SPE 143623

Torque and Drag Software Model Comparison: Impact on Application and

Calibration of Field Data
John E. McCormick, Melissa Frilot, SPE, Weatherford International Ltd., TzuFang Chiu, SPE, University of Texas at
Austin

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Brasil Offshore Conference and Exhibition held in Maca, Brazil, 1417 June 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of 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 SPE copyright.

ABSTRACT
With the number of extended-reach wells steadily increasing, software modeling has become a commonplace and essential process
during a wells planning phase. Over the years, numerous computer programs have been developed to predict torque and drag
(T&D) forces experienced during oilfield drilling and completion operations. Accurate prediction of T&D forces can reduce
serious drilling operation risks such as buckling, pipe failures, box swelling and the inability to get liners and casing to total depth
(TD).

Most, if not all, industry available T&D software programs allow users to manipulate inputs such as friction factors, mud weight,
and string component parameters, such as pipe weight, grade and dimensions. While the ability to alter the inputs in the T&D
model is a practical necessity, the possibility of unknowingly impacting the calculations is an ever present danger. In addition to a
thorough knowledge of how to input well parameters and analyze outputs, it is crucial for program users to question the reliability
of each program and to understand the impact that changes in inputs have on the models outputs.

This paper will describe the technical differences between two T&D modeling programs, the underlying calculations, and the
practical implications in terms of calibrating the two models to the same sets of field data. This paper also endeavors to increase
knowledge and competency for T&D software users in the oil and gas industry.

INTRODUCTION
The primary use of a T&D software model is well planning prior to spudding the well, though these programs are also used for
other situations, such as troubleshooting when unexpected circumstances arise. The impact of pipe size, casing weight, mud
density, and other fundamental considerations can be looked into far in advance of ordering equipment and the commencement of
drilling activities. In lieu of the pervasiveness of T&D models and the many different programs available, this paper will explore
and compare two different industry available T&D programs, Software A and Software B.

The basic fundamental T&D equations, such as torque, drag, normal force on an inclined surface and the compressive force
required to initiate buckling, have not markedly changed since the inception of T&D modeling. These equations can be found in
SPE papers and textbooks that are commonly available to the public, allowing companies with programming and software
knowledge to easily enter the T&D software business for both internal use and external marketing. Small differences in
calculations that occur based on different philosophies or equations may go unnoticed by the average user.
2 SPE 143623

The comparison between Software A and Software B was conducted using the following methodology:

1. Construct a well model using a vertical wellpath, a string consisting of only 5 drill pipe (no BHA), and identical inputs
2. Identify differences, if any, in the results and determine which calculations were affecting the results
3. Alter the inputs in one of the software models to mimic the calculations in the second software model to eliminate the
difference in results
4. Compare the results to check for further disparities
5. Repeat steps two and three until no more disparity exists between the results of the two models

A difference in calculations of no more than + 1% was the criteria for concluding that the models produced the same results.

History of T&D Software programs

Every well drilled has some degree of frictional forces associated with it. Though vertical holes experience torque and drag, very
infrequently do these forces interfere with well operations. Frictional drag or excessive torque now often present significant
obstacles to the successful drilling and completing of todays complex and highly deviated wells. Without an accurate assessment
of the well prior to spudding, the risk is increased that drilling or running casing to TD might not be feasible. With this in mind
equations were developed to predict frictional forces and their impact on well operations as early as the 1980s.

The fundamental T&D model was developed by Johancsik et al in 1984 and formalized by Sheppard et al in 1987 (Mitchell,
2008). Since then T&D software has been utilized by the oil and gas industry. The equations in T&D models have not changed
significantly since their establishment, yet some disparities still exist between engineers understanding of T&D modeling and the
actual underlying calculations. This paper first introduces the fundamental concept of soft sting and stiff sting models, followed
by an exploration of the differences between two industry available T&D programs, and concludes with a summary of the
ramifications of the differences between the two software programs.

Soft String Model

Most common T&D software programs available are variations of the soft string model developed by Johancsik et al. A soft string
model assumes that the entire drill string lies against the wellbore, and the stiffness of the drill string is not accounted for. The
drill string is modeled as a cable that is divided up into small elements (Fig. 1) that only carry axial loads and torque; contact
forces are supported by the wellbore. The forces on the elements consist of tension, compression, and torsion that cumulatively
build from the bottom of the string to the surface. In other words, torque and drag are calculated by summing the segments of the
torque and drag generated from bottom of the string to the surface. Soft string models disregard the bending moments caused by
the stiffness of the pipe and radial clearance of the drill string. Some argue that the accuracy of the soft string model is degraded
because of the model ignores the stiffness in the string. However, depending on the well situation, the soft string model may be
closer to field data than stiff string model or vise versa.

Figure 1. Short Elements in a String

SPE 143623 3

Stiff String Model

In addition soft string modelings, stiff string T&D models have also been developed. One major distinction between the soft string
model and the stiff string model is that instead of treating the pipe as small elements of a cable, it accounts for the actual stiffness
of the string. The stiff string model takes into consideration the bending moment in the tubular and radial clearance in the
wellbore. Stiff string models are most beneficial when wells that have high tortuous trajectories, high dogleg severity, or stiff
tubulars.

The stiff string model is more complex compared to the soft string model because of the additional inputs and calculations needed
to account for various bending forces. A greater variety of numerical methods including finite difference, finite element and semi
analytical techniques are employed in the stiff string modeling programs (Mason, 2007). It attempts to give a more realistic
torque and drag analysis on more difficult well. Nevertheless, it is hard to accurately account for tubular bending forces and radial
clearance.

Although stiff string models incorporate more variables, it is not necessarily more accurate than a soft string model. Proponents of
soft string models argue that the difference between soft and stiff string modeling is one large guess, the friction factor, versus
many small guesses, respectively.

TECHNICAL COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE A AND SOFTWARE B

In this paper two soft-string models are explored, which will be referred to as Software A and Software B. Two test wellpaths
were created for this comparison, a vertical and an L shaped well. An actual well was also used to confirm the findings. Both
test wellpaths used the same parameters, including 8.5 ppg mud and a string of 5 premium 19.5 ppf drill pipe from surface to TD.
Four major technical differences were found between Software A and B: the radius about which torque is generated, the buoyant
force calculation, the onset of helical buckling, and how the programs handle helical lockup.

Test Wells
This section presents the well information and percentage difference in results between the two software programs.

Test Well No 1: Vertical Well

Well 1 was a vertical well set to 18,000 ft measured depth (MD). Software A and Software B were used to model this well as a
base case for the modeling comparison. 9 5/8 casing was set to 10,000 ft followed by 8000 ft of 8 1/2 open hole reaching a total
depth of 18,000 ft. To simplify the possible variance in BHA components between the programs, 5premium drill pipe was run
exclusively from the surface to TD. Operation lines incorporated in the comparison included rotary drilling, slide drilling, rotating
while off bottom, tripping in, tripping out and backreaming.

All operation lines modeled by the two different T&D software programs showed tension and torque values within 1% (Table 1).
The base case confirmed that the two software programs yield comparable results in a simple vertical section. As the well was
vertical and contained no tortuosity, both programs assumed the pipe was perfectly centered in the hole and no torque values were
generated.

Table 1. Vertical Well Results

Vertical Well (V: 18,000')
Mud Weight 8.5 ppg
Tension Differences
Drilling 1%
Tripping In 1%
Tripping Out 1%
Slide Drilling 1%
Backreaming 1%
Rotating Off Bottom 1%
Torque Differences
Drilling NA
Backreaming NA
Rotating Off Bottom NA
4 SPE 143623

Test Well No 2: L Shaped Well

Well 2 was an L shaped well set to 18,000 ft MD. The well had a 8,000 ft vertical section, a 2,000 ft build section from zero to
90 degrees, and an 8,000 ft horizontal section. The modeled operation lines incorporated in this comparison included rotary
drilling, rotating while off bottom, tripping out and backreaming.

Software A and B showed a +/- 1% tension difference for all operations. The torque values differed by to 7-9% for the various
operation lines (Table 2). Because no rotation was applied for tripping out, neither program generated a torque value for this
operation. This indicated that there existed a significant difference in the way torque values were calculated between Software A
and Software B.

Table 2. L Shape Well Results

L Shape Well (V: 10,000', B: 2000', D:
8000' )
Mud Weight 8.5 ppg
Tension Differences
Drilling 1%
Tripping Out 1%
Backreaming 0%
Rotating Off Bottom 1%
Torque Differences
Drilling 7%
Backreaming 9%
Rotating Off Bottom 9%

Pipe Sag Theory

Knowing that there were imbedded differences between the two programs, the components of the torque equation were
investigated. The general equation for torque is presented below (Eq. 1):

(Eq. 1)
Where,
= torque
FN = side or normal force
rtorque = radius of rotation
= coefficient of friction

Original Results
The difference between the torque calculations of Software A and Software B reside in the way the radius of torque generation is
calculated. The basic difference in theory relates to pipe sag. Software A assumes that in addition to the tool joints, the pipe body
also touches the bore hole, and thus the pipe body OD, inaddition to the tool joint OD, are included in the torque calculation.
Software A assumes that 1/3 of the pipes weight is carried by pipe body while 1/3 of the side load is carried by each of the tool
joints. In other words, it considers 1/3 of the torque to be generated by the pipe body and 2/3 of the torque by the tool joints (Eq.
2). Software B assumes no contact between the pipe body and the wall of the hole, using the radius of the tool joints exclusively to
calculate torque (Eq. 3).

(Eq. 2)
(Eq. 3)
SPE 143623 5

Pipe body contact with the wellbore has been observed after drilling tortuous and highly deviated wells, especially with the use of
range three pipe. It is difficult, however, to predict what percent of the load, if any, will be carried by the body of the pipe vs. the
tool joints. The accuracy of Software A vs. Software B would depend on the doglegs, deviation, pipe size and length, and other
factors. The important thing is for users to understand how their T&D program calculates torque. Software A will yield more
optimistic, or lower, values of torque. Software B will yield more conservative, or higher, values of torque.

After identifying the difference in the torque equations, the tool joints for the drill string in both programs were manually altered to
match the ID and OD of the pipe body. By changing rtool joint to equal rpipe, the torque equations in both Software A and Software B
become identical (Eq. 4-6). With the tool joints were effectively removed, the models were then rerun to verify that this was the
only calculation difference causing the 7-9% variance in results.

(Eq. 4)
(Eq. 5)
(Eq. 6)

Results after the OD/ID Modification

For comparison purposes, the torque radius was equalized in both software programs by manipulating the OD and ID of the tool
joints. The L shaped test model produced the results shown in Table 3. The torque differences between the two software
programs decreased (from 7%-9% to 1%-3%), however the tension differences increased (from 1% to 3%-4%).

Table 3. L Shape Well Results

L Shape Well (V: 10,000', B: 2000', D: 8000' )
Mud Weight 8.5 ppg
Tension Differences
Drilling 4%
Tripping Out 4%
Backreaming 3%
Rotating Off Bottom 3%
Torque Differences
Drilling 1%
Backreaming 3%
Rotating Off Bottom 3%

In addition to closing the gap between the outputs for torque, eliminating the tool joints caused the difference between the tension
results to increase. After considering the possible causes for the variance in tension values, it was determined that the gap between
Software A and Software Bs results increased for both tension and torque as the mud weight increased.

Buoyant Force Calculation

As the mud weight increased the differences between the results of the two software programs increased (Table 4). The buoyed
weight calculation became a target for the next step in the investigation.

Table 4. L Shape Well Results w/Altered Pipe Dimensions

"L" Shape Change Pipe Tool Joints
Mud Weight 2.08 ppg 8.5 ppg 17 ppg
Tension Differences
Drilling 1% 4% 8%
Tripping Out 1% 4% 7%
Backreaming 0% 3% 7%
Rotating Off Bottom 1% 3% 7%
6 SPE 143623

Torque Differences
Drilling 0% 1% 4%
Backreaming 1% 3% 7%
Rotating Off Bottom 1% 3% 7%

Density Equation
Although both programs use the same density equation (Eq. 7), different inputs are used. This equation is extremely important
because the volume of the string determines the volume of displaced fluid, which in turn determines the buoyant force. The
greater the buoyant force, the less the buoyed weight of the string. The pipe dimensions and mud weight has a massive impact on
the torque and drag calculations.

(Eq. 7)
Where,
= density
M = mass
V = volume

Software A allows the user to input the weight of the element and uses the density of steel to calculate the volume of material
present, which equals the volume of displaced fluid used to calculate the buoyed weight of the string. Software B uses the user
inputs of the mass and volume of the tubular to calculate the density. Software B is effectively allowing the density of steel to
fluctuate when users change the dimensions or weight of the string components. This did not show in the first model or initially
show in the second because both programs use the same string component catalogues, which contain correct density, weight, and
dimensional parameters. Both software programs are effectively calibrated to the same pipe specifications.

Original Data
For the buoyed weight calculation, Software A uses the adjusted, or average, weight per foot of the pipe in air and the density of
the steel to calculate the volume of displaced fluid (Eq. 8). Software program B, on the other hand, uses the pipe dimensions (Eq.
9-12), assuming that 95% of the drill string components length is the pipe body and 5% is the tool joint.

.
1 (Eq. 8)
Where,
Wb = buoyed weight (lb/ft)
Wa = adjusted weight of pipe in air (lb/ft)
MW = mud weight (ppg)
Steel density = 490 (lb/ft^3)

For components with tool joints

(Eq. 9)
(Eq. 10)

0.95 0.05 (Eq. 11)

0.95 0.05 (Eq. 12)

Where,
WB = buoyed weight per foot
WA = air weight per foot
WF = weight per foot of displaced fluid
MW = mud weight
AE = external area of the pipe
AI = internal area of the pipe
SPE 143623 7

Using the above equations, an equivalent air weight for Software B was calculated to attempt to isolate the difference in the
buoyant force calculations (Eq. 13, Table 5). Once this was done, the results again aligned within +/- 1% between the two
programs (Table 6).

Air Weight Correction to Eliminate the Buoyed Weight Difference

.
(Eq. 13)
Where,
WA = air weight (lb/ft)
We = buoyed weight (lb/ft)

Table 5. Equivalent Air Weight for Software B

Mud Weight WA (Software A) WA (Software B)
2.08 15.67 16.75
8.5 15.67 18.50
17 15.67 20.82

Table 6. Result Using Corrected Buoyed Force Calculation

L Shape Well (V: 10,000', B: 2000', D: 8000' )
Mud Weight 8.5 ppg
Tension Differences
Drilling 0%
Tripping Out 1%
Backreaming 0%
Rotating Off Bottom 0%
Torque Differences
Drilling 0%
Backreaming 1%
Rotating Off Bottom 1%

With the results at + 1%, the only two technical differences identified in the calculations were the torque calculations use of the
radius of torque generation and the buoyant force calculations method of determining the volume of displaced fluid.

Software A is more conservative on its calculation. Although Software B effectively allows the density of the string component
material to change, neither program can be considered accurate because they both rely upon the weight of the string components
for the torque and drag calculations. The actual air weight for each joint of pipe used downhole is never accurately known.

Material losses from tool joint and pipe body wear affect the weight of the string, but the weight of each pipe joint is not measured
before sending the string downhole. Moreover, API regulations for new pipe is within 87.5% of the tube OD (though many
manufacturers have a tolerance of no less than 95% tube OD).

Both programs rely upon an input that is not known. This is not a great cause for concern because the friction factor used in well
planning is at best an educated guess, and can be altered to calibrate a model to actual surface torque and hookload values
measured on the rig floor.

FURTHER TECHNICAL COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE A AND SOFTWARE B

After isolating the differences impacting the tension and torque values, the second test well was increased in severity by extending
the horizontal section, adding tortuosity, and increasing the friction factors. Two noticeable differences were discovered in the
way helical buckling is treated by the programs.
8 SPE 143623

Onset Helical Buckling

Every T&D software program has a calculation that determines what amount of compression will cause an element to enter into
helical buckling. Using the second test well, the wellpath was extended from 18,000 ft to 30,000 ft by increasing the horizontal
section. Buckling is often seen in the vertical section of a well directly above the build section where the compressive loads
exceed the critical value of the string component. Sinusoidal buckling will occur first, followed by helical buckling, and then
helical lockup if the compressive load is severe enough.

There are multiple equations available with which to calculate the onset of helical buckling. The reason for the difference in the
initiation of buckling is the coefficient imbedded in the helical buckling equation (Eqs. 14 and 15). Software A uses a 3.66
buckling coefficient, while the buckling coefficient Software B is 5.26. The higher the coefficient, the more force is required to
buckle the component. In this case Software A is more conservative, allowing pipe to buckle sooner. Software A initiates helical
buckling earlier than Software B.

2 22 1 (Eq. 14)

2 22 1 3.657

42 (Eq. 15)

42 5.260

Where,
Fhel = helical buckling force
E = Youngs modulus
I = moment of inertia
r = radius

Additional Side Force due to buckling

The second difference between the two programs is the way helical lockup is handled. When a string is helically buckled, it
pushes outwards, exerting a force on the wall of the hole. This causes problems with transferring string weight to the bit, running
in casing, and other problems during well operations. When axial movement is no longer possible because of the large amounts of
force being exerted on the wall of the hole, helical lockup has occurred. Although both programs calculate this additional force the
same way (Eq. 16), they handle helical lockup differently (Fig. 3).

(Eq. 16)
Where,
N = additional side force
r = radius
F = side or normal force
E = Youngs modulus
I = moment of inertia

Software A does not stop calculating additional side force caused by helical buckling, which is a squared component calculated for
each 30 foot joint of pipe and added into the squared component above it. The increase in buckling force increases exponentially
until the defined limit of one billion pounds of compressive force is reached. Users have the ability to set a smaller limit to the
maximum compressive force allowed in the software. This indicates that it will be impossible to carry out this operation. In figure
3, the maximum compression force has been set to 350,000 lbs by the user (Software A).

Software B will register that helical lockup has occurred and simply stops adding this additional side force due to helical buckling.
This causes the compressive force in the string to stop its exponential climb and begins to lessen. Both programs effectively show
the same thing once helical lockup is reached: it is impossible to conduct that operation. It is important for users to understand
how the additional side force caused by helical buckling is displayed by the software program they are using, and that any large
negative tensile force shown at the surface is an indication that the operation is not possible with the given inputs.
SPE 143623 9

HookLoad HelicalBuckeling
SoftwareB SlideDrilling
AxialForce(kips) SoftwareA SlideDrilling
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000
MD(ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Figure 3. Additional Side Force Result (Slide Drilling) for Software A and Software B

FIELD DATA COMPARISON

As the final step in comparing Software A and Software B, models were put together on previously drilled wells to find the
differences in friction factors when calibrating the models to actual field data. Identical inputs were used, and no effort was made
to eliminate differences in the torque or buoyant force calculations between the two programs.

Friction Factors
Friction in a well is the force that resists a strings rotational or axial movement. The coefficient of friction is a dimensionless
scalar value that describes the friction ratio between the two surfaces. If the contact bodies are rougher, the coefficient of friction
is higher; if the contact bodies are smoother, the coefficient of friction is smaller. Friction factors in T&D models often range
between 0.15 and 0.55. In open hole the coefficient of friction is usually higher than in cased hole.

Most often a separate friction factor is used for open hole than for cased hole, though some experts argue that a single friction
factor should be used to model the entire wellbore. The reasoning for using a single coefficient of friction is that multiple
combinations of open and cased hole friction factors can be used to arrive at the same surface values. For instance, a hookload of
120,000 lbs might be arrived at by using a cased hole friction factor (CHFF) of 0.22 and an open hole friction factor (OHFF) of
0.34. That same hookload might also be generated by a T&D model using 0.20 CHFF and 0.35 OHH or 0.18 CHFF and 0.36
OHFF.

It is also important to note that different operations will yield different friction factors. The friction factor for tripping in, drilling,
and tripping out will likely all be slightly different. Also, running casing often times yields higher friction factors when calibrating
a model to actual field data than during operations with drill pipe. One cause for this phenomenon is the difference in radial
clearance between the string and the wellbore. In the calibration comparison to field data described below a single friction factor
was used for each operation.

Field Data Comparison

The actual field data provided hookload and surface torque measurements. The variance between the modeled results and the field
data, prior to calibrating the friction factors, is presented in Table 7. Less than two percent difference between the hookloads
generated by Software A and Software B is seen when compared with the actual field data. Only torque friction factor calibration
was carried out.
10 SPE 143623

Table 7. Actual Field Data Comparison

Hook Load (kips) Torque (ft-lb)
MD (ft) Software A Software B Software A Software B
15200 1% 2% 7% 12%
15400 0% 2% 8% 12%
15600 0% 2% 9% 10%

Software A matched the surface torque values at an overall friction factor of 0.34. Software B matched the same surface torque
values at an overall friction factor of 0.32. The results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Friction Factor Calibration

Torque (ft-lb)
MD (ft) Software A Software B
15200 2% 2%
15400 2% 2%
15600 2% 2%
Torque f.f. (OHFF = CHFF) 0.34 0.32

It may be important to note that calibration may not work for a shallow or vertical well, which will not have significant normal
forces. Normal force is a major contributor to the torque and drag calculations. If the normal force is extremely low, a dramatic
change in friction factors may not substantially alter the results.

INTERFACE/DISPLAY DIFFERENCES

Different types of torque and drag software programs have different interfaces, varying from simple to complex and user-friendly
to unwieldy. All software programs that model torque and drag will have outputs that show the hookload and torque values at
surface, as well as the forces within the string related to tension, compression, torque, and the loading at intervals such as tool
joints. The main difference between software programs that the authors have seen regarding outputs are the ability to show or not
show multiple scenarios in the same display, 2D vs. 3D functionality, and report generating features.

CONCLUSION
Many of the every day torque and drag software users are adept at entering the inputs and analyzing the outputs in the programs
they use, but are not as aware of the underlying calculations. Knowledge of how the various inputs affect specific outputs is vital
to increasing competence with T&D models.

Considering the number of equations used to generate a torque and drag model, Software A and Software B are strikingly similar.
The differences found were in the torque equation, the calculation of displaced fluid that affects buoyed weight, the onset of helical
buckling, and how the programs handle the additional side force attributed to helical buckling. While this may seem to be a large
number of differences, the practical impact boils down to a 0.02 difference in friction factors.

Each program has the ability to more closely mimic actual torque data, depending on the well geometry and the pipe being used,
but this difference is eliminated by altering the friction factor. The onset of helical buckling has practical implications, but the way
the additional side force is accounted for during helical lockup does not. Once helical lockup has occurred, and likely well before,
well operations are not possible.

As this study illustrates, making changes to pipe dimensions in Software B effectively changed the density of the string
components and altered the tensile values at surface by 3-4% at lower mud weights and 7-8% at high mud weights. This is cause
for concern, but it is also important to note that both programs have string component databases that are calibrated to the same set
of weights and dimensions. If the users do not alter the dimensions of string components manually, there will be no problem.
Moreover, if the users enter in new components or alter existing components based off of true dimensions and weights, the density
will be correctly used in both programs.
SPE 143623 11

The goal of this study and paper is to educate torque and drag users about the software programs that they use and to encourage
exploration of their underlying equations. Differences do exist, and it is important for engineers, wellplanners, and anyone
involved in software modeling to have a thorough understanding of how their programs generate results. With knowledge and
careful use, torque and drag software programs can greatly assist with planning and executing drilling, completions, and remedial
well operations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Weatherford for their support and permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES
1. Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B. and Dawson, R.., Torque and Drag in Directional Wells Prediction and
Measurement, IADC/SPE 11380, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, February 1983.

2. Mason, C.J., Chen, D.C., Step Changes Needed To Modernize T&D Software, IADC/SPE 104609, IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 2007.

3. Long, T.P., McCormick, J.E. and Frilot, M.A., Inaccessible Drilling Targets and Completions Operation Made
Possible by the Alleviation of Excessive Torque and Drag, IADC/SPE 125991, IADC/SPE Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference & Exhibition, Manama, October 2009.

4. Mason, C.J., Williams, L.G., and Murray, G.N., Reinventing the Wheel Reducing Friction in High-Angle Wells,
SPE 63270, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 2000.

5. Payne, M.L., and Abbassian, F., Advanced Torque-and-Drag Considerations in Extended-Reach Wells, SPE
Drilling & Completion, March 1997.