SPE/IADC 79919
New Drilling Technology Reduces Torque and Drag by Drilling a Smooth and Straight
Wellbore
D. Stuart, Peak Well Management, C. D. Hamer, C. Henderson, T. Gaynor, and D. C-K Chen, Halliburton Sperry-Sun
Copyright 2003, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–21 February 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contai ned in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Torque and drag can be critical issues in drilling directional
wells especially in extended reach drilling (ERD). During well
planning, torque and drag must be projected to ensure the rig’s
rotating and hoisting equipment are adequately sized and to
evaluate the limits for slide-oriented drilling motors.
Depending upon formations, typical open hole friction factors
(FF) used in simulation range from 0.22 in oil base mud to
0.35 in water based mud. These friction factors are scaled to a
higher value than those measured in the field in order to
account for tortuosity created by drilling assemblies.
A new drilling technology has been developed with the
objective to reduce torque and drag by drilling a smooth and
straight wellbore. The technology involves extended-gauge bit
design with a matched steerable motor system or a point-the-
bit rotary steerable system. Friction factor was studied for
North Sea‘s wells drilled by the conventional motor systems
and by new drilling systems. Significant reductions in the
actual friction factors and the tortuosity index have been seen
from the wells drilled by the new drilling systems.
Introduction
Roughly a decade ago our ability to make measurements
downhole matured to a point where we had achieved the bulk
of what we still measure today in terms of well placement and
formation evaluation. While these important areas of
measurement have continued to be refined, their primary use
continues to be focused on the reservoir and near reservoir
sections of the wells we drill. In the last few years we have
had the luxury of being able to add to our armory a series of
sensors that have allowed us to build significantly on our
understanding of the drilling process itself. An enhanced
armory has lead to an improved ability to impact the
economics of drilling the overburden as well as the reservoir.
Initially these sensors were intended to help avoid
hazardous conditions while drilling, and might be viewed as
providing the ability to observe and manage the symptoms of
sub-optimal behavior. These sensors include vibration,
pressure while drilling, caliper, weight on bit, and torque. We
have also added the ability to integrate improved surface data
logging with these downhole measurements to provide a more
comprehensive record of the behavior of the complete drilling
system. More recently the ability to provide imaging logs in
the FEWD environment has provided further evidence of
small scale bore hole geometry effects over a larger number of
wells.
Many of these sensors measure attributes of the process
that also are amenable to modeling. This capability is
significant in as much as it brings a focus to managing the
drilling process that starts with the planning phase. When we
plan, we build a series of engineering and economic models of
expected behavior. There is nothing particularly earth
shattering about this. The outcome of the modeling exercises
are encapsulated in the familiar items like the well trajectory,
drilling program, torque and drag estimates, BHA, drill string
design, bit selection, hydraulics, time depth curve, mud
program, AFE and so on.
It would be peculiar if, having made these predictions
about what we are setting out to do, we did not then compare
reality with the expectation. However, many of the
comparisons we have traditionally made contain significant
“fudge factors” that collected together all the elements we
either did not understand or could not measure in detail. A
good example of “fudge factors” is the use of the euphemism
“Friction Factor” (FF) in torque and drag calculations. Any
engineer worth his salt would cringe at the implication that
this bore any relation to a “coefficient of friction” (COF)
between the drill strings and the formations.
During literature search, it is difficult to find any definitive
measurements of the range of coefficients of friction between
the materials used in drill string components and the
formations likely to be encountered. However we believe
these to be of the order of perhaps 0.05 to 0.151-2 . Clearly the
conditions of the material surfaces and the lubricity of the
medium in which they are immersed will have some effect on
the range. The FF used in torque and drag models is a catch all
for the detail that we cannot “see” or do not understand. The
2 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN
use of FF therefore degrades the models to a gross
generalization of the interaction between the drilling systems
and the formations they are trying to excavate.
Despite these recognized shortcomings the model results
are constructed from the summation of a series of contacts
along the drill strings and BHA that individually are treated as
frictional contact events. As we also derive our FFs from the
loads measured in the field (pick up, slack off and off bottom
rotating hook loads and torque) anything that affects the loads
is interpreted as a frictional effect.
We believe this kind of procedure reduces the clarity with
which the engineer can “see” deteriorating hole conditions and
is probably true for much of what we pretend to know and
understand about drilling. Our vision is clouded by the fudges
involved in comparing idealized single issue models with
measurements that capture multiple issues.
What tends to confirm this belief is the obvious (historical)
reliance on brute force rather than real engineering to try and
improve efficiencies. “If you’re not sure why it’s not moving,
just hit it harder”. If we could measure the energy required to
cut and lift the volume of rock from a well with the energy
applied through the drilling system to achieve this result, we
suspect none of us would be surprised by gross imbalance that
would be apparent. What we are attempting to show in this
paper is an improved ability to replace brute force with more
elegantly engineered solutions.
The advent of the new drilling optimization related sensors
has helped to add another level of detail to our understanding
of these processes. This understanding was initially focused on
managing the symptoms of sub-optimal performance by
providing the ability to intervene in real time and change
behavior, mainly through adjusting the drilling parameters.
However, we re-iterate that this make-do arrangement only
allowed us to manage the symptoms and not cure the
underlying causes.
What has been most revealing have been the detailed
measurements provided in higher density in recorded mode,
which have enabled much more thorough post bit run analysis.
The improvement in quality of measurements has allowed us
to continue to apply the “Model, Measure, Optimize” short
term (real time) cycle, and also to add to this cycle the ability
to influence the design and planning phase on a medium and
long term basis.
If we can make more accurate and more detailed model
based predictions and compares these with equally detailed
measurements, then where there are excursions between
model and measurement (good or bad) we can add to our
knowledge and understanding. Comparis on and feedback lead
to making better use of existing systems and guide the design
of new systems.
SPE/IADC 79919
Early Evidence of Problems (Beginning To
Recognize the Symptoms and How to Manage Them)
So, our story really begins more than a decade ago. If we look
back to the days when even MWD still only provided a survey
measurement every 30ft or so along hole, then it is clear that
any small scale tortuosity (such as hole spiraling) in the well
trajectory or shape would not be visible. As soon as we began
to make measurements with a density of one per foot or less,
as is the case with Formation Evaluation sensors, we began to
see evidence of rugosity on a scale of a few feet. The “ripple”
on the log trace was christened “The Lace Curtain Effect” and
this nickname has stuck
In Fig. 1, inferred hole rugosity is most obvious on the
SLD standard deviation ratio (SDEV track 1). A period of
approximately 2 meters is suggested. The SLD caliper
suggests hole enlargement of around 0.5 inches between peak
and trough. The hole is roughly 0.5 to 1.0 inches over gauge.
The conventional SLD density (SBDC track 3) is clearly
affected. The rapid sample corrected density improves the
measurement. The neutron is slightly affected. The resistivity
data shows lace curtain response (SEXP, SESP, SEMP, SEDP
track 2), the peaks on the resistivity data coinciding with the
peaks on the standard deviation ratio.
Fig. 2 is a more recent example of hole spiralling observed
using the Azimuthal Density sensor. The centre track shows
the bed boundary event imaged from the azimuthal density. In
the right hand track, by selecting the output from the near
(short spaced) detector only, a clearer picture of the bore hole
geometry is visible. A clearer picture results because the near
detector is more sensitive to stand off. The spiralling shows as
the regular cross hatching effect.
For some time after these effects had been noticed we
struggled to understand what mechanism was at work that
would produce these variations with such consistent “pitch”,
when the pitch was apparently independent of ROP and bit
RPM. A significant piece of knowledge was the observation
that the typical 3 to 4 feet pitch corresponded to the distance
from the bit to the first contact point on the steerable motor. It
seemed likely that this distance was in some way related to the
pitch of the rugosity. It also became obvious that the hole
spiraled with constant gauge rather than moved in and out of
gauge, but we were at a loss as to how the spiraling was
generated and moderated by the BHA.
At this time the symptoms of high vibration, poor hole
cleaning, and difficulty in running casing and liners, were
visible. Attempts to manage them were made using the drilling
optimization sensors, and by spending time back reaming and
“conditioning” the hole.
The detailed data gathered enabled a more complete
understanding of the process. This understanding contributed
to the design changes that led to a cure, rather than a method
of managing the symptoms.
SPE/IADC 79919 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES TORQUE AND DRAG BY DRILLING A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT WELLBORE
The Cure – The Matched Extended-Gauge Bit and
Steerable Motor System
The cure was surprisingly simple. Stabilize the bit so that it
only rotates about its true centre. To steer, do not push it
sideways but point the axis of rotation in the desired direction.
Achieving steerability was the difficult part which lead to the
development of a new matched steerable drilling system4 . A
typical bit is shown in Fig. 3 next to a pin-down motor.
Stabilization of the cutting structure, causing it to rotate as
the designers intended, makes the cutting structure itself
behave as the designers intended it to – or thought it did.
Energy that previously was expended in whirling, slip/stick,
and lateral vibration is saved. Weight transfer in a smooth bore
ought to be improved, and less weight should be supported on
the wellbore. WOB recorded on surface should be smaller –
although weight actually on the bit may be the same. These
factors should, and in fact do lead to the life of the cutting
structure being greatly extended since damage to the cutters
from abnormal loading and acceleration is eliminated.
We have demonstrated that by adopting these techniques
we have removed a significant part of the brute force
application of energy from the drilling process. As most of this
energy historically had been consumed in damaging vibration
and abrasion these new “quiet” BHA’s have already improved
the reliability of the entire drilling system, but also extended
bit life, reduced trips, and virtually eliminated back reaming5 .
Other Applications – Point-the-bit rotary steerable
system
This same philosophy of making the bit function as the
designers intended, and steering by pointing it instead of
trying to push it sideways, can be applied to other systems.
The next generation of rotary steerable systems that are
emerging onto the market are “point the bit” tools and the only
one commercially available uses long gauge bits. It points the
bit in the desired direction by bending the drive shaft which
ensures that rotation of the bit is still concentric with the hole
axis at that depth6 . (See Fig. 4)
Confirmation of the Cure
While we can point to “improved ROP”, lower vibration, and
other symptoms of better health the real proof of a cure is the
ability to use this new performance envelope in the planning
of future wells. The objectivity of “improved ROP” is limited.
Comparisons are as good as the data used in them. Lower
vibration is reasonably objective as long as you are comparing
closely similar hole sections and formations.
A measure that we feel is much more objective is the
condition of the bits when they are pulled. With the balanced
systems described above, many of the bits have been pulled in
virtually “green” condition, with one notable report grading
the bit “NPL”. (It was later discovered this meant “No Paint
Left”). Since our claim is to have designed drilling systems
that make the cutting structure work efficiently, having bits
come out of hole with minimal damage after long runs seems
to us to be quite objective evidence.
3
The other measure is that of the FFs used in calculating
Torque and Drag. As our claim is that these balanced systems
drill smooth profiles, then there should be evidence of reduced
torque and drag. Furthermore, there should be improved
weight transfer to the bit as a consequence.
This is not only important in supporting the claims for
these systems but also in being able to design well profiles that
take advantage of this benefit. If the claims are true then we
should be able to drill longer and more complex profiles with
these “point the bit” matched long gauge Bit and Motor
systems than with a conventional steerable motor system. The
same argument may also be used for point the bit Rotary
Steerable Systems compared to other side force rotary
steerable systems.
In order to verify our predictions we have collected some
of this evidence. One of the difficulties is in having valid
“before and after” comparisons. However if, for a given
development, wells have been modeled and then drilled using
FFs derived from experience at that location, there should be a
“typical” range of FF values that apply. Any one who has been
involved with planning wells will know that these factors do
not vary hugely in a particular area for a reasonably similar
group of wells, and that even the global variation is not large
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The calculation of empirical FFs is based on recording the
pick up and slack off weights. The study conducted by one of
the authors, D. Stuart, looked at over 100 hole sections drilled
conventionally 7 . A summary of the results is given in the first
column of Table 1. When field derived FFs are applied to new
well plans, there is a requirement to account for tortuosity,
since the basic well plan is a theoretical one and perfectly
smooth. In this case a simple approach of applying a scale
factor to the FFs is used. The scale factor is referred to as the
Tortuosity Index (TI). The TI is derived from the comparison
of the actual loads observed on the “as drilled” well in
comparison to those predicted for the proposed well. Over the
wide range of wells studied these TI values ranged from 1.3 to
1.35 with an average of 1.34 for conventionally drilled wells.
The second column in Table 1 shows the scaled up FF
required for planning purposes. Table 2 shows the comparison
of these results with those for wells drilled using point the bit
technologies, and the long gauge bit design that these systems
employ.
If these are correct, then they should support the other
expectation of much lower weight applied at surface If we
were applying a load of the order of 30,000 to 40,000 lbs at
surface but 3,000 to 4,000 lbs only for comparable wells
drilled with the new systems, then clearly something has
changed. Changes of this order have been reported. What is
clear from these data is that when we get this issue of hole
quality right, the back calculated FFs are of the order of 0.08
to 0.15 and the TI averages 1.08. This difference suggests that
the more typical FF numbers ranging upwards from around
0.2 are really accommodating the effects of small-scale
tortuosity that are not input to the model as part of the well
bore trajectory. FF numbers will also be higher as a result of
4 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN
capturing non-frictional effects. By addressing the root cause
in the form of the bits interaction with the formation, we have
been able to effect a cure, not just treat the symptoms.
The Proofs –field Results and Friction Factor Study
Many of the proofs that the systems described deliver the
improved performance characteristics (including the reduction
in tortuosity and FF) can be found in references 3-7. What we
shall show here are some comparisons of field data that
illustrate what we have described. Fig. 5 shows a graph of
hook load (pick up, slack off, and off bottom rotating) for a
well drilled with conventional steerable motor assemblies in
the North Sea. The measured loads are graphically compared
to predictions based on FFs of 0.1 and 0.2.
It can be seen that the measured loads correspond to an
equivalent FF that lies between these two predictions as the
well is drilled through the relatively benign Tertiary sequence.
On entering the Cretaceous the characteristics change and for
the pick up loads an equivalent FF of perhaps 0.5 might be
required to force the model to match the measured values.
Under these conditions weight transfer to the bit is difficult,
leading to weight stacking, sudden weight transfer. Generally
directional drilling becomes very difficult. ROP also suffers.
Fig. 6 is a subsequent well drilled in the same field. Here
the operator again drilled the tertiary sequence conventionally,
but elected to use a side force driven rotary steerable tool in
the Cretaceous. It is quite clear from the measured loads that
this system did not perform significantly differently to the
conventional mo tors.
Fig. 7 shows a later well in the field. In this case the
Operator agreed to try the motor based “point-the-bit” system
in the Tertiary, but was not confident enough yet to attempt its
use in the Cretaceous. The profile of the well also suggested
that a simple rotary BHA incorporating an adjustable gauge
stabilizer (AGS ) tool would be adequate. Note that on this
graph the predicted loads are based on the smaller FFs of 0.05
to 0.15
Clearly the performance in the Tertiary is better. It is also
worthy of note that the simple rotary/Adjustable Gauge
Stabilizer BHA that was used to drill the Cretaceous
performed better in terms of its torque and drag characteristics
than either conventional steerable motors or the side force
rotary steerable. This phenomenon is not unusual. We have
observed that, if high quality hole is drilled from the outset,
then there is follow-through later in the well. Conversely, if
spiraled or rugose hole is drilled initially, the effects of these
distortions persist throughout the remainder of the well bore.
You have to get it right first time.
Fig. 8 shows a later well in the same field where
confidence in the point the bit systems had been built and the
motor driven point the bit system was used throughout the
Tertiary and Cretaceous sequences. Torque and drag
characteristics remain good throughout. None of the
previously troublesome weight transfer problems were
encountered, and directional control remained good
SPE/IADC 79919
throughout. The “spread” between slack-off traces and “pick-
up” traces has diminished, which is strongly indicative of
reduced resistance to movement of the drill string in the
wellbore.
Clearly, the direct effect of the smoother well bore is
improved torques and drag characteristics. The proof that
these are being achieved is captured in the lower FFs derived
from measured loads in the field. However, the additional
capability that point-the-bit systems offer, lead to other
benefits such as much more efficient and smooth weight
transfer to the bit, and greater precision of directional control
The motor driven point-the-bit system utilizes much
smaller bend angles for the same dog leg capability. Smaller
bend angles reduce concerns of rotation speeds and stresses on
the motor. When coupled with an adjustable gauge stabilizer,
if properly designed, this can lead to systems that will drill
ERD profiles with minimal oriented drilling.
A good example of this is shown in Fig. 9. This well
drilled in the Dutch sector completed the long 12 ¼” section in
two bit runs, using only one bit. The percentage of time spent
rotating as opposed to sliding in oriented mode was in excess
of 95%. The inclination was 78 degrees.
Fig. 10 shows a quad lateral well in the Irish Sea. In this
case the point the bit rotary steerable system was used to drill
the four laterals. In this case the challenge was to drill the all
of the 4 x 8 ½” legs within a +/- 2ft TVD window. For an
explanation of the reasons for this degree of flatness please see
reference 8.
With this type of complex profile, the degree of precision
required needed the ability of the “point-the-bit” rotary
steerable system. A “point-the-bit” system generates the
steering control necessary within the tool, close to the bit.
Pointing and drilling is done independently of what the rest of
the string is doing, other than the basic requirement to apply
weight and torque to the bit sufficient to maintain efficient
cutting action. The smooth profile provided ensures that this
transfer of weight and torque is efficiently and smoothly
applied.
Results, Observations, and Conclusions
1. Industry’s first attempt to study the actual friction factor
and friction factor attributed to both small scale and large
scale tortuosity. Field data show that a straight and
smooth wellbore (low, small-scale tortuosity) can reduce
the actual friction factor by as much as 25%. in the study
reported here, the tortuosity index has been reduced from
1.34 to 1.08 with the new balanced motor/long gauge bit
combination. It has been reduced to near 1.0 with a rotary
steerable system that also utilizes long gauge bits. The
total reduction in frictional effects can be as much as
55%.
2. Lower friction factors, and therefore lower torque and
drag, can have a significant impact on drilling operations,
from improved ROP to increased drilling interval.
SPE/IADC 79919 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES TORQUE AND DRAG BY DRILLING A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT WELLBORE
3. The benefits of a smooth straight wellbore include not
only reduced torque and drag, but also better hole
cleaning, lower vibration, and better LWD/MWD tool
responses and reliability. Entirely contrary to expectations
and to widespread opinion,: motor systems have proved
capable of providing similar hole cleaning to some
steerable systems.
With 20/20 hindsight, it would be nice to claim that we set
out on the road of addressing the root causes of some of the
drilling problems we encountered. Clearly this route was not
the case. What we set out to do was detect and manage a series
of symptoms. As with many other industries and sciences, a
series of small incremental steps, each initiated to deal with a
particular aspect of the process, can eventually lead to a build
up of knowledge that produces a significant step change.
It is collecting that body of knowledge which is difficult.
The resulting change is often both simple and blindingly
obvious in hindsight. In the case of the “point-the-bit” systems
design, it lead to the first sustainable step change in ROP in a
mature development area in more than 15 years. This success
has subsequently been repeated world wide. In addressing the
root cause, the approach also improved hole quality, with all
the knock on benefits that improvements bring.
It also demonstrates how operators, by supporting the
provision of some incremental optimization services at
relatively low cost, eventually reap the benefits of the
improved knowledge that these small increments collectively
provide. There are no losers in this process, and the risks are
minimal. At worst these systems are no worse than
“conventional” ones and, at best, provide benefits that range
far out into the life of the well and far beyond the drilling
process itself.
Equipment reliability, from the bit right through the drill
string and on up to the top drive, is improved. Bit life is
extended. NPT is reduced. Measurements are of a higher
quality. Casing and completing the well is greatly enhanced.
Damage to wire wrap screens is less likely, and gravel packing
should be more secure due to the smooth concentric annulus
Ultimately it does it faster, cheaper, and potentially deeper.
(Less Drag = Longer Reach)
What we see is a need to improve many of our modeling
techniques to remove — or at least isolate — as much as we
can the “fudge factors” that we have lived with for too long. In
the context of torque and drag, the models generally assume
an idealized set of circumstances where only frictional effects
are present. We came to realize the hidden danger. However
convenient it was to label measures “Friction Factor” or
“Tortuosity Index” and to model the process as though that’s
what they were, Friction Factor doesn’t encompass only
friction and Tortuosity Index doesn’t encompass only
tortuosity. In fact friction and tortuosity are relatively minor
contributors.
5
By drilling with techniques that provide a very smooth
well bore, we make the comparison of the measurements with
the modeled data more secure. Mechanical interference effects
that were previously captured by the load measurements and
therefore interpreted as frictional effects, are not present
unless hole conditions deteriorate. This should lead to earlier
identification of these events, and to earlier and more
appropriate intervention to deal with them.
Having evolved to our present state, we believe that the
future lies in maximizing the benefits of the “Model, Measure,
Optimize” real time cycle and the post-run “Root Cause
Analysis” in a systematic way. A procedure of systematic
comparison and analysis of data of known high quality is the
way a true “learning organization” should function. Such a
procedure makes the most of our ability to intervene while the
process is in progress and to feed back the knowledge gained
to influence future designs.
In this age of key performance indicators, perhaps we
should consider “Friction Factor” as the most important
measure of drilling performance and hole quality since it
subsumes so many others.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of Peak Well
Management and Halliburton Company for permission to
publish this paper.
References
1. Bol, G.M., “Effect of Mud Composition on Wear and Friction of
Casing and Tool Joints”, SPE Drilling Engineering, October,
1986.
2. Maldla, E. and Wojtanowicz, A., “Laboratory Study of Borehole
Friction Factor with a Dynamic-Filtration Apparatus”, SPE
Drilling Engineering, September, 1990.
3. Gaynor, T., Chen, D. C-K, Stuart D., Comeaux B., “Tortuosity
versus Micro-Tortuosity – Why Little Things Mean a Lot”
SPE/IADC 67818, 2001, Amsterdam.
4. Gaynor, T., Chen, D. C-K, Maranuk, C., and Pruitt, J., “An
Improved Steerable System: Working Principles, Modeling, and
Testing”, SPE #63248, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas.
5. Gaynor T, Irvine G, Boulton R, Gilchrist D, Lane I – “Step
Change in Drilling Efficiency in Mature North Sea Fields from a
new Motor and Bit Drilling System”, SPE #56936, 1999,
Aberdeen
6. Yonezawa, T., et al., “Robotic Controlled Drilling: A New
Rotary Steerable Drilling System for the Oil and Gas Industry”
IADC/SPE # 74458, presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference in Dallas, Texas.
7. Gaynor, T. , Hamer, C.D., Chen D. C-K, Stuart, D., “
Quantifying Tortuosities by Friction Factors in Torque and Drag
Model” – SPE #77617 – 2002, San Antonio
8. Yaliz, A., Chapman, T., Downi, J., “Case Study of a Quad-
Lateral Horizontal Well in the Lennox Field: A Triassic Oil Rim
Reservoir” SPE 75249, 2002, Tulsa.
6 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN SPE/IADC 79919

Fig. 1— Lace Curtain effect due to hole spiralling.

SGRC SEXP SPLF
0 api 150 0.2 ohmm 2000 45 pu -15
SDEV SESP SBDC
10 0 0.2 ohmm 2000 1.95 g/cc 2.95
SCAL SEMP SCOR
6 inch 16 0.2 ohmm 2000 -0.75 g/cc 0.25
TVD SEDP SBD2
2750 m 2700 0.2 ohmm 2000 1.95 g/cc 2.95
SFXE SCO2
75 SGRC 0.2 hrs 2000 -0.75 g/cc 0.25

SDEV 1.2

8.5 SCAL

2970

2980

2990

Evidence of spiraling

Density Image Near Detector

Figure 2 – Azimuthal density image log.
SPE/IADC 79919 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES TORQUE AND DRAG BY DRILLING A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT WELLBORE 7

Fig. 3— Matched extended-gauge bit and pin-down motor system.

Fig. 4 — Point-the-bit rotary steerable system using the same extended-gauge bit principles
8 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN SPE/IADC 79919

Table 1

Mud System Actual Open Planning Open

Hole F.F. Hole F.F.
Water Based
Generic 0.24 0.32
Polyseal / 0.30 0.40
Barasilc
Thixal 0.27 0.36
Pure Oil Based
Generic 0.12 0.16
Pseudo Oil Based
Generic 0.17 0.23
XP07 0.17 0.23
Petrofree 0.18 0.24
Ecomul 0.20 0.27

Table 2

Mud type Actual Casing Actual OH FF Actual OH FF Tortuosity Index Tortuosity Index
FF SlickBore drilled Conventionally SlickBore drilled Conventionally
wells drilled wells wells drilled wells
Water based 0.21 0.21 0.27 1.08 1.34
Pure oil 0.10 0.10 0.12 1.08 1.34
Pseudo oil 0.15 0.14 0.18 1.08 1.34
SPE/IADC 79919 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES TORQUE AND DRAG BY DRILLING A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT WELLBORE 9

Pick Up Actual
Amerada Hess, 15/22-J19, 12 1/4" Hole - Conventional motors
420 Pick Up ff=0.1

400 Pick Up ff=0.2 70

380
Slack Off Actual

Slack Off ff=0.1

360 60

Slack Off ff=0.2

340
Rot Wt Actual
320 50
Rot Wt Calc
300
Inc
Load (K.lbs)

280 40

260

240 30

220

200 20

180

160 10

140

120 0
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000

Depth (ft)

Fig. 5

Pick Up Actual Amerada

12 ¼” hole -Hess, 15/22-J20
side force RST - Autotrack
350 Pick Up ff=0.1 80

Pick Up ff=0.2
325
Slack Off Actual
Slack Off ff=0.1
300 70
Slack Off ff=0.2
Rot Wt Actual
275
Rot Wt Calc
250 Inc 60
Load (K.lbs)

Inclination
225

200 50

175

150 40

125

100 30
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

Depth (ft)

Fig. 6
10 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN SPE/IADC 79919

Amerada
Matched MotorHess, 15/22-J12Y
+ Long -Slickbore
Gauge Bit followed
followed by Rotary
by Rotarty BHA AGS
with AGS
300 40

Pick Up Actual
Pick Up ff=0.05
Pick Up ff=0.15
30
Slack Off Actual
250
Slack Off ff=0.05
Slack Off ff=0.15
Rot Wt Actual
Load (K.lbs)

20

Inclination
Rot Wt Calc
Pick Up ff=0.25
200
Slack Off ff=0.25
Inc
10

150

100 -10
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500

Depth (ft)

Fig. 7

Amerada
MatchedHess,
Motor15/22-J17
and Long- Slickbore
Gauge Bit
300 35

275 30
Pick Up Actual
Pick Up ff=0.05
250 Pick Up ff=0.15 25

Slack Off Actual

225 Slack Off ff=0.05 20
Load (K.lbs)

Inclination
Slack Off ff=0.15

200 Rot Wt Actual 15

Rot Wt Calc

175 Inc 10

150 5

125 0

Palaeocene Ekofisk Flounder Herring Hidra

#1 Slickbore AGS #2 Motor+NBS #3 Slickbore AGS #4 Motor+NBS
100 -5
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500

Depth (ft)

Fig. 8
SPE/IADC 79919 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY REDUCES TORQUE AND DRAG BY DRILLING A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT WELLBORE 11

Clyde Petroleum Exploratie B.V.

Eastings
Clyde Q8 Scale: 1cm = 400m
0 400 800 1200 1600
Q8-A Platform
Q8-A03 Plan 7 20" Casing 0

13 3/8" Casing
-400

-800

-1200

-1600
Northings

-2000
9 5/8" Casing
0 Hold Azimuth at 153.71
-2400

250
Kick-Off at 350.00m (1.5/30m) -2800
20" Casing
500 500 MD/TVD
Continue Build at 500.00m (2.5/30m) 7" Liner
-3200
Scale: 1cm = 400m
Vertical
750 Depth Continue Build at 805.00m (3.5/30m)
-3600
End of Build at 1223.06m
1000 13 3/8" Casing
1069 MD/962 TVD
Base Volpriehausen Sst
4 1/2" Liner -4000

1250 Hold Angle at 79.302°

9 5/8" Casing
1500 3100 MD/1361 TVD
Scale: 1cm = 250m
7" Liner
4230 MD/1571 TVD 4 1/2" Liner
5253 M D/1761 TVD
1750 Base Volpriehausen Sst

Total Depth at 5253.06m

2000

-250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500
Scale: 1cm = 250m Vertical Section Section Azimuth: 153.710° (Grid North)
Prepared by: Date/Time: Checked: Approved:
Ben Martell 26 September, 2000 - 10:50

12 ¼” Bit from Dutch well

Bit Grade: 1-2-E R-A -X-I-P N-TD
After drilling 2961 metres in 171.5 hours

Fig. 9 ERD Well – Dutch Sector

12 D. STUART, C.D. HAMER, C. HENDERSON, T. GAYNOR, AND D. C-K CHEN SPE/IADC 79919

BHP Petroleum

Scale: 1cm = 500ft Eastings

-8500 -8000 -7500 -7000 -6500 -6000 -5500 -5000 -4500 -4000 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

4500 Lennox Lateral 4

5 1/2" Liner
4500
(Main Well)
Slot 2
4000 4000
L10 Multilateral
3500 3500

Grid North
3000 3000

Lateral 3
2500 2500

2000 2000
Northings

Northings
1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

9 5/8" Casing
20" Conductor
0 0
13 3/8" Casing

-500 -500

Lateral 2
-1000 -1000

-1500 -1500
Scale: 1cm = 500ft

Scale: 1cm = 500ft

-2000 -2000
Lateral 1

-8500 -8000 -7500 -7000 -6500 -6000 -5500 -5000 -4500 -4000 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Scale: 1cm = 500ft Eastings Reference is Grid North

DrillQuest 2.00.08.003

Fig. 10 The very flat Quad Lateral well described in reference 8