Roller Reamer Presentation

8/11/2019 Roller Reamer Presentation

1/18

1

Valve & ToolsValve & Tools

REDBACKREDBACK

Roller ReamersRoller ReamersTechnical PresentationTechnical Presentation

GUPCO, R/GUPCO, R/ShSh..

Delivered byDelivered by

WaelWael ElEl MoftyMoftyApril 20, 1999April 20, 1999


2/18

2

TopicsTopics

bb Data SourcesData Sources

bb Tool Specifications & Cutter drawingsTool Specifications & Cutter drawingsbb Cost Comparison charts in GUPCO wellsCost Comparison charts in GUPCO wells

bb WestWestAshrafiAshrafiwell plot, Recent Recordwell plot, Recent Record


3/18

3

11-- Data SourcesData Sources

bb All our calculations are based onAll our calculations are based on

GupcoGupco data base where all thesedata base where all thesefigures came from.figures came from.


4/18

4

Roller Reamer AdvantagesRoller Reamer AdvantagesOptimum drill bit performance and significantly higher penetration rates due tosurface drilling parameters being able to affect the bit. The REDBACKS act asBearing to the drill string while rotation which Eliminates Hanging and Dragging ofconventional stabilizers, thus Improving drill string performance and minimize

stress cracking.

Eliminate the undesirable Erratic-type torque and help providing steady-typedrilling reactive torque to improve bit life & BHA performance.

Help delivering surface drilling parameters (WOB & RPM) in a steady manner tothe bit which increases the average rate of penetration & reduce cost per foot.

Minimize contact area with well bores and minimize the chance of DifferentialSticking

Wipe out dog-legs and minimize the chances of Key-Seat stuck pipes.

Excellent reaming while drilling with 360O stabilization.

Complete Casing-to-bottom runs are enhanced due to improved hole callipers.


5/18

5

Roller Reamer Advantages,Roller Reamer Advantages, contcont......

Ideally suited for downhole steerable motor applications. REDBACKstend 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 helpimproving directional control of BHA.

REDBACKs are foreseen to steer and slide better than stabilizers

behind motors due to the following design criteria which are illustratedin the attached drawings :


6/18

6

Cutters specsCutters specs


7/18

7

Cutters specsCutters specs contcont....

Note the Floating Piston at center of Cutter Block


8/18


9/18

9

Cost Comparison Charts ($/ft)Cost Comparison Charts ($/ft)

Slide # 1Slide # 1

$/Ft.

GS - (W/ ST.RR) GS - (w/Rotary

assy)

J - (

Normalization.)

J -

Ast (Normalization)

Average $ /Ft Comparison Chart Between

GS - ( RR) , GS - ( w /R ot ar y a ss y) , J - ( W/ Mo to r + N or m.) & J - A S T. ( Mo to r + N or m.)

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


10/18

10

Comments & Conclusion for slide # 1Comments & Conclusion for slide # 1b Regarding GS 301- Csg. Shoe was drilled w/motor assembly

using 7 PDC bits, and based on extensive hole problems and drill string torqueencountered throughout the said interval as well as twisting off the motor powersection, 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 to25.85 ft/hr, with the same bit within the same fm. with a record of 199$/ft and 133$/ftfor the 2 runs respectively.

b After Reamers were laid down @ 11,960 ft, a rotary assembly was selected whichshowed 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 costsaving/ ft.


11/18

11

Slide # 2Slide # 2

,

$/FOOT

SG - (TURB.) SG - (Norm.) SG - (ST.RR) SG - (NB.RR) SG - (ROTARY)

Average $/Ft. Comparison Chart With and Without Roller Reamer for well SG -

$/FOOT

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


12/18

12

Comments & Conclusion for slide # 2Comments & Conclusion for slide # 2b 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 gotThe open hole

section from 9,604 to 10,024 was drilled at an Av. of 412 $/ft. POOH to changeBHA 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 ROPwas increased from 8 to 11.14 ft/hr. The TRQ was minimized & the hole profilewas in good shape.

b The STRR was laid down & the subsequent interval was drilled with a rotaryassembly showing a very high & unexplainable cost/ft. This bit drilled only107Ft 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 whichreconfirm that the cost/ft saved by RR is too high to be overlooked.


13/18

13

Slide # 3Slide # 3

Fig. 12

265 274

482

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

$/Ft.

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


14/18

14

Comments & Conclusion for slide # 3Comments & Conclusion for slide # 3b le profile

(shoulders and micro-dog legs, eventually formed due to stick & slip) as well asto reduce the BHA contact area with the well bore in an effort to reduce TRQand 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 to16.6 ft/hr. in same formation.

b Cost/ft within the said run was compared with a motor run with fixed stabs wherethe 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.


15/18

15

Slide # 4Slide # 4

558

350

422

602

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$/Ft.

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)


16/18

16

Comments & Conclusion for slide # 4Comments & Conclusion for slide # 4b 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. WithinTheebes 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 saidformation type.

b The use of NB RR has resulted in drastic improvement to the ROP from 3 to9 ft/hr which automatically affected the cost/ft.


17/18

17

Slide # 5Slide # 5

177155

309

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

$/FOOT

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


18/18

18

Comments & Conclusion for slide # 5Comments & Conclusion for slide # 5

b The same cost comparison scenario was applied to determine the cost benefit ofusing the Drilling Stabilizer Roller Reamers.

b From this slide, the cost saved by using the RR is approx. 50% of the cost/footachieved with normal rotary assembly.

Documents

Roller Reamer Presentation