1

Valve & Tools

Valve & Tools
REDBACK REDBACK

Roller Reamers Roller Reamers
Technical Presentation Technical Presentation
GUPCO, R/ GUPCO, R/Sh Sh. .
Delivered by Delivered by
Wael Wael El El Mofty Mofty
April 20, 1999 April 20, 1999
2
Topics
Topics
b b Data Sources Data Sources
b b Tool Specifications & Cutter drawings Tool Specifications & Cutter drawings
b b Cost Comparison charts in GUPCO wells Cost Comparison charts in GUPCO wells
b b West West Ashrafi Ashrafi well plot, Recent Record well plot, Recent Record
3
1
1
-
-
Data Sources
Data Sources
b b
All our calculations are based on
All our calculations are based on
Gupco
Gupco
data base where all these
data base where all these
figures came from.
figures came from.
4
Roller Reamer Advantages
Roller Reamer Advantages
Optimum drill bit performance and significantly higher penetration rates due to
surface drilling parameters being able to affect the bit. The REDBACKS act as
Bearing to the drill string while rotation which Eliminates Hanging and Dragging of
conventional stabilizers, thus Improving drill string performance and minimize
stress cracking.
Eliminate the undesirable Erratic-type torque and help providing steady-type
drilling reactive torque to improve bit life & BHA performance.
Help delivering surface drilling parameters (WOB & RPM) in a steady manner to
the bit which increases the average rate of penetration & reduce cost per foot.
Minimize contact area with well bores and minimize the chance of Differential
Sticking
Wipe out dog-legs and minimize the chances of Key-Seat stuck pipes.
Excellent reaming while drilling with 360
O
stabilization.
Complete Casing-to-bottom runs are enhanced due to improved hole callipers.
5
Roller Reamer Advantages,
Roller Reamer Advantages,
cont
cont
...
...
Ideally suited for downhole steerable motor applications. REDBACKs
tend to behave as under gauge stabilizers however with the exceptional
phenomena of wiping out micro dog legs without hanging or dragging,
which again improves BHA steerability and bit performance.
Minimize stick & slip problems of PDC / PDM assemblies which help
improving directional control of BHA.
REDBACKs are foreseen to steer and slide better than stabilizers
behind motors due to the following design criteria which are illustrated
in the attached drawings :
6
Cutters specs
Cutters specs
7
Cutters specs
Cutters specs
cont
cont
..
..
Note the Floating Piston at center of Cutter Block
8
Cutters specs
Cutters specs
cont
cont
...
...
9
Cost Comparison Charts ($/ft)
Cost Comparison Charts ($/ft)
Slide # 1
Slide # 1
$
/
F
t
.
GS - (W/ ST.RR) GS - (w/Rotary
assy)
J - (
Normalization.)
J -
Ast (Normalization)
Average $ /Ft Comparison Chart Between
GS - (RR), GS - (w/Rotary assy), J - (W/Motor + Norm.) & J - A ST. (Motor + Norm.)
GS - (W/ ST.RR) GS - (W/ST. & NB.RR) GS - (w/Rotary assy) J - (Motor.)
J - ( Normalization.) J - Ast (Motor) J - Ast (Normalization)
HOLE SIZE : / "
FORMATION : S. GHARIB
10
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 1
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 1
b Regarding GS 301- Csg. Shoe was drilled w/motor assembly
using 7 PDC bits, and based on extensive hole problems and drill string torque
encountered throughout the said interval as well as twisting off the motor power
section, a ST. RR was P/U where the surface TRQ was reduced from 900 Amps to
700 Amps and the ROP was increased from 6.71 to 17.3 ft/hr.
b Due to such improved performance, another NB RR was P/U @ 10,797ft depth,
where the TRQ was farther reduced down to 650 Amps & the ROP was increased to
25.85 ft/hr, with the same bit within the same fm. with a record of 199$/ft and 133$/ft
for the 2 runs respectively.
b After Reamers were laid down @ 11,960 ft, a rotary assembly was selected which
showed a significant increase in the cost /ft, which was up to 543 $/ft.
b Two offset wells were selected based on motor runs within the same interval and Fm.
type drilled, and by going through all figures, RR cost still shows a significant cost
saving/ ft.
11
Slide # 2
Slide # 2
,
$

/

F
O
O
T
SG - (TURB.) SG - (Norm.) SG - (ST.RR) SG - (NB.RR) SG - (ROTARY)
Average $/Ft. Comparison Chart With and Without Roller Reamer for well SG -
$
/

F
O
O
T
SG - (Avg. Runs) SG - (Turbine Drilling) SC - (normalization) SG - A Rotary
Average $/Ft. Comparison Chart between
SG - (RR), SG - (Turbine) & SG - A (Rotary)
OPEN HOLE : / "
FORMATION : S. GHARIB
12
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 2
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 2
b Before RR was used, SG & BEL Fm. were drilled with turbine. During the said
section TRQ was reaching 600 Amps. POOH to change BHA and while RIH got
The open hole
section from 9,604 to 10,024 was drilled at an Av. of 412 $/ft. POOH to change
BHA and the decision was taken to P/U a ST.RR @ 10,024 ft.
b A significant TRQ reduction was noticed, dropped to 500 Amps and the ROP
was increased from 8 to 11.14 ft/hr. The TRQ was minimized & the hole profile
was in good shape.
b The STRR was laid down & the subsequent interval was drilled with a rotary
assembly showing a very high & unexplainable cost/ft. This bit drilled only
107Ft in 16 Hrs. and came out of the hole 100% worn out.
b Our average runs were compared with a variety of selected offset wells which
reconfirm that the cost/ft saved by RR is too high to be overlooked.
13
Slide # 3
Slide # 3
Fig. 12
265
274
482
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
$
/
F
t
.
SG310-6 (RR Motor
Run)
SG310-6 (W/O RR
Motor Run)
SG310-5 (Motor Run
Average $/Ft. Comparison Chart Through S.G Fm.
Between SG310-6 (RR), SG310-6 (W/O RR) & SG310-5
SG - was drilled with . / "
Roller Reamer above the Motor in
. / " phase
14
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 3
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 3
b le profile
(shoulders and micro-dog legs, eventually formed due to stick & slip) as well as
to reduce the BHA contact area with the well bore in an effort to reduce TRQ
and increase the ability to deliver appropriate drilling parameters to the bit.
b The TRQ was reduced by 150 Amps & the ROP increased from 11.3 ft/hr up to
16.6 ft/hr. in same formation.
b Cost/ft within the said run was compared with a motor run with fixed stabs where
the difference was 9 $/ft.
b The offset well was selected based on same section drilled and same BHA.
b Cost / foot realized in the offset well (SG-310-5A) was $ 482 / ft using the motor.
15
Slide # 4
Slide # 4
558
350
422
602
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
$
/
F
t
.
OCT. K-7 (Before
RR)
OCT. K-7 (W/RR) OCT. K-7 (W/RR) OCT. A12A (W/O RR)
Average $ /Ft Comparison Chart Through Theebes Fm. Between
OCT K-7(W/O RR), OCT K-7(W/RR) & OCT A12A (W/O RR)
16
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 4
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 4
b This run is categorized into two phases :
1) before using RR 2) with RR (2-runs), compared to an offset well
(Oct A 12-A) within same interval using rotary assembly.
b The cost saving was quite obvious with RR, where the offset well is approx. 75%
higher cost/ft. compared to OCT-K7 with RR.
b Due to the hardness and high compressive strength of Cherty Lst. Within
Theebes Fm., drill string TRQ was not the major problem, however the main
igh cost per foot
due to large number of trips to change bits for their limited life within the said
formation type.
b The use of NB RR has resulted in drastic improvement to the ROP from 3 to
9 ft/hr which automatically affected the cost/ft.
17
Slide # 5
Slide # 5
177
155
309
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
$

/

F
O
O
T
HILAL A8A S.T.
(BEFORE USING RR)
HILAL A8A S.T.
(USING RR)
HILAL A8A S.T.
(AFTER USING RR)
Average $/Ft. Comparison Chart for well
Hilal A8A with and W/O Roller Reamer
18
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 5
Comments & Conclusion for slide # 5
b The same cost comparison scenario was applied to determine the cost benefit of
using the Drilling Stabilizer Roller Reamers.
b From this slide, the cost saved by using the RR is approx. 50% of the cost/foot
achieved with normal rotary assembly.