You are on page 1of 12

SPE

SPE 12909
Bit Optimization for Positive-Displacement

Motors

by R.S.Dyer,SiiDyna-Dri//
Member SPE-AIME

Copyright

1984 Society

of Petroleum

Engmeem

of AlME

This paper wss presented at the 1984 Rocky Mountain Regional Meehng held m Casper, WY, May 21-23, 1984. The material is subject to correction by
the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Writs SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706, Dallas,
Taxas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

T~~

basic

fiak;~e

Of

dr~ll~nq

with

Positive

displacement motor is different than that of conventional rotary drilling and often necessitates
different decisions regarding bit choices and recommended operating parameters. For best results,
separate bit optimization studies and recommendations
should be prepared during the planning stages of a
well for possible motor runs. Several factors should
be considered in determining bit choice and bit
configuration. Many of these factors are used in
selecting bit type, such as rock bit, diamond, or
polycrystalline diamond bit. Other factors determine
choice within a specific bit category, as well as
choices in hydraulics parameters and performance
expectations.
INTRODUCTION :
Current drilling trends dictate the employment
of cost conscious employees and service companies
that offer cost-effective methods of drilling. It
is generally accepted that the iiltiirate
test of ccst
effectiveness is determined by examining the results
in terms of cost-per-foot. The lower the cost-perfoot, the less expensive it will be to drill the
well, or any section of a well.
*,ere =Ze ~ap.y petb.QdS
of
eliminating costs and
thereby reducing cost per foot. Most fall into two
categories. The first category is the reduction of
drilling time by increasing rate of penetration.
The second category may be summed up as the elimination or reduction of undesirable delays. Exampies of delays are:

advent of dependable, high torque positive


The
displacement motors has begun to change tne industrys viewpoint on motor drilling. With compatible
conditions, and proper planning, the use of a motor
to drill a well section can often satisfy one and
sometimes both categories of cost reduction. Whereas
in the past motors were viewed as simply a trouble
hole or directional tool, motors increasingly are
accepted as an alternative to conventional rotarY
drilling.
Empirical data collected from hundreds of longinterval motor runs in diversified areas and conditions have shown certain factors that greatly or
subtly influence the outcome of a motor run. Trends
have been noted and guidelines developedto help insure a run with optimum results. As a result, it is
an increasing practice to include separate bit optimization studies and subsequent recommendations designed around a planned motor run.
~~~

nDmTMT7.ATT(3N
. . . ... . .. ----

DESIGNING FOR MOTORS:

During the motor project design stage, several


factors are reviewed to determine how they will affect
choice of bit type, bit configuration, recommended bit
hydraulics, and performance expectations. These factors are:
1)

The objective of the motor run

2)

Project cost analysis

3)

Offset or current bit runs

4)

170rmations

1)

Excessive trip time due to short bit life;

5)

Hydraulic System Analysis

2)

Fishing jobs;

6)

Hole Conditions

~)

Sidetracks;

7)

Motor bearing balance

4)

Slow rate of penetration because of


necessity for deviation control;

5)

Casing wear problems;

6)

Hole problems;

7)

Rig repairs,

References and illustrations at end of paper.

153

2
1)

BIT OPTIMIZATION FOR POSITIVR I 5PLACEMEWT.MOTORS

SPE 12909

MOTOR RUN OBJECTIVE


more material is sheared in a given amount of time thar
can be accomplished with conventional rotary drilling.

Excluding a targeted directional run and sidetracks, the three most common motor run objectives are
1)

Rate of penetration increase

2)

Deviation Control

3)

Minimization of casing wear

In fact, motor drilling with the same diamond bit


type, with slightly different configuration, normally
results in ROP 50-75% higher than on rotary drilling.
And, ironically, salvage is often 5-10% hiqher. Presumably, the switch from heavy to moderate point loading with increased number of stones per carat, and the
lighter weight on bit used in a motor run, combine to
achieve these advantages.

occasionally, a combination of these factors maY


be the objective, such as desiring to increase rate of
penetration over that of rotary drilling while still
controlling angle. Other common justifications for a
motor run are: 1) Significant reduction of trip time
in deep holes, 2) Elimination of twist-offs and consequential fishing jobs by using a motor to concentrate
torque at the bit instead of on the drill string.

In some cases, PCD bits may be used to advantage


with motors. This especially applies in clean, nonabrasive soft-medium formations such as clean shales,
chalks, and anhydrites. This practice is applicable
most often when the formation is too soft and plastic
for diamond drilling, but where the shearing effect of
a PCD bit produces ROP far exceeding a roller cone bit
and, therefore, is cost-effective.

Generally speaking, the higher RPM of a mder Xi~


produce a higher ROP regardless of bit type. It does
not necessarily follow, however, that the run will be
cost effective. A cost analysis will determine that.
Coupled with the cost analysis, formation and offset
records are analyzed to determine the choice of bit
type to achieve a particular objective.
it
G
advantageous to us
If it is dete~.ined khat
a rock bit and rate of penetration is the objective- i
medium to hard formations a bit should be chosen that
is one or two grades harder that that being used in
conventional rotary application. This is to help
prevent premature dulling in abrasive formations and
prevention of tooth breakage on the outside rows of
teeth in hard formation drilling. Slow-speed motors,
usually operating in the 90-200 rpm range, often can
be used with the same bit used in rotary drilling
regardless of formation. In soft, non-abrasive formations, no change in bit type is usually necessary
regardless of motor type. Depending on bit size avail
ability, it is usuaily advafitageow te use t!!enew
generation of rock bits designed to be run at higher
RPMs .

If deviation control is the primary objective


and a rock bit is to be used, it is important to select a bit with a low cone offset angle. Again, this
... .
usually means a bit w~tn snorter Ciittinq stzuctur!?s
de~i~n~d for harder drilling. This would suggest a
sacrifice in ROP. However, experience has shoyn that
the higher RPMs of motor drilling usuaLly offset this
supposed limitation.
If a diamond bit run is judged to be advantageous
it will most likely be in relatively deep small diameter hole of 4-1/2 - 9-7/8. Most .often, the objective is increased rate of penetration and longer on
bottom time. Many times this is coupled with the objective
of reducing casing wear, or eliminating twist#-
offs in tapered strings.
In making recommendations for a motor/diamond
bit run, it is best in most cases to select a somewhat smaller stone size than would be chosen for a
diamond bit in rotary drilling applications. Experience has also shown that is is best to specify West
African or West African premium stones, especially in
abrasive hard formations. The additional cost is
more than offset by the increased on bottom tand,
since they tend to dull less quickly, higher average
ROPS are attained. While it is generally agreed that
point loading is important, empirical evidence from
motor runs suggests that a somewhat smaller stoned,
slightly heavier set bit provides more endurance at
no sacrifice of ROP. Higher RPM is the key. Far

When rate of penetration is the sole objective oj


a motor run and a diamond bit is appropriate, in most
cases a bit will be selected which has a tapered profile
radial fluid courses, and highly efficient cross
----:
pad fluid flow. In Rocky Mountain drilling, especiaii>
the overthrust area, extremes of taper and deep, narrot
cones are best avoided to insure against early dulling
and/or coring out the bit due to the use of high RPM
Bits with diamonds set in twin rows on each pad seem tc
provide the best overall performance in soft to medium
formation. Diamond size selection will usually range
from 2-3 stones per carat (SPC) to 4-5 SpC, depend~g
on formation degree of hardness and abrasiveness.
As the desire for rate of penetration is compromised by the objective of longer downhole time in hard
c___L,--.<.
~~~~~~-a
will shift tO a someK<+ A-e--=..
IOrmdLAull=,
~Ab
what less tapered profile and shallower cone angles.
?werage stone size may range from 4-5 SPC to 7-8 SPC.
in
the
nose
and closer to the apex Of the Com
Dia.T.T.G.Ac
-----..
will be set in a somewhat denser pattern, perhaps thre(
rows to a pad, to spread point loading and provide mort
endurance. Further changes in bit configuration are
usually more the result of formation characteristics
.
.
~,.._
p>.
=~~qtian
is a sidetrack,
Lnan riiil Objectl:es.
which calls for a bit with a relatively flat profile
and very short gauge length, allowing for lateral move.
ment at the point of kick-off.
Most conventional diamond bit designs lend themselves well to the objective of maintaining angle when
coupled with the high RPM and light WOBof motor drilling. However, if the desire is to build or drop angle
it is best to avoid excessively tapered profiles, and
to use bits with shallower cone angies and relatively
short gauge length. This especially seems to apply to
PCD bits, and it should be noted that gauge length mcm
than anything seems to determine whether angle is main
tained, built up, or dropped. However, in homogeneous
non-abrasive, non-fractured formations, absent of the
interbedding of such diamond damaging formations as
chert and pyrite, then it may be appropriate to consider the more highly tapered profiles and deep narrow
.a.<,a.tinr,a~
bits if the objective is
-.--a G
G,,=.A
...-..
----- ~~~nd
maintaining angle.
2)

PROJECT COST AWALYSIS

A cost analysis should be prepared to determine


what performance criteria must be met for the motor
154

sPE 12909
.

S. Uyer

This is done by inserting variables of bit life and RO


into the formulas.
For example, a minimum and maximum expected bit life
should be inserted into the breakeven footage equation
Also, various ROPS should be examined within the minimum and maximum range of expected bit life. This
brief exercise will highlight three tinings:

run to be cost-effective. Cost effectiveness can be


~efined in quantifiable and non-quantifiable terms.
In either case, choice of bit type and configuration
plays a large part in the overall success of the job.

Quantifiable terms are those i5eztifiable parameters that can be applied to standard cost-per-foot,
heakeven footage, and breakeven ROP formulas. Most
1)
non-quantifiable terms fall into the second category
>f cost reduction mentioned in the Introduction-the elimination of undesirable delays. These includ[
such things as elimination of fishing trips, prevention of sidetracks, and reduction of casing wear. Bvel
though these items cannot readily be calculated into
stafii!=rd
cost formulas, it is apparent that a motor nu
may
successful in minimizing such delays could more than
the
~ay for itself.
Regardless of the objective, standard cost formJlas can be applied in selecting a bit that will pro3uce the best results-- i.e., lowest cost-per-foot for
the run. There are three basic steps involved:
~)

Determine the cost-per-foot to drill the well by


rotary methods . Use current bit runs on the well
in question, or determine same from valid offset
well information. Use an average rotary bit run
in the section in question. Favor more recent
offsets and the better runs.
ROTARY COST/FOQT=
(Fixed HolJrI~CQSh) x (Avg. Drlg. Hrs. + Avg. ~~~pHrs)
+ [Bit Cost] i?wg. Ftg.;git ztitij

the least the motor and bit combination will have


to do to break even; 2) the anticipated performance of the run end its resultant cost-per-foot;
3) the maximum probable performance attainable and
maximum possible savings for the run.
On occasion, bit choice of widely different cost
fit the,~rformance criteria necessary to fulfill
objectives. Consider the following two examples:
1) In drilling large diameter surface hole, a
17-1/2 sealed bearing TCI bit is approximately
$14,800 while the cost of a 17-1/2 sealed bearing milltooth is approximately half that. In
relatively soft and clean formations, the milltooth may provide significantly higher ROP and no
less bit life than the insert. Bearing life, nOt
cutting structure endurance, would determine when
to pull the bit.
As formations become harder, there is a point at
which the greater tooth life of an insert produce
a lower cost-per-foot than the milltooth bit. In
serting the different costs and performance para.
L ud. .~-~<~,~a+inn
meters ox eacslULL
~V..&A=-.
-._.. into the cost
formulas will reveal which bit is more cost-effec
tive.

2) In a clean, firm shale, a PCD bit mayproduce


Determine the predicted total cost to drill a secmuch higher ROP than a conventional diamond bit.
tion of the well using a motor and the desired bit.
However, significant abrasive content may shorten
Divide by calculated rotary cost-per-foot to derive
-the PCD bit life. Furthermore, in such a case a
breakeven footage. To do this, a sound estimate of
PCD may have little to no salvage value. Therefprojected bit life is necessary, antisheuld b~ bzsore, it may be found that by comparing bit life
ed on previous motor experience in the same or simand penetration rate against net bit costs.,t?le
ilar conditions. Again, a study of offset records
slower yet more durable conventional diamond bit
and formations to be encountered is important.
may yield less cost-per-foot.
BREAKEVEN FOOTAGE=
[(Fixed Hrly. Costs) + Motor & Oper. Hrly.Costs)
3) OFFSET OR CURRENT WELL BIT RUNS
x (Proj. Drlg. Hrs.)1 + [(Fixed Hrly. Costs +
Oper Hrly. Costs) x (Trip Hours)] + [Bit Cost]
This phase, a study of offset records, is important, end often consumes a large portion of the motor
[Rotary cost-per-foot]
run project. Obviously, it is rarely necessary to
.,
,-h
k{+
rggcord,
only the pOrtiOl
study the enclre-tyof ea...--that pertains to the motor run. Records that demonDivide the Breakeven Footage by the projected hours strate poor drilling practices or limited rig capabilof motor run (bit life) to derive Breekeven ROP at
ities should be eliminated. Records with formation
that number of projected hours.
tops and deviation surveys are especially valuable.
This initial survey of the records available should
Breekeven Footage
reveal a representative group of superior bit records.
= BREAKEVEN ROP
Projected Bit Life
At this point, an in-depth study of the representative group of records should be done. The primary
If, at this stage, it is obvious the breakeven
parameters needing attention are: 1) bit types; 2)
!igures are unattainable the project should be renumber of bits used; 3) average hours, footage, and
examined if its sole objective is quantifiable reducROP ; 4) dull grades. Also important are RPM, WOB,
:ion of cost-per-foot. If the figures look promising
and, when applicable, deviation surveys and how the
~ased on past experience, yet marginal, it may be
hole angle affected bit run parameters.
worthwhile to consider alternative bit choices. Al:ernate choices may provide the additional bit life or
!erfarra~ce needed.

Reviewing such information will reveal a formations peculiarities in a specific area and at the
particular depth. Patterns of bit choice aiidbit wszr
will emerge that will influence bit choice end design

If the cost analysis looks favorable, it is a


rood idea to carry the analysis a few steps further.
1

BIT OPTIMIZATION FOR POSI [VE DISPLACEMENT MOTORS

SPE 12909

---Iur.

l..
L1lC

.-+
u,

dx

ruP. .

An example: k operator has a 2500 section of medium


to hard, sandy shales and occasional sandstones. In
the initial review of nine offset records, four wells
are selected as a representative sample. Further stud~
results in elimination of several bit runs for various
reasons such as pulled to core, drilling on junk,
or just simply poor bit choice due to limited availability. The remaining runs are averaged for the section in question for all four wells. A pattern emerges
Thirty-four 8-3/4 bit runs are isolated in the
four wells. They fall primarily into the IADC code of
6-3-7. The 34 runs combined total 1543 hours and 7718
feet. This computes to an average bit life of 45.4
hours and an average footage per run of 227. Resultant average ROP is 5/hr. DU1l grades are totaled anc
averaged, revealing an average dull grade of 7-4-1/16,
WOB has ranged from 38-45,000 and RPM from 55-70.
Angle build has been minor and gradual.
The study demonstrates several things: Deviation
is of little concern. If a motor run is to be considered, the objective will likely be ROP improvement
and costlfoot savings. The bit types used reveal a
fairly hard formation. Dull grades show the teeth are
gone, the bearings are in fair shape, and the bits are
out of gauge, i.e., the formation is hard and abrasive

ting pattern might be changed, such as using ridge. tQ reduce diamond breakage.
settzng iiiM.q?lleas &zesIn extreme cases, it may be effective to consider a
diamond impregnated bit.
If fracturing is present, it is often a practice
to include a percentage of carbonado diamonds in the
nose and throat to insure against premature bit failure
High formation dip angles may necessitate sacrificing
length of gauge if dropping or building angle is impor
tant.
Finally, how the formation reacts to good bit hyd
raulics will influence the determination of the total
flow area of the bit relative to expected fluid volume
to be used. Keep in mind that parameters often presen
in a diamond bit drilling situation, i.e., deep hole
and higher mud weights, often result inhighhydrostati
pressures which tend to hinder the transfer of drilled
cuttings from the bottom of the hole to the annulus.
Therefore, the use of high hydraulic horsepower at the
bit is even more desirable to insure blasting the cut
material away from the bit so the diamonds can continu
to shear new formation.

For this reason, it is generally best to avoid th


use of shelf bits in planning a motor run. Most
ready-made bits have TFAs and diamond sizes or diamond
quality designed to fit a variety of hydraulic situations. A good motor/diamond bit run includes a parThe evolving study suggests, therefore, a diamond ticular TFA chosen for the job as part of the fine tun
bit for increased downhole time, combined with the big} ing of the combination. Usually this means a TFA is
RPM of a motor for increased ROP. For this application, chosen that is smaller than those on most shelf bits o
a good choice of bit would be one with a moderate taper the same type and size. And, as already mentioned,
and crown profile, combined with a shallow cone. Both diamond size chosen is usually different.
radial and cross pad flow pattern is necessary for gooc
bit cleaning and cooling. Diamond quality is importanl 5) HYDRAULIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS
and the choice of stone size would likely be in the
7-8 spc range. A 3 extended gauge would be specified 6) HOLE/MUD CONDITIONS
to insure gauge protection.
7) MOTOR BEARING BALANCE
This is a fairly typical example of a study for
.,s
cmamona
bit selectmr, 5GX a ~tor run. The process is
the same, however, for rock bit or PCD bit selection.
In each case, after bit selection and configuration is
determined, it may be necessary to do additional cost
analyses to insure the run is economically feasible.

These three factors primarily influence choice of


TFA Qr nozzle selection. Most of the time the influence of any of these factors results in a compromise
of the original choice of bit hydraulics. This does
not mean a resulting poor performance. To the contrary
this final fine tuning results in the best overall
end product.

FORMATIONS
For instance, most modern drilling rigs can provide the additional pressure requirements of a positiv
displacement motor with little or no change in operating parameters. However, on occasion, limitations
by contractors on operating pressures prevent maximizing bit hydraulics. A complete hydraulic system
analysis, including insertions for motor values, may
reveal that additional pressures needed for the motor
run surpass the limits set. Thus, a compromise in TFA
For instance, mud and electric logs may reveal
such lithological properties as chert and pyrite inter- or nozzle selection may be necessary to effect the run
.,
1-:-L -..
.s
especially if fluid flow rates cannot be reduced. In
hr~a~.aqe
if IIOt preIWY
~awe a+.m.i+
------- _
>edaxng ti-nuxl
cases where toca~ prea.siize
6ZQFS &rG mt z limitation ~
?ared for properly. Thin layers of such materials
the only other restriction on bit hydraulics may be
should not warrant abandoning the project, especially
hole/mud conditions or motor bearing balance.
if rock bit life is short and trip time long. A different bit choice might be made, going to a rounder,
Certain hole and mud conditions may also affect
Elatter crown profile for example, and variations in
the choice of~t~
~aparticularbit.
Lost circuiiamond size might be necessary, such as using as
~at-or,~=t-ria~i fQrex~lef
canbe circulated through a
mall as 12-15 SPC set in triple or quadruple rows per
mud motor in limited concentrations, but will require,per
?ad in extremely hard, abrasive formations. ROP may
haps, anything from open nozzles on a rock bit to a
>e sacrificed somewhat, but increased on-bottom time
large TFA on a diamond bit. ObviouslY, serious lost
nay result in significant savings. Finally, the set-

In doing an offset bit record study, a great deal


is learned about how the formation has yielded to previous attempts to drill it. In other words, much is
learned about its relative degree of hardness or softness and its abrasiveness or lack of same. There are
Jther details that may additionally, although subtly,
influence bit design.

156

S. Dver

SPE 12909

circulation could eventually preclude a motor run.


However, in an interim situation, where a run may be
desirable or necessary, it is better to sacrifice some
hydraulics at the bit in order to delay the inevitable
loss of power from LCM clogging the motor or eroding
moving parts.
Excessive expected reaming due to sweiliiigholE,
collapsed hole, or out-of-gauge hole should, ideally,
be remedied prior to making a diamond bit run on a
motor. The relative lack of pressure drop across a
diamond bit off-bottom eliminates the back pressure
needed across most motors to divert a portion of the
drilling fluid through the bearing pack to lubricate
the motor bearing system. In this case, it is often
better to delay a diamond bit run and run rock bits
until hole problems are remedied.
Finally, there is motor bearing balance to conjob objective, bit
sider. Taking into con~ation
size, end formations, coupled with past motor drilling
experience, an approximate range of weight on bit can
be projected that will be used in accomplishing the
assigned task. Once this is determined, a bit pressur
can be recommended that will provide the best balance
between the hydraulic thrust of fluid dynamics and
the weight on bit.
To aid in this tuning of hydraulics and bit
weight, some manufacturers supply Hydraulic Thrust and
Indicated Weight Balance Charts. These charts provide
a means of selecting bit hydraulics for: 1) optimum
bit weight, 2) Minimums or maximums of bit weight, or
3) a satisfactory range of WOB. Thus, by matching
bit hydraulics to the desired objective, the overall
best results can be achieved.
This may mean adjusting recommended bit pressures
to achieve optimum balance and, therefore, maximum onbottom times. In areas where formation homogeneity
and thickness permits, runs of 175-250 hours have become an accepted achievement by employing this technique. Occasionally, optimum balance is not possible,
but a very satisfactory compromise of bit hydraulics
and weight-on-bit can be selected to achieve maximum
ROP while still accomplishing runs of 100-150 hours.
&n~~ ~ it is important to size rock bit nozzles or TFA
selection with the specific motor project in mind.
Consider the following actual case history of a
planned and executed motor run in the Williston Basin:
LOCATION:
CATEGORY:
HOLE SIZE:
FORMATIONS:
DEPTH :
MUD WEIGHT:
FIXED COSTS:

Billings County, North Dakota


Well deepining
4-1/2
Lodgepole, Bakken, Three Forks
9840 to approx. 10,950
10.3 ppg
.$6500/day- .$270.83/hr.

The operator projected trip time to be approximately 1 hr./1000. This meant that drilling the hole by
conventional rotary methods would produce excessivetri~
time coupled with projected short bit life and low footage. It was decided that the primary objective of the
motor run would be to maximize on-bottom drilling time.
Secondary objectives would be to reduce the possibility
-c
s.!
-k:
+-~a
rac~>ltinafrom
twist-offs or lost cone:
UL
LL.,Ll.ilg
..l=
----.
in the hole, and to prevent casing wear. Since thepriobjective
required endurance, it was decided to
~V
consider a diamond bit that had a moderate taper and
rounded crown profile. Working with the bit manufacturer already in contact with the customer, a HYC-730
was selected as likely to provide adequate endurance
and ROP to fit the objective. Initially, 7-8 SPC and
and extended gauge were considered.
Next, a cost analysis was done. (See figures 1 &
2) . Both a 90 and a 120-hour motor/diamond bit run
were considered as conservative minimum and maximum
hours. The more conservative run, the 90-hour run,
was presented to the customer. Projected savings ranged from $34,340 to $49,840. Since very little additional ROP was needed to breakeven with projected rotary
run costs, it was decided to at least consider somewhat
larger diamonds for slightly better ROP.
In this case, it was not possible to study offset
bit records, as there were none in that hole size in
the area. The projected rotary runs of 20 hours at 3/
hr. were extrapolated downward from large diameter runs
in the same formation. This was done in consultation
with the customer.
After considering the projected formations to be
drilled, coupled with the job objective and cost analt
was decided to make some detailed choices in
bit configuration. 5-6 SPC were chosen over 7-8 SPC in
order that some increase in ROP was possible. It was
felt that a 90-hour run could still be achieved, but
since more footage was likely to be made, the cost-perfoot would be less. Also, since some fracturing was
possible, it was decided to include 25-30% carbonado
diamonds in the nose and cone of the bit. Finally, a
3 extended gauge was specified. No chances were to be
taken on an out-of-guage hole and a resulting rock bit
run to bring the hole back to gauge.
A hydraulics system analysis was then completed
using 3000 psi as maximum stand-pipe pressure. Althougk
the operating range for the 3-7/8-Delta1000 is 100150 GPM, it was quickly determined that 120 GPM would
be the maximum flow rate that could be iiseti
zntiremifi
within the contractors requested limitations. No hole
~roblems were expected, and the range of weight-on-bit
to be used was projected to be 6-8000 lbs.

References to the Weight Balance Charts for the


3-7/8 Delta 1000 revealed a needed 800 psi bit pressure drop to run the rectorin the near perfect balance
The initial meeting with the operator revealed:
:onditions. This would have required a TPA of approximately .11. However, there were two problems. One,
Deviation was not a problem. The operator felt maxit is near impossible for a diamond bit manufacturer to
imum 4-1/2 bit life would be 20 hours and it was
aqreed maximum average ROP would not likely be over 3 build a bit to those specs. rwo,there was a desire to
use the maximum flow rate of 120 GPM to develop all
/hr. Considering drill pipe/size was to be 2-7/8,
available motor HP possible. This left only approxthere was some concern regardinq twist-offs, and also
casing wear resulting from pipe whip. A motor/diamonc imately 400 psi in the total hydraulics system for the
bit.
bit run was a likely solution for the concerns. Bit
optimization was the foremost consideration.

DISPLACEMENT MOTORS

Therefore, a TFA of .16 was selected for the job,


flhichcalculated to 411 psi at the bit at 120 GPM.
!lthough this was a compromise of the desired bit hy~r=G~ic5, it W=S felt satisfactoq results could be
%chieved. Referring to the balance charts, it was
determined that although 4200 lbs. WOB would beoptimun
IS much as 8000 lbs. could be run and still be within.
50% of the maximum recommended bearing load for the
notor. (See figure 3 for the final hydraulics analysi
St the projected beginning and ending depths. See fig
...w+.n,.l=w
Ire 4 for the balance chart usea xor -!-:-.
CJ1*=~a.ti.--.-.
application.)
WTOR

bit was re-run and angle again dropped back to 4-3/4?


However, the dull bit was only making 7.6/hr., so
after 32 hours it was pulled. Against reconunendations, another stratapax was run. It made 9.5/hr.
for ~~ hG.GrSSad anale
.>. built back to 6.
Run no. 6:

Bit:
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Deviation:

II.

RUN RESULTS:
9820 - 10,998
1178
9820 - 10,517
179.5 hours drlg.
697 for 3.88/hr. average ROP
RUN #2:
10,517 - 10,998
92 hours drlg.
481 for 5.23/hr. average ROP
BIT USED:
HYC-730, 5-6 SK, .16 TFA, 3 Ext.
Gauge
WOB :
8-1OK -- Run #1
8K -- Run #2
ESTINATED SAVINGS: $59,548 (See figure 5)

SPE 12909

DEPTH :
FOOTAGE :
RUN #1:

CDP MD-331, .40 TFA, 3-4 SPC


6718-9170 -- 2452
223.75 hr. run; 10.9 hr.
Baxter
Angle brought back gradual y to
4-1/26

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formation:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Summit County, Utah


17-1/2
12 Delta 500
Tertiary, upper Cretaceou
LSND, 8.9ppg, llPV
Increase ROP over rotary
and reduce cost-per-foot.

Following are other examples of successful planned


of not-so-successful runs
aS
~~t~r -WLJTIS
and a couple
..
a result of no planning:

RECOMMENDATIONS : Since the motor to be used is a relatively slow-speed motor (125-188 rpm), it was decided to use the same bits as on location. Bit psi
requested was 750-850 psi. GPM requested was 9OO-1OOI
gpm. NOTE : The customer cooperated as fully as possible in compliance with the recommendations. The
criteria set to compete with on this job was the aver
age surface hole parameters accomplished by the customer in that area: 60 hours .oer run, 20.3/hr., $60(
hour fixed costs, 5.5 hours average trip time, averag
~G~t.3az.fe~t ~f $44,25/ft.

CASE HISTORIES

RESULTS :

I.

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor
Formations:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Bit:
Dull :
Footaae:
R;P :
Formation:
cost :

Run No. 1:

Sweetwater County, Wyoming


8-1/2
6-1/2 Delta 1000
Mesaverde, Baxter
LSD 8.55 ppg, 3pv
Control deviation (well on
edge of leaseline) and increase ROP and on-bottom
time if possible.

Run

U?,COMMENDATIONS
: A conventional diamond bit was recommended with a .40 TFA to create a bit psi for a
>alanced motor, and 3-4 SPC for extended bit life.
?rofile was a moderately tapered bit for good devia:ion control. NOTE : At pre-spud meeting with the
:ustomer, the possibility of using a stratapax bit
tas discussed. Motor supplier had mixed feelings
bout bit life due to abrasive sandstones in Mesaverde
md occasional sand stringers in Baxter in that area.
IISO, it was felt that the PCD may be too aggressive
satisfactory deviation control in this situation.
for
lngle prior to job was 5 and rotary ROP was 9.3/hr.
Ln the Mesaverde.
7ESULTS:
Run No. 1:

Bit:
Footaue:
R~P :
Formation:
Deviation:

CDP MD-331, .40 TFA, 3-4 SPC


3270-5712 -- 2442
158.5 hr. run; 15.4/hr.
Mesaverde
Angle dropped from 5--2-1/2

Runs 2-5:
Two stratapax bits were run,
the S~CQEd for 8.5 hours.
the first for 26 Floiirs,
ROP for both was 15.5/hr. Both bits were quickly
dulled out. Angle built back to 5-1/2. The first
1

No.

2:

Bit:

Dull:
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
cost :

HTC X-n, (3)-20s, 740 psj


6-4-1
245-1060 -- 815
14 hr. run; 58.2/hr.
Tertiary
$39.80/ft.
HTC CX-11, Nozzles: 15, (2
-22s, 20, 395 spi
4-6-1/8
1060-2237 -- 1177
21 hr. run, 56/hr.
Upper Cretaceous
#33.oo/ft.

COMMENTS : Although the job was an overall success, it


was felt that even better results could have been
achieved. For instance, 35-55,000 lbs. WOB was used
on the first run at 740 psi bit pressure. ROP was
58.2/hr. On the second run, higher WOBS were used,
45-60,000 lbs., yet ROP was slower-56/hr. It is fell
that the lower bit pressure drop of 395 psi was the
reason for the decrease in ROP. The decision to use
this bit psi was made on site against recommendations
However, it should be noted that unexpected rig problems brought on this change.
III .

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formation:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Moffat County, Colorado


8-3/4
6-1/2 Delta 1000
Mancos, Niobrara
LSND, 9.3ppg, 16pv, 300 gpn
DrGp ~RgIe (primary oblec
tive) while maintaining
adequate RoP.

s.

SPE 12909

RECOMMENDATIONS : The customer had used stratapax bits


on a previous run and had obtained average ROP of 8.9,
hr. It was decided to continue with a stratapax since
the formation was compatible with that type of bit.
However, a bit was chosen with somewhat different configuration: Body material went form a steel body to a
matrix body bit. Gauge material was natural diamond
gauge instead of tungsten carbide gauge. These two
changes insured better bit life under the higher RPM
of the motor. Also, the replacement bit had a somewhat shallower cone, a flatter nose, and a shorter
qauge for ability to drop angle. Since it was expectel
that very light WOB would be used due to formation dip
angles, it was decided to compromise bit hydraulics for
motor bearing balance. A TFA of .38 was recommended.
(However, a TFA of .45 was used.)

shale, and siltstones present in the Fort Union, and


that the RPMs of the motor should provide adequate
ROP . Deviation was at 4-3/4. NOTE : The run immediately previous to this one used the identical type
of .D~t. RC)P-Wss -1A . Q 9,l~,z.FCX
run: only
~he
p.~k~r
bit configuration was altered. Rotary cost-per-foot
was approximately .$125.00/ft.

RESULTS :

COMNENTS : Even though relatively light WOB was used


to control deviation (5000 lbs.), an increase in ROP
of 58% was realized over the same type of diamond
bit on rotary.

Run No. 1:

Bit:
Dul1:
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Deviation:

Run No. 2:

Bit:
Dull :
Fmtacje:

ROP :
Formation:
Deviation:
NOTE :

Run No. 3:

Bit:
Dull :
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Deviation:

RESULTS :

Dull :
Footage:
Rol?:
Deviation:
cost :

CDP R-40, .45 T17A,300 psi


Good condition, 20% worn
4119-5204 -- 1085
109 hr. run; 9.9/hr.
Mancos
Angle gradually dropped from
7-1/4to 3-1/3
CDP R-40, .45 TFA, 325 psi
Green
~~Qgl-604h *
91 hr .~ ;.~-6~:; .
Mancos-Niobrara
Angle dropped from 3-1/4 to
20.
Tripped prematurely for hole
in drill pipe
RR of bit above
Good, 20% worn
6044-6750 -- 706
74-1/2 hr. run; 9.4/hr.
Niobrara
Held to 2-1/2 maximum

v.

Job Objective:

cm) ND-331, .18 TFA, 5-6


SPC
Bit in good condition
6557-7424 -- 867
11A
*4.
-Z

h.LA

nun

~a~~~lhr.

---

Angle dropped from 4-3/4


to 2*.
Approximately $86.00/ft.

Johnson County, Wyoming


4-3/4
3-7/8 Delta 1000
Frontier, Mowry, Muddy,
Skull Creek
Dispersed, 9.1-11.5ppg, 1929pv
Reduce casing wearandchancc
of twist-off while drilling
hole to total depth.

RECOMMENDATIONS : A moderately tapered crown, moderate


cone angle bit was recommended, with a .16 TFA, and set
with 5-6 SPC. The type of bit and recommended configuration was chosen primarily for endurance as the customer hoped to drill to TD in one run.
NOTE : Before running in the recommended bit, a PCD bit
run was made on the motor in the Frontier. The TFA on
this bit was .30, creating a bit pressure drop of only
aPProx*tely
70 psi. It was hoped the shearing actior
of the bit would complete the hole before the bit wore
out. (The bit wore out in 42 hours drilling time afte~
making 158 feet for an average ROP of 3.7/hr,) After
this run, a cement pumping truck was brought to location so that adequate pressures were available to drill
the remaining portion of the hole.

CASE HISTORIES #4
Fremont Countyr Wyoming
6,,

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formations:
Mud :

COMMENTS : The objective was accomplished,as angle was


7-1/4
to
2.
?.0?Y2S rmt only
dropped evenly fr~~l
but increase slightly--in spite of the
maintained,
fact that only 1-3000 lbs. drilling weight was used in
~r4=Z ~~ drCP =z31e. NQte fhat the second bit was run
RESULTS :
twice totalling 1546 and 165.5 hrs. Had the recommended TFA of .38 been avaihbie, R@? iillelyWO-UltiFIaG-e
been higher.

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formation:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Bit:

Bit:
Dull :
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:

...
HYC 730T, .lbTFA, 5-6 SPC,
315 psi
20% worn
11,985-12,706 -- 721
138.5 hr. run; 5.2/hr.
Mowry, Muddy, Skull Creek

COMMENTS : Rotary table speed was limited to 30-35 RPM,


The well was completed with no significant casing wear
and no twist-offs.

3-7/8 Delta 1000


Fort Union
Oil base, 10.2ppg, 15pv
Decrease deviation and maintain
an acceptable ROP.

VI.

RJ3CONWENDATIONS: A conventional diamond bit was


-L---- .
s+. +.ner.
C1lU==I1
-..4*l.
-G.La mderu-.-=--, r~unded crown profiler
and a relatively shallow cone angle. A .18 TFA was
chosen as a compromise between good bit hydraulics
and motor balance as it was projected that WOB would
be in the 4-6000 lb. range. It was felt that 5-6
SPC would provide good bit life in the sandstones,
159

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formations:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Sublette County, Wyoming


7-7/8
6-1/2 Delta 1000
Mesaverde, Hilliard,
Frontier
LSND, 8.9PPg, i~pV
Hold Deviation while increasing ROP and on-bottom
time.

BIT OPTIMIZATION FOR POS

RECOMMENDATIONS : Conventional diamond bit for medium


formations, fairly heavy set with plenty of gauge protection to handle the sands present in part of these
formations. A TFA of .38 was included in hydraulics
recommendations combined with 3-4 SPC diamond size.
NOTE : The two previous runs immediately prior to the
motor run with journal bearing insert bits averaged
286/run at 66.25 hrs/run for an average ROP of 4.3/hr

Bit:

Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Survey:
Run No. 2:

Bit:

Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Survey:
Run No. 3:

Bit:

Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Survey:
Run No. 4:

Bit:
Footage:
ROP :
Formation:
Survey:

ACC Shrew II, .42 TFA, 3-4


SPC, 467 psi
3471-4254 -- 783
103.25 hr. run; 7.6/hr.
Mesaverde
4255 1 1
CDP ND-331, .40 TFA, 2-3
SPC, 590 psi
4254-5545 -- 1331
198 hr. run; 6.7/hr.
Mesaverde, Hilliard
5538 / 2

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formation:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Bit:
Dull:
Footage:
ROP :
cost :

VIII :

Acc Shrew II, .42 TFA, 3-4


~p~, 457 psi
5545-6531 -- 986
164.5 hr. run; 6.4/hr.
Hilliard
6512 / 1-1/4

ACC Armadillo 2T, .30 TFA,


2-3 SPC, 250 psi
Throat ringed out, nose
stones damaged
13,317-13,459 -- 142
42 hr. run; 3.3/hr.
$319.86/ft.

Location:
Hole Size:
Motor:
Formation:
Mud :
Job Objective:

Uinta County, Wyoming


6-1/4
5 Delta 1000
Twin Creek
LSND, 8.6ppg, 14PV
Mininize casing wear,
while increasing ROP and
on-bottom time.

RECOMMENDATIONS : Recommendations were primarily as


for the previous job. A .28 TFA was recommended.
NOTE : The customer cooperated with almost all recommendations. However, the customer chose a bit
with a slightly more tapered profile than recommended
and one size larger stones. However, the stones were
set in double rows as recommended and the throat and
gauge were set heavier for wear protection. Diamond
quality was primarily West African.

RR of No. 3
6531-7545 -- 1014
211 hr. run; 4.8/hr.
Hilliard, 1st Frontier
7545 / 1-1/2

COMWENTS : Although deviation control was the prime


objective in this job, the cost-per-foot for the motor
run, $118.79/ft., was very close to that of rotary
drilling at $116.76/ft. WOB used in this application
averaged only 5-10,000 lbs. and yet ROPS were higher41% higher- than those of rotary. Note that in spite
of larger diamonds used in the second run, ROP did not
increase.
VII.

RESULTS :

SPE 12909

COMMENTS : Reduction of casing wear was accomplished,


but it certainly would not be appropriate to consider
the run successful. The bit, run against recommendations, had a sharper entry design than recommended
and a deeper cone. It was not beefed up in the throa
or gauge. Quality of diamonds used is not known. Th,
overall effect was short bit life and slow ROP, resul.
ting in an ineffective and expensive run. By contras
note the following case history in which similar conditions were present:

RESULTS :
Run No. 1:

[VE DISPLACEMENT MOTORS.

Summit County, Utah


6-1/4
5 Delta 1000
Twin Creek
LSND, 8.6ppg, 11P?
Minimizing casing wear while
maintaining or increasing
ROP .

RECOMMENDATIONS : A medium-hard formation bit was recommended with a relatively shallow cone angle. 3-4
SPC were recommended, set in double rows per pad for
longer bit life, and diamond grit was recommended in
the throat and gauge rows along with a 3 extended
gauge. A TFA of .30 was recommended and diamond quality recommendations were for West African Premium diamonds. Previous rotary runs were averaging 183 in
28 hours for an average ROP of 6.55/hr. Cost-perfoot was $126.23/ft. NOTE: Without proper analysis,
an alternate bit choice was made.

RESULTS:

Bit:
Dull :
Footage:
ROP :
cost :

HYC901T, .28 TFA, 2-3 SPC


370 psi
Partial wear, stones flat
in nose
12,862-13,504 -- 642
90 hr. run; 7.13/hr.
$145.17/ft.

CONMENTS : Previous rotary run in this area were aver


aging as high as 30 hours at 6.3/hr. Costs-per-foot
were approximately S145.37/ft. This run was consider
ably cost-effective and, of course, doesnt even take
into account the saved liner wear. Note that the bit
was heavier set, i.e., more total carat weight, and
did not ring out as the previous example did. Also,
hydraulics at the bit were much better. Perhaps the
slightly less tapered bit recommended, with one size
smaller stones, would have achieved much greater bit
life with little sacrifice in ROP. If that were the
case, even greater cost-effectiveness would be achiev
ed due to the increased downhole time. Regardless,
these last two examples serve to demonstrate well how
subtle changes in bit specifications can affect performance.
CONCLUSION
It i$ important to understand the relationship of bit
design to a motor drilling application. Sufficient
information must be analyzed during the planning stages of a drilling program and used as a base in developing bit type and configuration guidelines that

s. Dyer
I

sPE 12909
)
I

I
The

will

best accomplish the motor run objective.


consequence will be suPerior Perfo~ce
and nCreased
:Ost-efficiency. If desired, additional guidance may
>e obtained from motor company technical support staff.

DATE:

QRILLIHG
Bit

Cost.

w/MOTOR

CONVENTIONAL

CONDITIONS
.

-BC

2720.00

Operating

Orilling
Trip

Cost/Hr.

Hours.
Flours.

.
.

Footage/Footage

Conventional

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

Proposed

FC

&3

DC

20

Bc

2720

.
.

..0.

FID

6800.00

RC

270.83

.RD

I.<l- /.9
+U>.UL

DC

20

.DD

10

c .

*TD

10

60

. . . . . . . . . F~

.TC
FC

3.0

+ RC

270.93

ROP

cO17Vf2ntiOnal

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total

5/83

36o

/hr.

(Dc

20

TC

10

Cost/Foot
FC
C/F
Breakeven
Footage

= $

60

180.74Ift.

(( RD465.62)

(DD

90 )) +

(( Rc270.83
C/F

BF

Breakeven
Penetration

285.57

= BF

286

DD
Anticipated

(TD~))

(B06800

180.74

3.17

hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...=

190.74 /ft.

90

ROP w/Motor

ANTICIPATED

20)

/ft.

4.0/hr

AnticipatedSavingsw/Motor
TOTAL

=
SAVINGS

=
Fig.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

143.37
30.39

1130x 30.30/ft
.............. = $34340.00_

lDrilling

cost analysisExample

1.

/ft.
/ft.

DEP2S:

MUD WC:

9920

9.00
~;!o ~-------------

-----------

GPlL4-----------ACCUM D
P-DROP
P-DROP

.-------------1010

FLOW RATE :

ACCUM D

P-DROP P-DROP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LSNGTH

DATE :

DRILLING
sit
.

cost .

..

Total

Opsrating

Orilling
Trip

C.ast/Hr.

Hours .

Hours

.
.

FootagelFootage

Conventional
ROP

cOnvent iOnal
Cost/Foot

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

~c

60

Oc

20

EC

272o,

Prormsed

Bc2720.

270.83

. RC

. no.

..R0

..oo.~

..

oo.

..oc

20.....

..

Tc

. Fc

lo.....
60

465.62

0~
BIT4
-------------

TOTAL

To.

lo

. F,o,

270.83

(OC

FC

360.98
256.54
191.07

LNR/MTR
LNR/DC
LNR/DP

ON BlT4
------------

1.39
339.37
22!3.03
92.56

BORE VSL

1.39
340.66
563.69
656.25

1.95
476.23
313. D7
92.56

482.48
1307.20

ACCUM rD
ANN VEL
P-DROP
P-DROP
------------------------------------5.24
42.21
2,34.90,

661.49
703.70
938.60

-.
.

938.60

58.50
245. OIL
525.00

997.10
1242.11
1867.11

100 GPM

BEARINGS
BIT PRESSURE
MOTOR 143AOED

48o

ACCUM aD
P-DROP
P-DROP
,------------------

433.17
307.85
217.28
@

1.95
479.19
791.26
883.82

120 GPM

7.35
59.24
329.73

891.17
950.42
1280.15

1280.15

88.38
352.82
625.00

1368.53
1721.35
2346.35

2346.35

TOTAL

/hr.

3.0

+ RC

ANN VSL
ANNULUS
------------------------------------

6800.00

402.07
1089.33

9820

w/ HOTOR
.

CONVENTIONAL

CONOITION5

SE
DP
cc
MTR
BIT

9256
540
23
----1
----

5/8?

sORE vEL

elms

+TC

20

10

DEPTH :

1B67 .11

100 GPM

MUD w,

10900
--------------100

120 GPMI

10.50

-----------1.20 GEM-----------ACCUM ,D
BDRB OsL
P -DROP
B0P33 VEi,
P-DROIP
P-ORDP
P-DRDP
LsNGTS
Boss
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ------FLOW RATS :

60

GIPM-----------

ACCOM D

C/F

180.74

Breakeven
Footage

(( R0465.62)

8F

Ift.

(oO&))

((RC~

Cl~

Breakeven
Penetration

m
-u
m
w
%0

362.85

BF

363

00

120

(TO&))

ROP w/HOtOr

Anticipated

5avi ngs @40tor

.0

4,01hr

sAVINGS

1080
9256
540
23
-----1
-----

180.74

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -$
1130 X 44. I!/ft

F@. Z-Drilling

..... .. ... .... -

sost analy8is-Example

SE
DP
DP
Dc
MTR
BIT

+ (Bo~)

Ift.

Antlcipsted

TOTAL A~\ClpATEO

+ 20)

2.

180.74

Ift.

1:)6.63

Ift.

44.11

/ft.

$49?144.00

402.07
402.07
1089.33

1.69
48.04
4,11.71
2!70.65
1.12.33

1.69
49.73
461.43
732.08
844.41

10900
ACCUM D
ANN VEL ------------------------------------------P-DROP
ANN VBL
P-OROP
ANNuLus
----------------------------OR/MTR
OH/CC
OH/DP
LNR/DP
LNR/DP

468.49

306.53
204.62
181.07
181.07

13.62
95.55
22.42
:269.16
33.26

ltWAL OFF B?74


-------------

1268.42

100 GPM

68.2!5
285. S5
625.00

BEARINGS
BIT PRSSSURE
MDTOR m2+om

100 GPM

120 GPM

2247.51

Fig. 3Hydraulics rewrt.

19.12
120.09
31.47
377.82
46.69

11 S9.02
1279.16
1310.63
1688.45
1735.14

1735.14

103.11
411.62
625.00

1336.67
1622.51
2247.51

-----------octal
ON BTU
------------

2.37
69.80
647.71
1027.62
1139.95

ACCUM ID
P-DROP
P-DROP
---------------------

562 .1S
367.83
245.54
217.28
217.28

95B.03
943.58
965.99
1235.16
1268.42

-------------

2.37
67.43
577.91
379.91
112.33

482.48
482.48
1307.20

120 GPM

1838.25
2249.817
2874 .e17

2874. U7

Fig., 4Hydraulic

thrust and indicated weight balance.

This

Cost

Analysis

was

calculated

for

the

section

of

hole

drilled

with

3-7j8 motor in a 4-1/2 hole.


Rotary

cost

footage

was

calculated

was 60 ft.;

using

an

the daily fixed

estimated
operating

bit life of 20 hours; average


cost used was $270.83 per

hour.

ROTARY COST:
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2720.00
Total Operating Cost/Hour ............................. 270.83
20 hrs.
Drilling Hours ....................& ...................
10 hrs.
Trip Hours ............................................
60 Ft.
Footage. ..............................................

Bit

ROTARY COST/FOOT = $180.74

MOTOR RUN COST/FOOT for section of hole drilled:


Depth In .............................................. 9820 ft.
Depth Out .............................................10998 ft.
Total Footage ......................................... 1178 ft.
I-n-*.l
n--+ll
<n
Unll-rc
LuLaLuLAL-LAJ.y
..=.-
. . . . . . . . = :: * ==.*----. . . . . . . . . . . . 271.5 hrs.
Total Circulating Hours. .............................. 9.5 hrs.
21 hrs. (3 trips)
Trip Hours. ..................... .....................
Daily Operating Cost... ............................... $270.83
(2 bits)
Bit Cost .............................................$13600.00

MOTOR RUN COST/FOOT =


(Bit cost) + [(Rig Oper. cost) (Drlg.&Circ.&Trip) 1 + (Motorman

charges)

Footage Drilled
(13,600) + [($270.83) (302)] + ($57,974.75)
1178 ft.
MOTOR RUN COST/FOOT

$130.19

ROTARY COST/FOOT

$180.74

SAVINGS FOR SECTION DRILLED

$59,547.90

Fig. 5-Postjob

cost analysis.

SP E129L9