shoorehdeli, M. et al. 2012.
Intelligent Prediction of Differential Pipe Sticking by Support Vector
Machine Compared With Conventional Artificial Neural Networks:
An Example of Iranian Offshore Oil Fields. SPE Drill & Compl
27 (4): 586–595. SPE-163062-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/163062-PA.
Johancsik, C. A., Friesen, D. B., and Dawson, R. 1984. Torque and
Drag in Directional Wells-Prediction and Measurement. J Pet Technol
36 (6): 987–992. SPE-11380-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA.
Muqeem, M. A., Weekse, A. E., and Al-Hajji, A. A. 2012. Stuck Pipe Best
Practices–A Challenging Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Pre-
sented at SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibi-
tion, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April. SPE-160845-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/160845-MS.
Murillo, A., Neuman, J., and Samuel, R. 2009. Pipe Sticking Prediction and
Avoidance Using Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Modeling. Presented at the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 4–8
April. SPE-120128-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/120128-MS.
Naraghi, M. E., Ezzatyar, P., and Jamshidi, S. 2013. Prediction of Drilling
Pipe Sticking by Active Learning Method (ALM). J. Pet. Gas Eng. 4
(7): 173–183. https:/dx.doi.org/10.5897/JPGE2013.0166.
Poordad, S., Chamkalani, A., and Pordel Shahri, M. 2013. Support Vector
Machine Model: A New Methodology for Stuck Pipe Prediction. Pre-
sented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat,
Oman, 28–30 January. SPE-164003-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
164003-MS.

2017 SPE Drilling & Completion 9

ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013

 DC178888 DOI: 10.2118/178888-PA Date: 25-May-17
Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T. 1987. Designing Well Paths
To Reduce Drag and Torque. SPE Drill Eng 2 (4): 344–350. SPE-
15463-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15463-PA.
Siruvuri, C., Nagarakanti, S., and Samuel, R. 2006. Stuck Pipe Prediction
and Avoidance: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach.
Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida,
21–23 February. SPE-98378-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/98378-MS.
Tikhonov, V., Valiullin, K., Nurgaleev, A. et al. 2014. Dynamic Model for
Stiff-String Torque and Drag. SPE Drill & Compl 29 (3): 279–294.
SPE-163566-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/163566-PA.
Vajargah, A. K., Sullivan, G., and van Oort, E. 2016. Automated Fluid
Rheology and ECD Management. Presented at the SPE Deepwater
Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 14–15 Sep-
tember. SPE-180331-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180331-MS.
Shift (seconds) Duration (seconds)
Average Flow In (gal/min) , 0 , 15
3 ×
Shift (seconds) Duration (seconds)
Average Flow In (gal/min) , 0 , 60
Fig. A-1—Modified ROC and threshold-calculation method.
Appendix A
ROC Thresholds To Account for Changes in Rotation Speed
or Flow Rate. It was observed that an increase in flow rate from
300 to 400 gal/min, for instance, would cause a rapid increase in
SPP ROC that would incorrectly register as an increase in SPR.
The solution was to multiply the threshold by a unitless term that
divides the average value of the input parameter (flow rate in this
case) over a short period of time by the average value of the same
parameter over a longer period of time. Thus, if the input parameter
is increased (e.g., 300 to 400 gal/min), the term will be greater than
unity for some period of time. This will temporarily increase the
ROC threshold such that the SPR calculation will not “overreact”
to changes in input parameters. An example of the modified ROC-
threshold calculation from the software is shown in Fig. A-1.
The numeric term is the original threshold derived from depth-
based calculations. The second term accounts for changes in flow
rate and modifies the threshold accordingly. It was understood that
pump pressure does not follow a linear relationship with changes
in flow rate. However, the goal of the adjustment was not to com-
prehend the pressure change with great precision because that task
was already accomplished by use of the automated hydraulics
model. The additional term was included to simply provide a tem-
porary increase in allowable ROC during periods of changing
flow. Once flow stabilizes for 60 seconds (regardless of the magni-
tude of the change), the adjustment term is equal to unity and no
longer has any effect on the calculated threshold. The third term
converts the depth-based threshold to a time-based threshold by
accounting for average bit velocity, as previously described.
Similar updates to ROC thresholds were also required for the
relationship between rev/min and torque. No adjustment was made
to the relationship between WOB and hookload because surface-
measured WOB is calculated directly from changes in hookload.
10
ID: jaganm Time: 14:12 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/170013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##170013
Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 10
Warren, J. E. 1940. Causes, Preventions, and Recovery of Stuck Drill
Pipe. API-40-030.
Weakley, R. R. 1990. Use of Stuck Pipe Statistics To Reduce the Occur-
rence of Stuck Pipe. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 September. SPE-20410-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/20410-MS.
Wisnie, A. P. and Zhu, Z. 1994. Quantifying Stuck Pipe Risk in Gulf of
Mexico Oil and Gas Drilling. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25–28 Septem-
ber. SPE-28298-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/28298-MS.
Yarim, G., Uchytil, R. J., May, R. B. et al. 2007. Stuck Pipe Prevention–A
Proactive Solution to an Old Problem. Presented at SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference & Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11–14 Novem-
ber. SPE-109914-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/109914-MS.
Shift (seconds) Shift (seconds) Duration (seconds)
× Average Bit Depth (ft) 0 0 30
Kent Salminen is founder of Catalyst Software Incorporated.
Previously, he worked for 6 years at Weatherford International
in a variety of engineering roles. Salminen’s research interests
include unconventional-well design and drilling-data analysis.
He has authored or coauthored four technical papers. Salmi-
nen holds a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering from
the University of Texas at Austin.
Curtis Cheatham is a senior drilling engineering adviser for
Weatherford in reservoir-solutions well engineering. From 2009
to 2012, he was executive editor of SPE Drilling & Completion
and currently serves as an associate editor. Cheatham has
received two awards for contributions to SPE peer review: Out-
standing Technical Editor (2007) and A Peer Apart (2009) for
involvement in more than 100 papers as editor. He holds
bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering
from Rice University in Houston.
Mark Smith is the Global Solutions Champion, Drilling for
Weatherford in reservoir-solutions well engineering. He has
worked in the industry since 1984 in various field and office
capacities, has contributed to several previous publications,
and has been awarded a number of patents for drilling appli-
cations. Smith holds a bachelor’s degree in mining geology
from the University of Leicester, England.
Khaydar Valiullin is a senior project engineer in research and
development with Weatherford. Previously, he worked for 5
years as a research fellow at Polytechnic University of Milan,
Italy. Valiullin’s research interests are wellbore and drillstring in-
tegrity, drilling optimization and automation, defect-tolerance
design, and multiaxial fatigue. He has coauthored more than
15 technical papers. Valiullin has been a member of SPE since
1999. He holds a PhD degree in mechanical systems engineer-
ing from Polytechnic University of Milan and a master’s degree
in petroleum engineering from the Ufa State Technological
University, Russia.
2017 SPE Drilling & Completion