SPE 151787

Deepwater Drilling in Both Hard and Abrasive Formations: The Continuing

Challenge of Bit Optimization
Dominic Murphy, Donald Mackay, Tullow Ghana Ltd, James Gilmour, Tullow Oil plc, Nicholas Tetley,
Prabhakaran Centala, Edward Iwere, Smith Bits, a Schlumberger Company

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 20–22 February 2012.

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

Abstract
Discovery of the Jubilee field, offshore West Africa presented a new challenge to the drilling industry when it had to contend
with hard sandstone drilling in a deepwater environment. A solution to the key 12¼” section was developed utilizing a 4D
modeling system, which accelerated optimization in the large hole section. This resulted in one bottom hole assembly (BHA)
run to total depth (TD), compared with an average of four BHA runs previously. Additional modeling achieved a doubling of
rate of penetration (ROP).

Further improvement to the one-run success would involve risk, and engineers had to weigh the prospective gain against the
potential loss. In deepwater, particularly with a successful solution in place, high operating costs generally reduce the
motivation to embrace change even if a potential cost-reducing solution could produce a significant economic impact.
Achieving additional gains required an engineered approach to reduce the risks of deploying new solutions.

During the initial campaign the simulation models were constructed around standard rock types. However, the acquisition of
reservoir core allowed direct testing on actual formation. This valuable new information became the basis for a new 12¼”
PDC bit design and provided the justification for field testing. Additionally, different well plans called for a more
challenging 17½” hole section on a new development. To solve the challenge, the operator considered using a different bit
type and/or smaller hole size. Based on simulation results, and an analysis of global offset data of both sizes, the smaller hole
size option was selected.

The initiatives have been extremely successful, culminating in two wells drilled in record time, with one of them reducing
drilling time by 40%. This work has demonstrated that continuous improvement is possible, but where the cost of failure is
high, a thorough engineering analysis is required to justify each change.

Introduction
Approximately five years ago, two deepwater wells made the first significant oil discovery in offshore Ghana, West Africa.
Since that time, more than 20 wells have been drilled in Jubilee field. The asset is currently producing approximately
80,000bopd. In addition to being the first commercial oil field in Ghana, Jubilee is also one of the fastest deepwater
prospects to go from discovery to production. An additional discovery has been made west of Jubilee, now known as the
Tweneboa Enyenra and Ntomme (T.E.N.) development.

An early challenge to delivering the wells was optimizing the 12¼” bit design to deliver one bit/section drilling. This was
achieved and proven through multiple runs (Table 1). The success made PDC bit selection for future wells relatively easy.
However, this type of comfort zone can lead to complacency, which on a $1M/day operation can prove costly. Detailed
examination of the performance data on an interval-by-interval basis showed that although the overall bit performance was
good, in the lower reservoir section ROP had slowed and in some wells overall drilling approached the 80:20 rule1; in this
case 70% of the drilling hours resulted in just 30% of the overall footage. This was an obvious candidate for improvement.

1
The Pareto Principle: In 1906, Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.
The 80:20 rule states that for many events, 80% of the effect comes from 20% of the effort.
2 SPE 151787

Initial optimization of the section had relied heavily on simulation models to design an appropriate PDC bit and BHA.1-10
These models were based on cutter testing using laboratory samples of similar rock types. Although the modeling proved
successful, engineers surmised that further improvement in the reservoir section could be achieved if core samples of the
actual field formation were available for laboratory testing.

FIELD W ELL RIG NAME BIT DEPT H DRILL ROP DRIVE W OB LO W OB HI T OT AL T OT AL DEV DEV I O D L G O R
NUMBER OUT (m) (m/ hr) (klbs) (klbs) RPM LO RPM HI IN OUT
(m)

JUBILEE 02 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 4215 1135 8.87 RS 30 30 65 65 38.0 37.8 2 3 WT N IN CT TD

JUBILEE 05 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 4192 1702 21.14 MOTOR RS 5 20 138 200 24.5 47.8 1 2 WT S IN NO TD
JUBILEE 11 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 4213 1481 17.42 MOTOR RS 36 36 170 170 37.8 37.8 1 3 WT S 1 CT TD
JUBILEE 12 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 4292 1349 18.97 MOTOR RS 32 32 209 209 44.3 42.5 3 8 WT S 2 RO TD
JUBILEE 01 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 3723 1054 22.58 RS 28 28 180 180 0.0 13.0 1 3 WT S IN CT TD
JUBILEE 03 ATWOOD HUNTER PDC 1 3747 1535 14.21 RS 10 30 80 150 19.8 14.4 1 1 WT A IN CT PR
JUBILEE 13 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 3980 1138 27.10 RS 10 28 180 180 28.4 15.0 1 2 WT S IN CT TD
JUBILEE 15 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 5165 1770 20.00 RS 20 20 120 150 64.0 64.0 1 2 WT S IN CT TD
JUBILEE 14 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 3907 1309 12.47 RS 10 30 160 160 20.0 38.8 1 2 WT S IN CT TD
JUBILEE 17 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 5910 2523 12.94 RS 32 32 180 180 70.5 69.8 1 1 WT S IN ER TD
JUBILEE 17ST1 EIRIK RAUDE PDC 1 5940 2428 17.72 RS 30 30 180 180 66.7 70.5 2 2 WT A IN BT TD
JUBILEE 06 DW MILLENIUM PDC 2 3950 1024 34.21 RS 30 30 160 160 33.4 32.0 1 3 CT S 1 LC TD
JUBILEE 06 ST DW MILLENIUM PDC 2 3990 1060 25.17 RS 30 40 180 180 31.3 55.6 2 2 WT S 1 CT TD
T.E.N. T 02 HUNTER PDC 1 3584 1121 11.21 RS 10 40 60 170 10.7 0.1 3 6 WT A IN CT TD
T.E.N. E 01 SEDCO 702 PDC 1 3891 966 8.38 RS 25 25 180 180 2.0 32.3 2 2 WT S IN CT LOG
T.E.N. E 01ST SEDCO 702 PDC 1 3804 889 7.66 RS 20 20 190 190 1.0 35.5 1 1 WT S IN NO CP
T.E.N. E 01ST SEDCO 702 PDC 1 3856 30 3.88 RS 15 15 180 180 35.7 35.8 1 1 NO A IN NO CP
T.E.N. E 01ST SEDCO 702 PDC 1 3971 70 5.34 RS 7 7 180 180 35.4 34.6 1 1 WT N IN CT TD
T.E.N. E 01ST SEDCO 702 PDC 1 3998 27 9.09 RS 15 15 180 180 34.6 34.9 1 1 WT N IN CT TD
T.E.N. T 03 DW MILLENIUM PDC 1 3973 850 16.40 RS 15 25 160 180 1.3 50.3 1 1 WT G IN CT TD
T.E.N. T 03ST DW MILLENIUM PDC 1 3906 782 24.53 RS 25 35 160 160 1.2 32.6 1 1 WT A IN CT TD
T.E.N. T 04 DW MILLENIUM PDC 2 3756 652 36.71 RS 35 35 180 180 0.1 0.1 3 2 CT A IN BT TD
T.E.N. E 03 DW MILLENIUM PDC 2 3460 155 24.00 RS 20 35 160 180 0.5 1.4 0 1 WT S IN NO CP
T.E.N. E 03 DW MILLENIUM PDC 2 3740 226 15.90 RS 25 35 180 180 1.4 0.2 1 2 WT S IN CT TD

Table 1 - 12¼” PDC bit runs in Jubilee field, offshore West Africa

Further improvement to the bit selection was not confined to the 12¼” section. The 17½” section was being drilled with oil
based mud (OBM) and milltooth bits that were delivering good performance and achieving the operator-driven objective of
consistently drilling the interval in one run while avoiding costly trips for new bits. This again produced a comfortable
situation where bit selection was straight forward and performance could be effectively guaranteed. However, further drilling
in the area was going to focus on exploration and appraisal wells in T.E.N. development. This would call for the 17½”
section to be drilled into the Upper Campanian fan with the potential occurrence of harder sandstone stringers that could
present a challenge to standard milltooth bits. Alternative solutions were 17½” TCI, although this would compromise ROP
through the entire section, or the use of a 17½” PDC with its potential to drill the section in one run at high ROP.

Alternatively, a smaller 16” PDC could be employed. Offset data from other locations documented significant performance
improvement downsizing from 17½” to 16” hole size in hard rock application in the Middle East and North Africa. One such
example from an Algerian field is illustrated in Table 2

Field Exam ple 1 Field Exam ple 2

Drill Bits Hrs ROP Drill Bits Hrs ROP
16" PDC 805.2 1 33 24.4 1808 1 155 12.1
16" TCI 1052 1.75 112 9.4 1820 >1 256 7.1
17 1/2' TCI 1036 2.3 185 5.6 1853 >1 445 4.25

Table 2 – Performance benefits of downsizing hole size and utilizing PDC vs TCI

As OBM was being used in Ghana, the risk of shale swelling was considered minimal, and engineering work confirmed that
the 13-3/8” casing could be successfully installed and cemented without issues. With numerous wells remaining including
development of the new T.E.N. field, the engineering team decided to evaluate using 16” PDC in the application. Drawing
on experience from Jubilee, the same BHA simulation and analysis tools would be applied.

12¼” Section Drilling

The initial drilling campaign in Ghana focused on drilling production and injection wells in Jubilee field. This was
accomplished with The Blackford Dolphin, Atwood Hunter and Eirik Raude rigs in 2009 and early 2010. At the conclusion
SPE 151787 3

of the initial Jubilee development, attention was focused on T.E.N. field. The Deepwater Millennium and Sedco 702 rigs
were deployed to drill exploration wells on T.E.N. in 2010. The Deepwater Millennium was equipped with 6-5/8” drillpipe
which could produce increased bit performance due to increased torsional stiffness and hydraulic efficiency. Using the
lessons learned on Jubilee, the 12¼” section was drilled with the same BHA and PDC bit. Results were again excellent with
all wells drilled in one run (Table 1). Performance from wells, T-3, T-3ST, and E-1 are considered good representative 12¼”
sections. The T-4 run was used to test the new PDC bit design.

Drilling Performance
Continued drilling in the 12¼” section confirmed the initial bit selection was a proven one-run performer in the application.
The bit accomplished the single bit objective in all sections except one. However detailed analysis of the entire interval
broken down on a formation-by-formation basis showed that fast ROP in the upper interval was offset by slow ROP in the
lower section (Table 3). The analysis revealed that one of the slowest intervals is the Base Lower Mahogany (Base LM 2)
interval, with an ROP typically between 2-3m/hr.
Well 1 - BIT 1 Well 2 - BIT 1 Well 3 - BIT 1 Well 4 - BIT 1 Well 5 - BIT 1 Well 6 - BIT 1 Well 7 - BIT 2 Well 7ST - BIT 2
FORMATION IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP
Overburden 2569 873 54 3080 773 25.44 2490 1243 39.27 2876 1084 36.28 2843 808 55.08 2626 1200 54.42 2927 717 37.62 2930 663 41.39
Mahogany Fan 3442 41 28.9 3853 71 6.89 3733 74 33.18 3816 55 25.7 3651 30 36.14 3826 32 29.09
UM1 3483 10 17.2 3871 33 16.9 3681 17 29.82 3858 17 26.56
UM2 3493 37 9.6 3924 41 4.00 3807 61 29.05 3904 17 11.8 3698 26 29.21 3875 43 23.50 3644 44 36.67 3593 19 26.76
UM3 3530 57 9.1 3965 75 4.63 3868 66 15.57 3921 75 12.6 3724 61 26.52 3918 71 25.18 3688 59 44.36 3612 92 25.41
BASE UM3 3996 8 11.1 3785 6 12.24
UM4 3587 23 5.1 3934 47 13.54 4004 25 11.4 3791 11 17.74 3989 22 20.18 3747 31 51.67 3704 38 17.27
UM5
BASE UPPER MAHOGANY 3610 19 12.7 4040 35 3.95 3981 15 16.85 4029 16 14.7 3802 17 18.48 4011 24 22.64 3778 29 33.33
LM1 3629 38 7.98 4075 29 5.84 3996 50 15.97 4045 48 11.9 3819 41 14.39 4035 22 11.17 3807 43 25.15 3742 111 21.81
LM2 3667 52 8.99 4104 71 3.78 4046 62 5.96 4093 73 5.4 3860 66 17.19 4057 82 7.98 3850 35 22.73 3853 72 17.65
BASELM2 3719 64 2.7 4175 40 1.34 4108 84 3.78 4166 47 2.2 3926 54 4.44 4139 128 3.65 3885 65 10.28 3925 64 6.18

Table 3 – ROP analysis of 12¼” hole section in Jubilee field

Note low ROP in base Lower Mahogany (Base LM 2)

In a separate analysis, engineers calculated the sand interval and unconfined compressive strength. Average sandstone
interval ranged between 100m and 200m with average unconfined compressive strength (UCPS) that fluctuates between
5000-10,000psi (Table 4 & Figure 1)

Well 1 - Bit 1 Well 2 - Bit 1 Well 3 - Bit 1 Well 4 - Bit 1 Well 5 - Bit 1 Well 7ST - Bit 2
UCPS UCPS UCPS UCPS UCPS UCPS
FORMATION IN MTR Sst (m) IN MTR Sst (m) IN MTR Sst (m) IN MTR Sst (m) IN MTR Sst (m) Sst (m)
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) IN MTR (psi)
Overburden 2569 873 3080 773 2490 1243 2876 1084 2945 978 2930 663
Mahogany Fan 3442 41 3853 71 3733 74 3816 55 3903 70
UM1 3483 10 3871 33 3973 31
UM2 3493 37 3924 41 3807 61 29.50 5787 3904 17 4004 32 3593 19
100.50 7892
UM3 3530 57 56.50 7562 3965 75 3868 66 37.50 7124 3921 75 75.5 7665 4036 65 3612 92
116.00 7618
BASE UM3 3996 8 90.00 8905
UM4 3587 23 3934 47 31.50 7433 4004 25 4101 39 3704 38
UM5 4140 28
BASE UPPER MAHOGANY 3610 19 4040 35 3981 15 4029 16 73.00 7525
LM1 3629 38 4075 29 3996 50 4045 48 4168 45 3742 111
110.50 9245
LM2 3667 52 45.50 5963 4104 71 4046 62 63.00 8175 4093 73 73.5 9776 4213 79 13.00 6074 3853 72
51.00 8910
BASELM2 3719 64 4175 40 4108 84 4166 47 3925 64

Table 4 – Overall sandstone interval drilled and average unconfined compressive strength (UCPS) of formation

Performance analysis is greatly enhanced when drilling relatively homogenous and consistent lithology across the field.
However, in Jubilee and T.E.N. the reservoir is contained in an inconsistent heterogeneous turbidite sequence and
comparisons on a formation-by-formation basis are not exact, as shown in previous Tables 3 & 4. In addition some wells
were drilled as injectors and did not penetrate the full reservoir interval. Other wells had cored sections and there were many
other variables at play.
4 SPE 151787

GR & SONIC LITHOLOGY UCMPS FM TOPS

FORMATION FORMATION

M.Depth (m)
ABRASION IMPACT
SH CLAY CLYS MARL SS SILT CNGL

MODERATE

MODERATE
V.HEAVY

V.HEAVY
NORM AL

NORM AL
HEAVY

HEAVY
GR
0 (GAPI) 200 CHRT AN HL VOLC IGNE META PYRT

SONI UCMPS
140 (us/f) 40 LS CHAL DOL COAL 0 (psi) 30000

3800

T-Mahogany Fan

3850

UM1

3900
UM2

T-UM3

3950

B-UM3
4000
B-UM4

B.Upp Mahogany Sand

LM1
4050

LM2
4100

4150

B-LM2

4200

Figure 1 – Gamma ray, sonic and lithology logs with resulting rock strength analysis
 SPE 151787 5

Therefore a more simplified data analysis is presented in Tables 5a & 5b which is based on wells that drilled the entire
interval. The comparison has been simplified with only definition between overburden and reservoir in Jubilee and T.E.N.
developments.
Well 1 - BIT 1 Well 2 - BIT 1 Well 3 - BIT 1 Well 4 - BIT 1 Well 5 - BIT 1 Well 6 - BIT 1 Well 7 - BIT 2 Well 7ST - BIT 2
IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP
Totals 1214 17.71 1135 8.75 1702 21.19 1481 17.60 1137 28.32 1641 21.07 1023 31.35 1059 25.17
Overburden 2569 873 53.99 3080 773 25.44 2490 1243 39.27 2876 1084 36.29 2843 808 55.08 2626 1200 54.42 2927 717 37.62 2930 663 41.39
Reservoir 3442 341 6.51 3853 362 3.64 3733 459 9.43 3816 397 7.32 3651 329 12.91 3826 441 7.90 3644 306 22.55 3593 396 15.20
Reservoir %
Interval 28% 32% 27% 27% 29% 27% 30% 37%
Hours 76% 77% 61% 64% 63% 72% 42% 62%
Reservoir
(sandstone)
Interval 85 149 116 125 no data no data no data 141
Average UCPS
7167 9125 7286 8834 no data no data no data 9139
(psi)

Table 5a - Summary data in Jubilee field. Reservoir interval as a percentage of total drilled interval and total drilling hours.
E 1 - BIT 1 T 03 - BIT 1 T 03ST - BIT 1 T 04 - BIT 2
IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP IN MTR ROP
Totals
Campanian 2925 501 14.00 3125 237 40.30 3125 232 17.23 3105 39 25.60
Reservoir 3426 465 5.87 3362 611 13.25 3358 548 30.36 3144 612 37.80
Reservoir
(sandstone)
Interval 122 89 58 163
Average UCPS
7143 6979 6376 7101
(psi)

Table 5b – Summary data in T.E.N. development

Dull Bit Characteristics

With several successful runs completed dull grading was performed to draw conclusions about how the bit’s components
could be affecting performance. There were two areas on the bit that were noticeably worn. The shoulder cutters displayed
excessive abrasive wear (Figure 2). It was noted this area suffered more wear on the high RPM motor and rotary steerable
system that was employed on J#5, J#11 and J#12.

Excessive wear area

Figure 2 – Increased cutter wear in shoulder area on bits used with RSS/motor BHA compared to standard rotary system

Dull grading also revealed noticeable wear on the cutters at the bit center on some runs (Figure 3). This was evident on the
first successful run on J#2. Further analysis concluded the excessive wear area was mainly caused by the use of standard
cutter technology. On subsequent runs a new style O2 premium cutter11 was run however some wear was still observed on the
center cutters. Wear on either the shoulder or gauge could account for slower runs and particularly the low ROP in the
deeper formations.
 6 SPE 151787

Excessive cutter wear

Figure 3 – Cutter wear at bit center (left) was reduced by installing premium O2 shearing elements (right)

Drilling Mechanical Logs

When the vibration logs were analyzed, the study confirmed that BHA vibration (stick-slip) and shock levels increased in the
deeper intervals (Figure 4). When a similar study was performed on data from J-6 it was apparent stick-slip had been
considerably reduced highlighting the difficulty of obtaining consistent performance analysis from well data. J-6 was drilled
with the DW Millennium and its 6-5/8” drillpipe, so this improvement could have been attributed to the larger DP, the new
bit design or a combination of both. Furthermore in all the critical runs bit engineers were on-site to monitor bit
performance. This in hindsight proved invaluable to the overall success in the project. For example on the harder stringers
where ROP slows down significantly the intuitive response is to lower RPM and increase WOB. However, this could result
in higher vibration levels. The bit engineer would advise that RPM be maintained at 180RPM and have patience to break
through the stringer which could take up to six hours.

Figure 4 – Comparison between PDC 1 on well J-1 on left and PDC 2 on Well J6 on right showing the improvement in vibration levels.
On both stick slip severity increases at the end of run, but with the PDC 1 design there is significant lateral and axial vibration while with
PDC 2 this is not present. The graphs also illustrate the hazards of performance measurement as J-6 was drilled with the Deepwater
Millennium with 6 5/8” drillpipe which could account for some of the improvement.
SPE 151787 7

New Design Requirement

Early in the Jubilee campaign it was recognized that bit performance could be enhanced. Slow ROP in the deeper sections
coupled with high vibrations and mechanical specific energy12-21 pointed to an opportunity for performance improvement.
Since the current PDC design was successfully drilling the 12¼” hole section in one run, an optimization effort would be
risky, might have not achieved improvement and could result in performance degradation. One piece of data that was not
incorporated into the previous modeling effort was access to actual reservoir formation. Rather than simply re-designing the
existing bit, it was determined the best approach would be to secure actual field core and ship them back to the laboratory for
cutter testing and use the new data as a basis for an updated design.

Core Testing
The value of single cutter testing and other laboratory analysis are well established and provide significant insight into the
behavior of full scale PDC bits.23-26 These type studies allow engineers to observe fundamental cutter/rock shearing action in
a controlled environment to generate useful behavior data. The information can then be extrapolated to represent the entire
PDC cutting structure including bit center and gauge. The base data is loaded into a software program and a rendering of the
PDC bit is integrated into a full 4D BHA model. This allows engineers to study the effects of subtle design changes on BHA
performance. A computer simulation design approach is used in many industries and produces predictive benefits and
measures the effects of change without going to the expense of full scale testing. In this case full scale testing involves a
deepwater rig at $1M/day. Additionally, each application has minute differences making it difficult to interpret test data.

The cutter tests are typically based on standard industry rock types, such as Mancos shale, Leuders limestone, Carthage
marble and Colton sandstone. This allows a multitude of tests to be performed with different cutters sizes and orientations on
standard rock enabling engineers to build a reference library. Using standard rock types also permits the use of the models
where the actual rock drilled is not available for testing. In this situation a reference rock was chosen with strength and type
characteristics comparable to the formations to be drilled. Results from this system are well documented and it was used
with standard rock models to identify a successful bit for the 12¼” PDC design for Jubilee field.27

Further development can be achieved by refining the current rock models or using additional or different rock types as more
detailed information is obtained from additional drilling and log data. However, in this case it was advantageous to obtain
rock samples of actual field formation. The actual rock can be quarried at the surface or taken from core samples at depth. If
the core is being cut as part of the current drilling program, it is unlikely to be immediately available. In this instance there
was an agreement to use some core for bit/cutter testing. The samples became available in late 2010 meaning that any bit
design change would be too late for the first phase of Jubilee field development.

Eventually, approximately 30” of 4” diameter core was made available for testing. This came from one of the original
discovery wells, Hyedua-1, at a depth of 3793m from the Lower Mahogany formation. If a large amount of core sample is
available, laboratory technicians can conduct a full range of experiments encompassing all cutter sizes and confining
pressures. This gives maximum flexibility in further design work on the existing bit or to develop an entirely new design.
Because the amount of core was limited and the documented success of the existing design was well established, the tests
would be focused on the current cutter size at the expected confining pressure. A total of 27 scrape tests at various depths
were conducted using 16mm cutters with different back rake/side rake configurations.

A UCS test was conducted on the sample and correlated to the rock strength calculations obtained from a previous well
(Figure 5). The UCS value of 2463psi was confirmed, which is at the low end of formations drilled. A comparison to the
rock strength calculation showed a theoretical figure of 4500psi. Unfortunately it was not possible to get more than one UCS
test on the rock. This difference could be due to a number of factors. For example, the theoretical rock strength calculation is
based on 0.15m intervals while the core is 1-in (2.5cm) plugs.
8 SPE 151787

3793 m

A
Core

3794 m
Lower Mahogany
2

B
C

D
Core

E
3

Figure 5 – Rock strength calculations from actual well logs correlated to laboratory single cutter scrape test

Application to Bit Design

The laboratory tests quantified forces on the cutter to actual rock removal rates. Results are illustrated in Figure 6 where the
cutter forces are correlated to rotational force or torque at the bit. Vertical force corresponds to the weight applied to the bit.
Rock removed and depth of penetration corresponds to the rate of penetration. Based on these single cutter tests a new design
was modeled in the exact rock with results expressed as required bit torque and WOB. When the entire bit was modeled
engineers identified instability and modifications were made to the cutting structure to produce a stable design.

Figure 6 – Results of cuter (torque) and vertical forces (WOB)

SPE 151787 9

It was clear from the compressive strength analysis that harder intervals exist in the reservoir and the core contained only
lower compressive strength sections. No additional core was available so the harder intervals were modeled using standard
rock types available from the library. In the original modeling, a sandstone of 8000psi was used (Torrey Buff) which was
then replaced with a much harder sandstone after the drilling of J-2 as detailed in SPE 128295.27 Based on the well data and
systematic compressive strength analysis these were replaced by samples representing medium/hard rock and hard rock.
Respectively these were Colton sandstone with a UCS of 9,000psi and Trout Creek sandstone with a UCS of 10,000-
15,000psi.

The core sample test results were then combined with the library rock test data. Dull bit analysis and drilling dynamics data
indicated design changes should focus on mitigating the design’s instability issues. This would produce the following
benefits:

 Reduce lateral instability and micro-chipping of cutters

 Improve overall dull condition and prevent slow ROP in the harder formations at the end of the section
 Allow higher parameters to be employed before instability occurred to improve ROP

Theoretical results of the new and old design are shown in Figure 7. It is apparent that although the existing design and new
design are comparable in the Ghana sandstone, the new design exhibits much better theoretical behavior in the two harder
formations and particularly in the hardest Trout Creek sandstone. This is also the formation most likely to cause instability
and vibration induced cutter damage.

Bit 1 Bit 2
Ghana
Sandstone

Colton
Sandstone

Trout
Creek
Sandstone

Figure 7 - Theoretical test data of new design indicate improved lateral stability in harder sandstones

One interesting observation from the design process is that visually the only obvious difference between the two designs is
the addition of extra cutters in the center of the bit although the design is completely new (Figure 8). Once complete the new
bit and test results were discussed with the operator’s drilling team prior to field testing.

Bit 1 Bit 2

Figure 8 – Base PDC design (Bit1) and the new 12¼” MDSi816 (Bit 2) with additional cutters in bit center
10 SPE 151787

17½” Section Drilling

The 17½” section had always been successfully drilled in one bit run (Table 6). With the move to exploration and appraisal
wells on T.E.N. the prospect of harder stringers in the Campanian meant the 17½” milltooth option may not be able to drill
the section.
FIELD W ELL RIG NAME RUN DAT E DIAM BIT DEPT H DRILL Hrs ROP DRIVE W OB HI T OT AL DEV DEV I O D L G O R
NUMBER In OUT (m) (m/ hr) (klbs) RPM HI IN OUT
(m)
JUBILEE 02 EIRIK RAUDE 20-Apr-2009 17.5 MT 1 3080 926 50 18.40 Motor 40 320 22.0 38.0 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 05 EIRIK RAUDE 22-Jul-2009 17.5 MT 1 2490 1062 16 68.00 Motor 30 292 1.0 24.5 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 11 EIRIK RAUDE 14-Aug-2009 17.5 MT 1 2732 665 19 35.10 Motor 25 280 1.0 37.8 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 12 EIRIK RAUDE 29-Aug-2009 17.5 MT 1 2943 863 31 27.40 RS 37 180 22.0 44.3 1 2 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 01 EIRIK RAUDE 14-Sep-2009 17.5 MT 1 2669 529 12 44.00 Rotary 28 175 1.5 0.5 2 2 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 03 ATWOOD HUNTER 25-Oct-2009 17.5 MT 1 2212 1002 20 48.90 Motor 21 270 0.5 19.8 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 13 EIRIK RAUDE 27-Oct-2009 17.5 MT 1 2842 584 16 37.60 Motor 28 260 1.9 28.4 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 15 EIRIK RAUDE 19-Nov-2009 17.5 MT 1 3395 1326 55 24.30 RS 40 180 20.0 64.0 2 2 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 14 EIRIK RAUDE 05-Dec-2009 17.5 MT 2 2598 1080 15 72.10 Motor 27 320 1.8 20.0 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 17 EIRIK RAUDE 12-Jan-2010 17.5 MT 1 3387 1562 77 20.20 RS 35 180 20.0 70.5 1 1 WT A E I No TD
JUBILEE 06 DW MILLENIUM 22-Jun-2011 16. PDC 2 2926 786 15 53.00 RS 40 170 0.7 33.4 0 0 CT G X I No TD
T.E.N. T 02 HUNTER 27-Jan-2009 17.5 MT 1 2463 1120 29 38.70 Motor 15 300 0.5 1.0 1 1 WT A E I No TD
T.E.N. E 01 SEDCO 702 08-Jul-2010 17.5 MT 3 2925 683 38 18.00 Motor 20 305 1.0 2.0 2 2 CT G E I PN TD
T.E.N. E 01 R SEDCO ENERGY 16. PDC 1 2994 720 16 44.50 Rotary 30 150 0.2 0.7 1 1 WT G X I CT TD
T.E.N. E 02 DW MILLENIUM 16. PDC 1 3190 690 22 31.00 Rotary 40 120 0.0 0.4 0 0 No A X I No TD
T.E.N. T 03 DW MILLENIUM 11-Dec-2010 16. PDC 1 3123 753 29 26.00 Motor 20 320 0.0 1.3 1 5 BT A X I WT TD
T.E.N. T 04 DW MILLENIUM 20-Mar-2011 16. rr PDC 1 3104 807 27 30.00 Rotary 16 160 0.0 1.0 1 2 BT G X I CT TD
T.E.N. E 03 DW MILLENIUM 02-Sep-2011 16. rr PDC 2 3138 1210 38 32.00 Rotary 30 180 0.0 1.0 2 8 RO S X I WT PR
T.E.N. E 03 DW MILLENIUM 07-Sep-2011 16. PDC 1 3305 167 11 15.00 Rotary 38 160 0.0 1.0 2 5 WT S X I ER TD

Table 6 – Bit run details and performance in 17½” and 16” hole size

At this point, the drilling team explored the possibility of downsizing the hole section to 16” and using a PDC bit. This would
offered the potential to improve ROP and the additional cost reduction benefits of drilling a smaller hole size. The reduction
from 17½” down to 16” borehole represents a rock removal decrease of 17% with the additional environmental benefit of
lower cuttings discharge. Engineers considered the smaller bit size a “safer” option because it is easier to stabilize and not
subject to the same dynamic instability as a “large” 17½” PDC bit. This holds true with the latest design technology and will
be applied equally to all bits. Given the demonstrated performance gains, a 16” PDC solution was attractive and the use of
oil based mud mitigated shale swelling issues. Furthermore, the downsizing would still leave significant offset for running
13-3/8” casing. However there were two risks: 1) the use of 16” hole size in deepwater is not well documented; 2) the team
had limited experience drilling 16” hole section in the deepwater environment. Therefore a staged approach was applied with
the 16” section being drilled on vertical borehole for the first three wells and only afterwards applying to a directional well
(Well 7 on Jubilee).

The next step was to employ the 4D dynamic analysis model to analyze various bits and select the most appropriate base
design. Drilling was now focused on T.E.N field that must penetrate the Campanian fan lithology in the intermediate hole
section. The alluvial sediments are not as benign as the overburden in the Jubilee area and have occasional hard sandstone
layers. To address the hard formation issue, more durable designs were considered including a six-bladed bit with back-up
blades/cutters (Figure 9). Results of the analysis were discussed with the operators drilling team and a test was approved.

PDC 1 PDC 2

Figure 9 - Base 16” PDC design (PDC 1) and more aggressive seven-bladed bit (right)
SPE 151787 11

Results
The 16” PDC 1 was first tested on Tweneboa-3. Pre-well modeling had focused on rotary assemblies, but due to operational
issues it was run on a motor BHA. The design managed to drill the section in one run. However, hard sandstone stringers
slowed ROP at the end of the run. The bit was dull graded 1-5-BT-A-I-WT-TD. Post well analysis revealed that high RPM
and low WOB caused the bit to be laterally unstable (Figure 10).

Figure 10 - Theoretical stability (lateral acceleration in gs) of PDC #1 in Wellington shale and resulting bit dull on Tweneboa 3

On the next well (Enyenra-2), the motor BHA was replaced with a rotary BHA and a low RPM and high WOB parameter
range selected. The results were positive and shown schematically in Figure 11. Results from the run reinforced the
theoretical analysis and the lower RPM improved both the ROP and bit condition. The bit came out of the hole in good
condition and was dull graded 1-1. It will be re-run on a subsequent well. In both wells 13-3/8” casing was run successfully
and cemented without issue.

Figure 11 – Theoretical stability (lateral acceleration in gs) of PDC 1 in Wellington shale and resulting bit dull on Enyenra 2

On Tweneboa-4 the 16” PDC 1 and new 12¼” bit design were run. Results from this well were encouraging as the re-run
PDC drilled at good ROP completing the section at 30m/hr. This compares favorably to a 17½” milltooth run on Enyenra -1
which had an ROP of just 18m/hr. In the 12¼” hole section, the first run drilled significantly faster than on both Tweneboa-3
and Tweneboa-3 ST (Table 3). On T-4 higher parameters were employed and this in turn contributed to higher ROP. In
addition, all three wells were drilled with the Deepwater Millennium rig thus eliminating the variation in drillpipe size that
was likely to account for some of the performance gain. However T-4 was vertical illustrating again the hazards of bit
development, it is difficult to eliminate all variables for a true head-to-head comparison. The improved performance on these
two runs registered in the second quartile in the Rushmore metrics based on meters/day. Total on-bottom time for the two bit
runs was just 45hrs for a total of 1459m drilled.

On the next well (Jubilee-6) performance improved again. For the 16” section, a more aggressive seven-bladed bit (Figure 9
PDC 2) with 16mm cutters was employed on a rotary steerable system and drilled at an average ROP of 53m/hr. This
compares favorably to the nearest offset that was drilled with 17½” hole size that managed an overall ROP of 44m/hr, drilled
to a shallower total depth. In the 12¼” hole, the new PDC design drilled the entire section at over 34m/hr, exceeding 30m/hr
for the first time in the field. Prior to this, the best ROP had been 27m/hr and the direct offset, well J-1 had drilled the
12 SPE 151787

interval at 23m/hr. Table 3 shows the key objective of improving ROP in the hard lower sections had been met. In the target
zone, Base LM2, ROP had improved from 2.7m/hr on Well 1 to over 10m/hr on Well 7. Total on-bottom time was reduced to
45 hours for over 1800m drilled in the two sections and the well registered in the upper quartile on the Rushmore metrics for
both days/1000m and meters/day drilled.

Conclusions
After the development and one run success of the new 12¼” PDC bit design, it could have been assumed that further bit
development would not deliver appreciable performance gains. A change to the existing design could even result in
performance degradation and lead to a trip for a new bit. Every single run success that was completed affirmed this belief.
This was equally true in the 17½” hole size, though a more compelling reason to change was the upcoming requirement to
drill a potentially harder interval.

Despite the risk, a performance improvement opportunity was identified in both hole sections. Using the 4D modeling
system and core samples allowed bit design changes and recommendations to be trialed in a virtual environment before field
testing. The modeling system and virtual application of design changes proved integral to the success.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank management at Tullow Oil plc and Smith Bits, a Schlumberger Company for permission to
publish the well data and drilling performance figures. Also, thanks to Craig Fleming, Smith Bits for his technical writing
and editorial contributions.

Reference Papers
1. Somerton, W.H., Esfandiari, F., Singhal, A.: “Further Studies of the Relation of Physical Properties of Rock to Rock
Drillability SPE paper 2390 published by the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers
1969.
2. Gillick, S., Hamilton, A., Singh, A., van der Pouw K.: “Rock Mechanics Lab Testing and Computerized Simulation
of Bit Dynamics Improves Drilling Performance in Horizontal Chalk Reservoirs” paper SPE 87101 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 2-4 March 2004, Dallas, Texas.
3. Aslaksen, H., Annand, M., Duncan, R., Fjaere, A., Paez, L., Tran, U.: “Integrated FEA Modeling Offers System
Approach to Drillstring Optimization”, paper IADC/SPE 99018 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Miami, Florida, Feb 21–23, 2007.
4. Frenzel, M.: “Dynamic Simulations Provide Development Drilling Improvements” paper OTC 19066 presented at
the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 30 - May 3, 2007.
5. Frenzel, M., Kull, B.: “Dynamic Balancing of Bit/Reamer Cutters Improves Drilling Performance” World Oil, pp
67-72, March 2008.
6. Algu, D.R, Denham, W., Nelson, G., Tang, W., Compton, M.T., Courville, D.F., Fitzmorris, D.L.: “Maximizing
Hole Enlargement While Drilling (HEWD) Performance with State-of-the-art BHA Dynamic Analysis Program and
Operation Road Map” paper SPE 115607 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, September 21-24, 2008.
7. Partin, U., Compton, M., Nelson, G., Livingston, D., Davis, P.: “Advanced Modeling Technology: Optimizing Bit-
Reamer Interaction Leads to Performance Step-Change in Hole Enlargement While Drilling”, paper IADC/SPE
128161 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2-4 Feb, 2010.
8. Wu, X., Paez, L., Partin, U., Agnihotri, M.: “Decoupling Stick-slip and Whirl to Achieve Breakthrough in Drilling
Performance” paper IADC/SPE 128767 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 2-4 February, 2010.
9. Barrett, M., Compton, M., Agnihotri, M., Verano, F., Mitchell, S., Fitzmorris, D.: “Dynamic BHA Modeling of
Hole Enlargement While Drilling Lead to ROP Improvement in Gulf of Mexico” paper OTC 20370 presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 3-6 May 2010.
10. Compton, M., Verano, F., Nelson G., Wu, S.X.: “Managing Downhole Vibrations for Hole-Enlargement-While-
Drilling in Deepwater Environment: A Proven Approach Utilizing Drillstring Dynamics Model” paper SPE 139234
presented at the Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, 1-3 Dec 2010.
11. Gonzales, A., Clark, T., Douglas, C., Mueller, L., Yu, J., Shi, J., Zhang, Y.J.: “Improvements in Cutter Technology
Leads to Faster Drilling in Hard Abrasive Formations, East Texas Basin” paper SPE/IADC 147856 presented at the
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Muscat, Oman, 24-26, October 2011.
12. Teale, R.: “The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling” International Journal of Rock Mechanics Mining
Science, 1965 2, 57-73.
13. Koederitz, W.L., Weis, J.: “A Real-Time Implementation of MSE” paper AADE-05-NTCE-66 presented at the
AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 5-7 April 2005.
SPE 151787 13

14. Dupriest, F.E., Koederitz, W.L.: “Maximizing Drill Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific
Energy” paper SPE/IADC 92194 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
23-25 Feb 2005.
15. Pessier, R.C., 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 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington DC, 4-7 October 1992.
16. Guerrero, C., Kull, B.J.: “Development of an SeROP Predictor Tool for Real-Time Bit Optimization” paper
SPE/IADC 105201 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February
2007.
17. Dupriest, F.E.: “Comprehensive Drill-Rate Management Process To Maximize Rate of Penetration” paper SPE
102210 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas 24-27 September
2006.
18. Dupriest, F.E., Witt, J.W., Remmert, S.M.: “Maximizing ROP with Real-Time Analysis of Digital Data and MSE”
paper IPTC 10607 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November
2005.
19. Caicedo, H.U., Calhoun, W.M., Ewy, R.T.: “Unique ROP Predictor Using Bit-specific Coefficient of Sliding
Friction and Mechanical Efficiency as a Function of Confined Compressive Strength Impacts Drilling Performance”
paper SPE/IADC presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February
2005.
20. Waughman, R.J., Kenner, J.V., Moore, R.A.: “Real-Time Specific Energy Monitoring Reveals Drilling Inefficiency
and Enhances the Understanding of When to Pull Worn PDC Bits” paper IADC/SPE 74520 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas 26-28 February 2002.
21. Armenta, M.: “Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Drilling-Specific Energy” paper SPE 116667
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September 2008, Denver, Colorado, USA.
22. Ortega, A., Glowka, D.A.: “Frictional Heating and Convective Cooling of Polycrystalline Diamond Drag Tools
During Rock Cutting,” Sandia National Laboratories. SPE Paper 11061presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans September. 26-29.
23. Tomlinson, P. N., Pipkin, N. J., Lammer, A., and Burnand, R. P., 1985, “High Performance Drilling-Syndax3 Shows
Versatility,” Industrial Diamond Review, Vol. 6 pp. 299-305.
24. Eko, A. Ohashi, T., Tajima, I.: “Precision Machining with Fine-Grained Carbonate Binder PCD,” Diamond Tooling
Journal February 2010, pp. 48-51.
25. Radtke, R.P.: “New High Strength and faster Drilling Thermally Stable Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters for Drill
Bits,” Technology International, SPE Paper 74515 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
Dallas, Texas 26-28 February 2002.
26. Wood, J. 1984, “Thermally Stable Cutters Extend Application of Synthetic diamond Bits to Hard Formations,” Oil
and Gas Journal, pp. 133-138.
27. Murphy, D., Tetley, N., Partin U., Livingston, D.: “Deepwater Drilling in Both Hard and Abrasive Formations; The
Challenges of Bit Optimisation” paper SPE 128295 presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 14-17 February 2010.