SPE 63270

Reinventing the Wheel - Reducing Friction in High-Angle Wells

Colin J. Mason, SPE, BP Amoco; Larry G. Williams, SPE and Geoff N. Murray, SPE, Weatherford International Inc.

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 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
Extended Reach (ER) wells have usually been proven
the world over to provide an exceptionally cost effective
means of field development.
For example, in one
particular instance, adoption of ER drilling resulted in +/50% savings compared with a sub-sea completed well.
Additionally, intervention costs were dramatically reduced
since the substantial cost associated with mobilizing a
floater into the relatively remote area was averted (1).
Frictional losses due to torque/drag (T/D) are a primary
limitation in extending the reach of many high angle wells.
This paper specifically considers T/D problems associated
with current well designs and presents roller-based tool
technology as a solution for reducing mechanical friction
losses.
Also considered are some of the other merits of roller
type technology that are not immediately apparent. They
include decreased likelihood of differential sticking; an
important consideration given the significant 4D seismic
created interest in in-fill drilling. The drilling tools can also
have an impact on drilling performance by helping to
reduce axial and rotational stick/slip, thus prolonging bit
life, increasing rate of penetration (ROP), and potentially
avoiding a trip to replace the bit.
Field trial results, case studies and laboratory tests
will demonstrate that roller-based tools are an effective
solution to combating mechanical frictional losses.
An important point is that since roller-based tools
function almost independently of drilling fluid type, they
should enable operators to use lower-cost drilling fluids,
such as water based muds that comply more easily with

local environmental legislation.

Introduction
In inflation adjusted terms, the cost of producing
hydrocarbons has substantially reduced in spite of
reserves becoming increasingly inaccessible. Perhaps
one of the key contributors to this is the important
value-adding role of high-angle (including horizontal) wells.
An example of this trend is apparent in Canada where
many, previously uneconomic fields have been developed
with long horizontal wells (2).
Where more pay exposed is better, wells have become
progressively longer such that frictional losses are now a
critical well construction factor.
One traditional method of reducing T/D has been to
use lubricating chemicals (3), a technique that is very
convenient but is not necessarily the most cost effective.
Lubricants are also increasingly being subjected to
environmental restrictions and there is also the issue of
formation damage for hydrocarbon sections. Mechanical
friction reduction tools provide viable alternates or
complementary technology to the chemical method.
The family of roller based tools described within this
paper have applications to all aspects of well construction
and maintenance including:

Rotary / Oriented Drilling

Logging Operations
Casing, Liner and Screen Running
Completion Tubing Running
Cementing during Liner Rotation
Perforating
Intervention

Roller Tool Design

The roller tool design has been evolved over a number
of years. Here we give a brief history of tool development
and describe how the current designs have been
determined.

COLIN J. MASON, LARRY G. WILLIAMS, GEOFF N. MURRAY

Prior to settling on the tool designs shown in Figs. 1-5,

a number of alternatives were considered and discarded.
They include:
A roller ball design (ball transfer unit) that appeared to
afford a relatively simple means of reducing torque and
drag. Discussion with a major operator showed that their
experience with such a design resulted in excessively
high point loads on and localized failure of the conductor
tubing into which they were placed. Our testing also
revealed difficulties with the balls seizing and then flatspotting due to the ingress of debris.
A roller castor design option appeared to overcome the
demerits of the ball transfer unit design and patents were
filed.
However, it presented some manufacturing
challenges and the design was dropped in favor of the
current design.
A load-skate type design that uses an endless roller
chain that tracks around a sole plate. This design was
discarded because it was felt that there was a high risk of
tool failure resulting in junk iron being left downhole.
An angular contact castor design offered some
significant benefits for very small annular clearance
applications. Testing however, revealed that such tools do
not provide quite the efficiency of the current design.
The LoDRAG roller centralizer tool as shown in Fig.1
is designed primarily to run on casing, liner and screens.
It has a ductile iron body and alloy steel axles and rollers.
The tool is used in a similar manner to conventional solid
centralizers but provides axial drag reduction, wear
resistance and other benefits.
Other styles of LoDRAG include a tool for running
dual completions, another for electric submersible pumps
and yet another for perforation guns.

SPE 63270

Fig. 2, LoDRAG Control Line Running Tool

The LoTORQ/DRAG roller centralizer tool as shown in
Fig. 2 is similar to LoDRAG except that it also
incorporates torque reducing rollers that protrude to the
inside of the tool. This tool is used on casing, liner and
screen but provides further benefits such as excellent
rotating performance for applications such as drill-in liners
or rotating a very long or heavy liner in cement.

Fig.3 LoTORQ/DRAG Roller Centralizer Tool

The LoTAD rental drilling tool is available in two
styles; a lighter duty tool for clamping on to a drill pipe or
tubing running string (Fig. 4) and a heavy duty drilling
style as shown in Fig. 5. Additionally, the drilling tool is
available as both a clamp-on and sub based item.

Fig. 4, LoTAD Completion Running Tool

Fig. 1 LoDRAG Roller Centralizer Tool

Fig. 5, LoTAD Drilling Tool

SPE 63270

REINVENTING THE WHEEL - REDUCING FRICTION IN HIGH-ANGLE WELLS

Fundamentals
In order to achieve low friction coefficients,
conventional downhole tools require that a fluid film be
maintained between contact surfaces. In general terms, it
follows that the downhole fluids that exhibit the highest
film strength will produce the lowest friction factors.
Aside from fluid film strength, the relative speed
between two contacting surfaces may also affect friction,
viz: a drill string that is rotated at say 10 rpm (boundary
lubrication regime) will normally generate higher surface
torque than the same string rotated at 150 rpm (partial
hydrodynamic or viscous lubrication).
Conversely, roller tools provide a very low friction
coefficient between axle and roller, almost irrespective of
fluid type. In open hole however, the performance of a
roller is a function of its diameter versus the in-situ
compressive strength of the formation and load. Again,
this is all but independent of fluid type.
An important consideration is the spacing of tools. If
placed too far apart, the tubular will contact the wall of the
hole and a portion of the friction reducing benefit will be
lost. If too close, it may be that the added stiffness of the
string will result in high bending induced normal forces
and correspondingly higher friction.
The independence that a roller tool gives from fluid type
has very important considerations for the industry in that
drilling and completion fluids may be selected for other
than their friction reducing properties.

that was connected to a laptop computer.

To measure static friction, the crank was slowly
operated and the resultant maximum axial drag recorded.
Dynamic friction was measured by cranking quickly and
recording the lowest steady axial drag.
Results revealed substantially better results for the
small rollers, than would reasonably have been expected
on the simulated soft formations.
Prior to releasing tools for down-hole use, they were
also extensively tested in simulated down-hole conditions.
In the case of centralization equipment this amounted
to durability testing where two tools were installed on
heavy bar stock to simulate actual running weights. A
pneumatically operated double acting ram with roller trip
valves, reciprocated the assembly inside a casing bath.
Fig 7 illustrates this.
As a control, standard spring bow and solid body
centralizers were also tested. These were tested in a
variety of fluids including water, water based and oil based
muds.

Fig. 7, Durability Test Rig

Laboratory Testing
Extensive testing was conducted to determine the
correlation between roller diameter, a simulated soft
sandstone running surface and friction factor. These
results are illustrated in Fig.6

Fig. 6, Vs. Roller Diameter

The method used was to set up a three-roller trolley
with a load commensurate with the load each roller would
see in actual operation.
This trolley was connected via a threaded drawbar, to a
crank system. Inserted into the drawbar was a load cell

Two significant results came out of these durability

tests:
The axial stick/slip whilst testing the roller tools was
so low that the heavily loaded assembly was reluctant to
stop at the end of each stroke. This led to some difficulty
in adjusting the roller trip valves. In comparison, due to
higher friction and axial stick/slip this was not an issue
with conventional tools.
On conclusion of the tests, the roller tools exhibited
very little wear. Both the solid and bow type tools
however were badly worn; the worst being the aluminum
solid body tools which had no remaining stand-off after
12,000 of reciprocation on a single pair of stand-off fins.
Results of the durability testing are shown in Fig. 8.

COLIN J. MASON, LARRY G. WILLIAMS, GEOFF N. MURRAY

SPE 63270

(ii) Drilling Tools

Fig. 8, Durability Test Results

The drilling tools were also durability tested in a rotary
test bed where a variety of loads were able to be applied
via a pressure relieving type hydraulic system.
Fail-safe Design
(i) Centralization Tools
A frequent concern about the early tools was that the
wheels will fall off and in fact with the early centralization
tools, there was a problem with impact loads causing the
axle retention welds to fracture.
To rectify this problem, the welded axle, which was
prone to ductility problems in the heat affected zone, was
substituted with a swaged design. The swage has the
ability to elastically deform if a joint of casing were
dropped from a rack onto a catwalk and then spring back,
this providing continued axle retention.
This design mechanism is as shown in Fig.9

The fail-safe design of the drilling tools presents a

challenge that is not an issue with cementation and
completion tools; that of potentially severe drill string
rotation-induced vibration.
In cases where there have been an excessive number
of MWD failures, down-hole instruments have shown that
accelerations of as high as 200g can occur. Such high
strain-rate impact loads far exceed the strength of the
axles in the drilling tools. Therefore the tools have been
designed to fail-safe on the assumption that at some
stage they will fail.
The fail-safe design uses a design as shown in Fig.10,
where the rollers are manufactured with a spigot on each
end. The spigots are a clearance fit inside corresponding
roller containment pockets that are cast into the nonrotating body of the tool. It follows, that the only means
by which rollers can be installed is from the inside of the
tool. In the event that an axle is sheared, the broken part
including the roller, are contained inside the body of the
tool.

Fig. 10, LoTAD Tool Roller Containment System

Fig. 9, Axle Failure Prevention System

Care was also taken to provide generous lateral
clearance either side of each roller, relative to the
clearance between the inside of the roller and the tubular
on which it was mounted. This allows the axle to bend
without the excessive shear stresses that could lead to
axle failure. Since adopting the swaged design there have
been no failures.

In spite of an estimated 800,000+ rotating hours on

these tools, failures have been limited to an iron
roughneck damaging one non-rotating sleeve beyond
repair and wear damage sustained when tools where run
downhole, for a period of over seven weeks, without
inspection. To date, no axles have broken or rollers fallen
out.
Data Collection and Analysis
Roller tool technology potentially offers a step change
increase in drilling performance based on T/D reduction.
However it is usually very challenging to measure the
actual benefit that can be attributed to a set of tools that
may not be run over an entire string length. It is highly
desirable to measure tool performance whenever
practicable, to promote learning and assist with better

SPE 63270

REINVENTING THE WHEEL - REDUCING FRICTION IN HIGH-ANGLE WELLS

decision making. However, much attention to detail must

be given to this exercise, as it is very easy to get
inaccurate information and false interpretations. Generally
it is recommended that as much data as possible be
collected. Ideally we would recommend collecting drillers
data (slack-off, pick-up and rotating weights and torques),
mudloggers data, time based data (frequency every 4
seconds or higher). Knowing the true block and traveling
equipment weight is an area, in particular, that has
presented many problems in this sort of exercise.
Needless to say, calibration of sensors and vigilance
throughout is key. Plotting each set of data on the same
graph can help highlight any inconsistencies.
Data collection is only one key part of the process.
The next challenge is to analyze the data and attempt to
evaluate tool performance. There are many ways in which
this can be done and each approach has limitations.
For example, comparison with offset well data and
comparable operations is a popular approach. However
no two wellbores are identical, in terms of the huge
number of parameters that can have an impact on T/D.
Alternatively, depending on the application, another
approach is to compare results between trips, with and
without roller tools. This also has limitations, but probably
provides a better measure.
Another good alternative is to attempt to measure how
torque and drag varies as the drillstring/casing moves from
surface along the wellbore to total depth, noting where the
roller-tools are at any one time. By associating different
friction factors with slick and roller centralized zones, it is
usually possible to back out a consistent set of friction
factors.
Friction factors often lead to confusion as to what they
actually represent. One component of a friction factor will
indeed be mechanical friction, but it will comprise other
elements, such as stiffness effects and other errors
associated with modeling assumptions. These other
contributions can be significant under certain conditions.
Another area of debate is which T/D model should be
used, soft string, hard string or some other variant.
Torque and drag analysis of a portion of a tubular string
can frequently be achieved if data for all stages of the job,
are recorded. For example, analysis of a roller centralized
liner that is run on and cemented with an un-centralized
landing string, may be analyzed as follows:
After disconnecting from the liner hanger, record the
surface pick-up, slack-off and torque of the running string.
This data can then be used to analyze roller tool
performance on the liner. Granted, the change in axial
load on the running string (tension or compression) after
disconnecting from the liner hanger will affect the friction.
In essence however, this will usually result in the liner
performance analysis being slightly conservative.
As can be seen, there are a lot of decisions that have

to be made. The advice that we would offer here, is that

whatever approach is used, put effort into data collection
procedures, be scientific and be consistent. Once the
analysis has been completed, share the results with the
drilling team. It is surprising how easy it is to miss small
details and increasing awareness to others helps with
future decision making.

Centralization Equipment
(i) Wear Performance
On a number of occasions roller centralization
equipment has been run into extended reach wells and
retrieved, thus providing an accurate measure of the
effectiveness of a roller in combating blade wear and
resultant loss of stand-off.
In a special application on two ER wells in California,
9-5/8 casing was selected for use as a landing string due
to its weight and resistance to buckling. To further
improve running weights, roller centralization was added to
the string.
On retrieval of the running string, the (normally
consumable type) roller tools were cleaned, repainted and
used on the following well. On a BP Amoco Harding ER
well in the UK, 9-5/8 roller centralizers were also used,
retrieved and refurbished for re-use.
Fig 11 shows a 9-5/8 roller centralizer prior to it being
refurbished.

Fig. 11, Used LoDRAG Prior to Refurbishment

Differential Sticking Performance

COLIN J. MASON, LARRY G. WILLIAMS, GEOFF N. MURRAY

SPE 63270

Hewitt B-11
Phillips Petroleum constructed an extended reach well
in the UK Sector of the Southern North Sea. This well
was drilled through the depleted and under-pressured
Bunter formation (a former gas reservoir) to access the
underlying Hewitt formation.
Whilst drilling the 12-1/4 hole section, total losses
were experienced and the drilling assembly had to be
reamed out of the hole. The thief zone is thought to have
been the Bunter formation.
In view of the poor hole conditions, prior to running the
9-5/8 casing, confidence on the rig was low with respect
to landing it. This feeling was exacerbated by the fact
that mud losses continued while running in hole. To add
insult to injury, 2/3 of the way through the run, it became
necessary to cut and slip line on the travelling block.
Despite the 9-5/8 casing lying for 3 hours at an
inclination of 80 across a formation that was taking fluid,
the running forces chart (Fig. 12) shows that the drop in
slack-off weight was relatively small (indicated by a *) and
quickly recovered.
It is thought that despite having the classic conditions
for differential sticking resulting in an intermediate casing
string that would not have been landed, the very small
contact area of the rollers prevented the creation of any
significant suction, thus leading to the excellent
performance. Fig. 13 refers.

Fig. 13. Small Contact Area = Low Sticking

(ii) Axial Drag Performance

Ekofisk 2/4 X-03
Phillips Petroleum operates the Ekofisk field in the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
This field is characterized in being one of the few in the
world that produces oil from a high primary permeability,
chalk reservoir rock. This rock is relatively weak and as
fluids are produced, there have been problems with
differential settlement.
In an effort to combat a tendency for tubulars to
collapse, very heavy wall liners are run; an example of this
being the 5-1/2 x 32.6 lb/ft liners run into the Ekofisk 2/4
X-03 well.
On this particular well, the 9,850 long horizontal liner
was run with one LoDRAG roller type centralizer per 40
joint. This liner was run in on a 5 x 19.5 lb/ft landing
string.
Fig 14 shows the very significant improvements that
were experienced between this and an offset well. It
should however, be noted that the drilling conditions favor
roller type tools and these friction factors should not be
used for all applications.

Fig. 12, Hewitt B11 Running Forces

Fig. 14, Ekofisk Offset Well Friction Factor

Comparison

SPE 63270

REINVENTING THE WHEEL - REDUCING FRICTION IN HIGH-ANGLE WELLS

Harding PN1y
The BP Amoco Harding field is developed from a
platform in 350ft water depth. Prior to PN1 the majority of
wells drilled have been relatively short with 1,000ft to
2,000ft horizontal sections and are completed with prepacked screens or open hole gravel packs. The reservoir
is relatively shallow and ranges from 5,300 to 5,800ft TVD.
Harding PN1 was planned as the first ER well to
access reserves from a satellite location in the North East
of the field. Based on experience from shorter offset wells
it was clear that running the 10-3/4 x 9-5/8 to a planned
MD of 15,300ft would be a particular challenge. This
would be, by and far, the longest casing string run in this
field to date. The profile was of build and hold type,
comprising a kick off point at 500ft and a 11,000ft tangent
section at an inclination greater than 78. Cased / open
hole friction factors from offset wells were calculated to be
0.30 / 0.40 on average and application of these values to
the PN1 casing run predicted zero available weight at TD.
Assessment of drag reducing centralizer products
highlighted the lack of factual information on downhole
product performance. However roller centralizers had
previously been used in the Gyda field to run a 22,300ft
casing string (3). Here it was found that significant drag
reduction occurred in cased hole, but was more difficult to
detect in open hole. On this basis it was decided to run
drag reducing roller centralizers in cased hole only for
PN1y. Since the 13-3/8 casing shoe was relative deep at
7,500ft, roller centralizers were installed at one per joint
from 2,000ft to 7,000ft with the casing shoe at TD
(15,300ft). Operational experience on the Harding field
had also shown that laying a pill of lubricating beads at
the end of the section being cased prior to running casing,
had a beneficial effect. Whilst it was not possible to
quantify this effect, it was decided to spread stickless
beads along the final 3,000ft of open hole as additional
insurance.
The combined effect of these drag reduction
techniques was dramatic, see Fig 14 below.

Fig 14, Harding PN1 Running Forces

Casing running weights tracked the predicted weight
curve fairly accurately to about 11,000ft MD. Under
normal circumstances drags would continue to increase
and weight drop off. However, weight started to increase
and increased all the way to TD. Detailed analysis of the
results suggest that a friction factor of 0.05 could be
attributed to the roller centralizers.
Troll
Norsk Hydro is developing the Troll field in the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
This field is characterized by high Darcy sands that
create significant challenges in terms of axial drag while
running sand-face completions. This situation is further
exacerbated by a shallow (<6,200) TVD which limits how
much weight can be applied to push the screens
horizontally out to a >15,700 MD.
Many people struggle to appreciate how a roller tool
could provide any useful benefit in such soft conditions,
however Fig 15 clarifies the situation.
To illustrate this point, consider the following. At
atmospheric pressure, unconsolidated sand has no
competence; an example being the inability of dry beach
sand to hold other than its natural angle of repose or less.
A fluid over-balance of say 400 psi however, in concert
with the mud filter cake, provides an in-situ compressive
strength in excess of 1,000 psi i.e. adequate for a roller to
provide a useful reduction in axial drag.

Fig. 15, In-situ Compressive Strength Vs Over

Pressure
Fig 16, relates to a Norsk Hydro Troll well in the
Norwegian Sector of the North Sea. This demonstrates
the ability for roller based tools to provide a substantial
reduction in axial drag, even when run onto
unconsolidated formations.

COLIN J. MASON, LARRY G. WILLIAMS, GEOFF N. MURRAY

Fig.16, Troll Running Force Comparison

(iii) Rotational Drag Performance

Valhall A3D T2
The Valhall cretaceous chalk reservoir has been on
production since 1982. It produces from the Tor and Hod
formations (the chalks below Balder/Sele/Lista). The Tor
chalk in particular is a very soft reservoir with a depth +/2550 m TVD.
It is usual practice in Valhall and similar fields, such
as Ekofisk to run thick heavy wall liners into the reservoir.
It has been established that field subsidence is a primary
failure mechanism of many thinner wall liners used on
previous wells. The ability to run and cement long liners
into the reservoir has many advantages. A long horizontal
liner will result in a shorter overburden section being drilled
and at a lower angle, which is often the most critical
section for Valhall wells. However, drilling the reservoir
section is not without its own set of challenges and risks.
Due to depletion, a significant pressure drop can occur
along the horizontal reservoir section. As a guideline, no
more than 1,000psi pressure drop is tolerated (rule of
thumb). This requires close control of mud weights during
drilling and heightened awareness of differential sticking
problems.
In Valhall A3DT2, once the reservoir section was
drilled, the objective was to run a 6,450ft 5-1/2 45.6 (lb/ft)
thick wall liner to TD at 15,230ft.
Detailed planning and risk assessment was
undertaken to identify the best method of getting the liner
to TD and also deliver a high quality cement job. Roller
centralizers were identified as an enabling technology that
would provide good stand-off and have the potential to
reduce torques. To promote success it was decided to
install 2 roller centralizers per joint for the majority of the
liner. There were some concerns that this level of
centralization would over stiffen the string, but these
proved groundless. A good cement job is vital from both
productivity and longevity considerations. The preferred

SPE 63270

method of achieving this is to rotate the liner throughout

the cement job. Full liner rotation during the cement job
had only been achieved only on one previous occasion.
The 5-1/2 liner was run 320ft short of TD, when
downhole resistance was observed. This corresponded to
an area of instability that was noted during drilling. A
reamer shoe had been installed on the end of the liner in
anticipation of the need to ream through any tight spots.
The last 100m were successfully reamed to TD with the
liner reaching its target objective.
Prior to the cement job, the well was circulated clean
and torques dropped dramatically from 18kft.lb to 8kft.lb
which corresponds to a whole well friction factor of 0.06.
The liner was then rotated throughout the cement job with
torques peaking at 16kft.lb with slurry in the annulus. This
corresponded to a low whole well friction factor of 0.13.
Once the liner hanger was set, the landing string was
disconnected and was rotated with a surface torque of
8kft.lb. This suggests that mechanical friction associated
with rotating the liner was very low in mud and torques at
the top of liner while rotating with cement in the annulus
about 8kft.lb. It was also noted that the surface breakover torque was negligible compared with previous
operations, a very significant benefit of the roller
centralizers.
During the subsequent frac. job there were indications
of a good cement job and zonal isolation. This was
characterized by low frictional drops through the
perforations, low leak-off volume and pump rates. Each of
the 9 fracs showed excellent repeatability, i.e. same
pressures, volumes and rates.
Fig.17 identifies the before/after values obtained with
the LoTORQ/DRAG combination tools.

Fig. 17, Valhall A3 D T2, Liner Rotation Performance

Ekofisk 2/4 X-07
On the earlier Ekofisk 2/4 X-03 well, excellent axial
and rotational performance in drilling mud was achieved
using the standard LoDRAG roller centralizer. Once
however, cement was pumped around the liner shoe, the
surface torque quickly exceeded the top drive torque.

SPE 63270

REINVENTING THE WHEEL - REDUCING FRICTION IN HIGH-ANGLE WELLS

The operators had determined that in addition to using

very heavy wall tubulars to counter the differential
settlement problems experienced, a full cement sheath
would assist further in averting liner collapse. With this in
mind, the liner on 2/4 X-07 was run using the
LoTORQ/DRAG combination tool.
On the previous 24,400ft MD well the surface torque
with the liner rotating in mud was +/-28,000 ft lb. On the
25,500ft (1,100ft MD longer) X-07 well, the surface torque
in cement was only 12,500 ft lb

Fig. 18, Ekofisk 2/4 X-07 Liner Rotation Performance

Wytch Farm M16z
The Wytch Farm world record ER well M16z was
successfully drilled and completed during 1999. This well
had a total measured depth of 11,278m (37,001 ft) or 7
miles. The shallow nature of the Sherwood reservoir at a
TVD of 1,500m (4,900 to 5,250ft) TVD means that T/D has
been a very significant challenge in attaining high
departures. The M16z well profile had the following
characteristics: KOP 100ftm, build to 83deg at 3,600ft
MD, 21,000ft tangent length at 83 and a 11,810ft
horizontal, but undulating reservoir section. The last
3,200ft of the section was determined to be nonproductive.
A specific challenge set to the drilling team was the
requirement to rotate a 9,580ft 7, 29 (lb/ft) liner during the
cement job. Experience with solid centralizers had been
good on many of the previous wells, but on the first 10km
ERD well M11y, success at rotating a 6,233ft 7 liner at a
MD of 34,967ft during the cement job was limited by the
top drive.
Even running the M16z liner to TD at 33,497ft required
that the liner section be floated and then reamed (5).
Limited torque capacity at the top of long liner also meant
that torque build up in the liner during both reaming and
cementing needed to be minimized.
This coupled
together with a top drive limit of 45 kft.lb meant that this
would be the most challenging rotary operation for the
entire well.

Review of data from many offset wells determined that

a new approach should be tried. It was decided to try
roller tool technology for the first time at Wytch Farm.
Engineering studies suggested the most cost effective
method would be to install one torque/drag (LoTORQ)
centralizer per liner joint. As an additional contingency it
was also decided to install 1 LoTAD roller sub per stand
on the bottom 13,123ft of 5 DP as an aid to both liner
running and cementing.
Once the liner had landed, circulation commenced and
surface torques settled down to a steady 35kft.lb. This
compares with drilling torques of 45kft.lb at TD, where
various lubricants had been used to control torques.
However once the spacer train and slurry were pumped,
torques increased as expected, as the heavier fluid moved
through the system, and eventually the top drive limit of
45kft.lb was reached. The anticipated buoyancy effect as
the slurry entered the annulus did not occur and
eventually the top drive stalled out. However, the liner was
rotated for the majority of the cement job, with the slurry
head at about two-thirds up the annulus, just 800m short
of reaching the 9-5/8 casing shoe.
The amount of torque reduction was not as great as
had been anticipated. Subsequent calculations based on
the deflection on a multi-span simply supported uniformly
distributed load basis would be such that in a perfectly
straight horizontal well bore the stand-off would be -0.01".
As a consequence, the liner will have been in light contact
with the open hole well bore.

Fig. 19, Wytch Farm M16z Liner Rotation

(iv) Rental (drilling) equipment
Joanne M6
A number of ER wells in the UK have been drilled with
the LoTAD (TAD = torque and drag) drilling tools. These
tools provide numerous benefits including:

Reduced torque and rotational stick/slip.

Reduced drag and axial stick/slip reduction.
Improved slide drilling efficiency due to better

10

COLIN J. MASON, LARRY G. WILLIAMS, GEOFF N. MURRAY

SPE 63270

WOB control.
Reduced casing and DP tool joint wear.
Reduced key seating and DP heat checking.
Resistance to differential sticking.
Improved hole cleaning.
Has very low lost-in-hole risk compared to say
rotary steerable tools.
Tools may be used for drilling, logging, running
completions, perforating etc.

The attached Figs 20-23 indicate some of the

performance attributes of the tools.

,
Fig. 23, Joanne M-6, Torque Reducing Performance
Conclusions

Fig.20, Joanne M-6 Casing Wear Reduction

Fig. 21, Joanne M-6 ECD performance

Fig.22, Joanne M-6, Drag Reduction Performance

Roller based tool technology is now maturing and

extensive use of these tools in many ER well projects has
confirmed their ability to significantly reduce mechanical
friction.
In ultimate T/D performance terms, roller based tools,
in conjunction with Titanium tubulars and casing / liner
flotation, will theoretically enable a ER well to be drilled
and completed to some 100,000 MD at a TVD of 6,000.
The assumptions used in arriving at these numbers are:
A rig with a pick-up capacity of 1,200 klbs and
torque limit of 50 kft.lbs.
An overall rotating friction factor of 0.12.
An overall axial friction factor of 0.12.
It is also conceivable that such a well could be
constructed without resorting to expensive pseudo-oil or
even oil based drilling mud. It should be remembered
however, that hydraulic considerations also play a key
part in determining the practical limits for a super ER
well and these have not be considered in the calculations.
In this paper, we have focused on the mechanical
friction reduction benefits of roller tools. However there
are many other benefits that are not always appreciated.
These should be factored into the well design process.
The construction of wells in under-pressured,
differentially pressured and unconsolidated reservoirs can
also be aided by the application of roller based tools.
Optimal application of the tools in fields having good
vertical permeability could lead to very significant cost
savings. Not only do these tools enhance the capabilities
of a rig, but give the potential to significantly extend the
drilling envelope for a given development.
One area that engineers struggle with is how well
friction reduction tools will perform in the field. The
industry generally has not really tackled this problem.
Here we have highlighted the need for better data
collection and analysis and promote the sharing of results
and experiences to improve future well planning decisions.

SPE 63270

REINVENTING THE WHEEL - REDUCING FRICTION IN HIGH-ANGLE WELLS

Acknowledgments
The authors thank BP Amoco, Phillips Petroleum,
Norsk Hydro ASA, Weatherford International and Austoil
Technology for permission to publish this paper.
References
1.

Talkington, K.: Remote South China Sea reservoir

prompts Extended Reach Record, Oil and Gas Journal,
Nov 10, 1997.

2.

Fontaine, T.; Canadian Case Histories of Reservoir

Engineering Reasons for Horizontal Wells Failures
presented at the SPE WA Workshop Overcoming
Problems in Horizontal Wells in Nov 27-28 1998.

3.

Aston, M.S.; Hearn P.J. and McGhee, G.: Techniques for

Solving Torque and Drag in Todays Drilling
Environment, paper SPE 48939 prepared for the 1998
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2730 September 1998.

4.

C.J. Mason, F.M. Allen, A.A. Ramirez, L. Wolfson, R.A.

Tapper, Casing Running Milestones for ExtendedReach Wells paper SPE/IADC 52842 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam,
Holland, 911 March 1999.

5.

K. Trahan, J. MacDonald, S. Webster, C.J. Mason, A

Proven Liner Flotation Method for Extended-Reach
Wells, paper SPE/IADC 59213 presented at the 2000
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

11