m

.:

I SSMW d %tmIeum Engineam

SPE 48939
Techniques for Solving Torque and Drag Problems in Todays Drilling Environment
M.S. Aston*, P.J. Hearn* and G. McGhee, BP Exploration,Sunbury, England

*SPE members
The management of torque and drag is a erueial part of
both well design and well operations. For example, rig limits
ean be compromised by:. Excessive torques exeeedmg topdrive capacity.
Excessive drags can lead 10 the inability to slide tubulars
for oriented drilling or failure to land a casing or
completion string. Similarly, high overpulls ean exeeed
derrick lifting capacity.
In addition, frictional forms dmvnhole can compromise
tubular limits leading to problems arising from failures (i.e
twistoffs, wear, buckling and fatigue) or stuck pipe.
In high angle and ERD wells, profile characteristics are
becoming more extreme as drilling envelopes are pushed to
optimise field development. Figure 2 displays BPs current
ERD drilling experience. In this chart the most challenging
ERD profiles drilled to date by BP and its partners are
displayed in terms of True Vertical Depth versus Equivalent
Departure. Equivrdent Departure is the well stepout expressed
by unrolling the azimuth in an attempt to capture the 3
dimensional complexity of a profile on a 2-D chart. The
figure shows a diverse range of well profiles, indicating a
wide range of operating conditions under which torque and
drag reduction techniques must operate suecessfidly. For
example, deep ERD wells will face issues arising from high
string tensions, such as high overpulls, high torques, tubular
strength problems, severe casing wear, and high eontaet
loads. With shallow high-stepout profiles, the issues eentre
around relatively high compressive fwces, high sliding drags,
and potential buckliig problems (2).
There is a wide choice of both mechanical tools and
lubricants available to help in addressing these problems. The
first part of this paper forms an overview of the methods
available. In the second part a new laboratory rig developed
at BP for evaluating lubricants is deseribed. The third part
illustrates field experiences by way of two ease studies.

Copyr!ght 1998, Sociaty of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference
Exhibtion held in New Orlaans, Louisiana, 27-so September 1998.

and

lhis paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program CommHtee following retiew of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, ham not been retiewed by the .%ciety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
caracfion by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
poation of the Society of Petroleum Engineam, k officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE maatings are subjact to publication review by Editorial Commtiaes
of the Scwiety of
Petroleum Enginears. Electronic reprcxfudlon, distribution, or storage of any pwf of this paper
for commercial purpmses without the written consent of the Society of Pefmleum Enginem
is
@bied.
Pa~ission
to reprcduce in print is rastricfad to an abstract of not more than S00
wcfds;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
must contain conspicuous
.sdcnowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presenkl. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
60X S33S36

Richardson, TX 7506S-S6S6,

U.SA.,

fax 01-972-9524426.

Abstract
Torque and drag Mnimisation is becoming increasingly
importaut due to the need to drill more challenging wells and
because of tighter legislations restricting the use of highly
lubricating oil based and synthetic based drilling fluids. This
review compares different mechanical and chemical metheds
of trrque and drag reduction, with referenee to field
experiences. Results obtained ftom a new lubricity rig are
discussed. These indicate that a wide range of lubricant types
can be effective in water based muds. Therefore, lubricant
choice needs to be largely based on cost and availability
amsiderations. The rig is found to be suitable for evaluating
solid lubricants such as beads, and these are shown to be
effective in silicate based fluids.
Introduction
Torque and drag arises from the frictional forces which occur
between the wellbore and tubulars. Dynamic ffictionrd forces
are assumed to oppose the direction of motion. They are
dependent upon the coefficient of friction (friction factor) and
contact loads (wallforce) between the two surfaces. Figure 1
displays a schematic of the downhole forces acting on a
tnbular sliding and rotating in an inclined wellbore. The
major effects arising ffom fictional,
hydraulic and
mechanical forces have been detailed. Analysis of torque and
drag from historic wells (1) has indicated that fiietion factors
can k simplistically grouped based on the type of mud (i.e
mineral oil, synthetic oil, or water based) and the type of
snrfaees in contact (i.e eased hole or open hole).

Overview of Torque and Drag Reduction

In this section, consideration is given to the assessment of
torque and drag, available torque and drag reduction
techniques, and selection criteria.

55

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

SPE 43939

Specialised Drillpipe (DP)- configuration similar to

conventional drillpipe with the addition of integral blade
stabilisers placed on the joint bcdy. The stabilisers are coated
with a low friction material to redum torque, drag and casihg
wear. The blades are designed to disturb cuttings beds and
improving hole cleaning.
Centralizers: Solid, Non-Rotating- the main purpose of
the centralizer is to increase stand-off when running casing,
and provide a better cement job. These centralizers consist of
a variety of designs with spiral or straight flutes/fins; the
main bodies are designed to freely rotate around the casing
between stop collars, and some are manufactured from a low
tilction alloy to reduce the codlicient of tiiction, These can
be used to reduce axial drags during installation and torques
during rotary cement jobs.
Centralizers: Roller Tools - consist of a ductile iron
centralizer with high tensile steel rollers to help reduce torque
and drag and stand off for improved cementation. Can be
used with stop collars or atlowed to tiee-float between casing
couplings.
Coiled Tubing Straightener- hydraulic activated device
positioned between gooseneck and injector head to remove
residual bend caused by bending around reel and over the
gooseneck.
Lubricants - additives generally available as film
producing liquids or solid beads, powders or fibres. Can be
used for drilling, running casing and completions, or CT
access.

. Torque
and Drag
Requirements.
Before
considering the use of mechanical tools or lubricants, thought
needs to be given to the impact of different design options at
the planning stage of a- well. The following options are key
ones to evaluate:
- Optimizing the well profile
- Modifying casing or tubular designs
- Changing annulus fluids (oil based mud is more
lubricating than water based mud)
- Adjusting operating practics. For example, reducing
sliding distances or rotating completions to bottom
Assessments based on offset well experiences and torque
and drag meddling will be needed to explore the different
possibilities,
Making changes to the well design will, of course, also
influence other aspects, Hole cleaning and hydraulics,
wellbore stability, formation damage (fluids), and reservoir
trajectoryklrainage are important technical issues which could
be affected. In addition, the impact on economics of the well
design will be a major factor in deciding on the best workable
plan.
If torque and drag still remains an issue after optimisation
of the above, it will be necessary to consider specific torque
and drag reduction techniques.

As$wdng

and Drag Reduction techniques. Many different

techniques have been used to reduce torque and drag. Table 1
samples the wide range of approaches which have been used
by BP.
Rotating Drillpipe Protectors (DPPs)- DAgned
to
eliminate the metal to metal contact between the drilipipe tool
joints and casing, thus reducing casing and drillpipe wear.
They clamp to the d.rillpipe so they rotate together. They
consist of three main components: a rubber or plastic sleeve, a
steel cage for strength and a key to hold the assembly
together.
Non-Rotating Drilipipe Protectors (NR DPPs)- designed
so that the sleeve is free to rotate independent of the drillpipe.
This is the fimdamental difference with the rotating DPPs.
The sleeves are held captive by two stop collars, with enough
space in between for the sleeve to rotate to form a
hydrodynamic bearing (3).
Subs: Bearing based or Roller Tools - consist of a steel
body sub run in the drill string between tool joints. Similar to
the NRDPPs des@n in respect that the centre element remains
stationary or rotates at a slow speed. The sub can use either a
bearing assembly or non-rotating sleeve to allow the chillpipe
to tieely rotate within the centre element. Some designs
incorporate rollers in the centre element to reduce friction in
the axial as well as rotary directions
Subs: Hole Cleaning - consist of a rotating steel body sub
with either shaped blades or a helix section designed to
mechanically and hy&aulically agitate the cuttings beds for
improved cuttings removal,
Torque

Selection Criteria. The following checklist can be used as a

guide in selecting the most appropriate method for torque and
drag reduction:
Mode of Operation - The most suitable technique will
depend on the requirement for either sliding or rotating
tubulars or both,
o Distribution of contact loads - The position of
mechanical tools in the string needs to be considered, based
on the anticipated wallforce distribution. This will optimise
friction reduction and prevent over stressing of the
mechanical tools.
Ratio of cased hole to open hole length - This can help
to determine the strategy if a combination of techniques is to
be used. Mechanical tools for open hole are currently limited,
* Costs, Availability and Support - The initial outlay as
well as contingency options need to be considered and
compared - higher concentrations of lubricants may be
needed, or damage to mechanical tools may occur in extreme
conditions.
ECD / Hydraulics - This generally applies to mechanical
tools only it is necessary to ensure the configuration does not
introduce unacceptable pressure loss in the aunulus.

Rigsite hgistics
- Considec handling issues,
procedures, maintenance, inspection, and make-up times.

56

SPE 43339

TECHFUQUES

FOR SCKWNG TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

IN TODAYS

DRILLING ENVIRONMENT

A lubricity tester was recently built at the BP Sunbury

laboratories. The device scales-up the contact area compared
with small scale devices, whilst still enabling fairly rapid
testing. A diagram of the rig is shown in Figure 3. The mtid
system can be heated to around 80C. A large peristaltic pump
is used to eireulate the mud - this was found to be tolerant of
large particles (e.g. LCM) and avoided particle attrition
problems. The steel shaft has a contact length of around
75em, and is turned via an air motor. A tachometer monitors
the rotation sped and an in-line torquemeter records the
torque. The shaft lxarings are near to the top, away fkom the
muG thus preventing clogging. The lower end of the steel
shaft is not anchored.
The casing is supported on linear bearings and is drawn
against the shaft by weights to provide the sideload as
illustrated. Data acquisition (torque versus time) is by means
of a data logger.
Typical sideloads used will range ffom 11 to 3 lkg. This
equates to around 15kg/m to 41kg/m for a 75em contact
lengt~, Torque and drag software models (1) have indicated
that a moderate field sideforce for 5 drillpipe approximates
to around 2000 lb/100ft (30kg/m). Thus, the rig gives a
reasonable representation of field loads, Note that in pract.kx
the drillpipe load will not be spread evenly and in most
situations will be mainly taken by the tooljoints. This can lead
to relatively high contact pressures. Therefore, consideration
is being given to modifying the rig to introduce upsets on
the shaft to simulate the higher contact pressures that can be
experienced in some extreme i3RD wells.
The tester is currently limited to steel-on-steel testing. It is
blieved that this is adequate for most lubricant screening
pLUpOseS.Tests for Iubrkmnt Perf-ante
in open hole would
be complicated by the requirement to develop a mud filter
cake.
Calculation of tiiction coeffkient. The Mction coefficient
(u) is given by the following simple equation

A Track Record - This could have a large influence on

preferred options,

Compatibility - Some mechanical devices may be

unsuitable for high temperature applications, and bearing
seals might be affected by certain ehemieals. If mud
lubricants are US* mud compatibility, environmental impac~
temperature stability and formation damage must be
reviewed.

Casing Wear and Buckling/Fatigue Benejits - When

considering performance, it is important to be aware of
additional benefits such as raked
casing wear and the
redueed likelihood of pipe buckling.
As an additional guide, the reliability data in Table 2 may
b helpful. This table reflects BPs current experiences and
lists advantages and disadvantages of some systems.
Advantages range from low eos~ easy handling, good
reliability, reduced fatigucdbuckling and reduced vibration, to
hole cleaning benefits. Disadvantages ean be cost a limited
track recor~ and reliability problems. Note that with the
continued improvements in design, problems with mechanical
devices have dminished and it is anticipated that tool
failures will reduee further as more experience is &veloped.
There are many techniques to reduce torque and drag, and
these need to be considered on a well-by-well basis.
Combinations of more than one method may be most
effective. Table 1 shows that with the right combinations
friction reductions of up to 60% are achievable in the field.
Laboratory Evaluation of Lubricants
This section relates specifically to mud lubricity and lubricant
testing. Mud Iubrieants, if effeetive, can be the most versatile
means of achieving torque reductions in the field. However,
the subject of mud lubricity is not well understood and
laboratory testing to select the most effective lubricants has
traditionally been a minefield, with results being dependent
on the test technique. Direct field tests without laboratory
screening is risky, there being a vast array of lubricants to
choose from.
Most laboratory deviees use some form of rotating bob or
shaft which rubs against a piece of static material (steel or
reek), immersed in fluid. However, most testers utilise very
small contact areas and it has been noted in previous papers
(4) that these small-scale devices show a poor correlation with
field data. There are several reasons why this could be so:
a) A small contact area means the side loads generated
are often unrealistically high (up to 10,000 psi).
b) If low sideloads are used the torque changes
measured are small and subject to large errors.
c) Localised surface effects are not averaged out.
d) Mud does not flow and particulate
or solid
lubricants may not penetrate between the surfaces.
Jle drawback with large sede machines is that tests can
be time-consuming and expensive, with the rigs difficult to
clean. So, the best laboratory test rigs must be a compromise,

u = measured torque/( shaft radhIs x sideforce)

Torque was recorded in Nm; the friction coefficient is
dimensionless.
The following variables were studied
Rig Commissioning.
during commissioning of the rig:
time
. sideload
. mud flow rate
Q rotation speed
@mud weight in simple mud
. mud type
Figure 4 compares typic-al torque traces for muds with
poor and good lubricity. Torque readings were fairly steady
over periods of the or&r of several minutes to an hour,

57

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

indicating tie wear scar was established and surfa~s were

bedded in. (The same wear scar was used for all tests as this
was found to give the best reproducibility and minimised
bedding-in effects.) It is seen tkom the figure that the mud
with poor lubricity gave a spikey torque trace which can be
attributed to momentary tearing of high points on the metal
surfiices (asperities). In contraa~ muds with good lubricity
gave a relatively smooth trace.
Variations in sideload confirmed that u is independent of
sideload for a simple water based mud system, but note this
will not necessarily hold true when lubricant is added.
Mud flowrate and rotation speed had little or no effect on
the friction coefficient. The flowrate was varied between zero
and about 10 ltrskninute, equivalent to a maximum annular
veloeity of around 50 ftlmin. Very low rotation speeds
(.dlrpm)
produced unsteady torque measurements, but
readings were found to be fairly constant between 50 and
200rpm. Above 200rpm, the torque become more erratic as
continuous contact was probably not maintained between the
surfaces.
The following set of standard conditions were derived
from these initial test3:
15 reins
minimum test time:
11,21 and 31kg
sideloadx
flowrate:
5-71tmAninute
100 rpm
rotation speed
Two fhrther commissioning tests were run - a brief
investigation of the effect of mud weight on friction, and a
few tests to check base line data for different mud types. The
mud weight tests (Table 3) show that the addition of only
5ppb barite reduces the friction considerably. Further barite
additions do not produce any dramatic effects, but there
would seem to be a gradual decrease in friction with
increasing mud weight. This agrees with the findings of Bol
(4). It is likely that the barite particles, which are around 3040 microns average size, reduce friction by creating a
separation distance between the metal surfam. The data
show that clay tines alone have only a slight effect in
redwing friction (probably because the particles are so small around 1 micron).
Table 4 shows the range of friction coefficients obtained
for some different mud systems. As expected, pure water
shows extremely poor lubrication against steel, with a typical
ftiction Coefficient of around 0.7. Xanthan gum polymer
alone will reduce this to about 0.5. The water based muds rdl
exhibited similar performance, giving values in the range
0.39-0.46. This suggests, importantly, that variations in
polymer type or salt type (including silicate) do not
significantly affect friction. It is only by changing tkom water
based to oil based mud that a significant friction reduction is
seen. This is basicrdly why lubricants are needed for water
based systems. The data suggest the rig produces numbers
broadly consistent with other workers (4, 5, 6).

SPE 43939

lubricants. Various lubricant systems have been

evaluated in water based muds using the rig. Most tests were
performed using a 1.3sg KCUPHPA mud at pH 9.5. Tests
were also carried out using a 1,1sg low solids drill-in fluid
system built around xanthan polymer. This latter system
contained c1 % fine solids, Table 5 gives an indication of how
performance varied between different lubricant products,
Generic names are used and performance is expressed in
terms of% friction reduction based on measured torques.
The results illustrate the wide range of performance seen
with products which are all established lubricants.
Effectiveness ranges from zero to as high as 81% torque
reduction. But note that the test conditions used can have an
influence, so it is important to use a given test regime and set
data analysis procedure. Figure 5 illustrates the test protocol
enabling different lubricant concentrations and sideloads to be
explored. The dips in torque are when the sideload is
chang@ or removed during lubricant additions. It is
noteworthy that torque increases with time at the highest
sideload over approxhnatel y a 45 minute period. Other
lubricants showed different time-dependent behavicwx
The tests have confirmed that different lubricant
chemistries can perform well, including ester based, fhtty acid
bas~ and surfactant based products, In selecting the best
lubricant a number of factors need to be consideretL including
cost and compatibility with the mud. Compatibility is often
overlooked. For example, ester based lubricants will not
normally be compatible with high pH muds such as lime
muds, and may have an upper pH limit as low as 9 in some
cases. Some liquid lubricants may be incompatible with high
salt systems, and foaming problems in the field have been
experienced with some lubricants.
Silicate muds are a special case. To date, a satisfactory
liquid lubricant has not been found for these muds. Many
lubricants are unstable at the high pH of silicate mud (pH
typically about 12) and in addition silicate adsorbed on the
steel is thought to prevent lubricant adsorption. Currently, the
best option for these muds is to use solid lubricants.
Liquid

Solid lubricants. Solid lubricants, such as beads, have the

advantage of being compatible with all mud chemistries. The
drawback with these systems is in maintaining an effective
concentration in the mud in practice, due to losses on solids
control equipment. Table 6 gives an overview of how these
types of product have performed on the test rig. Plastic beads
have been found to be consistently effective in a range of mud
types - a good torque reduction (25%) was seen even in oil
mud. Glass beads can also work well but crush strength can
be a problem - see below. A treated graphite product was
relatively ineffective, and granular carbon totally ineffective
as was fine calcium carbonate, Fibres were interesting with a
goed torque reduction seen with silicate mud, particularly at

58

SPE 4s939

TECHNIQUES

FOR SOLVING TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

IN TODAYS

DRILLING ENVIRONMENT

Reference to the figure indicates a relatively good correlation

between simulated and actual values over the depth range of
10,000 to 14,000 ft. However, significant differences did exist
over the remainder of the 12-1/2 section with a levelling bff
in actual surface torques from approx. 15,000 ft onwards.
In Figure 6, actual torque is plotted with modelled torque
values for BHAs 14, 15 and 16 based on best fit FF
correlations. The plot illustrates a good fit between actual and
model torque data baaed on thase revised FFs. In these
correlations, principal torque reduction occurred in the cased
hole section ie. FF reduced from 0.17 to 0.05. This can be
explained by:
Z4 to 16,000 ft. Recmrded surface torque values &viated
below O.17/0.21 FF prdlction. This coincided with an
increase in LCM concxmtration (fibres), The probable impact
was to reduce both cased and open hole friction.
BHA Z4. Torque vatues levelled off despite increased hole
depth, Specialised DP (16,000 to 18,375 ft) was employed in
cased hole. The effect was modelled by FF of 0.06/ 0.21 for
cased I open.
BHA 15. A step reduction in torque cccurred. Both
Specialised DP and Torque Reducing Bearing Subs (TRBS)
were run in cased hole (18,000 to 20,225 ft). The step change
highlighted the benefit due to TRBS and the increased
tkquency of Specialised DP. These effects were modelled by
FF of 0.05/0.15 for cased/ open hole,
BHA 16. Torque was maintained at a low level even
tailing off towarda end of hole section (20,000 to 21,150 ft).
There was similar ffequency and placement of torque
reduction tools as for BHA 15. LCM concentration was kept
high throughout this BHA run. The effects were meddled by
FF of 0.05/0.1 1 for cased/ open hole.
Findings :
1. Comparison with modelled surface torques prior to
using torque reducing techniques has indicated that
significant reductions in torque were experienced whilst
drilling Miller A20(03).
2. The greatest difference between modelled and actual
values occurred at TD of the 12-1/4 section, Surface torques
were reduced by approximate y 65% horn the predicted value
of 32 Kft.lbs to the recorded value of 11 Kft.lbs.
3. This behaviour coincided with the addition of LCM
fibre into the mud system and the use of Specialised DP and
TRBS in the drillstring in cased hole.

high side loads. Strangely, no benefit was seen with tibres in

oil mud, although in the field fibre has keen successful with
this type of mud - this maybe a scale-up problem.
In view of the issue over particle recovery with solid
lubricants, the effect of particle size was investigated for bead
products. Table 7 shows the results. Very tine (<106 micron)
plastic beads were less effective overall than the standard
(fine) material. Higher concentrations appear to be required
(at least 5ppb) and performance at the higher loads
deteriorates. The same trend is observed for the very fine
glass beads.
A few tests were run on coarse plastic and glass beads.
The coarse plastic beads showed similar performance to the
standard material (no apparent advantage). But coarse glass
beads gave a short-lived torque reduction and were then found
to crush, even under the lowest load. These should therefore
be avoided in all but the lowest load situations.
In the fielG roughness of the formation and the influence
of filter cake could have an effect on lubricant performance,
especially with solids. Extremely fine particles are likely to be
of limited success (easily buried in the fflter cake). Therefore,
it seems logical that the larger plastic bead sizes warrant
further attention and could prove most successful since they
should provide maximum stand-off. Care is needed of
course to ensure they are not so large as to cause blockages,
e.g. in downhole motors.
cost comparisons. The cost of lubricant products
can vary widely. A brief survey of commercial lubricants
(Table 8) showsthat the barrel cost of water based mud can
increase by up to $37/bbl with some lubricants, which could
k a huge percentage factor increase on an otherwise
inexpensive mud system. The least expensive lubricants add
around $6-8 to the barrel cost of the mud. Clearly, use of an
expensive product would need to be justified by
demonstrating a clear performance benefit over cheaper
options, It is interesting to note that the cost of using solid
lubrkants is comparable to liquids if losses on solids control
equipment could be controlled.
Lubricant

Case histories
In the following examples, torque and drag predictions have
been based on BPs in house software model, the Drill String
Simulator (DSS) (l).
Miller A20. High field torque values were experienced on

Harding PCS (MS). Water Based Mud is used to drill the

Harding reservoir section, where one of the key requirements
is to prevent formation damage. As a consequence, when
running sand control screens relatively high friction levels
can occur.
Harding are preparing for an ERD campaign and one of
the most critical operations identified was running screens to
TD in a 3,000ft horizontal section. Based on screen running
experiences, it was not considered feasible to get the screens

ERD wells driied ffom the Miller development. The Miller

Development Team recognised these problems at an early
stage and worked with the service industry to alleviate
problems (7). Torque and drag reduction techniques were
employed on successive wells fmm A12.
Figure 6 displays a comparison between predicted surface
torques versus actual values recorded during drilling the 121/4 section on well A20. Friction Factors @F) of 0.17/ 0.21
fbr OBM in casedopen hole were adopted in predictions.

59

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

SPE 46939

be as high as 60%. This is based on comparisons with offset

wells or hole sections where these techniques have not been
employed.
4. Lubricant evaluations:
a) The Sunbury Mrieity rig has been comrnisioned
and shown to be a usefid tool for evaluating both liquid
and solid lubricants.
b) Different water based muds showed similar friction
coeffk%m~, only by adding lubricant or switching to oil
mud is a substantial reduction in tkiction obtained.
c) There is a wide choice of lubricants available to the
industry. SevcraI factors need to be taken into account
when selecting products. Cost and compatibility with the
mud are as important as technical performarw in
laboratory tests.
d) Bead type lubricants are effective in silicate based
fluids, but bead deploymenthecovery needs to be
carefully managed to be economic.
e) An investigation of Ix?.adsize and type has shown
that extremely fine beads lose effectiveness at high loads,
Large glass beads are also not recommended as they are
easily crushed.

to TD, unless frictional drag could be significantly reduced.

On the basis of this, it was decided to trial Roller Subs in well
PCS to assess the level of friction reduction. In the
forthcoming horizontal well, the majority of the well will be
cased hole, therefore emphasis had been placed on using the
Roller Subs to reduce cased hole friction.
Screen running data aggregated from previous operations
on wells PCl, PC2, PS 1, PS2 and PS3 was collated and
analysed. Relatively consistent friction factors fm each of the
operations were cxdculat@ indicating that good benchmarks
were cased open hole friction factors of 0.30/0.35.
Prior to the screen running operation for PCS it was
decided to install 88 Roller Subs on Y HWDP heated at the
bottom of the landing string. This meant that for 33% of the
totaI string length, the rollers were in contact with the casing,
The 9-5/8 casing shoe was located at 7,126ft MD. The TD
of the section was 8,876ft MD, this gave a 8-1/2 open hole
section Iength of L750ft.
In Figure 7, rig floor data are plotted against expected
performance based on benchmark values.
SeveraI observations can be made:
1. From Figure 7, it can be seen that ffom a MD of
approximately 5,000ft onwards, drag relief is occurring; i.e.
weights ffom the predicted drag line started to drop below
recorded data. This indicated that the roller subs could be
contributing to drag reduction.
2. From the 9-5/8 shoe onwards into open hole, recorded
weights were consistently higher than expeet@ roughly
nmning parallel to the predicted weight line with open hole

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration Operating
Company for permission to publish this paper. We also thank
Colin Mason and Peter Bern for their valued contributions
towards the compilation of this paper.
References

friction factor of O.35.

3. In Figure 7, a zoomed-in plot of performance in the
open hole section is also displayed. The gain in recorded
string weight compared with predicted was modelled. This
indicated that tiiction factors over the HWDP & Roller Sub

1. Child, A.J. et al., Refinements of a Drillstring Simulator: Its

Validation and Applications SPE 18046.
2. Modi, S. et al., Meeting the 10Km Challenge SPE 38583.
3. Moore, N.B. et al., Reduction of Drill String Torque and
Casing Wear in Extended Reach Wells Using Non-Rotating
Drill Pipe Protectors; SPE 35666.
Bol, G.M., Effect of mud composition on wear and friction of
4.
casing and tool joints SPWLADC 13457, 1985.
5. Hale, A.H. et al, Preliminary report on effectiveness of
different lubricants on wear and liiction coefficients using
shale medium SPWIAIY2 29424, 1995.
6. ItTRVWestport lab. Report A compilation of lubricity
coefficient of friction values for oil and water based muds
Report no. WTCI -94-058, dated June 1994.
7. Rcdman, D., et uL, Extended Reach Drilling I&nitations :A
Shared Solution SPE 38466.

portion of the string were in the range between 0.05 and 0.10.
This suggested a reduction in fkiction tictor of 60% or higher
over that string length.
Conclusions
1. There is a diverse range of techniques to reduce torque
and drag available in the industry. The implementation of
these techniques can bean efficient and economic method of
extending the window for drilling, running casing &
completions and coiled tubing operations.
2. As with most chemical additives and downhole
jewellery, there is an inherent cost and associated risk.
Consideration needs to be given to designing around the use
of such techniques at the well planning stage. Selection of the
appropriate method needs to consider application, eosg track
record and compatibility,
3. Experience fkom BP has indicated that both
mechanical devices and lubricants can be used singularly or
combined to reduee torque and drag. Reductions in surface
torque or reductions in axial drag coefilcients (per joint) ean
60

SPE 4s939

TECHt4\QUES

FOR SOLVING TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

IN TODAYS DRILL!NG ENVIRONMENT

Tables
TABLE 1: LISTING OF GENERIC TORQUE AND DRAG REDUCTION

TECHNIQUES
~ep~m

(Fridfon Radaation)

Mwod
DRILLING

0-15% @ased on surfacetorque)

fxwa: Rotatkig

YEs

Reduces cmffident of friction

EXWe:Non Rotating(NR)

YES

ReducesTorque Radus

0-30% (Sased on surfacetorque)

SUBS Besrfng/ RollerTools

YES

Single or combinedeffed of Sating, NR

040%

YEs

@ased

on surfacstorque)

Sleeve or RolferAsserrbly
SUBS: Hois CisanirW

YES

YEs

He& Sectbn stirsup cuttingsto assisthois

cleaning

O-25% (Sasad on sutfacstorque)

Spsdalfwd Drifipii

YES

YES

Blsded P@ assistshokacleaningand
dynamics

Field Data notavailshle/ enafysed

cockfair)
Lubrtcants(lnduding
Sf=&ywmsb+

DPPe (NR) + Lubricants

on surfacetorque)

YEs

YES

ReducesCoefficientof Friction

0-50% @ssed

YES

YEs

Combined(sea tive)

60% (Mifler-baaedon surfacetorque)

YEs

YEs

Combined(See above)

27% (FJiakuk- based on surfacetoque)

CASING AND COMPLETION RUNNING

Centraiisers:sdfd NR

Es

ReducesToque Radiusand Irnfmvss standoff

O-30A(Basedon rotaryFridion Factor)

Centratisers:RoiferTools

YES

As above pfusRoIlerAssernbfy

O-MI% @ased on Toque and Drag per joint)

Ldxicsnts (Single)

YES

Reducas Coefficientof Frtdfon

0-15% (Basedon axfefand rotatyFrtofbnFactor)

Reducesdrag from residualbend

O-1O%(Weed on srdstFrfciionFactor)

YEs

CCNLEDTUBfNG ACCESS
CT Straightener
Lubricants(Single)

YES

YES

Reduces Coefticbnt of Frtction

0-15% (Weed on axfal FrfclionFactor)

LtLxicsnts+ CT Straightener

YES

YES

Combined(Sea above)

35% (Wyfch Farm - Mwd on axial frfcffonfactor

61

SPE 48939

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

TABLE 2 ADVANTAGES/DtSADVMAGES

~
.raAnhmO
-.,...r~-

RotatingDrillpipe
protectors

Non-Rotating

Drilipipa
Protectors

Subs - Bearing
based or Ro4er
Tools

Subs - Hde
Clear@

SpeclrMzed
Drillpipa (DP)

Centrahzers,
Scrlii NonRotatiw

Centralizer, Roller
Tools

Coiled Tubiw
mLubricants

OF TORQUE AND DRAG REDUCTION

-~

Oasing wear reduced.

Reducespipe fatigue by creating a gaduel band emund sharp
W*.
Relatively cheap to use.
Easy to hands I install.
Helps rechme differwrtiel sticking due to increased stwd-off
and reduced sidewall contact.
Higher twque reductions and kmgar wear life than rotating
DPPs.
Possible hi*w
penetration rates due to improved torque
transmission to the bit.
Reduced casing wear problems.
Reduced fatigue effects around doglegs
Relatively easy to hmdfe and install,
Can help with differential sticking problems.
s than NRDPPs.
H*
torque reducbon
can beusedino~
andcasedhob.
Can help with differential sticking problems and casing wear.
Can withstand hgher contact loads than NRDPPs.

Can reduce ckillpipe wear and vibration effects

Improved hde cleaning leading to faster trips, faster casing
runs, less overall hole problems.
Easy to handle on surface.
Desigied br open hole.
Helps reduce differential sticking
Improved hda dezming
Smoother drilling, reduction in torque variation.
Reduces casing wear, less wall contact.
Easy to harrcfleon surface.
Designed for open hole.
Heips reduce differential stiddng.
Requires minimum maintenance
Simple design, can be used in opamand cased hole
Increasas stand off reducing the risk of differential sticking.
Scfne desiis
can improve the quality of the cement job by
creating turbulence
Some Alloys wew resistant so stand off is maintained longer in
ERD wells
Can beusedinopen andcasedhob
Reduced casing running drags pwticukxly in cased hda
section
Shaped roller pods designed to gerrarate swirl
Reduced drag can extend operating window for CT operations.
Easier to makeup a completion string under the injector head.
Simple, low maintenance, easy to use device
Can reduce Torque ~d Drag in both cased and open hde for
a wide range of operations.
Lower risk in twins of imphticms
of failure than some
mechanical devices.
Combinatic+w of lubricants or cocktds cen produce high
levels of torque reduction.

62

TECHNIQUES

WJ&antege If overstressad, pssibiiity of ftdling off, getting stuck in the BOP

ram cavities and plugging surface equipment.
Need to be routinely and correcUy inspected.
Avem
lifespan is mrnpaativdy low.
Not recommended for open hole, thus limiting extended bit runs.
~
increase turnulcu prassure loss, reducing hde cleaning
efficiency.
Can cause drillpipe wear, esfxxially with abrasive muds.
Possible slippage or loss of damping collars in hole.
Can cause increases in ECD
Can not be run in open hole.
Regular inspection required.

Some handling issues due to size end weight and increased

strtng length (derrick height).
M
be expansive rxr a unit basis compared to other mechanical
tools.
Requires the correct connections
Failure of tod cculd result in costly fishing or sidetrack
operation
Fatigue or stress histories not Ioggd.
Can increase pressure loss in annulus
New tools - Iiiited experiences.
Otherwise as for Subs - Bearing based or Roller Ted.

Rentel can be high.

Failure can lead to aqxmsive
operations

milling, fishing w

Wetrack

More expensive than other types of centralizers.

May bed into soft, unconsoliited formations or cattings beds.
Limited effectiveness in washed out sections.

Roller damage can occur under high impact loads.

Otherwise as for centralizers Solii, Non-Rotating

Increased consumption of CT sking due to fatigue.

Increase rig height.
Need to be screened for chemical, tempwature, errvironmaotal
cxrmpaf.fbilii and formation damage.
Can be expansive.
Issues of p~cle recovery with some solid lubricants

SPE 48633

TECHNIQUES

FOR SOLVING TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

Fric?$xi Caeftlohm

loppb
Ioppb

looppb

1.00

8.30

1.01

8.40

loppb

1.11

920

loppb

1.33

11.00

xanthan

0.43
0.40
0.43
0.40

loppb

1,65

13.70

0.36

Wppb

1.98

18.40

0.35

MudType

% 7orqueReWcUon
0
11

+OXyWKlester

1.3sgKCVPHPA,

vegatable oil

1.1 .sg low solids, 25C

surfaotant complex

1.3s9 KCVPHPA, 25C

19

ester-based

1.3s9 KCVPHPA, 25C

28

mOcMiedVagetaMe oil

1.3sg KCUPHPA, 25C

38

surfaotant blend

1.3s9 KWPHPA,

25C

38

25C

DURING

-0.52

solution

KCVPHPA

0.39-0.45

Amethyst field WBM

0.39-0.44

Low solids WBM

0.41-0.50

Bentonite Mud

0.40-0.46

Silicate mud

0.39-0.43

80/20 field OBM (Wytch Farm)

0.19-0.21

TABLE 6
EXAMPLES OF PARTICULATE LUBRICANT PERFORMANCE IN
LABORATORY TESTS (AU TESTS 5-6 PPB LUBRICANT, 21KG
SIDELOAD. lNtTIAL FRICTION COEFFICIENT 0.43-0.50 (WBMS),
0.18-0.22 (OBMS}

TABLE 5
EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE OF LtQUID LUBRICANTS IN
LABORATORY TESTS (ALL TESTS 5% LUBRICANT. 21 KG
S3DELOAD). INIT3AL I% UCT30N COEFFICIENT 0.43&0.
L@rkmiTyp

Coefficient
J Friction
0.67-0.76

Water

1%3%4

none
nciw

DRILLING ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 4
MUD SYSTEM FRICTION COEFFICIENTS DETERMINED
COMMISSIONING
TESTS

TABLE 3
FRICT30N COEFFICIENT VERSUS MUD WEIGHT (BARITE
LOAD3NG) FLUID 1.5PPB XANTHAN IN WATER PLUS CLAY
SOUDS

@veJago w

IN TODAYS

1-

Wu3cani

Mud Tvme

250 micfon plastic beads

1.3sg KC1/PHPA

48

250 micron plastic beads

l.lsgppglow

soiiisrnud

83

250 mioron plastio beads

t .45sg siliite

mud

250 micxon plastic beads

30/20 OBM

80
25

75 micron glass beads

1.45 silicate mud

600 micron glass beads

1.45sg siliita

mud

Crushec?

mud

negligible

55

3 component blend

1.1 Sg low Solii,

85C

42

Treated graphite powder

1.45sg siliite

glycoi
based

1.3sgKCWHPA,

25C

50

Treated graphte powder

1.45sg low solids mud

oii/surfaotant blend

1.1 w

57

Granular cahn

1.45sg siliite

mud

negliibla

3 component blend

1.3sg KCWHPA,

5 micxon Ca Carbonate

1.45sg siiiite

mud

mcdfied Vegatatia oil

1.1 w

IOW SOkk$,

mud

negiiible
24..

esteAmsed

1.1 w

tOW

Surfaotar-ltblend

1.3s9 KWPHPA,

IOW

solids, 85C
25C

58

85C

se

Fibres

1.45sg siliite

solids, 85C

69

Fibres

30/20 OBM

25C

80

ester/surfaotant bland

1.1 w

65C

80

ethoxylated aar

1.1 sg low solids, 65C

61

fatty add ester/amins

1.1 sg IOW

SOkk,

65C

74

ester-based

1.1 w

solids, 85C

81

IOW SOkk,

IOW

* crushed evem at lowest sideload

**% torque reduction reached 40% at higher loads

63

24

negligible

TABLE 7
EFFECT OF BEAD SIZE ON TORQUE REDUCTfON
LABORATORY TESTS

TABLE 8
COST COMPARISON OF MUD LUBRfCANIS

IN

Ooar

Vary fineplasW sieved <106 mbrons

fine plastfc approx. 250 mbrons
Coarse plastb approx. 600 microns

@o@T&i&mG

Ilkgswoad 21kg $idabad 31& $kf@=l

fineptastk

52

17

11

5ppb very fine plastio

55

47

38

loppb very fine plastio

47

43

36

2ppbvelyfinegiass

21

10

5ppb very fine ~ass

66

56

27

loppb very fine glass

68

61

42

lppb fine plasfk

34

50

48

32

46

50

37

46

37

46

45

36

43

40

3ppb

fineplastic
fineplastic

loppb fine plastic

lppb coarse plastio

kwfea$

einmudoo.sflbbl

noK%$M)Sppb@o!kfs)

lppb veiy fine plastk

3ppb very

@/ad3b

It
3% dosags (tiqukB)of

Very line gfass approx. 75 microns

-glass
approx 600 mbfons.

5ppb

SPE 46939

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

44

fatty acid

1701

8.11

fatty adcVoil

1666

8.05

fatty acidlester

2393

11.41

glycowesphalt

1289

6,15

surfactant

1287

6,14

Surfaotant

5400

25.76

aminated triglyceride

52E0

25.04

organio blend

3900

18.60

Surfactant

6315

39.66

abohol amide

2640

12.59

fatty aciclkutfackmt

7730

36.87

tall oil fatty acid

3414

1628

asphait/glycerol

2225

10.61

fatty abohd derivative

5660

28.05

modified vegetable oil

1600

7.16

modified ester

3375

16.10

glycol/glycol ether

1246

5.95

giycol waste

1167

5.57

vegetable oil Mend

1124

5.36

ethoxylated oil ester

2709

12.92

lztppbcoar~glass

I WsmsMaMrinitidtorquerdWtion

teibw amino compound

2620

13.45

15mb coarse @ass

I beads cfushed after initial torque reduc!km

fibre (solid)

4026

10.87

plastic beads (solid)

5130

13.65

glass beads (sohd)

2644

7.66

64

SPE 48939

TECHNIQUES

FOR SOLVING TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

IN TODAYS

DRILLING

11

ENVIRONMENT

Figures

Fig. 1:

Schematic of forces soling on downhole tubular.

Equivalent Departure (m)

o

1000

3000

20V0

4ono

6000

5000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0
f

BP Worldwide

2rm

4000

6000

8000

1000O

nooo
,,

\\

:W
0

2000

4000

I
6(XH3

8CH30

10000

12000

14000

16000

lSOIXI

20000

Equivalent Departure (ft)

Fig. 2 BP current ERD

65

22000

2413M

26000

= Foimven

Pnmp4n0

A Goodwym

* Schkhalkm

.: Hard@

v UWGy&

I. Mamock

. Wytch Frim
6000

28000

30000

32W0

34000

cd9*Ma-

Smwucuaa A+dun

SPE 4s939

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

12

Cormiofair

8-

J&=4===

AirMotcf

t_

Iikghfker
mixer

Silemx

-,,*,

todrivemotor

0
:

Rubber
cornectimIhkhgdrive
fromrectormd drill-p@
Toque

rBearilg

t!earilg

Fig. & Lubricity Rig - !liew with Load

Sllppiied

1.6
1.4

CF.

O.44

1.2

0.4
Mud

0.2

with poor lubricity

. . . - Mud with good

500

1000

hdxiCky

1500

timds
Fig. 4 Typioai Torqua/Time

Data (21kg sideioad)

2000

seEa939

TECWUQUES

FOR SOLVING TORQUE AND DRAG PROBLEMS

IN TODAVS DRILLING

ENVIRONMENT

13

2.5
Ikg

fl

ad,

31kg sideload
1 Wg

sidekmd

% !u&e 3% ~~

5% lube

0.5

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1000O

12000

timds
Fig.5: Typical

Lubricant Evaluation

35.(XI

5.m

O.m

loom

,.,,
.

!,,.,.i

.,.,
...

.?&.
lmxl

.1

-.,

,,.,,
1 . .,,.:,
14alo

L
lm

Measured

16000
Depth

Fig.6: Miller A20(03) 12-1/4 Hole SectIon

67

(ft)

1
22alo

SPE 46939

M.S. ASTON, P.J. HEARN AND G. MCGHEE

14

Mud Weight = 10.8 PPG

Pv = 21 CP
VP= 24 lbf/100ftA2

BlockWeight621dbf
9-5/8Casing Shoe @ 7126ft

350

340

?50

200

150

100

so

1000

2ooot

3ooa

4000

5003

60CQ

7000

8000

MeasuredDepth(ft)

9-5/S Casing Shoe @ 7126ft

2s0?

I
$ 00

240
230
220

m
.
m
9
m
m
m

m
m
:
:
m
m
m
m
n
m

210- m

190
180 170 160- -

Rdlec Suh FF = 0.0S to 0.10

-1

.-v

moo

5500

600+3

65CQ

7000

M-cd

Fig. Z Harding PCS-A1S(06) - Running Scraans (DSS Simulation)

@hl

7500

(ft)

804)0

8s00