/857 -

m DRILLING

Field Verification of the Effect of Differential Pressure

on Drilling Rate
D. J. VIDRINE
DRILLING WELL CONTROL, INC.
E. J. BENIT
LAFAYETTE,LA.
MEMBERSAIME

Abstract and overburden pressures and found that only differential

pressure affects drilling rate. Ecke15 noted that a pressure
A field study was conducted on eight South Louisiana differential between hydrostatic and formation pressure is
wells to determine the eflect of differential pressure on the only pressure that affects drilling rate. Garner et al.’
the instantaneous rate of penetration in shale. conducted crater-volume tests on dry limestone and im-
Drilling rate is aflected significantly by changes in dif- plied that drilling rate is influenced by both overburden
—----. . . (id - -A u=,
~Wc..-ntim nr-cll r- ?=O~j~SQ~6 f~~nd that the yield
feretitiai pressure t?i~y be reduced &9 M-iich es 7C at~u =-,--- 1 v. -------
percent as the differential fluid pressure is increased from strength of jacketed rock samples increased as the differ-
O to 1,000 psi. When the formation pressure becomes ential between confining pressure and pore pressure in-
greater than the mud-column pressure, drilling rates con- creased. He indicated that this increase in strength may
tinue to increase, sometimes at an increa.ring rate. The be an important factor in reducing drilling rate. Gamier
sensitivity of drilling rate to differential pressure depends and van Lingen’- e determined that differential pressure
upon the magnitude of the bit load. Overburden pressure affects both rock strength and chip hold-down, that chip
and the hydrostatic head of the mud column over the hold-down forces are of a static and dynamic nature, and
inter val.r studied had no detectable ef)ect on penetration that these forces are a complex function of almost all
rate. known drilling parameters.
Increases in formation pressure can be detected by an These studies- have provided useful data on crater for-
increase in penetration rate. The careful observation of mation and microbit drilling rates under simulated down-
drilling rate can help avoid kicks and allow the well to be hole conditions; however, there has been very little work
maintained at minimum overbalance hydrostatic condi- reported on relatively impermeable rocks such as shale
tions. Decreased well-drilling costs and an increased drill- where the actual internal pore pressure IS known. in addi-
ing rate will result. tion, there have been very few field studies reported on
the effect of pressure on drilling rate~”
Introduction This study was conducted on eight South Louisiana
-We::s. m. A... L -: +h - :-4.--..1. “+7.ALd
1 llC UcpulUL u G MILG1 vam
..””.?WI
. UAul-u
f.mn
, &Ul~wu 1, “.,,

As well depth increases, drilling rates decrease. The 8200 to 14,800 ft; hydrostatic pressures varied from 5,000
number of deep wells being drilled annually is increasing. to 13,900 psi and the formation pressure ranged from 3,900
Associated with these wells are low penetration rates and to 13~00 psi. Differential pressure between formation and
high costs. The reduction in drilling rate with depth is mud-column pressures ranged from a positive differential
primarily a function of increased ditlerential pressure. The of 1,500 psi (pm > p,) to a negative differential of 930
paper presents a field study of the effect of pressure on psi (pm < pf). The average test interval for the eight wells
the instantaneous rate of penetration in Gulf Coast Lou- studied was 1,400 ft.
isiana shales. A unique feature of this study is the pressure control
On the basis of laboratory investigations, several authors afforded by the use of shale resistivity methods to predict
a mee that
-=--- .---- drill irw ----
-. ......_ rate --
is &c~~~s~d aS ~h~ &ffETEn~~~l be- formation pore pressure?=” The development and in-
tween the formation pore pressure and the hydrostatic creased accuracy of formation pressure calculations from
pressure of the mud column is increased.’-’ Maurer’ con- log-derived shale properties provide a method and a degree
ducted crater-volume tests while varying overburden, hy- of control never before available in field studies of this
drostatic and formation-pore pressure. He concluded that nature. These methods aid in the field evaluation of the
drilling rate is influenced by a combination of both hydro- effect of many drilling parameters on drilling rate.
static and differential pressure, but is independent of over-
burden pressure. Cunningham and Eenink2 conducted Collection and Analysis of Data
microbit oriiiing tests at varying hydrostatic, formation,
Detailed drilling data on eight South Louisiana wells
were collected by engineers on location. These data in-
Original manu9cri@ received in Society of Petroleum Engineers oiiice
Sept. 10, 1967. Paper (SPE 1869) was presentd at SPE 42nd Annual cluded bit weight, rotary speed, pump pressure, circulation
Fail Meeting held in Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1967. Paper 81s0 was rate, mud density, plastic viscosity, yield point, water loss,
presented at Oklahoma Regional Meeting held in Stillwater, Okla, NOV.
3, 1967, and at SPE S8th Annual California Regional Fall Merting held annular friction loss, jet-bit hydraulics, bit type, bit grad-
in k Angeles, CaHf., Oct. 26-27, 1967. @ Copyright 1966 American
Institute of Mining, MetaUurgicsd, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
ing for wear, drilling rate for 5-ft increments, a plot of
%eferences given at end of Daper. drilling rate vs depth, and the total rotating hours for each

676 ]OURNA1. OF PETROLEIIM TECH NO1. OCY


Degrees of Solution
The problem is that there is public demand for cleaner
air and water. But how much cleaner? There is an impli-
cation that the public is willing to pay something, but
what cost are we really willing to bear? And what are we
trying to accomplish — for what purpose is this gigantic
effort? For a healthy environment? How healthy? So the
health of the healthy will not be threatened, or so that at
all times in all places the health of the very young, the
very old, and those whom medicine has spared but not
cured, will not be threatened? The problem must be solved
without these answers because no one really knows these
answers, and unless we are ready to give up democratic
processes we must present alternate solutions and then
obey the dictates of the majority.
Besides the fact that technology is ever a part of the pic-
ture, another factor makes engineers a vital link in the
chain. Many aspects of this problem are not unlike many
of our engineering problems. In a secondary recovery
projmt or a gas plant process study, no one knows at the
outset how “clean” (of hydrocarbon liquids) we want the
reservoir or gas stream to be. Also at the outset no one
knows how much we are willing to spend. So what hap-
pens? We work a series of solutions. Each solution achieves
its incremental degree of “cleanliness”, and each has its in-
cumbent incremental costs. With the alternate solutions
worked, anyone with mature judgment can determine a
good solution. It is always the one for which the incre-
mental benefits are making the incremental costs worth-
while. Obviously there comes the time when the incre-
mental benefits become smaller and smaller, and the cor-
responding incremental costs become prohibitively higher
and higher.
The shocking commentary one is forced to make is that
most conservation goals are being set without the remotest
idea of where they fit on the incremental cost-incremental
benefit curve. Industry and municipalities alike continually
have goals thrown at them without regard for cosc or if
any interest is shown, it is only in the cost for that goal.
How can wise objectives be set without knowledge of in-
JIJLY, 1968
I.
cremental costs on both sides of the goal? The engineer’s
responsibility is twofold: to see as a responsible citizen
that incremental cost vs incremental benefit is considered in
solving air and water quality problems; and to educate
those less technically oriented on the real nature of the
problem and the real necessity of conserving the public’s
capital by securing benefits commensurate with costs.
Generally people do not really care about this problem,
or any other, until they become personally involved. Most
of the people who do care have had the problem come to
them, Every city has its local problems that affect a few
people but generally not us. Not until it is our air that
stinks, our water that smells or is unsightly, our visibility
that is limited, our eyes that smart, our throats that hurt,
our fish that are gone, our bait stand that is closed, our
boat that gets discolored, our swimming place that gets put
off limits, our business that becomes threatened, our light,
heat or rent bill that goes up, our property value that goes
down, our equipment or our auto that has to be inspected
periodically, do we act.
The Engineers’ Responsibility
If, as representatives of a profession, we take this atti-
tude, we will become involved because all these things
eventually will come to each of us if enough of us fail to
recognize a growing problem. We are not on the verge of
going over the precipice. We are not even getting worse
much faster, but all the wheels are in motion, and without
proper attention we will continue to move toward a lower
quality of surroundings. One lesson has been learned —
when air quality in a community or water quality in a lake
or river has gotten to the intolerable stage, reversal of the
factors causing the problem is a fantastic job. Very often,
a maximum effort can do no more than keep the problem
from getting worse. It is usually fairly painless to take
necessary steps to head off an undesirable condition. The
words of Irwin L. Auerbach and Kenneth Flieger in the
Feb., 1967, issue of Air Pollution Control Association
Journal are worthy of consideration:
Wldle the American people are becoming increasingly
discontented with the state of the environment, they do
not fully comprehend the nature of the contemporary
air pollution problem and the measures needed to bring
it under control. As a result, they are tempted to seek
solutions —indeed to demand solutions-that are neither
practical nor desirable. This situation, though it un-
doubtedly stems from the best of motives on the part of
both the control official and the people he ~rves, can
place a serious obstacle in the way of achieving control
of community air pollution problems. The most effective
remedy is to give the public the information it needs in
order to make sound judgments and plan constructive
action.
Mature, responsible engineers are the people best quali-
fied to give the public the information it needs.
In addition to the foregoing, consider this little story.
A naturalist believes he has solved the riddle of how the
penguin gets by with going barefoot on the Antarctic ice.
He observed that they occasionally rock back on their heels
and rest on their stiff tail feathers. This caused a student of
human nature to observe:
With the penguin or human
The rule will prevail
That he with cold feet
Will sit back on his tail.
*
Editor’s Note: A picture and biographical sketch of H.
H. Meredith, Jr., appear on Page 731.
67s
 1.

bit. An induction-electric log was obtained and analyzed not corrected for tooth wear and for variations m bit
for each well. weight and rotary speed. Fig. 1b shows the same data
Drilling variables such as bit weight, rotary speed, jet- corrected for tooth wear, bit weight and rotary speed as
bit hydraulics and mud properties were held as near con- discussed in the Appendix. These corrections do not alter
stant as practical over each test interval. Drill bits were of the basic relationship, but reduce the scatter of data and
the soft-formation type and were the same for each well. increase the relative drilling rate to a point where bit-tooth
The bi$~ wIere ~------
urn ded fnr
.-. $QQ~~ we~~ in aCCQ~dZHMX3 With wear equals zero.
AAODC standards published in 1963. For convenience, Figs. 1 through 8 show the drilling rate-differential pres-
all of this information was recorded on the penetration sure relationship obtained from eight South Louisiana
rate vs depth graph. wells. The drilling rate-differential pressure relationship
Formation pore pressures were calculated by a shale- varied from an exponential-type relationship, as found by
resistivity method similar to methods reported in the lit- others,’-””’s’ to a linear relationship. The difference, from
erature.’>” Shale intervals were selected for study from well to well, in response of drilling rate to dilTerential
the electric logs. Drilling data were retained for only those pressure is thought to be due to varying bit weight, jet-bit
shale intervals from which resistivity was used to calcu- hydraulics and formation strength.
late the pore pressure of the formation. If pore pressure
could be calculated from these shale resistivity values, the Evaluation of Results
shales would have approximately the same physical char-
acteristics. The shale intervals studied were of sufficient The sensitivity of drilling rate to differential pressure is
thickness for accurate pressure and drilling-rate deter- dependent on the magnitude of the bit load. The percent
minations. increase m driihg rate fOr a given difi~i~iiti~l p
---”
GO
-----
WI.
k
. .

The circulating equivalent mud density was determined
opposite each shale interval for the mud weight and an-
nular friction 10SS under which it was drilled. Annular
friction losses were determined by the method reported
by Howell .’4 The dynamic diiTerential pressure between
the calculated formation pore pressure and the equivalent
hydrostatic head of the mud column (p. – p,) was deter-
mined for each test interval.
The drilling rate for each interval was selected from
the drilling-rate plot and corrected for bit-tooth wear and
for variations in bit weight and rotary speed. The methods
used for correcting drilling rate are discussed in the Ap-
~end~x. -1-L.
mm piOtS -1 4:=-
1 u~ umcrcuum
--.:,.1
CGiiWiX!
---....--
pI
drilling rates were constructed.
Results
Drilling rate is affected significantly by changes in dif-
ferential pressure. In all wells studied, drilling rate de-
creased as the differential pressure increased. An increase
in differential fluid pressure from O to 1,000 psi decreased
the drilling rate by 24 to 73 percent.
Fig. 1 shows a typical drilling rate-differential pressure
relationship for one well. In Fig. 1a the drilling rate is
a measure of this sensitivityy. Table 1 shows the relation-
ship of rotary speed, bit weight, hydraulics. overburden
pressure and hydrostatic pressure to the sensitivity or the
percent increase in drilling rate for the differential pres-
sure range from O to 600 psi, The sensitivity of drilling
rate to differential pressure increases as the bit weight is
increased with only one exception — in Well B. An ex-
planation for this exception might be that Well B was
located offshore Louisiana; it is relatively shallow, and
these younger formations may have lower strength. If the
sensitivity of drilling rate to differential pressure is depend-
ent upon bit load, it must be a function of rock strength,
and this basic strength must be overcome to develop fully
CSSUI c W
the rate-differential pressure relationship. Based on the
available data — rotary speed, hydraulics, overburden
(depth) — hydrostatic and formation pressures do not
have a correlative effect on the sensitivity of drilling rate
to differential pressure.
Drilling rate increases when the formation pressure ex-
ceeds the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column. The
effect of formation pressure greater than mud-column
pressure (negative dtierential pressure) on drilling rate
can be seen in Figs. 1 through 8. Fig. 9 shows the percent
increase in drilling rate for each well as the formation

~u
WELL A
WELL A K
D = 8 3/0 in.
160 - D = 83/8 in. :160
x . W = 30,000 lb
W = 30,000 lb ● .
> N = 100 RPM
N = 100 RPM U
&120 HHP/in.2 =2.62
120 – HHP/in.2=2.62
● 1
. w
●

● 5
80 K 80 .
●
a
●
. z
:L .“ i
40 . ~ 4Q
. m
n

Oi I I I I I
-4 0 +4 +8 +12 -4 0 +4 +8 +12
(pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE-100 p51 (Pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -lOOpsi
UNCORRECTED CORRECTED

A B ,.

weight rotmy speed).

,::’:. Y. 7968 677

 . ..&

TABLE 1 — EFFECT OF DRILLING VARIABLES ON THE SENSITIVITY OF DRILLING RATE TO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

Drilling Rate Average

Percent Increase hhD Depth Average Average
Well O to 600 psi (r~m) W/D (sq in.) (ft) Head Pf
——
A 27.5 100 3.58 2.62 13,305 11,650 11,435
G 33.7 180 3.67 4.71 10,675 7,145 7,120
c 34.0 150 3.85 10,005 5.727 5,523
H 53.3 160 ;:: 3.98 1:%5 6;239 6,097
B 76.8 150 4.33 5,847 4,945
r Imn
. . . .. ~AQ 5:30 2,21 11:050 7,408 6.270
b 191.5 140 5.30 4.98 12,125 9,874 9;473

pressure becomes greater than the mud-column pressure. low differential pressure, have shown that the drilling rela-
The curves for Wells A and C coincide and show drilling tionship can be approximated by (See Appendix. )
rate increasing at an increasing rate as the differential
R=kN’(W-WO)/D . , , . . , . (1)
pressure from the formation into the wellbore increases.
The curves for the remaining wells exhibit a linear rela- The drillability constant k depends upon rock properties,
tionship. mud properties, press-ure. conditions and bit &sigri ,10
The drilling rates for each well differed for the same If it is assumed that shale properties are the same in
differential pressure. An unsuccessful attempt was made each well and small changes in mud flow properties do
to interrelate the behavior of these wells and to establish not alter the value of k, then for a given bit and for the
a re!a~iQn&@ ~Q differential! r.------
nrewure. ~,rn.nirical
~-.-_—. drilling same degree of bottom-hole cleaning, there should be a
equations appearing in the literature have the basic form relationship between the drillability constant k and differ-
R = kiV Wv/D:. IUaurer’O has shown that exponents x, y, ential pressure.
and z are functions of bottom-hole cleaning; th-erefore, A relationship between k and differential pressure could
exponents of a field-developed drilling equation will reflect not be established due to the large variations in bottom-
the degree of bottom-hole cieaning at the time of test. hole cieaning conditions between weiis. In addition, shaie
Limited field tests in South Louisiana shales, at relatively properties are not likely to be the same in each well.

WELL B
D= 143/4 in. I WELL D I

W = 42,000 lb
~~~ N = 150 RPM
HHP/m2 =4.38

u
z
i LA
& 20 L

‘ OL
-4 0 +4 +8 +12 +16 o~
-4 0 +4 +8 +12 +16
(Pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100 psi
(Pm-pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100psi
~jg. ~—~fle~! G,f difforpn
-.,., -.
fif71
. .. . .. .
nrfl
~.
rwrp
------ -
o.n ~r~~!~ng M(C,
Fig. 4-Efiect oj diflerentiai pressure on ciriiiing rate.
I 00 - I I
1 I
WELL C
E
D = 12 1/4 in. WELL E
~ 80 - E

11
. W = 50,000 lb 3 D = 121/4 in.
> ““ ~ 160
N= 150 RPM w = 65,000 lb
w \
~ 60 -. HHP/in2 =3.85 1- N = 140 RPM
U
HHP/inz =2.21
U y 120
1- . .
a ●
A .- .....
u 40 ...
. “. 2 .. ●
w a 80
z‘ -k
n ●
u
z

22:L
●

i
& 40 \ ●
a
o
-4 0 +4 +8 +12 +16 I I I I I
0
(pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100psi -4 0 +4 +8 +12 +16

Fig. 3-Eflect of differential pressure on drilling rate. Fig. 5-E#ect of differential pressure on drilling rate.

678
 1..

Eq. 1 does not accurately describe the behavior of all wells TABLE 2 — EFFECT OF HYDROSTATIC HEAD AND
because the cleaning condition is different in each case. OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ON DRILLING RATE AT
CONSTANT DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE
The problem is further complicated in that exponents of
the drilling equation will change with changes in differ- Overburden Differential Hy~:stic Drilling
ential pressure because changes in differential pressure will Pressure Pressure Rate
Well or Depth (psi) (psi) (ft/hour)
change the bottom-hole cleaning conditions.
A 12,070 –376 9,791 145
Since the behavior of all wells could not be interrelated, 12.200 – 380 9,960 153
the effect of hydrostatic head and overburden pressure 14;080 + 687 12;989 61
had to be evaluated on the basis of an individual well. 14,250 + 660 13,294 63
Table 2 shows the effect of hydrostatic and overburden 14,800 + 639 13,876 77
pressure on drilling rate with differential pressure as a D 11,700 + 445 9,267 75
parameter. These data are limited in that hydrostatic and 12,530 +449 10,874 75
overburden pressures showed little variation over the short
E 10,950 + 202 6,171 58
test intervals in each well. For Well A, at a constant dif- 11,065 + 190 6,347
ferential pressure of approximately 660 psi, overburden 11,100 +189 6,424 %
and hydrostatic pressures varied 720 psi and 890 psi, re- 11,210 +217 7,095 56
spectively. while drilling rate varied from 61 to 77 ft/hour. 11,395 +216 7,744 52
These variations in drilling rate, presented in Table 2, are
within the limits of accuracy of this work. It appears that 0 to 1,400 psi. Fig. 11 shows the percent decrease in
hydrostatic and overburden pressures have no effect on laboratory microbit drilling rates and bit-tooth crater vol-
drilling rate over the intervals studied and that differential umes” *S’as the dfierential pressure is increased from O to
pressure is the only pressure affecting drilling rate. 1,250 psi. There is close agreement between field data and
Table 3 presents the average mud properties for each laboratory data with the exception of three wells, A, C
well over the intervals studied. No correlation between and G. These wells were shown earlier to have lower
mud properties and the rate-differential pressure relation- ratios of weight to bit diameter than the other wells, and
ship was obtained. this ratio, or load on the bit, appears to be an important
Fig. 10 shows the percent decrease in drilling rate for parameter of the drilling rate-diEerential pressure rela-
each well as the differential pressure is increased from tionship.

I WELL H

160 D= 97/8 in.

. W = 45,000 lb
N = 160 RPM
. 120 HHP/inz = 3.98

\i .
:
80

1
WELL F
●
s 40 D= 9VS in. .
w W = 35,000 lb I \
z

‘IL--J
x N= 110 RPM
d 20 HHP/in? =6.74
E
o

c2- -4 0 +4 +8 +12
+16 (Pm-pf )DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -Ioopsi
(Pm-pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100 psi
Fig. 8-Eflect of differential pressure on drilling rate.
Fig. 6-Eflect of differential pressure on drilling rate.

1’
~1
80

60

4~
G

c++
W= 45,000 lb 20 -
N=180 RPM
HHP/in,2 =4.71
I 0 I I I I
0 -4 -8 -12 -16 -20
o~
-14 -10 -6 -2 0 +2 +6 +10 +14 (Pm-pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100 psi
(Pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE -100psi -s- n m...’ ,.; 4... -”+:6* *“a..,,.* or*@er !m~~.q
FIB. PfiJJtZk U] JU, ,ISUS6U.S y. c..?uw, c. ~s - .-.

Fig. 7—Eflect of differential pressure on drilling rate. mud-column pressure.

11’IY 1,, (,?

(,74,
 -.

TABLE 3—Kv”ERAGE FROPERTiiX OF E!GN@3u~r

I II ECWA7E
WI. ” , ~
i~~ncW“
w,
I=“.-”
tqrn nvEr$
_ . . .
THF
. ..-
TFST
----
!NT~RVAL IN EACH WELL
Well
A B c D E F G H

Weight, lb/gal 15.5/18.0 12.5/13.3 10.2/11.3 14.2/16.3 10.1 /13.5 14.0/15.0 10.7/14.6 9.5/12.9
Pv, Cp 46 45 25 33 25 33 37 22
YP, lb/100 sq ft 21 10 27 13 13 14 25 15

Gels, lb/100 0/0 0/5 2/10 0/6 0/5 0/4 0/2 0/12

Filtrate, 30 minute, cc 2.2 5.5 7.2 5.3 7.3 5.6 4.6 5.1

PracticaI Application been drilled successfully at near-balanced hydrostatic con-

ditions using this method.
By observing penetration rate in the field, increases in
. .. :“-.,m.c,aae
,i ;- ~~~~!~gi~n~
mrma[lon pres~”ure ~a.ii be dete~ted by arl 111-1 11,
drilling rate. An increase in formation pressure will de-
crease the differential pressure, resulting in an increase in i. Iliiiiiig rate is atieded “:-..: .-.-..+1.7a.., ,.I. o””a. “
MBIIILIILI y u y &,l-~i5-. in

drilling rate. This method can be used to avoid taking a differential pressure. Drilling rate in the wells studied was
kick or to maintain a minimum overbalance. Drilling at reduced 24 to 73 percent as the differential pressure was
near-balanced hydrostatic conditions will increase drilling increased from O to 1,000 psi.
iate aiid
—:-: —$-.. w c1 1 ~va ~.
IIMUUIIk
. ..-1 -,.”*
2. Drilling rate continues to increase as the formation
The successful use of drilling-rate data to detect in- pressure becomes greater than the mud-column pressure.
creases in formation pressure depends upon having suffi- Two wells show drilling rate increasing at an increasing
cient bit weight to fully develop the rate-differential pres- rate, and the remaining four wells exhibit a linear behavior
sure relationship. As the load on the bit increases, the with increased negative differential pressure.
sensitivity of drilling rate to differential pressure increases. w
Wells D and E exhibit the best response to differential l-~

pressure (Fig. 10). The bit loads for these two wells were “z
selected by means of an optimum-bit-weight
speed program similar to the one presented by Edwards?5
and rotary- z
-1
A quantitative method of determining formation pres- E
n OBERNKIRCHENER SS.
sure from drilling rate cannot be developed at present
due to a lack of understanding of the combined effect of
all drilling variables on drilling rate; however, if as many
drilling variables as possible are held constant over short
sections of the hole, drilling rate changes can be used to
detect formation-pressure changes. If abnormal pressures
are entered with a minimum overbalance, this overbalance ~ 80 -
should be maintained easily by observing increases in CRATER VOLUME ,NDIANA ~s,
5
penetration rate and by subsequent] y increasing the mud
weight. Determination of actual mud-weight requirements ; 100 I I I I
n o +4 +8 +12 +16 +20
is at present a matter of experience and judgment. In the
practical zone of interest between O and 500 psi, or for a (Pm-Pf) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE-IOOIXI
change in differential pressure from 500 psi overbalance Fig. 11—Luborutory data. Percent decrease in drilling
to zero. an approximate 100 percent increase in drilling rate as differential pressure increases.
rate occurs. (See Figs. 10 and 11.) Numerous wells have
I
I Ru fF)

z
u
Q
e
LLl I
n 100 I I
o +4 +8 +1.2 +16 +20 ho hf
(Pm- Pf)DIFFERENT IAL PRESSURE -lOOpsI TOOTH HEIGHT

Fig. 10—Percent decrease in drilling rate as differential Fig. 12-Efiect of tooth wear on drilling rate.
pressure increases . (After Edwards.s)

(1::(, 10 T:l?N\l Or PrTn Olrl’Nf TrCllxo IOc*

 L .&

3.By observing the drilling rate, increases in formation 9. Outmans, H. D.: “The Effect of Some Drilling Variables
on the Instantaneous Rate of Penetration”, Trans., AIME
pressure can be detected. Data on drilling rate can be used (1960) 219, 137-149.
to avoid a kick or to drill at near-balanced hydrostatic 10. Maurer, W. C.: “The ‘Perfect Cleaning’ Theory of Rotary
. ..-. .
conditions. I ms decreizses we~! costs a?.d increases the n-.ll: -%!,
~1 illill&, , J’. ‘%/. ~dh. (~~~.,
1Qfjz)
. .
1270-1274.
drilling rate. 11. Jorden, J. R. and Shirley, O. J.: “Application of Drilling
4. The sensitivity of drilling rate to differential pressure Performance Data to Overpressure Detection”, J. Pet. Tech.
(Nov., 1966) 1387-1394.
increases as the load on the bit is increased. The success- 1~. f-fofiman, C+ E, and Johnson, R. K.: “&timatiOn of For-
ful, practical application of this relationship, for the detec- mation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties”, J.
tion of increases in formation pressure through increases Pet Tech. (June, 1965 ) 717-722.
in drilling rate, depends upon having sufficient bit weight 13. Foster, J. B. and Whalen, H. E.: “Estimation of Foqation
to develop fully the rate-differential pressure relationship. Pressures From Electrical Surveys — Offshore Loumana”,
This optimum bit weight can be determined in the field. J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1966) 165-171.
5. There is no indication that overburden and hydro- 14. Wallace, W. E., Jr.: “Abnormal Subsurface Pressures
Measured From Conductivity or Resistivity Logs; pre-
static pressures affected drilling rate over the intervals sented at SPWLA Meeting, Lafayette, La. (March 8, 1965).
studied; therefore, the differential pressure between hydro- 15. Edwards, J. H.: “Engineering. Design of Drilling Opera-
static and formation pressure is the only pressure that tions”, Drill. and Prod. l%ac., API (i96#J 39.
affects drilling rate. 16. Howell, J. N.: “Improved Method Simplifies Friction-
6. A quantitative means of determining formation pres- Pressure-Loss Calculations”, Oil and Gas J. (April 25,
1966) 64.
sure from drilling rate has not been developed.
7. There is close agreement between field and labora- APPENDIX
tory data.
Correction for Tooth Wear
Nomenclature As a bit tooth duiis and exposes a iarger cross-sectieiia!
tooth area to the bottom of the hole, the drilling rate
d = hole diameter decreases. This decline in drilling rate is nonlinear, Drilling \
h = tooth height or tooth wear rate is inversely proportional to some function of tooth
hhp/sq in. = bit hydraulic horsepower per sq in. of hole wear.”
k = drillability constant 1
N= rotary speed (A-1)
‘&m””””””””””””
pm = mud column pressure, hydrostatic head
p, = formation pressure Fig. 12 illustrates the general relationship between tooth
wear and drilling rate. Field tests, at constant bit weight
p“ = overburden pressure
and rotary speed with soft formation bits in shale have
P.–PI= differential pressure shown that ~(h) is closely approximated by
R. drilling rate
j(h) = (1 + 2.5h)
w= weight on bit
W. = threshold weight on bit before cratering is where h is normalized tooth wear with h = O for a new
initiated bit and h = 1.0 for a worn bit. The constant 2.5 describes
the decline in drilling rate as the tooth dulls and is de-
Acknowledgment pendent on both bit type and the nature of the formation.
Drilling rate at any tooth dullness was corrected for
The authors express their appreciation to the engineers wear, or corrected so that wear equals zero, by
who he] ped gather information.
R.= JL(l+2.5h,), . . . . . . . . (A-2)
References where R. is the drilling rate at wear = O and R, is the
drilling rate at wear = h,.
1. Maurer, W. C.: ‘*Bit Tooth Penetration Under Simulated
Borehole Conditions,” 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec., i%5 ] 1433- To determine the tooth wear at any point during a bit
1442. run, wear was assumed to be linear with time. Rotating
2. Cunningham, R. A. and Eenink, J. G.: “Laboratory Study time at any point during the bit run was obtained from
of Effect of Overburden, Formation and Mud Column the plot of drilling rate vs depth.
Pressures on Drilline Rate of Permeable Formations”,
. . ..-
Trans., .mMD t+n=
[ EJJ9)
\-**a
AH,
o
7-
17
I #.

3. Murray, A. S. and cunningh~m, R. A.: “Effect of Mud

Column Pressure on Drilling Rate”, Trans., AIME ( i~~~ ] Driiiing rate increases as the rotary speed k~i~~~, W
204, 196-204.
at a decreasing rate. The relationship is nonlinear. The
4. ~~er, N. E., Gatlin, C. and Podio, A.: “Experimental
-C ~..... m,......t:~” ;“ T ~mecfnne at Elevated Pres-
&UUy UL GL ~LGJ A “. IIAUS.”.. .s. _ . . . . . . . . ..- -.
relationship between rotary speed and drilling rate is
surea”, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec., 1963) 1356-1364. described by
5. Eckel, J. R.: “Effect of Pressure on Rock Drillabilit y“, Raid, . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (A-3)
Trans., AIME ( 1958) 213, 1-6.
6. Robinson, L. H., Jr.: “Effects of Pore and Confining Pres- where N is the rotary speed and a is an exponent to be
sures on Failure Characteristics of Sedimentary Rocks”, determined by field tests.” Field testing has shown the
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 26-32.
rotary-speed exponent to vary between 0.4 and 1.0. A
7. Gamier, A. J. and van Lingen, N. H.: “Phenomena Affect-
ine Drillinz Rates at Depth”, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, rotary speed exponent value of 0,6 is common for Lou-
232-239. - isiana shales and was used on all corrections. Corrections
8. van Lingen, N. H.: “Bottom Scavenging — A Major Fac- for small variations in rotary speed were made using
tor Governing Penetration Rates at Depth”, J. Pet. Tech.
/ c-l- ~o<qh
{r~u., L7ULJ
IQ7-IOL
ZO, -.XU. R,/R, = (N,/N,)’ . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)

11’ T\- 111(,:1 681

 Correction for Varying Bit Weight of 1,180 lb/in. This relationship was used for all correc-
tions for bit weight. *
For perfect cleaning. drilling rate is proportional to the
square of the bit weight. However, for most field condi-
tions where cleaning is imperfect, the rate-weight relation-
ship is approximated by a linear relationship.’” An ex-
trapolation of a plot of drilling rate as a function of
weight will intersect the weight axis. This intersection, if
it is positive, can be interpreted as a threshold weight
that must be exceeded to permit the bit teeth to penetrate
the formation;’ A relationship can be written that de-
scribes how drilling rate is increased as the bit weight is
increased.
D. J. Vidrine (right) received his BS degree in petroleum
Rcc(W-WO), . . . . . . . . .. (A-S) engineering from the U. of Southwestern Louisiana in
1960. Upon graduation he was employed as a production
where W is the bit weight and W. is the intercept on the engineer by Pan American Petroleum Corp. He joined
bit weight axis at zero drilling rate. Corrections for minor Drilling Well Control, Inc., in 1966. Vidrine is a member
variation in bit weight can be made by of AIME, API and the Louisiana Engineering Socie~y, and
is a registered professional engineer in Louisiana. E. J.
R, _ (w, – w,,) Benit (left) is a Z96Z graduate of LSU with a degree in
K–(w, –W.)” petroleum engineering. He was employed by Pan Geo
Atlas Corp. as a general field engineer before joining Drill-
Several field tests in shale for 81/2-in. bits have indi- ing Well Control 4 years ago. A member of AIME and
cated that W. = 10,000 lb or a weight-to-diameter ratio API, he is a registered processional engineer in Louisiana.

. ....