Well Planning Overview

Major Components
The well planning process requires the coordinated effort of many individuals with various responsibilities.
The well planning process flow chart

The major activities can be outlined as follows:

I. Well Selection ( Figure 1 )

II. Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) Preparation ( Figure 2 )

III. Organizing and Data Gathering ( Figure 3 )

IV. Well Design ( Figure 4 )

VI. Rig Design ( Figure 5 )

VII. Procedures - ( Figure 6 )

VIII. Contract - ( Figure 7 )

IX. Cost Estimate

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
 Figure 5

Next figures illustrate the extensiveness of the effort

Figure 6
Figure 7
Tasks & Responsibilities
Effective well planning requires good communication among the technical personnel responsible for it’s
development and implementation. This section outlines the roles, responsibilities, and objectives of the
following personnel:

• Geophysicist;
• Geologist;
• Drilling Engineer;
• Production Engineer;
• Reservoir Engineer;
• Drilling Manager;
• Drilling Superintendent;
• Drilling Supervisor;
• Logistics Coordinator;
• Loss Prevention and Safety Specialist;
• Environmental and Regulatory Specialist;
• Purchasing Specialist.

Geophysicist
The geophysicist’s role is to identify potential hydrocarbon-bearing structures from seismic data.
Responsibilities include:

• processing and interpreting seismic data to identify potential reservoir structures;

• assisting in prospect evaluation, based on structure size and seismic reflection interpretation;

• reporting formation thickness, structure tops, and bed orientation to engineers preparing the
drilling program;

• identifying critical anomalies that indicate potential drilling difficulties ( e.g. shallow gas hazards,
bedded salt, abnormal pressures, and fault crossings ); estimating depths for these anomalies;

• assisting in development of a logging program;

• working with operations personnel to select a rig location;

• specifying velocity survey and checkshot intervals.

The geophysicist’s goals are to:

• identify substantial hydrocarbon-bearing structures

• interpret seismic data to help the drilling engineers anticipate potential problems
Geologist
The geologist’s role is to predict the lithologic sequence of formations in proposed wells, and to identify
formations as they are penetrated by interpreting cuttings samples, log measurements, and other
geological indicators. Responsibilities include:

• conducting surface geology studies to identify lithology sequences from outcrops;

• identifying gross surface features from aerial surveys to establish the possibility of subsurface
trapping mechanisms;

• reviewing offset well histories for use in interpreting seismic maps to develop a stratigraphic
column;

• conducting or monitoring source-rock studies;

• assisting in thermal maturation studies;

• preparing AFE cost request forms that provide a geological prognosis for the expected lithologic
sequence;

• helping planning logging, coring, and testing programs;

• identifying potential hole problems, specifying formation and expected depth whenever
possible;

• providing onsite formation evaluation expertise.

The goals of the geologist include:

• identifying potential reservoirs and predicting formation types and thicknesses of the zones of
interest;

• accurately interpreting the expected lithology in the planned well.

Drilling Engineer
The drilling engineer plays a number of roles in the well planning process. During initial evaluation of a
prospect, he or she conducts preliminary studies and estimates well-costs. Once well AFEs are approved,
the drilling engineer becomes the designer, coordinator, and monitor of the overall well program. The
responsibilities of the drilling engineer include:

• gathering and reviewing available data on previous drilling activity in the proposed areas of
operation;

• preparing initial cost estimates;

• preparing specific well-cost estimates for Authorization for Expenditure packages

• conducting an initial planning meeting with others involved in specific well projects to establish
objectives for the well;
 • estimating expected formation pressures and fracture gradients;

• anticipating and addressing the most likely drilling problems;

• selecting casing sizes and setting depths;

• providing the data necessary for submitting an application for a drilling permit;

• resolving directional drilling requirements;

• developing the drilling mud program;

• designing casing strings;

• preparing a hydraulics program;

• recommending bottomhole assemblies and bits;

• preparing cementing recommendations;

• preparing step-by-step procedures for drilling operations;

• preparing rig specifications prior to rig bid requests to assist in rig selection;

• identifying necessary mud-processing and solids-control equipment;

• preparing drilling-cost and drilling-time curves to plot predicted performance;

• coordinating the well-planning activities of geoscience, purchasing, operations, environmental

and regulatory, and other engineering groups to ensure that all aspect of well program
development will meet schedule commitments.

The goals of the drilling engineer include:

• providing accurate cost estimates;

• designing well programs that satisfy well objectives;

• reducing cost through the selection of high-efficiency equipment, systems, and practices;

• ensuring safety through the recommendation of sound practices and thorough contingency
planning;

Reservoir Engineer
The reservoir engineer’s role is to provide engineering analysis and support in all phases of reservoir
evaluation. Responsibilities include:

• assisting the geologist and geophysicist in interpreting reservoir size, characteristics, and
potential reserves of the prospect;
 • assisting economic calculations based on prospect size, estimated reserves, production rates,
and well cost;

• assisting in the design of logging, coring, and testing programs;

• assisting in the evaluation of data collected during drilling.

The goals of the reservoir engineer include:

• accurately evaluating prospect potential;

• maximizing the quantity and quality of reservoir data gathered during the drilling, testing, and
completion of the well.

Production/Completion Engineer
The production/completion engineer defines the testing, stimulation, and completion requirements for the
well. Responsibilities include:

• predicting formation pressures and estimating production rates to assist drilling engineers in
designing production casing;

• preparing testing and completion programs for the subject well;

• ensuring that formation testing is done according to the program, and supervising the testing;

• providing the drilling engineer with a completion design;

• providing the drilling engineer with an early outline of the potential stimulation design, including
the maximum expected stimulation pressures;

• helping the drilling engineer estimate testing, stimulation, and completion costs and time during
AFE preparation;

• providing the drilling engineer with a list of required completion and wellhead equipment
necessary while the drilling rig is on location;

• indicating corrosion-protection measures, if warranted;

• identifying potential formation sensitivity to assist the drilling engineer in selecting the best mud
program.

The goals of the production/completion engineer are to

• maximize data collection during drilling to improve evaluation of potential production zones;

• design a completion program that will most efficiently drain reservoir hydrocarbons.
Drilling Manager
The drilling manager must review the well plan closely, approve it, and assist the rig supervisors in its
implementation. He or she is ultimately responsible for operations conducted at the rig site. The drilling
manager's responsibilities include:

• maintaining an approved drilling contractor list;;

• supervising the compilation of rig bid specifications, rig bid requests, and bid evaluations;

• supervising company rig supervisors on ongoing drilling operations;

• communicating drilling-operations status to higher management, as required;

• advising the drilling engineer regarding recommended drilling practices pertinent to the area of
operations;

• reviewing well plan procedures, practices, and equipment specifications;

• making critical decisions concerning rig problems, based in part on the advice and support of
the drilling engineers.

The goals of the drilling manager include:

• drilling the well to targeted objectives safely and cost effectively;

• coordinating the well plan implementation among engineers, rig supervisors, and contractors.

Drilling Superintendent
The drilling superintendent provides mid-level management support to the drilling manager and rig
supervisor for ongoing drilling operations. Responsibilities include:

• reviewing the daily drilling reports from assigned rigs, and providing advice and assistance
concerning rig operations, as required;

• advising drilling engineers on well plan preparation according to field experience in the area;

• assisting the drilling manager in organizing schedules for rig assignment, time off, and training
for rig supervisors;

• reviewing regulatory requirements, and ensuring that company and contractor personnel at the
rig are observing these requirements;

• providing onsite inspection and support as required;

• inspecting proposed drilling rigs and equipment for compliance with specifications.

The goal of the drilling superintendent is to ensure efficiency, safety, and cost control in all rig-site activity.
Drilling Supervisor
The drilling supervisor is responsible for the day-to-day operation of his or her assigned drilling rig.
Responsibilities include

• making day-to-day decisions on rig operations as the well is drilled;

• supervising contractors and service company personnel on location;

• following the recommended practices and procedures listed in the well plan as closely as
possible, and providing feedback to the supervisors and engineers if problems with plan
implementation occur;

• conducting safety and well-control drills;

• ensuring that contractor and service company personnel comply with regulatory stipulations;

• maintaining accurate records of operations and cost;

• providing daily reports detailing drilling progress, costs, current operation, mud properties,
materials used and in inventory, hole deviation, etc.;

• reviewing and signing all invoices for services and materials used at the rig;

• placing orders for materials, equipment, and service company personnel with allowance of
sufficient lead time;

• communicating with drilling engineers for support in drilling optimization and in critical
operations such as cementing, testing, completion, etc.;

• supervising location construction, rig move-in, and stockpiling of material at the beginning of
new well activity;

• providing feedback as to potential location problems;

• supervising location cleanup after the well is completed or abandoned.

The goal of the drilling supervisor is to conduct well operations safely and efficiently.

Logistics Coordinator
The logistics coordinator provides support to the rig in the form of materials, equipment, transportation,
communications, and invoicing. This role is especially critical in remote or overseas operations where
supplies, communication, and regulations require additional planning and lead time. Listing specific
responsibilities is inappropriate because of the variable nature of remote operations. They do involve the
following support activities, often from an intermediate support facility between the office and the rig. The
logistics coordinator must:

• maintain equipment and material supplies by ordering with sufficient lead time;

• maintain the communications system to ensure operation according to the well plan;

• coordinate normal and emergency transportation to and from the rig;

 • coordinate customs clearances and official inspections to ensure regulatory compliance;

• assist in maintaining and forwarding rig invoices, operations reports, etc. between the rig and
the main office accounting department.

The goal of the logistics coordinator is to provide remote operations with the support needed to keep the
rig running according to the well plan.

Loss Prevention/Safety Advisor

The safety advisor is a specialist staff support function. The safety advisor should provide input to the
team in all areas of site selection, rig selection, operational safety considerations, personnel safety
training, and rig safety. The safety professional's role includes serving as a liaison with governmental and
industry agencies relative to safety, and ensuring compliance with all applicable codes, standards, rules,
laws, and regulations as they apply to drilling activities.

As a staff support function, the safety advisor is responsible for providing management with professional,
technical support to ensure compliance with applicable laws, codes, standards, and regulations.
Responsibilities include:

• determining the environmental and safety impact of the rig-site location on the surrounding
properties;

• investigating the drilling contractor's past safety and accident performance record;

• reviewing all drilling contracts to ensure that the contractor's safety responsibilities are clearly
defined;

• reviewing ( with regard to safety ) the layout of mud pits, choke and blooey lines, high-pressure
hoses and lines, BOP control panel location, etc.;

• reviewing the contractor's plans with regard to rig electrical safety prior to spud to ensure
compliance with applicable laws and standards;

• reviewing all piping diagrams and equipment specifications for rig fire protection;

• reviewing material safety data bulletins (or equivalent) for all chemicals to be used on the rig;
and ensuring that (if acids and/or caustics are to be used) an adequate clear water source is
provided for eyewash/emergency showers;

• identifying specific hazards, and specifying personal protective equipment to be provided (e.g.,
breathing apparatus in a potential H2S atmosphere; survival suits in cold environments);

• reviewing all contingency plans, station bills, and emergency shutdown systems;

• reviewing safety programming (e.g., safety meetings, accident investigations, hot work permits),
and outlining contractor safety training for all employees, including rig management, to ensure
consistency with modern safety management concepts; this includes reviewing the contractor's
safety manual.

• reviewing plans for onsite potable water treatment, cooking and eating facilities, and noise-level
documentation, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations;

• attending the pre-spud meeting to ensure that all pressure tests have been completed,
equipment (chains, wireline, etc.) has been inspected, fuel transfer and personnel transfer
procedures are in place, and pit drills, etc. have been completed.
The ultimate goal of any loss-prevention effort is to minimize risk to personnel and property. The safety
advisor should ensure that the standards and procedures outlined in the planning stage are strictly
followed through the completion of the well.

Environmental and Regulatory Advisor

The environmental and regulatory advisor identifies, gathers, and submits the necessary permits and
reports required by state and/or federal agencies for approval of a permit to drill the subject well. The
responsibilities include

• reviewing stipulations of lease sale and permit agreements and preparing copies of these
stipulations for drilling engineers and operations personnel;

• gather information from exploration and engineering groups for preparation of the exploration
plan (if necessary) and the application for permit-to-drill documentation;

• coordinating externally prepared documents such as the Rig Discharge (NPDES) permit, the
Environmental Report, the Oil Spill Containment Plan, the Environmental Training Report, and
the Hazard and Biological Survey;

• providing the drilling engineer with a timetable of permit application and approval.

The goals of the environmental and regulatory advisor include:

• providing support for timely preparation of required pre-spud permits and reports;

• assisting the drilling engineers and operations personnel in identifying and complying with
stipulations of lease and permit agreements.

Purchasing/Materials Coordinator
The purchasing/materials coordinator's primary role during the planning stages of a well is to give
functional guidance with regard to obtaining critical materials. Primary responsibilities include:

• supplying drilling engineers with information regarding availability, sourcing, lead time, and
pricing of materials required for the well;

• serving as a liaison between E&P groups to facilitate inventory and stock sharing during
material shortages;

• coordinating supplier selection for common items required by several units of organization to
ensure supply and economic advantage;

• coordinating material acquisition, delivery, and payment;

• forecasting price and supply variations for general planning purposes;

• assisting in quality-control programs, operation audits, claim handling, and task force
procurement activity as requested by operating units;
 • working with engineers to secure competitive quotations on bid services and materials within
specification;

• reviewing requisitions and maintaining accurate records of procurement activities.

The goals of the purchasing/materials coordinator include:

• providing timely support in the selection and procurement of required materials;

• providing commercial support in procurement activity;

• providing market intelligence as to which manufacturers offer the most competitive combination
of material quality, service, price, delivery, and operating costs.

Well Selection

Budget Objectives
The items common to budget review and approval that are directly addressed by well planning are the
preparation of cost estimates, and the subsequent development of well programs to meet the project
objectives while staying within approved fund allocation.

Cost estimation is an engineering function, consisting of coordinating design parameters for material and
procedures with cost expectations. Generally there are two levels of cost estimates:

• Long-range cost estimates are prepared annually for planning purposes. These cost estimates
are usually made without good control data, and may or may not include such items as
contingency funds for inflation, expected price increases, and market conditions.
• "Authorization for Expenditure", or AFE cost estimates are prepared with good supporting data
and after a preliminary well design by the engineers.

The relative importance of well cost to overall exploration and production costs merits some discussion.
Entering into a lease or drilling agreement may require commitment of tens if not hundreds of millions of
dollars. Discoveries in remote areas could require additional hundreds of millions of dollars for
establishment of a platform, a gathering facility, or a pipeline to get the fluids to market. How then should
the cost of drilling the well, which may only total a few million dollars, be weighed against these other
huge sums of money? How important is it to get the well cost estimates within 10% or even 25% of the
final well cost?

One answer (if not the answer) is that regardless of an estimate’s accuracy , a well-cost commitment
represents a real out-of-pocket expenditure. It depletes the available budget regardless of immediate
outcome. A cost estimate that is too high could negate the chances for approval of a viable project. An
excessively high well-cost estimate could require additional partners to absorb a portion of the risk at the
cost of decreasing the operator's share of the potential profit. A high well-cost estimate that is approved
does, in fact, withdraw available funds from other possible projects as well. The primary danger of a low
well-cost estimate is that an investment may be made into a project that would not otherwise be
undertaken, again misdirecting resources from other worthwhile projects. Cost overruns, whether due to
poor estimates, poor performance, or unanticipated problems, could deplete available resources at the
expense of projects not yet begun.

The need for accurate well-cost estimates is critical for budgetary planning. Exploration personnel may be
frustrated when their efforts in developing a prospect are defeated by pessimistic well-cost estimates
prepared by the drilling engineers. The only solution addressing both of these situations is to improve the
working communication of the team members involved in a well program, and improve both the cost-
estimation process and the preparation of drilling programs.
Prospect Selection

Production Wells

Production wells are usually identified by the need to maintain or increase production from an existing
field. Also in this category are the secondary-recovery, water- or gas-injection, workover, and
recompletion efforts that team preparing the well program for these wells usually includes the drilling
engineer, the production geologist, the production engineer, the reservoir engineer, and the production
operations superintendent assigned to the area. Their combined knowledge of the area should contribute
to a well plan that is programmed toward efficiency in drilling, completion, and production.

The requests for well-cost estimates and well programs should be well documented. Cost estimates for
both drilling and completion activities should be within 10% of actual, with little or no contingency factors
built into the estimate.

Exploration Wells

Exploration wells usually require a great deal of geological and geophysical data gathering, processing,
and evaluation. Detailed offset well data often is unavailable. The search for exploration well prospects
can include the following general activities.

Topology Study Surface geological structures that indicate the tectonic or depositional activity necessary
for formation of potential hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs must be identified. These structures include:

• anticlines;
• fault traps;
• salt domes;
• reef carbonates;
• sand-body lenses;
• unconformities.

These structures may be identified in a number of ways. Existing aerial photographs and radar surveys
often are used. Topographic maps can be created by use of sophisticated satellite photography, with
infrared detectors, computer-enhancement techniques, and cameras that can photograph through clouds
and ocean depths.

Seismic Evaluation: Seismic studies are made and evaluated by geophysicists to determine the
subsurface character of the areas under study. A formation requires two mechanisms to qualify as a
prospective reservoir. First, it must contain a reservoir type of rock, such as a sandstone or carbonate,
with sufficient porosity to contain appreciable fluid volumes. Second, there must be a trapping mechanism
that has allowed formation fluids to accumulate but not allowed them to dissipate into other formations.

Although interpretation of seismic data is the job of the geophysicist, the drilling engineers preparing the
well plans often can benefit from studying the seismic maps. Shallow seismic or shallow "bright spots" on
normal seismic could represent a shallow gas hazard. Other features could indicate formation type,
abnormal pressures, faults, steep formation dips, caprocks, etc.

Surface Geology Study: In addition to the large-scale photographic studies of an area, local geological
study can play an important role in identifying an exploration prospect. Local surface indications, such as
oil or gas seepage, may identify a prospect. In cases where photographic study of topography gives
broad indications of potential, local surface geology study contributes to the body of knowledge available
by identifying possible lithology sequences. Surface outcrops of formations that should be penetrated as
the well is drilled can give clues about rock characteristics such as porosity, composition, and density.

Actual drilling prospects will be selected by management after evaluation of profit potential. This simplified
description of prospect identification is intended to give some background on the data generated by the
geoscience group in the development of a well prospect.
Reservoir Potential Evaluation
The estimated reserves of the reservoir must be weighed against the estimated cost to produce those
reserves. The calculated rate of return and degree of confidence in these estimated figures determine the
economic viability of drilling the reservoir.

One critical feature of reserve estimation is the quality of available control data. Production fields have
good control by way of section cores, sidewall cores, logs, and production tests. Production wells
intended for optimum depletion of the reservoir can be targeted to specified sections and depths of the
structure with confidence of expected production.

Exploration wells must rely on offset well information for reservoir characteristics that might be similar to
those of the structure in question. Basically, the reservoir engineer must take the structure data from the
geologists and geophysicists and prepare a reserve estimate based on assumed values for porosity,
permeability, and volume of the structure containing hydrocarbons. Reservoir estimates are prepared by
varying these major parameters to arrive at optimistic, pessimistic, and most-likely reserve volume and
potential production rates.

Cost Estimation

In the preliminary stages of reservoir-potential evaluation, gross cost estimates for drilling, completion,
and producing the reservoir are prepared. Production costs could be orders of magnitude greater than
drilling and completing the wells.

The term "threshold reserves" describes the minimum volume of recoverable hydrocarbons necessary to
cover the estimated cost of exploiting the reservoir while providing a suitable rate of return. The planning
department serves as management's sounding board in weighing the figures calculated by the technical
groups. Time becomes a calculation factor as present dollars must be weighed against inflation, expected
oil and gas prices, and full field production costs. All of these factors could change drastically in the time
span from initiation to on-line production of the hydrocarbons. Finally, the probability of success must be
weighed against the potential profit.
Prospect Acquisition
The drilling engineer coordinating the well plan usually is not involved in the prospect acquisition process.
It is essential that commitments be made clear, in writing, at the initial planning meeting by someone
knowledgeable of the agreements. The drilling engineer should follow up on this aspect of well planning in
the event that these commitments are not identified at the initial planning meeting. Compliance with the
stipulations in these agreements in regard to program review, data copies, etc. are the responsibility of
the project coordinator.

Acquisition of rights to drill a property follow no specific formula. Methods include:

• bidding on leases open to all comers;

• individual arrangements made with private property owners;
• joint venture agreement to share in a new or existing operation;
• farm-in agreements with existing lease holders;
• trading of properties for cash, other properties, share of potential reserves, etc.;
• outright purchase of property, including mineral rights.
As signified by the dotted line on the well planning process flow chart ( Figure 1 ), the timing or position of
the prospect acquisition in regard to the other sections could be variable.

Figure 1

Aspects of prospect acquisition that may require special consideration in well planning are discussed
below.

Joint Venture Agreements

These agreements may require any or all of the following:

 • partner approval of well plan with adequate review time allowed;
• attendance of partner representatives in initial, interim, and/or pre-spud meetings;
• partner representation during testing of possible production zone;
• copies of drilling reports, mud recaps, logs, cementing reports, etc.;
• utilization of specified equipment, procedures, service organizations, etc.;
• timetable for spudding, testing, or production as per scheduled commitments.
Private Property Owners

Agreements with private property owners may involve any or all of the following:

• provision for a water well;

• location and road limitations;
• a specified date by which the well is to be spudded;
• land reclamation to original condition.
Location Selection
Location Selection is an event rather than a task. The prospective well is given a designation and a
specific location at this time. Management has accepted the objectives and projected rate of return at the
initial estimated gross costs. The next step involves preparing an official request for funds to drill the well.
AFE Preparation

Introduction
AFE preparation requires a thorough geological and geophysical report, a cost estimate for drilling and
completing the well, and an economic analysis of the proposal. The primary topics of cost-estimate
preparation include:

• definition of the location, objectives, and geological prognosis;

• cost and well design considerations;
• preparation of an abbreviated well plan for cost-estimation purposes;
• the methods and organization of cost estimation.

The quality of cost estimates and subsequent well plans can be improved if the following basic ideas are
applied:

• The supporting data must be as complete and accurate as possible, and must be available when
it is needed;
• The work effort must be organized for optimum efficiency;
• Available technology must be used to its full advantage.

These ideas should be used to make the most of the limited time available in preparing an abbreviated
well plan and calculating estimated expenditures.

Geological Input
The geologists' clearly established and communicated objectives for the well can assist the drilling
engineer in preparing the AFE cost estimate. Well Cost Request Forms should summarize the available
geological data and specify expected coring, testing, and logging intervals. In addition to well identification
and surface location, the following subsurface features and well planning requirements could assist the
drilling engineer in his preparation of the well plan:

• Lithology data

— Prognosis of stratigraphic column with formation names and type of formation rock

— Expected formation tops

— Expected formation dip ranges

• Expected total depth

— Likelihood of drilling deeper

• Potential shallow gas hazard

• Anticipated pore pressures
• Potential production zones

— Type of reservoir rock

— Expected permeability and porosity

— Anticipated formation fluids, including acid gases

— Anticipated formation pressures

• Expected coring intervals

 — Conventional or sidewall cores

• Expected logging program

— Log types

— Log intervals

• Expected intervals for formation testing

— Drillstem tests, production tests, or repeat formation tests (RFTs)

• Potential hole problems (from offset well data)

— Lost-circulation zones

— Abnormal pressure

— Sour or acid gases

— Plastic salt beds

— Geothermal intervals

— Sloughing shales

— Other

• List of nearest offset wells

• List of available offset well data

All potential hole problems—especially those on exploration wells with limited offset data—need to be
discussed.

Although the geophysical summary is not normally a part of the geological information presented, it
should be made available to the drilling engineers preparing the cost estimate.

Completion and Testing Requirements

The AFE cost estimate for an exploration well is normally separated into dry-hole and completion costs.
The costs for drillstem tests and RFTs are included in the drilling costs. Production testing is a completion
cost. Naturally, these costs can be more closely predicted if the well being drilled is a production well. In
either case, for the benefit of better well-cost estimates, there needs to be close communication between
the drilling engineer and the reservoir-production engineers in establishing the planned testing and
completion requirements and associated well costs.

For production wells, the production engineers should prepare the completion cost estimate for inclusion
with the drilling engineers' drilling cost estimate. Completion costs are based on;

• the estimated number of days, and the day rate, for operation;
• the type of completion (single, double, commingled, etc.);
• the tubing design (size, grade, connections, etc.);
• the expected method of stimulation (acidizing, fracturing, etc.);
• the formation consolidation (gravel packing) requirements;
• the need for remedial cementing for zonal isolation;
• tangible well costs for tubulars, equipment, and the wellhead;
• additional logging requirements to determine cement bond quality, zonal isolation, etc.;
 • the number of intervals to be perforated, and the perforation density;
• the need for sour-gas or acid-gas rated equipment;
• the expected production rates and pressures;
• the production mode (flowing, gas lift, pumping, etc.).

As with drilling costs, completion costs are usually estimated without the benefit of a comprehensive
design. The actual completion program should be tailored to respond to the information gathered during
drilling, testing, and logging.

Production engineers designing a wildcat testing and completion program must decide whether the well is
to be made into a production well if a discovery is made. If so, plans must be made and costs estimated
for the completion equipment, tubing, and wellhead. Quite often, an adequate design cannot be made
until formation pressures, fluids, production rates, stimulation requirements, and other variables are
evaluated. In these cases, the wildcat well is often designed as a testing conduit only, intended to
evaluate the prospect and be abandoned.

If the wildcat has a substantial likelihood of success, and the formation characteristics are predicted with
confidence, the wildcat may be planned like a production well.

In production wells, the production engineers have access to the reservoir data necessary to plan future
completion programs. In wildcat applications, they need to have data from the geologist to plan the
evaluation program. They in turn must provide the drilling engineers with information that affects the
drilling design. Specifically, the drilling engineers require tentative plans concerning:

• the type of testing required for specified zones;

• whether testing will be done through drillpipe or a test string;
• formation fluids and expected pressure (oil, gas, H2S, CO2, etc.);
• fracture or acid treatments of specified formations;
• maximum expected shut-in tubing pressures, fracture pressures, and rates;
• the size of completion tubing string(s).

Drilling Considerations
Drilling engineers often must provide an AFE well-cost estimate without having the time to prepare a
complete well plan. The request for the cost estimate is normally communicated through a letter from the
exploration or production department specifying a required return date. Pertinent geological data is
usually given on a Request for Well Cost Form, which accompanies the letter.

The task of preparing the AFE cost estimate may be considerably simplified if the previously prepared
"budget" or "objectives" cost estimate was based on reasonably good data. The initial gross cost estimate
is expected to be within 25% of the actual cost to drill the well. The AFE estimate is expected to be within
10%. This expectation of greater accuracy is primarily the result of better-defined geological parameters
and a more detailed examination of drilling requirements. The drilling engineer must review the geological
considerations as well as the completion and testing requirements outlined earlier, and prepare an
abbreviated well plan.

In summary, the drilling engineer must:

• verify data from geology;

• identify completion and testing requirements;
• review location considerations;
• outline expected formation pressures;
• review potential drilling problems;
• review directional plan considerations;
• select casing sizes and setting depths;
• identify likely mud program;
• prepare preliminary casing design;
• identify tentative wellhead requirements;
• review cementing requirements;
 • predict drilling time from offset well performance.

Cost Estimates
Preparation of well-cost estimates requires research of offset well performance to review the problems
encountered, the materials used, and the effectiveness of the well programs (mud, cementing, casing,
etc.) attempted. Insufficient offset data will necessitate heavy reliance on assumptions made from the
geological prognosis, which also suffers from the lack of support data.

Offset data sources include:

• commercial well data services that can supply drilling curves, bit records, casing setting depths,
and mud type used; major hole problems are also listed;
• service companies (mud, cementing, bit), which can provide cost information and general history
for wells they serviced in the area;
• in-house well histories for wells drilled in the area.

Once the general sources of information are researched, preliminary decisions are made by the drilling
engineers regarding casing setting depths, tentative mud program, tangible equipment requirements, and
expected drilling time. The next step is to begin listing the tangible and intangible cost items and
assigning estimated costs to these.

There are two techniques that can assist in estimating costs once the preliminary design decisions are
made. Both require substantial detail on the AFE cost listing. The basic reason for providing greater detail
is that individual activities can be considered separately, which is more accurate than relying on
"contingency" percentages or padded estimates to cover unestimated but anticipated well costs. The two
techniques involve the use of graphs or computers to select the cost-per-well section for each of the
major items. As long as the data generating the curve or the computer data input relate to well sections
similar to that anticipated on the planned well, an average performance can be generated.

A system of coding items in the AFE and coding invoices to fit these categories is necessary to begin
saving this data for in-house wells. Once implemented, this can also provide easy access to information
concerning specific operation performance, problems, and services. The wells must also be categorized
according to depth and type of well. Another potential benefit of this approach to cost estimating is that if
engineers prepare the curves, review the data, and establish the comparison sections, a technician or
clerk may be able to read off the curves or computer listings and do some of the manual data
manipulation, allowing the engineers to review the generated costs and spend more time on the actual
design of the program.

AFE Approval
Management approval of a project's AFE represents approval of the stated objectives and the cost to
meet those objectives. Major changes to the project after the AFE has been approved may seriously
affect the chances of meeting the new objectives with the allocated funds. Serious changes, such as a
deeper total depth, additional testing or coring, or target relocation requiring serious directional control,
should be documented and explained, as later AFE supplements to the original approved cost allowance
may need to be justified.

After an AFE has been approved, the project takes on a new perspective. The change in status is marked
by a change in project coordinator. The exploration or production geologists or engineers who defined the
prospect, documented its potential worth, and prepared a package for management approval must turn
the project over to the drilling engineers for preparation of a drilling plan.
Well Plan Organization & Data Gathering

General Outline

The Well Plan

The purpose of the well plan is to provide guidelines for the safe and efficient drilling and completion of
the well. A secondary, but important, purpose is to provide a reasonably accurate time and cost estimate.

The amount of effort and presentation required varies greatly with the complexity of the well. The well
plan outline that follows illustrates the considerations that are necessary. Although well plans are often
condensed in form for simplicity, this does not eliminate the considerations inherent in preparation. When
development wells are drilled, much of the plan can simply be taken from prior wells. Probably the most
common error in well planning is failure to specify all the items necessary to ensure effective drilling and
completion. Therefore, the outline here is detailed in order to illustrate comprehensive considerations and
specifications. Individual well planners may justifiably condense or eliminate some items as
circumstances warrant.

Well Plan Outline

I. Well Summary

A. Drilling and Geological Prognosis

B. Drawings

1. Well schematic
2. BOPs and manifold
3. Wellhead
4. Location
5. Structural map

C. Pore Pressure Analysis

D. Type Log
E. Drilling Time Curve
F. Drilling Cost Curve and Estimate or AFE
G. Support

1. Vendors list
2. Transport
3. Communications

H. Directional Plan

II. Drilling Procedure

A. Location/Pre-spud
B. Conductor
C. Surface
D. Intermediate
E. Production
F. Completion
G. Standard Procedures
H. Abandonment
III. Drilling Parameters
A. Mud Program
B. Drilling Mechanics

1. Bits
2. Weight & RPM
3. BHA/Drillstrings

C. Hydraulic Program
D. Casing Program
E. Cement Program
F. Well Control Program
G. Wellhead Equipment
H. Rig Specifications
I. Logging, Coring, and Testing
J. Emergency Procedures

1. Hurricane Procedures
2. Fire drills and rig evacuation
3. Blowout control procedures

IV. Appendix
A. AFE
B. Reports

1. Intercompany
2. Regulatory

C. Regulatory Permits and Requirements

V. Offset Data
A. Bit Records
B. Mud Recaps
C. Offset Logs

VI. References
A. Technical Literature
B. Equipment

VII. Contract
Information Sources
Initial Planning Meeting
The initial planning meeting should clearly identify the prospect and the individuals who will provide
assistance and Information, and establish a timetable for stages of development and completion of the
project.

Prior to this meeting, the project has been developed by the exploration team (if It is a wildcat) or by the
production geology/engineering group (if it is a production well) . It is at this stage of the well planning
process that the project coordinator role switches to the drilling engineer, who must prepare plans for
drilling the well.

The effectiveness of the initial planning meeting depends greatly on how well it is organized. Specific
aspects of the organization and objectives of this meeting are discussed below.

Meeting organization

The following are guidelines for planning an effective initial planning meeting:

• Identify a coordinator who will be responsible for preparing the well plan;
• Identify those who should attend. Include those who may have a limited but critical input;
• Involve participants in the preparation of the agenda. Have them be prepared to discuss their
segment at the meeting;
• Deliver the agenda, in written form, well in advance of the meeting if possible;
• Record brief minutes of the meeting, including participants, project identification, assignments,
timetables, and major agreements. Distribute a summary of the meeting to attendees within 48
hours after the meeting;
• Have a follow-up system on all assignments given and accepted in the meeting for example, use
a responsibility chart, task schedules, flow charts, and progress reports or meetings as needed.
This is principally the responsibility of the designated project coordinator.

Conducting the meeting

As is the case with other aspects of the drilling program, the type of well being planned determines the
nature of the initial planning meeting. A simple, shallow well requires less input and design time from the
geologists, engineers, and support personnel. Simple wells, with the programmed requirements already
understood by the personnel involved, may need no meeting at all. A critical, deep, or remote well needs
more planning to develop thoroughly. A recommended meeting format includes the following six parts:

1. Identify the project;

2. Identify the team members;

3. Exchange information;

4. Review the objectives of the well;

5. Identify responsibilities;

6. Establish timetables.

Describing the project

The meeting should begin with a short statement by the exploration or production project coordinator as
to the status of the well. He should briefly describe the well type (wildcat, production, injection, disposal,
etc.), location, total expected depth, approved AFE amount, and any pertinent time constraints or
extenuating circumstances relevant to the project. Mention should be made of the amount of control data
available for review.

Identifying team members

Prior to engaging in detailed discussions, those in attendance should Introduce themselves and state the
extent of their involvement in the project. This is unnecessary in a group that works together often, but is
advisable if those in the group do not know one another well. This could facilitate discussion of the project
as the meeting progresses and as the exchange of information continues afterward.

The potential list of attendees should include the following:

• drilling engineer (coordinator);

• division drilling engineer;
• drilling manager and/or superintendent;
• logistics supervisor;
• exploration superintendent;
• project geologist;
• project geophysicist;
• production engineer;
• reservoir engineer;
• environmental and regulatory advisor;
• loss prevention and safety advisor;
• purchasing/materials coordinator;

Exchanging information

After the personnel attending the meeting have been introduced, the geological team should proceed to
discuss the prospect in detail. The following material should be reviewed if it is available:

1. Geophysical data
a. Deep seismic, with maps and correlation on structure to other wells nearby.

b. Shallow seismic, for investigation of shallow gas hazard.

c. Strike and dip of formation beds.

d. Possible faults to be penetrated, with estimated depth of encounter.

e. Anomalies in the seismic reflections and interpretation of probable cause (e.g., bedded
salt, abnormal pressure, etc.) .

f. Formation pressure prediction compiled from offset well data, electric log interpretation,
or synthetic sonic log prepared with seismic data.

2. Geological Interpretation

a. Discuss potential hydrocarbon formations, with indication of type of formation,

formation fluid expected (including possibility of acid gases), pressures expected,
porosity and permeability characteristics, and size of structure.

b. Outline stratigraphic column. Include expected lithology.

 3. Discussion of Offset Well Data Used for Correlation

a. Discuss potential drilling problems as encountered by operators on offset wells

studied.

b. Obtain a list of available offset well data for the drilling engineers. All drilling records,
mud records, logging reports, electric logs, or other pertinent items the geological team
has acquired should be made available.

4. Relevant Location Data

a. Topography, weather, sea-bed characteristics, etc.

b. Relevant drilling regulations in the area.

c. Environmental sensitivity of the area.

5. Discussion of logging, Coring, and Testing Program Expected

a. Discuss completion requirements.

b. Discuss testing and evaluation program.

6. Drilling Engineering and Operations Concerns

a. Identify the offset wells most likely to represent the formations expected in this well.

b. Review the most likely hole problems that could affect drilling and the realistic ability to
obtain good logs, formation tests, etc.

c. Obtain copies of available drilling records, electric logs, mud recaps, etc. gathered by
the interpretation team.

Reviewing objectives

A major shortcoming in well planning is the failure to determine and include the critical objectives of all the
concerned parties for the prospective well. This is not to say that all the objectives can be met. In some
cases they can become counter to one another, and a decision must be made regarding their relative
merits and value to the overall project.

Reviewing responsibilities

Many of the responsibilities of the production and geological group will be fully met by preparation and
delivery of material for the meeting. ongoing responsibilities or agreements to supply additional support
material should be briefly discussed, possibly in the subsequent category, Establishing Timetables.

Establishing timetables

Establishing timetables for program development may be difficult without first studying the well
information presented in the initial planning meeting. This is especially critical when deadlines are set for
spudding, testing, or completing the well.

Critical timetable items include:

 • all available offset well data;
• shallow gas hazard determination;
• completion program delivered to drilling engineer;
• environmental and regulatory reports and permit acquired;
• draft well plan completed for approval;
• selection of the drilling rig;
• site preparation;
• well program approval;
• well spudded.

There are scheduling devices that can help organize and monitor the many tasks that may be performed
concurrently. These are discussed below.

Linear Responsibility Chart The responsibility chart lists the tasks to be accomplished on one axis and a
list of personnel involved in the various projects on the other axis. The crosshatch of the axes indicates
the level of responsibility for the tasks according to a legend. A job status column should be added to
indicate whether the job has been completed. This is useful in catching items that may become critical if
allowed to fall behind schedule.

Task Schedule A task schedule lists the tasks or information to be provided, a target date for task
completion, who will be generating the information, and who needs the information. This schedule can be
drafted prior to the initial planning meeting and distributed among the attendees. During the meeting,
some items will be satisfactorily completed and others added. In any event, this form is useful for
identifying responsibilities and obtaining commitments to prepare some portion of the well plan.

Flowcharts Flowcharts are an excellent tool for giving an overall view of the interrelationship of the
different tasks and identifying where they fall in the well-planning process. Preparing a flowchart for each
section of the program is not necessary. A substantial benefit is realized when an experienced
professional takes the time to organize project planning into a flowchart for less experienced engineers or
other professionals to follow. Organization of the work effort results in more efficient and more thorough
programs.

Initial Planning Meeting

Initial Planning Meeting

The initial planning meeting should clearly identify the prospect and the individuals who will provide
assistance and Information, and establish a timetable for stages of development and completion of the
project.

Prior to this meeting, the project has been developed by the exploration team (if It is a wildcat) or by the
production geology/engineering group (if it is a production well) . It is at this stage of the well planning
process that the project coordinator role switches to the drilling engineer, who must prepare plans for
drilling the well.

The effectiveness of the initial planning meeting depends greatly on how well it is organized. Specific
aspects of the organization and objectives of this meeting are discussed below.

Meeting organization

The following are guidelines for planning an effective initial planning meeting:

• Identify a coordinator who will be responsible for preparing the well plan;
• Identify those who should attend. Include those who may have a limited but critical input;
• Involve participants in the preparation of the agenda. Have them be prepared to discuss their
segment at the meeting;
• Deliver the agenda, in written form, well in advance of the meeting if possible;
 • Record brief minutes of the meeting, including participants, project identification, assignments,
timetables, and major agreements. Distribute a summary of the meeting to attendees within 48
hours after the meeting;
• Have a follow-up system on all assignments given and accepted in the meeting for example, use
a responsibility chart, task schedules, flow charts, and progress reports or meetings as needed.
This is principally the responsibility of the designated project coordinator.

Conducting the meeting

As is the case with other aspects of the drilling program, the type of well being planned determines the
nature of the initial planning meeting. A simple, shallow well requires less input and design time from the
geologists, engineers, and support personnel. Simple wells, with the programmed requirements already
understood by the personnel involved, may need no meeting at all. A critical, deep, or remote well needs
more planning to develop thoroughly. A recommended meeting format includes the following six parts:

1. Identify the project;

2. Identify the team members;

3. Exchange information;

4. Review the objectives of the well;

5. Identify responsibilities;

6. Establish timetables.

Describing the project

The meeting should begin with a short statement by the exploration or production project coordinator as
to the status of the well. He should briefly describe the well type (wildcat, production, injection, disposal,
etc.), location, total expected depth, approved AFE amount, and any pertinent time constraints or
extenuating circumstances relevant to the project. Mention should be made of the amount of control data
available for review.

Identifying team members

Prior to engaging in detailed discussions, those in attendance should Introduce themselves and state the
extent of their involvement in the project. This is unnecessary in a group that works together often, but is
advisable if those in the group do not know one another well. This could facilitate discussion of the project
as the meeting progresses and as the exchange of information continues afterward.

The potential list of attendees should include the following:

• drilling engineer (coordinator);

• division drilling engineer;
• drilling manager and/or superintendent;
• logistics supervisor;
• exploration superintendent;
• project geologist;
• project geophysicist;
• production engineer;
• reservoir engineer;
• environmental and regulatory advisor;
• loss prevention and safety advisor;
• purchasing/materials coordinator;

Exchanging information
After the personnel attending the meeting have been introduced, the geological team should proceed to
discuss the prospect in detail. The following material should be reviewed if it is available:

1. Geophysical data
a. Deep seismic, with maps and correlation on structure to other wells nearby.

b. Shallow seismic, for investigation of shallow gas hazard.

c. Strike and dip of formation beds.

d. Possible faults to be penetrated, with estimated depth of encounter.

e. Anomalies in the seismic reflections and interpretation of probable cause (e.g., bedded
salt, abnormal pressure, etc.) .

f. Formation pressure prediction compiled from offset well data, electric log interpretation,
or synthetic sonic log prepared with seismic data.

2. Geological Interpretation

a. Discuss potential hydrocarbon formations, with indication of type of formation,

formation fluid expected (including possibility of acid gases), pressures expected,
porosity and permeability characteristics, and size of structure.

b. Outline stratigraphic column. Include expected lithology.

3. Discussion of Offset Well Data Used for Correlation

a. Discuss potential drilling problems as encountered by operators on offset wells

studied.

b. Obtain a list of available offset well data for the drilling engineers. All drilling records,
mud records, logging reports, electric logs, or other pertinent items the geological team
has acquired should be made available.

4. Relevant Location Data

a. Topography, weather, sea-bed characteristics, etc.

b. Relevant drilling regulations in the area.

c. Environmental sensitivity of the area.

5. Discussion of logging, Coring, and Testing Program Expected

a. Discuss completion requirements.

b. Discuss testing and evaluation program.

6. Drilling Engineering and Operations Concerns

 a. Identify the offset wells most likely to represent the formations expected in this well.

b. Review the most likely hole problems that could affect drilling and the realistic ability to
obtain good logs, formation tests, etc.

c. Obtain copies of available drilling records, electric logs, mud recaps, etc. gathered by
the interpretation team.

Reviewing objectives

A major shortcoming in well planning is the failure to determine and include the critical objectives of all the
concerned parties for the prospective well. This is not to say that all the objectives can be met. In some
cases they can become counter to one another, and a decision must be made regarding their relative
merits and value to the overall project.

Reviewing responsibilities

Many of the responsibilities of the production and geological group will be fully met by preparation and
delivery of material for the meeting. ongoing responsibilities or agreements to supply additional support
material should be briefly discussed, possibly in the subsequent category, Establishing Timetables.

Establishing timetables

Establishing timetables for program development may be difficult without first studying the well
information presented in the initial planning meeting. This is especially critical when deadlines are set for
spudding, testing, or completing the well.

Critical timetable items include:

• all available offset well data;

• shallow gas hazard determination;
• completion program delivered to drilling engineer;
• environmental and regulatory reports and permit acquired;
• draft well plan completed for approval;
• selection of the drilling rig;
• site preparation;
• well program approval;
• well spudded.

There are scheduling devices that can help organize and monitor the many tasks that may be performed
concurrently. These are discussed below.

Linear Responsibility Chart The responsibility chart lists the tasks to be accomplished on one axis and a
list of personnel involved in the various projects on the other axis. The crosshatch of the axes indicates
the level of responsibility for the tasks according to a legend. A job status column should be added to
indicate whether the job has been completed. This is useful in catching items that may become critical if
allowed to fall behind schedule.

Task Schedule A task schedule lists the tasks or information to be provided, a target date for task
completion, who will be generating the information, and who needs the information. This schedule can be
drafted prior to the initial planning meeting and distributed among the attendees. During the meeting,
some items will be satisfactorily completed and others added. In any event, this form is useful for
identifying responsibilities and obtaining commitments to prepare some portion of the well plan.

Flowcharts Flowcharts are an excellent tool for giving an overall view of the interrelationship of the
different tasks and identifying where they fall in the well-planning process. Preparing a flowchart for each
section of the program is not necessary. A substantial benefit is realized when an experienced
professional takes the time to organize project planning into a flowchart for less experienced engineers or
other professionals to follow. Organization of the work effort results in more efficient and more thorough
programs.

Environmental and Regulatory Requirements

Environmental and Regulatory Requirements

Federal leases, both offshore and on land, have a number of lease terms and stipulations that must be
honored. Usually the environmental and regulatory advisor reviews these stipulations, organizes the
gathering and submission of formal documents, and assists operations personnel with compliance
measures in the agreements. Although ancillary to the well plan itself, lease agreement items are
essential considerations. Failure to adhere to the stipulations or obtain the necessary permits in time can
delay spudding of the well or shut down drilling operations, often with substantial fines attached. The loss-
prevention/safety advisor should also assist in compliance inspections.

Agreements to drill on privately owned property are usually worked out by landmen. These individuals
receive input from the geological group as to specific areas of interest. They must find out who owns the
property (specifically, the mineral rights), and arrange deals with the property owners to drill on their land.
These agreements usually include a signing bonus, a royalty percentage of the production, and a variety
of operational stipulations. Quite often, a water well must be drilled to provide rig water, but provision for a
well is often a major item of the agreement for the land owner. The exploration well may be dry, but the
water well remains for the owner’s use. The actual drilling site, access to the location, and restoration of
the land to its original condition are other stipulations often included in the agreement.

Some locations are much more environmentally sensitive than others. Drilling near populated areas or in
lands protected by the federal government requires much more attention to safety, spill control, noise
control, and location preparation. The operator usually posts a substantial bond, often in millions of
dollars, to be used if lease agreements are violated. Damages must be clearly defined and communicated
to the personnel working on the rigs, and stipulations met.

Another aspect of lease agreements is that they usually have a stipulated term. Whether federal, state, or
private, the lease agreement usually requires that a well be drilled to prove or test the lease within a
specified period of time. Failure to do so within the time allowed normally results in return of the lease to
the owner with loss of fees, bonus money, etc.

The environmental and regulatory advisor should help the drilling engineers identify, gather, and submit
the necessary permits and reports required by state and/or federal agencies for approval of a permit to
drill the subject well. This individual should be notified as early as possible of the intention to drill a well.
On the well planning process flow chart ( Figure 1 ), the environmental and regulatory requirements are
shown as a major task to be reviewed prior to submission of the required permits.
 Figure 1

This task runs parallel to the well plan design and must be checked periodically to ensure that the
required permits are approved in time to spud the well according to schedule.

The following items should be included in a checklist to be previewed during the federal lease acquisition
process:

• What lease terms and stipulations apply to the subject well?

• What surveys must be made and submitted to identify the prospective drilling site?

• What permits (e.g., in the U.S., Corps of Engineers Permit, Rig Discharge (NPDES) Permit,
Permit to Drill) must be submitted for approval?

• What is the term of the lease agreement?

• How long ago was the lease agreement enacted?

• What training program requirements are stipulated for personnel working on the well?

• What stipulations affect gathering and transporting of product ion?

• What information is available concerning shallow gas hazard, environmental sensitivity, weather
hazards, water availability, etc.?

• What restrictions apply to utilization of locally available labor and supplies?

 • What Minerals regulatory service guidelines apply for operations on the site?

• What site reclamation and/or abandonment agreements must be considered?

The following considerations apply to drilling on privately owned or state leases:

• What state, county, or city regulations pertain to the proposed location?

• What access and location agreements were made with the lease holder?

• What water acquisition agreement is necessary?

• What site reclamation agreement must be met?

Location, Support, and Logistics

Location, Support, and Logistics

The location of a proposed drilling site affects well planning in its earliest stages. Indeed, the entire well
planning strategy may be impacted if harsh environment, community acceptance, environmental
protection, safety, or expediency is determined to be the most critical aspect of design. Drilling operations
have adapted successfully to difficult environments by the use of proper planning and commitment of
sufficient resources.

Preparation of the drilling site is usually the responsibility of the drilling operations staff. They may require
the assistance of a civil engineer to evaluate the stability of the chosen site. The planned depth of the
well, size of the rig, storage requirements, and earthen pit requirements are major considerations. The
drilling operations staff normally inspects and evaluates the site and prepares a short report for the drilling
manager. Considerable time and money can be saved if the drilling contractor provides a rig platform so
that the completed location will not have to be modified later to accommodate the rig layout.

The location must be prepared with all-weather construction. The portion of the location which will support
the load of the rig is usually fortified with crushed rock, pilings if necessary, and heavy board planks.
Roads may require special preparation to support the heavy truckloads of rig equipment, pipe, and other
materials. The drilling engineer must allow for these expenditures in his cost estimate. Other primary
considerations for location preparation are listed below.

A. Location Planning

1. Site Selection Land

a) Is the location favorable?

b) Are there any hazards imposed by topology of the site (flooding, mud slides, rock
slides, forest fire, grass fire, etc.)?

c) Is weather in the area likely to require rig modification or cause operations to be

halted?

d) Will road access be nominal or a major part of site construction and maintenance?

e) Could substantial savings be realized if the rig site were relocated within a minor
distance of the proposed coordinates?

f) Has the drilling contractor provided the required rig plat with site size requirements?
 g) Will the location need to be fortified with pilings, concrete, boards, etc.?

h) Will a helipad or landing strip be required?

2. Site Selection Offshore

a) What is the water depth?

b) Is the bottom suitable for jack-up, anchor holding, jetting, etc.?

c) Has shallow gas hazard been evaluated?

d) What is the distance to the nearest supply port?

e) What are wave, current, and storm expectations?

f) What are the regulatory and environmental compliance requirements?

B. Support Requirements
1. How will people and supplies be transported to and from the location?

2. What communication (telephone, radio, telefax, satellite, etc.) systems will be used?

3. What emergency contingency plans are required?

4. Will a logistics coordinator be necessary at the intermediate staging point?

5. What emergency medical facilities are available?

6. What supplies and unskilled labor will be available locally?

C. Logistics Considerations
1. How long would it take to get critical equipment or supplies (barite, fishing tools, food, spare
equipment parts, etc.) to the location?

2. How much storage area will be available on site?

3. Will an additional remote stock point be necessary?

4. Could weather disrupt supply and communication lines?

For production wells, most of these considerations are clearly resolved. The location may be built by the
field production staff according to specifications detailed by the drilling department. For wildcat wells,
where specific dangers or difficult construction problems are posed by the selected site, the drilling
department should discuss possible relocation within a short distance if substantial location cost reduction
or improved safety could be realized.
Pore Pressure Prediction

Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient Prediction

Accurate pore pressure prediction is the basis for the drilling fluid density program, and is necessary for
well safety and rapid drilling rate. Prevention of kicks is accomplished by carrying sufficient mud density,
and minimum overbalance prevents slowed drilling caused by excess mud density. Minimum overbalance
also avoids the principal cause of differential pressure sticking. Pore pressure prediction is often the basis
for selecting casing setting depths, cement slurry density, avoiding lost circulation, and making fracture
gradient calculations. Fracture gradient at the base of a casing string often limits the mud density
increase that can occur before the next string is set.

In cases of pressure regression, a casing string may need to be set to allow mud weight reduction.

A variety of pore-pressure prediction and measuring techniques are available and can be classified as (1)
before drilling, (2) while drilling, and (3) after drilling methods.

Before-drilling methods of pressure estimation include lithologic correlations, seismic bright spots (shallow
gas), seismic depth correlation from profiles, and seismic interval velocity plots.

Pore pressure estimates made while drilling may be based on corrected d-exponent, Measurement While
Drilling (MWD), kicks, shale density, and drillstem tests. Some relative indicators of pressure gradient
changes are gas cutting of mud, flowline temperature changes, drilling rate, mud viscosity or chloride
changes, hole fillup, torque and drag, and the volume, shape, and size of cuttings.

After- drilling methods of pore pressure estimation include well logging (resistivity, conductivity, sonic,
density, temperature, wireline formation tests) and bottomhole pressure surveys.

Offset well logs, drilling and drilling mud records, as well as formation logging records and seismic data
may be used as sources of information.

Pressure Prediction for the Well Plan

Lithologic correlation In many areas, particular formations are known to be abnormally pressured.
Knowledge of their depths, based on lithologic prognosis, is of value in predicting pressures.

Seismic Data: Seismic data can be of considerable value in planning the well. In the U.S. high-resolution
seismic data is required by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in federal waters, both for
archeological reasons and to detect shallow gas. When shallow gas is found, a drilling plan must be
submitted to the MMS. Either the location should be moved or plans made to drill the shallow gas safely.
The shallow lithology shown on profiles may indicate soft bottom, where jackup rigs would have a
problem, or sand or shale streaks that would allow jacking up.

More conventional seismic data can be useful in either "soft" or "hard" rock areas. In soft-rock areas,
profiles sometimes clearly indicate high-pressure intervals or salt by lack of reflections. Where high
pressure is apparent from wells or well logs in the vicinity that have been correlated to the profile, the
depth of the same formations can be predicted for a new well. This can be of great help in planning the
mud program.

Interval velocity (or interval transit time) plots based on the nearest shotpoint to a well location can be
interpreted as would a sonic log to indicate the top and magnitude of abnormal pressure. This technique
is particularly valuable for exploratory wells.

Logs: In predominantly sand-shale areas there is a compaction trend indicated by decreasing shale
porosity with depth. In intervals where this is hindered by thick shales or tight (impermeable) layers,
compaction is less than normal and the porosity in the shale is greater than indicated by extension of the
trend. As a consequence, the pore fluids carry a disproportionate share of the overburden load and
pressures are abnormal ( Figure 1 ) .

Figure 1

The magnitude of the porosity deviation from the trend tends to indicate the magnitude of the abnormal
pressure. This is the basis on which log plots and drilling rate plots are used to indicate pore pressures.
The porosity trend and deviation are indicated by changes in log-measured parameters and in drilling
rate.

Any of the porosity or resistivity logs can be used. Measurements should be taken in shale intervals only,
avoiding excessive washouts, and plotted on semilog paper with depth as the linear axis. A trend line is
drawn through the normal pressure, averaging the data points, and extended below the deviation
indicating the transition to abnormal pressure. Various methods of correlating the deviation from the trend
with pore pressure are used, including transparent overlays, correlation graphs, and calculations. When
using such correlations, the well designer should keep the following points in mind:

• Both trend lines and pressure correlation vary from area to area and in some cases with the
geological age of the formations. Therefore, a given technique needs to be checked and
sometimes modified to be sure it is accurate;

• Analysis assumes consistent shale properties, which is not true. Small variations in measured
properties may be due to lime or heavy metal salts in the shales, or simply due to different
chemical composition of the clay minerals. Resistivity tools are also affected by changes in
formation water salinity as well as porosity;

• In hard-rock areas, particularly where carbonate or salt beds exist, shale compaction trends are
interrupted or do not exist and pore pressure prediction from logs does not have a firm basis.
Carbonates do not compact so as to allow comparable prediction methods. Sometimes local area
experience can provide useful empirical correlations.
Fracture Gradients

The classic paper on fracture gradient prediction was presented by Hubbert and Willis (1957) . They
presented an equation predicting fracture extension pressure for vertical fractures based on overburden
pressure gradient, pore pressure gradient, and approximate ratio of horizontal stress to vertical stress
(matrix stress coefficient) . They assumed that the pressure in the fracture was equal to pore pressure
plus the horizontal component of vertical stress on the rock. Matthews and Kelly (1967) and Eaton (1976)
used the equation of Hubbert and Willis along with measured formation breakdown pressures to develop
an empirical matrix stress coefficient that allows calculation of formation breakdown pressure, often
simply called fracturing pressure.

The well planner must be cautious about calculated values that always result in the lowest fracture
gradient being at the casing seat. When 29 depths of lost circulation were found in the Gulf Coast, the
losses were within 500 ft of the casing seat only 80% of the time (Goins, 1952) .

Thus, where fracture gradient prediction is critical, the well planner should carefully check the accuracy of
calculations against leakoff tests and experience in the vicinity. A graph of fracture gradient versus depth
should be provided as a basis for casing design, or as a minimum the fracture gradients at the casing
seats should be shown.

Pore Pressure Prediction while Drilling

Pore pressure prediction while drilling relies mainly on the use of a mud logging unit , and/or on the use of
Measurement-While-Drilling (MWD) or Logging-While-Drilling (LWD) technology.

Corrected d-exponent calculations, or similar methods of pore pressure prediction, are widely used but
are not absolute, and can give false indications or lead to confusing interpretations. Shale density, if
carefully measured, can be useful in pressure prediction. Flowline temperature measurements are
uncertain. The transition zone may be deeply penetrated before the change in temperature gradient
significantly affects the flowline temperature. Increases in background gas, connection gas, or trip gas are
significant. Continuous logging of mud resistivity in and out (Delta Chloride Logging) is capable of
detecting small saltwater intrusions indicating underbalance. Formation tests can be helpful in validating
or correcting pore pressure predictions. MWD of resistivity offers improved detection of transition zones
due to the collection of real-time data that has traditionally been measured after drilling.

Data interpretation is the responsibility of rig personnel, but the well planner needs to specify the
equipment and techniques in the Logging and Drilling Procedures section of the well plan.

Drilling Problems

Drilling Problems

The well planner needs to identify potential drilling problems, and see that appropriate consideration is
given to them in the well plan. A discussion of each should be included in the drilling prognosis.

The following is a checklist of common potential problems. Others may be specific to local conditions.

1. Location Preparation

2. Abnormal Pressure/Pressure Regression

 3. Lost Circulation

a. Gravel beds

b. High-permeability sands or carbonates

c. Fractures

d. Potential fracture gradient problems

4. Deviation Control

5. Gumbo/Bit Balling

6. Slow Drilling Rates

7. Hole Enlargement

8. Stuck Pipe

a. Key seating

b. Cuttings removal

c. Differential sticking

9. Salt

a. Stringers

b. Domes

c. Beds

d. Deep seated

10. Anhydrite or Gypsum

11. Shallow Gas

12. High Bottomhole Temperature

13. Gas Migration through Cement

14. Acid Gases

15. Weather

16. Cuttings and Mud Disposal

17. Producing Formation Damage

The effectiveness of methods selected to avoid the problems has a great effect on the safety and cost of
the well. All problems can affect final AFE cost and should be discussed in the pre-spud meeting. Any
potential drilling problem may impact more than one aspect of the well plan. For example, severe hole
enlargement may cause modification of the mud program, hydraulics program, and cementing programs,
and in some instances affect casing setting depths.

Any one of them can require an extensive technical investigation. Offset well drilling and completion
records, mud records, the geological prognosis, seismic records, and area experience may be used as
sources of information.

Well Design Consideration

Casing and tubing Design

Casing Setting Depths and Sizes

The principal purpose of casing is to ensure the integrity of the well during drilling and production. The
selection of casing setting depths is critical for casing off troublesome formations, containing pressure, or
protecting fresh water formations. Casing design evolves from completion requirements, as the
completion equipment dictates the size of the production casing or liner. Casing sizes at necessary
depths uphole escalate as needed for clearance. Tubular strengths are selected as the well conditions
dictate, and materials are selected to resist corrosion. Wellhead and blowout-prevention systems must be
compatible with the tubulars in pressure rating and material.

Prior to designing casing strings, the engineer must study pressure requirements and prepare a mud-
density schedule. A plot of fracture gradient versus depth should be prepared, although in some
instances knowledge of the fracture gradients at the casing depths under study is sufficient. Leakoff data
on new wells is particularly valuable. Hole problems must be thoroughly identified and the need to design
for acid gases or other corrosion problems evaluated.
Conductor Casing

Setting depth is usually shallow (80 to 150 ft) and selected so that drilling fluid may be circulated to the
mud pits while drilling the surface hole. The casing seat must be in an impermeable formation with
sufficient fracturing resistance to allow fluid to circulate to the surface. With subsea wellheads, no attempt
is made to circulate through the conductor string to the surface. It is set deep enough to assist in
stabilizing a guide base to which guide lines are attached.

Large sizes (usually 16 to 30 in.) are required as necessary to accommodate subsequently required
strings.

Surface Casing

Setting depth should be in an impermeable section below fresh-water formations. In some instances,
near-surface gravel or shallow gas may need to be cased off. The depth should be great enough to
provide a fracture gradient sufficient to allow drilling to the next casing setting point and to provide
reasonable assurance that broaching to the surface does not occur in event of closure on a kick.

In hard-rock areas the string may be relatively shallow (300 to 800 ft), but in soft-rock areas deeper
strings are necessary. Surface casing setting depths are often specified by government regulatory bodies
to protect fresh-water sands.

Intermediate or Protective String

A protective string may be necessary to case off lost circulation, salt beds, or sloughing shales. In cases
of pressure reversals with depth, protective casing may be set to allow reduction of mud density. The
most predominant use is to protect normally pressured formations from the effects of increased mud
density needed in deeper drilling.

When a transition zone is penetrated and mud density increased, the normal pressure interval below
surface pipe is subjected to two detrimental effects:
 • The fracture gradient may be exceeded by the mud gradient, particularly if it becomes
necessary to close in on a kick. The result is loss of circulation and possibly an underground
blowout;

• The differential between mud column pressure and formation pressure is increased, which
increases the risk of stuck pipe.

A practical "rule of thumb" is to set the intermediate casing when the mud density is approximately 12.5 to
13.0 ppg, which limits both of the detrimental effects described. However, even these mud weights may
be excessive in certain areas. Attempts to drill to higher mud-weight requirements are sometimes
successful, but many holes have been lost by attempts to extend the protective string setting depth
beyond that indicated by the above rule. Either kicks occurred causing loss of circulation and possibly an
underground blowout, the pipe became differentially stuck, or sloughing of the high-pressure zone caused
stuck pipe.

Significantly, in soft-rock areas the fracture gradient increases relatively slowly as depth of the surface
casing string is changed, but the pressure gradient in the transition zone usually changes rapidly.
Emphasis is often placed on setting surface casing to an acceptable fracture gradient. It should be noted
that greater control of potential conditions at the surface casing seat exists in the protective casing setting
depth decision.

It is often tempting to "drill a little deeper" without setting pipe in exploratory wells. When pressure
gradients are not increasing this can be a reasonably acceptable decision, but with increasing gradient
the risk is great and should be carefully evaluated.

To ensure the integrity of the surface casing seat, leakoff tests should be specified in the Drilling
Procedures section of the well plan.

It is sometimes necessary to alter the setting depth of the intermediate casing during drilling if:

• hole problems prohibit continued drilling;

• pore pressure changes occur substantially shallower or deeper than originally calculated or
estimated.

For this reason the well plan should state the pore-pressure requirement at which casing should be set in
a transition zone.

Liner

A liner is often economically attractive in deep wells as opposed to setting a full casing string. This
decision must be carefully considered because the intermediate string must be designed with a burst
requirement suitable for the depth of the liner. This increases the cost of the intermediate string. Also, the
possibility of continuing wear of the intermediate string must be evaluated. If there is to be a production
liner, then either the production liner or the drilling liner should be tied back to the surface as production
casing. If the drilling liner is to be tied back it is usually best to do so before drilling hole for the production
liner. By doing so, the intermediate casing can be designed for a lower burst requirement, resulting in
considerable savings. Also, any wear in the intermediate string is covered up prior to drilling the
production interval.

If increased mud density will be required while drilling hole for the drilling liner, then leakoff tests should
be specified under Drilling Procedures for the intermediate casing shoe. The fracture gradient at the shoe
may limit the depth of the drilling liner. In Figure 1 the fracture gradient at the intermediate casing shoe is
indicated to be 17.3 ppg.
 Figure 1

This would limit drilling to 14,000 ft, where the mud weight requirement is 17.3 ppg. Leaving in a 0.5-ppg
kick margin would limit drilling to about 13,500 feet. At this depth the fracture gradient would be
approximately 18.6 ppg for further drilling below the drilling liner.

The conditions described are in a commonly found range, but the depth decisions depend on the
accuracy of the fracture gradient calculations, which can have significant error. In areas where experience
cannot be drawn upon for accurate fracture gradients, leakoff tests should be specified, and setting
depths altered if necessary.

Production String

Whether production casing or liner is set, the depth is determined by the geological objective. Depths may
have to be altered accordingly if the well runs higher or lower than the geologic prognosis. The objective
and method of identifying the correct depth should be stated.

Casing and Hole Sizes

Generally, standard bit sizes should be run, but thick casing walls may be necessary in deep wells for
sufficient strength. The designer can sometimes solve this problem by specifying special drift casing. This
allows the use of bits with diameters approaching the inside diameter of the casing, rather than being
limited by drift (tolerance) diameter. Manufacturers make oversize casing in several sizes providing
strength comparable to APT sizes, but with clearance for standard bit sizes.

Tubular and Wellhead Design

Following the development of mud weight requirements and selection of casing setting depths, the first
consideration in casing design is determination of design loads. These vary for surface casing,
intermediate casing, and drilling liners as compared to production casing and production liners.

Surface and intermediate String Design

Collapse: Collapse load (or collapse pressure) is the point at which the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid
column in the annulus exceeds the casing pressure, causing the casing to collapse. Cooke et al. 1982,
1983 have shown that after a cementing job, the annular pressure gradually reduces to formation
pressure in both the drilling fluid and the cement. Usually, however, the hydrostatic pressure at the time of
cementing is used in calculating the casing pressure required to prevent collapse, thus providing some
safety margin.

Considerable cost savings result from basing design loads on the assumption that surface and
intermediate strings will not be completely emptied—for example, that the string will not be more than
15% empty. This might vary with the area to some extent, but has been used by some companies for
years.

The lower end of casing is in compression due to hydrostatic pressure on the end of the pipe. Where the
pipe is in axial tension the effect of tension on collapse rating should be considered.

Two special conditions should be carefully considered on a different assumed-load basis:

• When strings are cemented through salt, particularly deep, thick salt at elevated temperature,
there is usually a collapse load that is unidirectional and design load may need to be 1 psi/foot of
depth. In some severe cases it has been necessary to set overlapping strings through the salt
with cement between;

• When cementing structural or surface strings through drillpipe, the collapse loads may be high
due to the difference in hydrostatic pressure of the cement column in the casing/openhole
annulus and the mud column in the drillpipe/casing annulus. Large casing having low collapse
strength could collapse during cementing.

Burst: The maximum burst load occurs if the string is emptied and the well is closed in on dry gas. The
maximum load is at the surface. The maximum pressure at the casing seat is the formation pressure in
the gas zone less the hydrostatic pressure of the gas back to the casing seat, or the fracture pressure at
the casing seat, whichever is the lowest. The surface pressure is the maximum pressure at the casing
seat less the hydrostatic pressure of the gas to the surface.

If oil is known to be the only hydrocarbon present, the hydrostatic pressure is taken as that of the oil
column, but in exploratory drilling a gas column is usually assumed. Burst loads at the surface also
dictate the wellhead and blowout prevention equipment ratings.

The burst load at the casing seat, or at any depth uphole, is the pressure inside the casing minus the
formation pressure at that depth.

The above describes realistic maximum burst load conditions. However, the strings so designed are
expensive and sometimes require high-strength casing, which is more prone to failure than more common
grades. In very deep, high-pressure wells, 15,000+ psi surface pressures may occur if the well is emptied
and closed in. Provision of adequate strength for the design basis described becomes more difficult.
Sometimes either very high strength, brittle pipe must be used, or the assumed design load decreased. If
hydrogen sulfide is expected, a lower-strength pipe, resistant to sulfide embrittlement, may need to be
used.

In cases where surface pressures could exceed 20,000 psi, blowout preventers of sufficient rating are not
available. It would be impossible to contain the maximum possible pressure.

Many companies design on the basis that less than maximum possible loads will occur. The U.S. Mineral
Management Service only requires that casing be designed to withstand "anticipated pressure." Various
assumptions are often made by different companies—e.g., that the hole can always be kept full of sea
water, that only a kick of a certain size and intensity will occur, or that maximum pressure will not exceed
a certain amount.

Tension: The maximum tension load on a joint of casing usually occurs while it is hanging in the elevators
because the tension decreases as the joint is run into the hole. This is due to the increasing hydrostatic
pressure on the end of the pipe as it is run into the hole. Therefore, the tension load can be reasonably
calculated at the top of a section as the buoyed weight of the pipe below. When the section is downhole
the tensile stress is reduced, increasing the safety factor in tension above the calculated value. However,
this effect is usually accepted and ignored in design.

Some companies design using air weight and others using buoyed weight. Often those who use buoyed
weight use a higher design safety factor so that the resulting casing design may be nearly equal in tensile
strength.

Two special conditions may warrant consideration of increased design load:

• When pipe is set through a dogleg there will be a bending load, or, in an equivalent sense, a
reduction in tensile strength;

• In order to reciprocate pipe during cementing, drag and increased weight of cement inside
casing will increase tension.

In well planning, the first item is best handled by instructions in the drilling procedure to wipe out doglegs
as they occur. The maximum permissible dogleg for each string should be calculated and included in the
well plan.

The second can be handled by specifying a safe hook load (allowable pull) that will not reduce the tension
safety factor below a preselected, safe value. When this is done, pipe often can be reciprocated during
cementing; otherwise it may have seemed stuck, and movement would have stopped.

Presentation: Both the loads used in design and the strength of pipe are difficult to visualize from
tabulated pipe and associated safety factors. A graphical design or supplementary graphical presentation
such as shown schematically in Figure 2 is of considerable help in understanding the design.
 Figure 2

In this illustration, the collapse and burst design loads (loads multiplied by a safety factor) are shown
along with the strength of pipe used. Tensional designs can be shown graphically also. Usually the
strength of pipe required in collapse and burst is high enough that tension strength automatically gives a
design safety factor in excess of that stated as minimum.

Design: After the depths and sizes of casing and the loads have been determined, the next step is to
select the most economical weights and grades of pipe that will satisfy the requirements. The designer
must also determine if there is a need to select pipe resistant to sulfide stress cracking, and, if so, be
familiar with suitable materials.

Change-over depths are easily determined graphically as shown in Figure 2 . The most economical
weight and grade of pipe satisfying the collapse requirement at bottom is found and plotted on the graph
as a vertical line. A second, more economical weight and grade is selected and plotted. The intersection
with the load line determines the bottom of the second segment and the top of the first. Other, more
economical segments are determined as necessary.

Burst (internal yield) ratings are graphed, along with collapse ratings. Toward the top of the hole the
collapse strength greatly exceeds the collapse load, but the burst strength of the pipe may be less than
the design load. An intersection of the burst strength line with the burst load design line determines the
top of the segment and the bottom of a stronger segment needed to satisfy the higher burst loads nearer
the surface.

When change-over depths are determined by calculation rather than graphically, a graph showing the
loads and change-over depths is not essential. However, it can still be helpful in visualizing the design,
particularly for review purposes.

The collapse strength of casing decreases with tension and burst strength increases with tension. Biaxial
ellipse curves ( Figure 3 ) can be used to determine such changes when designing strings, but more
recently triaxial stress calculations (Stair et al., 1983) have been used.

Figure 3

Triaxial stress calculations account for axial load and bending stress as well as internal and external
pressures.

The strength of casing joints may be less (low efficiency), as high, or higher (high efficiency) than pipe
body yield. The usable load (strength of pipe or joint divided by minimum safety factor) is often
determined for both pipe and joint, and the lesser used for the maximum load to be hung on that kind of
pipe. Approximately 80% of pipe problems appear to be with joints, particularly in tensional failures. Joint
strengths are based on pullout force or minimum ultimate strength of the minimum cross section, and so
are likely to fail at the published rating. The rating of the pipe body is based on minimum yield strength
and the actual yield strength is normally higher. Although stretching pipe is not desirable, the pipe body
would not part until the still higher ultimate strength is reached. This is 1.1 to 1.75 times as high as the
yield strength. Thus, there is effectively a built-in safety factor in pipe body ratings compared to joint
ratings.

Some companies take advantage of this situation by using a lesser safety factor for pipe body than for
joint strength—e.g., 1.3 versus 1.75.

Makeup torque for the joint should be specified in the well plan.

When the number of segments in the design is small or a segment is short, consideration might be given
to eliminating a weaker segment by extending a stronger segment. In some wells only one weight and
grade might be used. This avoids making crossover joints and lessens the possibility of errors in running
the segments in order. In deep wells, however, the use of a single weight and grade can be prohibitively
expensive.
Allowable Pull: In emergency conditions it is necessary to know the maximum pull that can safely be
exerted on casing. The advantage of an allowable pull calculation when reciprocating casing during
cementing has already been explained. For this calculation a smaller safety factor (e.g., 1.3 versus 1.75)
may be used.

Design Presentation: A form with blanks prompting inclusion of all relevant casing design items is helpful
to the designer as a reminder of necessary calculations and as a step-by-step guide while making the
design. It is also a vehicle for presenting in the well plan a condensed summary of the safety factors,
sizes, weights and grades, joints, and lengths to be ordered and run, including screwage. It also calls for
such important accessory design information as mud weight, fracture gradient, allowable pull, minimum
ID and designer's identification. Blanks can also be included for triaxial stress safety factors and makeup
torques.

Landing: Casing strings should be landed at least with hanging weight at time of cementing or according
to calculated pick-up or slack-off loads to avoid casing buckling with increases in temperature and mud
weight during deeper drilling. This should be clearly specified in the drilling procedures section of the well
plan.

Holding the surface string in tension until the cement sets is critical. Any slack-off can create
misalignment in the surface string and all subsequent strings, making the top joints subject to excessive
wear, even though a drilling bushing is used.

Production Strings and Liners

Collapse: At some time during the history of the well there is a probability that the production string or
liner will be emptied and maximum possible collapse load applied. Although the pressure in the annulus
may reduce to formation pressure, the hydrostatic pressure at the time of cementing is usually used as
the design load. Design on this basis results in an added safety factor above the calculated value, as
does the strengthening of pipe in collapse by a cemented annulus and the effect of hydrostatically
induced compression in the lower part of the string. The latter increases collapse strength above API
rating. This uncalculated safety margin tends to counter corrosion that could weaken pipe in later years.

Burst: Burst loads are usually taken as the pressure that would result from a tubing leak at the surface. If
lesser design loads are used, a pressure relief system for tubing-casing annulus would be necessary.

If the packer fluid has the same density as the backup fluid (or formation pressure if that basis is used),
then the burst load is the same as tubing pressure from surface to packer for a full string. If the packer
fluid has a higher density than the backup fluid, then burst load on the production casing increases with
depth.

If the well is to be fracture-treated down casing, the surface pressure during the fracturing job must be
known to the designer and incorporated into the casing design load.

Tension: Tension design loads are usually handled as for intermediate strings. Makeup torque for the
joints should be specified.

Landing: Casing strings should be landed at least with hanging weight at time of cementing or according
to calculated pick-up or slack-off loads to avoid buckling of the casing with temperature increases during
production. This should be clearly specified in the Drilling Procedures section of the well plan.

Tubing Design

Joint strength of tubing is almost always greater than pipe-body yield, so design is usually on a pipe-
body-yield basis. Conventionally, design is on an air-weight basis, since this provides considerable
overpull in the event tubing is stuck in packer or mud.

On this design basis, the setting depth of tubing is determined by grade of pipe, regardless of size. Where
deeper settings are required, a tapered string can be designed. If this is done, the same safety margin
(strength less usable load) should be used for both sections after determining the usable load (pipe-body
strength/safety factor) for the lower section.
Where lower-strength, sulfide stress cracking-resistant pipe must be used, setting depths can be
extended by a tapered string design, use of a downhole tubing hanger, or a production liner with a
polished bore receptacle through which production flows to the tubing string.

Burst design should be based on maximum expected surface tubing pressure unless the well is to be
fractured, in which case the burst design should be based on the maximum expected surface pressure
during fracturing.

Tubing for high-pressure wells should be pressure-tested to the rated value divided by the burst design
safety factor. Mill test pressures are considerably lower than this value. The well designer may wish to
specify mill tests to this value.

Industry experience in general indicates that the use of a teflon seal ring in joints is of considerable
assistance in providing leak resistance. These are often used in high-pressure gas wells. Many premium
connections are available that offer gas-tight sealing with or without a teflon seal ring.

Collapse safety factors are generally at least 1.0 as the strings may be swabbed, plugged, or used for
formation tests, in which case internal pressure may drop to low levels.

Materials selection in deep, high-temperature wells with carbon dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide can be
affected by the decision as to how corrosion will be handled. Treatment methods may be by batch
inhibition, continuous inhibitor injection, or use of high-alloy materials.

Landing nipples for bottomhole pressure gauges or plugs should be specified.

The type of packer or polished bore receptacle should be stated with the tubing design. The necessary
slack-off or tension should be specified. Tubing landing practices and makeup procedures need to be fully
described in the Completion Procedures section of the well plan.

Makeup: Makeup torque should be shown on the casing design summary. If the torque-turn method is to
be used, it should also be designated and mentioned in the drilling procedure.

Mill test pressures are specified in APT Specification 5ST and are low compared to burst rating. These
are not intended to be the basis for design. The test durations are short, usually about five seconds.
Unless pressure tests to internal yield rating are specified, there is no assurance that the tubes will
withstand rated pressure. When a 1.1 safety factor is used, the test might be 90% of rating. Joints may be
tested at the mill in coupling made-up, hand-tight, or plain-tube condition. Couplings may be supplied by
someone other than the tube manufacturer. Magnetic particle, ultrasonic, or electromagnetic inspection at
the mill is often done only by the purchaser s request. All this indicates the unreliability of mill tests, even
if inspected by a company representative at the time of manufacture. (In some instances, where pipe
manufacture must be carefully controlled to ensure low hardness for sulfide use, mill inspectors may be
necessary.) Even if pipe withstands mill tests, it can be damaged during shipment. In consideration of all
these factors, field inspection of pipe is strongly recommended.

Field inspection is expensive and often is omitted in noncritical wells, but to ensure integrity of the pipe it
should be field inspected by electromagnetic or ultrasonic testing methods. Threads (pipe and couplings)
should be inspected by magnetic particle inspection or by Accu-Thread inspection.

Normally, tubing should be tested internally with water pressure equal to anticipated running pressure.
These tests are brief, however, and leaks can still occur during actual use. Care in selection and makeup
is the best insurance. Test pressures and inspection methods should be stated in the Drilling and
Completion Procedures of the well plan.

Buckling

Increases in mud density, average temperature, and internally applied pressure tend to cause casing to
buckle (corkscrew) . Tubular doglegs created by buckling become more severe in intervals of hole
washout, resulting in high incidence of wear during continued drilling.

With tubing, a number of severe problems can occur:

 • Seals may move out of the packer, allowing treating pressures to burst casing;

• Seal movement during production may wear out seals;

• Seal movement during treating may be sufficient to permanently corkscrew tubing;

• Excessive buckling of tubing may prevent tools from going to bottom;

• Tubing may part in tension during treating;

• Excessive rod wear may occur in buckled tubing.

These can be avoided by prior analysis.

In severe circumstances, pressure may be held until cement sets and casing is landed to prevent severe
buckling. Added tension may be pulled before landing to limit the buckling tendency and possible pipe
movement in wellhead seals.

Service companies that do treating have computer programs that make tubing buckling analyses, or
these may be done by the designer. In deep wells, such analyses are essential.

As a preventive measure, some designers run three joints of higher-grade pipe just above the packer to
avoid permanent corkscrewing during treating or production. The necessary seals for treating conditions
must be specified with a safe excess. Set-down weight to prevent tubing movement during production
must be specified, and any increased loads due to treating must be incorporated in the tubing design.

Wellhead Design

Wellheads

Casing spools and valves must have pressure ratings equal to or greater than the casing pressure rating.
Considerable savings in nipple-up time can be realized by using spools in which two or more strings can
be hung. This practice also avoids the necessary but unsafe procedure of removing blowout preventers in
order to nipple up on casing conventionally. However, it tends to complicate pipe reciprocation during
cementing.

Tubing heads must have provisions for removable tubing head plugs. Stainless trim or stainless heads
are necessary for high-temperature, corrosive conditions. Metal-to-metal seals are preferred for severe
conditions. A schematic drawing of the wellhead with an inventory and price list should be included in the
well plan.

The entire tension loads of subsequent strings will be transferred to the surface string. The landing head
on the surface pipe must be capable of supporting this load, as must the casing joints. In general, the
compressive strength of casing is approximately equal to tensile strength if casing is well supported
laterally, but there are exceptions.

Mud program

Drilling Fluid Program

Mud program design involves two stages. First, a data-gathering exercise is undertaken to accumulate
information from as many sources as possible. Second, this data is used as background information to
prepare the mud program for the upcoming well. The proposed mud program may be similar to past mud
programs in the area or may be entirely different. The mud-program designers should feel free to make
any changes, provided they will result in a more efficient drilling operation.
Information Gathering

Sources of In formation: Usually, the most accessible sources of information are the IADC drilling reports,
mud recaps, and bit records for offset wells. Wireline and mud logs, which are sometimes more difficult to
obtain, contain very valuable information. Consultations with personnel who have worked in the area can
be very important. If the well to be drilled is in an entirely new area the geophysical and/or seismic data
may be the only information available; in such cases, a discussion with the geophysicists may be helpful.

Data: One of the most important pieces of information is the pore pressure. Using the pore pressure, the
mud weights required to drill the well safely can be estimated. The required mud weight sometimes
affects the mud-type selection.

The casing program, usually submitted by the operator's drilling engineer, is another very important piece
of data. A properly designed casing program cases off abnormal pressure zones and troublesome
formations. Once the casing program has been approved, the mud program is then designed for
maximum performance relative to borehole stability for each interval. This could require a complete
change of mud types for different hole intervals. If at all possible the mud program should be designed so
that one mud type, with progressive changes, can be used throughout the well, thus drastically reducing
mud cost.

A review of the available mud recaps gives insight into the mud programs used previously in the area.
Some important information on the mud recap is the mud type, type makeup water, mud weight
requirements, mud-related problems, type of solids control equipment used, total days to drill the well,
and mud cost. Careful attention should be given to the mud-related problems such as drag, torque,
differential sticking, bridging, fill after trips, and lost circulation.

The available bit records, hydraulic programs, deviation program, and IADC drilling report should be
reviewed for additional information. Downhole temperatures also affect the mud-type selection.

Mud Program Design

Having compiled and studied all the available information, the mud engineer is ready to begin planning
the mud program for the upcoming well. The required casing program will have been submitted by the
operator's drilling engineer to the person designing the mud program.

Mud Weight: From the pore pressure, the estimated mud weights for each interval are calculated along
with fracture gradient. Factors directly affecting the mud weight program are abnormal pressure, lost
circulation, water flows, gas intrusion, and borehole stability. Each of these parameters must be
considered for each hole interval.

Mud Type Selection: Mud-type selection is based on numerous factors which must be considered for
each interval drilled. One important factor is cost-effectiveness. Borehole stability is also an important
parameter but must not overshadow economics. Trade-offs are sometimes necessary due to other factors
such as available makeup water, bottomhole temperature, material availability, environmental constraints,
solids-control equipment availability, logistics, and safety. In determining the most cost-effective system,
all of the above factors play a role and must be considered together to obtain the most economical mud
system.

Rheology and Fluid Loss: The rheological properties and fluid loss (API low-pressure and high-
temperature/high-pressure) should be specified for each interval. Mud viscosity should be maintained as
low as practical to improve penetration rate and assist in solids-control efficiency. Prior to weighting a
mud, the API fluid loss should be reduced if differential sticking is a possibility. High-temperature/high-
pressure fluid loss should never be specified at a temperature higher than the true bottomhole
temperature of the well.

Problems and Contingencies: A thorough discussion of anticipated problems along with contingency
plans should be provided. If lost circulation is prevalent in the area, a supply of materials should be
maintained on location for preparing a lost-circulation treatment. If the possibility of differential sticking
exists, materials for preparing a stuck pipe treatment should be maintained on location at all times, since
freeing stuck pipe is time dependent (i.e., the sooner the treatment is spotted, the more likely the pipe will
be freed) .

Corrosion Control: The possibility of corrosion should be assessed for the mud type being used. If the
mud system may be corrosive, a corrosion monitoring program should be instituted. If necessary, a cost-
effective chemical treatment program should be implemented to keep corrosion within acceptable limits.

Mud Products: A thorough discussion of mud products (their purpose and limitations) should be provided.
Handling and mixing procedures should be specified for additives, especially hazardous materials. Drilling
fluid additives of low quality should not be used, since the net result will probably be a more expensive
mud system. Usually materials classified "API Approved" meet certain quality specifications, whereas
materials not so designated may need to be checked for quality. Not all mud additives have API
specifications, so testing may be required to determine quality.

An estimate of the materials necessary to complete the job should be furnished. This estimate is
extremely important where product availability is a problem or where mud materials may be delivered only
once or twice during the drilling of the well.

Solids-Control Equipment

Effective solids-control equipment is essential to running a cost-effective mud system. Solids-control

equipment should be specified for each interval and a detailed discussion provided on its proper use. This
discussion should include methods for determining the efficiency of each piece of mechanical equipment
in use. If rental equipment is necessary to enhance solids removal, the cost can be justified by comparing
its performance to rig equipment performance. A maintenance program for the solids-control equipment,
whether rental or rig equipment, should be specified and executed.

The primary shaker is the most important piece of solids-removal equipment. It is essential for this piece
of equipment to be working at maximum efficiency at all times.

In designing a solids-removal program, the fluid-handling capacity of the secondary solids-control

equipment, with the exception of the centrifuge, should always be greater than the flow rate of the drilling
fluid through the wellbore. It should not be assumed that contractors arrange mud pits and solids-control
equipment to provide maximum solids removal. In remote drilling locations, mechanical solids-control
equipment should be selected for ease of maintenance.

It is becoming increasingly important, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, to use solids-control

equipment that discharges a relatively dry solid.

Cementing Program

Cementing Program
The primary purposes of cement are to seal the annulus between casing and formation, and to support
the casing strings. The slurry selections and placement techniques vary widely, depending on the types of
formation, well temperatures, hole and casing sizes, hole enlargement, formation pressures, and depths
and loads of the casing strings.

The well planner must determine all of the conditions and requirements, select slurries that are
appropriate, and prescribe placement and evaluation techniques that ensure effective results.

All this should be presented in the cement program in a concise manner, and appropriate instructions
should be included in the drilling procedures section.

There is a large body of cementing technology with which the well planner should be familiar. Cementing
company handbooks are the most readily available source illustrating the many variations in slurry
compositions available for special conditions. Manufacturers catalogues are the most ready source of
equipment choices. Cementing technology cannot be covered in depth here, but the principal concerns of
the well planner are discussed.
Requirements and Considerations

The casing, hole sizes, depths, and the mud weight and type determined previously are the basic data for
cement design.

Surface strings that support subsequent strings should be cemented to the surface with an excess of
cement to ensure uncontaminated cement at the surface. Top fill with strong cement is necessary if the
primary cement falls back. This is sometimes advisable even after circulation to the surface in order to
place strong, uncontaminated cement at the top of the string. Top filling is done through 1-in. pipe
lowered alongside the casing.

For subsequent strings, the desired height of the cement column must be determined and calculated with
annular volume to determine cement volume requirements. Caliper logs should be used and some
excess (usually 10 to 20%) specified, based on area experience, to ensure cement fill to the desired
height. In some cases, only bit gauge is known, and a larger excess (usually 50%) should be specified to
compensate for washout. This, too, depends on area experience.

The following are other considerations that affect volume requirements:

• The cement height should be sufficient to minimize casing buckling during subsequent drilling;
• The upper portion of a cement job often shows poor bonding as a result of insufficient contact
time (the time that a given depth is flushed by cement) . All intervals that must be securely
cemented need a minimum (recommended) contact time of ten minutes;
• Potential lost-circulation problems often require the use of a light, scouring, lead slurry nearly
matching the mud density, followed by denser, strong (neat) cement through potential producing
intervals, or for the lower part of surface and intermediate string annuli. This is also more
economical than using all neat cement;
• Two-stage cementing may be used with separate volume calculations for each stage;
• Liners should be cemented with an excess to be left inside casing. This provides less
contaminated cement at the liner top.

Slurries

The best, most accessible sources of slurry choices are the cementing company handbooks. Usually, the
cementing company selected is called upon for recommendations.

The following are common considerations in slurry selection and some comments:

• Low-density slurries are often made with gel and pozzolan, but a good fill cement for low-
temperature, near-surface conditions is Class A plus 16% gel plus 3% salt. These have sufficient
strength for all but completion intervals at densities down to 12.2 ppg. For lower densities with
adequate strength, more expensive Spherlite or gilsonite slurries can be used. In cases of severe
lost circulation, foam cements may be employed. Foam cement slurries can be mixed at densities
as low as 3 to 4 ppg; however, they are not impermeable at densities less than 7 ppg. A normally
accepted minimum compressive strength is 500 psi in 24 hours at well temperature;
• Gel cements should not be used at temperatures above 250° F. Pozzolanic materials or silica
flour should be used at temperatures above 230° F to prevent strength retrogression;
• Low-filtration slurries should be used where annular clearances are small, such as with liners;
• Fresh water or sea water can be used to prepare slurries. Sea water is convenient and cheaper
to use offshore;
• Saturated salt water cement should be used when cementing through salt;
• Cements with salt usually bind well with shale formations;
• Lost-circulation materials can be added to slurries if lost circulation is a problem;
• Accelerated cements can be used in shallow applications to speed thickening;
• Sulfate resistance may be needed for corrosion protection if the formation water contains sulfate;
• Normally, Class G or H cements are used with appropriate additives, but retarded cements
(Classes D, E, and F) are sometimes used in deep wells with high bottom temperature.
Slurry Design: The slurry must be designed to give adequate thickening time (placement time plus at
least one hour) and set in a reasonable time. It also must be pumpable, but not so thin that free water
separates when the cement sets, as this would leave water pockets or high-side channels in the hole.

Retarders are added to slurries to give required pumping time, but these can alter minimum and
maximum water requirements or over-retard. Slurries retarded for high bottomhole temperatures may not
set at surface conditions.

Various brands of cement of the same class have different pumping times and even the same brand
varies from manufacturer's batch to batch. Different water sources alter pumping times, as do different
batches of additives and retarders.

All this indicates that except in shallow or very standard conditions, the well planner should specify
laboratory testing of slurries for pumping time and strength, using the mix water, batches of cement, and
additives that will be used in the well. This should be done well before each string is cemented to give
adequate time for any necessary adjustments.

API Spec 10 gives procedures for testing oilwell cements. It includes schedules for applying pressure and
temperature to slurries being tested for pumping time, based on a maximum circulating temperature
derived from formation bottomhole temperature (BHT) . These schedules are also shown in cement
company handbooks. Strength development is determined under BHT conditions. The BHT is usually
obtained from maximum-recording thermometers run with electric logs. The temperature from comparable
wells, if possible, should be determined and provided to the cement laboratory. Otherwise, the bottomhole
temperature may be provided by area temperature charts. The estimated temperature should be listed in
the well plan. Should logging indicate a significant change from estimated temperature, it may be
necessary to rerun the tests, even at the expense of delay.

Slurries should be designed to provide rheological properties that allow turbulence. The advantages of
placing slurries in turbulent flow are discussed later in the manual.

Field Mixing

Unless slurries are mixed in the field at the same water/cement ratio as the laboratory tests, the pumping
time will be altered and free water may occur. Cement density measurements are usually taken just
downstream of the hopper during mixing. As a result, the cement often contains considerable air, even if
defoamers are used. If air-cut cement is mixed to the specified density, the slurry at downhole conditions
will have excessive density and possibly shorter pumping time.

Density should be checked continuously when cement is mixed on the fly, and mixed carefully to required
density when batch-mixed. Pressurized cement balances that measure the density of air-cut cement
should always be specified and used. Also, densiometers can be provided that give a continuous record
of slurry density and better control of mixing. These, too, should be specified.

Cement blending is not a precise science. When offshore bins filled with blended cements are tested,
there may be considerable variation in pumping time between blends. For this reason, it is advisable to
specify testing of blended mixtures in the field prior to critical jobs. Batch mixing should be specified
whenever practical, as it affords better control and consistency of slurry component concentrations.

Dry samples of blended cement should be taken in the first, middle, and last stages of the cement job. If
difficulties are encountered during the job, these samples should be laboratory tested using the field
water. Wet samples are often taken and observed for set, but the setting time during such tests is likely to
be different from downhole set time. The Procedures section of the well plan should specify the
equipment to be used, the mix water requirement, the spacer, and the sample-catching method.

Placement

The greatest difficulty in cementing is the adequate displacement of mud and mud cake by cement. Many
slurry compositions are adequate if adequately placed. The following are well-known significant factors in
mud removal:
 • Borehole Specs A gauge hole is desirable;
• Contact Time Sufficient cement should be pumped across the critical formation to adequately
flush the interval. (A minimum of 10 minutes is suggested.);
• Centralization All holes wander enough so that pipe is against the side of the hole for most of its
length. Cement cannot be placed behind pipe in such conditions;
• Pipe Movement This helps break up gels and creates some lateral movement that helps cement
flow behind pipe;
• Wipers or Scratchers These help remove mud in washouts even though they may not touch the
wall;
• Low-Viscosity Spacers These dilute the mud, making it easier to remove, and establish a
favorable mobility ratio with the cement, thus improving displacement;
• Turbulent Flow Turbulence displaces mud much more effectively than plug or laminar flow.
Excessive pressures and flow rates are not required when the slurry is thinned;
• Density The density of the slurry should be 1 to 2 ppg heavier than the mud whenever practical.
Density difference aids mud displacement;
• Mill Varnish Removal of mill varnish increases cement bonding to pipe.

The Cementing section of the well plan should include provision for the above, excepting Item 1, which is
affected by the mud and hydraulics programs.

Other Considerations

The following are additional considerations that should be included in the Cementing sect ion of the well
plan.

Centralizers: These should always meet or exceed APT specifications. In vertical holes, casing can be
centralized adequately with 90-ft spacing. In directional holes, spacing should be calculated based on
angle, pipe weight, and centralizer strength. Centralizers should be placed over collars or stop rings so
that they are "pulled" into the hole. Closer spacing is needed on the bottom joints.

Wipers or Scratchers: These should be spaced (often at 15 ft) and pipe movement specified to overlap
wiper or scratcher travel from bottom through productive intervals. Rotating scratchers or wipers should
be continuous across producing intervals.

Pipe Movement: Pipe movement should begin during circulation and continue until the plug bumps. Plugs
should be dropped without stopping pipe movement. When cement reaches the shoe, pipe should be
lowered to bottom to flush out mud, and then pipe movement continued above. Rotation produces more
cleaning than reciprocation, but is more limited in depth of use.

Allowable Pull: A safe allowable pull should be specified in the Casing Design and Drilling Procedures
sections of the well plan. Casing is more likely to be reciprocated if this guide is used, particularly in
directional holes.

Plugs: Two plugs should be used, because one plug behind cement picks up excessive mud film and
forces it into the cement. Plugs should always be placed in cement, not in spacers. The front plug should
be inserted after the spacer. When the top plug is ready to be dropped, the lines should be broken at the
cementing head and flushed, then the spacer pumped behind the plug.

Accurate displacement of the top plug is essential. Even small amounts of over-displacement harm
cement jobs. Therefore, displacement should be measured from cement tanks to avoid over-
displacement in case a plug fails or is inadvertently left in the cementing head. Over-displacement volume
should be limited to a maximum of one or two barrels over calculated value, depending on casing size.
Displacement should be measured using measuring tanks on the cementing unit rather than barrel
counters or pump strokes.

Float Shoes and Collars: Two check valves are often run, as one might fail. With occasional filling of pipe
being run, float equipment failure can cause a blowout as annular fluid level drops due to U-tubing into
the partially filled casing. The float collar should always be at least one joint above the shoe in order to
prevent cement contaminated by mud film from circulating into the annulus. Epoxy cementing of collars
and bottom joints should be specified in the Drilling Procedures section of the well plan.
Waiting on Cement: Time for cement to set is usually short as far as adequate support of pipe is
concerned. However, slurries retarded for use in deep, high-temperature wells and circulated up the hole
may have extended setting times. In these circumstances the cement company should be consulted and
simulated tests run if needed.

Liners: Cement should be circulated well above liner tops (300 to 500 ft) to provide adequate flush, and
left to be drilled out, rather than reversed out. Cementing at an excessive rate is a common mistake,
causing excessive annular pressure and loss of circulation. A suitable rate should be specified in the well
plan.

Evaluation

In routine jobs, the cement height is often not determined. But where circulation is lost, and in deep wells,
either a temperature log or bond log (CBL) should be run to determine cement height. Bond logs are
controversial, but can be of value in determining the adequacy of a cement job. These are necessary in
unusual conditions and in critical wells.

The Drilling Procedures and Logging Program should list the surveys. Block squeezing of producing
intervals is normally not necessary when the interval is reasonably near bottom, unless the bond log so
indicates. However, contamination of cement placed uphole may require squeezing, and the bond log is
the only tool available for evaluation.

Gas flow in the cemented annulus can be detected by noise logs, which should be run if this problem is
suspected.

Annular Gas Flow

Tinsley, et al.(1979) and Cooke (1982) have shown that cement hydrostatic pressure tends to drop to
formation fluid pressure when initial set begins. This can result in flow through the cement to the surface
with surface strings, flow at liner tops, or interzonal flow through cement. These flows seem to be
relatively small, but troublesome. Various solutions have been suggested, including holding pressure and
pumping into the annulus during set.

Much research has been done recently regarding annular gas flow. Cementing companies have
recommended solutions as diverse as thixotropic cements, and cements blended with aluminum powder.
The aluminum powder reacts with the cement to generate small quantities of hydrogen gas, which
maintains pressure in the cement column until the cement sets completely. There is not any clearly
effective, direct solution, and such situations require special study

Bit Program

Bit Program
Designing a bit program involves much more than simply selecting a bit type. The objective is to employ a
bit program and associated drilling practices that will minimize drilling cost per foot. The various bit
company catalogues and manuals illustrate the large variety of bit types available, but admit that selecting
the best bit to match the formation involves some trial and error. The well planner needs to be thoroughly
familiar with such manuals, and with the proper application of rock bits and other bit types, as well as
alternate drilling techniques.

The principal choices of bit type are:

Roller Cone Bits

- Mill tooth (commonly called "rock" bits)

- Tungsten carbide insert (commonly called "button" bits)

 Variations

- Standard or extended jet nozzles

- Soft to hard formation designs

- Roller or journal bearings

- Gauge protection

- Small to large diameters

Fixed Cutter Bits

- Polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC)

- Thermally stable PDC (TSP)

- Natural diamond

Variations

- Soft to hard formation designs

- Parabolic, cone, or step bit crown profiles

- Nozzle, radial flow, or feeder/collector hydraulic flow patterns

- Gauge protection

- Small to large diameters

- Angle, shape, size, and density of cutters

- Steel body or tungsten carbide matrix body

- Hybrid combinations of cutter types

- Size and number of Junk slots

All of these have design variations for use with downhole motors,

There are variations in both mill-tooth and tungsten carbide insert bit design for soft to hard formation
types. The softest formations, particularly where bit balling is a problem, are usually drilled best with mill-
toothed bits. Generally, these provide faster drilling rate and shorter tooth life than tungsten carbide insert
designs for comparable hardness.

Rock-bit life may be limited by tooth wear, bearing wear, or loss of gauge protection, all of which are
affected not only by the type of formation drilled, but also by the drilling fluid used, hydraulics, and drilling
mechanics. Even the most appropriate bit for a formation can give poor results if these factors are not
handled properly. A bit designed for softer formations almost always drills a given formation faster than
would a bit designed for harder formations, The same bit type in a smaller size has smaller bearings and
teeth, and consequently less penetration rate with the same drilling mechanics, and also has a shorter
bearing life.

Sealed journal bearing bits tend to have a limitation on the maximum combination of weight (W) and
rotary speed (N) that can be run and still afford satisfactory bearing life. Bit manufacturers publish
recommended ranges of weight and rotary speed for each bit type in their catalogues. Except for cases
where tooth penetration is so great that the cones ride on the formation (and this can be helped by
hydraulics), higher bit weights and rotary speeds result in faster drilling. Consequently, if there are no
other limitations, maximum WN values ( weight multiplied by rotary speed ) usually provide the most
economical bit runs.

Even so, relative emphasis should be placed on higher rotary speed in soft formations and higher bit
weight in hard formations. High rotary speeds accelerate tooth and bearing wear in harder formations and
create vibrations leading to drillstring and bit failure. High bit weights tend to cause bit balling in soft
formations..

PDC Bits: Compared to roller cone bits, PDC bits employ low weight-on-bit and high rotary speed. These
bits may be limited in shallow drilling by bit balling (controllable to some extent by high hydraulics) and in
harder formations by the effects of heat generated on the diamond cutter. Thermally stable PDC bits
provide much better performance in this area.

PDC bits cost more than rock bits, particularly in large sizes (10-5/8 in. or larger) . The higher cost can be
offset, however, by higher penetration rates and longer bit life.

Bit Selection: There is a strong tendency among field personnel to simplify the problem of bit selection
based on hours run or footage made, but this often provides wrong answers. Bits are run for effective
drilling, not to be conserved.

On exploratory wells there may be no offset bit records on which to base selection, but there are often
records of wells drilling the same formation some distance away. Usually there are one or more bit
records that can be studied and used judiciously.

The first step in bit comparison is to calculate the cost per foot for bits run in offset wells. These values
are then plotted against depth ( Figure 1 ) . Sometimes the depths need to be adjusted to make
comparisons on the basis of formation tops or measured depth, but this gives a far clearer indication of
cost effectiveness than can be obtained by simple examination of bit records.
 Figure 1

Notably, one of two bit runs in offset wells may be cheaper than the other, but the comparison can be
reversed if the runs are started at different depths or the rig rate is changed equally for both rigs.

The tool on which comparisons of effectiveness should be based is the cost-per-foot for a bit run formula,
which we may express as follows:

[ C/ D ] = [ Cbit + Crig ( t + T ) ] / D
Where: C/ D = cost per foot t = trip time, hours

Cbit = bit cost T = rotating time, hours

Crig = equivalent hourly rig cost D = footage drilled

The principal applications of the cost-per-foot calculation are to (1) determine the cost per foot at intervals
during a bit run, and (2) to make economic comparisons of bit runs or drilling techniques. The application
relates principally to mill-tooth bits, whose drilling rate slows (and cost per foot increases) as their teeth
become dull, indicating that the bit should be pulled. The second application allows comparison of
subsequent bit run costs, offset well bit run comparison; and if suitable input is made, can compare such
variations as using a downhole motor, air or mist drilling, etc.

In plotting comparisons ( Figure 1 ), it is best to use the equivalent hourly rig rate for the well to be drilled
rather than for the rig actually used. The trip time factor should also be that anticipated for the well to be
drilled. Otherwise, the comparison may be distorted or even reversed.
Even after calculation and plotting, selecting the bit and rotary practices is a matter of judgment selection
based on low cost-per-foot could actually result in an expensive bit run if the bit gauge wears out and the
hole must be reamed. High costs might also result from pulling a "green" bit, poor hydraulics practices,
using excessive mud weight, or maintaining too low a bit weight or rotary speed.

Presentation: The bit program should list the bits to be run, the expected intervals of use, approximate
weight and rpm, and discuss any appropriate special considerations.

Hydraulics Program

Hydraulics
The hydraulics program should provide for:

• minimum annular velocities and flow rates;

• maximum annular velocities and flow rates;

• jet bit and other bit hydraulics design;

• minimum pump and pump output horsepower.

The objectives are to ensure adequate hole cleaning., minimize hole enlargement in some instances.,
ensure maximum drilling rate as related to hydraulics., and specify minimum pump horsepower.

Annular Velocity and Flow Rate

Hole cleaning is affected by a number of interdependent factors. These are drilling rate, bit size, pipe size,
mud effective viscosity and density, circulating rate, annular velocity, flow regime., hole enlargement.,
sloughing rate., pipe rotation., cuttings and sloughings shape, mud type, and balling tendency. No
expressions combining all these factors are available, although some semiquantitative expressions or
estimates have been published.

Reasonably., the annular velocity should be as high in large diameter holes as it is in more common-sized
holes, but this is seldom seen because available rig pumps do not have this capability. The lower annular
velocities in larger holes are acceptable because of at least three effects. When drilling with water in hard
rock., bit cuttings tend to break easily into fines and are more readily removed. Also., drill rate tends to be
slow, so removal rates can be low. With drilling with mud, the low shear rates in large holes result in high
effective viscosities that compensate for lower annular velocities. In soft rock, where drilling rates in large
diameter holes are fast, the cuttings tend to disperse and make fine particles that are easily removed.
Even so, drilling rates can be too fast, resulting in burying the bit and/or balling. In some instances
maximum drilling rates may need to be specified.

One commonly stated axiom is that cuttings volume should not exceed 5% of mud volume. Undoubtedly,
a mass of cuttings can accumulate., often in washouts where annular velocity is greatly reduced., and this
can fall back when pumping stops for a connection. However, calculating slip velocity as a basis for
setting minimum annular velocity is a very uncertain procedure. In laminar flow (Williams and Bruce,
1951), flat particles are subject to random turning and sliding downhole., but are better removed when
pipe is rotated. More-rounded particles ride the center of the flow profile and can rise faster than the
average flow rate. All this makes calculation of the cuttings removal rate very uncertain, hence the rule
that flow rates maintain less than 5% cuttings.

As a practical matter, minimum circulating rates are usually selected based on area experience for the
hole and pipe sizes under consideration. If fill on trips occurs or circulation tends to be restricted after
connections, adjustments can be made in viscosity to improve hole cleaning. Density is sometimes
increased to stop sloughing. When drilling with water or low-viscosity muds, pills or sweeps of high
viscosity are sometimes used. If these procedures are anticipated, appropriate comments should be
made in the Hole Problems and Mud Program sections of the well plan.
In special cases provisions may be necessary to ensure adequate hole cleaning in enlarged sections
above liner tops or in risers.

The following are suggested minimum velocity guidelines:

Bit size (in.) DP OD (in.) gpm fpm

4-3/4 2-7/8 100 170
6 3-1/2 150 150
8-1/2 4-1/2 250 120
9-7/8 4-1/2 - 5 350 - 330 110
12-1/4 4-1/2 - 5 530 - 510 100
15 4-1/2 - 5 585 - 570 70
17-1/2 4-1/2 - 5 700 - 690 60

These may vary considerably, depending on specific conditions., and local practice should be checked
before setting the minimum velocity and flow rate. Except in the lower part of the hole., circulation is
usually at rates considerably above minimum. If unusual conditions exist, these should be stated in the
well plan.

Larger hole sizes often require two large pumps to provide minimum annular velocity.

Maximum flow rate is usually the maximum flow rate of the pump., unless hole erosion is a consideration.

At any level of pump pressure on which a jet-bit program is based, pumping at less than the maximum
rate (or, when the bit is deep enough., reducing the rate below the optimum rate) reduces bit hydraulics
and sacrifices drilling rate. Therefore, flow rates should not drop below those inherent in a properly
designed jet-bit program unless there is an overriding reason.

One such reason is hole erosion. In this case., maximum rates should be established and stated in the
well plan. In order to avoid turbulent flow around drill collars or drillpipe, annular velocities are sometimes
limited to less than critical velocity., calculated from a Reynolds number of 2000.

Borehole erosion due to excessive annular velocity is largely self-correcting. Small enlargements rapidly
reduce annular velocity and there is a concurrent increase in effective viscosity that also reduces
Reynolds number. Except in instances where excessive flow rates are known to cause a problem,
maximum flow rates should be specified as indicated by jet-bit program design.

Jet-Bit Hydraulics Program

The hydraulics program must be designed with due regard to hole cleaning, mud-density requirements,
hole geometry, drillstring sizes., and pumps to be used.

Industry opinion is divided as to whether jet-bit programs should be designed to provide maximum bit
hydraulic horsepower or impact force. Optimum flow rates can be reduced by 25 to 30% at a given
standpipe pressure by designing programs for maximum hydraulic horsepower rather than jet impact
force. This results in decreased pump input horsepower requirement and decreased fuel consumption.

With either criterion., the most significant factor is that hydraulic energy is transmitted to the bit with less
loss at high pressure. Therefore, the pump liner to be used is the smallest (with the highest pressure
rating) that will provide minimum annular velocity. To improve the life of pump parts, programs are
generally designed and run at less-than-rated liner pressure.

However, a small reduction in surface pressure results in a much larger reduction in bit hydraulic
horsepower or impact force.
Demonstrably, increasing bit hydraulic horsepower or impact force increases drilling rate at constant bit
weight. Often, increased bit hydraulics allows a higher maximum effective bit weight, which can further
increase drilling rate. These effects lessen in hard rock, but are still present. The objective for the well
plan is to specify a jet-bit program that ensures maximum drilling rate.

If rig equipment, mud-density requirements, and pump efficiency are accurately known, then a workable
jet-bit program can be planned. However, the mud density is only approximately known and subject to
unexpected variations. Actual pump efficiency varies from estimated values, and the use of viscosity-
building and filtration-control polymers often varies the friction loss of muds so as to change the apparent
pump efficiency. The drillstring design is subject to variation, and the exact pump liner size is not known
until the rig has been selected.

Thus, a detailed hydraulics program planned for a well has to be modified as the well is drilled, and can
be only approximate and illustrative. Where computer, calculator, or offset well programs are available.,
an illustrative program is sometimes worth including in the well plan, but is not mandatory.

The rules for designing jet-bit programs for maximum bit hydraulic horsepower or impact force (Kendall
and Goins, 1960) can be applied to field data to determine the next bit nozzles. This avoids the
unanticipated variations inherent in a completely preplanned program. Hydraulics programs should be
based on maximum practical surface pressure, and allow for any anticipated mud density increase during
the bit run. A procedure (Coins and Flak, 1984), based on the graphical technique used by Hughes Tool
Company in their Practical Hydraulics text, provides for increases in pump pressure and/or mud density.

Design procedures must recognize minimum annular velocity limitations and maximum flow rate of the
pump liner used. When maximum annular velocity is selected to avoid excessive hole erosion, the
maximum flow rate must be recognized. With these considerations in mind, the following items should be
specified in the well plan for each hole size:

• minimum annular velocity and flow rate;

• use of smallest liner that will provide minimum annular velocity;

• maximum flow rate—either maximum pump rate or maximum flow rate based on limiting hole
erosion;

• nozzle selection for next bit run based on field data using calculation or graphical techniques
allowing an increase in pump pressure and/or mud density.

Hydraulic program design for PDC bits appears to be best done as for toothed jet bits. However.,
minimum flow-rate restrictions may be based on bit cooling rather than hole cleaning. The minimum flow
rate is often specified by the bit manufacturer.

Pump Horsepower

Pump requirements should be based on maintaining minimum annular velocity at a preselected,

maximum surface pressure. Horsepower requirements are high in large holes and decrease as hole size
decreases. Horsepower requirements also decrease with depth in a given hole size.

Figure 1 illustrates how pump horsepower requirements vary with hole size and drillpipe size at selected
surface pressure.
 Figure 1

This illustration is based on 120 ft/min minimum annular velocity. Note that pump horsepower to provide
maximum impact force or bit horsepower decreases with depth. Horsepower requirement is obtained by
calculating flow rate to provide minimum annular velocity in the hole and drillpipe annulus., and
multiplying by surface pressure divided by the appropriate constant; i.e., PHP = Q(gpm) X P(psi)/1714.

This must be done in the larger hole sizes using minimum annular velocities selected. The highest
horsepower requirement should be increased assuming 90% hydraulic efficiency. Also, it is necessary to
specify minimum mechanical horsepower input assuming 85% mechanical efficiency. In many cases, rigs
cannot provide enough horsepower to run pumps at rated values. Horsepower requirements should be
specified in the Rig Requirements section of the well plan.

Hole Deviation in Non-Directional Wells

Hole Deviation

Unintentional hole deviation often results in a variety of serious (and occasionally disastrous) problems.
Deviation is measured and expressed in degrees. In "vertical" hole sections, it is usually measured with
either a plumb bob or gyroscopic instrument. Instruments can be run on slickline or dropped inside the
drillstring. Except at deviation angles above 45° F, absolute deviation rarely causes problems of any
consequence. Rather, it is rate of change of angle, known as dogleg severity (expressed as degrees
change per hundred feet of hole), that causes problems. In shallow wells deviation is usually measured
assuming direction does not change, but as depth increases, directional measurements are generally
included. This is helpful both for maintaining a fix on the position of the hole in case of a blowout, and to
obtain a more accurate measurement of dogleg severity.

Dogleg severity is the direct cause of a number of well problems. These include drillpipe and casing wear,
drillpipe fatigue, rod and tubing wear, key seats, high drillstring drag and torque, failure to get logs and
casing to bottom, excessive loads on casing, and other problems related to or resulting from those listed
here. In general, shallower doglegs cause more severe problems due to greater tension in the drillstring.
Casing wear can result in failures which, in turn, lead to either lost circulation or blowouts.

Little is known about precisely which rock characteristics cause holes to deviate. It is known, however,
that deviation generally becomes harder to control as rocks become harder. This is due to the nature of
the rocks and the necessity for applying higher bit weights for penetration. Several authors (e.g., Milheim
l979) have described the effects of added bit weight on deviation.

Experience in many areas shows that deviation problems are much more severe in some intervals that
others. Problems in a particular interval may extend basinwide., or may be more localized. Problems are
often related to geologic structure., hole size., and bottomhole drilling assembly clearances.

In soft to medium-hard rocks, deviation is often the result of sidewise rather than frontal drilling by the bit.
Changes in rock strength., erosion of the borehole wall., and perhaps other effects tend to cause rather
abrupt changes in hole deviation. These changes may or may not be observed on deviation surveys., but
they often result in an effective hole diameter considerably less than bit size. Degree of offset and
consequent reduction in effective hole diameter is dependent upon the relation of drill collar or stabilizer
size to bit size (Qilaon., 1976) .

The need to bottom a well at a fixed location varies considerably. Lease boundaries or geologic
considerations sometimes necessitate restriction of hole deviation. At other times., wells could be allowed
to drift almost without limit. Since restrictions of deviation almost universally increase well cost., the
maximum practical limits should be allowed. When deviation is severe and the direction of drift is
predictable., it is often economically desirable to displace the surface location to such a point that normal
drift will place the bottomhole at the desired location.

The large majority of wells tend to drift updip. In harder rocks., the tendency exceeds 95%. It is always
desirable to plan deviation limitations to allow the maximum tolerable displacement. If the dip direction is
known., deviation limitations can be relaxed or tightened accordingly to allow maximum penetration rates.

From a well-operation point of view., hole displacement in itself is of little consequence. Restrictions are
required because of dogleg severity and hole angle.

Dogleg severity is the primary concern among deviation problems. For the reasons mentioned above.,
limits must be enforced to prevent severe problems. Much work has been done to establish maximum
allowable dogleg severity (Lubinski, 1960; Williamson., 1981) and as long as recommended limits are
observed, few problems occur.

Hole angle becomes important at higher values primarily for three reasons. First, as the lateral
component of drillstring load increases., the likelihood of wall sticking increases. Second., carrying
capacity of drilling fluid is decreased., allowing accumulation of cuttings in the borehole. Third., as the
lateral component of drillstring load increases., both rotating torques and longitudinal drag are increased
due to friction. The solution to all of these problems involves special attention to drilling fluids., hydraulics
design., and drillstring design.

Hole deviation and dogleg severity are controlled by bottomhole assembly configuration and drilling rate
parameters, or by directional drilling methods. The ideal condition for deviation control would be to run an
infinitely stiff bottomhole assembly with zero clearance to the well bore. Since that condition is
unattainable., the practical solution is to run the maximum-fishable-diameter drill collars to get maximum
stiffness., and to run the minimum number of stabilizers that will keep deviation within tolerable limits
while drilling at an acceptable penetration rate.

Bottomhole assembly selection is largely empirical. The relative ability of various assemblies to build.,
hold., or drop angle has been fairly well established (Milheim., l979) . However., the selection of the
assembly for use in a particular well must still be based on experience. Records from similar wells,
whether offsets or merely in a similar basin., often provide the best guide for selection of bottomhole
assemblies.

The well plan should include the following items concerning deviation control:
 • a description of any anticipated problems;
• the bottomhole assemblies to be used;
• the method and frequency of surveys;
• the limits of hole angle as a function of depth, if applicable;
• a stipulation that doglegs above 3 degrees/100 ft be wiped out with string reamers.

In many instances, modern directional drilling techniques have replaced traditional methods of deviation
control. Depending on the potential for deviation-related problems and the importance of maintaining a
specified well trajectory, such equipment as downhole motors may be used even in "straight hole"
applications.

Logging, Corring and Testing

Logging

The drilling engineer can use several controls to maximize openhole log accuracy. The main control often
is the mud program. Severe hole washout can ruin log quality. If this is a regional problem, the drilling
engineer can specify a more inhibitive mud system to reduce hole erosion. If turbulent flow is causing
hole enlargement in the region, then the hydraulics program can address the problem. The logging tools
most affected by hole enlargement (in order of effect) are dipmeter, microlog, BHC sonic, neutron
porosity, density porosity, and resistivity/ induction logs.

Excessive filtration into a producing zone can make fluid content evaluation from resistivity logs very
difficult. The log analyst should provide the drilling engineer with the depths of possible production zones
and practical fluid-loss limits.

Coring

The drilling engineer should be provided a coring program for well planning and cost estimation. Coring
operations are expensive and time-consuming. Failure to include coring costs in an estimate could result
in cost over runs.

Coring costs can be reduced if the drilling engineer is given some warning while preparing the well plan.
PDC core heads can be used to core at substantially higher rates than natural diamond core heads in the
right application. PDC core heads also reduce core barrel jamming, which allows much longer (90- to l20-
ft) core barrels to be used.

Many times the drilling engineer is not informed of the need for core preservation and quick evaluation by
the coring program initiators. If a representative core is required., the engineer should be instructed in
pressure coring and "native state" coring techniques.

The sidewall coring (SWC) program should also be transmitted to the drilling engineer. The practicality of
SWC on an intermediate log run should be evaluated carefully. If drilling is to proceed., the SWC barrels
left in the hole will need to be fished out at additional cost. Again, the well plan should reflect the need for
proper core preservation and quick evaluation.

Testing

A properly run and interpreted drillstem test (DST) probably yields more valuable information for its cost
than any other evaluation tool. A DST can be defined as a temporary well completion in open or cased
hole, which is designed to sample formation fluid and establish the probability of commercial production.
Open hole DSTs are typically run in hard-rock areas., such as the Permian Basin of West Texas and in
the midcontinental region of the United States.

The drilling engineer must be given every possible detail of the proposed DST when planning the well and
estimating costs. Area knowledge may indicate that running a DST is impractical, or may suggest a
particular DST technique to gain the most information. A well-run DST yields information about reservoir
fluid composition, static reservoir pressure, and productivity. Transient pressure evaluation of recorded
pressures yields information about flow capacity (KH product) and skin effect. This information can then
be used by the drilling, completion, and reservoir engineers to determine the prospect commerciality, fluid
composition., required tubing size, perforation density, and reservoir characteristics. Additionally., this
information aids in the planning of effective well treatments and the development of a comprehensive
production testing program after pipe is set. The Drilling Procedures section of the well plan should fully
describe the DST procedure planned for the well. The reservoir engineering group should provide an on-
site engineer during the test to evaluate the test data.

The completion procedure should fully describe any required cased hole production tests. This
information should be summarized and included in the logging, coring, and testing section.

The completion procedure should accurately describe what would actually occur in the field. In this way,
the well is "tested on paper" prior to the actual job. Deficiencies in the procedure can then be recognized
and corrected.

If some basic assumptions can be made prior to drilling the well, the drilling/completion engineer can
make some preliminary calculations to better estimate the required length of the test and the required test
equipment capacity, and determine the best test technique.

The reservoir engineer, who depends on good, representative test data to make various evaluations,
should be on location during testing to act as a quality-control inspector of the test data. This should be
mentioned in the well plan.

Rig Design Consideration

Well Control and Blowout prevention

Well Control
Well control begins with the mud weight program and casing design. The blowout preventer (BOP) stack
and system must have a pressure rating equal to or greater than the casing-wellhead column. Most
companies have standard equipment layouts and well control procedures. Rig supervisors should be
familiar with these and trained in their use. These are extensive and it is not practical to include them in
their entirety in the well plan, but equipment requirements must be specified for bid purposes.

The well planner should be familiar with API RP 53 Recommended Practices for Blowout Prevention
Equipment Systems and API RP 59 Recommended Practices for Well Control Operations. Well control
school manuals also provide much essential information. Government regulations sometimes require
particular equipment and procedures; these must be checked when applicable. In the U.S. for example,
the most widely applicable of these are Minerals Management Service OCS Orders and Training
Requirements, which apply to all federal waters. In many respects, these are also excellent guides for
onshore practices.

Blowout Preventer Stack

There is sometimes confusion between the terms "test pressure" and "working pressure". Body test
pressure is equal to twice the working pressure, but is applied only on open valves. The working pressure
is the usable pressure, and including API ratings of 2000., 3000, 5000, 10000, and l5000 psi ( API
designations 2M, 3M, 5M, 10M, and 15M, respectively ). A variety of large-diameter annular preventers
are available for low-pressure diverter use. These are usually designated by maximum service
pressure—i.e., MSP 2000.

Diverter System: A diverter preventer is required on U.S. Outer Continental Shelf drive pipe, conductor
pipe, and shallow surface strings (low fracture gradient) where shutting in a kick might cause broaching to
the surface. A section of large-diameter casing, to which the preventer is attached, is used with two 10-in.
flowlines, 180 degrees apart, to direct mud flow and well fluids overboard in opposite directions.
Arrangements must be made so that the flowline can be opened simultaneously with closure of the
preventer. When a diverter system is used, a drawing should be included in the well plan.
BOP Stack A drawing of stack arrangement should also be provided in the well plan. This should show
preferred arrangements, number of preventers, drilling spools., and choke and kill line connections.

Often, only two ram preventers and one annular preventer are used with API 5M stacks. On higher-
pressure columns, three rams and an annular preventer are common. For example, the U.S. Minerals
Management Service requires one annular., one blind ram BOP, and two pipe ram BOPs for each
drillpipe size in use. This would require five ram preventers for tapered strings. Current rules allow use of
variable rams so that only one blind (or shear) ram, two pipe rams, (one for each pipe size) and a variable
ram can be used.

A variety of arrangements of stack components are possible. A discussion of the relative merits can be
found in Blowout Prevention (Goins and Sheffield, 1983) . For convenience and consistency, stack
designations should be as per API RP 53.

For example: 10M - 13-5/8 - RSRdA , indicates a 10,000-psi, 13 5/8-in. stack (in order from bottom up) of
ram, spool, double ram, and annular preventers.

The position of the blind rams in the stack should be stated. Use of a fill line connected to the bell nipple
should be required. There should be room between pipe rams for tool joints., should stripping be required.
It is common to use a lesser rating for the annular preventer—i.e., API 5M annular and 10M rams.

Rotating heads are used when drilling underbalanced, and should be considered in some applications
with oil muds to prevent unexpected surging of mud to the floor when circulating out undetected kicks.
These can occur in oil muds, since gas dissolves in the oil phase at downhole conditions. When the gas
nears surface, where pressures are low, it comes out of solution and expands rapidly.

Accessory Equipment

Accumulator: Companies have various specifications for the minimum accumulator volume, but a widely
used one is 1.5 times the sufficient fluid volume at 3000 psi to close all preventers and have 1200 psi
remaining. In the U.S., the Mineral Management Service requires this same volume with 200 psi
remaining above precharge pressure. Canada specifies twice the volume required to open and close all
preventers. Generally., subsea stacks require greater volumes., and requirement varies with water depth.

Nitrogen precharge should be tested upon initial installation of BOP stack. Control handles should be left
in "open" or "close" positions. There should be adequate electric charging pumps, as well as alternate
charging pumps powered by air or nitrogen bottles, for back up in case electric power must be shut down.
Recharging time is usually 15 minutes.

Choke Line and Manifold: Pressure rating should be compatible with the stack rating. High-pressure
manifolds should be double-valved ahead of chokes. Only adjustable chokes should be used., and one
should be a remotely controlled hydraulically operated choke with a compatible pressure rating. The
choke line should be of nominal 4 inch diameter with two valves next to the stack., the second being
hydraulically controlled with manual override. A heavy-duty header, with buffers to receive choke
discharge, should be used., and valves between the chokes and the header should be specified so that
choke repairs can be made when handling a kick. There should be a straight-through relief line for
emergency use or to separate and discharge undesired fluids. The manifold should discharge into a
mud/gas separator and have a connector to allow flushing of the manifold and the separator with water.

Slugging Tank: Effective monitoring of hole-filling requires an efficient slugging tank or compartment in
the suction tank. This also doubles as a pill tank. A minimum 50-barrel capacity should be specified.

Trip Tank: Trip tanks are essential for all but low-pressure wells for accurate hole filling. They should be
constructed so that at least 4 inches of level change occurs per stand of 5 inch drillpipe. The change
should be clearly indicated at a point visible to the driller. Continuous-fill types are most desirable for
critical wells. A guided float with wire and pulleys to a plumb bob in front of the driller is a good indicating
system. A scale graduated in barrels and stands should be behind the plumb bob.

Mud/Gas Separator: Inadequate and unsafe mud/gas separators exist on the majority of rigs. During
kicks, these allow gas discharge at the shale shaker and waste mud from blow at the pits or surges
 3
through the gas line. Minimum requirements for 5000, 10000, and l5000 psi systems are cu ft of volume (
8 lineal ft of 30-inch diameter casing) with heavy-duty 4-inch lines from header to separator. A 4-inch
(minimum) gas line is required, and should extend to the top of the derrick offshore (or 150 ft from the rig
on land) and be suitably staked. A 10-inch mud return line to the shaker with a "U" tube seal in the bottom
of the vessel should be specified.

Monitoring Equipment: A mud-logging unit, with CRT display on the rig floor and in the rig office, is an
essential safety feature for deep, high-pressure wells.

Integrated pit level indicators and mud flow indicators with pump stroke counters should be specified.
Recorders should be mounted in a position clearly visible to the driller.

Other Items: Other essential safety items that should be specified include:

• upper and lower kelly cocks;

• a safety valve to fit the drillpipe and collars;
• an inside blowout preventer;
• a lubricator with dog knot; for l5M stacks a flanged lubricator should be specified;
• wear bushings.

Procedures

Test Procedures: When standardized stacks and manifolds are used., a color-coded drawing showing
step-by-step tests is helpful. If a drawing is not available, a detailed description should be developed.
Tests should be at 200 to 300 psi, and at working pressure of the stack and manifold. Sometimes lesser
pressures are used if casing and casing spools have ratings less than the BOP. Annular preventers
should normally be tested to 70% of working pressure. U.S. Minerals Management Orders require that
the BOP stack and manifold should be tested with water when installed, before drilling out, weekly., and if
a pressure seal is disturbed. The BOPs should be functionally tested each trip, using a remote unit
alternately. Casing should be tested before drilling out the shoe. MMS specifies casing test pressures for
wells in federal waters.

Pit Drills: Pit drills are essential for training the crews to be constantly alert. Drills should include raising
the float in the pits while drilling and the recording of reaction time. This should be done once per tour
while drilling. Trip drills should also be specified at appropriate times with the drills going to complete
closure.

Trips: Hole filling should be specified for every five stands of drillpipe, three stands of heavyweight
drillpipe, and each stand of drill collars. If a crossover sub is necessary for the safety valve to engage drill
collars, then it should be made up when collars are reached and removed when collars are buried. Safety
valves should be used, rather than the inside BOP, to keep the flow from the drillpipe.

Pore-Pressure Monitoring: On all deep wells with transition zones, mud logging units are needed for pore-
pressure detection purposes. Either corrected d-exponent or comparable techniques should be used,
along with gas readings, cuttings observation, and shale densities. Mud loggers should be instructed to
notify the driller and drilling supervisor immediately if increased mud weight is required.

Barite: A good practice required by the U.S. Minerals Management Service is that sufficient barite be
readily available to increase the weight of the active mud system by 1 ppg. Drilling must cease in U.S.
federal waters if sufficient barite is not on hand.

Casing Shoe Tests: Leakoff tests should be run after drilling 49 ft (15 m) below the casing shoe. Tests
should be to leakoff or to 0.5 ppg above the expected mud-density requirement. If the shoe does not test,
it should be squeezed and retested.

Kick Control Procedures: For uniformity of training and practice., a standard Well Control Worksheet
should be selected. One of the worksheets from API RP 59 is recommended., since these are normally
used in well control schools. The worksheet chosen should reflect management policy regarding close-in
procedure., including whether hard or soft close-in is to be used, whether fracturing pressure is to be
observed on initial closure, and the preferred constant bottomhole pressure method or methods of
circulating out the kick--i.e., driller's, wait and weight, or concurrent. The wait and weight method is the
most widely used. Because of its inherent ability to provide the lowest casing seat pressure, it is the
preferred method with subsea stacks where fracture gradients are naturally lower than on land.

Rig Specification

Rig Specifications
Rig specifications are intended to ensure that the rig obtained is satisfactory for the well being drilled.
Minimum requirements evolve from the requirements developed in the well plan. The rig specifications
are the basis for the contract bid request, and provide a "common ground" for evaluating bids. Most
contractors provide minimal descriptions of their rigs, but a full list of equipment should be requested in
the bid.

Specifications and Rig Comparison

API Bulletin D10 "Procedure For Selecting Rotary Drilling Equipment" contains forms that can be helpful
in developing specifications and in obtaining a good description of rig capability. These are identified as
follows:

Drilling Plan Analysis (API Form D10A): This form summarizes rig requirements by hole/casing segments,
and is useful for preparing a list of minimum rig requirements. However, "Hydraulic Needs" as shown in
the list is only informational, and is contingent on drillstring dimensions and a selected minimum bit
hydraulic horsepower.

Rig Rating Check List (API Form D10B): This form summarizes Schedules A, B, C, and D from API
Bulletin D10 and can be used either to prepare minimum rig specifications for bids, or, like Schedules A,
B, C, and D, to compare rig bids by requesting bidders to complete the form and include it with their bids.

Capacity for Handling Casing or Drillpipe (API Form D10C Schedule A): This form is used to evaluate the
rig's capacity for handling tubulars. Hook load capacity of a rig is limited by the equipment item having the
least capacity.

Substructure Load-Supporting Capacity (API Form D10C Schedule B): This form should be considered
with Schedule A.

Hoisting and Braking Capabilities (API Form D10D Schedule C): This form should be considered with
Schedule A.

Mud Pump Performance Capability (API Form D10E Schedule D): This form indicates actual pump
deliverability based on field performance. Schedules C & D are completed by actual field performance
tests.

While these forms identify mechanical capabilities, it is still necessary to specify accessory items such as
camp facilities and mud storage.

Minimum Requirements: While it is obvious that the drilling rig should fit the well requirements, this
objective is not always adequately accomplished. The first step is to select the basic rig type:

• land rig;
• land rig-mobile;
• land rig helicopter;
• posted barge;
• platform;
• tender;
• jack-up;
• drill ship;
• semisubmersible.
The latter two may be anchored or self-positioning.

The location dictates the basic type to be used. A rig for a platform is basically a land rig with suitable
modifications. Adequate accessory equipment must be specified.

Sizing: The rig must be properly sized for the well in order to ensure maximum operating efficiency. Rigs
are usually rated on horsepower and depth of use based on a particular size of drillpipe. This is an
oversimplification at best, but serves as a starting basis for comparison. Figure 1 shows how widely rig
component capabilities can vary with rigs claimed to have the same depth capabilities.

Figure 1

This figure shows the spread of total horsepower, draw works, rotary, and pump horsepower, and
nominal derrick capacity of 12 Gulf Coast rigs rated for l2,000-ft drilling.

Undoubtedly, a lower-powered rig can bid at a lower price than a higher-powered rig. There is always a
compelling tendency to take the lower price, but if the lower-priced rig cannot meet specifications, it will
incur higher overall costs to the operator.

A rig that is too large for the job will incur a higher cost than necessary. One that is too small is cheaper
on a daily basis but may require excessive time to complete the job, and may lead to hole problems or
safety hazards.

Rig functions must be considered individually in order for the rig to be properly sized to the well. Rigs with
the same total horsepower but used in different locations distribute power differently to the various rig
functions. In hard-rock areas, where bit changes are more frequent, hoisting capacity is emphasized, and
rotary horsepower and hydraulic horsepower are less important. There are several reasons for this. The
greater hoisting capacity tends to minimize trip time during the frequent trips with heavy drill collar loads.
rotating speeds are lower in hard rock to prevent premature bit and drillstring failure. This results in lower
rotary horsepower requirements. Slower drilling rates require less pump horsepower for hole cleaning and
less bit hydraulics for bottom cleaning.
Requirements also change with depth. As drilling rates slow, hole sizes become smaller, and bit runs
shorter. All this tends to reduce rotary torque and pump horsepower requirements. Hoisting requirements
generally tend to increase with depth. These changing specifications require flexibility in rig horsepower
so that it can be adequately proportioned as needed. Rig depth capabilities can be extended by using
tapered drillstrings. In deep wells., easy, flexible control of power application to hoisting, rotating, and
pumping becomes critical.

The load-handling capability of the derrick, the substructure, the rotary, the hook, and the elevators is of
critical concern when heavy casing is run deep.

Large hole sizes require high hydraulic horsepower and large-diameter rotaries.

In high-pressure drilling, substructure height must be adequate for the tall blowout-preventer stacks.

Rig portability is crucial if the rig must be moved frequently or through difficult terrain, especially in areas
with truckload limitations.

The above concerns indicate the need to use rigs with functions designed to fit the type of well and the
geological conditions., and the well planner needs to specify requirements accordingly. API Form D10A is
helpful in this effort.

Performance: There is danger in specifying component capability without emphasis on actual

performance capability. The following considerations illustrate this issue.

The horsepower rating of the engines for prime power is usually at sea level, at a specified rpm, and with
a particular fuel, at intake of 60° F. This assumes perfect tuning and new condition. Actual use may be at
considerable elevation, engines may be governed to lower rpm, the fuel may be different, and the engines
may not be new. For satisfactory performance, manufacturer's recommended horsepower is often limited
to 90% of maximum for intermittent service, and at 80% for continuous service. The result is that output
may be as little as 60% of the manufacturers rating.

Usable horsepower is further reduced by chains, shafts, a torque converter, or compounds that transmit
the power.

At times, rig components may deliver actual horsepower that is much lower than that rated. This is often
due to an inadequately sized power source. A good discussion of these considerations., with examples of
performance calculations, is given by Kerr (1963) .

Accessories: As many accessory items as possible should be specified in advance. This is especially
practical if the well requires special equipment not normally owned by the contractor; otherwise., the
operator may need to rent supplementary equipment at additional cost.

The well plan should contain a list of any items to be rented. These may include special solids-control
equipment, a small drillpipe and handling tools, or small-diameter/high-pressure BOPs. These
requirements vary with location and well requirements.

Often a contractor is not prepared to run sufficient drill collars to provide maximum drilling rate, and will
agree to do so only if the operator agrees to pay rental. This can be avoided if the operator specifies the
diameters and weights of the collars required.

A common item of contention is the pump pressure that will be used. Generally., contractors use much
lower pressure than that specified by the liner rating, in order to save on pump parts. The operator can
avoid this by specifying in advance that pumps will be expected to operate at up to 90% of liner rating and
80% of rated hydraulic horsepower.

Similarly, engines should be expected to be run at up to 80% of rating on a continuous basis.

Procedures

Drilling and Completion

Drilling Procedure
The Drilling Procedure is a critical part of the well plan. It is the stepwise guide that the wellsite supervisor
must follow to implement the design of the drilling engineer. A detailed, comprehensive Drilling Procedure
section is indicative of a well-considered well plan.

Preparation of the Drilling Procedure is an extremely valuable training tool for inexperienced engineers.
Writing a detailed procedure, and then critiquing it, greatly expands an engineer's knowledge of drilling
operations. He or she can learn how to run an operation by writing these instructions and then being sent
out to implement them.

The most critical or unusual parts of the Drilling Procedure should get the most coverage. The procedure
should be written clearly and in detail. As wellsite supervisors proceed with the drilling, they should read
ahead in the procedure to anticipate the next steps. Each day, the originator of the procedure should also
review the past 24 hours' progress and determine whether the procedure provided sufficient information
and described the actual onsite activities.

Completion Procedure
Comments made relative to the Drilling Procedure apply to the Completion Procedure as well. Usually
this portion of the well plan is supplied by the completion engineers designing the completion scheme,
and it should include instructions for well testing.

If the completion is to be done with the drilling rig, the Completion Procedure should be included in the
well plan. If a completion rig is to be used, a separate Completion Plan should be provided when the
completion rig is moved on location. A separate Completion Plan would require preparation similar to that
for the well plan. This would include a precompletion meeting.

Drilling Time
An accurate estimate of drilling time is essential to accurate cost estimation. This should be a graph of
depth plotted against days. It should include not only drilling time, but logging, casing-running, cementing,
and nipple-up time.

A secondary use of this graph is as a target curve. It should be posted in the mess hall or in a protected
place on the rig floor, and the drillers should be encouraged to graph their tours’ progress. This helps to
get personnel interested in making hole and saving time.

Completion Time
As with an estimate of drilling time., an accurate estimate of completion time is essential to an accurate
cost estimate.

The estimate should be prepared by the completion engineer at the time the Completion Procedure is
written.

The completion time estimate is prepared by summing the time required for individual steps in the
completion procedure. This is used with the material and service costs of each step to prepare the final
completion cost estimate.
Support and Loggistics

Support
The Support section of the well plan provides information about location, personnel transportation, supply
ordering and shipment, communications, and supervisory personnel.

Supervision

A list should be included showing the names, office and night telephone numbers, and titles of the drilling
superintendent, drilling engineer, geologist, and materials coordinator responsible for the well. This list
could also include the appropriate numbers for drilling contractor personnel.

Vendors List

The well plan should include a vendors list of the companies furnishing supplies and services for the well.
This list should include the names of contacts as well as day and night telephone numbers.

Communications

The communications system for the rig should be described, and appropriate call numbers listed.

Transportation

Personnel transportation should be described, whether by automobile, helicopter, crew boat, or standby
boat. Supply transportation (e.g., by truck, supply boat., or snow sled) should be described. Appropriate
telephone numbers should be provided.

Location

For a land job, clear and accurate directions to the location should be given. If personnel are to be
transported by helicopter or boat, the boarding location should be provided. For offshore wells., the
supply boat(s) should be mentioned and radio call numbers included with the supervisor's list.

Emergencies

Emergency Procedures
Aside from safety and environmental considerations, there are necessary emergency procedures that
require consideration. These are not usually written specifically for a single well, but are developed by an
operator for an area of responsibility. These emergency procedures should be clearly described in the
well plan.

Rig evacuation procedures, hurricane procedures, and procedures in the event of a blowout are of critical
concern. These are briefly discussed here in the sense that they are an implied, if not a direct, part of a
well plan.

Hurricane

Hurricane procedures are divided into phases based on how imminent a hurricane might be. These are
the responsibility of that part of the company under which the rig operates, and they apply to all
activities—not just drilling. The phases should be adequately described so that evacuation is efficient.
Effective initiation of each phase is the responsibility of organization management. General descriptions
follow.

Phase I: This is an alert phase initiated whenever a hurricane or severe tropical disturbance develops that
could move into the area of operation. Appropriate actions include plotting a weather map., ensuring that
the personnel roster is current, and that supplies of tie-down material are adequate. All movable objects
not in use are secured or removed, and all communication equipment is checked. Deficiencies should be
corrected immediately.

Phase II: Phase II is effected whenever there is some probability that an existing hurricane or severe
tropical disturbance could move into the area of operations. Appropriate actions include a 24-hour radio
watch, a report of changes in weather to the supervising office., preparation of the hole for closing in the
well., preparations to set a mechanical plug (which is preferable) or a cement plug, an inspection of
equipment (including that used to drop chains and release floating drilling vessels), and maintenance of a
complete personnel roster including names, company affiliations., and titles.

Phase III: This involves securing of the rig and preparation for personnel evacuation. This phase is
commonly initiated when high winds (over 40 mph) and high seas (over 10 ft) are within 48 hours of the
rig. The rig should be secured, the pipe pulled into the casing, and the remainder laid down if possible. A
mechanical plug (which is preferable) or a cement plug should be set at the base of the casing, the
drillpipe should be suspended by a test plug, an inside BOP installed, and blind rams closed and locked.
Personnel should be moved from the rig to tenders, and tenders ordered to leave 24 hours ahead of high
wind. More than 24 hours may be necessary, depending on the distance to safe harbor. Surplus
personnel should be transported to shore.

Phase IV: This is an evacuation phase usually initiated when high winds or high seas are within 24 hours
of location. All personnel are evacuated.

Blowouts

A blowout is an uncontrolled flow of formation fluids from a well, either at the surface or underground. The
latter is an extensive subject in itself and procedures are contingent on individual circumstances. Little
preplanning is practical for underground blowouts.

Blowouts are relatively rare, unexpected, traumatic, and can be of a large variety. Few individuals
experience more than a limited number. In many instances, initial actions are chaotic and wasteful.
Sometimes an opportunity to save the well is lost due to lack of knowledge, preplanning, and immediate
effective action.

Most blowouts do not immediately catch fire. When fire can be prevented, much of the damage
associated with blowouts can be avoided.

Preplanning: Immediate action is a necessity. Therefore, an emergency action plan is needed.

An immediately activatable task force is essential. This should include means of around-the-clock
notification of participants and alternates. The tasks force should coordinate all activities. This requires
establishing a command post and a communications network.

An operational network to direct activities at the wellsite is also required. Necessary communications
equipment should be immediately available.

Task force subgroups should be organized and have carefully considered plans. Such subgroups should
include:

• rig-site operations;
• medical and injured evacuation;
• safety team;
• logistics and supply;
• specialist coordination;
 • public relations and notification;
• planning;
• firefighting.

It is not possible here to outline the requirements in detail., as these vary with local circumstances,
particularly offshore. Rather., we attempt to describe the scope of organization and activities needed.

The area must be isolated from unnecessary traffic and people., and local traffic confined to safe areas.
The injured must be safely evacuated. Residences and camps must be immediately notified and perhaps
evacuated. Press releases should be made through a designated source to avoid speculation and
misinformation. This tends to result in better media cooperation. If hydrogen sulfide gas is present, the
task force must first decide whether to ignite the well. Although the resulting sulfur trioxide is also toxic., it
is less so than hydrogen sulfide, and the fire tends to cause rise and dispersion.

Plans should be made to photograph and survey the blowout daily from a selected location to help
evaluate changes. Fluid-sampling procedures are also helpful. In one instance, a huge expenditure was
saved by the observation that the well was slowly killing itself.

A classic example of lack of coordination is a case where a fire was started by a safety man driving into a
gassed area and setting the rig on fire.

Supply and equipment needs should be anticipated and readily available. In addition to communication
equipment, firefighting equipment (pumps) and a large water supply may be needed to saturate the
atmosphere to lessen the damage from fire., to keep equipment cool in the event of fire, and to protect
working personnel. Tractors, bulldozers, and cranes with shields may be needed. A snubbing unit should
be made available., if necessary.

Contingency kill plans should be made. Individual blowouts differ greatly and require different procedures.
However, possible conditions can be categorized to some extent and contingency plans made
accordingly. In the Arun field in Sumatra, a large volume of mud, pumps, and lines to the wells are
maintained in readiness. In the North Sea, a large workover barge equipped with high-volume pumps to
spray water is available on a joint-company basis, and boats with high-volume pumping capacity are
available in the Gulf Coast and Gulf of Suez.

The task force should be aware of the latest technological advances in killing blowouts, and thus avoid a
precipitous and possibly dangerous learning process after a blowout occurs.

Fire Drills and Evacuation Procedures

Essential items include a list of personnel, alarm system and signal identification, assignment of stations
for all personnel, notification of stand-by boats., life boat or other evacuation vessel drills, instructions for
securing the rig, and frequency of drills. On floaters this may involve releasing the riser., or dropping
some anchors and moving the rig by pulling on other anchors.
Drilling Contracts

Contract Procurement

Drilling Contract

Contract Procurement

While the drilling contract is not a part of the well plan per se., it is an integral part of the well planning
process. Drilling engineers do not usually enter directly into the contract process, but they do provide rig
specifications for the bid request. The drilling department is responsible for checking the condition of the
rig and appropriate equipment. The drilling department is also responsible for determining a bid list of
contractors with satisfactory performance records.

Bid procedures vary among companies, but most contain the following features:

1. Receipt of at least three valid bids;

2. Closed bidding;

3. Bidders must be chosen from an approved contractor list;

4. Insurance requirements must be clearly stated;

5. Bids must be mailed to the Secretary of the Contract Committee at a specific address
and time;

6. Bids must be opened in the presence of the Contract Committee.

The approved contractor list is made up of drilling contractors given financial clearance by the
comptroller's department., usually after a financial examination and an equipment examination by the
drilling department for appropriate equipment, condition of equipment, and performance history. The
comptroller's department regulates the bid procedure, and there are provisions for waiving the bid
procedure under certain circumstances.

The invitation to bid is sent to drilling contractors who are known to have desirable equipment within a
reasonable distance from the work location. These are obtained through rig locators and by personal
contact with contractors and operating companies. In a depressed rig market when moving costs are
often subsidized or paid by the contractor, bids may be sent farther afield. The invitation to bid usually
provides sufficient information to the bidders to get responses in line with the job bid and to pave the way
to negotiate a drilling contract with the contractor to whom the bid is awarded. The following information is
usually the minimum provided:

1. The depth of the well(s) and the number of wells;

2. Difficulties that can be expected to be encountered in drilling the well(s);

3. Specific equipment required, such as equipment suitable for H2S if the well(s) might
encounter H2S;

4. Unusual programs, such as oil-base mud;

5. Well location(s) and expected commencement date;

6. Services and equipment to be provided by the operator.

Bid requests should always contain language giving the operator flexibility of choice, by reserving his right
to return all bids unopened, reject all bids, and award the contract to other than the lowest bidder.

The invitation to bid should request the following information:

1. Specifications of the rig bid and an equipment inventory;

2. Location of the rig;

3. Rates of pay for which the rig and all its equipment are offered under different
conditions, such as:

- operating rate;

- break-down rate;

- force majeure rate;

- standby rate;

- mobilization/demobilization rate or lump sum cost.

4. Specific details about any special contract terms the contractor insists upon and which
affect the operator's costs or liabilities.
The bid request should contain any special contractual provisions specified by the contractor that might
affect the contractor's bid. These may include insurance requirements or any other contractual terms that
might affect the contractor's costs.

When the bids are returned, they are opened by the contract committee. A cursory examination of the
bids is made at this time to verify that the bidders have followed instructions.

The bids are then analyzed in detail and compared. The object of the analysis is to select the contractor
who offers the optimum equipment for the intended work at a price that will result in the most economic
well(s) and with contract terms acceptable to the operator.

If none of the bids meets the operator s requirements in equipment specifications or contractual terms., a
waiver letter is prepared detailing the specifics of the operator's dissatisfaction with the bids and
recommending that the bid procedure be waived in favor of direct negotiation for a rig with one or more
acceptable contractor(s) . This is called a bid waiver letter.

After a contractor has been selected, the operator and the contractor must negotiate a mutually
satisfactory contract. The contractor will generally accept anything the customer wants as long as the
customer is willing to pay the contractor’s price. For this reason., it is wise to describe in detail in the bid
any unusual contract requirements. A better approach is to include in the invitation package a draft
contract satisfactory to the operator. It should follow industry practices as much as possible; otherwise,
the bids may be very high., resulting in an expensive well.
Bidding Consideration

Bid List
The drilling department is responsible for determining which contractors appear on the bid list. This is
based on the operator s previous experience, or on knowledge of the experiences of other operators in
the area. Items of interest are the contractor's ability to maintain rig equipment and avoid excessive down
time, the experienced quality of rig crews and supervisors., rig safety records, the age and condition of
the rigs, and the quality of training programs, particularly regarding well-control procedures and safety.

Such lists prevent the necessity of eliminating an unsatisfactory bidder. Elimination of a bidder after bids
are received is much more difficult to justify than elimination of a contractor from a bid list.

Bid Request
The bid request is an invitation to bid, usually sent to three or more contractors on the list of acceptable
drilling contractors who have rigs within reasonable moving distance.

Type of Contract

A pre-bid requirement is selection of the type of bid to be requested. The principal types are:

• day-rate;
• footage;
• footage/day-rate combination;
• day-rate with footage incentive;
• turnkey.

When rigs are in short supply, the day-rate contract is commonly used, as contractors normally prefer to
avoid the risk inherent in other forms of contracts. When rigs are in oversupply., there is an increased
willingness to bid turnkey and absorb the risk. This is a convenience to the operator in some respects and
very attractive to operators with small staffs. In the past, the combination footage/day-rate contract was
commonly used. This was a footage bid to a specified depth for which the risks were relatively small
combined with a day work bid for the deeper, more risky drilling.

When a rig is operating under a footage contract, the operator is somewhat handicapped in suggesting
improvements in drilling practices, even though he might want to. A faster well might result in a cheaper
subsequent bid. A contractor typically bids the highest price at which he thinks he can get the bid., rather
than the cost for which he thinks he can do the work. On day-rate the operator is free to specify drilling
practices but there is little incentive for the contractor to drill faster. A feature of the day-rate/footage
incentive contract is that both operator and contractor are continually interested in efficient drilling and the
operator is not handicapped in influencing the drilling to his advantage.

Bid Letter: In competitive conditions., as for land rigs., a detailed specification of requirements eliminates
from bidding any rigs that may have inadequate.

API Bulletin D10 can be helpful in preparing minimum rig specifications. API Form D10-A "Drilling Plan
Analysis" is used to indicate minimum rig capability based on each hole interval. Either the form or the
maximum requirements developed thereon should be used to specify the minimum requirements in the
bid letter.

Even when the bid request outlines minimum specifications and additional equipment, contractors may
not adequately describe their equipment. If it is assumed they have a satisfactory piece of equipment, and
this is found to be untrue after a contract is signed, the operator will probably have to rent a suitable
replacement item. In order to have an easy, uniform, item-by-item system of comparing equipment bids,
there is value in providing the same forms to each contractor and requesting completion. Form D10-B of
API Bulletin D10 or the equivalent is useful in this respect. If the contractor is requested to return these,
an even more complete listing is provided in an easily comparable manner.

The bid request letter should be accompanied by an example contract, preferably one that allows the
contractor to make a bid by filling in the blanks on the form.

Items to be furnished by the operator should be clearly stated in the bid request.

Contract Forms
Many companies use the standard API or IADC contract forms. A copy of the contract should be part of
the well plan, so that questions on the rig-site regarding equipment to be furnished and relative
responsibilities can be quickly answered. In case of doubt, the superintendent responsible for the rig
should always be consulted.

Bid Analysis
Bid analysis involves more than simply comparing costs. The lowest bid can result in a higher well cost if
equipment or personnel are not adequate. Sometimes, a rig with a low bid and barely adequate
equipment will take more time drilling, resulting not only in increased payments to the contractor but in
additional payments for mud, support, and overhead. In some cases, more than adequate equipment may
be offered at the same bid price and this can be an advantage at no cost. All the factors mentioned under
Bid List are to be considered, as well as the equipment tested. As stated., if the forms in Bulletin D10 are
completed, the uniform method of listing simplifies item-by-item equipment comparison.

Cost Reviews

Drilling and Completion Costs

Final Drilling Cost Estimate

The well plan contains the most accurate data available for cost estimation. A new cost estimate
reflecting this more accurate analysis should be prepared, and checked against the original AFE
estimate. If significant differences between the original and final estimates emerge, management should
be notified. The possibility of such differences is greater on major well projects.

Differences in estimated costs lead to the following questions:

• If an AFE has been issued and there is greater than 10% difference in the estimates, should an
AFE Supplement be issued?
• If a significant savings is indicated, should the engineer issue a "Negative" Supplement?
• If the final cost estimate is significantly greater than the original AFE estimate., and if the
economics are unattractive with these more accurate figures, should the well be drilled?

It is in the estimator's best interest to notify his or her manager, and hence the project initiator (the
explorationist or geologist)., of this difference to minimize the impact of surprises. The final cost estimate
should be included with the well plan for final management approval.
AFE and Well Plan review

AFE and Well Plan Review

Once the well plan is complete, a review of expected drilling/completion times and costs should be made
for comparison to the approved AFE amount. If the more-informed figure is substantially higher or lower
than the AFE amount., a comment to that effect should be made in the transmittal letter accompanying
the well plan as it is circulated for management approval.

The well plan usually is reviewed by the drilling engineering manager, the drilling manager., and the
production or exploration manager for final approval. Critical wells often require even higher-level
approval.

The well plan is a set of prescribed guidelines designed to help the drilling supervisor drill the well
efficiently. The plan is based on assumptions that will be confirmed or rejected as the well is drilled. For
this reason, major items like casing setting depths, mud weights and properties., and recommended
hydraulics are given with some degree of latitude to allow the program to conform to the actual operating
requirements. This allows the rig supervisor to employ good judgment in responding to hole conditions
within a range of values. Major departures from the given range of values should be discussed with the
drilling engineers and the drilling manager; if they are implemented, the engineers may need to re-
evaluate other aspects of the well plan.

Major changes to the well plan objectives require serious technical and management review. Such
modifications as deciding to drill deeper or to carry out an unplanned DST can have far-reaching, often
negative, implications. Even though the plan is flexible to some degree and has safety factors built into
the critical design features, the mechanical and economic impact of the proposed changes should be
reviewed, documented, and approved through the same channels as the original well plan.
References and Additional Information

References

REFERENCES

Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient Prediction

Dumont , A. E., and V. S. Purdy (1976). "Use of Seismic Data Can Cut Arctic Drilling
Costs." World Oil (January) :71.

Eaton, B. A. (1969). "Fracture Gradient Prediction and its Application in Oilfield

Operations." Journal of Petroleum Technology. (October) :1353.

Eaton, B. A. (1976). "Graphical Method Predicts Geopressures Worldwide." World Oil.

(May) :51.

Fertl, W. H. (1976). Abnormal Formation Pressures. New York : Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Co.

Fertl, W. H., and D. J. Timko. (1972-1973). "How Downhole Temperatures, Pressures

Affect Drilling." World Oil. Parts 1-10 incl. (June 72 - March 73) (available as reprint
from NL Baroid).

Fertl, W. H., and D. J. Timko. (1982). "How Abnormal-Pressure Techniques are

Applied." Oil & Gas Journal. (January 12).

Goins, W. C., Jr., and R. Sheffield (1983). Blowout Prevention, 2d ed. Houston : Gulf
Publishing Co.

Hottman, C. H., and R. K. Johnson (1965). "Estimation of Formation Pressure from

Log-Derived Shale Properties." Trans. AIME. 243:717-722.

Hubbert, M. K., and D. G. Willis (1957). "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing." Trans.

AIME. 210:153.

Louden, L. R., W. R. Mathews, R. T. McClendon, W. A. Rehm, and B. W. Aud

(1971). "Ultra Deep Drilling Guided by Seismic Data." World Oil. (May, June) :67-72, 97-
105

Mathews, W. R., and J. Kelly (1967). "How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture
Gradient." Oil & Gas Journal. (February 20) :92.

Pennebaker, E. B. (1968). "An Engineering Interpretation of Seismic Data." SPE paper

number 2165, presented at the AIME Annual Fall Meeting in Houston (September).
Reynolds, E. B. (1973). " The Application of Seismic Techniques to Drilling
Techniques." SPE paper number 4643, presented at the AIME Annual Fall Meeting in
Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Woeber, A. F., and J. 0. Penhollow (1973). "The Accuracy of Depth Predictions from
Velocity Profiles on the Texas Gulf Coast." Paper presented at the 43rd Annual
International SEG Meeting, Mexico City.

Directional Drilling

American Petroleum Institute (1985). Bulletin D20: Directional Drilling Survey

Calculation Methods and Terminology. 1st ed. API Production Department, Dallas, TX.

Lubinski, A. (1960). Maximum Permissible Doglegs in Rotary Boreholes. Paper

number 1543-G, presented at the SPE Fall Meeting.

Milheim, K. K. (1979). Advances in directional drilling and deviation control technology.

Paper presented at the Drilling Technology Conference IADC, New Orleans.

Qilaon, G. E. (1976). "How to drill a Usable Hole." World Oil. (August, September,
October).

Williamson, J. S. (1981). "Casing Wear: The effect of Contact Pressure." Journal of

Petroleum Technology (December).

Casing, Tubing, and Wellhead Design

API (1999). Bulletin 5C2. Performance Properties of Casing, Tubing, and Drillpipe. 21 st
edition. Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (2002). Specification 5D. Specification for Drillpipe. 5th edition. Washington, D.C.,
USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (2002). Specification 5CT. Specification for Casing and Tubing. 7th edition.
Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (2000). Specification 6A. Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree
Equipment. 17th ed. Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

Chesney, A. J., Jr., and J. Garcia (1969). "Load and Stability Analysis of Tubular
Strings." Paper number 69-DET-5, presented at the ASME Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Tulsa.

Cooke, C. E., Jr., M. P. Kluck, and R. Medrano (1982). Field Measurements of

Annular Pressure and Temperature During Primary Cementing." Paper number SPE
11206, presented at the 57th SPE Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans . Richardson, TX,
USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Cooke, C. E., Jr., M. P. Kluck, and K. Medrano. (1983). "Annular Pressure and
Temperature Measurements to Diagnose Cementing Operations." Paper number
SPE/IADC 11416, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in New Orleans
(February). Richardson, TX, USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Dellinger, T. B. (1973). "Preventing Instability in Partially Cemented Intermediate

Casing." Paper number 4606, presented at the 48th Annual SPE Fall Meeting, Las
Vegas. Richardson, TX, USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Goins, W. C, Jr. (1980). "Better Understanding Prevents Tubular Buckling Problems."

World Oil. (January-February).

Hawkins, M. F., and N. Lamont (1949). "The Analysis of Axial Stresses in Drillpipe
Strings." API Drilling & Production Practices.

Holmquist, J. L., and A. Nadai (1939). "A Theoretical and Experimental Approach to
the Problem of Collapse of Deep Well Casing." API Drilling & Production Practices.

Kane, R. D., and J. B. Greer (1977). "Sulfide Stress Cracking of High-Strength Steels
in Laboratory and Oilfield Environments." Journal of Petroleum Technology (November)
:1483-88.

Lubinsky, A. (1962). "Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers." Journal of

Petroleum Technology (June) Richardson, TX , USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.

NACE (2003). Standard MR-01-75. National Association of Corrosion Engineers.

Stair, M. A., and T. L. McInturff (1983). "Casing and Tubing Design Considerations for
Deep Sour Gas Wells." Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Orleans.

Willis, D. N. (1983). "How to Ensure Proper make-up of Premium Shouldered

Tubulars." World Oil. (September) :71-74.

Cementing

API (2002). Specification 10A. Specification for Cements Materials for Well Cementing.
23 rd edition. Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (1997). Recommended Practice 10B. 22 nd edition. Testing Well Cements.

Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (2002). Specification 10D. Specification for Bow-Spring Casing Centralizers.

Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

Brice, J. W., Jr., and R. C. Holmes (1964). "Engineered Casing Cementing Programs
Using Turbulent Flow." Journal of Petroleum Technology (May): 503-508.
Cooke, C. E., Jr., M. P. Kluck, and P. Medrano (1982). "Field Measurements of
Annular Pressure and Temperature During Primary Cementing." Paper number 11206,
presented at the 57th Annual SPE Fall Meeting, New Orleans.

Slagle, K. A., and D. K. Smith (1963). Salt Cement for Shale and Bentonite Sands.
Journal of Petroleum Technology (February) :187-194.

Smith, D. K. (1976). Cementing. SPE Monograph volume 4 of the Henry L. Doherty

series. Dallas : SPE.

Smith, R. C., and D. G. Calvert (1975). "The Use of Sea Water in Well Cementing."
Journal of Petroleum Technology (June) :759-764.

Tinsley, J. M., E. C. Miller, and D. L. Sutton (1979). "Study of Factors Causing

Annular Gas Flow Following Primary Cementing." Paper number 8257, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference, September, Las Vegas .

Hydraulics

Hopkins, E. A. (1967). Factors affecting cuttings removal during rotary drilling. Journal
of Petroleum Technology (May) :807-814.

Hughes Tool Co. (1976). Practical hydraulics. Houston : Hughes Tool Company.

Kendall, H. A., and W. C. Goins, Jr. (1960). Design of jet bit programs for maximum bit
hydraulic horsepower, impact force or jet velocity. Trans. AIME. 219:236-247.

Scott, K. F. 1971. A new practical approach to rotary drilling hydraulics. SPE paper
number 3520, presented at the 46th Annual SPE Fall Meeting, October 3-6.

Williams, C. E., Jr., and G. H. Bruce. (1951). Carrying capacity of drilling muds. Pet.
Trans. AIME. 192:111-120.

Well Testing

Earlougher, R. C., Jr. 1977. Advances in well test analysis. SPE Monograph series
Volume 5. Dallas : SPE.

Lee, J. 1982. Well testing. SPE Textbook Series Volume 1.Dallas: SPE.

Matthews, C. S., and D. G. Russell. 1967. Pressure buildup and flow tests in wells,
SPE Monograph series Volume 1. Dallas : SPE.

Well Control
Adams , N. 1980. Well Control Problems and Solutions. Tul sa : Petroleum Publishing
Co.

API (1997). Recommended Practice 53. Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for
Drilling Operations. Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (1987). Recommended Practice 59 for Well Control Operations. 1st ed.
Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

Goins, W. C., Jr., and R. Sheffield. 1983. Blowout prevention. 2nd ed. Houston : Gulf
Publishing Co.

Rig Selection

API (1995). Specification 4F: Drilling and Well Servicing Structures. 2nd ed. (June)
Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (1997). Specification 8A: Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment. 13th ed.
(November) Washington, D.C., USA : American Petroleum Institute.

API (2002). Specification 7K: Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment. 3
rd ed. (April). for internal-combustion reciprocating engines for oilfield service. 8th ed.
(March). Washington, D.C. , USA : American Petroleum Institute.
Example Well Plan: Brazorian County, TX

Example Well Plan

Brazoria County, Texas

1.0 Well Summary

1.1 Drilling Prognosis: Wildcat No. 1, Brazoria County, Texas.

A. Objective: Test reservoirs to 11,800 ft

B. Casing Program:

Interval Hole Casing Casing Casing Casing

Depth Size Size Weight Grade Connection

0-1750 14-3/4 10-3/4 40.5 H-40 ST&C

0-6110 9-7/8 7-5/8 29.7 N-80 LT&C

6110-7900 9-7/8 7-5/8 29.7 S-95 LT&C

0-11,800 6-3/4 5 18.0 N-80 LT&C

C. Wellhead

1. "A" Section: 11-in. 5M top x 10-3/4 in. OD bottom., slip-on/weld-on casinghead

2. "B" Section: 7-1/16 in. 10M top x 11 in. 5M bottom casing spool

3. "C" Section: 7-1/16 in. 10M top x 7-1/16 in. 10M bottom tubinghead

D. Mud Program

Interval Mud Mud

Depth Type Density

0-1750 Lime flocculated gel mud 8.5-9.0 ppg

1750-7900 Potassium/lime mud (KLM) 8.8-12.0 ppg

7900-11,800 Potassium/lime mud (KLM) 14.0-16.8 ppg

E. Logging Program

Run no. Hole size (in.) Log

1 9-7/8 DIL-SONIC(LSS)-OR w/3-arm caliper

la 9-7/8 Possible SWCs

lb 9-7/8 Possible CNL-LDT-GR

2 6-3/4 DIL-SONIC(LSS)-GR w/3-arm caliper

3 6-3/4 CNL-LDT-GR

4 6-3/4 SWCs

5 6-3/4 RFT (optional)

6 6-3/4 SHDT (optional dipmeter run)

7 6-3/4 EPT (optional)

Place a maximum-recording thermometer in all log runs.

F. Samples

Samples should be caught at each connection from 10,500 ft to 11,000 ft, and every 10 ft from 11,000 ft
to TD.

G. Mud Logging

Log from 6000 ft to TD. Use a two-man logging unit. Loggers should plot Dc exponent, shale density,
flowline temperature, and pore pressure.

H. Geological Prognosis

This well will penetrate normally pressured recent sands and shales to the top of the Anahuac at
approximately 7400 feet. A transition zone in the top of the Anahuac will require setting protective casing
approximately 500 ft into the Anahuac. Approximately 3500 ft of Anahuac shale will then be drilled before
penetrating the first Frio sand.

Three Frio sands are expected: The first at approximately 11,100 ft is expected to be 80 ft thick; the
second, at 11,500 ft is expected to be 40 ft thick; and the third, at 11,650 ft, is expected to be 30 ft thick.

I. Anticipated Problems

Hole washout due to water-sensitive shales could become a problem in the geopressured shales above
the Frio sands. This well will be drilled with an inhibitive potassium/lime mud, which will promote borehole
stability in these water-sensitive shales.

Abnormal pressures are expected in this well; therefore, early pressure detection is essential. Dc
exponent, shale density, background gas, and mud properties must be closely monitored at all times.
Note the enclosed pore pressure analysis of the sonic data obtained in the offset well. The pore pressure
within the Anahuac shale at 7900 ft is estimated at 14.8 ppg. The minimum anticipated fracture gradient
at 7900 ft is 17.3 ppg. The expected mud weight requirement at 7900 ft is 12.0 to 12.5 ppg. This
"underbalanced" condition at 7900 ft is possibly due to the lack of permeability in the Anahuac shale. The
mud weight requirement of 12.0 to 12.5 ppg is based on borehole stability. The upper Anahuac shale
must be drilled underbalanced into >14.8 ppg pore pressure to get a shoe test that allows drilling to
11,800 ft.

The mud weights (12.0 to 12.5 ppg) required to penetrate the abnormally pressured Anahuac shale
produce overbalance (up to 1100 psi) in the Miocene sands. Consequently, low fluid loss should be
maintained to reduce filter cake thickness across the Miocene sands. This minimizes the need for
swabbing and reduces the likelihood of losing returns while cementing.
The prospective Frio sands below ±11,050 ft have an abnormal pore pressure of 16.3 to 16.5 ppg (note
enclosed pore pressure analysis of offset well) . A mud weight of 16.6 to 16.8 ppg is needed to safely drill
these sands. Anticipated shut-in tubing pressure of a Frio completion is 7400 to 7700 psi.

1.2 Figures

See Figure 1 (Well schematic),

Figure 1

Figure 2 (Pore-pressure plot),

 Figure 2

Figure 3 (Drilling-time curve), and Figure 4 (Drilling-cost curve).

Figure 3
 Figure 4

1.3 Example Well AFE

AFE / Well Cost Estimate

Operator:

Well Name:

Location:

County: Brazoria

State: Texas

Field: Wildcat

Projected TD: 11, 800

Prepared By: Larry H. Flak

Preparation Date: December 1, 1988

Estimated Spud Date: First Quarter 1989

TANGIBLE COSTS Dry Hole Costs

1. Tubular goods:

Drive Pipe: 16" OD from 0’ to 50’ $1,800

10-3/4" OD from 0’ to 1,700’ $29,000

7-5/8" OD from 0’ to 7,900’ $149,000

5" OD from 0’ to 11,800’

Prod Tbg: 2-3/8" OD from 0’ to 11,800’

2. Casing accessories $4,200

3. Wellhead equipment $6,500

4. Packers and tubing accessories

5. Surface lines, hydraulics and control systems

6. Unclassified materials and contingency (5%) $9,500

TOTAL TANGIBLES $200,000

TANGIBLE COSTS Completion Costs

1. Tubular goods:

Drive Pipe: 16" OD from 0’ to 50’

10-3/4" OD from 0’ to 1,700’

7-5/8" OD from 0’ to 7,900’

5" OD from 0’ to 11,800’ $133,000

Prod Tbg: 2-3/8" OD from 0’ to 11,800’ $41,300

2. Casing accessories $4,800

3. Wellhead equipment $48,000

4. Packers and tubing accessories $8,900

5. Surface lines, hydraulics and control systems $65,000

6. Unclassified materials and contingency (5%) $15,100

Total Tangibles $316,100

INTANGIBLE COSTS Dry Hole Costs

7. Quality assurance $5,200

8. Trucking tangible goods $1,800

9. Permits and insurance $26,500

10. Site preparation, maintenance & clean-up $45,000

11. Rig mob & demob $30,000

12. Camp and communications $3,300

13. Contract footage: feet @ $ per foot

14. Contract daywork: 33/3 days @ $3,700 per day $122,100

15. Completion daywork: 7 days @ $2,000 per day

16. Rental DP, DCs and related tools $36,900

17. Rental well control equipment $5,000

18. Rental stabilizers and reamers $7,000

19. Directional tools and services

20. Drill bits:

# 1 size 14-3/4 (inches) $3,000

# 4 size 9-7/8 (inches) $8,300

# 2/2 size 6-3/4 (inches) $9,200

21. (optional)

22. Fresh water and drayage $5,000

23. Drilling mud materials and drayage $150,000

24. Drilling mud equipment $5,000

25. Open hole surveys $60,000

26. Data recording equipment $1,500

27. Mud log $10,000

28. DSTs and well testing

29. Cased hole wireline work

30. Perforating

31. Conventional coring and core evaluation services $1,000

32. Sand control services and equipment

33. Stimulation treatment

34. Cement and services for casing

16" OD $1,000
10-3/4" OD $18,000

7-5/8" OD $22,000

5" OD

35. Cement and services for squeezes and plugs $6,000

36. Fishing tool rental, services and drayage $5,000

37. Casing Crew and tools $9,000

38. Operations and overhead $16,500

39. Unclassified tool rental dryage $16,500

40. Unclassified drayage and supplies $8,300

41. Unclassified service and materials $33,000

42. Supervision and engineering $36,000

Subtotal = $707,800

43. Contingency (10%) $70,700

Total Intangibles $777, 800

Total Cost (tangibles and intangibles) $977,800

INTANGIBLE COSTS Completion Costs

7. Quality assurance $10,400

8. Trucking tangible goods $2,300

9. Permits and insurance $500

10. Site preparation, maintenance & clean-up $5,000

11. Rig mob & demob $5,000

12. Camp and communications $1,300

13. Contract footage: feet @ $ per foot

14. Contract daywork: 33/3 days @ $3,700 per day $11,100

15. Completion daywork: 7 days @ $2,000 per day $14,000

16. Rental DP, DCs and related tools $8,900

17. Rental well control equipment $2,500

18. Rental stabilizers and reamers

19. Directional tools and services

20. Drill bits:

# 1 size 14-3/4 (inches)

# 4 size 9-7/8 (inches)

# 2/2 size 6-3/4 (inches) $500

21. (optional)

22. Fresh water and drayage $1,500

23. Drilling mud materials and drayage $5,000

24. Drilling mud equipment $500

25. Open hole surveys

26. Data recording equipment

27. Mud log

28. DSTs and well testing

29. Cased hole wireline work $8,500

30. Perforating $7,500

31. Conventional coring and core evaluation services

32. Sand control services and equipment

33. Stimulation treatment

34. Cement and services for casing

16" OD

10-3/4" OD

7-5/8" OD

5" OD $25,000

35. Cement and services for squeezes and plugs $4,000

36. Fishing tool rental, services and drayage

37. Casing Crew and tools $4,000

38. Operations and overhead $4,700

39. Unclassified tool rental dryage $4,700

40. Unclassified drayage and supplies $2,500

41. Unclassified service and materials $10,300

42. Supervision and engineering $12,500

Subtotal = $157,200

43. Contingency (10%) $15,700

Total Intangibles $172, 900

Total Cost (tangibles and intangibles) $489,000

TOTAL COMPLETED WELL COST $1,466,800

Approvals:

Comments: A "trouble free" well with a good drilling time and low casing costs could result in a "dry hole
cost" as low as $750,000 to $800,000

1.4 Materials and Services Vendor List

Materials:

Conductor casing Fred's Tubes Inc.

Surface casing Fred's Tubes Inc.

Intermediate casing Fred's Tubes Inc.

Production casing Fred's Tubes Inc.

Centralizers Cementer Inc.

Float equipment Cementer Inc.

Top and bottom wiper plugs Cementer Inc.

Drilling fluid materials and chemicals Mud Inc.

Bits Bits Inc.

Wellhead equipment Heads Inc.

Services:

Surveying and staking location Engers Inc.

Location preparation and maintenance Dozers Inc.

Water well drilling and equipment Water Inc.

Drilling contractor Contractor Inc.

Welding services Welding Inc.

Hammer service for drivepipe Hammer Inc.

Housing Houses R Us Inc.

Communications Phones Inc.

PVT equipment PVT Inc.

Well control equipment Chokes R Us Inc.

Bulk barite storage bins Mud Inc.

Drilling fluid service Mud Inc.

Potable water., pump, and service Water Inc.

Trucking Trucks Inc.

Tubular inspection Tubespect Inc.

Mud logging Mudlogs Inc.

Casing crew Tongs R Us Inc.

Pickup/laydown machine Tongs R Us Inc.

Cementing services Cementer Inc.

Open hole logging service Loggers Inc.

Rental Equipment Renters Inc.

2.0 Recommended Drilling Procedure

2.1 Prespud

A. Survey and stake location. Prepare surface plats for Railroad Commission permits. Prepare permit
requests. Obtain bids for materials and services. Select vendors and obtain insurance documentation and
contracts. Obtain Texas Water Quality Board letter and RRC drilling permit.

B. Build access road and location according to drilling contractor s requirements.

C. Drill water well to provide drilling water at a minimum rate of 2 bbl/minute.

D. Cellar shall be 8 ft by 8 ft and 6 ft deep, supported with treated wood framing or (preferably)
corrugated pipe.

E. Move drilling rig to location and rig up. Rig up tank to prehydrate bentonite. Prepare spud mud as
directed in mud program. Rig up pit volume totalizer with recording equipment. Pick up 0-12 hammer and
drive 16 in. of 0.375-in. wall casing to refusal. Cut off as required and rig up flowline. Place bullplug in
base of 16 in. to allow cement drainage after cementing 10-3/4 in. surface casing.

2.2 Surface Hole

A. Drilling

1. Run in hole with the following bottomhole assembly (BHA) and drill to +1,700 ft., surveying every t500
ft. All drillpipe to be run in casing will have smooth., flush hardbanding or no hardbanding at all.
Surface hole BHA

Bit - 14-3/4 in.

Bit Sub w/ float

3 - 8 in. drill collars 14-3/4 in. welded blade stabilizer

1- 8 in. drill collar

14-3/4 in. welded blade stabilizer

8-8" drill collars

l-XO

6 - 4-1/2 in. heavy weight drillpipe

4-1/2 in. drillpipe

This pendulum BHA will minimize doglegs in the surface hole which could lead to casing wear problems
during later drilling. All BHA components shall have pin and box stress relief features and shall be
inspected prior to use. The drillpipe may be inspected depending on condition. Use up to 40,000 lb of bit
weight and 180 rpm in this hole interval. The surface hole bit shall be a center jetted 1-1-1 to minimize bit
balling. Select jet sizes to maximize bit hydraulic horsepower using a minimum of 585 GPM and 2200 psi.

Monitor hole fillup on trips and fill hole after pulling five stands of drill pipe., three stands of heavy weight
drillpipe., or one stand of drill collars. If hole does not take the proper amount of mud, go back to bottom
and circulate out.

2. Use lime/gel mud with a maximum mud weight of 9.0 ppg. The rheology will be dictated by hole
conditions, but the recommendations in Mud Program should be followed.

3. At 11700 ft circulate bottoms up and condition mud to run casing. On location, clean connections prior
to running casing. Drop survey and pull out of hole. Notify RRC of upcoming surface casing cement job
and prior to all other cement jobs.

B. Casing

1. Rig-up to run 10-3/4 inch surface casing. Float equipment shall be thread locked onto casing. Run
casing as follows:

Guide shoe;

1 joint 10-3/4" 40.5 ppf H-40 ST&C;

Float collar;

10-3/4" 40.5 ppf H-40 ST&C to surface.

Torque requirements on 10-3/4 in. 40.5 ppf H-40 ST&C are as follows:

Minimum: 2360 ft/lb;

Optimum: 3140 ft/lb;

Maximum: 3930 ft/lb.

2. Run one centralizer on stop collar 10 ft above guide shoe. Run one centralizer on stop collar 10 ft
above float collar, and one centralizer on first casing collar above float collar. Run one centralizer on
every fourth casing collar to surface.

C. Cement

1. Cement as follows:

Spacer: 40 bbls water

Wiper plug

Lead: 300 sx. Cl "A" + 16% gel mixed + 3% salt

Mix at 12.6 ppg with 13.0 gal/sk water for a yield of 2.33 ft3/sk.

Tail: 600 sx. Cl "A". Mix at 15.6 ppg with 5.2 gal/sk water for a yield of 1.18 ft3/sk. Add
1% calcium chloride to final 200 sk of cement.

Top plug

Top-Out: 25 sx Cl "A" + 2% calcium chloride. Mix at >16.0 ppg.

Listed cement volumes are based on 50% excess. Plan to bring tail cement up to 850 ft
and lead cement to surface.

2. Check cement densities with pressurized mud balance. Catch wet and dry samples of cements. Catch
a sample of mix water.

3. Drop top plug in cement and wash tub and lines on top of plug. Displace with mud using cementing unit
at maximum rate. Keep water spacer in turbulent flow while reciprocating pipe. Bump plug with 500 psi
and bleed off pressure. Do not pump more than 1 bbl over calculated displacement volume to bump plug.
Measure displacement volume by using measuring tanks on cementing unit. If float does not hold, use
cementing head to hold pressure on casing. Monitor pressure often, and bleed off periodically if
necessary. Heat of hydration of cement may cause pressure increase due to thermal expansion. Wash
out lead cement with 1-in. tubing to below the 16-in. conductor with water. One hour after bumping plug,
top out the annulus with densified (>16.0 ppg) Class "A" cement with 2% CaCl2. Hold casing in tension
until sample of "Top-Out" cement has set (< 2 hours) . Back-out bull-plug in 16-in. prior to Top job. Use
excess cement returns in cellar to stabilize cellar floor. Cut off 16-in. and rough cut 10-3/4 in. casing.

D. Wellhead

1. Make finish cut on 10-3/4 in. casing and weld on 11 in. 5M 10-3/4 in. OD casinghead. Preheat and
post-heat casing head to get a proper weld to 10-3/4 in. casing. Space out cut so that outlets of "B"
Section casing spool will be at ground level. Nipple-up spacer spool to be replaced by "B" section and
nipple up the following BOP stack:

Bell nipple

11 in. 5M or 10M annular preventer

11 in. 10M double ram preventer

11 in. 10M drilling spool

11 in. 10M 11-in. SM spacer spool

11 in. 5M 10-3/4 in. Section "A" casinghead

Place blind rams above 4-1/2 in. pipe ram.

2. Rig-up flowline and 10,000-psi WP choke manifold. Kill line side of drilling spool should be equipped
with two valves (gate-check) . Install fillup line in bell nipple. Do not use kill line for hole fillup. Choke line
should have one manual valve and one hydraulic valve with the manual valve upstream. Rig-up mud/gas
separator. Go through the "Rig Safety Checklist" in Section 3.6 and correct deficiencies prior to drilling out
the 7-5/8 in. casing.

3. Use test joint and test plug to test BOPs. Open casinghead valve below test plug prior to testing BOPs.
Test rams to 5000 psi, and test annular to 70% of working pressure while closed on test joint. Pull test
joint (leaving test plug in bowl) and test blind rams. Test at 300 psi before testing at full pressure. Use
clear water for all testing. Test upper and lower kelly cocks, safety valves, and inside BOP to 5,000 psi.
Test choke manifold to full working pressure. Install bowl protector in wellhead after testing, and measure
and report distance from RKB to protector on IADC daily report. Notify RRC of anticipated timing on
casing test and drill-out.

2.3 Intermediate Hole Interval

A. Drilling

1. Run in hole with 9-7/8 in. 1-1-6 type bit on the following BHA:

Bit - 9-7/8 in.

Bit sub w/float

2- 7-3/4 in. drill collars

1- 9-13/16 in. welded blade stabilizer

1- 7-3/4 in. drill collar

1- 9-13/16 in. welded blade stabilizer

12- 7-3/4 in. drill collars

l-XO

6- 4-1/2 in. heavyweight drillpipe

4-1/2 in. drillpipe to surface

Notes: 8-in. drill collars may be used instead of 7-3/4 in. drill collars, but all 8-in. drill collars must be spiral
cut.

2. Clean out casing to float collar and test casing to 1000 psi. Drill float collar, cement., shoe., and 20' of
new formation. Pull back to shoe and perform leak-off test and report results on IAOC daily report. Limit
rotary speed to 50 rpm and bit weight to 10,000 to 20,000 lb while drilling cement.

3. Select jet sizes to maximize hydraulic horsepower using a minimum of 350 GPM and 3000 psi
standpipe pressure.

4. Have HOP drills each tour. Function test pipe rams daily and blind rams on trips not to exceed once
every 24 hours. Use drillpipe wiper rubber on all trips. Fill hole on trips after pulling five stands of drillpipe,
three stands of heavy weight drillpipe, or one stand of drill collars.

5. The transition into abnormal pressure occurs at 17000 ft (base of Miocene) . Drop fluid loss and
monitor filter cake thickness as mud weight is increased.
6. Drill 9-7/8 in. hole to ±7900 feet (maximum of 12.5 ppg mud) . Mud may be gas cut due to
underbalance in Anahuac shale. This should be well into the transition zone in the Anahuac shale. At
7900 ft, circulate bottoms up and condition the hole to run logs. Make 10 stand short trip. If no fill, then
pull out of hole to run logs. If fill, then recondition hole and pull out of hole to run logs. Catch possum belly
mud sample for loggers, while slugging pipe for trip out.

7. Log hole as previously outlined.

8. Run-in hole with old bit (remove jet nozzles) and circulate and condition the hole to run casing. Pull out
of the hole laying down 4-1/2 in. drillpipe and bottomhole assembly. Carefully monitor hole fill.

B. Casing

1. Rig-up casing tongs and 150 ton running tools. On location, clean and dope connections prior to
running pipe.

2. Pull bowl protector and run casing as follows:

Float shoe

2 joints of 7-5/8 in. 29.7 ppf N-80 LTC

Float collar

±6110 ft of 7-5/8 in. 29.7 ppf N-80 LTC

±1700 ft of 7-5/8 in. 29.7 ppf S-95 LTC

3. Torque requirements of the 7-5/8" 29.7 ppf LT&C casing are as follows:

grade Minimum Optimum Maximum

N-80 4310 5750 7190

S-95 5010 6680 8350

4. Run one centralizer on stop collar 10 ft above float shoe, on stop collar between float equipment, on
stop collar 10 ft above float collar, and on every third casing collar up to 6000 ft. Run casing slowly and
wash down to hard bottom. Pick up cementing head and rig-up cementers.

C. Cementing

1. Reciprocate casing while circulating a minimum of 400 barrels of mud. Continue reciprocating with l5-ft
strokes while cementing as follows:

Spacer: 40 bbl of mud flush weighted to mud density

Wiper plug

Lead: 420 sx. Cl "H" + 12% Gel + Retarder + Dispersant. Mix at 12.9 ppg with 11.46
gal/sk water for a yield of 2.08 ft3/sk

Tail: 207 sx. Cl "H" + 35% silica flour + Retarder + Dispersant.

Mix at 16.4 ppg with 5.4 gal/sk water for a yield of 1.4 ft3/sk

Top plug
Place spacer and lead cement in turbulent flow if possible. If not, then place cement with the spacer in
turbulent flow. Check cement density with pressurized mud balance and densiometer. Actual blended
cements and mix water must be pilot tested prior to job. Pumping time, time to 50 psi compressive
strength, and 24-hour strength must be reported at least 48 hours prior to job. Retard cement for
anticipated placement time plus two hours. Anticipated circulating temperature at 7900 ft is 145º F (200º F
SBHT) .

2. Listed cement volumes are based on 35% excess. Use sufficient volume of lead cement for 3000 ft of
annular coverage. Use sufficient volume of tail cement for 1000 ft of annular coverage. Use 20% over
calipered hole volume to calculate actual cement volume requirements . Drop top plug in cement and
wash tub and lines on top of plug.

3. Displace cement with mud and bump plug. Measure Do not over displace more than three barrels.
Pressure up on plug to 4,000 psi while waiting on cement, but do not pump in over 5 bbl of fluid to
maintain pressure. Holding pressure on pipe will help prevent casing buckling during deeper drilling.

4. Wait on cement 8 hours. Pick up BOPs, clean out bowl, drop slips (do not attempt to drop slips through
BOPs), and hang casing in full tension. Bleed off casing pressure.

D. Wellhead

1. Cut off 7-5/8 in. casing and install packoff and 11 in. 5M 7-1/16 in. 10M "B" section spool. Test pack-
off as directed. Remove spacer spool and nipple up BOPs. Change out pipe ram to 3-1/2 in. Complete
the "Rig Safety Checklist?? (Section 3.6) prior to drilling out. Wellsite supervisor and rig tool pusher
should sign and date the completed checklist.

2. Use test joint and test plug to test BOPs. Use clear water for all testing. Open valve below test plug
prior to testing BOPs. Test rams to 10,000 psi, and test annular to 70% of working pressure while closed
on test joint. Pull test joint (leaving test plug in bowl) and test blind rams. Test at 300 psi before testing at
full pressure. Test upper and lower kelly cocks, safety valves, and inside HOP to 10,000 psi. Test choke
manifold to full working pressure. Install bowl protector in wellhead after testing, and measure and report
distance from RKB to protector on IADC daily report. Change out pump liners to 5.5" or 6.0" to allow
operation at 3,000 psi. Increase mud weight to ±14.0 ppg prior to drill-out.

2.4 Production Hole Interval

A. Drilling

1. Run in hole with 6-3/4 in. 1-1-6 type bit on the following BHA:

6-3/4 in. bit

bit sub

1-4-3/4 in. drill collar

1-6-11/16 in. blade stabilizer

1-4-3/4 in. drill collar

1-6-11/16 in. blade stabilizer

20-4-3/4" drill collars

1-4-3/4 in. Dailey jar 3- 4-3/4 in. drill collars

3-1/2 in. drillpipe

Design drillstring for 100,000-lb overpull using 90% of premium pipe tensile ratings. All drillpipe run in
casing will have smooth, flush hardbanding or no hardbanding at all.

2. Clean out casing to float collar and test casing to 5000 psi. Drill float collar, cement, shoe, and 20 feet
of new formation. Pull back to shoe and perform leakoff test and report results on IADC daily report. Limit
rotary speed to 50 rpm and bit weight to 10,000 lb while drilling cement. Limit weight and RPM to <10,000
lb and <75 RPM, until stabilizers clear the casing shoe.

3. Select jet sizes to maximize bit hydraulic horsepower using a minimum of 160 GPM and 3000 psi
standpipe pressure.

4. Have BOP drills each tour. Function test pipe rams daily and blind rams on trips not to exceed once
every 24 hours. Use drillpipe wiper rubber on all trips. Fill hole on trips after pulling five stands of drill
pipe, three stands of heavy weight drill pipe, or one stand of drill collars. Monitor hole fill on all trips with
trip tank and maintain a trip record.

5. Follow the recommendations outlined in the Mud Program. Drop HTHP fluid loss (@ 260º F) to l6-20
cc. at 10,500 ft. Anticipated mud weight requirement at TD is 116.8 ppg. Increase mud weight to a
minimum of 16.6 ppg, prior to drilling into the Frio (±11,100 ft) .

6. Drill 6-3/4 in. hole to ±11,800 ft. Check all drilling breaks for flow. Catch mud sample at TD for loggers.
Catch mud sample for pilot tests (static aging at 260º F) . Determine whether mud treatment is necessary
if a decision to run pipe is made.

7. Log hole as outlined in the Logging Program. After log evaluation, the decision will be made to either
complete in the Frio, or plug and abandon the well. If the decision is made to plug and abandon the well,
plug as directed by the Texas Railroad Commission.

B. Casing

1. If a decision is made to complete in the Frio, run-in the hole with nozzles removed from bit to condition
hole and mud. Treat mud to be left in open hole based on results of pilot tests. Clean threads on casing.
Pull out of the hole laying down the drill pipe and bottomhole assembly. Pig-up casing crew (150 ton
tools) and run 5-in. 18 ppf N-8O LT&C casing as follows:

Float shoe
2-Joints 5-in. 18 ppf N-80 LT&C Float collar
5-in. 18 ppf N-80 LT&C to surface

Torque requirements of the 5-in. 18 ppf LT&C casing are as follows:

Minimum: 3000
Optimum: 4000
Maximum: 5000

Torque-turn casing to ensure proper makeup. Use a thin, even coat of dope on pin and on box. Do not
over-dope connections. Place centralizers on each joint of casing below 7000 ft. Place reciprocating cable
wipers across expected pay zones (10-ft spacing for 15-ft reciprocation) . Run casing slowly, using surge
calculation to determine running speed. Break circulation at shoe of 7-5/8 in. and then run to bottom.
Wash casing to bottom, and circulate bottoms up while slowly reciprocating. Using current mud
properties, calculate maximum circulation rate to prevent lost circulation. Pump spacer and cement at a
rate that does not produce an ECD at TD in excess of 17.7 ppg or at the 7-5/8 in. shoe of leakoff
pressure.

C. Cement

1. Pilot test actual blended cement with mix water at least 48 hours prior to job. Anticipated circulating
temperature at 11,800 ft is 210º F (± 260ºF SBHT) . Calculate required pumping time from cement
placement time plus 2 hours. Report API free-water test results (require zero free water), settling (none
allowed), pumping time, fluid loss, time to 50 psi strength, and 24 hour strength. Rig up cementers and
batch mixer. Entire volume of cement and spacer should be batch mixed prior to pumping. Use
pressurized mud scales and a densiometer to measure density. Mix spacer and cement as follows:

Spacer: 40 bbl mud flush (weighted between cement and mud density)

Wiper Plug

Cement: 520 sx Cl "H" + 35% silica sand + l0#/sk hematite + fluid-loss control +
dispersant + Defoamer + Retarder. Mix at 17.5 ppg with 4.75 gal/sk water for a yield of
1.35 ft3/sk (adjust water content and density to get zero free water) .

Top Plug

Listed cement volume is based on 30% excess with a cement top at 7000 ft. Calculate actual cement
volume based on 20% excess over calipered annular openhole volume. Consider displacing cement with
clear water or brine to minimize the work required for well cleanup.

2. Reciprocate pipe until plug bumps. Maximum allowable pull on pipe is 280,000 lb plus the weight of the
blocks. After bumping plug, bleed-off pressure and check floats. Close the annular HOP and monitor
annulus pressure while waiting on cement (12 hours) . Thermal effects may require small bleed-offs on
annulus. If pressure does not bleed-off, shut-in and monitor pressure rise. Keep casing bleed-off if floats
hold.

3. Bleed-off any remaining annular pressure. Pick up BOPs, clean out bowl, drop slips (do not attempt to
drop slips through BOPs), and hang casing in full tension. Cut off 5-1/2 in. casing, and install packoff and
7-1/16 in. 10M 7-1/16 in. 10M tubinghead. Test packoff as directed. Nipple-up "dryhole tree" on
tubinghead for temporary abandonment. Close all valves and remove all wheels and gauges. Install
locking nuts on wellhead equipment to protect against theft.

4. Rig-down and move out drilling rig. Well will be completed with workover rig as directed.

2.5 Standard Procedures

A. Well Control

1. Have BOP drills tourly. Operate pipe rams daily and blind rams on trips (not to exceed once every 24
hours) . Use drillpipe wiper rubber on all trips. Close blind rams and install hole cover whenever pipe is
out of hole.

2. When tripping, fill hole after pulling five stands of drillpipe, three stands of heavyweight drillpipe, and
one stand of drill collars. Use trip tank measurements to monitor hole fillup, and have mud logger keep
trip record of hole fill. If hole does not take the proper amount of mud, go back to bottom and circulate out.
Check for flow periodically on trip back in. If well flows, close well in and initiate well-control procedures
as directed.

3. Safety valve, inside HOP, and all necessary X/O subs to fit all drillpipe and drill collars must be on floor
in open position and ready for immediate use during trips. Crossover sub must be made up on safety
valve when the drill collars reach the preventers.

4. Measure slow pump rate and pressure hourly and report results on daily drilling report.

5. After nippling-up BOPs, a rig inspection should be performed using the OGS Rig Safety Inspection
checklist.

B. Inspection

1. All bottomhole assembly components should be magnetically inspected prior to use.

2. All casing should be drifted on racks prior to being run. A "no-go" plug should also be used to ensure
that no light joints are run.

3. A QA program for all tubulars should be worked up, based on final tubular design and sources.

C. Safety

1. No smoking is allowed on rig floor, mud tanks, or within 100 ft of wellbore.

2. All personnel must follow the general safety rules of the contractor. Safety shoes/boots, hard hats, and
safety glasses (if applicable) are to be worn by all personnel around rig.

3. All accidents must be reported to the appropriate personnel and recorded on the daily drilling report.

4. Safety meetings should be held in accordance with IADC rules and recommendations.

3.0 Drilling Parameters

3.1 Mud Program

A. Surface Hole Interval: 0-1700 ft

1. Mud Property Specifications

Density: 8.5 - 9.0 ppg

Funnel viscosity: 40 - 60 sec/qt

Plastic viscosity: 6 - 8 cps

Yield point: 20 - 30 lb/100 sq ft

Gel strength (10 s/l0 min) : 6-10/10-20 lb/100 sq ft

API filtrate: No control

2. Procedure

Spud with gel/fresh-water slurry. Maintain viscosity with prehydrated gel and volume with drill water.
Flocculate system with lime, and maintain mud pH at 11.0+. Sweep hole prior to tripping, and raise
viscosity to 50 sec/qt prior to running casing. Maintain a >50 bbl volume of prehydrated bentonite with
120-150 sec/qt funnel viscosity while drilling this interval. Add 1/4 sack of caustic potash to the water in
the prehydration pit, and then mix bentonite to obtain the desired viscosity for the prehydrated bentonite.
Use prehydrated bentonite to sweep the hole and raise the active mud's viscosity as needed to combat
tight hole, fill, and drag. If more effective sweeps are desired, add one or two viscosity cups of
polyacrylate polymer to 30-40 bbl of prehydrated gel prior to pumping down the hole. The API filtrate can
be lowered, if desired, prior to running casing by adding regular Drispac.

3. Solids Control

RU one Derrick "Flo-Line Cleaner" in series with rig shale shakers. Spill the mud flow over the rig shakers
and then over the Derrick shaker. Maintain the shale shakers in good working condition and check
screens often. Maintain an adequate screen inventory, and report screen sizes in use on the daily mud
check sheet. Solids removal at the flowline with shale shakers is the most reliable and effective solids-
control method. If screen life is a problem or blinding occurs, install screens with larger openings (smaller
mesh numbers) . On occasion, blinding of screens may occur when particles are fairly uniform and very
near the same size as the screen openings. In that event, a screen with smaller openings will remove
more solids without blinding.

Inspect the desilter and desander prior to spud. Before filling pits with water, look inside suction lines on
all centrifugal pumps and remove any foreign objects (work gloves, pipe rubbers, pocket knives, etc.) .
Open and look inside inlet and outlet headers for foreign objects. Wash out cones at the same time. If any
cones appear to be plugged, remove and clean the cones. Inspect for internal cone wear, and replace if
excessively worn. After the desilter and desander have been inspected, fill pits with fresh water, and run
both pieces of equipment. Check inlet pressure (32-36 psi for most systems) and look at each cones
underflow. If the discharge of a cone is a stream, either continuous or intermittent, that cone needs
internal inspection. If the cones are adjustable, adjust each cone from a full spray discharge to a slight
drip. If the cones are not adjustable, replace any cones discharging water at a rate higher than 25-30
sec/qt. Make sure that two to six replacement cones are on location. If the desilter and desander are in
good condition prior to spud, there will be minimal maintenance and repair during use.

Maximize use of the rig desilter and desander. Avoid turning the desilter and desander off while drilling as
pump suctions can easily become clogged with settled drill solids. Inspect cones periodically and maintain
the equipment in good working condition.

4. Corrosion Control

The high pH of this mud system should provide ample protection against drillpipe corrosion and
accelerated pipe fatigue failures.

5. Anticipated Problems

Poor hole cleaning, fill, and drag on connections could be experienced in this interval. Occasional sweeps
with a flocculated gel slurry should be used to eliminate these problems.

B. Intermediate Hole Interval: 1700-7900 ft

1. Mud Property Specifications

Mud density: 8.8-12.0 lb/gal

Funnel viscosity: 36-45 sec/qt

Plastic viscosity: 12-22 cps

Yield point: 4-8 lb/100 sq ft

Gel strength: 0-8/4-10 lb/100 sq ft

API filtrate: 4.0-6.0 cc at 7000 ft

Mud alkalinity: 15.0-18.0 cc

Filtrate alkalinity: 2.0-3.0 cc

2. Procedure

While waiting on cement and nippling-up casing, dump pits and fill with fresh water, mix 30 lb/bbl of
bentonite in the water with one sack of potassium hydroxide (KOH) per 150 barrels of water. Allow gel
slurry to yield. Begin breakover while drilling cement. As soon as circulation starts, breakover to the KLM
system by mixing simultaneously 1 lb/bbl of potassium hydroxide through the chemical barrel, 4 lb/bbl of
lime, and 2 lb/bbl of Mor-Rex through the mud hopper. Continue circulating at the casing shoe until the
breakover is completed. After completion of the breakover and testing of the casing shoe, gradually
reduce the filtration to the desired value with lignite while drilling the 9 7/8 in. hole. Fluid loss shall be
below 6 cc prior to 7000 ft. If necessary, Drispac may be used to obtain the desired filtration. Maintain
alkalinities with lime and potassium hydroxide (KOH) throughout interval. Maintain filtration control with
lignite and/or Drispac. Do not add caustic soda (NaOH) to the system; do not have any caustic soda on
location. Add prehydrated bentonite deflocculated with lignite and potassium hydroxide to maintain
volume, flow properties, and improve filtration.

3. Solids Control

Maintain equipment in good working condition. Maintain an adequate screen inventory and report screen
sizes in use on the daily mud check sheet. Solids removal by shale shakers and "Flo-Line Cleaner" is the
most reliable and effective solids-control method.

If screen life is a problem or blinding occurs, install screens with larger openings (smaller mesh numbers)
. Frequent screen changes may be necessary to find the optimum mesh to maintain maximum flow rate
without screen blinding.

Continue to utilize the desilter until barite additions begin. Avoid turning the desilter off while drilling, as
settled drill solids can easily clog pump suctions. Inspect cones periodically, and maintain the desilter in
good working condition.

4. Corrosion Control

The high pH (12.0+) of the lime mud system should provide ample protection against drillpipe corrosion
and accelerated fatigue failures.

5. Anticipated Problems

If hole cleaning, fill, or drag becomes a problem, mix lime at the suction to partially flocculate the system
and get sweeping affect. If the problem persists, add prehydrated bentonite to the system as sweeps.

If it becomes difficult to maintain minimum mud weight, then improve solids-control practices and/or dilute
mud system.

C. Production Role Interval: 7900-11,800 ft

1. Mud Property Specifications

Density: 13.0-17.0 ppg

Funnel viscosity: 40-55 sec/qt

Plastic viscosity: 22-34 cps

Yield point: 4-8 lb/100 sq ft

API filtrate: 4.0-6.0 cc (reduce to

2.0-4.0 cc below

10,500 ft)

Mud alkalinity: 15.0-18.0 cc

Filtrate alkalinity: 2.0-3.0 cc

API HT-HP filtrate: 16-20 cc. @ 260ºF

(below 10,500 ft)

2. Procedure

Drill out with the KLM system used to drill the previous interval. Maintain alkalinities with lime and
potassium hydroxide throughout this interval. Maintain filtration with lignite and/or Drispac. At ±10,000 ft,
add 2-3 lb/bbl of Resinex for HT-HP filtration control. Reduce HT-HP down to 16-20 cc at 260ºF by
10,500 ft. Do not add sodium hydroxide to the system. Add prehydrated bentonite deflocculated with
lignite and potassium hydroxide to maintain volume and flow properties, and to improve filtration.

3. Solids Control

Due to the lower flow rate used in this hole size, all of the flow should be maintained over the single "Flo-
Line Cleaner." Maintain shale shakers in good working condition. Maintain an adequate screen inventory,
and report screen sizes in use on the daily mud check sheet. Solids removal by shale shakers at the
flowline is the most reliable and effective solids-control method.

If screen life is a problem or blinding occurs, install screens with larger openings (smaller mesh numbers)
. Frequent screen changes may be necessary to find the optimum mesh to maintain maximum flow rate
without screen blinding. Generally, 120- to 175-mesh screens should be used.

A centrifuge can be used in this interval of the well to reclaim barite and discard fine drilled solids.

4. Corrosion Control

The high pH (12.0+) of the lime mud system should provide ample protection against drillpipe corrosion
and accelerated fatigue failures.

5. Anticipated Problems

If hole cleaning, fill, or drag becomes a problem, mix lime at the suction to partially flocculate the system
and achieve a sweeping effect. If the problem persists, add prehydrated bentonite to the system as a
sweep.

D. Contingency for Problems

1. Stuck Pipe

Use 100 bbl pills of spotting fluid. Prepare pills by adding spotting fluid concentrate (which contains
gellant and emulsifiers) to diesel oil and then adding water. If desired, the spotting fluid can be weighted
by adding barite (see vendor's recipe for preparing spotting fluid) . Maintain required volume of spotting
fluid concentrate on location.

2. Lost Circulation

Prepare 30-bbl pills containing 35 1b/bbl of lost-circulation material (LCM) . The LCM material's ratio
should be 25% Kwik Seal and 75% Nut Plug. The Nut Plug should be a 50:50 mixture of fine and coarse.
The Kwik Seal should be coarse.

3. Foaming

Treat surface mud system with tributyl phosphate on an as-needed basis.

3.2 Drilling Mechanics

The following bits, drilling mechanics, and bottomhole assemblies are recommended for this well.

Interval Depth Bit Type Bit Weight Rotary Speed BHA code

0-1750 1-1-1 20-40 180 A

1750-7900 1-1-6 30-40 100-150 B

7900-11,800 1-1-6 10-20 100-150 C

Bottomhole assembly A:

14-3/4 in. bit

Bit sub with float

3 8-in. drill collars

14-3/4 in. welded blade stabilizer

1 8-in. drill collar 14-3/4 in. welded blade

stabilizer 8 8-in. drill collars

1-XO

6 4-1/2 in. heavyweight drillpipe

4-1/2 in. drillpipe

Bottomhole Assembly B:

9-7/8 in. bit

Bit sub w/float 2 7-3/4 in. drill collars

1 9-13/16 in. welded blade stabilizer

1 7-3/4 in. drill collar

1 9-13/16 in. welded blade stabilizer

12 7-3/4 in. drill collars

l-XO

6 4-1/2 in. heavyweight drillpipe

4-1/2 in. drillpipe to surface

Bottomhole Assembly C:

6-3/4 in. bit

bit sub

1 4-3/4 in. drill collar

1 6-11/16 in. blade stabilizer

1 4-3/4 in. drill collar

1 6-11/16 in. blade stabilizer

 20 4-3/4 in. drill collars

1 4-3/4 in. Dailey Jar

3 4-3/4 in. drill collars

3-1/2 in. drillpipe

3.3 Hydraulics Program

Jet nozzles should be selected for maximum bit hydraulic horsepower based on the following conditions
for each hole interval:

Interval Maximum Minimum

Depth Flow Rate Flow Rate Pressure

0-1750 1100 585 2200

1750-7900 900 350 3000

7900-11,800 400 165 3000

3.4 Cement Program

Listed cement volumes are based on bit size plus excess. For intermediate and production casing strings,
cement volumes should be recalculated based on caliper logs plus 20% excess. If logged temperatures
differ greatly from those listed in the Drilling Procedure, blended cements should be retested and retarder
concentrations adjusted as necessary.

Collect and label dry samples of all blended cements at the beginning, middle, and end of each job.
Collect a sample of mix water during each job.

Surface Casing:

Spacer: 40 bbls water

Wiper plug

Lead: 300 sx. Cl "A" + 16% gel mixed + 3% salt. Mix at 12.6 ppg with 13.0 gal/sk water
for a yield of

2.33 ft3/sk.

Tail: 600 sx. Cl "A." Mix at 15.6 ppg with 5.2 gal/sk water for a yield of 1.18 ft3/sk. Add
1% calcium chloride to final 200 sk of cement.

Top plug

Top-out: 25 sx. Cl "A" + 2% calcium chloride. Mix at >16.0 ppg.

Listed cement volumes are based on 50% excess. Plan to bring tail cement up to 850 ft and lead cement
to surface.

Intermediate Casing:

Spacer: 40 bbl of mud flush weighted to mud density

 Wiper plug

Lead: 420 sx. Cl "H" + 12% gel + retarder + dispersant. Mix at 12.9 ppg with 11.46 gal/sk
water for a yield of 2.08 ft3/sk.

Tail: 207 sx. Cl "H" + 35% silica flour T retarder + dispersant. Mix at 16.4 ppg with 5.4
gal/sk water for a yield of 1.4 ft3/sk.

Top plug

Place spacer and lead cement in turbulent flow if possible. If not, place cement with the spacer in
turbulent flow. Check cement density with pressurized mud balance and densiometer. Actual blended
cements and mix water must be pilot tested prior to job. Pumping time, time to 50 psi compressive
strength, and 24-hour strength must be reported at least 48 hours prior to job. Retard cement for
anticipated placement time plus 2 hours. Anticipated circulating temperature at 7900 ft is 145º F (200º F
SBHT) .

Listed cement volumes are based on 35% excess. Use sufficient volume of lead cement for 3000 ft of
annular coverage. Use sufficient volume of tail cement for 1000 it of annular coverage.

Production Casing:

Spacer: 40 bbl mud flush (weighted between cement and mud density)

Wiper plug

Cement: 520 sx. Cl "H" + 35% silica sand + 10#/sk hematite + fluid-loss control +
dispersant + defoamer + retarder. Mix at 17.5 ppg with 4.75 gal/sk water for a yield of
1.35 ft3/sk (adjust water content and density to get zero free water) .

Top plug

Pilot test actual blended cement with mix water at least 48 hours prior to job. Anticipated circulating
temperature at 11,800 ft is 210º F (260ºF + SBHT) . Calculate required pumping time from cement
placement time plus 2 hours. Report API free-water test results (require zero free water), settling (none
allowed), pumping time, fluid loss, time to 50 psi strength, and 24-hour strength. Entire volume of cement
and spacer should be batch-mixed prior to pumping. Use pressurized mud scales and a densiometer to
measure density.

Listed cement volume is based on 30% excess with a cement top at 7,000 ft. Calculate actual cement
volume based on 20% excess over calipered annular openhole volume. Consider displacing cement with
clear water or brine to minimize the work required for well cleanup.

3.5 Well Control Program

Follow company standard operating procedures for all well control operations. Post Rig Personnel
Responsibility Chart in dog house and acquaint contractor personnel with company policies for well
control operations. Prior to drilling out below surface casing and subsequent strings, inspect rig according
to the following checklist and correct all deficiencies.

Well Control Checklist

1. Does the HOP assembly meet contractual obligations and conform to pertinent orders and regulations?

2. Is there a set of drawings available to the rig showing HOP stack, lines, valves, and manifolds to be
used?

3. Is the assembly rating greater than or equal to casing burst pressure, or formation breakdown
pressure, whichever is lesser?
4. Is it possible to pump into the well with the blind rams closed?

5. Are casing head connections or lower pipe rams tied into choke manifold?

6. Do all items of the HOP assembly meet or exceed the overall pressure rating for the assembly?

7. Do ram preventers have hydraulic or manual locks? If manual, are handwheels and shafts attached?

8. Does the stack have clearance for tool joints between pipe rams so pipe can be stripped through the
rams?

9. Are anchored relief lines available in the event they are needed to hold pressure down on surface
casing?

10. Can all necessary manipulations of the HOP stack be made without going under the floor?

11. Is the stack well anchored, and can it be aligned conveniently if necessary?

12. Are extra ring gaskets, bonnet seal rings, and HOP flange bolts on hand?

13. Are there master valves on the choke flow line and on each choke manifold wing and these used only
for closure to allow downstream repairs?

14. Is there a fillup line separate from the kill line, and is it normally used?

15. Is the choke line straight or does it have only sweeping bends or targeted tees?

16. Are sufficient variable chokes available with a rating to handle expected pressures?

17. Are extra parts for chokes on hand?

18. Are choke lines and valves well supported and anchored?

19. Are choke lines manifolded and arranged so that fluids can be discarded, gas separated safely, and
mud recovered and degassed?

20. Does choke flowline have a minimum ID of 3 in.?

21. Can gas separated from the mud be safely discharged or flared? What is the height of the gas line?
What is its distance from the rig?

22. Is there a mud/gas separator of adequate volume with vent lines of at least 7 in. and a "U" tube mud
line to shaker to prevent gas surging to shaker?

23. Are there both floor-mounted and remote accumulator controls, and are these clearly labeled?

24. Are the off-floor controls effective if the floor unit is destroyed?

25. Does an alternate power source exist so the accumulator can be recharged if one source fails? What
type? Is it in working order?

26. Is there a light on the driller's panel indicating when the accumulator pump is working, and is the light
functional?

27. Are lines from any unused accumulator controls plugged?

28. Does control for blind rams have cover to prevent accidental or unreasoned closure but no locks?
29. Are control lines of pressure rating equal to accumulator pump pressure capability or adequately
protected by relief lines?

30. What is condition of accumulator fluid, and are strainers in good condition? When were they last
inspected?

31. Are HOP control lines positioned low so they are not likely to be destroyed quickly by fire?

32. Is accumulator bottle isolation valve open?

33. Are inside HOP and full opening safety valve for drillpipe available on the rig floor, and can they be
manually stabbed?

34. Are they counterbalanced for easy stabbing?

35. Are crossover subs available so inside BOP and full-opening safety valve can be made up on drill
collars?

36. Is crossover sub routinely made up and used when reaching collars, or is safety valve made up on
crossover when collars are handled?

37. Can the collars be fastened down quickly? What kind of device is available for this purpose?

38. Is a kelly test cock sub on hand?

39. Is the kelly cock handle readily available at a known designated place?

40. Is there a kelly safety valve, and is the handle readily available at a known designated place?

41. Is there a drillpipe flapper-type float valve available?

42. Is there a drillstring nipple and pump down back-pressure valve available or in use?

43. Does wireline lubricator have flange or swedge for secure fastening to or in annular preventer?

44. Is there a pit volume totalizer and recorder mounted in easy view of the driller?

45. Is there a flow indicator for out-of-the-hole conditions, or can the flowline discharge be seen from the
rig floor?

46. Does rig have a pump stroke counter and/or trip tank for use in critical hole-filling checks?

47. Is there available a step by step set of illustrations showing how to test all BOP items, including top
casing joints in a minimum number of steps?

48. Are these steps followed after each nipple-up and at specified intervals thereafter?

49. Have the preventers been field disassembled and inspected in the past year?

50. At least once each trip are the ram-type BOPs operated and are all choke and kill valves flushed?

51. Are valve handles and wheels attached?

52. Are recommended closing pressures of annular preventers for testing on the drillpipe known and used
when testing?

53. Are closing pressure-sealing pressure relationships available for annular preventer, and their
characteristics known by supervisors?
54. Was the accumulator precharge measured on initial rig-up and every 60 days thereafter and restored
if necessary? Is the precharge pressure correct? When was it last checked?

55. Is there a boll weavil plug available for testing BOPs?

56. Is a test joint and packer available for testing the top joints of casing?

57. Can all preventers and hydraulic valve be closed in 19 seconds or less with pumps off and with a
remaining accumulator volume of 50% of original at a pressure of 1200 psi?

58. Is remote unit used to actuate pipe rams at least once a week?

59. Is accumulator pressure 3000 psi? Ii not, how much?

60. Is manifold pressure 1500 psi? If not, how much?

61. Is annular preventer pressure 900 psi? If not, is it correct?

62. Is there a specified procedure for hole filling (number of stands) , and is this done four to five times as
often when pulling drill collars?

63. Does crew check for hole swabbing using a trip tank or pump stroke counter?

64. Is there an effective slugging tank?

65. Are charts posted on the rig showing volume to be pumped from pits for various amounts of pipe
pulled from the hole?

66. Are crews instructed as to procedures during trip if swabbing or lost circulation is detected?

67. Are "on bottom" drills held at intervals, timed, and recorded on daily drilling report?

68. Are "while tripping" drills held and treated as above?

69. Are "drill collar" drills held and treated as above?

70. Are "out-of-hole" drills held and treated as above?

71. Are approved well killing worksheets available on rig floor, and are crews and supervisors familiar with
the methods?

72. Are slow pump rates and pressures obtained tourly and after mud density changes and recorded on
daily drilling reports?

73. Are maximum allowed surface pressures upon closing in well specified and posted?

74. Can the well be closed in quickly while observing and controlling casing pressure?

75. Was the surface casing held in tension until cement set to avoid misalignment?

76. Is the casing wear bushing used while drilling?

77. Is the choke operated prior to drilling out each casing string?

78. Are BOP and valve control handles clearly labeled and kept in "open" or "closed" position?

79. Is the leakoff pressure recalculated and posted after every mud density change?
80. Is the maximum allowable mud density posted?

81. Are drillpipe, drill collar, hole, and mud pump capacity figures available on the rig?

82. Do toolpushers, drillers, and drilling crew have certificates of well control training for their positions?

83. Does the toolpusher have evidence of training (records, cards, certificates) in well control for all
members of the crew?

84. Are all new employees trained in their duties on the rig in the event of an immediate well kick?

85. Is water injection used on engine exhausts within 100 it of well or over production facilities?

86. Is a quick-acting method of shutting down rig engines available off the rig floor and, if diesel engines
are used, is a device installed for closing off the air intake?

87. Are two stairs available from the rig floor, and are walkways uncluttered and open?

88. Are there doors in all near-well tool and storage houses on side away from well so personnel would
not be trapped in case of fire?

89. Is shaker motor explosion-proof?

90. Are matches, lighters, and cigarettes prohibited on rig floor and safe smoking areas designated?

91. Are safe welding areas designated?

92. When welding is done at wellhead or other dangerous locations, does supervisor inspect area with
welder before welding and issue welding permit?

93. Are all lights and wiring systems vapor-proof?

94. Are radio transmitters more than 100 it from well?

95 Are fire extinguishers located at suitable points and easily accessible? When were they last checked?

96. Are flood lights provided for illumination under floor?

97. Is there a list of pertinent orders, BOP accessory information, and safety regulations that should be on
the rig?

98. Are copies of all pertinent safety regulations on the rig and accessible?

99. Are copies of relevant company orders and BOP manual on the rig?

100. Is the rig in compliance with all of the above?

3.6 Wellhead Program

"A" Section head:

11 in. 5M top 10-3/4 in. OD slip over/weld on casing head

"B" Section head:

7-1/16 in. 10M top 11 in. 5M bottom casing spool

"C" Section head:

7-1/16 in. 10M top 7-1/16 in. 10M bottom tubing head

3.7 Logging, Coring, and Testing Program

Run No. Hole size Test

1: 9-7/8 in. DIL-SONIC(LSS)-GR w/ 3-arm caliper

la: 9-7/8 in. Possible SWCs

lb: 9-7/8 in. Possible CNL-LDT-GR

2: 6-3/4 in. DIL-SONIC(LSS)-GR w/ 3-arm caliper

3: 6-3/4 in. CNL-LDT-GR

4: 6-3/4 in. SWCs

5: 6-3/4 in. RFT (optional)

6: 6-3/4 in. SHDT (optional dipmeter run)

7: 6-3/4 in. EPT (optional)

Place a maximum-recording thermometer in all log runs.

3.8 Emergency Procedures

In the event of continued freezing weather, flush choke and kill lines, choke
manifold, and all downstream equipment, and fill with a mixture of water and
antifreeze. Have steam cleaner on location to thaw frozen valves if necessary.

4.0 Appendix
The Appendix should contain copies of all the necessary permits required to drill
the well. The Appendix should also contain a copy of the executed Drilling
Contract so that any questions of responsibility arising at the rig can be quickly
answered.

5.0 Offset Data

All bit records and mud recaps, and the most representative offset well log used
for well planning should be included in this section of the Well Plan. Any other
offset well data that may be of help to the Operations Department should also be
included.
Additional Reading

ADDITIONAL READING

Aadnoy, B., and Larson, K. (1989). "Method for Fracture-Gradient Prediction for
Vertical and Inclined Boreholes", SPE Drilling Engineering (March), 99. Richardson, TX,
USA : Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Burgoyne, Adam T. Jr., Milheim, Keith K., Chenevert, Martin E. and Young, KS. Jr.
(1986). Applied Drilling Engineering. Richardson , TX : Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Hradecky, D., and Postler, D.P. (2004). "Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient Prediction
Challenges: The Successful Design and Implementation of a Remote Exploratory Well
Plan", SPE 87219, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. Richardson , TX, USA : Society of
Petroleum Engineers.

Littleton , R., Landreth, J. and Greve, J. (2002 ): "Pre-drill Predictions Platform (Pore
Pressure, Fracture Gradient, Lithology and Pore Fluids) Effectively Used as a Well
Planning Tool by a Multi-Discipline Deepwater Operations Team", SPE 74487,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.

Robinson, L., (1993). "Determine Formation Pore Pressure At The Surface While
Drilling", Petroleum Engineer International, (January), 38.

Rogers Smith, J. (2000). "Case History of Integrating Multisource Data for Pore
Pressure Prediction ", SPE 59228 , IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.

Scott, D. (1993). "A Global Algorithm for Pore Pressure Prediction", SPE 25674, SPE
Middle East Technical Conference and Exhibition.

Directional Drilling

Goldman, W.A. (1989). "Directional Well Planning With Multiple Targets in Three
Dimensions", SPE 18791 California Regional Meeting.

Lowson, B. (1998). "Multilateral Well Planning", SPE 39245 SPE/IADC Middle East
Drilling Technology Conference.

Planeix, M. And Fox, R. (1979). "Use of Exact Mathematical Formulation to Plan Three
Dimensional Directional Wells", SPE 8338 Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition.

Casing, Tubing, and Wellhead Design

Adams , A.J., and Hodgson, T. (1999). "Calibration of Casing/Tubing Design Criteria

by Use of Structural Reliability Techniques." SPEDE (March).
Heijnen, W.P., (1989). "A New Wellhead Design Concept." SPE 19252 SPE Offshore
Europe.

Prentice, C.M. (1970). "Maximum Load Casing Design", J. Pet. Tech. (March). 805.

Woodlan, B., and Powell, G.E. (1975). "Casing Design in Directionally Drilled Wells."
SPE 5352 California Regional Meeting.

Cementing

Cementing: An Integral Piece of the Drilling and Production Puzzle (2001), A

Supplement to Hart's E&P (October).

Degni, C., and Marcinkevicius, C. (1999). "Primary Cementing Optimization: Well

Conditioning Procedure and Foamed Spacer Use." SPE 53955 SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.

Frisch, G., Grahan W., and Griffith, J. (1999). "Assessment of Foamed Cement
Slurries Using Conventional Cement Evaluation Logs and Improved Interpretation
Methods." SPE 55649 Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting.

Martins, A. (1992). "A Model to Design Foam Cement Job." SPE 23644 Second Latin
American Petroleum Engineering Conference.

McPherson, S.A. (2000). "Cementation of Horizontal Wellbores." SPE 62893 SPE

Annual technical Conference and Exhibition.

Thiercelin, M., Dargaud, B., Baret, J. And Rodriguez, W. (1997). "Cement Design
Based on Cement Mechanical Response." SPE 38958 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition.

Vefring, E., Bjorkevoll, K, Hansen, S., Sterri, N., Saevareid, O., Merlo, A., (1997).
"Optimization of Displacement Efficiency During Primary Cementing." SPE 39009 Fifth
Latin American and Caribbean Conference.

Drilling Mechanics

Robinson, L. (1993). "Empirical Correlation For Borehole Cleaning Developed."

Petroleum Engineering International (September), 37.

Hydraulics

Bizanti, M. (1985). "Bit Hydraulics Optimization Using Reynolds Number Criteria." SPE
16465.
Bizanti, M. And Blick, E.(1986). "Fluid Dynamics of Wellbore Bottom Cleaning." SPE
15010 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference.

Lim, K. (1996). "Bit Hydraulics Analysis for Efficient Hole Cleaning." SPE 35667
Western Regional Meeting.

Ryaide, H. (2002). "Carrying Capacity Design for Directional Wells." SPE 77196,
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference.

Well Testing

Horne, R. (1995). Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer Aided Approach, Petroway
Inc. Palo Alto.

Sabet, M. A. (1991). Well Test Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.

Streltsova, T. (1998). Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.

Well Control

Hannegan, D. And Wanzer, G. (2003). "Well Control Considerations - Offshore

Applications of Underbalance Drilling Technology." SPE 79854 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference.

Rig Selection

Isinger, R. (2002). "Considerations Given to Land Rig Design for Versatility of

Operations." SPE 74453 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.

Leland, A. (2002). "The Use of Self-Erecting Tender Rigs for Improving the Economics
of Marginal Fields." SPE 77232 SPE/IADC Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference.

Noureddine, H. (1999). "Rig Equipment Planning for a Deep, Deviated, High

Pressure/High Temperature Khuff Well." SPE 57553 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.