UNIT-13

PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN UPSTREAM

WING (DRILLING)
Objectives
After reading this unit you will be able to understand:

Various factors that control the performance of

drilling.

Rate of penetration and quality of drilling.

Contract drilling prices have remained essentially constant over the last ten
or fifteen years despite the facts that the greatest inflationary period in
United States history has occurred during the same time. This unique price
stability has been due, largely, to the highly competitive and resourceful
nature of the drilling industry in general and, to the rig floor, desk, and
laboratory thinking, and experimentation which has resulted in improved
technique and equipment for making hole faster.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
It is necessary that some performance measures are recognized so that
performance can be effectively monitored. Drilling operation is highly capital
intensive. Nearly 30% to 40% of total cost of oil well comes on drilling alone.
It is thus necessary that performance is measured quantitatively and
qualitatively. Some of the common measures are:

Rate of penetration
Cost of drilling
Metreage per month
Gauge of bore
Deviation control
Life of equipment and accessories etc

Here all these measures will not be discussed. Rate of penetration will only
be deal here

Rate of penetration (PR): PR is the meters drilled per hour, this does not
take into account the trip time or any other time lost for any reason.
The factors which affect the rate of penetration are exceedingly numerous
and certainly are not completely understood at this time. Undoubtedly,
influential variables exist which are as yet unrecognized. A rigorous analysis
of drilling rate is complicated by the difficultly of completely isolating the
variable under study. For example interpretation of field data may involve
uncertainties due to the possibilities of undetected changes in rock
properties. Studies of drilling fluids effects are always plagued by the
difficulty of preparing two muds are having all properties identical except the
one under observation. These and other complexities will become more
apparent in later sections.
Some of the more recognizable variables which affect penetration
are the following:
(1) Personnel Efficiency
A. Competence
1- Experience
2- Special training
B. Psychological factors
1- Company employee relation
2- Pride in job
3-Chance of advancement
(2) Rig efficiency
A. State of repair, preventive maintenance
B. Proper size
C. Ease of operation, degree of automaticity, and power equipment
(3) Formation characteristics
A. Compressive strength
B. Hardness or abrasiveness
C. State of underground stress
D. Elasticity brittle or plastic
E. Stickiness or balling tendency
F. Permeability
G. Fluid content and interstitial pressure
H. Porosity
I. Temperature
(4) Mechanical factors
A. Weight on bit
B. Rotating speed
C. Bit type

(5) Mud properties

A. Density
B. Solid content
C. Flow properties
D. Fluid loss
E. Oil content
F. Surface tension
(6) Hydraulic factors
Essentially bottom hole cleaning

Fundamental of rock failure

For drilling purpose, rocks may be classified into three general types, namely:
(1)Soft rock: soft clays and shales, unconsolidated to moderately
cemented sands
(2)Medium rocks: some shales, porous limestones and dolomites,
consolidated sands, gypsum
(3)Hard rock: dense lime stone and dolomites, highly cemented send
quartzite chert.
Soft rock may be drilled by the scrapping cutting action of drag type bits, or
by the combined grinding scrapping action of offset, cone angle, rolling
cutter bits. The harder formation is drilled mostly by the crushing penetration
of the bit teeth. Since it is in the latter type of formation that penetration
rates are lowest, let us further consider the failure mechanism of this rock.
Experiments of the failure mechanism of elastic rocks conducted by Battelle
memorial institute for drilling research, Inc are of considerable fundamental
interest. In part of these studies a drop tester, consisting of a weighted bit on
a rod, was dropped from various heights, striking the rock specimen below.
Strain gauges close to the bit allowed the force waveforms to be recorded by
an oscilloscope camera. Four such patterns for single blows at various drop
heights are shown in figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1: Tracing of typical force waveforms for various heights of drop
with a 0.03-in.bit and weight of 15lb for single blows on Indiana limestone.

Note that the first force peak is 2000lb for all cases, with the magnitude of
the second peak in creasing with drop height.

Rock characteristics
The rock properties which govern drilling rate are not completely understood.
Further more correlation caking between strength and elastic properties as
measured at laboratory conditions, and those which exist at the depth of
interest to the oil industry. Considerable data and an extensive bibliography
on rock properties have been published by Wuerker. Other investigations
concerned with the effect of pressure on rock drill ability are also available.

The elastic properties of various formations are greatly influenced by the

state of stress at which they exist. The behavior of most shales is typical of
this effect, because they become increasingly difficult to drill at greater
depths.

Figure 13.2: Element of formation beneath rock bit.

(Courtesy - After Murray and Cunningham)
For explanation of this behavior, consider figure 13.2 which shows a thin
impermeable element of formation directly below the bit. If the hole is filled
with liquid, the upper surface of the element is subjected to a pressure which
is dependent on mud density and depth. This pressure tends to removal of
the element much as though the rocks strength were increased by the
applied pressure. Therefore it may be expected that the effect of such
superimposed stresses will be more pronounced in weak (soft, relatively
compressible) rocks than in stronger, more competent beds figure 13.3.

Figure13.3: Penetration rate vs. confining pressure for various rock types.
(After Murray and Cunningham)
Note that drilling rate reaches an essentially minimum value at some
confining pressure, with little change occurring at subsequent higher
pressure. This is particularly evident for the soft shale shown in fig. also
notes that the effect of confining pressure on drilling rate is greater at higher
bit weights.

Mechanical factors
In all areas penetration rate is governed by the weight on the bit and/or the
rotary speed which may be applied. Normally these limits are imposed by
crooked hole, equipment and/or hydraulic consideration. Other variable will
considered constant of or no consequence, except as noted.

Weight on bit
1) Drilling at bit loads above this critical weight, bit weights and region.
2) Desirable and applied if possible.

Figure 13.4: Increased penetration facilitated by proper bit weight

application.
Laboratory data-atmospheric pressure
This principal is well illustrated by figure13.4, which shows the increase in
penetration rate footage when sufficient bit weight to overcome the
compressive strength was applied.

Figure 13.5: The effect of bit loading on penetration rate for various rocks.
Laboratory data-atmospheric pressure
From 13.5 it is evident that for each rock type the points above the critical
load lie on approximately straight lines:

Rp = a + bW
Where,
Rp = instantaneous or on bottom penetration rate, ft./ hour
W = weight on bit, lb

a, b = intercept and slope respectively, which are dependent on rock

properties, bit size and types, drilling fluid properties, etc.

Rotational speed
The effect of this variable on penetration rate is not too well established. In
general, on bottom drilling rate increases with increased rotary speed. Figure
are typical of the rotary speed effect and suggest that the following
relationship exist ratio
Rp = f (N)n
Where,
f = some function
N = rotary speed, rpm
n<1
Again the true relationship may be obscured by the hole cleaning variable. A
satisfactory nozzle velocity at 100rpm may not be adequate at 200rpm,
since at the latter speed a cutting has only half as much time to clear bottom
prior to the next tooth impact.

The Effect of Drilling Fluid Properties on Penetration Rate

The effect of mud density governs the pressure imposed on the hole bottom.
This is probably the main factor contributing to the success of air drilling in
such areas as depicted by figure 13.6

Figure 13.6: Relative drilling times of airvs.mud drilled wells in Atoka

County, Oklahoma

The effect of mud density is probably not completely expressed in terms of

the pressure exerted by the mud column. Rather it should be considered in
terms of the pressure differential between the interstitial fluid pressure in the
rock and to imposed pressure. All rocks are porous, although some are so
slightly porous that we can consider them non porous. There fore reconsider
figure 8.4 for the case where no mud column pressure is exerted. In this case
internal pressures with in the rock will help remove the small element below
the bit, and thus increase drill ability. Rapid removal of cutting from below
the bit allows each successive tooth impact to attack new rocks. This of
course leads to faster drilling.

Solid content
Many properties of a mud vary with its solid content and it is thus difficult to
isolate data which relate specifically to this factor. It has long been observed
in west Texas that very small amounts of clay solids in the drilling fluid
greatly reduce the drilling rates obtained by use of water. Such decreases are
completely beyond those expected from the relatively small density increase
and it is apparent that other factors must be involved. It is the opinion of
many experts that the percentage of solids in mud exerts a separate and
distinct effect on drilling rate.

Flow Properties
The same pumps are normally used for drilling the entire hole. This means
that the available hydraulic horse power must be essentially constant. An
increase in yield point and viscosity increases system frictional losses
thereby reducing the pressure drop which can be applied across the bit. Chip
clearance time is thus increased and penetration rate decreased. Viscosity
influences bottom hole turbulence in the same way its effect on the Reynolds
number is much more drastic than that of density, due to its wider range of
values. For example, viscosity at bottom hole conditions commonly ranges
from 0.50 cp for water to 50 cp for colloidal mud, a ratio of 100. Density
variation for this same viscosity range might be from 8 to 16 lb/gal, or a ratio
of 2. Therefore viscosity exerts a considerable effect on the attainment of
turbulent flow.

Figure 13.7- Laboratory data showing effect of viscosity on drilling rate.

(After Eckel, courtesy API)
Results from the laboratory experiments of Eckel are shown in figure 13.7.
Here the relative drilling rate is shown as a function of stormer viscosity.
Other variables including per cent solids and filtration rate were also
involved. So that viscosity is not the only factor influencing results. For
normal mud viscosity and solid contents are so interrelated that isolation of
either factor is difficult. From the stand point of lubrication between bit teeth
and the rock, high velocity causes high films pressures, and hence reduces
the chances of having rock to tooth friction. Surface tension also enters
these considerations.
The bit teeth must shear and displace drilling fluid before contacting the
rock. The energy expended for this purpose is dependent on viscosity, very
high viscosity mud may provide effective viscous cushion which softens bit
teeth impacts. Yield point effects may be considered in regard to their
contribution to apparent or equivalent Newtonian viscosity.

Filtration Loss
The effect of filtration on the drill ability of permeable rocks has been
explained by Murray and Cunningham in conjunction with their studies on
hydraulic pressure effects. They found that penetration rate was not affected
by imposed borehole pressures if such pressures were equalized ahead of
the bit. Water for example may readily enter a permeable rock ahead of the
bit so that no pressure differential exists across the thin element being
drilled. Low water loss mud however almost instantaneously deposit a tough,
low permeability filter cake on the hole bottom, allowing a definite pressure
differential to exist. This has been two detrimental effects: the dynamic
filtration pressure effect already discussed, and the requirement that the bit
tooth penetrate the filter cake prior to contacting the rocks. Also the
loosened cuttings are trapped in the pasty filter cake mixture and require
longer bottom clearance times.

Figure 13.8: Effect of water loss on drilling rates when drilling Wilcox shale
with 1.5 inch bit in a lime based mud.
Data-b.w.-750lb speed-50 rpm
Each point is average of 24 tests.
Figure 13.8 shows the observed effect of water loss on the penetration rate
in shale. As stated by Cunningham and Goins it is difficult to explain this
effect in almost impermeable rocks. However even the extremely low
permeability of shale may allow some pressure equalization effect. Also the
increased starch content used to reduce water loss could conceivably cause
the observed behavior. Thus the low fluid loss which is desirable from the
formation damage standpoint is undesirable from the standpoint of
penetration rate.

OIL CONTENTS
It has long been observed in the field that the addition of oil to water base
mud almost always improves penetration rate in virtually all types of rocks.
The largest increases appear to occur in the soft rock areas with smaller
increases being noted in hard rock drilling. These increases have been
attributed to better lubrication conditions and less bit balling by hydra table
clays and shale. At present, it is considered that prevention of balling is the
most important factor in soft rock areas.
Increased bit life means that less non-productive rig time is expended in
making trips thus the over all penetration rate is increased. It also has been
observed that increases in on bottom drilling rate are also obtained despite
the conflicting facts that oil additions to water base muds generally
decrease water loss and increases apparent viscosity. There fore other

factors exist which more than compensate for the latter detrimental effects.
Density and solid content decreases may be compensating factors in some
instances.

SURFACE TENSION
Certain electrolytes and surfaces active agents act as rock hardness reducers
with 30 to 60% increase in drilling rate being obtained by their proper use.
Presumably, these materials act to produce more complete wetting of the
rocks by the liquid. This suggests that microscopic cracks, which tend to heal
themselves after the bit load is released, may be held open by the wetting
film of liquid; this would facilitate chipping by the next tooth impact. Friction
between bit tooth and rock would be reduced, also. Tests conducted by the
Battelle group using sodium hydroxide solutions confirmed the results
claimed by the Russian scientists.
The use of emulsifying agents in emulsion mud appears to effect drilling rate
in some cases. Lignites salts of higher fatty acids and other detergents or
surfactants are common chemical emulsifiers. Hard rock drilling rates using
fresh water have sometimes shown marked increases when surfactants were
added to the water. These increases were due to both increased bit life and
higher on bottom penetration rates. Both the types of detergents and the
character of the rocks govern the effect obtained. It then appears that
alternations in wettability and surface tensions play some part in rock drill
ability. This subject warrants further investigation and may offer some
economic promise.

Hydraulic factors
In this section we will be primarily concerned with the rapidly of cutting or
chip removal from below the bit. Instantaneous removal of these particles is
of course impossible; however, proper application of available hydraulic
energy can minimize regrinding and increase penetration rate. This is the
principle which has been stated earlier as pertaining to the widespread
acceptance of jet bits. The jets themselves do not drill the hole but merely
expedite cutting removal.
The effect of hydraulic factors on the drilling rate of drag- type bits has been
rather extensively studied. The principal conclusions from these studies were
the following:
(1)Rate of penetration is directly proportional to nozzle velocity
(2)Rate of penetration is directly proportional is directly proportional to
circulation volume.

The direct proportionalities noted were due, essentially to increase in

the allowable weight on the bit resulting from better hole cleaning at
the higher volumes and velocities. It should be noted that these results
applied to soft rocks and drag-type bits. This type of drilling is carried
on at relatively low bit loads, with penetration rate being almost
entirely dependent on the drilling fluids ability to remove large cutting
volumes and prevent bit balling.
The effects of hydraulic factors on rock bit drilling rates have also been
investigated. In soft and medium rocks, increases in penetration rate
have generally resulted from increased hydraulic horsepower. Some
question exists as to whether these increases correlate best with the
impact of the jet stream as indicated by drag- bit experience, or with
the hydraulic horse-power expended across the bit. Impact force
depends on flow rate times velocity:
F = Mv = mqv / 60g
Where F
lb
M =
m =
q =
v =
g =

continuous force on bottom exerted by jet streams,

mass rate of flow, lb-sec/ft

mud density, lb/gal
mud flow rate, gal/min
nozzle velocity, ft/sec
32.2 ft/sec2

Field data on penetration rate in soft and medium strength rocks are largely
manifestations of increased weight on the bit and bottom hole cleaning.

Figure13.9: Combined hydraulic and bit weight effect on penetration rate in

California drilling. (After Thompson)
Figure 13.9 shows the typical increases in bit weight facilitated by increased
nozzle velocity, as experienced in California drilling. The curvature of the
lines indicates balling, which becomes more severe as bit weight is
increased.

Other Drilling Methods

While considerable effort has been exerted to increase conventional drilling
rates, the possibilities of developing other methods has not been ignored.
These range from mere variations of the conventional rotary technique to
radical departures from basic methods.

THE TURBODRILL
The turbo drill is a rotary drilling device employing the same basic
mechanism as the conventional method. The principal difference is that the
bits rotation is provided by a down hole multistage turbine which is powered
by the drilling fluid; thus rotation of the drill string is eliminated. The turbine
section contains matching sets of stators and rotors, each pair being referred
to as one stage. Current models utilize 100 or more stages. Drilling mud is
deflected by the stator and strikes the rotor blades, causing them to rotate.
See figure 13.10.

Figure 13.10: Elementary diagram of turbine components.

(After LeVelle, Courtesy - Petroleum Engineer)

The design principles governing nozzle and blades angles are the same as in
other types of turbines. Variations in these factors allow the design of
turbines with different operating characteristics as dictated by different
applications. Figure 13.11 is a cutaway view of the French model which has
had considerable success in European tests.

Figure 13.11: Cutaway view of the French turbo drill.

(After OConnor)

Future use of the Turbo drill

The highly developed status of United States rotary drilling equipment and
techniques makes it a considerably more formidable opponent to the turbo
drill than the European or Russian techniques.
Certain advantages are inherent in turbo drilling 1) Higher penetration rates due to increased rotating speed
2) Elimination of drill string rotation
(a) Lighter and cheaper drill pipe and tool joints are permissible
(b) Quieter operation- no rotary table noise
(c) Less fishing jobs caused by drill string failure.
The main disadvantages are:
1) Turbo drill cost, both initial and maintenance

2) Greater pump capacity and /or pressure required

3) Greater care required to remove abrasive solids from the mud stream
4) The pressure drop across the lower part of the turbine must be kept
low, thus bits with high jet velocities can not be used.

Combination Rotary and Percussion Methods

It is recognized that large increases I bit energy may be obtained if high
frequency percussive blows are combined with bit rotation. Such a technique
has the basic features of both rotary and cable tool drilling.
A recent development employing this drilling mechanism is the hammer drill
designed and tested by the gulf oil corporation. The bit is rotated under
applied weight, percussive blows being furnished by a mud engine powered
by the drilling fluid. The percussion frequency is on the order of 600
strokes/min. The mechanical operation of the engine is shown in the series of
figure 13.12.

Figure 13.12: Operating cycle of Gulfs hammer drill.

(Courtesy - Petroleum Engineer)

Considerable laboratory and field test data indicate that large increases in
penetration rate may be obtained. Comparative laboratory results from
drilling in granite are shown in figure 13.13.

Figure 13.13: Comparative penetration rates of conventional vs. the

hammer drill.

The Pellet Impact Drill

An extremely interesting and radical departure from conventional drilling
methods is the pellet impact drilling technique developed by the drilling
methods section of the Carter Oil Company Research Laboratory in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. This method of drilling utilizes the high velocity, random impact
of steel pellets to cause rock failure.

Figure 13.14: Schematic operation of pellet impact drill.

(After Eckel)

The process may be visualized from figure 13.14 .The high velocity jet
stream from the primary nozzle draws drilling fluid and pellets into the
secondary nozzle and discharges them against the rocks. The pellets are
then lifted off bottom by the drilling mud, they then re-enter the aspirator
section, and are recycled. Additional pellets are suspended as a cloud above
the primary nozzle due to the high ascending velocity along side the
enlarged secondary nozzle section.
The apparent advantages of this method are elimination of drill pipe rotation
and the attendant benefits, in particular, there is no necessity for frequent
drill pipe removal, and since the pellet supply can be replenished from the
surface. This latter factor could result in the elimination of heavy hoisting
equipment.

Simultaneous Drilling
This modification involves the simultaneous drilling of two directional wells
with a single rig and drilling crew. This technique has reportedly been
successfully applied by the Russians in some fields. The main saving is again
due to reduction of trip time.

Figure 13.15: Schematic rig layout for simultaneous drilling operations.

(After Theriot)
The schematic rig layout shown in figure 13.15 requires an enlarged floor
area, two rotary tables. And special crowns block which allows the block
location to be readily transferred from hole to hole. As pipe is with drawn
from hole 1 it is lowered into 2. Hence one hole stands idle half the time. This
is a principal disadvantage, as it may cause hole trouble in some areas.

Quality
It is not enough to measure the meters drilled in a given time. Equally
important is the quality and stability of bore well. The gauge of the bore
should be uniform. The path of bore should not deviate from desired path.
The formation and reservoir should not be damaged during drilling.

Summary
This unit deals with various factors that control the performance of drilling.
The important factors discussed are rate of penetration and quality of
drilling. Various factors affecting rate of penetration have also been
discussed.

Review Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

What
What
What
What

do you mean by performance of drilling?

are the factors that govern the performance of drilling operation?
are the factors that govern the rate of penetration?
do you mean by quality of drilling?