1

Abstract
A paper is presented that studies the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) for installing pipelines across
obstacles (especially rivers) in general, and its usually associated drilling mud loss problem caused by the hydraulic
fracturing of the formation by drilling mud, in particular. A simulation model was developed from analytical
geometry, drilling mud hydraulics and geotechnical studies. The model is capable of : (1) designing efficient drill
path profiles- a precursor to avoiding drilling mud loss problems; (2) calculating annular pressures at any measured
depth drilled; (3) determining limiting mud pressures; and (4) predicting the possibility of drilling mud loss
occurrence by hydraulic fracturing for any such drilling programme.
Keywords: horizontal directional drilling, hydraulic fracturing, drilling mud, annular pressure, drill path.
1. INTRODUCTION
Moving oil and gas from a field to refining and processing plant, and petroleum products from refineries to
consumers require a complex transportation system
[1]
with pipelines playing the major role. Pipelines are
constructed through different terrains and environments along its right of ways (ROWs). Conventionally, pipelines
are installed by the open-trench method which involves burying of pipelines into excavated ditches. Although the
open-trench method is the simplest, cheapest and fastest way on a smooth topography, it often appears
uneconomical or totally infeasible when certain obstacles, e.g water courses, buildings, railways, etc are encountered
along the pipeline route. For this reason, the trenchless methods have evolved.
One of the alternative construction methods, and perhaps the fastest growing technology in the trenchless industry is
horizontal directional drilling (HDD)
[2]
. It involves the application of techniques and equipments that are used in

PREDICTING DRILLING MUD LOSS OCCURRENCE WHILE USING
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING TO INSTALL PIPELINES ACROSS RIVERS

Obumse Chukwuebuka Michael; SPE, Federal University of Technology, Owerri
Email: mcebuka@yahoo.co.uk ; Phone: +234(0)806 478 3775 ; SPE Member ID: 3383020

2

horizontal oil well drilling and conventional road boring to install pipelines underground, using a surface-monitored
drilling rig that launches and places a drill string at a shallow angle to the surface and has tracking and steering
capabilities
[3]
. The operation involves three (3) main stages
[2,4,5]
:
- Pilot-hole Drilling: which involves the drilling of the pilot-hole along a pre-determined drill path, using a
drill-rig operating from the ground surface. Periodic readings from a probe situated close to the drill bit are
used to determine the horizontal and vertical coordinates along the pilot hole in relation to the initial entry
point. The pilot hole may also be tracked using a surface monitoring system that determines the downhole
probe location by taking measurements from the surface point (see fig A.1);
- Reaming of the Pilot-hole: which involves the replacing of the drill bit with a back reamer that is pulled
back to enlarge the borehole size up to the desired diameter. Multiple reaming passes may be required
depending on the soil type and the required degree of borehole enlargement (see fig A.1); and
- Pipe String Pullback: which involves pulling the entire pipeline length in one segment (usually) back
through the drilling mud along the reamed hole pathway until the entire pipe string has been pulled into the
bore hole (see fig A.1).
One of the greatest challenges faced by the HDD contractor is how to achieve a successful installation without a
resultant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. This is usually in the form of inadvertent return of drilling
mud to the surface which may eventually contaminate the aquatic or terrestrial environment. This situation may
constitute serious problems when chemical additives are used in the drilling mud. Mud loss into the aquatic
environment may have severe consequences if the host community depends on the water body for domestic use as
evident in some remote parts of Nigeria
[4]
.
Inadvetent return of mud usually results from mud escape through propagated fractures developed in the formation,
due to excessive overbalance pressure. This is often referred to as frac-out or hydraulic fracturing by mud.
Hydrofractures initiate when the pressure in the annulus exceeds the maximum allowable mud pressure that the
formation can withstand without fracturing. This phenomenon is not only dependent on the drilling fluid pressure
inside the newly created bore, but the properties and stress state of the surrounding soil as well
[6]
. A proper
understanding and application of drilling mud hydraulics and efficient drill path design are therefore essential to
3

avoid or reduce the risk of inadvertent mud returns. Monitoring of the annular pressure against established
maximum allowable mud pressure calculated from geotechnical studies enables such a check to be made.

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Model Introduction
The model developed in this study- HDD PREDICTOR (Beta 1.0) was written in

using the
integrated development environment of Microsoft Visual studio 2008. The model was designed from analytical
geometry, drilling mud hydraulics, and standard equations developed from geotechnical studies. It can perform the
following:
1. Design drill-path profiles/curves from survey data. The various curves can then be analyzed to select the
drillpath that is most technically and economically feasible.
2. Perform calculations to generate the various pressure profiles: hydrostatic pressure, frictional pressure
losses, and hence the downhole annular pressure; based on the selected drill path curve, drilling parameters,
and drilling fluid properties. This will be very essential in pre-drilling planning and mud selection decision
making.
3. Perform calculations to generate the maximum allowable mud pressure [that the formation can withstand
without fracturing] profile in a case where geotechnical studies were conducted from formation cores
obtained from vertical bores at various depths near zones along the pre-established drill path.
4. Match (2) and (3) above together to mark out the various zones along the drill path that are likely to have
frac-out potential. This will aid the driller in applying preventive measures such as proper drilling/mud
management, and the use of protective casing.
2.2 Model Assumptions
1. Hydraulic fracturing of the formation by drilling mud occurrence initiates during the pilot-hole drilling
stage.
4

2. The depth of cover at both the build and the horizontal segments are large enough to prevent hydro-fracture
propagation, i.e. propagation of hydraulic fracturing can only be significant at the tangential segments.
3. Uniform drill-pipe joint-length is used throughout the drilling process, and the drillbit-monel assembly is
equivalent to a pipe-joint.
4. There is no significant deviation away from the centre-line, i.e. . As such, a two dimensional
analysis (x, y) suffices to describe the bore trajectory.
5. The designed drill path trajectory is adhered to, i.e. deviation is insignificant.
6. Laminar flow regime prevails in the annulus.
7. The Annulus is nearly concentric throughout the pilot hole, i.e. eccentricity 1.
As such, the model has two modules: the Drill-Path Planner, and the Pressure Predictor(see fig A.3).
2.3 Drill-Path Planner
This considers the two standard and most common borehole profiles: the 5 segments and the 3 segments designs.
The 5 segments design development is thus presented.





Fig 1: showing the 5 segments drillpath trajectory in 2-D
Where and are the entry and the exit angles respectively, R
1
and R
2
are the radius of curvatures of the first and
the second build segments respectively.
The data input required: {, , R
1
, R
2
, entry elevation, exit elevation, entry station, exit station, elevation of river
bottom, depth of cover}.



h

Datum


Joint length
T

Exit Point
Entry Point

5

DERIVATION
= [1]
= [2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

and

follows up similarly, by replacing

and , with

and respectively in the above

set of equations.
=

[9]
During the drilling process, the pipe-length (measured length drilled) is the actual displacement parameter known.
Determination of the x and y coordinates per joint length is obtained thus:
At any position/segment;

, where y is the Rise/Drop. [10]

Similarly,

Away [11]
Along Segment 1:
1
0 MD pipelength s < ;
1
1 K n s s Where n = joint number,

[12]


o sin int = A length jo y
[13]

o cos int = A length jo x [14]
The initial point for this segment corresponds to the entry point i.e.

6

Along Segment 2:
) (
2 1 1
MD MD pipelength MD + s < ; ( )
2 1 1
) 1 ( k k n k + s s +

[15]

{ } ] ) 1 ( cos[ ] ) ( cos[
1 1 1
| o | o k n k n R y = A
[16]


{ } ] ) ( sin[ ] ) 1 ( sin[
1 1 1
| o | o k n k n R x = A
[17]


The initial point for this segment corresponds to the last point in segment 1, i.e. ) , (x
1 1
k k
y

Along Segment 3:
) ( ) (
2 1 2 1
T MD MD pipelength MD MD + + s < + ; ( ) ( ), 1
3 2 1 2 1
k k k n k k + + s s + +

[18]
0 = Ay
[19]


length jo x int = A
[20]


The initial point for this segment corresponds to the last point in segment 2 i.e. ) , (x
2 1 2
k
1
k k k
y
+ +

Along Segment 4:
) ( ) (
3 2 1 2 1
MD T MD MD pipelength T MD MD + + + s < + + ; ( ) ( )
4 3 2 1 3 2 1
1 k k k k n k k k + + + s s + + +


{ } ] )) ( 1 cos[( ] )) ( cos[(
3 2 1 3 2 1 2
u u k k k n k k k n R y + + + + = A

[21]


{ } ] )) ( 1 sin[( ] )) ( sin[(
3 2 1 3 2 1 2
u u k k k n k k k n R x + + + + = A
[22]

The initial point for this segment corresponds to the last point in segment 3 i.e. ) , (x
3 2 1 3
k
2
k
1
k k k k
y
+ + + +

Along Segment 5:
, 3 2 1
) ( ength totalpipel pipelength MD T MD MD s < + + + ( ) s o totalpipej n k k k k int 1
4 3 2 1
s s + + + +

| sin int = A length jo y
[23]


| cos int = A length jo x
[24]


The initial point for this segment corresponds to the last point in segment 4, while its last point corresponds
to the exit point (exit station, exit elevation).
2.4 Pressure Predictor
This consists of the Annular Pressure module and the Limiting Mud Pressure (Maximum Allowable Mud
Pressure) module.
7

2.4.1 Annular Pressure Module
Pressure in the annulus of the borehole

includes the hydrostatic fluid pressure and the pressure drop P

[4]
.
Pressure drop,

[25]
Neglecting the pressure drop due to gravity and acceleration since HDD is a near horizontal scenario, and same bit
size is usually maintained during drilling.

[26]

[27]

The average velocity of drilling fluid in the borehole annulus, Va in ft/sec, is given as:

[28]

For a laminar flow condition, the frictional pressure drop P in psi, in the concentric annulus, using Bingham Plastic
fluid model is then given as:

[29]
Where [30]
Hydrostatic Pressure

[31]

Elevation relative to the entry point, ft

[32]

= diameter of hole/bit size, in;

drillpipe outside diameter, in;

plastic
viscosity of mud, ;

= mud yield point,

; = density of [returning] mud, ppg.

2.4.2 Limiting Mud Pressure (Maximum Allowable Mud Pressure) Module
This module is built on three (3) proven geotechnical equations developed for the determination of the maximum
allowable mud pressure, that the formation around the annulus can withstand before fracturing.
8

Kennedy et al
[6]
: This equation defines the minimum pressure required for fracturing to occur:

[33]

Delft Equation: This equation defines the maximum allowable pressure in the annulus
[2, 4]
, thus:

[34]

Queens Equation: This was developed after the work of Xia and Moore
[2]

Critical mud pressure

[35]
In the equations above;
o
P = Initial soil compressive stress;
o
K = coefficient of earth lateral pressure;

Bore
Radius,;

= Radius of the Plastic Zone, (

= 0.5*

for clay, or 2*

/3 for sands); = internal (soil)

friction angle [], = cohesion, (

= undrained cohesion); G = Shear Modulus ,; = Groundwater Pressure,

;

= Effective Stress,.

3. DRILLING-MUD LOSS PREDICTION WITH ACTUAL EXAMPLE
A project consists of installing an 18 inch diameter steel gas pipeline across River-X. A survey referenced to the
entry point was carried out and recorded as shown in Table 1. Suppose a geotechnical study was conducted at
intervals near the entry and the exit sides with results recorded in Table 2. It is therefore expected to:
Design the drill-path and a suitable drilling programme to avoid hydraulic fracturing occurrence.

Using the program- HDD PREDICTOR, the user launches the program, and then clicks on Project Information to
input the job information (no part of this goes into the calculation). This is shown in fig A.4. The Drill-Path
Planner module is activated after clicking Done.
9

Drill-Path Profile Design
The user selects either the 5 segments design or the 3 segments design (For this case study, the 5 segments
design was selected) and then input the survey (entry point and exit point), pipe and geometry datas as shown in fig
A.5. The drill-path profile is automatically generated as the Done button is clicked. By clicking on the Results
botton, a table pops out indicating the length of various segments, required number of pipe joints for each,
build/drop angles, etc. Fig A.6 and fig A.7, show the profile and the results respectively. The user exits this
module by clicking on Predict Pressure to lauch the module.
Interpretation of Drill-Path Profile Result from the model for case example The results displayed suggests that the
driller/steering-hand should do the following:
Initiates drilling at 12 entry angle in a straight course (tangential segment) until 7 pipejoints total
measured distance of 210.56ft is drilled. This includes the drillbit-monel assembly and 6 drillpipes.
Kicks off at buildup rate of 1.5 per joint, until another 251ft (equivalent to 8 new drillpipes and further
11ft are drilled).
Sustains/holds to drill a horizontal segment blindly at constant zero inclination for another 4204ft
(equivalent to 140 new drillpipes and additional 4ft).
Builds up once again at 1.71 per joint for 7 new joints additional 210ft.
Drills at tangent by holding till he exits to the surface, which will require 10 new joints.
A total measured depth of 5173.4ft is therefore estimated for the project, requiring about 172-173 drillpipes.
Pressure Prediction
At this module, the user:
1. Selects Annular Pressure and then Bingham Plastic Model to enter its required input (see fig A.8). This
calculates the annular velocity, and generates the hydrostatic pressure, pressure drop and annular pressure
profiles/curves over the measured distance drilled or pipelength (see fig A.9).
2. Exits the Annular Pressure pane and then select Limiting Mud Pressure to choose one of Kennedy et al,
Delft equation, or Queens equation (Delft equation was selected for this example). Entry-side (see fig
10

A.10) and exit-side datas are inputed in succession, to generate the overall combine curves namely:
hydrostatic pressure, pressure drop, annular pressure, exit-side limiting mud pressure and entry-side
limiting mud pressure profiles/curves over the measured distance drill or pipelength. Fig A.11, shows the
combined curves for the example presented.
Interpretation of Pressure Prediction Result from the model for case example The calculations performed and the
charts generated suggest the following:
Average annular velocity of 3.307ft/s under the current mud/drilling plan.
A maximum annular pressure of less than 60psi near the exit point.
A hydrofracture risk-free entry side, but an exit side with hydraulic fracturing risk potential. This is
indicated by the intersecting of the annular pressure curve with the exit side limiting pressure curve in
fig A.9. Preventive measures in such a case may entail: (1) revisiting of the drilling/mud plan, or (2) the
use of intersecting drill with conductor casing at the exit side (which is usually very expensive!).
Since the drillpath profile design appears satisfactory, the drilling mud plan will therefore be adjusted. The mud
pump rate and mud weight may have to be lowered slightly, especially while drilling the exit-side tangential
segment of the profile.

4. CONCLUSION
The method of using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to install pipelines across obstacles, especially water
courses, and its usually associated problem (mud loss by hydraulic fracturing) have been discussed. A simulation
model was therefore developed from analytical geometry, drilling hydraulics and proven geotechnical equations.
The model has been shown to be capable of designing, analyzing and predicting against hydraulic fracturing
occurrence and the consequent inadvertent mud loss while using HDD. The usual practice of real-time monitoring of
readings from down-hole pressure guages lack the ability to make predictions, as it can only indicate propagating
fractures which may not be easily combated due to rig-downhole time-lag. It should be used as backup after
predictions and analysis have been made with the model presented. The model is therefore recommended for use to
HDD contractors, pipeline owners and regulatory agencies.
11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his gratitude to his friend Akinboboye Shina, and the entire HDD team of Enikkom
Investment Services Nigeria Limited (where he had his industrial training in horizontal directional drilling),
especially John Okechukwu, Chris Frisch and Michael Snook, for all their assistance.
NOMENCLATURE
entry angle, degree
exit angle, degree
build angle per joint at the exitside build segment, degree

plastic viscosity of drilling mud, cp

density of mud, ppg

effective soil stress, psi

build angle per joint at the entryside build segment, degree
internal (soil) friction angle, degree
soil cohesion, psi

diameter of borehole (bit size), in

soil shear modulus, psi

coefficient of earth lateral pressure

measured depth, ft

drillpipe outside diameter, in

pressure drop due to acceleration, psi

pressure drop in the annulus, psi

pressure drop due to friction, psi

pressure drop due to gravity, psi

pressure in the borehole annulus, psi

fracturing pressure, psi

critical mud pressure, psi

maximum allowable pressure in the annulus, psi

initial soil compressive stress, psi

12

pump output, gpm
radius of curvature of build segment, ft

bore radius, ft

maximum radius of plastic zone, ft

groundwater pressure, psi

average velocity in the annulus, ft/s

station, ft
elevation, ft

mud yield point, lb/100ft

2


REFERENCES
[1] Kate Van Dyke. (1997). Fundamentals of Petroleum, 4
th
ed. Petroleum Extension Service, University of
Texas, Austin, USA.
[2] Xia Hongwei. (2009). Investigation of maximum mud pressure within sand and clay during horizontal
directional drilling, PhD dissertation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
[3] ASTM International, Designation: F 1962 99, Standard guide for use of maxi-horizontal directional
drilling for placement of polyethylene pipe or conduit under obstacles, including river crossings, 1-7
[4] Obumse, Chukwuebuka M. (2011). Overcoming Drilling Mud Loss Problems while using Horizontal
Directional Drilling to Install Pipelines across Rivers, Bachelors thesis, Federal University of Technology,
Owerri, Nigeria. Unpublished.
[5] Entec Consulting Limited, et al. (2004). Guideline: Planning Horizontal Directional Drilling for Pipeline
Construction. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP Publication 2004-022.
[6] Kennedy, M.J.et al. (2006). Limiting Slurry Pressure to Control Hydraulic Fracturing in Directional
Drilling Operations in Purely Cohesive Soil, Proceedings of 2004, proceedings of the North American
Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT),.No-Dig Conference,2004a.
[7] Conroy, P. J. et al. (2002). Guidelines for installation of utilities beneath Corps of Engineers levees using
horizontal directional drilling, US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center,
ERDC/GSL TR-02-9.
13

APPENDIX: THREE (3) SEGMENTS DESIGN






The data input required: {, , entry elevation, exit elevation, entry station, exit station, elevation of river bottom,
depth of cover}.
DERIVATIONS:
= [A.1]
= [A.2]
[A.3]

[A.4]

[A.5]
When

, [A.6]

[A.7]
(

, and

follows up similarly, by replacing H and , with h and respectively)

T =

[A.8]

Exit Point
Entry Point

h

T
H

Datum


Joint length
14

Table 1: Survey and Drilling Data for example presented
Geometry Parameters
Entry angle ,degrees 12
Entry elevation, ft 0.00
Entry station, ft 0+00
Exit angle , degrees 10
Exit elevation, ft 0.00
Exit station, ft 51+61.4
Radius for 1
st
build, ft 1200
Bottom Elevation of river, ft 50
Radius of 2
nd
build, ft 1200
Required cover under bottom, ft 20
Drilling Parameters
Plastic Viscosity, cp 7
Yield Point, lb/100sq ft 9
Mud Density, ppg 11
Mud flow rate, gpm 300
Diameter of Drillpipe, in 5 (OD of pipe)
Diameter of Bit, in 7.875

Table 2: Geotechnical Data Obtained From Laboratory Analysis (modified from Conroy et al
[7]
. pg. 13)


Depth (ft)
ENTRY SIDE EXIT SIDE
() (psi) (psi)

(psi) (psi) () (psi) (psi)

(psi) (psi)
5 22 0 694.4 4.34 0 0.5 6.94 173.5 4.17 0
10 22 0 694.4 8.68 0 0.5 6.94 173.5 8.33 0
15 22 0 173.6 13.02 0 0.5 3.47 173.5 12.5 0
20 0.5 6.94 694.4 17.36 0 0.5 3.47 173.5 16.67 0
25 29 0 694.4 21.70 0 0.5 3.47 173.5 20.83 0
30 29 0 694.4 26.04 0 30 0 694.4 22.83 2.17
35 34 0 694.4 30.36 0 30 0 694.4 24.83 4.33
40 33 0 694.4 34.29 0.433 30 0 694.4 26.83 6.5
45 33 0 694.4 36.46 2.6 30 0 694.4 28.83 8.67
Soil Type = Sand
15


Fig A.1: showing Pilot-hle drilling, Reaming & Pull-back stages (Source: CAPP Publication 2004-0022
[5]
)











Fig A.2: A physical flowing model in the annulus showing induced fractures

16

















Terminate
Program ?
Predict Annular
Pressure or
maximum
allowable mud-
Pressure?
Predict Pressure
annular
Enter Bingham Plastic
model data
END
Max. allowable mud pressure
Kennedy
et al.
Enter Kennedy
et al. data

data
Delft
Enter Delft
data
Enter queens
data
Display Pressure
Plots
Is predict
Pressure Annular
or max. allowable
mud pressure?
Include max.
allowable mud
pressure?
annular
3
Design drill path profile, Determine: no of joints {k1, k2 k5}
Total pipe length required etc.
Input drill Path
design data and
Radius 1,Radius 2 Input drill path
design data
5
Input
ProjectInformation
No of
segments?
START
NO
Max. allowable mud pressure
YES
YES
NO
Fig A.3: The Program Flowchart
Queens
Model?
17


Fig A.4: showing the Project Information pane











Fig A.5: 5 segments profile input screen
18


Fig A.6: Drill Path Profile, for the example


Fig A.7: Results output for drill path design, for the example
19


Fig A.8: Annular Pressure Input, for the example


Fig A.9: Annular Pressure vs. Pipe Length, for the example
20


Fig A.10: showing the Delfts entry-side input and calculation results, for the example


Fig A.11: showing the various pressure curves vs pipe-length, for the example