SPE 101937-STU
DETERMINING CUTTING TRANSPORT PARAMETER IN A HORIZONTAL COILED TUBING
UNDERBALANCED DRILLING OPERATION
Indra Gunawan, Rudi Rubiandini, R. S., Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Student Paper Contest - Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia, 8–10
October 2002.
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
Underbalanced drilling is a drilling method that
designs the hydrodynamic pressure to be lower than the
formation pressure. At this condition, the formation’s fluid
flows to the well and circulated to the surface. This will
surely affect the fluids properties at the annulus.
Fluids physical properties at the annulus are not
easy to determine. This is because of fluids physical
properties depend on hydrodynamic pressure and fluids
composition, while the hydrodynamic pressure also
depending on fluids physical properties. The composition
of annulus fluids also affected by the influx rate that
depends on the hydrodynamic pressure. Therefore,
everything is connected to each other, and that’s make the
cutting transport parameter calculation become
complicated. To solve this problem, we must make
iteration between pressure, fluids physical properties, and
the influx rate until we can find the correct value.
In this study, underbalanced flow modeling uses
foam, emulsion, oil base mud as drilling fluid system and
aerated mud with three kinds of influx, oil, water, and gas.
Combinations of drilling fluids and influxes make a
various result in cutting transport parameter and
hydrostatic pressure.
This paper discusses the determination of
hydrodynamic pressure in a horizontal coiled tubing
underbalanced drilling operation, the determination of
mixture fluids physical properties, and the determination
of cutting transport parameter. This paper also discusses
the effect of few other factors, such as coiled tubing size,
hole size, drilling fluids and influx fluids to cutting transport
parameters.
Introduction
Coiled tubing technology has continued to make
advances in the oil and gas industry, especially in the past ten
years. Coiled tubing technology with its continuous string has
offers many breakthroughs in logging, fishing, completion,
workover, and drilling. Its rigid shape makes a better logging
and fishing operation in deviated and horizontal well.
Workover & well interventions are now easier. We can also
use coiled tubing in completion. And in this concern, Coiled-
tubing makes underbalanced drilling operation better and
saver than conventional drill pipe.
Underbalanced drilling operation differs from
overbalanced operation that hydrodynamic pressure of drilling
fluid is intentionally designed to be lower than reservoir
pressure. The hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid may be
naturally less than the formation pressure or it can be induced.
The induced or artificial state is created by adding a gas such
as air or nitrogen to the liquid phase of the drilling fluid.
Whether induced or natural, this may result in an influx of
formation fluid, which must be circulated from the well and
controlled at surface.
In underbalanced drilling operation, it is important to
keep the bottom hole condition staid in underbalanced during
the drilling operation. The occurrences of overbalanced
impulses during the underbalanced drilling operation that may
lead to a greater damage than the normal overbalanced drilling
can be minimized with the utilization of coiled tubing unit.
There are several problems in designing
underbalanced drilling operations, whether it’s a coiled tubing
operated or jointed pipe operated. First, it is difficult to
determined hydrodynamic pressure with the occurrence of
influx from the formation. Second, its now two kind of fluids
in the annulus, drilling fluid and influx fluid that will of
course change the fluids properties. Fluids properties are
important in determining cutting transport’s parameters.
Horizontal well modelling
As shown in figure1, the horizontal well can be
considered in three sections, the vertical section, build section
and horizontal section. The horizontal well drilled with a
 2

single build curve until we reach 90 degree and then

continued with horizontal drilling.

V ertical s ec tion

BBuild
uildup s ec tion

C
B

H orizon tal s ec tion Fig. 2 Cutting transport parameters

Moore correlation is use in normal vertical well to

Fig. 1 Horizontal Well Modelling
In this study, it’ s important to know the exact
depth of every point in the well. This information is
necessary to determine its temperature and pressure that
will affect the fluids and the influx. With a simple
geothermal gradient combined with radius of curvature
method, temperature can be determined.
The hydrodynamic pressure can be determined
determine these parameters. But in deviated or even horizontal
well Moore correlation can not applied.
Rudi and Sindhu have developed a new correlation
for this problem that used in this study to determine the
parameters. The correlations are:
For T < 45o
ª ( 45  2T )(600  Rpm)(3  Um) º
Vcut  «
»Vsv ….(2)
¬ ¼
Vmin
405000

And for T > 45o

with operation according to the flowchart in fig. 17. There
is several iteration needed because we don’ t know the

ª (600  Rpm)(3  Um) º

influx rate until we know the exact bottom hole flowing
Vcut  « »Vsv … … … ..(3)
pressure and this applied the opposite way. With this
¬ ¼
procedure, we can also determine annular fluids properties Vmin
3000
such as density and viscosity that required in cutting
transport.
While Vcutt is solved with equation (4) as follows:
Cutting Transport Parameters
… … … … … … … … ..(4)
V cut
 ROP
 2
Cutting transport parameters that we discuss here are 


d pipe
shown in fig.2:
1. Slip velocity (Vslip). Slip velocity is the falling
cutting velocity in the annulus, according to the
law of gravity.
2. Cutting velocity (Vcut). Cutting velocity is the
velocity that must be fulfill by cutting to the
surface.
3. Minimum velocity (Vmin). Minimum velocity is a
required velocity of the annular fluid so than the
cutting can be transported to the surface with V =
Vcutt.
The mathematical relations is:
Vmin = Vcutt + Vslip …………………………. (1)
36  1 
C conc
d hole
In coiled tubing drilling there’ s no rotation because
coiled tubing cannot be rotated so down hole motor is used to
rotate the bit. The flowchart to determine cutting transport
parameter is shown in fig 18.
Underbalanced Drilling Fluids
Type of drilling fluid with their properties is
important in cutting transport parameter determination. Our
drilling fluid will flow into the drill stem and then mixed with
the influx fluid. Together they flow back to the surface and
bring the rock cutting with it. That’ s why it is important that
we design the type, properties, and circulation rate so that
 3

underbalanced drilling condition can be reached and For thee phase fluids influxes Wiggins’ s formula is use as
cutting transported normally. follows:
Unlikely normal overbalanced drilling, in
Oil flow:
underbalanced drilling operation; the drilling fluids didn’ t   2
have to form a mud cake and control formation pressure to qo  1.0  0.519167   Pwf   0.481092   Pwf  .(9)
be lower tha hydrodynamic pressure, but still have to act Q max Pr  Pr 
as a lubricant and transport cutting to the surface.
Several drilling fluids can be uses in Water Flow
underbalanced drillings are:  
qw   Pwf   Pwf 2
1. Dry gas: natural gas or nitrogen. Dry gas will 1.0  0.722235  0.284777  (10)
give maximum ROP and cause no corrosion but Qw max Pr  Pr 
the cost is high especially for larger hole.
2. Dry air; give high ROP with lower cost but high Discussion
risk of downhole explosion. The case discussed here is a horizontal coiled tubing
3. Mist; reduce down hole explosion risk but high underbalanced drilling operation. The well can be divided into
chance of corrosion. three sections, the vertical, build and horizontal. Because it is
4. Foam; better cutting transport ability but higher a coiled tubing drilling, so there is no rotation in drillstring.
cost and larger surface facilities. The other required general data for this case is shown in fig.
5. Nitrited water or oil; Less down hole explosion 19.
risk but can inflict pressure surges. The well is a horizontal well, so the temperature is
6. Aerated mud; Have all mud advantages but have determined differently than vertical. In a horizontal well, the
high risk of corrosion and pressure surges. horizontal section can be generalized in the same temperature.
7. Oil or invert emulsion; No pressure surges but The temperature profile of this well is shown in fig
expensive and can cause environmental problems.
8. Light mud or water; No pressure surges but can
cause emulsion to form. 0

These fluids must have lower density than the

formation equivalent mud weight to reach desired 1000

underbalanced condition.
2000
Influx
MD (ft)

Influx is a formation fluid that flows into the 3000

wellbore because of the underbalanced condition. Several
kinds of influxes that discussed here can be grouped into:
4000
1. One phase
One phase fluid influx can be divided into three kind,
5000
water, oil and gas.
The influx rate of water can be calculated with a
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
simple formula as follow:
Temperature (F)
For water:

Qw = PI (Pr-Pwf) ................................................... (5) Fig. 3 Temperature profile of the horizontal well

For oil is: 1. Effect of coiled tubing geometry

To determine the effect of coiled tubing size, we must
Qo = PI (Pr-Pwf) .................................................... (6) conduct a sensitivity test to analyse it. In this case, we use
the follow additional data:
And the formula for gas influx is: Influx : oil (single phase)
API : 30
Qg = C (Pr2 – Pwf2)n ............................................... (7) PI : 1.6 bbl/day/psi
Bo : 1.2 res bbl/STB
Drilling fluid : Foam
2. Two phase Qliq : 60 gpm
Vogel equation is use in calculating influx rate for two Qgas : 150 scf/min
phase fluids, gas and oil. SGgas :1

­ Pwf ½ ­ Pwf ½
2
1.0  0.2® ¾  0.8®
qo
¾ … … … … .(8)
Fig.5 Is shows a profile of Vmin through the whole
Qmax ¯ Pr ¿ ¯ Pr ¿ segment of the well, resulted in the calculation. From this
3. Three phase fluids figure, we can determine minimum and maximum value
of Vmin. With this, we can compare the data with the
 4

result from the other dimension of coiled tubing as

shown in Fig.4.
0

1000
0

2000
1000

MD (ft)
MinimumV min
3000
2000 V minn
MD (ft)

4000
V ann
3000
5000 failure
4000
MaximumV min 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

5000 V (ft/sec)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Fig. 7 Vmin & Vann for OD CT 2.375”
V min (ft/sec)

2. Effect of hole geometry

Fig.4 Vmin profile in the well The hole diameter is changed to figure the effect of hole
geometry. The result is shown in Fig. 8. From this figure
we know that the higher hole diameter, minimum velocity
2.5
2.21 required will be less. So is the annular velocity as shown
2.03
2 1.83 1.90 in Fig. 9. The difference is that the decreasing of annular
velocity is bigger than minimum velocity required.
V min (ft/sc)

1.5
1.20
1.04
0.86 0.92
1

0.5

0
2.375 2.875 3.5 4
OD CT (in)

Minimum Vmin Maximum V min

Fig. 5 Effect of CT size

To transport the cutting to the surface normally

and savely, the annular velocity of drilling fluid plus influx
must always greater than Vmin. Fig. 6 shows a profile of
save cutting transport. It is a case for coiled tubing 4 in
OD, while fig.7 shows a failure in cutting transport for CT Fig. 8 Vmin for changed hole diameter
2.375 in.

1000

2000
V min
MD (ft)

3000
V ann
4000

5000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

V (ft/sec)

Fig. 6 Vmin & Vann for OD CT 4” Fig. 9 Vann for changed hole diameter
 5

This result is collected with the different drillstring. If the maximum cutting concentration allowed
additional data of : is high then minimum velocity can be low.
Influx : water(single phase) 5. Type of influx
PI : 1.2 bbl/day/psi This influx is only one phase influx of water, oil and gas.
salinity : 10 % The comparison of these three is shown in Fig. 12 below.
Drilling fluid : Emulsion
Oil fraction : 0.8
6
Q : 150 gpm
5.14
Oil API : 30 5 Water
Gas
3. Effect of Rate of Penetration 4
The increasing rate of penetration will result in more

V min (ft/sec)
Oil
cutting have to be transported in one time. That’ s why 3 2.57
we need more annular velocity due to the increasing
of minimum cutting velocity shown in Fig. 10. 2
1.96 1.98

1.26 1.27
2.5
1

1.93
2 1.83 0
1.73
1.67 Influx type
V min (ft/sc)

1.5 Minimum V min Maximum V min

1.05
0.95
1 0.85 Fig.12 Effect of influx type
0.78

6. Type of drilling fluids

0.5
We compare three kind of drilling fluids, Aerated mud,
Oil base mud and emulsion with the same reservoir data
0 and the same density of drilling fluids. The result is
100 120 150 180 shown in fig. 13 below.
ROP (ft/hour)

Minimum V min Maximum V min 3

2.5 2.34 2.40

Fig. 10 Effect of ROP to Vmin 2.15
2
4. Cutting Concentration
V min (ft/sec)

Effect of cutting concentration to V min is shown in 1.45 1.38

1.5 1.31
Fig. 11.
1

2.5 2.33 0.5

2 1.83 0
1.67
1.45 Oil Base Emulsion Aerated Mud
V min (ft/sec)

1.5
minimum V min Maximum V min
0.95
1 0.78

0.5
Fig.13 Effect of Drilling fluids type

0 From fig. 13 we can see that aerated mud operation

5 10
Cutting Concentration (%)
minimum V min
Fig. 11 Effect of cutting concentration
Cutting concentration is a variable that we can control
to avoid corrosion and abrasiveness to casing and
15 required higher minimum velocity, while emulsion have
the smallest value. It is because aerated mud has lower
viscosity compare to two others as we can see in Fig. 14.
maximum V min
The lower the viscosity will result in higher Vslp, which
will ended in higher minimum velocity (Vmin) . Fig. 15
shows hydrodynamic pressure profile between these three
type of drilling fluids.
 6

Fig. 14 Viscosity comparison of three drilling fluids type

7. Normal jointed
Fig. 15 Hydrodynamic pressure in underbalanced pipe condition
drilling vs coiled tubing
 7

The main differences between normal jointed pipe Vmin = minimum velocity, ft/s
operation and coiled tubing operation is that in CT T600 = dial reading at 600 rpm
drilling there is no pipe rotation. This will effect in T300 = dial reading at 300 rpm
disappearing in rotation correction in CT drilling. So NRe = particle Reynold Number
in CT operation we need more circulation velocity due Pp = plastic viscosity of mud, lbf – sec/ft2
to higher minimum velocity required as shows in LVF = Liquid Volume Fraction, fraction
Fig.16. UL = liquid density
Ug = gas density
T = gas volume fraction
0 = foam quality at Pressure
Vcut = cutting velocity, ft/s
1000 Cconc = cutting concentration, %
ROP = rate of penetration, ft/hr
2000
Aann = annulus area, ft2
Cconc-fr =cutting concentration in annulus, fraction
JCut
MD (ft)

Jointed pipe = cutting density, lbm/ft3

3000
Qinj = Cutting releasing rate, ft3/sec
Coiled Ahole = hole area, ft2
4000
tubing Apipe = pipe area, ft2
dpipe = pipe diameter, in
5000
dhole = hole diameter, in
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 PV = plastic viscosity, cp
V min (ft/sec) YP = yield point, lb/100 ft2
Vcrit = critical velocity, ft/s
Qmin = minimum rate, gpm
k = constant
T
Fig.16 Comparison of jointed pipe operation and coiled
= Inclination degree, deg
Um
tubing operation
= mud density, ppg
Cmw = mud density correction, ppg
Conclusions
CRpm = RPM correction
Rpm = Rotation Per Minute
1. The minimum cutting velocity will increase due to the
Pa = atmospheric pressure
increasing of annulus area.
Ta = foam quality at Pa
2. The increasing of rate of penetration will cause the
Qliq = liquid rate
increasing of minimum cutting velocity.
Qgas = gas rate
3. Higher circulation rate is needed in coiled tubing
P = pressure, psi
underbalanced drilling operation compare to jointed
T = temperature, R
pipe operation.
Z = gas compressibility
4. Failure in cutting transport process due to the
SGg = specific gravity gas
increasing of annulus area is caused by the decrease of
Qmix = mixture rate, gpm
Umix
annulus velocity, which is greater than the decrease of
minimum cutting velocity. = mixture density, ppg
5. Emulsion gives better cutting transport ability than oil Ploss = pressure loss, psi
D = depth, ft
Pliq
base mud or aerated mud.
6. The increasing minimum velocity because of gas = liquid viscosity, cp
influx is higher than oil and water. Vann = Annular velocity, ft/min

Nomenclature
Qsl = slip velocity, ft/min
f = friction factor
Us = cutting density, ppg
Uf = mud density, ppg
dc = cutting diameter, in
Pa = apparent viscosity, cp
K = index of consistency
dh = hole diameter, in
dp = pipe diameter, in
 8

Reference: 19. Larsen, T.I., Pilehvai A.A., and. Azar J.J, SPE Paper, “
1. Adam T. B. Jr., Keith K. M, Martin E. Chenevert, F.S. Development of a New Cuttings Transport Model for
Young Jr., SPE Textbook Series Vol. 2, “Applied High-Angle Wellbores Including Horizontal Wells” ,
Drilling Engineering” , First Printing Society of April 1993, SPE No. 25872.
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson TX, 1986. 20. Williams, C.E. , Jr. , and G.H. Bruce, “ Carrying Capasity
2. Ahmed, T., “Hydrocarbon Phase Behaviour” , Gulf of Drilling Muds” , Trans. AIME, Vol.192, 1951, p.111.
Publishing Company Houston, London, Paris, Zurich, 21. Wiggins, M.L,“ Inflow performance of Oil Wells
Tokyo, 1989. Producing Water” , PhD Disertation, Texas A&A
3. Agustina, D, “Penentuan Hidrolika dan Cutting University, College Station, Texas, TX, 1991.
Transport pada Operasi Underbalanced Drilling “, 22. Wolke, E M., “ Aerated Drilling Fluids can Low Drilling
Tugas Akhir, Departemen Teknik Perminyakan, Cost and Minimize Formation Damage,” Geothermal
Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2001 Resourcer Coucil Bulletin (may 1990) 131-137
4. Becher, Paul., “Emulsion Theory and Practice” , 23. _____,” 2nd Annual North American Conference on Coiled
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1957. Tubing Technology” , Book I & II, Dallas, Texas, 1996
5. Beyer, A.H., et. al, “Flow Behaviour of Foam as Well 24. _____,” 4th Annual North American Conference on Coiled
Circulating Fluid” , SPE Reprint Series 6A, Drilling, Tubing Technology” , Book I & II, Dallas, Texas, 1997
SPE of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 1973. 25. _____,” 2nd Annual Underbalanced Drilling Conference” ,
6. Biseman, T. “An intoduction to Underbalanced Book I, Dallas Texas, 1997
Drilling” , Paper presented at the 1995 1st International 26. _____,” 2nd Annual Underbalanced Drilling Conference” ,
Underbalanced Conference, The Hague, The Book II, Dallas Texas, 1997
Netherlands, October 2-4.
7. Bobo, R.A., “ Aeration of Drilling Fluids,” World Oil
1953, 173 No 4, 145.Craft, B.C., et.al., “Well Design,
Drilling & Production” , Prentice Hall Inc., New
Jersey, 1962.
8. Brown, K. E., ” The Tecnology of Artificial Lift
Methods” , vol I, PPC Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1997.
9. Curtis, F., “Underbalanced Drilling Operation :
Correct Operating Procedures Using a Closed surface
Control System to Drill for Oil and Gas,” paper
presented at the 1995 1st International Underbalanced
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October
2-4.
10. Falk, K, “ An overview of an Underbalanced Drilling
Aplication in Canada” , SPE 30129, May 1995.
11. Gatlin, C., “Petroleum Engineering : Drilling and Well
Completions” , Prentice Hall Inc., 1960.
12. Halomoan, B. T.,” Analisa Model Aliran Fluida
Multifasa Pemboran underbalanced di Lapangan
Arun, Indonesia” , Tugas Akhir, Departemen Teknik
Perminyakan, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 1999.
13. Peden J.M, Ford J.T, and. Oyenenin M.B, Heriot-Watt
U., SPE Paper, “ Comprehensive Experimental
Investigation of Drilled Cuttings Transport in Inclined
Wells Including the Effects of Rotation and
Eccentricity” , Oktober 1990, SPE No. 20925.
14. Lucky., S., “ Persamaan Baru Penentuan Kecepatan
Minimum Lumpur Untuk Mengangkat Cutting Sumur
Vertikal, Miring dan Horizontal” , Tugas Akhir,
Jurusan Teknik Perminyakan, FIKTM, 1999.
15. McCain, D. W., “The Properties of Petroleum Fluids” ,
PennWell Books, PennWell Publishing Company,
Tulsa Oklahoma, 1990.
16. Poetmann, F.H, “ Density of Drilling Mud Reduced
by Air Injection, “ World Oil, August 1955, 97-100.
17. Rabia H., “Oilwell Drilling Engineering : Principles &
Practices” , Graham & Trotman, Oxford, UK, 1985.
18. Rubiandini, R.S., “Teknologi Coiled Tubing” , Diktat
Kuliah, Departemen Teknik Perminyakan, FIKTM,
Institut Teknologi Bandung
 9

START

Data Input : Fluid’s type

Qf, T1,T2, TVD, M D,DD
Psurf, OD, SG,Bw,Bo,Bg,
dll

Pwf asum tion = Ps m ud

Determ ine influx rate

Pdyn =Pi

Iteration for i = 1

P2i=Pdinam ik (i-1)
Determ ine fluids properties

Pstatik i = 0.052 x U m ix i x ' D + P1

Determine pressure loss

P hidrodinam ik = P Statik + P loss

no
abs (Pdyn-Pi)<0.01

yes

i=i+1

no

abs (Pwf-Pwf asum tion)<0.001

yes

end

Fig.17 flowchart hydrodynamic pressure determination

 10

STA RT

R OP,TP ,PV,dc,  f,  s,
dh,dp

Vcu t 5 ROP
0 .. * (
+,- 231
36 + 1 4 1
d pipe
2

d hole
/ ) (C conc

Asum e Vslip1

Vm in = Vslip1 + Vcut Vslip2 = Vslip 1

928 x" fx slxdcut

N Re # !
a

NRe > 300 3< NR e < 300 NR e < 3

22 40
f 1.54 f # f $
N Re N Re

% %
Vsv ' 1.89 dcut ( s % & f)
f f

No
abs (Vsv - V slip1) < 0.001

Yes

Vsv = Vs vertikal Moore

Continue

Fig. 18. Minimum velocity calculations flowchart

 11

CON TIN UED

Drill Pipe Coiled Tubing

C A C A ? C A ?
45 45 45
CC 88 C F 8
> : ; 9 (> 45; : 9 < 2 ()(600 Rpm)()(33< < B B mm) ) 6 Vs
600= = Rpm 6 > V
B
9:; GHI ( 45 < 2 )(3 < m ) D 6 Vsv
V min V cut Vs < 1< 7 7 Vsv
v cut < E 7
405000
202500 675
C @ C @ ? C @ ?
45 45 45
8
= (Rpm = Rpm
600 )( )(3) 8 < B m ) 6 Vs
B m B F 8
9:; ( > 600 ; : 9 3 < > V 9;: GHI (3 < m D 6 Vsv
V min > V cut Vs
<
1< 7 6 Vsv 7 v cut < E 7
3000 3000 5

Vm in = V cut + Vs

END

Fig. 18 Minimum velocity calculations flowchart (continue)

GENERAL DATA

Horizontal Well
Vertical section = 4000 ft (MD)
Build section = 500 ft (MD)
Horizontal section = 1000 ft (MD)
OD Coiled Tubing = 4 in
ID hole = 6 in
Cutting Data
Cutting concentration =5%
Cutting specific gravity = 2.5
Cutting diameter = 0.1 in
Drilling Data
ROP = 100 ft/hour
RPM = 0 (coiled tubing drilling)
Pressure and Temperature Data
Surface pressure = 50 psi
Pore Pressure = 3000 psi
Surface Temperature = 100o-F
Formation Temperature = 200oF

Fig.19 General data