SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AlME PAPER

Fidelity union Building NUMBER 1242-G

Dallas, Tex.

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

A Method for Determining Optimum

Drilling Techniques
By

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

John W. Speer
Shell Oil Co., New Orleans, La.

Publication Rights Reserved

This paper is to be presented at a meeting covering Drilling and Production Practices on the Gulf'
Coast sponsored by the Evangeline Section in Laf'ayette, La., April 24, 1959, and is cmisidered the
property of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to publish is hereby restricted to an ab-
stract of not more than 300 words, with no illustrations, unless the paper is specifically released to
the press by the Society Publications Committee Chairman or the Executive Secretary on his behalf.
Such abstract should contain appropriate, conspicuous acknowledgment. Publication elsewhere after
publication in Journal of Petroleum Technology 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 ; it will be presented at the above meeting with the paper and considered
for publication in Journal of Petroleum Technology.

ABSTRACT often is too costly and experience too late.

This report develops a simple method for
determining the combination of weight-on-bit,
rotary speed and hydraulic horsepower which pro-
duces minimum drilling cost. Empirical relation-
ships are developed to show the influence on
penetration rate of weight-an-bit, rotary speed
and hydraulic horsepower. Optimum weight-on-bit
is shown in relation to formation drillability,
and optimum rotary speed is related to weight-on-
bit. These five relationships are then combined
into a chart for determining optimum drilling
techniques from a minimum of field test data.
Secondary issues discussed are: (1)
Advantages of the jet bit over the regular bit
and minimum nozzle fluid velocity requirements
for jet bit use relative to formation drillabil-
ity; and (2) distribution of pump horsepower into
nozzle fluid velocity and circulating volume.
INTRODUCTION
The wide variations in drilling conditions
encountered in oilfield work make it difficult to
develop general rules of operation for obtaining
maximum drilling efficiency. Field experience
and test data. usually provide the basis for
operations in a particular locale, but testing
References and illustrations at end of paper
Consequently, a method for determining optimum
drilling techniques for any partiCUlar drilling
condition, with a minimum of engineering effort
and drilling experience, is greatly needed.
To assist in developing such a method is the
purpose of this report. It is recognized that
sufficient drilling information has not been
accumulated to accomplish this ambitious job
without some shortcomings along the way. It is
believed, however, that the method proposed is
flexible to improvements which are sure to be
made, and that Ultimately the purpose of the re-
port will be accomplished more comprehensively
through a combined effort of interested parties.
CONTROLLABLE FACTORS THAT AFFECT BIT PERFORMANCE
Drill bit performance depends primarily on
five controllable factors: (1) Weight-an-bit,
(2) rate of rotation, (3) hydraulic horsepower,
(4) type of bit, and (5) properties of the circu-
lating medium. Although each parameter contrib-
utes individually to bit performance, they are
closely interrelated and their combined influence
governs the degree of drilling efficiency ob-
tained. The influences of circulating media have
been covered in literature and will not be dis-
cussed herein. This report will deal primarily
With weight-an-bit, rotary speed, hydraulic
horsepower and the relative performance of jet
2 A MErHOD FOR DEI'ERMINING OPTIMUM DRILLING TEt:HNIQUFS
and regular bits. In particular, an attempt
will be made to find answers for the following:
1. How penetration rate of a bit varies
with weight-on-bit, rate of rotation, and hy-
draulic horsepower.
2. To what upper limits these parameters
can be carried economically.
3. The interrelation of these three para-
meters in various formations, and the combina-
tions which result in minimum drilling costs.
4. Merits of various types of bits.
There are, of' course, many factors other
than the five discussed here that affect drill-
ing efficiency and footage costs. These include
formation hardness, abrasiveness of formation,
well depth, and many others. As these items
cannot be conveniently controlled, their influ-
ence on costs must simply be accepted. The pur-
pose here is to determine how the so-called con-
trollable parameters can be varied to produce
minimum costs under whatever drilling conditions
are encountered.
INFLUENCE OF FACTORS ON BIT PERFORMANCE
Weight-on-bit
Weight vs Penetration Rate
Laboratory data and field results are
available for study of the effect of weight-on-
bit on penetration rate. Because of the me-
chanics of test apparatus most laboratory data
are obtained from the harder, more brittle rocks,
some of which are not normally penetrated in
oilfield work. On the other hand, laboratory
experiements are more easily controlled than
field tests, and results contain less interfer-
ence from other factors, such as lack of bottom-
hole scavaging and variations in rock properties.
The two types of data appear to correlate well
if properties of the rocks are considered.
Laboratory data which indicate the
relationship between weight-on-bit and penetra-
tion rate are shown graphically in Fig. 1. These
data were obtained with 8.75 and 6.75 in. roller
bits, from rocks varying in hardness from lime-
stone to pink quartzite. l ,2 The character of all
of the curves is similar. Beginning at the 0,0
ordinate or origin of the graph: (1) penetration
rate responds only slightly to increases in
weight in the low-weight range; (2) a weight is
reached where response of penetration rate be-
gins to increase rapidly; and finally, (3) the
response of penetration rate to increases in
weight becomes constant and a linear relationship
develops.
In condition (1) within the low-weight
range, load on the bit teeth presumably does not
exceed the compressive strength of the rock and
drilling progress results from wear and minor
1242-G
crushing on the surface. (See inset, Fig. 1).
Condition (2) is the weight range in which the
compressive strength of the rock is exceeded,
and the teeth begin to chisel in and fracture
out large pieces of rock. This weight is often
called "critical weight". Condition (3) is the
weight range in which the compressive strength
of the rock has been exceeded, and depth of
penetration of the bit teeth depends on weight.
The one major variation between the curves for
the different rocks is critical weight, which
increases with hardness or strength of the rock.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
Now let us examine in light of oilfield
drilling the materials from which these results
were obtained. Limestone is classified hard to
very hard, but still comprises a major part of
total footage dr illed • Dolomite is usually
classified very hard, and with cherts and sili-
cious limestones, comprises only a small per-
centage of oilfield drilling. Granites, marble,
and pink quartzite are very seldom drilled.
Thus, considering the two materials pertinent to
oilfield drilling, critical weights are low and
straight-line relationships between weight and
penetration rate are reached at low weights.
Further, if the results in the low-weight range
are ignored and the straight-line sections of
the curves extended downward, they intersect the
base of the graph only slightly to the right of
the origin. For example, the extended curve for
limestone, which is among the harder rocks nor-
mally drilled in the field, passes only 2,500 Ib
to the right of the origin.
Therefore, it appears from laboratorY data
that penetration rate varies approximately in a
direct proportion with weight-on-bit for mater-
ials usually penetrated in oilfield drilling.
For the hard, brittle rocks the relationships for
weight ranges pertinent to field practices are
also linear, but the intersections of the extra-
polated curves with the base of the graph are to
the right of the origin.
Field results which indicate the effect of
weight-on-bit on penetration rate are shown
graphically in Fig. 2. These results were ob-
tained from several areas and represent a vari-
ety of formations, bit sizes and types, and hole
condition~ asc:elated to circulating fluid
volumes 3, ,5, . Each set of 'data is intended to
show only influence of weight-on-bit, as all
other variables such as formation, rotary speed,
bit type, circulating rate, etc., were supposed-
1y held constant. To assist in analyzing the
data, the 0,0 ordinate or origin of the graph can
be considered a point on each curve because pene-
tration rate would be zero at zero weight. Also,
some consideration can be given the fact that
lack of adequate bottom-hole scavaging depresses
the effect of weight-on-bit. As this latter
phenomenon appears to influence much of the field
data, it would be expedient to investigate it
further before proceeding with,the general
1242-G JOHN W. SPEER
analysis.
To demonstrate the influence of inadequate
bottom-hole cleaning on bit performance, three
curves of weight vs penetration rate for various
bit hydraulic horsepower are plotted in Fig. 3. 7
Referring to Curve A,*at the lower hydraulic
horsepower balling up starts at about the 8,000
Ib weight, and the response of penetration rate
to increase in weight begins to decrease. Ball-
ing up continues to increase with weight, and
eventually a weight is reached (22,000 Ib) where
f'urther increase results in a decrease in pene-
tration rate. By increasing hydraulic horsepower
(Curves B and C), balling up is deferred and a
constant response of penetration rate maintained
to a greater weight-on-bit.
Also evident is that balling of a bit can
progress over a relatively large weight range.
For this reason, its initial states are diffi-
cult to detect, and much oilfield drilling is
done with a partially balled-Up bit.. In fact,
over-all bit performance usually can be improved
in the field by increasing weight into the par-
tially balled-up region. Field test results
covering only part of the pertinent weight range,
such as much of that plotted in Fig. 2, could
show any relationship from directly proportional
to inversely proportional, depending on the
degree of balling up involved.
Thus, all of the curves in Fig. 2 can be
expected to pass through the origin of the graph,
and some data can be expected to show a smaller-
than-actual response of penetration rate because
of balling up. Actually, four basic types of
curves or relationships are indicated as follows.
1. Curves that bend upward, and could pass
through the origin only with a reversal in slope
("1 curves: 9 per cent of total curves). There
is not an apparent reason for a reversal in slope
for a relationship of this nature, and it is pre-
sumed that this relatively small group of data
reflects the effect of other factors, such as
variation in rock hardness.
2. Curves that bend upward, and would pass
through the origin if extrapolated downward (5
curves: 15 per cent of total curves). This re-
lationship is quite reasonable, particUlarly for
"hard rOCk", as shown by laboratory results. The
occurrence is small (15 per cent) and the data
* This condition is often referl'ed to as "balling
up", although the terminology does not well de-
scribe the condition. Insuf'ficient bottom-hole
scavaging often results in reduced drilling ef-
ficiency because of regrinding or recutting of
chips on the bottom of the hole, with no evidence tration rate to increases in weight, and although
of cuttings adhering to the bit as is inferred by quite feasible in view of laboratory data, they
the term "balling up". However, in the interest
of space and uniformity, the term is used here to (3) approximately one-quarter of the results
refer to any condition wherein lack of bottom-
hole cleaning interferes with bit performance.
3
are interspersed throughout the range of
drillability and do not appear to represent a
particular type of formation.
3. Curves that bend downward, and could
pass through the origin without reversal in
slope (9 curves: 27 per cent of total curves).
As these curves could logically intersect the
origin of the graph, this type of relationship
cannot be entirely discounted. It was antici-
pated, however, because with inadequate bottom-
hole cleaning and balling up, it can be dupli-
cated in any formation. Therefore, for the
moment, it is assumed that these results reflect
insuf'ficient bottom-hole cleaning.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
4. Curves that are straight lines, and
approximate~y pass through the origin (16 curves: .
49 per cent of total curves). This relationship
is indicated by the largest group of data and is
also the relationship most commensurate with
laboratory results.
Digressing slightly, there is a character-
istic of field test data involved here Which is
useful in analyzing results to determine the
individual influence of a particular factor.
There is a far greater chance in field testing
to produce results which show less than the
actual influence of a factor, than there is to
show more influence. For example, if weight-on-
bit is varied while maintaining all other factors
constant, there is no possibility of shOWing too
great an influence for weight but there is a good
possibility of demonstrating too little influence
of weight if hydraulic horsepower were inadequate
for bottom-hole cleaning. The same would occur
if rotary speed were varied with all other fac-
tors maintained constant. Likewise, increasing
hydraulic horsepower while maintaining all other
factors constant does not accurately cl1a.Jiacter-
ize the influence of hydraulic horsepower, be-
cause weight must also be increased to obtain the
full advantage of better bottom-hole cleaning.
Therefore, field tests tend to show influences of
individual factors varying from some maximum,
down to no influence. Consequently, the greatest
influence of a single factor consistently demon-
strated by field results should represent the
true value. This appears to be the directly pro-
portional relationship indicated by this analysis
of weight vs penetration rate data. A similar
variation in data will be evident in subsequent
analyses. The few results in each data analysis
which indicate too great an influence probably
occur because of variations in formation hardness.
Returning to the field data analysis: (1)
approximately one-eighth of these results appear
. illogical; (2) approximately one-eighth of the
results indicate an increasing response of pene-
are discounted because of the small occurrence;
appear to reflect the influence of lack of ade-
quate bottom-hole scavaging, and are discounted
4 A METHOD FOR DEl'ERMINING OPTJMUM DRILLING TECHNIQUES
for this reason; (4) about one-half of the
results indicate that penetration rate varies in
direct proportion with weight-on-bit. It is
concluded that penetration rate varies approxi-
mately in a direct proportion with weight-on-bit
in formations normally penetrated in oilfield
drilling. if sufficient fluid circulation is
provided to insure clean bottom-hole conditions.
The relationships for the many formations en-
countered in oilfield drilling could then be ap-
proximately represented graphically by a family
of straight lines emanating from the origin of
the graph.
The magnitude of the weights involved in
Fig. 2 are more clearly shown in Fig. 4, where
penetration rate is plotted as a function of
weight expressed in pounds per inch of bit diam-
eter. These are data from Fig. 2 for which bit
size and other pertinent information were re-
corded, and are also, in general, results from
the most closely controlled tests and should con-
tain less interference from factors other than
weight. In Fig. 4 a definite directly propor-
tional relationship between weight and penetra-
tion rate is indicated. Balling up is clearly
evident, and usually follows a weight range in
Which penetration rate responded at a constant
rate to increases in weight. Most of the data
are for weights up to 4,500 Ib/in. of bit
diameter. Two groups include weights of 6,500
and 7,000 Ib/in., one of which indicates probable
interference from lack of hydraulic horsepower.
Within these weights there is no indication
that the bit teeth were completely buried, a con-
dition Which might be expected if weight were
increased far enough (assuming bit would with-
stand load) ~ If this occurred, penetration rate
probably would not increase further with in-
creases in weight, but also probably would not
decrease appreciably as it does when balling up
becomes the deciding factor.
Weight-on-bit expressed as Ib/in. of bit
diameter (PIED) is not a completely satisfactory
unit for describing operating conditions, partic-
ularly if applied to all bit sizes in use; how-
ever, it appears to be the unit best suited to
this study. It has been shown that bearing
capacity of a bit decreases more rapidly than
bit diameter, and also that volume of tooth
metal decreases more rapidly than hole area.e It
would follow then that smaller bits are not as
competent as larger bits. Further, penetration
rate varies directly with bit diameter, even with
equal weights per inch of bit diameter. However,
within the range of bit sizes normally used (6
to 12.25 in.) optimum or most economical weight
(PIED) does not appear to vary appreciably with
bit size. Therefore, since optimum conditions
are the primary concern of this report, PIBD is
deemed a satisfactory unit for use in character-
izing over-all drilling performance.
1242-G
Weight vs Footage Cost
Penetration rate is one of five units which
comprise footage cost; the other four are: (1)
bit life, hours; (2) time required to put a new
bit on bottom, round trip time; (3) bit cost; and
(4) hourly rig cost, as follows:
Footage cost =C (L + T) + B
L x R ,
where R = penetration rate, ft/hr
L = bit life, hours
= rig cost, $/hr
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
C
T = trip time, hrs
B = bit cost, $
L xR = footage per bit
The three units, rig cost, trip time and bit
cost are fixed for a given condition, and only
the effect of weight on the life of a bit and on
penetration rate are of primary interest. That
penetration rate varies proportionally with
weight has been concluded, and it would therefore
appear possible to drill all formations at ap-
proximately the same speed if enough weight were
applied to bury the cutter teeth. ObViously,
this is not practical because such loads would
cause immediate bit failure in the harder forma-
tions. Thus, to obtain a complete understanding
of the effect of weight-on-bit on footage cost it
is necessary to determine the weight which results
in minimum drilling cost as well as the relation-
ship between cost and weight over the total weight
range (weight which results in minimum cost is
hereafter referred to as optimum weight).
In order to use this information to predict
weight practices without exhaustive testing, it
is necessary to correlate optimum weight with
some readily measurable formation quantity or
index. Fortunately, drillability* or penetration
per unit of weight PIED, which is a formation
index easily measured, appears to be a
satisfactory unit.
Shown in Fig. 5 are twelve sets of data
which indicate the relationship between footage
cost and weight-on-bit. To demonstrate that lack
of bottom-hole cleaning did not interfere with
cost results, penetration rate as a function of
weight is also shown for each set of data. The
character of all of the cost curves are similar;
downward-bending indicating a decreasing response
of cost to increases in weight-on-bit, which also
demonstrates that an optimum weight for minimum
cost exists for each drilling condition. Although
all of these curves must be extrapolated much too
far for accuracy in order to demonstrate optimum
weight, it is worthwhile to note two items: (1)
optimum weight appears to decrease slightly as the
*Drillability refers to the drilling property
Penetration Rate/PIED or slope of weight vs
penetration rate curve.
1242-G JOHN W. SPEER
formations become softer (and penetration rates
increase); (2) optimum weights appear to be in
the order of 5,500 to 6,500 PIBD for these medium
hard formations.
Curve 8 demonstrates the depressing effect
of lack of adequate bottom-hole scavaging or
balling up on maximum economical weight. That
penetration rate did not respond directly with
weight (upper Curve 8) indicates that lack of
scavaging influenced results, and consequently,
maximum weight was reduced about 2,000 to 4,500
PIED (lower Curve 8).
Another important characteristic of the
cost curves to be noted for future use is that
change in slope appears to be gradual, and opti-
mum weight does not appear too critical. This
will be advantageous when attempting later to
establish optimum weight-on-bit as a function of
formation drillability, for a large margin of
error is incorporated in the characteristics of
the cost curves.
optimum Weight-on-bit
Thus, it appears that there is a maximum
economical weight for each type of formation
penetrated; to determine that weight for the
varied formations penetrated in oilfield drilling
is the principal problem. This is attempted in
Fig. 6 which shows relationships between penetra-
tion rate and weight-on-bit, represented by a
family of straight lines emanating from the origin
of the graph, and a curve which is intended to
represent optimum weight as a function of forma-
tion drillability. This latter curve was con-
structed as follows.
1. Field test results and general field
practices indicate that optimum weight decreases
as formations become softer (drillability in-
creases). Therefore, the general direction of
the curve is known.
2. The placement of the curve on the graph
was estimated from field test results (extrapo-
lated), general field practices from Pacific
Coast and Permiam Basin, and extreme weight prac-
tices for various areas as reported by Hughes l •
Recognizing the inaccuracy which could be incurred
in extrapolating field test results, they were not
weighted heavily in construction of the curve.
General field practices (reported by Hughes) are
usually found to be slightly lower than optimum
weight because several field problems, such as
hole deviation, restrict weight for reasons other
than bit life; therefore, the curve was made to
pass slightly above these points. Likewise,
Pacific Coast practices are known to be slightly
lower than optimum because of deviation problems,
and these values were treated similarly. Permian
Basin practices are relatively free of interfer-
ence from other problems, and weight practices
are governed primarily by footage cost; therefore,
the curve was made to pass through these points.
5
In addition, a range of weights within which
near-minimum footage cost should result, was in-
corporated in the graph because field test re-
sults indicate that Within a range of ± 2,000
PIBD encompassing optimum weight, costs do not
vary appreciably, and because it is recognized
that a finite optimum weight curve cannot be con-
structed with the information available.
The function of this tentative curve of
optimum weight vs formation drillability is in
estimating the weight which would result in
minimum footage cost, after the penetration rate
index of the formation has been established. It
is intended that this estimated weight would pro-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
duce near-minimum costs, so that drilling opera-
tions could be raised to a high degree of effici-
ency quite rapidly. As time permitted, varia-
tions in ~eight practices could be made through
field testing in order to obtain 100 per cent
efficiency.
Because these curves require that sufficient
hydraulic horsepower is available to maintain
clean bottom-hole conditions, field application
of the graph presented in Fig. 6 can best be
demonstrated in conjunction with the other vari-
ables which affect drilling efficienty. For this
reason its function will be discussed further in
the last section of this report.
Speed of Rotation
Rotary Speed vs Penetration Rate
Laboratory data and field results are
available for study of the effect of speed of
rotation on penetration rate; however, the data
do not correlate well. Laboratory results indi-
cate that penetration rate increases directly
with speed of rotation; Whereas, field results
indicate a decreasing response of penetration
rate as rotary speed is increased. Possibly,
instability associated with a long drill string,
and/or lack of bottom-hole scavaging ahead of the
cutters account for the difference. At any rate,
it is necessary to make a choice between the two
relationships, and field results are considered
more appropriate for this stUdy.
Laboratory results which indicate the
relationship between rate of rotation and ~e­
tration rate are shown graphically in Fig. 72 •
To assist in analyzing the results, the origin
of the graph can be considered a point on each
curve, because penetration rate would be zero
With no rotation. Basically, three types of
curves or relationships are represented: (1)
straight-line curves emanating from the origin of
the graph, showing directly proportional response
of penetration rate to increases of rotary speed;
(2) curves that bend slightly upward, showing in-
creasing response of penetration rate to in-
creases of rotary speed; a.nd (3) curves that bend
slightly downward, showing decreasing response of
6 A METHOD FOR DErERMIID1lG OPTIMUM DRILLING TECRNIQUES
penetration rate to increases of rotary speed.
Although an average of these results indicates
that penetration rate varies in a direct propor-
tion with speed of rotation, the data are too in-
consistent to be conclusive.
laboratory data obtained from a Russian
report and reproduced in Fig. 8 are more consist-
ent and show a greater range of rotary speeds 9.
The data were obtained from bit sizes of 3.75,
4.75 and 5.75 in., and for formations of cement,
limestone, marble and granite. Results are also
for two bit loads, 1,120 and 627 lb. Considering
the three softer formations (cement, limestone
and marble) penetration rate varies in a direct
proportion with rotary speeds to as great as
4,500 rpm. In the harder granite, the response
of penetration rate decreases slightly as rotary
speed is increased. It was surmised that this
occurred because the harder rock caused more
vertical virbration of the bit, and thereby re-
duced drilling efficiency.
Field results which indicate the relation-
ship between rate of rotation and penetration
rate are shown graphically in Fig. 93 • Again,
the origin can be considered a point on each
curve. Only one relationship is consistent~y
indicated' the response of penetration rate de-
creases as rotary speed is increased (16 of the
18 sets of data produce curves that bend down-
~.
Referring to Fig. 10 where curves
representative of averages of these field data
are plotted, it appears that a rotary speed might
eventually be reached where further increase
would not produce an increase in penetration
rate. It also appears that this Itmaximum rotary
speed" decreases as formation hardness increases.
For example, maximum penetration rate might be
achieved at + 300 rpm in formations that drill at
about ilO ft7hr; whereas some speed greater than
400 rpm would be reqUired to obtain maximum pene-
tration rate in formations that drill at +160
ft~. - data and general field practices.
Rotary Speed vs Footage Cost
Because rotary speed affects bit life, as
well as penetration rate, the ultimate criterion
for its evaluation must be footage cost just as
with weight-on-bit.
Plotted in Fig. II are the few field results
available which indicate the effect of rotary
speed on drilling cost. Also shown on the graph
is the relationship between penetration rate and
rotary speed for each group of data. 'Ihr.ee indi-
cations are worthy of mention: (1) the responses
of penetration rate to rotary speed are commen-
surate with the general relationships shown by
other field data (Fig. 9); (2) all cost curves
bend downward and indicate an optimum rotary
speed well within the mechanical abilities of
1242-G
most rigs (optimum rotary speed refers to the
rotary speed which results in minimum cost); (3)
optimum rotary speed appears to decrease with
increase in weight-on-bit. For example, an
optimum rotary speed of about 150 rpm is indi-
cated when using 25,000 lb on a 6-in. bit, while
about 225 rpm is indicated to be optimum when
using 20,000 lb (Curves 1 and 2). There is
also a slight indication from comparison of
Curves 1 and 3 that optimum rotary speed de-
creases as formation hardness increases. It is
also noted that optimum rotary speed is not too
critical, but encompasses a range of about 50
rpm.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
Opt imum Rotary Speed
Summarizing briefly: (1) the response of
penetration rate to variations in rotary speed
appears to vary slightly With formation drill-
ability, (2) optimum rotary speed appears to de-
crease as weight-on-bit is increased, (3) weight-
on-bit usually is increased with hardness of the
formation, and (4) weight-on-bit ap~ears to be
more influential than rotary speed (directly pro-
portional relationship with penetration rate).
In view of this, it was deemed advisable
to relate optimum speed of rotation to weight-on-
bit for the purpose of obtaining a method for
predicting optimum drilling techniques, because
weight appears to influence optimum rotary speed
more than formation hardness. This is attempted
in Fig. 12 through the use of field test results,
and general field practices compiled by Hughes l .
Field test results are plotted directly from
Fig. 11. The Hughes data consist of a compila-
tion of general weight and rpm practices employed
throughout the U.S. for large groups of opera-
tors. Data plotted in Fig. 12 represent extreme
practices, but as they are for large groups of
operators, they are presumed to be well within
the economical operating range of rock bits.
The reliability of the curve is strengthened
somewhat by the close correlation between test
Thus, the curve shown in Fig. 12 embodying
both field test results and extreme field prac-
tices, is intended to represent the approximate
relationship between optimum rotary speed and
weight-on-bit. Again it is pointed out that op-
timum rotary speed is not too critical, but en-
compasses a range of about 50 rpm. Nevertheless,
the curve must be considered tentative until many
more data are accumulated to more definitely es-
tablish its limits.
Hydraulic Horsepower
There is not a good, all-purpose unit for
expressing the effect of hydraulic horsepower on
bit performance. For various purposes, units
used are: (1) pump hydraulic horsepower, (2)
circulating rate, (3) jet nozzle fluid velocity,

1242-G JOHN W. SPEER
(4) hydraulic horsepower across the 1:?it, (5)
momentum of' nozzle f'luid, and (6) annular rising
velocity. Each of' these units expresses a part
of' the characteristics of' a circulating system;
no one unit completely def'ines conditions of' a
particular operation. The all inclusive unit
"pump hydraulic horsepower" best suits the pur-
pose of' this study because more f'ield data are
available f'or study of' the ef'f'ect of' pump hydrau-
lic horsepower than any other f'actor, and because
it is the unit ultimately needed to describe the
equipment required f'or optimum drilling tech-
niques.· The other units will be discussed as
related thereto.
Bef'ore attempting to determine the inf'luence
of' hydraulic horsepower on drilling ef'f'iciency,
it might be expedient f'irst to think about the
way in which hydraulic horsepower can af'f'ect bit
perf'ormance. The circulating medium does not
destroy rock, it clears away the rock destroyed
by the bit. In accomplishing this, its functions
are: (1) to remove the cuttings f'rom the bottom
of' the hole rapidly to prevent recutting, (2) to
clean the cutters so that the teeth are f'ree to
penetrate the rock, and (3) to carry the cuttings
up away f'rom the bit so as not to interf'ere with
bit lif'e. Consequently there is a critical hy-
draulic horsepower f'or each weight-on-bit in a
specif'ic f'ormation (and f'or all the other specif-
ic conditions related to the environment at the
bit) which provides adequate bottom-hole scavag-
ing f'or maximum eff'iciency. Varying hydraulic
horsepower above this critical value has no ef'-
f'ect on penetration rate, while reducing it below
critical would permit balling up and recutting
and thereby reduce penetration rate and bit lif'e.
Theref'ore, in the classic sense where maximum
weight is used with each value of' hydraulic
horsepower (Hhp), it can af'f'ect bit perf'ormance
only by limiting the amount of' weight that can
be used. It is in this sense that ref'erence is
made to the ef'f'ect of' hydraulic horsepower on
penetration rate in the f'ollowing discussions.
Field results which indicate the relation-
ship between pump hydraulic horsepower and
penetration rati are shown graphically in Fig.
137,10,11. Most of' the 33 groups of' data consist
of two or three points, which accounts f'or most
of the curves being straight lines. There is a
consistency in these straight lines, however,
which appears to indicate a def'inite relationship
between hydraulic horsepower and penetration
rate. With each of' the curves extended downward
and its intersection with the base of the graph
noted, there is the follOWing distribution: (1)
19 curves (58 per cent) intersect the abscissa
between the origin and 100 Hhp, and 12 curves
(38 per cent) intersect between 60 and 100 Hhp;
(2) nine curves (27 per cent) intersect the
vertical axis; and (3) five curves (15 per cent)
intersect to the right of 100 Hhp.
Thus, these results show relationships
,
varying f'rom (1) no inf'luence· of' Hhp, to (2) a
linear relationship with an apparent origin at
±80 Hhp. In addition, a few scattered data in-
dicate an even greater inf'luence of Hhp. This
latter group is erratic, and probably can be
discounted as reflecting inf'luences of' f'actors
other than Hhp, such as variations in formation
drillability. Considering the remaining 85 per
cent of' data, the concentration of' data increases
progressively f'rom "no improvement" f'rom Hhp
to the linear relationship with an apparent
origin at ±80 Hhp. This is approximately the
range of data expected f'rom f'ield results, as
discussed earlier. There remains only the
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
problem of' determining whatf'actors could sup-
press the inf'luence of' Hhp in field practices.
This is demonstrated in Fig. 14 with data
well established through the drilling of more-
than 100,000 f't of' hole. Average penetration
rates for the interval 1,000 to 10,000 f't in the
Ventura f'ield, Calif'., are plotted with average
pump Hhp f'or this interval. Average weight-on-
bit is also shown f'or each well. From 275 to
490 Hhp weight-on-bit was varied appropriately
and penetration rate increased lineally with
Hhp. From 490 to 840 Hhp weight was increased
only f'rom 27,000 to 36,000 Ib (33 per cent) be-
cause of' hole deviation problems, and the f'ull
advantage of' the increase in Hhp was not ob-
tained. The lower section of' the curve, 275 to
490 Hhp, appears commensurate with Group 1
(58 per cent) of' the assorted field data plotted
in Fig. 13. The section f'rom 490 to 840 Hhp
appears to be commensurate with Group 2 (27 per
cent) of' these data - presumably results f'or
which weight was not increased along with Hhp.
A shif't of' the apparent or igin to ±'SO Hhp is
logical because some circulation to carry cut-
tings would be required before any drilling
could be done.
Theref'ore. it is concluded that penetration
rate under any specif'ic condition* varies line-
ally with :PUlIl:!? Hhp z with an apparent origin at
about 80 Hhp as sl10wn in Fig. 15. Act~, this
conclusion might better be stated I the Bhp re-
quired to maintain clean bottom-hole conditions
varies lineaJ.ly with weight-on-bit. Because
penetration rate varies in a direct proportion
with weight-on-bit, penetration rate would also
vary lineally with Hhp, if' maximum weight were
used.
Increase in Hhp will produce an increase in
penetration rate even when not accompanied by an
increase in weight, under certain circumstances.
This can be demonstrated with the data that were
shown in Fig. 3. Consider the condition on Curve
A of' 20,000 Ib and a penetration rate of' 65 fi/hr.
When IDlp across the bit was increased f'rom 210 to
260, penetration rate increased to SO fi/hr, even
*Specif'ic condition includes constant f'ormation,
depth, drill string, bit, Hhp utilization and .
rotary speed.
8 A METHOD FOR DEI'ERMINING OPTJMUM DRILLING TECHNIQUES
without an increase in weight, because the
additional Hhp reduced balling up. Likewise,
further increase in Hhp to 340 produced an addi-
tional increase in penetration rate because the
balling-up condition was further reduced.
. So far, only pump Hhp has been considered,
without regard to the efficiency of application.
As Hhp is both pressure and volume, some evalua-
tion of the two is needed. Cleaning action at
the bottom of the hole is primarily a function of
volume and velocity; velocity at the bit is pro-
portional to the square root of pressure differ-
ential. Cleaning of the hole is primarily a
function of circulating volume. Thus, an under-
standing of annular rising velocity, total cir-
culating rate and nozzle fluid velocity is
needed.
There is not a good criterion for mln11Dum
annular rising velocity; this will vary with
hole condition and type of formation penetrated.
Also, minimum acceptable rising velocity seems to
vary inversely as hole size. Rising velocities
of about 90 ft/min have given satisfactory re-
sults in 12.25-in. holes, while velocities over
300 rt/min have been unsuccessful in eliminating
stuck pipe problems in ±3 -in. holes. For normal
drilling conditions the following annular veloci-
ties for various hole sizes seem to be accepta-
ble, although not optimum for maximum efficiency:
Hole Size Annular Velocity
(in. ) (rt/min)
15 80
12 1/4 90
10 5/8 110
8 3/4 120
7 7/8 130
6 140
This variation by hole size would indicate
that some criterion besides annular velocity is
needed. Probably circulating volume vs cross-
sectional area of hole, or diameter of hole would
be more definitive. On this basis the following
formula seems to give reasonable results: (hole
diameter, in.)2 x 5 = acceptable circulating
volume (gpm).
Minimum nozzle velocity for effective jet
bit use is also an elusive figure, although it
seems reasonable that a minimum velocity should
exist. The circulating fluid performs two scav-
aging functions at the bit; it cleans the bottom
of the hole and the cutter teeth. The jet stream
is directed at the bottom of the hole, and fluid
turbulence is depended on to clean the cutters.
If nozzle fluid velocity is too low to create
enough turbulence to clean the cutters, the clean
hole bottom goes for naught and the bit balls up
anyway. In contrast, the circulating fluid
through a conventional bit impinges directly on
the cutters and less velocity is required to keep
1242-G
the bit clean. However, large circulating
volumes are required to clean the bottom of the
hole, and this may erode and fluid cut the
cutters.
In comparison with conventional bits, im-
proved performance has been obtained with jet
bits in "soft" formations with nozzle velocities
as low as 170 ft/sec. On the other hand, re-
sults have indicated only minor improvements
with jet bits in "medium" formations with nozzle
velocities as great as 350 ft/sec. This seems
to indicate a minimum nozzle velocity for ef-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
fective jet bit action, as well as an optimum
formation for jet bits, which will be discussed
later. Of the results available for this study,
the only applications wherein conventional bits
performed better (cost/ft) than jet bits were
with nozzle velocities below 220 ft/sec. Thus,
it would appear that minimum nozzle velocity to
ensure effective jet bit use might be in the
order of 225 ft/sec, while some improvement might
be obtained in soft formations with velocities
as low as 170 ft/sec.
Bit hydraulic horsepower (BHhp) can also be
used to describe circulating conditions; how-
ever, it also requires qualifications. BHhp is
defined as follows.
BHhp = ~
~
where BHhp is bit hydraulic horsepower; Q is
circulating rate, gpm; P is pressure drop across
bit, psi; and P is proportional to V2; where V
is nozzle fluid velocity, ft/sec. Bffhp is in-
tended to describe circulating rate and nozzle
fluid velocity at the bit, where the actual work
is done. However , it can be demonstrated that a
respectable BHhp could be obtained with very high
nozzle velocity and very low circulating volume,
which would not be conducive to good bit perform-
ance. For this reason, the unit is of little
value unless its constituents are also given.
An example of this, as well as an example of
optimum utilization of pump hp, are demonstrated
in Fig. 16. The data are plotted penetration
rate vs BHhp, and represent the average penetra-
tion rates achieved using various nozzle sizes
in drilling 7-7/8-ib.. holes to about 5,000 ft
with a pump of about 375 Hhp. Penetration rate
was increased by reducing nozzle size from
3x9/16 to 3xl/2 in. and thereby utilizing more
of the pump horsepower at the bit. (Penetration
rate was increased because the improved bottom-
hole cleaning permitted the use of more weight-
on-bit). Through this section of data, penetra-
tion rate varies directly (but not lineally) with
BHhp. However, the use of 3x3/8-in. nozzles re-
stricted circulating volume too much for effi-
cient hole cleaning and a reduction in penetra-
tion rate resulted, even though BHhp was in-
creased. For this application the Use at the bit
1242-G JOHN W. SPEER
of about 55 per cent of total Hhp proved most
effective.
Perhaps a better understanding of the many
ramifications of Hhp can be demonstrated with
Fig. 17 (example onlY). Consider first conven-
tional bits, and start at the origin of the
graph. As pump Hhp is increased, bit hp in-
creases proportionally and from Fig. 15, pene-
tration rate likewise increases lineally with
pump Hhp. Now at 200 Hhp replace the conven-
tional bit with a jet bit. Regardless of the
nozzle size used, a reduction in penetration
rate results because if a small nozzle is used
to produce an effective nozzle velocity, circu-
lating rate is too low for adequate scavaging;
conversely, if a large nozzle is used in order to
obtain sufficient circulating volume for scavag-
ing, nozzle velocity is too low to clean the
cutters. At 300 Hhp, jet bit circulating re-
quirements are being approached, and performance
commensurate with conventional bits can be ob-
tained provided that a nozzle size is selected
to properly balance nozzle velocity with circu-
lating rate. However, if the nozzle selected is
too large, nozzle velocity still will be too low
to effect cleaning of the cutters and a reduc-
tion in penetration rate will result. At 500
Hhp and above the jet bit performs appreciably
better than the conventional bit, and penetration
rate is improved with several nozzle sizes.
There is again, however, a nozzle size which
appropriately proportions nozzle velocity and
circulating rate to produce maximum cleaning ef-
ficiency, and consequently, maximum penetration
rate.
Summarizing, it was intended to demonstrate
the following.
1. A certain minimum pump Hhp is required
to produce satisfactory jet bit performance --
this minimum Hhp is that required to provide a
satisfactory annular rising velocity, and a
nozzle velocity of 170 to 225 ft/sec, depending
on the formation hardness. . operation (high nozzle velocities) is required
2. Increasing pump Hhp, thereby increasing
bit Hhp, permits an increase in weight-on-bit,
which in turn increases penetration rate, with
either the conventional or jet bit.
3.' For a given pump Hhp, there is an opti-
mum utilization in circulating rate and nozzle
velocity -- this is usually defined as the re-
lationship between total or pump Hhp and bit Hhp.
Although the optimum relationship will vary with
pump hp, bit size, well depth and several other
factors, the use of 50 to 70 per cent of pump Hhp
at the bit usually produces satisfactory results.
Type of Bit
'rype of bit refers to (1) number and length
of teeth, (2) number of cutter elements (two,
three or four-cone) and (3) circulation pattern
(jet or regular bit). Selection of tooth style
9
depends primarily on the type of formation to
be penetrated, and a general discussion here
would be of little value. Likewise, there is
little point in discussing number of cutter ele-
ments, inasmuch as general field acceptance has
shown the three-cone to be the best over-all
choice. Therefore, this discussion will be con-
cerned primarily with the relative merits of jet
and regular bits.
In Fig. 18 there are plotted several com-
parisons of jet and regular bit performance in
various formations 12 • The graph is constructed
to show the improvement in penetration rate
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
achieved with the jet.bit over regular bits, in
formations that drilled at various rates. The
jet bit drilling rate is used as the unit of
formation hardness. From these few comparisons
it appears that: (1) jet bits perform apprecia-
bly better than regular bits in very hard forma-
tions, (2) little advantage is obtained with jet
bits in the medium hard formations, and (3) the
jet bit's advantage increases with softness of
formation from medium hard to the very soft.
When footage cost is considered, instead of
penetration rate, the advantage of the jet bit
is reduced slightly throughout the range of
hardness because of the 15 per cent additional
cost of the bit, and the advantage through the
medium hard range becomes very small.
One reason for a varying minimum nozzle
velocity is evident in these data. With BHhp
in the order of 200, which would provide ± 225
ft/sec nozzle velocities for the conditions rep-
resented in Fig. 18, jet bit performance varies
with formation hardness but is always better
than regular bit performance. However, with 110
BHhp, the jet bit performs better only in the
soft formations, and then only slightly better.
Thus, some improvement with jet bits can be
achieved in soft formations (Where a large im-
provement is possible) with relatively ineffi-
cient operations provided by low nozzle veloci-
ties. However, the most efficient jet bit
to obtain an advantage in medium hard formations
where the advantage of the jet bit is small at
best.
The relative performance of jet and regular
bits also seems to depend on the number of cut-
ting elements on the bit. Referring to Table 1,
where performance of various types of bits are
compared, there appears to have been little dif-
ference in performance between the cross-section
jet, three-cone jet, and three-cone regular bit
in these partiCUlar formations. However, three-
cone regular bits in the two examples given
performed 19 to 28 per cent better than cross-
section regular bits. This suggests that the
cross-section regular might be inferior to three-
cone regular bits, and consequently.to all types
of jet bits, probably because there are more
obstructions between the fluid stream and the
10 A MErHOD FOR DEl'ERMINING OPTJMUM DRILLING TECHNIQUES
bottom of the hole than in the three-cone bit.
A MErHOD FOR DEI'ERMINlNG OPTJMUM DRILLING
TECHNIQUES
Determining optimum drilling techniques is
intended here to include determining the combi-
nation of weight-on-bit, rotary speed and IDlp
which results in minimum drilling cost for a cer-
tain formation. The use of jet bits is presumed
to be a foregone conclusion, inasmuch as their
performance is not worse than a conventional bit,
although sometimes not much better. General
rules for selection of bit tooth type cannot be
given because of the major influence of formation,
and it is presumed that on-the-spot selection is
adequate. Type of circulating fluid is not in-
cluded for the same reason.
In practice, the determination of optimum
drilling techniques actually consists of three
problems: to determine (1) be.st weight and
rotary speed practices for the equipment in use;
(2) the eqUipment (pump), and weight and rotary
speed practices required to achieve minimum
footage cost, and (3) best weight and rotary
speed practices for any intermediate equipment.
It appears that these three problems can be
solved reasonably well with a very small amount
of field testing by combining the several re-
lationships which have been developed here, as
in Fig. 19.
Fig. 19 consists of a chart comprised of the
relationship between (1) penetration rate and
weight-on-bit, (2) penetration rate and Hhp, (3)
penetration rate and optimum weight-on-bit, and
(4) the relationship between optimum rotary speed
and weight-on-bit. The function of the chart can
best be explained with a simplified example.
Assume that a certain rig is available to
drill a 1,000-ft homogeneous shale section, and
it is desirable to determine optimum techniques
with the available rig, and the equipment re-
quired to most economically drill the shale sec-
tion. The initial conditions are as follows:
(1) 400 Hhp pump, (2) 4.5-ft drill pipe, (3)
9-7/8~in. hole, and (4) 3xl/2-in. bit nozzles.
When the shale section is dr illed, short-
duration tests of weight vs penetration rate are
made to (1) establish a drillability index for
the formation and (2) to determine at what weight
the bit begins to ball up with the pump available
(a tentative index must first be established to
select. an appropriate rotary speed). These test
values a.:re plotted on the weight vs penetration
rate chart (upper right-hand section) and an
appropriate curve drawn through them. The low-
weight section of this curve should be linear
until the bit begins to ball up. From the point
on this curve where the bit begins to ball up, a
horizontal line is drawn left to icntersection
1242-G
with 400 Hhp. This single point is sufficient
to draw the linear relationship between Hhp and
penetration rate for this shale section. It will
be noticed that this index is in a sense dimen-
sionless, inasmuch as it includes hole size, type
of bit, drill pipe size, etc. Also from the
weight where the bit begins to ball up, a verti-
cal line is drawn downward to intersect with the
optimum rate of revoluti'on curve. Thus, from
these manipulations, this formation would be most
economically drilled with a weight of 3,600
lb/in. of bit diameter (35,000 lb) and 190-rpm
rotary speed, with the 400-Hhp pump available.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
Now return to the weight vs penetration rate
index and extend the linear section of the curve
to intersect the optimum weight-on-bit curve.
From this point a horizontal line is drawn left
to intersect the Hhp index curve already estab-
lished for this formation. This intersection
gives the Hhp required to maintain sufficient
bottom-hole cleaning to permit use of optimum
weight. A vertical line is also drawn downward
to determine optimum speed of rotation for the
new weight. These manipulations show that mini-
mum footage cost could be achieved in this for-
mation with a 580-IDlp pump, used in conjunction
with a weight of 5,600 lb/in. of bit diaineter
(55,000 lb) and 95 rpm. By working backwards
from the Hhp index curve, the best weight and
rotary speed practices for any IDlp can also be
determined in the same way.
This was purposely made a simplified example
including only a homogeneous shale section; to
determine optimum drilling techniques for a field
would involve more formations, usually two to
four. Therefore, it would be necessary to make
weight vs penetration rate tests in each of the
principal formations penetrated and treat each
formation separately as a problem. Obviously,
instantaneous penetration rate will vary appre-
ciably over these large depth intervals; however,
this does not affect use of the chart appreciably
because it is impractical to vary weight rapidly
and continuously while drilling and because the
chart was constructed from averaged field data.
The primary precaution that must be taken is that
the results from the field tests are representa-
tive of average penetration rates throughout the
interval.
Fig. 20 gives an example of the function of
the chart for this purpose. Using whatever rig
is available, several weight vs penetration rate
tests are made in each of the three major forma-
tions penetrated in order to establish the ap-
propriate indices (an appropriate rotary speed is
estimated for each test series). Care must be
exercised to ensure that the balling up weight
is clearly demonstrated in each test. From the
results of each of these tests, optimum tech-
niques are predicted for the desired conditions
(400 and 500-IDlp pumps, and optimum pump), as in
the single example already given. For the two
1242-G JOHN W. SPEER
conditions o~ known Hhp, a work sheet giving
weight and rotary speed practices to achieve
miminum cost, can now be prepared.
For selecting the optimum pump size a com-
promise between the various optimum pump Hhp in-
dicated must be made, placing emphasis on that
section o~ the hole which wili require most
drilling time. For this example, a 650-Hhp well
covers maximum pump requirements except ~or one
short interval, which can be ignored. A~ter es-
tablishing the pump which is to be obtained,
weight and rotary speed practices are re-evalu-
ated and a work sheet prepared similar to the one
just mentioned.
All these techniques are related to the
original conditions; 9-7/8-in. hole, 4-1/2-in.
drill pipe and 3 x 1/2-in. bit nozzles. Trans-
~ormation to di~~erent conditions requires some
estimating. A change in size o~ drill string
could be made by computing the Hhp necessary to
provide equal circulating rates and nozzle ~luid
velocities (assuming rising velocity adequate
under both conditions). Trans~ormation to vari-
ous hole sizes would be less accurate, and proba-
bly should be made on the basis o~ hole diameters
squared.
The procedure just described is intended
only to assist in arriving at near-optimum drill-.
ing techniques in the shortest possible time. It
is again pointed out that this chart is, as yet,
very tentative, and it would be advisable in any
case to continue ~ield testing in order to re~ine
drilling techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Penetration rate o~ a rock bit varies
approximately in direct proportion with weight-
on-bit in ~ormations normally penetrated in oil-
~ield drilling, i~ su~~icient circulating medium
is provided to maintain clean bottom-hole
conditions.
2. Optimum weight-on-bit, or the weight
which results in minimum ~ootage cost, varies
inversely with ~ormation drillability; it ap-
pears that an approximate relationship between
optimum weight-on-bit and penetration rate can be
developed.
3. Penetration rate o~ a rock bit under
laboratory test conditions varies in direct pro-
portion with speed o~ rotation.
4. Penetration rate o~ a rock bit under
~ield operation conditions varies in a decreasing
~ction with rate o~ rotation; i.e., the re-
sponse o~ penetration rate to increases in rotary
speed decreases as rotary speed is increased.
5. It appears that optimum rotary speed, or
the rotary speed which results in minimum cost,
varies inversely with weight-on-bit, and an
approximate relationship between weight-on-bit
and optimum rotary speed can be developed.
6. Hhp required ~or optimum bottom -hole
11
scavaging varies lineally with weight-on-bit;
consequently, Hhp requirements vary lineally with
penetration rate in any speci~ic ~ormation.
7. The advantage in drilling e~~iclency o~
the jet bit over the regular bit is a minimum in
medium hard ~ormations, and increases directly
with so~tness o~ ~ormations. (Also, the advan-
tage o~ the jet bit appears to increase directly
with hardness o~ ~ormation ~om medium hard to
the very hard; however, this is substantiated by
meager data.)
8. Minimum nozzle ~luid velocity ~or
e~~ective jet bit application varies ~om ±.170
~t/sec in so~t ~ormation to t225 ~t/sec in
medium hard ~ormations.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023
9. The three-cone regular bit per~orms
better than the cross-section regular bit.
10. By combining the relationships between
(a) penetration rate and Hhp, (b) penetration
rate and weight-on-bit, (c) optimum weight-on-
bit and penetration rate, and (d) optimum rotary
speed and weight-on-bit, a method ~or predicting
approximate optimum dr illing techniques can be
developed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express appreciation
to the management o~ the Shell Oil Co. ~or their
permission to assemble and present this paper,
and to the Shell drilling engineering sta~~ ~or
their signi~icant contributions. Especial
acknowledge is made Hughes Tool Co., and partic-
ularly to H. B. Wood and George King ~or their
assistance in this work.
REFERENCES
l. Hughes Tool Co.: Catalog No 21 (1955-56).
2. Noble, Wiley B.: '~damental Considerations
in the Design o~ Rock Bits with a Discussion
o~ Laboratory Data on E~~ect o~ Weight and
Rotary RPM on the Drilling ~~iciency o~ a
Rock Bit", Reed Roller Bit Co.
3· Bielstein, W. J'J and Cannon, George E.:
"Factors A~~ecting the Rate o~ Penetration o~
Rock Bits", Drill. and Prod. Prac, API (1950).
4. Booth, W. M.: ''Weight on Bit and Rotary
Speed", Pet. Engr. (April, 1955).
5. Johnston, David: "Hard Rock Drilling in the
Permian Basin", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1947) •
6. Schabarum, B. R.: "Comments on Factors
A~~ecting the Rate o~ Penetration o~ Rock
Bits", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1950).
7· Thompson, G. D.: "A Practical Application
o~ Fluid Hydraulics to Drilling in Cali-
~ornia", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1953).
8. Bobo, Roy A., Hoch, Robert S'J and Ormsby,
George S.: ''Keys to Successful Competitive
Drilling--Part 3", World Oil (Jan. 1955).
9· Minin, A. A., and Pogarsky, A. A.: "How to
Increase the Rate o~ Penetration o~ the Tube-
less Electrodrill", Ne~tianoie Khosiaistvo
(1956) No.3, 14.
12 A MEI'HOD FOR DEI'ERMINING OPTIMUM DRILLING T:EDHNIQUES 1242-G

10. Hellums, Ear le C.: tiThe E:ffect of Pump

Horsepower on the Rate of Penetration",
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952).
11. Danielson, G. Otis: "Comments on the Effect
of Pump Horsepower on the Rate of Penetra-
tion", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952).
12. Bromell, B. J.: "Bit Hydraulics for Hard-
Rock Drilling", Paper presented at API
Spring Meeting of SW Dist., Div. of Prod.
(March 21-23, 1956).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

TABLE 1 PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS FOR VARIOllS TIPES OF BITS

AVE. AVE.
TOTAL FOOTAGE AVE. COMPOSlTEx DRILL. ROTARY
REG.(R) TEST DRILLED NO. DRILL. SPEED ;, \/T. SPEED
AREA FIELD \/ELL BIT TYPE JET (J) INTERVAL ON TEST BITS (FT ./Hll..) AVTG. (LBS.) (RPM)

10-5/8" &; 9-718" Sizes

California Venture. T.-446 Cross Section J 2209-7363 2596 10 20.0 35,000 350/400
Three Cone J 2701-7524 2729 9 23.7 19 35,000 350/400
Cross Section J 7705-8937 588 5 7.64 24 35,000 350/400
Three Cone J 8166-9l22 292 3 6.17 35,000 350/400
Three Cone R 7524-9222 757 7 7.18 16 35,000 350/400
T-438 Cross Section J 5888-6736 562 3 12.0 6 18/22,000 -
Three Cone J 5656-6566 518 3 ll.3 18/22,000 -
Cross Section J 7724-9143 722 8 6.ll 7 18/20,000 -
Three Cone J 7644-9051 688 8 5.69 18/20,000 -
T-474 Cross Section J 1317-5240 2557 8 24.6 6 30,000 250/300
Three Cone J 817-5460 2086 7 23.1 30,000 250/300
Cross Section J 56ll-7261 676 5 9.45 30,000 200
Three Cone J 5865-7340 7 49 5 9·81 4 30,000 200

T-443 Cross Section Jxx 8132-10,244 955 13 4.78 16/24,000 125/150

Three Cone R 8034-10,197 1089 12 6.07 27 16/24,000 125/150
6" ! Size
CalU'ornia Venture. T.-443 Cross Section R 10,450-ll,321 300 5 4.32 20,000 125
Three Cone R 10,5ll-11,235 379 5 5.52 28 20,000 125

T-801 Cross Section

Three Cone
R
R
7441-8644
7482-8578
292
358
4
4
6.15
7.30 19
14/16,000
14/16,000
I
150/200
150/200

x =Composite drilling speed ,. FOOTAGE

ROTATING HRS. + ROUNOTRI P HRS. + RI G HRS. EOUI V. TO BIT COST

xx ,. Bozzl.e fluid vel""it;y below 200 tt./sec.

 50

4B

46
1
320
GRANITE
44

42
/
I
I 2BO
40
'"o" I I I I I I I I I I I
3B
I
I
~
a:: 240
I 120

/
36
.
if ~

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

------ 6% BITS I /GRANITE
I ~ 100 t-+-l-L-LL
~ 34 f-- I-- --- B%" BITS I
~ 200
1/
~ 32
I
I I
.. ~
'"~ 30 I
<l
a:: 160 !// I t;; BO IIT-ifJf--+-+--1--.j-.l-J
2B
I

I
I z
o (/ I;;t -.... ~
w
~ II I~ /I
26

24

22
ABRADING
'\ it
I

I' II
I
I
I

--..
CRUSHINn.
r-
:=
~
120
'/1 VI' 'l
l'/,r,0
'" V
~

'"z
o
S
60 o--+--l.LL

40
I
~ BO
20
/
/1 ~V V V V V ::
t~D1ANA
I W

IB ~ c - -

16
1 LIMESTONE
I

/1 i 40
'f)
.-.~ V
,.-:::: ~ ?
J--
z
w
. 20 1--1+---1-+--+-+-+--1-+---+---1
14
I , I-- '-
! o OL-.......-'----'-......---''--.l-.......-'----'-.....
12 ,""
I
I o 10 20 ~
WEIGHT ON BIT - THOUSAND POUNDS
40 50 60 ro eO o
WEIGHT ON BIT -
10 20 30
TH.oUSAND POUNDS
40 50

10 PENETRATiON RATE VERSUS WEIGHT ON BIT - ASSORTED FIELD DATA INFLUENCE OF LACK OF HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER OR
I 1 'BALLING UP" ON PENETRATION RATE
iT ,
I (TAKEN FROM REFERENCE 6)

CAiT~~~~KMARB~ GRAY D~LOi'TE f--

FIGURE 2
/ VlDOLI~ ~QU:ri~~ITE
Il ,~ c:::P1-J--i FIGURE 3
0" 10 20 3~ 50
WEIGHT ON BIT - THOU$AND POUNDS
60

PENETRATION RATE VERSUS WEIGHT

ON BIT-LABORATORY DATA
80 i i i I I I l I I

FIGURE
+ EXTRAPOLATED TEST DATA

70 f EXTREME WEIGHT PRACnCES REPORTED

BY HUGHES - PENETRATION RATE
RANGE EsnMATED

1/
>50)

340,
1/\ t
~
MAXIMUM FIRD PRACTICES - SHELL
OIL MI'DLAND (1.41 6: PACIFIC COAST te)-
/ I
I
\ PENETRATION RATE RANGE APPROXI-

'"~ 60 ll-+-bL+i -tJtlJ2C-I-+--r_1 )

gj300
320
ESTIMATED PRACTI-
CAL LIMITS OF OPTI
I
I \
\
MATE '

17 8':- o
MUM WEIGHT RANGl
:I: 280
1/ 1/ '"~ IC) \
1\
~
260
/ 171/ ~ 240
\ [\( \
is \ '
.
\

1/
;: ~ 220 ,,
S200 / \ , \
'
~z ,, ',:- ~~AXIMUM RANGE coVERED BY l . -
1/1/1/ ti 180
TEST DATA,-WT. VS. PENE. RATE
if
r/ >=
g 160
I/IC) ' / \ " \ '
::. IO~/;::~"<""'''-
, ,,,..... ..
I.I 9 ~ 140 I \ 1/ \\, I

/1/ ~ , I ~,~ ...

- " .... .......
_ .. 12 il'
120
II / /, )../' \.
,
~b0 $ F_-R-:~"":'T-­

~
,1 ;' PROBABLY "INFLUENCED BY
+- ~30~ If 1/ LX -' ,
I
,. /,'
/./ "
... . "BALLING up" OF 81T Q.
.,,"
<0'"
1.33~FI.
v' ]....2----·
100

BO
/ ilVI/ /'
.... v
ex ,
/L'~'1A/~ l\r \,
ZW
/ /1/ ./ , I -)0"

';{;i'.,/'1-":Y1~
,:;r'/109'f I J...-
- j~
-w
~~
~g
$ 2.00 -Ft.

$4.00-Ft.
-20

-10
f-+_+----,!L/+-+-6.-<f=.-+---1h.:h-.-t--c:l-~_+__+_l
..

I
",'

.. ; : ; :
". /
60

40

20
II
1//r/V
10 V V
.....
vV
V
y

J--
,
"- ""- ",
I-' r1i~!' "
,
->
,
J;~:J&V'l--+::::::t:::. 1-- ~ M 1M)

.,-~ ~: ~. . ::
OJ: " ... • - ....

~f5:1::=~~·
I.,) Q. '00 . 0 ..........~."'.:.
••. ...L......J._J-....L......J._
o
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
WEIGHT ON BIT-P:OUNOS PER INCH OF BIT DIAMETER
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 B'COO 9000 o I 2 3 4 5
WEIGHT-ON-BIT FOR MOST ECONOMICAL COST VERSUS
WEtGHT ON 81T- POUNOS PER INCH OF BIT DIAMETER WEIGHT ON BIT-POUNOS PER INCH OF BIT DIAMETER
EFFECT OF WEIGHT-ON-BIT ON PENETRATI'ON RATE ANO
FORMATION DRILLABILITY *
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATE OF PENETRATION AND WEIGHT ALL CURVES PREDICATED ON BASIS SUFFIClENT HYDRAULIC HORSE-
PER INCH OF BIT DIAMETER - FIELD RESULTS FOOTAGE COST (VENTURA, CALIF ·8 DENTON, TEXAS) POWER AVAILABLE TO INSURE CLEAN BOTTOM-HOLE CONOITIONS
FOOTAGE
AOTATING HAS. + ROUNOuTRIP HAS. + RIG HAS. EQUIVALE~T OF BIT COST * DRILLABIUTYOG PENET!t:ll?~ RATE
FIGURE 4
FIGURE FIGURE 6
 PENE. BIT DIAMETER
120 RATE
FT.-HR. 3 -3/4" 4-314" 5-314"
220
150 ,
110
120
I.~
~
/ I ~J' 200
/
/ 90 r-t-4; I
100 ~<; I-
60
r--c::t~1 -..</"O
/.~Y IBO
V
/
30
IJ; I.? V "
r~~ /

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

90 1-0
50 160
0:
5 80
/ 40 /
:I: 1/ V 0:
:>

..'"
0:
/
30
- ,,1/ $' ~ 140 "
I-

'"'"
70
/ / /
20
~V V~
i

"~ .'"
0:

1/
I
l/
/'
'T 1/ /
10
pV ~ Ib~ .::J,
I-
120
~ 60 1-0
/ /
V
'"
0: / 25
'" / V
ij / rl 17 I-
~ 100
~
20
~& ~ 1/ /
50
v / 15 "II z
o
;::
/
IV V
V / r- I/ , / / ~ ~
'"~
z
40
10
/'7' .p.-- BO I
vI I---" /' /v V ./ 5
.,!-1
..
~ , I I
If ~ ~ ./' /'" V W It- I..?

-
I
./ 1-0 60
30
/ ....... I--:;:: ./' /'
~l- V 10 I
I / - --
~1- /' V V
,
8 , / I.--

- = -- --
/' 40 ___I---"
20 .,..- 0 1/ ,
I V
I/,' LL
--
~,......
~
8
~
/ V I--- ~ ::;.- 4 r--- A, Q/
~ ~
,
I
I
I
I
~
V
10

o
/

_ ,-
1-
1
- ~I -
'-0
21Zr:>1

2000 4000 0
It--
/

2000 4obo 0
I~
2000 4000
20

o '".:
I
I I
II
::1- t-"
~
V
--- -
o 50 100 150 200
RATE OF ROTATION-RPM o 100 200 300 400
RATE OF ROTATION-RPM RATE OF ROTATION VERSUS PENETRATION RATE-LABORATORY OATA RATE OF RO'ATION - RPM
(VARIOUS BIT SIZES, LOAOS II MATERIALS, RUSSIAN LABORATORY)
RATE OF ROTATION VERSUS PENETRATION RATE- EFFECT OF SPEED OF ROTATION ON RATE OF
LABORATORY DATA(HUGHES II REED LABS) FIGURE B PENETRATION - COMPOSITE OF FIELD DATA

FIGURE 7 FIGURE 10
20 l I~ ORILLING WEIGHT
.,~ ~ IpOO Lb •. ,-----+---'
~I
2
320
g 18 VV1 I J

2BO
~'"
0..
I-
16
14 , ..
./'
_ , .....
- ---n I I I I J 400,
o FIELD TEST RESULT5
+ EXTREME FJELD PRACTICES - -
1/ COMPILED BY HUGHES TOOL CO.

/
~ 12 / ,/ ~ 13 .-k I J. .J
~ v~1
0:
:>
0
:I:
240
/
10 ,/
~6j
I I I I J ."'f \.
.}--"1~
<t "

..'"
0:

200
0::
Z

~
8 //
I,t
i ......·j
.. r/
...... ~
z
o
300

I-

..'"'", 17 L--
I- 6 /',., : ( ;:: \
~0,..
1
0::
~
4 "
2,:/><.. ' J
I
'~"
'"
I- 160
ilflX "'0 :r t:~", I . i -l\
'"
0: A/ ~o
","-
o o
w 200
\"
Z
0 171/ v F': ~~ $4.00-Ft. ~iO ~ I r'\. !
120 0:
~
0: /1/ ./
~~ $5,OQ-FI. -8 __ je" _ I ~
I-
'"z.. /,/1 V v 0:: a
~':'. $6,66-FI. -6 V
........
3;;q
--f'2: ...._
2
ll>5\c ! "-
'" BO
l1' 171 V
1-0:::
-:> $ tOOO-Ft -4
g~ . .
$

1I,1lI ..-" :.::~

~-
-
- --
5 ~6J' -- --- -- 100
i'-- +
~f5$20.00-Ft. -21& ~-:. _::- I "- r-... +
40
~i 1/1/ .k::: 1
........
u Q. _ _ Ft, 0 ~~::J-c......J...--l._.L..-L.....J_..I-....J._J......J........--:'.........L.~'---'--:: ;
+ k
o 100 ZOO 300 400
RATE OF ROTATiON-RPM I
EFFECT OF RATE OF ROTATION ON PENETRATION RATE
100 200 300 400 AND FOOT~GE COST-(VENTURA FIELD CALIF; VARIOUS a
DRILLING WEIGHTS; 6" THREE CONE BITS; 10000-!2000 FT. o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
RATE OF ROTATION-RPM
DEPTH INTERVALS) • WEIGHT ON-BIT-POUNDS PER INCH OF BtT DIAMETER
PENETRATION RATE VERSUS RATE OF ROTATION
FOOTAGE OPTIMUM RATE OF ROTATION AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT ON BIT
ASSORTED FIELD DATA
ROTATING HRS. + ROUND TRfp' HR'S. + RIG. HRS. EQUiVALENT OF -EHTC-OSt

FIGURE II FIGURE 12
FIGURE 9
 240 360
I I 1000
2.20 320 I 900 III /1 /
/ I
'/ I "
~ BOO / ~ ~ .y~ ~e:, /
/
~I
~3 ,,,,0~
0
a.

~~
200 280 J w 700 ~ ,'"O'vr
/ / ,i ,y
;
ll: 1/ V / '"0
ll: ~
::l
600 ~3 f-- \-dif--.' '\\
IBO il o:J:
I /1/
:J:
U
'C!; 0"~Y
/ ll: 240 500

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

I
w
a. J 1/ -'
::l
~
/
"o 160
~
/ 1/ I-
II 1/ / / a
400
I I
:J:
/ / / ...~ 200 11/ / V V
>-
:J: 300
I 1/
" 140
W
I ;/
I
W
a.
200
0.
I-
w 1/ /
~
" 160
1// / / V "a.
::l

iDOII ~
J
W
"-
/ / i/ /
::<
o I, V/ / / V 0 IfII'
~
~
120
III V
;::
'" r; /
/'
/'
"::<
"
I- 120
11/ / V
iDa
...; I---
- --
// II ,h V W
::<
w
!/
"
: :l
o 90
I / /
2 JOO
~ 'f' / /' V-
a.
/; ~ / V ./'/' :J: ~' .
/
~''''''
/ 80 ll: 80
/ 0 v,;- ~ ~/ V V f-'
~'vv ~~
I

.~
I-
W
I/ / / /' V W
a. 0/1

-
~ BO 70
' '<'
I fl I/;, '/V J %~ "/ V
,'i1'0, ",0
V- I/"
~1
a. /' I-
w
40 60

-- -
W ~
1-0} ':'\' '\\
'l Att v:: /' ~ ~~

-
V
60
~::--- !---"'
"-
W
I
50
h;' .,7 1<"
Ifl ~ ~~ ~ V ...- f- I-
'"" 0/ ~X ...II- --
o 40
1/ '/L. ~ ~ i;z: i:;::::' ......- v- o 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 ::<
o
l--
1/ /
40
..H V
;::;; ~ ;.- v ~ ~
...- ~
PUMP HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER
GENERAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PENETRATION
;::
'"
l l:
I-
30

20
I t '7 -- -- -" EXAMPLE OF FIELD DATA
i~8' HOLE", 4Y2' D.P~ j.-~
375, ± Hh,P P~MP I
1,.-/ RATE AND PUMP HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER W
::< J -p-V
20
v - w 10

~~ V
a.
o,
o ~
FIGURE 15 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
o 100
200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO BIT HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER
PUMP HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER EXAMPLE OF RELATIONSHI P BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL
APPLIED PUMP HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER AND JET BIT PERFORMANCE AT VARIOUS PUMP
VERSUS PENETRATION RATE-ASSORTED FIELD DATA HORSEPOWERS-(EXAMPLE BASED ON 9 7/ a' HOLE; 4 1/
2' D.P.)
FIGURE 13 70 FIGURE 17
PUMP Hhp. INCREASED SLIGHTY
40 3iO~ ljO 4pu~
60
-~
"0
: :l
..1 I
(319/16" (3)3/8" f--
AVEAAG WEIGHT -oN-BI -""
"~ 1000· V': t:=- :I: (3) 1/2" NOZZLES
J---I-- ll: 50
w
~ 30
- - - - - - -- - -:.. k~ V_ -- -- - - -~
a.
r- r--
-- ooV
I-

§ ttl...
- 1161' 40
w
~
- .- I~
1&
W
I-
I
°
I/°
485 GPM-CIRC. RATE
l"--

f® Ir< '" 265 FT.-SEC.-JET VEL.

"
z 20 " 30 ~87 r-MIN.-RISING VEL.
o
;: ~ ::<
0
"'" (,
rp ;: 530 GPM
230 FT.-SEC. 400 GPM
~ 1'< 'w"
~ 20
315 FT.-MIN. 390 FT-SEC.
235 FT-MIN.
il' ::<
w
a.
~ 10 /
10

" I
I

o
I o 100 200 300 400
oI.
o 100 200 roo ~ WO WO ~ 800 900 BIT HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER
PUMP HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWE.R
EXAMPLE OF OPTIMUM UTILIZATION OF PUMP HORSEPOWER
COMBINED INFLUENCE OF HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER AND WEIGHT-ON- BIT (5000'± WELLS, 7-7/8" HOLE,375 ± Hhp PUMP; 4-112" D.P. i
ON PENETRATION .RATE (VENTURA FIELD, CALIF.; INTERVAL 1000'/10000'; SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN,CANADA)
10~B" HOLE, 4Y2" D.P.)

FIGURE 16
FIGURE 14 •
 t-- f--
==} ~16E~~~~~~~bCz~~~W~0~WyC~~~~~RTE_OSEC.
- - - - BIT HYORAULIC HORSEPOWER INADEQUATE
- f-- FOR EFFECTIVE JET 81T USE

- -
•••
++++
7S0!PUMP Hhp; S" D.P.; IO-S/8" HOLE; 1000-10000'
32S! PUMP Hhp; 4-1/2" D.P.& 10-518' HOLEL2000-10000'
THESE DATA SHOW EFF CT OF RED CTION IN BHhp
80 - - RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN WELL DEPTH, AS
WELL AS EFFECT OF INCREASE IN FORMATION
80
HARDNESS.
70 70

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEGCDP/proceedings-pdf/59GCDP/All-59GCDP/SPE-1242-G/2087154/spe-1242-g.pdf by guest on 16 April 2023

'" 60 60 z~
!~ _<t
."- "
",tr.
",z
SO
,..- 50 '" tr.
",z
;;\Q 40 ," 40 ;;\2
t: a::~ ,,- "~ 5~ t:
"'~:= 30
/' OO±BHh -7-7/8" HOLE
30 :!::= '"
"' ....
to- -",
V ~f"- *~ ~
~ ae~ 20
'"
"
<t
to-
:f '"
C1.

10

0
\' r-. , /
I-"
,
-
1I0±BHhp 7-7/~" HOl
,,-
•
E •
5"1o± IMPROVEMENT IN PENETRATION
~t61~1~~g~IRlc?s~TOOFC~~\R 81T I
0'
20

10
C1.
.'"
"t
<
....
",:f
> to- 0 20 49.-;~''60 I80 100 I
120 I i40 160 L 180 I I 2C 10 t- >
~:!:~
~~
10

2
+ -- - DRILLABILITY-JET BIT PENETRATION RATE-FEET PER HOUR- 10

20 ",Q
;2;~ ~
",z PROBLEM: DETERMINE OPTIMUM DRILLING TECHNIQUES FOR AVAILABLE
<tto- <tto- RIG AND RIG EQUIPPED WITH 500 Hhp PUMp, AND DETERMINE
"'<t ",<t PUMP CAPACITY REQUIRED AND OPTIMUM DRILLING TECHNIQUES
tr.tr. 3 30 5~ FOR NEW RIG, THAT RESULT IN MINIMUM COST. AVAILABLE

-COm
u .... RIG EQUIPPED WITH 400 Hhp PUMP.
"''''
0z 4 40 "''''
°z
~~ ~~
5 50 ~ 2
I INITIAL WELL DRILLED AS FOLLOWS:
RELATIVE DRILLING RATES OF JET AND CONVENTIONAL BITS IN VARIOUS ....C1.:I: 4 I. 9-7/B" HOLE
FORMATIONS UJ 6 2. 4-1/2" DRILL PIPE

FIGURE 18
°:::J 8
3. 400 HYDRAULIC HORSE POWER PUMP
4. JET BITS-3XV2" NOZZLES
~ G
10 0 5 10 IS. 20 INFORMATION DESIRED
TOTAL DRILLING DAYS I. OPTIMUM WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
DRILLING PROGRESS PRACTICES FOR 400 Hhp PUMP (RIG
300 3 00' CURVE FOR FI ELD USED FOR TEST)
(USED TO DETERMINE 2. OPTIMUM WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
280
I
1280 HOW MANY BASIC PRACTICES FOR 500 Hhp PUMP (SECOND
FORMATIONS PENETRATED) RIG TO BE MOVED INTO FIELD)
260
I
260 3. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES REQUIRED
TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM COST.
~ 240
I
12 40
I TEST INFORMATION
~ 220 ~
= 220 I TESTS I oI E I F
~i:l
~ A B C G
~ 200
)
I
'00
I, WEIGHTS PENETRATION RATE - FT./HR.
\
tiJ leo \ so! 1000 PIBD
2000
93 22 15 16 13 5 3
~ I ~ 188 45 25 35 23 B 5
~ 16 0 60 0:
\ 3000 203 55 40 50 36 10. 6
~ ~ 4000 40 40 55 47 15
~
\ I 8
14
0 140 ~ 5000 35 47 47 . 12 9
~ 12.0 12.0 ~ 6000 6
I ~
E 100
)Q tOO ~
3 \ ;; INFORMATION FROM CHART. FIGURE 19
~ 8
10
, \ 80 ~ TESTS A B C 0 E F G
Ii
~ OPT. TECH. 400 Hhp
9 6'0
- - - - - --- - - -- \
60
WT.-PIBD
RPM
2000
290
2500·
255
3000
225
3200
210
4000
165
4000
165
4500
" 140
40
" -- -- - -- --
,
40
OPT. TECH.-500 Hhp
WT.-PIBD 2600 3200 3950 4300 5200 5300 5700
'0 rrTl7~ I , 20
RPM 250 210 170 110
--- ---
-, O. OPT ~'f.;~.
150 105 90

·525 700 650 575 525 600 600

, WT.-PIBD 2800 4750 5300 5000 5400 6800 7200
100
I RPM 235 130 105 120 100 70 55
------- 200 <I< 650 Hhp PUMP SELECTED FOR NEW RIG
V
300
EXAMPLE OF FUNCTION OF FIGURE 19 IN DETERMINING

FIGURE 19 o 2000 4000

WEIGHT-ON-BIT-POUNDS PER INCH OF SIT DIAMETER
6000 8000 400 * OPTIMUM DRILLI NG TECHNIQUES FOR A FIELD.

FIGURE 20