IADC/SPE 81626

Does Underbalanced Drilling Really Add Reserves?

Randall Cade, SPE,Weatherford International, Inc.; Ringys Kirvelis, SPE, Minijos Nafta; and Jeffrey Jennings, GeoResources Inc.

Copyright 2003, IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2526 March 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC,
SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom
the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Underbalanced drilling in its various forms has been used in
the oil and gas industry for more than 20 years. A growing
body of technical publications documents the mechanics and
advantages of underbalanced drilling (UBD) technology,
including details related to casing sizes, circulation rates,
depths, rate of penetration, etc. There are also many mentions
in the literature of resultant well productivity improvements.
In contrast, there is little written in the literature about what
contribution UBD makes to reserves and ultimate recovery.
This paper provides a basis for considering the
reserve contributions of UBD technology. The six reservoir
case histories presented here document tangible reserves
attributable to the three key reservoir-related benefits of UBD:
improved reservoir access, reduced skin damage, and better
ability to evaluate the reservoir while drilling.
Assessment of UBD-related incremental reserves
In this paper we attempt to put a value on UBD by assessing
reserves added using this technology.
Our procedure for estimating reserves attributable to
UBD operations is simple. If a conventional development
scheme will recover economic reserves of X bbls, and a UBD
scheme will recover economic reserves of 1.5X, then the
portion of the reserves attributable to UBD is 0.5X reserves.
To calculate the reserves attributable to UBD
rigorously, one should look at all reasonable development
schemes, the associated well and field recoveries, the costs
and associated reserves, and the resulting economics. In the
cases below, we have insufficient information to attribute
reserves rigorously, but we do have enough information to
make reasonable inferences about incremental economic
reserves attributable to UBD techniques.
This practical method of considering reserve
contribution does not address recovery factor. However, we

discuss recovery factor where information is available.

In most of the case histories discussed below, UBD is
used in partially depleted fields to revive production. UBD
also is often a crucial element of a larger system, as shown by
four of the case histories in which UBD is used in conjunction
with horizontal drilling. Neither horizontal nor UBD by itself
could produce the reserves that the two can when combined.
A more complex example of the use of UBD is seen
in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, which are most often
undertaken in mature fields with semi-depleted reservoirs.
The total system to achieve incremental recovery comprises
infill wells and surface facilities to inject a fluid or gas. If
wells cannot be drilled successfully in a depleted field without
UBD, then UBD becomes an enabling technology crucial to
the success of the entire EOR project. As such, it is
reasonable to assign UBD a value equal to a portion of the
entire project value or project reserves.
Types of reserves additions
The incremental reserves cited in this paper are rooted in three
fundamental benefits of UBD:
a)

Reduced formation damage. Reduction in skin may

manifest itself in several ways, most of which are
difficult to predict accurately with the tools currently
available. In a qualitative sense, reduced skin
increases recovery by:
- allowing more intervals within a
producing zone to contribute;
- lowering abandonment pressure; and
- lowering the net pay cutoff.

b)

Improved access. UBD techniques make it possible

to drill wells in circumstances where conventional
drilling techniques do not work.
This was found to be the single biggest contributor to
reserves in the case histories considered here. In
many cases, UBD was used in underpressured or
partially depleted reservoirs only after conventional
wells proved expensive and unsuccessful.

c)

Reservoir evaluation while drilling. Many wellsite

geologists can cite cases where productive zones
have been missed completely because they were
drilled overbalanced. They looked good on a log,
but were not tested because of lack of shows, or
because they produced little or nothing when tested.

IADC/SPE 81626

Drilling through the same zone underbalanced may

reveal a completely different story, as shown in case
history 5 below (Lithuania), in which an entirely
new producing zone was discovered while drilling
underbalanced. In this case, we counted the reserves
of the new zone as attributable to UBD.
Most commonly, the reserve improvement derives
from a combination of the three benefits listed above. There
are fewer cases where the reserve increment comes from a
single aspect; for example, reduction in formation damage
(case history 3) and reservoir evaluation (case history 5).
Case Histories
The case histories below have several common features:
- UBD was used in an existing producing field.
-

Conventional well practices resulted in well

construction problems (e.g. lost circulation), or skin
damage and productivity loss, or both.

Operators often used UBD only after trying a myriad

of conventional and often costly drilling techniques
such as light weight fluid, lost circulation material,
etc.

Every operator clearly recognized a learning curve

for UBD cost and time; multiple wells are needed to
rise to the level of efficient and optimized operation.

Case History 1 Pearsall Field, West Texas

The Pearsall field of West Texas has been produced for 70
years. More than two thousand wells have been drilled,
producing more than 150 million barrels of oil (MMBO). This
multilayered chalk reservoir at 5000 to 8000 ft depth produces
primarily from fractures.
Caldwell and Heather documented four stages of
development in this field from 1936 to present, related to
technology and oil price: (1) use of open hole completions and
nitroglycerine (1936-1941); (2) open hole completions with
acid and fracturing (1948 to 1956); (3) cased hole completions
with fracturing, with drilling stimulated by higher oil prices
(1975 to 1980); and (4) underbalanced horizontal drilling
(1989 to 1991).
Each of these development phases were characterized
by additional drilling and increased production.
The
production curves from the last two phases are shown in
Figure 1.
The authors attribute the most recent production
boost (1989-1991) to UBD and horizontal wells. UBD in this
case refers to flow drilling: drilling with water and a rotating
head, and allowing the well to flow oil and gas during drilling.
Table 1 quantifies the reserve addition associated
with each phase. It is striking to note that the 4th phase (UBD
+ horizontal) has contributed more reserves (80 MMBO) than
the other three phases combined (70 MMBO).
Lets examine the contribution of the two
technologies associated with the fourth phase: horizontal and
underbalanced technology. Drilling horizontal wells reduced

the risk of dry holes by intersecting multiple fracture sets to

increase productivity. (Vertical wells also could be large
producers but the intersection of high productivity fractures
was almost solely by chance.)
Underbalanced technology, the other contributor, was
the enabling technology that allowed the horizontal wells to be
drilled. Prior to UBD, attempts to drill horizontally met with
poor success due to lost circulation, occasional production
kicks, and stuck pipe. Some plugging of fractures with mud
and cuttings probably also reduced productivity. UBD
minimized mud losses, reduced the risk of stuck pipe, and
essentially eliminated lost time due to kicks.
Clearly, the last Pearsall production boom was
attributable to the inseparable combination of horizontal wells
and UBD (flow drilling). One technology without the other
would not have worked in this reservoir setting.
The inseparability of the two technologies makes it
difficult to attribute reserves independently to either. In the
absence of a firm method for attributing reserves, we propose
to attribute reserves equally: 40 MMBO for horizontal
technology and 40 MMBO for UBD. One may argue that the
proportions are skewed in favor of one or the other, but clearly
the contribution of UBD is large.
Case History 2 Carthage Field
The Carthage field, discovered in 1936, produces from several
zones, including the Lower Pettit limestone at about 6000 ft.
depth. The Lower Pettit, covering about 267,000 acres and
developed with 470 wells, contained an estimated 4 trillion
cubic feet (TCF) gas in place, of which about 2.8 TCF had
been produced up to 1996. As of January 1996, 199 wells
were producing about 34 million standard cubic feet per day
(MMCFD), or about 170 thousand standard cubic feet per day
(MCFD) per well. The other wells had been abandoned due to
subeconomic production rates, typically less than 60 MCFD.
In the mid 90s, Oxy recognized the potential for
reducing reservoir abandonment pressure by drilling an
undamaged horizontal well. A target area in the Frost A
interval of the Lower Pettit was chosen for its favorable
characteristics: good homogeneity, lack of faulting, moderate
thickness (34 ft.), and good porosity and permeability (18%,
35 millidarcies). The challenging aspect of drilling here was
the low reservoir pressure, which had been reduced to 210
pounds per sqare inch (psi). Drilling a horizontal well in this
environment would obviously be a challenge, keeping skin
damage to a minimum, even more so.
The unit chosen for drilling was the 640-acre Pirkle
production unit, which had an existing vertical producer with
estimated remaining reserves of 1031 MMCF in the Lower
Pettit. The state regulatory authority granted a spacing
exception to allow a horizontal well to be drilled on the unit.
The operator justified the well by estimating that it
would produce an incremental 372 MMCF from the Pirkle
unit by lowering the abandonment pressure from 111 psi to 58
psi. The rationale was as follows: Offset vertical wells were
calculated to have a 30 to 50 psi drawdown at an assumed
economic limit of 75 MCFD, and an abandonment pressure of
111 psi. If a horizontal well could be drilled with no skin, its
drawdown was estimated at about 10 psi. The resulting flow
characteristics would achieve a reservoir abandonment

IADC/SPE 81626

pressure of 58 psi.
The operator considered four methods of drilling
through the reservoir: a traditional mud system, a calcium
carbonate system, foam, and air. Because of the perceived
difficulty of drilling substantially overbalanced through this
210 psi reservoir and repairing resulting skin damage, the
operator chose the air system. The advantages of this system
were cited as no fluid invasion, faster drilling rates, and
minimal overbalance.
After drilling conventionally to just above the
reservoir and setting 7 inch casing, the reservoir was drilled
horizontally using air and a 6 inch hole. After 750 ft of
lateral drilling, progress slowed and air returns were lost.
Upon pulling the drill string, cuttings were found to be caked
around the drill pipe, and the well began flowed at 1.5 to 2.5
MMCFD at a surface pressure of 160 psi. Drilling was
continued with a stiff foam, ultimately achieving a horizontal
length of 1432 ft., of which 1200 ft. were considered to be
through high porosity rock.
A flow and buildup test conducted after 97 days
indicated that the desired drawdown of less than 10 psi was
achieved, suggesting low or zero skin damage. After 150 days
of production, the well was producing at a rate of 1260 MCFD
with 19 barrels condensate per day.
By February 2002, the horizontal well had produced
3 billion cubic feet (BCF), and was still producing at an daily
rate of 1500 MCFD. The average rate for the nearly seven
years of production was 1250 MCFD. One may surmise that
the drainage area of the well is considerably greater than that
of a comparable vertical well, and consequently that the well
is draining gas from outside its production unit. Even so, the
well has overachieved its expected recovery by nearly a factor
of 10.
As with the previous case history, the technologies
that allowed this success to be achieved were horizontal and
UBD. Both were necessary to drill this well into a very lowpressured reservoir and achieve a high recovery. In the
absence of a better method for allocation, we propose that half
of the incremental reserves should be allocated to each
technology. Using recovery to date of 2.8 BCF, and
subtracting the 0.37 BCF of planned incremental recovery,
this equates to 1.2 BCF of incremental recovery attributable to
UBD (with the other 1.2 BCF attributable to horizontal
technology).

With this low reservoir pressure (equivalent to 2.9

ppg), recent wells drilled with conventional mud systems had
experienced losses to the formation. In addition, the fluid
invasion damaged the formation and reduced production rates.
The operator considered several drilling fluid alternatives,
including foam, and decided to drill the well with natural gas
misted with diesel. Given the reservoir temperature of 350 F,
and the presence of 100 to 700 ppm H2S, all well operations
had to be planned with great care.
After setting 7 5/8 inch casing above the Norphlet,
the 10-11 #4 well pay section was drilled out with a 6 inch
bit using 2600 standard cubic feet per minute gas and 25
gallons per minute diesel. The well achieved 25 MMCFD
while drilling, and was producing 16 MMCFD and 800 barrels
condensate per day after completion. As of Feb 2002, it had
produced over 11 BCF and 550 thousand barrels oil (MBO).
Figure 2 shows production of the UBD well
compared to production for five offset wells. (Oil and
condensate production from the wells are combined into a
single value of thousands of barrels of oil equivalent
(MBOE).) All the wells are crestal wells in the same or
adjacent sections, and all wells except the 10-11 #4 were
drilled conventionally. The decline curves indicate at that the
10-11 # 4 well achieved several times the initial rate of the
other wells drilled in the 90s. This is all the more impressive
when one considers that the reservoir pressure when 10-11 #4
was drilled was lower than for wells drilled in previous years.
Cumulative production plots (Figures 3 and 4, also in
MBOE)) clearly show the outstanding performance of the 1011 #4 UBD well. Figures 2 and 4 suggests that the 10-11 #4
UBD well performed as well as the 10-3 #1 well drilled 10
years before.
By February 2002, the 10-11 #4 well had produced
roughly 1000 MBOE more than the more typical wells 3-14
#2 and 15-5 #1. For purposes of crediting reserves to UBD,
we assume that the incremental reserves recovered by the 1011 #4 well was half of the difference between its cumulative
recovery to date and that of more typical wells 3-14 #2 and
15-5 #1; that difference is equivalent to 500 MBOE. It could
be argued given the low reservoir pressure at which this well
was drilled that 75% or more of the incremental reserves could
be attributable to UBD. If one assumes 3, 5, or 10 more years
of field life with wells maintaining their current trend, the
incremental benefit will be several times greater.

Case History 3 Hatters Pond

Hatters Pond in Alabama is a gas condensate field at
a depth of 18,000 ft, producing from the Norphlet dolomite
and Smackover sandstone. This field was discovered in 1974
and has produced 210 BCF and 50 million barrels condensate
up to 1999.
The original reservoir pressure was 9200 psi, but by
1999 it had reached an average pressure of 2700 psi, a
blowdown phase. Gas injection had been used in previous
years to maximize condensate recovery by maintaining
reservoir pressure.
The 18 producing wells averaged 100 to 400 barrels
condensate per day and 3 to 6 MMCFD in 1999. Using UBD
technology, the operator hoped to exceed those rates in a new
well.

Case History 4- Rhourde El Baguel

Rhourde El Baguel, one of the largest fields in Algeria, was
was discovered in 1962 and produced 430 million barrels of
oil (15% of oil in place) up to 1995. Peak production occurred
in 1968 with 94,000 barrels oil per day (BOPD) being
produced from 17 wells. Production in 1995 was 25,000
BOPD from 21 wells.
This highly undersaturated reservoir had an original
pressure of 5750 psi, with a bubble point of 2390 psi.
Reservoir pressure had declined to approximately 2000 psi by
the mid 1990s.
The operator, SONARCO, planned to implement an
(EOR) project using lean gas injection. Additional wells on
approximately 160-acre spacing were required to create the 11
nine-spot injection patterns to implement the project. The

operator estimated that EOR could recover an additional 500

MMBO, equating to about 35% of the oil in place.
The operator started the infill program with
conventional wells, using a light weight oil-based mud. Even
with this low-density fluid, an overbalance of roughly 1900
psi resulted. Problems ensued, including lost circulation, stuck
pipe, abandoned coring attempts, inability to achieve the
planned total depth of the well, and significant skin damage.
Lost circulation material and sized calcium carbonate were
tried without success. Costs for the overbalanced (OB) wells
ranged from roughly $US 1865 to 6000 per meter drilled,
averaging $3520 per meter over the nine-well program.
At this point, the operator sought a more costeffective method of drilling and decided upon underbalanced
drilling using foam after considering several options. The
logistics involved in mobilizing UBD equipment to a remote
location in the Sahara was a significant challenge.
More than 27 wells were drilled with foam, including
two of the wells that had been suspended during the
overbalanced drilling program. The UBD wells were much
more successful in meeting the objectives of the project,
including reaching the desired total depth, coring, logging, and
low skin factor.
It is clear that there is a learning curve in applying
UBD techniques. Ref. 8 does an excellent job of documenting
this for cost and rate of penetration, as well as compiling a list
of lessons learned. Cost for the underbalanced wells averaged
$3974/meter, but the last nine UBD wells cost less than the
lowest cost overbalanced well, which had cost $1865/m.
Costs for the last several UBD wells averaged $1253/m.
In terms of allocating a value to UBD techniques, it is
clear that the EOR project would have been marginal at best
using conventional drilling techniques. Only after adopting
UBD techniques were wells created that could allow the
project to move forward economically. Considering that the
remaining recoverable reserves were 500 MMBO, a
considerable portion of this should be attributed to UBD
techniques. For purposes of this discussion, we shall
conservatively suggest 20% or 100 MMBO attributable to
UBD. As with the cases above, its easy to argue that the
portion attributable to UBD is larger or smaller, but its clear
that the UBD contribution is nevertheless significant.
Case history 5- Lithuania
UBD has found recent success in the Gargdzai region
of Western Lithuania. During the period 1966 to 1994, 8 to 10
vertical wells were drilled conventionally in six fields. The
producing reservoir was the Middle Cambrian Sandstone at a
depth of 6300 to 6600 ft, having a thickness of 200 to 250 ft.
Although the wells were completed as producers, initial rates
were low, typically less than 130 BOPD, and declines were
rapid due to lack of aquifer pressure support. Subsequent
analysis suggested that conventional drilling caused water
blocking, pore-throat plugging, and swelling clays, all of
which contributed to the low productivity.
Minos Nafta became operator of the fields in 1996,
and began trying different methods to improve productivity,
including fracturing, diesel as a drilling fluid, horizontal wells,
and UBD. In this discussion we will consider three fields:
Peitu Siupariai, Diegliai, and Pociai. With eight conventional-

IADC/SPE 81626

ly drilled producers as a starting point, the operator drilled one

vertical well and five horizontal/high angle wells underbalanced.
Field production had peaked at about 2000 BOPD in
1997, prior to drilling UBD. By mid 2001, after UBD, field
production exceeded 8400 BOPD and was rising. Several of
the wells produced 2000 to 4000 BOPD while drilling, and
one well, D-8, became the most prolific well in Lithuanian
history. The well reportedly produced at rates of up to 5601
bbl/day and a cumulative volume of 43,197 bbl during
drilling.
One well, the PS-2, demonstrates the reservoir
evaluation aspect to UBD. Prior to drilling, the uppermost
zone in this well was not thought to be productive; in offset
wells and fields this zone was drilled through without
detecting any hydrocarbons because of the high mud weights
used. Drilling underbalanced through this zone, however,
produced 4000 BOPD during the drilling, a 30-fold increase
compared to offset well G-7. Drilling was suspended and the
well was completed after 5 meters of penetration due to the
prolific oil influx.
Table 2 presents oil reserves in Pietu Siupariai and
Degliai fields before and after the UBD horizontal wells were
drilled in 2000 and 2001, three in Pietu Siupariai, one in
Degliai. The EUR estimates, derived from decline curve
analysis, show an increase of reserves of 2.3 MMBO and 1.6
MMBO for Pietu Siupariai and Degliai, respectively. Thats
an improvement of five to ten fold! Similar improvements in
EUR are estimated in Pociai field also. UBD technology in
combination with horizontal wells truly unlocked the potential
of these fields.
Case history 6 Wayne field, North Dakota
The Wayne Field in Williston Basin produces 28
API oil from the Mission Canyon formation, a fractured
carbonate reservoir at a depth of 4,000 feet. This 15 to 20 ft.
thick reservoir averages 24% porosity and 100 millidarcies
permeability. The original reservoir pressure, 1900 psi in
1957, had dropped to about 900 psi by 1994 when the
operators development effort commenced.
The reservoirs active bottom-water drive mechanism
quickly became evident in the pattern of production. The
original vertical wells showed an initial production of 70
BOPD, but the oil cut declined rapidly over the first year and
stabilized at 10 BOPD (90% water cut). By the end of 1985, a
total of 33 of these vertical wells were on production, and
through 1994 the field produced 2.5 MMBO and 24 million
barrels of water, equating to a recovery factor of only 10.4%.
Decline curve analysis indicated that the EUR would be about
3.5 MMBO (106 MBO EUR per well), or only about 14.6% of
the original oil in place.
The dramatic and quick increase in water cut in these
wells was evidence of water coning, a common fact of life in
such thin, bottom-water-drive reservoirs. The coning led to
high oil recovery from a small well-flushed zone around the
wellbore, but limited the amount of drawdown pressure that
could be applied to the reservoir. As a result, the average
drainage radius of the wells was only 240 feet. Since the wells
were drilled on 40-acre spacing, this left more than 50% of the

IADC/SPE 81626

reservoir area unproduced. Horizontal wells appeared to be a

logical solution.
Overbalanced horizontal drilling
GeoResources drilled the first well, the Oscar
Fossum H-1, as a conventional lateral drilled with an
overbalanced polymer mud system having a density of
approximately 8.4 pounds per gallon. The H-1 well horizontal
section was drilled with steerable assembly as a 6 1/8 inch
hole out of 7 inch production casing.
Steering proceeded with no problems in the first half
of the lateral, but after that point the overbalanced situation led
to increasingly severe steering and differential sticking
problems. Steering the tools in the last 300 feet of the hole
became extremely difficult. While rotation was still possible,
sliding and steering were necessary to keep the hole in the
target zone. Although the well was TDd near the planned
horizontal length of 1808 ft, it was clear that future wells
would require a different drilling technique if longer laterals
were to be accomplished.
Initial production of the H-1 well was satisfactory,
but not as high as had been expected for its well length.
Thereafter the wells production profile began a moderate
decline, and both of these factors were considered to be
indications of possible reservoir damage.
Underbalanced horizontal drilling
The next four horizontal wells were drilled either nearbalanced or underbalanced, as shown in Table 3. The H-2 well
(drilled with native crude) was nearer to being balanced, but it
is included because UBD techniques were used (a rotating
head and fluids with a circulating density lower than that of
conventional drilling fluids).
The most immediate benefit of UBD in Wayne Field
was access. Underbalanced techniques were primarily
responsible for doubling well lengths compared to the first
overbalanced well (Fossum #1) where the operator reached the
practical limit of OB drilling. One can also argue that
construction of multilaterals would have been difficult or
impossible with conventional OB techniques. Using 2000 ft.
as the technical limit for OB drilling in this formation, and
adding in the additional legs of the H-3, UBD techniques
added an incremental 8009 ft. of lateral length in the
remaining four wells.
The high initial oil and total fluid rates in the four
UBD wells are attributable primarily to the longer horizontal
well lengths, but may also be indicative of reduced formation
damage. The UBD wells averaged 156 BOPD and 422 barrels
fluid per day during the first year, compared to 117 BOPD and
248 barrels fluid per day for the H1 well.

a zone geologically as good as, or possibly better, than the H2,

H3, and Ballantyne State wells. Artificial lift has also been
similar for each well.
Figure 5 shows the cumulative recovery to February
2002. The EUR numbers estimated in Figure 6 compare well
to initial predictions for EUR, with the exception of the H4
well, where the geology is believed to be inferior. The H3
well, with its longer reservoir exposure, may exceed 300 MBO
EUR.
If one assumes that the H1 EUR represents a typical
OB well, one can argue that most of the recovery greater than
150 MBO is attributable to the additional well length and
reduced skin damage achieved with underbalanced drilling.
Using the above figures, that adds up to 450 MBO incremental
EUR due to UBD.
Although the four underbalanced wells cost more to
drill, they paid out nearly twice as fast than the conventional
horizontal well, and are expected to deliver approximately
twice the reserves and NPV. In todays oil price and well cost
environment, a similar project could achieve even better
economic results.
Conclusions
1. Underbalanced technology can be critical component in
adding incremental reserves, especially when used in
conjunction with other technologies such as horizontal
wells, EOR processes, etc.
2. The incremental reserves attributable to the use of
underbalanced technology can be large.
3. These case histories quantify incremental reserves from
the three key reservoir-related benefits of underbalanced
technology: improved reservoir access, reduced skin
damage, and better ability to evaluate the reservoir while
drilling.
4. Underbalanced technology is commonly used in mature
producing fields.
5. When redeveloping mature fields, operators often attempt
development with conventional well practices that result
in well construction problems (e.g. lost circulation), or
skin damage and productivity loss, or both.
These
difficulties can be mitigated by judicious use of
underbalanced technology.
Bibliography
1.

2.
Long-term benefits of underbalanced drilling
Roughly six months after the completion of the drilling
program, decline curve analysis suggested that the
conventional horizontal well should recover about 175 MBO
and the underbalanced wells should recover 275 MBO,
compared to an EUR for vertical wells of 80 MBO (Table 4).
The overbalanced Fossum H1 well has continued to
underperform compared to the other wells. This underperformance cannot be attributed to geology, since the H1 is in

Caldwell, R., Heather, D.:

Evaluation Issues
Created by Technology Advances Paper, SPE
52965, presented at the 1999 SPE Hydrocarbon
Economics and Evaluation Symposium held in
Dallas, Texas, March 20-23, 1999
McCoy, A., Davis, F., Elrod, J., Rhodes, S., Singh,
S.:
Using Horizontal Well Technology for
Enhanced Recovery in Very Mature, Depletion Drive
Gas Reservoirs Pirkle #2 Well, A Case History,
Carthage (Lower Pettit) Field, Panola County, Texas
Paper, SPE 36751, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, October 6-9, 1996.

IADC/SPE 81626

3.

Labat, C., Benoit, J., Vining, P.: Underbalanced

Drilling at its Limits Brings Life to Old Field Paper
SPE 62896, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Texas, October 1-4, 2000.

4.

Stoudt, E., Thomas, A., Ginger, E., Vinopal, R.:

Geologic
Reservoir
Characterization
for
Engineering Simulation, Hatters Pond Field, Mobile
County, Alabama Paper, SPE 24713, presented at
the SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington,
D.C., October 4-7, 1992.

5.

Clonts, M., Mazighi, M., Touami, M.: Reservoir

Simulation of the Planned Miscible Gas Injection
Project at Rhourde El Baguel, Algeria Paper SPE
36935, presented at the 1996 SPE European
Petroleum Conference held in Milan, Italy, October
22-24, 1996.

6.

Haselton, T., Kirvelis, R., Pia, G., Fuller, T.:

Underbalanced and Overbalanced Boreholes in the
Same Well Give Direct Comparison in Same
Reservoir
Section,
Yielding
Record
Well
Productivity in Lithuanian Fields, World Oil
Magazine, May 2002.

7.

Haselton, T., Kirvelis, R., Pia, G., Fuller, T.:

Underbalanced and Overbalanced Well Legs Afford
Direct Comparison in the Same Reservoir Section
Yielding Record Well Productivity in Lithuania

8.

Robinson, S., Hazzard, V., Leary, M., Carmack, C.:

Redeveloping The Rhourde El Baguel Field with
Underbalanced Drilling Operations; A Case History
of Remote, UBD Implementation and Optimization,
presented at the IADC Underbalanced Drilling Conf.
in Houston, Tx., August 28-29, 2000 .

9.

Pia, G., Fuller, T., Haselton, T., Kirvelis, R.:

Underbalanced-Undervalued? Direct Qualitative
Comparison Proves the Technique! Paper, SPE
74446.

10. Haselton, T., Kirvelis, R., Pia, G., Fuller, T.: Wells
Drilled Overbalanced and Underbalanced Prove UBD
Value Article, World Oil, May, 2002.
11. Vickers, J., Varcoe, B.: UBD Proves Merit in
Horizontal Proect Article, American Oil and Gas
Reporter, July 1999.
12. Correspondence with J. Vickers and J. Jennings of
GeoResources, Williston, North Dakota.

IADC/SPE 81626

36 41

48 56

75 80

89 91

OH completion + OH completion, Cased, perf, frac UB + horizontal

nitro
acid + frac
+ Oil price
wells

Driver
MMBO

2.5

12.5

55

80

MBO/well

85

49

23

94

No. of wells

30

256

1694

853

Table 1 - Reserves and wells for four phases of development in the Pearsall Field.

Field

EUR Before UB
MBO

EUR after UB and

horizontal wells
MBO

Ratio:
EUR After /
EUR before

Pietu Siupariai

478

2766

5.8

Degliai

158

1722

10.9

Table 2 - Reserves for two fields in Lithuania

Well

Mud System

Lateral Length (ft)

Oscar Fossum H1

Starpac polymer (OB)

1808

Oscar Fossum H2

Native crude near balanced)

2500

Oscar Fossum H3*

Nitrified Native Crude with

parasite string.
Leg 1
Leg 2
Leg 1R (sidetrack to Leg 1)

3886
1629
678

Oscar Fossum H4

Nitrified Native Crude

3608

Ballantyne-State/
Steinhaus H1

Nitrified Native Crude

3708

Total length

17,817

Total length attributable to

UBD

8009

*legs 1 and 2 formed a dual lateral; leg 1R was a reservoir extension of leg #1
Table 3 - Horizontal wells drilled in Wayne Field

IADC/SPE 81626

Vertical

Conventional
Horizontal

UBD
Horizontal

Cost

$200 K

$500 K

$750 K

Estimated ultimate
recovery

85 MBO

175 MBO

275 MBO

Net present value*

$185 K

$460 K

$950 K

Return on investment

38%

42%

56%

Payout in years

2.5

2.0

1.5

*based on $14/Bbl oil price

Table 4 Estimated economics for Wayne field

10000

1000

MBO/mo
MMCF/mo
100
Oil

10
Gas

1
1960

1970

1980

1990

Figure 1 Oil and gas production for Pearsall development phases 3 and 4

2000

IADC/SPE 81626

100

MBOE/Mo

10-11 #4

10-3 #1
3-14 #2
15-5 #1
10-10 #1
D 3-6 #1
10-11 #4

10

1
Dec-88

May-90

Sep-91

Jan-93

Jun-94

Oct-95

Mar-97

Jul-98

Dec-99

Apr-01

Sep-02

Figure 2 Production from selected wells in Hatters Pond field

6000

Cumulative MBOE

5000

4000

10-3 #1
3-14 #2
10-10 #1
15-5 #1
D 3-6 #1
10-11 #4

3000

2000
10-11 #4

1000

0
Dec-88

May-90

Sep-91

Jan-93

Jun-94

Oct-95

Mar-97

Jul-98

Dec-99

Apr-01

Figure 3- Cumulative production from selected wells in Hatters Pond field

Sep-02

10

IADC/SPE 81626

6000

5000

Cumulative MBOE

4000

10-3 #1
3-14 #2
10-10 #1
15-5 #1
D 3-6 #1
10-11 #4

3000

2000
10-11 #4
1000

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Producing months

Figure 4- Cumulative production from selected wells in Hatters Pond field

200
180
160

Cum oil, MBO

140

1H
2H
3H
4H
Ballantyne

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jun-94

Oct-95

Mar-97

Jul-98

Dec-99

Apr-01

Sep-02

Figure 5: Cumulative production through February 2002 of five horizontal wells, Wayne Field.

IADC/SPE 81626

11

100

WOR = 30

150 MBO

275

175

300

Water oil ratio

10

1H
2H
3H
4H
Ballantyne

0.1
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cumulative oil production, MBO

Figure 6: Wayne field horizontal well EURs estimated by projecting the WOR (water-oil ratio) to the economic limit.