IADC/SPE 81627

Planning is Critical for Underbalance Applications with Under-experienced Operators

Ron Divine, Weatherford International Ltd.
Copyright 2003, IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2526 March 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC,
SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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
The benefits of a properly executed Underbalance
Operation (UBO) can result in a well of higher quality
and value than that of a conventional well, if proper
planning and execution is achieved. This paper discusses
the importance of detailed planning when undertaking a
UBO and the consequences when conducted improperly.
UBO has demonstrated numerous times that:
Higher penetration rates (>2X) can be realized
Higher productivity (>2X) can be achieved
Higher reserves recovery are achieved
UBO has proven to reduce development costs, on multiwell projects. The timing for this cost reduction depends
largely upon:
the well construction staff in charge of the
operation
the rate of knowledge transfer from the
experienced personnel (service technicians) to
the operator
the utilization of the information by the
operator.
The current knowledge base of UBO is miniscule
compared to conventional Overbalance Operation
(OBO) knowledge. Access to this knowledge base and
implementing the value of the knowledge are critical to
expansion of the technology and the establishment of
credible operating practices. Global industry
organizations such as the International Association of
Drilling Contractors (IADC), Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE), and Gas Technology Institute (GTI)
have dedicated significant time and resources to
promote the exchange of knowledge and develop safe

operating practices of UBO. These organizations should

be accessed to reduce the learning time for companies
considering the use of UBO equipment and services.
The critical keys to achieving the benefits of UBO, are
planning and execution. Several real case histories are
presented, which demonstrate the impact of critical
planning and execution on project cost. Accessing the
knowledge base and implementing lessons learned will
enable the user to achieve a successful UB Operation.

Introduction
Globally, thousands of oil and gas wells are drilled
annually. Many of these wells have little to no detailed
planning conducted prior to spud of the well and many
of these wells are drilled under an IADC Footage
Contract, with little or no direct Operator Supervision.
This method generally results in a successful effort
relative to drilling cost and predicted productivity
outcome. As the well plan becomes more complex, the
more detail in planning is required (Figure 1). Drilling a
well with Underbalance Technology requires a
significantly higher level of planning detail be conducted
and reviewed by experienced staff (1) prior to final
acceptance and implementation, since the well could
produce hydrocarbons to surface. The typical UBO
process involves not only producing live hydrocarbons,
but also storing of volatile hydrocarbon liquid and
flaring of hydrocarbon gas. This physical difference to
OBO drilling requires greater attention relative to well
control and safety.
A UBO is one where the hydrostatic head (circulating
pressure) in the wellbore is less than the reservoir
pressure for every operation. Industry experience has
shown that employing conventional drilling practices
and 'conventional wisdom' is not always applicable to an
Underbalance Operation (2).
In many instances, UBO is employed to achieve
enhanced drilling performance only. The rationale for
using Underbalance Drilling (UBD) is to achieve a
higher rate of penetration to reduce drilling costs. This

operation is mainly conducted in vertical wells.

Sometimes, the well is drilled to, and through the
productive reservoir, to assess the presence of
hydrocarbon. The operator often pumps drilling mud or
completion fluid into the borehole to kill the flow before
running casing to complete the well (drill-kill concept).
A favorable well test rarely returns to the same level in
post completion, after exposing the formation to the mud
column. This drill-kill concept is inappropriate for
horizontal drilling, due to the low pressure drop along
the borehole length. Therefore, as horizontal wells are
drilled with UBO, care must be taken to not damage the
formation face after exposing the interval. Critical
questions every operator should ask before employing
UBO are:
What is the current value of the production and
reserve asset?
What will the value of the production and
reserve asset be, after exposure to the mud?
In most cases, the operator does not know, nor does he
have the data to query the possibility. However, longterm production data obtained on wells post UBD,
indicate enhanced well performance (relative to
productivity and additional reserves realized) (3).
Several indisputable facts of the upstream oil and gas
business are:
The worlds readily producible hydrocarbon
reserve base is diminishing.
Pressure is declining in most reservoirs.
Some level of damage is inevitable using
conventional drilling and completion methods.
Underbalanced operations can enable the continued
development of these hydrocarbon assets while
minimizing damage, due to the drilling and completion
processes. Minimizing damage and developing the
reserves in a cost effective manner requires substantial
planning and successful execution of the plan.

Phase 1 Planning
Reservoir Screening
Planning begins with the screening and candidate
selection process. An underbalance operation is not a
panacea for improving productivity and increasing
reserves. It is critical for success to concurrently plan the
well with the Drilling and Geology Groups. Before the
UBO commences, the operator must determine what
achievement is required from the operation. Several
questions must be answered before continuing to the
next phase of planning.
What drilling problems will be minimized, or
eliminated?

IADC/SPE 81627

What benefits are available?

Which benefits are critical, versus which are
nice to have?
What is the economic sensitivity to these
benefits?
Can these benefits be achieved from another
method?

HSE Compliance
HSE Compliance is crucial in todays environment and
is required for all systems used on a drilling operation.
Since UBO may produce live hydrocarbons or other
dangerous gases, during the drilling process, the operator
must review accepted HS&E policies to ensure
compliance to corporate and regulatory procedures. The
drilling contractor equipment must be fitted with specific
safety equipment, the personnel must have adequate
PPE, and safety procedures should be outlined and
adhered to during any operation. Conventional drilling
operations pose numerous situations that require safety
measures being implemented. However, UBO require
additional safety measures.
Due to the release of pressured gases near the rig floor,
all personnel should be equipped with adequate hearing
protection. Caution should be used when rigging up the
UB equipment, taking advantage of prevailing wind
direction to carry flammable gases away from the rig (4).
Safely securing all equipment used in the release of
pressured gases.
Because the UBO may require handling of live
hydrocarbon,
while
drilling,
a
definitive
HAZOP/HAZID should be conducted. This function
should also include a review of personnel training levels
and skill sets to determine whether the appropriate
training or skills are available. If the training or skills are
not appropriate to the plan, time and cost should be
provided to obtain the necessary training. Supervisory
personnel skill sets should match the level and type of
operation. The oil and gas industry lacks qualified
Operational Consultants, skilled in UBO. This lack of
skilled UBO personnel drives operators to procure
supervision from the abundant pool of consultants
skilled in OBO method. Figure 2 illustrates the relative
size of available personnel as compared to well type
experience. There is no managed database from which to
access the appropriate consultant. When Underbalance
Operations become more commonplace, an organized
network may enable the operator to select the most
appropriate consultant for the area, project, reservoir,
etc. However, until this time comes, the planning group
will have to determine the skill sets necessary, then
shake many hands and see many faces to obtain the

IADC/SPE 81627

appropriate consultant, based on the well objectives.

Industry groups, such as the IADC, SPE, and GTI have
begun to fill the gap through an awareness campaign.
The IADC has established the Underbalanced
Operations Committee, to develop basic HSE
Guidelines, Operating Risk Levels, Training, and
Competency needs for UB Operations (5,9,and 10).
Reservoir Goals
The goal of any operation when drilling in the reservoir
should be to First do no harm to the reservoir, if at all
possible. Conventional drilling methods attempt to limit
formation damage. However, formation damage will
occur, and often it is extensive. Underbalance drilling in
the reservoir can dramatically reduce skin damage in
many reservoirs. Furthermore, the drilling fluid which
contacts the formation should be compatible to both the
rock matrix and reservoir fluids. Maintaining an
underbalance state while drilling is critical, otherwise
any benefit that was achieved near the heel of a
horizontal borehole may be diminished as the borehole is
lengthened to the toe target. This is not critical for
vertical drilling applications, but is often overlooked in
horizontal boreholes. There is only one opportunity to
not damage the formation while drilling. While some of
the skin damage can be by-passed through remedial
stimulation, the remedial stimulation will no doubt add
to the overall damage. Plan the drilling operation, so that
while drilling the reservoir, the opportunity for damage
is substantially reduced or eliminated.
Clear definition of Objectives and Goals
The project should have clearly defined goals and
objectives well in advance of initiating operations. The
objectives and goals should be a mantra to all suppliers
and staff involved in the project. This will be the
beginning of a team building exercise. Discussions with
the various suppliers should focus on the goals and
objectives. These should be attainable and measurable.
Detailed Planning Phase and Rig Selection
A systematic approach to planning, outlining procedures,
and good drilling practices must be employed to achieve
operational success on any well being considered (6).
However, many times this aspect is deemed to be
insignificant and time consuming for the routine infill
development well, resulting in a basic generic well plan
lacking detail.
A disciplined planning routine will enable the planning
effort to assess the detail necessary to achieve success.
However, without this disciplined routine, the desired
plan will likely not be achieved, especially when
departing from the conventional drilling method.

Before any drilling operation is undertaken, a diligent

review of recent and close offset data should be made.
The various sources of offset data are abundant within a
mature oil- and gas-producing region. Service
Companies are a good source for much of the data.
Service Company personnel have specific knowledge
and operational expertise relevant to their product line
application. This source is often neglected and/or
overlooked.
The pre-planning exercise should consider not only the
desired outcome, but also the possibilities and
probabilities of many contingencies. When the operation
significantly departs from a traditional operation, the
need for detailed planning should be elevated to a higher
level to manage the risk and ensure risk does not
overtake the project. The successful planning effort for
an Underbalance Operation should be an expansion of a
traditional well planning effort. Taking the time and
effort to assess the various aspects of the well plan and
integrate the specific components into it will help
significantly toward achieving success.
On a normal planning exercise, the drilling contractor is
the center foci. However, with UBO, the drilling
contractors equipment will be primarily limited to the
hoisting and rotating functions and emergency well
control aspect of the operation. Air Compressors and
Booster Pumps often replace the rig pumps in the
provision of hydraulic pumping services. The rig
selected should be capable of operating under normal
conditions should the well stability require replacing the
compressible fluids with a normal drilling fluid for use
in OBO. Failure to select a rig without this capability
will necessitate securing additional pumping capacity at
a significant cost.

Phase 2 - Execution
Rig Selection Crew Training HSE
In an ideal world, rig selection would be based in-part on
the rig crews knowledge and experience with UB
operations. However, in the real world, abundant UB
experience is limited to a few regions. The majority of
the wells drilled today use conventional methods and
thus crew training is required when selecting a rig with
no UB experience.
Proper crew orientation to UBO is imperative for safe
operations. The crew should receive supplemental
training of well control measures, roles and
responsibilities, chemicals handling and PPE, HAZOP,
and other suitable topics as necessary for the particular
well plan, as per IADC UBO Classification (5,10).

IADC/SPE 81627

Operator Supervisor Competency

Underbalanced drilling is one of the most demanding
operations for a wellsite supervisor (12).The safe and
economic management of UBO necessitates a higher
level of supervisor competency. The vast numbers of
operator supervisors and contract well site consultants
do not possess adequate knowledge of Underbalance
Operation. Figure 2 depicts the relative number of
adequately trained personnel relative to the well type.
Numerous Wellsite Consultants are available to
manage the generic well type as indicated at the top of
the inverted pyramid. As the complexity increases, fewer
adequately trained and experienced personnel are
available to properly manage the well operation. UB
drilling a horizontal well, is one such operation where
the number of adequately trained personnel is at a
minimum. Therefore, it is best to contract a well site
consultant that has demonstrated experience on the type
Underbalance operation planned. The well site
consultant should possess a minimum level of
competency as described in the IADC WellCap Program
(9, 10). Utilizing the consultants expertise during the
planning phase can greatly enhance the probability that
the operation will achieve the desired goals and
objectives, when executed.

would be unfounded. UBO utilize compressible fluids,

and this creates a unique problem to accurately
determine bottom hole pressure. Furthermore, the
compressible fluid may either be single- or multi-phase.
This multiphase component further complicates steadystate pressure measurement, due to the phase separation
that occurs during a connection and the time required to
re-establish stable flow and pressure conditions.
Generally, the exact reservoir pressure is not known,
thus creating further difficulty.

Data Acquisition System (DAS) Continuous

Monitoring
Data Acquisition can aid in comparing the post well
actual with the pre-well estimate. Today, a large number
of systems are capable of electronic measurement and
recording, with multiple measurements managed by a
Data Management Service. Continuous measurement
and
recording
can
enable
the
wellsite
engineer/supervisor to detect trends earlier and to react
more quickly than with snapshot data management.
Further, the DAS will permit assessment of the data
relative to numerous measurements to understand impact
of one controllable parameter to that of other parameters.
Measuring and Recording WOB, RPM, ROP, Pump
Pressure, one can determine the total impact to ROP.
Holding constant one or two parameters, one can
determine the impact of the independent variable to
ROP. Having the capacity to see long-term trends rather
than snapshots, can determine the operational impact
and its cost.

Phase 3 Execution Assessment

UB Confirmation Pressure knowledge + Pressure

Measurement
It is very difficult to improve anything not first measured
and compared to an expected outcome. Generally, UBO
is compared to OBO, straight up. This is an apples to
oranges comparison at best. True, they both involve
circulations system, but further comparison beyond this

Real-time pressure measurement will allow the onsite

UB engineer to determine if the bottom-hole condition is
being managed underbalance. If not, onsite modeling
should provide indicated parameters to achieve
underbalance along the borehole. Often the measured
pressure is different than that modeled, and the injection
rate requires an adjustment to remain underbalanced.
Real-time pressure measurement can confirm if the
entire borehole is UB; or if the toe is UB and the heel is
OB in a horizontal borehole. Prior to implementing
downhole continuous pressure measurement, a reference
pressure is required. Pressure must be measured
continuously to have accurate understanding of the fluid
pressure acting on/along the borehole.

Post well Analysis

Immediately following the drilling operation, the
recorded data should be collated, assessed, and analyzed.
The accuracy of the data should be confirmed. Critical
questions should be asked during the analysis:
Did the operation achieve the preset goals and
objectives?
If not, can the root cause be identified?
Is the root cause a problem with mechanical
design or human error?
What cost did the problem generate?
Why did the problem occur?
What is the solution to prevent the problem on
future projects?
A post well discussion is essential for every well, even
more so when the drilling operation is UB. The analysis
should determine lessons learned to be incorporated into
forward planning on future projects. Continued
technology growth and reduction of operating cost is
dependent on knowledge transfer from successes and
failures.

Case Histories
Several Case Histories are presented which demonstrate
the planning effort and detail involved and the outcome
of the operation. Three of the four case histories will not

IADC/SPE 81627

move beyond a single well project, due to disappointing

geologic results. Common factors in each case are: all
utilized nitrified compressible fluid systems (UBO); all
were horizontal wells; all had significant cost over-run;
all had differing levels of detailed planning; a few were
managed by under-experienced Wellsite Supervisor
personnel; most sustained incorrect decision making for
the application. Only two of the case histories were
completed as producers.
Case History 1
Large Independent Operator Underbalance Drilling
Fractured Carbonate for Reservoir enhancement
Grassroots well Oklahoma
The well planning was conducted conceptually
without an operator, as the project was being planned
during the promoting phase. The operator accepted the
prospect concept and quickly put a drilling program in
place. The Operator had little UBO knowledge and
relied heavily on the service companies for information.
The well was a new-drill well, so that reservoir entry
could be controlled and placed in the best possible
portion of the reservoir.
During the planning, several issues were identified that
would improve the success of the UBO project. The
reservoir pressure was not known and thus the UBO
modeling was conducted at several pressures to ensure
adequate compression volume was available on location.
The specific section within the reservoir was selected but
the exact depth subsea needed confirmation. The depth
confirmation would be from a pilot hole and logged
open hole. Other issues received little to no attention,
such as:
The Wellsite Supervisor selection was not made
until the drilling contract was executed
Minimal coordination between the service
companies to ensure compatible equipment
Certain services were selected based on price,
rather than efficiency
No contingency plan was developed prior to
spud
During the execution phase, several issues developed
that were not considered during planning. These issues
contributed to not drilling the well as planned and over
AFE. The planning effort was minimal, as only 2 pages
were devoted to drilling plan, and 3 lines devoted to the
entire UB Operation.
The reservoir pressure and geologic target were
unknown prior to operation start-up. The intent was to
drill a pilot hole, determine the geologic target from

open hole logs. However, an opportunity to gain

reservoir pressure was considered too costly and thus the
horizontal lateral was drilled with an estimate of
reservoir pressure. Was the lateral drilled UB?
The pilot hole was plugged back, the curve drilled, and
7 casing set through the curve in preparation to drill the
lateral UB. A miscommunication between operator and
service provider caused a delay of several days to
mobilize the UB equipment and rig-up. Upon initiating
UBO, it was apparent the operator was unaware of UB
operating practices and equipment.
The operator employed poor drilling practices to
remediate hole cleaning, which resulted in excessive
torque and drag, ultimately reducing the lateral extent of
the borehole.
The UBO sustained frequent high standpipe pressure
(Figure 6). The Wellsite Supervisor believed the high
pressure was due to excessive soap injection and
discontinued the soap injection, which resulted in lower
standpipe pressure but also poor hole cleaning. The
N2/Water Foam also contained corrosion inhibitor,
which protected the drill string from corrosion in a
highly oxygenated environment.
A steering tool with GR was used as the directional
guidance system versus an EM-MWD with focused GR.
The steering tool operation resulted in substantial
connection time (3X more than expected) due to the
need to decouple from the wet connect, pull the cable
into the Kelly, then after connection re-run the wireline
and reconnect to the wet connect to transmit the GR to
the surface recorder.
The conventional drilling operation including drilling the
curve was without incident. However, when the
operation converted to UBO in the reservoir, the
efficiency quickly dropped (Figure 3). The Well site
Supervisor had no previous UB experience and quickly
tried to gain knowledge of UB operations. This was the
wrong time and place to gain the needed knowledge. The
total well cost was $2.0MM over 51 days, against an
AFE of $1.39MM over 35 days.
A greater level of detailed planning with contingency in
place prior to commencing operations, and wellsite
supervisor experienced in UBO could have prevented a
significant portion of the cost overrun.
Case History 2
Small Private Production Company Underbalance
Drilling Fractured Carbonate for Reservoir enhancement

Re-entry well Oklahoma

This project was conceived from analysis of early high
rate production data, low recoveries, a thick carbonate
section, extensive hydrocarbon remaining in-place, and
the belief that a horizontal borehole could be drilled to
access probable fractures to deliver high rate oil
production. The prospect hinged on this concept. A large
acreage position was secured at favorable terms. The
geology was not considered to be a significant issue and
as such little to no in-depth evaluation was made,
beyond a cursory review of permitted wells in the
targeted reservoir for the purpose of geologic well
control. The projected cost for a single lateral re-entry
was planned for $700,000.
The well plan was developed by the operators
consultant, due to a long established relationship.
Significant flow modeling was conducted for the UB
phase of the plan. A nitrified-diesel mist was selected as
the drilling fluid. This fluid would minimize corrosion.
The wellbore selection was based on previous reservoir
penetration, casing size, and well availability for
immediate re-entry. The various services required to drill
the horizontal well were not coordinated prior to spud,
thus allowing several early logistics issues to be apparent
at the beginning. The operator selected a workover rig
over a drilling rig, due to dayrate. However, equipping
the workover rig for 24 hour operation exceeded the
dayrate of a drilling rig. The planned drill string design
utilized a production tubing string, with no predictive
analysis conducted to evaluate expected stresses. No
contingency plans were made in the event that the
operation deviated from plan.
The re-entry operation initiated the well recovery and
cleanout in preparation to direct the well path to target.
During the re-entry operation, the well was found to be
in very poor condition and the cleanout operation
required more time and money than was allotted. Debris
was found in the wellbore that could not be removed,
preventing an on-bottom Kick-off. This necessitated
using a whipstock to direct the borehole. A more
complex whipstock was employed over a simpler
method. Improper job preparation and installation
resulted in a much higher dogleg at the whipstock than
was planned. This caused substantial drag and torque on
the drill string. After drilling only a short distance below
the whipstock, the drill string parted. An unsuccessful
fishing operation ultimately caused the loss of the
borehole, thus requiring a second sidetrack.
The workover rig was less efficient that expected, as the
crews were not used to drilling, or handling the larger

IADC/SPE 81627

drill pipe and BHA. The operation was trip intensive and
trip time was 40% slower than with a drilling rig (Figure
4, 5). This slow trip rate resulted in very costly trip
times, when considering the high daily spread cost.
The second lateral was drilled under a similar plan as the
previous lateral. However, in an effort to reduce the
daily spread cost, the second lateral used nitrified water
as the drilling fluid. The earlier use of nitrified-diesel
provided considerable protection against corrosion. The
nitrified water required the addition of chemicals to
control the corrosion. While drilling, the corrosion
inhibitor was added through the injection system. Water
influx was observed very early in the second lateral and
this caused much difficulty with corrosion inhibition.
The rig and location layout did not permit the efficient
pre-treatment of injected water. Furthermore, the UBO
allowed greater water influx, which prevented
maintaining a consistent level of corrosion inhibitor in
the returned fluids. The ineffective corrosion inhibition
ultimately caused a total loss of the drill string, a cost of
$200K.
The cost of the well was in excess of $2MM against an
AFE of $700K. The cost could have been limited with
more detailed planning, complete with What if this
happens? What do we do then?. The plan execution was
pertinent for the planning level, but required costly
decisions at the well when managing a significantly high
spread cost operation. The do something/do anything
syndrome was apparent in view of the mounting costs of
the daily operation.
Greater detail to planning with contingency plans and a
more experienced wellsite supervisor would have
prevented many of the mistakes on this well.
Case History 3
Medium-size Independent Operator Underbalance
Drilling in Fractured Carbonate for Reservoir
enhancement Re-entry well Texas
The prospect, based on an offset well down-structure in
a fault intense horst-graben field and an analogous field
nearby, was planned for using underbalance operation to
prevent near wellbore damage and easily confirm the
presence of gas filled rock. The operator was aware of
underbalance benefits, but had little to no experience
with horizontal underbalance operations. A focused
planning effort was launched with the inclusion of
experienced personnel from an Underbalance Drilling
Services provider. The effort consumed several meetings
to define the objectives and goals of the well. Additional
planning meetings were held with the operator to focus

IADC/SPE 81627

on specific issues of the well plan. The operator staff

provided detailed planning, with support from partner
personnel.
An existing wellbore was available for use, although the
surface location prevented the lateral to be drilled in the
ideal trajectory. The geologic structure was defined with
limited seismic data and well control. The well was
planned to re-enter the well and cleanout to original TD
and obtain and FMI Log to confirm the presence of
fractures and gas to reduce the geologic risk for an AFE
of $700K. UBO was planned to minimize formation
damage and to confirm gas presence. A horizontal
borehole was planned to increase the chance of fracture
intersection, which was necessary for commercial gas
delivery. The UB drilling fluid consisted of nitrified
water mist to reduce the potential for downhole fire,
since the reservoir contained mostly gas. Corrosion
Mitigation was planned to minimize Drill String
corrosion. The rig selection considered the personnel
experienced in UBO and past history providing work in
UBO wells. Additional Well site Supervision was
planned when drilling the reservoir to better manage live
well hydrocarbon production and safety.
The drilling was initiated on plan. The cleanout, plugback, directional sidetrack, and casing installation were
all achieved as planned and on schedule using a small
workover rig to complete this phase.
At the initiation of the UB phase, problems were
encountered initially while attempting to drill with an air
hammer BHA. The shoe track appeared to be causing
excess drag, limiting the use of the air hammer.
Circulation was lost temporarily, due to a mud ring
forming above the BHA. Water was added to the
injection stream to eliminate the mud ring, but the water
prevented the use of the air hammer. A Directional
Drilling BHA with EM-MWD was used to drill the
lateral. Due to the unknown size of the horst block, the
lateral drilled out of the structure and a sidetrack was
planned. The plan did not consider drilling out of the
block to be a high probability. Nonetheless, the operator
quickly contacted the partners to determine the best plan
of action. The wellbore was prepared for sidetrack
operations. The lost time for the sidetrack operation was
less than 3 days. The fact that the well was drilled UB,
was the reason the fault was detected so early, thus
preventing considerable drilling time to see the change
in lithology.
The drilling continued while dropping angle and
changing direction. This operation required considerable
time, since the ROP was low due to the considerable

time spent in oriented mode to achieve the angle and

direction change. A routine bit trip encountered a tight
spot, and a reamer run was planned. The reaming BHA
used a mill and stabilizer, which resulted in the mill
being left in the hole, thus requiring a second sidetrack.
An open hole low side sidetrack was attempted, without
success. A cement plug was then planned along with a
higher bend on the motor to achieve the sidetrack. Due
to error in displacement of cement, the plug was overdisplaced and a second cement plug was required. The
higher motor bend setting proved successful and the
drilling continued. The borehole eventually encountered
water and drilling was terminated and the well plugged.
The total cost for the well was twice the planned AFE,
mostly in part to the drilling of multiple laterals (Figures
7, 9). The rig was less efficient than expected and trip
time was slow, contributing to overspending. The
corrosion inhibition was not managed continuously, and
after 50 days of drilling with nitrified water mist, the
drill string did not pass API Class II inspection. A post
well cost of $150K. The use of a mill in open hole
proved to be a poor choice, thus causing the $100K+
sidetrack. The Wellsite Supervisor did not display the
necessary experience to justify 50+ days on the well and
contributing to several costly on-site decisions.
The well planning detail was improved over Case
History 1 and 2, but failed to consider contingencies and
experience of the Wellsite Supervisor. The loss of the
drill pipe could have been prevented, had an effective
corrosion management program been considered.
Case History 4: Small Private Operator Underbalance
Drilling Fractured Carbonate for Reservoir Enhancement
and High-end Data Confirmation Re-entry well
Texas
This field was discovered in early 1930s and has seen
several drilling activity spurts. The reservoir is complex
and not well suited to vertical well development.
Application of horizontal well profile has greatly
improved recovery from the reservoir. To obtain better
understanding of the geology, the operator obtained and
processed 3D seismic data over a small portion of the
field. A previous well drilled with current methodology,
did not have circulation while drilling, thus preventing
the gathering of critical influx information. Furthermore,
excessive drilling fluid losses made subsequent drilling
uneconomic. The operator wanted to try underbalanced
drilling.
The operator initiated a search to secure UB knowledge
from available UB experts. The operator wanted to drill

the next well, while maintaining circulation throughout

the drilling operation and observe oil and gas flow data
while drilling. Data was provided to the service
company and various flow modeling conducted to define
the window of UBO in an area of uncertain reservoir
pressure. Extensive flow-modeling was conducted
simulating fluids from nitrified water at various liquid
and gas rates to foam. Foam was ultimately selected, as
it offered a lower bottom hole circulation pressure than
nitrified water. Foam also reduces the velocity and
improves hole cleaning. It can lift large volumes of
water, but in the presence of oil, the foam begins to
degrade. Large volumes of oil make the use of foam
management intensive. Compatibility testing was
conducted to ensure the foam was suitable in the range
of expected reservoir influx. The drilling fluid would be
highly corrosive and therefore corrosion mitigation was
planned to prevent excessive loss of drill string below
API Class II grade.
Directional control would be provided using EM-MWD
technology, with Gamma Ray (GR) and Pressure
measurement. The GR was required to maintain the
borehole in the clean carbonate stringers. The Pressure
measurement would permit real-time BHCP and
knowledge of influx. The EM-MWD would require an
extended antenna to transmit the signal to surface, due to
a thick resistive formation above the target formation. A
Top-Drive was deemed necessary to minimize the
pressure spikes on connection and to reduce the number
of connections made.
Numerous meetings were held between operator,
partners, and field personnel to ensure the goals and
objectives were well understood. The operator realized
that underbalance drilling was not an off the shelf effort,
like conventional drilling operations. The operator
wanted detailed planning and execution of the project to
bring real value to the 3D seismic data and to the oil and
gas lease holdings in the area. To achieve this, an
experienced UBO Well Site Supervisor was accessed for
the detailed planning phase with provision to continue
with the execution phase. The Well Site Supervisor
acclimated to the goals and objectives and was a
constructive component to the planning phase Total
Integrated Planning and Execution.
The plan included data acquisition to measure and record
all: injected and return fluid volumes, cuttings, pressure,
temperature, volumes, etc. and managed with an onsite
data management system with Satellite uplink to a
secure internet website. The accurate measurement of
the fluid was necessary to enhance the understanding of
the complex geologic seismic map. The seismic map

IADC/SPE 81627

indicated distinct areas considered fractured and

hydrocarbon filled. However, without proper
measurement capability, it would be difficult to know
where the influx originates and its magnitude.
Typically, gas is observed at surface as indication of
fractures, but this means that the borehole condition is
no longer at equilibrium. The drilling fluid is flooding
into the open fracture and displacing the gas. The intent
is to maintain continuous returns and measure the gas,
oil, water, and analyze the drill cuttings. Generally, the
gas volume is not measured, as it is at very low pressure.
The flare height is recorded, but this can not be
quantified to a volume. For this well, a Pitot Tube and
Oxygen Sensor were installed into the flare line to
measure the gas volume. Membrane Nitrogen provided
the gas phase of the foam, and the injected volume
known. The total exit gas was to be measured and the
injected volume subtracted from the total volume. A
measure of Oxygen gas provides a second means to
determine produced gas volume. The combination of the
two should enable the operator to have independent
measures of gas at very low pressure differential (<2
psi).
The re-entry operation was initiated with the plugging of
the existing lateral before the drilling rig was moved on
location. The drilling rig was moved on location and
equipped with Top-Drive and UB equipment. The rig
was placed on day work to pick up the drill string.
However, the rig had not utilized a Top-Drive or UB
equipment before, and the rig up of the additional
equipment required more time than expected. The rig
selected had a short derrick compared to others
considered. This short derrick with a Top-Drive installed
made hoisting the blocks slow, due to the limited
clearance when tripping or making connections.
Extensive testing of the rigs BOP equipment and the
additional UB equipment required more time than
allotted and required the replacement of the ring gaskets
between the Double Ram BOP and the Annular
Preventer. UBO require a more thorough testing of the
rigs well control equipment, than with conventional
OBO drilling.
When picking up the rental drill string, it was not
rabbited to remove any loose scale or other obstructions.
The rental provider did not provide clean pipe as was
expected. The failure to rabbit the pipe caused a trip to
unplug the scale from above the EM-MWD. This should
be standard drilling practice to prevent undesirable
debris from entering the wellbore.

IADC/SPE 81627

The UBO was initiated using Foam and a recirculating

system normally used in the area. However,
miscommunication between the service provider and
operator resulted in not having sufficient surface volume
to handle the returning foam to process and re-use. This
miscommunication resulted in considerable cost overrun
as the treated fluids were hauled to disposal to prevent
overrunning the existing storage capacity. The value of
the foam was lost as the base fluid was not available for
re-use. A compounded issue, in that the fluid also
contained corrosion inhibitor. Therefore, all new water
injected had to be pre-treated to suitable levels of
corrosion inhibitor prior to use. This made the fluid
management extremely personnel intensive. Upon
completion of the first lateral, a decision was made to
terminate use of the foam, and convert to nitrified water
to drill the second lateral.
Annular pressure measurement indicated the second
lateral was drilled slightly UB initially. However, a
fracture was intersected; encountering lower pressure
than expected and circulation was lost. Considerable
time was spent to regain circulation, while adjusting
nitrogen and water injection rate with marginal success.
The effort to maintain circulation was terminated, as
drilling progress ceased. The decision was made to
terminate nitrogen injection and revert to conventional
drilling with fluid losses. Considerable water volume
was lost to the formation during this phase. However,
the daily spread rate cut in half to a normal $25K/day.
The corrosion program was successfully managed even
with the loss of re-useable fluid. The drill pipe
inspection post drilling did not encounter any loss due to
corrosion. While drilling, the only component failure
due to corrosion was with the wireline antenna. A
portion of the failure could be attributed to the
environments the wireline was subjected to prior to this
operation.
The drilling did not achieve the expected high ROP,
normally associated with UB as compared to OBO
drilling. BHA selection did not work well in conjunction
with the frequent orientation for geological steering,
which necessitated redrilling the first lateral (Figure 8).
The EM-MWD directional measurement package was
almost 70 behind the bit, which made it necessary for
the driller to drill a greater distance after a slide to
observe the BHA performance. The oriented time for the
well was more than the rotary time, thus causing a
significant delay in drilling completion.
The planning effort for this well far exceeded that of the
previous three case histories. Contingency plans were in

place, permitting continued operations without

interruption, when the plan was altered. The fluid
selected did not work as intended, but post well analysis
identified a possible solution for future wells of this
type. The successful management of the fluid and
corrosion programs was impacted by the lack of surface
volume to process the fluid for re-use. The expectation
of high ROP was not achieved. Post well analysis
determined that more predictive modeling is needed to
apply the proper bit and motor combination.
Additional testing is required to ensure the foam
chemistry is compatibility with the reservoir fluids.
Additional surface volume storage is required to
adequately process the returned fluids for re-use and
minimize the cost of chemicals. The BHA design must
place the directional measurement closer to the bit to
prevent drilling beyond critical points to ensure
maintaining the geologically intended path.
Conclusions:
Underbalanced Drilling has proven its value in many
regions of the world, primarily onshore and recently
offshore. Numerous papers have been written extolling
the benefits of UB drilling. In some cases, new
reservoirs have been identified due to drilling UB (8, 11).
Several papers on UB have been published discussing
the UB process. However, few papers have been found
on the criticality of planning for UBO. These case
histories each had differing degrees of planning and
differing levels of success. However, it is the authors
belief and that of his colleagues that improved planning
is critical for complex operations, such as high
angle/horizontal laterals. Elevating the planning effort
can reduce the potential exposure when an unplanned
event occurs, since some thought has been devoted to the
probability of occurrence and to the process to mitigate
the incident.
In every case presented here, the deployment of UB
fluids proved successful and economic. In vertical well
drilling projects using UBO, significantly detailed
planning may not be required, as the time on the well is
quite short. However, in horizontal wellbores, as are
each of the case histories, the success of the overall UB
operation can be greatly benefited by improved planning
detail. The planning and execution of Underbalance
Operations should not be viewed as an arduous and
problematic task, but rather a challenge to reduce risk
and increase probability of success through an enhanced
planning effort. Of the case histories discussed herein,
the recurring root cause for cost overrun was inadequate
planning and contingency implementation. The ability to

10

manage new technology in a cost effective manner,

depends on the desire of management to recognize the
need to supplement a traditional plan, realizing that a
perfect well may not come from the initial operation.
The case histories presented all have common traits: all
utilized nitrified compressible fluid systems (UBO); all
were horizontal wells; all had significant cost over-run;
all had differing levels of detailed planning; a few were
managed by under-experienced Wellsite Supervisor
personnel; most sustained incorrect decision making for
the application.
Underbalanced operations should be considered when
damage to the reservoir is expected, or when needing to
diminish a drilling related hole problem. Each of the
referenced case wells was of development type,
attempting to minimize reservoir damage. The cost for
UBO compared to OBO will most likely be higher
initially, but over time the cost should be less than OBO.
At least 5-6 wells are needed to achieve this success (1,3).
The UBO employs equipment that is not normal to an
OBO, and also can replace come equipment that is
normal, such as mud pumps not being required for
compressible fluids. It is this cost that increases the cost
over OBO. However, the benefits of UBO are generally
not achievable with OBO. Proper screening and
candidate selection, detailed planning and proper
execution with experienced personnel are needed to
achieve total success. Until the drilling industry gains
adequate volumes of experienced/competent personnel,
the drilling of UB wells will necessitate a higher degree
of planning to ensure that all parties involved are aware
of the potential hazards and operational differences. This
will take time for UB to be as common place as OB
wells.
The road to success is not always smooth, but the ride
can be more enjoyable with careful planning and using
the right equipment. Underbalanced Operations need
thorough planning and execution to achieve the desired
goals. There are no short cuts to success. The results of
properly planned and executed wells will be easy to
identify, by enhanced production rate and reduced
drilling costs.

IADC/SPE 81627

References:
1.

Robinson, S., Hazzard, V., Leary, M., Carmack, C.:

Redeveloping The Rhourde El Baguel Field with
Underbalanced Drilling Operations; A Case History of
Remote, UBD Implementation and Optimization,
presented at the IADC Underbalanced Drilling Conf. in
Houston, TX., August 28-29, 2000
2. T.W. Hogg, J.E. Boyle: SPE/IADC 37677, Colombian
Underbalanced Drilling Operations Startup Experience
3. R. Cade: May 23, 2002, SPE Luncheon, Reservoir Study
Group, Houston, TX
4. Underbalanced Drilling Manual, Gas Research Institute
(now Gas Technology Institute)
5. International Association of Drilling Contractors,
information on Underbalanced Operations Committee
www.iadc.org/committees/underbalanced/Completeddocu
ments.html
6. Preston L. Moore: Drilling Practices Manual, Second
Edition, 1986, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa OK
7. D. Beliveau: Heterogeneity, Geostatistics and Blackjack
Poker, JPT (December 1995), page 1068.
8. T.M.Haselton, R. Kirvelis, G.Pia, T.Fuller: Wells Drilled
Overbalanced and Underbalanced Prove UBD Value,
World Oil, May 2002, page 35-38
9. WellCAP IADC Well Control Accreditation Program
(WCT-2UBDS) http://www.iadc.org/wellcap/
10. B. Rehm: Practical Underbalanced Drilling and
Workover, 2002, Petroleum Extension Service, Austin,
TX
11. G. Pia, T. Fuller, T. Haselton, R. Kirvelis: SPE 74446,
Underbalanced-Undervalued?
Direct
Qualitative
Comparison Proves the Technique! IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX 26-28 February 2002
12. D. Eresman: Underbalanced Drilling Guidelines Improve
Safety, Efficiency

Expanding
Technology

Exploration
Enabling Technology
High Angle
(~90)

Vertical Wells
Footage Drilling
In fill Wells

Day Work
Drilling

Mature Asset/
Mature Technology

New Technology
Application

Many

Turnkey Drilling

Horizontal
Well OBO

Vertical Well
UBO

Experienced Personnel

Appraisal

Vertical Well Conventional OBO

Directional Well Conventional OBO

(Air/Gas Drilling)

Directional Well
UBO
Horizontal
Well
UBO

Few

Underbalance

OBO

Day-work Drilling

Drilling Method

ERD

UBO

Directional

Conventional

11

Un-Conventional

Asset Value

IADC/SPE 81627

Complexity
Figure 1: Planning Detail Matrix

Figure 2: Experienced Personnel Relative to Well Type

Case History 1
Drilling Progress

Case History 2
Days vs. Depth

0
5000

9.5/ 8" casing @ 540' M D

1000
5500

2000

Lateral 1

3000

Planned - Lateral 2

6000

Lateral 2

4000
5000

Actual Depth

6000

Depth, ft

Depth, ft

Plan - Lateral 1

Pilot Hole, Log, PB, DD t o 90

6500

7000

7000
7" casing @
7367' M D

8000
9000

7500

8000

Lat eral, drilled UB

10000
0

20

40

Time, days

Figure 3: Case History 1 - Days vs. Depth

60

8500
0

10

20

30
40
Tim e. days

50

Figure 4: Case History 2 - Days vs. Depth

60

70

12

IADC/SPE 81627

Ca se History 2
Tota l Tim e Distribution

25%

Change BHA
Circulating

9%

3%

3%

Drilling
Fishing

6%

Other

1%

Reaming

4%

Rig Repair
Standby

8%
6%

Survey + Connection

35%

Trip

Figure 5: Case History 2 Time Distribution

Case History 1
Surface Injection Pressure, ROP, Total Liquid Injection Rate vs. Tim e

SPP, p si
ROP, f p h*10 0
To t al Liq uid Inject io n Rat e, g p h

SIP / ROP / TLIR

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1

10

Tim e, days (hourly measurem ent)

Figure 6: Case History 1 - Surface Injection Pressure, Liquid Injection Rate, ROP

11

12

13

14

IADC/SPE 81627

13

Case History 3
Days v. Depth

Case History 4
Days v. Depth

2,000

2,000

Planned
Lateral 1
Unplanned Sidetrack
Unplanned Sidetrack 2

4,000

Depth, ft

Depth, ft

4,000

Planned
Lateral - 1
S/T 1 ( Redrill Lateral-1)
Lateral - 2

6,000

6,000

8,000

8,000

10,000
10,000

12,000
0.00

12,000
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time, days

60

70

Figure 7: Case History 3 - Days vs. Depth

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Time, days

80

Figure 8: Case History 4 - Days vs. Depth

Case History 3
Planned vs. Actual Costs

Cost, USD

600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000

Pe

rm
its
D
ay
/L
w
oc
or
at
k+
io
M
n
ob
/
D
C
m
om
ob
pl
D
e
tio
ire
n
ct
R
io
ig
na
lS
er
vi
ce
C
em
B
it/
e
Sc
nt
in
ap
g
er
/R
M
ea
ud
m
er
/C
he
m
ic
M
al
ud
s
O
Lo
pe
gg
n
H
in
ol
g
e
R
Lo
en
gg
ta
in
lE
g
qu
Tr
ip
uc
m
en
ki
ng
t
/H
au
P&
lin
A
g
/P
lu
O
g
th
ba
er
ck
In
ta
n
To
gi
ta
bl
lT
e
an
gi
bl
es

Planned

Major Cost Category

Figure 9: Case History 3 Cost Comparison

Actual

50.00