APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001

Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Introduction
To
Underbalanced Drilling

Prepared by: Steve Nas

Asia Pacific Regional Engineering Manager
Weatherford Underbalanced Systems
238a Tompson Road
#16-01/04 Novena Square Tower A
Singapore 307684
Tel +65 6511 3688
Email: steve.nas@ap.weatherford.com

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 1 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5
OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 5
PERFORMANCE DRILLING ..................................................................................................................... 6
MANAGED PRESSURE DRILLING ........................................................................................................... 7
WHAT IS UNDERBALANCED DRILLING? .................................................................................... 8
UNDERBALANCED RESERVOIR DRILLING ........................................................................................... 10
HISTORY OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING............................................................................. 11
WHY DRILL UNDERBALANCED? ................................................................................................. 12
UNDERBALANCED VERSUS OVERBALANCED ...................................................................................... 14
DISADVANTAGES OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING ............................................................................. 15
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 15
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR UNDERBALANCED DRILLING......................................... 16
HOW TO DRILL UNDERBALANCED? .......................................................................................... 18
DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................ 19
Reservoir Data .............................................................................................................................. 19
Reservoir Screening Tool (RST).................................................................................................... 20
SURE Phase II .............................................................................................................................. 22
Reservoir Damage Assessment ..................................................................................................... 22
Drilling Data................................................................................................................................. 24
Analog Data .................................................................................................................................. 24
EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 26
CANDIDATE SELECTION...................................................................................................................... 29
UBS Well Type Matrix .................................................................................................................. 30
HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................... 31
UBS FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................................................... 31
DETAILED WELL PLANNING ........................................................................................................ 33
CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 33
Fluid Selection .............................................................................................................................. 33
Formation Damage....................................................................................................................... 38
Gaseous Fluids.............................................................................................................................. 40
Mist Systems.................................................................................................................................. 42
Foam Systems................................................................................................................................ 43
Gasified Systems ........................................................................................................................... 46
Single phase fluids ........................................................................................................................ 47
Gas lift systems ............................................................................................................................. 48
Drillpipe injection......................................................................................................................... 49
Annular injection .......................................................................................................................... 51
Parasite string injection................................................................................................................ 52
Gases for Underbalanced Drilling................................................................................................ 53
Air ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Natural Gas................................................................................................................................... 53
Cryogenic Nitrogen....................................................................................................................... 54
Membrane Nitrogen ...................................................................................................................... 57
Exhaust Gas .................................................................................................................................. 58
FLOW MODELING ............................................................................................................................... 59
Pressure calculations.................................................................................................................... 59
Flow modeling .............................................................................................................................. 67

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 2 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Equivalent Motor Throughput versus Gas Injection Rate............................................................. 75

Hole cleaning ................................................................................................................................ 76
Annular Friction Pressure versus Gas Injection Rate .................................................................. 78
Annular Liquid Hold Up versus Gas Injection Rate ..................................................................... 79
Drillstring Injection Pressure versus Gas Injection Rate ............................................................. 80
Drillstring Liquid Hold Up versus Gas Injection Rate ................................................................. 81
Reservoir Inflow............................................................................................................................ 82
DRILLSTRING AND DOWN HOLE TOOL DESIGN .................................................................................. 83
Pressure While Drilling (PWD) .................................................................................................... 83
Conventional MWD Tools in Underbalanced Drilling ................................................................. 83
Electromagnetic Measurement While Drilling (EMWD) .............................................................. 83
Non Return Valves ........................................................................................................................ 86
Wireline Retrievable Float Valves ................................................................................................ 87
Down Hole Isolation Valves ......................................................................................................... 88
Drillstring Design ......................................................................................................................... 89
Drillpipe........................................................................................................................................ 91
Hard banding ................................................................................................................................ 92
Drillpipe Rubbers.......................................................................................................................... 92
Jars ............................................................................................................................................... 92
Down Hole Motors........................................................................................................................ 93
EQUIPMENT SELECTION ...................................................................................................................... 94
Gas Injection Equipment............................................................................................................... 94
Air compressors ............................................................................................................................ 94
Nitrogen Generation System ......................................................................................................... 95
Booster Compressors .................................................................................................................... 97
Well Control Equipment................................................................................................................ 99
Rotating Diverters....................................................................................................................... 100
Snubbing systems ........................................................................................................................ 105
Separation Equipment................................................................................................................. 106
Horizontal separators ................................................................................................................. 107
Vertical Separators ..................................................................................................................... 108
UBD Choke manifold .................................................................................................................. 109
Data acquisition.......................................................................................................................... 110
Flares .......................................................................................................................................... 112
WELL CONTROL STRATEGY ............................................................................................................. 113
Well Kill Strategy........................................................................................................................ 113
Well Control................................................................................................................................ 113
Erosion........................................................................................................................................ 115
Corrosion Management .............................................................................................................. 116
Corrosion Inhibitor Types........................................................................................................... 118
PERSONNEL SELECTION .................................................................................................................... 119
TRAINING AND COMPETENCY ........................................................................................................... 120
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................ 121
COMPLETING UNDERBALANCED DRILLED WELLS ........................................................................... 123
Snubbing ..................................................................................................................................... 123
Workover of an Underbalanced Drilled Well ............................................................................. 127
Underbalanced Drilled Multi-Lateral Wells............................................................................... 127
SUBSURFACE SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 128
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 129
RIG AND LEASE LAYOUT .................................................................................................................. 130
HEALTH SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ......................................................................... 131
Environmental Aspects................................................................................................................ 131
Safety Aspects.............................................................................................................................. 131
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................. 133
UBS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 134
UNDERBALANCED RECORDS ..................................................................................................... 136

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 3 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 138

SUPPLIERS OF UNDERBALANCED DRILLING SERVICES .................................................. 153
WEATHERFORD ................................................................................................................................ 153
HALLIBURTON .................................................................................................................................. 153
SHAFFER ........................................................................................................................................... 153
TESCO............................................................................................................................................... 153
LEADING EDGE ADVANTAGE .......................................................................................................... 153
BLADE ENERGY PARTNERS .............................................................................................................. 153
SCANDPOWER ................................................................................................................................... 153
NEOTEC ............................................................................................................................................ 153
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................. 154

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 4 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Introduction
This introduction is intended to provide an overview of current underbalanced drilling
technology and is therefore by no means exhaustive. It should serve as a guide to
the current UBD technology, explaining how, when and why underbalanced drilling is
carried out.
Objectives
The objective of this introduction is to provide an awareness of underbalanced
reservoir drilling technology and the associated operations. It also provides a starting
point and basic orientation for identification of hazards and corresponding risk
assessment. This introduction covers a very brief introduction to managed pressure
drilling and performance drilling to ensure a complete overview of the technologies
associated with underbalanced drilling.

Weatherford underbalanced drilling division currently offers three sub product lines
under the underbalanced umbrella and these can be listed as :

• Performance Drilling (PD)

This technology is intended to achieve maximum penetration rates through
reducing the well bore pressure to a minimum possible value.

• Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD)

With MPD the intention is to precisely manage and control the annular
pressure to allow the bottom hole pressure to be within close limits to “walk
the line”
• Underbalanced Drilling
The intention of underbalanced drilling is to reduce formation damage,
discover potential bypassed pay, and increase reserves by allowing access to
these reserves thus ultimately increasing net NPV. In underbalanced
reservoir drilling the well is designed to allow the reservoir to flow to surface
whilst drilling.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 5 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Performance Drilling
This is the original air drilling technique to increase penetration rate. In performance
drilling, the bottomhole pressure is as low as possible to increase drilling
performance.

Performance Drilling P formation >>>P bottomhole = P hydrostatic + P friction + P choke

The objective of performance drilling is to reduce the drilling costs by drilling faster.
This is normally achieved by using gas or air as a circulation medium. Reducing the
bottom hole circulation pressure significantly increases the penetration rate.

Fig 3 Performance Drilling Definition

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 6 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Managed Pressure Drilling

A number of related technologies have now been established in the industry as a
result of tools used originally in underbalanced drilling. One of these techniques is
Managed Pressure Drilling, which has been defined as follows:

Managed Pressure Drilling is an adaptive drilling process used to more precisely

control the annular pressure profile throughout the wellbore.
The objectives are to ascertain the downhole pressure environment limits and to
manage the annular hydraulic pressure profile accordingly.”

It means that the annular pressure profile is controlled in such a way that the well is
balanced at all times, or in mathematical format:

Managed Pressure Drilling P reservoir = P bottomhole = P hydrostatic + P friction + P choke

Fig 2 Managed Pressure Drilling Definition

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 7 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

What is Underbalanced Drilling?

Underbalanced reservoir drilling is defined by the IADC UBO committee as:

Drilling with the hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid intentionally designed to be lower
than the pressure of the formations being drilled. The hydrostatic head of the fluid
may naturally be less than the formation pressure or it can be induced. The induced
state may be created by adding natural gas, nitrogen or air to the liquid phase of the
drilling fluid. Whether the underbalanced status is induced or natural, the result may
be an influx of formation fluids which must be circulated from the well and controlled
at surface.

This in effect means that in underbalanced reservoir drilling, the effective downhole
pressure within the wellbore is always maintained to be lower than the reservoir
pressure and it is intended to have reservoir inflow into the wellbore.

Underbalanced Drilling P reservoir > P bottomhole = P hydrostatic + P friction + P choke

Fig 1 Underbalanced Reservoir Drilling Definitions

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 8 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Equipment used for Managed Pressure Drilling

Underbalanced Drilling
Performance Drilling

UBD PD
RCD
Gas Handling
Choke Manifold
Float Subs

MPD
RCD = Rotating Control Device

Fig 4 Shared Equipment for MPD, UBD and PD Technology

These three techniques have equipment in common but are all applied in different
circumstances.

This introduction concentrates on underbalanced reservoir drilling and the associated

equipment and techniques, not on the performance drilling or managed pressure
drilling aspects.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 9 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Underbalanced Reservoir Drilling

This introduction concentrates on underbalanced reservoir drilling and the associated

techniques and equipment used in this drilling method.

In underbalanced reservoir drilling, the wellbore pressure is maintained below the

reservoir pressure at all times, and the resulting inflow from the reservoir is carefully
controlled during the entire drilling process.

Underbalanced Drilling P reservoir > P bottomhole = P hydrostatic + P friction + P choke

The well is still controlled by controlling the wellbore pressure, but this pressure is
maintained to be always below the reservoir pressure. Primary well control is no
longer an overbalanced barrier of a column of fluid but is replaced by flow control
using a combination of hydrostatic pressure, friction pressure and surface choke
pressure. The BOP stack remains as the secondary well control barrier. It must be
pointed out that a UBD well operates on a single barrier.

The bottom hole circulation pressure is a combination of hydrostatic pressure,

circulation friction losses and surface pressure applied at the choke.

The hydrostatic pressure is considered a passive pressure and is a result of the fluid
density and the density contribution of any drilled cuttings and a small contribution of
any gas in the well.

The friction Pressure is a dynamic pressure (It changes with pumps on or off) and
results from circulating friction of the fluid used.

The choke pressure arises from annular back pressure applied at surface.

These three pressures are controlled at all times and ensure that flow control is
maintained whilst drilling underbalanced.

The lower hydrostatic head avoids the build-up of filter cake on the reservoir
formation and avoids the invasion of whole mud and drilling solids into the formation.
This helps to improve productivity of the wellbore and reduces any pressure related
drilling problems.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 10 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

History of Underbalanced Drilling

Underbalanced drilling has been around since the start of the oil exploration. All
cable tool drilled wells were drilled underbalanced and most of us have all seen the
pictures of blowouts and gushers as an oil reservoir was struck. Until 1895 all wells
were drilled underbalanced.

The introduction of rotary drilling technology in 1895 required fluid circulation, which
initially was water. To enhance safety and hole cleaning, mud systems were
developed in 1920 and drilling continued overbalanced.

As deeper and larger reservoirs were encountered the reservoir damage issues
became less of an issue. Until in the 1980’s the first underbalanced wells were drilled
in the Austin Chalk. This proved to be the introduction to modern underbalanced
drilling which started in the early 1990’s in Canada.

1284 First cable tool wells drilled in China

1859 - 1895 All wells drilled underbalanced.
1895 Rotary drilling with water.
1920 First mud systems used.
1928 First BOP’s used.
1932 First use of gasified fluids to drill
1955 Dusting or air drilling becomes popular.
1988 First high pressure gas well drilled underbalanced in Austin Chalk.
1993 First UBD wells drilled in Canada.
1995 First UBD wells drilled in Germany
1997 First UBD wells drilled offshore.

Since 1997, just after the third international underbalanced drilling conference was
held, better co-operation between operators internationally was initiated. The first
committees were developed as a result of Shell and Mobil requesting more
information and co-operation to ensure that offshore wells could be drilled safely
underbalanced.

In 1998 the IADC took the safety lead in underbalanced drilling and the IADC UBO
committee was formed in order to enhance the safety of underbalanced drilling
operations. This committee developed the underbalanced classification matrix and
continues today to develop safer and more efficient methods and procedures for
underbalanced drilling operations. The development of better flow modeling systems
and training systems together with international experiences shared between
operators has helped to develop underbalanced drilling as one of the primary
technologies for enhanced production from depleted fields and reservoir
understanding in newly developed fields.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 11 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Why Drill Underbalanced?

The reasons for underbalanced reservoir drilling can be broken down into three main
categories:
• Minimizing pressure related drilling problems
• Reducing formation damage and enhancing productivity
• Reservoir characterization while drilling

Fig 5 Reasons for Underbalanced Drilling

The first reason for underbalanced drilling was often to reduce losses and to avoid
pressure related drilling problems such as differentially stuck pipe and penetration
rate improvements. This became known as drilling enabling UBD and is still widely
used as a justification for underbalanced drilling but it is now more correctly classified
as managed pressure drilling.

Another reason was to improve reservoir productivity by eliminating reservoir

damage caused by drilling fluids and fines and filtrate migration into the reservoir
formations. Reduction of skin factor is then the main justification for UBD.

More recently, operators are now considering underbalanced drilling to characterize

the reservoirs whilst drilling. Productive features in the reservoir can be identified
whilst drilling and well trajectories and well lengths can be optimized to increase
reservoir productivity and to identify potentially productive horizons in the reservoir.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 12 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The avoidance of drilling problems in the reservoir, especially once reservoir

depletion starts and infill drilling of horizontal wells becomes more challenging as
losses and differential sticking increases and it is a primary reason for operators to
consider underbalanced drilling.

Penetration rate increase in reservoir drilling has never been a significant driver for
underbalanced drilling as tripping operations become slower and more complex if the
reservoir is to be maintained underbalanced.

With underbalanced drilling, as a result of drilling problems, it was noted that

reservoir productivity increased approximately 300% (SPE paper 91559) with
underbalanced drilling and completion of the wells.

As more experience and better underbalanced systems are developed, the

characterization of the reservoir is now becoming an increasing reason for operators
to consider the practice of underbalanced drilling in the reservoir. Finding productive
features such as fractures and high permeability streaks in the reservoir has resulted
in reduced drilling costs and increased reservoir productivity.

In certain areas of the world, new reservoir zones, previously masked by

overbalanced pressures have now been discovered and developed.

Production Increase by Rock Type

900%

800%

700%

600%
Average 360%
500%

400%
Mode 200%
300%

200%

100%

0%
it e

it e

ne
d

ne

ne

ne
e
it e

ne

le
ne
ne

ne
ne

te

ne
ar

it

ha
om

om

na
to

to

to

to
to
om

om
to

to
to
to

to
nd

es

ds

ds

ds
/S
ds

ds

bo

ds
ds

ds

ds
ol

ol
ol

ol
ta

im

an

an

an
an

an

an

an
an
D

ar

an

ne
D

D
S

.L

C
S

S
.S

S
S

S
'd

t' d
S

to
t' d
ac

rg

'd
&

&
t' d

t' d
on

ds
ac

ct
b.
b.
Fr

ac
ac

ac

Fr

an
nc

ra
ar
ar

Fr
Fr

Fr

S
U

F
C

BP Drilling and Co mple tio n

Co nfe re nc e 2001
Fig 6 Production Increases By Rock Type (From BP 2001)

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 13 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Underbalanced versus Overbalanced

Comparing overbalanced drilling and underbalanced drilling allows us to establish the
main differences between the two drilling techniques.

Overbalanced Drilling Underbalanced Drilling

“Hidden” zone: “New” zone:

didn’t produce produced while
drilling
Skin damage: No skin damage
• Not all zones • All zones
contribute contribute

•Increased ROP and

Bit life
• Lost circulation, •Well testing while
drilling
• Differential sticking
•Different Issues
• Problems getting to
TD •(ECD)

Fig 7 Overbalanced Versus Underbalanced Comparison

Overbalanced Operations
Mud fluid invasion and the hydrostatic pressure in the well bore can mask potentially
productive zones.

Reservoir damage, especially in horizontal wells, is often difficult or complicated to

remove or clean up once production starts. The lower permeability and porosity
zones may never be properly cleaned up, which can result in large sections of a well
(especially horizontal wells) being unproductive.

Lost circulation and differential sticking can often result in severe drilling problems
and many wells in depleted reservoirs never get to their planned TD.

Underbalanced Operations
New productive horizons are often identified when drilling. No damage or minimum
damage is done to the reservoir rocks, including the tighter sections of a well,
resulting in better production.

No losses or differential sticking as the fluid pressure is below the reservoir pressure.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 14 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Disadvantages of Underbalanced Drilling

It is of introduction reasonable to assume, aside from the positive aspects of

underbalanced reservoir drilling, that there are also specific disadvantages
associated with underbalanced drilling. Comparing the advantages and
disadvantages of underbalanced drilling will allow operators to start initial
considerations and candidate selection.

Underbalanced Reservoir drilling

Advantages Disadvantages
Decreased formation damage Possible wellbore stability problems
Eliminate risk of differential sticking Increased daily costs
Reduce risk of loss circulation Generally higher risk with more inherent
problems
Increased ROP More complex tripping operations
Improved bit life Possible increased torque and drag
Reservoir Characterization More complex drilling system
More people required

Limitations
There are not only advantages to underbalanced drilling. Before starting an
underbalanced drilling operation, the limitations of the process must also be
reviewed. There are a number of technical limitations as well as safety and economic
limitations to underbalanced drilling.

Conditions that can adversely affect any underbalanced operation:

• Wellbore stability issues.
• Deep, high pressure, highly permeable wells can be problematic due to flow
control & safety issues.
• Excessive formation water.
• High producing zones close to the beginning of the well trajectory will
adversely affect the underbalanced conditions along the borehole.
• Not following established design guidelines.
• Wells that require hydrostatic fluid or pressure to kill the well during certain
drilling or completion operations.
• Slim hole wells with high annulus friction pressures.
• Wells that contain significant pressure or lithology variations.
• Operators interfering with the UBD experts.
• Increased complexity and HSE issues on H2S wells.
• Handling and disposal of produced fluids.
• Flaring of produced gas.
• Erosion and corrosion issues and risks.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 15 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Classification System for Underbalanced drilling

A classification system developed by The International Association of Drilling
Contractors (IADC) is helping in establishing the risks associated with underbalanced
drilled wells

Level 0 Performance enhancement only; no hydrocarbon containing zones

Level 1 Well incapable of natural flow to surface. Well is 'inherently stable' and is
low level risk from a well control point of view
Level 2 Well capable of natural flow to surface but enabling conventional well kill
methods and limited consequences in case of catastrophic equipment
failure
Level 3 Geothermal & non-hydrocarbon production. Maximum shut-in pressures
less than UBD equipment operating pressure rating. Catastrophic failure
has immediate serious consequences
Level 4 Hydrocarbon production. Maximum shut-in pressures less than UBD
equipment operating pressure rating. Catastrophic failure has immediate
serious consequences
Level 5 Maximum projected surface pressures exceed UBO operating pressure
rating but are below BOP stack rating. Catastrophic failure has
immediate serious consequences

A matrix is referenced below to easily classify the majority of known underbalanced

applications.

This system combines the risk management categories defined above (Levels 0 to 5)
with a sub-classifier to indicate if wells are drilled “underbalanced” or with a “low
head” using underbalanced technology. In order to provide a complete method of
classifying the type of technology used for one or more sections of a well, or multiple
wells in a particular project, a third component of the classification system addresses
the underbalanced technique used.

Classification 0 1 2 3 4 5
A= Low head , B= UBD A B A B A B A B A B A B
Gas drilling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mist Drilling 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Foam drilling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Gasified Liquid Drilling 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Liquid Drilling 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 16 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Example of Classification System Use – a horizontal section of a well is drilled in a

known geologic area using a drilling fluid lightened with nitrogen gas to achieve an
underbalanced condition through the reservoir section. The maximum predicted
bottomhole pressure is 3,000 psi with a potential surface shut-in pressure of 2500
psi. This well would be classified as a 4-B-4 indicating Classification Level 4 risk, and
UBD drilling with a Gasified liquid.

All wells classified as a level 4 or level 5 underbalanced well will require significant
planning to ensure that these wells can be safely drilled underbalanced.

More information can be found on the IADC website at www.iadc.org

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 17 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

How To Drill Underbalanced?

Before mobilizing or selecting equipment, it is essential that the correct reservoir
candidate is selected, the correct well and of course the correct way to drill
underbalanced.

One of the complexities of underbalanced drilling is ensuring that all the issues
associated with drilling and flowing a well simultaneously are understood.

What happened in conventional drilling is now all changed as the reservoir will be
dictating what actions are taken during drilling and tripping operations. To ensure that
all off the issues are addressed before starting an underbalanced drilling operation, a
standard sequence of al the issues has been developed shown as a road map. This
road map leads the way to a successful underbalanced drilling operation.

Fig 8 Underbalanced Drilling Road Map

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 18 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Data Collection
To understand if a reservoir can be drilled underbalanced, a significant amount of
data needs to be collected and analyzed. The objectives and reasons for an
underbalanced drilling project will need to be determined early on in a project, and
these must remain in focus during the project preparations.

DATA
RESERVOIR DRILLING ANALOGS
COLLECTION

Reservoir Data
Reservoir data collection is the first step to a successful
underbalanced drilling project. Too often, underbalanced fails to
live up to its potential either because unsuitable reservoirs are drilled or inappropriate
drilling technology is applied. Until now, there was no easy and reliable way to
identify underbalanced prospects, to highlight the technical challenges presented by
them, or to quantify the results that could be expected. Weatherford's SURE team
and our new Suitable Underbalanced Reservoir Evaluation (SURE) Process change
all of this. SURE simplifies the candidate selection process with the Reservoir
Screening Tool (RSTTM); provides in-depth analysis with the Reservoir Damage
Assessment (RDATM) software; and produces a risk-based economic model to aid
decision making.

The SURE collection of reservoir data will include issues such as:

• Reservoir depth
• Reservoir pressure
• Reservoir temperature
• Lithology
• Net to gross
• Fracture data if it is a naturally fractured reservoir
• Oil water / oil gas contacts
• Permeability and porosity
• What fluids are being produced?
• Is there core data available for the reservoir and is there core available to
carry out damage analysis?
• What production data is available from offset wells?
• What reservoir models are being followed?
• Why are the reservoir targets chosen?

The more information that can be gathered on a reservoir, the better the analysis that
can be made to see if underbalanced drilling is indeed beneficial to the reservoir.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 19 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Reservoir Screening Tool (RST)

To run the Reservoir Screening Tool (RST), basic reservoir data, the drive
mechanism, presence of fractures, risk of borehole instability, reservoir
heterogeneity, and minimum/most likely/maximum values for porosity, water
saturation, reservoir thickness, pressure, clay content, etc are entered.

RST Process Methodology

In RST, a number of modules are incorporated in the software through which each
candidate reservoir is run. These modules are a combination of classical formation
damage theory coupled with proprietary experience of underbalanced analog
reservoirs around the world.

The RST employs a Monte Carlo simulation as an integral part of the software. The
possible values for each uncertain reservoir variable are defined by a probability
distribution. Within the simulation, the software randomly picks possible reservoir
values from each of these probability distributions to calculate an underbalanced
risked suitability rating. At the end of several thousand iterations, RST produces a
distribution of the scores for each reservoir. Risked Suitability scores range from -100
(stick to conventional techniques) to +100 (drill UB without hesitation), with 0 as the
break-even point.

Some reservoirs are simply too technically challenging to be drilled underbalanced.

So, RST accounts for exclusionary factors. These may include, regardless of other
positive indicators, high reservoir pressure, borehole instability or an extremely low
pore pressure gradient.

As well as statistical distributions of a reservoir’s suitability for underbalanced drilling,

the RST enables sensitivity analysis. For each reservoir studied, tornado charts are
provided that help understand which input variables have the greatest correlation to
the risked suitability score. The type (positive or negative), and strength of correlation
indicate the degree to which the range of each input variable is influencing the range
of outcome.

RST Deliverables
At the end of an RST screening study, you are presented with a quick look summary
report containing:

• The suitability rating of each candidate reservoir in the form of statistical

distributions
• A ranking of each candidate reservoir within all reservoirs examined
• A comparison of the candidate reservoirs to analog reservoirs with proven
underbalanced drilling success
• Discussion on factors influencing the scoring of candidates Sensitivity
analysis
• Based on this information, a decision can be made to proceed with the in-
depth analysis phase of the SURE process.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 20 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Suitability RST Score Recommendation

Excellent 70 to 100 Drill Underbalanced
Good 40 to 69 Drill Underbalanced or proceed to SURE
Phase II
Average 0 to 39 Proceed with RDA or SURE phase II study
Poor -21 to 0 Eliminate candidate or proceed with RDA study
Non candidate -21 to -100 Eliminate candidate for underbalanced drilling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 21 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

SURE Phase II
The goal of SURE Phase II is to provide a risk-based approach to underbalanced
systems payback for RST screened reservoirs. Phase II predicts and compares
formation damage and productivity for overbalanced and underbalanced drilled wells.

The first step of the in-depth analysis is amassing a wealth of geological, production
and reservoir data, focusing on detailed reservoir definition (lithofacies, x-ray
diffraction, cores, etc.) and the results of previous drilling and completion techniques.
Gathering this data is a joint effort between the SURE Team and the client. After a
formal QA/QC assessment, robust data is then input to Weatherford’s proprietary
Reservoir Damage Assessment (RDA) software.

Reservoir Damage Assessment

Developed in cooperation with Hycal Energy Research Laboratories, the Reservoir
Damage Assessment software is a uniquely rigorous model that predicts radial
isotropic near wellbore formation damage. Additionally RDA considers damage
effects on productivity due to factors such as a real positioning and partial
penetration. The software models 11 formation damage mechanisms for non-
stimulated underbalanced or overbalanced wells. We created this model based on
classical damage theory augmented with pseudo empirically calculated damage
assessments mined from a large database of core and laboratory data contained
within RDA. The calculated permeability reduction due to each damage mechanism
is segregated as near and deep, along with an effective radius of damage. The
reduction in permeability due to damage is converted into skin to feed a Babu &
Odeh-based analytical model within RDA. Alternatively, for more complex reservoirs,
the permeability reductions can be input into a numerical simulator for a more
rigorous productivity evaluation.

the production forecasts produced are then used as input to the next stage of the
Phase II SURE process – economic modeling.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 22 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 23 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drilling Data
Besides reservoir data, a large amount of drilling and well data is
collected, mainly to ensure that underbalanced drilling can be
executed safely and efficiently.

Some of the drilling data that would be collected is:

• Where are casing strings set and what is the casing design for the well?
• What kind of completion is to be run?
• What are the objectives of the well?
• Directional profile of the well
• Reservoir target area’s and expected reservoir penetration
• Drilling parameters normally used in the reservoir
• Drilling history of the field and offset wells.
• Drilling problems encountered in the reservoir
• Pore and fracture gradients in the well
• What drilling fluids have been used to drill this reservoir?
• Finally cost and time information will be required to ensure that it is cost
effective to drill underbalanced.

The more that is know about the field and the reservoir, the better the solution is that
ultimately is applied to the reservoir and surprises will no doubt still be encountered
once underbalanced operations start.

Analog Data
As a part of the entire selection process for wells and reservoirs, a
review of any similar reservoirs that may have already been drilled
underbalanced should be conducted. Using the production data
from these offset reservoirs may provide useful offset information for a UBD
operation.

Analog data from around the world is collected by UDB providers and stored and can
be used to establish the best underbalanced methods to be used for a specific
reservoir. Of course the SPE papers also provide an excellent source of reservoir
information.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 24 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Evaluation
As part of the data collection the reservoir needs to be evaluated, and it needs to be
established if the reservoir does indeed benefit from underbalanced drilling
technology. Some reservoirs cannot be drilled underbalanced and other reservoirs
will only show marginal benefits.

Of course a part of the whole reservoir selection process is the economic screening
of the candidate reservoirs and wells. The business drivers behind a project must
never be forgotten. If the business benefits cannot be achieved then the project must
be reviewed and maybe cancelled. The improvements from an underbalanced
operation must pay for the additional cost of the technology.

This is often the most difficult limitation of underbalanced drilling to overcome. If the
reservoir / production engineers cannot be convinced that there is a sound reason for
drilling underbalanced and can see productivity improvements, the whole
underbalanced project may never get further than the feasibility study.

To drill a well underbalanced extra equipment and people are required and this
additional cost of the well must be paid back.

Once this information has been gathered and reviewed, and, from the data it is
thought that underbalanced drilling is the absolute best method to recover more
hydrocarbons in an economic and technically successful manner, it is time to review
the next set of steps in the design process.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 25 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Risk Assessment

The risk assessment forms an integral part of the underbalanced

selection process and ensuring that operators are made aware of
the potential risks, the risk assessment is carried out during the
candidate selection process.

The IADC well Classification form an essential fist step in the overall risk
assessment. The IADC classification for underbalanced wells should be assigned to
every well drilled underbalanced. This gives the first indication of the potential risks.

IADC Well Classification

Level 0 – Performance enhancement only; no hydrocarbon containing zones.

Level 1 – Well incapable of natural hydrocarbon flow to surface. Well is 'inherently stable' and is low-level risk from a well control point of view.

Level 2 – Well capable of natural hydrocarbon flow to surface but enabling conventional well kill methods and limited consequences in case of catastrophic equipment
failure. (Flowing oil well)
Level 3 – Geothermal & non-hydrocarbon production. Maximum shut-in pressures less than UBD equipment operating pressure rating. Catastrophic failure has
immediate serious consequences.
Level 4 – Hydrocarbon production. Maximum shut-in pressures less than UBD equipment operating pressure rating. Catastrophic failure has immediate serious
consequences. (Oil/gas well)
Level 5 – Maximum projected surface pressures exceed UBO operating pressure rating but are below BOP stack rating. Catastrophic failure has immediate serious
consequences.

Classification Level 0 1 2 3 4 5

A – Low Head, or B – UBD A B A B A B A B A B A B

Gas Drilling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mist Drilling 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Foam Drilling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Gasified Liquid Drilling 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Liquid Drilling 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Fig 9 Underbalanced IADC Classification

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 26 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The next step in the risk assessment is the review of the reservoir and the produced
fluids

Reservoir and Production

Produced fluids Oil/Condensate Production rate
Oil/Condensate 0 - 315 bbl/day Measured Depth: feet
Gas 315 - 1260 bbl/day
Water > 1260 bbl/day True Vertical Depth: feet

Gas production rate Reservoir Pressure: psi

0 - 4 mmscf/day Water production rate H2S expected
4 - 11 mmscf/day 0 - 315 bbl/day Yes
11 - 32 mmscf/day 315 - 1260 bbl/day No
> 32 mmscf/day > 1260 bbl/day

The risk assessment for the reservoir reviews the kind of fluids that are expected, the
gas rates and the production profile. It also reviews if any H2S is being produced and
of course it looks at the depth of the reservoir and the pressure in the reservoir.

A deep high-pressure sour gas reservoir would obviously have a classification with a
higher risk compared to a low-pressure oil producer.

Technical/Equipment
Rank the reasons for considering UB operations: Equipment to be involved in the operation:
1 2 3 4 Involved WFT Provided
Separation
Minimize reservoir skin damage
Compression
Minimize drilling problems: Diff. Sticking, Lost circulation, etc.
Membrane N2

Performance enhancement (e.g.. ROP) Cryogenic N2

Mist Pump
Other (specify): Rotating Diverter
Fluids
Upper zones will be open while drilling production section Underbalance BOP
Horizontal/high angle well Drill String
Foam is to be used in operations Floats

The reasons and objectives for underbalanced drilling are also very much a part of
the risk assessment. A well drilled underbalanced to minimize skin damage will need
to be maintained underbalanced at all times, thus adding complexity to the operation.

As part of the QHSE section of the risk assessment, the equipment required and fluid
systems to be used are also recorded as is the number of people on location and the
experience of the rig crew.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 27 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The tripping method in an underbalanced drilled well is crucial. Avoiding pipe light
and snubbing can reduce the risk level significantly.

QHSE
Environ. Sensty Fluid system to be used Tripping method: The Drilling Contractor crews have less
N2/Nat. Gas only UBS Pers. than 3 years of underbalanced experience
Low DDV
Medium Air only Snubbing
High Water based fluid Flow while tripping Pre engineered WFT Program/Template
Oil based fluid Conventional tripping not available
Equipment operator SOP's not available

Finally the experience of the operator is taken into account together with a look at
how the job will be performed.

Operator/Producer Experience
The operator has less than 3 years of general underbalanced experience How would the operator prefer the job be performed?
The operator has minimal underbalanced experience in this field Commodity based
The drilling engineer has less than 3 years of general underbalanced experience With full Applications Engineering
The drilling engineer has minimal underbalanced experience in this field
A feasibility study has not been performed on this field

Once this is done, a risk assessment score will be allocated to the job. This provides
a rapid assessment of the potential risk and provides the service provider with the
required equipment and personnel for the job.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 28 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Candidate Selection
Although it is true to state that most reservoirs can probably be
drilled underbalanced, the complexities will vary greatly from
reservoir to reservoir. Some reservoirs cannot safely be drilled
underbalanced because of pressure or geological issues mainly
associated with rock stability issues.

Candidate selection for underbalanced drilling must not only focus on the benefits of
underbalanced drilling but must also consider a number of additional considerations
that will need to be appreciated when selecting candidates.

It is important that the right reservoir is selected for an underbalanced drilling

operation. The table below shows reservoir types that will and will not benefit from
underbalanced drilling.

Will benefit from UBD Will not benefit from UBD

Formations that usually suffer major Wells in areas of very low conventional
formation damage during drilling or drilling cost
completion operations. Wells with skin
factors of 5 or higher
Formations that exhibit differential sticking Wells drilled in areas of extremely high
tendencies ROP (that is ROP ≥ 1000 ft/day)
Formations with zones with severe losses Extremely high permeability wells
or fluid invasion from drilling or
completion operations
Wells with large macroscopic fractures Ultra low permeability wells
Low permeability wells Poorly consolidated formations
Wells with massive heterogeneous or Wells with low borehole stability
highly laminated formations characterized
by differing permeabilities, porosities and
pore throat throughput
High production reservoirs with low to Wells with loosely cemented laminar
medium permeabilities boundaries
Formation with rock fluid sensitivities Wells that contain multiple zones with
different pressure regimes
Formations that exhibit low ROP with Reservoirs with interbedded shales or
overbalanced drilling claystones

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 29 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

UBS Well Type Matrix

The next step in risk assessment is a quick look at the type of well
that is to be drilled and this will give further insight in the planning
and equipment requirements for a job.

Underbalanced Classification Matrix

Productivity Enhancement Drilling Optimization
Swe
Swe

Pres
Sour

Sour

Perf ling

Geo ling
Man Drilling
et Oi
et G

sure

Dril

Dril
Gas

orma

therm
Oil W

aged
as W

l We
We

nce
ells

al
lls
ells

lls

0.208 psi/ft 1 1 1 1 4A 0 3

0.364 psi/ft 2 2 2 1 4A 0 3

0.443 psi/ft 4 4 4 2 4A 0 3

0.520 psi/ft 4 4 4 4 4A 0 3

0.624 psi/ft 4 4 4 5 4A 0 3

> 0.624 psi/ft 5 5 5 5 4A 0 3

LOW RISK MODERATE RISK HIGH RISK

Fig 10 Risk Matrix

Some type of risk matrix will need to be designed to reduce operational risks and
provide a system for effective hazard (QHSE) and change management by giving an
indication of risk levels for the selected well.

This example provides a guide to risk assessment and these should be prepared for
each project during the HAZID / HAZOP reviews.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 30 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

High Level Cost Estimates

One of the first issues an operator wants to be solved is after it has
been confirmed that his reservoir can be drilled underbalanced is
how much budget is required.

The high level cost estimates that are created at this point of an underbalanced
drilling project are normally budgetary cost estimates based on the expected
equipment and expected people for the project.

These budgetary costs are normally further defined later on in the project by the
project manager once more of the detailed engineering has been finalized.

An underbalanced drilled well can cost as much as double the cost of a conventional
well depending obviously on the complexities that are anticipated during the drilling
operations.

UBS Feasibility
The UBS feasibility is the output and report part of the initial
underbalanced drilling review. This feasibility report, reviews and
describes all of the previous aspects such as reservoir and well
candidate selection combined with the risk matrix. This report also
provides a summary of the methodology that needs to be applied for
the selected wells based on the matrix.

This feasibility report allows the operator’s senior management to review and
approve the full underbalanced drilling project before starting with the detailed
engineering.

The feasibility report also allows the service provider to look at his equipment and
personnel availability and schedule the job.

Of course if the feasibility shows that underbalanced drilling is not feasible, it should
also explain why UBD might not be the correct method and what alternative methods
could be used instead.

This point provides the operator with a stop / go point in an underbalanced drilling
project.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 31 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

UBD Project definition

Project Definition Design & Planning Execution Review

Candidate Tender UBD Complete

Award Contracts
Selection Services detailed
HAZOP

Technical Modify Mobilise Commision Rig

Detailed Design
Feasibility Equipment Equipment Equipment Up

Economic Carry out End of well Capture

Preliminary Procedures Train Crews Drill Underbalanced
Feasibility Rig Mods report Lessons

Produce

Project Final Go-Ahead

Approval Approval

Cost Saving
potential

Costs
Costs

Project Time
The first stop and go point in a UBD project is reached when the candidate selection
has been completed and the feasibility report has been provided to the operator.

There is a second stop/go point in any underbalanced drilling project and that is
normally arrived at once all the detailed planning has been completed and the
detailed program and procedures have been completed.

Prior to starting rig modifications and starting to mobilize equipment a project can be
delayed, postponed or cancelled.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 32 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Detailed Well Planning

Providing that the feasibility report recommends that underbalanced drilling is
profitable and operator management has provided the OK for the project to continue,
the detailed well planning will start at this point.

These steps ensure that all UBS well planning covers all of the issues and will result
in a complete detailed UBS drilling program.

Circulation System Design

The well planning will start with the design of the circulation system.
The first step in this is the design of the base fluid.

The base drilling fluid is the fluid that will be pumped down the drillpipe. This should
not be confused with the annular fluid that, in an underbalanced situation, comprises
of the base fluid plus any reservoir and formation fluids that enter as a result of the
underbalanced state.

Fluid Selection
Fluid selection for underbalanced drilling operations can be extremely complex. Key
issues such as reservoir characteristics, geophysical characteristics, well fluid
characteristics, well geometry, compatibility, hole cleaning, temperature stability,
corrosion, drilling BHA, data transmission, surface fluid handling and separation,
formation lithology, health and safety, environmental impact, fluid source availability,
as well as the primary objective for drilling underbalanced all have to be taken into
consideration before the final fluid selection can be made.

The objective of the fluid selection system is to select the optimum drilling fluid for
underbalanced drilling operations that meets all the health, safety, and environmental
requirements as well as the required technical requirements.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 33 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

One of the most important aspects of the base fluid is the density of the fluid that is
required to achieve an underbalanced condition in the wellbore whilst circulating. In
overbalanced drilling, the fluid weight is selected so that it provides a minimum
hydrostatic pressure of some 200 psi plus a trip margin above the reservoir pressure.

In underbalanced drilling, a fluid needs to be selected that provides a suitable

hydrostatic pressure below the reservoir pressure. This density value provides us
with a starting point for the selection of a fluid system. This value is likely to be further
refined, depending on the circulation system pressure losses and the expected
reservoir inflow, with a given drawdown.

To calculate this initial fluid density required, simply convert the reservoir pressure
and the drawdown into an equivalent fluid density.

Fluid gradients are calculated based on the following formula:

Reservoir Pressure - Surface Pressure - Drawdown

fluid gradient (ppg) =
0.052 x Reservoir TVD (ft)

Where:
Surface Pressure is assumed to be approximately 150 psi
And the reservoir Drawdown is assumed to be 250 psi
Note : These numbers can vary significantly for different reservoirs and must be
determined during the reservoir evaluation and review.

Once an equivalent mud weight is calculated, it is relatively simply to obtain the first
indication of the fluid system that may be used for underbalanced drilling. Where:

Equivalent Fluid Weight Fluid System

0 to 2 ppg Nitrogen or gas
2 to 4 ppg Stable foam system
4 to 7 ppg Gasified fluids or Foam systems
7 to 8.5 ppg Native crude or Diesel
8.5 to 10 ppg Waterbased fluid systems
10 to 12 ppg Brine systems
12 ppg or higher Not recommended for underbalanced drilling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 34 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The fluid selection for underbalanced drilling has a density range that covers the
entire spectrum from gas through to weighted fluids.

0.

Oil

Weighted Mud
(Barite)

0 Air 150 20.0

SO_00591 2/4/98

Fig 11 Fluid Classification and selection

As the density of the required fluid increases the associated reservoir pressure of the
reservoir will normally be higher and the IADC well classification must be considered
when selecting fluids.

It must be remembered that an IADC level 5 well, which may require a high fluid
density will also require significant planning to ensure that the risks associated with
the higher pressures can be managed.

There are basically 5 fluid systems that are recognized with underbalanced drilling
that allows us to achieve drilling fluids with densities ranging from gas to weighted
liquids.

• Gas systems
• Mist systems
• Foam
• Gasified Liquids
• Liquids

The base drilling fluid for underbalanced drilling operations has three basic functions,
just like in overbalanced drilling.

1. Hole Cleaning Transportation of solids, liquids and gases.

2. Lubrication Lubricity of the drillstring and bit
3. Cooling Particular the cooling of the bit.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 35 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The goals and functions of the base drilling fluid for underbalanced drilling can be
further broken down into a number of further categories.

a) Non-Damaging.
b) Not Over-Expensive.
c) Good Hole Cleaning.
d) Lubrication.
e) Rheological Control - Viscosity and Friction.
f) Ease of Separation and Measurement - Surface.

Fluid Selection Matrix

Fluid System Base Fluid Gas Gas

Injection
Gas Water Method
Sea water
Fresh water
Formation Water

Mist
Air Drill string Injection
Increasing Density

Oil
Diesel Oil
Native Crude
Foam
Vegetable Oils
Nitrogen
Distillates

Annular Injection
Gasified Fluids
Mud Natural Gas
waterbased mud
oil based mud
Single phase
Fluids Combined string /
Exhaust Gas
annular Injection

Brines
Brines KCL Brines
Chloride Brines
Bromite Brines
Zinc Brines
Formate Brines
Weighted Fluids

Fig 12 Fluid Selection Matrix

The fluid selection matrix shown in fig 12 describes how many combinations are
possible to obtain the required bottom hole pressures associated with the fluid
system for underbalanced drilled wells.

Fluid densities can be changed using gas injection, or even fluid injection. But the
safety considerations in fluid selection always need to be maintained.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 36 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Maintaining well control during underbalanced drilling is a primary concerns, and an

essential part of this is keeping the surface pressures as low as possible. This is also
one of the selection criteria for underbalanced drilling.

For most separation systems, a maximum surface pressure will be provided by the
service provider. The rotating control device has a certain maximum operating
pressure which cannot be exceeded. Using a simple table, as shown below, the
downhole pressure and surface pressure for a given fluid system, with a certain
reservoir pressure, can be quickly assessed.

With a reservoir pressure of 4115 psi in the example below the maximum surface
pressures can be estimated quickly.

Fluid System Density Pressures Surface

at reservoir Pressure
Gas 0.1 ppg 45 4071
Mist 0.3 ppg 135 3980
Foam dry 3.5 ppg 1584 2532
Foam wet 6.0 ppg 2715 1400
Gasified diesel 5.8 ppg 2625 1491
Gasified water 7.5 ppg 3394 721
Diesel oil 7.2 ppg 3259 857
Water 8.4 ppg 3802 314
Fluid System 9.0 ppg 4073 42

It is normal practice to limit the surface pressures to a safe operating value as

defined during HAZOP or HAZID reviews.

Surface Pressures

Mud System Surface Pressure

Surface Pressure Too High
need to be
controlled
Water

Diesel oil

Gasified water
Fluid System

Gasified diesel

Foam wet

Foam dry

Mist

Gas

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Surface Pressure (psi)

Fig 13 Surface Pressure Control During Fluid Selection Process

A graph, as shown in fig 13 above, quickly show the implications on surface

pressures when selecting different fluids.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 37 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Formation Damage
The fluid selection must also take into account any potential reservoir and formation
interaction, and the potential for separation of the reservoir fluids from the base
drilling fluid.

Other key issues for fluid selection considerations are not only associated with
formation pressures, but must also take into account the type of formation that is
being drilled and the potential formation damage mechanisms.

The assessment of the formation damage with a given fluid becomes an essential
element for the engineering and fluid selection for an underbalanced project.
Reservoir engineers and geologists, as well as the production engineers, will need to
understand the damage mechanisms associated with the reservoir. Detailed studies
and coreflush testing with a selected fluid may be required to assess the damage
mechanisms of a certain reservoir.

One of the most important aspects of the fluid selection is formation damage,
especially if the objective of underbalanced drilling is to improve reservoir productivity
and to minimize formation damage.

Although this will have been looked at in some detail during the candidate selection,
with the selection of the drilling fluid, reservoir damage once again needs to be
reviewed. As stated earlier, coreflush testing with the final selected base fluid may
have to be performed to ensure that reservoir damage is minimized.

Four main damage mechanisms have been identified:

Mechanical Damage
Mechanical damage is mainly caused by the introduction of solids from the mud
system, weighting agents, fluid loss agents, artificial bridging agents (LCM) or
naturally occurring drilled solids and whole mud invasion.

Biological Damage
Biological damage results from the introduction of bacterial agents during drilling and
completion processes. One of the main issues here is the introduction of bacteria that
over time result in the formation of sulphates, causing a reservoir to become sour
over time.

Thermal Damage
Thermal damage is mostly associated with air and gas drilling where, due to friction
and insufficient cooling or due to downhole fires, heating of the formation occurs
which in turn results in glazing of the formation.

Chemical Damage
Chemical damage is mainly caused by the swelling of clay in the formations as a
result of fluid filtrate invasion. It can also be caused by the precipitation of waxes,
solids or asphaltenes caused by a reduction in temperature or pressure associated
with the drilling process.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 38 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

All four of these main damage mechanisms will need to be taken into account when
selecting a drilling fluid for underbalanced operations. These four main categories are
further broken down into a number of more detailed damage mechanisms and the
chart below shows these main damage mechanisms.

Fig 14 Main Formation Damage Mechanisms.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 39 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Gaseous Fluids
Gaseous fluids are the gas systems. Although the gaseous fluids are normally
associated with performance drilling in some reservoir applications the density
requirement for the fluid may well require gas systems to achieve an underbalanced
status.

The use of air in hydrocarbon bearing formations is not recommended as the

combination of oxygen and natural gas may cause an explosive mixture. There have
been a number of reported cases where downhole fires have destroyed drillstrings
and of course there is the obvious potential of the rig burning down if a gas/air
mixture gets to surface and forms an explosive mix in a surface system.

To avoid the use of air, nitrogen is normally used. The experience with nitrogen in
well servicing operations made it a first choice for underbalanced drilling operations.

Nitrogen has a number of options in as far as liquid nitrogen or generated nitrogen

and this will be further discussed under the gas systems in this introduction.

Natural gas for underbalanced drilling operations has been proven to be a worthy
alternative in drilling operations. If a gas reservoir is being drilled underbalanced, a
producing well or an export pipeline well may produce sufficient gas at the right
pressure to drill. This avoids the use of nitrogen and may provide a cheap drilling
system.

Characteristics of gaseous drilling:

• Fast penetration rates
• Longer bit life
• Greater footage per bit
• Good cement jobs
• Better production
• Requires minimal water influx
• Slugging can occur
• Mud rings can occur in the presence of fluid ingress
• Relies on annular velocity to remove cuttings from the well

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 40 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Fig 15 Air Drilling / Foam Drilling Setup On a Rig.

The diagram above shows a typical rig set up for nitrogen or air drilling. A gas buster
in the return line ensures that any produced liquid can be returned to the pits. The
above depicted setup will also work for foam drilling by mixing nitrogen/air with a fluid
and a surfactant. The basic setup for air drilling and foam drilling is not significantly
different.

The gas injection system is tied into the standpipe and gas is injected through the
conventional standpipe manifold directly into the standpipe.

The return line has a T-junction to route any fluid slugs to the shale shakers. A gas
buster is used to separate any produced fluids, and these are routed to the shakers.
The flare line or blooie line is normally routed into a flare pit.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 41 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Mist Systems
Mist Drilling is normally used when formations begin to produce small amounts of
water (10 to 100 bbls per hour) during air/gas drilling operations.

Gas or air volumes are increased and a mist pump skid is used to inject small
quantities of water and a foaming agent solution. This solution entraps the water
influx and enables the air phase to lift the cuttings and influx to surface.

Mist drilling should only used in special applications since hole cleaning is even more
difficult with mist drilling system when compared with air drilling.

In mist drilling, the fluid added to a gas environment will disperse into fine droplets
and form a mist. In general this technique is used in areas where some formation
water exists which prevents the use of complete 'dry air' drilling.

Characteristics of mist-drilling:
• Similar to air drilling but with addition of liquid
• Relies on annular velocity to remove cuttings from the well
• Reduces formation of mud rings
• High volumes required (30%-40% more than dry air drilling)
• Pressures generally higher than dry air drilling
• Incorrect air/gas-liquid ratio leads to slugging, with attendant pressure
increase

Fig 16 Mist Exiting Blooie Line At Surface.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 42 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Foam Systems
Drilling with foam has some appeal due to the fact that foam has some attractive
qualities and properties with respect to the very low hydrostatic densities, which can
be generated with foam systems. Foam has good rheology and excellent cutting
transport properties.

The fact that foam has some natural inherent viscosity as well as fluid loss control
properties, which may inhibit fluid losses, makes foam a very attractive drilling
medium. During connections and trips, the foam remains stable and provides a more
stable bottom hole pressure.

Fig 17 Foam Structure

Foam consists of a continuous liquid phase, forming a cellular structure that

surrounds and entraps a gas. Foams can have extremely high viscosities; in all
instances, their viscosities are greater than that of both the liquid and the gas that
they contain.

During foam drilling, the volumes of liquid and gas injected into the well are carefully
controlled. This ensures that foam forms when the liquid enters the gas stream, at
the surface. The drilling fluid remains foam throughout its circulation path down the
drillstring, up the annulus and out of the well.

The more stable nature of foam also results in a much more continuous downhole
pressure condition due to slower fluid and gas separation when the injection is
stopped.

Adding surfactant to a fluid and mixing the fluid system with a gas generates foam.
Foam used for drilling has a texture not unlike shaving foam. It is a particularly good
drilling fluid with a high carrying capacity and a low density. One of the problems

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 43 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

encountered with the conventional foam systems is that foam does what it says on
the tin. It remains stable.

The foam normally remains stable, even when it returns to the surface, and this can
cause problems on a rig if the foam cannot be broken down fast enough. In earlier
foam systems, the amount of defoamer had to be tested carefully so that the foam
was broken down before any fluid entered the separators. In closed circulation drilling
systems, stable foam could cause particular problems with carry over. The recently
developed stable foam systems are simpler to break, and the liquid can also be re-
foamed so that less foaming agent is required and a closed circulation system can be
used. These systems, in general, rely on either a chemical method of breaking and
making the foam, or the utilization of an increase and decrease of pH to make and
break the foam. The foam quality at surface used for drilling is normally between 80%
and 95%.

The quality of foam means that the system is 80% to 95% gas, with the remaining 5
to 20% being liquid. Downhole, due to the hydrostatic pressure of the annular
column, this ratio changes as the volume of gas is reduced. An average acceptable
bottom-hole foam quality (FQ) is in the region of 50%-60%.

The compressible bubble

structure of foam provides up
to 10 times the carrying
capacity of normal liquid
based circulation systems.
Due to the high carrying
capacities of foam, annular
velocities as low as 1 ft/min
have proven to provide
effective hole cleaning.

Experience has proven that

foam is able to handle over
100 bbls/hr of water influx.

Fig 18 Foam drilling (note the cuttings floating on top of the foam)

Fluid densities for foam range from 0.2 to 0.8sg (1.6 ppg – 6.95 ppg). The density
ranges are adjusted with the make up of the foam by adjusting the LVF (Liquid
Volume Fraction) through the injection of liquid and gas by adjusting the
backpressure on the well. The backpressure adjusts the downhole pressure and
slows down the velocities in the annulus.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 44 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Characteristics of foam drilling:

• Extra fluid in the system reduces the influence of formation water
• Very high carrying capacity
• Reduced pump rates due to improved cuttings transport
• Stable foam reduces slugging tendencies of the wellbore
• The stable foam can withstand limited circulation stoppages without affecting
the cuttings removal or ECD to any significant degree
• Improved surface control and more stable downhole environment
• The breaking down of the foam at surface needs to be addressed at the
design stage
• More increased surface equipment required

Gas volume percentage Name

99.99 – 96% Mist
96% - 55% Foam
0 – 55% Gasified Liquid

Guidelines for Foam Drilling

Liquid injection volume 16 – 80 gpm
Soap injection volume 0.3 to 1.0% by weight 0.05 – 0.5 gpm
Gas injection volume 300 – 1000 scft/min

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 45 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Gasified Systems
The next system after a foam system is a gasified fluid system, which is used to
control slightly higher pressures. In these systems, a liquid is gasified to reduce the
density.

There are a number of methods that can be used to gasify a liquid system and these
methods are discussed within the injection systems section. The use of gas and
liquid, as a circulation system in a well, complicates the hydraulics in the wellbore
and the ratio of gas and liquid must be carefully calculated to ensure that a stable
circulation system is used. If too much gas is used, slugging will occur. If not enough
gas is used, the required bottom hole pressure will be exceeded and the well will
become overbalanced.

Characteristics of gasified-mud systems:

• Extra fluid in the system will almost eliminate the influence of formation fluid
unless incompatibilities occur
• The mud properties can easily be identified prior to commencing the
operation
• Generally, less gas is required
• Slugging of the gas and fluid must be managed correctly
• Increased surface equipment will be required to store & clean the base fluid
• Velocities, especially at surface, will be lower, reducing wear & erosion both
downhole and to the surface equipment.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 46 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Single phase fluids

A well drilled underbalanced with a single phase fluid is sometimes referred to as
“flow drilling”. This is the simplest form of underbalanced drilling and, providing that
an underbalanced situation can be achieved when circulating at the required rates, a
single phase fluid system should be a first consideration.

Water based systems

Water, especially offshore, can be a first consideration because it is cheap and easily
accessible. Water can be easily separated or viscosified, and the circulation system
is almost as in a conventional drilling operation. Any viscosity added to a system
must be carefully considered when drilling underbalanced. Remember that fluids
must be effectively degassed in the separation system. Any viscosity in the system
may cause issues with degassing of the fluid.

Oil Systems
If reservoir conditions are such that water is deemed unsuitable, then crude oil, base
oil or diesel can be considered as a drilling fluid with the understanding and
acceptance that when drilling an oil-bearing reservoir, this will ultimately turn into a
crude oil system since base oil or diesel cannot be separated from crude oil.

A crude oil system can be chosen as long as the system exists, to ensure that the
crude is sufficiently degassed before entering a closed pit system. The risks of using
a crude oil system must be addressed in a HAZOP when selecting the fluid system.

Other Systems
The use of additives, such as glass beads, has been used in an attempt to lighten a
fluid. However, since the glass beads come out over the shakers in the solids
separation system or get crushed and damaged throughout the whole system, new
beads need to be continuously added. The addition of glass beads is therefore, an
expensive option and not very effective in lightening the fluid.

The main use for hollow glass beads in drilling is to

reduce friction and torque within deviated holes.
Solid glass spheres act as tiny ball bearings to
reduce friction and reduce differential pressure. The
glass beads are a transparent, solid soda lime glass,
free of pits and excess air bubbles.

Fig 19 Glass Beads

The glass beads are chemically inert and do not effect the chemical characteristics of
the mud system. Glass beads are not recommended for prevention of differential
sticking.

General Description of the beads

Super-Slide – Coarse – 12-20 mesh
Super-Slide – Medium – 20-40 mesh
Super-Slide – Fine – 170-325 mesh

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 47 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Gas lift systems

If a fluid needs to be reduced in density, the use of a gas injection into the fluid flow is
an option. This offers a choice into not only the gas used but also in the way the gas
is injected into the circulation system.

Normally, natural gas or nitrogen is used as a lift gas, but both CO2 and O2 can also
be utilized. However, gasses containing oxygen are not recommended for two main
reasons:

• The combination of oxygen and saline fluids with the high bottom hole
temperatures can cause severe corrosion to tubulars used in the well and
drillstring.

• If during the drilling process, hydrocarbons enter the borehole (expected in an

underbalanced environment), a potentially explosive situation could arise,
resulting in either downhole fires or surface equipment explosions.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 48 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillpipe injection
Drillstring injection is the first and simplest method of gas injection into the circulation
system. Compressed gas is injected at the standpipe manifold where it mixes with
the drilling fluid. The main advantage of drillstring injection is that no special
downhole equipment is required in the well. The use of reliable non-return valves is
required to prevent flow up the drillpipe. The gas rates used when drilling with
drillpipe injection system are normally lower than with annular gas lift, and low bottom
hole pressures can be achieved using this system.

The disadvantages of this system include the need to stop pumping and the bleeding
of any remaining trapped pressure in the drillstring every time a connection is made.
This results in an increase in
Liquid Gas
bottom hole pressure. It may
then be difficult to obtain a
stable system and avoid
pressure spikes at the
reservoir when using drillpipe
injection.

The use of pulse type MWD

tools is only possible up to
20% gas by volume. If higher
gas volumes are used, the
pulse system deployed on
MWD transmission systems
will no longer work. Specialist
MWD tools such as electro-
magnetic may have to be used
if high gas injection rates are
required. However, these tools
Reservoir
do not work very well offshore
or if a significant amount of
evaporates are drilled.
`

One alternative is to connect

the MWD back to surface
using an electric cable. This
technique has previously been
used very successfully with
Fig 20 Drillstring Injection

coiled tubing as the drillstring. If drill pipe is to be used, wet connects can be utilized;
however, the additional time consumed using this technique can be limiting.

A further drawback for drillstring injection is the impregnation of the gas into any
downhole rubber seals. Positive displacement motors (PDM's) are especially prone
to fail when the rubber components get impregnated with the injection gas and then
tripped back to surface. Once a trip is made, the rubber can explode or swell as a
result of the expanding gas not being able to disperse out of the stator quick enough.
This effect (explosive decompression) destroys not only the motors, but also affects

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 49 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

any rubber seals used downhole, resulting in a high turnover of motors. This can be
very costly to the drilling operation. Special rubber compounds have been developed
and the design of motors is changing to allow for this expansion.

The majority of motor suppliers can now provide PDM’s specifically designed for use
in this kind of downhole environment. But, if drillpipe injection is an option, the use of
all metal turbines should be considered, depending on the operational demands.
Care must be taken at surface when breaking out the drilling assembly in case there
is any high-pressure gas trapped in the tool string.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 50 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Annular injection
Annular injection through a concentric casing string is most commonly used in a
number of offshore projects. This method is worthwhile if a suitable casing or
completion tubing scheme is installed in the well. For a new drill well, a liner should
be set just above the target formation. The liner is then tied back to surface using a
modified tubing hanger to suspend the tie back string.

Gas is injected in the casing liner annulus to facilitate the drawdown required during
the drilling operation. The tie back string is then pulled prior to installation of the final
completion. The alternative is for an older
Liquid well to have a completion in place
incorporating gas lift mandrel pockets.
These can be set up to provide the
correct bottom hole pressures during the
Gas
drilling operation.

The drawback with this type of operation

is that the hole size and tools required
are restricted by the minimum ID of the
completion. However, the main
advantage of using an annulus to
introduce gas into the system is that gas
injection can be continued during
connections, thus, creating a more stable
bottom hole pressure.

As the gas is injected, via the annulus,

Reservoir
only a single-phase fluid is pumped down
the drillstring. This has the advantage
`
that conventional MWD tools operate in
their preferred environment, which can
have a positive affect on the operational
cost of a project.
Fig 21 Annular Injection (Concentric String)

However, the drawbacks of this system are that a suitable casing/completion scheme
must be available and that the injection point must be low enough to obtain the
required underbalanced conditions.

There may also be some modifications required to the wellhead for the installation of
the tie back string and the gas injection system. Drilling a larger hole to
accommodate the system and the well control issues associated with the annular
injection system must also be considered.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 51 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Parasite string injection

The use of a small parasite string

Liquid
strapped to the outside of the casing
for gas injection is really only used in
vertical wells.

For redundancy reasons, two 1” or 2”

Gas
coiled tubing strings are normally
strapped to the casing string above the
reservoir as the casing is run in. Gas is
pumped down the parasite string and
injected onto the drilling annulus. The
installation of a production casing
string and the running of the two
parasite strings makes this a
complicated operation.

Wellhead modification is normally

required to provide surface
connections to the parasite strings.

This system is not recommended for

deviated wells as the parasite string is
easily ripped off with the casing on the
Reservoir low side of the hole.

` However, the principles of operation

and the advantages of the system
remain the same as with annular
injection.

Fig 22 Parasite string Injection

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 52 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Gases for Underbalanced Drilling

Several options for gas exist when drilling underbalanced. These are:

• Air
• Natural Gas
• Liquid Nitrogen
• Generated Nitrogen
• Exhaust Gas

Air
Although air is not the most obvious choice in a hydrocarbon environment, air and
foam can still be used providing that foam stability is ensured and that defoaming
does not cause explosive mixtures. It must also be stated that outside of drilling in
hard rock formations and dry gas formations, drilling operations using air in
combination with liquids have been fraught with significant corrosion and oxidation
problems in addition to well documented instances of downhole fires and explosions.

Natural Gas
If a source of high-pressure natural gas at the correct volumes is available, drilling
with natural gas is a very good option. The use of air hammers with gas drilling is
another option that can be used to increase ROP. This is an option used in tight gas
reservoirs. A flow regulator and a pressure regulator are normally used to control the
amount of gas injected during the drilling process.

Natural gas is also non-toxic and non-corrosive if sweetened correctly. Natural gas
has greater solubility in hydrocarbons when compared to nitrogen, which may result
in the potential for greater disengagement problems and asphaltene precipitation.

The gas produced from the system can sometimes be re-routed to the compression
system and be re-used, thus, virtually eliminating the need to flare the gas.

The most efficient use of natural gas is normally through annular injection. The use of
natural gas through the drillstring is not recommended, as gas will have to be vented
every time a connection needs to be made although this can be done safely.

The use of natural gas injection through a coiled tubing system is also not
recommended, as a pinhole in the coil could not be isolated and gas maybe released
to form an explosive mixture inside the wraps of the coiled tubing reel.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 53 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Cryogenic Nitrogen
Nitrogen is by far the most common gas that is currently being used to lighten the
circulating fluid column in underbalanced drilling operations. Nitrogen is a colorless,
odorless and tasteless gas that makes up four fifths of the earths atmosphere.

Nitrogen was discovered in 1772 by the Swedish druggist Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Scottish botanist Daniel Rutherford. Nitrogen is non-toxic, non-flammable and non-
corrosive. It has very low solubility in water and hydrocarbons, and is compatible with
virtually any fluid used in drilling operations. Nitrogen does not tend to form hydrate
complexes or emulsions.

Nitrogen forms a major part of our atmosphere in the fact that the atmosphere
comprises of:
78.03 % Nitrogen
20.93 % Oxygen
0.93 % Argon
0.11 % Other gases

Nitrogen used in well operations is normally delivered to the rig in liquid format. This
type of nitrogen is also known as cryogenic nitrogen. It is produced by extraction from
the air through fractional distillation. In this process the air is liquefied and the liquid is
then separated though the following factors.
Liquid air boils at -317°F
Liquid nitrogen boils at -320°F
Liquid oxygen boils at -297°F.

Oxygen starts to evaporate leaving Nitrogen rich liquid. By repeating the boiling and
condensing processes high purity of liquid nitrogen up to 99.98 % can be obtained.

Only within recent years have materials and equipment been developed to handle
very cold liquids like nitrogen on a commercial scale. The field of science that deals
with the technology of handling liquids colder than -187°F is called cryogenics. All the
liquids and equipment to handle these cold liquids are labeled cryogenic liquids and
cryogenic equipment. Special steels and aluminum are the most widely used
cryogenic construction materials.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 54 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Chemical symbol………………………………….. N2
Molecular Weight……………..…………………... 28.016
Normal boiling point………………………………. - 320.45°F
Critical pressure…………………………………… 492.3 psi
Critical temperature……………………….……… - 232.87°F
Triple point…………………………………………. - 345.9°F @ 1.82 psi
1 gallon of Liquid N2……………………………… 93.12 scft of gas
Latent Heat of Evaporation………………………. 85.67 BTU/lb
Specific Heat (cp) @ 77ºF……………………….. 0.4471 BTU/(lb)(ºF)
Specific Heat (Cv) @ 70ºF………………………. 0.3197 BTU/(lb)(ºF)
Ratio of Specific Heat……………………………. 1.401
Thermal Conductivity @ 60ºF…………………… 0.01462 BTU/sq ft hr
Density of saturated vapour…………………...… 0.03635 lb/cu ft
Specific gravity of vapour at 14.7 psia (air = 1).. 0.967
Density of liquid nitrogen at boiling point…….… 50.443 lb/cu ft

In underbalanced operations in the field, Nitrogen is mostly extracted through the

process of separation of nitrogen molecules and air molecules through a membrane
system. This is also known as nitrogen generation or membrane technology.

Conversion data for Nitrogen

Nitrogen conversion data

lb scft of gas liquid (gal) liquid (cu ft) liquid (L)

1 lb 1.000000 13.800000 0.148300 0.019820 0.561300
1 scft of gas 0.072400 1.000000 0.010750 0.001436 0.040680
1 gal of liquid 6.743000 93.050000 1.000000 0.133700 3.785000
1 cu ft of liquid 50.450000 696.100000 7.481000 1.000000 28.320000
1 Liter of liquid 2.782000 24.580000 0.264200 0.035310 1.000000

Standard conditions for nitrogen are 14.7 psia and 60 deg F

Nitrogen is more expensive than straight air, but as discussed in other sections, the
use of pure air is not recommended for underbalanced drilling. The cost of nitrogen
is mainly driven by the fuel costs to generate nitrogen and by the equipment rental
costs of the generation system.

Cryogenic nitrogen is normally transported to locations in vacuum jacket tanks made

out of stainless steel and tested to 50 psi. The volume of an offshore nitrogen tank is
normally 2000 gallons. Commercial trucks will carry as much as 7000 gallons and rail
cars will hold as much as 12,900 gallons of liquid nitrogen.

Nitrogen tanks are provided with pressure relief valves to release nitrogen gas as the
pressure builds up in the tank due to gas expansion by heat. As the pressure is
released, the remaining liquid is cooled. Liquid nitrogen in storage loses gas
continuously. This can be a significant issue in desert or tropical locations when
Nitrogen has to be transported over long distances.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 55 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Cryogenic nitrogen in 2000-gallon transport tanks provides high quality nitrogen and
utilizes equipment that is generally less expensive. Liquid nitrogen is passed through
the nitrogen converter, where the fluid is pumped under pressure prior to being
converted to gas. The gas is then injected into the string. Generally, the requirement
is for the nitrogen converter and a work tank, with additional tanks being provided as
necessary. For operations in excess of 48 hrs, the requirement for liquid nitrogen
could be quite large, and this can result in logistical difficulties.

Fig 23 Cryogenic Nitrogen and N2 Converter In Use For UBD Operation

The use of cryogenic nitrogen offshore is sometimes not recommended; this would
depend on the application. Pumping 1500 scft/min of nitrogen for a 24hr-drilling
period requires 15 tanks of 2000 gal each. Moving this on and off an offshore
platform is a significant task and therefore could present some serious safety
implications. If drilling is ongoing at this rate for several days, then two dedicated
supply boats would be required to maintain supply.

In order to move away from tank transport for large nitrogen dependant drilling
operations, the use of nitrogen generators is recommended.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 56 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Membrane Nitrogen
In 1995 a US patent was issued for a process to use membrane gas separation
technology to drill oil and gas wells with nitrogen produced onsite to replace higher
cost cryogenically produced nitrogen as an alternative gas source for underbalanced
drilling. The system uses banks of modules to separate nitrogen from the
atmosphere.

Nitrogen gas is generated by introducing compressed air into hollow membrane

fibers, which preferentially separate oxygen and other rich gases from the air leaving
high purity nitrogen at around 95%. The remaining 5% is normally oxygen.

The separation of
nitrogen and oxygen is
dependent on the
concentration and
quality of the individual
fibers, and is directly
related to inlet pressure
and flow rate across the
membrane; it is also
inversely related to
individual gas
component partial
pressures.
Fig 24 Membrane Technology for Nitrogen Production

Theoretically, only the nitrogen will flow the entire length of the hollow tube
membrane system to exit as the product stream with the oxygen rich permeate
stream and water vapour being vented before reaching
the exit point.

One of the important issues associated with nitrogen

generation is the purity of the nitrogen. Depending on
the amount and pressure of nitrogen required, the
purity will vary. At 95% purity, 5% oxygen will be
delivered. A percentage oxygen probe device is
included in modern systems to ensure shutdown of the
flow of oxygen if it exceeds hazardous limits, which is
likely greater than 8% oxygen content.
Fig 25 N2 Membrane

In normal operation during underbalanced drilling, the oxygen content is limited to

5%, although this is not enough oxygen to cause explosion levels, it is sufficient
oxygen to cause significant corrosion problems. The corrosion is made worse when
salt brine systems are used at elevated temperatures. In many underbalanced
operations using generated nitrogen, a corrosion program will have to be
implemented to combat the effects of oxygen in the drilling system.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 57 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Exhaust Gas
A potentially very attractive source of gas is the waste gas stream from self-
contained propane units or diesel fired rig engines themselves. However, when using
diesel fired engines, the combustion process is relatively inefficient and the flue gas
can contain 10 - 15% oxygen plus corrosive gases such as CO2 and NO2 which may
react adversely with produced hydrocarbons, thus accelerating the corrosion
process.

The exhaust gas from a diesel engine is usually composed of approximately 83%
nitrogen, 10% carbon dioxide, 3% oxygen, 2% carbon monoxide and 2% other
gases. To date, there are no recorded cases of underbalanced drilling operations
using diesel generated exhaust gas.

Propane fired exhaust gas systems is the focus of the new exhaust gas system and
one unit has gone through field trials in a major oilfield in the Western Canadian
Basin after two years of research and development. The original diesel exhaust gas
system has its limitations due to its ineffective combustion process. Propane fired
engines, when well tuned, burn much cleaner and this results in much less oxygen
(often less than 2%) in the effluent gas. But the availability and transportation issues
associated with propane gas in remote locations have left the exhaust gas
technology in the experimental stage.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 58 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Flow Modeling
Multiphase flow calculations are unlike any other hydraulics
calculations. Multiphase flow is probably the most complex fluid
engineering known in the industry. Multiphase, or compressible
fluids, change considerably with pressures and temperatures, and
the large number of assumptions that are used knowingly or unknowingly in the
various models are poorly understood by most drilling engineers.

The use of computer models has in many cases led to drilling engineers working a
multiphase flow model without truly understanding what happens inside the model.
The result of this poor understanding is that programmes for modeling specific
hydraulics are being widely used for modeling of two phase fluids or even for
modeling of pure gas drilling operations.

Pressure calculations
The pressure drop in any tubing or conduit for any fluid is a function of three
components:
1) Static pressure
2) Friction pressure
3) Acceleration pressure

Conventional Single Phase Fluid Models

How do the three components of static, friction and acceleration pressure work in
conventional single-phase hydraulics programmes?

Static Pressure
In a conventional hydraulics model, the static pressure is directly related to the fluid
density.

Friction Pressure
In a conventional hydraulics program, the friction pressure calculation is a 4-step
process.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 59 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Step 1 Determine fluid type. This is normally based on one of the following 6
types:
Newtonian Fluid
Bingham Plastic model
Power Law model
Herschel-Bulkley
Robertson-Stiff
Casson
Step 2 Determine the Reynolds number.

Step 3 Determine flow regime turbulent or laminar.

Step 4 Based on the flow regime determine the pressure loss.

Acceleration pressure
Since there is no expansion (or very little expansion) of the fluid between the
bottom of a well and the surface, this factor is normally ignored in
conventional hydraulics software programmes.
Surface Pressure
In conventional drilling the BOP’s are open and no surface pressure is applied
to the system.

Conventional As can be seen in conventional hydraulics

Hydraulics models, the calculation of the system
pressure losses is normally a very simple
Start Newtonian and straightforward process.
Bingham

Determine fluid type Power law

Herschel Bulkley
In single-phase hydraulic models, a
Robertson Stiff
Calculate Velocity spreadsheet can easily be built to determine
Casson the pressure losses in a well.
Calculate Shear Rate

Calculate Reynolds
Number

Calculate critical
velocity

Determine flow regime

Calculate Pressure
drop

END

Fig 26 Conventional Hydraulics Flow Modeling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 60 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Multiphase hydraulics models

In multiphase models the whole system is more complex as there are many more
factors to take into account.

Multiphase flow models

Tubing Diameter
Assumptions Input data
Reservoir Pressure
Gas Viscosity Constant at 0.018cp
Surface Tension of oil constant at 30 dynes/cm
Reservoir Temperature
Surface Tension of water constant at 70 dynes/cm
Calculate Specific gravity of
oil Gas gravity

Water Density
Calculate W ater oil Ratio
Oil Gravity in Deg API

Oil Flow Rate

Calculate Mass of 1 bbls
stock tank liquid Water Flow rate

Gas Liquid ratio

Calculate Oil FVF

Calculate Solution Gas Oil

Determine flow regime ratio

Calculate Density of Liquid

Bubble Slug Transition Mist Phase
Calculate hold up correlating
function
Calculate Gas
compressibility factor
Depending on flow pattern the following calculations Determine secondary hold up
are carried out factor
Calculate Density of gas
phase

Calculate liquid hold up

Calculate slip velocity
or bubble rise velocity Calculate oil Viscosity and
water viscosity
Calculate two phase reynolds
number
Determine Moody friction
factor Calculate Liquid mixture
viscosity
Determine Moody friction
factor
Calculate average mixture
density Calculate Liquid surface
tension
Calculate average mixture
density
Calculate mixture velocity Calculate Liquid viscosity
number

Calculate mixture velocity

Calculate Pressure Drop Calculate superficial liquid
velocity

Calculate Pressure Drop

Calculate superficial gas

velocity

Calculate gas velocity

number

Check flow Regime

Bubble Flow Other Flow

Fig 27 Multiphase Hydraulics Flow Modeling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 61 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Flow Regimes
In order to predict friction factors and liquid hold up, the flow regime in the annulus
must be known. In overbalanced drilling operations, only laminar or turbulent flow is
considered. In underbalanced drilling, many more variations need to be considered.
The flow regime varies with the inclination of the well and, again, a number of
methods and correlations are known to predict flow regimes. Flow regimes are
generally broken down into two main areas:

Fig 28 Flow Patterns For Vertical and Horizontal Multiphase Flow

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 62 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The complexity of multiphase flow modeling calculation is best presented with the
diagram in the figure below:

Multiphase components Drill String Injection

Annular Surface
pressure
Water Phase of
Drilling fluid

Drill string injection Oil Phase of Drilling

Pressure fluid

Nitrogen

Water Phase of
Air
Drilling fluid

Oil Phase of
Cuttings
Drilling fluid

Oil Phase of
Nitrogen
Reservoir fluid

Water Phase of
Air
Reservoir fluid
Drillstring

Annulus

Free Hydrocarbon
Gas

Dissolved
Hydrocarbon Gas

Reservoir Pressure

Oil Phase of
Reservoir fluid
Water Phase of
Reservoir

Reservoir fluid
Free Hydrocarbon
Gas
Dissolved
Bit
Hydrocarbon Gas

Cuttings
Fig 29 Variables in Multiphase Flow Calculations

The number of variables – fluids (gas and liquid), density, viscosity, compressibility,
cuttings density, cuttings shape (or roundness), fluid composition, etc and variable
interaction makes multiphase flow calculations a difficult undertaking. These
variables are calculated over every iteration element of the well model. It is
understandable that this has to be done with a computer because of the resource
and time requirement to undertake such complex calculations.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 63 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Current Multiphase Models

These are some of the models that were or are for modeling multiphase flow in
underbalanced drilling:

Company Name of Model Design Basis

Maurer Engineering Inc Mudlite 2 Chevron foam model

Shell/Landmark Flodrill Mechanistic (steady state) model

Nowsco Circa Combination of various correlations.

Weatherford AMFM (foam only) Chevron foam model

Petrobas SIDHAM Unknown

Schlumberger Sidekick (dynamic) OLGAS (blowout and well control)

model designed for HPHT wells.
Neotec Wellflo Tubing/Gaslift design Olgas

Wellflo Dynamics Flow Model (dynamic) OLGAS blowout model in

competition with sidekick
Signa Engineering HUBS Mechanistic (steady state) model

Scandpower Ubits Dynamic simulator based on Olgas

model.

The most widely used multiphase model for underbalanced is the Neotec Wellflo 7
model. Although this is a static model, it has developed with the help from
underbalanced drilling engineers over the past 10 years and is now considered as
the most comprehensive model available in the industry.

For dynamic simulations and training purposes, the Scandpower Ubits software is the
most widely used.

Circulation Design Calculations

When designing an underbalanced circulation system, the bottom hole pressure must
be maintained below the reservoir pressure, whilst, at the same time the surface
separation system must have sufficient capacity to handle the flow rates and
pressures expected while drilling. The separation system must be capable of
handling sudden productivity increases from the well from fractures or flush zones
and retain the ability to “choke” back production if well outflow is more than what can
be safely handled by the surface separation equipment. Not only must the bottom
hole pressure be controlled, but the surface separation system must also be able to
work within the design parameters of the well and the reservoir.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 64 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Using a surface separation system that requires 1000 psi to function properly, but
designing the well with a maximum surface pressure of 250 psi, will likely cause a
mis-match in the system can ultimately lead to down time during the drilling
operation.

The entire system from reservoir wellbore, drilling system and surface separation
system must all work within the same parameters. Tuning an underbalanced system
is something that requires experience, and it is something that needs to be fully
understood to optimize an underbalanced operation.

The design of an underbalanced drilling circulation system must take into account
factors such as:

• Bottomhole pressure
The bottom hole pressure must be less than the effective reservoir pressure
under static and dynamic conditions to enable reservoir fluid inflow into the
wellbore. This difference creates the driving force that drives well productivity.

• Reservoir inflow performance and control

The productivity of the reservoir whilst drilling underbalanced is a function not
only of bottomhole pressure but also reservoir characteristics like
permeability, porosity, and length of reservoir exposed to the wellbore,
drainage radius and drawdown.

Drawdown is one of the most important factors in controlling reservoir inflow

since most of the other reservoir parameters are relatively fixed by the
geology. Therefore, the bottomhole pressure must be controlled by either
hydrostatic of the drilling fluid or via the choke to control reservoir inflow
performance. This is an essential part of underbalanced well control.

• Cuttings transport and hole cleaning

Cuttings generated whilst drilling must be removed from the wellbore by the
hydraulic action of the drilling fluid, just like in conventional drilling operations.
For hole cleaning to be effective, the fluid annular velocity has to be at least
twice the cuttings settling velocity. In underbalanced drilling, the gas phase is
not taken into account for cuttings transport but it is generally assumed that a
certain minimum liquid annular velocity is required for hole cleaning.

• Motor performance in multiphase flow environment

While drilling with multiphase fluids, it is important that the motor performance
is not compromised by the hydraulics, that is, the flow rate through the motor
should be sufficient to deliver the required performance and be within motor
operating envelope. It must be recognized that gas, at bottom hole pressure
and temperature, acts more like a fluid and as more gas is pumped, the down
hole motor will see more flow. This is normally referred to as ELV (Equivalent
Liquid Volume)

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 65 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

• Surface equipment capabilities and limitations

The productivity of the reservoir while drilling and the length of reservoir that
is exposed in an underbalanced drilled well is the driving factor. The surface
separation system must be designed to handle the expected inflow of fluids.

An essential part of the underbalanced well control is the capacity of the

surface separation system and the associated erosional velocities at surface
resulting from the reservoir inflow.

Surface equipment capacity must always be designed to handle the

maximum expected production from the well whether instantaneous or steady
state.

• Environmental considerations
Either due to governmental legislation and/or operators’ policies,
underbalanced drilling operations may have to be carried out with reduced or
zero emissions (without gas flaring). Where this is the case, the surface
separation system has to be designed for total containment of the produced
cuttings and reservoir fluids inflow – oil, gas and water. Gas recovery systems
are currently under development, but the slugging and intermittent production
causes significant challenges.

• Wellbore Stability
Exposing the wellbore to pressure drawdown imposes stresses on the
surrounding formation. If the stresses exceed the strength of the formation,
hole collapse could occur. It is therefore important that a thorough borehole
stability study should be conducted in evaluating the feasibility of a reservoir
as a candidate for underbalanced drilling.

The exposure of overlying formations to underbalanced pressures whilst

drilling also needs to be considered when reviewing underbalanced well
designs. Casing strings should be placed to isolate potentially unstable
formations.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 66 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Flow modeling
When designing an underbalanced drilled well, the following graphs should be
presented to the operator.

• Annular Bottom Hole pressure versus Gas injection rate

• Equivalent Motor Throughput versus gas Injection rate
• Minimum hole cleaning velocity versus gas injection rate
• Annular friction pressure versus gas injection rate
• Annular liquid hold up versus gas injection rate
• Drillstring injection pressure versus gas injection rate
• Drillstring liquid hold up versus gas injection rate

These graphs will provide a complete operational picture for an underbalanced

operation. All the required parameters can be selected from these graphs. There are
a number of other issues that will need to be reviewed but these graphs will provide
the operating window for underbalanced drilling and provide some insight into well
behavior.

The reservoir inflow is normally ignored in the initial design. First of all it must be
ensured that an underbalanced status can be achieved in the reservoir even if there
is no assistance from the reservoir.

Fig 30 Neotec Multiphase Flow Model

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 67 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Annular Bottom Hole pressure versus Gas injection rate

This graph provides the operating envelope for underbalanced drilling. The operating
envelope is bounded by a number of curves.

The annular bottom hole pressure graph is a combination chart of hydrostatic

pressure versus gas injection rate.

As gas is injected into a

fluid system, the
hydrostatic pressure will
drop as more and more
Hydrostatic Pressure
gas enters the system.

As the amount of gas in

Pressure

the system increases, the

gas is compressed at the
bottom of the well and the
gas will expand as it rises
to the surface of the well.

So as more gas enters the

system, the friction
Gas injection rate pressure in the well
increases as shown
below.
Fig 31 Hydrostatic Pressure Reduction With Gas Injection

As can be sees, the

hydrostatic pressure drops as
more gas is injected, but the
friction pressure starts to
Hydrostatic Pressure increase as more gas enters
the well and expands on its
way back to the surface.
Pressure

If these two effects are

combined into a single curve,
Friction Pressure then the very typical pressure
versus gas rate curve, the so
called “J: curve can be seen
as shown overleaf:
Gas injection rate

Fig 32 Hydrostatic Pressure Reduction and Friction Pressure Increase With Gas Injection

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 68 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Hydrostatic Pressure
Pressure

Friction Pressure

Gas injection rate

Fig 33 Bottom Hole Pressure Decrease With Gas Injection

The brown curve now shows the combined curve of hydrostatic pressure and friction
pressure. In the first part of the curve, the rapid decline of pressure ca be seen with
increasing amounts of gas. This part of the curve is known as the hydrostatically
dominated part of the design curve.

As the amount of gas increases, the friction pressure in the well will also increase as
a result of the gas expansion. The flatter part of the pressure curve is known as the
friction dominated part of the curve.

As the gas injection rate increases further, the bottom hole pressure will start to
increase as a result of the friction pressure.

So contrary to popular belief in the oilfield, more gas is not always better.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 69 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Bottom Hole pressure stability

When designing a circulation system that provides stable bottom hole pressures, the
system should not only avoid pressure spikes but it should also avoid slugging.

The operating envelope allows the drilling engineer to determine, for a particular gas
injection rate, whether the flow is dominated by hydrostatic or frictional pressure loss.
Any point on the performance curve with a negative slope is dominated by
hydrostatic pressure losses. These points are inherently unstable, show large
pressure changes with small changes in gas flow rate, and exhibit increasing bottom-
hole pressure with decreasing gas flow rate.

Operating on the hydrostatic dominated slope will mean that severe slugging is
encountered while drilling.

Points on the performance curve with a positive slope are dominated by frictional
pressure loss. These points are inherently stable and exhibit increasing bottom-hole
pressure with increasing gas flow rate.

Note: "dominated by frictional pressure loss," does not necessarily imply that the
frictional pressure loss is greater than the hydrostatic pressure loss.

Instead, this means that the reduction in hydrostatic pressure loss associated with an
increase in the gas injection rate is less than the increase in frictional pressure loss
due to the increased gas rate.

This information can be used in several ways. If a reduction in bottom hole pressure
is required, a decrease in gas injection (the obvious answer to someone only familiar
with single-phase flow) will lead to an increase in bottom-hole flowing pressure if the
flow is hydrostatically dominated. Further, the cost of nitrogen (as the injection gas), if
bulk liquid nitrogen is used, can be one of the most significant costs associated with
UBD operations.

One of the most common misconceptions in underbalanced drilling is that more

nitrogen (i.e. gas) injection is better. This stems from observations of drilling
operations that are hydrostatically dominated, where an increase in the gas injection
rate can lead to significant decreases in the bottom-hole pressure. However, if the
drilling operation is frictionally dominated, increasing the gas injection rate will not
only increase the bottom-hole pressure, but may dramatically increase the cost
associated with nitrogen used while drilling.

Saponja recommended that underbalanced drilling be carried out in the friction-

dominated part of the pressure curve. Operations conducted on the hydrostatic part
of the curve often report that a cyclic bottom hole pressure occurs and that it is very
hard to obtain a stable system. More gas is the answer here to move onto the
friction-dominated part of the design curve.

Thus, for a specific design case, the operating envelope can not only confirm the
feasibility of underbalanced drilling, but also offers valuable insights into both the
acceptable and optimal gas injection rates, and the influence of those rates on the

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 70 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

bottom hole flowing pressure. Operating envelopes should be developed for a range
of design parameters.

However, the operating envelope cannot tell the entire story. Each point on the
operating envelope corresponds to a single wellbore calculation for a specific gas
injection rate. For all such calculations, valuable additional information can be
gathered by analyzing profiles of the in-situ liquid hold-up, actual gas and liquid
velocities, pressure, and temperatures. At the moment, the only concern is the
wellbore (bottom hole) pressure.

The first graph shows the wellbore pressure versus gas injection. At a given flow
rate, the wellbore pressure in the well is calculated for a given fluid system, well
configuration, drill string and surface pressure.

As this first graph is constructed, a number of other issues will also need to be
considered.

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Flowrate 1
Pressure

Gas injection rate

Fig 34 Bottom Hole Pressure Decrease With Gas Injection For Single Flow Rate

The first issue is, of course, the reservoir pressure. We need to establish if and
underbalanced pressure can be achieved in the well bore. A target pressure will
normally be established at some given value below the known reservoir pressure.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 71 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Flowrate 1

Reservoir Pressure
Pressure

Target Pressure

Gas injection rate

Fig 35 Bottom Hole Pressure Decrease With Gas Injection and Reservoir Pressure Window

It can be seen that a pressure loss occurs in the well bore system that is able to
achieve an underbalanced status below the reservoir pressure. The friction-
dominated part of the design curve is below the reservoir pressure and this provides
the first operating parameters for flow modeling.

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Flowrate 1

Reservoir Pressure
Pressure

Target Pressure

Flowrate 2

Gas injection rate

Fig 36 Bottom Hole Pressure Decrease With Multiple Gas Injection Rates and Reservoir Pressure Window

This curve is normally created with 3 or 4 different flow rates, as will be seen later on
in the graphs.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 72 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Once four or five fluid rates are calculated, the remaining set of operating parameters
can be added and the operating window can be defined.

The next set of curves that are introduced in the graph are the minimum and the
maximum flow rate through the down hole motor.

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Flowrate 1
Maximum Motor
Minimum Motor Flow rate
Flow rate Reservoir Pressure
Pressure

Target Pressure

Flowrate 2

Gas injection rate

Fig 37 Operating Window for Bottom Hole Pressure

This provides the minimum required volume through the down hole motor that is
required to drive the bit, it also provides the maximum flow rate that the down hole
motor can handle without being damaged.

Note:
The maximum motor flow rate may be of the maximum gas injection rate. It is not
always possible to have the motor limits on the same graph.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 73 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The last information on this curve is the minimum liquid velocity for hole cleaning.
Again, it is sometimes impossible to show this on the design graph as the annular
velocity maybe high enough without the gas injection.

Hydrostatically Dominated Friction Dominated

Flowrate 1
Maximum Motor
Minimum Motor Flow rate
Flow rate Reservoir Pressure
Pressure

Target Pressure

Flowrate 2

Minimum Hole
Cleaning Flow
rate

Gas injection rate

Fig 38 Complete Operating Window for Bottom Hole Pressure

Bottom Hole Pressure vs Gas Injection rate

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
4000
Single NPU 1500
Second NPU 1500

3500

3000
Bottom hole pressure (psi)

2500

2000

1500 flowrate = 100 gpm

flowrate = 150 gpm Operating
1000 flowrate = 200 gpm Window
choke pressure = 150 psi
flowrate = 250 gpm
No Reservoir inflow
Reservoir Pressure Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
500
Target Pressure Bit Depth 16000 ft
Max Motor ELV Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas rate (scft/min)

Fig 39 Real Projection of an Underbalanced Operating Window.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 74 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Equivalent Motor Throughput versus Gas Injection Rate

To ensure that a sufficient flow rate is provided through the down hole motor, the
equivalent liquid rate through the motor is calculated.
This graph is also important in ensuring that the motor is not working past its design
envelope. The maximum and minimum parameters must be obtained from the motor
provider for the motor that is being used.

Equivalent Motor Throughput

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
400.00

350.00

300.00
Equivalent Motor Throughput (gpm)

250.00

200.00

150.00

flowrate = 100 gpm

100.00 choke pressure = 150 psi
flowrate = 150 gpm
flowrate = 200 gpm No Reservoir inflow

flowrate = 250 gpm Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen

50.00
Minimum Flow Rate Bit Depth 16000 ft
Maximum Flow Rate Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection Rate (scft/min)

Fig 40 Equivalent Flow Rate Through the Down Hole Motor

The formula associated with this graph is displayed as follows:

⎧ ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎪ gas rate (scft/min) ⎪
Equivalent motor flow rate (gpm) = ⎨ ⎬ x 42 x Liquid rate (gpm)
⎪ ⎛ 198.6 x bottom hole pressure (psi) ⎞ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎜⎝ 460 + Temperature (deg F) ⎟⎪
⎠⎭

Bottom hole pressure and temperature, as well as liquid and gas rates through the
motor, are taken into account. The bottom hole pressure will vary with the gas rate,
as will the motor throughput.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 75 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Hole cleaning
Hole cleaning whilst drilling underbalanced must be closely monitored. There is a
reduced fluid rheology (a very thin, non-solids suspending fluid, turbulent two-phase
flow) and normally, an increased ROP. A positive result of two-phase flow will be
acceleration of fluid and cuttings’ transport velocities (due to gas expansion) as the
fluid moves upwards from the bit.

The main areas of concern for hole cleaning are where the hole angle is from 45° to
50°, and the region immediately behind the bit. The area immediately behind the bit
can become the critical hole cleaning area, as there is limited reservoir inflow here.
Liquid phase velocity and hole cleaning in this area is only a function of the fluid(s)
and rate(s) being pumped or injected down the drill string.

Two-phase hole cleaning is largely dependent on the same criteria as for single
phase. Hole cleaning efficiency and solids transport are primarily controlled by liquid
phase velocities and solids concentration. Studies and field experience have shown
removal of cuttings is more efficient with two-phase fluid. The addition of a gas
medium generates a turbulent flow regime, which minimizes solids bed formation.

Liquid velocity is the critical parameter controlling the system’s ability to transport
solids. From past experience, it has been concluded that a minimum liquid phase
annular velocity of 180 to 250 feet per minute is required in a wellbore with a
deviation greater than 10°.
Minimum Hole Cleaning Velocity
Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
200
flowrate = 100 gpm
flowrate = 150 gpm
180
flowrate = 200 gpm
flowrate = 250 gpm
160 Minimum Hole Cleaning Velocity
Annular Velocity Open Hole (ft/min)

140

120

100

80

60
choke pressure = 150 psi
40
No Reservoir inflow
Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
20
Bit Depth 16000 ft
Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection rate (scft/min)

Fig 41 Hole Cleaning Velocity

Continuous observation of returned drilled solids, including cuttings size and size
distribution, is undertaken at the shakers to confirm hole cleaning efficiency and to
determine if modifications to the circulation system are required.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 76 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

For a two-phase circulation system, rate of penetration is limited by the percentage of

solids in the liquid phase. If the solids concentration is too high, overbalanced BHP
spikes, hole cleaning problems and increased surface pipework erosion can result.

The percentage of solids in the liquid phase has been assessed during actual
underbalanced drilling operations and should not exceed 2.5% to 4.0%

The formula for calculating this can be displayed as follows:

0.025 x flowrate (gpm) x 0.1337

Max penetration rate (ft/hr) = x 60
π
2
⎛ Bit size (inch) ⎞
⎜ ⎟ x
⎝ 12 ⎠ 4

The design curve associated with hole cleaning is the minimum liquid annular
velocity versus gas injection rate.

This number is associated with the largest annular diameter. Although much debate
is still ongoing with the hole cleaning issues in multiphase flow, the liquid annular
velocity is assumed to be a good parameter.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 77 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Annular Friction Pressure versus Gas Injection Rate

The annular friction pressure will provide an indication about the pressure losses
seen in the annulus as a result of the flow rates. A high annular pressure loss is
normally the result of small annular diameters. If the annular pressure loss is high,
then this must be taken into account when making connections.

Shutting down the gas and liquid flow rates will result in a rapid decrease of bottom
hole pressure, and this will result in a high reservoir influx. This will be circulated out
once drilling resumes and may cause the system to slug or be unstable until this
influx is circulated out of the hole.

A low annular pressure loss may result in the well going overbalanced sooner if
appropriate measures are not taken.

Friction pressure vs Gas injection rate

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
750
flowrate = 100 gpm
700 flowrate = 150 gpm
650 flowrate = 200 gpm
flowrate = 250 gpm
600

550

500
Friction Pressure (psi)

450

400

350

300

250

200
choke pressure = 150 psi
150
No Reservoir inflow
100 Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
Bit Depth 16000 ft
50
Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection rate (scft/min)

Fig 42 Annular Friction Pressure Versus Gas Injection Rate

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 78 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Annular Liquid Hold Up versus Gas Injection Rate

The annular liquid hold up graph is created to understand what happens in the well
once circulation is stopped for tripping or connections. Shutting down the circulation
of gas and liquids will result in the gas and fluid separating down the hole.

Knowing the average percentage of gas and liquid in the annulus allows us to
calculate the top of the fluid level, the total amount of liquid in the well and the
resulting bottom hole pressure.

Annular Liquid Hold Up / Quality

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
70%
flowrate = 100 gpm
flowrate = 150 gpm
flowrate = 200 gpm
60%
flowrate = 250 gpm

50%
Liquid Hold Up (%)

40%

30%

20%
choke pressure = 150 psi
No Reservoir inflow
10% Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
Bit Depth 16000 ft
Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection Rate (scft/min)

Fig 43 Gas Percentage in the Annulus versus Gas Injection Rate

The graph shows the percentage of gas by volume in the annulus versus the gas
injection rate.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 79 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillstring Injection Pressure versus Gas Injection Rate

If drillstring gas injection is used, then the drillstring injection pressure must be
estimated to ensure that sufficient pump pressure capacity is provided to inject gas
and liquids into the drillstring when circulating. Although the standpipe pressure is not
directly used for any of the underbalanced parameters, the injection pressure will still
provide indications when drilling.

If, as in the graph shown below, the injection pressure is too high for the nitrogen
system and the rig pumps, the drillstring design or the MWD and motors may have to
be reviewed.

Injection Pressure vs Gas Injection

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
4500

4000

3500

3000
Injection Pressure (psi)

2500

2000

1500

choke pressure = 150 psi

1000 flowrate = 100 gpm
No Reservoir inflow
flowrate = 150 gpm
Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
500 flowrate = 200 gpm
Bit Depth 16000 ft
flowrate = 250 gpm
Reservoir Formation Sandstone Maximum Injection pressure (psi)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection rate (scft/min)

Fig 44 Injection Pressure versus Gas Injection Rate

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 80 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillstring Liquid Hold Up versus Gas Injection Rate

As in the annular hold up graph, this graph is intended to provide an indication of
where fluid levels are once circulation is stopped. In combination with the annular
liquid hold up, it allows calculation of the total amount of fluid in the well.

Injection Liquid Hold Up / Quality

Well name : Test Well Client : Oil Company
50%
flowrate = 100 gpm
flowrate = 150 gpm
45%
flowrate = 200 gpm
flowrate = 250 gpm
40%

35%
Liquid Hold up %

30%

25%

20%

15%

10% choke pressure = 150 psi

No Reservoir inflow
5% Fluid System Waterbased + Nitrogen
Bit Depth 16000 ft
0% Reservoir Formation Sandstone
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Gas Injection rate (scft/min)

Fig 45 Gas Percentage in Drillstring versus Gas Injection Rate

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 81 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Reservoir Inflow
In underbalanced drilling, as soon as the bit penetrates the reservoir, reservoir fluids
will start to flow into the wellbore. Once this happens, the stabilized multiphase flow
regime in the well prior to reservoir fluid entry must be adjusted to account for inflow
without upsetting the circulating system or moving out of the underbalanced window
already established. The rate of reservoir fluid inflow depends, in part, on the
drawdown and reservoir rock properties (the differential pressure between circulating
bottomhole pressure and reservoir pressure). There are a number of models that can
be used to estimate the reservoir fluid inflow based on the rock and fluid parameters.
However, the reservoir rock properties are fixed and the only variable that is
adjustable is the drawdown (bottom hole pressure) to control reservoir fluid inflow.

As previously defined, the inflow performance of a well represents the ability of the
reservoir to produce fluids under a given condition of drawdown. The reservoir fluid
inflow performance is one of the most important parameters in underbalanced
operations because of its impact on well production and safety.

The unexpected events of flush production (after drilling into a fracture) can have a
significant impact on drilling operations. It must not be assumed that the well flow will
be stable when drilling underbalanced.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 82 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillstring and Down Hole Tool Design

When looking at drillstring and down hole tool design, a few issues
need to be addressed for drilling underbalanced.

Pressure While Drilling (PWD)

Pressure while drilling sensors have proved invaluable in every underbalanced
drilling operation to date where they have been included in the drillstring and
operated without downtime. However, quite a number of these sensors have proved
problematic because of the vibration problems and fast drilling rates encountered
with underbalanced drilling. Adding a down hole gauge or sensor in the drillstring will
definitely enhance the underbalanced drilling operation and help the team optimize
the drilling process and increase the knowledge of the reservoir.

Conventional MWD Tools in Underbalanced Drilling

The most common technique for transmitting MWD data uses the drilling fluid
pumped down through the drill string as a transmission medium. Mud-pulse telemetry
transmits data to the surface by modifying the flow of mud in the drill-pipe in such a
way that there will be changes in fluid pressure at surface. It involves the sequential
operation of a down hole mechanism to selectively vary or modulate the dynamic
flowing pressure in the drillstring and thereby sends the real-time data gathered by
the down hole sensors. This variation in the dynamic pressure is detected at the
surface where it is demodulated back into the real measurements and parameters
from the down-hole sensors.

Signal strength at the surface depends on many factors including the mud properties,
drill-string arrangement, flow rate, signal strength generated at the tool, telemetry
frequency, and many others.

When drillstring gas injection is selected for underbalanced drilling, these small
pressure pulses have to be transmitted in a compressible fluid medium. Transmission
of pressure pulses in a compressible fluid environment is difficult and experience to
date indicates that mud-pulse telemetry systems are best applied to scenarios with a
maximum gas percentage of 20% (by volume at the standpipe).

This ratio can be extended somewhat depending on well depth, profile, liquid-phase
fluid, drill-string/bottom hole assembly, pumping pressure and flow rates. But for
drillstring gas injection, MWD pressure pulse technology is problematic.

A solution for this is the use of electromagnetic telemetry for MWD and PWD tools.

Electromagnetic Measurement While Drilling (EMWD)

The history of annular pressure measurements extends as far back as the mid
1980’s when Gearhart Industries, Inc. provided annular pressure sensors on their
measurements-while-drilling (MWD) tools. Since then, Anadrill and other service
companies have developed sensors for down hole annular pressure measurements
while drilling.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 83 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Electromagnetic telemetry transmits data to the surface by pulsing low-frequency

waves through the earth. There are essentially two ways of doing this: one that
induces an axially symmetric electric field around the drill-pipe, and a second that
Transmitter Surface Antenna

Bi-directional
Transmission

Transmitting
Induced
Antenna Bit Currents

Fig 46 Electromagnetic MWD Tools

drives current directly from one part of the drill-pipe to another. The former is referred
to as “Imag” and the latter as “Emag”.

Imag transmission is typically used for short-hop systems, e.g. across a motor. It has
an advantage in that its transmission is essentially independent of mud properties
and layering within the rock formation. Signals are generated by wrapping solenoid
coils around the drillpipe to create a magnetic dipole. The contrast in magnetic
properties of metal versus rock is only about 100 to 1, but the dipole efficiency can be
increased somewhat by adding ferrite cores to the coils.

Emag transmission is typically used to send data over longer distances. Signals are
generated from a voltage difference on the drill-collar, which is either induced from
toroidal coils wrapped around the collar or created directly by adding an insulating
“gap” to the drillpipe. This creates an electric dipole with one long end (to the surface)
and one “short” end (to the bit). The metal drillpipe acts as a long focusing antenna
because of the large conductivity contrast between it and the rock (10,000,000 to 1).

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 84 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Emag has a disadvantage that contrasts in rock properties and in particular very high
resistivity formations such as evaporates will strongly attenuate the signal.

Emag signals on land can be received by measuring the voltage difference between
stakes on the surface. For offshore applications, Emag signals can in theory be
detected by measuring voltage differences on the seabed or the current flow
returning to the riser, but in practice there remain many challenges to running Emag
operations offshore.

Both Imag and Emag are subject to an increasing attenuation as the frequency
increases. Shales and low conductivity water sands are particularly attenuative.

Pressure while drilling tools or PWD tools have enhanced the underbalanced process
significantly. Certainly on the initial trips in an underbalanced well, the PWD sensor
should be used. Once reservoir inflow starts, the PWD sensor will provide valuable
information about the PI of the reservoir.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 85 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Non Return Valves

Non return valves are necessary for underbalanced drilling to prevent influx of
reservoir fluids up inside the drillstring either when tripping or making connections. It
must be recognized that there is pressure below non-return valves.

The positions of the float valve in the drillstring depend on the tools in the BHA and
the policy of the operating philosophy underpinning the safety management of the
operation. The number of float valves in the BHA and the drillstring is also a matter of
company policy consistent with perceived risks and management thereof.
Drill Pipe Annulus
If the drilling float valve(s) should all fail, the
well may have to be circulated to kill weight
Standpipe Annulus fluid and a string trip undertaken to replace
Pressure Pressure
or repair the float valves.

It is good practice to install a float valve in

the top of the drillstring, when using
drillstring gas injection, often referred to as
the string float valve because it aids
operational efficiency by reducing the time it
takes to bleed off the pressure before
making connections. This top valve is often
a wireline retrievable float valve that can be
retrieved, as access through the string is
required.

In general, a double float valve is installed

just above the BHA and a further double
float valve is installed above the bit so that
there is redundant service.

Two types of non-ported drill string floats

Bottom Hole
Pressure
that are commonly used are the flapper and
Floats
plunger floats.

Bit The flapper valve uses a spring loaded

flapper valve and allows passage of balls
for coring or shut off tools. Wireline cannot
be run through flapper valves since the
flapper closes once the tool is passed and
the tool cannot be pulled.
Reservoir
Fig 47 Well Control U-Tube

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 86 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Size 3F Model "G" Flapper Type floats

The Baker Model "G" Drill Pipe Float Valves are made of normalized,
quenched, and tempered alloy steel to resist wear and erosion. The
flapper valve opens fully during circulation, providing an unrestricted
bore through the valve, thereby effectively prolonging the life of the
valve and drill collar, as there is no diversion of fluid against the drill
collar ID. When circulation stops, the flapper closes instantly.

Fig 48 Model G Flapper Valve

Size 3F Model "F" Plunger Type floats

The Baker Model "F" Drill Pipe Float Valve provides a positive and
instantaneous shut-off against high or low pressure, assuring
continuous control of fluid flow during drilling. For normal drilling
operations, the durable Model "F" is the most economical choice and
is available in all sizes.

Fig 49 Model F Plunger Type Valve

Wireline Retrievable Float Valves

Wireline retrievable float valves are normally run in the upper section of the drillstring.
The purpose of the wireline retrievable valve is to allow the gas in the drillstring to be
bled off rapidly and allow connections to be made.

The valve prevents the entire drillstring gas volume having to be bled off every
connection and the valve also adds another well control barrier to the upper part of
the drillstring.

Fig 50 Wireline Retrievable Non-Return Valve

The valve can be retrieved if wireline operations through the drillstring are required or
if the valve has to be moved to a higher position in the string. The valves are
positioned in a locking profile sub that is part of the drillstring.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 87 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Down Hole Isolation Valves

The down hole deployment or down hole isolation valves have been designed to
eliminate the need for snubbing operations, or the need to kill the well in order to trip
the drill string during underbalanced drilling operations.

In underbalanced drilling, there are a number of options when

tripping the string. The well can be allowed to flow, the well is
shut in and a snubbing unit is used to trip the pipe, or the well is
killed and tripping is conducted overbalanced. Killing the well is
not an option if reservoir productivity improvement is the
objective for underbalanced drilling.

To avoid the use of a snubbing unit, two types of down hole

isolation valves have been developed.

The down hole valve or deployment valve is run as an integral

part of the casing program, allowing full bore passage for the drill
bit when in the open position. When it becomes necessary to trip
the drill string, the string is tripped out until the bit is above the
valve, at which time the deployment valve is closed and the
annulus above the valve bled off.

Now the drill string can be tripped out of the well without the use
of a snubbing unit and at conventional tripping speeds, thus
reducing rig time requirements and providing improved
personnel safety. The drillstring can then be tripped back into the
well until the bit is just above the deployment valve, at that point
Fig 51 Position of DDV
in a Well
the pressures are equalized and the valve can be opened and the drillstring run in to
continue drilling operations.

Deployment Valves
are currently available Actuator
in 7”, 9-5/8” and 10- Flapper
Mandrel
3/4” casing sizes with
differential pressure
ratings up to 5000 Flapper
Spring
psi.

Fig 52 DDV System Flapper Valve and Actuator Sleeve

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 88 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillstring Design
Drill string design has the same purpose as casing or tubing design. The purpose of
drillstring design is to provide a drillstring assembly that will perform satisfactorily
under the anticipated drilling conditions. A drill string must be designed to fulfill the
following functions:

• Transmit and support axial loads

• Transmit and support torsional loads
• Transmit hydraulic power
• Provide a well control barrier (UBD)

In order to fulfill that purpose, the drill string design must:

• Keep the maximum stress at any point in the drill string less than yield
strength derated by a design factor.
• Retard fatigue as much as economically practical.
• Be resistant to hydrogen sulphide if H2S is expected.
• Be pressure sealing and gas tight (UBD)

The ranking and importance of each of these functions is dependent upon the well
design and objectives.

The drillstring for underbalanced drilling can be jointed pipe as well as coiled tubing.
Hole size and reservoir penetration as well as directional trajectory will determine
whether coiled tubing or jointed pipe is the optimal drillstring medium. If the hole size
required is larger than 6-1/8", jointed pipe may have to be used. For hole sizes of 6-
1/8" or smaller coiled tubing can be considered.

The size of coiled tubing currently used for underbalanced drilling operations is
between 2" & 2-7/8" OD and the sizing criteria for coiled tubing includes many factors
such as hydraulics, weight and tension requirements and total weight of the coil.

Occasionally the ideal coiled tubing for an operation may be excluded due to such
factors as crane or transport limitations or that the life of the coil may not be feasibly
economical.

Generally, coiled tubing has several advantages and disadvantages over jointed pipe
systems. For jointed pipe systems, drill string properties and tripping under pressure
will need to be considered. The installation of a rotating head or snubbing system on
a platform or rig with a fixed distance between rotary table and wellhead may cause
severe challenges in rig up. Several previous operations on land rigs had to be re-
designed to accommodate rotating control devices and rig assist snubbing systems.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 89 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Coiled Tubing versus Jointed Pipe

Coiled Tubing Jointed Pipe
No connections made during drilling Connections require gas injection shut
down causing pressure peaks
Higher pressure containment Pressure of Rotating Diverters limited to
5000 psi static pressure.
Stiff wireline makes MWD systems simpler in MWD systems unreliable in gasified
gasified fluids systems
No snubbing system required Pressure deployment requires snubbing
unit
Maximum hole size 6” No hole size limit
Hole cleaning more critical Hole cleaning can be assisted by rotation
Potential for pipe collapse in high pressure Special drillstring connections required for
wells gas fields
Thru tubing drilling work possible Thru tubing work requires special rig floor
tools on conventional rigs
BOP stack smaller BOP stackup requires rotating diverter
system.
Lower costs Higher costs as a result of rig.
Limited with drag for outreach Ability to drill long horizontal sections

If hole size and well trajectory permits, coiled tubing is likely to be the simplest
system to drill underbalanced wells. But this technical advantage also has to be
considered against the economics of having a full-size drilling rig and a coiled tubing
system installed just to drill underbalanced.

Underbalanced drill string design is simplified compared with traditional drill strings.
Since common problems with overbalanced drilling are avoided. Drill strings are
normally slick with no jars and minimal number of stabilizers. Stabilizers create
issues when tripping through rotating diverters under pressure.

Any drill collars that are to be run must be slick so that well control can be maintained
during trips. Spiral drill collars will leak when they are being pulled through a rotating
diverter.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 90 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Drillpipe
Conventional drillpipe can be used in underbalanced drilling operations. The
connections are more important for several reasons.

Torque and drag friction factors in underbalanced drilling are

often double of what they are in overbalanced drilling operations.
So more torque is required to turn the pipe and this has a direct
impact on the connections as well as on the maximum reach with
the given surface equipment.

Not too many connections can be legitimately classified as gas tight connections in
the market place today. Although many manufacturers
will recommend a number of connections they will not
guarantee that the connections are gas tight. In fact, only
Grant Prideco XTM (eXtreme Torque Metal seal)
connection is guaranteed by its manufacturer as a gas
tight connection. The XTM connections are designed
with radial metal-to-metal seal, which ensures the gas-
tight capability of the connection.

Hydril WT (wedge) connection series can be used although field experience has
shown that they are not gas tight under all conditions. However, most long double-
shouldered connection (e.g. DSTJ or VAM, XT and HT) will be gas tight if they are
properly doped and maintained.

The following tool joints are commonly used in underbalanced drilling:

Hydril WT38 or WT39 and HT38 comparable NC connection. For more information
see (www.hydril.com)

Grant Prideco XTM39 For more information see (www.grantprideco.com)

It is also important that drill pipe being used for underbalanced drilling not be plastic
coated. In a gasified fluid, the plastic coating is likely to be stripped off and plug the
string. The new abrasion-resistant, liquid-applied, modified epoxy-phenolic or the
ceramic particle loaded epoxy resin coated systems for drillpipe can be used for
underbalanced drilling operations.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 91 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Hard banding
Any hard banding on the drillpipe must be reviewed carefully. Hard banding on the
pipe will wear out the rotating diverter rubbers much more quickly then pipe without
hard banding. If hard banding is required, then it must be as smooth as it can be.
Several operators have started using Armacor™ hard banding on their drillpipe.

Drillpipe Rubbers
Drillpipe protection rubbers cannot be run when drilling underbalanced. There are
two reasons for this. One is that they suffer from gas impregnation when run deeper
into the well and will explosively de-compress when pulling out of the hole. The
second issue is running the drillpipe rubbers through the rotating diverter will cause
blow-by when tripping and drilling.

Jars
The use of drilling jars in underbalanced drilling with jointed pipe is not a
straightforward decision. In underbalanced drilling, drilling jars can be used and they
are just as effective as in overbalanced drilling. Differential sticking does not occur
during underbalanced drilling. The one issue with jars that needs to be considered is
tripping jars using a snubbing unit.

The snubbing force required for pushing or pulling the pipe while tripping in or out of
hole may be enough to set and/or trip the drilling jar on a number of occasions to an
extent that compromises the operational effectiveness of the drilling jar. It may be
prudent not to include drilling jar in cases where there is evidence that its inclusion
may make tripping more difficult or may compromise the effectiveness of the jar.

Some bottom hole assembly components can be hydraulically operated

(locking/unlocking) by means of the pressure differential between drill string and
annulus that occurs when circulation is stopped and started. Tools with these
mechanisms are likely to be disturbed when drilling underbalanced, mainly due to the
different fluid compositions in the drill string and annulus.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 92 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Down Hole Motors

The selection and use of down hole motors is of importance in underbalanced drilling
as many UBD wells are horizontal wells or directional wells. Both positive
displacement motors (PDM) and vane motors and turbines have been successfully
used in underbalanced drilling operations.

The main issue with motors arises

when drillstring gas injection is
used and a compressible mixture
drives the motor or turbine. Gas
will increase the speed of the
motor but will decrease the torque
output from the motor. Multiphase
fluids will reduce the operating
window of a motor or turbine.

One of the major problems with

motors in compressible fluids is the
ability to detect a motor stall. When
Fig 53 Turbine and PDM Differences

pumping a compressible fluid during a motor stall, the pressure increase will be
masked by the gas compressibility. Once the driller notices that the motor has stalled
he will pick up off bottom. This often results in the gas pressure being released from
the drill string and the result is that the motor will exceed its maximum flow rate and
overspeed, causing damage.

PDM motors are susceptible to fluids that will attack the rubber stator and cause
deformation and jamming. High temperatures may also cause swelling of the stator
and result in the motor jamming. Hence, both bottom hole temperature and well fluids
are important in defining motor selection.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 93 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Equipment Selection

The equipment selection is started on the injection side of the

underbalanced drilling operation and will be worked through the
surface equipment via the wellhead and separation system to the
flare.

Gas Injection Equipment

Gas injection equipment for underbalanced drilling comprises of various items. For
air drilling operations, the same compressors and boosters are used, and for a
nitrogen generation system a nitrogen generation unit is added.

Air compressors
Primary air compressors used in underbalanced operations are normally after cooled
direct drive, two-stage helical screw compressors. Most compressors produce a
maximum air flow of 900 scft/min at 300 psi to 350 psi, with a horsepower rating of
approximately 380 BHP at 1800 rpm.

The compressors are

powered by a diesel engine
and are skid mounted.

It must be taken into

account that compressors
need to be de-rated in flow
rate by 3% for every 1000ft
of ground elevation.

Fig 54 Quincy Air Compressor

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 94 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Nitrogen Generation System

The nitrogen production unit is a single containerized system with compressed air
into the system and nitrogen produced at the outlet. An NPU will normally produce a
maximum of 1500 scft/min of nitrogen through the membrane system as described in
the gas section of this manual.

Nitrogen Generation System

Air Cooler Particulate Carbon Particulate

Oil
Heater Filter Bed Filter
Air Filter
Demister
Air Cooler

Nitrogen

Oxygen

Fig 55 Flow Path Through a Nitrogen Generator (NPU1500)

Membrane performance is generally described as a function of the nitrogen purity,

operating temperature, and operating pressure. In general, productivity increases
with an increase in pressure and temperature.

A Nitrogen Production Unit or NPU contains all the equipment required to properly
condition the feed air supplied to the membrane modules. Typical equipment
includes an air receiver, moisture separator, coalescing filter, carbon filter, and a
particulate filter. Proper operation and maintenance of this filtration system will
prevent oily water condensate, airborne particles, pipe scale from contaminating
and/or clogging the membrane fibre openings.

The membrane modules are completely encased in ASME coded cylindrical pressure
vessels.

Purity Assurance
Most nitrogen generation units are equipped with two purity assurance valves. The
product valves allow on spec nitrogen to flow into the outlet line. The product vent
valve will vent off-spec nitrogen, which is too high with oxygen impurity. High and low
oxygen impurity set points are entered into the processor via an electronic control
system.

Flow metering is provided internally in the unit through the use of an orifice meter.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 95 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

A nitrogen generation system is 50% efficient. This means that if 1500 scft/min of
nitrogen is required, then 3000 scft/min of air needs to be pumped into the nitrogen
generation system. A full single nitrogen generation system can deliver 1500 scft/min
of nitrogen and requires three or four large air compressors to deliver the required
air. A booster compressor will be used on the outlet to boost the nitrogen flow up to
the required standpipe injection pressure.

Nitrogen Generation System

Air Compressors N2 Generators Low pressure High pressure

Booster Booster
Compressors Compressor

Fig 56 Nitrogen Generation System for 3000 scft/min of Nitrogen at 4000 psi

The system as show in fig 54 has the capability of generating approximately 3000
scft/min of nitrogen at 4000 psi.

• Six 950 scft/min feed air compressors deliver 5700 scft/min of air at 350 psi.
• The two Nitrogen Generators deliver 2850 scft/min of N2 at 350 psi.
• The low pressure boosters raise this pressure from 350 psi to 1800 psi.
• The final high pressure booster raises this pressure from 1800 psi to 4000 psi
into the standpipe.

This equipment will take up significant space on a location, especially on an offshore

location.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 96 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Fig 57 Nitrogen Generation System for 3000 scft/min Rigged Up on Location

The nitrogen volume and pressure requirements must form an essential part of the
planning process for an underbalanced drilling operation. As not only equipment
requirements must be known, space and diesel supply for the equipment must also
be planned.

Booster Compressors
Two types of boosters are normally used on an underbalanced drilling job, low
pressure boosters and high pressure boosters. The low pressure boosters boost the
outlet from the nitrogen generator from 165 psi to approximately 1800 psi.

Low pressure Boosters

The low-pressure boosters
are normally composed of
a two cylinder, single or
two-stage, double acting,
reciprocating, inter-cooled
and after-cooled, 7 1/2” x
5” pressure booster. The
low-pressure booster is
capable of boosting with an
inlet pressure of 165 PSI.

The volume of nitrogen that

can be boosted depends
on the configuration of the
booster compressor. The
higher the volume, the
lower the maximum
pressure.

Fig 58 WB-12 Low Pressure Booster (1800psi)

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 97 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The table below provides some indication of the volume and pressure relationship.

Set up Clearance Flow rate Pressure

Single stage Min Clearance 3000 SCFM 650 PSIA
Two-stage Min. Clearance 2150 SCFM 1400 PSIA
Two-stage Max. Clearance 1550 SCFM 1850 PSIA

High Pressure Boosters

The high-pressure booster is normally a single cylinder, double-acting, reciprocating,
after-cooled, 2.75” x 7” pressure booster. The high pressure booster needs an inlet
pressure of 1400 psi and can boost up to a pressure of 4000 psia. The high-pressure
booster may be volume restricted
and this will need to be confirmed
with the equipment supplier.

Fig 59 WB-11 High Pressure Booster (4000 psi)

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 98 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Well Control Equipment

The conventional BOP stack used for drilling should not be compromised for
underbalanced drilling operations. The conventional BOP stack must not be used for
routine UBD operations and must not be used to control the well except in case of
emergency. This ensures that the BOP remains the secondary well control system.

A rotating diverter system

Typical BOP Stack Up Sketch
and flow line with ESD
Not to scale for valves is normally installed
Information only
Rig Floor on top of the conventional
BOP to provide
underbalanced well
control.
Snubbing System
Potentially required

1.24 m
If required, additional rams
can be added under the
Rotating Control Head BOP stack to provide
system
operational functions for
Primary Flowline
Flow Spool
ESD Valve
underbalanced operations.
The drilling kill and choke
Annular Preventer
lines must be left in place
Pipe Rams
to allow for conventional
Variable Rams
well kill operations to take
Flow Spool
place.
Secondary Flowline
Drilling spool
Choke / Kill Lines It is recommended that any
Blind / Shear Rams additional RAMS be
Working Blind Ram operated through a
separate KOOMEY
1.00 m
Skid Deck system.

5.79 m

Fig 60 Typical BOP Stack Up for Underbalanced Drilling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 99 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Coiled Tubing Drilling

Pack Port Well control using a coiled tubing drilling

Upper Guides
Retract Port
system is performed using a dual stripper
rubber and not a rotating head. The rig up
for underbalanced coiled tubing drilling will
Packing
however need to take into account
Arrangement

deployment and recovery of the coiled

tubing BHA under pressure.

Fig 61 Coiled Tubing Side Door Strippers

Rotating Diverters
The principle use of the rotating diverter system is to provide an effective annular
seal around the drillpipe during drilling and tripping operations. The annular seal must
be effective over a wide range of pressures and for a variety of equipment sizes and
operational procedures. The rotating control diverter system achieves this by packing
off around the drillpipe. The rotating control head system comprises of a pressure-
containing housing where packer elements are supported between roller bearings
and isolated by mechanical seals.

There are currently two types of rotating diverters recognized:

Active
The active type use external hydraulic pressure to activate the sealing
mechanism, and normally active rotating control diverters increase the sealing
pressure as the annular pressure increases.
Passive
The passive type uses a mechanical seal with the sealing action activated by
well bore pressure.

All surface BOP systems have limitations, in both the amount of pressure they can
seal off and the degradation of the sealing equipment from the flow and composition
of the different reservoir fluids and gases over time, regardless of the type of surface
BOP control system chosen.

The key to making the right choice of diverter for each particular underbalanced
drilling operation is in the careful consideration and pre-planning of the possible well
conditions, which are:
• The expected flow rates.
• The expected pressures.
• The type of pipe rotation to be conducted through the diverter system.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 100 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The selection criterion for rotating diverters is mainly based on expected static and
dynamic pressures.
3000

Rotating Diverter Selection Chart

2500

2000
Dynamic Pressure (psi)

RPM 3000 Williams 7100

Sour Service Sour Service
1500
Shaffer PCWD
Williams 7000
RBOP
1000
Strata RFD 5000
Williams
RBOP
IP-1000
500
Williams
8000/9000
1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000
500

Static Pressure (psi)

Fig 62 Rotating Diverter Selection Chart

The API does not currently recognize rotating control diverters as blowout
preventers, which they were never designed for in the first place. The API does now
recognize the rotating head as a diverter, but has not issued any documentation or
certification on these systems although this is currently under development by the
IADC/UBO committee.

Currently there are four types of rotating equipment suitable for high pressure
applications. These are:
• Weatherford /RTI RBOP
• Shaffer PCWD
• Williams 7100
• RBOP

The present rotating control diverter systems are capable of operating at 3000 psi
while rotating at 200 rpm with a maximum static pressure of 5000 psi and a
maximum pressure while stripping of 3000 psi. This latest generation of rotating
control diverters is compatible with top drive and power swivel systems and has been
found to be excellent pipe stripping tools.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 101 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Passive Rotating Control Diverters

The Williams diverter systems serve a wide range of surface pressures, down hole
conditions, and drilling conditions. All of the Weatherford Williams systems are
passive systems.

c Working Pressure
d Static Pressure

c 1500 psi c 2500 psi

d 3000 psi d 5000 psi
c 1000 psi
c 500 psi
d 1500 psi
d 500 psi

Model 9000: IP 1000: Model 7000: Model 7100:

.

Fig 63 Various Williams Rotating Diverters

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 102 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Active Rotating Control Diverters

Weatherford supplies three active RCD systems.

c Stripping Pressure
d Rotating Pressure
e Static Pressure
c 1000psi c 1000psi c 2500psi
d 1500psi d 1500psi d 3500psi
e 3000psi e 3000psi e 5000psi

RPM 3000 RBOP 2K RBOP 5K

7” ID 7” ID 7” ID

Shaffer PCWD
The Pressure Control While Drilling Preventer (PCWD)

The pressure control while drilling system has combined the features of the spherical
BOP with a hydraulic and electronic system that allows the spherical BOP to rotate
while containing pressure.

The major components of the pressure control

system are very similar to a conventional annular
BOP. The PCWD is capable of safely shutting in on
5000 psi in the static mode and 2000 psi at 200
rpm.

The unit allows stripping of tool joints while rotating

and is capable of completely shutting off an empty
wellbore at 50% of the rated working pressure
(2500 psi).

Fig 64 Shaffer PCWD Rotating Diverters

The PCWD design uses the standard 11-inch spherical annular preventer element
with a piston arrangement similar to a standard annular preventer.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 103 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

RBOP
One of the first active rotating diverter systems was known as the RBOP. This was
the first system developed to have two seals with
active pressure control on the seals directly
dependent on the wellbore pressure. As the main
seal started to wear, the back up seal would provide
the sealing mechanism until the main seal could be
replaced.

The cooling of the bearings was effected by an oil-

cooled system.

Fig 65 Precision RBOP Rotating Diverters

The following items are important when selecting a rotating diverter system:

• Design Criteria; expected flow rates, operating pressures and temperatures.

• Design Standards and Specifications, Mechanical and Material.
• Size of through bore.
• Sealing mechanism, Active/Passive.
• Proven Track records.
• Test program including stripping and media of test fluids (gas or liquid).
• Certification.
• Experience.

Issues to considered for improving the life of the seals on a RCD are :

A Top Drive is preferred, if a Hex Kelly is used it will require to have smooth
edges, Square Kelly’s can not be used with RCD’s.

The drill pipe should be smooth with minimal grooves and tong marks.
Inspection of the drillstring prior to underbalanced drilling is recommended.
The smoother your drillstring the longer the stripper rubbers last. Identification
ring grooves should be filled in or removed.

Finally the BOP stack must be aligned to within 1/2” of the rotary table.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 104 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Snubbing systems
If tripping is to be conducted underbalanced without a down hole deployment valve, a
snubbing system will have to be installed on top of the rotating control head system.

The current snubbing systems used in underbalanced

drilling are called rig assist snubbing systems. These
units need the rig draw works to pull and run pipe and
are designed to deal only with pipe light situations.

A jack with a 10ft stroke is used to push pipe into the

hole or to trip pipe out of the hole.

The ability to install a snubbing system below the rig

floor allows the rig floor to be used in the conventional
drilling way.

Snubbing with an onshore rig where there is no space

under the rig floor to install a snubbing unit will have to
be conducted on the rig floor. In order to facilitate
snubbing, so called push-pull units are installed on the
rig floor.

Fig 66 Sub Rig Floor Snubbing Unit (Dolsnub 6)

Push-pull machine in the down and in the up position

Fig 67 Rig Assist Push-Pull Unit (Courtesy Tesco)

The stroke of this unit is 10ft and the maximum snubbing capacity of the unit is
50,000lbs of force or equivalent to snubbing 5” pipe with 6-1/4” tool joints with 1500
psi surface pressure.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 105 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Separation Equipment

In all underbalanced operations, the separation system that is to be used has to be

tailored to the expected reservoir fluids. The separation system must be designed to
handle the expected influx fluids and gasses, and it must be able to separate the
drilling fluid from the return well flow in order for it to be pumped down the well once
again.

The surface separation system in underbalanced drilling can be readily compared

with a process plant, and there are many similarities with the process industry. Fluid
streams while drilling underbalanced are often described as four phase flow, as the
return flow is comprised of:

1. Oil
2. Water
3. Gas
4. Solids

The challenge for the separation equipment is to effectively and efficiently separate
the various phases of the return fluid stream into their individual streams whilst at the
same time returning a clean fluid back to the drilling process.

A number of approaches in separation technology have emerged recently:

Remove Gas Remove Solids Separate oil & Water Drilling Fluid

Reduce
Pressure

Remove Solids Remove Gas Separate oil & Water Drilling Fluid

Reduce
Pressure

Remove Solids Remove Gas Separate oil & Water Drilling Fluid

Reduce
Pressure

Remove Gas Remove Solids Separate oil & Water Drilling Fluid

Reduce
Pressure

Fig 68 Approaches to Separation

The approach taken is largely dependent on the expected reservoir fluids. Normally
the first approach is taken, but if erosion is expected to be a problem, the solids can
be removed first.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 106 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

In a lot of situations, the separator is the first process equipment that receives the
return flow out of a well. Separators can be classified as:

Classification Operating Pressure

Low pressure 10 to 20 psi, up to 180 to 225 psi
Medium pressure 230 to 250 psi, up to 600 to 700 psi
High-pressure 750 to 5000 psi

Separation of liquids and gasses is achieved by relying on the density differences

between liquid, gas and solids. The rate at which gasses and solids are separated
from a liquid is a function of temperature and pressure.

Separators are classified as “two-phase” if they separate gas from the total liquid
stream and “three phase” if they also separate the liquid stream into its crude oil and
water components. In underbalanced drilling, the term “four-phase” separation is
used to indicate the separation of 1)oil, 2) water, 3) gas and 4) solids.

Horizontal and vertical separators can be used. Vertical separators are more
effective when the returns are predominantly gas, while horizontal separators have
higher and more efficient fluid handling capacities.

Horizontal separators

In horizontal separators, well returns enter and are slowed by the velocity-reducing
baffles.

Gas Out

Gas Fluids In

Fluid
Oil/water Mixture
Oil

Water
Oil Solids

Oil Out
Solids Slurry out

Water Out

Fig 69 Horizontal Separator

Solids predominantly settle in the first compartment from where they can be removed
by a solids transfer pump. Liquid passes over the partition plate into the second
compartment where further solids separation takes place and the liquids begins to
separate by virtue of their density difference and residence time. The liquid spills over
to the third compartment where separation is completed. The water component and
liquid hydrocarbon are discharged from different levels of the third compartment.

The separator should be fitted with adequately sized pressure relief valves and an
emergency shutdown valve, triggered on high/low liquid level, and high and/or low

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 107 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

pressure. It should be fitted with sight glasses to indicate liquid levels and observe
the solids level.

Vertical Separators

Vertical Separator
In a vertical separator the solids predominantly
settle at the bottom of the vessel, from where they
can be removed. The remainder of the liquids and
Gas Out
gasses are separated by their density differences
with gas at the top, oil in the middle and the water
lower down on top of the solids. The water
Mist Extractor
component and liquid hydrocarbon are discharged
from different levels of the vessel.
Fluids In

The advantage of vertical separators is their

reduced footprint and better gas handling
capabilities.

Oil
Oil Out

Water

Fig 70 Vertical Separator

A separator must have the following abilities:

• Remove the bulk of the liquids from the gasses.

• Remove bulk of the solids from the liquid.
• Separate oil from water.
• Sufficient capacity to handle fluid surges of liquid from a well.
• Sufficient length, or height, to allow the small droplets to settle out by gravity.
• A means of reducing turbulence in the main body of the separator so that
proper settling may take place.
• A mist extractor to capture entrained droplets, or those too small to settle by
gravity.
• Proper backpressure and liquid-level controls.

The efficiency of a separator to remove gas from oil is dependent on physical and
chemical characteristics of the crude, separator operating pressure and temperature,
rate of throughput, size and configuration of the separator. The rate of throughput
and liquid depth in a separator determine the “residence” or “settling” time of the
liquid phase.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 108 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

UBD Choke manifold

Chokes, choke manifolds and standpipe manifolds are all important parts of any
underbalanced drilling operation and play an integral role in the overall improved
safety process involved in all underbalanced drilling operations.

The choke manifold should be designed to handle the maximum expected volumes
from the well (4-inch minimum piping) equipped with dual chokes (one hydraulic and
the other manual). This redundancy allows one choke to be operating while the other
is isolated and maintained.

Without the proper piping and flow control at surface, the annular and injection flows
integral to the system can become a hazard to the overall surface control system.

All choke manifolds involved

with underbalanced
operations should be
designed to accommodate
flow, pressure, temperature,
possible erosion and
corrosion from the return flow
of the drilling fluids, gases
and solids.

The choke manifold used for

underbalanced drilling will be
a separate manifold from the
standard drilling choke
manifold. Both manifolds will
remain fully independent of
each other.
Fig 71 UBD Choke Manifold

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 109 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Data acquisition
The data acquisition used on a underbalanced system should provide as much
information as possible not only to ensure that the drilling process remains within the
required limits for safety and efficiency, but also to allow the maximum amount of
information to be obtained from the reservoir whilst drilling. A good functioning data
system will also allow for formation analysis whilst
drilling and of course increasing reservoir knowledge is
one of the primary benefits of underbalanced drilling.

However, the safety aspect of data acquisition should

not be overlooked as well control is directly related to
the pressures and flow rates seen at surface.

The data acquisition system must be designed to obtain

all the required data from the underbalanced drilling
Fig 72 Gas Flow Meter
process. It must also provide the ability to analyze drilling and reservoir data whilst
drilling underbalanced.

Recording the data and providing the ability to analyze this data afterwards in
combination with reservoir engineers and geologists can provide significant insight
into the reservoir and the drilling process. This will also allow for optimization of the
drilling process on subsequent wells.

A number of standard plots are normally provided during the underbalanced process.
These are:

Against Time
Reservoir Pressure Provides pressure and flow rate
Standpipe Pressure comparison.
Bottom Hole Annulus Pressure
Wellhead Pressure
Liquid Rate In
Nitrogen Rate In

Against Time
Reservoir Pressure Provides calibration chart for flow
Bottom Hole Annulus Pressure modeling.
Wellhead Pressure
Liquid Rate In
Liquid Rate Out
Nitrogen Rate In
Gas Rate Out

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 110 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Against Time
Liquid Rate In Provides reservoir inflow
Liquid Rate Out
Nitrogen Rate In
Gas Rate Out
Cum. Liquid Out
Cum. Gas Out
Against Measured Depth
Reservoir Pressure Provides reservoir PI data vs. measured
Bottom Hole Annulus Pressure depth
Wellhead Pressure
Liquid Rate Out
Gas Rate Out

Against Vertical Depth

Liquid Rate In Provides reservoir PI data vs. vertical
Liquid Rate Out depth
Nitrogen Rate In
Gas Rate Out
Cum. Liquid Out
Cum. Gas Out

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 111 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Flares
As hydrocarbons are produced whilst drilling underbalanced, these must be handled
on the drilling location. Gas is normally flared whilst crude oil and condensate are
stored and then pumped to a processing facility.

Where environmental regulations preclude flaring,

gas re-compression and export injection can now
be considered as a viable alternative to flaring.

Flaring is either done in a flare pit or through a

flare stack. The flare stack or flare pit should be
equipped with an automatic ignition system and
flame propagation blocks.

For safety reasons a great

deal of consideration
should be given to the

Fig 73 Top of a Flare Stack

surface equipment layout to avoid unnecessary rig crew

exposure to noxious fumes, radiated heat, noise and
flammable liquids.

The equipment layout should also maintain adequate

separation distances from the wellhead and all external
sources of ignition. Separation criteria must meet applicable
regulator or operator specifications. A flare stack or flare pit
should always be positioned downwind of the prevailing winds
in the area. Fig 74 Flaring Gas

During the planning stage, a realistic maximum acceptable radiation level for
personnel and equipment should be determined to allow a practical and economic
flare and burning system to be installed.

To reduce the amount of possible heat

radiation, heat shielding or typically water
spray systems are used on offshore systems
to maintain safe and operable conditions.
Even with the use of water curtains as a
means of preventing the spread of fire and
thermal radiation, it is necessary to know the
amount of thermal radiation that will be
transmitted through the water curtains. For
onshore systems a heat radiation survey can
dictate the required height of the flare stack.

Fig 75 Clean Burner (courtesy of FG Engineering Services BV)

Non visible flame flares are now also available.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 112 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Well Control Strategy

It is important that a distinction be made between well kill and well
control in underbalanced drilling operations. In underbalanced
drilling flow control is used by manipulating the bottomhole pressure
and surface pressure to keep well productivity within safe and
acceptable operating limits.

Well kill in this context, however, is actually displacing the well to kill weight mud and
restoring overbalanced conditions. In underbalanced drilling, this is normally only
done if safety of equipment or personnel is compromised when operational controls
have strayed outside a pre-determined safe and acceptable operating envelope or
where equipment failure requires the well to be killed to control the well.

In underbalanced drilling, the well must be designed for 100% underbalanced

condition. This means that the well must be able to contain a full column of reservoir
fluid to surface.

Well Kill Strategy

The well kill strategy adopted for underbalanced drilling is to isolate the wellbore and
return the operations to conventional overbalanced operations.

Well kill is done when:

• At any time where personnel safety or the installations are threatened.
• During a persistent inability to maintain underbalanced flow control.
• Where specialized underbalanced drilling equipment fails and the only way of
retrieving the situation is to revert to overbalanced conditions.

Well killing may be necessary when:

• Drill string integrity is lost.
• Non-return valves and the contingency DISV (drop in safety valve) system
fails.
• The casing integrity is lost.
• During a failure of the emergency/safety shutdown system.
• A down hole problem exists or complex fishing operations are required.

The above lists are not necessarily exhaustive and there may be other situations that
may necessitate a well kill. These should all be addressed in the HAZOP and HAZID
documents completed for a UBD operation.

Well Control
The inflow from the reservoir into the wellbore depends on a number of factors, such
as drawdown, permeability, length of reservoir exposed to the wellbore and reservoir
productivity index. During underbalanced drilling control of the reservoir is maintained
by maintaining the reservoir drawdown within a predetermined limit consistent with
the PI of the reservoir and the capacity of the surface separation equipment.

In an underbalanced drilling operation, a Flow Control Matrix is prepared prior to the

start of the underbalanced drilling phase. This is a summary of flow control actions as
a function of reservoir gas inflow rate and flowing wellhead pressure.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 113 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Underbalanced Flow Control Matrix

Surface Pressures
For Williams 7100 Rotating Head

Flow rates 0 to 1250 psi 1250 to 2250 psi >2250 psi

Adjust System bottom

0 to 5 MMscft/day Managable hole pressure Shut in on Rig BOP

Adjust System bottom Adjust System bottom

5 to 10 MMscft/day hole pressure hole pressure Shut in on Rig BOP

>10 MMscft/day Shut in on Rig BOP Shut in on Rig BOP Shut in on Rig BOP

Pressures
Range 1 = 50% RCD dynamic rating.
Range 2, = 50% to 90% of the RCD dynamic rating.

Surface Flow Rates

Range 1 = 60% of the flow rate capacity or the upper erosion limit.
Range 2 = 60% to 90% of the separation system flow rate capacity or the upper
erosion limit (Erosional velocity is normally taken as 180 ft/min)

Once a baseline trend of flow rates and pressures have been established, any
change or deviation from trends in fluid returns, annular bottomhole pressure
readings or standpipe pressures should be investigated with other surface data and
the necessary course of action should be decided if well control procedures have to
be activated.

Depending on the changes observed and other information available, three possible
actions are likely, and using traffic light colors makes the matrix easily
understandable:
• Continue underbalanced drilling as normal green light
• Per the flow control matrix, perform corresponding action
• Stop drilling and shut-in well on the rig BOP

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 114 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The option to shut in the well on the rig’s BOP should only be used as a last resort
where the wellhead pressure will exceed UBD surface equipment pressure rating or
when choke control is incapable of restricting well productivity within the surface
separation equipment’s safe operating limits. Where well productivity is higher than
expected, consideration should be given firstly to reducing well productivity by
decreasing the drawdown.

The following well control issues should also be considered as part of the planning
for any UBD project:

• Barrier philosophy
• Is a snubbing system required?

Snubbing requirement determines what level of compressional load will be imposed

on the wellhead during snubbing. On a platform, it is important to know if the platform
can stand this additional load.

• Pressure rating of well control equipment vis-à-vis reservoir productivity and

expected wellhead pressure.
• Sour service requirement – if there is a chance that sour gas might be
encountered? It is wise to plan the UBD process to deal with the contingency.
• Wear inspection regime and procedures for BOP sealing elements and pipe
work associated with routing of reservoir fluid and control.
• In the event of wear of the sealing element of the RBOP, how will it be
replaced and what redundancy exists in the rig up to cope with the scenario?
• BOP systems operations requirement – ensure that the rams and sealing
elements of the BOP are capable of gas service and can cope with the
volume of gas expected during underbalanced drilling operation and for the
length of time required.
• Hydrate prevention strategy.
• What back up equipment are needed for well control purposes? For example,
NRV inserts and subs, replacement parts for critical well control equipment.

Overall, always remember that in underbalanced drilling, FLOW CONTROL and not
PRESSURE CONTROL is the way of controlling reservoir fluid inflow.

Erosion
Although not directly a well control issue, the potential for erosion of surface and
down hole equipment must be considered when drilling underbalanced. Erosion
monitoring and prediction is essential for safe operations. The management of
erosion and the use of erosion monitoring systems must be considered as part of the
surface and down hole design.

The flow velocity limits applied by the industry to control erosion are defined in the
API recommended practice RP14. One drawback, however, of these guidelines is
that the amount of solids in production operations is significantly lower than in
underbalanced drilling operations. Erosion in surface pipe work must be considered
as part of the design process, and in high rate gas wells this can be a significant cost
for a UBD operation. In general, target 'T's should be used wherever necessary and

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 115 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

these should include a method of quickly replacing them for inspection and change-
out purposes.

Erosion engineering is required to ensure that wall thickness on piping and

equipment will stay within the minimum required values to prevent leaks and
consequent rupture of piping.

Field experience has shown that where quantities of sand/solids are expected,
erosion problems are likely to be
encountered if the flowing velocity
is allowed to exceed the erosional
velocity. In order to avoid potential
erosion problems, the production
rate of a well should be limited to
ensure the flow velocity is reduced
to the API RP 14E recommended
maximum of approximately 150
ft/sec.

Wall thickness of all equipment

should be checked at least yearly,
and every time equipment has
returned from a location where
corrosive, abrasive and/or erosive materials have been processed.

Corrosion Management
One of the aims of any UBD drilling project should be to minimize or manage
corrosion. This is first defined by setting goals for drill string corrosion rates, defined
in millimetres of metal lost or dissolved per year (mpy) as measured by corrosion
coupons. Different companies have different levels of tolerance with respect to
corrosion. If a company does not have pre-set standards, the following table may be
considered as a place to start.

Temperature Velocity Targeted

(° C) (m/s) Corrosion Rate
(mpy)
<1
< 60 1–5 < 10
60 – 120 5 – 20 10 – 50
> 120 > 20 ~ 50

Certain information can greatly enhance the effectiveness of a corrosion

management program. Corrosion mechanism identification begins by analyzing the
following items:

a. Reservoir fluid type and chemistry

b. Bottom hole temperature
c. Bottom hole pressure
d. Acid gas (H2S or CO2) concentrations
e. Electrical conductivity of fluids

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 116 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

f. Fluid velocity

A full corrosion monitoring and chemical treatment program should be conducted on

all underbalanced drilled wells. The aim for a corrosion inhibition program should be
to maintain a specified corrosion rate as measured by API approved corrosion drill
pipe circular ring coupons.

Two types of monitoring devices can be used:

• Drill pipe circular ring coupons
• Electrical resistance probes.

Drill Pipe Circular Ring Coupons

A circular ring coupon should be placed in the toolbox
joint of the first joint above the drill collars. Another
coupon should be placed in the top drive saver sub
close to the surface. The ring coupons should then be
exposed for more than 40 hours; normal exposure time
is about 100 hours.

Fig 76 Corrosion Coupon Ring

Electrical Corrosion Monitoring Probes

If electrical corrosion probes are used, two probes should be installed in the following
locations prior to UBD operations commencing:

• In the stand pipe manifold after the fluid and gas have been commingled.
• In the inlet of the primary separator system.

Fig 77 Electrical Corrosion Measuring System

Oxygen
Oxygen is the most common corrosive agent of primary significance in a corrosion
monitoring and inhibition program. In the presence of moisture, oxygen causes
rusting of steel, the most common form of corrosion.

Since oxygen is soluble in water, the drill stem is continually exposed to potentially
severe conditions. Membrane nitrogen systems produce inert gas with oxygen
concentrations ranging from 3% to 8%. Although this is not as high as the 20%
oxygen found in compressed air, it will always produce unacceptable corrosion rates
if not properly treated.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 117 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Corrosion rates can still be controlled even at 9% oxygen by adding more chemicals.
Oxygen concentration is a function of membrane retention time. Higher flow rates
may dictate a higher oxygen concentration.

The average oxygen content of a nitrogen system should not exceed 5% if possible.
If membrane nitrogen is employed, oxygen sensors should be routinely monitored by
operations personnel and concentrations listed on the morning operations report.

Corrosion inhibitors should always be considered, even in oil based UBD mud
systems. If the decision is made to treat with corrosion inhibitors, a corrosion
engineer or technician on site can monitor the performance of the chemical inhibition
program.

Corrosion Inhibitor Types

Corrosion control chemicals can be divided into groups according to their function.
Corrosion inhibitors that are cationic produce a film on the surface of the pipe. The
film disrupts the circuit of the corrosion cell through the electrolyte. Cationic inhibitors
are typically called filming amines.

The second group of corrosion inhibitors is called anodic inhibitors because they
pacify the cathode of the corrosion cell. These inhibitors are anionic and react with
the cathodic areas of the pipe to neutralize them and control corrosion.

Anodic inhibitors are the most effective in underbalanced drilling systems. Because
they are anionic, they are compatible with foaming agents and their performance in
the presence of dissolved oxygen is excellent.

Cationic filming amine corrosion inhibitors are incompatible with foaming agents and
do not perform well in the presence of dissolved oxygen. This is because monatomic
oxygen can penetrate the amine film on the pipe wall. The result is severe pitting
corrosion on the pipe wall.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 118 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Personnel Selection

Personnel selection for an underbalanced drilling operation is

normally left to the service provider. Competency of underbalanced
drilling personnel is important, and the use of competent and
experienced operators is essential for a successful underbalanced
drilling operation.

Normally the following personnel would be brought out to a location for a large
underbalanced drilling operation:

Dayshift Nightshift
Supervision 1 UBD Supervisor 1 UBD Supervisor
Engineering 1 UBD Engineer 1 UBD Engineer
Separation 1 Separation Supervisor 1 Separation Supervisor
2 Separation Operators 2 Separation Operators
RCD/DDV 1 DDV / RCD Operator 1 DDV / RCD Operator
Data 1 DAQ Operator 1 DAQ Operator
Compression 1 Compression Supervisor 1 Compression Supervisor
1 Compression Operator 1 Compression Operator
1 Nitrogen Specialist 1 Nitrogen Specialist
1 Mechanic 1 Mechanic

Total 11 11

This implies that a total of 22 people are required for a full underbalanced drilling
operation. Although, UBD engineer and UBD supervisor can sometimes be shared,
reducing the number of people to 20.

Sometimes specialists such as corrosion engineers or snubbing crews are also

required during an underbalanced drilling operation, potentially boosting the
requirements on bed space. This must be considered, especially on offshore
operations.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 119 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Training and Competency

Training of personnel on a UBD rig site is critical to a safe operation.

In a UBD operation, training becomes even more important because
of the number of interdependent services and personnel involved.
Training, competency and PPE requirements for the entire crew
must be assessed prior to operations commencing.

A competency system must be in place by both the operator and service provider to
ensure that all personnel on the well site are competent. Competence standards
must describe the standards that need to be achieved in a variety of company /
contractor work roles and how competency is assessed.

UBD impact Typically Standards of Competence will be required for:

• Operator site supervisor
• Tool pushers
• Drillers
• Assistant Drillers
• Derrickmen
• UBD Supervisor
• UBD Engineers
• Equipment Supervisors for both separation and compression
• Well Engineering Project Coordinator
• Snubbing Engineers
• Snubbing Supervisor
• Gas Injection Supervisor
• Surface Separation Supervisor

Regardless of whether the training takes place off-site, on-site or both, training for a
UBD operation may have a substantial associated cost. The training programme can
be area and well specific, and to minimize costs must be fit for purpose; but training
is not optional.

Due diligence requires us to ensure only trained competent personnel are allowed to
work on a UBD site and personnel in the process of becoming competent are
properly supervised by competent staff.

Although there are variations in the approach to competency-based training

throughout the world, the objective is the development of a competent workforce.
This requires a system that sets standards for what competencies are required for a
task or role, how competent staff will be trained to develop these standards, and how
competence is assessed.

In line with this objective, IADC has approved the UBO Rig Pass accreditation
system and Underbalanced WellCAP Curriculum, which emphasizes flow control with
different equipment and procedures from conventional drilling operations.
Underbalanced WellCAP is aimed at training the well-site supervisors and the intent
is to ensure that conventional well control thinking and procedures do not
compromise UBD well objectives.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 120 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Operational Procedures

Operational procedures for underbalanced drilling operations are

normally subdivided into four sets of procedures:

1. Pre and Post Operational Procedures

2. Operations Procedures
3. Equipment Procedures
4. Emergency Procedures
5. Administration Procedures

Pre-operational procedures cover all the transportation, rig up, testing and
commissioning procedures. Post-operational procedures cover rig down and post-job
inspection procedures.

Pre and post operational procedures cover:

• Loading and Unloading Equipment
• Transportation of Equipment
• System Flushing
• Pressure Testing
• Signage
• Spotting of UBD Equipment
• UBD Equipment Rig Up
• Post Rig Down Equipment Inspection
• UBD Equipment Rig Down
• Fluid System Commissioning
• ESD Testing
• Nitrogen Injection Line Testing

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 121 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Operational Procedures will need to cover:

• Non-return Valve Pressure Testing
• Non-return Valve Bleed Off
• Make Up & Running BHA
• Pull, Break & Lay Down BHA
• Connections
• Wireline Retrievable Valve Operations
• Underbalanced Initiation
• Drilling Underbalanced
• Radio Communications
• Tank Farm Management
• Produced Oil Export
• Solids Handling and Sampling
• Tripping

Emergency Procedures need to cover:

• Bull-Head Kill Well
• Equipment Failure Downstream of BOP
• Failure of Rig BOP
• Failure of Drilling Fluid Circulation System
• Loss of Air or Rig Power Failure
• Drillstring Failure
• NRV Failure
• Drillstring Washout
• Plugged Bit or Drillstring
• ESD Event
• Fluid Management Event
• Nitrogen Generation System Failure

Equipment Procedures need to cover:

• Start Up & Operation of Boosters
• Compressor Equipment Start Up and Operations
• Nitrogen Unit Start Up & Operations
• RCD Element Change Out
• Line Heater Operations
• Flare Stack Operations
• RCD Operations
• Fuel Supply System

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 122 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Completing Underbalanced Drilled Wells

The majority of early wells drilled underbalanced could not be
completed underbalanced. The majority of the early UBD wells were
displaced to an overbalanced kill fluid prior to running the liner or
completion. Depending on the completion fluid type, some formation
damage would take place. The damage may not have been as severe for completion
brine as it might have been with drilling mud, but significant reductions in productivity
of underbalanced drilled wells have been encountered after the installation of the
completion.

If the purpose of underbalanced drilling is for reservoir improvement, it is important

that the reservoir is never exposed to overbalanced pressure with a non-reservoir
fluid.

If the well has been drilled underbalanced for drilling problems, and productivity is not
impaired, then the well could possibly be killed and a conventional completion
approach can be taken.

A number of completion methods are available for underbalanced drilled wells:

• Liner and perforation
• Slotted liner
• Sandscreens
• Barefoot

All of the above options can be deployed in underbalanced drilled wells. The use of
cemented liners in an underbalanced drilled well is not recommended if the gains in
reservoir productivity are to be maintained. It is generally not possible to cement a
liner in an underbalanced mode, although the use of foamed cements may provide
some solutions in certain circumstances. The completion requirements for a UBD
well must be reviewed and analyzed as part of the feasibility study prior to
commencing an underbalanced operation.

Irrespective of the completion lining required for the reservoir, the installation process
for a completion will have to be carefully reviewed during the planning process to
ensure that underbalanced status is maintained during the completion installation.

If a packer type completion is installed. The production packer and tailpipe are run
and set on drill pipe with an isolation plug installed in the tailpipe. If the well is
maintained underbalanced, well pressure will normally require the production packer
and tailpipe to be snubbed into the well against well pressure.

If a liner top completion is used in a monobore well drilled underbalanced, the use of
a float collar may have to be considered to maintain well control.

Snubbing
With well pressure acting upwards on the completion, the weight of the assembly will
be less than the upward force. This means that a snubbing system is required to get
the packer assembly in the hole. In an underbalanced system the well can be
allowed to flow via the surface separation package. This is an advantage over

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 123 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

conventional snubbing operations as the surface pressure of a flowing well is

normally lower than shut in pressure.

At no time during the snubbing operations should the conventional well control BOP
stack be compromised. Special snubbing BOP’s and a rotating diverter must be used
in addition to the conventional drilling BOP’s.

The use of a down hole isolation valve can significantly simplify the installation of a
completion.

There are very few mechanical methods of down hole isolation available for the
running of a slotted liner. The Baker “Underbalanced Liner Bridge Plug (ULBP)
System” is one of the few systems currently on the market. This system allows a
retrievable plug to be set in the last casing. A retrieving tool that is attached to the
bottom of the slotted liner releases this isolation plug. This retrieving tool unseats the
isolation plug and then swallows the isolation plug or packer. The swallowing action
of the retrieval tool ensures that the plug and retrieving tool are rigid and can be run
to TD without hanging up in the open hole. Both the packer and retrieval tool are
specifically designed to be released by the liner.

If necessary, the well can be lubricated to kill fluid on top of the plug and displaced
via the slotted liner when the drill string is sealed by the rotating diverter.

The complete procedure for running of a slotted liner and the completion in an
underbalanced drilled well is outlined in the following diagrams.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 124 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Drilling Completed Out of the Hole Run Underbalanced
Liner Bridge Plug

Production Casing
Production Casing
Production Casing

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir

Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Underbalanced Liner Run Slotted Liner Run Slotted Liner
Bridge Plug Set

Production Casing
Production Casing Production Casing

Reservoir
Reservoir Reservoir

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 125 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Step 7 Step 8 Step 9

Run Slotted Liner Pull Running String Run Packer

Production Casing
Production Casing
Production Casing

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir

Step 10 Step 11
Production Packer Set Completion

Production Casing
Production Casing

Reservoir
Reservoir

Fig 78 Completion Sequence for Underbalanced Drilled Wells

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 126 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

The main problem with running the completion in a live well is the installation of the
SSSV control line. Once the control line is connected, the BOP will no longer seal
around the pipe. Once again, the simplest method is to isolate the reservoir prior to
running the completion.

In the case of completion, the production packer with a plug installed in the tailpipe is
snubbed into the live well and the production packer is set on drill pipe. The packer
assembly would be lubricated into the well by utilizing the snubbing system or a down
hole deployment valve.

Once the production packer is set, the drillpipe can be used to pump completion fluid
to provide an additional barrier that can be monitored if required. The completion is
now run conventionally. The isolation plug in the tailpipe will be retrieved during the
well commissioning. Before pulling this plug, the fluid should have been displaced out
of the completion string. This can be achieved with coiled tubing or with a sliding
sleeve. Once the completion has been installed, the well is ready for production. No
clean up or stimulation is required in the case of underbalanced drilled wells.

Workover of an Underbalanced Drilled Well

The workover procedure is a reversal of the completion running, i.e. a suspension
plug is installed in the production packer tailpipe and the well is lubricated to kill fluid.
After retrieving the completion, the packer picking assembly is run to the packer
depth and the well is returned to an underbalanced condition prior to retrieving the
packer. This ensures that formation damaging kill fluid does not come into contact
with the reservoir at any time.

Once a well is drilled and completed underbalanced for reservoir improvement

purposes, the underbalanced status should be maintained for the life of the well. This
includes all subsequent workovers and well operations.

Underbalanced Drilled Multi-Lateral Wells

The setting of the production packer with a mechanical plug allows the lower leg in a
multilateral well to be isolated and remain underbalanced whilst the second leg is
drilled. After running the liner in the second leg, the completion can be run and a
second packer can be installed and stabbed into the lower packer. If leg isolation is
required, a flow sleeve can be installed at the junction to allow selected stimulation or
production as required. Re-entry into both legs is also possible utilizing a selective
system. However, more detail as to the exact requirements from a multilateral system
will need to be reviewed.

Drilling a multilateral well underbalanced with the main bore producing can be done,
but the drawdown on the reservoir will be small. A further setback will be that
cleaning up of the lateral is difficult if the main bore is a good producer. Getting
sufficient flow through the lateral to lift fluids and solids can be a challenge.

Flow modeling in a multilateral well can also be a challenge. Careful analysis of the
lateral and the mainbore will have to be conducted prior to embarking on
underbalanced drilling, especially as highly productive reservoirs can prove difficult to
control if a small lateral requires a significant drawdown.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 127 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Subsurface Services
This is where the evaluation requirements of a well are reviewed
with the operator and includes issues such as logging, coring and
seismic surveys that may have to be collected whilst drilling
underbalanced. Most logging and coring, as well as other data
requirements, can normally be obtained providing that the requirements and
operational procedures are identified early on in an underbalanced project.

Cuttings
Regardless of the drilling fluid being used in the underbalanced operation, cuttings
coming to the surface can be indexed to the formation at depth and its geological
character evaluated.

Gas
Gas logging systems can detect the volume of gas in the circulating drilling fluid and
detect the C1-C5 components in the gas stream. The need to obtain cuttings and gas
specimens in the circulating drilling fluid must be identified early in the well planning
process to ensure the appropriate surface equipment and technicians are available at
the location. Gas samples can be taken from the separation or flare system, but
appropriate safety systems must be installed.

Electric Logging
Any electric logging of underbalanced drilled wells can be designed just like
conventional logging programs. Issues that need to be considered are the well
control aspects of a logging operation. Wireline logging can be conducted using a
wireline lubricator. Pipe conveyed logging is more complex as the pipe and annulus
needs to be controlled. The use of a side entry sub and a Rotating Control Diverter
will not work. If pipe conveyed logging needs to be done, memory tools should be
considered.

Due to the general lack of a conductive fluid in underbalanced drilling operations,

logging should be limited to Induction Electric, Gamma Ray, Neutron and Caliper
type logs.

Coring
Coring can be carried out in underbalanced drilling operations, although special tools
and techniques must be used to ensure that the following issues are addressed:

• Dropping of balls to seal the corebarrel.

• Recovery of the corebarrel, potentially under pressure.
• Installation of non-return valves above the core barrel.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 128 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Process Flow Diagrams

A number of drawings are normally associated with an
underbalanced drilled well. These drawings can be listed as:

1) UBD BOP Stack Up

2) Compression and Separation Equipment Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
3) Compression Equipment Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
4) Separation Equipment Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
5) Oil Export Pump Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
6) Valve Identification Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
7) Hazardous Areas (noise and fire and explosion)
8) Fire protection, location of breathing apparatus, gas sensors and alarm
positions
9) Escape Routes and ESD Stations
10) ESD Loop
11) Services Supply to UBS systems
12) Equipment spotting sequence
13) General rig and site layout
14) Process Flow Diagram
15) Primary search route
16) Secondary search routes (For Sour wells)
17) Grounding
18) Lighting and Emergency Lights

Drawings should be numbered and should also be assigned a date and sequence
number, as a large number of drawings will be reviewed several times during the
preparation of an underbalanced drilling project.

A formal approval for drawings must be implemented and all drawings should be
audited against actual prior to operations commencing. Symbols and legends must
be clearly marked. The use of colors should be avoided so that diagrams and
drawings can be copied on site if required.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 129 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Rig and Lease Layout

An example of a rig / lease layout complete with zonal area’s is
shown below

On most lease layout diagrams, all of the equipment and access and escape routes
are also normally shown.

Fig 79 Location Layout Drawing

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 130 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Health Safety and Environmental Planning

During the execution of drilling and testing operations, many of the
activities have the potential for negative impact on the health and
safety of workers, on the environment and on the equipment or
installation being used. The potential for HSE problems increases
whenever a new operation that is different from the normal activity is introduced.
Such is the case of reduced head or underbalanced operations on a drilling site.

These operations are significantly different from the conventional drilling approach.
To ensure a safe and efficient operation, the supervisors and crews executing these
operations have to be familiar with the process, the equipment and the procedures.
Therefore, in setting up an Underbalanced Drilling (UBD) project, it is critical that
HSE issues are considered from the very early phases of the project planning cycle.

HSE Management Systems

A Company’s HSE management system describes the way in which it will manage its
stated HSE objectives. As in any management system, this is accomplished by
focusing on key activities. This ensures that:

• Critical activities are effectively controlled.

• Procedures and documentation are in place.
• Performance is measured and reported.
• Areas for improvement are identified.

A detailed and approved document for HSE management of underbalanced drilling

operations is available from the IADC UBO website.

Environmental Aspects
The underbalanced drilling system is a fully enclosed system. When combined with a
cuttings injection system and an enclosed mud pit system, a sour reservoir can be
safely drilled using an underbalanced drilling system. The pressures and flow rates
are kept as low as possible. It is not the intention to drill a reservoir and produce it to
its maximum capacity.

A well test can be carried out during underbalanced drilling to provide some
productivity information. The hydrocarbons produced during the UBD process can be
routed to the platform process plant, exported or flared.

There is work currently being undertaken to reduce flaring and recover the
hydrocarbons for export. In a prolific well, a significant amount of gas can be flared
during the drilling process. Recovering this gas provides an environmental benefit
and an economic benefit. Oil and condensate recovered are normally exported via
stock tank into the process train.

Safety Aspects
Besides the full HAZOP, a significant amount of crew training is required for
underbalanced drilling. A drilling crew has been instructed during its entire career that
if a well kicks it must be shut in and killed. During underbalanced drilling, the single
item to be avoided is to kill the well. This may undo all the benefits of underbalanced

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 131 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

drilling. Working on a live well is not a normal operation for a drilling crew and good
training is required to ensure that accidents are avoided.

The underbalanced drilling process is more complex when compared to conventional

drilling operations. Gas injection, surface separation, and snubbing maybe required
on a well. If the hydrocarbons produced are then pumped into the process train, it is
clear that drilling is no longer a stand-alone operation.

The reservoir is the driving force in the UBD process. The driller must understand the
process and all the interaction required between the reservoir, the liquid pump rate,
the gas injection and the separation process system to safely drill the well. When
tripping operations start, the well must remain under control. Snubbing pipe in and
out of the hole is not a routine operation, and a specialized snubbing crew is normally
brought on to snub the pipe in and out of the hole.

The extra equipment also brings a number of extra crew to the rig. So besides a
more complex operation, a number of service hands are on the rigs that now need to
start working with the drilling crew. Yet the drilling crew will move back to
conventional drilling once the well is completed. The drilling crew will need to be
trained in this change of operating.

If a number of wells are to be drilled underbalanced in a field, it may be an option to

consider batch drilling of the reservoir sections. This saves mobilization and it also
sets a routine with the drilling crew. It must be stated that few accidents occur during
underbalanced drilling; this is mainly believed to the high emphasis on safety during
live well operations.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 132 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Detailed Cost Estimates

The detailed cost estimates provide all the rates for equipment and
personnel that will be used on the project. These detailed cost
estimates are normally provided as a part of the commercial
contract between the UBD service provider and the Operator.

Many contracts have these detailed rates included in the contract, and the monthly
invoices for a project can be rapidly checked against these rates.

One of the issues is often re-dress charges as a part of the operation and disputes
often arise as a result of interpretation of the contract and refurbishment costs.

Detailed cost estimates can normally be provided once all the engineering issues
have been reviewed and the complete range of additional services and requirements
is known.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 133 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

UBS Program
An underbalanced drilling program can form part of the general
drilling program or it can be presented as a separate drilling
program. As a minimum requirement, a UBS program should have
the following chapters:

Introduction
Introducing the objectives of underbalanced drilling, the risk classification of the well
and the reasons for the well operations.

Well Information
Basic well information such as location, reservoir targets and well trajectory as well
as a short reservoir description complete with reservoir pressures and depths.

An overview of the expected well condition and installed casing and tubulars used
prior to underbalanced drilling is useful.

Well trajectory such as length, build rates, deviation and hole size is normally
provided at this point.

Expected reservoir Properties

Reservoir Name Well Name/ No

Depth TVDSS
Gross thickness (ft)
Net/Gross
Average Porosity
Net Pay Thickness
Average SW
Formation Type
Permeability
Porosity
Influx Top Depth (ft)
Influx Bottom Depth (ft)
Reservoir Fluid
GOR (scf/stb)
Reservoir PI (bbls/d/psi/ft)
Reservoir Pressure
Temperature
Gas Specific Gravity
Oil API

Section Objectives
A short review of why the well is being drilled underbalanced and what the objectives
of the operation are. The TD criteria for a well should also be included if the well
program calls for the maximum production or maximum depth/length of the well.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 134 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Operational Program
Provides a step-by-step process of the underbalanced drilling operation.

Drilling Parameters
Provides a listing of the expected bits to be used and also provides details of the
expected drilling parameters.

Drillstring Design and Composition

This section lists the detailed drillstring design for the underbalanced operation and
what equipment is run where in the string and why. Also the location and type of the
non-return valves should be listed here. If a down hole motor is to be used, list the
manufacturer’s details including the maximum flow rates and pressures expected
through the motor.

Well Trajectory and Directional Issues

This section lists the directional requirements and any directional drilling issues that
may be encountered during the underbalanced drilling operation.

UBD Hydraulics
All of the flow modeling charts and underbalanced drilling parameters should be
listed here including the fluids and gases that will be used. Also, the expected bottom
hole pressure, reservoir pressure, and velocities expected in the well should be listed
here.

Well Control
The expected well control matrix must be a part of the underbalanced drilling
program.

Timings
List the expected rate of penetration and associated timings.

Equipment
Details of the underbalanced drilling equipment and, in the case of a coiled tubing
operation, the details of the coiled tubing and the associated underbalanced drilling
equipment are normally a useful addition to a drilling program. This detailed listing
often can save considerable time during HAZOP / HAZID reviews and meetings.

Once the detailed program has been written, considerations can be made to put all
this practice into an actual operation.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 135 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Underbalanced Records
Underbalanced drilling in Europe started with the technology from Canada in 1995.
Wells were initially drilled onshore, but migrated offshore with the first well drilled
underbalanced offshore by Shell in Lowestoft in June 1997.

Year Country Operator Details

1995 Germany BEB Ulsen
RWE-DEA Breitbrunn gas storage
Australia WAPET
1996 Denmark Maersk Coiled Tubing
Netherlands NAM Coiled Tubing
UK Pentex Oil field onshore using coiled tubing.
1997 UK Shell First Offshore Well
Mexico Pemex Offshore well GOM
Indonesia Mobil Arun gas field (depleted)
Spain SESA
Algeria Sonarco
Oman PDO
Argentina YPF
1998 UK Shell Offshore Barque & Clipper
UK Edinburgh Oil Hatfield Moors Field
& Gas
Netherlands NAM K17 offshore UBD trails.
Indonesia Kufpec Oseil Field
Italy Agip/SPI Sicily
1999 UK Shell Galleon & Barque
Sharjah BP Amoco Horizontal oil wells
Brazil Petrobras Onshore Brazil Estreito Field
Indonesia YPF Maxus First offshore well in Krisna Field
Algeria Sonarco Rhourde El Baquel Field
2000 UK Shell Southern North Sea
Brazil Petrobras First lowhead well from a floater
Sharjah BP Amoco Horizontal oil wells
Oman PDO Coiled tubing underbalanced in the
Yibal field
UK Talisman First UBD well from floater in North
Sea using coiled Tubing
Lithuania Minijos Nafta New wells in Oil field
2001 Australia Santos Onshore in Cooper Basin
Lithuania Minijos Nafta New wells in Oil field
UK Talisman Second CTD well from floater
Indonesia Exxon Mobil Arun gas field (depleted)

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 136 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Year Country Operator Details

2001 Oman Occidental Onshore in Safah Field
Colombia BP Five wells in Cusiana/Cupiagua
Sarawak Shell First wells in Miri drilled UBD
China Daqing First UBD wells in Daqing oilfield
2002 UK Talisman Further wells drilled on Buchan
UK Shell Further wells drilled in Southern
North Sea
Colombia BP Drilling underbalanced with coil in
the Cusiana/Cupiagua fields
Lithuania Minijos Nafta Continue previous UBD program
Indonesia Pertamina Onshore 1600 ft Horizontal lateral
Oman PDO Continued operations in Nimir Field
in Oman a total of 8 wells were
drilled in 2002
Jordan NPC Jordan New well in Eastern Jordan through
gas bearing dubeibed Sandstone.
One new well and two sidetracks
were drilled.
2003 Syria Al Furat Drilled two new wells underbalanced
through the Shiranish Sandstone
Brazil Petrobras Drilled several UBD wells in
Carmopolis field in the Alagoas
basin
Venezuela PDVSA Drilled 1200 ft horizontal section
lowe head in Eastern Venezuela.
Venezuela PDVSA Underbalanced jointed pipe drilling
on Lagomar block in Lake Maracaibo
Venezuela PDVSA Onshore operation in Barinas field
using nitrified oil based mud system

Since 2003, the number of underbalanced drilled wells has increased continuously
and more and more operators are using underbalanced technology to access
reserves and to increase productivity and decrease drilling problems.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 137 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

References
14734 Westermark, R.V., “Drilling With a Parasite Aerating String in the Disturbed
Belt, Gallatin County, Montana “, SPE paper 14734, presented at the 1986
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, TX, February 10-12 1986
37066 Saponja, J,”Challenges With Jointed-Pipe Underbalanced Operations” Paper
SPE 37066 first presented at the 1996 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, 18–20 November.
37138 B.D. Brant, T.F. Brent, R.F Bietz, “Formation Damage and Horizontal Wells -
A Productivity Killer?” SPE paper 37138 presented at the 1996 SPE
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary,
Canada, 18-20 November.
39303 Bijleveld, A.F, Koper, M, Saponja, J. “Development and Application of an
underbalanced drilling simulator”, SPE 39303, paper presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas 3-6 March 1998.
39924 D.L Purvis, SPE, and D,D. Smith, SPE, BJ Services, ”Underbalanced Drilling
in the Williston Basin”, SPE 39924, paper presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain low permeability reservoir symposium held in Denver Colorado 5-8
April 1998.
46042 Graham, R.A. “Planning for underbalanced drilling using coiled tubing”, SPE
46042, paper presented at the SPE/Icota Coiled tubing round table held in
Houston, Texas 15,16 April, 1998.
46039 Chitty, G, H. “Corrosion Issues with underbalanced drilling in H2S reservoirs”
SPE 46039, paper presented at the SPE/Icota Coiled tubing round table held
in Houston, Texas 15,16 April, 1998.
48982 Saintpere S, Hertzhaft, B, “Stability and flowing properties of aqueous foams
for underbalanced drilling”, SPE paper 48982, paper presented at the SPE
annual technical conference and exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
27-30 September 1998.
51500 Smith SP, Gregory G.A, Munro, N, “Application of multiphase flow methods to
underbalanced horizontal drilling”, SPE paper 51500, paper presented at SPE
international conference on horizontal well technology, held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 1-4 November 1998.
52826 Nas.S, “Underbalanced drilling in a depleted gas field onshore UK with coiled
tubing and stable foam” SPE paper 52826, presented at the SPE/IADC drilling
conference held in Amsterdam, Netherlands 9-11 March, 1999.
52827 Robichaux, D. “Successful Use of the Hydraulic Workover Unit Method for
Underbalanced Drilling” SPE paper 52827, presented at the SPE/IADC drilling
conference held in Amsterdam, Netherlands 9-11 March, 1999.
52829 Lage, A, Nakagawa, E, Time, R, Vefring, E, Rommetveit,R, “Full-scale
Experimental Study for Improved Understanding of Transient Phenomena in
Underbalanced Drilling Operations”, SPE paper 52829, presented at the
SPE/IADC drilling conference held in Amsterdam, Netherlands 9-11 March,
1999.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 138 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

52832 Alvaro Felippe Negrão, SPE, IADC, Halliburton Energy Services; Nilo
Azevedo Duarte Planning an Effective Aerated Drilling Operation in Hard
Formation Based on Cost Analysis., “ SPE Paper 52832” presented at the
1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, Holland, 9-11 March
1999.
52833 Gedge, B, “Underbalanced Drilling gains acceptance in Europe and the
International Arena.”, SPE paper 52833, presented at the SPE/IADC drilling
conference held in Amsterdam, Netherlands 9-11 March, 1999.
52889 Bennion, D.B. Thomas, F.B.. Bietz, R.F and Bennion, D.W, “Underbalanced
Drilling: Praises and Perils”, SPE paper 52889, presented at the 1996 SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, 27–
29 March 1996.
54483 Luft H.B, Wilde G, “Industry Guidelines for Underbalanced Coiled Tubing
Drilling of Critical Sour Wells”, SPE paper 54483, presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 25–26 May 1999.
54717 Cor P.J.W. van Kruijsdijk, and Richard J.W. Cox, “Testing While
Underbalanced Drilling: Horizontal Well Permeability Profiles” SPE paper
54717, presented at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference
held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 May–1 June 1999.
55036 R.J. Cox, Jeff Li, and G.S. Lupick. “Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling of Gas
Wells with Coiled Tubing” SPE paper 55036 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 4–6 March 1997.
55606 D R. Giffin, W. C. Lyons, “Case Histories of Design and Implementation of
Underbalanced Wells”, SPE paper 55606 presented at the 1999 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting held in Gillette, Wyoming, 15-18 May 1999.
56633 S. Saintpere, B. Herzhaft, A. Toure, S. Jollet, “Rheological Properties of
Aqueous Foams for Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 56633 presented at
the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
56865 A.F. Negra, A.C.V.M. Lage, and J.C. Cunha, “An Overview of Air/Gas/Foam
Drilling in Brazil “, SPE paper 56865 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Amsterdam, 4-6 March.
56684 L. Larsen, F. Nilsen, “Inflow Predictions and Testing While Underbalanced
Drilling”, SPE paper 56684 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
56877 N.P. Tetley, V. Hazzard, and T. Neciri, “Application of Diamond-Enhanced
Insert Bits in Underbalanced Drilling” SPE paper 56877 presented at the 1999
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–
6 October 1999.
56920 R. Rommetveit, O. Sævareid, A. Lage, A. Guarneri, C. Georges, E.
Nakagawa, and A. Bijleveld, “Dynamic Underbalanced Drilling Effects are
Predicted by Design Model.”SPE paper 56920 presented at the 1999 Offshore
Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, 7–9 September 1999.
57569 R. Mathes, L.J. Jack, “Successful Drilling of an Underbalanced, Dual-Lateral
Horizontal Well in the Sajaa Field, Sharjah, UAE”, SPE paper 57569
presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference
held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8–10 November 1999.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 139 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

57571 J van Venrooy, N van Beelen; T Hoekstra; A Fleck, G Bell, A Weihe,”

Underbalanced Drilling With Coiled Tubing in Oman” SPE paper 57571
presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference
held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8–10 November 1999.
58739 H. Santos, J. Queiroz, “How Effective is Underbalanced Drilling at Preventing
Formation Damage?” SPE paper 58739 presented at the 2000 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, 23–24 February 2000.
58800 S. Luo, Y. Meng, H. Tang, and Y. Zhou, “A New Drill-In Fluid Used for
Successful Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 58800 presented at the 2000
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in
Lafayette, Louisiana, 23–24 February 2000.
58972 V. Silva Jr. S Shayegi, E.Y. Nakagawa, “System for the Hydraulics Analysis of
Underbalanced Drilling Projects in Offshore and Onshore Scenarios”, SPE
paper 58972 presented at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February 2000.
59054 D. Velázquez Cruz, H. Rodríguez-Hernández, I. Cortes-Monroy, D. Azpeitia-
Hernández, J. Blanco-Galan, “Underbalanced Drilling Analysis of Naturally
Fractured Mexican Fields through 2D Multiphase Flow”, SPE paper 59054
presented at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February 2000.
59161 S. K. Tinkham, D. E. Meek, T. W. Staal, “Wired BHA Applications in
Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Drilling” SPE paper 59161 presented at the
2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25
February 2000.
59166 D R. Giffin, W. C. Lyons, ”Case Histories of Design and Implementation of
Underbalanced Wells” SPE paper 59166 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25 February 2000.
59260 S. Luo, R. Hong, Y. Meng, L. Zhang, Y. Li, C. Qin, “Underbalanced Drilling in
High-Loss Formation Achieved Great Success – A Field Case Study”, SPE
paper 59260 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25 February 2000.
59261 S. Luo,Y. Li, Y. Meng, L. Zhang, “A New Drilling Fluid for Formation Damage
Control Used in Underbalanced Drilling” ”, SPE paper 59261 presented at the
2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25
February 2000.
59743 J. L. Hunt, and S. Rester, “Reservoir Characterization During Underbalanced
Drilling: A New Model”, SPE paper 59743 presented at the 2000 SPE/CERI
Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta Canada, 3–5 April 2000.
60708 D. A. A. Thatcher, G. A. Szutiak, M.M Lemay, “ Integration of coiled tubing
underbalanced drilling service to improve efficiency and value”, SPE paper
60708 presented at the 2000 SPE/ Icota Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in
Houston Texas 5-6 April 2000.
62203 S. Robinson, V. Hazzard, M. Leary, C. Carmack, “Redeveloping the Rhourde
el Baguel field with underbalanced drilling operations” SPE paper 62203

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 140 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

62742 Q.T. Doan, M. Oguztoreli, Y. Masuda, T. Yonezawa, A. Kobayashi, A. Kamp,

“Modelling of Transient Cuttings Transport in Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE
paper 62742 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000.
62743 A.C.V.M. Lage, K.K. Fjelde, R.W. Time, “Research Underbalanced Drilling
Dynamics: Two-Phase Flow Modeling and Experiments”, SPE paper 62743
presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000.
62896 C.P. Labat, D.J. Benoit, and P.R. Vining, “Underbalanced Drilling at its Limits
Brings Life to Old Field”, SPE paper 62896 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October
2000.
62898 B. Herzhaft, A. Toure, F. Bruni, S. Saintpere, “Aqueous Foams for
Underbalanced Drilling: The Question of Solids”, SPE paper 62898 presented
at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
64379 J. L. Falcao and C. F. Fonseca, “Underbalanced Horizontal Drilling: A Field
Study of Wellbore Stability in Brazil”, SPE paper 64379 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane,
Australia, 16–18 October 2000.
64382 A.L.Martins, A.M.F.Lourenço, C.H.M. de Sá, “Foam Properties Requirements
for Proper Hole Cleaning While Drilling Horizontal Wells in Underbalanced
Conditions”, SPE paper 64382 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October 2000.
64999 Y. Rojas, S. Kakadjian, A. Aponte, R. Márquez, and G. Sánchez, “Stability
and Rheological Behavior of Aqueous Foams for Underbalanced Drilling”,
SPE paper 64999 presented at the 2001 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 13–16 February 2001.
65512 J.G Parra, C. Celis, S. De gennaro, “ Wellbore Stability Simulations for
Underbalanced drilling operations in highly depleted reservoirs”, SPE paper
65512 presented at the 2000 SPE petroleum Society of CIM international
conference on Horizontal well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta Canada 5-
8 Nov 2000.
67688 S. Jansen, P. Brett, J. Kohnert, and R. Catchpole, “Safety Critical Learnings in
Underbalanced Well Operations”, SPE paper 67688 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27
February–1 March 2001.
67689 D. Park, P. R. Brand, B. Allyson, and G. Sodersano, “Planning and
Implementation of the Repsol-YPF-MAXUS Krisna Underbalanced Drilling
Project”, SPE paper 67689 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
67690 W. Kneissl, “Reservoir Characterization Whilst Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE
paper 67690 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
67693 R. J. Lorentzen, K. K. Fjelde, J. Frøyen, A. C. V. M. Lage, G. Nævdal, and E.
H. Vefring, “Underbalanced Drilling: Real Time Data Interpretation and
Decision Support”, SPE paper 67693 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 141 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

67829 S. Nas, A. Laird, “Designing Underbalanced Thru Tubing Drilling Operations”,

SPE paper 67829 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
68491 D. M. Hannegan, “Underbalanced Operations Continue Offshore Movement”,
SPE paper 68491 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable
held in Houston, Texas, 7–8 March 2001.
68495 F. Jun, G. Changliang, S. Taihe, L. Huixing, and Y. Zhongshen, ,”A
Comprehensive Model and Computer Simulation for Underbalanced Drilling in
Oil and Gas Wells” SPE paper 68495 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled
Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 7–8 March 2001.
69448 S. Nas, A. Laird, “Designing Underbalanced Thru Tubing Drilling Operations”
SPE paper 69448 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28
March 2001.
69449 R. Rommetveit, A. C. V. M. Lage, “Designing Underbalanced and Lightweight
Drilling Operations; Recent Technology Developments and Field
Applications”, SPE paper 69449 presented at the SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 25–28 March 2001.
69490 J. C. Cunha, F. Severo Rosa, H. Santos, “Horizontal underbalanced drilling in
northeast Bazil: a field Case history”, SPE paper 69490 presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28 March 2001.
69496 F.J. Romero, D. Pi and A. Cinquegrani. “Underbalanced EMWD-AP At La
Concepción Block, Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela”, SPE paper 69496
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28 March 2001.
71384 R. J. Lorentzen, K. K. Fjelde, J. Frøyen, A. C. V. M. Lage, G. Nævdal, and E.
H. Vefring, “Underbalanced and Low-head Drilling Operations: Real Time
Interpretation of Measured Data and Operational Support”, SPE paper 71384
presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
72153 R. Bullock, J. Karigan, T. Wiemers and S. McMillan, “ New generation
underbalanced drilling 4-phase surface separation technique improves
operational safety, efficiency and data management capabilities”, SPE paper
72153 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference
held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 8-9 October 2001.
72300 M. C. Stuczynski PE, “Recovery Of Lost Reserves Through Application Of
Underbalanced Drilling Techniques In The Safah Field”, SPE paper 72300
presented at the IADC/SPE Middle East Drilling Technology held in Bahrain,
22–24 October 2001.
72328 B. Guo, “ Use of Spreadsheet and analytical Models to Simulate Solid, Water,
oil and gas flow in underbalanced drilling”, SPE paper 72328 presented at the
IADC/SPE Middle East Drilling Technology held in Bahrain, 22–24 October
2001.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 142 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

72373 J. V. McCallister, K. L. Haddad, R. Keenan, “Underbalanced Coiled-Tubing

Drilling in a Thin Gas Storage Reservoir: A Case Study”, SPE paper 72373
presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Canton, Ohio, 17–19
October 2001.
74333 A.L. Martins, A.M.F. Lourenço, and C.H.M. de Sá, “Foam Property
Requirements for Proper Hole Cleaning While Drilling Horizontal Wells in
Underbalanced Conditions”, SPE paper 74333 revised for publication from
paper SPE 64382, first presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia,16–18 October 2000.
74426 C. Perez-Tellez, J.R. Smith and J.K Edwards, “ A new comprehensive
Mechanistic Model for underbalanced drilling Improves wellbore pressure
predictions”, SPE paper 74426 presented at the SPE International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa Mexico, 10-12
February 2002.
74445 R. D. Murphy, P. B. Thompson, “A Drilling Contractor’s View of
Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 74445 presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26–28 February 2002.
74446 G. Pia, T. Fuller, T Haselton, R. Kirvelis, “Underbalanced / Undervalued?,
Direct qualitative comparison proves the technique!”, SPE paper 74446,
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26–28
February 2002.
74447 C.D. Hawkes, S.P. Smith P.J. McLellan “Coupled Modeling of Borehole
Instability and Multiphase Flow for Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 74447,
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26–28
February 2002.
74448 D. Hannegan and R. Divine, “Underbalanced Drilling–Perceptions and
Realities of Today’s Technology in Offshore Applications” SPE paper 74448,
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26–28
February 2002.
74461 Weisbeck, D., Blackwell, G, Park, D, and Cheatham, C., “Case History of First
Use of Extended-Range EM MWD in Offshore, Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE
paper 74461, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, 26–28 February 2002.
74841 R.G Fraser, J. Ravensbergen, “ Improving the performance of coiled tubing
underbalanced horizontal drilling operations”, SPE paper 74841 presented at
the SPE/Icota Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition held in Houston
Texas, USA, 9-10 April 2002.
74846 J. Hibbeler, L. Duque, L Castro, A. Gonzalez and J. Romero, “ Underbalanced
Coiled Tubing leads to improved productivity in slotted liner completions”, SPE
paper 74846 presented at the SPE/Icota Coiled Tubing Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston Texas, USA, 9-10 April 2002.
77237 B. Guo, A. Ghalambor, “ An Innovation in designing underbalanced drilling
flow rates: A gas-Liquid rate window (GLRW) Approach”, SPE paper 77237
presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Technology Conference held in
Jakarta Indonesia 9-11 September 2002.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 143 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

77240 S.Herbal, R. Grant, B. Grayson, D. Hosie and B. Cuthberson, “ Downhole

Deployment Valve Addresses Problems Associated with Tripping Drill Pipe
During Underbalanced Drilling Operations”, SPE paper 77240 presented at
the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Technology Conference held in Jakarta Indonesia
9-11 September 2002.
77241 J. Aasen, E. Skaugen, “ Pipe Buckling at surface in underbalanced drilling”,
SPE paper 77241 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Technology
Conference held in Jakarta Indonesia 9-11 September 2002.
77352 J.W. Colbert, and G. Medley, “Light Annular MudCap Drilling - A Well Control
Technique for Naturally Fractured Formations”, SPE paper 77352, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September-2 October 2002.
77529 G. Pia, T. Fuller, T Haselton, R. Kirvelis, “Underbalanced Production Steering
Delivers Record Productivity”, SPE paper 77529, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29
September – 2 October 2002.
77530 E. H. Vefring, G. Nygaard, K. K. Fjelde, J. Frøyen, R.J. Lorentzen, A. Merlo
and G. Nævdal, “Reservoir Characterization during Underbalanced Drilling:
method, accuracy and necessary data”, SPE paper 77530 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
29 September – 2 October 2002.
78978 Y. Wang, B. Lu, “ Fully coupled chemico-geomechanics model and
applications to wellbore stability in Shale formation in an underbalanced field
conditions” SPE paper 78978 presented at the SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and international horizontal well
technology conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada 4-7 November 2002.
79792 R. Cuthberson, A Green, J. A. G. Dewar and B. Truelove, “ Completion of an
underbalanced well using expandable sand screen for Sand Control”, SPE
paper 79792 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands 19-21 February 2003.
79852 A. C. V. M. Lage, G. Sotomayor, A. Vargas, P. da Silva, H. L. Lira and P. Silva
Filho,” The first underbalanced multilateral well branches drilled in Brazil, a
field case history”, SPE paper 79852 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 19-21 February 2003.
79853 P.A. Francis, I.A. Davidson, S Harti, W. Geldof, M.S. Culen, T. Jenkins, “Low
Risk/High reward strategy drives underbalanced drilling implementation in
PDO”, SPE paper 79853 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling conference held
in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 19-21 February 2003.
79854 D. Hannegan, G. Wanzer, “ Well Control Considerations – Offshore
Applications of underbalanced drilling Technology”, SPE paper 79854
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling conference held in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands 19-21 February 2003.
79857 D. Lee, F. Brandao, G.Sotomayor, H. Lucena, and P. Silva Filho, “A New Look
for an Old Field - Multilateral, Underbalanced, Semi-Short Radius Drilling
Case Study: Installation of a Seven Leg Multilateral Well”, SPE paper 79857
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling conference held in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands 19-21 February 2003.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 144 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

80207 S. Kakadjian, B. Herzhaft, L. Neau, “HP/HT rheology of Aqueous

Compressible Fluids for Underbalanced Drilling Using A Recirculating
Rheometer”, SPE paper 80207 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5-7
February 2003.
81069 K. Schmigel, L. MacPherson, “Snubbing Provides Options for Broader
Application of Underbalanced Drilling Lessons”, SPE paper 81069 presented
at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003.
81620 A.C.V.M. Lage, G. Sotomayor, A. Vargas, R. Rodrigano, P.R.C. da Silva, H.L.
Lira and P. Silva Filho, “Planning, Executing and Analyzing the Productive Life
of the First Six Branches Multilateral Well Drilled Underbalanced in Brazil”,
SPE paper 81620 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26
March 2003.
81621 H. Xiong and D. Shan, “Reservoir Criteria for Selecting Underbalanced Drilling
Candidates” SPE paper 81621 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81622 T. Harting, J. Gent, and T. Anderson, “Drilling Near Balance and Completing
Open Hole to Minimize Formation Damage in a Sour Gas Reservoir”, SPE
paper 81622 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81623 J. Ramalho, R. Medeiros , P.A. Francis, I.A. Davidson, “The Nimr Story:
Reservoir Exploitation Using UBD Techniques”, SPE paper 81623 presented
at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81625 I.C. Gil, S. Shayegi, “Comparison of Wellbore Hydraulics Models to Maximize
Control of BHP and Minimize Risk of Formation Damage”, SPE paper 81625
presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81626 R. Cade, R. Kirvelis, and J. Jennings, “Does Underbalanced Drilling Really
Add Reserves?”, SPE paper 81626 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81627 R. Divine, “Planning is Critical for Underbalance Applications with Under-
experienced Operators”, SPE paper 81627 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81628 P. Brett, D. Weisbeck, R. Graham, SPE, “Northland Energy Services (UK)
Innovative Technology Advances Use of Electromagnetic MWD Offshore in
Southern North Sea”, SPE paper 81628 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 145 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

81629 M.S. Culen, S. Harthi, and H. Hashimi, “A Direct Comparison Between

Conventional and Underbalanced Drilling Techniques in the Saih Rawl Field,
Oman” SPE paper 81629 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26
March 2003.
81630 S. Saeed “Underbalanced Data Acquisition: A Real-Time Paradigm”, SPE
paper 81630 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81631 C.G. Mykytiw, I.A. Davidson, P.J. Frink, “Design and Operational
Considerations to Maintain Underbalanced Conditions with Concentric Casing
Injection”, SPE paper 81631 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26
March 2003.
81632 T.Devaul, A. Coy, “Underbalanced Horizontal Drilling Yields Significant
Productivity Gains in the Hugoton Field”, SPE paper 81632 presented at the
2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held
in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81633 R. Malkowski, ”The Challenge Of Well Control In Under Balance Drilling And
The Role Of Training In Meeting It”, SPE paper 81633 presented at the 2002
IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81634 E.H. Vefring, G. Nygaard, R.J. Lorentzen, G. Nævdal and K.K. Fjelde, ,
“Reservoir Characterization during UBD: Methodology and Active Tests”, SPE
paper 81634 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81636 K.K. Fjelde, R. Rommetveit, A. Merlo, and A.C.V.M Lage, “Improvements in
Dynamic Modeling of Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 81636 presented at
the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81638 J.L. Hunt, S. Rester, “Multilayer Reservoir Model Enables More Complete
Reservoir Characterization During Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 81638
presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81639 P.V. Suryanarayana, S. Rahman, R. Natarajan, R. Reiley, “Development of a
probabilistic model to estimate productivity improvement due to
underbalanced drilling”, SPE paper 81639 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81640 B. Guo, K. Sun, and A. Ghalambor, “A Closed Form Hydraulics Equation for
Predicting Bottom-Hole Pressure in UBD with Foam” SPE paper 81640
presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
81644 A.A. Garrouch and H.M.S. Labbabidi, “Using Fuzzy Logic for UBD Candidate
Selection” SPE paper 81644 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26
March 2003.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 146 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

81645 G.W. Nance, “Little Known Lubrication Method: Great Tool for UB Work” SPE
paper 81645 presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 25-26 March 2003.
84841 R.G Fraser, J. Ravensbergen, “ Improving the performance of coiled tubing
underbalanced horizontal drilling operations”, SPE paper 74841 presented at
the SPE/Icota Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition held in Houston
Texas, USA, 9-10 April 2002.
85061 Q.T. Doan, M. Oguztoreli, Y. Masuda, T. Yonezawa, A. Kobayashi, S.
Naganawa, and A. Kamp, “Modeling of Transient Cuttings Transport in
Underbalanced Drilling (UBD)”, SPE paper 85061 presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 11-13
September.
85319 M. Sarssam, R. Peterson, M. Ward, D. Elliott, and S. McMillan,
“Underbalanced Drilling For Production Enhancement in the Rasau Oil Field,
Brunei” SPE paper 85319 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12
October 2004.
86465 D. Biswas, and P.V. Suryanarayana, “Estimating Drilling-Induced Formation
Damage Using Reservoir Simulation to Screen Underbalanced Drilling
Candidates”, SPE paper 86465 presented at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, U.S.A., 18-20 February 2004.
86558 Y. Ding, B. Herzhaft and G. Renard, “Near-Wellbore Formation Damage
Effects On Well Performance - A Comparison Between Underbalanced And
Overbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 86558 presented at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, U.S.A., 18-20 February 2004.
87986 A. Coy, D. Hall, and M. Vezza, “A Safe Approach to Underbalanced Drilling in
H2S Producing Fields”, SPE paper 87986, presented at the IADC/SPE Asia
Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 13-15 September 2004.
88698 H. Qutob “Underbalanced Drilling; Remedy for Formation Damage, Lost
Circulation, & Other Related Conventional Drilling Problems”, SPE paper
88698, presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 10-13 October 2004.
89324 Y. Li and E. Kuru, “Prediction of Critical Foam Velocity for Effective Cuttings
Transport in Horizontal Wells” SPE paper 89324 presented at the 2004
SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
90185 H. Pinkstone, A. Timms, S. McMillan, R. Doll, and H. de Vries, “
Underbalanced Drilling of Fractured Carbonates in Northern Thailand
Overcomes Conventional Drilling Problems Leading to a Major Gas
Discovery”, SPE paper 90185 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 147 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

90836 T.W. Cavender and H.L. Restarick, “Well-Completion Techniques and

Methodologies for Maintaining Underbalanced Conditions Throughout Initial
and Subsequent Well Interventions” SPE paper 90836 presented at the 2004
SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91220 R.A. Graham and M.S. Culen, “Methodology for Manipulation of Wellhead
Pressure Control for the Purpose of Recovering Gas to Process in
Underbalanced Drilling Applications”, SPE paper 91220 presented at the 2004
SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91239 J.E. Olsen, E. Vollen and T. Tønnessen, “Challenges in Implementing UBO
Technology”, SPE paper 91239 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91242 Ø. Arild, T. Nilsen, and M. Sandøy, “Risk-Based Decision Support for
Planning of an Underbalanced Drilling Operation”, SPE paper 91242
presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91243 R. Rommetveit, K.K. Fjelde, J. Frøyen, K.S. Bjørkevoll, G. Boyce, and J.E.
Olsen, “Use of Dynamic Modeling in Preparations for the Gullfaks C-5A Well”
SPE paper 91243 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12
October 2004.
91356 B. Guo and A. Ghalambor, “Pressure Stability Analysis for Aerated Mud
Drilling Using an Analytical Hydraulics Model” SPE paper 91356 presented at
the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91519 D.D. Moore, A. Bencheikh, J.R. Chopty, “Drilling Underbalanced in Hassi
Messaoud”, SPE paper 91519 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91544 S. Salimi , M. Golan, and K.I. Andersen, “Enhancement Well Productivity—
Investigating the Feasibility of UBD for Minimizing Formation Damage in
Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs”, SPE papers 91544 presented at
the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91556 A. Coy, D Hall and M. Vezza, “A Safe Approach to Underbalanced Drilling in
an H2S Producing Field Leads to Operational Success and Productivity
Improvement”, SPE paper 91556 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91566 G. Medley, and C.R. Stone, “MudCap Drilling When? Techniques for
Determining When to Switch From Conventional to Underbalanced Drilling”
SPE paper 91566 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12
October 2004.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 148 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

91558 T. Friedel and H.-D. Voigt, “Numerical Simulation of the Gas Inflow During
Underbalanced Drilling (UBD) and Investigation of the Impact of UBD on
Longtime Well Productivity”, SPE paper 91558 presented at the 2004
SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91559 I. Davidson, R. Medeiros, D. Reitsma, “Changing the Value Equation for
Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 91559 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91581 J. Knight, R. Pickles, B. Smith, and M. Reynolds,” HSE Training,
Implementation, and Production Results for a Long-Term Underbalanced
Coiled-Tubing Multilateral Drilling Project”, SPE paper 91581 presented at the
2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held
in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91583 J.A. Cantu, J. May and J. Shelton, “Using Rotating Control Devices Safely in
Today’s Managed Pressure and Underbalanced Drilling Operations”, SPE
paper 91583 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October
2004.
91593 D. Kimery and M. McCaffrey, “Underbalanced Drilling in Canada: Tracking the
Long-Term Performance of Underbalanced Drilling Projects in Canada” SPE
paper 91593 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October
2004.
91598 C. Mykytiw, P.V. Suryanarayana, and P.R. Brand, “Practical Use of a
Multiphase Flow Simulator for Underbalanced Drilling Applications Design—
The Tricks of the Trade”, SPE paper 91598 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91607 D. Kimery and T. van der Werken, “Damage Interpretation of Properly and
Improperly Drilled Underbalanced Horizontals in the Fractured Jean Marie
Reservoir Using Novel Modeling and Methodology”, SPE paper 91607
presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 October 2004.
91610 E. Kuru, O.M. Okunsebor, Y. Li, University of Alberta, “Hydraulic Optimization
of Foam Drilling For Maximum Drilling Rate”, SPE paper 91610, presented at
the SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition, 11-12
October 2004, Houston, Texas
91725 Calvin Holt, Weatherford International, “Proving UBD's Value in Brownfields
and Beyond”, SPE paper 91725, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, 23-25 February 2005, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 149 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

92484 L. Zhou, R.M. Ahmed, S.Z. Miska, N.E. Takach, M. Yu, University of Tulsa; A.
Saasen, Statoil ASA, “Hydraulics of Drilling with Aerated Muds under
Simulated Borehole Conditions” , SPE paper 92484, presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 23-25 February 2005, Amsterdam,
Netherlands
92513 Randal Pruitt, Charlie Leslie, BP; Bruce Smith, WUU; Olivier Desplain, Tom
Kavanagh, Schlumberger; Tony Woolham, Halliburton Energy Services;
Allistar Law Baker, Hughes Inteq; Nick Christou, Weatherford GSI; Daniel
Borling, BP, “Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Drilling Update on a Successful
Campaign”, SPE paper 92513, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, 23-25 February 2005, Amsterdam, Netherlands
93346 H. Qutob and H. Ferreira, Weatherford Intl. Inc., “The SURE way to
underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper 93346, presented at the SPE Middle East
Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Mar 12 - 15, 2005, Kingdom of Bahrain
93695 D. Murphy, Petroleum Development Oman; I. Davidson, Shell UBD Global
Implementation Team; Kennedy, Blade Energy Partners; R. Busaidi and J.
Wind, Petroleum Development Oman; C. Mykytiw, Shell UBD Global
Implementation Team; and L. Arsenault, Precision Drilling UBD, “Applications
of Underbalanced Drilling Reservoir Characterization for Water Shut Off in a
Fractured Carbonate Reservoir - A Project Overview”, SPE paper 93695
presented at the Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Mar 12 - 15,
2005, Kingdom of Bahrain
93784 A. Timms, Amerada Hess, and K. Muir, and C. Wuest, Weatherford UBS,
“Downhole Deployment Valve - Case History”, SPE paper 93784 presented at
the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 April 2005,
Jakarta, Indonesia
93974 T. Friedel*, G. Mtchedlishvili, H.-D. Voigt, and F. Häfner, Freiberg U. of Mining
and Technolog, “Simulation of Inflow Whilst Underbalanced Drilling (UBD)
With Automatic Identification of Formation Parameters and Assessment of
Uncertainty”, SPE paper 93974 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference, 13-16 June 2005, Madrid, Spain
94164 M.E. Ozbayoglu and C. Omurlu, Middle East Technical U. “Flow-Rate
Optimization of Aerated Fluids for Underbalanced Coiled-Tubing
Applications”, SPE paper 94164 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
Conference and Exhibition, 12-13 April 2005, The Woodlands, Texas
94169 J. Weber and D. Stilson, SPE, Kinder Morgan Inc., and D. McClatchie, S.
Denton, and L. King, SPE, BJ Services Co., “Improving the Efficiency of Gas-
Storage-Well Completions Using Underbalanced Drilling With Coiled Tubing”,
SPE paper 94169 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and
Exhibition, 12-13 April 2005, The Woodlands, Texas
94469 Y. Meng, SPE, Southwest Petroleum Inst.; L. Wan, Tubular Goods Research
Center; X. Chen and G. Chen, Great Wall Drilling Co.; L. Yang, Tubular
Goods Research Center; and J. Wang, Xi'An ShiYou U., “Discussion of Foam
Corrosion Inhibition in Air Foam Drilling”, SPE paper 94469 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Corrosion, 13 May 2005, Aberdeen,
United Kingdom

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 150 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

94763 M.S. Culen and D.R. Killip, Precision Drilling Services & Co, “Forensic
Reservoir Characterisation Enabled with Underbalanced Drilling”, SPE paper
94763 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 25-27
May, Sheveningen, The Netherlands
95861 P.V. Suryanarayana, and Z. Wu, Blade Energy Partners; J. Ramalho, Shell
Intl. E&P; and R. Himes, Stim Lab Division of Core Laboratories, “Dynamic
Modeling of Invasion Damage and Its Impact on Production in Horizontal
Wells” SPE paper 95861 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 9-12 October 2005, Dallas, Texas
96282 B. Webster and M. Pitman, Baker Oil Tools, and R. Pruitt, BP, “Worlds First
Coiled Tubing Under-balanced Casing Exit Using Nitrogen Gas as the Milling
Fluid”, SPE paper 96282 presented at the Offshore Europe conference, 6-9
September 2005, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
96646 D. Reitsma, E. van Riet, Shell International Exploration & Production B.V.,
“Utilizing an Automated Annular Pressure Control System for Managed
Pressure Drilling in Mature Offshore Oilfields”, SPE paper 96646 presented at
the Offshore Europe Conference, 6-9 September 2005, Aberdeen, United
Kingdom.
96992 A.P. Gupta, A. Gupta, J. Langlinais, Louisiana State U., “Feasibility of
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as a Drilling Fluid for Deep Underbalanced
Drilling Operation” SPE paper 96992 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October 2005, Dallas, Texas.
97025 H. Santos and P. Reid, Impact Solutions Group; J. Jones, Drilling Systems;
and J. McCaskill, Power Chokes, “Developing the Micro-Flux Control
Method—Part 1: System Development, Field Test Preparation, and Results”,
SPE paper 97025 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 September 2005, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.
97028 J.E. Gravdal, R.J. Lorentzen, K.K. Fjelde, and E.H. Vefring, RF-Rogaland
Research, “Title Tuning of Computer Model Parameters in Managed-Pressure
Drilling Applications Using an Unscented Kalman Filter Technique” SPE paper
97028 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-
12 October 2005, Dallas, Texas
97317 S.R. Shadizadeh, Petroleum U. of Technology, M. Zaferanieh, Petroiran
Development Co. , “The Feasibility Study of Using Underbalanced Drilling in
Iranian Oil Fields”, SPE paper 97317 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 September 2005,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
97372 G. Nygaard, K.-K. Fjelde, G. Nævdal, R.J. Lorentzen, and E.H. Vefring, RF -
Rogaland Research, “Evaluation of Drillstring and Casing Instrumentation
Needed for Reservoir Characterization During Drilling Operations”, SPE paper
97372 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 September 2005, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.
98083 B. Guo, and A. Ghalambor, U. of Louisiana at Lafayette, “A Guideline to
Optimizing Pressure Differential in Underbalanced Drilling for Reducing
Formation Damage”, SPE paper 98083 presented at the International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 15-17 February
2006, Lafayette, Louisiana U.S.A.

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 151 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

98787 J. Saponja, Weatherford Canada Partnership; A. Adeleye, Anadarko Corp.

Canada; and B. Hucik, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. “Managed-Pressure
Drilling (MPD) Field Trials Demonstrate Technology Value” SPE paper 98787
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 21-23 February 2006, Miami,
Florida, USA
98926 L. Zhou, Scandpower Petroleum Technology Inc., “Hole Cleaning During UBD
in Horizontal and Inclined Wellbore”, SPE paper 98926 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 21-23 February 2006, Miami, Florida, USA.
99075 K.S. Bjørkevoll, and R. Rommetveit, SINTEF Petroleum Research, and A.
Rønneberg and B. Larsen, Statoil, “Successful Field Use of Advanced
Dynamic Models”, SPE paper 99075 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, 21-23 February 2006, Miami, Florida, USA
99113 A.M.F. Lourenço, A.L. Martins, P.H. Andrade Jr., and E. Y. Nakagawa,
Petrobras, “Investigating Solids-Carrying Capacity for an Optimized
Hydraulics Program in Aerated Polymer-Based-Fluid Drilling”, SPE paper
99113 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 21-23 February 2006,
Miami, Florida, USA
99116 R. Soto, J. Malavé, M. Medina, and C. Díaz, PDVSA, “Managed Pressure
Drilling (MPD): Planning a Solution for San Joaquin Field, Venezuela”, SPE
paper 99116 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 21-23 February
2006, Miami, Florida, USA
99165 M. Azeemuddin, and D. Maya, Baker Atlas; E.A. Guzman, PDVSA; and S.H.
Ong, Baker Atlas, “Underbalanced Drilling Borehole Stability Evaluation and
Implementation in Depleted Reservoirs, San Joaquin Field, Eastern
Venezuela” SPE paper 99165 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, 21-23 February 2006, Miami, Florida, USA

Gas research Institute. Underbalanced Drilling Manual. Published by Gas research

Institute Chicago Illinois.GRI-97/0236

Proceedings from 1st International Underbalanced drilling Conference & exhibition

held in The Hague, Holland 1995

Proceedings from 3rd International Underbalanced drilling Conference & exhibition

held in The Hague, Holland 1997

Maurer Engineering Inc. Underbalanced Drilling and Completion Manual. DEA 101
phase 1. October 1996

Proceedings from the North Sea Underbalanced Operations Forum held in Aberdeen
1996

Proceedings from the first IADC Underbalanced drilling Conference & exhibition held
in The Hague, Holland 1998

Proceedings from the 2000 IADC Underbalanced drilling Conference & exhibition
held in Houston Texas

Proceedings from the IADC Underbalanced drilling Conference & exhibition held in
Aberdeen 2001

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 152 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Suppliers of Underbalanced Drilling Services

Weatherford
Weatherford has the comprehensive solutions for safe and effective underbalanced
drilling to meet growing production demands worldwide.

Extensive R&D and strategic acquisitions of leading UBS technologies from Tesco,
Dailey, Alpine Oil Services and ECD Northwest and recently Precission Energy
Services have launched Weatherford UBS as the main player in the global arena for
underbalanced drilling solutions in offshore and deepwater environments.
http://www.weatherford.com
Halliburton
Halliburton provides underbalanced solutions focused on enhancing reservoir
performance with concern for safety and the environment remaining a top priority.
Halliburton provide their own UBD separation systems and reservoir engineering.
http://www.halliburton.com
Shaffer
Shaffer supply rotating control head systems to the underbalanced drilling market
Tesco
Tesco corporation supplies rig floor mounted snubbing systems to the underbalanced
industry.
http://www.tescocorp.com
LEAding Edge Advantage
Leading Edge Advantage provides independent engineering and project
management mainly focused on underbalanced coil operations.
http://www.lealtd.com
Blade Energy Partners
Blade provides independent engineering and project management to the
underbalanced drilling industry. They also included advanced UBD training and UBD
well control training as one of their products.
http://www.blade-energy.com
Scandpower
They also have developed a dynamic UBD simulator for training and wellsite
purposes in conjunction with Scandpower.
www.scandpowerpt.com
Neotec
WELLFLO 7 has also become the industry standard software for flow modeling of
underbalanced drilling (UBD) operations worldwide.
http://www.neotec.com/

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 153 of 154

 APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Revision 001
Issue Date:
Introduction to underbalanced drilling
January 2006

Abbreviations
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
BOE Barrel of Oil Equivalent
BOP Blow out Preventer
ECD Equivalent Circulating Density
EMWD Electromagnetic Measurement While Drilling
ERD Extended Reach Drilling
ESD Emergency Shutdown
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HAZOP Hazard Analysis Operations
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
HSE Health Safety and Environment
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
MMscft/day Million standard cubic foot per day
MWD Measurement While Drilling
NDT Non Destructive Testing
PCWD Pressure Control While Drilling
PDM Positive Displacement Motor
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
RCD Rotating Control Diverter
RBOP Rotating Blowout Preventer
ROP Rate of penetration
TD Total Depth
TVD Total Vertical Depth
UBD Underbalanced Drilling

Ref APR-WUBS-WFT-001 Page 154 of 154