IADC/SPE 81621

Reservoir Criteria for Selecting Underbalanced Drilling Candidates

Hongjie Xiong and Dan Shan, Schlumberger Data and Consulting Services, SPE
Copyright 2003, IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2526 March 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC,
SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or 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
Candidate selection is the key to the success of underbalanced
drilling (UBD) projects. It is a question yet to be answered
why sometimes UBD significantly improves productivity
compared with conventional overbalanced drilling (OBD)
practices but sometimes doesnt. To answer this question, we
have performed an extensive reservoir engineering study to
understand the mechanisms of productivity improvement from
UBD. A single-well numerical model has been built that
simulates the UBD process and the OBD process (while taking
into account drilling filtration invasion, mud cake, and
permanent formation damage) and their impact on production
under a variety of reservoir conditions. Production rates are
predicted for both UBD and OBD cases. Then, an incremental
net present value (NPV) model has been used to analyze the
economic benefits of UBD operations (if any) for all study
cases. This paper describes our study methodology, models,
simulation results, and analysis results and summarizes the
reservoir criteria for successful UBD operations.
Reservoir properties play the most important role in the
success of UBD operations. The study clearly demonstrates
that UBD works for some reservoirs but not for all reservoirs.
The study results provide a set of reservoir criteria that can be
used as guidelines to choose potential UBD candidates.
Introduction
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) is a drilling operation in which
the hydrostatic head of drilling fluid is less than formation
pore pressure. Formation damage caused by conventional
overbalanced drilling (OBD) can be reduced or eliminated
with UBD, which may maintain original formation
productivity. Formation damage mechanisms1,2 that may result
from drilling operations and reduce productivity include
External drilling fluid/mud filtration invasion.
Fines migration.
Phase trapping.

Chemical incompatibility of invading fluid with the

in-situ rock matrix and in-situ fluids.
Near-wellbore wettability alteration and surface
adsorption effect.
Though majorities of the formation damages happen only
in OBD operations, phase trapping can happen in both OBD
and UBD operations. Phase trapping happens when water- or
oil-based drilling mud filters into the formation in the nearwellbore region because of leakoff during overbalanced
drilling operations or due to spontaneous imbibition in some
situations during underbalanced drilling operations. Phase
trapping can result in permanent entrapment of a portion or all
of the invading fluid, causing adverse relative permeability
effects and reducing oil or gas permeability in the nearwellbore regions.
There are four major drivers for UBD operations:
Lost circulation.
Differential sticking.
Rate of penetration and bit life problems.
Formation damage.
In the case of lost circulation, stuck pipe, and hard drilling,
UBD is easily justified as a preferred operation, but it is
difficult to quantify the reduction of formation damage and the
productivity improvement from UBD.
An analytical model has been used in previous work3 to
estimate the productivity index (PI) between UBD and OBD
cases, with different skin factors, when a dynamic filtration
process is not in the picture. The model is only suitable for a
certain flow regime.
In this study, we have employed a numerical simulation
method that considers formation damage mechanisms like
drilling filtration invasion, mud cake, spontaneous imbibition,
and permanent formation damage to investigate the
productivity improvement mechanism by using UBD. Also,
investigation is done to find suitable formation conditions in
which UBD is a better choice to develop a reservoir.
Production rates are predicted for both UBD and OBD
cases. Then, an incremental net present value (NPV) model is
built to compare the economic benefits of UBD operations,
from which one can easily determine if UBD wells perform
better than OBD wells for given reservoir conditions.
The purpose of this study is to understand the UBD
productivity improvement mechanisms; build a series of
productivity index models (PI models) for different reservoir
conditions; and build UBD candidate selection methods
including an economic evaluation model.
Study cases include homogeneous reservoirs and natural
fractured reservoirs; four different reservoir fluids (dry gas,

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

wet gas/condensate, black oil and dead oil); and different

permeabilities, porosities, initial water saturations, reservoir
pressure gradients, and overbalance pressures.
This paper describes our study methodology, models,
simulation results, and analysis results. Then, the paper
summarizes the reservoir criteria for successful UBD
operations.
UBD Candidate Selection
When evaluating the feasibility of drilling in an underbalanced
mode, we must carefully consider many factors. Fig. 1
illustrates possible steps and modules for the process of UBD
candidate selection. Once the UBD candidate passes the
evaluation process, which takes into account the damage
mechanism, wellbore stability and operation feasibility, the
production improvement must be investigated. However, the
final qualification of a UBD candidate depends on the
economical feasibility study results, which establish the
possible cost difference between UBD and OBD operations.
This paper focuses on the last two modules PI
calculation and economical evaluation.
Methodology
The overall study methodology is shown in Fig. 2, which
consists of two major components: productivity and
economical evaluation.
Productivity Mechanism Study. Even though UBD has
many advantages over OBD, the project must be economical
so that the possibly increased cost can be offset by potential
increase of production. Therefore, quantified productivity
improvement becomes an important factor in the evaluation of
the economical feasibility of UBD projects.
In this study, a single horizontal well model is built to
evaluate the PI of overbalanced drilling and underbalanced
drilling processes under a variety of reservoir conditions. This
study covers homogeneous reservoirs and natural fractured
reservoirs; four different reservoir fluids (dry gas, wet
gas/condensate, black oil and dead oil); and different
permeabilities, porosities, initial water saturations, reservoir
pressure gradients, and overbalance pressures (Table 1).
Other reservoir properties are listed in Table 2. A reservoir
simulation software package is used to simulate all scenarios
and analyze the productivity improvement from UBD.
Our simulation process for OBD scenarios considers three
formation damage mechanisms: filtration invasion, mud cake,
and permanent formation damage. In the UBD cases we
assume no filtration invasion during drilling but spontaneous
imbibition if any. To model the filtration invasion process,
drilling fluid mud filtrate is injected for several days before
production under an overbalanced pressure. A small skin
factor is set up to simulate mud cake during the production
process.
Permanent damage is simulated by reducing
permeability and porosity in the invaded zone as the function
of the distance from wellbore.
After setting up the simulation model, production rates are
predicted for both UBD and OBD cases. The PI is calculated
for those cases with a variety of reservoir properties. The PI is
defined as the production rate divided by pressure drop,5

IADC/SPE 81621

which is the difference between average reservoir pressure and

flowing bottomhole pressure.

PI =

q
p p wf

(1)

The predicted PI is affected by many factors, such as

permeability, fluid viscosity, formation factor, relative
permeability, reservoir thickness, skin factor, etc. However,
dimensionless analysis provides a simple way to describe the
productivity trend with different reservoir properties and fluid
properties. Dimensionless PI (PID) and dimensionless time (tD)
presented in the following equations simplify the procedure
but still include the effects of the reservoir and fluid
properties.

PI D =

tD =

A
141.2 B

PI
kk r h
2rw Lwell

0.0002637 kk r t
ct rw 2

(2)

(3)

Where:

=
=

k
kr
h
A

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Lwell

Ct
rw
t

Viscosity (cp)
Formation factor (rb/STB for
rb/mscf for gas)
Absolute permeability (md)
Endpoint relative permeability
Pay thickness (ft)
Reservoir drainage area (ft2)
Well length (ft)
Porosity
Total compressibility (1/psi)
Wellbore radius (ft)
Time (hr)

oil,

Economical Evaluation. Cost involved in the UBD

operations varies with each situation. Estimating the cost
difference between UBD and OBD for a given reservoir is
beyond the scope of this study. However, economics must be
considered to qualify a UBD candidate. Thus, we use an
incremental NPV model defined in Equation 4.
n

n 1

t =0

t =0

(NPV) = (NPV) +
Where:

NPV
i
n
CumQgas
CumQoil
$gas
$oil

$gas (CumQgas)n

(1 + i)n

$oil (CumQoil )n
(1 + i)n

(4)

= Net present value difference between

UBD and OBD
= Discount rate
= Time step
= Cumulative gas production difference
between UBD and OBD for the time
period
= Cumulative oil production difference
between UBD and OBD for the time
period
= Gas price
= Oil price

In this study, the discount rate is 10%. The gas and oil price
are respectively $3/Mscf and $21/STB.

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

We assume that there is no production operation cost

difference between UBD and OBD cases. The incremental
NPV can be estimated with cumulative production differences
for a given time period. Obviously, for a given reservoir
condition, an incremental NPV should include the extra cost
(if any) due to UBD operations for a given time period
required to make the UBD project economical. The higher the
incremental NPV, the better candidate the reservoir is for
UBD. By using this approach, one can easily decide if a UBD
operation is better prior to the detailed economic evaluation
process.
A summary description of the procedure of this study is
shown in Fig. 2.
Model Setup
A 3D rectangular grid is built for a single horizontal well
model. The grid model consists of 16,200 cells (30 30
18). The cell size is shown in Table 3. Grid cells are refined
around the well to capture the dynamic flow. The horizontal
well is completed from cell (5,15,9) to cell (19,15,9). The
length of the horizontal well is 3,000 ft (other length of
horizontal section includes 1,000 ft and 2,000 ft). One-half of
the simulation grids are shown in Fig. 3.
Then we study the behavior of different reservoir fluid
types, such as dry gas, gas condensate, dead oil, and black oil.
In a dry gas reservoir, the fluid exists as a single phase of gas.
The composition and phase of the fluid remains unchanged.
Fig. 4 illustrates the gas formation factors and gas viscosity as
a function of reservoir pressure. The gas-water relative
permeability curve is shown in Fig. 5.
In a gas condensate reservoir, the fluid exists at initial
conditions as a single phase of gas but when reservoir pressure
drops below the dew point pressure, the liquids condense in
the reservoir. The oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability
curves are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Wet gas and live oil
properties are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
In the dead oil reservoir, the fluid is a single phase of oil in
the reservoir. The dead oil properties are shown in Table 4.
The oil viscosity is about 100 times higher than the gas
viscosity, so the mobility for the oil phase is 100 times lower
than the gas phase. The oil-water relative permeability curve is
used in the dead oil reservoir.
In a black oil reservoir, oil formation factors and oil
viscosity are listed in Table 5 as a function of pressure and
solution gas ratio. The oil-water and gas-oil relative
permeability curves are used.
The Leverett J function is used to specify different
capillary pressure curves, as shown in Fig. 10. Hysteresis is
utilized to simulate the imbibition process.
Pc = J * cos *

(5)

Where,
Pc(Sw)
k

= Capillary pressure saturation function

= Permeability
= Porosity
= Leverett J function

Result Analysis and Discussion

Several hundred cases have been numerically simulated for
different reservoirs and drilling operations. The following
sections analyze and discuss the numerical simulation results.
Dry Gas Reservoir. Figs. 11, 12, and 13 show gas production
rates, cumulative production, and incremental NPV for a dry
gas reservoir with 10-md permeability, 20% porosity and 15%
initial water saturation.
The UBD case produces much more gas than the OBD
cases in the early stage of production. The gas production rate
decreases and the incremental NPV increases as the
overbalanced pressure (OBP) increases. There is a maximum
incremental NPV in the early time period (around 250 days).
After that point, the benefit of UBD over OBD starts to
decrease owing to reservoir depletion.
Figs. 14, 15, and 16 show the simulation results for dry
gas reservoirs with 0.1-md permeability, 10% porosity and
65% initial water saturation.
Compared to the previous scenario with high permeability,
similar trends can be observed in these figures. The
cumulative gas production decreases as overbalanced pressure
increases. The differences of gas production and incremental
NPV between UBD and OBD are much smaller than high
permeability reservoir cases. Thus, for a low permeability
reservoir, UBD cannot significantly improve productivity over
OBD. Considering the possible spontaneous imbibition during
UBD operations and the current stimulation technology, OBD
with hydraulic fracturing treatment may be better for a low
permeability gas reservoir.
Gas Condensate Reservoir. Figs. 17 and 18 show gas
production rates and incremental NPV for a gas condensate
reservoir with 10-md permeability, 20% porosity and 15%
initial water saturation.
The UBD case significantly improves the production in
this scenario. The incremental NPV shows great economic
benefits.
However, for low-permeability gas condensate reservoirs,
Figs. 19 and 20 (the simulation results for gas condensate
reservoir with 0.1 md permeability, 10% porosity and 60%
initial water saturation) show that UBD may not be a good
choice. Overbalanced pressure does not have much impact on
cumulative production. The incremental NPV difference is
not significant. Therefore, underbalanced drilling may not
have much advantage in this scenario.
Dead Oil Reservoir. Figs. 21 and 22 show oil production
rates and incremental NPV for a dead oil reservoir with 100md permeability, 25% porosity, and 15% initial water
saturation.
This reservoir produces much more oil from the UBD case
than the OBD cases. The maximum incremental NPV occurs
at the early stage of production. Later in production, the
benefit of UBD over OBD decreases due to reservoir
depletion.
Figs. 23 and 24 show the simulation results for dead oil
reservoir with 1-md permeability, 15% porosity and 60%
initial water saturation. The production difference between
UBD and OBD is much smaller compared to the case with

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

IADC/SPE 81621

lower initial water saturation and high permeability.

Overbalanced pressure values do not have much effect on the
production. Underbalanced drilling may not be recommended
for this scenario.

cleaned up. The reservoir with higher permeability and lower

initial water saturation yields the larger gap of the
dimensionless PI between UBD and OBD operations, which
makes this reservoir a good UBD candidate.

Black Oil Reservoir. Figs. 25 and 26 show oil production

rates and incremental NPV for a black oil reservoir with 100
md permeability, 25% porosity and 15% initial water
saturation.
The UBD produces much more oil than the OBD cases.
The incremental NPV difference could be very significant.
Figs. 27 and 28 show the simulation results for a black oil
reservoir with 1-md permeability, 15% porosity and 60%
initial water saturation.
With higher initial water saturation, the production
difference between the UBD and OBD case is much smaller.
Overbalanced pressure does not have too much effect on the
production. For such conditions, UBD may not be a good
choice.

The Impact of OBD Pressures. In this study, three

overbalanced pressures (50 psi, 750 psi, and 1,750 psi - 1%,
15%, and 35% over average initial reservoir pressure) are used
in OBD cases to compare with the UBD process. Since higher
overbalanced drilling pressure causes more severe filtration
damage, the PI decreases with higher overbalanced pressure.
Figs. 33 and 34 show the ratio of UBD PI to OBD PI for
different permeability reservoirs. For the case with 100 md
and 15% initial water saturation, the PI ratio is reduced from
1,000 to 20 at the beginning of production as overbalanced
pressure increases from 50 psi to 1,750 psi. However, for 1 md
and 60% initial water saturation, the PI ratio changes from 7 to
2 at the beginning of production. For a reservoir with higher
permeability and lower initial water saturation, OBD with
higher overbalanced pressure does more damage to the
formation, which widens the PI ratio gap between UBD and
OBD. Obviously, the effect of overbalanced pressure on the PI
is dependent on reservoir properties.

Naturally Fractured Reservoir. A naturally fractured

reservoir is simulated with a dual-porosity, single-permeability
system. Fluid flow through the reservoir takes place only in
the fracture network with the matrix block acting as its source.
The porosity and permeability are independently defined for
the matrix and fracture, which is shown in Table 6. The
matrix cells have a water-oil capillary pressure while the
fractures cells have zero capillary pressure, which cause water
imbibitions from fractures to matrix.
To simulate OBD process in a naturally fractured system,
the fracture permeability is reduced in the invaded zone by
drilling fluid. Figs. 29 and 30 illustrate the simulation results
for the naturally fractured reservoir with drilling filtration and
permanent damage. UBD has a big advantage for a naturally
fractured reservoir. Once the injection pressure is higher than
reservoir pressure, drilling fluid quickly invades the fracture,
blocks it and decreases permeability. Therefore, in order to
avoid damaging the fractured reservoir, a UBD operation is
recommended. The incremental NPV difference could be
significant.
Dimensionless Productivity Index and Dimensionless
Time. Productivity index means the ability of a well to flow
with a certain drawdown pressure, which is affected by many
factors. Dimensionless analysis provides a simple way to
describe the productivity trend with different reservoir and
fluid properties.
Figs. 31 and 32 show the dimensionless PI as a function of
dimensionless time for the dead oil reservoir and the dry gas
reservoir.
Both figures illustrate that the dimensionless PI of UBD
cases follows the same trend regardless of different reservoir
properties. However, dimensionless PI of the OBD cases has
more changes according to different reservoir properties. The
region in which dimensionless PI values are constant with
time is defined as the steady state. The figures show that most
productivity improvement from UBD occurs at the transient
state. At the steady state, the production difference between
UBD and OBD is coming from permanent formation damage,
because the filtration invasion damage might have been

The Impact of Permanent Damage. In the previous OBD

cases, the model is set up with 8 days injection to simulate the
filtration invasion damage. The production process has a skin
factor of 2 to account for mud cake. However, some formation
damage mechanisms (such as particle plugging-in) result in
the permanent reduction of permeability and pore volume in
the invaded region of drilling fluid. In this scenario, in
addition to filtration damage and mud cake, the permanent
damage is also included. The permeability and porosity are
reduced around the wellbore for different OBD cases by
tracking drilling fluid flow. Fig. 35 illustrates that the PI
decreases with permanent damage. The deeper damage depth
due to higher overbalanced pressure results in worse PI. Thus,
it is critical to understand the damage mechanism for OBD
cases in order to evaluate the productivity.
The Impact of OBD Time. The time the formation is exposed
to drilling mud affects the extent of the formation damage and
depth of invasion in the OBD process. The dashed lines in
Fig. 36 represent OBD cases with 16 days exposure time, and
the solid lines 8 days. Obviously, the drilling fluid does more
filtration damage to the formation with the longer exposure
time and thus the PI decreases for this case.
The Impact of Horizontal Well Length. Several cases are
simulated to study the effects of the horizontal well length on
the PI. Figs. 37 and 38 show the dimensionless PI comparison
of the well length between 3,000 ft and 1,000 ft for the dead
oil reservoir and dry gas reservoir. Since the dimensionless PI
considers the well length in the equation, two lines are
combined together in the early stage of production, which
means that the real PI ratio of two cases with well length of
3,000 ft and 1,000 ft is 3. Later, two lines are separated, and
the dimensionless PI of a well with a 1,000-ft horizontal
length is higher than one with 3,000 ft. The difference of
dimensionless PI between UBD and OBD is slightly higher for

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

the short horizontal well length. It seems that the short

horizontal well length benefits more from UBD in term of
productivity by length. However, the well with the longer
horizontal well length produces more hydrocarbons.
Imbibition Process in UBD. For a low permeability reservoir
with high capillary pressure, spontaneous imbibition process
occurs in the UBD process.2 This imbibition process reduces
the productivity of UBD processes because of phase trapping
and relative permeability effects. The dashed line in Fig. 39
represents the UBD process with imbibition process. The PI is
reduced by a factor of four from the UBD case without the
consideration of imbibition process. Lab results2 show that
increasing the underbalanced pressure reduces permeability
damage due to imbibition process. Higher initial water
saturation also reduces permeability damage resulted from
imbibition process. UBD may not be a good choice when a
strong imbibition process exists in a reservoir.
Summary. The simulation results clearly illustrate the impact
of reservoir properties on productivity. Generally speaking,
higher overbalanced drilling pressure results in more severe
formation damage by drilling filtration, particle invasion, and
other possible formation damages. Such an operation may
result in less hydrocarbon production than the case with lower
drilling pressure.
For most situations, productivity is
improved from UBD operation by reducing or eliminating
formation damage.
The reservoir conditions criteria for UBD candidate
selection are summarized below.
UBD is a good choice for reservoirs with high
permeability and low initial water saturation;
however, UBD may not be an optimal choice for a
low
permeability,
high-initial-water-saturation
reservoir.
OBD
operations
combined
with
conventional fracturing treatments may be a better
choice for lower permeability reservoirs.
For a reservoir with lower initial water saturation than
connate water saturation, production benefits from
UBD. In the OBD case, drilling fluids block the area
around the wellbore. If the initial water saturation is
higher than connate water saturation, the production
difference between UBD and OBD is not significant.
Overbalanced pressure value has little effect on the
production difference.
For a high permeability reservoir, productivity from
UBD is much higher than through OBD; thus, more
hydrocarbons can be produced through UBD rather
than OBD. However, there is a maximum point of
cumulative production difference and incremental
NPV, after which the benefits of UBD over OBD start
to decrease because of reservoir depletion.
A naturally fractured reservoir is a good candidate for
UBD operations because drilling filtration easily
blocks high permeability fractures around wellbore for
OBD.

Conclusions
Overall, UBD candidate selection is complicated. One must
carefully study reservoir conditions and possible formation
damage mechanisms resulting from UBD and OBD
operations. The final qualification step should be a
comprehensive study of productivity and economical
evaluation as shown in this paper.
The paper summarizes methodology, the models, and
study results.
The study clearly demonstrates that UBD will improve
productivity for most but not for all reservoirs. Formation
damage mechanisms possibly created by OBD operations
are the key factors.
Reservoir permeability and initial water saturation are
critical to determine benefits from UBD operations.
Reservoir capillary pressure and relative permeability also
play an important role in the UBD productivity
improvement.
Permanent formation damage and longer drilling mud
exposure time do more damage to the formation, which
reduces the well productivity for OBD cases.
UBD may not be a good choice for a low permeability
reservoir with high capillary pressure due to the
imbibition process.
An incremental NPV model has been built to easily
identify economically feasible UBD candidates.
A series of reservoir criteria has been summarized to
select candidates for UBD.
Recommendations
The simulation study shows the effects of reservoir properties
on the production improvement of UBD. The simple criteria
for determining whether UBD is a good choice are given here.
However, due to significant variance of different reservoir
properties, drilling and completion practices, a laboratory
formation damage mechanism study is needed to provide
better information that is close to the real situation, such as the
range of drilling filtration and permeability reduction from
OBD operation.
Our on-going study will further investigate other situations
and improve productivity models. If applicable, real field data
will be applied to calibrate PI models.
Nomenclature
A =
B =
Ct
h
i
J
k
kr
krg
krw
krow
krog

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Lwell
n

=
=

Reservoir drainage area (ft2)

Formation factor (rb/STB for oil,
rb/mscf for gas)
Total compressibility (1/psi)
Pay thickness (ft)
Discount rate
Leverett J function
Absolute permeability (md)
Endpoint relative permeability
Gas relative permeability
Water relative permeability
Oil relative permeability (oil + water)
Oil relative permeability (oil + gas +
connate water)
Well length (ft)
Time step

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

NPV
OBD
OBP
Pc(Sw)
PI
PID
Pwf
q

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

rw
Rs
Swi
t
tD
UBD

CumQgas

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

CumQoil

NPV

$gas
$oil

=
=

Net present value ($)

Overbalance drilling
Overbalance pressure
Average reservoir pressure (psi)
Capillary pressure saturation function
Productivity index (stb/d/psi)
Dimensionless productivity index
Flowing bottomhole pressure (psi)
Flow rate (stb/d for liquid, mscf/d for
gas)
Wellbore radius (ft)
Dissolved gas oil ratio
Initial water saturation
Time (hr)
Dimensionless time
Underbalanced drilling
Viscosity (cp)
Porosity
Cumulative
gas
production
difference between UBD and OBD
for the time period
Cumulative oil production difference
between UBD and OBD for the time
period
Incremental net present value
between UBD and OBD
Gas price
Oil price

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger management
for their support for the project and the approval of this
publication.
References
1. Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B: Formation Damage and
Horizontal Wells A Productivity Killer? paper SPE
37138 presented at the International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Alberta, Canada, Nov. 1820, 1996.
2. Bennion, D.B. and Thomas, F.B: Underbalance Drilling
of Horizontal Wells: Does It Really Eliminate Formation
Damage? paper SPE 27352 presented at the SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, LA, Feb. 7-10, 1994.
3. Leising, L.J. and Rike, E.A: Underbalanced Drilling
With Coiled Tubing and Well Productivity, paper SPE
28870 presented at the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, London, UK, Oct. 25-27, 1994.
4. Thomas, L. K., Todd, B. J., Evans, C. E, and Pierson, R.
G.: Horizontal Well IPR Calculations, paper SPE 36753
presented at the SPE ATCE, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
5. Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D. and Economides, C. E.:
Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1993.

IADC/SPE 81621

Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 1.000
E-03
bbl x 1.590
E-01
ft x 3.048
E-01
ft3 x 2.832
E-02
lbm x 0.454
E+00
md x 1.013
E-03
psi x 6.895
E+00
STB/d x 1.840
E-06

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Pa s
m3
m
m3
kg
m2
kpa
m3/s

TABLE 1STUDY CASES UNDER A VARIETY OF

RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
Reservoir
fluid types
Reservoir
Permeability
and Porosity

Initial water
saturation
Drilling
pressure
conditions
Overbalanced
time
Formation
damage

Dry gas reservoir

Gas condensate reservoir
Black oil reservoir
Dead oil reservoir
Homogeneous reservoir
Naturally fractured reservoir
0.1 md, 10%
1 md, 15%
10 md, 20%
100 md, 25%
1000 md , 30%
15%
45%
60%
UBD
OBD with overbalanced pressure (OBP):
50 psi (1% over avg. reservoir pressure)
750 psi (15% over avg. reservoir pressure)
1,750 psi (35% over avg. reservoir pressure)
8 days
16 days
Filtration damage
Mud cake
Permanent permeability reduction from any
formation damage mechanisms

TABLE 2 RESERVOIR INPUT DATA

Net pay, ft
Vertical perm/Horizontal perm, md/md
Original pressure, psi
Flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
3
Gas density, lbm/ft
3
Oil density, lbm/ft
3
Water density, lbm/ft
Rock compressibility, 1/psi
Water compressibility, 1/psi
Water viscosity, cp
Water formation factor, RB/STB
Wellbore diameter, ft

100
0.1
5150
2000
0.0658
45
63
5.0E-6
3.0E-6
0.3
1.03
0.5

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

TABLE 3GRID CELL DIMENSIONS

Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

DX (ft)
1,000
600
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
400
800
1,000

DY (ft)
1499
800
400
200
100
50
20
10
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
10
20
50
100
200
400
800
1,499

DZ (ft)
20
10
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
10
20

TABLE 5OIL PROPERTIES FOR BLACK OIL RESERVOIR

Live Oil PVT Properties (Dissolved Gas)
Rs (mscf/STB)
P (psia)
Bo (rb/STB)
o (cp)
0.165
400
1.0120
1.17
0.335
800
1.0255
1.14
0.500
1200
1.0380
1.11
0.665
1600
1.0510
1.08
0.828
2000
1.0630
1.06
0.985
2400
1.0750
1.03
1.130
2800
1.0870
1.00
1.270
3200
1.0985
0.98
1.390
3600
1.1100
0.95
1.500
4000
1.1200
0.94
1.600
4400
1.1300
0.92
4800
1.1255
0.92
5200
1.1210
0.92
5600
1.1165
0.92
6200
1.1115
0.92
6800
1.1100
0.92

TABLE 6 PERMEABILITY AND POROSITY IN THE

MATRIX AND FRACTURE
Permeability (md)
Porosity (%)
Matrix
1
15
Fracture
100
1

TABLE 4OIL PROPERTIES FOR DEAD OIL RESERVOIR

Reference
Pressure
psia

Bo,
rb/STB

Co,
1/psi

o,
cp

Viscosibility,
1/psi

4,000

1.1

8.00E-06

0.0001

In v e s tig a te re s e rv o ir m o d e ls a n d b u ild
s im u la tio n a n d a n a ly s is m o d e ls
Damage
Evaluation

Quick
Disqualifier

Wellbore
Stability
Evaluation

Operation
Feasibility
Evaluation

Comprehensive
Evaluator

UBD?

PI
calculator

Production
Improvement
Evaluator
UBD?

P re d ic t p ro d u c tio n ra te

NPV
Evaluator
UBD?

C a lc u la te P I & In c re m e n ta l N P V

D im e n s io n le s s A n a ly s is

Fig.1The Module Of UBD Candidate Selection

A n a ly z e th e e ffe c t o f p e rm e a b ility ,
o v e rb a la n c e p re s s u re , in itia l w a te r s a tu ra tio n ,
O B D tim e , fo rm a tio n d a m a g e a n d im b ib itio n
p ro c e ss o n P I im p ro v e m e n t fro m U B D

S e t c a n d id a te s e le c tio n c rite ria fo r U B D

Fig. 2The Flowchart Of Study Procedure

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

IADC/SPE 81621

Water - Oil
1
krw

0.9

krow

Relative Permeability

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.8

Water Saturation

Fig. 6Water-Oil Relative Permeability Curve

Fig. 3Half 3-D simulation grid model

Gas - Oil
7

0.03
krog

0.9

0.026

0.018

Bg

Relative Permeability

0.022

krg

0.8

5
Gas Viscosity (cp)

Gas Formation Factor (RB/MSCF)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.014

0.1

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0.01
8000

Pressure (psia)

0.2

0.4

0.6

Oil Saturation

Fig. 7Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Curve

Fig. 4Dry Gas PVT Properties

18

0.2

16

Gas Formation Factor (rb/mscf)

krw

0.9

krg

0.8

Relative Permability

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

14

0.15
Bg

12

OGR

10
0.1
8
6
g

0.05

0.3

0.2

0.1

1000

2000

3000

4000

Pressure (psi)

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Water Saturation

Fig. 5Gas-Water Relative Permeability Curve

0.8

Fig. 8Wet Gas PVT Properties

5000

6000

0
7000

Oil Gas Ratio (STB/Mscf) / Gas Viscosity (cp)

Gas - Water

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

1.5

1.8

1.4

1.6

Cum Qg (UBD)

Rs

300000000
1.4

1.2

1.2

o
1.1

1
1
0.8

Bo

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.4

0.7

Cumulative Gas Production (MSCF)

1.3

350000000

Gas Oil Ratio (Mscf/STB)

Oil Formation Factor (rb/Mscf) / Oil Viscosity (cp)

IADC/SPE 81621

Cum Qg (OBP 50 psi)

Cum Qg (OBP 750 psi)

250000000

Cum Qg (OBP 1750 psi)

200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000

0.2

0.6
0.5
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0
5000

10

100

1000

10000

Tim e (Days)

Pressure (psi)

Fig. 9Live Oil PVT Properties

Fig. 12Cumulative Gas Production (Dry Gas, 10 md, Swi = 15%)

$180,000,000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

100000.0

Drainage (0.1 md)

$160,000,000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Imbibition (0.1 md)

$140,000,000

Drainage (1 md)

10000.0

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

Drainage (10 md)

1000.0

Imbibition (10 md)

Drainage (100 md)
Imbibition (100 md)

100.0

Incremental NPV ($)

Capillary Pressure (psi)

Imbibition (1 md)

$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000

10.0
$40,000,000

1.0

$20,000,000
$0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

1.2

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Water Saturation

Fig. 13Incremental NPV Comparison (Dry Gas, 10 md, Swi = 15%)

Fig. 10Capillary Pressure Curve

7000

Qg (UBD)

4500000
6000

Qg (UBD)

Qg (OBP 50psi)

Qg (OBP 50 psi)
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/day)

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/day)

4000000

Qg (OBP 750 psi)

3500000

Qg (OBP 1750 psi)

3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000

Qg (OBP 750psi)

5000

Qg (OBP 1750psi)
4000
3000
2000
1000

500000
0
1

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Tim e (Days)

Fig. 11Gas Production Rate Comparison (Dry Gas, 10 md, Swi =

15%)

Fig. 14Gas Production Rate Comparison (Dry Gas, 0.1 md, Swi =
65%)

10

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

$160,000,000

9000000

Cum Qg (UBD)

8000000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

$140,000,000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Cum Qg (OBP 50psi)

7000000

$120,000,000

Cum Qg (OBP 750psi)

6000000

Incremental NPV ($)

Cumulative Gas Production (MSCF)

IADC/SPE 81621

Cum Qg (OBP 1750psi)

5000000
4000000
3000000

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000

2000000

$40,000,000

1000000

$20,000,000

$0

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

Time (Days)

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 15Cumulative Gas Production (Dry Gas, 0.1 md, Swi = 65%)

Fig. 18Incremental NPV Comparison (Gas Condensate, 10 md,

Swi = 15%)

$1,800,000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

$1,600,000

1400

Qg (UBD)

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

1200

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/Day)

Incremental NPV ($)

$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000

Qg (OBP 50psi)
Qg (OBP 750psi)

1000

Qg (OBP 1750psi)
800

600

400

200

$0
1

10

100

1000

10000

0
1

Time (Days)

Fig. 16Incremental NPV Comparison (Dry Gas, 0.1 md, Swi =

65%)
70000

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 19Gas Production Rate Comparison (Gas Condensate, 0.1

md, Swi = 60%)

Qg (UBD)
$600,000

Qg (OBP 50psi)

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

Qg (OBP 750psi)
50000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

$500,000

Qg (OBP 1750psi)

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

40000

Incremental NPV ($)

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/Day

60000

30000

20000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

10000

$100,000
0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

$0
1

Fig. 17Gas Production Rate Comparison (Gas Condensate, 10

md, Swi = 15%)

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 20Incremental NPV Comparison (Gas Condensate, 0.1 md,

Swi = 60%)

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

200000

$160,000

Qo (UBD)

180000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

$140,000

Qo (OBP 50psi)
160000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Qo (OBP 750psi)

$120,000

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

Qo (OBP 1750psi)

140000

Incremental NPV ($)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

11

120000
100000
80000

$100,000
$80,000
$60,000

60000

$40,000

40000

$20,000
20000

$0

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Time (Days)

Fig. 21Oil Production Rate Comparison (Dead Oil, 100 md, Swi =
15%)

Fig. 24Incremental NPV Comparison (Dead Oil, 1 md, Swi = 60%)

250000
Qo (UBD)

$120,000,000

Qo (OBP 50psi)

$100,000,000

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Incremental NPV ($)

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

$80,000,000

$60,000,000

$40,000,000

200000

Qo (OBP 750psi)
Qo (OBP 1750psi)

150000

100000

50000

$20,000,000

0
1

$0
1

10

100

1000

10

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 22Incremental NPV Comparison (Dead Oil, 100 md, Swi =

15%)

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 25Oil Production Rate Comparison (Black Oil, 100 md, Swi =
15%)
$700,000,000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

70

$600,000,000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Qo (UBD)

Qo (OBP 750psi)
50

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

$500,000,000

Qo (OBP 50psi)
Incremental NPV ($)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

60

Qo (OBP 1750psi)

40

$400,000,000

$300,000,000

30

$200,000,000

20

$100,000,000

10

$0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)
1

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 23Oil Production Rate Comparison (Dead Oil, 1 md, Swi =

60%)

Fig. 26Incremental NPV Comparison (Black Oil, 100 md, Swi =

15%)

12

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

$800,000,000

160

Qo (OBP 50psi)

120

Qo (OBP 750psi)
100

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

$600,000,000
Incremental NPV ($)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Qo (UBD)

Qo (OBP 1750psi)

80
60

$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000

40

$200,000,000

20

$100,000,000
$0

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Fig. 27Oil Production Rate Comparison (Black Oil, 1 md, Swi =

60%)
$400,000

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

$350,000

Delt NPV (OBP 750psi)

Delt NPV (OBP 1750psi)

$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 28Incremental NPV Comparison (Black Oil, 1 md, Swi = 60%)

1000000

Qo (UBD)
Qo (OBP 50psi)
Qo (OBP 750psi)

100000

Qo (OBP 1750psi)

10000

1000

100
1

10

100

10

100

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Time (Days)

Incremental NPV ($)

Delt NPV (OBP 50psi)

$700,000,000

140

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

IADC/SPE 81621

1000

10000

Time (Days)

Fig. 29Oil Production Rate Comparison in the Naturally

Fractured Reservoir (Black Oil, 1 md, Swi = 15%)

Fig. 30Incremental NPV Comparison in the Naturally Fractured

Reservoir (Black Oil, 1 md, Swi = 15%)

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

40000

PI D =
35000

Dimensionless Productivity Index

tD =
30000

141 .2 o B o
A
PI
kk ro h
2 rw L well

0 .0002637 kk ro t
2
o c t rw

100MD-SW15-UBD
100MD-SW15-50psi
100MD-SW15-750psi
100MD-SW15-1750psi
100MD-SW45-UBD
100MD-SW45-50psi
100MD-SW45-750psi
100MD-SW45-1750psi
100MD-SW60-UBD
100MD-SW60-50psi
100MD-SW60-750psi
100MD-SW60-1750psi
10MD-SW15-UBD
10MD-SW15-50psi
10MD-SW15-750psi
10MD-SW15-1750psi

25000

Underbalanced Drilling

10MD-SW45-UBD
10MD-SW45-50psi

20000

10MD-SW45-750psi
10MD-SW45-1750psi
10MD-SW60-UBD
10MD-SW60-50psi

15000

Overbalanced Drilling

10000

5000

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000 10000000000

Dimensionless Time

10MD-SW60-750psi
10MD-SW60-1750psi
1MD-SW15-UBD
1MD-SW15-50psi
1MD-SW15-750psi
1MD-SW15-1750psi
1MD-SW45-UBD
1MD-SW45-50psi
1MD-SW45-750psi
1MD-SW45-1750psi
1MD-SW60-UBD
1MD-SW60-50psi
1MD-SW60-750psi
1MD-SW60-1750psi

Fig. 31Dimensionless Productivity Index for Dead Oil Reservoir

10MD-SW15-UBD

30000

PI D =

Dimensionless Productivity Index

25000

tD =

141 . 2 g B g
kk rg h

A
PI
2 rw L well

0 .0002637 kk rg t

10MD-SW15-50psi
10MD-SW15-750psi
10MD-SW15-1750psi
10MD-SW45-UBD
10MD-SW45-50psi
10MD-SW45-750psi
10MD-SW45-1750psi

g c t rw 2

10MD-SW60-UBD
10MD-SW60-50psi
10MD-SW60-750psi

20000

10MD-SW60-1750psi
1MD-SW15-UBD

Underbalanced Drilling

1MD-SW15-50psi
1MD-SW15-750psi
1MD-SW15-1750psi
1MD-SW45-UBD
1MD-SW45-50psi

15000

1MD-SW45-750psi

Overbalanced Drilling
10000

1MD-SW45-1750psi
1MD-SW60-UBD
1MD-SW60-50psi
1MD-SW60-750psi
1MD-SW60-1750psi
0-1MD-SW15-UBD
0-1MD-SW15-50psi
0-1MD-SW15-750psi

5000

0-1MD-SW15-1750psi
0-1MD-SW45-UBD
0-1MD-SW45-50psi
0-1MD-SW45-750psi

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

Dimensionless Time

10000000

100000000

1000000000 10000000000

0-1MD-SW45-1750psi
0-1MD-SW60-UBD
0-1MD-SW60-50psi
0-1MD-SW60-750psi
0-1MD-SW60-1750psi

Fig. 32Dimensionless Productivity Index for Dry Gas Reservoir

13

H. XIONG AND D. SHAN

10000

100MD-SW15-UBD
100MD-SW15-50psi
100MD-SW15-750psi
100MD-SW15-1750psi
100MD-SW45-UBD
100MD-SW45-50psi
100MD-SW45-750psi
100MD-SW45-1750psi
100MD-SW60-UBD
100MD-SW60-50psi
100MD-SW60-750psi
100MD-SW60-1750psi

PI (UBD) / PI (OBD)

1000

100

10

IADC/SPE 81621

20000

10MD-SW45-UBD
18000

Dimensionless Productivity Index

14

10MD-SW45-50psi
10MD-SW45-50psi-LT

16000

10MD-SW45-750psi

14000

10MD-SW45-750psi-LT
12000

10MD-SW45-1750psi
10MD-SW45-1750psi-LT

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

1
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000 100000000

1E+09

10

1E+10

100

1000

Fig. 33The Ratio of UBD PI to OBD PI for Dead Oil Reservoir

With 100 md and 25% Porosity.

10000

1000000

10000000

100000000

Fig. 36Dimensionless PI for Dead Oil Reservoir With 10 md and

45% Initial Water Saturation. (Solid Lines Represent UBD and
OBD Cases; Dashed Lines Represent OBD Cases With Longer
Exposure Time to Drilling Mud.)
10MD-SW45-UBD
18000

Dimensionless Productivity Index

PI (UBD) / PI (OBD)

100

100000

20000

1MD-SW15-UBD
1MD-SW15-50psi
1MD-SW15-750psi
1MD-SW15-1750psi
1MD-SW45-UBD
1MD-SW45-50psi
1MD-SW45-750psi
1MD-SW45-1750psi
1MD-SW60-UBD
1MD-SW60-50psi
1MD-SW60-750psi
1MD-SW60-1750psi

1000

10000

Dimensionless Time

Dimensionless Time

10

10MD-SW45-UBD-SL
10MD-SW45-50psi

16000

10MD-SW45-50psi-SL
14000

10MD-SW45-750psi
10MD-SW45-750psi-SL

12000

10MD-SW45-1750psi
10000

10MD-SW45-1750psi-SL

8000

6000

4000

2000

1
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000 100000000

1E+09

10

1E+10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

Fig. 34The Ratio of UBD PI to OBD PI for Dead Oil Reservoir

With 1 md and 15% Porosity.

100000000

Fig. 37Dimensionless PI for Dead Oil Reservoir With 10 md and

45% initial water saturation. (Solid Lines Represent the Case With
the Well Length of 3,000 ft; Dashed Lines With The Well Length of
1,000 ft.)
16000

20000

10MD-SW45-UBD
18000

1MD-SW45-5000

10MD-SW45-50psi
10MD-SW45-50psi-wd

16000

10MD-SW45-750psi

14000

10MD-SW45-750psi-wd
12000

10MD-SW45-1750psi
10MD-SW45-1750psi-wd

10000

1MD-SW45-5000-SL

14000

8000

6000

4000

1MD-SW45-5200
Dimensionless Productivity Index

Dimensionless Productivity Index

10000000

Dimensionless Time

Dimensionless Time

1MD-SW45-5200-SL

12000

1MD-SW45-5900
1MD-SW45-5900-SL

10000

1MD-SW45-6900
1MD-SW45-6900-SL

8000

6000

4000

2000

2000

0
10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

Dimensionless Time

Fig. 35Dimensionless PI for Dead Oil Reservoir With 10 md and

45% Initial Water Saturation. (Solid Lines Represent UBD and
OBD Cases; Dashed Lines Represent OBD Cases With Permanent
Damage.)

0
1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000

Dimensionless Time

Fig. 38Dimensionless PI for Dry Gas Reservoir With 1 md and

45% Initial Water Saturation. (Solid Lines Represent The Case
With The Well Length of 3,000 Ft; Dashed Lines With The Well
Length of 1,000 Ft.)

IADC/SPE 81621

RESERVOIR CRITERIA FOR SELECTING UNDERBALANCED DRILLING CANDIDATES

14000

10MD-SW15-UBD
10MD-SW15-UBD-IMB

Dimensionless Productivity Index

12000

10MD-SW15-50psi
10000

10MD-SW15-750psi
10MD-SW15-1750psi

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000

Dimensionless Time

Fig. 39Dimensionless PI For Dead Oil Reservoir With 10 md and

45% Initial Water Saturation. (Solid Lines Represent UBD and
OBD Cases; Dashed Lines Represent UBD Cases With Imbibition
Process.)

15