SPE 123161

Case History Summary: Horizontal Drilling Performance Improvement Due

to Torque Rocking on 800 Horizontal Land Wells Drilled for Unconventional
Gas Resources
Eric Maidla, Marc Haci, Daniel Wright, Slider LLC

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

The torque rocking technology1,2 that will be discussed here is a surface system (nothing ever goes down hole) that has
shown to greatly increase the efficiency of steerable motors (by as much as 294%) as will be demonstrated in the case history
summary.

This paper summarizes for the first time the lessons learnt from using a horizontal drilling technology introduced 6 years ago
that has drilled over 800 horizontal wells in several different plays in the US related to unconventional gas resources, namely
the Barnett Shale, the Haynesville Shale, the Marcellus Shale, the Fayetteville Shale.

The common thread here is that all these wells were drilled with a new torque rocking technology that greatly enhances slide
drilling by breaking drag using a rocking motion imposed by the topdrive (oscillatory movements to the right and left while
sliding) using torque as the basic feedback mechanism to control the rocking movement.

This paper focuses on the value added benefit of this technology and areas in which it has worked and hasn't worked. A
matrix has been developed to help the selection of the technology and the physics of the process are further explained to
justify the improvements and failures.

Improvements included: sliding ROP increases between 20% to 294%; downhole bottom tool face orientation (unique to this
technology); stalling avoidance that greatly increased the life of the downhole equipment (motors, bits, MWD) that led to less
trips.

Introduction

Rocking pipe by counting drillstring raps has been done for years in a manual manner with good results in some cases and
limited success in others. The limited success occurred as the well profiles became more complex and produced higher torque
and drag. Also the downhole tool face orientation became harder to obtain. The main reasons to improve on this were two
fold:
a. People should not be doing routine work that can be easily automated and improved;
b. Counting raps is really not a good solution for the more challenging wells since it does not take advantage of the
torque and drag information readily available during drilling in both the rotary and sliding mode.

The understanding of the borehole physics involved led to a new system that uses torque readings (surface and sometimes
downhole) as a feedback to an automated control system enabling the maximum amount of drag reduction while accurately
controlling the downhole tool face. This is very different than counting raps or setting pre-determined surface angles to be
turned to the right and left.

Drag is reduced by changing torque continuously throughout only part of the drill string. This is done two ways:
1. In a controlled way using the topdrive as a source of torque that oscillates between certain predetermined values to
2 [SPE 123161]

the right and left. In this way the torque, that is a form of energy, is dissipated from the surface down to a certain
length in the drill string without moving all the way to the BHA. Actually surface imposed torque gets dissipated
before the reactive torque zone (explained below)
2. In a passive way by monitoring reactive bit torque that produces vibrations thus eliminate some bottom hole drag. In
this way the reactive torque zone is defined as the length of pipe that is measured from the bit towards the surface
that fully dissipates the reactive torque produced while slide drilling. The reactive torque is monitored by correlating
this value to the appropriate pressure differential value in the rotary mode and then using this correlation in the
sliding mode – there is a lot of torque and drag information in the rotary mode that is useful in the sliding mode to
avoid much of the guesswork that existed in the past.

The objective is to minimize drag by having only a small part of the pipe unaffected by rocking and reactive torque. This
small, but necessary amount of drag, acts as a buffer to avoid the surface torque rocking motion to change the tool face.
When this small drag window is minimized and kept constant, the ROP benefits have shown to be significant and in some
cases have increased sliding ROPs by as much as 294%.

Another important feature of this technology is tool face steering. This technology’s tool face control does not rely on
changing surface scribe lines (whether automatically set/monitored or chalk marks on the drillpipe), instead tool face is
accurately changed while drilling by adding an additional amount of torque during one rocking cycle (there is no need to
interrupt the drilling process to remove the torque from the drillstring). This unique accuracy has allowed improvements of
the flat times associated with orientation issues. In addition to this, by monitoring the depth of rocking simultaneously with
reactive torque (pressure differential) the automatic system compensates the rocking movement to avoid stalling the motors
therefore increasing the life of the motors, bits and other bottom hole equipment. One of the other advantages of avoiding
stalls that is rarely addressed is that stalls also wipe out the trajectory corrections that are critical for steerable motor systems
as the MWD measurement system is between 40 to 60 ft behind the bit thus requiring the directional driller to have the ability
of projecting to the bit (estimating the bit position using a measurement many feet behind it) and depending on the rate of
penetration the lack of correction (due to wipeouts) will only be detected many hours later (e.g. 6 hours or so for a 10ft/hr
sliding ROP) that will lead to additional correction needs.

Technology Implementation Process

For the field applications we tried to implement the following steps (that was adopted about 50% of the time):

1. Planning: At the planning phase this technology was consider even if the application had a medium probability of
occurring. Reason: the topdrive/SCRrotaryTable interface could be built for a small fee independent of using or not the
technology (this cost was sometimes considered as insurance in the event that the situation got tough later in the drilling of
the well). At this stage we collected the well survey plan, hole sizes, casing points, drilling fluid program and bit types. In
addition we collected the details of the topdrive and the topdrive control panel (pictures of the top drive panel and panel
interior also helped us when the location was remote).
2. Rig Interfacing: As this torque rocking technology can interface with top drives, power swivels and SCR driven
rotary tables, the interface was always built off the drilling critical path, e.g. while the rig was moving or at a casing cement
point that was normally better known (better than other events).
3. Training: The technology proved to work at its best if there was a clear understanding of the borehole physics
involved, therefore we suggested, as a first option, training the directional driller away from the rig, ideally in Houston, as we
have a 22ft scaled model of the entire slide drilling process. When this option was not possible, a second options was
suggested where we would train the directional drillers in an office location close to the rig and operate the scale model
remotely. Sometimes this was also not possible and a third training option included training at the rig site and results to date
showed that although significant ROP improvements (30% to 100%) were obtained following this last option they could have
even been better (50% to 294%) if the first two training suggestions had been followed (this technology is not about only
rocking pipe – there is a lot more it can do to help with ROP enhancements and tool face control). Besides the
theoretical/scaled model training we stayed on the rig until the directional driller was comfortable in using the technology.
Although there were never any guarantees, training proved to help the operations significantly in most cases and there was
never any downside.
4. Measuring: This was also very important for proving value added proof after the well was finished and real time
help to the DDs during drilling. You really can’t improve what you don’t measure. We always tried to get the mud logging
data access (electronic drilling recorder with WOB, ROP, Torque, RPM, Toolface [if WITS was available], pump strokes,
and differential pressure), but unfortunately we only managed to get this about 1/3 of the time. This was the only realistic
way to measure without any bias what happened during the slide drilling (with and without the technology been used) and
this data was sufficiently precise for what was needed. This also helped us in proactively providing feedback to the DDs on
location as we could see how the new trained DDs were using our technology. Although statements from the directional
drillers (DDs) were encouraged and were seen as a good source of feedback we noticed that they were somewhat inaccurate
4 [SPE 123161]

Some further job breakdown is provided in Table 1 for completeness.

Table 1: Summary of the information on the torque rocking technology1,2 case histories.

1. The Barnett Shale Gas Play

One typical well profile drilled in the Barnett Shale was the turnazontal (Fig. 2). The torque rocking technology was used 320
times making this play the one that used this technology the most, one of the reasons being is that it was also the first gas play
to be targeted by the marketing team.

Fig. 2: Barnett Shale – profile and data summary using the torque rocking technology.

The red arrows in Fig 2 indicate the locations where torque rocking technology was most efficient, in the case of the
turnazontals this started immediately at the main curve section indicated by the first red arrow. These wells were taking 3
days to build the curve that was immediately reduced to two days after the torque rocking technology was applied.

The improvements in ROP were actually very easy to measure since the torque rocking technology could be simply turned
off (as it is a surface system) and checked against the manual operation without it. This is shown in Figs. 3 and 4 that show
ROP improvements between 51% and 102%.
[SPE 123161] 5

Fig. 3: Barnett Shale – Well A showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Fig. 4: Barnett Shale – Well B showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Lessons Learned in the Barnett Shale:

A. The 22ft scaled lab model served its purpose in two ways: the behavior seen in the lab was confirmed in the field;
6 [SPE 123161]

after the technology was developed, the scaled model proved to be a very effective training tool.
B. Operator buy-in and support of the training effort was important to provide higher ROP improvements, sometimes in
excess of 100%, after the directional drillers (DDs) were trained. Basically the DDs became more comfortable in
slacking off less surface weight on bit during sliding and compensating this with deeper torque rocking. The
orientation system of bumping was also very well received by all DDs.
C. Reports on incidents and downtime:
i. Downtime was never an issue in all case histories as the topdrive control panel interface was always built
and tested off the critical path and this took between 30 minutes to 2 hours to complete.
ii. Regarding incidents:
a) One broken unit that was subjected to some sort of impact by some blunt object.
b) Cables damaged during rig moves. This has happened around 4 times and as there weren’t any
failure patterns connected to these events there was no policy drawn on changing anything at the
rig site.
c) Backlash (high speed unwinding during the left turn rocking process while sliding). This was due
to the way certain top drives worked and a proprietary solution was designed and implemented to
fully control backlash. This solution was reported by contractors as saving top drive rig
maintenance time since this event was independent of the torque rocking technology and happened
in the manual rocking mode anyway when done by directional drillers.

2. The Haynesville Shale Gas Play

The torque rocking technology was mostly used on horizontal wells in the Haynesville Shale (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Haynesville Shale – profile and data summary using the torque rocking technology.

The red arrows in Fig 5 indicate the general locations in the well where the torque rocking technology was most efficient.

The improvements in ROP varied between 35% and 55%. Figs 6 and 7 show some screen shots from the drilling data with
annotations demonstrating some of the improvements measured in the field.
[SPE 123161] 7

Fig. 6: Haynesville Shale – Well C showing difficulty in sliding conditions before the torque rocking technology
was deployed.

Fig. 7: Haynesville Shale – Well C showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Lessons Learned in the Haynesville Shale:

8 [SPE 123161]

A. The 22ft scaled lab model proved to be a very effective training tool.
B. Operator buy-in and support of the training effort was again important.
C. There was decrease in tortuosity as motor stalling was eliminated. Stalling, although this would occur when manual
rocking was being used in the other gas plays it seem to happen more frequently in the Haynesville Shale area and
was eliminated using the torque rocking technology. Besides the reduction in tortuosity benefit other benefits from
using this technology included: greater daily footage; increased equipment life; and effective corrections that were
important here since this is a hot play and minimizing bit projection errors proved to save quite a few days from
avoiding to make new corrections.
D. Based on the previous comment, the total daily footage improvements came from immediate increase in ROP during
the slides and also savings in number of slides required to complete the well.
E. Reports on incidents and downtime:
i. No downtime.

3. The Marcellus Shale Gas Play

The torque rocking technology was mostly used on horizontal wells in the Marcellus Shale (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8: Marcellus Shale – profile and data summary using the torque rocking technology.

The red arrows in Fig 8 indicate the general locations in the well where the torque rocking technology was most efficient.

The improvements in ROP varied between 85% and 294%. Figs 9 and 10 show some screen shots from the drilling data with
annotations demonstrating some of the improvements measured in the field.
[SPE 123161] 9

Fig. 9: Marcellus Shale – Well E showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Fig. 10: Marcellus Shale – Well F showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Lessons Learned in the Marcellus Shale:

A. As before, the 22ft scaled lab model and the operator buy-in and support of the training effort was again important.
10 [SPE 123161]

B. As the Marcellus Shale manually slide drills in average slower than the other gas plays and therefore the torque
rocking technology provided routinely improvements of over 150% in ROP.
C. Reports on incidents and downtime:
i. No downtime.

4. The Fayetteville Shale Gas Play

The rocking technology was mostly used on horizontal wells in the Fayetteville Shale (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11: Fayetteville Shale – profile and data summary using the torque rocking technology.

The red arrows in Fig 11 indicate the general locations in the well where the torque rocking technology was most efficient.

The improvements in ROP varied between 50% and 70%. Figs 12 and 13 show some screen shots from the drilling data with
annotations demonstrating some of the improvements measured in the field.
[SPE 123161] 11

Fig. 12: Fayetteville Shale – Well J showing difficulty in sliding conditions before the torque rocking technology
was deployed.

Fig. 13: Fayetteville Shale – Well J showing ROP improvements after the torque rocking technology was deployed.

Lessons Learned in the Fayetteville Shale:

12 [SPE 123161]

A. As before, the 22ft scaled lab model and the operator buy-in and support of the training effort was again important.
B. The Fayetteville Shale was another slow manually slide area and therefore the torque rocking technology provided
routinely showed improvements of over 50% in ROP.
C. Reports on incidents and downtime:
i. No downtime.

5. Other Plays

The rocking technology was mostly also used in the, North Dakota Bakken, Austin Chalk and Anadarko Basin with good
results that are summarized in Table 1.
A. Reports on incidents and downtime:
i. No downtime.
ii. Incidents:
a) In 2003, during the second application of the torque rocking technology the Slider field engineer,
at the request of the DD, used the technology on the rig himself and therefore there was no buy in
from the DD. This proved to have disengaged the DD from the learning process and therefore the
torque rocking technology was never used properly on that particular DDs rig. This was corrected
by instructing all field engineers not to use the equipment on the rig but instead provide DDs with
the knowledge on how to use it efficiently.

Conclusions

The torque rocking technology delivered improvements of up to 294% in sliding ROP and was deployed consistently within
many of the existing US gas plays without surprises.
Planning and training were important and proved to eliminate any downtime that could have occurred if the top drive control
panel interface with the rocking technology since it was undertaken off the critical well path. As it was a surface system, any
problem could be simply resolved by switching off the torque rocking unit and resuming manual conventional slides.
The system was robust and off all 800 jobs described here, only 0.9% reported any difficulty in working. On every incident
this was immediately corrected within less than ½ day and during this time, conventional manual slides were performed until
the problem was corrected (this being one of the significant advantages of surface systems).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all those who helped out at the beginning without which such technology would not be
possible and due to the large number of people involved we will keep this only to their companies and institutions. These
include the Department of Energy (DOE), the Drilling Engineering Association (DEA), Chevron, Unocal (now Chevron),
Anadarko in Canada, Anadarko in Houston, NorthField, NOV, Tesco, PathFinder Energy Services, IDR (now PathFinder),
Range Resources.

References

1. Maidla, Eric and Haci, Marc, “Understanding Torque: The Key to Slide-Drilling Directional Wells”, IADC/SPE
87162, presented at the 2004 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, held in Dallas, TX,, 2–4 March 2-4, 2004.
2. Maidla, Eric; Haci, Marc, Slider LLC; Jones, Scott, IDR; Cluchey, Michael, Alexander, Chevron Texaco;
Warren Tommy, Tesco Corporation ; “Field Proof of The New Sliding Technology for Directional Drilling”,
SPE 92558, SPE/IADC Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 Feb 2005.