FEASIBILITY STUDY OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING FLUID DESIGN IN

DEPLETED RESERVOIR: CASE STUDY FIELD X, INDONESIA

Bachelor Thesis
By:

IRFAN HARIZ
12206052

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of

BACHELOR
At Department of Petroleum Engineering
Faculty of Mining and Petroleum
Bandung Institute of Technology

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
BANDUNG INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
2011
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING FLUID DESIGN IN
DEPLETED RESERVOIR: CASE STUDY FIELD X, INDONESIA

Bachelor Thesis
By:

IRFAN HARIZ
12206052

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of

BACHELOR
At Department of Petroleum Engineering
Faculty of Mining and Petroleum
Bandung Institute of Technology

Approved as to style and content by:

Thesis Supervisor

Dr-Ing. Ir. Bonar Tua Halomoan Marbun

NIP. 197512222009121002
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING FLUID DESIGN IN DEPLETED
RESERVOIR: CASE STUDY FIELD X, INDONESIA
By:
Irfan Hariz*

Dr-Ing. Ir. Bonar Tua Halomoan Marbun**

*Students at Department of Petroleum Engineering ITB

** Lecturer at Department of Petroleum Engineering ITB

ABSTRACT
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) can be defined as “drilling into a formation in which formation
pressure, or pore pressure, is greater than the pressure in the wellbore”. Underbalanced drilling is used
to avoid and limit the lost circulation problem and as a method to prevent formation damage,
differential sticking, and increase the drilling rate.
Type of fluid commonly used in underbalanced drilling include dry air, natural gas, mist, foam,
gasified liquid, or nitrogen. Reduced pressure drilling systems provide fluid densities ranging from
near zero to approximately 7 ppg.
Field X is situated in onshore West Java. The reservoir pressure has decline to below its bubblepoint
pressure. When conventional drilling is done, couple to fracture in limestone formation, lost
circulation problems occurred. With underbalanced drilling technology, lost circulation could be
avoided and the amount of recoverable hydrocarbons will be improved. Re-entry wells and proposed
new wells drilled in this field also will lead to maximizing recoverable hydrocarbons. No H 2 S exist in
reservoir fluid and the amount of CO 2 is insignificant. There is water production couple to oil and gas
production, nevertheless, it can be neglected. Water influx can be neglected in this field.
The study of this paper emphasizes drilling fluid selection, borehole stability, pressure evaluation,
hole cleaning, equipments, optimum combination, gas injection methods, and the underbalanced
drilling window. Nitrified mud was selected as a drilling fluid to drill the reservoir section in Field X.
Drillstring injection method will be chosen for the gas injection.

Keywords: Underbalanced drilling fluid, Depleted reservoir, Nitrified drilling

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 1

INTRODUCTION
As mentioned previously, underbalanced drilling
occurs when the effective downhole circulating
pressure of the fluid system in contact with the
formation is less than the existing formation
pressure. The purpose of using underbalanced
drilling is to minimize problems associated with
invasive formation damage which often greatly
reduces the productivity of oil and gas.
When properly designed and executed,
underbalanced drilling minimizes problems
associated with the invasion of particulate matter
into the formation as well as a number of other
problems such as adverse clay reactions, phase
trapping, organic and inorganic precipitation, and
emulsification. These effects may be caused by the
invasion of incompatible mud filtrates in an
overbalanced condition.
Special equipment and procedures are required
to control formation fluid inflow during
underbalanced drilling. Nevertheless, drilling
underbalanced offers several significant benefits
over conventional drilling techniques. These
include:
• Increased penetration rate and bit life,
• Minimized lost circulation while drilling,
• Improved formation evaluation,
• Reduced probability of sticking the drillstring
downhole,
• Increases well productivity, and,
• The requirement for primary stimulation
treatments can be reduced or eliminated.
Also, the following set of criteria are prepared
to help determine suitable candidates for
underbalanced drilling, include:
• Underpressured/depleted reservoirs or pools.
Without underbalanced drilling, many zones would
not have been drilled because of the possibility of
lost circulation and stuck pipe that can be a concern
when drilling conventionally.
• Formations sensitive to rock-fluid or fluid-
fluid interactions.
When permeability is reduced due to an interaction
between mud-reservoir rock or mud-mud, or
adverse reactions (e.g., clay swelling, wax and
asphaltene precipitation), UBD can be used to
avoid introducing potentially reactive fluids into
reservoirs sensitive to fluid invasion.
• High strength formations, hard rock drilling.
UBD contribute to a substantial improvement in
ROP over conventional mud drilling. In hard rock
formations, ROP can be up to 10 times higher.
• Formations with high permeability and where
consolidated sands exist.
• Formations with low initial and high
irreducible water saturation.
Underbalanced drilling minimizes the direct
displacement and entrapment of drilling fluids into
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 2
the formation thereby maximizing hydrocarbon
production.
• Formations of highly variable quality.
Some formations exhibit wide variations in
reservoir characteristics, such as permeability,
porosity or pore throat size distribution.
Overbalanced systems are conducted to protect the
better quality sections of a production zone while
damaging the portions that can be potentially
productive. UBD can result in more uniform
production from the target interval.
• Horizontal wells.
Underbalanced drilling can keep formation
impairment to a minimum because drilling fluids
are not forced by hydrostatic pressure into the
target formation.
Types of Underbalanced Drilling Fluid
Underbalanced drilling fluid must have ability to
clean the well, prevent downhole fires, and the
ability to carry produced fluids to the surface.
Types of fluids used in underbalanced drilling
include :
• Dry air
Dry air involves injecting air down the drillstring
without any fluids or additives being utilized. Dry
air drilling systems provide the fastest penetration
rates and longest life time per bit of any known
drilling fluid. Since only air is used in the drilling
operation, no contamination or plugging of
producing formation occurs. Drilling with air is
restricted by water producing formations, unstable
wellbores and high formation pressures. When
water encountered, the wet drill cuttings stick
together and to the pipe walls and will not carried
from hole by the air velocity. When these cuttings
fill the annulus, a mud ring will form which stop
the flow of air and the pipe will stuck. Although
dry air drilling can be performed in the presence of
large natural gas flows, the possibility of downhole
explosions and fire are possible if the critical air-
methane mixture ratio is reached.
• Nitrogen Drilling
The major advantage over air is that mixtures of
nitrogen and hydrocarbon gases are not flammable.
This removes the possibility of downhole fires and
stops the possibility of corrosion.
• Natural Gas
Using natural gas will prevent the formation of a
flammable gas mixture downhole when a
hydrocarbon producing zone is penetrated. Natural
gas gives higher potential for surface fires requires
few changes in operating procedures from those
used in dry air drilling.
• Mist Drilling
Mist drilling is modification of air drilling that is
utilized when water producing zones are
encountered. In mist drilling, a small quantity of
water containing foaming agent is injected into the
gas stream at the surface. In mist drilling, air is the
continuous phase and the liquid consists of
discontinuous droplets. The mist drilling system
provides comparable penetration and footage per
bit rates to dry gas drilling, with the added benefit
of being able to handle wet formations.
• Foam Drilling
Drilling using foam fluid is divided into 2 forms:
stable foam, and the stiff foam.
Stable Foam. Stable foam drilling systems are
produced by injecting water into the air stream
containing 1% to 2% foaming agent by volume at
injection pressure. The viscosity of this foam is the
primary means for cuttings Transport, as opposed
to the annular velocity of the air in dry air and air
mist systems. In stable foam drilling systems,
annular velocities contribute to reduced hole
erosion and large cuttings carried to the surface.
Operations employing stable foam drilling systems
are capable of effectively removing as much as 500
barrels per hour of down hole fluid influx.
Stiff Foam. Stiff foam drilling systems are an
adaptation of stable foam drilling. Stiff foam
systems incorporate bentonite and polymers into
the stable foam to produce a stable foam with the
greater hole stabilizing properties needed when
drilling large diameter holes. The system consisted
of a pre-mixed fluid containing 96% water, 0.3%
soda ash, 3.5% bentonite and 0.17% guar gum. A
1% concentration of foaming agent was added to
this fluid prior to injection into the air stream. The
result was a stable shaving cream type foam with
greatly improved hole stabilizing properties. The
bentonite provided a wall cake and the guar further
improved hole stabilization and cuttings removal.
Since that time, other polymers have been found to
be more effective than the guar gum, and have also
replaced the bentonite in some applications.
• Aerated Drilling
Aerated fluid drilling is another reduced pressure
drilling system utilized primarily to avoid loss of
circulation. This system is an air internal fluid
created by injecting air into a viscosified fluid or
mud. Cuttings Transport in aerated fluid is
dependent on the lifting and carrying properties of
the fluid. The sole purpose of the aeration is to
lower the weight of the column of fluid on the
Formation and reduce the potential for lost
circulation without changing the properties of the
drilling fluid. When drilling with aerated fluid
systems it should be realized that these are the most
corrosive of all reduced pressure drilling methods.
However, with proper selection of supply water,
proper pH control and the proper utilization of
technologically advanced corrosion inhibitors,
aerated fluid systems are successfully used
worldwide. Aerated fluids are well suited for
highly unstable formations where loss of
circulation is a concern. Aerated fluids also provide
the greatest tolerance to fluid influx of any reduced
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 3
pressure drilling system. Costs involved with
aerated fluid drilling are primarily related to the
composition of the drilling fluid being utilized and
corrosion inhibition.
DRILLING FLUID SELECTION
Like the fluid design for conventionally drilled
wells, the fluid system in an underbalanced wells is
the transportation system for bringing the cuttings
to surface, cools and lubricates the bottomhole
assembly and helps control the bottom hole
pressure. Fluid system design is one of the most
overlooked parts of underbalanced projects. In
designing an underbalanced fluid system the
impact on the desired equivalent circulating density
must be considered. The equivalent circulation
density is a combination of annular fluid density,
frictional pressure loss in the annulus, and surface
chock pressure. The design must result in a
pressure that is below the formation pressure, but
not so low that it creates hole stability problems or
excess production.
Compatibility between the components of the
fluid system, the fluid system with produced fluids
and the fluid system with the formation are all
critical in the fluid selection. Incompatibility can
lead to formation damage or the creation of
emulsions. Formation fluids may also affect the
characteristics of the fluid system. Acid gases or
hydrocarbons will affect the stability of most foam.
Hole cleaning is always a concern in
underbalanced wells. Most underbalanced fluid
systems rely on the velocity of the fluids, not the
viscosity to clean the hole. Different fluid systems
will require different velocities to achieve adequate
hole cleaning. The carrying capacities of
underbalanced fluids range from extremely poor
for pure gas systems, to extremely good in foam
systems.
Temperature stability must also be considered
in designing an underbalanced fluid system. Many
of the chemicals used may break down with high
temperatures. These include surfactants and
viscofying agents. Temperature will also affect the
density of the fluids used in designing the system.
As fluids are heated, their density falls. This is
especially true for brines and oils and is critical in
designing kill weight fluids.
Corrosion is a concern in designing
underbalanced fluid systems. As the well is being
produced, the interaction of the produced fluid,
injected gases, and injected liquid may create an
environment that promotes high corrosion rates.
Corrosion problems are accelerated, because the
circulated solids remove any corrosion barriers that
are naturally formed.
The effect on downhole tool must also be
considered in the selection of the underbalanced
fluid system. This includes the compressibility of
multiphase fluids, which lower the power output of
the motors. This can affect the functionality and
longevity of the mud motors and downhole
measuring devices. This infusion of the gas into
elastomers can also lead to explosive
decompression of the elastomers during trips.
Downhole tools (such as tools with no elastomers)
should be selected that will not be effected by the
fluid or a fluid system should be designed that
mitigate the effect on downhole tools.
Fluid selection will also affect the ability to
transmit data from downhole. Gas is a
compressible fluid; if gas is used in the fluid
system, it may dampen or eliminate any signal
transmitted from downhole.
Health, safety and environmental must be
considered in selecting an underbalanced fluid
system. The system must be designed so that fluids
can be handled safely at surface. Both produced
fluids, solids, and injected fluids must be handled
in a minor that meets local regulations. It must be
remembered that the returned fluid will be
contaminated with produced fluid. This will affect
the disposal of the solids and all returned fluids.
In Figure 1 and 2, we took the following
considerations into account. Drilling fluids are in
general selected according to their to clean the
well, prevent downhole fires, and the ability to
carry produced fluids to the surface.
In designing the flow charts shown in Fig. 1
and 2, we took the following considerations into
account. Drilling fluids are in general selected
according to their ability to clean the well, prevent
downhole fires, and the ability to carry produced
fluids to the surface. For instance, stiff foams are
preferred over unstiffened foams in our design. In
foam drilling, the efficiency of cuttings transport is
in general at its lowest close to the top of the
bottomhole assembly (BHA) because of low
annular velocities.
Since the effective viscosity of stiff foam is
higher than that of unstiffened foam, it is possible
to drill while having even lower annular velocities,
and still maintain acceptable hole-cleaning
efficiency. This makes stiff foams suitable for
drilling large-diameter holes, where the gas
injection rates required for other lightened drilling
fluids may not be economically feasible. This
means that high-viscosity drilling fluids such as
stiffened foams can become more attractive as the
hole diameter increases.
Stiff foams tend to be used at higher qualities,
so there is more chance for the foam structure to
collapse downhole in the presence of gas influx. As
a consequence, the annular velocity of the
collapsed foam will be too low for efficient
cuttings transport. Under these circumstances, we
take nitrified mud, or aerated mud as an alternative.
The use of dry air has been limited to vertical
wellbores that are small in diameter with no sour
gas, and with no downhole fires anticipated. The
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 4
main limitations of dry air drilling consist of water
inflow, downhole fires, and wellbore instability.
The flow of water into a well being drilled with dry
air can cause problems that are significant enough
to exclude dry air drilling.
Nitrogen is used for the same conditions
suitable for air. The major advantage over air is
that mixtures of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gases
are not flammable. This removes the potential for
downhole fires. Circulating nitrogen lifts cuttings
and liquid inflows the same way that air does. The
principal limitation on the use of nitrogen for
drilling operations is its cost.
The fluid system selected for a particular
project is dependent on the desired BHP, tolerance
to water influx, hole cleaning, cost and
environmental consideration.
Wellbore Stability
Wellbore stability has to be treated differently for
each drilling fluid. Mist drilling is unlikely to
improve wellbore stability if mechanically-induced
instability has been encountered in dry-air drilling.
Wellbore pressure is normally higher when drilling
with mist than with dry gas, but the difference is
not very large in comparison with the in-situ stress.
In foam drilling fluid, wellbore erosion has
been lessened by reducing wellbore-boundary shear
stress in naturally fractured formations, drilled
overbalanced. This occurs because foams are
efficient at cuttings transport at low annular
velocities. High-quality foams normally used in
drilling have high viscosities at low shear rates. It
is reasonable to think that foam should have a
lower tendency to erode the borehole wall.
Dry-air drilling usually leads to the lowest
wellbore pressures of any drilling method. These
low wellbore pressures can cause mechanically
induced instability, especially in weak formations.
Alternatively if there is a significant water inflow
with water sensitive shales exposed uphole, it is
possible for the produced water to cause wellbore
instability as it is lifted out of the well. In a dry
hole, broken or weak formations, such as coal beds,
collapse and enlarge the annulus.
Lost Circulation Problem
As known, lost circulation is the most common
drilling problems. It can involve mud flowing into
highly permeable zones, open fractures or vugs that
intersect the wellbore. Lost circulation should not,
therefore, occur when drilling underbalanced, in
most cases. Lost circulation is defined as the partial
or total loss of drilling fluids to the formation being
penetrated. It occurs when natural, or induced
formation openings are large enough to allow mud
to pass through, and when the pressure applied by
the mud column exceeds formation pore pressure.
The severity of these losses varies from minor
losses to a complete loss of the returns. These
losses can occur in unconsolidated or highly
permeable formations, in naturally fractured
formations, in formations with induced fractures, or
in cavernous formations.
Saad E. Alajmi and Jerome J. Schubert(1)
assumed that the user has a quantitative estimate of
both permeability (k) and porosity ( ), and a
qualitative petrographic description of the reservoir
being drilled such as the presence of natural or
induced fractures and the presence of vugs. The
presence of fractures is assigned an index (I Fr ) that
takes the value of 10 for highly fractured
formations, and the value of one for unfractured
formations. Similarly, the presence of vugs is
assigned an index (I v ) that takes the value of 10 for
vuggy rocks, and the value of one for rocks that do
not display any vugs. A number between 1 and 10
for both indices may be selected based on the user
judgment. The geological events that resulted in the
makeup of the rock petrographic properties such as
permeability, porosity, presence of vugs and
fractures are considered in this analysis to be
independent events. As a consequence, the lost
circulation index (I LC ), which is the resultant effect
of these four variables, is defined in our study as
the product of the likelihood of the independent
occurrence of these events. Saad and Jerome,
therefore, also formulate the lost circulation index
as follow:
(1)
Here, k is in md, and is a fraction. The
following guidelines are considered by the system:
I LC ≥ 5% have severe lost circulation problems.
I LC < 0.1% no lost circulation problems
encountered.
0.1% ≤ I LC ≤ 5% have some losses. In this
situation, we have the choice to bypass the lost
circulation analysis.
Clay Swelling Problem
Clay swelling takes place particularly when drilling
with fresh mud in the presence of some clay types
such as montmorillonite and vermiculite. The
ability of clays to cause permeability impairment in
the reservoir has been determined by Vitthal et
al.(17) It has been widely known that a variety of
clays are sensitive to changes in the fluid pH and to
the concentration of certain ions. Clays can cause
impairment by swelling or by their release and
migration as fines in the porous medium. The
potential for permeability impairment in a reservoir
depends, therefore, on the clay’s morphology, its
volume fraction, and its accessibility to invading
fluids. Such information on clays is obtained from
SEM photomicroghraphs, and thin-section analysis.
To determine the potential permeability
impairment caused by clay swelling and fines
migration, it is assumed that the clay types, volume
fractions, and distribution are known. This work
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 5
used, rules established by Vitthal et al. for
estimating potential for clay swelling and fines
migration. Two damage indices are particularly
used to estimate the potential reduction to rock
permeability as a result of clay swelling (swelling
index) and fines migration (fine-migration index).
These indices are assigned to each clay on the basis
of its distribution in the rock, its origin (authigenic
of detrail), and its composition.
To calculate the overall damage potential of
the rock, each clay index is multiplied by its
corresponding weight coefficient and its volume
fraction. The overall damage is the sum of these
products. Table 2 present a summary of the
damage indices for various clay types and their
distribution correction factors, respectively.
The overall swelling index is, therefore,
calculated as follows:
(2)
The swelling potential (in percent) is given by
(3)
Similarly, the overall fines-migration index is
given by
(4)
Here V i is the volume fraction of the particular
clay. The fines-migration potential (in percent) is
given by
(5)
The two indices F and S vary between 0%
and 100% and are equivalent to probability values
for the occurrence or fines migration and clay
swelling events.
Evaluation of Formation Pressure
Formation pore pressure, formation pressure and
minimum drilling fluid pressure to avoid borehole
collapse can be calculated and plotted in terms of
equivalent mud weight.
(6)
An example of such a plot is shown in Figure
3. Underbalanced drilling operational window is
defined as:
(7)
If ΔEMW > 0.5ppg, then UBD can be applied
without major risk of wellbore collapse. If ΔEMW
< 0.5 ppg, then UBD cannot be used since there is a
risk of borehole collapse.
Equivalent Circulating Density
During circulation, the total pressure exerted on
hole is the sum of the hydrostatic pressure and
annular pressure loss. This total pressure is also
described as dynamic pressure, to distinguish it
from the static the static bottomhole pressure
exerted by a static column of mud. Thus,
(8)
 P loss for turbulent flow can be determined by
the following equation,
(9)
Steps to design the optimum ECD for
underbalanced drilling fluid are:
1. Determine the minimum ECD that provides
maximum incremental increased ROP.
2. With the optimum ECD determined in step 1,
check if that ECD will still provide borehole
stability while drilling to target zone. Recalculate
ECD.
3. Determine what effect ECD calculated in the
previous step will have on fluid influx and what
effect this influx will have on drilling fluid
compatibility.
4. Recalculate ECD.
5. What effect will the ECD selection have
regarding surface fluid handling, control,
separation and processing. Recalculate ECD.
6. Determine the effect on cutting removal,
transfer and disposal, as well as the processing and
disposal of associated fluids. Recalculate and
select optimum ECD.
7. Take the optimum ECD from step 5 and
determine the type of drilling fluids that are
available
8. Select the optimum fluid type at the optimum
ECD that will provide the maximum incremental
drilling performance at the minimum incremental
cost.
Compressibility property in gas results to the
change of Equivalent Circulating Design (ECD) by
the depth of the well. Figure 4 shows the
equivalent circulating densities, predicted for the
6,000 foot hole used above, with air being injected
into the liquid at a rate of 100 scf per barrel. With
both drillstring and parasitic string gas injection,
the ECD is 2 ppg at about 300 feet from surface.
The ECD increases to 5 ppg at 6,000 feet, if the gas
is injected into the drillstring, while it exceeds 6
ppg at this depth with the same injection rate down
the parasite string. This demonstrates that it is
possible to be at balance or even overbalanced at
the hole bottom while at the same time being
substantially underbalanced near surface. It is
possible to lose circulation into a formation near
the hole bottom while at the same time formation
fluids flow into the borehole from a permeable
zone up the hole.
Optimal circulation rate
Design of circulation programs for underbalanced
drilling is fundamentally no different than for
balanced situations. The basis for hydraulic design
is to guarantee adequate hole cleaning, to ensure
vertical transport of cuttings in annular zones
where velocities are reduced because of changes in
annular area, to maintain wellbore stability and
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 6
mitigate formation damage, and to operate within
the pressure and rate constraints of the tubulars and
the surface equipment.
Order-of-magnitude calculations of required
air or nitrogen rates in air drilling, nitrogen drilling,
mist drilling, or gasified liquid drilling can be
determined using Angel’s analysis techniques. The
problem can be approached in two ways. The
fundamental relationships can be specifically
solved or approximations published by Angel can
be used. Regardless of which analysis is used, the
rates are commonly underestimated. Some
operators take Angel’s predictions and order out
equipment to handle twice these rates; further
adjusting on the fly.
Angel’s relationship is used, implementing an
iterative solution to get a more precise solution.
The basic equations are:
(10)
where a and b are summarized in the following
equations:
(11)
(12)
Fig. 5 is a graph from Angel's paper that plots
circulation rate versus hole depth. As an example,
Angel's graph shows that in a 12,000-ft hole that is
8¾ in. in diameter, drilling at 90 ft/hr, the
circulation rate should be about 2,000 ft3/min.
Weymouth friction factor,
(13)
Nikuradse’s Friction factor correlation is as
follow,
(14)
Another relationship which can be used is
Poettman and Bergman relationship to estimate the
optimum circulation rate for gasified liquids. The
equations used are shown below. Figure 6 is
plotted from the equation below for average
temperature 100oF. For other average temperature
value, the equation below is used. For stand pipe
injection:
(15)
(16)
For parasite string,
(17)

(18)
Cutting Transport
The carrying capacity of the aerated mud is defined
here as the maximum cutting size that can be lifted
by it. The terminal (slip) velocity, v sl , is determined
with Rittenger’s equation for vertical flat particles,
where the minimum drag coefficient is assumed to
be 0.94 based on Ikoku et al.,
(19)
The density and cutting diameter can be
expressed as follows,
(20)
(21)
The required cutting transport velocity, v t ,
depends on the rate of penetration, Qp, and the
allowable cutting concentration, Cc, in the annulus.
Material balance for drilling cuttings gives,
(22)
The cuttings concentration, C c , in the annulus
can be expressed as follows,
(23)
A value of 4% for cutting concentration is
generally considered as a trouble-free cutting
concentration. In fact, C c and Q p can be
determined on drilling site, so v t can be calculated
with the above equation. If the mixture velocity is
greater than v sl + v t calculated from equations
above, the aerated mud should be capable of
carrying the corresponding cuttings to surface.
Mixture velocity in the annulus, v m (ft/sec) is
calculated by the formula:
(24)
With a large annulus, the AV may not be such
that turbulent flow can be achieved, therefore it is
needed to alter the viscosity of the fluid.
(25)
In turbulent flow, viscosity has an unclear
meaning. It may be represented as:
(26)
In the present study, an equation below is
developed to calculate the air viscosity as a
function of temperature and pressure.
(27)
Coefficients in equation above are given in
Table 4. Equation above was verified against the
data provided by Perry and Chilton and good
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 7
agreement was found. Equation above calculates
air viscosity with a maximum error of 1.5% and an
average absolute error of 0.41% in the range of
temperature and pressure, 50 °F≤T≤ 250 °F and
200 psi≤P≤ 3,000 psi, respectively. The liquid
viscosity is calculated from equivalent viscosity
equations given for drilling fluids characterized by
the pseudoplastic power law rheology. For the
downward flow through the drillstring, liquid
viscosity, μL, is given by,
(28)
For the upward flow through the annulus, μL is
obtained from,
(29)
The mixture viscosity between liquid and gas
is obtained from following equation,
(30)
Volume Combination Requirements for Aerated
Drilling
Aerated mud is defined as a fluid consisting of
liquid (usually water), air, and drill cuttings. For
the optimum circulation rate and effective hole
cleaning, we should determine the volume
combination of liquid and air for the aerated mud
requirements. Guo et al., gives the mathematical
approach to determining the flowing bottomhole
pressure (BHP) for aerated mud drilling. This
mathematical model simulates flowing BHP and
cutting-carrying capacity for various flow rates and
wellbore geometries. The flowing BHP, p bh , for a
vertical well is given by
(31)
Where (32)
(33)
(34)
Figure 7 shows the example of typical shape
of BHP curves plotted with these equations for a 7-
7/8” hole, 4-1/2” pipe, and 10000’ depth. These
curves are prepared for determining the optimum
liquid and air flow rates.
Then, we should determine the maximum
cutting size on the basis of desired penetration rate
and rotary speed:
(35)
Because the underbalanced drilling will be
used, formation damage and differential pressure
pipe sticking are not a concern. A borehole
pressure gradient is considered first. On the basis of
the in-situ stresses, formation pressure, Poisson’s
ratio, and the wellbore pressure that we have
known, the wellbore stability will be considered.
The intermediate principal stress is included in
stress studies by applying an extended von Mises
yield criterion given by
(36)
And (37)
A failure envelope for each formation rock can
be plotted with the von Mises effective shear stress,
, and the effective normal stress, . The
stress state of the rock element depends on in-situ
stresses, formation pore pressure, and wellbore
pressure. After we know the safe wellbore pressure
gradient, then we enter the borehole pressure into
the P bh vs. Qg graph. As example, for the pressure
3,500 psi, entering Figure 7, four combinations of
liquid and air flow rates are read: 100 gal/min of
liquid with 250 ft3/min of air; 200 gal/min of liquid
with 400 ft3/min of air; 300 gal/min of liquid with
800 ft3/min of air, and 400 gal/min of liquid with
1,500 ft3/min of air.
Figure 8 shows examples of equal-carrying
capacity curves generated with Eqs. 19 and 22 of
aerated mud in a 7-7/8” x 4-1/2” annulus. The four
combinations we got before are plotted in Figure 8
and connected with a dotted curve, which is an
equal-pressure. The intersection point of the equal-
pressure curve with the carrying-capacity locus for
the cuttings size of ¼” as example is at 260 gal/min
of mud and 600 ft3/min of air. Therefore, the
optimum combination of mud and air injection
rates in this example is 260 gal/min of mud and
600 ft3/min of air.
Other Considerations
Things should be considered when we have to
design drilling fluid for underbalanced mode.
These considerations are, compatibility between
fluid - formation lithology and fluid – formation
fluids, hole cleaning issues, temperature effects,
and corrosion possibility.
DRILLING FLUID COMPATIBILITY:
Formation lithology, such as:
• Core and/or drill cuttings data
• Log and geophysical
• Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and X-
Ray diffraction
• Lab compatibility tests (Swelling test, shale
reactivity, retained permeability)
• Data from offset wells including mud log data
• Prior drilling histories including overbalanced
drill
Formation fluids, such as:
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 8
• Reservoir fluids samples
• Composition of all reservoir fluids (oil, gas,
water)
• Emulsion test
• Under balanced Fluid/formation fluid stability
• Gas mixtures affecting explosion envelope
• Formation damage tests
HOLE CLEANING ISSUES, such as:
• Well bore geometry
• Rate of Penetration ( ROP )
• Fluid cuttings carrying capacity
• Potential lost return zones
• Caliper (washout and/or ovality)
• Frictional effects on ECD
TEMPERATURE EFFECTS, such as:
• Liquid flash points
• Temperature profile with depth in order to
have ECD profile with temperature
• Effects on surface and downhole equipment
• Stability limitations of drilling fluid
CORROSION, such as:
• Effects on both surface and downhole
equipment
• Drilling gas/fluids (amount of dissolved O 2 )
• Formation (CO 2 & H 2 S) gas/fluids types
• Salinity of drilling and formation fluids
• Temperature & Pressure profile
• Review corrosion control requirements
• Estimated contact time effects
• Elastomers compatibility
DOWNHOLE TOOLS, such as:
• UB method used (parasitic string, concentric
string, etc.)
• Data transmission effects
• Hydraulics for running motors
• Logging and/or coring requirements
• Completion requirements considerations
HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES, such as:
• Review maximum exposure limitations of
fluids and gas components
• Review equipment design specifications
• Requirements necessary
• Determine non-existing equipment
specifications necessary to meet safety
standards
• Training issues
• Local safety regulatory compliance issues
(Personnel & Equipment)
• Development of qualitative risk assessment
/analysis
• Development of emergency response plan
• Review material transportation, storage and
handling procedures
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DISPOSAL ISSUES,
such as:
• Compliance with local regulation
• Compliance with operator guidelines
• Develop waste characterization profile
• Develop evaluation of disposal options
(cuttings, produced fluids, drilling fluids)
LOGISTICAL ISSUES, such as:
• Water
• Oil
• Diesel
• Nitrogen
• Natural gas
Equipments
While drilling hydrocarbon-bearing formations in
the UBD mode, the reservoir fluid flow from the
reservoir into the borehole and the productive
capacity of the formation are immediately
unknown. This cannot be accomplished without
adequate preplanning and specialized equipment.
Most underbalanced drilling equipment is available
on a rental basis from various air and gas drilling
equipment contractors. These contractors supply
the necessary surface equipment to carry out an
UBD operation. The equipment requirements for
each underbalanced drilling fluid are shown in
Table 6.
CHARACTERISTIC OF FIELD X
Field X is situated in onshore West Java.
Development phase began in 1999. Average oil
produced in field X is around 10 MSTBD couple to
55 MMSCFD gas produced, still high for mature
field category. Until 2009, around 13% oil of total
OOIP has been produced, so, there is still much
recoverable hydrocarbons could be produced
during next periods. Based on wells data, there are
34 wells that still produce oil and gas.
The reservoir pressure has decline to below its
bubble-point pressure. When conventional drilling
is done, couple to fracture in limestone formation,
lost circulation problems occurred. With
underbalanced drilling technology, as discussed
previously, lost circulation could be avoided and
the amount of recoverable hydrocarbons will be
improved. Re-entry wells and proposed new wells
drilled in this field also will lead to maximizing
recoverable hydrocarbons. No H 2 S exist in
reservoir fluid and the amount of CO 2 is
insignificant. There is water production couple to
oil and gas production; nevertheless, it can be
neglected.
As rough estimation, a well drilled
conventional in this field consume around $
4,000,000 when drilled conventional. When
nitrogen is used as drilling fluid, the drilling time
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 9
could be finished in a half overbalanced time with
addition cost for generate nitrogen. Assume the
conventional well will finished in 6 weeks,
therefore nitrogen drilling will finished in 3 weeks,
with total cost $4,730,000, whereas nitrified mud
drilling is more expensive than nitrogen drilling.
As advantages mentioned previously, total
amount recoverable hydrocarbons and
hydrocarbons flow rate will improve significantly,
up to 3 times productivity overbalanced well
(Leading edge advantages). The average
production rate in 2009 is around 10 MBOPD
through 34 wells, or 311 BOPD/well in average.
Hydrocarbons also could be directly produced
during underbalanced drilling, so it will make
earlier benefit to company as production phase
began earlier.
Case Study
The well will be drilled vertically to 6000 ft. The
pore pressure gradient at TVD is 0.267 psi/ft and
the differential pressure will be estimated about
200 psi. Liquid SG is 1, solid SG is 2.5, and gas SG
is 0.967 (nitrogen will be used), PV for the mixture
drilling fluid is 10 cp. ROP will be designed to be
50 ft/hr, and 100 rev/min RPM. The hole diameter
is 6-3/4 in. and pipe OD is 3-1/2 in. The motor
maximum capacity is 250 gpm, and minimum 160
gpm. From Eq. 9, Figure 10 is acquired.
And for hole cleaning function, V min and
maximum motor capacity determined for various
liquid rate. The minimum hole cleaning can be
determined by crossing the annular velocity that
resulted from the combination of gas rate and
liquid rate and the v min that resulted from the sum
of v slip and v t. The crossing is done for each paired
liquid rate, for example, the minimum hole
cleaning of 30 gpm liquid rate is the crossing
between 30 gpm line and Vm 30 gpm line, that
gives 1800 scf/min Qgas and 100 ft/min Vmin. The
other liquid rate is presented in following Figure
11.
The motor capacity constraint is determined by
entering the maximum motor capacity (in this case
is 250 gpm) and the minimum motor capacity.
The crossing between the lines will determined
the maximum constraint for each liquid rate and
will be used for determining the operating window
for underbalanced drilling.
Then, after the constraint determined, then the
underbalanced drilling window can be concluded in
Figure 13.
CONCLUSIONS
• Higher gas rate injected to wellbore will lower
the BHP
• Underbalanced drilling operating window can
be determined from factors such as pore pressure,
drawdown pressure, minimum velocity, and motor
capacity.
• Conventional drilling encountered lost
circulation and slower drilling rates.
Underbalanced drilling was investigated through
study to overcome loss circulation and increase
ROP.
• Field X is mostly either of naturally fractured
or suffer from pressure depletion due to excessive
production, they prove to be ideal for UBD and the
use of this technology is considered to be most
beneficial.
• From the fluid selection flowchart, nitrified
mud is preferred as underbalanced drilling fluid
will be used in this field.
NOMENCLATURE
C c = concentration of solids, volume fraction
D = True vertical depth, ft
D H = hole diameter, in
d c = ROP/(60 x RPM) = equivalent diameter of
cuttings, ft
D h = Hole diameter, ft
D p = Pipe outside diameter, ft
EMW f = Formation pressure gradient in equivalent
mud weight, lb/gal
EMW c = Minimum mud pressure gradient required
to avoid borehole collapse in equivalent mud
weight, lb/gal
EMW = Equivalent mud weight, lb/gal
F fi = Fine-migration Factor of the particular clay
G h = Geothermal temperature gradient, оF/ft
h = height (ft)
F si = Swelling Factor of the particular clay
I Fr = Fracture Index
I v = Vugs Index
I F = Total Fine-migration Index
I Fi = Fine-migration index
I LC = Lost Circulation Index
I s = Total swelling index
I si = Swelling Index of the particular clay
K = θ300 / 511n = consistency index,
dimensionless.
k = Permeability, mD
n = 3.32 log (θ 600 / θ 300 ) = flow behavior index,
dimensionless.
P = Pressure, psi
P 1 = P surface
P 2 = P bottomhole desired
P S = Pressure in the annulus at the surface, psia
Q = Circulation rate, scfm
Q a = volume of gas (scf/bbl) of mud
Q m = mixture flow rate, gal/min
Q p = rate of penetration, L/t, ft/hr
ROP = Rate of penetration, ft/hr
S = Gas gravity, dimensionless
T av = Average absolute temperature of the flow
stream, R
T S = Surface temperature, оF
u LS = velocity of liquid slug, ft/sec.
Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 10
V i = Volume fraction of the particular clay
V m = mixture velocity, ft/sec
V stp = Velocity of air at standard temperature and
pressure.
V sl = terminal (slip) velocity, L/t, ft/sec
v t = cuttings transport velocity, L/t, ft/sec
= Porosity
F = Fine-migration Potential
s = Swelling Potential
ΔEMW = Difference in equivalent mud weights,
lb/gal
ρ f = mud weight actual, ppg
ρ d = desired effective fluid weight, ppg
ρ c = density of cuttings, ppg
μ = fluid’s effective viscosity (i.e. accounting for
annular flow, cP)
μ f = aerated mud viscosity, cp.
REFERENCES
1. Alajmi, Saad and Schubert, Jerome J.,
2003, Optimum Selection of
Underbalanced Techniques, SPE Paper,
(SPE 85322)
2. Amoco Production Company: Drilling
Fluid Manual.
3. Asme, 2005, Drilling Fluids Processing:
Handbook, Elsevier.
4. Dahl, Thomas, 1999, Underbalanced
Drilling Manual.
5. Field X Mud Log Data.
6. Fluids Subcommittee, 2001, Fluid
Selection for Underbalanced Drilling
Operations, IADC Underbalanced Drilling
Committee, Presented at the UB
Technology Conference 2001.
7. Ikoku, Ch.U., Azar, J.J., and Williams,
C.R., Practical Approach to Volume
Requirements for Air and Gas Drilling,
paper SPE 9445 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21–24.
8. Guceyener, I. Hakki, 2003, Design of
Aerated Mud for Low Pressure Drilling,
SPE Paper, (SPE 80491).
9. Guo, Boyun et al, Computer Simulation
Predicts Unfavorable Mud Rate and
Optimum Air Injection Rate for Aerated
Mud Drilling, SPE Paper, (SPE 26892).
10. Guo, B., Harelan, G., and Rajtar, R.,
Volume Requirements for Aerated Mud
Drilling, SPE Paper, (SPE 26956).
11. Luo, S., Hong, R., Meng, Y., Zhang, L.,
and Li, Y. 2000, Underbalanced Drilling
in High-Loss Formation Achieved Great
Success – A Field Case Study, SPE, (SPE
59260)
12. Lyons, William C., 2009, Air and Gas
Drilling Manual: Third Edition, Elsevier,
inc.
 13. Marbun, Bonar T. H., 1999, Analisa
Model Aliran Fluida Multifasa Pemboran
Underbalanced di Lapangan Arun,
Indonesia, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
14. Perez-Tellez, Carlos, 2003, Improved
Bottomhole Pressure for Underbalanced
Drilling Operations, Louisiana State
University.
15. Presentation Lesson 4 – 9, Underbalanced
Drilling (UBD) PETE 689, Texas A&M
University.
16. Rabia, H., “Oilwell Drilling Engineering:
Principles & Practices”, Graham &
Trotman, Oxford, UK, 1985.
17. Salimi, S., and Tronvoll, J., 2008,
Enhancement of Well Productivity:
Investigation of the Feasibility for
Minimizing Formation Damage, SPE
Paper, (SPE 114051).
18. Shadizadeh, S.R., and Zaferanieh, M.,
2005, The Feasibility Study of Using
Underbalanced Drilling in Iranian Oil
Fields. SPE Paper, (SPE 97317).
19. Vitthal, S., Gupta, A., and Sharma, M., A
Ruled-Based System for Estimating Clay
Distribution, Morphology, and Formation
Damage in Reservoir Rocks, SPE FE
(December 1989), 621.

Table 1- IADC fluid classification (1)

Fluid System Specific Gravity Equivalent Mud Weight
(ppg)

Gas Drilling 0 – 0.02 0 – 0.02

Mist Drilling 0.02 – 0.07 0.2 – 0.6

Foam Drilling 0.07 – 0.6 0.6 – 5

Gasified Liquid Drilling 0.55 – 0.9 4.5 – 7.5

Liquid Drilling 0.8 and above 6.9 and above

Table 2 - Things to be concerned when using UBD

Problems Explanation

Compatibility Incompatibility may lead to formation damage, or creates the emulsions.

Hole cleaning UBD relies on the velocity of the fluids, not the viscosity of the fluids

Temperature stability Temperature may break down the chemical and affect the fluid density

The interaction of the produced fluid, injected gases, and injected liquid
Corrosion
accelerates corrosion rates

UBD fluids can affect the functionality and longevity of the mud
Downhole tools
motors and downhole measuring devices

The use of gas may dampen or eliminate any signal transmitted from
Data transmission
downhole

The system must be designed so that fluids can be handled safely at

Health, safety, and environmental surface. UBD fluids will affect the disposal of the solids and all returned
fluids.

Table 3 - Damage indices for pure clays (Vitthal et al 1989)(17)

Clay Component Swelling Index (I Si ) Fine-migrations Index (I Fi )

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 11

 Montmorillonite 10 10

Chlorite 1 6

Kaolinite 1 6

Illite 2 8

Vermiculite 5 2

Table 4 - Distribution correction factors (Vitthal et al 1989)(17)

Clay Distribution Swelling Factor (F si ) Fine-migration factor (F Fi )

Pore lining 1 0.7

Pore filling 1 1

Pore bridging 0.5 1

Discrete participles 0 0.9

Thin lenses 0.5 0

Table 5 - Coefficients for air viscosity correlation(8)

Pressure Range (psi – psi) A x 10-2 B x 10-5 C x 10-6
200 ≤ P < 1,200 1.627 2.257 1.488
1,200 ≤ P ≤ 2,000 1.515 2.872 2.522 – 6.118 x 10-6 T
2,000 < P ≤ 3,000 1.467 2.935 2.728 – 6.366 x 10-6 T

Table 6 - IADC Underbalanced Committee (Fluid Subcommittee) - Equipment Requirements(6)

Fluid Group Fluid Equipment Requirements
Gas Drilling Air Compressors, boosters, mist/foamer pump, blooie line.
Rotating head/diverter, flare/flame, drillstring floats
Nitrogen Cryogen tanks & heaters or membrane nitrogen
generators, boosters, mist/foamer pump, blooie line,
rotating head/diverter, flare/flame, drillstring floats
Natural Gas Pipeline/gas source, compressors, boosters,
mist/foamer pump, blooie line, rotating head/diverter,
flare/flame, drillstring floats
Mist Drilling Mist Source of gas, small injection pump, compressors,
boosters, mist/foamer pump, blooie line, rotating
head/diverter, flare/flame, drill string floats
Foam Drilling Dry Foam Source of gas, compressors, boosters, foam generator,
blooie line, rotating head/diverter, flare/flame, special
metering equipment, defoaming tank and pump, drill
string floats
Gasified Liquid Drilling Gasified Liquid Gas/liquid separator, compressors, boosters, flare line,

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 12

 rotating head/diverter, flare/flame, drill string floats
Liquid Drilling Oil Based Rotating head/diverter, drill string floats, cuttings
disposal
Emulsion Rotating head/diverter, drill string floats, cuttings
disposal

Horizontal

Small hole
no yes

Water influx Water influx

no yes no yes

Gas Gas Gas Gas

yes no yes no yes

no
Nitrified Mud Stiff foam,
Extended reach Stiff foam, Nitrified Mud
Nitrified Mud
Nitrified Mud
no yes
yes

Aerated Mud no Nitrified Mud

Nitrogen,
Nitrified Mud

Figure 1 - Flow chart of drilling fluid selection for horizontal well(1)

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 13

 Vertical

Water influx
no
yes
Gas
yes
no Gas

H2S yes Nitrogen,

Nitrified Mud
no yes no

Fire
yes
Nitrified Mud Stiff foam,
no
Aerated Mud
Dry air, Mist,
Aerated Mud

Figure 2 - Flow chart of drilling fluid selection for vertical well(1)

Figure 3 - Drilling operational windows(14)

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 14

Figure 4 - Predicted Equivalent circulating densities and gas volume fractions as functions of depth.(13)

Gas Gravity 1.0

Hole size 8¾ in. Drill Pipe OD 4½
in.
Standard ft3/min, hundreds

120 ft/hr
90 ft/hr
Circulation Rate

60 ft/hr
30 ft/hr
0 ft/hr

Depth, Thousands of feet

Figure 5 - Angel’s curves for air drilling (Medley)(1)

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 15

Figure 6 - Air volumes required to achieve desired mud weight reductions; average fluid temperature 100
F (Poettman and Bergman, 1955).(15)

Figure 7 – Calculated flowing BHP in a 7-7/8” x 4-1/2” annulus.(10)

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 16

Figure 8 - Cuttings-carrying capacity of aerated mud in a 7-7/8" x 4-1/2" annulus.(10)

.
Figure 9 - Field X general lithology(5)

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 17

 Figure 10 - BHP vs Q gas for various liquid rate

Figure 11 - Vmin optimum vs Qgas for various liquid rate

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 18

Figure 12 - Qg vs Qmin for various liquid rate and limited by motor capacity

Figure 13 - Underbalanced drilling operating window for Field X, Indonesia

Irfan Hariz – 12206052 – Semester II 2010/2011| P a g e 19