ISSN 23947799 IJAETCS (2014) Vol.1, No.

1, 43-51
Research Article
International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer
Sciences

COMPARISON BETWEEN UNDERBALANCE

AND CONVENTIONAL OVERBALANCE
DRILLING IN THE GULFOF SUEZ USING
A DRILLING SIMULATOR
Taher Elfakharany
Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Engineering, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt (taher.elfkharany@bue.edu.eg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
ABSTRACT: The technique used worldwide while drilling is known as overbalanced drilling. Which is defined as
the drilling process where the hydrostatic pressure used exceeds the formation pressure. This is done with the main
purpose of killing the well. However, there are numerous problems that accompany overbalanced drilling. Such
problems are differential pipe sticking, loss of circulation, formation damage and other problems. A relatively new
technique was introduced, known as underbalanced drilling, where the well is being drilled with a hydrostatic
pressure less than that of the formation. Correct and proper execution of such technique eliminates problems
associated with overbalanced drilling. More precisely, underbalanced drilling solves the issues of formation
damage, differential pressure sticking and loss of circulation. Additionally, underbalanced drilling increases the
rate of penetration and provides other uses discussed in this paper. On the other hand, underbalanced drilling has
its own problems as well.
The objective of this paper was divided into three steps; the first step involves collecting and filtering the
data required for comparing between overbalanced and underbalanced drilling using the drilling simulator. The
second step is running the data on the simulator, and analyzing and discussing the output. Finally, it can be
concluded that UBD provides lower drilling costs, increased ROP and less hole problems when it was compared to
overbalanced drilling of the same formations.

KEYWORDS: Underbalanced Drilling (UBD), Overbalance Drilling (OBD), Simulator, Equivalent circulating
density (ECD), Daily Drilling Report (DDR), Total Flow Area (TFA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
1. INTRODUCTION: Throughout time, the petroleum industry witnessed vast advancements and evolutions and
still does. The vitality of the presence of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) in everyday lives dictates the commitment that
has to be made towards the petroleum industry. Consequently, the latter became one of the most important industries in
modern day life. Drilling problems are inevitable and there is no drilling operation throughout the world that occurs
without encountering problems. Such problems may be related to the equipment being used, difficulties met within the
well, human errors or accidents. Naturally, any problems or accidents might have fatal as well as economical
consequences. An ideal drilling operation is one where there are no problems faced, hence no additional time and cost
requirements and no life threats [(1), (2)]. Therefore, it can be deduced that drilling engineers aim to achieve optimum
drilling operations with the least time and costs possible. To achieve this, researches are being conducted globally to
tackle tedious problems associated with drilling. The solutions may be in the form of drilling equipment modifications and
chemicals or introduction of new drilling techniques and new equipment designs [(3), (4)]. A relatively new drilling
technique was introduced, called underbalanced drilling (UBD). Proper design and execution of a UBD operation can
prevent or minimize the problem of fluid invasion and its outcomes (clay reactions, precipitation, and emulsification),
along with invasive formation damage that result during conventional overbalanced conditions.

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT: This paper deals with problems associated with overbalanced drilling that are
solved by underbalanced drilling. In other words, the advantages of underbalanced drilling and how problems pertinent to
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 44

overbalanced drilling are solved or tackled by underbalanced drilling. The objective of this paper is to make use of a
drilling simulator to correlate between overbalanced and underbalance drilling.

1.2. REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES BETEEWN OVERBALANCE AND UNDERBALANCE DRILLING:

The major difference between conventional overbalanced drilling and underbalanced drilling is the hydrostatic pressure
exerted by drilling fluids in each technique. To elaborate, hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid is proportional to its
density. When it comes to overbalanced drilling, the equivalent circulating density (ECD) of the drilling fluid is adjusted
so that the pressure due to the drilling fluid column is higher than the formation pressure, resulting in what can be referred
to as a killed state where there is no inflow of formation fluids[(5),(6)]. It should be noted that the density of the
drilling fluids is adjusted by the use of suitable additives. On the other hand, UBD is the technique in which the
circulating pressure of the drilling fluid is less than the formation pressure, such condition if applied, should be present
along the entire section of the pay zone. The result is the flow of formation fluids (water, oil or gas) into the wellbore [(7),
(8)]. The low pressure of the drilling fluid is attributed to its low density, which is attained by the injection of non
condensable gases into the circulating fluid, reducing its effective hydrostatic density.
The gases used could be Nitrogen, Air, Natural gas, processed flue gas, reduced oxygen content air [9]. Injection of gases
into drilling fluids to reduce their density is an artificial induction of the underbalanced state. Naturally occurring
underbalanced state can be found in over pressured reservoirs where low density mud can be utilized; this is known as
flow drilling [(10), (11)].

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE USED SIMULATOR: The drilling simulator used is called CS Inc. Drilling and
Workover Simulator 2009. It comprises a software part and a hardware part, the latter consists of a set of panels similar
to those found in an actual rig. This section will start by describing the Data Input and Output.

2.1. DATA INPUT: For confidentiality reasons, the well whose data will be inserted into the simulator will be
referred to as well X. Additionally, the Egyptian company from which the data has been procured will be named
company Y. In addition, the data used is to be slightly adjusted before being input into the simulator. This is because
well X is a directional well whereas the drilling simulator used is not a complex one and does not deal with any
deviated or directional wells. For well X, its Daily Drilling Report (DDR) and drilling program are the documents from
which the data was extracted.

2.2. EXTRACTING DATA:

The data types required to the simulator include:

1. Pressure profile of the drilled formations illustrated in Table:I.
2. The used BHA illustrated in Table:II.
3. The used mud program illustrated in Table:III.

Pressure Depth of Depth of Casing setting Casing setting

gradient formation top formation depth in depth in
Formation
(psi/ft) (m) top (ft) formation (m) formation (ft)

Zone 1 (S. Gharib) 0.433 - - 2141 7023

Zone 2 (Hammam-
0.26 2170 7117.6 - -
Faroun)
Table I: Pressure data to be inputted into the simulator
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 45

Reference OD, inches ID, inches Length, feet

DCs 6-3/4 3 62
HWDPs 5 3 775
DPs 5 4.276 6186
Table II: BHA data to be inserted into the simulator

Mud weight Plastic viscosity Yield point

Mud system Mud weight (ppg)
(kg/lit) (cp) (lb/100 ft2)
1 1.27 10.6 32 35
2 0.93 7.75 7 10
3 (kill mud) 1.08 9 18 12
Table III: Mud data to be inserted into the simulator

The drilling program is used to provide number one, while the other three parameters are provided by the DDR. This
section will show how the useful data is to be extracted from the DDR and drilling program prior to being inputted into
the simulator.
To simulate the underbalanced state, the kick zone had to be first identified. This is achieved by referring to the
DDR. Data input into the simulator requires the initial conditions to be inserted. More precisely, the data of the last casing
before drilling the zone of interest is to be considered. By referring to the drilling program it is clear that 9-5/8 casing is
to be set at the end of South Gharib (S. Gh.) formation before proceeding to Hammam-Faroun (H.F.). As a result, the two
formations that will be dealt with the simulator are South Gharib and Hammam-Faroun, (Fig: I).

Fig I: Casing program as per the drilling program of well X.

Once the formations of interest are identified, their pressure gradients must be determined. This is carried out, as
mentioned earlier, using the drilling program. Fig: II shows the pressure profile as per the drilling program of well X. It
is obvious in the Fig: II that the pressure profile has a legend in order to differentiate between the lines (mud weight, pore
gradient and frac gradient). In addition, there seems to be some sort of error in the pressure data of South Gharib
formation. However, since the mud weight, as per the DDR, used while drilling this formation is normal. It will be
assumed that the pressure gradient of South Gharib is the normal pressure gradient (0.433 psi/ft). The pressure gradient
(pore gradient) of H.F. is around 0.6 Kg/lit as seen in the pressure profile. This value is to be multiplied by 8.34 to convert
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 46

it to ppg (pounds per gallon), this value is then multiplied by 0.052 to convert it to psi/ft. The resulting pressure gradient
of H.F. is then 0.26 psi/ft. This zone can be considered a depleted zone. In the same vein, the formation tops of well X
as per the drilling program are shown in Table:IV. It was mentioned earlier that the drilling simulator does not work with
deviated wells. Consequently, the depth readings to be considered are TVD (True Vertical Depth) readings. To sum up,
the formation data to be used is summarized in Table:I. The cells filled with a dash refer to data that are not needed.

Fig II: Pressure profile as per the drilling program of well X.

Table IV: Formation tops and casing points as per the drilling program of well X

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

3.1. UNDERBALANCE DRILLING OF ZONE 1 (S. GHARIB): In Fig: III, it is seen that while drilling S. Gharib
formation, starting at a depth of 7073 ft, the kick occurred at 7113.5 ft. S. Gharib formation is mainly a salt formation
however, the kick occurrence and hence the start of the underbalanced conditions can be attributed to the presence of
thin streaks of limestone. The vertical scales represent the following parameters: ROP (purple), WOB (Green), Pit
Deviation (Blue), Formation pressure (Red) and Bottom hole pressure (Black). The horizontal scale represents time. In
Fig:III, it is obvious that:
1. Constant pit deviation (No losses or gains).
2. Formation pressure is also constant since only one formation is being drilled.
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 47

3. Bottom hole pressure showing gradual decrease as a result of replacing the wellbore mud with the lighter mud.
4. No change in ROP.

Fig:IV, shows similar trends to Fig:III, except for the increase in ROP from 12 ft/hr to nearly 30 ft/hr. This is due to the
reduction in mud weight and the rise of the underbalanced conditions. In Fig:V and Fig:VI, the same trends are followed
as in Fig:III and Fig:IV for the ROP, WOB, formation pressure, and pit deviation. As for the bottom hole pressure, it
stabilized due to the complete replacement of the old mud weight by the new mud weight. In other words, the old, heavier
mud is completely out of the hole. The sudden decrease in the ROP and WOB in Fig:VI is due to a connection being made
during that time of drilling.

Fig III: underbalanced drilling through zone 1 Fig IV: Underbalanced drilling through zone 1 (progressing)

Fig V: Underbalanced drilling through zone 1 (progressing) Fig VI Underbalanced drilling through zone1 (progressing)

3.2. UNDEREBALANCE DRILLING OF ZONE 2 (HAMMAM-FAROUN): Zone 2 started at a depth of 7117.6 ft.
this zone is considered a depleted zone because its pressure gradient is 0.26 psi/ft (Table:I). The formation pressure of
H.F. is about 1850 psi, while the formation pressure of the overlying S. Gharib formation is around 3000 psi. Fig:VII
shows that the underbalanced condition has been compromised and this resulted in an overbalanced condition. This is due
to the large formation pressure difference, where zone 1 has high pressure while zone 2 has a very low pressure and nearly
considered depleted. The pit deviation shows a decrease due to the fact that little fractures (leaks) got formed due to the
overbalanced condition that resulted in some losses in circulation (about 10 bbl/hr). The entrance into zone 2 is signaled
by the abrupt decrease in bottom hole pressure from 3000 psi to 1850 psi. Due to the conversion of underbalanced
conditions to overbalanced conditions, ROP decreased from 35 ft/hr to less than 10 ft/hr. The bottom hole pressure is
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 48

above 2500 psi while the formation pressure is around 1850 psi, this confirms the presence of the overbalanced condition.
Fig:VII shows a trend similar to that of Fig:VI. However, the sudden and little decreases in the bottom hole pressure
values are due to the loss of drilling fluid into the leaks in the formation as the drilling progresses.

Fig VII: Underbalanced drilling through zone 2 (the underbalanced conditions have been compromised)

3.3. OVERBALANCE DRILLING OF ZONE 1: The mud weight, as mentioned earlier, was changed to 9 ppg to drill
the formation overbalanced. In Fig:VIII, it can be observed that the bottom hole pressure is around 3350 psi while it was
around 2800 psi during underbalanced drilling. While the maximum ROP was 35 ft/hr in the underbalanced conditions, it
is around 22 ft/hr during overbalanced drilling for the same formation, Fig: VIII show steady parameters.

Fig VIII: Overbalanced drilling, zone 1 (progressing)

3.4. OVERBALANCED DRILLING OF ZONE 2: While drilling zone 2 (starting at depth 7117.6 and having a
formation pressure around 1850 psi), it is observed that even though the mud weight used in this zone is higher than the
one used while drilling underbalanced, no losses or leaks occurred (Fig:IX). A possible explanation for such a
phenomenon is that zone 1 when drilled underbalanced was allowed to release some of the stresses inside it when it
caused the kick. This decrease in stresses, in turn, resulted in a small decrease in the overburden stress on zone 2. As a
result, the decrease in stresses on zone 2 gave a chance for fracture initiation and leakage of fluids into it. On the other
hand, when zone 1 was drilled overbalanced it was not allowed to release any of the stresses inside it. Consequently, when
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 49

zone 2 was reached, there were no chances of fracture initiation to occur of course, the ROP dropped when zone 2 was
reached. This is due to an increase in overbalanced conditions because of the higher difference between bottom hole
pressure and formation pressure. Fig:X and Fig:XI, Shows the display of bottom hole in case of underbalance one
overbalance conditions.

Fig IX: Overbalanced drilling through zone 2 (progressing)

Fig X: Bottom hole display of the start of underbalance conditions Fig XI: Bottom hole display of the overbalance conditions

3.5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The cost of drilling the entire 8 section is estimated to be $637,499 according to the
drilling program of well X. Additionally, drilling the 8 section took 13 days. Therefore, the average cost per day of
drilling the section can be calculated as follows:

The thickness of the section is around 1880 ft. The maximum ROP value obtained by underbalanced drilling is 35
ft/hr. Therefore, the number of days needed to drill the section using this ROP value can be calculated as follows
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 50

Hence the total cost required to drill the section would be

As for overbalanced drilling, the maximum ROP was 20 ft/hr. This means the calculations would proceed as
follows

This is nearly 77% more than the cost of underbalanced drilling.

4. CONCLUSION:
1. While drilling S. Gharib in the Gulf of Suez at underbalance conditions, the ROP improvement from 20 ft/hr to 35
ft/hr. Improvement of ROP by UBD is the main reason for drilling underbalance.
2. Regarding the hole problems, a comparison was done between overbalance and underbalance drilling at the same
section and it was found that: The creation of overbalance conditions resulted in losses of circulation at depth
below 7117.6 ft (H.F.), the losses amounted to 10 bbl/hr. Whilst drilling at underbalance conditions no losses
were experienced as circulation losses can occur at overbalance conditions, not underbalance.
3. UBD prove more advantageous than overbalance drilling, but in some cases the loss of underbalance conditions
can lead to more serious problems than overbalance drilling. This was the case when the underbalance condition
was compromised due to the sharp decline in pore pressure after zone H.F. was reached. Because UBD allowed
the overlying formation (S. Gharib) to release some stresses by allowing some gas to flow from it. As a
consequence, the underlying formation (H.F.) was subjected to lower overburden stresses. This provided an
opportunity for leakage into the formation once the underbalance conditions are compromised, which was the
case.
4. The simple economic analysis, based on the time saved by increasing ROP due to UBD resulted in (for the 8
section of the well) shows that, the drilling costs increased by about 77% for overbalanced drilling.
Finally, it can be concluded that UBD provides lower drilling costs, increased ROP and less hole problems when it was
compared to overbalanced drilling of the same formations.

REFERENCES:

1. Bennion, D.B., et al., 2000, Using Underbalanced Drilling to Reduce Invasive Formation Damage and Improve Well
ProductivityAn Update.. : Petroleum Society of Canada, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 39. 0021-9487.
2. Bennion, D.B., et al, 2012, Underbalanced Drilling: Praises and Perils. [book auth.] Steve Nas and Deepak M. Gala. Getting
Up to Speed : Underbalanced Drilling. Richardson, USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.
3. Gas Research Institute,1997, Underbalanced Drilling Manual. Chicago, Illinois : Gas Research Institute.
4. Marbun, B.T.H., et al. Bangkok, Thailand, 2011 ,A Methodology of Underbalanced Drilling Design in Depleted Reservoir,
International Petroleum Technology Conference,. International Petroleum Technology Conference. IPTC-14755-MS.
5. Bennion, D. Brant, Underbalanced Drilling Technology - Candidate Selection for Optimum Application. s.l. : Hycal Energy
Research Laboratories Ltd.
6. Kolaric, G., et al. Ravenna, Italy, 2011,EM MWD Technology Enhances Underbalanced Drilling Efficiency in Mexico. : Offshore
Mediterranean Conference,. Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition. OMC-2011-039.
7. Saleem, Saad, et al, 2012, First Application of Extended Range Electromagnetic MWD Technology in Pakistan for a Horizontal
Well Drilled Underbalanced , Pakistan : Society of Petroleum Engineers,. SPE/PAPG Annual Technical Conference. SPE-
163126-MS.
8. Rafique, Maqsood Ahmad, 2008,Underbalanced Drilling: "Remedy For Formation Damage, Lost-Circulation and Other related
Conventional-Drilling Problems".. Bakersfield, California : Society of Petroleum Engineers,. SPE Western Regional and Pacific
Section AAPG Joint Meeting. SPE-114186-MS.
9. Lafayette, L.T,1994,Underbalanced Drilling: Formation Damage Control During High-Angle or Horizontal Drilling,Society of
Petroleum Engineers,SPE-27351-MS.
10. Rehm, Bill, 2002, Practical Underbalanced Drilling and Workover. Austin, Texas : Petroleum Extension Service, The University
of Texas at Austin,0-88698-198-0.
11. PetroWiki. [Online], 2013,. Surface Equipment for UBD Operations, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Elfakharany, T./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.1, No. 1 51