SPE 134580

Borehole Quality Design and Practices to Maximize Drill Rate Performance

Dupriest F.E., Elks Jr. W.C., Ottesen S., Pastusek P.E., Zook J.R., ExxonMobil Development Company, Aphale
C.R., ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.
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
In 2005 the operator implemented a workflow that ensured drilling performance limiters were identified, redesigned, and
extended continuously. The use of mechanical specific energy surveillance to address bit limiters and dysfunction has
previously been published. The purpose of this paper is to discuss additional practices that have been developed to extend the
non-bit performance limiters, particularly those related to borehole quality.
There have been over 40 non-bit performance limiters identified and redesigned globally. While these are diverse, those with
the greatest global impact were found to be tied directly to borehole quality. Consequently, in 2008 the performance
management workflow was modified to increase awareness of borehole quality as a performance limiter. The result was that
acceptable borehole quality became defined as that which would not limit footage per day. Quality is now redesigned to the
"economic limit of performance" in the given interval. The economic limit of performance is a significantly higher standard
than the common industry objective for borehole quality, which is to achieve low trouble time and run casing successfully.
The average drilling footage per day drilled by the 23 operations that have been active since the performance management
process was implemented has improved by about 63%. Instantaneous drill rates have typically increased 100-300%.
Advances in bit and non-bit limiters appear to have contributed equally, and the majority of the gain in non-bit limiters has
come from improved borehole quality. Other gains have come from related limiters, such as an increased understanding of the
manner in which cuttings transport and tripping operations are controlled by borehole quality.
The paper discusses the technical models that are used to understand the major borehole limiters, the engineering design and
the real-time practices that have been developed, as well as the field results.
Introduction
Performance management tools tend to share a core process, which is the basic plan-do-analyze cycle. This is seen in
important early works like the process used by the industry to optimize hydraulics (Lummus, 1970), to the "technical limit"
workflow in the late 1990's (Bond et.al., 1996 ) and the operator's "limiter redesign" workflow implemented in 2005 (Dupriest
et.al., 2005; Dupriest, 2006). Each reflects the intuitive process through which progress is made in any endeavor, which is to
identify an issue, make changes to address it, and then repeat the process based on the results. While the fundamental cycle is
the same, the detailed workflows differ, and probably should. To be effective, a performance management process must be
consistent with a variety of factors, such as the company's risk management culture, its technical resource base, the availability
of internal training resources, and the complexity and diversity of its operations. The gains shown in Fig. 1 since the rollout of
the Fast Drill Process (FDP) suggest that the work process has been effective. These were largely mature programs in which
the expected early learning curve gains had already been achieved (Brett, 1986). While there are elements of the workflow
that would be effective in any organization, it should be noted that this effectiveness also reflects the degree to which the
workflow is consistent with the organization's capabilities and culture. The key elements that one might expect to work
universally have been previously discussed (Dupriest, 2006). Other details may be uniquely tailored to the operator's own
strengths, well mix, or operating environment.
The workflow is built on the insight that factors that limit performance do so by essentially limiting the ability to apply greater
weight on bit (WOB). These are systematically identified and redesigned so that desired increase in WOB becomes possible.

SPE 134580

% Increase Footage per Day

The traditional drill-off curve shown in Fig. 2 is used notionally to illustrate the concept. Rate of penetration (ROP) should
increase linearly with WOB if the rock cutting process is efficient. If weight is applied and a non-linear response is seen, some
form of dysfunction is occurring, which is to say the indention exposure of the cutting structure is not increasing linearly with
WOB. Progress is then referred to as bit-limited.
231 160

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10

63 % Average

Fig. 1 - Increase in footage per day for each operation that has been active since the global implementation of the performance
management process. The operations shown occurred over a period of approximately 4 years, from 2005 to mid-2009.

Previous papers have described the manner in which mechanical specific energy (MSE) surveillance is used to detect and
quantify the degree of this dysfunction (Dupriest, et.al., 2005). The fact that the MSE rises the further the performance
diverges from the straight line is used diagnostically by the driller in real time to manage the drilling parameters and in post
analysis for redesign. To date, the operator has trained approximately 3000 contractor and vendor personnel in this method.
While MSE is effective in identifying bit limiters, approximately 60% of the operator's worldwide footage appears to be
limited by factors other than the bit. In this footage the MSE is low and uniform, indicating that we are operating with linear
behavior and a simple increase in WOB will yield the desired increase in ROP. However, in this footage we're unable to apply
the desired WOB because other non-bit limiters prevent it. The state of operations this results in is commonly referred to as
control drilling. A few examples of factors that result in control drilling are shown on the straight line portion of the curve in
Fig. 2. More than 40 non-bit limiters have been identified across global operations.
A key observation is that all limiters, regardless of their nature, notionally lie on the straight line. This means that at any
moment in time there can be only one limiter that prevents further increase in WOB. The workflow is then simply to identify
the current limiter and redesign or change operational practices to extend it. The objective of redesign is to extend the limiter
to a level that causes another factor to become the limiter, and then the team works to extend this new limiter. The fact that
there can only be one limiter is important because it allows the allocation of scarce technical resources to be prioritized to
achieve the greatest business impact. The high level of focus on a single limiter has also tended to drive the organizations
technical understanding to deeper levels, which has resulted in a variety of unique design and operational practices.

Rate of Penetrations

Redesign to extend onset of

non-bit limiters (40+)
Rig top drive or rotary torque
Drill string make-up torque
Available BHA weight
BHA angle build tendency

Redesign to extend onset

of bit dysfunction (founder)

Bit Balling
Bottom Hole Balling
Vibrations
Founder Point
Hole cleaning
Directional targeting control
Motor differential rating

The linear response model

helps prioritize the work effort.
Notionally, there can only be
one limiter at a point in time

Weight on Bit

Fig. 2 - Notional depiction of relationship between performance limiters and weight on bit. Performance is increased by practices or
redesign that extend the WOB that can be utilized, whether the limitation is due to bit dysfunction or a non-bit limiter.

SPE 134580

The process also differs from many in that specific performance objectives are not established, as they would be in a
management by objectives system. The industry has traditionally used objective-based mechanisms such as target wells, well
budgets, elimination of NPT (Kadaster, 1992), or calculated technical performance limits (Bond, 1996) to move the
organization toward a desired end point. In this continuous improvement workflow limiters are identified and extended
without a targeted end point, or regard of the actual performance achieved (Deming, Walton 1986). Each well program
identifies the current limiter for each interval, the plan to extend it, the risks associated with the plan, and the mitigations for
those risks. While footage per day is used as the metric to measure progress, it is not used as an objective.
Early progress was dominated by the new insights MSE surveillance provided on rock cutting limiters, which include bit
balling, bottom hole balling and vibrations. Many of the significant new bit-related practices that arose from this have been
previously published (Dupriest et.al. February 2005, Dupriest November 2005, Remmert et.al. 2007, Bailey, et.al., 2008,
Dupriest et.al. 2009, Sowers, et.al. 2009, Bailey et.al. 2009).
By late 2006 it was recognized that the same level of gains were not being achieved in non-bit limiters, particularly those
related to borehole quality. While MSE provides a very distinct metric for identifying bit dysfunction, there was no simple
tool to determine the degree to which borehole quality was limiting performance. There is also an industry history of making
this judgment based on whether non-productive time (NPT) was acceptable and casing run to bottom and cemented, rather
than on whether borehole quality was limiting footage per day performance. The result was that the focus on continued
improvement in hole quality was difficult to maintain. It was necessary to develop additional metrics and to rationalize the
redesign process.
A detailed study of wells with high NPT showed that virtually all major events were preceded by near misses, such as tight
hole, packoffs, or cavings. It was also observed that the manner in which drill crews respond to near misses results in
preventative operations with large hidden costs becoming routine, even when they were not needed. Examples include
reaming on connections, additional circulation time, or reaming out of hole. On a global basis, the hidden cost of these
operations was believed to be greater than the actual NPT. The importance of near miss identification has also been reported
as a key tool in other borehole management efforts (Aldred, 1999). The decision was made that near misses would be used as
the primary metric in driving redesign of borehole limiters, much as MSE was used for bit limiters. The concept is similar to
the safety pyramid (Heinrich, 1931) in that there are multiple levels at which near misses can be identified and addressed. An
example of the work process as it is applied to borehole stability is shown in Fig. 3. When near misses are addressed at lower
levels in the well planning and execution process, hidden costs decrease, footage per day increases, and NPT is eliminated.
Not only does the response to near misses reduce the minor hidden time that controls footage per day, but because it lies lower
in the pyramid it also eliminates the NPT events that have traditionally been the focus of the industry's borehole design
practices

NPT

i.e., stuck pipe, reaming time, LWD failures, sidetracks, lost

returns, inadequate formation evaluation, unscheduled casing,
poor well productivity, fishing operations.................. .................

Real-Time
Near Miss
React to every event
observed in real-time

Historical Near Miss

Redesign to eliminate near misses
observed in offset wells

i.e., drag in sands on trips, packoffs while reaming,

torque fluctuations, unusual friction factors, cavings
on shaker, sweep results, seepage losses, ballooning,
cuttings load trends, bridges after trips in vertical
wells, bit damage patterns, MSE and vibrations data
...........................................................
i.e., tight hole reported on trips, high LWD
failure rate, fishing operations, enlarged hole
on calipers, seepage losses, reaming to
reduce drag, packoff with high ROP .............

Logical Potential NPT

Redesign logical risks in the well plan as if they were a near miss

i.e., high overbalance, marginal MW

for stability, limited hydraulics for
hole cleaning, small drilling window,
extreme throw ................

Fig. 3 - Near misses are used as the primary diagnostic to identify borehole limiters.

Finally, it was necessary to establish guidance to ensure performance was not actually over designed. The underlying
philosophy was already in place, which was that limiters would be redesigned to the "economic limit of performance".
Logically, equipment would continue to be redesigned and new operational practices developed until the cost to extend the
current limiter exceeded the value of the gain in performance. The difficult challenge is in projecting the value. For example,

SPE 134580

if mud weight (MW) is increased to reduce hole enlargement, what will the gain be in cuttings transport efficiency, and how
much increase in footage per day will this enable? Other economic benefits are more easily predicted. For example, if a team
is reaming each stand due to pulls in tight hole, elimination of the borehole pattern or other root cause would result in
elimination of measurable reaming time. The potential value in a redesign is also judged from the broader experience of the
organization through a well-connected global network of concept champions and a uniform process for conducting field trials.
Also, research programs have been initiated to further understand the physics of key limiters to support the development of
new science-based practices and improve the ability to predict potential performance gains.
The enhancements to the Fast Drill Process workflow were implemented globally in mid-2008. This paper includes discussion
of the three major borehole limiters and some of the key practices developed to extend them. These include instability limits,
hole cleaning limits, and limits created by vibrationally induced patterns. The incremental impact of this effort through mid2009 is shown in Fig. 4.

Mid-2009
63%
Gain in ft/day

54%

Phase I

2005

43%

40%

MSE
Training
Phase II

2006

Institutionalized
practices/workflow

Borehole
management
initiative

Maturing Workflow

2007

Borehole Initiative

2008

2009

Fig. 4 - Plot shows trend in average of the performances of each drilling operation since the global implementation of the workflow.
Early gains were largely due to extension of bit performance limiters, while more recent gains have tended to occur through
increased focus on borehole performance limiters.

Borehole Stability Performance Limiters

The dominant borehole performance limiter is instability. The resulting hole enlargement creates high NPT, sidetracks,
reduces cuttings transport efficiency and results in very significant hidden costs. Consequently, improvement in stability was
given a high priority. This was accomplished through changes in both well design practices and real time drilling practices.
Initially there was a concerted effort to conduct detailed stability analysis on a greater number of wells. The criteria
established for selecting the candidates for well-specific borehole stability assessments were:
All business-critical wells
Wells with offset history of instability
Wells with inclination >40
Wells within complex geologic or tectonic setting
Last year (2009) detailed analyses were conducted on approximately 100 wells out a total of 626 wells drilled by the operator.
Another significant change was to incorporate the near miss philosophy into the stability design process. Examples of actions
that might be taken at each level are shown in Fig. 5.
Experience with the detailed analyses and field implementations have lead to the general conclusion that all wells should be
drilled with the highest practical MW. If analysis shows this mud weight to still be inadequate, changes are made to the well
design and/or operational practices and their cost and effectiveness are evaluated. This is a logical process for any operator,
but what may differ is the end point for the redesign. When instability is viewed as a limiter to footage per day performance,
rather than simply as a possible cause of NPT, the desired quality of the borehole becomes much higher. The economic limit
of redesign is not reached until the cost impact of historical or logical near-misses are reduced to the expenditure required to
address them. The economic limit of redesign considers the cost of such events as intermittent pack-offs, tight hole and
excessive back-reaming on trips that typically is not captured by the NPT statistics, but may in some cases represent
significant time and cost. A rapid response to real-time events call for increasing the MW immediately if cavings morphology
is indicative of instability. And finally, thorough root cause analysis are conducted following any significant NPT event such
as stuck pipe or lost returns to ensure new practices and / or well design changes eliminate the true root cause and not simply
allow the team to survive with the current condition

SPE 134580

Conduct root cause

analysis and address
in response plan
Raise mud weight
immediately if cavings
morphology indicates
instability

Model borehole stability

in all wells with offset
history of instability
Model borehole stability
in high angle (>40) wells,
weak rock, high tectonic
or complex geology. Use
maximum possible mud
weight

NPT
Real-Time
Near Miss
React to every event
observed in real-time

Historical Near Miss

Treat near misses observed in historical
data as actual NPT

Logical Potential NPT

Mitigate hazards to the economic limit of re-design

Fig. 5 - Borehole stability risk triangle, showing examples of the actions that might be take to eliminate near misses and NPT related
to instability at each phase of well design and execution.

When maximizing the mud weight other factors may become limiters. The four concerns most commonly sited by the
industry are lost returns, differential pressure sticking, destabilization of naturally fracture formations, and reduced drill rate.
When planning mud weights borehole stability has become prioritized over lost returns, because historically the consequences
of lost returns are less severe (costly) than the consequence of wellbore instability. In the majority of cases, lost returns do not
result in a significant reduction in integrity. When a loss fracture is created it maintains a closing stress equal to the far field
stress. The extended reach wells in which instability is most severe tend to have losses due to circulating pressure which can
be manipulated in many ways. If circulating pressures or MWs are reduced to below the fracture closure stress, losses stop.
Additionally, fracture closure stress (FCS), engineered particle non-aqueous fluids (EP-NAF) and managed pressure drilling
(MPD) methods are available to mitigate the losses, if needed. In contrast, borehole enlargement is irreversible and its cost
impact is very large. Stuck pipe events due to differential pressure sticking have been practically eliminated through practices
implemented by the operator over the last 8 years and this is no longer considered an unmanageable risk when raising MW for
stability. These practices have previously been published (Dupriest et. al., 2010). The concern for pressure penetration into
fractured rock has led the industry to limit, or even reduce, the MW. A combination of engineered blocking solids and higher
mud weights have been shown to be more effective in promoting stability in fractured rock (Ottesen, 2010). A similar concept
has also been proven to be successful in stabilizing cleated coals with higher MW (Zeilinger, et. al., 2010). The theoretical
impact of increased MW on ROP is usually minimal. The increased borehole pressure causes the in-situ effective stress to
increase, which results in elevated confined rock strength. The change is usually small and the resulting loss of depth of cut
(DOC) can be regained by increasing the weight on bit. There are situations where an increase in MW can dramatically reduce
the ROP by causing the onset of bit dysfunction (bit or bottom hole balling), but these limiters can be extended through other
redesign practices.
The most severe impact of instability on footage per day occurs when pack-offs and stuck pipe result from inadequate holecleaning in and around enlarged sections of the borehole. Borehole instability (hole-enlargement or breakout) obviously
impacts both hydraulics, hole-cleaning, and lost returns. The additional volume of rock generated as a result of instability
needs to be effectively removed from the borehole, affecting the ECD and therefore also the lost returns potential. Holeenlargements also have a negative impact on hole-cleaning, because the annular velocity is reduced in the enlarged area,
resulting in potential cuttings and cavings accumulations. Borehole stability, hydraulics and hole-cleaning are therefore
clearly coupled and can, for this reason, not be individually studied or assessed in isolation. These challenges led to the
development of a new approach that exploits detailed understanding of the physics of borehole dynamics during drilling and
the power of Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) technology (Ottesen et. al., 1999, Kline et. Al., 2005). This borehole quality
QRA technology is used to optimize the well design architecture and drilling parameters for each individual hole-section.
Choice of rig specific equipment such as drill sting dimensions and pump capacity are also incorporated into the analysis. The
borehole quality QRA technology integrates underlying physical models on a risk analysis platform, allowing the probability
of drilling success to be determined based on multiple drilling concerns. Large-scale flow loop experiments were conducted to
validate the physical relationships (limit states) between hole-enlargement and hole-cleaning, tripping, back-reaming and
casing running operations. The QRA approach allows optimum drilling parameters to be determined, such as MW and flow
rate, and the overall probability of drilling success for a given hole-section. Probability of drilling success is defined as the
probability of not encountering a well bore condition that may lead to a major NPT event or create a performance limiter.

SPE 134580

However, the chance of success is also indicative of the likelihood of high hidden costs associated with managing poor hole
quality. A typical result from a QRA assessment for a hole section is presented in Fig. 6.
1.0

0.9

0.8

Probability of Success (0-1)

0.7

0.6

700 gpm
725 gpm
750 gpm
775 gpm

0.5

0.4

0.3

800 gpm
825 gpm
875 gpm
900 gpm

ROP==50
50mm/hr
ROP
/ hr
Q == 750
750 gpm
Q
gpm
MW
=
12.0
ppg
@
MW = 12.0 ppg @ 20
20C
C

75 ft
0.2

98%
98%probability
probabilityofofdrilling
drillingsuccess,
success,
considering
consideringwellbore
wellborestability,
stability,hole
hole
cleaning
&
lost
returns.
cleaning & lost returns.

0.1
XXX
ppg.
XXXSS
SSdepleted
depletedtoto6.40
6.40ppg.
Assumes5-1/2-inch
5-1/2-inch DP.
Assumes
0.0
10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

Mud Weight (ppg)

Fig. 6 - Quantitative risk analysis (QRA) assessment for selection of mud weight and flow rate to maximize borehole quality and
footage per day. Designs with higher probability of success have lower NPT and hidden cost time.

In this example, borehole stability, hydraulics, hole cleaning and lost returns are assessed for a proposed high inclination 97/8-inch hole-section. The graph shows probability of drilling success as a function of MW and flow rate, considering
borehole stability, hydraulics, hole cleaning and lost returns. In this example, using a stability MW of 12.0 ppg and a flow rate
of 750 gpm will result in minimal hole breakout and a quality borehole with good cuttings transport at an ROP of 50 m/hr (165
ft/hr). The borehole is expected to look much like the 3D borehole image in the top left hand corner of Fig. 6. If the well is
drilled with a MW of 11.5 ppg there is still a relatively high probability that this hole section can be drilled "successfully",
even though there now will be areas of significant breakouts, particularly in the side of the borehole. The borehole will now
look more like the middle 3D image on the left hand side of Fig. 6. While the geologic objectives may be achieved, near
misses will likely drive the crew to conduct more reaming, back-reaming and tripping. Instantaneous ROP may also be
constrained due to reduced cuttings transport efficiency in the enlarged sections of the borehole. If the mud weight is further
reduced to 11.3 ppg, we risk initiating uncontrolled failure around the entire borehole circumference as indicated by the 3D
borehole image in the bottom left hand corner in Fig. 6. With this borehole quality significant NPT or failure to meet
objective has a high probability of occurring and, at best, the hole-section can be completed with significant hidden cost and
reduction in overall drilling performance. The traditional use of NPT and running casing to bottom as metrics for success has
lead the industry to drill many wells resembling the intermediate and last examples shown above. Continuous redesign to the
economic limit of performance tends to drive quality to the higher levels shown in the first image.
An initial hole-quality QRA assessment is performed for all major new drilling projects at the concept selection stage, to
establish drilling feasibility and to determine the highest performing well design based on available drilling, geotechnical and
geological information. Additional data requirements are also identified at this stage. Individual well-specific QRA
assessments are then performed ahead of each new well as the drilling campaign progresses, incorporating additional data and
knowledge being acquired. Real-time monitoring of wellbore quality is achieved by description of cavings morphology,
torque & drag and ECD monitoring, log evaluations and analysis, etc. This "relentless re-design" (to the economic limit)
work-flow is illustrated in Fig. 7.

SPE 134580

Earth Model
- In-Situ Stresses
- Pore Pressure
- Rock Strength

Well Application
(Validation)
Model Predictions
- Mud Weight
- Flow Rate
- ECD
- SPP
- ROP

Rig Equipment
- Pump
- SPP Limit
- Drill Pipe / BHA
Well Design
- Trajectory
- Casing Points
- Hole Size
- Casing Size
- Drilling Fluid

Well Data
- Hole Caliper / MW
- Cuttings / Cavings
- LOP
- Logs (Sonic etc.)
- SPP
- PWD

Improved Understanding
(calibration / Re-design)

Fig. 7 - Elements of the iterative process used to redesign hole quality to the economic limit of performance.

The hole-quality methodology and work-flow described above was adapted for the Bass Strait, Australia, drilling campaign
that started in 2007. The improvement in hole-quality as a result of consistently using higher than historic MWs is evident in
the caliper logs presented in Fig. 8.

A26
A21a

Wellbore Stability
Polar Plot

Well A26 - Mud Weight = 9.6 ppg

Well A21a - Mud Weight = 11.4 ppg

Fig. 8 - Comparison of caliper logs after utilizing QRA-based designs to balance mud weight, flow rate and desired hole quality to
maximize the achievable drill rate and footage per day

The caliper log from the 8-1/2-inch hole section in well A26, a well drilled during an earlier drilling campaign with a MW of
9.6 ppg, show hole enlargements in excess of 12.5 inches. Well A21a was drilled during the current drilling campaign (2008)
using a MW of 11.4 ppg. The caliper log from the 8-1/2-inch hole section in well A21a show some indications of instability
but the improvement in hole quality compared with well A26 is evident. The formations penetrated in these two hole-sections
contain shales with inter-bedded coal stringers. Further improvement in the hole-quality of wells subsequent to well A21a was
achieved by additions of engineered blocking solids to prevent fluid and pressure penetration into the coal fracture network,
making the increased MW more effective in stabilizing the coals (Zeilinger, et. al., 2010). Other details of the campaign and

SPE 134580

redesigns arising from the performance management workflow have previously been published (Kilroy, 2009). The use of the
QRA modeling resulted in a balance of mud weight, flow rate, fluid properties, drill string, hole and casing architecture that
yielded a significant increase in the sustainable drill rate and also a significant reduction in hole quality related NPT. The
results are shown in Fig. 9.
7000

10
FDP

6000

BMI

Hole Quality NPT

7
6

4000

5
3000

NPT (%)

Feet per Day

5000

2000

2
1000
1
0

0
2007

2008

2009

Fig. 9 - Bass Strait, Australia drilling performance summary showing reduced trouble time and increased footage per day

NPT related to borehole quality was reduced from 7.8% in 2007 to 3.2% in 2008, and finally to 0.8% in 2009. Over the same
time period the ROP, as measured by the performance management metric increased from 1,475 to 2,283 feet per day, an
improvement of 55%. In previous programs, considerable time was spent conditioning the hole after reaching total depth.
When this time is included in the pre and post comparisons, the metric improved from 1,518 ft/day to 6,463 ft/day, an
improvement of 326%, reflecting a significant reduction in hidden costs. This trend is seen in most areas with soft formations
where the drill time may be small, so any time spent after reaching total depth conducting hole conditioning, tripping, or backreaming in preparation for running casing may become a significant percentage of the total well.

Hole Cleaning Performance Limiter

Many factors influence the drill rate at which the cuttings load may become unacceptable. The measure of the adequacy of
hole cleaning has generally been the ability to drill to total depth with reasonable NPT and no stuck pipe. However, in the
ROP management workflow redesign of the hole cleaning rate continues until the next step is proven to be uneconomic or the
another limiter becomes dominant, such as the logging while drilling (LWD) data acquisition rate. As with borehole
instability, the economic limit of redesign in hole cleaning has proven to be a much higher and cost effective standard than
NPT or stuck pipe. Ideally, there would be no circulating or reaming time on connections and no hole conditioning during
trips or prior to running casing. This would be maintained while extending the ROP to some level at which another limiter
becomes dominant (i.e., surface solids processing, cuttings injection).
The factors that control the cuttings transport rate vary with hole angle. In the early 1990's the operator developed a model to
predict the hole cleaning efficiency for various factors, including hole angle (Rasi, 1994). In low angle wells, the transport
efficiency is determined by the rate at which the cuttings slip downward in the vertical flow stream. If cleaning is inadequate,
the equivalent circulating pressure (ECD) from the cuttings load may approach integrity or packoffs may occur, usually after
making connections when there is no fluid flow. In the operator's well mix it is rare for the drill rate to be limited in low angle
wells, even at 500-800 ft/hr. The cuttings slip rate can be controlled with rheology. Low velocity in enlarged hole remains
the primary concern. In this situation, hole enlargement is the true performance limiter and the redesign effort shift to stability.
In high angle wells, the slippage of cuttings downward as they travel laterally results in the continuous deposition of a layer of
material on the bottom. These cuttings beds begin to develop at around 40 of inclination. As the bed grows in height, the
flow area above it declines and the fluid shear acting on top of the bed increases. At some point the deposition and removal
rates equal each other and an "equilibrium bed height" is established (Rasi, 1994). One factor that influences the bed height is
the cuttings generation rate, or ROP. As ROP is increased the bed height grows which restricts the flow area and ECD may
approach integrity. The bed may also become more prone to pack off and stick pipe. It may also create tripping or casing
running hazards.
When the performance management workflow was implemented in 2005 the operator had already implemented many of the
practices that allowed challenging wells to be drilled with low NPT and minimal stuck pipe (Elks, Jr, W.C. 2002). These
included : 1) using maximum rotation and maximum circulation (MRMC) both while drilling and when circulating bottoms up

SPE 134580

prior to tripping out of the hole, 2) circulating multiple bottoms up prior to tripping to ensure the cuttings bed was reduced to a
safe tripping level, 3) monitoring torque and drag (T&D) friction factor trends in real time at the rig site while drilling, tripping
and running casing to provide the rig supervisor an indicator of the worsening hole condition (i.e. excess cuttings bed), 4) real
time cuttings return volume monitoring to provide the rig supervisor a measure of hole cleaning efficiency and 5) backreaming
multiple cycles at high RPMs (120 200) prior to the connection to condition the borehole and reduce the bed height and
ECD. While these practices have been successful, they are focused on NPT avoidance and not necessarily the economic limit
of redesign for footage per day. In some sense, the objective is not to drill with a clean hole but to succeed with "the dirtiest
hole possible", which is to say the highest ROP and equilibrium bed height that does not result in packoffs or ECD that
exceeds integrity. The question becomes, what determines the dirtiest hole possible? This is a more complex problem than
what determines how clean the hole is?
As redesign occurred in hole cleaning operations, several key observations helped to redefine the assumed limits. First, very
high drill rates were achieved in horizontals that exceeded industry recommendations by a large margin. In one drill team, the
IROP (instantaneous ROP) in the horizontal pay was routinely maintained at 1000-1500 ft/hr with no history of packoffs.
Second, research in a full scale flow loop showed hole enlargement to dominate the cuttings transport process (Fig. 10).
Cuttings transported easily in gauge hole. Packoff events were seen to occur in, or around, the enlarged sections. The
behavior was consistent with observations from the field. For example, the high drill rates achieved in the previously
mentioned horizontals were in gauge sandstone wellbores. And third, as a result of redesign to extend vibrational bit limiters,
the organization became more aware that poor management of bit whirl could also create enlargement. The impact was that
when hole cleaning was observed to be the limiter the response became to redesign the hole quality as much as the fluid
rheology, flow rates, or other traditional approaches.

Dune and Packoff

Rapid mobilization
of stored mass

Fig. 10 - Full scale testing showing the packoff process developing as the top of the drill collars enters the enlarged area and the
stored mass is mobilized by the increased velocity around the collars. In similar testing in plexiglas boreholes of uniform diameter
the wellbore was easily cleaned with no packoffs.

The hole cleaning simulations resulted in several key learnings and observations. Gauge hole was seen to clean quickly and
easily (i.e. cuttings bed is removed) around the BHA using typical flow rates and drill string rotation speeds Enlarged hole is
almost impossible to clean-up even when the BHA is backreamed through the enlarged area. Another observation, depicted in
Fig. 11, was that the area above the cuttings bed appeared to be relatively constant in both the gauge and enlarged areas.

A2
Equilibrium
Bed Height

A1
A1 A2

Fig. 11 - The cuttings bed reaches an equilibrium bed height in the gauge hole and the enlarged hole that leaves approximately the
same open flow area in each hole section.

10

SPE 134580

This is consistent with the equilibrium bed height concept, which is that the bed will grow until the cuttings deposition rate
equals the erosion rate. Regardless of hole size, this occurs when the fluid velocity above the bed reaches the equilibrium
rate, which occurs at a given bypass area. The implication is that wiper trips or other hole conditioning operations do not
improve hole cleaning if the cleaning problem is dominated by enlargement, which it usually is. The enlarged area will refill
immediately when drilling resumes.
Another conclusion was that only one interval of enlarged hole may dominate the hole cleaning performance for the entire hole
section, including the rathole below the previous casing shoe. When modeling hole cleaning the design flow rates and
rheologies are now based on worst case hole enlargements
The most unique perspective to come out of the research is that it may not be possible to pack off due to high drill rate during
steady state conditions. As the bed height increases the velocity and erosion rate increase. The system may become selflimiting. While drill rates may become limited by the ECD caused by declining flow area, it may be possible to drill rate very
high rates without packoffs if the integrity allows it.
Altogether, hole enlargement is believed to be the dominant factor in hole cleaning efficiency. Three potential root causes of
enlargement are 1) wellbore instability due to stresses or the fluid type utilized, 2) side cutting from bit whirl while drilling or
while reaming, and 3) inadequate filtration control and MW when drilling unconsolidated sands Although there has been
redesign and changes in practices to address all three, the most common issue is stress-induced instability, which has been
previously discussed. Mud weights have been increased globally to the point that ECD is now close to integrity in most high
angle operations, even when there is little history of NPT.
While increased MW and other design changes have been beneficial, there have also been other changes in operating practices
related to hole cleaning. Because whirl was seen to cause enlargement, MRMC was revised to MRMCwow (maximum
rotation and maximum circulation without whirl). Although higher rotary speeds may aid hole cleaning this may be offset if
whirl is allowed that results in enlargement. A testing protocol was developed to determine the off-bottom speeds that
minimized whirl. The low whirl speeds have generally been found below 120 RPM and the impact on hole cleaning in those
teams that have reduced RPM appears minimal.
More significantly, after MW is increased to reduce hole enlargement, reaming and circulating time was almost eliminated in
many operations without adverse effect on hole cleaning. A typical connection practice is now to reduce rotary speed (3/4 to
2/3 of the on-bottom RPM) prior to coming off bottom to mitigate bit whirl and ream upward only a minimal distance (i.e. 10
20 ft) during the time it takes to circulate cuttings above the BHA, which is typically 2-4 minutes. Fig. 12 shows data from a
connection during a field trial. The chart shows instantaneous ROPs of 150 - 200 ft/hr followed by a connection with minimal
reaming and shortened circulation times. This field trial was in 12-1/4 hole at 66 inclination in a field known to have
wellbore instability.

Fig. 12 - Time based drilling data showing connection practices with minimal circulation and reaming

SPE 134580

11

The following plots show another field trial in which the original hole was drilled using the standard high angle reaming
practices that were revised to mitigate whirl during the geologic sidetrack. WOB was increased to mitigate on-bottom drilling
whirl and the connection practices were modified to mitigate off-bottom bit whirl. Fig. 13 shows the comparison of
instantaneous ROPs which were doubled from 3250m to TD as a result of increased WOB and MSE management.
2250
2450
Measured Depth (m)

2650
2850
3050
3250
3450
3650
3850
4050

Sidetrack
Hole

Original Hole

4250
0

10

15
20
25
Instantaneous ROP (m/hr)

30

35

40

Fig. 13 - Instantaneous ROP in the original hole versus the sidetrack hole. Both holes had similar trajectories with inclinations up to
about 85.

Surprisingly, Fig. 14 shows the ECD in the sidetracked hole, which was drilled at twice the ROP using the same MW and
drilling assembly, was less than that in the original hole by as much as 0.2 ppg. Tripping the drill string on elevators had been
problematic in this field due to tight spots, routinely requiring extensive backreaming to get out of the hole. In addition, packoffs were common while backreaming, occasionally causing lost returns or stuck pipe. On the sidetracked hole, the drill string
was tripped out of the hole on elevators with minimal problems even after MRMCwowing the hole clean at reduced RPMs.
Backreaming out was not required. Since this sidetrack hole was drilled, all subsequent drill wells have been drilled with the
same practices. Tripping on elevators has become commonplace and backreaming has not been required to trip out of the
hole. Casing was successfully run to bottom on all wells. The specific reasons for the reduced ECD at the higher ROP are not
known, but the result points to the fact that drill rate should not be constrained by assumed hole cleaning limits.

11.0
FG @ Shoe, EMW

Surface MW

Original Hole ECD

Sidetrack Hole ECD

10.8

Original Hole

ECD (ppge)

10.6

10.4
Sidetrack
Hole

10.2

10.0
00
42
00
41
00
40
00
39
00
38
00
37
00
36
00
35
00
34
00
33
00
32
00
31
00
30
00
29
00
28
00
27
00
26
00
25
00
24

Measured Depth (m)

Fig. 14 - ECD in the original hole versus the sidetrack hole.

12

SPE 134580

A clear concern is that the hole cleaning limit is found by having a stuck pipe event. A controlled field trial process was
developed to ensure the limit is recognized when it is reached and risks are mitigated The Max IROP (maximum
instantaneous rate of penetration) test determines the drill rate that can be maintained with no significant circulation or
reaming on connections. Connection practices are held constant, typically around 5-7 minutes, while the instantaneous drill
rate is increased steadily as each stand is drilled. The maximum instantaneous drill rate is that at which the ECD equals
integrity when the stand is down. Because ECD is a product of the equilibrium bed height, if it is acceptable prior to the
connection it should be acceptable afterward, with no significant circulating time required to further reduce the bed height.
The process focuses on minimizing connection time rather than maximizing instantaneous ROP. If instantaneous ROP is
excessive, the result will be unacceptable ECD and longer circulation times to reduce the bed height.
The Max IROP test differs from some practices in that it does not limit ROP based on observed torque or drag. T&D are
expected to increase as the equilibrium bed height grows and the "dirtiest hole possible" is achieved. Torque is only a concern
if it actually approaches the mechanical limit of the string or system, and not because it is showing an increasing trend. The
process also does not utilize predictive software or cuttings transport modeling. The limits are established empirically with the
in-situ conditions through the testing described above for monitoring ECD.
In soft rock the PDC bit must be designed with the proper depth of cut control to allow adequate WOB to mitigate whirl and
its undesirable effects, including hole enlargement, reduced bit and downhole tool life, and poor steering response. Fig. 15
shows an example field trial where the WOB is staged up from about 20k lbs to about 55k lbs in a 78 high angle 12-1/4 hole
over about 400 m. The ROP increases from 25 m/hr to about 45 m/hr while MSE becomes more consistent (i.e. less variation
in cutting efficiency).

Fig. 15 - WOB ramped up during Max IROP testing in 12-1/4 hole.

Fig. 16 and 17 show data from one operation routinely using the above noted practices, including drilling with long gauge (4
plus) bits equipped with depth of cut control. Fig. 16 shows the digital drilling data for the 12-1/4 hole section which was
drilled at sail angle of about 87. WOB increased from about 4k lbs to about 8k lbs while IROP increased from about 200 ft/hr
up to almost 300 ft/hr with a sustained rate of about 250 ft/hr. MSE stays fairly constant but illustrates the relationship of
WOB vs. IROP vs. MSE. At about 8,960 ft, the WOB almost doubled whereas the MSE dropped significantly and the ROP
increased significantly indicating improved efficiency and reduced vibrations. Fig. 17 shows the ECD and IROP over the hole
section. ECD remained fairly steady as the IROP was increased even up to the 300 ft/hr level indicating hole cleaning was not
compromised even at the higher drill rates.
Drill teams worldwide continue to relentless re-design their bits, BHAs, connection practices, whirl mitigation practices, etc. to
eliminate hole cleaning limiters, improve borehole quality and overall performance. One drill team recently drilled an 80 plus

SPE 134580

13

high angle 17-1/2 hole section with IROPs up to 150 m/hr (500 ft/hr). ROPs are reaching levels that few personnel believed
possible in high angle holes.

Fig. 16: Ramp up of WOB and ROP in 12-1/4 hole section.

Fig. 17 - ECD and ROP plot for 12-1/4 hole section.

Vibrationally Induced Borehole Pattern Limiters

The manner in which vibrationally induced borehole patterns limit footage per day is typically indirect. In most cases the
pattern results in hidden costs and loss of rig time, rather than major NPT. Like stability, the design objective for treatment of
borehole patterns has shifted from elimination of NPT and getting casing on bottom to redesigning to reduce their amplitude to
the economic limit of redesign. When the total hidden costs are considered, significant changes in operational practices, bits

14

SPE 134580

and BHA designs are justified.

Several papers have been written that show that excess side cutting of the bit often leads to borehole patterns. The causes,
performance limitations created, and methods to mitigate repeating borehole patterns are discussed in this next section. Fig.
18 is an example 3D image of a caliper log of a 6 inch hole showing a significant one inch amplitude borehole spiral.

Fig. 18 One inch amplitude spiral pattern with a 4 foot period

These repeating borehole patterns, or oscillations, are a result of the feedback between the contact points in the BHA and hole
already drilled. (Pastusek, et.al, 2003) When the near bit stabilizer (or other contact point) encounters a small ledge or
perturbation in the borehole it is pushed to the side as it drills past this perturbation. This lateral force causes the bit to cut
sideways at the same time. When the stabilizer reenters smooth hole and become quiet, the bit also becomes stable and drills
gauge hole. The pattern repeats itself. Figure 19 shows the BHA used in the given well superimposed on the pattern. The
feedback relationship between the first stabilizer and bit can be seen in the degree to which the period of the pattern matches
the distance between the two
.

Fig, 19 BHA illustrated on top of pattern

All steerable bits are capable of sidecutting, but if the bit design or whirl cause this to be excessive the bit will be pushed even
further to the side and the system pivots about the next contact point in the BHA (i.e., second stabilizer). This leads to an
exponential growth in the pattern until the body of the BHA makes contact with the borehole and limits further increases. In
contrast, if the side cutting action of the bit is reduced, the BHA will flex and the repeating pattern will decay toward zero.
Thus for a given formation and BHA, the magnitude and existence of a pattern is determined by the rate of side cutting of the
bit . This is dependent on whirl, formation strength, ROP, RPM and WOB and the lateral aggressiveness of the bit. All of
these are controllable through changes in design or practices, except the formation strength.
The most apparent effect of patterns is tight hole. If the root cause of the tight hole is not understood, the crew may adopt
practices to deal with the symptoms rather than redesign to eliminate the vibrationally induced patterns themselves. The
increased torque and drag from patterns can lead to back reaming on connections and wiper trips or even underreaming to
create additional clearance to run casing. This does not show up as NPT, but adds unproductive time and reduces footage per
day. The extra torque created as the stabilizers engage the patterns can also lead to stick-slip, which is a particularly problem
in long reach wells where the torque may become the primary performance limiter. Stick-slip can often be reduced by
decreasing WOB, but this may increase whirl which in term may cause the amplitude of the pattern to become even greater.
Patterns also impact performance by reducing weight transfer. When part of the weight on bit is taken on the stabilizers the
DOC and ROP decline. Note that downhole weight on bit measured by MWD tools does not reflect this because the MWD
load and torque sensors are typically above the first few stabilizers which are taking the load. The effect of this load can often
be seen the in wear created at the end of the stabilizers as they attempt to drill the humps in pattern.
If tight hole or loss of weight transfer are seen to reduce footage per day they become the object of redesign the workflow.
However, there are numerous causes of tight hole and diagnostics are needed to ensure the redesign is appropriate to solve the
root cause. The 3D images shown below provide a clear diagnostic, but these are not available while drilling and other
indirect methods are required to anticipate or detect the presence of patterns.
Whirl is assumed to increase the side cutting action to a degree that dominates all other corrective actions so the detection of
whirl is taken to correlate with the likelihood of patterns. Mechanical specific energy (MSE) surveillance is the primary tool
used by the operator to detect bit whirl. While LWD sensors provide valuable data to help protect the BHA from high shock
levels, they do not provide an indication of the sidecutting occurring at the bit. The MSE provides a direct measurement of the

SPE 134580

15

rock cutting dysfunction caused by the lateral movement of the bit which creates sidecutting.
The presence of sidecutting can also be inferred from the fracture and wear patterns left on the bit. In firmer rocks, ( 1520ksi) the shoulder cutters and gauge trimmers will often show significant fracture events if whirl is occurring instead of
smooth wear. Bit whirl in softer formations may not fracture the cutters, however gauge pad rounding and wear on the blades
behind and below the cutter tips can often be seen with close inspection. Forward BHA whirl can be detected by wear on one
side of the BHA and/or stabilizers, while reverse BHA whirl will often show up as rounded gauge pads and gouge marks.
When a bit whirls, it must drill a slightly oversized hole, which may result in the inability of rotary steerable tools to apply
adequate side force to steer. Consequently, the inability to steer may be a primary indicator of whirl and the degree of
sidecutting occurring.
If the evidence suggests vibrational patterns are the root limiter, there are changes that are considered in both design and
practices to ensure the patterns exhibit decay rather than gain. The BHA is redesigned to reduce the amplitude of its
vibrational shape at the given operating parameters. BHA whirl creates sidecutting by tilting the bit axis, which increased the
lateral load on the trim cutters and their DOC. Proprietary software is used along with an iterative field trial process to
develop the quietest BHA The bit gauge design is also modified to constrain sidecutting to that required to achieve the desire
build rates (Pastusek, et. al., 2005). The length of the gauge pads and their relief relative to the gauge trimmers are the primary
bit design factors influencing the gain that may develop in the pattern. For a fixed relief, increasing the gauge length reduces
the side cutting response of the bit. The expectation was established that all bits would be designed with gauge lengths of 4
inches or more (Dupriest et.al,. 2009). Six and eight inch gauges are now being deployed in most directional and straight
BHAs where the required dog leg has been 4/100 and less.
The key operational parameter to suppress bit whirl while drilling is to maximize the WOB and DOC (ROP) within the other
drilling limits. MSE is actively monitored for signs of whirl and used continuously to determine the WOB and RPM
parameters that minimize it. It is important to reduce the reliance on LWD vibration data to manage bit whirl. Significant
sidecutting may be occurring at the bit, despite very low levels (<1g RMS) of lateral vibration at the LWD tool (Dupriest et.al.,
2009). While LWD vibration data should be monitored to protect the tools from high shocks, the MSE is a global measure of
the level of vibrational dysfunction and sidecutting occurring at the bit.
All BHAs are intrinsically capable of creating a pattern. As previously noted, a variety of factors determine whether the initial
perturbation will experience gain or decay. While whirl mitigation is important, there are three other major factors that can be
controlled by design or operational practices. Increasing the rate of penetration per revolution will reduce the number of gauge
trimmer passes required to drill a given hole section and thus there will be less total side cutting (Pastusek, et. al. 2003). The
higher the ROP, the smoother the hole will be. The axial penetration per revolution is increased by increasing the WOB. Figs.
20 and 21 show a field example of the effect of increased WOB on the decay in a pattern. Conversely, reducing WOB
increased amplitude.
The example was a 17 hole section drilled with roller cone and PDC bits. The spiral pattern is fully developed from 800 to
1050 feet and starts to decay from 1050 to 1400 feet as soon as the WOB is increased from 30 kip to 50 kip, all at a constant
RPM. The bit was changed to a PDC at 1414 feet to drill the rest of the hole section. The pattern restarted as soon as the PDC
was put in the hole. It grows in magnitude when the WOB is dropped from 25 to 15 kip, however it disappears once the WOB
is raised from 15 kip to 40 kip. The rest of the 17 inch section is drilled with higher WOB and near perfect hole to 3632
feet.
In control drilling situations with a fixed maximum rate of penetration, the bit side cutting will increase in softer formations
and with higher RPM. (Ernst, et. al. 2007) The side load is fixed by the BHA stiffness, the lateral rate will increase as the rock
strength decreases and at higher revolutions per minute there are more cuts per minute to the side for a given section of hole.
This makes it imperative to eliminate or extend as many non-bit ROP barriers as possible to improve borehole quality as has
been discussed throughout this paper. As with all limiters, the process of redesign continues iteratively to the economic limit
of redesign. In most cases, the cost of the design changes utilized is small when compared to the economic impact of the
hidden costs that can result from vibrationally induced patterns.

16

SPE 134580

3D Caliper Images
B
H
A
2
R
o
l
l
e
r
c
o
n
e
t
o
1
4
1
4

B
H
A
3
P
D
C
t
o

B
H
A
3

3
6
3
2

P
D
C
t
o
3
6
3
2

Fig. 20 Effect of WOB on pattern amplitude

Fig. 21 Pattern eliminated to section TD

Conclusions
In 2008 a global performance management workflow built on "limiter redesign" thinking was modified to emphasize the
redesign of borehole related performance limiters. Significant additional gains were seen beyond those that were achieved
earlier from MSE surveillance and the redesign of bit dysfunction. Near-miss recognition and response practices where
developed to increase the focus on borehole limiters, and the expectation for redesign was shifted from NPT reduction to
elimination of near misses. The near miss concept was applied broadly and became the primary metric for identifying
borehole limiters and the need for redesign or changes in practices. In addition to achieving gains in footage per day, the
practices that have eliminated low-level near miss events have intrinsically eliminated the higher level NPT costs and increase
the certainty of success, particularly in narrow margin wells.

SPE 134580

17

The redesign effort has resulted in some practices that are not routine in the industry. These are largely related to one of three
areas, which are cuttings transport, management of instability, and mitigation of vibrationally induced borehole patterns. Key
related practices for increasing footage per day are:
- Creation of the expectation that borehole quality will be redesigned to the economic limit of performance, rather than to a
level that only eliminates NPT and allows casing to be run to bottom;
- Use of near miss events surveillance to drive redesign, rather than NPT;
- Use of MW which results in ECD close to integrity;
- Utilization of engineered particle fluids in conjunction with higher MW to stabilize fractured shales and coals;
- Redesign to drill the "dirtiest hole possible";
- Develop and utilize operational practices to mitigate differential pressure sticking potential to allow use of higher MW for
stability;
- Use of "Max IROP" test protocol to determine the drill rate corresponding to the dirtiest hole possible;
- Discontinued use of torque and drag trends to establish hole cleaning limits;
- Develop and utilize Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) assessments to balance priorities when determining stability MW;
- Utilization of cuttings characterization and robust near miss recognition and response practices to adjust MW in real time;
- The primary mitigation for vibrational patterns is to reduce whirl through redesign and the real time use of MSE to adjust
parameters;
- The higher the ROP the lower the amplitude of vibrational patterns, and the converse is also true;
- Extend gauge lengths to a minimum of 6" to reduce the amplitude of vibrationally induced patterns.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the numerous operator, vendor, and contractor personnel who have worked to development new
practices to extend borehole-related performance limiters. The advances described have been implemented and refined by 23
drill teams over the last four years and each has contributed in significant ways. We would particularly like to thank the many
industry experts who have shared their expertise and enthusiasm for their chosen fields of study. Each change in practices has
arisen from a deeper understanding of "how things really work" and we are thankful to our business partners for their
willingness to share their unique knowledge.
Nomenclature
Mud Weight
Non-Aqueous Fluid
Engineered Particle NAF
Managed Pressure Drilling
Fast Drill Process
Mechanical Specific Energy
Non-Productive Time
Bottom Hole Assembly
Weight on Bit
Rounds Per Minute
Rate of Penetrations
Instantaneous ROP
Quantitative Risk Assessment
Logging While Drilling
Equivalent Circulating Pressure
Maximum Rotation and Maximum Circulation
MRMC without Whirl
Torque and Drag
Depth of Cut
Gallons Per Minute
Pounds Per Barrel
Feet Per Hour
Measurement While Drilling

MW
NAF
EP NAF
MPD
FDP
MSE
NPT
BHA
WOB
RPM
ROP
IROP
QRA
LWD
ECD
MRMC
MRMCwow
T&D
DOC
GPM
PPG
FPH
MWD

References
Aldred W.D., "Improving Drilling Efficiency Through the Real Time Application of PERFORM, Performance by Risk
Management", SPE 57574 presented at Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8-10 November
1999
Bond D.F., Scot P.W., Page P.E., Windham T.M., "Step Change Improvement and High Rate Learning are Delivered by
Targeting Technical Limits on Subsea Wells", SPE 35077 presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,

18

SPE 134580

USA, 12-15 March 1996

Brett J.F., Millheim K.K., "The Drilling Performance Curve: A Yardstick for Judging Drilling Performance", SPE 15362
presented at 61st SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, USA, 5-8 October 1986
Dupriest F.E., "Comprehensive Drill Rate Management Process to Maximize Rate of Penetration", SPE 102210 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, USA, 24-27 September 2006
Dupriest F.E., Witt J.W., Remmert S.M., "Maximizing ROP with Real Time Analysis of Digital Data and MSE", IPTC 10706
presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November 2005
Dupriest F.E., Koederitz W.L., "Maxmizing Drill Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy", SPE
92194 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005
Dupriest, F.E., Sowers, S.F., Maintaining Steerability While Extending Gauge Length to Manage Whirl, paper SPE/IADC
119625 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
March 1719 2009.
Dupriest, F.E., Elks Jr., W.C., Ottesen, S., "Design Methodology and Operational Practices Eliminate Differential Sticking",
paper IADC/SPE 128129 presented at the IADC/SPE drilling conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2-4 February,
2010.
Elks, Jr. W.C., Masonheimer, R.A., Extended-reach Drilling Develops Sacate field, offshore California, Oil & Gas Journal,
March 11, 2002, pg 45-55.
Ernst S., Pastusek P.E., Lutes P., Effects of RPM and ROP on PDC Bit Steerability, paper SPE/IADC 105594, presented at
the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022 February 2007.
Kadaster A.G., Townsend C.W., Albaugh E.K., "A Total Quality Management Tool For Drilling in the 1990s", SPE 24559
presented at 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Washington D.C., USA, 4-7 October 1992
Kilroy, D.D., Dupriest, F.E.: Practices implemented to achieve record performance in narrow margin drilling in the Bass Strait
extended reach, paper SPE 125246 presented at the SPE ATCE, New Orleans, Louisiana,USA, 4-7 October, 2010.
Kline, W. E., Chandler, T. K., Keller, S. R., Ottesen, S., Gupta, V., Tenny, M., "Physics-Based Well Design - Beyond the
Learning Curve", presented at the IPTC conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November, 2005.
Lummus J.L., "Drilling Optimization", published in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1970, pg 1379-1388
Pastusek P.E., Brackin V., A Model for Borehole Oscillations SPE 84448, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October 2003
Ottesen, S., Zheng, R.H., McCann, R.C., "Borehole Stability Assessment Using Quantitative Risk Analysis", SPE/IADC
52864 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9-11 March, 1999.
Ottesen, S., "Wellbore Stability in Fractured Rock", IADC/SPE 128728 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2-4 February 2010.
Pastusek, P.E., Brackin V., Lutes P., A Fundamental Model for Prediction of Hole Curvature and Build Rates with Steerable
Bottomhole Assemblies, SPE 95546, presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 2005.
Pastusek, P.E., Cooley, C.H., Sinor, L.A., Anderson, M., Directional and Stability Characteristics of Anti-Whirl Bits With
Non-Axisymmetric Loading, paper SPE 24614, presented at the SPE ATCE, Washington DC, October 4-7,
1992.Zeilinger, S., Dupriest, F.E., Turton, R.: Utilizing engineered particle drilling fluid to overcome coal drilling
challenges, paper IADC/SPE 128712 presented at the IADC/SPE drilling conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2-4
February, 2010.
Rasi, M., "Hole Cleaning in Large, High Angle Wellbores", SPE 27464 presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
USA, 15-18 February 1994
Remmert S.M., Witt J.W., Dupriest F.E., "Implementation of ROP Management Process in Qatar North Field", SPE 105521
presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February, 2007