Spe 1052 Ms

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME
PAPER
6300 North Central Expressway
NUMBER
SPE 1052
Dallas 6, Texas
THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION
MECHANISM OF DRILLING WELLS WITH AIR AS THE DRILLING FLUID
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

by
Madan M. Singh, Jr. Member, AIME

The Pennsylvania State University
and
Robert J. Goodwin, Member, AIME

Gulf Research & Development Company
*****
Publication Rights Reserved
This paper is to be presented at the Texas U.-SPE Second Conference on

Drilling and Rock Mechanics, on Jan. 20-21, 1965, in Austin, Texas, and is consi-
dered the property of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to publish
is hereby restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words, with no illus-
trations, unless the paper is specifically released to the press by the Editor of
Journal of Petroleum Technology or the Executive Secretary. Such abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
Publication elsewhere after publication in Journal of Petroleum Technology or
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal is granted on request, providing proper
credit is given that publication and the original presentation of the paper.
Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion

should be sent to the Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may
be presented at the above meeting and considered for publication in one of the two
SPE magazines with the paper.
MECHANISM OF DRILLING WELLS WITH AIR AS THE DRILLING FLUID
by
Madan M. Singh, Jr. Member, AIME

The Pennsylvania State University
and
Robert J. Goodwin, Member, AIME

Gulf Research & Development Company

ABSTRACT
A microbit apparatus has been used to study how and why field drilling
rates are usually higher when air is circulated rather than liquids. Our labo-
ratory results with air are compared with the work of others who have circulated
liquids to remove cuttings, and a theory for air drilling has been developed.
Chief results of this program are that most of the parameters operative in liquid
drilling are also operative in air drilling, but in air drilling many of these
factors are much less detrimental to the drilling rate.
Our major conclusions are that drilling rates with air are much greater
than with liquids because chip removal is facilitated by: (a) low bottom-hole
pressure exerted by the column of air, (b) low viscosity of air which permits it
to enter cracks more readily, (c) less restriction to widening crack by highly
compressible air, and (d) low cohesive forces between rock particles in environ-
ment of air. Furthermore, there is far less plugging of widening cracks around
chips because of the absence of solids from the drilling fluid and the better hole
cleaning afforded by the high-velocity air stream. The greatest reason for high
drilling rates with air is that the air is greatly cooled by expansion as it
passes through the bit and thereby cools the bottom of the hole to reduce the
stresses exerted on the rock by the overburden. Overburden pressure, liquid
saturation of the rock and rock ductility have a more adverse effect on gas
drilling than drilling with liquids. The effect of overburden pressure
is greatest on dry rocks. The data presented suggest: (a) the use of gases
2.
to drill with where possible, (b) the use of clear liquids rather than mud
where possible, (c) the use of th8 highest filtrate muds possible where mud
is required, (d) the use of liquids having the greatest ability to wet the
formation, where liquids are. required, and (e) placing fluid ports of bit
such that greatest cleaning action of hole bottom can be achieved. The

largest practical volumes of air should be circulated to increase velocity
and pressure drop at the bottom of the hole and thereby provide better
cleaning and greater cooling of the rock being drilled.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, the oil industry has made increasing use of
air rather than liquids to remove bottom-hole cuttings. This technique of
directing a stream of compressed air down the hole to clean away rock fragments
and whisk them to the surface offers several advantages: greater penetration
rate, longer bit life, better maintenance of hole gage, elimination of damage
to the production zone, reduction in lost circulation, provision for continuous
drill stem testing, avoidance of sample lag, less contamination of the cuttings
by the drilling fluid, and fewer fishing jobs.
A number of drawbacks, such as small cutting size, risk of underground
fire, and the possibility of encountering high-pressure zones, water-bearing
formations and sloughing shales, are always present in "air drilling". However,
over-all advantages of the technique have led to considerable savings in well
drilling costs. But, while the technique has become firmly established in
field practice, a detailed study of the process of air drilling and all the
factors that affect its operation has never been made. We therefore undertook
such a study in order to better understand the technique and possibly to extend
its economic advantages still further.
Our program had two parts: first, we made a review of the literature
pertaining to both air and liquid drilling, and to laboratory tests on air
3.
drilling; second, we ran a series of laboratory tests to evaluate several
variables - indicated either by practical field experience or by the literature
that may influence air drilling. Specifically, we studied the effects of
these factors:
(1) overburden pressure

(2) borehole pressure
(3) interstitial pressure
(4) water saturation of the sample
(5) fluid circulation rate
(6) rock debris on the hole bottom
(7) temperature differential between the flushing air and

the rock mass
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

A microbit drilling apparatus similar to those used by previous
. 1,8 10*
~nvestigators ' was employed for these tests. Normally used with drilling
muds, it was adapted for air flushing by replacing the circulation pump with
an air compressor.
Figure 1 is a simplified schematic sketch of the layout showing how
the air is inducted by the compressor from the house air supply system and
conveyed to the microbit drilling apparatus. From there it is vented through
a filter, valve, and flow meter to the atmosphere. Figure 2 depicts a cross-
section through the pressure chamber and housing of the microbit drilling
apparatus. A rock core, approximately 3 in. in diameter and 5 in. long, is
jacketed with a coat of epoxy resin and placed as shown within the pressure
chamber. The epoxy jacket and the O-ring seals keep the overburden (confining)
pressure fluid segregated from the formation and drilling fluids. Interstitial
fluid is injected into the core from above and the drilling process is conducted
of, References are listed on page 17.

4.
from below (Le., the sample is drilled "upside down"). The formation and
circulation fluids are kept apart only by the "filter cake" built up during
drilling, a condition very similar to what occurs in actual field operations.
The required bit load is produced by tie-rods which pull the chamber down
hydraulica lly.

The bit used for the experiments is a 1-1/4-in. diameter bicone-type
with a 3/B-in. diameter hole through the c~nter for flow of the circulating
fluid. A series of 11 sets of cones was selected and numbered, and these were
changed in sequence between tests. This procedure tended, to some extent, to
average out the difference (and the wear) of individual sets of cones. In
addition, the complete set of cones was renewed before the wear on them became
too evident.
The rock samplles used for the tests were cored in the laboratory from
larger blocks which were all taken from the same part of the quarry and marked
according to location.
The apparatus in Fig. B was devised to check the effects of tempera-
ture differential between the flushing air and the rock mass. The rock specimen
is placed in an aluminum jacket, which in turn is surrounded by an electrical
heating element. This assembly is then mounted in a drill press which applies
the bit load hydraulically. Air can be fed into the system at room temperature
during the drilling. The rock under investigation can be maintained at any
temperature within the design limits of the apparatus, thus obtaining the
desired temperature difference. A thermocouple embedded in the rock specimen
with plaster of Paris indicates the rock temperature on a recorder.
PROCEDURE
Calibration tests were run first to determine how closely the microbit
apparatus duplicated actual down-hole drilling conditions. Three types of rocks -

5.
Italian marble of no measurable permeability, Indiana limestone of slight
permeability, and Berea sandstone of high permeability - were each drilled
with mud, water, and air. Conditions typical of a 7000-ft depth in the field
were chosen: the overburden, borehole, and interstitial pressures assumed were
7000 psi, 3600 psi, and 3200 psi, respectively.

The test results are shown in Table 1, and indicate good qualitative
agreement with field drilling rates. For example, in all three rocks the drilling
rate is highest for air, intermediate for water, and lowest for mud. The magni-
tude of the differences in drilling rate for the three fluids also compares well
with field drilling results; i.e., the drilling rate is highest with air on all
rocks, but on the permeable rocks a greater improvement is made by changing from
mud to water than in changing from water to air.
After the calibration tests were completed, approximately 450 other
tests were made to evaluate the seven factors, listed in the introduction, which
are thought influential on actual field drilling rates.
For these tests, the rocks (unless they were to be drilled "dry", i.e.,
with no water in their pores) were first evacuated and then saturated with water
prior to being placed in the drilling chamber. During the tests, the results
of altering the particular factor under examination were studied in each core
separately. Each point on the resulting curves represents an average of four
sets of values of such test data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data included with this paper pertain to the laboratory tests
with the microbit using air as the drilling fluid. These results are discussed
below in turn for each of the variables under study.
1. Overburden Pressure - Test results shown in Fig. 3 indicate that
increasing overburden pressure tends to decrease drilling rate. During these

6.
te.sts, the interstitial pressure was nominally maintained at zero; thus, in-
creasing the overburden pressure also implied an increase in the "effective"
(overburden minus interstitial) pressure.
The same result occurs in the field with any type of drilling fluid,
but the reduction in drilling rate is least when air is used. Drilling engineers

fee.l that reduction in rotary drilling rate with an increase in depth (or over-
burden pressure) is due to both a "strengthening" of the rock and an increase

2
in rock ductility. The data of early workers such as Adams and Nicolson in
1901 and von Karman3in 1911, as well as more recent workers, partially support
this view. For example, the data of Bredthauer4 show that jacketed rocks
without pore fluids have increased compressive strengths with increasing con-
fining pressure, although any appreciable change in ductility does not occur
5
until the confining pressure is rather high, 12,000-15,000 psi, (Robinson and
4
Bredthauer ).
Our own data indicate that the effect of overburden pressure is also
more marked on dry rock than on water-saturated rock. This can be explained
by the fact that saturated rocks are weaker in compression than dry rocks.
As for the increase in rock ductility, it is evident that the energy required
to break a more ductile rock would be considerably greater than that needed
for brittle materials.
Another factor that could influence drilling rate as the depth

6
increases is formation temperature. However, the data of Griggs et a1 can
be interpreted to imply that only a small change should be noticed for both
rock compressive strength and ductility as a result of the amount of ambient
temperature variation found in most oil wells.

l
However, laboratory drilling experiments ,6,9 confirm that while
these factors associated with increased overburden pressure would tend to

7.
decrease drilling rates, their effects would normally be small for the range of
pressures involved in oil-well drilling.
2. Borehole Pressure - The data in Fig. 4 are based on the microbit drilling
with air of saturated Berea sandstone, and dry Indiana limestone. The figures
indicate a reduction in penetration rate as borehole pressure is increased.

3. Interstitial Pressure - Data in Fig. 5 show that an increase in
interstitial pressure, using water as formation saturant, causes some decrease
in drilling rate. A possible explanation for this behavior is the fact that the
pore fluid gradually issues into the borehole from the rock and hinders the
cleaning action of the air stream. The effect might be even more pronounced
in actual field conditions, as the experimental setup produced problems. For
example, the interstitial pressure could be raised only when liquid was used
for core saturation. The air permeated rapidly through dry samples and equalized
hole and pore pressures. Even when a liquid was employed, the pump had to be
run continuously to sustain conditions.
4. Water Saturation of the Sample - A few experiments were performed
to note the effect of an increased water saturation on drilling rate when
flushing with air (data not shown). It was found that in Berea sandstone this
caused a reduction in penetration rate of nearly three times as compared to
boring dry rock, whereas in Indiana limestone the decline was roughly 1-1/2 times.
Probably a thin film of water coats the particles that are formed and increases
the cohesive forces between them. There is a distinct tendency for the dust to
agglomerate, which is especially noticeable in the case of limestone. Note also
that this situation is typical of field experience when zones that produce very
small volumes of liquid, i.e., "weeping zones" are drilled.
5. Fluid Circulation Rate - Figure 6 indicates that the rate of fluid
circulation does not affect drilling rate within the range depicted. However,
B.
it was found that if the circulation rate of the flushing fluid is decreased
the penetration rate also drops, and the relationship between these two parameters
in that region is linear (data not shown). This confirms the observations of
other researchers. Owing to the limitations of the equipment, it was not possible
to study the effect of a further increase in circulation rate. But it is quite

possible that the drilling rate would be increased if this were done.
6. Rock Debris on Hole Bottom - It is obvious, of course, that rock
fragments must be removed from the bottom of the hole as they are produced if
1,7,B h
drilling is to continue. Severa 1 authors have presented t eir views as to
why cuttings might remain on the bottom after chip separation from the virgin
B
rock is commenced. But, since the discussion of Garnier and Van Lingen
encompasses most of the points, only their work will be reviewed.
They state that the forces tending to hold chips on the bottom may be
of both static and dynamic origin. The static force is due to the difference
in pressu~s generated by the column of drilling fluid (borehole) and that in
the formation (interstitial), and it disappears when the drilling fluid pressure
equals the pore pressure below a chip. The dynamic force comes into play after
the bit has created a crack around a rock fragment and removal of the fragment
commences. At this t.ime, a very low pressure can occur in the widening crack
unless fluid is supplied to the crack from any or all of three sources:
(a) drilling fluid" (b) drilling fluid filtrate flowing through the chip,
(c) fluid from the pores of the parent rock.
But flow of drilling fluid into the crack meets infinite resistance
initially because at that instant the crack width is negligible. Also, the
plastering action of any solids in the drilling fluid reduces the flow of
filtrate through the chip. Hence, in permeable formations, the fluid has to
be supplied, for the main part, by flow through the formation. However, in
9.
relatively impermeable formations, fluid can only be effectively supplied
through the widening crack below the chip, and consequently at the outset a
high vacuum is probably created under the chip, hindering its release from the
hole bottom.
It should be instructive to apply the foregoing general picture for
chip removal to the situation where air is the drilling fluid. First, the static

force exerted by the column of air on a chip is small (much less than 100 psi in
contrast to thousands of pounds per square inch for liquids), and hence its effect
should be negligible. Second, the dynamic force should be low since the low
viscosity and the compressible nature of air would permit it to enter a widening
crack more readily than a liquid. However, the dynamic force cannot be completely
ignored, as solids are also present at the bottom of the hole in air drilling
and they produce the same blocking effect as in liquid drilling. Furthermore,
most rocks drilled with air are either dry or of such low permeability that
formation fluids could not be expected to flow into a widening crack as a chip
was being formed and removed. Also, any flow of air through the chip could be
ignored for the same reason. Thus, as a crack is widened, it must be filled with
air that may have to first pass through a compacted layer of rock debris. Of
course, the compressible nature of air would permit a crack to open many times
easier than if it were filled with an equal volume of liquid.
During our own series of laboratory tests, we examined the rock pores
along the surfaces of the hole drilled with the microbit and found them filled
with rock dust and fragments. Presumably these particles were forced into
place by the grinding, chipping, and abrading action of the bit teeth as well
as by the force of the air stream.
A further check of the ability of formation solids to interfere with
drilling was made in the laboratory, though the data are not included here. Both
a dry and water-saturated porous rock were drilled with clear water under a pressure
10.
higher than that in the rock pores so that some of the water would flow away from
the hole and through the rock. Then, for a comparison with these tests, a similar
rock was drilled with water; in this test, pore pressure was maintained somewhat
higher than the borehole pressure so that water entered the hole at a fairly high
rate as drilling progressed. The latter drilling rate was significantly higher

than either of the first two tests. Furthermore, in the latter test, the pores
in the surface of the drilled hole were relatively free of rock debris.
This plugging phenomenon is further demonstrated in Figs. 7a, b, and c.
Figure 7a shows the dry surface of a Berea sandstone block while Fig. 7b clearly
indicates the deposition of a layer of rock dust on a new surface created in the
rock by drilling with air. Figure 7c is included for comparison, and depicts
the formation of a "filter cake" during drilling with mud. The similarity
between Figs. 7b and 7c is self-evident.
It should be emphasized that air entering an opening fracture may
produce other effects besides pressure equilibrium during chip removal. As
seen as air comes in contact with newly created surfaces, the cohesion between
them may be considerably reduced. This is probably due to an adsorption effect

11
(see, for example, Adam )9 but may also be due to the deposition of minute
quantities of contaminants, such as gre.ase, on the surfaces. Also, the low
viscosity of gases compared to that of liquids, and consequently their increased
mobility in porous media, may playa very significant role in increasing the
rate of drilling. It is well known that low-viscosity fluids tend to increase
drilling rates. Even when liquids are employed as flushing agents, decreased
. .
v~scos~ty ten d s to augment .
penetrat~on ra t e. 1,10,13,14
Owing to the higher viscosity of drilling muds, it is very likely
that a much greater portion of the bit energy is lost due to damping, both
11.
within and outside the formation, than is the case with air drilling.
There are still other considerations which should be borne in mind
when comparing air flushing with the use of drilling muds. For example, it
has already been mentioned that although overburden pressure does not signifi-
cantly increase the compressive strengths of water-saturated rocks, the effect
is fairly marked in the case of dry formations. The relevance of this parameter

to drilling rate was demonstrated experimentally (see Fig. 3). It is also
well known (see Table 2) that most rocks are weaker in compression when satu-
rated than when dry. The most likely explanation for increased drilling rates
when flushing with air or gas rather than mud is that the air in the well exerts
almost negligible pressure on the hole bottom as compared with the corresponding
mud column. However, this is still only one of a number of factors that needs
to be taken into account.
The cuttings carrying capacity of flushing air during oil-well drilling
'
h as b een t h e su b Ject 0 f prevlous
' stu d'les 15,16 an d Wl'II not b e dwe 11 e d upon ln
'
this paper. It would, however, be appropriate to mention that better cleaning
of the hole bottom is achieved in air drilling because of the higher fluid
velocities and greater turbulence that exist there. This improved cleaning
should also allow better contact between the bit teeth and the strata to be
fractured.
1. Temperature Differential Between the Flushing Air and the Rock Mass
Casual reference is often made in the literature to the fact that air
expansion through the bit nozzles has a cooling effect on the bit. And in the
field we have observed that the temperature of the drill collars immediately
above the bit was approximately 40°F when the time required to pull the bit was
relatively short. The temperature of the air being circulated at the time was
approximately 150°F when it entered the drill pipe at the surface. It is

12.
unfortunate, however, that neither we nor others have measured the air
temperature at or below the bit during air drilling operations, but in lieu of
such measurements it may be instructive to speculate a bit about the magnitude
of this temperature and some of the factors that influence it.
Bottom hole cooling could result from the following effects:

First, if air were expanded isentropically through a nozzle of
proper design from say, a pressure of 170 psia and a temperature of 200°F to
a pressure of 20 psia, its temperature at the nozzle exit could be as low as
-90°F. However, in the absence of any mechanical work the temperature of the
air would rise again as its velocity decreased, finally coming to within a few
degrees of its original temperature. Nevertheless portions of the hole bottom
surface could be cooled by a high velocity, low temperature stream of air passing
over it. The lowest temperature that the rock could achieve this way would
be the adiabatic wall temperature,18 corresponding to the free stream velocity
and temperature. Although the adiabatic wall temperature is higher than the
high velocity air jet temperature, it would still be lower than the temperature
upstream of the nozzle.
The Joule-Kelvin effect would also playa part in lowering the
bottom hole temperature. Because of the Joule-Kelvin effect, the temperature
of the air that has expanded through the nozzle and lost its velocity would
not quite reach the original temperature that it had before passing through the
nozzle. The amount by which the temperature is lowered in this manner is only
a few degrees. However, if the expanded and cooled return air took heat from
the incoming air by using the drill collars as a heat exchanger, the temperature-
reducing mechanism could progress toward even lower temperatures, as occurs in
a gas liquefication device which utilizes the Joule-Kelvin effect and heat
exchangers.
13.
The combination of these two effects could cause a substantial
cooling of the hole bottom. We have observed temperatures as low as 40°F;
and, for the reasons cited above, it does not seem unreasonable to speculate
that the rock on the bottom of the hole could be exposed to air of considerably
lower temperature.

The implications of a cold blast of air suddenly coming into
contact with virgin rock become fairly obvious. It is easy to visualize that
the surface of the hole bottom could be thermally stressed quite rapidly, and
the tendency of the rock to contract could either induce considerable tensile
stresses in the formation or reduce any compressive stresses that were already
present in it. Since rocks are generally incapable of withstanding tension,
fragmentation could be accelerated. This process would be further accentuated
by the stress concentrations induced at the points of loading due to the bit
teeth. Further, the poor thermal conductivity of rocks would aid this breakage
mechanism by ensuring that the temperature gradient across a thin layer of
rock at the hole bottom would remain steep.
For laboratory verification of the temperature effect discussed
above, we used the apparatus shown in Fig. 8 and described earlier. Table 3
shows the results of typical tests conducted on three rock varieties. In each
case, it is seen that increased temperature differential between rock and
flushing air enhances the drilling rate. Basically, therefore, the conclusions
pertaining to the effect on drilling rate of a blast of cold air hitting the
bottom of the hole appear to be correct.
The low bottom-hole temperatures postulated above may also explain
the long bearing life of bits used in air drilling. At low temperatures,
chemical reactions that normally produce wear on bit bearings and teeth should
be greatly retarded. Finally, galling, to some extent, is a temperature-
sensitive reaction, and its progress between bearings and their races should be
14.
retarded by the low temperature.
Thus, in addition to enhancing drilling rate, the low bottom-hole
temperature created by expansion of the air used in air drilling may also extend
bit life.
CONCLUSIONS

Several factors affect air drilling, especially in relation to the
more prevalent techniques of mud drilling, and these various parameters combine
to give the results observed in field operations. Some of these governing
factors tend to improve drilling rates, whereas others are detrimental, but the
total effect of the detrimental factors is small. Yet the contributions of
each need to be considered in order to achieve a better understanding of the
mode of rock penetration when flushing with air or gas. On the basis of these
studies, a hypothesis explaining the mechanism of air drilling has been advanced.
A few of the salient features of the proposed theory are:
1. Equalization of pressure above and below the rock fragments
as they are separated from the virgin rock is essential to
efficient chip removal. This requirement is more easily
satisfied in air than in liquid drilling for the following
reasons:
(a) Low bottom-hole pressure exerted by the column
of gas;
(b) Low viscosity of gas permitting it to enter
cracks more readily;
(c) Less restriction to widening crack by highly
compressible gas;
(d) Low cohesive forces exist between rock
particles in environment of air.

15.
2. In both liquid and gas drilling, fine particles generated
during drilling become embedded in the rock interstices and
interfere with easy hole cleaning. But less of this occurs
when drilling with gas because there is less pressure to
embed the particles and because of the better bottom-hole
cleaning afforded by the moving gas stream. Also, there

are no solids from gaseous drilling fluid.
1. Some environmental conditions interfere more with gas than
liquid drilling:
(a) Overburden pressure reduces air drilling rates;
(b) Liquid saturation in the rock pores reduces air

drilling rates;
(c) Rock ductility is greater in gas drilling.
4. The effect of overburden pressure is more marked on dry than
on water-saturated rocks.
2. A cold stream of air exiting from the bit nozzles and con-
contacting the hole bottom may aid in breaking up the rock being
drilled. A low temperature would also cool the bit and
thereby extend its life.
6. Since solids interfere with chip removal, nonsolids containing
drilling fluids should be used and rock fragments should be
removed from the hole bottom as quickly as possible. This may
be accomplished by:
(a) Use of gases to drill with where possible;
(b) Use of clear liquids rather than mud where

possible;
(c) Use of highest filtrate mud possible where

mud is required;
(d) Use of liquid having greatest ability to
wet formation where liquids are required;

16.
(e) Placing fluid ports on bit such that greatest
cleaning action of hole bottom can be achieved.
7. The largest practical volumes of air should be circulated to
increase velocity and pressure drop at the bottom of the hole
and thereby provide better cleaning and greater cooling of
rock being drilled.

8. Finally, it should be mentioned that the full potential of
air/gas drilling techniques has certainly not been exploited,
and only studies which lead to a better comprehension of the
drilling process at the hole bottom could lead to an intelli-
gent attack on the problems so as to ensure significant
advances in the future. Among such studies should be the
measurements of the temperature below the bit in air drilling
and development of techniques to further increase the cooling
of the rock being drilled.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to
Mr. L. P. Hensler for conducting most of the experimental work, to Dr. E. W.
Gaylord for several valuable technical suggestions, to Mr. S. L. Connolly for
help with the manuscript, and to Gulf Research & Development Company for per-
mission to publish the results of this study.

17.
References
1. Eckel, J. R., "Effect of Pressure on Rock Drillability", Trans., AlME, Vol. 213,
TP 4702, 195B, pp. 1-6.
2. Adams, F. D., and J. T. Nicolson, "An Experimental Investigation of the Flow

of Marb1~~ Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Sere A., Vol. 195, 1901, pp. 363-401.
3. von Karman, Th., "Festigkeitsversuche unter a11seitigem Druck", Zeitschr. Ver

deutsch. Ing., Vol. 55, No. 42, 1911, pp. 1749-1757.

4. Bredthauer, R. 0., "Strength Characteristics of Rock Samples Under Hydrostatic
Pressure", Trans., ASME, Vol. 79, 1957, pp. 695-70B.
5. Robinson, L. H., Jr., "The Effect of Pore and Confining Pressure on the Failure
Process in Sedimentary Rocks", Quart. Colo. Sch. Mines, Vol. 54, No.3, 1959,
pp. 177-199.
6. Griggs, D. T., F. J. Turner, and H. C. Heard, "Deformation of Rocks at 500° to

BOO°C", Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. 79, 1960, pp. 39-104.
1. Cunningham, R. A., and J. G. Eenink, "Laboratory Study of Effect of Overburden,

Formation and Mud Column Pressures on Drilling Rate of Permeable Formations",
Trans., AIME, Vol. 216, TP B04B, 1959, pp. 9-17.
~. Garnier, A. J., and N. H. van Lingen, "Phenomena Affecting Drilling Rates at

Depth", Trans., AIME, Vol. 216, TP BOBO, 1959, pp. 232-239.
van Lingen, N. H., "Bottom Scavenging - A Major Factor Governing Penetration

-Rates at Depth", Jour. Pet. Tech .. , Vol. 14, No.2, Feb. 1962, pp. 1B7-196.
10. Cunningham, R. A•• and W. C. Goins, Jr., "How Mud Properties Affect Drilling
Rate", Pet. Engr., Vol. 29, No.5, May 1957, pp. B1l9-B13l.
11· Adam, N. K., The Physics and Chemistry of Surfaces, 3rd Ed., Oxford University
Press, London, 1952, 436 pp.
g. Krueger, R. F., and L. C. Vogel, "Damage to Sandstone Cores by Particles from

Drilling Fluids", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API, 1954, pp. 15B-171.
13. Bell, J. S., R. W. Waddell, E. H. Lancaster, Jr., and J. D. Hawkins, "How

Modern Muds Affect Rate of Penetration", Oil and Gas Jour., Vol. 52, No. 24,
Oct. 19, 1953, pp. 124-127, 146-151.
14. Moore, P. L., "Five Factors that Affect Dri 11ing Rate", Oi 1 and Gas Jour.,
Vol. 56, No. 40, Oct. 6, 195B, pp. 141-156, 160, 162.
15. Angel, R. R., "Volume Requirements for Air or Gas Drilling", Trans., AlME,
Vol. 210, TP 4679, 1957, pp. 325-330.
16. Gray, K. E., "The Cutting Carrying Capacity of Air at Pressures Above
Atmospheric", Trans., AlME, Vol. 213, TP B024, 195B, pp. 1BO-1B5.
18.
Schlichting, "Boundary Layer Theory", McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition, 1960,

pp. 331-316.
17.
19.
Table 1
Effect of Circulation Fluid on Drilling Rate
Overburden Pressure = 7000 psi
Bit Weight = 1000 lb

Bit Rotary Speed = 60 rpm
Circulation Rate (water or mud, with saturated rocks) 13 gpm

(air, with dry rocks) 67.0 scfm
Improvement
Interstitia 1 Bore-Hole Drilling Over Mud
Pressure Pressure Circulation Rate Drilling
Rock Type (psi) (psi) Fluid (it /hr) (%)
Italian Marble 0 3600 mud 0.95

0 3600 water 2.30 142.1
0 100 air 4.31 353.7
Indiana Limestone 3200 3600 mud 14.2

3200 3600 water 17.9 26.0
0 100 air 18.0 26.8
Berea Sandstone 3200 3600 mud 8.3

3200 3600 water 13.0 56.6
0 400 air 13 .5 62.7
Composition of Drilling Mud
Material Quantity
Bentonite 21.0 lb/bbl water
Caustic 2.1 lb/bbl water
Quebracho 4.2 lb/bbl water
Lime 5.0 lb/bbl water
Starch 2.9 lb/bbl water
Diesel Oil 10.0% by volume

20.
12,200 psi
13,000 psi
Compressive Strength of Wet and Dry Rocks
Dry
9700 psi
8400 psi
Wet
Table 2
Indiana Limestone
Berea Sandstone
Rock Type
21.
Table 3
Improvement in Drilling Rates Due to Heating of Rocks
Bit Weight = 225 lb
Bit Rotary Speed = 60 rpm

Overburden Pressure = Interstitial Pressure Drill-Hole Pressure o
Circulation Rate - not measured
Improvement
Rock Inlet Air Drilling when
Temperature Temperature Rate Heated
Rock Type CF) CF) (ft/hr) (%)
Berea Sandstone 225-200 67 2.7

70 62 2.3 17.4
Berea Sandstone 215-175 67 1.8

70-73 65 1.6 l2.S
Indiana Limestone 300-290 63 3.6

82 65 2.7 33.3
Indiana Limestone 242-238 65 3.8

91 65 3.2 18.8
Ita lian Marble* 295-215 67 3.6

82 66 2.2 63.6
Italian Marble* 239-230 65 5.4

85 65 3.2 68.7
* Italian marble block cracked during the tests.

HOUSE AIR SUPPLY - 100 PSIG

BOREHOLE
PRESSURE
GAGE
MICROBIT
DRILLING
COMPRESSOR APPARATUS
REGULATOR REGULATOR
INTAKE
,....-_-t BS8B
,.........-......&.,
CONTROLLER
PRESSURE
GAGE
FOXBORO
VALVE
VENT
TO ATMOSPHERE FLOWMETER
SCHEMATIC COMPRESSOR LAYOUT

N
FIG. I N
23.
INTERSTITIAL PRESSURE LINE
~\ \\ --------
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE LINE
QUARTER-TURN
HOUSING CAP

PFIESSURE HOLD-DOWN
CHAMBER SCREWS
CAP----__-+~~~~~~)~
O-RING SEA
[v1ECHANICAL
CAP REMOVAL
ASSEMBLY-
DRIVE PINION
BIT
O-RING SEA
"PRESSURE CHAMBER
OUTER HOUSING---
ClRCULATING FLUID
___-OUTLET
BIT LOADIN~G______- - I
L _ - - - - - D R I L L PIPE
TIE ROD
MICROBIT DRILLING APPARATUS

PRESSURE CHAMBER
FIG. 2
24.

25
BEREA SS - DRY
AIR- 67 SCFM
20
1000 LB. BIT LOAD, 60 RPM
IP = 0 PSI
15 BP=600 PSI
10
~
J:
"-
I-' 5
L4..
t
...
LIJ
C(
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0::
(!)
25
z BEREA SS -SATURATED
..J AIR-67 SCFM
..J 20
0::
0 IP = 0 PSI
15 BP= 600 PSI
10
5 -0-- 0-- iJ 0 0-
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE - 1000 PSI
FIG.3
25.
25

BEREA 55-SATURATED
AIR-67 SCFM
20
OP = 3000 PSI
15 IP= 0 PSI
10 ... 0''''''__0
a::: --0_0
::r:: 0-
......
5
0
..,:
L£.
t
"'-I 0
~
~
0 200 400 600 800 1000
a:::
C!)
25
z
...J
...J
-a::: 20
---
0
'"0""""--.0
15 0--0 0
0-
INDIANA LS -DRY
10 AIR-67SCFM
OP=3000 PSI
5
IP=O PSI
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
BOREHOLE PRESSURE -PSI
FIG.4
26.

25
BEREA SS -SATURATED
AIR -67 SCFM
20
OP = 7000 PSI
15 BP = 600 PSI
10
~o--
0:
z
........
...,: 5
-0 0 0-
t..
t 0
t.IJ
~ 0 10
<t
a:::
(!)
25
z
...I
...I
-
a:::
20
0
0- 0 a 0
15
0 0
INDIANA LS - SATURATED
10
AIR- 67 SCFM
5 OP = 7000 PSI
BP = 600 PSI
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
INTERSTITIAL PRESSURE - 1000 PSI
FIG.5
25
BEREA SS - DRY
AIR

20
OP = 3000 PSI
15 IP=OPSI
BP=600 PSI
10
Q:: - 0 - 0 -0 - 0 0 0 O-
x
'"
.-; 5
~
t
LIJ
t- 0
<t 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Q::
C>
z 25
..J BEREA SS - SATURATED
..J
-
Q:: 20
AIR
0 1000 LB. BIT LOAD, 60 RPM
OP=3000 PSI
15 IP =0 PSI
BP = 600 PS I
10 _0 0 0
0 0 0
0
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
CIRCULATION RATE - SCFM
N
FIG. 6 .
-....J
28 .
Surface of Fresh Berea Sandstone

(magnified 6 times)
FIG. 7a
30.
Surface of Berea Sandstone Drilled with Mud

(magnified 6 times)
FIG. 7c
31.
- y~- --J"r
\
rry - 100 PSI AIR
AIR AND
'r=

CUTTINGS ---- - - i - - ---+--
---
\,_----fVr--M ICROBI T
DISCHARGE v
I \ v I
-THERMOCOUPLES
V
17;/ /77//. 77 / / / / / / / 1/////77///77///7/ 7/l
li~·
V
~V tJj-
~
~~
V
/ v
v
)r---f-------.tv
V
-
FIG. 8

Spe 1052 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 1052 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

MECHANISM OF DRILLING WELLS WITH AIR AS THE DRILLING FLUID

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

Madan M. Singh, Jr. Member, AIME

Robert J. Goodwin, Member, AIME

Publication Rights Reserved

This paper is to be presented at the Texas U.-SPE Second Conference on

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion

Madan M. Singh, Jr. Member, AIME

Robert J. Goodwin, Member, AIME

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

factors are much less detrimental to the drilling rate.

stresses exerted on the rock by the overburden. Overburden pressure, liquid

drilling than drilling with liquids. The effect of overburden pressure

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

cleaning and greater cooling of the rock being drilled.

air rather than liquids to remove bottom-hole cuttings. This technique of

to the production zone, reduction in lost circulation, provision for continuous

by the drilling fluid, and fewer fishing jobs.

A number of drawbacks, such as small cutting size, risk of underground

fire, and the possibility of encountering high-pressure zones, water-bearing

over-all advantages of the technique have led to considerable savings in well

its economic advantages still further.

drilling; second, we ran a series of laboratory tests to evaluate several

variables - indicated either by practical field experience or by the literature

that may influence air drilling. Specifically, we studied the effects of

(1) overburden pressure

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

(3) interstitial pressure

(4) water saturation of the sample

(5) fluid circulation rate

(6) rock debris on the hole bottom

(7) temperature differential between the flushing air and

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

Figure 1 is a simplified schematic sketch of the layout showing how

conveyed to the microbit drilling apparatus. From there it is vented through

apparatus. A rock core, approximately 3 in. in diameter and 5 in. long, is

of, References are listed on page 17.

drilling, a condition very similar to what occurs in actual field operations.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

changed in sequence between tests. This procedure tended, to some extent, to

The apparatus in Fig. B was devised to check the effects of tempera-

is placed in an aluminum jacket, which in turn is surrounded by an electrical

desired temperature difference. A thermocouple embedded in the rock specimen

with plaster of Paris indicates the rock temperature on a recorder.

apparatus duplicated actual down-hole drilling conditions. Three types of rocks -

Italian marble of no measurable permeability, Indiana limestone of slight

permeability, and Berea sandstone of high permeability - were each drilled

7000 psi, 3600 psi, and 3200 psi, respectively.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDRM/proceedings-pdf/65DRM/All-65DRM/SPE-1052-MS/2086990/spe-1052-ms.pdf by guest on 08 December 2022

mud to water than in changing from water to air.

After the calibration tests were completed, approximately 450 other

are thought influential on actual field drilling rates.

separately. Each point on the resulting curves represents an average of four

sets of values of such test data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

below in turn for each of the variables under study.

1. Overburden Pressure - Test results shown in Fig. 3 indicate that

increasing overburden pressure tends to decrease drilling rate. During these

creasing the overburden pressure also implied an increase in the "effective"

(overburden minus interstitial) pressure.