Evaluation and Prediction of the Performance
of Positive Displacement Motor (PDM)
J. LI
BJ Services
R. TUDOR, L. GINZBURG
Canadian Fracmaster Ltd.
G. ROBELLO
Landmark Graphics
Abstract
Positive displacement motors (PDM) are being used exten-
sively due to the increased drilling of horizontal/extended reach
wells as well as the deepening of vertical wells. Knowing motor
performance is essential to ensure drilling success. To enhance
the technology and make the system effective, a complete per-
formance envelope of the motor in use is required. In the tradi-
tional way, the performance of a PDM can be described by pres-
sure drop vs. torque and rotational speed. For a particular type of
motor, the RPM curves are different at different flow rates.
Although it is very difficult to fully describe the motor perfor-
mance with limited testing, a good prediction is critical for
motor selection and operation. In addition, the performance of a
PDM operating with compressible fluid decreases drastically as
compared to the operation with incompressible fluids. In this
paper, analysis of the test results for various PDMs from differ-
ent PDM suppliers are presented. Correlations have been devel-
oped, based on the test data, to describe PDM performance with
incompressible fluids.
Introduction
Drilling with coiled tubing is a very complex process. In gener-
al, the coiled tubing unit consists of surface equipment and down-
hole equipment. Most downhole tools and equipment associated
with coiled tubing drilling may be summarized in the following
categories: drill bit, PDM, and bottom hole assembly (BHA) for
non-directional and directional drilling. For a particular well, the
proper combination of a bit and a downhole motor must be select-
ed. To optimize the drilling process, a variety of parameters have
to be fully understood, such as rate of penetration, which can be
modelled with a solid mechanism model(1), and the performance
of a PDM which can be predicted with a suitable correlation.
The PDM based on the Moineau principle is considered in this
study. A PDM consists of a by-pass valve, power section, trans-
mission assembly and bearing assembly. In the power section, a
helical rotor with one or more lobes is placed eccentrically inside
a stator having one cavity more than the rotor lobes. This differ-
ence between the rotor/stator lobe configurations creates the cavi-
ties. Under pressure, the drilling fluid will drive the rotor in an
eccentric rotation, which is then translated into concentric rotation
through the transmission assembly and further transferred to the
drill bit.
In general, the performance of a PDM depends on the cross-
section of the flow area between the rotor and stator, rotor-stator
lobe ratio, stage length (or lobe spiral pitch), number of stages and
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (“REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS” CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
48
H. XU
Japan National Oil Corp.
C. GRIGOR
Drilex Systems Inc.
flow rate. The performance parameters of a PDM include output
torque, rotation speed, pressure drop and mechanical power. For a
given type of PDM, the rotation speed is proportional to the flow
rate pumped through the PDM, and the pressure drop across the
motor is proportional to the torque output(2).
Usually, the manufacturer-supplied operation manuals present
the data in the form of pressure drop vs. torque output, and rota-
tional speed vs. pressure drop based on limited test data. These
plots do not depict the actual performance, as the plotted curves
are different for different flow rates. In this study, new correla-
tions were developed to aid in presenting the true behaviour of the
performance of the motor for different operating parameters.
Data Compiling Methods
A databank of PDM test data from different PDM manufactur-
er’s manuals such as Moyno(3), Drilex(4), Black Max(5), Trudril(6),
and the previous studies(7, 8) was developed. The test data from
these manuals were based on water test results. Two-phase flow
test results were also added to the databank from previous
studies(7-9).
The mechanical power generated by the motor can be calculat-
ed as a function of torque (T) and rotational speed (N):
TN
Pmech =
9550 ........................................................................................(1)
The hydraulic power is given as the product of pressure drop
(∆P) and flow rate (Q) through the motor:
∆PQ
Phydraulic =
60 ..................................................................................(2)
For a given configuration of PDM, a certain force is required to
overcome the initial resistance to rotation in the power section.
When the bit is at the bottom of the well and weight is applied, an
additional force is required to overcome the resistance caused by
the bit/formation interface. Additional pressure is then required to
continue rotation, and the torque output is developed as a result of
the application of the differential pressure across power section of
PDM. Therefore, for a given configuration of PDM, the four para-
meters such as torque, rotational speed, pressure drop and flow
rate can be expressed in a general form of:
f 1 (T , N, ∆P,Q) = 0
............................................................................(3)
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 As was mentioned before, the rotational speed is proportional ρQ
to the flow rate and the torque is proportional to the pressure drop. Π6 =
Dµ ............................................................................................(14)
Therefore, the product of torque and rotational speed is propor-
tional to the product of pressure drop and flow rate, and Equation
(3) can be modified as: Q/D 2
Π7 =
Dg
........................................................................................(15)
f 2 (TN, ∆PQ) = 0 ...............................................................................(4)
Π 8 = b .................................................................................................(16)
Combining Equations (1) and (2) with Equation (4) results in
the following equation: Another dimensionless group is obtained by multiplying group
Π1, Π2, and Π3.
Pmech = f 3 (Phydraulic )
............................................................................(5)
TN
Π 1* = Π 1 • Π 2 • Π 3 =
It can be inferred that the mechanical power produced by a ∆PQ .............................................................(17)
PDM is a function of the input hydraulic power. In fact, the PDM
is a device which converts the hydraulic power produced by the
Equation (17) represents the efficiency of the motor.
pumped fluid into the mechanical power to turn the bit. Based on
the test results, a similar correlation for a given type of motor can Based on Equations (12), (13), and (16), another new dimen-
be developed. Furthermore, due to TN∝∆PQ, the output torque of sionless group can be expressed as:
a PDM can be correlated with a P factor as which is related as
follows: Π4 Π5 D3
Π 2* = =
Π8 bAL .........................................................................(18)
T = f 4 (P ) ..............................................................................................(6)
This dimensionless group represents the geometric parameters
where of the motor.
The dimensionless group Π6 is equivalent to Reynolds number,
∆PQ which represents the ratio of inertia to viscous forces. Π7 is equiv-
P= alent to Froude number, which represents the ratio of inertia to
N gravity forces. In general, the gravitational acceleration, g, can be
assumed to be constant and its effect on the other dimensionless
Similarly, based on the test results, a correlation in Equation (6) groups can be ignored. Therefore, all the dimensionless groups
can be developed. In general, for different PDMs, the performance can be coupled as:
factor P is not only a function of ∆PQ/N, but also a function of the
geometric configuration of the motor.
TN D3 ρQ
Based on the study by Drilex(3), the revolutions per flowrate F ( Π 1* , Π 2* , Π 6 ) = F ( , , )=0
ratio, N/Q, was found to be inversely proportional to rotor/stator ∆PQ bAL Dµ ..................................(19)
configuration (b), cross-sectional flow area between the rotor and
stator (A) and stage length (L): The detailed expression may have different forms, and one of
the general forms can be depicted as:
N 1
∝
Q bAL .............................................................................................(7) TN D 3 α ρQ β
= a( ) ( )
∆PQ bAL Dµ .................................................................(20)
In general, the performance of a PDM is a function of: torque,
flow rate, rotational speed, pressure drop, stator lobe number, The constants a, α and β can be estimated based on the test
cross-sectional flow area, stage length, diameter of the motor, results for different PDMs. However, one of the key parameters,
density (ρ) and viscosity (µ) of the fluid, and gravity force (g). A, cross-sectional flow area, is not available to the public. This is
The function can be expressed as: because the detailed geometric information and the profile of the
rotor/stator lobes are patented by the individual PDM manufac-
f (T ,Q, N, ∆P,b, A, L, D,ρ,µ, g) = 0 ...............................................(8) tures. Equation (20) is a universal correlation, which correlates the
performance parameters of PDMs with the geometric parameters
Based on the Buckingham Π theorem(10), the following dimen- and the physical properties of the pumped fluid. This equation is
sionless groups can be derived: very important for both the PDM’s design and the performance
prediction.
DT
Π1 =
ρQ 2 ............................................................................................(9)
Results and Discussion
ρQ 2 Correlation Between Mechanical Power and
Π2 = Hydraulic Power
D 4 ∆P .......................................................................................(10)
Based on test data in the PDM manuals, the mechanical power
D3N and hydraulic power are calculated with Equations (1) and (2).
Π3 =
Q .........................................................................................(11) Figures 1 and 2 depict the correlation between mechanical power
and hydraulic power for the Drilex PDMs. They show that the
data falls into a straight line for each individual type of PDM.
D2
Π4 = However, the data would fall into different curves if it were com-
A ............................................................................................(12) piled in plots of rotational speed vs. pressure drop and torque vs.
pressure drop, which are the most common compilations used at
D
Π5 = the present time. Similarly, the study of Moyno PDMs also shows
L ...............................................................................................(13) that the correlation between mechanical power and hydraulic

May 2001, Volume 40, No. 5 49

 FIGURE 1: Correlation between mechanical power and hydraulic FIGURE 2: Correlation between mechanical power and hydraulic
power for small Drilex PDMs. power for large Drilex PDMs.

power can be expressed as a straight line for each individual

motor.
Figures 1 and 2 also indicate that, for different types of motors,
the lines are different. This is because Equation (5) does not
account for the effect of geometry and lobe configuration on the
PDM performance. Based on plots such as Figures 1 and 2, the
mechanical output could be determined directly if the pressure
drop across the motor and the fluid circulation rate were given.
These plots also indicate which type of motor has a higher opera-
tional efficiency. For example, in Figure 2, the D625SS has a
higher efficiency than the D950TPS4, because the D950TPS4
needs a higher input hydraulic power for the same output mechan-
ical power.
Based on the detailed study in this paper, it was shown that the
correlation between mechanical power and hydraulic power
would be presented by a straight line for the individual type of FIGURE 3: Correlation between mechanical power and hydraulic
motor, providing that the data was collected when the motor was power for Black Max PDM 31/8 in. 7:8 4-stage circulated only with
operating under less than full load conditions. Under more than water. (The hydraulic power is calculated based on the inlet
full load conditions, the torque is no longer directly proportional pressure for solid lines, Q = 208 lpm. The hydraulic power is
to the pressure drop and the rotational speed is no longer directly calculated based on pressure drop.
proportional to the flow rate. Equations (21) and (22) are valid
only for instances when the motor is operating on or below its full
sure. This can be explained by the fact that the motor was tested
load. This is explained by the fact that, under the full load operat-
with its integrated parts, which include the power section, trans-
ing condition, a higher torque would result in a higher-pressure
mission assembly, output shaft/bearing assembly and bit box. The
drop, which will cause fluid to escape through the sealing gaps
pressure drop used to calculate the hydraulic power is the pressure
between the rotor and stator. Therefore, in order to produce the
drop across the whole motor assembly rather than that across the
same amount of incremental mechanical power, a higher input
power section. In most drilling operations, the only measurable
hydraulic power is needed.
pressure drop is the pressure drop across the whole motor assem-
bly. Because of this, the straight line for the Pmech and Phydraulic cor-
Q2 relation is no longer valid.
N2 = N1
Q 1 .......................................................................................(21) Figure 3 also shows mechanical power vs. hydraulic power at
various backpressures and a constant fluid rate of 208 lpm. The
∆P2 hydraulic power was calculated in two different ways. One calcu-
T2 = T1 lation was based on the pressure drop across the whole motor
∆P1 .......................................................................................(22)
assembly (curves marked with *). Another hydraulic power calcu-
lation was based on the pressure at the inlet of the motor (the solid
Further investigation of the data provided in the motor manuals line curves). Based on the pressure drop across the motor calcula-
of Drilex and Moyno shows that, for some types of motors, plots tion, the data with different backpressures falls into the same
of torque vs. pressure drop across the motor power section are dif- curve. However, hydraulic power calculations based on the PDM
ferent with different flow rates. It is not clear why this type of per- inlet pressure and pump rate of 208 lpm fall into completely dif-
formance variance occurs. However, if it does, the correlation ferent curves. The authors believe that it is feasible to use inlet
between mechanical power and hydraulic power is no longer lin- pressure based calculations to obtain the input hydraulic power. If
ear. It is also true for the correlation between the torque and P fac- the pressure drop across the motor was used to calculate the
tor. When the torque vs. pressure drop across the power section hydraulic power, the plot of mechanical power vs. hydraulic
does not fall into a single curve at a various circulation rates, the power would fall into the same curve. This means that the effi-
torque vs. P factor also does not fall into a single curve. ciency of the motor is the same no matter how much backpressure
Figure 3 represents the mechanical power vs. hydraulic power is applied. In fact, a higher backpressure results in a higher inlet
for a Black Max 79.4 mm (31/8 in.) 7:8 4-stage motor with water pressure to produce the same amount of the output mechanical
as the pumped fluid(8). The figure indicates that the data does not power. Therefore, with a higher backpressure, the motor is operat-
fall into a single line for different flow rates at the same backpres- ed in a lower efficiency mode. Figure 3 shows that the curve with

50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 FIGURE 4: Correlation between torque and P factor for small FIGURE 6: Correlation between torque and P factor for small
Drilex PDMs. Moyno PDMs.

a higher backpressure (7 MPa) is on the top and the curve with a
lower backpressure (1.4 MPa) is at the bottom when the inlet pres-
sure is used to calculate the hydraulic power. This indicates that
the motor is operating in a lower efficiency mode when the back-
pressure is increased. Therefore, it is preferable to use the inlet
pressure to calculate the hydraulic power rather than the pressure
drop across the motor when the efficiency of the motor is evaluat-
ed at the different backpressures.
stall condition when the P factor is larger than a certain value. For
example, in Figure 4, when the P factor is larger than 8, the motor
D350HF is close to the stall condition. For different motors, the
critical P factor values are different. Figure 4 shows that the criti-
cal P factor values for motors D170 and D170HF are only about
1. In the drilling operation, if the pressure drop, flow rate and
rotational speed are measured in real time, then the P factor can be

Correlation Between Torque and

Performance Factor
As was discussed previously, for a given type of PDM, the
torque of a motor is correlated with the P factor. Figures 4 to 9
show the correlation between the P factor and output torque. It
should be mentioned here that the P factors in Figures 4 to 7 were
calculated based on the pressure drop across the power section,
while the P factors in Figures 8 to 9 were calculated based on the
pressure drop across the whole motor assembly, since this was the
available data. As is shown in Figures 4 to 7, for different types of
motors, the data falls into different curves. This can be explained
by the fact that the correlation expressed in Equation (6) does not
account for the effect of the geometry and the lobe configuration
on the motor performance. However, for an individual motor, the
torque vs. P factor data falls into a single curve no matter what the
fluid flow rates are.
Figures 4 to 7 also indicate that, when the P factor is larger than
a certain value, the torque does not change significantly with the FIGURE 7: Correlation between torque and P factor for large
change of the P factor. This means that the motor is close to the Moyno PDMs.

FIGURE 8: Correlation between torque and P factor for Black

FIGURE 5: Correlation between torque and P factor for large Max 31/8 in. 7:8 4-stage PDM pumped with water at different
Drilex PDMs. backpressures.

May 2001, Volume 40, No. 5 51

 FIGURE 9: Correlation between torque and P factor for Black
Max 31/8 in. 7:8 4-stage PDM pumped with commingled fluid at
different back pressures with N2/H20 = 15/0.1.
calculated and the torque can be determined. Therefore, the motor
can be operated in an optimum mode by monitoring the P factor.
It is interesting to note that, in Figure 8, all of the data fall into
a single curve for different test conditions. However, with differ-
ent flow rates, the critical P factor values at which the motor is
close to the stall condition are different. For a flow rate at 208
lpm, the critical P factor is about 14, but for a flow rate of 416
lpm, the motor is close to stall condition when the P factor is
about 40. However, as is shown in Figures 4 to 7, the critical P
factor is the same at different flow rates for a particular type of
motor. This is because, as was mentioned previously, the P factors
were calculated in two different ways between Figures 4 to 7 and
8 to 9.
Figure 9 indicates that the backpressure has a significant effect
on the performance of the PDMs when they are being pumped
through with a commingled fluid. With the same gas/water flow
rates, increasing of the backpressure results(7, 8) in lower torque
output and consequently the motor will stall. Previous studies
came to the same conclusion. However, as is shown in Figure 8,
the backpressure effect on the torque output was ignored when the
motor was pumped through with water.
General Correlation
Based on the above discussion, the correlation expressed with
mechanical power vs. hydraulic power, and torque vs. P factor,
does not account for the effect of geometry and lobe configura-
tion. It also does not account for rheological properties, such as
density and viscosity. Therefore, for different types of motors, the
curves are different. Comparison of different correlations indi-
cates that it is useful to evaluate the efficiency and output
mechanical power with the correlation of mechanical power vs.
hydraulic power. With the plot of P factor vs. torque, the operator
can control the motor in an optimum operation mode. However, it
would be more important and convenient for the design and oper-
ation of PDMs if a more general correlation could be developed,
such as that expressed by Equation (20). However, due to patented
geometric information, this equation cannot be fully developed in
this study.
Figure 10 shows full load torque vs. rotational speed per flow
rate, N/Q, for a variety of motors. The data was collected from
different motor manuals or handbooks(2-8). The figure shows that
the data falls into a straight line on the log-log plot, and the data
can be correlated with the following equation:
N −0.9722
T FL = 474.61 • ( )
Q .................................................................(23)
Equation (23) is valid for all types of motors and is indepen-
dent of motor geometry and lobe number. The equation developed
52
FIGURE 10: Correlation between the full load torque and
rotational speed/flowrate.
in the Drilex motor manual(3) correlates the N/Q with the geomet-
ric parameters of the motor as:
N 10−3
=
Q bAL ...........................................................................................(24)
Combining Equations (23) and (24) results in the following
equation:
T FL = 391685 • ( bAL ) 0.9722 ..............................................................(25)
If the geometric parameters, b, A, and L for a PDM are given,
Equation (25) can be used to predict the full load torque.
Conclusions
In this study, correlations were developed to describe the per-
formance of PDMs while pumping incompressible fluids. The
conclusions are:
1. When a motor is operated under a load less than the full
load, the correlation between mechanical power and
hydraulic power across the PDM power section can be
described with a simple linear equation. For different types
of PDMs, the linear equation is different.
2. A new performance factor called P factor is defined. The P
factor aids in describing PDM performance under different
operating conditions. The critical value of the P factor helps
the operator to prevent stalling the motor.
3. Based on the geometric information, Equation (25) can be
used to predict the full load torque for all types of PDMs.
Due to patented geometric information, Equations (19) and
(20) cannot be fully developed in this study. However, the PDM
manufacturers could further develop these equations. With such
an equation, the performance of a PDM could be described by
geometric parameters of the motor and rheological properties of
the circulation fluid.
In this study, most of the test data was collected using water as
the pumped fluid. The performance of PDMs with
commingled/aerated fluids and pure gas needs to be investigated
more in the near future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to BJ
Services, EnerTech-Landmark Graphics, and Japan National Oil
Corp., for the opportunity to present this paper. As well, Drilex
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Slim Hole Service/Baker Hughes is commended for providing
experimental data for larger sized PDMs.
NOMENCLATURE
A = the cross-sectional flow area between the rotor and
stator, m2
a, α, β = constants in Equation (20)
b = the lobe number of the stator
D = motor outside diameter, m
g = gravitational acceleration constant, 9.81 m/s2
L = stage length, one complete cycle or revolution of the
helical shape of the rotor, m/cycle
P = the performance factor defined in Equation (6)
Pmech = mechanical power output at rotor, kW
Phydraulic = hydraulic power, kW
N = rotary speed, RPM
Pb = backpressure, MPa
Q = flow rate, litres/min (lpm)
T = torque, N.m
T FL = full load torque, N.m
ρ = density of circulated fluid, kg/m3
µ = viscosity of circulated fluid, Pa.s
Π1-Π7 = dimensionless parameters defined in Equations (9) to
(18)
Π1*-Π2*
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft. – lb. × 1.356 E + 00 = Nm
gal (US) × 3.785 E - 03 = m3
HP × 7.457 E - 01 = kW
in. × 2.54 E + 00 = cm
psi × 6.8948 E - 03 = MPa
REFERENCES
1. XU, H., A Method for Modelling Rate of Penetration of Drill Bits
Using Electric and Mud Logging Data; Ph.D. Thesis, Heriot-Watt
University, Scotland, April 1995.
2. Drilling Data Handbook; edited by G. Gabolde and J. Nguyen, Gulf
Publishing Company, P.O. Box 2608, Houston, TX, 77252-2608,
1991.
3. Motor Technology; Drilex Slim Hole Services, 15151
Sommermeryer, Houston, TX, 77041, 1991.
4. Moyno Motor Products; Moyno Oilfield Products, 363 N. Sam
Houston Parkway E., Suite 520, Houston, TX, 77060, 1996.
5. Operations Manual and Motor Specifications; 2nd edition, Black
Max Downhole Tool Ltd., 1802 – 4th Street, Nisku, AB, T9E 7T8,
1995.
6. Motor Handbook; 2nd edition, Trudril Downhole Motor Technology,
Edmonton, AB, May 1996.
7. LI, J., TUDOR, R., and COX, R., Positive Displacement Motor Test
With Two-Phase Flow; paper SPE/ICoTA 38425, presented at the
2nd North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Montgomery, TX,
April 1– 3, 1997.
8. LI, J., TUDOR, R., SONEGO, G., and VARCOE, B., Performance
of Positive Displacement Downhole Motors Under Two-Phase Flow;
Petroleum Society paper 97-73, presented at the 48th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society, Calgary, AB, June 8 –
11, 1997.
9. ROBELLO, G., MISKA, S., and LI, J., Analysis of Positive
Displacement Motor (PDM) Operating on Incompressible and
Compressible Fluid System; Oil and Gas Journal, August 1998.
10. GERHART, P.M. and GROSS, R.J., Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics; Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1985.
Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript,
Evaluation and Prediction of the Performance of Positive
Displacement Motor (PDM) (98-104) first presented at the 49th
Annual Technical Meeting, June 8 – 10, 1998, in Calgary,
Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 22, 1998; edito-
rial comments sent to the author(s) May 11, 2000; revised manu-
script received December 4, 2000; paper approved for pre-press
February 23, 2001; final approval May 1, 2001.
May 2001, Volume 40, No. 5
Authors’ Biographies
Jeff Li is an engineer in the Coiled Tubing
Research and Engineering division with BJ
Services in Calgary. Previously he worked
with Canadian Fracmaster as a staff engi-
neer in the Coiled Tubing Department. He
holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in the
People’s Republic of China. He also holds
M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical
engineering from the University of
Saskatchewan. Mr. Li is a member of SPE,
the Petroleum Society, and ICoTA.
Robin Tudor is currently district manager
in Estevan at Canadian Fracmaster Ltd. He
holds a B.Sc. in electrical engineering from
the University of Alberta. He has been
employed by Canadian Fracmaster since
1989 and worked in fracturing, cementing
and coiled tubing drilling services. Mr.
Tudor is a member of the Petroleum
Society, SPE, CADE, and ICoTA.
Leyb Ginzburg is currently an underbal-
anced drilling engineer with Tesco
Corporation. Before joining Tesco he spent
seven years with Canadian Fracmaster; the
last three years as a staff engineer in the
Coil Tubing Department. He holds a B.Sc.
degree in civil engineering from Riga
Polytechnics, Latvia. His interests include
UBD as well as coiled tubing applications
for underbalanced drilling and conventional
well treatment and stimulation. He has
worked on a numerous projects in Western Canada. He is a mem-
ber of the Petroleum Society, APEGGA, and SPE.
Robello Samuel is a principal technologist
in the Research and Development division
of Landmark Graphics. He is presently
serving as a reviewer for SPE Drilling
Engineering, associate technical editor for
the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, and member of The
Steering Committee for ASME—
Petroleum Division Conferences. He is also
the chairman of the SPE multilateral
drilling Technical Interest Group (TIG). He worked at Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation (India) from 1983 to 1992 as a drilling
engineer. He holds B.S., M.S. (mechanical engineering) degrees
from Madras University, M.S. and Ph.D. (petroleum engineering)
degrees from Tulsa University. Specialized research areas include:
wellbore hudraulics, and cuttings transport; downhole tools;
drilling optimization models.
H. Xu (photograph and biography not available)
Charlie Grigor is the manager of technical
services thru-tubing for Smith Services,
Red Baron Group in Houston. He holds a
B.Sc. in engineering technology from
Robert Gordon’s Institute of Technology in
Aberdeen, Scotland. Previously, he was
with Drilex and Baker Hughes.
53