SPE/IADC 79796
New PDC Design Process Solves Challenging Directional Application in Abu Dhabi
Onshore Fields
Abdullah S. Al-Suwaidi, Ahmed Abou Soliman, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO), Zeinoun Klink,
Matt Isbell, Mark Dykstra, Hughes Christensen and Christopher Jones, Baker Hughes INTEQ
Copyright 2003, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21 February 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Roller cone bits have dominated the 8-1/2” steerable
application in Abu Dhabi due to their proficient steerability,
consistently achieving the required build rates in the soft Nahr
Umr shale. In the vertical section, PDC bits often achieve up
to four times the penetration rates of TCI bits. However,
directional performance when using PDC bits to build angle
was compromised by fluctuations in reactive torque resulting
in poor tool face control and inconsistent build up rates. The
overall result was poor penetration rate and performance
compared to roller cone bits. The operator and a service
company utilized a new design process and cross functional
team approach to aggressively seek new steerable PDC
technology to drill the curved section with controllable torque
response and consistent directional behavior while achieving
the full penetration rate advantage of PDC bits. This process
was complemented by the Well Delivery Limit process
(WDL) that was already established by the operator that
focused on delivering high value wells with significantly
reduced costs. The team analyzed the drilling operations from
virtually every perspective using numerical models, laboratory
drilling tests, and field testing. The key to the PDC solution
was the team process that identified the relevant drilling
problems and performance requirements in order to develop
the needed technology. After 30 bit runs from November
2001 to June 2002, the team reduced drilling costs by $44.26
per foot for a total savings of $3,792,367 over 85,682 ft and
2,386 drilling hours. The average ROP for the section
doubled from 18 ft/hr with TCI bits to 36 ft/hr. The current
ROP record stands at 60 ft/hr over a 3,169 ft interval.
Introduction
The operator and bit manufacturer have a history of joint
optimization of roller cone technology in this 8-1/2” interval,
improving cutting structure and metal face sealed bearing
performance. The operator has documented these
achievements, along with two failed attempts to drill wells
with PDC bits.1 Despite advances in directional drilling
technology and more powerful positive displacement motors
(PDM), even as recently as late 2001, IADC code 517 roller
cone bits were the only technology that could provide both
tool-face control and build up rates required for the well plans.
The lithology for this section consists of short section of
limestone, followed by long section of soft shale to the landing
point in a limestone reservoir. All PDC attempts failed to
achieve any significant drilling improvements because of poor
tool face control and inadequate build rates through the soft
shale. Seeing an opportunity to reduce drilling costs,
engineers from the operator, bit supplier and motor supplier
developed a new technology for steerable PDC bits through an
open and cooperative process.
Well Plan
The 8-1/2” interval starts at approximately 6,600 ft at the
bottom of a limestone interval where unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) ranges between 9 and 21 ksi. At
approximately 7,400 ft, a 3 to 5 ksi UCS shale is encountered
which extends to the top of the reservoir at 8,100 ft. Almost
half of the directional work takes place in the soft shale before
the reservoir is penetrated at around 40 degrees of inclination.
The limestone reservoir features alternating soft and hard
layers, with the softer rock around 9 ksi UCS and the firmer
rock 15 to 26 ksi UCS. Figure 1 shows a plot of the rock type
and compressive strength versus depth while Figure 2 shows
two typical well plans. Directional work continues until the
well is horizontal and measured depths often extend to 9,500’.
The bottom hole assembly (BHA) typically used features an
IADC 517 roller cone bit on a 6-3/4” PDM with a bend
between 1.5 and 1.9 degrees. This assembly can easily
achieve the required directional work, but often the roller cone
bit cannot finish the hole section in one run because the
2 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES
bearings or cutting structure deteriorates. PDC bits offer the
potential of completing the section in one run, but early
attempts using traditional steerable PDC failed because of
problems steering the bit. Tool face orientation varied
inconsistently during kickoff operations from vertical hole and
attempts to reach the programmed 7-10 degree build up rates
(BUR) fell short in the soft, anisotropic shale intervals. As a
result, excessive time was spent sliding the BHA trying to
steer while drilling at low ROP, which drove overall
performance below operator standards. To overcome these
challenges, a team comprised of engineers from the operator
and service company met to develop a PDM/PDC
combination that was capable of drilling the difficult
interbedded interval.
Drilling Objectives and Team Aspects
The operator recently implemented the Well Delivery Limit
program (WDL) which advocates a culture of openness and
cooperation between the operator and service providers.2 In
this spirit, the bit manufacturer utilized a new PDC design
process that includes an engineer from the operator, design,
application, and research engineers from the bit manufacturer,
and technical marketing representatives from the bit and motor
service companies. Benefits of the new PDC design process
include:
ƒ Cross functional expertise provides in-depth analysis
and allows accurate problem definition
ƒ Opens access to the full complement of testing and
analysis tools, including the bit company’s full scale
testing facilities.
ƒ Detailed planning and review reduces costly design
iterations.
ƒ Broader collaboration significantly improves the
quality of the solution for the entire drilling system.
ƒ Improves communication between operator and
service providers.
The team of engineers from the operator and service
companies began the process of addressing the directional
challenges by setting the objectives, and defining scope of
work for different phases of the process.
Scope of Work
x Problem Statement and Evaluation: The operator and
service companies agree on target performance. This
includes benchmark data collection, offset studies,
and rig capabilities.
x Conceptual Design: Engineers analyze drilling data,
study offset runs, identify design features, design the
bit, and model bit performance aspects on proprietary
computer software.
x Development and Testing: Application based
laboratory work is conducted on a finished bit. In
this case, stability, side cutting capability, and
steerability characteristics were tested on a full size
SPE 79796
surface drilling rig and bit balling resistance tested
using a full scale drilling simulator under 6,000 psi
hydrostatic pressure.
x After Action Review: After each significant run, the
team meets to review each run, address and document
lessons learned based on the WDL Process. By
implementing the after action review, it helps the
team understand and document what went well, and
what could be done better.2
Team Objectives
The overall objective of the team was to reduce cost per foot
by at least 25%. Economics dictated that a substantially
higher ROP would be required to drill the interval with a more
expensive PDC bit. Computations showed that completing the
section in a single run with 35 ft/hr cumulative penetration
rate would meet the requirements; this meant ROP would be
roughly double that achieved with roller cone bits in offset
wells. In addition to higher ROP, the directional work
required consistent 10°-12° /100 ft build up rates, which meant
tool face control was critical. In addition to new bit
technology, the team identified new, higher powered motors
as a key component to improve system performance.
Bit Technology: Tool Face Control
The team studied early PDC runs and identified tool face
control as the main obstacle that prevented success.
Directional drillers said that tool face was most difficult to
control during the initial kick off and near the end of the
curve. Two effects were identified as the root causes of the
difficulties: (1) drillstring compliance, especially during kick
off; (2) PDC bit aggressiveness.
Drillstring Compliance
The well plan dictated a directional change from vertical hole
in this application at a depth of approximately 6,600 ft. This
depth played a role in toolface control, because it influenced
drillstring torsional stiffness. As the drillstring gets longer, the
more compliant (less stiff) it becomes as shown in Equation 1:
GJ
kt
L
Equation 1
Figure 3 shows that a variation in reactive torque of 1,000 ft-
lb could generate tool face changes of 250°, 165°, 125° and
75° for 4.5-in., 5.0-in., 5.5-in. and 6.625-in. drill pipe,
respectively. The operator favored 5.5-in. pipe. Before taking
on the additional expense of an even larger drillstring, a more
attractive alternative was pursued: a more steerable PDC bit.
Bit Aggressiveness
PDC bits are more difficult to control than roller cone bits for
two reasons. First, they require more torque to drill at a given
SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS
rate of penetration because they cut by shearing instead of
crushing. The drilling process is rarely perfectly smooth, so
higher average drilling torque implies higher variations in
torque downhole. Combined with high drillstring compliance,
this leads to unsteady tool face. The second reason, which is
related to the first, is that PDC bits are more aggressive, up to
4 to 18 times the aggressiveness of roller cone bits. In this
context, aggressiveness is defined as the relationship between
applied weight-on-bit and the resulting reactive torque.
Mathematically, the definition is as follows:3
36T
P of material removed is controlled by the projection of the
WD
Equation 2
Graphically, aggressiveness is proportional to the slope of the
curve that relates drilling torque to weight-on-bit. Example
curves for typical roller cone and PDC bits are shown in
Figure 4. Thus, the torque response of PDC bits is highly
sensitive to changes in WOB which result in fluctuations in
reactive torque which lead to changes in tool-face position.
To reduce the aggressiveness problem, designers utilized
larger chamfers on the cutting edges of the PDC cutters and/or
applied higher backrakes to the cutters. This approach also
reduced the drilling efficiency, which resulted in lowering
ROP in harder rock in order to gain directional control of the
bit in softer rock.
The hole inclination builds rapidly in the 8-1/2” hole section
from vertical to horizontal. Although the curves are relatively
smooth, the soft, highly laminated shales lead to some
variability in well path (tortuosity). By the end of the section,
frictional drag can be considerable, and variations of
downhole WOB can be on the order of several thousand
pounds. Referring again to Figure 4, this variation in
downhole WOB leads to variations of reactive torque of only a
few hundred foot pounds. From Figure 3, it can be seen that
this change in torque causes tool face changes of less than 60°
which does not solve the problem, but makes tool face control
more manageable. On the other hand, the same variation of
downhole WOB for a typical PDC bit causes reactive torque
to vary by over 1,500 ft-lb. Again, Figure 3 shows that this
can cause tool face to change by nearly 200°; which means the
difference between building at the desired rate or dropping
angle.
The issue of tool face control with PDC bits is not new. Over
the years, a number of approaches have been used to improve
performance: increased cutter back rake, higher blade counts,
small cutters, wear knots and large chamfers.4,5,6,7 The goal of
each of these is to reduce aggressiveness by changing the
slope of the WOB versus TOB response curve. However, the
unfortunate consequence of these approaches is the lower bit
efficiency and ROP that are sacrificed in firm formations to
gain controllability in soft rock. Worse, the bits are often still
3
too aggressive to drill very soft formations at high angles. The
team concluded that a new approach was needed for the target
application, one that preserves ROP in the hard limestones but
still provides controllability in softest shales. One new
technology, called depth-of-cut-control, appeared to
potentially accomplish both goals.
Depth of Cut Control
Depth-of-cut-control is best explained by way of example, for
instance, consider an ordinary hand planer used in wood
working. This tool removes a precisely controlled amount of
wood as the tool advances. As shown in Figure 5, the amount
cutting blade from the tool body. Greater projection of the
cutting element from the tool body removes more material,
and requires more energy to advance the planer. The analogy
for PDC bits is fairly direct: by controlling penetration of
PDC cutters into the formation (depth-of-cut), the amount of
energy required to advance the cutter (torque) can be
controlled. Penetration of a cutter can be managed by
adjusting its projection from the body of a bit.
The team worked with design engineers to incorporate the
depth-of-cut control strategy into a new bit. The result is
shown in Figure 6. Cutter exposure and blade geometry were
adjusted so the bit would drill as normal up to a prescribed
depth-of-cut, but beyond this target level, a bearing surface
would engage the bottom hole. In theory, the amount of WOB
required to penetrate further would increase exponentially,
while torque would increase only linearly. The net effect is
that aggressiveness decreases precipitously once the bearing
surface engages.
Laboratory Verification
The design was built and tested at the bit manufacturer’s state-
of-the-art drilling research facility.8 Figures 7-8 present
torque versus weight results obtained drilling hard (UCS =
15,000 psi) and soft (UCS = 5,000 psi) formations at a
constant rotary speed of 120 RPM. At low depths-of-cut,
torque increases rapidly as WOB is increased. In this range,
the bit drills with aggressiveness values typical of efficient
PDC bits.9 When the target depth-of-cut is exceeded, the slope
of the curve falls off dramatically as the bearing surface
engages and carries weight. Figure 9a shows how the bearing
engages the bottom hole (contact zones appear as streaks
where the blue paint is rubbed off). Apply more WOB and
even more of the bearing surface engages the hole bottom
(Figure 9b), but generates only slightly more torque.
Aggressiveness values in this drilling mode are more typical
of roller cone bits than PDCs. As long as the bit is drilling in
this unaggressive range, any variation in downhole weight-on-
bit will generate modest variations in reactive torque because
the bearing surface prevents additional depth-of-cut. In other
words, tool face control will be comparable to roller cone bits.
Based on the promising laboratory results, the bit was sent to
the operator for field testing.
4 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES
BHA Technology: Build Rates in Soft, Anisotropic
Shale
The operator’s drive for performance highlighted the need for
a motor/PDC bit combination to deliver the required
directional performance (build from vertical to horizontal with
up to 8°/100ft) at higher penetration rates than roller cone bits.
Since the directional requirements of the BHA were
unchanged, the team decided to stay with the same BHA
geometry.1
From the start it was apparent that the PDC design application
team would need to look for fit-for-purpose bit/motor
combinations to get the best performance consistently. The
requirements were for a motor capable of delivering high
BUR, in order to meet the directional requirements, but also
the motor needed to develop relatively high torque to enable
the PDC bit to drill efficiently.
The new generation performance (NGP) motors incorporate
two key features that make them perfect for this application.10
First, the motors utilize a new power section concept featuring
a contoured internal steel stator, laminated with a thin
equidistant layer of elastomer. This reduces the overall
thickness of stator rubber when compared to standard motors
(Figures 10a & 10b) and dramatically reduces the potential
for stator deformation. The reduced compliance affords
greater control of rotor/stator fit tolerances and provides better
heat dissipation characteristics. The result is a power section
that develops over 100% more power and torque, with greater
mechanical efficiency (defined by power input versus power
output), than conventional technology (Figure 11). Increased
motor durability and temperature resistance also leads to
improved overall reliability.
Second, an engineering change on the deflection device on the
motor allows for a very aggressive bend to be set. This
engineering work benefited from experienced gained on the
intermediate radius range of motors where maximum bends of
4° can be set and the motor rotated at up to 70°/100ft.11 It was
important that the ability to rotate was maintained to allow for
very efficient directional control along with good hole
cleaning relative to slide drilling only. It also allows the
motor to be “overset”, beyond the tilt required for normal
roller cone operations - this excess steering capacity allows
large direction changes in short distances, known as doglegs,
which not only allowed success in landing a well when
achieving less than anticipated doglegs but has also allowed
tackling increasingly challenging wells with confidence. The
maximum setting of the NGP motor is currently 2.2° with a
theoretical maximum dogleg of 15°/100ft deliverable and the
motor can still be rotated in this curve.
Case Studies
Two case studies, Case 1 and Case 2, demonstrate the basic
problems applying conventional PDC steerable technology.
These designs could not match the average performance of
SPE 79796
roller cone TCI bits, which is 1,350 ft at 18 ft/hr for this
application. Case 3 details the first application of the new
motor and new style steerable PDC bit which was first utilized
on a well in November 2001. The motor/bit combination
drilled the soft shale to the landing point in one run, achieved
all directional requirements and did so with an overall ROP of
in excess of 53 ft/hr.
Case 1
This early trial test was conducted using conventional
steerable PDC bit which consisted of 8 blades, ½” cutters, low
aggressive cutting structure designed for steerable application
with the following bottom hole assembly (BHA): Bit, Motor
(4/5 lobe, 7 stages with 1.83 bend housing), LWD, MWD, 6-
1/2” DC, 15 x 5-1/2” HWDP, XO, 17 X 5” HWDP, jars, drill
pipe to surface.
The 8 ½” hole section was kicked off using a TCI bit that built
angle from 0º to 14º followed by the conventional steerable
PDC bit. The TCI bit drilled 345 ft at 8.21 ft/hr. The roller
cone bit was used because of uncertainty with the PDC bit’s
ability to kickoff from vertical. The bit was used on two
different runs due to downhole failure in the measurement
tool. Foot based data analysis is summarized in Figure 12.
The performance is summarized in Figure 13.
Key Observations are as follows:
x At low inclination, rotary mode, the rate of
penetration was high, which is common when
drilling vertical holes.
x When attempting to build angle, the sliding ROP
was substantially lower then rotating causing
overall drop in performance.
x The weight to the bit had to be substantially
reduced to keep the bit tool face control from
drifting from the set point. This also resulted in
lowering the overall ROP.
Case 2
Another trial test was conducted using a steerable PDC
concept where large chamfer cutters were positioned in the
cone to reduce torque response. The bit consisted of 6 blades,
½” cutters, reduced aggressiveness cutting structure with the
following bottom hole assembly (BHA): bit, motor (5/6 lobe,
1.5º bend), LWD, MWD, 5” DP, XO,31 x 5” DP, 15 x 5 ½”
HWDP, XO, 17 X 5” HWDP, jars, drill pipe to surface.
The 8 ½” hole section was kicked off using a TCI bit that built
from 0º to 10º followed by a PDC bit. The TCI bit drilled 120
ft at 4.21 ft/hr. A roller cone bit was used because of
uncertainty with the PDC bit’s ability to kickoff from vertical.
The performance of the run was poor due to lack of tool face
control. The bit could not achieve the required build rate due
to high axial penetration rate in the soft shale. The weight on
bit had to be substantially dropped to allow higher build up
SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS
rate. The assembly built to 14º but was pulled due to
insufficient build rate. Foot based data analysis is summarized
in Figure 14. The performance is summarized in Figure 15.
Key Observations are as follows:
x In rotary mode, the ROP was very high, which is
expected from PDC bits
x When attempting to build angle, the sliding ROP was
substantially lower.
x The weight to the bit had to be substantially reduced
to keep the bit tool face control steady and increase
the build up rate. Even at very low WOB, the
penetration rate was as high as TCI bits.
Case 3
The new style PDC bit and NGP motor were utilized in
November 2001 on a re-entry well. The demanding
directional plan called for the bit to drill from 5930 ft to a kick
off point (KOP) at 7584 ft. Over this interval, the well drops
from 6º to near vertical while turning the well from Azimuth
of 148º down to 88º at the KOP. At 7584 ft, drillers used the
same steerable assembly (bit & motor) to kick off from
vertical and build the entire angle to horizontal. For the entire
run, the same BHA was used with no adjustments. The BHA
consisted of: bit, 6 3/4" new style motor with 1.9 degrees BH,
6 3/4" LWD, 6 3/4" MWD, 6 3/4" LWD, 3 x 5" HWDP, 6
1/2" x/o, 27 x 5" DP, 9 x 5" HWDP, 6 1/2" x/o, 18 x 5"
HWDP, 6 1/2" JAR, 9 X 5" HWDP, 6 1/2" X/O, Drill pipe to
surface
It was immediately evident that in rotary mode, the bit/motor
combination produced high ROP which indicated the new
steerable concept bit was as aggressive and efficient as a
standard PDC bit. The bit/motor drilled 1654 ft at an average
ROP of 111 ft/hr. The system turned in a peak ROP of 192
ft/hr during the initial part of the run while dropping angle to
near vertical and turning the well to the proper azimuth. In
vertical section, continuous rotation was applied on this new
style motor with 1.9º bend, which is high for conventional
motor BHA’s.
All objectives were successfully achieved in this well, kicking
off from vertical and achieving more then anticipated dogleg
to land the well on target. The foot based data analysis is
summarized in Figure 16. The performance is summarized in
Figure 17.
The overall performance of the trial test was impressive and
matched all theoretical calculations for ROP capability in rotary
mode as well as the steerability of the bit in the sliding mode. The
rate of penetration nearly tripled compared to roller cone bits.
After analyzing the foot based data the following conclusions were
drawn by the team during their after action review meeting:
x In rotary mode, the rate of penetration was very high
which indicates that the new steerable concept did
5
not affect the bit aggressiveness or efficiency in
rotary mode.
x The bit was able to kickoff from open vertical hole
while applying 20 klb without tool face problems.
x In slide mode, the ROP was much higher then TCI
bits and any previous PDC trial test.
x It was noted that the ROP was low for inclination
below 20º. Subsequent trial tests and lithology
analysis revealed that the soft shale has a tendency to
drop angle. The slower ROP allowed the bit to
achieve higher lateral side cutting to offset the
formation dropping tendency. This was a key
learning point for future well design.
x Tool face fluctuation was in the range of +/- 20º
which is considered close to tricone performance.
x The dog leg severity is given in Figure 18. The bit
motor combination was able to achieve, but not
limited to up to 10.7º/100ft.
Overall Performance
During November 2001 to June 2002, 33 bits were run totaling
85,682 feet drilled and 2,386 drilling hours. Compared to the
average for rollercone bits, the new PDC steerable concept has
doubled the rate of penetration from 18 ft/hr to 36 ft/hr and
allowed the entire 8-1/2” section to be drilled with one single
run from casing point to casing point. The bit has been
successfully used to drill from both open hole as well as from
milled casing window.
The performance comparison between the new PDC steerable
concept and Metal Face Seal rollercones is summarized in
Figure 19 showing footage drilled versus ROP. The graph
shows that the new PDC bit drills at a substantially higher
ROP over longer distance compared to roller cone bits. This
graph includes all the PDC performances achieved with this
bit using the new mud motor and other motor types (76% of
the PDC runs listed were achieved with the new style motor).
Conclusions
A team oriented PDC design process reduced cost per foot by
$44.26 for a total savings of $3,792,367 in drilling cost over
85,682 ft and 2,386 drilling hours. The average ROP for the
section has doubled from 18 ft/hr for TCI bits to 36 ft/hr for
the new PDC/motor combination. The current record ROP is
60 ft/hr over a 3,169 ft interval. One PDC bit is able to drill
from casing point to casing point eliminating the two or more
rollercone bits required in the past.
A new steerable PDC bit uses depth-of-cut control technology
to drill with an engineered bit aggressiveness response that
allows tool face control while delivering required build up
rates to deliver one bit/motor/BHA intervals at improved
penetration rates and provide the lowest cost per foot drilling
solution.
6 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES
The new style motor demonstrated excellent proficiency for
this PDC/Medium radius application. It has been an
extremely successful part of a systematic approach targeted at
improving the operator’s drilling performance. The
predictable and consistent results given by the motor/bit
combination has enabled the operator to expand the envelope
of PDC opportunities beyond the scope of the initial vision to
include tackling high dogleg severity and high total dogleg
applications successfully. Building on success, the motor/bit
combination has now delivered over three quarters of all the
operator’s PDC intervals with builds to horizontal including
some very complex three dimensional profile wells. In one of
these wells, a spectacular 256° of total dogleg was achieved,
which is the equivalent of nearly three builds to horizontal in
one, two-dimensional well.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank management at ADCO,
Hughes Christensen and Baker Hughes INTEQ for permission
to publish this paper. Special thanks to Jonny Macklin,
OASIS for help with the WDL process and Craig Fleming,
HCC, for his technical writing and editing assistance.
Nomenclature
D Bit diameter (in)
G Torsional rigidity (lb/in2)
J Polar moment of inertia (in4)
kt Torsional stiffness (in-lb/rad)
L Drillstring length (ft)
P Bit aggressiveness (unitless)
T Torque (ft-lb)
W Weight-on-Bit (lb)
References
1. Shouman, A.H., Hegab, M.S., Abdelshafy, O.M.,
Zaki, M.: “Innovative Metal Seal Roller Cone Bit
Cuts Drilling Costs in Abu Dhabi Onshore Fields by
42%,” paper SPE 72294 presented at the SPE/IADC
Middle East Drilling Technology Conference,
Bahrain 22-24 October 2001.
2. Al-Suwaidi, A., Faure, A., Mukhalalati, T., Al
Taweei, A.R., Bamajbour, A.H., Edwards, C.,
Macklin, J.: “Well Delivery Limit: Two Years
Experience with a Breakthrough Drilling
Performance Initiative,” paper SPE 78491 presented
at the 10th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, 13-16 October 2002.
3. Pessier, R.C. and Fear, M.J.: “Quantifying Common
Drilling Problems with Mechanical Specific Energy
and a Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction,”
paper SPE 24584 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC,
October 4-7, 1992.
SPE 79796
4. Norris, J.A., Dykstra, M.W., Beuershausen, C.C.,
Fincher, R.W. and Ohanian, M.P.: “Development
and Successful Application of Unique Steerable PDC
Bits,” paper IADC/SPE 39308 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 3-6
March 1998.
5. Mensa-Wilmot, G., Krepp, T. and Stephen, I.: “Dual
Torque Concept Enhances PDC Bit Efficiency in
Directional and Horizontal Drilling Programs,” paper
SPE/IADC 52879 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9-11
March 1999.
6. Dykstra; M.W., Heuser; W., Doster; M.L., Zaleski,
Jr.; T.E., Oldham; J.T., Watts; T.D., Ruff; D.E.,
Walzel; R.B., Beuershausen; C.C.: “Drill bits with
reduced exposure of cutters,” US Patent 6,460,631,
October 8, 2002.
7. Sinor, L.A., Hansen, W.R., Dykstra, M.W., Cooley,
C.H., Tibbits, G.A.: “Drill Bits with Controlled
Cutter Loading and Depth of Cut,” US Patent
6,298,930, October 9, 2001.
8. Isbell, M.R. and Berzas, S.: “Re-Engineered Drilling
Laboratory is a Premium Tool Advancing Drilling
Technology by Simulating Downhole Environments”
paper ASME ETCE99-6653, Houston, Texas,
February 1999.
9. Sinor, L.A., Powers, J.R., Warren, T.M.: “The Effect
of PDC Cutter Density, Back Rake, Size, and Speed
on Performance” paper SPE 39306 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 3-6
March 1998.
10. Grindrod, J., Rayton, C., Sim, C., Biggs, N., Brown,
A., Tayler, P.: “The Introduction of New-Generation
Positive Displacement Motor Technology in
Combination with Application-Specific PDC Bits: A
Step Improvement in Drilling Performance on
Horizontal Rotliegendes Sandstone Sections” paper
SPE 74455 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February 2002.
11. French, M.R., Siagian, M., Sutcliffe, B.C., Jones, J.:
“Drilling Optimization and Use of Titanium Motor
Results in 40% Reduction in Short Radius Drilling
Time” paper IADC/SPE 39387 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 3-6
March 1998.
SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS 7

Figure 1 - Stratigraphic Section Showing Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and Friction Angle (FA) of 8-1/2"
Build Section. Usually, the larger values of angle of internal friction (FA) are associated with angular, rather than
rounded formation grain geometry, causing higher degrees of grain interlockment and reduced sorting coefficients. FA is
used as a measure of formation abrasiveness.
8 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES SPE 79796

Case 1
8 1/2” Section Profile

Hard
Lime s tone
9 5/8” Casing point

7º - 10º/100 ft. BUR

M as sive
Shales
OBM or KCL/BHPA
80 - 85 pcf
Case 2

D e nse
Lime s tone 9 5/8” Casing point 10º - 14º/100 ft. BUR
Soft
Lime s tone
D e nse
Lime s tone
Soft
Lime s tone
D e nse
Lime s tone
Soft
Polymer 75 - 80 pcf
Lime s tone

Figure 2 – Case One and Case Two General Well Profiles

Drillstring Compliance vs. Length

Various Drill Pipe Sizes
350
Compliance (deg/1,000 ft-lb)

300 4.5" Drill Pipe

250

200 5.0" Drill Pipe

150 5.5" Drill Pipe

100
6.625" Drill Pipe
50

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Drillstring Length (ft)

Figure 3 – Variations in Reactive Torque

SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS 9

PDC: P = 0.6 – 1.5

Reactive Torque

Tricone: P = 0.1 – 0.2

Weight-on-Bit
Figure 4 – Example Curves for Typical Roller Cone and PDC Bits

Figure 5 – Planer showing blade projection.

10 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES SPE 79796

Figure 6 – New Steerable PDC Bit with Depth Limiting Bearing Surfaces

Drilling Torque vs. Weight-on-Bit

Test Bit, Carthage Limestone (c o = 15,000 psi), Atmospheric
2,500

2,000
P = 0.25
Torque (ft-lb)

1,500
Unaggressive Range ~ Bearing Engaged

1,000
P = 0.60

500
Efficient
Range

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Weight-on-Bit (lb)

Figure 7 – Torque vs Weight on Bit

SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS 11

Drilling Torque vs. Weight-on-Bit

Test Bit, Bedford Limestone (c o = 5,000 psi), Atmospheric
1,400

1,200

1,000
P = 0.42
Torque (ft-lb)

800

600
Unaggressive Range ~ Bearing Engaged
400
P = 0.85

200
Efficient
Range
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Weight-on-Bit (lb)

Figure 8 - Torque vs Wight on Bit

Create and insert similar figure for softer rock

Figure 9a Figure 9b

Figure 9a & 9b – Bearing Surfaces Appear as Streaks in Blue Paint

12 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES SPE 79796

a b

Figure 10 - Comparison of conventional stator geometry (a) with new high performance PDM stator design (b)

Figure 11 - Comparison of torque output and speed for new high performance 6-3/4” motor versus standard PDM.
SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS 13

Case 1, 8 1/2" PDC bit

140.00 80

120.00 70

100.00 60
ROP(ft/hr)

50
80.00
40
60.00
30
40.00
20
20.00 10
0.00 0
7400 7600 7800 8000 8200 8400 8600
Depth

ROP(ft/hr) RPM WOB (Klb) Inclination (degrees)

Figure 12 – Foot based data analysis, Case Study 1

Run # Depth in Depth out Footage Drilling ROP Inclination in Inclination out Reason Pulled
drilled Hrs (ft/hr) (º) (º)
1 7446 8299 853 55 15.51 14 52 Down hole failure
2 8299 8628 329 76 4.33 52 68 Total depth

Figure 13 – Performance Summary Case Study 1

14 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES SPE 79796

Case 2, 8 1/2" PDC bit

180 60

160
50
140

120 40
ROP (ft/hr)

100
30
80

60 20

40
10
20

0 0
7700 7750 7800 7850 7900 7950 8000 8050 8100
Depth (ft)

ROP (ft/hr) RPM WOB (Klb) Inclination (deg)

Figure 14– Foot based data analysis, Case Study 2

Depth in Depth out Footage Drilling ROP Inclination in Inclination out Reason Pulled
drilled Hrs (ft/hr) (º) (º)
7710 8039 329 9 36.56 10.72 14 Not able to achieve build rate

Figure 15 – Performance Summary Case Study 2

SPE 79796 NEW PDC DESIGN PROCESS SOLVES CHALLENGING DIRECTIONAL APPLICATION IN ABU DHABI ONSHORE FIELDS 15

First Trial test with new PDC concept and new motor

200 100

80
150
ROP(ft/hr)

60
100
40
50
20

0 0
6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000
Depth (ft)

ROP (ft/hr) WOB (Klb) RPM (rotary) Inclination (deg)

Figure 16 – Foot Based Analysis, Case Study 3

Section Start of End of Footage Drilling ROP Inclination in Inclination Azimuth in Azimuth
section section drilled Hrs (ft/hr) (º) out (º) (º) out (º)

Vertical 5930 7584 1654 14.5 111 4.6 1.2 148 88

Build 7584 8815 1231 25 49 1.2 89.76 88 79.3

Figure 17 – Performance Summary Case Study 3.

16 AL-SUWAIDI, SOLIMAN, KLINK, ISBELL, DYKSTRA, JONES SPE 79796

First Trial Test

12.0
Dog Leg Severity (deg/100ft)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000
Measured Depth (ft)

Figure 18 – Dogleg Severity, Case Study 3

New PDC Concept vs. TCI Elastomer Seal

70
60
50
40
ROP

New PDC
30 TCI MFS
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Footage

Figure 19- Footage Drilled vs ROP: New PDC Concept vs Metal Seal Roller Cone