You are on page 1of 10

.

SPE/lADC
SPE/lADC 18700

Underreamer Improvements for Drilling Moving Salt Formations


by J.M. Greener, Amoco Production Co., and D.D, Webb, Houston Engineers Inc.
SPE Members

Copyright 19S9, SPE/lADC Drilling Conference

This paper waa prepared for presentation et the 1989 SPE/lADC Drilling Conference held In New Orleena, Louisiana, Fabruary 2S-March 3, 19S9.

Thla paper waa selected for presentation by a SPE/lADC Program Committse following review of inform8tlon contained in an abatract submitied by the author(e). COntOntOof the P
as presented have not bean reviewed by the International Aeeooiat[on of Drilling Contractors or the Soclely of Petroleum Englneera and are subject to sorrestion by the auth
The material, &s prasented, does not neceaeerlly reflect sny poeitlon of SPE or the IADC, its officers, or members. Papera presented at SPE/lADC meetings are subject to public
raview by Editorial Committees of SPE and the IADC. Permission to copy ,Is restricted to an abstract of not more than S00 worde. Illustration may not be copied. The abstrlct e
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where andby whom the papar ia preamted. Write Publlcatlona Manager, SPE, P.O. sex S3SS3S,Rlchardaon, TX 7WS34S3S. Telex, 730SS9SPE

ABSTRACT Varying thicknesses [50-2000 ft (16.4-656.2m


of the salt formation are penetrated in A
There exists a need in today’s industry for a depending on structural positioning. Based on
durable, yet versatile, underreamer which will and core information, the Preuss Salt has b
withstand the tortures of hard rock drilling. This divided into three separate geological“types,”wh
paper describes the design, field testing, and exhibit different characteristics. The most volat
subsequent modifications of one such prototype salt encountered (Type I) has been measured,
underreamer. The underreamer was utilized, in successive caliper logs, to have encroachmentra
conjunctionwith a hi-center polycrystallinediamond approachingone inch of diameterper hour. Gacmna
bit, to simultaneously drill and underream a fast and caliper log correlationhas indicatedthat a Ty
moving salt formation, Due to the limited success of I salt is high in si~tstone content, wh~.ch h
previously run underreamers,a new tool waa designed contributed to the severity of movement
and built to perform under the severe downhole detrimentaleffects on the drillstring.
conditions developed in a drilling/underreaming
operation. Over the years, drilling personnel h
contributed hundreds of manhours studying
Comparisons are made between the prototype researching the hazard that the ARE Preusa S
underreamer and a similar tool based on body/arm represents. Several papersl-a have been writ
strength and the cutter u age, placement, and documenting the development atages that were endu
durability. Modifications and improvements are to produce an optimum p?ocedure to successfullydr
documented in a summary of the field tests performed. and case the salt. Drilling muds, bits, tools,
Recommendations are given to further enhance the practices were discarded through a process
performance of the prototype underreamer and expand elimination until a combination was found that
its applications. presently consideredas standard operatingprocedu

BACKGROUND The peculiar requirement of concurren


drilling and underreaming a moving salt format
In 1979, the Anschutz Ranch East (AM) Field dictates the utilization of tools which are capa
(Figure L) was discovered along the Western of withstanding extreme forces. A variety
Dverthrust Belt of Northern Utah. The unique underreamerswere tested under similar condition
characteristicsof ARE’s Overthrust environment and ARE to determine which, if any, could perform in
Preuss Salt formation have led to the evolution of hard rock drilling environment. Many of the t
specialized drilling tools and practices+ designs exhibitedproblems with internaland exter
Encountered at depths between 10,000 and 13,200 ft failures to seals, connections, and fasten
(3281 and 4331 m), the moving Preuss Salt has plagued resulting in washouts, malfunctions,and the loss
developmentaloperation with the continualthreat of arms in the hole. To reduce risk, a self-imp
wellbore closure. Increases in project scope and time limit of 30 circulating;ro?:!ting hours
expense can be directly related to salt associated established foi any type of unde”fr”‘.lingoperat
well problems such as stuck drillstring, collapsed The weakness of the basic underrea:.;er
design deman
casing, and reduced productioncasing goals. further improvements to achieve an optimum s
drilling assembly.

Referencesand illustrationsat end of


L UIVUl!IIUU~UI1\ l.ilL &\UVJJ&JXI1l AU X VL\ l.IL\J. L4JJJ-lWU lLUV J.LXU IJtlhi L’ UN-ML LJ1Yi3 orfi Lnw 10IUU

DRILLING REQUIREMENTS reduce the risk of hole pr~blems. Maintaining


confidence in the wellbore configuration has been
In reviewing the experiencegained from drilling a major problem during salt drilling operations.
and underreami+,lg moving salt formations in the The placement of t&e cutter arm in relationshipto
Overthrust Belt area, the following underreamer the pin connection, lock-out mechanism, and arm
requirementswere found to be essential: length caused excessive cantilever loading that
resulted in arm bending and cracking. As under-
1. The :-nderreamezbody must be strong enough to reaming operations progressed, the arms would fail
transmit the applied weight to both the arms and inwardly and continue to lose gauge diameter. This
the bit when concurrently drilling and would c.iuse a false impression of rapid salt
underreaming. encroachment during subsequent re-ucderreaming
passes. Rechdant underreamer trips were then
2. The tool design should be capable of providing a required to guarantee hole int.?grityand gauge.
positive “lock-out” and “lock-in” control by
‘means other than applied weight, This would TOOL DESIGN
allow “off-bottom”underreamingto occur without
the doubt of sufficient lock-out or gauge To address the desirable underreamer
cutting ability. requirements and objectives, a hybrid tool was
designed to be field tested in the ARE Preuss Salt.
3. Cutter arm retention means withi,lthe body must Input from engineering and field personnel was
be strong enough to retain the arms under severe utilized tz develop a strategy that was tailored to
conditions of vibraticn, rotational torque, and the needs of the ARE program. A prototype tool waa
jarring shock loads. then built to incorporatethe criteria for concurrent
drilling and underreamingoperations.
4. The cutter arm design should be readily
adaptable to PDC slid other drag type carbide The first step of the design phase was to
cutters. Cutter placement should be sufficient develop an improved body section that was
enough to provide 100% coverage and guarantee specificallydesigned to mount PDC cutter arms. The
gauge diameter. goal was to eliminate any excessivebody cavity that
would be detrimental to the tool’s overall strength
5. The cutter arm design should be able to sustain (Figure 3]. The additional body mass would in turn
the severe loads incurred during underreaming be beneficial to c~tter arm retention and support.
without bending or cracking. In comparison to the previously utilized tools, the
prototype underreamerbody provides approximately30%
~ERREAMER COMPARISON more cutter support, bas+d on arm and pocket design.

The depth and nature of the interbeddedPreuss Cutter arm activation and lock-out would be
Salt limited the use of underreamers to only those controlled strictly by internal pressure
with a polycrystalline (PDC) type of cutting differential. An actuator mandrel, connected to a
structure. Continuous re-underreamingof undergauge system of belleville springs, is manipulated by
hole sections demanded the durable; yet functional, hydraulic pressure to either open or close the arms.
PDC cutting structure.4’5 A modified roller cone The ability to “off-bottom”underreamundergaugehole
—. cutter design was the most utilized PDC underreamer sections would then be possible because tool
in ARE. In the original tool, the roller cone activation ia completely independent of other
cutters were housed in a large cavity which reduced drilling parameters (i.e., applied weight, rotation,
body strength and impaired the underreamer’sability etc.). The internal mandrel’s activation point on
to transmit weight to the bit (Figure 2). Without the arm was positioned as close to the cutting
cha~ging the body design, PDC heads were welded to structure as possible to help distribute the side
the arms in place of the larger cone cutters. The loading forces incurred during underreaming
welded, two-piece cutter arm was then secured to the operations.
tool body by a single roller pin connection. The
constructionand configurationof this design caused All body parts were redundantly secured to
problems with arm strength, cutter placement, and prevent release of components in the wellbore.
tool efficiency. Special lock featurea were applied to all internal
and external connections to prevent any downhole
The modified underreamer required applied failures.The secure arm mounting in this body design
weight, in conjunction with hydraulic pressure, would provide maximum utilization of PDC and other
to lock the arms into their open position. Prior to cutter element technology.
conversion, the cone cutter model was primarily
utilized to underreampilot holes. An annular ledge, The initial body design did not allow for any
or “bench,” provided the means of support for the direct circulation to the cutter arms. It was noted
activatingweight imparted to the arms. During “off- that previous underreamers robbed the bit of the
bottom” re-underreamingoperations,the annular bench proper circulation@ utilizing a large percentageof
may be too narrow to allow sufficient weight to be the pump hydraulics for cutter arm cleaning and
applied to lock open the arms. The result was that cooling. The result’ would be bit plugging and
the ‘tLocked-out”condition was hard to maintain with sticking tendencies in the pilot hole. For this
pump pressure alone, causing the tool to cut an reason, pump hydraulics were dedicated to the bit
undergaugehole, during the initial field trials of the prototype
underreamer. Penetrationrates and arm life suffered
The salt’s high encroachment rates dictated appreciably during the preliminary tests aue to the
drilling the largest possible diameter wellbore to fact that the arms were lacking direct fluid contact
● ✎

and were only being serviced by annular hydraulics. combined with the arm leverage, is critica
The initial tool design was therefore modified to to proper arm design.
accommodate cutter arm circulation by retro-fitting
the body with hydraulic tubes that directed flow to- P = Tt Zm/b........?........,...,...........(6
ward the arma ~Figure 4). The hydraulic tubes were
internally hard-faced and equipped witL a changeable where: Z = eh3/6 (Fig. 6).................(7
m
nozzle receptacle to allow manipulation of f!.uid
vclume, pressure, and hydraulic horsepower. 4. Retention side load or pin shear.
Selective use of hyd~aulics dedicated to the
underreamer improved the tool’s performance by ● Critical loads of the underreamer arm
reducing drilling torque and increasing penetration ultimately focus on the type of retentio
rates accordingly, means designed in the body of the tool
The arm retention load M is the forc
ARM DESIGN AND CRITERION required to shear the retaining pin(s)
This load is calculated to be a functio
The various types of loading that can cause of’the total pin area A ,
failure to the arms of undcrrea%ersare as follows: P
M =APS ...................................(8
1. Arm bending and radial shear along the s
longitudinalaxis of the tool. 5. Tension and compressionloading along the lengt
axis of the arnl-dueto drillin~ weig~t and sh~c
e Arm strength in binding about the body axis loads generatedby jarring.
of the tool may De calculated by treating
the arm as a simple cantilever beam when ● The arm tension/compressioncalculation i
extended from the body of the tool. The made to predict the strength of the ar
maximum allowable load T is displayed in retention means under conditions of hig
Figure 5 and calculateda~ follows: impact shock loada along the vertical axi
of the body. Drilling stresses unde
Tw = W(r+h)...........,.................,.,..(1) dynamic conditions generate extremely hig
loads during normal drilling activity an
where: W =TtZn/h .........................(2) even more so in the abnormal jarring mode
The tension/compression calculations ar
Zn =“le2/3 (Fig. 5).................(3) provided below and displayed in Figure 6

2. Shear due to drilling torque on the body or Rc = An Tc ...........,.........,...........(9


“flywheel” torque developed in the drill
collars. Rt =AS ................................(lo
ps
The force Ts required to shear the arm off The loading capacity of any underreamer arm i
flush with the body may be calculated by sensitive to the design of the arm in regards t
considering
.. that section of the arm activation and ret?ntion. The prototyp
actually retained in the body cavity in underreamer’s one-piece; caat arm enhanced th
shear with the arm fully extended. This loading capabilities previously achieved with th
cross section of shear can then be modified arm design. A comprehensivebreakdown o
transposed to torque by considering the the comparativearm strength calculationsis provide
torque arm to be the body radius. The in Table I. Characteristicsof fret wear and shoc
maximum torque to shear the arm off flush loading resistance and drilling gauge diamete
with the body is predicted in Figure 5. assurance have been improved by the design of th
prototype underreamer. The caliper logs in Figure
Ts = Sir....................................(4) illustrate the prototype underreamer’s ability t
maintain a constant gauge diameter. A consisten
where: S = Ssel .......,.............,.....(5) wellbore was obtained with the prototype tool
whereas the modified underreamer progressively los
3, Bending from side load forces auDlied to the gauge cutting capability.
point of the arm about the pin axi~-.

● The side load capacity of the arm may be


the single most important strength feature
I CUTTER PLACEMENT

The plane geometric surfaces of the prototyp


of the underreamer. The side load P as underreamer”s drag arm design provides a freedom o
shown in Figure 6 is that load acting flexibility in the cutter type and placement
horizontallywith the body axis that would Cutting elements are easily applied to the arm bod
be required to bend the blade around the by locating and drilling a receptacle hole in th
activating point L. In this sense it is desired position. After insertion of the cutter,
considered a simple beam loaded at point brazing technique is used to securely retain th
P, retained at point S, and supported at cutting elements in the body. For example, tungste
activatingpoint L. It is readily seen the carbide cutter studs were placed on the back of th
ratio of distances a and b along the length arm to provide cutting action when back-reamin
of the arm either multiplies or reduces the during sticking situations.
leverage exerted on the retentionmeans, or
pins, The cross section modulus Zm, During field testing of various arm designs,
deficiency in cutter quality was noted that led t
.

k .-. .—-SAT.T
UNDIHUUMMRRIMPROVEMENTSFOR DRILLING MOVING ----- FORMATTONS
-. -—----- .- ---
SPF ----
TATM? .-,
lf?7flfI
.”

the inventionof a new type of cutting element. Wear CONCLUSIONS


points on the leading edge and nose of the cutter
arms were observed on each of the initial trial runs. 1. All of the design objectives that were
These wear points acted as bearing surf.zcesand established for drilling and urderreaming
dramatically reduced penetration rates after only a operations were satisfied with the inventionof
few hours of operation, Apparently,the lead diamond the prototype underreamer.
cutters were experiencing high impact, or shock,
loads and were not able to equally distribute these 2. Enhancement of wellbore integrity and armftool
loads to the secondarycu:ters. The result was rapid life was achieved by the modificationsmade to
failure of the cutting structure. To resolve the the prototype u~derreamer during the field
loss of cutter quality, a dispersed, diamond testing perici.
impregnated wafer was devised to be positioned on
the immediate leading edge of the cutter arm. The 3. Hydraulic cutter arm activation provided for
purpose of the wafer was to “absorb” the initial more tool flexibility and guaranteed that
impact and allow the secondary cutters to complete complete “lock-out” was being attained during
the underreaming process. Dramatic improvements in off-bottomunderreamingoperations.
penetration rates and arm life were observed on the
first, and subsequent, runs with the wafer cutter. 4. The conversion to direct cutter arm circulation
Figure 8 illustrates the cutter arm with the wafer improved underreamer performance and arm life.
cutter insert,
5. The inclusion of the diamond impregnatedwafer
FURTHER INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS on the leading edge of the cutting structure
relieved stress and extended overall arm life.
SELECTIVE UNDERREAMING - To date, the prototype
tool haa been used to undeiream formationsthat move 6. With the advent of the selective activation
into, or encroach on, the hole diameter cut by the feature and up-reaming capabilities, the
bit. Only salt, shale, and some limestonef ormations prototype underreamer applicationsare expanded
have been cut in this regard. Modifications have to include a variety of troublesome wellbore
been made that permit intermittentuse of the tool to conditions (i.e., swelling or sloughing
address additionalhole problems such as key seats or formations,keyseats, doglegs, etc.)
severe doglegs. By simple n-.nipulationof pump
flowrates and pressures, the underreamer can be NOMENCLATURE
opened or closed for selective underreaming
operations. Adjustments in the belleville spring a Distance from pin retention point to activating
stack allow adaptation to most any type of surface point.
equipment and restrictions. The hydraulicactivating
diagram in Figure 9 displays the cycling process that A Area of arm neck.
n
can be initiated to function the tool at various
operatingpressures. A Total shear area of pin(s) holding arm.
P
UP-UNDERREAMING - Proper cuttings removal is b Distance from activating point point to end of
essential during conventional hole-opening arm.
operations. Pump hydraulics are seriously curtailed
due to the larger wellbore’s lower annular e Arm width.
velocities. Through the use of present top drive
technology, the underreamermay be run in the closed h Arm height.
position while drilling the smaller pilot hole and
then opened Up for up-underreamingoperations. This L Maximum activatingsupport load.
procedure would keep the cuttings above the
underreamer, in the smaller diameter wellbore, where 1 Length of arm (radial shear area).
the annular velocities are higher and hole cleaning
is enhanced. M Arm retention load.

Conventional Underreaming is typically performed P ALIII side load capacity.


following the drilling of a pilot hole for reasons of
hole control and convention. The inability to r Radius of body.
stabilize the underreamer in the larger diameter
wellbore increases drill member stress. The R Max. longitudinal load of arm in compression
up-underreamingprinciple reduces tubular fatigue by c
holding the drillstring in tension duricg Rt Max. longitudinalload of arm in tension.
underreaming operations. Deviation control concerns
would be eliminated as the up-underreamingtool must s Arm shear load.
follow the drillstring onto which it is attached.
The taper of the up-cutting extended arms would act s 100,000 psi (RT 4340, 360 Brn).
as a self-centeringdevice and eliminate any wellbore s
departure. Figure 10 displays the alternativeuses Tc 200,000 psi (HT 4340, 360 Brn).
of the prototype underreamer.
Ts Torque required on body to produce arm shear
load.
,

SPliIADC 18700 J. M. GREENER AND D. D. WEBB

Tt 180,000psi (HT 4340, 360 Brn).

TV Torque requiredon body to produce bending load,

w Arm bending load about body.

Zm Arm section modulus (Longitudinal Bending),

z Arm section modulus (RotationalBending).


n
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank all of the fielc


personnel involved in the invention, design, fielt
testing, and subsequent modifications of th<
prototype underreamer. Recognized for thei]
essential input and project support are Waite]
Shaffer, Amoco Drilling Supervisor, and Dan Killiar
and E. A. Anderson, Houston Engineer District Manage]
and Consultant,respectively.

REFERENCES

1, Unger, K. w Ho{iard, D. C., “Drillin~


Techniques Irnp’roveSuccess in Drilling anf
Casing Deep Overthrust Belt Salt,” SPE Drillin{
Engineering (June 1986) SPE #13108.

2. Holt, C. H., Johnson, J. B., “A Method fo]


Drilling Moving Salt Formations - Drilling an(
Underreaming Concurrently,” SPE Drillin~
Engineering (August 1986).

3. James, S. A., “Bi-Center Bits for Drilling an(


Underreaming Moving Salt,” paper SPE 15551~
presented at the 1986 61st SPE Conference in Ne\
Orleans, October 5-8.

4. Feenstra, R., “Status of Polycrystallin(


Diamond-Compact Bits: Part 1 Development,’
Journal of Petroleum Technology (June 1988)

5. Ibid. “Status of PolvcrvstallineDiamond-Comr)aci


..
Bits: Part 2, Applic~ti&s.”

S1 NETRIC CONVERSiONFACTORS

ft X 3.048* E- Ol=m

lbf-ft X 1.355 818 E+()()=N*m

lbf X 4.448 222 E+OO=N

*Conversion factor is exact.


TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ARM STRENGTH CALCULATIONS

TYPE LOAD I MODIFIED I PROTOTYPE


FIG. 5 283,406 Ibf-ft 458,000 Ibf-ft
(1) h RADIAL (364,247 Nom) (620,965 Nom )
BENDING TORQUE,
646,875 Ibf-ft
(4) kM/BODY SI!f;R5 (877,044 Nom )
TORQUE
FIG. 6 20,383 Ibf 84,376 Ibf
(6) LAX. SIDE LOAD, (90,668 N) (375,323 N)
(LONGITUDINAL
BENDING)

M FIG. 6 I 198,804 Ibf


(884,324 N)
I 471,ooo Ibf ““ ‘“’’YU%2E7’
“ J?-’”ki
N.Anscfiutz
““”in’
(8) ARM RETENTION (2,095,112 N )
Anschutz
LOAD M pi-is-u
E,A’Is@3P11
(9) Rc , COMP. FIG. 6 Rc=l 98,804 lbf RC=471,000 lbf
=(884,324 N) =(2,095,113 N)
(10) Rt, lENS. FIG. 6 Rt =198,804 Ibf Rt =812,500 Ibf
MAX LONGITUDINAL =(884,324 N) =(3,614,180 N)
LOAD,

Fig. l-Genwsl location map.

u)
-u
m
—.—.
-.
30% CUTER ARM
SUPPORT
o
-O 0 S0%.CIJITER ARM

b-
SUPPORT
ER ARM
\

& B
G
d \ \
,, f
BODY PDC
R
CAVITY CUITER
R
HEAD
E

SECTION A-A
@

SECTION B-B
4
SECTiON A-A

,, Fig. 2-RolIer cone to PDC cutter contrerslon. Fig. 3—PrOtOtype undermamer. i%


m

00

0
SI% 187’00’ -

LLJ F

‘6
3
i=l-
IIo
I 1 J

Is’.
ii$g
3$
30C
Ooc
3C

L)
\
c1
L
r

‘0 $
I
I ‘i,
1,
l\
l\
I
l\
i \
I ’0’
I
I

‘m~ ----
\N
\.

I < moo IU?3


A
0
0
N

iSd - 3WEElLld dNtld

You might also like