o? P.

IME
TliiSIS A P?eHF3XT--- SUEJWT TO CO.RRXTION
Bill Rehm and
. 4 m e r ic a n In s t it u t e
of Forf f l ati m Pressure f rom
i l ri i l i ng Data
w
Ray McClendon,MembersAIME, Dresser-SWACO
@ Copyr igh t 1 9 7 1
of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. h ic .
This paper was preparedfor the ~th AnnualFall Meetingof the Societyof PetroleumEngineers
of AIME, to be held in Eew Orleans,La., Oct. 3-6, 1971.
permissionto COpy is restrictedto an
abstractof not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The abst~actshouldcontain
conspicuousaclmowledgmentof where and by whom the paper is presented. Publicationelsewhereafter
publicationin the JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGYor the SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENGR?ZERSJOURNiLis
t~~~~~ygranted~o~ requestto the Editorof the appropriatejound providedagreementtO give
-
prcper creditis made.
Discussionofthis paper is invited. Three copiesof any discussionshouldbe sentto the
Societyof ?etroleumEngineersoffice. Sucn discussionmay be presentedat the above meetingand,
with the ~a?er, may be consideredfor publicationin one of the two SPE magazines.
ABSTRACT tion.
A seriesof drLlling equationshave been Since velocityis intimatelyrelatedto
proposedfor the measurementof formationpres- rock density,the techniquesinvolvedin
sure. They appear to work well and are as detemini.ng pressurefrom velocityor density
accurateas log-derivedpressuretechniques. shouldwork equallywell &th drillingrate
%!!fleit probablyis not possibleto develop one insofar.as drilJingrate is relatedto d-asity
equationthat W work under W conditions? or porosity.
one of the series should work quitewell where
good dx5Jlxl g practicesare used. Calculations 2. The other drillingrate/pressurefactor
have been made US* these methodsin dJ. major
involvedis the effect of differentialpressure.
drilling=eas of the free world and accuracies
AS the differentialpressurebetweenthe
approaching0.2 lb/gsl have be=n attained. wellboreand fonzationdecreases,drilhn . g rate
increases. The increaseapproachesa hyperbolic
INTRODUCTION functionand often has an -inflection point at
about 500 psi overpressureagainstthe formation
There are two reasons why adrfig/ (Fig.1).
pressureequationshouldwork.
It may be noted that both phenomenawork in
1. The basic theom of abnormal. pressure the same directionat the same time. Reduction
due to porosityor compactionindicatesthat as in differentialpressuretends to come with the
the bit entersthe high pressurezone,the rock entranceinto the overpressuredzone of greater
becomesmore porous and less dense than it was porosityand botlnincreasethe drilliiigrate.
previously. This has been proved by the methods However,it appearsthat the differentialpree-
of detennini.n g pressuresfrom we~ logs, shale sure phenomenonis the more sensitivefunction.
densitiesand seism~cvelocities. The pficiple
of variationfrom normal was proposedby Hottman !I%eseobservationsled to the belief that
and Johnsonin 1965.12 They firmly established not only was the determinationof overpressu.red
not only that variation from normal was an zones possible,but that it was possibleto
indicatorof high pressure,but that M@ pres- detexmineformationpressuz-esfrom dx5Jlingrate
sure couldbe measured by the departureof the The main difficultyappearedto be resolvingthe
velocityfrom what might be e~ected to be sensitivitiesinvolvedin the drWLing rate
normal velocity for the depth under considera- fmctiono
Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper.
2 MEASURINGFORMATIONPRE!
~fi ~sIc c~i~~
Some basic field hvestigations,shortly
afterpublicationof the paper by Jordan and
Shirley14furthercorKinnedthat the basic d
~~uationwas en excellentindicatorof differen-
tial pressure
tl~tl --,15+< an
Gyua.-*
d.
where d =
D=
N=
R=
w.
. . . . . . . ..* (1)
e~onent in generaldrillingequation
bit diameter,in.
rot~ speed,rpm
penetrationrate, ft/hr
bit load, lb
The nomographpublishedwith the original
work provideden excellentmethod of calculating
the d. The value was easy to use in the
field and gave quite accuratetrend patterns.
LX %his eaiikjstags a-d in Eany Casss
today,the best resultsare obttied by raising
the mud weight as the overpressuredzone is
penetratedto keep the ;dfi value on trend.
~ne
casingpoint would then be when the mud weight
approachedthe fracturegradient. This is en
exceptionallyaccuratemethod of maintaininga
constantdifferentialpres=.u-ek*Y1ez-J eAermg
.
zones of higher pressure (Fig.2). Frcm this,
it is possibleto calculatea reasonably
accuratebottom-holepressure.
Given an assumptionof normal fozmation
gradient(9 lb/gel for the GQf Coast),then
assumethat a trend esiabiishedO-the term W
~ep=e~e~a~s = ~~p~~~n-~. ~~~fe~entia pressure.
Therefore,at any point of interest
p=m+plfd*~ . . G . G . . . . . .
(2)
.
P,,d,t =(FiF-iEi),
where F= fomzationpressuregradiat
p,,11
ii?
= differentialpressuregradient
= mud weight gradientwhen calculating
rtdwtrend in no~~ pressuredzone
~ = no~~ fo~ation gradientfor area
~ = mud weight gradientat any point in
overpressuredzone
FurLherwork presentedby Jorden et al.
between1966 and 1968 indicatedthat the same
resultscould be obtainedby holdingbit weight
and rotary speed constant. In fact, under some
conditionsof very high dx511hg rates,this
~FnroachaPPe~wedto ~@ve the best possible
-
URE FROM DRILLINGDATA
SPE 36o1
solution. Under these conditions,the driJJ.ing
rate in shale decreasesslowly and consistently
with depth. k ticreasein drill-m g rate within
the shale indicatesthe top of the overpressured
section.
The dx511ingrate at any point within tine
overpressuredshale couldbe comparedwith the
dx511.@grate exhapolated for a nomdly pres-
sured shaleto determinea bottomholepressure
based on departurefrom nonnai (Fig.3).
It was ~so possibleto take ~ rate
in en overpressuredzone and look back for the
same rate in a normal pressure zone.
Thus one
could detemine the depth at which the over-
pressuredshale was nomml. From this could
be detemined the apparentdepth of sealing
and hence a formationpressure (Fig.3). This
fo~ows uite closelythe work ofFons (1968)
?
and Hem 1966) h calculatingpressuresfrom
electriclog data.
In general.,the depth of sealingconcept
tends to give too great a value for formation
pressure. This may be due to leakagefrom the
~~~~?wn+m~f~~r setig:
.,.-
fi=~xDl+~(D2-1)1), . ...(3)
where~ = formationpressure,psi
ml = noxmal formationpressuregradient
for area
nl . A==+h ~f ~~~~n-g=
U* UWy..
This ~S depth h
the noxmml pressured zone where the
drillingrate is the same as it is
. . ---~ ln9\ 4-
at the point iifm~eZ-G~~~U&)~.
the overpressuredzme
D2 . point of interestin Overpressured
zone
%. ...-L..A- --m..,,
.
U~ = OVCX-UWUUJ y~a=d% 6/3d2&n.t,
(approximately0.98 psi/ft)
While it is shple and reasonablyaccurate,
there are a number of objectionsto these
methods. Primarily,cWficulties arise in mai.n-
taininga constantmud weight,bit weight and
rotary speedthrough a transitionzone. It
often appearsdesirableto change the mud weight
and drilJingvariableswhen driUing into
transitionzones. This completelydisturbsthe
balanceof the constantparameterapproachand
makes it difficultto use. Bit type and partic-
ularlybit sharpnessare difficultto correct
with the constantparameterapproachend tend tc
furtherconfusethe trend lines.
The constantparameterapproachescan yielc
excellentresultsif closelycontrolled. Since
some rigid planningis required,they appearto
work best in field wells where a definiterate
of penetrationcan be assignedas a stopping
point for log@g or casing.
s~ 3601 BILL REHM and RAY McCLENDON
3
FTREH. IimZLOFI@YT
The difficultiesin keeptigdrillingand
mui iunctiansconstantduring differentialpres-
su7e calculationsin transitionzonesmake it
desirableto developan absolutepressurevalue.
As a resultof considerablefield work in
comparisonof the variousmethods,the d equa-
tion of Jorden and Shirleywas selectedas the
best possiblestartingpoint sincethe sensitiv-
ities and mechanicsappearedto be both accurate
and usable. Field correlationindicatedthat
the equationgave a ve~ reasonableappro=-
mation of differentialpressurebetweenthe
wellboreand fozmation.
It was postulatedthat if it was possible
to correctfor the effectof mud weight,the d
tem would then be an indicatorof formation
pressure. Ibis was attemptedon an empirical
basis on a number of differentmodels and
> :- A&. S.llmwirl whirh g=y~ ~
resiiteu u uc ~.~..u.gt ------
excellentindicationof formationpressure.
dc~=!!%d, G.0 **0****(4)
MW2
where dcs = modifiede~onent ti general
drilfig equationto indicate
formationpressure
MWl = noxmal mud weight gradientfor the
area
MN2 = equivalentcirculattigdensity or
mud weight in use
The plot of the dcs
l;te~ showeda Curve
that was similarto acousticlog shale plots ant
shale densityplots (Fig.k).
THE SOLUTIONPIOT
Using the d and dcs terms,it is
possibleto plot two curvesthat relate to
differentialpressureand to fomation pressure
The comparisonof these two values provides a
valuabletool in dflli.ngrate/pressuresnalysi:
(Fig.5).
The similarityof the dcs and the shale
densityplots led to the beliefthat a pressure
interpretationmight be made on the same depsr
ture from nozmdlbasis as on log plots.
The originalwork by Hottman and Johnson12
indicatedthat when dealingwith log~erived
values,the solutionof departurefrom normal v
pressuregradientwas a power functionclosely
approachingthe logarithmic. This was further
redefinedby Combs (1967)in te~s of sh~e
arfllability. The discussionof shaledensity
by Boatman2definesthe same generalfunctioni
terms of shalebulk density.
3asedp~arily on the comparisonof the
acousticand the dc~ solutionfor departure
from normal vs pressuregradient,a term was
developedh the mode of the Combs work.
This was resolvedinto the following
expression.
Grad = mLog (Normal-Obsemed)+ B . (5)
where Grad =
m=
Normal=
Observed=
B=
.
pressuregradient,psi/ft
slope constant
normal d at depth for the dri12
tools i%olved
dcs at depth for driU tools in-
volved
offset
This was actuallyresolvedfor field use by
means of a standad overlayand plot paper (Fig.
6). When plottingon coordinategraph paper,
where 1 in. on the horizontalaxis is 0.5 dcs
units, the eq-uatioii bec.mes
Grad = .398Log (Normal-Obsened)+ .86
G . . . . . G ***** G *.*** (54)
FIELDDATA COLLECTION
The collectionof accuraterig information
is the obviouskey to the accuratedeteminatior
of pressuresfrom drillingparameters. The
originalpremise of the pressuresfrom driUing
rate projectwas that equipmemtto accurately
collectthe informationwas nekesssxyand would
be designedas soon as the parameterswere
clearlyestablished. The equipmentwas desigd
and firstbecame availablein late 1969. The
personnelin the units were extensivelytrained
for the specificpurpose of pressuredetermina-
tion and upon their enthusiasticeffortsrested
the successand accuracyexperienced. DriJ3iag
data was gatheredon over 90 wells throughout
the world ut~zing this equipmentand crews.
The collectionof the drillingdata has been
continuallyimprovedby e~erience and the intrc
ductionof newer and more rtiable eqyipment.
DATA COILEC~ONMETHOD
Whether the solutionto bottom-holepres-
sure is plotted by computeror by hand, the
variationsin the earth and the drilMng proces:
must be taken into account. Ihe simplest,yet
most importantcorrectionis for vtiations in
the foxmation. Since the equationsdo not take
changesin lithologyinto account,a stand-
must be established. Shale is the most conven-
ient standardbecauseit is relativelyeasy to
identifyand displaysthe greatestdegree of
compaction. It is also the standamiestablish=
by earlierwork in pressuredetermination.
Other standards,such as silts,redb+s, or
sands,may be used but they are proportionately
MEASURINGFORM4TIONPRESS~ FROM DRIIJZNGDATA
SPE 3601
I
ha~:er to fiterpret.
In Gulf Coast-typearil.ltigthe difference
bett~eens~~ ad sh~e shows Up dramaticallyti
the drilltigrate. The sand values can then be
ignoredon a by tispection
11basis or CSIICeUSd
cut oya dead beat band in the electronic
circuitry. Tinisshouldbe spi checkedby
sample anelysis.
In older formations,it is oftendifficult
to vefi+y the establishedstandardsolelyby
inspectionof drillan g rate. In these cases a
combinationof drillm g rate and sampleanalysis
may be used. There is everyindicationthat
variationin torque and rotarybounce can be
used to define more closelythe formation.
How-
ever, it is easierand more accurateto use
ssmple analysiswhen using a manned unit.
~afi~~g causes a major shtitin the pres-
sure plot if it is not recognizedby a combi-
nation of sample analysisand an abruptoffset
in the slope of the plot. Unfortunately,many
faults occur within the transitionzone where
both the lithologyand slope of the plot are
Cklai-l&-il-lg . =EQeA-A
~q~~&.~ s knwl due nf tb.~
u ...........---
geology of the area are some
in this case.
The rate of penetration
collectedon a footagebasis
of the best guides
appearsto be best
(withfixed footage
end variabletime). Fixedtime and variable
footageincrementswere tried,but for some
reason,were not satisfactory.
-m ~ener~, ~~
has been found that for any drillingrate up to
about 60 ft/hr a l-ft stsndti isquite satis-
factory.
At very low drillingrates, a standardof
less than 1 ft appearsto rellectthe autc+
matic driller ratherthan the fomation. At
n? ~~ ft,lh-v a f~ot.ag~
dz5Z2ingrates h excess..
standardof 10 ft appearsto be satisfactory.
The footageintervalmust be enoughto reflect
the formationratherthan the driller,but
short enoughto show variationsin the fomna-
tiono
Rotary sDe@
Rot~ speed is measuredby en impulse
device, and rate is calculatedand reportedas ~
numericalvalue in rpm.
Eit WeiRht
Good snort-titenal averagesof bit weight
are essentialto accuratesolutions.
The best
results come as a result of the following. The
bit weight is definedas the differencebet~eer
dr+l~+ngweight and stringweight when rotating
and pumping just off bottom and is automat-
ically calculatedand reportedin thousa??dsof
pounds. A movitigaverage,or thifi-otier
electronicfilteris used betweenthe transduces
on the hook load diaphragmand the nook load
value end displayto dampen the bounce in the
drilling assembly.
IW4JORCHANGESIN CONDITIONS
With presemtdrK1.i.ngtechnologythe casing
point is in the transitionzone. With the
settingof casingcomes a major change in the
values for the pressuredeterminationequation.
The bit size is changed,often the mud weight
and mud characteristicsare changed,causing a
change in the differentialpressurerelation-
ship.
The changein bit size is correctedin the
ofig~~ lid!? equation where there is proVisioKI
for bit diameter. The changein bit type is not
so straightforward.On an empiricalbasis, it
was discoveredthat correctionin bit type or
correctionfrom mill tooth to carbidebits can
be made on a basis of bit tooth area in contact
w+.h ~h~ f~~_~~iQn,
..- .. Then tM3 correctiontakes
the place of the bit diameter. So the bit
diameter encompassesbit type end is made.by a
proportionatecorrectionfor bit diameteras a
functionof bit tooth area in contactwith
formation. This, from a review of the etist~
literature,seems to be a rationalcorrection
and may not be enttielyempirical.
The correctionto diammd bits is somewhat
3.ma. -.-1 L 1 . . . a.-.
more axzx~cu~ and to a AKSG u=6A=e As r.ct
been successful. When using diamondbits a
smell.sectionof hole must be dfled and the
correctionsput in by obsenation.
Changesin the drill stringcan cause some
difficulty,particularlywith additionof a
radicallydifferentstabilizerassembly. This
may be aermlmt.~ f~~ s_@Q SS changein the
--------
effect of bit weight,but it is difficultto
correct on any mathematicalbasis. Again the
best solutionin this case is an additional100
ft of hole to establisha new trend pattern.
Changesin drillingmud propertiesalways
affect pressuredeterminationto some degree.
The changein mud properties,other then weight,
seem to affectthe equationin the same genersl
manner as was proposedby Eckel.7 me d~g
rate is affectedby tiscosityby a value
approachingthe 0.5 power of the changein the
Reynoldsnumber. For smd.i changesin tine
viscosity-relatedterms there is no apparent
effect on drillingrate. Large changes,how-
ever, particularlythose increasesin tiscosity
causing significantchangein the Reynolds
number, can make the pressureequationinoper-
able. No attemptis made at this ttie to make
these correctionsmathematically. Some
BILL REHM and RAY McC~tDON
prelimfia.rywork indicatesthat the Reynolds
n~mner c n~~~c t~o~ ~~obably could be made in such
..---- --
a manner as to cor;ecifor some of the tiscosity
Ck. - ge. With nigh viscositiesthere is no data
to indicatewhetherthe equationcould be made
valid or not. Viscositiesmay introducesome
factorsin holecleaningthat we are unable to
handle at this time.
The effect of mud weight is more straight-
forward and the mud weight correctionallows for
these changes. There is, however,a problem
hvolvedti.the mud weight correctionmuch akin
to that of viscosity. Wnen the mud weight is
more than 2 or 3 lb/gal.greaterthan the for-
mation pressure gradient,or the bottom-hole
presswe is ~reaterthan 1,000 to 1!500 lb more
than the fo~ation pressure,the solution
becomes erroneous. In general,the solution
indicatesa higher mud weight than is actually
needed. It appearsthat the drillingrate vs
differential-pressurecurve (Fig.I)-is on the
flat part of the slope and shows no effect of
increasedor decreaseddifferentialpressure.
The functionrelatingto increasedporosityis
not able to make the total correction.
RESULTS OF PRESSUREPLOTS
The field work done with the data collec-
tion units provideddrillingrate/pressure
plots of exceptionalaccuracy. The plots were
made utilizing only pure shsle or some other
agreedupon standard. Tne potits picked as
representativewere checkedagainstlagged
cutting samples. Becauseof the accuracyof the
data co~ection equipment,it was possibleto
use representativedrillingvalues throughthe
standaxdsection. The dcs value was plotted
on the standard scale and the overlayapplied.
For the most part the solutionswere accuratetc
within 0.2 lb/gal of formationgradient. While
it was possible in some cases to compareto
pressurevalues obtainedduring a well kick or
---a..+<-+-.+
from subseq-tierit ~~--tiLU*UJ~ *G=.S?in 6.....
unnaw~ ~~.
was necessaryto comparethe drillingrate/
pressure solutionto subsequentlog runs.
Since both methods of calculationwere similar,
it might be expectedthat if there were errors
in the drillingrate function,the same errors
would appear in the log-derivedvalues.
IJMZTATIONSTO THE EQUATION
The foXLowingproblemsappearto affect
the accuracy of the equations.
1. Mud weight in excess of 2 to 3 lb
greaterthan the formationgradientmuses an
error =h the solution. Mud weight solutions
are higher than required. This leads to partic-
ularly confusingerrorswhen working old rec-
ords, where it may be expectedthat the mud
weights are consitierably too high. No rational
correctionhas been developedfor this ~A-
accuracy.
2.
the same
again no
problem.
3*
PoorUymaintaineddriUing muds ~lve
effectas excessivemud weight and
solutionhas been developedfor this
A particularlyinterestingexampleof
inadequatebit weight occursin the rapid
drillingoff of the MississippiDelta. In this
area the pressureequationsthat use a function
of bit weight give ticorrectanswersbecause of
the soft formations. A reasonablebit weight is
never established. It is generallyaccepted
that much of the actuald~ is done by the
jets in the bit and that the bit tooth seldom,
if evert touchesbottom. Mer these conditiafis
which also occur in Kalimantanand Nicaragua,it
is necessaryto use the drilJingrate as a
measuringdetice and compareincreasesor
decreasesin drillingrate to standaA rate of
change.
4.. Inadequatehydraulicscause problems
with mathematicalsolutions. The bottom-
cleanhg abilityof the hydraulicprogram is
assumedin all of these equationsto be adequate
Combs4 and othershave proposedmethcds of
making correctionsfor hydraulics. Our work
tidicatesthat with inadequatebottom-hole
cleantigit is best to use a constantfunction
approachand maintainbit weight and rotary
speed constant. This developstrends that are
independentof the bottom-holecleaningability
of the hydraulicpart of the system.
5*
No geologicalstandard. The best
results are obtainedfrom comparingdriIling
rate througha standardformation. For the
most part, shale is supetiorto redbeds or sands
for pressuredetermination. If it is impossible
to establisha lithologicstandardtthen a
general sectionsuch as a bit run may be taken
z~ a neologi~standti.
_--- The present state-of-
the-artprecludescomparingdrillm . g rates in
sand and in shale sectionsto derive a reason-
able solution.
There is some furtherquestionas to the
use of these approachesin massive limestone.
~-~e-~~enceha= be=n la~.~g in this area.
How-
evert it may be hypothesizedfrom the smaU
amount of data availablethat is possibleto
calculatepressurefrom drillingrate in massive
ltiestone. But a great deal of care must be
taken stice the variationin dmillingrate hith
formationpressureis not as great as in shales.
BIT RECORD
Records for an area often are not complete
or accurate. Electricor acousticlogs provide
a basis for pressurecalculations. The bit
&
MEZkSURINGFORMATIONPFU3SSUR.E FROM DRILLINGDATA
WE 3601
1
record can be used to supportthe log calcu-
lationsby means of Ecp. 4 and 5.
The effect
of 7 .itnologyis unhewn; however,pressure
calculationsder5Lvedb this manner are ama-
ingly accurate. ThepressuretiWidS are
especiallygood, but with accuracylimitedto
about 1 lb/gal (Fig.7). Other problemsfith
bit recordplots involve the difficultyin
obt. aining any idea of correctionsmade for hole
deviation. While dri2J_ingassemblychangesand
verJ light bit weights shouldbe indicatedon
the record,more often tk,annot informationis
tiicomplete.
CO!CIYIERCCMFARISON
The exceptionalaccuracyexperiencedin
tne field, raised the questionof using the
overlayand plot. To controlthe titerpreta-
tion by field personneland to maintainstrict
standards,a computersolutionwas preparedby
foldingEqs. 4 and 5A together. Sinceitwas
plannedto use an automaticplottingtechnique
as well as derivingan answer,the equationwas
furthermodifiedto reduce the normal slope of
the decreaseh drillingrate with depth to
verticaiand to give the answer ml a eomiinate
rather than logarithmicaxis.
This term was resolvedas
[ ~2Lo~
Pf=c7.62Log Ha + C - ~LOg 60N
+16.52 , . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
where P = formationpressuregradient,lb/gsl
7.6$ = slope constant
H = geologicaldepth, ft
a= slope of the noxmal penetrationrate
for the drill tools involveddcs
units/ft
= drillabilityconstantdc units
16.5:= interceptconstant,lb/gaf
The computergave essentifiy the same
solutionas did the hand plots (Fig.8). In
the on-sitework, the variousparameters,wit-n
the exceptionof a and C, were enteredauto-
maticfly.
ANALYSISOF THE NOMENCL4TUEE
Mud weight in pounds per gallonwas selec-
ted as a usable field texm. he use of a mud
weight texm is particularlyconvenientin the
field for comparisonwith the mud weight in use
Slone Constant (7.62>
~i~ is the slope of the line of the plot
of lb/galVS dcs. It is the slope of the
m.--v.vfrom Eq= 5A Or 0.398/0052.
u G.&.aJ ,=..
g
This term is genertiy used as T.V.D. in
feet. However,the proper descriptionof the
texm is geologicaldepth. This shouldbe
correctedfor faulting,major foldingend
possibleu~lift. The majorityof the work with
this equatzonhas been done in basin areas.
Limited data indicatesthat the effectof up-
lift can be correctedby use of a reconstituted
depth.
g
This is the slope of the normal dcS. In
the most straightforwsmiversionof the equa-
tion, the term & actuallybecomesdcs for
the normal-pressuredzones. This is then ex-
tended to the overpressuredzone for compara-
tive purposes. It is a vfid approachand is
~Acm,~Iydgp.evltb.had-plotted solutions. In
the case of an automaticplot, it is easierto
handle the circuitryor programwith a slope
term.
The slope term ~ is quite constantwith
geologicalage. Tnere is, for exampie,very
little variationin the slopevalue a between
the Miocene of Louisianaand lndones~a.
:
The tilability constantis actualJ.ythe
drill tool constant. DifferentdriJJ.ingrigs,
formations,and differentcustomschangethe
absolutedcS. In the basic d equation,the
value Q for any rig is correctedby inspection.
InterceptConstant (16.52)
The interceptconstantis the offsetvalue
fromEq. 4 (0.86/.052).
Mwl
-2 . & 4. +h. me- 1 nmmee??vm
L1lA= U@LIU +- U..G ..w.m~ F. ---- -
gr=dfi~~~
for the area.
MW2
This term is the mud weightin use cor-
rected for the circulattigdensity. The equiv-
alent circulatingdensityis an importantcon-
siderationindeep slim holes.
~
This term is the drCMng rate in feet per
SPE 36OI BIIL m and RAY McC~ON
7
hoar. Withti this term comes a correctionfor
;ootY,we~-. The v~ues of Vidrineand Eenit,20
or kist.&yfrom the area, can De used for we=
ccrmeccio?.s.
y
Thisterm is the bit weight. The entire
.n~~s+<mn n..nmec ~mwnrkable ~ the bit weight
--4... -...---.--------
.
is below the thresholdor
point.
This tem is the bit
beyond the flounder
diameter. With the
variationbetweenmill tooth and carbidebits,
the bit.diameterbecomesmore than a simple
Lerm. A correctionfrom m7iU tooth to carbide
bits -involvesthe tooth area in contactwith th
formation. A solutionbecomes
where the right and left sides of the equation
are for normal or the same pressure. The left
. -Y- -X.+L. -.--L: -- :- em- &LA ....11
szae 01 ae eayak~un La LUX- UALGU-
~GG~~, ~~~
and the right side for the first carbiderun
with Q as tineunknown.
CONCLUSIONS
The precedingdiscussionoutlinesa number
of differentmethods for the determinationof
hm~+-hmle ~V@==llVer~~ dr~in~ rates. An
--G.-... -----~----- - ------- ~ .-
of the equationsor approachesgive answers
within 0.2 lb/gal of the measureabottom-ho~e
pressure. All of the approacheshave their
strengthsand limitations,and no one method ca
be consideredto be the absoluteanswerto all
conditions. Calculationshave been made in all
the major drillm g areas in the free world.
While accuraciesapproaching0.2 lb/gal are
possible,and in many places common,it is
probablynot possibleto develop an equation
that wolflduQrk under all conditions. This
leads to a basic conclusionthat it is difficul
to replace common sense and observationwith
some straightmathematicalrules.
This is
particularlytrue when we considerthat the
aril.hg machine is not a mathematicallyderive
or strictlycontrolledautomatictool.
The approachesconsideredare as follows.
1. The d or differential. pressureindi-
cation.
~nis works best when mud weight in-
creasesare used to maintainthe d or differ-
entialpressurefunctionon trend.
2. The comparisonof differentialpres-
sure, d, end the absoluteindicationdcs.
Tnis is a particularlyhandy tool when only bit
reso.rdsare availableand is also vaLuaclewier.
only oasicdata collectionfacilitiesare use-.
3*
Tne constanifunctionappr~aekies Kcrk
we~ in areas of very high tilllingrates or
where hydraulicsare inadequate.
The constant
functionapproachesare good indicatorsof
trends,but it is difficultto make accurate
calculationsof pressuresbecause of vari-
ationsin bit sharpnessand the dflling
functions.
k.
The overlayand d=~ equationplot is
probablythe most accuratemethod. It is
limited,however,to good data-collection
facilitiesand good drillingpractices. The
abilityto correlatethe Lithologyand estab-
lish a standardfor ~g rates is the keY
to accuratemeasurements.
5*
Computercalculationsare particularly
advantageousin maintainingstandardsfor field
operationsbecause they take intuitionand
guessworkout of the titerpretationtechniques.
On the other hand, loss of judgmentwithin the
computercalculationscan lead to some erroneou
conclusions. The main disadvantageof computer
calculationsis that they become too believable,
and no adequatecontrolsare appliedagainst
them.
ACKNOWLEO@ENTS
The authorswish to thank the management
DresserOilfieldProductsfor pemission to
publishthis article. They also wish particu-
larly to thank Joe BakerJ L. J. Ces-ti~5k7?~n
Forbes,FrarikI.ittleton,L. R. Louden end Bob
Matthewswithoutwhose effortsnone of this
could have been possibleand who, to a large
degree,are responsiblefor the successof this
work.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Athy, L. F.: ~ensityVelocityand Compa&
tion of SedimentaryRocks,~., AAPG
/* .nmn\
[Oan.,Ly>u).
Boatmen,W. A., Jr.: Treasuring and Using
ShaleDensity to Aid in DrillingWeXls in
High PressureAreas,API Paper 926-12-6
(Feb.,1967).
Bingham,M. G.:
nA New Approach to Int=-
pretatingRock Drillabfiity,Oil and Gas ~
(1965).
Combs,GeorgeD.: Predictionof Pore
Pressurefrom PenetrationRate, Paper SPE
2162 presentedat 39th Annusl c~ifo~~a
Fall Meeting,Bakersfield,Calif.,Nov. 7-
8, 1968.
cwi.ngha, R. A. and Eenink~ J. G.:
laboratoryStudy of Overbu.mien, Formation
and Mud Column Pressureson Dril.ltigRate
of permeableFo-matior.s, Trans.?~~
Q WAS TRTNG F(XWATTON ?2ESSUFE FROM DRILLINGDATA SPE 3601
. ----- ------------- - -- ---. .
(195$)~, 9-17.
Pet. Zn~. (Nov.,1969).
1
6. Dolpk, ;. R. and 3rown, K. E.: Zffec?.of ILG Jorden,J. P..and Shirley,O. J.: ..
l~Aa~~i-
Rota.qySpeed and Bi~ tieight on Penetration
cation of DrillingPerformanceData to
Rate of a DiamondMicrobit,J. pet. !kch.
Overpressure Detection,J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept.,1968) 915-916.
(Nov., 1966) 2387-1394.
7. Eckel, J. R.: TiicrobitStudies of the 15. Jorden,J. R. and Shirley,O. J.: Tfethod
Effect of Fluid Propertiesand Hydraulics
for Detem~ the Top of Abno~al Foma-
on DriilingRate, J. Pet. Tech. (April,
tion Pressures,U.S. Patent 3368&O0,Feb.
1967) 5u-546. 13, 1968.
~a **HowMud and ~yaratics F.rkel.J, R=: ----- -.
16. MaurerfW. C.: --..--, Bit-ToothPenetration
AffectDrill Rate,Oil and Gas J. (June Under SimulatedBoreholeConditions,~.
17, 1968). Pet. Tech. (Dec.,1965) 1433-1U2.
9* Fcm? 7--A LLuyu ad Imt, rein:
Wrm-.+ 4
ru4utau*O~i
~?e M,,W-F..W ..,WAW, ~= ~= @ ~l&n~~@~f R, A,:
Log ?ressu.reData Can ImproveDrilling, ?!Effectof Mud COl~ pressureon Drilling
World CKL (Sept.,1966). Rates, TYans.,AIME (1955)~, 196-20L.
10. GaX1.e,E. M. and Woods, H. B.: Best 18. Outmans,m.: The Effect of Some
Constan;Bit Weight and Rotary Speed, DrillingVariableson the Instantaneous
011 anc Gas J. (Oct.,1963). Rate of Penetration,Trans.,AIME (1960)
11. Gamier, A. J. and van Lfi.gen.N. H.:
219,~37_~49.
PhenorenaAffectingDrillingRates at
19* ~tison, L. H., Jr.: Effectsof Pore and
Depth, Trans.,AME (1959)~, 232-239. ConfiningPressureson Failwe Character-
12. Hottman,C. E. and Johnson,R..K.: Esti- istics of SedimentaryRocks, Trans.,AIME
mation of FormationPressuresfrom Log-
(1959)~, 26-32.
Derived Shale Properties,J. Pet. Tech.
(June,1965) 717-722.
20. Vidrine,D. J. and Benit, E. J.: Field
Verificationof the Effect of Differential
13G Jones,F. T. and Barringer,S. H.: lm-
Pressureon DrillingRate, J. Pet. Tech.
proved Communicationswitinthe Drill Bit,
(Jtiy,1968) 676482.
MUD WT.
I
k
2
w
z
3
-!
z
n
\
TYIPICAL SHALE DRILLING CURVE
RATE VS fJP
Fig. 1 -
Typic ml shale drilling curve rate v~ AF.
&
12,000
&
14,000
r
.
A
*
16,000
A
.
4
1.0 2.0
u II
d
OPl?G.
%PG.
5f?f?G.
:
a
Id
n
7F?I?G.
I
3.0
Fig. 2 -. Mninto Lnlng the Trend d.
!
01
APPAIRENT DEPTH
)k
OIF SEALING
t-
1
z
\
IAI
6
\
2
\w
\
D2
1 ,
I

T\ ~R
Fig. 3 - Direc t menaurement drll ling rntr/ptr!s%\,ve.
8000
10000
12000
*I II
dC*
1.0 2.0
(
BULK DENSITY
IIo,ooa
ACOUSTICS
[2,000
14,000
16,000
1.0
\ 10PPG.
\.
p \
~ \
x){
m
~ ,>
L.
z ,!
9
.
/
Pj
r 51? PG.
.:
\
.\.
t
/
<
.:
./0
;>.
18f?f?G.
?
.) (ACTUAL
,! MUD WEIGH
/1
I .5 -2,0
.
1.0
.
1.5 2.0
Fig. t . !J lmtlnrlty Or ~lotn.
rig. 5 - Two c urv~n,
0
-
N
Q
N
.
-a
u)