NEED FOR BETTER KNOWLEDGE OF IN-SITU

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF

ROCK (UCS) TO IMPROVE ROCK
DRILLABILITY PREDICTION

V.C. KELESSIDIS
Technical University of Crete
Mineral Resources Engineering
AMIREG 2009
Athens, September 7-9, 2009

Research aim

Optimization of drilling rates

Less expensive and safer drilling practices

Hydrocarbon, geothermal, mining, water well
drilling

Multitude of parameters affecting drilling
performance Rock Strength

Availability of data and proper modeling
software

Optimum combination  better drilling rates
2

The problem

Drilling allows for access to subsurface
target areas

Pythagoras saying whoever digs, finds, he who
never digs, will never find

Drilling is expensive

Optimum drilling practice  arrive to target
in the most economical way, but with safety

Main monitoring parameter Penetration Rate
(m/h)

Depends on two main groups
 Formation
 Drilling parameters

Main parameters
FORMATION

Local stresses

Rock compaction

Mineralogical content

Fluid pore pressure
DRILLING

Weight on bit and torque

Rpm

Hydraulic parameters

Bit condition

Modeling drilling process Teale (1965)

Rock-bit interaction

Energy to the bit

Efficiency of energy transfer

WOB 8(RPM )(D )(WOB / Abit )

ENERGY PER
SEt =
+
UNIT VOLUME
Abit
ROP
ROCK-BIT MODEL

UCS
= SEt
eff

(
8)( RPM )(D )(WOB / Abit )
ROP =
UCS WOB

eff
Abit

UCS - measurements

Laboratory
 standard procedures (ISRM 1978, ASTM

1984)
 expensive & time consuming
 need core

Our analysis, petroleum & mining

Reported data
 Extremely large variability & for different

rocks

Does the name of the rock IMPLY rock

strength ?

Rock classification, Tanaino (2005)

Data set of 1000 rock samples

7

Rock Strength Factors affecting it

Weathering
 how to account for this ?

Weak and Strong rock

 definitions ?

FACTORS INFLUENCING
 poor cementation
 weathering
 tectonic disturbance

MAIN ISSUE
GET FAIR
ESTIMATE OF UCS

 porosity
 mineral composition
 particle size


How about CCS ?

Indirect UCS estimation

Measurements time consuming & expensive

Require core data
VARIETY OF ESTIMATION METHODS

From cuttings, fair successes, LAG TIME !

Schmidt hammer test

Point load test

Impact strength test

Less expensive than

UCS measurment
Require sample
Still time consuming

Multitude studies, R2 ~ 0.40 to 0.90

10

Estimation of UCS from sonic data

Non destructive

Sonic velocity - APPLIED ONSITE !

Use of ultrasonic pulses

Speed
Speed of sound depends on
 rock density, stiffness, mineralogy
 grain size
 weathering
 stress levels
 water absorption, water content
 temperature

11

Khaksar et al., SPE 121972

2009 research, Oil Well drilling

derive Apparent Strength from porosity logs

Aim, Use the logs to estimate UCS for
improving drilling parameter values, wellbore
stability, sanding

26 correlations for sandstones

11 correlations for shales

7 correlations for carbonates

Poor estimates, can be improved with data an
better analysis techniques (fuzzy logic,
pattern recognition)
12

UCS from sonic data

Equations of the form

UCS = a V
A _ UCS =

b
p

K1

(t c

40 )

K2

UCS = 0.0642 V p 117.99

UCS = 143,000 e

0.035 / V p

1987

Mc Nally
13

Data versus correlations !

Oyler et al., 2008

USA data
UCS versus Sonic
Travel Time

Andrew et al., 2007

Data from 10 wells

Apparent Rock Strength
from log data

14

Predictions, Simple versus Complex

Zhou et al., 2005

Use of all available geophysical log data

3 wells

2 techniques for data processing

Plus McNally Equation

R2 ~ 0.62 to 0.75

Poor prediction !

Data, site specific !

MEASURE &
CALIBRATE

15

UCS Vp - Data analysis

Various sources, 187 data sets, different rocks

Variations > +/- 100% !
350

S-Papanacli
C-Papanacli
Kahraman
McNally
L-S2, Moradian & Behnia
L-S4, Moradian & Behnia

300

UCS (MPa)

250

M-Papanacli
Sharma & Singh
Vogiatzi
L-S1, Moradian & Behnia
L-S3, Moradian & Behnia

200
150
100
50
0
0

2000

4000
Sonic velocity (m/s)

6000

8000
16

What is the impact of UCS errors ?

With use of fairly accurate oil-well drilling
simulator

Uses UCS as main input parameter

Can be tuned with real drilling data

Once tuned  evaluate different scenarios

E.g. effect of a higher UCS than the one used

Tested on several wells - Example case here

Shale, soft sand, hard sand

SCENARIO: Increase of UCS by 50% (+/-100%)
17

Increase in UCS by 50%

UCS+50%

UCS

Increase may range between 58

and 96%, giving an overall
increase in total drilling time for
the sections chosen for the
simulation of 82%

18

Conclusions

Need good drilling rate models

Related to rock drillability (RD)

In their absence, RD ~ UCS

There are standard procedures for UCS
measurements

Time consuming, expensive, need cores

Indirect methods exist
19

Conclusions

In situ estimation  sonic velocity
measurement

Multitude of correlations, UCS Vp

Correlation coefficients LOW!, 0.50 to 0.70

Inaccuracies in UCS estimation impacts
strongly rock drillability prediction

Example case: Increase (error) of UCS by
50%  decrease in ROP by 82%
20

Conclusions

NEED methodologies for

Better UCS estimates

ROCK BIT INTERACTION

They will help greatly drilling industry

21