See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268979010

UNDERBALANCED DRILLING AND ITS ADVANCEMENTS: AN OVERVIEW

Article · September 2014

CITATION READS

1 2,037

1 author:

Amit Saxena
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of foam fluid for drilling of coalbed methane wells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amit Saxena on 05 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
Volume 4, Issue 2
www.stmjournals.com

Underbalanced Drilling and Its Advancements: An

Overview
Saxena A., Ojha K. *, Pathak A. K.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Abstract
Ever increasing global energy demand associated with depletion of conventional
hydrocarbon resources drives exploration and production (E&P) industry to invent
advanced new technologies in frontier areas of drilling, production and reservoir
engineering to enhance hydrocarbon production from unconventional resources or
depleted reservoirs. Demand to produce from a low pressure marginal reservoir and the
discoveries of naturally fractured reservoirs lead to the development of new drilling
techniques like underbalanced drilling along with other technological advances.
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) technology can overcome a number of problems
encountered during drilling, which is otherwise impossible with conventional
overbalanced drilling. However, in-depth understanding of the characteristic behavior of
different components during operation is an essential criteria for efficient application of
this technology. In drilling operation, drilling fluid plays a very important role in
controlling the entire operation efficiently without any interruption or damage to the
reservoir. Foam-based drilling fluid, one of the most favored techniques of UBD needs a
thorough study for its applicability and smooth functioning under bottom hole condition.
Foam fluid is very much unpredictable for its very sensitive rheological behavior,
specifically for small variation in pressure, temperature, and composition along with
other parameters during drilling. Hence, utmost care should be taken for proper
designing of foam-based fluid, failing of which may negatively affect the process. Present
paper deals with the developments of foam fluid as an efficient drilling fluid since its
inception, composition and rheology, merits and demerits, comparison with conventional
fluids which will help the researchers working in the field to get the intensive information
without consulting a large literature.

Keywords: Underbalanced drilling, Foam, Formation damage, Differential sticking,

Fluid loss

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: keka_ojha@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION production rate by alleviating formation

In order to meet the ever increasing global
energy demand, especially of fossil fuels, new
techniques and other domains of hydrocarbons
are being explored for continuous exploration
of oil and gas. The essentiality of the technical
development can be understood in view of
increasing production from naturally fractured,
depleted or tight formations. Underbalanced
drilling, which was not considered to be
economical and efficient for conventional
reservoirs, nowadays takes over the baton for
efficient extraction of hydrocarbons from these
reservoirs. Maintenance of the lower
hydrostatic head at the bottom-hole during
underbalanced drilling improves the
damage caused by migration of drilling fluid
into it. However, failing to design the fluid and
process efficiently may result in severe
damage [1–3].
Aerated drilling fluids have been used in
drilling technology since the mid of 1930s [4].
The commercial use of underbalanced drilling
in the form of aerated mud has started in the
recent past [5, 6]. Aqueous foam, which is a
special class of aerated fluid, has been used in
drilling operations since 1975 [7–9].
Formations having pressure lower than the
pressures exerted by the hydrostatic head of
the fresh water column requires being drilled

JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved Page 37
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
underbalanced. Ill effects caused by conven-
tional drilling fluid may be overcome by using
specially designed fluids which are capable of
efficiently performing necessary drilling
operations without causing formation damage
[10]. Air, aerated water, foam fluids is
frequently used to mitigate the problems
related to formation damage, pipe sticking or
lost circulation with the added advantage of
the high rate of penetration. Foam fluids can
provide the maximum efficiency as it can also
prevent fire and explosion in addition to other
advantages of underbalanced drilling fluid [11,
12]. When the condition arises that the
formations under consideration are highly
fractured and cannot be drilled using
conventional drilling fluid, use of
underbalanced drilling technique becomes
inevitable. Subnormal pressured formation or
mature reservoir is being encountered and the
reservoir has depleted from its original
condition then it becomes impossible to use
over balanced drilling technique. In this
situation foam developed by inclusion of
noncondensable gases such as nitrogen, CO2,
etc. in an aqueous surfactant media can be
used as the best candidate for drilling the well
underbalanced [13]. Foam drilling prevents
formation damage that can be induced by
conventional techniques and applies less
pressure than the formation pressure [14]. The
reduced pressure differential between the
reservoir and the wellbore during foam drilling
encourages production of formation fluids and
gases [15].
In foam drilling, flow from the reservoir is
driven into the wellbore during production,
rather than away from it as in the case of
conventional drilling. Although initially more
costly, underbalanced drilling reduces
common conventional drilling problems such
as loss of circulating fluid, differential
sticking, reduced formation damage, etc.
Additionally, underbalanced drilling extends
the life of the drill bit because the foam cools
the bit while quickly removing cuttings [1].
An important factor in successful
underbalanced drilling is maintaining the
underbalanced condition throughout the
drilling operation. To accomplish this,
preplanning and onsite engineering are critical
to the success of underbalanced drilling
procedures [16].
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
The main cause for its lesser success is the
difficulty in maintaining the underbalanced
conditions. Also, its stability under bottom
hole condition is susceptible to increased
temperature and column weight. Moreover,
foam-based drilling is the only technique in
the domain of underbalanced drilling, which
can handle large water influxes and has a
maximum cutting carrying capability as
compared to any other underbalanced drilling
fluid. This review work enables a better
understanding of the underbalanced drilling
techniques and its applications in various
domains of exploration and production (E&P)
industry.
CLASSIFICATION OF DRILLING
TECHNIQUES
The drilling industry has evolved over the
years with the development of new techniques
to drill the more complex formations even up
to a few miles which were thought to be
impossible in the recent past. The intricacies
are overcome by utilization of innovative
technologies and applied chemistry involved
in the process. Scientists have made
revolutionary contributions to drilling fluid by
continuous development of fluids which can
efficiently drill in more and more complex
environments.
A drilling fluid is considered to be an efficient
one if it performs its functions.
(i) Carrying and suspend the cuttings.
(ii) Lubrication and cooling of bit.
(iii) Stabilizing the well bore.
(iv) Forming cake to prevent fluid invasion to
formation and other jobs in an efficient
manner [17, 18].
Thus, there is no existence of any universal
fluid which can efficiently drill every
formation. Each category of formations
demands for very specialized drilling fluid.
Thus, it is obvious that highly fractured and
tight formations cannot be drilled with the
same fluid. Conventionally used drilling fluids
have high density and they may cause severe
problems such as lost circulation, formation
damage, and differential sticking during the
drilling operation of highly fractured
reservoirs. So the need for an alternate drilling
fluid becomes inevitable to conserve and
economically exploit the fast depleting energy
Page 38
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
resource [19, 20].The different conventional
and unconventional drilling fluids are
described below:
Conventional/Overbalanced Drilling
Conventional drilling, the oldest method used
for drilling well now has landed in the most
sophisticated technology. Overbalanced
drilling is defined as the process in which the
hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid column
exceeds the pressure exerted by the formation
being drilled [21]. In the initial stages of E&P
industry when the formations were drilled
underbalanced due to insufficient
technological advancements there were
frequent instances of accidents due to lack of
availability of effective wellbore control
techniques. But the technoeconomic
development has ignited the development of
fluid that could serve the purpose; and thus the
over balanced drilling came into existence
[11]. Over balanced drilled wells provide a
mechanism for primary well control.
Characteristics of conventional drilling fluids
for stable and controlled operations may be
recognized for
1. Maintenance of hydrostatic pressure in the
wellbore due to the high density of the
fluid used (mud) and the density
contribution of any drilled cuttings.
2. Dynamic pressure from the fluid
movement due to friction of the circulating
fluid used and the relative fluid motion
caused by surge/swab of the drill pipe.
3. Imposed pressure, which occurs due to the
pipe being sealed at surface resulting in an
area with pressure differential (e.g., a
rotating head or stripper element).
For conventional drilling the bottom hole
pressure can vary with hundreds of psi from
dynamic to static conditions. Hence drilling
the formations with a narrow drilling pressure
window is considered unsafe and impractical
using conventional drilling techniques [22].
This technique was reliable and safe.
However, some disadvantages associated with
it could be detrimental to the well bore
production in the long term and may not be
economically feasible [15, 20]. A few
drawbacks associated with overbalanced
drilling are:
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
 It only exploits the most productive zone
and less productive zones are left
unattended but economic feasibility of the
process overshadowed the negative
prospects of this and eventually
production suffers.
 Formation damage up to a certain limit
cannot be avoided. Solid and fluid
invasion into the formation generally
results in skin damage and can greatly
affect the production.
 Lost circulation, it occurs when the
injected fluid moves into the fractures and
is not retrieved on the surface to
unbalanced pressure conditions, thus
overshooting the drilling cost.
 Drilling rate (rate of penetration) is
comparatively slow and the drill string
wears out at a rapid rate.
 Unexpected blowouts can take place if
high pressure zones are encountered.
 Differential sticking is a common
phenomenon which results in loss of
drilling time and cost [21–25].
Underbalanced Drilling
Underbalanced drilling is defined as the
process in which the hydrostatic head of a
drilling fluid is intentionally designed to be
lower than the pressure of the formation being
drilled [26].The reservoirs whose production
have reached its peak and started to decline are
referred as matured reservoirs. The decline in
hydrocarbon production rate makes the drilling
of such formations an expensive affair. It is
found that formations above and below
matured reservoirs have high pore pressure
and needs to be balanced with high density
drilling fluid. This high density fluid exploits
the depleted zones and problems of formation
damage and lost circulation are encountered.
The solution to this is drilling underbalanced
in which the density of drilling fluid has been
just enough to balance the lowest pore
pressure in the reservoir [7, 27]. If fractured
reservoirs are drilled using the conventional
technique they could get damaged and
production is hampered along with problems
of lost circulation and differential sticking.
Underbalanced drilling technology is the
utilization of compressed air or other gases as
the rotary circulating fluid to carry the rock
cuttings to the surface that are generated at the
Page 39
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
bottom hole during the advancement of drill
bit along the course of well bore. The
compressed air can also be injected into the
well along with the incompressible fluids such
as water, drilling mud, etc. Aerated drilling
fluids are being used in drilling technology
since the mid of 1930s, though the first
engineering discussions on an aerated drilling
mud was published in 1953 [4].Currently
underbalanced drilling contributes to 20%–
30% of the total drilling operations [28]. The
hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid may be
naturally less than the formation pressure or it
can be created artificially. The artificial state
may be created by adding air, nitrogen, or
natural gas, to the liquid phase of the drilling
fluid. Whether induced or natural, this can
result in an influx of formation fluids to the
wellbore which must be circulated from the
well and controlled at the surface to prevent
accident [29].
Typical underbalanced drilling system/process
is shown in Figure 1 in which a high pressure
gas in injected down the bore hole which
carries the cuttings along its course to the
surface. This cutting carrying stream is passed
through a cutting separator and cuttings are
separated. In this assembly the foam is being
produced by injection of nitrogen into a stream
of base fluid (surfactant + polymer). The
produced foam passes through the drill pipe to
the bit from where it carries the cutting to the
surface along with the formation fluid through
the annulus. The stream is fed into the UDB
flow control manifold. Under balanced
drilling is used in many locations in the world
where sufficient reservoir depletion exists or
the reservoirs are highly fractured which
damages the formation and prohibits the
economic production of hydrocarbon [30].
Success rate with the underbalanced drilling
has not been up to the mark; the prime reason
is the improper application of this technology
and inability to maintain the underbalanced
condition all the time. Nonexistence of filter
cake results in a net outflow of fluid from
formation. Hence, slightest imbalance in the
pressure condition and relatively small rise in
overbalance condition can cause huge invasion
of solid and fluid into the formation leading to
severe damage. Sometimes it is more than the
damage caused by overbalanced drilling using
a good drilling fluid under the same reservoir
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
conditions [31, 32]. Application of
underbalanced drilling is growing at a rapid
rate because of its properties to reduce
invasive formation damage and drilling
problems associated with many horizontal
wells in challenging reservoir conditions [33].
Application of underbalanced drilling is
becoming more popular and economical
specifically to the depleted, marginal and
complex reservoirs [34]. The severity of the
problems caused by conventional drilling fluid
depends on mud rheology, time period through
which it is exposed to the mud, pressure
exerted by the mud, the permeability of the
rock and reservoir rock’s mineralogical
composition. The “skin effect” comes into
account because of solid and mud invasion
which can be attributed to different damage
mechanism and can significantly alter the
production and/or injection rates. Thus the use
of underbalanced drilling becomes inevitable
[25, 34].
If water influx is encountered while drilling
than drilling underbalanced using foam as a
drilling fluid if the most feasible option
because of its high cutting carrying capability
along with its water handling capacity.
Furthermore shale’s are also found pressurized
along with the sands. This requires
simultaneous pressure stabilization. Drilling
these formations safely with conventional
technique is a tedious job [35, 36]. The drilling
fluid for highly fractured wells such as coal-
bed methane is selected after analyzing the
geological settings of the coal. Minimal use of
surfactant and polymer produced foam greatly
reduces lost circulation and avoid damage of
coal seams. More over foam can control the
increased volume of methane gas liberated
during multilateral horizontal drilling of coal
seams [37].
FIELD APPLICATIONS
Underbalanced Drilling has been used in
largest Algerian oil field Hassi Messaoud
which was discovered in 1956. The production
was from a hard sandstone reservoir [38].
Sonatrach introduced the underbalanced
drilling in this field in March 2002 to
eliminate the problems associated with
conventional drilling fluid. The encouraging
results were obtained in terms of increased
drilling rates up to five times but reduced bit
Page 40
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
life. Eventually the total drilling time was
reduced from the original. Also, the
production rates were increased above field
average. In 2004, UBD was introduced into a
carbonate field in northern Oman to avail
increased production and enhanced drilling
rates [39]. Up to 2006, 16 wells were
successfully drilled in this field using UBD
and are today producing at double the initial
production rate.
In 1995 Mexican oil companies started using
UBD with intent to exploit depleted reservoirs.
But soon it was being implemented in fields
experiencing formation damage to enhance the
productivity and reduce formation damage and
other associated problems [40]. In early 2000s
UBD was employed from the Burgos basin in
Northern Mexico to the rich classic fields of
Fig. 1: Underbalanced Drilling Operation [34].
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
southern Mexico along with northern and
southern Gulf of Mexico offshore blocks. The
revamping of these fields enhanced the growth
of the associated companies attributed to the
increased production rates and minimal
damage.
The Quinn #3H a highly fractured high
temperature well is located in Brooke land
Field in Tyler County near Spurger, Teaxs.
Over the years it has witnessed six failed
drilling attempts following a blowout. In 2009
Signa Engineering successfully drilled this
well using managed pressure drilling [41]. It is
evident from the available literature that UBD
is in the phase of development all around the
globe serving the demand for increased
production and minimal damage.
Page 41
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
OBJECTIVES OF UNDERBALAN
CED DRILLING
The prime objectives of underbalanced drilling
can be broken down into two main categories
[42, 43].
 Maximizing hydrocarbon recovery.
 Minimizing drilling problems.
Maximizing Hydrocarbon Recovery
Underbalanced drilling ensures higher
hydrocarbon recovery in the following
manner:
Reduction in Formation Damage
Reduction in invasive formation damage and
near wellbore skin effects result in higher
production rates from formation under
consideration and it also eliminates the
necessity of stimulation and completion
operations [31, 44]. When conventional
drilling is employed for drilling the fractured
or matured reservoir the pressure of the
hydrostatic column is above the pressure
exerted by the formations being drilled.
During overbalanced drilling operations,
higher hydrostatic pressure of the well bore
may cause invasion of drilling fluid into the
formation, thus causing a skin around the
wellbore. Skin formed around the wellbore
restricts formation fluids to move into the
wellbore during production and reduce the
production. Invaded filtrate may also reduce
formation damage because of
noncompatibility with formation fluid. This
also leads to high fluid loss. These effects are
more prominent in case of fracture reservoirs.
Drilling fluids may move into long distance
into the formation causing recovery of
hydrocarbon a very difficult job. Moreover, in
tight reservoir, higher hydrostatic pressure can
create fracture and similar effects may be
observed as discussed for fractured reservoirs.
If a UDB technique is employed in drilling
such formation where the pressure employed
by drilling fluid is kept below the pressure of
the formations being drilled, the lesser
hydrostatic pressure keeps the existing
fractures intact in the same state and the
hydrocarbons can be retrieved at surface along
with the drilling fluid. This reduces the
formation damage drastically [28].
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
Early Rate of Production
Due to maintenance of lower hydrostatic
pressure in the wellbore, as soon as the drill-
bit encounters the pay-zone, formation fluid
will start to flow into it. Hence, hydrocarbons
may be collected as soon as the productive
zone is encountered during under balanced
drilling. It is only possible in underbalanced
drilling to sell the produced hydrocarbon
during drilling stage [45].
Reduced Stimulation
Removal of extreme and expensive completion
and stimulation process as there is a less/no
invasion of drilling fluid and solids into the
reservoir. Underbalanced well generally does
not need any stimulation. Moreover,
stimulation may also reduce well productivity
in some cases, e.g., when the wells are acid
washed [15].
Enhanced Recovery
Application of UBD can significantly increase
the life of a well by alleviating the formation
damage [46]. Moreover the lower draw down
in UBD may lower the possibility of water
conning during production. UBD has been
practiced in number of fields so far where
recovery of the hydrocarbon also significantly
enhanced. An example of such a case is
described here.
Underbalanced drilling being carried out in
Eastern Middle East in a sand stone reservoir
having a true vertical depth of 10,500 ft, pore
pressure of 3400 psi, with a hole size of 5–
7/8″. The well type was directional new drill.
It witnessed an increase in production rates
from 1.5 to 5.2 MMcfd. Another sandstone
reservoir in Arabian Golf having a true vertical
depth of 3250–4500 ft and measured depth of
4800–6000 ft with a pore pressure of 970–
1320 psi, having hole size 6–1/8” was drilled
underbalanced. The well type was 1600 ft
horizontal laterals. This well reduced the
recovery time just to half from 30 days in first
to 15 days in seventh [25].
Minimizing Drilling Problems
The second main objective which has acted as
a fulcrum of underbalanced drilling is its
capacity to minimize the drilling problems
associated with conventional drilling.
Page 42
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
Differential Sticking
Underbalanced drilling reduces the challenges
associated with differential sticking [47]. As in
underbalanced condition the reservoir pressure
exceeds well bore pressure which pushes the
pipe away from the walls of the bore
combined with the lack of any filter cake.
Thus the possibilities of formation damage and
differential sticking problems are uncommon.
This is especially useful when drilling with
coiled tubing in absence of tool joint
connections [47].
No Fluid Losses
Maintenance of the underbalanced condition
of the well bore alleviates the fluid loss
problem. This reduces the extra fluid
requirement during the fluid in turn reducing
the cost of operation. As per the previous
discussion regarding reduction in formation
damage during employing UBD technique it is
mentioned that hydrostatic head is maintained
at low value than the formation pressure. Thus,
formation fluid pressure is high enough to
prevent the drilling fluid into flow into the
formation, and fractures/fissure etc. if any.
Hence, there is no loss of circulation fluids
into the reservoir as in case of conventional
drilling fluid where there are fluid losses due
to higher hydrostatic pressure created by the
drilling fluid column [48].
Improved Penetration Rate
The reduction in the over pressure above the
formation pressure has a significant effect on
the penetration rate. The increased production
rate along with effective cleaning of cuttings
from the wellbore prolongs the bit life [49].
Reduction of Equivalent Circulation Density
in Extended Reach Wells
The drilling of long horizontal or near
horizontal sections creates more and more
friction pressure in the annulus. This friction
pressure acts on the bottom of the well and
slowly increases the overpressure over the
formation interval. This results in a reduction
of the rate of penetration (ROP) and increases
the chances of formation fluid loss. UBD
provides a reduction in annular friction losses
as it allows the reservoir energy (formation
pressure) to push fluids out of the borehole
[31, 48].
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Additional Advantages
It can decimate the problems related to
disposal of exotic and costly mud. It helps in
identifying the productive zone in the reservoir
efficiently. It also has the potential to test the
well while drilling [49, 1].
CLASSIFICATION OF UNDERBAL
ANCED DRILLING TECHNIQUES
Underbalanced drilling may be classified into
a number of categories such as Air and gas
drilling, Mist/unstable foam drilling, stable
foam drilling as described below [50].
Air and Gas drilling
The use of air or gas as a circulation medium
started in early 1950s. Encouraging results are
achieved from this low density media when it
is being used to drill hard formations
producing minimal formation fluids. It utilizes
the compressed air or gas to serve as a drilling
fluid for cutting transport [51]. Normally the
density of compressed air or gas varies in the
range of 0.01–0.1 pounds per gallon (ppg). It
has a very poor cutting carrying capability and
the cuttings are small in size such as dust. It
may be because they get grinded by their
mechanical interaction with drill bit and drill
pipe. Its application is restricted to only very
dry formations. When drilling of wet
formation is carried out, a high gas flow rate is
required to bring the cuttings to the surface. If
wet formation is being drilled with this
technique the fines along with formation fluid
forms a mud. It develops a restriction at the
top of drill collar and restricts the fluid flow.
This leads to an increase in bottom hole
pressure and fluid density there by reducing
fluid velocity and cutting carrying capacity of
drilling fluid [52]. It may cause slugging
depending on velocity in annulus to bring
cutting to the surface. However, air and gas
drilling is suitable for drilling of dry
formations as it can provide
 faster rates of penetration,
 longer bit life,
 good cement jobs,
 better production, and
 Minimalwater influx requirement [51].
Mist/Unstable Foam Drilling
It is similar to air drilling, except for the
incorporation of liquid into the system.
Page 43
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
Compressed air or gas is injected into the
borehole along with an incompressible fluid
such as water or oil in this technique. The
addition of liquid into the gas stream leads to
formation of mist/unstable foam making it
unstable foam drilling technique. This liquid is
added to saturate the cuttings and preventing it
from choking the top of drill collar and
prevent pipe sticking. It also can reduce the
risk of mud ring formation. It is widely used
for formations such as CBM, etc. where water
is present because of its higher efficiency to
lift liquid to the surface compared to air.
Cutting removal is governed by annular
velocities. However, it requires a higher
volume of air (30%–40 % more than dry air
drilling) and pressures exceeds normal air
drilling operations. Incorrect air/gas liquid
ratio can lead to an abrupt increase in pressure.
Characteristics of mist-drilling:
 Similar to air drilling, but with addition of
liquid.
 Cutting removal rate is governed by
annular velocities of fluids.
 Reduces formation of mud rings.
 High volumes required (30%–40% more
than dry air drilling).
 Pressures generally higher than dry air
drilling.
 Incorrect air/gas-liquid ratio can lead to an
abrupt increase in pressure [53].
Stable Foam Drilling
They are being used as circulation fluids in
drilling and work over operations from 1960s.
The use of preformed foam as a drilling fluid
gained importance in the 1970s when the
problems of lost circulations were
encountered. Lost circulation is undesirable
because it requires additional drilling fluid to
make up for the loss, thereby adding a
significant cost to the drilling operation. Lost
circulation also damages the productivity
zone, which can lead to well blowout with
serious safety and environmental
consequences. Earlier, air was used to drill
underbalanced but the foam’s ability to carry
large amount of cutting along with its ability
to inhibit down-hole fire and explosion made it
a worthy competitor. The advent of foam as a
drilling fluid saved thousands of dollars and
reduced other associated problems which were
not even thought of when it was being
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
employed [54]. The field results gave a boost
to the users of this technique. Foam was used
in different parts of the world where mature,
depleted or highly fractured reservoirs are
encountered. Comparative results showed
increased productivity, early oil production,
enhanced ultimate recovery, reduced drilling
time, and safer operations [21]. Stable foam
consists of water, surfactant or foaming agent,
gas or air. The water and surfactant form a
continuum of foam. The incompressible fluid
(with surfactant) and compressible air (gas) are
simultaneously injected from the top of the
drill string. These fluid streams get mixed
along the course and pass through the nozzles
of drill bit. The stable foam is generated at the
bottom of the annulus. Produce foam entrains
the cutting to the surface [30].
The foam quality is defined as the volume
fraction of gas phase of foam. It has been
studied that foam qualities in the range of
70%–95% are best suitable for being used as
drilling fluid. The specific gravity of the foam
can vary in the range of 0.2–0.7. When gas
fractions in the foam exceed 95% it forms
unstable foam or mist which is unsuitable for
being used as a drilling fluid as it cannot hold
the cuttings in their matrix [55, 56]. The large
viscosity of these systems is attributed to
increased surface areas. The viscosity of these
foams is improved by adding vicosifiers in the
base solution [57]. Under given reservoir
condition and given liquid and gas flow rates
foam quality is a function of pressure.
Backpressure is often required to keep the
foam stable along its course to the surface.
When the gas phase fraction falls below 60%
the foam structure collapse and phase
separation occurs. This makes the foam
unsuitable to be used as a drilling fluid [52].
With the growth in use of underbalanced
drilling techniques, the use of foam as a
drilling fluid has increased drastically. The
flow and behavior properties of foam are more
complicated as compared to other drilling
fluid. Its properties change along its course
within the well bore. So the study of its
rheology and variation with varying reservoir
condition is inevitable. Proper estimation of its
rheological properties helps in modeling of its
hydrological behavior [58]. The selection of
underbalanced drilling pressure window can
Page 44
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
be explained easily using the line diagram in
Figure 2. The blue line demarcates the
reservoir pressure at a particular depth. The
light red line above it denotes the pressure that
will be exerted if conventional drilling
technique is employed in drilling the
formation. This pressure is almost 200–1000
psi greater than the formation pressure at that
particular depth. While the red line below it
denoted the pressure which will be employed
when underbalanced drilling technique is
employed. It can be seen the UBD pressure is
slightly lower than the formation pressure, but
is really very advantageous when compared to
conventional drilling methods [59]. It can
eliminated most of the problems associated
with conventional drilling technique. Figure 2
clearly gives us the operating window for
pressure that is needed during the
underbalanced drilling operation.
Characteristics of foam-based drilling can be
described as
 This technique helps in eliminating the use
of additional down hole equipment.
 Since the major portion of the annulus is
occupied by the foam, the variety of
bottom hole pressures can be achieved.
 The stable foam matrix has a high yield
point. This can keep the small rock
cuttings suspended when the drilling
Depth (ft)
Fig. 2: Schematic Diagram for Selection of Pressure Window for Drilling with Height.
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
operations are discontinued for work over
jobs or making connections.
 Stable foam possesses very high carrying
capacity. Improved cuttings transport
results in reduced pump.
 Stable foam increases the production rate.
 The breaking down of the foam at surface
needs to be addressed at the design stage
[52].
More sophisticated surface equipments are
required to carry out underbalanced drilling
operation [60]. A comparative study of
different underbalanced techniques is shown in
Table 1. Surfactants reduce the interfacial
tension between the liquid films thereby,
providing the stability of the liquid film. With
changing requirements in drilling industry the
modification in production techniques of foam
is taking place. Some polymers or stabilizer
such as hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), Guar
gum, Xanthan Gum, Carboxymethylcellulose
(CMC), PHPA, PAA, etc. are added to
enhance the stability and mechanical strength
of the bubbles. These surfactants and polymer
get adsorbed on the surface of the films and
provide interfacial elasticity to the lamella of
the bubbles, thereby enhancing its stability and
foamabilty [61]. Polymers used to enhance the
properties are selected on the basis of stability
they provide, bio-degradability, cost etc.
[9, 62].
Page 45
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
Table 1: Comparison between Different Underbalanced Drilling Techniques.
Classification Principal Ingredients
Air Dry air
Mist Air, water or mud
Foam Air, water, foaming agent
Air, water containing polymers
Stable foam
and/or bentonite; foaming agent
ADVANCEMENTS IN FOAM
DRILLING TECHNIQUE
The introduction of gelled foam/stiff foam was
a revolutionary technical advancement in this
field. This reduces pressure drilling
contributed largely to the lost circulation and
formation damage in the U.S. This fluid was
prepared by mixing water, soda ash, betonites
clay, and guar gum in suitable combination
and forms slurry. The foaming agent was
added to the slurry at the drill site. The
injection rates of the air and slurry were
controlled to maintain the foam quality and
produce consistent quality foam [63]. This
improved well bore stability, especially in
caving zones and a very low rising rate of
foam was sufficient to bring the cuttings to the
surface. A further advancement of this was the
development of a foam generating unit. In this
device known quantities of gas and liquid was
mixed and the preformed foam was introduced
down the bore hole. The advantage of this
technique is that the composition of material
and the gas can be varied according to the
requirement of well bore [34, 52]. The foam
produced from above technique is used to drill
shallow depth. But when deeper wells are
needed to be drilled, it is impossible to drill
with preformed foam. The rheology and other
properties of foam vary along its course within
the drill pipe. Thus, base liquid for foam
production flows as an aerated liquid and
when it passes through the bit nozzle foam is
produced and flows up the annulus as foam
[28]. Recent advancements have been the
development of aphorn-based drilling fluids.
Aphorn are defined as the micro bubbles
consisting of air encapsulated in a multilayer
shell. This shell is made up and maintained by
the chemical equilibrium along with various
other components in base fluid. Initially
aphorn drilling fluid used in the fields was
made up of polymeric water-based systems.
Now clay water-based alternative and
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
Characteristics
Fast drilling in dry and hard rocks no water influx dust
Wet formations but little water influx high annular velocity
Stable rock, moderate water flow can be tolerated
Large volumes of water, reduced pressure conditions, big
cuttings removed at lower annular velocities, polymer and
foaming agent selected to afford hole stability, Tolerate salts,
foam can be formed at surface
nonaqueous-based drilling fluids have also
been developed [36, 64]. The shell of these
effective aphorn is strong and impermeable.
The strong shells prevents the leakage of
encapsulated air and help it to sustain down
hole pressures. Nowadays a blend of polymer
and surfactant called aphorn stabilizers are
introduced into the system which enhances
their properties to a much greater extent [65].
Limitations of Foam-based Drilling Fluid
Limitations of foam-based drilling are
considered on the basis of technical and
economical grounds. Broadly these limitations
can be classified as
(a) problems in well bore stability,
(b) problems of liquid influx,
(c) problems in directional drilling,
(d) problems in safety, and
(e) Economic consideration.
Problems in Well Bore Stability
The imbalance between the formation and
hydrostatic pressure can lead to mechanical
collapse of the borehole. Large shale pieces
are observed during underbalanced drilling
operation. These shale pieces are not the result
of cutting action of the bit, but due to
sloughing or caving of the bore hole. This kind
of stability is encountered in water sensitive
clay formations. Sudden sloughing can also
trigger drill pipe sticking. A lower limit for
borehole pressure is put on underbalanced
drilling pressure to maintain the stability
[66, 67].
Problems of Liquid Influx
Liquid influx is referred as the flow of
formation fluid and water into the wellbore.
Water influx can lead to mud ring formation
which can eventually trap the drill string. Very
large water influx increases the flowing
bottom hole pressure, which reduces the
cutting carrying capability of the drilling fluid.
Page 46
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
This can lead to pipe sticking. Moreover the
cost of disposal of excessive water is a major
concern. The other favorable component is the
hydrocarbon production. But too high
production rate, which is beyond the handling
capacity of the surface equipment can lead to
blow out. Hence this needs to be converted to
overbalance [68–71].
Problems in Directional Drilling
Conventional directional drilling tools are
designed to drill overbalanced. Most of these
tools cannot be used with compressible
drilling fluids. Mud pulse telemetry
measurement while drilling tool cannot be
used as the pulse does not propagate through
compressible fluids which are used in
underbalanced drilling. Hence, specialized
electromagnetic measurement while drilling
tool are needed to carry out the operation. The
performance of motors is greatly reduced
whey they are used on compressible fluid [52,
71–72].
Problems in Safety
Some of the safety considerations associated
with foam drilling is the conditions of pressure
imbalance. Sometimes high pressure zones are
encountered while drilling, which can lead to
blow out. So specialized equipments are
required for trouble free drilling operation [73,
74].
Economic Consideration
In many locations the environmental
considerations make the disposal of excessive
water a costly affair. The benefits of foam
drilling may not be able to compensate for the
increased cost of liquid handling. Moreover,
local equipment availability and logistics play
a vital role during the consideration of
underbalanced drilling project [16, 52].
CONCLUSION
Underbalanced drilling is becoming an
emerging technology for marginal and
fractured because of its nondamaging
character, low fluid loss, and enhancing
productivity of well without workover or
stimulation job after drilling. However, intense
attention is needed to control the wellbore
fluid hydrodynamics to obtain the maximum
benefit out of it. The versatility and
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
tremendous cutting carrying capability of foam
can outclass all other methods of
underbalanced drilling amongst all the classes.
It can handle enormous amounts of water
influx making it a strong candidate for drilling
while drill underbalanced.
A detailed investigation of hydrodynamics
properties and rheological behavior of
underbalanced drilling fluid is needed to be
carried out before implementing it into a
million dollar project. The study is important
because of the compressible nature of the
drilling fluids used in UBD which influences
the behavior of drilling fluid drastically during
reservoir bottom hole conditions.
This study will be helpful in understanding the
basic theories and advancements in the field of
underbalanced drilling along with its future
prospects in the E&P industry. Also, it will
provide thoughtful information in the selection
of the best technique for drilling a particular
formation by assessing the pros and cons of
different techniques available.
REFERENCES
1. Ramalho J. Underbalanced in the
reservoir, an integrated technology
approach. Presented at SPE Russian Oil
And Gas Technical Conference and
Exhibition; 2006 Oct 3–6; Moscow,
Russia. SPE; 2006.
2. Bennion DB, Lunan B, Saponja J. Under
balanced drilling and completion operation
to minimize formation damage- reservoir
screening criteria for optimum application.
J Can Pet Technol. 1998;37(9):36–50p.
3. Qutob H, Khlaifat AL, Barakat N.
Underbalanced drilling technology for
unconventional gas reservoir. Presented at
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition;
2011 Oct 24–26; Muscat, Oman. SPE;
2011.
4. Bobo, RA, Barrett HM. Aeration of
drilling fluids. World Oil. 1953; 145(4).
5. Rankin MD, Friesenhahn TJ, Price WR.
Lightened fluid hydraulics and inclined
boreholes. SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference; 1989 Feb 28–Mar 3; New
Orleans, Louisiana. SPE; 1989.
Page 47
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
6. Claytor SB, Manning KJ, Schmalzried
DL. Drilling a medium-radius horizontal
well with aerated drilling fluid: A case 16.
study. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference;
1991 Mar 11–14; Amsterdam,
Netherlands. SPE; 1991.
7. Negrao AF, Lage ACVM, Cunha JC. An
overview of air/gas/foam drilling in Brazil.
Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling 17.
Conference; 1999 Mar 4–6; Amsterdam,
Netherlands. SPE; 1999.
8. Ozbayoglu E, Ergun K, Stefan M, et al. A 18.
comparative study of hydraulic models for
foam drilling. J Can Pet Technol. 2002;
41: 52–61p.
9. Stéphane S, Herzhaft B, Toure A, et al.
Rheological properties of aqueous foams 19.
for underbalanced drilling. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition;
1999 Oct 3–6; Houston, Texas. SPE;
1999.
10. Kitsios E, Quaresma V, Rovig JW, et al.
Underbalanced drilling through oil
production zones with stable foam in
Oman. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference; 20.
1994 Feb 15–18; Dallas, Texas. SPE;
1994.
11. Al-Yami AS, Schubert J. Underbalanced
drilling expert system development. 21.
Presented at SPE Western Regional
Meeting; 2012 Mar 21–23; Bakersfield,
California, USA. SPE; 2012.
12. Calvin HS, Wilkes TM. A holistic
approach to underbalanced drilling for
ultimate recovery. Presented at Offshore
Technology Conference; 2001 Apr 30; 22.
Houston, Texas. SPE; 2001.
13. Bennion DB. An overview of formation
damage mechanism causing a reduction in
the productivity and injectivity of oil and
gas producing formations. J Can Pet
Technol. 2002; 41:29–36p.
14. Guo B, Ghalambor A. A guideline to
optimizing pressure differential in 23.
underbalanced drilling for formation
damage. Presented at SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control; 2006 Feb 15–17;
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. SPE; 2006.
15. Bennion DB, Thomas FB, Bietz RF. 24.
Formation damage - a productivity killer.
Presented at International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology; 1996 Nov
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
16–18; Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE;
1996.
Ding Y, Herzhaft B, Renard G, et al.
Near-Wellbore formation damage effects
on well performance–A comparison
between underbalanced and overbalanced
drilling. SPE Product Oper. 2006; 21:51–
7p.
Rabia H. Well Engineering and
Construction. London: Entrac Consulting;
2001.
Apaleke AS, Al-Majed AA, Hossain ME.
Drilling fluid: State of the art and future
trend. Presented at North Africa Technical
Conference and Exhibition; 2012 Feb 20–
22; Cairo, Egypt. SPE; 2012.
Reid P, Santos H. Ultra low invasion
drilling fluids: A practical route to reduce
wellbore instability, reduced mud losses,
wellbore strengthening and improved
wellbore productivity. Presented at
SPE/IADC Indian Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition; 2006 Oct 16–
18; Mumbai. SPE; 2006.
Garrouch AA, Lababidib HMS.
Development of an expert system for
underbalanced drilling using fuzzy logic. J
Pet Sci Eng. 2001; 31:23–39p.
Cullen MS, Harthi S, Hashimi H. A direct
comparison between conventional and
underbalanced drilling technique in Saih
Rawl field, Oman. Presented at
IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition; 2003 Mar 25–
26; Houston, Texas. SPE; 2003.
Handal A. Safety barrier analysis and
hazard identification of blowout using
managed pressure drilling compared with
conventional drilling. IADC/SPE Managed
Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced
Operations Conference and Exhibition;
2013 Apr 17–18; San Antonio, Texas,
USA. SPE; 2013.
Bennion DB, Thomas FB. Under balanced
drilling of horizontal well: Does it
eliminate formation damage. Presented at
SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control; 1994 Feb 7–
10; Lafayette, Louisiana. SPE; 1994.
Rafique MA. Underbalanced drilling:
Remedy for formation-damage, lost-
circulation, and other related conventional-
drilling problems. SPE Western Regional
and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting;
Page 48
Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
2008 Mar 29–Apr 4; Bakersfield,
California, USA. SPE; 2008.
25. Qutob H. Underbalanced drilling; remedy 35.
for formation damage lost circulation and
other related conventional drilling
problems. Presented at International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference;
2004 Oct 10–13; Abu Dhabi, UAE. SPE;
2004. 36.
26. Abdollahi J, Carlsen IM, Mjaaland S.
Under balanced drilling as a tool for
optimised drilling and completion
contingency in fractured carbonate 37.
reservoir. Presented at SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference
and Exhibition; 2004 Oct 11–12; Houston, 38.
Texas. SPE; 2004.
27. Belkin A, Irving M, Bob O, et al. How
Aphron drilling fluids work. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition;
2005 Oct 9–12; Dallas, Texas. SPE; 2005.
28. Lyons WC. Air and Gas Drilling Manual. 39.
Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier,
2009.
29. Bennion DB, Thomas FB, Jammaluddin
AKM. Using under balanced drilling to
reduce invasive formation damage and 40.
improve well bore productivity - An
update. Presented at Annual Technical
Meeting; 1998 Jun 8–10; Calgary, Alberta.
SPE; 1998.
30. Saxena A, Ojha K, Pathak AK.
Optimization of characteristic properties
of foam-based drilling fluids. Braz J Pet
Gas. 2014;8(2):57–71p.
31. Babs MO. The Robert Gordon University, 41.
Aberdeen UK challenges of underbalanced
drilling for West Africa. Presented at SPE
International Conference And Exhibition;
2003 Aug 4–6; Abuja, Nigeria. SPE; 2003.
32. Saad AE, Schubert JJ. Optimum selection
of underbalanced techniques. Presented at
SPE/IADC Middle East Technology
Conference And Exhibition; 2003 Oct 20– 42.
22; Abu Dhabi, UAE. SPE; 2003.
33. Bennion DB, Thomas FB, Bietz RF, et al.
Under balanced drilling: Praises and
perils. SPE Drill Completion. 1998;
13(4):214–22p.
34. Fan S, Li W, Xie J, et al. Laboratory
experiment of foaming drilling fluid and
study of its application in the field.
Presented at International Meeting on
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Petroleum Engineering; 1988 Nov 1–4;
Tianjin, China. SPE; 1988.
Montilva J, Ivan CD, Friedheim J, et al.
Aphron drilling fluid: Field lessons from
successful application in drilling depleted
reservoirs in lake Maracaibo. Offshore
Technology Conference; Jun 5; Houston,
Texas. SPE; 2002.
Growcock FB, Simon GA, Rea AB.
Alternative aphron-based drilling fluid.
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; 2004 Mar
2–4; Dallas Texas. SPE; 2004.
Rogers RE. Coalbed Methane: Principles
and Practices. UK: PTR Prentice Hall;
2007.
Moore DD, Bencheikh A, Chopty JR.
Drilling underbalanced in Hassi
Messaoud. SPE/IADC Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition;
2004 Oct 11–12; Houston, Texas. SPE;
2004.
Al-Saadi AJ, Al-Bahlani S, Al-Mahrooqi
SM, et al. Underbalanced drilling
experience in PDO. International Oil &
Gas Conference and Exhibition; 2006 Dec
5–7; Beijing, China. SPE; 2006.
Beltran JC, Lupo CPM, Chable MAC, et
al. The use of single and multi-phase MPD
and UBD techniques on numerous wells
and hole sections have made it possible to
drill the un-drillable in Mexico. SPE/IADC
Managed Pressure Drilling &
Underbalanced Operations Conference &
Exhibition; 2014 Apr 8–9; Madrid, Spain.
2014.
Medley GH, Elmore RJ, Goodwin RC, et
al. Successfully drilling sidetrack # 7 with
MPD/UBD combination after six failed
conventional drilling attempts. SPE/IADC
Managed Pressure Drilling &
Underbalanced Operations Conference &
Exhibition; 2014 Apr 8--9; Madrid, Spain.
SPE; 2014.
Sajjad H, Saleem S, Sabir SM. First
horizontal well drilled with underbalance
(nitrified stable foam), downhole
deployment valve and extended range em-
mwd technologies in middle east region -
Case study and lesson learned. Presented
at SPE/PAPG Annual Technical
Conference; 2011 Nov 22–23; Islamabad,
Pakistan; SPE; 2011.
Page 49
Underbalanced Drilling Overview
43. Shatwan MBB, Qutob H, Vieira P.
Horizontal underbalanced drilling
technology successfully applied in field
AA- Libya: Case study. Presented at
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition;
2011 Oct 24–26; Muscat, Oman. SPE;
2011.
44. Doane RD, Bennion DB, Thomas FB, et
al. Special core analysis designed to
minimize formation damage associated
with vertical/horizontal drilling
application. Presented at Technical
Meeting/Petroleum Conference of The
South Saskatchewan Section; 1995 Oct
16–18; Regina. SPE; 1995.
45. Qutob H, Ferreira H. The SURE way to
underbalanced drilling. Presented at SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference; 2005 Mar 12–15; Kingdom
of Bahrain. SPE; 2005.
46. Pia G, Fuller T, Haselton T, et al.
Underbalanced-undervalued? Direct
qualitative comparison proves the
technique. Presented at IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference; 2002 Feb 26–28;
Dallas, Texas. SPE; 2002.
47. Regen NV. Horizontal underbalanced
drilling. J Can Pet Technol. 1997; 36:8–
16p.
48. Bakhtiarizadeh S, Asadi IS, Sadat AY.
Solving bore hole stability problem of
underbalanced drilling in several Iranian
oil fields. Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference & Exhibition;
2009 Oct 26–28; Manama, Bahrain. SPE;
2009.
49. Tudor R. Underbalanced drilling in
Canada. J Can Pet Technol. 1997; 36:11–
3p.
50. Guang C, Chen X, Cheng X, et al. The
application of air and air/foam drilling
technology in Tabnak gas field, Southern
Iran. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition;
2006 Nov 13–15; Bangkok, Thailand.
SPE; 2006.
51. Cooper LW, Hook RA, Payne BR. Air
drilling techniques. SPE Deep Drilling
and Production Symposium; 1977 Apr 17–
19; Amarillo, Texas. SPE; 1977.
52. Guo B, Ghalambor A. Gas Volume
Requirements for Underbalanced Drilling.
Tulsa: Pennwell Books, 2002.
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
Saxena et al.
53. Wilkes TM, Watson RW, Graham RL. A
new improved method for the design and
field implementation of air-mist drilling.
Presented at IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference; 1998 Mar 3–6; Dallas, Texas.
SPE; 1998.
54. Bentsen NW Veny JN. Preformed stable
foam performance in drilling and
evaluating shallow gas wells in Alberta. J
Pet Technol. 1976; 28:1237–40p.
55. Kubala G. Aqueous gelling and/or
foaming agents for aqueous acids and
methods of using the same. US Patent
Number: 4,695, 389, 1987.
56. Sydansk RD. Polymer enhance foam
drilling fluid. US Patent Number: 5,513,
712, 1996.
57. Gumati A, Hiroshi T. Experimental study
and modeling of pressure loss for foam-
cuttings mixture flow in horizontal pipe. J
Hydrodyn. 2011; 23:431–8p.
58. Harris PC. Rheology of crosslinked foams.
SPE Prod Facil. 1996; 11:113–6p.
59. Herzhaft B, Toure A, Bruni F. Aqueous
foams for underbalanced drilling: The
question of solids. Presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition; 2000 Oct 1–4; Dallas, Texas.
SPE; 2000.
60. Shale LT. Underbalanced drilling:
Formation damage control during high
angle or horizontal drilling. Presented at
SPE Formation Damage Control
Symposium; 1994 Feb 7–10; Lafayette,
Louisiana. SPE; 1994.
61. Bera A, Ojha K, Mandal A. synergistic
effect of mixed surfactant syatem on foam
behavior and surface tension. J Surfactants
Deterg. 2013; 16:621–30p.
62. Edrisi AR, Gajbhiye RN, Kam SI.
Experimental study of polymer-free and
polymer-added foams for underbalanced
drilling: Are two foam-flow regimes still
there? Presented at SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference;
2012 Oct 30–Nov 1; Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. SPE; 2012.
63. Caenn R, Darley HCH, Gray GR.
Composition and Properties of Drilling
and Completion Fluids. Gulf Professional
Publishing, 2011.
64. Growcock, FB, Khan AM, Simon GA.
Application of water-based and oil-based
aphrons in drilling fluids. SPE
Page 50
 Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 4, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785 (online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (print)
International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry held in Houston; 2003 Feb 5–8;
Texas. SPE; 2003.
65. Growcock FB, Belkin A, Fosdick M, et al.
Recent advances in aphron drilling fluids.
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; 2006 Feb
21–23; Miami, Florida, USA. SPE; 2006.
66. Hou X, Liu G, Hao L. An effective
approach for unsuccessfully drilling into
naturally fractured reservoir (NFR): A
field study. Presented at SPE Middle East
Oil and Gas Show and Conference; 2005
Mar 12–15; Kingdom of Bahrain. SPE;
2005.
67. Luo S, Li Y, Meng Y, et al. A new drilling
fluid for formation damage control used in
underbalanced drilling. IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference; 2000 Feb 23–25;
New Orleans, Louisiana. SPE; 2000.
68. Chen Z, Ahmed RM, Miska SZ, et al.
Rheology and hydraulics of polymer
(HEC) based drilling foams at ambient
temperature conditions. SPE Production
Operations Symposium; 2005 Apr 16–19;
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 2005.
JoPET (2014) 37-51 © STM Journals 2014. All Rights Reserved
View publication stats
69. Sun K, Guo B, Ghalambor A. An
analytical solution for aerated mud and
foam drilling hydraulics in deviated holes.
J Can Pet Technol. 2006; 45:23–7p.
70. Holmberg K. Surfactant and Polymer in
Aqueous Solution. England: John Wiley
and Sons; 2003.
71. Meng, FY, Lou PY, Jiao D. Horizontal
drilling technology with cycling using of
inert foam. Presented at International
Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology; 1996 Nov 18–20; Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. SPE; 1996.
72. Johnson PW. Design Techniques in air
and gas drilling: Cleaning criteria and
minimum flowing pressure gradients. J
Can Pet Technol. 1995; 34:10–20p.
73. Li S, Li Z, Lin R, et al. modelling of sand
cleanout with foam fluid for vertical well.
Soc Pet Eng. 2010; 15:805–13p.
74. Purvis DL, Smith DD. Underbalanced
drilling in the Williston basin. Presented
at Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium; 1998
Apr 5–8; Denver, Colorado. SPE; 1998.
Page 51