SPE/IADC 92194
Maximizing Drill Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy
Fred E. Dupriest, SPE, ExxonMobil and William L. Koederitz, SPE, M/D Totco, a Varco Company
Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
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, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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
The concept of Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) has been
used effectively in lab environments to evaluate the drilling
efficiency of bits. MSE analysis has also been used in a
limited manner to investigate specific inefficiencies in field
operations.3,4 In early 2004, the operator initiated a pilot to
determine whether the concept might be used more broadly by
rig-site personnel as a real-time tool to maximize the rate of
penetration. The results have exceeded expectations. The
average ROP on the six rigs selected for the three-month pilot
was increased by 133% and new field records were established
on 10 of 11 wells.
The MSE surveillance process provides the ability to
detect changes in the efficiency of the drilling system, more or
less continuously. This has improved performance by 1)
allowing the optimum operating parameters to be identified
easily, and 2) providing the quantitative data needed to cost-
justify design changes to extend the current limits of the
system. MSE analysis has resulted in redesign in areas as
diverse as well control practices, bit selection, BHA design,
makeup torque, directional target sizing and motor differential
ratings. The use of MSE surveillance is a key feature in a
family of well planning and operational practices that are
referred to as the ExxonMobil Fast Drill Process (FDP).
These are now being introduced in other operating areas
throughout the global organization.
Introduction
Drill rate performance is difficult to assess objectively. The
great majority of bits are evaluated based on their performance
relative to offsets. However, drill rates are often constrained
by factors that the driller does not control, and in ways that
cannot be documented in a bit record. Consequently, drill
rates may vary greatly between two wells running identical
bits. The manner in which a bit is run is often more important
than which bit is run.
Drillers conduct a variety of tests to optimize
performance. The most common is the "drill rate" test, which
consists of simply experimenting with various WOB and RPM
settings and observing the results. The parameters are then
used that resulted in the highest ROP. In some sense, all
optimization schemes use a similar comparative process. That
is, they seek to identify the parameters that yield the best
results relative to other settings.
One of the earliest schemes was the "drilloff" test in
which the driller applied a high WOB and locked the brake to
prevent the top of the string from advancing while continuing
to circulate and rotate the string.1 As the bit drilled ahead, the
string elongated and the WOB declined. ROP was calculated
from the change in the rate of drill string elongation as the
weight declined. Figure 1 shows field data from three drilloff
tests with an insert bit. The point at which the ROP stops
responding linearly with increasing WOB is referred to as the
"flounder" or "founder" point. This is taken to be the optimum
WOB. The drilloff curve is used throughout this paper to aid
in explaining the manner in which MSE is used operationally.
Analysis of MSE trends show which phase of the drilloff
curve a bit is being operated in. Relating MSE back to the
drilloff curve helps engineers and field personnel understand
its application from within an operational framework that
they're already familiar with.
A variety of other processes have been developed for
optimizing ROP, some of which are supported by computer
analysis. They are similar to drill rate and drilloff tests in that
they observe trends in performance and attempt to identify the
founder point, which is the point at which the ROP is
maximized. These tools have enhanced performance, but they
do not provide an objective assessment of the true potential
drill rate, only the founder point of the current system. This is
an important distinction. MSE testing has shown that in some
cases the actual maximum performance that could be achieved
with a given system was only 10% of what was technically
possible. In the majority of cases the crew was not aware that
constraints even existed because the performance was similar
to that of offsets that also suffered the same inefficiencies.
MSE surveillance provides a more objective assessment
of the efficiency of the system. The drilling information
provider's software was modified to calculate this value
continuously from surface measurements and display the
results on an electronic strip chart alongside the normal
mechanical drilling logs. Like other optimization tools, the
MSE plot enables the ROP to be optimized by identifying the
founder point. However, by providing an objective standard
of performance it also illuminates the performance that might
2 SPE/IADC 92194
be achieved if the founder point were extended. Significant
re-engineering of the system can then be cost-justified.
Bit Mechanics
In order to discuss the manner in which MSE was used as an
operating tool, it is necessary to first established a structured
view of the manner in which bits drill, and the factors that may
effect their performance. Figure 2 shows a classic drilloff
curve that is used for this purpose. The curve is divided into
three regions.
In Region I, performance is constrained by inadequate
depth of cut (DOC) due to low WOB. Figure 3 shows the
typical relationship between depth of cut and bit efficiency3.
As the WOB and resulting DOC increase, the bit eventually
approaches its peak efficiency. Efficiency is calculated by
comparing the theoretical energy required to destroy a given
volume of rock to that actually used by the bit. Bits tend to
transfer only 30-40% of their input energy into the rock
destruction process, even when operating a peak performance.
However, if DOC is inadequate, the energy transfer efficiency
drops well below this value and ROP suffers.
Region II of the drilloff curve starts when the DOC
becomes adequate for the bit's performance to stabilize. The
bit efficiency then remains at about the same level as bit
weight is increased up to the founder point. Throughout this
region, changes in WOB cause a proportionate change in
ROP. Though the bit efficiency is not changing, a greater
amount of energy is being applied so the ROP increases
proportionately. The slope of the line is relatively constant for
a given formation, bit and rotary speed. Figure 4 shows the
notional relationship between bit type and the slope of the line,
which is related to the bit-specific sliding coefficient of
friction (). When a bit is loaded into the linear portion of the
drilloff curve, it is transferring the maximum amount of
energy that its intrinsic design allows it to (usually 30-40%).
The significance of this is that there is no environmental
change that can be made that will cause the bit to drill faster if
it is operating within Region II. A non-aqueous fluid, for
example, will not drill faster than water-based mud if identical
bits are operating below the founder point with the same WOB
and RPM. Also, an increase in hydraulic energy will not
result in any change in ROP. The bit is not constrained by a
unique inefficiency; it simply needs more energy. The WOB
or the RPM must be increased in order to drill faster.
The third segment starts at the founder point where a
condition develops in which the transfer of energy from the bit
to the rock is constrained. The founder point is close to the
highest ROP that can be achieved with the current system. In
order to increase the ROP further, it's necessary to redesign to
extend the constraining limit. As shown in Figure 2, the
increase in ROP that can be achieved by doing so can be
predicted from the slope of the linear portion of the drilloff
curve. If founder does not occur, the ROP will continue to
increase linearly with WOB along the slope of this line.
The factors that determine ROP can be grouped into two
categories, which are 1) factors that create inefficiency
(founder), and 2) factors that limit energy input. Some of
these are shown notionally in Figure 5. The three causes of
founder are bit balling, bottom hole balling and vibrations.
Generally speaking, the mitigations for these effects do not
eliminate them, but only delay their onset to a higher WOB.
For example, reducing the blade count to increase the open
face volume of a PDC bit does not eliminate balling; it only
elevates the WOB and ROP at which it will occur.
There are a great variety of factors that may limit energy
input. Example limiters include drill string make up torque,
hole cleaning efficiency, hole integrity to carry the cuttings
load, mud motor differential pressure rating, mud motor
bearing rating, directional target size, LWD rotational speed
limits, available BHA weight, solids handling capacity, and
top drive or rotary table torque rating. If founder does not
occur as the WOB is increased, the system will eventually be
constrained by one or more of the limits to energy input. At
this point, a decision must be made as to whether it is
economic and practical to reengineer the limit.
Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE)
Real-time MSE surveillance is used to find the founder point
for the current system, and in some cases the cause of the
founder. Mechanical Specific Energy is a ratio. It quantifies
the relationship between input energy and ROP. This ratio
should be constant for a given rock, which is to say that a
given volume of rock requires a given amount of energy to
destroy. The relationship between energy and ROP derived by
Teal2 is:
MSE Input Energy ...(1)
Output ROP
MSE = 480 x Tor x RPM + 4 x WOB ...(2)
Dia2 x ROP Dia2 x
It's useful to relate MSE to the drilloff curve. In Region II, the
linear slope means that the ratio of input energy (WOB) to
ROP is constant. Since MSE equals this ratio, it must also be
a constant value, but only if the bit is operating within the
linear portion of the curve. When the bit is in Region I or III,
a disproportionate amount of energy is being used for the
given ROP. This provides a useful diagnostic. If MSE is
constant the bit is efficient and operating in Region II. If MSE
rises, the system is foundering. By plotting MSE continuously
at the rig site, the driller can see whether the system is below
or above founder, or whether it moves in or out of founder as
various parameters are tested.
The energy required to destroy a given volume of rock is
determined by its compressive strength. Teal derived the
specific energy equation by calculating the torsional and axial
work performed by the bit and dividing this by the volume of
rock drilled. Although there is clearly a connection between
rock strength and the energy required to destroy it, Teal was
surprised when lab drilling data showed the MSE value to be
numerically equal to rock compressive strength in psi. This is
useful from an operations standpoint because it provides a
reference point for efficiency. If the observed MSE is close to
the known confined rock strength, the bit is efficient. If not,
energy is being lost. The value should change as the lithology
changes. However, field experience has shown that the energy
losses that occur when the bit founders are usually so large
that they cannot be confused with the small changes that occur
with rock compressive strength.
SPE/IADC 92194
To further improve the usefulness of MSE surveillance in
field operations, the specific energy equation originally
derived by Teal has been adjusted to include a mechanical
efficiency factor (EFFM).
MSEadj = MSE x EFFM ...(3)
At perfect efficiency, the MSE would equal rock compressive
strength. However, as shown previously in Figure 3, bits are
typically only 30-40% efficient at peak performance.3
Consequently, even when the bit is operating at peak
efficiency in the linear portion of the drilloff curve, Teal's
MSE value would be around three times rock compressive
strength. Multiplying the equation by an assumed mechanical
bit efficiency, reduces the value one that's closer to the
compressive strength (MSEadj).
The creation of this pseudo value may cause confusion if
adjusted and unadjusted MSE numbers are compared.
However, it is necessary to do this in order to create a value
that is more meaningful to rig site personnel. Drillers
typically know the approximate rock compressive strength of
the formations they're drilling. In many cases, the bit vendor
representative on location can provide this information, or logs
are available from offsets that show confined compressive
strengths derived from sonic velocity data. Adjusting the real-
time MSE so that it yields a value closer to the expected rock
strength helps the driller to be able to evaluate whether the bit
is operating efficiently. If Teal's unadjusted MSE value were
displayed by the data acquisition system, it would be
necessary for the driller to adjust it mentally in order to
determine whether founder had occurred.
In field operations the operator has set the EFFM
uniformly to 0.35, regardless of bit type or WOB. Although
this value is known from lab data to commonly vary from 0.30
to 0.40, the error introduced was thought to be acceptable.
Calculations of MSE from surface measurements contain even
larger sources of error, and the field plots are only used
qualitatively as a trending tool. Any error in EFFM will tend
to shift the curve uniformly. Though the value may be
incorrect, the uniformity of the shift allows the curve to still be
used effectively as a visual trending tool.
Field Application
Figure 6 shows an example of an MSEadj display that is similar
to what is viewed by rig site personnel. The inputs to the
equation and a few other key data are plotted in the left-hand
tracks and the MSEadj is shown in the far right-hand track.
The data is collected from surface sensors and routed to the
data contractor's computer. As drilling progresses, the
calculated MSEadj is displayed along side other mechanical
drilling curves. Plots can be generated on time-based or
footage-based scales and displayed on any of the rig site
monitors. Although the intent is for MSEadj analysis to be
conducted in real-time by rig site personnel, the information is
also transmitted offsite to the drilling engineer, typically in 15-
second updates. Each user has the flexibility to change the
scaling on each track and the length of interval displayed.
Figure 6 shows a plot from a section of hole that was
drilled in the same manner as the offsets in this 30-year-old
field. The interval was drilled with an IADC 1-1-7-tooth bit,
3
20k lbs WOB, and water-based mud. The formations were
soft, with rock strengths in both the sands and shales of less
than 2 ksi. If the bit were efficient, the MSEadj curve would
have been a straight line with a value of around 2ksi. Instead,
the MSEadj rises to values exceeding 25ksi in the shales and
drops back to 2ksi in the sands. The system is literally
requiring as much energy to drill the shales as if the rock
compressive strength were 25ksi. The founder that is
occurring in the shales is assumed to be due to bit balling
because the other two causes of founder are unlikely in this
situation (bottom hole balling and vibrations). When the bit
enters sand and the build up of shale cuttings on its surface is
cleared, the cutting structure becomes efficient again and the
ROP climbs back to around 300 fph while the MSEadj drops
back close to rock strength.
The bit was drilling in a mature area at an average ROP
similar to that of the offset record well. The crew knew that
the bit slowed in shales and sped up in sands, but viewed this
as a result of the shale simply being "slower drilling". The
example illustrates the usefulness of a tool that provides an
objective assessment of performance. The MSEadj plot makes
it clear that this bit and the offset record well were both
inefficient and that it should be possible to drill the entire
interval at 300-400 fph if the founder problem in the shales
were addressed. This was done on subsequent wells with a
PDC bit and enhanced hydraulics.
In the example above, the MSE plot is being used in real-
time, but only as a passive learning tool. Figure 7 shows the
preferred approach to using the MSEadj plot, which is to
conduct frequent methodical tests to identify system limits.
After drilling out of surface casing with an 8-1/2" bit in water-
based mud, an "MSE Weight-Test" was conducted during
which the WOB was raised from 5k to 11k lbs in 2k lb
increments. Each time the weight was raised the MSEadj was
observed to see if it increased, indicating that the system was
foundering. In this case, it was essentially unchanged and the
bit was operating just as efficiently at 200 fph as it was at 100
fph. An "MSE RPM-Test" was then conducted at 2130 ft by
raising the rotary speed from 60 to 120 rpm and the MSEadj
again remained unchanged. The bit continued to be efficient
at close to 400 fph. As shown conceptually to the right, the bit
is operating in the linear portion of the drilloff curve
throughout both tests. In contrast, the high MSE in the surface
hole shows that the tooth bit used in this interval was balling
in shales. Continued testing and modification to the
hydraulics on subsequent wells eventually resulted in
continuous drill rates of over 500 fph throughout the
production hole. Even at these elevated ROPs, the bit design
and high hydraulics are now adequate to prevent founder.
Friction Losses in the Drill String
There should always be awareness that the MSEadj may
contain inaccuracies and should only be used as a trending
tool. The largest source of error is drill string friction. The
MSEadj calculated from surface data contains torque that was
created by friction between the pipe and borehole. This torque
distorts the curve so that the bit appears to be consuming much
more energy than it is. Where high frictional losses exist, the
MSEadj values may exceed rock strength by several hundred
4 SPE/IADC 92194
thousand psi, and yet the bit is operating efficiently and the
high values are due entirely to drill string friction.
This issue will be resolved to some degree when
software is developed to utilize down hole data. However,
even with downhole data it's likely that the MSE curve will
continue to be used primarily as a trending tool. The drill
team views the overall shape of the curve in order to develop a
sense of what the baseline MSEadj might be, then makes
judgments based on the change in trend as various parameters
are tested. A spreadsheet has been developed to aid the user in
determining what portion of the MSEadj might be due to an
assumed amount of string friction, but this adjustment is not
routinely made in real-time. Instead, rig site personnel depend
heavily on pattern recognition and trend analysis.
Bit Balling
This paper contains examples of MSE plots from each of the
three common causes of founder. Bit balling is the easiest to
diagnose, and most familiar to field personnel. Bit balling is a
condition in which the accumulation of material within the
cutting structure interferes with the transfer of energy to the
rock. Figure 8 shows another example of the MSEadj response
during bit balling. The bit had an initial HSI of 5.2 hp/in2 and
drilled at the previous record well pace with an average ROP
of around instantaneous 150 fph. However, because rig site
personnel saw that the energy consumption was high, with an
MSEadj in excess of 30ksi in the shales, they concluded that
the bit was balling and pulled it. Despite the record pace this
crew had a low tolerance for inefficiency due to their prior
experience with MSEadj testing in other fields. The
replacement bit was almost identical in design, but was
nozzled for an HSI of 11.5 hp/in.2 The increase in hydraulics
enabled the cutting structure to remain clean at much higher
ROP. The MSEadj after the change in hydraulics was made
was observed to approximately equal rock compressive
strength, indicating that the cutting structure was remaining
clean, and both sands and shales were drilled uniformly at
more than 350 fph for the next 3000 ft.
Figure 9 demonstrates the manner in which hydraulics
effect founder and ROP. The level of HSI required for a given
bit and formation depends on the desired ROP. There is no
single threshold of hydraulics at which balling ceases to occur.
Hydraulics do not eliminate balling, they only extend the
founder point so that balling will occur at a higher WOB and
ROP. Real-time surveillance of MSE Weight-Tests has
enabled the relationship between hydraulics and ROP to be
quantified, with potential implications in equipment
contracting. The ability to quantify the founder point has also
begun to distinguish bits that were previously thought to have
similar performance.
Bottom Hole Balling
Bottom hole balling is a condition in which the build up of
material on the bottom of the hole interferes with the transfer
of energy from the bit to the rock beneath it. The bottom hole
material consists of finely ground particles that are held down
by differential pressure in a manner similar to a filter cake.
Although this is often referred to as chip hold down, the
material usually has the consistency of a fine powder rather
than a chip and its removal rate depends largely on the rate at
which filtrate penetrates the powder in order to relieve the
differential pressure holding it in place.
Bottom hole balling becomes more likely with insert bits
in hard formations because of the crushing action of insert
bits, though it may appear to some degree any time high WOB
is utilized in hard rock. The MSEadj curve shown on a time
scale in Figure 10 is believed to be characteristic of bottom
hole balling. The 7-7/8" insert bit is drilling 25-ksi rock in
water-based mud. The MSEadj is elevated to a very high level
of 800 ksi, which is to say that the system is consuming the
same energy as if it were drilling rock of this extraordinary
compressive strength. The conclusion that this is due to
bottom hole balling comes primarily from elimination of the
alternatives. Bit balling does not occur in very hard rock.
Although vibrations are very common, and they can create
MSEadj values of this magnitude, the smooth curve lacks the
character expected with vibrations. The variation in MSEadj is
less than 5%. This lack of character is interpreted as the
behavior of a bit rotating on powder with little direct contact
with resistant rock. Vibrations tend to generate width
variations in torque. This bit does not appear to be reacting
with the bottom of the hole to generate torque.
Vibrations
When the field trials were begun it was assumed that bit
balling would be the primary cause of founder in water-based
muds, and that founder would not be observed in non-aqueous
fluids (NAF). In fact, very little balling has been seen in
water-based mud due to the high hydraulic horsepower
available on the current generation of rigs and improvements
in the balling resistance of PDC bits. It is possible to drill
most holes faster than they can be cleaned. In contrast,
vibrational founder has been seen to be very common, even in
rocks of moderate compressive strength. There's also some
field MSE data that suggests that vibrational founder may be
uniformly worse in NAF, leading to the speculation that the
higher friction in water-based mud helps to dampen the
excitation of the string.
Figure 11 shows a series of MSE Weight and RPM tests run
in 5-10 ksi rock. This example demonstrates some commonly
observed vibrational behaviors. The MSEadj was initially 30-40
ksi. When the WOB was decreased at 8270 ft, the MSEadj
dropped dramatically and ROP increased. Because bit balling
and bottom hole balling appeared unlikely in the given situation,
the drop in MSE was assumed to have occurred because the
reduction in WOB moderated vibrations. When the weight was
raised back to its original value at 8500 ft the MSE also climbed
and the ROP fell, indicating the return of vibrations. At 8580 ft,
the WOB was reduced to very low levels, and the MSE climbed
much higher, possibly due to inadequate depth of cut (DOC) or
severe whirl. Altogether, the testing shows that the highest ROP
is achieved at around 12-15 k WOB. However, this could be
determined by running drill rate tests without the benefit of the
MSEadj curve. The value of the MSEadj curve is that it shows the
drill team that the ROP is being limited by vibrations and not by
changes in rock strength. The changes observed in MSE far
exceeded any reasonable change that might have occurred in
confined compressive strength. In order to drill faster a design
change is needed to eliminate or constrain vibrations at a weight
on bit higher than 15 k lbs.
SPE/IADC 92194
Figure 12 shows a second example of vibrational founder
in an 8-1/2" hole in 5-ksi compressive strength rock. At the
beginning of this interval, the MSE baseline is around 250 ksi
with frequent spikes of up to 500 ksi. The baseline is elevated
because of drill string friction losses, and the spikes are believed
to be due to the tendency for this particular bit to develop a
whirling pattern and vibrate when traversing the highly
laminated stratigraphy. In an attempt to reduce vibrations, the
WOB was increased and the rotary speed decreased at 10200 ft.
This is a common operational mitigation for whirl. The MSEadj
declined and ROP increased. The ROP response could have
been explained without the MSEadj curve because ROP
normally increases with increased WOB. However, the ROP
response should have only been proportionate to the WOB
increase and it exceeded it. The fact that the response was
disproportionately high resulted in the decline in MSEadj. The
bit did not simply drill faster due to increased WOB; it became
more efficient with the WOB it was provided. MSEadj testing
can be used in this manner to adjust parameters to mitigate
vibrations, but only within a certain range. If the vibrational
tendency is too great, the team must modify the bit or system to
achieve a significant improvement.
Figure 13 shows the onset of severe whirl when an
aggressive PDC encountered a short interval in which the rock
strength increased from around 3 ksi to 8 ksi. The MSE
increased by over 50 ksi, indicating the onset of vibrational
founder. The crew raised the WOB in order to try to maintain
ROP, and severely damaged the bit within 100 ft of drilling.
Caliper logs also showed significantly oversized hole drilled
by a whirling bit. When another stringer with the same MSE
pattern was encountered 500 ft deeper, the WOB and RPM
were reduced to protect the bit. After the MSE showed that
they had fully penetrated the stringer, drilling parameters were
returned to normal and the bit was eventually pulled at TD
with no indication of damage.
Figure 14 illustrates an important additional aspect of
vibrational founder. The amplitude of the vibrations that may
reduce ROP can be quite small. The left-hand track shows a
plot of MSEadj. At some depths, the value exceed 1000 ksi.
The corresponding vibrations are shown on the right hand
axis. There's a clear correlation between the two, but the RMS
vibrational levels causing this extreme inefficiency are
generally less than 3 G's. Because the industry has been
primarily concerned with tool damage, vibration-monitoring
subs do not typically transmit a vibration warning until
accelerations of 25-50 G's are observed. Consequently,
operators are not aware that that these issues exist or that there
may be a very large opportunity to improve ROP. Figure 14
also shows that all forms of vibration do not effect ROP
equally. The highest G forces are observed from 8350-8400
ft, and yet the MSEadj is relatively low. The accelerations in
this axis are interpreted as stick-slip, and the MSEadj behavior
is consistent with lab reports showing stick-slip to have only a
moderate effect on ROP. ROP effects cannot be predicted
from vibrational data alone, and the nature of the vibrations
cannot be understood from MSEadj surveillance alone.
However, the combination may provide both the technical
understanding of the changes that need to be made and the
cost-justification required to make them, both for operators
and the designers of bits.
5
More often than not, MSEadj testing to mitigate vibrations
is frustrating for rig personnel. Although some improvement
may be made, it's usually not as distinct as the examples
provided above. While balling founder is recognized
immediately and there are many mitigations available,
vibrations are often more subtle and cannot always be
distinguished from changes in rock compressive strength.
Furthermore, vibrational tendencies may change with
lithology and other factors, requiring frequent changes in
WOB and RPM. In many situations continuous testing and
analysis of complex relationships is impractical and the
vibrations can only be addressed by redesign of the system.
Bit Dulling
The use of MSE analysis to identify dulling trends has been
previously reported.4 Figure 15 shows an example of a dulling
trend with an 8-1/2" insert bit in 20-ksi rock. Dulling trends
may be very distinct. In this particular case, the early trend
was masked by high drill string torque in the directional hole
and vibrations. When insert bits dull the energy consumption
tends to increase steadily over the last 50 - 100 ft. The trend
suggests that the bit stays relatively efficient throughout most
of its life, but once the dulling begins the tooth profile flattens
fairly rapidly. PDC bits have been seen to become inefficient
within a shorter interval. The operator's knowledge of the
expected bit life and offset performance is a key factor in
deciding to pull the bit based on an observed MSE trend.
Conclusion
A data service provider's software has been modified to
provide real-time display of the Mechanical Specific Energy
of the drilling system based on measurements of surface data.
Bit balling and bottom hole balling appear to be easily
identified from real-time MSE analysis. Rig site personnel
correctly identified these when they occurred and made
adjustments, as needed. Vibrational founder was far more
difficult to address. While MSE analysis showed that the
energy loss was occurring, it provides no insight into the
specific nature of the vibration or its cause. In most cases,
vibrational founder could not be eliminated entirely by
varying the WOB and RPM. Fundamental redesign in the
other features of the drilling system was required.
MSE surveillance proved to be valuable as an educational
tool. Many operations personnel are now conversant in bit
mechanics concepts that were previously discussed only in
academic circles. Continuous monitoring of the energy
efficiency of the system has changed the manner in which rig
site personnel view the drilling process. Field personnel have
developed a low tolerance for the loss of energy in the drilling
process and this perspective has facilitated continuous
redesign for higher performance.
MSE surveillance is one of the key elements in the
operator's Fast Drill Process (FDP), which is a work process
designed to drill every foot of hole at the highest ROP
technically and economically possible. MSE-based practices
are expected to continue to mature, particularly as an aid in the
study of vibrations and the manner in which they impact ROP.
The focus on redesigning to extend ROP limits is also likely to
change expectations of contractor equipment and well design
and surveillance practices.
6 SPE/IADC 92194

Nomenclature
ROP Rate of penetration, ft/hr
RPM Bit rotating speed, revolutions per minute
Tor Torque, ft-lbs
WOB Weight on bit, lbs force
EFFM Mechanical efficiency, ratio
MSE Mechanical specific energy, psi
MSEadj Adjusted mechanical specific energy, psi
Dia Bit diameter, inches
Bit coefficient of sliding friction

References
1. Lubinski, A.: "Proposal for Future Tests", The Petroleum
Engineer (Jan 1958)
2. Teale, R.: "The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock
Drilling," Intl. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. (1965) 2, 57-73
3. Pessier, R.C. and Fear, M.J., "Quantifying Common
Drilling Problems with Mechanical Specific Energy and
Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction", IADC/SPE
paper No.24584 presented at 67th Annual Conference and
Exhibition Washington D.C., 4-7 October, 1992
4. 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", IADC/SPE paper No. 74520 presented at
Annual Conference Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February, 2002
SPE/IADC 92194 7

Figure 1: Drilloff test data showing non-linear response below the Figure 4: Notional plot showing that the slope of the drilloff curve
minimum depth of cut (DOC) and above the founder point. is determined by (and RPM), but the maximum ROP is ultimately
limited by founder.

Figure 2: A bit is in its efficient range if ROP responds linearly to Figure 5: MSE is used select WOB and RPM to maximize ROP up
WOB. The performance of a given bit is enhanced by extending to the point of founder. Improvements beyond this require
the founder point (i.e., hydraulics, NAF). changes to extend the founder point, or an increase in the input
energy if it is limited by non-founder factors.

Figure 3: Notional depiction of bit mechanical efficiency.3 In

Region I of the classic drilloff curve the WOB is inadequate to
achieve the minimum threshold in depth of cut (DOC) required for Figure 6: MSEadj rises well above the baseline trend when the
efficient drilling. Above this threshold, bit mechanical efficiency system is operating beyond its founder point.
is typically 30-40%.2
8 SPE/IADC 92194

Figure 7: WOB and RPM tests are conducted by observing the MSE while increasing parameters. If the MSE remains close to the baseline
value while raising WOB, the bit is as efficient at the high load as before. ROP will continue to increase linearly with WOB. RPM tests are
conducted in a similar manner. Spurious spikes are disregarded unless they persist for several feet. They occur at connections and are
associated with light WOB while re-establishing the bottom hole pattern.

Figure 9: Desired hydraulics in WBM depend on the desired ROP.

Figure 8: Founder point was extended in water-based mud to

beyond 350 fph by reducing nozzle size to increase HSI.
SPE/IADC 92194
Figure 10: Probable bottom hole balling with insert bit. High
MSEadj value and lack of variation ( + 5%) suggest the bit is
rotating on bottom hole cake with little interaction with the rock.
Figure 11: Initial MSEadj suggested mild vibrational founder.
System became more efficient at reduced WOB. Energy loss
returned with the weight was raised back. A final test at very low
weight showed even greater inefficiency, possibly due to
increased whirl or low depth of cut.
9
Figure 12: High MSEadj with PDC in 5-ksi compressive strength
rock assumed to be due to whirling vibrations. MSE declined
when WOB was raised and RPM reduced.
Figure 13: ROP dropped from 90 fph to 20 fph in hard stringer.
However, the increase in MSEadj to 70 ksi greatly exceeds possible
change in rock strength, indicating that most of the ROP loss was
due to vibrations.
10 SPE/IADC 92194

Figure 15: Dulling trend with insert bit. Replaced with PDC on
motor.

Figure 14: Correlation can be seen between MSE and downhole

vibrational accelerations. Vibrations of less than 3g's are
effecting efficiency severely. From 8350-8400 ft, the amplitude of
the vibrations in one axis is higher, but this specific type of
vibration is not effecting drilling efficiency as greatly.