SOclety of Petroleum engineers

SPE 27034

Drilling Optimization Using Drilling Data and Available Technology

P.R. Rampersad, G. Hareland and P. Boonyapaluk. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
SPE Members

COPYright 1994. SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers. Inc.

This paper was prepared tor presentahon at the III Latin AmerlC8r/Caribc"an Petroleum Engineering Confe:ence neld '" Bueoes Aires. Argent,"a, 27-29 April 1994

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Progtam Co",mtnee follow.ng review of informalion conlatned in an abstract submitted by .he authOl(s). Contents of the p_r.
as presented, have not been rev;ewed by the Societ}f of Petroleum Engineers ana are subject 10 correcllon by the a;Jt!10r(s) The material. as presented. does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Pelroleum Engineers. its officers. or members. papers presented at SPE meetmgs are subject to publication rev!ew by Editorial Comml"~ of the Society
of Petro/81Jr11 Engineers. P&rmlssron to copy is restricted to an abstract of not "ore than 300 words, Illustrations rnay nol be copied, The ab~ract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by Whom the paper is pre.ented. Write Libra'ian. SPE. P.O. Box 833835. Rtchardson. TX 75083-3838. U.S.A.. Telex 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT the drilling of an oil or gas well it is expected that

This paper demonstrates how information obtained
while drilling an oil or gas well, is utilized to optimize
drilling costs for upcoming wells in the same field by
creating a Geological Drilling Log (GDL). The GDL is
created by using drilling models specific to the bits used
for individual intervals to generate a formation profile of
properties for the entire section drilled on a foot by foot
basis. The simulation and optimization are used in the
field with the GDL to properly select bits (Tricone or
Natural Diamond) and operating conditions for the
lowest cost per foot:
The concept of a learning curve is utilized by conducting
a number of simulations using the GDL, so that the opti-
mum drilling parameters are obtained. The approach to
drilling optimization using a simulator and a GDL in
this study showed a substantial reduction in drilling
cost. The drilling models used in this study are capable
of accurately simulating the drilling of a well and
reproducing realistic Rates of Penetration (ROPs).
INTRODUCTION
The basic information for drilling optimization is avail-
able to the drilling engineer. However, due to the
changing characteristics of the formations being pene-
trated there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts
to minimize the cost for large sections of wells. During
References and Illustrations at end of Paper
317
several fonnations will be penetrated, however, several
large sections of varying formation types will be drilled
by one bit or a combination of different bits, all with
varying price tags, durability and specific applications.
A problem then arises because a bit designed for
specific applications will probably be used to. drill not
only sections of rock for which it is suited, but also. drill
other sections of rock for which it is not suited. Another
factor which has to be considered is the fact that a
section of hole can be drilled with one single bit or with
several bits depending on cperating conditions and bit
type. The possibility exists that, depending on cperating
conditions, bit type and cost, on.e bit might be more
favorable than another. There are several types of bits
on the market today ranging from durable, high cost
drag bits to conventional roller cone bits. Several
questions arise as a result of this. Which bits can be
used most cost effectively? What is the price of drilling
with an expensive durable bit for longer hole sections as
opposed to the cost of tripPirls. for several bit runs? The
only solution is a comprehe~sive and effective cost
optimization. This can only be accomplished by a total
we)) simulation approach. Thus, this paper seeks to
improve current understanding of the. effects of drilling
parameters and present methods to effectively optimize
the drilling of an oil or gas field. In practice wells are
not drilled interactively with a ccntinuous cost optimiza-
tion. When one considers the cost of drilling operations
it seems a small price to. pay for a continuing cost op-
2 DRILLING OPTIMIZATION USfNG DRILLING DATA A'I1D AVAlLABLE TECHNOLOGY
timization of any well being drilled. This paper seeks to
fill that gap.
GEOLOGICAL DRILLING LOG
The subject of drilling optimization is not new. Several
studies have been conducted to investigate the influence
of drilling parameters on rock drillability.l,2.3 More
attention was paid to the effects of weight on bit, rotary
speed and mud properties. These parameters play a
significant effect on drilling operations and can be con-
trolled fairly accurately. However, there had been no
way to introduce the effect of the geological environment
in determining the optimum operating conditions. In
recent times the use of drilling simulators to optimize
drilling operations has been presented. 4 Intrinsic to these
simulations is a Geological Drilling Log (GDL). The
GDL is a database system designed for applications in
high fidelity drilling simulators such as the ESD by
Millheim and Higgins. 5•6 It consists of a matrix of
drilling and geological parameters whose properties de-
fine the drilling conditions at a specific location.
The application of the GDL is not limited to high fidelity
simulators. It can be used in any type of drilling simula-
tor. In this study the information (Figure 1) derived from
drilling a particular well in a field is used to create a
GDL. Specifically, the GDL is created by inversion of
drilling ROP models specific to the bits used for drilling
each interval. The GDL contains rock strength (Figure
2) which is then used in drilling models under specified
conditions to determine ROP on a foot by foot basis.
The specific conditions and bits for the lowest cost
drilling are then observed through simulations.
ROPMODELS
This study is conducted using two previously derived
drilling models. The first model is the penetration rate
roller-cone bit model derived by Warren' and later mo-
dified by Hareland. 8 This model relates penetration rates
to operating conditions, rock strength and bit parame-
ters. The effects of hole cleaning and bit wear on rate of
penetration is included in this model. The second model 9
relates the rate of penetration of natural diamond bits to
the amount of material removed by the scraping action
of drag bits. The reader is referred to the papers
referenced for a complete description of the models.
Only the salient features of the model will now be pre-
sented.
318
SPE No. 27034
Tricone Bit Model
This model includes the effects of operating conditions,
bit wear, hole cleaning and geology.
The first term of equation defines the rate at which rock
is broken into small chips by the bit. The second term of
the model modifies the predictions to account for the
distribution of the applied WOB to more teeth as the
WOB is increased and the teeth penetrate deeper into the
rock. The third term accounts for the efficiency of the
cutting removal process based on hydraulics. The bit
coefficients a, b and c used in this study are shown in
Table 1. The following equation describes the chip hold-
dovm function which is an estimation of the resultant
forces on a chip when it is generated by the bit.
fc{pJ = cc+ac(~-120)b•.............................. 2.
The following equations calculate the bit wear based on
the WOB, RPM, relative rock abrasiveness and confined
rock strength.
w
!!.BG = W,,'LWOBi ·RPMi·Artzbrj ·Si ................... 3.
/:1
.1BG
WI =1 - - 8 - ....................................................... 4.
where &JG is the change in the bit tooth wear.
Rock compressive strength is a function of confining
pressure and lithology.
S = So(J +a.~· ) ......................................................... 5.
If tricone bits were used to drill an interval, the above
model is used to determine the confined rock strengths
from Equation 1. The confined rock strengths are then
used in Equation 5 to calculate the unconfined rock
strengths. The unconfined rock strengths are then
confined with the pressures used in the simulations and
used to calculate the ROPs. The coefficients acobcoccoas
and bs used in the model depend on the formation
permeability with values shown in Table 2.
SPE No. 27034 P. R. RA.WERSAD, G. HARELAND AND P. BOONYAPALUK 3
Natural Diamond Bit Model

The second ROP model is a model designed to be used if

a well is drilled. or to be drilled, with NDBs. The model
works on the principle that for a given applied weight on
Av = (i r 'COS-I(l- ~)_~d"p_p2( i -.p)
............................................................................ 12.
bit each diamond will penetrate the rock to a certain The projected area of the worn section ofa diamond is:
depth depending on the size of the diamond. When the
bit is rotated it will scrape the rock, thereby removing it.
As the diamonds cut the rock a wear flat area is formed
on the diamond reducing its penetration. If the
penetration is reduced, the bit removes less rock and
Avw = (i r 'COS-{I- 2:'w )-~d.. Pw_Pw2( i -p.)
............................................................................... 13.
ROP decreases. The following equations describe
various parts of the model. The ROP using a diamond bit can now be calculated
using:
The mechanical weight on bit is defined as the difference
between the applied weight on bit and the purnp-off
force acting on the face of the bit. 14.14' Ns . RPM '(Av -AVw)' CO"
ROP= ........... 14.
WOB met:h = WOB applied - !1pAp •••..•••..•...••••••••.••••••.•. 6. Dbit
where, A lithology correction factor is then applied to account
for anomalies described in reference 9. This correction is
GPM2p determined from drill-offtest or lab data. 6
6p = , .................................................. 7.
12031(KA)~

where KA is the bit apparent nozzle area. corr = RPMbJ~dWOBCJ ....................................... 15.
The concept of an equivalent bit radius was introduced
in this model. It is defined as: DETERMINATION OF COST PER FOOT

The calculation of cost per foot is done by the following

R, -W .................................................................. 8.
_ DbiJ
equation:

The volume worn by each cutter (diamond) per bit re- (t, +tt He) C,+t,Cm +Cb
Cr = D .............................. 16.
volution is given by:
Cost data for all bits are given in Tables I and 3.

V =C4·!WOB",.c~ ·RPM/·S/·Ar.b.; ....................... 9. COST OPTIMIZATION

D
1=1 N • . R.
Where table I and 3 show values of Ca and other bit The method of obtaining the least cost for the interval
data. drilled is the creation of a GDL from inforniation de-
rIte penetration of each diamond is: rived by drilling a well in the field. This information
coupled with drilling data is then used in an inverted
drilling model to determine the unconfined rock
strengths (Figure 2). Applying the GDL together with
the bit models and drilling parameters gives the ROP at
any particular depths. Then the ROPs are applied to
TIle penetration loss due to wear of diamond is given by:
compute the cost per foot by using Equation 16 with
appropriate bits and operating costs. The best cost is

p. ~ J!:;... s
uuuuuuuuu.uuuuuuuuu 11.
then determined as shown in Figure 3. This method is
best suited for determining the optimum drilling
condition because rock strength will change con-
The front projected area of each diamond is obtained tinuously for a bit run. Therefore. determination of the
from: optimum RPM and weight· on bit (WOB) is not

319
4 DRILLrNG OPTIMIZATION USING DRILLING DATA AND AVAlLABLE TEcHNOLOGY
sufficient because the pull depth for each bit must also
be optimized. To remove the effect of bottom hole
pressure effects, throughout this study the drilling
pressure differential was maintained at a constant over-
balance of 300 psi. In this study, the rig cost is $600/hr
and the tripping and connecting times are 1 hour per
1000 feet per round-trip and 5 minutes per a connection
(30 feet), respectively.
RESULTS
Table 4 shows the typical results from the simulations in
this study using the selection process for the exclusive
purposes of demonstrating the optimization process. The
process involves basically forming a feeling and per-
ceiving the tendencies and the performance of each bit
and the operating conditions. A search for the potential
alternatives indicates that the observation of certain
exclusion trials is required. Figure 4 shows the learning
curve from 20 simulations. This curve shows that by
conducting numerous simulations and adjusting the
drilling parameters, a lower drilling cost can be
obtained. The learning curve shows the total cost of
drilling a section from 8100 to 10150 feet on a well in
East Texas decreased by 75%. The initial simulation
(number 1) was conducted using the same bits that were
used on the previously drilled well with the same run
intervals and operating conditions. For the next
simulations different bits were tried and bit wear was
observed so that each bit was pulled when it was
approximately 70% worn. It was observed that pulling a
partially worn bit proved more economical than
continuing to drill with the worn bit. The drilled
intervals were adjusted for each bit using the same
operating conditions. The WOB and RPM were then
varied to determine the best set of drilling conditions.
The parameters of 42,500 lbs WOB and 125 RPM were
the observed to be the best for tricone bits ",;th 8.5-inch
size. Different tricone and natural diamond bits and
combinations were then tried.
Simulations 2 to 7 were all conducted using roller cone
bits for the entire interval. Diamond bits on the other
hand are more wear resistant. The first simulation (8)
using diamond bits resulted a total drilling cost $34,000
lower than the best roller cone bits (Simulation 4). The
process of WOB and RPM adjusting was also
conducted with bit 6 (the most efficient NOB) which
gave the variation in cost from simulation 12 to 16 in
Table 4. The uses of down-hole mud motor to increase
rotational speed to 350 RPM yielded unsatisfied results
because the bits wore at a much faster rate. The best
320
SPE No. 27034
mechanical WOB and RPM for the natural diamond bits
were observed to be 34,000 Ibs and 125 RPM
respectively. The combination of bits performed i~
simulations 17 to 20 gave the best combination of bits to
be 3 and 6.
Figure 5 shows the cost variation with depth from the
simulation number 1. Note the decrease in cost in this
figure to the point where the cost goes to a minimum and
then starts to rise. This is because the bit becomes worn
and, therefore, the ROP decreases resulting in more
rotating time and higher costs. If this bit was used to
continue drilling, the cost would continue to rise with
little gain in depth. Figure 6 shows a similar result for a
combination of a tricone bit on the upper section and a
diamond bit on the lower one. For the diamond bit used
the wear is lower so the bit maintains acceptable ROP's
to where it has to be changed. Ultimately, although dia-
mond bits are more expensive than roller cone bits, they
may be more economical to use under certain conditions
as seen from the learning curve.
CONCLUSIONS
I. The approach used in this paper can be used in pre-
planning and post-analysis to minimize the cost of
drilling operations and reduce drilling costs on any
development wells in either oil or gas fields where
wells were previously drilled.
2. The creation and use of a GDL was effective in
drilling cost optimization.
3. The user was able to arrive at a lower cost than what
it originally cost to drill the interval.
4. By conducting several simulations the drilling engi-
neers can quickly determine the effect of changing
drilling parameters.
5. The total well simulation can be conducted on the rig
floor. Projections can be updated on a continual
basis as information on geological changes are ob-
tained.
6. This process provides firm answers to the drilling
engineers and provides guidelines and firm conclu-
sions without the need for expensive, time consuming
conventional simulations.
7. The total well-drilling simulation approach where all
variables can be changed for any simulation can be
used as a learning tool and gives firm answers in
planning for drilling cost reduction.
SPE No. 27034 P. R.R~MPERSAD, G. HARELANDANDP. BOONYAPALUK 5
NOMENCLATURE 2. Brett, 1. F. and Millheim, K. K; "The drilling Per-
a. b, c:: formance Curve: A Yardstick for Judging Drilling
bit coefficients
Performance" paper SPE NO 15362 Presented at
aC'bC'cc :: chip hold down coefficients
the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
adobtfcd= drag bit lithology coefficients
tion, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
Ap = pump-off area (in 2)
Arabr = relative abrasiveness 3 Langston, 1. W.: "A Method of Utilizing Existing
as'b s = rock strength lithology coefficients Information To Optimize Drilling Procedures"
Ca = drag bit wear coefficient paper SPE Number 12621 Presented at the SPE
Cb = bit cost ($) Annual Fall Meeting Denver, CO, Oct. 3-6, 1965.

~m
-' cost per foot ($/ft)
4. E.C Onyia.: .. Geology Drilling Log- A computer
= downhole motor cost ($lhr)
Database System for Drilling Simulation II SPE
Cr = rig cost (SIhr)
Drilling Engineering Mar. 1987.
D = depth drilled (ft)
Dbit :: bit diameter (in) 5 MilLlteim, K. K. and Higgins, R. L.: II The Engi-
ds = diameter of diamond stones (in) neering Simulator for Drilling (Part I)" p~per SPE
fc(P eJ = chip holddo\\n fLlnction 12210 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
GPM= mud flow rate (gpm) Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-
1m = modified jet impact force (lbs) 8.
)..L = mud plastic viscosity (cp)
Ns = number of diamond stones 6 Millheim, K. K and Higgins, R. L.: " The Engi-
P = diamond penetration (in) neering Simulator for Drilling (Part 2) paper SPE
Pw = diamond penetration \\;th wear (in) 12075 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
p :: mud density (ppg) Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-
ROP :: rate of penetration (ftlhr) 8.
RPM = rotational speed (rpm) 7. Warren, T. M.; " Penetration Rate Performance of
S ;::
confined rock strength (psi) Roller Cone Bits" paper SPE No 13259 Presented
S0 ;::
unconfined rock strength (psi) at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
tc = connection time (hr) hibition Houston, Texas. Sep. 16-19, 1984
fr = rotating time (hr)
It = trip time (hr) 8. Hareland, G., and L. L. Hoberock "Use of Drilling
WI = wear function Parameters to Predict In-Situ Stress Bounds" paper
WOB = weight-on-bit (klbs) SPElIADC 25725, presented at the Drilling Con-
WOBmech = mechanical weight on bit (kIbs) ference in Amsterdam, Feb. 22-24, 1993

REFERENCES 9. Hareland, G., and P.R. Rampersad, "Drag Bit

Model Including Wear," paper SPE 26957 to be
1. Bourgoyne Jr., A. T. Chenevert, M. E. Millheim, presented at the m
LACPEC Conference, Buenos
K. K. and Young Jr., F. S.; Applied Drilling Engi- Aires, Argentina, Apr. 27-29,1994
neering SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2 Society of
Petroleum Engineering Richardson TX, 1991.
. ..
Bit Bit Wear Bit Cost 3-Term ROP Model Bit Coefficient
Number
Coefficient a b c
-8
I 5.3 x 10 11000 0.01817 3.07 0.00209
8
2 4.6 x 10- 12500 0.02587 4.21 0.00335
-8
3 3.8 x 10 12500 0.0183 9.77 0.00223
Motor 3001hr
Table 1: Tricone Bits Data
321
6 DRILLING OPTIMIZATION USING DRILLING DATA AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY SPE No. 27034

Formation Permeable Impermeable

Pe Ph-Pp P"
Qr. 0.00497 0.0141
br. 0.757 0.470
cr. 0.103 0.569
a.f 0.0133 0.00432
b. 0.577 0.782
Table 2: Chip Holddown Penneability Coefficients

Bit Diamond Cost No. of Diamond Pump-Off

Wear Stones Diameter Area (in2)
No ($)
(in)
Coefficient

4 4.26 x 10- 11 28,000 823 0.133 5.26

11
5 4.26 x 10- 28,000 816 0.139 8.86

6 4.26xlO- 11 28,000 1192 0.137 9.60

i

I 7 4.26 x 10- 11 28,000 3019 0.095 11.86

Table 3: Diamond Bits Data
Simulation Bit Used Drilling Parameter Total Cost Remarks
No. No. WOB, klbs RPM $
I 3,2,1 - - 274,121 Drill Behind
2 1 42.5 125 363,812 Trial for Sinlde Tri-Cone Bit
3 2 42.5 125 380,184 Trial for Sinlde Tri-Cone Bit
4 3 42.5 125 210,736 Best Tri-Cone Bit
5 3 42.5 350 363,812 Trial for RPM
6 3 42.5 200 360,541 Trial for RPM
7 3 30 125 270,682 Trial for WOB
8 4 34 125 176,908 Trial for Sin~e NDB
9 5 34 125 285,179 Trial for Single NDB
10 6 34 125 96,599 BestNDB
11 7 34 125 102,486 Trial for Single NDB
12 6 34 350 113,278 Trial for RPM
13 6 34 200 113,442 Trial for RPM
14 6 25 125 109,435 Trial for WOB
15 6 34 350/125 102,629 Trial RPM Combination RPM
16 6 34 125/200 106,676 Trial RPM Combination RPM
17 4,6 34 125 113,135 Trial for Bit Combination
18 5,6 34 125 116,508 Trial for Bit Combination
19 7,6 34 125 102,629 Trial for Bit Combination
20 3,6 34 125 92,961 Best Combination

Table 4: Result From the Simulations

322
SPE No. 27034 P. R. RAMPERSAD, G. HARELAND AND P. BOONYAPALUK 7

,,
RECORDED DATA

SURFACE IUiCORED
EI.ECl1UC L.OGS
0IUIJlIKI DATA
RECORDED DATA ' _

Ii OsmmlUy
SGni<
Ocnsft
IDc:lmlicn
Oin~cn
Wcijja
TII"lfIC
lIit

!~ t.M'D ('fl'lonoJ)
,/ R.oIary SpcaI

C:Jip=- on:I·"""T"" ! ""'" RaIc

I

i SP Lak-o!fTcsu ''''''''-
IMud......-
'U..... ,OI)'
i DcWIcd Bil On~
D~CNE

I I Fluid CQITf)OQIJM
Fotr.".JJ.lmAC\i\;ry
P~llky
form:1ion Tl'jchcss
Porcmty
'an::~i:y
n.id 1)1>.
U:hol"&)'
T"""""",
P=-,ti!), \
-- GEOLOGICAL DRILLING LOG

Figure 1: Creation of a Geological Drilling Log

70

60

I
.r;; 50
0.
..;0::

~...
eI)
t: 40
.......
C!)

CI.l

~
0 30
~
~
C!)
t:
I;:::
t: 20
0
<.)
t:
::>
10
r
0
8,200 8,300 8,400 8,500 8,600 8,700 8,800
Depth, ft
Figure 2: Unconfined Rock Strength Derived From the Inversion of Drilling Model

323
8 DRILLrNG OPTIMIZATION USING DRILLrNG DATA M'D AVAILABLE TEcHNOLOGY SPE No. 27034

Select Bits And

Input A New Select orBits

and Drill Conditions

Determine The
Drilling Cost

Output
Minimum Cost

No

L-_-/ Input A New Series or A Note or The Optimum

Operating Conditions Condition For The Particular
Bit Selection Is Made

Figure 3: Steps In Obtaining Optimum Drilling Cost

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 400,000

Cost/Ft, $/ft 300,000

Total Cost, $
~
~ [
200,000 ~
~ $
1ii 100
o
u
100,000
50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920
Simulation Number
Figure 4: Learning Curve For The Interval Drilled

324
SPE No. 27034 . P. R. RAMPERSAD, G. HARELANDANDP. BOONYAPALUK 9

Simulation No. 7
WOB = 42.5 klbs, RPM = 125 and Bit No.3, 2, and 1
100.~~------~--------~-------,--------~-------,

10,000 ...- ....... "" ......................-.~....-.......-... -.........:... _-_...._. __ ...__ .. _........._..... -.-'-"'-'

=-
~
J- 1,000 . ........ --Costlll
-e-- Cumulative CosUII
iii
o
U

100 ............. .

10~~~~-L~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~

8,000 8.500 9,000 9.500 10,000 10,500

Oepth (Ill
Figure 5: Drilling Cost For Each Bit Run And The Cumulative Drilling Cost For the Entire Interval

Simulation No. 20
Bit No.3, WOB = 42.5 klbs, RPM = 125 and Bit No.6, WOBmech = 34.0 klbs, RPM = 125
l00,OOOe-------~--------__-------,----------------,

10,000 ._- ....... _.......-. , ... - ".. -_ ..... ,..•.• -.......... _--._...•...... __ ............... -.-_._ ..
,

eE 1.000 .................. , ..... --CosL'ft

;; --e- Cumulative Costllt
o
LJ..

..........•._.•. _-- ... - .- .-,-.-. --... -. -._'!--. -._-......... - ...... -..... .

iii
o
U

10 ......... .."" . -. .......-..

8.000 8,500 9.000 9,500 10,000 10,500

Oepth (1\)

Figure 6: Drilling Cost For Each Bit Run And The Cumulative Drilling Cost For the Entire Interval

325