You are on page 1of 202

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

An Innovative Approach for Pore Pressure Prediction and Drilling Optimization in the

Abnormally Sub-Pressured “Deep Basin” of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

by

Oscar Michel Contreras Puerto

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JUNE, 2011

© Oscar Michel Contreras Puerto, 2011

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate

Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled "An Innovative Approach for Pore Pressure

Prediction and Drilling Optimization in the Abnormally Sub-Pressured “Deep Basin” of

the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin" submitted by Oscar Michel Contreras Puerto in

partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science.

Supervisor, Dr. Roberto Aguilera, Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering

Co-Supervisor, Dr. Geir Hareland, Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering

Dr. Thomas G. Harding, Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering

Dr. Sundarshan (Raj) Mehta, Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering

Dr. Azra N. Tutuncu, Department of Petroleum
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, USA

Date

ii

Abstract

Up to now, an indirect method to predict pore pressure under sub-pressured conditions

has not been reported in the literature. In this thesis, an innovative approach is presented

for estimation of pore pressure and drilling optimization of wells drilled in the

abnormally sub-pressured Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

(WCSB). The procedure starts with detailed evaluation of five wells drilled in township

T65-R09W6 that covers the study area. Pore pressure was calculated using Eaton method

from sonic logs (Eaton, 1975), and Eaton method from the modified D exponent (Rehm

and McClendon, 1971), which proved to be the most effective for abnormal sub-

pressured conditions over a variety of methods tested.

The drilling optimization procedure was carried out using the Apparent Rock Strength

Log (ARSL); next, optimization of individual sections in each well was carried out to

determine the optimum operational parameters for the lowest net drilling time. Special

attention was focused on the tight gas Nikanassin Group for selection of the most suitable

drilling parameters that increase the quality of drill cuttings.

The combination of a rollercone bit code IADC 547 and at least 0.73 horsepower in the

bit per square inch (HSI) provides the best quality of cuttings from the tight gas

Nikanassin Group. This is of paramount importance for increasing accuracy in the

quantitative determination of permeability and porosity from cuttings particularly in those

tight gas reservoirs where the amount of cores is very limited.

It is concluded that wells in the sub-pressured study area of the Deep Basin of the WCSB

can be drilled efficiently with 7 bit runs reaching larger rates of penetration than achieved

iii

in practice so far, while at the same time reducing bit wear, controlling wellbore stability

problems and recovering good quality drill cuttings.

Although the methodologies developed in this thesis concentrate on township T65-

R09W6 we anticipate that they can be extended to other sub-pressured formations with

similar geologic characteristics in the Deep Basin of the WCSB and elsewhere.

iv

Mr. Acknowledgements I would like to express my deep feelings of gratitude to my advisor Dr. Dwayne Bourgoyne for their strong support during my studies in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Colorado School of Mines. his contributions made this research work possible. Edmund Quan. Alfred Eustes III and Dr. I express my gratitude to Pason for providing the simulation tool implemented in this research. Nino Suarez. Nisael Solano and Mr. well logs and drill cuttings for my research. Special thanks to Mr. Roberto Aguilera. guidance and encouragement during my experience as a graduate student in the GFREE team in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Calgary. Special tanks to Dr. Mr. Mr. I express my gratitude to Dr. and to ConocoPhillips for providing drilling records. My everlasting gratitude to ConocoPhillips. I wish to thank to my co-advisor Dr. for his teaching. Geir Hareland for his valuable support and encouragement during the development of this work. Azra Tutuncu form the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Colorado School of Mines for her teaching and advice that played a crucial role in the development of this research. Mohammad Fazaeli. v . Professor and ConocoPhillips-NSERC-AERI Chair. NSERC and AERI for funding my graduate studies. Javier Leguizamon for their technical support during the development of this work.

my mother Carmen Elisa. Dedication To my grandmother Ubaldina. vi . my father Oscar Alberto and my brother Satchel Fabricio.

.................. 39 2................4...1 Maurer Model ...2...........................................................4........... iii Acknowledgements .......................2 Bowers Method..........................................................................................3 Warren (Drilling Model for Soft-Formation Bits) Model ..................1 Justification ............4 Drilling Optimization .............................. 29 2..................... xiv List of Symbols...............................................................................................................................................3............................................................... ii Abstract ......................7 Hareland Model ........ 40 2................. 6 1................................................................................... 27 2.................................. 1 1... 20 2........................................................................................................................................................ 37 2........ 12 1........................2 Factors that Affect Rate of Penetration ......................1 Generalities on Drilling Optimization Simulators .....................4 Literature Review on Rate of Penetration Models from Rock Strength ..............3 Equivalent Depth Method ................5 Warren (Imperfect-Cleaning) Model .............3............................4................................................................. 1 1......................... 24 2.........6 Technical Publications .....4.................................................................... 46 2......8 Rampersad Model ......................3 Alixant Method .................................2 Eaton Method from the Modified D Exponent .4..........................................3 Pore Pressure .........................................4......................................... 38 2.........................................1 Holbrook Method.................. 42 2...........................5 Thesis Chapters.................................................................. Table of Contents Approval Page ............................................................................. 43 2......................................................................... 17 1............................................................... 10 1......................................................3..........9 Hareland and Rampersad Model for PDC Bits .......2........3 Explicit Methods for Pore Pressure Estimation.......................................................................2 Area of Study..................................... 48 vii ..4 Hottman and Johnson (H&J) Method ............................. 8 1............2 Cunningham Model .2................... v Dedication ....4................4...................1 Introduction ...........................................................4.................... 14 1..... xi List of Figures and Illustrations ...........................1 Where does the Pore Pressure Impact? ......................................4 Walker Model ....................................................... xxi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .........2 Normal Trend Methods for Pore Pressure Estimation ...4.......................................... 20 2..........................vii List of Tables... 20 2..........6 Winters Model ........................................... 35 2.............................. 26 2.............................................................................. Abbreviations and Nomenclature ........................................ 32 2............ 35 2...............................3...................................................................................................................................2......................................................................... 2 1..............4............................. 19 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ON PORE PRESSURE ESTIMATION AND RATE OF PENETRATION MODELS FROM ROCK STRENGTH .................................................................................................... 9 1............................................................... 21 2.......................................... vi Table of Contents ..................................... 29 2...............1 Eaton Method from Sonic and Resistivity Logs .................................................................................................................................. 31 2.......................4.....3 Generalities on Drill Bits ....

...................4 Optimization of WOB and RPM ........3 Pore Pressure from Eaton Method using the Modified D Exponent . 87 4.............................. 115 viii .....3 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) (Chang et al..........3 Impact of Pore Pressure on Apparent Rock Strength Log ..6 Optimization Summary ................. 96 4....3.... 99 4................ 70 3....4.................................2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation ...........................................................................................6..........................5 Drilling optimization of well 10-33-065-09W6 ...6........ 50 3..............................1 Operational Parameters Gathering ...............6 Pore Pressure Calibration Using Mud Window ............... 80 CHAPTER FOUR: DRILLING OPTIMIZATION .....2 Shales ............................................ 89 4.....5......................................6......6..........3 Hydraulics Optimization .............2 Shales ............ 58 3.........8 Pore pressure Calculation for wells 13-15-065-09W6............................................................................................3 Hydraulics Optimization .......4 Optimization of WOB and RPM ............................4....................................... 1956) ...........1 Introduction .................5....................................................................... 106 4.......................................................................................................6.......... 70 3.....................6.5.4 Collapse Pressure (Fjaer................................................. 109 4.........................................2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation ............4.............................. 98 4....................2 Poisson‟s Ratio and Young‟s Modulus (Tutuncu........... 113 4...................... 60 3..................... 102 4.........6..6.......... 71 3........5 Merging Test ............... 70 3................ 93 4.................................... 114 4............................................................................................................................ 2006) ..............................................1 Shear Velocity .................................. 2010) ....... 100 4..7 Comparison of Pore pressure Values obtained from the Eaton Method and the Bowers Method...................5 Minimum Horizontal Stress (Hubbert and Willis..............6 Optimization Summary ...........................4................................................................................ 70 3................... 109 4........................1 Sandstones ......... 107 4............................................ 115 4...... 87 4.............. 51 3..... 91 4............................................5 Pore Pressure from Bowers Method ........................................6 Optimization Summary ...........6.........5........................... 93 4.........................................................1 Obtaining Operational Parameters Gathering ...5.. 50 3........1 Sandstones .............................................. 102 4.................................. 70 3...............................................5................4..............................................................5 Merging Test ..........CHAPTER THREE: PORE PRESSURE MODELING ON THE DEEP BASIN OF THE WESTERN CANADA SEDIMENTARY BASIN . 108 4....... 105 4......................................6.........................1.........................................................2 Pore Pressure from Eaton Method using Well Logs........................ 78 3............ 66 3...............6.................................................... 69 3......... 69 3..............2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation ....................... 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 ...........4 Pore Pressure from Holbrook Method ...6..............................4.................. 93 4................................6 Drilling Optimization of well 13-15-065-09W6 ............................................................................................4 Optimization of WOB and RPM ...3 Hydraulics Optimization .......1 Introduction .. 102 4.6...................................6............................ 68 3............ 69 3............. 111 4..........3................6.............2 Drilling Optimization Software ........................................................................................................................1....................5 Merging Test ....................................................................................... 1992) ....1 Operational Parameters Gathering ....4 Drilling Optimization of well 08-28-065-09W6 .....................

...........9................ 126 4.....................................................................3 Cuttings Size and Drilling Operational Parameters Considerations ..2 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 08-28-065-09W6 ......................8...............5 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 . 152 5............... 122 4.......2 Cuttings Size in the Nikanassin Group ...5 Optimization of WOB and RPM .....3 Hydraulics Optimization ..................... 135 5.......7 Summary of the Economic Analysis .. 124 4....................9 Drilling optimization of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 ......... 167 6..................................3 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 02/11- 21-065-09W6 ............................................1 Operational Parameters Gathering ........2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation ... 156 5................................................................................................................................................................................. 163 6..................4 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 02/06- 05-065-09W6 .............1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................4 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 13-15-065-09W6 .......................... 172 ix ......................... 132 4..............................1 Operational Parameters Gathering ....8............3 Hydraulics Optimization ...........................................4....................................................... 169 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 159 6..............9.......5 Optimization Summary .......................................................................................................... 157 5...................................... 162 6...................................................................... 116 4.................................... 165 6..............4...................... 119 4. 151 5.......................................................4 Merging Test ..........4......................... 126 4.......................................................6 Optimization Summary .........................8... 121 4.................................. 117 4................................................9..........8 Drilling optimization of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 ................ 132 4.......... 158 CHAPTER SIX: ECONOMICAL IMPACT OF DRILLING OPTIMIZATION IN THE DEEP BASIN OF THE WESTERN CANADA SEDIMENTARY BASIN .....................................................7 Modified Optimization Procedure ......... 170 7..................9...... 153 5....................1 Introduction .................................3 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 10-33-065-09W6 ...8.............................................................................10 General Optimization Summary .......4 Merging Test ........8.......................................................................2 Recommendations ...............6 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 02/06-05-065-09W6 ...4................................................ 134 CHAPTER FIVE: CUTTINGS-QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING DRILLING OPTIMIZATION..........2 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization for well 10-33- 065-09W6 . 170 7... 131 4................. 136 5... 135 5........................................................................................ 142 5.................................. 4......1 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 08-28- 065-09W6 ...5 Optimization of WOB and RPM ....................................... 159 6............................1 Introduction ...8..........................................9............. 129 4............................................................... 160 6.......................9. 126 4..2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation ................................................................... 123 4........................ 117 4......4 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization ..............6 Optimization Summary ..

. 174 x ..................REFERENCES ..........................................................................................

.. 2010) ........... and after the hydraulic and WOB and RPM optimization ..1 – Valued used in the implementation of Bowers method in wells 08-28- 065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 .1 – Formation tops and average pore pressure values for each formation penetrated by well 08-28-065-09W6 ................................... 109 xi ........................... 106 Table 4.... 14 Table 1........................................... 97 Table 4......................................2 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run used in well 08-28-065-09W6.................... 104 Table 4........................................................................ 101 Table 4...............4 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI in well 08-28-065-09W6 ...........................2 – Effect of increasing each formation characteristic on ROP (modified from Hareland........ 94 Table 4....................................1 – Effect of increasing each operational variable on ROP (modified from Hareland.................................. 30 Table 3............4 – Effect of increasing the bit wear status and the cutter PDC layer thickness on ROP (modified from Hareland...... 13 Table 1................................................. 104 Table 4.................................... 2010)......11 – Net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 for the real case........... 14 Table 2.... List of Tables Table 1.........................................10 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 10-33-065-09W6...................................................................................3 – Bit runs in well 08-28-065-09W6 ............................... 2010) ...............9 – Bit runs of well 08-28-065-09W6 .......................................................................................5 – Net drilling and tripping time in well 08-28-065-09W6 for the real case............................................................................... 95 Table 4.................................................. 101 Table 4......................................................... 95 Table 4.. 103 Table 4............ 13 Table 1.................................................................. and after the hydraulics and WOB and RPM optimization ..............................................................6 – Net drilling and tripping time in well 08-28-065-09W6 after the merging tests ..............3 – Effect of increasing bit type and design variables on ROP (modified from Hareland............... 67 Table 4.........................................8 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 10- 33-065-09W6 .........................................................7 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 10-33-065-09W6 .............................1 – Values of max and  for different lithologies ............ 2010) ...................

............................................20 – Bit runs in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 ................................................. 121 Table 4.................................. and the WOB and RPM optimization ...................................................................... 111 Table 4...........................................17 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics.................................................................26 – Bit runs in well 02/06-05-065-09W6 ........................................................ 127 Table 4..... 128 Table 4..........22 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics optimization .................Table 4......................... 110 Table 4...................................................................................... 125 Table 4.................25 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 02/06- 05-065-09W6 ......................... 133 xii ......23 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after the merging tests....................................... 113 Table 4..........................21 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 ................................................................. 118 Table 4........................................................... 116 Table 4.......................................... 119 Table 4..............................28 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics optimization ................................ 109 Table 4..................................14 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 13- 15-065-09W6 ............... 128 Table 4.............................24 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 02/06-05-065-09W6 .......................................................................................................12 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 after the merging test ......... 130 Table 4........... 119 Table 4................................................. 125 Table 4............ 111 Table 4..........19 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 02/11- 21-065-09W6 .....16 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 13-15-065-09W6...18 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 02/11-21-065-09W6 .............27 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 02/06-05-069W6 ............................................................................................13 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 13-15-065-09W6 .............15 – Bit runs in well 13-15-065-09W6 ......................................... and WOB and RPM optimization ...

134 Table 5............... 143 Table 5.............................................3 – Average operational parameters of wells 05-32-065-09W6. 12-31-066-09W6 ...9 – Drilling costs for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060079 ........ 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 ...........................................30 – Drilling optimization summary for the five study wells ............... 166 Table 6...... 10-33-065- 09W6......4 – Drilling optimization summary for the five study wells considering the quality of the drill cuttings ............................... 143 Table 5..8 – Drill bit costs for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051433 ........2 – Average operational parameters for wells 08-28-065-09W6............3 – Drilling costs for well 10-33-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060678 ........ 158 Table 6............ 164 Table 6......29 – Net drilling and tripping time of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 after the merging tests...........4 – Drill bit costs for well 10-33-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060678 ............. 160 Table 6.......................7 – Drilling costs for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051433 .......... 137 Table 5.............................. 161 Table 6...... 133 Table 4..1 – Color meaning in cutting size classification plots ............ 166 Table 6.......... 169 Table 6.......2 – Drill bit costs for well 08-28-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051432 ..................................................5 – Drilling costs for well 13-15-065-09W6 according to AFE DC 051432 ...6 – Drill bit costs for well 13-15-065-09W6 according to AFE DC061402 ....Table 4... and the WOB and RPM optimization....11 – Summary of the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells without considering the quality of drill cuttings in 2006 dollars . 162 Table 6... 13-15-065-09W6............. 164 Table 6......... 169 xiii ...... 168 Table 6.................. 163 Table 6...10 – Drill bit costs for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060079 ...1 – Drilling costs for well 08-28-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051432 .12 – Summary of the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells considering the quality of the drill cuttings in 2066 dollars ... 09-11-066- 10W6......... 168 Table 6..........

............................................... 1984) ..11 – NDB bit (www...............................9 – Three-cone rollercone bits (from www........ 29 Figure 3..9 Figure 1......................... depth relationships between conventional and deep basin gas trap (modified from Masters.................. 16 Figure 1...5 – Pressure vs.....6 – Areas where the pore pressure has an impact...com) ...................... 12 Figure 1................. 1965) ...................7 – Drilling System (Hareland.........................................3 – Pore pressure estimation from the Hottman and Johnson method using differences in shale sonic transit times (modified from Hottman and Johnson....2 – Location of the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (modified from Masters.. 2006)............................................8 Figure 1... 2010).......3 Figure 1...................2 – Case where the equivalent depth method underestimates the pore pressure estimation due to fluid expansion (Bowers.................................3 – Cross-section across the WCSB exhibiting the change from planes to foredeep (Zaitlin and Moslow..... T65-R09W6 (adapted from Gies...................tradekorea............................. 27 Figure 2.................................................................................1 – Case where equivalent depth method effectively predicts overpressure by undercompaction (Bowers............. .................. 16 Figure 2........2 – Overburden stress gradient for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33- 065-09W6 .......... 2006) ...... ..................................................10 – PDC bit (www................................. 10 Figure 1...............................................1 – Location of the WCSB and other big sedimentary basins in North America (Zaitlin and Moslow.......... 1984) ............................................................................ 52 xiv ................. 26 Figure 2.....eradrillingservices....................4 – Pore pressure estimation from the Hottman and Johnson method using the ratio between the shale normal resistivity and shale observed resistivity values (modified from Hottman and Johnson...... 15 Figure 1. 1984) ......com) ............................. 51 Figure 3......8 – Parameters that affect ROP .............com) ........ List of Figures and Illustrations Figure 1............ 1965) .....................................................................................................4 – Location of the study area...............5 Figure 1................ 1995) .......................2 Figure 1........... 1995)..........nov...............................1 – Location of the study wells in township T65-R09W6 (modified from AccuMap)..........................4 Figure 1............................................... 28 Figure 2.............

............................5 – Pore pressure from Eaton method using two normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent equal to 3 for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6.......... Blue line corresponds to modified D exponent and red lines are normal compaction trends ....... The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities...3 – Normal compaction trends for well 08-28-065-09W6............................. 58 Figure 3............9 – Pore pressure from the modified D exponent method using two compaction trend lines and an Eaton Exponent equal to 1............................................................ The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data...... 54 Figure 3.................................... Blue points correspond to sonic transit time measurements and red lines are normal compaction trends ........................ The blue line corresponds to pore pressure..................4 – Normal compaction trends for well 10-33-065-09W6........................................................................................................................11 (a) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from density and neutron logs for well 08-28-065-09W6..12 (a) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from density and neutron logs for well 10-33-065-09W6.....0 for wells (a) 08-28- 065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6.............................. . 61 Figure 3................. 54 Figure 3.................Figure 3... The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data .............................................10 – Porosity profiles for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6 ............. Blue line corresponds to modified D exponent and red lines are normal compaction trends ........6 – Pore Pressure from Eaton method using two normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent equal to 1 for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6.... The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data. 63 Figure 3........................... 55 Figure 3................. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data....... The blue line corresponds to pore pressure............ The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities....................... 60 Figure 3....... . 59 Figure 3.................................................................... The blue dots are calculated pore pressures...... 57 Figure 3................. The blue line corresponds to pore xv ........... The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities.. Blue points correspond to sonic transit time measurements and red lines are normal compaction trends ... The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data........ The blue dots are calculated pore pressures.....8 – Normal compaction trend for well 10-33-065-09W6............... The blue line corresponds to pore pressure.... 62 Figure 3.....11 (b) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from AFF and average porosity for well 08-28-065-09W6.....7 – Normal compaction trend for well 08-28-065-09W6........

79 Figure 3....................... 68 Figure 3..........................20 – Three normal compaction trends used in modified D exponent method for well 08-28-065-09W6 .....................................18 – Normal compaction trends on well 10-33-065-09W6 ............................ 74 Figure 3..17 – Caliper log............ three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 13-15-065-09W ........................................................................................ UCS and Mud Window for well 08-28-065-09W6 ...................................................... 73 Figure 3....... 77 Figure 3................................. 81 Figure 3.. 66 Figure 3............14 – Pore pressure from Bowers method for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 ........................................................................... 75 Figure 3....................22 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent method and three normal compaction trends for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6 .... The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data...... 65 Figure 3...................................... three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/11-21-065- 09W6 .......25 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs...................... UCS and Mud Window for well 08-28-065-09W6 considering three normal compaction trends ....... The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data.. 64 Figure 3.. 72 Figure 3....................................... .......23 – Comparison of pore pressure profiles obtained from Eaton and Bowers methods for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 ...............................................16 – Normal compaction trends on well 08-28-065-09W6 ...............13 – Range of porosity values of the Deep Basin of the WCSB in contrast to the sands and shales porosity values presented by Holbrook et al............. (modified from Holbrook et al.................................................24 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs..... 78 Figure 3...19 – Pore pressure profiles using Eaton method from sonic logs and three normal compaction trends for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6...................12 (b) – Pore Pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from AFF and average porosity for well 10-33-065-09W6.............. 82 xvi ...15 – Caliper log....... 76 Figure 3...................................................................... 77 Figure 3............................................................................................................................................21 – Three normal compaction trends used in modified D exponent method for well 10-33-065-09W6 ........... 1995) ............................................................. pressure............... The blue line corresponds to pore pressure.................................................................

...... 104 Figure 4..10 – Depth vs....... 100 Figure 4......................................................................................5 ................... net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6..13 – Depth vs......8 – Depth vs. WOB and RPM optimization.......... 105 Figure 4.......................... Note improvement with respect to real times................................................... and WOB and RPM optimization.....................12 – Depth vs........................... net drilling and tripping time of well 08-28-065-09W6 following hydraulic optimization.......... net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 . 98 Figure 4....... Notice the improvement with respect to the real drilling time . 83 Figure 3..................... 106 xvii ....Effect of pore pressure on ARSL for well 08-28-065-09W6 ..2 ....................... net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 following hydraulics optimization...............9 – Depth vs................................................................3 – Drill Model window for one well in the study area ...........................29 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/06-05-065- 09W6 ............ and merging tests ................... 86 Figure 4..... 88 Figure 4.............1 – General Optimization Procedure . net drilling and tripping time of well 08-28-065-09W6 following hydraulics optimization................. 90 Figure 4...........ARS Model window for one well in the study area .............................................. ..............................................11 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 10-33-065-09W6 ......................................................... Notice the improvement after hydraulics optimization compared with the real drilling time................................................... 84 Figure 3.................................. 85 Figure 3....7 – Depth vs................ 91 Figure 4........... three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/06-05-065- 09W6 .............................................................6 – ARSL in ARS Model window of well 08-28-065-09W6 ..... net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 ..................................................... 95 Figure 4. 99 Figure 4.......27 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 13-15-065-09W6.. 96 Figure 4..4 – Optimize Wizard for one well in the study area ............Figure 3.. ...........28 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/11-21-065- 09W6 ........ 89 Figure 4................26 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs.............................................................. 92 Figure 4..........................................

...... and WOB and RPM optimization.. 108 Figure 4................. 123 Figure 4..... WOB and RPM optimization.... Note that in this instance.29 – Depth vs.........14 ..................... net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-9W6 ....... 2010) ......Depth vs. merging tests....18 – Depth vs............ 112 Figure 4............ the real hydraulics compare well with the optimized case ..... and WOB and RPM optimization ............ 120 Figure 4. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization.... and WOB and RPM optimization.......................... 117 Figure 4............................... .................... 120 Figure 4............. 112 Figure 4. 132 Figure 5............25 – Depth vs.....17 – Depth vs.................... net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 after hydraulic optimization and WOB and RPM optimization .1 – Cuttings size classification (red and gray bars in the left hand side) and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments (blue bars in the right hand side) for well 08-28-065-09W6 (modified from Solano... 129 Figure 4.....20 – General and Modified Optimization procedure for the study area .......................24 – Depth vs.....26 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 .. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization......16 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 13-15-065-09W6 .... 122 Figure 4....28 – Depth vs.. 124 Figure 4........15 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 ...... 114 Figure 4...... net drilling and tripping time of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 ..................... net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization.....30 – Depth vs.... 128 Figure 4. 107 Figure 4.. 130 Figure 4.....22 – Depth vs.. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization and merging tests..... net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 following after hydraulics optimization .......................... net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization .............................. 115 Figure 4.......................Figure 4............. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization...................21 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 ..27 – Depth vs.. merging tests....................... net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization....23 – Depth vs........................ net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization and merging tests.......... 136 xviii ..... and merging test ............... 131 Figure 4......19 – Depth vs...... ....... .

...................................... 149 xix ...................................... The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ............................Figure 5...............................................................13 ........... The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ........... 144 Figure 5.8 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 09-11-066-10W6 (modified from Solano................................................................................................. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ....... The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ............7 ..............3 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 13-15-065-09W6 (modified from Solano........................ 2010).................... average ROP/RPM for wells with cuttings larger than 2mm ...............2 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 10-33-065-09W6 (modified from Solano.............. 138 Figure 5.....................Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 05-32-065-09W6 (modified from Solano........ 2010)...................... 148 Figure 5.. 139 Figure 5.............. 2010).......................... 147 Figure 5...... The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ............................ 137 Figure 5........................................ 2010)........4 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 (modified from Solano..................................... 138 Figure 5......12 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs........................... 146 Figure 5... 2010)...................... 141 Figure 5..9 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 12-31-066-9W6 (modified from Solano.........................10 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs........11 – Empirical graph of average cutting percentage (by weight) vs............... average ROP/RPM for the eight study wells ................... 140 Figure 5.............. 2010)..14 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs............. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 ....6 Location of the five wells (red points) in the study area (T65-R09W6) and three additional offset wells (yellow diamonds) (modified from AccuMap) .. 141 Figure 5............................... 2010)..............5 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 (modified from Solano.Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs............. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 .......... average HSI for the eight study wells .............. 145 Figure 5.................15 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs.. average TFA for the eight study wells focusing on tendencies ............ 142 Figure 5....... average TFA for the eight study wells ...................... average HSI for the eight study wells focusing on tendencies ...

.......... net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 including bit IADC 547 for drilling the Nikanassin Group and improving the drill cuttings quality................ 155 Figure 5.........................17 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 09-11-066-10W6 ...............21 – Depth vs............................................. ..........Figure 5....... 153 Figure 5............20 – Depth vs............18 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 13-15-065-09W6 ............. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in the last bit run .. 158 xx ........ 150 Figure 5.........16 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 537 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 09-11-066-10W6 ......................... 154 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 13-15-065-09W6 .... net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 547 for drilling the Nikanassin Group ......... 151 Figure 5.................................22 – Depth vs............. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 using a bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in the last bit run ... 151 Figure 5....... net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 617 for drilling the Nikanassin Group ................................ 155 Figure 5...........23 – Depth vs...... 156 Figure 5............19 – Depth vs.......................................

b. dimensionless (as indicated under equation) xxi . l/m (also known as Total Pump Output in Drilling Engineering) UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength VESD Virtual Experience Simulator for Drilling WCSB Western Canada Sedimentary Basin Nomenclature Definition a.c Bit constants in Warren penetration model. and economics and externalities (EE) at the University of Calgary HSI Horsepower in the bit per square inch IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors MW Mud Weight on Optimizer® simulator NDB Natural Diamond Bit PDC Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit POOH Pooling Out Of Hole PP Pore Pressure on Optimizer® simulator PV Plastic Viscosity SG Specific Gravity TFA Total Nozzles Flow Area TPO Drilling Flow Rate. completion and stimulation (R). formation evaluation (F). reservoir drilling. List of Symbols. reservoir engineering (RE). dimensionless or Empirical correlation factors determined from laboratory/field drilling data for any set of drag bits in Hareland and Rampersad model. Abbreviations and Nomenclature Abbreviations Definition AFE Authority for Expenditures AFF Acoustic Formation Factor for Porosity Estimations ARMA American Rock Mechanics Association ARSL Apparent Rock Strength Log (or Unconfined Compressive Strength) BHA Bottom Hole Assembly CLSS Canada Land Survey System DROPS Drilling Optimization Simulator ESD Engineering Simulator for Drilling GDL Geology Drilling Log GFREE Integrated multidisciplinary team researching geosciences (G).

kPa or psi (as indicated under equation) Pn* Modified water normal pressure. dimensionless C Correlation constant in Maurer model. kPa Pp Pore pressure. dimensionless Dbit Bit diameter. psi D Modified D exponent.bc. bs Lithology-dependent constants for rock strength. lbf k Drillability constant in Maurer model. psi Pn Water normal pressure. psi Pborehole Borehole pressure. dimensionless Arabr Relative abrasiveness Av Ratio of jet velocity to the fluid return velocity. kg/m3 RPM Rotary speed. dimensionless b Eaton‟ exponent. kPa r Void ratio. dimensionless a Calibration constant in Cunningham model.B Calibrating parameters in Bowers method. rpm ROP Rate of penetration. dimensionless as. mm or in (as indicated under equation) E Dynamic Young‟s modulus. dimensionless RHOB Bulk density. cc Lithology-dependent constants for fc function.A. kPa or psi (as indicated under equation) Pw Collapse pressure. lbf Im Modified impact force. g Ic Compression index If Jet impact force. kPa f(Pe) Chip hold-down function g Gravity. dimensionless Kb Kelly bushing elevation. psi Ph Mud column hydrostatic pressure. m Length Length of bit run. m/s2 gs Average grain size. dimensionless CCS Confined compressive strength. psi Pe Effective differential or confined pressure. m/h xxii . m Pa Circulating pressure in wellbore annulus. dimensionless ac. m/h or ft/h (as indicated under equation) ROPAvg Average rate of penetration for each bit run.

m  PDC cutter siderake angle  Holbrook exponent. -m S Drillability constant in Maurer model. g/cm3  (as indicated under equation) xxiii . Hareland and  Rampersad model. 1/ft (as indicated  under equation) p Pore pressure to overburden stress ratio. psi or  Drilling strength in Warren model. m or ft (as indicated under equation) dz Depth differential. psi (as  indicated under equation) TVD True vertical depth.z Adjustable constants in Maurer model. s/m  tn Normalized sonic transit time s/m or s/ft (as  indicated)  to Observed sonic transit time. Ton.y. km/s V P-wave velocity in Bowers method. dimensionless  Plastic viscosity. -m Ro Observed resistivity. s/m or s/ft (as  indicated) Normal transit time in Hottman and Johnson tob method (s/ft)  Rock ductility. dimensionless  Porosity. dimensionless or Cone offset  coefficient in Winters model. dimensionless x. km/s vs S-wave (shear) velocity. ft/s Vshale Shale volume.  dimensionless f Fluid specific gravity. dimensionless WOB Weight on bit. ft/s Vmax Velocity at the onset of unloading. m tNet Net drilling time. cp  PDC cutter backrake angle  Mud density in Winters. klbf or kDaN (as indicated) Wf Bit wear function x Calibration coefficient for AFF. dimensionless BG Change in bit tooth wear P Differential pressure. lbm/gal or Bulk density in  Poisson‟s ratio and Young‟s modulus.Rn Normalized resistivity.  dimensionless z Depth. h U Formation plasticity. psi tma Matrix arrival time. dimensionless v Dynamic Poisson‟s ratio vp P-wave (compressional velocity).

psi   (as indicated under equation) min Minimum horizontal stress. psi  xxiv . kPa or psi (as indicated under equation) ’v Effective overburden stress. kPa/m w Water density. kPa or psi (as indicated under equation) vc Stress at which current velocity intersects the loading curve. kg/m3 Water Normal Formation water normal gradient (kPa/m) d Drilling strength. kPa v Overburden stress.Mud Mud density. kPa or effective stress at  the onset of unloading in Bowers method. psi max Effective stress at a zero porosity state in  Holbrook method.

The best approach for the study area is developed on the basis of the most recognized “normal trend” and “explicit” methods. preventing possible wellbore stability problems and obtaining good quality cuttings for the Nikanassin Group. „Good cuttings‟ as considered in this thesis have average sizes of at least 2 mm. Significant efforts were placed on identifying the most favourable conditions for obtaining good quality cuttings since previous work by the GFREE team (Solano. 1 Chapter One: Introduction 1. estimation of the rock strength log. and testing eventual bit runs merging tests. hydraulics optimization. Pore pressure is a crucial parameter for developing successful drilling programs. optimization of weight on bit and rotary speed. to assist in characterization of oil and gas reservoirs. and for production analysis.1 Justification An initial objective of his thesis is to establish an effective indirect method for pore pressure prediction in abnormally sub-pressured formations. The drilling optimization encompasses different activities including operational parameters gathering. 2011) has demonstrated that drill cuttings are reliable sources to quantify permeability and . These activities will lead to procedures for establishing the most suitable combination of operational parameters in order to obtain the highest rates of penetration while at the same time reducing bit wear. An approach to tackle this problem has not been published previously in the literature. A second objective is to develop drilling optimization programs on the basis of five study wells drilled in the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) while at the same time improving the quality of drill cuttings.

2006) . 2 porosity. However. The International System of Units is considered to perform most of calculations in this thesis.2 Area of Study The study area focuses on the WCSB. This is particularly important in the Nikanassin Group study area where a limited amount of core data is available. 1. Figure 1.1 presents the location of the WCSB and other big sedimentary basins in North America.1 – Location of the WCSB and other big sedimentary basins in North America (Zaitlin and Moslow. field units are used in some operational parameters following standards used in the drilling industry. Figure 1.

475 Tm3). 1984). 3 Tight gas formations in the Deep Basin have been categorized as continuous gas accumulations (Masters.3. This fact implies that infill drilling is a suitable practice where the operations should be optimized as much as possible. Figure 1.2 – Location of the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (modified from Masters. 1984) .000 square kilometres in Alberta and British Columbia (Solano et al. 2011).2 presents the location of the Deep Basin of the WCSB. Figure 1. A cross-section of the WCSB that encompasses the Deep Basin is presented in Figure 1. According to Masters (1984) the Deep Basin is a super giant accumulation of natural gas quantified in 1500 Tft3 (42. This is particularly important as the GFREE team has demonstrated the possibility of drilling thousands of wells to penetrate the tight gas Nikanassin Group in an area of more than 15. very low permeability.. which are generally characterized by abnormal pressure distributions. pervasive gas saturation and no down-dip water leg.

3 – Cross-section across the WCSB exhibiting the change from planes to foredeep (Zaitlin and Moslow.22‟‟W and 54º35‟ 19. the pore pressure modeling and drilling optimization considered in this thesis is carried out in township T65-R09W6.4 presents the location of township T65-R09W6. .78‟‟ N/119º 12‟ 32. Figure 1. which is delimited by the geographic coordinates 54º 39‟ 54.22‟‟W according to the Canada Land Survey System (CLSS).93‟‟N/119º 20‟ 28. 4 Figure 1. 2006) Specifically.

T65-R09W6 (adapted from Gies.4 – Location of the study area. The study wells are:  08-28-065-09W6  10-33-065-09W6  13-15-065-09W6 . 1984) Five wells selected from the study area form the basis for the calculations and modeling performed in this thesis. 5 Figure 1.

Pp: Normal pore pressure (kPa) w: Water density (kg/m3) g: Gravity (m/s2) dz: depth differential (m) This expression assumes interconnected pores from 0 to z. 1. as well as drill cuttings classification analyses were available for these wells. „Representative‟ means that well logs.. or variation in depositional environment) of the study area.1 0 Where. These wells were selected on the basis of being “representative” for the study area. drilling records. Assuming that the fluid into the rock has a relatively constant density in depth.3 Pore Pressure Pore pressure is defined as a scalar potential acting within an interconnected pore space at depth (Zoback. 1. 2007). Equation 1.e. The value of normal pore pressure can be defined in terms of hydrostatic pressure associated with a column of water from the surface to the depth of interest. unconformities. Under these circumstances. 6  02/11-21-065-09W6  02/06-05-065-09W6 The number of wells is considered to be sufficient for the purpose of this research since there are no significant variations in the geology (i. the normal pore pressure can be defined as: z   z   g  dz 3 Pp  10 w Eq. faults.1 can be expressed in a simplified manner: .

1. 7 Pp  10 3  w  g  z w Eq. when the pore pressure is below the hydrostatic values. the formation is considered overpressured. only quasi-static pore pressure will be the basis of the modeling. v. According to Zoback (2007) the main mechanisms for overpressure generation are:  Disequilibrium compaction  Tectonic compression  Hydrocarbon column heights  Centroid effects  Aquathermal pressurization  Hydrocarbon generation In the Deep Basin of the WCSB. where. 1984). Pp p  Eq.e..2 Where zw stands for depth of interest starting from a specific reference point. the gas is trapped in the deepest part of the basin. On the other hand. 1. and the gas/water contact occurs at the updip end of the accumulation (Maters. the gas/water contact occurs at the downdip end of the .3 v In this work the pore pressure gradients associated with fluid flow will not be considered. Theoretically. i. the formation is considered sub-pressured. According to Zoback (2007) it is convenient to express the pore pressure in terms of p. When the pore pressure exceeds the hydrostatic values at one specific depth. In conventional gas accumulations. the upper bound of pore pressure is the overburden stress.

5 presents the behaviour of the gas and water pressures for a conventional gas trap and for the Deep Basin Gas trap. 1984) 1. 8 accumulation.1 Where does the Pore Pressure Impact? Figure 1. The net result is that pore pressure is a parameter of paramount importance. Figure 1. depth relationships between conventional and deep basin gas trap (modified from Masters.6 presents the areas where the pore pressure has an important impact. which should be modelled carefully and in excruciating detail.3.5 – Pressure vs. Figure 1. to end up with successful oil and gas exploitation projects. .

not always drilling simulation is carried out in order to optimize drilling time and therefore costs of drilling. 1. On the other hand. This fact has made it possible to standardize some simulations procedures in other disciplines but not as much in drilling engineering. However. 9 Figure 1. relatively new. has been reinforced continuously through practical experience gained in field applications. .4 Drilling Optimization Drilling operations are some of the most expensive procedures in the petroleum industry.6 – Areas where the pore pressure has an impact. This practice. Drilling optimization by using drilling simulation started in the 1980‟s using inverted rate of penetration (ROP) models. simulation is carried out as a matter of course in many oil and gas reservoirs in disciplines related to reservoir engineering. production engineering and formation evaluation.

These subdivisions correspond to geology. The representation of the drilling system is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. 10 1. wellbore. The simulator used inverted ROP models to predict rock strength. drilling rig. 2010) .7. Millheim and Huggins proposed subdividing the drilling system into groups of components that could be represented by appropriate sets of algorithms. which are able to interact between them in order to describe effectively the complete drilling process. Then extrapolations were carried out for offsetting locations.4. fluid system. and drill string.7 – Drilling System (Hareland. The first calculations of rock strength were carried out for offset wells where the real ROP was known.1 Generalities on Drilling Optimization Simulators The first drilling simulator called Engineering Simulator for Drilling (ESD) was presented in the 1983 by Millheim and Huggins (1983) of Amoco Research Company.

This was followed by an interactive drilling dynamics simulator for drilling optimization and training (Dubinsky et al. 1995). . This tool can simulate bit bounce. rotary speed (RPM). The concept of a Geology Drilling Log (GDL) that was implemented in the ESD in order to describe in sufficient details the properties of the rocks while drilling was proposed by Onyia (1987). A Virtual Experience Simulation for Drilling (VESD) was developed next (Millheim and Gaebler. drill bit design. borehole parameters and formation properties. lateral vibrations. mud properties. bottom hole assembly (BHA) configuration. Subsequently an interactive drilling simulator was developed for teaching and research purposes that allowed the student/engineer to simulate the drilling operation of a well and optimize it while comparing different wells plans. A Drilling Optimization Simulator (DROPS) based on inverted ROP models to predict rock strength was introduced next (Bratli et al.. 1997). 1999) based on data sets from actual wells. This tool simulates the dynamic behaviour of the drill bit for various drilling conditions: Hook load. 1998). This tool proved to be useful in some instances but specific aspects of data management and the dependence on previous experiences with enough statistically meaningful data made this tool difficult to apply in actual field cases. 11 These subdivisions form the base of the drilling optimization concept where the rock strength is estimated first and then this value is used to predict ROP under different operational conditions. setting editor and the simulation program itself (Cooper et al. BHA/bit whirl. flow rate. This software consisted of three modules: Lithology editor. stick-slip and torsional oscillation.. torque shocks..

The Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) is defined by Hareland et al.4. 1. Figure 1. (2007) introduced a drilling optimization software (Optimizer®) that uses offset drilling data to generate an Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL). The software Optimizer ® is used for drilling simulation purposes in this thesis. This ARSL is developed from inverted ROP models. Hareland et al.2 Factors that Affect Rate of Penetration The main objective of drilling optimization is obtaining the maximum value of ROP while controlling the bit wear. (2007) as the drilling resistance of a formation on a meter by meter basis.8 shows the parameters that affect ROP. Once the ARSL is created in an offset well (where the actual ROP is known) an extrapolation of the log can be made to other locations taking into account the geologic characteristics of the formations to be penetrated by the bit. Figure 1. This parameter corresponds to a measurement of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS).8 – Parameters that affect ROP . which was defined by Goodman (1989) as the most important parameter to consider when conducting drilling analysis. 12 More recently.

bit type and design and bit wear status.1. formation characteristics.2 – Effect of increasing each formation characteristic on ROP (modified from Hareland.2. 2010) Table 1. 1.1 – Effect of increasing each operational variable on ROP (modified from Hareland. 2010) . 13 Tables 1. respectively.3 and 1. Table 1. 1.4 present the effect of increasing each variable on ROP for the operational parameters.

The rotary drilling bits can be divided into two general groups: rollercone (or rolling cutter) bits and drag bits.4 – Effect of increasing the bit wear status and the cutter PDC layer thickness on ROP (modified from Hareland.3 – Effect of increasing bit type and design variables on ROP (modified from Hareland.4.. 2010) 1.9 shows typical rollercone bits. 14 Table 1. The rollercone bits have two or more cones containing the cutting element which rotates around the axis of the cone as the bit is rotated at the bottom of the hole (Bourgoyne et al. . 2010) Table 1. Figure 1. 1986).3 Generalities on Drill Bits The bit is one of the most basic tools used by drilling engineers and the selection of the bit and the bit operational parameters is crucial for a successful drilling operation.

nonabrasive formations that are not “gummy” (Bourgoyne et al. . 2004). firm.0 in as diameter to shear the rock with a continuous scraping motion (Salas. The two main types of drag bits used in the drilling operation are the Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bits and Natural Diamond Bits (NDB). twisting.10 presents a typical PDC bit. Figure 1.5 to 1.. 15 Figure 1.. and crushing the formation. It contains many small diamonds crystals bonded together.com) The drilling operation of rollercone bits is a combination of scraping. The PDC bits use synthetic polycrystalline diamond cutter disks. The PDC bits perform effectively in soft.9 – Three-cone rollercone bits (from www. about 1/8 in thick and about 0. 1986). 1986). The geometric disposition of the cones will determine the predominant mechanism (Salas.eradrillingservices. 2004). and medium-hard. The drag bits consist of fixed cutting blades that are integral with the body of the bit and rotate as a unit with the drillstring (Bourgoyne et al.

the size and number of the diamonds used in a bit face depend on the hardness of the formation drilled (Salas. Figure 1.11 – NDB bit (www.nov. 2004).11 shows a typical NDB.com) The drilling bits can be classified according to the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) classification.com) The natural diamond bits (NDB) use natural diamonds as cutting elements. Series D1 through D5 are reserved for diamond bits and PDC bits in the soft. The face or crown of the bit consist of many diamonds set in a tungsten carbide matrix. 16 Figure 1.tradekorea. medium- . Figure 1. “The first digit in the bit classification is called the bit series number.10 – PDC bit (www. The letter D precedes the first digit if the bit is diamond or PDC drag bit.

(7) oil-base type and (8) core-ejector type. (2) long-taper profile. 6. The third digit is called the feature number that is interpreted for diamond and PDC bits as: (1) step-type profile. (2) T-shaped heel teeth for gauge protection. and extremely hard formations. the feature number is interpreted as: (1) standard cutter bit.” (Bourgoyne et al.. 17 soft.5 Thesis Chapters This thesis is divided in seven chapters that cover innovative approaches for pore pressure prediction and drilling optimization (with and without improvement in the quality of drill cuttings) in the abnormally sub-pressured “Deep Basin” of the WCSB. Types 1 to 4 designate a formation hardness subclassification from the softest to the hardest formation in each category. Chapter 1 (this chapter) is an introduction that describes the area of study. Series 5. 1. 2 and 3 are reserved for milled tooth bits in the soft. (6) sealed friction bearings. medium. medium-hard. defines pore pressure. (5) combination of 3 and 4. and highlights the significant impact that pore pressure has on different oil and gas disciplines. (3) short-taper profile. medium. (3) extra insert teeth for gauge protection. and hard formation categories respectively. medium. medium-. 1986). and hard formation categories respectively. The (8) and (9) are reserved for special features selected by the bit manufacturer. (6) sidetrack type. and (7) combination of 3 and 6. and hard- formation categories. type 0 is reserved for PDC drag bits. The chapter also presents some generalities on drilling optimization. Series D7 to D9 are reserved for diamond core bits and PDC core bits in the soft-. (5) downhole-motor type. key . For the rollercone bits. 7 and 8 are for insert bits in the soft. (4) nontaper profile. hard. Series 1. (4) sealed roller bearings. The second number is called the type number.

which help in the selection of the most suitable models for the study area. In this chapter. Chapter 6 discusses the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells in Deep Basin of the WCSB. the most suitable method for the Deep Basin is identified and applied in the five study wells obtaining a good match in comparison to the real pressure measurements. were included to determine the best set of operational conditions that lead to the highest rate of penetration while obtaining at the same time good quality cuttings. The results indicate that good quality cuttings can be obtained by optimizing drilling operations and rates of penetration at smaller costs as compared with expenditures actually incurred in the drilling of previous wells in the study area. 18 factors that affect the rate of penetration and drilling bits. The concepts introduced in Chapter 1 are utilized through this thesis. . These cuttings are a good source of information for determining porosity and permeability especially in the study area where the amount of cores is very limited. in addition to those original five study wells. Chapter 3 concentrates on the pore pressure modeling on the Deep Basin of the WCSB. Chapter 2 presents a literature review on pore pressure estimation and rate of penetration models. Chapter 5 presents detailed drill cuttings-quality analysis of the Nikanassin Group in the study area where three offset wells. Chapter 4 focuses on the drilling optimization of the five study wells in order to minimize drilling time while keeping an adequate bit wear. The chapter concludes that vertical wells in the Deep Basin can be drilled efficiently with seven bit runs at high rates of penetration.

Oklahoma. 2011. A.: “Original-Gas-In-Place Sensitivity Analysis of the Manville Group in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.: “A Case Study for Pore Pressure Prediction in an Abnormally Sub-Pressured Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. 19 Chapter 7 presents key conclusions and recommendations from this thesis highlighting the most effective indirect method for pore pressure estimation and the successful simulated drilling optimization procedures implemented for the Deep Basin of the WCSB.. R.. O. G. . and Hareland. 15-17 November.” Paper SPE 142349 presented at the 2011 Production and Operations Symposium. Hareland. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium.. R. Calgary. Tutuncu.S. San Francisco.  Contreras. USA. 2011. G. and Aguilera. R. Oklahoma City. USA. Aguilera. 1. 27-29 March 2011.6 Technical Publications Part of the research described in this thesis has been presented or will be presented in the near future at the following international conferences:  Contreras.: “An Innovative Approach for Pore Pressure Prediction and Drilling Optimization in an Abnormally Subpressured Basin. O. O. 26- 29 June...  Contreras. California.” American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA) Paper 11-456 prepared for presentation at the 2011 45th U.” Paper SPE 148947 prepared for presentation at the CSGU/SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. and Aguilera. Canada.

1995) and the Hottman and Johnson (H&J) method (Hottman and Johnson. Tutuncu et al.1 Introduction Calculation of pore pressure as well as estimation of rock strength from drilling operational data using inverted rate of penetration (ROP) models is carried out in this thesis in order to predict ROP in future wells from those estimated rock strengths. 2010. 1971).2 Normal Trend Methods for Pore Pressure Estimation The most commonly applied normal trend methods include the Eaton method from sonic and resistivity logs (Eaton.. In the ROP models from rock strength. 1975. In general. 20 Chapter Two: Literature Review on Pore Pressure Estimation and Rate of Penetration Models from Rock Strength 2. 2006). In this chapter a literature review on indirect pore pressure estimation methods and rate of penetration models from rock strength are presented. . 2. the Eaton method using the modified D exponent approach (Rehm and McClendon. Bowers. 1975). 1965). the equivalent depth method (Magara. A description of each of these methods is presented next. Normal trend methods correspond to those approaches where trends of normal compaction are drawn from well logs and inferences about pore pressure from total stress and effective stress are carried out. indirect methods to estimate pore pressure can be categorized into “normal trend” and “explicit” methods (Tutuncu. the main and most remarkable characteristics of each of the models are pointed out in this literature review.

21

2.2.1 Eaton Method from Sonic and Resistivity Logs

Eaton (1975) proposed a methodology to calculate pore pressure from resistivity and

sonic logs; this methodology corresponds to an effective stress approach taking the

Terzaghi equation (Terzaghi, 1948) as the base model. The Terzaghi equation is

expressed as:

 v   v'  Pp
Eq. 2.1

Where,

v: Overburden stress (psi)

’v: Effective Overburden stress (psi)

Pp: Pore Pressure (psi)

The Eaton equation for calculation of pore pressure from resistivity logs is presented as

follows:

1.5
Pp v P  R 
   v  n  o 
z z  z z   Rn  Eq. 2.2

Where,

Pp: Pore pressure (psi)

v: Overburden Stress (psi)

Pn: Water normal pressure (psi)

z: Depth (ft)

Ro: Observed resistivity (-m)

Rn: Normalized resistivity (-m)

22

Likewise, the Eaton Equation for calculation of pore pressure from sonic logs is

presented as follows:

3.0
Pp v P  t 
   v  n  n 
z z  z z  t o  Eq. 2.3

Where,

Pp: Pore pressure (psi)

v: Overburden Stress (psi)

Pn: Water normal pressure (psi)

z: Depth (ft)

to: Observed sonic transit time (s/ft)

tn: Normalized sonic transit time (s/ft)

True vertical depths are used in this thesis. As a result the Eaton method is modified to

take into account the Kelly bushing elevation (Kb). In addition, the units reported in the

calculations follow the International System of Units standards. These modified models

are presented as follows:

b
R 
 
Pp   v   v  P  o 
*
n
 Rn  Eq. 2.4

Where,

Pp: Pore pressure (kPa)

v: Overburden Stress (kPa)

Pn*: Modified water normal pressure (kPa)

23

Ro: Observed resistivity (-m)

Rn: Normalized resistivity (-m)

b: Eaton exponent

The modified water normal pressure is defined as:

Pn*  WaterNormal TVD  K b 
Eq. 2.5

Where,

Water Normal: Formation water normal gradient (kPa/m)

Kb: Kelly bushing elevation (m)

TVD: True vertical depth (m)

Using sonic logs,

 
 t 
b

Pp   v   v  P  n 
*

 t 
n
Eq. 2.6

Where,

Pp: Pore pressure (kPa)

v: Overburden Stress (kPa)

Pn*: Modified water normal pressure (kPa)

t: Sonic transit time (s/m)

tn: Normalized sonic transit time (s/m)

b: Eaton exponent

24

It is important to mention that in modified Eaton equations, the most suitable Eaton

exponent for the Deep Basin will be determined based on the matching calculations

performed during the modeling.

Overburden stress is calculated from:

 v  9.7946 *103  RHOB * dz Eq. 2.7

Where,

v: Overburden stress (kPa)

RHOB: Bulk density (kg/m3)

dz: Depth differential (m)

2.2.2 Eaton Method from the Modified D Exponent

The Eaton method (Eaton, 1975) using the modified D exponent (Rehm and McClendon,

1971), is presented as follows:

1.2
Pp v P  D 
   v  n  
z z  z z  Dn  Eq. 2.8

Where,

Pp: Pore pressure (psi)

v: Overburden Stress (psi)

Pn: Water normal pressure (psi)

z: Depth (ft)

D: Modified D exponent

Dn: Normalized modified D exponent

05468   RPM   WaterNormal  D   Eq.60960   Dbit  Where. Pp: Pore Pressure (kPa) v: Overburden Stress (kPa) Pn*: Modified water normal pressure (kPa) D: Modified D exponent Dn: Normalized D exponent b: Eaton exponent for the D exponent method The modified D exponent is defined as:  ROP  log 0. 2. 2. ROP: Rate of penetration (m/h) RPM: Rotary speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (Ton) Dbit: Bit diameter (mm) Water Normal: Formation water normal gradient (kPa/m) Mud: Mud density (kPa/m) .10  WOB    Mud  log 0. 25 Including the kelly bushing elevation and following the International System of Units standards.   b Pp   v   v  P  D  * Eq.9  Dn  n Where.

1975.1 presents the situation where the equivalent depth method predicts effectively the overpressure. 1995) is an effective method to calculate pore pressure and predict overpressures generated by “undercompation.” According to Bowers (1995). 1995) . Figure 2. the estimated pore pressure can be calculated using the depth versus velocity and depth versus overburden stress plots using the Terzaghi equation (Terzaghi.1 – Case where equivalent depth method effectively predicts overpressure by undercompaction (Bowers. 1948). Since the undercompaction cannot cause the effective stress to decrease. Figure 2. 26 2. Bowers. the overpressure in this case is generated when the pore fluid trapped by low permeability is squeezed by the weight of newly deposited sediments.3 Equivalent Depth Method The equivalent depth method (Magara.2.

27 However. Figure 2.4 Hottman and Johnson (H&J) Method The Hottman and Johnson method (1965) is an empirical approach to estimate pore pressure and predict overpressures.3 presents the calculation of pore pressure in function of the difference between the shale observed transit time (tob) and the shale . The Hottman and Johnson correlation for the Gulf Coast seems to model overpressures caused by fluid expansion effectively. they can effectively reflect whatever the dominant cause of overpressure is in the specific area in which they were developed.2 presents the situation in which the equivalent depth method underestimates the calculated pore pressure. 1995) 2.2. Figure 2.2 – Case where the equivalent depth method underestimates the pore pressure estimation due to fluid expansion (Bowers. Figure 2. Since empirical models have no inherent bias towards one particular overpressure mechanism. when the overpressure is generated by “fluid expansion” the equivalent depth method underestimates the pore pressure measurements.

In this figure. the pore pressure gradient (psi/ft) can be effectively calculated from an empirical correlation constructed for the study area. 28 normal transit time (tn) values at one specific depth. 1965) Figure 2. In this figure. .4 presents the calculation of pore pressure as a function of the ratio between the shale normal resistivity and the shale observed resistivity values at one specific depth. the pore pressure gradient (psi/ft) can be effectively calculated from an empirical correlation constructed for the study area. Figure 2.3 – Pore pressure estimation from the Hottman and Johnson method using differences in shale sonic transit times (modified from Hottman and Johnson.

11 Where.4 – Pore pressure estimation from the Hottman and Johnson method using the ratio between the shale normal resistivity and shale observed resistivity values (modified from Hottman and Johnson. 1965) 2. Bowers method (Bowers. Pp: Pore pressure (kPa) v: Overburden stress (kPa) . 1995).1 Holbrook Method Holbrook et al.. and Alixant method (Alixant. 2. 1991). 2. A description of each of these methods follows.3 Explicit Methods for Pore Pressure Estimation The most recognized explicit methods for the estimation of pore pressure includes the Holbrook method (Holbrook et al. (1995) proposed the next correlation to calculate pore pressure: Pp   v   max 1     Eq. 29 Figure 2.3. 1995).

The porosity from the Acoustic Formation Factor is defined as (Tutuncu. 2010): 1  t  x   1   ma  Eq. and combination of neutron and density logs to obtain average porosity are used in the Holbrook method. 30 max: Effective stress at the zero porosity state (kPa) : Porosity (fraction) : Holbrook exponent The values of max and  for different lithologies according to Holbrook. : porosity (Fraction) tma: Matrix arrival time (s/m) to: Observed transit time (s/m) x: Calibration coefficient (0.474 for shales and 0.1 – Values of max and  for different lithologies Lithology  m ax (kPa)  Sandstone 896318 13.909 Four different porosity profiles obtained from density. et al.728 Limestone 82737 13 Anhydrite 10928 20 Halite Sandstone 586 31.219 Shale 127215 8. 2.1. neutron. Acoustic Formation Factor (AFF).525 for sandstones) . (1995) are presented in Table 2. Table 2.12  t o  Where.

According to Bowers (1995).e. where each of these two scenarios represents a different physical condition. two different scenarios are considered: “loading” and “unloading”. V: P-wave velocity (ft/s) ’: Effective stress (psi) A and B: Parameters calibrated with offset velocity vs. The unloading approach always yields the larger values. The loading approach is defined as: V  5000  A ' B Eq. the unloading approach intends to represent the overpressure generated by “fluid expansion mechanisms such as: heating. In this method. charging from other zones.13 Where. 31 2.3. the overpressure that occurs when “pore fluid trapped by low permeability is squeezed by the weight of newly deposited sediments” (Bowers. The theory proposed by Bowers (1995) is presented next maintaining the field units used in the original publication‟s equations. for wildcat wells the pore pressure can be calculated from these two approaches to establish the lower and upper limit of pore pressure values. 1995). hydrocarbon maturation. 2. 1995) corresponds to an effective stress approach to calculate pore pressure from velocity data. i.2 Bowers Method The Bowers method (Bowers.. and expulsion/expansion of intergranular water during clay diagenesis” (Bowers. On the other hand. effective stress data The unloading approach is defined as: . 1995). The loading approach intends to represent the undercompaction phenomenon.

2.16  max   max  1  v  5000  B  vc   Eq. completely irreversible deformation is expected. 32 1 / U    V  5000  A max   '    Eq.3 Alixant Method The Alixant method (1991) is an explicit approach to calculate pore pressure in undercompacted shales on the basis of relationships between porosity. a Vshale cutoff of 0. U=1 implies no permanent deformation.17  A  Where.15  A  And.3. 2.6 was considered in order to model with the use of only shale velocity values.14    max   Where. max: Effective Stress at the onset of unloading (psi) Vmax: Velocity at the onset of unloading (ft/s) U: Formation plasticity vc: Stress at which current velocity intersects the loading curve (psi) The parameter U is a measure of how plastic the sediment is. For the application of the Bowers method. 2.   U  '       vc   Eq. when U tends to infinite. 2. 2. 1  V  5000  B  max   max  Eq. effective vertical .

2. and pore pressure. 1991):  r Eq. This method does not require the use normal trend lines or empirical correlations. However. when extensive experimental data are unavailable to determine the variations of I c with effective stress. This method assumes that the vertical strains dominate during the compaction process. a constant value can be assumed over a limited stress range”. r: void ratio (Fraction) : porosity (Fraction) The 1-dimension compaction of cohesive soils such as clays is governed by the following correlation according to Perloff and Baron (1976):  dr  I c  d (log10  v' ) Eq.19 assuming Ic constant yields: r  ri  I c  log10  v' Eq.19 Where. The development of this method uses the “void ratio” (Alixant.18 1 Where. 2. 2.20 . r: void ratio (Fraction) Ic: Compression index ’v: Effective Overburden stress (psi) According to Alixant (1995) the “compression index (Ic) is a function of effective stress and is less sensitive to effective stress at high stresses states. 33 stress. The integration of Equation 2. calibration of the model may be necessary.

r: void ratio (Fraction) ri: Calibration void ratio (Fraction) Ic: Compression index ’v: Effective overburden stress (psi) The values of Ic and ri can be obtained from the literature or they can be determined experimentally from compression tests on remolded shale samples. r ri    10 ' v Ic Eq. 2. the general expression for the calculation of pore pressure according to Alixant (1991) is:   r ri      Ic  Pp   v   10 Eq. Pp: Pore pressure (psi) r: void ratio (Fraction) ri: Calibration void ratio (Fraction) Ic: Compression index ’v: Effective Overburden stress (psi) : Biot‟s constant .22 Where. If the Biot‟s constant is considered.21 Where. 2. 34 Or.

23 DBit S2 Where. If the model is inverted.1 Maurer Model Maurer (1962) presented the “perfect-cleaning theory” of rotary drilling to predict rate of penetration from rock cratering mechanisms. In this model.4 Literature Review on Rate of Penetration Models from Rock Strength An important number of correlations have been proposed in the literature to calculate rate of penetration (ROP) from drilling operational parameters and rock strength. 2. It means that all the cuttings are removed between tooth impacts. the rock strength can be calculated for a well. 35 2. In this Chapter. Maurer came up with a correlation to predict rate of penetration that is proportional to rotary speed (RPM). This review ends by presenting two models that will be implemented in the drilling optimization procedures in Chapter 4. 2. a literature review on the most representative ROP modes from rock strength is presented. The perfect-cleaning theory is expressed as follows: RPM WOB 2 ROP  k 2 Eq. ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary Speed (rpm) .4. This allows finding the optimum set of drilling operational parameters for the highest ROP while controlling the bit wear if this last parameter is included in the model. and then modifications in the drilling operational parameters can be carried out to predict a new ROP for a pre- determined formation. and weight on bit (WOB) and inversely proportional to the bit diameter and rock strength. “perfect cleaning” is considered.

the imperfect cleaning theory can be represented by: RPM xWOB y ROP  C z Eq.23.24 Dbit Where. cuttings regrinding takes place and the obtained rates of penetration are lower than those obtained by the perfect-cleaning theory. mud properties. and z: adjustable constants The exponents in Equation 2. bit design and bit dullness. pressure conditions. In the imperfect cleaning model. According to Maurer (1962). y. ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (lbf) Dbit: Bit diameter (in) C: Correlation constant x.24 are smaller than the corresponding exponents in Equation 2. 36 WOB: Weight on bit (lbf) Dbit: Bit diameter (in) S: Drillability strength of rock (psi) k: Drillability constant The drillability constant depends on rock properties. . 2.

ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (lbf) d: Drilling strength (psi) P: Differential pressure (psi) a: Calibration constant The calibration constant in Equation 2.75 Eq.424   d  RPM WOB a (P) 0.23 for drillability strength of rock (S): 1  RPM  WOB 2  2 S   k  Eq.4.178254  ln  d  1. The differential pressure is calculated as the difference between mud weight and the pore pressure.26 is defined as: a  0.26 1. 2.27 . 2. 2. drilling strength and differential pressures.25  D 2 bit  ROP  2.5 Where. 37 The inverted perfect-cleaning Maurer model can be obtained by solving Equation 2.2 Cunningham Model Cunningham (1978) developed an empirical equation for estimation of ROP as a function of WOB. RPM.09793 Eq. The mathematical model is expressed as: RPM WOB a ROP  0.

75  d   ROP   0. RPM.424  Eq.29 Where. c: bit constants in penetration model .5   RPM  WOB a (P) 0. 1  a  S 2  Dbit 3 c  ROP      RPM WOB b 2 RPM  Dbit  Eq.3 Warren (Drilling Model for Soft-Formation Bits) Model Warren (1981) presented a laboratory-derived model for the estimation of ROP for soft- formations bits where cuttings removal does not impact the ROP.4. the ROP model yields. 2. ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (lbf) Dbit: Bit diameter (in) S: Drilling strength (psi) a. Tests that were carried out on bits from 6 to 121/4 in were the basis of this model.28     2. 38 This model implies that a reduction in mud weight while drilling. This model calculates ROP as a function of WOB. bit type. and high pressure zones should be taken into account for the estimation of ROP. For bits IADC series 1-1. b. 2. 1-2 and 1-3.26 for drilling strength (d): 1  RPM WOB a  1. The inverted Cunningham model can be obtained by solving Equation 2. and rock strength. bit diameter.

bit size.31  46  Pborehole 2  31WOB  Pborehole . 39 This model is a modification of those basic drilling models that were developed from dimensional analysis and generalized response curves to relate ROP.30 2. WOB. The inverted Warren (drilling model for soft-formation bits) model can be obtained by solving Equation 2.29 for drilling strength (S): 1  1 c  WOB 2  RPM b  2 S       ROP RPM  Dbit  a  Dbit 3  Eq. in situ-compressive strength. If these operational groups are plotted. This correlation is as follows: ROP  14  54 WOB  56  Pborehole  31   10  g  16  CCS Eq. bit type. unconfined compressive strength (UCS). 2. The rock properties encompass mineralogy. A better fit was accomplished using the experimental data obtained from laboratory tests. weight on bit. the value of “a” corresponds to the slope and the value of “c” corresponds to the intercept of the regression line obtained from the least square method. Young‟s modulus. RPM. and rock strength. average grain size. and porosity among others. (1986) presented a generalized correlation to predict rate of penetration for tungsten carbide insert bit IADC 537 from rock properties.4. and well depth by performing laboratory analysis. 2. sonic velocity. The tests were run with mud weight of 10 ppg (1199 kg/m3).4 Walker Model Walker et al. The value of bit constants “a” and “c” can be determined using the operational groups RPM·Dbit/ROP and RPM·S·Dbit4/RPMb·WOB2.

4.5 Warren (Imperfect-Cleaning) Model Warren (1987) proposed a ROP model for rollercone bits that he called the “imperfect- cleaning model.0625ROP  3. This new term was included in his model.” Through a dimensional analysis.5  Pborehole  1.29). 2. to account for cuttings removal.33  RPM  WOB 2 RPM  Dbit I m  .625  g  2. it was possible to isolate a group of variables that encompass modified impact force and mud properties.375  WOB  3. ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h) WOB: Weight on bit (lbf) Pborehole: Borehole pressure (psi) g: Average grain size (g) CCS: Confined compressive strength (psi) The inverted Walker model can be obtained by solving Equation 2.875  P2 borehole  1.9375  WOB  Pborehole  0.875 2. This imperfect-cleaning model is represented by the following equation: 1  a  S 2  Dbit 3 b c  Dbit   f     ROP      Eq.9375   Eq. 2.32  0. 40 Where.31 for confined compressive strength (CCS): CCS  0. proposed for soft formations bits (Equation 2.

41

Where,

ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h)

RPM: Rotary speed (rpm)

WOB: Weight on bit (lbf)

Dbit: Bit diameter (in)

S: Rock strength (psi)

a, b, c: dimensionless constants

f: Fluid specific gravity (fraction)

: Plastic viscosity (cp)

Im: Modified jet impact force (lbf)

The modified jet impact force is defined as:


I m  1  Av
0.122
I f Eq. 2.34

Where,

Im: Modified jet impact force (lbf)

If: Jet impact force (lbf)

Av: Ratio of the jet velocity to the fluid return velocity (fraction)

The imperfect-cleaning model describes a continuous transition from cuttings generation

to cuttings removal as the controlling factor on ROP. To maintain a particular level of

cutting removal, the impact force must be increased as the bit size in increased.

42

The inverted imperfect-cleaning model can be obtained by solving Equation 2.33 for rock

strength (S):

1
 RPM WOB 2  1 b c  Dbit   f    2
S  
 ROP RPM  D   Eq. 2.35
 a  D 3
bit  bit I m 

2.4.6 Winters Model

Winters et al. (1987) presented a rollercone bit model with rock ductility and cone offset.

It was found that the rock ductility is a parameter with a major influence on bit

performance. In addition, the cone offset was recognized as an important design feature

for drilling ductile rock. The generalized model is presented as follows:

1
 CCS  Dbit  a  CCS  Dbit     c      Dbit 
2
b
ROP       
 RPM  WOB  WOB   RPM  Dbit Im  Eq. 2.36

Where,

ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h)

RPM: Rotary speed (rpm)

WOB: Weight on bit (klbf)

Dbit: Bit diameter (in)

CCS: Confined compressive strength (psi)

a, b, c: bit design constants

: Mud density (lbm/gal)

: Plastic viscosity (cp)

Im: Modified jet impact force (lbf)

43

: Rock ductility (fraction)

: Cone offset coefficient 1/ft

The inverted bit model with rock ductility and cone offset can be obtained by solving

Equation 2.36 for confined compressive strength (CCS):

1
  RPM b c  RPM      Dbit  2

    

2
WOB  ROP Dbit Im  2
    WOB
CCS  
 a  Dbit   
2
Dbit 4  a   
2
2  a  Dbit   2
  
  

Eq. 2.37

2.4.7 Hareland Model

Hareland et al. (1993) proposed a robust model to predict ROP. This model includes

confined compressive strength, rate of penetration, weight on bit, bit size, bit calibration

constants, modified jet impact force, mud density, plastic viscosity, and chip hold-down

effect. This model is presented as follows:

1

  a  CCS 2  Dbit
3
 c  Dbit     

ROP   f c Pe 
b
  

  WOB  RPM RPM  Dbit  Im 
 Eq. 2.38

Where,

ROP: Rate of penetration (ft/h)

RPM: Rotary speed (rpm)

WOB: Weight on bit (klbf)

Dbit: Bit diameter (in)

44

CCS: Confined compressive strength (psi)

a, b, c: bit design constants

: Mud density (lbm/gal)

: Plastic viscosity (cp)

Im: Modified jet impact force (lbf)

fc(Pe): Chip hold-down function

The chip hold-down function is defined as:

f c Pe   cc  ac Pe  120 c
b

Eq. 2.39

Where,

fc(Pe): Chip hold-down function

ac,bc, cc: Lithology-dependent constants for fc function

Pe: Effective differential or confined pressure (psi)

The effective differential or confined pressure is defined as:

Pe  Ph  Pa  Pp
Eq. 2.40

Where,

Pe: Effective differential or confined pressure (psi)

Ph: Mud column hydrostatic pressure (psi)

Pa: Circulating pressure in wellbore annulus (psi)

Pp: Pore pressure (psi)

. and lithology. UCS will be smaller since Pe equals bottom-hole pressure. as. the next empirical approach applies:   n f c Pe    i cci  aci Pe bci i 1 Eq. the value of i is defined as the lithology volumetric ratio where 0 ≤ i ≤ 1. 45 In comparison to the previous proposed models in the literature. but the summation of the different lithology volumetric ratios must be equal to 1.42 And. 2. 2. 2. Hareland (1993) proposed a method to relate confined compressive strength (CCS) with unconfined compressive strength (UCS).43 i 1 In these equations. bs: Lithology-dependent constants for rock strength If the rock is considered impermeable. In addition to the ROP model. pore pressure. If mixed lithology formations are being modeled.41 Where. circulating pressure in annulus. CCS UCS   1  a  n bsi i si eP Eq. These values can be obtained from mud log interpretations. this model takes into account the chip hold-down effect.0. CCS UCS   1  as Pebs  Eq.

45   RPM  WOB   bit    I m  Where. 46 The inverted Hareland et al. c: bit design constants : Mud density (lbm/gal) : Plastic viscosity (cp) Im: Modified jet impact force (lbf) fc(Pe): Chip hold-down function . based on Hareland et al.38 for confined compressive strength (CCS): 1  RPM  WOB 2 b  WOB 2 c      RPM  WOB 2  2 CCS       a  f c  Pe   ROP  D 3 bit a  D 4 bit a  f c Pe   I m  Dbit 2  Eq.8 Rampersad Model Rampersad et al (1994) proposed a model to predict rate of penetration. (1993) method: Wf ROP   a  CCS 2  Dbit 3     c      Dbit  f c Pe  b 2      RPM  D     Eq.4. b. model can be obtained by solving Equation 2. 2. 2. ROP: Rate of Penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary Speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (klbf) Dbit: Bit diameter (in) CCS: Confined compressive strength (psi) a. including bit wear.44 2.

2. BG: Change in bit tooth wear Wc: Wear coefficient WOB: Weight on bit RPM: Rotary speed Arabr: Relative abrasiveness CCS: Confined compressive strength The inverted Rampersad et al. 47 Wf: Bit wear function The bit wear function is defined as:  BG  Wf  1    8  Eq.47 Where.46 Where. 2. model can be obtained by solving Equation 2. Wf: Bit wear function BG: Change in bit tooth wear The change in bit tooth wear is defined as: n BG  Wc WOBi  RPM i  Arabri  CCS i i 1 Eq.45 for confined compressive strength (CCS): .

ROP: Rate of Penetration (ft/h) RPM: Rotary Speed (rpm) WOB: Weight on bit (klbf) Dbit: Bit diameter (in) CCS: Confined compressive strength (psi) a. 2.48       2.4. 48 1   Wf  c      Dbit   2        RPM  WOB 2  ROP  I  b  CCS   m    a  Dbit 3  f c Pe  RPM  Dbit     Eq.49 for confined compressive strength (CCS): . c: Empirical correlation factors determined from laboratory/field drilling data for any set of drag bits : PDC cutter siderake angle PDC cutter backrake angle The inverted Hareland and Rampersad model for PDC bits can be obtained by solving Equation 2.14 WOB  RPM  cos  a ROP   CCS  Dbit  tan RPM WOBc b Eq.49 Where. 2.9 Hareland and Rampersad Model for PDC Bits Hareland and Rampersad (1994) proposed a model to predict rate of penetration while using PDC bits: 14. b.

2.14  WOB  RPM  cos  a CCS   ROP  Dbit  tan  RPM  WOBc b Eq.50 . 49 14.

2010). In this chapter. . normal-trend and explicit methods to predict pore pressure are developed for the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Holbrook method (Holbrook et al. 1971). Figure 3. 1975).1 shows the location of the study wells in township T65-R09W6. Once the most suitable method was selected. Eaton method from the modified D exponent (Rehm and McClendon.0).. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6. The main goal of this work is to develop an effective indirect method to predict pore pressure under these sub-pressured conditions. an indirect method to predict pore pressure under sub-pressured conditions has not been reported in the literature. As discussed in Chapter 2 the WCSB is a continuous gas accumulation (Masters.1 Introduction Up to now. 1995) from well logs and the acoustic formation factor approach (AFF) (Tutuncu. it was used in the other three wells that constitute the study: 13-15-065-09W6. as well as the Bowers method (Bowers. 50 Chapter Three: Pore Pressure Modeling on the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin 3. To accomplish this objective. 1984) in which almost the entire stratigraphic column experiments a normal water gradient smaller than 1.0 kg/l (or equivalent Specific Gravity of 1. 1994) for loading and unloading conditions were implemented in two vertical wells in the township of interest: 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6. Eaton method from sonic logs (Eaton.

4 and 2.2 Pore Pressure from Eaton Method using Well Logs The Eaton method to predict pore pressure from sonic and resistivity logs is presented in Equations 2.1 – Location of the study wells in township T65-R09W6 (modified from AccuMap). In this work only the Eaton method from sonic logs will be applied since it is considered that the sonic logs are a more accurate basis for calculations than resistivity logs which are very sensitive to gas content requiring a more robust . 51 Figure 3. 3.6.

(a) (b) Figure 3. The overburden stress for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 presented in Figure 3. 52 petrophysical analysis before the pressure modeling.2 – Overburden stress gradient for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10- 33-065-09W6 . As a result the Eaton‟s exponent that better matches the sub-pressured Deep Basin formations considered in this thesis will be established in this study.2 is calculated solving Equation 2. Eaton uses an exponent equal to 3. it is known that this exponent is sensitive to different geologic conditions.7 in the previous chapter using the Trapezoidal Integration rule. In his original publication. However.

3.4. The normal compaction trends for the well 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3. This unconformity compartmentalizes the formations pressures in at least two segments. which indicates that a value of 0. The compaction trends for the well 08-28-065-09W6 are shown in Figure 3. the normal compaction trend drawn from the surface goes up to the top of the Nikanassin Group. the analysis of normal trend lines will be done using values of sonic transit time where shale volumes (Vshale) of 0. the second normal compaction trend becomes effective. The reason for this decision was based on geology as an important unconformity is present at the top of the Nikanassin Group and the bottom of the Cadomin formation. . 53 From the point of view of lithology. two normal trends of compaction were established for each well.6 is effective for distinguishing shale intervals.6 or larger were obtained. To start the modeling. Therefore. from this point down. This cutoff was selected based on experience of operators. The two correlations presented in the figures correspond to the tendency of the two normal compaction trends.

Blue points correspond to sonic transit time measurements and red lines are normal compaction trends . 54 Figure 3.3 – Normal compaction trends for well 08-28-065-09W6. Blue points correspond to sonic transit time measurements and red lines are normal compaction trends Figure 3.4 – Normal compaction trends for well 10-33-065-09W6.

.5. The pore pressure profiles for wells 08-28- 065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data. these values. The blue dots are calculated pore pressures. The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities. In the pore pressure modeling. (a) (b) Figure 3. the pore pressure is calculated with an Eaton exponent equal to 3.5 – Pore pressure from Eaton method using two normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent equal to 3 for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6. two values of pore pressure were obtained from well testing for well 08-28-065-09W6 and one value for well 10-33-065-09W6. 55 From the two trends of normal compaction described above.

5. They were established for a sub-pressured basin since as it is possible to observe on Figures 3. 2011) and will be an important basis for pore pressure calibration.5 show irregular and poor results in comparison to the data obtained from well testing (green circles near the bottom of both wells). the more reliable will be the results of the pore pressure modeling. However. this pore pressure profiles were calibrated based on real events that took place during drilling operations. It is important to point out that the selected normal compaction trends were not selected arbitrarily. different values of the Eaton exponent were tested in order to find the best match. In addition. After a number of tests.3 and 3. Under these circumstances. Because of this. Figure 3. No significant gas influxes were reported during drilling of wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6. the values of pore pressure along the well are adjusted based on the fact that no gas influxes were reported. are considered to be reliable (Leguizamon. however. As a result it is recommended to perform as many pressure tests as possible in key wells within a study area.4. The pore pressure profiles on Figure 3. 56 shown as green circles in Figure 3. it is evident that the larger the number of pressure points collected from well testing data.6 presents the pore pressure profiles from Eaton method using two normal compaction trends and an Eaton exponent equal to 1. it was found that for sub-pressured reservoirs of the Deep Basin of the WCSB the most suitable Eaton Exponent approaches a value of 1. Consequently the pore pressure values should be less than the mud weight. the normal trend lines describe a range of values almost for the entire wells larger than the values of the sonic log. that in the Falher formations the pressure values can reach values even larger than pressures that . It is known.

The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data . As a result care must be exercised and an allowance should be made for some picks where pore pressure exceeds the value of mud weight. 57 correspond to normal water gradients. (a) (b) Figure 3. The blue dots are calculated pore pressures.6 – Pore Pressure from Eaton method using two normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent equal to 1 for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065- 09W6. The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities. especially in the Falher formations.

3.8.3 Pore Pressure from Eaton Method using the Modified D Exponent The Eaton method to calculate pore pressure from the modified D exponent is represented by Equation 2. 58 Figure 3. The normal compaction trends for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figures 3.9 in the previous chapter.7 – Normal compaction trend for well 08-28-065-09W6. the match between predicted values and pore pressures from well testing is still poor. two normal compaction trends were considered. Figure 3. Blue line corresponds to modified D exponent and red lines are normal compaction trends .7 and 3.6 shows that despite the fact that the pore pressure profiles seem to be more representative. Similarly to the Eaton method from sonic logs described above.

As indicated previously. 59 Figure 3. Blue line corresponds to modified D exponent and red lines are normal compaction trends In this case.8 – Normal compaction trend for well 10-33-065-09W6. . the pore pressure values obtained from well testing are presented as green symbols on the pore pressure profiles near the bottom of both wells.9 present the pore pressure profiles obtained from the modified D exponent method. Figure 3. again different values of the Eaton exponent “b” were tested and it was concluded that the best match for the pore pressure profile was obtained when using an Eaton exponent equal to 1.

neutron. For the application of the Holbrook method. The blue line corresponds to pore pressure. The values of max and  for different lithologies according to Holbrook are presented in Table 2. and combination of neutron and density logs. 60 (a) (b) Figure 3.11 in the previous chapter. Acoustic Formation Factor (AFF).1.0 for wells (a) 08-28-065- 09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6. .4 Pore Pressure from Holbrook Method The Holbrook method to calculate pore pressure is represented by Equation 2. The sub-vertical red lines correspond to mud specific gravities. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data 3. we have considered four different porosity profiles that are obtained from density.9 – Pore pressure from the modified D exponent method using two compaction trend lines and an Eaton Exponent equal to 1.

.10 – Porosity profiles for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 The pore pressure from Holbrook method for well 08-28-065-09W6 is presented in Figures 3. (a) (b) Figure 3. 61 The porosity profiles for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3. The comparison with well testing pressures is poor.11 (a) and (b).10.

The comparison with well testing pressures is also poor.11 (a) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from density and neutron logs for well 08-28-065-09W6. . The blue line corresponds to pore pressure. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data Likewise.12 (a) and (b). the pore pressure from Holbrook method for well 10-33-065-09W6 is presented in Figures 3. 62 Figure 3.

. Therefore. a different set of values was tested for those two calibration constants in efforts to obtain a reasonable match. However. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data The values for constants max and  for sandstones and shales presented in Table 2. they did not work consistently.1 were used initially to perform the pore pressure estimations. The blue line corresponds to pore pressure. 63 Figure 3.11 (b) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from AFF and average porosity for well 08-28-065-09W6.

12 (a) – Pore pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from density and neutron logs for well 10-33-065-09W6.1 but with the set of data that generated the most reasonable match. 64 Figure 3.11 and 3. However. despite significant efforts. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data The pore pressure profiles presented in Figures 3. The blue line corresponds to pore pressure.12 were not generated necessarily with the values of the correlation constants reported in Table 2. it was not possible to produce a good match due to strong fluctuations in the calculated pore pressure values. .

it is possible to infer from the results that the Holbrook method is not an effective way to calculate pore pressure in the Deep Basin of the WCSB. the Holbrook calibration constants . In fact. The blue line corresponds to pore pressure. The main reason is that the power law model used in the Holbrook method does not work consistently with very low values of porosity. The green circles near the bottom of both wells are measured pressures from well testing data Consequently. 65 Figure 3.12 (b) – Pore Pressure from Holbrook method using porosity from AFF and average porosity for well 10-33-065-09W6.

13 and 2. (modified from Holbrook et al.. (1995) using power law Compaction Curves. Figure 3. In the implementation of Bowers method for pore pressure . Figure 3.5 Pore Pressure from Bowers Method The Bowers method for the loading and unloading approaches is represented by Equations 2.14. 1995) 3. 66 for max and  were established for sands and shale formations with porosity values greater than 10%.13 shows the range of porosity values of the Deep Basin of the WCSB and the contrast with the tendencies for sandstones and shales presented by Holbrook et al.13 – Range of porosity values of the Deep Basin of the WCSB in contrast to the sands and shales porosity values presented by Holbrook et al.

In addition. The trial starting values were selected on the basis of data published by Nygaard et al. The calibration constants were selected using a trial an error procedure where different values were used to calculate reasonable pore pressure values taking into account the real mud weight as a calibration parameter in both wells.1 – Valued used in the implementation of Bowers method in wells 08-28-065- 09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 A 3.14 shows the calculated pore pressures for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33- 065-09W6 for the loading and unloading conditions. .13 Vmax (ft/s) 18000 max (psi) 11758 Figure 3. 67 estimations in wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6. Canada. Table 3.1 B 0.14 leads to the conclusion that the loading and unloading approaches are effective in defining the lower and upper limits of pore pressure starting at 2000 m for the Deep Basin of the WCSB. the pore pressure from well testing analysis and the real mud weight of each well is plotted to observe the contrast in values. Table 3. (2008) related to work they carried out in central Alberta. a value of Vmax equal to 5486.1 presents a summary of the values used for the implementation of the Bowers method in wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6.4 m/s (18000ft/s) was selected as it represents the velocity at the onset of unloading.89 U 3. Examination of Figure 3.

As a result we have looked for ways of improving the calculations in order to obtain more reliable results. However. 68 (a) (b) Figure 3. . the comparisons are not of the high quality searched by this thesis.6 Pore Pressure Calibration Using Mud Window From the values of pore pressure obtained up to this point the Eaton from sonic logs and D exponent seem to be the ones that match better the real pressures obtained from well testing.14 – Pore pressure from Bowers method for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 3.

3. pore pressure values from well testing. caliper log. a wellbore-stability analysis was conducted and a mud window was developed in order to corroborate the accuracy of the calculated values.862v p  1.6. Therefore.6. the pore pressure obtained from the Eaton method based on sonic logs of well 08-28-065-09W6 was used.1.79v p  0. 3. the correlations proposed by Han (1986) and Castagna et al. (1985) were implemented to predict shear velocity (S-wave velocity) from the P-wave velocity values.1724 Eq.6. These values of pore pressures were selected as the basis of the wellbore-stability analysis since the profile of pore pressure from sonic logs gives more reasonable values as compared to the D exponent method.79 Eq. To initiate this task. Each of the parameters involved in the wellbore stability modeling are described next. vp: P-wave (compressional) velocity (km/s) vs: S-wave (shear) velocity (km/s) .1 Sandstones vs  0.1 3.2 Where.1 Shear Velocity Only monopole sonic (P-wave velocity) was recorded in wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10- 33-065-09W6. The correlation for sandstones and shales are: 3. 3.2 Shales vs  0. unconfined compressive strength (UCS). The wellbore-stability analysis uses real mud weight. collapse pressure and minimum horizontal stress profile to calibrate the pore pressure profile.1. 69 To calibrate the pore pressures.

1992) 2 h min  UCS Pw  Eq. 3..4 Where.9*1011 2  UCS  42. 3. 3. 3.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) (Chang et al.3.6.6.1 Sandstones 1. 2006) 3. 2010)  2    vp       2  v  0.7 tan 2   1 .2 Poisson’s Ratio and Young’s Modulus (Tutuncu.1e vp Eq.6 3.5 3.6. 70 3.4 Collapse Pressure (Fjaer.6.0528E 0.3. v: Dynamic Poisson‟s ratio (dimensionless) E: Dynamic Young Modulus (kPa) vp: P-wave velocity (cm/s)2 vs: S-wave velocity (cm/s)2 : Bulk density (g/cm3) 3.6.0001v  2 2   v  v2  s  p s  Eq.3 v     p  1   vs       3v 2p  4vs2  E  0.712 Eq.5  s  2 v  Eq.2 Shales UCS  0. 3.

Pw: Collapse pressure (kPa) UCS: Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) min: Minimum horizontal stress (kPa) 2: Mohr failure angle 3. In the Deep Basin of the WCSB. 1956)  v  Pp   Pp  v   h min   Eq.5 Minimum Horizontal Stress (Hubbert and Willis. In addition. since the tensile strength was not considered in the correlation of minimum horizontal stress its effect in the equation will be negligible especially in the last formations. the minimum horizontal stress is. . Therefore. 3. the minimum horizontal stress that was initially calculated from the Hubbert and Willis (1956) correlation is calibrated for the entire well. min: Minimum horizontal stress (kPa) Pp: Pore pressure (kPa) v: Overburden stress (kPa) v: Poisson ratio (dimensionless) In this wellbore-stability model a Biot‟s constant equal to 1.8 1 v  Where. approximately equal to 14. in the average.6.25 kPa/m in the Nikanassin Group. 71 Where.0 is assumed since this value is representative for the study area.

the graph shows that despite the fact that there is a significant difference between the values of pore pressure and the real mud weight. This was done using a theory developed by Leckie and Smith (1992) who considered four important depositional cycles in the WCSB. UCS. UCS and Mud Window for well 08-28-065-09W6 Figure 3. there is some instability in the caliper log.15 – Caliper log.15. In addition.15 shows that the pore pressure calculated with the Eaton method from sonic logs is lower that the real values (represented by green circles). and the mud window for well 08-28-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3. Their theory states that: . Figure 3. 72 The caliper log. This fact led to the conclusion that an in-depth review of the normal compaction trends in the Deep basin was required.

This fact assumes that cycle 1 is the oldest. Examination of these graphs shows that the . a modified mud window was constructed as shown on Figure 3. Figure 3.16 presents the three normal compaction trends associated with well 08-28-065- 09W6.16 – Normal compaction trends on well 08-28-065-09W6 Using the three normal compaction trends mentioned above. In the basis of their theory we consider three representative normal compaction trends in the study area Figure 3. 73  The contact between cycles 1 and 2 is represented by a major unconformity.17.  Each of the cycles. except the top of cycle 3 is delineated for a major geologic event.  The deposition of cycle 3 corresponds to a long-term period of global sea level raise.

74 revised normal compaction trends proposed in this thesis work successfully for the sub- pressured study area of the WCSB as the calculated and recorded pore pressures are approximately the same. Falher C. this fact is evidenced by the caliper log in this interval.17 – Caliper log. Looking at the collapse pressure profile it is possible to infer that the Falher A. Figure 3. Falher B. and Falher D (from 2626 m to 2763 m) formations are the most susceptible to experiment instability. UCS and Mud Window for well 08-28-065-09W6 considering three normal compaction trends .

75 The three normal compaction trends were also implemented in well 10-33-065-09W6 as shown on Figure 3.19.18 – Normal compaction trends on well 10-33-065-09W6 The resulting pore pressure profiles using the Eaton method from sonic logs for wells 08- 28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3. The figure shows that the three normal compaction trends allow calculations that match effectively the real pore pressure values and the real mud weight.18. . Figure 3.

76 (a) (b) Figure 3. . In a similar manner. respectively.20 and 3. The three normal compaction trends for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33- 065-09W6 are presented in Figures 3.19 – Pore pressure profiles using Eaton method from sonic logs and three normal compaction trends for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6. pore pressure profiles using the modified D exponent method with three normal compaction trends for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 were calculated.21.

20 – Three normal compaction trends used in modified D exponent method for well 08-28-065-09W6 Figure 3.22. 77 Figure 3. From the graph it is possible to observe that the three normal compaction trends match .21 – Three normal compaction trends used in modified D exponent method for well 10-33-065-09W6 The pore pressure profiles using the modified D exponent and three normal compaction trends for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 are presented in Figure 3.

23. (a) (b) Figure 3.7 Comparison of Pore pressure Values obtained from the Eaton Method and the Bowers Method The comparison of the pore pressure profiles for wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065- 09W6 obtained from the Eaton method using three normal compaction trends and the Bowers method using the loading and unloading approaches is presented in Figure 3. the pore pressure values obtained from well testing are presented as yellow .22 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent method and three normal compaction trends for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 3. 78 effectively the real pore pressure values and the real mud weight as a calibration parameter. In addition.

From the figure it is possible to conclude that for the Deep Basin of the WCSB the Bowers method can be implemented as an effective approach to establish the maximum and minimum pressure bounds at depths greater than 2000 m.23 – Comparison of pore pressure profiles obtained from Eaton and Bowers methods for wells (a) 08-28-065-09W6 and (b) 10-33-065-09W6 . 79 points. (a) (b) Figure 3.

and the modified D exponent method with three normal compaction trends and an Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 were applied to wells 13-15-065-09W6. . 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 Following the pore pressure modeling of wells 08-28-065-09W6 and 10-33-065-09W6 it was determined that the normal trend methods for calculating pore pressures are the most effective in the study area of the Deep Basin of the WCSB.8 Pore pressure Calculation for wells 13-15-065-09W6. and probably in other sub-pressured basins around the world with similar types of rocks.25 and 3. It is anticipated that the method to predict pore pressure under sub-pressured conditions developed in this thesis will find application in similar Basins. The results were good as presented on Figures 3. respectively. In all the profiles. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6. the pore pressure values obtained from well testing are represented by green points. For well 02/06-05-065-09W6 no well testing data were recorded. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6.0 should prove to be of value in other townships of the WCSB.26. which show pore pressure profiles obtained from the Eaton method using three normal compaction trends and an Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for wells 13-15-065-09W6.24. Therefore. 3. 80 3. the three normal compaction trends with an Eaton‟s exponent equal to 1. For example. the Eaton method from sonic logs.

24 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs. three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 13-15-065- 09W . 81 Figure 3.

82 Figure 3. three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/11-21-065- 09W6 .25 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs.

3.27. three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/06-05-065- 09W6 Figures 3.26 – Pore pressure profile using Eaton method from sonic logs.28 and 3.29 show the pore pressure profile obtained from the modified D exponent method using three normal compaction trends and an Eaton exponent “b” equal . 83 Figure 3.

02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 respectively. 84 to 1 for the wells 13-15-065-09W6. . Again the comparison between calculated and well testing pore is good.27 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 13-15-065- 09W6. Figure 3.

85 Figure 3.28 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/11-21-065- 09W6 .

86 Figure 3.29 – Pore pressure profile using the modified D exponent with three normal compaction trends and Eaton exponent “b” equal to 1 for well 02/06-05-065- 09W6 .

Drilling optimization while improving the quality of drill cuttings.1. pore pressure. 87 Chapter Four: Drilling Optimization 4. For rollercone bits. particularly at the level of the Nikanassin Group. The optimization procedure starts with the gathering of operational parameters that are required to calculate the ARSL using the simulation software. (1994) and for PDC bits the model proposed by Hareland and Rampersad (1994) as inverted ROP correlations will be implemented by the simulator.1 Introduction Drilling optimization of five study wells drilled in township T65-R09W6 is carried out in this chapter. ® This software first calculates the Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) and then keeps this log constant to obtain a new value of rate of penetration (ROP) when a different operational condition is established. This optimization task is performed by using the commercial drilling simulator Optimizer. mud weight. . In this step. lithology or length of bit run. plastic viscosity. Once the ARSL is obtained. the next step corresponds to the hydraulics optimization. the most suitable nozzle sizes will be selected in order to generate an adequate hole cleaning preventing the cutting regrinding and attenuating the bit wear to get higher rates of penetration. total pump output. The general optimization procedure for each well is presented in Figure 4. The modification in the operational condition can be the result of a variation in either weight on bit (WOB). are some of the key objectives of this research. bit type. rotational speed (RPM). the correlation proposed by Rampersad et al.

88 The next step is the optimization of the WOB and RPM on bit for each bit run. For this purpose.1 – General Optimization Procedure . For this task. and limits of bit wear of 6 and 4 will taken into account for rollercone and PDC bits respectively. the software runs a number of iterations in order to find a set of suitable combinations of WOB and RPM values and their respective wear out values. As a final step of the optimization procedure. merging practices will be tested in order to reduce the drilling time by reducing round trips and bit costs. Figure 4. a range of WOB and RPM values will be specified for each bit run.

ARS (MPa).2 presents the general characteristics of the ARS Model window. plastic viscosity (PV) (cp). bit wear (Wear) and bit characteristics (Bit Runs) in each column. Once the ARSL is calculated. RPM on bit (rpm). total pump output (TPO) (l/m). the optimization of each bit run can be carried out in the “Drill Model” window.2 Drilling Optimization Software Once the drilling operational parameters are collected.2 .3 shows the Drill Model window. The “ARS Model”. pore pressure (PP) (SG). Figure 4. Figure 4.ARS Model window for one well in the study area The ARS Model window presents the values of depth (m). 89 4. they are included in the simulation software. mud weight (MW) (SG). Figure 4. WOB (kDaN). . formation tops and lithology percentage. is the window that presents the calculation of the ARSL and other operational parameters. ROP (m/h).

TOP. In addition. constant values of WOB. MW. the net drilling time (tNet) is defined as: . In this optimization task. 90 Figure 4. PP. a filter for an average ROP value can be used in order to eliminate results that indicate values of ROP less than the indicated one. the “Optimize Wizard” presented in Figure 4. and Wear for each bit run are used. a new net drilling time for each bit run is calculated.3 shows the ARSL obtained in the ARS Model window and the calculated ROP profile. RPM. In this wizard. For this calculation.4 is used.3 – Drill Model window for one well in the study area Figure 4. After the most suitable combination of WOB and rotary RPM is selected. PV. a range of WOB and rotary RPM is selected indicating a maximum allowable value of bit wear that should not be exceeded. In order to optimize each bit run.

tNet: Net drilling time (h) Length: Length of bit run (m) ROPAvg: Average rate of penetration for each bit run (m/h) Figure 4. 91 Length t Net  ROPAvg Eq.4 – Optimize Wizard for one well in the study area 4. It is typical in the drilling optimization that a .3 Impact of Pore Pressure on Apparent Rock Strength Log In the general optimization procedure it is stated that the pore pressure is one of the parameters necessary to obtain the ARSL.1 Where. 4.

Figure 4. In this thesis (Chapter 3).5 where the dark-green color represents the original profile of pore pressure and ARSL. A sensitivity analysis was carried out in well 08-28-065-09W6 in order to determine the impact that pore pressure exerts on the ARSL in the study area.5 . From this analysis it is possible to conclude that the pore pressure significantly impacts the ARSL calculations. The results are shown in Figure 4. 92 constant value of pore pressure be considered for the entire well. there is a reduction in the ARSL of about 34% (orange line). When the pore pressure is reduced by 24% in the Nikanassin Group (value represented by the orange line).Effect of pore pressure on ARSL for well 08-28-065-09W6 . an effort was made to calculate complete pore pressure profiles in order to obtain more representative ARSL values for each study well.

The lithologic description used in the study was obtained from the Optimizer ® data base for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation Once the drilling operational parameters are obtained. Table 4. they are utilized to calculate the ARSL. 93 4.3 summarizes the bit runs. Table 4.1 Operational Parameters Gathering Table 4. This average value of pore pressure was obtained from the results presented in Chapter 3.4 Drilling Optimization of well 08-28-065-09W6 4.6 presents the ARSL in the ARS Model window for well 08-28-065- 09W6.4. Figure 4. .1 presents the formation tops and the average pore pressure value for each formation. 4.2 summarizes the average real drilling parameters for each bit run used in well 08-28-065-09W6.4.

65 1268 Puskwaskau 0.00 2689 Falher C 1.70 2500 Paddy 0.80 2522 Cadotte 0.90 2763 Falher E 0.70 1526 Muskiki 0.70 2545 Harmon 0.80 1568 Cardium 0.80 1621 Kaskapau 0. 94 Table 4.80 683 Bear Paw 0.85 2572 Notikewin 0.05 .80 2276 Shaftesbury 0.90 1315 Chinook 0.80 1371 Colorado 0.90 2903 Gething 0.90 2400 Base fish scales 0.80 892 Belly River 0.80 2780 Wilrich 0.80 2102 Dunvegan 0.00 2668 Falher B 1.90 2888 Bluesky 0.95 2626 Falher A 1.80 3036 Nikanassin 1.10 2729 Falher D 0.1 – Formation tops and average pore pressure values for each formation penetrated by well 08-28-065-09W6 Top MD (m) Formation Pore Pressure (SG) 0 Surface 0.85 1495 Badheart 0.80 1595 Cardium Sand 0.90 3010 Cadomin 0.

07 242.93 11.09 4 1498 222 Rollercone 517 ER7214ODVPS 3 x 14.74 23.41 12 3257 222 Rollercone 617 FH40 3 x 15.86 2563.61 10 3012 3.1 13.21 1.07 6.22 2 561 311 Rollercone 117 SS-TGM 3 x 15.96 115.43 1.44 53.70 103.41 Figure 4.71 6.2 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run used in well 08-28-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Net Drilling Time (h) WOB (KDaN) RPM Bit (rpm) TPO (l/min) MW (SG) PV (cp) 1 367 18.50 0.77 6.90 1.01 12.85 1270 1.39 21.23 1309.3 – Bit runs in well 08-28-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Size (mm) Type IADC Code Model Nozzle Size (mm) "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 367 311 Rollercone 117 XR-C 3 x 15.07 7 2595 29.09 2487.79 1268.83 21.7 1332.05 1329.18 14.45 6 2552 5.89 1497.08 12.71 1.07 32.90 0.20 119.90 0.83 6.54 1.60 231.70 103.16 23.30 0.90 0.50 1.90 0.63 0.39 11 3200 2.59 0.21 1.39 11 3200 222 Rollercone 617 GX-44DX 3 x 15. 95 Table 4.90 0.29 1281.02 135.90 0.27 1533.16 109.72 1.2 15.45 1442.29 2454.43 126.05 9 2764 222 Rollercone 537 M4257MDA 3 x 15.42 155.5 9 2764 4.89 235.56 24.32 8 2603 222 Rollercone 537 D411ST 3 x 15.90.86 4 1498 30.18 13.90 0.30 7 2595 222 Rollercone 537 M4257MDH 3 x 15.49 6 2552 222 Rollercone 537 GX-30DX 3 x 17.27 19.6 – ARSL in ARS Model window of well 08-28-065-09W6 .36 10 3012 222 Rollercone 547 FH35 3 x 15.17 Table 4.11 41.18 13.39 3 600 311 Rollercone 117 SDGH 2 x 15.97 13.21 7.3 1.72 5 2523 222 Rollercone 517 ER7214ODVPS 3 x 15.78 12 3257 3.2 14. 1 x 17.06 1.46 3 600 8.90 1.82 8 2603 30.14 35.05 1.79 2 561 9.54 5 2523 13.

The daily drilling reports of the study wells corroborate these average values.4. it will be considered in this section that the total time is the time to reach the planned final depth. In addition.7 – Depth vs.7 presents the value of depth vs. bit diameter. . net drilling time and tripping time for well 08- 28-065-09W6 under actual operating conditions. net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 4. These general considerations also apply for the other study wells. The tripping time is calculated using an industry average value of 1 hour for 1000 ft of well. The HSI takes into account TFA. Figure 4.4 hp/in2. mud density.3 Hydraulics Optimization The real values of horse power in the bit per square inch (HSI) reported in the drilling operation records for well 08-28-065-09W6 for the last two bit runs are in the order of 0. In addition. 96 Figure 4. a value of 2 hours for handling of collars and bit will be considered. and flow rate .

Plastic viscosity was not considered as a key parameter since the values are approximately the same in the wells selected for this study.36 0. 7. Table 4.22 1. This size (12.72 1. The real and optimized drilling times are presented in Figure 4.25 4 1498 0. After several simulations runs the optimum nozzle size was determined to be 12. In this well.8. In bit run 3.7 mm.16 5 2523 0.30 1. 6. and 10. 97 The objective of hydraulic optimization in this well is to obtain a value of HSI of at least 1.4 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI in well 08-28-065-09W6 Bit Run Depth Out (m) Real "HSI" (hp/in2) Optimized "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 367 1.01 After the nozzle size modifications are performed.00 12 3257 0. HSI values reached around 1.95 11 3200 0.41 1.39 3 600 1. the optimum nozzle size was 15.0 hp/in2 in the last two bit runs (to make sure that the tight Nikanassin formation is covered) in order to improve the hole cleaning process to avoid cutting regrinding and the excessive bit wear. The most effective drilling operation in the study wells was carried out in well 13-15-065-09W6. 9.79 8 2603 0.7 mm) corresponds to the smallest nozzle actually used in the study area and was implemented in bit runs 4. 5.89 10 3012 0.39 1.9 mm. 8.81 9 2764 0.41 1.49 1.05 0.4 presents a comparison of the real HSI and the optimized values obtained following the nozzle size modifications.39 0.09 1. Table 4. and the best quality of reservoir cuttings was obtained.33 hp/in2 in the last two bit runs.22 2 561 1. Following the .32 0.09 7 2595 0. new net drilling times are obtained.20 6 2552 0.

.9 and are compared with the real times and those obtained after the first part of the optimization (hydraulics optimization discussed previously). the net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065- 09W6 is reduced in 57.8 hours (2. Figure 4. net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6.4 Optimization of WOB and RPM Different ranges for WOB and RPM were specified for each bit run and a maximum value for bit wear of 6 was allowed.4 days). Following the WOB and RPM optimization. 98 hydraulics optimization. These new times are presented in Figure 4. 4.4. Notice the improvement after hydraulics optimization compared with the real drilling time.945 days). the net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 is reduced in 22. After the optimum combinations of these operational parameters were optimized.7 hours (0. new net drilling times were obtained.8 – Depth vs.

99 Figure 4. two merging tests were performed in order to save two round trips. . keeping bit No.4. net drilling and tripping time of well 08-28-065-09W6 following hydraulic optimization. and WOB and RPM optimization. Note improvement with respect to real times.10 and are compared with the real times and previous optimization simulations. 9 and 10 into the original bit run 6. 10 (FH35).9 – Depth vs. 8. in addition to the cost of the bits. These new times are presented in Figure 4. The second merging test was performed merging the original sections 7.5 Merging Test Following a review of the study wells drilled in the township of interest. In these merging tests the wear out of the new merged sections was taken into account. 4. the total bit runs in well 08-28-065-09W6 were reduced from 12 to 7 and new net drilling times were obtained. 2 (SS-TGM). After these merging tests. The first merging test was performed merging the original bit run 3 into the original bit run 2 using bit No.

4. the tripping time for the last bit run corresponds to the time to perform a pooling out of hole (POOH).5 and 4. It is important to point out that in tables 4.6.5 and 4.6 the tripping time corresponds to the time required to perform a round trip including handling of collars and bits.2 days). and merging tests 4. However. 100 After the merging tests.10 – Depth vs.6 Optimization Summary The data plotted in Figure 4. this last time was not considered since the . the net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 is reduced in 100.10 are presented in tables 4. Figure 4. after the hydraulics optimization and after the WOB and RPM optimization.6 presents the net drilling and tripping time for the seven bit runs after the merging tests were performed. In the plots. net drilling and tripping time of well 08-28-065-09W6 following hydraulics optimization. Table 4.5 presents the net drilling and tripping time for each bit run in well 08-28-065-09W6 for the real case.8 hours (4. WOB and RPM optimization. Table 4.

37 15. 101 purpose of the plots is to represent the time to reach the planned final depth.17 80.95 4 1498 6. Table 4.05 6 2552 10.61 19.34 87.88 11.28 73.84 TOTAL (Days) 14.95 65.00 11.80 10.90 25.64 430.91 8.29 32.30 5 2523 10.5 days. The total drilling operation of well 08-28-065- 09W6 took a total of 35. .72 11.50 81.5 – Net drilling and tripping time in well 08-28-065-09W6 for the real case.00 3.28 42.20 19.97 8.8 hours or 4.00 6.78 48.00 3.88 87.83982 TOTAL (Days) 18.20 TOTAL (h) 453.72 10.35 17.6 – Net drilling and tripping time in well 08-28-065-09W6 after the merging tests Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Bit run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Merging Tests 1 367.54 10.12 72.91 31.84 26.00 12.23 23.91 17.88 112.62 9 2764 11.92 12 3257 5.97 17. This consideration applies for all the study wells.70 The analysis shows that the net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in 100.84 11 3200 12.28 65.91 36.14 7 2595 10.91 3 1498.34 7.50 77.79 2 561 3.23 10 3012 11.06 31.20 TOTAL (h) 352.90 17.02 8 2603 10.00 5.07 47. and after the hydraulics and WOB and RPM optimization Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Hydraulics Optimization Optimization of WOB Bit Run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Real and RPM 1 367 3.79 2 600.30 4 2523.97 28.49 77.34 15.28 88.83% reduction in drilling time.2 days in well 08-28-065-09W6.00 10.67 6 3200.20 20.90 20.35 17.57 15.05 5 3012.77 3 600 3.51 11.93982 395. Thus the optimization described above lead to an 11.92 7 3257.96 16.49 Table 4.

net drilling time and tripping time for well 10- 33-065-09W6 under real conditions of operation.8 summarizes the average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 10-33-065-09W6. This average value of pore pressure was obtained from the results presented in Chapter 3. Table 4.5. Table 4. these are utilized to calculate the ARSL. 4.5. 102 4.7 presents the formation tops and the average pore pressure value for each formation.2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation Once the operational parameters are obtained. Figure 4. The lithologic description used in the study was obtained from the Optimizer ® Database for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.11 presents the ARSL in the ARS Model window for well 10-33-065-09W6. Figure 4.9 summarizes the bit runs.1 Obtaining Operational Parameters Gathering Table 4.12 shows a crossplot of depth vs. .5 Drilling optimization of well 10-33-065-09W6 4.

70 2534 Harmon 0.80 2486 Paddy 0.70 1228 Puskwaskau 0.70 1239 Chinook 0.80 2262 Shaftesbury 0.80 2790 Wilrich 0.90 2881 Bluesky 0.85 1549 Cardium Sand 0.98 2592 Falher A 1.02 3213 Fernie 0.80 2506 Cadotte 0. 103 Table 4.90 2888 Gething 0.00 2622 Falher B 1.04 2650 Falher C 1.10 2695 Falher D 0.92 3010 Cadomin 0.70 1480 Muskiki 0.90 .80 2119 Dunvegan 0.85 1449 Badheart 0.70 1297 Colorado 0.7 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 10-33-065-09W6 Top MD (m) Formation Pore Pressure (SG) 0 Surface 0.90 850 Belly River 0.78 3057 Nikanassin 1.90 2734 Falher E 0.85 1566 Kaskapau 0.85 2384 Base fish scales 0.80 1525 Cardium 0.80 2558 Notikewin 0.80 673 Bear Paw 0.

104 Table 4.33 3384.53 1416.21 Figure 4.44 171.10 26.8 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 10-33-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Net Drilling Time (h) WOB (KDaN) RPM Bit (rpm) TPO (l/min) MW (SG) PV (cp) 1 221 6.55 4 2270 222 Rollercone 517 FHI21B 3 x 18 0.32 5 2569 25.17 18.26 143.92 4 2270 74.15 19.57 1.04 17.54 14.00 14.06 22.42 1.37 3263.09 1.64 3 611 311 Rollercone 517 SS44G 3 x 24 0.46 18.70 16.46 8 3224 54.18 18.9 – Bit runs of well 10-33-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Size (mm) Type IADC Code Model Nozzle Size (mm) "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 221 406 Rollercone 517 NC1304 3 x 20 0.50 114.36 1.13 21.94 3 611 11.06 16.76 1622.30 7 3067 222 Rollercone 617 M4337PDH 3 x 20 0.19 69.68 2 477 12.60 1642.71 19.97 14.54 163.14 17.90 6 2978 82.37 5 2569 222 Rollercone 527 FH280DVPS 3 x 18 0.53 160.39 6 2978 222 Rollercone 537 FH320DVPS 3 x 18 0.62 17.11 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 10-33-065-09W6 .50 91.42 143.51 1604.73 2 477 311 Rollercone 517 FGSSH 3 x 22 0.28 8 3224 222 Rollercone 617 FH40ODVPS 3 x 20 0.36 0.13 Table 4.71 7 3067 24.50 2884.33 1.57 1.25 1464.12 1.

5. This can be carried out by selecting an optimized nozzle size of 12. The nozzle size for bits 1. and 6. 5. 105 Figure 4.10 presents a comparison of the real and optimized HSI following simulations with the nozzle sizes modifications. Table 4. The hydraulic optimization developed in this case is carried out in order to obtain a value of HSI of at least 1. The new drilling times with these modifications and .25 hp/in2. 2 and 3 was established at 15. This improves the hole cleaning process and reduces cutting regrinding and excessive bit wear.3 Hydraulics Optimization The values of HSI reported in the drilling operation of well 10-33-065-09W6 for the last two bit runs are in the order of 0. As part of the optimization process this nozzle size is implemented in bit runs 4.9 mm in order to increase the HSI value in the first three bit runs.7 mm.5 hp/in2 in the last two bit runs.12 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 4.

39 1. The hydraulics optimization.10 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 10-33-065-09W6 Bit Run Depth Out (m) Real "HSI" (hp/in2) Optimized "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 221 0.13 – Depth vs.13.4 Optimization of WOB and RPM Different ranges for WOB and RPM were specified for each bit run allowing a maximum value for bit wear of 6.28 1. After the optimum combination of these operational parameters .8 hours (1.48 5 2569 0. reduces drilling time in 47.85 4 2270 0.55 2. 106 a comparison with real times are presented in Figure 4.73 1. Notice the improvement with respect to the real drilling time 4.37 1.21 1.31 Figure 4.74 8 3224 0.58 6 2978 0.75 2 477 0.30 1.02 3 611 0.17 7 3067 0.64 2.99 days). net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 following hydraulics optimization.5. Table 4.

5 days).14 . the net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065- 09W6 is reduced in 60.55 hours (2. . bit run 8 was merged into the bit run 7 using bit No. Figure 4. and real times. a total of seven bit runs are used and new net drilling times are obtained.5. After the merging test. The new times are presented in Figure 4. 107 were selected.14 shows a comparison of drilling times after the hydraulics. 8 (FH40ODVPS).15 and are compared with real and previous optimization times.Depth vs. WOB and RPM optimizations. net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 after hydraulic optimization and WOB and RPM optimization 4. After the merging test the net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 is reduced in 71.01 hours (2. Figure 4.98 days). new net drilling times were obtained. After the WOB and RPM optimization. In this merging test the wear out of the new merged section was taken into account.5 Merging Test One merging test was performed in well 10-33-065-09W6.

108 Figure 4.12 show the data plotted in Figure 4.15 – Depth vs. Table 4.5.15. net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization. This analysis permits to conclude that the net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in well 10-33-065-09W6 in 71. The actual drilling operation of well 10-33-065-09W6 took a total of 24 days.98 days. for the case that includes hydraulics optimization and for the case with WOB and RPM optimization.12 presents the net drilling and tripping time for the seven bit runs after the merging test was performed.6 Optimization Summary Tables 4.55 hours or 2.11 presents the net drilling and tripping time for each bit run in well 10-33-065-09W6 for the real case.11 and 4. WOB and RPM optimization. Table 4. . and merging test 4.

79 296.23 7 3067 12.29 74.10 9.56 16.00 15. The lithologic description used in the study was obtained from the Optimizer ® Database for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.64 5 2569 10.6.76 50.77 90.70 TOTAL (h) 273.37 12.14 summarizes the average .12 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 after the merging test Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Bit run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Merging Tests 1 221 2. 109 Table 4.27 55.41 28.39 4.57 TOTAL (h) 344. Table 4.35 7. and after the hydraulic and WOB and RPM optimization Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Hydraulics Optimization Optimization of WOB Bit Run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Real and RPM 1 221 2.06 8.21 36.44 55.06 53.37 11.64 5 2569 10.56 9.64 57.77 94.02 2 477 3.53 6 2978 11.1 Operational Parameters Gathering Table 4.43 28.00 8.53 6 2978 11.89 29.11 – Net drilling and tripping time of well 10-33-065-09W6 for the real case.6 Drilling Optimization of well 13-15-065-09W6 4.78 TOTAL (Days) 14.82 35.11 4 2270 9.01 3 611 4.11 4 2270 9.87 Table 4.45 90.73 9.44 83.23 7 3224 5.22 8.33 7.67 8 3224 5.01 3 611 4. The average value of pore pressure was obtained from the results presented in Chapter 3.02 2 477 3.48 94.13 presents the formation tops and the average pore pressure value for each formation.29 54.73 9.43 35.99 284.73 7.24 TOTAL (Days) 11.06 36.

22 Cadomin 0.98 Falher A 0.99 Cardium 0.07 Cadotte 0.80 2728.89 Harmon 0.93 Dunvegan 0.80 1065.24 Falher C 0.70 2624.90 3303.60 2317. 110 real drilling parameters for each bit run of well 13-15-065-09W6.60 2805.80 2510.92 Puskwaskau 0.70 1527.93 Belly River 0.00 .62 Falher E 0.90 2888.15 summarizes the bit runs.90 2966.95 Chinook 0.75 3250.78 Shaftesbury 0.31 Kaskapau 0.43 Wilrich 0.75 3142.97 Gething 0.60 1803.52 Falher D 0.80 2751.90 2865.60 1759.71 Badheart 0.73 Notikewin 0.90 2930.80 2846.55 Falher B 0.60 1789.68 Muskiki 0.90 2993.47 Bluesky 0.70 1460.70 1716.80 863 Bear Paw 0.60 1494.22 Base fish scales 0. Table 4.13 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 13-15-065-09W6 Top MD (m) Formation Pore Pressure (SG) 0 Surface 0.39 Paddy 0.85 Nikanassin 1. Table 4.60 2777.60 1684.95 Colorado 0.9 Cardium Sand 0.70 3126.

89 Table 4.26 5 2851 222 Rollercone 517 FHI21B 3 x 12.90 0.94 13.17 shows depth vs.81 135.14 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 13-15-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Net Drilling Time (h) WOB (KDaN) RPM Bit (rpm) TPO (l/min) MW (SG) PV (cp) 1 213 9.25 4 1985 15.28 145.10 30.7 1.42 20.98 7 3490 81.97 21.43 1590.7 0.26 1. FGX-CR 4 x 15.67 10.7 1. S73PX 8 x 12.42 0.2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation Once the drilling operational parameters are obtained.72 1.49 1.92 6 3218 70.6.43 1507.80 20.15 – Bit runs in well 13-15-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Size (mm) Type IADC Code Model Nozzle Size (mm) "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 213 311 PDC .33 7 3490 222 Rollercone 547 FH38 3 x 12. .14 15.55 22.50 2 612 311 PDC .37 4 1985 222 Rollercone 517 FHi21B 3 x 12.81 12.42 1548. they are utilized to calculate the ARSL. net drilling time and tripping time for well 13-15- 065-09W6 under real operational conditions.7 1.79 3 1693 48.03 1554.86 2215.98 21.17 0.45 145.16 presents the ARSL in the ARS Model window for well 13-15-065- 09W6.00 2 612 11.7 1.34 4. Figure 4.7 1.75 1484.23 1.63 153.95 13.10 40.27 6 3218 222 Rollercone 537 FH32 3 x 12. 111 Table 4.41 66.75 5 2851 58.42 3 1693 222 Rollercone 517 FHI21B 3 x 12.09 16.57 0.77 149.41 145. Figure 4.81 2471.95 14.

16 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 13-15-065-09W6 Figure 4. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-9W6 .17 – Depth vs. 112 Figure 4.

16 presents a comparison of real and optimized HSI values obtained after the nozzle size modification.6. The optimized drilling times.50 1. 5. are presented in Figure 4. 113 4.72. In the Nikanassin reservoir.26 1.34 1. 4.34 .33 1.33 7 3490 1.26 5 2851 1.37 1. a nozzle size of 12. Table 4. In addition. In bit run 1 a nozzle size value of 15.3 Hydraulics Optimization Well 13-15-065-09W6 was drilled under efficient hydraulics conditions in comparison to the other wells considered in this thesis.7 mm is simulated in bit run 1 in order to increase the HSI (despite the fact that 12.9 mm was implemented. 3.20 2 612 0.37 4 1985 1. Table 4. 2 is equal to 4.18 as well as the real drilling times.42 0.7 mm was used in bit runs 2.27 6 3218 1. The HSI values in bit run 1 are in the order of 0.16 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 13-15-065-09W6 Bit Run Depth Out (m) Real "HSI" (hp/in2) Optimized "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 213 0. following the nozzle size modifications. Under these circumstances.42 3 1693 1. it will be tested as a trial). 6 and 7.27 1.34 hp/in2 was reported.5 hp/in2. The intention in the next optimization steps is not to considerably exceed this value. An actual nozzle size of 12. The bit wear reported in bit No. the best quality of Nikanassin cuttings was obtained in this well.7 mm is a small nozzle size for surface hole. an HSI value of about 1.

the real hydraulics compare well with the optimized case After the hydraulics optimization.74 hours is experimented.e.. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization.19 and are compared with . respectively. After the optimum combination of these operational parameters was selected. 4. net drilling and tripping time was reduced by only 1 hour in the first bit run.6. The reason for this light increment is that the software uses average values for RPM.4 Optimization of WOB and RPM Different values for WOB and RPM were specified for each bit run. the total drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065- 09W6 is approximately the same. an increase in 2. are allowed. 114 Figure 4. i. and PV in each bit run. However. Maximum values for bit wear of 6 and 4. These times are presented in Figure 4.8 for rollercone and PDC bits. Note that in this instance. WOB and MW.18 – Depth vs. new net drilling times were calculated.

it is possible to conclude that the net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in 18.5 Merging Test In this well. 4. and WOB and RPM optimization.6. From this analysis.19 is presented in Table 4. Following the WOB and RPM optimization.76 days). 115 real times. the net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 is reduced in 18. 4.19 – Depth vs. no merging tests were performed.6.14 hours . Figure 4. The actual seven bit runs carried out in this well are suitable and efficient.14 hours (0. and times obtained after hydraulics optimization.17. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization.6 Optimization Summary The data plotted in Figure 4.

10-33-065-09W6 and 13-15-065-09W6.28 5 2851 11.61 4 1985 8.38 52.38 6 3218 12.73 TOTAL (Days) 14.60 82.19 15.55 56. 116 or 0.56 83.17 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics.57 4.55 85. The General Optimization Procedure and the Modified Optimization Procedure are presented as follow: .80 7 3490 5.61 325.76 2 612 4.51 23.00 15. The optimization work indicates that the real drilling operation performed in this well was efficient. and WOB and RPM optimization Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Hydraulics Optimization Optimization of WOB Bit Run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Real and RPM 1 213 2.79 TOTAL (h) 343.72 81.33 14.76 73.93 24.44 13.51 10. Under these circumstances.51 11.15 70.07 67.755 days in well 13-15-065-09W6.87 346.67 15.70 12. Table 4.35 70.10 23. a drilling procedure called “Modified Optimization Procedure” is proposed for wells 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6. permits to conclude that the implementation of seven bit runs is an effective drilling practice for wells drilled in township T65-R09W6.11 3 1693 7.52 56.54 83.7 Modified Optimization Procedure The drilling optimization described above for wells 08-28-065-09W6.

20 – General and Modified Optimization procedure for the study area In comparison to the initial optimization procedure. in this modified procedure. 4. The lithologic description used in the study was obtained from the Optimizer ® Database for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.8 Drilling optimization of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 4. the merging tests up to 7 seven bit runs will be performed after the hydraulics optimization.18 presents the formation tops and the average pore pressure value for each formation. the optimization of WOB and RPM will be carried out. This average value of pore pressure was obtained from the results presented in Chapter 3. Table 4.19 summarizes the average . 117 Figure 4.8. Finally. optimization time will be reduced.1 Operational Parameters Gathering Table 4. Under this condition.

70 2664 Notikewin 0.65 1436 Colorado 0.80 3093 Cadomin 0.01 2715 Falher B 1.70 1346 Puskwaskau 0.90 2865 Wilrich 0.70 1646 Cardium 0.01 2787 Falher D 1.65 1604 Muskiki 0.70 2637 Harmon 0.95 2689 Falher A 1. Table 4.90 .20 summarizes the bit runs.90 2989 Gething 0.97 3308 Fernie 0.65 3120 Nikanassin 0.00 2814 Falher E 0.01 2744 Falher C 1.85 2485 Base fish scales 0.18 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Top MD (m) Formation Pore Pressure (SG) 0 Surface 0.60 1699 Kaskapau 0.70 2612 Cadotte 0.80 2975 Bluesky 0.65 1674 Cardium Sand 0.80 974 Bear Paw 0.70 1365 Chinook 0.85 2223 Dunvegan 0.70 1572 Badheart 0.65 2587 Paddy 0. 118 real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 02/11-21-065-09W6.70 2363 Shaftesbury 0. Table 4.

34 8 3196 222 Rollercone 547 GX-35DX 3 x 17.15 1486.8.17 3 581 311 Rollercone 117 M4242 3 x 22.45 8 3196 60.63 23.75 1.28 9 3325 222 Rollercone 617 FH40ODV-PS 3 x 17.28 4.90 0.10 0.50 0.59 15.24 7 2958 51.88 6.20 0.29 143.03 9 3325 35. net drilling time and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 under real conditions of operation.69 2 320 8.71 3 581 32.62 2416.40 0.65 119.78 0. M4234YPDH 2 x 17.85 1.47 Table 4.20 – Bit runs in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Size (mm) Type IADC Code Model Nozzle Size (mm) "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 294 311 Rollercone 117 M4242 3 x 22.67 4 613 5.80 16. Figure 4.11 31.96 5 1975 222 Rollercone 517 ER7214 3 x 14.28 1.36 125.60 2240.47 1431.18 22.41 2437.10 5 1975 60.91 1327.50 0.19 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Parameter Bit Run Depth Out (m) Net Drilling Time (h) WOB (KDaN) RPM Bit (rpm) TPO (l/min) MW (SG) PV (cp) 1 294 20.73 21.94 22.77 1.57 6 2674 222 PDC .55 114.50 222. 119 Table 4.08 1408.13 153.96 11.19 13.21 presents the ARSL in the ARS Model window for well 02/11-21-065-09W6.50 0.30 0.31 5.67 1.29 2 320 311 Rollercone 117 XR+C 3 x 15.04 1. 3 x 7.92 11.22 presents a crossplot of depth vs.09 16.68 126. these are utilized to calculate the ARSL.04 16.15 47.18 2546.93 24.50. .90 1.05 1329. Figure 4.37 43.2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation Once the operational parameters are obtained.20 0.40 1.36 4 613 311 Rollercone 117 XR+C 3 x 15.50 22.81 222.19 13.35 6 2674 52.45 7 2958 222 Rollercone 537 GX-30DX 3 x 17.

120 Figure 4. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 .22 – Depth vs.21 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Figure 4.

36 1. In bit run 6.29 1.00 9 3325 0.92 6 2674 0.10 2 320 1. Based on the simulation this can be done by selecting a nozzle size of 12. two nozzle sizes were settled to 12.7mm each.45 1.96 2.0 hp/in2 in the last two bit runs.3 Hydraulics Optimization The actual values of HSI reported for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 for the last two bit runs are in the order of 0. Table 4. The hydraulics optimization is carried out in order to obtain a value of HSI of at least 1.8. 2 and 3 is 15. 5 and 7.37 4 613 0.28 1. 121 4.7 mm.32 days) for well 02/11-21-065-09W6. The nozzle for bits 1.59 hours (1.36 5 1975 0. The idea is to improve the hole cleaning process to avoid cuttings regrinding and to reduce excessive bit wear.17 3 581 0.17 7 2958 0. The optimized drilling times and a comparison with real times are shown in Figure 4.28 hp/in2.21 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Bit Run Depth Out (m) Real "HSI" (hp/in2) Optimized "HSI" (hp/in2) 1 294 0.57 0.21 presents a comparison of real and optimized HSI values obtained after the nozzle sizes modifications. Table 4.23.17 1. which is implemented in bit runs 4.00 .9 mm. Optimization reduces the net drilling and tripping time in 31.28 1.34 1.24 8 3196 0.

8. 4 (XR+C). . After the merging tests. In the first one bit run 2 was merged into bit run 1 using bit No. In these merging tests the wear out of the new merged sections was taken into account in order not to exceed 6.24 and are compared with real drilling and with times obtained after the hydraulics optimization. the net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 is reduced by 43. the total bit runs in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 were reduced from 9 to 7 and new drilling times are obtained. 122 Figure 4.0. 1 (M4242).23 – Depth vs. After these merging tests. These new times are presented in Figure 4.92 hours (1. In the second one bit run 4 was merged into bit run 3 using bit No. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 following after hydraulics optimization 4.83 days).4 Merging Test Two merging tests were performed in the well 02/11-21-065-09W6.

are allowed in the simulation. respectively. new net drilling times were obtained.05 days).5 Optimization of WOB and RPM Different values of WOB and RPM were specified for each bit run. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization and merging tests.8. Inclusion of WOB and RPM optimization reduces the net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 in 73. After the optimum combination of these operational parameters are selected.24 – Depth vs.25. . 123 Figure 4. As well maximum values of wear of 6 and 5 for rollercone and PDC bits.75 hours (3. 4. A comparison with real and previous optimization times is presented in Figure 4.

and WOB and RPM optimization 4.23. Table 4. merging tests. .8.25 are presented in tables 4. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after hydraulics optimization. Table 4.6 Optimization Summary Data plotted in Figure 4. and WOB and RPM optimizations are performed.22 includes net drilling and tripping time for each bit run in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics optimization.22 and 4.23 presents the net drilling and tripping time for the seven bit runs after the merging tests. 124 Figure 4.25 – Depth vs.

it is possible to conclude that the net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 in 73.97 7 3325 5.45 35.36 3 581 3.01 35.92 TOTAL (h) 346.79 67. 125 Table 4.55 11.67 317.23 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 after the merging tests.45 35.96 23.77 66.76 3 1975 8.48 72.20 8 3196 12.83 26.04 59.42 29.73 4 2674 10.85 61.83 59. and the WOB and RPM optimization Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Optimization of WOB Bit run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Merging Tests and RPM 1 320 3.01 9.21 5 2958 11.49 73.07 5 1975 8.77 9.36 19.74 35.05 11.04 6 2674 10.16 TOTAL (h) 390.59 359.22 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 for the real case and after the hydraulics optimization Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h) Hydraulics Optimization Bit Run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Real 1 294 2.91 37.96 Table 4.20 54.31 4 613 4.70 61.79 9 3325 5.48 69.19 7 2958 11.22 From this analysis.29 56.49 72.05 20.34 TOTAL (Days) 14.97 18.37 6 3196 12.00 TOTAL (Days) 16.16 32.25 hours or 3.05 days.88 2 320 3.48 62. This is significant since the operation to drill well 02/11-21-065-09W6 took a total of 24 days.98 62.77 59.44 13.27 14. .70 61.38 2 613 4.

2 Apparent Rock Strength Log (ARSL) Calculation Once the operational parameters are obtained. These average values of pore pressure were obtained from the results presented in Chapter 3.26 summarizes the bit runs. .27 shows the value of depth vs.24 shows the formation tops and the average pore pressure value for each formation.9. The lithologic description used in the study was obtained from the Optimizer® Database for the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. 4. net drilling time and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 under real operational conditions.9 Drilling optimization of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 4. Table 4. 126 4.25 summarizes the average real drilling parameters for each bit run used in well 02/06-05- 065-09W6.1 Operational Parameters Gathering Table 4. Figure 4. they are utilized to calculate the ARSL. Table 4.26 presents the ARSL in the ARS Model window for well 02/06-05-065-09W6.9. Figure 4.

70 914 Bear Paw 0.75 3252 Bluesky 0.75 2458 Dunvegan 0.98 2996 Falher B 0.60 2895 Cadotte 0.70 1129 Belly River 0.80 2948 Notikewin 0.60 1853 Cardium Sand 0.60 1540 Chinook 0.75 3260 Gething 0.65 2856 Paddy 0.85 3056 Falher D 0.60 1826 Cardium 0.70 2765 Base fish scales 0.65 2652 Shaftesbury 0.00 3600 Fernie 0.70 1741 Badheart 0.90 3408 Nikanassin 1.90 .99 3090 Falher E 0.50 1780 Muskiki 0. 127 Table 4.90 2982 Falher A 0.24 – Formation tops and average pore pressure value for each formation penetrated by well 02/06-05-065-09W6 Top MD (m) Formation Pore Pressure (SG) 0 Surface 0.60 1876 Kaskapau 0.75 2920 Harmon 0.67 1586 Colorado 0.97 3020 Falher C 0.90 3135 Wilrich 0.88 3369 Cadomin 0.60 1503 Puskwaskau 0.

128

Table 4.25 – Average real drilling parameters for each bit run in well
02/06-05-065-09W6
Parameter
Bit Run Depth Out (m) Net Drilling Time (h) WOB (KDaN) RPM Bit (rpm) TPO (l/min) MW (SG) PV (cp)
1 88 4.22 6.79 118.52 1616.22 0.95 16.50
2 221 7.85 13.91 102.27 2168.16 0.97 16.54
3 604 15.14 6.63 93.83 2859.92 1.13 27.31
4 1941 55.81 17.55 154.89 1572.71 0.92 13.26
5 2917 51.02 17.65 166.28 1457.37 0.97 13.44
6 3220 35.36 18.73 121.46 1536.68 0.99 13.48
7 3393 35.52 17.95 98.41 1283.38 1.06 14.29
8 3587 46.22 18.15 90.40 1185.19 1.09 14.51
9 3601 3.29 18.62 91.70 1164.18 1.10 15.17

Table 4.26 – Bit runs in well 02/06-05-065-09W6
Parameter
Bit Run Depth Out (m) Size (mm) Type IADC Code Model Nozzle Size (mm) "HSI" (hp/in2)
1 88 311 Rollercone 517 HP11 3 x 18 0.20
2 221 311 Rollercone 517 FGSSHT 3 x 22 0.21
3 604 311 PDC - ER924 4 x 16 1.09
4 1941 222 Rollercone 517 ER7214 3 x 12.70 1.34
5 2917 222 Rollercone 517 ER7214 3 x 14.30 0.67
6 3220 222 Rollercone 547 EBXS34DSR 3 x 14.30 0.80
7 3393 222 Rollercone 547 FH35 3 x 15.80 0.34
8 3587 222 Rollercone 617 FH35 3 x 14.29 0.41
9 3601 222 Rollercone 617 FH35 3 x 14.29 0.39

Figure 4.26 – ARSL in ARS Model window for well 02/06-05-065-09W6

129

Figure 4.27 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/06-05-065-09W6

4.9.3 Hydraulics Optimization

The values of HSI reported in the drilling operation of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 for the

last two bit runs are equal to 0.41 and 0.39 hp/in2, respectively. The hydraulics

optimization is carried out in order to obtain a value of HSI of at least 0.62 hp/in2 in the

last to bit runs in order to improve the hole cleaning process, and to avoid regrinding of

cuttings and excessive bit wear. These values of HSI are relatively low in comparison to

those obtained in the other study wells since the total actual pump output was smaller

than in the other wells. This can be carried out by selecting a nozzle size of 12.7 mm. In

addition, this nozzle size (12.7 mm) will be implemented in bits 4, 5, 6 and 7. The nozzle

size for bits 1, 2 and 3 was set at 15.9 mm.

Table 4.27 presents a comparison of the real HSI and optimized values obtained after the

nozzle sizes modifications. Drilling times with the modified nozzles are presented in

130

Figure 4.28 as well as a comparison with real drilling times. There is a slight

improvement with respect to the actual job. Following the hydraulics optimization, the

net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 is reduced in 11.28 hours

(0.47 days).

Table 4.27 – Comparison of real and optimized values of HSI for well
02/06-05-069W6
Bit Run Depth Out (m) Real "HSI" (hp/in2) Optimized "HSI" (hp/in2)
1 88 0.20 0.30
2 221 0.21 0.74
3 604 1.09 1.10
4 1941 1.34 1.28
5 2917 0.67 1.07
6 3220 0.80 1.29
7 3393 0.34 0.81
8 3587 0.41 0.65
9 3601 0.39 0.62

Figure 4.28 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6
after hydraulics optimization

131

4.9.4 Merging Test

Two merging tests were performed in well 02/06-05-065-09W6: Bit run 2 was merged

into bit run 1 keeping bit No. 2 (FGSSHT), and bit run 9 was merged into bit run 8

keeping the bit No. 8 (FH45). In these merging tests the wear out of the new merged

sections was taken into account in order to not exceed 6.0. After the merging tests, the

total bit runs in well 02/06-05-065-09W6 are reduced from 9 to 7 and new drilling times

are obtained. The new times are presented in Figure 4.29 and are compared with real

drilling times, and those obtained after the hydraulics optimization. After the merging

tests, the net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 is reduced in 26.04

hours (1.085 days).

Figure 4.29 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6
after hydraulics optimization and merging tests.

132

4.9.5 Optimization of WOB and RPM

Different values of WOB and RPM were specified for each bit run and maximum values

of wear out of 6 and 4 for rollercone and PDC bits, respectively, were allowed for the

optimization work. After the optimum combination of these operational parameters were

selected, new net drilling times were obtained. These new times are presented in Figure

4.30 and are compared with the real and previous optimization times. Following the

WOB and RPM optimization, the net drilling time and tripping time for well 02/06-05-

065-09W6 is reduced in 47.56 hours (1.98 days).

Figure 4.30 – Depth vs. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6
after hydraulics optimization, merging tests, and WOB and RPM optimization.

4.9.6 Optimization Summary

Tables 4.28 and 4.29 show the data plotted in Figure 4.30. Table 4.28 presents the net

drilling and tripping time for each bit run during actual drilling of well 02/06-05-065-

133

09W6, and after the hydraulics optimization. Table 4.29 includes the net drilling and

tripping time for seven bit runs after the merging tests, and the WOB and RPM

optimizations are performed.

Table 4.28 – Net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 for the real
case and after the hydraulics optimization
Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h)
Hydraulics Optimization
Bit Run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Real
1 88 2.29 6.51 6.47
2 221 2.73 10.58 8.93
3 604 3.98 19.12 18.28
4 1941 8.37 64.18 65.41
5 2917 11.57 62.59 56.09
6 3220 12.56 47.92 45.67
7 3393 13.13 48.65 48.02
8 3587 13.77 59.99 59.39
9 3601 5.90 3.29 3.29
TOTAL (h) 322.83 311.55
TOTAL (Days) 13.45 12.98

Table 4.29 – Net drilling and tripping time of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 after the
merging tests, and the WOB and RPM optimization
Net Drilling and Tripping Time (h)
Optimization of WOB
Bit run Depth Out (m) Tripping Time (h) Merging Tests
and RPM
1 221 2.73 13.12 10.01
2 604 3.98 18.28 12.52
3 1941 8.37 65.77 63.15
4 2917 11.57 56.09 55.69
5 3220 12.56 45.67 44.39
6 3393 13.13 48.02 43.89
7 3601 5.90 49.84 45.62
TOTAL (h) 296.79 275.27
TOTAL (Days) 12.37 11.47

The analysis permits to conclude that the net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in

well 02/06-05-065-09W6 by about 47.46 hours or 1.98 days. The total drilling operation

of well 02/06-05-065-09W6 took 24 days to complete.

134

4.10 General Optimization Summary

Table 4.30 presents the general optimization summary for the five study wells.

Table 4.30 – Drilling optimization summary for the five study wells

Well Real Total Drilling Time (days) Saved Drilling time (days) Reduction Time (%)

08-28-065-09W6 35.5 4.2 11.83
10-33-065-09W6 24 2.98 12.42
13-15-065-09W6 24 0.76 3.15
02/11-21-065-09W6 24 3.05 12.7
02/06-05-065-09W6 24 1.98 8.25

135

Chapter Five: Cuttings-Quality Considerations during Drilling Optimization

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter special attention is focused on the tight gas Nikanassin Group in the

WCSB for selecting the most suitable parameters that allow increase the quality of drill

cuttings. This is of paramount importance for improving the accuracy in the quantitative

determination of permeability and porosity from cuttings particularly in the study area

considered in this thesis (T65-R09W6), as the availability of cores is rather limited. In the

recent past Total has introduced a bit that allows improvement in cuttings quality

(Desmette et al., 2008). In this chapter, however, we concentrate on improving quality

cutting with bits that are generally used in the deep basin, particularly in the Nikanassin

Group.

The cuttings size discrimination is based on a classification presented by Solano (2010).

The assumption made in this thesis is that “good quality cuttings” corresponds to samples

with an average diameter of 2 mm or more. This range was selected since it guarantees

accurate measurements of permeability from drill cuttings. Next, average drilling

operational parameters in the Nikanassin Group are related to the cutting size in order to

find the parameters that control cuttings quality. A further goal is to generate

relationships that will be of help to produce quality cuttings in future Nikanassin drilling

operations.

1. The horizontal axis increasing from left to right (the upper scale) shows the cutting size classification in grams. The horizontal axis increasing from right to left (lower scale) corresponds to the estimated amount of usable reservoir cuttings in grams.2 Cuttings Size in the Nikanassin Group The cuttings size classification of well 08-28-065-09W6 is presented in Figure 5. This parameter defined by Solano (2010) takes into account the weight of all those cuttings with a size of at least 1mm. 2010) . The vertical axis corresponds to measured depth (m).1 presents the meaning of each color in the cuttings size classification plots. Table 5.1 – Cuttings size classification (red and gray bars in the left hand side) and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments (blue bars in the right hand side) for well 08-28-065-09W6 (modified from Solano. 136 5. Figure 5.

5 present.2 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 10-33-065-09W6 (modified from Solano. using the same format. Figure 5. Figure 5. Likewise. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 . 137 Table 5.1 – Color meaning in cutting size classification plots Figure 5. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6. 13-15-065-09W6. the cuttings size classification for wells 10-33-065-09W6. Figure 5.1 shows that the largest cuttings obtained in well 08-28-065-09W6 had sizes ranging between 1 and 2 mm. respectively. 2010).4 and Figure 5.2. Figure 5.3.

4 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 (modified from Solano. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 Figure 5. 138 Figure 5.3 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 13-15-065-09W6 (modified from Solano. 2010). 2010). The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 .

The other two wells were drilled in offset townships T66-R10W6 and T66-R09W6 respectively. 2010). 139 Figure 5. and 12-31-066-09W6. Well 05-32-065-09W6 is in township T65-R09W6. The . Under these circumstances.6 presents a map with the five study wells (red points) and the additional offset wells included in this study (yellow diamonds): 05-32-065-09W6. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 The previous plots show that cuttings larger than 2 mm were obtained only in well 13-15- 065-9W6 (Figure 5.3) in the study area (T65-R09W6). it was decided to include three offset wells where good quality cuttings were reported to make possible a deeper review in order to draw stronger conclusions. Figure 5. 09-11-066-10W6.5 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 (modified from Solano.

7. respectively.6 Location of the five wells (red points) in the study area (T65-R09W6) and three additional offset wells (yellow diamonds) (modified from AccuMap) The cuttings size classification and estimated amount of reservoir cuttings obtained from wells 05-32-065-09W6. 5. 140 geologic characteristics and well design of the additional offsets are similar to those conditions on the five study wells.9. 09-11-066-10W6 and 12-31-066-09W6 are presented in Figures 5.8 and 5. . Figure 5.

2010). The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 . 141 Figure 5. 2010).8 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 09-11-066-10W6 (modified from Solano.7 .Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 05-32-065-09W6 (modified from Solano. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 Figure 5.

rate of penetration over rotational speed on bit (ROP/RPM). rate of penetration (ROP). IADC code. .2 presents a summary of the average operational parameters in the Nikanassin interval where the cuttings size classification was done for wells 08-28-065-09W6. pump pressure. mud type. percentage (in weight) of cuttings less than 1mm. The color code used in this graph is presented in Table 1 5. mud weight (MW).3 Cuttings Size and Drilling Operational Parameters Considerations Characteristics of Nikanassin drill cuttings including total cuttings weight. 2010).9 – Cuttings size classification and estimated amount of usable reservoir fragments for well 12-31-066-9W6 (modified from Solano. 142 Figure 5. flow rate (or total pump out). between 2 and 3 mm and larger than 3 mm were investigated vis-a-vis with the following drilling operational parameters: Rotational speed on bit (RPM Bit). total flow area on bit (TFA). nozzle size. These parameters were provided by ConocoPhillips Canada. horse power on bit per square inch (HSI). Table 5. between 1 and 2mm. weight on bit (WOB).

81 Flow Rate (l/min) 1330.25 1230.21 1.9189 895.7 2x9.96 1mm<Cuttings<2mm (%) 50.7 57.5 3x14.18775 3.3 presents a summary of the average operational parameters in the Nikanassin interval where the cuttings size classification was done of wells 05-32-065-09W6.63 42.19 22.41 31.57 60.27 7.000367725 IADC 737 617 627 537 547 627 617 MW (kg/m3) 1117 1120 1100 1050 1050 1175 1175 Mud Type WBM WBM WBM Invert Invert KCl-WBM KCl-WBM Nozzle Size (mm) 2x7.63 285.05 13.845 Table 5.25 760.74 38. 1x6.3967 0.7 TFA (cm2) 1.4 Total Cuttings Weight (g) 265.59 116 91 WOB (kDaN) 23.5.4562 3.57 30 11.61 Cuttings<1mm (%) 49.43 22.8 1.87 1464 1507 1328 1174.000539511 0.1. 12-31-066-09W6 Parameter 05-32-065-09W6 09-11-066-10W6 12-31-066-09W6 Interval (m) 3277.8 7. 13-15-065-09W6.14 2. 13-15-065-09W6.68 Pump Pressure (kPa) 11700 8000 10000 11600 10000 "HSI" (hhp/in2) 0.012 2.29 TFA (cm2) 5.1024 760.7 3x17.16 138.033 0.96 294.99 91.05 42.000792593 0.85 42.774 0.7 3x12.315 8.42 3.2 Cuttings>3mm (%) 12.49 Cuttings<1mm (%) 40. 1x8.9189 895.39 ROP/RPM (m/rev) 0.76 98.73 6.45 377. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 Parameter 08-28-065-09W6 10-33-065-09W6 13-15-065-09W6 02/11-21-065-09W6 02/06-05-065-09W6 Interval (m) 3090-3235 3025-3224 3345-3475 3185-3315 3465-3615 RPM Bit (rpm) 126.6 18. 1x8.385 ROP (m/h) 2. 09-11-066- 10W6.73058 0.5 0 0.14 49.27 1mm<Cuttings<2mm (%) 34.73058 Total Cuttings Weight (g) 197.34 3.28 0.34 0.4964 13. more than one bit .000778388 IADC 617 617 547 617 617 MW (kg/m3) 1050 1020 1090 1000 1000 Mud Type Invert Invert Invert Invert Invert Nozzle Size (mm) 3x15.63 23.4 3x7.95 57.5611 46.774 0.13 34.8 3.98 142.2014 0.000372128 0.9 3x20 3x12.18775 1.012 Flow Rate (l/min) 895. and 12-31-066-09W6. 143 10-33-065-09W6.54 0.69 2mm<Cuttings<3mm (%) 12.7337 7.86 65.9 3.000948333 0.8 2.52 41.000955 0.13 251.96 2.41 0.05 70 149.2 – Average operational parameters for wells 08-28-065-09W6.113528 1.755 4.5.3 – Average operational parameters of wells 05-32-065-09W6.96 9.9189 1230.000739583 0.000690476 0.010606 23.31 236.04 2mm<Cuttings<3mm (%) 0 0.76 25. Table 5.13 5. 10-33-065- 09W6.000855556 0. 09-11- 066-10W6. In these three additional offset wells.31 2.1024 Pump Pressure (kPa) 13000 13000 14200 9000 9800 11500 11500 "HSI" (hhp/in2) 3.5 RPM Bit (rpm) 45 45 48 100 100 63 63 WOB (kDaN) 22 22 22 22 22 18 18 ROP (m/h) 2.73 1.5-3320 3320-3357 3357-3405 3170-3207 3207-3310 2995-3052 3052-3132.7 2x9.9243 3.94 37 32.7 49.1 3x12. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 02/06-05-065-09W6 in the original study area.22 4.25 ROP/RPM (m/rev) 0.000391379 0.1 3x7.00047619 0.46 28.15 0 0 Cuttings>3mm (%) 0 0 6 0 0 Table 5.22 46.69 5.57 208.

As a result different sets of operational parameters are considered for each bit.10 presents an empirical plot of average cutting percentage (in weight) versus average TFA (cm2) for the eight study wells. Figure 5. It is important to remark that the values of flow rate were calculated from the data of number of cycles per unit of time (strokes/min) reported in the tour sheets assuming triplex pumps with stroke length of 9 inches. HSI.88 cm2. Out of the drilling parameters considered for each well. some of them are considered to be “key parameters” and strongly related with the cuttings size. The operational parameters for these three wells were obtained from the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). ROP/RPM. Figure 5. The graph allows inferring that the only way to obtain cuttings larger than 2 mm in the study area is while keeping a TFA less or equal to 3. average TFA for the eight study wells . They are: TFA. 144 was used to drill the Nikanassin Group.10 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs. and Bit Type.

A possible explanation for the empirical tendencies observed in the graph corresponds to the fact that while the TFA is decreasing. The percentage of cuttings with sizes less than 2 mm decreases while decreasing the TFA.73 hp/in2. On the other hand.12 presents a plot of average cutting percentage (by weight) versus average HSI (hp/in2) for the eight study wells.11 presents two ellipses that highlight the predictable trends displayed on Figure 5. average TFA for the eight study wells focusing on tendencies Figure 5. 145 Figure 5. From Figure 5. . the percentage of cuttings larger than 2 mm increases while decreasing the TFA.11 – Empirical graph of average cutting percentage (by weight) vs. Figure 5.12 it is possible to infer that the only way to obtain cuttings larger than 2 mm in the study area is while keeping an HSI of at least 0.10. a higher HSI is obtaining allowing a better hole cleaning that impedes the cutting regrinding and then the amount of smaller cuttings decreases while the amount of the larger cuttings increases.

12 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs.12.13 presents two empirical ellipses that highlight the predictable trends on Figure 5. 146 Figure 5. a possible reason for the tendencies observed in this graph corresponds to the fact that while the HSI is increasing a better hole cleaning takes place impeding the cutting regrinding and then the amount of smaller cuttings decreases while the amount of the larger cuttings increases. On the other hand. . Similarly to the reasoning done on Figure 5. average HSI for the eight study wells Figure 5. Note that the percentage of cuttings with sizes smaller than 2 mm decreases while increasing the HSI.11. the percentage of cuttings larger than 2 mm increases while increasing HSI.

14 presents a plot of average cutting percentage (by weight) versus average ROP/RPM (on bit) for the eight study wells. however. It is believed that larger values of ROP/RPM (on bit) could yield to a larger cutting size. . in Nikanassin Group of our area of study this criterion is not conclusive as we cannot see a well defined trend from the actual data points. average HSI for the eight study wells focusing on tendencies Figure 5.13 . 147 Figure 5.Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs.

148 Figure 5. 05- 32-065-09W6.14 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs. . Again in Figure 5.14 to focus on the ROP/RPM values (on bit) for wells where cuttings size larger than 2 mm were obtained: 13-15-065-09W6. average ROP/RPM for the eight study wells Figure 5. 09-11-066-10-W6.15 the ROP/RPM criterion does not seem to provide a trend from which to draw definitive conclusions. and 12-31-066-09W6.15 presents a zoom done on Figure 5.

05-32-065- 09W6. the bit IADC code 547 generated the highest percentage of cuttings larger than 2 mm in comparison with bits IADC code 537. this value corresponds to a significantly high value of HSI for the operational conditions in the study area. 09-11-066-10-W6. the bit with IADC code 737 generated cuttings larger than 2 mm under a HSI of 3.2 and 5.73hp/in2. Examination of the intervals where bits with IADC codes 617 and 627 were implemented indicates that the only way to obtain cuttings larger than 2mm is when the HSI has a value of at least 0. 617. average ROP/RPM for wells with cuttings larger than 2mm Bit type is also considered in this investigation. .15 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) vs. Examination of Tables 5.3 shows that in the four wells with cutting size larger than 2 mm (13-15-065-09W6. and 627. On the other hand. 149 Figure 5. and 12-31-066-09W6).92hp/in2 .

between 1 and 2 mm and larger than 2 mm obtained by using a bit IADC 547. the percentage of cuttings larger than 2 mm exceeds 29% (by weight).16 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 537 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 09-11-066-10W6 . Figure 5. under a same value of HSI of 0. Careful examination of these two figures allows to conclude that bit IADC 547 generates a significantly larger amount of cuttings lager than 2 mm in comparison to bit IADC 537. As in the case of well 09-11-066-10W6 drilled with IADC 547.774 hp/in2.16 and 5.16 shows the average cutting distribution in percentage for cuttings with sizes less than 1mm.17 shows the average cutting distribution in percentage for cuttings with sizes less than 1mm. between 1 and 2 mm and larger than 2 mm.17 have been generated based on analysis of the bit types used in well 09-11-066-10W6.18 presents a similar graph for well 13-15-065-09W6 in which a bit IADC 547 was used for drilling the Nikanassin. Figure 5. Figure 5. obtained while using a bit IADC 537. Figure 5. 150 Figures 5.

4 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization From the previous analysis it is concluded that the best operational condition for keeping good quality cuttings in the study area is to maintain an HSI of at least 0. Under these circumstances.73hp/in2 in the Nikanassin Group in addition to the use of a bit IADC code 547.17 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 09-11-066-10W6 Figure 5. 151 Figure 5.18 – Average cutting percentage (by weight) using bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in well 13-15-065-09W6 5. we analyze next the impact of activating these two conditions on the optimized drilling times determined on Chapter 4. .

0 hp/in2 was obtained. In the hydraulics optimization carried out in Chapter 4. an average HSI in the Nikanassin Group of 1. an HSI of 0. This fact implies that an effective hydraulic condition was kept as the drilling optimization was carried out.09 and 47.88 hours for the last two bit runs are obtained with an average ROP for the entire well of 10. it was decided next to drill with a bit IADC 617 the interval 3012-3200 m and with an IADC 547 the interval 3200-3257 m. changing the interval of the bit run 6 from 3012-3200 m to 3012-3190 m in order to drill a larger final section of the reservoir with the bit IADC 547.81 hours were obtained. Under these simulated conditions net drilling and tripping times of 63.176 days) hours with respect to the final optimization model obtained in Chapter 4. This condition is not considered favourable since the total net drilling and tripping drilling time increases in 28. This was the result of reaching a wear out value of 8.4. Next.6 m/h. This implies a total net drilling and tripping drilling time 3. Although drilling time is theoretically a bit larger we recommend using this bit program as the quality of cuttings will help on the geologic understanding of the reservoir and the quantitative characterization of permeability and porosity. net drilling and tripping times of 65.1 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 08-28-065- 09W6 In the real drilling operation. 152 5. it was decided to use a bit IADC 617 in the bit run 6 and a bit run IADC 547 in the bit run 7. Therefore.98 and 19.24 (1.24 hours larger than the final optimization model obtained in Chapter 4. .41hp/in2 in the Nikanassin Group was reported. In this case. a significantly high drilling time of 925 hours is reported during bit run 6. If a bit IADC 547 is tested for the last two bit runs.

It was concluded that for this well 8 bit runs . a bit IADC 547 was tested in the last bit run with poor results as the simulated drilling time increased significantly. The line with the IADC 547 bit practically falls on top of the optimized curve determined in Chapter 4.19 presents a crossplot of depth vs. net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065-09W6 including bit IADC 547 for drilling the Nikanassin Group and improving the drill cuttings quality.19 – Depth vs.31 hp/in2 were obtained. HSI values of 0.21 hp/in2 were reported for the last two bit runs. Figure 5. net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28- 065-09W6.28 and 0.74 and 1. average HSI values of 1. In order to improve the cuttings quality in this well.4. Different tests were performed modifying the length of bit runs.2 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization for well 10-33-065- 09W6 In the real drilling operation of this well. 5. which includes bit IADC 547 in the last bit run. Following the hydraulics optimization carried out in Chapter 4. 153 Figure 5.

However. This assumes that a bit IADC 547 drills the Nikanassin Group. Figure 5. net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 547 for drilling the Nikanassin Group .20 – Depth vs. Figure 5.20 presents the depth vs. For this simulation a bit IADC 617 was implemented as the 7 bit run from 2978 to 3100 m. 154 should be implemented in order to use effectively a bit IADC 547 as the last bit run. net drilling and tripping time for well 10-33-065- 09W6. respectively with an average ROP for the entire well of 13. The additional drilling time in this case might preclude obtaining good quality cuttings. In this case.58 m/h. This implies a total net drilling and tripping time 18. the availability of good geological information through drill cuttings might outweigh the additional time required to go through the formation of interest. the net drilling and tripping time for the last two bit runs were determined to be 31.81 and 49.03 hours. and a bit IADC 547 was utilized as the last bit run from 3100-3224 m.31 hours larger than the final optimization model obtained in Chapter 4.

the good quality of cuttings is not guaranteed. If a bit IADC 617 is used as the last bit run. under this condition. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 617 for drilling the Nikanassin Group . Figure 5.86 hours with an average ROP for the entire well of 12.21 presents a graph of depth vs. net drilling and tripping time for well 13-15- 065-09W6 that includes bit IADC 617 for drilling the reservoir. Since a bit IADC 547 was actually used in this well to drill the Nikanassin Group. However. Figure 5. the total net drilling and tripping time can be reduced in 7.51 m/h. This fact implies that an effective hydraulic condition was kept during actual drilling of this well.34hp/in 2 was reported for the Nikanassin Group.21 – Depth vs. 155 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 13-15-065-09W6 In the real drilling operation of this well an HSI value of 1. no additional quality cuttings considerations have to be taken into account.

22 – Depth vs. Figure 5. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/11- 21-065-09W6 that includes a bit IADC 547 for the last bit run. From a practical point of view this additional drilling time is negligible.4. 156 5.0 hp/in2. After testing a bit IADC 547 in the last bit run of the well. it was found that it works effectively by introducing a small modification in the last bit run interval changing it from 3196-3325 m to 3240-3325 m.22 presents a crossplot of depth vs.28 hp/in2 in the Nikanassin Group. The result is a total net drilling and tripping time 4.53 hours larger than the final optimization model obtained in Chapter 4 with an average ROP for the entire well of 12. Figure 5.26 m/h. net drilling and tripping time of well 02/11-21-065-09W6 using a bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in the last bit run . The hydraulics optimization carried out in Chapter 4 improved the average HSI in the Nikanassin to 1.3 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 02/11-21-065- 09W6 The actual drilling operation was conducted using an HSI value of 0.

4. After testing a bit IADC 547 in the last bit run of this well.49 hours larger than the final optimization model obtained in Chapter 4 with an average ROP of 15.39hp/in2 in the last two bit runs that drilled the Nikanassin Group were reported in the real operations of this well.23 shows a graph of depth vs. 157 5.41 and 0.62hp/in2 in the last two bit runs.65 and 0. they are relatively close and a larger flow rate would generate values of HSI in excess of 0.73hp/in2. . From a practical point of view the additional drilling time is negligible and the modified time is warranted as it will lead to good quality cuttings. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05- 065-09W6 that includes a bit IADC 547 in the last bit run.73hp/in 2. Despite the fact these two values are not larger than 0. The hydraulics optimization performed in Chapter 4 led to average HSI values of 0.99 m/h. Figure 5. it was found that it works effectively by modifying the last bit run interval from 3393-3601 m to 3460-3601 m. This results in a total net drilling and tripping time 2.4 Cuttings Quality Considerations on Drilling Optimization of well 02/06-05-065- 09W6 HSI values of 0. The improved cuttings quality (IADC 547) line falls on top of the optimized program discussed in Chapter 4.

5 4.4 presents the optimization summary for the five study wells considering the quality of drill cuttings. net drilling and tripping time for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 including a bit IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group in the last bit run 5.23 – Depth vs.76 3.22 9.15 02/11-21-065-09W6 24 2.87 7.06 11. 158 Figure 5.44 10-33-065-09W6 24 2.5 Optimization Summary Table 5.79 . Table 5.86 11.92 02/0605-065-09W6 24 1.25 13-15-065-09W6 24 0.4 – Drilling optimization summary for the five study wells considering the quality of the drill cuttings Saved Drilling time considering Well Real Total Drilling Time (days) Reduction Time (%) Cuttings quality (days) 08-28-065-09W6 35.

Two different cost-amounts are considered in this study: (1) those reported using a 2006 cost basis (year in which the wells were drilled). 159 Chapter Six: Economical Impact of Drilling Optimization in the Deep Basin of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin 6. and (2) practical on-going industry estimates for the year 2011 using an average rate for the Deep Basin. The cost savings are calculated by taking the difference between the real and the optimized net drilling and tripping time. . Two scenarios were considered: one that represents the maximum reduction in net drilling and tripping time (results presented in Chapter 4). The expenditures for each well were obtained from the real authority for expenditures (AFE). and a second one that represents the reductions in net drilling and tripping time that can be obtained while simultaneously improving the quality of drill cuttings from the Nikanassin Group (results presented in Chapter 5). Drilling costs taken into account in this chapter are associated only with net drilling and tripping time.1 Introduction The drilling optimization in five Deep Basin wells of the WCSB was evaluated from an economic point of view by comparing the optimized and real net drilling and tripping times spent in the operation. From the AFE the amount of dollars spent per hour of operation can be estimated.

Table 6.2. 160 6.2 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 08-28-065-09W6 We extracted costs associated with net drilling and tripping time for well 08-28-065- 09W6 from AFE DC051432 (year 2006) provided by ConocoPhillips Canada. . AFE DC051432 also indicates that the costs for drilling bits were as shown on Table 6.29 $/h for the year 2006.1 leads to a spread rate for the well 08- 28-065-09W6 of: 1457.1 – Drilling costs for well 08-28-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051432 The summation of all the costs posted in Table 6.1. These costs are summarized in Table 6.

328.79 hours.2 – Drill bit costs for well 08-28-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051432 The optimization developed in Chapter 4 shows a total reduction on net drilling and tripping time for this well equal to 100. is 2500 $/h.975. 161 Table 6.88.971. In addition.43.00. The resulting recommendation is to optimize drilling operations while at the same time improving the quality of drill cuttings. Under these circumstances. The reduction in drilling and tripping time for this case was equal to 97. The most recent spread rate during 2011.00 if the design includes provisions for obtaining good quality cuttings.18% and 8. This means that for the case of well 08-28-065-09W6 the total saved amount could reach $339.00 without improving the quality of drill cuttings. the total capital saved for the year 2006 is equal to $213. .158. The optimization including improvements in drill cuttings quality was presented in Chapter 5. which is considered practical and representative for the Deep Basin.000 and $20. based on private conversations with operating companies. or $331.875.880. This implies savings in the amount of $209. AFE DC051432 reports a total cost for drilling and abandonment of $2. the cost of each surface and main hole bit is $8. Furthermore the optimization resulted in the use of one less surface hole bit and four less main hole bits.000 respectively.55 hours. The optimization (without and with considering the quality of drill cuttings) leads to a cost reduction of approximately 9.98% respectively.

Table 6.4.3 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 10-33-065-09W6 From the AFE DC060678 referred to the year 2006 provided by ConocoPhillips Canada it is possible to extract costs that depend on the net drilling and tripping time.3. . These costs are summarized in Table 6. 162 6. AFE DC060678 provides the drilling bits costs presented in Table 6. the spread rate for well 10-33-065-09W6 is 1.3 – Drilling costs for well 10-33-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060678 If a summation of all the costs posted in Table 6.3 is performed and this value is converted to an hour-basis.659.375 $/h for the year 2006. On the other hand.

163 Table 6.13.4 – Drill bit costs for well 10-33-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060678 The optimization presented in Chapter 4 for this well. Using the spread rate of 2500 $/h and the costs of bits for the year 20011 in well 10-33- 065-09W6 the total saved amount could be $198.04% after the optimizations not-considering and considering the quality of drill cuttings. These costs are summarized in Table 6. .22% and 4.5. savings in net drilling and tripping time of 53. indicated total savings in net drilling and tripping time of 71.00 (without worrying about the drill cuttings quality) or $153. The AFE DC060678 reports drilling and abandon costs of $2. which takes into account operations to obtain good quality cuttings from the Nikanassin Group.00.100. In Chapter 5. Furthermore 1 less main-hole drilling bit was used in the operation. the cost reduction for the year 2006 is equal to $134. leading to a cost reduction of 5.960.24 hours were reported. This results in a cost reduction equal to $104. Under these circumstances. 6.4 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 13-15-065-09W6 From the 2006 AFE DC061402 provided by ConocoPhillips Canada for well 13-15-065- 09W6 we have extracted the costs associated with net drilling and tripping time.875.728.00 if an optimized drilling program to obtain good quality drill cuttings is implemented.581.345. without taking into account improvements in quality of drill cuttings.28.55 hours.

14 hours. Table 6.40 in 2006 dollars. 164 Table 6. This implies an expenditure reduction of $36.6.6 – Drill bit costs for well 13-15-065-09W6 according to AFE DC061402 Total time savings emanating from drilling optimization presented in Chapter 4 reported 18.5 – Drilling costs for well 13-15-065-09W6 according to AFE DC 051432 Table 6.461. Costs for drilling bits are presented in Table 6.5 leads to a spread rate for the well 13-15-065-09W6 of 2010 $/h for the year 2006. .

09 in 2006 dollars. This results in an expenditure reduction of $115. Based on these data the spread rate is quantified at 1496. 165 If the well is planned to be drilled using a bit IADC 617 in the last bit run.25 hours while at the same time eliminating the need for two surface hole bits.00 if we are not concern with the cuttings quality. Chapter 4.00 can be obtained.893. This implies that the real operation was efficient. . The cost of drilling bits is presented in Table 6.7 summarizes costs for net drilling and tripping time extracted from AFE DC051433 provided by ConocoPhillips Canada for well 02/11-21-065-09W6.00. Using an on-going spread rate and bit costs during 2011 in well 13-15-065-09W6 the total saved amount could reach $45.646.260.875 $/h for the year 2006.26% of the actual cost of the well.000.00 if good quality of cuttings is kept and $65. 6. AFE DC061402 reports a total investment for drilling and abandoning the well of $2.350.5 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 02/11-21-065-09W6 Table 6. reported that optimization of the operation could lead to a total saved net drilling and tripping time of 73. Thus the saving from drilling an optimized well that at the same time produces good quality cuttings in equal to 1. which does not take into account the quality of drill cuttings.8.826. 26 hours will be saved and money saving of $52.

166 Table 6.8 – Drill bit costs for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051433 When improvement in cuttings quality is taken into account the reduction in net drilling and tripping time is equal to 68.28.71 hours as discussed in Chapter 5.850.7 – Drilling costs for well 02/11-21-065-09W6 according to AFE DC051433 Table 6. This is equivalent to savings in the order of $108. AFE DC051433 reports a total cost for drilling and .

26 for the year 2006.00. . A total saved net drilling and tripping time of 47. Using the 2011 ongoing spread rate of 2500 $/h could lead to savings in the order of $199. From these data the spread rate for well 02/06- 05-09W6 is quantified at 1624. which considered good quality cuttings from the tight Nikanassin Group.10.97 is obtained.125. and $187.40% over the total drilling and abandon cost could be obtained.775. These costs are summarized in Table 6.42 $/h for the year 2006.00 without taking into account the quality of drill cuttings.476. This implies a cost reduction in the order of $96.67% and 4. 6.6 Economic Impact of Drilling Optimization in well 02/06-05-065-09W6 The AFE DC060079 developed in 2006 by the company ConocoPhillips Canada for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 presents costs that are impacted by net drilling and tripping time.257.56 hours was reported in Chapter 4 where one surface hole bit and one main hole bit were eliminated as a result of the optimization work (yet without taking into account the quality of drill cuttings). which means that reductions of 4.05 hours was obtained in Chapter 5. In this case the savings amount of $92.131. a total reduction in net drilling and tripping time of 45. 167 abandoning this well is $2.00 if the drilling program is designed with a view to improve the quality of the cuttings. On the other hand. AFE DC060079 also quantifies the costs of drilling bits as shown in Table 6.179.9.

94% with respect to the original cost of the well. 168 Table 6.102. Thus drilling optimization while at the same time getting god quality cuttings results in savings of 2. .9 – Drilling costs for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060079 Table 6.136.10 – Drill bit costs for well 02/06-05-065-09W6 according to AFE DC060079 Total cost for drilling and abandonment of the well was reported in AFE DC060079 at $3.

893.180 2.04 13-15-065-09W6 2.131 108.960 104.12 summarizes the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells located in the Deep Basin of the WCSB considering the quality of the drill cuttings in 2006 dollars.476.625. Table 6. 6.581.136.94 .102 92.971 209.26 02/11-21-065-09W6 2.328.850 4. Table 6.98 10-33-065-09W6 2.159 8.826 36.581.67 02/06-05-065-09W6 3.7 Summary of the Economic Analysis Table 6.646 4.131 115. 169 Using the 2011 ongoing spread rate of 2500 $/h and 2011 costs of bits results in total savings of $146.476.900.40 02/06-05-065-09W6 3.728 5.102 96.971 213.461 1.22 13-15-065-09W6 2.461 1.00 if the extra effort discussed in Chapter 5 is carried out with a view to improve the cutting quality.18 10-33-065-09W6 2.11 – Summary of the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells without considering the quality of drill cuttings in 2006 dollars Total Drilling and Abandon Cost Capital Savings without Well Cost Reduction (%) from AFE ($) Considering Cuttings Quality ($) 08-28-065-09W6 2.960 134.328.136.00 without taking into account quality of the cuttings or $145.880 9.12 – Summary of the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells considering the quality of the drill cuttings in 2066 dollars Total Drilling and Abandon Cost Capital Savings Considering Well Cost Reduction (%) from AFE ($) Cuttings Quality ($) 08-28-065-09W6 2.345 4.257 3.11 summarizes the economic impact of drilling optimization in the five study wells located in the Deep Basin of the WCSB without considering the quality of the drill cuttings in 2006 dollars.07 Table 6.893.26 02/11-21-065-09W6 2.826 36.

02/11-21-065- 09W6 and 06-05-065-09W6. 13-15-065-09W6. A nozzle size of 12. The drilling optimization procedure producing good quality of drill cuttings states that time reductions of 4. respectively. These wells typically are drilled in 24 days.2. An HSI of at least 0. time reductions of 4. 170 Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Recommendations 7.22. respectively.76. Bits with IADC 547 code proved to be the most effective in the Nikanassin Group to obtain drill cuttings of good quality.1 Conclusions The two main objectives of this research were met. 0. 2. . 4. Thus drilling time reduction is significant.98. 2. An effective indirect method to predict pore pressure under abnormally sub-pressured conditions was established for the study area (T65-R09W6) in Deep Basin of the WCSB.86. 2. 10-33-065-09W6..7 mm proved to be adequate in rollercone bits to drill through the Nikanassin Group in order to improve well cleaning and maintain good quality drill cuttings. 13-15-065-09W6.05 and 1.73 hp/in2 should be kept to obtain drill cuttings larger than 2 mm in the Nikanassin Group in the study area. and 1. 2. 3. 10-33-065-09W6. 3. 0.87 days can be obtained in wells 08-028-065-09W6. The most important conclusions are as follow: 1. 02/11-21-065-09W6 and 06-05-065-09W6.76.98 days were obtained in wells 08-028-065-09W6.06. From the drilling optimization procedure performed in Chapter 4. and reduction in net drilling and tripping time while at the same time keeping good quality of cuttings in the Nikanassin Group was obtained.

Using the 2011 ongoing spread rate of about 2500 $/h and average cost of bits. The UCS and the collapse pressure suggest that the interval from the top of Falher A formation to the top of Falher E is the most susceptible for instability problems. .00 for the five study wells considered in this study. 6. the cost savings increase to about $863. 171 5. The Holbrook method did not work consistently in the study area. 10. This indicates that power law compaction curves are not suitable for very low porosity formations. The most effective approach to effectively calculate pore pressure in the Deep Basin of the WCSB. There are three main normal compaction trends in the study area in the Deep Basin of the WCSB. among all the methods considered in this study. and considering three normal compaction trends.794. This finding allows performing reasonable pore pressure predictions. is the Eaton method from sonic logs using an exponent equal to 1. 8. The Hubbert and Willis method to calculate minimum horizontal stress does not provide representative values for the study area. The Eaton method using the modified D exponent with and exponent equal to 1. This indicates that the normal trend methods are the most suitable for the study area. 9.26 using spread rates reported in the 2006 AFE reports for the five study wells while at the same time obtaining good quality of drill cuttings.0. The optimization developed in this thesis leads to a considerable cost saving of $550.0. considering three normal compaction trends.725. 11. 7. also agrees with pore pressure from well testing.

2 Recommendations During development of this study. 2. 4. For the surface hole two bit runs should be enough based on the simulations performed in this thesis. . 7. different aspects that can lead to technological improvements on the drilling operation in the sub-pressured Deep Basin of the WCSB were identified. The procedure can be extended to townships with similar geologic characteristics. In well 08-28-065-09W6 a reduction of pore pressure of 24% in the Nikanassin Group yields a reduction in the ARSL of 34%. 3. Drill future vertical wells in the study area using seven bit runs. avoid cuttings regrinding to obtain good quality of drill cuttings suitable for quantitative evaluation of porosity and permeability.0. As indicated in this study the ARSL is very sensitive to pore pressure. 172 12. Calculate pore pressure in townships with similar geologic characteristics using the Eaton method from sonic logs with an exponent equal to 1. These observations lead to the following recommendations: 1. The ARSL demonstrated to be very sensitive to pore pressure in the study area. Keep an HSI of at least 0. Estimate the pore pressure for each formation previous to starting the drilling optimization procedure.73 hp/in2 in the Nikanassin Group to improve well cleaning. Perform the calculations considering the three normal compaction trends discussed in Chapter 3.

7 mm in the rollercone bits IADC 547 to drill the Nikanassin Group with an optimized HSI. 6. This study shows that this is the most suitable type of bit to obtain cuttings larger than 2 mm. 7. Use a nozzle size of 12. 173 5. Use a bit IADC 547 in the Nikanassin Group to obtain drill cuttings of good quality. Apply the method developed in this thesis to calculate pore pressure in other townships of the WCSB and in any other sub-pressured basins around the world to validate the method‟s global effectiveness. .

2011. R. and Gjelstad. and Hareland. and Gregory Bihn.... Volume 2. Paper SPE 39007 presented at the 1997 SPE LACPEC Conference. Hareland. A. J. O. Cunningham. R. Bourgoyne Jr. 174 References Alixant. March 27-29. Paper SPE 148947 prepared for presentation at the CSGU/SPE Unconventional Resources Conference. 2011. p. CA. American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA) paper 11- 456 prepared for presentation at the 2011 45th U. G. Stene... J.L. Applied Drilling Engineering. G.P. M.A. G.. p. 1978. SPE Drilling and Completion. K. September 1991. A Case Study for Pore Pressure Prediction in an Abnormally Sub-Pressured Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Bowers. USA.. Paper SPE 30213 presented at the Petroleum Computer Conference. G. and Young Jr. 1986. Contreras. Oklahoma City. and Aguilera. p. . and Easwood. F. SPE Drilling Engineering. 2006. A. Millheim. November 15-17..S. An Empirical Approach for Relating Drilling Parameters. Brazil.. Chenevert.K. Calgary.. O.D. Aguilera. R.. 1997.. Canada. and Desbranes. San Francisco. R... Bratli.... Relationship between Compressional-Wave and Shear Wave Velocities in Clastic Silicate Rocks Geophysics 50. 11-14 June.L.. An Interactive Drilling Simulator for Teaching and Research... Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. June 26-29. Contreras. 1991. G.K. 2011. Castagna. Batzle. R.. Hareland. Houston. Cooper. July 1978. Tutuncu.S. R. R. C. SPE Textbook Series...G. Contreras. A. M. G. Oklahoma.. 1985. TX. Rio de Janeiro...L. 223-237. Cooper A. F. and Aguilera.A. 51. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. Khaksar.. An Innovative Approach for Pore Pressure Prediction and Drilling Optimization in an Abnormally Subpressured Basin. 89-95. Dunsaed. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Original-Gas-In-Place Sensitivity Analysis of the Manville Group in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. 987-991. 182-188. Drilling Optimization Software Verified in the North Sea. Explicit Pore-Pressure Evaluation: Concept and Application.. 1995..E. 571-581. Chang. Zoback. M. August 30 – September 2.” Paper SPE 142349 presented at the 2011 Production and Operations Symposium. Empirical Relations between Rock Strength and Physical Properties in Sedimentary Rocks.. O.W..T. 1995.L.. G. USA. Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction.N.

Drag – Bit Model Including Wear. 1993.M. 1984. Drilling Simulation vs. Naegel..H. Buenos Aires. G. USA. Argentina. Use of Drilling Parameters to Predict In-Situ Stress Bounds..L. B. Introduction to Rock Mechanics... Paper SPE 49205 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.. Actual Performance in Western Canada. Holt. Case History for a Major Alberta Deep Basin Gas Trap: The Cadomin Formation in J. Dissertation. Horsrud.. R. 1995.. Paper SPE/IADC 25727 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Gies. Raaeniku. Masters. 1994. Real-Time Pore Pressure and Fracture-Pressure Determination in all Sedimentary Lithologies. A. and Hoberock. Holbrook. Denver. G.. Amsterdam. L. P. Paper SPE 26791 presented at the Offshore European Conference. V.A.M. Essel. Stanford University.. Eaton. Deschamps... Hareland.. E. R.. D.A.. Dallas.. University of Calgary. Drilling Hard and Abrasive Rock Efficiently. Denver.Paper SPE 116554 presented at the 2008 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.. Sept.. 1992. New York.A. September 21-24. M.R. 2008. Virginillo.D. Fjaer. Paper SPE 26957 presented at the III Latin American/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. D. 562. R. New Orleans. CO. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. R. R. Hareland. 2007.. R. 28-Oct 1. Lousiana.W. September 27-30. Aberdeen. Birch. USA. SPE paper 5544 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. April 16-18. Colorado. An Interactive Drilling Dynamics Simulator for Drilling Optimization and Training. and Risnes.. P. and Rampersad. Paper SPE 106570 presented at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium.R. D. and Munro. Elsevier. . Maggiori.S. 2010 Advanced Drilling Optimization Class Notes.. B. H. 1989. Schulich School of Engineering. B. Hareland.... G. 1986.. Deep Basin Gas: AAPG Memoir 38. Hareland. John Wiley & Sons. p. S.. P. 1998. Dubinsky.” Ph. April 27-29.M. Effects of Porosity and Clay Content on Acoustic Properties of Sandstone and Unconsilated Sediments.. R. Han.. 1975. Nygaard. 175 Desmette.. Baecker. G. Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. or Generating Quality Cuttings? You no longer have to Decide…. February 23-25. and Hensley. Goodman. September 7-10. P.

Rampersad. 1962. 2011. Hareland. D.A.. Maurer. Paper SPE/IADC 52803 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam. Smith.H. U. Paper SPE 27034 presented at the III Latin American/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Thesis.... M. Foreland Basins and Fold Belts. Importance of Aquathermal Pressuring Effect in Gulf Coast. . 9-46.K.. 2037-2045. D. 1984.. Estimation of Formation Pressures from Log- Derived Shale Properties. March 9-11. T. C.K. W. and Huggins. Elmworth Case Study of a Deep Basin Field.K. Hubbert. R. Pore- Pressure Prediction in Overconsolidated Shales. 2008. University of Calgary. presented at Petroleum Branch Fall Meeting in Los Angeles. 1-157. John Wiley & Sons.. H. San Francisco. 1994. October 7-10. Nygaard. SPE Drilling Engineering Journal.. Tahmeen. J. Paper SPE 408 presented at the 37th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE. 1965. 1992. Pennsylvania. Los Angeles. Millheim K. SPE paper 116619 presented at the 2008 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG eastern Section Joint Meeting held in Pittsburg. 1975. New York City (1976). M. P.. M. 1999. CA. G. and Baron. and Depositional Cycles of the Western Canada Foreland Basin.. 196-257. Argentina.. 1976. Leckie. Leguizamon. Buenos Aires.S.D. JPT 717 June 1965.C. SPE paper 686- G. Millheim. J. Drilling Optimization Using Drilling Data and Available Technology. 10. Virtual Experience Simulation for Drilling – The Concept.E.. Onyia.. Holland. U.K..L. 27-36. and Johnson. and Gaebler.Sc. W. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. Soil Mechanics Principles and Applications. R.S.. Evolution. Regional Setting. No. and Munro. Hydraulic Fracturing Optimization of Naturally Fractured Tight Gas Formations in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. AAPG Memoir 38. P. CA. Paper SPE 12075 presented at the 58TH Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. R. April 27-29.. M.G. 1956. Perloff.. An Engineering Simulator for Drilling: Part I.A. p. 176 Hottman.. Boonyapaluk.. p. Karimi. 1987. K... G. October 5-8.. Hareland. Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. The Perfect-Cleaning Theory of Rotating Drilling.. Geology Drilling Log – A Computer Database System for Drilling Simulation. K. p. USA. 1983... G. Magara. 14-17. AAPG Bull 59. Willis.A. W. Chapter 5.R. October 11-15. Oct. Pg.C. Masters. E.

N..D. 2006. Zambrano.J. A Review of Deep Basin Gas Reservoirs of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. 2006. New York (1948) 566.M.. No 3.. USA. R. L. Warren. ..Sc.. Reservoir Geomechanics. B. Geilikman M. 1981. Terzaghi.Sc. Warren. LA.. Fall. 43. Warren. 963-970. and Aguilera. T. E99 –E105. 2007. A. University of Calgary. Onyia. 2004..N. Integrated wellbore-quality and risk-assessment study guides successful drilling in Amazon jungle. Klauber.. New Orleans. New Orleans.D.. & McClendon. Solano. N. 1987. October 5-8.A.. Inc.M. W.. 1987. v.M. 2010..F.C. V. Black. K. Penetration-Rate Performance of Roller-Cone Bits. Paper SPE 16696 presented at the 62 nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.G. W. Cambridge University Press. The Mountain Geologist.. Couzens B. A. SPE Drilling Engineering. Little. SPE 3601 paper presented at the 1971 Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Thesis. Winters. Tutuncu A. M. E... Petroleum Engineering Department.A. Texas A&M University. Tutuncu. T. 9-18. Cumulative Gas Production Distribution on the Nikanassin Tight Gas Formation.. Solano. 257-262. and Peck. 2010. T.. TX.. Louisiana. M. 1971. R. p. B. Thesis. and Moslow. Colorado School of Mines. Walker. Roller Bit Model with Rock Ductility and Cone Offset.. Salas Safe. Zaitlin.. Drilling Optimization Using Drilling Simulator Software. 2010. June 1981. p. Dallas. Paper SPE 15620 presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Measurement of Formation Pressure from Drilling Data. Journal of Petroleum Technology.B. Alberta and British Columbia.. Khodaverdian. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &Engineering – Formation Evaluation (in press). September 27-30. Department of Geology and Geophysics. J.A. and van Duyvenboode F... March 987.. Department of Petroleum Engineering.. B. M. 177 Rehm. Roller-Bit Penetration Rate Response as a Function of Rock Properties and Well Depth. 1948. M. 1986. p.. Drilling Model for Soft-Formation Bits. Reservoir Characterization of the Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous Nikanassin Group. T. R. Zoback. 2011. T.H. Class Notes of Introduction to Geomechanics.P. 71. Canada. John Wiley & Sons. Geophysics.

com (Three-cone rollercone bits pictures) www. 178 Websites www.com (PDC bit picture) .nov.com (NDB bit picture) www.eradrillingservices.tradekorea.