Chapter 2

D RILLING C OST C ONTROL

INTRODUCTION
There are few, if any, drilling operations in the world where cost is not important. There are few,
if any, drilling circumstances where costs are not important. If we as drilling people lose
consciousness of drilling costs, management will remind us in a very short time. Cost is
important! It is our responsibility as drilling people to accomplish the tasks before us at an
optimum cost - a minimum cost to safely develop the reserve and produce the asset at an
optimum level.
The responsibilities on drilling people are greater than ever in our history. The significance of
good drilling practices has never been more important. Many in responsible positions are
suffering from hypertension and stress. Wells are deep and complicated and many thousands
of dollars can be lost in just minutes. The daily cost of some operations is as high as US
$500,000. With deep wells come higher pressures. There are more pressure control problems
today than ever before. With the emphasis on environmental protection, there is the constant
threat of expensive litigation over even the most insignificant spill. A minimal pressure control
problem can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The most expensive pressure control
problem to date costs in excess of US $250 million. These costs do not include the value of the
reserves lost forever to the atmosphere. Finally, during pressure control problems there is
always the potential for loss of life. Few executives in any industry bear such burdens. It's a
BIG JOB - AN IMPORTANT JOB.
Drilling operations continue around the clock in what is often the most hostile environment.
Cost control is difficult at best due to the expense involved in even the simplest operation.
Currently, operating costs vary from less than $10,000 per day for simple land based operations
to more than $500,000 per day for deep water floating operations or Canadian Arctic operations
in the Beaufort Sea. Keeping daily costs is an absolute must if cost control is to be effective.
The effectiveness of various drilling techniques must be measured in total cost or in cost per
unit of length. Perhaps the two most important equations in all of drilling are:
CT = C B + C r (t + T )

Equation 2-1

CB + Cr (t + T )
F

Equation 2-2

CT =

Example 2-1 illustrates the use of these equations.

Example 2-1
Given:

Bit # 4
Rig cost = $2,000 per hour
Bit cost = $4,000
Rotating time = 100 hrs

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Footage = 3000 feet

Depth = 10,000 feet
Trip time = 2 hr per 1000 feet
Rotary speed = 100 rpm
Determine:

The cost of the bit run in terms of total costs and cost per foot.

Solution:

CT = C B + C r (t + T )

2hr

CT = $4000 + $2000 100 +

x10000
1000

CT = $244,000

CT =

CB + C r (t + T )
F

2hr

$4000 + $2000 100 +

x10000
1000

CT =
3000ft
CT = $81 .33 / ft

The total cost of the operation would be given by Equation 2-3.

CTC =

C B + C r ( t + T )
Total Depth

Equation 2-3

Example 2-2
Given:

The rig cost and trip time are given in Example 2-1
Bit # 5
Footage = 1300 feet
Rotating time = 63 hrs
Depth = 11,300 feet
Bit cost = $4,000

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

Determine:

Solution:

1.

The cost per foot for bit # 5.

2.

The cumulative cost per foot for bit # 4 and # 5.

1.

The cost per foot for bit #5.

CT =

CB + C r (t + T )
F

4000 + 2000 63 +
x11300
1000

CT =
1300
CT = $134 .77 / ft

2.

The cumulative cost per foot for bit #4 and #5.

2
(10000 + 11300 )
1000

(4000 + 4000 ) + 2000(63 + 100 ) +

CTC =

3000 + 1300

CTC = $97 .49 / ft

The arithmetic would indicate that bit run # 4 cost $81.33 per foot while bit run # 5 cost $134.77
per foot. However, the cumulative cost over the interval 7000 feet to 11,300 feet is calculated to
be $97.49 per foot.
The total project cost would include all costs attributable to the well from staking location to
putting the product into the pipeline. In addition, the cost over the life of the well must be
considered. For example, in Greece, initial drilling and completion costs had to be increased
due to the presence of plastic salt flows, which resulted in the loss of the earlier wells.
Therefore, the success or failure of any drilling technique such as bit selection, mud type, casing
program or any facet must be measured in terms of current cost per foot in relation to the total
cost over the life of the project.

FACTORS AFFECTING PENETRATION RATE

It is generally true that time is money and that improving the penetration rate will reduce costs.
It is also true that the total cost includes the cost of various auxiliary functions. The factors that
effect drilling time and costs are as follows:

Bit type/formation hardness

Bit weight

Rotary Speed

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Bottom hole cleaning

Mud properties:

1.

weight

2.

type

3.

solids

4.

fluid properties

Auxiliary practices:
1.

formation evaluation

2.

casing strings

3.

hole sizes

4.

trip time

5.

connection time

6.

bottom hole assemblies

7.

short trips

8.

reaming connections

9.

rig limitations

As we shall see, these factors are both independent and interrelated.

BIT TYPE AND FORMATION HARDNESS

Obviously, a geothermal well drilled in granite is going to be more expensive over any interval
than a comparable depth well drilled in the soft sediment of the Gulf Coast. It is the
responsibility of the drilling personnel to match the formation with the proper bit. Bit selection
and drilling bits are a topic for an entire chapter. However, for the purpose of further discussion,
it is assumed that the proper bit has been selected for the formation being penetrated.

BIT WEIGHT
Assuming all other factors affecting drilling rate are adequate and constant, the relationship
between bit weight and drilling rate is given by:

DR W d

Equation 2-4

DR = KW d

Equation 2-5

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

The exponent 'd' to bit weight has been found in the laboratory to range between 0.95 and 2;
however, field data has not substantiated this range. That is, weight on bit is linearly related to
drilling rate.
The slope ' K ' is not constant and is a function of:

Hole size

Drilling fluid type and properties

Formation characteristics

Bit type

Generally, drilling rate is plotted linearly versus bit weight - divided by hole size. Experience has
shown that this relationship is valid over small ranges of changes in hole size. Black1 observed
in tests ranging from 6 to 11 inches that
diameter had a statistically significant effect on rate
of penetration. Black concluded that variations
over these sizes were a function of the cutting
structure design for various bits. For example, the
7 inch bit tested had fewer inserts per inch
diameter and therefore, higher load per insert
resulting in higher drilling rates. Field experience
has shown that while correlation can be drawn
over the range from 6 to 11 inches, these
correlations might not be accurate when
extrapolated to a 17 to 26 inch hole size.
Laboratory and field tests have illustrated that fluid
type has a significant effect on the relationship
between drilling rate and weight on bit. Figure 2-1
summarizes typical field data taken in the Atoka
shale of Southeastern Oklahoma. As illustrated,
the relationship between drilling rate and bit weight
per diameter inch is linear for both mud and air.
However, it is particularly interesting that the slope
' K ' of the mud curve is essentially '1' while the
slopes ' K ' of the air curves are almost twice that
value (1.08 vs. 1.85). For example, doubling the
bit weight while drilling with mud would increase
the penetration rate from 3.5 fph to 25 fph. A
similar increase while drilling with air would
increase the penetration rate from 20 fph to 54 fph.
Drilling with mud and increasing the bit weight
1,000# per inch, increases drilling rate 10.8 fph.
Figure 2-1. Field Data for Atoka Shale
Increasing the bit weight 1,000# per inch and
drilling with air, increases the drilling rate 17.2 fph.
In the example at 2,000# per inch, air will drill 26.5 fph (30 - 3.5) faster than mud. At 4,000# per
inch, air will drill 39 fph (64 - 25) faster than mud. It is observed, therefore, that there are more
benefits from higher bit weights in air drilling than in mud drilling.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Doty2 offered similar observations. In his full laboratory tests, various drilling parameters were
compared as a function of the drilling fluid being used. Doty used four drilling fluids - clear
brine, brine with drilled solids, lignosulfonate water base mud and oil base mud. As Figure 2-2
illustrates, WOB vs. DR is essentially linear in the
presence of water mud, oil mud and brine with
drilled solids. In these tests, the relationship was
quite different in the presence of brine.
As
illustrated in Figure 2-2, the exponent 'd' to WOB is
approximately two in the presence of the clear
brine. However, again it must be stressed that field
data does not verify an exponent value greater than
one. It has been suggested that the exponent 'd' to
WOB would approach a value of two for perfect
cleaning. However, as illustrated, even with the
perfect cleaning of air drilling, the exponent 'd' was
measured to be exactly equal to one.
Formation characteristics and type will also affect
the response of drilling rate to bit weight. Figure
2-2 illustrates the typical differences. In addition to
tests using Berea sandstone, Doty made the same
tests in Pierre shale. The results for clear brine
drilling in Mancos shale have been superimposed in
the figure to illustrate the differences caused by
formation characteristics. These differences are not
always predictable, but do routinely exist. These
potential differences stress the importance of
obtaining good field data for any area.

Figure 2-2. Laboratory Data

The response in drilling rate to increases in bit

weight is also affected by bit type. Drag bits
such as diamond and polycrystalline diamond
bits drill as a result of the gouging or tearing
action of the cutting structure on the bottom of
the hole. Roller bits combine a limited amount
of the dragging mechanism with the intrusion
of the teeth. Figure 2-3 illustrates typical drag
response in drilling rate to changes in bit
weight. It is not uncommon in the laboratory
to measure the exponent to bit weight to be
less than one (0.736, in this instance) using a
drag bit. Field data, however, has always
resulted in an exponent value of one at least
in this writers experience. Generally, the
slope of the response is less than that
recorded for roller bits. Figure 2-3 compared a
hypothetical drag bit response with actual
responses for roller bits. A limited amount of
Figure 2-3. Drag Bit Response
data collected in the Middle East using
diamond bits, illustrated that a dramatic change in the response of drilling rate to bit weight
occurred at a high (+10,000#/in.) weight on bit. In these tests 14 inch diamond bits were run

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

at over 10,000#/ in. diameter. Cost per foot was significantly reduced although bit life averaged
less than 20 hours.
Recently, Black, et.al.3 have demonstrated in the laboratory that when using PDC bits, the
relationship between bit weight and drilling rate is a function of the rotary speed. Figure 2-4
summarizes and illustrates the work. In
these tests, a stereotype PDC bit was used
to drill the Mancos shale at constant mud
type, borehole pressure, confining pressure
and overburden pressure. As illustrated in
Figure 2-4, a rather unimpressive response
in drilling rate with increases in bit weight is
obtained at 50 rpm with the drilling rate
increasing from essentially '0' feet per hour at
2,000 pounds bit weight to 20 feet per hour
at 8,000 pounds bit weight. However, at 900
rpm, the response to bit weight is very
impressive. As illustrated, the drilling rate
increases from essentially zero feet per hour
at 2,000 pounds bit weight to 120 feet per
hour at 8,000 pounds bit weight.
In the past, it was popular to develop
Figure 2-4. PDC Performance for Various Rotary
equations for optimizing bit weight.
However, too many variables are associated with the life of modern bits to make any
mathematical analysis meaningful. In time past, bit life was expressed as follows:
L

1
W bN

Equation 2-6

The exponent, b ranges form 1.0 b 3.0

as shown in Figure 2-5.
Simply speaking, the bit lasted for a finite
number of total revolutions at a constant bit
weight.
This philosophy was even
extrapolated and some finite number of
revolutions was used to determine when a
bit should be pulled. While this practice,
however poor, had some validity 20 years
ago, it is virtually without foundation
considering modern bits.
Equation 2-6 was developed for and based
on experience with ordinary bits with
Figure 2-5
exposed roller bearings and remains valid
only for these type bits.
The failure
mechanism of the roller bearing is fatigue. With each rotation, the roller is compressed and
relaxed. A very simple illustration is the breaking of a piece of wire by bending it first one way
and then the other. The bearing life is inversely proportional to the total load on the bit raised to

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

the power ' b '. The exponent ' b ' is a function of the solids in the mud and is considered to vary
from 1 for solids free, clear water to 3 for mud systems having high solids content. Although no
provision is made in Equation 2-6, experience has shown that bearing life in air drilling is even
longer than that obtained using water. Further, experience has shown that smaller solids
reduce the life of the bearing. For example, the percent solids smaller than 10 microns is more
detrimental to bit life than 10 percent solids larger than 150 microns.
In modern roller bits, the bearing is usually not a roller bearing but rather some form of bushing
type bearing. In addition, the bearing is protected from the mud solids by a seal. Therefore,
bearing life also becomes a function of seal life. Seal life is a function of many things including
solids in the mud (i.e. higher solids mean shorter seal life). Once the seal has failed, the mud
solids have a more detrimental effect on the bushing bearing due to the comparatively close
tolerances. To further complicate matters, the bearing life is shortened by higher orders of
magnitude of rotary speed. At higher rotary speeds, more heat is generated because of close
bearing tolerance thereby reducing bearing life.
It should be obvious that the failure mechanism of bushing bearing bits is very complicated and
defies rigorous mathematical description or prediction. A complete discussion of bit life, bit
bearing, cutting structures, and when to pull a bit is given in the chapter on drilling bits. Further,
recommended bit weights and rotary speeds are discussed in the bit chapter. At this point, it is
sufficient to point out that the bit weight offering the lowest cost per foot is the optimum bit
weight and can usually be determined through trial and error for a particular drilling
environment. In general, the optimum weight is that which imparts the most energy to the bit
consistent with the integrity of the bearing structure and the cutting structure.
Undoubtedly, bit weight is the most significant factor affecting penetration rate.

ROTARY SPEED
The relationship between rotary speed and drilling rate is given by Equation 2-7 and ideally
illustrated by Figure 2-6.
DR N a

The exponent to rotary speed, a , ranges from 0.5 a 1.0.

As illustrated in Figure 2-6, in soft formations, the drilling rate is linearly related (i.e. a=1) to
rotary speed, 'a', may be as low as 0.5. That is, increasing the rotary speed by a factor of 2
would only increase the drilling rate by square root of 2 or 1.41. The actual value of 'a' must be
determined for each drilling environment in order to evaluate the economics of selected drilling
rates.
In most drilling environments, the exponent to rotary speed, ' a ', is less than 1. Figure 2-7
illustrates actual field data obtained while drilling the Atoka shale in southeastern Oklahoma. In
view of the nonlinear response, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that higher rotary speeds are
not as economical as lower rotary speeds. However, Example 2.3 illustrates that each instance
must be evaluated on it's own merit.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

Figure 2-6. Penetration Rate Response to

Rotary Speed

Figure 2-7. Field Data in the Atoka Shale

Example 2-3
Given:

The conditions in Example 2-1.

Determine:

The cost per foot if the rotary speed is reduced to 50 rpm assuming the
relationship that L 1/ N as in Equation 2.6.
The exponent to rotary speed, ' a ', is 0.5.

Solution:

In Example 2-1, the bit life is 100 hours at a rotary speed of 100 rpm. If
the rotary speed is cut to 50 rpm, the bit life should double since bit life is
inversely proportional to rotary speed. At 50 rpm, the bit life will be 200
hours.
The exponent to rotary speed can be used to find the new penetration
rate.
DR 50

50
=

100

0.5

30fph = 21.2fph

The footage drilled at 100 rpm was 3000 feet.

The footage drilled at 50 rpm will be:

F = 21.2 fph x 200 hours = 4243 feet

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Calculate the cost per foot at 50 rpm.

CT =

C B + C r (t + T )
F

4000 + 2000 200 +

10000
1000

CT =
= $104.65 / ft
4243

The cost per foot at 100 rpm was calculated in Example 2-1 to be $81.33 per foot. In this
example, the bit life is doubled while the total interval is increased by almost one-half. These
facts alone appear impressive and might result in a decision that lower rotary speeds were more
desirable. In fact, the cost per foot increased from $81.33 per foot to $104.65 per foot or almost
30% when the rotary speed was reduced by one-half.
Rotary speed using sealed bearing, bushing type bits are currently limited by bearing design to
something less than 150 rpm. The close tolerance of the bushing bearing causes excessive
heat and premature failure at higher rotary speeds. However, rotary speeds for conventional
roller bearing bits, diamond bits and PDC bits do not suffer this limitation and should not be
confined to the limit. In all instances, the cost in terms of dollars per foot must dictate the drilling
practices for a given area.

BOTTOM HOLE CLEANING

The importance of bottom hole cleaning to efficient drilling operations cannot be over
emphasized. Too often, in actual field operations, the question of the importance of hydraulics
continues to be debated. The chapter on hydraulics and the design of hydraulics illustrate that
no purer application of science is used in all of the drilling industry. Why does the debate
continue? It is senseless. I have heard a myriad of excuses for not using good hydraulics; but
I've never heard a good excuse. A multi-million dollar operation is grossly inefficient without the
proper use of those tiny jet nozzles costing but a
few dollars each.
The result of inadequate bottom hole cleaning is
what is termed "hydraulic flounder". Graphically,
Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-6 illustrate the linear
relationship between drilling rate and bit weight
and drilling rate and rotary speed respectively.
Quite simply, with rotary bits and drag bits, these
relationships are not linear if the hydraulics is
inadequate. This principle was established prior
to the advent of the jet bit in 1949 and continues
to be proven almost daily. This principle is true
and provable for all drilling environments.
Typical examples can be found in almost any
publication. Figure 2-8 adopted from Warren4
illustrates the typical response of drilling rate to
changes in bit weight as a function of hydraulics.
In this figure, the drilling rate could be improved

10

Figure 2-8. Response due to Inadequate Hydraulics

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

from 60 feet per hour with 40,000 pounds bit weight and poor hydraulics, as evidenced by the
deviation from linearity, to 160 feet per hour at the same bit weight utilizing better hydraulics.
The response of drilling rate to rotary speed is similarly affected. As Figure 2-9 adopted from
Black5 illustrates, drilling rate is linearly related to rotary speed at lower bit weights and lower
rates of cutting generation. However, at higher rates of cutting generation resulting from
increased bit weight and rotary speed, the relationship ceases to be linear. That is, hydraulic
flounder results. Figure 2-10 also adopted from Black further illustrates the hydraulic flounder
phenomena.

Figure 2-9. Response due to Inadequate

Hydraulics at Higher WOB and RPM

Figure 2-10. Poor Hydraulics

Over the past 40 years, field data has substantiated laboratory data without exception. Figure
2-11 from Kexiang6 is typical of field data. Bottom hole
cleaning is usually expressed in terms of bit hydraulics
horsepower per square inch of hole diameter which is
abbreviated "HHP/in2". Bottom hole cleaning is defined
as "adequate" when the response drilling rate to weight
on bit is linear. Generally, 3-5 HHP/in2 is found to be
"adequate" depending upon such variables as hole size,
formation hardness and drilling rate. Hole size is a
variable since nozzles clean a specific area. Therefore,
three nozzles more than adequately cover an 8 in. hole
while four nozzles might better cover the bottom of a
17 inch hole. Formation hardness is an obvious
variable affecting cutting size. Generally, higher values
of HHP/in2 are required for adequate cleaning in soft
formations. Drilling rate affects the required cleaning
because of the volume of cuttings generated at higher
penetration rates. As shown in Figure 2-11, 5.41
HHP/in2 is adequate for drilling rates up to approximately
Figure 2-11. Field Data Showing
15 feet per hour which corresponds to a bit weight of 16.
Response to Hydraulics
At higher bit weights, hydraulic flounder is observed.
Notice that bit weights above 19 result in reduced drilling

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

11

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

rates and a negative slope. Actual field tests have observed the drilling rate decreasing to zero
as a result of the phenomena of hydraulic flounder.

Effects of Increased Hydraulics and Extended Nozzles

A consistent question among drilling people concerns the effect of hydraulic horsepower over
and above that required for "adequate" bottom hole cleaning. Maurer7 demonstrated that all
rocks, even granite, exhibited a "threshold pressure" defined as that point at which the impact of
the fluid on the rock caused the rock to be eroded away. Obviously, the threshold pressure is
very low for soft formations and very high for hard rocks such as granite. The effect for
conventional roller bits is clearly depicted in Figure 2-11. At a constant bit weight of 20, the
drilling rate is approximately 15 fph with 5.41 HHP/in2, 21 fph with 9.74 HHP/in2 and 27 fph for
11.22 HHP/in2. Alternatively, in this case, the drilling rate was increased 80% by doubling the
hydraulics. As always, success must be measured in terms of cost in dollars per foot. As a
practical matter, up to 20 HHP/in2 have been routinely and successfully used in actual field
operations and without hole enlargements or nozzle erosion.
A very definitive work in this area was described by Deily8, et.al. In these actual field tests, five
wells were drilled in East Texas using both conventional and extended nozzle bit and pressures
to 12,000 psi. Extended nozzles were developed to increase the impact force from the jet onto
the bottom of the hole. As illustrated in Figure 2-12, with conventional bits, approximately 65%
of the total impact force remains when the mud reaches bottom. With extended nozzles,
approximately 90% of the total impact force is available for cleaning the bottom of the hole.
Figure 2-13, (adopted from Deily), illustrates that the soft, shallow shale formations exhibiting
low threshold pressures, the drilling rates were dramatically improved from 60 fph to 220 fph by
increasing the pressure from 2,500 psi to 11,000 psi, using conventional bits and extended
nozzles. Note that by 6,000 feet the drilling rate using 12,000 psi was little more than that
obtained using 2,500 psi. The response for drilling in sand is shown in Figure 2-14 and
illustrates that by 6,000 feet no advantage was observed using the high pressure, extended
nozzle bits.

Figure 2-12. Effect of Extended Nozzles on Impact Force

12

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

Figure 2-13. Effect of Increased Impact Force on

Soft Formations

Figure 2-14. Effect of Increased Impact Force in

Sandstone

Figure 2-15 illustrates data from the same work collected between 4000 feet and 8000 feet for
conventional and extended nozzle bits in sand. As shown, using conventional bits, surface
pressures were 2,000 psi, 3,000 psi and 6,000 psi corresponding to bit hydraulics of 5.1
HHP/in2, 6.8 HHP/in2 and 16.8 HHP/in2 respectively. Note that no improvement was observed
at higher pressures using conventional bits and that by 8000 feet no improvement was observed
using extended nozzle bits. Similar results are illustrated in Figure 2-16 for performance of
shale. It is reasonable to expect that at some depth, the performance curves would overlay.

Figure 2-15. No Improvement due to Extended

Nozzles below 8,000 ft in Sandstone

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

Figure 2-16. Extended Nozzles in Shale

13

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

In these cases as in any case, the practicality must be determined in terms of cost, $/ft. In
general, higher pressures and/or extended nozzles should be economical in soft, shallow
formations. However, in deep, hard formations, high pressures and/or extended nozzles are
probably a waste of money. This theory is substantiated in the field tests reported by Pratt.
Figure 2-17 illustrates that at the Pachuta Creek Field in Clark County, Mississippi, extended
nozzle bits improved performance to almost 10,000 feet. Beyond 10,000 feet, there was no
advantage with extended nozzle bits. In this authors experience, the hydraulics generally used
by the industry world-wide are only adequate for hole sizes of approximately 8 inches. For hole
sizes less than 6 inches, the presence of adequate hydraulics in routine drilling operations is
virtually nonexistent. The same is true for hole sizes larger than 9 inches. The routine use of
higher values of hydraulics horsepower at the bit is equally rare. The conscientious drilling
engineer can be an instant success by properly designing hydraulics for the 12 to 17 inch
surface holes and the 6 inch production hole. In one actual incident in the deep Anadarko
basin, the drilling cost in the 6 inch hole was reduced from $300 per foot to $70 per foot by
merely utilizing reasonable hydraulics.

Figure 2-17. Increased Penetration Rate to 10,000 ft with Extended Nozzles

14

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

HYDRAULICS AND PDC BITS

The use of PDC bits is relatively recent. However, considerable research, both in the laboratory
and in the field, has clearly demonstrated that hydraulics is even more important to successful
PDC bit operations. The effect of hydraulic horsepower on PDC operations is well established.
A good example is the work performed and summarized by Holster and Kipp9. These
researchers performed laboratory studies of the affect of bit hydraulic horsepower on
penetration rate using oil base and
water base muds in three different
type formations - Pierre shale which
is very soft, Mancos shale and Berea
sandstone.
Typical results are
illustrated in Figure 2-18. In this
case,
the
laboratory
research
confirmed
field
experience.
Performance using PDC bits was
acceptable using oil base mud and a
dismal failure using water base
muds. Prior to 1984, the use of bit
hydraulic horsepower was not
considered important. From analysis
of Figure 2-18, it is obvious that bit
balling using water muds at low
values of bit hydraulic horsepower
causes unacceptable penetration
rates. It is equally clear that the
drilling rate is linearly related to bit
hydraulic horsepower at the higher
values. It is interesting that with oil
mud in the Mancos shale, the
penetration rate is unaffected by
hydraulic horsepower. Figure 2-19
suggests that in extremely soft shales
such as the Pierre, oil muds might
offer acceptable drilling rates without
attention to hydraulics. However, it is
indicated that the most economical
operation would be obtained using
water muds at high values of bit
hydraulic horsepower. As illustrated
in Figure 2-19, the penetration rate is
Figure 2-18. Effect of Hydraulics on PDC Bits
doubled from 50 fph at 1 HHP/in2 with
oil base mud to 100 fph at 8-10
HHP/in2 with water base mud. In more competent formations such as Berea sandstone, little
difference was observed when comparing oil and water muds with water exhibiting a slight
advantage at higher values of HHP/in2 (see Figure 2-20).
In the Berea sandstone, both muds balled the bit at lower values of bit hydraulic horsepower. It
is extremely important to note that drilling rate increased linearly with bit hydraulic horsepower
above 2 HHP/in2.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

15

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Figure 2-19. Hydraulics for PDC Bits in

Soft Formations

Figure 2-20. Hydraulics for PDC Bits in

Harder Formations

Field results substantiate these laboratory results. Onisko10 reported that bit hydraulics
horsepower in the range of 17-19 HHP/in2 was required for successful, economical application
of the PDC bits.

MUD PROPERTIES
It is extremely difficult to define the specific effects of the mud properties on drilling rate because
it is virtually impossible to completely isolate each variable. The effect of some properties is
rather obscure while others only affect performance because of an adverse affect on some
other mud property. The effect of still other properties is quite well defined.

Mud Weight
Specifically, it is not mud weight, which effects penetration rate. Rather, it is the difference
between mud weight and formation pore pressure. A typical response between drilling rate and
differential pressure is illustrated in Figure 2-21. In this figure, adopted from Cunningham,11 the
relationship between drilling rate and differential pressure for laboratory tests on soft Duval
County shale indicates that the drilling rate can be reduced in soft formations ten fold! In fact, in
other laboratory tests, the differential pressure was increased until the penetration rate was
reduced to zero. The hyperbolic relationship continues with negative differential pressures (i.e.
formation pressure greater than drilling fluid hydrostatic). Drilling under-balanced and ultimately
drilling with air result in substantially improved penetration rates. As illustrated earlier in Figure

16

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

2-1 , drilling with air in the Atoka shale of southeastern Oklahoma improved penetration rates by
a factor of sixteen (4-66 fph at 2000#/in).
Cunningham further demonstrated that the characteristics of Figure 2-21 are a function of
formation hardness. Figure 2-22 adopted from Cunningham's work illustrates that the
differential pressure has very little effect on penetration rate in the very dense Ellenberger
Dolomite.

Figure 2-21. Drilling Rate versus Overbalance

Figure 2-22. Effect of Formation Hardness on

Drilling Rate

It has been suggested that the reduction in drilling rate is a result of an instantaneous filter cake
along with a "chip hold down" effect which is related to the differential pressure across the chip.
In a very good paper by Black, et.al.12, laboratory tests relating rate of penetration and filter cake
differential pressure with various muds are discussed. The researchers tested the relationship
between penetration rate and filter cake differential pressure using low solids, non-dispersed
(LSND), low solids, non-dispersed (LSND-SPA), dispersed (Disp) and oil emulsion.
The compositions and properties of the muds used in the tests are given in Table 2-1 and Table
2.2. As illustrated in Figure 2-23, the mud type had a greater affect (80 fph-100 fph) at lower
differentials than at higher differential (20-23 fph). It is equally interesting that the poorer
performer was the oil emulsion mud followed closely by the low solids, non-dispersed mud
containing the sodium polyacrylate filter loss additive. Undoubtedly, the oil emulsion filter cake
was least permeable of all muds tested. This effect is discussed further in the section dedicated
to filtration rate effects on rate of penetration.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

17

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2
Table 2-1. Composition of the Muds used in the Tests

MATERIAL

CONCENTRATION PER BARREL

LSND

LSND-SPA

DISP

OIL EMUL

Water, bbl
Bentonite, lbm

0.94

0.94

0.93

0.82

10.00

10.00

22.00

14.00

Caustic soda, lbm

0.05

0.05

1.00

0.50

Barite, lbm

35.00

35.00

25.00

45.00

Simulated Drill Solids (Rev Dust), lbm

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

Beneficiating Polymer (Benex), lbm

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

Sodium Polyacrylate (SPA), lbm

0.00

1.25

0.00

0.00

Lignite, lbm

0.00

0.00

4.00

4.00

Lignosulfonate, lbm

0.00

0.00

6.00

0.50

Diesel, bbl
Cellulosic Polymer (Drispac Superlo), lbm

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.50

Table 2-2. Properties of the Mud Used in the Tests

LSND

LSND-SPA

DISP

OIL EMUL

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Test Temperature, F
Density, lbm/gal

110

110

110

110

110

110

110

110

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

Plastic Viscosity, cp
Yield Point, lbf/100 ft2

10

14

14

17

23

16

15

14

10

13

13

13

12

16.0

15.0

17.0

17.5

23.5

28.5

22.5

21.0

12

10 Min. Gel, lbf/100 ft

24

19

13

pH
API Filtration Rate,
in3/30 min.
API Filtration Rate,
cc's/30 min.

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

1.0

0.9

0.43

0.43

0.41

0.41

0.43

0.43

16.4

14.8

7.0

7.0

7.0

6.8

7.1

7.0

Apparent Viscosity, cp
Initial Gel, lbf/100 ft2
2

18

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

Figure 2-23. Penetration Rate as a Function of Mud Type and Pressure Differential

Mud Type
It is well established that mud type significantly affects penetration rate. It is indisputable in
laboratory tests and field experience that air drills much faster than any other media. Of the
liquid systems commonly used, performance is much better with clear water free of all solids.
As typified in Figure 2-2, water with solids generally drills considerably slower than solid free
water while most water with inert solids. Oil muds are always the poorest performers with
penetration rates 10-30% slower than water muds. The reasons for these differences will
become clearer as the effects of other mud properties are discussed. It should be noted that, as
discussed in the bit chapter, bit life and performance decreases in the presence of different
drilling fluids and in the same order. So, the effect is compounded. That is, air drills faster and
bits last longer. Water drills faster than mud and bits last longer in water than in mud.

Solids
That solids effect the penetration rate is well defined and little understood. As Figure 2-2
illustrated, solids free water drills faster than water containing inert solids that drills faster than
water containing active solids. Therefore, once solids are introduced to the system, the activity,
size and numbers affect the drilling rate.
Since solids contribute to mud weight, their mere presence will reduce penetration rate.
Typically, the mere presence of solids will reduce drilling rate by as much as 30%. Figure 2-24
adopted from Nelson,13 typifies the effects of solids types on penetration rate. As illustrated, the
clays with particle sizes less than 30 microns and being most reactive have a greater effect than
less reactive drill solids with particle sizes in the range of 44 microns. Barite has the least effect
illustrated because it is essentially inert. It has been shown that dispersed clays will drill slower
than non dispersed clays, which drill slower than flocculated clays. Basically being, the reasons
are relative particle size, effective numbers of solids and water required to wet the solids.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

19

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Fluid Properties
Viscosity:

Figure 2-24. Effect of Solids Type and Content on Penetration

Rate

The viscosity of the drilling fluid in the

mud tanks has little or no effect on
penetration rate.
However, as
illustrated in Figure 2-25, drilling fluids
are shear thinning fluids. That is,
drilling mud setting in a mud tank is
much thicker than that same fluid
passing through a jet nozzle. In the
concept of "chip hold down", the ability
of the drilling fluid to equalize the
pressure around a chip and allow its
removal from bottom is inversely
related to the viscosity of the fluid
coming from the nozzle. Pursuant to
that concept and, water muds shear
thinner than oil muds and would drill
faster which is true.

In addition, viscosity is usually

caused by the addition of solids to
the system.
Therefore, the
reduction in drilling rate would be
contributable to the increase in
solids as previously discussed and
the increase in mud weight caused
by the solids. This is a further
illustration of the difficulty in
nullifying
the
interaction
of
variables. It must be concluded
that for reasons that may even be
unrelated to the viscosity of the
system, as a practical matter, when
the viscosity of the mud in the field
is increased, the penetration rate
will be reduced.
Filtration Rate:

It can and has been shown that no

relationship
exists
between
Figure 2-25. Shear-Thinning Characteristics of Drilling Fluids
penetration rate and API filtration
rate. However, it is equally well
known in field operations that lowering the filtration rate dramatically reduces drilling rates.
One factor is related to the concept of chip hold down. Many researchers have observed an
instantaneous mud filter cake on the bottom of the hole. It is the presence of this filter cake
along with the magnitude of the differential pressure between mud hydrostatic and pore
pressure that contributes to the chip hold down or inability of the mud to remove a cutting in

20

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

order for the bit to generate a new cutting. The ability of the mud to equalize the pressure
around the cutting reduces the chip hold down, permits the chip to be transported from bottom
and allows the bit to generate new cuttings. As previously described, an increase in the
viscosity of the mud despite shear thinning at the nozzle reduces the ability of the mud to
equalize the pressure around the chip. Since most filtration control agents merely thicken the
liquid phase of the mud system, the viscosity at the bit is also increased which reduces the
ability of the mud to equalize pressure around the chip (i.e. increases chip hold down) and
reduces penetration rate. In addition, as filtration is reduced by thickening the liquid phase, the
mud entrains more small particles,
which reduce penetration rate. Note
that in Figure 2-23, the dispersed
system performed better than the LSNDSPA. Note also in Table 2-1 that with
the LSND-SPA, filtration control was
accomplished with the polymer sodium
polyacrylate which thickens the liquid
phase while with the dispersed system
filtration control was obtained using
lignite and lignosulfonate which function
as a result of dispersing the clays. It is
also interesting that the oil emulsion
mud contains cellulosic polymer, which
also thickens the liquid phase.
A more tangible aspect of the effect of
filtration control on drilling rate is
illustrated in Figure 2-26 adopted from
Doty.14 In this figure, the drilling rate is
directly proportional to bit filtration rate
or the filtration rate beneath the bit
which was calculated as the difference
between the drilling and circulating
filtration rates. These data support the
chip hold down concept since reduced
pressure drop across the newly formed
chip occurs with increased bit filtration
rate, permitting faster chip displacement
from beneath the bit.

Figure 2-26. Drilling Rate as a Function of Filtration Rate

AUXILIARY PRACTICES
The following are termed auxiliary practices because they affect overall cost, efficiency and
performance. Perhaps it is even more important that these practices affect attitude toward
drilling operations.

Short Trips
There is no operation in the entire history of the industry that is performed more routinely with
less justification. There is no known economic justification for the short trip before logging, drill
stem testing or running casing. In fact, the very limited data available suggest that the success
of logging is unrelated to short trips and that more hole problems occur when short trips are

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

21

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

made. Why does our industry rely on fear and superstition? Why do we believe in the mystic?
Why are we unwilling to apply the cost tests instead of blindly moving on the same road?
Short trips have a place and a purpose in drilling on selected occasions. Routine short trips
during drilling to "keep the hole open" are usually symptomatic of poor drilling practices in other
areas. Routine short trips before logging, if truly required, are usually symptomatic of poor
drilling practices and probably a waste of money.
Reaming connections consists of passing the bit up and down the hole prior to making a
connection. In one operation in Central America, ten minutes were required to drill a joint and
twenty minutes were consumed passing the bit up and down over the 30 feet just drilled. In that
particular instance, drilling costs were up 600% overall and practices such as reaming
connections were the reason why. Normally, it should not be necessary to ream connections.
Trip time and connection time has become excessive in recent years. Round trip times of one
hour per thousand feet are considered good. Anything in excess of two hours per thousand feet
should be considered excessive.
The rig chosen should be that rig best designed to fit the particular job specification. There is no
economic advantage in having too much rig. Neither is there any advantage in having a rig that
is under-designed for the project.

Bottom Hole Assemblies

As in all other aspects of drilling, cost and overall economics must be the ultimate measure.
Stabilizers in bottom hole assemblies should only be used in directional wells or in wells where
deviation problems are common. Stabilizers in holes where deviation is not common are
usually a waste of money. There are some that suggest that a stabilizer above a drag bit is
necessity or improves performance enough to pay for the stabilizer - a concept of doubtful
validity. However, a stabilizer above a roller bit will not improve performance or life enough to
pay for the stabilizer. In very hard formations that exhibit a tendency to cause gauge problems,
stabilizers may prove cost effective. Generally, blade stabilizers are more expensive than
replaceable wall stabilizers (about 30%) which are more expensive than roller equipment which
is more expensive than rubber sleeve stabilizers.
In directional wells, it is now well established that control is maintained in the bottom ninety feet
of assembly. Any use of stabilizers more than 90 feet from bottom is probably a waste of
money. The most cost effective bottom hole assembly in directional wells appears to be one
stand of drill collars and heavy drill pipe.
In the last fifteen years, it has become common to run drilling jars in the string. The routine use
of drilling jars is without economic justification. Another case in point is the routine use of shock
subs. If the vibration is so severe that it is not possible to keep the rotary drive bushings in the
rotary table, a shock sub is warranted. Otherwise, it will not withstand the economic test.
These may seem like insignificant issues; however, cost consciousness must apply to all areas.

Casing Strings/Hole Sizes

Casing strings are run for a variety of reasons, and a complete discussion is given in the
chapter on casing design. Some of the poorer reasons for running casing are:

22

We don't like a lot of open hole.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

We've been doing it this way since 1939 and ...

Sometimes, we are compelled by some primeval force to run casing. There exists the
"international casing string" which is the combination of 20 inch, 13 inch, 9 inch and 7 inch.
Almost by definition, this combination is mindlessly run in international operations no matter
whether well is 2,000 feet deep or 20,000 feet deep, it must have the "international casing
string". There is only one good reason for running casing below surface pipe. That reason is
that it would be impossible to drill any deeper without setting pipe!
The hole sizes should be dictated by need. Large holes are more expensive to drill, case and
cement than are small holes. It would be economic madness to drill a small hole in the Middle
East where large production volumes are
anticipated. However, there is a subtle
efficiency in designing wells to meet
needs. For example, during the late 50's
and early 60's, a 12,000 foot gas reservoir
was being developed in the Midwest. The
first ten wells were completed as
illustrated in Figure 2-27 (A) with
completed
costs
ranging
between
$230,000 and $290,000 with the average
being $260,000. An enterprising young
drilling engineer analyzed the peculiarities
and needs for the field and recommended
the program and combination illustrated in
Figure 2-27 (B). The remaining ten wells
in the field were drilled, completed and
equipped for an average cost of $190,000
with the high being $192,000 and the low
being $188,000. The $70,000 savings per
well represented one free well out of every
four.
Some were quick to prophesy
disaster in the future. I have followed this
field throughout its history. It is now in the
latter stages of depletion. Only one well
experienced tubular problems and was
lost - one of the original ten. It is equally
interesting that no one did or could have
prophesied the savings experienced. That
is, the sum of the parts added to less than Figure 2-27. Casing Program Comparison for the Same Well
the total - a common experience in
economizing drilling operations.

SUMMARY
Efficiency in drilling must be a team effort. Everyone involved from top level management to the
roughneck must have the same priorities to be successful. Success is as much attitude as
engineering. Good, new ideas must be given every opportunity to be successful. The industry
can ill afford the hard-headed, old stereotype that hasn't learned anything new in thirty years
and refuses to consider anything different. That is not to say that experience is not valuable.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

23

Drilling Practices
Chapter 2

Experience is extremely valuable and should be coupled with an open mind and sound
engineering to continue to bring new technology to drilling.
In an Arctic operation, the first well was drilling at 7,000 feet at a rate of two feet per hour. Good
drilling people were involved and suggestions were made. Those involved could have adopted
the attitude that they were doing the best that could be done and continued. However, to their
credit, they admitted that it was a poor drilling operation and opened their hearts and minds and
dug into their experiences in an effort to improve. Their efforts were rewarded. The first well
was at 9,173 feet in 125 days and 11,044 feet in 168 days. The second well was drilled to
9,123 feet in 78 days, saving 47 days at $30,000 per day for total savings of $1,410,000. The
third and final well was drilled to 13,522 feet in 92 days at estimated savings of more than
$3,000,000! All this resulted because a few good drilling people adopted the attitude that they
could do better and dedicated themselves to doing better.
One final observation. A drilling operation cannot be economized or optimized in part. To
obtain the ultimate benefit, all the factors must be optimized together. The whole is inevitably
greater than the sum of the parts. In all the illustrations, minimum benefit could only be gained if
the other variables had been optimized. For example, Figure 2-1, the best response between
drilling rate and bit weight was obtained when the best fluid (air) was used at higher rpm. The
same is true for Figure 2-2 where the best response to bit weight was obtained for clear water
with the worst being obtained in the presence of the poorest drilling fluid - oil mud. In Figure 2-4
for drag bits, increasing bit weight is almost insignificant unless the rotary speed is also
increased. It should be obvious that without good hydraulics, nothing works - and so it goes. In
all, remember the old KISS rule - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

NOMENCLATURE

24

Exponent to rotary speed, usually between 0.5 and 1.0

Bearing wear factor

CB

Bit cost

Cr

Hourly rig cost

CT

Cost or Cost per foot

CTC

Total cost per foot for the entire well

Exponent to bit weight

DR

Drilling rate

Footage drilled, ft

Slope

Bearing life

Rotary speed (rpm)

Rotating time (hours)

Trip time (hours)

Weight on bit

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Drilling Cost Control

SI UNITS
No conversion necessary

REFERENCES
1

Black, Alan, et.al., "Effects of size on Three-Cone Bit Performance in Laboratory Drilled Shale",
SPE 11231, 1982.

Doty, P.A., "Clear Brine Drilling Fluids: A Study of Penetration Rates, Formation Damage and
Well Bore Stability in Full Scale Drilling Tests", SPE Drilling Engineering, February, 1986, pp
17.

Black, A.D., et.al., "PDC Bit Performance for Rotary Mud Motor and Turbine Drilling
Applications", SPE Drilling Engineer, December, 1986, pp 409.

Warren, T.M., "Penetration Rate Performance of Roller-Cone Bits", SPE Drilling Engineering,
March, 1987, pp 9.

Black, A. D., et.al.

Kexiang, Li, "Current Status and Future Trends of Jet Bit Drilling in China", SPE Drilling
Engineer, August, 1986, pp 257.

Maurer, W.C., "High Pressure Drilling", Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1973, pp 851.

Deily, F.H., et.al., "Five Wells Test High-Pressure Drilling", Oil and Gas Journal, July 4, 1977,
pp 74.

Holster, Jesse L. and Kipp, Robert J., "Effect of Bit Hydraulic Horsepower on the Drilling Rate
of a Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit", Journal of Petroleum Technology, December,
1984, pp 2114.

10

Onisko, J.E., "Application of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits in the Kuparuk River Field,
Alaska", Journal of Petroleum Technology, July, 1985, pp 1220.

11

Cunningham, R.A., "An Empirical Approach for Relating Drilling Parameters", Journal of
Petroleum Technology, July, 1978, pp 987.

12

Black, A.D., et.al., "Effects of Pore Pressure and Mud Filtration on Drilling Rates in a
Permeable Sandstone", Journal of Petroleum Technology, September, 1985, pp 1671.

13

Nelson, M.D., "Drilling Impedance of Mud Solids", World Oil, February, 1975, pp 55

Doty, P.A., et.al.

14

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

25