DRILL BIT SELECTION PROCESS MANAGEMENT & BIT PROCUREMENT STRATEGY SUMMER INTERNSHIP 2011

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD DRILLING AND COMPLETION DEPARTMENT EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION VERTICAL

BY PARTICIPANT NAME: ARUN KUMAR N

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PGDM AT INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE

JUNE 2011

ABSTRACT DRILL BIT SELECTION PROCESS MANAGEMENT & BIT PROCUREMENT STRATEGY Arun Kumar N PGDM, IIM Kozhikode Guide: Ashutosh Rai, GM, D&C Department, Reliance Industries Ltd June 2011, 23 pages

The objective of the project is to analyze the drill bit selection process and the bit procurement strategy and improve them. Drill bit selection very important in deep sea drilling and the cost impact could be 10-15% of the well cost even though the bit itself costs less than 0.5% of the total well cost. Various methods of bit selection were studied and evaluated. The method of bit selection scorecard has been recommended. Various strategies of drill bit procurement were analyzed, including the outright purchase, consignment basis and performance based method. It was found out that performance based contracting strategy is not widely used and hence an indirect method to implement the performance strategy through cost per foot analysis during bit selection has been advised. The use of cost per foot method has been advocated for drill bit selection and benchmarking previously used bits. When drilling in locations having familiar lithology, we can use past data from previously drilled wells to compute cost/foot. When drilling wildcat wells in unfamiliar lithology, a method has been devised whereby one can predict Rate of Penetration from mud log data and use it to estimate the cost per foot. Cost per foot method is a powerful tool because it takes into account both the performance parameters and also the cost details of not only bits but of the whole well, including the drilling rig. Hence cost per foot is a potent tool to have in your armory and one can use it along with the normal calculations to confirm that the selection that has been made is economically sound. All the findings are based on computations done on real life wells and drill bits that has been used/ drilled in the past and those that are going to be used/ drilled in the future. Key Words: Process management, Procurement Strategy, Cost per foot, Drill bit economics, Bit selection scorecard

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation and deepest gratitude to Mr. Ashutosh Rai, GM, D&C, who is my mentor for his guidance, encouragement and patience throughout my project. I am immensely grateful to Mr. Senthil Arumugam and Mr. Utkarsh Shukla for their support and guidance. I cannot thank them enough for all the support he has provided me for the successful completion of this present work. I would also like to thank Mr. N.K. Mitra, Mr. Maurizio Fico, Mr. Vigyan Tiwari, Mr. Vivek Verma, Mr. Vivek Agarwal, Mr. Dhiraj Hindoriya for without their help this project would not have been complete. Many thanks to the HR team at RIL headed by Mr. Darius Ghandhi for making me feel comfortable and guiding me through the initial days. Finally I would like to thank everyone who has contributed at least a bit to this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. PROJECT SCOPE 5 a. Project Objectives 5 b. Importance of drill bit selection 5 2. INTRODUCTION 5 a. Introduction to drill bits 5 b. Introduction to Rocks 7 c. Bit Selection 9 d. Bit performance prediction 14 e. Bit contracting strategy 14 3. OBSERVATIONS 15 a. Procurement process at RIL 15 b. Bit selection by the engineering team 15 c. Analysis of the existing process 16 d. Case for/against Cost/Foot Method 16 e. Implementing Cost/Foot Method 16 4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS 16 a. Cost per foot benchmarking of past bits 16 b. Cost per foot calculations by ROP prediction using method developed by Chevron Texaco for KK-III-D1-A1 16 c. Cost per foot and specific energy analysis for KKD-1A, KK4C-A1 and KKDWN-1 wells 17 d. Bit Selection for KK-III-D1-A1 based on ROP data of KKD-1A, KK4C-A1 and KK-DWN-1 wells 17 e. Cost-Benefit analysis of bits for KK-III-D2-E1 well 17 5. CONCLUSION 17 6. REFERENCES 18 7. APPENDICES 19 1 2 3 4

1. PROJECT SCOPE a. Project Objectives The objective is to prepare a basic bit selection procedure for various types of rocks. A fresh approach is expected. Focus is to reduce drilling time and cost. Analysis of various contracting strategies in bit procurement is to be made b. Importance of drill bit selection The cost of a deep water well is 60 70 mn USD. A typical drill bit cost is < 0.5% of deep water well cost. The impact of drill bit maybe 10 15% of well cost. The average spread cost of rig operations in deep water is USD 1mm/ day. The Cost benefit analysis of bits done for KK-III-D2-E1aptly illustrates the importance of bit selection. Two scenarios were considered. Scenario one is lesser number of bits and same ROP. Here, there is savings in Tripping time and equivalent saving in rig cost is 15-20 times bit cost. Scenario two is same number of bits and higher ROP. Here there is savings in Drilling time and the equivalent saving in rig cost is 3-6 times bit cost. The industry aspires for highest ROP & least number of bits 2. INTRODUCTION a. Introduction to drill bits The various types of bits are elucidated in exhibit I below.

Drill Bits

Roller Cone bits Milled Tooth Bits

Fixed Cutter Bits Natural Diamond Bits

Insert Bits

PDC Bits

TSP Bits
Exhibit I The various types of bits

Impreg bits

Comparison of Roller Cone vs Fixed Cutter Bits is given in exhibit II below

Fixed Cutter Bits Fixed cutter blades integral to bit body Rotate as a unit with drill string Gouging and scraping are the only actions at bottom Crushing is undesirable Since formation breakage is by shear alone, known as shear bits Fixed cutter blades integral to bit body

Rolling Cutter Bits Two or more cones containing cutting element Cones free to rotate independently Rotate about the axis of the cone as bit is rotated in the bottom of the hole Chipping and crushing are the primary bit action, gouging and scraping being secondary Two or more cones containing cutting element Cones free to rotate independently

Exhibit II Comparison of Roller Cone and Fixed Cutter Bits Milled tooth bits These are manufactured by milling the teeth out of a steel cone. Those designed for soft formations are usually faced with a wear resistant material (usually tungsten carbide) on one side of the tooth. Hard facing on one side makes one side wear more than the other and the tooth remains relatively sharp. The cutting structure is aggressive and cuts rock by combining compressive failure, plus gouging and scraping the rock at the bottom. Those designed for hard formations are usually case hardened by special processing and heat treating the cutter during manufacturing. Case hardened steel should wear by chipping and will keep the teeth sharp. Cutting action becomes predominantly compressive failure of the rock TCI Bits These are manufactured by pressing a tungsten carbide cylinder into accurately machined holes in a cone. Those designed for softer formations are long and have a chisel shaped end and bits use compressive failure with scraping and gouging. Those designed for harder formations are short and have a hemispherical end (button bits) and the cutting action is more of compressive failure. Natural Diamond Bits These are the first fixed cutter bits in the industry. They have a Shaped Tungsten Carbide matrix body on which natural diamonds are set. They are designed for hard rock drilling where other tools suffer from very early cutter wear. The scarce cutter exposure does not allow high penetration rates. Advancements in other diamond tools are making this bit obsolete. PDC Bits These are the most widely known fixed cutter bits. PDC cutter embodies a layer of sintered diamond powder (polycrystalline diamond) for wear resistance. This is backed up by tungsten carbide (compact) for mechanical resistance. Cutter can be shaped to resist to high exposure allowing higher ROP than roller bits, for appropriate formation. PDC cutters life far exceed that of other hard materials.

PDC bits are good when long times on bottom are required. They are also good when high RPM drilling (turbine or PDM) is expected. They are most effective in unconsolidated or poorly consolidated sediments (sands and silts). They can also be used in moderately strong formations (silty clays, soft shales, porous carbonates and evaporites). They are less effective in hard and cemented formations (abrasive sandstones, chert, dolomite). TSP Bits They have a Shaped matrix body on which thermally stable diamonds are arranged. Thermally stable polycrystalline diamond is an artificial material produced by diamond grits. They have higher resistance to thermal degradation than natural diamond. They can be appropriately shaped (self sharpening mode). TSP cutters are baked into the matrix enabling them to effective shear hard rock formations while withstanding high temperature (12000 due to friction) These bits have the same advantages of PDC. They extend field of application also into moderately abrasive formations with high compressive strength. Such formations are away from PDC reach because of heat exceeding PDC thermal stability. They are good for horizontal drilling, especially abrasive sections Impregnated Bits These are specialty tools for application in ultra abrasive formations, where standard bits cannot drill. They have rounded crown profile drilling head, manufactured with sharp, gritsize diamonds sintered directly into the bit matrix in a high temperature, high pressure process. The cutting structure is very hard abrasive matrix with thousands of cutters with no macroscopic exposure. The mechanism of drilling is more of abrasion than pure shear. They have no particular drawbacks except low ROP. b. Introduction to Rocks Rock Types The various types of rocks generally encountered during drilling are given below in Exhibit III. Clay SLIGHTLY ABRASIVE
7

Soft Shale SOFT Chalk Soft Limestone Gypsum Volcanic Tuff

Hard Limestone Dolomitic Limestone Schist Serpentine

Hard & Mica Schist SOFT OR MEDIUM MIXED Sand Loose Sandstone Shale Marl Shale Med-Hard Limestone Salt Frozen Soil & Ice Siliceous Limestone Dolomite Marble Peridotite Andesite Pegmatite Hematite Magnetite MEDIUM HARD NON ABRASIVE HARD ULTRA HARD
8

Metamorph Schist Gneiss Granite Basalt VERY HARD Gabbro Rhyolite Diorite

Soft Sandstone Sandy Shale Claystone Sandy Limestone Soft Schist

Med-Hard Sanstone Siltstone Alluvial Deposits Calcitic Limestone Med-Hard Limestone Hard Shale Exhibit III Rock Types

MEDIUM HARD ABRASIVE

Conglomerate Taconite Abrasive Sandstone Pyritic Formations Banded Hematite

Rock Strength It is required to predict drilling time and bit wear. It varies from rock to rock. Various methods of Rock Strength Calculations are given in the next section. The two most important measures are UCS and CCS. UCS is Unconfined Compressive Strength. It is the most important rock mechanical parameter in drilling analysis. CCS is Confined Compressive Strength. It is a more realistic representation of approximate rock strength. Finding Rock Strength Rock strength can be found in many ways. First method is Rock Mechanical Laboratory Testing. It is done on cylindrical rock samples in tri-axial lab cell. Second method is Rock Strength from Logs. Here correlations between rock strength and sonic travel time are used. Sonic Logs, Gamma Ray Logs, Neutron Logs can be used. Third method is Rock Strength from cuttings. Here critical transition force on few mm-sized rock samples is computed. The fourth is Rock Strength from ROP models. The fifth method is ROP models based on WOB, RPM, Mud weight etc. c. Bit Selection Approximate bit selection can be done based on preliminary rules and final selection can be based on a number of final criteria. Preliminary methods are using Common tendencies shown by past experience and using Formation Hardness in IADC Charts. The Final Criteria for Bit Selection are Cost per Interval Drilled, Drilling Specific Energy, Bit Dullness, Bit Selection Scorecard. The general rules are as follows that IADC Classification charts can be used to provide approximate listing of bit type applicable in a given formation hardness. Three cone rolling cutter bits are most versatile and are a good initial choice for shallow portion of the well. Diamond drag bits perform best in non brittle formations having a plastic form of failure, especially bottom of a deep well. Here, High cost of tripping favors long bit life. Small hole size demands design simplicity. PDC drag bits perform best in uniform sections of carbonates and evaporates that are not broken up with hard shale stringers or other brittle rock types. PDC drag bits should be avoided in formations which have tendency to stick to cutters. When using a roller cone bit, Bit with longest tooth size possible be used. Small amount of tooth breakages are to be tolerated than selecting shorter tooth size. When enough weight cannot be applied economically to milled tooth bit to cause self sharpening tooth wear, longer tooth size to be used. When rate of tooth wear is much less than bearing wear rate, we can go for Longer tooth size or Better bearing design or More bit weight. When bearing wear rate is much less than tooth wear rate we can go for Shorter tooth size or More economical design or Less bit weight. IADC Classification Charts The rocks are classified based on Compressive strength 0 5000 psi
9

Bit IADC Code Recommendations are 111 to 112, 115 to 215 and 117 to 217. Bit Description is A steel tooth bit for soft formations. Ground description is Very soft, un-stratified, poorly compacted rocks such as poorly compacted clays and sandstones, marl limestone, salts, gypsum and hard coals 3000 6000 psi Bit IADC Code Recommendations are 221 to 311, 225 to 315 and 227 to 317. Bit Description is A Steel Tooth Bit for Medium Formations. Ground Description is Medium-hard and abrasive rocks such as sandstones with streaks of quartz, hard limestone or chert, crystalline dolomites, hematite ores, and hard shales 6000 9000 psi Bit IADC Code Recommendations are 311 to 331, 315 to 335 and 317 to 337. Bit Description is A Steel Tooth Bit for Hard Formations. Ground Description is Hard abrasive rocks such as sandstones with quartz binder, hard sandstones, hard quartz shales, magma and metamorphic rocks 9000 12000 psi Bit IADC Code Recommendation is 411 to 431, 415 to 435 and417 to 437. Bit Description is A TCI / Button Bit for Soft Formations. Ground Description is Long intervals of very soft poorly compacted shales, dolomites, sandstones, clays, salts and limestones 12000 14500 psi Bit IADC Code Recommendation are 511 to 611, 515 to 615 and 517 to 617. Bit Description is A TCI / Button Bit for Medium Formations. Ground Description is Medium hard and abrasive rocks such as sandstones with streaks of quartz, hard limestone or chert, hematite ores, hard, well-compacted abrasive rock such as sandstones with quartz binder, dolomites, quartzite shales, magma and metamorphic coarse grained rocks 14500 psi and above Bit IADC Code Recommendation is 621 to 731, 625 to 735 and 627 to 737. Bit Description is A TCI / Button Bit for Hard Formations. Ground Description is Hard, well-compacted rocks such as hard silica limestones, quarzite streaks, pyrite ores, petryfied, hematite ores, magnetite ores, chromium ores, phosphorite ores, and granites Cost per interval drilled Cost per Interval Drilled Cost per interval drilled can be used for determining cost per interval during bit run and economic comparisons of bit runs or drilling techniques. This is the most commonly used method for bit selection around the world. Bits are compared using the standard drilling cost equation

10

B (T t ) R F

C = cost per interval (INR/m) B = bit cost (INR) T = trip time (h) t = rotating time (h) R = rig cost per hour (INR/h) F = length of section drilled (ft) Drilling Specific Energy Specific energy method is a simple and practical method for the selection of bits. SE may be defined as the energy required to remove a unit volume of rock. Drilling specific energy has been derived by considering the mechanical energy expended at the bit. Moore in 1974 showed that SE for rotary drilling can be calculated by

SE 20

WN t DF

SE = Drilling specific energy (MJ/m3) W = Weight on bit (kg) N = Rotating speed (rpm) D = The hole diameter (mm) F = Footage (ft) Research has shown that SE depends on design and geometry of bit, drill type, methods of cutting removal, depth of drill hole, WOB, RPM, ROP and rock strength. For a formation of given rock strength, a soft formation bit will produce an entirely different value of SE from that produced by hard formation bit. This property gives accurate method of bit selection. The bit that gives lowest value of SE in a given section is the better one. Because SE is the amount of energy needed to penetrate rock, it is a very significant measure of drilling efficiency and indicator of bit condition. SE is a direct measure of bit performance in a particular formation and provides an indication of bit-rock interaction. It is less sensitive to changes in weight and rotary speed and hence a practical tool for bit selection. Bit Dullness

11

Dull bit condition indicates difficulty faced by the tool on bottom. A critical evaluation of the pulled bit provides vital clues for bit selection for the next run. Degree of dullness can be used as a guide for selecting a particular bit. Bits that wear too quickly are less efficient and have to be pulled out of the hole more frequently, increasing drilling cost. Dull bit grading can involves Grading tooth wear, Grading bearing wear and Grading gauge wear. The most commonly used scheme for dull bit is the one developed by IADC Bit Selection Scorecard Selecting bit when thee are multiple bit vendors giving their proposal is a challenge for the operator. A systematic approach on how to select a bit based on quantitative measure is a simple scorecard. Balanced Scorecard is used to overcome the limitations of doing only financial tracking when evaluating company strategy. For bit selection, a simple scorecard can be used with three activities - Define the objective, Measure the performance, Select the bit. Various decision criteria can be Bit price, Bit wear characteristics, Section Cost per foot, ROP, Steerability, Re-usage of bits etc. The scorecard template is given in exhibit IV

Exhibit IV: Sample Scorecard Bit Selection Methodology There are various aspects to Bit Selection. This has been elucidated in Exhibit V.

12

Exhibit V: Bit Selection Methodology Software based Bit Selection Usually, software is used in bit selection. This is elucidated in Exhibit VI.

Exhibit VI: Software based bit selection.

13

d. Bit performance prediction There are number of methods to predict bit performance. Some parameters are UCS, CCS, ROP etc. These are given in Appendix A. These can be used as inputs for cost per foot calculations. e. Bit contracting strategy There are three ways in which bits are normally contracted Outright purchase, Consignment basis and Performance basis. In Outright Purchase bits are purchased from vendor before use. This is usually the option for specialty bits and for bits to be used in unfamiliar lithology. Vendors who quote the lowest for the same technical parameters are chosen. In Consignment Basis the vendor supplies a number of bits that may be used for the next few months. We pay as and when we use them. Those bits that are left unused are taken back by the vendor. In Performance Basis it is based on the information available, the vendor quotes for a particular cost per foot. The lowest cost per foot vendor is chosen .We pay only by the foot basis. A comparison of the contracting strategies is given in Exhibit VII below. Aspect Outright Purchase Consignment Performance

Ease of contracting

Simple

Little effort

Massive effort

Operator risk

More

Less

Least

Performance

Good only if right decisions are made

Good

Best

Inventory requirement

High

Bits in consignment serve as inventory

None

Chance of inventory build up

Yes

Temporary. Vendor will take back unused bits

No

Taking care of Uncertainty

Yes, at higher cost by ordering more bits

Safest method under uncertainty

Has to be contractually managed

14

Information required

High

Medium

Very High

When to choose

When significant information is available

When partial information is available

When perfect information is available or information cannot be shared

Scope for error

Highest

Less

None

Exhibit VII: Comparison of Bit Contracting Strategies

3. OBSERVATIONS a. Procurement process at RIL The procurement process at RIL is as per exhibit VIII below.

Exhibit VIII: Procurement process at RIL The engineering team is responsible for analysis of technical part of the bid b. Bit selection by the engineering team The method is two fold. For new lithologies first obtain Sonic Logs, Other Logs and Lithology data from G&G Team. Then send logs along with other requirements to vendor. The vendor does advanced calculations and suggests the bits.These are cross checked against
15

requirements. For familiar lithologies it is based on experience and past data, bits are chosen. The requirement is sent to the vendor and vendor quotes for the same. Various bits from various vendors are technically analyzed. Technical recommendations sent to Procurement team c. Analysis of the existing process Performance basis (Cost/foot) as a contracting strategy is rarely used. This needs perfect information. It requires sharing information with vendor. In case of imperfect or sensitive information, we can still go ahead with outright purchase/consignment basis and indirectly implement the performance basis by selecting bits based on Cost/foot. We can develop equations along the lines of ChevronTexaco to predict ROP. This can be used for performance comparison and calculating cost per foot. We can use our past data to develop these relations d. Case for/against Cost/Foot Method As case for, it is the Widely used method in the world. The ultimate objective of business is to create profits. What better way to select bits than use economics of drill bit selection. It takes into consideration a number of factors including rig cost and operating parameters. It is a birds eye view type of overall measure. As Case against, the inputs required for this calculation are sometimes difficult eg: ROP for a wildcat well. When we aim for accurate values, the calculation becomes complex. e. Implementing Cost/Foot Method For familiar lithology for most part, we know which is the best bit and what performance it achieved in the past. Using this data, we can accurately calculate the Cost per foot sections of a well. For wildcat wells from UCS, we can predict CCS and then ROP based on methods developed by ChevronTexaco. Using this, we can calculate Cost per Foot to sufficient accuracy. For used bits we can benchmark their performance using Cost Per Foot analysis 4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following studies were conducted. The findings are mentioned briefly below. a. Cost per foot benchmarking of past bits There is wide variation in similar bit types in similar lithologies. These need to be analyzed and justified. This has to be a continuous process b. Cost per foot calculations by ROP prediction using method developed by Chevron Texaco for KK-III-D1-A1 Making appropriate assumptions, ROP is predicted and then used for cost per foot calculations. This method if refined has immense potential for application and cost and time saving in unfamiliar lithology wells.

16

c. Cost per foot and specific energy analysis for KKD-1A, KK4C-A1 and KK-DWN-1 wells Cost per foot and specific energy analysis is made for the above offset wells. These are compared and we see a similarity in values in CPF and SE analysis indicating both can be used for benchmarking. d. Bit Selection for KK-III-D1-A1 based on ROP data of KKD-1A, KK4CA1 and KK-DWN-1 wells The three offset wells geology logs are first summarized under various heads. These are analyzed and bits have been recommended to KK-III-D1-A1 under the maximum ROP criterion for similar lithology and similar types of cross sections. e. Cost-Benefit analysis of bits for KK-III-D2-E1 well This calculation elucidates the effect of a better bit and the savings it produces in terms of reduced tripping or drilling time and the equivalent rig cost. These have already been discussed in the importance of bit section section (1b). 5. CONCLUSION Bit selection is a very important decision and has significant impact on well cost. The existing method of bit selection is providing satisfactory results and no modifications are envisaged. What needs to be understood is that Cost per foot method of bit selection is an important tool because it considers a number of factors and it takes care of the cost aspect . Using Cost per Foot method in addition to the existing ones in benchmarking already used bits and for selecting new ones will help us confirm that we are taking the economically best decision.

17

6. REFERENCES a. Caicedo, et. al, Unique bit performance predictor using specific energy coefficients as a function of confined compressive strength impacts drilling performance, Bloack 1, Forum2 paper, World petroleum Congress b. Kaiser, A survey of drilling cost and complexity estimation models, Intenational journal of petroleum science and technology, vol 1, no 1 (2007), pp. 1-22 c. Nygaard, Application of rock strength in drilling evaluation, SPE Latin American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference, April 2007 d. Macini, Drill bits for horizontal wells, vol 8, Rudarsko geolosko naftni zbornik, Zagrab 1996 e. Nygaard, how to select PDC bit for optimal drilling performance, SPE rocky mountain oil amd gas technology symposium, april 2007 f. Kelessedis, Need for better knowledge of in-situ unconfined compressive strength of rock (UCS) to impreove rock drillability prediction, 3rd amireg international conference, 2009 g. Calhoun, New confined compressive strength calculation impreoves bit selection and bit performance, AADE national technical conference and exhibition, 2005 h. Caicedo et al, Unique ROP predictor using bit specific coefficient of sliding friction and mechanical efficiency as a function of confined compressive strength impacts drilling performance i. Devereux, Drilling technology in non technical language, Pennwell books, 1999 j. The international association of drilling contractors website has a calculator that provides bit suggestions for various rock strengths (http://www.iadc.org)

18

7. APPENDICES a. Bit Performance Prediction UCS Prediction Using Sonic Data velocity if elastic waves in rock depends on rock density, stiffness and hence to rock strength Velocity also depends on rock mineralogy, grain size etc Hence no simple correlations exist Various works on prediction of UCS from Sonic data have a regression coefficient from 0.5 to 0.7 UCS data can be used to predict drilling time as per Teales model (1969)

8 * RPM *D * ROP

WOB Abit UCS WOB eff Abit

Work on UCS Prediction D Andrea et al (1965) & McCann et al (1990) Rc ~ 0.8

UCS a.Vpb
Entwise et al (2005) Rc2 ~ 0.533

UCS 0.783(Vp )0.882

McNally (1987) Rc ~ 0.6

UCS 143000 e

0.035 Vp

Oyler et al (2008) Rc2 ~ 0.9

UCS 0.0642 V p 117 .99

Andrews et al (2007)

19

A _ UCS
CCS

K1 (tc 40 ) K 2

UCS is the standard usually used by drill bit specialists for rock strength Apparent strength of rock to the bit is different from UCS, and closer to CCS A globally applicable solution and methodology has been developed by ChevronTexaco UCS for bit selection and performance is erroneous for porous/permeable rock drilled with mud The widely practiced and accepted rock mechanics method for CCS calculation uses the following Rock UCS Confining stress Pore pressure Rock internal angle of friction CCS Calculation

CCS Calculation Method 2

20

ROP Prediction ROP for all bit types predicted by applying Specific energy theory Mechanical efficiency as function of rock strength Influence of bit type and torque represented by Coefficient of sliding friction Mechanical efficiency Relationships established for the following on the basis of rock strength Sliding coefficient of friction Mechanical efficiency Weight on bit RPM Use of CCS better describes rock strength to the bit Implemented at EPTC (Chevron Texaco) SEROP Specific Energy ROP Model
21

Rearranging Teales Specific Energy equation,

ROP

13 .33 * * N CCS 1 DB [ ] EFFM *WOB AB

, EFFM, WOB, N could be defined for each bit as a function of apparent rock strength to the bit (EPTCs conclusion) For a PDC bit with > 7 blades = 0.9402 * EXP (-8E-06*CCS) Nom EFFM = 0.00095*CCS + 11.319 Similar relations to be made for other bits Correction factors to and EFFM for Drilling environment and Cutter Size also exist Optimum WOB & RPM There are three models for ROP estimation Maurer

dD 4 dV dt d b 2 dt
Galle and Woods

dD WOB k K r p dt a
Bourgoyne and Young
8 dD Exp ( a1 a j x j ) dt j 2

Optimize B&Y equation wrt the following for Optimum WOB and RPM Maximizing ROP Minimizing Cost per foot

22

23