A Comparative study of Hybrid Bit over Roller Cone and PDC Bits

Pranshu Sharma, UPES, Dehradun

APE GAS Vth Semester Student

Abstract
Early hybrid drill concepts date back to the 1930s, but the development of a viable drilling
tool has only become feasible with recent advances in polycrystalline diamond compact
(PDC) cutter technology. This article describes a new generation of hybrid bits that is based
on proven PDC bit designs with roll cutters on the bit periphery. Laboratory and field results
will be presented that compare the performance of hybrid bits with that of conventional PDC
and roller bits. A hybrid bit can drill shale and other plastically behaving formations two to
four times faster than a roller cone because it is more aggressive and efficient. The
penetration rate of a hybrid bit responds linearly to revolutions per minute (RPM) unlike
roller taper bits which exhibit an exponential response with an exponent less than one. In
other words, a hybrid drill will drill significantly faster than a comparable roller drill in motor
applications. Another advantage is the influence of rolling mills on bit dynamics. Compared
to conventional PDC bits, torsional oscillations are up to 50% lower, and low-speed slip/slip
and high-speed swirl are reduced. This gives the hybrid drill a wider operating window and
greatly improves tool face control in directional drilling. The Hybrid Drill is a highly specific
drill aimed at (1) traditional cylindrical taper applications that are limited by Rate of
Penetration (ROP). (2) large-diameter PDC-bit and roller-cone-bit applications that are
limited by torque or weight-on-bit (WOB), (3) highly interconnected formations where high
torque fluctuations can cause premature C3 failure and limit mean operating value torque and
(4) motor and/or P applications where higher ROP and better build speed and tool face
control are desired.

Keywords
Hybrid Bit, PDC, Roller cone, ROP, Bit Dullness, Drilling Time
Introduction
The roller cone bit replaced the fishtail bit in the early 20th century as a more durable tool for
drilling hard and abrasive formations ,but its limitations in drilling shale and other plastically
behaving rocks were well known. The underlying cause was a combination of chip retention
and/or bottom balling, which progressively worsens at greater depth as wellbore pressure and
mud weight increase. Balling reduces the drilling efficiency of cone drills to a fraction of that
observed under atmospheric conditions. [1]Other phenomena such as tracking and off-center
running further compound the problem. Many innovations in drilling fluids and roller cone
bit design and hydraulics have solved these problems, but improved performance only
marginally. Fishtail drills, or fixed blade drills, are much less affected by these problems
because they act as mechanical scrapers that continuously abrade the bottom of the borehole.
This suggests that combining the two types of bits could offer significant advantages. The
first hybrid bit prototype Fig.1, which simply combines a fishtail and a roller bit, was never
commercially successful because the fishtail or fixed the cutting edge of the drill would wear
prematurely and the large wear areas would reduce the rate of penetration even less than was
achievable with a roller taper drill alone. The hybrid bit concept was revived with the
introduction of the much more durable PDC fixed cutter bits in the 1980s, and a wide variety
of designs were designed and patented[2]. Some have been tested in the field, but again with
mixed results mainly due to design flaws in the structures and insufficient life of the first
generation PDC cutters. Since then, significant progress has been made in PDC cutter
technology. and fixed blade PDC bits have replaced roller taper bits in all but a few
applications for which roller taper bits are uniquely suited. These are hard, abrasive and
embedded formations; complex application of directional drilling; and general applications
where the torque requirements of a conventional PDC drill exceed the capabilities of a given
drilling system. It is in these applications that a hybrid bit can substantially increase the
performance of a roller taper bit with a lower level of damaging dynamics compared to a
conventional PDC bit.

Hybrid Bit Design

Two basic hybrid bit designs are presented in this article; a double-cone, double-edged
version for bits with a smaller diameter and a larger three-coned, three-edged version for
larger diameters (Fig. 2 and 3 respectively). They are based on the proven four- and six-flute
PDC bits, where the secondary blades have been replaced by shortened cylindrical cutters. As
a result, the middle part of the well is cut only by the PDC cutters on the primary blades,
while the more difficult to drill outer part is disintegrated by the combined action of the
cutting elements on the rolling cutters and fixed blades[3]. Rolling cutters are biased toward
the back of the blades to open up a space or trash slot in front of the blades for chip return
and nozzle placement.
Literature
In the Jordanian Drilling Project, in an offset well (well A), a 26-inch section was shot with a
19mm 6-flute PDC bit. The drill drilled only 85 meters in 6.0 hours of bottom drilling. The
drill reached an ROP of 14.17 m/h and was pulled out of the hole (POOH) for slow ROP.
Surface examination revealed that the drill bit was severely damaged and dulled classified as
3-2-BT-PR (Fig. 4). Different types of roller cone bits with different IADC codes (535 or
515) were used to drill the offset well. These bits achieved longer runs, running the
aforementioned PDC, but with a lower ROP in the 2-8 m/h range (Fig. 5).
This planned interval was drilled with four bits, one PDC and three roller taper bits. The drills
drilled a total interval of 643 meters in 187.25 drilling hours at bottom with an average ROP
of 3.4 m/h, according to drill logs (Fig. 6). The new objective was to design a single bit
solution for full interval drilling, providing good performance to improve drilling efficiency
and overcome the existing drilling problems mentioned earlier in this paper.
These challenges were met by implementing a hybrid drill for a specific application. This
hybrid bit combines the cutting action of a modern polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC)
with the crushing action of rolling cones. The 26-inch hybrid bit is very similar to the 17½-
inch and 12¼-inch hybrid bits discussed in previous SPE papers in that it has six fixed blades
alternating with three roll cones[4]. Differences between sizes are related to scale and
application. A 26 inch diameter bit would drill through the top hole section with low pressure
and less bit weight available. The size and location of the cone allows for efficient suction
when cutting. Other features such as cutter size, compact size, and wheel width are increased,
for example, due to natural scaling and to meet other surface hole drilling challenges with
higher ROP requirements. These elements also provide the required durability through an
optimized design approach to suit the application. Fig 7 illustrates the bit used in this
application.
Fig. 4 - Shoulder damage seen on the 20-in. PDC six-bladed 19 mm cutter size

Fig. 5- Bit wear for the 20-in roller-cone bit

Fig. 6 - Well (A) offset bit records

 Fig. 7- 26-in. hybrid bit (proposed bit with six blades and three cones)
From the start of the run, it was observed that the new hybrid bit drilled with lower torque
fluctuations compared to the previous PDC drilling torque recorded in the offset well. This
reduction in torque allowed the operator to apply more weight to the bit on the BHA,
resulting in faster drilling. The drilling torque varied throughout the run depending on the
type of lithology the bit was drilling. Regardless of whether the mean torque values are high
or low, the torque fluctuation did not reach the rig stop moment. This performance
maximized downhole drilling hours and resulted in higher ROP drilling throughout the
interval. Fig. 8 show the drilling parameters[5].
The hybrid drill drilled the entire 541 m (1,775 ft) interval in 56 hours at an ROP of 9.66 m/h,
achieving 66 percent higher ROP than estimated, 300 percent better than the best offset drill
(Fig. 9). performance. New hybrid bit pulled from hole in good condition (see Fig 10).

Fig. 8 - 26-in. hybrid bit performance. Cumulative ROP (left) , Depth vs. Total Hours (right)
Fig. 9 - 26-in. hybrid compared to offset wells

Fig. 10- 26-in. hybrid bit dull pictures

Medium Strength carbonate: For the first series of tests, Carthage marble with
approximately 15,000 psi unconfined compressive strength (UCS) was selected as a typical
medium-strength formation. Downhole conditions were 3000 psi bottom hole pressure (BHP)
and 9.5 lbm/gal water-based mud. The tests were carried out at a constant 120 rpm and with a
gradual increase in WOB. The WOB intervals were approximately 3 to 6 inches long, which
is sufficient to create equilibrium conditions. Fig 11 shows ROP as a function of WOB for
roller-cone and PDC bits and two versions of the 77⁄8-in. double cone hybrid bit with two
blades. One version is called a cone guide (CL) and the other a blade guide (BL). The terms
indicate which cutting structure is dominant. In other words, the PDC cutting elements are
drilling in the shadow of the rolling cutter; they take only a small depth of cut (DOC) and
barely scrape the borehole bottom. In the BL version on the other hand, the PDC cutting
elements do most of the work and the rolling cutters act more like DOC limiters and
stabilizers[6]. Fig. 11 illustrates the well-known fact that PDC bits are as much as four times
more aggressive than roller-cone bits, with the hybrid bits (as expected) falling between the
two extremes, the CL hybrid version falling closer to the roller-cone bit and the BL hybrid
version closer to the PDC bit. This gives the drill-bit designer the option to select an
aggressiveness that best fit a given drilling system or application. Fig. 12 shows the ROP as a
function of torque for the same series of tests. All four bits require approximately the same
amount of torque or power to drill at a given ROP. This suggests that the fundamental rock-
fracture process is very similar for crushing and shearing or a combination of the two. The
roller-cone bit appears to be slightly more efficient in this medium-strength and still
somewhat brittle rock. However, notice that at a WOB of 45,000 lbf, it could generate only
2,000 lbf-ft of torque, which is already approaching the limit of the WOB that can be applied
to this size of bit. The roller-cone bit, therefore, cannot take advantage of more-powerful rigs
and motors because its WOB and torque operating window is too narrow. The hybrid bits on
the other hand have a much wider operating window and can use the full torque or power
provided by modern drilling systems. Another interesting aspect of bit performance is how a
particular bit responds to RPM. Fig. 13 shows that the roller-cone bit has a very flat response
to RPM while the hybrid and PDC bits respond proportionally to the increase in RPM. The
poor response of the roller-cone bits to RPM in rock under confining pressure is well known
and is attributed to increased tracking at low depth of cut and less-effective bottom scouring
and cleaning by jets traversing at high speed[7]. The blades on the hybrid bit act as scrapers
that break up the tracking pattern and clean the borehole bottom mechanically. This results in
a significant advantage in performance drilling when both torque and RPM can be optimized
to transmit the maximum power to the bit.

Fig 11- ROP vs WOB, Carthage Marble Fig 12- ROP vs Torque, Carthage Marble
Soft Shale: Catoosa shale with a UCS of approximately 3,000 psi was chosen for the second
series of tests that were run at 4,000-psi BHP and with the same 9.5-lbm/gal water-based
mud. In the soft shale, the weakness of the roller-cone bit is most pronounced, as shown in
Fig. 14. The PDC is almost ten times more aggressive than the roller-cone bit at the lowest
WOB, and the difference gets even larger at higher WOB because of the difference in slope.
While this is advantageous in pure ROP terms, it can become a handicap in practice when
small changes in WOB cause large variations in ROP and torque (Sharma and Kudapa,
2021). Severe stick/slip or global bit balling might occur as a result of the erratic torque and
ROP response. The hybrid bit is as much as four (CL) or eight (BL) times faster than the
roller-cone bit, but its response to WOB is fairly flat and therefore ensures smoother running
and a resistance against sudden, global balling. Fig. 15 shows ROP as a function of torque
and emphasizes the weakness of roller-cone bits in softer shale and other plastically behaving
formation. It takes about three times more torque for the roller cone bit to match the ROP of
the PDC bit, which is much more efficient in shale because of its favourable scraping and
shearing action. The hybrid bits are two (CL) or three times (BL) more efficient than the
roller-cone bit at light WOB, but they cannot match the PDC bit at higher WOB or greater
DOC. A PDC bit is clearly the best tool for pure shale drilling[8].

Fig 13 – ROP vs RPM, Carthage Marble

Fig 14 – ROP vs WOB, Catoosa Shale

Hard, Abrasive Quartzite : Jasper quartzite at 36,000-psi UCS and Gabbro at 49,000-psi
UCS were selected for the hard-rock test series. These tests were run with a 12¼-in. three-
cone, three bladed hybrid bit at 4,000-psi BHP with 9.5-lbm/gal water-based mud. The three-
cone, three-bladed bit allows a third option in the cone/blade arrangement, in which the
matching pairs of cones and blades are located opposite [cones opposite (CO)] and thus share
the drilling load equally between the two cutting structures, resulting in a drill bit with an
aggressiveness falling roughly midway between roller-cone and PDC bits. The hard-rock
tests were run at 120 RPM and at constant WOB of 30, 40, and 70 kip for the PDC, hybrid
(CO), and roller-cone bit, respectively. The different WOB values were chosen to reach
comparable torque or power at the bit. Fig. 16 shows a bar graph of the ROP achieved with
each bit type[9]. The hybrid bit was the fastest, leading the PDC and roller-cone bit, but it
also drew a slightly higher torque, as shown in Fig. 17. To obtain a true measure of the
efficiency of the three bit types, Fig. 18 gives the specific energy for each test. The figure
shows that the roller-cone bit is indeed the most efficient bit in hard rock, but, as in the
medium-strength rock, it has already reached the maximum WOB limit and no further ROP
gains can be made unless its aggressiveness is increased. The hybrid bit shows slightly lower
specific energy than the PDC bit, which might indicate a possible synergy of the crushing and
shearing action. The roller-cone cutting elements, which create a deep damage zone in the
formation, might pre fracture the hard rock and make it easier for the PDC cutting elements
to penetrate and shear it. As in medium-strength rock, the hybrid bit has a much wider
operating window and greater ROP potential than a roller-cone bit. The pre-fracturing of hard
and abrasive material might make it possible to shear it more effectively and with less wear
and damage than is experienced with conventional fixed-cutter or PDC bits.

Fig 15 – ROP vs Torque, Catoosa Shale

 Fig 16 – ROP in Hard Rock Drilling

Fig 17 – Torque in Hard Rock Drilling Fig 18 – Specific Energy In Hard

Rock Drilling
Field Testing : After demonstrating the potential technical merits of the hybrid bit, the next
phase of the development work focused on testing the field worthiness and durability of
prototype 77 ⁄8-in., 12¼-in., and 16-in. diameter hybrid bits. The first tests were performed
on an experimental drill rig (Sinor et al. 2001a) that is capable of drilling 2,000- to 3,000-ft-
deep holes through a variety of formations, ranging from soft shale to medium-strength
limestone and sandstone sections. No structural deficiencies were found in these relatively
short (10- to 20-hour) tests, and the unique drilling characteristics of the hybrid bit that were
observed in the laboratory were confirmed[10].
Canada: The first true field test was run in Canada with the 12¼- in. three-cone, three-bladed
hybrid bit in a surface hole. The fact that a hybrid bit requires less WOB than a roller-cone bit
and runs smoother than a PDC bit proves to be an advantage in large diameter surface-hole
drilling, which is quite often either WOB or torque limited. The hybrid bit out drilled the
offset PDC bit by approximately 33% and the roller-cone bit by 134%. The driller observed
that the bit drilled surprisingly smoothly, and he was therefore able to apply almost as much
WOB (24 vs. 28 kip) as on the offset roller-cone bit without experiencing bit bounce.
Compared with the PDC bit, it was possible to run at much higher WOB (24 vs. 11 kip) and
lower RPM (110 vs. 140) without experiencing stick/slip. The dull was green after the short
242-m, 10½-hour run[11].
Saudi Arabia: The 12¼-in. hybrid bit run in Saudi Arabia was a directional motor
application in medium-strength carbonates. It started with a short vertical section, then kicked
off and built from 0 to 83°. A typical offset PDC bit drilled this section of approximately
3,400 ft at an average ROP of 51 ft/hr (17% sliding/83% rotating).The hybrid bit drilled
3,454 ft in 72 hours at average ROP of 48 ft/hr, (40% sliding/60% rotating). The greater
amount of sliding was mainly because of the tight clearance between the borehole wall and
the gauge pads and roller-cone-bit legs, which constrained the building capabilities of the bit.
The first prototype hybrid bits were designed for maximum stability and straight holes, which
resulted in a low tilt angle. The gauge clearance has been increased on second-generation
designs, and no further “build” limitations were experienced. Overall, the run was considered
a good run because it fell within 90% of the offset ROP and the directional drillers
commented on the smooth running and good tool-face control, which was seen as a
significant benefit to improve not only the quality of the directional-drilling process itself but
also the service life and reliability of the complex and expensive BHA components used in
directional drilling. The dull condition was good, as shown in Fig. 19, and particularly the
condition of the bearings and seals was encouraging after a total of 1.2 million revolutions on
the rolling cutters[12].
North Texas: The first 77 ⁄8-in. hybrid bit with two cones and two blades was run in north
Texas in a motor directional application that is typically drilled by roller-cone bits at an
average ROP of 78 ft/hr. The hybrid bit drilled the 3,800-ft-long section to target depth 47%
faster than a roller-cone bit at an ROP of 115 ft/hr. The directional capabilities were
excellent, with good tool-face control and good ROP during sliding. Although the footage
drilled was comparable to the offsets, the dull condition was poor, as shown in Fig. 20. It
appeared that the shoulder and gauge on the PDC blades got damaged and wore first, which
then transferred the full load to the roller cones and damaged the entire bit beyond repair.
There are many design options to further increase the wear resistance and durability of the
smaller-diameter, lighter-set two-cone/two-blade designs, which are now being incorporated
in new prototype designs.
West Texas: Another 12¼-in. test was run in West Texas, which is a straight-hole, motor
application in which deviation control is critical and requires frequent control drilling to fan
back to vertical. The application is generally considered non-PDC drillable because of streaks
of hard sandstone and chert. The average ROP of 26 ft/hr for the fi rst hybrid run from 8,112
to 9,506 ft was from 30 to 62% faster than the roller-cone-offset runs and one PDC run on
motors at RPMs ranging from 100 to 135. In shale, the instantaneous penetration rate of the
hybrid bits was more than double that of the roller-cone bits. The fastest roller-cone offset at
28 ft/hr was run with conventional rotary at 68 RPM without the differential-pressure limits
of the motor and at much higher hydraulic horsepower at the bit. Although it is not a valid
comparison, this run is included here to illustrate that the chosen motor differential, and not
the bit type, frequently determines the overall ROP. It also confirms that roller-cone bits in
general benefit little from higher RPM. The run was terminated by a ring out in the hard
caprock containing chert. The second run was slower mainly because of the fact that it
deviated early in the run and did not come back to vertical as fast as a conventional roller-
cone bit because of the tight clearance between the borehole wall and the heavily reinforced
gauge pads and bit legs. The majority of the run was spent fanning back to vertical at light
 WOB. The tight clearance has been recognized as a design issue and has been remedied on
subsequent designs without sacrificing stability. The dull condition was PDC-cutter chippage
and wear on the shoulder that was aggravated in the harder sections by the less-stable
operating parameters of light WOB and high RPM[13].
Advantages & Disadvantages: Hybrid Bits have several advantages as they have better ROP
than Roller Cone and PDC bits, consumes lesser time than to drill a better length and doesn’t
get dull easily like them. Talking about the disadvantage hybrid bits have not been segmented
in the entire world wherever drilling operations are happening.
Conclusion: The operator has been using conventional roller-cone and PDC bits to drill the
challenging surface hole section in East Jordan. Performance was inconsistent leading to
multiple trips and high surface hole cost. The implementation of the 26-in hybrid lowered the
torque fluctuations and allowed the operator to better utilize the power supplied to the bit
thereby maximizing ROP by drilling with 9.66 m/hr. In addition the durability for aided by
the combination of two cutting structures allowed to-drill through difficult pyrite and
conglomerates. The bit drilled three times the penetration rate compared with the best offset
and saved the operator 4.5 days.
Laboratory and field tests show that hybrid technology can be used to improve the drilling
mechanics and dynamic stability of drill bits. Hybrid bits are highly application specific and
should not be considered as a direct replacement for either PDC or roller-cone bits. They
have the potential to greatly enhance the performance of roller-cone bits in shale and other
formations that behave plastically and that are subject to bottom balling under high confining
pressure. The performance of roller-cone bits can be enhanced further in motor drilling where
the inherently poor response to RPM limits their potential. Hybrid bits are well suited for
drilling heterogeneous and interbedded formations where roller-cone bits are too slow and
PDC bits are subject to premature damage because of harmful vibrations. In directional
drilling, the hybrid bit can provide the good tool-face control of a roller-cone bit at ROPs
typical for a PDC bit. The favourable dynamics of a hybrid bit are most beneficial in large-
diameter bits, which are run at the WOB and torque limits of most rigs, drill strings, and
BHAs. The smoother running characteristics, lower torque oscillations, and generally lower
vibrations of the hybrid bit will improve not only the drilling performance but also the
reliability and service life of today’s complex and expensive BHAs.

References:
[1] C. J. Boughton and K. J. McCoy, “1. Boughton, Carol J.; McCoy, Kurt J. (2006). Hydrogeology, Aquifer
Geochemistry, and Ground-Water Quality in Morgan County, West Virginia US Geological Survey.
Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5198. ”.

[2] J. Brett, T. Warren, and S. , Behr, “2. Brett, J., Warren, T., Behr, S., 1990. ‘Bit Whirl- A New Theory of
PDC Bit Failure’. Paper SPE 19571, presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, TX, USA, 8-11 October. ”.

[3] R. Pessier and M. , Damschen, “3. Pessier, R., Damschen, M., 2010. ‘Hybrid Bits Offer Distinct
Advantages in Selected Roller Cone and PDC Bit Applications’. Paper SPE 128741, presented at the
 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2–4
February. ”.

[4] R. Pessier and M. Fear, “4. Pessier, R., Fear, M., 1992. ‘Quantifying Common Drilling Problems with
Mechanical Specific Energy and a Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction’. Paper SPE 24584,
presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Washington D.C.,
USA, 4-7 October.”.

[5] T.K. Dora, K.V. Krishna, M.I. Iqbal, and A. Ranjan, “5. T.K. Dora, K.V. Krishna, M.I. Iqbal, A. Ranjan, An
experimental analysis on nanoparticles role in drilling fluids, Materials Today: Proceedings. (2022).”.

[6] A. Hameed Hussain, D. Srinivasa Reddy, Robello Samuel, J. Sangwai, and S. Ponmani., “6. A. Hameed
Hussain, D. Srinivasa Reddy, Robello Samuel, J. Sangwai, and S. Ponmani. Investigation of chia based
copper oxide nanofluid for water based drilling fluid: An experimental approach. Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering, (In Press). 2022. ”.

[7] A. Hameed Hussain, D. Srinivasa Reddy, Robello Samuel, Tushar Sharma, and S. Ponmani, “7. A.
Hameed Hussain, D. Srinivasa Reddy, Robello Samuel, Tushar Sharma, and S. Ponmani, Experimental
investigation of aloevera based cuo nanofluids as a novel additive in improving the rheological and
filtration properties of water based drilling fluid. SPE Drilling & Completion, 2021; 36(3): 542-551. ”.

[8] Ponmani S. et al., “8. Ponmani S., Gopal Kumar G, Sarfraz Khan P., Nagababu A, Mohan Reddy K.,
Suresh Kumar G. and D. Srinivasa Reddy. Improvement of Anti-Sag and Rheological Properties of
Water Based Muds using Nano-Barite. Materials Today Proceedings, 2019; 17: 176-185. ”.

[9] P. Sharma and V.K. Kudapa, “9. P. Sharma, V.K. Kudapa, Rheological study of fluid flow model
through computational flow dynamics analysis and its implications in mud hydraulics, Materials
Today: Proceedings. 47 (2021) 5326–5333.”.

[10] A. Sinor, J. Powers, C. Ripp, S. Lovin, and M. McEntire, “10. Sinor, A., Powers, J., Ripp, C., Lovin, S.,
and McEntire, M. 2001a. Unique Field Research Facility Designed to Accelerate New Technology
Devel- opment and Enhance Tool Reliability. Paper AADE 01-NC-HO-36 presented at the AADE 2001
National Drilling Conference, Houston, 27–29 March.”.

[11] L. A. Sinor, W. R. Hansen, M. W. Dykstra, C. H. Cooley, and G. A. Tibbitts, “11. Sinor, L.A., Hansen,
W.R., Dykstra, M.W., Cooley, C.H., and Tibbitts,G.A. 2001b. Drill bits with controlled cutter loading
and depth of cut. US Patent No. 6,298,930.”.

[12] G. Tandberg and A. Rodland, “13. Tandberg, G. 1993. Combination drill bit. US Patent No. 5,176,212.
Tandberg, G. and Rodland, A. 1990. GT-BIT: A New Hybrid Design. Oil  Gas European Magazine 16 (1-
1990): 36–38.”.

[13] M. R. Wells and R. C. Pessier, “15. Wells, M.R. and Pessier, R.C. 1993. The Effects of Asymmetric
Nozzle Sizing on the Performance of Roller Cone Bits. Paper SPE 25738 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 22–25 February. doi: 10.2118/25738-MS.”.