Advanced Torque-and-Drag
Considerations in Extended-Seach Wells
M. L. P6yn#, SPE, Arco E&P Technology, and F#r#idOun Abb6SSi6n, SPE, BP Exploration
Summary
Excessive torque and drag can be critical limitations in extended-
reach drilling (ERD). This paper details issues related to torque-and-
drag prediction, monitoring, and management in ERD wells. Results
are presented from sensitivity analyses of extreme ERD trajectories
such as 7- to 8-km departures at 1600 m true vertical depth (TVD).
Several such wells have now been successfully drilled at the Wytch
Farm oilfield using results from these studies. In such high-angle
ERD wells, compression generated in the drillpipe during tripping
and sliding operations can exceed the critical buckling load and cause
the drillpipe to buckle. As a result, buckling initiation and post-buck-
ling analyses are used to quantify the extent and severity of buckling
and the associated increases in drag forces and pipe stresses. The pa-
per addresses the importance of drilling data in calibrating torque/
drag models to capture the continual changes in drilling parameters
and operating conditions. The paper presents a number of field case
studies where analyses have been conducted to directly assist drilling
operations. This paper should be of high interest to engineers execut-
ing, planning, or evaluating ERD operations.
Introduction
Torque and upward drag must be projected for ERD operations to
ensure the rig’s rotary and hoisting equipment are adequately sized
and the drillstring is properly designed. Downward drag must be
projected to evaluate the limits for sliding-oriented drilling motors
and running tubulars. A key aspect of these projections is to ensure
good accuracy with some level of conservatism without incurring
excessive overdesign. Various components can contribute to the
buildup of both torque and drag in ERD operations. Identifying and
quantifying these distinct components is an important part of prop-
erly projecting torque and drag. The acquisition and analysis of field
data is critical in this process. When careful analysis and forecasting
has identified torque or drag as a limiting factor, effective measures
must be available to alleviate the specific operational constraint.
These measures include both torque/drag reduction and alternative
means to achieve the desired operation.
Torque/drag has been addressed in various industry publications
over the years. This paper provides additional understanding and ob-
servations on torque/drag issues as a result of theoretical and empiri-
cal analyses of extreme ERD operations. These analyses were per-
formed in support of the Wytch Farm ERD development,1,2 which
has set a number of world-record achievements. This paper presents
both field data and modeling predictions to convey key torque/drag
issues. Topics covered include torque/drag projection, analysis, vari-
ability, control, and management. In addition to drilling torque/drag
issues, the paper covers other important operations such as liner rota-
tion while cementing and completion operations. The purpose of the
paper is to highlight key lessons and observations on torque and drag
as they impact world-class ERD operations.
General Torque-and-Drag Considerations for ERD
Frictional and Mechanical Torques. The theory behind the “soft-
string” model for basic torque/drag prediction is well-known in the
industry.3 Proper application of the model requires a full under-
standing of the factors influencing torque and drag in the field. To-
tal-surface torque is comprised of frictional string torque, bit torque,
mechanical torques, and dynamic torques. Separating these compo-
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 10 April 1996. Revised manuscript received 6
January 1997. Paper peer approved 6 January 1997. Paper (SPE 35102) first presented at
the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, 12–15 March.
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
nents allows more accurate definition of friction for torque projec-
tions and allows proper prioritization for torque-reduction mea-
sures. Frictional torque is generated by contact loads between the
drillstring and casing or open hole. The magnitude of contact loads
is determined by drillstring tension/compression, dogleg severities,
drillpipe (DP) and hole size, drillstring weight, and inclination. Pro-
file optimization and tortuosity control are therefore important mea-
sures to minimize contact loads. Lubricity is a major factor control-
ling friction, and is itself largely controlled by mud and formation
types. With means of predicting bit torque, the implications of using
different bit types can be assessed. Dynamic torques can also signif-
icantly impact operations and should be minimized.4 Mechanical
torque sources, such as cutting beds, borehole ledges, and stabilizer
effects can be very significant and must also be minimized.
Drag and Buckling. Prediction of upward drag poses issues similar
to torque prediction in terms of trajectory design, mud lubricity,
wellbore condition, tortuosity, and mechanical influences. Down-
ward drag prediction in ERD wells introduces a further level of com-
plexity as a result of potential buckling of the string under excessive
axial compression. Buckling is an important consideration in ERD
wells because, while tripping in or sliding, the drillstring and other
tubulars (e.g. liners, workstrings, tubing, perforating guns, coiled
tubing) are subjected to large compressive forces. Consequently,
many operations in ERD wells may result in buckling. Buckling
must be properly addressed to account for its impact on drag and its
elevation of drillstring stresses.
Fig. 1 illustrates string behavior under increasing compressive
loads. When compression is below the critical buckling load,5,6 the
string will sustain this compression without buckling. Above the
critical buckling load, the string buckles into sinusoidal or “snaky”
buckling. This buckling condition results in the string deforming
into a snaky configuration along the low side of the well. For com-
pression loads above the critical helical buckling load,7 the string
can no longer maintain its snaky configuration and it coils up against
the wellbore and helically buckles. String lock-up immediately fol-
lows the onset of helical buckling caused by a dramatic increase in
wall forces. Helical buckling should therefore be avoided. In high
inclination wells, the magnitude of the helical buckling load (for a
conventional drillstring) is very high, hence its occurrence is not
common. It is thus the growth of the snaky buckling and the
associated increase in wall forces which predominantly need to be
quantified.
The severity of snaky buckling is quantified by how far from low-
side (in degrees) the string is displaced. If the snaky buckling ampli-
tude remains below about 40, the buckling is generally tolerable
and does not cause significant increases in drag. However, more se-
vere sinusoidal buckling should be avoided as it can cause large in-
creases in wall forces, which can also lead to string lock-up or loss
of surface string weight. Both sinusoidal and helical buckling im-
pose additional stresses in the string. However, because of wellbore
confinement, the string remains elastic and is not damaged (i.e. it
does not yield) unless the hole section is heavily washed out. When
rotating, string-wellbore axial friction is considerably reduced and
string buckling becomes less likely, although it is still possible.
Fig. 2 illustrates typical buckling behavior in an ERD-type well
profile. Only the upper portion of the 80 tangent section is shown
where compression exceeds the critical buckling load. Buckling ex-
tends from the 80 tangent, where compression is a maximum up
into the near-vertical section. In the 80 section, stabilization forces
due to high inclination provide adequate support to restrain the
buckling to the snaky mode. In the build section, wellbore curvature
55
Fig. 1—Drillstring buckling behavior under increasing compres-
sive load.
TABLE 1—DEFAULT FRICTION FACTORS BASED ON
HISTORICAL WELL DATA
Cased-Hole Open-Hole
Mud Type Friction Factor Friction Factor
WBM 0.24 0.29
OBM 0.17 0.21
Brine 0.30 0.30
provides additional support restraining the buckling in that section
to the snaky mode and of less severity than the 80 tangent section.
Full helical buckling develops in the near-vertical section where the
string receives little support from the wellbore. This helical buck-
ling gradually disappears as the neutral point is approached where
compression in the string is less than the critical buckling load.
Buckling in ERD wells cannot be avoided, so torque/drag simula-
tors must account for these behaviors. ERD engineers should be-
come familiar with buckling and drag issues since they must be
properly analyzed to assess whether problems will result in terms of
drag or string integrity.
Torque Pro¡ection
Drilling Torques. For initial torque/drag simulations, default fric-
tion factors can be used that have been derived from analysis of his-
torical well data (Table 1).
In conventional wells, torque/drag predictions are typically with-
in 20% of the actual values using the default friction factors; howev-
er, torques can vary substantially more in specific ERD operations.
Deviations occur because of variations in lubricity, hole cleaning ef-
ficiency, drillstring dynamics, surge/swab effects, and use of torque
reduction tools. Consequently in ERD wells, torque projections
should be based on an integrated approach which utilizes field data
to calibrate the predictive model. Drilling torques should be mea-
sured, monitored, recorded, and, to the extent possible, compared
with predictive models all in real time. Even in the absence of real-
time model comparison, torque trend deviations provide valuable
early-warnings to hole cleaning, bit/bottomhole assembly (BHA),
or wellbore stability problems. Service companies provide surface-
torque monitoring with comprehensive mud-logging systems. En-
hancement of this service by integrating surface measurements with
downhole torque-on-bit (DTOB) measurement from a measure-
ment-while-driling (MWD) tool should be considered. DTOB can
provide key information on the condition of the bit and motor and
more accurate assessment of string torque.8
Lubricity should be distinctly defined for cased and openhole in-
tervals of each section. Cased-hole friction should be based on cor-
relating torque measured at the shoe prior to drilling out and during
subsequent bit runs. Openhole friction factors should be indepen-
dently assessed based on the rate of torque increase with measured
depth in the openhole section. Distinct friction may also be imposed
56
Fig. 2—Example drilling buckling behavior in ERD-type well pro
file.
Fig. 3—Correlation of drillstring torque predictions with field
data for 12¼-in. section.
by different formations and significant torque changes can be seen
when abrasive formations are encountered. During the drilling of
the cased hole, the friction factor may increase when cuttings are
brought back into the casing.
Fig. 3 shows a comparison of predicted and measured drillstring
torque in a 12¼-in. section of an early Wytch Farm ERD well. The
modeled drillstring torque is based on actual well parameters and
the above default friction factors listed in Table 1 for oil-based mud
(OBM). The measured data is based on surface-torque measure-
ments corrected for DTOB. This measured-string torque is subject
to some error since the surface torque measurement occurs several
times a second while DTOB is only updated every MWD commu-
nication cycle, i.e. once in 30 to 45 seconds. Surface torques are av-
eraged over the MWD communication cycles; however, because the
surface and DTOB measurements are not synchronous, the string
torque cannot be measured exactly. The derived approximation is
the best available measurement and is believed to be reasonably ac-
curate. In this figure, good agreement is observed between the mod-
eled drillstring torque and the average measured data although there
is data scatter above and below the predicted trend line. Fig. 4 shows
the same data from the next ERD well drilled. In this figure, the field
data shows a substantial decrease in torque levels with the field data
falling well below the trend line established using the same OBM
default friction factors. Various improvements in mud rheology and
lubricity, hole cleaning, and drilling procedures are responsible for
the reduced drillstring torque levels. This significant change over
the course of only two wells underscores the need for active and
timely integration of field data acquisition and analysis in an effec-
tive torque prediction and reduction program.
Bit Torque Contribution. Bit torque models have been developed
for various bit types, predominantly based on lab measurements.
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997

Fig. 4—Overprediction of drillstring torque due to improved
drilling practices in 12¼-in. section.
Actual bit torques vary dynamically and substantially during drill-
ing and are influenced by many factors. These include weight-on-bit
(WOB), rev/min (RPM), formation characteristics (shear and com-
pressive strengths), polycrystalline-diamond-compact (PDC) bit
design variations, bit wear, and hydraulics. Bit torque models can
show substantial inaccuracies in nonductile formations such as
sandstones and carbonates since the ratio of shear/penetration
strength varies dramatically from those in ductile shales which are
used for most laboratory tests. PDC bits, which come in a wide vari-
ety of designs (i.e. bit profile, cutting structure, and hydraulic de-
sign) generally have higher torques and higher torque/weight ratios
and have not been studied as thoroughly as tricone bits. Finally,
most bit torque models do not currently account for the effects of bit
wear or bit cleaning hydraulics.
The implication of these issues for torque forecasting is that bit
torque models should be used carefully. A more empirical approach
is to use a conservative upper bound for bit torque, preferably from
field data. Bit torque should be monitored in ERD wells using a drill-
ing-mechanics sub in the MWD to provide DTOB. Alternately,
crude torque-on-bit (TOB) measurements can be taken by monitor-
ing off-bottom and on-bottom surface torques, although this is only
approximate since WOB causes variations in the drillstring tension/
compression profile affecting wall forces and hence string torque
magnitude. Use of an upper bound for TOB is conservative and ap-
propriate for torque forecasting. However, since the majority of sur-
face torques from the field will be taken when DTOB is below this
upper bound, torque projections can appear conservative unless this
“safety margin” is recognized.
As an example of the impact of bit type on torque projection, Fig.
5 shows 12¼-in. surface torques from a recent North Slope well. All
bit runs in this section were tricone with the exception of the bit run
over the interval from about 13,100 ft to 14,050 ft. As clearly shown,
the PDC bit run exhibits an offset of about 5,000 lbf-ft relative to the
tricone torque trends. This torque increase is substantial, particular-
ly for an ERD operation approaching rotary or drillstring torsional
limits. Also of interest in this figure are the erratic torques seen with
the tricone bit over the interval from about 11,150 ft to 12,100 ft.
This interval was accompanied by significant torsional dynamics
that, as mentioned above, elevate the normal torque trend.
Variability of Friction Factors. Frictional torque is the lowest
torque associated with the drillstring rotating in a clean wellbore
with a specific mud. Analogously, frictional drag is the lowest drag
associated with drillstring pickup or slackoff. Various mechanical
effects can aggravate these optimal situations and cause increases
in torque/drag. These include cutting beds, sloughing formations,
swelling clays, unstable formations, and excessive drillstring/well-
bore interaction (e.g. stabilizer blades digging into formations, un-
dergauge bits causing working of stabilizers, bit/BHA lateral vibra-
tion). Measures can be taken to minimize these mechanical effects,
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
Fig. 5—Trends from field data showing PDC vs. tricone bit
torque offset.
but they first must be recognized. For this reason, approaches in-
volving the “lumping” of mechanical and frictional effects into
single factors is discouraged. Higher flow rates, careful rheology
control, and drillstring rotation can improve hole cleaning to mini-
mize cutting beds. Mechanical and chemical wellbore stability anal-
ysis can result in mud weight/chemistry recommendations to mini-
mize instabilities. Identification of excessive stabilizer torque can
lead to better equipment selection such as undergauge stabilizers,
reamers, etc.
As an example of mechanically-induced torque variations, Fig.
6 shows maximum 8½-in. surface torques from several recent
Wytch Farm wells. A fairly well-defined 8½-in. torque trend is es-
tablished by wells F19, F20, and F21. That torque trend, however,
indicated a maximum drillable depth of about 6750 m because of the
top-drive limit of 45,000 lbf-ft. On well M2, lost-circulation prob-
lems in the 8½-in. reservoir section led to substantial additions of
fibrous lost-circulation material (LCM). The LCM formed a low-
side bed that, in combination with the OBM, produced a much lower
frictional interface with the drillstring/BHA than the previous steel-
sandstone contact. The M2 torque “trend” is thus very complex. The
“trend” involves a cyclic process of drilling openhole reservoir
(with the associated steep torque trend) followed by the condition-
ing of that openhole section by first cleaning the fine sand grain cut-
tings from the well while simultaneously adding LCM (with an
associated torque reduction). These behaviors underscore the varia-
tions in torque that occur as a result of wellbore condition and the
dominant role that mechanical factors can play in torque projection
over frictional considerations.
Liner Torques During Cementing. A special torque-projection
problem is posed for the rotation of production liners during cement-
ing. In many ERD wells, the trajectory includes a high-angle or hori-
zontal reservoir section. Rotation of the liner during cementing is an
Fig. 6—Complex 8½-in. section torque trends due to mechanical
torques from cuttings buildup and torque reductions from LCM
additions.
57
Fig. 7—Predicted vs. actual torques while rotating liner during
cementing showing discrepancy because of cement effects on
liner centralizer lubricity and mechanical effect of slurry lead.
effective mechanical measure to promote good fluid displacements
and enhance cement bonding. Rotation of the liner, however, requires
an accurate projection of torques that will be experienced in the liner,
as well as the hanger, the running tool, and the drillstring. Fig. 7 shows
surface-torque measurements during the liner cement job on well F21.
The projected torque schedule starts at about 13,000 lbf-ft and increases
to a maximum of 20,000 lbf-ft before ultimately falling to a surface
torque of 10,000 lbf-ft. This projection is based on a constant set of fric-
tion factors during the cement job with torque variations caused by
buoyancy changes from the various fluids being pumped. The pre-
dicted torque increase from 13,000 to 20,000 lbf-ft is caused by the lin-
er being filled with cement heavier than the OBM, while the subse-
quent reduction is caused by the additional buoyancy as that cement is
displaced into the liner annulus. After some calibration, agreement was
achieved between actual and projected torques until the cement enters
the annulus. A discrepancy is then observed which is attributed to ce-
ment effects in the annulus. This includes a general increase in friction
between the liner and nonrotating centralizers as those oil-wet inter-
faces are infiltrated by cement slurry. As shown in the figure, the “ce-
ment torque” generates up to 8,000 lbf-ft of additional torque which
was previously unrecognized. In addition, a significant transient torque
event is seen late in the cement-displacement process. This torque spike
is associated with the leading edge of the cement slurry passing by the
liner/hanger area. The leading edge of the slurry has undoubtedly
picked up various solids as it passed along the annulus. In addition, that
interface could have been rheologically affected by mixing with the
spacer and residual OBM. This torque spike was evident for about 6
minutes during the displacement and it created a torque increase of
6,000 to 7,000 lbf-ft. On well F21, these two effects combined to pro-
duce torques 15,000 lbf-ft above those projected.
As a result of these observations and a longer 2000- to 2400-m
reservoir section planned for later wells, an upgrade program was
Fig. 9—Drag analysis showing buckling severity for oriented
drilling in 8½-in. reservoir section.
58
Fig. 8—Predicted vs. actual torques while rotating liner during
cementing showing good agreement as a result of calibrating
and updating liner-centralizer lubricity.
initiated with regard to the liner connections, liner hanger, and liner
running tools such that the entire system was rated to 20,000 to
24,000 lbf-ft. In addition, work was undertaken to modify the ce-
ment to a low-rheology blend and calibration analyses were con-
ducted for proper friction coefficients to account for the cement
torques. Fig. 8 shows the result of these efforts on the well M3 liner
cement job. As shown, the torque projection closely matches actual
torques due to the updating of the annulus friction coefficient from
0.13 (with OBM in the annulus) to 0.40 as the cement is displaced.
The benefit of improved hole cleaning and the modified cement
rheology is also seen as only a small (1,800 lbf-ft), transient (2-min-
ute) torque spike was seen during this cement job.
Drag Pro¡ection
Some conventional torque/drag simulators assume the drillstring re-
mains unbuckled and are therefore limited to modeling situations
where there is no buckling. When critical buckling loads are exceed-
ed, the drag model must have more sophisticated capabilities. These
include buckling and post-buckling analysis capability taking ac-
count of the 3-D wellbore geometry, curvature and wellbore friction
effects. A drillstring buckling simulator has been developed by BP
Exploration specifically for ERD application which is capable of pre-
dicting several effects: the onset of sinusoidal/snaky buckling; the
transition from sinusoidal to helical buckling; the extent of buck-
ling, i.e. specific intervals where the drillstring has buckled; the se-
verity of buckling, i.e. sinusoidal or helical, and degrees of magni-
tude; the associated wall forces and drag; the onset of string lock-up
or loss of surface-string weight; and the resultant forces and stresses
in the string.
Fig. 9 shows results from a drag analysis of oriented drilling in the
8½-in. reservoir section of one of the record-breaking Wytch Farm
ERD wells. Because of the extent of frictional drag and the very chal-
Fig. 10—Drag analysis showing buckling severity for running of
liner clean-out string.
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
Fig. 11—Drag analysis showing buckling severity for running of
perforating string.
lenging nature of providing WOB for sliding, the specific operation
analyzed includes several stands of drill collars (DC) which were
picked up and run at surface. In addition, 30,000 lbs of traveling
equipment weight, specifically from the top-drive and swivel, is be-
ing applied to the drillstring to assist sliding. This weight application
was conducted only after careful stress analysis of the involved load-
ing scenarios and various components’ capacities. As shown, the ap-
plied surface compressive loads resulted in substantial buckling in the
drillstring (the shaded region). The DC at the surface do not buckle
because of their substantial thickness and bending stiffness. Immedi-
ately below the DC section, the 5½-in. DP partially buckles. The
buckling mode in the 5½-in. section is sinusoidal and varies in ampli-
tude from 43 to 57. A short section of the 5½-in. DP does not buckle
because of the additional wellbore support provided by the curvature
in the build interval. The 5-in. DP section buckles completely inside
the 95/8-in. casing with a peak buckling amplitude of 74 in the sinusoi-
dal mode. The buckling of the 5-in. DP ceases only within the 8½–in.
open hole because of the higher inclination and hence wellbore sup-
port in that section. Overall, about 75% of the drillstring is buckled
according to this analysis. Despite this significant buckling and
associated increase in drag, analysis indicated that sufficient com-
pressive weight would be available to the bit, and oriented drilling
was successfully achieved in this extreme ERD profile.
Fig. 10 shows a composite buckling plot for the clean-out string
following the running and cementing of the 5½-in. liner in the
8½-in. reservoir section. The buckling amplitude is plotted for a se-
ries of running depths from the initiation of buckling in the drill-
string until reaching total/target depth (TD). Buckling is limited to
the 27/8-in. DP inside the 95/8-in. production casing. The amplitude
of the 27/8-in. buckling, which is sinusoidal, grows up to a maximum
of 70. The maximum buckling occurs when nearly all of the 27/8-in.
DP is inside the horizontal 5½-in. liner, generating drag that must
be sustained by the top of the 27/8-in. DP in the 95/8-in. casing above
the 5½-in. liner. Inside the 5½-in. liner, buckling is suppressed by
smaller clearances and higher inclination.
Fig. 11 shows a buckling analysis for the perforating string. Buck-
ling is predicted to occur in both the 27/8-in. DP above the guns and
in the upper portion of the gun string. The buckling is sinusoidal and
has a maximum amplitude of about 70. For added assurance in this
operation, the 27/8-in. DP section was not run and 3½-in. DC’s were
used instead to stiffen the section above the guns and eliminate buck-
ling. In addition, the perforating-gun connections were modified and
torqued up to increase their bending rigidity and also enable the con-
tingency action of rotating the perforating string if required. The per-
forating string was successfully run to the target depth without rota-
tion and no damage was incurred in any of the string sections.
The cases described here involve buckling while sliding strings.
Buckling of rotated strings has also been reported in extreme ERD
wells.9 Specifically, in some ERD wells with deep 17½-in. sections,
drillstring buckling has been detected while rotary drilling with a tri-
cone bit under high WOB. The buckling was detected because of
higher-than-normal torques. To complete the section while avoiding
further buckling, a PDC bit (which can drill with a lower WOB) was
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
Fig. 12—Predicted vs. actual 95/8-in. casing running weights
showing mechanical weight losses much larger than frictional
weight losses.
picked up and thereby buckling was avoided. In case of buckling,
rotation should not be initiated until the buckling is relieved by pick-
ing up and then reaming back to bottom. Rotating a buckled string
is not recommended as it can lead to high bending stresses, severe
dynamics, and twistoffs.
As a final drag example, Fig. 12 shows running weight for the
95/8-in. production casing. Running of the 95/8-in. casing does not
introduce any buckling because of the substantial bending stiffness
of the casing. However, the 95/8-in. casing running is a critical opera-
tion in these ERD wells and warrants discussion. As shown in the
figure, the casing down-weights were significantly below and up-
weights significantly above the projected weights. As with drilling
torques, mechanical effects during casing running can dominate
frictional effects. In this case, mechanically-induced weight losses
caused by cuttings and wellbore sloughing reduce available running
weight by about 70,000 lbs near 2000 m measured depth (MD). At
that point, a casing-circulating tool was used to circulate the casing
while working the string. As shown, running weight was partially
regained, although it remained about 40,000 lbs below levels pro-
jected from frictional considerations. Casing circulation was used
on several occasions during the casing running and eventually cas-
ing-running weight recovered to projected levels below about 2700
m MD. Because of the potential for serious mechanically induced
weight losses, ERD casing-running procedures should include con-
tingency measures. This may include circulation, utilization of top-
drive weight, full or partial flotation, and casing rotation. With prop-
er engineering, casing running systems can be designed to improve
running capabilities and achieve successful casing runs into ex-
treme ERD well profiles. At Wytch Farm, 95/8-in. casing has been
successfully run to 6006 m MD, which involved 5164 m of 12¼-in.
openhole section at 80 to 82 of inclination.
Torque Control and Management Measures
Torque reduction should not necessarily be pursued if the operation
has adequate drillstring and rotary capacity to handle high torques.
Where limits are being approached, various measures may be pur-
sued to reduce torque or to improve the capacity of the limiting
equipment. Cased-hole torque reduction can be achieved with non-
rotating DP protectors (DPP). These DPP are ideally run over long
intervals where drillstring/casing contact loads are high. Likewise,
open-hole torque reduction can be achieved with subs that involve
a nonrotating metal sleeve mounted on bearings. Optimization of
the well trajectory in terms of both general design and execution can
be critical to torque reduction. This will be discussed in the last sec-
tion of this paper. Increased mud lubricity and use of lubricants is
another torque-reduction option. Effective lubricants are very lim-
ited when OBM is already being used; however, increasing the oil/
water ratio (OWR) can improve OBM lubricity. Lubricating beads
59
can reduce torques, but generally have to be added continually be-
cause of difficulty in recovering the beads at the surface. As men-
tioned above, dramatic torque reductions of up to 30% have been
observed through the use of high concentrations of fibrous LCM’s
which appear to form a low-side bed with much reduced friction.
In assessing torque reduction measures, the potential for torsional
dynamics in ERD wells must be recognized. It is recommended that
measurements be taken to examine the presence and magnitude of
dynamic torques. If torsional dynamics are present, a rotary feed-
back system should be considered to dampen and reduce the dynam-
ics. Rotary feedback systems have proven successful in reducing
torsional dynamics and thereby increasing available drilling
torque.4 Alternately, some operations have reported that significant
decoupling of bit and drillstring dynamics has been provided by
double or extended power-section drilling motors. Bit selection and
BHA design (particularly stabilization) also affect the propensity
for torsional dynamics. The keys are awareness of the impact of tor-
sional dynamics, examining their presence through measurements,
and taking appropriate remedial actions.10 Drilling limits will be de-
termined by both mean and dynamic torque behaviors.
If the torsional drilling limitation is related to the drillstring as op-
posed to the rig (i.e. top-drive), various means exist to optimize the
strength of an existing drillstring or to design an enhanced drill-
string.11 Substantial increases in nominal torsional capacity of ex-
isting drillstrings can be obtained through tooljoint-stress balancing
and use of high-friction thread compounds. Where options exist for
specific drillstring design, consideration should be given to the use
of high-torque (double-shoulder) tooljoints and high-strength mate-
rial grades (yielding stress higher than 135,000 psi). Aside from
strength, proprietary drillpipe is also available with integral blades
to enhance hole cleaning and thereby reduce mechanically induced
torques from cuttings.
Drag Control and Management Measures
Measures exist to both reduce drag and to develop improved or al-
ternative means of achieving the desired operation. As with torque
reduction, optimization of mud lubricity, the use of an optimized
well profile, and the use of low-friction drillpipe protectors can re-
duce drag. If drag is being exacerbated by drillstring buckling, con-
sideration should be given to optimizing the drillstring design to
minimize buckling severity. This can include the use of a tapered
drillstring configuration.
Distinct from drag reduction, techniques are also available to sim-
ply overcome existing drag. To allow oriented drilling, running DC
and/or heavy-weight drillpipe (HWDP) in the near-vertical well
section can provide increased string weight. Extensive hole clean-
ing and pipe working can temporarily improve the ability to slide in
extreme ERD profiles. In some operating areas, thrusters or bumper
subs are used to improve WOB delivery while sliding. The use of
extended or double-power section motors to increase stalling resis-
tance has also been reported as a successful measure to improve the
capacity for oriented drilling. Traveling equipment weight can be
used to push the drillstring down and enable sliding. This action
should be pursued only after careful analysis of the operation and
proper safety measures.
To increase feasible ERD drilling depth and efficiency, consider-
ation should be given to the use of rotary drilling systems which en-
able inclination control without oriented drilling. The high-variable
gauge stabilizer is a major advance in this area,12,13 and full rotary-
steerable drilling systems are also being advanced in the indus-
try.14,15 In terms of general drag reduction, rotation is a virtual
“cure-all” and consideration should be given to qualifying any
string for rotation that may impose a critical drag limitation. This
will clearly include liners, but can also include perforating, testing,
and completion strings. As mentioned previously, casing drag can
also be a critical limiting factor in ERD. Optimized float shoes, cas-
ing-circulating tools, casing flotation, and casing-rotation schemes
should be considered.
60
Fig. 13—Various ERD well profiles for analysis of optimum tra-
jectory to achieve 8 km departure at 1600 m TVD at Wytch Farm.
Wellbore Tra¡ectory Design
With a background established on the various operational constraints
associated with torque and drag, the issue of an optimum wellbore tra-
jectory can be considered. The impact of trajectory design on torque
and drag has been discussed previously.16,17 There are various profile
types that can be drilled to an ERD target including build and hold,
double build, etc. The selection of a specific profile type and its de-
tailed design must consider many possible limitations and constraints
in addition to torque and drag. Examples include wellbore stability at
specific inclinations and azimuths, hole cleaning, geological sensiti-
vities (problem shales, underpressured sands, salt sections, etc.), and
anti-collision requirements with respect to existing and future wells.
For all ERD well profiles, it is important for the trajectory to be as
smooth as possible with minimum doglegs. Thus, the ability to
achieve directional control in the specific geology involved must be
an integral part of the design process. To the fullest extent possible,
BHA’s should be planned to achieve the desired build/turn tendencies
with the maximum amount of rotary drilling. This tends to minimize
doglegs as well as promote better hole cleaning and rate of penetra-
tion (ROP). Intermittent sliding as a means of ongoing course correc-
tion is still recommended over more dramatic single course correc-
tions. As a result, oriented BHA’s remain preferred over rotary BHA’s
for ERD, but their optimum use is in rotary drilling to the fullest extent
possible. Rotary-steerable drilling systems, which remain under de-
velopment, will have a major impact on future ERD wells since they
will provide ideal drilling systems in terms of smooth wellbore curva-
tures by the continuous reaction to changes in directional tendency
while drilling.
With regard to torque and drag, the optimum profile is dependent
on both local friction factors and the specific operation being con-
sidered. Because of variations in friction factors between operating
areas and even between different sections in a single well, there is
no single “optimum” profile for a given ERD reach-TVD objective.
For example, the optimum profile for running 95/8-in. casing and for
oriented drilling in 8½-in. reservoir hole (both critical to the ERD
objective) are probably different. To resolve these issues, well op-
erations need to be distinctly identified and prioritized with regard
to how critical torque and drag may be for their execution. An opera-
tional review list might include 12¼-in. drilling (rotary and orient-
ed), 95/8-in. casing running (down-weights and up-weights), 8½-in.
drilling (rotary and oriented), 7-in. or 5½-in. liner running (with and
without rotation), coiled-tubing operations (cement bond logging,
completion running, and production logging), and perforation, test-
ing, and completion-string running (down-weights and up-
weights). With operations identified, prioritization and weighting of
constraints can be pursued. For example, if 12¼-in. directional drill-
ing behavior can be correlated with BHA/formation data so that
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
 TABLE 2—OPTIMUM WELLBORE PROFILE FOR VARIOUS
ERD OPERATIONS
Operation Optimum Profile
Tripping 121/4-in. Hole High KOP
Running 95/8-in. Casing High KOP
Tripping 81/2-in. Hole Low KOP
Running 51/2-in. Liner Low KOP
Running Completion High KOP
Coiled-Tubing Ops High KOP
oriented drilling requirements are minimized in that section, 12¼-
in. sliding may become a lower-priority constraint. Similarly, if
the production liner can be upgraded for rotation, drag issues
associated with sliding the liner are of little consequence.
As an example profile study, Fig. 13 shows alternative well tra-
jectories which were studied in order to achieve 8 km departure at
1600 m TVD at Wytch Farm. The trajectories are categorized into
three classes, namely high kick-off point (KOP), low KOP, and in-
verted. All the trajectories involve horizontal reservoir sections. Be-
cause of the extreme departure objective, the inclination range be-
tween the high and low KOP profiles is only from 79.5 to 82.7.
The inverted profiles had inclination as low as 75 but were dis-
counted because of directional drilling concerns of getting back into
the reservoir efficiently to start the horizontal. Optimization among
these ERD profiles was investigated through torque/drag sensitivity
analyses of involved operations. A central issue to the optimization
is the inter-relationships between inclination, drag, and buckling at
inclinations above the critical angle. The critical angle is the angle
above which pipe requires force to be pushed into the hole. In this
region, a lower inclination angle produces less drag, but allows
more severe buckling due to lower wellbore support. A higher in-
clination angle generates relatively higher drag, but relatively lower
buckling severity. The optimization is thus dependent on quantify-
ing these sensitivities. The results confirm that the effect of the well
trajectory is significant, expecially on drag levels while tripping/
sliding. Furthermore, the optimum profile does depend on the op-
eration (Table 2), e.g. for running 95/8-in. casing or maximizing
coiled-tubing reach, profiles with a high KOP are preferred, while
for tripping/drilling in 8½-in. hole, low KOP profiles are preferred.
As a result of these findings and the operational priorities developed
at Wytch Farm, a high-KOP well profile was used for well M5, the in-
dustry’s first 8 km departure well, which achieved 8,035 m departure
at 1605 m TVD in September 1995.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Drilling torque must be analyzed by careful examination of its
various components: frictional string torque, bit torque, dynamic
torques, and mechanically-induced torques. Accurate torque as-
sessment enables better torque projection and more focused torque-
reduction actions.
2. String torque/drag should be analyzed based on examination of
distinct friction factors for the cased hole and open hole. Torque/
drag friction factors can vary significantly from their default values
and should be derived from field data for each hole section.
3. Both cased-hole and open-hole friction factors can vary sub-
stantially between wells and even in single-hole sections of a given
well as a result of wellbore condition with regard to cutting beds, etc.
Collection and analysis of field data is critical to being able to quan-
tify these variations.
4. Bit torque while drilling will vary substantially and dynamical-
ly. Bit-torque models should be used with caution unless validated
by field data. The preferred measurement is by a drilling mechanics
sub in the MWD. A conservative upper bound on bit torque should
be used for projections, and the impact of bit type on torque trends
should be recognized.
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997
5. Projecting torques during liner rotation while cementing re-
quires specific calibration of a torque model against field data. Ce-
ment-induced effects can substantially alter frictional behavior in
the liner and produce significant mechanical torques. A conserva-
tive design approach is thus recommended with regard to ERD liner
and running-string torsional capacity.
6. Drag prediction is dependent on accurate diagnosis of frictional
drag in the well and the extent of buckling in the string. Moderate
sinusoidal buckling can be tolerated and does not lead to severe in-
creases in drag. Extensive helical buckling of the string should be
avoided and can lead to severe drag and lock-up. Washout sections
can result in large deformation of the drillstring under compression
and can lead to damaged drillpipe. Washouts should be avoided for
this and other reasons in ERD operations.
7. Various measures are available to reduce torsional and drag
friction factors and to overcome existing torque/drag to achieve de-
sired operations. ERD engineers should be prepared with contin-
gency measures to both reduce torque/drag and use alternative pro-
cedures on operations where substantial risk of torque/drag
constraints exists.
8. ERD well-profile design and torque/drag behaviors are inter-
dependent. Optimum trajectories are dependent on local friction
factors and the specific operational constraints imposed by the giv-
en well design and rig limitations. As a result, ERD well profiles
must be optimized in a focused fashion for specific target objectives
and operating environments.
AcKnowledgments
The authors thank the respective managements of BP Exploration
Technology Provision and Arco E&P Technology for permission to
prepare and present this paper. The work of Victor Dunayevsky of II-
TRI and Colin Mason or SAIC in performing the buckling simulations
described in this paper is gratefully acknowledged, as is the work of
Chris Brown in performing the analysis of the field drilling data.
References
1. Payne, M.L., Cocking, D.A., and Hatch, A.J.: “Critical Technologies for
Success in Extended Reach Drilling,” SPE 28293, presented at the 1994
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28
September. Reprinted as SPE 30140 Brief by editorial selection, JPT,
Feb. 1995.
2. Cocking, D.A., Payne, M.L., and Hatch, A.J.: “Extended Reach Drilling
Eliminates Need for Artificial Island,” Pet. Eng. Intl. (February1995),
33.
3. Child, A.J. and Cocking, D.A.: “Drillstring Simulator Improves Drilling
Performance,” Oil & Gas J. (28 August 1989), 41.
4. Payne, M.L., Abbassian, F., and Hatch, A.J., ”Drilling Dynamic Prob-
lems and Solutions for Extended-Reach Operations,” 1995 ASME
ETCE, Houston, 30 January–1 February
5. Paslay, P.R. and Bogy, D.B.: “The Stability of a Circular Rod Laterally
Constrained to be in Contact with an Inclined Circular Cylinder,”
ASME Transactions, J. of Applied Mechanics, (1964) Vol. 31.
6. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R.: “Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined Holes,”
paper SPE 1167 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26–29 September.
7. Mitchell, R.F.: “Effects of Well Deviation on Helical Buckling,” paper
SPE 29462 presented at the 1995 Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2–4 April.
8. Belaskie, J.P., McCann, D.P., and Leshikar, J.F.: “A Practical Method to
Minimise Stuck Pipe Integrating Surface and MWD Measurements,”
paper IADC/SPE 27494 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Con-
ference, Dallas, 15-18 February.
9. Justad, T., et al.: “Extending Barriers to Develop a Marginal Satellite
Field from an Existing Platform,” paper SPE 28294 presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
25–28 September.
10. Fear, M. and Abbassian, F.: “Experience in the Detection and Suppres-
sion of Torsional Vibration from Mud Logging Data,” paper SPE 28908
presented at the 1994 Europec Conference, London, 25–27 October.
11. Payne, M.L., Duxbury, J.K., and Martin, J.W.: “Drillstring Design Op-
tions for Extended-Reach Drilling Operations,” paper presented at the
1995 ASME ETCE, Houston, 30 January–1 February.
61
12. Odell, A.C., Payne, M.L., and Cocking, D.A.: “Application of a Highly
Variable Gauge Stabilizer at Wytch Farm to Extend the ERD Envelope,”
paper SPE 30462 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
13. Payne, M.L., Wilton, B.S., and Ramos, G.G.: “Recent Advances and
Emerging Technologies for Extended-Reach Drilling,” paper SPE
29920 presented at the 1995 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering and Oil & Gas Exhibition, Beijing, 14–17 November 1995.
14. Barr, J.D., Clegg, J.M., and Russel, M.K.: “Steerable Rotary Drilling
with an Experimental System,” paper SPE/IADC 29382 presented at the
1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February–2
March.
15. Donati, F. et al.: “New Concept Steerable Drilling Tools for Horizontal
and ERD Applications,” to be presented at the 1995 International Con-
ference on Emerging Technologies, Aberdeen, 31 May–2 June.
16. Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T.: “Designing Well Paths to
Reduce Torque and Drag,” SPEDE (December 1987), 344.
17. Banks, S.M., Hogg, T.W., and Thorogood, J.T.: “Increasing Extended-
Reach Capabilities Through Wellbore Profile Optimisation,” paper
IADC/SPE 23850 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Confer-
ence, New Orleans, 18–21 February.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft ×3.048* E—01 =m
in. ×2.54* E+00 =cm
lbf-ft ×1.355 818 E+00 =Nm
mile ×1.609 344* E+00 =km
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEDC
62
Mik# P6yn# is a Senior Principal Sesearch Engineer for Arco E&P
Technology Co. in Plano, Texas. He has been with Arco for 1Q
years in positions in drilling operations, drilling computing, and
drilling research. From 1993 to 1995, he was seconded from Arco
to BP to work on the Wytch Farm extended-reach drilling project
in the U.u. He holds a BS degree in mechanical engineeringn
from Sice U., an MS degree in petroleum engineering from the
U. of Houston, and a PhD degree from Sice U. He is a registered
professional engineer, a member of the SPE Editorial Seview
Committee, Vice-Chairman of the American Petroleum Inst.
Subcommittee 5 on Tubular Goods, and convenor of ISO/
TC67/SC5/WG2. He served as an SPE Distinguished Lecturer dur-
ing the 1995-96 season on the topic of extended-reach drilling.
F#r#idOun Abb6SSi6n is currently with BP Exploration in Houston,
and is involved in a deepwater exploration drilling project in the
Gulf of Mexico. He joined BP´s drilling mechanics groupat Sun-
bury, U.u., in 1988. Since then he has worked in various aspects
of drilling mechanics and drillstring dynamics including drill-
string/coiled-tubing buckling, tubular collapse, bit dynamics,
drillstring and riser vibration, and rig-site vibration monitoring
and control. He holds a BSc degree in civil engineering from the
U. of Birmingham, and a PhD degree in structural mechanics
from the U. of Cambridge, U.u. He is a chartered mechanical
engineer in the U.u.
Payne Abbassian
SPE Drilling & Completion, March 1997