Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC,
their officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Tortuosity is commonly defined as the amount by which the
actual well bore deviates from the planned trajectory.
Elimination of excessive tortuosity has been regarded as a
critical success factor in extended reach drilling operations.
In this paper the authors will refer to micro-tortuosity, not
measurable by survey data, in which the hole axis is a helix
instead of a straight line. It is argued that this is Lubinskis
crooked hole described in the early 1950s. The paper
presents a study of micro-tortuosity using field data from
hundreds of wells. The paper details how and why micro-
tortuosity occurs and the negative impact micro-tortuosity
can have on the entire drilling operation. The paper also
presents a solution that eliminates or drastically reduces
micro-tortuosity.
Field results will be presented to demonstrate that micro-
tortuosity is in fact the dominant component of the total
tortuosity.
Introduction
Tortuosity has been recognized recently as one of the critical
factors in extended-reach well operations
1,2,3
. The effects
include high torque and drag, poor hole cleaning, drillstring
buckling and loss of available drilled depth, etc.
Conventional wisdom has always held that tortuosity is most
often generated by steerable motors while attempting to
correct the actual well trajectory back to the planned
trajectory. However, in the early days of drilling in the mid-
continent area of the United States, drillers observed a
problem with running tubulars into wells. A vertical well
drilled with a 12-1/4 bit would not drift 12-1/4. This led
Lubinski et al.
4,5
to develop a formula for determining the
minimum drift size for a hole drilled with a given collar and
bit combination (or the reverse). This became known as the
crooked hole country formula. Thus there was early
recognition of the potential for problems due to the fact that
the wellbore was not straight. This recognition predated the
first use of steerable motors by some 30 years.
Today, several types of drilling tools are targeted at
achieving reduced hole tortuosity as measured by survey
data, with a view to reducing torque and drag. Obvious
examples are adjustable gauge stabilizers and adjustable
gauge motors, and, more recently, rotary steerable systems.
In parallel, it is commonly suggested that bent-housing
steerable motors increase tortuosity as measured by survey
data by mixing high dogleg sliding footage and low dogleg
rotating footage. In brief, low dogleg equals low torque
equals good, high dogleg equals high torque equals bad.
Recent evidence suggests that any torque and drag benefits
derived from reducing dogleg as measured by survey data
(macro-tortuosity) are likely to be completely overwhelmed
by the torque and drag generated by poor wellbore quality
(micro-tortuosity).
In the last two years, over 200 wellbore sections have been
drilled using long gauge bits, primarily in pursuit of drilling
improvements broadly encompassed by the term hole
quality. Most of these bits have been run on steerable
motors; some, on rotary steerable systems. Modeling,
measuring, and comparing torque and drag values for
sections drilled with long gauge bits and with short gauge
bits immediately showed two surprising results. First, there is
no dramatic difference between the resulting torque and drag
values for steerable motors versus rotary steerables when
both use similar bits. Secondly, there is a significant
difference between torque and drag values for long gauge bit
runs versus short gauge bit runs regardless of the method
used to drive them. The use of long gauge bits also gives a
clear improvement in activities that might be expected to
benefit from improved hole quality or reduced micro-
tortuosity. These include hole cleaning, logging operations,
resultant log quality, casing runs, and cementing operations.
Quantifying these differences by back-calculating the
friction factors commonly used in the torque and drag model
SPE/IADC 67818
Tortuosity versus Micro-Tortuosity - Why Little Things Mean a Lot
Tom M. Gaynor, David C-K Chen, Darren Stuart, and Blaine Comeaux, Sperry-Sun Drilling Services, a Halliburton
Company
2 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
shows a general trend. The friction factors that give accurate
results for long gauge bits are much lower than the values
necessary for obtaining accurate results when using short
gauge bits. Coupled with the observable field results, this
suggests that attention to hole quality is likely to have a far
greater effect on well design limits, particularly in extended
reach drilling, than will minute attention to matching
directional survey results to the ideal well proposal.
Thus, we believe that micro-tortuosity is far more important
than the commonly known tortuosity in determining the
resulting torque and drag and overall wellbore quality. In
addition, we will show that micro-tortuosity is highly
dependent on the bit and we will discuss field results that
support the contentions above.
Tortuosity vs. Micro-Tortuosity
To explain the difference between tortuosity and micro-
tortuosity, we will first explain how tortuosities are defined
and measured.
Planned Tortuosity (T
p
) is the summation of the total
curvature (inclination and azimuth change) in the planned
wellbore divided by the well depth. The result can be
expressed by either the radius of curvature or, as its
reciprocal, in degrees per 100 feet so as to be consistent with
measurements of dogleg severity. For example, in a well that
builds from vertical to 60 degrees with no change in azimuth,
the total curvature is equal to 60 degrees. If the total depth of
the well is 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) the Planned Tortuosity
is 60/(10,000/100) or 0.6 degree/100 ft.
Tortuosity (T) is computed from the final well survey by
summing all the increments of curvature along the well and
dividing by the well depth (total tortuosity), then subtracting
the planned tortuosity. In conventional wisdom, tortuosity is
approximately the same as macro-tortuosity created by the
local dogleg severity associated with the use of steerable
motors attempting to maintain or correct the actual well
trajectory on course with the well plan. The recent
development of rotary steerable drilling systems was to
provide smooth wellbore curvature that potentially could
minimize all the tortuosity. Thus conventionally, the
tortuosity (T) of the wellbore is equal to the total tortuosity
(T
T
) minus planned tortuosity (T
p
) or
T Macro-Tortuosity = T
T
- T
p
(Conventional Wisdom)
In their paper describing wellbore profile optimization,
Banks, et al.
1
stated that wells drilled without regard to
smoothness could have tortuosity values as high as
0.7/100 ft while smoother wells could have values
approaching 0.3/100 ft. The smoothness to which Banks,
et al. were referring had to do with the kinks imposed in
the process of trying to steer the well back to the desired well
plan with a steerable assembly.
Micro-Tortuosity (T
m
) is defined as the tortuosity that occurs
on a much smaller scale as compared to macro-tortuosity. We
will demonstrate that the primary source of micro-tortuosity
is borehole spiraling, where the hole axis is helix instead of a
straight line. (Despite this the authors have stuck with the
commonly used term spiralling.) Micro-tortuosity differs
from macro-tortuosity in that (i) it occurs on conventional
assemblies as well as motor assemblies (and rotary
steerables, for that matter), and (ii) it creates a uniform
spiraled wellbore that can only be detected by advanced
wireline survey techniques or MWD caliper tools. Unlike
more randomly occurring (and easily measured) localized
washout, a spiraled borehole can last several thousand feet
and can occur across a range of different formations. The
effect of washout is therefore considered minor in
comparison to the impact of thousands of feet of spiraled
borehole. The authors also suggest that what has historically
been classified as rugose, corrugated, or ledged hole, is
more likely spiraled hole.
Spiral hole was first mentioned by MacDonald and Lubinski
in a paper in 1951
4
. They reported that a spiral hole, though it
has no objective rate of change in angle, could develop
serious key seating difficulties, drill pipe wear on
intermediate casing, etc. Lubinski used the term tight
spiral to emphasize the high torque and drag associated with
the spiraled wellbore.
We believe that the tortuosity (T) of the wellbore should
consist of the macro-tortuosity and the micro-tortuosity as
T = Macro-Tortuosity + Micro-Tortuosity
In the past, the micro-tortuosity associated with a spiraled
hole has been lumped into the crude friction factor value in
torque and drag models. As a result, even with the
introduction of new rotary steerable drilling systems which
should have minimized all the local dogleg severity (macro-
tortuosity), the observed field friction factors are still much
higher than the coefficient of friction between steel and rock
measured in a laboratory. This suggests that a significant
portion of the torque and drag created by micro-tortuosity
still exists downhole. We believe that micro-tortuosity occurs
in most of the wellbore in the form of hole spiraling. Only
by recognizing and removing micro-tortuosity can one drill a
truly smooth wellbore. Based on the above hypothesis, the
torque and drag (and the associated friction factor) in a
wellbore with little to no micro-tortuosity should approach a
level that is lower than has ever been seen before. We will
demonstrate that in the following sections.
Mathematical Model of a Spiral Hole
The geometry of a spiral wellbore as defined in a Cartesian
coordinate system is:
X= r *cos ------- (1)
SPE/IADC 67818 TORTUOSITY VERSUS MICRO-TORTUOSITY - WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT 3
Y = r *sin ------- (2)
and
Z = P* /(2) ------- (3)
In which r and P are the radius and pitch of the spiral,
respectively. The wellbore depth S can be calculated as
S = [P
2
+4
2
r
2
]

* z/P ------- (4)

and the curvature of the spiral hole can be expressed as
K = 4
2
r / (P
2
+4
2
r
2
) ------- (5)
Thus, for a typical 5 pitch and 0.5 radius helix, using Eq.
(5) the wellbore curvature K is calculated to be 0.0656 1/ft or
a dogleg severity of 376 deg/100.
Because of this high equivalent dogleg value, the drill collars
and drill pipe cannot possibly conform to the spiral. If the
BHA is slick, the collars will lie on the crests but tool joints
will tend to hang up. If the collars are stabilised, either the
BHA distorts to accommodate micro-tortuosity or the
stabilisers attempt to ream the hole straight. Either way
increased torque and drag is probable and this is not
accounted for in T & D models
The collars will act to limit the amount of lateral movement
of the bit off the centerline of the hole. Thus the spiral
amplitude will be determined by the relative size of the bit
and collars. This is exactly the function described by Woods
and Lubinski
5
in determining the maximum wellbore drift
of a crooked hole. Lubinski calculated the maximum drift
created in a crooked hole as
Drift = (Bit Diameter + Collar Diameter) /2 ------- (6)
Figure 1 shows the two-dimensional schematic of Eq. (6) and
the drill collars in a spiral hole.
Figures 2 and 3 show two spiral borehole images taken from
the wireline CAST (Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool)
tool in a well in South America. The evidence of hole
spiraling is presented in the strong diagonal response of the
CAST images running across the compressed and expanded
2-D images presented in tracks 1 and 2. The reverse 3-D
image presented in track 3 clearly indicates the wellbore
spiraling while it was being drilled. Note that the spiral
seemed to change its direction from time to time and had a
pitch length was about 2 feet.
Figure 4 shows a spiral hole detected by a differential caliper
tool on a wireline density measurement at a well in Gulf of
Mexico. The log indicates that the hole is under gauge
approximately by 1.5 every 4 feet and rarely over gauge.
This phenomenon is repeated over thousands of feet on this
log. This section was drilled by a 9-7/8 bit and 6-3/4
collars. Using Eq. (6) the drift (new wellbore) is calculated to
be 8.31, a 1.56(16%) reduction in wellbore OD which is
exactly the same magnitude measured by the wireline tool.
The reduction in the cross section area (drift vs hole size) is
calculated to be 22.32 in
2
(29%). As a comparison, Figure 5
shows a perfectly gauge hole drilled with a new steerable
system (a matched long gauge bit and positive displacement
mud motor). The entire 12,000 ft interval was drilled in only
2.7 days with no short trips
Although a spiral hole creates higher torque and drag, the
extra wellbore length due to spiraling is usually negligible.
For example, using the same parameters above in Eq. (4), S =
1.014 z, representing a 1.4% increase of wellbore length
drilled by the bit. Only for cases of very large radial
clearances (17-1/2 bits and 9-1/2 collars) can the additional
length increase to perhaps 3%, or an extra 30 feet drilled per
1000 feet of hole.
Solution for Micro-Tortuosity: Long Gauge Bits
The ability of any bit to move off the centerline of the
wellbore is determined by the gauge length on the bit, the
amount of side cutting structure on the bit, and the
stabilization of the bit and BHA. Other factors may play a
role in reducing the tendency to move off center, such as
anti-whirl feature, but these factors are addressing symptoms
rather than causes.
The concept of preventing side-cutting to improve hole
quality is not new as machinists have taken advantage of it
for years. A conventional twist drill for drilling through metal
is furnished with a cutting structure that cuts only in the
direction of the tools long axis, and the spiral flutes serve
only to stabilize the cutting structure, and burnish the sides
of the hole. Until the flutes begin to stabilize the cutting
structure, the drill will tend to precess in the same direction
as drill rotation. This can readily be observed using a
domestic electric drill, and explains why the hole being
drilled is often triangular until the stabilizing flutes begin to
control this movement. If they did not exist, the drill would
continue to precess, and the resulting hole would be
triangular in section, following a helical path.
Since the mechanics that governs machining metal is
identical to that in rock, there is no reason to expect that
preventing fixed cutter bits contacting the side of a wellbore
will have any different result. Any tour of a machine shop
will immediately reveal that a drill press, designed only for
cutting tools that do not side cut (twist drills or reamers), is
relatively slender. Milling machines, designed to cope with
side-cutting tools, are massive, with stiff, well-supported
spindles to give them the stiffness to resist side-cutting
forces. This offers a possible explanation for the observation
that PDC bit tests carried out in laboratories (on rigs that are
much more like milling machines than like drilling rigs),
produce results that have never been seen in the field. A drill
string can never approach the lateral and torsional stiffness of
4 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
a milling machine. However, a drill press, designed only to
drill holes which is what we want to do has no great
torsional, and often very little lateral stiffness. Instead, the
cutting tool provides the solution. The drilling equivalent of a
twist drill is a long gauge bit.
There is now abundant evidence that hole spiraling exists,
whether this evidence is anecdotal, visual (from imaging
tools) or by inductive reasoning from logs with an otherwise
inexplicable periodic variation or tools with an otherwise
inexplicable wear pattern. There is also abundant evidence
that long gauge bits minimize or more often eliminate hole
spiraling. Since the drilling industry depends on steering, if
long gauge bits do not steer then this piece of information
is interesting, but has no practical application. Once it is
discovered that long gauge bits can be made to steer, initially
on specially designed motors, and subsequently on point-the-
bit rotary steerable tools, then the information is worth re-
examining.
This solution can be demonstrated by recourse to Lubinskis
crooked hole equation in Eq. (6). It demonstrates that the
drift of a hole is controlled by the diameter of the drill collar
directly above the bit. A non-spiraled, high quality hole will
have a drift diameter equal to its gauge, presumed to be the
nominal bit diameter. It is easy to demonstrate that if the
collar directly above the bit is in fact the same diameter as
the bit, then drift equals hole gauge, and the hole must
possess no spiraling. Running 12 collars in 12 hole
would pose problems. Running a bit with a 12 sleeve
directly above the cutting structure (a long gauge bit) does
not.
When this thinking has been applied to oil field bit design,
the results have been surprising. Straighter holes have
resulted in friction factors that defy conventional
expectations. Bit life has been extended greatly. Circulation
time as a percent of below-rotary hours has been reduced to
10-12% on average, demonstrating the efficiency with which
the cuttings are being circulated out of the well. Short trips
have been reduced or eliminated. Log quality and ease of
running logging tools has been improved. Cement job
success rate has been nearly 100%, with cement bond logs to
demonstrate the high quality of the job. MWD and LWD
failures have been reduced due to the drastic reduction in
downhole vibration. Lost-in-Hole risk has been reduced.
Entire hole intervals have been drilled in record times
repeatedly.
It is important to note that the drilling system employed
required changes to the bit design as well as changes to the
positive displacement mud motor design.
While these benefits apply to the vast majority of wells being
drilled today, the reduction in friction delivered by this new
system is of particular value for pushing the extended reach
envelope even further than previously thought possible.
Quantifying Tortuosity and Micro-Tortuosity by the
Friction Factor
There are several ways to quantify tortuosity, such as using
the surface torque
1
or using the friction factor in the torque
and drag modeling as proposed in this paper. More than one
hundred wells have been analyzed where the friction factors
were back-calculated, that is, the value of friction factor
necessary to generate model results that matched observed
field data was calculated. All of the wells were drilled with
conventional BHAs, including motor and rotary assemblies.
Table 1 shows the results from the study. As can be seen
from the table, the friction factors can vary considerably,
depending on mud type and whether the hole is open or
cased. The friction factors are normally less in casing than in
open hole. It has always been assumed that this was due
primarily to the lower relative coefficient of friction between
steel on steel (drill pipe on casing) compared to steel on rock
(open hole). We propose that a larger effect is the
elimination of micro-tortuosity (spiraling) once the casing
has been run. Our reasons for believing this will become
clear shortly.
These friction factors have been used for some time now for
the purpose of predicting torque and drag on planned wells.
However, with the introduction of this new positive
displacement mud motor and long gauge PDC bit drilling
system
6
, it became apparent that the generic friction factors
used for everyday wells were no longer applicable to wells
drilled using this new system. The pick-up, slack-off and
torque values predicted using the conventional friction
factors were considerably higher than those observed in the
field, indicating that the friction factors were set too high for
accurate torque and drag prediction for the new drilling
system.
In order to improve predictions when designing future wells
that would utilize this new drilling system, we analyzed
several North Sea runs that had been drilled with the system
to determine an accurate friction factor. We found that on
wells drilled with the new system and using pseudo oil based
mud, the average friction factor value was 0.12. This
compares to 0.17 for conventional assemblies with the same
mud type, a dramatic 30% reduction. As can be seen from
Tables 1 and 2, the open hole friction factor value using this
new system is actually lower than the calculated casing
friction factor in conventional assemblies. This was a
surprising revelation. The authors suggest that the drag
measurements on which the casing friction factor is based are
normally recorded soon after the casing is run, perhaps on the
shoe drill-out run. This initially high drag value can be
expected to drop with every rotating hour as the inside of the
casing becomes polished. Hence the friction will reduce with
time giving a lower friction factor value. We have found
from further study that the open hole friction factor using this
new system is almost identical to cased hole friction factor
after polishing, further proof that the reduction must be down
SPE/IADC 67818 TORTUOSITY VERSUS MICRO-TORTUOSITY - WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT 5
to micro-tortuosity. Figures 6 and 7 show typical calculated
friction factor analyses using this new drilling system at two
North Sea wells.
In order to simulate tortuosity on well plans, a tortuosity
scale factor is applied to the back-calculated actual friction
factors (See Table 2). Normally for conventional assemblies,
Halliburton has used a tortuosity scale factor value of 1.34.
Using this new drilling system, it was noted that the
tortuosity scale factor was reduced to 1.14. This would mean
that in our example of Pseudo Oil Based Mud the planning
friction factor when using this new system will only be 0.14
(0.12 x 1.14) as opposed to the normal value of 0.23 (0.17
x 1.34) for conventional assemblies.
Field Examples of Micro-Tortuosity
Micro-tortuosity affects almost every aspect of drilling and
completing a well. Due to space limitations we have focused
on the most important areas, based on the significance of the
impact on drilling time and cost.
Bit Life and MWD/LWD Tool Reliability
Bits that designed to cut away the side of the hole as well as
the hole in front of it tends to drill a spiral hole. They include
short gauge length bits or bits with side-cutting structure
7
.
These types of bit are also prone to vibrations and whirl.
As most drillers are aware that impact damage is a primary
cause of PDC bit damage. Thus, spiral hole is often
associated with bit vibrations resulting in shorter bit life.
The same vibration that destroys the bit also travels up the
drill string and can lead to a premature MWD/LWD failure.
By stopping the vibration before it can initiate, the
MWD/LWD system reliability should improve. Data from
multiple incidents where vibration-related failures have
occurred, utilizing the new drilling system has had a dramatic
impact on eliminating or reducing the frequency of tool
failure.
Hole Cleaning
Due to the rugosity of the spiral wellbore, cuttings will travel
a tortuous path and will encounter a trough every 2 to 10 feet
(dependent on the actual pitch of the spiral). This will lead to
additional circulating time as well as extra time for
backreaming and short trips in an attempt to dislodge the
trapped cuttings. When using the new drilling system
(utilizing the long gauge bit), entire intervals have been
drilled without short trips and with greatly reduced
circulating hours. In one instance, a 12,000-foot open hole
interval in the Gulf of Mexico was drilled with no short trips.
The entire interval was drilled in only 2.7 days.
ROP
Stabilizers will tend to hang up in a spiral hole, especially in
a non-rotating (sliding) mode. This mechanism explains
the reduction in sliding rates of penetration (ROP) relative to
rotating ROP that is generally recognized as a universal
phenomenon. If spiraling could be eliminated, one would
expect to see a resulting increase in sliding ROP relative to
rotating ROP. In fact, this is exactly what has been seen
when using the new drilling system that utilizing the long
gauge bit. In some areas sliding ROP has been increase to
within 80% or more of the rotating ROP. Thus, the penalty
for sliding is reduced. This opens the door for the directional
driller to spend more time keeping the well closer to the well
plan while achieving a respectable ROP, thus reducing the
macro-tortuosity in the well also.
Stabilizer Wear
Stabilizer hang up in spiral holes would also result in the
excessive wear on the leading and trailing edge of stabilizers
that has been observed on numerous wells. This is the area
that would contact the spiral every pitch, and also would tear
out the new formation when backreaming is done. The short
gauge bit that originally allowed the spiraling to occur would
not perform this function, because at any point in the hole,
the bit will prefer to follow the relatively gauge hole it
originally cut, and so will follow the spiral in and out of the
hole. The job of backreaming is left to the stabilizers. A key
identifier for spiralled hole is that stabiliser wear advances
along the hole axis, not perpendicular to it.
Torque and Drag
The torque and drag in the wellbore often determine the
success of drilling extended reach or horizontal wells. Torque
and drag data gathered from the new drilling system show a
40% reduction in the friction factor value required for the
modeling. This is a result of eliminating micro-tortuosity.
Logging Tool Response
Spiraled boreholes have long plagued wireline and LWD
service companies and have led to totally ambiguous
responses from resistivity, density, neutron, and other
logging sensors. This is due to the fact that the logging tool
will be supported on the low side of the hole by the peaks in
the spiral. If the hole is in fact spiraled instead of corrugated,
then the opposing side of the hole will be in phase rather
than out of phase as would be expected for a corrugated
hole. In simple language this means that opposite every peak
on the low side will be a peak on the high side, not a valley.
See Figures 1 to 3.
Figure 4 illustrates a spiral hole detected by a differential
wireline caliper tool. The borehole fluctuates between almost
perfectly gauge and 1.5 under-gauge. This is due to the fact
that the caliper arm is regularly moving from a peak to a
valley on the high side. When it measures the peak, the tool
has its back against the wall at that point, so the distance is
exactly the bit diameter. At all other times its back is
spanning the valley between two peaks, and it is therefore
unable to conform to the borehole center, and thus measures
6 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
an undergauge hole. As a comparison, Figure 5 shows a
perfectly gauge hole drilled with the new steerable system.
Cementing
The spiral borehole described above is equivalent to a
continuous thread in the well. As previously described, a
spiraled wellbore will have a drift diameter substantially less
than the bit gauge diameter. Running casing into a wellbore
will create an annular space with a varying annular clearance
at any given cross section. This might not create too many
problems as long as it is not continuous. Unfortunately, by
definition the spiraled borehole is continuous. The
consequences of this are that there could potentially be an
area of minimum cement thickness that wraps around the
casing in a continuous path from shoe to shoe. There are no
cased hole logging tools in existence today that can measure
this feature in a cement job, so it has escaped detection so far.
Gravel Packing
In gravel packing wells, and especially inclined wells, a good
distribution of gravel over the entire gravel pack interval is
the design goal. A gravel pack screen that has been run in a
spiral wellbore faces the same annular clearance issues
described above. The tortuous path the gravel is required to
travel may well be the root cause of many of the early sand-
out problems that have been experienced.
Conclusions
1. Tortuosity has been redefined as having two
components, macro- and micro-tortuosity. Macro-
tortuosity can be detected by examination of survey
results. Micro-tortuosity is a smaller scale of dogleg that
will not show up in MWD survey data. It can only be
definitively detected by advanced wireline survey
techniques or MWD caliper tools.
2. Micro-tortuosity commonly exists in the form of hole
spiraling. The pitch of the spiral appears to range
between 2 and 10 feet. Analysis of hundreds of wells
indicates that micro-tortuosity exists in many of the
wells being drilled today
3. Friction factors back-calculated in the torque and drag
model are used to quantify the micro-tortuosity. The data
indicate that Micro-tortuosity is a very important
component in total tortuosity, perhaps even the dominant
component.
4. Many factors contribute to hole spiraling or micro-
tortuosity but the most significant issue is the bit design.
There is abundant evidence that long gauge bits
eliminate hole spiraling. To exploit the benefits of long
gauge bits, a new motor system has been designed to be
able to steer the long gauge bit. The same benefits are
available from point-the-bit rotary steerable tools.
5. Field data using the new drilling system have shown a
much lower friction factor compared to that from any
existing drilling system. This suggests that only by
removing micro-tortuosity, can one drill a truly smooth
wellbore, regardless of the technology employed to steer
the well.
6. By eliminating or reducing spiraling, nearly every facet
of the drilling operation is quantifiably improved. None
of these improvements can be realized by a likewise
reduction in steering-related macro-tortuosity
7. Micro-tortuosity should be routinely considered in
torque and drag modeling exercises. Until then the
industry will make decisions on field development that
are based on ERD limits susceptible to dramatic
improvement at little cost.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank members of senior
management from Sperry-Sun and Halliburton Energy
Services for supporting the team during the development of
the new drilling system and for permission to prepare and
present this paper.
References
1. Banks, S. M., Hogg, T. W., and Thorogood, J. L., Increasing
Extended-Reach Capabilities Through Wellbore Profile
Optimization, IADC/SPE #23850. 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
2. Payne, M. L., and Abbassian, F. Advanced Torque and Drag
Considerations in Extended-Reach Wells IADC/SPE #35102,
1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
3. Guild, G. J., Hill, T. H., and Summers, M. A. Designing and
Drilling Extended Reach Wells, Petroleum Engineer
International January 1995, pp35- pp41.
4. MacDonald, G. C., and Lubinski, A. Straight-Hole Drilling in
Crooked-Hole Country, Drilling and Production Practice, API
1951.
5. Woods, H. B. and Lubinski, A. How to Determine Best Hole
And Drill-Collar Size, The Oil and Gas Journal, June 7, 1954.
6. Gaynor, T. M., Chen, D. C-K, Maranuk, C., and Pruitt, J. An
Improved Steerable System: Working Principles, Modeling,
and Testing, SPE #63248, 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Dallas, Texas.
7. Dykstra, M. W., Chen, D. C-K, Warren, T. M., and Zannoni, S.
A. Experimental Evaluations of Drill Bit and Drill String
Dynamics, SPE 28323, 1994 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana.
SPE/IADC 67818 TORTUOSITY VERSUS MICRO-TORTUOSITY - WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT 7
Table 1. Friction Factors from over 100 wells Drilled by Conventional Assemblies
Mud System Actual
Casing
F.F.
Planning
Casing
F.F.
Actual
Open Hole
F.F.
Planning
Open Hole
F.F.
Water Based
Generic 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.32
Polyseal / Barasilc 0.25 0.34 0.30 0.40
Thixal 0.22 0.29 0.27 0.36
Pure Oil Based
Generic
0.10 0.13 0.12 0.16
Pseudo Oil Based
Generic 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.23
XP07 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.23
Petrofree 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.24
Ecomul 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.27
Table 2. Tortuosity Scale Factors and Friction Factors for the New Drilling System with Pseudo Oil Based Mud
Field Hole
Inc.
Hole
Size
MD
MD In
MD
MD Out
Actual
Open
Hole F.F.
Planning
Open Hole
F.F.
Tortuosity
Scale
Factor
Comments
A 63 12 8817ft 18215ft 0.14 0.16 1.11 Friction Factor calculated
higher than normal due
to effect of 6 5/8 drill
pipe.
B 3-76 12 3010ft 9213ft 0.10 0.11 1.08
C 50-87 8 2906m 4040m 0.14 0.16 1.13 Offshore Germany well.
D 41-63 8 7818ft 11590ft 0.06 0.06 1.03
D 58-16 8 8619ft 12970ft 0.01 0.01 1.06
E 18-70 8 6544ft 10078ft 0.05 0.07 1.26
F 39-86 6 9990ft 13622ft 0.07 0.10 1.30 Torque showed 2200 ft-
lbs. more than expected.
Probably miss-
calibration.
8 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
D
bit
D
DC
D
drift
FIGURE 1- Relationship between bit diameter and drill collar diameter creating
a self-limiting system as per Lubinski. The drill collar diameter determines the
maximum lateral displacement of the bit from center. While superficially this
may appear to be simply the radial clearance, it is actually the radial clearance
divided by 2. Every displacement in one direction creates a limiting boundary
on the opposite side of the hole, so the net result is that the bit can only move
half of the radial clearance in any given direction. There is no logical reason for
this motion to be confined to two dimensions since it is created with a rotating
(360) drilling machine. Therefore it will naturally form a helix.
SPE/IADC 67818 TORTUOSITY VERSUS MICRO-TORTUOSITY - WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT 9
Figure 2 - Spiral Borehole #1 as shown by the 2D (Tracks 1 and 2) and 3D (Track 3) images obtained from a wireline CAST tool in a
Well in South America. The section was between depth of 11,108 and 11,119. Note the spiral changed direction at the depth about
11,115 and had a pitch about 2
Figure 3 - Spiral Borehole #2 as shown by the 2D (Tracks 1 and 2) and 3D (Track 3) images obtained from a wireline CAST tool in a
Well in South America. The section was between depth of 11,183 and 11,194.
10 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
DIFF CAL
INCHES
20...20
DEEP RES 24
OHM-M
.2 20
DEN POR
%
60 0
DEEP RES 30
OHM-M
.2 20
NEUT POR
%
60 0
CALIPER
IN
23 3
CALIPER
IN
3 23
BIT SIZE
IN
23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
BIT SIZE
IN
3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23
Figure 4 Evidence of profound spiraling as detected
by a differential caliper tool on a wireline density
measurement. The log indicates that the hole is under-
gauge approximately by 1.5 every 4 feet and rarely
over gauge . The underage magnitude matches to that
calculated from Lubinskis drift equation. This
phenomenon is repeated over thousands of feet on this
l
Figure 5 Typical example of extremely gauge hole. This
hole quality was evident over thousands of feet. This well
was drilled with the new steerable system (a matched long
gauge bit and positive displacement mud motor). The
entire 12,000 ft interval was drilled in only 2.7 days with
no short trips.
SPE/IADC 67818 TORTUOSITY VERSUS MICRO-TORTUOSITY - WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT 11
Figure 6. Pick-Up and Slack-Off Weights from North Sea Well #1 using the New Steerable Drilling System
Average pick-up friction factor 0.07 and
average slack-off friction factor 0.05
T&D Data from a North Sea Well Using the New Steerable Drilling System
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000
Depth (ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) Calibrated Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.1 Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.2
Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) Calibrated Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.1 Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.2
Rotating Off Bottom (klbs) Calculated Inc
Average pick-up friction factor 0.09 and
average slack-off friction factor 0.03
Depth Inc Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) Rotating Off Bottom (klbs)
feet degrees
Actual Calibrated ff=0.1 ff=0.2 Calculated ff Actual Calibrated ff=0.1 ff=0.2 Calculated ff Actual Calculated
7818 41 190 191 182 182 0.19 105 106 110 110 0.19 140 141
7938 44 175 187 184 185 0.17 110 122 112 111 0.10 130 142
8261 54 172 187 188 190 0.08 110 125 114 112 0.00 130 145
8621 63 170 190 189 194 0.13 110 130 113 111 0.00 125 145
9127 63 170 181 191 197 0.00 110 121 114 110 0.00 135 146
9317 60 175 188 195 202 0.00 110 123 115 111 0.00 135 148
10074 63 180 195 205 214 0.00 115 130 119 114 0.00 140 155
10259 61 187 203 208 217 0.05 112 128 120 115 0.00 140 156
11117 62 200 219 220 232 0.09 110 129 124 118 0.02 145 164
11590 63 210 232 227 240 0.14 112 134 126 120 0.00 145 167
9 5/8" Casing set at 7813ft - friction factor calculated averaged as : 0.16
8" Hole - friction factor calculated averaged as : 0.09 in pick-up and 0.03 in slack-off
12 T. M. GAYNOR, D. C-K CHEN, D. STUART, AND B. COMEAUX SPE/IADC 67818
Figure 7. Pick-Up and Slack-Off Weights from North Sea Well #2 using the New Steerable Drilling System
T&D Data from another North Sea Well Using the New Steerable Drilling System
95
105
115
125
135
145
155
165
175
185
195
205
215
225
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000
Depth (ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) Calibrated Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.1 Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.2
Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) Calibrated Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.1 Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) ff=0.2
Rotating Off Bottom (klbs) Calculated Inc
Depth Inc Pick Up (all weight values in klbs) Slack Off (all weight values in klbs) Rotating Off Bottom (klbs)
feet degrees
Actual Calibrated ff=0.1 ff=0.2 Calculated ff Actual Calibrated ff=0.1 ff=0.2 Calculated ff Actual Calculated
3166 11 95 105 105 106 0.09 90 100 100 100 0.10 93 103
3654 22 105 115 114 115 0.13 98 108 107 106 0.06 100 110
3940 28 108 117 118 120 0.05 100 109 109 107 0.12 105 114
4231 22 113 121 124 128 0.01 107 115 113 110 0.03 110 118
4611 17 124 132 134 139 0.06 111 119 120 116 0.12 119 127
5020 12 133 143 143 149 0.10 118 128 127 123 0.08 125 135
5650 3 150 162 158 165 0.16 125 137 138 132 0.12 135 147
5875 7 152 161 163 172 0.08 131 140 141 135 0.12 143 152
6505 20 173 181 176 188 0.14 143 151 149 141 0.08 154 162
6875 21 176 185 184 198 0.11 145 154 154 144 0.10 159 168
7158 26 182 192 189 205 0.12 149 159 157 147 0.08 162 172
7443 31 189 196 193 210 0.12 151 158 158 148 0.10 167 174
7720 42 193 202 197 215 0.13 150 159 159 147 0.10 167 176
7825 45 198 204 197 216 0.14 155 161 159 147 0.08 170 176
8298 61 194 198 197 218 0.11 152 156 156 143 0.10 170 174
8493 68 195 202 195 216 0.14 147 154 154 141 0.10 165 172
8875 76 185 190 190 213 0.10 142 147 148 135 0.11 162 167
13 3/8" Casing set at 2989ft - friction factor calculated averaged as : 0.09
12" Hole - friction factor calculated averaged as : 0.11 in pick-up and 0.09 in slack-off
Average pick-up friction factor 0.11 and
average slack-off friction factor 0.09