25 vues

Transféré par lulalala8888

s

s

© All Rights Reserved

- GEN 499 Academic Success /snaptutorial
- ch01
- Key Concepts Evaluation
- Chapter 1 Factorisation.
- 1380013729.02. Distribution and Retention of Khas Land in Bangladesh
- Chapter-3.1
- Dowell - Cementing and Chemical Seal Ring Grouting Service Recomendation
- MOS 3360a Research Case Assignment 2017.pdf
- Derry Et Al 2009_Conducting Video Analysis
- Book Review-By-s Das
- Definition Coefficient
- Frogs and Lilies Report
- Linear Law New
- 3rd qtr
- ch01 n
- 23[1]. Salina
- Poor Performance of Students in Accounti
- accounting final
- Submission Guidelines
- Preliminary

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Drill-Bit Catalog and Bit Index: A New Method for Bit Performance Evaluation

P. Macini, SPE, and M. Magagni, SPE, U. of Bologna, Pietro Valente, Eni E&P Div.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean

Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 23 June 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. 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 a proposal of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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

The paper analyzes the application of a new method for the

evaluation of bit performances. At present, the most utilized

methods for bit performance evaluation are mainly based on

the cost-per-foot. This approach is definitely a good reference

system, but it represents only a mere economic calculation,

and is not well suited for keeping into account drilling

difficulties due to formation variability and directional drilling

conditions. The objective of the research is both the analysis

of a new drilling model for bit performance evaluation, known

as Bit Index (BI), and the investigation of the possibility of BI

to establish sound guidelines for the development of a

mathematical tool able to help during well planning, well

drilling and post-well analysis. The model was tested by

mining data from the Drill-Bit Catalog (DBC) prepared at the

Exploration & Production Division of Eni Group (Italy). The

DBC is a database that contains both parameters for the

geotechnical/geomechanical characterization of the formations

and bit record/performance data. Within the DBC, three wells

have been identified, recently drilled in Southern Italy. These

wells have been used for the comparison and evaluation of bit

performances through the BI methodology. Main results

allowed to identify the bits (labeled with IADC code) that

drilled with the best performances in the above three wells.

The proposed model, although in its early stage of

development, proved to be economic and reliable. The quality

of bit performance analysis obtained with this model seems

also more effective than the traditional quick look analysis,

performed on the bit records or on the pure evaluation of the

cost-per-foot.

Introduction

The drilling industry has experienced since long time an

impressive technological advancement in drilling bit design

and performance, in order to meet the continuously changing

and more demanding needs of Operators. Today, longer time

demanding issue for drilling bits. To this purpose, the

technology of drilling bits has evolved, and continues to

advance to meet the challenging needs of todays drilling

industry. Bit performance evaluation and bit selection is of

paramount importance for the drilling engineer. Many

attempts to model and/or predict drill bit selection and to

evaluate bit performance have been developed for a number of

years. As advancements in drilling bit technology and drilling

measurement system have increased, so have the number and

the sophistication of evaluative models available. Almost all

the approaches are similar in objective, to make drilling bit

selection less erroneous and more logical1. Recently, the

methods for the evaluation of bit performance improvements

have not always kept the pace with technological

advancements. Methods such as offset wells and cost per foot,

specific energy, bit factor, formation drillability, design index

and neural networks have been used for bit performance

evaluation2-8, although most of them still seems not

completely satisfactory.

The first studies on bit performance prediction and

evaluation were based on the modeling of the wear rate of

both cutting structure and bearings of milled-tooth bits9.

Despite of this, drilling engineers have selected bits mainly on

the guidelines of the best performer in a particular area, or

on performances of similar bits in offset wells. However, data

from offset wells contain a complex relationship between

drilling parameters, well path, formation properties, drilling

fluid properties, hydraulics, and bit design, limiting this

approach10-12. Bit performance evaluation and bit selection

carried out by means of the cost-per-foot is a good reference

system, but it represents only a mere economic calculation,

and is not well suited for keeping into account drilling

difficulties due to formation variability and directional drilling

conditions. Albeit one of the most accepted method, today its

effectiveness has drastically been reduced by the application

of modern drilling technologies, more demanding in term of

well path control and sophisticated downhole tools2.

The specific energy approach has been used to investigate

different bit types, different designs of the same type, and

modifications to the same design. Specific energy is defined as

the energy required for removing a unit volume of rock. It is a

measure of bit performance and is directly compatible with

methods based on the cost per foot or on offset wells2, 13.

Drilling models based on formation drillability investigates

the drilling response of a particular type of formation to

different types of bits and cutters. Although these methods

serve as an effective means for bit type selection, they does

formation changes and the associated need for different bit

types14-16.

The approach based on design index is a methodology

developed for PDC bit selection, then expanded to include

roller cones bits. This index takes into account bit

characteristics such as the bit profile, number of blades and

cutters, cutter size, junk slot area and back rake. The design

index is based on determining the ideal bit for a given set of

drilling conditions, and then matching it with the bits proposed

by manufacturers17.

Recently, neural networks have been used to identify the

complex relationships between drilling parameters, well path,

formation properties, drilling fluid properties, hydraulics, and

bit design, when sufficient data exists. These can be supplied

by the increasingly sophisticated downhole measuring tools

that can provide large data sets with many recorded variables

related to drilling process. In this case, different neural

networks can be designed for a region or a field to predict

unknown parameters10.

However, the parameters affecting bit performances often

have a complicated pattern. Data from offset wells contain

complex relationships between drilling and operational

parameters, well path, formation type and its geomechanical

behavior, drilling fluid properties, hydraulics, and bit design,

which are not yet completely understood10, 18-21. Moreover,

most of the above approaches do not have a consistent

definition for the term performance, which complicates their

use and comparison2. In the light of the above, this research is

aimed to identify a different indicator of bit performances, in

the attempt to make more objective the process of bit

performance evaluation and, thus, of bit selection.

Bit Index

The objective of this research is the analysis, implementation

and application of a drilling model for bit performance

evaluation named Bit Index (BI). In this model, paramount is

the investigation of the possibility of BI methodology to

establish guidelines for the development of a mathematical

tool able to help during well planning, drilling and post-well

analysis. The idea of BI is clearly derived from the research of

Perrin, Mensa-Wilmot, and Alexander2, in the attempt to make

this method somewhat simpler and applicable in practical

cases with data available during drilling operations. The BI

methodology utilizes the simple data normally recorded while

drilling, collected from bit records, master logs and, if

necessary, from wireline logs. It distinguishes between bits

independent and dependent operational parameters, and

establishes the cost per foot as an indirect evaluation tool. The

BI is a calculated numerical index that allows comparing

performances of drilling bits in different operating scenarios,

e.g., drilling with reduced (or extreme) parameters, typical of

directional drilling technologies (Steerable Systems, Straighthole Drilling Devices, etc.), taking into account also the

evaluation of the dull bit.

Two types of indicators generally govern the process of

drilling, the qualitative and the quantitative variables.

Qualitative variables describe the state of the well bore and the

ability or potential to obtain good geologic or exploratory

data. Quantitative variables represent those parameters that

SPE 94798

operation. Some of the variables described above can be then

combined into a general Performance Equation (PE) of the

following form2:

PE = f (WOB,RPM,TQ,Q,H,BD,FP,DG,ROP,P, FM) (1)

Where WOB, RPM, TQ, Q, H, BD, FP, DG, ROP, P and

FM represent the weight on bit, revolution per minute, torque,

flow rate, footage, bit diameter, drilling fluid properties, bit

dull grading, penetration rate, pressure drop across bit nozzle

and formation properties, respectively. Obviously, the more

the variables considered, the more complicated the

relationship expressed by eq. (1). The variables defined in eq.

(1) are then separated into two groups: independent and

dependent variables. The independent variables have preset

values or can vary within the practical operating ranges once

the drilling process is defined. Dependent variables, on the

other hand, are determined by the application or by the

fluctuation of the independent variables. With reference to the

functional relationship expressed in eq. (1), WOB, RPM, P,

Q, BD, FP, FM are the independent variables, while ROP, TQ,

H, DG, are the dependent variables.

The proposed BI methodology considers a simplified

general PE in the following form:

PE = f (WOB, RPM, Q, HSI, ROP, TQ, H, DG)

(2)

Inch) are the independent variables, and ROP, TQ, H, DG are

the dependent variables. Bit diameter is not considered as an

independent variable, and comparisons between bits of

different diameter have been performed by normalizing the

data set by unit diameter. In particular, values of WOB, Q, and

TQ per inch have been used. This is definitely a

simplification, and its influence on the precision of the method

is currently under investigation. However, with this

approximation it is possible to compare bits drilling in the

same formation, but with different diameter, both inside a

single well and amongst different wells. Bit Index evaluation

is achieved through the following steps:

1) Acquisition of the data set relatively to the bits under

investigation (WOB, RPM, Q, HSI, ROP, TQ, H, DG). One

bit must be labeled as the reference bit, or benchmark bit. By

definition, the BI of the benchmark bit is set equal to one.

Criteria for benchmark bit determination are discussed in the

case study reported at the end of the paper.

2) Definition of the dependent variables, described as a

function of all the independent variables. In this way, for each

dependent variable it is possible to write a set of equations,

whose number is equal to the number of independent

variables. Indicating with Xi and Yj the independent and

dependent variables, respectively, these functions can be

expressed as:

Yj = f (Xi)

(3)

the number of independent and dependent variables,

respectively. The total number of equations calculated from

eq. (3) is mn.

3) Assignation of a parametric constant (Cj) to each of the

dependent variables, describing the particular drilling

SPE 94798

importance of each single dependent variable, and are

established accordingly to the Operators needs. Obviously,

constants Cj must comply with the following constraint:

j Cj = 1

(4)

dependent and independent variables, as an approximation of

eq. (3):

Yj = KXi

(5)

same meaning as above. The calculation of the BI is valid if

considering all the relationships between dependent and

independent variables as linear functions. Non-linear

approximations have not been considered in this paper, but

this possibility deserves more investigations. The benchmark

bit and the bit under investigation are evaluated using eq. (4)

and (5), under the conditions of equal (or normalized) bit size

and formation type. Considering the benchmark bit, the

relationship between dependent and independent variables

(i.e., eq. 5) can be written as:

Yj,b = Kb,xXi,b

(6)

subscript x refers to the independent variable under

investigation. Relationships similar to eq. 5 are subsequently

written for all dependent variables, making possible the

calculation of the proportionality constants Kb,x in different

drilling conditions. Similarly, considering the bit under

investigation, the relationship between dependent and

independent variables (i.e., eq. 5) can be rearranged as:

Yj,z = Kz,xXi,z

(7)

and subscript x refers to the independent variable under

investigation. All the proportionality constants Kz,x are

established as above.

5) Eq. (7) is then rewritten to establish the relationship

between the dependent variables of the bit under investigation

and the independent variables of the benchmark bit as follows:

Yz,b = Kz,xXi,b

(8)

investigation, while the right side the benchmark bit. Eq. (8)

describes the behavior of the dependent variable of the bits

under investigation, based on the independent variable of the

benchmark bit. Equations like the above must be written for

each dependent variable. The proportionality constant Kz,x is

then derived from eq. (7) and substituted in eq. (8), obtaining:

Yz,b = (Yj,z/Xi,z) Xi,b

(9)

to all the dependent variables of the bit under investigation,

relatively to all the independent variables, obtaining m values.

These values are then averaged by:

Yz, r =

Yz , b

m

(10)

of the investigated bit relatively to the benchmark bit. This

procedure is then repeated for all the n dependent variables

under investigation.

6) Finally, recalling the meaning of the constants Cj

assigned at step (3) and the constraints of eq. 3, the Bit Index

is defined as follows:

BI = C j

Yz ,r

Y j, b

(11)

Where Yz,r and Yj,b are calculated by means of eq. (10) and

eq. (6). Yz,r and Yj,b represent the value of the dependent

variables of the bit under investigation and the value of the

same variable of the benchmark bit, respectively. The BI of

the bit under investigation is then compared with that of the

benchmark (equal one, by definition). In this way, it is

possible to compare bit performances relatively to the

benchmark bit. If the best performer bit (i.e., in term of

footage and ROP) is set as the benchmark, then the calculated

BIs of the investigated bits are decimals included in the

interval zero to one. The reverse holds if the worst performer

bit is set as benchmark (i.e., BIs of investigated bits are

numbers larger than one). Obviously, in this case each

absolute value of the BI changes, but not the overall ranking

with respect to the benchmark.

The bit performance evaluation with the BI method can be

considered innovative because it considers a large selection of

drilling parameters affecting bit behavior and bit

performances. It is worthy reminding again that BI is

calculated in the hypothesis of linearization of eq. (3).

Drilling Bit Catalog

The BI was developed and tested by mining data from a

particular classification of Italian geological formations, aimed

to the geotechnical/geomechanical formation characterization

by means of a relatively large number of significant drilling

parameters. This classification is called Formation Drillability

Catalog (FDC).

The FDC was implemented since 1999 at the Exploration

& Production Division of Eni Group (Eni E&P), Italy, and it is

continuously updated with data collected from new wells.

FDC is aimed to assemble in an accessible and simple format

the drilling data regarded as particularly useful for post-well

analysis and for a possible classification of the formation

drillability. FDC represents a collection of about 300.000

raw data (more than 8000 records, each one listing 34 different

quantitative parameters), collected in more than 80 different

formations drilled in Italy from mid-1990 up to now.

The FDC is composed by basic tables. A single table

contains data concerning a single well, and it is formed by a

series of lines and columns. A line is a string of information

concerning a particular drilled interval, called Minimum

Interval (MI). Columns report the sequence of MIs ordered

vs. depth. In general, a MI is a sub-set of drilling data similar

to a single bit-run record, but limited to a particular interval

drilled. In this way, each bit run is split up into several MIs,

that are established by the change of one or more of the

following parameters: lithostratigraphy and/or formation, bit

type, average penetration rate. In particular, the lithological

and technical criteria of the Operative Geology unit of Eni

E&P, which allow the identification of the various geological

units and lithological types. Changes in penetration rates are

considered significant for MI characterization when the

variation is more than 1 m/h within a drilled interval of more

than 10 m. The MI represents a very detailed description of

the drilled formations22, at least in term of formation

classification.

A basic table is composed by a set of records, and it

defines the so-called geomechanical clustering. Each record is

formed by 5 qualitative and 34 quantitative parameters,

collected from the master log. Qualitative information are: Eni

E&P well code and well name, spud and end date, formation

name, identification of technical problems and descriptive

remarks for a better comprehension of the operating context.

The most important quantitative parameters are the following:

top, bottom and thickness of the MIs, lithology (accordingly

to Eni E&P codes), hole inclination and azimuth, sonic log

transit times, formation integrity test, leak-off test, drilling

technique (turbo drilling, rotary, sliding, straight-hole drilling

device, etc.), bit type, diameter and IADC code, trip-in and

trip- out depth, footage, average ROP, mud type and density22.

In the first stage of the FDC analysis, MIs were grouped

according to the three congruity criteria. 1) MIs with the same

drilling characteristics (e.g., referred to the same formation,

which is likely to have a constant drillability). 2)

Contiguous MIs, in term of depth; c) MI referred to the same

run of the same bit (e.g., MIs drilled with two different bits

cannot be grouped). In this way, it has been obtained the socalled Homogeneous Geotechnical Interval (HGI) clustering,

which split up the bit runs into larger intervals compared to

those deriving from the MI classification (Tab. 1). With these

guidelines, HGI groups all the contiguous and congruous

MIs, obtaining a reduction of bit run subdivision consequent

to MIs criteria, making BI calculation easier. In most cases,

bit runs pertain to several HGI, albeit some runs are

completely drilled within a single HGI. Data derived from the

HGI clustering were further supplemented with other relevant

parameters normally recorded while drilling (such as WOB,

RPM, HSI, flow rate, torque, dull bit grading), which are

necessary to the calculation of the BI. The combination and

processing of all the above data constitutes a new database,

called Drill-Bit Catalog (DBC)23.

Case study

The case study here presented analyzes the bit performances

of three deep wells catalogued in the FDC, with the aim to

compare and evaluate bits through the BI methodology. These

wells, recently drilled in Southern Italy, are particularly

significant for the complexity of drilled formations, the use of

different drilling technologies, the typology and number of

bits used and the variability of borehole inclination, making

bit selection a crucial point of both well planning and drilling

operation. Table 2 reports the main features of these wells.

As far as the BI calculation is concerned, Table 3 reports

the number of bit runs drilled through some selected HGI. It is

important to recall that, in general, a complete bit run pertains

to several HGI, albeit some runs are completely drilled within

a single HGI. From Table 3, it is possible to draw the

SPE 94798

was run in the Flysch Galestrino #3 and #4 formation (17-1/2

and 14-3/4 section). In the 12-1/4 section, many bits have

drilled through cherty limestone. In well B the larger number

of bits was run in the Irpine Units (12-1/4 section) and in the

Apula Platform (8-1/2 section). In well C it has been

considered only the 5-7/8 section, drilled through various

lithostratigraphic members of the Apula Platform with roller

cones and fixed cutters bits. In general, inside the Irpine Units

it is possible to make a performance comparisons between

well A and well B, whilst in the Apula Platform it is possible

compare bits between well B and well C.

Bit Index calculation was performed by means of a

standard calculation spreadsheet (Tab. 4). Constant Cj (i.e., the

values of the parametric constant assigned to each of the

dependent variables) have been chosen accordingly to the

perceived importance relatively to the particular drilling

operation scenario under evaluation. The following values

have been selected and associated to the dependent variables:

CROP = 0.5, CH = 0.3, CTQ = 0.1, CDG = 0.1. Obviously, the

sum of these values equals one. All calculations have been

performed at constant Cj values.

Under these conditions, BI was calculated by means of eq.

(11) for each bit drilling through the selected MIs or HGIs. It

is important to recall that the BI is a relative number, whose

value is referred to a particular benchmark bit. In this study,

the benchmark was chosen in such a way as to have all

calculated BI larger than the unit value of the benchmark BI

(i.e., the benchmark is the worst performer bit, in term of

footage and ROP). Drilling bits have been identified with their

standard IADC Code, regardless of the Manufacturer or of the

trade name of a particular bit type, to avoid commercialism.

Obviously, for internal purposes each analysis can be traced

back to the original bit type. This approach is significantly

limitative, especially in the interpretation phase here reported,

since today the IADC Codes assigned by major Manufacturers

badly reflects the true design features of most of the bits,

especially inside the roller cones family (i.e., for the same

IADC Code, bit design can vary significantly from

Manufacturer to Manufacturer).

The highest number of bit runs drilled through the selected

HGIs is in the Apula Platform #3 (31 partial bit runs, with

complete runs inside the same formation), in the Irpine Units

#3 (11 partial bit runs, with complete runs inside the same

formation) and in Cherty Limestone #2 (13 partial bit runs),

drilled with roller cones bits. Table 5 reports the results of BI

analysis. For each investigated formation, the table lists the

IADC Code of the bit with the highest BI, which can be

considered as the best performer. Concerning IU3, AP3 and

AP5, the highest BI is that of a fixed cutters bit; in this case, it

has also been reported the best performer amongst roller cones

bits only.

Best performer bits in the investigated formations are the

following: FL3, bit IADC 425M; FL4, bit IADC 425M; CL2,

bit IADC 515M; IU3, bit IADC 517X (roller cones), bit IADC

M221 (fixed cutters); AP3, bit IADC 517X (roller cones), bit

IADC M422 (fixed cutters); AP4, bit IADC M422; AP5, bit

IADC 517X (roller cones), bit IADC M422 (fixed cutters).

Figure 1 reports BI values of the best performer bits in well A,

listed by diameter and formation type. BI values (and thus bit

SPE 94798

units of the same formation (Irpine Units, IU), when

considering different bit diameters. In this case, BI

methodology can help the bit selection, pointing out the best

bit for each formation (or lithostratigraphic unit) and for each

bit diameter. This is a direct result of the BI methodology by

means of the formation classification implemented in the

DBC.

Conclusions

The objective of this research is the analysis, implementation

and application of a drilling model for bit performance

evaluation named Bit Index. The need for such an

interpretative tool arises from the intrinsic difficulties to

evaluate bit performances (and thus well planning) in case of

medium-to-severe formation variability and directional

drilling conditions. BI methodology allows to compare

performances of bits drilling with reduced (or extreme)

parameters, typical of directional drilling technologies, taking

into account also the evaluation of the dull bit.

The model keeps into account several dependent and

independent drilling variables, and can be easily adapted for

more variables to be considered, constructing a mathematical

tool able to help during well planning, drilling and post-well

analysis. The BI was developed and tested by mining data

from a particular classification of Italian geological

formations, aimed to the geotechnical/geomechanical

formation characterization by means of a large number of

significant drilling parameters, called Drill-Bit Catalog. This

classification turned out to be extremely functional to BI

methodology, since it discloses and organizes formation

details that are not easily detectable or usable from bit records

or master logs, allowing for targeted bit performance

evaluations. Results of a preliminary case study showed that

BI methodology could help the bit selection, pointing out the

best bit for each formation and for each bit diameter.

The proposed model, although in its early stage, proved to

be economic and reliable. The quality of bit performance

analysis obtained with this model seems also more effective

than the traditional quick look analysis, performed on bit

records, or on the pure evaluation of the cost-per-foot.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Eni, E&P Division for

permission to publish data. We wish also to thank all staff

engineers for their assistance during this preliminary study

period.

References

1. Cordy, L. et al.: Cumulative Rock Strenght as a Quantitative

Means of Evaluating Drill Bit Selection and Emerging PDC

Cutter Technology, paper SPE 77217 presented at the 2002 SPE

Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta, Sept. 9-11.

2. Perrin, V.P. et al.: Drilling Index - A new Approach to Bit

Performance Evaluation, paper SPE 37595 presented at the 1997

SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 6-7.

3. Warren, T.M. and Sinor, A.: Drag Bit Performance Modeling,

paper SPE 15618 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.

paper SPE 794, presented at the 1964 Mechanical Engineering

Aspects of Drilling-Production Symp., Fort Worth, March 23-24.

5. Vitter, A.L. Jr.: Bit Performance, paper SPE 4646 presented at

the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum

Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 1973.

6. Rabia, H. and Farrelly, M.: A New Approach to Drill Bit

Selection, paper SPE 15894 presented at the 1986 SPE

European Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 20-22.

7. Farrelly, M. and Rabia, H.: Bit Performance and Selection: a

Novel Approach, paper SPE 16163 presented at the 1987

IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18.

8. Fear, M. J et al.: An Expert System for Drill Bit Selection,

paper IADC/SPE 27470 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE

Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 15-18.

9. Galle, E.M. and Woods H.B.: Best Constant Weight and Rotary

Speed for Rotary Rock Bits, presented at the 1963 Spring

Meeting of the Pacific Coast District, API Division of

Production.

10. Bilgesu, H.I. et al.: An Unconventional Approach for Drill-Bit

Selection, paper SPE 68089 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle

East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 17-20.

11. Raynal, J.C. et al.: Organization of Field Tests and Evaluation

of Tricone Bit Performance Using Statistical Analysis and Sonic

Logs, Journ. of Petr. Tech., 23, 1971, 506-512.

12. Dumas, C.F. and Maidla, E.E.: PDC Bit Se1ection Method

Through the Analysis of Past Bit Performances, paper SPE

21073 presented at the 1990 SPE Latin American Petroleum

Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Oct. 14-16.

13. Rabia, H.: Specific Energy as a Criterion for Bit Selection,

Journ. of Petr. Tech., 37, 1985, 1225-1229.

14. Gstalder, S. and Raynal, J.: Measurement of Some Mechanical

Properties of Rock and Their Relationship to Rock Drillability,

Journ. of Petr. Tech., 18, 1966, 991-996.

15. Mensa-Wilmot, G. et al.: Formation Drillability - Definition,

Quantification and Contributions to Bit Performance, paper

SPE/IADC 57558 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Middle East

Drilling Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, Nov. 8-10.

16. Uboldi, V. et al.: Rock Strength Measurements on Cuttings as

Input Data for Optimizing Drill Bit Selection, paper SPE 56441

presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.

17. OHare, J. and Aigbekaen, O.A.Jr: Design Index: a Systematic

Method of PDC Drill-Bit Selection, paper SPE/IADC 59112

presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New

Orleans, Feb. 23-25.

18. Xu, H. et al.: An Approach for Modelling the Field Drilling

Data, paper IADC/SPE 36385 presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE

Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,

Sept. 9-11.

19. Xu, H. et al.: A Practical Method for Modelling Bit

Performance Using Mud Logging Data, paper SPE/IADC 37583

presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,

Amsterdam, March 4-6.

20. Bilgesu, H.I. et al.: A New Approach for Drill Bit Selection,

paper SPE 65618 presented at the 2000 SPE Eastern Regional

Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, Oct. 17-19.

21. Falcao, L.L. et al.: PDC Bit Selection Through Cost Prediction

Estimates Using Crossplots and Sonic Log Data, paper

SPE/IADC 25733 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling

Conference, Amsterdam, Feb. 23-25.

22. Da Dalt, G.: Basic Table for the Geotechnical Clustering of the

Formations, Eni E&P Div., Internal Report, 2002.

23. Magagni, M.: Technical - Economical Analysis and Evaluation

of Bit Performances, MS Thesis, University of Bologna, 2004.

SPE 94798

MI#

Bit Diam.

Formation

IADC

Top

Bottom

HGI#

IADC

Top

Bottom

1

2

3

4

8-1/2"

8-1/2

8-1/2

8-1/2

FM #3

FM #1

FM #1

FM #3

517

517

517

517

3373

3403

3413

3419

3403

3413

3419

3426

8-1/2"

2+3

8-1/2

FM #3

517

3373

3403

FM #1

517

3403

3419

8-1/2

FM #1

517

3426

3468

8-1/2

FM #3

517

3419

3426

8-1/2

FM #1

517

3426

3468

Table 1. Example of Minimum Interval (MI) clustering inside a single well. The FDC classification splits up a bit run into five

different MIs. Here it is possible to group MI #2 and #3, since the formation (FM #1) is the same. The clustering defines the HGI.

Well name

(spud date)

A (2000)

B (2001)

C (2001)

Investigated Interval

Top

Bottom

360

3240

354

5367

3212

4520

Hole diameter

Hole profile

Formation

17-1/2, 14-3/4,12-1/4

16, 12-1/4, 8-1/2, 6

5-7/8

V

V, S, H

V, H

FL, CL, IU

IU, AP

AP

Table 2. Main features of the investigated wells. V, S, and H indicate Vertical, Slant and Horizontal well profile, respectively.

Formation acronyms are the following: Flysch Galestrino Formation (FL), Cherty Limestone (CL), Irpine Units (IU), Apula Formation

(AP). Some Formations may be split up into different lithostratigraphic units, indicated with a number (e.g., FL3, CL2, etc.).

Well

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

Hole profile

Vertical

Vertical

Vertical

Build up

Slant

Slant

Build up

Horizontal

Vertical

Build up

Horizontal

Diameter

17-1/2

14-3/4

12-1/4

16

12-1/4

8-1/2

8-1/2

6

5-7/8

5-7/8

5-7/8

FL3

3T

3T

1T

FL4

3T

2T

CL2

Formation

IU3

13T

AP3

AP4

AP5

2T

6T

3P

2T

10T + 4P

1T + 3P

1T

1T

3T

2P

6P

2T

2T

5P + 1T

1P

Table 3. Total number of bit runs drilled through the selected HGIs analyzed in the case study, classified by diameter, hole profile and

formation type. T and P indicate roller cones and fixed cutters bits, respectively.

Independent variable (m)

WOB

metric tonne

RPM

Rev/min.

HSI

HP/sq. In.

Q

liter/min.

Bench. (b)

26

136

60

3371

Invest. (z)

22

152

177

3777

ROP

m/h

TQ

kgm

H

m

DG

Bench. (b)

15

12

80

0.17

Invest. (z)

20

15

240

0.50

Cj

0.50

0.10

0.30

0.10

ROPz,WOB = 23.64

ROPz,RPM = 17.89

ROPz,HSI = 6.78

ROPz,Q = 17.85

ROPz,r = 16.54

TQz,WOB = 0.08

TQz,RPM = 0.06

TQz,HSI = 0.02

TQz,Q = 0.06

TQz,r = 0.06

Hz,WOB = 283.64

Hz,RPM = 214.74

Hz,HSI = 81.36

Hz,Q = 214.20

Hz,r = 198.48

DGbz,WOB = 0.59

DGbz,RPM = 0.45

DGbz,HSI = 0.17

DGbz,Q = 0.45

DGbz,r = 0.41

Bit Index of Investigated bit (z) = 1.61 - Bit Index of Benchmark Bit (b) = 1.00

Table 4. Simplified example of BI calculation sheet.

SPE 94798

Best

Formation

Performer Bit

FL3

FL4

CL2

IU3

AP3

Roller Cones

435M

425M

515M

517X

517X

M221

M422

Fixed Cutters

AP4

AP5

517X

M422

M422

Table 5. Result of Bit Index analysis performed on well A, B and C. For each investigated formation, the table reports the IADC Code

of the bit with the highest BI, which can be considered as the best performer. Concerning IU3, AP3 and AP5, the highest BI is that of a

fixed cutters bit; in this case, it has also been reported the best performer amongst roller cones bits only.

Well A

5

FL4

FL3

17-1/2"

14-3/4"

IADC 517X

IADC 435M

IADC 435M

IADC 435M

IADC 425M

BI values

12-1/4"

Bit Diameter

Figure 1. BI values of the best performer bits in well A, listed by diameter and formation (lithostratigraphic units FL3 and FL4). BIs

(and thus bit performances) differ significantly inside the lithostratigraphic units of the same formation (Irpine Units, IU). This is a

direct result of the BI analysis by means of formation classification implemented in the DBC.

- GEN 499 Academic Success /snaptutorialTransféré parsona6
- ch01Transféré parhaixazz
- Key Concepts EvaluationTransféré parsakura2789
- Chapter 1 Factorisation.Transféré paralkristiyanto
- 1380013729.02. Distribution and Retention of Khas Land in BangladeshTransféré parDebjyoti Sarkar
- Chapter-3.1Transféré parKarlo Jude Acidera
- Dowell - Cementing and Chemical Seal Ring Grouting Service RecomendationTransféré parWayan Parta
- MOS 3360a Research Case Assignment 2017.pdfTransféré parAssignment Help Experts
- Derry Et Al 2009_Conducting Video AnalysisTransféré parGerardo Bañales
- Book Review-By-s DasTransféré parShyamanuja Das
- Definition CoefficientTransféré parplayboys91
- Frogs and Lilies ReportTransféré parAnonymous Alligator
- Linear Law NewTransféré parAnisha Gill
- 3rd qtrTransféré parapi-316781445
- ch01 nTransféré parNouman Abid
- 23[1]. SalinaTransféré parAnkit Aggarwal
- Poor Performance of Students in AccountiTransféré parRobert Cenita
- accounting finalTransféré parapi-263306721
- Submission GuidelinesTransféré parPradiptoTriNugrohohadi
- PreliminaryTransféré parVia Montemayor
- Poor PerformanceTransféré parAya
- digital unit planTransféré parapi-435732039
- blghTransféré parmangalvao2009
- Solving Simultaneous EquationsTransféré parLeanne Erasga
- research quizTransféré parMy family of pablo
- RESEARCH DEFENSE.docxTransféré parAfiqah Unok
- Dr. Padilla's PresentationTransféré paremerson dave
- Adviser's Architectural Design Assessment FormatTransféré parGemmer Batuyong
- ScienceTransféré parShahid Imran
- jennifer legan cv for weebly website pdfTransféré parapi-257035564

- Best Practices for Cementing Job SoftwareTransféré parPegasus Vertex, Inc.
- StreaeditionsTransféré parlulalala8888
- onshoreogfdpguide_Dec2014Transféré parghostforever0
- 9.) Upscaling in the Vertical Direction - Well Logs UpscalingTransféré pardmull
- SPeconiaTransféré parlulalala8888
- SPEyTransféré parlulalala8888
- onditionsTransféré parlulalala8888
- 20106vy OilTransféré parlulalala8888
- AlbabilityTransféré parlulalala8888
- OTCbservationTransféré parlulalala8888
- SPlo-PATransféré parlulalala8888
- SPkMSTransféré parlulalala8888
- SPkATransféré parlulalala8888
- mwd failTransféré parlulalala8888
- SPE-28220-PATransféré parCl LS
- AADE-11-NTCE-03Transféré parNadya Hartasiwi
- Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined HolesTransféré parlulalala8888
- SubsronitoringTransféré parlulalala8888
- gging SystemTransféré parlulalala8888
- ex2Transféré parlulalala8888
- SPMSTransféré parlulalala8888
- SPE-1pentialTransféré parlulalala8888
- PETo02Transféré parlulalala8888
- PETS MediTransféré parlulalala8888
- PEfdTransféré parlulalala8888
- 1-s2.0tinTransféré parlulalala8888
- 1210gctsTransféré parlulalala8888

- Finishing Occlusion 2Transféré parPae Anusorn Amtanon
- 14_05-06-0094Transféré parHossein Goodarzi
- Nano HydroxyTransféré parHusnain Indra
- Hph Matlab Basic2012 3Transféré parAxmed Shirwac
- Structural InterventionsTransféré parSahilSankhla
- Core Banking Selection CriteriaTransféré parMussadaq Javed
- Color Wheel PowerpointTransféré par施姐宿
- EAMON RYAN Newsletter Summer 2008Transféré parEamon Ryan
- Repair Manual N40 Electronic Mar05Transféré parhuskerchamps
- suggestopediaTransféré parapi-274526834
- Financial Management Introduction Lecture#1Transféré parRameez Ramzan Ali
- VSL Construction Systems-AsiaTransféré parnguyenkhanhduy10
- The Rime of the Ancient Mariner SummaryTransféré parEni V
- Snap Fit DesignTransféré parsachinrawool
- Mba 2011Transféré parmanjunath8906
- Problem Solution Manual for Unsaturated Soil MechanicsTransféré pargullipalli
- mech 3420Transféré parTorenToernteno
- ntrn 517 transpcrit for portfolio ssr tsrptTransféré parapi-315324296
- MathematicsTransféré parGamini Hettiarachchi
- Procees_IE_Consultant_India.docxTransféré parHadee Saber
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentTransféré parRizka
- 0.6. TR-18 Stockbridge Type Vibration DampersTransféré pargiorgis072
- Dynamic ProgrammingTransféré parTalha Habib
- B32.pdfTransféré parjaskaran singh
- AP Biology Lab Manual 2015Transféré parLani Manahan-Suyom
- DEN4101 ExamTransféré paryiffscritchmurr
- b.com III Yr Syllabus Semester v and ViTransféré parmanojpatil186
- 2010 Spokane Scholars Winners BiosTransféré parCaitlin Hess
- P13.5-4(4PP)GB(0512)Transféré parscribdledee
- Cyclic Cushing’s syndrome: a clinical challengeTransféré parMaryO