How to Improve Rate of Penetration

in Field Operations
M.J. Fear, SPE, BP Exploration Co. Ltd.

Summary nozzle arrangement.8,10 In summary, rock properties that influence

A method has been developed to identify which factors are con- ROP include at least mineralogy, strength, density, porosity, and
trolling rate of penetration ~ROP! in a particular group of bit runs. permeability.2,3,5,8,9,11,14 Interdependence between mechanical and
The method uses foot-based mud logging data, geological infor- hydraulic drilling parameter effects may also be significant, mean-
mation, and drill bit characteristics, to produce numerical correla- ing for example that the response of ROP to weight on bit ~WOB!,
tions between ROP and applied drilling parameters or other at- rotary speed and flow rate can depend on absolute values of these
tributes of drilling conditions. These correlations are then used to parameters.7 Bit design effects are also not simple; differences in
generate recommendations for maximizing ROP in drilling bit design effects on ROP with polycrystalline diamond compact
operations. ~PDC! bits appear only to become significant when bit cleaning
problems occur, or when cutters become worn.9 With roller cone
bits, varying jet nozzle arrangement may or may not affect ROP,
depending on which of bit or bottomhole cleaning is deficient.8,12
Introduction
Finally, complexity is increased by errors and inconsistencies in
Time spent drilling ahead is usually a significant portion of total
drilling data, meaning that correlations with ROP may be masked
well cost. In typical wells drilled by BP Exploration ~BPX!, this
without extensive data treatment.13 This latter point may explain
rotating time usually accounts for 10% to 30% of well cost.
why, despite publication of a number of analytically derived ROP
This means that the penetration rate achieved by the drill bit has
models,1922 none has yet become established as an operational
considerable significance for drilling cost reduction.
tool.
Despite this, the bit/rock interaction, and the ROP that results,
The complexity of the bit/rock interaction, and the difficulties
is not well understood in detail. Other drilling phenomena, such as
with implementation of analytical models, have encouraged BPX
torque/drag modeling or directional behavior, are typically man-
to adopt an empirical approach to optimization of ROP in drilling
aged with the aid of validated, quantitative models. Such tools are
operations. This method follows that approach.
conspicuously absent from planning or analysis of bit perfor-
Emphasis has also been placed in this work on understanding
mance.
the effects of controllable variables, i.e., those that can be readily
Within drilling operations, uncertainty over expected ROP
changed to optimize ROP. Other environmental effects are how-
clouds decisions on which bit types and downhole tools to select
ever incorporated into another ROP modeling technique devel-
to maximize ROP. That intuition is prominent in these decisions
oped by BPX and described elsewhere.13
demonstrates the inability of drilling data or predictive models to
provide anything more substantial.
Against this background of commercial significance and tech-
Description of the Method
nical difficulty, BPX is developing engineering methods to raise
ROP. This paper describes one such method, and its application The objective of this method is to quantify the effects of opera-
and benefits to one drilling operation. tionally controllable variables on ROP. To reveal the effects of
these variables, data sets must be constructed so as to minimize
variation in environmental conditions. The first step is therefore to
Background to the Method
select a group of bit runs made with the same bit size, through
Table 1 lists factors which are proposed to affect ROP.118 The
similar formations. Next, intervals of consistent lithology are
number of factors hints at the complexity of the bit/rock interac-
identified, with a preference for formations exhibiting lateral ho-
tion, something which is compounded by interdependence and
mogeneity. Formations such as shale and limestone are, in gen-
nonlinearity in some of these effects.6,7,11,15,18
eral, more suitable than variable lithologies such as sandstone.
Laboratory studies and modeling are however unraveling this
Rock property logs can of course be used to verify comparability.
complexity. For example, how ROP responds to changes in drill-
Depending on the objectives of each specific analysis, further sort-
ing parameters has been shown to depend strongly on rock prop-
ing can be made to separate bit runs made in different mud types,
erties. In permeable rocks for example, overbalance pressure in-
with different classes of bit, or to separate intervals drilled with
fluences ROP,1 giving way to a dependence on bottomhole
sharp bits versus those in worn condition. Each step helps to fur-
pressure as permeability decreases.24 Overbalance pressure ef-
ther expose the effects on ROP of bit design and mechanical or
fects however are subject to dynamic influences, either via filtra-
hydraulic drilling parameters.
tion effects on pore pressure in the bit/rock interaction zone,5 or
Once intervals have been selected and sorted, numerical aver-
via stress effects on pore pressure around the wellbore.6 Bit clean-
ages of the variables of interest are obtained. This is critical be-
ing effects while drilling hydratable formations in water base
cause many sources of error exist in drilling parameter measure-
drilling fluids ~muds! may also override the effects of me-
ments and, pending improvement in data quality, averaging to
chanical drilling parameters, so that rock mineralogy and mud
raise sample size is the most obvious method to minimize error
chemistry are obviously significant factors.7,8 These cleaning ef-
effects.13
fects are however themselves influenced by bit design,9 and jet
Fig. 1 shows a log where data have been extracted and aver-
aged from an interval of shale early in the bit run, prior to a drop
Copyright 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers in ROP related to bit wear in a sandstone. This process would then
This paper (SPE 55050) was revised for publication from paper SPE 35107, first presented be repeated for other bit runs made through the same stratigraphic
at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, 1215 March. Original interval, yielding a data set suitable for analysis.
manuscript received for review 16 May 1996. Revised manuscript received 30 November
1998. Paper peer approved 9 December 1998. Within BPX, customized petrophysical software is used to au-

42 1064-6671/99/14~1!/42/8/$3.5010.15 SPE Drill. & Completion 14 ~1!, March 1999

 TABLE 1 FACTORS PROPOSED TO AFFECT ROP

Environmental Factors Controllable Factors

Formation type Bit wear state

Formation properties Bit design
Mud type Weight on bit
Mud density Bit rotary speed
Other mud properties Flow rate
Overbalance and/or Bit hydraulic horsepower
bottomhole mud pressure
Bit size Motor/turbine geometry
Bit nozzle arrangement

tomate the extraction and averaging of drilling data, though

manual processing from paper logs is equally successful.
Once the data are prepared, correlation analysis is performed in
conventional spreadsheets. Crossplots are used to seek visible cor-
relations between ROP and the independent variables, and sta-
tistics functions are used to establish the degree of correlation and
to build models for prediction of ROP.
The next section shows examples of the method as applied to
real drilling situations.
Application of the Method
Table 1 is used as a checklist in this method; data are assembled
so as to minimize the effects of the variables in the left column of
the table, and then further sorted to emphasize the effects of the
variables in the right column.
Example 1. Table 2 shows a data set for a group of 17.1/2-in.
insert bit runs made through compacted shale, in oil and water
base mud. The bits all had similar cutting structures, since that
type of bit was found to be most cost effective in terms of bearing
life and gauge durability. In this case, the objective of the ROP
analysis was to determine which mechanical and hydraulic param-
eters were most influential to ROP with this favored bit type.
The columns in Table 2 show the bit type, the number and sizes
of nozzles used, and average values of drilling parameters. These
are the controllable variables expected to be most influential to
ROP, given that the effects of bit diameter and type, lithology, and
mud type have all been accounted for during data selection and
Fig. 1Example of bit-run data showing interval to be extracted
and averaged.
processing. Note that mud density effects are quantified by use of
mud bottomhole pressure ~Mud BHP in the table!, since this
incorporates depth effects, and is probably the most influential
pressure parameter in compacted shale drilling.4 Pore pressure in
the shales is, in any case, unknown to any degree of accuracy.
The three columns labeled Shale Disc, Buffer, and
Data Points are critical elements of the data sorting process.
The first shows the type and value of log data used to identify
which data points lie in the required lithology for each bit run, so
that only those are extracted and averaged. This minimizes the
effect of lithological variation on ROP, while allowing data from
various parts of a bit run to be grouped into one average response
for that lithology. If no such log data are available, top and bottom
depths for a formation can be used, providing the formation is
relatively homogenous both vertically and laterally. This careful
minimization of geological effects avoids the main disadvantage
of ROP comparisons made from bit record data, that of an un-
known amount of ROP variation due to geology.
The Buffer value is the depth increment either side of a lithol-

TABLE 2 DATA SET FOR EXAMPLE 1

Bit Avg Avg Avg Mud Avg Avg Shale Data

Type Nozzles WOB Flow ROT BHP HSI ROP Disc. Buffer Points

Inch/32 klbs gpm revs/min psi hhp/sq. in. ft/hr Log value Feet Feet
WBM RUNS
X11 20,20,24 38.55 788 110 5425 1.24 3.48 ? ? ?
MAX-T11HD 18,18,16 40.11 1093 132 5806 6.91 7.39 ILD 5-30 8 131
MAX-11HD 16,16,20 36.14 946 156 4716 4.05 6.18 ILD 0-9 8 81
MAX-11HD 16,16,20 41.27 928 161 4975 3.99 6.83 ILD 0-9 8 37
MAX-F11HD 14,16,16 28.94 926 97 2886 5.6 6.73 GR 45-200 8 35
MAX-11HD 14,16,16 30.53 970 107 3048 6.43 6.43 GR 45-200 8 202
MAX-11HD 14,16,16 29.45 1004 114 3192 7.15 7.94 GR 45-200 8 98
MAX-T11HD 20,18,11 59.60 972 147 4123 5.59 6.20 Cased GR NO ?
MAX-F11HD 20,20,16 60.00 986 127 5128 3.85 5.80 Cased GR NO ?
MAX-11HD 3 * 20/14 46.53 1082 160 4861 2.84 4.40 CDR GR NO 16
MAX-11HD 2 * 20/16/14 40.21 1091 180 5145 3.59 5.27 CDR GR NO 35
OBM RUNS
ATM-T11 2 * 28 29.50 939 124 3651 1.41 8.40 GR 65-200 8 11
MAX-T11HD 24,24,16 37.50 894 182 3380 1.51 6.56 GR 65-200 8 81
MAX-T11HD 28,28,16 34.15 956 136 3918 1.13 5.76 GR 65-200 8 36
MAX-T11HD 28,28,16 34.45 943 143 4060 1.09 6.19 GR 65-200 8 34

M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999 43

Fig. 2Relationship of ROP to HSI for insert bits in shale with
WBM and OBM.
ogy change, from which data are not to be extracted. In other
words, if, at one particular depth, the wireline log curve used for
identifying the required lithology has a value outside that in the
Disc column ~implying another lithology!, data from both above
and below that depth will be excluded. This allows for any depth
offset between wireline and drilling data.
The last column in the table shows the number of data points
which met the criteria for lithology discrimination and buffer ef-
fects, and hence indicates the number of points used to derive the
averaged drilling parameter values. Attempts are usually made to
compile averages with not less than 20 to 25 data points, since this
appears to be a near optimal value for minimizing errors in ROP
data.13
The next step is to interpret the observed ROP variation. This
starts by systematic crossplotting of each of the independent vari-
ables against ROP, seeking visible correlations. Apparent effects
on ROP can then be investigated further, for example by subdi-
viding the data to see if hydraulic horsepower delivered through
one nozzle configuration provides more ROP than through alter-
native configurations.
Two crossplots from Table 2 are shown as Figs. 2 and 3. Fig.
2 shows the relationship between hydraulic horsepower per square
inch of hole area ~HSI! and average ROP; a clear trend of That this masking effect is present in this group of bit runs is
rising ROP with HSI is apparent for the water base mud
Fig. 3Relationship of ROB to WOB for insert bits in WBM/
shale.
44 M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration
Fig. 4Relationship of ROP to WOB from a drilloff test for an
insert bit in WBM/shale.
~WBM! data. This perhaps implies that bit and/or bottomhole
cleaning improves with higher HSI, raising ROP. This is not un-
expected in a WBM/shale application, though it is useful to deter-
mine that increasing HSI is more productive for ROP than flow
rate, given that a finite amount of hydraulic horsepower ~HHP! is
available at the rig. This interpretation is strengthened by the ob-
servation that the oil base mud ~OBM! data points show higher
ROP at low HSI values, reflecting the contribution that OBM
makes to bit or bottomhole cleaning and hence ROP.
One more surprising observation from Fig. 2 is that the nozzle
configuration used appears to exert little influence on ROP. The
uniformity of the HSI/ROP trend in WBM, despite very different
nozzle arrangements, implies that in this case, ROP is more de-
pendent on the amount of HHP delivered, rather than how it is
distributed around the bit. This is a good example of where pre-
sumed behavior ~the benefit of extended nozzles! is different to
that observed, highlighting the value of empirical observations in
operational decisions.
Fig. 3 shows a crossplot of average WOB versus average ROP,
for these same bit runs. No clear relationship is apparent. While
this is initially surprising, it highlights another key feature of this
method. Within a bit run, variables such as HSI typically vary
little, varying much more when values from different bit runs are
compared. If the effects of such variables on ROP are strong, as
here, they may mask ROP variation due to other variables such as
WOB or rotary speed, when different bit runs are being compared.
demonstrated by Fig. 4, where the true WOB/ROP relationship is
confirmed from the results of a drilloff test performed during one
of these bit runs. Through the drilloff test, flow rate and hence
HSI are constant, allowing the WOB effect on ROP to appear.
This drilloff test used a method previously found effective in de-
termining WOB effects on ROP.23
No other variables were found to influence ROP in this appli-
cation. Drilling guidelines would therefore recommend use of
maximum WOB and HSI, for ROP.
This example of combined bit run analysis and drilloff testing
highlights that, to obtain a complete description of factors affect-
ing ROP, various methods should be used. The method described
here can be used to quantify the effects of variables that change
significantly between bit runs ~such as HSI, flow rate, bit charac-
teristics, mud type, and density, etc.!, while another method exists
to quantify the effects of variables that change significantly within
one bit run ~such as WOB, rotary speed. etc.!.13 Finally, drilloff
tests can be used to confirm drilling parameter effects, and to
identify phenomena such as excessive drag or bit wear.
Example 2. Table 3 shows another data set, this time for
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999
 TABLE 3 DATA SET FOR EXAMPLE 2

Bit Avg Avg Avg Mud Mud Avg Avg Data

Type WOB Flow ROT Density BHP HSI ROP Points

klbs gpm revs/min ppg psi hhp/sq. in. ft/hr Feet

DS34HFU 16 564 158 10.70 8020 3.52 31.30 536
DS34HFU 18.40 645 143 14.20 8144 1.8 9.70 77
DS34HFU 19.40 644 157 14.50 8736 1.83 11.40 300
DS34HFU 28.20 645 76 14.40 8486 3.22 20.60 260
DS34HFU 25.90 642 147 14.40 8885 3.11 11.71 135
PD12 27.70 660 147 14.50 9649 3.86 28.50 399
PD12 20.70 650 119 14.50 1001 3.69 20.70 554
DS34HFU 6.50 702 117 9.25 3179 6.8 50.30 450
AR526 10.50 579 153 9.40 5219 6.4 53.60 521
AR545U 18.30 903 140 10.40 6174 6.72 47.40 90
DS47BHU 30.30 609 145 14.20 7968 1.81 8.30 107
TD19HBR 30.10 588 133 14.40 9594 3.58 8.83 303
TD19HBR 37.70 566 99 14.50 10374 3.24 6.67 178
DS77HU 31.21 720 171 15.10 9364 6.75 13.40 400
DS77HU 35.45 720 185 15.60 10761 6.28 4.40 289
AR545U 14.90 720 83 11.98 6641 7.884 30.90 100
AR526 19.16 804 148 15.00 10594 8.983 38.44 111

12.1/4-in. PDC bit runs made through compacted shale in WBM.
As shown in Fig. 1, data were sorted to isolate shale sections from
early in each bit run, where the bits could be assumed to be still in
sharp condition. This is important because, in this application,
cutter wear exerts a strong influence on ROP, yet the degree of
wear is unknown at any particular depth once some abrasive for-
mations have been drilled. The effects of wear cannot therefore be
handled quantitatively and must effectively be edited out.
For these runs, sections of clean shale were identified from
gamma ray logs where available, and then from formation top and
bottom depths in later wells when wireline logs were not run. This
is acceptable in homogenous formations.
Figs. 5 and 6 plot the only variables against which ROP could
be correlated. These show that both HSI and the bottomhole pres-
sure of the mud column ~BHP! are influencing ROP. The scatter
in the two crossplots exists because ROP is varying due to more
than just the effect of the variable against which it is plotted.
The effect of HSI and BHP is expected for a shale/WBM ap-
plication, since both can affect the efficiency of bit cleaning. As in
example 1 however it is again important to determine which of
flow rate and HSI to maximize when rig HHP is limited.
There is one other correlation in this data set which is, initially,
surprising. This is an apparent negative correlation between ROP
and WOB, shown in Fig. 7. This however highlights another key
point for users of this method; not every correlation implies a
direct cause and effect relationship. In this case, because bit clean-
ing dominates ROP, runs made with low HSI and/or high BHP
give low ROP, despite use of high WOB. Fig. 7 therefore reflects
the unsuccessful attempt to counter low ROP with high WOB,
when bit cleaning is poor. As in example 1, when bit cleaning
effects are near constant ~within one bit run!, drilloff tests do
reveal a positive WOB effect on ROP, though the slope of that
relationship varies from one run to another.
Because of this apparent WOB effect, a statistical regression of
ROP against drilling parameters would not make sense; higher
WOB would emerge as detrimental to ROP. Statistical analysis
was however desirable to test the validity of the HSI and BHP
effects. For this reason, and because drilloff test results showed a
linear WOB/ROP relationship with intercept close to zero, the
ratio ROP:WOB was taken as the independent variable. A linear
regression of this ratio against other drilling parameters confirmed
the dominance of the HSI and BHP effects, these two effects
accounting for more than 80% of the observed variation in ROP.
There are a number of other informative observations from this
data set. In Fig. 6, the data points at highest BHP are interesting.
The points marked X were made with bits of low hydraulic

Fig. 5Relationship of ROP to HSI for PDC bits in WBM/shale. Fig. 6Relationship of ROP to BHP for PDC bits in WBM/shale.

M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999 45

Fig. 7Apparent negative effect of WOB on ROP for PDC bits in
WBM/shale.
efficiency, and high HSI. Their ROP is low. Points marked Y
are from runs made with lower HSI, but a very open-faced bit
design. ROP is higher. This implies that bit design can influence
ROP under high BHP. The run marked Z was made with a
hydraulically efficient bit and higher HSI. ROP is higher than
points X and Y. This shows that, even when BHP is very high,
HSI can still influence ROP. These findings are significant in that,
in some areas, high BHP while drilling shale in WBM is rendering
PDC bits uneconomic due to low ROP.
Example 3. This last example addresses the drilling of hard
sandstones, and worked from a data set gathered for bit sizes from
6 to 8.1/2 in. One particular sandstone formation was chosen, and
intervals of clean sandstone identified from gamma ray logs. The
averaged data are shown in Table 4.
In this data set, the same gamma ray value was used as the
sandstone discriminant in all cases. In addition, the close proxim-
ity of a casing shoe as a marker for both mud logging and wireline
data allowed the latter to be confidently depth shifted into align-
ment with the former. Hence, the depth buffer facility was unnec-
essary. Last, given the potential effect of overbalance pressure
~OBP! in this permeable formation, static overbalance pressure
was calculated for all bit runs.
The drilling of hard sandstone poses particular problems for bit
optimization. Conventional methods for raising ROP, such as use
of PDC bits, are limited by rapid cutter wear in hard, quartz-rich
formations. In these nonhydratable formations, bit cleaning may
also exert a negligible effect on ROP, closing off another potential
source of improvement. In practice this means that options to raise
ROP in hard sandstone may be restricted to exploiting the effects
of drilling parameters, with bit types capable of resisting rapid
abrasive wear.
Fig. 8 shows a crossplot of the clearest correlation between any
of the independent variables and ROP; that with OBP. For the
PDC bit runs in particular, the classic pattern of exponentially
decreasing ROP with higher OBP is seen. However, as discussed
previously, PDC bits are not cost effective in this application be-
cause of rapid abrasive wear. The remaining data in the graph do
however provide some pointers as to how bit performance can be
improved.
First, it is apparent that natural diamond bits run on rotary
bottomhole assemblies ~those with a rotary speed of 200 revolu-
tions per minute or less! fail to respond to lower OBP with higher
ROP. This class of bit therefore offers little potential for raising
ROP on rotary bottomhole assemblies. The contrast between the
response of these bits and the PDC bits to low OBP is interesting,
implying that larger cutting elements ~PDC cutters! are required to

TABLE 4 DATA SET FOR EXAMPLE 3

Bit Avg Avg Avg Mud Mud Mud Avg Avg Data
Size Type WOB Flow ROT Density BHP OBP HSI ROP Points

In. klbs gpm revs/min ppg psi psi hhp/sq. in. ft/hr Feet
8.5 B36 12.9 399 95 11.000 8312 2499 4.21 3.55 30
8.5 DS47H 15.00 388 73 10.460 7310 1934 6.08 2.94 45
6 M19B 13.20 315 85 9.020 7077 1042 6.96 5.19 19
6 M19B 18.80 314 88 9.020 7135 1050 6.88 3.82 50
6.5 TD13H 8.60 429 132 8.300 6343 464 2.45 13.00 18
6.5 R437GN 13.40 430 127 8.300 6371 466 4.31 18.00 20
6.5 EHP51H 24.50 438 177 8.400 6316 532 7.32 9.00 30
8.5 DE331G 17.30 315 129 11.000 8277 2489 2.05 2.80 40
8.5 D41G 24.90 393 150 10.600 8088 2219 1.46 3.50 35
6 TB16 16.40 288 133 9.350 7294 1293 4.72 5.42 22
6.5 SD248 18.90 400 134 8.300 6249 458 4.65 6.00 25
6.5 TB603J 15.40 435 147 8.300 6303 461 4.79 3.50 20
8.5 SD248 18.80 419 128 8.217 6249 399 2.128 4.19 35
6 SD248 20.70 336 160 8.660 6642 742 2.057 3.07 15
6 263ND 20.10 312 160 8.786 6779 844 1.672 4.50 36
6 263ND 19.00 288 162 8.443 6594 586 1.267 5.71 50
8.5 SD248 13.40 507 354 9.000 6286 913 1.97 7.10 31
6 462TS 16.1 260 720 8.688 6630 760 3.219 7.59 25
8.5 462XG 12.4 517 853 8.550 6381 640 2.04 9.8 50
8.5 462TS 8.73 503 830 8.350 6222 490 1.79 11.7 13
8.5 462TS 12.6 506 835 8.850 6111 799 1.93 12.4 50
8.5 462TS 10.7 538 888 8.400 649 540 2.202 12.3 39
8.5 462TS 10.5 538 998 9.022 6478 955 2.365 12.5 50
8.5 462TS 16.5 519 950 8.508 6107 585 2.007 7.8 25
8.5 462TS 11.2 533 983 8.697 6534 755 2.323 6.96 50
8.5 462TS 12.7 523 955 9.034 6850 1017 2.915 13.6 30

46 M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999
Fig. 8Relationship of ROP to overbalance pressure in sand-
stone for various bit types.
exploit the OBP effect. This suggests significant differences in
cutting mechanics between the two classes of bit at low OBP.
Second, the one run made with a roller cone bit at low OBP
gave ROP that is almost competitive with PDC bits, given the
lower bit price. This offers one route for reducing cost per foot if
the usual concerns with roller cone bits in hard formations ~prin-
cipally cutting structure breakage and gauge wear!, can be over-
come.
The most promising indications from the data are however the
penetration rates achieved with the two groups of bits run on
downhole motor or turbine. These drilled considerably faster than
the natural diamond bits run on rotary bottomhole assemblies,
even though OBP was similar or higher. The most obvious expla-
nation is the higher bit rotary speed provided by the motor or
turbine. This is confirmed by the correlation shown in Fig. 9,
where a group of runs with diamond and impregnated bits, all
made within a narrow range of OBP, show a clear trend of rising
ROP with increasing rotary speed. Such a clear correlation assists
greatly with justification of the additional cost incurred by running
downhole motors or turbines, since overall cost per interval is
reduced.
Thus, in this application, optimization recommendations now
stipulate the use of turbines or motors for ROP, in tandem with
diamond or impregnated bits to provide the required durability.
Low OBP is encouraged, though of course mud density is often
dictated by other criteria.
Fig. 9Relationship of ROP to rotary speed at the bit for rotary,
motor, and turbine runs in sandstone.
M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration
Fig. 10Jump in ROP after application of the method in well 4,
group A. Wells in group B did not use the method.
Performance Benefits
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of ROP trends from the first eight
wells drilled on two different development projects. The wells in
group A optimized drilling practices in accordance with results
from this method. This method was not applied on the other
project ~group B!. The data show changes in average penetra-
tion ROP through selected intervals of consistent geology, at three
different hole sizes, for the first eight wells on the two develop-
ments. Since geology and drilling conditions are different for the
two projects, penetration rates are normalized to 100% at the first
well. Improvement in ROP versus time is therefore being com-
pared for the two projects.
In the group A wells, results of this method were first applied
in well four, and thereafter on all wells. ROP shows a two- to
sixfold improvement in wells four to eight compared to wells one
to three. The value of this ROP improvement was approximately
U.S. $650,000 per well.
In the group B wells, some ROP improvement is evident, but is
more gradual and of lesser magnitude.
These data do not, by themselves, prove the impact of this
method on drilling performance. However, drilling practices on
the group A wells were modified in accordance with findings from
the method, primarily in terms of hydraulic horsepower, mechani-
cal drilling parameters, motor and turbine usage, and preferred bit
characteristics. The expected benefit to ROP clearly occurred. In
contrast, the group B development lacked any systematic studies
of ROP, and therefore failed to identify either which factors were
controlling ROP, or how drilling practices could be optimized for
ROP improvement.
Discussion
The ROP analysis tool described here brings an engineering
method to a part of the drilling process that is technically com-
plex, commercially significant, and lacking in analysis techniques
and models. It is cheap to implement, requiring only standard
wellsite data and a spreadsheet package. As the above examples
show, results can be highly informative as to the underlying
mechanisms that control ROP.
For a drilling operations community, the method identifies op-
portunities by which ROP can be raised. The correlations are rel-
evant since they are drawn directly from local data. Their effect is
to reduce reliance on intuition in favor of practices which are
demonstrably most cost effective. Thus, disagreements over
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999 47
which flow rate or HSI are most helpful to bit cleaning, or
whether downhole motors do or do not raise ROP, can be quickly
resolved and best practices standardized.
For drill bit suppliers, the method provides a means to make
ROP comparisons without results being distorted by geological
variations, how long a dull bit was persisted with, or any of the
other influences that reduce the credibility and accuracy of a
claimed bit effect. When assessment of bit designs is made from
field data, it seems appropriate to at least ensure that performance
comparisons are properly constructed and understood.
For analytic modeling of ROP, results from the method shed
some light on why a particular model may be valid for the condi-
tions under which it was developed, but impossible to extrapolate
to other applications where factors such as bit design, mud type,
or rock type may have changed. For example, a model for PDC bit
response in OBM and shale could apparently exclude bit features
and mud density, but would need to incorporate those variables in
WBM. This type of change is very difficult to predict without
guidance from findings such as those reported here. Perhaps the
greatest contribution this method could make to analytic ROP
modeling is to indicate with which variables the model should be
constructed for a particular application.
Ultimately, the objective of these ROP investigations is to iden-
tify, for common combinations of bit size, mud type, bit class and
rock type, which variables are most influential to ROP. Such gen-
eralized findings can then provide drilling operations communities
with guidelines on how to maximize ROP, spreading the benefit
of the method to all applications under which its findings are
physically valid.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank BP Exploration, Total C.F.P., Triton
Energy Corporation, and Ecopetrol for permission to publish this
paper.
References
1. Cunningham, R.A. and Eenink, J.G.: Laboratory Study of Effect of
Overburden, Formation and Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rate
of Permeable Formations, J. Pet. Technol. 9 ~January 1959!.
2. Detournay, E. and Atkinson, C.: Influence of Pore Pressure on the
Drilling Response of PDC bits, Rock Mechanics as a Multidisci-
plinary Science, Roegiers ~ed.!, Balkema, Rotterdam ~1991! 539.
3. Zijsling, D.H.: Single Cutter TestingA Key for PDC Bt Develop-
ment, paper SPE 16529/1, Presented at the 1987 Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, 811 September.
4. Gray-Stephens, D., Cook, J.M., and Sheppard, M.C.: Influence of
Pore Pressure on Drilling Response in Hard Shales, SPE Drill.
Complet. 263 ~December 1994!.
5. Peltier, B. and Atkinson, C.: Dynamic Pore Pressure Ahead of the
Bit, paper IADC/SPE 14787, Presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 1012 February.
6. Warren, T. and Smith, M.B.: Bottomhole Stress Factors Affecting
Drilling Rate at Depth, JPT 1523 ~August 1985!.
7. Black, A.D. et al.: PDC Bit Performance for Rotary, Mud Motor,
and Turbine Drilling Applications, SPE Drill. Complet. 409 ~De-
cember 1986!.
8. Pessier, R.C., Fear, M.J., and Wells, M.R.: Different Shales Dictate
Fundamentally Different Strategies in Hydraulics, Bit Selection, and
Operating Practices, paper SPE 28322, Presented at the 1994 An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 2528
September.
9. Warren, T.M. and Armagost, W.K.: Laboratory Drilling Perfor-
mance of PDC Bits, SPE Drill. Complet. 125 ~June 1988!.
10. Moffitt, S.R. and McGehee, D.Y.: Performance Comparison of
Rolling Cutter Bits With Alternate Nozzle Configurations, paper
SPE/IADC 18630, Presented at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Confer-
ence; New Orleans, LA, 28 February3 March.
48 M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration
11. Onyia, E.C.: Relationships Between Formation Strength, Drilling
Strength, and Electric Log Properties, paper SPE 18166, Presented
at the 1988 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX, 25 October.
12. White, D.B., Curry, D.A., and Gavignet, A.G.: Effects of Nozzle
Configuration on Roller Cone Bit Performance, paper IADC/SPE
17188, Presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
TX, 28 February3 March.
13. Xu, H.: A Method for Modelling Rate of Penetration of Drill Bits
Using Electric and Mud Logging Data, PhD dissertation, Heriott
Watt U., Edinburgh, Scotland ~1995!.
14. Walker, B.H. et al.: Roller-Bit Penetration Rate Response as a
Function of Rock Properties and Well Depth, paper SPE 15620,
Presented at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA, 58 October.
15. Tibbitts, G.A. et al.: The Effects of Bit Hydraulics on Full-Scale
Laboratory Drilled Shale, paper SPE 8439, Presented at the 1979
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, NV, 2326 September.
16. Cheatham, C.A. and Nahm, J.J.: Effects of Selected Mud Properties
on Rate of Penetration in Full-Scale Drilling Simulations, paper
SPE/IADC 13465, Presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC Drilling Confer-
ence, New Orleans, LA, 68 March.
17. Black, A.D. et al.: Effects of Size on Three-Cone Bit Performance
in Laboratory Drilled Shale, paper SPE 11231, Presented at the
1982 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New Orleans, LA, 2629 Septem-
ber.
18. Holster, J.L. and Kipp, R.J.: Effect of Bit Hydraulic Horsepower on
the Drilling Rate of a Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit, paper
SPE 11949, Presented at the 1983 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, 58 October.
19. Burgess, T.M. and Lesso, W.G.: Measuring the Wear of Milled
Tooth Bits Using MWD Torque and Weight-on-Bit, paper SPE/
IADC 13475, Presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, LA, 68 March.
20. Winters, W.J., Warren, T.M., and Onyia, E.C.: Roller Bit Model
With Rock Ductility and Cone Offset, paper SPE 16696, Presented
at the 1987 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
2730 September.
21. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr. and Young, F.S. Jr.: A Multiple Regression
Approach to Optimal Drilling and Abnormal Pressure Detection,
SPE J 371 ~August 1974!; Trans., AIME 257.
22. Detournay, E. and Defourny, P.: A Phenomenological Model for the
Drilling Action of Drag Bits, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. 29~1!, 13 ~1992!.
23. Bourdon, J.-C. et al.: Comparison of Field and Laboratory-
Simulated Drill-Off Tests, SPE Drill. Complet. 329 ~December
1989!.
AppendixHow to Use the Method
This method analyzes ROP variation between bit runs, in such a
way as to minimize the effects of geological variation on ROP.
This allows the effects of controllable drilling and hydraulic pa-
rameters to be clearly seen, together with the effects of any influ-
ential bit features. Specific subsections of bit runs can be further
extracted to minimize ROP variation due to bit wear. The method
uses the following steps:
1. Select a group of wells with comparable geology and casing
programs.
2. From the wells, select a group of hole sections of equal or
similar bit size, where similar formations were drilled.
3. Select an interval of homogenous lithology within the hole
sections.
4. Identify the portions of bit runs that fall within the interval
of homogenous lithology, and obtain averages of drilling/
hydraulic parameters and formation properties for those portions.
5. Tabulate the averaged data in a spreadsheet, together with
bit size, mud type, bottomhole assembly ~BHA! type, formation
name, interval top/bottom depths, and bit nozzle arrangement.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999
 6. Separate the tabulated data by mud type, type of BHA, and
bit class ~e.g., PDC or roller cone!.
7. Choose the dependent variable ~usually ROP!.
8. From a list of factors that could potentially influence ROP
~the independent variables, see Table 1!, crossplot each of the
independent variables against ROP for each bit class in each mud
type.
9. To avoid misinterpretation, check for any interdependence
between supposedly independent variables ~e.g., HSI and flow
rate, bit rotary speed and flow rate with downhole motors!.
10. If bit wear state can be assumed known over the averaged
intervals ~e.g., in a nonabrasive formation, at the start or end of a
bit run!, crossplot ROP against wear state, for each bit class in
each mud type.
11. If a good correlation exists between ROP and one other
variable, attempt to normalize ROP for that variable before cross-
plotting the normalized values against all other variables ~this may
reveal correlations that are otherwise masked!.
M.J. Fear: Improve Rate of Penetration
12. If clear, unambiguous correlations are found, attempt to fit
a ROP model to the data. Use a step-wise regression in a package
such as SAS.
13. If a model can be fitted, assess carefully the degree of fit
~from r squared, error in model parameter values, number of pa-
rameters versus sample size, etc.!.
14. If a reliable model was fitted, assess the accuracy of the
model in a predictive mode against future bit runs.
15. From comparisons of model predictions versus actual
ROP, or from crossplotted relationships, examine the data for any
bit design effects on ROP.
16. Combine the findings with those from other methods.
17. Generate recommendations for maximizing ROP.
Martyn Fear is a bit-optimization specialist with BP Exploration
in Colombia. He provides bit-optimization support to BP drilling
operations worldwide. Fear holds a BS degree in geological
sciences from the U. of Birmingham.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1999 49