J174550 DOI: 10.

2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 303 Total Pages: 8

Theories and Applications of Pulsed-Jet

Drilling With Mechanical Specific Energy
Wei Minghui, Li Gensheng, Shi Huaizhong, Shi Shuaishuai, Li Zhaokun, and Zhang Yi,
China University of Petroleum, Beijing

Summary In this paper, the hydraulic term of the pulsed jet is included in
Mechanical specific energy (MSE) is the amount of energy the MSE model through theoretical analysis and laboratory
required to destroy a unit volume of rock. The main work of this experiments. This model is derived from the law of conservation
study is to bring the hydraulic energy of a pulsed jet into an MSE of energy; it is robust and less ambiguous. Therefore, this model
model and further analyze the mechanism of improving the rate could be used to analyze drilling efficiency and identify abnormal
of penetration (ROP) for pulsed-jet drilling on the basis of the conditions for pulsed-jet drilling.
model. Laboratory experiments are used to obtain the relationship
of bit hydraulic horsepower between pulsed jet and continuous
jet, and then the MSE model of pulsed-jet drilling is established. A Brief Review on Mechanical-Specific-Energy
According to the MSE theory, the major mechanisms of improv- (MSE) Models
ing ROP in pulsed-jet drilling are changing the breaking strength The original MSE model is proposed for percussive drilling. It is
of rock and improvement of downhole-cuttings-cleaning effi- different from the rotating-drilling system.
ciency. Field tests and data presented in this study showed that Teale (1965) proposed the MSE model for a rotating drilling
this model could be used to evaluate drilling efficiency and iden- system as
tify abnormal conditions for pulsed-jet drilling. All tests were
operated with similar parameters and on the same drilled forma- WOB 120pNT
MSE ¼ þ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
tion. The field results illuminate that pulsed-jet drilling has higher Ab Ab ROP
drilling efficiency compared with conventional drilling. More-
over, the specific patterns for abnormal conditions can be detected Eq. 1 requires torque (T) as a main variable. Torque in the bit
in real time in the process of pulsed-jet drilling. This model is less can be easily measured with a measurement-while-drilling
ambiguous as well as robust. Therefore, it could provide theoreti- (MWD) system in the field. However, the majority of field data
cal support for the wide application of pulsed-jet drilling. that are measured in the surface are weight on bit (WOB), rev/
min (N), and rate of penetration (ROP). Therefore, a bit-specific
coefficient of sliding friction (l) is used to compute the torque
Introduction
(Pessier and Fear 1992):
Drilling is the key procedure for oil and gas exploration and de-
velopment, and achieving safe and efficient drilling is the objec- 1
T¼  l  Db  WOB: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
tive for drilling researchers (Arnis et al. 2009). The conventional 3
way to assess drilling efficiency in the oil field is to compare
actual efficiency to statistical standards derived from offset The bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction (l) is a function
records. Because these standards are subjective and variable, they of the confined compressive strength (CCS) of the rock being
lack the power of physical models to evaluate drilling efficiency. drilled, bit diameter, mud density, and drilling parameters, such as
Mechanical specific energy (MSE) is the amount of energy ROP and rev/min (N) (Warren 1984; Caicedo et al. 2005). Com-
required to destroy a unit volume of rock. A high MSE value rep- monly, it can be received from the bit manufacturer or a labora-
resents lower drilling efficiency and worse adaptation between tory test. Substituting T in Eq. 1 by Eq. 2, the MSE value can be
formation and bit (Dupriest and Koeteritz 2005). Teale first used obtained without MWD systems.
the MSE concept for drilling-efficiency evaluation and set up the Teale (1965) established his theory under atmospheric condi-
MSE model for rotating-drilling systems (Teale 1965). This tions and ignored the effects of hydraulics. Bit hydraulics has a
model has been used for bit selection, identification of downhole major influence on drilling efficiency, and its role in drilling sys-
conditions, evaluating drilling efficiency, and the optimization of tem is very complex (Pessier and Fear 1992). Some researchers
drilling parameters (Curry et al. 2005; Detournay and Tan 2002). add the hydraulic terms to the MSE function as Eq. 3 (Armenta
However, the MSE model proposed by Teale ignored the effect of 2008):
hydraulics. Both laboratory and field tests illuminate that the WOB 120pNT aHc
improvement of hydraulics will reduce the MSE and improve the MSE ¼ þ þ ; ða < 0Þ: . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
drilling efficiency (Pessier and Fear 1992). Therefore, an MSE Ab Ab ROP Ab ROP
model with the hydraulic term is more accurate (Armenta 2008). Drilling practices have shown that hydraulic parameters have
Pulsed-jet drilling is a newly developed drilling method (Kolle more influence on drilling efficiency. The influence of hydraulics
2004; Li et al. 2008). Some pulsed tools have been developed by is closely tied to other drilling variables such as Lithology, down-
drilling researchers to increase rate of penetration (ROP). Its hole conditions, the composition of circulation systems, drilling
mechanism is modulating the continuous jet to pulsed jet to mud, and so on. Armenta (2008) demonstrated that the rock was
improve drilling efficiency (Biianti 1990). For example, the hy- broken by the mechanical-energy component, and the cuttings
draulic-pulsed-jet generator, which is developed by Li et al. were removed by the hydraulic component. Furthermore, the
(2008), has been used in more than 200 wells in eight oil fields. MSE values tend to the CCS of the rock when the system is dril-
The results show that the average ROP was increased by approxi- ling at optimum conditions (Pessier and Fear 1992; Caicedo et al.
mately 15–105% (Li et al. 2008). 2005; Armenta 2008). Therefore, the minimum specific energy
correlates with the CCS of the rock drilled:

Copyright V
C 2016 Society of Petroleum Engineers MSEmin ¼ CCS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
Original SPE manuscript received for review 28 August 2014. Revised manuscript received
for review 12 March 2015. Paper (SPE 174550) peer approved 20 March 2015. Then, the drilling efficiency is

February 2016 SPE Journal 303

ID: jaganm Time: 23:20 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 304 Total Pages: 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 180

160

140

120

100

P (psi)
80
Fig. 1—The structure of HPJG. (1) Main body; (2) elastic collar;
(3) diverting device; (4) impeller bed; (5) impeller shaft; (6) 60
impeller; and (7) resonant chamber.
40

MSEmin 20
X¼  100%: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
MSE 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
The CCS has a major influence on drilling efficiency. Drilling Time (0.01 seconds)
researchers investigated field data of underbalanced drilling and
conventional drilling. The results indicated that MSE values of Fig. 2—The outlet pressure of the bit nozzle for pulsed-jet
underbalanced drilling were 1/10 those of conventional drilling, drilling.
and the ROP improved more than two times (Sunthankar et al.
2004; Dupriest et al. 2011).
Solving Eqs. 3, 4, and 5 for ROP gives a simple drilling-rate Hydraulic-Pulsed-Jet Generator (HPJG). The structure of the
equation in the form of HPJG is shown in Fig. 1. The slop/flow channel of the diverting
device is designed to change the flow direction and velocity of the
13:3lN
ROP ¼   : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ drilling fluid from the left generator inlet. Thus, tangential-
MSEmin 1 impacting force is generated, and this force can cause impellers to
Db 
XWOB Ab revolve continuously at a high speed. The impeller is installed on
a shaft and sits on the impeller by a shaft sleeve. The impeller is
Pessier et al. (2012) also presented that there was a simple revolving at a high speed when fluid flows through it, changes
relationship between ROP and MSE: the passage area continuously, and at the same time generates
C impulse. On the basis of the transient flow, the continuous jet is
ROP ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ modulated to pulsed jet and stagnation pressure to pulsation pres-
MSE sure. Fig. 2 shows the outlet pressure of the bit nozzle (downhole
In Eq. 7, the value C represents the total input energy, and for pressure) when the flow rate is 158.5 gal/min (10 L/s), according
similar drilled formation and drilling parameters, the value of C is to our laboratory test.
kept constant. Therefore, under similar drilling conditions, lower
MSE means higher ROP and drilling efficiency. MSE Model for Pulsed-Jet Drilling. Because the impellers
revolve continuously at a high speed, the flow area is changed
Mechanical-Specific-Energy (MSE) Model for periodically:
Pulsed-Jet Drilling
Af ¼ AF sinðxt þ /Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
The MSE models developed by other researchers have wide appli-
cations for conventional drilling. A pulsed jet, the outlet pressure
Assuming incompressible fluid, by use of the equation of con-
of which is continuously fluctuating, is different from a continu-
tinuity and the Bernoulli equation, the relationship is obtained as
ous jet. Therefore, the bit hydraulic horsepower of pulsed-jet dril-
ling cannot be obtained through the conventional principle of bit vp ¼ Qb =Af ¼ Qb =AF sinðxt þ /Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
hydraulics. In this section, the MSE model for pulsed-jet drilling
is deduced by means of both theoretical analysis and experiment. Therefore, the methods to calculate the bit-pressure drop of a
pulsed jet are different from those of conventional drilling. The
average value of bit-pressure drop Pb in a certain time can signify
that of a pulsed jet (Nagib et al. 2011). The HPJG was connected
1,600 Pulsed jet with bit in a laboratory test. Fig. 3 shows the bit-pressure drop of
Continuous jet both pulsed jet and continuous jet, when the flow rate increased
1,400 from 95 gal/min (6 L/s) to 158.5 gal/min (10 L/s). The bit-
pressure drop of pulsed jet was greater than that of continuous jet.
1,200 Fig. 4 shows the difference value Pd of bit-pressure drop between
the pulsed jet and continuous jet. It indicates that Pd increases
Pb (psi)

with the increase of flow rate, and through quadratic fit we obtain
1,000
Pd ¼ k  Q2b , k ¼ 0:041. Then, the bit-pressure drop Pb of pulsed
jet could be obtained through Pd and the bit-pressure drop of con-
800 ventional jet in a certain flow rate. According to the bit hydraulic
formula,
600
Hp ¼ Qb  Pb : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
400
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Then, the form of the MSE function for pulsed-jet drilling can
Qb (gal/min) be represented as
WOB 120pNT bHp
Fig. 3—Bit-pressure drop of pulsed-jet drilling and conven- MSE ¼ þ þ ; ðb < 0Þ: . . . . . . . ð11Þ
tional drilling. Ab Ab ROP Ab ROP

304 February 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 23:20 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 305 Total Pages: 8

110 τ

100

90

80
Pd (psi)

70
T0 0 σne σhe
60

50 Fig. 5—The stress state of downhole rock.

40
decrease of l when weight on bit and Db remain the same. How-
30 ever, for field applications, l usually stays within a narrow range:
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 from 0.18 to 0.24 for cone bits and from 0.5 to 0.8 for polycrystal-
Qb (gal/min)
line-diamond-compact bits under many different values of CCS
and operating conditions. Commonly, it can be obtained from bit
manufacturers (Falconer and Normore 1987; Pessier and Fear
Fig. 4—Difference of value of bit-pressure drop between 1992). The influence of the negative pressure DPf on torque (T) is
pulsed-jet drilling and conventional drilling.
equivalent to the increase of the denominator part of Eq. 11 when
the value of l is selected as the same.
On the other hand, the effect of the negative pressure DPf can
In a rotary-drilling system, the hydraulic energy is very small bring about the decrease of the normal stress ren of bottom-rock
in comparison with the mechanical energy. Although the transient periodicity:
energy of pulsed jet is much higher than that of continuous jet, it
is still rather small compared with the mechanical energy. The ren ¼ Pf  cPp þ DPf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
major influences of the pulsed jet are changing the breaking
strength of rock and affecting the downhole cleaning efficiency. The decrease of ren can lead to an instantaneous increase of the
Changing the Breaking Strength of Rock. Commonly, the diameter of the Mohr circle of stress when the maximum horizon-
confining pressure on the bottomhole is composed of fluid-column tal stress reH remains the same, as seen in Fig. 5 (Fu et al. 2012;
pressure Pf and circulating pressure drop DPh , Pf þ DPh . Chang et al. 2014). Therefore, a relatively smaller shear force can
Pressure fluctuation induced by pulsed jet produces relatively break the rock, which will improve the ROP. The denominator of
negative pressure DPf on the bottom, which causes an instantane- Eq. 11 and torque (T) will increase. According to Eqs. 11 and 12,
ous confining-pressure change Pf þ DPh  DPf . According to
rock-mechanics theory, the confined compressive strength (CCS) WOB 120pN  c1  WOB  Db
MSE ¼ þ
reduces with the decrease of confining pressure. That MSE Ab Ab ROP
reduces with the decrease of CCS has been verified by some pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
120pc2  WOB  N  Db bHp
researchers through laboratory tests (Detournay and Tan 2002; þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ :     ð14Þ
Rafatian et al. 2010). Ab ROP A b ROP

The further analysis of the relationship between CCS and

MSE could be given through the analysis of the relationship Therefore, the MSE will reduce if the ROP improves when
between bit torque and CCS. This relationship has been studied other conditions remain constant.
by researchers through laboratory and field tests (Warren 1984; Improving the Downhole Cleaning Efficiency. When cut-
Burgess and Lesso 1985; Caicedo et al. 2005). However, there is tings are cut by bit and separated from the matrix of rock, they are
no mathematical method to calculate the value of l. Warren pressed on the bottomhole by hydrostatic pressure. Unless
(1984) proposed a torque model: removed from the bottomhole in time, they will be reground by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! the bit. Therefore, the total broken volume of rock Vt consists of
l ROP the effective volume of rock Ve and the reground volume of rock
T ¼  WOB  Db ¼ c1 þ c2  WOB  Db : Vr :
3 NDb
                   ð12Þ Vt ¼ Ve þ Vr : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ

In Eq. 12, the coefficients c1 and c2 decreased with the A schematic of the various pressures acting on a cutting is
decrease of confining pressure, according to the tests results of shown in Fig. 6a, where normal bottomhole pressure acting on a
Warren (1984). According to Eq. 2, torque T reduces with the cutting is Pf þ DPh . Cuttings separating the bottomhole need to

Pf + ΔPh Ff Pf + ΔPh – ΔPf Ff

(a) (b)

Fig. 6—The force acting on a cutting.

February 2016 SPE Journal 305

ID: jaganm Time: 23:20 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 306 Total Pages: 8

Table 1—The drilling parameters of 9-in. HPJG test.

120,000 Pulsed-jet drilling Pulsed-jet drilling

Conventional drilling 140 Conventional drilling

100,000 120

100
80,000

ROP (ft/hr)
80
MSE (psi)

60,000
60

40,000 40

20
20,000
0
6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500
0
6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 Depth (ft)

Depth (ft) Fig. 8—ROP of the two wells.

Fig. 7—MSE values of the two wells.

Ab ROP that is in Eq. 11, which will reduce the MSE value when
  the total energy maintains the same.
overcome the hold-down effect Ff  eAb Pf þ DPh , and the
thrust force is provided by water jet. The pulsed generator modu-
lates the continuous jet to a pulsed jet, and the process is energy- Field Examples
accumulated and released in transient time. Therefore, the inter- The evaluation of pulsed-jet-drilling efficiency and real-time iden-
mittent waterhammer-effect pressure of pulsed jet Fp that acts on tification of downhole abnormal conditions of pulsed-jet drilling
the rock is much larger than that of continuous jet Fc . Moreover, on the basis of this model are discussed in this section.
because of the negative pressure DPf on the bottom produced by
pressure fluctuation, the instantaneous hold-down effect acting on
Comparison of Drilling Efficiency Between Pulsed-Jet Drilling
cuttings becomes Pf þ DPh  DPf , as seen in Fig. 6b, which is
lower than that of continuous jet. Therefore, this thrust for and Conventional Drilling on the Basis of the Mechanical-
Specific-Energy (MSE) Model. 9-in. Hydraulic-Pulsed-Jet-
overcoming the  hold-down effect changes to Ff  eAb
Pf þ DPh  DPf . Under the two effects, the force of thrust Generator (HPJG) Test. The tests were conducted in Tarim oil
exceeds the threshold force of cuttings removed. The faster the field. Pulsed-jet-drilling and conventional-drilling methods were
cuttings are removed, the less energy is wasted regrinding cuttings adopted in these two wells, in which the tested intervals were in
that are already broken. the same formation and with similar operating parameters. Both
Therefore, pulsed-jet drilling will reduce the reground volume tested wells were vertical wells. The test depth varied from 5,800
of rock Vr and improve the effective volume of rock Ve . Improv- to 9,300 ft for both wells. The formation is in the Neogene system
ing the effective volume of rock Ve means improving the part of and mainly composed of mudstone mixed with malmstone. The
rock drillability grade is Level 2–3. The same type polycrystal-
line-diamond-compact (PDC) bits were used in the tests, which
180 Original data of the conventional drilling were 121=4 in. in diameter and with seven nozzles of diameter 0.87
Original data of the pulsed-jet drilling in. The size of the tested wellbores were 121=4 in. The bottomhole
160 The fit curve for the data of the conventional drilling
The fit curve for the data of the pulsed-jet drilling
assembly (BHA) of the pulsed-jet-drilling well was bit (121=4 in.
140
PDC bit) þ HPJG (9 in.) þ drill collar þ drillpipe, and the conven-
tional-drilling well adopted the same BHA except for the HPJG.
ROP (ft/hr)

120 The drilling parameters were shown in Table 1. During the dril-
ling process, these parameters had no significant change.
100 Weight on bit (WOB), rev/min (N), flow rate (Qb), and rate of
80 penetration (ROP) were obtained by logging. Then, the MSE val-
ues could be obtained, according to Eqs. 3 and 11. Fig. 7 shows
60 the MSE values of the tested wells. The MSE values of the
pulsed-jet-drilling well were fluctuating from 17,000 to 23,000
40
psi, and from 30,000 to 43,000 psi for the conventional drilling.
20 Under the similar drilling parameters and conditions, the MSE
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 values of the pulsed-jet-drilling well were 40–70% less than those
MSE (psi) of the conventional-drilling well.
Fig. 8 shows the ROP variations of both wells, and we can see
Fig. 9—The relationship between MSE and ROP. that the pulsed-jet drilling could increase the ROP dramatically.

306 February 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 23:21 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 307 Total Pages: 8

Table 2—The drilling parameters of 73=4-in. HPJG test.

Pulsed-jet drilling Original data of the conventional drilling

70
45,000 Conventional drilling Original data of the pulsed-jet drilling
The fit curve for the data of the conventional drilling
40,000 60 The fit curve for the data of the pulsed-jet drilling
35,000
50
30,000

ROP (ft/hr)
MSE (psi)

25,000 40

20,000
30
15,000

10,000 20

5,000
10
0
11,900 12,000 12,100 12,200 12,300 12,400 12,500 12,600 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Depth (ft) MSE (psi)

Fig. 10—MSE values of the two wells. Fig. 11—The relationship between MSE and ROP.

Fig. 9 shows the fit curves between the MSE and ROP of both in. The depth ranged from 19,425 to 19,685 ft for both test wells.
wells, and we can see the curves agree well. The values of C are The test formation was in the Ordovician and contained limestone
2,030,992 and 2,064,547 and the ratio of the latter to the former is as its main component. The same type cone bits were used in the
1.02, which indicates that the relationship between MSE and ROP tests, which were 61=2 in. in diameter and with three nozzles of di-
conformed to the exponential relationship presented by Eq. 7. ameter of 0.87 in. The BHA of the test well was bit (61=2-in. cone
This result suggests that the drilling efficiency of pulsed-jet dril- bit) þ HPJG (43=4 in.) þ drill collar þ drillpipe, and the conven-
ling is higher than that of conventional drilling with the same tional-drilling well adopted the same BHA except for the HPJG.
energy input. Table 3 includes the main test parameters for both wells. Fig. 12
73=4 -in. HPJG Test. The tests were conducted in Tuha oil field. shows the MSE-value comparison of the pulsed-jet drilling and
Pulsed-jet drilling and conventional drilling were compared on the conventional drilling. The MSE values of the pulsed-jet dril-
directional wells. The wellbore sizes of both tested wells were 91=2 ling were reduced 20% compared with the conventional-drilling
in. The test depth ranged from 11,873 to 12,526 ft for both wells. well. Fig. 13 shows the MSE/ROP data of the two wells and their
The test formation is in the Jurassic system, and its main compo- fit curves. The values of C were 977,030 and 1,014,442, and the
nent is mudstone. The same type PDC bits were used in the tests specific value is only 1.04.
for both wells, which were 91=2 in. in diameter and with five nozzles
of diameter of 0.55 in. The BHA of the pulsed-jet-drilling well was Identifying Abnormal Conditions for Pulsed-Jet Drilling on
bit (91=2-in. cone) þ HPJG (73=4 in.) þ drill collar þ drillpipe, and the Basis of the MSE Model. Pulsed-jet drilling was used in this
the conventional well adopted the same BHA except for the HPJG. well; the depth of the tested interval is 9,058–9,450 ft; and the
Table 2 includes the main test parameters of the test wells. In the BHA of the well was bit (121=4-in. PDC bit) þ HPJG (9 in.) þ screw
test of pulsed-jet drilling, the hole-deviation angle changed from motor þ drill collar þ drillpipe, and the operating parameters
64.2 to 71.7 ; for conventional drilling, the hole-deviation angle were shown in Table 4. The operating parameters were keept
changed from 66.2 to 73.6 during the test process. Fig. 10 shows unchanged in the drilling process. The WOB, rev/min, flow rate,
the MSE-value comparison of the pulsed-jet drilling and conven- and ROP were measured at the surface-gauge in real time.
tional drilling. The MSE values of the pulsed-jet drilling were According to Eq. 11, the MSE values could be obtained in real
reduced 20% compared with the conventional-drilling well. Fig. 11 time. Fig. 14 shows the MSE values in the experimental depth.
shows the MSE/ROP data of the two wells and their fit curves. The After the depth of 9,250 ft, the MSE values rapidly increased
values of C are 388,533 and 356,458, and the specific value is only from 10,000 to more than 20,000 psi, which indicated that there
1.09. were inefficient drilling conditions downhole. After pulling up
43=4 -in. HPJG Test. The tests were conducted in Tahe oil the drilling string, it was detected that the screw motor was punc-
field. Pulsed-jet drilling and conventional drilling were compared tured, which caused bit balling and caused one bit port to be
on vertical wells. The wellbore sizes of both tested wells were 61=2 blocked, as shown in Fig. 15.

Table 3—The drilling parameters of 43=4-in. HPJG test.

February 2016 SPE Journal 307

ID: jaganm Time: 23:21 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 308 Total Pages: 8

350,000 Original data of the conventional drilling

Pulsed-jet drilling Original data of the pulsed-jet drilling
9 The fit curve for the data of the conventional drilling
300,000 Conventional drilling
The fit curve for the data of the pulsed-jet drilling
8
250,000
7

ROP (ft/hr)
MSE (psi)

200,000
6
150,000
5
100,000
4
50,000
3
19,450 19,500 19,550 19,600 19,650 19,700
100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
Depth (ft)
MSE (psi)
Fig. 12—MSE values of the two wells.
Fig. 13—The relationship between MSE and ROP.

160,000 Before downhole accident

After downhole accident
140,000

120,000

Table 4—The drilling parameters of HPJG test. 100,000

MSE (psi)

80,000

60,000

40,000
Fig. 16 shows the ROP of drilling before and after the drilling
accident. Fig. 17 shows the fit curves of MSE/ROP before and af- 20,000
ter the drilling accident. The product values of ROP and MSE
before and after the drilling accident are roughly equal and con- 0
9,050 9,100 9,150 9,200 9,250 9,300 9,350 9,400 9,450
form to the exponent relationship shown in Eq. 7. Through data
fitting, the values of C are 753,971 and 742,640 and the ratio of Depth (ft)
former to latter is only 1.01, which means the total input energy
remains equal while the drilling efficiency reduces dramatically Fig. 14—The MSE values.
after the bit port is blocked. In the drilling process, if the MSE
values abruptly change when the total input energy remains the influences of the pulsed jet are changing the breaking strength
same, we could judge that there are undesirable conditions down- of rock and improving the cleaning efficiency downhole.
hole. Therefore, the MSE model could be used to detect abnormal • The oilfield data show a good power function between the
conditions for pulsed-jet drilling in real time. MSE and the rate of penetration of pulsed-jet drilling. Under
similar drilling parameters, pulsed-jet drilling MSE values
Conclusions are 20–70% less than those of conventional drilling.
The following conclusions can be obtained from this study: • On the basis of the model, the downhole conditions of
• Through theoretical analysis and laboratory experiments, the pulsed-jet drilling could be evaluated and abnormal condi-
mechanical-specific-energy (MSE) model for pulsed-jet dril- tions could be detected in real time.
ling is established. According to the MSE theory, the major

70 Before drilling accident

After drilling accident
60

50
ROP (ft/hr)

40

30

20

10

0
9,050 9,100 9,150 9,200 9,250 9,300 9,350 9,400 9,450
Depth (ft)

Fig. 15—Bit balling and bit port blocked. Fig. 16—The ROP before and after drilling accident.

308 February 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 23:21 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 309 Total Pages: 8

Original data before drilling accident Arnis, J., Ronald, G., David, A., et al. 2009. Optimization of deep drilling
70 Original data after drilling accident performance: bench mark testing drives ROP improvements for bits
The fit line for the data before drilling accident and drilling fluids. Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
The fit line for the data after drilling accident
60 The Netherlands, 20–22 February. SPE-105885-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/105885-MS.
50 Biianti, M. S. 1990. Jet Pulsing May Allow Better Hole Cleaning. Oil Gas
ROP (ft/hr)

J. 88 (2): 67–68.
40
Burgess, T. M. and Lesso, W. G. 1985. Measuring the Wear of Milled
Tooth Bits Using MWD Torque and Weight-on-Bit. Presented at SPE/
30
IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5–8 March. SPE-
20 13475-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13475-MS.
Caicedo, H. U., Calhoun, W. M. and Ewy, R. T. 2005. Unique ROP Pre-
10 dictor Using Bit-specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction and Mechani-
cal Efficiency as a Function of Confined Compressive Strength
0 Impacts Drilling Performance. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Con-
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
ference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23–25 February. SPE-9257-
MSE (psi)
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/92576-MS.
Chang, D. Y., Li, G. S., Huang, Z. W., et al. 2014. A Study on the Effect
Fig. 17—The relationship curves of ROP and MSE before and af-
ter drilling accident. of Bottom-hole Differential Pressure on the Rock Stress Field. Energy
Source. A 36 (3): 275–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2010.
538808.
Curry, D., Fear, M., Govzitch, A., et al. 2005. Technical Limit Specific
Energy - An Index to Facilitate Drilling Performance Evaluation. Pre-
Nomenclature
sented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Nether-
Ab ¼ borehole area, in.2 lands, 23–25 February. SPE-92318-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
Ab ¼ contact area between a cutting and the bottom of the 92318-MS.
hole Detournay, E. and Tan, C. P. 2002. Dependence of Drilling Specific
Af ,AF ¼ flow area, in.2 Energy on Bottom-Hole Pressure in Shales. Presented at SPE/ISRM
C ¼ the total input energy Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, 20–23 October. SPE-
CCS ¼ the confined compressive strength of the rock, psi 78221-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78221-MS.
Db ¼ bit diameter, in.
Dupriest, F. E. and Koeteritz, W. L. 2005. Maximizing Drill Rates with
Fc ¼ impact force of continuous jet
Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy. Presented at
Ff ¼ the thrust for cuttings separating from the downhole
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23–25
Fp ¼ impact force of pulsed jet
February. SPE-92194-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/92194-MS.
Hc , Hp ¼ hydraulic horsepower, hp
Dupriest, F. E., Elks, W. C., Ottesen, S., et al. 2011. Borehole-Quality
MSE ¼ mechanical specific energy, psi
Design and Practices To Maximize Drill-Rate Performance. SPE Drill
MSEmin ¼ minimum mechanical specific energy, psi
& Compl 26 (2): 303–316. SPE-134580-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
N ¼ rotary speed, rev/min
134580-PA.
Pb ¼ bit-pressure drop of pulsed jet, psi
Pd ¼ the difference value of bit-pressure drop between Falconer, I. I. and Normore, D. 1987. Well Site Applications Of An MWD
pulsed jet and conventional jet in a certain displace- Bit Efficiency Model. Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
ment, psi Texas, 28 March. SPE-16644-MS.
Pf ¼ confining pressure, psi Fu, J. S., Li, G. S., Shi, H. Z., et al. 2012. A Novel Tool To Improve the
Pp ¼ formation pore pressure, psi Rate of Penetration--Hydraulic-Pulsed Cavitating-Jet Generator. SPE
Qb ¼ flow rate, gal/min Drill & Compl 27 (3): 354–361. SPE-162726-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
ROP ¼ rate of penetration, ft/hr 10.2118/162726-PA.
T ¼ bit torque, lbf-ft Kolle, J. 2004. Hydraulic Pulse Drilling. Oral presentation given at the
vp ¼ velocity of fluid, ft/sec GTI Natural Gas Technologies II Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 8–11
Ve ¼ the effective volume of rock February.
Vr ¼ the reground volume of rock Li, G. S., Shi, H. Z., Huang, Z. W., et al. 2008. Mechanisms and Tests for
Vt ¼ the total broken volume of rock Hydraulic Pulse Cavitating Jet Assisted Drilling. Petrol. Explor. Dev.
WOB ¼ WOB, lbf 35 (2): 239–244.
a, b ¼ coefficient of hydraulic horsepower Nagib, M., Isu, S., Ugbogo, N. I., et al. 2011. Modeling of a Down hole
c ¼ relationship coefficient of ren and reH Pulsating Device. Presented at SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show
DPf ¼ negative pressure, psi and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September. SPE-139143-
DPh ¼ circulating pressure drop, psi MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/139143-MS.
e ¼ friction coefficient between cuttings and downhole Rafatian, N., Miska, S. Z., Ledgerwood, L. W., et al. 2010. Experimental
formation Study of MSE of a Single PDC Cutter Interacting With Rock Under
k ¼ relationship coefficient of Pd and Qb Simulated Pressurized Conditions. SPE Drill & Compl 25 (1): 10–18.
l ¼ bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction SPE-119302-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119302-PA.
qd ¼ mud density, lbm/gal Pessier, R. C. and Fear, M. J. 1992. Quantifying Common Drilling Prob-
reH ¼ maximum horizontal stress lems With Mechanical Specific Energy and a Bit-Specific Coefficient
ren ,ren 0 ¼ normal stress of Sliding Friction. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
X ¼ mechanical efficiency and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October. SPE-24584-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/24584-MS.
Pessier, R. C. Wallace, S. and Oueslati, H. 2012. Drilling Performance is a
Function of Power at the Bit and Drilling Efficiency. Presented at
References IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, California,
Armenta, M. 2008. Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Dril- 6–8 March. SPE-151389-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151389-MS.
ling-Specific Energy. Presented at SPE Annual Technology Confer- Sunthankar, A. A., Miska, S., Kuru, E., et al. 2004. New Developments in
ence and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 21–24 November. SPE- Aerated Mud Hydraulics for Horizontal Well Drilling. SPE J. 9 (1):
116667-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/116667-MS. 5–12. SPE-87675-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87675-PA.

February 2016 SPE Journal 309

ID: jaganm Time: 23:21 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031

 J174550 DOI: 10.2118/174550-PA Date: 3-February-16 Stage: Page: 310 Total Pages: 8

Teale, R. 1965. The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling. Int. J. SPE conference. He holds bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD
Rock Mech. Min. 2 (1): 57–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062 degrees in petroleum engineering from China University of
(65)90022-7. Petroleum.
Warren, T. M. 1984. Factors Affecting Torque for a Roller Cone Bit. Jet Shi Huaizhong is a lecturer at China University of Petroleum,
Pet Technol 36 (9): 1500–1508. SPE-11994-PA. http://dx.doi.org/ Beijing. His areas of interest are drilling engineering and water
10.2118/11994-PA. jet.
Shi Shuaishuai is a master’s degree student at China University
Wei Minghui is a PhD degree candidate at China University of
of Petroleum, Beijing. His areas of interest are drilling engineer-
Petroleum, Beijing. His areas of interest are drilling engineering
ing and water jet.
and water jet.
Li Zhaokun is a master’s degree student at China University of
Li Gensheng is a professor at at China University of Petroleum,
Petroleum, Beijing. His areas of interest are drilling engineering
Beijing. He is involved with various aspects of water-jet appli-
and water jet.
cation in drilling and completion. Li has served as an interna-
tional adviser to the 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Zhang Yi is a master’s degree student at China University of Pe-
American Water Jet Technology Program Committees and as troleum, Beijing. His areas of interest are drilling engineering
a session chairperson for Completions and Workover for an and water jet.

310 February 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 23:21 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150031/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150031