SPE

Society of Petroleum
SPE 14070
Advances in Drilling Technology (1981-1986) and Where Drilling
Technology Is Heading
by K.K. Millheim, Amoco Production CO.
SPE Member
Copyright 1986. Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the SPE 1986 International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, China March 17-20. 1986. The matenal is
subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson.
Texas 750833636. Telex: 730989 SPE DAl.
ABSTRACT
Major advances in drilling technology development and
utilization havp occurred over the past five years.
This paper presents an overview of the new drilling
technology and how it is being applied in field
operations. The major technology development topiCS
that will be discussed are: (1) development of
computer tools such as new drilling algorithms; (2)
real time drilling and communications; (3) advanced
designs in bit technology and mud motors; (4) advance
in mud and solids control technology; (5) advances in
measurement whil e drill i ng (MWD) and other dri 11 i ng
technology.
The future of drilling that is presented in this
paper is even more exciting. Centralized control of
drilling operations will rapidly expand. Closed mud
systems and treatment plants along with new super
muds will evolve. New smaller automated drilling
rigs will be developed. Directional drilling will be
used mnre and more in the development of both 1 and
and offshore fields with much longer horizontal
departures. New high speed bits and mud motors will
competp with rotary drilling. All this new technology
will open up new vistas for exploration drilling,
deep drilling, and offshore development.
I NTRODUCTI ON
Since its invention the basic rotary rig has not
generically changed. The drilling rig lifts and
lowers the drill stri ng, rotates it, and uses mud
pumps to circulate fluid through it, out the bit, and
up the annulus. has changed over the years is
where the drilling machine is used and the depths it
is expected to drill. This is directly related to
the exploration requirements of drilling in more
complex geologies, drilling offshore, and drilling
for deeper oil and gas reserves.
Advances in drilling technology are direct responses
to these needs. In the early fifties to drill the
deeper formations in Oklahoma meant finding a way to
cope with the highly dipping beds that caused the bit
to deviate. Deeper drilling also meant designing
bits that could economically penetrate the harder and
more abrasive formations. Exploration offshore and
493
subsequent discoveries accelerated the practice of
directionally drilling wells off of a fixed
platform. Deeper wells meant higher downholp
temperatures which in turn necessitated the inventior
of high temperilture mud systems. Over pressured
Gulf coast geologies caused the weighted mud system
to evolvf'. Directional drillins and drilling in
certain geologies where well-bore stability is a
problem created the need to design mud systems to
stabilize the well-bore. Deeper drilling and
directional drilling impacted the drill string
design causing the evolution of the bottom hole
assembly, shock subs, jars, thick walled drill pipe,
and the positive displacement mud motor.
Economics of drilling also pushed drilling
innovation. The first attempt at deviation control
was to drill with very little weight-on-bit. This
in some cases dcubled or tripled the drilling times
and significantly increased the cost of the well.
Responding to the economics of this situation, major
ildvances were mad
r
5tge area 0
3
4dsviational
control by Lubinski ' , , , and Woods ' '. It was
found that proper placement of s tabil i zers coup 1 ed
with more weight-on-bit maintained the deviation at
an acceptable level. The economics of using milled
tooth bits to dri 11 the harder formations proved
expensive. The major problem was the rapid dulling
of the teeth. Because of th i s the insert bit was
invented and had an immediate impact on improving
the overall penetration rate. Improvements in
penetration rate were further recognized to be
1 inked with the make up of the mud system. Sol ids
concentrat i on and vi scos ity seemed to be the major
factors that impacted penetration rate. New ideas
on solids control and mud systems caused the
invention of new sol ids control equipment and mud
systems.
The innovations of the fifties and sixties were a
direct result of the drilling research programs of
the major oil companies, drilling fluid companies,
and some universities. Articles in the oil industry
trade journals abound during this period of time.
Drilling engineering was almost non-existent in the
fifties and early sixties. Toward the end of the
2
ADVANCES IN DRILLING TECHNOLOGY (1981-1986)
AND WHERE DRILLING TECHNOLOGY IS HEADING SPE 14070
sixties major oil companies and some contractors
started to recognize the need for engineering on some
of their more difficult wells. This lead to the
creation of the drilling engineer. Initially the
drilling engineer was a field oriented drilling
person with an engineering background. In many cases
the drilling engineer was the drilling supervisor or
foreman. Mos t of the drill i ng engi neeri ng of tha t
time was associated with hydraul ics design, casing
design, bit selection, cementing, and some basic mud
engineering.
By the end of the sixties offshore drilling had
become very active, causing an adaptation of onshore
drilling techniques to offshore. Intensive
exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea
had a tremendous impact on the development of
offshore drilling technology.
Between 1965 and 1973 the application of drilling
technology was at a crest. Conversely drilling
research was at an pbb. The turning point was the
oil embargo in 1973. The anticipation of higher oil
prices and the nped for oil outside the Middle East
prompted an upswing in exploration and development
drillir.c. The immediate effect was that the drilling
industry and oil companies were not ready for this
rapid growth and lacked the trained manpower,
equipment, and new drilling technology. The
seventies started a new era in drilling technology
development. Exploration and development drilling in
the North Sea caused the European communi ty to take
an active role in drill ing technology development.
Companies active in Norway and the United Kingdom
sides of the North Sea started increasing their
resparch activities both overseas and back in the
United States. Drilling fluid companies, bit
companies, and other drilling service oriented
companies embarked on new rese-arch programs. In the
United States, Sandia Laboratories embarkf>d upon a
major drilling rpsearch effort focusing on geothermal
drilling.
Without a doubt the most significant innovations in
drilling from the period of 1973 to 1982 were the
development of the polycrystalline diamond (PCD) bit,
the measurement while drilling (MWD) systems, and the
new improved invert oil emulsion mud system. Vast
improvements were made with insert bits both with
bearing design and longer tooth inserts for drilling
softer formations. The surge of development drilling
offshore pushed the development of directional
drill ing technology and enhancements of directional
drilling tools such as mud motors, surveying tools,
bottom hole. a ssemb 1 y components, and MWD surveyi ng
tools. The increasing utilization of insert bits,
the need to run higher weight-on-bits, and slower
rotary speed encouraged the development of the slow
speed high torque positive displacement motor (PDM).
Improvements in solids control equipment occurred
during the late seventies and early eighties. This
was in direct response to the need for running the
low soli ds mud sys terns such as thp KCL-po 1 ymer and
gel polymer non-dispersed systems.
Most of the innovations in the period between
1973-1982 were product or equi pment ori ented. Very
littlp resparch was done on the analytical technology
on how to predict or optimize the drilling system.
Some exceptions wpre in the area of directional
drilling, penetration rate mechanics, and shale
494
shaker ana1ytics.
By 1981 drilling peaked. The rig count and entire
drilling support industry as well as company
drilling personnel were at a maximum. The outlook
was higher oil prices and increasing activity.
Instead the curve reversed with a dpcreased rig
count, drilling personnel, and support equipment and
product. The interesting drill ing phenomenon that
accompanied the down turn of drilling activity was a
rapid growth in drilling research, now being lead by
the development of drilling analytics and the
application of drilling technology. This paper
focuses on the exponential growth of drilling
technology and its use since 1981.
DRILLING ANALYTICS AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE COMPUTER
Prior t 1982 and
I2
woods
3
,4,5,
Wa 1 ke/ Fi sher , Bf,fdl eyl ,11, tes , Ga 1
15

Woods 18 ' Wardlow , ' ,
Warren ,Millheim , and Hoberock developed
algorithms mathematically describing various parts
of the drilling process. These algorithms included
deviation control, bottom hole assembly analysis,
penetration rate, dynamic fluid loss, directional
drilling, and, shale shaker analysis. The overall
effect of most of this analytical work was a mild
impact on drill ing in the field, while some of the
technology decidedly altered the way that drilling
is done compa red to ten, twenty, and th i rty years
ago. This is especially true in thp area of
deviation control and directional drilling which has
evolved from an experience based dri 11 ing practicp
to a technology based drilling practice.
Penetration rate mechanics and other analytics
directly related to the drilling operation have not
exhibited the same success. This is partly due to
the poor predictive capabilities of some of the
algorithms when compared to field results. Another
reason is the lack of demonstrated benefits from the
use of drilling analytics.
In the seventies there was an effort to use drilling
analytiCs to optimize the drilling process. This
relied on using a certain number of drilling
algorithm's to preplan the well. This included bit
selection, hydraul ics and in some cases mud type
selection. Optimization appeared to have some
success in reducing the drilling time and well
cos ts. The amount of good is somewhat deba tab 1 e.
Drilling time versus 3fepth curves, (Fig. 1)
presented by Simpson seemed to justify the
assertion that the use of drilling optimization via
a computer was the cause of the time reduct ion.
Analysis of the same data in a different way, Fig. 2
shows a typical learn curve that is represented by
the Equation 1:
Days Drilled = C
1
e
C
2(1-n) + C
3
(1)
Where n represents the we 11 sequence number
(1,2,3,4,etc.), and C
1
generally represents how
difficult it is to dnll and/or how well one is
prepared to drill, and C? is the rate of learning
(or learn curve coefficil'!nt, (LCC) and C is the
technological and/or operational capabi 1 it} of the
drilling implementer in that geographical area.
Analysis of numerous wells offshore, onshore, and
throughout the world show the average LCC is .34.
Note that the LCC for the example is .37. This does
SPE 14070 K.K. MILLHEIM

not do much to reinforce the idea that optimization,
analytics, and the computer did much to improve the
learn curve. There is an argument that could be
brought forth that says without the ana1ytics,
optimization, and the computer the Lee could have
been much lower or non-existent.
Early drilling analytics helped support the drilling
person in determining capacities, displacements and
static loads. These types of calculations were made
even eas i er to use because of the mi cro computer.
Both the hand held and desk top micro computers are
used by most drilling people at the well and in the
office.
The predictive type of drilling ana1ytiCs have not
been so successful. Except for basic hydraulics and
well control calculations very little predictive
analytical work was done in the late seventies. The
problems of poor predictive accuracy and inabil ity
to use predictive ana1ytics in a timely manner to
impact drilling operations slowed down the
development of newer predictive drilling ana1ytics
and the routine use of the same. This also tended to
slow down research that was needed to develop the
predictive type algorithms.
The inaccuracy of drilling ana1ytics could be
attributed to a number of factors:
1) algorithms that over simplified a
particular process,
2) lack of support research,
3) not understanding mechanisms in the
process,
4) poor data base of constants relating to the
process or the geology, and
5) lack of understanding of the process as it
functions in a complete drilling system.
Drilling analytics of the fifties, sixties, and some
of the seventies for the most part were in the
category of simp1 istic. Relationships for the most
part were based on or
basic physics. Lubinski"" and Woods"
deviation control ana1ytics, without the aid of
modern computers, was a major step in showing the
community that high resolution
field 1ba!lr in the seventies ' ,
Fisher and Bradley , ,Millheim and Apostal with
the aid of the compu ter deve loped algorithms tha t
predicted the statics and dynamics of bottom hole
assemblies. This work lead to the advancement of
directional drilling and the ability to design
bottomho1e assemblies as well as predict bottom hole
assembly behavior. High speed computers and the
emergpnce of the fini te element method, as well as
the use of other numeri ca 1 techni ques, 1 ead to the
development of other analytical algorithms such 3is
the abi 1 ity to predict shale shaker performance .
This in turn lead to the design of an entirely new
generation of shale shakers.
By the end of the seventies there was a growing
recognition that being able to predict the drill ing
process could impact drilling operations and costs.
It was also recognized to realistically predict the
495
drilling process, or any part of the
process,g3i11ing should be treated as a system.
Mi 11 heim fi rst brought forth the concept of the
Engineering Simulator as a way to take drilling
algorithms that depict various parts of the drilling
process and compose a drilling system that would
simulate (predict) how that system would work. To
build such a system required the development of an
entire new level of drilling algorithms that could
be solved by a computer in faster than real time.
This also meant research support in developing
coefficients needed by the various algorithms, and
the need for high quality drilling data, as obtained
from drilling data logging companies.
The Engineering Simulator for Drilling (ESD) was
deve10peg
4
j"5ith its capabilities presented by
Millheim ' . Further descriptions of the
algorithms in thej7SD were presented bl3gMil1heim
39
,
i
actively being used to plan and evaluate wells,
drilling rigs, mud and solids control systems, and
other subsystems of the drilling system. It is also
being used in conjunction with real time drilling
operations to predict penetration rates, mud and
solids control operation, well control situations,
directional drilling predictions, as well as a host
of other applications. The Engineering Simulator is
being expanded to predict the behavior of offshore
drill-ships and semi submersibles. Over seventy
individual algorithms are in the ESD and nearly 30
are being used in the Engineering Simulator for
offshore (ESO).
The increased utilization of oil muds and the danaer
of gas going into solution in oil based muds
the development of new well contro 1 algorithms .
This has also generated both a research program to
measure the phase relationships of gas
4
going in and
out of solution in the oil base system ,and plans
for measuring gas bubble movement in a vertical and
inclined baseho1e.
The renewed interest in predicting bit life and
penetration rate as well as new bit designs has
spawned a sizeable laboratory testing program by
many companies to a new generation of
drill bit ana1ytics '. Algorithms to predict
the dynamic behavior of po1ycrysta11ine diamond
(peD) bits have been developed and are being
verified.
Another major event in the early eighties that lead
to new drilling analytics being generatpd was the
Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) Progra"4"647articular
inte
4
st was on drill string mechanics ' and hole
drag .
Further synerglSlng drilling research and the
development of new algorithms was the creation of
the Drilling Engineering Association (DEA). The DEA
presents a forum for companies to get together and
for any company to present dri 11 i ng research
proposals that other companies can join an9 share in
the cost. This has been a driving force in causing
new drilling technology to be developed.
Clearly the period between 1982 and the present has
seen unprecedented growth in high technology
computer oriented drilling ana1ytics that is
3
4
ADVANCES IN DRILLING TECHNOLOGY (1981-1986)
AND WHERE DFILLING TECHNOLOGY IS HEADING SPE 14070
starting to have a major impact on drilling
operations and the design of.drilling equipment.
Real Time Drilling and Communications
Historically, there are three modes in which wells
are contracted to be drilled: (1) day work, (2)
footage, and (3) turn key. The day work contract
usually placed the responsibility on the operator to
plan the well and supervise the contractor to
implement the plan. Usually this is accomplished by
assigning a "company man" or drill iog foreman to
supervise the drilling of the well, whereas footage
and turn key wells require less supervision by the
operator since the contractor is taking the majority
if not all of the risk. This requires the contractor
to supervise himself, usually by the full time
attention of a tool pusher. The main pOint is that
the operator and the contractor supervise the rig and
make most of the real time decisions at the wellsite.
This does not mean there is a lack of planning from
outside the drill site, on the contrary there is
always a plan. And there is, most of the time,
communication of some sort between the rig site
supervisor and the next level of supervision at some
office away from the drill site.
Drilling engineering was almost non-existent twenty
years ago. Since then the drill ing engineer has
evolved from a basic support person for the rig
supervisor to a well planner, and in many cases
assumed the dual role as the drilling supervisor and
the drilling engineer.
Whether the drill site supervi sor is an engi neer or
not, he assumes the classic role as the main real
time decision maker. The basis of his deciSion
making is his experience with the drill ing process
and his knowledge and visualization of the drilling
system. His cues are observations of the drill ing
system and results from actions he takes on the
drilling system. This can be as simple as adding a
weight-on-bit and seeing if the penetration rate
increases or as subtle as slightly altering the
chemistry of the mud and waiting to see if the hole
stability will improve.
In many occasions the drill ing supervisor faces a
drilling situation that deviates from the well plan
or his perception of what should be happening. When
this occurs his usual action is to respond to the
situation in the context of his experience and make a
change, or contact his next level of supervision and
relate his observations, looking for support for his
decision, or requesting that his supervisor make the
decision. An example of this is when a problem
arises such as stuck pipe. If the pipe is not freed
quickly the drill site supervisor usually
communicates with his boss.
Away from the drill site the usual flow of
information is a morning drilling report supplementec
by verbal communications between the drill site
supervisor and his superior. From these two sources
of information the drill ing office personnel woulc
construct a picture of the drill ing conditions anc
offer recommendations or direct orders back to the
drill site supervisor to complete. When problerr
situations occur further communications by radio,
telephone, or telex would relate the drill site
supervisor's interpretation of the drilling
496
conditions and the state of the drilling system.
For years this has been the way drilling has worked
and in many operations today this mode of drill ing
operations persists. As wells went deeper and
became more complex it was recognized by some
individuals and companies that the classical way of
drilling was not cost effective and in some cases
presented a higher probability of well problems and
even blowouts. This lead to the development of the
data logging industry which was a natural outgrowth
of the mud logging or geological logging services.
Besides catching formation samples and monitoring
the mud stream for gas, the data logger had pit
volume alarms and a flow indicator located in the
flow line. Later more sensors were added to measure
weight-on-bit, rotary speed and pump pressure, pump
strokes and torque. The "0" exponent and modifi ed
"0" exponent were calculated and shale density was
plotted. Most of this information was for kick
detection only and not drilling efficiency. Data
logging evolved at the rig site. Yet very little of
this information was used (outside of kick
detection) to make real time drillinQ decisions.
During the last half of the seventies rig site
computers were added to the data logging units.
Better outputs of data and more data were presented
to the drill site supervisor. Blowouts still
occurred, drilling costs increased, and well
problems did not diminish. The recognized di lemma
was simple: drilling data without an end use was
just drilling data. On the other side why spend
money collecting data if it had no impact on
reducing dri 11 ing costs, el iminating problems, and
helping to make correct decisions. An exception to
that was Measurement While Drilling (MWD) data which
had a value for measuring directional information
that prov i ded di rect feed-back to the direct i ona 1
driller to help make decisions.
The ei ghti es saw a major sh ift in the concept of
real time drilling data, communications between the
drill site and home office, and the drilling
dec is i on proces s. A number of compani es took the
next step and transmitted the data via microwave or
hardline or satellite back to some central location.
At the central location the data is processed and
displayed in real time. Various trend plots and
graphs are generated and interpreted by the drilling
staff. Some centers have hour
operations with alarm capabilities ' .
Even though there is 1 imited use of the rea 1 time
data, results have been encouraging and should
continue to improve as the use of the data for
planning and real time decision making increase.
This will depend on developing new analytical tools
such as the ESD and the stand alone programs that
will use the data.
Systems oriented drilling analytics require large
computers which are not practical to put on a
drilling rig. Therefore, to have a real time
analytical capability it is necessary to have high
quality drilling data on a real time basis. This in
turn requires a team of trained personnel at the
drill site and at the analytical center to properly
use these new tools. This reflects a direct need
for reliable communications and methodology to meld
the analytical tools, real time data, specially
trained personnel and communication into a workable
SPE 14070 K.K. MILLHEIM 5
system. Figure 3 depicts what is called the Critical
Dri1ling Facility (CDF) system. Figure 3 shows how
the data feeds from the dri 11 i ng ri g to the centra 1
location and is
5
processed in the for use.
Both Veenkant and Foreman detail the
communications and data processing capabilities.
This system is operational and has been used in the
Rocky Mountains and the offshore drilling in the
Bering Sea. Results of the Sea Operation are
reported by Zaremba and Millheim .
The author considers the CDF concept the major
break-through in drilling since 1981.
Advances In Bit Technology And Mud Motors
Post World War Two drilling evolved around the
tri-cone steel or milled tooth bit with roller and
ball bearings. Bit balling and tooth wear were the
two common causes of poor penetration rate and bit
failure. Bearing wear was another problem that lead
to bit failure and in some situations loss of
cone(s). In the middle sixties jets were added to
the bits to increase the hydraulic energy at the bit
face. Optimized hydraulics was added to drilling
technology. The next major breakthrough was the
invention of the insert bit. Abrasive formations
rapidly dulled the conventional steel tooth bits
causing the penetration rate to reduce early in the
1 ife of the bit. By using tungsten carbide inserts
to replace the milled teeth and using tungsten
carbide buttons for gauge protection the insert bits
increased bit 1 ife and overall penetration rate in
the harder abrasive formations. The insert bit also
had a major impact on slowing thp rotary speed back
from milled tooth bit speeds of 120 to 350 rpm to 40
to 70 rpm. Higher bit weights were used with the
insert bit putting stresses on the bearings that
caused early bit failure because of bearing failure.
New bearing technology introduced the sealed bearing
and sealed journal bearing insert bit.
Diamond bit technology first evolved around the use
of di amond core bits and a bi t to run with the high
speed turbines. The advantage of having a bit
without bearings was extremel y attractive for the
smaller diameter holes where conventional tri-cone
bits were hampered by small bearings and failed much
quicker than the larger diameter bits. It was found
that by using special grade commercial diamonds in
cubic or spherical shapes softer or harder formations
could be cut. It was also found that diamond bits
could be designed in various shapes from the step
type bit to cut softer formations to the flatter face
design for harder rocks. Problems that plagued the
diamond bits were associated with the higher
manufacturing costs, the need to custom design each
application to a given geology, the difficulty in
quality control of the diamonds, the misunderstanding
of how to run the diamond bit, trial and error
hydraulics design, and the biggest problem of the bit
not being able to penetrate economically all types of
formations. Qiamond bits did not greatly impact
drilling hetween the fifties and seventies but did
lead to the invention of the polycrystalline diamond
(PCD) cutter and the PCD bit.
The commercial process to make the artificial
diamonds and affix them to a tungsten carbide mat
497
was probably on,e of the major drilling technology
breakthroughs 1n the late seventies and early
eighties. However, as may be expected, the early
bit designs were not very successful. In response
to North Sea drilling, the first successful designs
followed the step type drag bit for softer formation
drilling and were used with downhole mud turbines.
Domestically the flatter faced PCD bit was starting
to show some promise. This bit was designed for
high weight-on-bits and conventional rotary speed.
Both in the North Sea and the Tuscaloosa trend,
these two PCD bit types had long bit runs in the
homogeneous chalk type formations. It was not long
before it was discovered that both bit designs
performed much better in oil muds. This was
especially true with the flooded design that had low
hydraulic energy at the bit face.
Further field applications with different PCD bit
designs showed that by using high hydraulics, from 8
to 12 hhp/sq. in., with water based muds the PCD bit
could duplicate the low hydraulics oil base drilling
results. Like the diamond bits the PCD design was
only economical for drilling homogeneous thick
formations. If the formations were too
heterogeneous the PCD cutters would fail when
drilling from a softer ductile formation to a harder
brittle formation. This lead to new PCD cutter
designs such as the small triangular shaped cutters.
Even so the newer peD designs still cannot drill the
various formation types in a cost effective manner.
Also the PCD bits have not fared well in drilling
the harder more abrasive formations. This has
caused two design thrusts on PCD bit designs. The
first is the thickening of the layer of the
artificial diamonds on the tungste%6carbide mat to
increase the temperature capability of the cutter
to withstand rapid abrasion. The second is to
des i gn different cutter shapes and sizes. At the
present the PCD bit utilization has reached a
plateau as most of the applications for the PCD bits
are still directed towards the thick homogeneous
formation types.
Mud Motor Technology
Downhole mud motors (turbine) to power a drill bit
were first introduced in Russia (1934). In 1959 the
turbine drill motor was used in France and later in
1960 it was introduced to the Unitpd States. The
success of the turbine outside Russia has been very
1 i mi ted. Less than one percent (1%) of the tota 1
footage drilled in the United States has been with
turbines, whereas in Europe it has been much more
and in Russia it still ranks around fifty to Sixty
percent (50-60%) of all the drilling done. Three
main problems have plagued the use of the modern day
turbines. The first is the control of the turbine
in keeping the right weight-on-bit to yield the
optimum power performance, Some companies are now
trying to develop a tachometer that will have enough
sensitivity and data rate so that the turbine can be
accurately controlled. The second problem with the
turbine is the design of the turbine system with the
right bit and hydraulics. The third problem is the
design of a bearing package and bits that will make
the turbine economically viable as compared to
rotary drilling and drilling with positive
displacement motors (PDM).
6
ADVANCES IN DRILLING TECHNOLOGY (1981-1986)
AND WHERE DRILLING TECHNOLOGY IS HEADING SPE 14070
Some of the early success with the PCD bit in the
North Sea was attributed' to using the PCD in
combination with a turbine and using oil mud as the
drilling fluid. However, it was later found that by
using another PCD design in an oil mud with higher
hydraulics, more weight-on-bit. and rotary drilling
that the economics of turbine drilling versus rotary
drilling with PCD bits were the same. Further
analysis of turbine results implied the turbines were
not delivering the anticipated power and were in fact
drill ing at a much lower bit speed. This suggested
that the bearings under axial loading consumed more
power than predicted. Another explanation was the
lack of a bit speed monitor to keep the turbine at
optimum conditions. Until these problems are solved
the turbine will continue to be a specialty tool used
in situations where it is clearly evident that rotary
drilling is operationally and/or economically
unattractive.
The Positive Displacement Motor (PDM) was first
developed and used in the United States in 1966. The
one lobe rotor and two lobe stator design was
primarily used for directional drilling. Later the
PDM was used for some special cases of straight hole
drilling. Essentially the earlier straight hole PDMs
were limited to higher speeds and lower torqups and
were only suited to the milled tooth bit and not
insert bits that required lower speeds and more
weight-on-bit which meant more torque. This
requirement caused the multi-lobed high torque motor
to be developed. This included the 3/4, 5/6, and
9/lD rotor/stator designs. Straight hole drilling
with a high torque PDM and insert bit was not
economically competitive when compared to straight
hole rotary drilling except in special cases.
The most significant advancement in mud motor
technology was the development of the directional PDM
that also can be used to drill ahead by rotating the
drill string. The motor is oriented kpeping the
dri 11 string static. The mechanism to deviate the
bit is based on some form of bit tilt like a bent
housing. Once the drill string is rotated the bit
orientation is along the new centerline of the
borehole causing the bit to drill in the direction of
the new centerline. This has proved to be very
successful in drilling directional wells where the
formations are soft and respond to the bit tilt
mechanism.
Another advancement in motor technology is the
development of the high speed PDM (700-900 RPM) for
use with turbine type PCD and diamond bits. High
speed PDM technology is still in the proto-type field
testing stage.
Advances in Mud and Solids Control Technology
After the second World War mud technology rapidly
advanced and specialized to address the geologies and
downhole conditions of drilling deeper, drilling
directional holes, and addressing troublesome hole
conditions. A departure from the standard gel water
1 ignosulfanate mud system was the "red 1 ime muds" so
named from the thinner quebrocho added to the system.
Other muds such as the gypsum and oil muds also
gained popularity in various geological areas. As
more and more drill ing moved offshore the seawater
gel polymer system became popular. In the sixties
498
the low solids non dispersed (LSND) mud system was
introduced for drilling in some hard rock areas.
Thesp polymer based mud systems probably had the
most significant impact on mud technology
development in the seventies.
The LSND mud, exhibiting success in certain
geological areas (mostly hard rock), was not as
successful in the softer geologies especially in
areas with troublesome shales. Recognition of the
shale problem lead to the development of the
potassium chloride (KCL) mud system which showed
great promise in stabilizing shales. Difficulty in
maintaining the system and having an adequate solids
control system on most drilling limited the
successful use of the earlier KCL systems.
Need for shale stabilization in North Sea drilling,
and the poor success of the KCL system lead to the
evolution of the invert emulsion oil mud system with
an emulsified water phase between 8 to with a
balanced activity the water phase and the
shales to be drilled . The development of the
invert emulsion oil mud system not only enhanced
well bore stabil ity, it improved directional
drill i ng performance. The use of the oi 1 mud, PCD
bit, and turbine showed dramatic improvements in
penetration rate over conventional rotary drilling
with tri-cone bits. In the United States the invert
emulsion oil mud showed the same success in drilling
troublesome shales. However, cost and environmental
concerns have limited the use of the invert emulsion
oil system in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore the
east and west coasts.
The advent of better solids control lead to a
re-emergence of the mixed salt KCL polymer system.
Not as environmentally sensitive, the KCL polymer
system showed good well bore stabilization in the
troublesome shale areas. The cost of the KCL
polymer system varied from being cheaper than the
invert emulsion oil mud system to as expensive when
disposal of the KCL polymer system was difficult.
Penetration rates with the KCL polymer system were
generally less than the invert oil systems.
Another problem with running invert emulsion oil
muds in soft rock geologies, especially with
permeable sandstones, was the apparent leak off of
s i gnifi cant amounts of 0 i 1 mud to the forma t ion
making the mud too expensive to run. This problem
coupled with the environmental problem led to
another major advance in mud technology, the
development of the potaSSium 1 ime morex (KLM) mud
system. Using Morex and KOH rather than NaOH the
KLM mud showed good shale stabilization and has
proven effective and environmentally
acceptable . This mud system is being used more
and more in soft rock drilling areas with increased
success.
Introduction of finely ground hematite as a
weighting substitute for bari
S7
has been another
advance in oil mud technology . The impetus for
the use of hema t i te came from the qua 1 ity contro 1
problems with barite and observation that finely
ground hematite, especially in oil muds, did not
cause excessive amounts of wear on the pump parts.
Mud systems have been historically crippled by the
inadequately designed and operated solids control
SPE 14070
K. K. 7
system. This was most evident when running
the complex KCL polymer -type muds where solids
control was an absolute necessity to maintain the
economic usage of polymers. The most significant
breakthrough in solids control technology was the
development of shale shakers that could run finer
mesh screens and sti 11 have the capacity to handle
the optimum pump rates. Screens were designed that
inhibited blinding. Flat and negative tilt shaker
beds were other innovations that permitted a
significantly better cut of solids than with previous
shale shaker designs and in many situations made the
use of desanders and desilters obsolete.
Increased use of high speed centrifuges has been
another innovation of the eighties. Many solids
control systems now consist of three to four shale
shakers and multiple centrifuges with the desi lter
and desander not operating.
Another promising solids control technology now
evolving is the dynamic fine solids removal system.
Originally designed for mud pit clean-up this system
has the potent i a 1 (when the economi cs are better) to
treat all the fines discarded by the shale shaker,
desander, desilter, and centrifuges and return drill
water back to the active system.
The closed loop mud system, especially with oil muds,
is routinely being used in the drilling of certain
high cost and environmentally sensitive wells. This
has been brought about by the advances in sol ids
control technology in the past five years.
Advances in Measurement While Drillinq (MWD) and
Other Drilling Technology
The evolution of MWD services in the seventies was
the direct result of a need for better directional
drilling control. Within a short time it was shown
that a MWD tool to transmit inclination, direction
and tool face was cost effective in reducing the cost
to drill a directional or deviation control well.
Other MWD services were offered that measured various
drilling efficiency parameters and formation
properties. The drilling efficiency MWD services
have not been shown to be cost effective, whereas in
certain applications the formation evaluation MWD has
been shown to be cost effective. Another problerr
that most MWD tools exhibited was an early failure
rate because of downhole vibration while drilling the
harder formations. Future enhancements to the
sensors and electronics should virtually el iminate
this problem.
Another major development over the last five years is
the increased use of rotary top drives to rotate the
drill string and bit. Five years ago there were only
a few in the field, today the count is over a
hundred. In the future most large and some mediurr
size rigs will have some type of top drive.
There are other advances such as the increased use of
automa ted pi pe handl i ng equi pment and SCR powered
drilling rigs. PCD development has made it possible
to design new PCD cutters for core bits and
under-reamers. There are many other advances in
downhole surveying equipment and well bore proximity
logging. The period between 1981 and 1986 has seen
an explosion in technology development.
499
The next part of this paper gives an insight to
where the dri 11 i ng techno logy cou 1 d be headi ng in
the future.
DRILLING TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS IN THE FUTURE
The historical development of drilling technology
has been shown to be closely linked with the
requirements of exploration, i.e. depth, different
geologies and environment, and the development of
discovered fields. The future is no different.
Dri 11 i ng wi 11 respond to the needs of exp 1 orat i on
and development. There is no one extrapolation into
the future that cou 1 d be used to pred i ct how much
exploration will take place; where will be the hot
exp lora ti on areas?; when will the supp 1 y of energy
fall below the demand?; when will the price of oil
and gas go up and how much?; how many companies will
st ill be exp 1 orers?; wha t wi 11 be the number of
remaining drilling contractors and drilling services
companies?; and what will be the level of drilling
research? Other unpredictable events such as wars,
oil embargnes, collapse of oil and gas pricing could
change the future more quickly and drastically than
anything else.
With all the above questions and possibilities, what
will drilling look like in the future? The
remaining part of this paper looks into the future
and cites some possible directions that drilling
technology could take in the next five to ten years.
These can basically be divided into two major areas:
(1) drilling systems technology and (2) drilling
equipment systems and new products.
Drilling Systems Technology
Clearly the biggest breakthrough in drilling
technology will be treating the drilling operation
as a complete drilling system. A model of this
futuristic drilling system is presented by Fig. 4.
The system is comprised of five main elements: (1)
the analytical center, (2) trained systems oriented
personnel, (3) communications, (4) real time data,
and (5) the methodology (or dynamics) of the system.
It is possible that most of the drilling in the next
fi ve to ten yea rs wi 11 be from dri 11 i ng centers
located in strategic places allover the world.
These centers could be run by the operating
companies, service companies, drilling contractors,
or even special consulting companies specializing in
this type of service.
An examination of the component parts of the system
gives an insight to the individual technologies,
tools, and people that will make up this futuristic
system.
The Analytical Center
The analytics center is the hub of the drilling
system, housing the computer hardware and software.
The software could include data bases, drilling
simulation, individual stand alone drilling
algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI), and
various input and output capabilities. The hardware
could consist of special high speed engineering
structured computers with multiple parallel
processing capabil ities, array processors,
artificial intelligence hardware with interactive
8
ADVANCES IN DRILLING TECHNOLOGY (1981-1986)
AND WHERE DRILLING TECHNOLOGY IS HEADING SPE 14070
co10rgraphics work stations. Networking would
connect a 11 the center ha rdwa re with other centers
and larger main frame computers.
The engineering simulator will be used for detailed
planning of wells, evaluation of drilling rigs and
solids control systems, as well as real time analysis
of dri 11 ing system problems. The simulator wi 11 be
used for analyzing other drilling and completion
related activities such as offshore drilling from
drill ships and semi submersibles, cementing, well
testing, completions, and simulation. Other stand
alone analytical computer programs will be used to do
individual analysis on special parts of the drilling
and completions system such as casing deSign, log
analysis, and simulation design. As the computer
hardware and software programs progress there will be
a day when the engineering simulator will be able to
invent ways of drill ing, cementing, and completing
that have not been done before. The potential is for
the drilling and completions engineer to be creative
with the engineering simulator. This in turn will
impact operations and equipment design. AI
technology will be used to supplement and strengthen
real time decision making in operational areas like
mud diagnostiCS, fishing, and special operations like
running under-reamers, mud motors, well testing, and
subsea equipment.
Systems Oriented Personnel
The future will see a- much different type of drilling
person that will be not only grounded in the
individual drill ing technologies but also will be
highly systems oriented. This will be possible
because the future drilling system allows the new
drilling candidate to learn from the analytically
oriented engineering simulator, the AI programs, and
to participate both in the center and at the drilling
rig. This will give the drilling person the
technical grounding in the individual technologies as
well as produce a systems oriented approach to
dri 11 i ng.
This type of systems approach to training and the
creation of systems oriented drill ing persons wi 11
make it possible to set up drilling systems centers
in various parts of the world and quickly train
drilling personnel to operate in this systems
oriented manner. From this the lag time of
technology transfer to the field will be greatly
reduced.
Communications
Communications is another rapidly emerging
that will make the future drilling system work.
Satell ite, micro wave, and later fiber optiCS
technologies will continue to expand and make
communications more and more cost effective. In the
future a 11 but the very i nexpens i ve we 11 s will have
some mode of real time communications (telephone,
fax, computer terminal, and data) back to the
drilling systems center. More expensive operations
will have a full communications capability with
video, voice, and data. Real time logging, well
testing, and other operations will be routinely done
through the systems centers.
Not only will there be major in the hardware
side of communications, but there will also be major
500
changes in the way that people communicate
information and decisions during the drilling
operations. Real time video conferencing between
the center and the drilling rig as well as real time
observation of drilling activities will be the
standard mode of operation.
Real Time Data
The future drilling operation will have real time
transmission of various data from sensors on the
drilling rig system. Other information such as
geological descriptions, MWD data, drill string
data, and special tool operations will be available
depending on the critical nature of the well and the
overall economics. The major difference in how data
and information are handled today and how it will be
handled in the future, is the future system will
have data managed by AI programs that will control
the storage of all the data in the data base, do
data quality monitoring, check for missing data, and
provide the data in formats that optimize its
useage. This AI systems control will also look for
critical data and be an alarm system for the center.
Future data logging systems will range from full
blown data/communications modules capable of
transmitting any data to small inexpensive unmanned
data collection/transmission units. Rigs will have
standard sensors that are part of the rig that will
plug into these data/communications modules. Mud
systems will be completely instrumented as well as
the drilling machine.
System Methodology (or Dynamics)
How each drill i ng center s ys tem dynami ca 11 y works
wi 11 be decided by the make up of the system, the
culture of the company running the system, and even
the location of the center. Some companies may have
one large center and some may have many smaller
sub-centers that work independently or collectively.
What is predictable is that the methodology wi 11 be
very systems oriented with communications and
technology being emphasized throughout the
operation. Ultimately, it is the success of the
i nd i vi dua 1 methodology tha t wi 11 gua rantee the
success of the drilling systems approach. This will
lead to the next step which will be the creation of
the company operations center that will control all
future operations.
Drilling Equipment Systems and New Products
Historically, drill ing equipment and products were
independently developed by mud, bit, motor, and
other vertically oriented service and equipment
compani es. I n the future equ i pment will evolve as
the various drilling systems dictate. This has
alre.ady started to happen. Also, the companies
involved in product and equipment development will
become less vertical and more horizontal. Already
some drilling contractors offer directional drilling
and MWD servi ces, data 1 oggi ng and other dri 11 i ng
related services. Other drilling support companies
se 11 bits, have mud motors, offer MWD and
directional drilling services, sell muds, and offer
the sale and lease of other drilling equipment. The
trend in the contractor and service industry is to
move toward offering packages of services and
equipment.
SPE 14070 K.K. MILLHEIM 9
Dri 11 i ng rigs of the future wi 11 be more automated
and instrumented. Top dri.ves will be the standard
mode of rotilting the pipe. Surface pressure ratings
of the pumps and circulation system will increase. A
new type of closed loop light weight drilling rig
will be designed around the use of high speed PCD
bits and mud motors. This highly mobile type of
drilling rig will make it possible to greatly reduce
exploration and development costs down to 10,000 -
12,000 feet or more (See Fig. 5). Other features the
new rigs will have are computer controlled blowout
preventers and choke controls.
Another major system that will be used in the future
will be built around high speed turbines and PCD bits
with special downhole and/or surface advance systems.
These new PCD bits will use cutter designs that
permit the PCD bit to drill through various formation
hardnesses and types. The key to this system is high
bit speeds and low wei ght-on-bi t. Thi s system wi 11
require special muds that enhance the use of the PCD
bits and maintain well bore stability.
Directional drilling will be used more and more to
drill horizontal wells for special insitu projects
and better drainage of older fields. Long departure
directional drilling will continue to increase.
Drilling systems with top drives, MWD, and special
directional/drill ahead PMS with PCD bits will be
used to dri 11 these types of wells. Other
directional drilling will include cluster drilling
out of a single well bore to better drain oil and gas
fields.
In the future reserve pits will be eliminated and
closed loop mud and solids control systems will be
the common placr>. Some drilling operations will use
a full mud treatment plant, and use multiple mud
s ys terns to dri 11 a we 11. The new soli ds control
system will be designed around high performance shale
shakers, centrifuges, and chemical treatment modules
that will strip all the low micron solids out of the
system and return sol ids free water to the active
system.
The va ri ety of muds tha t wi 11 be run in the future
will reduce. It is possible that six to eight mud
systems will be designed to be compatible with a
given drilling system. For soft rock drilling the
tendency might be to use the KLM type muds, whereas
for PCD bits and motors oil muds might be used. The
new muds will be designed for better well bore
stability and less particle degradation. These new
muds will become more acceptable.
MWD systems in the future will keep pace with
drilling and formation evaluation requirements. As
uses are found for downhole measurements of torque,
weight-on-bit, pressure, bit speed, temperature, and
other parameters they wi 11 be added to the system.
The use of MWD for formation evaluation will steadily
grow as new sensors are developed. Future MWD
systems could be used in special development drilling
programs completely eliminating wireline logs. This
will depend on the economics and tool development.
There will undoubtedly be other major improvements in
products and equipment that are not foreseen here.
However, it is the author's opinion that most of the
breakthroughs that will occur will be the direct
501
result of developing the drilling systems of the
future.

The author would like to thank Amoco for its
permiSSion to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. McDonald, G.E., and Lubinski, Arthur, "Straight
Hole Drilling Crooked Hole Country", Oil and
Gas Journal, 5/3/51.
2. Lubinski, Arthur, "Factors Affecting the Angle
of Incl ination and DOg-LerQing in Rotary
Boreholes, Oil and Gas Journa , 2/23/53.
3. Woods, H. B., "Effect of Collar Size in Crooked
Ho 1 es", API Mi d-Cont., Spri ng Meeti ng, Tu 1 sa,
3/55.
4. Woods, H. B., and Lubinski, Arthur, "Problems
in Hole Deviation", Oil and Gas Journill,
5/31/54.
5. Woods, H. B., and Lubinski, Arthur, "How to
Determine Best Hole and Drill Collar Size", Oil
and Gas Journal, 6/7/54.
6. Lubinski, Arthur, "f.'laximum Permissible Dog Legs
in Rotary Bore Holes", AIME-SPE Tech.
Publication No. 1543, 1543-F, Denver Meeting,
10/25/60.
7. Walker, H. B., "Some Technical and Economic
Aspects of Stabilizer Placement", Journal of
Petroleum Technology, June 1973, pages 663-672.
8. Walker, H. B., "Downhole Assembly Design
Increase Rap Cuts Cost", World Oil, June 1977,
pages 59-65.
9. Fischer, J. F., "AnalySiS of Drill Strings in
Curved Boreholes" , SPE Prepri nt No. 5071,
Presented Oct. 6-9, 1974, in Houston.
10. Bradley, W. B., "Factors Affecting the Control
of Borehole Angle in Straight and Directional
Wells", SPE Preprint No. 5070, Presented Oct.
6-9, 1974, in Houston.
11. Bradley, W. B., and Murphy, C. E., "Advantages
of Heavy Metal Collars in Directional Drilling
and Deviation Control", SPE PrE-print No. 5545,
Presented Sept. 28 - Oct. I, 1975, in Dallas.
12. Estes, V. C., and Randall, B. V., "Practical
Application of 0ftimized Drilling Operations",
Presented at Dri ling Technology Conference of
IADC, March 16-18, 1977.
13. Galle, E. M., ilnd Woods, H. B., "Variable
Weight and Rotary Speed for Lowest Dri 11 ing
Cost
ii
, Presented at Annual Meeting of AAODC,
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27, 1960.
14. Lummus, J. R., "Optimized Drilling in the 70's
- Analysis of Mud Hydraulics Interaction",
Petro Engr. Reprinted Series.
10
ADVANCES IN DRILLING TECHNOLOGY (1981-1986)
AND WHERE DRILLING TECHNOLOGY IS HEADING SPE 14070
15.
16.
17.
18.
Wardlaw, H. W. R., "Optimization of Rotary
Drilling Parameters", Phd. Dissertation,
University of Texas, August 1971.
Outmans. M. D., "Mechanics of Static and Dynamic
Filtration in the Borehole", S.P.E.J., Sept.
1963, pages 236-244.
Outmans, M. D., "The Effect of Some Drillin*
Variables On the Instantaneous Rate 0
Penetration Rate", SPE Petroleum Transactions
Reprint Series No.6.
Warren, T. M., "Drilling Model for Soft
Formation Bit", SPE Preprint No. 8438, Presented
Sept. 23-26, 1979, in Las Vegas.
19. K. K., Jordan,S., and Ritter, C.,
"BoLt.om Hole Analysis Utilizing the
Fi nite-E] ement Method , SPE Journal, February
1978, 265-274.
20. Millheim, K. K., "The Effect of Hole Curvature
on the Trajectory of a Borehole", SPE Preprint
No. 6779, Presented Oct. 9-12, 1977.
21. Millheim, K. K .. "Operators Hilve Much to Learn
About Directional Drillin:", Oil and Gas
Journal, Nov. 6, 1978.
22. Mi 11 heim, K. K., "Proper h.P]) 1 ication of
Directional Tools Key to Succe"'\ oil ilnd Gas
Journal, November 20, 1978.
23. Millheim, K. K., "Here Are the of
Bottom-Hole Assembly Mechanics", Oi 1 and Gas
Journal, December 4, 1978.
24. Mi l1heim, K. K., "Single-Stabil izer Behavior
Described", Oi 1 and Gas Journal, December 18,
1978.
25. Millheim, K. K., "Behavior of Multiple
Stabi 1 izer Bottom-Hole Assembl ies", Oi I and Gas
Journal, January I, 1979.
26. Millheim, K. K., "Controlling Hole Direction in
Very Soft Format ions" , 01 I and Gas Journa I,
January IS, 1979.
27. Millheim, K. K., "Controlling Techniques in
Medium-Soft and Medium Formations", Oil and Gas
Journal, January 29, 1979.
28. Mil1hetm, K. K., "Hard-Formation Directional
Drilling Cans for Special Care", Oil and Gas
Journal, February 12, 1979.
29. Millheim, K. K., Gubler, F. H., Zaremba, H. B.,
"Evaluating and Planning Directional Wells
Utilizino Post Analysis Techniques and a Three
Dimensional Bottom Hole Assembly Program", SPE
Preprint No. 8339, Presented Sept. 23-26, 1979,
in Las Vegas.
30. Millheim, K. K., and Apostal, M. C., "The Effect
of Bottom Hole Assembly Dynamics on tne
Trajectory of the Bit", JPT, Dec. 1981, pages
2323-2337.
502
31. Hoberock. L. H., "A Study of Vibratory
Screening of Drilling Fluids", JPT, Nov. 1980.
32. Simpson, M. A., "Calculator Program Optimizes
Bit, Weight, Rotary Speed. Reducing Drilling
Cost", Oil and Gas Journal, April 23, 1984,
pages 71-78.
33. Millheim, K. K., "The Role of the Simulator in
Drill ing Operations", SPE Preprint No. 11170,
Presented Sept. 26-29, 1982, in New Orleans.
34. Millheim. K. K., and Huggins, R. L., "The
Engineering Simulator for Drilling {Part IF.
SPE Preprint No. 12075, Presented Oct. 5-8,
1983, in San Francisco.
35. Millheim, K. K., and Huggins, R. L., "The
Engineering Simulator for Dri 11 ing (Part 2F,
SPE Prepri nt No. 12209, Presented Oct. 5-8,
1983, in San Francisco.
36. Millheim, K. K., and Tulga, S. S., "Simulation
of the Wellbore Hydraulics While Drilling,
Including the Effects of Fluid Influxes and
Losses and Pipe Washouts", SPE Preprint No.
11057, Presented Sept. 26-29, 1982, in New
Orleans.
37. Brett, J. F., and Summers, M. A., "Planning and
Practical Problem Using an Engineering
Simulator for Drilling, SPE Preprint No.
13206, Presented Sept. 16-19, 1984, in Houston.
38. Brett, J. F., and Yoder, D. L., "Use of the
Engineering Simulator for Drilling for
Evaluating and Designing Drilling Rigs",
IADC/SPE Prepri nt No. 13480, Presented Ma rch
6-8, 1985, in New Orleans.
39. Onyia, E. C., "Geology Drill ing Log (GDL), A
Computer Database System for Drilling
Simulation", SPE Preprint No. 13113, Presented
Sept. 16-19, 1984, in Houston.
40. Reynolds, W. R., "Economic Analysis of Drilling
Plans and Contractors b
7
Using a Drilling
Systems Approach", lADC SPE, Preprint No.
13466, Presented March 6-8, 1985, in New
Orleans.
41. Skidmore, D. B., and Anderson, C. T., "Solids
Control Design and Anal
1
sis Using---an
Engineering Simulator for Dri ling". IADC/SPE,
Preprint No. 13434, Presented 6-8, 1985,
in New Orleans.
42. Warren, T. M., "Penetration Rate Performance of
Roller Cone Bits", SPE Preprint No. 13259,
Presented Sept. 16-19, 1984, in Houston.
43. Warren, T. M., "Factor Affecting Torque for a
Tricone Bit", SPE Preprint No. 11994, Presented
Oct. 5-8, 1983, in San Francisco.
44. Thomas, D. C., and Lea, Jr, J. F., "Blowouts-
A Computer Simulation Study", IADC/SPE,
Preprint No. 11375, Presented Feb. 20-23, 1983,
in San Francisco.
SPE 14070 K.K. MILLHEIM
11
45. Thomas, D. C. , and Lea, Jr. , J. F. , and Turek, 58. Walker, T. O. , :Jearing, H. L. , Simpson, J. P. ,
E. A. , "Gas Solubilitt in Oil-Based "The Role of Po tass i urn in Lime Muds", SPE
Fluids: Effects on KicK Detection", SP Preprint No. 13161, Presented Sept. 16-19,
Preprint No. 11115, Presented Sept. 26-29, 1982, 1984, in Houston.
in New Orleans.
59. Walker, C. O. , "Alternate Weishtins Material",
46. Dunayersky, V. A., and Judzis, A., "Conservative SPE Preprint No. 11116, Presented Sept. 26-29, I
and Nonconservative Bucklins of SPE 1982, in New Orleans.
I
Preprinted No. 11991, Presented Oct. 5-8, 1983,
i
in San Francisco.
I
I
47. Dawson, R. , and Paslay, P. R. , "Drill Pipe
I
Buckling in Inclined Holes", SPE Preprinted No.
11167, Presented Sept. 26-29, 1982, in New
!
Orleans.
i
48. Dawson, R. , Johnacsik, C. H. , Friesen, D. B. ,
"Toraue and Dras in Directional Wells -
Prediction and Measurement", JPT, June 1984,
pages 987-992.
49. Bobo, W. R. , and Isaaes, W. R. , "Design and
of a Real Time Drillins Data 5pt
Prepri nted No. 13109, Presented Sept. 16-19,
1984, in Houston. i
!
i
50. Millheim, K. K. , and Zaremba, H. B. , "Case I
Histort: Desi
s
nin
1
and the
I
in the Navarin Basin,
i
0rera ti ons for Dril- i ng 1
aSKan Bering Sea", IADC/5pt Preprint No.
i
14732, Presented Feb. 10-12, 1986, in Dallas.
i
,
51. Veenkant, R. , and Vitali, V. D. , "Satellite
Communications Changes Drilling Operations and
Procedures" , SPE Preprint No. 14U72, Presented
March 17-20, 1986, in Beijing, China.
52. Foreman, R. D. , "The Drill ing Command and
Control System", SPE Preprint No. 14387,
Presented Sept. 22-25, 1985, in Las Vegas.
53. Black, A. D. , Walker, G. A. , Tibbits, and
Soundstrom, J. L. , "PDC Bit Performance for
Rotary, Mud Motor, and Turbine Dri 11 i ng
SPE Preprint No. 13258, Presented
Sept. 16-19, 1984, in Houston.
54. Moore, B. W. , Lynch, B. W. , and Talbot, K. J. ,
"A Case History of Pol ycrystall ine Diamond
Compact Bit Performance in the Tuscaloosa
Trend", SPE Preprint No. 11944, Presented Oct.
5-8, 1983, in San Francisco.
55. Golis, S. W. , "Analysis of the Invert Emulsion
Oi 1 Mud Polycrystalline Diamond Bit System in
Shallow Permeable Formations I, IADC/SPE Preprint
No. 11391, Presented Feb. 20-23, 1983, in Nel'<
Orleans.
56. Zijsling, D. H. , "Analysis of
Distribution and Performance of Polycrystall ine
Diamond Compact Bits Under Field Drilling
Cond it lOns", SPE Prepri nt No. 13200, Presented
5ept. 16-19, 1984, in Houston.
57. Boyd, P. A., Wh it f ill , D. L. and All amon, J. P.
"New Base Oil Used in Low-ToxiCit
a
Oil Muds" ,
SPE Preprint No. 12119, Presente Oct. 5-8,
1983, in San Francisco.
503
SPE 14070
Fig. 1
CLASSIC MEASURE OF OPTIMIZATION
1000 tr""""--------------------.,
Depth
Ft.
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
Grand Isle Block 20
Drilling Performance Curves
Numbered in Order Drilled
14000 '---_.....I.-_--"-_----J __ _ __'____"'_=_'_ __ '"___----'
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Days
(After Simpson
32
)
\I
Fig. 2 LEARN CURVE PLOT
(Data From Grand Isle Block 20,Simpson 32)
50
40
t-
30
-
'--.
Days


20 -

10 -
0
I I I I I I
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Well Number
504
Fig. 3
CRITICAL DRILLING FACILITY
2 Well On-Land
Group Facility
SYSTEM
*
8 Passive
Wells Into
Data Base &
Monitored
505
I Central Facility I
3 Well Off-Shore
Group Facility
SP 1 4n7 0
Fig. 4
CDF CONCEPT
Trained
Personnel
Methodology
Fig. 5
CLOSED
DRILLIN
SYSTEM
Engineering
Simulator
F or Drilling
ESD
LOOP
Conventional
G
Rig Design
Closed Loop Mud 0",
System
(No Reserve Pit)
rNon Toxic Oil Mud 1,;;.;;;;,-"':'" 1\
"
,"'.
,




0 . 0
.
. .
. 0
..
:
.0
. . .

........ . . . .
.
.
..

.. . .
.
.
.. .. . .

..........
:

. .
I
High Speed
"l T
Turbine or I
T Positive

..
..
: .. Displacement
.
.- .-
.. .. . -...... : .:
I
poe Type Bit
"-
For High Speeds
506
I Communica tions I
Real Time
Data
ij
Precise
Hydrauli
Drive
c Feed
Power
Swivel
' I
1/1
..
..

.. :
..
0:, Aluminum
.M Drill Pipe -
Possibile :c
MWD
. ..,
I....
I