SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Mechanical Specific Energy and Statistical Techniques to Maximizing the

Drilling Rates for Production Section of Mishrif Wells in Southern Iraq Fields

Ahmed Alsubaih, Basra oil Company/Basrah University For Oil and Gas /Oil And Gas Engineering College;
Firas Albadran, Basrah University For Oil and Gas/ Oil And Gas Engineering College; Nuhad Alkanaani, Basrah
University /College of Engineering

Copyright 2018, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 29-31 January 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
The Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) and Statistical Analysis Approach (SAA) have been widely
implemented in oil and/or gas well drilling industry to enhance the Rate of Penetration (ROP) and reduce
the operation cost. This work focuses on predicting and optimizing the drilling efficiency and performance
in the production section of Mishrif reservoir in southern Iraq fields. The drilling data from twenty-five
wells has analyzed and examined to improve the drilling productivity relied upon MSE and statistical
approaches. By using MSE technique, the minimum required energy to drill unit volume of each formation
has determined to improve the drilling speed and avoid unnecessary energy consumption that may come
out in the form of bit wearing / balling or vibration. The optimum energy is achieved when the MSE value
comes close to the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) value that obtained from the empirical formula
for limestone and shale rocks. The flounder and threshold points have recognized to optimize drilling data
in the offset wells to enhance ROP in the future wells. In the statistical approach, the regression coefficients
have obtained from the screened and filtered fields drilling data then the empirical equations to estimate
ROP have constructed by using linear regression analysis through a commercial software. The optimization
techniques lead to an impressive increase in the rate of penetration in the production section of the Mishrif
reservoir. The MSE surveillance provides a reliable tool to maximize the ROP and reduce some drilling
problems by using sufficient energy to drill each formation below the flounder point. An excessive energy
consumption throughout drilling can be observed in the majority of wells been investigated. Thus, the non-
productive time has mitigated considerably by utilizing drilling variables that have induced MSE equal to the
unconfined compressive strength of the rocks. On another hand, the statistical analysis of real-time data for
twenty-seven wells revealed a remarkable improvement in drilling performance by suggesting an empirical
equation that predicts ROP through changing some key parameters such as Flow Rate (FL), Weight On Bit
(WOB), Torque (TQ), Revolution Per Minute (RPM), Mud Weight (MWT) and Total Flow Area (TFA).
The recommended drilling parameters resulted from this work can be used to reduce the drilling cost and
prevent/mitigate the time-dependent failure in the production section.
2 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Introduction
Optimizing the drilling operation is paramount objective to the operators and drilling contractors to
minimize the well cost and maximize the drilling performance. The well cost is literally related to the time
that takes to drill the well in which the longer it takes in the drilling operation; the more budget requires in
the well construction stage. One of the most effective solution to reduce the well cost is to maximize the
rate of penetration based upon optimum selection of the applied drilling parameters and tools. Generally
speaking, the drilling performance optimization has been widely implementing not only to minimize the
nonproductive time instead alleviate some critical drilling problems (Alsubaih and Nygaard, 2016). In
southern Iraq oil/gas fields, numerous drilling events have been encountered during drilling production
section in Mishrif wells that commonly drilled by 8.5 inches and cased by 7 inches casing as shown in
Figure 1. The loose circulation, tight spots, and stick pipe are among the drilling challenges that led to
noticeably increasing the drilling economic difficulty and time as presented in Figure 2. As rule of thumb,
controlling the drilling parameters can lessen both the drilling induced losses circulation and the natural
fracture related mud losses to some extent. Furthermore, by optimizing the drilling performance the time-
dependent consequences of shale interval in the form of pipe sticking or tight hole can reduce significantly
(Alsubaih and Nygaard, 2016). In this work, offset wells data in a field in southern Iraq have investigated,
and close examination of the drilling events has conducted which revealed the low drilling rate per hour is the
main contributor to increasing the probability of the drilling events. Therefore, mechanical specific energy
(MSE) and statistical approaches have implemented to enhance the rate of penetration per hour (ROP) and
drill the upcoming wells efficiently and cost-effectively. The MSE value is defined as the energy required
to drill unit volume of rock (Teale, 1965), and it considers as continue measurement in real time basis to
improve drilling performance based on downhole parameters. However, as the majority of the drilling data
is commonly recorded in the form of surface sensors, therefore, there is much uncertainty associated with
using MSE tool. In other words, a considerable amount of energy is lost throughout the drill string while
transferring the energy to the drill bit such as revolution per minutes (RPM) and weight on bit (WOB). Thus,
the MSE approached is utilized with great caution in this work to improve the drilling operation even though
some drilling variables are recorded from downhole sensors. Also, the critical variable in the traditional drill
off test (e.g., the founder point in which the ROP no longer respond to increase the WOB) has combined with
MSE approach to evaluating the offset wells drilling performance. The MSE baseline for the production
section has determined and manipulated as a valuable optimization tool which is approximately equal to
the average rocks' unconfined compressive strength. In another hand, the statistical analysis approach was
conducted to predict the drilling performance relying on the most sensitive controllable drilling variables
on the drilling operation. The drilling data from twenty-five wells has regression linearly by commercial
software to obtain the ROP based on the WOB, FL, TFA, RPM, and MWT. The data screening and filtrating
are implemented to the raw data to get a reliable ROP prediction according to physical meaning of each
drilling variable. The imperial correlation of the ROP can play a crucial role in enhancing the number of
the meter being drilled relying upon the most sensitive controllable drilling variables on the performance.
To sum up, a significant enhancement in production section of Mishrif well deliverability has achieved by
using the mechanical specific energy and statistical approaches.
SPE/IADC-189354-MS 3

Figure 1—the left-hand chart represents a Typical well design in

southern Iraq fields, while the right-shows the common drilling problems

Figure 2—The variations in the total number of days for each well compared to the planned time due to the
severity of drilling events and the deficiency in the drilling performance in a field southern Iraq. (Alsubaih, 2017)
4 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

The geological descriptions of the formations

The optimization was mainly focused on the production hole of Mishrif wells that consist of the following
formation; Sadi, Tanuma, Khasib, Mishrif, and Rumaila in some cases as shown in Figure 1. Sadi formation
deposited in the Neritic environment and composed mainly from limestone at the Campanian stage. The
Tanuma formation was deposited near shore basin, in partly euxinic conditions in the Santonian stage. It
is also composed mainly of shale with minor streaks of limestone in addition to Marl in some wells. In
the same cycle, The Khasib formation consists of two parts. The lower part contains shale and limestone
while the upper part is comprised of limestone that deposited in Lagoon environment. Mishrif formation
(considers as one of an essential oil reservoir in Mesopotamia basin) deposited by shoals and rudist patch
reefs in a shallow marine environment with the primary lithology of limestone interbedded (in some fields)
by thine shale stingers in Turonian stage (Alsharhan et al., 1997).

The Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE)

The mechanical specific energy was brought to the surface by (Teale, 1965) when he proved the maximum
energy required to remove a certain amount of rock was constant regardless of the drilling parameters
alterations (i.e., WOB, RPM, and ROP). This concept has been employed to modify the drilling variables in
order to optimize the ROP and the drilling cost. (Dupriest & Koederitz, 2005) Investigated the improvement
in the drilling efficiency when real-time MSE log is monitoring. Their work allowed to diagnostic the
drilling problems that evolve due to insufficient energy manipulation while drilling. It is well-recognized
the lower value of MSE indicate a higher drilling efficiency. Therefore, it widely uses to quantify the drilling
performance. The mathematical expression of the MSE is shown in Equation 1. The MSE magnitude serves
as a powerful tool in predicting the confidentiality of the operational parameters while drilling. The high
MSE with low ROP might be potentially due to improperly applied WOB that leads to smaller cutter-
rocks embedment; consequently, a considerable amount of energy dissipated because of rock fragments
regrinded, bit wear accelerated, string vibration and high friction evolved. In another side, the suitable WOB
can result in higher cutter depth penetration that produces fracturing and breaking rock mechanisms. This
action contributes to increasing the ROP and reduces MSE since the input energy is mainly invested in
drilling activity nor friction and cutting redrilling. It worth to state, the bit consumes only 30-40% of the
theoretically calculated energy in drilling processes (Pessier & Fear, 1992). Since the majority of drilling
data are recorded from surface sensors, the MSE technique associated with substantial uncertainty especially
in the deviated well because of a significant portion of energy is lost during transfer from the surface all
the way down to the bit. The primary source of energy losses come from the drill string is trending to lie
on the lower side of the well (from the kick-off point to the target) that results in substantially different
when it comes to torques, weight on bit and revolution per minute surface measurements. Thus, mechanical
efficiency factors (Ef) were introduced by several authors to mitigate the source of error in MSE tool and
to represent the drilling performance optimization by Teale 's MSE method more efficiently and accurately
as shown in Table 1.

(1)

Table 1—mechanical efficiency factor (Ef)

SPE/IADC-189354-MS 5

Drill-Of Test to optimize WOB and ROP

The primary function of the drill-off test is to understand the relationship between WOB and ROP under
constant drilling conditions of the RPM and the fluid pressure. The driller applies pre-plan maximum WOB
then the rig brake is locked down, and the WOB vs. ROP chart is recorded and monitored in the different
time interval. The WOB changes base on the drill string elongations in given period. Therefore, the ROP can
be obtained with the corresponding WOB increment (Bourdon et al., 1989). The drill-off test is performed
periodically in oil industry especially if new types of bit/formation being used or a sharp decline in ROP has
recorded in a particular interval. The threshold and flounder points are determined from the drill-off chart
that defines as the minimum, and maximum applied WOB can be used to optimize the ROP, respectively as
shown in Figure 3. In other words, the threshold is minimum load applied to onset ROP, while the flounder
point is the maximum load beyond which the exceeded in WOB do not lead to proportionally increased
in the ROP (Robinson & Ramsey, 2001). These points can be used to enhance the bit performance and
reduce the bit wearing if the operation condition allowed to be within their range. Also, bit balling might
be avoided to some extent if the bit operated in the drill of test limitation (threshold and flounder) as well
as bit vibrations.

Figure 3—The bit efficiency in term of ROP based on WOB increment (Dupriest & Koederitz, 2005)

Multi-Regression Analysis to Predict ROP

Bourgoyne and Yound (1974) introduced a mathematical model to optimize the drilling activity base on
multi-regression analysis of offset wells data as describe in Equation 2. They proposed the model of
dependent ROP variable could be derived from the following independent factors; formation strength, depth,
compaction, well differential pressure, bit operation conditions (diameter and weight), rotary speed, bit wear
and hydraulic. Then the optimum selection of these variables can be beneficial in the drilling processes
improvement. The drilling variables can be linearly regressed to get the independent variable coefficients
and the model intercept. Each coefficient represents the anticipated value of the dependent variable (ROP)
for a unit change of single independent variable (drilling datum) when the other variables keep constant.
The least square estimation typically used to solve the Multi-variances coefficients and to construct the
model (Montgomery, 2013).
(2)
6 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Where:
  f1= effect of formation strength;
  f2= effect of compaction on ROP;
  f3= effect of pore pressure;
  f4= effect of differential pressure;
  f5= effect of drill bit diameter and WOB;
  f6= effect of rotary speed;
  f7= effect of drill bit tooth wear;
  f8= effect of bit hydraulic jet impact force;

Input data and methodology

The drilling data from twenty-five well in a field in southern Iraq has collected and investigated meter by
meter based on daily drilling reports, final well reports daily mud logging reports, and drilling programs.
The daily drilling and final well reports were employed to quantify all necessary drilling parameters and the
problems in each interval. The geological reports along with the drill pipe tally sheets were also manipulated
to obtain; the formation tops, casing size and setting points. The quality control for these data was conducted
by comparing it with other data such as mud logging data, and real-time monitoring information the rock
strength parameters have obtain from the offset log derive methods (for limestone and shale) that calibrated
lately by the core analysis estimation as listed in Table 2.

Table 2—The average values for the UCS for production hole formations

Case 1 – MSE surveillance to improve ROP

The drilling parameters from three offset wells (A-1, A-2, A-3) in a field in southern Iraq have implemented
in the MSE surveillance optimization approach. The details design descriptions and drill bit specifications
of these wells were listed in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. The drilling and hydraulic parameters for well A-1
were presented in Figure 4. The average ROPs in production interval for the well A-1 was approximately
10.5 m/hr with a various reduction in ROP at 2320-2370 m, 2400 m, 2420 m, 2570-2600 m, 2650-2670
m, and 2700-2720 m intervals. The WOBs measurements were ranged between 1 to 8 tons and randomly
applied to the production hole. Similar to the torque, the surface and downhole RPMs were continuously
constant around a specific range because of the drilling process in this section was in the rotary mode. The
static and dynamic (Equivalent circulation density-ECD) mud densities were fixed at 1.25 sg and 1.32 sg
respectively while the flow rate and standpipe pressure were slightly diverging from depth to depth.
SPE/IADC-189354-MS 7

Figure 4—The drilling and hydraulic parameters for well A-1

Table 3—Investigated wells directional design

Table 4—Bit dulling for investigated wells, where, WT=Worn Teeth/Cutters, A=All Rows,
NC=Cone and Nose, X=Fixed Cutter, I=in gage, NO=No Major/Other Dull, RR=Rerunnable

For well A-2, the average field ROPs were 11.6 m/hr as shown in Figure 5 with drilling enhancement in
the 2452-2472m, but there were different intervals with low drilling performance (i.e., the intervals 2318
– 2386m, and 2627-2663 m). The WOBs were fluctuated and limited from 1.5 to 8 tons while the torques
measurement indicates abnormal reduction from 2328 to 2362 m. The surface and mud motor RPMs were
varied at various depths although the RPMs indicated the well drilling status in rotary mode and hold
directional section. The hydraulic parameters revealed dramatically escalating in Standpipe Pressure (SPP)
in several intervals (2291 – 2420 m, 2471 – 2520 m, 2627 – 2638m) while the flow rate was varying between
8 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

1600 to 2000 l/m excluding the first twenty meter of the hole. Furthermore, the static mud density changed
from 1.16 to 1.25 sg at depth 2429m whereas the ECD rose from 1.17 to 1.33 sg at depth 2320 m. The ROPs
management in this well was seemingly better than the well A-1.

Figure 5—The drilling and hydraulic parameters for well A-2

Figure 6-1 shows the MSE continue reading based on (Amadi, 2012) adjustment, and it can notice there
were many intervals where the inefficient energy consumptions were dominantly recorded such as 2361 m,
2390m, 2447 m, 2468m and so on. This highly applied energy might transfer in the form of bit vibration
and/or accelerate the bit wearing instead of investment in ROP speed up. The optimum MSE values were
designated for the entire hole by constructing MSE baseline that laterally used as optimization guideline.
The founder points were also detected for well A-1 drilling system by which the increasing the WOB no
longer enhancing the ROP.
SPE/IADC-189354-MS 9

Figure 6—1, 2 show the calculated MSEs for wells A-1 and A-2 respectively

Figure 6-2 displays the field MSE values for well A-2, and it can recognize two intervals with inefficient
energy consumption 2313 −2323 m and 2627-2657 m. However, the applied MSE in the other intervals
were within the acceptable range, but it still needs more adjustment in term of ROP management. The MSE
baseline was constructed, and founder points were determined in order to improve drilling rate productivity.
The drilling and hydraulic parameters for well A-3 were plotted in Figure 7. Close examination of the
drilling data revealed there was a slow rate of penetration almost in the entire section (the average ROP
was 5.9 m/hr). The ROPs slowness was mostly related to the inappropriate exploitation of the operating
parameters. The surface RPMs suffered from unusual fluctuation from 2954 to 3100 m interval in contrary
to torque and mud motor RPMs. Excluding the SPP reading, some of the hydraulic parameters such as static/
dynamic mud densities and the flow rate were limited to a certain extent in a consistent operation condition.
Though, the SPP spiked continuously bounded from 1300 to 2300 psi along the entire hole.
10 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Figure 7—The drilling and hydraulic parameters for well A-3

The trend of MSE surveillance to the well A-3 was displayed in Figure 8 that demonstrated inappropriate
drilling performance with very high and unnecessary energy consumption. Furthermore, the applied WOBs
was not sufficient to achieve proper delivery energy to the bit despite an increase in the RPMs (surface and
downhole) comparing with the previous wells. Moreover, the torque measurements were higher than the
offset wells values which clearly indicated ineffective drilling performance and the applied energy might
transform to bit/string dulling or vibration. Since the ROP poorly managed in this well, the MSE baseline
was hardly recognized for well A-3. Thus, it was assumed to be equal to the previous two well average
values.
SPE/IADC-189354-MS 11

Figure 8—shows the calculated MSEs for wells A-3

The drilling performance in the offset wells was not sufficient, and reevaluation of the ROP management
is crucially required. By combining the unconfined compressive strength of the zones and the average value
of the MSE baseline with the best drilling performance optimization guidelines were constructed to such
fields in this paper.

Case 2 – Multi-regression analysis to improve ROP

The drilling data from 25 wells have been analyzed to enhance the drilling performance in the production
section such as WOB, TFA, RPM, MWT, and ROP. Since the formation in this hole comprises mainly from
limestone and shale and the operation parameters are different for each lithology thus, two empirical ROPs
equations have constructed for these types of rocks. The operation parameters have fed to JMP statistical
software, and base on the least square estimation method, the regression coefficients have solved to obtain
the empirical model equations. In addition, the screening and sensitivity analysis methods have performed
to the input data to ensure model confidentiality relied upon the general trend of each parameter relating
to ROP. The pre-analyses of the drilling parameters with respect to ROP for limestone rocks are illustrated
in Figure 8, 9, and 10. According to these figures, the ROP has a positive slope with the following factors:
WOB, TFA, and FR. In these figures, the blue dashed line represents the mean of ROP while the solid and
dashed red lines represent the fitted model and the confidence interval, respectively. Additionally, Tables 3,
and 4 provide the Sensitivity analyzes and the statistical model variables that are used to predict the ROP
from Equation 3. The same procedure was conducted to construct ROP statistical model for shale interval,
and it comes up with Equation 4. The details information of statistical model variables and sensitivity
analysis for shale interval can be obtained from the (Alsuabih, 2016)
12 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Figure 9—The weight on bit effect on the ROP of the field data.

Figure 10—The flow rate effects of the ROP

Figure 11—The effects of the WOB on the ROP

SPE/IADC-189354-MS 13

Figure 12—The total flow area effects of the ROP

Table 5—Model sensitivity variables

Table 6—Model statistical variables

For Limestone

(3)

For Shale

(4)

Where Mud= mud weight (g/cc), FL= fow rate (l/min), TFA= Total flow area (in2), RPM= rovulation
per minute (RPM)
14 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Models results
The drilling optimization approaches revealed a considerable improvement in the drilling performance over
the offset wells performances. The MSE value was set to (12000 psi) (the average value of both the offset
wells baselines and to the mean value of the UCS of the production hole formation) then the ROPs were
estimated by the MSE model. For the statistical model, the field drilling parameters and bits TFA (0.9) were
fed to the limestone and shale models to predict the ROPs for wells (A-1, A2, and A-3). The statistical models
gave identical representation to the drilling performance for the optimized three wells. The optimum drilling
variables that provide minimum MSE values were selected and utilized to increase the drilling efficiency.
Figure 13 shed light on the improvement in the ROP by MSE model that increase the rate of drilling by
311% over the field drilling rate with a considerable reduction in rotating time. Additionally, the statistical
model ROP is approximately corresponding to the field ROP when the drilling operation lies on the offset
well-operating limit. The well A-1 was drilling in 150 hr by the drilling contractor yet the drilling time
reduced to 58 hr and ten hr by the statistical and MSE models respectively. The ROP was increased by 88%
over the field ROP by the MSE model optimization in well A-3 beside forty hours different between MSE
optimized and nonoptimized date as Figure 14 indicated. In another hand, the mutual corresponding was
observed between the statistical model ROPs with field ROP in term of drilling rate and time. A remarkable
drilling management was obtained by utilizing MSE optimization for well A-3 according to Figure 15 in
which 741% is increasing in ROP beyond the field ROP saving eighty hours to drill the production hole. The
statistical model was quite obvious surpassing the field ROP considering forty hours overall rig time-saving.

Figure 13—The left-hand track represents comparison between the optimized (MSE and Statistical) ROPs with the field
ROPs, the right-hand trach shows the time saving by each method comparing with actual drilling time for well A-1.
SPE/IADC-189354-MS 15

Figure 14—The left-hand track represent comparison between the optimized (MSE and Statistical) ROPs with the field
ROPs, the right-hand trach shows the time saving by each method comparing with actual drilling time for well A-2.

Figure 15—The left-hand track represent comparison between the optimized (MSE and Statistical) ROPs with the field
ROPs, the right-hand trach shows the time saving by each method comparing with actual drilling time for well A-3.
16 SPE/IADC-189354-MS

Conclusion
The optimization approaches for the production section of the Mishrif reservoir result in an impressive
improvement in drilling performance and a massive reduction in the rig time. The MSE surveillance offers
a reliable tool to sufficiently invest the energy being applied in the drilling system to maximize the ROP.
By which, the optimum drilling variables that facilitated in brought the average MSE value close to average
UCS value in the entire section were determined. However, the field data revealed the ROP was poorly
managed, and the drilling parameters were inadequately selected throughout drilling the offset wells in
the area of the investigation. Thus, the paper represents an engineering guideline to maximize the ROP in
southern Iraq field rather than the traditional method (best drilling practice) that currently implemented. In
another hand, the statistical analysis of real-time data for twenty-five wells formulated empirical equations
to predict the ROP from critical operating parameters such as weight on bit, revolution per minute, total
flow area, and mud weight. The statistical model anticipated the best ROP could obtain from the offset wells
lean learn. Thus, Besides the drilling optimization, the statistical model can be used as an evaluation tool to
the test drilling performance when the model ROP compared with actual ROP. This work considers a first
public study to enhance drilling activity in southern Iraq field. Therefore, it can be deemed as a valuable
tool to drill the production section of Mishrif wells in southern Iraq efficiently and cost-effectively.

References
Alsubaih, A. A., & Nygaard, R. (2016, June 26). Shale Instability of Deviated Wellbores in Southern Iraqi Fields. American
Rock Mechanics Association.
Alsubaih, A. A. S. (2016). Shale instability of deviated wellbores in southern Iraqi fields. Missouri University of Science
and Technology.
Alsubaih, A. A., Dahm, H. H., & Alsubaih, I. (2017, August 28). History Matching, Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis
to Improve Wellbore Stability Model Predictions. American Rock Mechanics Association.
Alsharhan, A. S, & Nairn, A. E. M., (1997). Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum Geology of the Middle East. Elsevier
Science.
Amadi, W. K., & Iyalla, I. (2012, January 1). Application of Mechanical Specific Energy Techniques in Reducing Drilling
Cost in Deepwater Development. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/156370-MS.
Bourdon, J., Cooper, G. A., Curry, D. A., Mccann, D., & Peltier, B. (1989). Comparison of Field and Laboratory-Simulated
Drill-Off Tests, (December), 329–334.
Bourgoyne & Young. (1974). A Multiple Regression Approach to Optimal Drilling and Abnormal Pressure Detection.
Dupriest, F. E., Koederitz, W. L., Totco, M. D., & Company, V. (2005). SPE / IADC 92194 Maximizing Drill Rates with
Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy.
Hammoutene, C. (2012, January 1). FEA Modeled MSE/UCS Values Optimize PDC Design for Entire Hole Section.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/149372-MS.
Montgomery, D. C. (2013). Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 6th Edition: John Wiley & Sons.
Pessier, R. C., & Fear, M. J. (1992). Quantifying Common Drilling Problems With Mechanical Specific Energy and a Bit-
Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, (SPE 24584), 373–388.
http://doi.org/10.2118/24584-MS.
Robinson, L. H., & Ramsey, M. S. (2001). Are You Drilling Optimized or Spinning Your Wheels? AADE 2001 National
Drilling Conference, "Drilling Technology - The Next 100 Years", (AADE 01-NC-HO-31), 1–11.
Teale, R. (1965). THE CONCEPT OF SPECIFIC ENERGY IN ROCK DRILLING, 2 (July 1964), 57–73.